ללא מחבר No Author

Ron Paul: The Idea of Minimal Police Authority

Police Problems? Embrace Liberty!

By Ron Paul, MD

Ron Paul Institute

April 27, 2021

Many Americans saw former policeman Derek Chauvin’s conviction on all counts last week as affirming the principle that no one is above the law. Many others were concerned that the jury was scared that anything less than a full conviction would result in riots, and even violence against themselves and their families.

Was the jury’s verdict influenced by politicians and media figures who were calling for the jury to deliver the “right” verdict? Attempts to intimidate juries are just as offensive to the rule of law as suggestions that George Floyd’s criminal record somehow meant his rights were not important.

The video of then-policeman Chauvin restraining Floyd led people across the political and ideological spectrums to consider police reform. Sadly, there have also been riots across the country orchestrated by left-wing activists and organizations seeking to exploit concern about police misconduct to advance their agendas.

It is ironic to see self-described Marxists, progressives, and other leftists protesting violence by government agents. After all, their ideology rests on the use of force to compel people to obey politicians and bureaucrats.

It is also ironic to see those who claim to want to protect and improve “black lives” support big government.

Black people, along with other Americans, have had their family structure weakened by welfare policies encouraging single parenthood. This results in children being raised without fathers as a regular presence in their lives, increasing the likelihood the children will grow up to become adults with emotional and other problems.

Those at the bottom of the economic ladder are restrained in improving their situation because of minimum wage laws, occupational licensing regulations, and other government interference in the marketplace. They are also victims of the Federal Reserve’s inflation tax.

Many progressives who claim to believe that “black lives matter” do not care that there is a relatively high abortion rate of black babies. These so-called pro-choice progressives are the heirs of the racists who founded the movement to legalize and normalize abortion.

The drug war is a major reason police have increasingly looked and acted like an occupying army. Police militarization threatens everyone’s liberty. Black people have been subjected to drug war arrests and imprisonment at relatively high rates.

Those interested in protecting and enhancing black people’s (and all people’s) lives should embrace liberty. Libertarians reject the use of force to achieve political, economic, or social goals, Therefore, in a libertarian society, police would only enforce laws prohibiting the initiation of force against persons or property.

A libertarian society would leave the provision of aid to the needy to local communities, private charities, and religious organizations. Unlike the federal welfare state, private charities can provide effective and compassionate aid without damaging family structure or making dependency a way of life. In a libertarian society, individuals could pursue economic opportunity free of the burdens of government regulations and taxes, as well as free of the Federal Reserve’s fiat currency.

Free markets, individual liberty, limited government, sound money, and peace are key to achieving prosperity and social cohesion. Those sincerely concerned about improving all human lives should turn away from the teaching of Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes, who advocated expansive government power, and, instead, embrace the ideas of pro-liberty writers such as Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard.

From KMJ Now, here.

Restoring the Monarchy Would Be GREAT – Empirical Research Data

Are Monarchies Better for Economic Growth? Here’s What the Empirical Evidence Says.

04/23/2021

Hans-Hermann Hoppe has argued that monarchies take a longer-term view of their national economies and therefore are more likely to pursue more stable and secure economies. That is, among monarchs, the desire to maximize wealth promotes more farsightedness than exists in democratic regimes. Due to the lower time preference of monarchs, they are less likely to succumb to the whims of economic populism.

Hoppe outlines this argument in a 1995 article:

A private government owner will predictably try to maximize his total wealth, i.e., the present value of his estate and his current income…. Accordingly, a private government owner will want to avoid exploiting his subjects so heavily, for instance, as to reduce his future earnings potential to such an extent that the present value of his estate actually falls. Instead, in order to preserve or possibly even enhance the value of his personal property, he will systematically restrain himself in his exploitation policies. For the lower the degree of exploitation, the more productive the subject population will be; and the more productive the population, the higher will be the value of the ruler’s parasitic monopoly of expropriation.

A Comparative Analysis

Quite interesting is that research confirms the assumption of Hoppe. According to Mauro Guillen monarchies are more effective than democratic republics at protecting property rights primarily because of their long-term focus. “Monarchies tend to be dynasties, and therefore have a long-term focus,” Guillen says. “If you focus on the long run, you are bound to be more protective of property rights…. You’re more likely to put term limits on politicians that want to abuse their powers.”

Similarly, Guillen in his study points out that monarchies can curtail the negative consequences of internal conflict on property rights:

For instance, the case of Spain has received considerable scholarly attention in terms of both the continuities in the process of transition to democracy during the late 1970s, and the sequencing of political and economic reforms with the crown playing a key role…. The continuity of monarchy in Spain was a major factor in preserving property rights during the political transition. In Portugal, by contrast, a comparable country that made the transition from dictatorship to democracy at roughly the same time but had become a republic back in 1910, nationalized 244 banks and large enterprises during its transition to democracy.

Moreover, Christian Bjørnskov and Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard in their publication “Economic Growth and Institution Reform in Modern Monarchies and Republics: A Historical Cross-Country Perspective, 1820–2000,” present fascinating information: “While large-scale political reforms are typically associated with short term growth declines, reflecting what has become known as the “valley of tears,” the data indicate that this valley does not appear in monarchies. In fact, if anything it has the opposite effect.”

Moreover, the rating agency Standard and Poor’s asserts that monarchies have stronger credit scores and impressive balance sheets relative to republics. Credit analyst Joydeep Mukherji submits that there is no difference between constitutional and absolute monarchies in the assessment of their debt risk. “However, absolute monarchies score higher than constitutional monarchies in external risk and fiscal risk, largely reflecting the strong general government balance sheets and high external asset positions,” he noted.

Like Gullien, Victor Menaldo in “The Middle East and North Africa’s resilient monarchs” posits that monarchies are linked to respect for the rule of law, protection of property rights, and economic growth. As Menaldo shows, the predictability of the political culture embedded by monarchies positively affects the decision to invest: “Given the emergence of a stable political culture … elites and citizens will be encouraged to protect their planning horizons due to longer executive tenures and an institutional succession process. Both elites and citizens will be more likely to make the investments in physical and human capital that encourage capital accumulation and increases in productivity.”

Another argument in favor of monarchies is their relative intolerance for wars, since involvement in warfare has the potential to eviscerate wealth. Though comparing political systems based on the likelihood to wage war is rare, one study written by leading political scientists intuits that premodern monarchies were less likely to fight wars:

There seems ample empirical support for our conjecture that monarchies were less conflict-prone in the pre-modern era. This contradicts the usual impression offered by mythic and historical accounts of kings who make war as a matter of occupation. When Charles Tilly declared that “states make wars and wars make the states”, he was doubtless thinking of kings as instigators. And it is true that the great monarchies (England, France, Spain) had considerably more wars to their credit than their smaller republican neighbors. However, we have seen that this is a product of grandeur rather than truculence. Small monarchies were more peaceful than similarly sized republics.

Suggesting that monarchies display superior characteristics relative to democratic republics does not mean that we should return to the past. However, one cannot criticize monarchy without understanding its strengths and limitations. In much of the world today, there’s a built-in prejudice against monarchies, but the evidence suggests that monarchies—especially small ones—are more peaceful, stable, and protective of private property than their republican neighbors.

Author:

Contact Lipton Matthews

Lipton Matthews is a researcher, business analyst, and contributor to Merion West, The Federalist, American Thinker, Intellectual Takeout, mises.org, and Imaginative Conservative. He may be contacted at lo_matthews@yahoo.com or on Twitter (@matthewslipton).

From Mises.org, here.

Even Non-Jewish Governments May Not Steal Public Funds for ‘Charity’

Not Yours to Give

Monday, December 22, 2008

[The following story about the famed American icon Davy Crockett was published in Harper’s Magazine in 1867, as written by James J. Bethune, a pseudonym used by Edward S. Ellis. The events that are recounted here are true, including Crockett’s opposition to the bill in question, though the precise rendering and some of the detail are fictional.]

One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Davy Crockett arose:

“Mr. Speaker–I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.

Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

“Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown . It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

“The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.

“I began: ‘Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and–’

“‘Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett, I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.’

“This was a sockdolager . . . I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

“‘Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. . . . But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.’

“‘I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.’

“‘No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown . Is that true?’

“‘Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.’

“‘It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown , neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington , no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.

“‘So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.’

“I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

“‘Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.’

“He laughingly replied: ‘Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.’

“‘If I don’t,’ said I, ‘I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.’

“‘No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.’

“‘Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-by. I must know your name.’

“‘My name is Bunce.’

“‘Not Horatio Bunce?’

“‘Yes.’

“‘Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.’

“It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

“At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had every seen manifested before.

“Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

“I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him–no, that is not the word–I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

“But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted–at least, they all knew me.

“In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

“‘Fellow-citizens–I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.’

“I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

“‘And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

“‘It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.’

“He came upon the stand and said:

“‘Fellow-citizens–It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.’

“He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.

“I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.

“Now, sir,” concluded Crockett, “you know why I made that speech yesterday.

“There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men–men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased–a debt which could not be paid by money–and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighted against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”

From FEE, here.

R’ Dessler Thanking Hashem for Balfour Preparations – LEFT OUT of ‘Strive for Truth’

Lecture #04a: Rav Dessler’s Second Thoughts

  • Rav Tamir Granot

We concluded the previous lecture by noting that despite his conservative position, negating any ideological innovation or criticism, even Rav Dessler does take a new look at the history of the Jewish nation in the modern era, prior to the Holocaust and following it. Interestingly, he refuses to acknowledge the innovation inherent in his own words.

The Essence of our Era

We are struck dumb at the terrible destruction that has been visited upon us in our generation, and we ask ourselves: For what reason has God done this to us… What is this great wrath? Let us examine this.

The entire period that preceded the destruction was a time of when the burden of the exile was lightened upon the shoulders of the Jewish people. Even a hundred and fifty years ago, Jews were rejected and despised among the peoples of the world. It was only in recent generations that the nations began to ease our yoke and to extend to us rights and conditions equal to their own; thus began the period of the “Emancipation.” In recent years there has even been talk about the Land of Israel and the possibility of it being given to us as a place of habitation and rest. Those same nations for whom we were previously the subject of scorn and disdain, and who considered us the lowest of the low – even for them, the Land of Israel is the Holy Land, and yet still God put it in their heart to think about giving it to us.

Clearly, the period of the Emancipation was ordained by God to serve as a preparation for us for the coming of the Messiah, and it was for this purpose that the burden of exile was lightened upon us. For the preparation for the time of the Messiah requires of us much spiritual work in order to attain the level of redemption, and a situation of constant trouble and frequent humiliation is not conducive to producing the necessary boost to ascend. Thus, this new illumination and the easing of our situation came about in order that we should use them for the purposes of holiness. But since we have turned the purpose upside down, and instead of understanding the hint from Above to prepare ourselves for redemption out of joy and expanding our consciousness, we used the new situation mingle with the gentiles and to learn from their ways, therefore there awaited us the well-known danger of preparation for holiness that its not realized – as explained above. (And the fact that the destruction came only now, even though the process of assimilation was one that has developed gradually for a long time, is because God is long-suffering and does not bring punishment until the measure of sin is full, and there is no longer any hope of [a positive] influence bringing about a repair. Thus we find in the case of the First Temple, which stood for a long time with the “ten miracles” still being maintained in it, even though Menashe had long ago placed an idol in the Sanctuary.) [And if after the terrible destruction there comes about another period of grace, we should not repeat our transgression, but rather recognize the hints from Above and be inspired to return in full repentance.] (Mikhtav me-Eliyahu, part IV, p. 124 [Heb.])[1]

As we know, the spiritual leadership of European Jewry was divided as to the significance of the Emancipation.  Some rabbis – including the Chatam Sofer in Hungary, Rav Tzvi Elimelekh Shapira of Dinov in Galicia, and Rav Schneur Zalman of Liadi in White Russia – rejected the Emancipation, recognizing that it would lead to an abandonment of religion and to assimilation.  On the other hand, Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch in Germany viewed it as a blessing, just as he regarded the Enlightenment itself as a source of spiritual blessing for the Jewish people rather than as a spiritual threat.  There were also other leaders, such as the Maggid of Kozhnitz (among the Chassidim) and Rav Yaakov Ettlinger of Altuna, Germany, who regarded the very fact of an improvement in the situation of the Jews as a Divine act of kindness, and saw no reason to oppose it.  Of course, Rav Dessler’s words, cited above, represent a clear deviation from the position of opposition and rejection – a position which, with time, was also upheld by Rav Elchanan Wasserman, who was the focus of a previous lecture.

However, Rav Dessler takes a step further and asserts that the Emancipation was a Divine act of kindness in preparation for the Final Redemption.  In other words, it should be viewed as part of a positive development in history, which is proceeding towards the redemption of Israel. 

A hundred years earlier, a similar theme had been proposed by Rav Tzvi Hirsch Kalischer, who explains in his book Derishat Tzion that the Emancipation is not – as the “enlightened” Jews believe – a gateway to the intermingling of Jews within their countries in Europe, but rather a platform for creating the political conditions that will allow the Jewish nation to act, vis-א-vis the nations as well as within itself, to promote a process of national awakening.  (This theory turned out to herald the Zionist enterprise.)

Rav Dessler continues Rav Kalischer’s view in that he identifies the positive aspect of the Emancipation as a stage leading towards redemption, but he is not prepared to draw the same conclusion arrived at by his predecessor.  While Rav Kalischer believed that the proper response to God’s blessing in the form of Emancipation was practical action, using political and economic tools to achieve the goal of Jewish redemption, Rav Dessler insists that the comfortable situation brought about by the change in the gentile attitude was supposed to be used for spiritual, internal development and refinement, in order to become ready for and worthy of the redemption.  To this view, an understanding of the Emancipation as an invitation to assimilate among the nations does not prove, retroactively, that it was a negative phenomenon; rather, it points to a catastrophic missed opportunity, since in its wake came the Holocaust.

The establishment of the State of Israel, which had just came about when Rav Dessler’s above words being written, is also viewed by him as one of God’s mercies, to which we should respond with repentance and good deeds.  This does not represent any kind of ideological shift, since the conclusion that he draws is, ultimately, a conservative one: our mission is to elevate ourselves through repentance and Torah study, etc.  However, his words do represent a new perspective – perhaps even a new historical world-view – that detects within the modern era some significant progress towards redemption, both in terms of the process of awarding rights to the Jews in Europe (late 18th-century onwards), and in terms of the establishment of the State of Israel.

I believe that Rav Dessler’s words should also be viewed within the spiritual and social context of the early years of the State’s existence.  Rav Dessler was the mashgiach ruchani (spiritual counselor) of the Ponivezh yeshiva in Benei Berak, which was headed by the Rabbi of Ponivezh, Rav Yosef Shelomo Kahaneman zt”l.[2] Rav Kahaneman had welcomed the establishment of the State of Israel and perceived it as a sign of “Divine awakening” in anticipation of the redemption.  He ordered that the Israeli flag be displayed at his yeshiva, and he hosted leaders of the State.  It may be assumed that Rav Dessler’s positive view – which has no basis in the teachings of either the Chafetz Chaim nor Rav Wasserman, whom he had defended so passionately in his letter on “Faith in the Sages” – arose from the sense of elation that overtook even some of the Charedi leadership in the early years of the State, and from his closeness to Rav Kahaneman.

Rav Dessler himself passed away in the year 5714, and it is difficult to know whether he maintained his view or whether it changed.  In later Charedi literature, a positive view of the Emancipation or of the State of Israel – in fact, any positive view of Jewish history in the modern era as following some sort of process – is unacceptable.

 

Translated by Kaeren Fish

[1] This section of Mikhtav Me-Eliyahu has not yet been translated into English in the Strive for Truth series.

[2]   Rabbi Yosef Shelomo Kananeman (1886-1969), also known as the Rabbi of Ponivezh, was Rosh Yeshiva of Ponivezh in Lithuania prior to the Holocaust, and was the founder and first Rosh Yeshiva after its subsequent re-establishment in Israel.  Rabbi Kahaneman was born in the town of Kuhl in Lithuania.  He studied at the Telz yeshiva, under Rabbi Eliezer Gordon and Rabbi Shimon Shkop.  Thereafter he spent a year at the yeshiva of Novhardok, and three more years at the yeshiva of Radin, under the Chafetz Chaim.  He married the daughter of the rabbi of Vidzh, and took up the rabbinate there when his father-in-law was appointed rabbi of Vilkomir.  In 1916 he became head of the yeshiva at Grodno, where he became known as a man of exceptional organizational abilities, and from then he started establishing similar yeshivot.  In 1919, with the passing of Rabbi Yitzchak Rabinowitz, he was appointed rabbi of Ponivezh, where he immediately established a yeshiva called “Ohel Yitzchak,” in memory of his predecessor.  During the years 1923-1925 he served as a member of the Lithuanian parliament.  He remained the rabbi of Ponivezh up until Lithuania was annexed to the Soviet Union in 1940.  During the German occupation he remained outside of Lithuania and thus was saved; the same year, he moved to Palestine and settled in Jerusalem.  In 1944 he initiated, with the help of the Chazon Ish, the establishment of a yeshiva in Benei Berak, named after his community which had been eradicated.  The permanent building of the yeshiva was completed only ten years later, and its inauguration was held on the 27th of Sivan, 5713 (June 10th, 1953), commemorating the anniversary of the Nazi invasion of Lithuania.

From VBM, here.