Human rights concerns have risen again in Colombia after an online recording of a military chief revealed his solidarity with a colonel jailed for alleged extrajudicial killings.
In the recording, published by leading news magazine Semana on Sunday, Colombia armed forces chief General Leonardo Barrero is heard telling colonel Robinson Gonzalez del Rio that prosecutors’ investigations into the extrajudicial killings is a “bunch of crap.”
The army chief also suggests that Gonzalez, who is facing criminal charges over the killing of two men in 2007, mount a counterattack to discredit prosecutors.
According to local reports, deputy joint chief General Javier Rey, resigned on Monday following the revelation by Semana’s weekend report. Barrero is also reported to have expressed regret over his remarks in the audio recording.
Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos said the serious allegations made in the Semana report need to be investigated. The government, however, said it was taking no immediate action against Barrero as he was not directly accused of corruption.
An earlier scandal on extrajudicial killings by Colombia military dubbed the “false positives scandal” broke in 2008.
According to media reports, hundreds of innocent civilians were slain and presented as guerrillas killed in battle by the country’s army in an effort to inflate body counts and receive promotions or other benefits.
Earlier this month, Semana reported that a military spy ring had eavesdropped for 15 months on emails and text messages of government negotiators involved in peace talks with leftist rebels.
A Nepal-based human rights organization says over 400 Nepalese workers have lost their lives on World Cup stadium construction sites in Qatar.
The Pravasi Nepali Coordination Committee (PNCC), which follows up on migrant workers deaths in Qatar, recently published lists of the dead using official sources in the Qatari capital, Doha.
The PNCC also warned that the death toll can reach 4,000 by 2022.
The report will pile new pressure on the Qatari authorities and FIFA to curb the mounting death toll of foreign workers on the building sites.
Nepalese workers make up only 20 percent of two million migrant workers in Qatar and the death toll can be much higher than this.
Migrants from other countries are also feared to have died, but there is no official data available.
Harsh working conditions for foreign laborers in Qatar first came to light last September and the deaths of at least 36 Nepalese construction workers were registered in the weeks following the September revelations.
The new death toll also sets alarm bells ringing for FIFA as it shows that global protests against the treatment of migrant workers in Qatar have fallen on deaf ears.
Last month, the PNCC said, “FIFA and the government of Qatar promised the world that they would take action to ensure the safety of workers building the stadiums and infrastructure for the 2022 World Cup. This horrendous roll call of the dead gives the lie to those reassurances.”
Migrant workers in Qatar live in extremely inhumane and sordid conditions and they are deprived of any workplace security.
The question is no longer what, the question is when.
Very soon, income inequality in the United States will reach such a critical level it is likely violence will be viewed as an acceptable response to America’s social ills.
Unlike Depression Era bank robbers, assaults will be aimed at soft human targets. After all, who uses cash anymore?
Extortion. Kidnapping. Arson. A crime wave of epic proportions might well be the only way those running America will come to their senses and realize that no democracy can continue to exist where so much is controlled by so few. The present system of representative government has failed in such a spectacular fashion to protect the rights of the majority that the government itself has become the criminal.
Do not kid yourself that the present resource inequality will do anything but get much, much worse. Do the math. Tax rates for the extremely wealthy being so extremely low can only lead to the further accumulation of massive fortunes by the select few. That wealth will be taken from those lower on the economic food chain and so the disparity can only become greater.
Let them eat cake.
Public discussion of the critical problems currently facing this nation is so infantile it might as well be Medieval monks chattering on about the number of angels that can fit on the top of a pin. Bridges collapsing. People literally starving. Jobless working class. A country without hope. Yet the rulers natter on about reducing the rations of the most needy while at the same time they loot every household in the name of a putrid for-profit medical system and drone bomb the hell out of any country they wish.
How many military bases does this country have outside our borders? How many countries have U.S. troops stationed in them? Only criminals need those many guns.
Serious problems. There is a total disconnect between those charged with keeping this country on an even keel and reality.
The United States has become a kleptocracy. And criminality is the lesson it is teaching its citizens. Those living outside of the law, whether in skyscrapers or shacks, bring only pain and deprivation to those who strive to maintain a civilized society. When the government itself is the criminal, cutting up the pie solely for itself and its cronies, an equally criminal response will be inevitable.
What to do? It’s Robin Hood time. It’s only a question of who becomes the outlaw of Sherwood. People will only allow a boot to press against their neck for so long before the violence being done to them precipitates a like response. Unless those in positions of power tax the rich until it hurts, there will, like night follows day, be a violent response from those being oppressed against those they see as inflicting their pain.
If this government keeps shirking its responsibility to the vast majority of its citizens, this country is dooming itself to a bloody future.
Peter Breschard is the author of Circus Rider and My Love Affair with Barack Obama as well as other lesser works of fact and fiction.
As Americans in the economic middle struggle to keep up, many retailers and other businesses have decided to focus on the demands of the wealthy.
Since the end of the Great Recession, the nation’s top earners have been doing a significant portion of the consumer spending during the weak economic recovery, which is great news for high-end businesses that cater to this class.
But retailers and restaurants that have long catered to the middle class are fading because middle-earners have so little disposal income these days.
The rich (considered the top 5%) don’t have the same problem. They were responsible for nearly 40% of domestic consumption in 2012. Two decades earlier, the rate was only 28% in 1995, according to research performed by economists Steven Fazzari, of Washington University in St. Louis, and Barry Cynamon, a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.
They say inflation-adjusted spending by the top 5% has increased 17% since 2009, compared with just 1% among the bottom 95%.
The beneficiaries of increased spending by the wealthy have been luxury gambling properties like the Wynn and the Venetian in Las Vegas, five-star hotels like the Four Seasons and St. Regis, upscale clothing retailer Barneys New York, and others.
Meanwhile, many other companies are floundering, filing for bankruptcy, or closing their doors because they cater to the middle class. These businesses include Olive Garden and Red Lobster restaurants, and retailers Sears, J.C. Penney, and Loehmann’s.
“As a retailer or restaurant chain, if you’re not at the really high level or the low level, that’s a tough place to be,” John G. Maxwell, head of the global retail and consumer practice at PricewaterhouseCoopers, told The New York Times. “You don’t want to be stuck in the middle.”
Fazzari warns that relying too much on the rich to keep the economy going is not a sound long-term strategy.
“It’s going to be hard to maintain strong economic growth with such a large proportion of the population falling behind,” he told the Times. “We might be able to muddle along—but can we really recover?”
To Learn More:
The Middle Class Is Steadily Eroding. Just Ask the Business World. (by Nelson Schwartz, New York Times)
Inequality, the Great Recession, and Slow Recovery (by Barry Z. Cynamon and Steven M. Fazzari, Washington University) (pdf)
U.S. Income Inequality Reaches Record Extreme (by Noel Brinkerhoff, AllGov)
Richest 7% Get Richer; Poorest 93% Get Poorer (by Noel Brinkerhoff, AllGov)
By Gilad Atzmon • May 25th, 2009
Unlike her cosmopolitan brothers and sisters who spread Zionism and tribal racism using a liberal and progressive disguise, Melanie Philips is open about it all. The other day she defined what Zionism is in a very clear manner:
“Zionism,” writes Philips, “is simply the movement for the self-determination of the Jewish people. And its significance is greater than any other movement of national liberation because Judaism itself rests upon three legs — the people, the religion and the land. If one is lopped off by having its legitimacy denied, the whole thing collapses. That is why anti-Zionism is far more than an unpleasant political position. It is a direct attack on Judaism itself.”
Philips doesn’t leave much room for speculation. For her, not only is Zionism a legitimate national movement, ‘its significance is greater than any other movement’ because it rests upon ‘three legs’. Thinking about it for a second, it is indeed significant for something to rest upon three legs, I myself rest upon just two legs and a bit. Occasionally when I stand naked in front of the mirror I wish I were Zionism.
As Philips maintains, Zionism is indeed an amalgam of three Jewish ingredients: the people, the land and the religion. It is this very composition that makes Zionism into an epic victorious narrative. It is this very mixture that made Zionism into the 20th century collective symbolic identifier of the Jewish people. It is Zionism that has managed to reinvent the Jewish people as a nation with a lucid ideological, spiritual and geographical aspiration. Yet, as much as Zionism makes a lot of sense to very many Jews around the world, it makes less and less sense for those who fail to be chosen i.e., the rest of humanity. The reason is simple, Jews may be welcomed to celebrate their symptoms collectively but they are not exactly entitled to do so at the expense of anyone else.
Zionism has managed to interpret Judaism as a brutal license to plunder and kill. It transformed a spiritual text into a land registry. It primarily invented the Jews as nation. It then set for the newly born nation a task of immoral geographical aspiration with some devastating racist colonial implications.
One may wonder, how did Zionism manage to be so successful, how did it manage to get away with murder, and how has it done so for so long? At the end of the day, the lethal mixture of ‘land’-‘religion’-‘people’ stands in complete opposition to the post-war Western cultural and political narrative (cosmopolitan / multi-cultural / multi-faith / open borders).
I tend to believe that Philips’ equation Zionism = Judaism is the most effective Zionist tactic of them all. It leads towards a severe paralysis of most humanist opposition of Zionism. The reason is obvious, ordinary ethical beings do not know how to comb the knots out of this shattering formula that leads them to criticism of a religious belief system.
In fact one way around it is to dispute Philips’ equation. Zionism doesn’t equal Judaism. Zionism is a mere radical narrow interpretation of Judaism. It takes the biblical plunderous narrative and turns it into a daily practice. It takes the Judaic moral notion of chosenness and turns it into crude supremacist agenda. Rather than Judaism, Zionism is in fact the true genuine face of Jewish ideology. It is racist, it is chauvinist, it is seeking power; but it is different from Judaism, for Judaism is centred around the fear of God and Zionism is totally fearless. Accordingly, It will be right to argue that to oppose Zionism is to oppose Jewish ideology or what I myself define as ‘Jewishness’.
It must be said that Zionism regards itself as an enlightened rational movement. To a certain extent, as an ideology and praxis, it tries to understand itself, it seeks explanations or at least justifications in rational and historical terms (rather than ethical ones). Melanie Philips, it must be said, is offering a coherent argument. She says, ‘this is what we are’, taking this from us is a dismissal of our right to be.
I believe that Philips framework is correct, it is her terminology that is slightly confusing. It is not Zionism = religion but rather Zionism and Jewishness that are intrinsically connected. If we want to oppose Zionism for real, we set ourselves into an inevitable conflict with Jewish ideology. To oppose Zionism is to admit that we have a serious issue with Jewish nationalism, with Jewish tribalism, with Jewish racist ideology, with Jewish supremacy and Jewish collectivism. To oppose Zionism is to admit that we have a problem with the ‘Jewish thing’.
However, it may be noted that if Zionists such as Philips are entitled to suggest the equation between Zionism and Judaism, the opponent of Zionism should not be reluctant to do the same and to extend the critique of Zionism to Jewish ideology and beyond.
I mentioned numerous times in the past. As it happened, it is actually Zionists and Israeli dissidents who seem to push the anti-Zionist discourse ahead. The reason is pretty simple.
Israeli dissidents are far from being reluctant to expose or reflect on their collective past. Unlike the tribal Diaspora Jewish left activists that are quick to dismiss any complicity in Israeli crimes by shouting “not in my name,” some Israeli dissident voices tend to take direct responsibility. They understand the notion of guilt and they turn it into responsibility.
A month ago Haaretz published an article by Uri Avnery in its ‘Israeli Independence Day Special Edition. ‘Living With The Contradiction’ was an attempt of an Israeli humanist to face his own original sin within an historical perspective.
Avnery is an astonishing writer. Though I tend to disagree with him on various issues, the man is no doubt a leading voice of reason in that doomed state. Unlike Melanie Philips who supports Zionism from afar, Avnery was a commando soldier in 1948. He was himself personally involved in the creation of Israel. “We knew that if we won the war, there would be a state and that if we were defeated there would be no state – and that we would not be around, either.”
Unlike Melanie Philips who speaks about ‘a land’, Avnery was one of those who invaded the land and expelled its habitants.
“We left no Arabs behind our front line, and the Arabs did likewise,” and yet, Avnery, unlike Philips, realises that the Zionist amalgam People / Land / Religion leads towards disaster. Israel’s original sin is not is not exactly a recipe for peace.
“How then is it possible,” asks Avnery, “to reconcile the contradiction between our intentions and feelings at the time, when we established the state and paid for it with our blood, pure and simple, and the historic injustice we inflicted on the other side?”
He continues, “It is necessary for our mental health as a nation and as human beings, and it is the first step toward future reconciliation. We must admit and recognize the consequences of our actions and repair what can be repaired, without disavowing our past and youthful innocence.” Avnery goes out of his way to explain rather than justify the 1948 sin, yet he is searching for reconciliation. He understands that the Jewish state will be doomed unless it faces its past.
I wish that those who contribute to the Palestinian solidarity discourse would have the courage exhibited by Philips and Avnery. I wish that like Philips, we would have the courage to equate Zionism with Judaism yet to use it as a critical shift. I wish we could look at the Nakba like Avnery with fear and yet to draw the necessary conclusion, to demand the right of return.
- Lexicon of Resistance
- Theses on Zionism
- Algeriepatriotique interviews Gilad Atzmon: “Dieudonné has proved to be resilient to Jewish nationalist terror”
Today, January 28, 2014, President Obama will address the nation in his State of the Union (SOTU) speech to Congress. A major theme of the address will be the growing income inequality in the US.
His speech represents an echo of similar themes and talks that have been presented this past week at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland. That’s where every January the big capitalists of the world gather to discuss amongst themselves the major issues of the past year and what to do about them—in between being entertained by various cultural celebrities and performers who have been allowed into their club as junior partners in wealth. The annual Davos cultural events are not unlike the small venue side-shows held in the big Las Vegas casinos: the entertainers strut and sing while the real betting and dice-rolling discussions involving future capitalist policy initiatives go on behind ‘invitation-only’ doors requiring tickets for entry costing hundreds of thousands of dollars to attend ( the typical ticket price of entry for a Corporate CEO and his entourage at Davos, for example, exceeds $500,000).
This year the WEF and global capitalists have ‘discovered’ income inequality, now accelerating and intensifying worldwide to a dangerous degree, and especially in the US. The dimensions of the inequality problem have grown so severe in recent years it may, they themselves are now warning, result in unwanted ‘social unrest’ in the near future.
Now that it has become an ‘acceptable’ discussion theme, Obama and Democrat party politicians (and a few clever Republicans) have also discovered income inequality. Together they plan to raise the rhetoric on the topic in upcoming midterm and 2016 national elections. Therefore, in Obama’s SOTU speech today we’ll hear some basic facts about the problem, some vague proposals that are never intended get to the earliest legislative stages, and a lot of general talk about how improving ‘opportunity’ is the only answer to reducing inequality—all of which means let’s not do anything significant in the short run but instead focus on very long run solutions like improving childhood education, creating long run opportunities, and other very long term solutions.
The politicians’ new discovery of inequality follows liberal academics discovery of the same in recent years. Well known fellows like Paul Krugman, Robert Reich, Joe Stiglitz, James Galbraith and others have all written their books on the topic in recent years. But they too, like the politicians they support, have been very careful about recommendations for resolving the problem, mostly repeating time-worn, mushy old liberal proposals involving ‘education and opportunity’ once again.
The growing income inequality in the US goes back at least to the late 1970s, accelerating during the 1980s and early 1990s, and then again after 2000 under George W. Bush. It’s grown the worst under Barack Obama, with latest figures showing the wealthiest 1% households accruing for themselves since 2009 nearly all (more than 90%) of all the income gains during the so-called ‘recovery’.
More recent, damning revelations about the extent of growing inequality go back to 2002 at least—long before the politicians and the more well known liberal economists acknowledged it. In 2002 University of California, Berkeley economist, Emmanuel Saez, began publishing his analyses of IRS income data, since all pre-existing sources of income inequality by the government and business more or less obfuscated the true picture. Saez has updated his ground-breaking results periodically ever since. Most of what is reported and published about the income gains of the wealthiest 1% are from his researches.
This writer relied heavily on Saez’s data in his 2004 book, ‘The War At Home: The Corporate Offensive From Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush’, which attempted to identify the various policies since the late 1970s that have been largely responsible for the inequality shift that Saez so well documented in 2002. Saez’s hard data—then and ever since—is irrefutable. However, the political implications behind Saez’s data were not spelled out, except for some suggestions concerning the tax structure.
But Income inequality in the US is no accident. It has conscious, deliberate origins, to be found in the policy initiatives of corporate America since the late 1970s, and the willingness of the politicians Corporate America elects in Congress, Presidents, and at State levels—Democrat and Republican alike—to implement those policy initiatives.
There’s the tax restructuring in favor of the rich and their businesses, the free trade and offshoring, the atrophying of the real minimum wage, the dismantling of real pensions and employer contributions to healthcare, the shift from full time permanent jobs to part time and temp work, the destruction of unions and higher paying union jobs, the displacing of higher paid jobs with technology, substitution of credit for lack of wage growth, failure to invest in the US by corporate America, so on and so on. That’s why jobs, real wages, and incomes for the vast majority of American households has stagnated at best, and declined in real terms for most. That’s why wage earners’ income of the bottom 80% households have contributed to income inequality.
But all that’s still only half the story of income inequality. The other ‘half’ of the story is why the incomes of the 1% have risen so sharply as well. Both their rise, and the stagnation-decline of the bottom 80%, are jointly responsible for the income inequality.
Corporate America and their politicians, and the policies they’ve initiated and implemented, are responsible for the accelerating capital incomes of the rich (1%), very rich (0.1%), and mega-rich (0.01%). And much of that has to do with the enabling of financial asset speculation and financial securities inflation that has been the defining characteristic of the US (and global) economy since at least the 1980s. Reagan unlocked that door. Clinton opened it. And George W. kicked it in. And Obama has done nothing to repair the entry.
Real solutions to income inequality would have to include proposals not only to enable the recovery of incomes of the middle working class, and the working and non-working poor, but would have to include proposals to reign in the runaway income accumulation of the very rich, the mega-rich and their friends. But you won’t hear the latter even suggested in Obama’s SOTU speech. What you’ll hear are token long run proposals to slow the decline in income growth for the working poor perhaps, and a lot of vague suggestions about the middle class.
What the middle class needs is decent jobs and tens of millions of them, just to restore what has been lost in the past 15 years. There are still 20 million unemployed in the US, and more than 5 million more have left the labor force. 60% of the jobs that have been created since 2009 have been low paid, while 58% lost have been high paid. Retirement systems are broken and retirees income for tens of millions are in freefall. Obamacare has meant those with insurance now have to pay more for less. Tens of millions of students are effectively indentured and can’t find jobs. If Obama and his politicians want to do something about income inequality, let’s hear concrete legislative proposals to address these issues now, immediately, in the short run.
It took the Krugmans, Reichs, and Stiglitzes only a decade to ‘discover’ their academic colleague, Saez’s, significant work. Better late than never, I suppose. However none of the liberal economists bother to point the finger at the politicians responsible, especially their Democratic party friends, for the inequality trends. But if anything serious is going to be done about income inequality in the US, it will have to include not only real, short term solutions to raise the incomes of the many but also serious, real measures to take back the excessive income gains of the rich and super-rich as well. For the latter will be necessary to fund and restore decent jobs and wages, to revitalize a crumbling retirement system, to save a collapsing healthcare system, and, yes, even to provide affordable education opportunities for all.
January 28, 2014 Posted by aletho | "Hope and Change", Economics, Supremacism, Social Darwinism | Democratic Party (United States), Economic inequality, Emmanuel Saez, Obama, United States | Leave a comment
The world’s 85 wealthiest people have as much money as the 3.5 billion poorest people on the planet – half the Earth’s population. That’s according to Oxfam’s latest report on the risks of the widening gap between the super-rich and the poor.
The report, titled “Working for the Few,” was released Monday, and was compiled by Oxfam – an international organization looking for solutions against poverty and injustice.
The document focuses on the extent of global economic inequality caused by rapidly increasing wealth of the richest people that poses the threat to the “human progress.”
A total of 210 people became billionaires last year, joining the existing 1,426 billionaires with a combined net worth of $5.4 trillion.
“Instead of moving forward together, people are increasingly separated by economic and political power, inevitably heightening social tensions and increasing the risk of societal breakdown,” the report stated.
Also, according to the Oxfam data, the richest 1 percent of people across the globe have $110 trillion, or 65 times the total wealth of the bottom half of the planet’s population – which effectively “presents significant threat to inclusive political and economic systems.”
“It is staggering that, in the 21st century, half of the world’s population — that’s three and a half billion people — own no more than a tiny elite whose numbers could all fit comfortably on a double-decker bus,” Oxfam chief executive Winnie Byanyima told a news conference.
And the number of the rich is steadily growing: for example, in India the number of billionaires skyrocketed from six to 61 in the past 10 years, and their combined net worth is currently $250 billion.
The report comes ahead of the World Economic Forum in Davos which begins later this week, and urges the world leaders to discuss how to tackle this pressing issue.
Among the solutions presented by Oxfam are measures to avoid tax dodging and using economic wealth to pressure governments, looking for political benefits. Also, the organization calls for “making public all the investments in companies and trusts for which they are the ultimate beneficial owners,” as well as “challenging governments to use tax revenue to provide universal healthcare, education and social protection for citizens.”
Oxfam also said that there are many laws that favor the rich, which were lobbied for in a “power grab” by the world’s wealthiest people.
Since the late 1970s, tax rates for the richest have fallen in 29 out of 30 countries for which data are available, according to Oxfam.
“A survey in six countries (the US, UK, Spain, Brazil, India and South Africa) showed that a majority of people believe that laws are skewed in favor of the rich,” the report said.
For instance, almost 80 percent of the Spanish and the Indians, as well as over 60 per cent of the US and the UK residents, either agree or strongly agree that “the rich have too much influence over where this country is headed.”
I was reading an interview with Adrian Bejan (worth taking a look at), and I got to musing about his comments regarding the relationship between energy use and per capita income. So I pulled up GapMinder, the world’s best online visualization software. Here’s a first cut at the relationship between energy and income.
Figure 1. Energy use per person (tons of oil equivalent, TOE) versus average income, by country. Colors show geographical regions. Size of the circle indicates population. The US is the large yellow circle at the top right. Canada is the overlapping yellow circle. China is the large red circle, India the large light blue circle. Here’s a link to the live Gapminder graph so you can experiment with it yourself.
Clearly, other than a few outliers, the relationship between energy use and income is quite straightforward. You can’t have one without the other. Well, that’s not quite true, you can have energy without income. You can have (relatively) high energy use without having the corresponding income, plenty of Africa is in that boat. But the reverse is not true—you can’t have high income without high energy use. You need the energy to make the income.
Now, James Hansen is the NASA guy who is leading the charge to stop all forms of cheap energy. Coal is bad, terrible stuff in his world. He calls trains of coal “death trains”. He wants to deny cheap energy to all of those folks in the bottom half of the graph above. Well, actually, he wants to deny access to cheap energy to everyone, but where it hurts is the bottom half of the graph. For example, the World Bank and other international funding agencies, at the urging of folks like Hansen, have been turning down loans for coal plants in developing countries.
But as you can see, if you deny energy to those folks, that is the same as denying them development. Because when there’s less energy, there’s less income. The two go hand in hand. So what James Hansen is advising is that we should take money from the poor … actually he wants to deny them cheap energy, but that means denying them income and the development that accompanies it.
A look at the history of some of the countries is instructive in that regard, to see how the income and the energy use have changed over time. Figure 2 shows the history of some selected countries.
Now, this is showing something very interesting. It may reveal why Hansen thinks he’s doing good. Notice that for countries where people make below say $20,000 of annual income, the only way up is up and to the right … which means that the only way to increase income is to increase energy use. Look at India and China and Brazil and Spain and the Netherlands as examples. (Note also that crude birth rate is tied to increasing income, and that the crude birth rate in the US has dropped by about half since 1960.)
Above that annual income level of ~ $20,000, however something different happens. The countries start to substitute increased energy efficiency for increased energy use. This is reflected in the vertical movement of say the US, where the 2011 per capita energy use is exactly the same as the 1968 per capita energy use. And Canada is using the same energy per person as in 1977 … so let’s take a closer look at the upper right section of the chart. Figure 3 shows an enlargement of just the top right of the chart, displaying more countries.
Now, this is interesting. Many, perhaps most of these countries show vertical or near vertical movement during the last twenty years or so. And the recent economic crash has caused people to be more conservative about energy use, squeezing more dollars out per ton of oil equivalent.
But that only happens up at the high end of the income spectrum, where people are making above about twenty or even twenty-five thousand dollars per year. You need to have really good technology to make that one work, to produce more income without using more energy. You need to be in what is called a “developed” nation.
When people think “development”, they often think “bulldozers”. But they should think “energy efficiency”, because that is the hallmark of each technological advance—it squeezes more stuff out of less energy. But you have to be in an industrialized, modern society to take advantage of that opportunity.
So this may be the reason for Hansen’s attitude toward energy use. He may not know that most of the world is not in the situation of the US. This may be the reason the he claims that we should curtail energy use by all means possible. He may not see that while the US and industrialized countries can get away with that, in part because we waste a lot of energy and have a lot of both money and technology, the poor and even the less well off of the world have little energy or money to waste.
For those poorer countries and individuals, which make up the overwhelming bulk of the world’s population, a reduction in energy use means a reduction in the standard of living. And the part Hansen and his adherents don’t seem to get is that for most of the world, the standard of living is “barely” … as in barely making ends meet.
As is usual in this world, the situation of the rich and the poor is different, and in this case the break line is high. Twenty grand of income per year is the line dividing those who can take advantage of technology to get more income with the same energy, and the rest, which is most of the world. Most of the world are still among those who must use more energy to increase their income. They don’t have the option the US and the developed nations have. They must increase energy use to increase income.
And when you start jacking up energy prices and discouraging the use of cheap energy sources around the planet, as Hansen and his adherents are doing, the poorest of the poor get shafted. James Hansen is making lots and lots of money. He’s comfortably in the top 1% of the world’s population by income, and he obviously doesn’t give much thought to the rest. We know this because if he thought about the poor he’d realize that while he is mouthing platitudes about how he’s doing his agitation and advocacy for his grandchildren’s world in fifty years, what he’s doing is shafting the poor today in the name of his grandchildren. Of course Hansen is not the first rich white guy to do that, so I suppose I really shouldn’t be surprised, but still …
Increased energy prices, often in the form of taxes and “cap-and-trade” and “renewable standards”, are THE WORLDS MOST REGRESSIVE TAX. Hansen proposes taxing the living daylights out of the poor, but he won’t feel the pain. He can stand a doubling of the gas prices, no problem. But when electricity and gas prices double around the planet, POOR PEOPLE DIE … and Hansen just keeps rolling, he has quarter-million-dollar awards from his friends and a fat government salary and a princely retirement pension you and I paid for, he could care less about increased energy prices. He’s one of the 1%, why should he pay attention to the poor?
Forgive the shouting, but the damn hypocrisy is infuriating, and I’m sick of being nice about it. James Hansen and Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt and Phil Jones and Peter Gleick and the rest of the un-indicted co-conspirators are a bunch of rich arrogant 1%er jerkwagons who don’t care in the slightest about the poor. Not only that, but they’ve given the finger to the rest of the climate scientists and to the scientific establishment, most of whom have said nothing in protest, and far too many of whom have approved of their malfeasance.
Their patented combination of insolent arrogance and shabby science would be bad enough if that was all they were doing … but they are hurting poor people right now. Their policies are causing harder times for the poor today, as we speak … and they mouth platitudes about how they are saving the poor from some danger they won’t see for fifty years?
If you ask the poor whether they’d rather get shafted for sure today, or possibly get shafted in fifty years, I know what they’d tell you. To me, hurting the poor today under the rubric of saving them in half a century from an unsubstantiated and fanciful danger is moral dishonesty of the first order.
So let me say to all of you folks who claim the world is using too much energy, you have the stick by the wrong end. The world needs to use MORE energy, not less, because there is no other way to get the poor out of poverty. It can’t be done without cheap energy. We need to use more energy to lift people out of bone-crushing poverty, not use less and condemn them to brutal lives. And to do that, energy needs to be cheaper, not more expensive.
Let me be crystal clear, and speak directly to Hansen and other global warming alarmists. Any one of you who pushes for more expensive energy is hurting and impoverishing and killing the poor today. Whether through taxes or cap-and-trade or renewable subsidies or blocking drilling or any other way, increasing energy costs represent a highly regressive tax of the worst kind. And there is no escape at the bottom end, quite the opposite. The poorer you are, the harder it bites.
So please, don’t give us the holier-than-thou high moral ground stance. Spare us the “we’re noble because we are saving the world” BS. When a poor single mother of three living outside Las Vegas has her gas costs double, she has little choice other than to cut out some other essential item, food or doctor visits or whatever … because her budget doesn’t have any of the non-essential items that James Hansen’s budget contains, and she needs the gas to get to work, that’s not optional.
For her, all her money goes to essentials— so if gas costs go up, her kids get less of what they need. You’re not saving the world, far from it. You’re taking food out of kids’ mouths.
You are causing pain and suffering to the poor and acting like your excrement has no odor … but at least there is some good news. People are no longer buying your story. People are realizing that if someone argues for expensive energy, they are anti-human, anti-development, and most of all, without compassion for the poor. They are willing to put the most damaging, regressive, destructive tax imaginable on the poorest people of the planet.
Now those of you advocating for higher energy prices, after reading this, you might still fool the media about what you are doing to the poor. And it’s possible for you to not mention to your co-workers about the real results of your actions. And you could still deceive your friends about the question of the poor, or even your wife or husband.
But by god, you can no longer fool yourself about it. As of now, you know that agitating for more expensive energy for any reason hurts the poor. What you do with that information is up to you … but you can’t ignore it, it will haunt you at 3 AM, and hopefully, it will make you think about the less fortunate folk of our planet and seriously reconsider your actions. Because here’s the deal. Even if CO2 will damage the poor in 50 years, hurting the poor now only makes it worse. If you think there is a problem, then look for a no-regrets solution.
Because if you truly care about the poor, and you are afraid CO2 will increase the bad weather and harm the poor fifty years from now, you owe it to them to find a different response to your fears of CO2, a response that doesn’t hurt the poor today.
January 7, 2014 Posted by aletho | Economics, Environmentalism, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Science and Pseudo-Science, Supremacism, Social Darwinism | James Hansen, World Bank | Leave a comment
Although Israeli law considers racial incitement illegal, the Israeli media consistently provides a platform for extremists who commit racial incitement against groups that Israelis perceive as an “enemy,” especially the Palestinian people.
Based on the results of monitoring the mainstream Israeli media (secular and religious), conducted over two years, this article addresses the most prominent cases of racial incitement against Arabs and Muslims, justified by biblical texts and fake historical facts. Every day, the Israeli public is exposed to ideas in the media which influence their perceptions of Arabs and Muslims and solidify existing negative views.
Attributing the Arab-Israeli conflict to religious-historical roots
The trend of viewing the conflict through a religious lens revives, reproduces and distributes religious myths of a perpetual conflict between two sides: one symbolizes “good” and the other “evil”. The superior side faces an enemy haunted by inferiority, motivated by envy and jealousy, and driven by a deep wish for revenge.
Explaining political and sometimes tragic incidents in such terms has become part of the Israeli political culture, as expressed in the following quote: “Incapability, frustration, and a sub-conscious sense of inferiority towards Jews have deeply affected all Muslims, turning them slowly into maniacs. It is the war of Ismail against Isaac. It is a war until the elimination of the last Jew” (Yaakov Schoenfeld, published on March 30, 2012 in Hamodia, defined as “the daily newspaper of Torah Jewry”).
In an article by Ariel Kahana, published in a newspaper called Makor Rishon on March 14, 2011, we read: “This is what history has shown us, Murder is an innate feature of the Arab people, at least since their path crossed with the path of the Jewish people. This is their character. Jews behave according to ‘one hand raises the message and the other works’, the Arabs react out of ‘will be a brutal man’. This is their character, these are their traits”.
Many authors call the Arabs “Ismaelites” when they want to express contempt, as we see in an article by Avi Bentov: “So, these are the Ismaelites, the brutal, the bloodthirsty, worse than animals of a forest, some who eat and some who get eaten. One animal kills the other when it is hungry and also to feed its offspring. Animals don’t kill humans without reason, but Arabs do, as they live on the ruins of their victims, the knife in their left hand. They are stupid, and their hands are soiled with the blood of our beloved” (published on the Kikar Hashabat website on March 27, 2011).
Another article by A. Yizhaki, responding to the assassination of the Arab-Jewish movie director Juliano Mer-Kamis in Jenin, stated: “In recent years, the director Juliano Mer-Khamis met his calling in the Jenin refugee camp. He went to live there and worked to develop Palestinian ‘culture,’ believing it is possible to ‘educate’ the descendants of people the Torah describes as ‘wild.’ Reactions from leftist Jews prove that they do not know the truth about the character of their subjects in Ismail’s camp. The Palestinian culture of killing, or generally speaking, the Arab culture of killing, strikes very deep. It is so deeply rooted that the Israeli left is not capable of perceiving it as a serious matter” (published in Yated Nee’man on November 4, 2011).
Racism and incitement in the Israeli media are not only directed towards Arabs but also at Muslims. The Israeli media demonizes Islam, falsifies historical facts, and takes verses from the Qur’an out of context.
For instance, in addressing the case of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, Dr. Reuven Barco claims that the conduct of Hamas is affected by the “low morals” of the prophet Mohammad: “In addition to a… heritage of violence, the bearded Hamasnics of Gaza, in their operations against Israel, apply two main lessons of the failed siege which Mohammad conducted against Taeif, the city of the ‘infidels’. He threw huge stones, injuring civilians, women and children without discrimination”. (Published in the daily newspaper Yesrael Hayom on October 19, 2011)
On March 22, 2012, the newspaper Hamodia published an article by M. Shalom, saying: “The world knows how to shut up and ignore when the Jews in Israel defend themselves against those products of Islam, the brutal anti-Semites with their insatiable hunger for terror. Worse still, this world condemns the Jews when so-called ‘innocents’ get killed and the Jews are trying to defend themselves.”
Another report in the same newspaper says: “Islamic terrorists are running a global war. Throughout our painful, bloody history, Jewish children were at the top of the killers’ list. Today Arabs and Muslim carry the cross of this bloody campaign”.
A website called News1 published an article by Yehuda Drori on January 29, 2012, describing Islam as the “devil’s religion.” Drori wrote: “Some people might disagree with my view of Islam as a violent, bloody religion. In order to read about a loving and peaceful Islam, those who disagree have to look towards tolerant academics living in the West, but we know Islam better than them! I can understand how difficult it is for a leftist to adjust his attitude and accept the awful truth: There are no ‘good’ Muslims. The only goal for Arabs, here at least, is to eliminate us. They constantly promote this idea in their media with non-stop incitement against us. Islam is the devil’s religion”.
The superiority of Jews and inferiority of Arabs
The theory of a “super race” descending from Isaac – as opposed to an “inferior race” descending from Ismail – is usually accompanied by the theory of the Jews as “God’s chosen people” and their religious superiority over the “gentiles.” Numerous Israeli writers are convinced that Jews are a “chosen people,” superior to non-Jews religiously and culturally.
In Yesrael Hayom on October 19, 2011, Reuven Barco confirms the racial superiority of Jews over Arabs – the latter of whom he calls “the strain of Hagar the slave” – and the religious superiority of the “chosen people”. He writes: “the Palestinian prisoners go on a hunger strike with an incredible sense of insolence; they demand rights to welfare, education, food, visits from family members, and watching media. This proves that somewhere in the back of the Palestinian’s brain is an implicit recognition of Jewish superiority. They are right; there is a substantial difference between the Jews and the Palestinian Islamists. We are not only talking about Jewish accomplishments in science and the Nobel Prizes won by the chosen people; we are basically talking about Jews who value life compared to the death industry produced by the Islamists”.
Racism and incitement
The Israeli media carelessly express extremely racist insults towards Islamic culture, and won’t allow facts to melt their entrenched stereotypes. One example is found in Yated Nee’man on March 26, 2012: “As a rule, the Islamic culture thoroughly suppresses citizens’ rights wherever they live. It is a culture of terror, racism, humiliation and suppression. Whoever tries to speak up is immediately decapitated”.
In the editorial of the same newspaper, on March 25, 2012, we read: “It is also true that many immigrant Muslims have managed to integrate into their new countries, but those who cling to an ideology that wishes to conquer the whole world and put it under the shoes of Mohammad’s destructive religion, are definitely not a minority”.
In another article written by M. Shalom, we read: “Lying and deception are the most prominent characteristic of the Arabs. They are firmly rooted in Mohammad’s religion. The Quraysh Covenant proves that deception is allowed – and even required – on the way to defeating the enemy and accomplishing goals”. (Hamodia, May 30, 2011)
It is considered “racist” to oppose occupation and demand that Israel withdraw from the occupied territories. On December 15, 2010, Professor Hillel Weis wrote in the religious newspaper Makor Rishoan that “Islam turned out to be a boot trampling on Europe. European leaders demand that Israel evacuate form Jerusalem. That’s racism! Those who invented the term ‘racism’ have adopted it.”
On June 22, 2012, Yaakov Schoenfeld published an article in Hamodia in which he says, “This animal-like thirst for blood drives Muslims crazy. It seems that Muslims are frustrated, attempting suicide and taking the whole world down with them. It seems that history has never witnessed the sort of madness that Islam is exhibiting, as a religion of killing and destruction”.
Racial incitement is not absent from the secular Israeli media. As we pointed out earlier by referring to the News1 website, we now look to Ha’aretz, a paper known for its liberal and leftist views. In an article published on March 17, 2012, the journalist Yisrael Harel wrote: “Those who believe that peace is possible and that the Palestinians are partners should be the first to tell the truth about Palestinian incitement. It’s not possible to prove a direct relationship between the killings in Itamar and daily incitement. The reasons are deeper. Over the years whole villages have been slaughtered in Algeria – about 300,000 victims – and thousands of infant throats slit. In Darfur, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere in the Muslim world, people have been massacred. These killings are the outcome of a murderous character, not the incitement led to them”.
Severe cases of racism also exist, such as the words of the right-wing radio broadcaster Avery Gila’ad. On June 12, 2012 he said: “we don’t want to forget that those who are knocking on our doors are followers of Islam, and that Islam is a disease rampant in the world. The fact that Islam dominates the world and we see it everywhere, and in light of Muslims’ wish to impose their thoughts and beliefs, we must be careful in managing our lives”. (From Gila’ad’s program “The Last Word,” broadcasted on Galle Zahal, the radio of the Israeli army).
Following this incident, which aroused much anger, protesters took to the streets, and a complaint was filed with to the government attorney general. Unfortunately, as usual, none of these actions resulted in any changes.
It seems that the Israeli media holds a world view which divides humanity into two parts. The first is the Jews, the descendants of Isaac – who are considered superior religiously and ethnically – and the second part comprises the “terrorist” Muslims and the “brutal” Arabs, the descendants of Ismail.
This supposed “religious-ethnic superiority” is merely an attempt to legitimize the Israeli occupation and the crimes committed against the Palestinian people. Legitimization occurs by dehumanizing and demonizing the “enemy.” Those who emphasize a demonic image of Islam are attempting to justify the Western wars against Muslim and Arab countries under the pretext of battling the so-called “global Islamic jihad.”
Thus while reading an Israeli newspaper, it is common to find a piece of racial incitement against Arabs and Muslims, and below it, another piece criticizing alleged racism and anti-Semitism among the same Arabs and Muslims who are exposed to systematic racial incitement.
This article was originally published in Arabic in Sijal, a journal produced by the I’lam Center for Arab Palestinians in Israel.
January 2, 2014 Posted by aletho | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Islamophobia, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Supremacism, Social Darwinism, Timeless or most popular | Israel, Zionism | Leave a comment
Contrary to popular opinion, the most important criteria for admission to the Ivy League is not grades, nor SAT scores, nor recommendations, or even essays. The most important criteria is actually race/religion. By claiming to be Jewish, an applicant can increase his chances of admission by up to 15 fold.
While Jewish students comprise only 2% of the American population, they account for 12-15% of the student bodies at Dartmouth, Princeton, and Cornell. And more than 25% of the student bodies of Brown, Columbia and Yale; shockingly, more than 30% of the students at the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard, are Jewish. The Ivy League, the breeding ground of future leaders, has between 6-15 times Jewish over-representation. Most other top American schools have similar Jewish over-representation as well.
Theoretically, these lopsided admissions statistics could be explained by a number of factors other than racial/religious discrimination in admissions, such as: A higher value for education among Jewish families, or even superior intellect and abilities. Setting aside the fact that these same elite universities claim that there are no differences in racial intelligence, if one were to accept the research of racial intelligence academics such as Richard Lynn and account for supposed differences in racial intelligence, the ratio of non-Jewish whites to Jews is still astronomically lower than it should be. Accounting for the supposed superior Jewish intelligence, non-Jewish white students should have representation of around 7 to 1 to Jewish students, rather than the current ratio of 2:1 and in some cases 1:1. When sheer ability and qualifications are factored in, Jews are still 1,000% overrepresented. In fact, when it was discovered that Princeton was not favoring Jews in admissions to the extreme that other Ivy League universities were, four front page articles were written in the Daily Princetonian as well as a New York Times article to address the “problem”. In one article, a rabbi leading the campaign to ensure maximum Jewish over representation was quoted as saying she, “would love to see 20%” Jewish students, which would be a ten times over-representation to their percentage of the population.
If the over-representation of Jewish students in the Ivy League has little to do with credentials or intelligence, how can we explain the racial disparity? It just so happens that most of the top administrators in the Ivy League are Jewish, and this is likely impacting the admissions process. The following list of names was constructed about two years ago, so some of the administrators may have retired or moved to other roles, but it is unlikely that the overall statistics have changed much. On a side note, these statistics are similar at most top schools in America.
Brown’s Chancelor, Thomas Tisch and Provost, David Kertzer are Jewish.
Lee Bollinger, President of Columbia, is Jewish.
The President of Cornell, David Skorton and the Provost Kent Fuchs are Jewish.
Chairmen of the Board of Trustees of Dartmouth, Stephen Madel Jr. is Jewish. And so is the Provost, Carol Folt.
The President of Harvard: Drew Faust is married to a Jew: Charles Rosenberg.
The provost of Harvard, Steven Hymen, is Jewish.
The President of Princeton Shirley Tilghman is married to a Jew named Jospeh Tilghman.
Chairmen of the Board of Princeton Stephen Oxman is Jewish and so is the Provost Christopher Eisgruber.
The President of UPenn, Amy Gutmann, is Jewish and Vincent Price, the provost, is also Jewish.
The Chairmen of the Board of UPenn David Cohen is Jewish.
Yale President Richard Levin is Jewish and so is the Provost Peter Salovey.
About 80% of the senior officials in the Ivy League are Jewish or married to Jews; And these Jewish administrators are accepting Jewish students at a ridiculously overrepresented rate, while simultaneously claiming to push diversity on campus. How can there be diversity when a minority group that represents 2% of the population is taking between 12-35% of the places?
When applying to the Ivy League, either claim to be Jewish or married to a Jewish person, or strongly infer that you are Jewish or contemplating converting to Judaism.
- The Myth of American Meritocracy
- Unz on Meritocracy: The Yale Debate and Surname Analysis
- Meritocracy: Response to Prof. Gelman on Jewish Elite Overrepresentation
December 31, 2013 Posted by aletho | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Supremacism, Social Darwinism, Timeless or most popular | Amy Gutmann, Ivy League, Judaism, Lee Bollinger, United States, University of Pennsylvania | 1 Comment
Dov Lior, a popular chief rabbi in Israel, recently called Obama a Kushi, which is Israel’s equivalent to nig*er. Most Americans are completely unaware of the general contempt that many Jewish people have towards blacks, as Max Blumenthal found out when he interviewed dozens of young people in Israel who reiterated the Rabbi’s sentiments about Obama. Blumenthal’s video titled Feeling the Hate in Israel was removed from YouTube, Vimeo, and the Huffington Post shortly after going viral.
In order to understand the nature of this hatred we need to understand the historical context, which dates back hundreds of years. Although Jews were just a tiny percentage of the European population, they dominated the African slave trade. Jewish historians were so proud of this accomplishment that they bragged endlessly about their involvement and dominance of the industry in their historical texts. In Jews and Judaism in the United States: A Documentary History, prominent Jewish Historian Marc Raphael wrote “Jewish merchants played a major role in the slave trade. In fact, in all the American colonies, whether French, British, or Dutch, Jewish merchants frequently dominated. This was no less true on the North American mainland, where during the eighteenth century Jews participated in the triangular slave trade that brought slaves from Africa to the West Indies and there exchanged them for molasses….”
Jewish historical records show that Jewish involvement in the North American slave trade was so dominant that slave posts were frequently closed on Jewish holidays. Arnold Wiznitzer, a Jewish historian, wrote, “the buyers who appeared at the auctions were almost always Jews, and because of their lack of competitors they could buy slaves at low prices. If it happened that the date of such an auction fell on a Jewish holiday the auction had to be postponed” In The United States Jewry 1776-1985 Jacob Marcus wrote, “all through the eighteenth century, into the early nineteenth century, Jews in the North were to own black servants. In 1820 over 75% of all Jewish families in Charleston, Richmond, and Savannah owned slaves. Almost 40% of all Jewish householders in the United States owned one slave or more.” In the South, which had a much higher ratio of slave ownership than the North, only 5% of white people owned slaves.
White Europeans would have ended the morally corrupt practice of slavery in North America much sooner if it weren’t for powerful Jewish businessmen lobbying to keep their profitable industry alive. As Rabbi and historian, Bertram Korn said, “many Southern Jews believed slavery to be indispensable to their happiness and security. “The road to social and economic advancement and acceptance [for the Jews] was made easier by the institution of slavery.”
The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan discovered these facts and published the book: The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, which quotes Jewish historical records such as the aforementioned to prove the case. The Anti-Defamation League, mainstream media, and many other Jewish American organizations slandered Farrakhan for publishing the book, even calling him anti-Semitic for merely assembling a collection of Jewish historical records.
This racism has not abated in recent times unfortunately. For example, when black African Jews returned to Israel in 1969 under the Right of Return Act, the government ruled that they were not real Jews and therefore did not qualify for citizenship or any legal status. The black Hebrews were also denied state benefits and work permits. It wasn’t until 2003 that black Hebrews were granted permanent residency, but not the automatic citizenship granted to all other races returning on the exact same provision. If it wasn’t for a group of Americans who shamed the Israeli government into granting black African Jews some legal status, they would probably never have received it. To this day black Jews are still not accepted by the Jewish community in Israel. Racial slurs, insults, and discrimination in housing rentals are commonplace. This treatment has reached such an unbearable level that Ethiopan Jews have taken to the streets to protest. In response, Sofa Landver, the Israeli Immigrant Absorption Minister, smugly replied that they should be grateful for all that Israel has done for them. This is reminiscent of white supremacist rhetoric in the America, which claims that Africans should be grateful their ancestors were brought to America. Israel was clearly created under the premise of future safety for all Jews, not just white European Jews. Therefore, black African Jews should have the same rights and entitlements to Israel as any other Jews.
The Israeli government has even been caught attempting to sterilize Ehtiopan Jews by giving them the controversial birth control, Depo-Provera, without warning them of the potential side effects. Ethiopian Jews are less than 1% of Israel’s population, but yet account for 60% of the women on Depo-Provera. The side effects are quite severe, including pain in the hands and back, heavy bleeding, and in some cases permanent sterilization. Around 10% of the women taking this drug develop substantial side effects. In 2004, the FDA warned against the dangers of the drugs. Unfortunately, many Ethiopan Jews fear being deported if they speak up about these types of human rights abuses.
In an effort to “preserve the Jewish character of the country,” Israel now plans on deporting immigrant workers and their children; even in cases where the children were born in Israel, speak Hebrew, and have spent their entire lives as Israeli residents. In 2012, massive riots broke out in Israel protesting the presence of African refugees. The crime rates of African refugees were half the rate of the Jewish population in Israel, yet the local population claimed to live in fear of the black immigrants. A member of the Jewish Knesset (Parliament) name Miri Regev said that the Africans are “a cancer in the body.” The Jewish Interior Minister said Israel, “belongs to the white man.” A survey of Jewish Israelis by the Israeli Democracy Institute found that a majority of Israelis agreed with Mr. Regev, and 33% supported anti-African violence against the refugees.
Israeli racism is so great that when the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) took a poll in 2007 they found that 66% of Israeli teens believe Arabs are less intelligent, uncultured, and violent. Fifty percent of the Israelis taking the poll said they would not share an apartment with an Arab, befriend an Arab or let their kids befriend Arabs, or even let Arabs into their homes. A poll taken by the ACRI in 2008 found that these trends were increasing. Another poll taken in 2007 by the Center Against Racism found that 75% of Israeli Jews did not approve of Jews living in the same apartment buildings as Arabs, and that more than 50% of Jews would not have an Arab boss and thought that marrying an Arab was tantamount to national treason. Fifty percent of Israelis also thought Arabs should not be allowed in the same entertainment sites and 40% wanted Arab’s voting rights rescinded. Yuval Diskin, the former head of the Israeli Security Agency (Shin Bet), recently admitted that Israel has become “more and more racist.”
Now imagine how much higher those percentages would have been if they were asked about black people. In Israel, it is against the law for a gentile to marry a Jew, which is presumably directed at preventing black immigrants and Arabs from marrying white Jews. Amnesty International has condemned their marriage policy as discriminatory.
Sheldon Adelson’s newspaper, Israel Hayom, recently published a column which stated, “It is not uncommon to see 13 or 14-year-old girls dating members of ethnic minorities…. You see them sitting together on street benches and out on the town. Dating a member of an ethnic minority no longer carries a stigma. They come along with money, a car, buying her things that her parents can’t give her, spoiling her. There are a million stories like this around here. ”There are enough statistics on exploitation, seduction and coercion of young girls, but when it comes to ‘members of ethnic minorities’ – shhh! Don’t awaken the beast, or you might be considered a racist. The words ‘danger of assimilation’ are also kept out of our clean and enlightened lexicon.”
In a 2012 ynet article, a Jewish journalist claimed that she spent 15 of the most terrifying minutes of her life because lots of African refugees were around. She said that Tel Aviv was turning into the Harlem of the 80′s, and therefore black people should be deported from Israel.
In 2010, the leader of the Sephardic community and founder of the Shas party, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, stated that the sole purpose of non-Jews was to serve Jews. He also said in a television interview that “gentiles need to die… goyim have no place in this world.” Many of the top Israeli Rabbis issued a religious edict saying, “a thousand non-Jewish lives are not worth a Jew’s fingernail.”
Even though Israel takes a great deal of money from US in terms of direct foreign aid, “scrapped” military equipment that is really worth billions, one-sided contracts, and even charitable donations from Jews and Christians, according to Official Direct Assistance (ODA) Israel is one of the stingiest developed countries in the world. Israel is one of the richest countries on the planet with more than 10,000 millionaires, but gives nearly 10 times less than the world average and gives the 4th least of any developed nation per capita, only barely beating out much poorer countries like Poland, Hungary, and Turkey. So while Israel took in $3 billion from America in direct aid and tens of billions in the other aid measures mentioned above, they only gave $141 million in foreign aid to nations in need of assistance in 2010. While Bill Gates and Warren Buffet were pledging billions to Africa, the 40% of American billionaires who are Jewish, focused their charitable contributions on Jewish causes, which arguably need the money the least.
Unfortunately, Jewish Americans seem to have mimicked their Israeli counterparts’ prejudice. In 1993, San Francisco newspapers broke a story that the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, which has close ties to Israel, was supporting South African apartheid by paying police officers for confidential information, illegally wire-tapping phones, and even dumpster diving to acquire private information on anti-apartheid activists. The Anti-Defamation League later sold the information to the South African government.
The American media, which is predominately controlled by Jewish Americans (see this article for the names, pictures and titles, to prove this fact), spends a ridiculous amount of airtime focusing on racial strife in America in order to cause a divide between blacks and whites. The truth of the matter is that there is very little inequality between whites and blacks when Jewish people are subtracted from the white column. Although Jewish people represent only 2% of the American population, they comprise 33% of the Supreme Court, 12-35% of the Ivy League student population and nearly 80% of the top administrative positions, 64% of the Federal Reserve including the top two spots, 13% of the Senate, 6.5% of the House of Representatives, and the top positions of the IRS and SEC. In addition, 10.25% of America’s millionaires, 36% of America’s billionaires, and 45% of Forbes’ 40 richest Americans are Jewish. Given these figures, it is statistically impossible for white gentiles to be over-represented in many of these positions. What is really taking place is that Jewish tribalism and nepotism keeps black people from positions of power and influence, but uses their media to blame the inequality on white racism.
The American media also spends vast amounts of airtime on Israel and Middle East, but little to no airtime on Africa, even though America has just as much strategic and humanitarian interest in the continent. America gets more oil from Nigeria than Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Libya, and Iran combined. The media has fooled the American people into believing that they get their oil from the Middle East so they continually intercede on Israel’s behalf. The reality is that America produces half of its own oil and gets the vast majority of the rest from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, and Nigeria. And given the history, Americans certainly owe much more to Africa than to Israel and the greater Middle East. Miraculously the Jewish controlled media ignored the Rwandan genocide, which killed nearly one million Africans; most likely because they didn’t care about the black people they once enslaved and didn’t want to take away from the sympathy of the Jewish holocaust. There are dozens of Jewish lobbies in America that have secured vast aid to the Middle East, but there are no Jewish lobbies for black African countries.
Even to this day the Jewish community is yet to apologize or acknowledge any role in the African slave trade. In fact, they even deny it, and crucify anyone who discusses it, which is similar one would think to holocaust denial. The denial of Jewish involvement in the slave trade, considering all the Jewish documentation, is equally as preposterous as denying the Jewish holocaust.
Update: In 2012, Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai deported hundreds of black families from Israel to Sudan for not being Jewish, despite universal opposition from human rights groups. Many of the deported children had been born and raised in Israel and spoke fluent Hebrew. The Israeli government decided not to ship the deportees’ belongings with them back to Sudan, and instead left the refugees’ possessions to sit around in a warehouse for months while Israeli immigration officials were reported to have stolen what few valuable possessions were contained within. A week after the deportation, many of the refugee children began to die due to disease, in large part because their medicine was held back with their luggage in Israel.
NY Police Chief Kelly Taking $1.5 Million Worth Of Publicly-Funded Bodyguards With Him When He Retires
New York City Police Chief Ray Kelly has spent years defending the harassment of minorities via the PD’s stop-and-frisk program. Kelly (and Mayor Bloomberg) have constantly pointed to the decline in violent crime stats as evidence the program works (and as justification for its unconstitutional aspects).
But the city must not be safe enough. Ray Kelly’s retiring, but he won’t be doing it unaccompanied. According to police sources, Kelly will be taking a small battalion of personal bodyguards with him wherever he goes, post-employment.
The NYPD’s Intelligence Division — with Kelly’s input — is recommending that Kelly take with him a 10-officer complement of taxpayer-funded bodyguards, up from the six-officer detail the commissioner had wanted last month.
The detail will now include a lieutenant, three sergeants and six detectives to chauffeur and protect Kelly and his family around-the-clock in the Big Apple and even out of town after he ends his 12-year run atop Police Headquarters — at an estimated cost of more than $1.5 million a year, sources estimate.
This does seem excessive, especially considering Kelly will be retiring far from the mean streets, not heading to prison. In fact, he doesn’t personally put people behind bars, so it’s not as though he’d be much more than a symbolic target in the big house.
On the other hand, spending a decade deploying (and championing) a questionable program that gives NYPD officers the right to stop anyone (almost exclusively minorities) for any reason didn’t exactly make Kelly a whole lot of friends. If an investigator was to ask whether anyone had a motive for doing something horrible to ex-Chief Kelly, the list of suspects would probably rival the New York City phone book.
But that’s also an abstraction. The streets won’t be less safe once Kelly steps down. They’ll be roughly the same as they are now. Unless Kelly’s already traveling with an armed entourage, there’s really no reason he’d be less safe once retired. If anything, no longer being the figurehead of the NYPD should make him safer.
Supposedly, the Intelligence Division has some solid reasoning backing up this decision. According to information dug up by Matt Sledge at HuffPo, Ray Kelly has every reason to fear for his life.
[T]his May 17 declaration from Deputy Commissioner David Cohen in one of the NYPD surveillance lawsuits may provide some insight on the perceived threats to Kelly’s safety.
After the officers who shot Sean Bell were acquitted, Cohen wrote, surveillance was ramped up citywide “in response to the possibility of unlawful activity and allowed for informed decision-making on the likelihood of violence or other unlawful activity, as well as resource deployment decisions.”
“The shooting and subsequent trial sparked demonstrations across New York City and widespread threats of violence against members of the NYPD, including Police Commissioner Kelly, who was the target of a murder plot motivated by the Sean Bell matter,” Cohen wrote.
Frightening, except for the fact that Kelly’s stalking death threat came in the form of a person not much suited for stalking/death-dealing. (Nor was he in the position to front the $65,000 needed to send a more able-bodied person to do the job.)
Sounds pretty serious. Until you learn who was behind the 2007 “plot”: a 400-pound, imprisoned, impoverished wheelchair-bound “mentally ill” man with a rap sheet the length of your arm.
As it stands now, Kelly will leave office with more bodyguards than any previous police chief since Howard Safir’s retirement in 2000. Safir took 12 bodyguards with him, citing “vague threats.” (Presumably, the same “vague threats” law enforcement and security agencies have used to weaken policies and expand power over the past decade-plus…) Not only that, but he’ll be one of the few allowing the city to pick up the tab for post-career protective services.
True, this $1.5 million will be a drop in the bucket considering the size of NYC’s budget, but considering the fact that Ray Kelly seems intent on making himself the sort of example other police chiefs shouldn’t follow post-retirement, this should probably be opposed on sheer principle. Or, at the very least, his request should be trimmed down to a more reasonable number of bodyguards.
If Kelly’s made an enemy of the people, there’s really no one else he can point the finger at. If this means he’ll be living in fear for the rest of his retirement, maybe he’ll develop a bit of empathy for the thousands of minority citizens who have been harassed repeatedly over the last decade under the color of law.
December 10, 2013 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Subjugation - Torture, Supremacism, Social Darwinism | Michael Bloomberg, New York City, New York City Police Department, NYPD, Raymond Kelly | Leave a comment
or go to
From the Archives
17/04/2010 — reham alhelsi
On a beautiful March day, I was on the way to school in Jerusalem when the bus I was in was stopped at Ras Il-Amoud. The soldiers got into the bus, told everyone to get out and told the bus driver to turn and go back from where it came. Some passengers started arguing with the soldiers, explaining they had jobs or classes to go to, but the soldiers didn’t want to know about that and started shouting and beating those present with their clubs, including me. We were school children and were not a threat to armed soldiers, nevertheless a number of us were arrested for daring to tell the soldiers to stop beating us. We were handcuffed and loaded into military jeeps. On the way, we were forced to bend our heads down the whole trip and the only thing I could see were the boots of the soldiers.
When the jeep finally stopped, we were ordered by the soldiers to step down and as I looked around me I realized we were in a military camp. The soldiers told us then to stand in a certain place, turn our backs to them and kneel on the ground. We were still handcuffed. … continue
Aletho News Exclusive Content
This article will examine some of the connections between the US and UK National Security apparatus and the appearance of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory beginning after the accident at Three Mile Island. … continue
Also by Aletho News:
September 19, 2011
March 8, 2011
January 2, 2011
October 10, 2010
July 5, 2010
February 25, 2010
February 7, 2010
January 5, 2010
December 26, 2009
December 19, 2009
December 4, 2009
May 9, 2009
- Riyadh puts ISIS, al-Nusra Front, Muslim Brotherhood, and Houthis on list of terrorist organizations March 8, 2014
- Israeli forces attack West Bank women's day march March 8, 2014
- Rockets strike near East Lebanon hospital March 8, 2014
- Rouhani calls on judiciary to stop shutting down newspapers March 8, 2014
- Syria: Jihadist factions close to civil war March 8, 2014
- Free Syrian Army confirms new chief March 8, 2014
- Bomb injures one at Cairo tram station March 8, 2014
- Will the Saudis get Aoun into Baabda? March 8, 2014
- Libya threatens to bomb North Korean tanker at rebel-held port March 8, 2014
- Kidnappers free son of Lebanese businessman March 8, 2014
- Nabi Saleh honors Muataz Washaha March 8, 2014
- Roadblocks March 7, 2014
- ‘I can’t give you information about your health, it’s a security matter’ March 7, 2014
- Recommended book: The New Extractivism February 28, 2014
Categories"Hope and Change" Aletho News Civil Liberties Corruption Deception Economics Environmentalism Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism False Flag Terrorism Full Spectrum Dominance Illegal Occupation Islamophobia Mainstream Media, Warmongering Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity Militarism Nuclear Power Science and Pseudo-Science Solidarity and Activism Subjugation - Torture Supremacism, Social Darwinism Timeless or most popular Video War Crimes Wars for Israel
Looking for something?
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word "alleged" is deemed to occur before the word "fraud." Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting email@example.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Visits Since December 2009
- 1,681,389 hits
Contact:atheonews (at) gmail.com
- ABORIGINAL JUSTICE: Listening for the voices of missing and murdered Indigenous women March 8, 2014
- Decades Later, No Justice for Kent State Killings March 8, 2014
- CIA: We Only Spied On Senate Intelligence Committee Because They Took Classified Documents That Prove We’re Liars March 8, 2014
- Netanyahu: I did not commit to freeze settlement construction March 8, 2014
- Israel denies EU request to meet with Palestinian prisoners: report March 8, 2014
- US warship in Black Sea as Ukraine’s Crimea readies for referendum March 8, 2014
- Who will threatened sanctions hit most? US-EU-Russia trade in numbers March 8, 2014
- Bringing SOPA to the Trans-Pacific Partnership March 7, 2014
- GCHQ Oversight Tribunal Has To Ask GCHQ’s Permission To Reveal GCHQ’s Wrongdoing March 7, 2014
- Nukes Now March 7, 2014
- Alain Soral and Gilad Atzmon on Jewish Power and cultural narcissism March 8, 2014
- Press TV: US signaling to Israel by denying visas March 7, 2014
- On Monday - 'The Life of Bessie Smith' March 7, 2014
- Alain Soral: On The Complete Freedom To Consume March 6, 2014
- On Abby Martin, Freedom and Tolerance March 5, 2014
TagsAfghanistan Africa al-Akhbar Al-Manar American Civil Liberties Union American Israel Public Affairs Committee Argentina Bashar al-Assad Benjamin Netanyahu Brazil Britain Canada Central Intelligence Agency China CIA Colombia East Jerusalem Egypt European Union FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation France Gaza George W. Bush Germany Gilad Atzmon Hamas Hebron Hezbollah Honduras Hugo Chávez Human rights India Intelligence International Atomic Energy Agency International Middle East Media Center International Solidarity Movement Internet Iran Iraq Iraq War Israel Israeli settlement Japan Jerusalem John Kerry Latin America Lebanon Libya Ma'an Middle East Nablus National Security Agency NATO New York Times NSA Obama Pakistan Palestine Palestinian National Authority Palestinian prisoners in Israel Press TV Russia Sanctions against Iran Saudi Arabia South America Syria Turkey UK United Nations United States USA Venezuela West Bank Zionism