Archive | April 2nd, 2014

BAHRAIN: BOYCOTT FORMULA ONE

NOVANEWS

Zionist puppet Al-Khalifa 

Bahrain’s influential Shiite opposition bloc Al-Wefaq and a more radical group have called separate rallies for Friday to protest the weekend staging of the Formula One Grand Prix in Manama.
Demonstrations have been held during the three-day Grand Prix event every year since 2011 by opponents of the ruling Sunni Al-Khalifa dynasty in an attempt to highlight pro-reform demands.
The protests, which first erupted in the wake of a Shiite-led uprising in February 2011, have at times been marred by violence but the race has never been affected.

They are mainly staged in Shiite villages surrounding Manama and away from the Sakhir F1 circuit in the capital’s south.

The Bahrain Grand Prix practice sessions begin on Friday ahead of Sunday’s race.
Al-Wefaq in a Tuesday statement urged its supporters to hold a rally on the main Budaya highway, four kilometres (2.5 miles) west of Manama, which links several Shiite villages.
Al-Wefaq’s peaceful rallies are usually tolerated by the authorities and rarely end with clashes.
But protests by supporters of radical cyber-group the February 14 Revolution Youth Coalition are more violent and often end with clashes between police and demonstrators armed with petrol bombs.

The February 14 group, accused by authorities of links to Shiite-majority Iran, called on its Facebook page for demonstrations Friday in the Al-Seef Junction area, west of Manama, under the slogan: “Stop the blood formula.”
Protests in Shiite villages surrounding Manama began this week, with witnesses reporting masked demonstrators staging rallies chanting: “No, no to Formula 1” and “Down Hamad,” in reference to the king.

The rallies have been broken up by police firing tear gas and stun grenades, with protesters hurling petrol bombs and throwing stones, according to witnesses.
Public security chief General Tariq Hasan said Tuesday the authorities have taken “all measures and plans” to secure the April 4-6 Formula One event.
Police will deploy around the Sakhir circuit and along main roads leading to it, the official BNA news agency quoted Hasan as saying.

Amnesty International raised concerns on Tuesday of a crackdown ahead of the Grand Prix.
“There are fears that the authorities may use recent unrest, including terror attacks on police, to justify imposing further restrictions during the Grand Prix,” said the London-based human rights watchdog.

“Using the Grand Prix to boost Bahrain’s public image is little more than a blatant attempt to gloss over mounting abuses with the hype of an international sporting event,” said Amnesty’s Said Boumedouha.

Celebrating the 10th anniversary of Bahrain’s hosting of the event, the race will this year take place at night. Bahrain, home to the US Fifth Fleet, remains deeply divided three years after the Shiite-led uprising was quashed, with persistent protests sparking clashes with police, scores of Shiites jailed on “terror” charges and reconciliation talks deadlocked. The International Federation for Human Rights says at least 89 people have been killed in Bahrain since the uprising began in February 2011.

Posted in BahrainComments Off on BAHRAIN: BOYCOTT FORMULA ONE

Behind the Russian Rage

NOVANEWS

By Patrick J. Buchanan
 

As the old saying goes, you cannot truly understand a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes.

Perhaps Americans, a fortunate tribe, should try to see the world from the vantage point of the Russian people and Vladimir Putin, and, as the poet Robert Burns said, “see ourselves as others see us.”

At 35, Putin was a rising star in the elite secret police, the KGB, of a superpower with a worldwide empire.

The USSR was almost three times as large as the United States. Its European quadrant was half of the Old Continent. The Soviet Empire extended from the Elbe River in Central Germany to the Bering Strait across from Alaska. It encompassed thirteen time zones.

North to south, the USSR reached from above the Arctic Circle down to the Middle East. Beyond the contiguous empire were Soviet bases from Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam to Tartus in Syria to Cienfuegos in Cuba.

Consider, then, what the last dozen years of the 20th century must have been like for proud Russian patriots and nationalists.

First, the European empire suddenly and wholly collapsed. East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria all broke away to join the West. The Red Army came home, undefeated, but also unwanted and even detested.

The Warsaw Pact, the rival to NATO, dissolved.

Eastern Europe, which Russians believe they had liberated from the Nazis at a monumental cost in blood, turned its back on Russia, hailed the Americans as liberators, and queued up to join a U.S.-led alliance created to contain Russia.

Then, as Germany was reuniting, the Soviet Union began to break apart — what Putin calls the great tragedy of the 20th century.

One-fourth of the nation he grew up in and half its people vanished. Tens of millions of Russians were left stranded in foreign lands.

Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia departed first, leaving Russia with a tiny enclave on the Baltic Sea, Kaliningrad, the old Prussian city of Konigsberg, isolated and wedged between Poland and Lithuania.

Russia has no other outlet to the Baltic except St. Petersburg at the top of the tiny narrow Gulf of Finland. Russian warships must now pass between Helsinki and Tallinn even to get out into the Baltic.

The great Russian navy of Adm. Sergei Gorshkov is history.

This was but the beginning. With the disintegration of the USSR, Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova were soon gone.

Russia had now not only lost its Balkan allies Rumania and Bulgaria, but all its Balkan borders. Only tiny Transnistria, which broke from Moldova, remained loyal to Russia. But no one recognized it.

In the Caucasus, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan were gone. Russia had lost its border with Iran, Turkey and the Middle East.

As Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan departed, Russia lost half its border with China. Rather than dominating the Caspian Sea, Russia is now confined to its far northern shore. Azerbaijan, Tajikistan and Kazakhstan all now have claims on Caspian Sea oil.

Came then the eastward march of NATO to Moscow’s front door.

As NATO allies Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia occupy the east coast of the Baltic Sea, NATO allies Rumania and Bulgaria occupy the west coast of the Black Sea. Turkey sits on the south coast of the Black Sea, aspiring NATO ally Georgia the east coast. Should Ukraine join NATO, as John McCain seeks, the Black Sea becomes a NATO lake.

When Putin defended the seizure of Crimea by saying he did not want to visit Russia’s two-century-old naval base at Sevastopol, and be greeted by NATO sailors, did he not have a point?

The vast territorial losses suffered by the Soviet Union would be like the amputations America would have endured had the secession of the 11 states of the Confederacy succeeded in 1865.

Our situation would be comparable to Russia’s if we had lost all our states on the South Atlantic, Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico, and our ports of Norfolk, Charleston and New Orleans all flew foreign flags.

And how would we have reacted if a Soviet Union, victorious in the Cold War, effected the expulsion of all U.S. troops and bases from Europe and brought Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua into the Warsaw Pact?

State’s Victoria Nuland says we invested $5 billion in re-orienting Ukraine away from Russia. How would we respond if we awoke — as Putin did in February — to learn a pro-American government in Mexico City had been overthrown by street mobs financed by Beijing, a pro-China regime installed, and this unelected Mexican regime wanted out of NAFTA in favor of joining an economic union and military alliance with China?

A U.S. president who landed Marines in Veracruz, as Wilson did in 1914, and sent a 21st-century General “Black Jack” Pershing with an army across the border, would be over 70 percent in the polls, as Putin is today.

And if he seized Baja, as Putin seized Crimea, it would be a cakewalk to a second term.

Posted in RussiaComments Off on Behind the Russian Rage

War Party Oligarch

NOVANEWS

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Is the Republican Party’s Middle East policy up for bid?

For four days ending Sunday, a quartet of presidential hopefuls trooped to Las Vegas to attend the annual gathering of the Republican Jewish Coalition.

Impresario: Sheldon Adelson, the Vegas-Macau casino mogul whose fortune is estimated at $39 billion — 8th richest man on the planet — and who dumped $92 million into the election of 2012.

Adelson kept Newt Gingrich alive with a $15 million infusion of ad money, gutting Romney, and then sank $30 million into Mitt’s campaign.

This time Sheldon wants to buy himself a winner.

Ari Fleischer, press secretary to Bush 43, and a member of Adelson’s RJC fiefdom, put it plain and simple: “The ‘Sheldon Primary’ is an important primary. … anybody running for the Republican nomination would want to have Sheldon at his side.”

One such man is Jeb Bush, son and brother to presidents, who was the prize bull at Sheldon’s cattle show. Daniel Ruth of the Tampa Bay Times speculates on Jeb’s motive in showing up:

“Would you slink into Las Vegas to schmooze gambling mogul Sheldon Adelson who regards GOP presidential nominees as if they were trophy heads mounted in his den, if you had no interest in the White House? Bush is not going to Vegas to catch Meat Loaf’s act at Planet Hollywood.”

The 2016 presidential hopefuls “are falling at his feet,” said a veteran Republican strategist of the 80-year-old oligarch. Each of those who came — Bush, Chris Christie, and Govs. Scott Walker and John Kasich — apparently auditioned, one by one, before the godfather.

In 2016, says Adelson’s top political adviser Andy Abboud, Sheldon’s “bar for support is going to be much higher. … There’s going to be a lot more scrutiny.”

Guess that means no more Newts.

Victor Chaltiel, a major donor and Adelson friend who sits on the board of Las Vegas Sands, tells us Sheldon “doesn’t want a crazy extremist to be the nominee.” Adds Shawn Steel, a big California GOP money man, Sheldon is a “very rational guy.”

Perhaps. But last fall at Yeshiva University, this “very rational guy” gave this response to a question from Rabbi Shmuley Boteach on whether he supports U.S. negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program:

“No. What do you mean support negotiations? What are we going to negotiate about? What I would say is, ‘Listen, you see that desert out there, I want to show you something.’ …

You pick up your cell phone and you call somewhere in Nebraska and you say, ‘OK let it go.’

“So, there’s an atomic weapon, goes over ballistic missiles, the middle of the desert, that doesn’t hurt a soul. Maybe a couple of rattlesnakes, and scorpions, or whatever.

“And then you say, ‘See! The next one is in the middle of Tehran. So, we mean business. You want to be wiped out? Go ahead and take a tough position and continue with your nuclear development.

“‘You want to be peaceful. Just reverse it all, and we will guarantee that you can have a nuclear power plant for electricity purposes, energy purposes.'”

Adelson’s response was recorded by Philip Weiss of Mondoweiss website who was at Yeshiva and filmed the interview. Weiss says the audience cheered Adelson’s proposed nuclear strike on Iran and no one on the stage, not Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens, peeped a word of dissent.

And this is a “very rational guy,” who doesn’t want “a crazy extremist to be the nominee”?

This is someone Republican presidential candidates must appease, if they don’t want tens of millions in attack ads run against them?

This is someone the Republican presidential hopefuls must hearken to now?

Again, so it would seem.

During his talk before the few dozen members of the RJC, Gov. Chris Christie recounted his recent trip to Israel: “I took a helicopter ride from the occupied territories” and came “to understand the military risk that Israel faces every day.”

Christie’s effort at bonding boomeranged. An angry Morton Klein of the Zionist Organization of America confronted Christie to demand that he explain just what he meant by “occupied territories.”

For half a century, the United States has considered the West Bank occupied land where Israeli settlements are illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Whatever Christie’s response, it did not satisfy the ZOA or Klein who declared: “Either [Christie] doesn’t understand the issue, or he’s hostile to Israel.”

Whereupon Christie, in a private audience with Adelson, apologized.

A source close to Adelson told Politico that Christie made clear “that he misspoke when he referred to the ‘occupied territories.’ And he conveyed that he is an unwavering friend and committed supporter of Israel, and was sorry for any confusion that came across as a result of the misstatement.”

The governor is a tough guy, but this sounds like groveling.

Is this what Republican presidential candidates must do now?

Kowtow to this fattest of fat cats who wants to buy himself an American war on Iran?

Is that what has become of the party of Reagan?

Posted in USAComments Off on War Party Oligarch

HE’S BACK AGAIN! (AND HE’S NO HOLOCAUST DENIER)

NOVANEWS

 

By Gilad Atzmon

He’s Back Again: A new Hitler Satire Tops Germany’s Best-Seller List

Have you ever wondered what would happen if Adolf Hitler woke up and found himself in modern-day, vibrant, multicultural, metropolitan Berlin?

Well, this is the precise theme of a new bestseller by German journalist Timur Vermes. It’s called Er Ist Wieder Da (He’s Back Again).

The Germans love the book but the Brits and the Jews are a bit confused. After all, no one ever expects the Germans to crack jokes and certainly not about  the war, the Holocaust or Hitler.  And, as you may expect, the Guardian of Judea is not one bit impressed: “the opening chapters of He’s Back Again in particular can be a bit of a slog,” writes Philip Oltermann,  the paper Berlin’s correspondent.

http://youtu.be/GRhoo7YFlcs

Last night, BBC Newsnight’s Jeremy Paxman hosted a discussion between the author Timur Vermes  and writer Sophie Hardach. Ms Hardach, a relatively unknown Jewish writer was definitely not amused. She advised the best selling German author how best to develop his plot and, surprise, surprise, to incorporate the plight of the Jews. Never was the word Chutzpah more appropriate!

But Timur Vermes  just seemed to be amused by it all and confirmed that his fictional Hitler is no Holocaust denier – on the contrary, he is pretty proud of it all.

I guess it’s all inevitable. The Germans have decided to move on and are freeing themselves from their traumatic past and the oppressive manner with which it has been handled.

Let’s hope it won’t be long before they start, once more, to write great symphonies and the best philosophy ever.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, Literature, PoliticsComments Off on HE’S BACK AGAIN! (AND HE’S NO HOLOCAUST DENIER)

HEIDEGGER’S BLACK NOTEBOOKS: THE DIARIES OF A DISSIDENT NATIONAL SOCIALIST

NOVANEWS

By Greg Johnson

Heiddeger

In December of 2013, the German and French press began reporting that Martin Heidegger’s so-called Black Notebooks (Schwartze Hefte), forthcoming as volumes 94 to 96 of his Gesamtausgabe (Complete Edition), contain passages that constitute an anti-Semitic “smoking gun” (or maybe just asmoking chimney).

On Monday, March 3, I received the first volume of the Black Notebooks, more than 500 pages written from 1931 to 1938. The second and third volumes, which have just been released and are in transit, contain writings from 1938 to ’39 and 1940 to ’41. All told, the three volumes contain more than 1,200 pages of Heidegger’s most private philosophical musings, the seeds of many of his contemporary and later lectures and writings.

It turns out that the passages in which Heidegger discusses Jews are found in the second and third volumes of the Black Notebooks(as well as in volume 97 of the Gesamtausgabe). Professor Peter Trawny, the editor of the Black Notebooks, has also written a small volume, Heidegger und der Mythos der jüdischen Weltverschwörung (Heidegger and the Myth of the Jewish World Conspiracy), which is due out this spring and which quotes and discusses the passages on Jews from volumes 95 to 97.

I will read and review these books in good time, but based on the quotes leaked so far, I predict that these passages will do little harm to Heidegger’s philosophical reputation.

Heidegger is still the most influential philosopher of the 20th century, despite the fact that it has long been known that he joined the National Socialist German Workers Party in 1933 and remained a member until 1945. It has, moreover, long been known that Heidegger spoke against the “Jewification of German intellectual life” (Verjudung des deutschen Geisteslebens). But, we are told, Heidegger was only a “spiritual” or “cultural” anti-Semite rather than a racial one. Beyond that, Heidegger opposed displays of vulgar and petty anti-Semitism while he was Rector of the University of Freiburg. It is also cited in Heidegger’s defense that he cheated on his German wife with Hannah Arendt, who was Jewish, and with Elisabeth Blochmann, who was half-Jewish.

In sum, his defenders argue that Heidegger may have been a National Socialist, but he was never a particularly orthodox one, because the National Socialist ideology did not cohere with Heidegger’s own philosophy. And it is Heidegger’s philosophy that is of permanent importance, not his temporary dalliance with National Socialism.

Now, however, based on leaked lines from the Black Notebooks (that maybe amount to 1 or 2 pages out of 1,200), Heidegger’s detractors are claiming that this proves that anti-Semitism was not just a matter of “private insights” but that it is tied to his philosophy,” indeed it is at the “core” of Heidegger’s thought, that Heidegger’s Nazi problem is “deeper” and “bigger” than had been thought, that this constitutes a debacle for contemporary Continental philosophy, and that from now on, it will be hard to defend Heidegger.

Of course we need to take this all with a grain of salt, since the sources of these comments are (1) Heidegger’s publishers, who, I believe, are cynically using this controversy — abetted by Heidegger’s gleeful detractors — to create advance publicity and sell books — and with great success, since before they were even released, the Black Notebooks were philosophical bestsellers on Amazon.de; (2) Heidegger’s editor Peter Trawny, who has a book of his own to sell; and (3) journalists who love controversies.

I predict that after Heidegger’s actual remarks and Trawny’s commentary are finally released, and hundreds of thousands of Euros have changed hands, and thousands of readers have weighed the evidence: (1) we will have learned some new details about Heidegger and the Jews but nothing that will alter the existing picture, (2) both Heidegger’s defenders and detractors will be confirmed in their existing opinions, and (3) and some observers of the intellectual hysteria and thuggery surrounding even a whisper of anti-Semitism might conclude that Jewish power and freedom of thought are incompatible. That conclusion certainly began dawning on me as I read my way through the last controversy about Heidegger and National Socialism, which was launched in 1987 by Victor Farias’ Heidegger y el Nazismo.

For what it’s worth, I think it is a mistake to frame the Heidegger-National Socialism question as a matter of whether National Socialism was “inside” or “outside” Heidegger’s philosophy. It is clear that Heidegger thought that National Socialism was “outside” his philosophy — or any philosophy, for that matter, i.e., that it was a movement containing many conflicting and confused intellectual strands.

The real issue is whether Heidegger thought that his philosophy could transform National Socialism into an intellectually coherent, philosophically grounded movement, a movement that understood its “inner truth and greatness” (as he put it in 1935), namely the confrontation of historical man with global technological civilization.

And the answer to this question is clearly: yes. Heidegger thought that his philosophy could provide the foundations for a kind of National Socialism — which is, by the way, one of the reasons for his enduring influence on the New Right.

Now it appears that Heidegger also turned his attention to the Jewish question. Again, it is a mistake to read too much into a few leaked lines, but we are told, for instance, that Heidegger speaks of Jews as “rootless” and “calculating,” which for Heidegger are general traits of modernity. But it is not yet clear whether Heidegger regarded Jews as the subjects or the objects of modernity, or both.

Heidegger apparently regarded Jews as hypocritical insofar as they live according to the principle of race (Rasseprinzip) but attack Germans for seeking to do the same. Heidegger also reportedly notes that Jews foment wars to advance their interests but are loath to shed their own blood.

Such remarks instantaneously transform modern liberal journalists into elderly Victorian spinsters, clutching invisible cameo brooches at their throats as their cheeks blanch (the original meaning of “appalled”) and all ratiocination is paralyzed by the vapors. But a quick comparison of Jewish political preferencesin the United States and Israel proves the hypocrisy charge, and a cursory knowledge of Jewish lobbying for the US to attack Iraq, Iran, and Syria proves the warmongering charge. Nothing, apparently, has changed.

In the initial reception of the Black Notebooks — as with everything else in European and American life — the tiny Jewish tail is wagging the dog. But when scholars turn their attention from a few sentences about Jews to the 1,200+ pages of other material in the Black Notebooks, the contrived controversy about anti-Semitism will be quickly forgotten. For, judging from the first volume, there are materials here of far greater importance.

For instance, in volume one, the second notebook (entitled Überlegungen und Winke [Reflections and Hints] III) begins in the fall of 1932 and runs through the spring of 1934, i.e., the entire period of Heidegger’s most intense political involvement with National Socialism and his Rectorship at the University of Freiburg. It is, in truth, the diary of a dissident National Socialist.

The opening words express high hopes: “A glorious awakening popular will stands in a great world darkness” (p. 109). Heidegger outlines plans for reforming the university system. But he had far greater ambitions than that, namely, to put National Socialism upon firm philosophical foundations, namely, his own philosophical foundations: ”The metaphysics of Dasein must according to its innermost structure deepen and broaden into ametapolitics ‘of’ the historical people” (p. 124).

Heidegger records his frustrations with”vulgar National Socialism” (p. 142) — a mass movement based in biological racism. He analyzes such basic concepts as the “people” (Volk), “socialism,” “wholeness” (Ganzheit), and the masses. He remarks that “National Socialism is a barbaric principle” (p. 194) and that “National Socialism in its present form is scarcely a ‘Worldview,’ and if it persists in its present ‘form’ can never become one” (p. 196).

Heidegger also records his frustration with the Rectorship, which eventually led to his resignation. On April 28, 1934, the day after his resignation was accepted, he writes “The end of the Rectorate. . . Long live mediocrity and clamor [Lärm]!” (p. 162). The final page is a confession of despair: “‘The Self-Assertion of the German University’ [the title of Heidegger’s Rectoral Address] or — the small intermezzo in a great error” (p. 198). He foresees the complete absorption of the university by technical-instrumental modernity — and, by implication, the absorption of National Socialism itself, betraying its potential to offer a real alternative.

Scholars will be discussing these and other issues raised by theBlack Notebooks long after the Lärm about anti-Semitism has died away.

Judging from the first volume, the Black Notebooks are where Heidegger initially drafted many of the ideas that characterize his later thinking. And, as with his lecture courses, they are expressed with great clarity and directness, poles apart from the contrived obscurity of many of the works he published in his lifetime, as well as posthumous works like Contributions to Philosophy, all of which read, as Flannery O’Connor put it, “like some evil incantation in gibberish” (“Good Country People”).

Heidegger stipulated that the Black Notebooks and related texts be published only at the end of this Complete Edition. I think he was saving the best for last.

Posted in Germany, PoliticsComments Off on HEIDEGGER’S BLACK NOTEBOOKS: THE DIARIES OF A DISSIDENT NATIONAL SOCIALIST

IS THE BDS DEMOCRATIC?

NOVANEWS

http://dissidentvoice.org/2014/03/is-the-bds-democratic/

Is the BDS Democratic?

Open letter to Omar Barghouti, Co-founder, PACBI

by Paul Larudee / March 23rd, 2014

Dear Omar,

Let me start by saying that you have done a lot for BDS and that BDS has done a lot for the Palestinian cause.  It is perhaps for this reason that we should all be concerned with potential corruption of the movement, and you most of all.  I refer to changes of wording, changes of direction and changes of priority within the movement.

The change of wording is the infamous four words “occupied in June, 1967″ inserted into the first of three objectives in the mission statement portion of the 2005 BDS Call signed by 173 Palestinian organizations, such that the statement now demands of Israel:

“Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantling the Wall…” (added phrase in italics)

I understand your argument that this phrase only clarifies the meaning of the original statement, and that it changes the meaning not at all.  Even so, who gave you the right to make the change without consulting and getting the approval of the signatories to the original call?  Why was it inserted without even telling anyone, such that no one but you even knows when it was done?  If it is so uncontroversial, why not get it approved?

Why is the phrase needed, anyway?  You argue that it results in no change of meaning.  Why, then, is it not superfluous?  Since it is a bone of contention, just remove it and be done with it.

I also understand that the offending phrase occurs only in the ”Introducing the BDS Movement” section of the website and that the original wording is preserved elsewhere.  However, this is at best misleading and at worst disingenuous.  The “Introducing the BDS Movement” section reproduces the three demands from the 2005 Call completely verbatim, except for the added four words, and then proceeds to make the claim that this wording is endorsed by the signatories of the 2005 BDS Call.

This is deceptive and even fraudulent and must be corrected.  The altered wording has even been mistakenly quoted by Max Blumenthal in his book Goliath as being the wording of the original BDS Call.  Your misrepresentation has led directly to his error.

However, the wording is not merely a technical problem.  The wording is apparently important to you.  But why?  Could it be that the wording was needed in order to satisfy individuals or groups or interests that demanded this wording?  Was it meant as an assurance that BDS would not demand the return of all lands stolen from Palestinians but only those lands that were stolen outside the Green Line?

If this is the case, it would explain why many “soft” Zionists, who want to maintain a Jewish state but give back the West Bank, now participate in BDS, but only against institutions that support the Israeli presence in the West Bank.

In fact, that is the current priority of the movement, with little or no Boycott, Divestment or Sanctions aimed at institutions that deny equal rights to Palestinian citizens of Israel or the Right of Return to Palestinians in the shatat (“diaspora”).

Is this a coincidence or is BDS headed in a different direction than its origins would indicate?  Is it no longer a Palestinian movement, but rather a “soft” Zionist movement?

Obviously, people join movements for different reasons, and if Zionists want to boycott organizations that do business with Israel – even if only in the West Bank – their contribution is welcome.

However, it is quite another matter to effectively turn over the reins of the movement to them or to accommodate them by changing the wording of the mission statement.  A Palestinian movement that welcomes Zionists that have limited objectives is quite different from a Zionist movement that wants to limit its mission but accepts Palestinians that have wider goals.

Is that what is going on?  Perhaps not.  Perhaps my concerns are exaggerated.  But in that case, please dispel all doubt by removing the four words.

Paul Larudee

 

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, CampaignsComments Off on IS THE BDS DEMOCRATIC?

ON THE I$RAHELI EUGENIC PROJECT AND THE RADIATION OF ARAB JEWS IN THE 1950’S (MUST WATCH)

NOVANEWS

 

Directed by David Belhassen and Asher Hemias. The documentary won the award for “Best Documentary” at the Haifa International Film Festival and was featured as a documentary at the Israel Film Festival in Los Angeles in 2007.

It is claimed in the documentary that the X-ray radiation used on the children was thousands of times beyond the maximum recommended dose and it is suggested that the program was funded by the United States in order to test the effects of large radiation doses on humans.

In fact, the treatment in Israel was the same that was used elsewhere in the world.

The documented dosages given to the Israeli children were similar to (if not less than) that administered to children treated for ringworm at New York University Hospital between 1940 and 1959.

A study from the early 1950s found X-ray treatment effective in almost all cases of ringworm.
The documentary alleges that 100,000 children were irradiated, and that 6,000 of them died shortly after receiving treatment. Many of the ‘ringworm children’ later developed cancer, and in 1994 the Knesset passed a law mandating the Israeli government to provide them with compensation.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on ON THE I$RAHELI EUGENIC PROJECT AND THE RADIATION OF ARAB JEWS IN THE 1950’S (MUST WATCH)

RABBI MEIR KAHANE ON THE JEWISH STATE AND THE ARABS

NOVANEWS

http://youtu.be/qDuWgmnDhLY

For many years we have been encountering  the relentless attempts of anti Zionist Jews AKA AZZ* to divert the attention from the fact that  Israel defines itself as the Jewish State.  For some peculiar reason, it is Rabbi, Kahane, the ultimate Jewish bigot who reveals the full truth re Jewishness and the West.

strangely enough, this racist right wing Jew conveys more respect to Palestinians and Arabs than his ‘humanist’ opponents who actually dismiss Arab and Palestinian nationalist  aspirations.

A Longer segment of Kahane’s speech can be found herehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOdjZR2lN1s

undefined

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on RABBI MEIR KAHANE ON THE JEWISH STATE AND THE ARABS

THE BANALITY OF THE GUARDIAN OF JUDEA

NOVANEWS

 

By Gilad Atzmon

The once well-respected Guardian has been reduced in recent years into a lame Zionist mouthpiece – a light Jewish Chronicle for Gentiles consumption. Last week, the paper launched an attack on Martin Heidegger, the 20th century’s most influential philosopher.

“Heidegger’s ‘black notebooks’ reveal antisemitism at core of his philosophy” the paper’s headline read.  But what does that mean? Was Heidegger really a Jew hater? Did he oppose people for being ethnically or ‘racially’ Jewish or was he, instead, critical of Jewish politics, culture, ideology and spirit?

According to the ‘progressive’ British Guardian, the newly published Black Notebooks reveals that Heidegger saw ‘world Judaism’ as the driver of “dehumanising modernity”.

Needless to mention that we didn’t need a ‘new publication’ to assert that this was Heidegger’s view of Jewish culture and politics. The German thinker, like many of his contemporaries, saw “Jerusalem” as a suppressive and corrupted spiritual, cultural and intellectual influence as opposed to “Athens”, which portrayed in his eyes, the birth of humanism, universalism, aesthetics, ethics and pluralism.

Let’s examine what makes a prominent thinker into an Anti Semite in the eyes of The Guardian. “While distancing himself from the racial theories pursued by Nazi intellectuals, Heidegger argues that Weltjudentum (“world Judaism”) is one of the main drivers of western modernity, which he viewed critically.”

But aren’t we entitled to criticize religion, culture or Ideology?  Aren’t we allowed to disapprove of modernity or technology and to try to identify its cultural and ideological roots? For some reason, I can’t recall The Guardian taking Max Weber to task for suggesting that Protestant ethics was the driving force behind Capitalism. Embarrassingly enough, the same Guardian that clumsily and shamelessly smears the greatest continental thinker, provides a platform to a long list of Neocons, pro-war advocates such as Nick Cohen who constantly and relentlessly criticize the so-called  ‘Islamo-Fascists’ – a code name for Islamic political culture. I guess that for The Guardian of Judea, it is only Jewish culture, religion and ideology that must remain beyond criticism.

“World Judaism”, Heidegger writes in the notebooks, “is ungraspable everywhere and doesn’t need to get involved in military action while continuing to unfurl its influence, whereas we are left to sacrifice the best blood of the best of our people”.  But is the above observation anti Semitic? Can an honest observation be anti Semitic, or shall we say a form of ‘hatred’, or should it be more appropriately tagged as an uncomfortable truth?

Heidegger was a German patriot. As such he knew very well that it was Zionist leadership and German Jewish bankers in America that facilitated the entry of the USA into the first world war (in return in part for the 1917’s Belfour Declaration that promised a national home for Jews in Palestine). In that regard, Heidegger, like his contemporaries, had good reason to believe that Germany was betrayed by its Jewish elite.

When Heidegger published his monumental Being And Time (1927), certainly the 20th century’s most important philosophical text, the Frankfurt School, dominated by Jewish academics, had already been in operation for more than four years, gaining ground in its attempt to subvert German culture in the name of communism. As a German nationalist, Heidegger had more than just one reason to oppose Jewish culture, politics and ideology.

Heidegger was a philosopher as opposed to a politician or an ‘activist’. His understanding of the world was driven by the search for an essential and categorical comprehension. For Heidegger it wasn’t the ‘Jew’ nor was it ethnicity that posed danger, it was an ideology and culture that was set to undermine his Athenian West and its value system as he saw it. Such an approach has nothing to do with racial hatred.

Let’s examine Heidegger’s above statement regarding ‘world Judaism’, its ‘ungraspable’ impact and its unwillingness to ‘sacrifice.’ Heidegger basically suggests that the Jewish elite is launching wars by proxy. At first, this may sound like a vile criticism of Jewish culture and power within politics. But a deeper look into this statement reveals that Heidegger was highly observant. Let’s face it, Heidegger certainly didn’t know about the cabal of Zionist neocons who pushed Britain and the USA into an illegal war in Iraq five decades after his death. Heidegger, most definitely didn’t know about the Jewish Lobby Groups: AIPAC, LFI, CFI and the CRIF. He certainly didn’t know of Bernard Henri Levy or Jewish Chronicle writers David Aaronovitch and Nick Cohen, who have been advocating Zionist immoral interventionist campaigns for years. Furthermore, as Heidegger predicted, not many young Jews followed the Zionised Neocon militant enthusiasm and rushed to join the US Army Special Forces or The Royal Marines. Heidegger somehow foresaw that Jews wouldn’t be overrepresented in the list of dead British and American soldiers that emerged out of this chain of futile conflicts.

When Heidegger writes, “we (the Germans) are left to sacrifice the best blood of the best of our people,”  it is Zionist proxy wars he has in his mind – those Zionist wars that are fought by everyone except the Zionists themselves. But how could the philosopher predict the Zionist’s political apparatus so precisely? Was he a prophet?

To philosophize is to dig into the true essence. The philosopher’s quest is a search for the essential meaning, whether it is being, beauty, knowledge, science and so on.   Heidegger, the philosopher, saw in Jewish culture something most Jews either fail to see in themselves or conceal very well and for a good reason.  It is hardly surprising that The Guardian that has systematically failed to confront the Jewish Lobby and its relentless war advocacy, would denounce the great mind who accurately listed the exact conditions in which such bellicosity takes place.

Tragically, annihilating intelligencia and deep critical thought has become an obsession of the New Left. This may explain the deterioration of the progressive discourse into an intellectual desert. The Guardian, in its current form and under its current leadership, has a major role in that process.

“In another passage”, the Guardian continues, “the philosopher writes that the Jewish people, with their ‘talent for calculation’, were so vehemently opposed to the Nazi’s racial theories because ‘they themselves have lived according to the race principle for longest’”.

But is this really a lie? Not at all. The German philosopher obviously hits the nail on the head. Heidegger, who didn’t approve of the Nazi racist doctrine, properly noted that Nazi racial supremacy was, in fact, Kosher by nature.

It is hardly a secret that Jewish culture is ethno-centric and racially driven.  Israel defines itself as the  ‘Jewish State’. Far more embarrassing is the fact that Israel’s Jewish opponents also follow the same racially supremacist methodology and, in most cases, operate within ‘Jews only’ political cells (such as JVP, IJAN, Jewish Socialist Group etc.).

Heidegger, was obviously ahead of his time in observing the similarity between Jewish political exclusiveness and Nazi ideology. Does that make Heidegger an anti Semite? Quite the opposite, it affirms that the German philosopher is a timeless precious intellectual asset.  Yet, The Guardian doesn’t posses the minimal integrity to admit that Heidegger was actually spot on. Instead, the British paper is desperate to undermine the work of the great philosopher by means of inept and vague association.

By tagging Heidegger as an anti Semite The Guardian basically advises his readers not to read the greatest GermanoGrecophilosopher and certainly not to evaluate the content of his writing. This is ‘Newspeak’ as observed by Orwell, which minimizes the possible content of intellectual exchange by means of ‘correctness’.

It is no secret that the contemporary politically correct observer adheres to the rule that truth better be inoffensive. As such, he or she contributes to the suppression of the truth and the transformation of knowledge into a system of selective concealment. Interestingly, it was Heidegger who was there to turn the floodlight onto ‘concealment’ and the ‘forgetfulness of Being’, something the Guardian has made into an art from.

Heidegger, the truth teller has come to represent everything the Jerusalemite ‘Guardian of Judea’ is there to suppress. I guess that the time is ripe for The Guardian to wake up. It would do well to reinstate its position as The Guardian of the truth rather than The Guardian of Zion. We could use a quality Left paper driven by true humanist and universal concerns, instead of just another ignorant and banal Zionist mouthpiece.

Posted in PoliticsComments Off on THE BANALITY OF THE GUARDIAN OF JUDEA

Sanctions on Russia’s Energy Sector: Shale Gas ‘Fracking’ Will Invade Europe?

NOVANEWS
Global Research

Fracking will be “good for our country,” was a statement made by British Prime Minister David Cameron at a recent Nuclear Security Summit in The Hague according to the UK based news agency The Guardian. Cameron believes that the fracking industry will have the public’s support since reliance on Russia’s energy sources will be halted if sanctions are imposed due to the political crisis in the Ukraine. The Obama administration is also proposing a joint US-EU trade deal with its European partners that would reduce Europe’s dependence on Russia’s energy resources. The Guardian reported Cameron’s statement regarding shale gas fracking in Europe:

The prime minister said that once wells are up and running later this year, there would be more public enthusiasm, and exploiting shale gas reserves could help Europe wean itself off reliance on exports from Russia” and that “The Ukraine crisis has increased the urgency of European efforts to find alternative sources of energy to reduce the leverage Russia’s oil and gas supplies give it across the continent

Has the Ukraine crisis opened the doors for shale gas fracking in Europe? The United States and the European Union are currently negotiating an agreement since July of 2013. In a recent report titled ‘No Fracking Way: How the EU-US trade agreement risks expanding fracking’ by Friends of the Earth Europe, Corporate Europe Observatory and the Transnational Institute among others stated what the Transalantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is capable of in terms of the rights of corporations involved in the fracking industry:

The TTIP deal threatens to give more rights to companies through a clause called an ‘investor-state dispute settlement’ (ISDS). If included in

 

the deal, this would enable corporations to claim damages in secret courts or ‘arbitration panels’ if they deem their profits are adversely affected by changes in a regulation or policy. This threatens democratically agreed laws designed to protect communities and the environment. Companies which claim their investments (including expectations of future profits) are affected by a change in government policies could have the right to seek compensation through private international tribunals. US companies (or any company with a subsidiary in the US) investing in Europe could use these far-reaching investor rights to seek compensation for future bans or other regulation on fracking. These tribunals are not part of the normal judicial system, but are specifically set up for investment cases. Arbitrators have a strong bias towards investors – and no specialised knowledge about our climate or fracking. Companies are already using existing investment agreements to claim damages from governments, with taxpayers picking up the tab. Investor-state dispute settlement is becoming increasingly controversial as mining and energy firms use it to challenge public policies. For example, the Swedish energy giant Vattenfall is seeking more than 3.7 billion euros from Germany in compensation after the country voted to phase out nuclear power; Pacific Rim, a Canadian-based mining company is demanding US$315 million in compensation from El Salvador after the government refused permission for a potentially devastating gold mining project4; and Lone Pine Resources is suing Canada for Cdn$250 million over a fracking moratorium in the Canadian province of Quebec

“Claim damages in Secret courts” should be worrisome for communities all across Europe who is in opposition to fracking on their lands. The European Commission’s fact sheet ‘Investment Protection and Investor-to-State Dispute Settlement in EU agreements’ describes one of the provisions within the agreements:

In addition, in EU trade agreements the key investment protection standards are drafted in a detailed and precise manner, in particular making clear that the States’ right to regulate is preserved.

In this context clarifications to two key provisions are made:

Firstly, ‘indirect expropriation’ is one of the most controversial provisions in the investment protection system. Indirect expropriation is when government measures, while not directly taking property away, have the effect of doing so (e.g. the removal of a license required to operate a factory). This provision has been used by some investors to challenge public authorities’ bans for health reasons of chemical products or the introduction of new stricter environmental legislation.

Future EU agreements will provide a detailed set of provisions giving guidance to arbitrators on how to decide whether or not a government measure constitutes indirect expropriation, thus aiming at preventing abuse of the system.

In particular, when the state is protecting the public interest in a non-discriminatory way, the right of the state to regulate should prevail over the economic impact of those measures on the investor. These much needed clarifications will make sure that companies cannot be compensated just because their profits have been reduced through the effects of regulations enacted for a public policy objective. The Commission has negotiated provisions with Canada and Singapore which makes this clear, and the language will also be included in future agreements

If the European Union and the United States finalize the TTIP agreement then the anti-fracking opposition will grow through a grassroots movement. With Austerity measures being met with protests and violence throughout Europe, fracking would sure add fuel to the fire in an already tense situation. This past week the “March of Dignity” in Spain took place ending in violent clashes between the police and protesters. In the UK, anti-fracking protesters are growing despite PM David Cameron’s recent statement when he said that “I think something positive should come out of [the situation in Ukraine] for Europe which is to take a long hard look at its energy resilience, and its energy independence. And I hope it will lead to some really useful work being done” he continued “Britain is not reliant on Russian gas to any extent, it’s just a few percentage points of our gas intake. But the variety around Europe is very, very wide. Some countries are almost 100% reliant on Russian gas so I think it is something of a wake-up call and I think action will be taken.”New energy sanctions imposed on Russia will affect the European Union economically, environmentally and politically as the realization of the fracking technology breeds grassroots awareness in Europe’s already fragile state.

European leaders are not interested in democracy for the Ukrainian people or in their own countries economic woes; it is interested in profits that would generate jobs and growth. The UK based ‘The Independent’ reported in 2012 what Lord Browne, a former BP chief executive, who is a director of the shale gas “fracking” company Cuadrilla said regarding shale gas fracking “We could potentially double the reserves of gas in the UK, we could add 50,000 jobs maybe, and probably even reduce the price of gas.” In an article released by www.ecowatch.com in 2013, disagrees with the shale gas fracking industry’s assessment on job creation. “Industry supporters have exaggerated the jobs impact in order to minimize or avoid altogether taxation, regulation and even careful examination of shale drilling” said Frank Mauro, executive director of the Fiscal Policy Institute in New York” according to the article:

Shale drilling has created jobs, particularly in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, and cushioned some drilling-intensive areas in those states from the worst effects of the Great Recession and the weak recovery. As this report documents, however, the number of shale jobs created is far below industry claims and remains a small share of overall employment

Fracking will be at the expense of local communities throughout Europe that would eventually lead to violent demonstrations against their governments who are interested in corporate profits over the people and the environment. Sanctions on the resource rich Russian Federation will backfire on the citizens of the European Union most of all. The US-EU plan to surround Russia with American and NATO bases over the crisis in the Ukraine is not the only intended goal. It also supports the idea to force the European community to accept shale gas fracking as an alternative right under their feet without depending on Russia’s natural resources. How convenient!

Posted in Egypt, RussiaComments Off on Sanctions on Russia’s Energy Sector: Shale Gas ‘Fracking’ Will Invade Europe?

Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING

April 2014
M T W T F S S
« Mar   May »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930