With the terrifying spectre of an open Hamasplainer having been elected to what some call the third most powerful office in the world — placing 2025 New Yorkers almost on a similar moral plane as 1933 Germans and 2006 Gazans — there is one uncomfortable question that remains: with so many “MOT’s” having not only voted for the mayor-elect but having campaigned for him under their hijacked mutation of “Judaism”, how to relate to those erstwhile brethren and sistren?
Does one try to be “mekarev” them? Are they “tinokos shenishbu” even though they have not only adopted a political creed so openly hostile to Judaism but they have treasonously grafted “Jewish” on it as if putting a kippah, tallis, tefillin on a pig and then giving it a birs before administering chassidishe shchita?
Or—do we view them as the 20% viewed the 80% prior to the three days of Makkas Choshech who freely and without coercion decided that their future lay in Egypt — and, while they may not have died en masse literally like the midrashim propose, they may have simply been dead to the other 20% by virtue [signal] of their decision to opt out?
The contrast between Avraham’s ostensible fierce advocacy in this week’s parsha for Sodom contrasts starkly with his silence as his brother Haran suffers the fate meant for him 2 parshos ago. I would like to suggest that Haran is a prototype for the 80%— and by extension for the 2025 Jewish Mamdani voter; this time—the Haran came to its logical conclusion and voted for Haman, and did so openly and proudly under the banner of a “Judaism” kidnaped and abused into a gross mutation of the host.
What is uncanny about Avraham in Vayera is not that he advocates so fiercely for Sodom — it is that he doesn’t advocate for his own brother. Avraham pleads for an entire civilization that is already morally cremated, yet he lets Haran burn — and does not even attempt a plea bargain with Nimrod, or a habeas motion before G-d. People stumble on this because they assume both categories — Sodom and Haran — should be grouped together as “wicked people who have sunk too far.” But Sodom gets a lawyer. Haran does not. Why? Because Sodom is a defendant — an actual named party in the case. Haran is not. Haran refuses to be a party of record. And Torah is making a clinical distinction, not an emotional one.
Haran never chose a conviction; he tried to ride the verdict. His sin was not licentiousness. His sin was opportunism. Terach at least “narc’d” in the open — that is morally repugnant, but at least it is an explicit allegiance. Haran instead engineered a moral equivalence between Abraham and Nimrod — and then assumed that whichever side won would claim him as a shareholder. That is performative neutrality — which is its own form of treason. In modern psychological terms: he wanted the schar of Pinchas without actually picking up a spear. And Avraham must have known his brother’s pattern — this was not naïve uncertainty, this was a betting slip.
So Avraham advocating for Sodom is not rachmanus al ha’achzarim. It is strict scrutiny of the strict-scrutiny case. Avraham is effectively saying: if You are about to administer a Midas HaDin verdict of irreversible civilizational liquidation — then that verdict must be subjected to a Midas HaDin standard that leaves not only no reasonable doubt — but no doubt whatsoever. And that is why Abraham is not merely permitted to defend Sodom — he is commanded to. He becomes, functionally, their court-appointed attorney — zealously representing a client the Court itself has assigned him.
In that light, Bruriah’s yitamu chata’im fits Abraham perfectly — until the moment the choteh becomes itam ha’chotim — where the sinner and the sin collapse into one undifferentiated object, and the attempt at rehabilitation becomes categorically incoherent. That is Haran. And that is why Haran is the conceptual ancestor of Haman. Haman is the perfected form of Haran’s instinct: the opportunist who will vote annihilation if annihilation is the current that secures his imagined insider status. Haran is not the man who doubted. Haran is the man who had no convictions — and therefore ended up defaulting to the power structure that promised him the highest psychological yield. In our age — this is the category to fear most. Because the Harans always end up voting for the Hamans — even when they themselves will get burned in the process.
When a person publicly uses “as a Jew” as the rhetorical justification for a political stance that structurally endangers Jews, they are no longer speaking as the tzibbur — they are speaking only as themselves. == This is the distinction Avraham makes in the furnace scene — Haran stands near the Jews, but not as one of them. Avraham’s Eruvin 19a rescue boundary demonstrates that the decisive category is covenantal anchoring, not the degree of sin. He rescues the wicked, the compromised, even the morally confused — every sinner except those who erased their covenant identity.
So how do we relate to those who publicly claim that their Judaism is the very basis for endorsing a political platform that materially endangers Jews?
This is the time to call it out for what it is. A betrayal so complete that even Avraham Avinu would not allow himself to recognize the perps — except as he “recognized” his brother.
Therefore: Zohran voters who used Judaism as a justification for their votes…
… are worse than Hamas. Because you have introduced and catalyzed the metastasis of their intersectional oncogene into several of our internal ecosystems for your own benefit and self-validation in the vehicle of virtue signaling.
…are all porshim and acherim; Zimrim, Momaderim, and Moomers all in one.
…have no right to speak on behalf of us, and morally and spritually have no rights to even ask for access to communal resources. They can get that from the Soroses and the Qataris, if they don’t already.
…have no rights to ask for any kid of spiritual comfort from tribal brethren and sistren whom they betrayed. In case one should try to protest about this move on their counterparts — this was done after the 2018 Pittsburgh massacre when Franklin Foerskin yemach shmo made this threat to Jewish Trump voters in the pages of the Altlantic. And then year a later cancelled his own already thin credibility by making excuses for the perps of the Jersey City atrocity. So he was never speaking out of communal concern: it was all about politics and virute signaling.
…aren’t even to be represented as the reshaim at the seder. Which makes perfect logical sense because Zohran voters types have likely already made their own mutated versions with oranges — and other artifacts that are analogous to spiritual tumors — on their Seder plates.
… are lower than afar va’efer — because that is what they would rather reduce their coreligionists to rather than admit that their intersectional peor-gressive worldview is a load of Greta Garbage.
…are the paradigm of the response of the mesis/mediach confirming an adoption of the mutato-Mamonidean code of wokearei emunah: kach hi chovasenu, kach yafeh lanu.
…Unity? UNITY? (Sorry, Jim Mora). Unity for Zohran voters is under the banner of a universalism which would erase Judaism — an epistocide, which — as the “poor Gaza” mantras over the last two yeara have proven — would justify Judeocide, even if it took them along with it, because—like the idol worshipers who took out their idols from their bosoms to kiss them and died when their innards burst — Zohran voters are all ready to die Al Chilul Hashem if it leads to the end of Judaism. (Glenn Greenwald and Ben Cohen ym”shm meet regularly with Tucker Carlson, so Zohran voters shouldn’t pretend they’re above talking to “right wing MAGA fascists” if it will help in furthering the above mentioned epistocide.)
Even Bruriah would not have us pray for them — and they would not want us to pray for them either, as they would assume the G-d we pray to must be Zionist, while they go say Kaddish for dead Hamas terrorists.
Zohran voters are they/them.
Zohran voters are not us.
When Haran votes for Haman, Haran votes himself out.
That is exactly what happened this past Tuesday.
No comments:
Post a Comment