Archive | June 26th, 2012

Nazi Rabbi who called for slaughter of a million Palestinians is to supervise Zio-Nazi ‘Red Cross’

NOVANEWS

 

Nazi Rabbi who once called on Zio-Nazi regime to slaughter a million Palestinian civilians has been appointed to head a supervisory committee for Magen David Adom (MDA) – Zio-Nazi equivalent of the Red Cross and Red Crescent.

Haaretz reported that under pressure from ultra-Orthodox Jewish groups MDA decided to set up a Rabbinical committee to dictate religious guidelines – including gender relations – for volunteers in the rescue service.

The committee is headed by Nazi Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, the Chief Nazi Rabbi of Safad, whose salary is paid by zio-Nazi regime. Nazi Eliyahu has a long, well-documented history of extreme racism and has called for violence against Palestinians.

Since 2006, Magen David Adom – whose name means Red Star of David – has been a full member of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and is Zio-Nazi internationally recognized agency for disaster management, ambulance service and blood banks.

The organization also raises tax-exempt donations in the United States through the American Friends of agen David Adom.

‘Kill a million’

  • In 2007, Nazi Eliyahu advocated mass slaughter of Palestinians in order to deter rocket fire from Gaza, while defending a ruling by his late father that IsraHell was permitted to indiscriminately kill civilians. “If they don’t stop after we kill 100, then we must kill a thousand,” Nazi Shmuel Eliyahu advised, adding, “And if they do not stop after 1,000 then we must kill 10,000. If they still don’t stop we must kill 100,000, even a million. Whatever it takes to make them stop.”
  • In 2010, Nazi Eliyahu and other state-employed rabbis issued a ruling telling Jews not to sell or rent property to members of the country’s Palestinian  minority, who make up a fifth of the population.

Violating neutrality and respect for international humanitarian law

As a member organization of ICRC, Magen David Adom is presumably committed to the mission of the ICRC:

The work of the ICRC is based on the Geneva Conventions of 1949, their Additional Protocols, its Statutes – and those of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement – and the resolutions of the International Conferences of the Red Cross and Red Crescent. The ICRC is an independent, neutral organization ensuring humanitarian protection and assistance for victims of war and armed violence. It takes action in response to emergencies and at the same time promotes respect for international humanitarian law and its implementation in national law.

What could be more contrary to that mission than Zio-Nazi MDA appointing Nazi Shmuel Eliyahu who not only defends and advocates mass, indiscriminate violence against civilians, but is a racist par excellence?

It should be recalled that there was a years long campaign by IsraHell and Zionist organizations to get MDA accepted into the ICRC. If MDA does not completely dissociate itself from, and condemn racist inciters like Nazi Eliyahu, perhaps it should be expelled.

Moreover, the Palestinian Red Crescent Society should review any cooperation with MDA

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Nazi Rabbi who called for slaughter of a million Palestinians is to supervise Zio-Nazi ‘Red Cross’

Turkey warns Syria: Any solider who approaches border will be seen as a threat

NOVANEWS


Turkish PM says Turkey was in the right over Syria’s shooting down of Turkish plane, warns against Syrian military moves along the border.

Haaretz

Turkey will treat any Syrian military units which approach its border as a threat and a military target, Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan said on Tuesday.

Erdogan also said Turkey was totally in the right over Syria’s shooting down of a Turkish plane and that Ankara’s rational response to the incident should not be mistaken for weakness.

“Everybody should know that Turkey’s wrath is just as strong and devastating,” Erdogan said in a speech to his ruling AK Party deputies in parliament.

The army’s rules of engagement along the two countries’ border had now changed, he said.

“Every military element approaching Turkey from the Syrian border and representing a security risk and danger will be assessed as a military threat and will be treated as a military target,” he said.

Turkey has demanded backing from its NATO allies over the shoot down and has called a meeting in Brussels under Article 4 of the alliance’s charter, which provides for consultations when a member state feels its territorial integrity or security is under threat.

Turkey has rejected assertions from Damascus that its forces had no option but to fire on the F-4 jet as it flew over Syrian waters close to the coast on Friday and has branded the shooting an “act of aggression”. It says the aircraft was an unarmed reconnaissance plane flying over international waters.

The incident has heightened tensions between Turkey and Syria already strained over the 16-month uprising against Syrian President Bashar Assad’s rule.

Posted in Syria, TurkeyComments Off on Turkey warns Syria: Any solider who approaches border will be seen as a threat

Hero on the run: Julian Assange and his US detractors

NOVANEWS

By Lawrence Davidson
Lawrence Davidson argues that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange should be treated as a hero, not hunted as a criminal, because he has exposed US violations of domestic and international law, noting that if Assange had instead exposed the sins of Russia in Chechnya or China in Tibet, he would have been praised within the halls of the US Congress.

The hero becomes the hunted

It was back in 2006 that Julian Assange and associates founded the WikiLeaks website. Their goal was and is a noble and necessary one. WikiLeaks aims at forcing the world’s governments to act with greater transparency, and therefore possibly rule more justly. It was Assange’s opinion that if governments were less able to lie and keep secrets, they would be less prone to break their own and international laws, or at least more likely to adhere to a general rule of decency allegedly shared by their citizenry. This is a truly heroic undertaking. What did WikiLeaks do to accomplish this task? It created a web-based non-governmental window on government activity through which it makes public those official lies and secrets. This information is supplied to it by whistleblowers the world over.

Soon WikiLeaks was telling the world about “extrajudicial killings in Kenya… toxic waste dumping on the coast of Cote d’Ivoire… material involving large banks… among other documents”. None of this got Assange into great trouble. The simple fact is that the ability of states such as Kenya and the Ivory Coast to reach out and crush an organization like WikiLeaks is limited. However, in 2010 the website started publishing massive amounts of US diplomatic and military documents, including damaging information on procedures at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp and a video documenting attacks on civilians in Iraq.

It is at this point that Assange, as the editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, became a criminal in the eyes of the US government. The hero now became the hunted. Republican Representative Peter King of New York, an Islamophobe who unfortunately chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, labelled WikiLeaks a “terrorist organization” and said that Assange ought to be “prosecuted under the Espionage Act of 1917”. On the Democratic side of the aisle, Diane Feinstein of California, Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, claimed that Assange had harmed the national interest and “put innocent lives at risk” and therefore should be prosecuted for espionage.

Actually, a good argument can be made that the stupid and corrupt policies of American politicians have done much greater harm to objectively defined national interest, particularly in the Middle East. In addition there is no evidence that any of Wikileaks’ actions have resulted in any loss of “innocent lives”. However, none of this can save Assange.

Who is the real criminal?

One of the serious questions raised by the case of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange is just who is a criminal? If an organized crime syndicate commits illegal acts and some outside party reveals its activity, the syndicate might mark the witness for punishment. However, which one is the real criminal? Lots of governments act like organized crime syndicates. If you ask King or Feinstein what they think about the behaviour of, say, Russia in Chechnya or China in Tibet, they are likely to describe that behaviour as criminal. And, if Assange had just exposed the sins of Russia or China, he would be praised within the halls of Congress.

But what happens when the US government behaves like an organized gang of criminals? After all, a very good case can be made that the leaders of the United States are systematically violating their own constitution with policies like indefinite detention. And the government’s behaviour in Vietnam, as well as in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq (for instance, in the application of draconian sanctions which did take the lives of up to a million innocents) and the actual occupation of that country, all violated more moral precepts than one cares to count. Then there is the practice of torturing suspected, but not actually convicted, terrorists, and the current use of drone attacks which kill more civilians than targeted enemies. Along comes WikiLeaks and Assange to bear witness against some of these acts. Washington marks him for punishment. But just who is the real criminal?

It is to the enduring shame of most of the US media that they did not, and still can’t, manage a straight answer to that question. The establishment press has always kept its distance from Assange, asserting that he was not a “real” journalist. This no doubt reflects the attitudes of its basically conservative owners and editors. For instance, the New York Times executive editor, Bill Keller, once called Assange a “smelly, dirty, bombastic… believer in unproven conspiracy theories…” He did this even while his own paper selectively dipped into the 391,832 Pentagon documents WikiLeaks had divulged. Even then the information was used in the most innocuous fashion. I think it is fair to say that investigative journalism at a local (city or state) level still goes on in the US, but at the national level it has become an increasingly rare phenomenon.

Popular disbelief

Though a noble and necessary effort, Assange’s WikiLeaks experiment always faced very high odds, particularly in the US. This is because its revelations play themselves out within the context of an establishment culture that has long ago turned the great majority of people into subservient true believers. True believers in what? In the essential goodness of their nation as it operates in the world beyond its borders. Therefore, transparency might be acceptable for one’s local political environment where the mayor turns out to be corrupt, but foreign policy is something else. For Americans in the post 9/11 age, foreign policy boils down to promoting democracy and development on the one hand, and protecting the citizenry from terrorists on the other. Within that frame of reference, it is nearly impossible for Americans to conceive of their national government as purposefully acting like a criminal organization. They just refuse to believe it.

Particularly in the so-called war against terrorism, most Americans see nothing noble or necessary about exposing the government’s clandestine operations. Thus, when Julian Assange points out the criminal behaviour of those supposedly defending the nation, most citizens are going to feel indignant and rally around the flag. The messenger is soon the one who is seen as criminal and dangerous because he is undermining national security.

There are no greater adherents to this point of view than the political and military leaders who claim to be defenders of the nation. For them the old Barry Goldwater saying, “extremism in defence of liberty is no vice”, excuses all excesses. WikiLeaks both challenged and embarrassed them by making their innumerable excesses public. Thus, be they Democrats or Republicans, the so-called champions of homeland security are determined to silence him.

The US authorities have latched onto an exaggerated sex scandal in Sweden in which Assange is sought for questioning (though as yet not charged with any crime). They have pressured the Swedes to extradite Assange from his present UK residence when it would be much easier and efficient (as Assange has offered) for Stockholm to send court representatives to England to perform the questioning. So why do it the hard way? Because, once in Sweden, the head of WikiLeaks could be given over to the Americans (something the British will not do).

Assange will not cooperate in this game. As Glenn Greenwald has pointed out, “as a foreign national accused of harming US national security, he has every reason to want to avoid ending up in the travesty known as the American judicial system”. When he recently lost his UK court battle against extradition, he sought asylum in the embassy of Ecuador, a country whose leaders are sympathetic to Assange’s plight. True to form, American media comment on Assange’s appeal for asylum has been disparaging.

Conclusion

Julian Assange is now a hero on the run. And, he is probably going to stay that way for the foreseeable future. Even if he makes it to Ecuador he will need bodyguards to protect him from kidnapping or worse. As one Pentagon spokesman put it, “If doing the right thing is not good enough for [Assange] then we will figure out what other alternatives we have to compel [him] to do the right thing.” And what do America’s leaders regard as the “right thing” in this case? Obviously, keeping silent about Washington’s doing the wrong thing.

That is the nature of our world. Submerged in a culture defined by the educational and informational dictates of our leaders and their interests, many of us cannot recognize when we are being lied to or misled. And, if someone tries to tell us what is happening, they sound so odd, so out of place, that we are made anxious and annoyed. So much so that, in the end, we don’t raise a finger when the messenger is hounded into silence.

Posted in USAComments Off on Hero on the run: Julian Assange and his US detractors

Iran Blasts West’s Double-Standard Policy on Nuclear Non-Proliferation

NOVANEWS

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad lashed out at the West for its double-standard policy on nuclear progress and disarmament, questioning why the western countries upgrade their own nuclear warheads and weapons, while pressurizing the other countries to suspend their peaceful nuclear programs.

According to a report in the Fars news agency, Ahmadinejad said that the West is against scientific and technological progress of Iran.

President Ahmadinejad made the remark in a press conference with Brazilian and international reporters, journalists, and photojournalists at the Riocentro Convention Center in Rio de Janeiro.

The questions, posed by the journalists, concerned the Iran-G5+1 talks, Iran’s stance on Syria, Brazil’s support for Iran’s nuclear program and establishment of a new world order.

“The West is against progress in Iran; nuclear weapons is a pretext to put pressures on Iran and stop Iranian nation’s progress,” Ahmadinejad said.

He said international approaches to nuclear issues is unjust and follows a double-standard because those who have nuclear weapons and threaten other nations, at the meantime claim to be against nuclear weapons.

“The countries that have nuclear arms today, used those arms on certain occasions today through threats, claiming they cannot have these weapons,” President said.

Ahmadinejad said, “We believe that nuclear energy, along with other forms of energy, should be accessible to all nations and is the right of all nations. But nowadays, it is monopolized by a few.”

Israel is believed to be the sole possessor of nuclear arms in the Middle East with over 200 ready-to-launch warheads in its stockpile and the western countries have kept mum on the regime’s atomic arsenals.

Countries of the region have always called Israel’s nuclear disarmament as the only obstacle to the materialization of a Middle-East free from atomic weapons.

The actual size and composition of Israel’s nuclear stockpile is uncertain, and is the subject of various estimates and reports but the US Intelligence Community estimated by the late 1990s that Israel possessed between 75-130 weapons, based on production estimates. Military observers believe that the figure has now risen to, at least, 400.

Israel does not recognize the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and has not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), posing a great threat to the region and the world.

“The people of the world are well aware about the discriminatory and inefficient behavior of the arrogant powers and these corrupt global powers, which are in minority, have adopted a style that is against the nations and their style is in their own interests,” Ahmadinejad added.

Posted in IranComments Off on Iran Blasts West’s Double-Standard Policy on Nuclear Non-Proliferation

Jewish Supremacist: “America Must Have Illegal Immigrants”

NOVANEWS

A leading Jewish Supremacist who has been at the forefront of “civil rights, anti-poverty, congressional reform and arms control issues since the early 1960s” has welcomed President Barack Obama’s policy direction with regard to young illegal immigrants and demanded for them the right to live in America—although Israel is busy expelling illegal immigrants by force.

Writing in the Jerusalem Post, longtime activist David Cohen (who also claims to have “worked with Israeli Jewish American social justice groups for over three decades) says that Obama’s recent announcement on young illegals “moved me deeply.

“I watched the president’s statement on TV and heard the interviews with joyous Latina and Latino young people talking about their dreams having a chance to come true. They talked about working to have their parents become legal, too. In every respect they reflected the president’s description of them: “They are Americans in their heart, in their minds, in every single way but one: on paper.” Tears welled up in my eyes.

“On Saturday as I listened to the Torah portion being chanted, I read there: “One law and one ordinance both for you and for the stranger that live with you.” This equal justice declaration applies to civil law. I have read it and heard it many times. I know this thought appears in the Torah 36 times, making it emphatic for the Jewish people.

“I feel proud to be a Jew and an American.

“I thought of my mother who was sent back from Ellis Island after the restrictive immigration quota laws were enacted in 1921 and 1924. She made it to Ellis Island, having survived the Russian Revolution and the Ukraine counter-revolution. She hid in cellars, her mother died there, and a bullet went through my mother’s dress fortunately missing all parts of her body. When she got to Ellis Island she was further traumatized by the immigration officials applying the quotas to her because of where she was born. She was still a teenager. There she was separated from her father.

“My father, not American-born, entered the US with my mother from Canada. Neither of them had the requisite papers to prove their legality. I was born in America 75 years ago. I recall the struggles my parents went through to be citizens. My mother lived in constant fear though we were never investigated or threatened. President Obama’s statement applied to them and they would have loved it.

“As American Jews, as a people accepted and welcomed by our fellow Americans, we have a special responsibility to support efforts to give people a decent chance to enjoy what we now do: safety, personal security, economic opportunity, a chance to participate and contribute to our community.

“The Obama policy masterfully uses the long-established legal practice of prosecutorial discretion, as Senator Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island) aptly put it, to enable young illegal immigrants, who are in the military or in school, to come out of the shadows, and into the sunlight, and work legally. Secretary Napolitano, in conversations with me and others, demonstrates that she and her team have thought through the plan and, most importantly, its implementation. That makes the hope real for the Dreamers helped by this change in policy.

“It will make me work even harder for the president’s re-election. The Dream policy must be reaffirmed.”

In other words, according to this veteran Jewish Supremacist activist, illegal immigrants must be allowed into America no matter what—but Israel appears to have the unchallenged right to expel all illegal immigrants and to officially designate them “infiltrators.”

One law for Jews, another for the Gentiles.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Jewish Supremacist: “America Must Have Illegal Immigrants”

Jerusalem Post Identifies Obama’s “Jewish Problem”: He is Labor, not Likud

NOVANEWS

 

The Jerusalem Post says that Obama’s problem is that he has been more influenced by liberal Jewish Zionists rather than radical ones who make up the current government. For the writer, Barry Rubin, that is a big problem.

Yet, still on 99 percent of all issues, Obama serves the radical interests by never doing anything to strongly influence long-stated American positions such as opposed to new Israeli settlements on Palestinian land (by withholding funds from Israel unless it respects American opposition to continued settlements).

So you see, the admitted problem they have with Obama, is not that he is influenced by Jews rather than those with the interests of America at heart, but that he is influenced by the wrong Jews! –

Barack Obama’s slavish pro-Israel stance has not been enough to appease the Zionist extremists in Israel—and now the real reason has become clear: he was influenced by Israeli “liberal” politics in that country’s Labour Party, and not by the governing Likud party.

Writing in the Jerusalem Post, Jewish Supremacist Barry Rubin complained that “Obama’s view of Judaism, Zionism and Israel was very much shaped by his liberal and left-wing Jewish contacts in Chicago, some of whom became key members of his entourage. Among these influential acquaintances was Rabbi Arnold Jacob Wolf.

 

“Wolf was of a type familiar in American Jewish circles. While in principle pro-Israel, he had certain views that made him highly critical. As what I would call a moral perfectionist, Wolf could not view Israel as good enough to live up to Jewish values that had been honed during a long exile during which Jews had no political responsibility and did not have to meet the real world demands of political power,” Rubin wrote.

“ At the same time, he was more attuned to Israel’s reputedly more idealistic era of Labor Party hegemony. For Wolf, Israel was arrogant, not nice to the Palestinian Arabs, obsessed with the Holocaust, and thus simultaneously paranoid and over-confident.

“Not understanding the realities of Israel’s strategic situation, the compromises made necessary by statehood, the actual facts on the ground, and other factors, Wolf thought he and those who thought as he did knew better how to protect and morally improve Israel than did its voters and leaders. One can glimpse many of these themes in Obama’s thinking today.

“For while Obama, like Wolf, exaggerates and takes out of context Israel’s behavior, unlike Wolf he does not deal with the real threat and problem in the region.

“In fact, the administration is helping Islamism toward power in Egypt and Syria, as well as not mobilizing and leading against it elsewhere. Yet for many who understand better – including a lot of Middle East Muslims as well as Israel – it makes our “blood run cold,” too. And in many cases, it makes people’s blood run in rivers.”

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Jerusalem Post Identifies Obama’s “Jewish Problem”: He is Labor, not Likud

Racial School Segregation in IsraHell

NOVANEWS

Jewish Supremacists “led” the fight against racial segregation in the U.S. and Europe, but apply strict racial segregation between Arabs and Jews at schools in IsraHell, a new report has revealed.

Writing in the liberal-leaning Haaretz newspaper in Israhell, Princeton graduate and correspondent Rivka Cohen said that “In one clear step, Israel’s Education Minister has demonstrated that the separate Jewish and Muslim school systems have nothing to do with preserving an autonomous space for Jewish and for Arab culture, but rather – plain segregation.

“According to Israel’s Student Rights Law, educational facilities must not be segregated on ethnic or political grounds. In the case in question, Noar KeHalacha v. Ministry of Education, a group of Sephardi families protested the separation of their daughters from their Ashkenazi peers in two different academic tracks,” the article continued.

Quoting a racist Zio-Nazi judge, one Justice Melcer, the article points out that the court’s decision allowed for the “filtering school choices according to a strong religious preference, such as a child seeking admission to “an Orthodox Jewish school or a religious Arab school” – and what should be seen as a far wider application of discriminatory entrance policies to an unspecified range of Jewish or Muslim schools.

“These ambiguous criteria would allow Arab students to be excluded from any Jewish school considered to be “a certain kind of Jewish school,” potentially including public state secular schools in the Jewish sector. The same would apply to Jewish students seeking enrollment in Arab schools.”

The article goes on to point out that “Israelis may well feel incredulity on reading that a Jewish student might seek enrollment in the Arab sector, or an Arab student in the secular Jewish one. This itself is a warning sign of the ease with which widespread segregation is accepted as natural in Israel’s schools.”

The effect of the court’s ruling was to say that the segregation of Sephardi and Ashkenazi children, even if it is partial and officially voluntary, is illegal, but the near-absolute segregation of Arab and Jewish students is legitimate.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Racial School Segregation in IsraHell

“Netanyahu has decided to attack Iran before the U.S. Elections in November.”

NOVANEWS
By Michael Carmichael
 

Global Research

Senior Israeli officials now confirm that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has, “decided to attack Iran before the U.S. elections in November.”

Netanyahu’s agenda is much broader than knocking out Iranian nuclear installations for his aim is to reshape the political landscape in the USA and Israel shifting everything to the far, far right in order to create a new comfort zone for religious fundamentalists.
Netanyahu’s major backer, Sheldon Adelson, is now firmly behind Mitt Romney, and they are known to believe that an Israeli attack on Iran in September or October will displace Obama and many dovish Democrats in Congress and establish a hawkish regime in Washington.
Israel has agreed to restrain any attack on Iran until after the current round of five talks between Iran and the P5+1 that will come to an end in either late July or August:

“U.S., Israel continue preparations for strike on Iran nuclear facilities.

The website cites U.S. defense contracts and Israel’s new military preparations, suggesting that ‘all sides are getting ready for whatever may come.’

Israel and the U.S. are pushing forward with preparations to jointly strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, the U.S. blog Business Insider reported on Saturday.

“U.S. defense contracts, an Iranian F-16 acquisition, and Israel’s new military preparations suggest that all sides are getting ready for whatever may come,” the report says.

According to the blog, the U.S navy has recently signed a $338 million contract with defense contractor Raytheon to “provide the Navy with 361 Tomahawk cruise missiles in their most recent configuration. According to the website, the U.S. is either renewing its stock of missiles or planning ahead.

On May 9,” the report added, “the U.S. House of Representatives passed the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012, which seeks to “reaffirm the commitment to Israel’s security as a Jewish state; provide Israel with the military capabilities to defend itself by itself against any threats… [and] expand military and civilian cooperation.”

A senior Israeli official recently told Reuters that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has decided to attack Iran before the U.S. elections in November.” (Haretz, June 23, 2012, emphasis added)

Military experts have long agreed that the “sweet spot” for an Israeli attack on Iran will be this coming September or October precisely because of the timing of the US presidential election cycle.

For maximum political impact and minimal diplomatic responsiveness, the time of the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, NC – September 3-6 comes within this window of opportunity as well as the days immediately prior to the US election – say from Halloween till the 6th of November.

It may be instructive to recall that Israel’s Operation Cast Lead was timed to coincide with the transition between Obama and Bush and ended abruptly immediately before the Inauguration in January 2009.
Presidential election cycles have played major roles in the design of military timetables.  For only one example, recall the Tet Offensive in early 1968 that drove LBJ out of the race for the White House.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, IranComments Off on “Netanyahu has decided to attack Iran before the U.S. Elections in November.”

Mondoweiss Online Newsletter

NOVANEWS

MSCI statement on Caterpillar: Key factor in the downgrade was ‘on-going controversy associated with use of the company’s equipment in the occupied Palestinian territories’

Jun 25, 2012

Adam Horowitz

MSCI Logo

MSCI is a leading provider of socially responsible investing indices that funds use to monitor, and determine, their investments. The firm made headlines last week when it dropped Caterpillar from several of its indices. Today, MSCI issued a statement to explain the move, here it is in full:

Caterpillar Inc. (ticker: CAT) was removed from several MSCI ESG indices due to an Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) rating downgrade. The company was removed from MSCI World ESG Index, MSCI USA ESG Index and MSCI USA IMI ESG Index on March 1, 2012, following the February Index Review.

MSCI ESG Indices are managed using transparent, rules-based methodologies that are publicly available on www.msci.com. To determine the composition of the indices, MSCI utilizes ESG ratings and other information compiled by MSCI ESG Research. The overall ESG rating reflects analysis of multiple environmental, social and governance factors.

Caterpillar’s ESG rating was downgraded in February 2012. The key factors determining the rating include a January 2012 labor dispute and subsequent plant closing in Canada, an on-going controversy associated with use of the company’s equipment in the occupied Palestinian territories, management of environmental issues, and employee safety. As a result of the downgrade, the company’s ESG rating fell below the minimum level required to remain in the MSCI ESG Indices. In accordance with index rules, Caterpillar was removed from the MSCI ESG Indices at the ensuing Index Review.

Shadid’s cousin ignites argument over ‘NYT”s role in his death; his widow refuses to join

Jun 25, 2012

Philip Weiss

 

As Politico reported and several friends have communicated to me, the late Anthony Shadid’s cousin Ed Shadid gave a very dignified commemoration at the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee’s gathering on the weekend in which he accused the New York Times of killing the renowned Arab-American writer by twisting his arm to go into Syria last February on a reporting assignment that he regarded as highly risky.

Ed Shadid:

“The phone call the night before he left [Turkey for Syria], there was screaming and slamming down the phone in discussions with editors. As he got to Turkey and the plans began to fall apart… There weren’t motorcycles [he had arranged to be there]…

“It was at this time that he called his wife and gave his last haunting directive that if anything happens to me I want the world to know the New York Times killed me.”

The speech is igniting a quiet firestorm about journalism and risk. The New York Times has deniedthe allegation:

“The Times does not pressure reporters to go into combat zones. Anthony was an experienced, motivated correspondent. He decided whether, how and when to enter Syria, and was told by his editors, including on the day of the trip, that he should not make the trip if he felt it was not advisable for any reason.”

I happen to be on the Times’s side on this inasmuch as I believe journalism is often a dangerous undertaking, and grownups have to make decisions for themselves. Journalists gain glory by undertaking dangerous assignments. Shadid had been shot by the Israelis years before.

That said, I don’t think the issue will go away. There is bound to more scrutiny of these editorial decisions. Six years ago my editors at New York Magazine stopped me as I was buying my ticket to Iraq, on assignment, because they were being prudent and didn’t want me or their magazine to bear the risk. I was relieved. It is important to hear from Shadid’s widow, Nada Bakri, a Times correspondent. She tweeted the following a half hour ago:

“I do not approve of and will not be a part of any public discussion of Anthony’s passing. It does nothing but sadden Anthony’s children to have to endure repeated public discussion of the circumstances of their father’s death.”

(One way we can honor Shadid, I think, it to focus more on the many Mexican reporters who are right now dying to get out the truth. And give them support by examining the truth on this side of the border.)

CBS pulls down billboards calling for end to US aid to Israel

Jun 25, 2012

Philip Weiss

Melrose Walnut rMelrose after 10in
Stop30Billion billboard on Melrose Avenue — before and after

Two weeks back we reported on 23 billboards being put up in the Los Angeles area calling for an end to aid to Israel. The ads have been torn down by the billboard operator, CBS Outdoor, which is part of CBS, the media giant. The Stop $30 Billion organization sent out this email:

On June 11 the Coalition to Stop $30 Billion to Israel had 23 billboards erected in Los Angeles and surrounding cities with the message “Tell Congress: Spend our Money at Home, Not on the Israeli Military” over an American flag background. The billboards were contracted to run for four weeks, and we were preparing to put more up in other spots around the city. We were thrilled. L.A. had never seen a campaign of this size devoted to this issue. That win fell apart just one week later when the billboard company–CBS Outdoor, a subsidiary of CBS Corporation– took all our billboards down.

They sent a curt email telling us they were canceling our contract and refunding our money because “your organization has used the ‘CBS Outdoor’ name without permission” in email messages and in our petition thanking CBS for putting up the billboards in the first place. Needless to say, this was a punch in the stomach.

If you support us trying to get our message of ending military aid to Israel back up on billboards in the nation’s second largest city, won’t you help flood CBS with phone calls demanding that our billboards be put back up and our contract be honored to the full term?

If there are people and organizations that disagree with our message, they have every right to buy their own billboards with a message they compose. We stand ready to debate American carteblanche support for Israel in the free marketplace of ideas. But that debate can only take place if companies like CBS Outdoor don’t cave when pressured by people who claim any criticism of U.S. policy favoring Israel is anti-Semitic.

Call CBS Corporation, the New York-based parent company of CBS Outdoor, at (212) 975- 4321 right now. Then tell us you made the call and what if any response you got from CBS. Email us at info@stop30billion.com.

Then be sure to share this Call to Action with your friends, family and colleagues via email, Facebook and Twitter.

Thanks for working for justice!

Jeff, Armen and Sue

 

Sam Harris, uncovered

Jun 25, 2012

Theodore Sayeed

Sam Harris
Sam Harris

The Devil sucks in the most devout. In theology fanatics make for easier marks for conversion than moderates because of the jitters and fright common to all such breeds who fear their minds will be colonised by the Satanic advance of the secular world. I’m a living testament to the perils of monkeying with fundamentalism. Years ago, long before God outgrew his diapers, I was a devout Muslim who took shelter in the sanctum of the mosque from the sweet offerings of the land because frequenting the bars and clubs of town threatened to rob my faith. The laidback Muslim, conversely, has no fear that downing a bottle of whiskey will corrupt his deathless soul provided he affirms the elemental doctrines of Islam; but it was my unhappy fate to be drawn into the clericalism of the Salafi crowd among whom I studied and got my Islamic training.

I soon found that my literalism contained the seeds of its own euthanasia for if the Quran was the literal and immovable word of Allah, then I would be a good sight happier sweating in the warmer climes of hell.

By the time I got round to reading Sam Harris then I was fairly acquainted with the atheist canon tenanted by thinkers like Russell, Mencken, Ingersoll and other torchbearers of reason who had reconfigured my synaptic wiring to banish any supernaturalism. And I was keen to add Harris to this proud tradition of God slayers. Happily, it was an easy task getting to like Sam: His prose style is readable with a gift for the bon mot, vital traits of the intellectual worthy.

Any review of Sam Harris and his work is a review essentially of politics. And from there I will begin my examination of his thought and work my way back to the question of religion for which he is better known. Harris gave a revealing interview recently to Tablet that best sums up the key themes of his political writing on the Middle East, Israel and the Western relation to Muslims :

“The Israelis are confronting people who will blow themselves up to kill the maximum number of noncombatants and will even use their own children as human shields. They’ll launch their missiles from the edge of a hospital or school so that any retaliation will produce the maximum number of innocent casualties. And they do all this secure in the knowledge that their opponents are genuinely worried about killing innocent people. It’s the most cynical thing imaginable. And yet within the moral discourse of the liberal West, the Israeli side looks like it’s the most egregiously insensitive to the cost of the conflict.”

It’s a claim recycled from his book The End of Faith (2005), in which he maintains that Israel upholds the human rights of Palestinians to a high standard. His source? Alan Dershowitz. The spirit of the Zionist law attorney infuses a book in which he is approvingly quoted and in which he provides the basis for Harris’s ticking time bomb defence of torture. It’s not for nothing Dershowitz blurbs the book. But is it true as Harris gushes that Israel’s moral capital lies in the fact “They’re still worried about killing the children of their enemies”?

Consider the findings of human rights groups like Amnesty International’s investigation into the Gaza war of 2008:

“Amnesty International on Thursday accused Israeli forces of war crimes, saying they used children as human shields and conducted wanton attacks on civilians during their offensive in the Gaza Strip. “

What about the assertion that Arabs take cover behind their own children? Amnesty finds that although Hamas rocketed Israeli towns during the war, that:

“It could not support Israeli claims that Hamas used human shields. It said it found no evidence Palestinian fighters directed civilians to shield military objectives from attacks, forced them to stay in buildings used by militants, or prevented them from leaving commandeered buildings”

The co-author of the influential Goldstone Report for the UN Human Rights Council, Desmond Travers, has said:

“We found no evidence that Hamas used civilians as hostages. I had expected to find such evidence but did not. We also found no evidence that mosques were used to store munitions. ”

For a man who likes to badger Muslims about their “reflexive solidarity” with Arab suffering, Harris seems keen to display his own tribal affections for the Jewish state. The virtue of Israel and the wickedness of her enemies are recurring themes in his work. The End of Faith opens with the melodramatic scene of a young man of undetermined nationality boarding a bus with a suicide vest. The bus detonates, innocents die and Harris, with the relish of a schoolmarm passing on the facts of life to her brood, chalks in the question: “Why is it so easy, then, so trivially easy-you-could-almost-bet-your-life-on-it-easy to guess the young man’s religion?”

To which historians will answer: Because it is not.

Owing to the narrow focus of his book, written after the 9/11 attacks, Harris wishes the trauma of recent events to yield a Muslim answer. Had it been written on September 10, 2001, the answer would have been the nominally Hindu Tamil Tigers who have racked up almost four hundred suicide attacks; or, in 1945, a Buddhist Kamikaze; or, reflecting the Eastern Front of the same conflict, the German Luftwaffe’s suicide squadrons. What the religion of the bomber is depends on at which point of history you begin to start your timeline.

Harris knows this history only too well, for he secretes this admission in the footnotes away from the main body of the text. But that does not inhibit this bold oracle of reason from his anti-Muslim jihad. It’s a mode of reasoning that he’s perfected well because it crops up when he’s got to account for why, given that Islam forbids taking one’s own life in the roundest terms, some militant groups defy this. He concedes momentarily that the Quran does command “do not kill yourselves” (4:29), but gets around this prohibition by waving it away as having “loopholes”. Where these loopholes are he never says; it’s just asserted by fiat against the accumulated body of Islamic theology. He skips the numerous injunctions against it by Muhammad as a hellworthy offence:

“And if somebody commits suicide with anything in this world, he will be tortured with that very thing on the Day of Resurrection.”

(Sahih Bukhari)

And no exceptions are made for wartime:

“The Prophet said: A man was inflicted with wounds and he committed suicide, and so Allah said: My slave has caused death on himself hurriedly, so I forbid paradise for him.” (ibid)

Harris is keen to blur the sharp demarcation between the concepts of martyrdom and suicide in the hope of confusing the reader into conflating the plain meaning of distinct words. To be slain in battle is what makes one a martyr or a “shaheed” in Islam; not self-murder. This is why the grand imam of the leading Islamic centre of learning at the University of Al Azhar, Muhammad Syed Tantawi,published a fatwa before his recent death blasting the airborne hijackings of 9/11 as a crime and attacked Bin Laden as an “enemy of Islam”; and why Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameneicastigated the attacks; and why six thousand Muslim clerics denounced Al-Qaeda; and why pollsshow that Muslims are far less supportive of killing civilians than Americans generally.

None of these leaders of Islamic thought get any attention in the Harris formulation of “The Muslim World”; only cavemen in Tora Bora. In fact these leaders don’t even exist:

“In our dealings with the Muslim world, we must acknowledge that Muslims have not found anything of substance to say against the actions of the September 11 hijackers, apart from the ubiquitous canard that they were really Jews.” ( The End of Faith, p. 134)

It’s a well honed rhetorical ploy of Harris to demand why, if interventionism drives terrorism, there are no Tibetan suicide bombers. For are they not occupied as well? The alert reader will spot the shift of focus here from religion to nationality. As well ask why there are no instances of Indonesian suicide terrorists against Dutch colonialism, or Indian suicide bombers against the British Raj. The correct analogy is not between nationals from Tibet and Indonesia, but rather believers from Islam and Buddhism. When framed in term of religious affiliation, one observes why Buddhist suicide pilots loom very large indeed in recent military conflicts.

In the Harris depiction, Tibetans bear the jackboot of Chinese occupation meekly and in Christ-like surrender to violence in deep contrast to the mindless violence of Palestinians, proof yet again that Islam, and not the depredations of US foreign policy, is the progenitor of terror. From this narrative one would never guess that Tibet fought a bitter conventional war against China. The national liberation struggle of Tibetans doesn’t quite mesh with the dovish non-violence Harris conjures. And so out it goes from the record.

Given that Harris rails against pacifism in later chapters as being, not a worthy but impossible ideal as so many cherish, but an “evil” precept that would let killers go unmolested, his sudden enthusiasm for turning the other cheek is a suspect one. And you will seek in vain for any reference to Arab civil disobedience against the occupation in his work from the peaceful protests of the first Intifada in which scores of unarmed demonstrators were gunned down by the IDF to the present wave of mass hunger strikes.

The Jains are yet another commonly-trotted-out source of comparison for Harris. He wants to know why there are no Jain suicide bombers, unlike those horrid Arab barbarians. It is painful to inform this Princeton graduate of philosophy who presumably took a first year course in the rudiments of logic that Jains, unlike Palestinians, are not occupied by hostile foreign powers, are not displaced from their homes, are not imprisoned en masse without trial and tortured.

Harris never quite stoops to articulate why suicide bombing is objectively worse than more common variants of homicide like the monopoly enjoyed by Christians and Jews on aerial bombing which rubbles entire nations with far more loss of life than a semtex in a rucksack. The mystery unravels when we learn that Harris backed the 2006 carpet bombing of Lebanon and Gaza by Israel on the dubious premise that “there is no question that the Israelis now hold the moral high ground in their conflict with Hamas and Hezbollah. And yet liberals in the United States and Europe often speak as though the truth were otherwise”.

The rejoinder Harris offers to those wooly-minded liberal peaceniks who just don’t compute the bottomless evil of jihadism is that Arabs murder civilians intentionally whilst Israel, trained in the Holiness of Arms, kills women and children accidentally. Setting aside the unreality of this claim, which veils the indiscriminate shelling of Operation Cast Lead whose lethal casualty ratio was over 1,300 Palestinians to Israel’s 13, the logic of “collateral damage” is a proven con. As the late historian and WW2 air force pilot Howard Zinn noted:

“These words are misleading because they assume an action is either ‘deliberate’ or ‘unintentional.’ There is something in between, for which the word is ‘inevitable.’  If you engage in an action, like aerial bombing, in which you cannot possibly distinguish between combatants and civilians (as a former Air Force bombardier, I will attest to that), the deaths of civilians are inevitable, even if not ‘intentional.’  Does that difference exonerate you morally? The terrorism of the suicide bomber and the terrorism of aerial bombardment are indeed morally equivalent. To say otherwise (as either side might) is to give one moral superiority over the other, and thus serve to perpetuate the horrors of our time.”

At other times Harris acknowledges that what is termed collateral damage is not accidental but a predictable certainty of industrial war, conceding that “What we euphemistically describe as  ‘collateral damage’ in times of war is the direct result of limitations in the power and precision of our technology”. A concession he repeats in this interview with Joe Rogan:

“The reality is that whenever you put Navy SEALs on the ground and let them shoot or drop bombs from Predator drones you’re going to kill some number of innocent people and that’s terrible; and the terrible truth is there is no alternative to that. Unless you are going to be a pacifist, you are going to run the risk of killing innocent people when you have to fight certain conflicts.”

It’s revealing that after this frank admission of the fundamentally anti-civilian nature of modern warfare, he proceeds to defend the incineration of Afghanistan by NATO and vilifies Julian Assange (“creepy bastard”) and Wikileaks for exposing the atrocities of the US state.

In his stampede to show how morally-inferior Muslims are to other benighted Third Worlders, it appears not to have jolted his cerebrum that what the imperialism of the atheist Chinese in Tibet and Taiwan really proves is that the absence of the Quran does not palliate the human propensity for aggression and violence.

It is sometimes alleged of Harris that no amount of data and facts will budge his doggedly anti-Muslim atavism. I think this is unjust; Harris does evolve with the facts. But like the ever moving goal post, he does so with stealth so as to mask his contradictions. A case in point: For years he hotly denied the reality of Christian suicide bombers in the Middle East, defying critics to name “Where are the Christian suicide bombers?” until a public encounter with the distinguished anthropologist Scott Atran forced him into a collision with just such a lot of Christians, namely the PLFP. And since then he’s quietly dropped this denial and switched to carping at their small numbers: “Palestinian Christians suffer the same Israeli occupation. How many have blown themselves up on a bus in Tel Aviv? One? Two?”

Wrong. The PFLP has conducted ten suicide bombings. And that’s just Palestinian Christians, not counting Lebanese or German.

If Harris seems like a wanton denier of Israel’s crimes in the occupied territories, he is an even more talented fugleman for US militarism. But a snag. How does one defend the aggressive wars of the Pentagon without losing one’s moral pretensions? There are two tried and tested means without which no aspiring militarist should be. First, frame the war as a missionary effort to save the poor afflicted natives. And second, argue, though taking delicate care not to deny it, that as terrible as our international policies have been in the past, the present round of military adventures marks a new dawn of moral purity unsullied by the cold economic and geopolitical considerations that once obtained but are now, for reasons unaccounted, no longer operative. Harris deploys both to good effect. Yes, our leaders have fallen short of our animating principle of universal justice he allows, but the US, whatever “misdeeds” it has been guilty of, is at bottom a “well-intentioned giant”.

The villains of The End of Faith are the traditional icons of the dissident Left: Noam Chomsky, Edward Said and Arundhati Roy. The heroes are Alan Dershowitz, Bernard Lewis and Paul Berman who, like Harris himself, are clear eyed about the pressing need to defend American exceptionalism and Zionism from the Muslim peril.

In a bid to show why Chomsky went astray for calling Bush’s invasion of Iraq a war crime, Harris proposes a novel thought experiment: It’s called the “the perfect weapon” theory. Suppose there was a perfect weapon, he says, that could strike the enemy’s military defences without collateral damage.“How would George Bush have prosecuted the recent war in Iraq with perfect weapons? Would he have targeted the thousands of Iraqi civilians who were maimed or killed by our bombs ?” No, goes the argument, he would have used it only against Saddam in his tireless quest to bring democracy and freedom to Iraq.

And “If the situation had been reversed, what are the chances that the Iraqi Republican Guard, attempting to execute a regime change on the Potomac, would have taken the same degree of care to minimize civilian casualties?” Plainly then Bush was noble in intent and foiled in his mission only by the superhuman evil of Muslims to undermine his just cause. The distinction is between killing intentionally and unintentionally. “But for him (Chomsky), intentions do not seem to matter. Body count is all.”

As thought experiments go, this one drives revisionism to escape velocity. It’s needless to contrive fictive hypotheticals about ideal weapons. We already possess a rich mine of historical data already in which to assess whether the United States sought to minimize human suffering: It imposed sanctions on Iraq which starved a million people to death, half children below the age of five, which was described as “genocide” by the UN Humanitarian Coordinator Denis Halliday who resigned in protest; sanctioned a policy of torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and Bagram detention centres; massacred unarmed Iraqi protesters; denied passage out of the shelling of Fallujah to the adult male population fleeing the bombardment; gave orders to shoot unarmed residents in the city after dark; deployed napalm and banned incendiary agents like white phosphorous which have made birth defects and cancer rates among the population soar beyond Hiroshima levels; closed the only hospital in Fallujah treating the wounded against the Geneva Convention; fired on ambulances;justified the deliberate killing of civilians by Blackwater mercenaries; authorised the slaughter of Baghdad residents by Apache helicopters infamously captured on the leaked Collateral Murder tape released by Wikileaks; installed a policy of acquiescence in the widespread abuse of prisoners by allied Iraqi torture squads.

None of these officially-sanctioned atrocities, a list that omits the far more numerous freelance crimes of individual military units like the one behind the Haditha massacre, feature in his ode to the high nobility of the Oval Office. There is a fleeting reference to the sanctions regime, but it’s dismissed as “irrelevant” to Bush’s measureless altruism. The United States is noble because it says that it’s noble. The factual record is surplus to requirements.

But Harris is not content to defend merely the atrocities of Bush. Former presidents get his doting service too. Thus Bill Clinton we are told is not morally culpable for the deaths of tens of thousands of people in Sudan (Boston Globe) whose chief aspirin factory he bombed in 1998 in a desperate effort to shift the cable news cycle from the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the ensuing impeachment proceedings. Although Washington enjoyed diplomatic relations with Khartoum and the factory was open to foreign tourists, including the German and Italian ambassadors to Sudan and  the British engineer who built the plant, Harris defends Clinton’s action as just: “What did the U.S. government think it was doing when it sent cruise missiles into Sudan? Destroying a chemical weapons site used by Al Qaeda.”

This propaganda was debunked a long time ago. The words of the former United States ambassador to Sudan, Donald Patterson: “The evidence was not conclusive and was not enough to justify an act of war”.

The New York Times:

“American officials have acknowledged over the years that the evidence that prompted President Clinton to order the missile strike on the Shifa plant was not as solid as first portrayed. Indeed, officials later said that there was no proof that the plant had been manufacturing or storing nerve gas, as initially suspected by the Americans, or had been linked to Osama bin Laden, who was a resident of Khartoum in the 1980’s.”

The Observer :

“President Bill Clinton knew he was bombing a civilian target when he ordered the United States attack on a Sudan chemical plant. Tests ordered by him showed that no nerve gas was on the site and two British professionals who recently worked at the factory said it clearly had no military purpose.”

That guillotines the Bin Laden canard. But Harris mounts another defence: “Did the Clinton administration intend to bring about the deaths of thousands of Sudanese children? No.” Here is a thought experiment: Do speeding motorists intend to kill pedestrians? No. Does that get them off the hook for the predictable outcome of their disregard for human life?

But even that analogy is flawed. The White House did not just vaporise the antibiotic stocks of a poor and needy country’s pharmacy which produced “90 percent” of its major products (Boston Globe) whose replenishment was made difficult at an affordable cost by the US-imposed trade embargo; it refused even to compensate for this unlawful aggression to the present. Clinton did not just run over a crowd of pedestrians accidentally, but he jumped out of the vehicle to survey the carnage, then climbed back into his SUV and, blaming his victims, sped off without so much as calling a paramedic. He did this on a macroscale without apology or reparations. And Harris, keen to deny the crimes of the past so he may justify the ones in the present, makes apologetics for this gangsterism. They’re savage Muslims, anyway.

Not quite done with salvaging the humanitarian case for the Iraq war, he offers this defence of collateral damage:

“Chomsky might object that to knowingly place the life of a child in jeopardy is unacceptable in any case, but clearly this is not a principle we can follow. The makers of roller coasters know, for instance, that despite rigorous safety precautions, sometime, somewhere, a child will be killed by one of their contraptions. ” (p. 147)

So there is no moral distinction between cluster bombs and Disneyland. Death is death, so what’s the problem? The claim amounts to holding that there is no difference between choking on a pretzel and sustaining a nuclear attack because, well, in both cases people die. The act of raining down “Shock & Awe” bears no likeness to the far less perilous and unlikely accidents of theme parks which, on the rare occasion they occur, do not make rubble of homes and infrastructure and uproot millions of refugees. And rollercoasters invite the willing patronage of thrill seekers, as opposed to Tomahawk missiles, whose victims do not volunteer for the risk of being shredded. The distinction is both in scale and human agency, between a minuscule risk undertaken freely in the knowledge that one is strapped in by “rigorous safety precautions”, and mass lethality thrust upon one by a hostile foreign power.

But what about “automobile” fatalities, cries Harris: If you oppose the Iraq war, don’t you have to oppose cars too for the sake of intellectual consistency?

No. The existence of mortality is not a reason for piling on the corpses needlessly or giving license to the grasping ambitions of war criminals out to make a buck for the petroleum industry. If Harris thinks so, then he will no doubt urge the prompt release of all convicted killers from the nearest jail to his home on the exotic premise that butchering a child is no different than dying from a peanut allergy.

Harris bemoans the cultural ascendancy of moral relativism as a malign force corrupting the values of the republic. By his reckoning intellectuals are wedded too fondly to ethical dithering and it’s high time the dysfunctional marriage was annulled for a universal morality to flourish. Leaving aside the reason that so many university departments have (unwisely) taken to postmodernism is because of the revulsion against just the flag-waving triumphalism and patriotism that he urges on us, we can affirm that the correct response to colonial domination is not a rejection of universal moral values.

But like America’s use of Shariah law to spring CIA agents held for murder out of Pakistani jails when Common Law would have seen them prosecuted for their crimes, Harris traffics in the worst relativism when it is advantageous. So when the White House brings the full might of its globe-spanning empire to bear on laying much of Asia and Africa and Latin America to waste in an imperial career stretching back to WW2, that does not reflect on its boundless goodness and charity. But when some ramshackle non-state Muslim actors do a fraction of the same against the howling objection of leading Muslim thinkers, this is an illustration of the arrested moral development of the “Muslim World”.

When not pressing young Americans to sacrifice their lives for the war on terror, Harris likes to round on young Muslims for sacrificing theirs by denigrating them as a “thoroughgoing death cult”. As with the American media’s hymn to the flag draped coffins of fallen US servicemen, Islam does honour those killed in the service of beleaguered Muslims, but the Quran forbids starting hostilities: “Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight you, but do not begin hostilities for Allah does not love aggressors” (2:190).

Harris admits that such is indeed the case. He allows, in a rare departure from his cudgel bearing nationalism, that “Those who wage jihad are enjoined not to attack first” and that “one who would fight for God is also enjoined not to kill women, children, or the aged, unless in self-defense.” Yet seeing the decapitation this inflicts on his anti-Muslim thesis, he caveats this admission: “But this injunction restrains no one.”

Got that? Islam may abhor terrorism, and it may lay down a strict code of ethics bearing on Just War theory, but we shall not let its precepts halt our vilification of what Muslims believe.

So it’s not that Harris ignores the codified rules of jihad, which urge restraint, like this one: “And if the enemy inclines to peace, then incline to it also and trust in Allah” (Quran, 8:61). It is that he scorns the very idea of judging Islam by its teachings, focusing instead on what a microscopically small cohort of terrorists out of a billion souls do against the directives of holy scripture.

No word is uttered with more frequency by Harris than “apostasy,” about whose legal penalty in Islam he is very, very exercised. A man who objects so much to shedding innocent blood is no doubt set against the drones that have incinerated masses of civilians in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Afghanistan, no? Don’t count on it:

“We cannot let our qualms over collateral damage paralyze us because our enemies know no such qualms. Theirs is a kill-the-children-first approach to war, and we ignore the fundamental difference between their violence and our own at our peril. Given the proliferation of weaponry in our world, we no longer have the option of waging this war with swords. It seems certain that collateral damage, of various sorts, will be a part of our future for many years to come.“ (The End of Faith, p. 203)

My hope in this review was not to get tangled in the finer points of Islamic theology, but if former Muslims like myself stand any chance of winning friends and family to the cause of the Enlightenment, we must begin to deconstruct the tabloid caricatures of Muslims by Harris and his fellow immigrant baiters. I use that phrase advisedly. Harris dabbles in the most extravagant conspiracy theories about the impending conquest of Europe by Muslims:

“Islam is the fastest growing religion in Europe. The demographic trends are ominous: Given current birthrates, France could be a majority Muslim country in 25 years, and that is if immigration were to stop tomorrow.”

To understand how nine-months-pregnant with delusion this claim truly is, one has to only reflect that the French Muslim population is forecasted by the Pew Research Centre to grow to 10% by 2030 from its present figure of 7.5%, and France will be the Western European state with the highest number of Muslims. The only country that surpasses it is Russia which, even as it borders autonomous Muslim states, is projected to see her share of Muslims rise to 14%.

This fetish for the breeding habits of immigrants is one that Harris cultivates with far-right nationalists like Robert Spencer and Daniel Pipes. He admits: “With a few exceptions, the only public figures who have had the courage to speak honestly about the threat that Islam now poses to European societies seem to be fascist.” (Letter To A Christian Nation, P. 85)

As with all liberal interventionists who caught the messianic bug, Harris makes a good deal of his sorrow for the benighted women of Afghanistan who warrant more tears, for reasons not too clear, than Palestinian or Lebanese women by whose IDF-imposed misery only daft peaceniks are repulsed. And as with all jingos, he never cares to know what Afghan feminists like the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, who toil for human rights, actually seek, namely an immediate halt to the US bombing of their country and its people, bombings that swell the ranks of the hated Taliban, who before the US cruise missiles landed faced an internal revolt drawn among a wide strata of ethnic and political elements.

It’s a forgivable indulgence to ascribe this military cowboyism of Harris to a misplaced idealism to bring democracy at the point of Hellfire missiles, but that would be to misread him. Gravely. The reason he presses for US interference in the region is that, like his deathly silence on the pro-democracy movements of the Arab Spring that have dynamited his notion that Muslims are hot for theocracy, he thinks only Western imposed dictators can lead Muslims to Enlightenment:

“It appears that one of the most urgent tasks we now face in the developed world is to find some way of facilitating the emergence of civil societies everywhere else. Whether such societies have to be democratic is not at all clear. Zakaria has persuasively argued that the transition from tyranny to liberalism is unlikely to be accomplished by plebiscite. It seems all but certain that some form of benign dictatorship will generally be necessary to bridge the gap. But benignity is the key and if it cannot emerge from within a state, it must be imposed from without. The means of such imposition are necessarily crude: they amount to economic isolation, military intervention (whether open or covert), or some combination of both.” (The End of Faith, p. 151)

He has his reasons for shrinking from writing about the most revolutionary and hopeful changes of the modern political era, namely the great Arab Awakening that is sweeping away the US-backed tyrants in North Africa and the Middle East. It began of course last year, and in the interval, Harris has found time to devote thousands of words to ethnically profiling Muslims at airports. His justification for ignoring the awakening is that he thinks “we cannot merely force Muslim dictators from power and open the polls. It would be like opening the polls to the Christians of the fourteenth century”. Although conceding that “our collusion with Muslim tyrants” has been despicable, “our culpability on this front must be bracketed by the understanding that were democracy to suddenly come to these countries, it would be little more than a gangplank to theocracy”. Those who delight in the flowering of Arab democracy must remember that “the only thing that currently stands between us and the roiling ocean of Muslim unreason is a wall of tyranny and human rights abuses that we have helped to erect”. (p. 132)

The region’s people are unfit to be trusted with self-determination because they are morally inferior: “It is time for us to admit that not all cultures are at the same stage of moral development.” Indeed, such is the moral depravity of these barbarians that “At this point in their history, give most Muslims the freedom to vote, and they will freely vote to tear out their political freedoms by the root”. The solution then is for the US to command stewardship of the area imposing “benign” dictators in the place of bad ones who may lead Muslims to reform.

Harris speaks much of the dream of a globally-integrated civilisation and the need to construct “a world government”. Presumably this means some respect for international law and the United Nations. So what does Harris think of the worst breach of these legal bodies in recent memory, the unlawful invasion of Iraq? He celebrates the killing of Saddam and his sons – “I think it’s a good thing that we killed him; unless you’re a total pacifist you have to admit that it’s what guns are for”, and defends the “humanitarian purpose” of the war, but he’s ultimately agnostic about the invasion itself,pleading that “I’ve never known what to think about the war”. His only gripe is that it was in hindsight a tactical “disaster”. He was enthusiastic for the bombing of Libya and Afghanistan, but Iraq was poorly executed because the torture revelations of Abu Ghraib alienated our friends:

“Indeed, the Abu Ghraib scandal may be one of the costliest foreign policy blunders to occur in the last century, given the degree to which it simultaneously inflamed the Muslim world and eroded the sympathies of our democratic allies. While we hold the moral high ground in our war on terror, we appear to hold it less and less.” (In Defence of Torture)

Not that he’s opposed to torture, mind. Just torturing the wrong people: “I am one of the few people I know of who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity in our war on terror.”

The right people are Al-Qaeda suspects. He jeers at the Bush Admin’s lack of nerve to put the screws on 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a task they finally got around to with gusto:

“Given the damage we were willing to cause to the bodies and minds of innocent children in Afghanistan and Iraq, our disavowal of torture in the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed seems perverse. If there is even one chance in a million that he will tell us something under torture that will lead to the further dismantling of Al Qaeda, it seems that we should use every means at our disposal to get him talking. (The End of Faith, p. 198)

The defence on which he relies for torture is the fictional time bomb scenario that no doubt looks very compelling on the silver screen where a foot long bomb fuse sputters and gutters long enough for burly FBI agents to leisurely manhandle the villain who is caught just in time. The discerning reader might ponder whether, by the same logical footwork, Harris would support the kidnap and torture of US diplomats by Iranian secret service to determine which civil nuclear reactors they are planning to strike and thereby save untold lives.

Harris professes alarm at the prospect of nuclear proliferation, and his objections are couched in the language of a green anti-nuclear activist robbed of sleep by the concern that Mother Nature will be defiled by atomic weapons. But dig a little deeper and one finds that he’s got nothing to say about the vast stockpiles of the greatest violators of the NPT, namely his favourite imperial powers like Israel and America whose never-ending wars of aggression are the prime cause of proliferation on the part of jumpy little states.

Marching in lockstep with the AIPAC crowd, he focuses exclusively on Iran and other Muslim states against which he urges a pre-emptive nuclear strike if they should acquire the bomb. It will be an “unthinkable crime,” he reassures, but we must do it for the sake of Western Civ. So actually it is thinkable. And what must be done cannot logically be a crime for a crime would entail free choice to pursue a different course. Harris well knows how to package his counsel for genocide. We cannot of course entertain anything so foolish as to abide by the directives of the NPT and work to eliminate all nuclear stockpiles nor address the aggravating political factors which may drive states to seek a deterrence. Just nuke the evildoers.

At the core of his political thinking is a curious dualism that maintains on the one end that Islam is the darkest villainy to afflict the race, and on the other that he doesn’t really hate Muslims after all. It’s analogous to saying that fascism is evil, but that fascists are not a bad lot. How so? The bearers of tyranny are certainly the free born man’s enemy, so why does Harris pretend that he doesn’t abominate Muslims? It’s not just the beardos with the bombs that he wishes to kill recall, but all who live by the vision of the Quran:

“We are at war with Islam. It may not serve our immediate foreign policy objectives for our political leaders to openly acknowledge this fact, but it is unambiguously so. It is not merely that we are at war with an otherwise peaceful religion that has been ‘hijacked’ by extremists. We are at war with precisely the vision of life that is prescribed to all Muslims in the Koran.” (The End of Faith, p. 109)

Much else remains to be said about Harris’s ideas of statecraft, but it’s what he believes about atheism that is even more diverting.

Had he confined himself to discharging artillery shells at the folly of religion, his writings would have been redeemable, but Harris, though withering of the Abrahamic creeds, rejects atheistic materialism as just another religious “faith” and “sacrament” held by arrogant scientists and says, in a lunge toward mysticism, that we can survive the death of the physical body because consciousness is not generated by the brain:

“Most scientists consider themselves physicalists; this means, among other things, that they believe that our mental and spiritual lives are wholly dependent upon the workings of our brains. On this account, when the brain dies, the stream of our being must come to an end. Once the lamps of neural activity have been extinguished, there will be nothing left to survive. Indeed, many scientists purvey this conviction as though it were itself a special sacrament, conferring intellectual integrity upon any man, woman, or child who is man enough to swallow it. But the truth is that we simply do not know what happens after death. While there is much to be said against a naive conception of a soul that is independent of the brain, the place of consciousness in the natural world is very much an open question. The idea that brains produce consciousness is little more than an article of faith among scientists at present, and there are many reasons to believe that the methods of science will be insufficient to either prove or disprove it.“ ( p. 208)

Survive death? A possibility? Out goes scientific materialism and in comes supernaturalism. If the afterlife strikes the ear as a creepy throwback to the neolithic fables of Christians, Harris assures us that it’s not the gospel’s vision of heaven that he has in mind. His brand of post-mortem rebirth bears a closer kinship to something a tad more Hindu:

“There may even be credible evidence for reincarnation”. ( P. 242)

The footnote for this religious assertion takes one to books that Harris finds compelling such as “20 Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation” which includes colourful tales of past-life regressions and children who speak dead languages. And, even more good news in store for mind readers and psychics: “There also seems to be a body of data attesting to the reality of psychic phenomena, much of which has been ignored by mainstream science.” (p. 41)

Practitioners of ESP are in luck too because Harris knows just what it means to enjoy mental powers of telepathy as he states in this interview with Salon:

Salon: It sounds like you’re open-minded to the possibility of telepathy — things that we might classify as psychic. You’re saying it’s entirely possible that they might be true and science at some point will be able to prove them.

“Yeah, and there’s a lot of data out there that’s treated in most circles like intellectual pornography that attests to there being a real phenomenon. I just don’t know. But I’ve had the kinds of experiences that everyone has had that seem to confirm telepathy that minds can influence other minds.”

Tell me about one of those experiences.

“Oh, just knowing who’s calling when that person hasn’t called you in years. The phone rings and you know who it is and it’s not your mother or your wife or someone who calls you every day. I’ve had many experiences like that. I know many people who’ve had even more bizarre experiences. But that does not rise to the level of scientific evidence. The only way to determine if it really exists is to look in a disinterested and sustained way at all of the evidence.”

I like that caveat: Linger over exotic superstitions in anecdote upon anecdote and then dart off some afterthoughts about the need for more enquiry to give the whole fantastic proceeding a touch of the labman’s objectivity. Harris ruminates in a long footnote appended to a celebration of psychedelic drugs that he is taken with hallucinogenic reports of alien beings:

“Many users of DMT report being thrust under its influence into an adjacent reality where they are met by alien beings who appear intent upon sharing information and demonstrating the use of inscrutable technologies. The convergence of hundreds of such reports, many from first-time users of the drug who have not been told what to expect, is certainly interesting. It is also worth noting these accounts are almost entirely free of religious imagery.

“One appears far more likely to meet extraterrestrials or elves on DMT than traditional saints or angels. As I have not tried DMT, and have not had an experience of the sort that its users describe, I don’t know what to make of any of this.”

Is this the product of a mind scattered by intoxicants? Apparently not. Harris repeated the same flight to occultic planes at the Melbourne atheist convention where, after enthusing about the curative powers of spiritual meditation, he was desperate to reassure the assembled gathering of skeptics that his fascination with “aliens and insectile like creatures” is not “insanity”. Observe that he says these are not vacant hallucinations by high school stoners on a par with UFO sightings and crop circles, but that corroboration comes from “smart and serious people” of an extra-dimensional universe occupied by elves, reptilians and extra-terrestrials keen to impart scientific knowledge to lowly mortals about whose veracity “I don’t know what to make”. Welcome to David Icke territory.

The paranormal debunker James Randi chastised him for this quackery, twice, saying there were no choices to be made between virgin births, reincarnation, alien reptiles and telepathy– that bunk was bunk, and that science had once and for all spoken.

And finally Harris appeared to step back from the crankdom: “My position on the paranormal is this: While there have been many frauds in the history of parapsychology, I believe that this field of study has been unfairly stigmatized.”

Or maybe not. It’s a custom of his when interrogated by experts to berate scientists for being mean to New Age bosh-mongers. He alone is the true empiricist who, though having just recently acquired his doctorate at the late age of 40, knows more about the scientific enterprise than all those intolerant and smug lab rats who graduated decades ago. So when the pressure mounted on him, his last ditch effort was to backtrack somewhat: “I have not spent any time attempting to authenticate the data” because it is not worth his time. Which begs the question of why he trumpets their mumbo jumbo as “credible evidence” that is “ignored by mainstream science”. Plainly what is not worth one’s time is not “unfairly stigmatised”.

And just when it appears that Harris wants to extricate himself from the unwisdom of wading into mystical humbug and pseudoscience, he slides right back into sham insisting that he “cannot categorically dismiss their contents.” For science will deliver metaphysical and otherworldly truths to those hungry of spirit:

“We may live to see the technological perfection of all the visionary strands of traditional mysticism: shamanism (Siberian or South American), Gnosticism, Kabbalah, Hermetism and its magical Renaissance spawn (Hermeticism), and all the other byzantine paths whereby man has sought the Other in every guise of its conception.” (The End of Faith, p. 221)

It occurs to me that as much of a renegade as I am from Islam, I’m not alone in my betrayal. Sam Harris too is an apostate from the intellectual atheist tradition of Russell and Mencken that was built on the twin pillars of anti-mysticism and anti-militarism.

Homecoming

Jun 25, 2012

Sarah Ziyad

tumblr m64uf1MGLU1qfk3gdo1 1280
Photo: Sarah Ziyad

“This is where mom would have walked back and forth between the house and our farm,” Dad said, gesturing from the sycamore tree towards the gently sloping hills.

We were mostly quiet. Dad picked up a stick and half-heartedly flicked the tall grass as we walked towards the tell-tale, lone palm tree in the middle of what is now an Israeli watermelon farm. We paused to search for figs from the beautiful, ancient “jamayza” tree, miraculously still standing in the otherwise-razed plain. This tree was a precious one to us—my grandmother used to describe it to us, over and over, even decades after she had left it behind.

I remember her, once daughter of the sheik of a modest but thriving Palestinian village, sitting on the floor of her meager apartment in Saudi Arabia, her final resting place after decades of exile in multiple refugee camps. She often told stories of her wedding day, her family life, her love of the farmland that brought forth so much bounty in season. As I picked my way around the GMO watermelons that have replaced the homes, graves, and fields which stood before 1948, I struggled to grasp the fact that I was literally treading on my grandmother’s memories. My dad handed me an unripe fruit from the jamayza, and as I bit into it I reflected on many other things that would’ve been sweet, if allowed to bloom. In the noonday sun, surrounded by vast commercial farmland, the only sound was the wind, blowing with a steady and solemn tune through the gently rocking jamazya limbs.

“Here it is, we are entering the village now.” Dad announced softly, coming to a halt next to a half-demolished well. My brother, father, and I shared a surreal moment, staring down into the large, wide opening, littered at the bottom with broken stones and debris. In a breathtaking surprise, a large, snow white owl appeared below, spreading its wings and lifting gracefully and silently towards us. I shivered a little at the unexpected, ethereal visitation. Dad pointed out the large pipe that was installed in the well in early 1948, before the war. The Hebrew markings in the metal were clearly visible; Dad told me how the village had a party to celebrate the new technology, bought from their Jewish neighbors, which would greatly increase productivity. It was an ultimately futile innovation, of course—a few short months later the entire village would be expelled from their homes, leaving their precious well to rot.

It is hard to describe the horror and sadness that this “homecoming” represented to me. The silent stones, crumbling and forgotten beneath a brilliant blue sky, like torn pages from a long-lost story book…one I know I would have loved to read, to enter, even. Were there ghosts in the tall grass? We know some of our relatives died there. I wanted to know if they were ever buried; the scattered ruins, even seven decades later, seem like a haunted, half-healed wound.

I swallowed hard to fight back the fire kindling in my chest. I reverently brushed my fingers against bark of the only other tree still standing, the majestic palm. My mind flashed back to the countless, flashy advertisements I’ve seen for the free “Birthright” trips offered to Jewish students in the States. According to the website, over 300,000 students from 54 countries have taken advantage of this offer for a free tour of Israel—yet my grandmother and her sons, after being forced out of their home in 1948, would never be allowed to return. My grandmother died a refugee after sixty years of waiting for justice; meanwhile, thousands of students enjoy free tours of her homeland under the pretense of their “right” to the land. Whence does this right come, and at what cost? How many are willing to believe that so many roads, so many lives, in Israel are built over literal and figurative graveyards?

There was no resolution. After about 3 hours of pacing, poking, and, in my case, praying, we retreated. We looked back often as we trudged away from the “village,” feeling a deep exhaustion and sorrow; even though we left in peace, without bullets at our back, the moment reeked of defeat. My dad murmured softly that we would’ve had olive trees “if…” The “if” was bigger than any of us. I thought I would choke on that “if,” the “if” that stole my grandmother’s youth, my grandfather’s life, my family’s legacy.

Two Israeli youth sped by on dirt bikes, kicking up dust on the country road and temporarily dimming our vision. As I glanced back for what I swore would be the last time, I wondered about hope and history and what it must have felt like to draw ones dying breath in exile.

IMG 8177
Photo: Sarah Ziyad

It’s not just the settlers: Samah Sabawi responds to liberal Zionists on the settlement boycott

Jun 25, 2012

Adam Horowitz

 

For more on Sabawi see here. From the video’s YouTube page:

Leading Liberal Zionists have come out in impressive numbers calling for the boycott of settlements, but I have to warn you there is something to dread; they want you to buy Israeli products instead! They say they want to save Israel from a dangerous extremist threat. Namely, the Israeli gov’t and the BDS! Yes, they have lumped us together as two extreme versions calling for one state. Both? Extreme?

In this absurd reality BDS’s call for equality is apparently as extreme as ethnic cleansing. In what world is this convincing?

In their grand hypocrisy they want us to fortify the Green line that supposedly separates a Jewish state from a future Palestine but without ever supporting Palestinian resistance. Is it then a matter of a state of mind? If we think it, the settlements will go? What tools can we use and where are these liberal Zionists when nonviolent protestors are shot in the face with gas canisters?

They want us to be as delusional as they are. They want us to be docile. They want us to exonerate Israel of all its past crime or God forbid, we would be accused of clinging to victimhood.

They want us to march along side the spin doctors and bleeding hearts ‘The settlers are to blame for the erosion of Israel’s democracy!’, ‘The settlers are to blame!’. ‘The settlers are to blame for the erosion of Israel’s democracy’. ‘The settlers are to blame!’.

For the destruction of a Zionist fantasy!

As if settlers exist in a vacuum. As if settlers have come from some far away planet. landed on a hill in the West Bank and without any help from congress, the Knesset or the senate, they began to build their colonies on our land.

‘The settlers are to blame!’ As if Israel was not built on the ruins of Palestinian villages long before the settlers came to the West Bank. Long before the checkpoints and the wall, long before it all, long before there was an occupation, there was a total devastation, a ruthless destruction of an entire nation.

‘The settlers are to blame!’ But as far back as 1948 villages were erased, Palestinians were massacred, to make way for the establishment of this state.

‘The settlers are to blame!’ But go on and ask this soil you tread whose ancestral flesh has fed this earth for centuries? Whose blood runs in the sap of the olive trees? Whose stories are written between the cracks of these old stones?

‘The settlers are to blame!’ Close your eyes and search your soul. Dig deep. Those nightmares in your sleep are the voices that

Posted in Nova NewsletterComments Off on Mondoweiss Online Newsletter

Obama Plays Lead For Jamie Dimon and the Fat Cats

NOVANEWS

Who Own and Control America

Jamie Dimon’s gold embossed presidential seal cuff links, a gift from the president, are a blatant reminder that Obama plays lead to Jamie Dimon and the fat cats ~ who obviously control America:

by Allen L Roland

 

Forbes rates JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon as the 41st most powerful person in the world with annual earnings of almost 21 million.

JPMorgan Chase is one of the Big Four banks of the United States with Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Fargo. According to Bloomberg, as of October 2011 JPMorgan Chase surpassed Bank Of America as the largest U.S. bank by assets.

So when Jamie Dimon waltzed into the Congressional hearings last week sporting his gift Presidential seal gold embossed cuff links from President Obama ~ it was a not so subtle in-your-face statement to congress and the American people of who not only owns but is in charge of America.

Jamie Dimon posing for Press with his presidential cuff links at recent congressional hearings

So let’s see what’s underneath this blatant act of arrogance.

Ellen Brown cuts to the quick with her recent brilliant analysis ~ The US Senate won’t touch Jamie Dimon because JPM derivatives prop up US Debt;

“ What is going on with this panel of senators?” asked Jon Stewart.  “They’re sucking up to Jamie Dimon like

Jamie Dimon’s gift cuff links on full display

they’re on JPMorgan’s payroll.”  The explanation in a news clip that followed was that JPMorgan Chase is the biggest campaign donor to many of the members of the Banking Committee.

That is one obvious answer, but financial analysts Jim Willie and Rob Kirby think it may be something far larger, deeper, and more ominous…. The national debt is growing at $1.5 trillion per year.  Ultra-low interest rates MUST be maintained to prevent the debt from overwhelming the government budget. Near-zero rates also need to be maintained because even a moderate rise would cause multi-trillion dollar derivative losses for the banks, and would remove the banks’ chief income stream, the arbitrage afforded by borrowing at 0% and investing at higher rates.

The low rates are maintained by interest rate swaps, called by Willie a “derivative tool which controls the bond market in a devious artificial manner.”  

Kirby contends that the only organization large enough to act as counterparty to some of these trades is the U.S. Treasury itself.  He suspects the Treasury’s Exchange Stabilization Fund, a covert entity without oversight and accountable to no one. Kirby also notes that if publicly-traded companies (including JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley) are deemed to be integral to U.S. national security (meaning protecting the integrity of the dollar), they can legally be excused from reporting their true financial condition.  They are allowed to keep two sets of books.

Interest rate swaps are now over 80 percent of the massive derivatives market, and JPMorgan holds about $57.5 trillion of them.  Without the protective JPMorgan swaps, interest rates on U.S. debt could follow those of Greece and climb to 30%.  CEO Dimon could, then, indeed be “the guy in charge”: he could be controlling the lever propping up the whole U.S. financial system.”.

Ellen Brown asks the key question ~ Is there no alternative but to succumb to the Mafia-like Wall Street protection racket of a covert derivatives trade in interest rate swaps?

“ As Willie and Kirby observe, that scheme itself must ultimately fail, and may have failed already.  They point to evidence that the JPM losses are not just $3 billion but $30 billion or more, and that JPM is actually bankrupt ; 

The derivatives casino itself is just a last-ditch attempt to prop up a private pyramid scheme in fractional-reserve money creation, one that has progressed over several centuries through a series of “reserves” ~ from gold, to Fed-created “base money,” to mortgage-backed securities, to sovereign debt ostensibly protected with derivatives.  We’ve seen that the only real guarantor in all this is the government itself, first with FDIC insurance and then with government bailouts of too-big-to-fail banks.  If we the people are funding the banks, we should own them; and our national currency should be issued, not through banks at interest, but through our own sovereign government.”

See full article:

Commodity Futures Trading Commission head and former Goldman Sachs partner Gary Gensler puts the credit swap problem in easy to understand terms;

“The swap market lacks necessary street lamps,” he said. “I think the American public still isn’t safe on these roads until we get the rules of the road in place. I think the America public was bystanders to taking on excessive risk in 2008, and we still have been.”

Now get this !  JPMorgan receives a government subsidy worth about $14 billion a year, according to research published by the International Monetary Fund. That $14 billion dollars represents 77 percent of JP Morgan’s net income for the past four quarters. In other words, U.S. taxpayers helped foot the bill for the multibillion-dollar trading loss that was the focus of last weeks hearingsSee full report:

And there’s more ~ Here’s How JP Morgan makes hundreds of millions of dollars on food assistance programs / Republic Report.

We are all being played for suckers but If you think things are dangerous here ~ take a look at the Euro zone through the eyes of UKIP Nigel Farage ~ who rightfully calls the whole thing a giant Ponzi scheme. Here’s U.K.

Independence Party Leader Nigel Farage discussing the causes of the financial crisis in Europe as well as the inadequacy of its present leadership 6 minute video


So there you have it, the global economic and monetary system is coming apart at the seams, the Banksters, both here and abroad, can no longer hide from the truth that Jamie Dimon and the fat cats own America as well as President Obama and congress ~ and that bailing out the banks always ends with tax payers paying the bill.

And speaking of taxpayers ~ where does half of the money that the IRS siphons off from the paychecks of its citizens in taxes every year go?

It’s the war machine and a subject that the financial news media is strangely silent about.
4 minute Video:


If you’re not angry, you’re on life support or another planet.

 

 

Posted in USA1 Comment

Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING