#Jewish higher consciousness

[israelseen1]

The Sacks Conversation: Israel: Message from the Daughter of Rabbi Jonathan Sacks

https://israelseen.com/the-sacks-conversation-israel-message-from-the-daughter-of-rabbi-jonathan-sacks/

[earlymodernlesbian]

had to come out as jewish in my nonfiction children's lit class because of the timing of rosh hashana so now i'm thinking i might as well lean into it and do all my class projects on like jewish kidlit

[non-conventionnel]

Facebook Page

[ponchigg]

It irritates me so much when people are suddenly all on board with being religious intolerant when it comes to Shifting because ‘It was made up on TikTok’ when that’s not even truth. Practices similar to shifting have been around for centuries in various diverse religions.

Where are some of them:

Shamanism :: In many indigenous cultures, shamans enter altered states of consciousness, often through rituals involving drumming, chanting, or the use of entheogens (psychoactive substances). In these altered states, shamans believe they can travel to different realms or realities to gain wisdom, heal, or communicate with spirits.

Buddhism :: Certain advanced meditation practices in Buddhism, particularly within Tibetan Vajrayana Buddhism, involve visualizing detailed and elaborate divine realms and deities. Practitioners believe that through these visualizations, they can shift their consciousness to these divine states, leading to big spiritual insights and enlightenment.

Hinduism :: The practice of Yoga, particularly the more esoteric branches such as Kundalini and Raja Yoga, includes techniques that aim to transcend reality. Advanced practitioners might experience states of consciousness that feel like entering different realms or realities. Additionally, the concept of "Maya" in Hindu philosophy describes the world as an illusion, and their spiritual practice aims to see through this illusion to the ultimate reality, Brahman.

Mysticism :: Many mystical traditions across religions, including Sufism (Islamic mysticism), Christian mysticism, and Jewish Kabbalah, involve practices that aim to transcend the ordinary world and experience a direct, personal connection with the divine. These experiences can be described as shifting to a higher, more profound reality.

And these are just some I found within minutes of research, there’s many more. I don’t expect any tolerance from more ‘conservative’ people, but to see youtubers/influencers who built their whole public image around being an ‘ally’ and ‘against religious intolerance’ and then backtracking completely because suddenly it’s okay since ‘it’s only making fun of teenagers’ without bothering to do any proper research shows very well that their support is purely performative.

Pick a side, you can’t say you’re against religious intolerance and then think it’s okay to make fun of centuries-old practices just because a younger audience is popularizing it on social media.

[gynandromorph]

It's okay not to answer, I know it's broad territory, but I really respect you as an artist and writer. How do you handle people misinterpreting or missing elements of your work, especially when they may still enjoy it and get something out of it? As an artist I'm struggling lately with knowing my work will always inherently be read differently from what I intended as a matter of the human experience, as well as me being autistic complicating my ability to communicate.

An addition to that last ask. I don't know if it's clear what I'm asking so I'll give some examples. A 50 year old man and a 21 year old woman will get different things from a movie due to their lived experiences. As a gentile reader I might miss jewish narrative themes in a piece of work. That doesn't mean it's bad for us to have experienced it, but as an author I find it frustrating when something is missed or misinterpreted, and I don't know how not to be a control freak about it.

i feel you, i have ocpd and being misinterpreted when i agonized and stressed about how to present my wording makes me want to light myself on fire and it's something i'm working on. writers are supposed to expect and account for different perspectives ahead of time, so it always sort of shocks me when i hear interpretations i wouldn't have thought about at all. i know logically i can't predict all outcomes, but it's still surprising anyway!!! but i generally feel a lot of distress about being misinterpreted because i'm afraid it'll label me as A Bad Person, so i think that's where the experience diverges. maybe investigating why you need to or want to control the way your work is interpreted would help as a starting point? i think having a larger audience helps, too... it means more people will misinterpret your work, but it also means you're more likely to have at least One Guy who interprets it just right and makes fireworks go off in your brain, but there's no way to control how big your audience is!

anyway, the ways to control how your work is interpreted, to the degree that you can:

you can make it simpler. the more parts a story has added to its complexity, the more it's going to be misinterpreted.

you can make the intended message more blatant. you can have a character say exactly what you want the audience to think or hear, or something very close to it. don't want a detail missed? make it bigger.

you can reprioritize parts of the story. basically think of a group of interpretations you want the audience to have if you can, and then put them in order of importance. then the story has a hierarchy to lean on wrt artistic decisions.

you can give the story multiple meanings. more targets to hit. if they're mutually exclusive, i find this works better... i like making my stories ambiguous with conflicting interpretations a lot. yeah, people are going to interpret the story wrong, because it was made in a way that will guarantee it is interpreted wrong in some way.

you can layer the meaning so that less literate audience members will at least get SOME of what you intended. basically, close to the previous strategy, but like a hybrid of that and "make it simpler" imo because you're constructing multiple interpretations that are all supposed to lead to one conclusion (like a persuasive essay or something), but can act as an adequate conclusion on their own.

all of these options have obvious qualitative losses. if you have anything in particular that is repeatedly misinterpreted or missed, it's a good idea to think about Why you're making those choices. consciously committing to a higher-risk artistic choice will help you feel more in control of what happens to it once it's done. the way your art is interpreted isn't totally out of your control, you are making decisions that add to or mitigate the risk of misinterpretations, and you can bring those choices to a more conscious awareness to see them and appreciate them. sometimes it'll feel like a begrudging compromise, but it'll still be Your choice ultimately.

on an emotional level... hopefully this makes sense. there's always going to be the piss-on-the-poor scenario and sometimes i just remind myself that some people are not as literate as me, but it's great we were still able to connect through a work that was probably difficult for them!!! it was a privilege to get to grow up with a good education, access to art and technology, strangers who want to look at what i made, and there are times where i take this for granted, and my expectations of readers are actually kind of unreasonable!!! some people are younger than me and say stupid things like i did, but they aren't able to understand things like me yet, and it's important for them to learn by figuring it out on their own!!! i was and will always be That Guy to other artists and other writers, and i want to give other people the same grace as i get. some people have wildly different life experiences compared to mine, and these experiences can be much more nuanced than i could ever imagine, but it's a little gift that they made my world larger by sharing theirs through my art!!! it's terrifying and embarrassing knowing that i don't know much of anything, even about something i have total control over, but the consequences of that aren't always negative. and possibly the saddest but most common way i deal with this is nothing more than accepting that no one is ever going to understand me on the level that i want to be understood. sometimes my frustration has come from a place of miserable alienation, where the need to feel Seen can be quite desperate. i've made art explicitly about Me, and i've made art deliberately hostile towards its audience, art that's said they don't get it and they never will, but they still bothered to try. i made a game that said no one will win here and they still played it with me, and i can appreciate that. in many cases, they actually know more about me than i know about them. but more importantly, it isn't my audience's job to take care of that emotional need -- in fact, as much as art is made out to be a mode of pure self-expression, i don't think they can. it's a reality that i don't like, but i accept it. art made to benefit others is a one-way mirror: you make them feel seen, but they should never see you, because if they see you, the mirror isn't working.

[talonabraxas]

“It is manifest… that every soul and spirit hath a certain continuity with the spirit of the universe, so that it must be understood to exist and to be included not only there where it liveth and feeleth, but it is also by its essence and substance diffused throughout immensity… The power of each soul is itself somehow present afar in the universe… Naught is mixed, yet is there some presence. Anything we take in the universe, because it has in itself that which is All in All, includes in its own way the entire soul of the world, which is entirely in any part of it.” — Giordano Bruno

Cosmic Merkabah Talon Abraxas

The Merkabah originates from several ancient Hebrew texts, including the Tanakh, where it appears as "Merkavah." The term appears in other religions, as well, such as Hinduism and Kemetism, the religion of ancient Egyptians.

In Hebrew, Merkaba, or Merkabah, means "throne-chariot” and comes from early Jewish mysticism.

The Merkaba meaning reveals itself when you break up the term into its three root words: mer-ka-bah. "Mer" stands for "light", "ka" translates to "spirit", and "bah" means "body." When you put the three words together, you get "light-spirit-body," which refers to your body as a vehicle of light, propelling your soul to a state of higher consciousness.

[atheostic]

I'm interested to hear how educated you are on the differences between judaism and christianity, especially how their value systems, i saw your conversation with rose and it was nice to see someone questioning theism without being condescending and acting like theists are bad people

Hey, sorry for taking a while to respond.

I'll readily admit that I'm way more familiar with how atheist Jews view the differences between the two religions than I am with how theist Jews view it. I consciously seek out atheist Jews' interpretations and views of Judaism and Judaism vs, Christianity partly because, as an atheist myself, I want to hear what other atheists have to say. The other part is that I find that atheists in general don’t have hangups about calling out the bad stuff in their past culture/religion so you get to actually hear about the problems (which every religion without exception has – just like they all have good parts too).

I know that Christianity started out as a denomination of Judaism (there were heated discussions in the early days of Christianity over whether one had to convert to Judaism before being considered a Christian). I know that if Bible!Jesus is an accurate portrayal of a real historical figure he didn’t intend to create a new religion but rather to reform Judaism. That being said, I also know that, much like how language dialects eventually become distinct enough to be separate languages, it has been a VERY long time since Christianity was part of Judaism. It has some aspects that are similar, but for the most part it’s now its own thing (kind of like how all Great Apes share similarities but are clearly different species).

I know (thanks to Karyn Glasser) that the main similarity between Christianity and Judaism is that the Old Testament and the Torah are mostly the same text when compared side by side, with the biggest difference being how some stuff is organized. That being said, in theology you’re supposed to treat each religion’s text as unique even if they’re literally word-for-word identical, which is why I always explicitly refer to the two texts as being separate.

I know that, while part of their holy texts are virtually identical, how Christianity vs Judaism approaches their holy texts is very very different. Traditionally in Judaism, the Torah is meant to be a living text, which means that things being open to interpretation was a feature, not a bug. As far as ancient Israelites were concerned, if there was no new meaning to be found in the text then the text was dead and useless. Christianity, on the other hand, likes to view their holy text as a lot more cemented (“my way or the highway” if you will)... though it doesn’t keep people from interpreting it six ways from Sunday anyway. The inflexibility in Christianity is likely part of why violence and animosity between denominations seems to be much higher than in Judaism.

I also know that how most Jews view God is very different from how most Christians view God; Jews aren’t typically afraid to be like “Yeah, that thing he did was an asshole move, God’s a dick sometimes” whereas most Christians consider God to be all-good and perfect and above reproach, so to say he did something bad breaks their brain. I remember seeing this post once where a Jewish person was basically like “whether good or bad, since everything happens according to God’s will I hold him responsible for what happens in my life”. Jews also don’t typically have a hangup about arguing with god (which makes for a much healthier dynamic in my opinion).

From my personal experience, it seems that Jews tend to be a lot more relaxed and have a more playful attitude toward religion that white North American* Christians. Jews, for example, will get into fun friendly debates over whether it’d be kosher for a vampire to drink pig’s blood if it was to avoid drinking from a human (if memory serves about that post someone asked their rabbi and they said yes) or whether it’d be okay for a dragon to light the shammash using their breath. North American Christians, on the other hand, tend to be way more serious when it comes to how they approach theology in general.

That being said, of course there are exceptions in both cases, as no group is monolithic and people are hella complicated. From what I’ve read and from what I’ve heard from Jews on Tumblr, Orthodox Jews tend to be more Christian-y in how they approach the Torah in that compared to other denominations they tend to take things a lot more literally. I remember reading an article once about how some bigwig in the Canadian Orthodox Jewish community had suggested not taking Genesis too literally and it was a big scandal.

And because no group is monolithic, it’s worth emphacizing that what I know about Jewish culture is primarily from a North American viewpoint (and mostly American at that), and therefore what I know isn’t applicable to all Jews as a whole (I recently got s book for the school library I work at all about how Passover is celebrated differently around the world, so it’d be silly for me to think that how Jews approach Judaism would be monolithic).

And all this is, of course, when talking about theist Jews. Because since Judaism is an ethnoreligion it’s possible to be both an atheist and a Jew at the same time. And how atheist Jews approach Judaism as a religion varies wildly (not surprising, since getting atheists of any kind to agree on anything beyond the nonbelief in any deities is like herding cats). Some, like the previously-mentioned Karyn Glasser, sometimes go to worship services as a way to connect with their culture and ancestors. One of my colleagues sometimes goes to the synagogue if there’s a party going on because “who doesn’t love a good party?”. Others, like an Israeli  caller to the Atheist Experience a while ago, think that atheist Jews should be referred to by a different word than theist Jews because their perspective regarding the religion is so different (his suggestion was for atheist Jews to be known as “Hebrews”). Others don’t care about the religion aspect at all but still celebrate the holidays as a tie to their culture. Yet others aren’t tied to their culture or religion at all. 

* No topic is taboo about being made fun of in Brazilian culture, so how Brazilian Christians approach religion is very different and much closer to how I’ve seen Jews approach religion.

[badolmen]

Nazis and Holocaust Exceptionalism

Re: this very good post but I didn’t want to derail it so I made my own post instead.

I’m trying to find a way to articulate this more fluently but at its bare bones I guess what I’m thinking is that, especially in USAmerican culture, the Holocaust and Nazis are exceptional examples of genocide. As in, they’re uniquely horrible* and the most horrible. And that makes comparisons to the Holocaust and Nazis an exercise in dehumanization instead of an exercise of political and social analysis.

(*per the original post ALL genocides are uniquely horrible and tragic)

That exceptionalism - that the Nazis were THE worst people in history, the genocide of the Jewish people was THE worst genocide to ever occur - dehumanizes both the Nazis and the Jews. And that’s a dangerous precedent to set.

For one, treating Nazis (and by extension Neo-Nazis today) as these inhuman, incomprehensible monsters distances them from the human reality that made them. It erases the centuries of antisemitism and xenophobia in Europe, the economic factors leveraged to enhance and inflame those deep rooted biases. It hides how white nationalists today take advantage of socially isolated and inherently biased young men. Which makes it easy to think you could never do something so horrible, so monstrous - you’re not a monster like them, after all. When in reality you too are a person with biases and social frustrations that can be leveraged by others for personal gain.

Additionally, this exceptionalism dehumanizes the Jewish people, in a very different but still awful way. They’re given this air of mysticism, rarity and supernatural strength. How amazing that they survived at all - how high the pedestal for a people who were nearly destroyed but endured in spite of it all. I recognize a similar pattern in the treatment of indigenous peoples in the US - their morality is inherently superior because of the horrors they survived, their religion is ‘more pure’ for having survived, but they’re also held to a much higher standard than others because of this. They’re both inhumanly perfect and destined to be torn down from that pedestal at the first sign of humanity.

I’m sure there’s better articulated essays on the above phenomenon but for the sake of this argument I think the above is sufficient. Because in USAmerican culture the Holocaust and Nazis are exceptional - not just unique. Which makes comparisons between genocides reduce the humanity of all parties involved by drawing a line from Nazis to modern actors, from the Jewish people of the Holocaust to modern victims.

It’s not that comparison should be discouraged - there are facets of similarity worth exploring in disenfranchisement, dehumanization, and how social and political anxieties are warped to indefensible atrocities in the name of those fears. And it’s only natural for USAmericans to first think of the Holocaust given the strong association between genocide as a concept and the Holocaust in the public mind - but the space the Holocaust occupies in the public consciousness is so deeply dehumanized and mysticized that those comparisons are used as shortcuts to ‘x is a monster acting in its evil nature and y is an innocent lamb incapable of acting for itself’ instead of as constructive analysis of how historic biases and modern fears are used by political forces to achieve economic and social goals, however heinous those may be.

*I’m not a historian or philosopher, nor do I profess any professional study of the topics here. I study trees and bugs for a living. I’m happy to engage in productive conversation regarding these topics. I will block you if you’re an asshole though.

[shamandrummer]

The Shaman and the Mystic

There is a great deal of controversy in scholarly circles about the differences between the mystic path and the shamanic path. While there is no precise answer, in this post I will compare the similarities and differences. Both paths place great emphasis on personal experience derived from introspection and self-observation. Though they differ significantly in their approach, practitioners of both traditions seek accord with nature through consciousness-altering techniques. We do not know how old each of them is, but evidence suggests that the shamanic path is older. Shamanism has been around for tens of thousands of years and has played a functional role in human survival and cultural evolution.

Shamanism is based on the principle that innate wisdom and guidance can be accessed through the inner senses in ecstatic trance induced by shamanic practices such as repetitive drumming. Ecstatic trance is an academic term referring to those inwardly focused experiences of cosmic oneness, that mystical connection to a living, intelligent universe that exists within each of us. Practitioners enter altered states of consciousness in order to perceive and interact with the inner world of the self. The act of entering an ecstatic trance state is called the soul flight or shamanic journey. A shaman is a practitioner who has developed the mastery of accessing altered states of consciousness to gain wisdom, healing techniques, and other vital information that can benefit the community. The shaman traverses the inner planes in order to mediate between the needs of the spirit world and those of the material world.

One major difference between the two is that mystics are often officially aligned with a religion while shamans are not. This does not mean that shamans do not practice a religion because many do. There are in fact Christian shamans, Jewish shamans and Buddhist shamans, but the religions often do not endorse their shamanic practices. In many cases they condemn it so these shamans keep their shamanic practices secret or discreet. However, every religion has a mystic tradition even though it is often an outlier that is a marginally tolerated aspect of the religion.

The roots of mysticism can be traced back to shamanic practices from the earliest tribal communities. Unlike shamans, however, mystics are practitioners of doctrinally acceptable forms of religious ecstasy (e.g., prayer, meditation, fasting) aimed at union with the divine. Mystics are dedicated to awakening, self-realization and enlightenment, and they are less concerned with mediating the needs of their communities. On the other hand, a realized master will often intuitively know how to help their community through their connection with nature and the divine. Both shamans and mystics are known for their ability to travel vast distances in an instant, to find lost articles and people, to commune with nature spirits. When shamans develop their powers through long apprenticeships and training, they can do much the same things as their mystic counterparts.

Mystics are known for both deep learning of esoteric subjects, and a deep spiritual connection with God (or whatever term you would like to use for a higher power). They are famous for their solitary retreats, their long sojourns in the wilderness fasting, cultivating wisdom, seeking to expand their awareness without any distractions. Mystics are also known for their ability to acquire and nurture ongoing relationships with wild animals in nature, to speak with them and listen to them.

Shamans are known for many of these practices as well. Of course, not all shamans are mystics. The reality is that some shamans are just on an ego trip to make money and manipulate others. Some are very powerful and effective but have no ethics or principles at all. Other shamans are great healers and spiritual leaders in their communities, but have no interest in self-realization or enlightenment.    

Similarly, not all mystics are shamans. Many mystics regard shamanic practices as just more ego pursuits to be avoided. They are inclined to believe that the physical world is a deceptive illusion. For the mystic, reality is the evolution of consciousness in the alchemy of time. Reality shifts and changes like the flow of the collective unconscious, and is in constant motion creating new patterns of experience. Reality, in its illusion, is the dream from which we all awaken.

And yet there is a lot of overlap between master shamans and truly realized mystics. It could well be that the most accomplished shamans can't help but encounter the mystic path somewhere in the timeline of their learning and development? And it could be that some mystics can't help but develop shamanic powers and despite the illusory nature of the physical realm, participate in world activities just to experience it. After all, we are here on the earth to experience, learn and grow.

Shamanism and mysticism are ultimately about consciousness, about learning through attunement to nature, which is a reflection of the divine, creative power of the universe. They provide a myriad of responses to the spiritual quest of self-discovery. Both paths emphasize establishing a personal relationship with the powers of creation. By practicing these ways of being, we awaken our soul calling and our connection to nature. They are ways that embed us in the living web of life, yielding greater awareness and perspective. These practices are easily integrated into contemporary life and provide a means of navigating the turbulent times in which we live.

[israelseen1]

https://israelseen.com/jonathan-sacks-between-truth-and-peace-ki-tissa/

[berniesrevolution]

CATALYST JOURNAL

There has been a shift in American discourse around Israel and Palestine triggered by recent events, against a background of questioning of Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians. Since the strategic arguments for the alliance with Israel have diminished in importance, the supposed “shared values” that sustain it are called into question by Israel’s discriminatory treatment of the Palestinians.

The limits of permissible debate on Israel are changing. In terms of the media, what has occurred over the last couple of months must be seen in two contexts. The first is a swing away from an idyllic depiction of Israel and toward a more realistic depiction of the Palestinians. Such swings have occurred repeatedly in the past, at moments when it was impossible to completely ignore the brutal nature of Israel’s actions. The old media saying is that “when it bleeds, it leads,” and at times the blood shed by Israel was so copious that it could not be ignored. This happened during the invasion of Lebanon and the siege of Beirut in 1982. It happened again during Israel’s fierce repression of the first intifada, starting in 1987. And it happened after Israel’s assaults on Gaza in 2008–9, 2012, and 2014. What happened in Beirut in 1982 couldn’t be hidden because of seventeen thousand Palestinian and Lebanese people being murdered and entire buildings being brought down by Israeli bombs. Some things in the public consciousness changed as a result, but eventually the media coverage went on as before. A leading NBC News broadcaster, John Chancellor, said during the siege of Beirut, “This is not the Israel we knew.” Each time, there was a swing away from an almost entirely false depiction of Israel, and the media was obliged to describe accurately the atrocities taking place before its reporters’ eyes and the lenses of their cameras. But soon afterward, news reporting returned to the status quo, in part because of the Israel lobby’s extremely effective backlash against the media that had told the truth. The late historian Amy Kaplan was the first to fully explain this dynamic in her brilliant book Our American Israel.

The events of May 2021 are different, however. The reason this coverage has had such impact is linked to the second context, which is that this media shift takes place against a background of questioning fundamental issues about Zionism, Israel, and the Palestinians: the settler-colonial nature of the state, inequality, racial discrimination, and injustice. Because this escalation, and media coverage of it, started in Sheikh Jarrah — because it started with Jerusalem, and then went on to escalate over Gaza — those aspects of the situation came out in unprecedented ways. In other words, there was finally attention to the fundamentally discriminatory nature of Israeli law and of the Israeli system of control over the Palestinians, inside Israel and in the occupied territories, and to the profound injustices that result. The fact that Palestinians cannot legally recover property on one side of a line, and Jewish organizations can claim property on the other, as was shown in Sheikh Jarrah, is a fundamental injustice that can’t be unlearned once you’ve learned it. The fact that a synagogue is sacrosanct but tear gas can be fired into the holiest Muslim site in Palestine, the al-Aqsa Mosque, during Ramadan, during prayers — things are now understood that cannot be forgotten.

May does appear different, and it has to do with those aspects. Israel’s kill rate in Gaza in 2014 was far higher than in 2021: they murdered over 2,200 people, of whom the overwhelming majority were civilians: women, children, old people, the disabled. This time, at least 250 people were killed, with the same high proportion of women, children, and the elderly. So the difference was not based on the barbarity of what Israel did in Gaza, or the attack on the al-Aqsa Mosque, or the ongoing theft of Palestinian property in and of themselves, but on the fact that these things are beginning to be understood in terms of basic inequality and the fundamental settler-colonial nature of Zionism, and of the Israeli state, and of its flaws. That makes this distinct.

The scathing reports by B’Tselem and Human Rights Watch, which made it more acceptable to consider Israel to be practicing a form of apartheid, provide the background. The average consumers of the news were not fully aware of these reports, if they knew of them at all, but during coverage of the carnage of May, the reports clearly showed fundamental discrimination: Jews in one place, Arabs in another place.

There are two other important background aspects to this conjunction. One is the rise of Bernie Sanders, and the second is Benjamin Netanyahu’s alienation of the Democratic Party. Within the Bernie Sanders coalition, people half or a third of the age of Sanders are playing a key role. But it’s not just their youth — the United States has been shaken by upheavals over racial discrimination, and over indigenous rights, to a lesser extent, from Standing Rock on, that, in juxtaposition with Palestine, cause people to make connections between these similar forms of injustice.

The Netanyahu factor has had an impact on at least two important constituencies. The first is the Democratic Party. Netanyahu made a strategic decision to link Israel’s future to the Republican Party and its base — the evangelicals, the white supremacists, the uber-hawks. He decided that those were Israel’s core supporters in the United States and acted on that belief. That offended Democrats, and they’ll never forgive him, because he’s done enormous harm: for example, he almost torpedoed Barack Obama’s Iran deal.

The second constituency is the American Jewish community, which is liberal overall. The leadership of the institutions that claim to represent it is quite conservative, but the community as a whole, including its intellectual elite, is liberal, or sees itself as liberal. The overwhelming majority are Reform, Conservative, or unaffiliated, and about 10 percent are Orthodox. Most of the community, even some of the Modern Orthodox, are offended by Netanyahu’s alliance with the fundamentalist religious establishment in Israel and the political parties that represent it. Why? Because they are systematically treated as second-class citizens in Israel; their marriages, their conversions, their very Judaism, are not recognized in Israel by the Orthodox rabbinate. And Netanyahu is politically wedded to the Orthodox parties that take their marching orders from the rabbis. He’s at odds with an overwhelming majority of the American Jewish community in terms of his actions, his policies, and his attitudes. On the surface, it hasn’t affected the community’s bigger institutions, but the fact that groups like J Street, Jewish Voice for Peace, and IfNotNow are growing is evidence that students, as well as much of the upper-middle class, intellectual elite, and professionals, are affected.

There are more strategic issues to consider. In order to determine whether the media occasionally using words like “apartheid,” “segregation,” and “inequality” to describe Israel indicates deeper forces at work or an elite split over the strategic significance of Israel as part of a gradual adjustment to a new reality where Israel is not as important to the United States, the media itself is not the place to look. The media has already shifted back to its customary position. There are already fewer critical media analyses of Israel being published than there were for a few weeks in May.

This has to do with more fundamental things than the media. First, Israel’s strategic value was the basis of the American-Israeli relationship only at certain points. The Cold War and George W. Bush’s “War on Terror” in the wake of 9/11 were the two high points of Israel’s diplomatic relevance. In other words, Israel was a useful and successful proxy against Soviet-aligned forces from the 1962 Yemen “civil war” (which was actually that plus a regional proxy war, like Lebanon 1975–90, and like the wars in Libya, Yemen, and Syria today) onward. The 1967 and 1973 wars were the best example of its strategic value. That continued until the end of the Cold War, even though by then the Soviet Union was no longer the regional factor it had been from the 1950s through the 1970s.

After 9/11, Ariel Sharon resurrected a strategic importance for Israel during the “War on Terror” through a shrewd but utterly specious argument, one that Netanyahu mastered. He was, in effect, saying: “The United States was attacked by terrorists; we are being attacked by terrorists. Terrorism is terrorism; it’s all the same. Hamas is the same as al-Qaeda. We are allies, and this is strategic — indeed, it is existential for both of us, and you will learn from us. We will give you technology and methods; our experts are your experts, and our expertise is your expertise.” This was a ludicrous strategic basis for an alliance — more fragile, in fact, than the Cold War alliance — but in the fevered atmosphere of Washington after 9/11, it worked brilliantly.

Besides those considerations during the Cold War and the “War on Terror,” Israel has little strategic value to the United States. Israel did not help the United States in the Gulf, as was perfectly apparent during the 1990–91 Gulf War, when the Iraqi regime fired missiles at Israel and the United States had to send Patriot missiles to defend it. Israel was a liability for the United States then. That was also demonstrated during the Obama administration, when Israel undermined American policy in the Gulf, and it’s true today. Indeed, Israel has embarrassed the United States globally with its aggressiveness and its treatment of the Palestinians.

(Continue Reading)

[hero-israel]

personal bug a bear as someone who works around politics a lot.

I saw the other day the revival of the Latino Jewish Congressional Caucus, which you know is great and all, but there's still no Jewish Congressional Caucus. There's the famous Congressional Black Caucus, the Hispanic Caucus, and the Democratic Women's Caucus (which only let in members of congress from those groups) The Native American Caucus, the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, Congressional Equality Caucus (which let in supporters as well as members of the minority) there's a Latino Jewish Congressional Caucus and a Black-Jewish Relations Caucus, but no Jewish one, no antisemitism, Jewish interest, Caucus, there's a Caucus for cut flowers, but no Jewish Caucus.... We are by my understanding THE ONLY American minority group that doesn't have its own Caucus in Congress advocating our issues

this goes past this, having worked in left wing politics there are a SEA of organizations that recruit, train, and support people from specific backgrounds and groups. EMILY's List, and Emerge for women, Vote Mama for moms, LGBTQ Victory Fund for Queer people, Latino Victory Fund for hispanic people, Higher Heights for black women, VoteVet for veterans, I can go on and on here, but the point I'm making is, in all my years I've never heard of, seen, etc an organization thats doing left wing or non-partisan for Jewish candidates.

only in the past few years with APAC and DMFI have groups started endorsing/supporting pro-Israel candidates and while thats lovely A) it doesn't do anything on the state and local level, just the other day a number of NYC council members voted against a "End Jew Hatred Day" and they represented such Jewish strongholds like, Park Slope, Crown Heights, and Boro Park, B) APAC and DMFI don't care about electing Jews as such, just pro-Israel candidates of every race and background, which is great but also not the same and C) Israel is important but not the only thing

any ways very frustrating, it feels like we're very often scared to organize, to build Jewish strength out of fear of being accused of being powerful, so we decide to be weak to not have a stereotype

I never consciously realized there wasn't a Congressional Jewish Caucus, and now that you mention it, its absence does seem dispiriting and strange. This article suggests this was originally a good thing as it meant Jews were successfully integrating and largely avoiding direct threats, but that that time may be past. In early 2022, some far-right Christian Republicans started a "Caucus for Torah Values," which has zero Jewish members of course.

The NY Council vote was nauseating, and of course the tokenist pickme's at JFREJ stood up to applaud them.

There's no shortage of Jewish political organizing, publishing, and philanthropy - if anything, sometimes it can seem like there's too much, like instead of rallying around 2 or 3 successful initiatives and publications everybody wants to start their own and they wind up being largely redundant. But for the purposes of standing eye-to-eye with Congressional advocacy groups, yes, we have let a key opportunity slip by.

[fma03envy]

Rewatching CoS for the first time in like 2yrs, here's my stream of consciousness thoughts as I watch:

The steampunk aesthetic at the beginning is neat. Also a fan of this guy presenting his life's work to Al, who goes "that's the worst idea ever We Are Not Fucking Doing That" in his polite little way and then just starts walking away

The animation is immediately noticably higher quality than in 03 proper. I like the normal animation by this is also neat :)

The fact that physicist dude whose name I've already forgotten was actually capable of getting as far as the gate when human transmutation is funny to me. How do you have more willpower than Shou Tucker

The concept that CoS!Ed and I are the same age is just so much. Idk whether I should find you hot or gender sir...

Last time I saw this movie and Edward driving (poorly) I remember thinking about how I'd soon learn to do that too. And Then I Didn't™ (I'm autistic and it's scary etc)

This sub appears to be spelling Heiderich's name like Alphonse and I really wish it wouldn't

The Noah fortune telling thing is one of the parts of CoS that's like, I'm aware it's for plot armor but that still doesn't excuse the premise. The fact that they're establishing that no other magic-adjacent fma stuff (not just alchemy but also Envy's shapeshifting) even works in this dimension, but they still give their main Romani character magic fortune-telling/mindreading powers (and never explain why) is shitty

The opening credits art style is really pretty, even if I this gets to me:

Ed you are not that tall we all know you're not

The subplot about one of Noah's companions selling her out is also at best unnecessary

Glad to see that even without his alchemy Edward is still perfectly able to fight with what he has, i.e. explosives, steaming hot metal, and fucking up his automail (come to think of it, these were all tactics he also used when killing Sloth specifically, but I doubt there's any intentional parallel there)

I like how there's a lot of little characterization details early on. The parallel of Ed and Noah's quiet depression, his earnestness to tell anyone he thinks will listen (see: Alfons Heiderich) about his world contrasted with her interest in learning about it...

It was kind of funny though seeing Ed (resident science nerd and Shit From His Dimension Enthusiast) happy that Noah was curious about his prosthetics, before realizing that he also didn't really know how they worked

The Bradley/Lang thing is one of my other most serious problems with this movie's writing. Like. I know Lang canonically isn't Fuhrer Bradley's doppelganger but that of the human Bradley was, and I do think the writers made that clear so it would seem less like they were comparing the two. (And ik homunculi can be very different from their sources in terms of beliefs, see: Trisha being the Rockbells' friend and not liking to see Amestrian soldiers in Resembool vs. Sloth being the Fuhrer's secretary). But even given that, it still feels way too close to equating Bradley to a Jewish man (who's also an actual irl person, not just a character they made up for the movie)

Envy vs. Edward fight 2: Ed has a gun this time

I think Envy's serpent/leviathan form is sick actually. Look at this shit:

Just wholesome sibling bonding moments

The "Envy gets captured by the Thule society" subplot is the third main writing decision in CoS I take serious issue with. Like I do see why the writers could hardly redeem Envy (they'd never help Ed), but also couldn't make them a main antagonist (they're a kind of campy (? not exactly right the word but you get it) villain, and so it would be in really bad taste for them to be too relevant in movie where all the other villains are literal Nazis). But the canon solution of "we don't know what to do with Envy's character in this movie, so to avoid having them make real plot decisions, they're going to get imprisoned and experimented on by Nazis and then killed off" is so awful? Especially with them trying to escape and getting hunted down again. It's a horrible writing choice to make for plot armor

The pose/lighting we first see Hohenheim in here mimics the one we see Ed coming out of The Gate in at the end of 03. Wonder what it means

I'm trying so hard to like Winry's CoS clothes but I still don't really. Tragic that the most masculine outfit we ever get to see her in is this, the one choice that looks weird to me for no reason. I think she deserves a vest like Ed

The animation on the soldiers sucks so the animation everywhere else can be good. Equivalent exchange

The thing of Al being polite but clearly not recognizing his old allies is so. God. Drives me insane. Alphonse my sonnn

Thank you for saving Al Rose, it's clear which of you had the braincell on that one

The bit where Noah basically asks Heiderich if he's working for Nazis and he goes "I just want to build rockets :)" as if to distance himself from responsibility for his actions... Hm. I have thoughts on his characterization and the thematic point of him but they'll be easier to articulate when I'm further through the movie

Ed talking quietly to himself as he skulks around and looks at the transmutation circle... Edward ily I hope you know that

Elric brothers back together babey!!!

Ed's little smile about having seen Al and Al waking up in his world and starting to cry.... Argh you can't do this to me movie...

This movie needs more Wrath. Maybe that's just me and my thing of caring a lot about the timeskip between 03 and CoS but I want to know more about what's going on with him

The fact that when we first see him he's just sitting defeated at Izumi's graveyard and has let his automail break down rather than reach out for repairs. And that once Winry fixes it for him he immediately goes off with Al on what for him is a suicide mission... Wrath how are you coping with it all buddy

The bit where Ed stares at alternate Lyra and she turns up her nose at him is so funny to me I'm sorry. Lyra my friend, even aside from my aro Ed HC someone with your face is the last person to be his type ever. Just trust me on this one

The entire conversation with Lang is another "I get what the writers were going for but still" moment

The. The bit where Sheska tells Winry she'll show her where the underground city is after they visit the cemetery. Feels like dramatic irony

I don't think I was able to see as well before how big the underground city is...

Two well adjusted, mentally stable young fellows competing to see who's more suicidal:

"He's like me- a monster!" I know it might be different in the dub translation, but Wrath. Wrath :(

Ed I really doubt you'd survive a fall from that height irl

It's sad that Noah never got into Ed's world imho. Like I get why thematically it wouldn't really work but still

With his hair flowing like that underwater, Wrath almost looks like his mother (Sloth). Ofc that's partly just fma03 typical sameface but

The Gluttony vs Wrath fight is sick, though I do feel a bit bad about Gluttony's fate

*Guy who isn't big on the idea of Wrath forgiving Izumi and also doesn't want to think about the fact that he just died voice* This isn't how the gate works. The only other times we've seen dead people's souls in the gate was when they had literally just died. That's why Al at the beginning and Ed at the end didn't come back as homunculi, because it had just happened. So there's no reason Izumi would still be in the gate

Hohenheim's death is the only CoS writing choice involving Envy that I really like. Envy, whose main goal in life was to kill Hoheinheim for failing him as a father. Them ultimately being forced to do so by Hohenheim himself as a way of helping Edward, Hohenheim's other child, is just. Hollowest victory possible isn't it my friend

Now that Alfons Heiderich is dead and we've seen everything of him that we're going to I'm trying to gather my thoughts on how he's written. I've talked about being ambivalent with how his characterization is before and I guess I still am. But it's feeling more and more like "I really dislike this guy as a person but might (?) think he's well-written as a character".

One criticism of his writing I've had is that he isn't a good representation of Alphonse Elric, as I feel like *gestures at all of fma03* kind of demonstrates that Al ultimately wouldn't act like this in Alfons's position. But on rewatch, I kind of feel like Alfons's final speech about how he was real and not part of Ed's dream feels partially like a message to the audience not to view them as synonymous. Given that I do think the whole doppelgangers premise is weird but like. I'll take it?

Anway, for Alfons himself. A core message of fma03 is that harming others cannot be justified in the name of chasing one's own hopes and dreams. This is relevant to basically every subplot where the philosopher's stone is important (Lab 5, Dante's actions, etc), to Mustang having to put aside his ambitions before he can actually make a positive change, "even when our eyes are closed, there's a whole world that exists outside ourselves and our dreams" (i think that's the line), etc. And imo this premise is crucial to understanding Alfons Heiderich. The EXPLANATION for his behavior is that he's a slowly dying scientist desperate to make something of his life's work, and that he wants to help his friend get home. But neither of these facts is an EXCUSE for his willingness to help Nazis in order to achieve his own goals. I think his writing tracks on a thematic level

Winry and Sheska also def couldn't have survived that fall

The truth gunk on the ships is weird and totally not how the gate has worked before but I kind of like it

Ed's confrontation with Al about him opening the gate is so good arghhhhhhh

First time seeing Mustang in two years and he and Ed are already at each other's throats with Al apologizing for his brother, same as it ever was

Last Ed vs Eckhart conversation did seem a bit on the nose/unsubtle but I liked the fight choreography

The ending makes no sense on a ton of technical levels (you're going to. Destroy The Gate. The interdimensional gate where people's souls go right after they die that opens when you try to bring them back. Full of weird silhouette unrealized homunculus hand blobs. Containing all human knowledge. You're destroying it. How™) (and what happens if they succeed? Is human transmutation impossible to try now?) but I get what they were going for on a thematic level

Hiiiii Scar and Lust

Well that was CoS ig

[zebratoys]

Explore The Jewish Soul Art Series on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BVKRMGBP The inspiration for this series was drawn from my personal soul searching voyage nourished by multiple sources such as meditating on nature and the beauty of creation, the harmonizing power of the Sun and the mystic sparkle of the stars in the infinite cosmos, the revitalizing breathing of mountain air, wandering across the alleys of the Holy City of Safed and its ancient synagogues and alluring Judaica art galleries. Further insights emerged through Torah studies, Bible reading, daydreaming, coloring, sketching, and journaling in the backyard under a lemon tree. The Kabbalah learning of the Zohar and its esoteric philosophy and the ten emanations of God enriched the collection with divine qualities, sacred essences, loving grace, oneness and holiness that emanate from elevated realms. The HALELUYA Jewish Soul Art Series is designed to provide a graceful Jewish aura glow and a faith of light with deep meaning and a higher purpose. This collection calls us to welcome the rebirth of sacred holiness, Jewish spirituality, shared values, and universal oneness consciousness. It feeds our soul's longing to unite with the Divine Source, ignite our destiny, and shine our sacred glow in the world. By honoring our history, tradition, ancestors, holy symbols and shared moral values, we open the Gates of Heaven for our sacred souls to evolve towards love, healing, goodness, and deeds of loving kindness. These qualities and actions attract and ground more blessings that spread goodwill and love among us all and nourish Am Yisrael's strength, resilience, continuity and faith. By aligning the physical and metaphysical, traditional and contemporary, Heaven and Earth, the HALELUYAH's Jewish Soul Art Coloring Book Series radiates beauty and bliss that usher love and grace into our lives, our world, and throughout the cosmos.

[grandhotelabyss]

Do you think Paglia would like your (as some have said) very Catholic novels?

Probably not. As with Conrad's Kurtz, all of Europe went into the making of the novel as a form. Her preference is almost exclusively for the "Catholic" side: the luridly aestheticized conflict of archetypes. Even the puritan Lawrence she tends to see through this lens—that, and an "eastern" one she gets from her beloved '60s, where consciousness dissolves into the continuum of a higher reality. But the other aspects of the novel she slights or neglects: what we might catalogue as the "Protestant" investment in inwardness and individualism, the "Jewish" emphasis on dialogue and dialectic, and the "Enlightenment" commitment to anatomizing the social. She disparages the social novel for disciplining and reducing its sexual personae, arraigning the punitive Middlemarch in particular on this score. She lavishes her attention on Wuthering Heights and The Picture of Dorian Gray while mostly ignoring Dickens, Eliot, Hardy, Conrad, Forster. She has nothing to say about the Russians. From the massive grounds or plots of Balzac and Mann, she pointedly plucks les fleurs du mal: The Girl with the Golden Eyes, Sarrasine, Death in Venice. She reduces James to one side of his complex dialectic between the social novel and the aestheticist or Decadent novel. Her scattered comments on Joyce are wary. I try to be answerable for almost all these elements of the novel's historical formation and mission, and I suspect this would bore her. (By her own avowal, she finds King Lear "boring and obvious.") As a critic, and one whose earliest training would have been in the New Criticism, she's better on poetry and painting than on fiction or drama. It's difficult to imagine her enjoying some of my own influences early and late—Bellow, DeLillo, Murdoch—though I have Brontë and Wilde in my repertoire too.

[talonabraxas]

“It is manifest… that every soul and spirit hath a certain continuity with the spirit of the universe, so that it must be understood to exist and to be included not only there where it liveth and feeleth, but it is also by its essence and substance diffused throughout immensity… The power of each soul is itself somehow present afar in the universe… Naught is mixed, yet is there some presence. Anything we take in the universe, because it has in itself that which is All in All, includes in its own way the entire soul of the world, which is entirely in any part of it.” — Giordano Bruno

Cosmic Merkabah Talon Abraxas

The Merkabah originates from several ancient Hebrew texts, including the Tanakh, where it appears as "Merkavah." The term appears in other religions, as well, such as Hinduism and Kemetism, the religion of ancient Egyptians.

In Hebrew, Merkaba, or Merkabah, means "throne-chariot” and comes from early Jewish mysticism.

The Merkaba meaning reveals itself when you break up the term into its three root words: mer-ka-bah. "Mer" stands for "light", "ka" translates to "spirit", and "bah" means "body." When you put the three words together, you get "light-spirit-body," which refers to your body as a vehicle of light, propelling your soul to a state of higher consciousness.