Alt Right Torah – Parasha Ki Tavo

This week’s Torah portion covers Deuteronomy 26:1–29:8. Watch live.

* The eternal lament of my goy cohosts: “I should have been more prepared.” I’m amazed when they simply show up sober.

* The Puritans who came to America saw themselves as following in the footsteps of the Israelites.

* 26: “When you have entered the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance and have taken possession of it and settled in it…Then you shall declare before the Lord your God: “My father was a wandering Aramean, and he went down into Egypt with a few people and lived there and became a great nation, powerful and numerous. 6 But the Egyptians mistreated us and made us suffer, subjecting us to harsh labor. 7 Then we cried out to the Lord, the God of our ancestors, and the Lord heard our voice and saw our misery, toil and oppression. 8 So the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, with great terror and with signs and wonders. 9 He brought us to this place and gave us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey; 10 and now I bring the firstfruits of the soil that you, Lord, have given me.”

In this ritual, there’s the recapitulation of suffering at the hands of the goyim and then rejoicing that Jews have their own state. Any group can do this. They can remember their suffering at the hands of outsiders, and then rejoin at their autonomy. All victimologies contain a nationalism and all nationalisms contain the capacity for genocide. Imagine if white America regain controlled of their nation. They could recount the thousands of white victims raped and murdered by blacks, they could remember how vast swathes of the land they created became unfriendly to them, they could remember how low IQ immigrants debased everything they touched, they could remember how high IQ non-white immigrants ruled over them, they could remember the trillions of dollars of tax dollars transferred from whites to help low-achieving black and latinos, and they could rejoice that things have changed.

* 27:14 The Levites shall recite to all the people of Israel in a loud voice:

15 “Cursed is anyone who makes an idol—a thing detestable to the Lord, the work of skilled hands—and sets it up in secret.”

Then all the people shall say, “Amen!”

16 “Cursed is anyone who dishonors their father or mother.”

Then all the people shall say, “Amen!”

17 “Cursed is anyone who moves their neighbor’s boundary stone.”

Then all the people shall say, “Amen!”

18 “Cursed is anyone who leads the blind astray on the road.”

Then all the people shall say, “Amen!”

19 “Cursed is anyone who withholds justice from the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow.”

Then all the people shall say, “Amen!”

20 “Cursed is anyone who sleeps with his father’s wife, for he dishonors his father’s bed.”

Then all the people shall say, “Amen!”

21 “Cursed is anyone who has sexual relations with any animal.”

Then all the people shall say, “Amen!”

22 “Cursed is anyone who sleeps with his sister, the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother.”

Then all the people shall say, “Amen!”

23 “Cursed is anyone who sleeps with his mother-in-law.”

Then all the people shall say, “Amen!”

24 “Cursed is anyone who kills their neighbor secretly.”

Then all the people shall say, “Amen!”

25 “Cursed is anyone who accepts a bribe to kill an innocent person.”

Then all the people shall say, “Amen!”

26 “Cursed is anyone who does not uphold the words of this law by carrying them out.”

Then all the people shall say, “Amen!”

* KC writes: “Sorry I can’t join today. Boy, Deuteronomy 28 is a light unto the gentiles… My contribution would be to ask what is more likely: that Hashem sees American Jews as keeping the law and staying faithful, or that’s he sees them as idol worshippers under the spell of another culture? If the latter, we can expect destruction very soon, a reversal of power & servitude… I hope that doesn’t happen because I’m cheering for the Jews.”

If a goy wrote these curses, they’d be called anti-semitic. Which anti-semites in history were more anti-semitic than the Torah?

28:15 However, if you do not obey the Lord your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come on you and overtake you:

16 You will be cursed in the city and cursed in the country.

17 Your basket and your kneading trough will be cursed.

18 The fruit of your womb will be cursed, and the crops of your land, and the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks.

19 You will be cursed when you come in and cursed when you go out.

20 The Lord will send on you curses, confusion and rebuke in everything you put your hand to, until you are destroyed and come to sudden ruin because of the evil you have done in forsaking him.[a] 21 The Lord will plague you with diseases until he has destroyed you from the land you are entering to possess. 22 The Lord will strike you with wasting disease, with fever and inflammation, with scorching heat and drought, with blight and mildew, which will plague you until you perish. 23 The sky over your head will be bronze, the ground beneath you iron. 24 The Lord will turn the rain of your country into dust and powder; it will come down from the skies until you are destroyed.

25 The Lord will cause you to be defeated before your enemies. You will come at them from one direction but flee from them in seven, and you will become a thing of horror to all the kingdoms on earth. 26 Your carcasses will be food for all the birds and the wild animals, and there will be no one to frighten them away. 27 The Lord will afflict you with the boils of Egypt and with tumors, festering sores and the itch, from which you cannot be cured. 28 The Lord will afflict you with madness, blindness and confusion of mind. 29 At midday you will grope about like a blind person in the dark. You will be unsuccessful in everything you do; day after day you will be oppressed and robbed, with no one to rescue you.

30 You will be pledged to be married to a woman, but another will take her and rape her. You will build a house, but you will not live in it. You will plant a vineyard, but you will not even begin to enjoy its fruit. 31 Your ox will be slaughtered before your eyes, but you will eat none of it. Your donkey will be forcibly taken from you and will not be returned. Your sheep will be given to your enemies, and no one will rescue them. 32 Your sons and daughters will be given to another nation, and you will wear out your eyes watching for them day after day, powerless to lift a hand. 33 A people that you do not know will eat what your land and labor produce, and you will have nothing but cruel oppression all your days. 34 The sights you see will drive you mad. 35 The Lord will afflict your knees and legs with painful boils that cannot be cured, spreading from the soles of your feet to the top of your head.

36 The Lord will drive you and the king you set over you to a nation unknown to you or your ancestors. There you will worship other gods, gods of wood and stone. 37 You will become a thing of horror, a byword and an object of ridicule among all the peoples where the Lord will drive you.

38 You will sow much seed in the field but you will harvest little, because locusts will devour it. 39 You will plant vineyards and cultivate them but you will not drink the wine or gather the grapes, because worms will eat them. 40 You will have olive trees throughout your country but you will not use the oil, because the olives will drop off. 41 You will have sons and daughters but you will not keep them, because they will go into captivity. 42 Swarms of locusts will take over all your trees and the crops of your land.

43 The foreigners who reside among you will rise above you higher and higher, but you will sink lower and lower. 44 They will lend to you, but you will not lend to them. They will be the head, but you will be the tail.

45 All these curses will come on you. They will pursue you and overtake you until you are destroyed, because you did not obey the Lord your God and observe the commands and decrees he gave you. 46 They will be a sign and a wonder to you and your descendants forever. 47 Because you did not serve the Lord your God joyfully and gladly in the time of prosperity, 48 therefore in hunger and thirst, in nakedness and dire poverty, you will serve the enemies the Lord sends against you. He will put an iron yoke on your neck until he has destroyed you.

49 The Lord will bring a nation against you from far away, from the ends of the earth, like an eagle swooping down, a nation whose language you will not understand, 50 a fierce-looking nation without respect for the old or pity for the young. 51 They will devour the young of your livestock and the crops of your land until you are destroyed. They will leave you no grain, new wine or olive oil, nor any calves of your herds or lambs of your flocks until you are ruined. 52 They will lay siege to all the cities throughout your land until the high fortified walls in which you trust fall down. They will besiege all the cities throughout the land the Lord your God is giving you.

53 Because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you during the siege, you will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the Lord your God has given you. 54 Even the most gentle and sensitive man among you will have no compassion on his own brother or the wife he loves or his surviving children, 55 and he will not give to one of them any of the flesh of his children that he is eating. It will be all he has left because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you during the siege of all your cities. 56 The most gentle and sensitive woman among you—so sensitive and gentle that she would not venture to touch the ground with the sole of her foot—will begrudge the husband she loves and her own son or daughter 57 the afterbirth from her womb and the children she bears. For in her dire need she intends to eat them secretly because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you during the siege of your cities.

58 If you do not carefully follow all the words of this law, which are written in this book, and do not revere this glorious and awesome name—the Lord your God— 59 the Lord will send fearful plagues on you and your descendants, harsh and prolonged disasters, and severe and lingering illnesses. 60 He will bring on you all the diseases of Egypt that you dreaded, and they will cling to you. 61 The Lord will also bring on you every kind of sickness and disaster not recorded in this Book of the Law, until you are destroyed. 62 You who were as numerous as the stars in the sky will be left but few in number, because you did not obey the Lord your God. 63 Just as it pleased the Lord to make you prosper and increase in number, so it will please him to ruin and destroy you. You will be uprooted from the land you are entering to possess.

64 Then the Lord will scatter you among all nations, from one end of the earth to the other. There you will worship other gods—gods of wood and stone, which neither you nor your ancestors have known. 65 Among those nations you will find no repose, no resting place for the sole of your foot. There the Lord will give you an anxious mind, eyes weary with longing, and a despairing heart. 66 You will live in constant suspense, filled with dread both night and day, never sure of your life. 67 In the morning you will say, “If only it were evening!” and in the evening, “If only it were morning!”—because of the terror that will fill your hearts and the sights that your eyes will see. 68 The Lord will send you back in ships to Egypt on a journey I said you should never make again. There you will offer yourselves for sale to your enemies as male and female slaves, but no one will buy you.

* This seems to be the position of many whites in the West today: “You will be pledged to be married to a woman, but another will take her and rape her.” Women want a strong man. They’re sexually attracted to refugees who seem stronger than the domestic men they’ve known.

* Most of the curses in Deut. 28 seem like the consequences of multiculturalism. There’s confusion, attrition and worry. There will be strange diseases. “The foreigners who reside among you will rise above you higher and higher, but you will sink lower and lower.”

* Dennis Dale writes:

Appropriate that which is Appropriate

It’s important to understand we’re in the appropriation phase of “civil rights”, a period of wealth confiscation and privilege transfer from white to non-white. From culture to commerce new terms and limits are being rationalized as necessary racial justice as professions, cultural domains and even physical spaces are carved out from which whites are to be excluded. The language is all theory and romance (and sinister; at some point black “scholars” started talking about the white “role”in the New America to come) but the result is very much material and economic.

It began in earnest with the Obama Administration, and was well on its way to finalizing a sort of post-white order, with whites serving as a legacy oppressor even as their numbers dwindled. Most importantly it was about the orderly transfer of that wealth and power–it had to go to the right people after all. Needless to say Trump derailed all that, if only for the moment.

This is what all this talk of cultural appropriation and representation is about. It’s why Google is convulsing right now under its own attempts to transfer half of its employment opportunity to favored groups. It’s everywhere, and a proper economic analysis of its cost, and the costs to come if we continue on this path, would probably make our collective head explode.

* Dennis Dale writes:

I’m still at a loss to find what the Unite the Right rally organizers did that was legally or morally wrong. They are guilty of provocation. Antifa called their bluff. They should’ve known better. They hurt their own cause. All true. But they still did nothing objectively wrong. It’s astounding that in just half-acknowledging that, President Trump has had to show heroic fortitude. The moment he asks whatever foolish reporter the question that is supposed to be so outrageous–are we going after the Founders next?–was presidential–presidential now is raising your head above the muck of pc idiocy to ask a sensible question.

Do note none of those scoffing reactions to Trump’s so-outlandish suggestion Washington and Jefferson might be next, are coupled with the author’s declaration of opposition. He should have asked in return: do you approve of removing statues of the Founders (actually I think he did–did the reporter answer?)?

But regarding (what I believe is) Unite the Right’s innocence of criminal or moral culpability, I say things are dire enough that this must be all that guides you. That is, you cannot abandon anyone who shares the worthy goal of saving white America–and that’s what it is, sadly–because they’ve embarrassed you.

Still, I’m not saying people shouldn’t be mad. Richard Spencer and Unite the Right created a fait accompli for both sides. Things are different now. Accelerationists should be pleased.

It’s either the end of Trump, the end of the alt right, the end of Trump and the alt right, or, the end of the mainstream. They now “own” antifa. Or do they? Having banished so much of the country now from the moral high ground, there’s no one holding power accountable–there’s no real political opposition in this country. A stranded president and an inchoate movement trying to affect him.

The Left doesn’t so much as apologize for its militants, and neither should the Right–and I’m still not sure the Right has them in significant number. I sure wouldn’t put Spencer’s NPI or Unite the Right in that category. The Left has a violent street-fighting wing now and they don’t have to explain themselves to anyone.

* Dennis Dale writes:

Some things are more deservedly viral than others. This segment where the narrative gets away from CNN for instance. It appears Alisyn Camerota assembled a panel of Trump supporters for the purpose of affecting po-faced bemusement at each turn in their defense of Trump. I have a hard time believing she got anything other than what she expected; but she seems genuinely gobsmacked when not a one of them agrees the president’s remarks about Charlottesville are an outrage.

Watching her encounter with the Trump supporters feels like coming upon the exact spot, the fault-line between proscribed values–the “narrative”–and objective constitutional principle. And it’s the common man, not the elitist, counseling calm principle in the face of barely contained hysteria.

Camerota keeps putting it to them the way the media has been conditioning them to see it: when confronted with this question of guilt, it isn’t who did what, but who is who.
They put it back to her at the level of (what used to be) middle-school civics: it’s a question of who did what.

She’s lucky nobody pins her down on this fundamental point. Comically at points she dances around it–the guy in the suit says something about antifa setting fires and Camerota corrects him. They didn’t use “those tactics in Charlottesville”.

Now, distinguishing between arson and assault (and of course one resourceful Angry Black Man did, notoriously, bring a homemade flamethrower) here is something for which she should probably still be receiving a logical beat-down, but she was bailed out by the black woman who–rightly–says “I blame the government”.

Sure, she loses this exchange, after asking, with all the confidence of a Buzzfeed intern, “how do you blame the government for a white supremacist mowing down a crowd of people…”

There it is again. But what, she pleads, if it’s a white supremacist…? In destroying your ability to think objectively, political correctness destroys your ability to see context.

* As a Jewish nationalist, I have an inherent sympathy for all nationalisms. It would be wrong to want something for my people that I would not simultaneously wish for all people. At the same time, I recognize that Gentile nationalisms are usually bad for Jews.

If Jews have a strong sense of their group interest while they live in an individualist Gentile country, Jews are going to have a big advantage in the struggle for scarce resources.

White Protestant countries have been the most hospitable places for Jews because Protestantism (particularly white Protestantism) is individualistic. It’s all about individual salvation and the individual’s relationship with God. Jews are more collective (Jewish prayers are all in the plural, we pray for the well-being of our people) and so they can out-compete individualist strategies for power.

As a product of white Australia with sturdy Anglo-Saxon genes who nonetheless converted to Orthodox Judaism in California, I find myself fascinated by P.R. Stephensen’s following essay from 1940.

To the extent that Australia and other countries restricted during immigration during the 1930s, that many more Jews would die in the Holocaust.

So do his arguments have any merit? Do white interests contradict Jewish interests? Do Australian interests contradict Jewish interests?

There’s nothing here about Jews being inherently bad or inferior. It’s just a fair dinkum laying out of inherent group conflicts between Jews and Gentiles.

I’m struck by the fair-minded tone of Stephensen’s arguments. They can hardly be called irrational or bigoted. They seem commonsensical. They don’t read like the product of unhinged hatred. That’s what makes them so uncomfortable for me. I don’t have any good argument against them.

P.R. Stephensen wrote:

It is often arbitrarily assumed, by persons who are themselves irrationally prejudiced in favor of Semitism, that Antisemitism is based on irrational prejudices. Probably very few political students appreciate the fact that Politics is an art rather than a science, and that prejudice enters into political judgments, just as it enters into aesthetic judgments. When I say that I like Gruner’s paintings, and that I do not like Epstein’s sculptures, I give verbal expression to value-judgments which cannot be proved wrong, by any process of logic. Such value-judgments are peculiar to individuals, and their validity is conditioned by that fact. If your opinions differ from mine, we may avoid further disputation by seeking solace in ancient saws, such as quot homines, tot sententiae, or even de gustibus non disputandum—thereby proving incidentally that the matter of prejudice-judgments has been reflected upon by human beings prior to our present epoch.

When Politics is regarded as an art rather than as a science, its value-judgments also become recognized as prejudices, rather than as irrefutable axioms bearing “objective” validity. The greatest confusion in the modern world has arisen from the attempts of Hegel, Karl Marx, and their successors to rationalize human history too rigidly in terms of an abstraction named “Man,” without making sufficient allowances for the undescribable factor which differentiates man from man, and men from men. This is the factor which emerges suddenly—and, to the Marxians, disconcertingly—as it did in Italy, for example, with Mussolini’s counter to the Communist émeute. Similarly, in Germany, the emergence of consciously-stated “blood and race” doctrines, among Gentiles, was something quite unprovided-for in the Marxian schematic. These modern instances should suffice to warn those who would approach Politics as an abstract science of idealization that there is, in human behavior, an unpredictable factor—of instinct, emotion, or prejudice—which is likely to operate, in times of crisis, in disregard of the hypothesizing usual in academic text-books. Any one in Australia to-day who, being a student of politics, refuses to take cognizance of the fact that there is a rising feeling of Antisemitism, of comparatively recent origin and growth, in our community, is overlooking one of the signs of that “unknown factor x” which so often brings academically-reasoned politics to futility. It is not a question whether Antisemitism should, or should not, exist. The fact is that it does exist; and it exists, precisely, as a prejudice, or a set of prejudices, against Jews. In approaching the subject, we must bear in mind that prejudices—even when recognized as such, are irrational, and therefore irrefutable. The value-judgment, “I like Jews,” is merely antithetic to its opposite value-judgment, “I don’t like Jews”; and disputation almost necessarily ends on “an agreement to differ”—or, in extreme cases, in an appeal ad baculam, the age-old recourse of irreconcilables. The middle way of thought, “I don’t like Jews, but I tolerate them,” is a hazy compromise which, though common enough among non-Jews, merely shirks the issue, or leaves it in abeyance.

It is not my intention here to malign Jews, and still less to appeal for their “persecution.” My concern is solely to exhibit the phenomenon of Antisemitism, considering this as a socio-political tendency which actually exists in many countries, including Australia. I seek not to justify it, so much as to explain it; and the most I shall claim for it is that it has a conditional validity, considered as a form of political activity. Semitism and Antisemitism, as counteracting forces within the body politic, are like toxin and antitoxin: their presence is abnormal, and indicates a pathological condition. To put this in another way, the twin topics of Semitism and Antisemitism are political aberrations: they cannot be made to conform to the ordinary rules of political discourse. Essentially, Jews are a minority, self-differentiated as such, a Race Apart not only from the rest of mankind, speaking generally, but also from any particular community in the midst of which they may reside. This fact makes the usual postulates of political discussion—namely, universal humanitarianism, or, alternately, the welfare of a National Unit, considered as a Whole—inapplicable to the Jewish Question. It is absurd for Jews to preach (as many of them do) that men are all of one Kind, while this preachment is belied by the fact that the Jews themselves, by their own Choice, remain a different Kind from all other kinds of men. Similarly it would be absurd for Jews to preach the welfare and advancement of any one nation as a paramount political consideration, while holding themselves racially apart from the majority in that nation. It can never be true that “all men are brothers,” either within one nation or in the world at large, while Jews continue to practice an extreme form of biological differentiation through rigid selective breeding.

Jews cannot “have it both ways.” They cannot expect to be listened-to with respect when they preach to Gentiles the Universal Oneness of Mankind, while at the same time they, as Jews, remain a Race Apart. It is when this discrepancy between their words and their actions is recognized, that Jews become disliked by non-Jews. Nobody likes to be humbugged, either by financial confidence-tricks, or by metaphysical and political verbal play. In brief, if Jews are going to persist in keeping themselves racially apart from the rest of mankind or from a particular nation, then they should also keep themselves politically apart. The Antisemite brings this point of view to the fore. He starts from the same premise as the Jews themselves—namely that the Jews, by their deliberate practice of Racialism, are differentiated from non-Jews. But, as soon as this differentiation is accepted as an unalterable fact, and is brought to the full consciousness of non-Jews, a prejudice is created against Jews, in the minds of non-Jews, which makes a further dispassionate or detached discussion of the entire topic virtually impossible. The implication of the Jewish practice of Racialism is unmistakably Themselves First—Themselves versus the Rest. Once understood, that constitutes a challenge to the Rest of Us which cannot conscientiously be disregarded.

The discussion, then, comes down to prejudice versus prejudice, the result of a clash of interests which cannot be resolved by any form of words. Carried further, this means propaganda versus propaganda—a process termed, by both sides, “enlightenment.” The most honest thing to do is to avow the prejudice, and stand on it. As a non-Jew, I avow that my prejudices are non-Jewish; and this means that, in any conflict of interests between Jews, on the one hand, and non-Jews on the other, my instincts place me naturally in the non-Jewish camp. When I see an organized minority of Jews, actuated by their self-interest, engaging in operations for their own sectional self-aggrandizement as against the interests of the community-as-a-whole or of the non-Jewish majority in it, then, as a non-Jew, I claim the same right to organize non-Jews as the Jews have claimed and obtained to organize themselves. The political validity of Antisemitism is thus on a plane no higher, or no lower, than that of Antisemitism; for, if there were no Semitism, there would be no need of Antisemitism to counteract it. While organized Semitism operates as a political activity in Australia, there can surely be no logical objection, among “Liberal” political thinkers, to the existence of the counteracting, or counter-balancing, activity of Antisemitism—provided always that the antidote is merely of sufficient strength to neutralize the irritant, and does not in itself become toxic.

In other words, Antisemitism claims validity as a measure of defense, among non-Jews, against a Jewish aggression. To examine the matter concretely: it is estimated that there are 35,000 Jews at most in Australia, comprising approximately one-half of one percent of the community. Normally, it could not seriously be suggested that one-half of one percent of a population could menace the remaining 99½ percent; but present-day circumstances are peculiar. Hitler’s boast that “if the Jews succeed in creating a European War against Germany, then the sequel will be the removal of the Jewish Race from Europe” contains at least an implied threat to Australians that some of the Jews removed from Europe will be sent, or will come, here, if Hitler’s prognostication proves correct. Moreover, they would be welcomed here, if we are to judge by resolutions passed at meetings of influential public bodies, including Churches and Labor Organizations, and by continuous propaganda in the press, reminding us of our falling birthrate, our vast open spaces, and the necessity for the immigration of cultured Jews—who, we are told, would make excellent farm-laborers. The exodus from Europe, towards Australia as a promised land, has indeed already commenced, and shows no sign of diminishing. It is therefore reasonable to suppose that the percentage of Jews in the Australian community will very soon be considerably increased. Even so, they would not be likely to swamp us by weight of numbers—but the problem they present is not solely statistical and quantitative. The Jews themselves have a legend of David and Goliath which illustrates the fact that the small may bring down the great by using suitable weapons. The overwhelming preponderance of non-Jews, as compared with Jews, in Australia, as everywhere else, is an indication of the fact that the Jewish Question, or Jewish Problem, as it is called, is not one of numbers, but of something else. Why is there a Jewish Problem? For whom is it a Problem—Jews or Gentiles? Are Jews a Problem to themselves, or only to non-Jews?

To state it succinctly: Antisemitism arises in any community when the influence of the Jewish minority becomes so grossly disproportionate to the percentage of Jews in that community as to give rise to an anomaly…

So the issue will be joined, and no amount of Prosemitic plausibility will conceal the fact that the fundamental antagonism, between Jews and non-Jews, here as everywhere else, is created by Jewish Exclusiveness—the refusal to be absorbed. This goes to the heart of the matter, and, compared with it, all other trends of Antisemitic argument are merely superficial. It is well-known that there are many Jews who are good citizens, honest and cultured, despite the reputation of the generality of their Kind of being financially “tricky,” unscrupulous, and parasitical. That there are intellectual and sensitive Jews is also as well-known as that there are many “Flash Yids” who degrade and debase public culture. No case can be made against Jews generally, except the one I have outlined, namely that their insistence upon Racial self-segregation is anti-social, considered from the point of view of the community-as-a-whole. We cannot concede to them in Australia a right which, if conceded in perpetuity to other types of immigrants, such as Italians, Germans, Danes, Irish, Scots, would lead to the sectionalizing of the community and its disunification.

Permissive heterogeneity in Australia would lead ultimately to the dissolution of the nation. If every other type of immigrant forgoes the sectional advantages of minority segregation (at least, in practice, after a couple of generations of Caledonianism, Hibernianism, Mafia, and the like), then there can be no valid reason why the Jews should not do the same—and, if they are not prepared to do so, they should not be allowed to land.

About Luke Ford

I've written five books (see My work has been followed by the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and 60 Minutes. I teach Alexander Technique in Beverly Hills (
This entry was posted in Torah. Bookmark the permalink.