ללא מחבר No Author

Ron Paul Schools American Conservatives

Conservatives Against Liberty

By 

Ron Paul Institute

July 16, 2019

Recently several prominent social and populist conservatives have attacked libertarianism. These conservatives, some of whom are allies in the fight against our hyper-interventionist foreign policy, blame libertarianism for a variety of social and economic ills. The conservative attack on libertarianism — like the attack on the freedom philosophy launched by leftists — is rooted in factual, economic, and philosophical errors.

Libertarianism’s right-wing critics claim libertarianism is the dominant ideology of the Republican establishment. This is an odd claim since the Republican leadership embraces anti-libertarian policies like endless wars, restrictions on civil liberties, government interference in our personal lives, and massive spending increases on welfare as well as warfare.

Anti-libertarian conservatives confuse libertarianism with the authoritarian “neoliberalism” embraced by both major parties. This confusion may be why these conservatives blame libertarians for the American middle class’s eroding standard of living. Conservatives are correct to be concerned about the economic challenges facing the average American, but they are mistaken to place the blame on the free market.

The American people are not suffering from an excess of free markets. They suffer from an excess of taxes, regulations, and, especially, fiat money. Therefore, populist conservatives should join libertarians in seeking to eliminate federal regulations, repeal the 16th Amendment, and restore a free-market monetary system.

Instead of fighting to end the welfare-regulatory system that benefits economic and political elites at the expense of average Americans, populist conservatives are promoting increased economic interventionism. For example, many populist conservatives support increased infrastructure spending and tariffs and other forms of protectionism.

Like all forms of central planning, these schemes prevent goods and services from being used for the purposes most valued by consumers. This distorts the marketplace and lowers living standards — including of people whose jobs are temporally saved or created by these government interventions. Those workers would be better off in the long term finding new jobs in a free market.

Anti-free-market conservatives ignore how their policies harm those they claim to care about. For example, protectionism harms farmers and others working in businesses depending on international trade.

The most common complaint of social conservatives is that libertarianism promotes immorality. These conservatives confuse a libertarian’s opposition to outlawing drugs, for example, with moral approval of drug use. Many libertarians condemn drug use and other destructive behaviors. However, libertarians reject the use of government force to prevent individuals from choosing to engage in these behaviors. Instead, libertarians support the right of individuals to use peaceful means to persuade others not to engage in destructive or immoral behaviors.

Libertarians also support the right of individuals not to associate with, or to subsidize in any way, those whose lifestyles or beliefs they find objectionable. Social conservatives object to libertarians because social conservatives wish to use government power to force people to be good. This is the worst type of statism because it seeks to control our minds and souls.

Most people accept the idea that it is wrong to initiate force against those engaging in peaceful behaviors. Libertarians apply this nonaggression principle to government. Making government follow the nonaggression principle would end unjust wars, income and inflation taxes, and the destruction caused by the use of force to control what we do with our property, how we raise our children, who we associate with, and what we put into our bodies. Making governments abide by the nonaggression principle is the only way to restore a society that is free, prosperous, and moral.

From Lewrockwell.com, here.

LESHEM: When Is Mashiach Coming?

Leshem on the time of Moshiach

This piece of Leshem is found in the Hakdamos v’she’arim on page 86B, paragraph beginning v’hinei. It gives a deeper understanding of the concept of b’itah achishena.

…This [that was previously spoken of] is the secret of the days of Moshiach at the end of the sixth millennium, which is the time of the ruling of the crown [of yesod, corresponding to Moshiach ben Yosef], which in our context became a king unto himself. Similarly, he will will shine and rule until the times of Moshiach [ben Dovid] because he is a separate king at his root, and the yesod was split into two parts, therefore the sixth millennium, which corresponds to yesod, will also split into two parts. The time that corresponds to the yesod itself will be characterized by continuing exile and destruction, but the time that corresponds to the crown [of yesod] will then see the advent of Moshiach. The measure of the crown in proportion to the yesod is known to all who taste the taste of the Eitz Chaim [which is one third], for the crown is the covenant with Israel that was given to Avraham Avinu…

…For the crown (עטרה) is the crown (כתר) of kingship (מלכות), [meaning that the last third of the sixth millenium is the cross-over time into the seventh millenium,] and therefore the revelation of His kingship will begin then, but the actual dominion of Kingship itself will not be revealed until the seventh millenium, the seventh day, the day that is all Shabbos. In all of the six days it says “it was evening and it was morning,” whereas, on the seventh day it does not. This hints to that which it says about the seventh millennium in Zechariah 14, “And one day will come, known to Hashem, neither day nor night.” This is when Kingship itself will reign, which is after the days of Moshiach, in the seventh millennium, about which our sages spoke when they said there will be one millennium of desolation. This is when all will be rectified in preparation for the life of the world to come, which is after the seventh millennium and onwards…

In the back of the book, the Leshem adds the following note:

The length of the crown of yesod [that is, the last third of the sixth millennium] is known to all who have tasted the taste of the Eitz Chaim, and is also a lengthy amount of time. That whole period of time [from 5666/1906 until 6000/2240] is included in the the end-time of בעתה, ‘in its time.’ This is the simple understanding of the verse (Yeshaya 60:22) “אני ה’ בעתה אחישנה” – “I am Hashem, in its time I will hasten it.” This means that the verse promises that Moshiach will not wait the entire length of ‘in its time’ in order to come, rather it will be hastened within this time period. Nevertheless, the ‘hastening’ will only be within this time period of ‘in its time.’ In this way, both ‘in its time’ and ‘hastening’ will be fulfilled at once. This is also the understanding of the verse (Chavakuk 2:3), “If he will tarry, wait for him, for he will surely come without delay.” This means that he will not wait until the end of the period of ‘in its time’ heaven forbid, but rather, he will hasten to come, as well, as we explained. This, however, is only when the crown reaches its lowest point, as I wrote in chapter 42. This is what it means in the verse when it says (Zecharia 14:7), “And it will be at the time of evening [or sunset – לעת ערב], there will be light.”

The bottom line here is that “In its time” refers to a period of time from 1906 until 2240. Within this time, Hashem promises He will hasten Moshiach’s arrival, and we need not worry that it will come at the end of this period, but rather, closer to the beginning of this period. 1906 was the beginning of the fifth hour, within which we saw the two World Wars which culminated in the sixth hour, which began in 1948, with the establishment of the state of Israel. Let us pray for the speedy revelation of Moshiach ben Yosef, who will infuse this country and this forlorn people with a new spirit and sense of purpose, בב”א.

Living Under the Zionists Is ‘Galus’, While New Jersey Is Like Eretz Yisrael?!

IS THIS REALLY GALUS?

By Rabbi Avrohom Neuberger | JULY 10, 2019

If we don’t mourn the destruction, are we truly in galus?

You know how you occasionally hear or read something and wonder, “Wow, that’s so obvious. How did I miss it?”

I just had one of those moments, and I am asking myself that very question: How did I miss it?

Chareidi media has been all over the new law affecting the real estate market. It is presented as a chareidi news story since, as the headlines declare and the articles explain, many frum people are in the real estate sector, and these laws regulating rental properties stand to impact the frum community on many fronts. I read the articles and the readers’ reactions — some say it’s good for the Jews, most insist it’s bad for the Jews — and shrugged my shoulders and moved on to the next article.

But then a rosh yeshivah called me to point out something that should have been obvious, but I had missed.

“What do you think a non-Jew would think,” he asked me, “if he read these articles?”

He noted, correctly, that the articles seem to convey that these laws are somehow against the Jews. In fact, some writers went as far as to claim that there were anti-Semitic overtones in these laws.

But think of it this way, this rosh yeshivah asserted: If a village comprised of Jews and non-Jews was wiped out by a tornado, and the chareidi press would mention only that the tornado killed Jews, would that not be insensitive?

A tornado is not a Jewish catastrophe; it is a general catastrophe.

Yet the chareidi reporting surrounding the new real estate guidelines is in a sense even more callous. On the face of it, this law was motivated by very human concerns regarding the skyrocketing costs of rents in the city. Why would we Jews protest a law presumably motivated by a creed of caring for the underprivileged? A non-Jewish reader will undoubtedly conclude that we only care because we are no longer able to raise rents, and are looking out only for our self-interests.

Does this not reinforce the worse caricatures of money-grubbing Jews? Whom are we pitying? Shylock?

The rosh yeshivah clarified that he obviously does not mean to condemn real estate owners, the overwhelming majority of whom are running perfectly legitimate businesses and providing work for so many employees, many of whom are our fellow Yidden. Furthermore, their largesse has been propping our mosdos for decades, and they have rightfully earned our full admiration.

Rather, he is condemning the chareidi press for publicizing this and painting it as a “Jewish” story.

And I, in turn, am condemning myself. How did I miss this?

I once read a fascinating study about social awareness, in which social scientists sought to determine which measurable factors — i.e. age, income, gender, race, etc. — impacted one’s awareness of his surroundings.

Those conducting the study had people walk down a random city street and then asked them what they had noticed. The findings were somewhat predictable, with one significant surprise. A fairly predictable result, for instance, was that people tended to notice others who were like themselves — young girls noticed other young girls, teenagers noticed other teenagers, women noticed other women.

But they were surprised to discover that one group scored much lower than the others in social awareness. The mega-wealthy, as a group, were particularly poor in noticing what others were doing. Why? The scientists theorized that because these people are self-sufficient and are wealthy enough to believe that their independence is permanent, they forfeit the instinct to bond with other people. Unless they make a concerted effort to care, their economic status fosters a feeling of being different, and isolates them from the world, causing them to live in a social bubble.

Are we, the Jews of chutz l’Aretz, suffering from a similar condition? Does our reporting of the real estate guidelines not demonstrate that we are living in a bubble? Has our justified concern for self-preservation and insularity from a culture so foreign to ours resulted in our becoming oblivious to our environment and how we may be perceived by others?

At the same time, has our collective economic comfort, coupled with our acceptance into society, caused us to forget that we are in galus, so that we don’t care how we are viewed? Do we realize that we are guests in a host country? There was a time when people would never wear a tallis on the street. Are we so comfortable, so “in your face,” that we can confuse Jersey for Bnei Brak?

But sadly, this does seems to be true. We don’t really see ourselves as being in galus. A case in point. I have been told that a large poster appeared in a local shul announcing the formation of a new neighborhood. It presents a panoramic view of the site, with the following words emblazoned on it: “Sa na einecha ure’eh… ki es kol ha’aretz asher atah ro’eh, lecha etnenah ul’zaracha.” This verse obviously refers only to Eretz Yisrael, not New York or New Jersey. Yet it was coopted for selling homes in the Tristate area.

How sad.

Bear in mind Kli Yakar’s exhortation on the verse, “Penu lachem tzafonah” (Devarim 2:3).

Chazal expound: “If Eisav’s time has arrived, conceal yourself — hatzpinu es’chem” (Devarim Rabbah 19). It seems that this concealment refers to a Jew who has found, even in this galus, a small measure of success. Let him hide it and conceal it before Eisav — for no nation is as jealous of the Jewish nation as Eisav, who feel that they were robbed of Yaakov’s blessing…. Yaakov similarly chastised his children, “Lamah tisra’u — why are making you making yourselves so visible?”

This is the polar opposite of how Jews act nowadays, in the lands of their foes. For if someone has 100 rubles, he dresses in finery and lives in a home as if he has thousands, and in doing so, he incites the non-Jews against him. It is this custom that is at the heart of all our troubles.

As we head toward the Three Weeks, when we are meant to mourn the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash, I ask rhetorically: Can galus can be mechaper (atone) if we don’t relate to it as a punishment altogether? Because if we do not mourn the destruction, are we truly in galus?

Kol hamisabel al Yerushalayim zocheh v’ro’eh b’vinyanah. Let us be zocheh in the coming period to be misabeil, and thereby to bring the Geulah bimeheirah.

Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 768. Rabbi Avrohom Neuberger is the rav of Congregation Shaarei Tefillah of New Hempstead and the author of Positive Vision, a Chofetz Chaim Heritage Foundation project (ArtScroll\Mesorah)  

From Mishpacha, here.

Bilaam: The Royal, One-Eyed, Flying People-Eater!

Bilaam’s true identity

Over Shabbos, I had a revelation about Bilaam:
a) He only had one eye. (Sanhedrin 105a, based on Bemidbar 24:3)
b) While not wanting to live a Jewish life, he wanted to die among the righteous Jews, and so could be considered quasi-Jewish. (Bemidbar 23:20) (Alternatively, ketoafot re’em lo, “he has the horn of the unicorn”, in Bemidbar 23:22)
c) He could fly. (Midrash Rabba on Balak)
d) He was royalty – as Bela ben Beor, he was one of the kings of Edom. (Bereishit 36:32)
e) His name is a contraction of bala’ ‘am, swallower of a people.

Thus:

♫ He was a (a) one eyed, (b) one horned, (c) flying (d) purple (e) people eater. ♪

From Parshablog, here.

Yet ANOTHER Rightist Call to Shut Down Haaretz Online… (Who’s Next?)

The nakba that is Ha’aretz

by Victor Rosenthal
One who becomes compassionate instead of cruel, will ultimately become cruel instead of compassionate…
Midrash Kohelet Rabba (a discussion of this is here)The lead editorial in Ha’aretz today is headlined “The Nakba isn’t Going Away,” and it touts a longer article by investigative journalist Hagar Shezaf published last week, about how Defense Ministry personnel have collected and sealed documents that describe the alleged expulsion and other ill-treatment of Arabs at the time of Israel’s War of Independence and afterwards.

The editorial accuses Israel of “expulsion, looting, murder and rape” in 1948. There is no doubt that some of these things did occur, although it is also true that we were far kinder to the Arabs than they would have been to us if they had won. I don’t object to the publication of such facts, although Ha’aretz has a tendency to exaggerate the extent and cruelty of our deeds and to accept the narrative of our enemies uncritically. What I do violently object to is their attribution of moral guilt and demand for some kind of accounting for it toward the Palestinians.

The editorial concludes:

Israel at age 71 is strong enough to address the moral failings of its past. The Nakba won’t go away. It’s still there in the landscape, in the rows of pear cactus of the abandoned villages, in the many arched houses of Jaffa and Haifa, and in the memory of the Palestinian community in Israel, and in the territories and across the border.

Instead of censoring and concealing things, the history of Israel’s establishment and the Palestinian society that was uprooted should be studied and taught. Commemoration signs should be put up at the sites of destroyed villages, and the moral dilemmas that have accompanied Israel since 1948 should be faced. Such recognition won’t resolve the conflict, but it will place dialogue between Jews and Palestinians in Israel on a foundation of truth instead of lies, shame and concealment.

No, this is absolutely not what “should” happen. Israel was born in war, a war that was forced on it by Arabs who couldn’t abide Jewish sovereignty, and who planned – in the words of Abdul Rahman Azzam, Secretary-General of the Arab League – “a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacre and the Crusades.” A pity, for the Ha’aretz editorial board, that we won the war and now have “moral failings” to address as a result. But we did, and there is no reason to be apologetic about it, or to get nostalgic over the losses of our enemies, who, incidentally, have not stopped murdering us whenever the opportunity presents itself.

Perhaps they wouldn’t be murdering us today if we had followed the same policy in 1967 that the Jordanians did when they conquered Judea/Samaria and part of Jerusalem in 1948. Every single Jew living in areas under their control was forced to leave at gunpoint. Some were murdered. Synagogues were destroyed, gravestones uprooted, and not a trace of the former Jewish inhabitants was allowed to remain. Did newspapers in Jordan call for a “dialogue” or agonize about their “moral failures?” To ask the question is to answer it.

War is ugly, especially when two peoples are fighting over a piece of ground. There were massacres and rapes on both sides (Benny Morris believes that he has evidence for at least a dozen rapes committed by Jewish forces, something that surprised both Morris and me). I think that he is correct when he says that “the entire [Jewish] leadership” understood that there would be no Jewish state as long as there wasn’t a large Jewish majority, and that it was absolutely necessary to encourage the Arabs to leave.

And that isn’t a moral problem. It was them or us, quite simply; and our claim on the land was stronger than theirs and we had fewer alternatives. Would Israel have survived its first 19 years if significantly fewer Arabs had fled in 1948? I doubt it. And if the Arabs had won the war, Azzam’s threat would surely have been carried out.

This is a fact of human life. It has always been so. Population transfers have occurred after almost every major war. Indeed, we were not cruel enough. I think that in the long run, there would have been fewer victims on both sides and more security in the region as a whole if Israel had expelled the Arabs of Judea, Samaria, and Eastern Jerusalem in 1967.

Just a note about “investigative journalist” Shazef. She works for Ha’aretz, but she is also paid by a European foundation, supported in part by George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, the Flemish (Belgian) government, and other European sources, to write anti-Israel articles. But naturally she doesn’t let that cloud her journalistic judgment. Naturally.

What is the matter with Jews like the ones on the Ha’aretz editorial board? Why are they obsessed with bashing their country, the one that may have given their parents and grandparents a home when no other country would? Why do they find it so easy to understand the pain of the Palestinian Arabs, who themselves have brought so much pain into the world, but they can’t cut Israel a break? Why do they advocate national suicide for their own people out of concern for others? That isn’t morality, it’s stupidity.

We do not have to feel “shame” for 1948, and we have nothing to be ashamed of today, when the IDF shoots Arabs dead when they climb border fences. Gideon Levy, another Ha’aretz operative, eloquently mourns poor Abdallah Gheith, a teenager who “dreamed of praying at the Al-Aqsa Mosque,” and was shot climbing the fence. According to Levy, his father took him and a cousin to the fence and dropped them off! I am sure that he just wanted to live his dream of praying at al-Aqsa, aren’t you? Levy calls the border policeman that shot him a “murderer.” I call him someone doing a dangerous job, protecting traitors like Levy and the rest of the Ha’aretz gang from young men like Gheith, who might stick a knife in their necks on the street.

Because “traitor” is not too strong a word. Israel’s War of Independence never ended; every few years it flares up, but between times smolders in a deadly way. And the Ha’aretz newspaper, 60% owned by publisher Amos Schocken, who controls its editorial policy, is a brigade in service of Israel’s enemies. Although its Hebrew edition is the by far the least popular of Israel’s major newspapers, its English edition and website in English are widely read by government officials and businesspeople around the world. By presenting an almost uniformly critical view of Israel and Israelis in its opinion pages, and by slanting news reports to present Israel in the worst possible light, Ha’aretz contributes to the campaign to demonize and delegitimize Israel that is part of the international effort to destroy it.

This constitutes treason. I understand that a free press is an important part of a free country, and that makes it difficult to shut down or prosecute a newspaper. But why do we need Ha’aretz when we have Aljazeera and Palestinian Authority newspapers?

I would like to understand what Schocken, Levy, and the others see when they stand in front of the mirror. After all, they are Israelis too. Does this cause them to feel the “shame” that they want all of us to feel? Or do they see themselves as courageous fighters for the “truth,” which is that Israelis are murderers and Arabs saintly victims?

It’s the latter, of course. They are not “self-hating” Jews, because they clearly love and value themselves. It’s just the Jewish people that they hate.