The “Trad”/“Chad” Culture Quickly Is Resurging Its Ugly Head In Every Domain (For “Business Announcer”)

 For whatever reason, I got a Signals magazine in the mail today. When I was flipping through the magazine, as I have been able to buy from them in the past (as poor people with disabilities are able to buy nice things once in a while if they get the opportunity to do so), I quickly determined that I’m probably not going to buy from them for a while at the very least (and permanently at the most). What caught my eye is what should catch Signals the flak that they deserve: 

The misogynistic shirt alleges, “A fancier title and elevated status with every new generation? That’s the definition of heaven!”

If Signals wanted to insult women whom cannot have children (including women whom struggle with infertility) as well as women whom have chosen to not have children for whatever reasons, they have accomplished what they wanted to do. They seem to have picked up their cues from the likes of Matt Walsh, Andrew Tate, and Luke Rockwell—the latter of whom demonstrated exactly why many men are going to Southeast Asia to find women and girls. Both they and the three aforementioned men (one of whom can be reported for hate crimes and the other two of whom are currently under investigation for rape) are therefore demonstrating that the troubling phenomenon that is known as (among other names) “trad”, “chad”, “theobro”, and “red pill” culture is bleeding over into every domain of society, 

Notwithstanding that the “theo” is not the “Theo” whom they claim to follow and that their pills are actually sort-of Ying-and-Yang combinations of arsenic and cyanide (as arsenic can be black in color and cyanide can be white), the “trad”/“chad”/“theobro”/“red pill”, etc. people are pushing a dangerous black-and-white pill that makes them more intangibly dangerous than the pushers of excess OxyContin tangibly are. When OxyContin is prescribed correctly, and to actually alleviate pain, it can be helpful to the person whom means it for pain management. The same cannot be said (and in fact, the opposite can be said) for that pain-causing black-and-white pill that is deceitfully coated with red coloring.

Just as the pushers of OxyContin were sued for aggressive marketing and fraudulent prescribing (as the government had to get involved because of the scope of the OxyContin pushing), the “trad”/“chad”/“theobro”/black-and-white pill pushers need to be boycotted, sued, and prosecuted for hate crimes. (By the way, select “Civil Rights” and then “Hate Crimes” if you report Matt Walsh and John Lekach for targeting Julia. Unfortunately, you can select only one demographic category because of which Julia was targeted. Because Julia was targeted primarily due to her gender, I recommend that you select “Gender”. Given that the Internet spans multiple jurisdictions and John Lekach conspired with a U.S. citizen to target another U.S. citizen, a “United States v. Matt Walsh and John Lekach” would not necessarily violate the 11th Amendment. Also, Matt Walsh and John Lekach targeted Julia to target all single 20+-year-old women whom have no children; and they obviously targeted multiple American women alone in using Julia as a proxy target.

(As far as Costa Rica—as John Lekach makes publicly known that he committed his hate crime from there, and the FBI will be helped in knowing when they investigate him and Matt Walsh—Costariqueños will have to deal separately with John Lekach as a Costariqueño—as Americans have enough to deal with in putting even legal attention on attention-obsessed Matt Walsh. Besides, the 11th Amendment would prohibit the U.S. from prosecuting John Lekach as a Costariqueño, although he could be prosecuted for conspiring with a U.S. citizen to target another U.S. citizen because of the multijurisdictional nature of the Internet and X’s status as a U.S.-based company.)

Signals and its fellow black-and-white-pill pushers thus need to be put on cultural, economic and legal notices that misogynistic traditionalism should and will only lead them to isolation. At best, their misogynistic traditionalism should and will isolate them from American, Costariqueño, and other spheres of business and society. At worst, it should and will lead them to lawfully-punitive isolation in square cells on the sphere known as “Earth” (as it has led Andrew Tate and Luke Rockwell, and will hopefully lead Matt Walsh and John Lekach).

Quick Personal Update—and a Few #ThrowbackThursday Pictures of Reilly

For two much-better-looking subjects, meanwhile…

 

And one of whom is the spotlight-ambivalent-yet-attention-wanting pup with the ever-curious mind…

The Fruit Won’t Change Until the Root Does (Commentary For “Business Announcer”)

 

As you might remember if you followed the coverage of “United States v. Maxwell”, the four U.S.-politics-involved people are Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, the late senator John Glenn (D-OH), and RFK, Jr.. All four of these men and other men willingly raped young women and girls—whom are, like other women and girls, known to be the primary targets and victims of sexual abusers. That sexual abuse and other abuse are gendered crimes is all too well known, and the prevalence and severity of sexual abuse will not decrease until women and girls begin to be viewed as human beings and not (at best) subhuman or humanoid objects for men’s pleasures or (at worst) not human at all.

Conversely, violence with guns will not decrease in prevalence, or severity until guns are viewed as tools for provision (e.g., the hunting of turkeys and deer) and the defense of self and others. Especially courageously in the faces of those whom worship guns and exploit the Non-White communities to do so, a Black sheriff in Florida stated the following after the murders in Jacksonville:

As others and I have said over the years, guns are not gods that have wills of their own, let alone gods that demand sacrifice known as “gun-control laws”. In contrast, God has commanded us to not hate our fellow human beings in our hearts and to not murder. Besides, God created the human beings whom He gave the ability to create objects such as guns. Yet, as reflected in sins like sexual abuse and hate crimes, humanity has objectified humans and humanized objects. Therefore, until we acknowledge the humanity of fellow human beings and responsibly use the objects that God gave us the ability to create, we will continue to see commissions of sexual abuse, racism-based murder, and other sins that stem from objectification of humans and humanization of objects. 

The only way to change the fruit, so to speak and as it were, is to change the root. A hateful tree bears hate-born fruits such as misogyny and racism, and trees such as the American electorate continue to bear fruit such as the election of misogynists and racists to office. No investigation into human trafficking or strengthening of hate-crime laws (let alone instead of cover ups for sexually-abusive politicians or weakening of the Second Amendment) will occur. 

Change the root. Be a tree of life, not a tree of death. Bear good fruits such as acknowledgement of fellow humans’ humanity and responsible use of objects, and don’t bear poisonous fruits such as objectification of humans and humanizing of objects. Then you will get even a fruitful American government that blames the human criminal for crimes against humanity instead of blames the object that human criminals misuse.

Commentary: Not a Monarchy, And Nonetheless In Need of a Head of State Like the Following (For “Business Announcer”)

 (Author’s note: I always keep the original form of my commentary here in case what I write gets lost in editorial or SEO translation.)

If only more candidates for POTUS were like the following queen of the United Kingdom, whom left her throne to behold God on His throne almost a year ago: 

Even though I find myself glad that the United States is a constitutional federal republic, I cannot help but note that few of its heads of state (whom have also been its heads of government) have ever been this humble. I also cannot help but note that few of them have deliberately been cognizant of the fact that “public servant” means “one who serves the public”. I additionally cannot help but note that most of them have deliberately attempted to redefine “public servant” as “one whom the public serves”.

I see the “one whom the public serves” description all too happily self applied by the current POTUS (albe that he at least was legitimately—and nonetheless embarrassingly—elected. I also see it applied all too happily self applied by aspiring successors of his—including Trump (and God forbid if he is legitimately elected this time). Of course, I see it applied to the majority of self-declared Republican candidates, and many of those candidates have either worked for Trump (e.g., with Nikki Haley being his UN ambassador and Mike Pence being his VP), aspired to work for Trump (e.g., with Chris Christie having vied to be his VP), or defended Trump against just prosecution (among them being Ron DeSantis and Tim Scott). 

I have noted that the (openly-)Democratic equivalents include RFK Jr. (whom is, none too surprisingly, riding on the name of his equally-Antisemitic grandfather, uncle, and father) and, as aforementioned, the current POTUS (whom, in one of the presidential debates of the 2019-2020 election season, proudly proclaimed, “I am the Democratic Party for right now…I approved the Democratic Party platform.”

(Meanwhile, I ascertain that RFK Jr.’s uncle—along with  his father, whom eagerly worked as JFK’s attorney general—would vilely tout Biden as a “stuff of legends”. Not much has changed from Kennedy to Biden to Kennedy, after all.)

Only God, then, can help the U.S. elect a head of state that is an American equivalent of the late Queen Elizabeth of the United Kingdom, a head of government (and a head of state) that is a modern equivalent of George Washington (including—unlike Trump, Biden, and the Kennedys—a friend of Israel), and a true conservative (unlike, e.g., pseudo-conservative populists Trump and Ramaswamy). Only God, therefore, can help the U.S. elect a true public servant and not a Machiavellian whom the public serves.

PS Of the current Republican candidates, Will Hurd and Asa Hutchinson (both of whom have consistently disavowed and refuted Trumpism) are whom I would like to see God bring to the top of the GOP candidate tier. If God doesn’t bring either Will Hurd or Asa Hutchinson to be the GOP nominee, I will exercise my right to vote and vote my conscience as I did in the last two elections—I will write in John Kasich. Even if my vote doesn’t count in the eyes of fellow Americans, it does count in the eyes of God.

Commentary: Censorship, Personal Responsibility, and Freedom (For Business Announcer)

 Most of the times in which one requires censorship come on an individual basis. As Tanakh (the Old Testament) states, even a fool can be considered as wise and perceptive when he or she hold his tongue and keeps his or her lips together. Tanakh also states that only the fool denies the existence of God. 

Meanwhile, the First and Ninth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States allow (among other freedoms) the freedoms of religion, speech, and protection from Constitutional abuse of human rights (including the rights to religious and expressive freedom). Therefore, the conservative views (or at least should view) censorship as exercisable by the government on only a necessary-evil and case-by-case basis. In other words, the conservative views (or at least should view) censorship as firstly and foremostly an exercise of wisdom-born personal responsibility.

Conversely, of course, hold the leftists (whom practice the political religion of Leftism and give bad names to well-meaningly-misguided liberals). The leftists believe in at-will censorship by leftist leaders so long as the leftists leaders uphold even pseudorights—including the pseudoright for especially female-identifying men to invade female spaces (e.g., women’s locker rooms and bathrooms, and women’s sports divisions and academic tiers). By believing as they believe and imposing such beliefs on others (including their liberal counterparts, whom are often caught in the left-of-center’s middle), they abuse the Constitution under the guise of upholding the First and Ninth Amendments. 

Also conversely to the conservative uphold the libertine kind of libertarians. They believe in say-and-do-anything libertarianism, even at the expenses of themselves and others. They therefore don’t care how they destroy their own reputations in how foolishly they speak of themselves and speak to others, and they don’t mind destroying the spiritopsychological health of others in speaking foolishly. 

At least some of them end up doing the work that many conservatives paradoxically try too painstakingly to do. By not even remotely censoring themselves, let alone considering the impact of their words on others, they end up making themselves case studies in the value of “Nature’s God” and the wisdom of  “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” After all, they demonstrate the contrasts between death and life, oppression and liberty, and hedonism (the pursuit of happiness at the expense of others) and genuine happiness (the pursuit of one’s own and others’ happiness). 

Case in point: “Jewish atheist” Vanessa Zoltan denies the very God whom brought her grandparents out of the German part of the Holocaust (even though, by her own account, she also “grew up around” survivors of the Russian and Middle Eastern parts of the Holocaust). She even admits that Atheism is in fact a religion that predicates itself on denying the God Whom delivered Jews from Germany (and Russia as well as the Arab & Arabized Middle East). She goes even further by denying the Jewish roots of Christianity at best, and she self-hatingly blames Jews (including Jewish Christians) for the past seven centuries of global problems.

In doing so, and with pride in proselytizing spiritopsychological distress, she exposes the God-defying and abusive nature of Atheism about which conservatives have warned for decades. The following only touches on how she does so—and obviously without being censored by either herself and anyone else: 

“ I'm a chaplain and so I see myself as one of the things that religion has to offer. I would like to be one of the positive things that religion has on offer. I think religion has a lot of great things, and I think atheist chaplains are a necessary part of that tapestry. 

“Someone who is going to say, "It just sucks that your mom died. She isn't in a better place. It just sucks. She's just gone. You're just not gonna talk to her again." And sit with someone in that. I think I have a role and a call on this planet to be that person.”

If Vanessa Zoltan does not demonstrate the need to reserve governmental censorship for when the greater good makes it unavoidably necessary, I don’t know who does. After all, libertines like Vanessa Zoltan eschew personal responsibility and teach the wise why self censorship should in fact be valued by Constitution-upholding Americans. Besides, Constitution-perverting leftists utilize censorship to oppress others under the God-defying hedonism that Vanessa Zoltan espouses. Conservatives ought to therefore focus primarily on wisdom-born self control (which includes self censorship), and the fools will hyperfocus themselves into exemplifying the folly of Constitutional abuse (which includes using the Constitution to create pseudorights on the other hand and eschew personal responsibility on the other hand).

Originally on Reddit: Casual Sex and Spiritual Damage, With a Hypothetical Example

(“How do studies measure ‘spiritual damage’?”

(A hypothetical case study might give one an idea as to “how”.)

 In most religions and denominations/movement/sects thereof, casual sex is at least discouraged and at most condemned. Even in, e.g., Reform/Liberal/Progressive Judaism, premarital cohabitation is discussed as not ideal in a CCAR resolution. The impact that casual sex can have on one’s individual relationship with his or her professed deity (e.g., God), his or her individual and communal relationships within his or her congregation (e.g., at his or her local Reform temple or Liberal/Progressive synagogue), and his or her religious standing—both within and outside of his or her local congregation (e.g., within his or her local Reform temple and across the URJ)—can be impacted.

For example (hypothetical names, etc.), if supposedly-God-fearing Reform rabbi Pesah Minkowicz is known to be polyamorous and living with his equally-polyamorous fiancée, congregants at Qehjla Qadosz Reformi in Krakow are going to question whether they can trust him to lead the congregation and help them if they should ever deal with unfaithful spouses. If Rabbi Minkowicz understands how the congregation has a difficult time viewing him as a God-fearing and trustworthy rabbi, he might begin to understand how both his relationships with his congregation (not to mention the entire Reform community in Krakow and perhaps even across Poland) and his relationship with God might be damaged.

Rabbi Minkowicz might consider, “If my congregants view me as, quite candidly, a man-whore and a hypocrite, then the God that my ancestors may not view me in a favorable way, either. My congregants must also be wondering how I can be esteemed as a man whom helps one lead the self to God. I therefore imagine that God must view me as a rabbi whom is not shomer Torah [observant of Torah], no matter how much of it He gave at Sinai.”

Rabbi Minkowicz, based on reports that he receives on a frequent basis from trustworthy congregants, may conclude that God will eventually allow that Poland’s URJ equivalent revoke his semikha (rabbinical ordination) and permit QQR to put him under kherem (censure or excommunication) for (among other desecrations of God’s Name) playing the male harlot. If he were simply a congregant and perhaps only a layman’s capacity at most, the consequences of his actions might be less severe. Nonetheless, especially because he is a rabbi, his Torah- and God-defying behavior may well incur for him spiritual damage that might cause him to either:

1. ⁠do teszuwah (repent) and even be part of a monogamous couple with a fiancée-turned-rebicin (rabbi’s wife)

2. ⁠resign his rabbinical position and congregational membership, and even dissociate himself from Reform Judaism altogether.

(PS: Reform/Liberal/Progressive Judaism tends to be less secular in Eastern Europe, Canada, etc. than, e.g., the United States and the United Kingdom. Also, “w” in Polish is pronounced “v”; “c” as “ts” and “cz” as “ch” or “tsh”; “sz” as “sh”, and “j” as “i” or “y”. That’s why when Rabbi Minkowicz receives a letter that warns of “cherem” unless he does “teshuvah”, he needs to consult an English-speaking colleague as to what exactly a URJ representative in Warszawa meant.)

Commentary [Original Form; For Business Announcer]: AI and Technological Responsibility

 When I sat in on my first BA meeting, I found myself reminded of that which I know that I (and others) need to remind (still) others in the current AI panic. As you may have guessed, I (and others) need to remind (still) others to what you put into AI is exactly what AI gives you back (including with, per the example with the meeting attendees received, AI-generated images). I, after all, once used an AI generator for images on Twitter. 

As I recounted in the meeting, I found myself responsible for putting accurately into the AI generator what limited information I have about my paternal grandfather’s paternal grandmother. After all, I could not depend on AI to give me an estimate of what she may have looked like if I did not dependably give AI the information that I had. I needed to describe her as I knew her to have been: 

1) a frum Crypto Jew.

2) a 5’3” Sefardi-Ashkenazi daughter of a kohen whom was born in Bosse, Russia-occupied Poland, and died in Sugar Notch, Pennsylvania at the age of 51.

3) a woman whom was born on June 26, 1882 and died after a difficult life (which included rape and the loss of four children as well as a husband) on April 6, 1936. 

4) a grey-eyed brunette.  

Based on the information that I gave* and based on my knowledge of (as I explained in the meeting) what her son Anthony and grandson Jack looked like (as well as what, for example, other relatives of hers looked and look like), I chose this AI-generated image and (when I used it on my family tree and otherwise) explain at the image portrays what she may have looked like based on what process are utilized to come up with it.

Interestingly, if the AI generator did not generate a possible image of her with makeup, it could have well generated an image of her with nephritis-induced flushing (and you would have to know that she died of nephritis to speculate on that).

I would have to go back and find the original tweet thread, although – as Ancestry allows limited captions — I may have given more of a description than what is shown here. 

Conversely and for the same reasons—i.e., information input and discernment—I could not conclusively discern what my great-great-grandfather may have looked like.

Meanwhile, I hope that anyone that has an actual picture of her comes forward with it – partly, so that I can see if I correctly had an AI image generated and carefully chosen. Besides, mainly, I want to see what Great-Great-Grandma actually looked like.

*At the time of this writing, I did not have the original Twitter thread in front of me, as I generated the images with an AI Twitter bot.

Commentary [For Business Announcer] “United States v. Trump” and Lessons from “United States v. Maxwell”

 (Originally a Twitter thread. Edited slightly here.)

As Trump finally faces justice for—among other offenses—attempting to establish himself as a populist dictator and destroy conservatives in the process, I sincerely hope that “Georgia v. Trump” & “United States v. Trump” are closed-to-the-public trials. Of course, in the United States, to deliberately misrepresent one’s self as a conservative when he or she is a populist (or otherwise misrepresent one’s self politically) cannot be prosecuted. Nonetheless, Trump thankfully is finally facing justice for that offense as well. As someone else on Twitter put and as everybody else now knows (if anyone somehow didn’t know it before), one is willingly joining Trump in that offense if he or she as a supposed conservative votes for him.

As equally as I don’t want anyone holding up populist Trump as a pinnacle of conservatism, I don’t want Trump getting any attention, whether positive or negative. Any vote for Trump gives him undeserved positive attention, and opening “United States v. Trump” to the public and the media would give him negative attention. He is a narcissist, and narcissists like him thrive on especially undeserved attention which they try to turn in their victim-playing favors. 

Acutely aware of of how they can try to use undeserved attention, narcissists like him especially try to play the victim when they face prosecution. I therefore don’t want sensationalism getting that foothold for Trump and jeopardizing Georgia’s or the U.S.’ chances of securing convictions against Trump (Trump can be prosecuted twice: once at a state level, and once at a federal level. Georgia would therefore not be committing double jeopardy in any “Georgia v. Trump” trial.).

In a similarly-high-profile trial, “United States v. Maxwell”, the judge understood the need to limit the public as well as the media from being able to sit in on and cover the trial—and was probably well aware that one of Maxwell’s co-conspirators (clients) would try to jeopardize it. Of course, that client was Donald “I wish her well” Trump—and he was one of the six “Lolita Express” passengers whom Jeffrey Epstein’s and Ghislaine Maxwell’s pilot implicated.

Learn from history, then, and follow the historical pattern to see the current pattern. You will see that as a certain client would have tried to (and, with his “wish”, did try to) jeopardize the U.S.’ chances of securing a conviction against his late friend’s (Epstein’s) accomplice (Maxwell), he as a main defendant is already trying to jeopardize Georgia’s and the U.S.’ chances of securing convictions against him. 

You will then see the judges’ need to close “United States v. Trump” and “Georgia v. Trump”. You will thus conclude that any judge whom learned from “Maxwell” saw how the judge protected the United States (and especially Maxwell’s et. al.’s American cities) from letting Ghislaine Maxwell slip through the fingers of justice’s hands. You will thus hope that the judge in each “Trump” case will protect the prosecution from being unable to convict the attention-ravenous and injustice-pursuing defendant Donald John Trump.

Commentary [For “Business Announcer”]: What If the U.S. Had Given Israel the Most-Favored Nation Status Which It (Tried To Have) Bestowed On China?

 “ 1 Now the LORD said unto Abram: 'Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto the land that I will show thee. 2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and be thou a blessing. 3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and him that curseth thee will I curse; and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.' 4 So Abram went, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him; and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.” (From Genesis 12, JPS 1917)

This comes directly from the Bible¹ on which many throughout U.S. history have, at least to some extent, claimed that the foundational documents of the U.S. find their bases. Beginning with, for instance, George Washington in his letter to Sefardi Congregation Yeshuat Yisra’el (Jeshuat Israel) in Newport 

“It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my Administration, and fervent wishes for my felicity. May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy.

Go: Washington”

President Washington had a full cognizance of the fact that a nation that was one of “Nature and Nature’s God” could not and cannot prosper without acknowledging the favor that “Nature’s God” already bestowed upon Israel. Even if Washington himself was not a Christian (as what exactly his own religion was remains a matter of debate for some), he recognized what gentile pagan leaders before him recognized: i.e., that “Nature’s God” is the very God of Israel, Whom even hinges the destiny of all countries based on the destiny of Israel (as the following, among other, verses show):

“When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the children of men, He set the borders of the peoples according to the number of the children of Israel. For the portion of the LORD is His people, Jacob the lot of His inheritance.” (Deuteronomy 32:8-9)

And

“ And it shall come to pass in the end of days, that the mountain of the LORD'S house shall be established as the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many peoples shall go and say: 'Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths.' For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.” (Isaiah 2:2-3)

Professing himself to a modern-day Cyrus (despite that even the pagan Cyrus would come to recognize the God of Israel), President Harry S. Truman claimed to believe such. This means that he obviously implied professed agreement with President Washington before him, as he purported to agree with the Cyrus with whom Washington agreed: 

“ 1 Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying: 2'Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia: All the kingdoms of the earth hath the LORD, the God of heaven, given me; and He hath charged me to build Him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. 3 Whosoever there is among you of all His people--his God be with him--let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of the LORD, the God of Israel, He is the God who is in Jerusalem. 4 And whosoever is left, in any place where he sojourneth, let the men of his place help him with silver, and with gold, and with goods, and with beasts, beside the freewill-offering for the house of God which is in Jerusalem.” (From Ezra 1)

Of course, we now know that (and being a relative of victims and survivors of the Holocaust in Russia, I have mentioned several times that) Truman was no Cyrus or fellow Philosemitic POTUS of Washington. In fact, he disfavored Israel by (among committing other Antisemitic acts) lauding the main perpetrator of the Soviet-named “Doctor’s Plot” as “America’s Uncle Joe”, and doing nothing to help wrest the Temple Mount out of the hands of the Arabs (in which it still remains, and into which it first fell when the Dome of the Rock was first built). 

Conversely, per Ezra 4, Cyrus did not immediately tolerate or encourage that “the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin”—among whom were descendants of Edom and Ishmael—would even stop the Temple Mount from being back in Jewish hands. While “the adversaries…weakened the hands of the people of Judah…” in those days, they certainly did not have Cyrus’ tolerance or encouragement to do so. They also would not have had Washington’s tolerance or encouragement for— had Zionism as we know it occurred in his days—Anti-Zionist acts. 

For such a nation of “Nature and Nature’s God” as well as a Judeo-Christian nation, the United States and its presidents from Nixon (and officially on February 1, 1980 under Carter) to Clinton (with Congress’ approval) took its Antisemitism a step even further. It bestowed onto China what belongs to Israel, and thus tried to rob even from God by giving China what has belonged to Israel since ancient days: most-favored nation status. 

(Not only, then, was Carter the worst POTUS at that point: he was also the most Antisemitic. As if approving of Truman’s hypocrisy was not enough, Carter went as far as to try to steal from the people of Jesus of Nazareth what God the Father Himself gave Jesus’ people—including my mixed-blooded-Jewish self.) 

By now, one should conclude that the economic and other troubles that the United States has endured due to its relationship with China may as a direct result of it. In other words, one should begin to see that the U.S.’ defiance of God and favor of China may well be its cause for being cursed economically and otherwise over the past 53 years. He or she should also see as a miracle that Israel in the U.S. continues to do what we (yes, we) did for the U.S. in Washington’s day (which Washington as a gentile took to heart, and which I as a Jew born almost 300 years later take to heart): 

“ Build ye houses, and dwell in them, and plant gardens, and eat the fruit of them; take ye wives, and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for your sons, and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters; and multiply ye there, and be not diminished. And seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captive, and pray unto the LORD for it; for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace.” (Jeremiah 29:5-7)

In His mercy, God would fully understand if we even stopped praying for a nation that is much like the Babylon which carried us into what eventually became the first global diaspora. Nonetheless, as we did for Assyria and did for the cities to which Babylon carried us, we seek the peace (and blessing) instead of the cursing of (and judgement against) Israel’s not-so-strongest ally. If only the United States of today would reciprocate like the United States of George Washington did, and if even one president in the future would be a true American Cyrus! If only a true American Cyrus (and the U.S. Congress with him or her) would also take back from China and return to Israel what God gave Israel in the first place: most-favored nation status!

¹ Here, the JPS 1917 translation via MechonMamre.org, as with all other quotations.

Personal Commentary: Not the Best Author’s Sales Pitch, Although….

While I grant that the following is not the best selling point, I can assure you of the painfully-honest following:

If you at least consider any of my books, you will consider helping me not have to depend on what I never want another person with disabilities to need—namely, certain kinds of assistance (and some people have actually been upset that I’ve disclosed that—never mind that God afflicted me to the point of needing such at this point!). I hope to get to a point at which I can help others never depend on what I’ve had to depend.

The painfully-honest part, of course, is that since I can’t yet drive and I am seen as my disabilities, I have to partially depend on the government that hates people like me and sees us as tokenizable disabilities whom otherwise aren’t worth anything (You try even having Cerebral Palsy—let alone having it comorbid with other disabilities, and then you can get back to me if you still disagree with my assessment!). 

Through my writing, etc., I hope to get off of the very things on which I despised being. When other people recommended that I fill out certain applications, I absolutely resisted doing so. I already knew that others (including taxpayers) view me as a burden. 

Being viewed as a burden is therefore crucial as to why I want to get to a point at which I can help to assure that other people with disabilities never again have to depend on governments and taxpayers whom absolutely despise us and see as tokenizable disabilities—they certainly don’t see us as human! 

In fact, I myself have even been called “lazy pig“ and “gimp” just because of my situation. I don’t want other people with disabilities to have to be victimized simply because we are people with disabilities. For whatever reasons, God afflicted us with disabilities as is. Why should we be victimized simply because God afflicted us with disabilities? I don’t dispute God’s right to have afflicted us with disabilities (and I dare not accuse God of victimizing us), by the way. I also despise that others are victimizing us for something outside of our controls. 

Anyway, as aforementioned, when you at least consider buying one of my books, you will consider helping me get out of a position in which I do depend on people whom despise me; and you also consider helping me get other people with disabilities out of having to depend on people whom despise them. 

I have no need or want to be a multimillionaire author with excessive temporal possessions that have little to nothing to do with my writing. I have certainly a need and a want for those with disabilities to not have depend on people whom want to tokenize us at best and do worse at worst. 

Thank you for your time, understanding, and consideration of buying my books. L’Erev Shabbat Shalom (that I were able enough to make aliyah and help others make aliyah, too, by the way! I even have looked into trying to make aliyah. Obviously, it has not worked.).

Originally A Reddit Reply: “ why did you change your faith, if you did?”

 TL:DR My testimony in short 

Jesus Christ changed it for me when I was six. I was baptized Catholic and raised Episcopalian, and I therefore had some exposure to the Gospel. All I remember about that day is the Episcopal priest and my mom, talking in the parking lot of the church while I was praying in the cemetery (and I later found out that it’s a Jewish custom in some circles to pray by the graves of those whom were considered righteous). I didn’t know that I am of Jewish heritage at the time, and I certainly was not raised in a church in which salvation by faith and grace alone was taught.

My mom later told me that when I told the pastor to diet that I accepted Jesus, she asked me if I was a good girl, and I told her “It doesn’t matter. He died for me.”

Now that I’ve since learned about eternal security, salvation by faith and grace alone, and my Jewish heritage, what I was able to say on the day has become more profound ever since—especially because I (maybe) believed that one could lose salvation and just get it back (although I could’ve come to accept the concept of eternal security earlier on, and just never had a term to put that), that faith was about me believing and not God choosing me first, and that I was chosen to be regrafted (not just grafted) in to the Olive Tree (Both of my parents are of Jewish heritage; and my father is an Ashkenazi Levite, although both of my parents have unfortunately chosen to not identify with their Jewish heritage—partly because my father comes from Crypto-Jewish families, and most of my mother’s ancestors were gentiles. The most-recent-fully-Jewish ancestors of my mother were, as far as I know, born in the 1700s and 1800s.).

Imagine this supposedly-Polish-and-Irish Catholic-turned-Episcopalian-turned-Presbyterian Christian finding out that she’s a Jewish believer in Jesus and getting kicked out of a Catholic college classroom for confronting the professor’s Antisemitism—that happened!

PS I now attend a non-denominational church and observe the holy days per the Biblical calendar—which the exception of holy days such as Chanukah, as that’s almost impossible to observe in any other way but the Rabbinic calendar. Sometimes, I will observe the holy day per one calendar and acknowledge it on the other per the other. As far as I know, none of my recent ancestors came from Karaite families, anyway.

Commentary: Scripture, Double Names, and Implications vs. Mistranslations, Lies, Failures To Critically Think

 (Full answer to a Reddit question)

The Scriptures themselves literally say that the Scriptures were breathed by God and/or given at Sinai. The apparent contradictions, etc. are not the fault of God, but of translators and/or people whom refuse to critically think. For example, we know that Yeter haYishma’eli (Jether the Ishmaelite) converted and became known as Yitra haYisra’eli (Jitra the Israelite). It is not explicitly stated, although it is implied in 2 Samuel 17:25 and 1 Chronicles 2:17. It is also possible that Yeter-Yitra had an Israelite ancestor, even though his immediate paternal ancestor was an Ishmaelite. 

Another example is Yitro-Re’u’el. By the way, the custom of double names is still done in Jewish culture today. In the Yiddish-speaking communities alone, there are (with women as examples this time) women named Ruchla Leya (Rachel Leah), Yehudis Chanah (Judith Ann), and Osnas Sore (Asenath Sarah). This is why in Jewish records, with hypothetical names, you might find Rukhle Leja bas Arj u’Mirjam Tarnopolsky listed as “Rukhle bas Arj” (Rachel the daughter of Ari) or “Rukhle bas Mirjam” (This would usually be in the context of a synagogue record and in asking for prayers for the person in question), or “Rukhle/Leja Tarnopolska” with her father and mother (if they had second names) listed as “Arj/Jehuda Tarnopolsky” and “Mirjam/Mara”. For her brother Jankiel Josel, you may find the parents listed as “Jehuda Tarnopolsky” and “Mara” and his name variously as “Jankiel ben Jehuda”, “Josel ben Mara”, or any of the other variations.

As with Yeter-Yitra and Yitro-Re’u’el, you have to understand that Rukhle is the same person as Leya, Arj the same as Jehuda, Mirjam as Mara, and Jankiel as Josel. This doesn’t even cover that their matzevot (gravestones) would most likely read: 

‎1) רחל בת ר׳ ארי (Rachel daughter of R’ Ari—often, the mother’s name is not included). 

‎2) אפרים יוסף בן ר׳ ארי יהודה ומרים מרע (Efrayim Josef son of R’ Ari Judah and Miriam Mara)—perhaps because he is a genealogist and wanted his descendants to be sure of whose matzevah (gravestone) they were locating, he made sure that his matzevah was made prior to his death and with both of his parents’ names included. He may have also wanted to honor his mother, to whom he was close—as he was her only son, and she was widowed early on in her marriage. 

Not everything is explicitly or even at all recorded in the Scriptures, just as not everything is recorded in records outside of the Scriptures. The belief that Scripture was not literally given by God in every way is unfortunately an old and a heretical belief, which is why God unequivocally reiterated the complete God-given nature of Scripture through (among others) Sha’ul Paulus (whom even had a secular name as his second name, as those such as David Stern—of blessed memory—pointed out: he retained “Sha’ul” and was called “Paulus”).

PS and personal example: My paternal grandfather’s grandfather used “Julian”, “Julius”, “Julias”, and “Ludwik” for “Yehudah” or “Leib”, and his paternal grandmother used “Alexandria Alice” for “Asenat Sarah” or “Osnes Sore”. Neither used Hebrew or Yiddish names openly. Two of their sons (ironically the shandes or shames) did: 

1) Jankie (for Felix or Efrayim—and that does not even cover how many times he tried to fool official record keepers. His obituary gave it away when he was listed as “John F.” and his father as “Felix”— unless his mother had an affair with her in-law brother, which I don’t think that she did; as he listed in all other records that “Julius” or “Ludwik” was his father). When I first heard it as apparently a simple and supposed nickname for “John”, I recorded it as “Johnkie”. His secular name was “John Felix”, and my granduncle Tony (of blessed memory) probably did not realize that the name was a short form of “Jankiel”.

2) Susi, which I wrote as “Suzy”. It would’ve been unexplained if I did not find the JewishGen Given Names Database. Their mother had roots in some shtetlach (majority-Jewish towns) in Ukraine (which explains the use of a Ukrainish Yidish name), and “Susi” is a Ukrainish Yidish diminutive of “Yosef”). His name was Joseph Paschal, so he lied to multiple recordkeepers and said that his mother had recycled the secular middle name of “Peter”, as a brother already had that middle name. He also had a cousin named Paschal Joseph Danilowicz (of blessed memory).  We are Ashkenazi and Sefardi, and we used both naming customs, though we never recycled secular middle names when it concerned living people unless we followed Sefardi custom and named for living relatives—and usually not siblings (I know of one case, and that’s on another side).

With that in mind, does that remove that Great-Granduncles Jankie and Susi were named as such with their secular names being “John Felix” and “Joseph Paschal”? If it does, then we would have to assume that Great-Great-Grandma was either lying or unintentionally inconsistent. 

My understanding is that even though she did not have much of a formal education, if one at all, she was intelligent and shrewd. She also sadly was not a believer and tried to cause my great-grandmother, whom she considered to be an apostate or meshumadah, to have “a mental breakdown”. She was known as “a tough cookie” and “holy terror”. Her misguided Anti-Messianic zeal plus Schizophrenia and her being called “Mary” in her son’s wedding notice for some reason made her last years Hell on Earth for my great-grandmother.

If Great-Great-Grandma was consistent, then, how much more was, is, and will be the Perfect, Righteous, Truthful, and Faithful God of Israel? Just because people are known by different names and/or—like the shandes Jankie and Susi—lie does not make the original source either maliciously or unintentionally errant, inconsistent, or dubious. 

PPS Why Jankie and Susi were shandes is not relevant to the discussion.

#ThursdayThoughts: Dreams, Worries, And a Torn Leg Muscle

 

Commentary: “Chad” & “Trad” Are In Fact Pagan, Not Christian or Jewish Otherwise

 In fact, a lot of “chad” and “trad” influences are quite pagan and therefore wholly antithetical to Christianity and its Jewish roots. In fact, many proudly-“chad” and “trad” self-professed Christians—whether they are actually or nominally Christian—would despise women such as the following: 

1) Eve herself, as she was created to be Adam’s “helper”—not his concubine or his mere servant. 

2) Rebekah—a camelherder whom, because Isaac would not honor the word that “the older shall serve the younger”, had to help secure the blessing that was promised to Jacob.

3) Rachel and Leah—with Rachel being a shepherdess, and both working in the fields. In fact, in order to obtain a fulfillment of her marital right, Leah had to speak up for herself and have her son Reuben give his aunt Rachel mandrakes. 

4) Tamar the Canaanite—she did not let her in-law father get away with causing her to violate her levirate duties. 

5) Miriam—she spoke up for her brother Moses to Pharaoh’s daughter when she yet a child.

6) Zipporah—when Moses almost died because he did not undergo brit milah (circumcision), she performed his brit milah and convicted him of his sin by calling him “a husband of blood”.

7) Zelofechad’s daughters

8) Deborah the judge

9) Hannah—she dared to speak up to Eli the kohen about her predicament when he caught her praying

10) Abigail the eventual wife of David—whose first husband was committing emotional and mental adultery by abusing her. 

11) Huldah the prophetess

12) Na’omi

12) Ruth—after all, she pursued her kinsman redeemer

13) The Canaanite woman whom asked Jesus to heal her daughter

14) Mary of Bethany—whom anointed Jesus’ feet! 

15) Priscilla the tentmaker

16) Lydia 

17) Phoebe 

Other women—e.g., Pu’ah and Shifrah—are coming to mind as I write this list.

If the “chads” and “trads” had their way, none of the women listed would have been anything but sex slaves and mere servants whom cooked, cleaned, and provided continuation of their fathers’ and husbands’ lines. Absolutely none of the women would’ve been able to advocate for themselves and others, hold men in their lives accountable when they needed to be held accountable, and serve their communities within the olive tree that is the Body of Christ—into whom gentiles as branches are grafted, and away from whom Jews and gentiles alike need to keep misogyny of every kind. 

Originally On Facebook: Obviously Cute Unlike “Momma”/Auntie Nicole”, Etc.

Reilly’s “Momma”/Camille’s “Auntie Nicole warned that Reilly looks cute when she’s begging for treats, and Camille also looks cute (unlike “Momma”/Camille’s “Auntie Nicole” when she smiles). Yehovah willing, everyone will do better with the cards this secular year and end of this Hebrew year. 

PS Only Yehovah knows if Reilly will get an extra month to be eight. If Reilly gets the extra month to be eight, Camille gets an extra month to be seven and have the benefit of a fixed birthday—6-7 Aviv (Nisan). “Momma”/ “Auntie Nicole” still doesn’t know if either were born after sunset or before it—all she knows is that Reilly was born right before Rosh HaShanah 5774, and Camille right after Rosh HaShanah and before Pesach 5775.

Either way, to compensate for Reilly’s jealousy and attention taking, Yehovah gave Camille a fixed birthday and the benefit of an extra month to be younger when a leap month occurs.

Originally An Answer on Quora: To the Christian Whom Is Considering Mainstream (Non-Messianic) Judaism

 If you’re a Christian, you already practice what was recognized as a form of Judaism by even the Pharisees (albe begrudgingly) until 90 CE/AD at Yavne—whether you are regrafted into the olive tree (a Jew whom believes in Jesus) or grafted into the olive tree (a gentile whom believes in Jesus). You could therefore denominationally practice Messianic Judaism (The ethnic distinction of “Messianic Jewish” belongs to Ethnically-Jewish Christians—whether Patrilineal, Matrilineal, or mixed-blooded Jews—alone.).

If you’re thinking about converting to mainstream (Non-Messianic) Rabbinic, Karaite, or Samaritan Judaism, you should consider that you would more than likely be asked to deny (not just remain faithless to Jesus; also outright deny) Jesus by the rabbi or ḥakham whom would oversee your conversion. Keep in mind that if you deny Christ, He will deny you. If you want to take that risk, though, that’s up to you—just remember that you are risking what the Scriptures warn about denying Christ and therefore trampling the Son of God underfoot. As the Scriptures say, “If we deny Christ, He will deny us. If we are faithless, He will remain faithful, for He cannot deny himself.”

“Christmas, Shmistmas…Bleh; Lights Suck” - Reilly

 

“As I said, Christmas Shmistmas…”

“I attempted to avoided the camera here.”

“Rich Girls”, (Trigger Warning) Rape, and To Whom the Blame Belongs

 After being (allegedly and very likely) raped by a producer, Jaime Gleicher of “Rich Girls” is finally able to confront her (likely) rapist in court. Jaime Gleicher’s case is a reminder of the following: the only wrong place, time, etc. for any rape victim is when her or his victimizer puts her or him there. Even though she was legally an adult, she was a 19-year-old child (not yet 20) and victimized at the hands of an adult man whom had a particularly-inordinate amount of power over her.

“She shouldn’t have even pursued a career in reality TV, much less entertainment otherwise”? He shouldn’t have victimized her, let alone exploited her career ambitions to sexually abuse her—and she has the right to pursue whatever career she wants without being sexually and/or otherwise abused, no matter what one thinks of her professional aspirations.

“She shouldn’t have gone into his room”? He shouldn’t have raped her, regardless of where they were.

“She should have left with her friends”? Her “friends” should not have allowed him to hold her against her will and drug her.

“She shouldn’t have taken off her shirt”? He shouldn’t have blackmailed her into doing it. 

“She should have or shouldn’t have…” whatever else? He shouldn’t have victimized her, and you shouldn’t be blaming the victim.

By the way, no amount of money that she gets from her lawsuit will ever give her back what her (alleged) victimizer took from her—as made her poor in many ways.

Commentary: An Example of When Especially the Wicked Who Deliberately Misuses God’s Name Does Not Prosper

 When I read that Carrie Underwood talked about supporting gay marriage in direct defiance of what Jesus said, I more than knew for certain that she is not a righteous person. I wondered why someone like her would prosper so much. Now I see that, assuming that what is being said about her is true, she is not prospering.

 The wicked who mislead others (e.g., say that Jesus taught us to love others in supporting gay marriage when Jesus was very clear about marriage) will ultimately not prosper (despite what their “gay friendly” churches teach). Jesus taught that marriage is between a man and a woman, and Carrie Underwood has long used her platform to blaspheme Jesus in His own Name in this matter and other matters. For instance, her net worth is anywhere from $140,000,000 to $150,000,000 according to quite a few sources that I’ve read. What kind of person who is truly following Jesus uses His Name for her or his gain and hoards massive amounts of wealth instead of gives of her or his wealth to the poor and stores her or his own treasures in Heaven?

I know that, meanwhile, we are supposed to pray for even the wicked and not delight in even the difficulties which the wicked have brought upon themselves. Nonetheless, I assume that quite a few of us have to feel assured that God keeps His promises and ultimately does not let the wicked—especially the ones whom mislead others in the very Name of Jesus—prosper.