Protocols
Protocols
A group of Jews endeavors towards total domination of the blogosphere.


Saturday, December 14, 2002  

NYT running ten-day series on Ten Commandments. First Installment.
The key question for this series is, of course, how they define the commandments and, consequently, how they define the "interaction" with the commandment.
The author, Chris Hedges, doesn't get off to a great start when he offers this rather simplistic notion for what the First Commandment represents and what a struggle with it means:

But at the same time, they realized that the only way they could sustain their faith was by rejecting the belief that the death of their only daughter was God's will.

In doing so, they felt they had to reject the first and most fundamental of the Ten Commandments. The commandment says that God brought the Israelites out of the land of Egypt and that believers should worship no other god. The commandment is interpreted to mean that what happens in the world is ordained by God, that God is a force that can intervene in human history on behalf of the righteous. It posits the possibility of a moral universe, one where the wicked are punished and the good rewarded. This, after the death of Jennifer, filled the Asches with outrage.
Nice and tidy, but too simplistic to build a theology around...
And what does the rabbi think of this?
"The First Commandment is not a commandment but a theological statement," he said, "and it is a theological statement I reject. How can I, as a post-Holocaust Jew, accept that suffering of innocents is willed by God? If I acknowledge a God that gives commands then I am asked to accept the unspeakable, to accept that God wills evil."
But who said God can't will evil? And then, of course, there's the standard Job citation:
It was the Book of Job, rather than the commandments or the Psalms, that gave the Asches comfort, not because the words offered an explanation or easing of pain, but because in Job they found a figure who also suffered inexplicably.
"Job was good; this is the essential theme of the book, and Job suffered," the rabbi said. "To be spiritual is to accept that some things do not have answers."
But Job's suffering does have an answer! It's the result of a Trading Places-like bet between God and the Satan. This is what I never understood about Job as conciliation: shouldn't it achieve the opposite effect? Shouldn't it be easier to reject God when the reason for your suffering is that you're a pawn in a heavenly chess game? What is the great moral that people get out of the book? I've never understood. This should be a lot worse than God willing evil.
Anyway, the concluding theological statement of this article is positively disastrous:
"We had to break the routine," Mrs. Asch said. "We could not do the same things we did before. Family gatherings were so painful, especially where there were other young girls. Breaking those routines probably did a disservice to our son. For years we were absent from gatherings that had other children. I almost wished I was Catholic, just for the comfort of believing in an afterlife."
Troubling in too many ways to count. And of course, there's an ingenious quote from the rabbi here, too:
"Love always entails suffering," Rabbi Tattelbaum interjected, "because love has to end. Death teaches you to cherish what you have."
Ah, so death is to teach you what you have. Assumedly, because you didn't know that before, i.e. that the Asches didn't understand the gift of their daughter so they had it taken away.
Tragic.

posted by Steven I. Weiss | 6:28 PM |
 

One of the NYTMag's "Greatest Ideas of 2002": The Crying Baby Translator. Umm...actually, it was a great idea a full decade ago (see: Episode 3-24), and the NYT gives Matt Groening zero credit.

posted by Steven I. Weiss | 6:19 PM |
 

Trent Lott Doesn't Resign...it's currently the top clip here, but C-SPAN doesn't provide a permalink...anti-Semite bastards.
Anyway, when the big news is that one didn't resign, that can't be seen as a good indicator of one's place in the political velt. One reporter asked the most important question, essentially: You can't stake any claim to being a non-segregationist forty years ago, but you do make that claim now -- when did you change? Lott ducked the question. To anyone who saw this, the real answer -- that he hasn't had a (complete?) change of heart -- is obvious.
Another interesting thing was when the standard screaming crazy guy interrupted the press conference -- this time, it was a representative of the National Action Network, whose website is still disabled. I couldn't quite make out what he had to say, but, if I'm Trent Lott, and I'm accused of racism, and a guy from the National Action Network comes to my press conference and starts shouting, I'd make some kind of serious effort to address his concerns...I think.
Meantime, the response to Lott's fourth apology receives scant coverage on the blogosphere...in fact, many haven't posted at all over the Holy Sabbath, perhaps in deference to the Elders...we'll likely never know. But, seriously, has Lott's apology just worn them out after a hard week?

posted by Steven I. Weiss | 6:11 PM |
 

Re: Pinky's question below: Do Jews have a functioning process for dealing with wayward rabbis? Of course they do: Richard Joel!

posted by Steven I. Weiss | 5:29 PM |
 

Arthur Miller in the New Yorker, presents a piece of fiction with a poignant comedic climax that rivals Portnoy's "Monkey":

She jingled the heavy bracelets and chains around her neck, and neighed—horse laughter, irritating his sensitive hearing.

Ah, joy.
Surely, Shmiel has some whatnot to add?
As a side point, it must say something about the Jewish psyche that all of our good male writers are so overwhelmingly perverted while the Gentiles and the Jewish women are much less depraved writers. Perhaps this has something to do with male sexuality being necessarily overt: having the penis as a universal symbol of one's identity can't help one to see things through a non-sexual prism. Just a thought.

posted by Steven I. Weiss | 5:22 PM |


Friday, December 13, 2002  

Well, Kraut’s below referenced piece and the events of the last few days have proved that what Elders lack in tact and political correctness they compensate for in prophetic ability. Or is it rather that Elders control the future and that is how they are able to see it?

With that revelation:
Will Cardinal Law’s resignation be followed by others?
Will the Vatican change its process for dealing with wayward priests?


For those who do not yet see tomorrow:
Do Jews have a functioning process for dealing with wayward rabbis?
Why don’t Jews have alter boys?

posted by Pinchas | 11:08 AM |


Thursday, December 12, 2002  

Cardinal Law offers his resignation...thoughts? (link via Instapundit)
UPDATE: The picture in the above-linked article has protestors holding a sign for "STTOP!"...my immediate thought was, "Hey, that's a Russian protest!"...but then I realized that it was just an interesting acronym.
FURTHER: It's always nice to review the pieces that make Kraut great.

posted by Steven I. Weiss | 3:47 PM |
 

I won't so much respond to Sam's argument as continue what I had intended to add about cross-burning. There is a real distinction between what a swastika and a burning cross mean on opposite sides of the Atlantic. Use a swastika in Germany, and you're supporting a regime that murdered 14 million innocents in cold blood on or near that land...use a swastika in America, and you're just a heroin-addled moronic punk. Burn a cross in the US, and you're igniting a symbol that, since the early days of Reconstruction, has meant that a lynching/beating was coming...burn a cross in Europe, and you're probably just a nut or trying to make a light show. Essentially, Germany has been unable to get beyond its past of Hitlerism, and has had to legislatively allow for that. The US wants to get past slavery/segregation/racism(in essentially that historical order), and is having trouble doing that...several major legislative efforts have tried to get through that: emancipation, desegregation, hate-crimes laws, and now this Virginia statute. This is, interestingly, the only situation in which America is trying to legislate against its past -- the US is commonly cited as the most ahistoric society in the world, but on racism, repeated instances of legislation and judicial proceedings have been used to work against that history. Germany -- and France, too, by the way -- just cannot get past its history of Hitlerism...US efforts of affirmative action are trying to get past that, but the symbol of the burning cross -- the one symbol in all of American history that without any discussion means "I'm coming to get you," is evidence that we aren't past it yet, and one hopes -- but skeptically wonders if -- we ever can be.
Again, I recommend Dahlia Lithwick's piece.

posted by Steven I. Weiss | 2:39 PM |
 

Yehuda Kraut, the fourth elder of the Holy Conspiracy, has arrived. Yehuda is a known alchemist who uses his potions to make everyday Jewish schoolkids into true geniuses who are capable of shouldering the responsibility of our super-race of the future. He has also been known to study Bible using the JPS translation, but no one knows whether or not he reads the emendations.

Opening Comment:

What is the most-victimized group in recorded human history?
I'm actually not sure; all of recorded human history is a really long time. But I would be happy to identify the group that has been most-victimized over the past 15 months. Without question, the most-persecuted bunch has been the honest-to-goodness Islamist airplane hijackers. I am not referring, of course, to the murderous thugs who view America's domestic flights as their personal chariots in a gruesome game of Demolition Derby. Those guys deserve the heat they have taken. I am referring, however, to the honest, tax-paying Islamist hijackers who sincerely wish to direct flights from New York to, say, Libya. Since 9/11, these guys haven't been able to peacefully hijack a single civilian flight anywhere in the world. The following dramatization of a failed peaceful hijacking poignantly illustrates their plight:

PEACEFUL HIJACKER: Pleez, everyone. Remain in your seated. We do not wish to harm you. We wish to direct this flight to Libya. Pleez...Pleez...

VIOLENT PASSENGER #1: They're going to kill us!! They're going to crash us into the White House!! We've got to stop them!!

ANGRY MOB OF PASSENGERS: Yeah! They're gonna kill us!! Let's get 'em!!

PEACEFUL HIJACKER: No, no. Pleez. We do not wish to crash anything. Please to remain seated. We wish to go to Libya. Mrs. Jones, pleeze to sit down. Mrs. Jones..Pleez...

MRS JONES: Eat sh*t, Ahmed!!!...[SOUND OF DESPERATE STRUGGLE]

Scenes like this have occurred repeatedly all over the world over the past year-and-a-half. Let us be clear as to what this phenomenon represents: unadulterated bigotry, as putrid, perhaps, as any prejudice in our country's shameful history of oppression of minorities. These innocent, peace-loving hijackers have been robbed of their very livelihood, and with the economy the way it is, probably of their American Dream as well. For the love of all that is sacred, we must emancipate these unfortunates. It's not as if they smoke in public.

What would Jesus drive?

What is the best pickup line to use on an engaged lady?

Name your favorite Eminem track, neo-con, and Special Olympic Sport.

Welcome, Kraut!

posted by Steven I. Weiss | 2:18 PM |
 

Have not yet read Lithwick's "compelling" article - I await shiur to do that. However, I feel the need to clarify my last post in light of Steve's response: While it may be illegal to brandish a loaded weapon, it is not illegal to carry one (as far as I know - although, here I caution that my experience with loaded [even unloaded] weapons is quite minimal, and I have [shocker] been known to be wrong in the past). I find that even a loaded weapon, with safety in place being carried on the hip of a NYC cop is intimidating. Not a big fan of guns, personally. So allow me to modify my earlier point - I find it ironic that the good justice (who, I might add, is not the best of jurists) would see cross burning - psychologically and symbolically scary, but physically harmless - as intimidating to the point of illegality, while also seeing carrying a firearm - phsyically dangerous and equally symbolically frightening - as an inviolate right.
I'm sure Steve will soon find the chink in the logical armor of this argument, as well, but I felt, as an Elder of Zion, that it was my responsibility to try. After all, Moses said - try, try again.

posted by Sam | 11:47 AM |
 

Dearest Samuel, please read Dahlia Lithwick's compelling breakdown of the case before passing judgement. It might be worth noting that in fact, brandishing a loaded weapon as a threat is, in fact, a criminal act. As to wearing swastikas -- touche, perhaps, I'm not sure.

posted by Steven I. Weiss | 10:56 AM |
 

Re: High court takes up Virginia cross-burning case
With all due respect to Justice Thomas' legal prowess, I can't say I understand how he sees a burning cross as more a symbol of fear and intimidation than a swastika, say. I find it ironic that the good justice would uphold a ban on cross burning - with utter disregard for the first amendment - while simultaneously upholding the right of lunatic klansmen to bear arms and brandish them about - in slavish devotion to the Second Amendment. So the message we're sending is that a burning cross is more dangerous than a loaded semiautomatic pistol? Does semiotic intimidation trump phsyical intimidation? Apparently, in the world of Clarence Thomas it does.
For that matter, I wonder if a pubic hair on a can of coke would be as frightening as a burning cross. (I know, I know, ad hominem attacks are cheap and wrong, but they're soooooo much fun, especially if they come at the expense of reactionary justices.)
This sounds like a job for the Elders. I wonder if one day we can control the Supreme Court with the same ease that we dominate the media and Hollywood.
Here we come to save the day!

posted by Sam | 10:40 AM |


Wednesday, December 11, 2002  

Pinchas Shapiro joins the ranks of the elders. He is currently employed as a non-profit...oh, wait, I mean at a non-profit, where he develops conspiracy theories and transports Nazi gold. He may or may not have received a BA from Yeshiva University.
Questions for Pinchas:

Opening Comment:
It is a distinct honor and true pleasure to be a part of yet another endeavor of Steven I. Weiss and Utopia Inc.

What is the greatest benefit to you of the Zionist conspiracy?
Definitely, the food.

What is the one reason why you will never vote for a Republican?
Elephants are big, and I am small.

Give some advice to the non-married about how they might get over that hump.
No public advice about the hump and getting over or under it.

Name your favorite Met, Talmudic tractate, and Christian saying.
Mr. Met, I enjoy all of the original Protocols, "Hail Mary" – It is a great football play, Elder Jason would agree.

Welcome, Pinchas!

posted by Steven I. Weiss | 1:47 PM |


Tuesday, December 10, 2002  

Jew vs. Jew reaches the zenith of inanity as a Jewish bookstore owner engages in a counter-protest in front of his own store responding to a group of ninnies protesting his store because he stopped sponsoring a local radio station in protest of what he perceived was their anti-Israel bias. Samuel Freedman, eat your heart out.

posted by Steven I. Weiss | 9:48 PM |
 

Sodomy defined over at Slate. Interesting interpretation at the conclusion:

Bonus Explainer: The word "sodomy" itself is something of a misnomer, since the Bible contains no mention of homosexual conduct among the residents of Sodom. That corrupt city was not destroyed because of acts of buggery but rather because its citizens were inhospitable to God's angelic messengers. Sodom was not linguistically linked with anal sex until the Middle Ages.
It's conceivable, but then you'd have to come up with an alternate reading of Genesis 19:4-5:
They had not yet lain down, when the townspeople, the men of Sodom, young and old -- all the people to the last man -- gathered about the house. And they shouted to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may be intimate with them."
It's conceivable that this passage doesn't deal with homosexuality, and I'm just being dense.

posted by Steven I. Weiss | 9:26 PM |
 

Instapundit cites the seizure of an unflagged ship carrying ordnance Southeast of Yemen, stopped by the Spanish Navy. A reader writes him:

They thought they could get away with it.
They didn't count on the Spanish navy.
Noo-oo-body expects the Spanish Inquisition.
Indeed, no one does...perhaps it's about time they did. Possibly interesting idea: if the 9/11 attacks were based on Hollywood movies, then could we say that this latest move was based on "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade"?

posted by Steven I. Weiss | 9:00 PM |
 

Sam Singer is our newest Elder here at Protocols. He is emphatically welcomed. Currently he is pursuing a graduate degree at Yeshiva University's Bernard Revel School of Judaic Studies.
A few questions for our good man, to introduce him:

Opening Comment: I want to change the world and make it a better place for you and me, and so, if you choose me as Miss America, I'll be the best there ever was!!!!

What is your earliest childhood memory?
Escaping from the Nazis. There was a lot of yelling in German, and I was scared. I held my Mommy's hand, and she said something in Yiddish, but since I don't speak Yiddish, I don't know what it was... Can anyone help me with this?

How is it that Jews came to control the media?
Practice, practice...

Do you think Protocols will be a success?
Darlings, if the Jews control the media (c.f. Question 2, above), Protocols have already been a success. The world is in our clenched fist! Hail Richard Joel, king of the Jews!

What is your favorite color, sandwich, and Kabbalistic text?
Pink, hard salami (mmm....homer), and the Treatise of the left Emanation by Rabbi Isaac ben Jacob Hakohen (apparently, if you believe this stuff, when Samael and Lilith copulate, people have bad hair days...weird shite, no?)

Closing Statement?
In conclusion, I feel that our number 1 priority should be to get Bloomberg to abandon this inane plan to ban smoking in bars. I mean what's next? Banning drinking in bars? He's a puritan, but I don't need to be....
THIS is a job for the elders....hang on a few while I change into my all black clothing, don my fake hook nose and construct a few facial warts: HERE I COME TO SAVE THE DAY!!!!!

Welcome, Samuel!

posted by Steven I. Weiss | 8:54 PM |
 

World domination is a little ambitious, but I'm happy to start with America.

posted by Sam | 7:44 PM |


Sunday, December 08, 2002  

Protocols...coming soon!
Check out Iatribe in the meantime...

posted by Steven I. Weiss | 3:47 PM |
endorsements
previous endorsements
founding elder
elders
guest bloggers
former elders
former guest bloggers
Support Protocols
posts on big stories
book discussions
jewspapers
heebsites
heeblogs
jews who blog
past protocols
counters