In hundreds of essays and reviews, the nineteenth-century lawyer and judge James Fitzjames Stephen considered the novel’s effects on society at a time when it was becoming the dominant form of entertainment…
Nevertheless Stephen is always reading, as it were, against the text, like a prosecuting attorney scrutinizing a defendant’s testimony.
…Novel readers, he implies, are regularly choosing, indeed paying for their pathos. And authors are all too willing to supply it. Dickens “gloats over [Little Nell’s] death as if it delighted him…touches, tastes, smells, and handles [it] as if it was some savoury dainty which could not be too fully appreciated.”
…Other distortions are the suppression of vast areas of experience (particularly work life), the undue prominence given to romantic love (“of course, every one is in love in a novel”), the alteration of historical facts, the overdefinition of character, the romanticization of crime and vice, and the evidently contrived plots.
…The second essay, “Woods v. Russell” (1856), turns to journalism. During the Crimean War, Nicholas Woods was the correspondent for The Morning Herald and William Russell the correspondent for The Times. Both had contributed to the view that the British campaign in the Crimea resembled an “army of lions commanded by asses.” This had won them notoriety and popularity. Stephen takes advantage of the publication of collections of the two men’s war dispatches to analyze the evidence they offered for their criticisms. Meticulously cross-referencing their accounts, he shows how frequently they contradict each other over the most elementary facts, while on other occasions one man has clearly plagiarized the other. As with the novel, Stephen complains, newspapers enjoy great political influence, without demonstrating the sort of responsibility and impartiality that might legitimize it: “Statements of the most vehement kind are made upon any or no authority” and presented in a “showy, noisy, clever, and picturesque” style that in one case has a dead dog being described as a “decayed specimen of canine mortality.”
…“A newspaper,” Stephen reminds us in a later essay, “is essentially and pre-eminently a mercantile speculation.” The power it boasts to intervene in cases of injustice is limited by its need to sustain the interest of its readers. Journalists, like novelists, labor under an obligation to be entertaining. They play to “the impatience which every one feels of being governed in a prosaic way,”
…”Most writers are so nervous about the tendencies of their books, and the social penalties of unorthodox opinion are so severe…that philosophy, criticism and science itself too often speak amongst us in ambiguous whispers what ought to be proclaimed from the house tops.”
In Politics and Literature at the Dawn of World War II, James Heffernan argues that for a full understanding of any historical period, we must read the literature written while its events were still unfolding…
In Politics and Literature at the Dawn of World War II, the Dartmouth literary scholar James A.W. Heffernan proposes that academic and popular histories, diaries, and journalistic accounts offer only a blinkered view of the past. For a fuller understanding of any historical period, you must read the literature it produced. Best of all, you must read the literature that was written and published while the events of the period were still unfolding.
“Punctual literature,” as Heffernan calls it, is a narrow category, especially when it comes to World War II, for practical reasons: it isn’t easy to write and publish while being bombed. To fortify his argument Heffernan further narrows his definition of “punctual,” limiting his survey primarily to fiction, poetry, and plays set or composed or published in 1939 (which happens to be, he gallantly declines to mention, the year of his birth) “and one or at most two of the years that followed.” Virginia Woolf’s Between the Acts, Patrick Hamilton’s Hangover Square, and Evelyn Waugh’s Put Out More Flags are novels about historical events, but they’re not historical fiction, strictly speaking, because they were written in the early years of the war, before the conclusion was known—before the chaos of those years could be sealed and wrapped and ribboned in a tidy narrative. “The uncertainty of being in medias res,” writes Heffernan, “is precisely what punctual literature aims to represent.” Ignorance of the war’s outcome does not count as a deficiency of this literature, as it might to a historian, but as an advantage.
…He directs his argument not to readers of literature but to historians. Brazenly he trespasses into their territory, their cleared jungles and straightened rivers, as an emissary from the shadowy realm of make-believe who dares to suggest that their scrupulous volumes, no matter how impressively researched or dramatically written, cannot match the honesty of fiction, poetry, or theater. “Histories tell us much…about the origins of World War II,” he writes. “But the literary works…examined in this book tell us even more.”
These are fighting words. Heffernan’s method is to pit a work of literature against a definitive historical account of the same subject. In these head-to-head battles, literature cheerfully concedes some predictable defeats.
Podnotes AI summary: “America’s Sweetheart” on Netflix is a mesmerizing series about the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders, especially Reese. She dances for Jesus and captivates audiences with her commitment and talent, even performing to AC/DC’s “Thunderstruck.” Despite their fame, these cheerleaders earn little, around $500 per game plus promotional work totaling roughly $60,000 annually. They balance full-time jobs with rigorous practice schedules.
Many cheerleaders endure physical strain leading to surgeries; it raises questions about their well-being. Some impress like the nurse who leads them, but others seem driven by a need to feel beautiful after childhood insecurities—paralleling some women’s reasons for entering adult entertainment.
The dedication of these cheerleaders mirrors my Orthodox Jewish community’s devotion —both are deeply rooted hero systems in their cultures.
Protests blocking access to Jewish facilities resemble acts of war under international law—they disrupt lives and could warrant severe consequences if persistent enough. This blockade mentality was evident at a recent Los Angeles protest where violence erupted because Jews had no choice but to push through the barriers set up by pro-Palestine activists.
Breaking Points discussed this event as merely a protest when it was actually an aggressive blockade against Jews attending synagogue—an act that incites inevitable violence due to restricted freedoms.
In conclusion, while protests can be legitimate expressions of dissent, blockades that impede people’s daily lives cross into aggression deserving strong rebuttal or legal action.
I believe the critique is valid; this event revolves around real estate, and that’s key to understanding why there were protests. This detail should be highlighted early in any discussion about the incident.
Online rhetoric questions why certain lands are being bought up, but it’s not just about purchase—it’s about usage. Religious sites serve dual purposes: spiritual and practical for their communities. The protest wasn’t against prayer; it was over a real estate affair.
There seems to be selective outrage when land sales involve Jews, yet similar events elsewhere don’t provoke the same reaction. If only Jewish actions elicit such responses, bias is evident.
People often choose neighborhoods where they feel comfortable and can communicate easily with others—this isn’t unique or outrageous. Accusing individuals of racism based on neighborhood choice without context is unreasonable.
Protesting policy decisions makes sense to me—even if I’m not directly affected, I’d understand such actions by others as long as they don’t impede freedom of movement.
Most Americans prioritize domestic issues over international ones like Israel-Palestine conflicts unless directly impacted at home.
Regarding recent events at a synagogue in Los Angeles reported by Alexandra Orbach in The Wall Street Journal: Violence erupted between protesters and attendees at an Israeli real estate fair held there. While President Biden and other officials condemned the violence online, physical intervention was lacking from law enforcement on site—volunteer security groups had to step in instead.
To get deeper insights into these complex dynamics, we should focus on specific points rather than getting lost in multiple angles simultaneously.
The connotative meaning of two words such as “conspiracy theory” differ greatly from their denotative meaning.
Dooovid joins: I’m researching conspiracy theories, examining both the historical and scientific perspectives versus harmful beliefs like CIA involvement in JFK’s assassination. These different uses shape my neutral stance on conspiracies.
I plan to explore how paranoia differs from conspiracy theories. While paranoia involves irrational fears, such as believing others are plotting against you without evidence, a conspiracy theory is an explanation for events that involve secret plots by powerful groups.
In creating online content, it’s crucial to offer unique insights rather than rehashing common views. This approach attracts attention and distinguishes your voice in a crowded space. For example, redefining “conspiracy theory” could intrigue an audience seeking fresh takes on familiar topics.
Live streaming demands something special beyond mainstream news repetition—whether through controversial language or revealing personal experiences—to engage viewers actively.
Finally, loneliness can drive people into vulnerable situations or unhealthy behaviors as they seek connection and validation. Understanding these motivations helps us navigate our own lives and interactions with others more compassionately.
Doov: For me, as someone who has always felt on the margins, it hits hard. From a young age, I designed my personality around being an outsider and never aimed for mainstream acceptance. King seemed to think he was mainstream despite evidence to the contrary.
Luke: People at the center of life—popular and successful—don’t choose marginalization. But if you’re already there, you make the best of it. We’ve all done that here with our marginalized status.
Dooov: Intelligent women turning to pornography might start with using their smarts in manipulative ways as teenagers, realizing they can outwit others. Eventually, this intelligence leads them down paths like prostitution—not because they’re geniuses but smarter than their immediate peers.
Luke: Regarding COVID vaccine mandates—I was initially against government-enforced mandates but now see some merit after reading Linda Greenhouse’s essay in The New York Review of Books discussing religious liberty versus public health protection by the Supreme Court.
My views have shifted towards valuing public good over individual freedom more than before; regulations seem necessary for society’s benefit from my observations reporting on the adult industry. Incentives for vaccination are essential; even personal experience showed me how proof of vaccination affected access to places during COVID-19 peaks.
Finally, discussions around human rights typically focus on suffering elsewhere rather than citizenship rights—a shift worth noting when considering global perspectives on what it means to be human and have rights today.
We can trace the origins of human rights to the 1940s, particularly after the Universal Declaration in 1948. The concept gained prominence during WWII with documents like the Atlantic Charter, emphasizing four freedoms. However, initially, “human rights” didn’t imply international law but were seen as national benchmarks.
In America and Europe, there was a vision of social democracy – a fight against tyranny aiming for positive change. FDR even proposed a second bill of rights in 1944 for social and economic protections. Yet these ideas weren’t globally oriented; they focused on what states could provide their citizens.
Internationally, excitement brewed not over social democracy promises but self-determination – an idea pushed by Lenin and Wilson that seemed to challenge colonialism. Churchill managed to convince FDR that this principle didn’t apply to British Empire’s end.
Thus began a complex relationship between self-determination and human rights: when people couldn’t gain autonomy, they received human rights as a consolation prize without threatening empires’ power structures.
Despite enthusiasm for the Atlantic Charter worldwide due to its anti-colonial sentiment, interest waned for the Universal Declaration outside Western nations—highlighting differing global perceptions about these concepts’ significance.
As time passed, though idealistic talk surrounded international organizations promoting human rights post-1944 drafts revealed limitations—showing that while aspirations were high, actual implementation remained challenging.
Posted inAdas Torah, Israel, Palestinians|Comments Off on Decoding The Winning Strategy Of The Palestinians Part Two (6-25-24)
I was usually ambivalent about government directed Covid vaccine mandates. I didn’t support them but the topic made me uncomfortable. I am pro-vaccine and pro freedom. I think our elites (including political and public health elites) did a better than average job during Covid.
Now I love the topic of government directed Covid vaccine mandates (of course private entities should be free to require Covid vaccines). How much personal freedom should one lose if there is a massive public health payoff?
What changed my mind was reading this Linda Greenhouse essay in the New York Review of Books: “For the new majority on the Supreme Court, religious liberty takes precedence over the government’s power to protect public health.”
In the general dispute between individual freedom and the public good, I’m slightly more towards the public good than I was in earlier days.
She places on display an American exceptionalism of a particularly disquieting form: a legal mindset that has come to value individual freedom over communal welfare and so has “lost sight of contagion’s most compelling lesson: Our own health depends on the health of others.”
…American legal culture—constitutional law in particular—played an unacknowledged part “in generating the vulnerabilities that the pandemic exploited.” A uniquely American body of law “privileged a particularly thin and one-sided conception of liberty” that helped to “amplify the forces that tear at our social fabric.”
…In Parmet’s view, the Jacobson opinion exemplifies a “rich conception of liberty,” which was lost during the Covid-19 pandemic to the “narrow and individualistic conception of liberty” that came to dominate the public and judicial discussion. She does not exempt the Biden administration from criticism for the “individualistic framing” it adopted. In May 2021, referring to the vaccines that by then were widely available, Rochelle Walensky, head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, declared that “we really want to empower people to take this responsibility into their own hands.” Parmet observes, “Once health risks are viewed in this manner, pandemic mitigation measures appear as intrusions on individual liberty.”
Courts embraced the individualistic framing as if on cue. In January 2022 a federal district judge barred the navy from penalizing a group of SEALs who claimed religious reasons for refusing the Covid vaccine. Parmet notes this astonishing case, but without giving the details that demonstrate how far away from the “rich liberty” of the Jacobson case the legal system was moving not even two years into the pandemic. The district court decision’s list of the SEALs’ rationales for refusing to be vaccinated included the “belief that modifying one’s body is an affront to the Creator” and “direct, divine instruction not to receive the vaccine.” The navy argued that the requested waivers would render the SEALs nondeployable, to the detriment of military readiness and the national defense. Judge Reed O’Connor was unmoved. “The Plaintiffs’ loss of religious liberties outweighs any forthcoming harm to the Navy,” he concluded. (The Supreme Court granted the government’s emergency request for a stay of O’Connor’s decision, over the objections of Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch, while the case proceeded. Congress later that year ordered the Pentagon to lift the deployment bar on unvaccinated service members, and the navy’s compliance rendered the case moot.)
Posted inAmerica, Covid|Comments Off on Vaccine Mandates
The Pro-Palestine protesters who showed up outside of Adas Torah synagogue on Sunday were not primarily protesters – they were combatants engaged in an act of war. Because they blocked entry to the synagogue, they were creating a blockade, which is an act of war.
I would be happy to see people engaged in blockades get the death penalty (if the blockade created innocent deaths). You execute a few and the rest will get the message.
I would want the same result for any group illegally executing a blockade that resulted in innocent deaths.
A friend texted on Sunday afternoon: “Just checking in to make sure your family is okay after everything in LA today.” I hadn’t been online and had no clue what he was talking about. It could have been anything—an earthquake or a wildfire—but something told me it was antisemitism. Unfortunately, I was right.
Protesters waving Palestinian flags and shouting anti-Israel slogans gathered outside Adas Torah synagogue in Los Angeles’s Pico-Robertson neighborhood on Sunday. They tried to block the entrance and were soon met by counterprotesters waving Israeli flags. The groups clashed. Adas Torah officials said the anti-Israel demonstrators maced and bear-sprayed Jews trying to enter the synagogue, which was holding an Israeli real-estate fair. Talia Regev, 43, said she was sprayed and saw violent altercations between the two groups.
“There was nowhere to turn where you could be safe,” said Naftoli Sherman, 25, who had planned to attend the synagogue’s fair. He was attacked and ended up in the hospital. “There was a whole gang of protesters on top of me. They broke my nose and kicked me in the head a couple of times.”
Israeli-born journalist Daniel Greenfield reported that an anti-Israel protester had threatened, “Billions of us will come and kill you.”
President Biden and California Gov. Gavin Newsom took to social media to condemn Sunday’s act of hate. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass promised that the police would “provide additional patrols in the Pico-Robertson community as well as outside of houses of worship throughout the city.” It’s good they spoke up, but tweeting isn’t enough.
Nor is standing by and watching. Members of the Los Angeles Police Department observed the melee unfold rather than protecting those targeted by the mob. It took volunteers from nonprofit Jewish security organizations, including LA Shmira Public Safety and Magen Am, to break up the scuffles. “Without them, it would have been a lot worse,” Mr. Sherman said.
“If not for Magen Am, I don’t know what would have happened,” said David Kramer, 37. “People were running, screaming, a little bit delirious,” and begging uniformed officers to intercede. Despite many pleas, he said, “they were slow to move, and it appeared to me like they had orders to stand down.”
As the fighting moved east of Adas Torah toward other synagogues in the Jewish neighborhood, the police remained about a quarter-block away from the action, Ms. Regev said. She urged officers to get involved. “I said, ‘You need to stop this,’ and they essentially said, ‘We can’t do anything without a higher authority.’ ” Mr. Greenfield said the police “did little to interfere with the terrorist supporters.” By failing to disperse the protesters, they made it difficult for Jews to enter their own synagogue. The LAPD declined to comment.
If the Pro-Palestine crowd was simply protesting under the protection of the law, I would have no objection, but they were not primarily protesting. They were primarily engaged in an act of war. When I went to a pro-Israel event at UCLA a few weeks ago, dozens of Pro-Palestine blokes formed a blockade to prevent Jews from getting into their own event. Eventually, some strong Jews broke through the blockade and we followed them in.
If Jews wait for law enforcement to create space for them to move freely, they will wait a long time. The Pro-Palestine crowd repeatedly creates situations where Jews must use brute force to lead their lives.
Posted inAdas Torah|Comments Off on A Blockade Is An Act Of War
Podnotes AI generated summary: I want to discuss moral categories, distinguishing between genuine ones like respect for parents and sexual discipline, and pseudo-moral categories such as racism. I want to research traditional morals, favoring time-tested methods over newer concepts.
Steve Sailer analyzes the impact of movements like Black Lives Matter. He suggests they’ve indirectly led to an increase in black deaths not just by police but mostly within their own community through violence and accidents. The discussion shifts towards group identity and protecting one’s community members from harm, emphasizing a sense of extended family within a group.
Dooovid joins the conversation but diverts into academic theories of identity rather than directly addressing points made about in-group dynamics during conflicts such as those witnessed outside a synagogue during political protests.
They touch upon Israel’s Supreme Court ruling requiring Haredi Jews to be drafted into military service—a significant development both had different levels of awareness about—and briefly discuss whether mandatory public service could work in the U.S., which David doubts due to differing national identities and purposes compared to Israel.
Finally, loneliness is highlighted as more than personal struggle; it’s seen as a national security issue because it makes people susceptible to manipulation via scams or extreme ideologies.
You’re waiting for someone to complete you, right? Psychos prey on that. They make you feel good and then exploit you. Our diversity means we often have little in common with others, leading to loneliness. Smart people might be doing okay, but many are lonely and at risk of extremism or scams.
Natalia, an online security expert, was laughed at by old school Bureau agents when she warned about the national security threat posed by loneliness. Lonely individuals like David Franklin Slater—a retired lieutenant colonel—can fall prey to foreign influence because they crave attention and want to feel special.
Intelligence agencies target the lonely for information. Even Americans have been caught leaking classified details out of a desire for connection or importance.
Elliot joins the show to share a personal story: I know Joe, someone who’s a bit of an under earner yet intelligent and competent. He brings women over; they’re not attractive. He seeks approval through association with me.
One day he brought over a stunning woman—educated, multilingual—and everything changed for me. She left baked goods at my door later; this kind of thing doesn’t happen every day! Her mother began texting me about her stock trading method; it seems there’s some angle here where they think I have money. It’s hard to stay rational around such beauty despite knowing better—it feels like a scam from a novel plotline.
I’m puzzled—how does she know Joe? There’s this quasi-supermarket in my neighborhood, known for cheap wine and groceries. It attracts people from all walks of life looking for good deals. But it’s also a place where some men find drug-addicted women to exploit.
San Francisco isn’t just needles and feces like many assume; residential areas are quite normal. I live in the lesser part of one of the city’s best neighborhoods—it’s like being at the bottom tier but still within Sea Cliff.
Joe once brought a woman into my apartment against my wishes. He misled her into believing he was wealthy, thinking it would help him seduce her. Now I can’t stop checking if she texts me. It’s tempting to believe things aren’t as bad as they seem, even when you know better.
This situation could ruin your life financially and emotionally, yet it draws you in irresistibly. We deceive ourselves about our needs and vulnerabilities until someone exposes them.
Luke: As for international humanitarian law discussions—they’ve evolved significantly due to wars like Vietnam and conflicts involving groups like Hamas challenging traditional distinctions between civilians and combatants. The rise of guerrilla warfare has prompted new laws that protect fighters who don’t conform to conventional military norms.
These shifts reflect broader societal changes, including increased female participation in these fields influencing policy directions toward human rights concerns—a trend unlikely to reverse anytime soon.
The 1907 Hague Convention mandates that combatants seeking protection must always be identifiable, carry arms openly, follow a responsible command, and abide by war laws. Yet Palestinian fighters don’t adhere to these norms. Article 2 of the regulations grants prisoner-of-war rights to those who bear arms openly and respect war laws before occupation. However, once occupied, resistance against occupiers isn’t allowed; attacking vital lines of communication is forbidden since an army relies on them.
Civilians are protected only if they remain peaceful; any aggression forfeits their safety guarantees. The 1949 Geneva Conventions didn’t significantly alter these rules but emphasized recognizable insignia for organized resistance members. Guerrilla warfare was well-regulated long before the 1970s—the law clearly required combatant identification for Geneva Convention protections.
Civilians outside structured military involvement risk execution while others face reprisals. Protection mainly exists in Article 25 of the Hague Convention which bans undiscriminating bombardment unless enemy forces occupy such areas—then it’s permissible.
Attackers should warn besieged cities prior to bombing if possible—a tactic Israel uses in conflicts like Gaza wars where religious buildings and hospitals should be spared damage when feasible despite civilian exposure to warfare’s effects.
Aerial warfare has historically targeted civilians with efforts to limit this failing repeatedly throughout the early-to-mid-20th century—it’s tacitly accepted as part of conflict dynamics now.
The Geneva Conventions offer limited protection for passive civilians during wartime but allow measures against them if dictated by military necessity or security reasons—including total evacuation or control over a population deemed necessary due to war conditions.
These conventions have shaped strategies separating civilians from combat zones forcibly or voluntarily—as seen historically in various global conflicts aimed at isolating guerrillas from popular support networks through relocation programs into camps or constructed communities like South Vietnam’s strategic hamlet program under American influence.
Despite conventional views on orderly uniformed soldiers versus subdued citizens, alternative revolutionary models emerged throughout the 20th century—exemplified by Vietnam War tactics adopted by Palestinian movements embracing communist ideologies promoting people’s wars without clear distinctions between civilian supporters and armed forces.
This blurs traditional separations mandated by international law favoring active engagement over passivity within oppressed populations fighting imperialism—an inherent human condition where more powerful groups naturally exert influence over weaker ones according to some perspectives challenging moral categorizations based on differences among peoples’ abilities or outcomes resulting from them.
The ideology that colonialism is a major evil has gained traction, particularly in the United Nations where decolonized nations are increasing. Resolutions have labeled Zionism as racism and affirmed the right to self-determination—except for some, like those under “alien domination,” a term coined for Palestinians. In 1970, UN Resolution 2649 supported Palestinian rights but excluded Jewish self-determination. Later resolutions deemed colonialism criminal and legitimized armed struggle against it.
This shift branded effective countries as criminal and justified opposition means, including guerrilla warfare and terrorism. After the Munich Olympics incident where Israeli athletes were killed by Palestinian terrorists, discussions at the UN shifted to include underlying causes of terrorism such as misery and despair.
An ad hoc committee on international terrorism further legitimized national liberation struggles like Palestine’s fight for recognition which peaked in 1974 when Yasser Arafat addressed the General Assembly.
Critics argue there’s no clear divide between politics and law; narratives influence both. They worry that this perspective undermines traditional international law by politicizing issues like war legitimacy or terrorist actions’ legality.
Amidst debates about Israel’s counterinsurgency tactics being disproportionate or unethical, concerns grow over their impact on democratic values and potential escalation into genocide-like responses from those labeled imperialist powers.
In conclusion, discourse around conflicts now heavily favors anti-colonial views while challenging conventional understandings of lawful warfare—transforming civilian protections into paramount considerations during combat situations.
Steve Sailer has spent a lifetime observing human behavior and coming to obvious, sensible conclusions. For the crime of noticing reality, he’s been ostracized, although secretly everyone still reads him.
Revolutionary War and the Development of International Humanitarian Law
The distinction between civilians and combatants and the protection of civilians are perhaps the central precepts of international humanitarian law today.
…Vietnam served as the archetype of the contemporary conflicts that had prompted the ICRC to draft new laws. When the ICRC began calling for new laws of armed conflict it
was concerned by military developments, such as aviation, that had “almost wiped out” the fundamental distinctions between combatants and civilians. It was also troubled by the rise of a “truly enormous tidal wave of guerrilla activity” that had not been anticipated by earlier conventions.
The Vietnam War was the consummate example of these concerns. Moreover, the Vietnam War informed the drafting process by challenging the traditional Western understanding of the laws of armed conflict. The revolutionary writings on people’s war, put into practice in Vietnam, shaped a new language and paradigm of a just war, while advocating for the legitimacy of guerrilla warfare.
This language was adopted by Palestinian movements, which presented their struggle as analogous to the Vietnamese people’s war. Support for the Palestinians and the Palestine Liberation Organization led to a series of United Nations resolutions, proclaiming the rights of national liberation movements and their fighters in a quasi-legal language that would later be repeated at the Diplomatic Conferences.
There was also growing support for the Palestinian and the Vietnamese resistance in the West. Wars against imperial powers were increasingly accepted as just and the means used to oppose them seemed shocking.
Popular and academic commentary in the West questioned the lawfulness of counterinsurgency techniques, in particular attacks on civilians. These discourses were reflected in the debates at the Diplomatic Conference and ultimately in the provisions of the Additional Protocol I.
Posted inArabs, Israel|Comments Off on Revolutionary War and the Development of International Humanitarian Law
Luke, your Samuel Pepys like reports Decoding The Brawl were excellent. It’s fascinating to see the differences in New York and LA. There is a small group of Israelis in New York who push back, but it’s very different than what it was like when I grew up.
In the late 60’s and 70’s there was still a connection between the past (Holocaust) and the future (decaying neighborhoods being overrun by blacks) and that created a class of tough and physical Jews. Torah Dojo was a Karate school all around the New York Area. We weren’t Bugsy Seigel, but we did want to learn to defend ourselves. And the people in Tora DoJo were primarily over-educated high IQ Ashkenasim. When my kids were younger I got them into Jiu Jitsu just so they would have a taste of the world outside their Jewish day schools.
Podnotes AI Summary: Yesterday, a protest erupted outside Adas Torah Synagogue in Pico-Robertson, Los Angeles. The synagogue is known for its right-wing religious views. Pro-Palestine protesters tried to block attendees from entering an event about purchasing land in Israel, leading to clashes.
The confrontation highlights differences in protest tactics; while Jewish protests are typically more verbal, the pro-Palestine group resorted to physical barriers. This isn’t the first time such incidents have occurred; similar events took place at UCLA before Passover.
Los Angeles Jews are more confrontational than those in other cities and have been actively defending their rights beyond legal measures. The mayor and police chief are meeting today to discuss safety after these violent encounters received significant news coverage – they were possibly the top story in LA.
A key point of contention is how a synagogue is perceived – not just as a house of worship but as a communal gathering space. This misunderstanding was reflected in political statements following the brawl.
Local leaders, including President Biden and Governor Newsom, condemned the violence at what they referred to as places of worship. Mayor Karen Bass called for increased patrols around synagogues and stated that anti-Semitism wouldn’t be tolerated in Los Angeles.
This incident underscores tensions surrounding Israel’s actions abroad affecting local communities worldwide. It raises questions about freedom of speech versus incitement to violence during protests.
Are Jewish brawlers respected or just lowlifes? Opinions vary. Initially, good people in the community advised staying away from them. They were seen as troublemakers.
However, with rising antisemitism, their role has become more crucial. Even less assertive Jews appreciate having defenders among them. At events in places like New York or Detroit, tough members of the Jewish community have shown up en masse.
These aren’t typical synagogue-goers but rather those who might respond to threats with force. There’s been debate about whether a recent event was an actual business meeting or a setup for conflict. It turned out to be a legitimate real estate event at a conservative Lithuanian-style yeshivish synagogue that attracted protesters from both sides.
The violence wasn’t part of the plan; it escalated due to known tensions and resulted in minor scuffles without serious injuries. The Jewish leadership certainly didn’t want thugs representing their side – it goes against the image they wish to present.
Jewish leaders often exaggerate threats for influence and funding while also seeking government protection despite being capable of self-defense and negotiation within systems of power.
Comparatively, black activists focus differently — typically on police reform rather than protection from other communities — reflecting divergent socio-economic statuses and resulting priorities regarding law enforcement interaction.
Steve Sailer suggests a way to guess the race of a shooter: if there are more injuries than fatalities, the shooter might be black; conversely, if deaths outnumber injuries, likely not. This implies different racial groups may tend toward different kinds of violence. Some excel in non-physical aggression.
Over the weekend in Los Angeles, violent clashes erupted as anti-Israel protesters blocked the entrance to a synagogue. Jonathan Hunt reports from LA that about 100 pro-Palestinian demonstrators instigated fights with Jewish counter-protesters. Police intervened but tensions remained high.
The protest sparked discussions about local and national responses to such incidents. Some argue that if similar violence targeted other religious groups, it would receive more attention and condemnation. The situation raises concerns about growing antisemitism and recalls historical parallels where neighbors turned against Jews.
In response, LA Mayor condemned the violence, emphasizing that antisemitism won’t be tolerated. Fox News contributor Mark Thiessen pointed out that targeting a synagogue instead of an embassy suggests these are not just anti-Israel protests but also acts of antisemitism.
On social media platforms like Twitter, various perspectives emerged—some defending the Jewish community’s right to self-defense while others criticized police actions against protesters. The episode has reignited debates on communal relations and public safety in diverse neighborhoods across America.
The saying goes, “All the world loves a lover,” but in reality, the world loves a fight.
The brawl attracts non-professionals more than doctors or lawyers. In the middle, a girl confronts protestors with an opposing flag while cars decked with Israeli flags pull up. It’s unlikely that this Jewish woman waving the flag will become a doctor; her actions aren’t noble or wise.
Rabbis disapprove of Jews engaging in brawls at pro-Palestinian protests, especially when they shout offensive things like threats of rape. Some Jewish individuals are looking for physical confrontation just as some pro-Palestinian ones are—it takes all sorts.
A young woman on the pro-Jewish side seems eager for conflict possibly because she’s never faced real consequences like being punched. However, such recklessness could end tragically; she risks her potential future and well-being by provoking fights without understanding their gravity.
During these events, there’s energy from joining others with common goals which can’t be replicated alone—it creates powerful emotions and bonds.
Antifa claims Israeli protesters are stirring trouble near Palestinian protests; it’s chaotic yet exhilarating for those involved. Journalists should report fairly without bias—yet here we see one-sided reporting from someone who puts herself at risk without considering personal safety or reputation damage.
In contrast to riotous behavior among lower-IQ participants seeking thrills through aggression and disruption, high-IQ individuals attempt to de-escalate tensions recognizing its futility and riskiness—the rabbis work hard to curb such conduct within their community knowing it jeopardizes futures and tarnishes perceptions.
Conflict between groups with significant IQ gaps is challenging due to communication barriers—they tend not to interact socially within America due largely different neighborhoods and professions.
Tonight’s takeaway: reckless engagement in conflicts can have dire consequences beyond immediate excitement—it threatens futures both personally and communally. Goodnight!
Posted inAdas Torah, Pico/Robertson|Comments Off on Decoding The Brawl Outside Adas Torah Synagogue (6-24-24)
A violent clash Sunday between pro-Palestinian demonstrators and supporters of Israel engaged outside a synagogue in the Pico-Robertson neighborhood of Los Angeles was condemned by Mayor Karen Bass, who ordered more police patrols in the area and at houses of worship around the city….
Pro-Palestinian activists began gathering in front of the Adas Torah synagogue in the 9000 block of West Pico Boulevard shortly before 11 a.m., L.A. Police Officer Tony Im said. They were quickly met with counterdemonstrators, many of them carrying Israeli flags.
Video posted on social media showed fistfights breaking out among protesters, some of whom wielded sticks and handles from protest signs as police in riot gear stood nearby. Numerous scuffles occurred along the street, with some protesters hurling obscenities as they wrestled one another to the ground.
More chaos. This is not Gaza. This is Los Angeles. ????????????
Anti-Israel protesters are physically attacking Jews in front of a synagogue in Los Angeles.
— Afshine Emrani MD FACC (@afshineemrani) June 23, 2024
About 50 pro-Palestine men showed up and tried to bash their way into Adas Torah synagogue around noon. TV helicopters and pro-Israel counter-protesters showed up. A car drove into the protesters. Some people got bloodied. LAPD showed up with about 50 squad cars and closed off Pico Blvd much of Sunday afternoon and made several arrests.
HAPPENING NOW: Los Angeles Pro-Palestine protesters rallied outside a real estate event auctioning off properties in Palestine. The community was met with police and pro-Israel counter protesters that used mace, tried to pull hijabs off, and shouted obscenities and threats. pic.twitter.com/S20vvSgZsK
More footage of police arresting Pro-Hamas terrorists who drove around the predominantly orthodox Jewish Los Angeles neighborhood threatening Jewish families and pedestrians.
Podnotes AIM summary: Dennis Prager’s views on masturbation and religion are controversial. He argues that labeling it as sinful alienates people from God rather than bringing them closer.
On legal matters, there’s debate over whether certain cases would proceed if not for high-profile names like Donald Trump involved – suggesting bias in justice.
The origin of human rights is often likened to Christian church history by historians – an idea that prevailed because it was true and valid. However, Samuel Moyn from Harvard challenges this view; he sees human rights as emerging more recently due to other ideologies failing.
In media discussions about “human rights,” academics like Paul Gottfried argue these terms are used too loosely without considering historical context or cultural differences among societies.
Christopher Caldwell discusses how human rights have become intertwined with American power abroad through NGOs backed by Western billionaires like Soros and Gates Foundation – sometimes serving as pretexts for military action or economic sanctions which can have devastating effects on populations.
Finally, universalizing human-rights doctrine risks imposing one set of values globally without respecting individual nations’ sovereignty or democratic processes – leading to potential conflicts when those global ideals clash with local customs or interests.
If a nation must defend itself with force, it’s often seen as justified. French theorist Julian F pondered why people believed in a peaceful universal state that would end war. In such a world, politics and human nature wouldn’t change much; wars might simply be labeled civil wars.
Human rights can limit democracy and sovereignty. Political thinker Gu shows how the rise of human rights has altered democracy—it empowers individuals over the collective will of the people. This shift means that sometimes citizens’ right to decide is overridden by individual human rights.
In California, for instance, voters passed Proposition 187 to deny welfare benefits to illegal immigrants, but the courts struck it down—another case where democratic decisions were suspended for human rights.
Rights advocates have challenged traditional values like gender roles and marriage purposes. As we evolve from natural states, we think special roles are necessary—but activists push against this notion.
Internationally, some ideologies like Pan-Africanism or communism also aimed at global influence but differed from human rights movements. Historian Samuel Moyn suggests that modern understanding of human rights isn’t directly derived from past notions like “rights of man” but emerged in response to failed political utopias in the 1970s.
There’s always a trade-off between more rights and less democracy—and vice versa. Rights could come from God or reason or be socially constructed based on environment and genetics.
Before universal human rights concepts existed, violence was acceptable if it protected one’s nation—like an extended family defending itself against threats. Now terms like genocide are used differently than they were before their widespread application post-1970s.
Right-wing thinkers focus more on responsibilities than left-wing proponents of expansive interpretations of international law do when discussing humanitarian issues. Moyn argues that while advocating for universal solidarity with humanity may seem noble, it can weaken local bonds within communities.
Christopher Caldwell notes Viktor Orbán’s criticism: liberal societies allow too much freedom without considering its impact on others—a paradox since actions inevitably affect other people.
Moyn acknowledges there’s little evidence showing major improvements due to global advocacy for universal human rights despite changes in sensitivity being significant.
Rights versus sovereignty remains an ongoing debate—with no clear resolution about whether expanding individual freedoms justifies overriding national self-determination or democratic choices made by citizenry at large.
Illegal immigrants shouldn’t be protected by our constitution. I’m not easily riled up, but the topic of gender transition is intriguing to me. The debate on what defines a woman, highlighted in a recent interview with a Supreme Court justice nominee, was embarrassing.
I believe society swings too far sometimes and then self-corrects. With kids and puberty blockers, we should let nature take its course instead of rushing into medical interventions based on studies showing most gender dysphoria in teens is transient.
Regarding children transitioning before 18 or same-sex marriage being imposed on states that oppose it, I think civil unions were a decent compromise. It doesn’t bother me if people of the same sex marry each other; perhaps government should exit the marriage business altogether. People might be better off forming contractual relationships tailored to their needs.
Morality seems good when it’s about treating others well and bad when it involves harmful behavior. Different groups have diverse skills shaped by culture and environment – like Japanese versus West Africans – which can persist through generations even after migration.
My views lean conservative due to experiences as a landlord dealing with welfare dependency among tenants; this has reinforced my belief against certain social safety nets like welfare without work requirements.
As for different ethnicities as tenants, there’s no notable difference except none applied from Asian backgrounds known for low crime rates suggesting they could be responsible renters.
Finally, regarding employment discrimination laws such as disparate impact theory from Griggs v. Duke Power Company – I disagree with them because tests should fairly assess all applicants’ abilities regardless of background differences.
A war should be conducted cleanly, with precision and minimal harm to civilians. This aligns with the human rights focus on protecting the weak and preventing genocide and crimes against humanity. War is not just a cultural artifact but also a biological necessity—organisms compete for survival, altering environments to thrive at others’ expense.
Cultures that fail in warfare often perish, as do many life forms. Survival is paramount; even our closest relatives, chimpanzees, engage in warlike behavior. The Netflix documentary “Chimp Empire” illustrates this through its depiction of chimp society.
The contemporary ideal of regulated humanitarian warfare exists among some groups but fades when survival is at stake—as wars escalate, ideals are overwhelmed. Our hero system shapes which violence we accept or glorify; it’s deeply ingrained within communities.
Despite the disconnect between ideals like international humanitarian law and reality during survival wars, these concepts remain exciting because they evoke strong emotions without necessarily impacting real-world suffering. Amnesty International’s founder suggested their work needn’t make a tangible difference—it provides an outlet for those passionate about utopian ideals.
Similarly, both human rights activists and evangelical Christians hold powerful emotional beliefs despite limited practical support. I dream of building a world filled with love—a place where people live in harmony—but recognize that visions like mine are often disregarded by those in power due to differing hero systems.
At the turn of the century optimism for peaceful interventions existed but was soon overshadowed by endless violence post-9/11: torture, drone strikes, global policing persisted—highlighting skepticism about moral progress among realists who don’t prioritize individualistic human rights frameworks above all else.
In conclusion, while aspirations toward humane conflict exist amid ideological divides and societal challenges—the harsh realities of geopolitical strife continue unabatedly shaping our worldviews and responses to emerging threats.
Sam: I enjoyed late-night variety shows in New York during the nineties; it was a fun time. Growing up, my education was split between public school and yeshiva—half of each. I attended Edward R. Murrow High School in Brooklyn, a top-ranked institution where I mixed with diverse students.
My orthodox Jewish parents sent me to this public school because it offered quality education, and many from my community competed to get in. It had standards above average public schools.
However, going there led me towards secularism as I immersed myself in popular culture and arts like photography and music. This influenced my decision to attend the School of Visual Arts in Manhattan.
During that period, I became more liberal and explored different aspects of life including relationships. My first serious girlfriend was German; we met later since I delayed intimacy due to fears surrounding AIDS at the time.
This lifestyle affected my marriage prospects—I believe it contributed to difficulties in finding success within marriage despite having strong Jewish foundations which eventually brought me back on track after becoming disillusioned with American pop culture.
From age 20 until 38, before getting married, I lived quite freely especially when stationed with the US Army in Europe where social norms were different compared to America. Relationships there were straightforward without expectations beyond casual encounters—a stark contrast from dating within Jewish circles which often seemed materialistic particularly back home in New York City.
Throughout this journey including both positive experiences and challenges faced due to cultural differences or societal expectations around relationships or career choices such as not seeking wealth but rather preparedness for change—my identity as a Jew remained important even while navigating various international environments free from significant anti-Semitism at least during those times.
Guatemala in 1954, Brazil in 1964, and Chile in 1973 saw US interventions that often prioritized security over democracy. For instance, after Hamas won the Palestinian elections in 2006 against US-backed Fatah, America sought to destabilize the new government.
Claire joined a discussion about her recent debate on a religious channel regarding a Quranic verse suggesting Zionism. She argued for considering diverse religious perspectives but was dismissed without an answer to her question.
She also touched on how history shows failures tied to not following Quranic governance principles. Claire admires historian Sam Mo for his insights on human rights as an alternative for failed leftist utopias and questions whether biblical laws already provide certain rights.
Discussing societal strength, Claire sees uniform political orthodoxy as necessary despite various religions within society. She criticizes American secularism’s lack of depth compared to other countries’ intense religious practices.
Lastly, she notes America’s “happy holidays” greeting reflects its non-official religion status leading to cultural confusion and cults—a result of individualistic freedom without shared orthodox beliefs.
John Mearsheimer’s work suggests liberal democracies are not inherently peaceful or virtuous; strategic interests often override moral considerations during conflicts. The belief that all humans have innate rights is based more on secular faith than concrete reality.
Some tactics involve using NGOs to support institutions and politicians in a target state, linking aid to human rights records, and shaming states by exposing their violations. However, these can backfire as major powers may see it as illegitimate interference. The U.S.’s strained relations with China and Russia illustrate this.
The concept of human rights took root post-WWII due to the Holocaust’s aftermath and anti-colonial movements. Yet, its origins aren’t solely tied to that era; historians argue awareness of the Holocaust’s atrocities grew slowly over decades.
Soviet influence on Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions was strategic rather than altruistic. They supported protection in conflicts unless it threatened communism. Justice is often seen through personal or national interests rather than an objective standard.
Scholar Amanda Alexander highlights how international law is shaped by politics and historical context—not just state interests but also advocacy networks’ pressures. Despite this shaping, powerful nations rarely let international law restrict their actions.
Genocide scholars sometimes use broad definitions for personal gain—careers depend on highlighting threats they’re expert in mitigating. Human rights discourse creates jobs but doesn’t always translate into real-world change—it’s contingent on political will more than moral arguments.
The modern human rights movement emerged from disillusionment with past ideologies like revolutionary nationalism, especially after events like the Prague Spring forced activists to rethink strategies focusing more on morality than direct opposition.
In emergencies, democracies can resort to dictatorial measures for public interest—a reality acknowledged even within constitutional frameworks designed for checks and balances. Ultimately, whether through legal structures or social movements advocating for human rights or against genocide—the effectiveness boils down to power dynamics and political agendas rather than universal principles or laws.
Big events and various forces have shaped history. Notably, Americans’ role is significant; they once supported Vietnam but shifted after 1973. The election of Jimmy Carter marked a change—he advocated for atonement and a human rights-focused foreign policy, the first statesman to prioritize it so openly.
Across the North Atlantic, many who rejected socialism and moved past the ideologies of the ’60s embraced human rights as a more modest cause. They backed leaders like Carter who promoted exporting human rights over waging war. This led to an unprecedented surge in discussions about human rights.
Christianity played a role too, with organizations like Amnesty International having Christian influences such as Quakerism. The Catholic Church also contributed, reflecting Christianity’s strong universalist tendencies compared to Judaism’s more nationalistic ones.
"This guy knows all the gossip, the ins and outs, the lashon hara of the Orthodox world. He’s an [expert] in... all the inner workings of the Orthodox world." (Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff)
