A mashgiach - a supervisor of the kashrut (ritual correctness) of the matza unleavenaed bread eaten during Pessach - in Hungary of the thirties. The highest degree of kashrut requires watching the matza process from the harvest of the wheat in the fields. We were always a people much worried about ritual purity.
41 comments:
Are the workers in A-shirts also Jews? Or only the man in the overcoat?
Just the man in the overcoat and the hat. The rest are Hungarian farmers, I presume.
It's interesting to see how mechanized the farm is, with an advanced (for the time) Caterpillar tread tractor. In Galicia where my mother was from, even today they are using horses in the fields. Also the field looks big - in Galicia the landholdings are divided into long narrow strips which you can see from the satellite photos.
K
Hungary mostly is a plain, like Kansas. Cereal production was developed by the Jews and Hungary, in the thirties, was an exporter.
My grandfather owned a grain mill. Jews were involved in almost all kinds of industry - anything that required organization and capital investment. I assumed that the mill was some kind of quaint old fashioned thing with a grinding stone and a water wheel but in fact they imported modern equipment - the grain was ground with steel rollers which is the technology used even today. And rather than a water wheel there was an underwater turbine from France, again of the type still used, although the scale was much smaller than would be economical today. But in the Galicia of the 1930s where transport was very poor (horses) it made sense to grind the grain locally in each town.
This mill saved my family's life and I owe my existence to it. My grandfather had leased the mill to another Jew and when the Soviets came, the other Jew complained to the authorities that he was being exploited by my grandfather's insistence that he pay rent. This resulted in my family being put on the list for the great deportation of April 1940 which put them safely (if miserably) on the other side of the Urals for the duration of the war - they never saw a German until the war was over. After the war, my family was told by one of the few survivors of those who had remained behind in the shtetl that afterward, when the Germans came, the tenant (who did not survive) lamented that he should have informed on himself instead of on my grandfather.
K
Notice the Jews is just "watching the harvest" -- Jews shirk manual labor at all costs.
"Notice the Jews is just "watching the harvest" -- Jews shirk manual labor at all costs."
That's the sort of attitude that the early Zionists reacted against. They were all about manual labor, mythologizing farming, etc. Then Israel got rich and they got the Palestinians to do the manual labor. Then the Palestinians started getting violent and they got other third worlders to do it.
J - Seems like your blog is suffering from an infestation of anti-Semites.
The man who is watching IS working. He is called a mashgiach. It is his job to watch the grain and the the flour continuously to be sure it remains dry at all times after harvesting and so cannot begin fermenting, in accordance with the strict requirements of Jewish law. It is a form of skilled labor since you have to study the laws of kashrut for many years to become one, like becoming a lawyer or an engineer. The matzoh that results is a high value product, that sells for many times more than "unwatched" matzoh. "Working" does not only involve manual labor unless you are a dumb goy like you who possesses no skills or education. Most intelligent people of all religions aspire to education that will allow them to earn a better living than available from manual labor. The early Zionists had crazy socialist ideas, but why should a man with an IQ of 115 or 130 be digging ditches?
K
"We were always a people much worried about ritual purity."
Some things don't change -
Rabbi supervising harvest 2010, USA - another century another continent, a Hitler in between, and yet nothing has changed:
http://lakewoodmatzoh.com/images/matzahprocess/slideshow_2.jpg
K
K
I didnt find your link - something is wrong or changed. Instead I got Aufruf, and learned about that custom. My daughter's husband had shabat hatan, and I didnt know it was a Sepharadi custom. I hope with my next daughter we shall have an aufruf.
The link works for me. It is a picture of a Hasid standing in a grain field, still watching the harvest. He is dressed much like the one in your 1930 photo, but he is much older - if a little less time had passed, it could have been the same man - maybe he is the son of the man in your picture.
The shabbat chatan and the aufruf are similar customs, the main difference being that the aufruf is held the shabos before the wedding and the shabbat chatan immediately after.
I suppose Israel has its own form of intermarriage, between Sephardim and Ashkenazim. Still this is much better than the other kind. I hear that my nephew's future in-laws are insisting that a Christian minister co-preside at their daughter's wedding (together with some kind of alleged "Rabbi" who is willing to marry Jews to goyim). If my parents were still alive they would have refused to attend such a chasana. My father did not struggle every day to keep himself alive in the KZ lager so that his grandchildren could be married by a priest - if he had known this was going to happen he would have thrown himself onto the electric fence.
K
K,
Look at J's friend Dennis Mangan's site. It's not just unemployed people living in their parents' basements who have issues with Jews. Others resent the role Jews have played in promoting third world immigration to the U.S., among other things.
Jews have a role in everything. There were Jews in the Nazi party. Hitler himself probably had a Jewish grandfather and his real last name should have been Frankenberger (I knew a German Jewish Frankenberger family growing up - I wonder if they were Hilter's relatives?) I'm sure that there are anti-illegal immigration Jews also - I'm one of them. They say that if there are two Jews, they have three opinions, so to attribute any particular issues to "the Jews" is nonsense.
YOu can have issues with particular points of view held by particular individuals, but once you start crowing about "the Jooos" then you're an anti-Semite in my book and you can go screw yourself.
K
K, often do have a role in many things, but they also share many political opinions in common. I scanned down this page of Jewish voting in each presidential election since 1916, and looking at how the Jews voted in each election I can't see a single election since 1916 in which the Jews gave at least 50% of their votes to the Republican candidate.
When a group of people vote in a bloc like that for so many years they clearly share many opinions and therefore you can't just dodge the issue by saying that we should judge everyone as an individual. Even Jews who enter the Republican Party still seem to have some strange affection for massive, legal immigration.
So Ronduck, if Jews don't vote Republican, is the problem with the Jews or with the Republicans? My in-laws grew up in the US in the '30s - not until the Federal gov. (led by Roosevelt) got leverage over private employers during WWII due to massive orders of war materiel (there were non-discrimination clauses in Fed. procurement even then) could a Jew even dream of getting a job at one of the old line WASP companies, whose management was rock rib Republican. Ditto law firms, clubs, private schools, hotels, etc. Jews, even the American born and wealthy, had to live in a completely parallel world with their own institutions. People wonder why Jews don't vote their class (rich) interest? It's because there is a collective memory of what it was like to be discriminated against as a despised immigrant or 1st generation American. And I say this as a Republican myself - as despicable as the old Arabist WASP State Dept. Anglophile types were, Communists like Obama are even worse. But I understand where a lot of Jews are coming from (though perhaps it is time to vote their OWN current interests and not those of other people that they identify with vicariously).
K
Clearly you don't believe in private property. The management of those old-line companies were free to hire whomever they pleased. To require these companies or private clubs to admit members against their will is to destroy their right to free association.
Should a Jewish group be required to admit gentile members, or is that a special case since Jewish groups are religious in nature? If a significant portion of the business in a community or an industry is conducted by Jews, among Jews at a local religiously based country club is that also discrimination, or is that different?
Besides, under the system of free enterprise as we have it, the Jews have gone on to become one of America's wealthiest minorities. Now the Jews can work to exclude others.
My unstated point in posting the table of Jewish presidential voting was that such negro-like group cohesion in voting for the Left is probably based on hatred. Your response at 7:42pm simply confirms that the Jews are voting not out of sympathy with our underclass, but in reaction to earlier events that have been used to indoctrinate them into hating something. But if American Jewry is motivated by hatred of something in the past, could something in the present remind them of what they were taught and also become an object of their hatred? You share this hatred so let me quote you as an example of it:
as despicable as the old Arabist WASP State Dept. Anglophile types were...
I'll give you the point about Arabism, since the Arab world is little more than the world's cesspit. The group you hate has three other characteristics, other than Arabism. By your own words you hate White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants who have an affection for the country their ancestors came from and who lived in the 1930's. Since mainline Protestantism is dead, the next target in the modern era would have to be all of those Evangelical (Protestant) churches full of Whites, who can then become a target of your redirected hatred.
I'm not arguing that Jews are some magical force wrecking this country against the will of the majority. Based on the election of Obama clearly the majority of people in this country want to wreck America. But for you to continue to harbor hatred towards a group that has long passed from the scene and that still allowed you to compete and succeed is, is... well I don't have a word for it.
Bahh.
Ronduck,
Over two centuries ago, Washington understood the difference between tolerance and equality. Here are his words to the Jewish community of Newport in 1790:
"All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent national gifts."
That you assume in 2010 that the Christians "allowed" the Jews to compete and succeed shows that you totally misunderstand the fundamental basis of America, which "belongs" to no one group.
Your understanding of "private" property is also flawed - there are many things that you cannot do with your own "private" property in a civilized country. You cannot dump toxic waste into it, run a brothel, grow opium poppies, etc. A hotel is not a private club, a university is not a private club and yet most hotels in America were "Restricted" and colleges had Jewish quotas. Truly private clubs and religious associations are allowed to this day.
In my experience, most Evangelical Christians are lovers of Israel and of the Jews - I harbor no ill feeling toward them at all - you are making unjustified leaps of reasoning.
K
My understanding of private property is not flawed. Prior to the 20th century a private business could hire whomever it wanted, and a store or hotel could refuse to business with a potential customer for any or no reason. There were laws at the time restricting the uses of property, such as the one you mentioned that prevented land from being used to construct a whorehouse, but none interfered with who a businessman could hire or serve. Laws dictating who must be hired came first out of FDR's administration during the war, and later were permanently instated during the Civil Rights movement.
Looking back at my earlier posts I noticed that I did not include the link to Jewish presidential voting. link
That you assume in 2010 that the Christians "allowed" the Jews to compete and succeed shows that you totally misunderstand the fundamental basis of America, which "belongs" to no one group.
You condemned the old line-WASP's for not hiring your ancestors, and yet these same people let your ancestors in. They built a relatively free country where a smart person could get ahead by working hard, and let your ancestors in to enjoy it, and yet you wrote this line:
as despicable as the old Arabist WASP State Dept. Anglophile types were,
Anyway, back to the point I made in my last post. There are other groups out there that are working for the destruction of America, and unlike the Jews these groups aren't having their activities watched and inflated out of proportion. Look at this comment I left over at n/a's blog.
You didn't read what Washington said - the "WASPS" did not "let" the Jews in because it was never "their" country to begin with.
America belongs to ALL races and religions equally. The US was once underpopulated and immigration was more or less open (at least to whites) until WWI (today is a different situation).
At some point the liberal (in the classic sense) spirit that
Washington espoused curdled into nasty anti-Semitism. John Adams had nothing much to say about the Jews. His great grandson Henry was a bitter anti-Semite. Likewise Lincoln's ethic of "malice toward none" curdled into Jim Crow. America (like all humans) has a good inclination and an evil inclination and at different times one or the other predominates. The civil right era that began w. Roosevelt and continues until the present day was a much needed corrective (that then itself went overboard with "affirmative action, quotas, etc.) - the laissez faire decisions of the early 20th century S. Ct. (e.g. separate but equal) are now agreed by most people to have been just plain wrongly decided. If being a Republican means that we have to rewind the clock to 1932 when a black man could not drink from the same water fountain as a white, then the Republicans can forget about ever holding power in the US again - that's an extreme view at this point, regardless of whether it was once upon the time sanctioned by law.
K
K,
Why doesn't your nephew do an end-run around the officiant issue and have a secular marriage performed by a justice of the peace, magistrate, etc.? Perhaps the issue with the in-laws is parity (if rabbi, then priest; if no rabbi, then no priest).
Anon - that is an excellent idea but it's not my role to get involved - they will have to figure this out on their own.
K
America belongs to ALL races and religions equally.
I don't know if you realize this, but generally White Protestants are the only group to consistently vote Republican. If America is a universal country, then large numbers of Democrats can be let in, thus eliminating Republicans from power. In fact, that is exactly what has happened with Obama.
White Catholics, Jews and coloreds voted for the leftist candidate, which is why we now have Obamacare, and we may yet soon have amnesty for illegals. By having America as a universal country that lets anyone in without discrimination, the Republicans have been swept from power,possibly permanently.
Ronduck - see my post under the McDonald thread - my thoughts exactly. However, I don't think it is going to happen in the short run. Obama has shot his wad with health care and that's it on "reforms" for now (not that he wouldn't like more but he's not getting them past Congress). AFAIK, even Obama does not advocate truly open borders with instant citizenship. There is still a window for Republicans to regain power in the short term. BUT I recently saw a story that more than 1/2 of all babies now being born in the US (forget about further immigration) are minorities. If the Republicans are the "white (Christian) party" then they are doomed in the long run. Somehow they have to broaden their appeal (without sacrificing their principles or becoming socialists themselves). This can be done, but some on the right are their own worst enemies when it comes to broadening the base. Jews are insignificant in terms of votes (if not fund raising) but Latinos are here and they're real and alienating them by blathering about immigration is not going to help get them voting Republican.
K
Latinos give two-thirds of their votes to the Democratic party, although I don't have a source for that right now. Partly assimilated Hispanics who had converted to Protestantism still voted for Obama. If you look at this poll (page 4) taken before the 2008 election then you will see that Hispanics that had become Protestants were projected to give 50% of their votes to Obama, 34% to McCain and 10% were undecided. When looking at these numbers you need to remember that McCain was for amnesty for illegals, and actively reached out to the Hispanic vote, all to no avail.
Second, these people are being actively targeted by their church and well-funded leftist organizations to inflame any racial grievances they may have in order to make them permanent Democratic voters. Look at the White Catholics of the northeast, most of whom still sympathize with socialism and often vote Democratic despite all reason.
The Republicans haven't gotten 60% of the White vote in years, if they did they would win in a landslide without the need for minority votes. Wooing Hispanics only becomes necessary when the White vote is divided.
But I'm not sure the "if only the scales could be lifted from the eyes of the white voters" strategy will work for the Republican party. On the left, Marxists have been blathering about "false consciousness" forever - that if only the deluded workers in America [including white proletarians] would vote their class interest they could bring on the revolution, but instead they have been fooled into thinking that someday they or their children will rise in class or identify more as "white" or "Christian" than proletarian so they don't want to kill all their fellow white capitalists - they delude themselves that they too are capitalists in waiting as soon as they catch a lucky break (which will never come). If the leftists think that half the whites are stupid for not voting more leftist and the rightists think that the other half are stupid for not voting more rightist, then they are probably both wrong. The kind of bloc voting we see in minorities is just not going to happen with whites no matter how you may wish it.
K
K, I have a theory for the continued Democratic voting of Jews. Let's imagine that we have a small group of Jewish men graduating from a large university in the NE.
Oh hell, let's just imagine the university as Brandeis. All of the men in this group graduate from college in winter 1975, having finished their degree work in 3.5 years. For simplicity's sake we will call these men H, I, J & K. All of these men start out as committed Democratic voters when they graduate from Brandeis in December of 1975.
H, participated in leftist politics in college, and later went on to become a union organizer in the upper Midwest. As part of his job H runs into a nice Italian-American girl, marries her. Although H remains a leftist, he is no longer a Jew, although he continues to vote Democratic. H's children go to a state university in a Midwestern state, most are religiously confused, and one girl tries to become a priest. As of 2010, most of H's six kids have been spotted in FL, TX & AZ. One of H's kids is currently working in Las Vegas as an Elvis impersonator. As a practical matter, none of H's children are Jews.
I, gets caught up in Democratic party politics, and since he lives in the northeastern US he meets and begins cohabitating with a Jewish girl that just graduated from law school with her juris doctor. The two of them become an effective team working for the Democratic party in an organizational role. I and his common law wife have two kids, born together as twins.
J, gets a job in Oregon working as a general merchandise buyer for Fred Meyer in Portland. Around 1980 J and ten other Jewish men from a local synagogue go hiking up mt. Hood, and get trapped on the side of the mountain when a freak snowstorm hits. In order to save themselves J's party digs out a snowcave and cuddle together for warmth. After six days the weather lightens up enough that a rescue party makes it to the snowcave, saving the seven surviving members of the hiking party. J has a "come to Je... err.. nevermind.
J discovers religion and soon transitions from being an inactive Jew, to becoming active in his Reform synagogue, to finally becoming an Orthodox Jew. J decides that being an Orthodox Jew in America is unsatisfying and moves to northern Israel. As of 2010 J is seen on the evening news as one of the obnoxious settlers with ten kids impeding the peace process because he refuses to move.
K, leaves Brandeis and works in sales for a large division of a well known consumer products company, eventually working his way up to division manager. This Jew ends up living in a nice house on the Pennsylvania Main Line and attends an upper class Reform synagogue within a short drive from his house. K grew up marinated in the general leftism of his parents generation, and repeats some of it himself but instinctively knows that what he is parroting is wrong. Eventually K rebrands himself as a "moderate Democrat" that supports Israel, access to abortion, is strong on national security, and supports restrictions on gun ownership. As K gets older he finds his steps slowly leading him to the Republican party, but he is still repeating a lot of the leftism that he was taught as a child, thus proving Solomon right.
Come 2008, pollsters across America begin polling the America Jewish community to see how they will vote. By the year 2008 the only Jews left in the community are ones like I and K. The I's in the community tell pollsters that they will be voting Democratic this year. Most of the K's tell pollsters that they too will be voting for The One as well, even though they can feel themselves moving at a glacial pace towards the Republicans. When opinion polls are released they show 70-80% of American Jews saying that they will vote for Obama.
And this is how liberalism perpetuates itself in the Jewish community.
Ronduck, I enjoyed reading the story of the four Jews but I'm too obtuse to understand what they really signify. McCain did get almost 1 in 4 Jewish votes (and I'm guessing more men than women, so maybe 1 out of 3 Jewish men) and this in a generally off year for Republicans, so I'm not sure your sample is entirely representative. If McCain had put Lieberman on the ticket instead of the White Trash, moose shootin' Palin (who most Jews have a visceral revulsion to) he might have gotten a majority of Jewish men.
K
Palin had an Israeli flag in his office, she was clearly a friend of Israel. McCain might have actually bombed Iran.
What good is the vaunted IQ of your people if they engage in self defeating political behavior?
That's all you need to do? Put a flag in your office? It may be purely a matter of style or taste rather than substantive policy, but I'm telling you honestly that the average Jew, especially females, finds Palin to be the complete antithesis of their values and interests - shooting animals, giving birth to mongoloid children, etc. If you could get one Jewish woman in America to vote for Palin it would be a miracle. I'm just telling you the facts - you can argue that this is self-defeating but it won't change the reality.
K
K, read this recent Facebook note that Sarah Palin posted to her fanpage.
I don't believe that she wrote this - it was written by some assistant. Before she was a candidate, I would bet money that she was incapable of even locating Iran on a map. I say this as a lifelong Republican.
K
What percentage of the American population could locate Iran on a map prior to say...2007?
I'm not talking about the general population, I'm talking about somebody who wanted to be a (73 year old) heartbeat away from the Presidency. Not only was she totally without foreign policy background, she allow Couric to publicly humiliate her. Reagan might have been just as unqualified at one point but was at least quick witted enough and well advised enough not to let himself be be ambushed like that. She was neither.
K
K, at this point a homeless wino would be doing a better job than Obama. At least the wino would be passed-out drunk on the Oval Office floor instead of pushing Obamacare. To misquote Dubya, we need to exercise the soft bigotry of low expectations, and know that even if she achieves nothing at least she won't be working to destroy us either.
I know that Palin may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but considering that her opponent is pushing for outright evil, even a clueless housewife from nowhere was/is a far better choice. Second, whoever advised her on that speech, or wrote it for her would in all likelihood have gone on to be her foreign policy advisor.
Personally, I would have preferred that McCain had chosen Cecil Ash or Russel Pearce (link, link, wiki) as his running mate. Both Cecil and Russell have served many years in the AZ legislature, and probably have as much experience as the former mayor of Wasilla.
test
Is this our only choice? Either Obama the Red or Sarah the Ignorant? Is this the best that America can do?
Read this piece by Tunku Varadarjan:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-03-31/why-palin-drives-us-all-mad/2/
I disagree with his conclusion that Palin has given up all thoughts of the Presidency - I think that is wishful thinking on his part. As a gadfly it is fine to be ignorant - your job is to tweak the nose of the powerful. Being the President is a different matter.
I would say that some of the worst Presidents have been highly intelligent in the book smart sense (Carter) but that doesn't mean that being dumb is a positive attribute for leadership. The very best Presidents (Lincoln, Washington) combine high intelligence with a true moral compass(not a phony pious one), a good understanding of human nature and the ability to command respect and loyalty. Carter (and now Obama) was bad not because he had intelligence but because he lacked some of the other necessary attributes for leadership.
K
Woodrow Wilson was also book smart, having earned a doctorate.
K, I know that Palin is deficient, but I 'm working with limited options as a Republican voter and as such I'll support her knowing full well that she has major defects as a candidate.
I looked at the article you linked to, and here is a nice quote from the first page:
Most non-Republican commentators are inclined to regard Palin with a mixture of disdain and horror; in fact, among avowed liberals, this reaction has been the standard ever since she exploded on the scene like a demotic bomb in August 2008.
Considering that you also view Palin with a mixture of disdain and horror, I could reasonably conclude that you are either a non-Republican or else still a liberal. Since you have repeatedly declared yourself to be a Republican, I can only conclude that you are still a liberal.
Like I said above, I know that she has defects, but at this moment there isn't much else to work with. All of the Democrats are beyond the pale, and most of the Republicans are for amnesty, bigger government or some other Democratic program.
Ronduck - my wife (a real liberal) only WISHES that I was a liberal. There's no point in my trying to convince you otherwise, so I won't.
I agree that there are a lot of RINO's out there, beginning with McCain and including Romney, whose Romneycare was basically Obamacare on the state level . Reagan is dead and there's no obvious heir. Cheney is sick and vilified. So somehow that leaves Sarah as the best of the bunch. I'm still not buying. Palin has a lot of good attributes (along with some horrible ones) - a classic self made American type. But she's just not, IMHO, Presidential timber (not that Obama is either). It would be like some sort of nightmare reality show - the hillbillies of Wasilla take over the White House (still better than the Red Diaper Babies taking power, but that's another story). If America is going to arrest its current decline (and make no mistake - we are in decline) then it is going to need a more inspirational, seasoned and less polarizing figure than either Obama or Palin. I'm not sure how that is, but I'm pretty sure who it isn't. I realize that this would be sort of the revenge of the heartland on the disdainful coastal elites but revenge is not a good motive for electing a leader. I really fear she would be the Republican Obama - the empty vessel that we pour our hopes and dreams into, only to find just an empty vessel. I realize Palin's empty vessel would at least list to the right, but still not good enough for me.
K
K, I want you to watch this two and a half minute video. The best part is about halfway through, but watch the whole thing if you have three minutes to spare.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg
Please, do it for all of the little puppies.
The pathetic thing is not that this man is a Congressman.... it is that he is still better than the anti-Semite that he replaced, Cynthia McKinney. Apparently he is ill - it may have affected his mind. I have the feeling like we are living in the late Roman republic, where Nero would appoint his dog to the Roman senate. Of course the Admiral is too polite to laugh in his face - that would be racist.
What is really sad is that once the US was a role model for the world. Other countries look up to us. Deming is regarded as a god in Japan.
Asians still appreciate what we have done for them. My daughter is involved in the sport of fencing. The 120 year old fencing team at Stanford was about to be disbanded because the university withdrew funding. Only $75,000 could be raised from American donors. Then a Korean alum donated $1.25 million because of all that Stanford had done for him. Foreigners appreciate our institutions and traditions more than we do.
K
Fencing is definitely worth preserving, but I think it should be carried on outside of college. I feel that way about most sports.
Post a Comment