Monday, October 11, 2010

What a True Jew Should Be

God sent the ancient Hebrews, to conquer territory in Palestine, so that they could have a base from which to carry on with more peaceful activities, such as the education of the Gentiles, in the future. God's intent from the beginning was to use the Hebrews as teachers to promote virtue in the world so that less people would go to hell and so that the lives of the people of the world psychologically, emotionally, and mentally speaking would improve.

The man who is a true Jew, is interested in spreading Judaic thought word and action in the world, through the teaching of wisdom to the Gentiles; he realizes that a state of enmity with the Gentiles is not conducive to the successful impartation of wisdom to the Gentiles.

The true Jew appreciates the teachings that have been given him, and realizes that despite whatever respectable ancestors he may have, what gives him true pleasure in life, and pleasure as opposed to pain in the afterlife, is not the fact that say 7% of his ancestry is from some especially respectable family, but rather his conforming himself to the wise teachings in Judaism.

Hence the true Jew realizes that Gentiles who are taught and receive the Judaic wisdom, can become as valuable and respectable and internally happy in an honorable way, as he himself is. The true Jew sees that his ancestry is just as much from those the ancient Hebrews killed during the invasion of Canaan, as it is from the ancient Hebrews who invaded Canaan; thus he sees how rejecting the new modern reformed Judaism of the prophet known as Christ, is a form of rejection of the self, because Christ's Judaism is inclusive even with the persons whom the ancient Hebrews fought against and invaded.

Thus the true Jew' ambition is to promote the love of God, and the love of the relatively honorable persons in the world. His ambition is to in the world suppress the wrongful use of the name of God, the taking the name of the Lord in vain. His ambition is to promote the practice of on a regular basis resting from work, because too much work, too much of the cares of the world, interferes with knowing God. His ambition in the world is to suppress and reduce the incidence of unjustified homicides, thefts, and slanders. His ambition in the world is to reduce the incidence of sexual passion that is misplaced in terms of the object of passion. His ambition is to reduce the mental illness wherein persons are filled with a desire to take ownership of things away from others so that they may own those things themselves. His ambition is to promote the thoughts words and actions which result in mankind's love of God becoming stronger.

The true Jew understands how his ambition to promote Judaic virtues in the world, will succeed only through the promotion of the new modernized reformed branch of Judaism that is centered on the prophet known as Christ. The true Jew cannot ignore how the Old Testament is superior to the Talmud, he cannot ignore how absurd, silly and insane many passages of the Talmud are. The true Jew does not follow the Talmud when the Talmud promotes racist arrogant contempt for Gentiles, and malicious criminal acts perpetrated against Gentiles.

Throughout history, every nation has always looked upon some battles fought in the past which preserved the nation, as sacred battles. Nevertheless, throughout history most nations have never adopted an attitude of constant warlike contempt for all foreigners.

Yet somehow Jews, despite their intellectual talent and thoughtfulness, have developed perpetual enmity for all non-Jews, and worship as a superhero, the barking raging, suicide-and-killing promoting, Hebrew drill sergeant of the invasion of Canaan of three thousand years ago, replete with hairy chest, bulging biceps, and a healthy hatred for the Gentiles, whom he loves to stab and shoot arrows into.

By way of contrast, nations that in some ways are less talented than the Jews, have understood what a child can understand, which is that although sometimes the people of a nation do God's will be invading another nation, this does not mean that the nation should be in a state of perpetual enmity with foreigners. They understand this the same way children understand that although sometimes the proper thing to do is to fight back against the bully in the schoolyard, this does not mean one should constantly be an enemy to every child in town.

@2010 David Virgil Hobbs

Labels: , , , , ,

Sunday, October 10, 2010

Practice: hours per day, how hours should be spent --insights for sport derived from music

When it comes to sports practice, there is a mental and also a physical element involved. Even if there exists the physical ability to practice for say, eight hours a day, which is the typical amount of time workers spend on the job, there could still exist mental constraints that render practice-time beyond a certain number of hours per day unproductive, or not worth the time invested.

Therefore, I was excited to find a superior blog-post ( ) by Dr. Noa Kageyama, which explores the amount of time per day that musicians should practice. Sitting on a chair and practicing a musical instrument does not tire the body the way practicing soccer or basketball does, but it tires the mind. Thus answers to the question of how many hours per day should music be practiced, give insight into how mental limitations effect the question of how many hours per day a sport should be practiced.

I have been (before I read Dr. Kageyama's article) practicing sports in a manner that resembles the manner in which Dr. Kageyama recommends that musical instruments should be practiced. In my sports log I made statements similar to the ones made by Dr. Kageyama in his article, though at the time I had never read Dr. Kageyama's article.

The roots of my Kageyama-like approach lay in my application of common-sense and thoughtfulness to the goal of maximizing improvement per hour of time invested.

I created an edited abridged concise subtitled version of his article which allows me to focus on the key points in his arguments:

by Dr. Noa Kageyama
(abridged version created by D Hobbs)


(Rubinstein) stated that nobody should have to practice more than four hours a day, explaining that if you needed to practice more than four hours a day, you probably weren’t doing it right.

“If you practice with your fingers, no amount is enough,” was (Leopold) Auer’s response. “If you practice with your head, two hours is plenty.”

Heifetz also indicated that he never believed in practicing too much, and that excessive practice is “just as bad as practicing too little!” He claimed that he practiced no more than three hours per day on average, and that he didn’t practice at all on Sundays...Donald Weilerstein, once suggested that I establish a 24-hour period of time every week where I was not allowed to pick up my instrument.

the “ten-year rule” and “10,000-hour rule”... suggest that it requires...10,000 hours of deliberate practice to achieve an expert level of performance in any given domain – and in the case of musicians, often closer to 25 years in order to attain an elite international level.


Mindless practice: engaging in mere repetition (“practice this passage 10 times” or “practice this piece for 30 minutes”) or practicing on autopilot (that’s when we play through the piece until we hear something we don’t like, stop, repeat the passage again until it sounds better, and resume playing through the piece until we hear the next thing we aren’t satisfied with, at which point we begin this whole process over again).


little productive learning takes place...what this model of practicing does do is strengthen undesirable habits and errors... This makes it more difficult to correct these habits in the future... “Practice doesn’t make perfect, practice makes permanent.”

practicing this way actually hurts your that realizes you don’t really know how to consistently produce the results... Even if you...find that you can nail it 3 or 4 out of every 5 attempts, your confidence won’t grow much from this. Real on-stage confidence comes from...most know precisely why you nail it or miss it – i.e. you know exactly what you need to do from a technique standpoint in order to play the passage perfectly every time.

We tend to practice unconsciously, and then end up trying to perform consciously – not a great formula for have a tendency to shift over into hyper-analytical left brain mode when you walk out on stage. Well, if you have done most of your practicing unconsciously...When your brain suddenly goes into full-conscious mode, you end up freaking out...

Practicing mindlessly is a chore. Music may be one of the only skill-based activities where practice goals are measured in units of time...What we really need are more specific outcome goals – such as...or practice this passage until you can figure out how to make it sound like _____.


...the practice room should be like a laboratory, where one can freely tinker with different ideas, both musical and technical, to see what combination of ingredients produces the result you are looking for.

Deliberate practice is often slow, and involves repetition of small and very specific sections of your repertoire instead of just playing through...

Deliberate practice involves monitoring one’s performance...continually looking for new ways to that you can tell yourself exactly what went wrong. For instance, was the first note note sharp? Flat? Too loud? Too soft? Too harsh? Too short? Too long?

Let’s say that the note was too sharp and too long with not enough of an attack to begin the note. Well, how sharp was it? A little? A lot? How much longer was the note than you wanted it to be? How much more of an attack did you want?

...So, why was the note sharp? What did you do? What do you need to do to make sure the note is perfectly in tune every time? How do you ensure that the length is just as you want it to be, and how do you get a consistently clean and clear attack to begin the note so it begins in the right character?

Now, let’s imagine you recorded all of this and could listen to how this last attempt sounded. Does that combination of ingredients give you the desired result?...

Few musicians take the time to stop, analyze what went wrong, why it happened, and how they can correct the error permanently.


How Many Hours a Day Should I Practice?
You will find that deliberate practice is very draining...Practicing more than one hour at a time is likely to be unproductive...Even the most dedicated individuals will find it difficult to practice more than four hours a day.

...there is essentially no benefit from practicing more than 4 hours per day, and that gains actually begin to decline after the 2-hour mark.

Keep practice sessions limited to a duration that allows you to stay focused. This may be... 10...minutes...and as long as...60 minutes.

Keep track of times during the day when you tend to have the most energy...Try to do your practicing during these naturally productive periods

Keep track of your practice goals and what you discover during your practice sessions...have a clear idea of the sound you want to produce...that you’d like to be able to execute consistently.

When you figure something out, write it down. As I practiced more mindfully, I began learning so much during practice sessions that if I didn’t write everything down, I’d forget.

There are...times...when we don’t need to practice harder, but need an altogether different strategy or technique.

I remember struggling with the left-hand pizzicato variation in Paganini’s 24th Caprice...I realized that there had to be a smarter, more effective way to accomplish my goal.

I tried to brainstorm different solutions to the problem...When I felt that I came up with some promising solutions, I just started experimenting. I eventually came up with a solution...

1.Define the problem (identify and articulate the specific issue)
2.Analyze the problem (identify root causes of the issue)
3.Identify potential solutions
4.Test the potential solutions to select the most effective one
5.Develop an action plan to implement the best solution
6.Monitor implementation (is it working as planned?)

...Any model which encourages smarter, more systematic, active thought, and clearly articulated goals will help cut down on wasted, ineffective practice time.

Labels: ,

Friday, October 08, 2010

King Stephen vs Matilda Succession Controversy (12th Century England)

Notes as of 9:35 PM 10/8/2010

Stephen was allegedly a norman only on the "spindle side" (mother's side). so also henry II ( ).

Stephen, the son of Stephen, Count of Blois and Adela, daughter of William I was born in about 1097.

Henry II was born in Le Mans, France, on 5 March 1133.[1] His father, Geoffrey V of Anjou (Geoffrey Plantagenet, son of Fulk of Jerusalem), was Count of Anjou and Count of Maine. His mother, Empress Matilda, was a claimant to the English throne as the daughter of Henry I (1100–1135), son of William The Conqueror, Duke of Normandy.

It was a Plantagenet who said, after one of their massacres, "from the devil we come and to the devil we go".

Henry II' Henry II, the great-grandson of William the Conqueror, was the first of the House of Plantagenet to rule England.
mother matilda, daughter of henry I, son of Conky.
on father's side, a Plantagenet. Henry was the first to use the title "King of England" (as opposed to "King of the English").

King Stephen
mother adela, daughter of conky
stephen, count of blois

there are lots of sycophantic descriptions of the great looks of henry II, a little derogatory stuff re the looks of king all smacks of feminists blindly siding with matilda, idiotically...

stephen was well established when matilda rebelled, and popular, and, a ...male...

the biased history vs stephen is refuted in

the constant prejudiced history is nauseating. "the time when christ and the angels slept" sounds poetic and dramatic, so the idiots write as if of course indeed this was a horrible time. They have no sense of exactitude regarding the crime and poverty that prevailed. For example, if the crime and poverty were twice what it usually was, that is different than it being ten times what it usually was, and, who can deny that during the middle ages, during every reign there was a certain level of crime and poverty?...the idiot historians find themselves incapable of blaming matilda for the crime and poverty that beset stephen's reign, though obviously, the cause of the crime and the poverty was matilda's all smacks of winners writing history, sycophants, and this day the english are feminine, enthralled by female royalty...wonder how much damage matilda's rebellion v stephen has caused in terms of setting loose a tidal wave of feminism that can still be felt today...the effeminate streak in the english charaacter, the femfag thing, has caused god knows how much damage.

Undoubtedly during every reign in english history, at some time, some men said that christ and his angels slept or something to that effect. So the historians are idiots. writing to please the line that became established as royal.

the idiot historians for some reason are willing to consider a couple of catchy snappy sounding anti-stephen quotations from persons who obviously had a motive to slander stephen because they lived under the reign of the rebellious matilda's son henry (matilda rebelled v stephen), as sufficient to condemn stephen. Unbelievable.

stephen was a grandson of conky via saint adela. matilda was a grandson of conky via a less distinguished sibling.

feminists are so often idiotically simple minded and shallow in their thinking. For example, they forget that stephen's mother was St Adela daughter of conky, in their mania for matilda daughter of henry who was son of conky. The argument v stephen was that he was the son of a daughter of conky, whereas his rival matilda was a daughter of a son of conky, this is an antifeminist argument. Yet, the feminists blindly rush to the support of matilda, because matilda was female and stephen was not.

The normans of the time were accustomed to male rulers, such had served them well. stephen being related to conky through his mother, whereas matilda was related to conky through her father, should not by nature and common sense and tradition have been the deciding factor. When stephen's mom and matilda's dad were on center stage, there was no confusion re who was king. But when confusion developed, the natural heir would be the male stephen not the female matilda.

Anarchy developed when the natural male succession was interrupted by the rebellious and untraditional matilda, who rebelled against the well established and well liked leader Stephen. Anarchy did not develop when female claimants refrained from rebelling against male heirs. This is not coincidence. It indicates that the cause of the anarchy was the aberration of a female rebelling against a male heir.

The idiot historians pile up lists of complaints re the alleged incompetence of king stephen, completely neglecting that perhaps stephen was forced into allegedly incompetent decisions, due to the pressure of matilda's rebellion. Sometimes in sports the pressure of the other team is such, that one is forced to choose alternatives that one would not choose in the absence of such pressure; and even when the alternative is chosen wisely, the outcome is not as favorable as it would be if this pressure from the opponents had never existed. Same principles apply to war. Yet the idiot historians write as if they had never played sports, and had none of the common sense boys derive from sports. Might this be because they are fem fag feminists with a mania for matilda? For example it never occurs to the idiot historians, when they complain about st stephen being too forgiving with rebels, that perhaps the reason he was so forgiving was the pressure matilda was bringing to bear on him. Beyond belief. They compare stephen to other kings and remark that he was too soft compared to these other kings who were better than him--all the while completely neglecting to conceptualize, that these other kings did not face internal rebellion and civil war.

If someone said that a leader of a nation that was attacked by a powerful competitor, and who had to expend vast resources to fight back the aggressor, was a worse leader than another leader of the same nation who did not have to expend resources to fight any aggressor, simply because the leader who did not face aggression was able to generate more internal prosperity than the leader who had to fight aggression, you would be right to say that the someone who said this stupid thing is an idiot.

When Henry I died in 1125 precipitating the succession crisis, Stephen was 29 years old, and Matilda was 23. In those days the world of ruling nations was a man's world. Matilda was 6 years younger than Stephen. Yet Matilda rebelled.

Stephen's mother adela daughter of conky was literally a canonized saint; but way of contrast, Matilda's father Henry, son of conky, was a philanderer ("Henry had no problem siring children. His problem was fathering legitimate offspring, who could inherit the throne." -- ) who produced no male heir, but rather lots of bastards! Henry was next in line after his brother Rufus, and seized the throne after Rufus was murdered!

Henry died in 1125
Matilda was born in 1102
stephen was born in 1196

they keep saying that stephen forgave men he should have executed as traitors. Yet their hero is matilda, chief
of the traitors!!!

Labels: , , , ,