Monday, May 10, 2010
John Adams and George III
Very interesting scene. One of my favorite. Comments to follow tomorrow. But watch until the end — hear the hope that King George III expressed. How silly such a concern of his sounds now! Equally silly do the concerns about the desired lack of a strong government in the present times sound to those exposed to more enlightened ideas of the proper political structure of a secular society.
A great scene:
A good selection of scenes with Thomas Jefferson:
Letters between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
44 comments:
Do you really believe such concerns to be silly?
After all, when the Czar was deposed...
Yes.
The deposition of the Tzar was in itself a good thing. The means by which it was done and the alternative to the Tzar were both bad.
That's not what they meant.
What’s not what who meant?
When Chassidim mourned the removal of the Czar, it wasn't because they were mourning that particular Czar nor his potential replacements.
The moshol of Eibeshter is not such a big problem as oppressive government and pogroms.
Plus, who needs some goyish king if we have, lehavdil, the Rebbe.
And it wasn’t “chassidim”, it was one particular chossid.
That's what you think- after all, better Czarist Russia than Napoleon.
If we treated the Rebbe like we treated, lehavdil, a Goyishe king...
One expressed the feelings of the many.
Better for whom and when? F"R said “America is nisht underish”, so we can be frum and chassidish Jews even in the place of prosperity.
Anyway, when given a choice, a person goes to the best doctor — best according to the modern medicine, even when it disagrees with Torah’s view medicine. The same applies to politics. (Of course, one shouldn’t break Halacha...)
Plus, if the people’s concerns were right, then Americans should be more godless than the Brits, but it’s vice versa.
Re: voice of all: how do you know? One chossid said something during a farbrengen after a few lechayims, and suddenly he is a vox populi?
In general, just because Alter Rebbe said something doesn’t mean we should take it as a lesson for us. To say, l’hatchilo, that better to live under regime where people are taken for 25 years in the army, where they lose all their Jewish identity, where goyim kill Jews with the government’s and church’s support, and where Jews starve, etc., etc. than under regime where Jews are being treated nicely, is very strange. But, A"R said it, so we believe him, because he was the Rebbe — his understanding was higher than our understanding, and he had ruach ha’koidesh and nevuah (and indeed, look what happened to French Ashkenazic Jews; they all assimilated).
But for a regular person to say something like this is stupid.
This is similar to the story in Likkutei Dibburim, where A"R told that everyone who comes and says l’chayim and does hakafos will be cured from cold. And they went through snow and were cured. But for a regular person to risk his life, hoping that hakafos will save him, without a direct order from the Rebbe, is stupid.
But we're still missing out on a lot, as explained in Basi L'Gani 5711.
Who says a democracy is better than a monarchy? When Moshiach comes, it's congress that will be abolished.
Huh?
Its influence in popular thought in self-evident.
Missing out a lot in which area?
Democracy is better than monarchy in the current state of affairs. When Moshiach comes, things will be different.
But I am not against limited monarchy. I.e., position as the head of the government passed from generation to generation. It even makes some sense. As long as the government is minimal and does its job, if it’s more effective being monarchist vs. democratic, why not? (I mean, there are still problems of representation and delegation of rights, etc., but those can also be solved.)
(In fact, the system of Chassidic dynasties is a monarchy.)
What influence? This problem of lack of sovereign didn’t prevent Chassidim from settling in America. Also, Chassidim in UK are no more frum than those in the US. It’s just one of those stupid vertlach that everyone repeats. Like the idea that “Lubavitch” means literally “the city of brotherly love”.
Look it up.
Is it?
Point is, monarchies have one major advantage over mob rule.
(anarchy- have you seen Satmar, Belz, Ger, etc?)
You telling me the Rebbeim quoted "Stupid Vertlach"?
Of course we don’t have everything. But it’s better here than anywhere else.
Yes.
And democracy has a lot more advantages over monarchy. So what?
(These groups are not ruled by their Rebbeim? Anarchy is not a lack of government. It’s a lack of state.)
The Rebbeim quoted a lot of things.
That's debatable.
So you say.
Point is, you still fail to account for the feelings of the masses, you elitist you.
These groups have a lack of state- they choose their own state whenever they see fit.
What's that supposed to mean?
What’s to debate?
Indeed. I also say that 2+2=4
As do all chassidic groups. Anyway, does their Rebbeim have a position of authority in their midst? Is that position of authority passed dynastically?
The Rebbe said Torah. He said that Hashem should be as real to us as a physical king was to his nation. And whatever else the Rebbe meant. That’s the ikkar. To illustrate the point he said a story about what some chossid said. It doesn’t necessarily mean the Rebbe was endorsing monarchy over democracy. Nor does it mean that the Rebbe was saying that living under monarchy is better for one’s avoidas Hashem.
Whether it's better here than anywhere else.
If you want to debate mathematics, go to e.
Point is, these groups have two or three groups fighting to establish who is the "real rebbe", and, more importantly, who controls the money.
And you're telling me the Rebbe said, "Stupid Vertlach"?
If you want to debate the obvious, be my guest.
Ditto.
As oftentimes happens during monarchic succession crises. Why do you think Roman Empire fell?
Did he say those words? I doubt it.
I'm tempted.
Quite.
I'm not even sure what my point is anymore with this particular point, and I'm too lazy to figure it out.
Absence of proof does not constitute jack diddly.
Also, who says we don’t treat the Rebbe as, lehavdil, a goyish king? We treat him better.
In a Goyish king's court, they don't act like they do in 770.
How many goyish courts have you been to?
Well, after watching the one you posted on this very post...
Is that scene different from what it looked liked outside the Rebbe’s office when someone would go in for a yechidus?
Or would you want Chassidim to do reverences?
Compare the courtyards.
At least there is no horse excrement in the zal.
Well, it's pretty close...
Anyway, who cares about the chitzoinius? If you want chitzoinius, go to Bobov.
I definitely think Lubavitch chassidim have always treated the Rebbein with much greater reverence and respect than any subjects of any king at any point of history.
But the, the Rebbeim were real kings, not some pompous pimples. (At least in Chabad.)
The way 99% of tzfatim treat the Rebbe is disgusting. I don't care if 770 is a dump, but flushing the king's head down the toilet is no way to go.
Well, they would probably disagree with you that they are doing that.
They're nuts.
And that is an objective fact.
See starting 4:45 here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpgyKo2BNH8
It looks like the Queen will soon have to be asking the question again.
Why? Nick's not getting anywhere near.
Gordon Brown will resign.
Yes, I know, but that doesn't mean the incoming PM will be uncouth.
Uncouth?
Why else would a consultation of the style guides be in order?
Look, why is she worried? Because she has a labor PM coming in who probably knows nothing of protocol. David Cameron is a Tory, and sufficiently snobby to know what to do.
I merely meant that the Queen will soon have to pop the question to another fine gentleman asking him to lead her government. (Or a lady. Actually, I wonder if Ms. Thatcher went on one knee.)
Ahh, I misunderstood.
But yes, it sounds like that is very likely.
Post a Comment