March 18, 2016 Altruism As Promiscuity Luke Ford No sacred cows.

Altruism As Promiscuity

Posted on March 18, 2016 by Luke Ford

Brett Stevens writes: Altruism now strikes me as a type of promiscuous behavior. The person advertises their value, and then others take them up on the offer, and then the person validates their sense of self-worth through the interest of others. Like a slut at a bar, they only feel good when some guy has bought them drinks and taken them home.

These people we call altruists are essentially attention whores. For them, life has no beauties except the attention of others. When they are dancing naked on a table in a bar, a spectacle mocked by any sane person, they are compensating for their lack of success with the fact that they are the center of attention. This is what the altruist gets in exchange for their acts of charity.

The same girl who likes to be in the middle of the room while a dozen men line up to have sex with her will instead go on a mission to Africa. She is a degree smarter than the raw whore, and knows that this way, she can not only get her attention fix, but be lauded by democratic, egalitarian society as a hero. The prostitute becomes a savior.

In the same way, our elites are whores. They do whatever is required to gain the attention of the herd. If the herd is foaming at the mouth about sexism that week, that is the topic. They say what is required to get the voters to sign off on more power for the elites. And then they do it again, and the voters fall for it.

Our society has, like a patient with uremic poisoning, become a victim of its inability to recognize toxins. Whores and gigolos are toxins, but when they wear suits and go on missionary trips to Haiti we are blinded to their inner whore. When we become healthy again, the first task will be recognizing the toxicity of promiscuous altruism — and removing it like the parasite it is.

Posted in Ethics | Comments Off

Steve Sailer: Time to Pivot from Individualistic Conservatism to Solidaristic Conservatism for Awhile

Posted on March 18, 2016 by Luke Ford

Steve Sailer writes: The Tea Party struck me as an implicit solidaristic conservative movement organized around an individualist ideology of libertarianism, but less for reasons of ideology than of patriotic history: America was founded by liberty lovers, so this history was seen (murkily, I admit) as offering a potentially unifying national theme in an increasingly diverse and fractious country. Of course, these citizenist stirrings were contemptuously rejected by the left as the racist twitchings of dying white men etc…

Individualistic Reagan-Kemp conservatism had a good run in its day, but then it hit diminishing marginal returns. So, it’s time for solidaristic conservatism for awhile. Do the low-hanging fruit that have been neglected, like build a border fence, implement E-verify, fire the SJWs from Executive branch sinecures, eliminate the most plutocratic tax loopholes like carried interest for hedge fund guys, encourage the most desirable global manufacturers to set up factories in America (as Reagan reluctantly did with Japanese car companies), etc.

Then when solidaristic conservatism starts to run out of ideas and gas, individualistic conservatism can have another shot, after they’ve been away in the wilderness for awhile and have had time and incentive to come up with some better ideas. First, though, let the solidaristic conservatives have a time to fix the biggest weaknesses in the individualistic model, such as not defending the nation’s borders in an age of ever increasing smartphone-enabled Third World migrations.

* The diminishing marginal returns idea is especially important when you’re dealing with ideas like decreasing tax rates and deregulating industry. How much it makes sense to pursue those policies depends on how high taxes are and how heavily regulated industry is. A world where the CAB is setting airline fares is a lot more ripe for deregulation than one where the top two companies in some space can routinely merge without antitrust worries (like Sirius and XM, say). Something similar works with tough on crime rhetoric–when the crack wars were filling up prisons and graveyards, getting tougher on crime might have been a good direction to take policy, whereas now, with historically low crime rates and a massive prison population, it’s probably a pretty bad direction to take policy.

* Question: What would be an ideal pivot away from individualistic conservatism toward a more solidaristic conservativism on say, foreign policy issues?

In other words, the neo-con mode of “Invade the world” just cause we need to bring democratic institutions to faraway places that never had them in the first place, should that be chucked out the window?

Would a more solidaristic conservatism be along the lines of: For now, let’s bring most of the troops home. Perhaps place many of them on the southern border while the wall/fence is being built to help beef up border security. Also, we’re pulling of Afghanistan and Iraq, period. AND we’re not gonna start any new wars/endeavors in faraway places. If faraway places really want to build a democracy in their own lands, that’s great. We’ll supply the moral encouragement. Let us know when they’ve succeeded. But meanwhile, we’re gonna take care of our own right in the good ol’ USA.

I mean, the logical opposite of the neocon “invade the world, invite the world” results in “the world’s not invited ’cause they first have to wait their turn in line legally, and we’ve called off invasions of the world ’cause we’re more focused on the homeland.”

Regarding foreign policy from a more solidaristic conservatism, that would seem to be the logical conclusion. The complete opposite of invade and invite.

Aside from the possibility of a Trump administration, its difficult to see any major candidate in either party implementing even ten percent toward that kind of solidaristic foreign policy, and with Trump, at best one could hope for would be about ten percent of it being implemented.

* The fact of the matter is no people on earth believes in conservative or libertarian economics. Every democracy in the world has universal health care, for example. There is support for cutting government in the abstract, but not for any actually programs.

So why do conservatives win elections? By being the slightly less anti-white, anti-male, anti-Christian party.

Yet the establishment wants to take away the only reason anyone actually votes Republican.

There is no more clueless people on the planet than the Republican establishment. Those on the left have a version of the red pill they’ve taken. They’re blind to the stupidity of their own demographics, but know that conservatives only vote based on identity. Yet GOP establishment types are living in a fantasy world where you win in democracy by having the policy proposals that are best for growth.

* Neoconservatives are constantly telling us what the opposite of their foreign policy is, when it’s not one worldism: isolationism. Because they call almost anything that falls short of starting wars every other year and doesn’t involve U.S. troops wearing blue helmets, that doesn’t tell you much. But, yes, calling troops home to defend our actual borders instead of the borders of our empire, is to them isolationism. This has nothing to do with individualism versus solidarity, though. You can easily be an individualist and an “isolationist.”

* Trump’s statements are all over the place.

One curious statement he made that in the past would have been a litmus test for all candidates is is stance on F-35. He brought it up once, and nobody asked him about it, and none of the other candidates brought it up.

Trump wants to ‘fire’ F-35.

So Trump is the least militaristic candidate running. Hillary is the most militaristic, just like Goldwater. But these are different times.

* Partisan politics gives some evidence, though not alot, to a shift more to the left.

With presidential politics, the Republicans won 5 out of 6 presidential elections between 1968 and 1988, inclusive. In only one of these elections, 1976, a real outlier, did the Democratic candidate carry more than a dozen states, and only in 1976 and 1988 did the Democratic candidate get over 43% of the popular vote.

In the next six presidential elections, between 1992 and 2012, the Democratic candidate got at least a popular vote plurality five out of six times. This included a majority twice, as opposed to once (barely) in the earlier six elections, and winning at least 47% of the popular vote in all these elections except for 1992.

The presidential votes are important because that is what people pay attention to and where they vote their ideology. Most of the electorate doesn’t bother to vote in the down-ballot races. And when they do, ideology places less of a role, almost none in local races. This decreases the importance of the huge wins the Republicans have been racking up in Congressional, state, and local elections since 1994, especially since the Congressional majorities seem to have been due to wiping out what used to be a a considerable caucus of conservative Dems. I suspect that there has been substantial deterioration in the Democratic Party organization that is being masked by the general public starting to prefer them more on the presidential level.

In terms of policy, on economic policy there has been a clear shift to the right, if you define “right” and “left” the way that it has been traditionally defined, more vs less inequality. Median income in real terms has fallen, and the share of wealth going to the top has increased, and this is plainly due directly to policy changes such as the “free trade” agreements. The police have more power, more people are in jail, and there is more surveillance. In foreign policy, the US has taken to invading countries seemingly at random and changing their governments. All these used to be regarded as right wing ideas.

On red state blogs, such as this, I have seen what I wrote about in the above paragraph explained away either through outright denial that these trends are happening, claiming that the traditional definitions of left and right don’t exist and these things are happening and part of a left-wing agenda, or pointing to the fact that the culture doesn’t push the 1950s style nuclear family with clear separation of gender roles much, which is true, but then greatly overemphasizing the importance of this vs the other things going on. The 1950s was something of an outlier, the nuclear family and suburban lifestyle pushed in that time were much less prevalent earlier. Also I question diversity training at the workplace, basically private employers getting their workers together and lecturing them on how they should think about non-workplace issues, is really a left-wing project.

So yes, policy has been shifting to the right, to the point of running into diminishing marginal returns, and the general public is not as supportive of this as in the past. There has also been a deterioration, or lack of precision, or outright inversion in the use of political terms that makes it difficult to describe what is going on. Also more difficult for tradition-minded people who want more equality of income and put alot of value on civil liberties to find a team to root for.

* To your wider point regarding the tension between conservatism and solidarity, this is largely due to the fact that the Republican Party now includes major segments of the old Democratic coalition that favored solidaristic ideas and have migrated over to the GOP since the 60s. “Solidarity” is basically old left, labor liberalism. The GOP was traditionally the party of northeastern business elites and Midwestern and Western independent farmers and small town businessmen. The northern working class and the South switched tot he GOP, which now includes these divergent tendencies. This can be seen in the geographic divide between Cruz and Trump’s electoral successes, and Trump is even extending these trends by bringing in many former Dems and Independents into the GOP.

If I had to guess, I suppose the GOP will move in a more solidaristic direction, and Trump’s success may just be the beginning. The northern WASPs that make up the traditional GOP don’t have the demographic and cultural influence, even within the white population, let alone the wider population.

Posted in America | Comments Off

Choose Trump, Choose Life

Posted on March 18, 2016 by Luke Ford

Some of my Jewish friends tell me that most of the Jewish elites in the media, Wall Street, academia, politics, and law are strongly opposed to Trump. So how has he defeated them? He’s done it by allowing them to expose themselves as hostile to the core of this country. He’s allowed them to expose those elites who push multi-culturalism, homo marriage, trannies, every more civil rights for blacks, latinos and other oppressed minorities, those elites who are always pushing for more rights and privileges for minorities at the expense of the majority.

If we don’t choose Trump now, we’ll choose Hitler later. Trump is offering Jews a great deal — there will be no pogroms against Jews in America under his watch, and he will support Israel but America will fight no wars for Israel, and will not destabilize any more governments for Israel.

Most Jewish elites won’t take this deal. They’d rather die trying to destroy Trump. There is a wish for annihilation, a wish to be thrown into a pit of death in parts of the psyche of some Jews. How else to explain their destructive behavior? All of the major Jewish organizations want to bring more Muslims into the West, and these Muslims tend to hate Jews more than whites do.

Most of America’s elites (about half of them are Jewish) have been strongly opposed to Trump and now it looks like he will defeat them. He has exposed them as enemies of the majority American nation. Trump asks first — what’s good for America? That’s anathema to the globalist elites.

Donald Trump has revealed that when it comes to the globalist agenda, there’s little difference between a David Brooks and a Paul Krugman, between the New York Times editorial page and Commentary magazine. There’s just one party ruling America and that party is ruled by elites promoting globalism rather than American nationalism.

The West eventually will either be conquered by Islam, deport Islam or slaughter Islam. I think it is better to stop Muslims coming into the West than to kill them when they become unruly. When Muslim terror exacts a large enough toll, patriots will rise up and burn mosques and slaughter Muslims en masse. It’s better that the West protect itself against Islam. It is better to deport people than to kill them. It is better that we stop bombing Muslims and stop admitting them into our lands and stop interfering in their governments.

From my perspective, Muslims aren’t better or worse than Christians or Jews. There is no master race. There is no people marked out by the will of Heaven to rule the world. It’s just that different groups are better adapted for different countries. Jews and Christians are not a good fit for Saudia Arabia. Most Muslims are not a good fit for first-world countries. Japan does not need more non-Japanese living there. Every people has a right to pursue its self interest, to develop a portion of the globe just for them where they have sovereignty and can develop free of unwanted outside influence. Every people deserves their own Israel — WASPs, Croats, Nigerians, Japanese, Chinese, Australians, etc. As someone said on Steve Sailer’s site: “Different groups of people have very different ideas about the basis of social order. That’s what different countries are for.”

What effect will it have on Trump to be constantly called Hitler? I know that when I am constantly told I am something, I start thinking, well, maybe I am? If I am constantly told I am cruel, I start thinking, well, maybe that’s who I am. When I am constantly told I am a bad guy, I start thinking, maybe I am a bad guy, let me be really bad to these people who tell me I am bad.

FFB: “I’m glad you are able to spew out so many words of wisdom before Shabbat. I was afraid my Shabbat was going to be so empty and non-spiritual.”

Posted in Adolf Hitler, America, Jews | Comments Off

Gotnews.com On Ben Shapiro

Posted on March 17, 2016 by Luke Ford

Charles Johnson writes: #GrabGate: It’s about ethics in conservative journalism.

Columnist Ben Shapiro once praised Donald Trump but now with anti-Trump, pro-Cruz money for his venture on the line he’s allowing his judgment and his ethics to be corrupted.

That’s a shame but Shapiro has crossed a legal line that may call into question his law license and undermines his credibility by helping a known fabulist falsely accuse a rival campaign manager.

Shapiro wasn’t always as anti-Trump as he is today.

Shapiro praised the “Magic of Donald Trump” in 2011 writing the following approvingly (and rather presciently) of Trump the politician:

If Republicans were to construct an ideal candidate, he would have to be rich beyond belief… would have significant name recognition with the general public…[and] would have stage presence, an intimidation factor, and a willingness to play dirty.
The moment he declares in earnest and gets on the campaign stump, his numbers will rise dramatically.
Is Donald Trump the best Republican candidate for president out there? It would be tough to argue otherwise. He’s got all the makings of a breakout star; he’s got bravado and the cash to back it up. If he really runs, he won’t have any trouble finding supporters.

Shapiro has subsequently granted that while Trump isn’t a conservative in Shapiro’s eyes, he has mass appeal.

Here’s Shapiro praising Trump as recently as July of last year.

“The real reason why people support Donald Trump, the real reason is because he is capturing the moral narrative in the country right now…” Shapiro said at an Ann Coulter event in July 2015.

“What Republicans need to do is recognize is that what Trump does and what he is so incredibly effective at in his own kind of brusque and rough way is Donald Trump says there is a villain to this story,” Shapiro said.

Posted in Ben Shapiro | Comments Off

Meet the Israelis praying for a Trump win

Posted on March 17, 2016 by Luke Ford

Los Angeles Times: Trump was sent to us by God,” said Michael Yigal Mimon, a former intelligence officer in the Israeli army who proudly counts himself among a growing number of Donald Trump supporters in Israel.

Like the United States, Mimon said, Israel longs for a return to a “purist” conservative politics – one characterized by individualism, strong national defense policies, and the conviction that Israel is a key buffer against a “Muslim takeover” in the West.

“Obama decided to destroy America’s credibility in order to help his Muslim friends, but now we are witnessing a rebellion of the masses, people who feel they are being dominated or shut up by the radical left elite,” said Mimon. And though Trump has not revealed his strategy for the Middle East, he added, he has expressed a “healthy fear of Islam.”

61% of Israelis see Trump as “moderately” or “very” friendly to Israel, according to an Israel Democracy Institute study released this month. 34% said that a Republican candidate would be pro-Israel, as opposed to 28% who said the same about a Democratic candidate.

“People in Israel, given the choice of the wild card Trump or the known quantity of Hillary Clinton, would choose Trump,” said Abe Katsman, an American immigrant to Israel who works with Republicans Abroad Israel. While Bill Clinton had a favorable reputation in Israel, he said, Hillary is seen as responsible for Obama’s unpopular policies.

Israelis have a more negative view of Obama than most people around the world, according to a WIN/Gallup poll conducted last year. Of the 65 countries surveyed, only four had a dimmer view of Obama than Israel. Even Iranians held Obama in slightly higher regard, giving him a net favorability score of -21%, compared to Israel’s -22%.

Israelis who support Trump claim that Obama has turned his back on the war on terror, leaving a power vacuum that has bred an emboldened Iran, a tumultuous Syria and Iraq, and a wave of radicalism throughout Israel’s Arab neighbors. And they decry what they see as America’s lack of support for Israel during the “knife intifada” – the wave of attacks on Israeli civilians and soldiers over the past six months, largely carried out by young Palestinians.

Trump’s campaign coincides with a period of growing political polarization among Jewish Israelis, as the far-right grows in popularity due to the ongoing attacks. His brash colloquial style and “chutzpah” resonate with an Israeli public, said Nimrod Zuta, a 24-year-old security guard and activist with the youth department of Netanyahu’s Likud party who manages a Facebook page for Israeli Trump supporters.

But while Trump has said he would “bomb the hell” out of the Islamic State, he has said little about his foreign policy plans for Israel — only that he would be “neutral” in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

Zuta is not worried. “I believe that [Trump] will take a ‘live and let live’ policy in regard to our expansion in Judea and Samaria,” said Zuta, referring to the biblical name for the disputed territory where increasing Jewish presence has been condemned by Obama and the international community — but which 42% of Jewish Israelis believe is crucial to Israel’s security, according to a Pew Research Center poll.

Trump’s Israeli critics fear him for the same reasons his followers love him: he is impulsive and liable to turn the political landscape on its head. Many find his rhetoric unnerving, regardless of the target group. “When we hear him talk about the Syrian refugee crisis, who to the Jews of Israel represent a mirror image to our own grandparents fleeing war, we can’t accept it,” said Tal Schneider, a political commentator.

Some in the Israeli right-wing establishment, too, are unnerved by Trump’s penchant for provocation and “borderline racism,” Likud party member Amir Witeman said. “We do distinguish between his seeing foreigners, like Chinese or Mexicans, as the enemy — which makes us very uncomfortable — and [Trump’s] stance against immigrants from the Middle East, who are potential extremists who can, like in Cologne on New Year’s, bring violence into the countries,” he said, referring to the sexual assaults reported outside Cologne, Germany’s central train station on New Year’s eve. Police initially said the perpetrators were of North African descent, though German newspaper Welt am Sonntag later reported that police had determined many of them were Syrian refugees.

Israel’s most widely-read newspaper, Israel Hayom, backed by American GOP mega-donor Sheldon Adelson, is already throwing its weight behind Trump. The conservative tabloid ran multiple front page stories this week touting Trump’s victories and presenting him as a friend of Israel.

“My win is great news for Israel,” Trump told Boaz Bismuth, the paper’s foreign editor who is currently covering Trump in Florda. “Your friend is leading the primaries. I’ve always been your friend, even in the most difficult moments, and that’s not about to change.”

It doesn’t hurt that Trump’s daughter Ivanka converted to Orthodox Judaism before marrying real estate mogul Jared Kushner. “Trump is better than a Jew because he doesn’t have any of the complexes of Jewish guilt,” said Andrew Hamilton, an Australian immigrant to Israel and Jewish convert. “Ironically enough, a White Anglo Saxon Protestant with Jewish grandchildren is doing the most to protect the future of the Jewish people.”

Posted in Donald Trump, Israel | Comments Off

How the ADL is working to destroy America

Posted on March 17, 2016 by Luke Ford

Rabbi Nachum Shifren writes in 2009:

It is difficult to write about Jewish traitors, but I have the obligation to do so. My life as an American and a Jew is rooted in one miracle: individual liberty and freedom of speech and conscience. We are living in dangerous times, times when men of good will are afraid to speak out. There are some things you cannot say in America today.

I will say them anyway.

For years, I have noticed something curious about religion in America, Israel, and elsewhere. When I go into an establishment to pray, I notice how thick the carpet is. The gold and silver on doors and paneling’s. The “honorees” abounding with their plaques and pictures adorning walls and halls. I have prayed in many different shuls (synagogues) throughout the world, and I admit a proclivity toward those humbler, more “hamish” (homey) environs, with the simple wood benches and plain floors.

For me, it is in a place surrounded by holy books, next to the Torah, with those dust-coated windows, that I find solace with the Creator of Heaven and Earth. No games here, no power trips — and you are only as good as your cleaving and yearning to be a part of His world. I reckon there’s lots of folks out there who feel the same, regardless of their beliefs.

Our history as a people has been divided, roughly, into two camps.

There is one camp that stood at Mt. Sinai, witnessed great miracles, received an awesome legacy, and despite the most horrific of human travails — pogroms, inquisitions, crusades, and more — decided to hand down that legacy from generation to generation.

It is because of that meritorious Jewish tradition that I am here today and am able to write these words.

There is a second camp — a more sinister group, that has done more damage to the Jews and caused more murder and destruction than all of Israel’s enemies combined. To this troika belong Jews and non-Jews, and our Jewish heritage has been irrevocably altered by this movement.

This second camp is about control of human beings. It holds a vision of a One World Order, together with Marx, Trotsky, and Lenin — an evil that, to date, has claimed nearly two hundred million souls.

With these international bandits and mind-control wizards stands the ADL (Anti-Defamation League). Now, if anyone else would say this, that person would be labeled an anti-Semite. But as anyone that knows me will tell you, I am a Jew who strives always to do good, give to charity, and am diligent in study and prayer. Of my many shortcomings, anti-Semitism is not one of them.

There are things that for a Jew, there is no excuse. One aspect is the unrelenting war waged by radical Islam against the Jewish people (they say they’re not anti-Semitic, just anti-Zionist).

But far worse are those who aid and abet this satanic force. For the leftist control-freaks of the ADL, there cannot be a Land of Israel! That would mean they’d be out of a job! They thirst on dissention and division — anything that will drive up their stock. Their support from the outset of a two-state solution means the destruction of the Jewish homeland.

Period.

No amount of agreements with terror and those who support it, will buy peace. The ADL, in a very real sense, is anathema to the survival of the Jewish people. Moreover, they never cared about the survival of the Jewish People!

The ADL’s agenda is simple: anything that will increase their power and control is good. Anti-Semites could never have destroyed the Jewish people. Only Jews can destroy the Jewish People.

The entire world, including Christians of all faiths, knows and understands that there is only one people in the world that was given the Land of Israel as an eternal inheritance: the Jews. The only people in the world who rebel against this eternal truth is the ADL and their communist comrades and enablers. Why?

In order for there to be a ONE WORLD ORDER, man’s spirit and soul must be brought low, be subjugated to the level of the beasts. This was the communist credo, to claim that we are no better than animals that must be controlled. G-d must be destroyed, faith debauched, and religion — ALL RELIGION — extinguished.

In this camp we find the ADL. Let’s be clear: The ADL has nothing to do with Judaism, Jews, or Jewish Survival. It is a collection of communists, anarchists, Jewish 60’s drop-outs, bitter about their nothing status and eager to spread their venom about a socialist paradise at which they believe only they can succeed. (The earlier Bolsheviks and Trotskyite’s, they assure us, just didn’t get it right.!)

It’s more than interesting how Obama has surrounded himself with these same radical leftist rejects from the 60’s. Interesting also, is how the ADL and the present administration are working hand in glove to make us safer with insane, counter-productive “Hate Crime” legislation.

Now, the ADL is on the warpath again, this time advocating for a federal data bank to be housed (with them?) in Washington, where each American can be monitored and pursued, for ever having said anything “hateful.”

And what is the definition of “hateful,” you ask? Simple, whatever the ADL dictates. And how, you’ll ask can that possibly happen here in the land of the Free, the home of the Brave? Again, simple: just play the anti-Semitic race card, and you will have people tripping all over themselves to acquiesce to your every whim. The facts are:

not one Christian today in America dare read the Bible, with it’s exhortation against bestiality and homosexuality without looking over their collective shoulders to see if the ADL is monitoring.

So why would the ADL, an organization supposedly founded for the purpose of helping Jews in peril, be spending their capital railing and ranting about Christians and what they do in the privacy of their churches. Interesting, how the ADL could care less about groups like ACORN, ISLAMIC JIAHAD, HAMMAS, CAIR — could it be because they’re people of “color?” Or maybe it’s because they are necessary in their scheme of ONE WORLD ORDER, neutralizing the fabric of America, getting it ripe for a takeover in which the ADL can take part.

Why is the ADL, supposedly the “sentinel” of the Jewish people so disposed to the rights and whims of radical gay and lesbian groups? Is this the pervue of the ADL? The answer lies in one simple concept: power and control. What the Soviets could not do in Russia, the ADL will attempt to do to America.

Witness the ADL at work:

1- advocating federal statutes and punishment for just “saying” something negative about Gays, essentially making every Christian a law-breaker in America today.
2- storing thousands of files on suspected “haters,” including names, addresses, and phone numbers to be shared with both local and federal police whenever these “haters” get out of hand by saying what they believe.
3- advocating massive censorship where media and films must pass a litmus test before being called “kosher”
4- proposing legislation for simply expressing “seed ideas” (Biblical in origin), concepts or utterances that “stimulate” or “cause friction” against targeted groups.
5- lobbying Canada to pass hate crime legislation: $5,000 misdemeanor, serving up to 2 years in prison.
6- working 24/7 for their new “messianic” legislation: HR 262, the “Hate Crimes Bill,” where the ADL will be positioned to establish a massive, pervasive and fascist bureaucracy that will monitor every single American and impose in this country Nazi Germany-style control — the ultimate vision of the leftist ADL.

The far-reaching consequences are: no church director will ever be able to utter the word of G-d! Is this not the communist “utopia” coming to fruition? Massive mind control about bias is even now, being established in education — inculcating our youth from kindergarten through college about politically correct speech. Churches that do not hire homosexuals will be closed down. Preachers will be jailed. Here in California, our insane legislature just passed such a bill, a bill that will fire faculty or expel students that make a slip of the tongue.

Isn’t it amazing? We’re not allowed to have the Ten Commandments in our schools. No “minute of prayer” allowed. No mention of G-d allowed. But plenty of mind control about how the White Christians have destroyed the earth and must be neutralized. The Day of the multiculturalists is here, aided and abetted by the ADL, using “hate speech” as the Trojan horse that will destroy our once-great America.

I find a certain peace in getting back to that earlier mention of the plain synagogue, permeated with an aura of stark truth and humility, the sometimes shaky rafters and squeaky doors giving testimony to a simplicity lending itself to truth and the eternal peace.

How this contrasts with the monstrous and ostentatious ADL building in New York! A skyscraper pointing to heaven, symbolically raising its accusing finger at the Master of the Universe. No, the tons of glass and concrete here cannot mask a horrifying lie and evil intent for this country.

I find myself having crossed the political Rubicon. As a conservative, passionate advocate of America’s freedom for individual liberties and speech, I have become a pariah in the Jewish community. Who knows, maybe the ADL is monitoring this very message?! But one thing is clear: I stand on the shoulders of many great Americans who have given their lives for this great land. I will not shirk from my responsibility as an American, as a beneficiary of this grand and blessed legacy. I hope that my urgent words are heeded and that people will wake up about those alien forces threatening our very lives.

To all my friends throughout America: G-d bless you, and G-d bless America

Posted in ADL | Comments Off

Why Trump?

Posted on March 17, 2016 by Luke Ford

Rabbi Nachum Shifren writes: I recently took a walk on one of the busiest streets in town frequented by orthodox Jews on one particular Saturday, and was looking for a particular synagogue. Not having been around for many years, I noticed something different: there were security guards manning the entrance of each establishment. These were not unemployed seniors on some make-work project. Here were combat-dressed, kevlar-vested men, each sporting a serious demeanour, matching the 9mm pistols they wore. The perfunctory “shalom, have a great day” greeting seemed designed to distract more than convey friendship.

Yet on that same street are several churches. I visited them the following day, Sunday, as parishioners visited during the morning service. Not satisfied with the nearby churches, I decided to take a drive around the city at that moment. In not one instance did I see a security guard. Why was this? In the context of recent events, what message could be learned?

A friend of mine, a rabbi, recently returned from a trip to Jerusalem to attend a family event. When asked about his experience there, his reply was terse and alarming: “Everybody’s watching their back.” In a rather Orwellian explanation, he detailed the level of panic caused by the dozens of knifings whose victims never saw their attackers. Just as the state of Israel would like to wish these bloody events away, the international media seems complicit about the refusal to expose the level of Jew-hatred actually occurring.

A while before the present Trump hysteria, I visited a synagogue in Hamburg. Here the Germans upped the ante, surrounding the area with armoured personnel carriers and police carrying automatic weapons. An isolated event? No, I was told it’s like that each Saturday. A few miles to the west in neighboring Holland, a friend involved in security matters told me what few outsiders know: synagogues are being closed up and shuttered.

“So where are the Jews disappearing to?” was my obvious response.
“They’re conducting their services underground in private homes”, came my friend’s ominous message.

Everywhere in Europe, Jews who normally wear head covering identifying themselves as orthodox Jews, have been instructed by communal leaders to stop doing so. Whether it be East London, the Paris underground, or any major skandinavian city, Jews are under attack. And while Donald Trump was still making high-end ties, this has been going on for years.

In Londonistan (London, England), I received an invitation by the English Defense League to speak on behalf of English sovereignty and security amid the growing Muslim threat to non-Muslims in townships like Luton (see Youtube video: Rabbi Shifren speaks in Luton). In a background of “grooming” (sexual enslavement of young Christian girls through intimidation and death threats toward family members), “no-go-zones” (exclusive Muslim areas where access to non-Muslims is denied), and general mayhem and harassment, I was greeted by over 5,000 Luton residents. I was asked by a leftist BBC reporter: “How can an orthodox rabbi such as yourself associate with such an ‘extremist’ group?”

I didn’t bat an eyelash: “These are my friends!”

It was important to show solidarity with a group that has always treated me with he utmost of respect, a rare patriotic organization dedicated to saving Britain from itself, despite an incessant miasma of hatred directed at it by the press, pressured by a powerful political mafia, and law enforcement. The most remarkable incident of my visit to London? The left-wing “Jewish Chronicle” proposed that I not be invited to London, lest I incite the otherwise friendly Muslim population! Only Kafka could make sense of such intellectual rubbish.

The world is ablaze. The long-kives are drawn. The entire European continent is drowning in rapes, assaults, and cultural and physical invasion. Nowhere are people allowed to speak freely about a danger that threatens their very existence. Freedom of speech has gone the way of civility. Instead of security and protection of borders, we get more bilge by the politicos in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood, a recognized terrorist organization. While the destruction goes unabated, law-abiding, overtaxed citizens are branded with the race card for suggesting maintaining their culture, language, and borders. In an upside down world, Egypt, the most populous muslim country in the world has outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood, while here at home they are hobnobbing with Obama in the Oval Office

Trump?

…For the first time in recent memory, the US is poised to elect a man that the world may fear and respect. Donald Trump may not be a Reagan, but he will certainly give pause to enemies and haters of America. I have no doubt that the jihadist world will have much re-calculating to do, navigating away from the cozy relationship they’ve enjoyed with Hussein Obama. The rest of the world will look at America differently before the the finest military was purged of its patriots and real fighting leadership. Making America great again requires that our enemies fear us, and our friends can count on us. This, more than anything, is the meaning of the Trump campaign.

Posted in Donald Trump, R. Nachum Shifren | Comments Off

Critiquing Open Orthodoxy

Posted on March 17, 2016 by Luke Ford

Marc B. Shapiro writes:

Those who follow Jewish debates on the internet have probably heard of Rabbi Avrohom Gordimer, who has assumed the mantle of defender of the faith. He sees his goal as exposing the non-Orthodox nature of Open Orthodoxy, and has spent many hundreds of hours reading everything written by Open Orthodox figures (and their spouses), looking for a problematic sentence in order to pounce on them. He not only attacks the Open Orthodox rabbis but also shows his contempt for them by generally refusing to even mention their names. Instead, he refers to an unnamed Open Orthodox rosh yeshiva or rabbi and you don’t know who he is speaking about until you click on the link. I realize he doesn’t respect these figures, but to even deny them the simple courtesy of mentioning their names, as if to do so is muktzeh mehamat mius, is in my opinion simply disgraceful (albeit a common writing style in the haredi world).

This obsession with the Open Orthodox reminds me of how in earlier centuries Christian zealots “could declare themselves ‘crusaders’, join a company of St. Peter Martyr, and assume a special responsibility for denouncing suspicious behaviour to the Holy Office.”[1] It also reminds me of how in previous years the right wing would constantly attack YU and Modern Orthodoxy. Now that the Open Orthodox are under attack, YU and Modern Orthodoxy re getting a pass. But make no mistake about it, if there wasn’t an Open Orthodoxy to kick around, YU and Modern Orthodoxy would once again be the focus. It appears to me, and many others, that all of Rabbi Gordimer’s attacks are pretty meaningless by now, as we get it, he doesn’t like Open Orthodoxy and he thinks that they are not “Orthodox” (a Christian term which perhaps it is time to jettison). Simply drumming this point continuously is not going to make it any clearer.[2]

R. Kook famously said that the righteous do not complain about heresy but add faith.[3] In other words, they always focus on the positive. Now the truth is that this quote, taken by itself, is problematic, as we have examples where R. Kook himself complained about heresy. I think that the passage therefore must be speaking in generalities. In other words, he doesn’t mean that the righteous never complain, but that their essential nature does not focus on the negative and finding the flaws in others. Rather, they are focused on adding faith in order to show the truth of their own position.

Rabbi Gordimer gives us a continuing list of controversial statements from people identified with Open Orthodoxy. As mentioned, he will spend hours and hours reading their material until he finally hits pay dirt. We are never told about any of the good things he sees in the writers he so often attacks, and how 99% of what he reads in their writings is not objectionable. I also find it most curious (but not unexpected) that it is only the left who are subjected to this type of detailed examination, all in order to find material with which to attack them. What about people on the right who also say objectionable things? Why are they not subjected to the same criticisms? How come he criticizes Open Orthodox figures for their liberal Zionism, but never says a word of criticism about the anti-Zionism found in Satmar and other haredi groups? The question is rhetorical.

Another problem is that while Rabbi Gordimer himself tries to stick to the issues, the comments to his posts, which have to be approved before being posted, sometimes do contain derogatory and insulting remarks about individuals. How can anyone view this as appropriate?

I have no difficulty if someone wants to criticize, even sharply, Open Orthodox writers, as long as there are no personal attacks. In fact, if the criticisms of Rabbi Gordimer and others were offered on a basis of friendship and common purpose, I can tell you without hesitation that the Open Orthodox writers would be grateful for the criticism and dialogue, as they want nothing more than to engage with all segments of the Jewish world, including the more right wing elements.

As mentioned above, I find it most objectionable that all of Rabbi Gordimer’s (and others’) criticism is of the left, never the right. I have made this point in a number of lectures. Occasionally, individuals have replied to me that it is unfair to compare Open Orthodox ideas with actions of people identified with the haredi world, as these actions are simply the result of people making mistakes and say nothing about haredi Judaism itself. Thus, they claim, if a criminal is haredi, this has nothing to do with the ideals or teachings of haredi society.

While there is some truth to this argument, it is not entirely true. For example, the widespread cover-ups of sexual abuse in haredi society, and the reluctance to go to the authorities, are directly related to haredi ideology. Yet Rabbi Gordimer has never commented on this. I also have no doubt that some financial crimes in the haredi world, including by institutions such as yeshivot, are often related to both the structure of haredi society, which leads many into poverty, and also haredi teachings that may downplay or even deny the halakhic prohibition of certain white collar criminal activity. And you don’t need me to say this. Haredim say the same thing all the time. I mention this only to stress that just as I would be the first to say that there is plenty to criticize in Open Orthodox thought, there is also plenty to criticize in haredi thought (and also in Centrist thought). In fact, as we shall soon see, one can find things written by those on the right that I think many readers, including haredim, would find even more objectionable than what Rabbi Gordimer has written about.

Before going further, let me note that there is much that Rabbi Gordimer criticizes that I don’t find at all objectionable, and I will give an example of this below. By the same token, there are aspects of the Open Orthodox critique of haredism and Centrism that I do not share, and I don’t expect either the haredim or the Open Orthodox to agree with everything I write either. But that is OK, as no one can expect everyone to agree on everything. Well-founded criticism is a vital part of any society and must be appreciated. Just as there is what to criticize in all camps, there is also a great deal to praise in all camps (and in some areas, in particular Torah study and respect for Torah scholarship, the haredi world is far superior to what is found among non-haredim in the United States).

As noted already, Rabbi Gordimer is an avid reader of Open Orthodox writings. In fact, I think he has read more such writings than anyone else (even more than the Open Orthodox!), and yet he is not able to come up with anything positive that they say or do. This shows me that he is not being fair, as I can give a long list of great things that Open Orthodox rabbis have done across the country, things that even the most right wing would applaud. I can do the same with haredi rabbis and I guarantee you that Open Orthodox rabbis would applaud. Contrary to the mean caricatures one finds online, the Open Orthodox are some of the most genuine and giving people I have ever met, and I say this as one who has never been an adherent of Open Orthodoxy. The Open Orthodox leadership and its rabbis show respect not only for those on their left (which leads Rabbi Gordimer and others to criticize them) but also for those on their right, as I can attest from many years of personal interaction. (When I speak of respect for those on their right, I am not referring to people like myself, but of Torah scholars firmly ensconced in the haredi world who do not reciprocate this respect.) In short, we must recognize there is a lot of good in all camps and we should support positive developments no matter where they originate.

Furthermore, it is important for the halakhic community to understand that there needs to be different paths for different people as not everyone has the same spiritual make-up. It is therefore important to have responsible halakhic authorities who can speak to the different communities. Rather than engaging in constant criticism, Rabbi Gordimer should be happy that the communities on the left are able to turn to an outstanding talmid chacham such as R. Dov Linzer, as he understands their situation and can provide proper guidance. I encourage people to examine some of R. Linzer’s recent halakhic writings here.

Returning to an earlier comment I made, if the point of all the criticism of Open Orthodoxy is the protection of authentic Judaism by countering the distortions on the left, then shouldn’t the distortions on the right also be countered? Aren’t these also dangerous, even more dangerous as they reach a wider range of people and are regarded as authentic Torah teachings by many? Since Rabbi Gordimer and others only look to criticize those to their left, never those to their right, they must ask themselves if the protection of Judaism is really their only goal, or if, unconsciously perhaps, their crusade against Open Orthodoxy also has other motivations.

When I have mentioned these points to various people, they always ask me to provide examples of what I am talking about, i.e., of writings from the haredi world that should be criticized by Rabbi Gordimer in the same way he criticizes what Open Orthodox writers are saying. There are lots of examples I could give (and readers can find some of them in previous posts), but let me choose a book that was actually removed from a synagogue library because of the views expressed in it.[4]

In 2007 Rabbi Dovid Kaplan published Major Impact.[5]

It has a chapter entitled “Jews and Goyim”. The chapter begins as follows:

Every Shabbos in Kiddush we declare that HaKadosh Baruch Hu chose us from all the nations. At every Havdalah we declare that we’re as different from them as day is from night. It’s always interesting to see examples of just how different we are. So read this chapter and then enjoy your next Kiddush and Havdalah.

Here are some examples from the chapter:

We once took our kids on a trip to the United States. A goy on the plane asked me how many children we have. I told him five. “How old are they,” he asked. “The oldest is eight, and the youngest is three months.” “Wow,” he said with a look of disbelief, “you have twins?”

COMMENT: The idea of bringing children into the world on a regular basis was utterly foreign to his way of thinking.

The Polish maid brought her fiancé to meet her employer, Rebbetzin Ruchama Shain. “You have to treat your wife with respect,” she said. “Oh, don’t worry. I’ll only beat her if she disobeys me,” responded the big shaigetz.

COMMENT: And he’ll only steal if he doesn’t have enough money. And he’ll only kill if he’s upset. And he’ll only . . .

Shechitah houses often employ goyim, big strong ones, to help with the animals. A friend related the following incident to me. A cow had just been shechted. One of the goyim walked over with an empty cup, filled it with blood that was oozing from the neck, and then drank it down.

COMMENT: For him there’s no issue. For us it’s unimaginable.

I once saw a young boy sitting on a fence at the zoo. A little old goyish lady wearing a zoo maintenance outfit approached him. “Come on down off that fence honey,” she said, “cuz I don’t want you to fall.” Wow, I thought to myself. It’s nice of her to be so concerned. I was really impressed, but only briefly. “cuz if you fall there’ll be brains all over the place, and I don’t wanna hafta clean up no brains.”

COMMENT: Can you imagine a Jewish bubby ever talking like that?

Dr. Jacobs was making his rounds through the ward accompanied by Dr. Obama [!], an African-American. “What’s happening with Mr. O’Neill?” he asked Dr. Obama.

“Her blood pressure is up and she has a little edema. Other than that she’s fairly stable.”

“I asked about Mr. O’Neill.”

“And I answered. ”

“But why did you refer to him as ‘she’?”

“Oh, I guess you wouldn’t know. Mr. O’Neill is eighty-eight years old. Back in Africa our native tribe has a custom. Once a man passes eighty-five and can’t do much, he’s referred to as ‘she.’”

COMMENT: We place older people on a pedestal and make every effort to make them feel important. Anything that may even remotely reduce their dignity is by definition pasul. And them? Yuch![6]

I realize that most of these stories are made up in order to make non-Jews look bad, but this last one is really stupid, even as a racist story, since when was the last time you heard an African-American referring to the customs of his native tribe? Also, in case anyone missed it, the name “Obama” is probably not an accident.

I don’t think there is any need for me to elaborate on how offensive this material is. Everyone understands how we would react if the focus was Jews and if one were to extrapolate from a (phony) story with one Jew to the entire Jewish people. The ideology expressed in this book (and others like it) is in direct opposition to everything I was taught about how Torah is supposed to make one a more refined individual. I also wonder, how many potential baalei teshuvah who picked up this book were turned off to Judaism after reading what I have quoted?[7]

I have no doubt that Rabbi Gordimer agrees with me that the views expressed in this book are not in line with what we should stand for as a people. So will we see a condemnation of this book and of ones that express similar views, or do they get a pass because they emanate from the haredi world?

Despite my great opposition to this book, I am willing to acknowledge that other things the author has written can be valuable. Why can’t Rabbi Gordimer, despite his criticism of Open Orthodox writers, admit that even if he disagrees with them about certain things, they can still make valuable contributions in areas where he would agree with them? In sum, when Rabbi Gordimer begins criticizing the problems in the haredi and centrist worlds with the same enthusiasm (or even half the enthusiasm) as he takes on writers in the Open Orthodox world, then I and many others might begin to take him seriously as someone who can offer a valuable perspective.

I should note that R. Yitzchok Adlerstein has made some comments relevant to the matter I have just discussed:

Mean-spirited and racist remarks made on comboxes on websites catering to the Chassidic community turn up quoted on anti-Semitic and anti-Israel websites. . . . Enough material exists to make it easy for intelligent outsiders to get beyond the posturing of spokespeople and learn about attitudes often expressed by the masses. For decades, observant Jews of all persuasions could go about their business flying under the radar of their neighbors. If they stayed out of trouble with the law (or did a good enough job at keeping malefactors out of the headlines), they were more than tolerated by other Americans. There are no longer any secrets. Every small group is the subject of inquiry, and the free sharing of information means that outside investigators quickly learn what people speak about behind closed doors.

Agudath Israel undertook an impressive program of community education to parts of its membership regarding dina demalchuta[8] and chillul Hashem[9] in the aftermath of too many high-profile scandals. It will not be enough. The next exposés (they have already begun) will not deal so much with criminal behavior as with rejection and contempt. Many Americans who are not anti-Semitic will still not take kindly to the thought that large numbers of people, albeit minorities even within their own communities, have little or no regard for them as human beings, and no concern for their welfare. Those who take the policy of hen am levadad yishkon to the limit will soon learn that there are minimum expectations placed upon citizens not by law but by popular sentiment. If they wish to live as equals in the United States, they will have to come to some sort of modus vivendi with other Jewish values like darkhei shalom and genuine regard for the tzelem Elokim in all people.[10]

Let me now turn to the reason I have been discussing Rabbi Gordimer in the first place, and that is his attack on R. Ysoscher Katz found here. Rabbi Gordimer claims that there is no such thing as Modern Orthodox pesak, and that decisions by Modern Orthodox poskim “should look no different than if [they] were adjudicated by a chareidi posek; process (research) and product (conclusion) should be indistinguishable.” This is simply false, as anyone who knows the writings of Modern Orthodox poskim can attest. A posek is not a computer. All sorts of meta-halakhic considerations go into his rulings and this explains why a Modern Orthodox posek will come to different conclusions than haredi poskim on many issues. I am not referring to whether a tea bag can be used on Shabbat, as in this sort of case there shouldn’t be any differences between haredi and Modern Orthodox poskim, but in matters concerning which the two camps differ (e.g., the role of women) there will obviously be differences among the poskim.

For Rabbi Gordimer, all poskim share the same “process”. Not only is this historically incorrect, it isn’t even “doctrine”. Does he really think that there are any haredim who believe that Modern Orthodox poskim operate the same way as haredi poskim? Of course they don’t, which is precisely the reason why they reject Modern Orthodox halakhists, because they know that their meta-halakhic values influence their halakhic decisions. The haredim don’t oppose meta-halakhic values per se. Meta-halakhah has a very prominent place in haredi halakhah. It is the particular Modern Orthodox meta-halakhic values that they see as problematic.

I realize that for people reading this post what I have just said is neither new or even controversial. Many of you are probably wondering why I am even wasting my time in making an obvious point. So let me mention some important sources that you might have been unaware of that illustrate what I have been saying.

In 1951 R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik was asked if it was permitted to volunteer to serve as a chaplain in the U.S. armed forces, as this might lead to various halakhic problems, in particular with regard to Shabbat. Before analyzing the halakhic sources, R. Soloveitchik gives us an insight into the meta-halakhic factors that are operating within him. He confesses his lack of objectivity in a way that directly contradicts his portrayal of how Halakhic Man operates.

Posted in Marc B. Shapiro, Modern Orthodox, Orthodoxy | Comments Off

R. Yosef Mizrachi’s Remarks On The Holocaust

Posted on March 17, 2016 by Luke Ford

Marc B. Shapiro writes:

Yosef Mizrachi is in the news. It began with his unbelievably ignorant comments about the Holocaust and soon moved into other outrageous things he said, both about the Holocaust and in general.[20] Years ago I found another really offensive comment about the Holocaust, yet in this case the author was actually a well-known posek. In seeking to explain why the Holocaust occurred, R. Ovadiah Hadaya writes as follows, in words that sound like they could have been said by Mizrachi:[21]

לפעמים יש הרבה ממזרים בישראל שלא ידועים ואז הקב”ה מוכרח למחותם וכדי שלא יתביישו משפחתם אז הקב”ה נותן רשות למשחית להרוג גם טובים עמהם בכדי שלא יורגשו מי הם הממזרים.

Just think about the implications of this statement. 6 million pure Jewish souls, including 1 million children, are destroyed, and R. Hadaya suggests this was done to get rid of the mamzerim. Furthermore, in order not to embarrass the families of the mamzerim all the rest had to be killed as well, as if the omnipotent God couldn’t come up with some other way to take care of this. I don’t think that this passage can even be called “theodicy”, as theodicy is the defense of God’s goodness and omnipotence in the face of evil. The theology of this passage, if accepted as true, would actually lead people to doubt God’s goodness and omnipotence.

One day, not long after I found this passage, I was in the National Library of Israel reading room, and there, as usual, was Prof. David Weiss Halivni. I was very comfortable talking with him, but I wasn’t sure if I should tell him about what R. Hadaya said. I thought it might really unsettle him, seeing how a rabbi could give this explanation as to why all his loved ones were slaughtered in the most cruel way. In the end, I decided to share it with him. All Prof. Halivni said, and this is applicable to Mizrachi as well, is that when it comes to the Holocaust Sephardim simply don’t get it. What he meant was that not having the personal connection to the Holocaust, their discussions of it are without the emotional intensity one finds in the Ashkenazic world. In the Ashkenazic world, detached explanations of the sort offered by R. Hadaya and Mizrachi would be too offensive to even consider….

I looked around a bit and found that from a religious standpoint, Mizrachi has said something regarding the Holocaust that is much worse than what he was called to task over, as his comment defames many great rabbis. In the video below he has the chutzpah to think that he knows why so many tzadikim were killed in the Holocaust. He explains – I hope you are sitting down – that they were not really complete tzadikim, and he identifies their supposed flaw. On the other hand, he states that the complete tzadikim were saved (and he makes the ridiculous statement that R. Aaron Kotler was a kiruv activist in Europe). Has anyone before Mizrachi ever made the appalling statement that survival of the Holocaust is proof that Rabbi X was more righteous than Rabbi Y who was murdered?

…The only explanation R. Weinberg could give as to why he was miraculously saved was that he was not worthy enough to die al kiddush ha-shem.

In my Torah in Motion classes on R. Elchanan Wasserman I discuss the false claim that R. Elchanan returned to Europe “to die with his students.” I don’t know how this yeshiva myth arose. R. Elchanan left the United States in March 1939, more than five months before the German invasion of Poland. He didn’t know what was coming and would never have returned to Poland if he did. (R. Elchanan’s son, R. Simcha Wasserman, is reported to have made this exact point. See R. Ari Kahn’s post here.)

Posted in Holocaust, Marc B. Shapiro | Comments Off

Orthodox Judaism & Human Dignity

Posted on March 17, 2016 by Luke Ford

From Marc Shapiro: R. Ahron Soloveichik wrote:
“Every human being, regardless of religion, race, origin, or creed, is endowed with divine dignity. Consequently all people are to be treated with equal respect and dignity.
Anyone who fails to apply a uniform standard of mishpat, justice, tzedek, righteousness, to all human beings regardless of origin, color or creed is deemed barbaric.
People who refuse to grant any human being the same respect that they offer to their own race or nationality are adopting a barbaric attitude.”
The quotations all come from R. Soloveichik’s Logic of the Heart, Logic of the Mind (Jerusalem, 1991), and are discussed in Meir Soloveichik’s recent essay, “Founding Brothers”: The Rav, Rav Ahron, and the American Idea,” in Soloveichik, et al., eds., Torah and Western Thought: Intellectual Portraits of Orthodoxy and Modernity (New Milford, CT, 2015), pp. 96ff.

As long ago as 1819, Leopold Zunz wrote about “the persistent delusion, contrary to law, that it is permissible to cheat non-Jews.” See Amos Elon, The Pity of It All: A Portrait of the Germany-Jewish Epoch, 1743-1933 (New York, 2002), p. 113. In an earlier post here I wrote:
Isn’t all the stress on following dina de-malchuta revealing? Why can’t people simply be told to do the right thing because it is the right thing? Why does it have to be anchored in halakhah, and especially in dina de-malchuta? Once this sort of thing becomes a requirement because of halakhah, instead of arising from basic ethics, then there are 101 loopholes that people can find, and all sorts of heterim.

Posted in Cheating, Marc B. Shapiro | Comments Off