August 7, 2015 The Noble Lie Luke Ford No sacred cows.

The Noble Lie

Posted on August 7, 2015 by Luke Ford

1. Amichai Markowitz called my attention to a talmudic text that I overlooked. Nedarim 23b states: “The Tanna has intentionally obscured the law, in order that vows should not be lightly treated.” This relates to the issue of the truth not being made available to all. See also Kovetz Iggerot Hazon Ish, vol. 2, no. 78, that one should not reveal to the masses that the Sages forbade things that the Torah permitted.[22]

2. R. Joseph Ibn Caspi writes that at times it is appropriate for members of the intellectual elite to lie.[23] This explains how Joseph lied to his brothers when he accused them of being spies (Gen. 42:9). In support of this view Ibn Caspi cites both Maimonides and Aristotle.[24] The mention of Maimonides no doubt refers to the latter’s notion of “necessary beliefs”

…In the next issue of Masorah le-Yosef my article on “necessary beliefs” will appear. In this article I discuss how Maimonides and other figures say things that do not reflect their true opinion, but are merely “necessary beliefs”, i.e., “beliefs” that the masses should accept but which are not really true at all. If these authorities think that the masses can be fed false ideas when it comes to theology, why should halakhah be any different?

…9. See R. Mordechai Eliasburg, Shevil ha-Zahav (Warsaw, 1897), p. 27-28, who claims that both Nahmanides and R. Jacob Emden recorded things in their writings that they did not really believe.

10. R. Chaim Sunitzky called my attention to R. Israel Weltz, Divrei Yisrael, vol. 3, no. 170, who doesn’t see such a problem with false stories if they lead people in a good direction.

Posted in Marc B. Shapiro, Orthodoxy | Comments Off

Artscroll Prints The Censored Talmud

Posted on August 7, 2015 by Luke Ford

Marc B. Shapiro blogs July 29, 2015:

ArtScroll is still worried about creating anti-Semitism and thus continues to print a censored Talmud. While I think everyone agrees that the ArtScroll Talmud translation is a masterpiece, opinions will obviously differ as to whether ArtScroll made a mistake in not restoring the Talmud to its pre-censorship state.

ArtScroll’s approach is different than that of other publishers who are very happy that they can now include the complete uncensored words of the Talmud.

…Sanhedrin 43a has a number of lines dealing with the execution of Jesus and his disciples. While the entire section is found in Soncino (in translation), Steinsaltz, Wagshal and Oz ve-Hadar, it is not to be found in ArtScroll. Both the English and Hebrew editions of ArtScroll tell the reader that a section has been deleted from the Vilna Shas. However, in Sanhedrin 67a, where another section has been deleted and is found in the other editions just mentioned, ArtScroll does not inform the reader of the deletion.

An allusion to the Sanhedrin 67a text is found in Va-Avo ha-Yom el ha-Ayin, attributed to R. Jonathan Eybeschuetz. This explosive text, which remained in manuscript for almost three hundred years, has just appeared in print, edited by Pawel Maciejko.[5] Va-Avo ha-Yom el ha-Ayin is very important to understanding the controversy over R. Eybeschuetz. (I hope that the manuscript Gahalei Esh, a treasure trove of documents dealing with eighteenth-century Sabbatianism, will also soon appear in a scholarly edition.) Quite apart from the radical theological notions found in Va-Avo ha-Yom el ha-Ayin, Maciejko describes the work as follows: “[I]t is blatantly pornographic (in fact, it is possibly the only truly pornographic text ever written in the rabbinic idiom.)”[6]
Speaking of pornography let me add the following. Not long ago I was visiting a certain synagogue for Shabbat. When it came time for Torah reading I took out the chumash that was near me. It happened to be the one published by R. Aryeh Kaplan. I actually am not a fan of this chumash for use in synagogue as its focus is entirely philological, and doesn’t deal with any of the issues that a typical person would want explained in reviewing the Torah portion. But this was what I had so I used it. In Exodus 35:22 an unusual word appears: כומז. It means some sort of golden bodily ornament. The word also appears in Numbers 31:50. According to the Exodus passage, this was one of the items the Israelites in the desert donated at the time of the building of the Tabernacle. The passage is Numbers refers to booty taken from the Midianites. Among the different interpretations Kaplan offers for כומז is “a pornographic sculpture.” This is quoted in the name of R. Aaron Alrabi (fifteenth century). I was quite shocked when I saw this and later saw that this interpretation is also quoted by R. Kasher in Torah Shelemah, which must have been where Kaplan saw it…

What this means is that the item in question had a picture of a woman’s private parts. The Israelite women would have their husbands look at it in order to sexually excite them before they had marital relations. Since this pornographic viewing was for a good purpose, it was permitted for these items to be donated for use in building the Tabernacle…

Soncino translates this as “cast of the womb” and ArtScroll translates it the exact same way. Koren translates “a mold [in the shape] of the womb.” In general I would say that disagreeing with these three translations is not a smart thing to do, yet in this case I must do just that. The translations I have cited are incorrect as they do not reflect what the Talmud is saying. בית הרחם in Shabbat 64a does not mean “womb” but rather something else. In order not to cause problems for those with internet filters I won’t spell it out completely, but I think the reader already understands…

The very text in Shabbat 64a also lets us know that this matter has nothing to do with a “womb”, as immediately following the explanation of דפוס של בית הרחם the Talmud explains that the wordכומז is an acronym of כאן מקום זימה “here is the place of lewdness”, and there is no issue of lewdness with the womb. ArtScroll itself, in its note on this latter passage, explains the matter well: “The place encased by this ornament is the part of the body which is the focus of lewdness.” In other words, in its commentary ArtScroll tells us that we are not dealing with the womb at all, but with another part of a woman’s anatomy. As such, it was a mistake for ArtScroll in its translation to adopt Soncino’s rendering of כומז as “cast of the womb”.
In his commentary to Berakhot 24a s.v. תכשיטין שבפנים, Rashi explains that a כומז is a chastity belt. From the context of this talmudic passage we see that it also had ornamental significance…

In its commentary, ibid., ArtScroll summarizes Rashi as follows: “The kumaz was an ornament that covered a woman’s private parts.”

Returning to the matter of “pornographic viewing” as described by Alrabi, I wonder if this could also have halakhic significance. I mention this only because of the controversy some years ago by an answer given by R. Shlomo Aviner that in a she’at ha-dehak (i.e., there are serious marital sexual issues) it would be permitted for a husband and wife to together view explicit pictures in a book. See here.

The entire conversation with R. Aviner was a set-up, and the anti-Aviner website used it to attack R. Aviner, and portray him as permitting viewing of pornography. Yet it is obvious that he was referring to sexual self-help books (which would have explicit pictures) since he refers to books found in Steimatzky. R. Moses Feinstein had earlier permitted a soon-to-be-married man to read sexual self-help books.[9] There is no indication in R. Feinstein’s responsum that he is also including the viewing of pictures in such books, but I do not know if he would regard this as a problem if the pictures are not of real people but are drawings.

…In other words, by referring to the Mishneh Torah after mentioning Meiri, ArtScroll is alerting readers to the fact that the Rambam does not agree with Meiri and believes that the passage in Avodah Zarah 6a indeed refers to Christians. Yet this is never spelled out in ArtScroll, and you need to take their suggestion to consult the Mishneh Torah in order to learn that not everyone agrees that when the Talmud mentions those who make Sunday their holiday that it is referring to Babylonian pagans. (In fact, as already mentioned, only Meiri advocates this position.) Does the average person who learns daf yomi realize this?

…Rashi tells us, just like Maimonides, that when the Talmud refers to those who celebrate נוצרי יום it means the Christians who follow Jesus. ..

I find it significant that even in the Hebrew edition ArtScroll feels the need to only allude to the explanation of Rashi and Maimonides, while presenting Meiri’s explanation as the standard understanding of the text. ArtScroll certainly knows that this is not the standard understanding, and ArtScroll itself cannot believe that Meiri’s understanding is what the Talmud really means. After all, every other medieval commentator agrees with Rashi and Maimonides. In this case, the only explanation is that ArtScroll is following a long apologetic tradition, which was based on fear of what the non-Jews would say if they knew the true meaning of certain talmudic passages…

Another example of this tendency was called to my attention by R. Moshe Maimon. Ketubot 15a discusses the case of A killing B, when A actually intended to kill another person. In its discussion the Talmud refers to “Canaanites”, which in the current context simply means non-Jews. In fact, in all manuscripts and early printings what appears is not “Canaanites” but “goyim”.[12] “Canaanites” is simply a “correction” of the censor. Yet ArtScroll has a note explaining that “The Canaanites were the pagan people who lived in Eretz Yisrael before the Israelites entered the land.” The implication of this comment is that the halakhah stated in the Talmud was only applicable with the ancient Canaanites but not with regard to other non-Jews. This is false and ArtScroll knows it is false, but it is no different than the “note to reader” found in many seforim that all the halakhot about non-Jews only refer to the pagans in faraway places. In the latter case everyone knew (and knows) that these words are not to be taken seriously, but I would assume that the typical user of the ArtScroll English Talmud does not realize this…

The last sentence is making the point that there are certain things in the Talmud that should not be published for all to see, as these are the sorts of things that could create great problems with non-Jews. The Prague scholars then state that it is actually a good thing to cut out certain passages from the Talmud. In other words, they are acknowledging that even without Christian demands, it would be best in internally censor certain passages so as to prevent problems from arising. This is exactly what ArtScroll is doing today. No one is forcing them to self-censor, but they see matters as the sages of Prague…

R. Moses Rivkes in his commentary to Shulhan Arukh, Hoshen Mishpat 425:5, who responds to a particular anti-Gentile law as follows:

“The Rabbis said this in relation to the pagans of their own times only, who worshipped stars and the constellations and did not believe in the Exodus or in creatio ex nihilo. But the people in whose shade we, the people of Israel, are exiled and amongst whom we are dispersed do in fact believe in creatio ex nihilo and in the Exodus and in the main principles of religion, and their whole aim and intent is to the Maker of heaven and earth, as the codifiers have written. . . . So far, then from our not being forbidden to save them, we are on the contrary obliged to pray for their welfare.”

Some, such as Jacob Katz,[30] have seen R. Rivkes’ words as reflecting a new tolerant approach. However, the sages of Prague, who were closer to the time R. Rivkes lived, saw his words as merely designed for non-Jewish eyes and not to be taken seriously by Jews. R. Rivkes’ comment would therefore be no different than the declarations found at the beginning of many seforim that all negative statements about non-Jews are only directed towards pagans but have nothing to do with the Christians of Europe who worship God and allow the Jews to dwell among them.

Posted in Artscroll, Marc B. Shapiro, Talmud | Comments Off

Jewish Press Interviews Marc Shapiro

Posted on August 7, 2015 by Luke Ford

LINK: Your book is filled with examples of historical revisionism and omission. Let’s go through a number of them. First: Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach’s position on lashon hara between a husband and wife.

He thought if someone is having a bad day and has to get something off his chest, he can mention a certain individual to his wife. Under normal circumstances, that would be lashon hara, but he thought among spouses it is permissible because they’re like one person.

This p’sak, though, was removed in a later edition of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach’s work because it’s not in accordance with the Chofetz Chaim’s position.

The Vilna Gaon’s comments on Greek philosophy.

The Vilna Gaon states that the Rambam was led astray by “accursed philosophy.” But the people who published the Vilna Shulchan Aruch – the Romm publishers – were enlightened Jews and they were troubled by the phrase “accursed.” So they removed it. And until the recent Machon Yerushalayim printing, that’s the way it appeared in standard editions of the Shulchan Aruch.

Rav Yosef Karo’s view of kapparos.

He calls it a “minhag shtut.” That was removed for obvious reasons – because it was thought to be offensive to those who practice the custom. It appears in the first edition of the Shulchan Aruch, but it’s not in the Vilna edition or any of the other standard editions.

The Chasam Sofer’s position on the beginning and end of Shabbos.

There was a practice in Europe that Shabbos began after sunset, in accordance with Rabbeinu Tam’s position. This is an old practice that has pretty much fallen out of favor, but for much of Jewish history Shabbos started after sunset.

What I quote in the book is a protest [letter] that criticized Jews in Williamsburg who still were observing this custom. [The main point of that letter, though, concerned] the end of Shabbos. When Rav Moshe Stern published a volume of the teshuvot of the Chasam Sofer, it was censored because the Chasam Sofer doesn’t rule like Rabbeinu Tam. The Satmar Rav didn’t want that to be known.

The Kitzur Shulchan Aruch’s comments about non-observant Jews.

In the original text, he says that you don’t mourn for irreligious Jews, and you don’t really have anything to do with them. They’re wicked people, and we should rejoice when the wicked die. But if you look in later editions of this work, those comments are completely removed.

The Rema’s teshuvah on yayin nesech.

The Rema [confronted] a situation where Jews were drinking non-kosher wine in Moravia. The water was not very healthy, so people started drinking wine. The question was: Can this be justified? In his responsum, Rav Moshe Isserles is very upset that they’re drinking the wine. However, he attempts to justify them ex post facto so that they would not be viewed as sinners.

The censors, though, were worried that people would see the teshuvah and say, “We can drink non-Jewish wine,” so they removed it. It was a valid concern because Israel Silverman from the JTS actually used Isserles’s responsum to justify drinking non-Jewish wine today. He was attacked for that – and rightly so – because this was only an ex post facto justification.

The speech of the Belzer Rebbe’s brother in 1944 when the Rebbe and his family escaped Hungary.

He said the Rebbe wasn’t leaving because there was anything to be afraid of, and that the people don’t need to be worried. When the drasha was reprinted in 1967 that was cut out – for obvious reasons, because the Nazis did move in to Budapest and destroyed as much of the Jewish community as they could.

Last question: Your critics argue that many of your books make one cynical and disillusioned with Judaism. What’s your response?

If that’s what they feel, they shouldn’t read them.

But I’m not writing as a yeshivish-type person or spiritual leader putting forth a vision. I’m writing historical books. If certain people find them troubling, that’s fine; they shouldn’t read them. I don’t take any offense at that. Not every book is for every person.

Posted in Marc B. Shapiro, Orthodoxy | Comments Off

Letters To A Secular Young Jewess Seeking A Shiduch

Posted on August 7, 2015 by Luke Ford

Jewess: I don’t understand Ivanka Trump’s Orthodox Judaism.

Luke: It was a hurdle to marry. There are many paths to the one true God. Most people don’t care about truth like we do.

J: Oh I know. What if I really want to marry this guy who is Orthodox but I don’t want to be full Orthodox?

L: You have to go along with things in public, and privately you do what you want.

J: But shouldn’t I tell him the truth if I want to marry him?

L: Of course. If you meet a man you love, you’ll conform to whatever he wants, even if it’s Islam. Nature of woman. If he’s alpha enough, no holes barred.

J: Alphas are the best.

Posted in Dating | Comments Off

Censors For The Sake Of Heaven

Posted on August 7, 2015 by Luke Ford

Paul Shaviv reviews Marc Shapiro’s new book: “I just spent the recent holiday weekend reading this important and fascinating (if somewhat depressing) book from cover to cover. Marc Shapiro has given us another excellent work. With meticulous documentation he shows a series of different examples of how Orthodox rabbinic works have been altered, censored and mutilated to hide what the original authors wrote or thought (or wore – it includes a few examples of doctored photos), in order to conform with later, and, inevitably, narrower opinions. By removing evidence, the effect is to delegitimize and narrow the range of opinions, beliefs, views and behaviors within the Orthodox Jewish world. Two chapters are devoted to the overall treatment of two major Orthodox thinkers – S.R. Hirsch and Rav Kook – at the hands of subsequent editors. As he points out, his examples – which are many – are, however, only a representative selection. He also discusses the Orthodox view of the “function” of history, and the notion of historical or other truth in Jewish tradition. Although this serves as an explanation of the thought-processes behind the revisionist activity, it also strongly suggest that there is an unbridgeable gap between “history” and “Orthodox ‘history'”. Marc Shapiro has the gift of being an excellent, clear and easy-to-read writer. An excellent book for anyone interested in Jewish history and trends and currents in the Orthodox world.”

Another Amazon review: Having been a reader of Marc Shapiro’s writings for about twenty years, I’ve often been made to wonder about what motivates and animates Jewish thinkers to do and say the things that they do. His current book on Jewish censorship and revisionism places the question of motivation and psychology front and center.

Shapiro is, as always, encyclopedic in the scope of the sources he brings down. His observations on some outlandish forms of Jewish censorship and revisionism are often wry and witty, with minimal personal editorial and without being either cynical or unsympathetic to the subject matter. The one possible slant to which his book lends itself, of which Shapiro himself is aware, is that in accumulating every possible example of Jewish religious censorship and revisionism one could walk away with the impression that there are no Jewish authorities that defend being sincere and transparent, which of course is not the case.

There is a certain charm to Shapiro’s writings, as in how in the midst of a much broader discussion, Shapiro will share an embarrassingly true but conveniently forgotten insight, such as the fact that over hundred years ago the majority of Jews started (and ended) Shabbos later than they do nowadays, a practice that at present is rare and is deemed scandalous.

While modern scholarship would not condone any form of censorship, when reading Shapiro one can nevertheless distinguish between more excusable forms of hiding the truth versus completely inexcusable ones. At the excusable end of the spectrum are: censoring passages from non-Jews that, if revealed, could endanger the Jewish community; hiding awkward revelations about the personal failings or peccadilloes of a religious sage, especially sexual ones; genuinely believing a falsehood, without any ulterior motive and then propagating it; censoring gratuitously abusive language between respected scholars; the altering of Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook’s writings by his handlers, for fear that some of his ideas would alienate his intended readership. In all these cases we can sense the imperfect choices being presented between on the one hand being completely transparent but on the other hand wanting to either exercise common sense or display good taste.

What appears, however, to be altogether inexcusable is the constant theological posturing that goes on in the Haredi world, to give the impression of a form of religious orthodoxy that is consistent throughout all time and space. Examples where historical photos are altered to either make Orthodox women from the past appear to be dressed more modestly than they actually were or to color a skull cap onto a rabbi’s bare head are only a small sampling of it. Much larger and more damning are the chapters devoted to Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch and the aforementioned Rabbi Kook. While Hirsch’s philosophy and the community he advocated were forcibly made to appear more palatable to Haredi sensibilities, Kook, once the darling of the Orthodox world, had been rendered a persona non grata. This persistent practice of disfiguring history by making it more homogenous is absolute cultural vandalism. The censors in these cases have found it expedient to lie and cover up numerous facts, all in order to control the religious experience of the masses, to ensure uniform thought and practice. As Shapiro himself points out, people in power, by lying and hiding the truth, have predetermined how Judaism should have looked historically (evidence to the contrary be damned) and in the process they have chosen to be the judges over the great luminaries that preceded them.

And in no way do the Haredim have a monopoly over this sort of censorship, though they are the most persistent practitioners of it. Shapiro gives examples of censorship in other branches of Judaism. And it’s clear to any reader that rewriting the past is a standard practice in any sort of orthodoxy, whether it be political or ideological in nature, whenever the facts as they are do not conveniently corroborate what people “need” to believe at present.

Shapiro’s last chapter, which deals with the Jewish literature on when it is permissible to lie and to deceive is the most painful to read through. Shapiro frames the discussion in terms of the overarching problem: the Torah is replete with statements to the effect that it is important to be truthful and that lying is evil. Many rabbinical sermons are in fact delivered in which Judaism is couched as an unrelenting search for truth. How then to defend the frequent practice by religious publishers of deceiving their readership? The answers on the whole are of an extremely legal, technical nature, arbitrary in their application and completely inelegant. And even worse than the inorganic loopholes that various religious figures relied upon to allow themselves to be untruthful is a statement by Rabbi Eliyahu Dessler. In line with the thinking of certain secular philosophers, Dessler redefines the truth to be whatever is most expedient, whichever statement most practically achieves a desired outcome, i.e., extracting greater religious observance and devotion from the masses. The intellectual acrobatics Dessler uses to justify being deceptive come off as flippant, not too clever and disingenuous.

The notion that the greatest truth is whatever achieves a desired outcome begs the question: Isn’t there a greater truth to strive for than achieving mass obedience? Especially in an age in which orthodoxies of all sorts are on their way out, what exactly are we sacrificing in order to achieve uniform behavior? People en masse are leaving organized religion, especially Western organized religion –Judaism is being hit especially hard – and are pursuing more experiential/less dogmatic strains of spirituality such as Easter religion. There’s a good reason that Jews as a whole are over-represented among the numbers of Westerners who flock to either trendy new age spiritual movements or to Buddhism and Hinduism. Instead of addressing the spiritual poverty engendered by un-self aware orthodox dogmatism, we’re expending precious mental energy on hosting a beauty pageant of sorts, on upholding appearances of piety. In the end, Orthodox Judaism can end up becoming self selecting – retaining the traditionalists who would have naturally gravitated towards it anyway, while losing all of the sincere seekers who are genuinely curious and trying to understand.

Shapiro had me considering the subject matter from different vantage points. What, for instance, drives people to want to believe something to be true? I remember meeting a religious man a few years back, whose father was among the Jews who was saved during World War II by Sugihara, the courageous Japanese diplomat who defiantly gave out numerous visas to save Jewish lives. With complete conviction, the man related to me how later in life Sugihara converted to Judaism. Of course, nothing of the sort happened and I politely kept quiet. I sensed how the man very much wanted to believe that Sugihara was Jewish, as if a goy altruistically saving thousands of Jewish lives weren’t good enough. As with other urban legends, people find comfort in believing that certain things are true.

Urban legends, for course, are a universal phenomenon, not at all unique to Orthodox Jews, and people tend towards being suggestible. And it is sometimes hard to get at what is really true versus what we wish to be true. With the internet, however, becoming more ubiquitous and especially with the advent of web sites such as Snopes that devote themselves to debunking false legends the likelihood of people continuing to believe a bubbe meise are smaller. The question is whether this trend towards greater transparency will have the same sort of impact in the Haredi world. If so will the censors in Haredi world continue to be able to spin their personal story to their own liking or will they need to adjust their spin for an evermore skeptical public?

And what can we say about the cynical mindset that encourages censorship? In a world that is moving towards greater transparency and towards empowering individuals more and more, censors are elitists who continue to believe that people “can’t handle the truth.” It is possible that there are facts that are too damning and too overwhelming for people to process, but when people are constantly infantilized and lied to, it can become a self fulfilling prophecy by which the public can no longer stand to hear anything remotely threatening to their beliefs.

I highly encourage anyone interested in the subject of Judaism and its relationship to the truth to read Shapiro’s well written book.

* The book is fascinating and as usual Dr. Shapiro is second to none in his research. Most of the facts he quotes are just plain fascinating. How he manages to collect these sources is amazing. However, that being said, there are some downsides to the book.
For one thing the chapter on Sex which includes pictures of nudes is totally unacceptable. Why does he have to show pictures of nudes? Is he advocating for women to appear in such immodest ways?
Also, the book reads as just one long blog with examples following more examples.
That being said, the chapters on Rav Kook and Rav Hirsch are excellent and they are highly informative and enjoyable to read.
The chapter on halachik matters is also fascinating and certainly is worthy of reading for anyone interested in the development of the Halacha.
One more point, the last chapter about ‘truth’ and what is the Truth, is in many ways the most important of the chapters as it deals with the issue which is at the core of the book, namely, is truth always the accurate description of facts?
This chapter is certainly critical as it sheds light on the entire subject under discussion.
Dr. Shapiro has certainly made an important contribution to the world of Jewish scholarship.
I hope he continues to write and contribute to the world of Jewish education.

Posted in Marc B. Shapiro, Rabbis | Comments Off

Orthodox Jews Know Who They Are

Posted on August 7, 2015 by Luke Ford

The more traditional the Jew, the less he has angst about his identity — he’s a Yid first, second and third.

The more modern the Jew, the more assimilated and confused.

That’s why the Orthodox increasingly dominate Jewish life. No other form of Jewish identity has shown it can grow in strength over the generations.

It’s either the Torah Corral or marching for gay rights.

Gal Berkerman writes:

My identity as a Jew doesn’t lead to much questioning. Which is to say it’s the uncomplicated Jewish identity of a secular Israeli. It just is. In substance it’s a mix of the very lightly religious (candles on Hanukkah and perhaps an attempt at fasting on Yom Kippur) combined with emotional (if not always patriotic) attachment to Israel. But at its center is not substance but an ineffable sense of being comfortable in my skin because there is nothing else I can be. There is no other identity to assimilate to.
In other words, I don’t think I was asking, at 5, what it means to be a Jew.
But I’ve come to understand this anxiety well. It’s actually been my bread and butter over the past four years during my time as opinion editor of this newspaper. If I didn’t always recognize it as anxiety, I do now, writing in my last days at this job, before I head off to work on a new book and finish a doctoral program.
As I try to sum up for myself what I have gained after reading through and editing thousands of opinion pieces, it’s simply this: an intimate familiarity with the gut-churning, fraught, panicked and uncomfortable state of being an American Jew today.

Posted in Jews, Orthodoxy | Comments Off

A Fraudulent Jewish Charity

Posted on August 7, 2015 by Luke Ford

Forward: Donors to a charity on Manhattan’s Lower East Side are claiming that they have been misled by a Jewish calendar mailed annually to thousands of homes.
The calendar, illustrated with images of old bearded rabbis and filled with pleas for donations, is a fundraising appeal that an Orthodox charity called the Home of the Sages of Israel distributes in the weeks before the start of each Jewish new year.
“As you turn the pages of this Calendar, look well at the faces of the Aged Sages and Scholars for whom we care,” reads the latest calendar, which arrived in mailboxes in July. “Won’t you extend a helping hand to your old sages?”
Recipients appear to respond to the solicitations en masse: The group raises around $500,000 a year from donors, according to tax filings. Yet three donors have now filed papers in New York State Supreme Court saying that they thought the calendar was asking for money for the nursing home that Home of the Sages opened in the 1960s. In fact, the charity has not operated the nursing home since 1996.

Posted in Charity | Comments Off

Donald Trump Still Right About Mexican Rapists

Posted on August 7, 2015 by Luke Ford

Ann Coulter writes: There’s a cultural acceptance of child rape in Latino culture that doesn’t exist in even the most dysfunctional American ghettoes. When it comes to child rape, the whole family gets involved. (They are family-oriented!)

In a 2011 GQ magazine story about a statutory rape case in Texas, the victim’s illegal alien mother, Maria, described her own sexual abuse back in Mexico.

“She was 5, she says, when her stepfather started telling her to touch him. Hand here, mouth there. The abuse went on and on, became her childhood, really. At 12, when she finally worked up the desperate courage to report the abuse and was placed in foster care, she says her mother begged her to recant—the family needed the stepdad’s paycheck. So Maria complied. She was returned home, where her stepdad continued to molest her. When she talks about it, tears stream down her face.” [The Girl from Trails End, By Kathy Dobie, GQ, September 2011]

Far from “I am woman, hear me roar,” these are cultures where women help the men rape kids.

Maria dismissed the firestorm of publicity surrounding the sexual precocity of her own daughter, laughingly referring to the 11-year-old rape victim as “my wild child.” She even criticized the girl’s older sisters for complaining about the young girl’s promiscuous clothing choices, saying—of an 11-year-old: “Well, she’s got the body, so leave her alone.”

In 2013, illegal immigrant Bertha Leticia Rayo (right)was arrested for allowing her former husband, an illegal immigrant from Guatemala, to rape her 4-year-old daughter, then assisting his unsuccessful escape from the police. The rapist, Aroldo Guerra-Garcia, was also aided in his escape attempt by another woman, Krystal Galindo. (Kind of a ladies man, was Aroldo.)

That same year, the government busted up a child pornography operation in Illinois being run out of the home of three illegal aliens from Mexico, including a woman. At least one of them, Jorge Muhedano-Hernandez, had already been deported once. (Peoria Journal Star headline: “Bloomington men plead guilty to false documents.”)

The Baby Hope case in New York City began when a Mexican illegal alien, Conrado Juarez (right) raped and murdered his 4-year-old cousin, Anjelica Castillo. His sister helped him dispose of the body. Police found the little girl’s corpse in a cooler off the Henry Hudson Parkway, but the case went unsolved for two decades, because none of the murdered girl’s extended illegal alien family ever reported her missing. Anjelica’s mother later told the police she always suspected the tiny corpse in the cooler was her daughter’s, but never told anyone.

In 2014, Isidro Garcia (right) was arrested in Bell Gardens, California, accused of drugging and kidnapping the 15-year-old daughter of his girlfriend, then forcing the girl to marry him and bear his child. The mother had suspected Garcia, then 31 years old, had been raping her teenage daughter, but did nothing. All three were illegal aliens from Mexico, making this another case for the “Not Our Problem” file.

In 2007, Mexican illegal immigrant Luis Casarez (right) was convicted in New Mexico for repeatedly raping a 3-year-old and an 8-year-old. During his sentencing, Casarez borrowed Marco Rubio’s talking points about hardworking illegal immigrants with roots in America. “I have been here for many years,” Casarez told the judge—incongruously, through a translator. “That’s why,” he added, “I’ve been working instead of getting involved with problems.” Other than that one thing.

Two weeks after Luis Casarez was indicted for child rape, his son, Luis Casarez Jr., was indicted in a separate case of child rape.

When the crime is this bizarre, it’s not “anecdotal.” “Child rape perpetrated by more than one family member” isn’t your run-of-the-mill crime. It’s rather like discovering dozens of cannibalism cases in specific neighborhoods.

How many fourth-generation American father-son child-rape duos do we have? How many American brother-sister teams are conspiring in child rape and murder? How many mothers are helping their boyfriends and husbands get away with raping their own children?

And how many 12-year-old American girls are giving birth—to the delight of their parents?

In some immigrant enclaves, the police have simply given up on pursuing statutory rape cases with Hispanic victims. They say that after being notified by hospital administrators that a 12-year-old has given birth and the father is in his 30s, they’ll show up at the girl’s house—and be greeted by her parents calling the pregnancy a “blessing.”

This happens all the time, they say.

And yet, in the entire American media, there have been more stories about a rape by Duke Lacrosse players that didn’t happen than about the slew of child rapes by Hispanics that did because Democrats want the votes and businesses want the cheap labor. No wonder they hate Trump.

Posted in Mexicans, Mexico, Rape | Comments Off

Who Won The Debate?

Posted on August 7, 2015 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* I wish the questions were not so ‘inside the Beltway’ stuff but what are you going to get from media personalities who live ‘inside the Beltway’. Does anyone really think Americans are really worked up about Obama’s Iran deal? The real issue is the growing chaos in the region and that is what Obama/Rodham and Kerry have created. 4 years of civil war in Syria and we can’t impose a settlement even after thousands of sorties by our Air Force and Navy?

Trump got one thing right. Nothing we’re doing is working and nothing any of these guys are suggesting is going to change that save building a Wall on the border ( which won’t happen) or using our military to win a war which won’t happen either because, contrary to Ben Carson’s remarks, wars are politically correct affairs these days. Cluster bombs, mines and napalm are no no’s even if that is how you destroy enemy forces.

* Jebbie looked like a script kiddie.

Trump was on the defensive. It was obvious the Fox weenies were trying to kneecap him.

Carson, nice guy, would make a good dept head.

Crispy Creme – bleah.

Rand – he’s desperate.

Huckster – I don’t trust that guy for nothing. When he had his show he played the bland, feel good moderate. That’s always a con.

Beyond that the questions generally sucked, especially the gotcha questions from Kelly and Wally – it made them like nasty. Wally boy I expected as much since he’s part of the establishment and make a name for himself ambushing people. Kelly I thought would play it fair. She can’t, she seems to hate alpha males big time.

Then she has on Wasserman Schultz after the debate – of all people. Oh yeah she’s always bringing on that illegal alien. Why not give Joe Arpio equal air time. Oh that’s right your boss is a open border supporter.

The one minute format was a joke. You cannot give a intelligent answer in that time frame. This was gotch TV at it’s finest. Increase it to 5 minutes per candidate and put the videos on Youtube. Screw cable TV. TV is dead as a medium.

Look there are some important questions that need to asked in regards to our economy and they weren’t touched. Of course I don’t expect to be asked by anyone in power.

Like:

“Do you support or oppose TPP and why?”.

“Do you support renegotiating NAFTA and PNRT with China?”

“Do you support a decrease in the number of H1-B visa workers?’

National Security:

“What do you intend to do stop China and Russia from doing cyber attacks on our infrastructure and government?”

“Do you support stringent enforcement of current immigration laws on the books and the expulsion of immigrants tied to terrorist groups?”

“Do you support stripping the citizenship and expelling anyone who is caught supporting ISIS in the ME?”

“Do you consider the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization. And if not why not?”

Most half-way informed people can easily generate their own.

* Murdoch’s Minions were out get Trump in a bad way. Frank Lutz and Charles Krauthammer were both pursuing the Anti-Trump agenda hard is post debate analysis. Lutz found a bunch of tone deaf GOPers who were angry that Trump wouldn’t unconditionally support the nominee sight unseen if it wasn’t him, they apparently all read that as him saying he would definitely run as a third party candidate ensuring a Democratic win. He said nothing of the sort, he said it would depend on who the nominee was if it wasn’t him, that’s it, but 80 percent of the “focus group” heard Trump promise to run as a third party candidate. The fact that both the MSM and Fox News both hate Trump makes me like him even more. Was surprised that Bush didn’t insert foot into mouth, and Carson looked awful until his final two statements, which apparently made Lutz’s focus group completely forget how inept Carson looked for the rest of the debate, they all raved about his closing statement.

* There is actually a significant divide on immigration within the Libertarian Movement. Rand’s father, and much of the Austrian Wing of the Libertarian movement, are border hawks while the Reason/Cato crowd tend to be Open Border types. Rand tends to come off more like the latter, but in terms of his actual record he introduced a resolution in the Senate calling for an end to Birthright Citizenship and he was against the Gang of Eight Bill. He votes in a way that will please Conservatives but talks in a way that pisses them off. What he hopes to accomplish from this strategy I still haven’t figured out, but he seems committed to it.

* That first hand-raising question about agreeing not to run as an Independent seemed deliberately designed to hurt Trump. Even if Fox wanted to ask that question, it didn’t have to be the first one. The first question posed directly at Trump also seemed designed to put him on the defensive.

Also, it seemed like the moderators were asking questions of the candidates designed to make them all attack and weaken each other, just as the Republican candidates did to one another in the million debates prior to finally selecting Romney as the Republican nominee.

* I just want less third world immigration. A lot less. Both legal and illegal. Most people agree with me, but finding a plausible candidate for high office who genuinely wants that is more or less impossible.

* I liked that Trump said this country is in big trouble. When I hear someone like Rubio talk about how he firmly believes America’s best days lie ahead of it, it really puts me off. That’s not true and any intelligent person knows it. We passed peak prosperity in the 1960s and we’re sliding toward Third World status. I don’t see how it can be stopped.

I liked that Trump didn’t buckle when Megyn Kelly went after him with her feminist line of attack.

I liked how Trump handled the question of why he gave money to Democrats–that politicians are for sale and you have to pay them off if you’re going to need their help. And that’s why the system is rotten.

When Trump said that our leaders are stupid and that’s why we have all these illegals here, Cruz said it’s not because our leaders are stupid, it’s because they WANT the illegals here.

I liked that Cruz said that allowing in millions of illegal aliens was one of the ways Obama is fulfilling his pledge to fundamentally transform America.

* Considering that internal medicine together with family medicine are the two specialties medical students settle for by default if their board scores are too poor to land anything else, internists should be ones to talk. If you want to know who is smartest, follow the money. Dermatology and Orthopedic Surgery are the hardest residencies to land and have the highest board scores. Incidentally, orthopedic surgery is the one specialty where you will disproportionately encounter tall, fit white guys and few Asian dweebs or women relative to other medical fields. The ubermenschen of medicine.

Neurosurgery is the highest paid medical field but the brutal 7 year residency and rather poor patient outcomes deter a lot of people. Most people would choose to do a 5 year ortho residency, operate on relatively healthy people who need cool elective procedures with good outcomes, and make almost the same money.

* Frankly, the only reason I watched the debate was to watch Trump do his thing. He never disappoints.

* I don’t think trump should have debated.

I watched a piece of video of the Megyn Kelly series of questions. She set out to go after him. She has always been the bitch hall monitor on Fox News making sure the men were properly scolded if they went off the reservation and didn’t toe the line of the feminine imperative. A good chunk of its viewers, 47% are women (of all viewers) and 78% of all viewers are over 35. Those women are a lot more feminist then they let on. Megyn is their bulldog. And she played her part tonight

Here is the video of her going after him. After the famous “just Rosie O’Donnell” retort, you can hear her blurt in OVER the audience laughter, “No it’s not!!” You can see the broadcaster equivalent of the RBF in her delivery of the question (inquisition). Of course, it’s fair game. He will have to deal with these sorts of things for sure, especially from a female Dem candidate. I guess Fox truly doesn’t believe he is electable. Link.

Alt-right twitter is already going after her.

My thought is he should have shined on this debate. It would have turned into a ratings flop just like the one a few days ago. There was almost no coverage or mention of it other than “stiff shirts were boring.” It was C-SPAN debate so that has something to do with it. But the only reason there was so much interest in this debate is only because the Donald was there. I read the Twitter feed and most of the tweets were not from Republicans. They were from liberals either laughing at the quality of the candidates or bemoaning how no one mentioned the minimum wage or shootings by cops or income inequality. So there was a widespread bi-partisan interest.

He should have said “No thanks. Too boring. Real Americans don’t want to see a circus where journalist hacks backed by big money drive an agenda.”

I watched Cleopatra tonight (actually some of it. I have watching it for a few days now. It’s over 4 hours long). Cleopatra sent away 5 messengers from Anthony requesting she come to Greece for talks about forming an alliance. She insisted he come in person. She had the power and eventually got her wish. Anthony needed her more than she needed him.

The same went for Fox News. They needed him to show up more than he needed to show up to a debate in early August 2015. The last election cycle was full of front runners fading after debates.

All the republican establishment feels Trump goes away once the debates start. Hard to say if that was the result tonight. Drudge has a user voting poll that has Trump with 41.36% Cruz with 15.0 Rubio with 9.3%. Earlier when I checked Trump was down in the high 30s. Most of comments hereon Sailer do not say “Man, Trump killed it!!” Most comments about Trump complain about Fox going after him. And on Twitter also.

He should have forced Fox to come to him. He should have waited and attacked journalist as lacking in credibility and acting only in the interest of big money and interests that didn’t want to talk about immigration. The reality of “the debate” was it was a series of attack interviews being held in parallel. He should have stuck to taking on a single interviewer one on one and using the power of his alpha presence to dominate the interviewer.

Now if he backs out of subsequent debates he looks butthurt and cowardly.

But he didn’t really back down from Megyn and I guess that was what he was there for. How much that clip will get passed around will effect how the Trumpkin stay in his corner.

* It’s pathetic for the party leaders to simultaneously trash the leading, most popular candidate and then question him for his loyalty to them. Trump owes nothing to Reince Preibus and the others, and pledging today to support the eventual winner (who may be ¡Jeb! who comes out for amnesty after securing the nomination) is neither wise nor honest. Trump himself said he doesn’t know his plans–if say a Ted Cruz or Scott Walker secures the nomination and campaigns strongly on illegal immigration and trade (and acts diplomatically toward Trump), I’m sure Donald would bless the nomination and back the GOP candidate.

Spinning Trump’s personality traits against him only works if you disregard that he’s also confident, assertive, and patriotic. He gets things done. He knows Mexico is getting the better of us on immigration, China on trade, Japan on imports, etc. His ego is useful in fighting for American jobs and sovereignty issues. It’s hilarious you’d think Trump would waste millions of his own dollars, countless hours, and intense media critique so that he’d be the fall guy for the estranged wife of one of his golfing buddies. Way to read normal human behavior, bro. Yeah that sounds like a typical endeavor for a brash, cocky businessman who even you admit is “self-promoting.”

* Just saw online that the Huffington Post’s two debate posters thought Trump won the debate. I honestly don’t even think anyone would have watched this had Trump not been there in the first place. I can’t even remember the first GOP debate in 2012, or for the matter either party’s first debate in 2008. The MSM is focused on Trump and Kelly, which tells me they think he did fine in debate portion so they are blasting him for being “sexist’ towards Fox’s fake blonde female talking head. She can clearly single him out for attack, but him responding back is “sexist”. I guess Megyn Kelly is the Ellen Pao of debate moderators now.

* When reporters ask obviously loaded questions and hit below the belt, it gains sympathy for the candidate and works to the candidate’s advantage.

MORE COMMENTS TO SAILER:

* Republicans typically support legal immigration, as it keeps wages lower. We need reform of our legal immigration policy, which requires congress to act. But big corporations are strong supporters of more legal immigration…need to change the requirements, no more green cards for siblings and parents of legal residents.

I married a girl from Chile , so have some experience in the process. She became a citizen in 2001 and immediately had her 60 year old mother and 24 year old brother apply for a green card. Her mother obtained a greencard in 2009 while her brother, a college graduate who speaks English is still waiting. So stupid to give a greencard to a 68 year old who speaks no English. At this point her brother would never move here, he has a booming business in Chile. And her mother has lost her greencard, she preferred living in Chile so lost the greencard by living outside the US for over 16 months. I don’t blame her. Chile has a great climate and no Blacks, no Puerto Ricans, no Mexicans but does have an issue with illegal immigrants from Peru. Most of the nannies in Chile are now from Peru.

Greencards should only be issued to those who speak fluent English. No more Greencards based on family relationships.

* The main thing I noticed in this WP screed is the subtle implication throughout that only the uneducated fail to appreciate the moral goodness and economic necessity of massive uncontrolled immigration, diversity and globalization.

I’ve noticed the same thing from The Independent and Der Spiegel as well. It’s the western media’s subtle way of demeaning the issue while maintaining plausible deniability.

* Data on Mexico:

“Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices test was administered to a representative sample of 920 white, Mestizo and Native Mexican Indian children aged 7–10 years in Mexico. The mean IQs in relation to a British mean of 100 obtained from the 1979 British standardization sample and adjusted for the estimated subsequent increase were: 98·0 for whites, 94·3 for Mestizos and 83·3 for Native Mexican Indians.”

And then let’s compare this to the racial composition of Mexico:

98.0: Mexican Whites
94.3:Mexican Mestizos
83.3: Mexican Amerinds

According to the CIA FACTBOOK, Mexico’s racial breakdown is:mestizo (Amerindian-Spanish) 60%, Amerindian or predominantly Amerindian 30%, white 9%, other 1%

Things are not looking good Mexico way…..

Now, let’s turn to real world achievements.Mexico and the Nobel prize. According to WIKIPEDIA, three people of Mexican origins have won a Nobel:

Alfonso García Robles: With Alva Myrdal, got the Peace Prize in 1982. For what it’s worth, he looks very White in his WIKIPEDIA photo.

Mario J. Molina: Along with Paul J. Crutzen and F. Sherwood Rowland, he got the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for studying the threat posed to the ozone layer by CFCs. Looks pretty White in his WIKIPEDIA photo.

Octavio Paz: 1990 Nobel in Lit. Based on WIKIPEDIA photo, he might have some Amerind ancestry (or he might not).

So, Three prizes. Total. As compared to 10 for Scotland, 15 for Australia, 23 for Canada, 74 for England , 306 for the USA, …..

Now, all of these figures are from WIKIPEDIA, so I’m sure that one could argue about the margins…but the overall portrait of Mexican achievement is pretty dire.

How about Fields Medalists?:

United States 12

France 10

Soviet Union (3) / Russia (6) 9

United Kingdom 7

Japan 3
Belgium 2

West Germany (1) / Germany (0) 1

Australia 1

British Hong Kong 1

Finland 1

Israel 1

Italy 1

Norway 1

New Zealand 1

Sweden 1

Vietnam 1

Iran 1

Brazil 1

(None Stateless) 1

I’ve left out Manjul Bhargava. His background is complicated.

So, Mexico has zero.Hell, all of Latin America has exactly one, which ties them with New Zealand.

Race creates the foundation upon which culture is built.Mexico’s racial mix produces mediocrity. In contrast, the America’s overwhelming European racial stock allowed her to thrive. Mass immigration by Hispanic Amerinds and Mestizos is changing that. Soon, the USA will be as mediocre as Mexico.

* What’s most amazing is that the issue of illegal immigration, an issue that has captivated me for over a decade now, is something “mainstream” America is finally catching onto and worrying about.

They tried to pass amnesty with a GOP president, House, and Senate. They lost.

They tried to pass amnesty a year later with a GOP president and a Democratic House and Senate. They lost.

Then they tried to pass amnesty with a Socialist president and Senate and a GOP House. And they lost. Again.

Now suddenly politicians who were once pro-amnesty (Donald Trump) are finding it extremely advantageous to get on the anti-illegal immigration bandwagon. That’s a good sign.

But why? Back during the Bush bubble no one seemed to care much. Then the economy tanked, and I thought that people would start to care because jobs were being lost. Still voters didn’t seem to care all that much. But the supposed Obama recovery is now over five years old, and workers still aren’t seeing much benefit. Now they’re starting to get it. Now they’re starting to catch on. The government is openly rewarding 15 million people for breaking our immigration laws, meanwhile a couple in Oregon is losing their bakery because they didn’t want to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding, and a cab driver in New York is being fined $25,000 for not picking up a black family.

I don’t like Donald Trump. He’s a fraud. Moreover, his statement that illegals are all crooks and rapists ain’t the message any legitimate politician wants to be campaigning on. But by making that statement he has moved the ball far to the right on the issue and opened up a wind range of matters that, by comparison, seem reasonable and thoughtful. Suddenly Ann Coulter and her new book aren’t extremist, but thoughtful. And for that we have to thank Donald Trump.

Posted in Immigration, Politics | Comments Off

NYT: Soul-Searching in Israel After Bias Attacks on Gays and Arabs

Posted on August 6, 2015 by Luke Ford

I suspect most Israelis are not terribly bothered by bias attacks on gays and Arabs. Most Israelis, like most Americans, don’t particularly care for parading gays and Arabs. A healthy society cares most about building up and strengthening its core and does not care much about its minorities except that they conform to core norms.

Most Israelis wish that their enemies disappear just as many Americans wish wish their enemies disappear. Different groups have different interests. A healthy group cares primarily about its own health, not about “bias attacks.”

NYT: The back-to-back attacks a week ago, attributed to religious fanatics, set off a national outcry and reflection, with hundreds flocking here each night for a mixture of mourning and protest.

Posted in Nationalism | Comments Off