Archive | September 13th, 2019

Federal Court Reinstates Full Block on Trump Asylum Ban

WASHINGTON – A federal court has reinstated a nationwide injunction blocking a Trump administration asylum ban that denied asylum to anyone at the southern border who had transited through a third country en route to the United States.

It follows a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling last month that narrowed the scope of the injunction to that circuit. The American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Constitutional Rights, and Southern Poverty Law Center, were in court on September 5 seeking reinstatement of the nationwide injunction. U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar issued the ruling today.

The following reaction is from:

ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt: “The court recognized there is grave danger facing asylum-seekers along the entire stretch of the southern border.”

Baher Azmy, Center for Constitutional Rights legal director: “We are gratified the court recognized the reality on the ground, which is that Trump’s asylum ban is affecting thousands of asylum-seekers all across the border — just as it was unlawfully intended to do — and not just at California ports of entry.”

Melissa Crow, senior supervising attorney at the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Immigrant Justice Project: “This ruling levels the playing field for all the vulnerable individuals and families seeking refuge in the United States. With this decision, regardless of where they cross the border, these people should be able to seek asylum. Sadly, while this ruling removes a major hurdle, far too many obstacles remain, as this administration’s war on asylum-seekers appears to know no bounds.”

Posted in USA, Human RightsComments Off on Federal Court Reinstates Full Block on Trump Asylum Ban

Deal or No Deal, Brexit Poses “Serious Human Rights Concerns”

WASHINGTON – The on-going uncertainty around Brexit poses serious human rights issues, Amnesty International said today.

While Amnesty does not take a position on the Referendum result or whether the UK leaves the EU with or without a deal, the human rights organization has pinpointed serious human rights issues.

These include a potential shortage of access to food and medicine, as well as concerns over the future of EU citizens in the UK, the right to immigration and asylum, and the future of the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland.

Kate Allen, Amnesty International UK Director, said:

“The reassurances from the Government to date have simply not been good enough. Deal or no deal, Brexit poses serious human rights concerns to UK residents.

“The Government and politicians of all parties must do everything they can to ensure that the human rights of those living in the UK are protected and respected, not degraded or undermined.

“We’re calling on the leaders of all parties to make a statement to this effect, making clear what they’ll do to ensure our concerns are met.”

Amnesty has outlined five areas the UK Government must ensure happen as they approach the deadline for leaving the EU:

Northern Ireland – As a co-signatory to the Good Friday Agreement, the Westminster Government must ensure that it fully safeguards the vital human rights protections which it helps guarantee. This must include protection of the equal rights of all citizens, whether they identify as Irish or British. It is imperative that there are no restrictions on the freedom of movement to and from Northern Ireland so as to enable people to fully exercise their rights to education, healthcare, work and family life.

EU citizens in the UK – The Government must act to ensure that the rights of EU citizens and their family members in the UK are protected and respected, and take steps to secure the same for one-million plus UK citizens currently living in the EU. In doing so, the Government must ensure that children of EU citizens are not deprived of their rights by being treated as subject to immigration powers (under the Government’s EU Settlement Scheme) in circumstances where those children are, or have rights to register as, British citizens.

Access to food – It is vital that as the UK leaves the EU, the Government does all it can to ensure that food supplies aren’t disrupted and that everybody has access to adequate and affordable levels of food regardless of their circumstances. We are already witnessing an increasing reliance on food banks in the UK, and all efforts must be made to provide food security to all, including those in an already vulnerable situation.

Access to medicine – There must be no disruption to supplies of medicines which are crucial to ensuring that everybody enjoys their right to health. The Government must therefore take all necessary measures to overcome any obstacles to guarantee access to good quality and affordable medicine, and in a timely fashion.

Immigration and asylum system – As the Government seeks to revise the immigration system in the wake of ending EU free movement, it must ensure that any reforms promote and respect the rights to asylum, family and private life and the best interests of children whilst protecting people against wrongful and excessive use of immigration powers by the state and exploitation by third parties.

This statement is available at: https://www.amnestyusa.org/press-releases/deal-or-no-deal-brexit-poses-serious-human-rights-concerns

Posted in UKComments Off on Deal or No Deal, Brexit Poses “Serious Human Rights Concerns”

How to Read a Broken Body: Literature in an Era of Endless War

“I’m never going to be well. I still have pain.”

byNick Turse

Today, Libya is again—or rather, still—a country at war. (Photo: Reuters)

Today, Libya is again—or rather, still—a country at war. (Photo: Reuters)

Do you remember July 8, 2011? Where you were? What you did? Whom you talked to? Anything at all?

I couldn’t pin down one single thing for that day. I couldn’t even locate an email I had sent or a photo I might have taken. It’s all evidently lost in the ether, known only to tech and telecom firms. But maybe, unlike me, you have a diary or save your calendars or just happen to have fantastic recall. Maybe you remember it because it was the day NASA launched the Space Shuttle on its 135th and final mission.

Unlike me, Abdul Hamid Frefer recalls every detail of that eighth of July. It was a Friday and he remembers exactly where he was, who he was with, what he saw, what he heard, even what he said. It’s tattooed on his brain, but more than that, it’s written on his body—only not in a conventional sense. Writing isn’t just words. IfItWereJustWordsThisWouldBeEasyToRead. Writing doesn’t exist without the blank spaces between the words. It’s these blank spaces that are especially integral to Frefer’s story because his is a tale of absence, one that’s been retold—and that he’s been reminded of—every day since.

For Frefer, there was life before July 8, 2011, and life after; life, that is, before the moment his world changed forever and then what followed. The last thing he heard before that unforgettable moment was “Run!”

“But there was nowhere to run,” he told me.

After all, no man can outrun a rocket.

When that rocket hit, the shockwave burst his eardrums and he was knocked to the ground. White noise dissolved into unbearable pain. When he tried to lift his left leg, he watched his shoe fall off—with his foot still in it. Only skin held his right leg below the knee to the top of that limb.

“Go!” he remembers screaming at his friends. “I’m dead anyway! Save yourself!” They did go. They saved themselves. But not before saving him. They wrapped Frefer in a blanket, hoisted him up and took off running.

Revolutionary Road

I met Abdul Hamid Frefer in the coastal city of Misrata earlier this year while on assignment in Libya. Bald with lively brown eyes and a bristly, close-cropped white beard, he was dressed in a loose-fitting, baby-blue ensemble that resembled silk pajamas. I noticed his black metal crutches immediately, but didn’t initially grasp that he was missing his left foot and his right leg below the knee.

Eight years before, at age 39, Frefer’s heart had been touched by fire. To be exact, the self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi, a Tunisian vegetable seller pushed past the brink by corruption and police brutality. On December 17, 2010, a policewoman confiscated his cart and wares, slapped him, and spit in his face. Humiliated, stripped of his livelihood, and deeply in debt, he went to the governor’s office. “If you don’t see me, I’ll burn myself,” he reportedly said. The governor refused to meet him and Bouazizi was true to his word.

When he lit that match, the blaze that erupted would become known as the Arab Spring. When it set Libya alight in February 2011, dictator Muammar Gaddafi’s draconian response to the demonstrations touched off an uprising that soon became a revolution, transforming ordinary Libyan civilians into soldiers overnight.

“In 2011, we fought a war to dispatch a dictator” was how Frefer put it. “We struggled to build a free country. A democratic country with basic rights and free speech.”

On the morning of July 8, 2011, he was sitting in an abandoned home in Dafnia, a town about 40 miles from Misrata on the road to the country’s capital, Tripoli. The battlefront was fast becoming a charnel house for the under-armed citizen-soldiers of the revolution, as Gaddafi’s forces pressed closer to the rebel stronghold.

After cleaning and loading their rifles, Frefer and his comrades stacked the remaining ammunition in pickup trucks, 20 of which began rolling toward Gaddafi’s forces, while about 25 infantrymen, including him, followed. The previous night, however, Gaddafi’s forces had evidently advanced further than Frefer and his compatriots realized. “They must have watched us with binoculars. They saw us, but we didn’t see them,” he told me. Soon, a barrage of rockets was screaming toward them.

“Run!” someone yelled, but there was nowhere to run. His friend Mustafa and a neighbor from Misrata were both killed by the strike. For a while, they believed that a third man, also from the neighborhood, had bolted and never stopped running. Later, his comrades determined that he had, in fact, been nearly obliterated by a rocket. In all, Frefer told me, 36 revolutionaries died at Dafnia that day.

With the trucks involved in the battle and no way for a car to come forward, Frefer’s comrades began carrying—and soon dragging—him for the better part of half an hour before they could stop and tie tourniquets on both legs. Then they set off for a field hospital.

It’s common to lose consciousness from the physiological shock of traumatic injuries, or from blood loss, or both. But for that first mile, as his friends pulled him along the hard ground, Abdul Hamid Frefer remained fully conscious—and in burning agony. It was the same for the second mile. And the third. “I was conscious the whole time,” he told me. “And when I finally got to the hospital and they put me on an IV with a painkiller, the anesthesia didn’t work.”

It took him three years to recover. After one, he was using a wheelchair. After two more, he could finally move about with prostheses and crutches.

Men Without Legs and One-Eyed Women

In my line of work, I meet more amputees, war victims who are missing body parts, and terribly scarred individuals than the average American. There was the woman with bright white hair who survived a massacre by South Korean troops. Her left foot was nothing but a stump. No toes. Hardly a sole. Mostly just a heel. Her right foot was missing entirely. In its place, she had the functional equivalent of a tin can with a rubber disk at the bottom.

Then there was the six-year-old Congolese girl whose arm had been hacked off by a machete-wielding militiaman. And her aunt who lost both hands to the same attackers. And her great-aunt who lost several fingers.

In the same part of Congo, I met toddlers whose faces had been split by machetes. I met an elderly woman with a shattered arm who had been shot in the face with an arrow. And there was that man missing a chunk of his calf, which, he said, enraged militiamen had tried to force him to eat.

There was the South Sudanese man who had lost a leg after being shot by soldiers. And another who had lost an eye.

All of these people were civilians in the wrong place—home—at the wrong time. Abdul Hamid Frefer was not. At least, not entirely. A civilian at the dawn of 2011, by July he was a soldier of the revolution. Given the tremendous price paid by Libya’s rebels, he’s lucky to be alive.

Today, Libya is again—or rather, still—a country at war. For months now, Tripoli has been menaced by the self-styled Libyan National Army of warlord General Khalifa Haftar, a U.S. citizen, former CIA asset, and longtime resident of Virginia (who was lauded by President Donald Trump in an April phone call). Just as in Frefer’s war, the city of Misrata is still hemorrhaging young men. Its militias make up the bulk of the armed forces protecting the capital and the Government of National Accord, the U.N.-backed, internationally recognized government of Libyan Prime Minister Fayez al-Serraj. (Two years ago, Mistrata’s militiamen also engaged in house-to-house fighting with Islamic State militants in the city of Sirte, as American drones and manned aircraft hunted those ISIS fighters from the skies.)

Frefer and I first ran into each other at his place of business, Misrata’s municipal offices. A member of the city council, he’s very much a man of his town. And both he and it bear the grim scars of that revolution. While the city itself hasn’t seen war since 2011, so much of it still bears battle scars. High-rise apartments pockmarked by thousands of machine-gun bullets sit empty. Other buildings still bear gaping holes from mortars and rockets. A warehouse remains largely roofless thanks to a NATO airstrike, in support of the revolutionaries, on a Gaddafi regime tank that had been parked inside. Almost a decade later, such urban landscapes like Abdul Hamid Frefer’s body, serve as an ongoing testament to war’s long legacy of destruction.

The Medium Is the Message

Since 2001, more than 1,500 U.S. military personnel have lost limbs to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since 1995, the International Committee of the Red Cross alone has supplied 109,303 prostheses to replace Afghan arms and legs.

Giles Duley lost limbs in Afghanistan. Three of them. But he wasn’t an American, nor an Afghan. He wasn’t even a soldier. And to say that he was a civilian doesn’t quite capture his story.

For 10 years, Duley was a music and fashion photographer, shooting the likes of Oasis, Marilyn Manson, and Lenny Kravitz for GQEsquireVogue, and other publications. Then he threw his camera out a window, burned his film, and resolved never to shoot a photo again. But that decision didn’t last. Instead, he followed a circuitous path back into photography, one that led him into conflict and crisis zones like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, South Sudan, and Lebanon.

In 2011, while on patrol with U.S. troops in Afghanistan, he stepped on an improvised explosive device that nearly killed him and left him with just one intact limb, his right arm. “At first, I was devastated by what had happened, obviously,” he said in a 2012 TED talk.

“I thought my work was over, I thought—everything didn’t make sense to me. And then I realized: I never set out to Congo, to Angola, to Bangladesh to take photographs. I went to those places because I wanted to make some kind of change, and photography happened to be my tool. And then I became aware that my body was, in many ways, a living example of what war does to somebody. And I realized I could use my own experience, my own body, to tell that story.”

War stories like Duley’s have been written on so many bodies. They have been written on the faces of one-eyed women and men whose features were melted by incendiary agents. They are told in the very existence of one-armed children and legless men.

As Abdul Hamid Frefer recounted detail after detail of that distant July 8th, a smile slowly crept across his face. “I was just about dead when I got to the field hospital,” he told me. “The doctors were amazed that I was still alive—and conscious.” He felt lucky, or rather blessed, he said, to be alive. “It’s all God’s will” was a phrase he kept repeating.

For him, that July day eight years ago is always present—as similar days are for so many other victims of armed conflict. Frefer’s body tells a story of one war, one day, one rocket, three miles of being dragged, three years of becoming mobile again. His is the story of one life built on the corporeal wreckage of war. But it says something larger, something more universal, too.

“I’m never going to be well. I still have pain,” Abdul Hamid Frefer told me as he rubbed what’s left of his right leg. His is a war story written on his own body in both absence and trauma. That limb, what remains of it, and its phantom half most certainly tell, as Duley put it, “what war does to somebody.” But Abdul Hamid Frefer’s body, just like Duley’s, says something more. It tells not just a story but perhaps the story of war. “My legs are gone,” said Frefer wincing and gritting his teeth, “but the pain remains.”

Posted in USAComments Off on How to Read a Broken Body: Literature in an Era of Endless War

The Capitalists Are Afraid

They know the reigning ideology of neoliberalism no longer has any credibility. Its lies have been exposed. They also know they are to blame.

byChris Hedges

Capitalists go to absurd lengths to lie about capitalism’s true nature. (Photo: Mr. Fish / Truthdig)

Capitalists go to absurd lengths to lie about capitalism’s true nature. (Photo: Mr. Fish / Truthdig)

Capitalists seek to maximize profits and reduce the cost of labor. This sums up capitalism at its core. It is defined by these immutable objectives. It is not about democracy. It is not, as has been claimed, about wealth creation for the working class. It has nothing to do with freedom. Those capitalists, especially in corporations, who are not able to increase profits and decrease the cost of labor, through layoffs, cutting wages, destroying unions, offshoring, outsourcing or automating jobs, are replaced. Personal ethics are irrelevant. Capitalists are about acquisition and exploitation.

Capitalists go to absurd lengths to lie about capitalism’s true nature. It is why Business Roundtable’s most recent version of its Principles of Corporate Governance, signed by 181 major CEOs—including the heads of Amazon, General Motors and Chevron, all three of which paid no federal income tax in 2018—rivals the doublespeak of the worst totalitarian regimes of the 20th century.

If maximizing profit means turning the oceans into dead zones, filling the atmosphere with carbon emissions and toxins that render the climate unfit for humans, pumping chemicals and waste into the soil, water, air and food supply that ensure that cancer is an epidemic, buying off elected officials and judges to serve the exclusive interests of capital and privatizing social services, including health care, transportation, education and public utilities, to gouge the public, that is the price of business. If reducing the cost of labor means forcing workers to remain unorganized and abolishing work, health and safety regulations, if it means moving industry overseas where foreign workers toil like 19th-century serfs, if it means suppressing wages at home to force an impoverished population into debt peonage, that is the price of business.

It is not accidental that the United States now has the worst income inequality since the 1920s. This was engineered by the capitalist class. But what Business Roundtable’s Aug. 19 statement reveals is that the capitalists are frightened they have been found out. Capitalism free of external restraints and with no internal restraints will pillage and exploit a captive population until it rises up in fury. It is such an eruption that today’s capitalists worry is on the horizon.

Capitalism, because it is such a socially destructive force, saturates the media landscape with advertising to misinform and manipulate the public.

Capitalism, because it is such a socially destructive force, saturates the media landscape with advertising to misinform and manipulate the public. It uses its vast wealth to buy up the press, domesticate universities, nonprofits and think tanks and demonize and muzzle its critics. It funds pseudo-intellectuals and pseudo-economists who tirelessly propagate the ideology of neoliberalism, the belief that transferring wealth upward into the hands of the ruling oligarchs is beneficial to society. It forms global monopolies that prey on the public. It wages endless wars in its quest for profit. It equates anti-capitalist agitation with terrorism, meaning, for example, that anyone in the U.S. who attempts to photograph or film the savagery and cruelty of industrial agriculture—one of the primary causes of carbon emissions—can be charged under terrorism acts. And when its pyramid schemes, frauds and financial bubbles collapse, it loots the national treasury and leaves taxpayers with the bill. (In the U.S. economic crisis of 2008, corporations gobbled up $4.6 trillion in public money.)

Capitalism, as Karl Marx understood, if unregulated and unfettered, is a revolutionary force. It first creates a mafia economy, as Karl Polanyi wrote, and then a mafia government. It was the greed of the capitalist class that turned our cities in decaying hulks and impoverished more than half the country. It was the greed of the capitalist class that set us on a course of ecocide. It was the greed of the capitalist class that created the mechanisms of internal repression, including police that function as rogue paramilitary units in our internal colonies, wholesale surveillance of the public, a vastly expanded system of mass incarceration and the agencies, including the National Security Agency, Homeland Security and the FBI, that spy on the public to thwart resistance. It was the greed of the capitalist class that dismantled the democratic institutions of the United States. It was the greed of the capitalist class that gave us Donald Trump. This disdain for the common good and democracy makes these capitalists traitors.

Jamie Dimon, chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase and chairman of Business Roundtable, conceded in the press release containing the “Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation” that “the American dream is alive, but fraying.” He assured us, however, that “major employers are investing in their workers and communities because they know it is the only way to be successful over the long term. These modernized principles reflect the business community’s unwavering commitment to continue to push for an economy that serves all Americans.”

Alex Gorsky, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of Johnson & Johnson and chair of the Business Roundtable Corporate Governance Committee, added that the statement “affirms the essential role corporations can play in improving our society.”

Darren Walker, the president of the Ford Foundation, called the statement “tremendous news” and said it would “result in shared prosperity and sustainability for both business and society.”

The sententious and self-congratulatory passages in the statement can be summed up by the opening paragraphs:

Americans deserve an economy that allows each person to succeed through hard work and creativity and to lead a life of meaning and dignity. We believe the free-market system is the best means of generating good jobs, a strong and sustainable economy, innovation, a healthy environment and economic opportunity for all.

Businesses play a vital role in the economy by creating jobs, fostering innovation and providing essential goods and services. Businesses make and sell consumer products; manufacture equipment and vehicles; support the national defense; grow and produce food; provide health care; generate and deliver energy; and offer financial, communications and other services that underpin economic growth.

Capitalists such as Dimon (net worth $1.4 billion), whose company has paid more in regulatory fines than any other in America, and Gorsky, whose corporation was charged with helping fuel Oklahoma’s opioid crisis and then ordered by a court to pay $572 million in restitution in that state, would, in a functioning democracy, be in prison. Johnson & Johnson, Purdue Pharma, Pfizer and McKesson together are responsible for the deaths of many thousands of Americans—more than 130 people died every day in the U.S. from opioid-related drug overdoses in 2016 and 2017, according to the federal government.

The financial crimes of Dimon alone are numerous and notorious. They include underwriting fraudulent securities in the years leading up to the 2008 financial crash, overcharging members of the military on mortgages and mortgage refinancing transactions, overcharging customers for overdraft fees, manipulating bidding on California and Midwest electricity markets, overcharging homeowners for flood insurance, billing customers for nonexistent credit card monitoring services, charging minorities higher rates and fees on mortgages than those paid by white borrowers and failing to pay overtime to company workers.

So, what is this statement—which is equivalent to Al Capone insisting the mob ran a benevolent society in Chicago—about?

It is about the capitalists running scared. They know the reigning ideology of neoliberalism no longer has any credibility. Its lies have been exposed. They know the ruling institutions, including the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government, are dysfunctional and despised. They know the media, Wall Street and the big banks are distrusted and hated. They know the criminal justice system, which criminalizes poverty and legalizes corporate fraud, is a sham. They know social mobility is, in effect, nonexistent. And, most importantly, they know that the financial system, built on the scaffolding of trillions lent to them by the government at marginal interest rates, is not sustainable and will trigger another recession, if not a depression. They also know they are to blame.

The capitalists are determined to protect their wealth. They are determined, and probably able, to block left-leaning candidates Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders from obtaining the Democratic nomination for president. But they are also aware that politicians such as Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden who have spent their careers serving corporate power are harder and harder to sell to the electorate. The mendacity and hypocrisy of the Democratic Party are evident in the presidency of Barack Obama, who ran as an outsider and reformer in the wake of the 2008 financial meltdown. Obama—whom Cornel West called “a black mascot for Wall Street”—callously betrayed the party’s base. Actions by him, Clinton and other Democratic leaders after the 2008 financial debacle opened the door for the demagogue Donald Trump, who, although a con artist and inveterate liar, was astute enough to tell voters, especially from the white working class, what they wanted to hear.

Business Roundtable’s August statement is a pathetic attempt to reframe the capitalists’ roles in society, to give these corporate grifters gentler, kinder faces. It will not work. The capitalists have the power to destroy, but no longer to create. And out of their relentless destruction, which they are incapable of halting, will come the social unrest they fear and monstrosities more terrifying than Donald Trump.

Posted in LiteratureComments Off on The Capitalists Are Afraid

‘World Has Never Seen a Threat to Human Rights of This Scope,’ UN Rights Chief Says of Climate Emergency

“The window of opportunity for action may be closing—but there is still time to act.”

byAndrea Germanos

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, listens to the meeting introduction before delivering opening remarks while hosting a debate on key human rights issues in the country at ICS—Instituto de Ciências Sociais da Universidade de Lisboa on April 29, 2019 in Lisbon, Portugal. (Photo: Horacio Villalobos#Corbis/Corbis via Getty Images)

“We are burning up our future—literally,” the United Nations human rights chief said Monday, as she called the climate crisis a “rapidly growing and global threat to human rights.”

In fact, said U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet, “The world has never seen a threat to human rights of this scope.”

Bachelet’s warning came in her remarks to the Human Rights Council on the opening day of the body’s September session in Geneva.

No corner of the globe is untouched by the impacts of the warming planet, said Bachelet, noting that the crisis is already worsening hunger, conflict, and extreme weather. Among the current manifestations are the burning of the Amazon rain forest, the full impact of which “may never be known.”

While the fires’ impact may “catastrophic” on “humanity as a whole,” their worst effects, Bachelet said, “are suffered by the women, men, and children who live in these areas—among them, many indigenous peoples.”

The high commissioner also pointed to Hurricane Dorian, which devastated the Bahamas last week. The storm “accelerated with unprecedented speed over an ocean warmed by climate shifts, becoming one of the strongest Atlantic hurricanes ever to hit land,” she said, and took “a terrible toll on human life.” But worse could be yet to come for the Bahamas and other Caribbean nations, she said, as rising sea levels may submerge portions of the countries and unleash “an inestimable loss for humanity.”

Laying out some of the impacts of the crisis, she said:

WHO expects climate change to cause approximately 250,000 additional deaths per year between 2030 and 2050—from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhea, and heat stress alone. In many nations, chaotic weather patterns and other manifestations of our environmental emergency are already reversing major development gains; exacerbating conflict, displacement and social tension; hampering economic growth; and shaping increasingly harsh inequalities.

Environmental human rights defenders are performing “a great service… to humanity,” said Bachelet, yet they face violence and abuse, particularly in Latin America. One activist she noted by name was Swedish teen Greta Thunberg. Bachelet said she was “disheartened” by the verbal abuse levied at Thunberg and other young activists, “who galvanize support for prevention of the harm their generation may bear.”

“The demands made by environmental defenders and activists are compelling,” Bachelet added, “and we should respect, protect, and fulfill their rights.”

Bachelet stressed the urgency of climate action, saying, “The window of opportunity for action may be closing—but there is still time to act.” She pointed to the U.N.’s Climate Action Summit later this month as a moment when states should commit to “the strongest possible action to prevent climate change, and to promote the resilience and rights of your people in dealing with environmental harm.”

“Effective action on climate requires bringing the uncommitted and unconvinced into a shared, just, and truly international effort,” said Bachelet. “Human rights can help galvanize that movement.”

Posted in Environment, UNComments Off on ‘World Has Never Seen a Threat to Human Rights of This Scope,’ UN Rights Chief Says of Climate Emergency

Why ‘Israel’ could cease to exist in a couple of generations

The end of Israel
By Gilad Atzmon

The lesson to be drawn from the current Israeli political stalemate is that Israel is imploding, breaking into the elements it has never managed to integrate into one. The schism is no longer one of Ashkenazi versus Arab Jews (aka Sephardim). The divide is ideological, religious, spiritual, political, ethnic and cultural. Nor does it break down into left and right, Israeli Jews are politically with the right even when they pretend to be “left”. Although some of the most astute critical voices of Israeli politics and Jewish fundamentalism are Israelis (such as Gideon Levi, Shlomo Sand, Israel Shamir and others), there is no political Israeli left. Israeli politics break down into a lot of extreme right voters and many ordinary hawks. The Arab Joint List Party is practically the only left party in the Israeli Knesset. This should not be surprising any more. The Jewish left, as I have been arguing for many years, is an oxymoron: Jewishness is a form of tribal identification and the left is universal. The “tribal” and the “universal” are like oil and water, they do not mix very well.

What is peculiar about the Israeli political divide is that the Israelis are more united than ever in their nationalist beliefs and in the primacy of their Jewish symptoms. Why is it, if the Israelis are so unified, that no one can form a government in their so-called “Jewish State”?

The Jewish left… is an oxymoron: Jewishness is a form of tribal identification and the left is universal. The “tribal” and the “universal” are like oil and water, they do not mix very well.

Avigdor Lieberman, formerly an enthusiastic ally of Binyamin Netanyahu and himself a radical Jewish nationalist, delved into the Israeli political deadlock recently. He maintained that the elections had already been decided: “The ultra-Orthodox and Messianic bloc reaches 62-61 seats.” The leader of the rabid nationalist Yisrael Beiteinu said: “If there is no voting rate of at least 70 per cent in Gush Dan and Sharon, the Halacha [Jewish Talmudic] government will be established.”

Basically, Lieberman said that unless secular Israelis in Tel Aviv go to the polls, they should expect to live in a Halacha State under an ultra-right-wing Netanyahu government. Lieberman appears to hold the key to Israel’s political stability. Although he and Netanyahu are ideological twins regarding Israeli security and nationalist matters, the two are bitter rivals who fight aggressively against each other. Netanyahu has known for a few years that without a strong ultra-right-wing government, he can expect to spend some time behind bars, an experience that has become common for Israel’s prime political figures. Netanyahu’s natural partners are the ultra-right parties and the Orthodox parties. Ideologically, Lieberman should also feel comfortable within such a political coalition but Lieberman has made a crucial political decision, essential for his political survival. A while back he grasped that his political home base, Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Union, many of them barely Jewish and subjected to constant rabbinical terror, regard the Jewish Orthodox parties as their ultimate foes. Many of these Russian and Ukrainian Jews hold ultra-right-wing political positions but also see the rabbis as an imminent threat to their survival.  

Theoretically, Lieberman could broker a huge unity coalition with Netanyahu at the top, joined by the he and White (Kachol Lavan) Party and its three-right wing field marshals, Lieberman’s own party and probably the Labour Party. Such a coalition would hold around 80 Knesset seats, more than enough to sustain a strong government, but this coalition would not guarantee Netanyahu’s immunity.

Netanyahu gambles instead on a weak ultra-right-wing religious government, a government that may not hold for very long but would buy more time for its prime minister to stay out of jail.

Israel’s Orthodox Jews are the fastest growing group in the country. They are also the country’s poorest population… Ordinarily, one would expect the poor to support the left, but Israeli Torah Jews are rabid nationalists and openly lend their support to Netanyahu and his party.

This conflict at the heart of Israeli politics is a window into the Jewish state and its fears. Israel is rapidly becoming an Orthodox Jewish state. Israel’s Orthodox Jews are the fastest growing group in the country. They are also the country’s poorest population, 45 per cent live below the poverty line in segregated communities. Ordinarily, one would expect the poor to support the left, but Israeli Torah Jews are rabid nationalists and openly lend their support to Netanyahu and his party. 

Professor Dan Ben-David of Tel Aviv University warned recently that Israel could cease to exist in a couple of generations. He pointed to the astonishingly high birth rate among ultra-Orthodox Jews and predicted that, based on current trends, they will comprise 49 per cent of Israel’s population by 2065. The ultra-Orthodox parties are destined to dominate the Knesset within a generation or less. Ben David predicts that their dependence on Israel’s welfare system will lead to a rapid decline is Israel’s economy. This is economically damaging enough and is made worse by the refusal of most rabbinical schools to incorporate standard Western subjects such as mathematics, science and English into their core curriculum. Consequently, Israel is educating a growing percentage of its population in a fashion that fails to equip them to contribute to the needs of a hi-tech society that is immersed in a conflict for survival.

The picture that comes across is peculiar. As Israel becomes increasingly Jewish and fundamentalist in its nationalist and religious ethos, it has also become more divided on everything else. The Russian immigrants find it impossible to live alongside the ultra Orthodox, and vice-versa. The secular enclave in Tel Aviv is committed to seeing its metropolis as an extension of New York. The Israeli left has morphed into an LGBT hasbara unit. It has practically removed itself from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Jewish settlers adhere to the concept of a “two Jewish states solution”. They want to see the West Bank become a Jewish land. Orthodox Jews are barely concerned with any of these political issues. They know well that the future of the Jewish state belongs to them. All they need to do is sustain a productive secular Jewish minority to serve as their milk cow. On top of all that we face Netanyahu’s survival wars that threaten to escalate any minute into a world conflict.

In light of all of this, the Palestinians are in relatively good shape. They simply need to survive. Israel seems to be Israel’s fiercest enemy.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Why ‘Israel’ could cease to exist in a couple of generations

‘Not Exactly a Vote of Confidence’: Amid Brexit Chaos, Boris Johnson’s Own Brother Resigns

Week of legislative defeats and popular ridicule continues for embattled UK Prime Minister

byEoin Higgins

Jo and Boris Johnson in happier times. Jo left Parliament today, citing tensions between family and politics.

Jo and Boris Johnson in happier times. Jo left Parliament today, citing tensions between family and politics. (Photo: Andrew Parsons/I-Images)

The younger brother of Prime Minister Boris Johnson abruptly resigned his seat in Parliament and role in the Conservative Party Thursday, the latest example of the chaos in London as the United Kingdom struggles to negotiate its exit from the European Union. 

Jo Johnson cited his older brother’s single-minded pursuit of Brexit in a tweet announcing his resignation.

“In recent weeks I’ve been torn between family loyalty and the national interest,” he said, “it’s an unresolvable tension and time for others to take on my roles as MP and Minister.”

Jo Johnson will leave his seat at the next election, thereby staving off a special election for the seat. Nonetheless, the departure was seen as a major defeat for his brother.

“Not exactly a vote of confidence in his government,” tweeted Financial Times reporter Sebastian Payne. 

The elder Johnson has suffered a number of defeats this week after convincing Queen Elizabeth II on August 28 to sign off on proroguing, or suspending, Parliament for five weeks starting September 9-12.

On Tuesday, the prime minister lost his majority midway through a speech when Conservative M.P. Philip Lee changed parties on the floor. Later that evening, Parliament voted to take control of the government and, on Wednesday, passed legislation barring Johnson from leaving the E.U. without a deal in place—a move that the prime minister complained cut his leverage.

Johnson responded by calling for a snap election, but that too was rejected because the legislation barring a no-deal Brexit has yet to be signed off on by the House of Lords, Parliament’s upper chamber. 

Writer Owen Jones noted the series of defeats in a tweet titled “Boris Johnson’s record.” 

Owen Jones@OwenJones84

Boris Johnson’s record:

Lost a by-election quicker than any PM for 111 years

Lost 21 MPs (having purged them)

Lost an MP to the Lib Dems

Lost his majority

Lost every Parliamentary vote

Lost control of the House of Commons

Lost his own brother as an MP and a Minister.18.7K12:11 PM – Sep 5, 2019

In a tweet, Bloomberg Opinion columnist David Fickling noted that the resignation of the younger Johnson is a symptom of the broader chaos in the U.K. during the prime minister’s brief tenure.

“Just reflect for a moment on where we are in British politics when the *Prime Minister’s own brother* declares that the best thing for him to do in the national interest is to quit politics altogether,” said Fickling.

A change could be coming, however. The Gurdian reported Thrusday that over 100,000 Britons have registered to vote over the last 48 hours in expectation of snap elections. 

Posted in UKComments Off on ‘Not Exactly a Vote of Confidence’: Amid Brexit Chaos, Boris Johnson’s Own Brother Resigns

Should We Feed Hungry Children, or the War Machine?

Every dollar of public money financing US militarism abroad is a dollar that could fight hunger, homelessness, or climate change.

byMedea Benjamin

Anti-war demonstration in New York City on the 16th anniversary of the invasion of Afghanistan, October 7 2017. (Photo: Erik McGregor/SIPA USA/PA Images)

Anti-war demonstration in New York City on the 16th anniversary of the invasion of Afghanistan, October 7 2017. (Photo: Erik McGregor/SIPA USA/PA Images)

In August 21, the Humanitarian Coordinator for Yemen, Lise Grande, put out a heartbreaking call for nations to make good on their pledges to send humanitarian aid to feed destitute families in war-torn Yemen. Unless the funds promised are received soon, she warned, food rations for 12 million people would be reduced and at least 2.5 million malnourished children would be cut-off from the services that keep them alive. “When money doesn’t come,” Grande said bluntly, “people die.”

The total UN appeal is $4 billion. While this is the largest country appeal the UN has ever put out, the entire bill represents only two days of the 2019 US military budget of almost $700 billion. Lacking generosity, the US offered a mere $300 million—less than four hours of Pentagon spending. Meanwhile, US companies rake in billions of dollars selling the weapons to Saudi Arabia that are in large part responsible for this humanitarian crisis.

Our elected officials have chosen to prioritize the pursuit of military hegemony over the wellbeing of our people.

The wild disparity between money for feeding people and money for arming the military is reflected here at home. In 2018, the federal government spent $68 billion on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which provided food to 40 million people. It would take only ten days of the Pentagon budget to cover that tab, but this administration says it’s too expensive and is trying to cut eligibility for food to the poor.

What if, instead of military interventions, the US decided to fight global poverty?

Columbia University’s Jeffrey Sachs, one of the world’s leading experts on economic development, has estimated that the cost to end world poverty is $195 billion per year. With the upcoming 2020 military budget proposed at $750 billion, the US could feed the world’s hungry and still spend twice as much on its military than the number two spender: China. It would also serve our national interests. Feeding the poor would certainly win us more friends around the world than deploying another aircraft carrier.

If we decided that we’d rather focus on education, a portion of our military budget could finance the College for All program proposed by Senator Bernie Sanders, which would eliminate existing student loan debt and make all public colleges and universities tuition-free for $47 billion a year. In fact, we could implement this program 14 times on this year’s military budget alone. Despite this reality, as weapons manufacturers get billions in handouts and contracts with the US military, some of those same educational institutions losing out in the federal budget are investing their funds back into the weapons manufacturers lobbying to divert public money towards war.

The trend of military spending outpacing the cost of even our most ambitious social programs continues for just about every cause you can name. We could house every homeless person in the country, give the Department of Transportation a budget nine times as large as its current one, or vastly expand programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Every dollar of public money that goes to finance US militarism abroad is a dollar that could go to fighting hunger, homelessness, or climate change.

Our elected officials have chosen to prioritize the pursuit of military hegemony over the wellbeing of our people. What’s more, they treat military spending as an inevitability while programs that might improve the lives of students in crippling education debt or the sick in crippling medical debt are portrayed as luxuries. Advocates for Medicare for All and the Green New Deal must constantly justify their high price tags for saving lives and our planet, while the military receives an ever-growing check to destroy them.

In 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower gave a profound speech about the grotesque spending on weapons. “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.”

As he was about to leave office in 1961, he issued a warning against “the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex.” Today that complex is often referred to as the military-industrial-security complex, or simply the national security state. To understand the enormity of its reach, you have to start with the $750 billion proposed for 2020 Pentagon and war-related activities and add the money for nuclear weapons, veterans, homeland security, intelligence and the military share of the national debt. The total comes to an obscene $1.25 trillion.

Senator Bernie Sanders, railing against this runaway spending in a speech at Johns Hopkins, called on people to stand up and say: “There is a better way to use our wealth.” Sanders, along with Elizabeth Warren, have outlined visionary plans for fixing our broken healthcare, education, infrastructure and ailing planet, but they have yet to propose a sweeping reform of our military spending. The only way we will see a shift to a more just and sustainable world is if we shift the way we spend – or squander – our nation’s wealth.

Posted in USAComments Off on Should We Feed Hungry Children, or the War Machine?

Michael Collins Piper – The Mossad Link to the Martin Luther King Assassination

by Lisa Phillips

 OpDeepState.com

Who owns the “black vote” in America?  Martin Luther King intended to align his movement with the Palestinians in the 1960’s. His assassination also ties in with Israel stealing America’s nuclear technology (Numec Coverup) so that the Israelis could use the Samson Option (threat of annihilation of Europe) to blackmail world leaders who would not comply with the demands of the Ashkenazi Jews who conquered Palestine in 1948.

During the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump specifically stated “We all bleed red blood” and included all Americans in his quest to make America great again. Most recently, in Trump’s speech upon his return from his Asian tour, he stated his goal was peace in Palestine. Not Israel, but “Palestine”.

The Marxist Jews have always aligned themselves with the very people they brought to North America as slaves so that they could increase their numbers and gain control over the Democrat Party.  Under the guise of “sympathy for the down trodden”, and using the holohoax lie, the Marxist Jews were instrumental in creating the Welfare State in America.

A Close Alliance Between MLK and Nelson Rockefeller Revealed

by Kevin Burke

Cardinal Francis Joseph Spellman, archbishop of New York; the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.; and New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller at the Sheraton Hotel in New York City in 1962 for the centennial of the Emancipation Proclamation.
1962 New York State Archives

While much is being made about the new movie Selma’s depiction of the complicated relationship between the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and President Lyndon B. Johnson at the summit of the civil rights movement, it was actually King’s friendship with a larger-than-life Republican governor that speaks to our more complicated political past. Looking past it, we not only miss a host of intriguing historical surprises but also underestimate King’s deft leveraging of power on either side of the aisle.

Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller (1908-1979), scion of a mighty oil dynasty, was the four-term governor of New York who also served as vice president under President Gerald Ford and did his best to outdo LBJ’s Great Society by way of his own blended liberal-conservative style, which he described as having “a Democrat heart with a Republican head.” Before being shouted down by his own party at the 1964 Republican National Convention in favor of Barry Goldwater’s conservative forces, Rockefeller thought that energetic governance, to save capitalism by softening its sharpest edges and to advance civil rights in the Lincoln tradition, would be his ticket to the White House. Had he been right, we wouldn’t be talking about LBJ and the Voting Rights Act today.

Before it was fashionable, Rockefeller, more than any other white political executive in his party and far more than most Democrats, recognized King’s potential to lead the march for justice that would redefine American greatness in a Cold War world. Now, for the first time, we get a more complete sense of his support for King in an impressive new biography by noted presidential historian Richard Norton Smith: On His Own Terms: A Life of Nelson Rockefeller, reflecting 14 years of research that tracks this remarkable man through his flawed but ebullient life.

Here are the surprises that caught my eye:

In 1961, when King was still largely unknown outside the South, Rockefeller overruled advisers who were worried about how it would look if he shared the same stage with King and instead hired a film crew to capture King’s oratorical gifts. “If it’s morally the right thing … it’s the politically right thing,” Rockefeller told his team. And as he pressed for an end to discrimination in New York, he took delight in tweaking his Democratic rival in the White House, another legatee of Northeastern wealth, President John F. Kennedy, for being more talk than action. Rockefeller was anything but talk.

In fact, Smith reveals, it was Rockefeller’s representative who secretly provided a suitcase of cash to King’s attorney Clarence Jones in the basement of the Chase Manhattan Bank as bail money for those arrested in the Children’s March in Birmingham, Ala., in May 1963. “If we had one or two governors in the Deep South like Nelson Rockefeller,” King observed, “many of our problems could be readily solved” (quoted in the entry on Rockefeller in the online King Encyclopedia, out of Stanford University).

Again, two years later, as LBJ, fresh off his landslide election, agonized over King’s planned second march in Selma, Rockefeller, even after his humiliating defeat to Goldwater (who had voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act), answered King’s call for national reinforcements by sending his own cousin, Alexander Aldrich, to join the throngs hoping to return to the Edmund Pettus Bridge. And later in 1965, Rockefeller flew to Atlanta to speak at Ebenezer Baptist Church and made a $25,000 donation to King’s Gandhi Society for Human Rights.

Rockefeller, Smith details, even “imported Italian craftsmen to restore the sanctuary’s stained-glass windows.” Even if King found it impossible to endorse Rockefeller’s run at the presidency, given his party’s rightward turn and LBJ’s record of delivering, Rockefeller wasn’t shy about inviting the reverend and his family to his posh Fifth Avenue digs in New York City as an escape from the looming pressures of travel and threats of death.

We now know from Smith that when death did come for King in April 1968, Rockefeller was so appalled that he immediately ordered his state’s flags lowered and sent a trio of emissaries to Atlanta to help the King family plan and pay for Martin’s funeral. According to Smith, one of Rockefeller’s key aides on the scene, Joe Canzeri, even “picked out the casket, located and repaired an ancient farm wagon for the procession to the cemetery, found mules to pull it—and took the King children to see their father lying in repose at the Spelman Chapel (named for the family of Nelson’s grandmother Laura Spelman).

And when Mrs. King needed a plane to complete her husband’s march in Memphis, Tenn., it was there. At the time the story went unreported, Smith writes, because, as Rockefeller told Canzeri, “We don’t want to make any political hay out of the misfortune of the family.” What Rockefeller did say in his public statement was this: “The true memorial to Martin Luther King cannot be made of stone. … It must be made of action.” For Rockefeller, this meant ramming through legislation to create New York’s Urban Development Corp. to rebuild the state’s blighted cities, however controversial and exacting the political price.

Rockefeller never did realize his dream of becoming the Republican Party’s standard-bearer, even after making one more frantic run at reclaiming it for civil rights following the assassination of Robert Kennedy in June 1968. Worse, he had to suffer being called the GOP’s enemy as it seized its own dream under Richard Nixon of becoming the party of the South and, increasingly, of white voters (62 percent of whom voted for Republican candidates in the last House elections). Meanwhile, African-American voters completed their own great migration to the Democratic Party that had begun with Franklin D. Roosevelt, accelerated with Johnson and culminated in their 90-plus-percent support for President Barack Obama in the last presidential race.

This is not meant to overstate Rockefeller’s case. Indeed, over time, Rockefeller himself became associated, notoriously so, with decisions that exacerbated racial tensions in the fallout from the civil rights movement. There was his support for the war in Vietnam; his deafness to calls for black self-determination (as opposed to housing projects built and neighborhoods cleared by orders from the top); his reckless handling of the prison uprising at Attica; and, most damaging, his crusade for stiff, mandatory sentencing for offenders in the wider war on drugs that would erase so many futures when crack cocaine hit the streets and the Reagan revolution arrived.

But one cannot help wondering whether King, if he had lived instead of being robbed of his future, would have saved Rockefeller from himself and the misguided policies, however wonkish or well-meaning, that destroyed lives and clouded his record.

Still, when Rockefeller died of a massive heart attack in 1979 (the scandal and cover-up of which make for riveting reading in Smith’s final chapter), it was his express desire that King’s father, Martin Luther King Sr., speak at his memorial service. It was, Smith notes, “the one aspect of the service requested by Nelson in life.”

Fifty years ago Rockefeller, despite his many flaws, presciently warned the GOP to keep its tent wide by keeping out “preachers of racism or extremists of reaction.” While we can debate the legacy of what followed, it was clear which preacher he preferred.

Source:  https://www.theroot.com/a-close-alliance-between-mlk-and-nelson-rockefeller-rev-1790858451

Editor’s note:  It’s very possible that MLK was trained by the CIA at Stanford University.

The Stanford recruitment page for the CIA explains, “You will be given the opportunity to work with highly-skilled professionals and see first-hand the role the CIA plays in supporting US officials who make our country’s foreign policy.”

See also:  Martin Luther King by Miles Matthis

Is Plan For Racial Strife Another Hoax?

JEWISH INVOLVMENT IN THE BLACK ORGANIZATION NAACP

Congressional Record

vij @vijinho · Mar 11 FBI: Martin Luther King Jr.–A Current Analysis–March 1968

Why the Martin Luther King Jr Holiday Should Be Repealed By Mark Farrell

No, The Bible Doesn’t Command We “Stand With Israel”

Zionism Refuted With Scripture – Full Sermon – Christians Are God’s Chosen People

The US Military Knows Israel Did 9/11

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Michael Collins Piper – The Mossad Link to the Martin Luther King Assassination

Zionist Unit 8200 and the Exportation of Commercial Spyware & the NSA

ISRAEL’S COMMERCIAL SPYWARE

August 25, 2019Lisa PhillipsNews0

Graduates from Israel’s high-tech spy group Unit 8200 have gone on to facilitate the growth of commercial spyware.

by Katherine Barnett

The Israeli Defense Forces’ Unit 8200 is a high-tech military spy branch responsible for the training of some of the country’s top technology experts.

But while the unit has helped Israel become a leading figure in the tech industry, a number of its graduates’ subsequent careers have been dubious.

Facebook’s Onavo and NSO are two companies founded by Unit 8200 graduates that have recently been put under scrutiny.

They demonstrate how expertise developed in the unit can be used to create commercial tech that puts consumer security at risk.

Unit 8200

Unit 8200 is the largest military unit within the IDF and is widely seen as Israel’s equivalent to the NSA. It’s members are young, usually between 18-21, and are chosen for their math, science and problem-solving talents.

Those working within the unit help the development of surveillance tech, hacking, encryption and decoding techniques. They also gather internal and foreign signals, and are responsible for cyber-policing and monitoring civilians.

Unit 8200 also play a significant role in the systematic discrimination of Palestinians.

In 2014, 43 serving and former Unit 8200 members revealed details of surveillance methods used to pry on the private data of innocent Palestinians, including sexual and financial material.

In an open letter, soldiers stated:

Palestinian population under military rule is completely exposed to espionage and surveillance by Israeli intelligence. While there are severe limitations on the surveillance of Israeli citizens, the Palestinians are not afforded this protection.

Despite the global media coverage this received, the monitoring of Palestinians by Unit 8200 continues.

In a report released in December 2018, human rights organisation 7amleh outlined how the unit’s ability to intercept and inject Palestinian communication networks with text messages and phone calls shows the extent to which they are constantly monitoring civilians.

Facebook’s Onavo VPN

Labelled the ‘Start Up Nation’ by authors Dan Senor and Saul Singer, Israel’s main industry is technology. It is key to the country’s economy and veterans of Unit 8200 are dominating the scene.

Former unit soldiers have gone on to found notable tech companies, including Palo Alto Networks and Check Point Software.

The majority of these companies specialise in areas of security such as surveillance, voice recording and cybersecurity.

One of these companies is the Facebook-owned Onavo.

Founded in 2010 by Unit 8200 graduates Guy Rosen and Roi Tiger, the company was acquired by Facebook in October 2013.

Facebook marketed Onavo’s VPN app as a way users could keep their data secure and protect it from potentially compromising websites by encrypting and re-routing their data.

But while this hid all browsing and app activity from ISPs, it gave Facebook almost full visibility of a user’s data, providing them with insights into consumer trends.

These insights led to Facebook’s decision to implement a story feature as a means of competing with its rival Snapchat.

It also led to Facebook’s acquisition of WhatsApp for $19 billion after discovering that more than twice as many messages were sent off the app than Facebook Messenger.

Consumers were kept largely in the dark about the ways it would violate their privacy and help influence Facebook’s marketing and product strategies.

The Onavo VPN app was shut down last year after it emerged that Facebook was paying teenagers and adults to download the app and provide ‘nearly limitless’ access to their data.

To make matters worse, after Apple banned the app for being in breach of its guidelines, Facebook exploited a loophole that would allow people to circumvent the App Store and download the app directly.

The Commercialisation of Surveillance Tech

This is not the only time that a company linked to Unit 8200 has been the topic of a major security scandal.

The NSO has also made headlines recently following the discovery of a WhatsApp vulnerability which left the app open to infection by their Pegasus spyware.

According to Forbes, the NSO was founded by Unit 8200 graduates Omri Lavie and Shalev Hulio in 2010.

Pegasus has been labelled by Forbes as the ‘world’s most invasive mobile spy-kit’ as it allows for the full monitoring and commandeering of any mobile phone that becomes infected.

These capabilities have led to its use by regimes the world-over who are eager to snoop on or interfere with their enemies.

In a 2017 report, Citizen Lab highlighted the use of NSO technology in countries known for human rights abuses such as Kazakhstan and Mexico.

Amnesty International even took legal action against the Ministry of Defense in an attempt to get the exportation of NSO products revoked. This was in recognition of the use of NSO products to facilitate human rights abuses by authorities globally.

Conclusion

That Unit 8200 is behind Facebook’s Onavo and NSO raises concerns for what other commercial technology could emerge, or already has emerged, from the spy-unit.

With mass surveillance common practice, it’s reasonable to assume that Unit 8200 grads will continue to use this technology in the creation of commercial products.

The actions of NSO and Facebook’s Onavo have shown techniques mastered in the unit can easily be misused to create products that put consumer privacy and security at risk.

Consumers should therefore be aware of any ties companies have to Unit 8200, as well as its role in the surveillance of innocent civilians.

Source:  https://www.top10vpn.com/news/surveillance/israels-unit-8200-and-the-exportation-of-commercial-spyware/

Operation Talpiot is the back door data pipeline from your computer/cell phone to Israel. Everything you communicate electronically is stored and analyzed by Israel. This includes all computers, business and military, as well as the power grids in all countries.

In addition, the Bolshevik Israelis-Russians are stealing American Technology.

Read more:  Israel: The Greatest Spy Machine of All Time – Talpiot and Unit 8200 since 1952

How Israel Rules — Barbarians Inside The Gates (Talpiot Connections to the Communist New Silk Road (Belt and Road Initiative) – Brendon O’Connell

How The Talpiot Program Works – Jeremy Roth-Kushel and Greg McCarron

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Zionist Unit 8200 and the Exportation of Commercial Spyware & the NSA


Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING

September 2019
M T W T F S S
« Aug   Oct »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30