העורך Editor

Rabbi Alexander Hool Explains Those Missing 168 Years…

The Challenge of Jewish History: The Bible, The Greeks & The Missing 168 Years

Amazon book blurb:

There is a well-known conundrum concerning Jewish history: The conventional chronology of the Western world – and academia – is in direct conflict with traditional Jewish sources over the history of … history. Incredibly, there is a gap of roughly 200 years: For instance, the Talmud says the Second Temple stood for roughly 400 years, while mainstream historians today conclude that it stood for almost 600 years. This conflict has major implications on what occurred to who, and when. It also seems to question the accuracy of the entire Jewish tradition as accepted dating methods seem to contradict core parts of the traditional Jewish narrative. In presenting fresh and startling astronomical, mathematical and archaeological evidence, Rabbi Alexander Hool has charted new ground in his quest to find the solution to this ancient problem. The Challenge of Jewish History is revolutionary: it questions all assumptions, dispels unfounded myths, and transports us back in time over 2,500 years. With a subject of great significance and fascination to all those interested in history, and a wealth of scholarship and sources to impress academics, this intriguing book gives us a new perspective on Jewish-and world history.

About the Author

Purchase the book on Amazon here.

Note: To better understand the discrepancy problem, see Rabbi Shwab here.

יצרו של אדם מתגבר עליו בכל יום ומבקש להמיתו – שיר

“איני יכול לבדי” – הסינגל החדש של שראל סופר

“איני יכול לבדי” – שיר שקט ונוגע אותו כתב והלחין סופר בעצמו, על העיבוד וההפקה המוזיקלית חתום יהונתן אבידני.

Reproduced with permission.

Walter Block’s Bibliography of J.M. Keyne’s Critics

Excerpted from the LRC blog:

Hazlitt’s critique [The Failure of the New Economics] is a page by page, paragraph by paragraph, almost line by line refutation of Keynes’s General Theory. In football, you’re not supposed to “pile on.” But, in our field, this is not only allowed, but encouraged. So, go get him!

Keynes critics:

Anderson, 2009; Cochran and Glahe, 1999; Dempster, 1999; Garrison, 1985, 1992, 2010; Hammond, 2012; Hazlitt, 1959, 1983; Hoppe, 1992; Hutt, 1979; Murphy, 2008; Ritenour, 2000; Rostan, 2010; Rothbard, 1992; Skousen, 1992

Anderson, William L. 2009. “One Cheer for Paul Krugman, or Why the Bubble Economy?” January 1; http://mises.org/story/3275

Cochran, John and Fred Glahe. 1999. The Hayek-Keynes Debate-Lessons for Current Business Cycle Research. Edwin Mellen Press, Chapter 8, pp. 103-118.

Dempster, Gregory M. 1999. “Austrians and Post Keynesians: The Questions of Ignorance and Uncertainty.” The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics.

Vol. 2, No. 4, Winter, pp. 73-81;

Array

Garrison, Roger W. 1985. “Intertemporal Coordination and the Invisible Hand:

An Austrian Perspective on the Keynesian Vision,” History of Political Economy vol. 17, no. 2 (Summer), pp. 309-21.

Garrison, Roger. 1992. “Is Milton Friedman a Keynesian?” in Dissent on

Keynes: A Critical Appraisal of Keynesian Economics. Mark Skousen, ed. New

York: Praeger; http://mises.org/books/dissent.pdf

Garrison, Roger W. 2010. “Is Milton Friedman a Keynesian?” January 27;

http://mises.org/daily/4067

Hammond, Jeremy. 2012. Ron Paul vs. Paul Krugman: Austrian vs. Keynesian economics in the financial crisis. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform; http://www.amazon.com/Ron-Paul-vs-Krugman-Keynesian/dp/1470070723/ref=pd_rhf_dp_s_cp_3_QZQC

Hayek, Friedrich A. 1995. Contra Keynes and Cambridge: Essays, Correspondence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Hazlitt, Henry. 1959. The Failure of the “New Economics,” New York: Van Nostrand

Hazlitt, Henry, ed. 1983. The Critics of Keynesian Economics New York: New York University Press

Murphy, Robert P. 2008. “Filling the Holes in Krugman’s Analysis” January 15; http://mises.org/story/3291

Ritenour, Shawn R. 2000. “Postmodern Economics: The Return of Depression Economics by Paul Krugman,” The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol. 3, No. 1: 79-83.

Rostan, Jeremie, T.A. 2010. “It Is Not the Aggregate Demand, Stupid!” May 4;

http://mises.org/daily/4284

Rothbard, Murray N. 1992. “Keynes, the Man.”  M. Skousen (ed.), Dissent on

Keynes: A Critical Appraisal of Keynesian Economics.  New York, NY: Praeger Publishers, pp. 171-198

Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 1992. “The Misesian Case Against Keynes.” in Dissent on Keynes, A Critical Appraisal of  Economics. Edited by Mark Skousen.

pp.199-223. the Ludwig von Mises Institute, New York, Westport, Connecticut:

Praeger

Array

Hutt, William H. 1979. The Keynesian Episode Indianapolis: LibertyPress.

Rothbard, Murray N. 1992. “Keynes, the Man.”  M. Skousen (ed.), Dissent on

Keynes: A Critical Appraisal of Keynesian Economics.  New York, NY: Praeger Publishers, pp. 171-198

Skousen, Mark. 1992. Dissent on Keynes: A Critical Appraisal of Keynesian Economics. New York: Praeger; http://mises.org/books/dissent.pdf

From here.

Why Do Some Charedim Flatter Wicked Israeli Police Thugs? TZARICH IYUN!

Are Israeli government policemen Resha’im, invalid to testify in Jewish courts? Of course. Wrongdoing is part of the job description!

But a recent essay on “Tzarich Iyun” claims otherwise:

השוטרים בימינו אינם עבדיו של מלך ישראל, וגם לא שליחי בית דין. אף על פי כן, פשוט לנו שסמכות האכיפה שבידם מוכרת על ידי ההלכה. בהחלט ראוי לנסח במדויק את טיבה, אך כיון שנחיצותה אינה מוטלת בספק ממילא היא גם קיימת, אף מבלי שנדע להגדירה במדויק. נשווה אם כן, לתועלת הדיון, את השוטר בן-ימינו ל”שליח בית דין”.

Embarking from the baseless assumption we need a monopoly government (not to mention the assumptions about the way its constituent parts are constituted), the author is then left only to wonder whether at least “excessive” violence, such as by Amona, renders the actors evildoers. And even then, he quotes Rabbi Avigdor Neventzal, who responds in the negative:

לעניות דעתי, רבים מהעושים והמפקדים היו שוגגים, כדין “אומר מותר”, ולא נפסלו.

But who allows their bosses to make these decisions, in the first place?!

See, this is why it’s so important to show the theoretical possibility of complete anarchy, and harp on the example of the Shoftim. The worst institution plaguing this country – the State of Israel – is allowed a free hand, all because we refuse to examine our assumptions about its very necessity.

We have already written about decriminalizing IDF alternatives (also read the back-and-forth here). The same logic applies to the rest of the “security” apparatus.