Our Second Most-Popular Post of All Time

Is this.

It briefly introduces the “Ma’aneh La’iggros“, a book-long critique of the Iggros Moshe’s whole Halachic method (and more).

You may have wondered, as you read it: did Rabbi Moshe Feinstein himself ever (get to) see it?

Rabbi Moshe Tendler, in an interview, implies he did. I quote:

Of course, he had his detractors. There was a sefer that was published by Satmar entitled Ma’aneh la-Iggeros which tried to take apart over 160 of my shver’s teshuvos. But he was so immune to personal attacks. His perspective was: I publish, they publish, you read and decide who is right. Attacks did not bother him. In addition, Satmar’s Ha-Ma’or attacked him regularly, but he would never respond. Only if you wrote to him or called him up with a shayle would he respond. The one time I ever saw him reply to something someone published about his stance on an issue was when Ha-Ma’or criticized his take on the question of artificial insemination and whether the child was considered a mamzer (illegitimate child) or not. He felt that he needed to defend his position publicly and in print, so he responded in the back of the Dibberos Moshe on Kesubbos, which was being printed at the time, with three teshuvos devastating them and showing their amaratsus (ignorance).

Is Austro-Libertarianism a Semitic Scam?

A Greenbacker Invents a Nut-Case History of Libertarianism

Gary North

Feb. 20, 2012

I have been asked by several of my subscribers to respond to this article: Proof Libertarianism is an Illuminati Ploy. It appears here: http://www.henrymakow.com/libertarianism_as_an_illuminat.html

Let me say, before I begin, that the author of this article is the only person I have come across who could profitably study with Ellen Brown.

There is a subhead: William S. Volker (1859-1947) was a wealthy German-Jewish businessman.

There is a biography of William Volker, Mr. Anonymous (1951). On Page 16, we read:

After supper they gathered around Dorothea to pray and to listen to her read passages from the Bible. The Scriptures finished, she laid the Bible aside and explained the practical application of each admonition. Dorothea also passed along to her children the plain homilies she had learned from her parents. She spoke with serious purposefulness; her steady voice revealed her deep conviction. William joined his mother’s circle of instruction before he could comprehend all her teachings. And each Sunday the whole family attended the Lutheran Church services in Esperke where the family prayers were supplemented with more formal worship.

From here, the article goes downhill.

At the end of the article, we learn:

Anthony Migchels is an Interest-Free Currency activist and founder of the Gelre, the first Regional Currency in the Netherlands. You can read all of his articles on his blog Real Currencies

In short, he is a Greenbacker. He believes in the same fiat money utopia that Ellen Brown promotes. But, when compared to Mr. Migchels, lawyer Brown is a Pulitzer-Prize candidate in history.

Far from defending freedom, the Illuminati created Libertarianism to reflect their Social Darwinian and racial supremacist ideology. With its opposite twin, Communism, they control the dialectic. The efficacy of this tactic is demonstrated by their duping the “Truth Movement.”

I am not sure how he got from William Volker to the Illuminati. But, in the wacky world of Greenbackism, anything is possible. “Connecting the dots” produces some truly dotty connections. This article is among the dottiest.

“You say that Marxism is the very antithesis of capitalism, which is equally sacred to us [Illuminati Jewish bankers.] It is precisely for this reason that they are direct opposites to one another, that they put into our hands the two poles of this planet and allow us to be its axis. These two contraries, like Bolshevism and ourselves, find their identity in the International.” — Otto Kahn, Investment Banker

I hope Mr. Kahn was better at investing than he was in social theory.

Actually, there is no record that Mr. Kahn ever said this. He was a highly successful banker and a literate author. We have here another example of an invented quotation. It is a way of life for Greenbackers.

William S. Volker (1859-1947) was a wealthy German-Jewish businessman. Dismayed by the rise of socialism in America, he created the Volker Fund to support a reactionary ideology based on “laissez-faire” and Social Darwinism. This was to become Libertarianism.

Volker created the Volker Fund in 1932 to finance hospitals and charities. Only late in his career did he use the Fund’s money for ideological purposes: local civic government education. He lived in Missouri, and he was a long-time critic of boss Tom Pendergast and Pendergast’s hand-picked local politician, Harry Truman. This did not make him a member of the Illuminati.

Libertarianism and its twin sister Austrian Economics were invented by the Money Power to be the opposite of Communism in a dialectic.

Well, all I can say is that the Money Power sure has short-changed me for 50 years. Here I am, a certified running dog of the capitalist class, and I have had to bankroll myself since 1967.

Anyway, the author believes in Marx’s dialectic. This indicates a certain lack of perception on his part. The Marxian dialectic had some tough times back in 1991. You may have read about this. The Communist Party did the unforgivable. It committed suicide. It handed over the infrastructure to the party’s insiders and cashed out. Marx called this the “cash nexus.” Boy, was he right!

So, the Money Power invented Austrian economics (developed by Karl Menger in 1871) and libertarianism (a term coined by Leonard E. Read around 1946) in order to fight Communism (created in 1848 by an unemployed Ph.D. and his capitalist donor). The Money Power in 1871 was really smart. It spotted a couple of Gentiles to do the deed. Menger’s disciple, Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk, another Gentile, did not write his first critique of Marx until 1884, a year after Marx died. He buried this critique in a long, detailed book, History and Critique of Interest Theories, which almost no has ever one read. Why didn’t they come to him and say this? “Look, Eugen, publish your Marx critique as a pamphlet. You have just got to come up with a better title. This might work: Marx Was a Commie. That will sell a lot better.” How they could have foreseen that Menger would launch the Austrian School remains a mystery to every other historian of Communism and libertarianism. I say this as the author of a 1968 book on Marx.

According to this amazing report, (from which all non-specified quotes here are taken,) “Volker was no great scholar or thinker. The ideology he set out to create was built upside down, starting only with a set of foggy conclusions for which he had a predisposition. From these conclusions, it was the task of Volker’s considerable fortune to find a set of justifications, then an enabling ideology or “theory” that gave it all perspective and unity and, eventually, a true philosophical platform from which to launch the whole.”

Whoever wrote that amazing report has some serious problems with grammar. “. . . it was the task of Volker’s considerable fortune to find a set of justifications. . . ” I can visualize it. There was that considerable fortune, sitting at its desk, planning a series of justifications. Then the fortune called in Volker and said, “Look, Bill, you have got to spend me more effectively. Now here’s my plan. . . .”

The anonymous author speculates that Volker was a secret fascist. He offers no evidence. You may recall how well the Jewish Money Power did in Germany, 1933-45. But I digress.

Continue reading…

From Gary North, here.

Free E-book (Not Mine)

Tom Woods is giving out a new free ebook called Sane Space. Free if you subscribe to his mailing list, that is.

It’s really easy to read. Here’s a nice excerpt (p. 5):

Employers have a fixed amount of money to pay for labor services. They don’t care if that compensation comes in the form of cash, better working conditions, fringe benefits, or whatever.

What that means is that insisting prematurely on more comfortable working conditions doesn’t make people richer. It simply redistributes the fixed amount of compensation employers are willing to pay, away from take-home pay and toward improved working conditions.

Some people may prefer that compensation bundle, but who says everyone does?

As a matter of fact, if you ask people who work in sweatshops today if they’d rather have more pleasant conditions (or fewer working hours) with less take-home pay, they overwhelmingly say no.

Ben Powell of Texas Tech University actually bothered to ask. And 90+% of them said they wanted the money…