Archive | December 23rd, 2019

Charity of bullies: The Campaign Against Anti-Semitism

Campaign Against anti-Semitism bullies
By Eve Mykytyn*

The Campaign Against Anti-Semitism (CAA) is a British charity. British law requires that a charity must have only charitable purposes which must also be for the public benefit (it may be for the benefit of a religion). The CAA’s constitution states its purpose as

to promote racial harmony for the public benefit between Jewish people and other members of society, including raising awareness of anti-Semitism and providing advocacy assistance, care and relief to those affected by anti-Semitism, and to advance education… of anti-Semitism for the public benefit.

For reasons the charity commission refused to explain in response to a request for information dated October 2018, the CAA has been allowed to keep the names of its charity trustees (those responsible for assuring that the CAA operates within its charitable purposes) secret. In fact, the CAA’s website lists only two of the three members of its management team: Gideon Falter, Chairman, and Steve Silverman, Director of Investigations and Enforcement. The Director of Organisation and Finance goes “unnamed”. The CAA, which freely publicises whomever it sees as anti-Semitic and which devotes over half of the news on its website to criticisms of members of the Labour Party, is itself a secretive organisation.

”[Steve] Silverman claims to be the charity’s ‘investigator and enforcer’. How does his investigating and enforcing whatever he decides to investigate and enforce provide a public benefit: aren’t those roles best left to duly appointed law-enforcement officers?”

So let us see how the CAA is pursuing its charitable goal of “promoting harmony between Jewish people and other members of society”. The CAA reacts to news of a Gilad Atzmon jazz concert by sending an “attempted enforcement” letter to the venue or the promoter. Unless there is a handy Labour councillor to use, it is signed by Steve Silverman “from CAA a registered charity that works to counter anti-Semitism through education and zero-tolerance enforcement of the law”. Wait – where was zero tolerance in the charity’s statement of purpose? Silverman claims to be the charity’s “investigator and enforcer”. How does his investigating and enforcing whatever he decides to investigate and enforce provide a public benefit: aren’t those roles best left to duly appointed law-enforcement officers?

The letter contains a list of accusations, including that Atzmon uses social media to harass others (no, that was your lawyer and patron, Mark Lewis) and that Atzmon trivialises the scale and impact of the holocaust. This last comes close to a false allegation of holocaust denial and Silverman provides no evidence for it at all, not even the out-of-context and mangled quotes the CAA typically relies on to slur Atzmon.

Silverman then quotes the “international” definition of anti Semitism, by which I believe he means the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of anti-Semitism, and cites the examples from that definition in what seems like an attempt to give his own words the force of law. 

Lastly, Silverman notes that Atzmon was banned from playing in Islington last December after a complaint from “a member of the Jewish community”. I’m not sure that I would characterise the very active Martin Rankoff, head of Likud UK, as merely a member of the Jewish community. I hope that Rankoff doesn’t sue Mr Silverman for defamation.

The last two such venues replied, noting that Atzmon has played there many times in the past, that he regularly sold out the venue and that politics were not a part of the musical experience. 

Apparently, a negative reply from the venue puts an end to CAA’s ability to restrain itself. What follows next isa stunning accusation against a venue owner or promoter who has decided to fulfill its contractual obligations to a musician: “It is clear that, by failing to stand up to anti-Semitism, you have chosen to side with those who seek to stir up hatred towards this country’s Jewish community. Your willingness to turn a blind eye to the activities of this leading anti-Semite shames you, your board and your arts centre, and is nothing less than a dereliction of duty.”

Who considers such judgments a public benefit? Where does the “duty” to agree with the CAA come from? 

Silverman claims that “there is a vast amount of documented evidence, accumulated over many years, that bears witness to the extent of Gilad Atzmon’s anti-Semitism”. Hate speech is illegal in England. Does anyone doubt that if the CAA had real evidence that Atzmon used hate speech that it would bring that to the police and demand Atzmon’s arrest? 

Then, having accused Atzmon of trivialising the holocaust in his last missive, this time Silverman hints that Atzmon may be guilty of causing a holocaust, by “repeat[ing] some of the same discredited anti-Semitic views about Jewish power that were employed by the Nazi regime to pave the way for the holocaust, and he uses his blogs, videos and public talks to encourage others to share his hatred”. Who is sharing hatred here? Silverman hates Atzmon’s philosophy, but does that entitle Silverman to make outrageous, unfounded accusations of criminal behaviour?

Then Silverman signs off with what I suppose he considers to be a threat: “We will endeavour to ensure that your actions, positive or negative, receive the attention that they deserve.” And how will that attention read?

Here’s how I would review the situation: “The owners of venue booked and presented a musician who played to a packed house. The audience was able to forget our dystopian world for a bit and enjoy the magic of art.”

*Eve Mykytin is a writer, editor and former financial lawyer.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Charity of bullies: The Campaign Against Anti-Semitism

The Holocaust, “The Evil One”, Fascism and the Bush Family

By Bill Van Auken

This article was originally published in 2003.

“History is a reminder of what’s possible.” These were the words spoken by President George W. Bush as he emerged from a guided tour of the gas chambers at Auschwitz. The former Nazi death camp in Poland was one of the first stops on his seven-day tour of Europe and the Middle East.

What precisely the US president meant by this banal comment is not clear. However, given Bush’s political record—assembly-line executions in Texas, Guantanamo’s Camp X-Ray, the indefinite imprisonment of US citizens without charges, two preemptive wars—it could be open to the most sinister of interpretations.

There is no doubt that the visit to Auschwitz was choreographed to serve immediate policy objectives: invoking the horrors of Hitler’s concentration camps to further an agenda of militarism and domestic repression. Perhaps no greater disservice could be done to the memory of the six million Jews and the millions of others who were murdered by the Nazis.

In a speech delivered in Krakow that same day, Bush declared that the concentration camps “remind us that evil is real and must be called by name and must be opposed.” He continued: “Having seen the works of evil firsthand on this continent, we must never lose the courage to oppose it everywhere.”

The cause of the Holocaust, Bush suggested, was “evil.” For the US president, the word “evil” serves to cover up a multitude of sins. He has used it repeatedly to describe the Islamic fundamentalist group that carried out the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. On numerous occasions he has referred to the leader of Al Qaeda as “the evil one.” This particular expression serves a very immediate political purpose, since it avoids naming Osama bin Laden and thereby calling to mind the longstanding business association between the Bushes and the wealthy bin Laden family of Saudi Arabia.

The existence of “evil” constitutes the only explanation given by the Bush administration for the emergence of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. Such a semi-mystical and religious presentation (which, of course, assumes that the United States government embodies “good”) has the advantage of precluding any consideration of politics or history. In particular, it obscures the role played by US foreign policy—Washington’s alliance with despotic oil-rich regimes such as the one in Saudi Arabia, US sponsorship of the Afghan Mujahadeen, the CIA’s covert war against secular nationalist and socialist groups in the Middle East, the unconditional support for Israel against the Palestinians—in creating the social and political conditions in which retrograde tendencies like Al Qaeda could grow.

The use of the word “evil” serves a similar function in the case of the Holocaust. This attempt to obscure the social, political and economic roots of the rise of fascism in Europe in the 1930s and the horrific crimes that followed is not unique to Bush. The adoption of anti-communism as the core of the post-World War II US ideology made any analysis of the anti-socialist roots of fascism inconvenient. Rather, communism and fascism were equated as “totalitarian” and “evil.”

“Fascism is the continuation of capitalism, an attempt to perpetuate its existence by the most bestial and monstrous measures,” wrote Leon Trotsky on the eve of his assassination in 1940. “Capitalism obtained an opportunity to resort to fascism only because the proletariat did not accomplish the socialist revolution in time.”

This was not just the opinion of Trotsky. It was widely understood that the Nazis, like Mussolini’s fascist party, had been elevated to power with the backing of big business for the purpose of smashing the socialist workers’ movement and eradicating the threat of revolution. The “final solution” that Hitler’s regime developed against the Jews was bound up with this essential mission.

In his authoritative biography of Hitler, Ian Kershaw, describing the path taken by the Third Reich to the “final solution,” noted that the war in the East—and ultimately the Holocaust itself—was portrayed in Nazi propaganda as a “crusade against Bolshevism.” Kershaw wrote:

“The more ideologically committed pro-Nazis would entirely swallow the interpretation of the war as a preventive one to avoid the destruction of western culture by the Bolshevik hordes. They fervently believed that Europe would never be liberated before ‘Jewish Bolshevism’ was utterly and completely rooted out. The path to the Holocaust, intertwined with the showdown with Bolshevism, was prefigured in such notions. The legacy of hatred towards Bolshevism, fully interlaced with anti-Semitism, was about to be revealed in its full ferocity.” (Hitler 1936-1945: Nemesis, New York and London, 2001, p. 389).

In the immediate aftermath of the war, the US occupation authorities found themselves obliged to recognize the culpability of German big business in the crimes carried out by the Nazi regime. Gen. Telford Taylor, one of the principal prosecutors in the Nuremberg war crimes trials, pressed for the conviction of some of the top German industrialists. One of these was Friedrich Flick, the co-owner of the German Steel Trust with Fritz Thyssen. From 1932 on, he was one of the main financial contributors to the Nazis and the SS.Bush Family Links to Nazi Germany: “A Famous American Family” Made its Fortune from the Nazis

Taylor declared in his summation to the court:

“We are dealing with men so bent on the attainment of power and wealth that all else took second place. I do not know whether or not Flick and his associates hated the Jews; it is quite possible that he never gave the matter much thought until it became a question of practical importance, and not their inner feelings and sentiments.”

He continued:

“The defendants were men of wealth; many mines and factories were their private property. They will certainly tell you that they believed in the sanctity of private property, and perhaps they will say that they supported Hitler because German communism threatened that concept. But the factories of Rombach and Riga belonged to someone else.”

So, one might well add, did the oil wells of Iraq.

The description given by General Taylor of the German ruling elite could, with little alteration, be applied to the predatory layer of multi-millionaires that constitutes the principal base of the Bush administration.

General Taylor, it should be noted, found himself out of step with the subsequent anti-communist historical revisionism until his death in 1998. He was among the earliest figures to publicly confront Senator Joseph McCarthy’s witch-hunt. And he was a prominent opponent of the US war in Vietnam, arguing that the trial of Lt. William Calley for the massacre of some 500 women and children at My Lai should have been extended right up the US military chain of command.

Prescott Bush and the Nazis

In Bush’s case, covering up the historical origins of fascism in Germany serves a particular, indeed personal, function. While the president’s father had dealings with the bin Ladens, his grandfather made a considerable share of the family fortune through his dealings with Nazi Germany. Some have suggested that the Bushes’ assets have their ultimate source, in part, in the exploitation of slave labor at Auschwitz itself.

From the 1920s into the 1940s—after the Second World War had begun—Prescott Bush was a partner and executive in the Brown Brothers Harriman holding company on Wall Street and a director of one of its key financial components, the Union Banking Corporation (UBC).

Together with his father-in-law George Herbert Walker—the current president’s great grandfather—Prescott Bush controlled another asset of the holding company, the Hamburg-Amerika shipping line, which was utilized by the Nazi regime to transport its agents in and out of North America.

Another subsidiary of the Harriman group, Harriman International Co., struck a deal with Hitler’s regime in 1933 to coordinate German exports to the US market.

UBC, meanwhile, managed all of the banking operations outside of Germany for Fritz Thyssen, the German industrial magnate and author of the book I Paid Hitler, in which he acknowledged having financed the Nazi movement from 1923 until its rise to power.

In October 1942, 10 months after it had entered the Second World War, the US government seized UBC and several other companies in which the Harrimans and Prescott Bush had interests. In addition to Bush and Roland Harriman, three Nazi executives were named in the order issued by Washington to take over the bank.

An investigation carried out in 1945 revealed that the bank run by Prescott Bush was linked to the German Steel Trust run by Thyssen and Flick, one of the defendants at Nuremberg. This gigantic industrial firm produced fully half the steel and more than a third of the explosives, not to mention other strategic materials, used by the German military machine during the war years.

On October 28, 1942, the US government confiscated the assets of two firms that served as fronts for the Nazi regime—the Holland-American Trading Corporation and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation, both controlled by UBC. A month later, it seized Nazi interests in the Silesian-American Corporation (SAC), directed by Prescott Bush and his father-in-law, George Walker.

The seizure order, issued under the Trading with the Enemy Act, described Silesian-American as a “US holding company with German and Polish subsidiaries” that controlled large and valuable coal and zinc mines in Silesia, Poland and Germany. It added that, since September 1939 (when Hitler unleashed the Second World War) these properties had been under the control of the Nazi regime, which had utilized them to further its war effort.

Among SAC’s assets was a steel plant in Poland in the same district as Auschwitz. The plant reportedly used the concentration camp’s inmates as slave labor.

Among those who have investigated the links between the Bushes and the Nazis is John Loftus, a former prosecutor in the Justice Department’s War Crimes Unit, who now heads the Florida Holocaust Museum in Saint Petersburg. Loftus has charged that the Bush family received $1.5 million from its interest in UBC, when the bank was finally liquidated in 1951. “That’s where the Bush family fortune came from: It came from the Third Reich,” Loftus said in a recent speech.

Loftus argues that this money—a substantial sum at that time—included direct profit from the slave labor of those who died at Auschwitz. In an interview with journalist Toby Rogers, the former prosecutor said: “It is bad enough that the Bush family helped raise the money for Thyssen to give Hitler his start in the 1920s, but giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war is treason. The Bush bank helped the Thyssens make the Nazi steel that killed Allied soldiers. As bad as financing the Nazi war machine may seem, aiding and abetting the Holocaust was worse. Thyssen’s coal mines used Jewish slaves as if they were disposable chemicals. There are six million skeletons in the Thyssen family closet, and a myriad of criminal and historical questions to be answered about the Bush family’s complicity.”

Prescott Bush was by no means unique, though his financial connections with the Third Reich were perhaps more intimate than most. Henry Ford was an avowed admirer of Hitler, and together GM and Ford played the predominant role in producing the military trucks that carried German troops across Europe. After the war, both auto companies demanded and received reparations for damage to their German plants caused by allied bombing.

Standard Oil and Chase Bank, both controlled by the Rockefellers, invested heavily in Nazi Germany, as did many of Wall Street’s leading brokerage houses. These business dealings continued after the war had begun, with Standard Oil shipping fuel to the Nazis through Switzerland as late as 1942 and collaborating with I.G. Farben, the firm that manufactured Zyklon B gas for the Nazi death chambers and operated a synthetic rubber plant using slave labor from Auschwitz.

In his book Trading with the Enemy: The Nazi American Money Plot, former New York Times reporter Charles Higham noted that the US government sought to cover up the role played by Prescott Bush and many other leading US financiers and industrialists in supporting Hitler.

He wrote that the government feared that any attempt to prosecute these figures would only provoke a “public scandal” and “would have drastically affected public morale, caused widespread strikes and perhaps provoked mutinies in the armed services.” Moreover, Higham wrote, the government believed “their trial and imprisonment would have made it impossible for the corporate boards to help the American war effort.” (Trading with the Enemy—The Nazi American Money Plot 1933-1949, New York, 1983, p. xvii).

The Roosevelt administration and powerful political figures in both parties did their best to smooth over Prescott Bush’s problems arising from his business dealings with the Nazis. He was installed as chairman of the National War Board, helping raise private funds for war-related charities. Shortly after receiving his $1.5 million payout from UBC, he ran successfully for the US Senate from Connecticut, a position he held until 1963.

A considerable section of the leading American capitalists sympathized with Nazism and shared its anti-Semitic outlook, even if not as vocally as Henry Ford. These sentiments continued to inform US policy after the war had begun, with the Roosevelt administration refusing to alter its immigration policies in the slightest to admit Jewish refugees fleeing the Holocaust, and the military rejecting requests that the rail lines to Auschwitz be bombed, on the grounds that they constituted a “non-military target.”

While Bush’s speech writers like to portray US policy in terms of moral absolutes—the struggle of good against evil—the record of complicity of the American ruling class, and the Bush family in particular, with Nazi Germany demonstrates that the only constant is the defense of the power and privilege of the ruling oligarchy by whatever means are required.

In the 1930s and 1940s this overriding consideration led George W. Bush’s grandfather to establish a profitable commercial relationship with the Nazis. In the 1980s, it underlay the alliance forged—in no small part by George W. Bush’s father, the senior President Bush—with the Islamic fundamentalists in the war against the Soviet-backed regime in Afghanistan. Today it is at the heart the younger Bush’s policies of militarism and colonialism abroad and repression and social attacks at home.

Posted in USAComments Off on The Holocaust, “The Evil One”, Fascism and the Bush Family

Wider still and wider: The holocaust alliance’s solicited “anti-Semitism” as a reaction to insufficient supply of anti-Semitism

Fishing for contrived anti-Semitism
By Fernando Guevara

From a Zionist perspective, the supply of actual anti-Semitism is insufficient. In 2016 the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), therefore, adopted a new concept of anti-Semitism that targets all resistance to Zionism. I intentionally did not say definition, because a definition is the last thing that Zionism could cope with. IHRA’s bundling of all resistance to Zionism under the tag “anti-Semitism” will be treated as solicited – or contrived – anti-Semitism, because it is constructed by the accuser to fulfil the Zionist need for conflict in order to self-defend” by occupying territories, minds and assets. In order to attempt to legitimise, expand and perpetuate the Zionist project, the term anti-Semitism is used on an industrial scale. A cornerstone of contrived anti-Semitism is the IHRA’s completely non-sensical non-definition of “anti-Semitism”. It is a masterpiece of nebulous stabbing in the general direction of the slightest resistance to the Zionist project. Well, perhaps not a masterpiece. But it is quite a piece of work. It is discussed further in Section 3, below.

Zionists wish for you to conflate Zionism with Judaism, as they do, because they believe that conflating Zionism with religion bestows Zionism with legitimacy. Judaism is a religion, where God is the object of worship. Zionism is an ideology, based on severe narcissistic greed-craze and self-worship. Please do not oblige Zionists by conflating the two.

There are people who disapprove of Jews for being Jewish, and their hostility should be treated like all racism, with disdain. This article is not about racism, however, it is about the invitation to racism – most often refused –  that Zionism uses to control us with. The slur “anti-Semite!” by a Zionist is used to deflect attention from the racist ideology of Zionism, as well as to project racism onto the opponent. Any morally based ideology of equality and justice is a threat to Zionism – an ideology based on Jewish separateness and supremacy, and Semitically derived rights (addressed below). The pursuit ofanti-Semitism, and the necessity of finding anti-Semitism in abundance  is the engine that drives Zionism. 

Most accusations of anti-Semitism are launched against people who are not hostile to Jews. Yet I would be surprised to learn that there is even one decent, reasonable, advocate of human and democratic rights for Palestinians who has not been tarred with the slur of anti-Semitism, in order to discredit the cause of justice as well as each advocate thereof. This discussion addresses contemporary political Zionism, as it manifests itself in daily life. It does not discuss what Zionism was intended to be, or might have been, a hundred years ago.

This is one of the most remarkable features of contrived anti-Semitism  claims: far from attempting to prevent, or to end, persecution, the accuser actively solicits the persecution of Jews.

The terms solicited and contrived anti-Semitism  will be used more or less interchangeably in the following: the nuance lying in the focus on whether the condition is requested (i.e. solicited) or constructed (i.e. fabricated). In either case, the concept rests on non-sensical verbal acrobatics, double standards and outright lies.  

The intellectual dishonesty of solicited anti-Semitism is taken a step further by the pretence that the accuser wishes for the alleged persecution to end. The notion that it is objectionable to the Zionist to find manifestations of anti-Semitism serves as a smoke screen for the fact that the finding is not only welcomed but necessary. This is one of the most remarkable features of contrived anti-Semitism  claims: far from attempting to prevent, or to end, persecution, the accuser actively solicits the persecution of Jews. I have noticed that if you bother to explain that you are not hostile to Jews, and that you are in fact equally concerned for any person targeted by racism, the tension tends to rise. The Zionist often ups the allegations, or dances to a new subject, opened with a “but isn’t it true that…” Nothing enrages a Zionist more than the realisation that you are nothostile to Jews and that s/he might not be able to make the charge stick. To admit that the accusation is baseless would be to admit that Zionism has no weapon against you. Zionist terror networks could not be less concerned with the welfare of Jews. Therefore, they do not mind using Jews as human shields against opposition. In addition to placing individuals in acute danger, Zionism’s use of contrived anti-Semitism cheapens relevant analysis of xenophobia towards Jews, thereby cynically exploiting those they purport to protect even further. And Zionists accuse others of anti-Semitism.

Applying the standard of proof “guilt by suspicion”, Zionism places all Palestinian rights-activists within the label “anti-Semite”, by double-talk and deceit of the lowest order. The deceit is necessary because Zionism could never win our hearts, and our minds baulk at its ideas. In short, terror is the only way to fulfil the Zionist plan – which I have previously referred to as the biggest heist since white supremacy. 

Before discussing the widening the scope of solicited anti-Semitism, this article will briefly address the idea of Semitically derived rights, as well as Zionism in relation to the rights of others.

The article is presented in the following four sub-sections:

  1. The concept of Semitically-derived rights.
  2. Zionism and the rights of others.
  3. How solicited anti-Semitism is contrived and used to sustain the Zionist project.  
  4. Standing firm in the face of language pre-emption laws.

In spite of the genocidal policies against others, and the exploitation of the Jews Zionism purports to protect, Zionists suggest that one could be a Zionist without being a sociopath; that one could be a proponent of human values based on equality, while elevating one group above the reach of mores and restrictions that apply to everybody else; that one could be a defender of democracy, but only for Jews – like proposing a white democracy in say, South Africa or the USA. That genocide is self-defence.

What type of ideology relies on the obliteration of all others for its safety? Israel wants peace? Slurs against Palestinian rights activists revolve around allegations that BDS1and SJP 2 and SJP 3 are anti-democratic; that they promote terror; that they are hate groups; that they espouse violence. The main accusation of anti-Semitism  against BDS is that it is alleged to seek to end Israel as a Jewish state, by bringing about a single state, in which all inhabitants would be equal. And that is the allegation? Yet, Zionists accuse you of not embracing democracy and basic human values – the mind oscillates. The tragedy of it notwithstanding, from a certain point of view the Zionist logic is incredibly amusing.

The article concludes that we must be firm in the face of laws that seek to manage our perceptions and our ability to express them. We need to stop tolerating witch-hunts by IHRA-type networks on all voices of reason, and the perilous situation these persecutions create for targeted non-Jews, as well as for “protected” Jews. 

1. The concept of Semitically derived rights 

The most serious misconception connected with Zionism is perhaps the assumption that the question of who is Semitic is relevant. It assumes that it is legitimate to determine whether a person is Semitic, in order to assess whether the person has rights – civil and political rights, or the right to live within a certain territory. We will assume relevance for the sole purpose of trying to make sense of our interactions with Zionists, who invented the concept of Semitically derived rights. (Should our attempt to make sense of interacting with Zionists fail, we will reserve the right to move on to making sense without them, however.)

While some Jews are Semitic, most are not if, by Semitic, one means people descended from the area of historic Palestine.4 This is the interpretation given the term “Semitic” that most accusations of anti-Semitism are entangled with. While I do not agree with the definition (I believe “Semitic to refer to a language group), I will accept it for the purposes of this article. I will, therefore, generally treat “Semitic” as referring to people descended from persons who lived in Palestine thousands of years ago. That would be the Palestinians, regardless of religion. Alternatively, I will sometimes use the term anti-Semitic, in the sense and context that it is used by Zionists, in order to reflect on a specific Zionist argument.

It is a fact that slurs of anti-Semitism regularly come from non-Semites, who accuse Semites of being anti-Semitic, based on the fact that the “anti-Semites” oppose the Zionist dogmas of Jewish supremacy. Zionists insist that the biological  condition of Jewishness entitles the bearer to political rights. Moreover, these politically derived rights, they assert, are linked with legitimate claims to protection, through diabolical ethnic and cultural cleansing of anybody or anything not Jewish, thus excusing 70 years of genocide as “self-defence”. Every concept is turned inside out in order to portray Israel as a humane state in need of protection, and Zionism as an ideology that could possibly live peacefully alongside any other ideology or culture. The fact that Zionism cannot make peace with the religion of Judaism becomes an inconvenience best forgotten.

I am pleased, not surprised, that religious Jews widely reject the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism. According to Miko Peled, the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community, which makes up at least 25 to 30 per cent of UK Jews, reject the notion that Jeremy Corbyn is anti-Semitic, they reject Zionism and they reject the IHRA definition.5 Thank God! I have always perceived what I call Jewish Jews to be as non-racist as any other community. The religious concept of the chosen people is different from the chosenness on which Zionism bases its claim to political, cultural and financial empire. 

If I understand correctly, all religions should be practised without arrogance towards fellow humans, and without hubris (arrogance towards God). I suppose the way we practise religion, and the way we exercise power, says the most about who we really are.

2. Zionism and the rights of others

A conversation between a Zionist and a confused listener from the group of “Other,” about the legitimacy of Zionism, might proceed along the following lines: 

Zionist:  Before Christianity and Islam, there was Judaism. Some Jews lived in Palestine. Therefore, a Jew born in Hanoi in 2019, whose ancestors from Kazakhstan converted to Judaism a thousand years ago is entitled to live in Palestine.
Other: What about the Palestinians in between? What if they still live there?
Zionist: They need to make room for the Jews. This is Jewish land.
Other:  How did the Palestinians who stayed in Palestine lose the land
Zionist: They are not Jewish.
Other: What about their houses, their homes?
Zionist: They belong to the Jews. That is not negotiable. Jerusalem is not for sale.
Other: I understand why you can’t sell it. But what if the Palestinians don’t wish to sell?
Zionist: Jews have a right to those homes. Biblical Palestine is Jewish. A birth-right. They lived in Palestine before the Christians and the Muslims. Thousands of years ago. Jews have a right to return.
Other: What about the Palestinians’ right to return?
Zionist: Palestinians need to accept the realities on the ground.
Other: Realities that occurred in the past 70 years?
Zionist: Yes.
Other: Haven’t the Jews had time to adjust to the realities on the ground? Since Jesus and all that?
Zionist: What you need to understand is the uniqueness of Jewish suffering… The law states that “the right to national self-determination in the state of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.” 
Other: Doesn’t everyone’s suffering carry the same weight?
Zionist: Jewish suffering is unique. Jews have been persecuted for five thousand years.
Other: You look like you’re in your early 40s. Isn’t it a bit unfair that you should profit from the accumulated suffering of your ancestors to confiscate the home of a Palestinian family?
Zionist: We made the desert bloom. Palestinians are terrorists. Anti-Semitic too – they’re doing this BDS thing.
Other: Why is BDS anti-Semitic?
Zionist: Because it singles out Israel, the only Jewish state, for boycott.
Other: Isn’t it anti-Semitic to conceive Israel as a Jewish state? The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliancesays that “Manifestations [of anti-Semitism] might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.”
Zionist: That applies to non-Jews. The definition is there to protect us.
Other: Isn’t that a double standard? Anyway, didn’t Jews boycott Nazi Germany’s goods and services, to bring about the fall of Nazism?
Zionist: That’s different. The Jews were facing extermination. 
Other: And the Palestinians?
Zionist: They’re terrorists. They want to wipe Israel off the map.
Other: Isn’t that what Israel has done to Palestine?
Zionist: We were there first. Besides they’re backward. They rely on the Koran. It’s a terrorist religion. They’re incapable of ruling themselves. Like the Israeli UN ambassador said, the only way the Palestinians can be economically liberated is through their political surrender. We offer them peace, but they hate the Jews more than they love peace. 
Other: An ambassador said that? A diplomat? Could it be that Palestinians just hate apartheid and losing everything they had?
Zionist: They’re animals, stuck in the dark ages. They don’t even love their children like we do. They use them as human shields. 
Other: Would it be wrong to say that Christianity and Islam evolved out of  Judaism?
Zionist: Israel is founded on modern thinking. 
Other: The Old Testament? 
Zionist: Yes.
Other: It’s message of love and brotherhood?
Zionist: Yes.6

I turn, in a state of exhaustion, to questions concerning the usefulness of anti-Semitism. 

3. How solicited anti-Semitism is contrived and used to sustain the Zionist project   

Zionism aims at multi-level confusion by, firstly, conflating anti-Semitism with hostility towards Jews, then compounding the disinformation by the misconception that Jews are Semitic, which, in turn, adds to the misapprehension that Semitic is a biological condition that, moreover, is relevant. This compounded confusion serves to weaken the analytical ability of the mind.  

Personally, I am uncomfortable with linking anti-Semitism to anti-Zionism or anti-Israelism, because I do not consider them to be related. Relating them as a matter of course implies that someone who believes that Palestinians have rights is likely to be hostile to Jews. That is drivel.  Being anti-Israel7 and anti-Zionist – which I am – makes it neither more nor less likely that I am anti-Semitic, or hostile to Jews, which I am not. 

Be that as it may, you are not meant to understand the slur of “anti-Semitism!” Instead, you are expected to be knee-jerked into obeying by Zionist terror networks that, for too long, have operated under a cloak of the benign label “lobbying”. The long and short of it is that, when a Zionist hurls the slur “anti-Semite!” at you, it is to put you on notice that disobeying the instructions to follow will result in organised persecution by well-trained and extremely well financed racketeers and foreign government agents, operating in your country to overthrow the remnants of democracy there. There is a phenomenal AlJazeera exposé – a report of historic proportions – on the objectives and methods of Zionist terror organisations working together with each other and the Israeli government, forming a world-wide mire of repression.8 I will address, in a separate article, how these networks work in concert to pursue the Zionist project. That article will also address the ultimate goal of Zionism. Here, we will return to contrived and solicited anti-Semitism, Zionism’s preferred tool.

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s concept of anti-Semitism

The slur of anti-Semitism for opposing Zionism or Israel is allegedly launched because Zionism allegedly acts in the alleged interest of world Jewry. The interests of non-Jews anywhere are without importance. In the alleged interest of the Jews, therefore, the IHRA adopted the following non-legally binding definition of anti-Semitism: 

Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed towards Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, towards Jewish community institutions and religious facilities” (emphasis added).9

The British Labour Party has adopted this definition, and has used it to expel over a hundred of its own members because they mulishly insisted that human values are universal. What does it mean? 

“A certain” = Something
“May” = here: Might
“Jewish or non-Jewish” = Everybody;Someone.

In other words, anti-Semitism is something that might, or might not, be expressed as hatred towards Jews, and is done to someone

I tried using this definition as guidance, but found it to be on the vague side, so I came up with the following, more limited, working concept: 

I understand the term anti-Semitic to be limited to include any person or notion that does not support Jewish supremacy, as naturally manifested by the right of Zionist Israel to create a Jewish democracy that has a right to defend itself against discomfort in any form, by eliminating the suggestion of any threat to its way of life, by any means necessary, limited to the territory of Israel Without Borders.

Alternatively, the definition could be summed up to mean “Stop thinking – obey.” 

In spite of this more limited concept, I found myself frequently referring to the examples provided in the IHRA document, to guide the IHRA in its enforcement endeavours. Examples include statements along the lines of: denying that the number (six million) of Jews exterminated in the German holocaust is sacrosanct and set in steel; accusing Israel of exaggerating “The Holocaust”10; claiming that the existence of a State of Israel isracist endeavour; applying double standards to Israel11by requiring of Israel a behaviour not demanded of any other democratic nation; drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.12

Further, anti-Semitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the holocaust or distribution of anti-Semitic materials in some countries). So, while the definition is non-legally binding, the breach of it is criminal?

Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations is another example of anti-Semitism given by the IHRA. By that, I understand that such an allegation could not be true about a Jewish citizen. For instance, about Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi. Addressing an AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs] conference, Pelosi defined the claim of “dual loyalty” as “anti-Semitic”. She then said that “to be anti-Semitic is to be anti-American.”13 By raising this issue, I am not claiming that being loyal to more than one country or entity must be negative, per se – I am addressing the non-sensical argumentation of the IHRA that often provides, likely unintended, entertainment. 

I am left with the question of whether perceiving one’s surroundings is illegal per se,or only if the perception is expressed in speech? Or is it anti-Semitic to ask? Could one be anti-Semitic for not being Semitic? Or for not being Jewish? 

What the IHRA concept boils down to is that almost all relevant fact-based analysis, concerning the dynamics most threatening to democracy today, is anti-Semitic. This provides Zionism with the controversy it set out to contrive in the first place. Voila: the desired excuse it needs to annihilate us all! Self-defence at its finest – in true Israeli fashion. The Oded Yinon Plan14 was written in this spirit; PNAC 15 was written in this spirit, all continuing a long tradition of contrived conflict, upon which Israel was founded. 

The use of the term anti-Semitism often seems to imply that persecution of Jews is more serious than racism in general. This treatment of the Jews as separate from everyone else becomes, at the same time, the basis for the accusation of anti-Semitism, and the bedrock on which Zionism rests. The basis of the accusation is that everybody else distinguishes Jews from themselves. At the same time, Zionism reserves the right to distinguish Jews from the rest of humanity, the mass of “Other,” or goyim [gentiles]. Zionism treats Jews as separate from, and more deserving of protection than, anybody else. I have quoted Eve Mykytyn before, in my writing, and will probably do so again. Mykytyn has posed the question why the Jews, in particular, would need a broader definition of racial hatred? Why Jews would see a need to create a category of hatred that applies only to them?16

What is lacking in the UNESCO definition17 that is covered by the [IHRA definition]? The answer is that the [IHRA definition] serves to restrain speech and restrict thought. It conflates the Jewish State of Israel with Jews as it vets a range of discourses such as criticism of Israeli politics, Jewish culture, Jewish history and Zionist ideology.”18

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) defines racism as follows:

Racism is a theory of races hierachy which argues that the superior race should be preserved and should dominate the others. Racism can also be an unfair attitude towards another ethnic group. Finally racism can also be defined as a violent hostility against a social group.

The disingenuousness that accompanies contrived anti-Semitism goes far beyond the definitions it uses. However – the main dishonesty lies in the lie that the accusation is accompanied by a desire for relief. Without the allegation of anti-Semitism,Zionism fails. The object of contrived anti-Semitism  is to secure the supply of anti-Semitism, which a Zionist believes provides an excuse for what s/he was going to do anyway: obliterate relevant discourse, arrogate more territory (physical, ideological, economical ), relentlessly pursue greed on all levels, across the spectrum. The confusion you might feel when your gut tells you that not only are you being disingenuously accused, but the accuser doesn’t want the alleged offence to be redressed, is thereby explained. Without anti-Semitism, Zionism is over. Zionists, therefore, affect to be Jews; to be representative of the Jews; and to believe that they are worried that you are hostile to Jews, in order to cloak the Zionist project in the legitimacy it hopes religion will lend its ideology. What, in fact, worries Zionists is that you will not submit to their Jewish-supremacy ideology. 

Obviously, Zionists would be incapable of living up to their own rules, since the logic collapses from all the inherent contradictions. But the double standards and contradictions are necessary to ensure that any application of the rules will result in a finding of anti-Semitism in you. You’re darned if you do, and you’re darned if you don’t. I’m not the first to liken Zionist methods to those used in the Salem witch-hunts. A woman accused of being a witch would, not surprisingly, be found to be a witch if she admitted that she was a witch. Surprisingly, if she denied being a witch that would also be proof of her witchery. Zionists have adopted the same standard of proof – guilt by suspicion. What the IHRA concept boils down to is that criticism of racism committed by a Jewish person is racist for criticising a Jew, and you are guilty if suspected. 

Using the IHRA concept of anti-Semitism, the guilt-by-suspicion standard of proof, and a large trawling net with very fine mesh, every analysis of anything remotely connected with Zionist interests can be moulded into anti-Semitism. There is a lot of training and coaching going into keeping Zionism’s enforcers focused on flooding people’s minds with analysis-preempting slogans and disinformation. Contact your local fishing chapter for training and excursions.

4. No more! Standing firm in the face of language pre-emption laws 

We must be firm in the face of laws that seek to manage our perceptions and our ability to express them, laws that deprive us of permission to narrate our present and our past as we go along.  

It is important to stop playing into the hands of Zionists, who have no intention of solving anything but whose aim is to perpetualise conflict as a means of providing “reasons” to “defend” itself in everlasting wars. 

Zionism uses the anti-Semite slur simply because it has been proven to work in causing people to react with fear and subservience, starting each discussion so far in reverse that it never gets to the point. When attacked, we need to restart the narrative, rather than reflexively respond. Start by framing the relevant issues ourselves, rather than reacting as Zionist accusers have calculated that we will, rather than jumping through their hoops explaining that we are not anti-Semitic… The issue is, usually, that someone is trying to project their racism and support for genocide onto you. They attempt to confuse you and any audience present into thinking that they are interested in supporting human rights and freedoms. A Zionist supporting human rights? Who’s? As for the claim that they are protecting the Jews, what could possibly be more dangerous for the Jews than the way Zionists carry on in Palestine and all over the world? Only the fact that Zionists claim to be doing it in the name of the Jews. 

What language pre-emption laws 19 and history laws (such as the “Working Definition of Holocaust Denial and Distortion”20) achieve is to pre-empt discourse, in favour of the worst oppressors around: the Zionist movement. While the official “Holocaust Denial” document, posted by IHRA, is displayed beside a picture of documents referring to genocides against the Roma and others, the “Holocaust Denial” document itself recognizes only the part of THE holocaust that concerns the Jews. Again, in IHRA’s world such reduction of non-Jewish suffering to a matter of no mention does not qualify as an offense.

One could object that IHRA-concepts are not laws, and that the assemblies that adopted these oppressive tools were only “IHRA’s Plenary meeting in Toronto, or Budapest.” But those are not valid objections, at least not anymore. If it rules us, if violating it carries severe civil and criminal penalties, it is a law. A law stronger than our national laws, for it rules them. A law that rules our governments, for it is stronger than our governments. Why is IHRA stronger than International law and the nation states that derive their legitimacy from international law?Because of its terror networks that enforce severe penalties on individuals in contempt of national and international legal systems. Is Britain a democracy? You do the math.

While the IHRA documents, seen separately and out of context, are inane, to the point that it is hard not to smile when one reads them, their impact as tools of oppression is certainly not amusing. Since I insist on the right to think, I oppose Zionists’ exclusive right to the silly abbreviation IHRA. I reserve the right to describe “IHRA” as Inquisition-enforcers’ Horrific Raid on Analysis. I use the silly moniker to describe the unbelievable ongoing attempts to ban all analysis based in fact and relevance, in relation to any Zionist interest. Having failed to convince “Western” governments to have our intellects surgically removed,21 IHRA-revellers might believe they have now instead been successful in arrogating the right to enforce language. But…

Perception management and other discourse controlwill continue for as long as we allow the status quo. In today’s society, relevant discourse is revolutionary. Let’s not submit to that situation any longer. Let’s oppose Inquisition-enforcers’ Horrific Raid on Analysis. Let’s have a peace jihad.22 Let’s talk! And to Zionism, let’s say “NO MORE!”

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Wider still and wider: The holocaust alliance’s solicited “anti-Semitism” as a reaction to insufficient supply of anti-Semitism

Exposed! How Britain’s anti-Semitism scaremongers operate

Anti-Semitism disinformation debunked
By Eve Mykytyn*

If only Britons knew

This article about the British charitable organisation, the Campaign against Anti-Semitism (CAA), and its officers, Gideon Falter and Steve Silverman, examines events in England but ought to serve as a cautionary message for Canadians and Americans.

The article will delve into the corrosive methods of the CAA; review the manner in which this ultra Zionist group “discovers” anti-Semitic “incidents”; examine their inaccurate statistical “studies” and see how they seek to intimidate political parties, venues, the press and others; and look at the court cases which the CAA has prosecuted. In the guise of fighting anti-Semitism, the CAA has managed to manoeuvre British society into abdicating its core liberal values, intimidate the prosecutorial and judicial system, and silence criticism of Israel in both social media and the mainstream media.

The CAA does not just attempt to limit speech; it openly follows a scorched earth policy “that if someone commits an anti-Semitic act in the UK (including criticism of Israel)” the CAA “ensure[s] ruinous consequences, be they criminal, professional, financial or reputational”.

For example, in the last 18 months Britain’s largest political party, the Labour Party, has suspended and expelled over a hundred of its members for expressing their views on Israel or Jewish history. Presumably these dismissals act as a deterrent to others who might also wish to express their opinions. Hard as it is to believe, in 21st century Britain people have been imprisoned for trying to be funny… 

The CAA’s “success” in Britain is not irrelevant to Americans. Despite the First Amendment, rules limiting speech have been creeping into our society, notwithstanding our constitutional protections. 

Organisations not unlike CAA have been operating in the US for some time. In South Carolina criticising Israel is essentially prohibited on public university campuses, and in other states support for BDS (the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement) will prohibit one from getting a government job or contract. Similar laws have been proposed in the US Congress. It is crucial that we resist this slide into controlled speech at the expense of our crucial values of free expression and tolerance.

Rowan Laxton

In 2006 Rowan Laxton was using an exercise bike alone on the mezzanine floor of a London gym when he saw a television report about an elderly Palestinian man killed by the Israeli assault on Gaza. Laxton allegedly exclaimed: “F…..g Israelis! F…..g Jews!” Gideon Falter  (now head of the CAA) and William Lemaine, who were on a lower floor using weights, claimed to have overheard Laxton, and complained to staff at the gym.

The police were going to let Laxton off with a caution but, before it could be arranged, Falter found out that Laxton was a senior Foreign Office official and brought the story to half a dozen newspapers. The police decided to proceed with a prosecution. 

Laxton was initially found guilty of “using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour… within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby…” aggravated by using abusive words that had a racial or ethnic element. Laxton was fined and removed from his Foreign Office position.

Laxton exercised his right to an appeal and a rehearing wherein the Crown Court found that Laxton did not say “f…..g Jews”, the comment on which the prosecution was based and which he had always denied. The court also found, as an alternative ground, that Laxton would have thought no one was within earshot.

The Daily Mail played a key role in ensuring that the case received national attention and went to trial, but seems not to have reported the appeal and acquittal at all. It is an open question of how Falter heard Laxton’s alleged outburst, if at the time no one was within earshot of Laxton. One reasonable assumption is that the court did not believe that Falter actually heard Laxton’s statement. 

Eight years after the Laxton incident, Gideon Falter founded the Campaign Against Anti-Semitsm, a hardcore Zionist charity that advocates zero tolerance of, and vows to ensure “criminal, professional and reputational consequences”, to those it decides are anti-Semites.

Stephen Silverman

Stephen Silverman is the CAA’s “Director of Investigations and Enforcement” and has dedicated much of his time to ruining the intellectual and artistic careers of others. Silverman is himself a musician wannabe, and runs a music school in a London suburb.

In the last few years Silverman and the CAA have engaged in a relentless assault against artists, intellectuals, religious leaders and elected politicians operating in or visiting England. The “Director of Investigations” does not like ex-London Mayor Ken Livingstone, nor does he approve of a list of academics or church ministers who care for human rights or dare to disagree with Israel. The self-appointed inquisitor despises the hugely popular Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. Silverman has made a number of attempts to ruin the music careers of both Alison Chabloz and Gilad Atzmon. In addition, Silverman takes it upon himself to write and call music venues demanding that they cancel Atzmon concerts claiming that Atzmon is a notorious anti-Semite.

Stephen Silverman, was exposed in open court in December 2016 as having been the Twitter troll @bedlamjones. As a Zionist troll, Silverman abused anti-Zionists, particularly women. His sadistic posts called for arrest and imprisonment in response what he considered to be “anti-Semitic” comments.

Silverman has also determined that Gordon Nardell, the man who has taken on the unenviable job of policing anti-Semitism within the Labour Party, is insufficiently sensitive to anti-Semitism. Apparently, according to Silverman, “Nardell has also turned his sights on Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, stating that our work to combat hatred directed at Jews by Labour members is “revolting” and results in anti-Semitism being “abused and belittled”.

For Nardell’s sin of distrusting the CAA, the CAA has demanded that “an independent and transparent disciplinary process… be instituted in the Labour Party”. The CAA’s website does not explain why the Labour Party need justify its own campaign against anti-Semitism to the CAA.

What is anti-Semitism?

UNESCO’s definition of racism is that it is “a theory of races hierarchy which argues that the superior race should be preserved and should dominate the others. Racism can also be an unfair attitude towards another ethnic group. Finally racism can also be defined as a violent hostility against a social group.” The traditional definition of anti-Semitism is the “criticising of, or discriminating against Jews for being Jews”. This definition is not substantially different from UNESCO’s definition of racism. 

However, despite the fact that enforcing hate speech laws based on a traditional definition of racism would protect Jews as well as others, in December 2016 the United Kingdom followed other countries in adopting the “international definition of anti-Semitism”, which begins by saying: “Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed towards Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, towards Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

The new “international definition” is troubling because it specifically targets speech and thoughts and fails to define what a “certain” perception of Jews is, and an expression of hatred towards Jews is cited, not to make the definition more precise but only as one possible example. 

It is well worth reviewing the “examples of anti-Semitism” included in the “international definition” which are extremely broad and include, among other things, accusing a Jewish person of valuing Israel or his fellow Jews over his home country and the seemingly paradoxical provision prohibiting speech denying that Jews have the right to self-determination through Israel.

But if racism against one group is to be fought on a broader basis than other forms of racism, that extra protection ought to be to aid a group uniquely needing the state’s protection – an allegedly poor, downtrodden and persecuted group. It is of note that, in contrast to the downtrodden, Jews as a group have been extraordinarily successful at utilising the media and the courts and obtaining the power to “hold the feet of the government to the fire”.

If UNESCO’s definition aimed at defining racism as a universal problem, the “international definition” adheres to the idea that Jews are not a part of the universal, they are somehow different, their plight is unique. 

Why do the Jews in particular need a broader definition of racial hatred? Why do Jews see a need to create a category of hatred that applies only to them? What is lacking in the UNESCO definition that is covered by the “international” one? The answer is that the “international definition” serves to restrain speech and restrict thought. It conflates the Jewish State of Israel with Jews as it vets a range of discourses such as criticism of Israeli politics, Jewish culture, Jewish history and Zionist ideology. 

It is not surprising that this definition is espoused by some Zionist institutions. However, its adoption by so many countries is perplexing and begs an explanation. In a world in which free speech, freedom of association and freedom of religion are valued, there is a real question of why such a broad definition of anti-Semitism is appropriate and what exactly it is designed to accomplish. 

Then there is the CAA, for whom the international definition is only a starting point. Their accusations of anti-Semitism go beyond even the very broad and over-inclusive definition of the “international definition”. If you find anti-Semitism in t-shirts, major party political gatherings or stupid pet videos, then the definition is very expansive indeed. Why would an organisation dedicated to fighting anti-Semitism be so interested in finding anti-Semitism in every possible utterance? It is clear that the CAA wants to stop any discussion of Jews, Israel or Jewish history in any but its prescribed manner. In its aggressive policing of speech, the CAA and others work to enforce Jewish power precisely as it is defined by Gilad Atzmon: “the power to suppress criticism of Jewish power”.

Freedom of t-shirt

While freedom of speech may be evaporating throughout the English-speaking world, at least we are assured that freedom of t-shirt is still protected in England. 

Last year, the CAA’s website bemoaned that Edinburgh-based law graduate Sophie Stephenson won’t face criminal charges for wearing a Hezbollah t-shirt. The CAA wrote that: “On 1 July 2017, Stephenson tweeted a photograph of herself wearing a Hizballah t-shirt, explaining: “Went out to dinner with my family tonight wearing a Hizballah t-shirt.” And then, even worse, Stephenson confirmed: “I have a flag too.”

The CAA, in its zeal to fight anti-Semitism, reported Stephenson to the police, alleging that she had committed an offense under Section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000. But despite the CAA’s urging, Scottish Police declined to act against the young “rebel”.

The CAA “considered undertaking a private prosecution” against Stephenson. However, its website lamented, “we were unable to secure enough funding to do so”. Following its report of the supposedly anti-Semitic/terrorist-loving Stephenson, the CAA called upon the public to “consider making a monthly donation to help fund Campaign Against Anti-Semitism” presumably to allow it to continue to harass Britons, accusing them of anti-Semitic behaviour, and interfering with their elementary freedoms including the right to wear rebellious t-shirts. Disturbingly, asking for donations in this context suggests that the CAA is attempting to cash in from its dubious anti-Semitic claims. Not exactly the ethical conduct you might expect of a charity. 

Methodology, it is not!

The CAA claims to run “methodological” “research into anti-Semitism in British political parties”. Trolling and spying on elected British politicians on social media and public meetings, the CAA keeps a “record” of allegedly “anti-Semitic discourse and discourse that enables anti-Semitism, by officials and candidates in political parties”. This means that a Jewish organisation with a clear political agenda endeavours to monitor the British political discourse to restrain certain political opinions. The CAA’s actions prosecuting its farfetched “findings” are dangerous enough, but more troubling is its success in terrorising the British political universe into compliance with its dictates.

What are some “examples” of discourse that the CAA has claimed enable anti-Semitism and the dissemination of anti-Semitic ideas?

Ken Loach

Internationally acclaimed film-maker and Labour supporter Ken Loach told the BBC’s Daily Politics programme that he had been attending Labour meetings for 50 years and had “never in that whole time heard a single anti-Semitic word or a racist word”, and that allegations of anti-Semitism were a fallacy “without validation or any evidence”.

The CAA claimed that Loach’s statement brought to light a “discourse that enables anti-Semitism and the dissemination of anti-Semitic ideas”. How is Loach’s statement racist? Does it target Jews, identify Jews as a collective or advocate discrimination against Jews or anyone else? Is there even a criminal category or a showing of bias in which “not witnessing” conduct implicates one in that very conduct? How does not witnessing anti-Semitism make one into an anti-Semite? Does not witnessing a murder makes one a murderer? Under the CAA’s “rationale” anyone who fails to see the anti-Semitism they do is an anti-Semite.

Diane Abbott

Abbott ran afoul of the CAA when she said: “It’s a smear to say that Labour has a problem with anti-Semitism. It is something like a smear against ordinary party members.” The CAA claimed that “Abbott’s comments were widely condemned. The overwhelming majority of UK Jewish community bodies have expressed public concern about anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, including the chief rabbi.” Whether or not this statement is accurate, how is it that Abbott’s statement was misinterpreted as a criticism of Jews when it is clearly a defence of the Labour Party? 

Ken Livingstone

The CAA has a long file on former London Mayor Livingstone, beginning in 1982 when the paper, the Labour Herald, of which Livingstone was co-editor, ran an unfavorable cartoon of the then Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin. According to the CAA, Livingstone’s most egregious anti-Semitic remark was his claim that that in 1932 (Hitler came to power in 1933) Hitler had championed Jewish emigration to Israel (actually, then Palestine) and was “supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews”. The United States Holocaust Museum website generally supports Livingstone’s statement and reveals that until 1941, Germany encouraged Jews to emigrate and that 60,000 Jews left Germany/Austria for Palestine, a number second only to the number of Jews who went to the United States.

Livingstone rejected claims that he had brought the Labour Party into disrepute and said he was not guilty of anti-Semitism, but resigned from the party and acknowledged that his comments had upset Jews and offended others. “I am truly sorry for that,” he said.

Some of Livingstone’s critics were not satisfied with his apology for his truthful statement. Ruth Smeeth, a Labour lawmaker, described his behaviour as “grossly offensive to British Jews”. MP Smeeth’s reaction is bizarre. Is it anti-Semitic for Livingstone to discuss Jewish history? The Transfer Agreement between Hitler’s Germany and the Zionist Congress may be embarrassing for some Jews, but how is recounting history hate speech? MP Smeeth, the CAA and others claiming to be offended managed by ousting Livingstone to enforce their ironclad rule that certain Jewish history is “off limits”.

War on Labour

Following its anti-methodology, the CAA came to the conclusion that the British Labour Party is “eight times worse than any other party”. Not 5, 6 or 8.3 but exactly 8. What “evidence” supports this “finding?”

The British media have failed to do their job of investigating alleged incidents of anti-Semitism, and instead accept the CAA’s claims without questions.

The CAA’s website publishes an “enemies list” of sorts, chronicling the alleged anti-Semitism of 39 members of the Labour Party. A striking number of the CAA’s complaints address statements about Israel, not about Israel as Jews, but about the actions of the country. To date, about 150 members of the Labour Party have been expelled for alleged anti-Semitism and there is a backlog of cases.

Dubious cases such as those cited here are treated by the CAA as “anti-Semitic incidents” that help the CAA feed the idea that England is rife with anti-Semitism. The British media have failed to do their job of investigating alleged incidents of anti-Semitism, and instead accept the CAA’s claims without questions. 

Fiddling with numbers

Fiddler on the Roof may be emblematic of Eastern European Jewish folklore but fiddling with numbers is a symptom of contemporary Zionist politics in general and of the CAA in particular. The CAA compiles and disseminates information on anti-Semitism, basing its claims on methodology that is patently unreliable.

The “anti-Semitism audit” produced by the CAA purports to track incidents of anti-Semitism on an annual basis. The audit is a deeply flawed document, relying on data known to be unreliable and subjected to no proper statistical analysis. 

Even the CAA’s use of the term “audit” is inappropriate. An “audit” is defined as “an official inspection of an… organisation’s accounts, typically by an independent body”. The CAA has no official or professional status as an auditor, nor would its methods be accepted by anyone in a position to conduct a professional audit. 

The CAA has been advised by police forces that comparing police reports across jurisdictions and years leads to misleading results. The CAA’s anti-Semitism audit was heavily criticised in the Jewish media by statistics experts who noted that the CAA’s “methodology” was “flawed”, “amateurish” and “misleading”. But none of that stopped the CAA from promoting its manufactured “findings” in the mainstream media.

The CAA based its audit on gathering data from the police. But the CAA doesn’t enjoy free access to police files. Instead, it uses different techniques to gather information. This haphazard “methodology” creates crucial problems: 

1. Police forces in different regions of Britain use different standards to gather data regarding hate crimes.

2. Police forces in Britain are presently in the process of revising how they collect their hate crime records so that data from one year may show different results than data from a different year even if the number of hate crimes remains constant.

3. The CAA basically gathers information on the volume of incidents recorded that it considers to be anti-Semitic. But the CAA itself is actively engaged in increasing this volume. It frequently reports incidents to the police and urges other members of the Jewish community to follow suit. An interested body that actively contributes to the rise of reported anti-Semitic incidents cannot also claim to be objective in its “audit” that measures the rise of anti-Semitsm.

4. While the CAA’s audit of anti-Semitism shows a nationwide rise of 14.9 per cent in anti-Semitic incidents between 2016 and 2017, this is based on data gathered by the CAA half of which shows wild year to year fluctuations of up to 1050 per cent. Such fluctuations defy any rationale. These statistical anomalies beg careful analysis that the CAA not only fails to apply – the CAA fails to address this drastic shift in number of reported incidents. The CAA’s study aggregates divergent data collected in different ways and calls that an “audit” of anti-Semitism in Britain. The flawed study was released to the British public with the help of the disgracefully gullible British media. The BBC, Sky, the Guardian and others reported the amateurish statistical “audit” to the British public without raising a single question as to its reliability.

The 2016 audit

In July 2017 the CAA published its 2016 annual audit of anti-Setmitic crimes in the UK. The audit’s first pages raise serious questions as to its reliability:

On page 4 it reads: “2016 was the worst year on record for anti-Semitic crimes”, reporting a 14.9 per cent rise in crimes “targeting Jews” nationwide. But a few lines below, the audit states that during the same period “violent anti-Semitic crimes fell by 44.7 per cent”. This difference in incidences appears contradictory. 

The CAA admits that it doesn’t have an explanation for the drop in violent crimes: “We have considered various explanations; however at this point we do not find them persuasive.” (page 6). This drop occurred even though the CAA inflated the number of “violent incidents” by expanding the Home Office definition of violent incidents. (page 16) The CAA defined violent anti-Semitic acts as the combination of the Home Office categories of “homicide” or “violence with injury”, and the heretofore non-violent “assault without injury” and “racially or religiously aggravated assault without injury”.

This means that the audit conveyed the good news that, even using the CAA’s inflated category, the number of “violent anti-Semitic incidents” dropped. Strangely, the Jewish pressure group does not write that the drop in violent anti-Semitic crime is a positive finding.

Fishing for J words

Since the CAA doesn’t have an access to each police force’s records, it derives its statistics from police reports. When a police force does not flag anti-Semitic incidents, the CAA asks that police force to conduct a keyword search of its files:

For the purposes of this research, the keywords used were the following whole words: Jew, Jews, Jewish, Judaism, Semite, Semitic, Semitism, antisemite, anti-Semitic, anti-Semitism, Yid, Yids, Yiddo, or Yiddish. (page 17)

Some police forces made the CAA aware that their keywords method is not a reliable way to find anti-Semitic crime. “Not all incidents where ‘Jew’ is mentioned are anti-Semitic,” wrote the Northumbria police force. It also refers to the CAA exercise as a “fishing expedition”. The CAA ignored this caution and simply used as the number of incidents the data they had been warned were incorrect. 

Duplicity vs methodology

The CAA employs inadequate and inconsistent methods of information gathering not only in its audit, but in its information gathering from Jews.

In 2017 the CAA made some shocking revelations: 

  • “One out of three British Jews were considering leaving the kingdom.” 
  • “Four out of five Jews saw anti-Semitism disguised as comments about Israel.”
  • “Four out of five saw Labour as anti-Semitic.”
  • “Half of British Jews didn’t trust the Crown Prosecution Service.”

And the source of these disturbing feelings? They came from the results of an online questionnaire found on the CAA’s website. The CAA’s findings were not even from as unbiased sample as the average FaceBook poll. Instead of revealing what British Jews think, the CAA “survey” revealed the opinions of its Zionist readers. It is outrageous to label the results of this exercise “statistics”. In fact, Jewish leaders who criticised the CAA’s duplicitous use of the “poll” were brutally silenced and slandered. Probably the most problematic result of the poll was that the British press reported it but did not point out that the CAA’s findings were based on a self-selecting sample.

Stupidity or duplicity?

Is the CAA a dysfunctional body of incompetent and clueless characters or is the CAA a group of consciously deceptive Zionists who deliberately deceives the British public? The following evidence suggests the latter.

As discussed above, the CAA 2016 anti-Semitsm audit is methodically and factually a problematic document. The CAA was warned of this by different law-enforcement bodies such as the Northumbria police. The CAA audit uses its questionable data to show an increase in the volume of reported anti-Semitic incidents but still fails to prove an increase in anti-Semitsm. Does that mean that the CAA intended to produce a deceptive audit?

The CAA audit’s raw data (from page 24 onward) reveals extreme fluctuations in anti-Semitic incidents reported by police forces from 2015 to 2016, with year to year increases of up to 1050 per cent in some categories and drops of 80-90 per cent in others.

In Derbyshire, for instance (page 34), the audit shows an increase of 1050 per cent in non-criminal anti-Semitic incidents: from two in 2015 to 23 in 2016. This would mean that non-criminal anti-Semitic incidents rose in Derby 70 times more than the CAA’s own nationwide rate of 14.9 per cent. On paper, the situation in Derbyshire is almost a Shoah scenario. Did the CAA try to verify, as even elementary statistics would require, this enormous increase? Was there a pogrom reported in Derbyshire? 

In Hertfordshire (page 44), they show an increase of almost 400 per cent in anti-Semitic crime and a surge of 800 per cent in non criminal anti-Semitic incidents. Again, there is no indication that the CAA tried to look into the cause of this improbable increase.

The explanation of the unreasonable rise was known to the CAA. West Yorkshire police notified the CAA that the recent rise in numbers of hate crime incidents “are predominantly associated with administrative change in relation to force crime-recording processes”. It was an administrative change, not an increase in anti-Semitism that led to the huge increase in the number of hate crimes recorded. So, despite the CAA’s knowledge of the reasons for the wild fluctuations, the CAA still dispensed the misleading numbers to the British public. 

The raw police reports that the CAA’s audit relies upon reveal that 21 of the 46 reports showed fluctuations well beyond what could reasonably be likely (more than three times the CAA own nationwide figure of 14.9 per cent rise in anti-Semitic incidents). The CAA could claim that its mistakes were due to incompetence, that they simply copied and pasted police reports without thinking. But the last page of the audit reveals that this is not the case.

The CAA does admit that the numbers reported by Wiltshire police (page 73) were unreliable, as they showed a radical rise from one incident in 2015 to 139 incidents in 2016. This is an increase of 13900 per cent in anti-Semitic incidents in a region with fewer than 540 Jews. The CAA discarded the data from Wiltshire as unreliable. But by deciding not to include the Wiltshire police report the CAA reveals that it doesn’t just copy and paste police data.

So, the CAA included some data and discarded others with no apparent standards. What statistical methodology did the CAA use when it decided to discard a rise in 13,900 per cent in anti-Semitic incidents in one jurisdiction and to include a rise in 1000 per cent, 400 per cent or even 50 per cent in others?

It is a basic tenet of statistical analysis that statistics from different sources cannot be combined or meaningfully compared without properly adjusting for different data gathering systems and methods. Deriving an overall percentage increase by averaging data derived by different systems is patently absurd. Nor is it accurate to compare different years from the same data source unless the gathering methodology is the same. The CAA’s audit compiles apples, oranges and bananas and treats them as identical. The extreme fluctuations in police reporting reveals that police force systems did exactly as the police force said it did and underwent significant reporting changes as the CAA admits in its introduction (page 3).

The alerts from the police forces that collection methods had changed means that the CAA should have known that its audit was flawed. This was also pointed out to the CAA by experts within the Jewish community who were highly critical of the audit. 

Michael Pinto Duschinsky, a well respected political scientist, wrote a devastating commentary in the Jewish Chronicleabout the CAA. As a holocaust survivor, Duschinsky writes, I have two commitments: “to combat anti-Semitism and other forms of racism and to avoid trivialising it by misleading allegations”. Duschinsky denounced the CAA for its “deeply flawed”, “misleading” and “amateurish” methods. 

Of the self-selected CAA poll, Duschinsky wrote:

It was completely predicable that the questionnaire would produce the conclusion that one in four British Jews had considered leaving the UK… This was because the questions were so slanted and tendentious and because anyone who wished could complete the questionnaire… Not only did CAA incorrectly characterise its amateur questionnaire of Jewish opinion as a “poll” (thereby suggesting a statistically-valid sample), it then used overblown language in reporting it results.

Abuse of the judicial process 

The hysteria over alleged anti-Semitism has led to trials and convictions for the crime of “anti-Semitism”. Cases that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) refused to prosecute two years ago have now been brought by the CPS after action from the CAA. Is the change in prosecutions a sign that the CPS now realises that it can obtain convictions it thought unlikely, does it result from a change in what the state considers to be “speech” crimes, or is the CPS placating the CAA?

Gideon Falter and the CAA have been instrumental in utilising a variety of techniques to force prosecution of “anti-Semitism”. Their campaign to restrain speech previously thought permissible has been successful in England as the following sampling of cases shows. 

Jeremy Bedford Turner

Turner was recently sentenced to a year in jail after a jury convicted him of stirring up racial hatred during a 2015 speech in which Turner criticised Shomrim, a Jewish-only police unit funded by Britain, whose job it is to protect only Jewish neighbourhoods. Turner further opined the racist sentiment that he wanted Jews out of England.

The CPS declined to prosecute Turner’s speech as incitement to racial hatred. There is an “incitement to racial hatred” clause in the statutes but it is not all-encompassing, and it did not come close to making “anti-Semitism” illegalThe CPS’s policy guidelines on cases involving “incitement” clearly state that the language employed by a defendant must have been “threatening, abusive or insulting“. The courts have upheld the right to freedom of speech even when behaviour is, as in this case, “annoying, rude or even offensive without necessarily being insulting”. 

Falter requested a “victim’s right to review” in reponse to the CPS’s decision not to prosecute. The request was denied on the basis that Turner hadn’t mentioned Falter, Falter did not personally hear Turner’s speech and therefore Falter couldn’t claim victim status. The CAA then instituted the process for judicial review of the CPS over its decision not to prosecute and, on the eve of a hearing in the High Court, the CPS agreed to quash its original decision, put a more senior lawyer on the case and proceeded to prosecute and convict Turner. 

CAA head Falter claimed the verdict was a “damning indictment” not only of Turner, but of the CPS and its outgoing head, Alison Saunders. Falter said: “The real question is why the director of public prosecutions and CPS got this so dismally wrong.” Falter’s question conflates a jury verdict of “guilty” with proof that the CPS was misinterpreting the law.

Further in 2015, when Turner gave his speech, the United Kingdom had not yet signalled its willingness to stifle speech by adopting the “international definition” of anti-Semitism. 

Alison Chabloz

Alison Chabloz, 54, of Derbyshire, was recently convicted on two counts of causing an offensive, indecent or menacing message to be sent over a public communications network. District Judge John Zani said he was satisfied the material was grossly offensive and that Chabloz intended to insult Jewish people. 

The CPS initially declined to prosecute Chabloz’s speech, presumably because it was both satirical and political. The CAA launched a private prosecution against Chabloz. Private prosecutions are undertaken in the British system as a direct way for a citizen to institute a criminal case. The rules are intricate, but until recently such prosecutions generally dealt with complex business questions. 

Under constant pressure from the CAA, the CPS took over the prosecution of Chabloz. The CAA had not utilised private prosecution in the Turner case since it were not present to hear the “slurs” and would have had no basis for private prosecution. 

The songs that provoked Chabloz’s prosecution had been performed at a London Forum event (hardcore nationalist gathering) in 2016 and uploaded to YouTube. They included one song describing the Nazi concentration camp Auschwitz as “a theme park” and the gas chambers a “proven hoax”. This is a pretty clear example of provocative speech that most of us disagree with. However, does the state need to criminalise such speech? Won’t the “marketplace of ideas” call out Chabloz? I suspect the internet world would not allow her lyrics to go unchallenged.

Prosecutor Karen Robinson told the court: “Miss Chabloz’s songs are a million miles away from an attempt to provide an academic critique of the holocaust. They’re not political songs. They are no more than a dressed-up attack on a group of people for no more than their adherence to a religion.”

But is it a legal requirement that political song lyrics provide an “academic critique”? Must political satire be clearly defined as found by a court? It’s not clear that “Alice’s Restaurant” or “Fortunate Son” would pass this test.

Adrian Davies, defending, argued that: “It is hard to know what right has been infringed by Miss Chabloz’s singing.” The singer has defended her work as “satire”, saying many Jewish people found the songs funny.

The focus of the private prosecution brought by Falter was Alison’s comments criticising the narratives of Elie Wiesel, Irene Zisblatt and Otto Frank, in her song Survivors.

The authenticity of the tales of these three holocaust victims have been the subject of academic debate. The Anne Frank foundation recently admitted the diary had not been solely authored by Anne. Elie Wiesel’s wartime saga has been called into question over a number of issues. Under cross-examination, Falter was forced to admit that he had not actually read Zisblatt’s book, and so knew nothing about its accuracy, despite having brought a private prosecution to protect it from ridicule.

There are no specific laws against holocaust denial in the UK, even if that is what this was. Britain has resisted attempts to enforce a European Union directive outlawing holocaust denial. Falter seemed to differ from the Crown which said that the prosecution was not against mere questioning of the holocaust. Falter indicated that those who question the new holocaust religion should be prosecuted under the law and attacked professionally: that is, ruined financially. 

Falter also claimed that it was “intrinsically offensive” for Chabloz to refer to Palestine being reclaimed “from the river to the sea”. But, of course, the question of whether Palestine ought to be reclaimed for its indigenous people is a political question and not one of race, so what exactly was her crime? Falter openly stated that he is intent on shielding Israel from criticism, and said of the pro-Palestinian aspects of Chabloz’s songs: “You want to silence her and stop her putting those messages out.” 

All of this left inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case with regard to whether the truth/falsehood of Chabloz’s criticisms of Zisblatt, et al, were relevant, or whether instead the Crown was enforcing an unspoken law that no-one claiming to be a holocaust survivor can be ridiculed, regardless of truth/falsehood. 

Adrian Davies, Chabloz’s lawyer, told Judge Zani that his ruling would be a landmark one, setting a precedent on the exercise of free speech. This is a particularly egregious precedent limiting speech since it is not clear what speech led to Chabloz’s conviction and the case therefore provides no insight to others on what speech must be avoided.

Gilad Atzmon

The case against Atzmon illustrates that in the present environment in Britain, you can be liable not only for anti-Semitism, but for questioning the methodology by which anti-Semitism is determined.

Falter appeared on Sky News on 16 July 2017 to explain how he, on behalf of the CAA, had brought a law suit against the Crown for failure to prosecute the anti-Semitic speech supposedly uttered by Jeremy Bedford-Turner. Falter further complained that his statistics on the incidence of anti-Semitism showed far more anti-Semitic incidents than the CPS claimed. Falter claimed, “our view [on anti-Semitism] is right and the Crown is wrong”. 

Writing in response to Falter’s appearance, Atzmon wrote on his own website that: “We are asked to choose between two versions of the truth, that delivered by Falter who leads the CAA and basically makes his living manufacturing anti-Semitic incidents and the judicial approach of the CPS: a public body, subject to scrutiny and committed to impartiality.”

Atzmon pointed out that “Falter interprets condemnation of Israel and Jewish politics as ‘hate crimes”. Atzmon commended the CPS for upholding “freedom of expression”, and this in free speech’s most cherished exercise – political speech. 

Atzmon noted that Zionism also benefits from anti-Semitism (even though it does not intentionally cause it) since Israel claims that it exists to provide shelter to all Jews. Comparing Falter and the CAA to Israel, Atzmon noted, “since a decrease in anti-Semitic incidents [could have] fatal consequences for Falter and his CAA’s business plan. They need anti-Semitism and a lot of it.”

Falter filed a suit against Atzmon, claiming libel and defamation. Falter’s complaint reads, in part: “In order to justify the existence of, and raise funds for, the CAA the Claimant (Falter) dishonestly fabricates anti-Semitic incidents, that is to say he characterizes conduct as anti-Semitic when he knows it is not, and knowingly exaggerates the prevalence of anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic activity.”

Falter complains that he was called a “devious fraud and a hypocrite”, even though neither word appears in Atzmon’s article. Falter further interprets Atzmon: “He [Falter] publicly campaigns against anti-Semitism but in reality his business plan is that he wants Jews to be hated so that he can make money.” In fact, Atzmon made the claim that Falter is a covert Jew hater who pretends to campaign against anti-Semitism.

In addition, Falter claimed that unless restrained, Atzmon would continue to publish similar words. Here Falter openly reveals that his lawsuit is not only against the words complained of, but an attempt to muzzle Atzmon.

The first stage of the lawsuit was a hearing before Justice Nicklin of the British High Court to define the issues created by the language complained of. In his ruling, the judge went beyond the complaint to determine that Atzmon’s words said that the claimant obtained funds through “fraud”.

Atzmon had not claimed that Falter committed fraud, and it was not clear that Falter’s misuse of statistics rose to the level of fraud, i.e. involving a criminal intent. The ruling made clear that a further defence before this justice would be pointless. The parties settled: Atzmon had to issue an apology and pay Falter £7500 in damages, plus an additional amount in legal fees. The irony of forcing Atzmon to pay Falter based on the allegedly false claim that Falter seeks money for anti-Semitism begs recognition.

The Nazi pug

Earlier this year Mark Meechan, aka “Count Dankula”, was convicted and fined £800 for posting on YouTube a video of a dog he had trained to give a Nazi salute in response to the phrases “gas the Jews” and sieg heil. In case viewers worried that he was trying to turn canines into Nazis, one pug dog at a time, Meechan stated in the video that he wasn’t himself a Nazi but thought that what he had done was funny. It is a reasonable interpretation of this video that it ridiculed Hitler supporters as much as it was offensive to others.

The Scottish police arrested Meecham and charged him with posting “grossly offensive, anti-Semitic and racist material”. Sheriff O’Carroll said the right to freedom of expression was very important but “in all modern democratic countries the law necessarily places some limits on that right”. 

Meecham pleaded not guilty but was convicted under the Communications Act in a crime that the court found was aggravated by “religious prejudice”. Although Meecham’s video was certainly tasteless and offensive, it is not clear how it fell into the obscure category of “religious prejudice”.

Meecham’s lawyer, Ross Brown, stated of Meecham, his difficulty, “it seems, was that he was someone who enjoyed shock humour… and went about his life under the impression that he lived in a jurisdiction which permitted its citizens the right to freely express themselves”. This perception is understandable; British humour is famous for its tastelessness. Monte Python mocked the church, Little Britain mocks the disabled and so on. 

Why did Scottish law enforcement prosecute a silly offensive video of a dog? Is Scotland so crime-free that this is a matter worthy of its crime-fighting resources? It’s hard not to wonder if the same case would have been brought five years ago. 

The First Amendment 

In the United States, our freedom to speak is guaranteed by the First Amendment, which forbids Congress from making a law abridging free speech (now held to apply to the states as well). The First Amendment was enacted primarily as a defence against government power. The founders were concerned that the federal government exercise only enumerated powers and no more. Still, free speech is not unlimited: the United States limits some speech, including false commercial speech, defamation and incitement to violence. 

No reasonable person enjoys confronting hate speech, but allowing free speech, even at its most obnoxious, frees us from self-appointed guardians of the discourse. Who would any of us choose to decide what speech ought to be allowed? Congress? Trump? Obama? The FBI? The NSA? Scientists? The courts? Or the CAA or ADL (Anti-Defamation League)? 

The United States government has spent more money on Israel than on any other foreign country, and it is reasonable for Americans to be free to comment on where their money is spent. And yet we have laws that punish those who speak out against Israel, even though we have no such laws for criticising our own government or to protect the people whom we formerly enslaved.

While speech against Israel is not illegal per se, the US government, and states such as New York and Texas (among others) have chosen to punish criticism of Israel as anti Semitic. They do this by prohibiting state funding or business with any group that advocates boycotting Israel. 

Canada also protects speech, but not “hate” speech. Under the urging of B’nai B’rith, Canada has prosecuted “anti-Semitic” speech as hate speech. As in the cases in England, it is difficult to ascertain which particular speech was forbidden. In a trial against blogger Arthur Topham, the prosecution cited all of Topham’s writings that were unfavourable to Israel or Jewish culture and hoped some of them stuck. They did, and Topham was convicted

Despite Canada’s enforcement of its hate speech laws, Falter urged Canadian Jews to follow his example of aggressive prosecution. He stated, “I believe that Canadian [Jews] increasingly will be looking at their situation and asking, ‘Do we have a future in this country?’ And that’s a question they shouldn’t be having to ask at all.” Where is Falter’s evidence that Canadian Jews are asking if they have a future in Canada? Is he trying to lay seeds of alienation so that Jews in Canada will feel less like a part of Canada?

This raises the question of whether the CAA intensifies anti-Semitism by urging Jews to find anti-Semitism everywhere and to prosecute perceived anti-Semitism and “to ensure ruinous consequences, be they criminal, professional, financial or reputational”. The CAA uses the judicial system to achieve its aims, but its use of the law seems cynical as in its legal machinations the CAA deliberately disrespects the principle of freedom of speech that is ingrained in the law of Britain, the United States and Canada.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, UKComments Off on Exposed! How Britain’s anti-Semitism scaremongers operate

The Inspector General’s Report and the False Russiagate Narrative: Malfeasance, Lies, Threats and Denials

By Renee Parsons

It is no surprise that when the Inspector General’s Report was released in early December, the corporate media, which itself has been knee-deep and complicit in spreading the false Russiagate narrative, chose to focus on one narrow conclusion: that, given DOJ’s ‘lax guidelines,’ the IG found no bias related to opening the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

Ergo, once the Media labels the IG Report, all dutiful subscribers and readers fall in line with its dictates, nodding in concurrence, as those who refuse to do their own homework get on board and accept the hogwash they are being fed.  Once the Media hypes the repetitive drone that there was ‘no bias,’ the phrase becomes embedded into the collective unconscious and the disinformation becomes gospel.

The question has yet to be asked what role the FISA Court played in its own debasement by blindly accepting the majority of surveillance requests and by lax procedures that allow its own credibility to be violated.

What remains uncertain is exactly how Crossfire Hurricane was born. While it is known that the Clinton campaign (via the DNC) hired GP Fusion to dig dirt on a Republican candidate for President and we know that former MI 6 asset Christopher Steele became involved with creating a salacious Dossier – but the specific links tying those diverse parts to the FBI remains enigmatic.

An almost immediate response to the ‘no bias’ allegation came from AG William Barr stating that

The Inspector General’s report now makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken.” with Special Investigator US Attorney John Durham adding that he

advised the IG that he did not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.

Both responses were highly unusual and may be interpreted as affirmation of a deeper level of complicity than the IG discovered although his investigation was limited to DOJ employees and to the FISA Court process.

It was not until IG Horowitz’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee that the true scathing impact of the full Report was understood; thus revealing the true depth of the FBI’s embedded systemic problems.

Horowitz told the Senate panel:

We found and are deeply concerned that so many basic and fundamental errors were made by three separate handpicked investigative teams on one of the most sensitive FBI investigations after the matter had been briefed to the highest levels within the FBI even though the information sought through the use of FISA authority related so closely to an on-going Presidential campaign and even though those involved with the investigations knew that their actions would likely be subjected to close scrutiny. The circumstances reflect the failure not just by those who prepared the applications but also by the managers and supervisors in the Crossfire Hurricane chain of command including FBI senior officials who were briefed as the investigation progressed”

In dialogue with Sen. Crapo about FBI misconduct as ‘mind-numbing’, Horowitz responded “. There issuch a range of conduct here that is inexplicable and the answers we got were not satisfactory that we’re left trying to understand how could all these errors occur over a nine month period or so…”

In other words, the FBI, with a tainted history of deeply embedded corruption, has been out of control for decades with an aggressive pursuit of political opponents, corruption of its Forensic Lab and a COINTEL program against American citizens. It is ironic that some of the FBI’s Congressional supporters are now recipients of that corruption.

In response to Barr’s statement regarding the IG Report, former Attorney General Erik Holder who once referred to himself as “still Obama’s wing man, so i’m there with my boy,” wrote a divisive op ed for the Washington Post provocatively entitled “Eric Holder: William Barr is Unfit to be Attorney General.

In a classic example of covering one’s butt, it can be assumed that Holder is still protecting Obama’s wing as he took cheap shots at Barrfor a “series of public statements and taken actions that are so plainly ideological, so nakedly partisan and so deeply inappropriate” making him ‘unfit to lead the Justice Department.”  Suffering a partisan anxiety attack, Holder has clearly been directed to slander a predecessor who exhibits more candor and principle than he himself demonstrated as AG.

Given the IG report’s otherwise thorough analysis, the Hope and Change crowd may be feeling the heat that those morning tete a tete intel briefings in the

Oval Office may have included updates on Crossfire Hurricane. Holder’s condescension, as if he had special privilege to pontificate on “career public servants,’ falls flat with his thinly veiled threat to Durham:

I was troubled by his unusual statement disputing the inspector general’s findings. Good reputations are hard-won in the legal profession, but they are fragile; anyone in Durham’s shoes would do well to remember that, in dealing with this administration, many reputations have been irrevocably lost.

With focus now on whether Durham will succumb to Holder’s warning may instead   boomerang, inspiring Durham to dig deeper than he had previously planned.

The IG Report cited former FBI Director Jim Comey for “clearly and dramatically” departing from department norms in the investigation of HRC’s email server and that he made a “serious error of judgment” in sending a letter to Congress announcing the re-opening of the Clinton probe.   Comey was fired from the FBI for ‘insubordinate’ acts and ‘dangerous’ behavior in deceiving the FISA Court.

When asked by CNN’s Anderson Cooper,

“When you read what the reportsaiddo you think this is avindication?

Comey responded

It is. The FBI has had to wait two years while the President and his supporters lied about the institution finally the truth gets told.”

Apparently Comey had not read the Report in its entirety, not listened to Horowitz’s testimony to the Senate or he continues to live under a rock.

In a recent interview with NBC News Pete Williams,  Barr explained that

“One of the problems in the IG investigation is that  Comey refused to sign back up for his security clearance and therefore could not be questioned (by the IG) on classified matters...so someone like Durham can compel testimony.”

In other words, Comey is shrewd enough to know how to deliberately avoid pertinent questions from Horowitz without implicating himself but the day will come when Durham has the legal authority to demand Comey’s full participation.

In a Fox News Sunday interview with Chris Wallace, Comey refused to accept and was significantly at odds with many of the IG most significant findings including denial of any personal role in Crossfire.

 “I didn’t know, As Director I am not kept informed on the details of an investigation.  I didn’t know the particulars  with an agency of 38,000 peopleseven layers below.

Wallace repeatedly pushed back with Comey remaining smooth as silk, carefully coached, as he slipped around every iota that he had any responsibility for the investigation of a President and its constitutional screw ups.

When asked if he would resign if all these misdeeds were revealed under his watch, Comey replied “No, I don’t think so.  There are other mistakes I consider more consequential than this during my tenure.” Pray, we await those revelations.

Posted in USAComments Off on The Inspector General’s Report and the False Russiagate Narrative: Malfeasance, Lies, Threats and Denials

Damascus Approved Two Oil Contracts with Russian Companies

By Arabi Souri

Two oil and gas exploration contracts with Russian companies were approved by the Syrian People’s Assembly (Parliament), the vital economic sector for Syria’s rebuilding efforts.

While the US and its camp of thieves continue to loot the Syrian oil, not because of its quantities, it’s less than 10% of what the US gets for almost free from Kuwait and without a sweat.

It’s an additional step by the Trump administration to deprive the Syrian people from one of their main resources.

The two deals approved by the Syrian Parliament include exploration and production in three areas, notably in an oil field in northeastern Syria and a gas field north of the capital Damascus.

Minister of Oil and Mineral Resources Ali Ghanem said that the awarding of contracts to the two companies is part of the Syrian state cooperating with friendly countries that stood by Syria, referring to the ongoing Syrian combating against the US-waged World War of Terror against humanity.

Ghanem said the ministry is continuing to conclude maritime oil investment contracts, but economic sanctions on Syria have prevented naval contracts with a number of international companies.

Last September, the Ministry of Oil and Mineral Resources signed three contracts with Russian companies in the field of surveying, drilling and production in the oil and gas sector as part of the 61st Damascus International Fair.Syrian Army Bombs Kurdish Tankers Smuggling Oil to Turkey, A Message to Trump

Syria’s pre-war production of oil barely reached 380,000 bpd, which was almost enough for the country, pre-2011, and a little left for export. However, new findings in Syria’s territorial waters as well as northeast of the country and in the central region between the capital Damascus and Homs are very promising and would be an important source of energy and income for decades to come.

During the past 9 years of the current war on the Syrian people, the looting of the Syrian oil was carried out by the FSA terrorists then Nusra Front (Al-Qaeda Levant), then ISIS, then the Kurdish separatist SDF militia, and now directly to the US, ironically, all of them were stealing Syrian oil and selling it to Turkey (at $ 5 / barrel) which in turn sells it to Israel…!

‘Wherever there’s a push from democracy using terror and direct invasion, i.e. the US style, there’s oil’, in other words, you can say: The Americans are always seeking G.O.D. at all costs: Gold, Oil, and Drugs.

Posted in Russia, SyriaComments Off on Damascus Approved Two Oil Contracts with Russian Companies

UK: Be Aware of Being Approached and Asked For Money

We have had quite recently two seperate cases of a woman who approaches senior  members of the Balsall Heath Community on both occasions at a bus stop and tells a tale of having had her universal credit stopped and her children being hungry and she is desperate. on both occasions both residents have believed what they are being told and have parted with sums of cash. The woman went  onto form “friendships” with these residents and maintained her story of being desperate her benefits being cut her children suffering etc. Over a period of time they gave her quite large alarming amounts of money.
 
Needless to say they were being groomed to feel pity when she was infact a prolific drug user both her and her partner.Their  promises to return the money were a lie, we would like to make as many people aware as possible of this type of behaviour please be vigilant and sceptical if you or anyone you know are approached with these pleas and claims for money.
 
Message Sent By
Lorraine Whelan (Police, PCSO, Sparkbrook)

Posted in UKComments Off on UK: Be Aware of Being Approached and Asked For Money

Fake U.S. History: How “American Exceptionalism” Hides Shame, Creates Stupidity and Dangerous Imperialism

By S. Brian Willson

Premise

The culture and nation state of the United States of America is founded on the egregious and forceful dispossession of others. You might even call it an earlier version of fascism – institutional dehumanization for private profit. A myth, or grand lie, was created that we are an exceptional people, effectively pre-empting openly experiencing the important feeling of social shameand, in turn, blocking any accountability or genuine inquiry into our genocidal origins built on stolen land and labor, that murdered millions with impunity.

Thus, we live by fantasy of our superiority, which functionally makes us stupid, as if in a stupor. Applying the legal exclusionary rule to the culture at large, the USA is the “fruit of the poisonous tree”, as with most “civilizations”, founded on forcefully stolen land and labor, thereby lacking any moral or legal validity.

Introduction

When I was a child in rural upstate New York in the 1940s and 1950s, I enjoyed small town life and the tranquility of a luscious surrounding nature. I had pictures of baseball stars plastered on all four of my bedroom walls. I recited a grateful prayer in my little sanctuary before going to sleep each night: “Thank you God for allowing me to have been born and raised in the United States, the greatest country in the history of the world, endowed by our Creator to bring prosperity to the impoverished, and Christianity to the heathen”. It was a wonderful story, greatly enhanced by our nation’s celebrated reputed victory over Fascism in Europe. Life was good, or so I thought.

Having been born on July 4, 1941, I was a patriotic baby of the World War II generation. My family was lower middle class, devout Baptists and, like my parents, I believed that the FBI under the “leadership” of J. Edgar Hoover protected our democratic Christian freedoms from the Russians. The Cold War propaganda was nothing short of spectacular, virtually all unchallenged by anyone I knew.

But there was another factor operating. Coinciding with the celebrated post-World War II victory, the nation experienced a unique 35-year blip in its history – an age of a large middle class imbibing in insatiable consumerism and optimism. My family replaced their icebox with a new electric refrigerator after the war, bought their first automobile, and by 1958 had purchased an 11-inch B&W television set. It was proof that we are an exceptionalpeople, and God’s chosen people to boot. However, this optimism was tempered by fear of the Soviet Union that severely prevented genuine liberal dialogue and critical thinking education.

1950s: “Positive Thinking/Prosperity Gospel” – Norman Vincent Peale and US Exceptionalism

Norman Vincent Peale (1898-1993), a Dutch Reformed minister, wrote The Power of Positive Thinkingin 1952, a bestseller for 186 consecutive weeks, a book prominently in our home library, as it was in the Trump family home in Queens, New York. Peale also wrote a monthly magazine, Guideposts,which my parents read regularly.Peale served as a guru for the post-depression, post-World War II generation with his cult-like, self-help “bible” for achieving material success with divine blessings. Peale described himself as a “missionary to American business”, opposing unions and the New Deal. Thus, he was exceedingly popular with ambitious US Americans, especially White folks, both the rich, and those seeking riches.

Donald L. Trump, as a 6-year-old child began to regularly attended Peale’s New York City church with his parents. Peale officiated at Trump’s first marriage with Ivana Zelnickova, and both Trump’s sisters were married at Peale’s church. To this day, Trump lauds Peale for his success, unrestrained self-confidence, and from whom he learned modern branding. In Trump’s 2015 book, Crippled America: How to Make America Great Again[1], he proclaimed that “I am a Christian…I love God, and I love having a relationship with Him…[and] the Bible is the most important book ever written”.

Many theologians considered Peale as “God’s salesman”, critiquing him as a dangerous con man and fraud since he convinced people to believe that all basic problems were personal, unrelated to social, political, or economic contexts. Personal failures, Peale, said, were a sign of spiritual weakness, preaching that everyone has the power to make oneself happy and rich.  It fits perfectly with US American exceptionalism and Trump’s narcissism[2].

Viet Nam – Great Awakening of the Grand Lie

I was in Viet Nam in 1969 where I turned 28 years, having been drafted in 1966 during my fourth semester of law school. It was there that my Disney bliss rapidly evaporated. The entrance sign to my squadron’s in-country headquarters said, “Welcome to Indian Country”. This reminded me of the slogan, “the only good Indian is a dead Indian”, hinting the same plight for the Vietnamese. Incidentally, Trump, five years my junior, enjoyed five deferments enabling him to avoid Viet Nam.

While performing auxiliary duty as a USAF Combat Security officer, I documented the immediate aftermath of atrocities committed from the air that annihilated inhabited, undefended villages. I was sickened from the sight of hundreds of villagers lying dead and suffering horribly in their villages. I wondered who the fuck am I, a 6’ 3” White man, 9,000 miles from my rural farming village in New York State? These Vietnamese were in their homevillages. Village life was the essence of Vietnamese culture and we were systematically destroying it. I felt depressingly unauthentic, like a dumb ideological robot, and began to realize that being a privileged White man was in fact an emotional and intellectual disability. White male supremacy was a powerful force, as it enabled a kind of mindless “sliding” through life, pre-empting the need to ask serious questions. However, my discovery of empathy began to radicalize me. I wondered whether we had become sadistic criminal psychopaths? Or have we always been?   Hmm?!

Accumulating high body counts, from babies to grandparents, and every age in between, was politically comforting to US politicians and to a large number of their their taxpaying constituents. We simply created a fiction that we were killing the “enemy” to satisfy the emotional, and political momentum of stopping the bogeyman – Communism – when in fact we were murdering innocent Vietnamese peasants. Mass murder was normalized. When the US war ended in 1975, 13,000 of 21,000 Vietnamese villages had been deliberately wiped out. Huge B-52 bombers left 26 million bomb craters, while targeting and destroying almost 950 churches and pagodas, 350 clearly marked hospitals, nearly 3,000 educational institutions, over 15,000 bridges, 18 power plants, 40 factories, 10 million cubic meters of dikes, and 25 million acres of farmland. The US also chemically poisoned food supplies and forests. Our cultural corruption is so extreme we proudly ordered B-52 death machines flying five miles high blessed by God-fearing chaplains to bomb unarmed, mostly Buddhist peasants living nine thousand miles across the Pacific.  What?!Big Pharma and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD): The Deadly Toll that Permanent War Takes on US Soldiers, Awaits the Rest of Us

Several million peasants were gruesomely, senselessly murdered, with countless additional millions permanently maimed. It was barbaric. It was genocidal. I felt personal shame for my participation, and intense anger of betrayal. At times I felt suicidal. My White male conditioning had made me “disabled”, i.e., a kind of stupidity whose mind hadn’t even thought to seriously ask whyI was putting my life on the line in a small country across the seas I knew nothing about? I had been part of a massive conspiracy to violate international law and destroy a sovereign people. Huh?! But I had been conditioned to think that “America” was nonetheless, exceptional.

Criminal Cruelty to Prevent Vietnamese Autonomy

US premeditated policy intended to destroy Vietnamese self-determination. As historian William Blum has succinctly concluded: “the thread common to the diverse targets of [US] American intervention…in virtually every case involving the Third World… has been, in one form or another, a policy of ‘self-determination’: the desire …to pursue a path of development independent of US foreign policy objectives”[3].

The US war (as with virtually all wars), was based on a Grand lie, in this case that the majority Vietnamese were being invaded by other Vietnamese who the US called “Communists”. And it was maintained by grotesque lies – every day – such as identifying all dead Vietnamese as a victory (body counts), all carried out by heinous war crimes. Official reports abounded about our making progress in the war – lies. The fictional “democratic” South Vietnamese government created by the US and CIA was so unpopular the US military was forced to invade and occupy South Viet Nam for 10 years with nearly 550,000 troops supported by countless daily bombing missions and unprecedented use of chemical warfare. We murdered millions and it still didn’t work. How demonic can you get?

Fake history about Viet Nam was confirmed in the 1971 release of the Pentagon Papers. Despite this, the highly publicized Burns-Novick 2017, The Vietnam War TV documentary, claimed the war was “begun in good faith by decent people out of fateful misunderstandings”. Lies die hard.

Dishonest Intelligence

Ralph McGehee, former starter on three Notre Dame national championship football teams in the late 1940s, a cum laude graduate, became one of the 700 CIA officers in Viet Nam. He was shocked when discovering the daily intelligence he was gathering was totally bastardized in official reports. Depressed about the dishonest intelligence system, he became suicidal. McGehee reported that the repressive, oligarchic government of US puppet Nguyen Van Thieu was so unpopular and corrupt that most Vietnamese were organized, committed, and dedicated to his defeat, and a Vietnamese Communist victory[4].

Cold War Redux

Now 78, fifty years out of Viet Nam, I am aghast that we are living through an even more virulent, Cold War. Cold War I propaganda cast an overwhelming toxic spell on the minds of three generations, including many intelligent people. Relentless rhetoric accomplished a near total indoctrination of our entire US culture. Virtually all systems colluded and cooperated to preserve unquestioning belief in the unique nobility of the US American system while instilling rabid, paranoid fear of “enemies” — in our midst as well as “out there”. We rationalized pathologically inexplicable behavior around the world, as well as at home. Indoctrination is so pervasive it generates a universally compelling mythology that conceals its own contradictions.

Today, the corporate and social media narrative managers so tightly control propaganda that once again our minds are saturated with rages against the evil “adversary”, Russia. The neoliberal religion of privatization makes everyone and everything for sale as a commodity, dictating both domestic and foreign policy. It is enforced at home by an overreaching national security state of surveillance (our Fourth Estate), and abroad with the most brutal “wholesale” terrorist machinery in history. The US government, and its compliant military, enables obscene profits for its Military-Congressional-Intelligence-Banking-Wall Street-Drug Complex. The US population de facto consents to destroying Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syrian and others, i.e, with diabolical imperialism.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me three times, shame on both of us –US author Stephen King.

Orwell

In George Orwell’s novel, 1984[5], the Ministry of Truth rearranges facts and rewrites history. On the face of the building in which it is housed are engraved the slogans: “War Is Peace; Freedom Is Slavery; Ignorance Is Strength”. Language is one of the most important tools of the totalitarian state. If all citizens accept the lies that the ruling party imposes – if all records tell the same tale – then the lie passes into history and becomes truth. All that is needed is an unending series of victories over our own memory. This is called Reality control. In Orwell’s Newspeak, doublethink is the official state language. Everything becomes pretend, the lies told over and over in many different forms throughout time.[6] Meanwhile, wars easily continue[7], facilitated by deceit and lies[8], elaborate propaganda mind-control systems[9] that permeate our education institutions[10] and Hollywood[11] and are promoted by the concentrated monopoly of corporate mass media[12]. Our collective minds are systematically colonized to accept the unacceptable.

This McCarthy-like new Cold War dangerously speeds the world toward nuclear holocaust. I raise the question: Are we stupid? Can we not see that our behavior is leading to our ecocide/suicide – climate catastrophe and nuclear war?

US Exceptionalism Has Been Fatal – Creates Stupid, Shameful Monsters

The origins of the Grand Lie of Viet Nam, and the horrific cruelties committed there, are discoverable in the very origins of US America. The psychological and cultural conditioning growing up in US America, especially for a Eurocentric White male like myself, is emotionally and intellectually comfortable. But the noble “exceptional” history we have been taught about ourselves proves to be fantastic fakery which continues to serve as a comfortable escape from experiencing and feeling the horrible truth of the collective shame of our unspeakable criminal genocidal origins. Capitalism itself would not have existed without centuries of egregious colonial plunder of millions of Indigenous Americans, or millions of enslaved Africans. So, not only does the lie of “exceptionalism” enable us to avoid extremely unpleasant thoughts and feelings, but it also discourages asking enlightening, delving questions, about who we really are as a people. This makes us dangerously stupid. Why mess with the apparent successful myth of being exceptional? But thoughtlessness – a suspension of critical thinking – today leads to a dangerous, nuclear, arrogant war-making society. Not unintelligent, but stupid. And the power brokers, and many in the population, have a vested interest in remaining stupid to protect the comfortable original lie, that requires countless subsequent lies, in turn, to preserve that original lie. We have told ourselves a nice story. But it is a lie and as long as we continue to believe in our superiority we deepen our stupidity.

Thus, throughout our history we have lived by a slick Grand “American” lie, granting us comfort and security in our “superior” cultural identity. Spellbound and flattered we live by our favorite mythological maxims: “Founding Fathers”, “democracy”, “Constitution”, “Rule of Law”, and “greatest country ever”. Our political-religion of US American predatory corporate capitalism (privatization)blocks experiencing the most critical of all social emotions – empathy– that ties all humanity together, something I so painfully, but thankfully learned in Viet Nam. The Grand lie is so huge and pervasive we do not generally recognize it.

Cultural analysts such as Lewis Mumford have described how unchecked “power punctuates the entire history of mankind with outbursts of collective paranoia and tribal delusions of grandeur mingled with malevolent suspicions, murderous hatreds, and atrociously inhumane acts”.[13] So, in effect, much of human civilization history is based on institutionalized dehumanization, a form of Fascism.  Mumford again: “A personal over-concentration of power as an end in itself is suspect to the psychologist as an attempt to conceal inferiority, impotence, and anxiety. When this inferiority is combined with defensive inordinate ambitions, uncontrolled hostility and suspicion, and a loss of any sense of the subject’s own limitation, ‘delusions of grandeur’ result, which is the typical syndrome of paranoia, one of the most difficult psychological states to exorcise”[14].

The US nation, as a criminal enterprise, is a perfect example of what Mumford described as a civilization maintained by “collective paranoia” without sense of “limitation”, the result being “delusions of grandeur”, the typical syndrome of paranoia, one of the most difficult psychological states to exorcise”. Built on forceful dispossession, deceit, and fantasy, the USA lives with a DNA of selfishness, arrogance and violence that began long ago, and we seem content to leave it be, increasing our dangerousness to ourselves and the world.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Viet Nam veteran, trained lawyer, author, Blood on the Tracks: The Life and Times of S. Brian Willson (PM Press, 2011); Don’t Thank Me For My Service: My Viet Nam Awakening to the Long History of US Lies (Clarity Press, 2018); subject of documentary Paying the Price For Peace: The Story of S. Brian Willson(Bo Boudart Productions, 2016); essays: brianwillson.com. 

Brian Willson is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

Notes

[1] Simon & Schuster, pp 130-1.

[2] Chris Lehman, “The Self-Help Guru Who Shaped Trump’s Worldview: How the Commander-in-Chief Succumbs to the Perils of Positive Thinking”, In These Times, December 13, 2017; Gwenda Blair, “How Norman Vincent Peale Taught Donald Trump to Worship Himself”, PoliticoMagazine, October 6, 2015.

[3] William Blum, Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II(Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995), 15.

[4] Ralph McGehee, Deadly Deceits: My 25 Years in the CIA(New York: Sheridan Square, 1983), 125-26, 147-157.

[5] George Orwell, 1984: A Novel(New York: Harcourt Brace & Co., 1949).

[6] S. Brian Willson, “The Pretend Society,” http://www.brianwillson.com/the-pretend-society

[7] Norman Soloman, War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death (Hoboken,

NJ: Wiley & Sons, 2005).

[8] David Model, Lying for Empire: How to Commit War Crimes with a Straight Face(Monroe, ME:

Common Courage Press, 2005); Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of

Propaganda in Bush’s War on Iraq(New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Penguin, 2003); John R. MacArthur, Second

Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1992).

[9] Christopher Simpson, Science of Coercion: Communication Research & Psychological Warfare1945-

1960 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994); Herbert I. Schiller, The Mind Managers(Boston: Beacon

Press, 1973).

[10] John Taylor Gatto, Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling(Vancouver,

Canada, New Society, 1992); Ivan Illich, Deschooling Society(New York: Harper & Row, 1971).

[11] Carl Boggs and Tom Pollard, The Hollywood War Machine: US Militarism and Popular Culture(Boulder,

CO: Paradigm Publishers, 2007).

[12] Ben H. Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly(Boston: Beacon Press, 2000).

[13] Lewis Mumford, The Myth of the Machine: Technics and Human Development(New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1967), 204.

[14] Mumford, 1967, 218.

Posted in USAComments Off on Fake U.S. History: How “American Exceptionalism” Hides Shame, Creates Stupidity and Dangerous Imperialism

Afghan Papers Inadvertently Document WaPo’s Role in Spreading Official Lies

By Joshua Cho

The Washington Post’s publication of the “Afghanistan Papers” (12/9/19) unveiled over 2,000 pages of unpublished notes of interviews with US officials involved in the Afghanistan War, from a project led by the Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) to investigate waste and fraud. Hailed by some as the “Pentagon Papers of Our Generation” after the Post won access to those documents under the Freedom of Information Act in a three-year legal battle, the Post’s exposé found that

senior US officials failed to tell the truth about the war in Afghanistan throughout the 18-year campaign, making rosy pronouncements they knew to be false and hiding unmistakable evidence the war had become unwinnable.

The paper published direct remarks on the war by US officials who assumed that “their remarks would not be made public”:

“Every data point was altered to present the best picture possible,” Bob Crowley, an Army colonel who served as a senior counterinsurgency adviser to US military commanders in 2013 and 2014, told government interviewers. “Surveys, for instance, were totally unreliable but reinforced that everything we were doing was right and we became a self-licking ice cream cone.”

While more explicit admissions of deception on the part of US officials involved in wars are always appreciated, one question rarely discussed among the reports and opinion pieces praising the “Afghanistan Papers” is what this scoop says about the Washington Post.

If the Post is now publishing material demonstrating that US officials have been “following the same talking points for 18 years,” emphasizing how they are “making progress,” “especially” when the war is “going badly,” shouldn’t the paper acknowledge that it has been cheerleading this same line for all of those 18 years? Doesn’t it have a responsibility to examine how it served as a primary vehicle for those officials to spread these same “talking points” to spin the coverage in the desired fashion?

FAIR has been tracking the Post’s coverage of the Afghanistan War from the very beginning, when the paper—along with the rest of corporate media—was actively following the Bush administration’s “guidance” on how to cover the war. In 2001, a FAIR survey (11/2/01) of the Post’s op-ed pages for three weeks following the September 11 attacks found that

columns calling for or assuming a military response to the attacks were given a great deal of space, while opinions urging diplomatic and international law approaches as an alternative to military action were nearly nonexistent.

Eight years later, FAIR (3/1/09) found that the Post’s cheerleading coverage didn’t change much from 2001, as 7 out of 9 Post op-eds and 4 out of 5 editorials supported some kind of military escalation from the day Barack Obama was elected president (11/4/08) through March 1, 2009, as the US was debating a “surge” of additional troops in Afghanistan later that year.

Another study (Extra!, 11/1/09) of the first ten months of the Post’s opinion columns that same year found that

pro-war columns outnumbered antiwar columns by more than 10 to 1: Of 67 Post columns on US military policy in Afghanistan, 61 supported a continued war, while just six expressed antiwar views. Of the pro-war columns, 31 were for escalation and 30 for an alternative strategy.

The Post offered this lopsided coverage even though there were several polls at the time showing a majority of the US public opposed the war, because they believed that the Afghan War was “not worth fighting.”

The Post also has a history of facilitating official spin for the war. When WikiLeaksposted tens of thousands of classified intelligence documents related to the Afghanistan War, FAIR (7/30/10) found that the Post either dismissed them as not being as important as the Pentagon Papers (7/27/10), or absurdly spun the leaks as good news for the US war effort (7/27/10) because the “release could compel President Obama to explain more forcefully the war’s importance,” and because they “bolstered Obama’s decision in December to pour more troops and money into a war effort that had not received sufficient attention or resources from the Bush administration.”The Afghanistan Papers Confirm America’s Longest War Is a Lie

The Post also buried attempts by whistleblowers and other journalists who were working to expose official lies and war crimes in Afghanistan. When US Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning was sentenced to serve 35 years in prison for sharing intelligence documents that first exposed what the “Afghanistan Papers” are now corroborating, the Post, along with other corporate outlets, largely neglected Manning’s legal trials and punishment (FAIR.org, 12/4/126/18/141/18/174/1/19). The New York Times, to its credit, did give Manning space for an op-ed (6/14/19) to explain why she risked her freedom to expose matters that the US military recorded but left unreported, including hundreds of US military attacks on Afghan civilians. The Post, for its part, found room to publish frequent op-eds by the Brookings Institution’s Michael O’Hanlon (e.g., 11/16/096/26/106/3/112/10/137/12/13) spouting the same optimistic US official talking points that the Post’s “Afghanistan Papers” has now exposed as lies (FAIR.org, 1/3/14).

In fact, one major reason why the Afghanistan Papers are unnecessary to discern deceit from US officials is that—as Michael Parenti pointed out in The Face of Imperialism—when US officials constantly provide new and different justifications for invasions, it’s a sign that they’re being dishonest, not incompetent.

The Post (12/9/19) admits this when it mentions that the US “largely accomplished what it set out to do,” with Al Qaeda and Taliban officials “dead, captured or in hiding,” yet “veered off in directions that had little to do with Al Qaeda or 9/11.” This is consistent with FAIR’s finding (Extra!, 7/11) that corporate media largely ignored the question of whether to end the Afghanistan War after the ostensible goal of the invasion—to capture or kill the leader of the group that carried out the September 11 attack—was accomplished in the death of Osama bin Laden.

It shouldn’t be a surprise that the Post’s Afghanistan Papers have inadvertently exposed the Post as a subservient accomplice in disseminating US official lies; corporate media rely on official sources for free content and “scoops” to subsidize their journalism, which often spreads dishonest but convenient talking points by these same sources to retain “access” to this information, trustworthy or not (Extra!, 5/02; New York Times, 4/20/08; FAIR.org, 12/12/19).

Political cartoonist and journalist Ted Rall pointed out, in an account (Common Dreams, 12/11/19) of being marginalized by corporate outlets like the Post:

“The Afghanistan Papers” is a bright, shining lie by omission. Yes, our military and civilian leaders lied to us about Afghanistan. But they could never have spread their murderous BS—thousands of US soldiers and tens of thousands of Afghans killed, trillions of dollars wasted—without media organizations like the Washington Post, which served as unquestioning government stenographers.

Press outlets like the Post and New York Times weren’t merely idiots used to disseminate pro-war propaganda. They actively censored people who knew we never should have gone into Afghanistan and tried to tell American voters the truth.

It’s this mutually beneficial relationship between the need for corporate media outlets like the Post for “access” to US official sources, and US officials who need corporate media outlets to propagate their preferred spin on US foreign policy to manipulate public opinion, that explains what the Afghanistan Papers expose as the Post’s own role in deceiving the US public. It’s why the Post’s coverage and editorial board can argue that the Trump administration shouldn’t “abandon the country in haste” (even though it’s been 18 years), and rally around the US’s “forever war” in Afghanistan (FAIR.org, 1/31/199/11/19), even as the paper investigates the official lies the continuing occupation depends on.

Of course, this is also the reason why it’s systemically impossible for corporate outlets like the Post to take the opportunity to raise more substantive and provocative questions about whether deceit is a constant and essential aspect of US foreign policy, and not merely confined to isolated military invasions of “quagmire” countries like Vietnam and Afghanistan, despite the Afghanistan Papers providing a perfect opportunity to do so. To say nothing of challenging a worldview that invokes “winnable” wars, in which predictions of increasing numbers of (enemy) human deaths are best described as “rosy.”

There’s quite a long history of US media assisting officials in fabricating moral pretexts for invasion—from fictional accounts of North Vietnamese attacks on American destroyer ships in the Gulf of Tonkin (FAIR.org, 8/5/17), to conflating very different Islamic groups like the Taliban and Al Qaeda, or claims that formerly US-backed dictator Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs and the intent to use them against the US (CounterPunch, 6/11/14; FAIR.org, 3/19/07).

Observers note that the Afghanistan Papers “only confirm what we already know” (Daily Beast, 12/14/19), or that “the shocking thing about the Poststories…is how unshocking they are” (Atlantic, 12/9/19); even the Washington Post (12/12/19) reminds us that only people who “haven’t been paying attention” to the Afghan War are “surprised” by what’s found in the Afghanistan Papers.

Perhaps instead of pursuing FOIA requests to confirm the obvious, the Post could just interrogate its own contradictory coverage of the Afghan War and stop functioning as credulous mouthpieces for the US government. But to do that would also require confronting the lie that this entire so-called “War on Terror” has any moral credibility, when the US is a leading terrorist state that consciously pursues imperial policies that inflame hatred against the US to serve corporate interests (FAIR.org, 3/13/1911/22/19).

Absent that, an exercise like the Afghanistan Papers come off more as a “please consider” note to the Pulitzer judges than as an earnest effort to use the spotlight of journalistic investigation to speak truth to power and halt the ongoing, generation-long destruction of a foreign nation.

Posted in AfghanistanComments Off on Afghan Papers Inadvertently Document WaPo’s Role in Spreading Official Lies

Behind the U.S. Anti-China Campaign

By Sara Flounders

In order to evaluate the claims of massive human rights violations of the Uyghurs, an ethnic and religious minority in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China, it is important to know a few facts.

Xinjiang Province in the far western region of China is an arid, mountainous and still largely underdeveloped region. Xinjiang has significant oil and mineral reserves and is currently China’s largest natural-gas-producing region.

It is home to a number of diverse ethnic groups, including Turkic-speaking Muslim Uyghurs, Tibetans, Tajiks, Hui and Han peoples.

Xinjiang borders five Central Asian countries, including Afghanistan and Pakistan, where more than 1 million U.S. troops and even more mercenaries, contractors and secret agents have operated over four decades in an endless U.S. war.

What is happening in Xinjiang today must be seen in the context of what has been happening throughout Central Asia.

Xinjiang is a major logistics center for China’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative. Xinjiang is the gateway to Central and West Asia, as well as to European markets.

The Southern Xinjiang Railway runs to the city of Kashgar in China’s far west where it is now connected to Pakistan’s rail network under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, a project of the BRI.

The U.S. government is deeply hostile to this vast economic development project and is doing all it can to sabotage China’s plans. This campaign is part of the U.S. military’s “Pivot to Asia,” along with naval threats in the South China Sea and support for separatist movements in Hong Kong, Taiwan and Tibet.

Map features Central Asia and China, including Xinjiang.

No U.N. report on Xinjiang

The U.S. and its corporate media charge that the Chinese government has rounded up 1 million people, mainly Uyghurs, into concentration camps. News reports cite the United Nations as their source.

This was disputed in a detailed investigative report by Ben Norton and Ajit Singh titled, “No, the UN did not report China has ‘massive internment camps’ for Uighur Muslims.” (The Grayzone.com, Aug. 23, 2018) They expose how this widely publicized claim is based entirely on unsourced allegations by a single U.S. member, Gay McDougall, on an “independent committee” with an official sounding name: U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

The U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has confirmed that no U.N. body or official has made such a charge against China.

CIA/NED-funded ‘human rights’

After this fraudulent news story received wide coverage, it was followed by “reports” from the Washington-based Network of Chinese Human Rights Defenders. This group receives most of its funds from U.S. government grants, primarily from the CIA-linked National Endowment for Democracy, a major source of funding for U.S. “regime change” operations around the world.

The Network of Chinese Human Rights Defenders shares the same Washington address as Human Rights Watch. The HRW has been a major source of attacks on governments targeted by the U.S., such as Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, Syria and China. The network has long called for sanctions against China.

The CHRD’s sources include Radio Free Asia, a news agency funded for decades by the U.S. government. The World Uighur Congress, another source of sensationalized reports, is also funded by NED. The same U.S. government funding is behind the International Uyghur Human Rights and Democracy Foundation and the Uyghur American Association.

The authors of the Grayzone article cite years of detailed IRS filing forms to back up their claim. They list millions of dollars in generous government funding — to generate false reports.

This whole network of supposedly impartial civil society groups, nongovernmental organizations, think tanks and news sources operates under the cover of “human rights” to promote sanctions and war.The Real Lesson of Afghanistan Is that Regime Change Does Not Work

CIA-funded terror

Central Asia has experienced the worst forms of U.S. military power.

Beginning in 1979, the CIA, operating with the ISI Pakistani Intelligence Service and Saudi money, funded and equipped reactionary Mujahedeen forces in Afghanistan to bring down a revolutionary government there. The U.S. cultivated and promoted extreme religious fanaticism, based in Saudi Arabia, against progressive secular regimes in the region. This reactionary force was also weaponized against the Soviet Union and an anti-imperialist Islamic current represented by the Iranian Revolution.

For four decades, the CIA and secret Pakistan ISI forces (Pakistan Military, Inter Services Intelligence) in Afghanistan sought to recruit and train Uyghur mercenaries, planning to use them as a future terror force in China. Chechnyans from Russia’s Caucasus region were recruited for the same reason. Both groups were funneled into Syria in the U.S. regime-change operation there. These fanatical religious forces, along with other small ethnic groups, formed the backbone of the Islamic State group (IS) and Al-Qaida.

After the Sept. 11, 2001, World Trade Center bombing, the very forces that U.S. secret operations had helped to create became the enemy.

Uyghurs from Xinjiang were among the Al-Qaida prisoners captured in Afghanistan and held in the U.S. prison at Guantanamo for years without charges. Legal appeals exposed that the Uyghur prisoners were being held there under some of the worst conditions in solitary confinement.

U.S. wars dislocate region

The U.S. occupation of Afghanistan and the massive U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 created shockwaves of dislocation. Social progress, education, health care and infrastructure were destroyed. Sectarian and ethnic division was encouraged to divide opposition to U.S. occupations. Despite promises of great progress, the U.S. occupations sowed only destruction.

In this long war, U.S. prisons in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq were notorious. The CIA used “enhanced interrogation” techniques — torture — and secret rendition to Guantanamo, Bagram and the Salt Pit in Afghanistan. These secret prisons have since been the source of many legal suits.

According to U.N. investigations, by 2010 the U.S. held more than 27,000 prisoners in over 100 secret facilities around the world. Searing images and reports of systematic torture and prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib in Iraq and Bagram airbase in Afghanistan surfaced.

Exposing coverup of war crimes

In July 2010 WikiLeaks published more than 75,000 classified U.S./NATO reports on the war in Afghanistan.

In October of that year, a massive leak of 400,000 military videos, photos and documents exposed, in harrowing detai,l torture, summary executions and other war crimes. Army intelligence analyst former Private Chelsea Manning released this damning material to WikiLeaks.

Based on the leaked documents, the U.N. chief investigator on torture, Manfred Nowak, called on U.S. President Barack Obama to order a full investigation of these crimes, including abuse, torture, rape and murder committed against the Iraqi people following the U.S. invasion and occupation.

The leaked reports provided documentary proof of 109,000 deaths — including 66,000 civilians. This is seldom mentioned in the media, in contrast to the highly publicized and unsourced charges now raised against China.

Prosecuting whistle blowers

The CIA’s National Endowment for Democracy pays handsomely for unsourced documents making claims of torture against China, while those who provided documentary proof of U.S. torture have been treated as criminals.

John Kiriakou, who worked for the CIA between 1990 and 2004 and confirmed widespread use of systematic torture, was prosecuted by the Obama administration for revealing classified information and sentenced to 30 months in prison.

Chelsea Manning’s release of tens of thousands of government documents confirming torture and abuse, in addition to horrific photos of mass killings, have led to her continued incarceration. Julian Assange of WikiLeaks is imprisoned in Britain and faces deportation to the U.S. for his role in disseminating these documents.

Rewriting history

How much of the coverage of Xinjiang is intended to deflect world attention from the continuing crimes of U.S. wars — from Afghanistan to Syria?

In 2014 a Senate CIA Torture Report confirmed that a torture program, called “Detention and Interrogation Program,” had been approved by top U.S. officials. Only a 525-page Executive Summary of its 6,000 pages was released, but it was enough to confirm that the CIA program was far more brutal and extensive than had previously been released.

Mercenaries flood into Syria

The U.S. regime-change effort to overturn the government of Syria funneled more than 100,000 foreign mercenaries and fanatical religious forces into the war. They were well-equipped with advanced weapons, military gear, provisions and paychecks.

One-third of the Syrian population was uprooted in the war. Millions of refugees flooded into Europe and neighboring countries.

Beginning in 2013, thousands of Uyghur fighters were smuggled into Syria to train with the extremist Uyghur group known as the Turkistan Islamic Party. Fighting alongside Al-Qaida and Al-Nusra terror units, these forces played key roles in several battles.

Reuters, Associated Press and Newsweek all reported that up to 5,000 Turkic-speaking Muslim Uyghurs from Xinjiang were fighting in various “militant” groups in Syria.

According to Syrian media, a transplanted Uyghur colony transformed the city of al Zanbaka (on the Turkish border) into an entrenched camp of 18,000 people. Many of the Uyghur fighters were smuggled to the Turkish-Syrian border area with their families. Speaking Turkish, rather than Chinese, they relied on the support of the Turkish secret services.

China follows a different path

China is determined to follow a different path in dealing with fanatical groups that are weaponized by religious extremism. China’s action comes after terror attacks and explosives have killed hundreds of civilians in busy shopping areas and crowded train and bus stations since the 1990s.

China has dealt with the problem of religious extremism by setting up large-scale vocational education and training centers. Rather than creating worse underdevelopment through bombing campaigns, it is seeking to engage the population in education, skill development and rapid economic and infrastructure development.

Terrorist attacks in Xinjiang have stopped since the reeducation campaigns began in 2017.

Two worldviews of Xinjiang

In July of this year, 22 countries, most in Europe plus Canada, Japan, Australia and New Zealand, sent a letter to the U.N. Human Rights Council criticizing China for mass arbitrary detentions and other violations against Muslims in China’s Xinjiang region. The statement did not include a single signature from a Muslim-majority state.

Days later, a far larger group of 34 countries — now expanded to 54 from Asia, Africa and Latin America — submitted a letter in defense of China’s policies. These countries expressed their firm support of China’s counterterrorism and deradicalization measures in Xinjiang.

More than a dozen member countries of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation at the U.N. signed the statement.

A further statement on Oct. 31 to the Third Committee of the U.N. General Assembly explained that a number of diplomats, international organizations, officials and journalists had traveled to Xinjiang to witness the progress of the human rights cause and the outcomes of counterterrorism and deradicalization.

“What they saw and heard in Xinjiang completely contradicted what was reported in the [Western] media,” said the statement.

Posted in USA, ChinaComments Off on Behind the U.S. Anti-China Campaign

Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING

December 2019
M T W T F S S
« Nov   Jan »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031