Tuesday, February 7, 2017

Higayon: Importance of students learning traditional understanding - not just the text of the Torah

JPost by Rabbi Levi Cooper  [The question remains - is it only children that should avoid higayon or also mature Torah students?]

When Rabbi Eliezer's health was failing, his students paid him a visit (B. Berachot 28b): "Our master, teach us the ways of life that we may merit through them the life of the world to come," they implored their teacher. Rabbi Eliezer offered them parting advice: "Be mindful of the honor of your peers, and keep your children from higayon, and place them between the knees of Torah scholars, and when you pray know before whom you stand - and on account of this you will merit the life of the world to come." A legacy relating to interpersonal relationships and to our connection with God.

What, however, is this higayon that we should steer our children away from? Over the ages our commentators have offered different explanations of this obscure term. The earliest attempts to translate higayon refer to the art of rhetoric taught by the Greek sophists of the fifth century BCE (Hai Gaon, 10th-11th centuries, Pumbedita). The sophists taught that the search for truth was of secondary importance and trained their charges with the ability to persuade the masses of whatever they wished them to believe. Such an education prepared the youth for the world of Greek politics, where being clever and smart was often more valuable than being truthful and earnest. Some sophists even claimed that knowledge was unnecessary for the art of forming a cogent argument or offering an unassailable reply. According to this approach, Rabbi Eliezer was discouraging this discipline which went contrary to the more lofty goals of Torah study. 

A number of later commentators, who were far removed from Greek culture, suggested that higayon refers to aspects of the study of Bible. According to one such approach, Rabbi Eliezer was imploring his students not to overly focus on Bible which draws the heart (Rashi, France, 11th century). It appears that Rabbi Eliezer was afraid that the attractive literary biblical style would be so inviting that youth would not progress to the more difficult subjects of Torah study. Indeed, elsewhere the sages declare that the pursuit of Talmud is the loftiest of disciplines, with Bible study being a mere stepping stone toward the distinguished enterprise of discussing and deriving law (B. Bava Metzia 33a). 

In a similar yet different vein, other commentators suggested that Rabbi Eliezer was warning against the literal translation of biblical passages, where such a translation would lead to a heretical reading of the text (Rabbi Natan of Rome, 11th century; Meiri, Provence, 13th century). The above suggestions all try to grasp the meaning of Rabbi Eliezer's statement by seeking the connotation of the key word - higayon. 

One commentator, however, suggests that instead of focusing on this elusive term, we should look to Rabbi Eliezer's legacy to fathom his message (Rabbi Reuven Margoliyot, Lvov-Tel Aviv, 20th century). Elsewhere in the Talmud, Rabbi Eliezer is adamant that tradition must be faithfully transmitted in an unbroken chain reaching back to Sinai (B. Succa 27b).[...]

[Rabbli Eliezer] never stated any ruling that he had not heard from his teachers. He would only transmit traditions that he had received. Returning to our passage and the word higayon - Rabbi Eliezer is suggesting an educational maxim: Not to encourage youth to explore higayon, that is, new disciplines that are not rooted in the tradition or material that has not been passed down from one generation to the next. 

This approach can be supported by comparing the last bidding of Rabbi Eliezer with the legacies of other sages. From the tractate Avot we are familiar with sages offering three aphorisms as their ethical will. Rabbi Eliezer would have been familiar with this pattern which dated back to the end of the Second Temple period. Yet when choosing his parting words, Rabbi Eliezer appears to offer four aphorisms: (1) Consciously honoring peers, (2) steering youth away from higayon, (3) raising children among Torah scholars, and (4) knowing before whom we stand. If we understand higayon to be referring to disciplines that have no Torah basis, then the four statements could be read as the traditional three: The first max im refers to interpersonal relationships and the third maxim refers to matters between humans and God. The middle truism relates to passing the legacy to the next generation. With regard to this matter, Rabbi Eliezer suggests that children should be directed away from studies not rooted in tradition and instead be guided toward Torah scholars. Through this three-point program, says Rabbi Eliezer, "You will merit life in the world to come."  

Woman fined 40,000 shekel for false claims of abuse against husband

bhol

חוייבה לשלם לבעלה 40,000 ש"ח: תלונות השווא שלא השתלמו

תלונות השווא שלא השתלמו: בפסק דין שניתן על ידי בית המשפט נגזר על אישה לשלם לבעלה סכום של 40,000 ש"ח על שהגישה נגדו תלונת שווא למשטרה והאשימה אותו באלימות שלא הייתה



תלונות השווא שלא השתלמו: בפסק דין שניתן על ידי בית המשפט נגזר על אישה לשלם לבעלה סכום של 40,000 ש"ח על שהגישה נגדו תלונות שווא למשטרה והאשימה אותו באלימות שלא הייתה. 

בשנת 2014, אישה הגישה תלונה במשטרה נגד בעלה כי היכה אותה ושנה לאחר מכן הגישה תלונה דומה נוספת. בעקבות התלונות נחקר הבעל, התלונה הראשונה נסגרה מחוסר ראיות והשנייה עדיין פתוחה. מאז, הספיקו בני הזוג להתגרש. 

הבעל הגיש לבית המשפט תביעת נזיקית נגד אשתו זה מכבר: נגד "תלונות השווא אשר הסבו לו עגמת נפש רבה ונזקים". בתלונה השנייה, האישה ניתקה ביודעין את 'פלטת השבת' וכן הוציאה את הנורה מהמקרר, על מנת שבעלה - שומר תורה ומקפיד על מצוות השבת - לא יוכל לאכול את סעודות השבת. 

[...]

בפסק הדין ציין השופט "פסיקתי מבוססת על העניין שבין התובע לנתבעת בלבד. מצאתי לנכון לציין האמור לעיל (הטרדת המשטרה א.ש.) ולו משום הצבת תמרור נוסף בפני כל מי שישקול פעולה דומה". בסיום הדיון החליט כי האישה תשלם לבעלה 30,000 ש"ח ובנוסף חייב אותה גם ב-10,000 ש"ח הוצאות משפט שישולמו תוך 15 יום"

The World’s Most Expensive Coffee from Civet Cats - is it kosher?

Din on Line

Civet coffee or Kopi_ Luwak is produced by the civet cat. Coffee cherries are given to a civet cat to eat and digested by the cat, and then excreted. The coffee beans are taken out of the excrement, dried and roasted. The issue at hand, (besides that it may “ba’al tshaktzu” to eat something like this) is if the rule of “Yotzei Min Hatamei” applies here. (This rule is that anything that exits from a non kosher animal etc. that it is also not permitted to eat etc.) Although the actual beans did not actually come from the cat, but were eaten, the cat’s enzymes however are inside it and what made the changes to the beans.

Although it is controversial, most Rabbinic authorities that I have consulted said that regarding Yotzei Min Hatamei it should be alright. The reasons being that the actual beans didn’t come from the cat, therefore it is similar to bee’s honey, which is permitted because the bee didn’t produce the honey: it only processed it and changed it from the flower into honey.
Regarding the enzymes that are from the cat that is also not an issue we don’t consider excrement as part of the actual animal, it is considered “pirsha b’alma”, and therefore the above issue doesn’t apply.
There are to other factors here that might make drinking this coffee impractical.[...]

Time



The costliest coffee on earth has a humble proletarian beginning. As folklore has it, civet coffee, or kopi luwak in Indonesian, was discovered by plantation workers in colonized Indonesia. Forbidden from consuming coffee beans picked from the plants, they picked up, cleaned and then roasted the beans excreted by wild Asian palm civets that entered the plantations to eat the ripest coffee cherries. The civets’ digestive systems gave kopi luwak a uniquely rich aroma and smooth, rounded flavor — so much so that the Dutch plantation owners soon became die-hard fans.

In the past 10 years, kopi luwak has won the hearts — and wallets — of global consumers. A cup sells for $30 to $100 in New York City and London, while 1 kg of roasted beans can fetch as much as $130 in Indonesia and five times more overseas. The ultimate in caffeine bling is civet coffee packed in a Britannia-silver and 24-carat gold-plated bag, sold at the British department store Harrods for over $10,000. The justification for these exorbitant prices? A claim that kopi luwak is sourced from wild animals and that only 500 kg of it is collected annually. The claim is largely nonsense.

While there are some ethical suppliers of hand-gathered civet coffee, recent investigations, both by journalists and animal-rights activists, have revealed a cruel and avaricious industry. To satisfy global demand, many suppliers keep captured civets in cages and feed them almost exclusively on coffee cherries. Enduring appalling living conditions and an unhealthy diet, these nocturnal omnivores suffer mental distress — incessantly pacing and gnawing on their limbs — and succumb to illness and death. These grim farms are not confined to Indonesia. Farmers elsewhere in Asia have jumped on the bandwagon. By one estimate, 50 tons of mass-produced civet coffee from Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines and China flood the market every year.

Trump continues his attempts to discredit the Media falsely claiming they ignore or minimize Terror Attacks




President Trump on Monday asserted that the news media was playing down the terrorist threat posed by the Islamic State, telling American military personnel that journalists were reluctant to report on the militant group’s attacks in Europe and “have their reasons” for failing to cover them.

Mr. Trump initially did not provide examples of a news media conspiracy to underplay terrorist attacks, and his comments appeared to ignore the vast amount of reporting on violence committed by the Islamic State and its supporters in the Middle East, Europe and the United States. Later Monday night, the White House released a list of what it said were 78 attacks from September 2014 to December 2016 that were carried out or inspired by the Islamic State. The White House said that “most have not received the media attention they deserved.”

The list included the major attacks in Paris; Brussels; San Bernardino, Calif.; and Orlando, Fla., that dominated the news for weeks. Other attacks overseas, lesser known to Americans, received extensive local coverage, like a shooting in Zvornik, Bosnia, in April 2015 in which one police officer was killed and two others were wounded.

The president’s speech was the second time in recent weeks that he has used an appearance before national security personnel — usually apolitical settings in which the focus is on strategy and sacrifice — to discredit journalists and exult in his election victory. 

“Radical Islamic terrorists are determined to strike our homeland, as they did on 9/11, as they did from Boston to Orlando to San Bernardino and all across Europe,” Mr. Trump said at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Fla., home to the military’s Central Command and Special Operations Command. “All over Europe it’s happening. It’s gotten to a point where it’s not even being reported, and in many cases, the very, very dishonest press doesn’t want to report it.”

“They have their reasons,” Mr. Trump added, “and you understand that.”

The theory that the news media is trying to whitewash terrorist attacks to protect Islam or Muslim migrants has been pushed by several right-wing news organizations, including the conspiracy-filled site Infowars, whose founder, Alex Jones, is an ally of Mr. Trump’s.

The president’s comments on Monday were reminiscent of his claim during a visit last month to the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency in Langley, Va., that the news media had fabricated his feud with the intelligence community. Those remarks came only days after he likened American intelligence officials to Nazis, after several weeks in which he had denigrated their work.

Aboard Air Force One on Monday, Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, told reporters returning to Washington with Mr. Trump that the president had been referring in Tampa to “several instances” in which the news media had not devoted sufficient attention to terrorism. Mr. Trump, Mr. Spicer said, believes journalists pay more attention to public protests than they do to terrorist attacks or plots.

“He felt members of the media don’t always cover some of those events to the extent that other events might get covered,” Mr. Spicer said. “Protests will get blown out of the water, and yet an attack or a foiled attack doesn’t necessarily get the same coverage.”[...]

Monday, February 6, 2017

Why were the Matriarchs barren? Bereishis Rabbah (45:4)

update - added Bereishis Rabbah (45:5) and Yevamos (64a)

Bereishis Rabbah (45:4): Why were the Matriarchs barren?... Because G-d has a strong desire for their prayers and their requests.... R’ Chanina answered, So that they would be dependent and attached to their husband in spite of their beauty. Rav Chiya bar Abba answered, So that they would spend most of their lives without being burdened (i.e., Exile should be delayed). Rav Meir said so that their husbands should get pleasure from them because when a woman becomes pregnant she becomes ugly and lacks grace. 

For the 90 years that Sara did not have children she was like a bride in her canopy. When aristocratic women came to ask how she was she would say, “Go ask about the welfare of that unfortunate woman [Hagar]. And Hagar would say to them, Sarai my mistress in a hypocrite. She appears as a righteous woman but how could she be righteous. Look at how many years she has been married and hasn't gotten pregnant. In contrast I got pregnant the first time.” [Rashi 16:4 cites this medrash to explain what Hagar did to belittle Sarah]. Sarah replied, “Should I argue with this woman? I will complain to the master.

Bereishis Rabbah (45:5):  AND SARAI SAID UNTO ABRAM: MY WRONG (HAMASI) BE UPON THEE (XVI, 5). R. Judan explained this in R. Judah's name: Thou wrongest me with words, since thou hearest me insulted yet art silent.4 R. Berekiah explained it in R. Abba's name: I have a grievance against thee. For imagine two men incarcerated in prison, and as the king passes one of them cries out, ‘Execute justice for me!’ The king orders him to be released, whereupon his fellow-prisoner says to him, ' I have a grievance against you, for had you said, " Execute justice for us," he would have released me just as he has released you; but now that you said, "Execute justice for me," he released you but not me.’

Similarly, hadst thou said, ' We go childless,’ then as He gave thee a child so would He have given me; since, however, thou saidest, And I go childless (Gen. XV, 2), He gave thee a child but not me. This may [also] be compared to two people who went to borrow seed from the king. One of them asked, ' Lend me seed,’ and he ordered, ‘Give it to him.’ Said his companion to him, ‘I have a grievance against you. Had you asked, "Lend us seed," he would have given me just as he gave you; now however that you said, " Lend me seed," he has given you but not me.’ Similarly, hadst thou said, ‘Behold, to us Thou hast given no seed,’ then as He gave thee so had He given me. Now however that thou didst say, ’Behold, to me Thou hast given no seed ' (ib. 3), He gave to thee but not to me.

R. Menahema [Nehemiah] said in R. Abin's name: She scratched his face.1 The Rabbis said: Women are said to possess four traits: they are greedy, eavesdroppers, slothful, and envious. Greedy, as it says, And she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat (ib. III, 6); eavesdroppers: And Sarah heard in the tent door (ib. XVIII, 10); slothful: Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal (ib. 6); envious: Rachel envied her sister (ib. XXX, 1). R. Joshua b. Nehemiah said: She is also a scratcher and talkative. A scratcher:  AND SARAI SAID UNTO ABRAM: MY SCRATCH BE UPON THEE. Talkative: And Miriam spoke against Moses (Num. XII, 1). R. Levi said: She is also prone to steal and a gadabout. Prone to steal: And Rachel stole the teraphim (Gen. XXXI, I9). A gadabout: And Dinah went out (ib. XXXIV, 1).

THE LORD JUDGE BETWEEN ME AND THEE (UBENEKA). R. Tanhuma said in the name of R. Hiyya the Elder, and R. Berekiah said in R. Eleazar's name: Whoever plunges eagerly into litigation does not escape from it unscathed. Sarah should have reached Abraham's years, but because she said, THE LORD JUDGE BETWEEN ME AND THEE, her life was reduced by forty-eight years. R. Hoshaya said: Binka (thy son) is written.1 Seeing that it is already written, And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived, why is it further stated, Behold, thou wilt conceive (ib. 11)?2 This, however, teaches that an evil eye took possession of her and she miscarried.3 R. Hanina observed: Had the prophet Elisha told her that by the Holy Spirit, it would have sufficed her.’


In contrast see Yevamos(64a):
The other replied: Isaac was barren.If so,Abraham also was barren!— That text is required For a deduction in accordance with the statement of R. Hiyya b. Abba. For R. Hiyya b. Abba stated in the name of R. Johanan: Why were the years of Ishmael counted? In order to determine thereby the years of Jacob. 
R. Isaac stated: Our father Isaac was barren; for it is said, And Isaac entreated the Lord opposite his wife.It does not say ‘for his wife’ but opposite. This teaches that both were barren.If so, And the Lord let Himself be entreated of him should have read, And the Lord let Himself be entreated of them!— Because the prayer of a righteous man the son of a righteous man is not like the prayer of a righteous man the son of a wicked man. 
R. Isaac stated: Why were our ancestors barren? — Because the Holy One, blessed be He, longs to hear the prayer of the righteous. 
R. Isaac further stated: Why is the prayer of the righteous compared to a pitchfork? As a pitchfork turns the sheaves of grain from one position to another, so does the prayer of the righteous turn the dispensations of the Holy One, blessed be He, from the attribute of anger to the attribute of mercy. 
R. Ammi stated: Abraham and Sarah were originally of doubtful sex for it is said, Look unto to the rock whence you were hewn and to the hole of the pit whence you were digged, and this is followed by the text, Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bore you.
R. Nahman stated in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: Our mother Sarah was incapable of procreation; for it is said, And Sarai was barren; she had no child,she had not even a womb.

Sunday, February 5, 2017

Charles Sykes - Why Nobody Cares the President Is Lying


If President Trump’s first tumultuous weeks have done nothing else, at least they have again made us a nation of readers.

As Americans grapple with the unreality of the new administration, George Orwell’s “1984” has enjoyed a resurgence of interest, becoming a surprise best seller and an invaluable guide to our post-factual world.

On his first full day in office Mr. Trump insisted that his inaugural crowd was the largest ever, a baseless boast that will likely set a pattern for his relationship both to the media and to the truth.

At an event marking Black History Month last week, the president took a detour from a discussion of Frederick Douglass — he described the abolitionist as “an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more” — to talk about the press. “A lot of the media is actually the opposition party — they’re so biased,” he said. “So much of the media is the opposition party and knowingly saying incorrect things.”

Continue reading the main story
Mr. Trump understands that attacking the media is the reddest of meat for his base, which has been conditioned to reject reporting from news sites outside of the conservative media ecosystem.

For years, as a conservative radio talk show host, I played a role in that conditioning by hammering the mainstream media for its bias and double standards. But the price turned out to be far higher than I imagined. The cumulative effect of the attacks was to delegitimize those outlets and essentially destroy much of the right’s immunity to false information. We thought we were creating a savvier, more skeptical audience. Instead, we opened the door for President Trump, who found an audience that could be easily misled.

The news media’s spectacular failure to get the election right has made it only easier for many conservatives to ignore anything that happens outside the right’s bubble and for the Trump White House to fabricate facts with little fear of alienating its base.

Unfortunately, that also means that the more the fact-based media tries to debunk the president’s falsehoods, the further it will entrench the battle lines.

During his first week in office, Mr. Trump reiterated the unfounded charge that millions of people had voted illegally. When challenged on the evident falsehood, Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, seemed to argue that Mr. Trump’s belief that something was true qualified as evidence. The press secretary also declined to answer a straightforward question about the unemployment rate, suggesting that the number will henceforth be whatever the Trump administration wants it to be.

He can do this because members of the Trump administration feel confident that the alternative-reality media will provide air cover, even if they are caught fabricating facts or twisting words (like claiming that the “ban” on Muslim immigrants wasn’t really a “ban”). Indeed, they believe they have shifted the paradigm of media coverage, replacing the traditional media with their own.

In a stunning demonstration of the power and resiliency of our new post-factual political culture, Mr. Trump and his allies in the right media have already turned the term “fake news” against its critics, essentially draining it of any meaning. During the campaign, actual “fake news” — deliberate hoaxes — polluted political discourse and clogged social media timelines.

Some outlets opened the door, by helping spread conspiracy theories and indulging the paranoia of the fever swamps. For years, the widely read Drudge Report has linked to the bizarre conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, who believes that both the attacks of Sept. 11 and the Sandy Hook shootings were government-inspired “false flag” operations.

For conservatives, this should have made it clear that something was badly amiss in their media ecosystem. But now any news deemed to be biased, annoying or negative can be labeled “fake news.” Erroneous reports that the bust of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had been removed from the Oval Office or misleading reports that sanctions against Russia had been lifted will be seized on by Mr. Trump’s White House to reinforce his indictment.

Even as he continues to attack the “dishonest media,” Mr. Trump and his allies are empowering this alt-reality media, providing White House access to Breitbart and other post-factual outlets that are already morphing into fierce defenders of the administration.

The relationship appears to be symbiotic, as Mr. Trump often seems to pick up on talking points from Fox News and has tweeted out links from websites notorious for their casual relationship to the truth, including sites like Gateway Pundit, a hoax-peddling site that announced, shortly after the inauguration, that it would have a White House correspondent.

By now, it ought to be evident that enemies are important to this administration, whether they are foreigners, refugees, international bankers or the press.

But discrediting independent sources of information also has two major advantages for Mr. Trump: It helps insulate him from criticism and it allows him to create his own narratives, metrics and “alternative facts.”

All administrations lie, but what we are seeing here is an attack on credibility itself.

The Russian dissident and chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov drew upon long familiarity with that process when he tweeted: “The point of modern propaganda isn’t only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.”

Mr. Kasparov grasps that the real threat is not merely that a large number of Americans have become accustomed to rejecting factual information, or even that they have become habituated to believing hoaxes. The real danger is that, inundated with “alternative facts,” many voters will simply shrug, asking, “What is truth?” — and not wait for an answer.

In that world, the leader becomes the only reliable source of truth; a familiar phenomenon in an authoritarian state, but a radical departure from the norms of a democratic society. The battle over truth is now central to our politics.[...]

Or as George Orwell said: “The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history.” But Ms. Hughes’s comment was perhaps unintentionally insightful. Mr. Trump and company seem to be betting that much of the electorate will not care if the president tells demonstrable lies, and will pick and choose whatever “alternative facts” confirm their views.[...]

Perhaps just as important, it will be incumbent on conservative media outlets to push back as well. Conservatism should be a reality-based philosophy, and the movement will be better off if it recognizes that facts really do matter. There may be short-term advantages to running headlines about millions of illegal immigrants voting or secret United Nations plots to steal your guns, but the longer the right enables such fabrications, the weaker it will be in the long run. As uncomfortable as it may be, it will fall to the conservative media to police its worst actors.

The conservative media ecosystem — like the rest of us — has to recognize how critical, but also how fragile, credibility is in the Orwellian age of Donald Trump.

Friday, February 3, 2017

More "alternative facts" : Trump adviser cites non-existent 'massacre' defending ban


Kellyanne Conway seems to be confused. On Thursday night the Trump adviser appeared in a TV interview and made a statement that pricked the ears of fact-checkers everywhere.

She told MSNBC's Chris Matthews:
"I bet it's brand new information to people that President Obama had a 6-month ban on the Iraqi refugee program after two Iraqis came here to this country, were radicalized and they were the masterminds behind the Bowling Green massacre. It didn't get covered."
First of all, Obama didn't ban the Iraqi refugee program.

Second, there's no such thing as the Bowling Green massacre.

Conway could have been referencing two Iraqis -- Waad Ramadan Alwan and Mohanad Shareef Hammadi -- who lived in Bowling Green, Kentucky. Both were granted refugee status and entered the United States in 2009.

They were arrested in May 2011 on a series of terrorism charges and were sentenced two years later after pleading guilty.

The two men were never planning on committing an act of terrorism on US soil. Instead, they were trying to help get weapons to al Qaeda in Iraq. They were terrorists who should not have been allowed in the country, but they weren't planning an attack in the United States. And they didn't kill anyone in Bowling Green (or anywhere else in the US).[...]

An indictment released at the time said the United States was able to locate Alwan's fingerprints on an IED and on the base of a cordless phone used in an attack near Bayji, Iraq in the early 2000s. That the vetting process didn't work and that these men were allowed into the country highlighted serious flaws in the refugee resettlement system and led to reforms of the vetting process.

As a result, Obama ordered that 57,000-58,000 Iraqi refugees recently allowed into the country be revetted, causing a massive backlog. So, while there was no specific 'ban' on Iraqi refugees coming into the country, there was a delay in allowing anymore in. [...]

"Donald Trump is the Mad King: volatile, vainglorious, and untrustworthy" - the Blunder Down Under


Citizens of an unusually close ally now regard the president as a volatile, vainglorious, untrustworthy bully after he needlessly disrespected their leader in a phone call

Dishonor and distraction. That is what Donald Trump brought the United States Wednesday when news broke that he inexplicably lashed out at the prime minister of Australia in a phone call, tried to renege on an agreement between the two nations, and bragged as ever about himself. To add insult to insolence, he then took to Twitter to complain.

The Washington Post first reported on the self-indulgent outburst:

President Trump blasted Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull over a refu­gee agreement and boasted about the magnitude of his electoral college win, according to senior U.S. officials briefed on the Saturday exchange. Then, 25 minutes into what was expected to be an hour-long call, Trump abruptly ended it. At one point, Trump informed Turnbull that he had spoken with four other world leaders that day — including Russian President Vladi­mir Putin — and that “this was the worst call by far.”

Trump’s behavior suggests that he is capable of subjecting world leaders, including close allies, to a version of the vitriol he frequently employs against political adversaries and news organizations in speeches and on Twitter.
Australian media sources soon confirmed parts of the story.

By Thursday, a columnist at the Sydney Morning Herald had coined a new name for the president of the United States: “Donald Trump is the Mad King: volatile, vainglorious, and untrustworthy,” Mark Kenny wrote. “Trump is now gainsaying his own private commitments, via Twitter. This is an extraordinary situation and one that is almost impossible to manage. American prestige is on the line.” In fact, it took a hit.

President Obama’s critics argued that the United States was no longer respected under his tenure. Trump assured his voters that he alone would make America respected again. After barely a week his undisciplined antics have damaged America’s standing with multiple allies. “World leaders be warned,” the Australian newspaper declared. “Trump's conversations are not private and his word, unreliable.”

Who can now deny that?

Other allies were watching. Trump’s behavior made all the British papers. The story in the conservative Telegraph at one point characterized Trump as having a “tantrum.”

And the image Trump has projected to the world is bullying disloyalty.

After all, there is no country that has stood by the U.S. like Australia. The two nations’ soldiers fought alongside each other in World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq. They’ve helped America battle al-Qaeda and ISIS. They are a member of the Five Eyes, an intelligence alliance of English-speaking countries that shares mutually beneficial information. That all counts for something. Our shared language and similar cultures do, too. But the alliance is not to be taken for granted.

The prosperity of Australians is no longer mainly a function of their relationship with the United States. “The rise of China has created the unprecedented situation in which Australia's major trading partner sits outside the U.S. alliance framework, and in fact constitutes the greatest threat to U.S. strategic predominance in the Asia-Pacific,” Stephan Fruehling, a scholar of defense studies and international relations at Australian National University, explained in the 2016 book Australia's American Alliance. “Australia's split imperatives between its Sinocentric prosperity interests and US-focused security interests have begun to generate significant turbulence.”

Two years ago, Malcolm Fraser, Australia’s former prime minister, wrote in National Affairs that “it is time for Australia to end its strategic dependence on the United States,” arguing that the relationship “has now become dangerous to Australia’s future,” because “if America goes to war in the Pacific, it will take us to war as well—without an independent decision by Australia.” What’s more, “in any major contest in the Pacific, our relationship with America would make us a strategic target for America’s enemies. It is not in Australia’s interest to be in that position.”

Just as Trump was throwing his tantrum, the press was reporting on his top adviser, Stephen Bannon, bloviating a few months back about how “we’re going to war in the South China Sea.”[...]

The mix of Trump’s incompetence and Bannon’s casual bellicosity endangers America. It strains its alliances. It squanders goodwill, making allies like Australia marginally less inclined to help the United States. It causes the citizens of allied nations to regard America as a laughingstock.

The leader of every allied nation on earth is now wondering whether they can trust Trump to have candid conversations, keep sensitive secrets, follow through on American commitments, or simply control himself for longer than a day. And so am I.

This man has proved repeatedly that he cannot master himself.

As a safeguard against a break in judgment or sanity more severe than any we’ve yet seen, Republicans should plan for what exactly happens if Trump loses the faculty to govern. We’re only a week in and he is failing the easiest of tests. Who among us couldn’t have handled a call with Australia better than the man sitting in the Oval Office?

Thursday, February 2, 2017

Former Brooklyn math tutor gets just three years’ probation in sexual assault of his 6-year-old pupil Tweet email


A former Brooklyn math tutor busted for sexually assaulting a 6-year-old student will only spend three years on probation - in a sweetheart sentencing on Wednesday.

Moshe Friedman, 31, admitted in December to violating the little boy multiple times between September 2014 and June 2015 when he was supposed to be helping him with his homework.

Friedman, was originally charged with first-degree felony sexual conduct against a child — but pleaded guilty to endangering the welfare of a child, a misdemeanor..[...]

“The victim’s family were adamant about not allowing their child to testify and they approved of the plea,” according to a law enforcement source.

Friedman, who was represented by lawyer Arthur Aidala, has several conditions to the plea bargain — including not having to register as a sex offender.[...]

Included in Friedman’s plea agreement, he must serve three years probation surrender his Department of Education teaching license, never contact the victim or be around anyone under the age of 18, not speak to other sex offenders, not watch pornography, no calls to phone sex services and must not use the computer to view sexual material.

“Thank you, your honor,” Friedman told Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Miriam Cyrulnik on Wednesday.

If Friedman violates the terms of his agreement, he faces up to a year in jail.[...]

Professor Marc Shapiro and the Chassidic world of Williamsburg/Boro Park

To buy click this link



Chayei Sara/ Bo 75 Modern Leadership by Allan Katz


The reason why the Israelites had to eat the Korban Pesach – the Pesach sacrifice ' in haste = be'chipazon ' and in a state of readiness to leave ואכלתם אתו- קרבן פסח – בחיפזון - שמות 12:11   is because the departure from Egypt would be in such speed, haste and without any delay .In fact their dough did not have enough time to rise, nor did the Israelites have time to make any other provisions.

The ' chipazon ha'shechina' and ' me'hirut ha'shechinah', God's speed and haste in bringing about the redemption can be compared to a train suddenly appearing and all those who want freedom have to make sure that they get onto the train and don't get left behind. God was in exile with the Israelites in Egypt and when He left, the people had to make sure that they were ready to leave with God and not be left behind. God in a sense moves on and runs ahead and we have to make sure that we are with God. Rabbeinu Yeruchum says that this idea – the chipazon ha'shechinah = the speed and haste of the Divine Presence is mentioned by Eliezer, the servant of Abraham. Eliezer cannot accept Rivkah's =Rebecca's staying on for some time with her family and then going to marry Isaac. Eliezer says to Rivkah's family – Gen 24:56 'do not delay me now that God has made my journey successful'.ויאמר אליהם אל תאחרו אתי וה' הצליח דרכי

What has the fact that God has made Eliezer's journey and mission a success got to do with not delaying and moving on. God has made Eliezer's journey successful by going ahead of Eliezer, leading and guiding him to success. If he delays any longer, God will have moved ahead and Eliezer would then miss the train.

In the light of our understanding of God's ' chipazon' – speed and haste, Rabeinu Yeruchum interprets the Mishnah from Pirkei Avot 2:21 in a novel way. - Rabbi Tarfon says- the day is short, the task is abundant, the workers are lazy, the pay /wage are great and the Boss is insistent and urgent.
אבות 2:21 רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר, הַיּוֹם קָצֵר וְהַמְּלָאכָה מְרֻבָּה, וְהַפּוֹעֲלִים עֲצֵלִים, וְהַשָּׂכָר הַרְבֵּה, וּבַעַל הַבַּיִת דּוֹחֵק:

Rabeinu Yeruchum says that the Boss is not standing over his workers and demanding productivity. Like a modern manager, the Boss is setting an example and running ahead = דוחק The workers have to catch up with their Boss.

The verse from the Song of Songs 1:4 says -draw me; we will run after youשיר השירים - משכני, אחריך נרוצה. If God is drawing his people close to Him, why do they have to run after Him? If we want to be with God, feel his Divine Presence we have to appreciate the ' chipazon Hashem – God's haste and speed and make sure we are there moving ahead with him. We need to act with zeri'zut, zeal, drive, passion and with momentum in order to connect with the divine presence.

The ideal parents and teachers are said to be those that are demanding of kids so they achieve the highest standards and achievements in their academics, social and sports activities. Maybe parents and teachers should try to be less demanding and more authoritative, so that kids seek relationship and guidance. Kids will say ' Draw me and we will run after you '. It is because of the parents and teacher's personalities, drive, joy and passion for what they do that kids want to join in with them. Parents and teachers set an example and get kids involved with them. They allow kids to participate in the decision making process. They understand that responsibility comes from making decisions and not by following instructions. The kids then feel self-directed and autonomous, displaying zeri'zut, drive and passion for what they do.

We can learn from God's Leadership – ' chipazon Hashem', that leaders don't demand from others or push from behind, but they are running ahead, leading from the front. When kids experience such leadership they cannot but want to join in and follow the leader.

American ultra-Orthodox Are Starting to Talk About Sexual Abuse

Haaretz  [full article available on Manny Waks' Facebook page Manny Waks Facebook   ]

As more alleged victims step forward, the Orthodox community grapples with the phenomenon while maintaining its insular traditions. Leading rabbis met in New York this week to broach this delicate issue.

The Orthodox Jewish community is slow to change, even – perhaps especially – on difficult issues like child sexual abuse. But speakers at a gathering of leading Orthodox rabbis and others made clear that significant changes are underway at both institutional and cultural levels. For example, a joint project of the Orthodox Union and Rabbinical Council of America to create training programs for synagogue staff, in an effort to help prevent sexual abuse, is getting started.

The very fact that Rabbi David Zwiebel, executive vice president of Agudath Israel of America, spoke at the meeting also reflected a shift. While the topic has been addressed at recent Agudah conventions, this was the first time that Zwiebel addressed it outside of his own community, he told Haaretz.

It is a challenging subject for a community that prizes modesty, deference to rabbinic authority and believes that turning in a Jew to secular authorities is a violation of Jewish law, especially if there is suspicion but not certainty of sexual abuse. Yet “if you compare the landscape to just a few years ago there have been enormous changes” in the Haredi community, Zwiebel told the opening session, in a conference room rented from UJA-Federation of New York in midtown Manhattan.

The “Global Summit on Child Sexual Abuse in the Jewish Community” was put together by Manny Waks and his organization Kol v’Oz. Waks, who was sexually molested as a child in Melbourne, Australia’s Chabad community, started Kol v’Oz last year in Israel to deal with the issue.

The aim of the two-day gathering is to allow experts in childhood sexual abuse to network and share best practices, Waks told Haaretz. Ultimately, “the goal is a collaborative global coalition” to work on the issue. Two similar gatherings were convened in Israel in recent years, but this is believed to be the first time that such a meeting has brought together different segments of the Jewish community in the U.S.

The meeting included a hand-picked group of leaders of social service organizations that aid victims of sexual abuse, researchers and prominent rabbis from as near as Brooklyn and as far as Israel and Mexico. Also attending was the national director of the yeshiva day school movement Torah u’Mesorah, Rabbi Dovid Nojowitz.

“There has been marked change” in how the Orthodox community deals with sex abuse, said David Cheifetz, a victim of childhood molestation himself. Cheifetz, now a victims’ advocate, moderated a discussion between Zwiebel and Rabbi Mark Dratch, executive vice president of the Rabbinical Council of America. “This issue has come to the forefront because more people are speaking out [after having been abused],” Cheifetz told Haaretz.

Enough victims are coming forward now that they have reached a critical mass and can no longer be dismissed by Orthodox leaders as troubled, marginal people, he said. And a recent wave of suicides and drug overdoses among Haredi young adults, along with a significant exodus of people out of religious observance are also shocking ultra-Orthodox leaders into taking seriously the relationship between those things and childhood sexual molestation. [...]

Several developments have coalesced to push Orthodox organizations forward, say experts. Social media has had much to do with spreading information about abusers and connecting victims. The Catholic Church sexual abuse crisis burst onto the American scene in the early 2000s, as did several high-profile cases in the Orthodox community, beginning with that of Baruch Lanner, who then worked as director of regions for the modern Orthodox youth movement NCSY.[...]

A bill introduced in various forms in the New York State Assembly for more than a decade would eliminate the civil Statute of Limitations, meaning a victim could sue his abuser for monetary damages in a civil court at any time. That bill would also open a year-long window during which older victims could retroactively sue those responsible.

That is what the Agudah opposes, Zwiebel said, though it supports extending the criminal Statute of Limitations indefinitely and raising the victim’s age for the civil lawsuit limit. Jewish law has no Statute of Limitations in criminal cases, pointed out YU’s Blau.

Zwiebel said, of the Agudah’s resistance to a change in the law, “schools are the crown jewels of our community. For them to have retrospective liability for things done decades ago under a different administration would cause damage to those jewels,” by potentially bankrupting them.

Waks responded, in a voice full with emotion, “it often comes across in the Haredi world that they care much more about the institutions than the victims. Are they really much more precious than children’s lives?” [...]

Wednesday, February 1, 2017

Rav Aharon Lichtenstein - Of Marriage: Relationship & Relations

Tradition Magazine Archives Originally posted 2012 While this is primarily regarding the issue of marriage - it brings in issues relevant to our discussion on gender.
--------------------------------
[...] On the other hand, others may find parts of the discussion disturbing, if not objectionable. To some, it may appear to stand in violation of the Mishna’s admonition, as elucidated by the Gemara (Hagiga 11b), against public discussion of the arcane aspects of proscribed sexual liaisons. While the issues herewith treated have received fuller expositions in numerous Torah-oriented books and articles, every accretion may be challenged as an erosion of the proper level of tseni’ut. Of greater concern is the prospect that others, particularly the relatively less initiate, may find the essay unsettling. Perhaps, hitherto fully comfortable with the roseate tinge of some contemporary presentations of Jewish attitudes to sexuality, they may find their personal equipoise adversely affected by exposure to less positive sources. The result may be either some erosion in the quality and enthusiasm of married life, or, conversely, some slippage in respect for pillars of the halakhic world, such as Rambam and Ramban. And this might, in turn, undermine commitment to halakha in its totality

On a broader, and possibly deeper, front, the differences noted between attitudes expressed by Hazal and later formulations raise issues concerning periodization and continuity within the halakhic system; and, for readers not wholly satisfied with suggestions I have tentatively advanced, by way of resolution, the impact may be, again, possibly unsettling.

Despite the ambivalence, I have, obviously, decided to proceed. I have done so not only in the interest of spiritual and intellectual candor but, additionally, on the sanguine assumption that, on balance, the effect will be constructive, inasmuch as most of the readers are already aware of the primary problems and will be spiritually enriched by its systematic analysis, their faith and commitment energized and fortified by the Torah discourse of massa u-matan be-divrei Torah, rather than enervated or diluted. Nevertheless, where spiritual influence is at stake, a measure of trepidation persists. It is my hope and prayer that the Giver of Torah spare and save us from any fault or blemish in its dissemination. [...]

Assuming these facts to be correct—as regards my own spiritual environs, I can attest directly—we ask ourselves: How and why do we depart from positions articulated by some of our greatest—“from whose mouths we live and from whose waters we drink”—and, is this departure legitimate? Are we victims of the Zeitgeist, swept along by general socio-historical currents? Do we tailor our attitude on this issue to conform to appetitive convenience and erotic desire? Have we, in this case, adopted a self-satisfying posture of facile world-acceptance clothed in culturally correct garb? [...]

THE RISE OF THE ALT-RIGHT AND THE POLITICS OF POLARIZATION IN AMERICA

Skeptic   by Dr. George Michael received his Ph.D. from George Mason University’s School of Public Policy. He is an associate professor of criminal justice at Westfield State University in Massachusetts.

Until recently, the alt-right was relegated to the cultural and political fringe consisting primarily of an obscure, largely on-line subculture. But after Donald Trump’s stunning electoral victory, its detractors feared that it could soon become a player at the very center of American politics. After all, alt-right activists were among Trump’s most enthusiastic supporters, and in return, some believed that they deserved a seat at the table. Back in August of 2016, the alt-right was catapulted into national limelight when Hillary Clinton excoriated the movement, seeking to link it to her challenger in a much-heralded speech delivered in Reno, Nevada.1 That same month, Breitbart.com executive Steve Bannon had declared the website “the platform for the alt-right.”2 In the wake of Trump’s victory, Bannon joined Trump in the White House as a senior advisor. How did the movement gain traction in recent years? And now that Trump is president, could the alt-right change the American political landscape?

The Roots of the Alternative Right
To its critics, the alt-right is just a code term for white nationalism, a much-maligned movement associated with neo-Nazis and Klansmen.3 The movement, however, is more nuanced, as it encompasses a much broader spectrum of rightist activists and intellectuals besides white nationalists including those who believe in libertarianism, men’s rights, cultural conservatism, isolationism, and populism. Nonetheless, its origins can be traced to various American white nationalist movements that have endured for decades.

More than any other figure, the late Willis Carto was responsible for creating the semblance of a movement that came to be known as the far right in post-World War II America. Through the myriad of organizations he founded—Liberty Lobby, the Institute for Historical Review, and the Populist Party among others—he reached out to a wide array of rightists including white nationalists, Holocaust revisionists, conspiracy buffs, anti-globalists, and survivalists. But his big tent approach had only limited success and by the late 1990s was foundering. Furthermore, he was forced into bankruptcy in 2000, after losing a civil suit to a former subsidiary. A newspaper he launched—American Free Press—is still published, but its readership is limited. Carto passed away in 2015 at the age of 89.4 Although the various organs he established reached many rightists, some in the movement found his approach woefully unfit to gain credibility as a respected mass movement insofar as it seemed to be resigned to remain as an oppositional subculture. A number of well-educated rightist intellectuals sought to establish a new ideology capable of resonating with conservatives, especially young people.

Addressing the H.L. Mencken Club in 2008, Paul Gottfried described the “alternative right” as a dissident far right ideology that rejected mainstream conservatism. Gottfried—a conservative Jewish academic—previously coined the term “paleoconservative” in a rhetorical effort to distance himself and like-minded intellectuals from neo-conservatives who were becoming the dominant force in the Republican Party and broader conservative movement.5 The late Sam Francis, a former columnist for the Washington Times who was fired for his open advocacy of white nationalism, was regarded as the intellectual godfather of the paleoconservative movement. For years, he sharply criticized the Republican Party for its timidity, strategic myopia, and ideological bareness. Only a radical reorientation—a “middle American revolution”—could save the conservative movement and insure the European character of the nation.6 But the lackluster results of his friend Pat Buchannan in the 2000 presidential election, demonstrated the weakness of this approach at that time.

To be sure, some of the most radical elements of the far right have long advocated a revolutionary program. Groups such as the Aryan Nations, White Aryan Resistance, the National Alliance, and the World Church of the Creator have preached RAHOWA (racial holy war) against ZOG, or the “Zionist Occupation Government.” Many were inspired by the late William L. Pierce’s Turner Diaries, a novel about a race war that consumes America that was one of the inspirations for Timothy McVeigh’s 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.

But these exhortations to revolution did not resonate with most people. What is more, after 9/11, many of the revolutionary right’s leading representatives were prosecuted under new anti-terrorism statutes and sent to prison. By the mid-2000s, the far right appeared to have reached its nadir.

The Perils of Immigration
The primary issue for white nationalists is immigration. They claim that high fertility rates for third world immigrants and low fertility rates for native women—if left unchecked—threaten the very existence of whites as a distinct race.9 But even on the issue of demographic displacement, there is disagreement in the white nationalist movement on how this predicament came about. The more genteel representatives of the alt-right, such as Jared Taylor, argue that these trends developed over time because whites have lost the temerity necessary to defend their racial group interests. By contrast, the more conspiratorial segment of the movement implicates a deliberate Jewish-led plot to reduce whites to minority status.10 By doing so, Jews would render their historically most formidable “enemy” weak and miniscule—just another minority among many.

Emblematic of the latter view is Kevin MacDonald, a former professor of psychology at the California State University at Long Beach. In a trilogy of books released in the mid-to-late 1990s, he advanced an evolutionary theory to explain both Jewish and anti-Semitic collective behavior. According to MacDonald, anti-Semitism emerged not so much out of perceived fantasies of Jewish malfeasance, but because of genuine conflicts of interests between Jews and their Gentile hosts. Inasmuch as anti-Semitic movements have often been collectivistic in orientation, MacDonald argued that Jewish intellectuals, activists, and leaders have sought to fragment Gentile societies along the lines of race, ethnicity, and gender. Over the past decade and a half, his research has been circulated and celebrated in white nationalist online forums.11

Conspiracism
Although conspiracy theories can be found across the political spectrum, they feature most prominently in the far right. Based in Austin, Texas, Alex Jones has emerged as the most noted proponent of contemporary right-wing Conspiracism. His popular platform—Infowars—has enabled him to reach a broad audience whom he regales with exposés implicating the U.S. government, secret societies, and globalists in sinister plots to undermine the fabric of nations.12 It is worth mentioning that Jones is not without his critics on the far right. For example, some white nationalists deride Jones as a charlatan because he implicates phantom actors—including the Illuminati13—in a nebulous conspiracy to subvert America. They accuse him of leading people down a blind alley—“chasing demons”—instead of identifying what they see as the “real enemy,” that is a Jewish-led conspiracy to destroy the white race.14

The Internet facilitated the spread of conspiracy theories that before had limited currency. Although critics—including U.S. News & World Report, Los Angeles Times, and Mother Jones—have characterized Infowars as a “fake news” website, the mainstream media in America have lost much credibility over the past several years.15 The failure of the mainstream press to report accurately on the depth of support for candidate Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election will only compound this problem. Though it is difficult to determine with great specificity how important Jones was in persuading voters to support Trump, he steadfastly supported the GOP renegade in his primary and general election campaigns.

Although conspiracy theories have long resonated with the far right, the more respectable mainstream conservative movement eschewed this vocation—the Libertarian right, for example, focused instead on small government, individual liberty, and a non-interventionist foreign policy. But after its standard bearer Ron Paul failed to gain traction in his 2012 presidential bid, as did his son Rand Paul when he dropped out of the 2016 race early, the libertarian community became disillusioned. What is more, social and cultural issues became more pronounced in American politics. As a consequence, the libertarian preoccupation with free market economics began to look stale.16 A new form of rightist ideology began to take form. The growing popularity of the new media was instrumental in this development.

A Growing Media and Internet Presence
Cyberspace became one area where white nationalists could exercise some limited influence on the broader culture. The subversive, underground edges of the Internet, including 4chan and 8chan, allowed young white nationalists to share and post comments anonymously. The alt-right has become an integral part of the meme and trolling culture in cyberspace. Through the use of memes, the alt-right has established a notable presence in the virtual world. Appropriating “Pepe the Frog,” the alt-right used humor and invective to reach out to young people who might find the political correctness of the dominant culture stultifying.17 Moreover, the growing number of blogs, wikis, and discussion forums enabled them to participate in the national discourse. Even on mainstream news sites such as USA Today, The Washington Post, and The New York Times, ordinary readers—including white nationalists—could troll the comments sections below articles.18[...]

White Separatism
Sometimes referred to as the “1488rs,” the revolutionary white nationalists believe that America will eventually collapse under the weight of racial strife.31 Some internal critics in the alt-right characterize them as the equivalent of Black Lives Matter supporters insofar as they both call for the total destruction of the current order and seek to replace it with a revolutionary new order.32

But how should white nationalists achieve their goals in an America that is projected by the U.S. Census Bureau to be majority non-white by the year 2042?33 Some activists insist that only a separatist course will ensure white racial survival. To date, the most formulated strategy has been advanced by Harold Covington, who founded the Northwest Front in the early 2000s as a vehicle for the creation of an all-white homeland in the Pacific Northwest. Given current demographic trends he argues that it is foolish to pursue a strategy that seeks to return America to a white majority population. Instead, by concentrating the assets of the white nationalist movement into a smaller area, Covington reasons that their goals have a greater likelihood of success. Beginning in 2003, he published a series of five novels based on a white separatist insurgency in the Pacific Northwest. Set in the not-too-distant future, the novels extol the exploits of the Northwest Volunteer Army, which mounts a war of attrition that eventually persuades the U.S. government to relinquish limited territory. In 2010, Covington began broadcasting an Internet radio program called Radio Free Northwest in which he exhorts Whites to relocate to the Pacific Northwest to form a community of like-minded activists.34

Often characterized as “the new face of hate,” Mathew Heimbach has emerged as the most articulate voice of White separatism in the United States over the past few years. Although he is only in his mid-twenties, he is an accomplished orator and an indefatigable organizer, frequently giving speeches at rallies and appearing on television news programs. He first gained notoriety in 2012 when he organized a White Student Union at Towson State University in Maryland. Since then, he founded the Traditionalist Youth Network which calls for the division of the United States into separate ethnically and culturally homogeneous autonomous states. Although most of his followers are white nationalists, he has reached out to separatists from other ethnic and racial groups. At the present time, he sees the Appalachian area as the most fertile ground for his white separatist aspirations.35 Seeking to establish ties with like-minded activists overseas, Heimbach identifies himself as the leader the Eurasian movement in the United States. The recognized leader of the Eurasian movement in the world is Alexander Dugin, a political theorist in Russia.[...]

Donald Trump and Entryism
Although the campaign of Donald Trump mobilized the movement that has come be known as the alt-right, it was not he who created it. After all, the issues that animate the movement—concern over immigration, national economic decline, and political correctness—existed long before Trump announced his candidacy. As Francis Fukuyama opined, the real question is not why populism emerged in 2016, but why it took so long to manifest.41 Not unlike the Brexit referendum over the summer of 2016, Trump’s startling victory confirms that there is a rising tide of nationalism in the West. The increasing popularity of Marine Le Pen could soon lead to a nationalist government in France, which like England, might opt out of the European Union.

Although the white nationalist movement in America has endured for decades, it remained highly marginalized with virtually no influence on the mainstream culture and certainly not over public policy. The candidacy of Donald Trump, however, was the catalyst that enabled a disparate collection of groups, which included white nationalists, to coalesce in what has come to be known as the alt-right. Still, because of the movement’s ideological diversity, it would be a serious mischaracterization to label the alt-right as exclusively white nationalist.

In some quarters in the political left, Trump’s surprising electoral victory was viewed with great disdain, almost as a contemporary version of Kristallnacht, occasioning the most strident condemnation and revulsion in recent memory.42 To some observers, Bannon’s appointment as Trump’s chief strategist confirmed their fears that the far-right fringe has penetrated the White House.43 And some alt-right activists did not disabuse them of their trepidation. At his organization’s conference in Washington, D.C., soon after the election, Richard Spencer raised his glass in a toast and exclaimed to his audience: “Hail Trump! Hail our people! Hail Victory!” At this point, several of the attendees gave a celebratory Roman salute reminiscent of Hitler’s Third Reich.44 What came to be known as “hailgate,” earned him more notoriety and split the alt-right between moderates and hardliners.45

To date, however, Trump has eschewed explicit race-mongering, though he did say some unflattering things about some Mexican immigrants and voiced concern over radical Islam. Instead, Trump has promoted a form of civic nationalism that emphasizes “America first.” Although his rhetoric was often construed as impolitic on the campaign stump, he nevertheless reached out to all Americans irrespective of race, gender, sexual orientation, or creed. In fact, he was the first major Republican presidential candidate in many years to have actually made a serious effort to attract African-American voters, pointing out that his proposed program of economic revitalization would create millions of new jobs for the chronically unemployed in America’s inner cities. It would be facile to characterize Trump’s victory as a “whitelash against a changing country” as described by CNN’s Van Jones.46 After all, roughly the same proportion of the white vote had gone to Mitt Romney four years earlier.47

Nevertheless, the election was racially-charged mainly in the mainstream media, which portrayed Trump and his supporters as bigoted. Ultimately, such depictions could become self-fulfilling prophecies as the scholar Walter Russell Mead observed:

The growing resistance among white voters to what they call “political correctness” and a growing willingness to articulate their own sense of group identity can sometimes reflect racism, but they need not always do so. People constantly told that they are racist for thinking in positive terms about what they see as their identity, however, may decide that racist is what they are, and that they might as well make the best of it. The rise of the so-called alt-right is at least partly rooted in this dynamic.48

The success of the Trump campaign demonstrated the potential influence of the alt-right in the coming years. At first blush, Trump’s victory in the Electoral College seems substantial, but his margin of victory in several key states was quite small.49 For that reason, support from every quarter he received—including the alt-right—was vitally important. Unlike other segments of the conservative movement, the alt-right never wavered in its support of Trump. And anecdotal evidence suggests that they were among his most avid foot soldiers in getting out the vote in both the primaries and general election.50 Moreover, the Trump campaign provided the opportunity for members of this movement to meet in a real world setting beyond their computer monitors and keyboards. His victory is sure to have instilled a great sense confidence in a movement that for so long has been maligned and marginalized. Shortly after the election Richard Spencer said that Trump’s victory was “the first step, the first stage towards identity politics for white people.”51 But if Trump does not deliver on his most emphatic campaign promises, such as building the wall and deporting undocumented aliens, the alt-right is likely to become disillusioned with him, not unlike some progressives who chastised Barack Obama for continuing to prosecute wars in the Middle East. In fact, before he even entered office, Spencer scaled back his enthusiasm for Trump because he was not focused enough on immigration and several of his appointments had connections to Goldman Sachs.52

Unlike old-school white nationalist movements, the alt-right has endeavored to create a self-sustaining counterculture, which includes a distinct vernacular, memes, symbols and a number of blogs and alternative media outlets. Taking a page from Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, young alt-right activists have applied his tactics to conservative causes.53 The events of the year 2016 suggest that the movement has succeeded. Now that the movement has been mobilized and demonstrated its relevance, the alt-right is likely to grow, gaining a firmer foothold in both American politics and culture.

Conclusion: The Politics of Polarization
American political culture has historically been centrist. Consequently, the nativist elements of Trump’s campaign platform are likely to be watered-down if they are ever implemented. At times, President Trump will most surely find himself constrained by Congress, the Supreme Court, and state governments, not to mention the media and a whole host of private interests, such as major corporations whose operations he must encourage to remain in America to further his economic recovery plan.

As president, Trump now has the enormous task of restoring national unity. Soon after the election, numerous protests emerged in cities all across America. On inauguration day, more demonstrations followed mainly in Washington, but also a number of cities both in the United States and overseas under the rubric of the Women’s March.54 This development is unprecedented in American political culture with its longstanding record of the peaceful transition to power from one party to another. An ominous polarization threatens the very fabric of the nation.

Over a decade ago, the noted author Robert Kaplan prognosticated in his influential article, “The Coming Anarchy,” that it was not entirely clear that the United States would be able to survive exactly in its present form in the 21st century. As the quintessential multi-ethnic society, in contemporary America the concept of the nation state is becoming more fragile than it is in homogeneous nations.55 This same theme was taken up in 2004 when the political scientist, Samuel Huntington, released his book, Who Are We?: The Challenges to America’s National Identity, in which he argued that the rise of multiculturalism and the demise of the assimilationist ethic could diminish the larger American national identity, which he believed was essential for the long-run survival of the country as a unified political entity.56 Whether Trump can live up to the high expectations that many Americans have pinned on him will depend on in large measure if he can forge some semblance of a national consensus.

And herein lies the great paradox of the alt-right. While white nationalists enthusiastically supported Trump—a candidate that repudiated identity politics and sought instead to restore national unity—they ultimately believe that their goals can only be achieved by the dissolution of the United States. Only in a Soviet-style break-up scenario could white nationalists establish the independent mono-racial states that they so desire. For this reason alone, the civic nationalism of Trump is likely to be at loggerheads with the ethno-nationalism of the alt-right at some point in the future.