JP: Brooklyn’s Anti-Gentrication Groups are Pushing Antisemitic Narratives and Activism

From the Jewish Press:

Today’s situation of riots, anarchy, and anti-Jewish violence, has a lot of parallels to the Crown Heights riots of ‘91, and one of them is this: Jews in middle and southern Brooklyn are under siege again. The government, the police, and to a large extent, the organized Jewish community supposedly here to defend us, are AWOL. And while some of these problems are national, the violence against the haredi community began before the riots.

As anti-Jewish and especially anti-Orthodox violence began rising in Crown Heights and elsewhere in Brooklyn, groups like the ADL declined to point a finger, and seemed to think teaching elementary kids slogans of tolerance was a sufficient answer to assuage the increased violence from adults. But our institutions appear to have never asked the question: Who has been agitating against us locally?

This was unfortunate, even irresponsible, as the violence does appear to be coming at least in part from a perceived turf battle over territory, with the Jews as the “colonizers” in that battle. And we can identify at least two organizations promoting that narrative that have enjoyed nothing but fawning media approval, from the NY Times to Buzzfeed, and zero resistance from the ADL or any other Jewish organization.

Two radical activist organizations that are particularly noteworthy in their aggressive stands against the Jewish community for the sake of “anti-gentrification” are Decolonize This Place and Equality for Flatbush.

Decolonize This Place, run by Amin Husain, describes itself as an, “Action-oriented movement: Indigenous struggle, Black liberation, free Palestine, workers, degentrification, dismantle patriarchy.”

Decolonize This Place posted an instagram of George Floyd wearing a Palestinian kefiah even though he was not Muslim, never mind Palestinian.

A strong ally of Decolonize This Place in degrentification efforts, Equality for Flatbush (E4F), has consistently taken credit for coordinating harassment of a “Karen” who organized to call the police on the endless industrial-grade fireworks, as denying working people sleep for months on end is seen as a legitimate and effective weapon against gentrification. Like Decolonize This Place, E4F believes a critical element to NYC real estate wars is based in…Palestine. As E4F says, “People Power Movement say from Kingsbridge, Bronx to #Palestine #gentrification is a crime”

Both are part of the “Brooklyn anti-gentrification network.”

What are these groups really doing by associating gentrification with the Arabs in the Israel-Arab conflict? They are identifying the enemy in their struggle. And it isn’t the IDF. What does Palestine have to do with gentrification?

Posted in Brooklyn | Comments Off on JP: Brooklyn’s Anti-Gentrication Groups are Pushing Antisemitic Narratives and Activism

Singo: The John Singleton Story

Here are some highlights from this 2010 book about the legendary Australian ad man:

* work is for working and grog is for getting pissed.

* Singleton enforcing a booze ban might seem like Dracula handing out bandaids but he has proved himself deadly serious through the years about maintaining a Spartan office routine.

* The tyranny of conformity that existed up to that point [late 1960s Australia] is almost impossible to convey to those who now reside in one of the world’s most permissive societies, where legalised brothels flourish and a Gay Mardi Gras beckons as an international tourist attraction. Back in the sixties, however, Aussies were still weighed down by regulations restricting every aspect of human conduct from sex to shopping. The nation’s censorship laws were the most prudish outside Roman Catholic Ireland. The long-ruling Federal Coalition—‘mooed’ into action by the dairy lobby—introduced legislation to prevent housewives switching from butter to margarine. In NSW the Labor Government, at the command of the trade unions, jailed corner-store owners for daring to serve customers on a Saturday afternoon.

* The Returned & Services League, for example, was forced to issue a statement hosing down an inflammatory declaration from its NSW president, Sir William Yeo. No, he did not necessarily speak for members in general when he referred to the British Commonwealth as ‘a polyglot lot of wogs, bogs, logs and dogs’.

* There was also, in that week, a key court ruling upholding a ban against the importation of Chance magazine, Justice Helsham agreeing with censors that ‘a general tone of dirtiness pervaded the whole publication’. In particular, he ruled that a photograph of a semi-naked woman posed lying on her back was ‘simply lustful’. Nor did he take kindly to a smutty subheading: ‘Perving is looking up down under’.

* Australians soon found themselves in the throes of a major identity crisis. Their own sacred institutions—Parliament, the courts, the RSL, and the churches—were trying to make them behave in ways they could no longer accept. The impact of television, backed up by the flood of US troops pouring into Sydney on rest and recreation leave from Vietnam, helped swing the cultural balance from traditional British values values to more free-wheeling American attitudes. It would be misleading, however, to label the end results as ‘Americanisation’, since what really emerged was a lifestyle not quite like any other. In Sydney, at least, the younger generations would actually prove themselves far more uninhibited than their Yank counterparts. Many of the visiting soldiers and sailors were from devout ‘God-fearing’ families, the pinched-face kind with pitch forks at the ready. They were left agog at the sight of scantily clad Aussie women sunbaking on public beaches.

Australians, then, were beginning to recognise themselves as a people apart—maybe not the most sophisticated or stimulating human beings in the world, but happy enough to get on with life and glad to be different. No longer did they talk nostalgically about England as ‘home’, as earlier generations had. Neither were they tempted to see the United States as a star-spangled paradise, paradise, after witnessing the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers and the big-city race riots. A new decade would bring growing awareness of a distinctively Australian personality—a sense of self that infused its way through almost every facet of life.

* It was the industry’s continuing reluctance to use everyday Australian accents that proved how out of touch it really was. Upper-crust English remained much in favour, personified by celebrity presenters like Stuart Wagstaff, speaking with the precise enunciation presumably meant to denote an old boy from one of the better private schools who spent holidays with chums in London. There were also pseudo-American voices which heralded the product as the ‘in’ choice of the jet set. Of course, some ads did feature characters whom people in the better suburbs might recognise as tradesmen, secretaries and housewives from inferior suburbs. But there was nobody spruiking in a cockatoo rasp, mashing vowels into a unrecognisable pulp, using the language as it was heard in pubs, or at racetracks and footy matches. That would become John Singleton’s most widely recognised contribution to the social transformation underway when he launched his new agency. He created ads specifically designed for Australian ears and eyes, using the blunt, irreverent language people were used to and evoking images familiar in everyday working life. A typical Singo commercial encouraged Aussies to feel more comfortable about being themselves, even to the point of being able to laugh at some of their more extreme eccentricities. In doing so they gained the confidence to be themselves.

* Singleton was determined to keep his agency free from the inefficient work practices he had seen elsewhere. His pet hate was the so-called business lunch. Account executives naturally tried to justify it as an attempt to build good relations with a client or brainstorm ideas in a more relaxed atmosphere with a few sips of a good red ‘to get the old brain ticking over’. To Singleton, those were merely poor excuses for slackening off on the job.

* ‘Advertising is neither moral or immoral,’ he argued. ‘If the product has been developed to satisfy an economic or emotional want then the consumer will buy it. If it achieves neither of these objects then the consumer will reject it.’

* “A good ocker commercial can sell the bejesus out of anything.” Bryce Courtenay

* ‘If you look at the people that are really close to him, you’ll find most of them fit into the category of “knockabouts”. That’s a euphemism for people who tend to go a bit outside the boundaries, like a good time, swear, drink, womanise. Singo gets on with all types, from Kerry Packer, Malcolm Fraser and Bob Hawke to those that may have a few skeletons in their closet, done a bit of time. Some of my best friends now are people I met through Singo.’

* “I know the Aborigines are drunk most of the time when they’re in town but as close as I can make out it’s just like if you or me win the lottery. We take the day off work and go off and get plastered don’t we? Well, it’s the same with the Aborigines except they win the welfare lottery every day, so they celebrate every day. And take the day off work every day. It is logical. And unlike you or me, they don’t want or need a flash house or car or colour TV. They just want to sit down in the sun, have the one and enjoy themselves. But the do-gooders insist the Aborigines live exactly like us whites. It is obviously ludicrous. And those do-gooders who believe that the best thing they can do for the Aborigines is to have them emulate our own white European lives are guilty of gross arrogance. In fact, every time I look at one of those bearded university-trained southern do-gooders, I wonder if they ever realise that they can never solve the Aboriginal problem because they are the problem.”

* Australian pub humour dictates that if someone has a particular area of sensitivity, that’s what you immediately go for, like a fly on an open sore. However, even the most aggressive of Singleton’s mates recognised the subject of drugs was off limits. The agony caused by the fallout over Hayward left no room for a laugh, or even a sardonic smile. ‘He was down at a pub in Woollahra and ran into this very well-known reporter, whose name I won’t mention,’ recalls John Tesoriero. ‘We started talking and he asked Singo, “How’s the drug trade?” Singo just decked the bloke. He had to have brain scans and everything else but he never complained because he realised it was such a stupid thing for him to have said.’

* ‘I was pregnant with Sal and I got pneumonia during the pregnancy. We were building a house and renovating the farm and all that. I was pushing too hard and John doesn’t have a lot of time in his life for people who are sick. You are either on the fun wagon or you’re not. I guess I didn’t have a lot of time to be on the fun wagon—and he just got bored.’

* Bob Hawke rode to power on a television beam, bypassing Parliament to appeal directly to the people in the style more of a president than a prime minister. No Australian politician before or after has shown such mastery of the electronic medium, an instinctive ability to make millions of viewers feel he was speaking to each and every one of them. ‘Hawkie’, as his supporters affectionately called him, was at his stirring best on the night of 23 June 1987 when he formally launched his campaign to win an unprecedented third successive successive term for his Labor Government.

* Most people tend to think of advertising as an attempt to plant a thought in someone’s head. To a professional like Singleton, however, a truly effective ad is more like the plucking of a banjo string—it activates a feeling that’s already there somewhere in the back of our mind. That’s why a sound often moves us in a way that words never can. It triggers a rush of emotions that can be traced to when we first heard it or to when it began to mean something in our lives. If the edge of annoyance or anger in a mother’s voice was a powerful motivator to a small child, it was no less potent in making a grown voter sit up and take notice, alerting him or her to the fact that something seems very wrong.

* By the time John Singleton took his fourth bride, his modus operandi as a serial heart-breaker should have been known to every female newspaper reader in the land. He was a man prepared to go to extraordinary lengths to win a woman’s love but having won it, was capable of whatever it took to drive her away.

* During his SPASM years he even invented his own parable about the world’s first ad agency, Matthew, Mark, Luke & John or MML&J as it would be referred to these days. It’s first client was Jesus and to help sell his message the agency hit upon the brilliant slogan ‘Eternal Life’—perfect because no one could ever prove it didn’t work.

* “You don’t live in the real world. You don’t drink, you don’t smoke, you don’t go to the football, you don’t go to the races. You’re not a real, fair-dinkum Aussie.” John Singleton to Phillip Adams

* Through the 1990s he would find himself increasingly embroiled in such clashes as Australia’s self-image transformed itself almost month by month under pressure from succeeding waves of migration and growing demands for social reform.

* When he was coming of age in Enfield, mates not only stuck together but managed to settle their differences without recourse to courts or tribunals. A fist fight was a lively discussion carried on by other means and ‘victim’ was a word so foreign to the Aussie ear it almost required translation.

* Compared to Singleton, Packer admits to being more pessimistic about the changes occurring in the Australian way of life. He believes people are less and less inclined to look after one another; and again he credits Singleton with having a sense of moral responsibility that is becoming all too rare.

* One of the best examples of his cutting wit I had heard of previously was when he appeared as guest of honour at a sedate luncheon gathering of civic leaders in Cairns. The host for the occasion, a local radio presenter, cheerfully asked him how he got his start. ‘Jack and Mavis had a fuck,’ he replied without blinking.

* No society could afford to have too many Singos; but there’s a lot to learn by looking closely at the life of one.

Posted in Australia | Comments Off on Singo: The John Singleton Story

The New Perry Mason

Comment: The new Perry Mason is very well done as far as sets, costumes, period details, etc. – they spent a fortune and it shows. But the plot is pure 2020. Mason has a Latina lover who is a wealthy pilot and she, not Mason, controls the terms of their relationship – she calls Mason over to service her whenever she is in the mood. Della Street is a lipstick lesbian with feminist ideas. The black cop is a good guy. All the white dudes are evil – evil cops, evil DA, evil church officials. The straight female characters (especially the Christian believers) are manipulative at best and insane at worst. The one non-evil white guy (the Lithgow character) was once a respected attorney but now he is old and his mind is fading (I think Lithgow modeled his character after Joe Biden). He might as well kill himself. Perhaps other old white men will take the hint (even Biden after the election). This has a lot more to do with 2020 than it does with 1932. I can’t think of any character who is identifiably Jewish.

Posted in Los Angeles | Comments Off on The New Perry Mason

Of Books And Bans

Marc B. Shapiro writes in 2002:

At the end of 2002, within the space of a few months, Orthodox Jewry witnessed something very unusual. With great publicity two books were placed under a ban: Nathan Kamenetsky’s Making of a Godol1 and Jonathan Sacks’s Dignity of Difference. Kamenetsky is the son of R. Jacob Kamenetsky (died 1986), one of the gedolim of the previous generation, and is himself a personality in the haredi world, having been one of founders of the Itri Yeshiva. In years past he was even worthy of being referred to as Ha-Ga’on by Yated Ne’eman, the haredi mouthpiece. Sacks is the Chief Rabbi of England (technically only the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of Britain and the Commonwealth), and an eloquent spokesman for traditional Judaism as well as a most prolific author.

Although there was a time when bans were issued against the writings of various alleged heretics, today the boundaries between denominations are clear and members of the Orthodox community do not need any special warning that non-Orthodox works may contain false theology. Besides, due to the sheer mass of such literature, it would be impossible to keep up with even the most significant of such publications.

As such, in modern times leading scholars in the haredi world will only rarely see the need to publicly declare a book to be dangerous and thus forbidden. The only time they do so is when it is thought that members of their community will see the book in question as acceptable. Thus, it is not surprising that condemnations are rare. Yet by the same token, when the condemnations come, they are usually directed against distinguished individuals who also identify with Orthodoxy, for it is their writings that have the potential to infiltrate the haredi world and influence it.

While one can find some exceptions to this (the 1945 excommunication of Mordecai Kaplan and public burning of the Reconstructionist Prayer Book comes to mind, it remains a valid generalization. Thus, there is no need for a condemnation of a book written by a typical Modern Orthodox intellectual, for it is unlikely to be read by members of the haredi world, and if read, it will not be taken seriously if it opposes the current haredi da`as Torah.

Posted in Marc B. Shapiro | Comments Off on Of Books And Bans

Marc Shapiro On Rav Shach

In 2008, Marc Shapiro emails the Daas Torah blog:

* I would like to clarify my [1993 email] posting about Rav Shach. In fact I actually hinted to this in my first sentence (if I remember correctly). What I wrote does not actually reflect my personal feelings. That is, I really don’t get upset at what Rav Shach says because a lot of people say things I disagree with and it doesn’t pay to always get angry. However,
what I posted is a reflection of the anger I have heard from a number of people including some well known rabbis whose names many people on this list would recognize. Since messages are not sent in anonymously I chose to have my name appear and represent all of the people who feel this way. In fact, all of the private mail I received was supportive, although I don’t know how many of them are from Lubavitchers.

I wanted to see how the community of Mail Jewish readers would respond to what were common sentiments (but never actually formulated in writing — one exception being the journal Ha-Maor), so the post was a bit of a gambit, which now comes back to haunt me.

My thoughts on R. Shakh are actually found in the Torah in Motion lectures referred to below

“Yes — when I was much younger and more foolish. In those days
the internet didn’t exist and we didn’t realize that everything we
wrote would be around until the end of times, to embarrass us . . .

But I have subsequently, in both writing and in speaking said that R. Shach understood some aspects of Chabad a lot better than the rest of us. Now I certainly can criticize much else he said, including some of what he wrote about Chabad, but it would be done with more tact and respect. I never expected this e-mail to live on.”

I have three lectures on R. Shakh at

http://www.torahinmotion.org

My thoughts on him are found there and I don’t think even his biggest fans will find much to criticize in them.

In 1993, Marc fired off this to a Jewish email group:

From: Marc Shapiro
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 93 16:26:26 -0500
Subject: Re: Rav Shach

There has been a lot of talk about gedolim and especially about Rav Shach. Before people make any judgements I think it is important to know something about the man and his teachings. If what I say appears harsh, let me assure the readers that I have said the same things to many rabbis and they have agreed with me. Since the views I will be expressing are also those of numerous others it would be best for the moderator not to censor it. I realize that others are afraid to speak out so I will say what everyone else is thinking. Needless to say, the Lubavitchers have spoken out and been a great deal harsher than I will be but that is for good reason. Rav Shach has branded the rebbe a heretic. Furthermore, he has branded the entire movement as heretical. Most people respond harshly when they have been called heretics, Especially since the other gedolim seem to have no great problem with Habad. They don’t support everything Habad does but you don’t have other gedolim using the inflammatory rhetoric of R. Shach.

In fact he is very inconsistent. He mocks the Lubavithcher rebbe’s Rambam learning program saying that people knew about the Rambabm before Lubavitch came around and that no one should follow Habad’s program and it is forbidden to innovate and yet he praises Daf Yomi. Well, people knew about learning Talmud before R. Meir Shapiro. The difference is that when Rav Shach likes something, when it comes from his circles, then it is ok. However if an innovation, no matter how good, comes from another circle then he viciosly attacks it.

In general, everything that comes out of his mouth is criticism. He does not believe in building but in destroying. All of his volumes of letters are attacks against everything from Lubavitch, to religious Zionism, to Hesder yeshivot, to Rav Goreh (who has no yirat shamayim according to Shach), to R. Steinsaltz (another heretic). When the rest of he Jewish world was celebrating the Entebbe raid and R. Moshe said it was an open miracle Shach gave a talk saying that what the Government did was forbidden. This is exactly what the Satmar rebbe said! He gave his famous talk last year viciously attacking the kibbutzim. Why? We all know that they don’t keep kosher there but why attack them. Is this the way to bring people together and bring them to yiddishkeit? Is this love? Lubavitch knows how to be mekarev, they do it through love. Shack simply attacks. And then he attacked President Herzog for no reason. Herzog did more for religious Jewry than any president and he is a fine man but Shach viciously attacks him just like he attacks the kibbutzniks who have laid down their lives so that he could live in peace. And he expects the secularists to keep subsidizing the yeshivot at the massive rate they have been?

Rav Shach has no value in his life other than that of learning Torah. People can’t feel good about anything other than learning Torah. There is no value to the State of Israel other than that it enables us to learn Torah and its destruction would be no great tragedy if Torah continued to be learnt. He opposed the annexation of East Jerusalem and Golan because it will get the goyim mad. He doesn’t recognize the concept that Jews should see something positive in annexing our capital– East Jerusalem. He also speaks of not provoking the Gentiles, a concept which has no validity when Jews have a state, although he thinks that the State is just as much a galut as N. Y. and London. He says that Jews in Israel should act as if they were dancing before the Polish nobleman. In other words, the fact that Jews now have a state means nothing about how they relate to the world. They still must have this inferiority comples. There is something wrong with having pride and holding one’s head up.

His views have infected the Haredi community. We all know that they dodge the draft but it is even worse. They refuse to say a mi shebarakh for IDF even though the latter protect them from the Arabs. They refuse to say a prayer for the government which gives them millions of dollars. In the diaspora they alwasy said a prayer for the government but not in Israel. In the Diaspora they always acted patriotic and if there was a moment of silence for war dead they wouldn’t dream of breaking with the practice. However in Israel while everyone stands at attention on Yom Hashoah they go about their business. Do they realize how much of a hillul hashem this is and how it hurts the feelings of others who are remembering loved ones. Of course they know but they don’t care. Unlike Lubavitch they enjoy confrontation.

For R. Shach there is only one truth. He has no conception of Jewish history and doesn’t realize that there can be disputes in matters of hashkafah, as long as we all accept Torah and halakhhah. Thus when R. Ovadiah decided to join the government he threatened to ban all of the latter’s books No other gadol has ever made such irresponsible statements and acted in such a dictatorial manner.

Everything I have described so far is written in his books. I have not made any of it up and if gets you mad hearing what he believes trust me that this is only the tip of the iceberg and there is no way that anyone who reads this line should regard him as an important gadol, since everything most of us view as important he mocks (he even says its forbidden to form rabbinic organizations).

To give one final example of this let me refer to Rav Shach’s attack on R. Soloveitchik in vol. 4 of his letters. As everyone knows, there were always disputes in hashkafah between the Rav and other gedolim. However this never stopped the Lubvavitcher rebbe or R. Moshe or R. Aharon Kotler from being on close personal terms with the Rav and respecting his gadlus. Obviously R. Moshe and the Lubavticher Rebbe, as well as the Rav, believed that their own approach was correct and the others were wrong. But they never said that the approach of the other’s was forbidden. It was just misguided. Similarly, the Rav never said that everyone had to learn secular studies, that other aproaches were invalid. Rather, only that his approach was also legitimate.

Rav Shach has a different approach, one which shows all of his feeling of knowing everything and his belief that he, and only he, knows the truth, the one and only truth. In discussing the Rav’s book Hamesh Derashot he doesn’t say that we have a different view or that the Rav is wrong. No, what he says is that it is forbidden to listen to what the Rav says. Forbidden. the Rav goes against Daat Torah and the Rav has completely distorted Daas Torah (one wonders whose Daas Torah. Doesn’t the Rav have his own Daas Torah?) Since anyone who goes against Daas Torah speaks heresy it is forbidden to listen to what the Rav says! Does he realize who is talking about? This is not some Mizrachi functionary he is mocking (not that this is forgivable either). He is speaking about R. Soloveitchik, whom R. Tendler called the greatest Rosh Yeshivah of our generation, whom the Lubavitcher rebbe stood up for etc. etc. May God forgive him for degrading our teacher! Furthermore, R. Shach continues, it is the Rav’s secular studies which are responsible for these distortions. Woe are the ears which hear such nonsense. What chutzpah, to say that secular studies distorted the Rav’s Torah! Rav Shach goes on for a few pages without any respect for the fact that the Rav was a gadol and he is entitled to have different hashkafah, also throwing in some irrelevancies about how Hesder yeshivot have destroyed any notion of striving for greatness in Torah learning. (He also hates hesder because their students actually get a job. For R. Shach, and Israeli Haredim, as oposed to American haradim, there is something negative about actually working for a living. There is no concept of a Baal ha-Bayit. That is why he put Leo Levi’s book Shaare Talmud Torah in Herem, since it advocates a Torah im Derekh Eretz [i. e.earning a living] approach). Shach is also confused how come the rabbis in the U.S. did not protest The Rav’s opinions and furthermore that they contributed to the book Kevod ha-Rav . This is a great hillul hashem since by giving the Rav a book in his honor and praising him the yeshivah students will see this and think that is ok to follow in the Rav’s path, God forbid, and will absorb his views which are completely “pasul”.

I could go on but I think everyone gets the point. When it comes to gedolim we should consult R. Eliashiv, R. Shlomo Zalman, the chief Rabbis, R. Ovadia etc. We should not even take Rav Shach’s opinion into consideration. By adopting such a hateful tone and being so opposed to everything we consider decent he is not really different than the Satmar rebbe, who was, as R. Aharon Soloveitchik told me, a great scholar who made a terrible blunder. So too with Rav Shach. He has slandered great
gedolim and for his sake we should hope that it was all done le-shem shamayim. When I asked R. Aharon why we don’t put him in Herem in accordance with the pesak of the Rambam re. anyone who slanders a gadol all he could say was that we no longer use the Herem. One thing must be said for Lubavitch, even thought R.Shach says they are heretics and that their rebbe is one of the greatest sinners alive, and going straight to gehinnom, they have not lost their cool. I don’t think there will be any rejoicing in Crown Heights when he passes away. They realize that this whole affair is very sad. Unfortunately, however, when the rebbe passes away there will be rejoicing in Ponovezh because one is supposed to rejoice at the death of a heretic. What have we come to!

P. S. As I already pointed out, everything I have said in this letter has met with the approval of rabbis, none of whom are in the Lubavitch camp.

Posted in Marc B. Shapiro | Comments Off on Marc Shapiro On Rav Shach