Search Results for: popular

How Should the Sanhedrin Save Lives?

In Leshichno Tidreshu the Steipler is quoted as saying the number of traffic accidents is outrageous. If there were a Sanhedrin today, he goes on, they would forbid using cars entirely.

The important point here is that road tragedies are not the way of the world.

I have a different idea to reduce traffic accidents: desocialize the roads. That way someone has the incentive to protect customers. See more about this in The Privatization of Roads and Highways. How about we try my idea first?

See the first Mishna in Shekalim that Beis Din must fix broken roads…

Related: Someone once asked Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv (during an Arab popular uprising, or “Intifada”) whether Israel was deemed a “Makom sakana” (a dangerous place) one must leave. Rabbi Elyashiv said: when the number of dead matches the number who die in traffic accidents, God forbid, then Israel will be a “Makom sakana”. (It never even got close.)

Democracy – The Downward Spiral

What the doctrine of balancing budgets over a period of many years really means is this: As long as our own party is in office, we will enhance our popularity by reckless spending. We do not want to annoy our friends by cutting down expenditure. We want the voters to feel happy under the artificial short-lived prosperity which the easy money policy and rich supply of additional money generate. Later, when our adversaries will be in office, the inevitable consequence of our expansionist policy, viz., depression, will appear. Then we shall blame them for the disaster and assail them for their failure to balance the budget properly.

It is very unlikely that the practice of deficit spending will be abandoned in the not too distant future. As a fiscal policy it is very convenient to inept governments. It is passionately advocated by hosts of pseudo‑economists. It is praised at the universities as the most beneficial expedient of “unorthodox,” really “progressive” and “anti‑fascist” methods of public finance. A radical change of ideologies would be required to restore the prestige of sound fiscal procedures, today decried as “orthodox” and “reactionary.”

Such an overthrow of an almost universally accepted doc trine is unlikely to occur as long as the living generation of professors and politicians has not passed away. The present writer, having for more than forty years uncompromisingly fought against all varieties of credit expansion and inflation, is forced sadly to admit that the prospects for a speedy return to sound management of monetary affairs are rather thin. A realistic evaluation of the state of public opinion, the doctrines taught at the universities and the mentality of politicians and pressure groups must show us that the inflationist tendencies will prevail for many years.

Mussar Is Mushy

WHY HASHEM CHOSE YEHOSHUA – PINCHAS

Here are excerpts of a representative Mussar homily interspersed with comments. This is a good example of the sort of mushy thinking found in Mussar.

Towards the end of the Parsha, there is the account of Moshe Rabbeinu‘s request that Hashem appoint an able successor to lead the Jewish people into Eretz Yisrael. Hashem answered him that his faithful student, Yehoshua, is the appropriate choice. Chazal elaborate on the dialogue that took place between Hashem and Moshe. They tell us that Moshe asked that his own sons succeed him as leader, however Hashem refused this request, because “your sons sat and were not osek beTorah” , whereas, Yehoshua was the rightful successor because “he would come early to, and leave late from, your beis medrash, and would arrange the benches and cover the tables[1].” There are two difficulties with this Medrash; Firstly, if Moshe’s sons were not osek b’Torah then how could Moshe Rabbeinu have had any expectation that they could lead the Jewish people[2]? Secondly, it would seem that Hashem was comparing Moshe’s sons to Yehoshua in the same area of hanhago – that of being osek b’Torah. However, when Hashem praised Yehoshua he stressed the fact that he set up the Beis Medrash – this does not seem to have any relevance to being osek beTorah. What exactly was the nature of the comparison of Moshe’s sons to Yehoshua?

Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv Shlita explains that Moshe’s sons were talmidei chachamim and they were learned enough to lead the Jewish people – that is why Moshe believed that they were fitting candidates for succeeding him. However, Hashem replied that this was not sufficient; when He said that they “sat and were not ’osek b’Torah’” He meant that they sat and learned for themselves and were not osek with others in Torah. In contrast to their lack of being involved in helping other people’s Torah, Yehoshua would set up the Beis Medrash and thereby enable others to learn Torah – that is considered being ‘osek b’Torah’[3].

This article is a great example of the intellectual dishonesty of Mussar literature. The strongest characteristic of Mussar is probably maliciously poor attention to the text. Had Chazal said “were not osek beTorah”, I would agree perhaps Moshe’s sons learned Torah but did not teach. But anyone familiar with “Talmudese” realizes that “sitting” means refraining from learning at all, as in the prohibition of forgetting one’s learning through “עד שישב ויסירם מליבו”.

Another mark of our age is the refusal to entertain any thought insufficiently complimentary of a Jewish hero. Since the writer compares only to himself, he cannot accept the fact that Moshe might not have known about his sons’ true situation. The “nature of the comparison of Moshe’s sons to Yehoshua” is simple. It’s Kal Vachomer (minor ad major). Moshe’s sons did not help teach; they did not even learn. Yehoshua, by contrast, not only taught himself Torah but also helped teach it.

There are a number of important lessons that can be derived from Rav Elyashiv’s explanation[4], however, there seems to be one specific difficulty with it – it would have seemed that being osek b’Torah only implies learning Torah for oneself, where is the allusion to enabling others to learn Torah?

In order to answer this it is necessary to understand the basic definition to the mitzva of Talmud Torah. The Rambam writes that there are two sources for the mitzva; “You shall teach them to your children” and “you shall teach them sharply to your children.”. From these commands to teach children the Rambam derives that a person must learn Torah – the fundamental reason given for learning Torah is so that one can teach it to his children. We see from here that the mitzva of ‘Talmud Torah’ refers to teaching as much as to learning. Moreover, the Rambam brings the Chazal that ‘children’ also refers to students, and that a fundamental part of the mitzva is to teach people even if they are not one’s own children[5]. Thus, it is quite understandable that Rav Elyashiv can translate, being ‘osek b’Torah’ as meaning ‘causing others to learn’ Torah.

How typical of our Brisk-infested world. One quotes Chazal only via Rambam…

…

This also helps us understand why it was important that the leader of the Jewish people be one who causes others to learn Torah – his role was to preserve and continue the mesora and thereby preserve the eternal nature of the Torah.

Actually, the whole discussion is silly. Moshe was only referring to dynastic political leadership, equivalent to a Shofet. There is no amorphous “Torah leadership”, the concept of which began with the politics of Agudas Yisrael and like precedents. The head of the Sanhedrin is chosen by merit alone, not mere inheritance, so God does not “appoint” them. For example, Yiftach was a Shofet, at the same time Pinchas was head of the Sanhedrin. (And yes, that specific example is meant to destroy a popular canard of Appeal to Authority.)

We have seen how intrinsic teaching Torah is to the mitzva of learning Torah. Moroever, whilst teaching Torah is a great chesed to other people, it is also clear that there is a very significant element of bein adam le’utsmo in teaching Torah – it helps develop our appreciation of the eternal nature of Torah and to play a role in passing it on to the next generation.

As usual, Mussar invents ridiculous principles like “between man and himself” and corrupts the mind with vapid verbose “helps develop our appreciation of…” Blah blah. What’s the difference between Mussar and secular psychology? There isn’t any!

[1] Bamidbar Rabbah, 21:14.
[2] This question is asked by Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv Shlita, Divrei Aggada, p.319.
[3] Ibid.
[4] See his continuation in Divrei Aggada, p.319-20 where he elaborates on the necessity to share one’s Torah with those who are distant from the true path. We also learn from his explanation that the ability and willingness to share Torah with others is a key trait in determining an effective leader.

[5] The Mishna in Avos, 1:1 tells us that we must “establish many students.” The Tiferes Yisroel writes that it is not enough to merely teach one’s own children but one must teach other Jews as well.

…

Mussar has nothing in common with Judaism. Whenever you come across Mussar literature, ask yourself this: Can you take the author’s words alone (without the Jewish sources meant to grant them legitimacy), and picture them being spoken by a Cursedian Galach (“priest”) in his house of idol worship?

The original article was shortened, but you can see the rest in the link.

Leibowitz and Feiglin Agree Once Again

The main sentence in a recent article by Moshe Feiglin: “Israel is an army that has a state much more than it is a state with an army.”

And Kav Yashar just dealt with the matter obliquely too (Hebrew).

Note: We do not need a civilian coup, either, contra Feiglin. Revolutions only centralize. The problem is not with this or that driver but with the bus itself.

Here is the full article:

Could a Military Coup Happen in Israel? By Moshe Feiglin

Jul-24-2016

Not likely. True, the radical leftist Ha’aretz newspaper explicitly fantasizes about a coup. And until just a short while ago we had a Defense Minister who echoed the Ha’aretz stand and called upon IDF officers to publicly express their disagreement with Israel’s government. But no, it does not seem that a military coup would take place in Israel – simply because, in many ways, the army already rules here.

Israel is an army that has a state much more than it is a state with an army.  Think about it for a moment… What is the first building taken over during a putsch? The radio, of course. As opposed to any other free country, Israel’s army already has its own radio station broadcasting to its citizens. And it is the most popular radio station in the country!

Despite the fact that there are almost no more Arab armies threatening Israel and in the face of the relevant threats all that is needed is an air force, technology and special units – in other words, much less manpower – there is a mandatory draft for all  Israeli citizens, they do reserve duty and the army is the largest ever. Why? Precisely due to what is stated above. An army that has a state does not like to leave citizens outside its sphere of influence.

In Israel, the Holocaust museum Yad Vashem is the Holy Temple, the Defense Minister the High Priest, the army officers are the priests in holy service and enlistment day is the Bar Mitzvah of Israeli-ness. A person who doesn’t serve in the army is not really “Israeli”.

The gatekeepers of the Israeli ethos enjoy immense power and unlimited faith from a public that does not have the professional tools or the conscious ability to criticize them. Take for example the last war in Gaza. For a month and a half, missiles slammed into Tel Aviv and all that the IDF managed to create was a tie between the Israeli elephant and the Gazan fly. But a poll showed that public faith in the IDF had skyrocketed. Even the Second Lebanon War fiasco is sold to the public today as a success.

When the Prime Minister asked Chief of Staff Ashkenazi and Mossad Chief Dagan to prepare Israel’s forces to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, the two refused to obey his orders (Dagan publicly admitted this). They were not fired and they were not executed by a firing squad. They both continued in their positions and it was the Prime Minister who backed down. The Deputy Chief of Staff who compared those Israelis who do not agree with his values to Germans at the beginning of the development of Nazism was not relieved of his duties and was not put on trial. On the contrary, he was given great respect and recently accompanied the Prime Minister on his state trip to Africa.

So what is Israel? A state with an army? Or an army with a state?

There is nothing to worry about. There will be no military coup in Israel. In too many ways, the army already rules here. What Israel really needs is a civilian coup.

The First Good Explanation of the European Union

The EU: Economically and Morally Peverse

By

July 13, 2016

An Interview With Hans-Herman Hoppe in the Polish weekly Najwyższy Czas!

What is your assessment of contemporary Western Europe, and in particular the EU?

All major political parties in Western Europe, regardless of their different names and party programs, are nowadays committed to the same fundamental idea of democratic socialism. They use democratic elections to legitimize the taxing of productive people for the benefit of unproductive people. They tax people, who have earned their income and accumulated their wealth by producing goods or services purchased voluntarily by consumers (and of course especially the ‘rich’ among those), and they then re-distribute the confiscated loot to themselves, i.e., the democratic State that they control or hope to control, and their various political friends, supporters, and potential voters.

They do not call this policy by its right name: punishing the productive and rewarding the unproductive, of course. That doesn’t sound particularly attractive. Instead, they tap into the always popular sentiment of envy and claim to tax the few ‘rich’ to support the many ‘poor.’ In truth, however, with their policy they make more and more productive people poor and a steadily increasing number of unproductive people rich.

But what about the EU?

Looking at the EU, the picture becomes even worse. The EU is the first step on the way toward the creation of a European Super-State, and ultimately of a one-world government, dominated by the USA and its central bank, the FED. From its very beginnings, and despite all high-sounding political proclamations to the contrary, the EU was never about free trade and free competition. For that, you don’t need tens of thousands of pages of rules and regulations! Rather, the central purpose of the EU, supported all-along by the USA, was always the weakening in particular of Germany as Europe’s economic powerhouse. To facilitate this, Germany was sent on a seemingly never-ending ‘guilt trip’ and thus pressured to transfer increasingly larger parts of its already limited (vis-à-vis the USA) sovereignty to the EU in Brussels. Especially noteworthy in this regard: Germany’s giving up its monetary sovereignty and abandoning its traditionally ‘strong’ currency, the DM, in favor of a ‘weak’ Euro, issued by a European Central Bank (ECB) composed overwhelmingly of politically connected central bankers from traditionally ‘weak’ currency countries.

The EU, then, is characterized by three main features: First: The harmonization of the tax- and regulation structure across all member states, so as to reduce economic competition and especially tax-competition between different countries and make all countries equally uncompetitive.

Second: On top of the economic and moral perversity within each country of punishing the productive and subsidizing the unproductive, another layer of international income- and wealth-redistribution is added: of punishing economically better performing countries like Germany and the countries of northern Europe and rewarding economically worse performing countries (mostly of southern Europe) and thus successively rendering the economic performance of all countries equally worse.

And third, of increasing importance especially during the last decade: In order to overcome the rising resistance, in many countries, against the steadily increasing transfer of national sovereignty to Brussels, the EU is on a crusade to erode, and ultimately destroy, all national identities and all social and cultural cohesion. The idea of a nation and of different national and regional identities is ridiculed, and multi-culturalism is hailed instead as an unquestionable “good.” As well, in promoting the award of legal privileges and of “special protection” to everyone, except white, heterosexual men, and especially married family men (who are portrayed as historic ‘oppressors’ owing compensation to everyone else as their historic ‘victims’) – euphemistically called “anti-discrimination” or “affirmative action” policy – the natural social order is systematically undermined. Normality is punished, and abnormity and deviance is rewarded.

Continue reading…

From Lewrockwell.com, here.