Microsoft

The Truth about Bill Gates and why most of the super wealthy don't earn their money
https://www.quora.com/Is-Bill-Gates-evil

Bill Gates is a thief and robber baron on a massive scale not seen since the late 1800s. He didn’t actually invent “any” of the technologies you are referring to… almost all of those technologies existed decades before Microsoft was founded. The underlying structure of Windows and all related Microsoft products was invented by US universities using public (government-provided) funds; or by IBM; or by Xerox in their Palo Alto Research Center (also known as Xerox PARC).

What Bill Gates “did” do, is incorporate those technologies into software his company made - and then took advantage of general computer illiteracy to hoodwink the US Patent Office into approving patents for his products. Although others had built operating system before Gates, using the same underlying technologies, no one else tried to patent those technologies before because it’s not legal to copyright publicly-funded work performed at universities.

He then sued every one of his competitors, using funds leveraged by borrowing from his VERY rich parents (No Bill Gates is not a rags-to-riches success story in any way. He was born extremely wealthy and would have died super-rich even if he never earned a penny on his own.); or else obtained by other means that many courts have repeatedly determined to be fraudulent.

He literally out-lawyered and out-spent smaller competitors - most of whom had legitimate claims to their intellectual property that he simply stole by incorporating it into his own products without any acknowledgement or payment - until they went out of business because of the cost of legal battles.

He then entered into a partnership with IBM to build PC’s for them… and stole the computer code and related technologies IBM built for the “OS/1” and “OS/2” products. He then entered into a partnership with NeXt Computing and did the same thing to them - Microsoft’s lawyers are the primary reason NeXt went out of business, even though NeXt built much better products than anyone else at the time (including the first color GUI and first integration with the mouse for commercial use). He stole most of the code for Office products by copyrighting work of US universities or much-smaller commercial competitors; and then suing those same universities or business competitors until they gave up their patents or granted nearly-free licensing rights to Microsoft (universities); or went out of business (smaller competitors).

In reality, Microsoft didn’t invent any of the code or hardware innovations underlying windows and office and related products. For example:

The mouse was invented as a taxpayer funded research project in 1962 while Bill Gates was still in elementary school. Plug-and-play hardware & software was invented in 1969 while Gates was still in high school. The base code for the windows operating system graphical interface (GUI) was invented in 1970, several years before Microsoft came into being as a company. Colorized GUIs with fully integrated keyboard, mouse, plug-in play hardware, and portable CPU and screen - were invented in 1974. This was before Microsoft came into being as a company, while Gates was still a college sophomore. Email software was invented in the mid-1960s. HTML was invented in the late 1960s. GUI email software was invented in the early 1970s. GUI spreadsheet software was invented in the mid-1970s. Etc, etc… all well before Microsoft was formed as a company, mostly while Bill Gates was still in elementary or high school. What you may not be aware of is that Bill Gates owns many media companies and multiple news outlets. Gates spent a very large fortune planting old-media and internet news stories touting his genius and philanthropy. The sum total of all Bm Gates’ charitable contributions amount to less than 2.3% of his enormous wealth.

There’s a gold-plated train to hell reserved for people like Bill Gates.

Rural_squirrel

Speaking as an older computer guy who lived through the era of Microsoft's rise: this is mostly wrong. Although I agree that Microsoft was not very innovative, nearly all of the details are wrong.

Microsoft did not get big by using patents. That never happened. Microsoft also did not steal "the computer code and related technologies IBM built for the “OS/1” and “OS/2” products." There never was even a thing called "OS/1".

Microsoft started out by selling a BASIC interpreter to microcomputer manufacturers. Then they sold other products to consumers and manufactures, many related to programming languages.

When IBM wanted to get into the PC business, it went looking for a partner to create an operating system for the new computer. IBM approached Gary and Dorothy Kildall of Digital Research, the creators of CP/M, which was the leading operating system for 8-bit microcomputers. The Kildalls famously would not agree to IBM's terms, at first even refusing to sign the non-disclosure agreement (NDA) so that they could negotiate in secret (and not let IBM's competitors know that they were creating a PC). Kildall also said that he couldn't have a 16-bit operating system ready by the time IBM wanted it.

IBM then made a deal with Bill Gates. Microsft purchased the rights to 86-DOS (also called QDOS) from Seattle Computer Products. Microsoft also hired the programmer who wrote 86-DOS. This was the basis for PC-DOS, as IBM called the operating system, and MS-DOS, Microsoft's version of the operating system sold for other systems.

Microsoft also made a deal with Apple (the writer is apparently confusing NeXT with Apple) to create software for their new Macintosh system and to get the right to use elements of the Macintosh system in their own products. Microsoft created Windows from that. Apple later sued Microsoft: "Apple had agreed to license certain parts of its GUI to Microsoft for use in Windows 1.0, but when Microsoft made changes in Windows 2.0 adding overlapping windows and other features found in the Macintosh GUI, Apple filed suit. Apple added additional claims to the suit when Microsoft released Windows 3.0."

This lawsuit was a huge overreach on Apple's part, both from a contractual standpoint (their claim centering around the contract's grants of rights on "derivative works") and, more importantly, their claim that copyright law covered the overall "look and feel" of programs. If Apple had succeeded on that front, they would would have exclusive rights to the interfaces similar to the Macintosh for 95 years. This would have been disastrous to computer users, since every computer program would then have to make their program as different as possible from every other computer program that came before them. Think about what it would be like if you drove a Mercedes using a steering wheel and pedals on the floor, but a Ford using a stick for steering a lever to control the throttle, and on a Chrysler you would use buttons and knobs, etc.

As to the claim about Microsoft Office, this is fiction. There were computer systems dedicated to word processing from both big companies —IBM's Displaywriter— and smaller companies, like Redactron and Wang Laboratories. People then created microcomputer word processing programs, like Electric Pencil, Wordstar, Magic Wand, and dozens of other. Microsoft Word was just one among many.

Microsoft Excel was created in imitation of Lotus 1-2-3, which was created in imitation of (and great improvement on) Visicalc. Microsoft Excel, especially the Macintosh version, was really a very, very good program on its own merits. Microsoft didn't steal any code for Microsoft Office. The lead programmer on Microsoft Office was Charles Simonyi, an extremely talented programmer who became a Microsoft billionaire and was able to become one of the few space tourists because of it. Lotus 1-2-3 continued to exist and Lotus was eventually bought by IBM.

The reasons for Microsoft's success:

Competence. Microsoft was able to deliver software consistently in a timely manner. Lots of other companies just failed at this.

Good choices on what markets to enter. Gates dropped out of Harvard because he thought he would miss his chance if he waited two more years to start a business. When Apple created the Macintosh, he immediately embraced the GUI concept, creating software for the Macintosh and creating Windows. He recognized the importance of the World Wide Web and made Microsoft become internet-centric.

Luck. Microsoft became the vendor for IBM's PC operating system. When PC clones arrived (Compaq, Dell, Gateway, etc.), Microsoft had MS-DOS ready for them and a huge torrent of cash came in, allowing Microsoft to do whatever it wanted.

Aggressive marketing and use of exclusive deals with computer manufacturers. PC vendors needed MS-DOS and, later, Windows. Microsoft made them sign deals to not have other operating systems and to bundle other Microsoft software, such as Office, on their systems. This was the most controversial part of Microsoft's business, and what eventually led to the antitrust action against them.

Software patent battles were not a big part of what was going on in the software business in the 1980s and 1990s and I don't remember Microsoft initiating any lawsuits or any threats over patents until 2003, long after their rise to dominance.

Also, Gates came from a rich family, but they were not billionaires. He would not be "super-rich" if he never created Microsoft. Their wealth allowed him to go to a private school which had computer access, which was highly unusual at the time. And he went to Harvard for a couple of years. He was able to raise some start-up capital from them and some of their friends, which was important in Microsoft's early years. Apparently his parent's contacts were also helpful in his coming to the attention of Microsoft when they needed an operating system. The assertion that "the sum total of all Bill Gates’ charitable contributions amount to less than 2.3% of his enormous wealth" is also wrong.

Sing your song

Be your own soul, learn to live. If some men force you, take no heed. If some men hate you, have no care. Sing your song, dream your dreams Hope your hopes, and pray your prayers.
Bo Schembechler

Deep down, your players must know you care about them. This is the most important thing. I could never get away with what I do if the players feel I didn't care for them. They know, in the long run, I'm in their corner.
Bo Schembechler

“When you win, say nothing, when you lose, say less.”
– Paul Brown

“I became a good pitcher when I stopped trying to make them miss the ball and started trying to make them hit it.”
– Sandy Koufax


 “A champion is someone who gets up when he can’t.”
– Jack Dempsey

we talk to the walls.

We have reached a point where we don't talk about issues. We talk about whether we are allowed to talk about issues. And we talk to the walls.

Rabbeinu Tam

Menachot 20b – Two Shkiyas and Rabbeinu Tam’s Tzeit HaKokhavim – Part II
Posted on March 31, 2011 by Rabbi Dov Linzer
In a previous post we discussed the two major positions regarding bein ha’shemashot – that of the Geonim and GR”A who state that it begins at sunset and ends 13.5 minutes later; and that of Rabbeinu Tam who states that the visible sunset does not begin this period, and that it begins only at the “second sunset,” 58.5 minutes after the visible one, when the sun exits the western tunnel of the rakiya. Night would then come 13.5 minutes after that, at 72 minutes after visible sunset.

Is the definition of night dependent on location?  We had speculated that Rabbeinu Tam might have been inclined to define night as starting so late because in France, where he lived, it does not get really dark until a good while after sunset.   The GR”A’s position – that night begins 13.5 minutes after sunset, can work in Israel, where it gets dark quickly, and this was the assumed location of the discussions in the Gemara.  And, indeed, in Jerusalem they follow a variation of this position and define night as 25 minutes after sunset.  But what about elsewhere, such as Vilna or New York?  The GR”A relates to this directly (see Primary Sources – 2, source 3), and states that the duration of bein ha’she’mashot, and the time of tzeit, would change based on latitude.   The key determinant factor would be degree of darkness.  When, wherever a person may be, the night sky is as dark as it would be in Israel after 13.5 minutes, then it is night.  So, both Rabbeinu Tam and GR”A were sensitive to the realities of their location, however in Rabbeinu Tam’s case it led to a flat requirement of 72 minutes, whereas in the GR”A’s case it became a variable requirement based on location.

Rav Moshe Feinstein in Iggrot Moshe OH 4:62 (source 5 in Primary Sources – 2) adopts a curious interpretation of the common practice in New York to consider night to come 42-50 minutes after sunset.  Rather than attribute this to an adjusted GR”A  (it would not be that late even with latitudinal adjustment) or to a direct observation of when the sky is filled with stars (which fits with the Gemara and Rabbenu Yonah), Rav Moshe states that this practice is the position of Rabbeinu Tam adjusted downwards! That is, after 42-50 minutes in NY, it is as dark as it is in France after 72 minutes.  Now, this may very well be true, but given that Rabbenu Tam was explaining Gemarot that were referring to Eretz Yisrael, it is a little strange to take that position and adjust it downwards.  However, from a different perspective, what Rav Moshe says makes a lot of sense.   What he may be implicitly saying is something along these lines: Rabbeinu Tam would never have said that night comes 72 minutes after sunset in Eretz Yisrael.  When he said 72 minutes that was a judgment based at least on direct observation of the darkness of the sky (in France) as it was a pshat in the Gemara.  Therefore, since it is as dark in NY after 42-50 minutes as it is in Rabbeinu Tam’s France, this certainly would have qualified for night for Rabbeinu Tam, pshat in the Gemara aside.  And, indeed, Rav Moshe does state that the sky is full of stars at this time, and therefore it must be equivalent to Rabbeinu Tam’s 72 minutes.

The problem with this approach, of course, is that Rabbeinu Tam was explaining a Gemara.  As a result of this, he not only said that night comes later – and was strict on Saturday night,  but he also said that bein hashemashot came later – almost a full hour later – and was lenient on Friday evening.  If it were only a question of not declaring night until a certain degree of darkness was reached, then he would have started bein ha’shemashot at visible sunset.   Claiming that we are following Rabbeinu Tam also raises the question as to whether bein ha’shemashot starts for us at sunset or not.   Rav Moshe claims that in this regard we are strict like the GR”A, and play it safe at both ends.  Thus, we start bein ha’shemashot at sunset, like the GR”A, and we consider it to be night after 42-50 minutes like the (downwardly adjusted) Rabbeinu Tam.

The point of linking our practice with Rabbeinu Tam is not merely an academic one.  On the one hand, it downplays the need for being concerned with this position and being machmir for a full 72 minutes, since according to Rav Moshe we are already keeping Rabbeinu Tam!  Even more significantly, explaining our practice this way means that the period after sunset may be somewhat negotiable.  Rav Moshe does actually take this next step, and states that under certain circumstances, the first 9 minutes after sunset can be considered like day.  Why?  Because according to Rabbeinu Tam they are definitely day (they come before the “second sunset”), and according to the GR”A they may be day (9 minutes because this is the GR”A’s 13.5 minutes similarly adjusted downward).  This creates a ssfek sfeika – a double doubt – and thus this period can be treated as day, under certain special circumstances.    Rav Moshe never goes so far to say that one can do melacha on Friday evening at this time, but he does say that if a baby is born on Saturday during the first 9 minutes after sunset, then it is a Shabbat birth, and the bris can be held next Shabbat!  Rav Ovadya Yosef takes a similar position in certain areas of hilkhot niddah, but he does not adjust downwards, and would only say this if someone generally keeps 72 minutes.   This position was strongly attacked in Israel when it was issued, with many rabbonim declaring that it had never been the practice to treat the time after shkiya as anything but a classic bein ha’shemashot.

Personally, I find it very hard to rely on this Rav Moshe for two reasons.  First, as stated above, I don’t believe that our practice of 42-50 minutes can legitimately be connected to Rabbeinu Tam.  Thus, I would only consider Rav Moshe’s approach for someone who keeps a full 72 minutes.  Even then, it is questionable if this can be called a sfek sfeika, since it all boils down to one question – is it day or is it night?  Rav Moshe addresses this issue and argues that it nevertheless is a real sfeik sfeika.  Nevertheless, I would reserve this approach for someone who keeps a full 72 minutes after shkiya on normal occasions.

As I stated earlier, the practice of 42-50 minutes seems to be neither Rabbeinu Tam or GR”A, but based on direct observation.   Thus, bein heshemashot starts at normal sunset (there are no 2 sunsets), but – rather than resolving the contradiction of the two gemarot whether tzeit is 3/4 of a mil or 4 mil after sunset, we just wait 42-50 minutes when we know that there are stars throughout the sky, and hence definitely 3 medium-sized stars.

I will be making one more post on this topic, to return to the Tosafot in Menachot, and to explore whether according to Rabbeinu Tam there is any significance to the first sunset.

----------

One of the key Tosafots in Shas (Menachot 20b, s.v., ini) discusses the position of Rabbeinu Tam that there are two sunsets – the visible one, and then one occurring almost an hour later, when the sun – according to Rabbinic cosmology – exists the tunnel of the opaque dome of the rakiya, sky or firmament, and begins to travel above the rakiya from West to East so it can rise again the next morning.  This informs his position that the end of the day, tzeit hakokhavim, halakhically does not occur until 72 minutes after visible sunset. I present below a  conceptual discussion of his approach and the significance of the first sunset.

 

We see that Rabbeinu Tam believes in two shkiyas, sunsets, and that bein hashemashot begins at the second one.  The question remains whether the visible, “first,” shkiya has any halakhic significance for Rabbeinu Tam.  Here is where the Tosafot from the daf comes up.  Tosafot on 20b, s.v. nifsal, drawing on Rabbeinu Tam’s Sefer HaYashar, states that it does.   Tosafot is bothered why a special verse (biyom hakrivo et zivcho) is needed to invalidate blood of a korban that is not placed on the altar on the same day that the animal is slaughtered since we already know that all the avodot, sacrificial rites, must be done during the day.  Tosafot’s answer is that this extra verse tells us that the blood of a sacrifice becomes invalid even after the first shkiya.

 

The way to know, says Rabbeinu Tam, is based on the phrasing that is used.  Tosafot points out that when the Gemara states that blood becomes invalid at sunset, it uses the phrase bi’shkiyat ha’chama, at the setting of the sun.  This phrase, says Rabbeinu Tam, means the beginning of the setting, i.e., the first shkiya.  It is only when the Gemara uses the phrase mi’she’tishka ha’chama, when the sun has set, that it is referring to the second setting.  Making this distinction between the two phrases allows Rabbeinu Tam to state that the Gemara in Shabbat (35a) that placed tzeit at 3/4 of a mil (the time it takes to walk a kilometer, approximated at 18 minutes) after shkiya was talking about the second shkiya, because it used the phrase mi’she’tishka.  In contrast, the Gemara in Pesachim (93a) that gave the period of 4 mil was talking from the first shkiya because it used the phrase mi’shkiyat ha’chama.

 

It is interesting to consider the significance of this first shkiya within the approach of Rabbeinu Tam.   It seems, for Rabbeinu Tam, that the end of the day has 3 stages.  First there is physical sunset.  This is an ongoing process, which starts with shkiyat hachama, the setting of the sun, and ends with mi’she’tishka ha’chama, once it has finally set.  This is a period which is technically day, but seen as leading into night.  This roughly corresponds to the period that we call twilight (which comes after sunset), where there is still some direct sunlight lighting the sky.   Then comes the period which is the onset of night, but not fully night proper – this period is bein hashemashot, beginning at the “second shekiya” and roughly corresponds to what we call dusk.   And finally there is night proper, tzeit hakokhavim.

 

Dusk, bein hashemashot, which is the beginning of night, but not night proper, has the status of “doubtful day, doubtful night.”  As Rav Soloveitchik explained, in his article Yom VaLaila, “Day and Night,” in Shiurim liZekher Aba Mari, Yahrtzeit Lectures in Memory of My Father, vol. 1

 

The explanation of this “doubtful status” does not indicate that there Chazal had an uncertainty as to the facts, that they could not come to a conclusion whether this period was included in “day” or in “night.”  For behold, it is an explicit verse, “From the morning star until the emerging of the stars,” and certainly this is the definition of day.  Rather, at this time [of bein hashemashot] there is a dual status – of day and of night.  A duality is being stated here – this period is both day and night, and it all depends on the perspective with which you look at it… These two statuses, which contradict one another, create a new reality that this time period is a “doubt,” which is a way of expressing this tension between day and night.

(pages 103-104)

 

Rav Soloveitchik explains the competing definitions to be a definition based on light and darkness, as opposed to a definition based on sunrise and sunset.   For our purposes, we can look at it as different degrees of the light-darkness mix.  The period after the first shkiya, still has direct sunlight (although no visible sun), and is day.  The period after the “second shkiya,” is genuinely getting dark, but not fully dark, so it has this ambiguous status, which is defined halakhically as safek, a doubt.

 

For Rabbeinu Tam there is a nice parallel here to the period between amud hashachar, the morning star, and sunrise.  The mishna in Megilah (20a) states that all day mitzvot are valid from sunrise on, but if they were performed starting at amud hashachar one fulfills his obligation.  The standard explanation of this, and this is how Rashi explains it, is that day starts fully at amud hashachar but because it is not so obvious when that is, the Rabbis wanted people to wait until sunrise, lest they err.  Rav Soloveitchik explains this otherwise.  He states that this period corresponds to bein hashemashot, as it has elements of both light and darkness.  However, as opposed to bein hashemashot where this tension expresses itself halakhically in the form of safek, here it expresses itself halakhically in the form of lichatchila and b’dieved.  As a base position, lichatchila, this time between the morning start and sunrise is not yet day, because the sun has not risen and it is not fully light.  However, b’dieved, if one did a day mitzvah during this period, it will count as day, because it does have day elements to it.

 

Now, according to Rav Soloveitchik, it is strange that the counterpart to this 72 minute period in the beginning of the day is a mere 13.5 minute period at the end of the day.  It is also strange that in one case we treat the tension of day-night as a doubt, and in the other case as a lichatchila/b’dieved. However, according to Rabbeinu Tam this works out quite well.  Just as 72 minutes before sunrise counts as day (maybe – contra Rav Soloveichik – even li’chatchila on a d’oraitta level), so the first 58.5 minutes after sunset counts as day.  It is only the last 13.5 that has no parallel in the morning and is treated as a doubt.   The reason these “mixed times” – 72 minutes after the morning star, and 58.5 minutes after sunset – are treated as day rather than night, is because at the human level we respond to the presence of light and focus on it.  Once some light enters the sky in the morning, we feel that daytime has come.  And as long as there is still some sunlight in the sky, we cling on to the day, and feel that it has not yet gone: “My soul is to God like the watchers for the dawn, the watchers for the dawn.”  Only when all the sunlight has escaped, but it is not completely dark, are we willing to acknowledge the partial onset of night.

 

So, to return to the period after the first sunset – we now see that it already has a mix of light and dark, that it has elements of the night, but they are not yet dominant.  Thus, it is still technically day, but it is beginning to feel “night-ish”.  This is why, according to Rabbeinu Tam, the extra verse by sacrifices can teach that the blood of sacrifices is invalidated at the first sunset.  For this case, we will focus on the night element, and we will see this time as already night.  [This is somewhat parallel to Rav Soloveitchik’s lichatchila of treating the post-amud hashachar period as still night].  Perhaps we can even be more precise than that.  The verse that Tosafot was referring to does not teach that the blood becomes invalid at night, but rather “on the day that you slaughter you must apply the blood.”  That is, it must be the same day as the slaughtering.  Since this period now has night elements, even if it is not night proper, we cannot say that it is truly the same period – the same day – in which the animal was slaughtered.

 

This point brought out even clearer in the position of Ramban in Torat Ha’Adam (תורת האדם שער האבל – ענין אבלות ישנה, 105), which Shulkhan Arukh (אורח חיים הלכות שבת סימן רסא סעיף ב) follows.  Ramban asks – when Chazal tell us that there is a mitzvah of tosefet Shabbat or tosefet Yom HaKippurim, to add to Shabbat or Yom Kippur from the day before, starting when can one begin this period of addition?  He proceeds to present and analyze, and agree with, Rabbeinu Tam’s position on tzeit, bein hashemashot, and two shkiyas, and after much analysis concludes that the period of addition can begin at the first shkiya.  He then points out that this time is roughly equivalent to the period of plag hamincha which is 1 1/4 hours before the end of the day, which he assumes means before tzeit.  Thus, 1 1/4 hours = 75 minutes before tzeit, which is only 3 minutes earlier than sunset for Rabbeinu Tam.  As we know, plag hamincha is the time when one can daven aravit, and can even make havdalah on Shabbat (without a candle, of course, and this does not allow melakha, it just means you fulfill your obligation of havdalah!).  So, says Ramban, this is a time that can already be associated with the next day, so this is the time during which one can make a tosefet Shabbat.  Earlier than plag/sunset would be meaningless, but any time after this would be a meaningful addition to the following day.

 

Thus, for Ramban, sunset and plag effectively coincide.  And because the sun has already set, and the day is starting to darken, it is a time that can be – like in the case of the blood of korbanot – connected to the nighttime, or the next day, and thus can be used for davening ma’ariv or for making it into tosefet Shabbat.

 

Ramban takes this idea one step further, however.  How, he asks, can one make a tosefet for Tisha b’Av, if the Torah never indicated that such a tosefet could be made.  We could restate the question as follows: If the idea of tosefet is that one is bringing in kedusha of Shabbat into Friday afternoon, then how can this be applied to a day like Tisha b’Av which has no kedusha?  To this Ramban answers as follows:

 

For the accepting [of this period as the beginning of Tisha b’Av] makes it forbidden to him during this time, which is from sunset, which is plag hamincha, and  later, since he can make it an addition for the Torah days, he can also make it an addition for a Rabbinic day, because since he wants to add onto the day and make it like the day itself, [he is able to do so].

 

That is, according to Ramban, since this period begins at sunset, what a person is doing with creating a tosefet is not introducing kedushat Shabbat into Friday, but rather designating this time as actually nighttime, as Saturday itself!  Just like the verse considered it already night for the blood of sacrifices, a person can subjectively consider it night because of its night elements.  Thus, it can be done even without any kedusha.  It can be done on Tisha b’Av, just as a person can daven ma’ariv on a Wednesday after plag hamincha.

 

Ramban leaves this possibility saying “vi’zo shita t’luya” – this is a speculative possibility.  And, indeed, although this is a very logical and attractive position within Rabbeinu Tam’s universe, it requires one to adopt a very specific understanding of tosefet yom, one that we normally do not adopt in other halakhic areas.  Thus, even if one has already accepted upon herself tosefet Shabbat, we would still consider it to be Friday day for other halakhot (hefsek taharah, a baby being born, etc.).  However, it is quite possible that this is because we rule that bein hashemashot begins at sunset, and that the period of tosefet starts earlier.  So while for Ramban and Rabbeinu Tam this tosefet period, occurring after sunset, could be one of designating the time as night, for us, where it occurs before sunset, it can at most be one of introducing the sanctity of the next day into the current one.

Oh, God! Is No God

Oh, God! Is No God

by Israel

Seen today in 2019  the film Oh, God! seems pretty spiritual -- a seemingly wholesome Hollywood film talking about God rather than extraterrestrial demonic ninja feminists dressed in leather on a revenge mission against the patriarchy - the typical film in 2019. But for 1977, the film is in many respects anti-religious and anti-Christian. Today the very concept of the existence of God is novel to many people, especially the youth. 40 years ago, it was not. But a god that is not involved in everyday life, an aloof god, funny as he may be when played by old-time comedian George Burns, is a kind of non-god. And that’s what Mr. Burns tells us about himself, i.e. god, in the film, that he gave us everything we need and it’s up to us. He doesn’t get involved. When people pray, he can’t help but hear, but he doesn’t listen.

No divine providence and no prayer. Do we still insist on calling this a spiritual film in the religious genre? Or is it rather a film that dilutes religious sentiment and converts it into a disguised secular humanism. The main message of the film is that we must be good to each other. We hear that over and over. And God is not involved. Sounds Freemason, no?

And what about Christianity? The film tells us that Jesus was just a man. Now, it doesn’t come out and announce this Sarah Silverman style. It says rather, “Jesus was my son.  Buddha was my son. Muhammad, Moses, you, the man who said there was no room at the inn was my son.” In other words, he was a man.

The main Christian character was a very corrupt and hypocritical evangelist. Less prominent Christian characters were pompous academics. They were all phonies.

Now being Jewish myself, I’m not offended by the depiction of Jesus as being just a man, but I wonder why Christians are not. Is Hollywood duping them again? Are they being taken in by the wit of the secular Jewish screenwriter (Larry Gelbart), secular Jewish director (Carl Reiner), and secular Jewish lead actor George Burns? The producer is secular Jewish Jerry Weintraub.

I repeat the word secular because religious Jews do believe in divine providence in everyday affairs as well as prayer. God does listen to every word and responds via life. Portraying God as not being involved in your life is a sly way of freeing yourself from His authority. 

What else do we learn in the film? We learn that the George Burns god doesn’t belong to any church and that he regrets creating shame. In other words, do what you want as long as you don’t hurt anyone.

While religious Jews do not see deity in Jesus, we are supposed to keep our mouths shut about that unless asked. We are very grateful to live in a country that honors religious freedom and we have rules about interfering with the order of our host country. We much prefer Christianity to paganism, which is what we have today in large part due to Hollywood as well as the ACLU, the  Southern Poverty Law Center, and the ADL. For those who don’t know, those are all powerful and aggressive entities founded and dominated by secular Jews.

Secular Jews have no such rules about interference with the host country. Quite to the contrary, they provoke anyone and everyone, every chance they get. The Talmud warns about such people. It says if not for the Torah, no nation could withstand the Jews because they are so brazen. Jews need to channel their energies through Torah, through religious Judaism, or they become revolutionaries. And that’s a bad thing. The Russian Revolution was bad, the sexual revolution was bad. 

The hero of the film is Jerry Sanders, the character played by John Denver, the singer-songwriter turned actor. Denver, son of a military officer, grew up in New Mexico, Arizona, Alabama, and Texas, which in the 1940s and 1950s were vibrantly Christian. Denver once wrote a song about his uncle Matthew who after losing his farm “found the family bible, his faith as solid as a stone.” We don’t hear about the bible in this film.

Denver’s old-time American, conservative, Christian roots come through in his boywish, joyous, amiable personality and lend the film a credibility it doesn’t deserve. The gratuitous scenes of him with his shirt off and his wife’s derriere exposed are the director’s fault no doubt.

Incredibly, Denver’s character Jerry Sanders, comes across as more wholesome than Burn’s portrayal of God. Burns is a bit devilish. He is engaging, but he also seems to enjoy his power to play tricks on people and to tangle up their minds with his wit. And he is, let me say at the risk of being called a Jewish anti-Semite, pushy. It’s kind of funny, but it really isn’t funny. “Blessed is the one who does not walk in step with the wicked or stand in the way that sinners take or sit in the company of mockers,,” says the Psalmist.

When Jews first got to America, we played it safe. We wanted to survive and take it from there. A few Jews even wrote Christmas songs. But they were bland songs, devoid of religious sentiment, such as those written by secular Jewish Johnny Marks: "Rudolph, the Red-Nosed Reindeer," "Rockin' Around the Christmas Tree," and "A Holly Jolly Christmas.” The very bland “Winter Wonderland” actually had an Episcopalian lyricist Richard B. Smith (who died at age 34 of tuberculosis), but a Jewish composer Felix Bernard. 

“White Christmas” is of course the all-time biggest and blandest Christmas song. Singer Bing Crosby’s version sold 50 million copies, the all-time record for a single. Other singers sold another 50-million copies. The composer and lyricist was secular Jewish Irving Berlin.

I'm dreaming of a white christmas

Just like the ones i used to know

Where the treetops glisten

And children listen

To hear sleigh bells in the snow

I'm dreaming of a white christmas

With every christmas card i write

May your days be merry and bright

And may all your christmases be white

Like the Israeli national anthem, this all-time record-breaking Christmas song doesn’t mention God, any God. Listening to the song, you feel as though it is religious on some level, but it leaves you with sentiment towards falling snow and sleigh bells. It converts your religious instincts to a kind of materialism. The State of Israel is like that too. They keep telling you it’s the Jewish state, but all you hear about is its military, its listings on the NASDAQ, and its gay-pride parades.

There’s a pattern here. Some people claim it’s all intentional, a plot by the Rothschilds to corrupt the world and lead it to a new demonic world order. 

I don't laugh at that claim anymore. The change in society is so vast and happened so quickly and efficiently, that it seems sort of planned. Maybe it’s just the devil.

But I want the Christian world to know, it’s not the religious Jews doing this to you. We oppose secularism, we oppose paganism, we oppose Zionism, we oppose hedonism. We support the baby’s right to life and we support your right to practice your religion even in the courthouse, even in the public schools. We are guests in your country and we are grateful for your hospitality. Please keep all that in mind in the event that you figure out how films about extraterrestrial demonic ninja feminists dressed in leather have become the norm.

Not such a nice person after all

I think a curse should rest on me - because I love this war. I know it's smashing and shattering the lives of thousands every moment - and yet - I can't help it - I enjoy every second of it.

Winston Churchill's letter to a friend, 1916.

Some great comments about vaccines from Brian Trappler

There's nothing wrong with that. Whats in question here is why the government is mandating a specifically branded cocktail containing a mix of 3 viruses. And without subjecting it to normal safety trials then enforcing it, without parental consent, while removing single Measles Strain Vaccines from the shelves without any explanation. And whats also disturbing is if you Google "Bill Gates", he has a series of youtube lectures advocating it as one mechanism for "depopulation". So this particular product may have long-term harmful ingredients.This woman was hospitalized and contracted an antebiotic-resistant bug. Israel, which has a relative free-press just announced that the family is sueing for a failure to maintain her in a sterile environment. My opinion on patients with serious infections is to keep them at home and have a nurse visit every 12 hours to check the I.V. Line, ensure hydration, and use antibiotics judiciously. Hospitals are breeding-grounds for treatment-resistant super-bugs.

Recall that the narrative is not about physicians administering single-strain attenuated Measles Virus to appropriate populations.Its about pulling the single-strain Measles Vaccines from the shelves and mandating cocktails of three unrelated viruses.Then mandating this triple-virus to the entire population irrespective of their age or immune-status. Including infants as young as 6 months previously deemed unsafe. Then failing to show prospective safety tests and exercising caution and restraint in high-risk individuals such as those with previous vaccine injury. Then granting immunity to Merck against injury-liability. Requiring the government to use tax-payer funds to allocate $2 Billion to settle injury-liability claims. And failing to notify vaccine-recipients that they shed live virus for 10 days or more through body fluids - explainining why the outbreaks of Measles and Mumps are occuring in clusters in the very communities receiving MMR (including those individuals recently vaccinated).Then defunding physicians who report it. No surprise that many Merck employees refuse to vaccinate their kids. But the population has been well indoctrinated to believe that Measles is being spread by healthy children a result of which they're being expelled from yeshivas and socially ostracised.In short, Rotem's death is a tragedy. But let's pause before assigning blame.

Measles is not a lethal disease. At the same time legislators are attempting to remove Jewish religious rights, the CDC in conjunction with Merck have harvested Measles Viruses unlike the wild strains. They then, via mandated vaccination cocktails, have introduced Lab strains of Measles into Jewish communities, with the assistance of Merck bribes to the yeshivas, legislators,and naive community doctors. Merck has been exempt by the FDA any requirement for safety studies or idenitification of the harvested Measles dispersed via the MMR. Contracting an unknown virus-genome harvested by Merck of unknown potency would require a one-week period of bed-rest in a darkened room, fluids and vitamins. Believing one can continue life as normal while "shaking it off" could be lethal.Rotem was just another victim of Big Pharma.

I like your use of the word "chillul Hashem".Thanks to the cooperation of Yeshivas with Big Pharma, ensuring that the children of parents who have done their due-diligence in researching the dangers of MMR (manufactured by Merck by Germ -Scientists in Germany, and already banned in several countries) hundreds of Jewish kids have been expelled and publicly shamed. They're at home or in the street, thanks to "frum" Principals, unable to learn Torah. Seeing the level of cooperation by Jewish Mosrim, Albany has quickly moved to their next step - forcing a secular curriculum on Yeshivas. Having initially accepted large financial incentives from Merck to support the Vax movement, Aggudas Yisroel have now put out a formal apology to the Orthodox Community, admitting that they "were taken". They've realized that the Vax Narrative is just one step in getting us in line with a far more ambitious agenda.

Articles are now surfacing in Israeli news outlets that the patient picked-up a hospital-based antebiotic-resistant bug. The population has to realize that being admitted to a hospital carries certain risks. Aside from being exposed to antibiotic-resistant bugs, sick patients are routinely receiving Pmeumonia and Flu-shots at a time previously deemed clinically inappropriate. When a patient is hospitalized for Septicaemia or treatment that suppresses immunity (e.g.for auto-immune diseases), why vaccinate them ? Cant the medical industry wait for their first well follow-up visit ?