Top Secret US/Israeli base: Mezuzah-mad "Site 911"

File under: Twilight Language

Gates and doors

Mezuzah-mad Site 911

"Oddly named” Joint US/Israeli Facility is Top Secret

“...authorized by the Chief Rabbinate”

"The employment of Palestinians is...forbidden”

Hi Michael

I came across this Washington Post article today and thought you may have an interest or use for it.  Your CD "Inside the 9/11 Conspiracy" from a decade ago traced the 911 terror attacks to the Israelis, and I thought the Israeli name "Site 911" may very well be an occult signal of Revelation of the Method.  --Sincerely,  Paul P.

______________________ 

U.S. overseeing mysterious construction project in Israel 

By Walter Pincus, Fine Print column, TheWashington Post, November 28, 2012

With an Afterword by Michael Hoffman

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers plans to supervise construction of a five-story underground facility for an Israel Defense Forces complex, oddly named "Site 911," at an Israeli Air Force base near Tel Aviv.

Expected to take more than two years to build, at a cost of up to $100 million, the facility is to have classrooms on Level 1, an auditorium on Level 3, a laboratory, shock-resistant doors, protection from nonionizing radiation and very tight security. Clearances will be required for all construction workers, guards will be at the fence and barriers will separate it from the rest of the base. Only U.S. construction firms are being allowed to bid on the contract and proposals are due Dec. 3, according to the latest Corps of Engineers notice.

Site 911 is the latest in a long history of military construction projects the United States has undertaken for the IDF under the U.S. Foreign Military Sales program. The 1998 Wye River Memorandum between Israel and the Palestinian Authority has led to about $500 million in U.S. construction of military facilities for the Israelis, most of them initially in an undeveloped part of the Negev Desert. It was done to ensure there were bases to which IDF forces stationed in the West Bank could be redeployed.

As recorded in the Corps' European District magazine, called Engineering in Europe, three bases were built to support 20,000 troops, and eventually the Israeli air force moved into the same area, creating Nevatim air base. A new runway, 2.5 miles long, was built there by the Corps along with about 100 new buildings and 10 miles of roads.

Over the years, the Corps has built underground hangers for Israeli fighter-bombers, facilities for handling nuclear weapons (though Israel does not admit having such weapons), command centers, training bases, intelligence facilities and simulators, according to Corps publications.

Within the past two years the Corps, which has three offices in Israel, completed a $30 million set of hangars at Nevatim, which the magazine describes as a "former small desert outpost that has grown to be one of the largest and most modern air bases in the country." It has also supervised a $20 million project to build maintenance shops, hangars and headquarters to support Israel's large Eitan unmanned aerial vehicle.

Site 911, which will be built at another base, appears to be one of the largest projects. Each of the first three underground floors is to be roughly 41,000 square feet, according to the Corps notice. The lower two floors are much smaller and hold equipment.

Security concerns are so great that non-Israeli employees hired by the builder can come only from "the U.S., Canada, Western Europe countries, Poland, Moldavia, Thailand, Philippines, Venezuela, Romania and China," according to the Corps notice. "The employment of Palestinians is also forbidden," it says.

Among other security rules: The site "shall have one gate only for both entering and exiting the site" and "no exit or entrance to the site shall be allowed during work hours except for supply trucks." Guards will be Israeli citizens with experience in the Israeli air force. Also, "the collection of information of any type whatsoever related to base activities is prohibited."

The well-known Israeli architectural firm listed on the plans, Ada Karmi-Melamede Architects, has paid attention to the aesthetics of the site design as well as the sensibilities of future employees. The site, for example, will be decorated with rocks chosen by the architect but purchased by the contractor. Three picnic tables are planned, according to the solicitation.

The Corps offered a lengthy description of the mezuzas the contractor is to provide "for each door or opening exclusive of toilets or shower rooms" in the Site 911 building.

A mezuza (also spelled mezuzah) is a parchment which has been inscribed with Hebrew verses from the Torah, placed in a case and attached to a door frame of a Jewish family's house as a sign of faith.

Some interpret Jewish law as requiring — as in this case — that a mezuza be attached to every door in a house. These mezuzas, notes the (U.S. Army) Corps (of Engineers), "shall be written in inerasable ink, on uncoated leather parchment" and be handwritten by a scribe "holding a written authorization according to Jewish law." The writing may be "Ashkenazik or Sepharadik" but "not a mixture" and "must be uniform."

Also, "The Mezuzahs shall be proof-read by a computer at an authorized institution for Mezuzah inspection, as well as manually proof-read for the form of the letters by a proof-reader authorized by the Chief Rabbinate." The mezuza shall be supplied with an aluminum housing with holes so it can be connected to the door frame or opening. Finally, "All Mezuzahs for the facility shall be affixed by the Base's Rabbi or his appointed representative and not by the contractor staff.”

What's the purpose of Site 911? I asked the Pentagon on Tuesday, and the Corps on Wednesday said that only an Israeli Defense Ministry spokesman could provide an answer.

This may be a trend-starter. The Corps is also seeking a contractor for another secret construction project in Israel in the $100 million range to awarded next summer. This one will involve "a complex facility with site development challenges" requiring services that include "electrical, communication, mechanical/ HVAC [heating, ventilation, air conditioning] and plumbing.”

The U.S. contractor must have a U.S. secret or equivalent Israeli security clearance for the project, which is expected to take almost 2.5 years to complete. That sounds like a secure command center. The purpose of Site 911 is far less clear.

For previous "Fine Print" columns by Walter Pincus, go to washingtonpost.com/fedpage

***

Michael Hoffman’s Afterword: “Mezuzah” denotes gate and doorpost, and is derived from the Assyrian word manzazu whose meaning and origin are opaque. God ordered the Israelites to post His Ten Commandments. The place where they were posted has come to be called a mezuzah. While the posting of God’s Law on doors and gates (i.e. so-called “mezuzot”) is commanded in the Old Testament (Deut. 6:9 and 11:20), Judaism is not an Old Testament religion, and what begins as God-ordained becomes a sinkhole of mezuzah superstition in Judaism. Consequently, the mezuzah of Orthodox Judaism has a cryptogram inscribed on the reverse side. For some reason, the existence of this reverse “fine print” is not reported by Washington Post “fine print” columnist Walter Pincus. The cryptogram inscribed on the back of the rabbinic mezuzah is authorized by Kabbalist soothsayers, not the Bible (cf. Rabbi  Jehiel’s 13th century commentary, Hilkhot Mezuzah). Therefore, what appears to be a pious Israeli act of Old Testament probity, is actually part of an occult ritual tied to the top secret “Site 911," whose symbolism is administered by the Israeli Chief Rabbinate; where goyim are forbidden to enter, and golem are used to construct it. The symbolic stand-ins for the goyim in this case are the hated Palestinians, and the golem are, of course, the Americans. The year 2001 was a Gateway and the rabbinic mezuzah being put into place at "Site 911" is probably meant to channel that energy into the latest incarnation of il fumo di Satana. 

Michael Hoffman is the author of Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare; Judaism Discovered; Judaism’s Strange Gods, and most recently, Usury in Christendom. He edits Revisionist History newsletter.

***

Read More

Charles Murray sounds the alarm to white America

Michael Hoffman's introduction: This review of Charles Murray's new book (see below) on the declining fortunes of whites in America, Coming Apart, is not reproduced in The Hoffman Wire as an endorsement, but rather to showcase the Establishment's take on his despairing book. Which is not to say that Mr. Hacker doesn't make some valid points in the course of his review. My own perspective on Mr. Murray is that he possesses a self-defeating, post-modernist understanding of the utility of Christianity and its virtues and value. The Church cannot be embraced merely as a form of discipline. It is either a living, breathing faith in the commandments and way of Jesus Christ, or it is a TV Land footnote embroidered on an exhausted nostalgia. 

Murray deserves credit for his admonition concerning the low white American birth rate, but what else could any Cassandra advise at this late hour? Contraception is the signal failure of the heirs of the founders of this nation and represents its most fundamental betrayal. People who do not have sufficient spark to reproduce themselves by averaging at least three children per family, have no right to expect to rule the nation their forebears created. The dying white population is a matter of numerous factors: the attack on fathers by certain feminists and psychologists who saddle them with most of the responsibility for paying for children with almost none of the authority for raising them. There is also the psychological warfare of mainstream culture, with its "Hate Whitey" cinema, television and public school curricula. Lower class whites are encouraged to celebrate stupidity, while the upper class sucker in for the pseudo-ecological argument that an over-populated world requires couples to have no more than two children. Highly educated white couples are the main believers in this fallacy. There is also the modern Church, which regards the traditional teaching against artificial contraception to be an embarrassment, and a means by which modern women are alienated from Christian institutions. Chemical birth control has brought a plague of disease upon American women, including breast cancer, but most feminists will not make this an issue.

Numerous times God in the Bible warns His people that He will take the land away from them and give it to strangers if they will not obey Him. This is the case in America today, where whites have repeatedly refused to give birth to the children God wills to send into the world.  Charles Murray sees the curse being imposed but dances around the core of it and treats the crisis with palliatives. Most  whites know they will be a minority in their own nation in a few decades. This is not exactly news. If  white couples continue to refuse to act as the channel for the birth of God's children, while white America serves as the military golem of the bloody Talmudic state of counterfeit "Israel," they will richly deserve to surrender their nation to Asians, Hispanics or the black people who have been here for 300 years and whose labor helped to build this country. All three of these ethnicities are much less willing to serve the Zionists and may prove to be more fecund than sterility-oriented Caucasians. Both Charles Murray and his liberal critic, Andrew Hacker, are clueless when it comes to these issues. 

Murray has the additional handicap of discounting the role of NAFTA and the WTO's "free trade" globalism in transforming America into Shylock's cheap labor utopia. To strip American labor of its traditional protections against having to "compete" with stoop labor in those lands where Thomas de Quincey observed "man is a weed," is another failure of Murray's perspicacity. The strong American family of the past that Murray harkens after, was built on the Christian principle of employers paying a living wage to workers. Murray yammers on about Christian virtues yet he doesn't advocate even the most fundamental of its bedrock principles. The best that can be said for his book is that it sounds an alarm, but it will be left to American men and women with far more Christian vision than Charles Murray to revive the promise of this once Biblical nation. 

Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960–2010 

by Charles Murray 

Crown Forum, 407 pp., $27.00

"The White Plight"

Reviewed by Andrew Hacker | New York Review of Books | May 10, 2012

(Two tables that accompany Mr. Hacker's published review are not included here)

Charles Murray has written another book about race. Much as The Bell Curve (1) argued that many human beings of African heritage were genetically less intelligent than most whites, so Coming Apart addresses the deficiencies of Americans of European origin. He charges large swaths of “white America”—his designation—with indolence, self-indulgence, and failing to understand the nation’s “founding virtues” of honesty, industriousness, marriage, and religion. An air of despair pervades the book. Those whose forebears did so much to build this country lack the kind of resolution the coming century will need.

Murray says he chose to focus on whites so he could conduct his analysis of changes in American society “independently of ethnic heritage.” He omits Asians and Hispanics because most are relatively recent arrivals, just as having African origins brings burdens of its own. This leaves some 200 million people—now 69 percent of the population, down from its 90 percent height in 1950—who told the most recent Census they consider themselves fully white in that they did not add another ethnic designation. As noted, he excludes everyone who identifies as Hispanic, even though half of them add that they are also white. (The 2010 Census form asked respondents both if they were of “Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin” and their race—white, black, etc.) Several generations in Chile apparently would weaken a claim to European ancestry. Nor does he subdivide his white grouping by national origins or religious ties. Here he recognizes that each year sees further assimilation among white Americans, with surnames a last reminder of where they came from.

But Coming Apart is also a book about class. Or more precisely, two contrasting classes of white Americans. One, a “new upper class,” includes not just the rich and powerful, since it takes in a generous 20 percent of the population. By my calculations, it starts with families earning $135,724. The other, a “new lower class,” is everyone in the bottom 30 percent. Its top income, also by my count, would be $52,057. Nor are these classes wholly economic; Murray adds educational and occupational status to give a more rounded portrayal. Thus everyone in his upper class must have completed college and hold a professional or managerial position. He explains what makes both these classes “new,” and why conventional rubrics no longer apply. No discussion is given to the remaining 50 percent, which is odd, since they are literally mid-America and cast most of the votes in presidential elections. 

Murray believes that a new designation is needed to characterize a large part of the white population. In the past, it was called a working or blue-collar class, which emphasized their mode of employment. It was a given that such people applied themselves at their jobs, whatever their level of skill, and took family responsibilities seriously. Union wages meant they could own modest homes and send a large proportion of their children to college.

Today, in Murray’s view, this ethos barely exists. As he sees it, “prime-age” whites in this class, particularly men in their thirties and forties, frequently refuse to take available jobs, and put in fewer hours when they do, often by feigning disabilities. By his count, most of them are divorced, separated, or reluctant to take the plunge into marriage. Men who do aren’t much better, at least in a Philadelphia neighborhood he writes about. (The women “almost got an extra son at home, better known as the husband,” as Murray quotes the head of a parochial school.) More than a few engage in activities that end them in prison. At times, Murray refers to them as “rednecks” and “rabble,” not entirely tongue-in-cheek.

A generation ago, the term “underclass” was current, spurred by fears of urban violence, promiscuous procreation, and soaring welfare rolls. (2) An unstated premise was that almost all in that class were black, since whites couldn’t fall that far. Murray holds that the Great Society’s benefits sent a something-for-nothing message to the larger society. Starting in the Sixties, whites began to become entwined in the “tangle of pathology” Daniel Patrick Moynihan had ascribed to black Americans. Thus as Table A shows, each year sees white extramarital births coming closer to the black rates. But this presents a challenge for Murray, which he sedulously sidesteps. As was made clear in The Bell Curve, he believes that racial gene pools for traits like intelligence are real, and “black” and “white” are not just rubrics. So does he take the moral deterioration he sees in whites as a sign that a major human race is losing its power to adapt and compete? Murray does no more than imply it is the case.

Murray begins by praising his new upper class. They are staying married and they say they attend religious services regularly. (No distinctions are made between, say, Episcopalians and evangelicals, even as the latter have their share of college graduates.) They are lauded for being “engaging, well mannered, good parents, and good neighbors.” He admires their social and professional skills, dubbing them a “cognitive elite,” educated for a fast-changing world. Yet their ascent has made them “increasingly isolated” from the rest of society, with “large areas of ignorance about how others live.” Murray supports his point by setting his upscale readers a quiz: When did they last watch Judge Judy or dine at a downmarket Applebee’s? This isolation and ignorance set his new upper class apart from its predecessors. Murray tells of the Iowa town of his youth, where the banker exchanged pleasantries with the local butcher on the street.

Then, without warning, Coming Apart turns harsh. We hear his top class described as “overeducated elitist snobs” who “believe that they and their peers are superior to the rest of the population.” At this point, the book relies heavily on David Brooks’s lampoon of “bourgeois bohemians.” So we hear anew about people who are drawn to spiced apple cider sorbet and spinach feta loaf, health clubs and marathons. The implication is that those at the top are frivolous and self-centered. But statistically this doesn’t fit. Murray chose to make his upper class large, encompassing one of every five Americans. While they may all be college graduates, they range from Yale art history majors to Iowa State engineers, and cider sorbet to burritos at Super Bowl parties. Still, Murray has mounted a grave indictment of his fellow white Americans, starting at the top. For all their cognitive cleverness, they are “an elite that is hollow at the core” and “as dysfunctional in its way as the new lower class is in its way.”

Coming Apart has little to say about the economic conditions that create Murray’s classes. He requires a college degree for membership in his new upper class, since symbols, words, and numbers are its basic products. I occasionally found myself wondering if this isn’t a grand illusion, a fantasy about modern mandarins who feel they can master the universe with spreadsheets and economic models in a world where financial and military decisions rest on differential equations and PowerPoint presentations. Nor am I persuaded that verbal sophistication (“critical thinking,” “moral reasoning”), as defined in academic assignments, necessarily improves productivity. Still, the economy has found funds to underwrite this assumed elite, largely by paying less for blue-collar work, whether performed at home or abroad.

What makes Murray’s new lower class “new” is its tenuous tie to the labor force. The country once had a substantial industrial base, which was predominantly white. While Murray grants that there are fewer Detroit-type jobs, he doesn’t mourn the eclipse of organized labor. (“Unions usually do not play a large role in generating social capital.”) The problem, in his view, is that all too many of his newly lower-class men are what the English once called “work-shy.” Murray tells us that office cleaners average $13.37 an hour, which adds up to an annual $26,740. What one takes home from that, he says, should be “enough to be able to live a decent existence,” adding, “even if you are married and your wife doesn’t work.” So Coming Apart calls for a serious change in attitude, from which will emerge a new post-union class, grateful for $26,740 offers. (The current poverty threshold for a family of four is $23,050.) This altered outlook, Murray says, should enhance interclass comity. Janitors thankful for their jobs will not begrudge $267,400 to recently minted MBAs whose offices they are cleaning.

Murray has always been fascinated by genetic inheritance, whether within entire races or specific pairs of parents. Among his white “cognitive elite,” he says he sees a rise in “the interbreeding of individuals with like characteristics.” With women now receiving more than half of postsecondary degrees, credentialed couplings become common. “When individuals with similar cognitive ability have children,” Murray tells us, “the staying power of the elite across generations increases.” The traits passed on by the partners may be cultural, like diction and demeanor, or intrinsic, like a gift for mathematics or music. Unlike its predecessors, the new upper class will not be based altogether on privilege; it will be more like a hereditary meritocracy in place because of its greater share of society’s intelligence.

To reinforce this point, Murray says research shows that “graduates from elite colleges are likely to marry other graduates from elite colleges.” At first glance, this seems to make sense. Dartmouth and Duke are congenial milieus for young people to meet, even if nowadays a decade may go by before they marry. However, the source he cites doesn’t support this supposition. For one thing, it dealt not with recent graduates, but with men and women who were aged fifty-eight through seventy-two when the article appeared.3 Moreover, less than a quarter in this sample chose spouses “from colleges with the same institutional characteristics.”

For an updated test, I undertook an informal inquiry of my own, which suggests that Murray is only half right. In marriages listed in The New York Times during the first three months of this year, among the couples where at least one spouse had an Ivy-tier degree, in almost half the other did as well. Among the rest, Yale and Stanford graduates chose mates from schools like Baylor and Michigan State.

We know that well-off and otherwise accomplished parents can give their children a good start, or at least try. So the next question is how these presumably favored offspring fare as adults. Such studies as we have suggest that early advantages don’t always last. Tom Hertz, an economist at American University, found that of children raised in families in the top income quintile, only 38 percent were still there as adults. Ron Haskins at the Brookings Institution, also following top-quintile youngsters, was surprised to find that only a little over half (53 percent) obtained college degrees.

Claudia Dreifus and I conducted a similar study for a book we published two years ago. (4) We chose a full Princeton class, giving its 883 graduates time to have offspring of college age. We estimated, on the conservative side, that together they had 1,500 children. As it turns out, only 120 of them applied to and were accepted by Princeton—with or without legacy preferences—while about 180 applied but were rejected, which is itself a commentary on elite inheritance.

Of course, not all young people wish to attend their parents’ school, even if they could get in. In our Princeton case, the book produced for the class’s reunion reported where many of them went. In fact, only two ended at Princeton-tier schools: one each at Harvard and Cornell. Some of the rest landed at Lehigh, Wake Forest, Denison, Penn State, Carleton, UCLA, Tulsa, Northwestern, NYU, Virginia Tech, and the University of Scranton. We leave to others whether we’re seeing downward mobility or simply regression to the mean. In any case, excellent educations can be had at these and similar colleges. The larger point is that most seats at elite institutions now go to applicants—many born abroad—whose parents attended less highly ranked schools or none at all. Murray will have to do more research if he is to prove that America’s elite is becoming more hereditary.

Honesty is one of Murray’s four “founding virtues”—along with industriousness, marriage, and religion—which he sees imperiled. As a measure of that quality among Americans—or its lack—he cites incarceration rates for white adults, which have been steadily rising. While most prison inmates are black and Hispanic, a not negligible 850,000 white men and women are also behind bars. He provides detailed data on arrests and sentencing, as well as probation and parole. “Whites in state and federal prisons,” Murray adds, “are overwhelmingly drawn from working-class and lower-class neighborhoods.” It’s probably true that most people who are convicted did something illegal. But looking only at who ends up in prison serves to make dishonesty largely a lower-class failing.

On honesty among his upper class, Murray concedes the “damning evidence of systematic wrongdoing” in the financial world. Even so, he says he is “not clear” on how far “a decline in personal integrity” has spread among the better-off. For so broad an assessment, prison statistics aren’t much help. If Martha Stewart, Bernard Madoff, and Raj Rajaratnam come to mind, not many more can be readily named. In white lower-class circles, almost everyone can point to a friend or relative or neighbor who’s been convicted. This is seldom the case among the middle class. Indeed, its members prefer not even to suspect there could be felonious conduct by people they know.

As it happens, information is available. In 2006, the most recent year for figures, the IRS estimated that it failed to receive at least $450 billion, because of failures to file, underrreporting, underpayments, and bogus deductions, most of these conscious attempts to evade taxes. There is reason to suspect that tax evaders come largely from Murray’s top 20 percent. Certainly, this fifth contains corporate executives and their counselors, some of whom are periodically caught violating laws. Almost every week, the invaluable Corporate Crime Reporter tells of yet another bank or brokerage house conceding that its employees committed security fraud; the same source tells of pharmaceutical firms admitting that people on their payrolls fixed prices or marketed products illegally. Usually, however, only the corporate entities are charged, not the executives who planned or tolerated the felonies. The firms are almost always allowed to pay fines and settle silently, without admitting wrongdoing. Prosecutors argue that this is the best they can do, since it’s hard to prove malicious motives to a unanimous jury. (Insider trading cases are easier, since they’re often built on whistleblowing or tapped information.)

Is there a tacit agreement to spare executives from hard time? The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, based at Syracuse University, has the only count I’ve seen of financial prosecutions that ended with sentences. In the twelve months ending in November 2011, the ninety-four US Attorney Offices nationwide recorded a total of 719 cases where the defendants were sent to prison.5 Murray seems to see low numbers like these as evidence of upper-class honesty. Hence he cites a 2005 IRS figure that of 31 million tax filings by corporations, proprietors, and partnerships, only 217 penalties were assessed for civil tax fraud. He does not seem aware of the Corporate Crime Reporter findings. Moreover, he does not ask how many of those filed returns were carefully reviewed for fraud; nor does he ask how often prosecutors, presented with evidence that suggests fraud, choose to press charges. (The statistics on the proportions of returns actually reviewed and the numbers of these that showed inadequate payment could be revealing but aren’t provided here.)

For his own part, Murray himself shows every sign of being what white connotes. He was raised in Newton, Iowa (1960 Census: 99.6 percent white, 98.4 percent native-born). He laments that citizens of his stock have lost their moral compass. Apart from blaming Lyndon Johnson, he seeks no deeper explanation behind his race’s fall from grace. Is it wholly implausible to suggest that white America’s time of power and preferment is coming to a close, both at home and abroad, and that such vigor as remains is being devoted to personal acquisitions and enjoyments? Hence a desperate air among Republican aspirants—after all, we know the race of the party’s base—hoping for a last hurrah as their era ends. Even if demography isn’t always destiny, it should never be discounted. To start, white Americans aren’t having enough children to maintain themselves. The nonwhite population is certain to keep growing, from immigration and reproduction. Jonathan Chait forecasts that in only thirty years they will be the majority of the electorate. (6)

Evidence of white eclipse is actually close at hand. Murray says little about Asian-Americans, other than that he sees their basic traits as “similar to those of whites.” Here he’s very wrong. In vital respects, they differ markedly, as the entries in Table B show. That Americans of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Indian descent work harder and more effectively is widely recognized, not least their excelling in competitions whites created. Nor from the many accounts I have seen does this drive center on the self. Bringing honor to one’s family is the major goal; a traditional impetus fosters mastering the modern world.

From Princeton to Berkeley, each year sees more places going to Asians on merit, with fewer white faces evident on competitive campuses. I wonder whether Murray would want to argue that if his whites were to truly apply themselves, they could match Asians on the SAT. (Currently, Asian women outscore white men.) Since he makes so much of genetics, does he think we are seeing signs of deterioration in the white strain?

Murray’s coda returns to his title: “our nation is coming apart at the seams.” The cause, as he sees it, is a preoccupation with self at every social level. Suburbanization segregrates the highly verbal from those who do most of the nation’s work. In Murray’s vision, we were to be not only a union of states, but a unified society. Thus the conservative mantra that any discussion of inequalities of income or privilege will set citizens against one another, indeed foment class warfare. While Murray doesn’t begrudge his cognitive elite its often lavish pay, he expresses concern over the “unseemliness” of much corporate conduct. A responsible ruling class doesn’t flaunt megamansions.

Murray wants a modern noblesse oblige: not just checks sent to charity but actual mingling, perhaps at Applebee’s. And, like Edmund Burke, he would have his lower class accept “their appointed place,” embracing honest labor and respect for authority. Nor is this entirely a pipe dream. When the Republicans muster majorities, they do it by rousing white voters below the median, lauding them as the nation’s bulwark. But such a strategy calls for casting other citizens as disloyal, undeserving, or immoral, not exactly a recipe for binding the nation together.

Murray’s reconfigured classes have emerged as if out of the air; they are not the product of organized interests or deliberate policies. Here Timothy Noah’s The Great Divergence is a welcome antidote. He does not simply show the glaring increase in inequality since the 1960s. Almost every year has seen more of the nation’s income ascending to its higher layers, whether the top quintile, one percent, or the four hundred wealthiest families. He also shows how top tiers in management and finance devised ways to arrogate more money for themselves, at the same time using their political power to decimate unions. Noah observes that jobs aren’t sent offshore just for lower wages. Using foreign labor also offers relief from assertive American workers. I particularly recommend Noah’s list of solutions. He’s all for enlarging public payrolls, with WPA-style projects, rather than enriching private contractors. He would hire more IRS auditors to bring back revenue from Swiss banks. I especially second his call to “impose price controls on colleges and universities.” The increasing dependence of students on loans is creating a new indentured class.

Since his book is both much needed and a delight to read, the one caveat I have is offered in good spirit. On immigrants, I fear Noah relies too heavily on models purporting to show how wages have dropped because “undocumented” workers were more and more employed. Across the workforce, it may well be 2.3 percent or 3.7 percent, depending on your source. But those who feel the harshest impact are forty-year-olds who can’t see themselves in those $13.37 per hour jobs, which Murray turns into a commentary on their character. Such wages are accepted by—indeed, geared to—immigrants, who in their early years here are willing to sleep five to a room. Their prominence in meatpacking plants, kitchens, and twelve-hour taxi shifts not only attests to the function they perform in the workforce, but undercuts any consensus on a coherent immigration policy. Their presence is deplored by politicians while their services are sought by business managers. At all events, fewer businesses, including subcontractors for the largest ones, are willing to pay what were once viewed as “white wages.”

Noah knows, however, that as things stand, he cannot expect much when he calls for reregulating Wall Street, giving unions greater support, and making the rich contribute more in taxes. But he believes that his demonstration of growing inequality and his proposal to remedy it are worth a book. In contrast, it isn’t clear what’s the point of Coming Apart. Without much conviction, Murray calls for a quasi-religious “awakening.” Apart from this, he doesn’t feel that much can be done about the self-indulgence and indolence of his archetypal lower and upper classes. In fact, his world-weariness isn’t just about two classes and one race, but an entire nation facing a daunting century.

NOTES

1. Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray, The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (Free Press, 1994); see the review by Alan Ryan, The New York Review, November 17, 1994. 

2. See “The Lower Depths,” The New York Review, August 12, 1982. 

3. Richard Arum, Josipa Roksa, and Michelle J. Budig, “The Romance of College Attendance,” Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, Vol. 26 (2008). 

4. Higher Education: How Colleges Are Wasting Our Money and Failing Our Kids—and What We Can Do About It (Times Books, 2010), pp. 71–76. 

5.“Fraud-Financial Institution Prison Sentences,” TRAC Reports, March 5, 2012. 

.

6. Jonathan Chait, “2012 or Never,” New York magazine, February 26, 2012.

End quote from The New York Review of Books 

___________________________________________________________________

Read More

The Pope Exonerates and Tennessee Excoriates

Contents

1. Readers have asked Michael Hoffman to comment on: 

The Pope "exonerates Jews for the death of Jesus" 

http://tinyurl.com/4sab35n

 

I'm going to wait until the pope's new book is published before I give an assessment. I distrust jump-the-gun encapsulation/sensationalism, for which the mainstream media is justly notorious.

Having said that, it will not surprise me to learn, after studying his forthcoming book, that the pope has contributed another installment in his long career of treasonous Judaization, which, together with his tolerance of high level child molestation facilitators (Bernard Law, Roger Mahony ad nauseum, who live in retired luxury), have stained his white garments with the blood of Palestine and the blood of raped Catholic children. Behold, the day comes when the proud shall be reduced to stubble.

The Associated Press (http://tinyurl.com/4sab35n) reports: "Benedict has said that had he known Bishop Richard Williamson's views about Jews he never would have lifted his excommunication, which was imposed in 1988 because Williamson was consecrated without papal consent."

If this is an accurate quotation, it signifies that Church office is now bestowed or withdrawn based on one's attitudes pro or contra toward the "Jews." 

Since Williamson has never said anything unscriptural about "Jews," but only doubted that they were gassed to death in Auschwitz, we see a revolutionary standard being imposed by this pope — clerics who offer an opinion about a detail of official World War Two propaganda are deserving of excommunication, while criminals like Cardinals Bernard Law and Roger Mahony, who facilitated and protected child molesters, retire with the full pomp of their office (Mahony is still eligible to cast a vote for a new pope, should the current one die). Truly we are dealing with a shameless pontiff for whom dereliction in the duty of Jew-worship is magnitudes of sinfulness above peccadillos such as harboring child rapists.

A papal proclamation absolving the Pharisees and the Jewish mob in first century Jerusalem, or the spiritual heirs of the Pharisees who comprise modern Orthodox Judaism, of the murder of Jesus Christ, is not worth the paper on which it is written. 

The Talmud states that Jesus got what He deserved, and the highest legal authority in Judaism, Rabbi Moses Maimonides, not only confirmed the Talmud's judgment, he urged the murder of Jesus' followers, if such killings could be made to look like an accident. So what's to absolve? The Talmud and Maimonides are "witnesses against themselves." A papal proclamation to the contrary has the same credibility as an absolution issued by the Masonic Lodge or the U.N. 

If idolatry of counterfeit "Israel" is your bag, then the pope's words will make an impression. For the rest of us, Pope Benedict XVI lacks moral authority, to say the least.

The fact that the ADL and the Orthodox rabbis beseech Rome for official declarations of their innocence shows the inherent weakness of their position. Their insecurity reminds this writer of the 1980s and 1990s when the same suspects were running to judges demanding they take "judicial notice" of the homicidal Auschwitz gas chambers so as to make them real -- by judicial proclamation. Alice inWonderland was a paragon of logic compared with these Zionists.

2. Fighting Shariah Law in the Buckle of the Talmud Belt

In the face of this and other morbitities of our world, I did get a laugh today -- discovering that Republican yahoos in Tennessee are trying to pass legislation banning Shariah law in the U.S. (http://tinyurl.com/4vf62fb), because they imagine it represents an imminent threat to the Constitution. Their model legislation was crafted by an Arizona attorney named David Yerushalmi.

It is a shame that we no longer have a satirist with the rapier-wit of a Twain or a Mencken to puncture this charade, mounted by the lowest dregs of Tennessee's "Buckle of the Talmud Belt."

Judaism's Babylonian Talmud long ago subverted the Constitution, Congress and the Supreme Court, but few Tea Party "patriots" seem to have noticed. 

The Talmudic Noachide Law is already Federal Law (Public Law 102-14), but "Christian Republicans" are oblivious. It would take a real mensch to proclaim the truth about it, and I do not expect any to emerge from the zombie ranks of Michael Savage, Michael Medved, Daniel Lapin, Limbaugh or Beck. 

Consequently, while the six pointed star of the Synagogue of Satan is embedded on the front of the Thomas S. Foley Federal Courthouse building in Spokane, Washington (in the form of the misnamed "Great Seal of the United States"), alleged "Christian evangelists" are feverishly hunting down the Shariah law, which would threaten America's subservience to the House of Rothschild's house of usury.

Like many of you, in this work I can always use a laugh. I have to thank the Judeo-Churchian Shariah-hunters of Tennessee, such as Grand Golem Bill Ketron and Grand Golem Judd Matheny, and Tennessee "Eagle Forum" (http://www.tneagleforum.org) for providing a hearty one this day.

Michael Hoffman

www.revisionisthistory.org

Hoffman's research and writing are entirely reader-supported

___________________________________________________

Read More

Hoffman contra Wilders: Sharia Law protested, Talmudic Law not an issue

Michael Hoffman’s dissent immediately follows the article below, which was circulated by Mr. Paul Fromm of the Canadian Association for Free Expression

______________

WARNING ABOUT ISLAM BY GEERT WILDERS

In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: Who lost Europe?

Here is the speech of Geert Wilders, Chairman, Party for Freedom, the Netherlands, at the Four Seasons, New York, introducing an Alliance of Patriots and announcing the Facing Jihad Conference in Jerusalem 

Dear friends,

Thank you very much for inviting me. I come to America with a mission.  All is not well in the old world.  There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe.  This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West.  The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe.

First I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe.  Then, I will say a few things about Islam.  To close I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem.

The Europe you know is changing. You have probably seen the landmarks.  But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world.  It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration.

All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighborhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen.  And if they are, they might regret it.  This goes for the police as well.  It's the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children.  Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead.  With mosques on many street corners.  The shops have signs you and I cannot read.  You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity.  These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics.  These are Muslim neighborhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe. These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe, street by street, neighborhood by neighborhood, city by city.

There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe.  With larger congregations than there are in churches.  And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region.  Clearly, the signal is: we rule.

Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam , Marseille and Malmo in Sweden .  In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim.  Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighborhoods.  Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities.
In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims.

Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils.  In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims.  Non-Muslim women routinely hear 'whore, whore'.  Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin.

In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin.  The history of the Holocaust can no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity.

In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighborhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves.  Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels , because he was drinking during the Ramadan.

Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II.  French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya, Israel.  I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization.

A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe.  San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Bernard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.

Now these are just numbers.  And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate.  But there are few signs of that.  The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France.  One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks.  The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favor of a worldwide caliphate.  Muslims demand what they call 'respect'.  And this is how we give them respect.  We have Muslim official state holidays. The Christian-Democratic attorney general is willing to accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority.  We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey.

Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behavior, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots.  Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus.  I call the perpetrators 'settlers'.  Because that is what they are.  They do not come to integrate into our societies; they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam.  Therefore, they are settlers. Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighborhoods, their cities, their countries.  Moreover, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.

The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet.  His behavior is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized.  Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem.  But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages - at the same time.  Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed.  Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza.  If it is good for Islam, it is good.  If it is bad for Islam, it is bad.

Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion.  Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins.  But in its essence Islam is a political ideology.  It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person.  Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life.  Islam means 'submission'.  Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia.  If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies.

Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam 'the most retrograde force in the world', and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran.  The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor.  I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times.  I support Israel.  First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense.
This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam's territorial advance.  Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon, and Aceh in Indonesia.  Israel is simply in the way.  The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.

The war against Israel is not a war against Israel.  It is a war against the West.  It is jihad.  Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us.  If there would have been no Israel , Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest.  Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.

Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities.  But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West.  It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values.

On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam.  They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed.  The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning.  It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination.  If they can get Israel, they can get everything.

So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a 'right-wing extremists' or 'racists'.  In my country, the Netherlands, 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II.  And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat.  Yet there is a greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing.  The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine.  An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America -- as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem.

Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts.  My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives.  All throughout Europe, American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish.  My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians.  We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe 's children in the same state in which it was offered to us.  We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams.  Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties.  We simply do not have the right to do so. We have to take the necessary action now to stop this Islamic stupidity from destroying the free world that we know.


Michael Hoffman contra Geert Wilders: 
Sharia Law protested, Talmudic Law not an issue

I will address the two main fallacies which Mr. Wilders advances: 1. Alliance with Judaism and Zionism 2. Obsession with the symptoms rather than the root of the European demographic crisis.

1. Alliance with Judaism and Zionism

Wilders claims the Israelis are part of the West. What nonsense. Talmudism was allied with Islam for centuries. Jonathan Pollard's spying benefited Pakistan through Mossad. Today Egypt is an Israeli satrapy.

Who backed Islamic immigration into Europe in the first place? Major Zionist organizations, that's who. Do some research on Marek Halter; also the Conseil Representif des Institutions Juives de France (CRIF).

Talmudists work for the destruction of the West, as annually commemorated in their Ninth of Av  — Tish b’Av rites (see Judaism Discovered). Triumphs of western civilization are regarded by the religion of Orthodox Judaism as disasters and ritually lamented on Tish b’Av.

Mr. Wilders is worried about life under Sharia law, but Europe has been under Halachic (Talmudic) law for decades, without much of a murmur of protest. Does Wilders know the status of a stranger (ger) under the Halacha of the rabbis? He protests rule by Islamic supremacists but works with Zionist supremacists with the supposed joint intention of the restoration of European civilization — a civilization which Orthodox Judaism execrates!

Orthodox Judaism calls western civilization the "kochi ve’otzem yadi of Edom," i.e. the brute strength of their irreconcilable and perpetual racial enemy. Judaism, being more shrewd and duplicitous than Islam, has kept its religious secrets from the prying eyes of outsiders to a far greater extent than Islam.

Even when elite westerners have access to documentation that testifies to the authentic nature of rabbinic Judaism, they refuse to publicize it, in part because they are allied with it through Freemasonry and cognate secret societies which seek the rebuilding of the Third Temple at Jerusalem. Mr. Wilders is oblivious to the religious fanaticism and violence inherent in this rebuilding project, as he is to all the other evil and retrograde aspects of Orthodox Judaism.

As an American and a student of Judaism I am appalled by the extent to which my fellow Americans are serving as puppets of a hidden agenda, when, like Wilders, they shriek and wail about “Sharia law” as if it were in power in state houses across the U.S.

Yet they have zero interest in making the slightest mouse-like peep about the Talmudic law that is increasingly encroaching upon our Constitution and taking over our judiciary and legislature — not a word about Halachic law from the Sharia law protestors. Hence, the latter are very obviously being directed not by American patriots, but by powerful forces who have led them to practice selective indignation concerning the subversive religions (plural) undermining our nation.

 2. Obsession with the symptoms rather than the root of the European demographic crisis

The root of the crisis: selfish, pleasure-addicted European Whites are self-exterminating through contraception and abortion.

Foreign peoples who do not engage in the twin plagues of contraception and abortion will quite naturally replace those indigenous people who do engage in those despicable vices. This is a Law of Nature.

To use Islamic immigrants as an excuse to ally with Zionism and Talmudism is a failure of vision remarkable to behold. By this “logic" European Whites are obliged to support war on Muslim Iran and its “Holocaust” revisionist president. Will we never escape from offering our blood and treasure to the idol of Zionism and Judaism? Will we always be suckered into serving as rabbinic golem in Judaic wars, on the basis of one fantastic alibi or another?

Mr. Wilders and his self-extinguishing European brethren should first look to their own child-hating, death loving and aging societies for the cause of their demise.

Alien ethnics of all nationalities and religions will always rush in to fill a demographic vacuum brought on by the selfishness and degeneracy of baby-despising Europeans. Joining with Israelis in their brutal territorial wars will do absolutely nothing to save Europe from its own debased hedonism.

When European couples are again having five, ten and fifteen children as their great grand-parents did, they will begin their long peregrination on the road to regaining their ancestral lands.

European nations awash in atheism, euthanasia, abortion and birth control will never revive the civilization of their Christian ancestors, no matter how much they lick the Talmudic boots and share in the bloody crimes of rabbis and Zionists.

Hoffman is the editor of the hard-copy Revisionist History newsletter, and the author of Judaism Discovered.

Copyright© 2010 www.RevisionistHistory.org

Read More