Chief Rabbi for all of Europe says Jews are 'fighting alongside their Muslim brothers against Old Europe.' pic.twitter.com/YKvt4ZQZjD
— Hank (@_LiquidSwords) January 25, 2017
Gee, I wonder how Old Europe feels about that.
Chief Rabbi for all of Europe says Jews are 'fighting alongside their Muslim brothers against Old Europe.' pic.twitter.com/YKvt4ZQZjD
— Hank (@_LiquidSwords) January 25, 2017
Gee, I wonder how Old Europe feels about that.
This has always been the hardest part of religion and 12-Step work for me. I want to do my own thing but only when that keeps resulting in disaster for me do I reluctantly turn back to God and then my inclination is to only turn to God as much as necessary and not a degree further to keep from disaster.
I find myself going through the day yearning to do all sorts of things that I know are not God’s will for my life. I don’t like this question — am I willing to align my will with God’s will? It’s too painful.
A way of phrasing the question for an atheist is — am I willing to align my will with what is in my ultimate interest? Or am I going to spend much of my time yearning for things that I know are bad for me?
For thousands of years, almost every female was some man’s property (the usual cycle was to go from being the property of her father to the property of her husband). As a man’s property, she did not have to take the same responsibility for her decisions as a man. She lacked agency.
It would be strange if this history did not have some effect on how women act today.
When I was a Seventh-Day Adventist kid, I was struck by how girls would say and do things that a guy could never get away with. A girl would say something so insulting that if a guy said it, he’d be smacked, but the girls felt secure they would not be hit. I also remember how girls would hit guys with full assurance that guys would not hit them back.
I still see this today. I’ve dated girls who would on occasion hit me if they were ticked off and they felt 100% confident I would not hit them back. I see women say things that if a guy said them, he’d be smacked.
An interesting part of Marc Gafni‘s controversies is how many women claimed that they had no responsibility for their sexual relations with him (while they were consenting adults, no police charges have ever been filed against Marc). These women said they were blinded by his charisma. They were overwhelmed by his status as a teacher and so they couldn’t think straight.
These women are saying that they lack agency — that they are not responsible for their decisions. It frightens me that such people walk the streets without supervision, without some man taking responsibility for them given that they don’t want to take any for themselves.
I notice among women in my social class that even though most are feminists, they usually expect a man to come along and do the heavy lifting (pay off their student loans, buy a home, etc) for them while at the same time, they insist on complete equality of opportunity.
F. Roger Devlin argues that women initiate divorce by a 9-1 ratio.
I think there’s great truth to the cliche that women tend to act on their feelings while men are more likely to respond to reason and hierarchy.
I don’t think for a second that men are objectively superior to women or that one race is superior to another race. I think in some areas, men are superior to women, in other areas women are superior to men, and in some things, one race tends to do better than others, to run faster, for example, or to think more deeply or achieve more greatly.
One girlfriend told me, “You pick on vulnerable women, get their feelings aroused, and then tell them to act in their self-interest.”
Even when I was using and abusing others, I had to do it in a way that justified my righteousness in my own eyes. I’ve never been able to stand thinking I was a bad person. I always had to reframe or deny that. Facing up to the way I was deliberately hurtful to innocent people was just too painful.
I do not think for a second that I have been more of a victim of others than they have been of me.
If I wanted to cross a bridge or ascend a skyscraper, I would feel more confident if men had built and designed it. If I wanted a nanny, I would feel more confident in selecting a woman. If I wanted a girlfriend, I would feel more confident in selecting someone who was a woman.
I’ve always espoused personal responsibility, but when I was growing up, my parents had to constantly lecture me on the topic because my behavior demanded that. When I got out of the home, I tried to get away with everything I could. Looking back on my life, I see much of my behavior as irresponsible. I still feel a reflex to blame others for my problems but through 12-Step work, I know that is a signal I have to take better care of myself and to stand up for my legitimate interests.
When I get triggered, it means I don’t accept reality and I am may not be comfortable with my identity and my choices. I’m likely trying to get myself and the world to accept my false self.
I don’t work on my problems by working on my problems. Instead, I work on increasing my contact with God.
My days are usually happiest when they are the most structured and I have few choices. Choice is exhausting. If I have everything laid out for when I get up, when I know exactly what to do, when I do the same thing over and over each day, when I know exactly where to go and at what time, I do better. If instead, I have to make choices when I arise, when I have to try to remember things, when I have to pull things together, when I am not sure where I am going and at what times, I struggle.
Before I ever knew I had addictions, I did best when my life was highly structured (and I worked and studied a ton). It’s always been important for me to be good at what I’m doing. When I’m thrown back to just being, when I’m struggling to find my way, when I’m looking for work, I’ve found that shattering.
Today I plan to overflow with love for others.
I love the prayer of St. Francis:
Lord, make me an instrument of your peace:
where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury, pardon;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
where there is sadness, joy.
O divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek
to be consoled as to console,
to be understood as to understand,
to be loved as to love.
For it is in giving that we receive,
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.
Amen.
My new Tinder profile: “I’m looking for somebody to take care of me so that I can concentrate on my tweeting and tikkun olam.”
I felt cold as I walked thru the rain to shul on Shabbos. My friend said, “We’ll have to get you a coat.” I felt nurtured. It was amazing to hear someone want to take care of me. I hope I can learn to take care of myself so that I can quit relying on the kindness of strangers (and friends and family). Can I learn to give to myself what I want others to give to me (without relapsing into the sin of Onan)?
My wounded inner child wants to **** and cuddle and be loved and adored. My Critical Inner Parent says I’m bad, I’m missing the mark.
I can’t believe I have to write this column.
For those who missed it, white supremacist Richard Spencer was punched in the face Friday while counter-protesting at Trump’s inauguration. This resulted in much jubilation, so much so that The New York Times ran a piece openly questioning if it was okay to punch Nazis. Here’s a former top Obama staffer seemingly agreeing that it was.
I don’t care how many different songs you set Richard Spencer being punched to, I’ll laugh at every one.
— Jon Favreau (@jonfavs) January 21, 2017
Did I personally enjoy watching Spencer get hurt? Yes, just like I get perverse amusement from cop killers showing up in court with black eyes after they “resisted arrest,” child abusers getting abused in prison– heck, even just people slipping on the ice and eating it. I am a man, and man is a sinful, violent animal with urges unconducive to civil society. That includes delighting in the pain of others, especially those I consider beneath me.
But a central tenant of civilization itself is that these evil urges are best suppressed by a set of legal and moral imperatives. For hundreds of years, American society has proudly embraced the conceit that other citizens can say things that shock us, disgust us, infuriate us, even say things that we believe are fundamentally dangerous, but we will not retaliate outside of the law. Crazier yet, those who most strongly believe in democracy have often gone out of their way to defend the rights of those who would dismantle it, having faith in the strength of their fellow citizens’ convictions to prevent the unthinkable. Spencer had every right to spout his beliefs unmolested, no matter how evil or sick.
I made a miscalculation earlier today. I suspected that many of the people cheering Spencer’s attack did so innocently, and by minimizing the assault– that is, they think that’s okay to hit him but not go much further than that. I made a pretty simple point on Twitter: even a single punch can disable or kill a man, and therefore Spencer’s attacker conceivably could have killed him.
The tweet took off, and not in a good way. Literally hundreds of people responded, all saying that they would have loved if the attacker had killed Spencer. Some went further, calling for the extrajudicial killing of all Nazis.
And…..? https://t.co/AVTq1ap623
— Ophelia Fanny Hole (@OHTheMaryD) January 23, 2017
@HashtagGriswold it’s objectively good to maim and/or kill nazis
— inkwell (@inkersive) January 23, 2017
@HashtagGriswold the last time people killed Nazi’s en masse they were called the greatest generation
— jsoh (@imjsoh) January 23, 2017
@HashtagGriswold do you not get that if Richard Spencer died that would be a good thing
— goat 2k17❄️🌹☭ (@gatorgoat) January 23, 2017
@HashtagGriswold lol yes. That’s why we’re cheering.
— Neil Bhandari (@alorakid) January 23, 2017
A dead Nazi is actually #good. https://t.co/zmZFY26HLW
— sad Alan Thicke fan (@DormanEra) January 23, 2017
Killing nazis is a good thing https://t.co/MCjuXVOc6y
— Rick Sanchez (@MJK_NY31) January 23, 2017
Killing Nazis is kinda the point. https://t.co/Gfl1UGIdQ8
— TransTransRevolution (@EmKelley39) January 23, 2017
Should’ve hit him with a bat instead, tbh! https://t.co/fdVNsYKu9m
— . (@SDotSimon) January 23, 2017
I wonder how many people wished it would have? *raises hand* kill all Nazis. https://t.co/Qz82I7y7ae
— (((ToyotaObsessed))) (@ToyotaObsession) January 23, 2017
I honestly don’t have room for all the responses along these lines. These are also the polite responses, not the ones calling me a Nazi or calling for my death.
It was an eye-opening reaction. The reason I penned the tweet was because I thought the liberal consensus that serves as the bedrock of the American society was intact. I had this whole spiel planned about how if we as a society endorse violence against one Nazi, we’re responsible if it leads to worse violence, maybe even murder, where do you draw the line, blah blah blah. I thought it was more or less self-evident that you don’t murder people on the street for expressing views you don’t like. I thought we were all the same page, and I was wrong.
What was most depressing is that the pro-violence responses came almost uniformly from liberals. I suppose that isn’t that shocking: 51% of modern Democrats believe the government should ban hateful speech entirely. The more intelligent responses phrased it this way: Nazis are so violent, so dangerous, so outside the mainstream, they don’t deserve the usual protections afforded to political speech, including protection from violence. Still, it is sad to see so many liberal Americans abandoning one of the founding suppositions of liberalism at the dawn of an administration where it will be more necessary than ever before.
The hypocrisy is blinding. Nazis, you see, are fascist, jackbooted thugs who suppress others’ liberties and murder those they find despicable. To stop this threat, we must become fascist, jackbooted thugs who suppress others’ liberties and murder those we find despicable. The cure isn’t worse than the disease, it is the disease. (And yes, this all comes after Donald Trump was rightfully savaged by the same people for openly calling for violence against protesters)
Even if you buy the lesser notion that Nazis deserved to be punched in the face, who decides who the Nazis are? Spencer swears up and down that he’s not a Nazi. That’s obviously a questionable claim. But the number of people in American politics who are called Nazis or racists and protest that they aren’t is… well, everyone at this point.
Going by many people’s judgment, Donald Trump is a Nazi. Before he was a Nazi, Obama and Bush were the Nazis, Reagan was a Nazi, William F. Buckley was a crypto-fascist as I recall. Today, dozens of people have called me a Nazi. And if we’re talking about ideologies that led to the murder of millions in general: Obama was also supposedly a communist, as were Bill and Hillary Clinton, as was Bernie Sanders. Going by death toll we ought to punch communists twice as hard as Nazis, right?
I made a similar point when The New York Daily News openly praised the assassination of an ambassador last month. The moment violence against “Nazis” becomes an acceptable response to discourse, everyone becomes a Nazi.
I'm Jewish. I stand ready to register as a Muslim in #solidarity if it comes to that.
— Mayim Bialik (@missmayim) January 25, 2017
The "apartheid" State of Israel giving #refugee status to #Syrian youth to be integrated into Arab Israeli families https://t.co/kPYt79LlZh
— B'nai Brith Canada (@bnaibrithcanada) January 25, 2017
From London’s Jewish Chronicle:
Jews must oppose new order
There is an obvious place for Jews in Trump’s world — standing against every last bit of it, writes Jonathan Freedland
For admirers of Philip Roth, there were two moments that stood out during the inauguration of Donald Trump. The first was the new presidents repeated insistence that, from now on, it would only be America first. Those two words sent a chill through anyone who knows that America First was the movement, filled with nativists and antisemites, that campaigned so hard to keep the US out of the war against Hitler. Among its luminaries was the aviator Charles Lindbergh, whom Roth imagines as US president in his great novel, The Plot Against America.
The second moment came when Rabbi Marvin Hier, head of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, stepped forward to bless the new president. Roth readers could not help but recall Rabbi Lionel Bengelsdorf, happy to stand at the side of the fictional President Lindbergh, despite everything.
When reading the novel, you’re not sure whether to excoriate Bengelsdorf for his unprincipled opportunism — he does well out of his relationship with the man in the White House; his wife starts wearing fine minks — or his naivety. Lacking the hindsight available to us now, perhaps Bengelsdorf does not realise what kind of man he is vouching for, or where this could all lead. He tells his fellow Jews to calm themselves, reassuring them that Lindbergh is not the monster they fear.
Hier has faced plenty of criticism. One rabbinic colleague, Jason Miller, reminded him that he runs a Museum of Tolerance while Trump had built his campaign on intolerance. Miller added that Wiesenthal would be “rolling in his grave” at the thought that the dean of an institution bearing his name would give his blessing to a politician who had indulged hatemongers and who took so long to reject the endorsement of the former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke.
Hier’s defence is that it would have caused “ill will” towards Jews if Trump’s request for a rabbinic seal of approval had been rebuffed. And, I suppose, he can make the same case for taking part in the ceremony as Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton: that their presence did not imply political endorsement, so much as respect for the democratic process.
But that logic does not apply to the minority of American Jews who are throwing in their lot with the new US president.
Put simply, Jews should want nothing to do with Trumpism. Some might be drawn to the new president’s hawkishness on Israel, typified by his promise to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and his nomination of the pro-settler extremist David Friedman to serve as ambassador. But those who care about Israel’s future viability as a state both Jewish and democratic know such moves can only hurt, not help. They are a bottle of vodka left on the doorstep of an alcoholic: presented as an act of friendship, they are in fact an encouragement to self-destruction…
As Denial, the film about the David Irving trial, is released, we Jews should know better than most how terrifying such a world would be. But the same is true of all the defining elements of Trumpism: the disregard for facts, the demands for an annual day of “patriotic devotion”, the suspicion of the outsider, the trampling on democratic norms. There is an obvious place for Jews in Trump’s world — standing against every last bit of it.
In other words, in the diaspora, Jews must continue to side with the Coalition of the Fringe against the core.