Welcome Information Connoisseurs

Welcome Information Connoisseurs

Saturday, February 27, 2016

Immigration harms the unprotected Americans

By Peggy Noonan
Editor’s Note: Miss Noonan is increasingly going off the Wall Street reservation to advocate for the American people and Trump-style populism. In this excerpt from her latest column she shows that stopping migrants, refugees and further immigration are not the human rights issue that the media Right and Left portray it. Here she takes up the human rights of the forgotten who are so powerless they are not even part of the equation, except as an evil shadow on the land. Always overlooked is the impact of immigration on these “nobodies” — the working class in the US, Britain and Europe. They are the Trump supporters. They are the unprotected who are damned by the protected class and their media, be it NPR, CBS, CNN or the NY Times.  
...The protected are the accomplished, the secure, the successful—those who have power or access to it. They are protected from much of the roughness of the world. More to the point, they are protected from the world they have created….I want to call them the elite to load the rhetorical dice, but let’s stick with the protected.
They are figures in government, politics and media. They live in nice neighborhoods, safe ones. Their families function, their kids go to good schools, they’ve got some money. All of these things tend to isolate them, or provide buffers. Some of them—in Washington it is important officials in the executive branch or on the Hill; in Brussels, significant figures in the European Union—literally have their own security details. 
Because they are protected they feel they can do pretty much anything, impose any reality. They’re insulated from many of the effects of their own decisions. 
One issue obviously roiling the U.S. and Western Europe is immigration. It is the issue of the moment, a real and concrete one but also a symbolic one: It stands for all the distance between governments and their citizens. 
It is of course the issue that made Donald Trump. 
Britain will probably leave the European Union over it. In truth immigration is one front in that battle, but it is the most salient because of the European refugee crisis and the failure of the protected class to address it realistically and in a way that offers safety to the unprotected.
If you are an unprotected American—one with limited resources and negligible access to power—you have absorbed some lessons from the past 20 years’ experience of illegal immigration. You know the Democrats won’t protect you and the Republicans won’t help you. Both parties refused to control the border. The Republicans were afraid of being called illiberal, racist, of losing a demographic for a generation. The Democrats wanted to keep the issue alive to use it as a wedge against the Republicans and to establish themselves as owners of the Hispanic vote.
Many Americans suffered from illegal immigration—its impact on labor markets, financial costs, crime, the sense that the rule of law was collapsing. But the protected did fine—more workers at lower wages. No effect of illegal immigration was likely to hurt them personally. 
It was good for the protected. But the unprotected watched and saw. They realized the protected were not looking out for them, and they inferred that they were not looking out for the country, either. 
The unprotected came to think they owed the establishment—another word for the protected—nothing, no particular loyalty, no old allegiance. 
Mr. Trump came from that. 
Similarly in Europe, citizens on the ground in member nations came to see the EU apparatus as a racket—an elite that operated in splendid isolation, looking after its own while looking down on the people.
In Germany the incident that tipped public opinion against Chancellor Angela Merkel’s liberal refugee policy happened on New Year’s Eve in the public square of Cologne. Packs of men said to be recent migrants groped and molested groups of young women. It was called a clash of cultures, and it was that, but it was also wholly predictable if any policy maker had cared to think about it. And it was not the protected who were the victims—not a daughter of EU officials or members of the Bundestag. It was middle- and working-class girls—the unprotected, who didn’t even immediately protest what had happened to them. They must have understood that in the general scheme of things they’re nobodies. 
What marks this political moment, in Europe and the U.S., is the rise of the unprotected. It is the rise of people who don’t have all that much against those who’ve been given many blessings and seem to believe they have them not because they’re fortunate but because they’re better. 
You see the dynamic in many spheres. In Hollywood, as we still call it, where they make our rough culture, they are careful to protect their own children from its ill effects. In places with failing schools, they choose not to help them through the school liberation movement—charter schools, choice, etc.—because they fear to go up against the most reactionary professional group in America, the teachers unions. They let the public schools flounder. But their children go to the best private schools. 
This is a terrible feature of our age—that we are governed by protected people who don’t seem to care that much about their unprotected fellow citizens. 
And a country really can’t continue this way.
In wise governments the top is attentive to the realities of the lives of normal people, and careful about their anxieties. That’s more or less how America used to be. There didn’t seem to be so much distance between the top and the bottom.
Now is seems the attitude of the top half is: You’re on your own. Get with the program, little racist.
Social philosophers are always saying the underclass must re-moralize. Maybe it is the overclass that must re-moralize.

Monday, February 22, 2016

Talmud Defender Criticizes Hoffman

1. Talmud Defender Criticizes Hoffman 

2. Michael Hoffman’s Rejoinder

Background:  In a Feb. 19 e-mailed column we photographically reproduced the Babylonian Talmud’s declaration in Kiddushin 68B that the gentiles are donkeys. That column elicited the following response from the critic, which he e-mailed to 65 people:

1. Judaic Talmud Defender Criticizes Hoffman for "grossly misrepresenting the Talmud"

On Feb 21, 2016, at 12:35, Menachem Mevashir wrote:
Source of Talmudic Teaching on Gentiles as Donkeys
Despite Michael Hoffman's claims to the contrary, the actual source for this idea is from the Old Testament book of Ezekiel. 

The Talmud merely expounds on this concept:

The Adultery of Oholah and Aholibah
19"Yet she multiplied her harlotries, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the harlot in the land of Egypt. 20"She lusted after their paramours, whose flesh is like the flesh of donkeys and whose issue is like the issue of horses. 21"Thus you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when the Egyptians handled your bosom because of the breasts of your youth.

St Paul roundly condemns the sexually immoral and Jesus calls unbelievers dogs.

So this was a common Jewish attitude to unbelieving pagans.

It does not apply to Christians Moslems and others of sincere faith in the Creator God.

So i would say Michael Hoffman is grossly misrepresenting the Talmud and Judaism in general on this point.

Last I checked, the Book of Ezekiel is in the canon of Christian sacred Scripture.

Michael P. Korn

2. Hoffman’s Rejoinder 

Dear Mr. Korn

You are thoroughly confused. The Babylonian Talmud (“BT") at Kiddushin 68B where it terms Gentiles animals (donkeys) has no basis in the Bible, and you should not do as the neo-Nazis do and indict the Bible for the rabbinic racism of the Talmud Bavli.

It is in Berakoth 58a that the Babylonian Talmud uses Ezekiel 23:20 as supposed “proof" of the sub-human status of gentiles. The rabbis’ citation of the Bible quote from Ezekiel as a “proof-text” is specious, since the quote does not prove that gentiles are animals. The quote from Ezekiel only says that some Egyptians had large genital organs and copious emissions. This does not in any way prove or even connote that the Egyptians being referred to in the Bible were considered animals.  Once again, the Talmud has falsified the Bible by means of distorted interpretation. Other Talmud passages which expound on Ezekiel 23:20 in this racist fashion are: BT Arakin 19b, Berakoth 25b, Niddah 45a, Shabbath 150a, Yebamoth 98a. For further insight, see my book Judaism Discovered, pp. 471-473.

In BT Kiddushin 68B the proof text cited for the belief that non-Jewish nations are donkeys is Genesis 22:5 (not Ezekiel 23 as you allege). But this is a farce because in Genesis 22:5 we find no such thing — Abraham in this Scripture passage is going to sacrifice his son, Isaac. He tells his servants to watch over the donkey which Abraham was using as transportation. Can you believe it? This is the whole basis of the absurd “proof” the Talmud cites from the Bible for claiming gentiles are donkeys. This asinine “proof text" is a product of a frankly insane rabbinic exegetical method, Gezarah shava. It is a formal epistemological system of contrived fantasies employed by Chazal in the Talmud, which is explained and exposed in Judaism Discovered, pp. 169-172. 

The Puritan exegete John Owen (1616-1683), quotes the antiquarian and philologist John Selden’s (1584-1654) description of the Gezerah shava: “It is a most common thing among the Talmudists to seek for some support for their additional customs from some words of the Scriptures, and, as it were, to try to hedge them up behind some Biblical word, interpretation or analogy. Those even tolerably familiar with their works will know this well. So the original words are twisted and distorted with great boldness to give some seeming confirmation to their customs, far out of the sense of the original.” 

According to the rabbinic principle of Gezerah shava, the student of the Bible can only truly determine what the Bible is teaching through a process of drawing analogies between two disparate Scripture verses based on “verbal congruities” supposedly appearing in both of them. This is the sort of venerated lunacy which is at the core of the Talmudic system of Scriptural falsification and nullification.

Lastly, under the old censorship system whereby English translations of the Babylonian Talmud were heavily redacted and accompanied by disingenuous footnotes, all references to the goyim or the min in the Talmud were explained away as allusions to Cutheans or similar “unbelieving pagans.” It’s pathetic that you would stoop to this propaganda device in the face of the now readily available, uncensored English language Babylonian Talmud, in the pages of which we find numerous hateful references to Christians. But you have the chutzpah to claim that the Talmud respects “Christians…and others of sincere faith in the Creator God.” 

Really? Is that why the Talmud says that Jesus was an idolater who deserved to die (BT Sanhedrin 43A), and that the New Testament should be burned (Shabbat 116A)?  

If you want to play jokes on the ignorant you are free to do so. It might be a mistake to attempt to hoodwink this writer, however. 

Michael Hoffman

Thursday, February 18, 2016

Is Pope Francis the Antichrist?

Is Pope Francis the Antichrist? 

By Michael Hoffman

The “who am I to judge?” pontiff issues a judgment on Donald Trump:  “Not a Christian”

We’ve got a history lesson for “His Holiness” —  Christianity from Britain to Italy was repeatedly saved and preserved through victories in border wars and by erecting walls and forts.  Mr. Trump is right about illegal immigration: we need a wall to defend our land.  If the pontiff is going to start issuing certificates of excommunication he ought to begin by cleaning his own papal house: 

I. Starting with the bishops and cardinals who approve of the crime of sodomy, such as Bruno Forte, who wrote: “...connected to homosexual unions it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners.” 
—Archbishop Bruno Forte, Relatio post disceptationem, 2014 Church of Rome Synod on the Family (emphasis supplied). 

II. The Pontifical Commission of Pope Francis teaches the abominable heresy that Jews are saved by genetic descent and need not believe in Jesus Christ: “...it does not in any way follow that the Jews are excluded from God’s salvation because they do not believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah of Israel and the Son of God.”  Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, December 10, 2015. Cardinal Kurt Koch, President (emphasis supplied).

 The Pope of Rome’s intervention in the process of the American people choosing the next President of the United States is an outrageous act of foreign subversion. Francis reigns in an Italy with one of the lowest birthrates on earth. He is on record mocking Catholics who “breed like rabbits.”  He preaches social justice and compassion for the poor while benefiting from the usury proceeds of his shylock Vatican Bank. This “Holy Father" is a mentally and spiritually sick individual. 

As Christians we support the building of a just society in places like the failed state of Mexico. This begins with sealing the border so that the best and brightest in that nation will remain in their land, and with the help of the people of the United States, extirpate from their government and society the plague of systematic bribery, corruption, kidnapping, rape and mass murder. Turning the USA into Mexico serves no one but the devil.

The truth is, Pope Francis refuses to judge the mortal sins that he regards as virtually harmless. He only issues judgments against those acts which were long ago deemed civic virtues when sanity still prevailed in Christendom. 

One need not favor the invasion of ones nation to qualify as a follower of Christ. The call for open borders is a revolutionary plank of the Babylonian Beast System, with Antichrist at its head.  

Michael Hoffman is the author of Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not; and the editor of Revisionist History newsletter, published six times a year.

Luke 6:36 • Luke 11:41 • Acts 10:31 • 1 Tim. 5:8 • 1 Tim. 6:18
We need your help to continue our work

Wednesday, February 17, 2016

How Cryptocracy benefits from the Internet

Recent Internet Hoax:

"Against All of His Personal Beliefs, Scalia Was Cremated"

The Motive Behind the Murder of Justice Scalia | Dave Hodges – The Common Sense Show

Against All of His Personal Beliefs, Scalia Was Cremated

One of the most amazing facts surrounding this “mystery death” is that Scalia’s body was cremated before an autopsy could be performed. Cremated? Wasn’t Scalia a Catholic? The last time I heard, Catholics do not sanction cremations. Oh yes, you can be cremated if you are Catholic, but it is extremely frowned upon. The regulations against cremation is one of the strongest within the Catholic Church, even if the prohibitions are left over biases from the past..However, criminals with something to hide frequently burn the body after the commission of a crime. This fact, alone, should have triggered a major murder investigation. Where is Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, when she is needed the most? Did Obama send flowers to the widow yet? Charred bodies yield no autopsy clues. (End quote)


Antonin Scalia’s body was not cremated. His remains will lie in repose at the Supreme Court prior to his funeral at the National Cathedral, and then burial. 

This Internet hoax about Scalia being cremated was passed to me in e-mail by a person who simply accepted the hoax as truth because the hoax confirmed the person’s bias. In psychology this is termed "confirmation bias."

It is sorrowful to observe how people will believe anything on the Internet that is in line with their expectations and preconceptions. Verification and corroboration appear not to be a requirement for belief. We have an obligation to God’s Truth to exhibit as least as much skepticism toward Internet rumors as we do toward the Establishment media, otherwise we are sowing confusion, which is the ante-chamber to deceit, which is a sin. 

Anyone who thinks the Cryptocracy has not infiltrated Right wing Internet sources is naive. Require verification and corroboration before you disseminate news; or failing that, designate the supposed news, an allegation, a hypothesis, or to really call a spade a spade, term it what it is — a rumor. 

But don’t just pass the link on with the questionable assertion in your subject line as if it were a fact, otherwise it becomes a kind of endorsement on your part.  After you have endorsed enough myths, your credibility is so damaged that when you do have truth to report no one will believe you —  that’s how the Cryptocracy benefits from the Internet.

Michael Hoffman

Tuesday, February 16, 2016

" The Most Jewish Gentile on the Supreme Court"

My Memories of Nino Scalia, the Most Jewish Gentile on the Supreme Court

By Nathan Lewin February 15, 2016

(JTA) — “When there was no Jewish justice on the Supreme Court,” Antonin “Nino” Scalia told me, “I considered myself the Jewish justice.”

After Abe Fortas resigned in May 1969, there would be no Jewish justice on the court for nearly a quarter of a century, until President Bill Clinton named Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the court in 1993.

Scalia had been on the Supreme Court since Ronald Reagan appointed him in 1986, so there were seven years during which Scalia saw himself as the court’s guardian of Jewish heritage. The New York-raised judge was shocked that he had to teach his colleagues how to pronounce “yeshiva” (Chief Justice Rehnquist William called it “ye-shy-va”) and, Scalia added proudly to me, “I even told them what a yeshiva is.”

Scalia’s admiration for Jews and Jewish learning explains the frequent references in his opinions to the Talmud and other Jewish sources, and the significant number of Orthodox Jewish law clerks he hired.

We were both in the Harvard Law School class that began in 1957 and graduated in 1960 – only 10 women and no African-Americans were in a graduating class of almost 500. Scalia and I were invited to become editors of the Harvard Law Review at the conclusion of our freshman year; in those days Law Review membership depended entirely on grades....

Scalia was unconventional, even in those days. Law Review editors vied for clerkships on the Supreme Court or with respected federal judges. Scalia chose not to join that competition. Instead he opted for a Harvard fellowship that enabled him and Maureen – the beautiful Catholic girl he met on the recommendation of another Review editor and later married – to travel to Europe and other exotic locations during the year after we were granted LLBs (jacked up by Harvard, many years later, to JDs). He then joined the Cleveland law firm known as Jones, Day, Cockley and Reavis...

Scalia and his wife were guests in our sukkah, and he was kind enough to meet with law school classes I brought to Washington to hear Supreme Court arguments.... He also accepted my recommendations to attend and address Orthodox Jewish gatherings such as colloquia run by Chabad-Lubavitch, sessions and dinners with Agudath Israel of America, and a mass meeting at Yeshiva University where he and I discussed current issues of constitutional law and public policy. Each event was enormously successful.

...There is universal agreement that Nino Scalia was brilliant, amazingly articulate and a real mensch...Scalia is, of course, an Italian name. If one writes it with Hebrew letters, there are two possible – albeit squarely contradictory – ways of writing Scalia. One is to use the letters sin, kaf, lamed, which are also the root of “sechel” – Hebrew for “wisdom.” The other is to use the Hebrew letters samech, koof, lamed, which are the root “sokol” – meaning “to stone.”

Some praised Nino’s wisdom; others were ready to stone him. But all must concur that he was a great man, that the United States he loved is greatly diminished by his loss, and that he greatly revered Jews and Jewish tradition. (End quote)

Nathan Lewin is a tireless promoter of Talmudic indoctrination of American judges and lawyers. He partnered with Antonin Scalia in symposia and conferences dedicated to enlarging the influence of rabbinic halacha over the American legal system. Mr. Lewin served as assistant to Solicitor General Thurgood Marshall. He has called for the killing of the parents and brothers and sisters of Palestinian suicide bombers.

For further research:

Monday, February 15, 2016

Israeli/Saudi Control of ISIS

Who runs ISIS? The Israeli-Saudi Alliance —
Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon (right) shakes hands with the former Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Turki al-Faisal, at the Munich Security Conference in Germany, February 14, 2016.

The Iranian Fars news agency reported on December 29, 2013 that Prince Turki al-Faisal, who was at that time the director of the Saudi intelligence service, met with several senior Israeli security officials, including Tamir Pardo, the head of the Israeli Mossad. According to the report, the meeting took place in Geneva, Switzerland on November 27, 2013. Fars based its report on a whistleblower with access to Saudi classified information, who was named by the news agency as Mujtahid. According to Fars, he “is well connected with the inner circles of the Saudi secret service” and revealed the details of the meeting on his Twitter account. Mujtahid’s Tweet reportedly said that Prince Bandar and Israeli officials agreed on a number of crucial issues, including exercising stronger control over Syria’s Jihadist forcesAt the Institute for National Security Studies conference in Tel Aviv, on Jan. 19, 2016, Moshe Yaalon stated that he prefers the rule of ISIS in Syria

Researched and written by Michael Hoffman

Scalia’s Sordid Simulacrum

Justice Scalia’s Sordid Simulacrum

By Michael Hoffman

This blog report has now been incorporated into a much larger investigative dossier on Antonin Scalia which has been published in Revisionist History Newsletter no. 83.

Michael Hoffman is the author of eight books, including Judaism’s Strange Gods, and Usury in Christendom. He is managing editor of Revisionist History newsletter. 


Friday, February 12, 2016

Bigotry against Germans is “hilarious"

Talmudic mentality: 
Bigotry against Germans is “hilarious”

By Michael Hoffman

Bigotry toward Judaic persons is not tolerated, and rightly so. But the Talmudic mentality makes distinctions between Judaics (self-described “Jews”) and gentiles (“goyim”). In Hollywood and the American press, bigotry toward goyim is good fun; even “immortal” — it’s perfectly permissible, indeed it marks the anti-gentile bigot as a comedic wit. 

So we have the usual monotonous double-standard, which is the hallmark of the Talmudic mentality: one law for the Holy People (against whom bigotry is a three-alarm fire, a major felony and something so appalling and criminal it will reverberate from here to Einstein’s cosmic black hole and back, until the end of time).

The law for the goyim is different, however; particularly German goyim. It does the soul good to mock and degrade Germans. Dorothy Rabinowitz, media columnist for the Wall Street Journal reviewed the new HBO television series, “Vinyl,” which debuts on Valentine’s Day 2016, as follows:

The “hilarious interactions” include referring to German people as "goose-stepping, bloodthirsty, f—king Huns.” English actor John Cleese indulged in bigoted anti-German repartee on the old TV series “Fawlty Towers." Rabinowitz terms his display of prejudice, “immortal exchanges.” 

The Babylonian Talmud’s double standards are clearly reflected in the American media's insouciant approval for anti-Goyimism, which they exhibit with no fear of being interdicted or called out by human rights campaigners. In Hollywood there are no Anti-Defamation Leagues for Germans.

Why? Because in Orthodox Judaism there is one standard of privilege and immunity for the Holy People, and another for all the lesser souls upon whom it is open season to loath and besmirch.


NY Times conceals Israeli support for ISIS

New York Times conceals Israeli support for ISIS terror

Margaret Sullivan
Public Editor
The New York Times

Dear Margaret

In your Feb. 12 essay on the “Global expansion” of the NY Times you seem deeply concerned about journalistic integrity and “core Times values.” 

Yet, when I queried you via e-mail on January 22 (and received an automated acknowledgment), as to why the Times suppressed all mention of news concerning Israeli defense minister Moshe Ya'alon stating, on the record on Jan. 19, that he preferred ISIS to rule in Syria —  if it was a choice between that terrorist group and Iran —  the Times ignored my concern about this outrageous concealment of a highly newsworthy statement which denied your readers “the right to know."

Michael Hoffman
Coeur d’Alene, Idaho