Truth Over Tyranny: Biblical wisdom for defeating the Technocrats.
These are my insights for defeating the Transhumanist Technocracy movement, based on the teachings of Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, of blessed memory, on the weekly Bible portion.
Thankfully, more and more people today are becoming “awake” and not ”woke.” They are discovering the truth that is being buried by corrupt government officials, bureaucrats, state media, and “experts” of the transhumanist Technocracy:
They know the mRNA gene therapy is not a safe and effective vaccine, but a dangerous depopulation drug.
They know that “gender affirming care” does not promote the independence of children, but instead pushes them into State custody.
They know that ideologies like CRT and DEI do not promote diversity and inclusion, but really cause hatred and division.
And the list goes on of how men and women across the globe have realized the Truth about the burgeoning tyranny of the Technocrats: just because a behavior is mandated by the authorities, does not mean it is the right thing to do.
So what are the “awake” doing about it? Many are indeed taking a stand by protecting the bodily autonomy and individual rights of themselves and their families.
But the question is this: is being righteous in our own lives enough? For sure, the foundation of freedom is the protection of personal and family rights. But is that sufficient to stop the spread of global totalitarianism?
Rabbi Jonathan Sacks answers that question in his commentary on Parashat Noah called “Righteousness is not Leadership.” In doing so, he gives us a moral assessment of the life of the legendary Noah:
Rabbi Sacks starts out by showing us how the Bible emphasizes the unique righteousness of Noah:
“The praise accorded to Noah is unparalleled in Tanach. He was, says the Torah, ‘a righteous man, perfect in his generations; Noah walked with God.. No such praise is given to Abraham or Moses or any of the Prophets. The only person in the Bible who comes close is Job, described as ‘blameless and upright (tam ve-yashar); he feared God and shunned evil’ (Job 1:1). Noah is in fact the only individual that the Tanach describes as righteous (tzaddik).”
But his righteousness was self-contained:
“Noah is the classic case of someone who is righteous, but who is not a leader. In a disastrous age, when all has been corrupted, when the world is filled with violence, when even God Himself – in the most poignant line in the whole Torah – ‘regretted that He had made man on earth, and was pained to His very core,’ Noah alone justifies God’s faith in humanity, the faith that led Him to create humankind in the first place. That is an immense achievement, and nothing should detract from it. Noah is, after all, the man through whom God makes a covenant with all humanity. Noah is to humanity what Abraham is to the Jewish people.
“Noah was a good man in a bad age. But his influence on the life of his contemporaries was, apparently, non-existent. That is implicit in God’s statement, ‘You alone have I found righteous in this whole generation’ (Gen. 7:1). It is implicit also in the fact that only Noah and his family, together with the animals, were saved. It is reasonable to assume that these two facts – Noah’s righteousness and his lack of influence on his contemporaries – are intimately related. Noah preserved his virtue by separating himself from his environment. That is how, in a world gone mad, he stayed sane.”
Was his isolation part of his character, or a necessary tactic for the society he lived in?
“The famous debate among the Sages as to whether the phrase ‘perfect in his generations’ (Gen. 6:9) is praise or criticism may well be related to this. Some said that ‘perfect in his generations’ means that he was perfect only relative to the low standard then prevailing. Had he lived in the generation of Abraham, they said, he would have been insignificant. Others said the opposite: if in a wicked generation Noah was righteous, how much greater he would have been in a generation with role models like Abraham.
“The argument, it seems to me, turns on whether Noah’s isolation was part of his character, or whether it was merely the necessary tactic in that time and place. If he were naturally a loner, he would not have gained by the presence of heroes like Abraham. He would have been impervious to influence, whether for good or bad. If he was not a loner by nature but merely by circumstance, then in another age he would have sought out kindred spirits and become greater still.
“Yet what exactly was Noah supposed to do? How could he have been an influence for good in a society bent on evil? Was he really meant to speak in an age when no one would listen? Sometimes people do not listen even to the voice of God Himself. We had an example of this just two chapters earlier, when God warned Cain of the danger of his violent feelings toward Abel – ‘Why are you so furious? Why are you depressed?… sin is crouching at the door. It lusts after you, but you can dominate it’ (Gen. 4:6-7). Yet Cain did not listen, and instead went on to murder his brother. If God speaks and people do not listen, how can we criticise Noah for not speaking when all the evidence suggests that they would not have listened to him anyway?”
Rabbi Sacks weights in heavily on the side of taking a stand, even when doing so seems futile:
“… when bad things are happening in society, when corruption, violence and injustice prevail, it is our duty to register a protest, even if it seems likely that it will have no effect. Why? Because that is what moral integrity demands. Silence may be taken as acceptance. And besides, we can never be sure that no one will listen. Morality demands that we ignore probability and focus on possibility. Perhaps someone will take notice and change their ways – and that ‘perhaps’ is enough.”
Indeed, protesting injustice was a moral imperative for the Great Prophets:
“This idea did not suddenly appear for the first time in the Talmud. It is stated explicitly in the book of Ezekiel. This is what God says to the Prophet:
“’Son of man, I am sending you to the Israelites, to a rebellious nation that has rebelled against Me; they and their ancestors have been in revolt against Me to this very day. The people to whom I am sending you are obstinate and stubborn. Say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says.’ And whether they listen or fail to listen—for they are a rebellious people—they will know that a Prophet has been among them.’Ezek. 2:3-5
“God is telling the Prophet to speak, regardless of whether people will listen.”
So yes: even though he was righteous — perhaps more righteous than anyone — Noah failed the test of moral integrity; as did many Biblical figures before him:
“So, one way of reading the story of Noah is as an example of lack of leadership. Noah was righteous but not a leader. He was a good man who had no influence on his environment. There are, to be sure, other ways of reading the story, but this seems to me the most straightforward. If so, then Noah is the third case in a series of failures of responsibility. As we saw last week, Adam and Eve failed to take personal responsibility for their actions (‘It wasn’t me’). Cain refused to take moral responsibility (‘Am I my brother’s keeper?’). Noah failed the test of collective responsibility.”
Social responsibility is incumbent on the people of every nation:
“This way of interpreting the story, if correct, entails a strong conclusion. We know that Judaism involves collective responsibility, for it teaches Kol Yisrael arevim ze bazeh (‘All Israel are responsible for one another’ Shavuot 39a). But it may be that simply being human also involves collective responsibility. Not only are Jews responsible for one another. So are we all, regardless of our faith or religious affiliations…
“The Hassidim had a simple way of making this point. They called Noah a tzaddik im peltz, ‘a righteous man in a fur coat.’ There are essentially two ways of keeping warm on a cold night. You can wear a thick coat, or you can light a fire. Wear a coat and you warm only yourself. Light a fire and you can warm others too. We are supposed to light a fire.”
Protesting injustice is the right thing to do, in all times:
“… the Torah sets a high standard for the moral life. It is not enough to be righteous if that means turning our backs on a society that is guilty of wrongdoing. We must take a stand. We must protest. We must register dissent even if the probability of changing minds is small. That is because the moral life is a life we share with others. We are, in some sense, responsible for the society of which we are a part. It is not enough to be good. We must encourage others to be good. There are times when each of us must lead.”
I would add this:
It is understandable why people fail to speak out these days against the encroaching tyranny of the Technocrats. The dictator-wannabes spend a lot of effort trying to brainwash, bully, bribe, and blackmail people into silence. By using these tactics, they are basically trying to make morality and ethics – righteousness itself – irrelevant. By refusing to be silenced, and continuing to protest their tyranny, we are refusing to relinquish the moral life.