Simon, I think if you would have checked Slifkin's blog today, you would understand why I did this. It wasn't something I wanted to do. It made me sick. But I had to do it.
Why is his post being treated as more legitimate or insightful than it really is? The narrative he's pushing—labeling certain groups as "parasites"—is profoundly troubling. This isn't just an innocuous or passing comment; it’s a term loaded with historical significance, one that has been weaponized by some of the most virulent forms of antisemitism, particularly by Nazi-like ideologies. Throughout history, the "parasite" trope has been used to dehumanize Jews, portraying them as leeches or pests that drain society without contributing, undermining the social order. To invoke such language today is not merely careless—it is deeply irresponsible. It taps into a dark and dangerous history of bigotry that has fueled some of the most horrific consequences, including the Holocaust.
What’s especially concerning is that this type of rhetoric still finds its way into public discourse. We need to seriously question why such charged and dangerous language is being used, especially when we should be much more aware of its historical weight. Even if the speaker doesn’t consciously intend to stoke hatred or perpetuate harmful stereotypes, the mere use of these terms risks normalizing dangerous ideas and deepening social divides. The rhetoric may be cloaked in an attempt at humor or critique, but the harm it can do by reinforcing toxic, divisive narratives is undeniable.
Ok. I thought it over, and I see why Natan's post elicited such a extreme reaction. I agree that he crossed a line. However, this is still a major escalation and I would do not take back my criticism on this post.
I'm well aware. I was responding to him (although I should not really be commenting on this thread and letting this antisemitic vitrol reach unsavory people's feed)
Slifkin defends himself that he is only using the dictionary definition "A person who habitually relies on or exploits others". Here is why he is lying.
If that was what "parasite" means, then it could equally describe children, the elderly, many wives, the poor, himself who relies on flattering the rich to fund his museum. So why doesn't he say that it is accurate to call himself and all these people "parasites"? The answer is that he knows very well that it is only meant as a derogatory, hateful term when used for people, which is why it is almost exclusively used by antisemites. But he wrote a whole post about how it is accurate term for chareidim. What an awful, disgusting thing to say. He really is a lowly, vile creature, isn't he?
Correct, of course. But I don't see any reason to lend this putrid puddle of vomit an air of legitimacy by pretending that it has anything to do with arguments.
It's even worse than you think. His own words in a comment at the same post:
"My "echo chamber" is pretty much the entire non-charedi population."
He is literally delusional, conflating several thousand non-paying "subscribers" with devoted sycophants, fancying himself as leading and speaking for all non-Charedi Jews. His arrogance is off the charts. He runs after honor. At some point, we will see honor run away from him BE"H. May it be a kaparah for him when it happens.
I have lived in a Dati-Leumi stronghold since 2019 (before that, Beitar Illit for over 20 years), and I can tell you that he is entirely wrong. People open their wallets to the occasional Charedi men who show up in the beit knesset seeking financial assistance. I've seen this plenty. Even as there are casualties and tragedies, he speaks for no one here, not even the small Anglo contingent.
This article raises an important critique of Slifkin's weird post, and personally, I don't find it as offensive as @Simon_Furst does. However, I do agree that there's something distasteful about it. My main issue is that beneath the vitriolic tone and the foolish rhetoric used by Slifkin, which clearly dismisses the Haredi perspective, is there not a kernel of truth in what he is trying to say? The satire and parody, while effective in making a point, can sometimes obscure the underlying message, making it difficult to engage with the real issues he’s addressing. It's easy to get caught up in the mockery, but we shouldn't lose sight of the potential validity of the concerns he raises.
The idea of the parody and leitzonus here (I'm talking generally) is PRECISELY to deflect from the potential validity of the concerns he raises. As mesilas yeshorim points out, leitzonus is like an oiled shield or something like that.
Because the great talmudic brains of Lakewood still cannot deal with simple questions like, if torah protects, why do the charedi cities of Beitar and Kiryat Sefer demand extra security in times of tension? Or why torah can protect against bombs and missiled, but not from poverty, such that chareidi leaders have to travel the world asking for support. The great talmudic scholars will cry 'hishtadlus, stupid' not realising how foolish and self-contradictory that is. Or you might just get a rant about ignoring 'da'as torah' at your peril.
If the concerns were valid, why must they be accompanied by disgusting anti-Semitic slurs? Why must those slurs be defended and justified? That's an indication that these concerns are not sincere (and we explained why a million times) and are basically just a pretext for visceral, anti-religious hatred.
It’s true that the parody employed on this blog often undermines the validity of the concerns being raised. By relying on humor and exaggeration, the very tactic used to highlight the absurdity of certain ideas also risks distracting from the genuine issues at hand. However, this method of parody does something else as well: it effectively exposes how sometimes, Slifkin’s arguments (and those of others who adopt similar approaches) can come across as overly simplistic, trivial, or downright absurd. When the blog’s authors use the same rhetorical techniques that Slifkin himself employs—hyperbole, exaggeration, and wordplay—they invite the reader to step back and view the arguments from a more detached, critical perspective. In doing so, they strip away the emotional charge and tone down the rhetoric, allowing us to see that much of what is being said is, in fact, just a series of exaggerated claims and rhetorical flourishes rather than substantive reasoning.
In this sense, the parody is not merely an attack or a mockery—it’s a tool for revealing how easily hyperbole can obscure meaningful discourse. The blog's approach is actually quite effective in highlighting the weaknesses of certain arguments by mirroring the very tactics used in those arguments. The parody doesn't just serve to ridicule; it shows, in a way, how ridiculous the arguments seem when stripped of their emotional appeal and subjected to the same exaggerated techniques they use. This is why parody works so well in this context—it’s not only a form of satire but a means of critiquing the use of overblown rhetoric in the first place.
Ultimately, the use of parody on this blog is not just about making a point through humor—it’s about disarming the hyperbolic language that can dominate these discussions and allowing the reader to engage with the underlying issues in a clearer, more rational way. By reflecting the same techniques used by Slifkin, the parody invites us to see the whole argument as something less than serious, allowing us to consider whether the original concerns are based on something real or simply a product of overstated rhetoric. And in doing so, the blog often does a brilliant job of cutting through the noise and revealing the true nature of the debate.
Yes, it’s obviously AI, but that doesn’t mean it’s just empty or vague responses. It engages directly with the points you're making and provides thoughtful, relevant replies. I use AI as a tool, but I ensure that the responses align with what I want to communicate, shaping the output to be purposeful and meaningful.
No, it does not provide thoughtful, relevant replies to my points. If we were having a general debate about the merits or non-merits of parody, you may be correct. But I raised specific points which remain unaddressed.
I’m sorry, but I’m having a little trouble understanding what you mean. Could you please clarify or provide more details? That way, I can be sure I’m responding accurately to what you’re trying to say.
You mention the Chareidi high fertility rate keeping the demographic in Israel Jewish; and the low fertility rate of the secular being the cause for not having enough manpower.
The response usually goes that the Dati community also has a high fertility rate (albeit less than the Chareidim).
Interestingly, here is a good argument claiming that the whole higher fertility rate in Israel (while being a western rich country) is thanks to chareidim because fertility rates works by mimicking society around you. And Israel has a trickle down effect from the Chareidim
This is only in response to Slifkin's putrid vomit, I think it would be heartless and cruel to say such a thing in response to people who genuinely need help.
In terms of your point about birthrates, what do datiim have to do with this? They are a minority of Jews in Israel, and have very little power. When we talk about the so-called "war on Torah", we are talking about the secularists who are the majority, certainly of those in power. They have very low birthrates. I also include the dati-lites who ally themselves with the secularists and are basically secularist themselves, and hate chareidim like Slifkin does. They too tend to have low birthrates, and are practically guaranteed to become totally frei in one or two generations. So they were very irresponsible in not producing enough children to provide manpower for the army. Still, that would be a cruel response to fellow Jews who need help, to tell them it's their fault and go jump in a lake. That's why I never meant it seriously. I do think chareidim need to find a way to help.
Without going into the discussion if Chareidim need to help or not.
And without going into the discussion which level of fertility the Datiim are at (I didn't read yet the article Ben Gurion posted below).
According to Slifkin the whole reason that the Chareidim don't join the army is because they don't want to destroy their way of life; and he believes that doing their fair share overrides that need.
My point is that the only reason Israel has a higher birthrate even among the secular is because of the Chareidim, without Chareidim the birthrate will plumet even among the no-Chareidim, if so, destroying the Chareidims' way of life will ultimately destroy Israel because of a lack of manpower.
The truth is, nowadays Slifkin comes out daily with a diarrhea explosion, filled with inaccuracies, amhaaratzus, and vitriol.
I sometimes think of answering him, but we need to appreciate the context.
In Israel, everything is political. When the public discourse turns to Charedim and their army service, you can be sure that a political figure is attempting to stage a comeback, and he does so by riling up the public against the ruling figure. Charedim are easy targets, and they are the ones often used for political campaigns. Recently, Bennett has been attempting to rebrand himself as the alternative to Bibi, so miraculously, many articles have decried the Charedim. The attitude in the street hasn't changed, most DL appreciate that Charedim have a different opinion to them and respect that. The airtime is being given to those who are upset, for political purposes.
There are some useful idiots, who don't realize themselves how they are being used.
I read one of Rav Avigdor Miller's parsha sheets recently and in it he commented how the Charedim were called parasites by Jews even in pre-war Europe. He either experienced or witnessed it personally. There is nothing new.
I don't think this was a worthy response, even as a parody, certainly not in the midst of the war. The IDF isn't "their" (the secular population's) military. It defends all of us. And what about the many, many serving soldiers who have not "abandoned the Torah" and have "consequently low birthrates," as the deaths of fathers of five, eight and 10 children recently demonstrated?
This post wasn't about that, but it's a complicated issue we've written about before. I do think that there is room for compromise to have more chareidim serving than currently.
Not directed at me, but I'll answer. I'm more qualified anyway, since I live in Israel.
No.
I'll qualify that. My answer might change if, instead of one or two Charedi battalions, the entire army were run according to standards Charedim would approve of.
The question was, " Do you think it's time for Haredim to submit to the draft?"
I gave an answer, along with a personal qualification.
You are not interested in dialog, or honest inquiries. Were Slifkin or you in charge, I have no doubt we would all get to witness and/or experience the Final Solution to the Charedi Problem.
Ignoring the logical aspect of what you said, I feel that calling another Jew by that most revolting name is just something we don’t do…
Not funny. This was highly offensive and insensitive
Simon, I think if you would have checked Slifkin's blog today, you would understand why I did this. It wasn't something I wanted to do. It made me sick. But I had to do it.
I read his post, but this crosses a red line, and I'm sure anyone you consider daas torah would agree. This post should be removed.
And where is your comment on his post? I think all red lines have been crossed, trampled upon, and ripped up from the ground by this guy.
While I don't agree with everything natan writes, this is a totally separate level.
Why is his post being treated as more legitimate or insightful than it really is? The narrative he's pushing—labeling certain groups as "parasites"—is profoundly troubling. This isn't just an innocuous or passing comment; it’s a term loaded with historical significance, one that has been weaponized by some of the most virulent forms of antisemitism, particularly by Nazi-like ideologies. Throughout history, the "parasite" trope has been used to dehumanize Jews, portraying them as leeches or pests that drain society without contributing, undermining the social order. To invoke such language today is not merely careless—it is deeply irresponsible. It taps into a dark and dangerous history of bigotry that has fueled some of the most horrific consequences, including the Holocaust.
What’s especially concerning is that this type of rhetoric still finds its way into public discourse. We need to seriously question why such charged and dangerous language is being used, especially when we should be much more aware of its historical weight. Even if the speaker doesn’t consciously intend to stoke hatred or perpetuate harmful stereotypes, the mere use of these terms risks normalizing dangerous ideas and deepening social divides. The rhetoric may be cloaked in an attempt at humor or critique, but the harm it can do by reinforcing toxic, divisive narratives is undeniable.
Really?
Ok. I thought it over, and I see why Natan's post elicited such a extreme reaction. I agree that he crossed a line. However, this is still a major escalation and I would do not take back my criticism on this post.
Is that two independent thoughts? Or are you claiming the second follows naturally from the first?
If the latter, please explain why that should be.
Stop getting technical. You know good and well what I mean and you should be ashamed for posting this
Rational Traditionalist is not the same person as myself.
I'm well aware. I was responding to him (although I should not really be commenting on this thread and letting this antisemitic vitrol reach unsavory people's feed)
I bet you wouldn't have been thrilled about this one either: https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/a-review-of-jud-su-veit-harlan-1940
Strong disagree. Natans post was uncalled for and disgusting. This is a fair response and parody
Slifkin defends himself that he is only using the dictionary definition "A person who habitually relies on or exploits others". Here is why he is lying.
If that was what "parasite" means, then it could equally describe children, the elderly, many wives, the poor, himself who relies on flattering the rich to fund his museum. So why doesn't he say that it is accurate to call himself and all these people "parasites"? The answer is that he knows very well that it is only meant as a derogatory, hateful term when used for people, which is why it is almost exclusively used by antisemites. But he wrote a whole post about how it is accurate term for chareidim. What an awful, disgusting thing to say. He really is a lowly, vile creature, isn't he?
Correct, of course. But I don't see any reason to lend this putrid puddle of vomit an air of legitimacy by pretending that it has anything to do with arguments.
The word you seek is "rasha".
It's even worse than you think. His own words in a comment at the same post:
"My "echo chamber" is pretty much the entire non-charedi population."
He is literally delusional, conflating several thousand non-paying "subscribers" with devoted sycophants, fancying himself as leading and speaking for all non-Charedi Jews. His arrogance is off the charts. He runs after honor. At some point, we will see honor run away from him BE"H. May it be a kaparah for him when it happens.
I have lived in a Dati-Leumi stronghold since 2019 (before that, Beitar Illit for over 20 years), and I can tell you that he is entirely wrong. People open their wallets to the occasional Charedi men who show up in the beit knesset seeking financial assistance. I've seen this plenty. Even as there are casualties and tragedies, he speaks for no one here, not even the small Anglo contingent.
This article raises an important critique of Slifkin's weird post, and personally, I don't find it as offensive as @Simon_Furst does. However, I do agree that there's something distasteful about it. My main issue is that beneath the vitriolic tone and the foolish rhetoric used by Slifkin, which clearly dismisses the Haredi perspective, is there not a kernel of truth in what he is trying to say? The satire and parody, while effective in making a point, can sometimes obscure the underlying message, making it difficult to engage with the real issues he’s addressing. It's easy to get caught up in the mockery, but we shouldn't lose sight of the potential validity of the concerns he raises.
The idea of the parody and leitzonus here (I'm talking generally) is PRECISELY to deflect from the potential validity of the concerns he raises. As mesilas yeshorim points out, leitzonus is like an oiled shield or something like that.
Because the great talmudic brains of Lakewood still cannot deal with simple questions like, if torah protects, why do the charedi cities of Beitar and Kiryat Sefer demand extra security in times of tension? Or why torah can protect against bombs and missiled, but not from poverty, such that chareidi leaders have to travel the world asking for support. The great talmudic scholars will cry 'hishtadlus, stupid' not realising how foolish and self-contradictory that is. Or you might just get a rant about ignoring 'da'as torah' at your peril.
If the concerns were valid, why must they be accompanied by disgusting anti-Semitic slurs? Why must those slurs be defended and justified? That's an indication that these concerns are not sincere (and we explained why a million times) and are basically just a pretext for visceral, anti-religious hatred.
Not sure how your response deals properly with anything I wrote. Basically just deflecting with a question. I know the tactic.
It’s true that the parody employed on this blog often undermines the validity of the concerns being raised. By relying on humor and exaggeration, the very tactic used to highlight the absurdity of certain ideas also risks distracting from the genuine issues at hand. However, this method of parody does something else as well: it effectively exposes how sometimes, Slifkin’s arguments (and those of others who adopt similar approaches) can come across as overly simplistic, trivial, or downright absurd. When the blog’s authors use the same rhetorical techniques that Slifkin himself employs—hyperbole, exaggeration, and wordplay—they invite the reader to step back and view the arguments from a more detached, critical perspective. In doing so, they strip away the emotional charge and tone down the rhetoric, allowing us to see that much of what is being said is, in fact, just a series of exaggerated claims and rhetorical flourishes rather than substantive reasoning.
In this sense, the parody is not merely an attack or a mockery—it’s a tool for revealing how easily hyperbole can obscure meaningful discourse. The blog's approach is actually quite effective in highlighting the weaknesses of certain arguments by mirroring the very tactics used in those arguments. The parody doesn't just serve to ridicule; it shows, in a way, how ridiculous the arguments seem when stripped of their emotional appeal and subjected to the same exaggerated techniques they use. This is why parody works so well in this context—it’s not only a form of satire but a means of critiquing the use of overblown rhetoric in the first place.
Ultimately, the use of parody on this blog is not just about making a point through humor—it’s about disarming the hyperbolic language that can dominate these discussions and allowing the reader to engage with the underlying issues in a clearer, more rational way. By reflecting the same techniques used by Slifkin, the parody invites us to see the whole argument as something less than serious, allowing us to consider whether the original concerns are based on something real or simply a product of overstated rhetoric. And in doing so, the blog often does a brilliant job of cutting through the noise and revealing the true nature of the debate.
How about you actually respond to my points, rather than AI generated waffle?
Yes, it’s obviously AI, but that doesn’t mean it’s just empty or vague responses. It engages directly with the points you're making and provides thoughtful, relevant replies. I use AI as a tool, but I ensure that the responses align with what I want to communicate, shaping the output to be purposeful and meaningful.
"and provides thoughtful, relevant replies."
No, it does not provide thoughtful, relevant replies to my points. If we were having a general debate about the merits or non-merits of parody, you may be correct. But I raised specific points which remain unaddressed.
Can you learn, or do you believe you can learn?
I’m sorry, but I’m having a little trouble understanding what you mean. Could you please clarify or provide more details? That way, I can be sure I’m responding accurately to what you’re trying to say.
You mention the Chareidi high fertility rate keeping the demographic in Israel Jewish; and the low fertility rate of the secular being the cause for not having enough manpower.
The response usually goes that the Dati community also has a high fertility rate (albeit less than the Chareidim).
Interestingly, here is a good argument claiming that the whole higher fertility rate in Israel (while being a western rich country) is thanks to chareidim because fertility rates works by mimicking society around you. And Israel has a trickle down effect from the Chareidim
https://nonzionism.com/p/why-is-israel-fertile?r=208tcm&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Moshe from BP
This is only in response to Slifkin's putrid vomit, I think it would be heartless and cruel to say such a thing in response to people who genuinely need help.
In terms of your point about birthrates, what do datiim have to do with this? They are a minority of Jews in Israel, and have very little power. When we talk about the so-called "war on Torah", we are talking about the secularists who are the majority, certainly of those in power. They have very low birthrates. I also include the dati-lites who ally themselves with the secularists and are basically secularist themselves, and hate chareidim like Slifkin does. They too tend to have low birthrates, and are practically guaranteed to become totally frei in one or two generations. So they were very irresponsible in not producing enough children to provide manpower for the army. Still, that would be a cruel response to fellow Jews who need help, to tell them it's their fault and go jump in a lake. That's why I never meant it seriously. I do think chareidim need to find a way to help.
Without going into the discussion if Chareidim need to help or not.
And without going into the discussion which level of fertility the Datiim are at (I didn't read yet the article Ben Gurion posted below).
According to Slifkin the whole reason that the Chareidim don't join the army is because they don't want to destroy their way of life; and he believes that doing their fair share overrides that need.
My point is that the only reason Israel has a higher birthrate even among the secular is because of the Chareidim, without Chareidim the birthrate will plumet even among the no-Chareidim, if so, destroying the Chareidims' way of life will ultimately destroy Israel because of a lack of manpower.
Moshe From BP
The dati growth rate is almost nil.
https://chotam.org.il/media/37347/demography-of-religiosity.pdf
The truth is, nowadays Slifkin comes out daily with a diarrhea explosion, filled with inaccuracies, amhaaratzus, and vitriol.
I sometimes think of answering him, but we need to appreciate the context.
In Israel, everything is political. When the public discourse turns to Charedim and their army service, you can be sure that a political figure is attempting to stage a comeback, and he does so by riling up the public against the ruling figure. Charedim are easy targets, and they are the ones often used for political campaigns. Recently, Bennett has been attempting to rebrand himself as the alternative to Bibi, so miraculously, many articles have decried the Charedim. The attitude in the street hasn't changed, most DL appreciate that Charedim have a different opinion to them and respect that. The airtime is being given to those who are upset, for political purposes.
There are some useful idiots, who don't realize themselves how they are being used.
Have a look here:
https://savethehilltopyouth.substack.com/p/when-is-a-jew-a-nazi
I read one of Rav Avigdor Miller's parsha sheets recently and in it he commented how the Charedim were called parasites by Jews even in pre-war Europe. He either experienced or witnessed it personally. There is nothing new.
I don't think this was a worthy response, even as a parody, certainly not in the midst of the war. The IDF isn't "their" (the secular population's) military. It defends all of us. And what about the many, many serving soldiers who have not "abandoned the Torah" and have "consequently low birthrates," as the deaths of fathers of five, eight and 10 children recently demonstrated?
Regretfully, I had no choice. See my discussion with Simon Furst.
Of course you had a choice. You could have learnt a Tosfos instead.
Since I'm pretty new to your blog, one question, just for the record: Do you think it's time for Haredim to submit to the draft?
This post wasn't about that, but it's a complicated issue we've written about before. I do think that there is room for compromise to have more chareidim serving than currently.
Not directed at me, but I'll answer. I'm more qualified anyway, since I live in Israel.
No.
I'll qualify that. My answer might change if, instead of one or two Charedi battalions, the entire army were run according to standards Charedim would approve of.
There are no standards chareidim would approve of. Anything new is automatically disproved off. Have you never noticed?
Don't be pathetic and illiterate, test.
The question was, " Do you think it's time for Haredim to submit to the draft?"
I gave an answer, along with a personal qualification.
You are not interested in dialog, or honest inquiries. Were Slifkin or you in charge, I have no doubt we would all get to witness and/or experience the Final Solution to the Charedi Problem.
The issue has been documented and recorded HERE:
https://savethehilltopyouth.substack.com/p/when-is-a-jew-a-nazi?utm_source=publication-search
This is brilliant!
This is the best parody of slifkin you have ever done!
I want to give a special nod to your sourcing הלא כבני כושיים. Real stroke of brilliance!
And כסדום היינו כעמורה דמינו
How did you come up with this stuff?
Burn.
Punching above your weight again.