Most Jews Don’t Have A Rabbi

There’s this notion among non-Jews that every Jew has a rabbi directing him.

That’s not how it works.

Just as most Christians are not mentored by a pastor or priest, most Jews also do their own thing. A Jew or Christian goes to their house of worship every week and in most cases, they don’t take much direction from their clergy.

Some Jews do have an allegiance to a particular rabbi, an allegiance that often amounts to direction in certain parts of his life (and occasionally in all areas of his life). I’d say that accounts for fewer than 10% of Jews. A Hasid never publicly disagrees with his rebbe. Hasidim are more guided by their rebbe than other Jews are by their rabbi. Hasidim account for about 5% of Jews.

Rabbis, like other groups, are usually fighting for more power. They often flatter themselves that they direct their congregants. This is usually an illusion.

I remember sitting in my Orthodox shul about ten years ago and the rabbi mentioned in his sermon that we had chosen him as our spiritual leader. I thought, what? No way! I chose this particular synagogue for various reasons, but I did not agree with the rabbi about many things, and when I sought guidance from a rabbi, I went elsewhere.

Just because a particular rabbi oversees one’s conversion to Judaism does not mean that that rabbi exerts pull over you. Conversion to Judaism is rarely a spiritual process. It is usually a prosaic one and it is rarely any fun for the would-be convert. Not many converts develop particular affection for their Av Beit Din (head of the Jewish law court overseeing their conversion).

Washington Post:

Ivanka Trump’s rabbi ‘deeply troubled’ by president’s response to Charlottesville

By Derek Hawkins August 17 at 3:27 AM

A head rabbi at Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner’s New York City synagogue denounced President Trump’s response to the deadly white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, joining a chorus of political and religious leaders who say the president was wrong to blame “both sides” for the violence.

In a letter Wednesday to his congregation, Rabbi Haskel Lookstein wrote that his community had been “consumed” by the “frightening message and fallout” from the hate-fueled mayhem that left one woman dead and others injured last weekend.

“We are appalled by this resurgence of bigotry and antisemitism, and the renewed vigor of the neo-Nazis, KKK and alt-right,” read the letter, which was signed by Lookstein and two other rabbis. “While we always avoid politics, we are deeply troubled by the moral equivalency and equivocation President Trump has offered in his response to this act of violence.”

“We pray that our country heeds the voices of tolerance, and stays true to its vision of human rights and civil rights,” it read.

Posted in Conversion, Rabbis | Comments Off on Most Jews Don’t Have A Rabbi

What Is A Nazi?

I see the term “Nazi” thrown around a lot these days.

I learned in Political Science classes in college that Nazism was a uniquely German phenomenon. You cannot be non-German and a Nazi just as no matter how much you love Judaism, if you are not born of a Jewish mother or converted through a recognized beit din (Jewish law court), you are not Jewish.

What made Nazism a party of the right and not the left was that it believed in human inequality.

Just as neo-conservatives aren’t conservative, neo-nazis aren’t Nazis. Just as neo-Hasidism isn’t Hasidic, neo-nazism isn’t Nazism. People called “neo-nazis” are more accurately described as ethno-nationalists (unless they seek to be known as neo-nazis) just as most Jews are ethno-nationalists (as normative Judaism is ethno-nationalism with Zion its home, and according to Torah, there is no room for non-Jewish citizens in the Jewish state).

“Neo-Nazi” in general usage has no meaning. It is purely a slur. The Unite the Right march in Charlottsville on Saturday was not neo-nazi and had nothing to do with Nazism (even if a few marchers waived that flag). White nationalists who do the Nazi thing are sending a message to the low IQ to rally for their race. It’s a short-hand for white nationalism. Take these guys seriously but not literally. For example, Holocaust denial has nothing to do with the number of Jews who died in WWII, but rather is a denial that Jews have ever been 100% the innocent party in group conflicts and denial that the Holocaust is the supreme event in history through which all else must be viewed.

According to Wikipedia:

Neo-Nazism consists of post-World War II social or political movements seeking to revive the ideology of Nazism.[1] The term neo-Nazism can also refer to the ideology of these movements.[2]

Neo-Nazism borrows elements from Nazi doctrine, including ultranationalism, racism, ableism, xenophobia, homophobia, antiziganism, antisemitism, and initiating the Fourth Reich. Holocaust denial is a common feature, as is the incorporation of Nazi symbols and admiration of Adolf Hitler.

Neo-Nazi activity is a global phenomenon, with organized representation in many countries, as well as international networks. In some European and Latin American countries, laws have been enacted that prohibit the expression of pro-Nazi, racist, anti-Semitic or homophobic views. Many Nazi-related symbols are banned in European countries in an effort to curtail neo-Nazism.

Let’s take a closer look at the ideological foundations of neo-nazism according to Wikipedia. “Ultranationalism” is a natural and normal human reaction and in many cases, adaptive. “Racism” is a natural and normal human reaction and in many cases, adaptive. “Ableism” is a natural and normal human reaction and in many cases, adaptive. “Xeno-phobia” is a natural and normal human reaction and in many cases, adaptive. “Homophobia” is a natural and normal human reaction and in many cases, adaptive. Antiziganism (hatred of gypsies) is a natural and normal human reaction and in many cases, adaptive. “Antisemitism” is a natural and normal human reaction and in many cases, adaptive (in that it gives gentiles an edge when competing with Jews for resources). In other words, it strikes me that what is called “neo-nazism” is the natural human condition. Without the guardrails constructed by Jews, humanity’s natural default politics is something like “neo-nazism.” On the other hand, the common wisdom in America (and the West) prior to the 1960s, was ultra-nationalist, racist, ableist, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-gypsy, and antisemitic. So was 1950s America neo-nazi? That’s ludicrous. Therefore, my earlier point holds — “neo-nazi” has no objective meaning except as a slur (and as a self-description for those non-Germans who like to dress up as real Nazis).

So why is there so much effort to curtail neo-Nazism? Because nationalism is the natural organizing principle for most people and all nationalisms contain the capacity for genocide and Europe is sick of genocide at the hands of nationalists.

Wikipedia notes:

National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus), more commonly known as Nazism (/ˈnɑːtsɪzəm, ˈnæ-/[1]), is the ideology and set of practices associated with the 20th-century German Nazi Party, Nazi Germany, and other far-right groups. Sometimes characterised as a form of fascism that incorporates scientific racism and antisemitism, Nazism’s development was influenced by German nationalism (especially Pan-Germanism), the Völkisch movement and the anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary groups that emerged during the Weimar Republic after Germany’s defeat in First World War.

Nazism subscribed to theories of racial hierarchy and Social Darwinism, identifying the Germans as a part of what the Nazis regarded as an Aryan or Nordic master race.[2] It aimed to overcome social divisions and create a German homogeneous society based on racial purity which represented a people’s community (Volksgemeinschaft). The Nazis aimed to unite all Germans living in historically German territory, as well as gain additional lands for German expansion under the doctrine of Lebensraum, and exclude those who they deemed either community aliens or “inferior” races. The term “National Socialism” arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of “socialism”, as an alternative to both international socialism and free market capitalism. Nazism rejected the Marxist concept of class conflict, opposed cosmopolitan internationalism, and sought to convince all parts of the new German society to subordinate their personal interests to the “common good” and accept political interests as the main priority of economic organization.[3]

The Nazi Party’s precursor, the Pan-German nationalist and antisemitic German Workers’ Party, was founded on 5 January 1919. By the early 1920s, Adolf Hitler assumed control of the organization and renamed it the National Socialist German Workers’ Party to broaden its appeal. The National Socialist Program, adopted in 1920, called for a united Greater Germany that would deny citizenship to Jews or those of Jewish descent, while also supporting land reform and the nationalization of some industries. In Mein Kampf, written in 1924, Hitler outlined the antisemitism and anti-communism at the heart of his political philosophy, as well as his disdain for parliamentary democracy and his belief in Germany’s right to territorial expansion.

In 1933, with the support of traditional conservative nationalists, Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany and the Nazis gradually established a one-party state, under which Jews, political opponents and other “undesirable” elements were marginalised, and eventually, several million people were imprisoned and killed. Hitler purged the party’s more socially and economically radical factions in the mid-1934 Night of the Long Knives and, after the death of President Hindenburg, political power was concentrated in his hands, and he became Germany’s head of state with the title of Führer or “leader”. Following the Holocaust and Germany’s defeat in World War II, only a few fringe racist groups, usually referred to as neo-Nazis, still describe themselves as followers of National Socialism…

Following Nazi Germany’s defeat in World War II and the end of the Holocaust, overt expressions of support for Nazi ideas were prohibited in Germany and other European countries. Nonetheless, movements which self-identify as National Socialist or which are described as adhering to National Socialism continue to exist on the fringes of politics in many western societies. Usually espousing a white supremacist ideology, many deliberately adopt the symbols of Nazi Germany.

Few if any of the marchers in the Unite the Right rally in Charlottsville were Nazis. The march had no concern with Germany. A few marches adopted Nazi symbols, but just as a man who cuts off his penis and gets breast implants does not change his DNA into that of a woman, so too Americans with no connection to Germany can not become Nazis by adopting Nazi slogans and rituals.

As for the term “neo-Nazi”, it is thrown around so much for such a disparate group of people that it has no meaning. Exactly how is “neo-Nazi” useful for understanding the world today? I don’t see it.

What about the term “fascist”? According to Wikipedia: “Since the end of World War II in 1945, few parties have openly described themselves as fascist, and the term is instead now usually used pejoratively by political opponents. The descriptions neo-fascist or post-fascist are sometimes applied more formally to describe parties of the far right with ideologies similar to, or rooted in, 20th century fascist movements.” It sounds like the word is similar to “Nazi” in the sense that it is usually used as a slur.

I’ve found that 99% of the time I hear someone fling around the terms “Nazi” and “fascist”, it indicates that they don’t want to think hard. They just want to call names. Name-calling is not an honorable form of argument. There are only two honorable forms of argument — to dispute over facts and logic.

Wikipedia notes that Nazism “aimed to overcome social divisions and create a German homogeneous society based on racial purity which represented a people’s community (Volksgemeinschaft).” That sounds like a ton of different tribal approaches to life, including Judaism (aka the amcha).

A Google News search for the term “neo-nazi” shows 1,460,000 recent results.

So would Americans choose nationalism if they could? I suspect yes. Would they choose nationalism combined with economic populism? I suspect yes. Would they choose national socialism if they had the choice? I suspect that in America today, national socialism would have as much chance of winning elections as any other ideology (so long as it disassociated itself from Nazism, which is uniquely German).

So why the hysteria about neo-nazis? I think much of the hate is from Jews or it is influenced by Jews. They see a revival of Nazi Germany and that frightens them. Jews are an international people and gentile nationalisms limit their influence and threaten their survival.

Until Donald Trump, Americans never had the option of voting for a nationalist for president. Jews, like all groups, love nationalism for themselves, but fear it in others. Nationalism is a fantastic organizing principle and when people become nationalistic, they become more formidable competitors. Choices that were not possible before nationalism (such as excluding outsiders) become easy.

Peoples who don’t choose nationalism are cucks. They’re easy pickings. On the other hand, nationalism is dangerous. All nationalisms contain the capacity for genocide and the West in particular is sick of genocide at the hands of nationalists.

How many Americans watch Nazism according to Wikipedia to determine if the Alt Right is Nazi-like or Nazi light. “Nazism subscribed to theories of racial hierarchy and Social Darwinism.” Anyone on the Alt Right has to be a race realist, has to understand that the different races have different gifts. This last phrase is different from Nazism’s racial hierarchy. Nazism apparently believes in superior and inferior races while the Alt Right agrees that the races have different gifts. The Nazis (and communists) hated IQ tests because Jews excelled Aryans. The Alt Right does not hate IQ tests. The Alt Right is dominantly a white thing and all white Alt Right intellectuals accept that Ashkenazi Jews have the highest IQ of any group, and that east asians have higher average IQs than whites, more family stability and lower crime and STD rates. So the Alt Right feels no need to posit that whites are superior in anything including intelligence. The Alt Right does not need to claim superiority for their people to prefer their own kind and to want their people to live and have sovereignty in the countries they created (such as the United States, Canada, England, Australia, New Zealand, etc). Some segments of the Alt Right have a particular affinity with Nordics or Aryans over all other whites but they are a minority. Like Nazism, some segments of the the Alt Right want to overcome social divisions and other segments don’t care about social divisions. The hardcore Alt Right are ethno-nationalists, but only a tiny number of the Alt Right are concerned with racial purity. Also, only a small number of the Alt Right want to unite all white people. Most members of the Alt Right would regard that as utopian and are more focused on the well-being of their particular nation. Unlike Nazism, the Alt Right is not expansionist. Few members of the Alt Right want to conquer and rule over other races. Like the Nazis, most members of the Alt Right have a developed group identity around race, prefer their own kind, and are willing to privilege their own race over other races. The Alt Right today has no particular economic policy, though the more hardcore Alt Right see such questions as determined by what is best for their particular race, which will be a combination of capitalism and socialism. Like Nazism, the Alt Right hates communism, opposes cosmopolitan internationalism, and generally agrees that individual happiness is less important than the common good (as does Judaism). In conclusion, the Alt Right has some things in common with the ideological foundations of Nazism in the same sense that 1950s America had some things in common with Nazism. Like the Nazis, the Alt Right sides with the theory of gravity. It accepts Darwinism. Overall, however, the Alt Right is more reflective of 1950s Australia or America than it of Nazism. It may well be closer to Judaism (putting the interests of the nation first) than to Nazism.

Posted in Nazi | Comments Off on What Is A Nazi?

NYT: ‘Down the Breitbart Hole’

Wil S. Hylton writes for the New York Times Sunday Magazine:

After losing Bannon and Gorka and Hahn to the White House; accepting the resignation of Yiannopoulos, who was caught advocating statutory rape; and firing the editor Katie McHugh over a string of odious tweets, Alex has left himself with a roster of writers who are startlingly inoffensive.

Because he’s writing in the New York Times, Wil S. Hylton has no need to explain what was odious about Katie McHugh’s tweets. He can just hurl slurs and that counts as big league journalism. That’s a sweet gig if you can get it. Honorable argument, needless to say, consists solely of contesting facts and logic. Any other type of argument is not honorable, but Wil S. Hylton and the New York Times have no moral constraints. They can hit as low as they want.

Then there’s the execrable headline about young Muslims being ‘‘time bombs.’

And what is execrable about that headline? Once again, Wil S. Hylton and the New York Times feel no need to make an argument. They just hurl slurs and call it journalism.

Posted in Journalism | Comments Off on NYT: ‘Down the Breitbart Hole’

WAPO Media Columnist: ‘This week should put the nail in the coffin for ‘both sides’ journalism’

Margaret Sullivan (former ombud for the New York Times) writes for the Washington Post: “During the 2016 presidential campaign, the national news media’s misguided sense of fairness helped equate the serious flaws of Hillary Clinton with the disqualifying evils of Donald Trump.”

Evil is a moral judgment that requires a shared faith. Without a shared faith in a transcendent source of morality such as God, there is no objective right and wrong. If Donald Trump is evil, then what word would you use to describe Joseph Stalin or Chairman Mao?

“In the aftermath of last weekend’s disaster in Charlottesville, [Trump] is being widely criticized for treating white supremacists and those who protest them as roughly equal.”

Very few if any of the marchers to preserve Southern heritage last Saturday were “white supremacists.” That’s just a slur. The Antifa weren’t protesting them as much as they were beating them. There’s a long ugly history of antifa violence.

Sullivan: “Journalists should indeed stand for some things. They should stand for factual reality.”

Such as racial differences in IQs?

Posted in America, Journalism | Comments Off on WAPO Media Columnist: ‘This week should put the nail in the coffin for ‘both sides’ journalism’

Why Do They Hate the South and Its Symbols?

Paul Gottfried on Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. — March 3, 2007:

Those Southern secessionists whose national flag we are now celebrating have become identified not only with a lost cause but with a now publicly condemned one. Confederate flags have been removed from government and educational buildings throughout the South, while Confederate dignitaries whose names and statues once adorned monuments and boulevards are no longer deemed as fit for public mention.

The ostensible reason for this obliteration or dishonoring of Southern history, save for those civil rights victories that came in the second half of the twentieth century, has been the announced rejection of a racist society, a development we are persistently urged to welcome. During the past two generations or so, the South, we have been taught, was a viciously insensitive region, and the Southern cause in 1861 was nothing so much as the attempt to perpetuate the degradation of blacks through a system based on racial slavery. We are being told that we should therefore rejoice at the reconstructing of Southern society and culture in a way that excludes, and indeed extirpates from our minds, except as an incentive to further white atonement, the pre-civil rights past, also known as “the burden of Southern history.” This last, frequently encountered phrase is from the title of a famous study of the South by C. Vann Woodward, who in his time was a liberal-minded Southern historian.

Arguments can be raised to refute or modify the received account of Southern history now taught in our public schools and spread by leftist and neoconservative journalists. One can point to the fact that a crushing federal tariff falling disproportionately on Southern states contributed to the sectional hostilities that led to the Southern bid for independence. One can also bring up the willingness of Southern leaders to free blacks and even to put them in grey uniforms, as the price of the freedom that Southerners were seeking from Northern control. And even if one deplores slavery, this commendable attitude, which was also shared by some Confederate leaders, does not justify the federal invasion of the South, with all of its attendant killing and depredation. That invasion took place, moreover, in violation of a right to secede, with which several states, including Virginia, had entered the Union.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Why Do They Hate the South and Its Symbols?