A Virgin's Comment On "18 Things About Losing Your Virginity That No One Ever Told You"

I'm quite sure that some of these people were zoned out or even deliberately flouting their parents, sex-ed teachers, clergypersons, etc.; and that some were even ignoring the culture around them (I'm not talking about rape victims, by the way—they did nothing to bring rape upon themselves, no matter what anyone tells them. "No" means "No".).

I'm a 25-year-old virgin, and I know quite a few of those things—save it for someone that you care about, "sex doesn't mean love", "how vulnerable [one feels]", one can lose his or her virginity homosexually (If one didn't know that, he or she must've believed "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is."), the use of too much...eh...product, "It's not like the movies."—all of those are common sense.

I've heard the heartbreak stories; I saw some right in front of me (e.g., A classmate at my community college clearly allowed him- or her-self to be used by a player; and he or she was obviously heartbroken when he or she was talking about what happened.); I hear about them all the time in the news, etc..

I've heard about and heard, and seen the same kinds of stories with non virgins who repeated their past mistakes or made similar ones. I'm even the product of quite a few, including the ones of which all Jews are products (Ya'akov's quadigamy), all b'nei-Yehudah are products (since Yehudah's only sons to have descendants were Peretz and Zerach), and all of John Allan's descendants (including the sons of Gabrielle Patterson Allan) are products (Do the research; there was no love lost between the philandering widower and his second wife.).

Listen to the "prudes", those "who need to get laid"/"who need to get some", etc.—we (including us virgins who've somehow been able to be wise enough to save ourselves) are trying to spare you heartbreak—and many of us have had enough heartbreak that didn't include giving ourselves at the wrong time and place, and/or to the wrong people.

At Least Knowing About At Least Something, Etc.

In other words:

1. "You can't do everything about everything, but you can do something about something." 
2. Doing something about something means knowing about an issue, listening to the right message in regards to it, and implementing that message. 
3. If, e.g., you spread a message, keep the message in its original context(s) and attack the problem (e.g., that someone is not getting that Fmr. Sec. Clinton risked national security) without attacking the person (e.g., To respond "No toss up for me! Hillary is an arrogant shrew!" is entirely inappropriate. There are better ways to rebuke, "The question for the rest of us is which side we find most disagreeable [re Clinton's Emailgate]. Right now it's a tossup.")

By the way, please help me do something by voting in regards to changing Baltimore City, its vicinity, and the whole of the Baltimore-Washington (Baltonnapolis) Area for the better. Besides, the Baltonnapolis Area is a very-affective and -effective area in terms of how the United States is.

Also, I did figure out how to redeem Matthew west's awful gentilization and robbery from Hillel (the robbery which will, of course, turn off many Jews and even gentiles from considering Yeshua. After all, "Thou shalt not steal." is a mitzvah for a reason.):

"If not me, then who?

If just me, not others

And you?

Right now, it's time for us to do something.

If not now, then when..."

Another Pause, Really

There's exactly what I was saying again. Good for Michael Douglas, by the way. Not that Michael Douglas is perfect mind you; though he at least "will donate his prize money to projects that promote inclusiveness in the Jewish community" and "'has chosen to invest the prize award into initiatives which will resonate with Jews like himself—those who come from parents of mixed heritage who wish to be part of the Jewish community'".

Meanwhile, that his father didn't turn out so well is a shanda fur the goyim, though nothing atypical for the Daniloviches. The ones of us who are atypical for the Daniloviches, I notice, are, well, atypical. Also, it's amazing that Michael Douglas turned out not too badly at all—and as I've said in the past, I had no idea that I am even related to Michael Douglas.

Still, the Daniloviches have left a lot behind on our trail and in our tracks—and I mean that all of our sides have—not just the Dunilavicy side; not just the Chausy side; not just the Krasne nad Krasnopol side; and not just the New York, Pennsylvania, and California sides—all of our sides.

One example of whom we left—and she left a note to prove it, although she didn't intent to leave a note to prove anything re her murder.

Another example of whom we left—and that Lana Wood won't speak up about what we did is a shanda fur die goyim

We've also sadly left many of our own in our tracks, too.

Just A Pause...

I was looking at a photo which was posted in a Jewish group for those of us who have roots in Poland. Then I came across the picture...the picture that was captioned that he attended his first bar- and bat-mitzvah ceremony, and that he enjoyed attending....and I knew that, that could've been him.

The bar-mitzvah. Not that he isn't or wouldn't be; it's just the family is so assimilated. The rest of the caption read that his mother was asking herself where the time has gone. I wonder why she didn't say something like, "The funny thing is that, that could've been him." Maybe she was thinking it behind the computer screen, though I doubt it. 

Then when I went to type her name into the search bar again, I came across another cousin with the same first name. The pictures were there, too. The kids look Jewish! 

They can't escape who they are, even if they don't know now—the younger kids couldn't know now, anyway (Could they? I doubt it. They wouldn't be told at least at their age—and they're triplets—and I don't think that their mother—who I should clarify is an in-law cousin—would let them use iPads, etc. at their age.). The older kids might not know (although the older one maybe attended the seder shel b'nai-mitzvah because he knows and wanted to see his heritage firsthand), and the adults are either ignorant and/or naive or just in plain denial.

The younger kids look Jewish because they look like their dad (I see his paternal grandmother, his kids' and my great-grandmother, in him.). They may also look Jewish because of their mom (I suspect that she may be Jewish. If she is Jewish, what a shanda that she's of a younger generation and feels like she has to hide it—after all, one of the younger generations is coming out with it. "Choose ye this day..." and "relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise elsewhere...." Why be afraid to stand with our people?)

The older kid can't escape that he's Jewish either way (As I recall, his great-great-granddad was also Andrew Rusnak—and he is certainly a descendant of him either way; that much I know. If my memory is correct, then we are third cousins and right in the same generation.). In any case, you can trace our lines right back to the Anusi Gyorgy "György Kvetkovits" Rusznák HaLevi of Kassa, Ausztria Magyarország (and he and his bashert Erzesbet Molnarová became Anusuim and moved to Aranyida once Szlovakia became a part of Ausztria. Keep in mind that the 1700s-1900s were one of the biggest time periods in which Ashkenazi Jews became Anusim. Even in supposedly-religiously-free Czech Austria, Fritz Kohn became Frederick Kerry, 63 years after the Hungarian Revolution and after Hungary was co-opted by Austria.). 

The adults like me can either be naive or in denial (and I was still a kid when I found out that we are Jewish; since, Biblically speaking, the bar-mitzvah and bat-mitzvah age is 20 years. I was 18 years, six months, and two days old when I posted a copy of Great-Great-Granddad Czarnecki's death certificate on Ancestry.com—I was almost one-and-a-half years short of being a bat-mitzvah, and I was able to confirm that I'm Jewish by seeking, enlisting, and finding)—and I know that those who were b'nai mitzvah before me could've known and been honest about it.

After all, the non-Photoshopped pictures don't lie. The draw toward our heritage does not lie. As Samuel told Saul according to one of the recently-read haftarot, "[G-d] is not a man, that He should repent." 

The records also do not lie, at least as far as the records that had honest information givers and honest transcribers. "Acquitted [to marry]", for example, is a damning thing to read on a marriage dispensation record, especially for apparently such good Slovakian and Czechoslovakian Catholics (which we weren't. We were Jews in Hungary and Austria Hungary.). Also, again, the non-Photoshopped pictures don't lie—just as the younger kids look like their dad's family, those Rusznaks of Kassa looked like the apparently-Czechoslovakian Andrew Rusnak (and as I've said in the past, that's when the "Relatives asked for money" lid got blown off the story—and I figured out that help was needed by Rusznaks instead of money by Foskos).

Those reminders and pauses will, by the way, somehow show up for the rest of my life or my time here in this age. I at least can say, "I am not ashamed of the Gospel," and "[T]here is nothing secret that will not be revealed". After all, I was led and I chose to say, "I'm a Jew. I'm a bat Anusim. They chose to persecute me in the Name of my Messiah, but they could not take my heritage away from me." I wonder how many of my family can and will be able to say that instead of offer up even excuses such as "That was then; this is now" and "Jewishness is religious, not ethnic" (which is the real meaning behind "Judaism is a religion, not a [race, nationality, etc.]"—as if the Judeans were never an ethnic or even ethnoreligious group). 

They, like me, can either choose to be like Esther and Paul (and Paul especially, for that he was Jewish was obvious and not obscurable as it was for Esther) or choose to be like forefathers such as Andrew Rusnak (and despite that rebringing up a matter will separate close friends, that the inquity will be felt down to the third and fourth generations remains).

Closing Thoughts For the Night (Shabbat v'Laila Shushan Purim)

• The more that I look into a certain line, the more that I wish that I could tell Granduncle Tony, "No; we look like Great-Granddad's grandma!" (Pop-Pop did not look a Trudnak, unless the Trudnaks are and/or look[ed] like Daniloviches.).
• Many a time I see relatives in other relatives (including per the thought above), it hurts.
• How the heck do you deal with being an illegit (Yes, it's derogatory; though that's what I am, and I thought the connection was wrong.)? How do you also deal with knowing that others are (forgive the derogatory shorthand again) illegits and you're not exactly allowed to tell them? As I've stated before, I'm an illegitimate (really, delegitimized) descendant of John Allan. I even thought that it was a joke or wrong connection: 

Now this I never heard about. Wouldn't they have known if John Allan had an out-of-wedlock child? I had always heard that he was some sort-of great-something granduncle. Though Wikipedia does say, "In October 1830, John Allan married his second wife, Louisa Patterson.[30] The marriage, and bitter quarrels with Poe over the children born to Allan out of affairs, led to the foster father finally disowning Poe.[31] " Was Charles one of those children?

• How do you (and I know that I'm hashing up a dead horse again) deal with knowing that you have prominent family who have wrecked the world (e.g., John Allan and certain Daniloviches)? 

By the way, I know that I used mixed metaphors: "hashing up an old matter" and "beating a dead horse". I must also say that I've also hung on PolishForums.com too much, given that (unfortunately) Poles tend to eat horses (and hashing up horses is treif; so the metaphor works). Also, as I said on Twitter, I know that my knowledge of "Not my circus; not my monkeys" means that I've also hung on PolishForums.com too much and (with all due respect) interacted with assimilated relatives quite a bit—and have few new answers in the process.

"Stand With Israel, Not Netanyahu"

Even I, a staunch Zionist who was already mad enough at Netanyahu and his Haredi Judaism which he attempts to disguise as Yahadut Chilonit, took a few steps back and thought:

If Netanyahu was largely passive while Arab citizens were being assaulted, he led the demonization campaign against the 47,000 African refugees and asylum seekers who entered Israel without permits. Despite reducing the number of refugees entering Israel to practically zero, thanks to the Sinai fence, he continues to lock up thousands of these desperate people – who, like our own Jewish ancestors, sought to escape persecution and poverty. Netanyahu’s policies flout Jewish values, and have been overturned multiple times by the High Court as immoral and unjustified. But they play well to his xenophobic base. 

Good points and reminders. In fact, I wager that some of the Sudanese and other refugees may even be Falasha and Lemba Jews who are making aliyah in what many would call an illegal way—and if any "illegal" olim are among the Sudanese refugees, the Government of Israel has no right to deny those olim ("eleh Kushim!") their taglit. Also, think about this: what if some illegal immigrants from Mexico, Guatemala, etc. are Anusim who'd make aliyah if Netanyahu and his yadidim let them? After all, they're not considered Yehudim al pi HaHoq Shivut. They otherwise have to be under the auspices of nasty people such as Dr. Michael Freund. (Just like Netanyahu, Dr. Freund can fool people. That's even part of why I save most of my e-mails in my backup folders—that is, so I do not ever lose the proof of when I run into mitchazim like Dr. Freund. That's why I still have the link to the 2012 conversation.).

 Likud-led fear and hatemongering hardly stops with our non-Jewish minorities. Progressives, civil rights activists, leftists, the judiciary and anyone who criticizes the occupation have all been accused of being enemies of the state. So much for Jewish solidarity or democratic discourse. 

Indeed. I've experienced this myself. I even have a Facebook friend who called Senator Diane Feinstein (with whom I myelf hardly ever agree) a "witch" for standing against Netanyahu, and I've seen others harp on the fact that Senator Feinstein comes from a Jewish Catholic family (which I did not know until they harped on her for it. As I learned, the Feinsteins and the Rosenburgs were and are Russian Byzantine Catholics.).

From a family of Roman Catholic Anusim and b'nei Anusim, I know that feeling ("You're not Jewish!"; "Your family betrayed their people!"; "They're meshumadim!"; "They're bogadim!"; "Oh; no wonder your Hebrew's not good: your family didn't tell you that they're Jewish!")

Perhaps, by the way, maybe the Anusi and "meshumad" minds are among the ones which are quickest to pick up on trouble. Our ancestors knew when trouble was coming and/or already came, and at least two of us (Senator Feinstein and me, though I suspect that there are more who) knew that Netanyahu and the Haredim were trouble (By the way, I'll have some kavod for Taylor Swift if she goes to Israel and dedicates her famous song to Netanyahu.).

Anyway:

This week’s Netanyahu drumbeat claims that the Iranian threat trumps all traditional diplomatic considerations. But those who, like me, believe that Iran is an existential threat to Israel, and fear that the agreement currently being negotiated will be too forgiving and trusting of Iran need to acknowledge that Netanyahu has blown it. 

His anti-Obama tirades, his support for West Bank settlements over all other considerations, his efforts to undermine the Palestinian Authority, his expropriation of 988 acres of Palestinian land at the end of the Gaza War not only wasted the new diplomatic opportunities he promised toward the war’s end, but alienated and antagonized the very European leaders who, along with U.S. President Barack Obama, are the partners necessary to stop Iran’s nuclear program. 

Excellent reminder and point as well. For being such a Zionist, Netanyahu isn't taking the higher road. He also is not trusting יהוה. For example, bulldozing the houses of innocent Bedouins does not help—and deliberately failing to distinguish between the innocent and the guilty is a chillul יהוה.

Bulldozing the houses of terrorists and their accomplices is fine. Destroying terrorists and their accomplices is fine. Stereotyping all Arabs as terrorists and bulldozing their houses is not fine.

As for (and back to the point about) taking the higher road, to stoop down to the level of an enemy or even lower is a chillul יהוה (cf. Tehillim 25:21-22 and Mishlei 26:4). The applicable mitzvot, after all, say to love your neighbor as yourself (not be like him or her in doing evil), treat the stranger well (not do as he or she has done to you), and let יהוה avenge you. Netanyahu is doing the exact opposite when he has the IDF go beyond proactive counterproliferation, preemption, and deterrence.

By the way, counterproliferation, preemption, and deterrence are obviously mitzvot and acts of kiddush יהוה.

Netanyahu plays the statesman abroad, but back home he is known for his paranoia, his self-aggrandizement, and his lashing out against the courts, the universities and the media. Netanyahu aspires to be Israel’s Churchill, but in nurturing a nation divided against itself he has become our Nixon. 

I and others who follow news from and about 'Eretz Yisra'el keep trying to say that, though nobody believes us. Hopefully, Director Futterman (despite that he's looking at the situation from a leftist perspective) can affect you to get that through your head.

"[A]ll Men Are Created Equal[ly]"? Or Are They Created Equitably?

By the way, if you want an example of a group who think that all should be equal:

The haredi press raised further concerns that many of the immigrants would refuse to undergo a conversion process or that the procedure would be conducted by institutions and courts which do not meet the strict standard, and that as a result their children will create mixed marriages later on.

Note "strict standard" and a dread of "mixed marriages". Also consider that Thomas Jefferson considered Blacks, e.g., to be "as incapable as children". So much for "equally":

1

:  in an equal or uniform manner :  evenly equally

>

2

:  to an equal degree equally

 by young and old>
Try "equitably" instead:

1
:  having or exhibiting equity :  dealing fairly and equally with all concernedequitable

 settlement of the dispute>
2
:  existing or valid in equity as distinguished from law equitable defense>
After all, the Haredim would have to treat Non-Haredi Jews as fellow Jews who were created b'tzelem Elohim v'm'Yisra'el; and Thomas Jefferson would have had to treat Blacks as fellow humans who were created b'tzelem Elohim. Since they wanted equality, though, they could make only those who fit their standards to be considered as their compatriots.