Archive | February 11th, 2015

New Report Reveals Magnitude of Black Lynchings in US

The streets of Birmingham, Alabama, on May 9, 1963 after violent demonstrations for civil rights.

The streets of Birmingham, Alabama, on May 9, 1963 after violent demonstrations for civil rights. | Photo: AFP

The report shows that violence against African-American people is largely underestimated.

About 4,000 black people were lynched in the southern states of the United States between 1877 and 1950, equivalent to more than one per week, according to a new report published Tuesday by the Alabama-based Equal Justice Initiative (EJI).

Over 6 million black people also fled the South between 1910-1970 to escape the violence and terror in a region known for its extreme and widespread racism.

This is the most extensive study published on “racial terrorism” recently, after five years of investigation in 12 southern states. It has added 700 more cases of lynchings to the previous investigation by sociologists Stewart Tolnay and E. M. Beck in 1995.

Commenting on the new study, said, “If you’re trying to make a point that the amount of racial violence is underestimated, well then, there’s no doubt about it,” Professor E.M. Beck of the University of Georgia told the New York Times. “What people don’t realize here is just how many there were, and how close. Places they drive by every day.”

Beck backed the argument of EJI founder Bryan Stevenson that lynchings did not merely consist in administering “justice,” but rather terrorizing the black community. His own study showed that lynching numbers did not rise or fall in proportion to the number of executions ordered by the state.

“Many of these lynchings were not executing people for crimes but executing people for violating the racial hierarchy,” explained Stevenson, referring to percieved offenses like bumping up against a white woman, refusing to move from the sidewalk, or wearing an army uniform. People would often refuse to grant a black person a trial in order to lynch them themselves and send a message to the others, he added.

No one has been put on trail for the lynching of a black person, the report noted, also showing pictures of street vendors selling food to people watching the lynchings. Parts of the bodies were also distributed as souvenirs.

The extensive investigation by the EJI aims to recall the lynchings with memorials on the lynching sites, but expects to face obstacles.

Another part of black history was discussed on Monday on U.S. site Raw Story, about the FBI spying on “notorious” black writers for decades. Declassified documents from the intelligence agency and studied by academic William Maxwell (Washington University, Saint Louis) showed that 51 writers were put under surveillance by J. Edgar Hoover. The FBI under his leadership read, monitored, and censored the writers.

“Hoover… saw as an emerging alliance between black literacy and black radicalism,” Maxwell explained to the Guardian.

The study also showed “the extent to which the FBI influenced African American writing,” Maxwell added.

Posted in USAComments Off on New Report Reveals Magnitude of Black Lynchings in US

Father Says Muslim Family Massacre Was ‘Hate Crime’

The three American Muslim students were shot dead near the University of North Carolina.

The three American Muslim students were shot dead near the University of North Carolina.

Police claim a parking dispute could have sparked the massacre. Religious groups call for the case to investigated as a hate crime.

The father of the two Muslim women who were killed in cold blood alongside a Muslim man has told local media that he believes the killings were a hate crime.

“This was not a dispute over a parking space; this was a hate crime. This man had picked on my daughter and her husband a couple of times before, and he talked with them with his gun in his belt. And they were uncomfortable with him, but they did not know he would go this far,” said Mohammad Abu-Salha, a psychiatrist in Clayton.

“It was execution style, a bullet in every head,” Abu-Salha told a Raleigh, North Carolina-based newspaper.

Police however, believe that an ongoing dispute over parking may have been the cause of the massacre of a young Muslim family in North Carolina.

The family of three was found dead Tuesday evening after police responded to a report of gunshots in a normally quiet neighborhood in Chapel Hill.

Chapel Hill police charged Craig Stephen Hicks with first degree murder Wednesday after the 47-year-old handed himself in to officers.

The victims have since been identified as Deah Shaddy Barakat, Yusor Mohammad and Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, according to the U.K.’s Independent newspaper.

According to Hicks’ social media pages, he is an atheist, and often attacked religious readings. The three victims were Muslim.

Religious groups are calling on police to investigate the case as a hate crime.

“Based on the brutal nature of this crime, the past anti-religion statements of the alleged perpetrator, the religious attire of two of the victims and the rising anti-Muslim rhetoric in American society, we urge state and federal law enforcement authorities to quickly address speculation of a possible bias motive in this case,” Muslim advocacy group Council on American-Islamic Relations National Executive Director Nihad Awad said in a statement.

“Our heartfelt condolences go to the families and loved ones of the victims and to the local community.”

Our prayers are with the families of the Deah Barakat, Yusor&Razan AbuSalha.

08:38 – 11 feb 2015 Dubai, United Arab Emirates, الامارات العربية المتحدة

One of Barakat’s last tweets late last month appeared to condemn religious violence.

The shooting has already sparked an online furor, which social media users using #ChapelHillShooting to question why the incident has garnered little media attention.

It’s so freaking sad to hear people saying we should “kill Jews” or “Kill Palestinians”. As if that’s going to solve anything SMH

Ver imagen en Twitter

This should be the number one trend worldwide "</p

Posted in USAComments Off on Father Says Muslim Family Massacre Was ‘Hate Crime’

Jewish organization to start “aggressive” excavations under Aqsa mosque


A right-wing Jewish organization called the Western Wall Heritage Foundation has circulated an invitation for bids to conduct excavations in tunnels under the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, a top Palestinian official said Sunday.

Ahmad Qurei, a member of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, said the work would start on Feb. 20.

In a statement, Qurei, who chairs a PLO department for Jerusalem affairs, described the move as dangerous. He said that Israeli engineers and contractors had toured the al-Aqsa mosque compound secretly a few days ago to explore the location before they submit their bids.

The Israeli occupation government, added the statement, through these “aggressive excavations,” plans to create new paths and chambers under the Western Wall of the al-Aqsa Mosque compound in order to enhance its grab on the Old City of Jerusalem and eventually transform it into a Jewish city both physically and demographically.

Israel has already excavated dozens of tunnels under the Old City as part of its efforts to displace the indigenous Palestinian residents and replace them with Jewish settlers, according to Qurei.

One of the tunnels, he said, runs from Ein Silwan to the western wall of the al-Aqsa mosque. Another major tunnel runs from the wall to the Omari school in the Muslim quarter. A third tunnel runs from the Muslim Quarter to the Western Wall of the al-Aqsa mosque.

In addition, added Qurei, there are ongoing excavations in attempts to connect between illegal settlement outposts in the Old City.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Jewish organization to start “aggressive” excavations under Aqsa mosque

Wretched US Journalism on Ukraine


Exclusive: The U.S. news media has failed the American people often in recent years by not challenging U.S. government falsehoods, as with Iraq’s WMD. But the most dangerous violation of journalistic principles has occurred in the Ukraine crisis, which has the potential of a nuclear war, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

A basic rule of journalism is that there are almost always two sides to a story and that journalists should try to reflect that reality, a principle that is especially important when lives are at stake amid war fevers. Yet, American journalism has failed miserably in this regard during the Ukraine crisis.

With very few exceptions, the mainstream U.S. media has simply regurgitated the propaganda from the U.S. State Department and other entities favoring western Ukrainians. There has been little effort to view the worsening crisis through the eyes of ethnic Russian Ukrainians living in the east or the Russians witnessing a political and humanitarian crisis on their border.


Frankly, I cannot recall any previous situation in which the U.S. media has been more biased – across the board – than on Ukraine. Not even the “group think” around Iraq’s non-existent WMDs was as single-minded as this, with the U.S. media perspective on Ukraine almost always from the point of view of the western Ukrainians who led the overthrow of elected President Viktor Yanukovych, whose political base was in the east.

So, what might appear to an objective observer as a civil war between western Ukrainians, including the neo-Nazis who spearheaded last year’s coup against Yanukovych, and eastern Ukrainians, who refused to accept the anti-Yanukovych order that followed the coup, has been transformed by the U.S. news media into a confrontation between the forces of good (the western Ukrainians) and the forces of evil (the eastern Ukrainians) with an overlay of “Russian aggression” as Russian President Vladimir Putin is depicted as a new Hitler.

Though the horrific bloodshed – more than 5,000 dead – has been inflicted overwhelmingly on the ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine by the forces from western Ukraine, the killing is routinely blamed on either the eastern Ukrainian rebels or Putin for allegedly fomenting the trouble in the first place (though there is no evidence that he did, as even former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has acknowledged.)

I realize that anyone who doesn’t accept the Official Washington “group think” on Ukraine is denounced as a “Putin apologist” – just as anyone who questioned the conventional wisdom about Saddam Hussein giving his WMDs to al-Qaeda was a “Saddam apologist” – but step back for a minute and look at the crisis through the eyes of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine.

A year ago, they saw what looked to them like a U.S.-organized coup, relying on both propaganda and violence to overthrow their constitutionally elected government. They also detected a strong anti-ethnic-Russian bias in the new regime with its efforts to strip away Russian as an official language. And they witnessed brutal killings of ethnic Russians – at the hands of neo-Nazis – in Odessa and elsewhere.

Their economic interests, too, were threatened since they worked at companies that did substantial business with Russia. If those historic ties to Russia were cut in favor of special economic relations with the European Union, the eastern Ukrainians would be among the worst losers.

Remember, that before backing away from the proposed association agreement with the EU in November 2013, Yanukovych received a report from economic experts in Kiev that Ukraine stood to lose $160 billion if it broke with Russia, as Der Spiegel reported. Much of that economic pain would have fallen on eastern Ukraine.

Economic Worries

On the rare occasions when American journalists have actually talked with eastern Ukrainians, this fear of the economic consequences has been a core concern, along with worries about the harsh austerity plan that the International Monetary Fund prescribed as a prerequisite for access to Western loans.

For instance, in April 2014, Washington Post correspondent Anthony Faiola reported from Donetsk that many of the eastern Ukrainians whom he interviewed said their resistance to the new Kiev regime was driven by fear over “economic hardship” and the IMF austerity plan that will make their lives even harder.

“At a most dangerous and delicate time, just as it battles Moscow for hearts and minds across the east, the pro-Western government is set to initiate a shock therapy of economic measures to meet the demands of an emergency bailout from the International Monetary Fund,” Faiola reported.

In other words, Faiola encountered reasonable concerns among eastern Ukrainians about what was happening in Kiev. Many eastern Ukrainians felt disenfranchised by the overthrow of their elected leader and they worried about their future in a U.S.-dominated Ukraine. You can disagree with their point of view but it is an understandable perspective.

When some eastern Ukrainians mounted protests and occupied buildings – similar to what the western Ukrainians had done in Kiev before the coup – these protesters were denounced by the coup regime as “terrorists” and became the target of a punitive military campaign involving some of the same neo-Nazi militias that spearheaded the Feb. 22 coup against Yanukovych.

Nearly all the 5,000 or more people who have died in the civil war have been killed in eastern Ukraine with ethnic Russian civilians bearing the brunt of those fatalities, many killed by artillery barrages from the Ukrainian army firing into populated centers and using cluster-bomb munitions.

Even Human Rights Watch, which is largely financed by pro-coup billionaire George Soros, reported that “Ukrainian government forces used cluster munitions in populated areas in Donetsk city” despite the fact that “the use of cluster munitions in populated areas violates the laws of war due to the indiscriminate nature of the weapon and may amount to war crimes.”

Neo-Nazi and other “volunteer” brigades, dispatch by the Kiev regime, have also engaged in human rights violations, including death squad operations pulling people from their homes and executing them. Amnesty International, another human rights group that Soros helps fund and that has generally promoted Western interests in Eastern Europe, issued a report noting abuses committed by the pro-Kiev Aidar militia.

“Members of the Aidar territorial defence battalion, operating in the north Luhansk region, have been involved in widespread abuses, including abductions, unlawful detention, ill-treatment, theft, extortion, and possible executions,” the Amnesty International report said.

The Aidar battalion commander told an Amnesty International researcher: “There is a war here. The law has changed, procedures have been simplified. … If I choose to, I can have you arrested right now, put a bag over your head and lock you up in a cellar for 30 days on suspicion of aiding separatists.”

Amnesty International wrote: “Some of the abuses committed by members of the Aidar battalion amount to war crimes, for which both the perpetrators and, possibly, the commanders would bear responsibility under national and international law.”

Neo-Nazi Battalions

And the Aidar battalion is not even the worst of the so-called “volunteer” brigades. Others carry Nazi banners and espouse racist contempt for the ethnic Russians who have become the target of something close to “ethnic cleansing” in the areas under control of the Kiev regime. Many eastern Ukrainians fear falling into the hands of these militia members who have been witnessed leading captives to open graves and executing them.

As the conservative London Telegraph described in an article last August by correspondent Tom Parfitt: “Kiev’s use of volunteer paramilitaries to stamp out the Russian-backed Donetsk and Luhansk ‘people’s republics’… should send a shiver down Europe’s spine.

“Recently formed battalions such as Donbas, Dnipro and Azov, with several thousand men under their command, are officially under the control of the interior ministry but their financing is murky, their training inadequate and their ideology often alarming. The Azov men use the neo-Nazi Wolfsangel (Wolf’s Hook) symbol on their banner and members of the battalion are openly white supremacists, or anti-Semites.”

Based on interviews with militia members, the Telegraph reported that some of the fighters doubted the Holocaust, expressed admiration for Adolf Hitler and acknowledged that they are indeed Nazis.

Andriy Biletsky, the Azov commander, “is also head of an extremist Ukrainian group called the Social National Assembly,” according to the Telegraph article which quoted a commentary by Biletsky as declaring: “The historic mission of our nation in this critical moment is to lead the White Races of the world in a final crusade for their survival. A crusade against the Semite-led Untermenschen.”

The Telegraph questioned Ukrainian authorities in Kiev who acknowledged that they were aware of the extremist ideologies of some militias but insisted that the higher priority was having troops who were strongly motivated to fight. [See’sIgnoring Ukraine’s Neo-Nazi Storm Troopers.”]

So, the current wave of U.S. propaganda condemning a rebel offensive for violating a shaky cease-fire might look different if seen through the eyes of a population under siege, being cut off from banking services, left to starve and facing “death squad” purges by out-of-control neo-Nazis.

Through those eyes, it would make sense to reclaim territory currently occupied by the Kiev forces, to protect fellow ethnic Russians from depredations, and to establish borders for what you might hope to make into a sustainable autonomous zone.

And, if you put yourself in the Russian position, you might feel empathy for people who were your fellow citizens less than a quarter century ago and who saw their elected leader ousted in a U.S.-backed coup. You also might be alarmed at the presence of Nazi storm troopers (considering the history of Hitler’s invasion) and the prospects of NATO moving up to your border with a possible deployment of nuclear weapons. You might even recall how agitated Americans got over nuclear missiles in Cuba.

Granted, some of these Russian fears may be overwrought, but the Kremlin has to worry about threats to Russia’s national security just like any other country does. If you were in Putin’s shoes, what would you do? Would you turn your back on the plight of the eastern Ukrainians? Would you let a hostile military alliance push up against your borders with a potential nuclear threat, especially given the extra-legal means used to remove Ukraine’s constitutionally elected president?

Even if the U.S. press corps fulfilled its obligation to tell both sides of the story, many Americans would still condemn Putin’s acceptance of Crimea’s pleas for reentry into Russia and his assistance to the embattled eastern Ukrainians. They would accept the U.S. government’s relentless presentation of the Ukraine crisis as “Russian aggression.”

And, they might still buy the story that we’re endlessly sold about the Ukraine crisis being a premeditated move by Putin in a Hitlerian strategy to conquer the Baltic States. Even though there’s zero evidence that Putin ever had that in mind, some Americans might still choose to believe it.

But my point is that American journalists should not be U.S. government propagandists. Their job is not to herd the American people into some “group think” corral. A good journalist would want to present the positions of both sides with some evenhandedness.

Yet, that is not what we have witnessed from the U.S. news media on the Ukraine crisis. It has been nearly all propaganda nearly all of the time. That is not only a disservice to the American people and to the democratic precept about an informed electorate. It is a reckless violation of professional principles that has helped lurch the world toward a potential nuclear conflagration.

Posted in UkraineComments Off on Wretched US Journalism on Ukraine

Exclusive: Freed CIA Whistleblower John Kiriakou Says “I Would Do It All Again” to Expose Torture


John Kiriakou, spent 14 years at the CIA as an analyst and case officer. Kiriakou exposed the Bush-era torture program and became the only official jailed in connection with it. In 2007, he became the first CIAofficial to publicly confirm the Bush administration’s use of waterboarding. In January 2013, he was sentenced to two-and-a-half years after pleading guilty to confirming the identity of a covert officer to a reporter, who did not publish it. His memoir is titledReluctant Spy: My Secret Life in the CIA’s War on Terror. Kiriakou was released from prison last week, but remains under house arrest for three months.

In a broadcast exclusive interview, we spend the hour with John Kiriakou, a retired CIA agent who has just been released from prison after blowing the whistle on the George W. Bush administration’s torture program. In 2007, Kiriakou became the first CIA official to publicly confirm and detail the agency’s use of waterboarding. In January 2013, he was sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison. Under a plea deal, Kiriakou admitted to a single count of violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act by revealing the identity of a covert officer involved in the torture program to a freelance reporter, who did not publish it. In return, prosecutors dropped charges brought under the Espionage Act. Kiriakou is the only official to be jailed for any reason relating to CIA torture. Supporters say he was unfairly targeted in the Obama administration’s crackdown on government whistleblowers. A father of five, Kiriakou spent 14 years at the CIA as an analyst and case officer, leading the team that found high-ranking al-Qaeda member Abu Zubaydah in 2002. He joins us from his home in Virginia, where he remains under house arrest for three months while completing his sentence. In a wide-ranging interview, Kiriakou says, “I would do it all over again,” after seeing the outlawing of torture after he came forward. Kiriakou also responds to the details of the partially released Senate Committee Report on the CIA’s use of torture; argues NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden did a “great national service,” but will not get a fair trial if he returns to the United States; and describes the conditions inside FCILoretto, the federal prison where he served his sentence and saw prisoners die with “terrifying frequency” from lack of proper medical care.


This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: Today, a Democracy Now! radio and television broadcast exclusive. We spend the hour with John Kiriakou, the retired CIA agent who blew the whistle on torture. He’s just been released from prison. He’ll join us from his home in Virginia, where he remains under house arrest while finishing his two-and-a-half-year sentence. Shortly after his release last week, John Kiriakou tweeted a picture of himself at home with his smiling children, along with a quote from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.: “Free at last. Free at least. Thank God Almighty. I’m free at last.”

In January 2013, Kiriakou was sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison. Under a plea deal, he admitted to a single count of violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act by revealing the identity of a covert officer involved in the rendition, detention and interrogation program to a freelance reporter, who didn’t publish it. In return, prosecutors dropped charges against Kiriakou brought under the Espionage Act. In 2007, John Kiriakou became the first CIA official to publicly confirm and detail the Bush administration’s use of waterboarding when he spoke to ABC’s Brian Ross.

JOHN KIRIAKOU: At the time, I felt that waterboarding was something that we needed to do. And as time has passed, and as September 11th has—you know, has moved farther and farther back into history, I think I’ve changed my mind. And I think that waterboarding is probably something that we shouldn’t be in the business of doing.

BRIAN ROSS: Why do you say that now?

Posted in USAComments Off on Exclusive: Freed CIA Whistleblower John Kiriakou Says “I Would Do It All Again” to Expose Torture

New Video Evidence of America’s Coup in Ukraine — and What it Means

Global Research

New video evidence has been added to the already-conclusive video evidence which shows that the U.S. Government was the controlling power behind the extremely violent and illegal 18-27 February 2014 Ukrainian coup, which overthrew the democratically elected and never legally removed-from-power Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.

This new evidence proves, even more than before (if that were even possible to do), that the current regime in Ukraine is definitely illegal — but that’s not all. Even after fake ‘democratic’ elections, it’s the same illegal regime in Ukraine that the U.S. imposed at its February 2014 coup, because no nationwidevote has occurred in Ukraine throughout that country’s expanse after the American coup; it’s still just arump-Ukrainian Government, not one representing the residents either in Crimea or in Ukraine’s far east (neither of which regions participated in Ukrainian elections after the coup) — and yet this illegal violent coup-imposed Ukrainian regime (and the U.S. that imposed it, and even the EU that sheepishly backed it) nonetheless demand (against all legalities) that this blatantly illegal U.S.-imposed Ukrainian Government must control those areas, which reject this nazi imposed Government — that the residents in the regions that had voted overwhelmingly for Yanukovych don’t have the right to self-determination, but must instead accept a coup that goes exactly against, and even has gone so far as to overthrow, the Government for which the residents in those regions had overwhelmingly voted.

This was a violent takeover of the Ukrainian Government, by profoundly racist anti-Russian nationalist Ukrainians, who were in the pay of the U.S. Government. And, it sparked such terror into the hearts of Russians and of Ukraine’s minorities (who were especially large a proportion of the Crimean population), so that, first, Crimea broke away and declared its no longer being a part of Ukraine (it would return to Russia, of which it had been a part from 1783-1954, almost its entire modern existence); and, then,starting on May 9th of 2014, a Ukrainian civil war broke out when the U.S.-installed Government of Ukraine actually invaded the regions (other than Crimea) that rejected it; and the United States oversaw and sent even more mercenaries to this extremely bloody ethnic cleansing campaign to get rid of the residents in the specific region (called “Donbass” and shown in dark purple on this map) of Ukraine that had voted 90% for Yanukovych.

This was the first outright nazi action ever undertaken by any American President. Ever. That’s how bad it is, as a historical precedent for this country. It is being carried out by proud racist fascists (nazis), who are specifically admirers and followers of Adolf Hitler’s Nazis, which were the first, the original, nazi political party, and which are the pattern for Obama’s operatives in Ukraine — the perpetrators of this coup and its subsequent (also totally illegal) ethnic-cleansing campaign. (For examples: all these firebombings that Obama’s forces are doing to the residents in Donbass are against international law.) These Ukrainian nazis even send their children to nazi schools where kids are trained to hate Russians.

Obama uses these people; he found this extermination of pro-Russians in Ukraine to be necessary; so as to get rid of the voters whose votes had made Yanukovych President. In Donbass, 90% of the voters had voted for Yanukovych; so, this was the prime area to be ethnically cleansed (and sometimes they’redriven at night to the countryside and shot at the edge of a ditch). If those voters were ever again allowed to vote in Ukraine, then a pro-Russian government could again be elected in Ukraine, and Obama’s action in that country (his turning it rabidly anti-Russian in its policies) could thus turn out to have been a mere waste for him — just a temporary matter. The strategy here is carefully thought-out, and this is also one reason why it has the support of almost every member of the U.S. House and Senate (even though 67% of the American public oppose it). A similar strategy would be as if Obama were to firebomb and otherwise lay waste Utah because it had voted in the 2012 election 73% for Romney and only 25% for Obama, and so killing the residents there would increase the future chances of electing a Democratic President in the U.S. But in Donbass, Yanukovych had actually won 90% of the vote, not a mere 73%; and, besides, nobody in the U.S. and its allies is even so much as criticizing Obama’s exterminations of the residents in Donbass (the people that Obama’s Ukrainian Government calls “terrorists” for simplyliving there), but instead Vladimir Putin is being criticized in the West for his “Russian aggression,” because he helps those forlorn people defend themselves from the Obama team’s firebombs, clusterbombs, bullets, and other killing-machines. (And here’s one of the Obama team’s firebombings of the city of Donetsk just a few days ago.)

The nazi United States Government today is ideologically, by its nazi actions, at war against the democratic United States that, by its democratic actions, had fought and shed blood to defeat Hitler’s Nazis in World War II. (And — unlike the firebombing of Nazi Dresden in February 1945 — Donetsk and the Obama team’s other Donbass targets are anti-nazi; the U.S. is this time the nazi invader, via its local Ukrainian surrogates. This is not to say that any firebombing should be allowed, but just to say that America has ideologically switched sides since then, which is atrocious.) Of course, there have been nazis in America even before Hitler came to power in Germany; but they were not running the U.S. Government until now; and, now, for the first time ever, the U.S. has itself a nazi Government, which is backed up by nazi American think tanks and media, etc., the entire panoply of political horror. The chief difference from Hitler’s (other than that this nazi government hasn’t yet gone as far toward its ultimate objectives as Hitler’s did) is that this one hates and seeks to destroy mainly Russians, whereas Hitler’s focused mainly against Jews. However, this one seems to be just about as obsessive about eliminating Russians as Hitler’s was about eliminating Jews. In fact, Obama’s hatred of Russia explains not only his Ukrainian policy but also his Syrian policy. Furthermore, Iran is also allied with Russia, and American policy there too might partly be a reflection of Obama’s bigotry against Russia — it should instead be a reflection of strictly U.S.-Iranian issues. Understanding Obama’s foreign policies without recognizing his vicious (and until fairly recently, secret) anti-Russian obsession, which is proven by his actions (not his rhetoric, which is basically dishonest and should simply be ignored except as his PR) can’t be done: it produces only misunderstanding (which is the real purpose behind most of his rhetoric).

So, this new item of evidence, which was posted to youtube on 27 January 2015, shows a courageous member of the “Rada” or Ukraine’s parliament, Oleg Tsarev, on 20 November 2013, and you can see the video’s (broken) English translation transcript, by clicking there on “More.” This is a parliamentary speech, in which he says (and I’ve cleaned up the translation here, only to make it easier to understand):

In my role as a representative of the Ukrainian people, activists from the Volya Public Organization turned to me, providing clear evidence that within our country, with support and direct participation of the US Embassy in Kiev, a “TechCamp” project is under way in which preparations are being made for a civil war in Ukraine. The “TechCamp” project prepares specialists for information warfare and for the discrediting of state institutions [the Government] using modern media — potential revolutionaries for organizing protests and the toppling of the Government. This project is overseen by and currently under the responsibility of the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey R. Pyatt. After the conversation with the Volya Organization, I learned that they actually succeeded to access facilities in the “TechCamp” project [they had hacked into it] disguised as a team of IT specialists. To their surprise, were found briefings that were held on peculiarities of modern media. American instructors explained there how social networks and Internet technologies can be used for targeted manipulation of public opinion as well as to activate potential protest to provoke violent unrest on the territory of Ukraine — radicalization of the population, and triggering of infighting. American instructors show examples of successful use of social networks to organize protests in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. “Tech Camp” representatives currently hold conferences throughout Ukraine. A total of five events have been held so far. About 300 people have been trained as operatives, who are now active throughout Ukraine. The last conference took place on 14 and 14 November 2013, in the heart of Kiev, inside the US Embassy! You tell me which country in the world would allow an NGO to operate out of the US Embassy? This is disrespectful to the Ukrainian Government, and against the Ukrainian people! I thus appeal to the constitutional authorities of Ukraine with the following question: Is it conceivable that representatives of the US Embassy who organize the “TechCamp” conferences misuse their diplomatic immunity? [Someone tries to interrupt him.] A UN Resolution of 21 December 1965 regulates inadmissibility of interference in the internal “affairs of any State, and protects its independence and sovereignty. I urge that there be an official investigation into this matter.

Wikipedia’s “Timeline of the Euromaidan” starts on 21 November 2013, the day after Tsarev’s speech. It says there:

Euromaidan started in the night of 21 November 2013 when up to 2,000 protesters gathered at Kiev’s Maidan Nezalezhnosti and began to organize themselves with the help of social networks.[7] After he heard of the Ukrainian government decree to Yatsenyuk government,”suspend preparations for signing of the Association Agreement on 21 November 2013,[8][9] opposition party Batkivshchyna faction leader Arseniy Yatsenyuk called, via Twitter, for protests (which he dubbed as #Euromaidan) on Maidan Nezalezhnosti.[10]

Of course, Yatsenyuk was the person who, in a 4 February 2014 phone-conversation between Victoria Nuland of Obama’s State Department and Mr. Pyatt of her Kiev Embassy, she told Pyatt was to be selected by him, as the head of the coup-Government that would become installed during the coup, which extended from 18-27 February 2014. (In other words: the coup started two weeks after that phone-conversation in which the new leader had already been selected.)

The CIA edits wikipedia articles, and so the title of the wikipedia article on the coup is “2014 Ukrainian revolution,”not “2014 Ukrainian coup.” Also because of the CIA’s editing, the date of Yatsenyuk’s official appointment to head the Government is buried, instead of being featured in that article (as it should be). The day-by-day account given there starts on 18 February, and ends on 21 February. Then comes: “Deal’s Aftermath.” Then, after yet 9 more such sections, comes “Lustration,” which mentions the new leader’s appointment only in passing: “On 26 February 2014, Ehor Sobolev was nominated to lead the ‘Committee on Lustration’ in the new Yatsenyuk Government.” In other words: the appointment, and the official installation, of “Yats” to run the new Government, isn’t even so much as mentioned in that article. If one clicks there on “Yatsenyuk government,” then one comes to an article that opens: “The first government headed by Arseniy Yatsenyuk was created in Ukraine on 27 February 2014 in the aftermath of the Ukrainian revolution.[1] The cabinet was formed as a coalition of the parties Batkivschyna, UDAR and Svoboda and the parliamentary factions Economic Development and Sovereign European Ukraine and other independent MPs.[1]” Nothing is said there about the new Government’s domination by nazis(who were selected by Victoria Nuland’s man “Yats”). The rest of the article is just as deceptive, in the standard way: by avoiding to state the things that are the most important to state in order for a reader to be able to understand or interpret the given matter accurately. In other words: It’s written for deception.

The time when this speech was delivered by Tsarev is also extremely significant: The very next day, Yanukovych rejected the EU’s deal. On 21 November 2013, the reporter for Britain’s Guardian headlined online, “Ukraine suspends talks on EU trade pact as Putin wins tug of war,” and he reported that “Ukraine has abruptly ditched its plans to sign a historic pact with the European Union aimed at shifting the country out of the Kremlin’s orbit.” What Tsareve was saying on November 20th was that the U.S. had geared up long before that decision by Yanukovych, to overthrow him if he didn’t cave to the pressures from the U.S. and its allies, and that the “Euromaidan” demonstrations which immediately thereafter became stage-setting for America’s coup against him, were extremely well planned in advance, and constituted only the ‘democratic’ cover for the coup and would be nothing more than that — which turned out to be the case.

Oleg Tsarev, the man who warned parliament one day prior to the start of the Euromaidan demonstrations, was subsequently, in mid-May of 2014, phoned by the oligarch Ihor Kolomoysky, a friend of the Obama White House, and he was told to leave Ukraine or else he would be killed because some unnamed individual(s) had placed a million-dollar price on his head. Tsarev didn’t comply. (His courage was remarkable: he had already survived a beating by a nazi crowd on 15 April 2014. Speaking truth to power was his characteristic way.) Instead, Tsarev became elected to the parliament in one of the two breakaway new republics constituting Donbass. On 19 December 2014, Tsarev wrote that the Ukrainian Government was failing miserably all Ukrainians, not only in the areas that had left Ukraine; and he also mentioned, in passing, that, in one of Kolomoysky’s businesses,“Kolomoysky delivers cheesy vests for the price of gold chain mail.” Here’s what that passing reference meant: On 11 August 2014, “Life News” in Russia had headlined, “Ukrainian Ministry of Defense spent $ 3.5 million on substandard body armor”and reported that, in a no-bid deal with Ukraine’s army, the insider Kolomoysky had sold to the army substandard fake bulletproof vests, which they couldn’t use, and which were moreover priced at twice the going rate for real bulletproof vests. Kolomoysky then stole one of the Tsarev family’s own businesses, but there was no legal recourse, because Kolomoysky had been appointed by Obama’s people as the local governor in the region where that business happened to be located.

So: Obama is treated as if he is a respectable person, while Putin is treated as if he had been the aggressor in all this. But there was once a time when the differences between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. were ideological, and the U.S. was an authentic democratic nation, and the U.S.S.R. was an authentic communist dictatorship; and, in that time, and specifically back in 1962, it was the U.S.S.R. that was seeking to place nuclear missiles near to us (in Cuba), not like now, when the dictatorial U.S. is instead trying to place nuclear missiles near to democratic Russia (inside Ukraine). Did America’s major news media, back at that earlier time, think that what the U.S.S.R. was trying to do to us was tolerable, and should be permitted? Of course not! So: why their double standard now? Or is today’s U.S. instead a totally different country, an outright nazi one now, against Russia? Even if Russia were a dictatorship (and it’s probably less so than the U.S. now is), what America is trying to do to it is disgraceful. And what the U.S. Government is trying to do to the residents in Donbass is absolutely outrageous, and should be presented to the International Criminal Court for war-crimes trials. (Maybe that’s why the U.S. has refused to sign to the Court’s jurisdiction; maybe G.W. Bush and Obama were intending to commit international war crimes.)

America (and its client Ukraine) is the aggressor; Russia (and its client Donbass) is doing what it needs to do in order to defend themselves from the U.S. and its allies: there are 27 of those other nations in the U.S.-run Russia-hating club; it’s called NATO, and it needs to be disbanded immediately, because its constructive function ended when the Soviet Union did; and, afterwards, it’s just nazi, and is a huge threat against the entire world.

This new evidence from Tsarev, piled on top of all the other evidence that already proved the assertion by the founder of the “private CIA” firm Stratfor, that the overthrow of Yanukovych was “the most blatant coup in history,”simply cements the reality, that all of the sanctions against Russia, and all of the “me too” statements supporting Obama’s coup and ethnic cleansing in Ukraine, by David Cameron, Stephen Harper, and Obama’s other co-nazis, are abominations, which should be loudly condemned by all decent persons in all countries. The aggressor here is Obama, not Putin; and NATO must end, now: all decent nations should quit it ASAP. (War crimes trials against Obama and his agents should follow. After all: these people are bringing the world closer to a nuclear war than has been the case since 1962, and there is no decent reason for it.)

Here was Professor Francis Boyle, the most internationally prestigious authority on such matters, summing it all up:

Boyle told RIA Novosti on May 8: ’The Ukrainian crisis had been planned as well as the war. There was a war plan, there was a war game. Then it was revised and implemented. … We are seeing steps now being taken that were planned in advance,’ Boyle said, adding, ‘This is all being used as a pretext to bring NATO military forces, as Rasmussen said, by air, sea, and land right up to the borders of the Russian Federation. They are clearly going ahead with this.’

Boyle extolled Russia for trying to exhaust all diplomatic means possible to resolve the Ukrainian crisis, and accused the United States and NATO of deliberate escalation.

‘So that the US won’t be provided with any more pretexts for hostile provocative maneuvers that they are going to take in any event,’ Boyle asserted, … Russian President Vladimir Putin is in a very difficult and dangerous situation and needs to be very careful. ‘The US has already resumed the Cold War with the neo-Nazi coup d’état in Ukraine that the United States sponsored, controlled, and directed,’ he said.

It’s still not too late for the condemnation by the entire decent world to come down upon the leading nazis and force them to stop, before they blow the entire habitable world up with their evil.

Never before in the history of the world have the proofs of perfidy come so voluminously and so much in current time, as has now happened here, in the Age of the Internet. One doesn’t have to wait for places like Auschwitz to open up to the world before the evil is laid bare for all to see: it already has been, well before things get that far. Thus, what’s desperately needed now is action: the condemnation, by the publics, in all countries, against those nazis.

The time for the collecting of evidence is already past. The evidence is already here. There are already international war crimes enough, and so no need exists for us to await the ultimate one — a totally unnecessary nuclear war — before finally acting.

To start with: the sanctions against Russia must end — immediately. They are crimes that can end fast. And they must, in order for the prosecutions against the perpetrators to start, and in order for this nazi cancer upon humanity to be removed before it’s too late to be able to do that. The patient might already be in the emergency room.

Posted in UkraineComments Off on New Video Evidence of America’s Coup in Ukraine — and What it Means

British stooges pitch for I$raHell ahead of UK polls

Board of Deputies of British Jews

Boycott Hamas, brand Hezbollah terrorists, don’t trust Iran

Jewish leaders in the UK have produced their own election Manifesto spelling out what they expect from our politicians

By Stuart Littlewood

Every general election brings with it the irksome task of reading the manifestos of the political parties. Now the Board of Deputies of British Jews have launched their very own Jewish Manifesto. The 40-page document is intended to persuade policy-makers and politicians to promote key aspects of Jewish life in Britain and do some big favours for the abhorrent Zionist regime in Tel Aviv.

“It will form the centrepiece of the Board’s drive to ensure that all the political parties take the concerns of Britain’s 300,000-strong Jewish community into account when setting out their own proposals for government,” it boasts.

Favours we are asked to do for the rogue state

At the heart of the manifesto is a list of “policy asks”, some of which attempt to demonise Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran and portray them as Britain’s enemies as well as Israel’s.

Others aim to perpetuate Israeli dominance in the Holy Land at the Palestinians’ expense, like this one from the “Ten Commitments”:

  • “Advocate for a permanent, comprehensive solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, resulting in a secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state.”

The Board of Deputies explicitly states that the UK Jewish community is committed to equality for Israel and the Palestinians, yet here they want us to press for a “secure” Israel with Palestine only “viable”. And that has become the mantra among Israel’s stooges in the West. We know what it will mean on the ground, and it’s despicable. Why should the Palestinians, whose land it is, live in permanent fear and subjugation, defenceless among the shredded and disconnected remnants of their territory and not even in control of their borders? Let’s turn it round so we have “a secure Palestine alongside a viable Israeli state”. How do the Board of Deputies like the sound of that?

Here are a few more Manifesto gems:

  • They want restitution for private property the Nazis stole during the holocaust leaving many survivors living in dire poverty and without a legacy for the descendants.

This is a very cruel injustice. But what about all the land, homes, other property, infrastructure and natural resources the Jewish state confiscated from the Palestinians during the Nakba [Catastrophe – the dispossession and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in 1948] continued to seize ever since? When will that be returned? According to the UN, last year alone Israel demolished the homes of 1,177 Palestinians in Jerusalem and West Bank (never mind the countless thousands of homes they reduced to rubble in Gaza).

They don’t like to see Israel boycotted.

  • “We urge resistance of calls for boycotts of Israel. By their very nature, such measures attribute blame to only one side of the conflict, and through this stigmatisation they perpetuate a one-sided narrative.”

At the same time they want our help in boycotting Palestinians.

  • The manifesto urges the British government “to refuse to engage with Hamas politicians, officials or supporters until the movement agrees to recognise Israel, abide by previous diplomatic agreements and desists from terrorist attacks”.

Is the Board of Deputies aware that Israel refuses to recognise the Palestinian state, has failed to honour previous agreements and never ceases its terrorist attacks? Is it also aware that the UK does not list Hamas’s political wing as a proscribed organisation, only its military wing – the Izz-al-Din al-Qassam brigades.

The boycott of Israel simply calls for non-violent measures that

should be maintained until Israel meets its obligation to recognise the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination and fully complies with the precepts of international law by:

1. Ending its occupation and colonisation of all Arab lands and dismantling the [Apartheid] Wall

2. Recognising the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and

3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.

There’s nothing controversial. The same is required of Israel by international and humanitarian law.

Other bizarre “asks” include these:

  • The manifesto wants us to “promote awareness of the acute threats to Israeli and regional security, and encourage further security cooperation between the UK and Israel”.

Many experts conclude that the main threat to Middle East peace is Israel itself. It would be foolish to be drawn into closer cooperation. Our already slavish support for Israel (and indeed its protector, the US) undermines our own security, puts UK citizens in harm’s way and blackens our reputation. It is hard to see how this is in our national interest.

  • The manifesto says the world must ensure “no backsliding towards an Iranian military nuclear capability… it is vital that Iran knows that there is a credible military option to end its pursuit of nuclear weapons if diplomacy should fail”.

The Zionist regime is reckoned to have up to 400 nuclear warheads. It has signed but not ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. It has not signed the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. It has signed but not ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention. In short, Israel is the neighbour from hell.

These endless attempts to drive a wedge between Britain and Iran are tiresome. Israel would love to launch a war against Iran if support from the US and its European Union lackeys was assured. Iran has no nuclear weapons and poses no threat to the UK. What’s more, our Iranian friends are menaced by an unrestrained nuclear-armed Israeli regime on their doorstep. UN Security Council Resolution 487, in 1981, called on Israel “urgently to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] safeguards”. Israel has defied it for 34 years. In 2009, the IAEA called on Israel to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty and open its nuclear facilities to inspection. Israel still refuses while Iran has complied.

  • “Years of disingenuity and obfuscation from the Iranian authorities should not be naively forgotten.”

So says the manifesto, oblivious to the staggering hypocrisy.

The “violent nature” of Hezbollah

For a long time Israel has planned to annex Lebanon’s Litani River. Hezbollah (the “Party of God”) was formed in response to the Israelis’ 1982 invasion and occupation. An international commission concluded that Israel’s aggression was contrary to international law, the government of Israel had no valid reasons for invading Lebanon and Israel was directly or indirectly responsible for the massacres in Sabra and Shatila refugee camps, declared an act of genocide by the UN General Assembly.

So, Hezbollah came into being for very good reasons. Israel began overflying Lebanese territory in 2000 after its troops vacated parts of southern Lebanon they had occupied since 1978. These flights are a constant provocation. In 2006 Israel launched another invasion and received a bloody nose from Hezbollah. The conflict killed over six thousand people and severely damaged Lebanese infrastructure. Much of southern Lebanon was left uninhabitable due to unexploded Israeli cluster bombs.

The Jewish Manifesto talks of Hezbollah’s “violent nature” but in the circumstances how valid is this next “ask”?

  • It wants Hezbollah in its entirety designated as a terrorist organisation, and asks the UK to take the lead in getting the whole EU to proscribe Hezbollah’s political wing.

Lebanon’s cabinet has confirmed Hezbollah as an armed organisation with the right to “liberate or recover occupied lands”. Israel routinely breaches UN Security Council Resolution 1701 by crossing the Blue Line or violating Lebanese airspace and still occupies the Shebaa Farms area. Hezbollah is hardly going to disband with Israel next door, always poised to grab what doesn’t belong to it.

Why should the UK take on another of Israel’s enemies and try to weaken Lebanon’s defence against the Zionist predator?

In case we forget, the US defines terrorism as an activity that

(i) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure; and

(ii) appears to be intended

  • to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
  • to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
  • to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking.

Anyone spring immediately to mind?

  • The manifesto also asks Britain to maintain an expenditure of 0.7 per cent of GNP on overseas development.

So, that’s to we continue to subsidise the Zionists’ never-ending occupation of Palestine?

  • It urges us to “support efforts to remember and understand the holocaust and strive to prevent any future genocide”.

Most ordinary people in the UK (though not necessarily our politicians) have taken on-board the lessons of the holocaust and don’t need constant reminding. How about the Israeli regime?

The “Israel problem” a Jewish family matter

Finally, this ‘hot potato’:

  • July 2014 was the worst month for anti-Semitism on record, presumably on account of another murderous assault on Gaza by the Israeli military. “A robust political and policing response is required when criticism of the policies of a government spills over in to hatred, intimidation or violence against a religious or ethnic group”.

Prime Minister David Cameron’s Holocaust Commission Report says: “The Community Security Trust, an organisation that looks after the safety and security needs of the Jewish community, recorded more than 1,000 incidents last year, making 2014 the worst year on record.”

Do Jewish leaders in the UK need reminding that Muslims and Christians in the Holy Land have suffered a high tide of hatred, intimidation, violence and worse for decades under Israel’s brutal occupation?

We’re told that anti-Semitism is often bound up with perceptions of the political and military decisions of the Israeli government, and that Israel represents a fundamental component of Jewish identity. In that case, one would have thought, Israel’s appalling conduct – and damage to reputation – is something the global Jewish family would wish to deal with themselves. Wise heads have warned long enough that Jews worldwide will pay the price for Israel’s crimes. Many Jews, to their great credit, have taken heed and faced up to the moral challenge, and are now fiercely critical of the Israeli regime’s behaviour.

For example, over 400 rabbis from Israel, the USA, Canada, Britain and other countries have just signed a call to Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to stop the practice of home demolitions. They declared:

Every year, hundreds of Palestinian homes are demolished due to discriminatory administrative plans created and implemented by the Israel military without significant Palestinian influence. Palestinians are very rarely allowed to build, even on their own land.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, UKComments Off on British stooges pitch for I$raHell ahead of UK polls

Despotism, Neoliberalism and the “Chilean Miracle”

Global Research
Image result for AMERICA MAP

I often wonder what goes through the minds of Americans when they hear or see the word ‘science.’ American culture is totally irrational, anti-intellectual, and creedal. Perhaps other cultures are too.

Americans, even supposedly educated ones, believe the damnedest things. Many believe that immunization spreads disease, that mankind’s activity has no effect on the climate, that evolution doesn’t take place, and, oddly enough, that science will solve all our problems. Evidence to the contrary doesn’t influence these people. They are immune from learning.

This creedalism also afflicts our institutions of learning. Alternatives to what Americans call democracy, even when it obviously doesn’t work, are absent from political science curricula, very good professors of mathematics are sometimes believers in creationism, subjects that are totally unscientific are sometimes called sciences. A religion in America exists that is named scientology!

When the Russians launched Sputnik in 1954, Americans went into crisis mode and began programs to expand the teaching of science in schools everywhere. But the results have been meager. For the most part, Americans are no more scientific today than they were in 1954.

A scientific mindset can be characterized as an insistence that claims be supported by verifiable evidence. Anyone who accepts or promotes claims that cannot be so supported lacks a scientific mindset. Few in America, even those who hold the highest offices, have such mindsets. Recently I heard President Obama claim that 99% of the world’s Muslims do not support the Islamic jihad. With more that a billion Muslims in the world located on different continents in different countries, how could he have enough evidence to support that claim? The President lacks a scientific mindset. His claim is nothing more that wishful thinking expressed an in an attempt to convince the world that the War on Terrorism is not a religious war.

But much of this anti-intellectualism stems from the true and most fundamental religion of America. No, it is not Christianity. Christ was expelled from Christianity in Christendom a long time ago. The Christ child was removed from His manger and replaced by a dwarf dressed in a Santa Claus suit. The worship of Mammon became the religion of the West. Christ’s birth is now celebrated in an orgy of commerce. Scientific knowledge is ignored whenever it conflicts with this fundamental religion. In America, the market is the altar on which Americans worship their god, Mannon, and Americans fight wars and engineer regime changes to proselytize the world. Convert to a belief in Mammon or die is America’s marching slogan.

Chile, like the other countries with capitalistic market oriented economic practices, struggled for generations with economic results that could never provide its citizens with their most fundamental needs.

In 1970, the Chilean people elected an openly socialist government hoping to finally bring about change. The conservative reaction was swift. With a large handful of help form the C.I.A., a military coup d’etat overthrew the government in September 1973 and installed a despotic government headed by General Augusto Pinochet who was not a nice man. During his short seventeen year reign, thousands were killed and many simply disappeared. But he made a significant contribution to Chile’s economy. He began the Chilean Miracle.

Pinochet asked America economist Milton Friedman for economic advice. Friedman wrote Pinochet a letter to comply with the request. He wrote that the key economic problems of Chile clearly were inflation and the lack of a healthy market economystandard free market dogma. Friedman has not come to be known as an original thinker. He stated that “There is only one way to end inflation: by drastically reducing the rate of increase of the quantity of money” and that “cutting government spending is by far and away the most desirable way to reduce the fiscal deficit, because it . . . strengthens the private sector thereby laying the foundations for healthy economic growth.” As the European Union is learning, this advice takes an economy down the road to despairity, not prosperity. And so it has come to pass in Chile.

“For 30 years Chile has been a laboratory for free market economics, with privatised pensions and even a school voucher system designed by Milton Friedman, the godfather of Chicago economics, who once described Chiles success as a miracle. Yet now Latin Americas most prosperous country may be reversing the experiment, to the consternation of free marketeers everywhere.”

Although the Chilean Miracle has reduced Chile’s recorded poverty rate from 60 per cent to 9 per cent, it has done so at the cost of unequal income distribution, among the regions worst. So it is again obvious that Capitalism always enriches the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. It bifurcates societies into haves and have nots which then are always in conflict with themselves.

That similar results have come about over and over again in history should have lead economists with scientific mindsets to reject Capitalism’s free market principles. That they have not rejected them demonstrates that they all lack a scientific mindset.

How could it ever be otherwise? The inherent contradictions of Capitalism necessitate this result. In America, merchants are legally allowed to lie when attempting to sell products and services. Puffery is a well-established legal doctrine. Yet what it does is legalizes theft by deception. Inducing a person to buy snake oil is just as much stealing as picking his/her pocket. The “general welfare” can never be attained in such a nation. Show me the argument that leads to the conclusion that a nation can attain a state of prosperity by allowing its people to steal from one another. Yet that is what American market Capitalism does. Friedman’s reforms in Chile did the same thing.

Four years ago in the state of Arkansas, a businessman who owns a large number of fast-food franchises ran for governor. A main plank in his platform was that Arkansas lacked a sufficient number of high paying-jobs, a problem which he would address. No one seemed to notice that he could have addressed that problem without running for office by simply giving his employees hefty raises. He lost the election and never raised the wages of his employees. He did nothing. The much vaunted Private Sector never does anything to address human issues.

No economist seems to recognize that the most effective way to stimulate an economy in the doldrums is for businesses to hire the unemployed or increase wages, something the private sector can easily do but never does. Jefferson was right when he wrote that merchants have no country. They also have no humanity.

The myths that culture’s build on are also those that destroy them. The world changes but the myths don’t. True believers never change. They are to stand up for their beliefs and they do. And sometimes they die!

Stand up for your beliefs is the worst piece of advice a person can receive. Better to question them.

Paul Krugman has called Milton Friedman a great economist and a great man. Similar things have been said of Billy Graham. Neither is great in any way. Both are purely conventional dogmatists.

Faith, whether in God, the market, war, a specific form of government, or anything else, is always a mask worn to disguise ignorance.

Posted in USAComments Off on Despotism, Neoliberalism and the “Chilean Miracle”

I$raHell – the real enemy of the Jews

Judaism rejects Zionism

A truth most Jews don’t want to know about anti-Semitism

By Alan Hart

Much is currently being written and broadcast about what a headline in the Wall Street Journal proclaimed to beThe return of anti-Semitism (loathing and hatred of Jews). It was over an article by Jonathan Sacks, the former chief rabbi of Britain. According to him “An ancient hatred has been reborn.” He went on:

Some politicians around the world deny that what is happening in Europe is anti-Semitism. It is, they say, merely a reaction to the actions of the state of Israel, to the continuing conflict with the Palestinians. But the policies of the state of Israel are not made in kosher supermarkets in Paris or in Jewish cultural institutions in Brussels and Mumbai. The targets in these cities were not Israeli. They were Jewish.

In an article for Time under the headlineIt’s time to stop ignoring the new wave of anti-Semitism, Michigan born-and-based Rabbi Jason Miller quoted Sacks and was more explicit in his assertion that an ancient hatred has been reborn. (As well as being a rabbi, Miller is the president of an information technology and social media marketing company.) He wrote:

I certainly have the capacity and amplification to voice my concerns about the threat of anti-Semitism, this time around emanating not from Nazism, but from Islamism… As Rabbi Sacks makes perfectly clear, the rise of anti-Semitism in the 21st century is not about anti-Israel sentiment… Plain and simple, 21st-century anti-Semitism is the continuation of the same Jewish hatred that has raised its ugly head for centuries. It is the same anti-Semitism that we saw 70 years ago in Europe as six million Jewish men, women and children were exterminated.

In my gentile view, rabbis Sacks and Miller and all who think like them are in complete denial of the link between Israel’s actions which sometimes amount to state terrorism and the transformation of anti-Israelism into anti-Semitism.

What this link is was put into words more than a quarter of a century ago by Yehoshafat Harkabi, a long-serving director of Israeli military intelligence. (I have quoted his warning in several of my previous posts but what he wrote bears repeating, again and again and again.) In his book Israel’s Fateful Hour, which contained his call for Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories, and his statement that the biggest real threat to Israel is its self-righteousness, he wrote the following.

We Israelis must be careful lest we become not a source of pride for Jews but a distressing burden. Israel is the criterion according to which all Jews will tend to be judged. Israel as a Jewish state is an example of the Jewish character, which finds free and concentrated expression within it. Anti-Semitism has deep and historical roots. Nevertheless, any flaw in Israeli conduct, which initially is cited as anti-Israelism, is likely to be transformed into empirical proof of the validity of anti-Semitism. It would be a tragic irony if the Jewish state, which was intended to solve the problem of anti-Semitism, was to become a factor in the rise of anti-Semitism. Israelis must be aware that the price of their misconduct is paid not only by them but also Jews throughout the world. In the struggle against anti-Semitism, the frontline begins in Israel.

Another way of saying that an ancient hatred has been reborn is that what used to be called the “sleeping giant” of anti-Semitism is waking up. Putting it that way makes understanding possible and here’s why.

After the Nazi holocaust, and because of it, this giant went back to sleep and might well have died in its sleep if Zionism had not been allowed by the major powers to have its way and Israel had been required to be serious about peace on the basis of an acceptable amount of justice for the Palestinians and security for all.

To avoid being misunderstood I must qualify that statement.

There will always be some Jew haters and Nazi holocaust deniers. (I accept that there is room for debate about the number of Jews who were exterminated but I regard Nazi holocaust denial as an evil on a par with the mass murder of Jews and others.) So what I mean when I say the sleeping giant of anti-Semitism might well have died in its sleep is that it would not have come back to life again as a force capable of seriously threatening the wellbeing and security of the Jews.

It was Israel’s “misconduct”… that set in motion the rising, global tide of anti-Israelism which… is showing signs of a creeping transformation into anti-Semitism.

The evidence which gives great weight to that analysis can be obtained from just a few moments of reflection about the history of the whole of the second half of the 20th century and much if not all of the first decade of the 21st. What stands out with regard to the Jews is the wellbeing of those who were/are citizens of the Western nations. They were not only secure, they had influence in political, economic and many other spheres out of all proportion to their numbers. (That is why, generally speaking, I have always regarded the Jews as the intellectual elite of the Western world. And that in turn is why I am amazed that most Jews allowed themselves to be brainwashed by Zionist propaganda and are beyond reason on the matter of justice for the Palestinians as a consequence.)

It was Israel’s “misconduct” (what a charming Harkabi euphemism for defiance of international law, on-going colonisation and ethnic cleansing by stealth!) that set in motion the rising, global tide of anti-Israelism which, as Harkabi warned, is showing signs of a creeping transformation into anti-Semitism.

Put another way, it was Israel’s policies and actions which guaranteed that the sleeping giant would not die in its sleep and would wake up to go on the prowl again.

In a recent report, the Community Service Trust (CST) said the number of anti-Semitic incidents in the UK doubled in 2014 – up from 513 in 2013 to 1,168, of which 81 were violent. The non-violent ones included what the CST described as a widely shared image of Hitler with the caption “Yes man, you were right.”

What was the biggest factor behind the rise in the number of anti-Semitic incidents in the UK? In the CST’s own words, it was “anti-Semitic reactions to the conflict in Israel and Gaza”. In its own way, that finding is surely an indicator that Israel’s policies and actions are the prime cause of the transformation of anti-Israelism into anti-Semitism. It also underlines Harkabi’s point that Jews need to understand “that foreigners’ criticism of Israel stems not only from opportunism, hatred and anti-Semitism, but from what they may see as fair and moral considerations.”

My conclusions?

The only people who can stop the transformation of anti-Israelism into anti-Semitism gathering momentum are the Jews themselves, with those who are citizens of the European nations and America taking the lead.

How could they do it?

Short answer: by declaring that Israel does not speak for or represent them and that they condemn its defiance of international law and denial of justice for the Palestinians.

If they don’t do that there will most likely be a final Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine followed at some point by a wide awake giant of anti-Semitism going on the rampage again.

If it really is the case that the sleeping giant of anti-Semitism is waking up, it’s time for European and American Jews to wake up to the fact that the title of my book, Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jewsis what Ilan Pappe described it as being… “The truth in seven words.”

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on I$raHell – the real enemy of the Jews

UN head Valerie Amos backs arms embargo on South Sudan


By: Antony Loewenstein

Image result for UN LOGO

My following story appears in today’s Guardian (I’m currently based in Juba, South Sudan):

Valerie Amos has joined calls for an arms embargo against South Sudan, the most senior UN official to back growing international demands for action against the country as it enters a second year of civil war.

“Anything that takes weapons off the streets, out of countries and out of communities will help us because ultimately for us it’s about bringing peace,” the UN humanitarian chief told the Guardian. “If there are no weapons, it’s harder for people to fight, peace will come sooner and we can get more aid to the people who so desperately need it.”

The United States has so far resisted efforts to implement an embargo, although the secretary of state, John Kerry, and senior members of the Obama administration have recently spoken in support of one. An arms ban would target both the South Sudanese government and the opposition, with both sides being accused of war crimes after fighting broke out in December 2013.

Tens of thousands of lives have been lost and millions of citizens forced to flee their homes during the civil war in the country. Aid group says about 2,5 million people are at risk of famine.

Amos, who leaves her position as UN under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief coordinator after five years in March, was speaking in Wai in Jonglei state at the end of a three-day visit to South Sudan with Unesco peace envoy and actor Forest Whitaker.

The UN is assisting around 25,000 people in rebel-held Wai, providing food, water, some shelter and basic medical care. Amos praised the resilience of the refugees she met, adding: “I just wish that those that are really pursuing this conflict would take time out to come and see what the impact of this is, particularly on women and children.”

The economic cost of war has already reached billions of dollars and a recent Frontier Economics report found that ending the conflict this year would save the international community about $30bn.

Amos said both sides should be held accountable for human rights abuses and expressed concern about an “economic crisis” in the country. “It’s a country dependent on oil and we have seen production halved,” she warned.

After meeting the South Sudanese president Salva Kiir and many of his ministers in the capital Juba, Amos both praised and criticised authorities. “The government does not want to admit hunger figures of 2.5 million people facing severe food shortages. We have to keep the pressure on,” she said, adding that the government had improved access to aid in many areas.

Amos has urged the international community to embrace a “more interventionist” approach towards global conflicts but urged caution against military involvement. “One of the things I’ve become more conscious of as I’ve been working in places like Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Democratic Republic of Congo and South Sudan is that we have this whole international framework of law and norms, but those rules are being broken every single day. We talk about the importance of protecting civilians yet it’s about those civilians being killed as a result of barrel bombs or women being raped.”

She said it was shameful that these abuses were tolerated. “So my question is, where is the accountability? Countries have signed up to these rules so how do we hold them accountable? When you talk about interventionism, everybody thinks about war and putting troops from another country on the ground. That’s not what I mean. When we see this happening, how do we stop it? One of my jobs is to raise these questions.”

Posted in SudanComments Off on UN head Valerie Amos backs arms embargo on South Sudan

Shoah’s pages


February 2015
« Jan   Mar »