 G'day mate, 40 here. We're at Manly going on a walkabout. So in listening to some of Mark Shapiro's lectures on Zaharia Frankl, he might be considered the founder of conservative Judaism and Mark Shapiro says he was a greater scholar than Abraham Geiger, he may be considered the founder of Reform Judaism. And a greater scholar than Shimshin Raphael Hirsch might be considered the founder of Modern Orthodox Judaism. So all three of the modern denominations of Judaism got their denominational start in Germany in the 19th century. So Zaharia Frankl, he wasn't a left-winger like Abraham Geiger in the Reform. He regarded himself as as a creator of the historical positive school. So he saw Judaism as developed over time rather than just, you know, dropped by God from man to Mount Sinai 30 to 100 years ago and he also took a positive perspective on it rather than the more critical perspective of reform. Somehow that historical positive monarchy didn't really take off. Okay. Better watch ourselves here at the police institute. So Mark Shapiro notes that all the modern movements of Judaism they all regard themselves as carrying the mantle of the Pharisees. So from an unjust perspective, right, the Pharisees are supposed to be the bad guys from the perspective of the New Testament and Christianity that Pharisees are legalistic and small-minded and petty. But from Jewish perspective, like all one Jewish denominations may carry the mantle of the Pharisees. From Jewish perspective, the Pharisees are a dynamic and creative adapting Judaism to changing times and Mark Shapiro talks about finding a couple of post-sakes from 18th and 19th century or AOK with the counting women in a Minion, a prayer Minion. That's a quorum of ten males traditionally to constitute a Minion to be able to say certain prayers and and Mark Shapiro pointed out his Harvard professors at Ortovsky and said how radical this was and Dr. Ortovsky said what determines whether something is radical or not is time. Time and space, community, situation. That situation changes things whether they consider radical or acceptable. So there are a whole bunch of beliefs that are totally unacceptable today but were acceptable 120 years ago. Okay, so 120 years ago Jews were regarded as a race. There was race science. People felt good about their race, including white people, and times of change. That's no longer socially acceptable. So you want to form some kind of identitarian movement, you're going to be isolated, rejected, marginalized, persecuted. If you're white and you try to do it on the basis of white racial identity, but you do it on the basis of Christianity, then it's much less controversial. So instead of talking about race, you just talk about Christ as king and you see this is the approach taken by Nick Fuentes. God would and a whole bunch of other distant right thinkers. They realize that there's no the future in an explicitly racial identity. You have to have to fit your cause into the mantle of what works. So just like all Jewish denominations situate themselves under the mantle of the Pharisees. So to revolutionary movements of the 21st century, they're not going to usually be very successful if they come out and say we're revolutionary. Right? Usually you're going to be more successful if you tie yourself into tradition some way. Make the case that you're socially acceptable. So no one came along and said, while we're starting a new religion, people said, no, we're just fulfilling what's already here. We're just reforming what's already here. We're just setting straight what's already here. That's a formula that works. Coming along straight out and saying, we're here to create a revolution like Richard Spencer used to talk about. And that's a suicidal path. People don't want to sign on for that. Now, you can tie yourself into the past and practice iso-jesus. Meaning you read whatever meaning you desire into the past, into the text, even if it's not there, as opposed to exo-jesus, where you just try to deduce from the text what's there. So you can read meaning into it and still tie yourself into tradition. But you need a winning formula. You need something that people can hold on to. You need to show that you've got some time-tested formula that you're wired into the wisdom, practice, and rituals of the past. You can have a lot more success with that approach coming along saying, hey, we're going to change everything. So how much reforming can you do until you leave Orthodox Judaism? So one definition is that Orthodox Jews accept the authority of the Shulkhana Ruk, which is a 15th-century full-volume compendium of Jewish law by Yosef Karo. And we don't always hold by the Shulkhana Ruk today. Jewish law has adapted and changed since the issuing of the Shulkhana Ruk, but if you explicitly come out and say that you're jettisoning the Shulkhana Ruk, then that's going to leave you outside of Orthodox Judaism. Now, what you need to do if you're going to work within a system, within a group, within a tradition, within a community, within a people, you have to get other people to sign on. So if you just unilaterally abrogate the Shulkhana Ruk, you're not going to have any pull within Orthodox Judaism. But if you can phrase things in a way that gathers support from many other members of your group, your fellow Orthodox Jews or whoever your group is, then you're much more likely to be successful. Now, many people in distant movements don't really want to be successful. They just want to feel as though they're edgy. They just want to feel important. They're just in it for the feels. They prefer to live in their delusions rather than in reality. So those people are going to be successful. If you're going to be successful with your group, your cause, reforming your people, your tradition, your religion, your nation's politics, you have to get others to sign on. And usually there are far more effective ways than directly trying to recruit people to your cause. Like if you can subtly insinuate that they came up with it on their own. They made their own journey to where you're at. And people can change effortlessly if they feel that they have agency and they are the force behind the change. But if you directly try to change people, they always resist. So it's not as easy getting communal support as people find it a lot easier to just go it alone. They have a lot more freedom, a lot more ease. But your work doesn't have as much resonance. You're much more likely to get ignored. This would also apply to my father. My father tried to reform the Seventh-day Adventist Church without gathering sufficient support among the administrators who had the power to bring about these changes. So even though he privately got many scholars or had many scholars on his side, the administrators, the people had the power. The Kenny sophisticated political plays in the church did not sign on. And in the end, Seventh-day Adventist Church rejected my father and rejected his reform of the message. And Seventh-day Adventism is more traditional and distinctive and gone in the very opposite direction of teachings. And my father is being left to the sidelines. So that's what usually happens if you pay no mind to your level of support. You pay no mind to recruiting people, using subtlety and flattery and care and compassion, right? Then you're going to have a lot more success than if you just try to bulldoze people or if you're just so sure that you're right, then people aren't going to listen to you. So we pretty much do everything with the consent of the community. Once you arouse enough opposition, right? You're going to be flattened. I mean, Richard Spence was a strong guy. But after the Hale Gate controversy, he thought that we were flattened. In fact, the cumulative toll of the hatred directed towards him has shifted him back into a mainstream perspective from 2020 on. So you just can't take living in the outskirts of society any longer. It's very painful to be rejected by society in the subject of tremendous opprobrium. It's a lot easier to work within the society. It requires a discipline. It requires a self-admigration. It requires taking other people's feelings into consideration. And for some people, this is natural. For healthy people, this is natural. If you're one of those people who naturally moves towards people, rather than away or against, then taking other people's feelings into consideration will come. Naturally, you'll be much more socially successful. If you are by inclination, someone who moves away from people, moves against people, like my father and me, very much of our lives, we're not much more naturally inclined to move away from people or against people rather than toward people. So that largely accounts for our social failures. Now you can form relationships, particularly with a spouse, I think with my mother. And that helped to moderate my father's tendencies to move against and to move away from people. And so, those tendencies were muted. You learn to move with people, move towards people, and it got along socially much better. But when she died, then his life was thrown into turmoil and moving away from people, moving against people became stronger and stronger. Though, I'm sure my stepmother at times was moderating influence in ways. In the end, that tendency to move away became dominant. He got kicked out of the church's ministry. So a formula for social success that moved towards people, moved towards the traditions that they love, the practices that they love, the interpretations that they love, and then seek to update them or modify them or slightly redirect them in a direction that is congenial with people and then you'll be able to build a following and a much more effective social movement.