Tag Archives: Jewish

Defending against deadly attacks on Jews.

Leave a reply

There have been many attacks on Jewish schools, homes , and markets. The press likes to blame white supremicists. But in the US, Islamicists and “Black Hebrews” have been the more regular assailants. Along with them are equal opportunity killers — those who kill, for no obvious reason. I note that mostly attackers don’t wear body armor, suggesting that a small revolver is the best choice for defense. The police come, but never in time.

The Monsey, NY, 2019 attack is fairly typical of a small-scale hate crime, though it was not charged as such. A member of the “Black Hebrew” movement who had attacked Jews in the. past, always released by police, waled into a Channuka celebration in a home in Monsey, NY, pulled a large knife, and stabbed the rabbi and four others before being chased out by folks with chairs. One of those stabbed died from the wounds, and several others spent time in hospital. The attacker, undeterred, drove attack another Jewish establishment, a nearby orthodox shul, and attacked there. It seems he’d committed an anti-Jewish stabbing shortly before this murder, but was released as always before the final, deadly attack. As with most black on Jewish attacks, this was not ruled a hate crime by the police.

Kessler before the attack. The claim is that his flag triggered an accidental attack by Professor Alnaji and his compatriot.

In the US Islamic on Jewish attacks tend to be ruled as accidents or legitimate expressions, and never as hate crimes. In Thousand Oaks California, 2023, Paul Kessler 69 was standing with an Israeli flag (right) when two Islamic activists crossed the street to shout at him. One of them, Professor Loay Abdelfattah Alnaji, hit him fatally on the head with a bull horn. The police ruled it accidental, involuntary manslaughter, despite that it was two on one, deliberate, premeditated, and the assailant kept yelling: “stop killing our children,” even after Kessler was down after being hit. Alnaji is free on bail of $50K. It was not ruled a hate crime.

Poway synagog shooter, Shot four, killed one before gun jammed.

The court reacts quite differently to white on Jewish crimes, ruling these hate crimes and punishing to the full extent of the law. An example, in Poway, CA, 2019, a white man, left, entered the Orthodox, Chabad synagog during services carrying a semi-automatic pistol. He shot and killed the first person he met, then shot the rabbi, entered a side room, and shot two more, an adult and an 8 year old. Then his gun jammed. At that point he left, and called 911. He claimed he hated Jews, Moslems, and President Trump. I note that gun jams are common in stressful situations, but police showing up in time is uncommon. A revolver for personal defense would’ve helped, but they are mostly illegal in California — not that the antigun laws deterred the killer.

Organized attacks are more deadly, and almost impossible to defend against. They tend to be Islamic. The recent attack on a music festival in Israel, for example. An air – land assault with machine guns by an armed group civilians (and UN workers!) that left 1500 dead, and 250 captured. Most of the victims were unarmed, but some were armed. They were over-run, and killed. It is very hard to defend against multiple assailants with training and the advantage of surprise.

A smaller-scale versions of these military stile Islamic attacks have play out regularly around the world. For example, Mumbai, 2019, two Islamic activists entered an orthodox Jewish hostel and school, and barricaded themselves in. Over the course of three days, they killed the rabbi and his wife, and five of their children. It was part of a wider program of well-planned attacks on Jews and Jewish businesses in India. The two perpetrators were eventually killed by the police, but the support network escaped justice. These are the folks who planned the attack, and armed the two; IMHO they are as guilty as the murderers.

The shooter who attacked the Hyper Kasher kosher store in Paris. He was trained, but worked alone, and wears no bulletproof vest. First he shot the person nearest to him and those behind the counter — anyone who might reasonably stop him. He then closed the metal grate around the store, started talking and killing for 4 hours. A well timed shot or two could have taken him out.

In Paris, as a similar Islamic general attack on Jews and businesses included the killing of 12 at the humor magazine “Charlie Hebdot” A trained Islamic activist entered a kosher market, “hypercasher” with two Kalashnikov AK47s provided by the same network who armed the Charlie Hebdot killers. Ownership of most guns is illegal in France, but that makes for easy targets. On entering, he immediately killed the person next to him and shot the two people behind the counter (one died). He then asked that the store be sealed by its steel gratings so he could keep on killing in peace. Secure in the market, the attacker then asked if he should kill someone else. When every shouted no, he laughed and killed the person. The killer talked and killed for the next 4 hours while the police gathered outside and watched. One unarmed customer tried to attack him, but was killed in the process, and jeered at besides — jeers seem to be common. Eventually, the French police killed the attacker and rescued those still alive. As with the Indian attack, the support network escaped or were found non-guilty. If someone had a pistol, maybe the killing would have ended quicker.

White supmemicist, right killed 11 in Pittsburgh. Survivor, center picture will testify. From the NY Post.

In Pittsburgh, PA, 2018, a “White supremicist” entered the “tree of life synagogue” with four semi-automatic pistols (three of them Glocks). He killed 11, going from room to room, sometimes talking to people. One survivor hid under the sink for hours, unable to reach his phone in deadly fear that it would ring and expose him. Eventually the killer just left, and as he did, someone with a gun shot after him, missing. Clearly, this fellow had that gun all along but was afraid to draw it, or could not find it. I’m glad he missed, by the way. If he’d hit the guy as he left, the shooter would have gone to jail. According to US law, you can’t shoot a fleeing attacker. My lesson is that you want a gun that’s small enough to hide well and draw easily, and you want to practice enough to be comfortable using it.

Another deadly attack from “Black Hebrews”, this time organized, military stile. In Jersey City, 2019, two “Black Hebrews” attacked the patrons of an orthodox, Kosher market, starting to shoot from the street, from 50 feet away. Once they were sure that no one inside was armed, they entered and killed three individuals who were doing their best to hide. The recent Gaza attacks used this military style, too. They attacked from a distance first to drive folks into hiding, then set the buildings afire or shot cowering individuals point blank. it’s very hard to defend against this sort of attack, especially if you are unarmed, but even if you are armed and trained.

Enhanced photo from the shooting at the Jersey City Kosher market. This is a rare example of military tactics being used. Two attackers of the “Black Hebrews” started shooting from outside the store, and only entered later to finish up.

The majority of other deadly attacks are by “Islamic youths” against older Jews. The youths will enter a house, threaten, kill, and leave. In one case the victim (a professor) was beheaded on the main street. He’d shown cartoons to his class that suggested that Islam is not peaceful. As with beatings that go with “Palestine Independence” rallies, these attacks are not considered “hate crimes,” but teen violence or political expression.

Hate crimes or not, they mostly target Jews, and they seem to be religiously motivated. Typically, it’s only one or two assailants attacking a chosen, visibly orthodox individual or place. Killing is mostly in close quarters over a relatively long period, often jeering the dead. So far, none appear to use a bulletproof vest. The police do not come on time, ever.

From the above, I suggest a stubby revolver for its concealment and reliability. Carrying a gun is not a good idea if you have children in the house, or if you spend a lot of time in schools, even though these are among the locations that need defending most. You need permission to carry in large venues, including big stores, synagogues and churches, as well as most clubs.

J. Edgar Hoover’s 1939, 32 caliber, “Pocket perfect,” Detective.

A gun suggestion is a “detective special” revolver like the S+W 642 “airweight, 14.6 ounces. It’s about half of the weight of a standard Glock, and shoots five bullets of 38 caliber. A step smaller are 32 caliber revolvers as were carried by J. Edgar Hoover. Smaller yet, are 22LR and/or 22WMR, revolvers like the S+W 351C or 351 PD, and all the NAA mini revolvers, 6 to 11 oz. They are easy to carry, non-obvious, and more reliable than a semi. Five to seven bullets can be enough. Robert Kennedy was killed with a 22lr. Semi-automatic pistols are good for the range, but they need to be racked, and tend to jam in tense situations.

I suggest a revolver that takes different loads. You can practice with cheaper ammo, and carry it loaded with more expensive. Especially with semis, make sure you can draw fast and shoot accurately without jamming.

Robert Buxbaum, March 10, 2024. A common claim in the press is that guns should be banned as in Europe, or highly regulated as in New York, New Jersey and California. I disagree. Europe has a very high rate of violent crime, including quite a few deadly attacks on jews.

Sartre, Gaza, and the power of doing nothing

1 Reply

Jean-Paul Sartre was a Catholic who did not believe in God or external morality, but believed in socialism and being true to ones self without having to do anything for anyone. His most famous work, “Being and Nothingness” was written in France in 1943, during the Nazi occupation. The last 200 pages of the book deal with freedom and its limitations. Sartre points out that there are always limitations (prison guards, Nazis, your own body, etc.) It is dangerous and impractical to oppose these guards, or or to oppose your own body. Sartre’s advice is to go along in body, but oppose them in your mind. Thus, he believed, he was being true to himself to the extent of rational choice. He was totally free because he was free in his mind and in his reactions to the limitations. “Freedom is what we do with what is done to us.” This was his version of existentialism, and many Frenchmen agreed that this was the right way to behave under the circumstances. Many Nazis agreed and enjoyed his writing and plays. If they didn’t totally like what Sartre had to say, they didn’t object enough to send him to a concentration camp. In practical terms, he thus survived better than Jews and oppositional Frenchmen.

Sartre had eyes that pointed in different directions. Some try to claim this related to his philosophy

Although there is a stink of cowardice and collaboration hanging over Sartre and his outlook, it could be worse. A Sartre Joke: Sartre had just finished talk at a restaurant, and sat down. A waitress who understood the talk better than most, asked if she could get him something. Sartre said, “please bring me a coffee, no sugar, no milk.” The waitress came back and said, “we’re out of milk. I can get you coffee with no sugar and no cream.” The point of the joke being that Sartre’s freedom of choice can only be among the choices he could reasonably make. If he’d asked for milk, it’s irrational to expect that the restauranteur would run out and buy some, so it was pointless to ask for no milk.

As the Germans were leaving, Sartre took French antisemites to task in a short book, “Antisemite and Jew” (1944) where he discusses the inauthentic logic of French antisemites and the motivations behind their behavior and beliefs. He claimed the motivation was a sort of mob empowerment where the antisemite, by oppressing Jews sees himself as noble, and comes to feel himself as the heir of all France, its history and its culture. They the thus imagine themselves empowered and enriched by their hatred of he-who-isn’t-them. This motivation he inferred in the liberal Frenchman as much as in the thug; the liberal objects to the yellow star, not out of sympathy for the Jew or justice, but for an inauthentic reason. It makes him feel small by his inaction, and it crates, in the Jew, an identity that is beyond the essence they prefer; he’s more than just ‘not-them’. As I read him, the main character in “Catcher in the Rye”, Holden Caulfield, is a Sartre stand in, a privileged kid bothered by the “phoniness” around him, Like Sartre, he complains and does nothing for anyone, but he does no harm either.

Sartre didn’t join the resistance, even after the Germans were losing, nor did he hide Jews or gentles, or help anyone but himself. After the war, he pushed for the execution of those who were insufficiently anti Nazi, like Tintin author, Hergé. Hergé survived, many of those he attacked were killed in post war purges. Sartre’s philosophy actually works for prisoners in extreme circumstances. Similar philosophies were created by Victor Frankl and Primo Levi during their stays in Auschwitz. It helped them survive and stay sane. Frankl’s “Man’s search for meaning”, was alternately titled, “From concentration camp to existentialism,” a lot concerns the importance of keeping your mind clear – of not becoming an animal.

Simone de Beauvoir & Jean-Paul Sartre with Che Guevara, a favorite Communist murderer, in Havana, Cuba, 1960 (photo by Alberto Korda).

After the war, Frankl became a successful psychologist helping people by helping them to see that they had a reason to exist. This is a more positive version of Sartre’s existentialism, where there was no reason. Primo Levi seems to have followed Sartre’s line more and become ever more depressed; eventually he committed suicide. Eventually, Sartre found a reason to exist in socialism. He believed that, while life was a cruel joke, socialism was pure. People could die in the millions, and he acknowledged that, the leaders were brutal thugs who did murder millions, but he believed that socialism and communism must live on. He tried to keep the bad truths hidden. So what of the killing and torture. So what if writers were imprisoned or shot — in Russia all the Jewish ones were shot in the same day — Sartre said they should have written better books, more pro-communist. Sartre would never have willingly lived in communist Russia, China, or Cuba — he stayed safe in France, and championed the oppression.

Gays for Gaza are not interested in a queer state of Palestine; they attack Jews to make themselves feel generous and powerful — it gives their lives meaning.

This brings me to the pro-Palestinian authors of today, and of 1973. Fifty years ago on Yom Kippur, Iraq, Syria, and Egypt attacked Israel by surprise simultaneously with aid from Russia. Communists and socialists supported the Arabs. Among them was Sartre, though he knew these states to be brutal dictatorships. Pretty soon Sartre discovered that his friends motivation was that they liked attacking Jews, a phony motivation, said Sartre in an interview, and he found he could not join them

I detect the same phony motivation in today’s demonstrations. The loud feminists for Palestine, the Gays for Gaza, those attacking Jews for complicity. Very few of them would willingly live in these countries or among Hamas or ISIS, and fewer of those would survive. Their love of Palestine is an excuse to hit Jews. The better version is Sartre’s he did nothing then, and would likely have done nothing today. You have to have authentic thoughts, at least.

Robert Buxbaum, November 13, 2023

Yiddish newspapers and talking cows, a case for Jewish education

1 Reply

Jewish education is a mess according to the Times. Most anyone outside it, who’d look in would agree: Ancient books, pre-science outlooks, anti-inclusive, and taught in a garble of languages, Yiddish, English, Aramaic, Hebrew. The New York Times has runs regular editorials claiming that Jewish education robs children of a future, or an entrance to society, producing adults who know nothing of geometry or higher math, or modern history, incapable of voting intelligently in today’s elections (they often vote Republican). The Times’s experts, are often the products of this education, but claim to have risen above it, only because of extra work. As a proof, they often cite the Talmud as a source of useless knowledge of ancient Jewish law, rejected Bible history, and only the most basic views of math. By way of a response, I’d like to quote something I’d heard in synagog a couple of weeks back:

“I’m so glad that I learned geometry in school, and not taxes. It’s really come in handy this parallelogram season.“

The speaker was an accountant, and the point of the joke is that there is no parallelogram season. There is a tax season, though, and tax law follows a bizarre logic that is not geometric, but is somewhat talmudic. As for the useless languages, they are all in use, both as spoken languages and written languages, no less useful than Latin, and certainly more alive. There are currently 5 yiddish-language newspapers being published in New York alone, see below. They compete with each other for readers, while competing also with the Times, the Post, and with another ten or more Hebrew and English journals, several of them Jewish, either published on paper or as web-journals. People read them, though the Times prefers to ignore their existence.

There are five newspapers published currently in Yiddish in New York. The Forward (Tony Curtis and duck) and the Vort are left-leaning, the Algeminer, the Blat, and the Zeitung, are more right and center. There is a readership. Why a duck?

And that brings us to the subject matter, Talmud. Much of Jewish learning is Talmud, either distilled or pure, study of a set of books written between 1000 and 2000 years ago in Israel, Babylon, and France mostly, with commentaries from Spain, Morocco, Egypt, Germany, and Poland. Those who learned talmud tend to find it useful. The legal organization and approach resonates to them in the understanding of taxes, contracts, building, damage assessment, marriage, ethics, even in dealing with alcoholism. Talmud is so useful that it’s common for working, orthodox Jews to continue their learning it throughout their lives. A common practice is to learn a page every day in synchrony with other Jews. Today’s page, when I started writing this post, was Nazir 10. It includes a talking cow, just the sort of section that the Times likes to cite to show the uselessness of it all. I’ll forgive their lack of understanding, but not their laziness for not even bothering to try to understand.

Nazir 10 begins by saying: “If a cow says, ‘I will be a Nazir (that is, I will give up wine for a month) if I stand up’. Then, if it gets up, one school of rabbinic thought (Bais Shammai) says he is a nazir. Another school of thought (Bais Hillel) says he is not a nazir.” The page goes on to speak about taking doors, but I’ll stop here after the first 2 sentences and will try to explain what the Times does not care to examine.

Notice that cows are female, and they typically don’t speak, but here you find a “he” who might have to give up wine. This “he”, this male, is understood to be a person looking at the cow, likely a person with an alcohol problem. He sees a cow lying on the ground (in the mud figuratively) and identifies it to himself. That is, he sees himself lying in the mud. He thinks it’s impossible for the cow to get up because he imagines that he himself can not get up. (This is just the Talmud’s way of discussing things). According to Bais Shammai, the person is understood to have said to himself, “if that cow can get up, I will take it as a sign that I can get up, and I will take it on myself to avoid wine and wine products for a month.” Now, according to Bais Shammai, if the cow gets up, the man is obligated to stop drinking for a month.

“I love television, and find it very educational. When someone turns it on, I go read a book.” G. Marx

Bais Hillel says he is not obligated at all. They say that a drunk who wants to change, must do more than be inspired, he must make a real verbal commitment. He must verbally obligate himself to give up drink. We follow this latter opinion, but learn Bais Shammai’s view too, because there are important ideas about self-identity.

Those are just the first two lines of the page. In secular school, you learn stories too, sometimes stories with talking animals, but these are usually modern stories, where the challenges are external, bullying say, but in a sense such stories are sanitized. The internal demons are removed, and these are often the hardest to battle. Even dealing with external problems is often pushed on an external authority, a teacher usually. You are considered to be too weak to deal with a problem. Sometimes that’s true, usually there is at least some part you could deal with. The lack of self-obligation leaves modern school stories flat. Few kids enjoy them, or feel they get anything from them. A result in Detroit is that schools have <50% attendance. Kids leave barely literate with appalling math skills. We blame the teachers and the subject. It’s the book: Sally has 15 tomatoes and wants to give 4 to a friend, how many will she have left? is this relevant? Does this excite?

Talmud teaches some logic, some math, and some geometry, but only for measuring distances and volumes, the application that geometry was named for (geometry = measuring the earth). They learn the rest as needed, and often learn quite a lot.

As Groucho Marx said: “My education is self inflicted.”

The products of Jewish education become successful, often in business, hiring their better-educated brothers. Some become lawyers, accountants, writers, businessmen, or psychologists — more than our share in the population — or mathematicians and scientists. Some even excel in academics or journalism. The Times does not mention this.

Groucho, Chico, Harpo, and Karl Marx

My three children all went to Jewish, religious school and got the education that the Times calls abuse. So far, my son (31) has two masters degrees, both in artificial intelligence/ computer science. My older daughter (28) is getting her PhD in Psychology, and my younger daughter (23) is working on her masters in epidemiology. I suspect they benefited from the education. My suggestion to the Times, is in another Marx quote: “If you find it hard to laugh at yourself, I would be happy to do it for you.”

Robert Buxbaum, March 1, 2023. “History may not think with its feet, but it certainly doesn’t walk on its head.”– Karl Marx, the less-funny, Marx brother. Jewish educated, he became a journalist.

Is the right the source of antisemitism in America.

3 Replies

Hillary Clinton famously called Trump supporters “a basket of deplorables” and went on to explain that half of them were “unredeemable”, Nazis and Klansmen, while the other half “needed reeducation.” Her statement was applauded on the left, and taken as an insult on the right. To this day, Biden and his group make the claim that Republicans are antisemites and a threat to American democracy. The proof here is a 2017 video of Klansmen carrying torches, saying “Jews will not replace us,” as they protested the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee in Virginia. A further claim is that the rise in antisemitic incidents, shootings, beatings, etc., are the result of Trump and the Republicans. Things are not quite so black and white, or course, e.g. during the ANTIFA protests/riots four synagogs were attacked in LA alone, and the Crown-Heights neighborhood of Brooklyn was torched. Many of the attackers of Jews have Islamic names and left association, things that don’t suggest Republicans but Democrats.

CNN has claimed that the difference is intent: Trump’s intent is evil, while ANTIFA’s is to elevate black and Moslem lives by allowing them to vent their righteous anger (on Jews). The Moslems who attacked Jews in Monsey, India, Paris and elsewhere are acting for justice, while the marchers in Charlottesville march for hate. In a special program on “Antisemitism in American”, CNN made the claim that no Jew should support the Republicans or Jewish Israel, an apartheid, colonial occupation in their view. This appears to be the view of the Biden White House too. They have yet to congratulate the winner of Israeli presidential elections, 5 days after the election. They contacted Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader instead, to discuss joint efforts to enhance Palestinian security. Obama did the same, seven years ago, not congratulating the Israeli election winner (Netanyahu), and snubbed the Israeli delegation on their visit, leaving them to sit alone without food or photographs.

According to the CNN expert on Antisemitism, the lefts’ dismissal of Israel’s leaders is because European Jews are not Jews at all, but Russians with no connection to the land. To my thinking claims like this against a group’s identity are horribly hurtful — CNN’s expert was claiming, essentially, that the jews were lying about everything since the beginning. If Jews are not from Israel, why have we prayed in that direction for return, and in the language of that land. If we did not build the old synagogs, when did we displace the builders and take over their language and culture? Attacks on Jewish identity are more serious, in my mind, than any march for Robert E. Lee. (I’ve written in favor of the peace hammered out between Grant and Lee).

Perhaps even more damaging is the left’s attack on Jewish education. The New York Times ran three-page article claiming that Jewish education abuses the students by not teaching real science or history, and by enforcing religious and sexual norms that are counter to the children’s rights — rights that include LGBQT+ expression. While it is true that Jewish education is not a fan of LGBQT+, but neither is Moslem education, or Catholic, or Mormon. Education is how a culture survives. Some Catholic leaders have noted that they have a stake in this.

The left is anti Israel and anti Jewish education, yet claims to be the defenders of Jews because they can’t stand Trump.

Speaking of survival, about half of all Jews now live in Israel, a state established by the UN in 1947 in part as a response to the mass murder of Jews in Europe. Along with Europeans, about half of the Israelis today are exiles from communities wiped out by Moslem governments: from Egypt, Tunisia, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, and Yemen. If Israel becomes Islamic as Obama favored, they are likely to exile all the Jews as they did in 1968 in Jerusalem, and as the surrounding countries have done. Where would the Jews go? It’s not a problem for Obama-Biden, but it’s a survival problem for Israelis. My sense is that the left is, by far, the more antisemitic, both in terms of culture and physical safety.

Robert Buxbaum, November 7, 2022

Tests designed so that the Ivies pick preppies.

Leave a reply

Elite colleges strive to be selective, and they are, just not for the hard-working scholars they claim to select for. They claim to be color-blind, income-blind, and race-blind, aiming for the best: the most intelligent, most ethical, and hardest working scholar-candidates. Then, to their surprise and satisfaction, all the ivies find that the vast majority of the chosen come from the same rich families and prep-schools as 100 years ago. That happens because the selection is crooked with measures tilted to the rich, Protestant, and preppy.

Through most of the 1900s, most of the ivies had a Jewish quota, enforced formally or informally. They also did their best to discourage middle class, black, and Catholic students in the interest of maintaining the proper student mix. Under Woodrow Wilson, Princeton went further and admitted not one black student. When quotas became illegal, schools began to rely on athletics and tests, with blatant cheating as revealed by the “Varsity Blues” sting operation. In that sting, a dozen or more athletic coaches and high-school administrators were caught taking SAT tests for their richer, connected students, and/or making up phony athletic achievements. The Ivies claimed shock after the cheating was revealed, but it is beyond belief that no one had noticed that these top brains and athletes were neither.

Many top athletes are diagnosed as asthmatic. Some actually are. With the right doctor, you can get an advantage

Another version of this is that richer kids can get extra time to do SAT and ACT tests. The extra time doesn’t show up on the SAT or ACT score, you need a doctor to certify that you are dyslectic or have severe ADHD. Most boys are diagnosed with ADHD these days, itself something of a scam, but most boys don’t get extra test time. You need the right doctor and the right documentation, plus enough money and connections to get the test given by certified test-giver in your own private room. It used to be that the SAT and ACT would report the extra time, but this changed in 2004. Now the extra time, and the disease is not documented, just the higher score. There have been complaints, but the scam goes on. Similar to this, top Olympic athletes can be diagnosed with asthma, and allowed to use performance enhancing, anti-asthma steroids. Again complaints, but no change.

Ivy League schools also tilt to the right families by requiring signs of the right sort of leadership as evaluated by an interview and an essay (see my post on John Kennedy’s essay). You score high on leadership if you helped your relative run for governor. By contrast, if you organized a ping-pong or basketball tournament at your Catholic or Jewish school, you’re the wrong sort of leader. Eagle Scout is sort-of the right sort, and speaking against climate change on TV is. Greta Thernberg and Chelsea Clinton are climate leaders; you, probably are not.

The Ivys explicitly state that they choose for athleticism, but not all sports are equal. All the Ivies claim to need a good women’s lacrosse team, a good crew team, and some good high-divers. Are these sports unavailable at your high-school? What a shame, you’re not a real athlete. You can still try to get in based on extreme leadership and academics.

The Princeton alumni of 1993-1994 were primarily white, rich and preppy. Favoring their children helps insure that the class of 2024 is that way too.

There is no real reason that Harvard needs a top crew team, or needs to excel at women’s lacrosse or high-diving. Sport was not an admission criteria in the 1800s. It was added in the 1900s to avoid admitting Catholics, Jews, and Asians who tended to score well but could not compete on the selected sports. The president of Harvard, Abbot Lowell wrote, “Somehow or other the enrollment of the Jewish students must be limited”. The method he chose, and that all the Ivies came to use, included these tests of leadership and sport, plus a preference for legacies. The children and grand-children of alumni are given significant preferential selection at all the ivies. At Harvard, the acceptance rate for legacy students is about 33%, compared with an overall acceptance rate of under 6%. Since legacies are mostly white, rich, protestant, and preppy, the next generation is guaranteed to be the same.

The Ivies’ methods have been challenged many times over the years. Quotas were found to be illegal as early as 1964. Since then there have been claims of effective quotas, a cause that was pushed under the rug until Donal Trump took it up. Most recently, Harvard, Princeton, and UNC were sued by Asians. One of these, from a poor background scored at the top of his class with a 4.4 GPA and had near-perfect SAT scores, but was rejected for no obvious reason beyond race. The Supreme Court is expected to hear the case in 2023. Ahead of this decision, all eight Ivies have decided to dispense with testing for at least for now. The ivies claim that, by making tests optional, they will avoid locking out students who are great (though somewhat illiterate and innumerate). The real purpose seems to be to lock out pushy Asians who might sue them or be so bright they make the legacies feel dumb.

None of the above would matter if the Ivies were not so wonderful, at least the better ones are. I went to Princeton grad school, see photos. It was great despite its waspy leanings. If you can go there, or to Harvard, Yale, Cornell or Penn, go. My feeling for Brown and Columbia are rather the opposite: they’ve gone to the extreme and voted for BDS, see the text here for Brown’s version. Not only did they vote to boycott Israelis and Israeli produce, the “B” of BDS, the’ve also committed to suppress Zionists everywhere. That’s Jews who support Israel. Several, non ivy schools, have committed to the same. In their view, for open debate to flourish anywhere, proud Jews must be excluded. These are no longer colleges, but Klavens.

Robert Buxbaum, October 20, 2022.

Jews Believe in Life after Death for Jew and Gentile.

Leave a reply

It is a common misunderstanding that Jews don’t believe in the afterlife. We do, both for good Jews and for good gentiles. While the talmud is clear on this, the Old Testament presentation is vague and poetic. As an example, the Talmud, Pirke Avos 4:16, says, “This world is like a corridor before the World-to-Come. Rectify yourself in the corridor in order to be able to enter the Banquet Hall.” The Talmud and Bible (OT) go to great detail of what to do in the corridor, but there are only poetic allusions about the afterlife banquet. 

One Old-testament allusion is that death is described as going to sleep, or going to sleep with ones ancestors. Sleep here is understood as something that you generally wake up from. The added phrase, “with his ancestors” suggests a certain independence of person, even after death, so that we don’t all merge into a cosmic will. That this sleep is not burial is apparent, for example, with David,  (1 Kings 2:10) , “Then David slept with his ancestors, and was buried in the city of David.” First David’s soul left to sleep with his ancestors, and then he was buried. It’s the same with Solomon, (1 Kings 11:43), “Then Solomon slept with his ancestors and was buried”. This phrase appears also for Jeroboam (1 Kings 14:20), for Reboham (1 Kings 14:31), and for many others including Ahab (1 Kings 15:24). 

Now Ahab was an awful individual, and Jeroboam and Rechovoam weren’t exactly saints. According to Jewish tradition, you can be pretty bad and not lose your share in the world to come. The Talmud, (Sanhedrin 105a), says that, in general, “All Israel has a share in the world to come.” There are a few exceptions, Jews and gentiles who were so bad that they are no longer be part of God’s covenant, but those are rare. The Talmud says that Bilham was such an exceptional individual. He did his best to curse the Jews, and, as in (Gen. 12:3, and Deut 30:7), those who curse you are cursed. From the fact that Bilham lost his share we see that he originally had a share. All righteous gentiles do, according to Jewish tradition. 

Another, Old Testament source that righteous gentiles have a share in the world to come is from the death of Abraham (Gen 25:8-9). “Abraham expired and died, an old man and full of years, and was was gathered to his people, and Isaac and Ishmael, his sons buried him…” Abraham being gathered to his people is understood to mean that he went to join his dead ancestors in heaven — but all of Abraham’s ancestors were gentiles. He’s gathered to the good gentiles in heaven, to Noah and the Noachides. Noah was not a Jew, but he is described as righteous and as walking with God (Gen 6:9). Walking with God is another allusion to being good in this world, and going to heaven afterwards. Apparently righteous gentiles not only go to heaven, but get to gather with Abraham and Noah.

We find that Ishmael was “gathered to his people” (Gen 25:17), as was Isaac (Gen 35:29), Jacob (Gen 49:33), Aaron (Num 20:24), and Moses (Num 27:13). Ishmael was not a Jew, nor particularly righteous, but there he is gathered with Abraham. There is allusion to him being a robber in his early days, “a wild ass among men; his hand shall be against every man” (Gen 16:12). Apparently he repented, and we find him in heaven with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Aaron, and Moses. 

That we believe righteous gentiles go to heaven has been a problem for Jewish missionary work: if you can go to heaven without taking on the restrictions of becoming a Jew, why convert? For most non-Jews the right answer is, don’t convert, but live as a righteous gentile.

The details of heaven, and of the afterlife are not well spelled out in the Jewish Bible, the Old Testament, and not in the Talmud. Some Talmudic scholars took the sleep analogy literally to say that one awakens with the body one went down with, and even in the same clothes. One Talmudic rabbi wanted to be dressed nicely for his burial for that reason. Most rabbis do not expect their clothes to resurrect. In Jewish prayer (the Amida, 2nd section) we speak of revival of the dead in terms of plants coming back after a rain. This suggests a different body altogether. No one really knows. 

The Jewish tradition takes heaven as a gathering, and this suggests you can speak to one another after death. There is also a concept of punishment for sin; perhaps the punishment is confronting the people you wronged. We don’t know. We presume that the experience of heaven is more pleasant for those who do good, but the details are hidden. “An eye has not seen, other than the L-rd’s, what He will do for those who hope in Him” (Isaiah 64:3). Bilham says he wants the death of the righteous (Num 23:10), but not the life.

Jewish tradition assumes that one’s marriage bond continues in heaven, by the way. In the Talmud (Taanis 25a), men are described as sitting with their wives, and this provides another bit of evidence that the Jewish belief in heaven goes way back. In the New Testament, in several places we find a story of some rabbis challenging JC to explain what would happen if a woman had seven husbands; (Matthew 22: 24-28, Luke 20: 33-37, Mark 12:18-25). Which husband would she sit with, they ask. JC’s answer is that marriage does not continue after death, and that we would be as angels. The Jewish traction disagrees and says that we’d be more like we are now, with our wives, but the fact that JC and the rabbis are arguing about the marriage bond in heaven indicates that both sides agree there is a heaven.

One reason we imagine our wives will be with us is the idea of becoming one flesh (Gen 2:24), another reason has to do with the fairness of reward. We want to enjoy heaven as ourselves, and not as some angelic version of myself that enjoys playing the harp for a billion years. As for the mechanics of heavenly marriage, one rabbi I knew said that it would be his divine punishment and his wife’s heaven. He imagined his she would want to go shopping all the time, and he’d have to go along*.

Robert Buxbaum, Feb. 8, 2022 *S. Kauffman, of blessed memory.

The dangers of political humor

1 Reply

One big danger of political humor is that some folks just don’t get the joke. You say something outrageous and they don’t get that you were exaggerating, but think you were lying, or ignorant, or worse yet they take you at your word, and think you were telling the truth.

Daniel Boone liked to claim things that were not true; he claimed he jumped the Mississippi and that he lassoed a tornado and that he killed a bear (with his bear hands) when he was three. The joke was on anyone who took him seriously, and I’m sure there were those who did: “Why that’s not true!” “You’re a liar!” or worse yet “Wow, how did you do that!” It’s a sort of brag-joke that, today is called “trolling.”

H.L. Menken on the fake news of the early – mid 20th century.

But there is a bigger danger with political jokes, and that happens when you’re not quite making a joke and folks realize you are telling the truth, or at least that there is a dagger of threat thats being passed off within a joke, or as part of an exaggeration. Basically, they realize that this joke was no joke at all.

A recent case in point, two weeks ago Trump was speaking to Jewish businessmen, and told them about his troubles building the US embassy in Jerusalem (read the whole speech here), but within the funny story is a hook:

Bob Hope told the truth but hid it in a funny delivery.

“And I called David Friedman.  I said, “David, I need some help.  I just approved an embassy, and they want to spend $2 billion to build the embassy.  And I know what that means: You’re never going to get it built.  It’ll take years and years.”  I said, “You know what’s going on here? …. So we’re going to spend 2 billion, and one of them was going to buy a lousy location.  A lot of you are in the real estate business because I know you very well.  You’re brutal killers.  (Laughter.)  Not nice people at all.  But you have to vote for me; you have no choice.  You’re not going to vote for Pocahontas, I can tell you that.  (Laughter and applause.)  You’re not going to vote for the wealth tax.  “Yeah, let’s take 100 percent of your wealth away.”  No, no.  Even if you don’t like me; some of you don’t.  Some of you I don’t like at all, actually.  (Laughter.)  And you’re going to be my biggest supporters because you’ll be out of business in about 15 minutes, if they get it.  So I don’t have to spend a lot of time on that. But David calls me back and he goes, “Sir” — he always used to call me “Donald.”

The press claimed the above was vile and anti-semitic. It almost sounds otherwise when quoted in context, but they are not totally off. There is truth inside that jest. Such truths lose the humor, but they do get the message across. A lot has to do with the delivery. Ideally the folks that you want to get the point will, and the rest will think you mean nothing by it. It’s a hard act.

Robert Buxbaum December 23, 2019.

Peace killed the Indian, ended Spain’s golden age

Leave a reply

The why of history is always more speculative than the what. Yet, to write about only the what, is to do only half of the job, if that. The what is largely interchangeable: the names of kings and generals, the dates and locals of battles and treaties. It’s the why that adds interest, and provides whatever lessons one can take forward. With this as background, I’d like to speculate on the cause of: the destruction of the American Indian, and the end of the golden age of Spain. For both and some others, I suggest an unusual villain, peace: too much peace. It’s a speculative why, but bear with me.

Lets start with the American Indian. In the mid 1700s, Indians controlled the majority of the continent. They had an advanced society of six main nations, held together by mutual treaty. The Indians had few guns, but were not less intelligent than the Japanese or Chinese, suggesting that they could have learned to make them if they desired (or realized they needed to desire). The Japanese did so in short order. Indians addressed the Continental assemblies, and though they were not integrated, quite, they were not segregated either. But this first period of co-existence ended, as best i can tell, in the years of and following the French and Indian war. In the war, some Indians supported the French and some the British, and each side looked after their Indians. After peace was established, however, English leaders like Lord Jeffery Amherst set up to wipe out the Indians of both sides, “this execrable race,” with blankets infected with smallpox, and good old-fashioned cruelty. His activities are memorialized, on the cafeteria china used at Amherst Colleges till the 1960s.

Cup from the cafeteria of Amherst College shows Lord Jeff pursuing the Indians.

Cup from the cafeteria of Amherst College, used till the 1960s, shows Lord Jeffery Amherst pursuing a band of Indians. Purple and white are the Amherst colors. 

My thought of why he did it, and why he succeeded, is that the Indians had outlived their usefulness. The ones on the French side had been enemies, and might be again. The ones on his, English side were annoying and might turn in the next conflict. Besides, Lord Jeffery and his ilk had idle military power. Removing the Indians was something they could do. The army at peace could otherwise get destructive, or turn on him (I’m speculating here on motives).

This pattern appeared again in the Revolutionary war and in the War of 1812. During each war, Indians were befriended by both sides, and recruited. Indians fought important battles in each war, now mostly forgotten; the defense of Canada was largely by Indians. After each war, these Indians were largely betrayed. In the War of 1812, the Shawnee, Potawatomi, Ojibwa, and Creek mostly sided with the British, led by the fierce Shawnee general, Tecumseh. The Muscogee, Creek, Seminole, Choctaw, Cherokee, and Chickasaw, mostly sided with the US. Iroquois fought on both sides. In the years following the wars, these and these were sent west of the Mississippi. Those who had been allies with the US were paid for their land, those that sided with the British were not. A good price, but it was a forced sale none-the-less. I will speculate that they were exiled because they retained a government structure independent of the US, making them a threat. Also (I speculate) the military, Generals Harrison, Jackson, etc., had nothing better to do with an army that might have mutinied otherwise. By 1846, there was no serious future for the American Indian east of the Mississippi, and besides, there was an external enemy to fight — The Mexicans. My speculation: the Indians were destroyed by “the era of good feelings” that follows war.

In the case of Spain, I note that the Inquisition and Jewish expulsion followed suddenly after 300 years of science, art, literature, and coöperation. I also note that the Alhambra decrees (March 1492) followed almost immediately after the defeat the last major Moslem-held citadel, Granada in December, 1491, and the peace treaty of Granada (January 2, 1492). The Alhambra decrees of March 31, 1492 mandated that all Jews must convert or leave Spain, and gave free-reign to the Inquisition to punish heresy. At the time, the financier of the Spanish crown was a Jew, Don Isaac Abarbanel. And some years earlier another Jew, Shmuel HaNagged hand been vizier (2nd) to the king. My theory of the cause for the sudden switch is that it was not a sudden surge in religion, as some have suggested, but rather that the king and queen no longer needed an army or Jewish or Moslem allies, but they still had an army that might turn against them if not otherwise occupied.

In the interwar, peace years, Stalin removed 3 of the 5 top generals, 13 of 15 below them; 8 of 9 admirals, 50 of 57 army corps commanders, 154 out of 186 division commanders, 16 of 16 army commissars, and 25 of 28 army corps commissars.

In the interwar, peace years, Stalin removed 3 of the 5 top generals, 13 of 15 below them; 8 of 9 admirals, 50 of 57 army corps commanders, 154 out of 186 division commanders, 16 of 16 army commissars, and 25 of 28 army corps commissars. Peace is hell.

I’m reminded that peace is the background to intrigue in at least six of Shakespeare’s historical plays: Macbeth, Hamlet, Richard III, Lear, Julius Caesar, and Othello. Richard III explains his behavior as follows (Act I, Scene 1):  “Why, I, in this weak piping time of peace, have no delight to pass away the time, unless to spy my shadow in the sun and descant on mine own deformity.”

A few other examples: After WWI, most of Europe removed their bearded aristocracy, and Stalin used the peacetime to remove much of the communist leadership including many of his generals and former friends – this was especially so after signing a peace treaty with Germany. And, in the US after WWII, we entered a period of communist witch hunts — a mini Inquisition directed at the writers and artists who provided Allied propaganda during the war. Even a general good, like peace can leave casualties.

Robert Buxbaum, July 7, 2017. I like to speculate on the why of history, and like to imagine my speculations are partially true, at least.

Stories of Jewish charity

Before Passover this year, an individual went to the rabbi of our town for a private meeting to tell him about the problems facing various people. He said, there was one particularly pathetic case where a family could lose their house. They had borrowed $5000 from a particularly nasty lender who would throw them out in the cold if they didn’t pay up soon.

Our rabbi was touched, and said he would do what he could to raise the sum. He would even contribute $100 of his own. As the fellow left, he had just one question, ‘How do you come to know this is going on? Are you a relative, or particularly close friend?” “No,” said the guest, “I’m the lender.”

 

Another story of Jewish charity: a neighbor of ours takes incredible care of her husband, She spends quite a lot, regularly to get his nails done professionally. She says it’s worth it to know that his coffin is secure.

Finally, I must admit that I’d wanted to marry my ex-wife, who I had divorced previously — sort of an act of kindness. But she would have none of it. My ex said I was only marrying her for my money.

Robert E. Buxbaum. October 23, 2015