‘American Pravda: Oddities of the Jewish Religion’

Many people asked me to comment on this Ron Unz essay. I read it. I see that the author keeps noting that he’s no expert in the subject. So, once again, I find it hard to take him seriously. I can’t recall an instance when investing time reading Unz was a good investment of my time. He’s a political activist. If he claimed it was raining outside, I wouldn’t reach for an umbrella before leaving for my walk.

Ron Unz writes:

Even with all of that due diligence, I must emphasize that I cannot directly vouch for Shahak’s claims about Judaism. My own knowledge of that religion is absolutely negligible, mostly being limited to my childhood, when my grandmother occasionally managed to drag me down to services at the local synagogue, where I was seated among a mass of elderly men praying and chanting in some strange language while wearing various ritualistic cloths and religious talismans, an experience that I always found much less enjoyable than my usual Saturday morning cartoons.

Judaism is a deep and complex national religion. It is not amenable to hot takes by the ignorant.

A Jewish friend responds to me:

The big issue isn’t whether his article is “accurate.” What surprised me was that he published it. Unz is a very smart man – a genius, and has since he made his fortune had the great luxury of researching things he finds of interest and then writing about them.

As you know, and as Unz says in his article, much of the Talmud contradicts other portions of the Talmud, and one commentators interpretation can be 180 degrees different from the original commentators analysis and comments.

Unz has provided an invaluable service, first with digitizing and putting on line all those periodicals which otherwise might be gone for ever, and now for publishing controversial books that have gone out of the print and are in the public domain. He has long been a contrarian thinker. His articles about John McCain being a traitor have been one of the few places to actually read about the corroborating evidence to support this.

He is on shakier grounds when discussing Judaism. On the other hand, perhaps as an outsider who knows nothing about it, he is a more objective source than a convert who has every incentive to believe the overall probity of his chosen religion.

Unz has published persons with a decided anti Israel slant (the Saker and Israel Shamir come to mind) and anti semites as well. But he does publish a variety of viewpoints not available elsewhere and I think he is to be commended for this.

I do think there will be one positive outcome from Unz’s article. It is a matter of firm belief among many non Jews that in some way organized Jewry (by which I don’t mean the Rabbis) but organizations such as the ADL, Marvin Heir, Aipac, or organized Israeli organizations ranging from the Hasbara groups to the Mossad will suppress anyone who publishes things like Unz did. I don’t think there is any such powerful coordinated group. I think the Israelis act in what they think is in their best interest, but I think that if Unz receives cyber attacks or there are physical threats (or killing) directed at Unz that will be counterproductive. In the world of on line “Journalism” Unz is a small fish and I think that he will be ignored. He may be ostracized, but its not as if he is dependent on Jewish largesse to keep going.

Posted in Judaism | Comments Off on ‘American Pravda: Oddities of the Jewish Religion’

Trump – Putin

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* Seriously – when did Vlad Putin become “the worst man in the world?”

Didn’t Barack Obama once boast that he would meet with any foreign leader, anywhere, with no preset conditions?

Didn’t the Democrats chastise President Reagan for calling the Soviet Union an evil empire? (And deny that the Soviets were any “worse” than the US from a realpolitik perspective)?

* The war between the Deep State and Trump is untenable now. Something has to give.

* I haven’t been following. But on the teevee this morning, CBS News’ reporterettes were casting their lot squarely in the “we’e overdue for a coup against Trump” bin.

* It was fine.

Despite all the fainting couches, it was something that needed to happen and it was about as successful as one would imagine- lots of vague promises of future cooperation where interests overlap and nothing where they don’t.

President Trump is right to call Russia a competitor. That’s where we are, and we should be okay with that; instead we are being pushed into re-declaring her the enemy and hoping for what? A cold war redux? A hot war, to switch things up this time?

Putin is not a good guy. He’s not even a very good autocrat. By those standards he’s pretty lousy, in charge of a lousy mess of a country. But its a lousy mess with natural resources and a stockpile of weapons with the capability of bloodying our noses and put a spanner in the works. Those are the facts on the ground. It’s a lot more sensible to start over with that in mind than to continue to antagonize the situation in silly ways.

* People shouldn’t comment unless they actually watch the whole press conference. I did and it was pretty damn bland. Putin said some stuff, Trump said some stuff, but it was basically all generalities. If Trump and Putin had been in a screaming match that devolved into a fist fight I’d still expect the press conference to have looked like it did. People are reading WAY too much into it.

* The left’s criticism, if I’m understanding it correctly, is that Trump didn’t publicly call Putin/Russia, in so many words, liars and cheats. Why do they think that’s the best or most productive way to handle this? Because to the American left insults, bullying and inflammatory language as negotiating tactics are not only appropriate, they’re practically required! The left has all the power in this country: they control the media, the academy, the courts and to a large extent the corporations, so they know that they don’t have to concede anything to their enemies, whom they can and do destroy with ease. In fact, “negotiating tactic” isn’t the right term: the left doesn’t negotiate; they declare.

But Putin isn’t some hapless college kid or police officer accused of “racism” or “sexual harassment.” He’s the president of a large sovereign nation with a vast nuclear arsenal. We use “diplomatic” as a synonym for “polite” for a reason: in this world, you have to treat powerful people with respect.

* Russians hacked Felonia Van Pantsuit’s* server, which exposed the Dems for the vile clods they are. And posted some silly Faceberg** ads. There’s your Russian “collusion”.

Impact on election results: Zero.

Hacking, and spying, is what governments do, and as much as they can get away with.

REALLY SCARY? A large percentage, approaching a majority, of Dems actually think the Russkis used their superhuman 4D hacking skills to diddle with the Diebold machines to tip the election. Good grief.

BTW – Where is that confounded server?

* TREASON is the new battle cry of the “resistance.” The “deep state” liberals, leftists, and Democrats have taken to Twitter (“Trending Twitter” the new determinate for what should happen in the world) to brand the Trump-Putin Summit as “The Treason Summit” and hundreds, if not thousands, of useful idiots are calling the meeting TREASON.

* You may not like Putin. He may not be very likable. He is, however, a serious and formidable man and he is the best ruler Russia has had in over a century. I have more respect for him than I have had for any President since at least Kennedy we have had, at least until Trump.

* The high proportion of Jews who, operating out of Harvard, designed and oversaw the looting of the Russian economy; the high proportion of the resulting oligarchs who were Russian Jews; the number of American Jews who got rich off this scam and later tried to cover it up is enough to turn anyone into an anti-Semite. That Putin failed to succumb to the temptation of exploiting these facts, which almost every Russian knew, but in fact reversed some of the anti-Semitism that had flourished under Gorbachev, is a further testimony to the man’s fundamental moral integrity. I’d trust him a lot more than any of the Clintons, Brennans, Crappers, Muellers, neocons, MSM bimbettes and fancy boys etc., who are so busily slurring him and Trump.

* Trump showed strength by fighting back against his biggest enemy, the deep state. Trump demonstrated that he does not fear the FBI, DIA and DOJ. It took a lot of courage to dismiss the “meddling” narrative generated by powerful US intelligence operatives who have targeted Trump. Most politicians would have avoided meeting with Putin until Mueller finished his “investigation” and they certainly would not have the strength to reject the conclusions of the FBI, CIA and DOJ while the investigations continue.

* Spengler writes:

I have no reason to doubt the allegations that a dozen Russian intelligence officers meddled in the U.S. elections of 2016, but this was equivalent of a fraternity prank compared to America’s longstanding efforts to intervene in Russian politics.

The United States supported the 2014 Maidan uprising in Ukraine and the overthrow of the Yanukovych government in the hope of repeating the exercise in Moscow sometime later. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland pulled whatever strings America had to replace the feckless and corrupt Victor Yanukovych with a government hostile to the Kremlin. She didn’t say it in so many words, but she hoped the Ukraine coup would lead to the overthrow of Vladimir Putin. Evidently Nuland and her boss, Hillary Clinton, thought that the Ukraine coup would deprive Russia of its Black Sea naval base in Crimea, and did not anticipate that Russia simply would annex an old Russian province that belonged to Ukraine by historical accident.

…American efforts to promote a democratic opposition to Putin have failed miserably, and as John Lloyd wrote recently at Reuters, the Russian president remains genuinely popular. This remains a source of perpetual frustration for the neoconservatives, who cannot fathom why dictatorships still exist. Russia is a brutal country that always has been governed by brutal men.

* Washington is going to unite to vomit Trump out of their system. He’s indigestible to them. That means the United States may very well experience the kind of craziness France underwent in the late ’50s and early ’60s. Units of the US military and law enforcement may not accept Trump’s removal from office. That may be what’s going on this time next year.

* BAP: By meeting to talk to Putin and lay ground for peace Trump BETRAYED the Real America (i.e., the 80% of the USA govt beholden to China, Saudi Arabia, various petty ethnic resentments, oligarchs, spooks and NGO’s who stand to lose status, power, influence, deals).

* The left has become psychopathic. I can no longer reveal my political beliefs in my community because I fear violence towards me/my dogs/my property. And, most of the violent people (or people who spew violent ideas or are turned-on by violence) are baby-boomer suburban women and men…privileged white people! I can’t wait to get out of this state ( a few more years) and live in a Red State where I can finally speak to people who are open-minded. It is mind-blowing that Progressives are now the unpredictable, violent, haters….but, they have shown their true colors these last 2 months.

* I have a theory about the West’s demonization of Putin. It wasn’t for any of the stated reasons: Crimea, his treatment of journos, Ukraine. It was for one reason and one reason only. Russia’s anti-LGBTQ propaganda law passed in 2013. And, just as crucially, the connection made there between the LGBTQ and pedophilia. That was a deal breaker for the West and the Deep State. If you know the people who tend to work in government, a hugely disproportionate number of them are gay. They simply can’t let this go. Imagine WW3 starting because of a gay Deep State conspiracy to fabricate a completely insane conflict with a nuclear power.

* Trump knows what he’s up against, knows that Putin is on his side more than his own Deep State is, and knows he’ll need all the allies he can get.

Is that why he took this Summit, and met for 2 hours alone with Putin, with no aides present, allegedly ‘without precedent’?

I wonder if he used an interpreter from his own side, or from the Russian side (or how good is Putin’s English)?

Is the volume of screeching in part because they’re really worried what Trump learned in those 2 hours?

Will they feel they’ve got to move before Trump does?

* I was interviewed by Susan Stamberg of NPR’s “All Things Considered” decades ago as a result of a letter I wrote them about their political bias. When a portion of the interview was aired, Stamberg had rerecorded her questions so that many of my responses were not to the questions she had asked, but to different ones that cast me in a different light. She had become quite heated during our exchange and I sounded heated in response, but she rerecorded herself so that she sounded calm and only I was heated. Finally, at one point she acknowledged that while everyone who worked at NPR was liberal, it was the liberalism of open-mindedness and willingness to give alternative views a respectful hearing. She evidently thought better of this concession and removed it from the aired version.

A firsthand lesson in the duplicity of the media.

* Steve Sailer: “I was interviewed once for about an hour by NBC News as a conservative film critic. They spliced about 30 seconds from me in with about 90 seconds from George Clooney, which made it look like I was arguing with Clooney, who is one of the all-time great talk show guests. Not surprisingly, I lost that debate with Clooney I didn’t know I was having.”

* It is obvious that Trump cut a deal with the military either during or even before he started campaigning. He allied with the Pentagon to tackle the CIA, FBI and others. His enemies aren’t getting a coup from the military. They won’t be getting help from the Mossad either, notice Trump is also very friendly with Israel.

Posted in America, Russia | Comments Off on Trump – Putin

Tales Of The Gadolim

Marc B. Shapiro writes:

* Once R. Jacob David Wilovsky of Slutzk visited R. Meir Simhah of Dvinsk and told him that he wanted to also visit the Rogochover. R. Meir Simhah attempted to dissuade him, saying that the Rogochover would put him down like he puts everyone down. Yet R. Wilovsky visited him and the Rogochover did not put him down. He said to the Rogochover, “I heard that you put down everyone, but I see that you treat me with respect.” The Rogochover replied, “I put down gedolim, not ketanim.”

* R. Aviner speaks about a gaon known as the Radichkover who was quite strange. He would go into the restroom holding a copy of the Mishneh Torah. When he was told that this is forbidden, he replied that Maimonides himself went to the restroom! In other words, if Maimonides could go into the restroom then certainly his book can be brought into it. The Radichkover actually tells this story himself about bringing R. Reuven Katz’s book, Degel Reuven, into the restroom.[7]
When he died, people did not know how to eulogize him, because on the one hand he was a great talmid hakham, but on the other hand he acted in a very strange manner. R. Aviner tells us that R. Natan Ra’anan, the son-in-law of R. Kook, delivered the eulogy and said that his greatness was his love of Torah, and due to this great love he did things that were improper. “He sinned yet these sins arose from his love of Torah.”
It is obviously not very common that a eulogy mentions improper things done by the deceased. It is also understandable why, due to his unconventionality, the Radichkover reminds people of the Rogochover. For those who have never heard of him, his name was R. Yaakov Robinson (1889-1966).

* Michael Feldstein recently commented to me that in the last ten years or so he has seen something that did not exist in earlier years, namely, people standing for Parashat Zakhor. I, too, noticed this in my shul, but it has only been going on for a year or two. This year, no one announced that people should stand. Some just stood up on their own and pretty much the entire shul then joined in. Unless the rabbis start announcing that people can sit down, in a few years it will probably become obligatory to stand for Parashat Zakhor, much like it now seems to be obligatory to repeat the entire verse, whereas when I was young the only words to be repeated were תמחה את זכר עמלך. (I always paid attention to this as Ki Tetze is my bar mitzva parashah.) Today, if the Torah reader tries to repeat only these words, they will tell him to go back and repeat the entire verse. What we see from all of this is that customs are constantly being created, and they often arise from the “ritual instinct” of the people, without any rabbinic guidance.

NEXT BLOG ENTRY:

* … contrary to popular belief, the name Satmar does not come from St. Mary. The original meaning seems to be a personal name, and in popular etymology the word came to mean “great village.”[3] Yet even in the Satmar community some believe that the word comes from St. Mary, and because of this they pronounce it as “Sakmar”.

* In a lecture I mentioned that one of the old-time American rabbis met with the Satmar Rebbe and concluded that when it came to the State of Israel, you simply could not speak to him about it. He was like a shoteh le-davar ehad when it came to this in that no matter how much you tried to convince him otherwise, he refused to listen to reason. Someone asked me which rabbi said this. It was R. Ephraim Jolles of Philadelphia (as I heard from a family member). I don’t think his formulation is too harsh, as anyone who has read the Satmar Rebbe’s writings can attest. It does not bother me if he or anyone else wants to be an anti-Zionist. However, the anti-Zionist rhetoric found in the Satmar Rebbe’s writings, and those of his successors, is often more extreme than what we find among the pro-Palestinian groups…

If anyone wants to see the results of this rhetoric, here are two videos with kids from Satmar. In this one the children are being taught that the Zionists started World War II and to hope for the destruction of the State of Israel.

In this video children were told that Netanyahu was in the car and they were to throw eggs at it.

It is very painful to see how children are being indoctrinated with such hatred. Again I ask, if such a video surfaced from a leftist camp, there would be no hesitation in labeling it anti-Semitic. So why are people hesitant to conclude that Satmar is also involved in spreading anti-Semitism?

The general assumption is that the Satmar Rebbe hated Zionism and the State of Israel so much, that he was inclined to believe even the most far-out anti-Semitic canards against the State. I have always found this difficult to believe. Say what you will about the Rebbe, there is no denying that he was very intelligent. Thus, I have a hard time accepting that he could have really believed in Zionist control of the media and other anti-Semitic tropes found in his polemical writings. In other words, I think it is more likely that he did not believe in any of these things but said them anyway in order to convince his followers not to give up the fight against Zionism, a fight that had been abandoned by so many former anti-Zionists after the Holocaust and the creation of the State of Israel in 1948. In such a battle it was necessary to turn Israel not only into something bad, but actually the worst sin imaginable.

R. Nahum Abraham, a Satmar hasid and prolific author, has recently written that the Satmar Rebbe would deny things that he knew were true. He regarded his denials as “necessary lies,” in order to prevent people from being led in the wrong direction.[5] If the Rebbe thought that it was permissible to deny the truth of certain hasidic stories in order to prevent his followers from being influenced by them, isn’t it possible that he would exaggerate the evils of the State of Israel in order to best indoctrinate his followers with an anti-Zionist perspective?

This approach also would explain a big problem that no one has been able to adequately account for. How was the Satmar Rebbe able to have friendly and respectful relationships with people who, based on what he writes, he should have regarded as completely out of the fold due to their involvement with the State of Israel? This includes even men like R. Aharon Kotler who supported voting in the Israeli elections, which the Satmar Rebbe claimed is “the most severe prohibition in the entire Torah.”[6] Yet we know that the Satmar Rebbe respected R. Aharon and others who had a very different perspective.[7] Can’t this be seen as evidence that there is a good deal of ideologically-driven exaggeration in the Satmar Rebbe’s writings, and that not everything he says really reflects his actual views? After all, if he really thought that voting in the elections was the most severe prohibition in the Torah and the State of Israel was completely destroying Judaism, would he still be able to be on good terms with rabbis who instructed their followers to vote and be part of the State?

* I have said on numerous occasions that what currently passes as the standard approach to conversion was not the case at all in previous years. To begin with, among the rabbis there were different understandings of what kabbalat ha-mitzvot entailed, and the currently accepted view that a prospective convert must commit to become fully halakhically observant, as practiced today in Orthodox communities, was not the view of many, and perhaps not even the view of most. The notion that a conversion could be annulled after the fact was hardly ever put into practice, although even this is found on occasion and R. Baruch cites some authorities who speak about this very point. Thus, it is not, as has often been alleged, a modern haredi idea with no historical basis although, as mentioned, it was very rare…

Today, the assumption of many conversion courts is that if someone who converts is later seen violating halakhah in a serious way, we can assume that this person never really accepted the mitzvot at the conversion, and the conversion is therefore not valid. It is this argument which was hardly ever put into practice in previous years and now appears to be quite common, so much so that converts claim to feel that their conversions are always “on condition,” namely, that even many years after converting there is the possibility that the conversion will be declared invalid because of a lack of proper kabbalat ha-mitzvot…

According to R. Isaac, in places such as Spain and Portugal, where one could not practice Judaism openly, if a Jewish man marries a non-Jewish woman, and the woman chooses to practice Judaism, both she and her children are regarded as Jewish. How can she be Jewish when she never immersed in the mikveh and there was no beit din to preside over the conversion? R. Isaac says that there is no obligation to immerse in the mikveh when there is danger (as there would be in a place with the Inquisition looking to find Crypto-Jews). Although he does not elaborate, it is obvious that according to R. Isaac kabbalat ha-mitzvot in front of a beit din is not an absolute requirement. In other words, he holds that in a she’at ha-dehak one can convert on one’s own, without a beit din.

Posted in Marc B. Shapiro, Orthodoxy | Comments Off on Tales Of The Gadolim

Helsinki, The World Cup & Toxic Femininity (7-16-18)

* From VDARE: Populists Aren’t Organizing. Is It Because They Won’t… Or Because They’re Not Being Allowed To?

* Heather E. Heying writes:

Hotness-amplifying femininity puts on a full display, advertising fertility and urgent sexuality. It invites male attention by, for instance, revealing flesh, or by painting on signals of sexual receptivity. This, I would argue, is inviting trouble. No, I did not just say that she was asking for it. I did, however, just say that she was displaying herself, and of course she was going to get looked at.

The amplification of hotness is not, in and of itself, toxic, although personally, I don’t respect it, and never have. Hotness fades, wisdom grows— wise young women will invest accordingly. Femininity becomes toxic when it cries foul, chastising men for responding to a provocative display.

Where we set our boundaries is a question about which reasonable people might disagree, but two bright-lines are widely agreed upon: Every woman has the right not to be touched if she does not wish to be; and coercive quid pro quo, in which sexual favors are demanded for the possibility of career advancement, is unacceptable. But when women doll themselves up in clothes that highlight sexually-selected anatomy, and put on make-up that hints at impending orgasm, it is toxic—yes, toxic—to demand that men do not look, do not approach, do not query.

Young women have vast sexual power. Everyone who is being honest with themselves knows this: Women in their sexual prime who are anywhere near the beauty-norms for their culture have a kind of power that nobody else has. They are also all but certain to lack the wisdom to manage it. Toxic femininity is an abuse of that power, in which hotness is maximized, and victim status is then claimed when straight men don’t treat them as peers.

Creating hunger in men by actively inviting the male gaze, then demanding that men have no such hunger—that is toxic femininity. Subjugating men, emasculating them when they display strength—physical, intellectual, or other—that is toxic femininity. Insisting that men, simply by virtue of being men, are toxic, and then acting surprised as relationships between men and women become more strained—that is toxic femininity. It is a game, the benefits of which go to a few while the costs are shared by all of us.

* From the New York Times:

The World Cup Changed Russia, but for How Long?

The World Cup will not lead to a change in national laws, or regional prejudices, against homosexuality. It will not stop African players in the Russian league from experiencing racism.

Posted in Alt Right, Feminism, Russia | Comments Off on Helsinki, The World Cup & Toxic Femininity (7-16-18)

Constantin von Hoffmeister On National Futurism (7-15-18)

Who was Faust?

LINK: Robert Stark, co-host Pilleater, and Rabbit talk to Constantin von Hoffmeister. He is an advocate of National Futurism and blogs at Oge Noct

Topics:

Constantin’s National Futurist Manifesto
How Futusim captures the Faustian Promethean nature of Western Man
Taking a materialistic over spiritual outlook toward identity
The Italian Futurist who wanted to re-create the glory of Rome in a futurist setting
The Dada movement, and Constantin’s flirtation with the concept of National Dadaism
The concept of Eurosiberia and Imperium Europa
National Bolshevism, Eurasianism, and Aleksandr Dugin
The European Migrant Crisis, and why Constantin is pessimistic about his home country Germany’s future
Why Constantin views Islamization as Europe’s primary threat, but America as a rival
How the election of Trump has improved Constantin’s view toward America
Constantin’s support for Israel and Secular Arab Nationalism as a bulwark against Radical Islam
The Cultural effects of Communism on East Germany and Eastern Europe
The Faustian Imperial Nature of Brutalist Architecture
Le Corbusier’s Plan To Overhaul Paris
Using Le Corbusier’s ideas to redevelop decaying suburbs into garden cities
The glitzy Neo-Brutalist Architecture of John C. Portman Jr, and his inspiration from the Champs-Élysées
London’s Architecture, Ernő Goldfinger’s Brutalist towers, Centre Point, and the BT Tower
The Bauhaus White City in Tel Aviv, Israel
Art Nouveau, Art Deco, and Mid-century modern
The Palace of the Soviets proposal in Moscow
The Russian Futurist movement
1970s Soviet futurism
New Arbat and Cyberpunk in Moscow
Constantin’s experience in India, and Le Corbusier’s Chandigarh, India
Constantin’s Poetry

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on Constantin von Hoffmeister On National Futurism (7-15-18)