The cross border flood of millions of immigrants provokes profound political divisions, violence and the rise of mass movements challenging the unity of the European Union (EU) and the survival of the dominant political parties in the US and Europe.
Both the progressive pro-immigrant and rightwing anti-immigration parties and movements propose easy answers and attack their adversaries with political invective.
Both left and right engage in a losing war, based on historical omissions, abstract and muddle-headed assumptions and destructive proposals.
I will proceed by outlining a framework to understand the political, economic and security implications, which form the centerpiece for confronting immigration.
The Past and the Present
A serious discussion of immigration begins by focusing on the centrality of time and place, encouraging the flow and absorption of immigrants.
In the past, immigration flourished during periods when countries experienced: (1) rapid productive growth; (2) increasing labor demand; (3) trade unions and organizations capable of integrating new (immigrant) workers and protecting the on-going wage rates and conditions for all; (4) cross sectoral labor co-operation and solidarity lowering conflict between immigrant and native workers; (5) inclusive, equitable welfare programs; (6) local, not global wars and (7) violence confined outside of the US and the EU. During these periods, most immigration was confined within Europe and North America or between them.
These conditions could not eliminate competition and conflict but they limited its nature and time frame and allowed for successful integration.
If these conditions formed the basis for relatively peaceful immigration, their absence has intensified conflict amidst an increased flow of immigrants. This process has produced deep political problems. Progressives, who cite past ‘Ellis-Island’ type immigration experience and ignore the unfavorable current socio-economic conditions, are in denial. They dismiss the vast socio-economic and political changes, which have occurred and which make the absorption of new waves of immigrants extremely difficult.
Mass Immigration and Imperial Wars
The vast majority of refugees today are on the move because of Western wars. These wars are ‘total’ wars, designed to obliterate civilian, as well as military institutions and structures. In the last two decades, the US and EU have launched seven wars devastating the lives of once-cohesive and productive families, their homes and farms, jobs, institutions and security. Millions have been driven into exile.
The vast majority of new immigrants are refugees from countries targeted by the US-EU and their suffering has no visible end. During and after the Second World War, refugees suffered greatly, but were generally absorbed or repatriated and integrated into re-constructing their homes and societies. These favorable transitions were aided by an acute post-war labor shortage (over 40 million, mostly men, were killed in WWII) and the economic demands of post-war reconstruction. Western peace movements in the post-WWII past were effective and succeeded in limiting the scope and length of wars. Such peace movements no longer exist. Wars today are designed to be endless and total – in terms of the destruction of civilian infrastructure and national institutions.
Over the past 2 decades, the peace movements have disappeared. This is largely because the US and EU increasingly rely on the use of devastating bombing campaigns by their air and naval forces, which sharply limit Western casualties. Most anti-war movements were sustained by domestic anger at their own soldiers returning in ‘body bags’.
Current domestic economic conditions have sharply deteriorated. Capitalist regimes have imposed brutal economic policies increasing unemployment and low paying temporary job. Joblessness approaches 50% among young workers in Southern Europe – regions flooded with desperate refugees.
Moreover imperial policies have shifted steadily to increased military spending for wars while imposing austerity measures, slashing social programs at home.
In this context, new immigrants, especially refugees from imperial wars, compete for diminishing public resources and drastically reduced wages. Their competition effectively drives down the wages for all workers – sharply increasing the conditions for brutal exploitation.
The intense competition over jobs between native workers and immigrants is the result of capitalist wars and deliberate domestic economic policies to pay for these wars. This creates greater insecurity and hastens the downward mobility experienced by workers and the lower middle class.
In the past, such pressures and conditions led to worker protests, resistance and class conflict.
Today, trade unions cease to unify old and new workers into a strong organized force to confront the worst excesses of capital. Trade union membership has declined precipitously. The union bosses have exchanged militancy and independence for self-serving alliances with capitalist politicians. Trade unions do not protect the basic interests of workers and their families – they follow the lead of the ‘progressive’ pro-immigrant parties which are an arm of the militarist capitalist ruling class.
The workers are not racist when they resist further deterioration in their income and living standards: They are trying to protect their jobs, benefits and social programs for their families – in an environment of increasing insecurity and capitalist exploitation.
In the recent past, workers could rely on stable jobs and increasing wages because of the strong manufacturing domestic economy. These same workers, who are now labelled as ‘racist’, generally accepted immigrant workers at their plants and in their neighborhoods and schools. But this was in the decades before droves of refugees and destitute immigrants fleeing US-EU wars and destruction came to be viewed as threats to their livelihoods and children’s future.
Unlike the past, when international capital brought extracted raw materials back to the imperial country to be processed by local manufacturers, today US and EU multi-nationals have relocated their industries to overseas low wage countries, undermining jobs and living standards at home.
Commercial importers and retailers, like Wal-Mart, re-employ the displaced workers with offers of minimum pay, no benefits and contingent work.
‘Free Trade’ is not really ‘trade: Rather it is the easy outflow of investment and jobs and the retention of profits overseas in tax-havens.
US government-subsidized, high-tech corporate agro-exports have decimated ‘Third World’ farmers, forcing mass immigration of displaced peasants who then form a base to compete with domestic workers and lower the wages in the US and EU.
Progressives falsely argue, ‘ex post facto’, that migrants have merely taken the poorly-paid, unpleasant jobs that local workers rejected. The reality is more complex: In a previous era, most immigrants quickly moved into decently-paid jobs and were generally accepted by US workers.
Once, US meat packers were well-paid workers supported by militant unions. Over time, the unions lost key labor struggles and capitalists reduced wages, in some cases by fifty percent. What had once been well regulated and strictly protected workplaces deteriorated dramatically. This decline was accompanied by the influx and hiring of low wage immigrants from Mexico and Central America. Today, the meat packing industry is among the most dangerous work environments where even immigrant children are employed. The same pattern of deteriorating wages and conditions and replacement by immigrant labor has occurred in landscaping, construction, the garment industry, transport, retailing, plumbing etc.
What has most recently pushed millions of young workers to migrate from their homes are the series of destructive imperial wars. These devastated the domestic security situation, erasing any functional national military and police structures as well as the possibilities for jobs and a stable future for young people. Former military commanders and soldiers, whose families have been torn apart by imperial US-EU wars and stripped of all dignity, have little choice but to join resistance fighters, such as ISIS in Iraq, or join the waves of refugees.
The US and EU invasion forces and puppet regimes have systematically destroyed any secular, democratic, nationalist or socialist parties and movements in the targeted countries, in their drive to divide once cohesive nations into tribal client states. In their place, violent Islamist and ethnic resistance movements have sprung up to fight the invaders and their puppets. This is the natural and predictable result of the imperial policy of destroying modern states on a massive scale.
Since multiple imperial wars in contiguous countries have destroyed all hope for refuge and new lives within the war-torn region, the new violent Islamist movements have adopted their own ‘international strategy’. Since the imperial wars were launched from distant imperial capitals in Washington, London and Paris, using bombs and missiles, the Islamists have little alternative but to base their military and terrorist strategies within civilian populations, leading to massive casualties.
The violent jihadi attacks against civilian targets in the West are not specifically religious or directed at capturing economic resources or power. The objective is to gain political influence among the growing and marginalized immigrant population in Europe and to undermine the capacity and willingness of the EU and US to continue these endless wars.
In the neglected immigrant neighborhood, there will be growing numbers of sympathizers for the ‘attackers’. This will increase demands by angry and frightened citizens in the West who have increasingly accepted the nationalist political solution of ‘draining the lake’ (immigrants) to catch the ‘fish’ (terrorists). Anti-immigrant politics and anti-terrorist police activities become inter-mingled with growing domestic economic insecurity and the sense of cultural and national displacement experienced by traditional homogeneous working class communities adjacent to large enclaves of immigrants. Increasingly severe ‘austerity’ policies, imposed by neo-liberal governments, greatly inflame the situation.
The so-called, liberal pro-immigration parties and movements ignore the fragile socio-cultural fabric of the local communities. They have done little to protect vulnerable communities from capitalist policies of literally dumping immigrants into areas and regions which cannot support or absorb them. The political leaders of pro-immigrant parties are generally far from these communities and immune to growing competition for scarce jobs and resources. For many politicians, bureaucrats and even NGO administrators, ‘their immigrants’ are domestic workers, cooks, baby sitters, gardeners, who directly serve the most comfortable strata of society. In contrast, the masses of uprooted refugees and immigrants live close to local workers, compete for jobs and share crowded clinics, social services and schools – under conditions of increasing scarcity.
The ruling class collaborates with highly domesticated trade union officials and certain ‘co-opted’ second generation immigrant leaders to ‘pacify’ this domestic discontent through multi-cultural programs and mandatory diversity training sessions for workers and neighborhoods, without ever having to actually confront the class issues of deteriorating living standards and the loss of future job prospects for the children of local workers.
Working and lower middle class communities will naturally close ranks on ethnic, regional and religious bases, because they lack principled class leaders. They are susceptible to the appeals of nationalist-populist or anti-immigrant leaders and politicians, despite these parties long association with the hard right. With the notable exception of French leader, Marine Le Pen, who skillfully combines a deep understanding of French socio-economic trends with her restrictive immigration policies, the majority of Western populist and anti-immigrant politicians channel the widespread resentment over downward mobility among native workers to blaming ‘the immigrants’.
The virulent media attacks and charges of ‘racism’ made by liberal politicians and intellectuals against the downwardly mobile workers, who have been devastated by neo-liberal policies and the broad consequences of imperial wars, do nothing to combat imperialism and class exploitation. They certainly do not help the immigrants. Denunciations of the marginalized American workers and rural citizens, who voted for US President Donald Trump, by middle class intellectuals, living in the more comfortable and urbanized coastal states, show a deep misunderstanding of the fundamental changes occurring in the country. In Europe and the US, employees and activists, connected to liberal NGOs, flock to immigrants like carrion birds, carving out their own little careers ‘educating’ immigrants and entreating the local residents of deteriorated neighborhoods to join in ’sharing’ the dominant ruling class-directed celebrations of ‘diversity’ (or the ‘multi-culturalism of suffering’).
Immigration in the 21st century is significantly different from past waves of migrants. It is highly manipulative to compare the current displacement of millions of war refugees with ‘Ellis Island’ in the US or the post-WWII situation of massive reconstruction in Europe. Immigration today is a direct product of imperial wars, where murder, injury, terror and deliberate shredding of social institutions have forcibly displaced tens of millions of people – the immigrants.
Meanwhile, in the imperial countries, crass capitalist exploitation, the export of capital and jobs, and austerity have aroused the anger of workers and lower middle class employees, whose living standards have sustained significant losses. The forced merger of two enormous waves – the millions of dispossessed refugees and migrants and the marginalized and increasingly threatened workers and citizens in the West has become the key focus of the deepening conflicts of capitalists and workers in the US and the EU. Progressives and reactionaries alike obfuscate the fundamental class issues by diverting public attention to the issue of ‘racism’ and ‘immigrants’.
In the long run, the West must face this dangerous phenomenon by organizing broad and militant anti-imperial peace movements to prevent the wars that produce these waves of desperate migrants. Trade unions, co-operatives and local or national social movements must organize the under-employed, unemployed and underpaid workers to combat the loss of jobs, the pillage of national wealth, massive capitalist tax evasion and the de-industrialization of the national economy. Banks must be nationalized, and education and health care should be publically funded and replace the current massive public budgets for war. Immigrants, who decide to settle in their new countries, should seek to fully integrate, reject dual citizenship and dual loyalties and denounce organizations that act as “fifth columns” for overseas ethno-religious states of all persuasions.
Uprooted people must ultimately choose to remain and fight over flight. They must engage in resistance to imperial occupations in their homelands instead of choosing abject submission and indignities abroad. The role of citizens in the West is to support these struggles by opposing the militarists among their own political leaders.
There are no easy answers for mass migration but there are clear causes and proposals for the future.
March 25, 2017 Posted by aletho | Economics, Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite, Supremacism, Social Darwinism, Timeless or most popular | Africa, European Union, Latin America, Middle East, United States | Leave a comment
One does not have to plow through Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century (2013) in order to grasp the radical changes in income and wealth inequality over the past four decades which fundamentally determined Donald Trump’s victory last November. Instead, one can examine a few of the charts at the end of two more recent reports by Piketty and his Berkeley colleagues Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman: “Wealth Inequality in the United States Since 1913: Evidence from the Capitalized Income Tax Data” (2014); and “Distributional National Accounts: Methods and Estimates for the United States” (2016).
The latter report focuses on radical changes in income inequality between two post-World War II periods: 1946-1980 and 1980-2014. The authors’ goal is to capture 100% of national income; that is, the income of every individual adult over age 18 from any source—wages, capital (investment income), benefits, and government transfers—which collectively is roughly equal to the yearly Gross Domestic Product. This identity is true for both pre-tax and post-tax-and-government-spending income data; but it is the latter data that make the most honest case for a radical increase in economic inequality since 1980. Increased income inequality pertaining to both labor and capital income in turn explains much of the parallel increase in household wealth inequality, which is often popularly emphasized because the accumulated wealth figures are so much more starkly unequal.
Unlike these economists, I have a polemical purpose as well. It is to counter assertions by many of those who identify as liberals and/or progressives that Donald Trump’s victory primarily signifies a racist/misogynist and white identity-driven agenda rather than a justified reaction to the increased hardships and decreased opportunities visited by neoliberalism on the white working class.
Eight years of neoliberalism with a Democratic Party face—not a black or female face—resulted in white voters with some college or less increasing their Republican margin from 20% (2008) to 40% (2016). Hillary Clinton, with her roots in both neoliberal (more inequality) and neoconservative (more war) policies, had nothing to offer these voters except vicarious identification with her glass ceiling, and she offered that nothing in a condescending manner. Nor had Obama anything economically meaningful to offer, as it turned out, in spite of the relative faith shown in him by white working class voters. Meanwhile, Trump campaigned on a rejection of both of these establishment doctrines.
What the national income data show
Piketty’s et al.’s national income data set compares two periods of economic growth among the full population, the bottom 50%, the middle 40%, the top 10%, and four additional categories within the top 10%. From 1946-1980, overall real per capita (age 18 and over) growth was 95%. Both the bottom 50% and the middle 40% had (post-tax) growth rates higher than this: 102% and 105%, respectively. Therefore, these groups gained a larger share of the overall economic pie during this period. Meanwhile, top 10% income grew at a rate of 79%, signifying a decreasing share of total income. Moreover, all four groups with the top 10%—1%, .1%, .01%, and .001%—also found themselves during this 35-year period with decreased shares of post-tax income, with the real per capita growth rate of the top 1% at only 47%.
The post-tax income data from 1980-2014 show that this trend was radically reversed during the neoliberal era. While overall growth was lower at 61%, growth for the bottom 50% and middle 40% was 21% and 49% respectively. Meanwhile, the exorbitant growth rates for the top 10%, 1%, .1%, .01% and .001% were (respectively): 113%, 194%, 299%, 424%, and 617%.
The concrete results of this shift can be extrapolated from the data as follows, by calculating an alternative scenario in which the income of all groups grew at the overall rate (61%), and comparing that to their actual growth. From these figures, we can derive the amount of income effectively transferred in 2014 from the bottom 90% to the top 10% due to decreased/increased income shares:
+ If the income of the bottom 50% had grown at the overall rate, the average income of this group (117,200,000 adults) would have been $33,250. Instead, it was $25,000, or $8,250 less.
+ If the income of the middle 40% had grown at the overall rate, the average income of this group (93,760,000 adults) would have been $72,600. Instead, it was $67,200, or $5,400 less.
+ If the income of the top 10% had grown at the overall rate, the average income of this group (23,440,000 adults) would have been $190,500. Instead, it was $252,000, or $61,500 more.
+ If the income of the top 1% had grown at the overall rate, the average income of this group (2,344,000 adults) would have been $616,100. Instead, it was $1,010,000, or $393,900 more.
The bottom 50% lost 25% of what would have been its yearly income, given a constant share of overall income, through neoliberal income re-distribution policies, 1980-2014. The average transfer of income away from each of the bottom 90% in 2014 was $6,800. Put differently, every nine adults in the bottom 90% contributed a total of $61,200 to one individual in the top 10%. By 2014, the top 10% received a total of an additional $1.43 trillion dollars, nearly 10% of overall income (or GDP), that had in 1980 accrued to the bottom 90%. This is also reflected in Piketty et al.’s finding that the top 10% share of income increased from 30% to 40% during this period.
At least three additional findings from the income data are relevant in this context:
First, income is highly concentrated among the top tenth of each income bracket. Whether one compares 100% and 10%, 10% and 1%, 1% and .1%, .1% and .01%, or .01% and .001%, the top one-tenth portion receives over 40% of the overall income of the larger group.
Second, while capital (investment) income has overall remained at 30% over an entire century, for the top 10% the capital share has remained above 40%; for the top 1%, 60%, and for the top .1%, nearly 70%. While these figures have not changed dramatically over a long period, it’s worth noting the increasing dominance of capital over labor income as one moves up the total income ladder.
Third, the overall tax rate (federal, state, local) for the bottom 50% has increased since 1960 from 15% to 25%; for the top 1%, the overall tax rate has decreased during this period from 45% to 35% (up from 30% during the early Reagan era).
The concurrent historical increase of wealth inequality, a consequence of neoliberal policies related to labor, taxation, and finance, is amply demonstrated in the 2014 report referred to above. From 1980-2012, the share of the top 10% of households increased from 65% to 75%, while (obviously) the share of the bottom 90% decreased from 35% to 25%. Analogous to income concentration, wealth is concentrated in the top one-tenth of each increasingly wealthy group. Thus, the top 1% now owns over 40% of household wealth (up from 25% in 1980), the top .1% owns over 20% (up from 10% in 1980), and the top .01% (16,000 households) owns over 10% (up from 3% in 1980).
Increasing disparities in individual income of course ensure increasing disparities in household wealth, to the point where these disparities are simply inconceivable except in terms of the contrast between materially-based human suffering and superfluous abundance. This suffering, experienced and witnessed well beyond those technically defined as impoverished, cannot be wished away by identity politics, in the name of progressivism, anti-fascism, or anything else.
David Green lives in Champaign, IL and can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Excavations at the site of a former Catholic home for unwed mothers, their children, and orphans in Ireland have uncovered “significant quantities” of human remains buried on the grounds.
An investigation was launched after reports surfaced in 2014 of a mass grave on the grounds of the former ‘mother and baby’ home in Tuam, Co Galway.
Excavations carried out between November 2016 and February 2017 uncovered two large structures hidden underground at the former home in the west of Ireland – one apparently a large sewage tank filled with rubble, while the second contained 20 chambers.
“Significant quantities of human remains have been discovered in at least 17 of the 20 underground chambers which were examined,” The Mother and Baby Homes Commission of Investigation said in a statement Friday.
The remains were found to be those of babies ranging from 35 foetal weeks to two or three years old. The Commission said it is “shocked by the discovery” and its investigation is continuing “into who was responsible for the disposal of human remains in this way.”
The coroner has been informed and will determine if there is to be any police involvement in further investigations. The home in Tuam operated from 1925 to 1961 and the commission has revealed that many of the remains found so far date back to the 1950s.
‘Mother and Baby’ facilities housed women who became pregnant outside of marriage and were ostracized by Catholic society as a result. The sites were infamously cruel environments, where mothers worked tough manual labor jobs for little or no pay and only permitted to see their children for a few hours each week. The children were often adopted by other families, sometimes in other countries such as the US, without informing the mother.
Local historian Catherine Corless spent years researching the home and was instrumental in the discovery of the mass grave. “If you look at the records, babies were dying two a week, but I’m still trying to figure out how they could [put the bodies in a septic tank],” Corless told the Irish Mail in 2014. “Couldn’t they have afforded baby coffins?”
People in Tuam first learned of the mass interment in the 1970s when two boys accidentally uncovered skeletons when they broke apart a concrete slab covering part of the grave. However, it was resealed and remained untouched for decades.
Speaking on RTÉ radio on Friday afternoon, Corless said that during her research “everything pointed” to this area being a mass grave, but despite this she was told to leave it alone.
She also said she believes the graveyard extends further overground where remains are buried in coffins and called for the whole area to be investigated. “This is only the start,” she concluded.
Ireland’s Children’s Minister Katherine Zappone said on Friday that the “sad and disturbing news” from the commission confirms the rumors of a mass grave at the site.
“Today is about remembering and respecting the dignity of the children who lived their short lives in this home. We will honour their memory and make sure that we take the right actions now to treat their remains appropriately,” Zappone added.
The Bon Secours Sisters, the order which used to run the home, said in a statement that they could make no comment on the announcement.
Hillary Clinton is urging President Trump to speak out against the surge of anti-Semitic threats and attacks around the country.
“JCC threats, cemetery desecration & online attacks are troubling & they need to be stopped. Everyone must speak out, starting w/ @POTUS,” Clinton tweeted early Tuesday.
Vandals over the weekend destroyed about 100 headstones at a Jewish cemetery in St. Louis. Meanwhile, Jewish Community Centers, including centers in Chicago, Houston and Tampa, received an influx of bomb threats later determined to be hoaxes.
The White House released a statement on the bomb threats Monday, saying “hatred and hate-motivated violence of any kind have no place in a country founded on the promise of individual freedom.”
The comment, like the White House statement on Holocaust Remembrance Day, has been criticized by some for not specifically mentioning the Jewish community.
Ivanka Trump, the president’s daughter, denounced the threats against the Jewish Community Centers in a tweet Monday evening.
“America is a nation built on the principle of religious tolerance,” Trump tweeted Monday. “We must protect our houses of worship & religious centers. #JCC.”
The Wall Street Journal has an important new story, The End of Employees, on how the big company love of outsourcing means that traditional employment has declined and is expected to fall further.
Some key sections of the article:
Never before have American companies tried so hard to employ so few people. The outsourcing wave that moved apparel-making jobs to China and call-center operations to India is now just as likely to happen inside companies across the U.S. and in almost every industry.
The men and women who unload shipping containers at Wal-Mart Stores Inc. warehouses are provided by trucking company Schneider National Inc.’s logistics operation, which in turn subcontracts with temporary-staffing agencies. Pfizer Inc. used contractors to perform the majority of its clinical drug trials last year….
The shift is radically altering what it means to be a company and a worker. More flexibility for companies to shrink the size of their employee base, pay and benefits means less job security for workers. Rising from the mailroom to a corner office is harder now that outsourced jobs are no longer part of the workforce from which star performers are promoted…
For workers, the changes often lead to lower pay and make it surprisingly hard to answer the simple question “Where do you work?” Some economists say the parallel workforce created by the rise of contracting is helping to fuel income inequality between people who do the same jobs.
No one knows how many Americans work as contractors, because they don’t fit neatly into the job categories tracked by government agencies. Rough estimates by economists range from 3% to 14% of the nation’s workforce, or as many as 20 million people.
As you can see, the story projects this as an unstoppable trend. The article is mainly full of success stories, which naturally is what companies would want to talk about. The alleged benefits are two-fold: that specialist contractors can do a better job of managing non-core activities because they are specialists and have higher skills and that using outside help keeps companies lean and allows them to be more “agile”.
The idea that companies who use contractors are more flexible is largely a myth. The difficulty of entering into outsourcing relationships gives you an idea of how complex they are. While some services, like cleaning, are likely to be fairly simple to hand off, the larger ones are not. For instance, for IT outsourcing, a major corporation will need to hire a specialist consultant to help define the requirements for the request for proposal and write the document that will be the basis for bidding and negotiation. That takes about six months. The process of getting initial responses, vetting the possible providers in depth, getting to a short list of 2-3 finalists, negotiating finer points with them to see who has the best all-in offer, and then negotiating the final agreement typically takes a year. Oh, and the lawyers often fight with the consultant as to what counts in the deal.
On the one hand, the old saw of “a contract is only as good at the person who signed it” still holds true. But if a vendor doesn’t perform up to the standards required, or the company’s requirements change in some way not contemplated in the agreement, it is vasty more difficult to address than if you were handling it internally. And given how complicated contracting is, it’s not as if you can fire them.
So as we’ve stressed again and again, these arrangements increase risks and rigidity. And companies can mis-identify what is core or not recognize that there are key lower-level skills they’ve mis-identified. For instance, Pratt & Whitney decided to contract out coordination of deliveries to UPS. Here is the critical part:
For years, suppliers delivered parts directly to Pratt’s two factories, where materials handlers unpacked the parts and distributed them to production teams. Earl Exum, vice president of global materials and logistics, says Pratt had “a couple hundred” logistics specialists. Some handlers were 20- or 30-year veterans who could “look at a part and know exactly what it is,” he adds….
Most of the UPS employees had no experience in the field, and assembly kits arrived at factories with damaged or missing parts. Pratt and UPS bosses struggled to get the companies’ computers in sync, including warehouse-management software outsourced by UPS to another firm, according to Pratt..
The result was $500 million in lost sales in a quarter. Pratt & Whitney tried putting a positive spin on the tale, that all the bugs were worked out by the next quarter. But how long will it take Pratt & Whitney to recover all the deal costs plus the lost profits?
There’s even more risk when the company using contractor doesn’t have much leverage over them. As a Wall Street Journal reader, Scott Riney, said in comments:
Well managed companies make decisions based on sound data and analysis. Badly managed companies follow the trends because they’re the trends. A caveat regarding outsourcing is that, as always, you get what you pay for. Also, the vendor relationship needs to be competently managed. There was the time a certain, now bankrupt technology company outsourced production of PBX components to a manufacturer who produced components with duplicate MAC addresses. The contract manufacturer’s expertise obviously didn’t extend to knowing jack about hardware addressing, and the management of the vendor relationship was incompetent. And what do you do, in a situation like that, if your firm isn’t big enough that your phone calls get the vendor’s undivided attention? Or if you’re on different continents, and nothing can get done quickly?
We’ve discussed other outsourcing bombs in past posts, such as when British Airways lost “tens of millions of dollars” when its contractor, Gate Gourmet, fired employees. Baggage handlers and ground crew struck in sympathy, shutting down Heathrow for 24 hours. Like many outsourced operations, Gate Gourmet had once been part of British Airways. And passengers blamed the airline, not the wprkers.
Now admittedly, there are low-risk, low complexity activities that are being outsourced more, such as medical transcription, where 25% of all medical transcriptionists now work for agencies, up by 1/3 since 2009. The article attributes the change to more hospitals and large practices sending the work outside. But even at its 2009 level, the use of agencies was well established. And you can see that it is the sort of service that smaller doctor’s offices would already be hiring on a temp basis, whether through an agency or not, because they would not have enough activity to support having a full-time employee. The story also describes how SAP has all its receptionists as contractors, apparently because someone looked at receptionist pay and concluded some managers were paying too much. So low level clerical jobs are more and more subject to this fad. But managing your own receptionists is hardly going to make a company less flexible.
Contracting, like other gig economy jobs, increase insecurity and lower growth. I hate to belabor the obvious, but people who don’t have a steady paycheck are less likely to make major financial commitments, like getting married and setting up a new household, having kids, or even buying consumer durables. However, one industry likely makes out handsomely: Big Pharma, which no doubt winds up selling more brain-chemistry-altering products for the resulting situationally-induced anxiety and/or depression. The short-sightedness of this development on a societal level is breath-taking, yet overwhelmingly pundits celebrate it and political leaders stay mum.
With this sort of rot in our collective foundation, the rise of Trump and other “populist” candidates should not come as a surprise.
Today, the Jewish Chronicle (JC) reported that the number of antisemitic incidents in Britain in 2016 were the highest on record. The CST’s statistics show that there were 1,309 incidents of ‘Jew hatred’ last year — a 36 per cent increase on the previous 12 months.
Of course, the CST is not a reliable source and its‘antisemitism figures’ have been debunked numerous times before. However, if these statistics are accurate, they suggest only that the more the British government invests in fighting anti-Semitism…. the more antisemitic Britain becomes.
This is easy enough to explain. The fight against antisemitism is now a profitable industry. Every day, we learn of some new Jewish organisation dedicated to fighting antisemitism and to hunt down the Jew haters, and all at the expense of the British tax payer*.
And, as always in the case of Israel and Zionism, these organisations are financially sustained by the very Jewish hatred they seek to oppose. And, when there is no Jew hatred to be found, they will either induce, or even invent some.
For instance, we learned in the last few weeks that Stephen Silverman of the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) launched a war against popular cult figure David Icke. The same Stephen Silverman who launched this war also launched a war against musician Alison Chabloz for expressing her thoughts on Holocaust religion by means of a cabaret performance.
These ugly campaigns against British truth-seekers are unlikely to make UK Jewry popular. Quite the opposite. Both these campaigns immediately backfired – Alison’s work went viral and the campaign against Icke proved only that Icke’s investigation into Rothschild Zionism is not only legitimate, it is actually essential. These campaigns clearly are not going to silence Icke or Chabloz but they will confirm that Jewish institutions here in Britain do not subscribe to the notion of freedom of thought and elementary human rights.
Dave Rich, Deputy Director of Communications at the CST told the JC : “I think there is an overall climate rather than one specific thing that is responsible for the rise in (antisemitic) incidents.”
Rich is wrong. There is one crucial factor in the rise in opposition to Jews and their politics: Jewish power has lost all its subtlety. It is now crude and vulgar and manifested right out in the open: whether it is the campaign against Jeremy Corbyn and his Labour party or the Israeli embassy crudely interfering with British party politics or the constant hunting of critics of Israel or even the impunity of suspected child molester Lord Janner – more and more Brits are now reading between the lines. They have had enough.
If the British government is really concerned about antisemitism, it could eliminate it in no time at all. It must immediately strip Jewish organisations of any special treatment and funds and must stop spending millions on the CST and all the other Jews-only paramilitary organisations operating in the kingdom.
We all agree that racism is a bad thing, so let’s fight it in a universal manner rather than following the whims of one particular tribe.
* Theresa May vowed recently to allocate more than 13.4 million pounds annually to Jewish security matters.
You can never please these people. You really can’t.
“Holocaust denial is alive and well in the highest offices of the United States. It is being spread by those in President Trump’s innermost circle. It may have all started as a mistake by a new administration that is loath to admit it’s wrong. Conversely, it may be a conscious attempt by people with anti-Semitic sympathies to rewrite history. Either way it is deeply disturbing.
For me these developments are intensely personal—not because I have immediate family members who died in the Holocaust. I don’t. But I have spent a good number of years fighting something which the White House now seems to be fostering.
Last Friday, I was in Amsterdam attending a screening of the movie Denial. …
The de-Judaization of the Holocaust, as exemplified by the White House statement, is what I term softcore Holocaust denial …”
Who knew it was politically incorrect now to acknowledge the suffering of non-Jews during the Second World War? If there hadn’t been such an uproar about it, I would have never noticed.
Update: The US Holocaust Memorial Museum is condemning President Trump.
Hundreds of native Hawaiians are preparing to gather at Mark Zuckerberg’s large Kauai estate to protest a six-foot wall erected to keep them out from their ancestral land.
“People are furious down here with him,” said protest organizer Joe Hart, as quoted by Business Insider.
Hart, a farmer who lives close to the billionaire’s estate, is reportedly encouraging people to blow conch shells and bang drums.
The Facebook founder purchased 700 acres of beachfront land for a reported cost of $100 million two years ago.
However, a tiny part – eight acres – of Zuckerberg’s property still belongs to several Hawaiian families in accordance with the Kuleana Act of 1850, which allows native people to own the land they once lived on.
Local residents have been reportedly prevented from entering the areas that are legally theirs. Hawaiians say they are confronted by security guards while walking along a public beach adjacent to the billionaire’s property.
“We were walking along, and they tried to say that this was private. I’ve been walking on this since I was a little kid,” said Hart.
According to Hart, the security team is using intimidation tactics to keep people off the public beaches and trails that intertwine with the mostly undeveloped estate.
“They told me I was on private property. They were threatening to take my picture and have me arrested. They were aggressive, rude and disrespectful,” Naoshi Grady told the local newspaper.
Last summer, the owner of the world’s largest social network erected a six-foot wall along part of his property.
Six months later, Zuckerberg filed eight lawsuits against families who collectively inherited 14 parcels of land through the Kuleana Act. The move had been widely criticized and the billionaire said he would ‘reconsider’ taking legal action, offering excuses via posts on his Facebook page.
“We want to make sure we are following a process that protects the interests of property owners, respects the traditions of native Hawaiians, and preserves the environment,” he said in a statement.
The locals plan to protest at the wall every weekend until Mark Zuckerberg drops the lawsuits and meets them in person.
“We just want to bring this light to issue. He’s made his money stealing everyone’s information, which we’ve let him do, but to come down here and start suing everyone, that’s not going to fly down here,” said Hart.
Meanwhile, back in reality, household income for the bottom 95% has declined while the owners of capital and their privileged, protected servants in the Establishment have gorged themselves on private wealth.
As noted yesterday in The Collapse of the Left, the working class has finally awakened to the Left’s betrayal and abandonment of labor in favor of the protected privileges of the elitist Establishment. I also described the Left’s Great Con:
To mask the collapse of the Left’s economic defense of labor, the Left has substituted social justice movements for economic opportunities and security.This has succeeded brilliantly, as tens of millions of self-described “progressives” now parrot the Great Con that “social justice” campaigns on behalf of marginalized social groups are now the defining feature of Progressive Social Democratic movements.
This diversionary sleight-of-hand embrace of economically neutered “social justice” campaigns masked the fact that social democratic parties everywhere have thrown labor into the churning propellers of globalization, open immigration and neoliberal financial policies–all of which benefit mobile capital, which has engorged itself on the abandonment of labor by the Left.
Meanwhile, the fat-cats of the Left have engorged themselves on capital’s largesse in exchange for their treachery. Bill and Hillary Clinton’s $200 million in “earnings” come to mind, as do countless other examples of personal aggrandizement by self-proclaimed “defenders” of labor.
But it isn’t just the Left’s fat-cats who have feathered their own nests while denigrating the Working Class with arrogantly contemptuous scorn: the entire protected, privileged “liberal” elitist Establishment has responded with a very illiberal outrage that their protected, privileged skims and scams might be endangered by an uprising of the loathed and ridiculed Working Class that they reckoned would remain safely cowed and conned.
As noted yesterday, the only moment in recent history in which the Wall Street-cartel-state strongholds of privilege, wealth and power (i.e. owners of capital) felt threatened by political insurrection by disenfranchised labor was The Great Depression of the 1930s.
With the first iteration of global debt-based capitalism in near-collapse (systemic bad debt was not written off, lest the big banks’ insolvency be recognized), owners of capital and the political class reluctantly swallowed modest social-democratic reforms that gave labor enough of the pie to stave off revolt / revolution (as noted by Arshad A. on my Facebook thread).
Just as Marx had predicted, this crisis of global-debt-cartel-state capitalism was the result of internal contradictions built into all forms capitalism dominated by capital and the state that protects and serves capital.
Now we face another crisis of the current iteration of global-debt-cartel-state capitalism, also the result of internal contradictions–not just financial, but cultural, energy-based and political contradictions.
The privileged, protected elitist Establishment reckoned the social-welfare programs of the 1930s and the Left’s Great Cons would keep the disenfranchised Working Class permanently cowed and conned. If welfare (now called “disability,” “crazy money”, etc.) and the distractions of “social justice” campaigns didn’t keep the Working Class fragmented and powerless, then the ceaseless drumbeat of arrogant dismissal and disdain aimed at any Working Class resistance would do the trick.
Any Working Class individual who recognized that globalization, open immigration and neoliberal financial policies were the propellers dismembering the Working Class economically and disenfranchising the Working Class politically was immediately labeled with the worst that “liberal” privileged, protected elites could spew: you’re racist, Luddite, backward, etc.–in other words, you’re not a rootless Cosmopolitan who loves your servitude to capital and the state like us.
Since the Left has masked its abandonment and betrayal of the Working Class with “social justice” speech acts, the worst insults the Left can dish out are those that suggest opposition to the Left’s social justice campaigns.
Self-identified “Progressives” are fine with the destruction and disenfranchisement of the Working Class, as long as the politically correct speech acts praising the Left’s Great Con are being uttered.
The self-serving, privileged, protected “liberal” Establishment is enraged that the Working Class is no longer following the script, i.e. remaining cowed, conned and fragmented. Like every other disenfranchised group, the Working Class has essentially zero choice of representational leadership, as the machinery of governance, finance and the mainstream media are all controlled by the privileged, protected elites of the Establishment.
So it boiled down to: choose more disenfranchisement and cowed servitude to “liberal” Elites, or vote for Trump. There was no other choice, so the Working Class voted for Trump as their only option other than surrender and servitude.
This rejection of their “betters” script has enraged their “betters,” who now demand the destruction of their proxy voice (Trump) and their rebellion. The Establishment’s war on Trump is beneath the surface also a war against a Working Class that has finally had enough of its arrogant, hubris-soaked, self-serving, privileged, elitist “betters” of the Establishment.
If the Establishment had deigned to offer a radical-Left leader who correctly called out the American carnage that is the Working Class experience of the globalized, open-immigration neoliberalism that has so enriched the owners of capital and their “liberal” apparatchiks, then the Working Class may well have voted for the radical-Left truth-teller.
Alas, the Left ground down any opposition to “we ‘earned’ $200 million” Hillary Clinton and her corrupt coterie of self-serving elites. Having beaten down, stripmined, insulted, denigrated, scorned and exploited the Working Class (whose “proper role” is to provide cannon fodder for the Elites’ neocon Permanent War), the privileged, protected Establishment (like every other elite that suddenly finds its entitled dominance challenged) is in a full-blown fury: how dare the Working Class not accept our self-serving rule! We are entitled to rule! How dare they!
Meanwhile, back in reality, household income for the bottom 95% has declined while the owners of capital and their privileged, protected servants in the Establishment have gorged themselves on private wealth.
Here’s what’s happened as the Left and its armies of privileged fake-Progressives threw the Working Class overboard in favor of serving capital on the First Class deck:
What will it take to shift the balance of power decisively in favor of labor? My guess is the downward mobility of another 10 or 20 million people who currently reckon themselves “middle class” into the unprotected, disenfranchised ranks of the Working Class will do it.
I get it. You don’t like Trump.
I’ve wanted to say that to Facebook Friends who’ve spent the past several months hate-posting against Trump. Most posts aren’t funny, creative, or informative. When not merely petulant, they’re raw unfiltered anger. People might as well post videos of themselves screaming.
Turns out someone sort of did. A viral video shows a woman at the Inauguration sitting cross-legged on the ground, with her hands in the air in front of her, emitting a loud, guttural, primal scream at the precise moment Trump was sworn in:
NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!
At least it was honest, right? Well, actually, it looks staged. The camera was on her, waiting. Nine seconds in, she looks up briefly, as if to make sure the camera crew was ready for “the scream.”
Afterward, the Screamer looked exhausted. The ITV news crew descended, and the Screamer was incoherent:
ITV: Can you explain your emotions to me? Explain your emotions to me.
SCREAMER: There’s just no way, there’s like just no — no way to even comprehend what this means, like. This very – for me, this very moment, is like, like within a cell. It’s like, the dark and the light are so tight right now at this moment. It’s, there’s so much potential, um, for beauty and for devastation, in this one moment it’s just almost incomprehensible that they can exist right now, so, so close!
ITV: How big – how seismic – a day is this for your country?
SCREAMER: I am so sorry to my world. I am so sorry to my world, this is not what we want. I love you people, I love people, and I. This is so alien, this is so false and broken, and…
Self-immolation would have been more articulate.
Even worse was a video many people posted with approval: a black-clad, masked protester silently attacking Richard Spencer, an alt-right leader. It looked like attempted murder, as the assailant came by quickly and hit Spencer in the side of the head with his elbow or forearm.
So much for the reverence paid earlier in the week for the nonviolence of Martin Luther King.
So much for Michelle Obama’s “When they go low, we go high.”
Some Trump-haters have said that, since the election, they no longer “feel safe.” After all, their quiet neighbors, or the guy behind the counter at the DMV, or that little old lady at Rite Aid, MIGHT HAVE VOTED FOR TRUMP. Any one of them might be the racist sexist alt-right Nazi bastard who spray-painted the Swastika on that softball dugout…
It seems that, even more than these people hate Trump, they hate the people who voted for Trump – those racist sexist homophobic uneducated stupid evil people who are so stupid and racist and sexist and evil they voted for him, what a bunch of fools they’re just Putin’s useful idiots!!!!
“I don’t see how anyone could vote for Trump,” many liberals, especially those living in comfort, said before and after the election, with more smugness than curiosity. I mean, how could anyone who’s NOT racist xenophobic bigoted stupid sexist homophobic vote for Trump?
If you voted for Hillary Clinton, maybe I don’t feel safe around YOU.
Trump said bad, even deplorable, things about Muslims. But Clinton used her power as a Senator to enable Bush-Cheney’s unnecessary bombing of defenseless Muslims and others (including women and children) in Iraq. As Secretary of State, she was a key player in the unnecessary destruction of Libya, which also killed defenseless Muslims and others (including women and children). She has blood on her hands, not virtual Twitter blood, but REAL blood.
Trump may like offending people, but Clinton apparently likes killing them. Remember how she exulted in the gory, brutal murder of Gaddafi? That’s sicker than any Trump tweet. Clinton also supports the death penalty. She doesn’t much care for live people either. She voted for the USA PATRIOT ACT and its renewal in 2006. She opposed the right of gay people to marry each other all the way up until 2013.
What kind of sick, twisted, anti-human, anti-Muslim, racist, homophobic, LGBTQ-hating, vengeful, disdainful-of-constitutional rights people voted for her? If you voted for Hillary Clinton, you voted for all that.
Oh, wait. You didn’t vote for THAT? You’ve always supported LGBTQ rights? Opposed the death penalty as racist? Long thought the Iraq War was immoral? I see. You voted for Hillary Clinton not because you love her bigotry or her warmongering, but because you thought it would be progressive to have a woman in the White House! A DEMOCRAT!
I believe you. (And I’m not saying that just because I fear you might throw an elbow at my head.)
But look what you’ve done. You’ve given yourself space between your candidate’s positions and your own. Because, well, you’re a good person and you don’t agree with everything Clinton stands for. I get it. I’ve known you for years, and in all that time you’ve never blown up my house, tapped my phone, or sentenced me to death.
But why do you deny Trump voters that space, that distance you allow YOURSELF between your candidate’s positions and your own views? Some women and minorities voted for Trump. They can’t have supported all of his positions. Not every Trump voter is racist or sexist. Even if they were, though, all their candidate did was tweet and say racist and sexist things. Your candidate actually supported and helped perpetrate violence against Muslims. I didn’t see you wearing a safety pin back then.
Have you forgotten what (Democrat) political strategist James Carville said about elections? “It’s the economy, stupid!” Maybe, just maybe, many if not most people who voted for Trump voted for him…because of his economic platform. Trump may not help the economy, but his promise to do so was more conspicuous than Clinton’s.
If you stop and think, if you stop “othering” people who voted for Trump (yes, that’s what you’re doing), if you stop screaming, you might hear that many of these voters just want to earn a decent living, and that they’re keenly, painfully aware that the Democrat Party and its nominee ignored them – except to scold them as “deplorables.” That the Democrat Party decided it didn’t need to court them, as Chuck Schumer announced in July:
For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”
There’s nothing wrong with wanting an economy that works for workers. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to provide for one’s family – one’s children. Maybe, like decent people who voted for Clinton, many Trump voters decided to overlook the worst aspects of their candidate.
If you want to engage in “resistance,” resist your own hatred. Your beloved Democrat Party won’t help you do that. Its leaders won’t admit they lost the election because of their party’s embrace of capital and abandonment of labor. Democrat leaders want you to keep hating and screaming at Trump to “delegitimize” him, to usher themselves (not you) back into power.
Anyway, don’t blame me. I voted for Jill Stein, because I’m anti-vaccine.
Oxford Trinity College High Table. I doubt these professors have anything to fear from a food tax. By Winky from Oxford, UK (Flickr) [CC BY 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons
A group of researchers in Oxford University, England have suggested that imposing a massive tax on carbon intensive foods – specifically protein rich foods like meat and dairy – could help combat climate change.
Pricing food according to its climate impacts could save half a million lives and one billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions
Taxing greenhouse gas emissions from food production could save more emissions than are currently generated by global aviation, and lead to half a million fewer deaths from chronic diseases, according to a new study published in Nature Climate Change.
The study, conducted by a team of researchers from the Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food at the University of Oxford and the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington DC, is the first global analysis to estimate the impacts that levying emissions prices on food could have on greenhouse gas emissions and human health.
The findings show that about one billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions could be avoided in the year 2020 if emissions pricing of foods were to be implemented, more than the total current emissions from global aviation. However, the authors stress that due consideration would need to be given to ensuring such policies did not impact negatively on low income populations.
“Emissions pricing of foods would generate a much needed contribution of the food system to reducing the impacts of global climate change,” said Dr Marco Springmann of the Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food, who led the study. “We hope that’s something policymakers gathering this week at the Marrakech climate conference will take note of.”
Much of the emissions reduction would stem from higher prices and lower consumption of animal products, as their emissions are particularly high. The researchers found that beef would have to be 40% more expensive globally to pay for the climate damage caused by its production. The price of milk and other meats would need to increase by up to 20%, and the price of vegetable oils would also increase significantly. The researchers estimate that such price increases would result in around 10% lower consumption of food items that are high in emissions. “If you’d have to pay 40% more for your steak, you might choose to have it once a week instead of twice,” said Dr Springmann.
The results indicate that the emissions pricing of foods could, if appropriately designed, be a health-promoting climate-change mitigation policy in high-income, middle-income, and most low-income countries. Special policy attention would be needed in those low-income countries where a high fraction of the population is underweight, and possibly for low-income segments within countries.
The abstract of the study;
Mitigation potential and global health impacts from emissions pricing of food commodities
Marco Springmann, Daniel Mason-D’Croz, Sherman Robinson, Keith Wiebe, H. Charles J. Godfray, Mike Rayner & Peter Scarborough
The projected rise in food-related greenhouse gas emissions could seriously impede efforts to limit global warming to acceptable levels. Despite that, food production and consumption have long been excluded from climate policies, in part due to concerns about the potential impact on food security. Using a coupled agriculture and health modelling framework, we show that the global climate change mitigation potential of emissions pricing of food commodities could be substantial, and that levying greenhouse gas taxes on food commodities could, if appropriately designed, be a health-promoting climate policy in high-income countries, as well as in most low- and middle-income countries. Sparing food groups known to be beneficial for health from taxation, selectively compensating for income losses associated with tax-related price increases, and using a portion of tax revenues for health promotion are potential policy options that could help avert most of the negative health impacts experienced by vulnerable groups, whilst still promoting changes towards diets which are more environmentally sustainable.
This proposal, from a group of people who have probably never missed a meal in their lives, is totally obscene. High income countries often have a lot of poor people who would be hard hit by increases in the price of food.
Needlessly exacerbating the risk poor people don’t get enough to eat, especially children and pregnant mothers, who are especially vulnerable to adverse health impacts from lack of protein in their diet – if this ghastly proposal is ever implemented, future generations will look upon it as a crime against humanity.
Eight years of legislative constipation suddenly ends when it comes to Congress’ preferred constituency
Apparently American Jews, although they comprise only about 2% of the American population, send so many shekels to Congress that when a bill benefiting them comes up, Congress drops everything else to pass the bill immediately. And the reason I say it is that I am stunned at how after eight years of Congressional do-nothing grid-lock, the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act was introduced into the Senate last Thursday, December 01, and passed the very same day. Unanimously, without amendment.
And what is even more impressive is the way American Jews pushing this bill — we’re talking the usual suspects: AIPAC, Anti-Defamation League, Jewish Federations of North America, Simon Wiesenthal Center, according to co-sponsor Bob Casey (D, PA) — were able to get the Senate to sign off on it in spite of it being a pernicious thought-control bill. But you really have to wade through the wording carefully to see that, which is what makes it so pernicious.
The bottom (and very ironic) line is that this “Anti-Semitism Awareness Act” is an example of the many reasons antisemitism is becoming such a problem in America, and it is an example of why Americans mistrust of Congress is more justified now than at any time in history. The Act actually promotes the very perception of Jews that it punishes.
So let me unpack this IED very carefully because, first, it is contorted, and, second, it presages the fetid dystopia that America is fast becoming.
“Antisemitism” defined as including “the definition of antisemitism”
I am looking at the Senate version of the Act that was passed on December 01. It’s bill S.10 as shown by its style, above.
Section 4 – the directive of the bill, requires that when investigating a Title VI violation, the Department of Education “. . . shall take into consideration the definition of anti-Semitism.” Hold on . . . what definition???
Well, Section 3, titled “DEFINITIONS,” seems like a good place to look. It says:
“For the purposes of this Act, the term ‘definition of anti-Semitism’ —”
and then it doesn’t give a definition at all, but, rather, provides two paragraphs that say what the definition of anti-Semitism “includes.” You don’t have to be the brightest bird on the branch to see that defining a word is a different process from articulating a couple of concepts that a definition includes. And, as a result, there is no actual definition in this law for “antisemitism,” only an opinion of what the definition of “antisemitism” includes.
As an analogy, if you asked me for a definition of “baseball” and all I gave you in response was “Baseball includes three strikes,” you would not be that much closer to the definition than before you asked. You would, in fact, have been jerked around. It seems to me to be axiomatic that Congress has an ethical and moral obligation not to jerk Americans around like this. Tim Scott (R-SC) and Bob Casey (D-PA), who introduced this feculent bill, I’m looking at you.
Be that as it may, let’s look at what the Act says the definition of “antisemitism” includes to see where Scott and Casey are going with this.
Paragraph (1) of Section 3 says the “. . . definition of antisemitism. . . (1) includes the definition of anti-Semitism set forth by the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism of the Department of State in the Fact Sheet issued on June 8, 2010 . . .”
OK, so . . . the definition of “antisemitism” includes the definition of “antisemitism.” IOW, the word as used in this Act “includes” the definition of same word as set forth in a Fact Sheet. The Act provides no link to this “Fact Sheet” but you can find the thing on the Department of State website here.
Here comes the mind-control part
Here is that Fact Sheet’s definition of “antisemitism” (bold added):
“Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which [sic] may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” — Working Definition of Anti-Semitism by the European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia
(In addition, Paragraph (2) of Section 3 says the definition of antisemitism also “includes” the rest of the content of the Fact Sheet, which includes “Contemporary Examples of Anti-Semitism” and additional material that is relevant to comments and criticisms directed at Israel.)
The legal/constitutional problem is that by this sleight of hand the Act defines antisemitism to include “a certain perception of Jews.” And so what is being made illegal is a mental process or thought process. (Experts may disagree on the semantics of whether perception itself is a “thought process,” but not on whether it is a “mental process.” In my view it is safest to consider perception to be a mental process that includes thought. Not all thought includes perception, but all perception includes some degree of thought.)
And note that the prohibited mental process is described not by any harm it does and not by the way the mental process is expressed, but by the way in which the mental process MAY BE EXPRESSED. In other words, according to this Act, merely having a certain perception about Jews is prohibited or punished so long as it is possible to express that perception as hatred toward the Jews — and, “Jews” includes Israel, pursuant to Paragraph (2).
More specifically, according to this Act, if one engages in the mental activity of perceiving Jews and/or Israel in any way that could be expressed as hatred, then that mere perception, regardless of whether or not it is actually expressed as hatred, gives rise to a complaint under Title VI.
The Act, in other words, is an example of the government making a certain class or category of purely mental activity illegal and punishable under (here comes the irony) the Civil Rights Act. This is an attempt at governmental thought-control, or, more precisely, perception-control under the rubric of “civil rights.” But then a lot of political correctness is really a warped manifestation of “civil rights.”
I admit that I don’t know the 52 titles of the U.S. Code word for word; after all there are nearly 5,000 criminal statutes alone. Nevertheless, I am not aware of any other federal statute, or act, or bill, or regulation in which Congress or an agency assumes to itself the authority and power to punish, control, or in any way sanction a mental process. We’re breaking new ground here, with the assistance and for the benefit of our Jewish friends at AIPAC and ADL.
You have, no doubt noticed by now an edge in this post. It’s there because as a neuroscientist and lawyer, when the government begins passing legislation that controls or in any way attempts to affect individuals’ mental processes, it frightens me. And as an ex-Marine with a Purple Heart it pisses me off.
As a society we need to think and talk about the way politically-privileged Jews in America and Israel are given special consideration by, and access to, Congress. More importantly, we need to think and talk about the way politically-privileged Jews are using their special access to Congress to turn the country into a mind-control police state, as is clearly indicated by the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act.
- Anthony L. Fisher, Reason, Proposed ‘Anti-Semitism Awareness Act’ is an Unconstitutional Mess
- Alex Emmons, The Intercept, Senate Response to Trump-Inspired Anti-Semitism By Targeting Students Who Criticize Israel
- Stephen Lendman, SteveLendmanBlog, Disgraceful US Anti-Semitism Awareness Act.
Denis O’Brien has been a member of the Virginia State Bar and registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office since 1998. His PhD (University of Virginia,1980) and his post-doc (Havard Biolabs) were in the field of neurosciences, primarily neuropharmacology. Denis is the author of Murder in the SunMorgue, available online, a pharmacological investigation of the 2013 Ghouta massacre.
December 10, 2016 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Supremacism, Social Darwinism, Timeless or most popular | AIPAC, Anti-Defamation League, Bob Casey, Human rights, Jewish Federations of North America, Simon Wiesenthal Center, Tim Scott, United States | 4 Comments
or go to
From the Archives
By Ludwig Watzal | American Herald Tribune | October 18, 2016
Hardly any knowledgeable person doubts that Zionist ideology is the purest form of racism. Zionism is Jewish disguised racism as a raison d’etat. Israel comes right after the U. S., as far as racism is concerned. That is why the U. S. donates to this racist regime $ 3.8 bn per year in order to keep this occupation regime going. Should anybody doubt the racism of the Israeli leadership, read the following article. … continue
Aletho News Original Content
By Aletho News | January 9, 2012
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:
March 8, 2011
February 25, 2010
February 7, 2010
December 26, 2009
December 4, 2009
May 9, 2009
Visits Since December 2009
- 2,869,975 hits
Follow Aletho News on TwitterMy Tweets
TimeToWakeUPAmerica on The US-Israel Special Relation… TimeToWakeUPAmerica on The US-Israel Special Relation… Rip on The US-Israel Special Relation… Brian Harry, Austral… on Why US Missile Defense May Tri… Brian Harry, Austral… on ‘Any Data They Can Inter… Brian Harry, Austral… on Poll: Majority of Jewish Israe… Brian Harry, Austral… on The Joseph Kony “Threat” was A… Stan Squires on ‘We had him booted out’: Pales… roberthstiver on The Surveillance State Behind… tsisageya on The Unauthorized Biography of… tsisageya on The Unauthorized Biography of… rediscover911com on US-Led Coalition Destroyed Fou… Wallflower on The Unauthorized Biography of… Brian Harry, Austral… on AIPAC Is Back In Town! Wallflower on Trump skips annual AIPAC …
- Canada’s Little Known but Once Flourishing Slave Trade March 30, 2017
- UK politician calls for prosecution of UK soldiers in Israel army March 30, 2017
- House Science Committee Hearing on Climate Science March 30, 2017
- Top French banks, insurer financing Israeli settlements: NGO March 29, 2017
- The Joseph Kony “Threat” was Always Fake News March 29, 2017
- Poll: Majority of Jewish Israelis oppose ending 50-year military occupation March 29, 2017
- Iran UN ambassador calls for destruction of all nuclear weapons March 29, 2017
- UK, France sign deal to jointly develop new missiles March 29, 2017
- Why US Missile Defense May Trigger Development of ‘Satellite Killers’ in Russia March 29, 2017
- Marco Rubio Threatens El Salvador, Haiti, and DR to Vote for Venezuela OAS Suspension March 29, 2017
- Why This Isn’t the Time for a Public Option or Medicare for Some March 29, 2017
- ‘Any Data They Can Intercept’: US Congress Will Let Companies Sell Browsing Data March 29, 2017
- The Surveillance State Behind Russia-gate March 29, 2017
- The Unauthorized Biography of David Rockefeller March 28, 2017
- US Decision to Sanction Russian Companies Pre-Dates Trump Administration March 28, 2017
- All Sanctions Imposed Against Russian Companies Illegal – Moscow March 28, 2017
- Encircling Russia? RAF Typhoon fighters will deploy to Romania in May March 28, 2017
- Top US general in Europe urges arming Ukraine March 28, 2017
- Article 50 triggers strong reactions on both sides…but what will change? March 29, 2017
- Bana of Aleppo: the Story So Far March 29, 2017
- The Unauthorized Biography of David Rockefeller March 29, 2017
- VIDEO: Should Montenegro join NATO? March 28, 2017
- Immigration: No Easy Answers March 25, 2017
Looking for something?
CategoriesAletho News Civil Liberties Corruption Deception Economics Environmentalism Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism Fake News False Flag Terrorism Full Spectrum Dominance Illegal Occupation Islamophobia Mainstream Media, Warmongering Militarism Nuclear Power Progressive Hypocrite Science and Pseudo-Science Solidarity and Activism Subjugation - Torture Supremacism, Social Darwinism Timeless or most popular Video War Crimes Wars for Israel
Tags9/11 Afghanistan Africa AIPAC al-Qaeda Argentina BBC Benjamin Netanyahu Brazil Canada Central Intelligence Agency China CIA CNN Colombia Da’esh Donald Trump Egypt EU European Union FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation France Gaza Germany Hamas Hebron Hezbollah Hillary Clinton Honduras Human rights India International Atomic Energy Agency International Solidarity Movement Iran Iraq Iraq War ISIL ISIS Israel Israeli settlement Japan Jerusalem John Kerry Latin America Lebanon Libya Mexico Middle East Military National Security Agency NATO New York Times NSA Obama Pakistan Palestine Press TV Qatar Russia Sanctions against Iran Saudi Arabia Syria The Guardian Turkey UK Ukraine United Nations United States USA Venezuela Washington Post West Bank Yemen Zionism
Contact:atheonews (at) gmail.com
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.
Site infoAletho News
Blog at WordPress.com.