העורך Editor

פרסומי ניסא

By Murray Rothbard, of course.

A short excerpt:

In the early years of Reagan rule, the press busily checked out Reagan’s beloved anecdotes, and found that almost every one of them was full of holes. But Reagan never veered from his course. Why? God knows there are plenty of correct stories about welfare cheats that he could have clasped to his bosom; why stick to false ones? Evidently, the reason is that Reagan cares little about reality; he lives in his own Hollywood fantasy world, a world of myth, a world in which it is always Morning in America, a world where The Flag is always flying, but where Welfare Cheats mar the contentment of the Land of Oz. So who cares if the actual story is wrong? Let it stand, like a Hollywood story, as a surrogate for the welfare cheats whom everyone knows do exist.

The degree to which Reagan is out of touch with reality was best demonstrated in his concentration camp story. This was not simply a slip of the tongue, a Bushian confusion of December with September. When the Premier of Israel visited Reagan at the White House, the President went on and on for three quarters of an hour explaining why he was pro-Jewish: it was because, being in the Signal Corps in World War II, he visited Buchenwald shortly after the Nazi defeat and helped to take films of that camp. Reagan repeated this story the following day to an Israeli ambassador. But the truth was 180-degrees different; Reagan was not in Europe; he never saw a concentration camp; he spent the entire war in the safety of Hollywood, making films for the armed forces.

Well, what are we to make of this incident? This little saga stayed in the back pages of the press. By that point the media had realized that virtually nothing – no fact, no dark deed – could ever stick to the Teflon President. (Iran-Contra shook things up a bit, but in a few months even that was forgotten.)

There are only two ways to interpret the concentration camp story. Perhaps Reagan engaged in a bald-faced lie. But why? What would he have to gain? Especially after the lie was found out, as it soon would be. The only other way to explain this incident, and a far more plausible one, is that Ronnie lacks the capacity to distinguish fantasy from reality. He would, at least in retrospect, have liked to be filming at Buchenwald. Certainly, it made a better story than the facts. But what are we to call a man who cannot distinguish fantasy from reality?

It is surely frightening to think that the most powerful position in the world has been held for eight years by a man who cannot tell fact from fancy. Even more frightening is the defection of the media, who early lost heart and played the role of a submissive receptacle for photo opportunities and press-release handouts. One reason for this defection was the discovery of Reagan’s Teflon nature. Another likely reason was that journalists who were too feisty and independent would be deprived of their precious access to the Presidential plane or to inside scoops or leaks from the White House. And a third reason was probably the desire not to dwell on the vital and hair-raising fact that the President of the United States, “the leader of the free world” and all that jazz, is nothing more than a demented half-wit.

Find the rest of it here…

Quoting the What’s in a Word column:

The Vilna Gaon (to Proverbs 2:2-3, 2:6) differentiates between binah and tevunah by explaining that tevunah refers to the “reflection” that qualifies one’s chochmah or binah. The Vilna Gaon in Chemdah Genuzah (to Proverbs 1:1) writes that binah refers to understanding something on one’s own terms, while tevunah refers to understanding something so thoroughly that one can explain it to others (see also Zohar, Vayakhel 201a). Rabbi Shlomo Brevda (1931-2013) points out in Leil Shimurim (p. 26) that this latter source runs counter to the aphorism often cited in the “Yeshiva World” in the name of Rabbi Chaim Soloveitchik of Brisk (1853-1918): “A deficiency in being able to explain something is a sign of a deficiency in one’s actual understanding.”

A bochur once approached Rav Shmuel of Zelichov with complaints of depression and negative thoughts. In those days, no one thought to seek medical attention from psychologists, but the mashgiach suggested that he study the 26 chapters of Yeshayahu from 40 until 66 which constitute the haftoros of consolation. He explained that these are eternal sources of comfort for Klal Yisroel as a whole and for every individual (Naharei Aish, selection No. 80, and Yagdil Torah, Devorim, page 148).

(Quoting here.)

Medrash Eicha 3:6:

זאת אשיב אל לבי על כן אוחיל ר’ אבא בר כהנא בשם ר’ יוחנן אמר משל למה”ד למלך שנשא מטרונה וכתב לה כתובה מרובה ואמר לה כך וכך חופות אני עושה ליך כך וכך ארגוונות טובות אני נותן ליך הניחה המלך והלך לו למדינת הים ואיחר לשם נכנסו שכנותיה אצלה והיו מקניטות אותה ואומרות לה הניחך המלך והלך לו למדינת הים ושוב אינו חוזר עליך והיתה בוכה ומתאנחת וכיון שנכנסה לתוך ביתה פותחת ומוציאה כתובתה וקוראת ורואה בכתובתה כך וכך חופות אני עושה כך וכך ארגוונות טובות אני נותן ליך מיד היתה מתנחמת לימים בא המלך אמר לה בתי אני תמה איך המתנת לי כל אותן השנים אמרה לו אדוני המלך אלמלא כתובה מרובה שכתבת ונתת לי כבר אבדוני שכנותי כך עובדי כוכבים מונין את ישראל ואומרין להם אלהיכם הסתיר פניו מכם וסילק שכינתו מכם עוד אינו חוזר עליכם והן בוכין ומתאנחין וכיון שנכנסין לבתי כנסיות ולבתי מדרשות וקורין בתורה ומוצאין שכתוב (ויקרא כ”ו) ופניתי אליכם והפריתי אתכם ונתתי משכני בתוככם והתהלכתי בתוככם והן מתנחמין למחר כשיבא קץ הגאולה אומר להם הקב”ה לישראל בני אני תמה מכם היאך המתנתם לי כל אותן השנים והן אומרים לפניו רבש”ע אילולי תורתך שנתת לנו כבר אבדנו האומות לכך נאמר זאת אשיב אל לבי ואין זאת אלא תורה שנא’ (דברים ד’) וזאת התורה וכן דוד אמר (תהלים קי”ט) לולי תורתך שעשועי אז אבדתי בעניי על כן אוחיל לו ומיחדים שמו שתי פעמים ביום ואומרים (דברים ו’) שמע ישראל ה’ אלהינו ה’ אחד.

Kal Vachomer today, after the first stage of the ingathering of the exiles…

G.K. Chesterton:

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.

As Thomas Sowell says in “Intellectuals and Society”, p. 204:

… Everything from economic central planning to environmentalism epitomizes the belief that third parties know best and should be empowered to over-ride the decisions of others. This includes preventing children from growing up with the values taught them by their parents if more “advanced” values are preferred by those who teach in the schools and colleges.

The vision of the anointed is not just a vision of society; it is also a very self-flattering vision of the anointed themselves — a vision which they are very unlikely to give up. A “decent respect to the opinions of mankind”—the phrase used in the Declaration of Independence — has no place today in the vision of the anointed. On the contrary, defying “public clamor” has become a badge of honor and a certification as a member of the anointed. Angry outcries from the masses are not treated as warnings to be heeded but as further evidence of one’s own superior insight, shared by other “thinking people.” This is one of the many ways in which the vision seals itself off from challenges coming from the mundane experiences of millions. Moreover, the sweeping presumptions and aspirations of the anointed are still widely regarded by themselves and by others as idealism, rather than as ego indulgences.

That the world must present a tableau matching their preconceptions — or else there is something wrong with the world — is not just a fancy of the intelligentsia, but a basis for quotas by corporations and universities seeking to create such a tableau, and part of the law of the land in cases where discrimination is charged when the reality does not match the envisioned tableau.