mentalblog.com comments:
The jacobsons are closet antis, they merely align themselves with the Mishechisten in order to be heard.
I believe that there is a clear distinction between the shlichus system and VHT and algemeiner, a distinction that was not mentioned:
The Shlichus system is something which affects the masses, it is an organization which popularly constitutes and designated who's doing the "Rebbe's Arbet" and who is an evil parasite, carelessly (Or rather, intentionally) sucking proverbial blood from Chabad's holy mission; I call this view popular because many people believe this to be true to some degree.
Now, take the Algemeiner and VHT, these are organizations operated and controlled by two or three people, people which openly state their goal, their mission - which is not to represent themselves as the Rebbe's spokespeople - not to manipulate the public into investing in their tinted glasses.
It is actually the systemniks who are stripping the Rebbe's words from it's true spirit, limiting the Rebbe's meaning of "Ufaratzta" - to "Ufaratzta with the approval of Merkos"
what is VHT? please expand with examples.
VHT is the acronym for Vaad Hanochos haTmimim - Simon's organization. Examples of what?
how is "Vaad Hanochos haTmimim" is not representing the Rebbe?
I will list a few arguments, in no particular order
Vaad Hanochos haTmimim (Which will be refered to as VHT from now) translates into transcripts which a few bochurim had written back then, and are simply being published today, every page of their publications has the words "Bilti Mugeh" lit. unchecked, meaning that these transcripts weren't edited by the Rebbe.
My point however was, that VHT, even if it does represent the Rebbe to a certain extent (Which is not really possible, since VHT is an organization which simply publishes Maamorim of the Rebbe, as well as a weekly newsletter - it does not really have an administrative or financial wing; it is basically a think-tank) it still does not surpass systemnik's masking behind the Rebbe's so-called establishments, so when Merkos removes a shliach, that shliach was in effect, removed by the Rebbe. I have yet to see Simon do - or say - something to that extent.
We may all, at times, develop a certain theory or opinion and then attribute it to the Rebbe, after all, it would add to their credibility and self-esteem. It would add to their credibility, since people would not, in such strong terms, sense the messenger, but would sense the message. It would add to the person's self-esteem, because he will then be under the impression that he is the true messenger; he is not spreading his own word, but that of divine inspiration. It is my opinion that every person is subject to this pitfall - inluding Simon. Although I may be a bit biased, since i do side with many of his arguments, it will still be reasonable to say that he to is subject to being victim of statig his won theories and enstating them as the Rebbe's.
Another point to consider: Simon is not in power, he has no formal position within the Lubavitch heiarchy, and is actually viewed as some kind of fringe outcast - it actually amazes me that he still has an office in 770; it would be interesting to see what he would if he were to be in power. But ultimately, that notion doesn't hold to much ground, since Simon preaches anarchy, (or anti-establishment) on all levels - this is different than the Mishechisten of the late 90's who were seeking to overthrow Krinksy & co. in which their claim was that the Rebbe never appointed Krinsky and Shemtov (Refered to as K&S from now) but rather appointed Leibel Groner and S.M. Simpson to be in charge - in other words, their problem wasn't with the current perception of the system, they actually supported totalitarianism but didn't approve of those at the helm. Don't believe me? just ask them what they think ought to be present in every Chabad Yeshiva - a Yechi sign! and who ought to be in charge of all matters in Chabad? the Badat"z. Ask simon these questions, I doubt that he will give you the same answers. I believe that he is a man that encourages liberty, as opposed to the others who want to dictate and rule everything in site, the former, i believe, was also the Rebbe's way of looking at things.
There are hundreds of Shluchim who appointed themselves. They were not sent by Merkoz or Head Shluchim but they do have a tacit support of the Merkoz. It always amazes me how these people call themselves Rebbe’s emissaries.
I can’t say if Simon speaks in the name of the Rebbe more or less than others. I suspect it is the same. Nor can I comment on latent of active totalitarian tendencies in people. I know given an opportunity most will be slave drivers.
1) I don't know of any "self-appointed" shluchim! They all were either appointed by another shliach ("shliach oseh shliach") or by Merkos directly. Those that weren't indeed are not emmisaries and they do NOT represent the Rebbe in any way. (They may follw his ideology, teachings etc. but they do NOT in any way work for the Rebbe)>
2) Thank G-d no one brought up the parnasa issue and shlichus because it's nonsence. 5% of shluchim are making it and the rest are hand to mouth, chasing their tails. I don't think we could say that about Jacobsons Inc. (although they may plead poverty...)
True, since merkos is the Rebbe's organization, so when someone works for merkos, they are in turn working for the Rebbe. While it may be a great zchus to be under the Rebbe's organization, is this what the Rebbe meant when he declared the idea of shlichus - as to mean the shlichus of "My organization" as opposed to the shlichus of "My ideologies"?
Merkos says yes.
The problem is that Merkos is trying to implement itself [also] as the spiritual wing of Lubavitch; meaning that not only are they the sole owners of the name "Chabad" and "Lubavitch" but are also the founders and shapers of its meaning. Only after merkos establishes itself as a spiritual entity, can it start telling people that "they are against the Rebbe" or that they are "Doing the Rebbe's shlichus), otherwise, their words are as significant as those of George Rohr.
The Rebbe, however, never hinted of any spiritual leadership
Intersting pictures (and comments) on COL of Seudas Moshiach in the conference room...
Invalid analogy. THe Perushim had the emes. Not too many people in Chabad today can make that claim truthfully.
Tony, what do we know about the emes? But to say that Yudel and Co. somehow have the oral tradition is factually incorrect. Does anyone seriously believes that Yudel and even Avremel and even Hodakov received special instruction from the Rebbe in addition to what was told publicly? A reality check please: Yudel lost the Rebbe's will!!! Apocrypha alright. And you want him to remember the tradition? Lay off the mashke please…
How can we understand the meteoric rise from chauffeur (baal hagoloh) to executor of the will and then the finale of "I can't find it"? Is this some kind of practical joke?
Simon and all the Jays (Including GB) are just good opportunists. And they excell at it.
They just follow the flow in the CH street.
[Plus the money from ZG and others did noit hurt]
Edited By Siteowner
Skepticism is easy. Let me explain later: although you might not revere Yudel and Avremel, the emes is in the "oral tradition". Gotta run now. I'll argue you it later.
PS - Tzemach I will NOT lay off the mashke! Stay out of my personal drinking habits, please.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Sat...ticle%
2FPrinter
Yes, Merkos is the Rebbes orginization but it turned into something the Rebbe didnt intend for.
When the Rebbe said 'Hafotza' it meant going out and spreading yiddishkiet in anyway and in most forms.
Merkos is and was just a way of sending out shluchim in a more efficient and orderly fashion. Right now Merkos is abusing the so called 'power' they claim rights to turning shlichus and the whole of Chabad into some sort of Inc.- dont get me wrong a lot of good is happening along the way but- essentially the way the whole thing is running is just wrong. Its as if they think they own the world and they manopolize even places where there arnt existing shluchim.
Would someone from Krinsky's side please explain this whole "losing the will" business. The way the other side tells the story, it's just too silly and evil to believe!
The Tzavoah issue is the root of the Machlokes. If, after Gimmel Tammuz, there would have been a united front I don't think things would have gotten to where they are.The mishichsit-anti disagreement is a problem which grew as a result of there being no direction.
In the end Krinsky is the only one who really benefits from the Mishichisten, because he can portray all those who disagree with him as fanatics. It also deflects all the attention from the real issue at hand, which is, how the Rebbe wanted the organizations to run after Gimmel Tamuz.
I think the Messianists benefit from Krinsky/Shemtov, because otherwise their people would have to lead, and in leadrship positions one cannot remain a real radical, as we saw in Sharon and now in Hamas, so when Groner/Simpson/Butman/Hendel/Kraus will "lead", Chabad will again turn into some Hirearchy, and the "new" rebells will rebell again (as is seen in the Beis Shmuel scene).
Krinsky did not "lose" the "tzvooh" as there was no tzavooh. Who saw the tzavooh? Why does not any anti krinsky person actually produce a copy of the tzavooh? Why did not Rav Piekarsky show the signed tzavooh? It is amazing how people can repeat a lie so many times when it flies in the face of logic and reality.
Wrt to Sj and systemniks being sadduccees and pharisees is not entirely accurate. SJ too is not an exact "sadduccee" he need to support himself on a whole body of "theories" and "interpretations" so that his theories "fit" in the rebbe's words.
Wrt to their positions on messianism: fundametally both camps agree that the rebbe is moshiach; the only argument is we should falunt it or not.
Actually both groups seems to lack scholarship in the revealed parts of Torah. Had the have this training they would not reach to their "interpretation" on the Rebbe's words in the they interpret it. The words of the Rebbe are iterwoven between esoteric and revealed portions of the Torah. when one is lacking the knowledge in one of them one can reach the flawed interpretation given by both memebers of these groups.
R Yisrol Friedman is lacking knowledge of Niglah? are u out of ur mind?
I thought Krinsky himself said that he lost at a gathering in 770. I was told that Cunin challenged him on this at the time. So the source of this is Krinsky himself? We spoke about this at length at the time. This thread is about SJ. Who cares about the Inc. they are on thin ice in all aspects.
Although it’s all rumor, if true it would explain many things
On Chof Zayin Ader, the rebbe told B.K to make some changes in the final Will.
Because of the stroke it was not possible to do it legally. After Gimel Tamuz, they never produced the will due to the changes (legally problematic), however they follow it all but the changes.
I’ll give you one example. Officially it said it that will, to make a Minyon in the Rebbe’s room. Other things, like Reshimos.
this is old news here, see commenst there:
http://www.mentalblog.com/2005/0...e-
menachem.html
and here is Schneur's claim:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...84203599/
#30683
dty: your examples seem to be meaningless. Why does anyone need a signed and witnessed legal document to make a minyon in the Rebbe's room?
Hey TA, I didn't know you knew how to use Photoshop. It's beautiful.
So we'll keep repeating ad infinitum that "yk lost the will" because someone said that "krinsky said...". For all these claims one could have thought that there will a shred of EVIDENCE that there IS a will.
R. yisroel friedman: a special yid, talmid chochom etc. But: 1) one (or two or three) amidst the thousands of ameyhoratzim who amplified and from these people we find some who have "created" new teyress and their "theories" lack syncronism and basic solid familiarity with the nigleh teyreh.
2) with all due respect to the aforementioned rabbi (who is really a extremely special yid) his knowledge in nigleh does NOT surpass hundreds of other yidden in many choshuve kreyzen.
Melech, what is "Teyreh"?
does Manis Friedman agree or disare with the Jacobson's --as he, too, has no leadership appointments?
why don's you ask Manis, what's the point of asking this here?
Here is Krinsky's admission that the Rebbe gave him the papers but "He doesn’t have them any more".
http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=4...4630.jpg&
s=x402
If this "dog eat my homework" story is true, the Rebbe made a poor choice of executor.
Maskil, so Krinsky says that he had papers the Rebbe gave him, amongst the papers was the second will but he also says that it was unsigned and he lost it. The rumor has it that Pikarsky saw a signed copy. Let’s say Krinsky had the "unsigned copy", can an organized person like Krinsky lose something like that unintentionally?
I noted that on the cover of recent lectures from Manis Friedman, that he wrote that the lectures were inspired by the works of the "Lubavitcher Rebbe, OBM."
Der tehilim Yid,
Why do you say that after 27 ADAR it was not legaly possible to change the will?
Hamas
what do you mean by ""new" rebells will rebell again (as is seen in the Beis Shmuel scene)?"
on the topic of head shliach see letter from Rebbe on http://www.col.org.il/show_news...._news.asp?
24721
Commenting by HaloScan
