Doxxing White Supremacists

I don’t doxx and I don’t like doxxing (the release of private information such as a home address or work place to harass people). I don’t like it when the Orthodox community does it to Meir Kin, following the directions of America’s leading Modern Orthodox rabbis, to try to intimidate those who won’t give their wife an RCC divorce. I don’t like protesters showing up at people’s homes.

On the other hand, I don’t think anyone should say or do things that they can’t stand behind. “How would I feel if what I was about to do or say was published on the front page of the New York Times” is a good moral guide to life.

I remember Ben Shapiro accused Breitbart of doxxing him when they simply linked to his California State Bar page where he had foolishly listed his home address. That’s not doxxing. If you publicly post your private information, you can’t accuse others of doxxing you when they link to what you willingly put online where anyone can access it.

I have never knowingly put anyone’s home address or work place online.

VICE:

“It’s hard to get a job, hard to make a living, hard to have a normal social life when all your friends and family know you believe in ethnic cleansing.”

…Of course, social media mobs have a spotty record when it comes to identifying assailants, and the Charlottesville rally was no exception. Kyle Quinn, an engineer at the University of Arkansas, woke up to thousands of expletive-filled messages from strangers after he’d been misidentified as one of the Charlottesville marchers on Twitter.

But there wasn’t much sympathy for those who’d been correctly identified as part of the racist horde. Some of those identified, like Peter Tefte, were publicly disowned by friends and family. Even Jon Ronson, author of a sympathetic book about those who’d been on the receiving end of public shaming, weighed in to say the shaming of white supremacists was justified. “[The Charlottesville white supremacists] were undisguised in a massively contentious rally surrounded by the media,” Ronson wrote on Twitter in the midst of mob calls for justice. “There’s a big difference between being a white power activist [or] white supremacist and being, say, Justine Sacco,” he wrote, referring to the PR executive who was fired from her job after joking on Twitter about how white people can’t get AIDS.

Online, white nationalists may use pseudonyms, VPNs, and other techniques to try to mask their identity out of fear of doxxing, or having their personal, sensitive information leaked online. But at Charlottesville, those who attended had no reasonable expectation of privacy, according to the organizers themselves.

“The difference between Charlottesville and other public events is that the organizers were saying ‘Do not come to this event without the expectation of being doxxed,'” says Keegan Hankes, an analyst at Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project. “They had some inkling [that they could be outed] given the furor in the weeks leading up to the event, where you saw things ramp up between some of the anti-fascist groups and some of the alt-righters online.”

Posted in Meir Kin, Privacy | Comments Off on Doxxing White Supremacists

Most Jews Don’t Have A Rabbi

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

That’s not how it works.

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

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

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

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

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

Washington Post:

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

By Derek Hawkins August 17 at 3:27 AM

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

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

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

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

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

What Is A Nazi?

Related post: Would Americans Choose National Socialism If They Could? (8-17-17)

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NYT: ‘Down the Breitbart Hole’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Such as racial differences in IQs?

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