Makow - A Warning To 
Idealistic Students
University Can Be A Trap
By Henry Makow, PhD

In a few weeks millions of college students will begin classes again. I am not
worried about students who are in career programs. Job training is the only reason
to attend university. However, I am anxious for the innocent souls who are looking
for answers to life's big questions. 

Today, the study of the humanities cannot satisfy their desire for truth. Unless
they understand this, professors will exploit their idealism, blunt their originality
and leave them confused and demoralized. 

I am not talking about feminists who
use their classes for social engineering.
Something much more profound is
wrong with our universities. 
Western civilization was founded on the
Christian assumptions that spiritual
ideals (truth, beauty, love, justice) have
an objective existence in a spiritual
dimension, which is called God. "God is
a Spirit and we worship in spirit and in
truth," Christ said. (John 4:24) Man
becomes truly "human" and civilized by virtue of his ability to embody these ideals
and become god-like. This is the essence of culture. 

So-called "modern culture" is virulently opposed to these assumptions; it is
anti-Christian, materialist and scientific. If an ideal can't be seen or measured, it
doesn't exist. Like deaf men tuning a piano, "moderns" portray man as if he had
no Creator, and no Divine Purpose. Man is portrayed as an orphan in an
indifferent cosmos. 


In the modern world therefore, man and not God defines reality. At university you
will encounter "The Cult of Great Men" the modern Pantheon who have banished
God, as well as pre-moderns who are reinterpreted. 

The human spirit will not be denied. Take away God and man creates false gods. 
Students are taught to worship Great Men. Their every utterance is treated with
mystical reverence. For example, in a seminar I took, a student read a list of
obscenities that had been censored from William Faulkner's novel "Sanctuary."
After each expletive, the students gasped with horror, as though a religious artifact
had been desecrated. 
Professors are the highly paid priests in this cult and bask in their master's
reflected glory. Students develop a lifelong habit of mental servility. All wisdom
proceeds from others, none from them. They cringe at the thought of the Great
Books they haven't read. In life, they can only compare Great Men. A professor
once told me that I had failed an exam because "only great men can say things like

The students' state-of-mind becomes passive and fragmented. They think in terms
of reconciling contradictory world-views. One day I had an awakening. I realized
that these men actually lived in the SAME world. This is also the world I live in
and can analyze first-hand. Dare I think for myself? 

Dislocation takes place in time as well as space. By continually studying the
"great" thoughts and deeds of the past, the student is conditioned to think nothing
exciting or necessary remains to be done. There are no manifestos to be written,
no Bastilles to be stormed. While the present world cries out for direction, the new
generation is writing footnotes to dead men. 

As you've gathered by now, education is not intended to uplift and empower. The
world is run by a secretive interlocking cartel that controls the education system.
Its goal, in the words of one of its founders Cecil Rhodes, is to "gradually absorb
the wealth of the world." Naturally it wishes to obscure the truth. It wants students
to be confused and stupid. Professors who don't play this game are fired. 

If you haven't noticed, universities are not places to find stimulating inquiry and
debate. They are societal backwaters. Many professors are no more than glorified
librarians. Raise an idea and they will mention two books in which a similar idea
occurs. Apparently this is not new. One 18th Century preacher remarked, "no sort
of men think so little as those engaged in the professed study of learning or

Ironically most Great Men were bad students or didn't attend university at all. "If I
had my way I'd burn every one of them to the ground," George Bernard Shaw
said. "They stereotype the mind." 

Austrian novelist Stefan Zweig cited Carlyle's dictum that the best university is a
good library. "As practical as an academic career may be for an average talent, it is
superfluous for individually productive natures for whom it may even develop into
a hindrance." 

I would only send my son to university if he had no talent. I went because of
societal and parental pressures. I did not follow my instincts. Misplaced modesty
made me believe that my elders knew better and books held the answers. 

"A trust in oneself is the height of piety not pride," Emerson writes in his essay
"Self Reliance." "It is an unwillingness to learn from any but God alone." Coming
from a secular background, I had accepted the modern view that religion is
superstition and hypocrisy. I did not realize that my fundamental drives and needs
were spiritual. 

If I could turn back the clock, I would have resisted parental pressure and moved
away from home. Parents and society suffer from a permanent hysteria over
economic security. The young are not permitted any other considerations. 

I would have learned a skill and alternated periods of work, study and travel. I
would have chosen my teachers from life. Do this rather than receive what is
basically indoctrination in error. 


Mankind is groping in the dark. "All we know is the wind that blows," Thoreau
wrote. We have a false confidence based on technology, which Thoreau calls
"improved means to unimproved ends." 

In contrast, the underlying assumption today is that man is at the pinnacle of
evolution. The Humanities' pathetic failure to address our real situation is held up
as the latest word on the human condition. Mankind is portrayed as striding like
gods on Mount Olympus when morally we have barely crawled from the sea. 

I wish someone had told me that my idealistic desire for truth is an expression of a
religious need. It is a cry of the soul for God. 

There is a difference between truth and the information that universities purvey.
Information is a record of the thoughts and deeds, the meandering and maundering
of the Human race. This will fill the mind and feed the pride but only truth itself
will satisfy the soul. 


Pontius Pilate asked this question. Jesus answered, "I am the truth." (John 14:6)
The truth is a moral and spiritual dimension synonymous with God. Jesus'
message to mankind was that our destiny is to obey God, and to enter Reality.
Everything else is unreal. 

Our desire for security, power, freedom and joy are expressions of the desire for
God. But since we don't recognize this, our lives become parodies of this quest.
When Jesus said, "Ye shall know the truth and the truth will set you free," (John
8:32) he was referring to Divine Consciousness. But this statement is also used to
justify a grotesque accumulation of useless information. It is the motto of the CIA!

The truth that makes us free is something we have to become, not something we
find in a book. We must become the truth in consciousness before we can
understand it. In the words of English philosopher Henry More (16141687): 

""When the inordinate desire after knowledge of things was allayed in me, and I
aspired after nothing but purity and simplicity of mind there shone upon me daily a
greater assurance than ever I could have expected, even of those things which
before I had the greatest desire to know." 

c.2003 Henry Makow Ph.D. 

Henry Makow, Ph.D. is the inventor of the board game Scruples and author of "A
Long Way to Go for a Date." His articles on feminism and the new world order
can be found at his web site He welcomes feedback at 


Bush's 9-11 Secrets
The Government Received Warnings of Bin Laden's Plans to Attack New York and D.C.
By James Ridgeway
The Village Voice

Thursday 31 July 2003

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Even though Bush has refused to make parts of the 9-11 report public,
one thing is startlingly clear: The U.S. government had received repeated warnings of impending
attacks—and attacks using planes directed at New York and Washington—for several years.
The government never told us about what it knew was coming. 

See for yourself. The report lists 36 different summaries of warnings dating back to 1997.
Among them: 

"In September 1998, the [Intelligence Community] obtained information that Bin Laden's next
operation might involve flying an explosive-laden aircraft into a U.S. airport and detonating it." 

"In the fall of 1998, the [Intelligence Community] obtained information concerning a Bin Laden
plot involving aircraft in the New York and Washington, D.C. areas." 

"In March 2000, the [Intelligence Community] obtained information regarding the types of
targets that operatives of Bin Laden's network might strike. The Statue of Liberty was specifically
mentioned, as were skyscrapers, ports, airports, and nuclear power plans." 

Maybe the Bush team dismissed warning signals as the discoveries of an overly hyped up
Clinton team. But John Dean, a White House counsel under Nixon who has become a guide to
deciphering reports on 9/11, says this is unlikely. Condi Rice, Bush’s national security adviser,
"stated in a May 16, 2002, press briefing that, on August 6, 2001, the President Daily Brief
(PDB) included information about Bin Laden's methods of operation from a historical perspective
dating back to 1997." 

Rice also said at this briefing that the PDB pointed out that Bin Laden might hijack an airline
and take hostages to gain release of one of their operatives. She said the warning was
"generalized"—no date, place, or method. 

As Dean notes, how could Rice, having known all this, say that the administration had no idea
"these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one
and slam it into the Pentagon"? 

"In sum, the 9-11 Report of the Congressional Inquiry indicates that the intelligence community
was very aware that Bin Laden might fly an airplane into an American skyscraper," says Dean.
"Given the fact that there had already been an attempt to bring down the twin towers of the World
Trade Center with a bomb, how could Rice say what she did?" 

We don't know because Bush has invoked executive privilege to withhold from Congress this
key briefing on August 6, 2001. 

We do know that despite years of warnings from the intelligence community, the government
apparently had taken no steps to protect the eastern seaboard or any other American border
from attack. There were no fighter aircraft ready to respond immediately to a threat. The
government undertook no measures to increase airport security. 

This entire affair has been forced into a discussion of what the CIA knew or didn’t know, and
what it told or didn't tell the White House. But the questioning needs to focus on what Bush
knew or didn't know. And what he did or didn't do in response to what his intelligence advisers
told him. 

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes.)


Israeli Parliament Adopts Racist Marriage Laws 

By Frances M. Beal

The current Israeli regime has provided further
ammunition to those fighting for Palestinian sovereignty
who have long promoted the slogan that "Zionism is
racism" and a "form of apartheid." This ammo entails a
newly passed law affecting Palestinian marriages that
mirrors those of our own southern racists, which
provides measures to strip Arab Israelis of their
citizenship if they marry Palestinians. For African
Americans who were subjected to a hundred years of anti-
miscegenation laws promulgated by the white supremacists
that ruled in Dixie, it is an all too familiar story.
[Webster's dictionary defines miscegenation as "a
mixture of races; especially marriage or cohabitation
between a white person and a member of another race."]

The story first appeared in an August 3, 2003 report by
the Jerusalem-based writer, Justin Huggler. It was
printed in the Independent, a well-known British
newspaper. This racist marriage law was passed in the
Knesset (the Israeli Parliament) and goes into effect

Components of the law also include the following:

" Palestinians will be excluded from obtaining
citizenship or residency. Anyone else who marries an
Israeli will be entitled to Israeli citizenship.

" Israeli Arabs who marry Palestinians from the
West Bank or Gaza Strip will either have to move to the
occupied territories, or live apart from their husband
or wife.

" Children of these unions will also be affected:
from the age of 12 they will be denied citizenship or
residency and forced to move out of Israel. The statute
is a direct reversal of one of the provisions of the
ten-year old Oslo Agreement, which allowed family
reunions for Arabs inside Israel. In fact, many
marriages of Palestinian Arabs with Israeli Arabs did
occur. In practice, the Palestinian spouse was
automatically eligible for Israeli citizenship and it
was understood that Israeli citizenship would be denied
in only very extreme cases. However, the law was viewed
by the Israeli rightwing as partially implementing "via
the back door" the Palestinian demand for "the right of
return." The new law posits that citizenship will be
granted only in special cases in which the Minister of
the Interior is convinced that the "Palestinian
applicant identifies with the state and that he or his
kin contributed to the security of the state and had
cooperated in the past with Israeli authorities." Even
though the legislation was adopted as an alleged
"security measure" for one year, the measure drew heavy
fire from the Israeli Left and Israeli Arab
organizations, and the law has been appealed to the
Israeli Supreme Court. Even some Knesset members have
acknowledged that the law is racist.

An international outcry also preceded the law's passage.
The European Union, which lodged an official protest, is
now threatening to reconsider the upgrading of relations
with Israel on the grounds that Israel appears to
violate basic human rights. Condemnation from abroad
included a joint letter from Amnesty International and
Human Rights Watch, which asked the Knesset members to
reject the marriage law. It stated, "The draft law
barring family reunification for Palestinian spouses of
Israeli citizens is profoundly discriminatory," and "a
law permitting such blatant racial discrimination, on
grounds of ethnicity or nationality, would clearly
violate international human rights law and treaties
which Israel has ratified and pledged to uphold."
Huggler also quotes human rights groups (including those
of Israeli origin) that "The discrimination is not only
against Palestinians, but against Israel's own 1.2
million citizens of Palestinian origin as well. The
overwhelming majority of Israelis who marry Palestinians
are the so-called Israeli Arabs. i.e.- Palestinians who
live in Israel and have Israeli citizenship.

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC)
strongly condemned the new Israeli law, noting, "The law
effectively forces Palestinian citizens of Israel who
marry Palestinians from the occupied territories to
either leave Israel and live abroad, abandon marriage
plans, or marry but live separate lives."

ADC President Mary Rose Oakar explained, "The law takes
Israel even further away from its professed goal of
being a democratic and equitable state. It is yet
another inhumane policy designed to disrupt the normal
life of Palestinians on both sides of the 1967 'green
line' and ensure that the fewest possible Palestinians
become citizens of Israel even through such normal and
universally recognized processes as marriage." The
Former U.S. Congresswoman added, "this new form of
discrimination can only exacerbate the state of tension
which fuels conflict, and promotes fear and distrust
between Israelis and Palestinians." She concluded with a
call to the, Bush administration to make clear to the
Israeli government that the United States "strongly
disapproves of laws which discriminate against people
because of their ethnicity, and discourage marriages and
divide families due to racial or ethnic intolerance."

Whether the Bush Administration will listen to this
heartfelt plea is doubtful. A U.S. State Department
spokesman said it would study the new legislation before
deciding whether it constitutes racial discrimination.

There is a hideous logic to miscegenation laws in a
discriminatory society, and particularly in a racist
society in which one group is held to be superior and
another group(s) are held to be subservient. These laws
are thus both a pillar upon which a racist society is
established and maintained and a logical outgrowth of a
society or state built upon granting privileges to a
single group, and the systematic denial of those
privileges or rights to another, whether that be Arabs
or Palestinians in Israel or Blacks and Asians in the
United States.

Racist marriage laws were an ugly part of U.S. history
and not ones that should be adopted by any democratic
state in the 21st century. From the time of
Reconstruction to the 1960s anti-miscegenation laws
sullied the law books in this country. It wasn't until
the late 1960s that they were mostly eliminated by the
Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia.

Richard and Mildred Loving were married in 1958 in
Washington D.C. because their home state of Virginia
still upheld the anti miscegenation law which stated
that interracial marriages were illegal. They were
married, and then lived together in Caroline County,
Virginia. In 1959 they were prosecuted and convicted of
violating the state's anti miscegenation law. They were
each sentenced one-year in jail, but promised the
sentence would be suspended if they agreed to leave the
state and not return for 25 years. Forced to move, they
returned to Washington D.C. where, in 1963, they
initiated a suit challenging the constitutionality of
the anti miscegenation law. In March of 1966, the
Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals upheld the law, but in
June of 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled
the law unconstitutional. Thus, in 1967 the 16 states
(of a total of 33), which still had anti miscegenation
laws on their books, were forced to erase them.

Attaining the fruits of U.S. democracy has been a long
struggle for African Americans and other people of
color. One would hope that the State of Israel and its
elected bodies would not adopt this nation's most
shameful laws and traditions of oppression, but rather
the civil liberties and civil rights guaranteed to ALL
its citizens. Even more, to impose the same kinds of
eugenics laws used by Nazi Germany against the Jews in
1930 Germany defiles the memories of those who died in
Hitler's ovens.

Frances M. Beal is a political columnist for the San
Francisco Bayview newspaper specializing on African
American affairs. Contact © Copyright,
2003 Frances M. Beal, August 7, 2003


Banks Moved Billions to Shelter Income From Taxes 
By Glenn R. Simpson 
Wall Street Journal 

Thursday 07 August 2003 

Some of the nation's biggest banks have sheltered hundreds of millions of dollars from state
taxes by creating investment funds that didn't sell shares publicly but paid tax-exempt dividends
to the banks, Thursday's Wall Street Journal reported. 

A review of Securities and Exchange Commission (news - web sites) records shows that at
least 10 major banks shifted more than $17 billion into such funds. Bank of America Corp. (BAC)
alone transferred at least $8 billion into its fund, sheltering more than $750 million in income from
1999 through last May. The banks contend the funds were legitimate vehicles for raising
investment capital, but many appear to have served little purpose beyond sheltering income. In
effect, the funds converted interest income from the banks' loan portfolios into tax-exempt

All but one of the known funds -- 11 in all -- were set up with advice from KPMG LLP, an
accounting firm whose tax shelter practices are under scrutiny by the Internal Revenue Service
(news - web sites). They were created in 1999 and 2000, but have been gradually shut down over
the last two years, after the SEC and California revenue officials quietly began looking into the
practice. It is not known if more such funds remain active. California officials, calling the
maneuver " outrageous" and "egregious," are auditing several banks' tax returns in an effort to
recoup lost revenues and looking as far back as 1993. The officials declined to identify the
banks, citing tax-confidentiality laws. 

"We do not believe this is appropriate," California controller Steve Westly said of the funds.
"This is something we need to fix." New York State tax authorities also are examining the issue.
It's unclear how many other states might be affected. 

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes.)