Forward: ‘Shadowy Blacklist Of Student Activists Wins Endorsement Of Mainstream Pro-Israel Group’

Forward:

For more than two years, a shadowy website called Canary Mission has posted political dossiers on students active in pro-Palestinian groups, saying it hopes to keep them from finding work after college.

Now, a mainstream Jewish pro-Israel organized has endorsed Canary Mission — despite criticism that site uses “McCarthyite” tactics.

In an annual report, the Israel on Campus Coalition cited Canary Mission as an effective model for deterring support for the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement, hailing the website for causing students to drop their support for pro-Palestinian groups out of fear of “repercussions.”

“Through online platforms such as Canary Mission, a database devoted to exposing hatred of Jews and Israel, the pro-Israel community has established a strong deterrent against anti-Semitism and BDS activism,” ICC’s report reads…

Canary Mission’s published dossier on Pritsker runs to 3,000 words, much of it boilerplate text on Students for Justice in Palestine, of which he is a member. It also notes his support for a failed student government resolution to divest from ten companies that SJP says profit off Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

But the dossier also includes information on Pritsker unrelated to his pro-Palestinian activism. It notes that he was arrested earlier this year at a protest against the Trump administration’s Muslim ban, and that he ran for student government in 2015.

Posted in Israel | Comments Off on Forward: ‘Shadowy Blacklist Of Student Activists Wins Endorsement Of Mainstream Pro-Israel Group’

John Travolta: “Hollywood controlled by homosexual Jewish men who expect sexual favors in return for career-related ones”

Rachel Shukert writes for Tabletmag in 2012:

…the press has been all abuzz over the lawsuit recently slapped on John Travolta by a masseur claiming the star attempted to coerce him into unwanted sexual acts during a session at the Beverly Hills Hotel. Two steps forward, one step back. That’s progress, I guess.

Of all the tabloid press coverage on Massage-gate, there are two details that, er, popped up at me. One is the employment of positively J.K. Rowling-esque adjectives regarding the area in question: “solid eight inches … springy” making it sound like Hollywood’s second-most famous Scientologist purchased his, ahem, wand straight from Mr. Ollivander’s. (It chooses the wizard, you know.) The second is the still-unnamed masseur’s assertion of how Travolta explained how he learned to Stop Worrying and Love Transactional Same-Sex Liaisons: By accepting that Hollywood is controlled by “homosexual Jewish men” who expect sexual favors in return for career-related ones.

It may surprise you (although probably not) to hear that I have no quarrel with the airing of the trope that Jews are prominent, even dominant, in the movie industry. The reason for this is that it’s true, and saying it aloud no more makes John Travolta a Jew-hater than asserting that there are a lot of, say, African-American hip-hop artists makes one a racist. It’s not anti-Semitic to make a statement of fact; it’s anti-Semitic to imply that there’s something wrong with it. The real question raised by this statement is the linking of “homosexual,” a descriptor that is relevant to the particulars of the accusation at hand, with “Jewish,” which is not. What, indeed, does one thing have to do with the other? And what does the almost unconscious linking of the two—whether by Travolta or merely by the recollection or fabrication of his anonymous plaintiff—tell us about the nature of prejudice itself?

Posted in Hollywood, Homosexuality, Jews | Comments Off on John Travolta: “Hollywood controlled by homosexual Jewish men who expect sexual favors in return for career-related ones”

Buzzfeed: Here’s How Breitbart And Milo Smuggled Nazi and White Nationalist Ideas Into The Mainstream

From Buzzfeed:

The Breitbart employee closest to the alt-right was Milo Yiannopoulos, the site’s former tech editor known best for his outrageous public provocations, such as last year’s Dangerous Faggot speaking tour and September’s canceled Free Speech Week in Berkeley. For more than a year, Yiannopoulos led the site in a coy dance around the movement’s nastier edges, writing stories that minimized the role of neo-Nazis and white nationalists while giving its politer voices “a fair hearing.” In March, Breitbart editor Alex Marlow insisted “we’re not a hate site.” Breitbart’s media relations staff repeatedly threatened to sue outlets that described Yiannopoulos as racist. And after the violent white supremacist protest in Charlottesville, Virginia, in August, Breitbart published an article explaining that when Bannon said the site welcomed the alt-right, he was merely referring to “computer gamers and blue-collar voters who hated the GOP brand.”

These new emails and documents, however, clearly show that Breitbart does more than tolerate the most hate-filled, racist voices of the alt-right. It thrives on them, fueling and being fueled by some of the most toxic beliefs on the political spectrum — and clearing the way for them to enter the American mainstream.

It’s a relationship illustrated most starkly by a previously unreleased April 2016 video in which Yiannopoulos sings “America the Beautiful” in a Dallas karaoke bar as admirers, including the white nationalist Richard Spencer, raise their arms in Nazi salutes.

These documents chart the Breitbart alt-right universe. They reveal how the website — and, in particular, Yiannopoulos — links the Mercer family, the billionaires who fund Breitbart, to underpaid trolls who fill it with provocative content, and to extremists striving to create a white ethnostate.

They capture what Bannon calls his “killing machine” in action, as it dredges up the resentments of people around the world, sifts through these grievances for ideas and content, and propels them from the unsavory parts of the internet up to TrumpWorld, collecting advertisers’ checks all along the way.

And the cache of emails — some of the most newsworthy of which BuzzFeed News is now making public — expose the extent to which this machine depended on Yiannopoulos, who channeled voices both inside and outside the establishment into a clear narrative about the threat liberal discourse posed to America. The emails tell the story of Steve Bannon’s grand plan for Yiannopoulos, whom the Breitbart executive chairman transformed from a charismatic young editor into a conservative media star capable of magnetizing a new generation of reactionary anger. Often, the documents reveal, this anger came from a legion of secret sympathizers in Silicon Valley, Hollywood, academia, suburbia, and everywhere in between.

Posted in Alt Right, Breitbart | Comments Off on Buzzfeed: Here’s How Breitbart And Milo Smuggled Nazi and White Nationalist Ideas Into The Mainstream

Urban Black Basketball

Here’s an excerpt from an Esquire interview with Steve Oney:

EC: There are a few lines from Brown that suggest a racial insensitivity that today would not be permissible but at the time was a more accepted part of the discourse. Did any of that stand out to you as you re-read the piece today?
SO: You’re referring to a quote in my piece in which Hubie says that “urban blacks” are ruining basketball because they’re selfish and don’t respect the team concept. That was jarring then, and it’s more jarring now. Moreover, if you believe what you read online, it is not the only time Hubie has said something racially insensitive. But I don’t think of him as a racist. (I grew up in Georgia and have known genuine racists.) I see Hubie more as an equal opportunity insult maven — kind of a Don Rickles of basketball. He’s not as funny but just as blunt and politically incorrect. In today’s climate, of course, the line about “urban blacks” would be a firing offense. Hubie doesn’t talk like that on ESPN, but boy, he calls ‘em like he sees ‘em.

Posted in Basketball, Blacks | Comments Off on Urban Black Basketball

NYT: ‘Texas Man’s Death Sentence Thrown Out Over Racist Testimony’

New York Times:

Duane E. Buck barged into his girlfriend’s Texas home after she broke up with him and killed her and a friend. Later that morning in July 1995, he fired a rifle at his stepsister, who survived because the bullet just missed her heart.

His guilt was never in doubt, and Mr. Buck, 54, who is black, was sentenced to death by lethal injection. But concerns about testimony from a psychologist in the sentencing phase — that black people were more dangerous than white people — raised concerns about the role of race in the jury’s decision and led the case to reach the Supreme Court.

Are black people more dangerous than white people? The late political scientist James Q. Wilson noted: “Black men commit murders at a rate about eight times greater than that for white men. This disparity is not new; it has existed for well over a century.”

So telling the truth will get a sentence overturned because the truth is racist.

Posted in Blacks | Comments Off on NYT: ‘Texas Man’s Death Sentence Thrown Out Over Racist Testimony’

Haaretz: ‘White Man’s Burden’

None of these people who pushed for the 2003 Iraq invasion seem to have paid any price for their idiocy.

A smaller percentage of American Jews thought the war was a good idea compared to the general population, but a tiny number of Jewish neocons pushed for this war for years.

Ari Shavit writes for Haaretz April 3, 2003:

The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them, journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it’s possible. But another journalist, Thomas Friedman (not part of the group), is skeptical.

WASHINGTON – At the conclusion of its second week, the war to liberate Iraq wasn’t looking good. Not even in Washington. The assumption of a swift collapse of the Saddam Hussein regime had itself collapsed. The presupposition that the Iraqi dictatorship would crumble as soon as mighty America entered the country proved unfounded. The Shi’ites didn’t rise up, the Sunnis fought fiercely. Iraqi guerrilla warfare found the American generals unprepared and endangered their overextended supply lines. Nevertheless, 70 percent of the American people continued to support the war; 60 percent thought victory was certain; 74 percent expressed confidence in President George W. Bush.
Washington is a small city. It’s a place of human dimensions. A kind of small town that happens to run an empire. A small town of government officials and members of Congress and personnel of research institutes and journalists who pretty well all know one another. Everyone is busy intriguing against everyone else; and everyone gossips about everyone else.
In the course of the past year, a new belief has emerged in the town: the belief in war against Iraq. That ardent faith was disseminated by a small group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives, almost all of them Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals (a partial list: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Eliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer), people who are mutual friends and cultivate one another and are convinced that political ideas are a major driving force of history. They believe that the right political idea entails a fusion of morality and force, human rights and grit. The philosophical underpinnings of the Washington neoconservatives are the writings of Machiavelli, Hobbes and Edmund Burke. They also admire Winston Churchill and the policy pursued by Ronald Reagan. They tend to read reality in terms of the failure of the 1930s (Munich) versus the success of the 1980s (the fall of the Berlin Wall).
Are they wrong? Have they committed an act of folly in leading Washington to Baghdad? They don’t think so. They continue to cling to their belief. They are still pretending that everything is more or less fine. That things will work out. Occasionally, though, they seem to break out in a cold sweat. This is no longer an academic exercise, one of them says, we are responsible for what is happening. The ideas we put forward are now affecting the lives of millions of people. So there are moments when you’re scared. You say, Hell, we came to help, but maybe we made a mistake.
2. William Kristol
Has America bitten off more than it can chew? Bill Kristol says no. True, the press is very negative, but when you examine the facts in the field you see that there is no terrorism, no mass destruction, no attacks on Israel. The oil fields in the south have been saved, air control has been achieved, American forces are deployed 50 miles from Baghdad. So, even if mistakes were made here and there, they are not serious. America is big enough to handle that. Kristol hasn’t the slightest doubt that in the end, General Tommy Franks will achieve his goals. The 4th Cavalry Division will soon enter the fray, and another division is on its way from Texas. So it’s possible that instead of an elegant war with 60 killed in two weeks it will be a less elegant affair with a thousand killed in two months, but nevertheless Bill Kristol has no doubt at all that the Iraq Liberation War is a just war, an obligatory war.
Kristol is pleasant-looking, of average height, in his late forties. In the past 18 months he has used his position as editor of the right-wing Weekly Standard and his status as one of the leaders of the neoconservative circle in Washington to induce the White House to do battle against Saddam Hussein. Because Kristol is believed to exercise considerable influence on the president, Vice President Richard Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, he is also perceived as having been instrumental in getting Washington to launch this all-out campaign against Baghdad. Sitting behind the stacks of books that cover his desk at the offices of the Weekly Standard in Northwest Washington, he tries to convince me that he is not worried. It is simply inconceivable to him that America will not win. In that event, the consequences would be catastrophic. No one wants to think seriously about that possibility.
What is the war about? I ask. Kristol replies that at one level it is the war that George Bush is talking about: a war against a brutal regime that has in its possession weapons of mass destruction. But at a deeper level it is a greater war, for the shaping of a new Middle East. It is a war that is intended to change the political culture of the entire region. Because what happened on September 11, 2001, Kristol says, is that the Americans looked around and saw that the world is not what they thought it was. The world is a dangerous place. Therefore the Americans looked for a doctrine that would enable them to cope with this dangerous world. And the only doctrine they found was the neoconservative one.
That doctrine maintains that the problem with the Middle East is the absence of democracy and of freedom. It follows that the only way to block people like Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden is to disseminate democracy and freedom. To change radically the cultural and political dynamics that creates such people. And the way to fight the chaos is to create a new world order that will be based on freedom and human rights – and to be ready to use force in order to consolidate this new world. So that, really, is what the war is about. It is being fought to consolidate a new world order, to create a new Middle East.
Does that mean that the war in Iraq is effectively a neoconservative war? That’s what people are saying, Kristol replies, laughing. But the truth is that it’s an American war. The neoconservatives succeeded because they touched the bedrock of America. The thing is that America has a profound sense of mission. America has a need to offer something that transcends a life of comfort, that goes beyond material success. Therefore, because of their ideals, the Americans accepted what the neoconservatives proposed. They didn’t want to fight a war over interests, but over values. They wanted a war driven by a moral vision. They wanted to hitch their wagon to something bigger than themselves.
Does this moral vision mean that after Iraq will come the turns of Saudi Arabia and Egypt?
Kristol says that he is at odds with the administration on the question of Saudi Arabia. But his opinion is that it is impossible to let Saudi Arabia just continue what it is doing. It is impossible to accept the anti-Americanism it is disseminating. The fanatic Wahhabism that Saudi Arabia engenders is undermining the stability of the entire region. It’s the same with Egypt, he says: we mustn’t accept the status quo there. For Egypt, too, the horizon has to be liberal democracy.
It has to be understood that in the final analysis, the stability that the corrupt Arab despots are offering is illusory. Just as the stability that Yitzhak Rabin received from Yasser Arafat was illusory. In the end, none of these decadent dictatorships will endure. The choice is between extremist Islam, secular fascism or democracy. And because of September 11, American understands that. America is in a position where it has no choice. It is obliged to be far more aggressive in promoting democracy. Hence this war. It’s based on the new American understanding that if the United States does not shape the world in its image, the world will shape the United States in its own image.
3. Charles Krauthammer
Is this going to turn into a second Vietnam? Charles Krauthammer says no. There is no similarity to Vietnam. Unlike in the 1960s, there is no anti-establishment subculture in the United States now. Unlike in the 1960s, there is now an abiding love of the army in the United States. Unlike in the 1960s, there is a determined president, one with character, in the White House. And unlike in the 1960s, Americans are not deterred from making sacrifices. That is the sea-change that took place here on September 11, 2001. Since that morning, Americans have understood that if they don’t act now and if weapons of mass destruction reach extremist terrorist organizations, millions of Americans will die. Therefore, because they understand that those others want to kill them by the millions, the Americans prefer to take to the field of battle and fight, rather than sit idly by and die at home.
Charles Krauthammer is handsome, swarthy and articulate. In his spacious office on 19th Street in Northwest Washington, he sits upright in a black wheelchair. Although his writing tends to be gloomy, his mood now is elevated. The well-known columnist (Washington Post, Time, Weekly Standard) has no real doubts about the outcome of the war that he promoted for 18 months. No, he does not accept the view that he helped lead America into the new killing fields between the Tigris and the Euphrates. But it is true that he is part of a conceptual stream that had something to offer in the aftermath of September 11. Within a few weeks after the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, he had singled out Baghdad in his columns as an essential target. And now, too, he is convinced that America has the strength to pull it off. The thought that America will not win has never even crossed his mind.
What is the war about? It’s about three different issues. First of all, this is a war for disarming Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. That’s the basis, the self-evident cause, and it is also sufficient cause in itself. But beyond that, the war in Iraq is being fought to replace the demonic deal America cut with the Arab world decades ago. That deal said: you will send us oil and we will not intervene in your internal affairs. Send us oil and we will not demand from you what we are demanding of Chile, the Philippines, Korea and South Africa.
That deal effectively expired on September 11, 2001, Krauthammer says. Since that day, the Americans have understood that if they allow the Arab world to proceed in its evil ways – suppression, economic ruin, sowing despair – it will continue to produce more and more bin Ladens. America thus reached the conclusion that it has no choice: it has to take on itself the project of rebuilding the Arab world. Therefore, the Iraq war is really the beginning of a gigantic historical experiment whose purpose is to do in the Arab world what was done in Germany and Japan after World War II.
It’s an ambitious experiment, Krauthammer admits, maybe even utopian, but not unrealistic. After all, it is inconceivable to accept the racist assumption that the Arabs are different from all other human beings, that the Arabs are incapable of conducting a democratic way of life.
However, according to the Jewish-American columnist, the present war has a further importance. If Iraq does become pro-Western and if it becomes the focus of American influence, that will be of immense geopolitical importance. An American presence in Iraq will project power across the region. It will suffuse the rebels in Iran with courage and strength, and it will deter and restrain Syria. It will accelerate the processes of change that the Middle East must undergo.
Isn’t the idea of preemptive war a dangerous one that rattles the world order?
There is no choice, Krauthammer replies. In the 21st century we face a new and singular challenge: the democratization of mass destruction. There are three possible strategies in the face of that challenge: appeasement, deterrence and preemption. Because appeasement and deterrence will not work, preemption is the only strategy left. The United States must implement an aggressive policy of preemption. Which is exactly what it is now doing in Iraq. That is what Tommy Franks’ soldiers are doing as we speak.
And what if the experiment fails? What if America is defeated?
This war will enhance the place of America in the world for the coming generation, Krauthammer says. Its outcome will shape the world for the next 25 years. There are three possibilities. If the United States wins quickly and without a bloodbath, it will be a colossus that will dictate the world order. If the victory is slow and contaminated, it will be impossible to go on to other Arab states after Iraq. It will stop there. But if America is beaten, the consequences will be catastrophic. Its deterrent capability will be weakened, its friends will abandon it and it will become insular. Extreme instability will be engendered in the Middle East.
You don’t really want to think about what will happen, Krauthammer says looking me straight in the eye. But just because that’s so, I am positive we will not lose. Because the administration understands the implications. The president understands that everything is riding on this. So he will throw everything we’ve got into this. He will do everything that has to be done. George W. Bush will not let America lose.

Posted in America, Iraq, Israel | Comments Off on Haaretz: ‘White Man’s Burden’

Raiders White QB Stands For National Anthem, Black Offensive Line Refuses To Block For Him, Raiders Throw Game, QB Injured

The Raiders threw last week’s game to the Redskins, losing 27-7. They lost yesterday 16-10 but seemed to put in some effort. Oakland’s black offensive line, however, yesterday once again failed to block for their white quarterback Derek Carr, who now has a broken back. I guess he had it coming for daring to stand for the national anthem.

From NFL.com:

Derek Carr’s return to action is on hold.

Raiders coach Jack Del Rio told reporters Monday that his star quarterback is dealing with a transverse process fracture in his back.

“There’s a real good chance he’ll miss this week,” Del Rio said of Carr’s status for Sunday’s clash with the Ravens, noting that the signal-caller’s time on the shelf “could be as short as two weeks.”

A back injury of this nature typically comes with a two-to-six-week recovery period. It’s worth noting this is the same injury that plagued Tony Romo with the Cowboys back in 2014.

Carr left Sunday’s 16-10 loss Denver during the third quarter after being hit by a pair of Broncos defenders on his way to the ground. After a visit to the medical tent, the fourth-year starter walked to the locker room and did not return.

Posted in Football | Comments Off on Raiders White QB Stands For National Anthem, Black Offensive Line Refuses To Block For Him, Raiders Throw Game, QB Injured

Dissident Dispatches: An Alt-Right Guide to Christian Theology

I just interviewed the author Andrew Fraser by Skype. He’s based in Australia and in July published this new book (reviewed by Roger Devlin). His magnum opus, The WASP Question, came out in 2011. If you read just one of his two books, read The WASP Question.

A retired professor, Fraser may be the most famous Christian intellectual on the Alt Right (along with E. Michael Jones).

Here are some highlights:

Andrew: “I don’t believe that you can make a religion out of racial identity.”

“Ethnos needs logos and logos needs ethnos… Religion has to be grounded in an ethne (people). I’m in the middle between the Alt Right and Christianity. Traditional Christianity does offer a fusing of those two strands.”

Luke: “The approach you elucidate is more socially acceptable. Not many professionals wants to identify as white nationalists but they can throw their energies into invigorating their local church.”

Andrew: “And it offers a way of bringing back the working class… The working class are not fools. They know they’ve been abandoned.”

“I’m not some snaggle-toothed redneck who wants to lynch all the niggers. I can get along perfectly happily with brown and black people in classes [at college].”

“If you could get Christians to recognize that Jews are their enemy from a very basic theological point. Jews have no problem recognizing Christians as their enemy. This is the whole problem with modern Christianity. They can’t recognize enemies as such and fight against them.”

“Jesus refers to the Jews as the ‘synagogue of Satan,’ which from a Christian point of view, they are… In discipling the nations, you have to distinguish between friends and enemies. If you could get the average churchgoer to accept the wisdom of the Church Father, it was no biggie for them to recognize the Jews as their enemy, you would go a long way to laying the foundation for a genuine Christian ethno-theology. This is why the contemporary church forswears any desire whatever to create a Christian nation. Because to create a Christian nation, you would have to exclude Jews, Muslims and so on. Unless you can do that, you’re going to be trapped within this liberal individualistic pietistic evangelical framework that is destroying the church and Christian nations.”

“Take the Jewish diaspora as the model for the Anglo diaspora but never make the mistake that the Jews did and do and mistaking themselves for God.”

Luke: “Are gentiles better off out-sourcing the important things like foreign policy, economic policy, media, culture and entertainment to their social betters, the Jews?”

Andrew cracks up. “Oh sure. What could possibly go wrong?”

Luke: “Believe me. You can trust us. We only have your best interests at heart.”

Andrew: “It’s not hard to get people on the Alt Right to distinguish between friends and enemies, but Christians, it is pathetic. Not just Jews are the enemy… You can possibly discuss Muslims or blacks with your average churchgoer. That’s fairly safe. A Christian can still pride himself on being realistic and not so dumb that he can’t recognize an enemy anywhere.”

Luke: “Without Jews, Australia would still be white and boring Anglo-Saxons would be running things. Jews bring diversity, immigration, multiculturalism, facitonalism, all these exciting things to Australia and you have no gratitude.”

Andrew: “I remember when I was first trying to get a job down here and I ran into a former history professor of mine in 1974 and I said I was thinking about getting a job in Australia and he said, ‘Ha! The White Australia Policy! What a joke!’ I thought the White Australia Policy sounded good… I took it for granted when I came here that the White Australia Policy was an essential survival mechanism.”

“I loved American history because American historians could write so well and they could make history so interesting. It was only later that I became conscious… I look at my library and the number of Jews I have as authors on American history is astounding. And their particular spin on American history. Once you become aware of the common feature that they all share, their Jewish identity, the Jewish spin becomes more comprehensible.”

Luke: “Isn’t American history too important to be left to Americans? Don’t you gentiles need Jews to interpret it for you or you gentiles will get all these crazy ideas about sovereignty for your own countries and that gentiles have group interests and that Anglo-Saxons have distinct group interests. I think it is dangerous for you guys to publish your own books.”

“I don’t see what’s in it for you to have non-Anglos in your country?”

Andrew: “Yep.”

“How are we ever going to get back to [Anglo countries]?”

“I don’t think of myself as a gentile. In a world with no Jews, there are no gentiles… You can make all the slurs you want about gentiles… Get rid of all this Judeo-Christian nonsense. Judaism is not the father of Christianity. ‘Judaism’ only existed as a rare usage in the first and second century before Christ… That ancient Israelite religion was superceded by Christianity. Judaism is a product of the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud, which are younger than Christianity.”

“You spend a lot of time studying Torah. From a Christian point of view, modern Jews have less claim to Torah than the Church.”

Luke: “Half of Jews are literate in Hebrew, while only one in 10,000 Christians is. So it is hard for Christians to have a claim on the Hebrew scriptures when they can’t read the Hebrew scriptures [in Hebrew].”

“To have this kind of conversation, the odds are about one in three that you’d have to have it with a Jew.”

Andrew laughs. “Yes. I hate to say inter-faith dialogue.”

Luke: “Inter-faith dialogue is how Jews cut the balls off Christianity.”

Andrew: “That’s true. That’s why I hate the concept.”

“Inter-faith rivalry. I find it interesting to hear you discuss these issues with [Kevin] MacDonald and Andrew Joyce because you both share this frame of reference that it is all about ethnic competition and resource rivalry, while avoiding on both sides the kind of theological thing that makes the whole thing far far more important. Then it becomes not just an abstract issue of resource competition but a competition between good and evil, between the God-affirmers and the God-deniers. It’s not easy to see how that can be a dialogue rather a war.”

Luke: “Because from a Jewish perspective, you [Christians] are a bunch of idolaters.”

Andrew: “Exactly.”

Luke: “From a Christian perspective, Jews are the synagogue of Satan.”

Andrew: “The traditional Christian perspective. The only way you can have a proper dialogue is to draw boundaries. Then we can negotiate on an equal footing. But as long as you guys have convinced us that you are our big brothers, we’re sunk.”

Luke: “We know what’s best for you, that you give up your exclusive claims to divine truth and accept that you are an inferior, watered down version of Judaism.”

Andrew: “Yeah. Thank you, Dr. Freud, consumed by all of these unconscious desires to screw our mothers. I get it.”

“I quite enjoyed this conversation. I have to say the best theological discussion in the last few years.”

Luke: “You’ve got to hand it to the Orthodox Jews.”

Andrew: “Maybe you are our big brothers after all.”

Posted in Alt Right, Australia, Christianity, Jews | Comments Off on Dissident Dispatches: An Alt-Right Guide to Christian Theology

NYT: “We Are All Jew-Ish Now”

Steve Sailer writes:

…isn’t Jewish solidarity over the last 3,000 years a more remarkable phenomenon than Jewish divisiveness? The mechanisms behind Jewish cohesiveness, however, aren’t of much interest in today’s intellectual climate…

While it’s popular to imagine poor Groucho as a wandering victim of prejudice who bravely built a defense system of rootless loneliness, in real life Groucho himself belonged to the Jewish-only Hillcrest Country Club (perhaps the most expensive country club to join in all of America in the 1920s and 1930s), where he and his fellow Jewish comedians lunched at their famous Round Table every Friday for decades…

Jews are so culturally marginalized in America that we are constantly not only hearing about funny Jewish comedians of the past like Groucho Marx, but we are frequently reminded even in 2017 of the wit and wisdom of the least funny Jewish comedian ever, Lenny Bruce…

I’m not saying that Dr. Baum doesn’t mean well, I’m just pointing out that the quality of Jewish intellectual introspection is remarkably obtuse and schmaltzy these days.

Posted in America, Jews | Comments Off on NYT: “We Are All Jew-Ish Now”

Torah Talk: Sexual Utopia In Power

Torah Talk resumes today after the Yom Kippur holiday and just before the beginning of the Sukkot festival. Watch live.

* Camille Paglia on homosexuality.

* I was reading Shalom Aleichem stories over Yom Kippur. In “A Yom Kippur Scandal,” he writes: “…a Jew is not a thief by nature. That is, he may be a thief, but not the sort who will climb through a window or attack you with a knife. He will divert, pervert, subvert and contravert as a matter of course; but he won’t pull anything out of your pocket.”

* Friend: “I want to talk about spiritual/religious authority–how we recognize it. By miracles? By revelation? Otherwise?”

* Lefty friend: “I try to keep up friendships with Trump supporters, or at least frenemyships across the divide of our mutual incomprehension. What troubles me the most about our conversations is their conviction that mainstream media — and therefore a conventional understanding of reality — cannot be trusted. This is a deep-seated problem of epistemology which will survive Trump.”

* “It simultaneously blows my mind & pains me. Since 1999, I’ve worked in two very good newsrooms. Not once has a News Director or EP ever told me, or a coworker, to cover a story with anything less than strict objectivity. No lean, no favoritism, just straight down the middle. While I can’t speak for the network level, I know the experience is very much the same for friends & colleagues in other shops. But you’re right. It’s a problem with real legs.”

* “The New York Times has spent the past several months running a series of apologia for communism. I have no idea where this distrust comes from.”

* “WHY don’t you think we trust the mainstream media? Do you personally think that the MSM is in need of some critique? Or none at all? Don’t you think that healthy skepticism of authority (including MSM) is necessary for a functioning democracy?”

* “I think it comes down the to idea that for many on the right, it’s their country. They hold the title. For eight years they wanted “their country back.” It’s as simple as it sounds. They’re the parents. We’re the kids. They get to decide what the kids know and what they don’t. It’s their flag, authority and patriotism we all must live by. Their religion must be honored. Their free speech is sacrosanct. They require a fair shake but for everyone else, they love to say “life isn’t fair.” Who does the media think they are questioning any of this?”

“It’s fascinating to witness so many people who know nothing about the internal workings of a newsroom discuss the daily grind with such certainty. What do people think goes in one? Seriously. Do people think there’s a Soros File? Do people think there’s a Daily Corporate Assignment? I never once got a story kicked back with a note “this isn’t liberal enough.” Editors are just happy to hear you have a story (almost any story will do). Corporate sees news as “that stuff that goes around the ads.””

* I’ve been an NFL fan and a Dallas Cowboys fan since 1978. Monday night, before the National Anthem, the Dallas Cowboys all kneeled. Even though they stood for the anthem, they’re no longer my team. Once anyone kneels for Black Lives Matter, I can no longer support them.

* NFL’S OAKLAND RAIDERS THREW GAME AFTER WHITE QB REFUSED TO KNEEL FOR NATIONAL ANTHEM

* Judaism, Homosexuality & The Alt Right

* I’ve interviewed a U.S. Senator (Alan Cranston). I’ve interviewed football coaching legends such as Tom Landry and Bill Walsh, I’ve interviewed star athletes such as Larry Bird, Joe Montana, Steve Young, Roger Craig, Randy White, etc, but the only time I remember feeling intimidated by an interview subject was when I interviewed F. Roger Devlin two years ago.

Devlin wrote his essays on sex as a reaction reading Chronicles magazine and the tired conservative line that women have no agency and men were taking advantage of them.

Friend: “It seems like per Devlin a community that could successfully raise a lot of virginal maidens would be able to lock down all the alpha males… but if just a few of our virginal maidens go dark & start providing no strings attached sexual relief to the alphas, then all the incentives stop working. But there actually is a strong incentive to be the first virginal maidens to break the line and go slutty… cuz you might cheat the queue and land the seed of the best alpha.”

More essays by F. Roger Devlin.

* There’s nothing about the nature of female sexuality in the Bible. The nature of female sexuality is largely a blank to most people. Devlin describes it as hypergamy — mating with someone of superior status. I remember I was seeing this young woman in 1999 who did not want to be my girlfriend, but she wanted to go to bed with me every time I went on TV, otherwise she was ambivalent.

Roger Devlin writes:

“A man’s sexual utopia is, accordingly, a world in which no such limit to female demand for him exists. It is not necessary to resort to pornography for examples. Consider only popular movies aimed at a male audience, such as the James Bond series. Women simply cannot resist James Bond. He does not have to propose marriage, or even request dates. He simply walks into the room and they swoon. The entertainment industry turns out endless unrealistic images such as this. Why, the male viewer eventually may ask, cannot life actually be so? To some, it is tempting to put the blame on the institution of marriage.”

“Marriage, after all, seems to restrict sex rather drastically. Certain men figure that if sex were permitted both inside and outside of marriage there would be twice as much of it as formerly. They imagined there existed a large, untapped reservoir of female desire hitherto repressed by monogamy. To release it, they sought, during the early postwar period, to replace the seventh
commandment with an endorsement of all sexual activity between “consenting adults.” Every man could have a harem. Sexual behavior in general, and not merely family life, was henceforward to be regarded as a private matter. Traditionalists who disagreed were said to want to “put a policeman in every bedroom.” This was the age of the Kinsey Report and the first appearance of Playboy magazine. Idle male daydreams had become a social movement.”

* Shalom Aleichem story “Tit for Tat”:

Once I was a rabbiner. A rabbiner, not a rabbi. That is, I
was called rabbi — but a rabbi of the crown.

To old-country Jews I don’t have to explain what a rabbi
of the crown is. They know the breed. What are his great re-
sponsibilities? He fills out birth certificates, officiates at cir-
cumcisions, performs marriages, grants divorces. He gets his
share from the living and the dead. In the synagogue he has a
place of honor, and when the congregation rises, he is the
first to stand. On legal holidays he appears in a stovepipe hat
and holds forth in his best Russian: “Gospoda Prihozhanel”
To take it for granted that among our people a rabbiner is
well loved— let’s not say any more. Say rather that we put
up with him, as we do a government inspector or a deputy
sheriff. And yet he is chosen from among the people, that
is, every three years a proclamation is sent us: “Na Osnavania
Predpisania . . .” Or, as we would say: “Your Lord, the Gov-
ernor, orders you to come together in the synagogue, poor
little Jews, and pick out a rabbiner for yourselves . . .”

Then the campaign begins. Candidates, hot discussions,
brandy, and maybe even a bribe or two. After which come
charges and countercharges, the elections are annulled, and
we are ordered to hold new elections. Again the proclamations: “Na Osnavania Predpisania . . Again candidates,
discussions, party organizations, brandy, a bribe or two . . .
That was the life!

Well, there I was — a rabbiner in a small town in the prov-
ince of Poltava. But I was anxious to be a modem one. I
wanted to serve the public. So I dropped the formalities of
my position and began to mingle with the people — as we say:
to stick my head into the community pot. I got busy with the
Talmud Torah, the charity fund, interpreted a law, settled
disputes or just gave plain advice.

The love of settling disputes, helping people out, or advis-
ing them, I inherited from my father and my uncles. They —
may they rest in peace — also enjoyed being bothered all the
time with other people’s business. There are two kinds of
people in the world: those that you can’t bother at all, and
others whom you can bother all the time. You can climb
right on their heads — naturally not in one jump, but gradu-
ally. First you climb into their laps, then on to their shoul-
ders, then their heads — and after that you can jump up and
down on their heads and stamp on their hearts with your
heavy boots — as long as you want to.

I was that kind, and without boasting I can tell you that I
had plenty of ardent followers and plain hangers-on who
weren’t ashamed to come every day and fill my head with
their clamoring and sit around till late at night. They never
refused a glass of tea, or cigarettes. Newspapers and books
they took without asking. In short, I was a regular fellow.

Well, there came a day . . . The door opened, and in
walked the very foremost men of the town, the sparkling
best, the very cream of the city. Four householders — men of
affairs — you could almost say: real men of substance. And
who were these men? Three of them were the Troika — that
was what we called them in our town because they were to-
gether all the time — partners in whatever business any one of
them was in. They always fought, they were always suspi-
cious of each other, and watched everything the others did,
and still they never separated — working always on this princi-
ple: if the business is a good one and there is profit to be
made, why shouldn’t I have a lick at the bone too? And on
the other hand, if it should end in disaster — you’ll be buried
along with me, and lie with me deep in the earth. And what
does God do? He brings together the three partners with a
fourth one. They operate together a little less than a year and
end up in a brawl. That is why they’re here.

What had happened? “Since God created thieves, swindlers
and crooks, you never saw a thief, swindler or crook like this
one.” That is the way the three old partners described the
fourth one to me. And he, the fourth, said the same about
them. Exactly the same, word for word. And who was this
fourth one? He was the quiet little man, a little innocent-
looking fellow, with thick, dark eyebrows under which a pair
of shrewd, ironic, little eyes watched everything you did. Ev-
eryone called him Nachman Lekach.

His real name was Nachman Noss’n, but everybody called
him Nachman Lekach, because as you know, Noss’n is the
Hebrew for “he gave,” and Lekach means “he took,” and in
all the time we knew him, no one had ever seen him give
anything to anyone — while at taking no one was better.

Where were we? Oh, yes . . . So they came to the rabbiner
with the complaints, to see if he could find a way of
straightening out their tangled accounts. “Whatever you de-
cide, Rabbi, and whatever you decree, and whatever you say,
will be final.”

That is how the three old partners said it, and the fourth,
Reb Nachman, nodded with that innocent look on his face to
indicate that he too left it all up to me: “For the reason,” his
eyes said, “that I know that I have done no wrong.” And he
sat down in a comer, folded his arms across his chest like an
old woman, fixed his shrewd, ironic, little eyes on me, and
waited to see what his partners would have to say. And when
they had all laid out their complaints and charges, presented
all their evidence, said all they had to say, he got up, patted
down his thick eyebrows, and not looking at the others at all,
only at me, with those deep, deep, shrewd little eyes of his,
he proceeded to demolish their claims and charges — so com-
pletely, that it looked as if they were the thieves, swindlers
and crooks — the three partners of his — and he, Nachman
Lekach, was a man of virtue and piety, the little chicken that
is slaughtered before Yom Kippur to atone for our sins — a
sacrificial lamb. “And every word that you heard them say is
a complete lie, it never was and never could be. It’s simply
out of the question.” And he proved with evidence, argu-
ments and supporting data that everything he said was true
and holy, as if Moses himself had said it.

All the time he was talking, the others, the Troika, could hardly sit in their chairs. Every moment one or another of
them jumped up, clutched his head — or his heart! “Of all
things! How can a man talk like that! Such lies and false-
hoods!” It was almost impossible to calm them down, to keep
them from tearing at the fourth one’s beard. As for me — the
rabbiner — it was hard, very hard to crawl out from this horri-
ble tangle, because by now it was clear that I had a fine band
to deal with, all four of them swindlers, thieves and crooks,
and informers to boot, and all four of them deserving a
severe punishment. But what? At last this idea occurred to
me, and I said to them:

“Are you ready, my friends? I am prepared to hand down
my decision. My mind is made up. But I won’t disclose what
I have to say until each of you has deposited twenty-five
rubles — to prove that you will act upon the decision I am
about to hand down.”

“With the greatest of pleasure,” the three spoke out at
once, and Nachman Lekach nodded his head, and all four
reached into their pockets, and each one counted out his
twenty-five on the table. I gathered up the money, locked it
up in a drawer, and then I gave them my decision in these
words:

“Having heard the complaints and the arguments of both
parties, and having examined your accounts and studied your
evidence, I find according to my understanding and deep con-
viction, that all four of you are in the wrong, and not only in
the wrong, but that it is a shame and a scandal for Jewish
people to conduct themselves in such a manner — to falsify ac-
counts, perjure yourselves and even act as informers. There-
fore I have decided that since we have a Talmud Torah in
our town with many children who have neither clothes nor
shoes, and whose parents have nothing with which to pay
their tuition, and since there has been no help at all from you
gentlemen (to get a few pennies from you one has to reach
down into your very gizzards) therefore it is my decision that
this hundred rubles of yours shall go to the Talmud Torah,
and as for you, gentlemen, you can go home, in good health,
and thanks for your contribution. The poor children will now
have some shoes and socks and shirts and pants, and I’m sure
they’ll pray to God for you and your children. Amen.”

Having heard the sentence, the three old partners — the
Troika — looked from one to the other — flushed, unable to
speak. A decision like this they had not anticipated. The only
one who could say a word was Reb Nachman Lekach. He
got up, patted down his thick eyebrows, held out a hand, and
looking at me with his ironic little eyes, said this:

“I thank you, Rabbi Rabbiner, in behalf of all four of us,
for the wise decision which you have just made known. Such
a judgment could have been made by no one since King Sol-
omon himself. There is only one thing that you forgot to say,
Rabbi Rabbiner, and that is: what is your fee for this wise
and just decision?”

“I beg your pardon,” I tell him. “You’ve come to the
wrong address. I am not one of those rabbiners who tax the
living and the dead.” That is the way I answered him, like a
real gentleman. And this was his reply:

“If that’s the case, then you are not only a sage and a
Rabbi among men, you’re an honest man besides. So, if you
would care to listen, I’d like to tell you a story. Say that we
will pay you for your pains at least with a story.”

“Good enough. Even with two stories.”

“In that case, sit down, Rabbi Rabbiner, and let us have
your cigarette case. I’ll tell you an interesting story, a true
one, too, something that happened to me. What happened to
others I don’t like to talk about.”

And we lit our cigarettes, sat down around the table, and
Reb Nachman spread out his thick eyebrows, and looking at
me with his shrewd, smiling, little eyes, he slowly began to
tell his true story of what had once happened to him himself.

All this happened to me a long time ago. I was still a
young man and I was living not far from here, in a village
near the railroad. I traded in this and that, I had a small tav-
ern, made a living. A Rothschild I didn’t become, but bread
we had, and in time there were about ten lewish families liv-
ing close by — because, as you know, if one of us makes a liv-
ing, others come around. They think you’re shoveling up gold
. . . But that isn’t the point. What I was getting at was that
right in the midst of the busy season one year, when things
were moving and traffic was heavy, my wife had to go and
have a baby — our boy — our first son. What do you say to
that? “Congratulations! Congratulations everybody!” But that
isn’t all. You have to have a bris, the circumcision. I dropped
everything, went into town, bought all the good things I could
find, and came back with the Mohel with all his instruments,
and for good measure I also brought the shammes of the
synagogue. I thought that with these two holy men and my-
self and the neighbors we’d have the ten men that we needed,
with one to spare. But what does God do? He has one of my
neighbors get sick — he is sick in bed and can’t come to the
bris, you can’t carry him. And another has to pack up and go
off to the city. He can’t wait another day! And here I am
without the ten men. Go do something. Here it is — Friday!
Of all days, my wife has to pick Friday to have the bris — the
day before the Sabbath. The Mohel is frantic — he has to go
back right away. The shammes is actually in tears. “What did
you ever drag us off here for?” they both want to know. And
what can I do?

All I can think of is to run off to the railroad station. Who
knows — so many people come through every day — maybe
God will send some one. And that’s just what happened. I
come running up to the station — the agent has just called out
that a train is about to leave. I look around — a little roly-poly
man carrying a huge traveling bag comes flying by, all
sweating and out of breath, straight toward the lunch
counter. He looks over the dishes — what is there a good Jew
can take in a country railroad station? A piece of herring —
an egg. Poor fellow — you could see his mouth was watering.
I grab him by the sleeve. “Uncle, are you looking for some-
thing to eat,” I ask him, and the look he gives me says:
“How did you know that?” I keep on talking: “May you live
to be a hundred — God himself must have sent you.” He still
doesn’t understand, so I proceed: “Do you want to earn the
blessings of eternity — and at the same time eat a beef roast
that will melt in your mouth, with a fresh, white loaf right
out of the oven?” He still looks at me as if I’m crazy. “Who
are you? What do you want?”

So I tell him the whole story — what a misfortune had over-
taken us: here we are, all ready for the bris, the Mohel is
waiting, the food is ready — and such food! — and we need a
tenth man! “What’s that got to do with me?” he asks, and I
tell him : What s that got to do with you? Why — everything
depends on you— you’re the tenth man! I beg you — come
with me. You will earn all the rewards of heaven — and have
a delicious dinner in the bargain!” “Are you crazy,” he asks
me, “or are you just out of your head? My train is leaving in
a few minutes, and it’s Friday afternoon — almost sundown.
Do you know what that means? In a few more hours the Sab-
bath will catch up with me, and I’ll be stranded.” “So what!” I tell him. “So you’ll take the next train. And in the meantime
you’ll earn eternal life — and taste a soup, with fresh
dumplings, that only my wife can make . . .”

Well, why make the story long? I had my way. The roast
and the hot soup with fresh dumplings did their work. You
could see my customer licking his lips. So I grab the traveling
bag and I lead him home, and we go through with the bris. It
was a real pleasure! You could smell the roast all over the
house, it had so much garlic in it. A roast like that, with
fresh warm twist, is a delicacy from heaven. And when you
consider that we had some fresh dill pickles, and a bottle of
beer, and some cognac before the meal and cherry cider after
the meal — you can imagine the state our guest was in! His
cheeks shone and his forehead glistened. But what then? Be-
fore we knew it the afternoon was gone. My guest jumps up,
he looks around, sees what time it is, and almost has a stroke!
He reaches for his traveling bag: “Where is it?” I say to him
“What’s your hurry? In the first place, do you think we’ll let
you run off like that — before the Sabbath? And in the second
place — who are you to leave on a journey an hour or two be-
fore the Sabbath? And if you’re going to get caught out in
the country somewhere, you might just as well stay here with
us.”

He groans and he sighs. How could I do a thing like that
to him — keep him so late! What did I have against him? Why
hadn’t I reminded him earlier? He doesn’t stop bothering me.
So I say to him: “In the first place, did I have to tell you that
it was Friday afternoon? Didn’t you know it yourself? And in
the second place, how do you know — maybe it’s the way God
wanted it? Maybe He wanted you to stay here for the Sab-
bath so you could taste some of my wife’s fish? I can guaran-
tee you, that as long as you’ve eaten fish, you haven’t eaten
fish like my wife’s fish — not even in a dream!” Well, that
ended the argument. We said our evening prayers, had a glass
of wine, and my wife brings the fish to the table. My guest’s
nostrils swell out, a new light shines in his eyes and he goes
after that fish as if he hadn’t eaten a thing all day. He can’t
get over it. He praises it to the skies. He fills a glass with
brandy and drinks a toast to the fish. And then comes the
soup, a specially rich Sabbath soup with noodles. And he
likes that, too, and the tzimmes also, and the meat that goes
with the tzimmes, a nice, fat piece of brisket. I’m telling you,
he just sat there licking his fingers! When we’re finishing the
last course he turns to me: “Do you know what I’ll tell you?
Now that it’s all over, I’m really glad that I stayed over for
Shabbes. It’s been a long time since I’ve enjoyed a Sabbath as
I’ve enjoyed this one.” “If that’s how you feel, I’m happy,” I
tell him. “But wait. This is only a sample. Wait till tomorrow.
Then you’ll see what my wife can do.”

And so it was. The next day, after services, we sit down at
the table. Well, you should have seen the spread. First the ap-
petizers: crisp wafers and chopped herring, and onions and
chicken fat, with radishes and chopped liver and eggs and
gribbenes. And after that the cold fish and the meat from
yesterday’s tzimmes, and then the jellied neat’s foot, or
fisnoga as you call it, with thin slices of garlic, and after that
the potato cholent with the kugel that had been in the oven
all night — and you know what that smells like when you take
it out of the oven and take the cover off the pot. And what it
tastes like. Our visitor could not find words to praise it. So I
tell him: “This is still nothing. Wait until you have tasted our
borsht tonight, then you’ll know what good food is.” At that
he laughs out loud — a friendly laugh, it is true — and says to
me: “Yes, but how far do you think I’ll be from here by the
time your borsht is ready?” So I laugh even louder than he
does, and say: “You can forget that right now! Do you think
you’ll be going off tonight?”

And so it was. As soon as the lights were lit and we had a
glass of wine to start off the new week, my friend begins to
pack his things again. So I call out to him: “Are you crazy?
Do you think we’ll let you go off, the Lord knows where, at
night? And besides, where’s your train?” “What?” he yells at
me. “No train? Why, you’re murdering me! You know I have
to leave!” But I say, “May this be the greatest misfortune in
your life. Your train will come, if all is well, around dawn to-
morrow. In the meantime I hope your appetite and digestion
are good, because I can smell the borsht already! All I ask,” I
say, “is just tell me the truth. Tell me if you’ve ever touched
a borsht like this before. But I want the absolute truth!”
What’s the use of talking — he had to admit it: never before
in all his life had he tasted a borsht like this. Never. He even
started to ask how you made the borsht, what you put into it,
and how long you cooked it. Everything. And I say: “Don’t
worry about that! Here, taste this wine and tell me what you
think of it. After all, you’re an expert. But the truth! Remember — nothing but the truth! Because if there is anything I
hate, it’s flattery . .

So we took a glass, and then another glass, and we went to
bed. And what do you think happened? My traveler
overslept, and missed the early morning train. When he
wakes up he boils over! He jumps on me like a murderer.
Wasn’t it up to me, out of fairness and decency, to wake him
up in time? Because of me he’s going to have to take a loss, a
heavy loss — he doesn’t even know himself how heavy. It was
all my fault. I ruined him. I! … So I let him talk. I listen,
quietly, and when he’s all through, I say: “Tell me yourself,
aren’t you a queer sort of person? In the first place, what’s
your hurry? What are you rushing for? How long is a per-
son’s life altogether? Does he have to spoil that little with
rushing and hurrying? And in the second place, have you for-
gotten that today is the third day since the brisl Doesn’t that
mean a thing to you? Where we come from, on the third day
we’re in the habit of putting on a feast better than the one at
the bris itself. The third day — it’s something to celebrate!
You’re not going to spoil the celebration, are you?”

What can he do? He can’t control himself any more, and
he starts laughing — a hysterical laugh. “What good does it do
to talk?” he says. “You’re a real leech!” “lust as you say,” I
tell him, “but after all, you’re a visitor, aren’t you?”

At the dinner table, after we’ve had a drink or two, I call
out to him: “Look,” I say, “it may not be proper — after all,
we’re Jews — to talk about milk and such things while we’re
eating meat, but I’d like to know your honest opinion: what
do you think of kreplach with cheese?” He looks at me with
distrust. “How did we get around to that?” he asks. “Just like
this,” I explain to him. “I’d like to have you try the cheese
kreplach that my wife makes — because tonight, you see,
we’re going to have a dairy supper . . .” This is too much for
him, and he comes right back at me with, “Not this time!
You’re trying to keep me here another day, I can see that.
But you can’t do it. It isn’t right! It isn’t right!” And from the
way he fusses and fumes it’s easy to see that I won’t have to
coax him too long, or fight with him either, because what is
he but a man with an appetite, who has only one philosophy,
which he practices at the table? So I say this to him: “I give
you my word of honor, and if that isn’t enough, I’ll give you
my hand as well — here, shake — that tomorrow I’ll wake you
up in time for the earliest train. I promise it, even if the world turns upside down. If I don’t, may I — you know
what!” At this he softens and says to me: “Remember, we’re
shaking hands on that!” And I: “A promise is a promise.”
And my wife makes a dairy supper — how can I describe it to
you? With such kreplach that my traveler has to admit that it
was all true: he has a wife too, and she makes kreplach too,
but how can you compare hers with these? It’s like night and
day!

And I kept my word, because a promise is a promise. I
woke him when it was still dark, and started the samovar. He
finished packing and began to say goodbye to me and the rest
of the household in a very handsome, friendly style. You
could see he was a gentleman. But I interrupt him: “We’ll
say goodbye a little later. First, we have to settle up.” “What
do you mean — settle up?” “Settle up,” I say, “means to add
up the figures. That’s what I’m going to do now. I’ll add them
up, let you know what it comes to, and you will be so kind as
to pay me.”

His face flames red. “Pay you?” he shouts. “Pay you for
what?” “For what?” I repeat. “You want to know for what?
For everything. The food, the drink, the lodging.” This time
he becomes white — not red — and he says to me: “I don’t un-
derstand you at all. You came and invited me to the bris.
You stopped me at the train. You took my bag away from
me. You promised me eternal life.” “That’s right,” I inter-
rupt him. “That’s right. But what’s one thing got to do with
the other? When you came to the bris you earned your re-
ward in heaven. But food and drink and lodging — do I have
to give you these things for nothing? After all, you’re a
businessman, aren’t you? You should understand that fish
costs money, and that the wine you drank was the very best,
and the beer, too, and the cherry cider. And you remember
how you praised the tzimmes and the puddings and the
borsht. You remember how you licked your fingers. And the
cheese kreplach smelled pretty good to you, too. Now, I’m
glad you enjoyed these things: I don’t begrudge you that in
the least. But certainly you wouldn’t expect that just because
you earned a reward in heaven, and enjoyed yourself in the
bargain, that / should pay for it?” My traveling friepd was
really sweating; he looked as if he’d have a stroke. He began
to throw himself around, yell, scream, call for help. “This is
Sodom!” he cried. “Worse than Sodom! It’s the worst outrage
the world has ever heard of! How much do you want?” Calmly I took a piece of paper and a pencil and began to
add it up. I itemized everything, I gave him an inventory of
everything he ate, of every hour he spent in my place. All in
all it added up to something like thirty-odd rubles and some
kopeks — I don’t remember it exactly.

When he saw the total, my good man went green and yel-
low, his hands shook, and his eyes almost popped out, and
again he let out a yell, louder than before. “What did I fall
into— a nest of thieves? Isn’t there a single human being
here? Is there a God anywhere?” So I say to him, “Look, sir,
do you know what? Do you know what you’re yelling about?
Do you have to eat your heart out? Here is my suggestion:
let’s ride into town together — it’s not far from here — and
we’ll find some people — there’s a rabbiner there — let’s ask the
rabbi. And we’ll abide by what he says.” When he heard me
talk like that, he quieted down a little. And — don’t worry —
we hired a horse and wagon, climbed in, and rode off to
town, the two of us, and went straight to the rabbi.

When we got to the rabbi’s house, we found him just fin-
ishing his morning prayers. He folded up his prayer shawl
and put his phylacteries away. “Good morning,” we said to
him, and he: “What’s the news today?” The news? My friend
tears loose and lets him have the whole story — everything
from A to Z. He doesn’t leave a word out. He tells how he
stopped at the station, and so on and so on, and when he’s
through he whips out the bill I had given him and hands it to
the rabbi. And when the rabbi had heard everything, he says:
“Having heard one side I should now like to hear the other.”
And turning to me, he asks, “What do you have to say to all
that?*’ I answer: “Everything he says is true. There’s not a
word I can add. Only one thing I’d like to have him tell
you — on his word of honor: did he eat the fish, and did he
drink the beer and cognac and the cider, and did he smack
his lips over the borsht that my wife made?” At this the man
becomes almost frantic, he jumps and he thrashes about like
an apoplectic. The rabbi begs him not to boil like that, not to
be so angry, because anger is a grave sin. And he asks him
again about the fish and the borsht and the kreplach, and if it
was true that he had drunk not only the wine, but beer and
cognac and cider as well. Then the rabbi puts on his specta-
cles, looks the bill over from top to bottom, checks every
line, and finds it correct! Thirty-odd rubles and some kopeks,
and he makes his judgment brief: he tells the man to pay the whole thing, and for the wagon back and forth, and a
judgment fee for the rabbi himself

The man stumbles out of the rabbi’s house looking as if
he d been in a steam bath too long, takes out his purse, pulls
out two twenty-fives and snaps at me: “Give me the change.”
“What change?” I ask, and he says: “For the thirty you
charged me — for that bill you gave me.” “Bill? What bill?
What thirty are you talking about? What do you think I am,
a highwayman? Do you expect me to take money from you?
I see a man at the railroad station, a total stranger; I take his
bag away from him, and drag him off almost by force to our
ovra bris, and spend a wonderful Shabbes with him. So am I
going to charge him for the favor he did me, and for the
pleasure I had?” Now he looks at me as if I really am crazy,
and says: “Then why did you carry on like this? Why did
you drag me to the rabbi?” “Why this? Why that?” I say to
him. “You’re a queer sort of person, you are! I wanted to
show you what kind of man our rabbi was, that’s all . .

When he finished the story, my litigant, Reb Nachman
Lekach, got up with a flourish, and the other three partners
followed him. They buttoned their coats and prepared to
leave. But I held them off. I passed the cigarettes around
again, and said to the story-teller:

So you told me a story about a rabbi. Now maybe you’ll
be so kind as to let me tell you a story — also about a rabbi,
but a much shorter story than the one you told.”

And without waiting for a yes or no, I started right in, and
made it brief:

This happened, I began, not so long ago, and in a large
city, on Yom Kippur eve. A stranger falls into the town — a
businessman, a traveler, who goes here and there, every-
where, sells merchandise, collects money … On this day he
comes into the city, walks up and down in front of the
synagogue, holding his sides with both hands, asks everybody
he sees where he can find the rabbi. “What do you want the
rabbi for?” people ask. “What business is that of yours?” he
wants to know. So they don’t tell him. And he asks one man,
he asks another: “Can you tell me where the rabbi lives?”
“What do you want the rabbi for?” “What do you care?”
This one and that one, till finally he gets the answer, finds the
rabbi’s house, goes in, still holding his sides with both hands.
He calls the rabbi aside, shuts the door, and says, “Rabbi, this
is my story. I am a traveling man, and I have money with
me, quite a pile. It’s not my money. It belongs to my
clients — first to God and then to my clients. It’s Yom Kippur
eve. I can’t carry money with me on Yom Kippur, and I’m
afraid to leave it at my lodgings. A sum like that! So do me a
favor — take it, put it away in your strong box till tomorrow
night, after Yom Kippur.”

And without waiting, the man unbuttons his vest and
draws out one pack after another, crisp and clean, the real
red, crackling, hundred ruble notes!

Seeing how much there was, the rabbi said to him: “I beg
your pardon. You don’t know me, you don’t know who I
am.” “What do you mean, I don’t know who you are? You’re
a rabbi, aren’t you?” “Yes, I’m a rabbi. But I don’t know
you — who you are or what you are.” They bargain back and
forth. The traveler: “You’re a rabbi.” The rabbi: “I don’t
know who you are.” And time does not stand still. It’s almost
Yom Kippur ! Finally the rabbi agrees to take the money. The
only thing is, who should be the witnesses? You can’t trust
just anyone in a matter like that.

So the rabbi sends for the leading townspeople, the very
cream, rich and respectable citizens, and says to them: “This
is what I called you for. This man has money with him, a
tidy sum, not his own, but first God’s and then his clients’.
He wants me to keep it for him till after Yom Kippur. There-
fore I want you to be witnesses, to see how much he leaves
with me, so that later — you understand?” And the rabbi took
the trouble to count it all over three times before the eyes of
the townspeople, wrapped the notes in a kerchief, sealed
the kerchief with wax, and stamped his initials on the seal.
He passed this from one man to the other, saying, “Now
look. Here is my signature, and remember, you’re the
witnesses.” The kerchief with the money in it he handed over
to his wife, had her lock it in a chest, and hide the keys
where no one could find them. And he himself, the rabbi,
went to shut, and prayed and fasted as it was ordained, lived
through Yom Kippur, came home, had a bite to eat, looked
up, and there was the traveler. “Good evening, Rabbi.”
“Good evening. Sit down. What can I do for you?”
“Nothing. I came for my package.” “What package?” “The
money.” “What money?” “The money I left with you to keep for me.” “You gave me money to keep for you? When was
that?”

The traveler laughs out loud. He thinks the rabbi is joking
with him. The rabbi asks: “What are you laughing at?” And
the man says: “It’s the first time I met a rabbi who liked to
play tricks.” At this the rabbi is insulted. No one, he pointed
out, had ever called him a trickster before. “Tell me, my
good man, what do you want here?”

When he heard these words, the stranger felt his heart stop.
“Why, Rabbi, in the name of all that’s holy, do you want to
kill me? Didn’t I give you all my money? That is, not mine,
but first God’s and then my clients’? I’ll remind you, you
wrapped it in a kerchief, sealed it with wax, locked it in your
wife’s chest, hid the key where no one could find it. And here
is better proof: there were witnesses, the leading citizens of
the city!” And he goes ahead and calls them all off by name.
In the midst of it a cold sweat breaks out on his forehead, he
feels faint, and asks for a glass of water.

The rabbi sends the shammes off to the men the traveler
had named — the leading citizens, the flower of the commu-
nity. They come running from all directions. “What’s the
matter? What happened?” “A misfortune. A plot! A millstone
around our necks I He insists that he brought a pile of money
to me yesterday, to keep over Yom Kip pur, and that you
were witnesses to the act.”

The householders look at each other, as if to say: “Here is
where we get a nice bone to lick!” And they fall on the trav-
eler: how could he do a thing like that? He ought to be
ashamed of himself! Thinking up an ugly plot like that
against our rabbil

When he saw what was happening, his arms and legs went
limp, he just about fainted. But the rabbi got up, went to the
chest, took out the kerchief and handed it to him.

“What’s the matter with you! Here! Here is your money!
Take it and count it, see if it’s right, here in front of your
witnesses. The seal, as you see, is untouched. The wax is
whole, just as it ought to be.”

The traveler felt as if a new soul had been installed in his
body. His hands trembled and tears stood in his eyes.

“Why did you have to do it, Rabbi? Why did you have to
play this trick on me? A trick like this.”

“I just wanted to show you — the kind — of — leading citizens — we have in our town.”

Posted in Torah | Comments Off on Torah Talk: Sexual Utopia In Power