Archive | August 17th, 2012

Ecuador Defies UK/US Pressure, Gives Assange Asylum


Baher Azmy (CCR): International humanitarian law trumps extradition treaties




PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News Network. I’m Paul Jay in Baltimore.


On Thursday morning, the foreign minister of Ecuador, Ricardo Patiño, held a press conference where he announced that Ecuador would give Julian Assange political asylum. Here’s the gist of what he had to say.
RICARDO PATIÑO, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, ECUADOR (VOICEOVER TRANSL.): We have held in-depth talks with United Kingdom, Sweden, and the United States, and we have appealed to receive guarantees from the United Kingdom, strictest guarantees, so that Mr. Assange could face without obstacles the judicial process in Sweden, so that once those issues in Sweden were dealt with, that he would not be extradited to a third country. That’s what we have been seeking in Ecuador.

Sadly, and despite our repeated attempts, the United Kingdom at no moment accepted or showed any willingness to negotiate on that issue.

Mr. Assange’s lawyers requested to the Swedish authorities that they took his declarations at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Ecuador offered the Swedish authorities its willingness to make this meeting possible and to not create any obstacles whatsoever, so that that process in Sweden could be pursued. And this has been done before, and even in the case of Sweden they have done it before, but yet they did not accept. And we asked the Swedish government to guarantee that Mr. Assange would not be extradited to the United States, and again they rejected any such commitment to that.

Finally, Ecuador sent a communiqué to the United States to request to know their position related to the Assange case. And we asked, first, is there a legal process or the intention of a legal process against Mr. Assange in the United States and the founders of Wikileaks? Number two, in the event that that were the case, what type of legislation, under what conditions, and under what maximum penalties would those people be subjected? And third, is there the intention to seek Mr. Assange’s extradition to the United States? And the response from the United States has been that it cannot offer any guarantees.

With these precedents in mind, the Ecuadorian government, loyal to its tradition to protect those who seek refuge with us and in our diplomatic missions, has decided to grant diplomatic assignment to Mr. Assange.

JAY: Now joining us to discuss some of the issues arising out of this act by Ecuador and the response from the U.K. is Baher Azmy. He’s a lawyer and professor. He works for the Center for Constitutional Rights, where he is the director of legal issues. And he currently works out of New York. And he joins us from there. Thank you very much.


JAY: So the British response has been they will not let Julian Assange go, in spite of the fact that Ecuador has given him asylum. What’s your take on the legalisms of all of this?

ASMY: Well, there’s a legal component and a political component. The legal component is under the sort of applicable international law and human rights regime: a state is supposed to honor the decisions of another sovereign granting an individual asylum and not undertake any kind of political retribution as a result of that. Indeed, the whole asylum system would fall apart if in granting someone asylum a receiving country were to face political retribution from the sending country that was upset about it. But politically and [unintel.] problematically, this is a really kind of untoward show of force and bullying by the British government in not respecting the decisions of a sovereign country that they think—I guess, presume is not entitled to make this kind of sovereign decision.

JAY: Well, there’s two parts to this. The first part was: on the eve of this decision, the British threatened to actually storm the embassy under some British law that was apparently really developed to deal with embassies that might be harboring potential terrorists, and clearly Assange is not that. But the British, I guess, are also saying, well, they don’t think this is a political case; this is a misdemeanor or a criminal case arising out of Sweden, and that doesn’t deserve political asylum. Does not Britain have the right to make that determination?

AZMY: No, I don’t think so. I mean, there are two parts of the response. First, Assange is not suggesting that he fears extradition to—or he believes he will be persecuted by Sweden as such for the allegations relating to sexual impropriety. What he very credibly fears is that the Swedes would then very quickly turn him over to the United States government. And that is where he would assuredly face persecution for his political acts of whistleblowing and journalism and exposing U.S. government corruption and human rights violations. And so I do think there’s a very strong basis in the law for him to have asylum from the United States.

And the British have no authority other than sort of blowing up diplomatic relationships—again, power, not law—to enter into an embassy of a foreign sovereign. And I think they should be concerned about the political repercussions in other countries if they do that then.

JAY: Now, one thing is, if the United States can ask Sweden to extradite Assange, why can’t they just ask Britain to do it?

AZMY: Yeah, and this is an important question. I think there are a couple of powerful reasons why extradition from Britain is less likely, and, conversely, why extradition from Sweden is much easier. First, I think the treaty arrangements with Sweden provide for a kind of expedited extradition process with the United States, and so it would happen very quickly.

Relatedly, there is no bails in Sweden, so Mr. Assange would be in jail and would have a very difficult time asserting an asylum petition from Sweden.

And we should note, the Swedish record has been pretty bad on transferring individuals that the United States asks them to. They transferred an Egyptian national who had a very serious fear of torture to Egypt at the request of United States and the Egyptian government. This Egyptian—his name was Agiza—was then tortured by the Egyptian government.

And then the other reason is I think that the law in England would make it harder for him to be extradited directly from England because of the political nature of the U.S. extradition. And Mr. Assange has far more legal and political support in the U.K. And so I think all the parties recognize it would be very hard to extradite them directly from the U.K.

JAY: Which is why, then, Assange and his advisers think Sweden’s a more dangerous place to be. Now, what is the law on whether the U.K. has to allow Assange out or not? I was seeing today in the OAS, Organization of American States, signatories to that agreement actually have to let the person out if one of those states gives a person asylum. But there’s nothing so directly obligating Britain, is there?

AZMY: You know, that’s right. I’m not aware of any sort of particular treaty provision governing the safe passage—which isn’t to say it doesn’t exist, just I think this is a fairly novel problem that doesn’t often arise, because of the broader humanitarian principle at work here, which is that one government should respect another sovereign’s authority to grant somebody asylum. Remember, in the United States, the blind Chinese dissident Chen exiled themselves himself in the United States Embassy and applied for asylum there, and under these principles was granted safe passage outside of the embassy and to U.S. soil. [unintel.] that same humanitarian principle is what should govern here, instead of the sort of assertion of brute force that the British are thinking about.

JAY: And so, assuming the Brits don’t change their mind—and they’ve taken a strong public stand on Thursday that they would not let him out—what happens? Is this like the Polish case where he sits there for who knows how long?

ASMY: Yeah, I think it at that point becomes a diplomatic and political struggle, more so than a legal one. And it’s hard to see how this will play out. I mean, I don’t think the British government will look very good in this context. I think it looks a tad colonialist to not respect the decisions of Ecuadorian government. I imagine if you were in the U.S. Embassy the British would be far more accommodating. And again, the difference here is not law; its power and power relationships between the U.K. and their lack of respect for the judgments of the Ecuadorian government.

JAY: Now, in some of the American coverage of this—I was particularly thinking of The New York Times today, which takes various shots at Ecuador and at Assange. But what’s not coming clear in the coverage that most people are seeing—and it did come out from the press conference clip that we just showed, that Ecuador has offered the Swedes to come into the embassy and question Assange. I don’t quite get what is Sweden’s response to this. If the real objective is to question him, they could have done it when he was at large in the U.K., and they can do it now at the Ecuadorian Embassy. I mean, I don’t get how they respond. Why don’t they just go question him?

AZMY: That’s a very important point. I mean, what’s very clear is Assange, again, is not worried about a criminal process in Sweden as such, and therefore he has offered that the Swedes come to interview him for as long as they wanted in the U.K. And also as part of the negotiations, the Ecuadorian government asked Sweden—and surely the British knew about this—asked Sweden for assurances that if he were transferred to Sweden, Sweden would then not extradite him to the U.S. And Sweden refused to give those assurances. Had they given those assurances, I think the Ecuadorians would have rightly believed there wouldn’t be a basis for extradition, ’cause, again, what he’s scared about is a U.S. persecutory process, not a Swedish criminal justice process.

JAY: And, again, we’ve covered some of this on The Real News before, but it bears saying again: why does he think there is a process against him, himbeing Assange? What evidence is there that there is some kind of legal proceedings?

AZMY: So there is a—in addition to a fair amount of hysteria and sort of lynching mentality among politicians who routinely refer to him as a terrorist and a threat to national security, there is in fact a secret grand jury proceeding occurring at the district of Virginia where evidence is being taken against him, and even rumors that a secret indictment has already been issued. And we also know that the U.S. government isn’t talking about dusting off this 100-year-old law, the 1917 Espionage Act, which was enacted specifically by the Woodrow Wilson administration to crush political dissent and political opposition in World War I.

And so I think that’s a sort of fitting or a very symbolic example of the kind of persecution he would face, because ultimately what the U.S. regards as a crime is protected political activity. It’s journalistic activity. And the U.S. case law reveals that we routinely give asylum to foreigners seeking asylum to the United States for whistleblowing activity in their home country, because to expose corruption and human rights abuses from a political regime is important politically, important activity that’s protected by the Refugee Convention.

JAY: So if you put these two claims versus each other, Britain says they have a right to their due process; Sweden has a right to their process, they say; Ecuador says they have a sovereign right to grant asylum. In terms of international law and precedent, which argument trumps?

AZMY: As a general—there are, I think, some complications here because of the trilateral nature of this disagreement. But as a general matter, asylum law and the Refugee Convention, as well as the Convention Against Torture, trumps a government’s desire to extradite someone. That’s fairly [unintel.] I mean, if anyone is about to be extradited into a country where they will be persecuted, that person has a right to file an asylum petition with the transferring country, and the judge can block the extradition. So as a general matter, asylum trumps extradition.

JAY: Thanks very much for joining us.

AZMY: Thank you.


JAY: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.

Posted in UKComments Off on Ecuador Defies UK/US Pressure, Gives Assange Asylum

Mondoweiss Online Newsletter


Even ‘NYT’ says Israel is bluffing to play Obama

Aug 16, 2012

Philip Weiss

The idea that Israel is trying to bait the U.S. to attack Iran by threatening to do so itself is gaining hold in the US mainstream. In the Times, Jodi Rudoren hints at the purpose of the Israeli bellicosity:

“There is a window of opportunity,” said the official, Uzi Dayan, a former deputy chief of staff in the military. “This window is closing, but if the United States would be much clearer and stronger about the sanctions on one hand and about what can happen if Iran won’t make a U-turn — there is not a lot of time, but there is still time to make a difference.”

Mr. Dayan’s assessment seems to buttress the theory that the collective saber rattling is part of a campaign to pressure the Obama administration and the international community, rather than an indication of the imminence of an Israeli strike.

Robert Wright at the Atlantic says Israel is bluffing:

it’s yet more evidence that their hope is to get action out of Obama, not to bomb Iran themselves.

None of this means that Israel couldn’t possibly wind up bombing Iran in the next few months. Bluffs can be hard to back away from, and a bluff this loud makes for a particularly embarrassing climbdown. But the calculation seems to be that Obama, in high-anxiety pre-election mode, will deliver at least enough rhetoric–if only a more high-profile or in some other sense more binding articulation of things he’s already said–to make for a graceful climbdown.

Personally, I hope Obama doesn’t deliver.

At Foreign Policy, Steve Walt agrees:

The Israelis know that they cannot do the job themselves, and their larger aim is to keep attention riveted on Tehran (and not on settlement expansion) and to make sure that if war does come, the United States does the heavy lifting.

In short, all this war talk is a bluff, but one can scarcely blame Israel for employing a tactic that keeps working so well. It’s our fault we keep falling for it.

MJ Rosenberg calls it most directly:

To me, it is clear. Their entire game is to squeeze President Obama during the run-up to the presidential election. True, the tactic is not new but the urgency of the current campaign is unprecedented.

That is because the primary fear motivating Netanyahu and Barak is not of Iran. It is that President Obama will be re-elected and will, after November, be significantly more immune to their demands for more Iran sanctions, support for some future Israeli strike against Iran and even for U.S.-back-up should an Israeli strike not be able to finish the job. Then there is what former Prime Minister Golda Meir called the“shopping list” of whatever else the military and intelligence community wants from the United States at any given moment. Netanyahu and Barak know that the window to ask and to get could close in November so the name of the game is getting as much as possible now.

They may be right. President Obama will probably give Israel almost anything to prevent an attack on Iran during the election campaign, an attack that could quite conceivably crash the world economy and incidentally elect Israel’s preferred candidate, Mitt Romney. So now is the moment. ..

So here is my prediction. There will be no war any time soon. But Israel will be getting more and more goodies from President Obama between now and the election just to ensure it, and probably afterwards as well.

Video: Israeli youths violently detain Palestinian under eyes of soldiers

Aug 16, 2012

Annie Robbins

At Youtube: “Israeli soldiers out of uniform violently detaining a Palestinian at Checkpoint 56, Tel Rumeida, Hebron”

Abir Kopty of the Popular Struggle Coordination Committee states:

The video shows a group of soldiers out of uniform beating Abd-Elaziz Elfakhouri (20) who was protesting the detention of his colleague taken by the same group of soldiers, and dragged into a house.

The soldiers gathered around the man and started beating him. He was shortly pushed and shoved down the hill towards the same building where the soldiers were still holding Elfakhouri’s friend behind closed doors. Elfakhouri was dropped to the ground and dragged across the concrete.

More soldiers came to the area and started shoving people away declaring it a Closed Military Zone, as one soldier out of uniform tried to steal several witnesses’ cameras and passports. In one case the soldier managed to take one passport and ran down the hill hiding amongst other soldiers. The soldiers kept the passport for 35 minutes and then handed it over to Israeli police officers while saying “Make sure to write down his name for the airport, so he can’t come back here.”

Elfakhouri and his friend were eventually put in military jeeps and taken to the military base even though police were present.

Issa Amr, coordinator of Youth Against Settlements says: “This is not the first case, in the last month we documented cases of soldiers out of uniform beating and detaining Palestinians. Whether uniformed or not, there is no accountability to the soldiers; when a soldier killed a woman and her daughter in Gaza in 2009, he was only sentenced for 45 days. Soldiers get the message that they have a free hand.”

The report at Youtube from Palreports Khalil states the following:

A Palestinian man was detained by soldiers at checkpoint 56 and dragged into a house were they closed the door. Another Palestinian, a teenager, protested against this just as a group of soldiers out of uniform came jogging by. They immediately went for the young Palestinian protesting the detainment and started wrestling him to the ground in an efford to detain him as well. As they were wrestling him one soldier kicked him while another hit him with his hand. The soldiers proceded to carry him down the hill towards the same building where they still kept the first detained Palestinian behind closed doors. As they went they dropped the young Palestinian man to the ground but just kept on dragging him across the concrete. More soldiers came to the area and started shoving people away declaring it a Closed Military Zone (CMZ), but refusing to show the papers they are required to have in order to create a CMZ. One soldier out of uniform tried to steal several witnesses camera and passport and succeded in one case, after which he ran down the hill hiding amongst the other soldiers. The soldiers kept the passport for 35 minutes at which point they handed it over to the police, saying “Make sure to write down his name for the airport, so he can’t come back here”, referring to the many solidarity activists who has been registrered and banned from entering Israel. The two Palestinian men were put into military jeeps and taken to the military base even though the police were present.

Exile and the prophetic: Normalizing the Hitler Youth

Aug 16, 2012

Marc H. Ellis

This post is part 43 of Marc H. Ellis’s “Exile and the Prophetic” feature for Mondoweiss. To read the entire series visit the archive page.


Last night the program had a barbeque and a dance.  I stayed for both, though the music was so contemporary it didn’t have words or a danceable beat – at least for my taste.  The students like to observe the fact that their professor dances, a change in their perception of the talking head, so I attend dances in the programs where I teach.  Once I start dancing, it’s fun for everyone.  So why not collapse the age/thought divide for a night.  We return to sanity the following day. All is well.

During the barbeque a bombshell. One of the students in the larger group approached me with a rumor.  Had I heard that the buildings we use for the program had been a Hitler Youth camp during the war?  I was shaken by this and asked one of my Austrian students to check it out.  His immediate “so what” response interests me.  Obviously Austria was Nazified during the late 1930s and some of the buildings in Austria that stood and are still standing were used for whatever the Nazified Austrian government needed to carry on.  If all the buildings that had been used for Nazi programs were destroyed after the war, a massive building program would have ensued.  Much of Austria would have to be reconstructed.

Same and more for Germany.  So, as the research begins, does it matter, as in, should such a program such as this have its living and teaching quarters where Nazi youth were once trained in Hitler’s madness?  It should at least be known to all, I would think.  It certainly would reinforce my sense and my teaching that Europe isn’t free of history. The program would need to acknowledge that it too has a historical foundation.

Rumors of Nazi background.Rumors of genocide.  Some more reflection on Hillary Clinton’s address and the Atrocity Prevention Board set up by President Obama.  Timothy Snyder, our Bloodlands author, was quoted in the article, as knowing that global warming will bring episodes of mass death, a strong statement for sure and perhaps an accurate one.  A strange future for sure, though he also warns that superpowers like the United States and China will deflect the consequences of global warming from their shores.

What strikes me is how easy “mass death” roles off the tongue at the Holocaust museums of the world.  Politicians and intellectuals who are protected from the ravages of everything they predict for others.  At least for now. This, at the place where they mourn the past. Strange digs to predict the end of the world as we know it?

Returning to the Israel’s “Never Again” Drones and Germany on the “We Repent” prowl again. Everyone who is anyone are preparing for the Global Warming world where drones will monitor the earth for every movement of weather, food, armaments, you name it.  Monitoring for our security is the name of the Global Warming future.

This reminds me of the time I spoke at the Holocaust museum – itself a long story and one for another time.  The image I remember is a reception held for a conference that was being held at the same day I was speaking.  As I was brought to the reception and introduced all around, I noticed the food and the drinks were extensive and beautifully presented.

It was a lavish spread.  Noting that we were surrounded by Holocaust depictions and artifacts, I hesitated before partaking of the feast before me.  Of course, I had eaten earlier that day and would eat again.  I was also hungry.  The memory of the Holocaust had not interrupted my eating patterns.  Yet, right there, in the Holocaust museum, the feast before me and the hum of friendly interactions, I was caught up short.  When I mentioned this to my host he assured me that partaking of the food and conversation was appropriate.  He offered to help by gathering food for me.

Hitler Youth camps.Mass death rolling off our tongues.  Drones being manufactured, bought and sold.    Receptions at Holocaust museums.  Should all of this be normalized, as in, Marc, enjoy the food, would you like some tomato juice?

An earlier discussion in the program.I told the group that when a Palestinians comes to my home on Friday night, I will not light the Shabbat candles or say the blessings in front of them or that I was against my son, Isaiah, learning German as his college program’s foreign language – shall we say that it elicited controversy?  Obviously I was just sharing my perspective to provoke thought.  In light of everyone’s desire to normalize what shouldn’t exist in history or now, it may seem even more idiosyncratic.  Who cares about Shabbat and my son learning German?

Disturbing it is, though.  I suppose memorializing the dead and predicting more death is normal for the protected and the affluent, as in, we know it happened and is coming, let’s eat a sandwich and drink some coffee before we return to the continuing discussion, and, oh yes, Hillary Clinton’s keynote is next where she will note her husband’s failure as the Rwandan genocide unfolded.  Not a problem, he has already acknowledged it as he acknowledged and tried to bridge the Israel/Palestine gap.  President Clinton even attended Yitzhak Rabin’s funeral after he was assassinated as a friend and a man of peace without mentioning that Rabin was an ethnic cleanser.   Clinton normalized Rabin as the Hitler Youth camps, mass death in the future, drones galore, the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide – all of it rolling off our tongues so easily.

The Congo line. The Apartheid Wall.  Do you remember when no one thought the Wall could be built because the international community would stop it?  I remember people arguing that it was best that Israel start building the Wall precisely because the situation would be then so crystal clear that the whole Israel/Palestine affair would be resolved.  I was amazed and asked whether if the proponents of the Wall for the express purpose of exposing Israel had ever been ghettoized.  If they had ever watched their worlds being walled in as the international community was called upon to act.  Didn’t they realize that they were wrong, that if the record in the past of stopping Israel was a predictor then the Wall wouldn’t be stopped and that soon the world be on to other global hot spots? That the Wall would be normalized and that a people would be ghettoized as another fact on the ground?

Normalizing the once unthinkable. Mass death. The Apartheid Wall. So much before and after.  So much to come, it just rolls off the tongue.

The Hilter Youth. Pope Benedict time, a whole other story.  In the main building here, now being renovated, the crucified Jesus hangs on the wall where meals are eaten and in each room above the bed.  I mean vivid depictions of Jesus’ agony.  Were they there when the Nazis were around?

It seems that the Swastika and the Cross rarely clashed during the Nazi era.  When they did it sometimes had to do with Crucifixes on the wall.  Should they be removed or if they remained how vigorous did the churches support for the Nazis  have to be?

The Catholic Church coexisting and then normalizing the Nazis.The Cross and mass death.  Not synonymous.  Not in absolute opposition.

Scary stuff. The raw dough of history.

Where I am teaching now, receptions where plates of food were passed, then.

Dancing last night – on the graves of others.  Such is history.  If we don’t dance on the dead, there would be no place to dance.

Life goes on, Global Warming mass death rolling off our tongues.  Receptions will continue for the protected.  As with the Apartheid Wall.  Life goes on.

Even in majority-minority congressional district, Dem runs way right of Obama on Israel

Aug 16, 2012

Philip Weiss

Dan Halloran is a Republican City Councilman in New York City who is running for Gary Ackerman’s congressional seat in Queens and Long Island.

You’d think this is a safe Democratic district. According to the Almanac of American Politics for 2010, it was 29 percent Asian, 24 percent Hispanic, and 41 percent white. (40 percent Asian,per the NYT.)

But, big surprise, Halloran is now in Israel giving red meat quotes on standing by Israel and attacking Iran:

“The Arab Spring has turned into a nightmare in Egypt, where an Islamist government is coming into power, Syria is a complete mess, and of course Iran is on the brink of nuclear weapons,” he added.

And Halloran’s opponent Grace Meng, a liberal NY assemblywoman, is   running to Obama’s right, and Halloran’s right, on Israel. Check out her statement “Where Grace Meng Agrees and Disagrees with President Obama on Israel,” in the NY Jewish Week, in which she invokes the neoconservative red line: even an Iranian “capability” to produce nuclear weapons should bring us to war.

And she sells out the president on the ’67 lines! Reminder: there will be no Palestinian state, ever.

Although I truly believe President Barack Obama has had good intentions in his policies toward Israel, and has accomplished much in the region, there are several key respects where he could have been — and still can be — a greater friend to Israel.

With regard to the Iranian nuclear threat, the President needs to clarify that he will not allow Iran to become capable of developing a nuclear weapon. We cannot allow Iran to get within sprinting distance of developing a nuclear warhead that can be used against Israel. President Obama should make clear to Iran and the world that the United States will use military force against Iran’s nuclear program if Iran achieves nuclear weaponscapability. So there are no tragic mistakes on the world stage, there should be no misunderstanding on this point.

On the issue of negotiations with the Palestinians, the President was misguided in calling for a return to pre-1967 borders, and he was misguided in linking the freezing of West Bank housing construction to the advancement of peace negotiations. Furthermore, he should have visited Israel. The failure of the President’s peace initiative largely results from these missteps.

Several months ago the Times warned us this race would become “Israelapalooza,” on the heels of Robert Turner’s defeat of David Weprin in the Brooklyn congressional election. The Times said it was a competition for Jewish voters; which is to say, Jewish swing voters are hard right on Israel. I have to believe fundraising is also a big issue…

Israeli opposition leader accuses Netanyahu of trying to wag the dog

Aug 16, 2012

Philip Weiss

Two additions to Nima Shirazi’s inventory of Israeli efforts to push an American war with Iran. As Nima notes, the mainstream US press is not covering this stuff. Simply amazing.

First, from the Times of Israel, a report that Israel with David Axelrod is trying to broker a political commitment from Obama to attack Iran by next June.


American and Israeli officials are working to arrange a meeting between US President Barack Obama and  Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at which the White House will assure Israel that the US will use force to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons drive by next June at the latest if the Islamic Republic has not halted its program by then, Israel’s Channel 10 news reported on Tuesday night.

The meeting will take place in New York or Washington at the end of September or the very beginning of October, the report said. David Axelrod, senior strategist in Obama’s re-election campaign, is coordinating arrangements for the meeting, the report said.

The key formulation being discussed for Obama to assure Netanyahu is that the US “will attack Iran by June 2013″ if the Iranian nuclear weapons drive has not halted by then, the report said.

Next, a sanity check from Shaul Mofaz, the chairman of the opposition Kadima party in Israel, who attacks Netanyahu for promoting a war as a means of political intervention in the US election:

“Over the past few months, Israel has waged an extensive and relentless PR campaign with the sole objective of preparing the ground for a premature military adventure.”

“This PR campaign has deeply penetrated the ‘zone of immunity’ of our national security, threatens to weaken our deterrence, and our relations with our best friends. Mr. prime minister, you want a crude, rude, unprecedented, reckless, and risky intervention in the US elections. Tell us who you serve and for what? Why are you putting your hand deep into the ballot boxes of the American electorate?

‘I love the Jewish people’ is refrain in NYT homage to American Jews joining Israeli army

Aug 16, 2012

Philip Weiss

New York Times report on 127 American Jews going to serve in the Israeli army often reads like a promotion of the idea of dual loyalty. The word “love” is used 8 times in the piece, including in the headline, “Enlisting From Afar for the Love of Israel.” And the piece features this frankly-Israelist statement:

“Their motivation is often way higher than the average Israeli,” said Col. Shuli Ayal, who oversees the lone-soldier program. “They want to make their service as meaningful as possible.”

Did any of these people consider enlisting in the U.S. army? the Times doesn’t ask. Of 22-year-old Josh Warhit, an American Jew who is the focus of the piece, Marsha Cohen tells me: “If he were a Muslim and going anywhere else in the world, he’d be labeled a brainwashed jihadi.”

Here are the love references:

Enlisting From Afar for the Love of Israel

Josh Warhit: “I love the Jewish people. Love involves commitment.”

“I hope to spend my time in Israel protecting those I love, not torturing those who hate me,” Mr. Rechenbach, also 22, said in an e-mail interview ahead of the flight

“You want to teach your kids to love Israel, but you don’t want them necessarily to take you so literally,” his mother, Ilissa Warhit, said

“I love my family, I love my friends and I love the Jewish people.” [Warhit]

Do Americans who go serve in a foreign army lose their citizenship? Good question. Apparently that was once true, no longer. Note the rules from the State Dept. here, and an interpretation of dual citizenship here. Why didn’t the Times raise this issue? Is the occupation in American interests?

Not the book my Pekar promised me

Aug 16, 2012

Philip Weiss

Guernica has published an excerpt of the great Harvey Pekar’s posthumous volume on Zionism, Not the Israel My Parents Promised Me, and the promise of the title is undermined,just as I feared it would be, by the intervention of JT Waldman, a young Jew who serves as Pekar’s interlocutor in the discussion and who is constantly interjecting things like, Israel has no partner for peace; they left Gaza and got Katyusha rockets, I called a friend in Israel yesterday… Or, There must be an economic peace; give the Palestinians prosperity. These are propaganda points that a liberal Jew passes on with no awareness that they are tired old hasbara; and so the dialogue reminds us that our community– and when I say our I am putting on my Jewish hat– is reactionary on this question. Pekar (1939-2010) was a great irascible leftwing oddball who took on NBC when Letterman had him on air and who is lionized for that eruption. Yet his unvarnished thoughts on the new Jewish Question question could not be passed on without some Zionist sugarcoating. Tragic, really. And you ask how the Jewish leadership could marry apartheid? Because the conscience community was muzzled.


Points of no return, zones of immunity: The constant Israeli hype over Iran
Aug 16, 2012

Nima Shirazi

“For the greatest enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.”

– President John F. Kennedy, Yale University Commencement Address, June 11, 1962

“Propaganda by its very nature is an enterprise for perverting the significance of events and of insinuating false intentions…The propagandist will not accuse the enemy of just any misdeed; he will accuse him of the very intention that he himself has and of trying to commit the very crime that he himself is about to commit. He who wants to provoke a war not only proclaims his own peaceful intentions but also accuses the other party of provocation.”

– Jacques Ellul, Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes, 1965

A report in The Times of London, with the headline “Israel steps up plan for air attacks on Iran”, enumerates the various “options” and “military contingency plans” available to the Israeli military in order to “neutralise” Iran’s “nuclear weapons programme.”  Journalist Christopher Walker writes that Israeli “[m]ilitary planners are studying” the possibility of “hitting Iranian missile plants…with the ‘long arm’ of its airforce or targeting foreign scientists at the facilities rather than the buildings themselves.”  He adds that “surgical air strikes” would be carried out by “advanced F-15I fighter planes.”

The piece also quotes the Israeli Defense Minister as warning, “A country like Iran possessing such long range weaponry – a country that lacks stability, that is characterised by Islamic fundamentalism, by an extremist ideology that is striving to become a superpower in the Middle East – is very dangerous.”

Another alarming article, this one in The Washington Times, begins this way:

Reports that Israel is preparing for pre-emptive air strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities and is now able to fire nuclear missiles from submarines were seen as reflecting deep anxiety in Israel for Tehran’s nuclear program.

Israeli newspapers said officials appear to have leaked the reports in an attempt to focus the attention of the international community on the dangers of Iranian nuclear weapons development.

In The New York Times, Hebrew University professor Martin van Creveld writes of the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran, explaining, “With the United States now in the midst of a hotly disputed election campaign,” if the Israeli Prime Minister “wanted to act, the time to do so would be between now and November.”

The first report is from December 9, 1997.  The second from October 13, 2003.  The third was published on August 21, 2004.

It is now August 2012.  Another election cycle is nearing an end and with it as always comes the same tired fearmongering and war hysteria.  Threats and predictions of an unprovoked,illegal Israeli assault on Iran are once again flooding the media with dire warnings of fabricated and meaningless – but sufficiently spooky – phrases such as Iran’s supposedly looming “zoneof immunity,” which until recently was ominously dubbed the “point of no return.”  We’ve been through this charade for three decades with no end in sight.

Early this month, Israeli national security adviser Ephraim Halevy, who was once director of Mossad, was quoted as saying that if he were Iranian he “would be very fearful of the next 12 weeks.”  Meanwhile, Iranian diplomats continue to assert that the Islamic Republic has no intention of attacking Israel.  “We will react if there is any provocative act from the other side,” Mohammad Khazaee, Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations, told reporter Laura Rozen just a month ago. “We will not initiate any provocative steps.”

Iran’s defense doctrine has been reaffirmed at the highest levels of the U.S. intelligence community.  Earlier this year, Defense Intelligence Agency chief Ronald Burgess told the Senate Armed Services Committee that his agency continues to assess that “Iran is unlikely to initiate or intentionally provoke a conflict.”

On the very same day that the editors of the New York Daily News took their cues from Israeli ambassador to the United States Michael Oren to warn that “Tehran is on the verge of being able to produce a bomb,” a spokesman for the White House National Security Councilmaintained that U.S. intelligence “continue[s] to assess that Iran is not on the verge of achieving a nuclear weapon.”

Last week, reliable Netanyahu administration mouthpiece Barak Ravid reported in Ha’aretzthat “[n]ew intelligence information obtained by Israel and four Western countries indicates that Iran has made greater progress on developing components for its nuclear weapons program than the West had previously realized.”  He also published an article claiming that “President Barack Obama recently received a new National Intelligence Estimate report on the Iranian nuclear program, which shares Israel’s view that Iran has made surprising, significant progress toward military nuclear capability,” adding that the alleged report contains “new and alarming intelligence information about military components of Iran’s nuclear program.”

Not only was Ravid’s reporting – tactlessly and transparently planted by Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak – full of evidence-free claims by the MEK and over-hyped falsehoodsabout a secret detonation chamber and atomic particles washed away from an Iranian military installation legally off-limits to IAEA inspectors that have long been debunked, it’s mainscoop was immediately denied by the Obama administration.  In response to Ravid’s claims,Reuters reported a National Security Council spokesman as saying that “U.S. intelligence assessment of Iran’s nuclear activities had not changed since intelligence officials delivered testimony to Congress on the issue earlier this year.”  Both the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Ronald Burgess have consistently assessed that Iran is not building nuclear weapons.

Essentially confirming suspicions that he was the source of Ravid’s information, Ehud Baraktold Israel Radio,  “There probably really is such an American intelligence report…making its way around senior offices” in Washington that, “makes the Iranian issue even more urgent and (shows it is) less clear and certain that we will know everything in time about their steady progress toward military nuclear capability.”

That’s right: probably really.

Ehud Barak even resorted to totally inapplicable and inappropriate historical analogies toanonymously fear-monger about Iran.  Utilizing the ultimate in Zionist emotional blackmail and hasbara, Barak evoked the threat of Nazi Germany: “What happened in the Rhine in 1936 will be child’s play compared to what will happen with Iran,” he declared.

Seemingly responding to former Mossad head Meir Dagan’s January 2011 determination that Israel “should use military force only if it is attacked, or if it has ‘a sword at its neck,'” Barak also pulled the phony, back-up-against-a-corner, self-defense card: “The sword at our throat is a lot sharper than the sword at our throat before the Six-Day War,” he told Ha’aretz.

Neither of these claims makes any sense.  That Iran is not the industrialized, military powerhouse that Nazi Germany was, nor does it have any expansionist or genocidal goals, hardly merits attention.  With regard to the Six-Day War, Barak is hoping his audience knows nothing of history.  The Israeli attack on Egypt that began the war was not a preemptive act of self-defense, but rather an aggressive military action.  Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin even admitted in 1982, “In June 1967 we again had a choice.  The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us.  We must be honest with ourselves.  We decided to attack him.”  He added, “Who knows if there would have been an attack against us? There is no proof

Posted in Nova NewsletterComments Off on Mondoweiss Online Newsletter

Senator Jack B. Tenney’s long out of print report exposing the subversive 200,000 member Zionist extremist organization – The Order of B’nai B’rith

ADL Is Israel’s Jewish Spy Agency – By Ted Pike

The Anti Defamation League of B’nai B’rith

A Report by the late-U.S. Senator Jack B. Tenney

While the ADL bureaucracy emphasizes its Jewish character for defensive purposes it does not speak for American Jews. The political nature of its work is not revealed to the average Jewish contributor, and its activities in this field are carefully concealed from American Jewry and the general public under either ethnic or religious cloaks.

The fears and complexes of the Jew are exploited by the bureaucracies that control and direct the net-work of organizations set up in his name and ostensibly for his protection. The laws of America are not sufficient, he is told. There must be a multitude of committees and councils — a vast inter-locking series of organizations that will work for his interest alone.

The Anti-Defamation League is one of the most aggressive of these Jewish agencies. Through its exploitation methods in its appeals for funds many American Jews have become obsessed with the idea that all non Jews are either consciously and actively anti-Semitic or passive and potentially anti-Semitic. The scare-propaganda of the ADL, has served to perpetuate and intensify the persecution complex in the collective Jewish mind. Confidential material mailed to American Jews by organizations appealing for funds is marked “to be destroyed after reading” — thus creating an atmosphere of terrifying secrecy and pending doom: the futility of appealing to the ordinary governmental agencies, and effectually cutting the Jew off from his American fellows.

“It is currently estimated,” declares a spokesman for the Joint Jewish Appeal, “that 25%–or more than 20 million Americans–have an already rooted prejudice against their fellow citizens. Fourteen independent polls, conducted by impartial research organizations–reveal that out of every four adults questioned at least one has been infected with anti-Semitism. . . one is opposed to anti-Semitism. . . while a third. . . and a fourth are, as yet undecided.”

Thus 75 percent of the adult population, according to this statement, is either actively or potentially anti-Semitic. The one in four or 25 percent opposed to anti-Semitism–and this group must necessarily include the American Jewish population–indicates that nearly every adult Gentile American–including American Negroes–are actively or passively anti-Semitic. Whether the Jewish organizations behind theJewish Appeal intend to convey this impression is probably irrelevant, but the conclusion is inescapable.


Beyond the double doors of the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith is a single door. On it is lettered: “FACT FINDING, LEGAL AND INVESTIGATIVE DIVISIONS.”

Shall we enter?

“We are unwilling to guess about anti-Semitism” an ADL spokesman tells us. “The offices have long maintained a close watch on the activities of Democracy’s bigoted enemies.”

Despite the double-talk involved in the use of the term “Democracy” we understand what the spokesman is saying.

Our glance follows banks of filing cabinets and, for a moment, we believe we are in the Record Department of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Washington, D.C. Clerks are busy at the cabinets, sorting and filing papers.

Our ADL, spokesman is very frank and informative about the entire operation, although we find that we must occasionally interpret his propaganda double-talk in order to understand clearly. We are curious to examine some of the papers and cards contained in the banks of cabinets, but we are not afforded the opportunity. We are told that “carefully and painstakingly documented evidence” is piling up in these files.

“What does it tend to prove?” we inquired innocently.

“It proves that the amazing parallel between the Nazi climb to power in Germany and the present-day tactics of the enemies of human rights within our own borders can no longer be denied!” declares our guide.

His vehemence and emotionalism mark his sincerity. He apparently is a victim of his own propaganda. We know that he is talking about himself.

What is done with all the information on anti-Semitism contained in the ADL’s banks of filing cabinets?

We are shown a roomful of girls pounding away at typewriters. Automatic teletype tickets beat a machine-gun racket. Linotype machines pour out molded lines of metal words and phrases. We learn that the printing presses are disgorging tons of newsprint while hundreds of thousands of propaganda books roll through automatic binderies. Clerks and more clerks; busy telephone switchboards. Motion picture sets spring into action at the command of the brain center; Mitchell cameras swing into focus. Miles of film developing in laboratories. Newscasters and commentators at radio microphones; radio towers flashing the ADL’s propaganda to the four quarters of the globe. . .

All this to offset anti-Semitism, we are told.

“Ceaselessly, tirelessly,” boasts our guide, “through one of the largest mass education and public relation programs ever attempted by private groups, the “Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith and theAmerican Jewish Committee are engaged in an all-out determination. . .”

His voice is lost in the roar of the presses, the clatter of typewriters, linotype-machines and automatic teletype tickers.

We enter a door marked “PRESS DIVISION, FEATURE SERVICES.” A man is at a desk dictating to his secretary. He pays no attention to our presence.

“Release number 6155,” he dictates. “The following constitutes additional background material on. . .”

“What do the newspapers do with the material you feed them?” we ask.

“Information supplied to the newspapers reaches the public in the form of editorials,” is the answer.

We pass on through a door marked: “PRESS DIVISION, PULP SECTION.” We discover a large work table in the center of the room around which are several copy readers busily at work. The table is piled high with magazines, among which we see copies of “Famous Western Stories”, “Ideal Love,” and “Crack Detective Stories.”

We are not sure whether the copy readers are searching the pages of the magazines for tell-tale indications of anti-Semitism or cataloging the articles and stories planted by the ADL. We are informed, however, that the “Pulp Magazine Section” is charged with the responsibility of utilizing the pages of the pulps; planting stories and articles glamorizing the Jews. Our guide does not elaborate on how the job is done; whether or not the ADL articles and stories are ever returned with polite rejection slips.

“Pulp magazines,” he declares with a note of finality–”with their enormous circulation carry true stories of American-Jewish heroism in peace as well as in war.”

What other handful of private individuals in the world’s history has had such power at its fingertips? What other private organization can say with assurance that its propaganda reaches the public in the form of newspaper editorials; that it can utilize the pages of pulp magazines?

We are in another room.

“This is the ‘COMIC BOOK SECTION’,” we are told.

“Does the ADL plant propaganda in children’s Comic books?” we ask.

“Comic books,” our guide replies, ignoring the form of the question, “carry strips denouncing native fascists and their use of inter-group tension as a weapon against Democracy.”

The phraseology is reminiscent of the Daily People’s World and Daily Worker. . . “Native fascist,” “intergroup tension,” “Democracy”–brain-blinding slogans from the dialectical lexicon of Marx and Lenin.


We enter a studio through a door lettered “PRESS DIVISION CARTOON SECTION.” Men are working at drawing boards. Cartoons by Carl Rose and Eric Godall are prominently displayed on the walls.

“Cartoons are very useful,” explains our guide. “Some are prepared by the nation’s most popular artists and decorate the newspapers of the land–pointing the fingers of ridicule and scorn at bigotry and the purveyors of racial hatred.”

Passing on down the corridor we come to a door marked “PRESS DIVISION, BOOKS”. Our ADL spokesman tells us that the Book Section is charged with “exposing the fascist trick of using anti-Semitism in its ‘divide and conquer’ campaign.” We are told that efforts of the Book Section are reaching America’s bookshelves in ever-increasing numbers.

We observe some of the titles of the volumes that fill the book cases. “They Got the Blame,” “Out of the Many–One,” “We Who Are America,” “These Are Our Neighbors,” “Living Together in Today’s World,” ” Brother Town,” “United We Grow,” ” Strong as the People,” “This is Our Town,” “These Are Our Friends,” “Early American Life,” “This is Our Heritage,” “One God,” and “Under Cover.” One of the latest is “Danger on the Right.”

We hurried along to the “Research Division” and into the American Jewish Committee library. We are told that we are in “an arsenal of information”; that the library contains over twenty-one thousand volumes, and more than two million additional items dealing with Jewish problems and anti-Semitism in America.”

“And what is done with all this information?” we ask.

“A special division channels this authenticated material to that group of men and women whose opinions are certain to have a deciding effect on America’s future. . .”

We are now before a door on which is lettered “VETERANS DIVISION.”

“It is of vital importance,” our guide is explaining, “that the American veteran–he who has already risked his life in the struggle against fascism–has come face to face with it and knows it for what it is–should be forewarned of the same danger at home . . . so that he will not have to risk his life again. The fight is being carried on in the American LegionThe Veterans of Foreign Wars and other large Veteran’s organizations.”

No segment of American life seems to have been overlooked by the enterprising ADL and the American Jewish Committee.


“This Division,” our guide is saying, “works closely with both the C. I. O. and the A. F. of L. on the local as well as national scale, determined to prevent the promoter of inter-group tension from spreading their poison through these ranks.”

Our hurried visit to the “Book” section of the “PRESS DIVISION” gave us little opportunity to examine the full scope of the work of this department. We were shown the propaganda product and told that such volumes as “Under Cover,” “They Got the Blame,” etc., were reaching America’s bookshelves in ever-increasing numbers.

The ADL does not go in for book-burning as yet. Obviously such bonfires contemplate a degree of force only found in lawlessness or in the hands of a dictator. Pending such direct and conclusive action–or perhaps we should say in lieu of such action–the ADL indulges in what it calls “book-stifling“. Applied to books displeasing to ADL bureaucracy the “stifling” method appears to be quite as effective as applying the torch–perhaps more so, as it catches the books at the source, cutting off the channels of publicity and destroying retail markets.

The Conquest of a Continent” by Madison Grant is one example. “The book was driven from the market,” writes Mr. Franklin Hichborn. “Sales were not only restricted, they were stopped.”

How was it done?

The following is a letter signed by Richard E. Gutstadt, on ADL stationary, dated December 13, 1933 at Chicago:



Scribners & Sons have just published a book by Madison Grant entitled ‘The Conquest of a Continent.’ It is extremely antagonistic to Jewish interests. Emphasized throughout is the ‘Nordic superiority’ theory, and the utter negation of any ‘melting pot’ philosophy with regard to America.

Scribners, in a sales circular concerning the book, points to Herr Hitler as the man who has demonstrated the value of ‘racial purity’ in Germany. The Author insists that American development depends upon the elimination of unassimilable alien masses in our midst. This book is considered by some as even more destructive than Hitler’s ‘Mien Kampf.’ Mr. Grant also avers that, ‘national problems are in the end racial problems’.

We are interested in stifling the sale of this book. We believe that this can best be accomplished by refusing to be stampeded into giving it publicity. Every review or public criticism of a book of this character brings it to the attention of many who would otherwise know nothing of it. This results in added sales. The less discussion there is concerning it, the more sales resistance will be created.

We therefore appeal to you to refrain from comment on this book, which will undoubtedly be brought to your attention sooner of later. It is our conviction that a general compliance with this request will sound warning to other publishing houses against engaging in this type of venture.

We are not concerned with the merit or demerits of books. We are presently interested in HOW the ADL operates.

“THE FOREIGN LANGUAGE DIVISION” of the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith concerns itself with transmitting ADL propaganda into foreign languages and planting articles in the foreign language press.

“In addition,” explains our ADL spokesman and guide. “This division keeps a constant check on foreign language papers, representing some sixteen different languages. This check makes possible an accurate evaluation of trends of thought taken by this special group of America’s citizens;”

In the “RADIO DIVISION” we are told that “there is no single road to the American mind,” and “that every road must be utilized.” Consequently the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League make extensive use of radio. In 1946 an average of 216 individual radio stations broadcast ADL material daily. The average is alleged to have doubled since 1946.

“We reach all faiths,” declares our guide. “Programs like ‘The Battle of the Warsaw Ghetto’, starring Raymond Massey, and ‘Behold the Jew’, starring Aline McMahon, reach millions of Americans. . . Where material prepared by this division has been judged pertinent, it has been sought for use by programs such as ‘Kate Smith’‘We, The People’‘The Doctor Fights’‘Mr. District Attorney’‘Treasury Salute’,‘Reunion, U.S.A.’ and others enjoying the largest listening audience in the country!”


“What about other religious denominations?” we ask. “Are you able to get to them?”

“More than 8,000 thoughtful men of God of many Christian sects and denominations, disquieted by the hostility stirred up against the Jews, have been able–through this channel–to get the facts for their congregations–ammunition to help in their part of the fight against race hatred. Prominent among the men of religion concerned by this problem, is forward looking Rev. William C. Kernan, of the Institute for American Democracy.”

Our ADL spokesman speaks of the formation of the “Christian Friends of the Anti-Defamation League” as though the organization was a spontaneous movement prompted by “8,000 thought men of God of many Christian sects and denominations”– and that the ADL had nothing to do with its creation.

“This is one of the clearest signs,” he declares, “that all of America is slowly but surely becoming increasingly aware of the true nature of anti-Semitism– and the threat it constitutes to the country as a whole.”

We are becoming familiar with the propaganda tag-lines: “the threat it constitutes to the country as a whole“, “he who attacks one minority group attacks all groups.” In psychological warfare it is known as the AMALGAMATION method in wholesale quantities. “The Smith Act and the McCarran Act,” declare Communist Party propagandists, “are not really directed at the Communist Party! They are directed at labor organizations and minority groups!”

“Just what is the Institute for American Democracy?” we inquire.

“The Institute for American Democracy sponsors hard hitting Democratic propaganda, appearing on billboards from coast to coast. In the transportation systems of twenty-four cities sixteen thousand billboard messages are being displayed. Supplementing its billboard and car-card program, the Institute for American Democracy has produced a series of one-minute films–dramatizing its message, shown as part of the regular feature presentation in theaters patronized by people in all walks of life.”

We had run across this organization in our studies and had learned that it was, like the Institute for Democratic Education, a “front” or subsidized organization of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith. Our ADL friend would have liked us to believe that the two Institutes were independent of ADL control–just two organizations “cooperating fully in this vital battle against bigotry.”

“All of this must cost a lot of money,” we observe.

We catch sight of a door labeled “INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES” but our guide rushes us along without an explanation. We are before the department on “INTERCULTURAL ACTIVITIES.”

“This work in school systems,” says our guide, “is coordinated by a special division given over to the development of intercultural relation. Working specifically with the Bureau For Intercultural Education and with educators and leaders of all cultural groups, this division services public and parochial schools, teachers’ work shop, and the publishers of textbooks used in all school systems. The work of every division is subjected to constant tests to determine its effectiveness.”

We move rapidly down the corridor and pause at an oak-paneled door labeled “INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH.”

“The division of Scientific Research and Analysis,” our guide is telling us, “uses campus-tested techniques in measuring the value of methods employed. Trained sociologists–experts in the field of inter-group tensions–are employed and based on findings, constant revisions of conception and approach are made.”

Without pausing in his running account of AJC and ADL activities our guide pauses before another door on which is lettered “COMMUNITY SERVICE DIVISION.”

“It remains for the Community Service Division”–pointing to the door–”to assure that this vast national program will reach every single one in the country.”

Leading us to another door marked “SPEAKERS BUREAU”, he continues:

“One means of accomplishing this is the maintenance of a Speakers’ Bureau. . . which furnishes more than 7,000 Rotary, Kewanis, and other types of audiences with speakers of national reputation, carrying the message of Democracy into individual communities. Spread coast to coast, the community Service Division is subdivided into 14 regional offices, and maintains an additional 2,000 key men in 1,000 cities through the country.”

“What do these 2,000 key men do?” we ask innocently.

“They helped handle more than 4,000 individual cases of anti-Semitism during the past year. TheAmerican Jewish Committee and and the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith are forming a protective shield across the nation. . . The fight costs money. Full continuation of it requires contributions . . . I shall not insult your intelligence by repeating countless reasons why you should contribute to this year’s Joint Defense Appeal. Suffice it to say that as JEWS you will want to give. As AMERICANS you can do no less. It is your duty!”

An example of the technique of Jewish exploitation of Jews is a letter dated July 7, 1962 on the letterhead of the United Jewish Welfare Fund, addressed to Jewish insurance underwriters.

The letter follows:

Dear Fellow-Underwriter:

May I apologize for our failure to contact you personally relative to your contribution  to the United Jewish Welfare Fund? I know you will understand because we, like you, have a living to make.

Although the worthiness and the need of this cause need no amplifying, let me give you one example—the attached is a true and shocking story. It touches everyone of us, whether we are in Life, Casualty or any other type of insurance business. The anti-Semites who publish the dangerous filth described herein are well-financed. They have no trouble raising funds. But the source of funds to combat them–your United Jewish Welfare Fund—finds it much harder to get support.

We are critically behind schedule in meeting this year’s minimum quota, not only to combat anti-Semitism, but to support such other agencies as: taking care of the Jewish needs of men and women in uniform: supporting over 30 of our local agencies, saving lives of Jews in Israel, Europe and the Moslem World.

Will you do your part? At this writing your contribution has not been received. I join with your colleagues in the Insurance Division in urging that you read the attached folder, then promptly make your gift to the United Jewish Welfare Fund—and make it generous enough to enable us to conquer the hate that threatens us all.

Your pledge card is enclosed. Sign it for the maximum amount, keeping in mind that you may pay your contribution in monthly or quarterly installments. Please take care of this matter today so that we may all go back to the business of selling insurance.

Enclosed with the letter is an expensive–and alarming–five page folder. In red and white ominous lettering against a black background is the legend “Violence Against The Jew.” Superimposed over a mass of wriggling arrow-pointed white lines is a red curling, snake-like figure. The overall effect is designed to be frightening. The recipient of the folder is led to believe that the drawing is the work of some sinister, blood-thirsty anti-Semite rather than the propaganda “art-work” of the United Jewish Welfare Fund.

Reproduced throughout the folder are the title pages of a number of booklets dealing with Jewish Questions. Not a single title page reproduced indicates violence against the Jews. The overall effect of the folder, however, conveys the terrifying idea that all Jews are in deadly peril.

The second page of the folder warns: “Make no mistake: On every side there is danger to our homes and families.” The word “danger” is in inch-high, blood-red quivering letters.

The psychological reaction to this sort of propaganda is obvious. The average uninformed American Jew is immediately confronted with visions of pogroms and mob violence–terrorized by the thought that the ordinary protections of government will be denied him–that only the Jewish agencies stand between him and doom!


We were back in the clear, clean air of America as the double doors marked American Jewish Committee and Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith close behind us. We had just seen the inside working of a private espionage and propaganda agency an agency organized with and maintained by private contributions; the nerve center of a world-wide net-work whose tentacles reach into every Gentile activity.

In the “Fact-Finding, Legal and Investigative Divisions” we learned of the organizations’ second (and perhaps most important) activity–the collection of files on so-called “anti-Semites”. We had a glimpse of the extensive rows of cabinets containing data on thousands of individuals who, for one reason or another, qualify by ADL standards as anti-Jewish, actually or potentially, YOUR name may be included.

The Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith and the American Jewish Committee do not have any excuse whatever for their operations. Their secret agents spy upon American citizens. They penetrate the political field injecting racism into political campaigns. Through their multitudinous controls of the media of communication they are capable of destroying reputations and silencing all rebuttal. By “book-stifling” and the American Jewish Committee technique of “quarantine” (silent-treatment), critics are denied a public audience for either attack or defense.

The amazing part of the whole sordid story is the fact that Americans–including American Jews–know so little about it. Those who have had occasion to learn a little of ADL and AJC operations are fearful to do or say anything about them. Legislators who have some knowledge of the facts are fearful of taking any action because they well know that they would be smeared as “anti-Semites” in the next election. No newspaper will risk its advertising contracts by telling the story.

The Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith is probably the largest and most efficient private gestapo in the world today and, without doubt, the largest of its kind in the history of the world. And–amazing as it may be–this vast interlocking system of departments, sections and divisions is devoted to but one issue–and only one issue despite propaganda to the contrary–political conquest in the name of Racism!

The international character of the network of Zionist organizations is obvious. Among the hundreds of American Jewish organizations flourishing in the United States today, only one stands out clearly as basically American. The American Council for Judaism has had the courage to proclaim its political loyalty to the United States, and its spiritual loyalty to Judaism. It has met with abuse and condemnation at the hands of the Zionists for its patriotism. Ignoring vicious attacks it dares stand for what is best for the United States rather than what is best for Israel. It dares plead justice for the Arabs.

We are beginning to understand something of the magnitude of the ADL’s operations. We are beginning to appreciate its vast spy-network sprawling across the nation and throughout the world. Our imagination is staggered by it apparent control of the avenues of communications. We pause to remember that we are dealing with a private organization, financed by contributions wrung from American Jews–American Jews cut off from the healthy intercourse of American life by the alarm-trumpets of fear and suspicion.

We remember the provocative phrases of our ADL spokesman: “native fascists”, “racial hatred”, “anti-Semites”, etc., and we suddenly recall that He who loved all mankind said: “These Things I Command You , That Ye Love One Another.” We ponder the psychological reaction of one who is branded “a native fascist” and a “bigot“; whether or not such a person is hardened in his bigotry or suddenly transformed into the quintessence of brotherly love. Robert Herrick paraphrased Ausionius when he declared that “love begets love.” It would appear that the ADL is more motivated by Econchar Lebrun-Pindare’s harsh admonition “let us be brothers–or I’ll cut your throat“, than the gentle command to “love one another.”

Senator Jack B. Tenney circa 1943

During the 1940s Senator Jack Tenney was the head of the Un-American Activities Committee for the State of California, his patriotic work made him one of the most knowledgeable people in the world concerning the operations of the Zionist-Communist network.

Over the years Senator Tenney wrote several authoritative books on Zionist power: The Zionist Fifth Column; The Zionist Network; and Zion’s Trojan Horse just to name a few, along with several other shorter reports, (all long out of print).

Senator Jack Tenney’s 1960s report as posted above was resurrected from these photo copies.

Alternate link for Rev. Ted Pike’s Youtube clip on the ADL here: — Staff

Posted in USAComments Off on Senator Jack B. Tenney’s long out of print report exposing the subversive 200,000 member Zionist extremist organization – The Order of B’nai B’rith

Investigative Journalist Seymour Hersh: Jewish Money Controls Politics


‘Jewish Money’ Controls Presidental Candidates and is Behind Push for War

Democracy Now (Exerpt)

AMY GOODMAN: Sy Hersh, I wanted to switch gears for the last question, and this has to do with it not just being Republicans who are sounding a drumbeat for war. The three leading Democratic presidential candidates — Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards — have all declared no options off the table. This is a clip from last week’s Democratic debate. It was the day the Senate approved a controversial resolution calling on the State Department to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. At the debate, Democratic presidential hopeful Mike Gravel bitterly criticized Hillary Clinton for voting in favor.

MIKE GRAVEL: This is fantasy land. We’re talking about ending the war. My god, we’re just starting a war right today. There was a vote in the Senate today. Joe Lieberman, who authored the Iraq resolution, has authored another resolution, and it is essentially a fig leaf to let George Bush go to war with Iran. And I want to congratulate Biden for voting against it, Dodd for voting against it, and I’m ashamed of you, Hillary, for voting for it. You’re not going to get another shot at this, because what’s happened, if this war ensues, we invade, and they’re looking for an excuse to do it. And Obama was not even there to vote.

TIM RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, I want to give you a chance to respond.


AMY GOODMAN: That was Hillary Clinton laughing. Fifteen seconds, Seymour Hersh. Your response?

SEYMOUR HERSH: Money. A lot of the Jewish money from New York. Come on, let’s not kid about it. A significant percentage of Jewish money, and many leading American Jews support the Israeli position that Iran is an existential threat. And I think it’s as simple as that. When you’re from New York and from New York City, you take the view of — right now, when you’re running a campaign, you follow that line. And there’s no other explanation for it, because she’s smart enough to know the downside.

AMY GOODMAN: And Obama and Edwards?

SEYMOUR HERSH: I — you know, it’s shocking. It’s really surprising and shocking, but there we are. That’s American politics circa 2007.

AMY GOODMAN: Seymour Hersh, thank you very much for being with us, a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist. His piece in theNew Yorker is called “Shifting Targets: The Administration’s Plan for Iran.”

Full Video and Transcript

Posted in USAComments Off on Investigative Journalist Seymour Hersh: Jewish Money Controls Politics

Iran’s President Did Not Say “IsraHell must be wiped off the map”


Iran’s President Did Not Say “Israel must be wiped off the map”
by Arash Norouzi

A introductory commentary by David Duke
As America gets closer and closer to a catastrophic war with Iran, the justification for proposing this insane war for Israel is that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that he will “wipe Israel off the map.” This colossal lie is combined with the lie that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. The implication is that unless Israel, the United States, or both attack Iran — that Iran will use nuclear weapons to create a “Holocaust” against the Jewish people of Israel.

First, as these excerpts from Arash Norouzi show clearly, the Iranian president said no such thing. He said he believed there would be regime change in Israel just as he specifically referred to the fact there was regime change in the Soviet Union. Obviously the people of Russia were not genocided by the regime change, they were liberated by it! Furthermore, he did not threaten that he would attack Israel or that he would make this regime change, he simply said he believed that a the Zionist regime would be ended. In a speech I heard in his presence in Tehran, the President was again quoted as saying he would “wipe Israel off the map.” That too was another big lie. In actual fact, he said once more that he believed the Zionist regime would fall as the Soviet Regime did in Russia. He specifically said that the civil and human rights of both Jews and Palestinians must be protected. In addition, on the matter of nuclear energy the Iranian President has repeatedly stated that his government will not pursue nuclear weapons. Iran has been a member of the UN covenants on nuclear energy and has allowed inspections of its facilities to show that it makes peaceful use of nuclear power generation. The head of the UN inspectors has also said he has seen no evidence of Iran having a nuclear weapons program.

The world is in the middle of a Jewish extremist media campaign of lies and hate against Iran and its President. The false translation of wiping Israel off the map has been repeated in literally thousands of articles and media statements and is used every day to justify an Israeli-induced American attack against Iran. The same Jewish extremists who got us involved in the catastrophic American war for Israel in Iraq now seek to get us involved in an even bigger disaster in Iran. If they will be succeed in starting this war it will lead to an American and a world economic depression. It will the fires of terrorism beyond anything that we have ever known. We must do everything we possibly can to prevent this coming apocalypse

Just as in the Iraq War they are using lies, lies and more lies to do it.

Iran’s President Did Not Say “Israel must be wiped off the map”

Across the world, a dangerous rumor has spread that could have catastrophic implications. According to legend, Iran’s President has threatened to destroy Israel, or, to quote the misquote, “Israel must be wiped off the map”. Contrary to popular belief, this statement was never made, as this article will prove.


On Tuesday, October 25th, 2005 at the Ministry of Interior conference hall in Tehran, newly elected Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered a speech at a program, reportedly attended by thousands, titled “The World Without Zionism”. Large posters surrounding him displayed this title prominently in English, obviously for the benefit of the international press. Below the poster’s title was a slick graphic depicting an hour glass containing planet Earth at its top. Two small round orbs representing the United States and Israel are shown falling through the hour glass’ narrow neck and crashing to the bottom.
Before we get to the infamous remark, it’s important to note that the “quote” in question was itself a quote— they are the words of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, the father of the Islamic Revolution. Although he quoted Khomeini to affirm his own position on Zionism, the actual words belong to Khomeini and not Ahmadinejad. Thus, Ahmadinejad has essentially been credited (or blamed) for a quote that is not only unoriginal, but represents a viewpoint already in place well before he ever took office.


So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in farsi: “Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad.”

That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word “Regime”, pronounced just like the English word with an extra “eh” sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase “rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods” (regime occupying Jerusalem).

So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want “wiped from the map”? The answer is: nothing. That’s because the word “map” was never used. The Persian word for map, “nagsheh”, is not contained anywhere in his original farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase “wipe out” ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran’s President threatened to “wipe Israel off the map”, despite never having uttered the words “map”, “wipe out” or even “Israel”.


The full quote translated directly to English:

“The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time”.

Word by word translation:

Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).

Here is the full transcript of the speech in farsi, archived on Ahmadinejad’s web site


While the false “wiped off the map” extract has been repeated infinitely without verification, Ahmadinejad’s actual speech itself has been almost entirely ignored. Given the importance placed on the “map” comment, it would be sensible to present his words in their full context to get a fuller understanding of his position. In fact, by looking at the entire speech, there is a clear, logical trajectory leading up to his call for a “world without Zionism”. One may disagree with his reasoning, but critical appraisals are infeasible without first knowing what that reasoning is.

In his speech, Ahmadinejad declares that Zionism is the West’s apparatus of political oppression against Muslims. He says the “Zionist regime” was imposed on the Islamic world as a strategic bridgehead to ensure domination of the region and its assets. Palestine, he insists, is the frontline of the Islamic world’s struggle with American hegemony, and its fate will have repercussions for the entire Middle East.

Ahmadinejad acknowledges that the removal of America’s powerful grip on the region via the Zionists may seem unimaginable to some, but reminds the audience that, as Khomeini predicted, other seemingly invincible empires have disappeared and now only exist in history books. He then proceeds to list three such regimes that have collapsed, crumbled or vanished, all within the last 30 years:

(1) The Shah of Iran- the U.S. installed monarch
(2) The Soviet Union
(3) Iran’s former arch-enemy, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein

In the first and third examples, Ahmadinejad prefaces their mention with Khomeini’s own words foretelling that individual regime’s demise. He concludes by referring to Khomeini’s unfulfilled wish: “The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time. This statement is very wise”. This is the passage that has been isolated, twisted and distorted so famously. By measure of comparison, Ahmadinejad would seem to be calling for regime change, not war.

Global Research

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, IranComments Off on Iran’s President Did Not Say “IsraHell must be wiped off the map”

Clarity: Satanic Cult, the Illuminati Mankind



I’ve said this all before. When dealing with cognitive dissonance,
the simple truth has to be stated and restated.

by Henry Makow Ph.D.

Humanity has been colonized by a satanic cult, the Illuminati. Mankind is satanically possessed. 

We are under constant psychological attack  from an unseen occult enemy. Society already bears the shackles of “political correctness,” a Communist Party concept.

Certainly, this is not the picture presented by the mass media. The Illuminati use the mass media to deceive and degrade us.

The Illuminati are the Cabalist Jewish central bankers and their vast network of Freemasons who control business cartels, governments, intelligence agencies, churches, think tanks.. virtually everything of importance

They are using debt to enslave the human race under a Satanic dispensation. Look at the Olympics occult symbolism if you doubt this. (More here.)

The Illuminati are responsible for Communism, (the State is a surrogate that allows the bankers to own everything.) Communism belongs to the same satanic cult.

In the West, Communist objectives are advanced under the rubric of “Liberalism.”  

In the Protocols of Zion, the Cabalist bankers say they must undermine “all collective identity except our own.”  The four legs of human identity are religion, race, nation and family.

They undermine family by sabotaging gender roles and the institution of marriage.

They introduce “sexual liberation,” “feminism,” “gay rights” and “gay marriage” to destroy heterosexual norms and institutions.

Who can deny they have done this? Who can deny they are the real “haters” spoiling the lives of millions?  

They spin this as “progress,” “social change,” “freedom from repression,” “independence.”  They make it seem spontaneous and grass roots when in fact it is contrived elite social engineering.

Who would attack the love between husband and wife by teaching women that men are rapists and marriage is “oppressive”? Satanists.

Who would deny that a woman needs the support of a husband to raise  children? Satanists. (Forty per cent of children are born to single mothers in the USA today.)

Who would deny that a child needs to be raised by a loving mother not a “care-giver”? Satanists.

Who would deny a child the regular presence of a father?  Satanists.

Who would redefine the institution of marriage, sacred to 98% of the population, to accommodate less than.5% ? Satanists.

Anyone who denies the existence of God and a natural and moral order has taken the first step to becoming a Satanist. Atheism is on the rise in the US.


The Satanist (i.e. Illuminati) goal is to turn the natural and moral order on its head, to somehow negate for humans the gender difference that defines the whole natural world.  The goal is to thumb their nose at the Creator using every form of unnatural and depraved behavior.

Thus, they attack everything that is wholesome and natural, pure and good.

They practice and promote sickness, war, dysfunction and deviance for their own sakeThey promote promiscuity, pedophilia, pornography, and eventually bestiality.

Just as a true Christian might practise his religion by doing good, they worship Satan by doing what is depraved.


War. Only a Satanist could start one.

They call it changing the world.”  They are “change agents.”

But is the world getting better?

No, because “changing the world”  actually means change along satanic lines. That, to them, is the meaning of “progress.”


Related- Makow – Liberal Jews, Sex & the New S

Posted in Education, PoliticsComments Off on Clarity: Satanic Cult, the Illuminati Mankind

The Global 1%: Exposing the Transnational Ruling Class

By Prof. Peter Phillips and Kimberly Soeiro
Global Research
This study asks: Who are the the world’s One percent power elite?And to what extent do they operate in unison for their own private gains over benefits for the 99 percent?We examine a sample of the 1 percent: the extractor sector, whose companies are on the ground extracting material from the global commons, and using low-cost labor to amass wealth. These companies include oil, gas, and various mineral extraction organizations, whereby the value of the material removed far exceeds the actual cost of removal.We also examine the investment sector of the global 1 percent: companies whose primary activity is the amassing and reinvesting of capital. This sector includes global central banks, major investment money management firms, and other companies whose primary efforts are the concentration and expansion of money, such as insurance companies.

Finally, we analyze how global networks of centralized power—the elite 1 percent, their companies, and various governments in their service—plan, manipulate, and enforce policies that benefit their continued concentration of wealth and power. We demonstrate how the US/NATO military-industrial-media empire operates in service to the transnational corporate class for the protection of international capital in the world.

The Occupy Movement has developed a mantra that addresses the great inequality of wealth and power between the world’s wealthiest 1 percent and the rest of us, the other 99 percent. While the 99 percent mantra undoubtedly serves as a motivational tool for open involvement, there is little understanding as to who comprises the 1 percent and how they maintain power in the world. Though a good deal of academic research has dealt with the power elite in the United States, only in the past decade and half has research on the transnational corporate class begun to emerge.[i]

Foremost among the early works on the idea of an interconnected 1 percent within global capitalism was Leslie Sklair’s 2001 book, The Transnational Capitalist Class.[ii] Sklair believed that globalization was moving transnational corporations (TNC) into broader international roles, whereby corporations’ states of orgin became less important than international argreements developed through the World Trade Organization and other international institutions. Emerging from these multinational corporations was a transnational capitalist class, whose loyalities and interests, while still rooted in their corporations, was increasingly international in scope. Sklair writes:

The transnational capitalist class can be analytically divided into four main fractions: (i) owners and controllers of TNCs and their local affiliates; (ii) globalizing bureaucrats and politicians; (iii) globalizing professionals; (iv) consumerist elites (merchants and media). . . . It is also important to note, of course, that the TCC [transnational corporate class] and each of its fractions are not always entirely united on every issue. Nevertheless, together, leading personnel in these groups constitute a global power elite, dominant class or inner circle in the sense that these terms have been used to characterize the dominant class structures of specific countries.[iii]

Estimates are that the total world’s wealth is close to $200 trillion, with the US and Europe holding approximately 63 percent. To be among the wealthiest half of the world, an adult needs only $4,000 in assets once debts have been subtracted. An adult requires more than $72,000 to belong to the top 10 percent of global wealth holders, and more than $588,000 to be a member of the top 1 percent.  As of 2010, the top 1 percent of the wealthist people in the world had hidden away between $21 trillion to $32 trillion in secret tax exempt bank accounts spread all over the world.[iv] Meanwhile, the poorest half of the global population together possesses less than 2 percent of global wealth.[v] The World Bank reports that, in 2008, 1.29 billion people were living in extreme poverty, on less than $1.25 a day, and 1.2 billion more were living on less than $2.00 a day.[vi] reports that 35,000 people, mostly young children, die every day from starvation in the world.[vii] The numbers of unnecessary deaths have exceeded 300 million people over the past forty years. Farmers around the world grow more than enough food to feed the entire world adequately. Global grain production yielded a record 2.3 billion tons in 2007, up 4 percent from the year before—yet, billions of people go hungry every day. describes the core reasons for ongoing hunger in a recent article, “Corporations Are Still Making a Killing from Hunger”: while farmers grow enough food to feed the world, commodity speculators and huge grain traders like Cargill control global food prices and distribution.[viii] Addressing the power of the global 1 percent—identifying who they are and what their goals are—are clearly life and death questions.

It is also important to examine the questions of how wealth is created, and how it becomes concentrated. Historically, wealth has been captured and concentrated through conquest by various powerful enities. One need only look at Spain’s appropriation of the wealth of the Aztec and Inca empires in the early sixteenth century for an historical example of this process. The histories of the Roman and British empires are also filled with examples of wealth captured.

Once acquired, wealth can then be used to establish means of production, such as the early British cotton mills, which exploit workers’ labor power to produce goods whose exchange value is greater than the cost of the labor, a process analyzed by Karl Marx in Capital.[ix] A human being is able to produce a product that has a certain value. Organized business hires workers who are paid below the value of their labor power. The result is the creation of what Marx called surplus value, over and above the cost of labor. The creation of surplus value allows those who own the means of production to concentrate capital even more. In addition, concentrated capital accelerates the exploition of natural resources by private entrepreneurs—even though these natural resources are actually the common heritage of all living beings.[x]

In this article, we ask: Who are the the world’s 1 percent power elite? And to what extent do they operate in unison for their own private gains over benefits for the 99 percent? We will examine a sample of the 1 percent: the extractor sector, whose companies are on the ground extracting material from the global commons, and using low-cost labor to amass wealth. These companies include oil, gas, and various mineral extraction organizations, whereby the value of the material removed far exceeds the actual cost of removal.

We will also examine the investment sector of the global 1 percent: companies whose primary activity is the amassing and reinvesting of capital. This sector includes global central banks, major investment money management firms, and other companies whose primary efforts are the concentration and expansion of money, such as insurance companies.

Finally, we analyze how global networks of centralized power—the elite 1 percent, their companies, and various governments in their service—plan, manipulate, and enforce policies that benefit their continued concentration of wealth and power.

The Extractor Sector: The Case of Freeport-McMoRan (FCX)

Freeport-McMoRan (FCX) is the world’s largest extractor of copper and gold. The company controls huge deposits in Papua, Indonesia, and also operates in North and South America, and in Africa. In 2010, the company sold 3.9 billion pounds of copper, 1.9 million ounces of gold, and 67 million pounds of molybdenum. In 2010, Freeport-McMoRan reported revenues of $18.9 billion and a net income of $4.2 billion.[xi]

The Grasberg mine in Papua, Indonesia, employs 23,000 workers at wages below three dollars an hour. In September 2011, workers went on strike for higher wages and better working conditions. Freeport had offered a 22 percent increase in wages, and strikers said it was not enough, demanding an increase to an international standard of seventeen to forty-three dollars an hour. The dispute over pay attracted local tribesmen, who had their own grievances over land rights and pollution; armed with spears and arrows, they joined Freeport workers blocking the mine’s supply roads.[xii] During the strikers’ attempt to block busloads of replacement workers, security forces financed by Freeport killed or wounded several strikers.

Freeport has come under fire internationally for payments to authorities for security. Since 1991, Freeport has paid nearly thirteen billion dollars to the Indonesian government—one of Indonesia’s largest sources of income—at a 1.5 percent royalty rate on extracted gold and copper, and, as a result, the Indonesian military and regional police are in their pockets. In October 2011, the Jakarta Globe reported that Indonesian security forces in West Papua, notably the police, receive extensive direct cash payments from Freeport-McMoRan. Indonesian National Police Chief Timur Pradopo admitted that officers received close to ten million dollars annually from Freeport, payments Pradopo described as “lunch money.” Prominent Indonesian nongovernmental organization Imparsial puts the annual figure at fourteen million dollars.[xiii] These payments recall even larger ones made by Freeport to Indonesian military forces over the years which, once revealed, prompted a US Security and Exchange Commission investigation of Freeport’s liability under the United States’ Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

In addition, the state’s police and army have been criticized many times for human rights violations in the remote mountainous region, where a separatist movement has simmered for decades. Amnesty International has documented numerous cases in which Indonesian police have used unnecessary force against strikers and their supporters. For example, Indonesian security forces attacked a mass gathering in the Papua capital, Jayapura, and striking workers at the Freeport mine in the southern highlands. At least five people were killed and many more injured in the assaults, which shows a continuing pattern of overt violence against peaceful dissent. Another brutal and unjustified attack on October 19, 2011, on thousands of Papuans exercising their rights to assembly and freedom of speech, resulted in the death of at least three Papuan civilians, the beating of many, the detention of hundreds, and the arrest of six, reportedly on treason charges.[xiv]

On November 7, 2011, the Jakarta Globe reported that “striking workers employed by Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold’s subsidiary in Papua have dropped their minimum wage increase demands from $7.50 to $4.00 an hour, the All-Indonesia Workers Union (SPSI) said.”[xv] Virgo Solosa, an official from the union, told the Jakarta Globe that they considered the demands, up from the (then) minimum wage of $1.50 an hour, to be “the best solution for all.”

Workers at Freeport’s Cerro Verde copper mine in Peru also went on strike around the same time, highlighting the global dimension of the Freeport confrontation. The Cerro Verde workers demanded pay raises of 11 percent, while the company offered just 3 percent.

The Peruvian strike ended on November 28, 2011.[xvi] And on December 14, 2011, Freeport-McMoRan announced a settlement at the Indonesian mine, extending the union’s contract by two years. Workers at the Indonesia operation are to see base wages, which currently start at as little as $2.00 an hour, rise 24 percent in the first year of the pact and 13 percent in the second year. The accord also includes improvements in benefits and a one-time signing bonus equivalent to three months of wages.[xvii]

In both Freeport strikes, the governments pressured strikers to settle. Not only was domestic militrary and police force evident, but also higher levels of international involvement. Throughout the Freeport-McMoRan strike, the Obama administration ignored the egregious violation of human rights  and instead advanced US–Indonesian military ties. US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, who arrived in Indonesia in the immediate wake of the Jayapura attack, offered no criticism of the assault and reaffirmed US support for Indonesia’s territorial integrity. Panetta also reportedly commended Indonesia’s handling of a weeks-long strike at Freeport-McMoRan.[xviii]

US President Barack Obama visited Indonesia in November 2011 to strengthen relations with Jakarta as part of Washington’s escalating efforts to combat Chinese influence in the Asia–Pacific region. Obama had just announced that the US and Australia would begin a rotating deployment of 2,500 US Marines to a base in Darwin, a move ostensibly to modernize the US posture in the region, and to allow participation in “joint training” with Australian military counterparts. But some speculate that the US has a hidden agenda in deploying marines to Australia. The Thai newspaper The Nation has suggested that one of the reasons why US Marines might be stationed in Darwin could be that they would provide remote security assurance to US-owned Freeport-McMoRan’s gold and copper mine in West Papua, less than a two-hour flight away.[xix]

The fact that workers at Freeport’s Sociedad Minera Cerro Verde copper mine in Peru were also striking at the same time highlights the global dimension of the Freeport confrontation. The Peruvian workers are demanding pay rises of eleven percent, while the company has offered just three percent. The strike was lifted on November 28, 2011.[xx]

In both Freeport strikes, the governments pressured strikers to settle. Not only was domestic militrary and police force evident, but also higher levels of international involvement. The fact that the US Secretary of Defense mentioned a domestic strike in Indonesa shows that the highest level of power are in play on issues affecting the international corporate 1 percent and their profits.

Public opinion is strongly against Freeport in Indonesia. On August 8, 2011, Karishma Vaswani of the BBC reported that “the US mining firm Freeport-McMoRan has been accused of everything from polluting the environment to funding repression in its four decades working in the Indonesian province of Papau. . . . Ask any Papuan on the street what they think of Freeport and they will tell you that the firm is a thief, said Nelels Tebay, a Papuan pastor and coordinator of the Papua Peace Network.”[xxi]

Freeport strikers won support from the US Occupy movement. Occupy Phoenix and East Timor Action Network activists marched to Freeport headquarters in Phoenix on October 28, 2011, to demonstrate against the Indonesian police killings at Freeport-McMoRan’s Grasberg mine.[xxii]

Freeport-McMoRan (FCX) chairman of the board James R. Moffett owns over four million shares with a value of close to $42.00 each. According to the FCX annual meeting report released in June 2011, Moffett’s annual compensation from FCX in 2010 was $30.57 million. Richard C. Adkerson, president of the board of FCX, owns over 5.3 million shares. His total compensation in was also $30.57 million in 2010 Moffett’s and Adkerson’s incomes put them in the upper levels of the world’s top 1 percent. Their interconnectness with the highest levels of power in the White House and the Pentagon, as indicated by the specific attention given to them by the US secretary of defense, and as suggested by the US president’s awareness of their circumstances, leaves no doubt that Freeport-MacMoRan executives and board are firmly positioned at the highest levels of the transnational corporate class.

Freeport-McMoRan’s Board of Directors

James R. Moffett—Corporate and policy affiliations: cochairman, president, and CEO of McMoRan Exploration Co.; PT Freeport Indonesia; Madison Minerals Inc.; Horatio Alger Association of Distinguished AmericansAgrico, Inc.; Petro-Lewis Funds, Inc.; Bright Real Estate Services, LLC; PLC–ALPC, Inc.; FM Services Co.

Richard C. Adkerson—Corporate and policy affiliations: Arthur Anderson Company; chairman of International Council on Mining and Metals; executive board of the International Copper Association, Business Council, Business Roundtable, Advisory Board of the Kissinger Institute, Madison Minerals Inc.

Robert Allison Jr.—Corporate affiliations: Anadarko Petroleum (2010 revenue: $11 billion); Amoco Projection Company.

Robert A. Day—Corporate affiliations: CEO of W. M. Keck Foundation (2010 assets: more than $1 billion); attorney in Costa Mesa, California.

Gerald J. Ford—Corporate affiliations: Hilltop Holdings Inc, First Acceptance Corporation, Pacific Capital Bancorp (Annual Sales $13 billion), Golden State Bancorp, FSB (federal savings bank that merged with Citigroup in 2002) Rio Hondo Land & Cattle Company (annual sales $1.6 million), Diamond Ford, Dallas (sales: $200 million), Scientific Games Corp., SWS Group (annual sales: $422 million); American Residential Cmnts LLC.

H. Devon Graham Jr.—Corporate affiliations: R. E. Smith Interests (an asset management company; income: $670,000).

Charles C. Krulak—Corporate and governmental affiliations: president of Birmingham-South College; commandant of the Marine Corp, 1995–1999; MBNA Corp.; Union Pacific Corporation (annual sales: $17 billion); Phelps Dodge (acquired by FCX in 2007).

Bobby Lee Lackey—Corporate affiliations: CEO of McManusWyatt-Hidalgo Produce Marketing Co.

Jon C. Madonna—Corporate affiliations: CEO of KPMG, (professional services auditors; annual sales: $22.7 billion); AT&T (2011 revenue: $122 billion); Tidewater Inc. (2011 revenue: $1.4 billion).

Dustan E. McCoy—Corporate affiliations: CEO of Brunswick Corp. (revenue: $4.6 billion); Louisiana-Pacific Corp. (2011 revenue: $1.7 billion).

B. M. Rankin Jr.—Corporate affiliations: board vice chairman of FCX; cofounder of McMoRan Oil and Gas in 1969.

Stephen Siegele—Corporate affiliations: founder/CEO of Advanced Delivery and Chemical Systems Inc.; Advanced Technology Solutions; Flourine on Call Ltd.

The board of directors of Freeport-McMoRan represents a portion of the global 1 percent who not only control the largest gold and copper mining company in the world, but who are also interconnected by board membership with over two dozen major multinational corporations, banks, foundations, military, and policy groups. This twelve-member board is a tight network of individuals who are interlocked with—and influence the policies of—other major companies controlling approximately $200 billion in annual revenues.

Freeport-McMoRan exemplifies how the extractor sector acquires wealth from the common heritage of natural materials—which rightfully belongs to us all—by appropriating the surplus value of working people’s labor in the theft of our commons. This process is protected by governments in various countries where Freeport maintains mining operations, with the ultimate protector being the military empire of the US and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

Further, Freeport-McMoRan is connected to one of the most elite transnational capitalist groups in the world: over 7 percent of Freeport’s stock is held by BlackRock, Inc., a major investment management firm based in New York City.

The Investment Sector: The Case of BlackRock, Inc.

Internationally, many firms operate primarily as investment organizations, managing capital and investing in other companies. These firms often do not actually make anything except money, and are keen to prevent interference with return on capital by taxation, regulations, and governmental interventions anywhere in the world.

BlackRock, based in Manhattan, is the largest assets management firm in the world, with over 10,000 employees and investment teams in twenty-seven countries. Their client base includes corporate, public, union, and industry pension plans; governments; insurance companies; third-party mutual funds; endowments; foundations; charities; corporations; official institutions; sovereign wealth funds; banks; financial professionals; and individuals worldwide. BlackRock acquired Barclay Global Investors in December of 2009. As of March 2012, BlackRock manages assets worth $3.68 trillion in equity, fixed income, cash management, alternative investment, real estate, and advisory strategies.[xxiii]

In addition to Freeport-McMoRan, BlackRock has major holdings in Chevron (49 million shares, 2.5 percent), Goldman Sachs Group (13 million shares, 2.7 percent), Exxon Mobil (121 million shares, 2.5 percent), Bank of America (251 million shares, 2.4 percent), Monsanto Company (12 million shares, 2.4 percent), Microsoft Corp. (185 million shares, 2.2 percent), and many more.[xxiv]

BlackRock manages investments of both public and private funds, including California Public Employee’s Retirement System, California State Teacher’s Retirement System, Freddie Mac, Boy Scouts of America, Boeing, Sears, Verizon, Raytheon, PG&E, NY City Retirement Systems, LA County Employees Retirement Association, GE, Cisco, and numerous others.

According to BlackRock’s April 2011 annual report to stockholders, the board of directors consists of eighteen members. The board is classified into three equal groups—Class I, Class II, and Class III—with terms of office of the members of one class expiring each year in rotation. Members of one class are generally elected at each annual meeting and serve for full three-year terms, or until successors are elected and qualified. Each class consists of approximately one-third of the total number of directors constituting the entire board of directors.

BlackRock has stockholder agreements with Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation; and Barclays Bank PLC and its subsidiaries. Two to four members of the board are from BlackRock management; one director is designated by Merrill Lynch; two directors, each in a different class, are designated by PNC Bank; two directors, each in a different class, are designated by Barclays; and the remaining directors are independent.

BlackRock’s Board of Directors

Class I Directors (terms expire in 2012):

William S. Demchak—Corporate affiliations: senior vice chairman of PNC (assets: $271 billion); J. P. Morgan Chase & Co. (2011 assets: $2.2 trillion).

Kenneth B. Dunn, PhD—Corporate and institutional affiliations: professor of financial economics at the David A. Tepper School of Business at Carnegie Mellon University; former managing director of Morgan Stanley Investment (assets: $807 billion).

Laurence D. Fink—Corporate and institutional affiliations: chairman/CEO of BlackRock; trustee of New York University; trustee of Boys Club of NY.

Robert S. Kapito—Corporate and institutional affiliations: president of BlackRock; trustee of Wharton School University of Pennsylvania.

Thomas H. O’Brien—Corporate affiliations: former CEO of PNC; Verizon Communications, Inc. (2011 revenue: $110 billion).

Ivan G. Seidenberg—Corporate and policy affiliations: board chairman of Verizon Communications; former CEO of Bell Atlantic; Honeywell International Inc. (2010 revenue: $33.3 billion); Pfizer Inc. (2011 revenue: $64 billion); chairman of the Business Roundtable; National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee; President’s Council of the New York Academy of Sciences.[xxv]

Class II Directors (terms expire in 2013):

Abdlatif Yousef Al-Hamad—Corporate and institutional affiliations: board chairman of Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development (assets: $2.7 trillion); former Minister of Finance and Minister of Planning of Kuwait, Kuwait Investment Authority. Multilateral Development Banks, International Advisory Boards of Morgan Stanley, Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., American International Group, Inc. and the National Bank of Kuwait.

Mathis Cabiallavetta—Corporate affiliations: Swiss Reinsurance Company (2010 revenue: $28 billion); CEO of Marsh & McLennan Companies Inc. (2011 revenue: $11.5 billion); Union Bank of Switzerland-UBS A.G. (2012 assets: $620 billion); Philip Morris International Inc. (2010 revenue: $27 billion).

Dennis D. Dammerman—Corporate affiliations: General Electric Company (2012 revenue: $147 billion); Capmark Financial Group Inc. (formally GMAC); American International Group (AIG) (2010 revenue: $77 billion); Genworth Financial (2010 assets: $100 billion); Swiss Reinsurance Company (2012 assets: $620 billion); Discover Financial Services (2011 revenue: $3.4 billion).

Robert E. Diamond Jr.—Corporate and policy affiliations: CEO of Barclays (2011 revenue: $32 billion); International Advisory Board of the British-American Business Council.

David H. Komansky—Corporate affiliations: CEO of Merrill Lynch (division of Bank of America 2009) (2011 assets management: $2.3 trillion); Burt’s Bees, Inc. (owned by Clorox); WPP Group plc (2011 revenue: $15 billion).

James E. Rohr—Corporate affiliations: CEO of PNC (2011 revenue: $14 billion).

James Grosfeld—Corporate affiliations: CEO of Pulte Homes, Inc. (2010 revenue: $4.5 billion); Lexington Realty Trust (2011 assets: $1.2 billion).

Sir Deryck Maughan—Corporate and policy affiliations: Kohlberg Kravis Roberts (2011 assets: $8.6 billion); former CEO of Salomon Brothers from 1992 to 1997 a Chairman of the US-Japan Business Council; GlaxoSmithKline plc (2011 revenue: $41 billion); Thomson Reuters Corporation (2011 revenue: $13.8 billion).

Thomas K. Montag—Corporate affiliations: president of Global Banking & Markets for Bank of America (2011 revenue: $94 billion); Merrill Lynch (division of Bank of America, 2009; 2011 assets management: $2.3 trillion); Goldman Sachs (2011 revenue: $28.8 billion).

Class III Directors (terms expire in 2014):

Murry S. Gerber—Corporate affiliations: executive chairman of EQT (2010 revenue: $1.3 billion); Halliburton Company.

Linda Gosden Robinson—Corporate affiliations: former CEO of Robinson Lerer & Montgomery; Young & Rubicam Inc.; WPP Group plc. (2011 revenue: $15 billion); Revlon, Inc. (2011 revenue: $1.3 billion).

John S. Varley—Corporate affiliations: CEO of Barclays (2011 revenue: $32 billion); AstraZeneca PLC (2011 revenue: $33.5 billion).

BlackRock is one of the most concentrated power networks among the global 1 percent. The eightteen members of the board of directors are connected to a significant part of the world’s core financial assests. Their decisions can change empires, destroy currencies, and impoverish millions. Some of the top financial giants of the capitalist world are connected by interlocking boards of directors at BlackRock, including Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, PNC Bank, Barclays, Swiss Reinsurance Company, American International Group (AIG), UBS A.G., Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development, J. P. Morgan Chase & Co., and Morgan Stanley.

A 2011 University of Zurich study, research completed by Stefania Vitali, James B. Glattfelder, Stefano Battiston at the Swiss Federal Institute, reports that a small group of companies—mainly banks—wields huge power over the global economy.[xxvi] Using data from Orbis 2007, a database listing thirty-seven million companies and investors, the Swiss researchers applied mathematical models—usually used to model natural systems—to the world economy. The study is the first to look at all 43,060 transnational corporations and the web of ownership between them. The research created a “map” of 1,318 companies at the heart of the global economy. The study found that 147 companies formed a “super entity” within this map, controlling some 40 percent of its wealth. The top twenty-five of the 147 super-connected companies includes:

1. Barclays PLC*

2. Capital Group Companies Inc.

3. FMR Corporation

4. AXA

5. State Street Corporation

6. J. P. Morgan Chase & Co.*

7. Legal & General Group PLC

8. Vanguard Group Inc.


10. Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.*

11. Wellington Management Co. LLP

12. Deutsche Bank AG

13. Franklin Resources Inc.

14. Credit Suisse Group*

15. Walton Enterprises LLC

16. Bank of New York Mellon Corp

17. Natixis

18. Goldman Sachs Group Inc.*

19. T Rowe Price Group Inc.

20. Legg Mason Inc.

21. Morgan Stanley*

22. Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc.

23. Northern Trust Corporation

24. Société Générale

25. Bank of America Corporation*

* BlackRock Directors

Notably, for our purposes, BlackRock board members have direct connections to at least seven of the top twenty-five corporations that Vitali et al. identify as an international “super entity.” BlackRock’s board has direct links to seven of the twenty-five most interconnected corporations in the world. BlackRock’s eighteen board members control and influence tens of trillions of dollars of wealth in the world and represent a core of the super-connected financial sector corporations.

Below is a sample cross section of key figures and corporate assets among the global economic “super entity” identified by Vitali et al.

Other Key Figures and Corporate Connections within the Highest Levels of the  Global Economic “Super Entity”

Capital Group Companies—Privately held, based in Los Angeles, manages $1 trillion in assets.

FMR—One of the world’s largest mutual fund firms, managing $1.5 trillion in assets and serving more than twenty million individual and institutional clients; Edward C. (Ned) Johnson III, Chairman and CEO.

AXA—Manages $1.5 trillion in assets, serving 101 million clients; Henri de Castries, CEO AXA, and Director, Nestlé (Switzerland).

State Street Corporation—Operates from Boston with assest management at $1.9 trillion; directors include Joseph L. Hooley, CEO of State Street Corporation; Kennett F. Burnes, retired chairman and CEO of Cabot Corporation(2011 revenue: $3.1 billion).

JP Morgan/Chase (2011 assets: $2.3 trillion)—Board of directors: James A. Bell, retired executive VP of The Boeing Company; Stephen B. Burke, CEO of NBC Universal, and executive VP of Comcast Corporation; David M. Cote, CEO of Honeywell International, Inc.; Timothy P. Flynn, retired chairman of KPMG International; and Lee R. Raymond, retired CEO of Exxon Mobil Corporation.

Vanguard (2011 assets under management: $1.6 trillion)—Directors: Emerson U. Fullwood, VP of Xerox Corporation; JoAnn Heffernan Heisen, VP of Johnson & Johnson, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; Mark Loughridge, CFO of IBM, Global Financing; Alfred M. Rankin Jr., CEO of NACCO Industries, Inc., National Association of Manufacturers, Goodrich Corp, and chairman of Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland.

UBS AG (2012 assets: $620 billion)—Directors include: Michel Demaré, board member of Syngenta and the IMD Foundation (Lausanne); David Sidwell, former CFO of Morgan Stanley.

Merrill Lynch (Bank of America) (2011 assets management: $2.3 trillion)—Directors include: Brian T. Moynihan, CEO of Bank of America; Rosemary T. Berkery, general counsel for Bank of America/Merrill Lynch (formerly Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc), member of New York Stock Exchange’s Legal Advisory Committee, director at Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association; Mark A. Ellman, managing director of Credit Suisse, First Boston; Dick J. Barrett, cofounder of Ellman Stoddard Capital Partners, MetLife, Citi Group, UBS, Carlyle Group, ImpreMedia, Verizon Communications, Commonewealth Scientific and Industrial Research Org, Fluor Corp, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs Group.

The directors of these super-connected companies represent a small portion of the global 1 percent. Most people with assets in excess of $588,000 are not major players in international finance. At best, they hire asset management firms to produce a return on their capital. Often their net worth is tied up in nonfinancial assets such a real estate and businesses.

Analysis: TCC and Global Power

So how does the transnational corporate class (TCC) maintain wealth concentration and power in the world? The wealthiest 1 percent of the world’s population represents approximately forty million adults. These forty million people are the richest segment of the first tier populations in the core countries and intermittently in other regions. Most of this 1 percent have professional jobs with security and tenure working for or associated with established institutions. Approximately ten million of these individuals have assets in excess of one million dollars, and approximately 100,000 have financials assets worth over thirty million dollars. Immediately below the 1 percent in the first tier are working people with regular employment in major corporations, government, self-owned businesses, and various institutions of the world. This first tier constitutes about 30–40 percent of the employed in the core developed countries, and some 30 percent in the second tier economies and down to 20 percent in the periphery economies (sometimes referred to as the 3rd world). The second tier of global workers represents growing armies of casual labor: the global factory workers, street workers, and day laborers intermittently employed with increasingly less support from government and social welfare organizations. These workers, mostly concentrated in the megacities, constitute some 30–40 percent of the workers in the core industrialized economies and some 20 percent in the second tier and peripheral economies. This leaves a third tier of destitute people worldwide ranging from 30 percent of adults in the core and secondary economies to fully 50 percent of the people in peripherial countries who have extremely limited income opportunities and struggle to survive on a few dollars a day. These are the 2.5 billion people who live on less than two dollars a day, die by the tens of thousands every day from malnutrition and easily curible illnesses, and who have probably never even heard a dial tone.[xxvii]

As seen in our extractor sector and investment sector samples, corporate elites are interconnected through direct board connections with some seventy major multinational corporations, policy groups, media organizations, and other academic or nonprofit institutions. The investment sector sample shows much more powerful financial links than the extractor sample; nonetheless, both represent vast networks of resources concentrated within each company’s board of directors. The short sample of directors and resources from eight other of the superconnected companies replicates this pattern of multiple board corporate connections, policy groups, media and government, controlling vast global resources. These interlock relationships recur across the top interconnected companies among the transnational corporate class, resulting in a highly concentrated and powerful network of individuals who share a common interest in preserving their elite domination.

Sociological research shows that interlocking directorates have the potential to faciliate political cohesion. A sense of a collective “we” emerges within such power networks, whereby members think and act in unison, not just for themselves and their individual firms, but for a larger sense of purpose—the good of the order, so to speak.[xxviii]

Transnational corporate boards meet on a regular basis to encourage the maximunization of profit and the long-term viability of their firm’s business plans. If they arrange for payments to government officials, conduct activities that undermine labor organizations, seek to manipulate the price of commodies (e.g. gold), or engage in insider trading in some capacity, they are in fact forming conspiratorial alliances inside those boards of directors. Our sample of thirty directors inside two connected companies have influence with some of the most powerful policy groups in the world, including British–American Business Council, US–Japan Business Council, Business Roundtable, Business Council, and the Kissinger Institute. They influence some ten trillion dollars in monetery resouces and control the working lives of many hundreds of thousands of people. All in all, they are a power elite unto themselves, operating in a world of power elite networks as thede facto ruling class of the capitalist world.

Moreover, this 1 percent global elite dominates and controls public relations firms and the corporate media. Global corporate media protect the interests of the 1 percent by serving as a propaganda machine for the superclass. The corporate media provide entertainment for the masses and distorts the realities of inequality. Corporate news is managed by the 1 percent to maintain illusions of hope and to divert blame from the powerful for hard times.[xxix]

Four of the thirty directors in our two-firm sample are directly connected with public relations and media. Thomas H. O’Brien and Ivan G. Seidenberg are both on the board of Verizon Communications, where Seidenberg serves as chairman. Verizon reported over $110 billion in operating revenues in 2011.[xxx]David H. Komansky and Linda Gosden Robinson are on the board of WPP Group, which describes itself as the world leader in marketing communications services, grossing over $65 billion in 2011. WPP is a conglomerate of many of the world’s leading PR and marketing firms, in fields that include advertising, media investment management, consumer insight, branding and identity, health care communications, and direct digital promotion and relationship marketing.[xxxi]

Even deeper inside the 1 percent of wealthy elites is what David Rothkopf calls the superclass. David Rothkopf, former managing director of Kissinger Associates and deputy undersecretary of commerce for international trade policies, published his book Superclass: the Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making, in 2008.[xxxii] According to Rothkopf, the superclass constitutes approximately 0.0001 percent of the world’s population, comprised of 6,000 to 7,000 people—some say 6,660. They are the Davos-attending, Gulfstream/private jet–flying, money-incrusted, megacorporation-interlocked, policy-building elites of the world, people at the absolute peak of the global power pyramid. They are 94 percent male, predominantly white, and mostly from North America and Europe. These are the people setting the agendas at the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group, G-8, G-20, NATO, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization. They are from the highest levels of finance capital, transnational corporations, the government, the military, the academy, nongovernmental organizations, spiritual leaders, and other shadow elites. Shadow elites include, for instance,  the deep politics of national security organizations in connection with international drug cartels, who extract 8,000 tons of opium from US war zones annually, then launder $500 billion through transnational banks, half of which are US-based.[xxxiii]

Rothkoft’s understanding of the superclass is one based on influence and power. Although there are over 1,000 billionaires in the world, not all are necessarily part of the superclass in terms of influencing global policies. Yet these 1,000 billionaires have twice as much wealth as the 2.5 billion least wealthy people, and they are fully aware of the vast inequalities in the world. The billionaires and the global 1 percent are similar to colonial plantation owners. They know they are a small minority with vast resources and power, yet they must continually worry about the unruly exploited masses rising in rebellion. As a result of these class insecurities, the superclass works hard to protect this structure of concentrated wealth. Protection of capital is the prime reason that NATO countries now account for 85 percent of the world’s defense spending, with the US spending more on military than the rest of the world combined.[xxxiv] Fears of  inequality rebellions and other forms of unrest motivate NATO’s global agenda in the war on terror.[xxxv] The Chicago 2012 NATO Summit Declaration reads:

As Alliance leaders, we are determined to ensure that NATO retains and develops the capabilities necessary to perform its essential core tasks collective defence, crisis management and cooperative security—and thereby to play an essential role promoting security in the world. We must meet this responsibility while dealing with an acute financial crisis and responding to evolving geo-strategic challenges. NATO allows us to achieve greater security than any one Ally could attain acting alone.

We confirm the continued importance of a strong transatlantic link and Alliance solidarity as well as the significance of sharing responsibilities, roles, and risks to meet the challenges North-American and European Allies face together . . . we have confidently set ourselves the goal of NATO Forces 2020: modern, tightly connected forces equipped, trained, exercised and commanded so that they can operate together and with partners in any (emphaisis added) environment.[xxxvi]

NATO is quickly emerging as the police force for the transnational corporate class. As the TCC more fully emerged in the 1980s, coinciding with the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), NATO began broader operations. NATO first ventured into the Balkans, where it remains, and then moved into Afghanistan. NATO started a training mission in Iraq in 2005, has recently conducted operations in Libya, and, as of July 2012, is considering military action in Syria.

It has become clear that the superclass uses NATO for its global security. This is part of an expanding strategy of US military domination around the world, wherby the US/NATO military-industrial-media empire operates in service to the transnational corporate class for the protection of international capital anywhere in the world.[xxxvii]

Sociologists William Robinson and Jerry Harris anticipated this situation in 2000, when they described “a shift from the social welfare state to the social control (police) state replete with the dramatic expansion of public and private security forces, the mass incarceration of the excluded populations (disproportionately minorities), new forms of social apartheid . . . and anti-immigrant legislation.”[xxxviii] Robinson and Harris’s theory accurately predicts the agenda of today’s global superclass, including

—President Obama’s continuation of the police state agendas of his executive predecessors, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George H. W. Bush;

—the long-range global dominance agenda of the superclass, which uses US/NATO military forces to discourage resisting states and maintain internal police repression, in service of the capitalist system’s orderly maintenance;

—and the continued consolidation of capital around the world without interference from governments or egalitarian social movements.[xxxix]

Furthermore, this agenda leads to the further pauperization of the poorest half of the world’s population, and an unrelenting downward spiral of wages for everyone in the second tier, and even some within the first tier.[xl] It is a world facing economic crisis, where the neoliberal solution is to spend less on human needs and more on security.[xli] It is a world of financial institutions run amok, where the answer to bankruptcy is to print more money through quantitative easing with trillions of new inflation-producing dollars. It is a world of permanent war, whereby spending for destruction requires even more spending to rebuild, a cycle that profits the TCC and its global networks of economic power. It is a world of drone killings, extrajudicial assassinations, and death and destruction, at home and abroad.

As Andrew Kollin states in State Power and Democracy, “There is an Orwellian dimension to the Administration’s (Bush and later Obama) perspective, it chose to disregard the law, instead creating decrees to legitimate illegal actions, giving itself permision to act without any semblances of power sharing as required by the Constitution or international law.”[xlii]

And in Globalization and the Demolition of Society, Dennis Loo writes, “The bottom line, the fundamential division of our society, is between, on the one hand, those whose interests rest on the dominance and the drive for monopolizing the society and planet’s resources and, on the other hand, those whose interests lie in the husbanding of thoses resources for the good of the whole rather than the part.”[xliii]

The Occupy movement uses the 1 percent vs. 99 percent mantra as a master concept in its demonstrations, disruptions, and challenges to the practices of the transnational corporate class, within which the global superclass is a key element in the implementation of a superelite agenda for permanent war and total social control. Occupy is exactly what the superclass fears the most—a global democratic movement that exposes the TCC agenda and the continuing theater of government elections, wherein the actors may change but the marquee remains the same. The more that Occupy refuses to cooperate with the TCC agenda and mobilizes activists, the more likely the whole TCC system of dominance will fall to its knees under the people power of democractic movements.

Peter Phillips is a professor of sociology at Sonoma State University and president of the Media Freedom Foundation/Project Censored.

Kimberly Soeiro is a sociology student at Sonoma State University, library researcher, and activist.

Special thanks to Mickey Huff, director of Project Censored, and Andy Roth, associate director of Project Censored, for editing and for important suggestons for this article.


[i] For a more scholarly background on this subject, the following are required reading: C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite, New York, Oxford University Press, 1956; G. Willian Domhoff, Who Rules America 6th edition, Boston, McGraw Hill Higher Education, 2009; William Carroll, The Making of a Transnational Capitalist Class, Zed Books, 2010.

[ii] Leslie Sklair, The Transnational Capitalist Class, Oxford, UK, Blackwell, 2001.

[iii] Leslie Sklair, “The Transnational Capitalist Class And The Discourse Of Globalization,” Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 2000,

[iv] Tax Havens: Super-rich hiding at least $21 trillion, BBC News, July 22, 2012,

[v] Tyler Durgen, A Detailed Look At Global Wealth Distribution, 10/11/10,

[vi] “World Bank Sees Progress Against Extreme Poverty, But Flags Vulnerabilities,” World Bank, Press Release No. 2012/297/Dec., February 29, 2012,,,contentMDK:23130032~pagePK:64257043~piPK:437376~theSitePK:4607,00.html.

[vii] Mark Ellis, The Three Top Sins of the Universe,

[viii] “Corporatons are Still Making a Killing from Hunger,” April 2009, Grain,

[ix] On the extraction of surplus-value from labor, see Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. 3 (New York and London: Penguin, 1991[1894]).

[x] See, e.g., Paul Burkett, Marx and Nature: A Red and Green Perspective (New York: St. Martins, 1999), Chapter 6; for additional information on the Fair Share of the Common Heritage see,

[xi] Freeport-McMoRan Copper and Gold, Notice of Annual Meeting of Stockholders, June 15, 2011, document April 28, 2001,

[xii] “Freeport Indonesia Miners, Tribesmen Defend Road Blockades,” Reuters Africa, November 4, 2011,

[xiii] “Police Admit to Receiving Freeport ‘Lunch Money,’” Frank Arnaz, Jakarta Globe, October 28, 2011,

[xiv] “Indonesia must investigate mine strike protest killing,” Amnesty International News, October 10, 2011,; West Papua Report, November 2011,

[xv] Camelia Pasandaran, “Striking Freeport Employees Lower Wage Increase Demands,”Jakarta Globe, | November 7, 2011,

[xvi] Alex Emery, “Freeport Cerro Verde, Workers Sign Three-Year Labor Accord,” Bloomberg News,

December 22, 2011,

[xvii] Eric Bellman and Tess Stynes, “Freeport-McMoRan Says Pact Ends Indonesia Strike,” Wall Street Journal, December 14, 2011,

[xviii] John Pakage, “When there is no guarantee of the security of life for the people of Papau,” West Papua Media Alerts, March 1, 2012,

[xix] “Reasons to go the Darwin,” The Nation (Thailand), November 30, 2011,

[xxi] Karishma Vaswani, “US Firm Freeport Struggles to Escape Its Past in Papua,” BBC News, Jakarta,

[xxii] Phoenix Arizona, October 28, 2011, Youtube report:

[xxiii] BlackRock About Us:

[xxiv] Data for this section is drawn for

[xxv] Data for the corporations listed in this section comes fron the annual report at each corporation’s website. Biography information was gained from the FAX annual report to investors and online biographies for individuals wihen available.

[xxvi] Stefania Vitali, James B. Glattfelder, and Stefano Battiston, “The Network of Global Corporate Control,”PLoS ONE, October 26, 2011,

[xxvii] Willian Robinson and Jerry Harris, “Towards a Global Ruling Class? Globalization and the Transnational Capitalist Class, Science and Society 64, no. 1 (Spring 2000).

[xxviii] Val Burris, “Interlocking Directorates and Political Cohesion Among Corporate Elites,” American Journal of Sociology 3, no. 1 (July 2005).

[xxix] Peter Phillips and Mickey Huff, “Truth Emergency: Inside the Military-Industrial Media Empire,”Censored 2010 (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2009), 197–220.

[xxx] Verizon Financials 2012, Hoovers describes Verizon as, “the #2 US telecom services provider overall after AT&T, but it holds the top spot in wireless services ahead of rival AT&T Mobility.” Hoovers Inc.

[xxxi] WPP:

[xxxii] David Rothkopf, SuperClass: the Global Power Elite and the World They are Making (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2008).

[xxxiii] Peter Dale Scott, American War Machine, Deep Politics, the CIA Global Drug Connection, and the Road to Afghanistan (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2010). See also Censored Story #22, “Wachovia Bank Laundered Money for Latin American Drug Cartels,” in Chapter 1.

[xxxiv] David Rothkopf, Superclass, Public Address: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, April 9, 2008.

[xxxv] NATO: Defence Against Terrorism Programme,

[xxxvi] NATO, Summit Declaration on Defence Capabilities: Toward NATO Forces 2020, May 20, 2012,

[xxxvii] For an expanded analysis of the history of US “global dominance,” see Peter Phillips, Bridget Thornton and Celeste Vogler, “The Global Dominance Group: 9/11 Pre-Warnings & Election Irregularities in Context,” May 2, 2010, and Peter Phillips, Bridget Thornton, and Lew Brown, “The Global Dominance Group and U.S. Corporate Media,” Censored 2007 (New York: Seven Stories, 2006), 307–333.

[xxxviii] Willian Robinson and Jerry Harris, “Towards a Global Ruling Class? Globalization and the Transnational Capitalist Class, Science and Society 64, no. 1 (Spring 2000).

[xxxix] John Pilger, The New Rulers of the World (New York: Verso, 2003).

[xl] Michel Chossudovsky and Andrew Gavin Marshall, eds., The Global Economic Crisis (Montréal: Global Research Publishers, 2010).

[xli] Dennis Loo, Globalization and the Demolition of Society (Glendale, CA: Larkmead Press, 2011).

[xlii] Andrew Kolin, State Power and Democracy (New York: Palgrave MacMillan,c2011), 141.

[xliii] Loo, Globalization, op cit., 357.

Posted in World1 Comment

UK: Save school playing fields


Dear All,

It’s just emerged that over a million children could lose the fields where they play. [1] The Education Secretary, Michael Gove, has quietly relaxed the rules protecting school playing fields. Many people are worried that this could open the door for them to be sold off to developers.

Without playing fields it’s hard to imagine the children of today – the Team GB of tomorrow – will ever match this year’s record Olympic medal haul. If playing fields are sold off and built on, there’ll be no way to get them back. Once they’re gone, they’re gone.

Right now David Cameron and his Government won’t want a scandal about school playing fields taking the shine off the Olympic legacy. [2] There’s a great chance that if tens of thousands of 38 Degrees members create a public outcry by building a big petition, Michael Gove will back down to make sure the Olympic after-party continues on a high.

Click here to sign the petition to Michael Gove to save school children’s play areas:

For lots of people, playing outside at break time left them with some of their happiest memories of school. But happy memories aren’t the only long-term benefit of having proper places for children to play. Running around outside gives children the chance to get into good exercise habits early in life. And it can help them concentrate in class the rest of the time, so they learn faster. [3]

The Government is already feeling the heat – already a national newspaper has launched a campaign on this issue. [4] We can build on this pressure and, together, we can make that final push to persuade Michael Gove to do the right thing.

We’ve already had one great success around the Olympics – our massive petition persuaded sponsors not to take advantage of a tax-break available to them. Together, as the Paralympic Games approach, we have a great chance of persuading the Government to protect the play areas of our future Olympians.

Click here to sign the petition:

Thanks for being involved,

Ian, Marie, Hannah and the 38 Degrees team

PS: Just a few days ago David Cameron announced his plans to make sport in schools compulsory. [5] Where are kids going to play sports if playing fields have been sold off? Sign the petition here:


[1] Telegraph: Keep the Flame Alive: A million pupils could lose sports fields:

Guardian: School sports fields in danger as government relaxes rules: 

Telegraph: Keep The Flame Alive: Team sports blow for schools:       

[2] Number 10: PM appoints Seb Coe as Olympics legacy ambassador:

[3] Exercise ‘helps’ school children concentrate:                                                        

[4] Telegraph: Keep the flame alive:                                                    

[5] BBC: School competitive team sports move unveiled:           

Posted in Campaigns, UKComments Off on UK: Save school playing fields



Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) Continue Systematic Attacks against Palestinian Civilians and Property in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT)

  • A Palestinian civilian was wounded by IOF.
  • IOF use force to disperse peaceful protest organized by Palestinian civilians in the West Bank.

–        7 Palestinian civilians, including a child and a woman, were wounded.

  • IOF conducted 7 incursions into Palestinian communities in the West Bank.   

–       IOF arrested 7 Palestinians. 

  • Israeli gunboats fired at Palestinian fishing boats in the Gaza Strip.
  • Israel has continued to impose a total closure on the OPT and has isolated the Gaza Strip from the outside world.

–       IOF arrested two Palestinian civilians in Hebron. 

  • IOF have continued efforts to create a Jewish demographic majority in East Jerusalem.

–        The Israeli municipality of Jerusalem decided to establish 12 tower buildings in Jabal Abu Ghunaim (“Har Homah” settlement, south of Jerusalem.

  • IOF have continued settlement activities in the West Bank and Israeli settlers have continued to attack Palestinian civilians and property.

–        IOF legitimized am unplanned settlement outpost.

–        5 dunums[1] of agricultural land were razed and water well was destroyed in al-Khader village, west of Bethlehem.


Israeli violations of international law and humanitarian law in the OPT continued during the reporting period (09 – 15 August 2012):


During the reporting period, 8 Palestinian civilians, including a child and a woman, were wounded by IOF in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

During the reporting period, IOF used force to disperse peaceful demonstrations organized in protest to the construction of the annexation wall, settlement activities and other Israeli practices in the West Bank.  As a result, 7 Palestinian civilians, including a child and a woman, were wounded.  Dozens of demonstrators also suffered from tear gas inhalation.

In the Gaza Strip, on 11 August 2012, a Palestinian civilian was wounded when IOF positioned at the border between the Gaza Strip and Israel to the east of Khan Yunis opened fire at al-Zanna area between al-Qarara and ‘Abassan villages.

IOF continued to fire at Palestinian fishing boats.  During the reporting period, PCHR documented two attacks in this regard, which did not cause casualties.


The full report is available online at:–15-aug-2012&catid=84:weekly-2009&Itemid=183

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, Human RightsComments Off on ZIO-NAZI SYSTEMATIC ATTACKS AGAINST PALESTINIAN’S



PCHR Condemns Israeli Authorities Denial of Gaza Muslims’ Freedom of Worship

On 7 August, 2012 the Israeli Supreme Court approved a state policy that prevents Muslims from the Gaza Strip from accessing holy sites in Israel and the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, during religious holidays.

Six Muslim women from the Gaza Strip and the human rights organization Gisha appealed last year’s ruling by the Beersheva District Court declining to interfere in the state-approved prohibition on Gaza Muslims access to Holy sites in Jerusalem for worship. It is noted that this blanket prohibition does not apply to Muslims from the West Bank or Christians from the Gaza Strip. The Supreme Court rejected the appeal and accepted the state argument that travel to Israel and West Bank for Gaza civilians is allowed only in exceptional humanitarian cases exclusively set by the administration.

This decision, and Israel’s blanket prohibition, constitutes discrimination on the basis of religious belief and violates Gaza civilians’ freedom of movement and religion, as guaranteed in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Israel is a State party. As authoritatively stated by the International Court of Justice, Israel is under a legal obligation to fully and in good faith implement the entire spectrum of Palestinian civilians’ human rights.

However, PCHR notes that Israel has consistently enforced measures and policies – often with the approval of its courts – which are at odds with its legal responsibilities vis-á-vis the civilian population of the oPt. For example, the closure of the Gaza Strip – tightened in mid-2007 and widely considered as an illegal measure of collective punishment, including by the International Committee of the Red Cross – clearly evidences Israel’s longstanding disregard for the rule of international law.

In light of the above, PCHR:

1. Condemns in the strongest possible terms the denial of Gaza Muslims’ freedom of movement and worship by the Israeli authorities; and

2. Condemns the ‘legitimisation’ of these policies by Israel’s courts;

3. Calls for holding accountable those who carry individual criminal responsibility for implementing and maintaining the illegal closure and persecution policies against the population of the Gaza Strip.

For further information, please see Gisha’s website:



Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, Human RightsComments Off on ZIO-NAZI DENIAL MUSLIMS FREEDOM OF WORSHIP

Shoah’s pages