In the last sentence I assume you meant to say “FAR from Harav Kazarnovsky”. Exactly right

Different topic for a different article.

the fact remains that this is one of the things that puts some people off associating with Lubavitch. Something that the Rebbe already warned about in the 5740s.

You don’t have to visit them to obtain a Shulchan Aruch, but you can and should be inspired by how they actually live that Shulchan Aruch and improve your own avodah thereby. איזהו חכם הלומד מכל אדם. (And you can also dispose of the פרעמדע label.)

So to reach that point, we have to drop the “us vs. them” mentality. The same way as there’s no particular “team” as far as, say, Chovos Halevavos, the same way there should be no particular “team” as far as Tanya. Or Daf Yomi. Etc.

The point of the article seems to be that our closed minded shtoltzkeit made us frei and we should be more like the rest of the קהילות החרדים. Im saying that taking a caricature of a bad lubavitcher and a good poilisher doesnt mean lubavitch is any different. Lets get more specific here. I could make my own caricature. A lubavitcher with a blue shirt and a smartphone who does chitas and rambam and keeps mitzvos behiddur and a satmer chossid who doesnt put on tefillin every day and dresses the way hes supposed to to keep up appearances. But these people dont exist. I made them up to prove a point on the internet.

No. Shulchan aruch is obviously important. But pretending we have to go visit the neighbours to find a shulchan aruch isnt accurate. My shtoltz is that if I see a lubavitcher I who doesnt do the right thing my problem is not with calling him “chabad” and it isnt מעורר ספיקות about my choices in life. My problem is that he doesnt do what the Eibishter wants.

Classic disproportionatism! Making a whole to do about one line! Just proves the point!

Why assume this is political?
The author’s argument isn’t about politics—it’s that any specific focus or practice loses its meaning when it gets detached from the core fundamentals of avodas Hashem.

Yeshus is not exclusive to any particular group and BH Lubavitch has a healthy dose too.

The solution to abuse of power is not to do away with standards and authority (that’s what leftist liberals do and it destroys society – socialism instead of capitalism). Standards are critical to the success of a society and community, even though it runs the risk of yeshus.

The solution is to work on our middos by learning Heichaltzu and real avoda.

The Rebbe seemed to indicate one team with one /nosi. In other words EVERYONE should do Chitas. Everone should do mivtzoim etc.

The same reader shared a second objection:
Chabad presupposes Torah and mitzvos, but its unique contribution lies in the additional dimensions it introduces. Therefore, emphasizing the distinctive aspects of Chabad is not necessarily disproportionate. It may be an entirely appropriate emphasis on the particular contribution that Chabad has to offer.
My response.
It is entirely appropriate—and indeed imperative—that every Chabad Chossid, and indeed every Yid, whether already frum or on the path toward becoming so, understand the unique contribution of Chabad Chassidus and its way of life.
The concern raised in my article is not with emphasizing what makes Chabad unique, but with the danger of overemphasizing something genuinely valuable, out of proportion to the broader demands of Yiddishkeit.
When Chabad loses its context within Yiddishkeit as a whole, it ceases to be Chabad in any meaningful sense. A guf without a neshamah is a corpse. But a neshamah without a guf is somewhere up there in the spiritual realms. The neshamah of Torah must animate a guf. If there is no guf for it to be mechayeh, what purpose is it serving?
Chassidus is the neshamah of Torah, but its purpose is not to exist independently of the guf. It is to permeate it, enliven it, and transform it. The value of the neshamah is not diminished by insisting that it must animate a guf. On the contrary, that is precisely how its purpose is fulfilled.
Moreover, we must not lose sight of the two dangers discussed in the article. First, excessive emphasis on secondary matters inevitably comes at the expense of the primary areas of avodas Hashem that deserve our attention. Second, cultivating a distinctive Chabad identity can become an end in itself, rather than a means of fulfilling the purpose for which that identity exists. When that happens, we may succeed in producing people who identify strongly as Lubavitchers, without necessarily bringing them closer to living as Lubavitchers ought to live. And that is the danger of disproportionatism.

“Unzere Ziburis” is certainly better. But who do you consider “unzere”? Someone who calls themselves Lubavitch…

The original vort was that the “daled-daled” in Lubavitch was greater than an “alef-alef” in some other yeshivos. The example for “daled-daled” was Reb Shlomo Aharon Kazarnovsky whose kishronos were mediocre. His sincerity and devotion put him higher than others with advanced kishronos in other yeshivos.

It would be ridiculous to go and apply that concept to people who are from Harav Kazarnovsky stature, to say the least.

Collective identity, distinctive customs, and cultural boundaries play a vital role in transmitting Chassidus across generations. A young Lubavitcher may initially identify with Lubavitch through external features long before developing a mature understanding of Chassidus. Those external features are not merely empty symbols. They preserve belonging, establish aspirations, and create the environment in which deeper Chassidishe values can flourish.

Indeed, if Lubavitch were to weaken its emphasis on distinctive practices, the result might not be greater attention to fundamentals. It might simply be assimilation into generic frumkeit.

Even if identity is not the ultimate purpose, it may be one of the most effective mechanisms for preserving and transmitting that purpose.

My response:

It never occurred to me to view darkei haChassidus primarily as “cultural markers that preserve belonging.” If one wishes to point to these benefits as additional advantages, so be it. I certainly agree that developing a strong Chassidishe identity has value.

But this does not undermine the central argument of my article: even genuinely valuable things can be overemphasized.

There are two reasons for this. First, excessive emphasis on secondary matters inevitably comes at the expense of the primary areas of avodas Hashem that deserve our attention. Second, and more fundamentally, the entire purpose of a Chabad identity is to help a Yid better fulfill the purpose for which his neshamah descended into this world.

If cultivating that identity becomes an end in itself, rather than a means toward that purpose, we have lost sight of the point. The fact that identity helps preserve and transmit Chassidus is an argument for its importance, not a justification for allowing it to overshadow the very avodah it is meant to nurture.

A thought: Not sure if unsere ziburis applies across the board nowadays

It’s not ok to be foolish. We are supposed to see and learn from the good in others. Asside from arrogance being bad middos, ugly and off putting, it is a hindrance for hafatzas hamayonos.

How does this disagree in any way with what the article is saying? Does the article promote dreien zich by fremde?

Leaving aside the fact that they’re not ch”v פרעמדע, but אחינו בני ישראל and עם שאיתך בתורה ובמצות –

these are not פרעמדע concepts at all, but part and parcel of what a Chabad Chossid should be, and which some have unfortunately neglected. Is your “shtoltz” to not care about tefillah betzibbur and bizmanah, to consider kevius ittim latorah unimportant, etc.? Because that’s not far different than a Reform Jew saying that Shabbos and kashrus and so forth are for the “ultra-orthodox fanatics” and not for him.

We have limited experience in building kehilos. We spent the last 50 years building chabad houses around the world. We have room for growth in the kehila building side.

I would sign my name but sensitive (shpitz chabadniks) Lubavitchers will cancel me.

The moshol is trying to demonstrate that an eidel person who was not exposed to Chabad is more Chabad than a kal who grew up with it, because being Chabad necessarily includes being yerei shomayim etc. The question is who between these two stereotypes is more Lubavitch? Lubavitch has a definition.

From my research, this idea is consistently brought up in the context of choosing between two people or two options.

For example, in one letter, the Rebbe discusses the hanhalah of a yeshivah and explains that they should specifically choose mechanchim from within Chabad, even if those individuals seem to have certain chesronos, because unsere ziburis is better vis-à-vis others.

Similarly, in the context of shidduchim, the Rebbe addresses someone who is thinking that perhaps he could find a better bachur. The Rebbe tells him that he should choose one of unsere bachurim, because unsere ziburis is better vis-à-vis others.

In other words, the concept has to be understood in its proper context. When you have two options in front of you, and one is zeireis while the other is unsere ziburis, the Rebbe is saying that you should choose unsere ziburis, even if the other option might appear to have certain advantages.

But that is very different from applying this idea to your own avodah as an excuse not to grow. You can’t say, “Well, we’re better anyway,” and use that as a reason not to work on yourself.

Your personal growth is measured by what the Eibershter expects of you, not by how you compare to someone else. In fact, the opposite is true: on a personal level, you’re always supposed to recognize the mailos of others, as the principle teaches us: vehevei Shefal ruach bifnei kol adam (שפל רוח בפני כל אדם).

So to use unsere ziburis as a blanket justification for not correcting anything—whether in your own avodah or in your influence on others—is clearly missing the point. The fact that we may be better than others in a particular comparison doesn’t absolve us of our responsibility to improve. It certainly doesn’t mean we should stop striving for growth, either personally or in our efforts to help others grow.