Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

US Sanctions Against Khartoum Hamper Ties Between Russia, Sudan

Sputnik – 01.04.2016

KHARTOUM — The sanctions imposed on Khartoum by Washington hinder the development of cooperation between Russia and Sudan, Russian Ambassador to the African country Mirgayas Shirinskiy said Friday.

In 1997, Washington imposed economic, trade and financial sanctions against Khartoum on the ground of supporting terrorism, destabilizing neighboring states and violating human rights. The sanctions regime was extended in 2007, because of the violence in the Sudanese region of Darfur.

“The sanctions imposed on Sudan by the United States are significant hindrance [for the development of relations],” Shirinskiy told RIA Novosti, answering a question about the factors impeding the development of bilateral ties.

He added that the United States had imposed restrictions on deliveries of certain military equipment to Sudan, as well as on cooperation with Sudanese banking system that complicated business relations with country’s international partners.

In 2016, Moscow and Khartoum marked the 60th anniversary of establishment of diplomatic relations. Russia and Sudan have maintained a strong economic and political partnership for years. In 2014, the parties agreed to promote cooperation in a wide range of areas, including health care, mineral prospecting and the financial sector.

April 2, 2016 Posted by | Economics, Full Spectrum Dominance, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

Colombia: ‘Armed Strike’ Forced on Residents by Paramilitaries

teleSUR – April 1, 2016

As the possibility of a peace deal is becoming more certain, a surge of paramilitary violence in the country raises concerns of lasting peace.

In what’s being called an “armed strike” the Usuga Clan, a nacro-paramilitary outfit, ordered local residents in three northern departments in Colombia to stop all their activities for two days. Flyers distributed beforehand threatened them with retaliation if they dared to leave their homes.

They also forced local shops to shut down and intimidated children not to go to school, while blocking roads and rivers, said Colombia’s Ombudsman Alfonso Cajiao.

In the department of Sucre, education centers were shut down and two people were assassinated since the beginning of the forced strike, reported a local organization.

An assassination attempt on human rights activist and ex-senator Piedad Cordoba Friday is believed to be the work of paramilitaries. The Usuga Clan also killed a policeman and a military officer Thursday. Both officers were unarmed and dressed as civilians when they were killed.

President Juan Manuel Santos strongly condemned what he called a “criminal group” in a press conference.

“I insist that the Usuga Clan is a criminal organization, and will not be granted any political treatment. I can only recommend that they hand themselves over to the country’s justice,” he added, reporting that security forces arrested 56 members belonging to the armed group Friday, who were allegedly intimidating the local population on social media and in the streets.

The armed strike comes as various far-right sectors and paramilitary groups are calling for a national mobilization Saturday to protest against the peace deal currently being negotiated between the Colombian government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia in Havana.

On Thursday, far-right leader and ex-president Alvaro Uribe, criticized the peace deal, saying the deal was “not a peace deal, it is an impunity deal,” in an interview with the Spanish-based journal, ABC.

“The agreement could end up sending to prison all those who fought terrorism,” he dramatically warned, denying any form of state terrorism or paramilitary violence like the scandal of “false positives” carried out during his presidency.

As the agreement is gets closer, a surge of paramilitary violence has also raised concerns among progressive sectors and activists in the country who fear that the Colombian state will be unable to guarantee their security even after the peace deal is signed.

April 2, 2016 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Militarism, Subjugation - Torture, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Hamas slams Twitter for closing of accounts

Press TV – April 1, 2016

Hamas has slammed Twitter for closing several accounts linked to the Palestinian resistance movement, saying the company is biased in favor of the Israeli regime.

The Hamas military wing, Ezzedine al-Qassam Brigades, said in a statement on Friday that its English- and Arabic-language accounts had been shut down for the third time in a fortnight.

Twitter is showing a “clear bias to the Israeli occupation where it should (adopt a) neutral position toward both sides,” the statement added.

It said that the closure comes while Twitter allows Israeli officials to encourage “racism, extremism and terrorism” on the social networking site.

Qassam also urged Twitter to reopen its accounts, saying one of those closed accounts had been followed by over 140,000 followers.

Twitter declined to comment, saying in a statement that the company does not comment on individual accounts citing “privacy and security reasons.”

Since its establishment in December 1987, Hamas has refused to recognize Israel and adopted resistance against the Israeli occupation, which it believes is the sole way of bringing about the liberation of occupied Palestinian territories. The movement says its goal is to liberate the entire Palestine.

The Palestinian resistance movement scored a landslide victory in Palestinian elections in 2006. Hamas has ruled the Israeli-blockaded Gaza Strip, while Fatah has set up headquarters in the occupied Palestinian territories in the West Bank.

Israel has waged three large-scale aerial and ground wars on Gaza in the past seven years. In its latest act of aggression in the summer of 2014, which lasted for 50 days, the regime killed about 2,200 Palestinians and inflicted heavy damage on Gaza’s infrastructure and economy. In that latest Israeli aggression, Twitter shut down most of Hamas’ accounts.

April 1, 2016 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

Less than 5% of new flats built in Arab areas in Israel last year

MEMO | March 30, 2016

Arab residents in Israel received only 4.6 per cent of the newly built apartments during 2015, a reported issued yesterday revealed. The report, which was issued by the Legal Centre for Arab Minority Rights in Israel Adalah, said that it monitored government bidding for building new apartments in 2015 and found that Israel is adopting “racial” policies in this regard and it resulted in a “severe residential crisis” in Arab villages and cities in Israel.

According to the report, which was prepared by the Lawyer Mohamed Bassam from Adalah, the overwhelming majority of land and houses marketed during the year were specified for Jewish communities.

Statistics showed that the Arab residents in Israel only had 4.6 per cent of the marketed houses during 2015; however, Arabs make up 20 per cent of the Israeli population.

Only 2.5 per cent of the apartments marketed with discounted prices were available to Arabs.

Regarding the number of bids for industrial zones, the report showed that the Arab cities and villages received only two of 20, and five out of 42 bids to establish commercial zones.

Adalah warned in its report that a solution for the residential crisis of the Palestinian community in Israel will never be achieved unless Israel reforms the historical “deep racial” plans adopted against Arabs.

March 30, 2016 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

Israeli Minster Calls for “Civil Targeted Killings” of BDS Leaders

By Richard Silverstein | Tikun Olam | March 30, 2016

The Yediot Achronot conference attacking BDS has become a veritable carnival of hate.  Everyone from delusional Hollywood celebrities (Roseanne Barr) to cabinet ministers, to the leader of the Opposition have pledged fealty to the cause.

But the apogee came yesterday when Transportation Minister Israel Katz called for the “civil targeted killing” of BDS leaders like Omar Barghouti. The phrase he used (sikul ezrahi memukad) derives from the euphemistic Hebrew phrase for the targeted killing of a terrorist (the literal meaning is “targeted thwarting”). But the added word “civil” makes it something different. Katz is saying that we won’t physically murder BDS opponents, but we will do everything short of that.

One may rightly ask what business a transportation minister has conducting targeted killings, physical or otherwise, against anyone. Though everything in Israel is in service to the national security state, has transportation fallen under that bailiwick as well?

We are entering dangerous territory when an Israeli cabinet minister engages in wordplay that verges on putting a bull’s-eye on the backs of non-violent activists. If there are Israel apologists out there who dismiss the significance of such rhetoric they are sadly mistaken. In this torrid political environment in which Israeli leftists have become criminals and wounded Palestinian youth may be summarily executed in the street, it is only too easy to foresee Palestinian activists like Barghouti having a bounty on their heads.

Does anyone doubt there are scores of Yigal Amirs out there who’d be pleased to strike a blow for their hateful cause by putting a bullet in the head of a Palestinian?

Not to be outdone, Interior Minister Aryeh Deri called for stripping BDS founder Omar Barghouti of his Israeli residency, which he gained in 1994 when he married an Israeli citizen. Deri claimed that Barghouti is employing a scam against Israel because his main residence is Ramallah and not Israel (though he’s pursuing, or has completed, an MA at Tel Aviv University). Given Katz’s ever so veiled threat against him it would be no wonder if Barghouti did choose to value his safety and live where he’s not under threat of death.

In this context, it’s ironic Facebook activists have posted a gag order involving a potential criminal case against Deri himself. It seems that the Israeli Attorney General has been investigating criminal charges of an unspecified nature. It’s important to recall that Deri has been charged with corruption in the past, been convicted, and spent time in prison. However, when his sentence was served, he was reappointed to the leadership of the Shas party, won a seat in the Knesset, and became interior minister. It appears this recycled thief may be up to the same old tricks once more.

Deri’s spiritual boss, Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef, told an audience of the faithful a few weeks ago that under Jewish law, no Palestinian should be allowed to live in the land of Israel. In other words, he was espousing the ethnic cleansing of Israel, and the expulsion of 20% of its population. Only later did the rabbi explain that he wasn’t, God forbid, proposing that Palestinians be expelled now, but that this would only happen after the Messiah came and Israel was a proper halachic state. Is it any surprise that Deri himself would jump on the band wagon and commence the expulsion by stripping Barghouti of his legal rights to residency?

Israel’s major concert promoter, Shuki Weiss, who plays a major role in combating the cultural boycott against Israel, complained at the Yediot conference that Deri’s interior ministry was demanding that international artists wishing to perform in Israel sign a loyalty oath in order to obtain a visa. The ministry immediately denied the claim. And concert promoters aren’t known for being fonts of truth. So it’s hard to know what’s the truth in this context. But given how extreme this government is and how petty its leadership, it’s not hard to believe a ministry official would think it was a terrific idea to pressure Elton John to sign a loyalty oath before permitting him to step foot in the Holy Land.

March 30, 2016 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Subjugation - Torture | , , , | Leave a comment

Enforcing UK surveillance powers may cost over £1bn, 7 times original estimate

RT | March 30, 2016

Online surveillance on the scale proposed in the UK government’s Investigatory Powers Bill could end up costing more than £1.2 billion, over seven times the Home Office’s highest estimate.

A Danish digital rights group told British MPs the government’s estimated cost of rolling out a new system for spying on internet users is too low and could only cover “a small part” of the population.

Denmark recently suspended plans to introduce a similar internet surveillance program after an official study by Ernst & Young (EY) found set-up costs would be much higher than originally projected.

The IT-Political Association of Denmark said in written evidence to the committee scrutinizing the Investigatory Powers Bill that Britain should expect a similarly high price tag.

“Based on the new cost information from Denmark, it seems unlikely that the Home Office budget can cover a sufficiently effective ICR implementation, unless only a small part of the British population is subjected to [ICRs].”

The revised bill, published last month, ignored criticism from MPs by expanding the most controversial powers.

The new legislation requires internet companies to collect and store everyone’s web browsing history for 12 months, and gives security services the power to hack into citizens’ computers and smartphones.

Home Secretary Theresa May estimates the Home Office would need to compensate internet companies between £130.6 million and £164.4 million to start new data systems capable of gathering and storing the public’s Internet Connection Records (ICRs).

In addition, the government projects running costs of £4.4 million to £5.6 million over 10 years.

However, the EY study from Denmark suggests costs could be exponentially higher. EY found the cost of building computer systems capable of collecting and storing ICRs would be about £19 per person.

If this figure is the same for the UK, with its 64.6 million population, it adds up to a hefty £1.2 billion price tag.

Liberal Democrat peer Paul Strasburger, who sits on the committee, called on the government to “scrap this bad idea.”

“This news about the real cost should be the final nail in the coffin for ICRs.

“The Danes found that it was about as useful as a chocolate teapot for catching criminals or preventing terrorism, and anyway it is very easy for the bad guys to evade.

“What’s worse is that collecting everyone’s data would put every British internet user at risk of having their most intimate information stolen by hackers, thieves, and blackmailers,” Strasburger concluded.

The Mirror reports a Home Office spokesperson as claiming the Danish model is not comparable to the plan outlined in the Investigatory Powers Bill.

The Home Office said an updated figure would be published before the bill is passed, but could not give a date.

March 30, 2016 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

NSA Director Meets Secretly in Israel to Plan Stuxnet-Like Operations

1013336449

© Flickr/ EFF Photos
Sputnik – 29.03.2016

Last week, NSA chief, Admiral Michael Rogers met with Israeli security officials in secret to explore forging closer ties between US and Israeli cyber intelligence gathering.

The NSA, America’s signals intelligence (SIGINT) agency, is responsible for electronic collection abroad in addition to protecting US government information and communication systems from foreign penetration and sabotage.

Admiral Rogers was hosted by the leadership of the Israeli Defense Forces’ SIGINT unit, or Corps Unit 8200. The secretive Corps Unit 8200 is tasked with collecting SIGINT from the Middle East. The meeting was focused on cooperation of the two entities to tackle regional powers with an emphasis on Iran and Hezbollah.

Security analysts have largely credited IDF’s Unit 8200 with creating the Stuxnet virus which toppled Iran’s main nuclear reactor in 2010. That effort, codenamed OLYMPIC GAMES, similarly involved a collaboration between Unit 8200 and NSA between 2008 and 2011.

Reports are that Rogers’ visited with a view towards not just defensive and intelligence gathering collaboration, but offensive cyber operations like the Stuxnet operation.

This stride towards offensive cyber collaboration with Israel comes less than one week after the US government advanced criminal charges against Iranian military officials for engaging in cyber warfare.

March 29, 2016 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Progressive Hypocrite, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Is This Even Legal? EU Court to Investigate UK Surveillance Bill

Sputnik — 28.03.2016

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has scheduled an emergency hearing to investigate the United Kingdom’s recently adopted Investigatory Powers Bill on its compatibility with EU law, UK media said.

The hearing, which may result in the European Union limiting the powers of the UK Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) surveillance body, has been scheduled for April 12, The Guardian newspaper reported on Sunday.

On March 15, the House of Commons passed the Investigatory Powers Bill, also dubbed as the “snoopers’ charter” by its critics with 281 votes for and 15 against. The bill is now proceeding through the committee stage for further scrutiny.

The ECJ has previously ruled against the UK government’s surveillance legislation. In 2014, the court declared the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 (Dripa) to be inconsistent with EU laws after the case was brought to Luxembourg by two UK lawmakers.

April’s hearing is expected to be attended by the Conservative member of parliament David Davis, of the lawmakers that took Dirpa to the ECJ for scrutiny, according to the newspaper.

The snoopers’ charter has been designed to give UK police and intelligence services sweeping powers. the legislation requires internet providers to store their customers’ browsing history for up to 12 months and grant access to law enforcement regardless of whether a user is under investigation or not. Police will also have the authority to hack into phones, laptops, tablets and computers.

UK Home Secretary Theresa May has defended the bill, claiming it prioritizes privacy and limits intrusiveness into personal data.

March 27, 2016 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

‘9/11 was a gift to the NSA …’

globinfo freexchange – March 25, 2016

This was probably the most impressive revelation derived by the documentary A Good American watched by the blog at the 18th Documentary Festival of Thessaloniki.

The exceptional documentary by Friedrich Moser deconstructs completely the image of the National Security Agency, one of the most powerful intelligence agencies in the world. Through the revealing stories of former NSA employees who became whistleblowers – like William Binney, Diane Roark and Thomas Andrews Drake – the agency appears that it has become a field of personal ambitions and money hunting through huge funds from the central government.

Moreover, the experienced, top analyst, William Binney (who is the central figure of the documentary), deconstructs the myth of an organization that is supposed to be pioneer in new technologies. He presents NSA as an organization which had certain difficulties to follow the explosive progress of the computer technology during 1990s, in order to modernize its obsolete equipment as fast as possible.

But the most mind-blowing revelation comes from Binney’s NSA colleague Thomas Drake. At one point, Drake recalls how a Senior Military Officer dismissed Osama bin Laden as “a raghead spouting off about a fatwa in the desert” in response to their intelligence reports on Al Qaeda in the late 90s. After the events of 9/11, Drake quotes his former NSA boss Maureen Baginski who reportedly said “9/11 was a gift to the NSA, we’re gonna get all the money we need and then some.” [1]

Although one could claim that behind this story is hidden a conflict of interest concerning two rival projects proposed to the NSA, there is plenty of evidence that ThinThread, the project developed by a small group around Binney, was rejected against Trailblazer, only because Trailblazer was promoted by a powerful lobby inside the NSA.

Indeed, as also presented in the documentary: NSA whistleblowers J. Kirk Wiebe, William Binney, Ed Loomis, and House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence staffer Diane Roark complained to the Department of Defense’s Inspector General (IG) about waste, fraud, and abuse in the program, and the fact that a successful operating prototype existed, but was ignored when the Trailblazer program was launched. The complaint was accepted by the IG and an investigation began that lasted until mid-2005 when the final results were issued. The results were largely hidden, as the report given to the public was heavily (90%) redacted, while the original report was heavily classified, thus restricting the ability of most people to see it. [2]

Additionally, in July 2007, armed FBI agents raided the homes of Roark, Binney, and Wiebe, the same people who had filed the complaint with the DoD Inspector General in 2002. Binney claims they pointed guns at his wife and himself. Wiebe said it reminded him of the Soviet Union. None of these people were charged with any crimes. In November 2007, there was a raid on Drake’s residence. His computers, documents, and books were confiscated. He was never charged with giving any sensitive information to anyone; the charge actually brought against him is for ‘retaining’ information. The FBI tried to get Roark to testify against Drake; she refused. [3]

The documentary also reveals that the project ThinThread not only was much cheaper, but had two additional advantages: it was much more effective and was designed to protect the personal data of millions of citizens who were not related with terrorist activity.

Although NSA leadership rejected ThinThread three weeks prior to 9/11, in a secret test-run of the program against the pre-9/11-NSA database in early 2002, the program immediately found the terrorists. [4]

No one should expect intelligence agencies to be composed by “angels” who follow strictly a moral code. The dirty role of US and other agencies around the world for many decades is well known.

Yet, this documentary uncovers something much worse. Nothing has left from the original mission that the NSA supposedly serves. The protection of citizens against terrorist attacks has become irrelevant in front of the big money targeted by the corrupted groups of interests inside the agency. It seems that nothing has been remained unaffected from the rotten culture of “money and power above all and by all means” that dominates in today’s societies.

[1] Greed, Corruption & Cover-Up At The NSA, http://artvoice.com/2016/03/04/greed-corruption-cover-up-at-the-nsa/#.VvQZ_Y_PHLc

[2] Trailblazer Project, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trailblazer_Project

[3] Thomas Andrews Drake, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews_Drake

[4] A Good American (2015), Plot Summary, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4065414/plotsummary?ref_=tt_ov_pl

March 27, 2016 Posted by | Civil Liberties, False Flag Terrorism, Film Review, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Leave a comment

Japanese media accuse govt of silencing criticism

RT | March 26, 2016

Senior Japanese journalists have denounced PM Shinzo Abe’s government for its recent clampdown on press freedom after the communications minister threatened to revoke their licenses for biased coverage last month.

Five Japanese journalists called a press conference to express their concerns over the government’s tightening grip on media.

“In Japan today, rather than the media watching the authorities, the government watches the media,” said Shuntaro Torigoe, a former news anchor on Japanese TV Asahi, adding that the Abe government “is most nervously checking what the media say, because what’s said on television affects his support ratings.”

Last month, Japan’s minister of internal affairs and communications, Sanae Takaichi, repeatedly warned broadcasters that they must produce “politically neutral” news coverage in compliance with the country’s broadcast law if they didn’t want to lose their licenses.

Despite growing concerns that such remarks can have an adverse effect on the press freedom, Takaichi’s words were reiterated by Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga, who supported the ministry’s stance, calling her comments “common sense.”

Following the remarks, Hiroko Kuniya, a prominent Japanese journalist, was ousted after 23 years of working as a popular primetime show host for public broadcaster NHK [Japan Broadcasting Corp]. After her last appearance on the show she commented on the departure by saying that “expressing things has gradually become difficult.”

Among other victims of the government`s crusade on media were veteran anchors Ichiro Furutachi, 61 (TV Asahi Corp), who stepped down last December and Shigetada Kishii, 71 (Tokyo Broadcasting System). Kishii announced he would leave the channel on March 31. He believes the broadcasters are being pressured by the government to sack outspoken anchors to stem the flow of criticism.

Last year, Kishii publicly opposed the government’s security policy legislation, which stipulates that Japan’s armed forces will be able to engage in the military operations overseas in defense of an ally, including the US, under attack. Despite being labeled “war legislation” by the public, it was approved by Abe’s government, triggering mass protests.

Article 174 of Japan’s broadcast law allows the minister of internal affairs to suspend operations of any station that fails to comply with the neutrality clause. However, media professionals didn’t see the minister’s words as a simple reminder, but rather a dangerous attempt of suppressing the media.

“It sounds as if the government can suspend the activities of broadcasters or remove newscasters just because they criticized the government,” said Soichiro Okuno, an MP for the Democratic Party of Japan.

“It was a remark that could even topple the government in a Western democracy,” wrote Akira Ikegami in a newspaper column last month.

Japan’s remilitarization has become the center topic of the national agenda under Abe’s government with many opposing the authorities’ efforts to broaden the mandate of Japan’s self-defense force and relocate a US military base on Okinawa. Nearly 30,000 people joined the mass rallies against the government’s plan to relocate the base, while hundreds of students marched through the streets of Tokyo protesting “war legislation” in February.

READ MORE: Up to 30,000 flock to Japan parliament to protest US base relocation in Okinawa

March 26, 2016 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

At the Intersection of Zionism and Social Justice

By Michael Howard | Dissident Voice | March 25, 2016

In her oily, cringe-inducing and totally predictable speech to AIPAC on March 21, Hillary Clinton argued that, since (according to her) “anti-Semitism is on the rise across the world… we must repudiate all efforts to malign, isolate and undermine Israel and the Jewish people.” In other words, we must do what we can to shut down any legitimate criticism of Israeli policy. A reliable means of doing so is to conflate said criticism with anti-Semitism and thus vilify the critic in question. This particular strategy has been perfected and institutionalized for decades, and was perhaps best deconstructed by Norman Finkelstein in “The Holocaust Industry.”

By dismissing BDS advocates as irrational, Jew-hating troublemakers, Hillary Clinton, the great bastion of liberalism and progress, makes common cause with the jingoist far right (where she actually belongs). But she also makes common cause with a good chunk of US academia, where criticism of Israel and its atrocities is often met with censorship and intimidation. In a comprehensive report on the subject, Palestine Legal details the extent of the suppression: “From January 2014 through June 2015, Palestine Legal interviewed hundreds of students, academics and community activists who reported being censored, punished, subjected to disciplinary proceedings, questioned, threatened, or falsely accused of anti-Semitism or supporting terrorism for their speech in support of Palestinian rights or criticism of Israeli policies.”

Needless to say, this is a gross violation of First Amendment rights, and it needs to be challenged at every opportunity. The university system is based on the principles of free inquiry and unfettered discourse; absent the open exchange of conflicting ideas and opinions, academia is essentially worthless. When certain viewpoints are institutionally favored, colleges cease to be places of learning and instead become places of indoctrination. Who could desire such a circumstance? Well, apart from authoritarians, fascists, religious fanatics (including Zionists) and Hillary Clinton, it’s becoming more and more apparent that “liberal” student activists do.

On college campuses across the country, students are mobilizing and protesting against institutionalized discrimination. Few on the left would argue that this is a negative development. After all, if nothing else these students are contesting authority—a noble and worthy exercise in itself. However, what do we say when fundamental democratic values like free speech are subordinated to an ideology? This is the precarious situation in which many student activists currently find themselves. It’s bizarre: presumably, the students protesting at places like Yale and the University of Missouri (to take two high-profile examples from last year) would stand with the BDS activists who are targeted and censored by pro-Israel forces. And yet these same students—exhibiting a degree of schizophrenia—would have their own ideological opponents treated in the same fashion.

Take a recent incident. At Emory College in Atlanta, some students used chalk to write “Trump 2016”—and other similarly anodyne messages—throughout the campus. Curiously (or perhaps not at this point), controversy erupted when a number of students declared that they felt physically threatened by the chalk drawings, which were considered by some to be acts of violence. “I thought we were having a KKK rally on campus,” one student reportedly told the Daily Beast. She “legitimately feared for [her] life.” Another student said that “some of us were expecting shootings” and thus “feared walking alone.” They demanded that the Emory administration identify the perpetrators, presumably so some sort of disciplinary action could take place—perhaps a public flogging. When the administration responded with a tepid defense of the anonymous chalkers’ right to free speech, the offended shifted their ire onto the college itself, for failing to provide an adequate safe space. All of which is par for the course by now.

So here we have a conflation of Donald Trump supporters with homicidal white supremacists; of political campaigning with physical violence. This is not dissimilar to the conflation of BDS with anti-Semitism, which plagues Palestinian rights activists everywhere. In fact, it’s closer to the profoundly stupid idea that all Muslims endorse terrorism—a notion that the offended students at Emory surely find abhorrent. There is one obvious distinction that must be made: the censorship of BDS on college campuses comes from the top, while the attempted censorship of Donald Trump supporters comes from the comparatively impotent student body. The former case is a much graver threat to free speech, but that is not an excuse to ignore the latter. Soon enough the student body will hold positions of authority.

ESP seems to be a trait common to advocates of censorship. For example, in a recent pro-Israel memo from the Regents of the University of California, it is contended that “opposition to Zionism often is expressed in ways that are not simply statements of disagreement over politics and policy, but also assertions of prejudice and intolerance toward Jewish people and culture.” Translation: the mind readers at the Regents of the University of California can tell when critics of Israel are actually rabid Jew-haters, and they will adjudicate such cases accordingly. Similarly, the would-be student censors use their clairvoyance to judge when an opinion they don’t like is motivated by race hatred or some other form of bigotry. Support for Donald Trump, as we have already seen, implies a desire to kill minorities. It is therefore no different from real physical violence.

What would happen if an entire college was founded on this line of thinking? A recent petition drawn up by some student activists at Western Washington University spells it out for us. The group calls themselves the Student Assembly for Power and Liberation, which is more than a little ominous-sounding. In their own words: “We are a growing group of students from a multitude of communities and disciplines around campus combatting the systemic oppression embedded within our society that is inevitably upheld through this institution, as it was created to uphold white supremacy at its core.”

Note the aggressively bureaucratic language (the grammar of which unravels throughout the petition). Prolixity of this sort is often employed by postmodernist academics—in whose tradition these students are working—for reasons that aren’t entirely clear. Noam Chomsky once argued that, in general, postmodernism “allows people to take a radical stance—more radical than thou—but to be completely dissociated from anything that’s happening, for many reasons. One reason is nobody can understand a word they’re saying. So they’re already dissociated. It’s kind of like a private lingo.”

Obviously, Michel Foucault these kids are not, but the postmodernist influence is plain to see. It’s like that smug kid in your Creative Writing workshop whose stories are all cheap Bukowski imitations. They don’t really have any idea what they’re doing, but they’re busting with self-satisfaction nevertheless.

What these students want, and what their petition is meant to facilitate, is the creation of a brand new college: the College of Power and Liberation. The function of this hypothetical college would be the “development of academic programs that are committed to social justice.” The first step in realizing this goal is “a cluster hire of ten tenure-track faculty to teach at the college.” Fair enough. However, there is something of a catch: “the Student Assembly for Power and Liberation will have direct input and decision-making power over the hiring of faculty for the college.”

That’s right—the professors at the College of Power and Liberation are to be hired by the students attending that college. The “power,” then, is to reside entirely in the hands of the student body. Naturally, they also reserve the right to take “disciplinary action” against “everyone in a teaching position within the university.” And it gets weirder. Demanded in part three of the petition is “the creation and implementation of a 15 persxn [sic] paid student committee, The Office for Social Transformation.”

The misspelling of “person” here is deliberate, as is the discontinuous misspelling of “history” (hxstory) later on. The implication is that these nouns are gendered (person, history) and thus microaggressive residue of an outmoded patriarchal system of thought. Therefore they have been changed. This, I suppose, is an example of the “de-colonial work” for which the College of Power needs “an annually dedicated revenue of $45,000.”

The Office for Social Transformation doesn’t just sound Orwellian—it quite literally is. Here is its express purpose: “to monitor, document, and archive all racist, anti-black, transphobic, cissexist, misogynistic, ablest, homophobic, islamophobic, xenophobic, anti-semitism [sic], and otherwise oppressive behavior on campus.” This oppressive behavior, the petition continues, is regularly found “in faculty curriculum.” By that I assume they mean curriculum including books with controversial subject matter, for instance the novels of James Baldwin and Mark Twain. So much for the English professors who wish to teach the “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn”—a terribly oppressive book.

The petition does not explicitly propose thought crime legislation, but it doesn’t rule it out either. One inevitably wonders about the criteria by which a person’s behavior is judged oppressive (i.e., punishable). For example, what becomes of the student or faculty member who is caught reading Kipling? Surely owning a copy of The Cantos is grounds for disciplinary action—Ezra Pound was a bona fide fascist. Hemingway was anti-Semitic and homophobic: it follows that The Sun Also Rises is beyond the pale. Tolstoy abused his wife, and so reading War and Peace implies an endorsement of misogyny.

Simone de Beauvoir once appealed to the censors of her time: “Must we burn [the Marquis de] Sade?” Indeed we must—and most others, for that matter.

Never fear, though: the College of Power and Liberation has a “three-strike disciplinary system that corresponds to citations that are processed.” Thank heavens for the three-strike disciplinary system, without which people might be fired and expelled unreasonably.

You get the picture. The mini despots comprising the so-called Student Assembly for Power and Liberation are concerned very much with Power and very little with Liberation. Their ultimate goal is to establish a totalitarian microcosm of a state, very far removed from reality, in which power and wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few self-righteous 20-somethings with delusions of grandeur. Because the First Amendment is overrated anyway.

The Holocaust Industry would be proud. And that’s what makes all of this so distressing. If so-called liberal student activists believe in censorship (and many of them evidently do), who can we rely on to challenge the unconstitutional suppression of BDS activism on college campuses? It necessarily devolves into a battle of hypocrites: the right rationalizes their brand of censorship while condemning the left’s, and vice versa. The reality is that both need to be condemned, because both represent explicit attacks on basic democratic principles. The crucial difference, I suppose, is that the Zionists (who know exactly what they’re doing) must be fought, while the overzealous students (who don’t) need merely to be educated. We can and should do both at once.

Michael Howard is a freelance writer from Buffalo, NY. He can be reached at mwhowie@yahoo.com .

March 26, 2016 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , , , | Leave a comment