“I guess the fact that there is no more Pale and that everyone is now scattered all across the globe really answers the entire question. Does it not?”
So, you agree that the Besht wasn’t involved with kiruv because it couldn’t have been applicable in his day? It’s unclear what point you’re making.
“What is the alternative? The “mainstream denominations” are more concerned about bringing everyone including non-Jews for dues. Which do you prefer?”
By mainstream denominations you mean Conservative and Reform? Again, not seeing your point. The thread was about the historical timeline, not whether Chabad kiruv is preferable to Conservative/Reform, which obviously everyone agrees it is.
CTL: I believe the point they are trying to make is that when the Besht spoke to the pushitah yidden who couldn’t afford to be in on the selective (at the time) yeshivish system, it was that era’s equivalent of kiruv. While today, it means reaching out to secular Jews. I don’t believe they are claiming the Besht was actually reaching out to Jews who were eating treif or had converted to Christianity; that would be a historical distortion. If you hold that kiruv is kiruv, as defined by today’s definition, then it’s like you and I said: it started in Chabad under the last Rebbe.
RGP: I just listed off several well-known Chabad sites, so it could theoretically be possible that one doesn’t have comments. However, I just checked, and Crown Heights info does allow them, so I have no idea what you’re talking about.