Year: 2023

Cutting George Orwell Down to Size…

Great analysis by Gerald Frost on The New Criterion here…

An excerpt:

The contradictions have frequently been noted: he was a socialist intellectual whose finest achievements included a mordant critique of the hypocrisy and double standards displayed by the socialist intellectuals of his day; a patriot who held most of his country’s institutions in contempt; a passionate defender of historical truth who chose to write under an assumed name and who occasionally told lies; a self-styled champion of decency who backed causes that, had they prevailed, would have produced outcomes in which decency would have been difficult to discern; an atheist who decreed that his funeral should be conducted by the Church of England and that he should be buried in a rural parish churchyard. It is often the contradictions in an individual’s character that give it distinction; in the case of Orwell, these were more marked and more numerous than in most, but it is not clear whether he was even aware of them. Yet it is these which explain why he is claimed by those on opposing sides—by socialists and libertarians, by conservatives as well as radicals, by patriots and internationally minded progressives. In a sense, he is up for grabs. All sorts of people can identify with him and claim him—or almost claim him—for their own and are keen, even desperate, to do so. The “almost” is important: many of his admirers feel that if only he had fully grasped the implications of the part of his work of which they happen to approve there would be no doubt about the matter. Admirers, including this one, are eager to read the latest interpretation of his thought in the forlorn hope that this will confirm that he really would have been on their side; it is a difficult habit to kick.

…

… Seven years later, in a review of Friedrich Hayek’s Road to Serfdom in The Observer, which is curiously not mentioned in most of the Orwell biographies, he conceded that the negative part of Hayek’s thesis was correct: “It cannot be said too often—at any rate it is not being said nearly often enough—that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamed of. ” For good measure, he added: “Collectivism leads to concentration camps, leader worship, and war.” Well, that would seem to as unambiguous as you could wish for.

But Orwell’s review also dealt with a book by the Soviet sympathizer and left-wing Labour MP Konni Zilliacus, who blamed imperialism and capitalism for the two world wars and much else. Orwell had no difficulty in agreeing with Zilliacus that capitalism led to the creation of monopolies (Orwell did not seem to mind state monopolies), to food lines, and to war. It was a depressing thing: both writers were probably right. Then, equally typically: “There is no way out of this unless a planned economy can be combined with the freedom of the intellect, which can only happen if the concept of right and wrong is restored to politics.” Yet only a sentence earlier he had endorsed Hayek’s denunciation of central economic planning, which allowed no such possibility. When it came to recognizing unpalatable truths, it seems that Orwell had as much difficulty as the next man.

Such unresolved contradictions permeate Orwell’s thought and writing: they explain why he retains admirers on different sides of the political spectrum. We go on reading about him in the hope that these can somehow be resolved in a way that would finally put him irrevocably on our side; the fact that this can never be achieved only increases our desire for more. Orwell’s reputation as a moral giant survives, but the interest in him would surely not have survived if his courage in grappling with the moral and political complexities of his age had not been combined with a capacity to grasp the wrong end of the stick and hang on with great tenacity.

Read the rest here…

The State Doesn’t Actually Mind Being Quietly Fooled

It has come to my attention (not 100% confirmed, yet…) that an outsourcing contractor doing customer service and billing for the Israeli government pays an “analyst” to cook the books (on caller wait times).

Who loses? The “customers” of the phonily-privatized services.

Should we blow the whistle?

For a similar story, read this.

 

How State-Sponsored Judaism Deadens Judaism

How the State Deconstructs the Spirit 

Thursday, October 30, 2003

For many who don’t live in Israel it’s difficult explaining the religious issues that are tearing Israel apart. For those of you who are Orthodox and Zionist you often look to the Chief Rabbinate as the embodiment of Religious Zionism and the return to what must have been during the previous times of Jewish sovereignty. For those who are Conservative, Reform or unaffiliated, you may see the whole religious apparatus as an attempt by the Orthodox residents of the country to hoard money and exclude others from the political process.

Both arguments have elements of truth in them, but both miss the mark. The state-sponsored and controlled religious services in Israel are exclusionary, but in more ways than you might think. The present system has a cheapening effect on the religious practices of all Jews as well as a lessening of the spiritual and halakhic importance on many of what have come to be called “life-cycle events”.

One only has to go to a wedding or a funeral in Israel in order to understand the damage that state-sponsored religion has done to the Jewish psyche. The impersonal nature of both these “life-cycle” events as practiced in Israel is enough to depress both the most ardent religious statist or committed atheist. Joy and uplift at a wedding and grief and mourning at a funeral are exchanged for anger and lightness at these two most important of religious moments. They are treated much like getting a driver’s license or taking out a passport.

The basic Israeli funeral is an affront to all those Jews who volunteered for the Chevra Kadisha (society that prepares the dead for burial) over the last 2000 years. In most Jewish communities throughout the world, the Chevra Kadisha (CK) works modestly, quietly and with dedication to a job that is not the envy of anyone. For the most part, in large communities, no one even knows who is on the CK. Once a year, on the Shabbat of or following the 7th of Adar a special kiddush or seuda shlishit (third meal eaten on Shabbat, usually after afternoon-mincha services) is given by the CK itself commemorating what tradition states is the yarzeit (anniversary) of the death of Moses. Besides that, the members of the CK (and it always includes men and women) work with dedication and without recognition or compensation.

Here in Israel, the CK is a government-run organization of highly paid civil servants. They strike like other civil servants and hold communities and individuals hostage like other Israeli employee unions. In the cemetery in Kfar Saba there is even a warning sign telling people not to solicit charity because it is against the prohibition of “hasagat gevul”. Now, this prohibition (an anti-capitalist one for mercantilists) is in place to prevent the opening of competing businesses in the same location. In other words – the CK of Kfar Saba is saying: “Hey, the cemetery is our territory – only donations to the CK are allowed”.

At the funeral, the CK lead the family through the “Service” – Kaddish is said, Keriya (ritual tearing of the garment by close family members) is done and the funeral is over. If there is a eulogy, it is mumbled quickly by the civil servant as the attendees stand around.

And what of weddings? If you are not an orthodox Jew, you of course cannot get married by your rabbi (on the odd chance that you have one). If you are an Orthodox Jew, you may also not be able to get married by the rabbi of your choice. It could be that your rabbi does not have permission from the rabbi of the city or town in which your wedding hall is located. It may be (as is the case of a prominent rabbi in Ra’anana) that the Chief Rabbi of your town does not approve of your (Orthodox) rabbi and won’t give him permission to officiate at a wedding in his own town.

The wedding itself, with rare exceptions, is performed by a local civil servant who may or may not come on time. He may say a few words – sometimes a joke about marriage, sometimes a joke about the ceremony itself. The guests will stand around with drinks in their hands and food in their mouths. (I once attended a wedding performed by then Chief Rabbi Lau and he had to turn around in the middle and ask for quiet.) It is all according to halacha and the bride probably went (against her will?) to the mikva (ritual bath), but the emptiness of the moment permeates the hall along with the loud music.

Why has this happened in the Jewish state? How have the Jewish traditions of eastern Europe and the middle-east turned into dry effortless attempts to fill the checklist that is religious life here. Read the Ketuba? check; said the 7 blessings? check; stepped on the glass? check – Ok you’re married.

The Orthodox are used to getting things for free and so won’t donate money to build shuls and mikvas or pay their rabbis. The non-orthodox are so used to seeing bearded civil servants lead them through religious events that the wedding and funeral have become the religious equivalent of filling out your tax forms.

Israelis themselves are, like Americans, a very practical people. The US though has a tradition of religion being a complement to other aspects of civil society and so it is judged beyond its utilitarian aspects. Here in Israel religion has become just another government agency that provides services that the general public needs. Religion is judged by the efficiency in which the tasks (in this case halakhot) are accomplished.

A religious event or ceremony ought to be more than a “service”. A wedding isn’t simply a contract with obligations. A funeral is more than putting a body in the ground and covering it up.

The privatization of these “religious” services might give the average Jew (Orthodox or not) the ability to reconnect with his traditions. If they could actually choose to belong to a specific synagogue it might force the secular to turn to religion at important moments in their lives.

But in an odd sort of way it would have the greatest effect on the Orthodox world. It would revitalize religious practice by giving the Orthodox world in Israel the opportunity to take responsibility for their own religious lives. It would give them the opportunity to volunteer to bodies like the chevra kaddisha.

If the essence of the funeral is really the burial of the body and the essence of the wedding ceremony is merely the formalization of a relationship then state-sponsored religion serves its purpose.

But that cannot be the basis of two of the most important of our religious events. By taking control of our religious lives the state is deconstructing the spiritual life of the individual by turning the spiritual into an emotionless action whose only goal is to get it done.

We are not speaking about turning Israel into a “secular” state. Israel ought to remain a Jewish state and use Jewish traditions to form the basis of its civil society. Yet it must be a civil society if the traditions are to become more than the technicality of providing a service.

From Out of Step Jew, here.