Into the Mentality of the Occupier/Oppressor
By Kim Petersen | Dissident Voice | September 30th, 2011
What is an intellectual? Some say it is the educated lot in the ivory towers of academia. Sure, many of those professors are intellectuals, but many of them are also challenged outside their field. Intellectuality is a concept that transcends university degrees.
So how to define an intellectual? An intellectual is someone who thinks beyond the strictures imposed by upbringing, education, societal norms, dominant media, etc. to arrive in agreement with other conclusions or to form one’s own conclusions. It is more than simply thinking outside a box or applying critical thinking to issues and challenges because intellectuality also demands honesty and integrity.
Gilad Atzmon is someone who encompasses what it means to be an intellectual. He is someone seemingly unbound by a specific group or milieu. Atzmon turned away from the Zionism of his father and the – what he calls — Nazism of his fellow Jews in Israel. Atzmon recalls the plight of captured Palestinian freedom fighters at the Ansar internment camp during his time in the Israeli military: “The place was a concentration camp. The inmates were the ‘Jews’, and I was nothing but a ‘Nazi’.” He has discarded the scoundrel’s refuge of patriotism. He has rejected what is morally anathema inculcation, propaganda, mendacious narrative, and supremacism of Jewish “culture.” Atzmon realizes that we all are human beings; we all possess 23 pairs of chromosomes.
Atzmon exposes a twisting of history, a narrative that lies about who the Jewish people are, lies about a historical and contemporary dispossession, occupation, and oppression carried out by his kinsfolk. That is an exceedingly difficult dilemma for most people to recognize, acknowledge, and overcome. It is especially difficult to fight because when such a colossal crime is denied, whether consciously or through gullibility, by the masses of one’s kinsfolk (Atzmon states: “Israel is largely supported by world Jewry institutionally, financially and spiritually.”), it estranges one from one’s tribe.
Atzmon has written The Wandering Who? A Study of Jewish Identity Politics wherein he answers the titular question. Atzmon is interested in identity: who are the Jews? He differentiates “between Jews (the people), Judaism (the religion), and Jewish-ness (the ideology).” Jews, Atzmon notes, do not form an ethnicity. He describes Jewish society as an amalgam. It is assimilationist for Jews and separatist from Goyim.
The Jews and the Jewish state come first for Zionists. Atzmon details how financial, economic, and political control are sought. He cites “the first and prominent Zionist prophet Theodor Herzl” as to “what political Zionism is all about: getting superpowers to serve the Zionist cause.” The abject speech by US president Barack Obama rejecting Palestinian statehood is a prime example of serving Zionism.
He cuts through the hasbara: “For most Israelis, shalom doesn’t mean ‘peace’, it means security, and for Jews only.”
When it comes to history, Atzmon seeks truth even when it is ugly. Like any good scientist or historian, Atzmon believes a theory or narrative that has been disproven is one that should be disregarded for a superior explanation. Historical revisionism for Atzmon is part of the search for the closest approximation to the truth. When a clearer picture emerges of history, then amending the narrative to reflect the new facts and clearer picture is demanded.
The narrative is important, and many Jews are highly skilled in discourse. Atzmon writes that Zionists realised that full control over language would allow them to impose their worldview on subsequent generations of Jews. Israel Shamir in his book, Masters of Discourse, illuminated how pervasive the Jewish narrative is in many societies.
But the Jews are not always so clever in their attempts to control the message. Atzmon relates how the IDF prevented all foreign media from entering Gaza, not to propagandize the Goyim but to keep Israelis and Zionist Jews from seeing themselves through the eyes of the Goyim. Atzmon describes this approach as “completely counter-effective”: “the Israelis ended up seeing themselves through the gaze of Arabs, Iranians, Muslims. … Humiliated and pulverised, Israelis saw their true nature exposed.”
Atzmon explains, “… it is not the idea of being unethical that torments Israelis and their supporters, but the idea of being ‘caught out’ as such.”
Atzmon identifies a hypocrisy in Jews identifying as Jews. “Some Jews,” he writes, “may, for instance, proudly carry the Jewish banner (Jews for Peace, Jews for Justice, Jews for Jesus and so on) as if they believe that the ‘J’ word contains special righteous attributions. However, they will also be gravely offended if they are called a ‘Jew’ by others. Suggesting to a Jew that ‘he is a Jew’ or ‘behaves like a Jew’ can be regarded as a serious ‘racist’ offence.”
Jews for Peace exemplifies Jewish separation. However, as for offensive labeling, context is important. When the speaker is equating group membership with a negative attribute and stereotyping all members with that attribute (although untrue), then that is indeed a racist offense and umbrage at such labeling is warranted.
Wondering about Atzmon
Atzmon knows who he is: “I regard myself a ‘Hebrew-speaking Palestinian’, I do not seek anyone’s approval to do so. I also regard myself as a ‘proud, self-hating Jew’ and again, I do not need anyone’s approval.”
Why does Atzmon describe himself as a self-hating Jew? He does not hate himself, but he hates what being a Jew – to him — represents, especially a Zionist Jew: “ Zionism is all about the abolition of the other, the re-creation of conditions in which Jews can celebrate their symptoms, in which they can love themselves for who they are – or, at least, who they think they are.”
It is not just the message that Jews manipulate, according to Atzmon, but also the economic system. Atzmon cites Milton Friedmann who made it clear: “Jews do benefit from hard capitalism and competitive markets.”
In fact, again citing Friedmann, Jews were never about sharing and caring economies and their ideologies: “Jews or Jewish intellectuals are not really against capitalism, it was just the ‘special circumstances of the nineteenth century that drove Jews to the left, and the subconscious attempts by Jews to demonstrate to themselves and the world the fallacy of the anti-Semitic stereotype’. It was neither ideology nor ethics.”
How does one understand a people without a history? Atzmon says, “It is an established fact that virtually no Jewish history texts were written between the first and early-nineteenth centuries. That Judaism is based on a religious historical myth may have something to do with this.”
Atzmon dispenses with biblical fiction — “an ideological text that is being made to serve social and political ends” and the mythical exile of Jews (citing the work of Israeli historian Shlomo Sand).
The Wandering Who? examines the political landscape, wondering about the “overwhelming” over-representation of Jews in the political institutions of the United Kingdom and United States. This is a fact, but should one blame Jews for taking advantage of the political system and the voting tendencies of the citizenry? Politics in western so-called democracies is, after all, about forming groups that can gain political power.
Atzmon criticizes the leaders in the UK and US, asking: “And what qualifications did [Tony] Blair or [George W.] Bush possess before taking the wheel?” Atzmon supplies the answer: “none.” He continues, “Our lives, our future and the future of our children are in the hands of ludicrous, clueless characters.” Here Atzmon digresses weakly and too far from his core thesis. Ad hominem should be unpersuasive in intelligent discourse, and Atzmon fails to address what are the qualifications that Bush and Blair lack; what qualifications does Atzmon propose are necessary?
In a speech arguing against Palestinian statehood, United States president Barack Obama said: “There is no shortcut to the end of a conflict that has endured for decades…” Atzmon demurs: “… the so-called Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be resolved in 25 minutes once both people decide to live together.”
However, according to Atzmon, “The only people who can bring peace about are the Palestinians, because Palestine, against all odds and in spite of the endless suffering, humiliation and oppression, is still an ethically-driven ecumenical society.”
The Wandering Who? reveals the infatuation with self and the Jewish struggle for identity; it presents a reasoned and principled account into understanding the mentality of an occupier and oppressor.
Kim Petersen can be reached at kim@dissidentvoice.org.
Obama’s Phony “Pivot” on the Budget: The Trickster is At It, Again
A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford | September 21, 2011
President Obama remains as eager as ever to slash away at Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and every other social program despised by his corporate backers – his new tone of voice and body language notwithstanding. There has been no substantive “pivot” in his debt reduction policies, only a cynical, cosmetic change of posture.
Obama’s own words betray him, if only people would actually listen. A straightforward reading of his remarks on Tuesday shows the president has not altered one iota his intention to sacrifice the legacy of the New Deal and the Great Society on the alter of deficit reduction. He simply asks that the Republicans make him look good doing it, by allowing some undetermined – and almost certainly token – taxes on the rich.
This supposedly “new Obama” –which he hopes resembles the much older Obama of his supporters’ imaginations – claims he will resist future reductions in Medicaid and Medicare – that is, unless the Republicans allow additional taxes on corporations and the wealthy. But he is perfectly willing to chop away if the Republicans budge from their position. Knowing Obama as we do after two and a half years, he will accept anything that can remotely be construed as a tax hike on some wealthy people as sufficient cause to return to his previous passion for savaging Medicaid and Medicare. All the president now insists upon is that the cuts not be one-sided.
Obama claims he is removing Social Security from the chopping block, if only temporarily. But he is the one who put Social Security there in the first place before he was even sworn into office, and has kept it in jeopardy ever since. Administration officials are telling reporters that Obama is not ruling out resurrecting the draconian cuts he proposed back in July – if only the Republicans would put a little grease on the wheels on the corporate tax side.
So, let us be clear about what has happened. The Republicans have consistently balked at any tax increases for the wealthy. Obama, who caved to Republicans on the Bush tax cuts for the rich late last year, and who had been perfectly willing to give away the whole social programs store this summer, now primps and postures as if he is defending those same social programs. But he’s not. All he wants is Republican cover to carry out his own deficit reduction massacre.
The whole conversation is out of whack. Progressives should not tolerate the bargaining away of programs that are vital to the health and welfare of the people, in return for taxes on the rich that will only go to reducing the deficit. Higher taxes on Exxon or Wal-Mart, even if they can be extracted from the Republicans, cannot make up for Social Security benefits or health care programs for those in need. The rich can spare some of their money. Medicaid beneficiaries cannot spare life-sustaining services. Obama is making this into an argument about notions of tax fairness, when the real struggle at hand is to maintain the meager social services that the United States still provides to its citizens.
The truth is, Obama is presenting the people with a losing proposition. If he somehow wins tax increases on the rich, then he will reciprocate, eagerly, with massive cuts to people’s programs, and then call it victory. Under those circumstances, the best we can hope for is gridlock. Any Obama deal, is a bad deal.
BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com.
Settlers shoot at homes in Burin village, Nablus
Ma’an – 19/09/2011
NABLUS — Settlers opened fired on Palestinian homes late Sunday in the village of Burin in southern Nablus, Palestinian Authority officials said.
PA settlement affairs official Ghassan Doughlas told Ma’an that armed settlers shot at the village after midnight on Sunday.
The home of Said Najjar was hit in the attack, Doughlas said
Local guard committees witnessed the attack and contacted Palestinian officials.
In a separate incident on Sunday, settlers tried to raid the village of Awarta in Nablus. Israeli forces prevented the settlers from entering the village in a stand off which lasted 3 hours, witnesses said.
The latest attacks come amid a recent surge in settler violence in the Nablus district.
Palestinian Authority spokesman Ghassan Khatib warned on Thursday that a serious increase in settler violence towards West Bank Palestinians threatened escalation of the situation ahead of the Palestinians’ bid for membership of the UN.
News reports said two weeks ago that Israeli forces were arming settlers with tear-gas canisters, stun grenades and even trained dogs to counter potential attacks by the Palestinians.
On Sept. 5 settlers broke into Qusra village mosque, smashing windows, burning tires inside the building, and spray-painting walls with offensive slogans.
Village council head Hani Ismail told Ma’an on Tuesday that young men volunteered to guard the entrances to the village after the attacks, and had blocked further groups of armed settlers from entering the village.
Dark Horizon for Verizon
Ralph Nader | August 23, 2011
It was only a matter of time before the “pull down” NAFTA and WTO trade agreements on U.S. wages and jobs would be followed by “pull down” contract demands by U.S. corporations on their unionized workers toward levels of non-unionized laborers.
The most recent illustration of this three-decade reversal of nearly a century of American economic advances for employees is the numerous demands by Verizon
Here are just a few of the concessions the new Verizon CEO, Lowell McAdam, is insisting upon:
–More power to contract out and offshore jobs to add to the 25,000 already in that category; thereby undermining job security.
–a freeze on pensions;
–elimination of the sickness and death benefit program;
–reduction in sick days; and
–a major increase in employee contributions to and deductibles under their health insurance coverage.
Mr. Lowell McAdam would surely have trouble feeling the pain of his workers who brave the elements storm or shine to afford him a salary of over 1.5 million dollars PER MONTH plus perks and benefits.
Watching Verizon profits soar year after year, noticing Verizon stock rise faster than its competitors, knowing that the company’s top five executives took in over $250 million between them in the last four years, the Communications Workers of America (CWA) took their members on strike on August 7, 2011. “Unfair and unacceptable” was their cry on the picket lines up and down the east coast.
These workers pay their taxes. While the tax lawyers for their bosses have figured out how to turn Verizon into a vast tax escapee. According to the super-accurate Citizens for Tax Justice, Verizon Communications made a total of $32.5 billion dollars in pretax U.S. profits during 2008, 2009, 2010. Far from paying the maximum federal corporate income tax rate of 35 percent on these ample profits, Verizon’s federal income tax was negative $951 million or negative 2.9 percent!
Some of these saved tax revenues have been getting into expensive daily full page advertisements (not deductible it is hoped) in the Washington Post, The New York Times, and other large newspapers. Verizon’s brazen assertions reflect the limitless arrogance of a multinational behemoth.
Verizon headlines its ad with these words:
“They claim we’re asking union-represented employees to contribute to their own health care premiums. THEY’RE RIGHT. Verizon is proposing that its union-represented employees contribute more toward the cost of rising health care. 135,000 non-union Verizon employees already pay a portion of the healthcare premium. We’re just asking our union -represented employees to chip in like everybody else. We think that’s fair.”
There you have it – the “pull down” ultimatum to the level of the voiceless majority of Verizon workers. Of course Verizon bosses with their fat paychecks do not have to worry at all about co-payments and larger deductibles in their gold-plated health plan.
Another anti-union Verizon ad featured this assertion:
“They claim we want to strip away 50 years of contract negotiations. THEY’RE RIGHT. The union contracts that have expired were drafted over 50 years ago, when people still used rotary phones. Verizon is proposing to update the contracts in a reasonable manner to reflect the changing times.”
The CWA leaders recognize that some changes need to be made and have offered compromises. But fifty years ago, a telephone company CEO never dared pay himself anywhere near the multiple that today’s Verizon executives get compared to the average workers. Maybe then the CEO would get 20 times the entry level wage. Now it is between two hundred to four hundred times.
Verizon does have one last argument. At the bottom of each full-page ad, it describes exacting concessions from its workers as “all in an effort to best position Verizon to serve our customers.” Are those the same customers who are subject to all kinds of extremely one-sided fine print that spells suppression of rights, overcharges, termination fees, penalties and other straitjackets of contract serfdom? Are those the same customers who have to wait and wait to get their service and billing complaints addressed and questions answered? Are those the same customers who can never get Verizon to put what its spokespersons say on the phone in writing?
The CWA workers went back to their jobs on August 22, 2011. Verizon had threatened to cut off their medical, dental and optical benefits by August 31.Their 2008 contract continues until ongoing negotiations with the company are concluded for a new contract.
Verizon keeps saying that what they’re doing just “reflects the changing times.” The times are changing – skyrocketing executive pay packages and corporate profits – slashing benefits for the workers and their families – shredding of all moral authority by example from the top.
If negotiations break down in the coming weeks and the CWA goes out on strike again, consumer advocates and their organizations should make it explicitly clear that Verizon can’t excuse what they’re doing to workers in order to better “serve our customers.”
Verizon is going increasingly wireless. They are also going increasingly shameless!
Teenagers heckle UK PM during speech
Press TV – August 15, 2011
A group of British teenagers heckled Prime Minister David Cameron, when he was addressing his constituency gathering in Witney, Oxfordshire about a broken society.
Cameron was heckled by the teenagers when he made a pledge to reverse the moral collapse in the society and to fix Britain’s “broken society”, according to the British media reports.
The Prime Minister declared “a concerted, all-out war on what he called as gangs and gang culture”.
“It is a major criminal disease that has infected streets and estates across our country,” he said.
Cameron announced a series of tough measures, among them plans to have school leavers take part in a National Citizen Service, to deal with social problems.
Under the plan, Cameron pledged to introduce a non-military national service program, in which it would be obligatory for all 16-year-olds to participate and spend time volunteering in hospitals and community centres.
But the young audience was unimpressed, heckling the Conservative leader.
“He is blaming everyone but himself,” said Jake Parkinson, 17, unemployed. “The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. I’d love to go to university, but it’s the money that is putting me off.”
There were whistles when Cameron entered the stuffy, cramped room and “chicken” noises at the end from teenagers who accused him of leaving early and being too scared to answer all of their questions.
Many in Witney said they thought the biggest threat to public order came from a government austerity drive that they say will inevitably lead to the closure of social services funded by the state or third parties, such as charities.
“He wants people to get in touch with their families, but for some people their families aren’t there and the youth centre is the only place where they can talk to people,” said Ryan Clayton, 15. “But he’s shutting all the youth centres.”
Unemployed father-of-two Martin Lawson Smith said the wide gap between Britain’s rich and poor had fuelled the discontent.
“I don’t think broken families and morals are the problem,” he said. “It’s more the inequality that there is in society.”
Six More Years of Obama
By Margaret Kimberley | BAR | August 9, 2011
January 20, 2017 will be liberation day. That date will be the last day that Barack Obama can possibly be President of the United States. Assuming he will be reelected in 2012, his second term will end on Inauguration Day in 2017 and that will be a wonderful moment, even if his successor is a Republican.
If those words seem heretical, consider the following. Before Obama’s election, Social Security and Medicare were sacrosanct, safe from any political evil intent. George W. Bush’s legislative successes ended with his plans to “reform” Social Security. Bush took on Social Security and faced both tepid support from his own party and unified opposition from Democrats. The certainty of political support for these programs was such that they were often referred to as “the third rail of politics.”
Now the budget deal has made that once non-negotiable position as negotiable as anything else. The “super committee” which will make budgetary decisions away from the eyes and ears of public scrutiny, is under no obligation to support what ought to be completely off the budget cutting table.
Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi had this to say when asked about Social Security and Medicare. She would not “draw lines in the sand” regarding proposed cuts to entitlement programs. Her Senate colleague and partner in crime Harry Reid, had a similar response. He wanted to appoint committee members who had “open minds” and who were “willing to do entitlement cuts.”
When Reid was locked in a tough election last year, Democrats were mobilized to keep him in office, lest the Tea Party candidate emerge triumphant. It is now an open question as to whether or not his victory mattered at all to the progressive cause.
When the ruling class who hire and fire politicians chose a black Democrat to serve as president, they pulled off what can only be thought of as stroke of genius, the perfect crime if you will. Almost every aspect of what used to be solidly Democratic principles are now in question.
In just two years in office, Barack Obama has completely upended any and all expectations that Democrats have historically had. If a Democratic president can reverse decades of ideological discipline in such a short period of time, what more can happen between now and January 2017? The mania to follow what is now a worthless party affiliation should be seen for the hoax that it is.
While Obama was falsely thought of as the peace candidate in 2008, it must be pointed out that his democratic predecessors were as willing to wage war as Republicans were. Harry Truman is the only man to order atomic weapons dropped on human beings. John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson were responsible for the carnage in Vietnam and throughout Southeast Asia. The war imperative in the Obama administration should come as no surprise, but his desire to eviscerate the welfare state is ground breaking, and in the worst sense of that term possible.
No matter how awful their overseas debacles and atrocities, no Democratic president ever declared on television that Social Security was originally meant to be only for “widows and orphans.” Those words are lies, and come straight from right wing talking points which have been used to attack government programs for decades.
In the next six years we can expect more of the same. We may not be able to predict the circumstances of the betrayals, but they will certainly take place. Obama will not be alone either. He will have plenty of help from Reid, Pelosi, and their ilk in congress.
A Republican president will automatically get some push back from the Democratic rank and file. If we hope for anything in our political future, it should be that Republicans ought to be elected president instead of Democrats. Progressives are only concerned with whether the letter D follows the candidates name instead of R. If the Democrat favors the social policies which excite them more than ideology does, then any other acts committed by said Democrat will be declared acceptable. If current trends continue, gay marriage will be legal but Social Security and Medicare will no longer exist and most Democrats will say nothing as long as the deed was carried out by one of their own.
The only hope comes from as yet unknown circumstances and forces that may stop the onslaught. For now, Obama’s chances for re-election are good (rich people have certainly not stopped putting money into his campaign coffers.) We can only hope for the damage to be limited and for time to pass quickly. The year 2017 can’t get here soon enough.
Margaret Kimberley’s Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR.
Israeli official reprimands EU diplomats
Ma’an – August 8, 2011
TEL AVIV, Israel — European diplomats said the head of Israel’s National Security Council aggressively berated them for European policies towards Israel in a July political-security briefing, the Israeli daily Haaretz reported Monday.
Yaakov Amidror was “aggressive, contemptuous and arrogant,” one of the ambassadors told Haaretz. “Some of the ambassadors were genuinely traumatized.”
The report said Amidror slammed the European Union for constantly criticizing Israel but refraining from condemning the Palestinians at the July 14 diplomatic event, saying that the EU was unable of being balanced.
Amidror urged the EU diplomats, “You need to speak more like Hillary Clinton and less like [Russian Foreign Minister] Sergey Lavrov,” the report said.
A statement from the Prime Minister’s Office, Haaretz reported, said Amidror “expressed his opinion at the forum of European Union ambassadors in a direct and candid manner, but he wasn’t insulting or patronizing as claimed.”
BBC & Travel Channel show ‘staged, false, fabricated and distorted’
Survival International | August 2, 2011
Matsigenka girls, Peru © G Shepard/ Survival
A TV series about an Amazonian tribe has been slammed as ‘staged, false, fabricated and distorted’ by experts on the tribe.
‘Mark & Olly: Living with the Machigenga’ was shown on the Travel Channel in the US, and on the BBC last year. In the show Mark Anstice and Olly Steeds lived in a Matsigenka Indian village for several months to show the ‘reality’ of life among the tribe.
But now two experts on the tribe have gone public with a string of highly damaging accusations. Dr. Glenn Shepard is an anthropologist who has worked with the Matsigenka Indians for 25 years and speaks their language fluently. Ron Snell, the son of US missionaries, grew up with the tribe and and is also fluent in the Matsigenkas’ tongue.
A Matsigenka hunter returns with wild pig.© G Shepard/ Survival
Just some of Shepard’s accusations, published in the highly-respected journal Anthropology News, are:
• In order to present a ‘false and insulting’ portrayal of the tribe as sex-obsessed, mean and savage, many of the translations of what the Indians are saying are fabricated.
• Many events presented as real in the show must have been ‘staged’.
• A key scene in the show in which Olly is subjected to painful ant stings, since “according to Matsigenka tradition he must be cleansed” and “endure the ancient punishments” for buying deer meat is denounced by Shepard as ‘fabricated and [with] no basis in ethnography.’
Ron Snell, in an article on his blog, accused the film-makers of ‘paying the Machiguengas to perform for them, saying things the Machiguengas wouldn’t ordinarily say and doing things the Machiguengas wouldn’t normally do.’
After interviewing two of the Indians in the series, Snell reported, ‘Our suspicions were correct. They [Mark and Olly] entered the village on a well traveled path and only veered a few feet off the path to film themselves ‘hacking their way through the jungle.’ They contracted someone to make new cushmas [cotton tunics] so everyone would be wearing one. They staged the whole drama about one of the guys being accepted and the other treated as a lazy outsider…
‘The translator quickly became disillusioned with the whole thing, but kept going because of the money. He is ashamed and embarrassed that he had anything to do with it.’
The series was previously at the centre of a media storm when a scouting expedition for the show was accused in Peru of provoking a flu epidemic among isolated Indians which caused the deaths of four of them. The show was eventually filmed a short distance from this incident.
The Matsigenka were repeatedly mistranslated in the series © Cicada
Cicada, the production company responsible for the series, has made no comment on the accusations.
Stephen Corry, Director of Survival, said, ‘‘Mark & Olly: Living with the Machigenga’ was a depressing example of the way tribal people are routinely portrayed on TV. One stereotype followed another, with the Matsigenka variously portrayed as callous, perverted, cruel, and savage. Is this what the film crew really thought of those whose guests they were? Broadcasters wouldn’t dare to make similarly false claims about other such minority groups: imagine the same descriptions applied to any ethnic minority in the industrialized world. Sadly this is all too common – TV is now getting away with portrayals which wouldn’t be out of place in the Victorian era.’
In response to a worrying trend to portray tribal peoples in a negative manner, Survival is drawing up a code of practice for documentary makers to follow when filming with them.
A background briefing with further examples of mistranslations and inaccuracies in the show is available to download here.
Note to Editors:
1. The tribe’s name is today usually spelt Matsigenka. Previously, Machiguenga was more common. Machigenga, as used in the Mark and Olly TV show, is incorrect.
2. Dr. Glenn Shepard is an ethnobotanist and medical anthropologist who specializes in the indigenous peoples of the Amazon. He has published more than 50 scientific papers and is currently a researcher in Indigenous Ethnology at the Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi in Belém, Brazil.
3. Ron Snell grew up with the Matsigenka, where his parents were missionaries. He is the author of several books about his childhood there, and still visits the area regularly. He is now the director of a homeless people’s shelter in Nebraska, USA. His mother, who has also watched the series and corroborates the accusations, is the author of a 900-page Matsigenka dictionary.
4. A longer version of Dr. Shepard’s article can be found on his blog: ethnoground.blogspot.com
Related article
- ‘Noble Savages’: Chagnon’s new book triggers resignation and protests (alethonews.wordpress.com)
The War on You
By Michael Collins | The Money Party | July 31, 2011
Let the word go forth from Washington! The corporate rulers occupying our nation’s capital have declared war on just about every citizen.
Have no doubt: those in the upper ranges of the top 1% of wealth in this country (aka The Money Party) want to kick you to the curb.
They want to reduce your social security and make you go broke paying for medical care.
They want to lower your wages and trash your retirement.
They ignore the clear facts that we’ve had negative job growth since 2000 and the situation is just getting worse.
They want to ship jobs, factories, and entire businesses overseas and give companies that do that a big fat tax credit for doing so.
They’ve been given so much for nothing for so long. Now, they’re ready to take it all. It’s their time!
The most recent assault is the ridiculous debate about raising the debt ceiling. There should be no debate. Failing to raise the ceiling right now means deliberate default on debts, refusing to pay bills the government can pay. It’s called fraud.
The pressing need to fix the budget is a separate issue. Reduced spending and increased revenues should come through broad public involvement and open debate. It mandates that the rulers behave like adults.
But this crisis isn’t about putting together a real budget. It’s about creating a budget that punishes you, your family, and friends. It’s about taking your attention away from your vital interests to maximize income and control by The Money Party.
Were the leaders on either side of the debate serious, the Bush era tax cuts would be rescinded. These cuts on the top 1% were temporary. Guess what? Congress lied. When the temporary tax breaks ran out a few months ago, they were revived and renewed just when we had the greatest need for revenues.
The Money Party won’t give up its wars either. Iraq and Afghanistan have added $4 trillion to the national debt of $14 trillion. Why not stop the wars? How hard is that to figure that out?
Getting rid of Bush tax cuts for the super-rich, ending the wars, and moving out of the recession/depression would be huge steps toward balancing the budget. But that won’t happen with this Congress and this president. Why? That would cost the financial elite money for taxes and lost income for all those weapons they sell to support the wars.
The Attack on You Began in Earnest Just Years Ago
Congress repealed Depression era banking regulation that kept your banks from risky investments in 1999.
Congress enacted legislation in 2000 that allowed extremely risky investments in real estate and other derivatives, illegal for nearly a century.
In 2001, the big banks and Wall Street celebrated its newly purchased freedoms with a decade-long binge of fraud and risky investments. Like a greedy con artist, they took everything they could from people here and around the world until there was no more to take. We have now hit the wall thanks to them.
The outrageous expenses of wars based on lies caught up with us and shoved the deficit to new heights. The tax cuts for the top 1% took away revenues needed to balance the budget.
The money they steal from the Social Security surplus is no longer enough. They want to keep the tax in place for us and take an even bigger rake-off.
This crisis is manufactured by the ongoing greed of The Money Party. It is funded by the US Treasury. You pay for it, all of it.
Featured Video
First Photographs Ever Taken of Iran [1848-1858] + Persepolis, Old World
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Review
A Palantir Manifesto
By Alan Mosley | The Libertarian Institute | April 22, 2026
Palantir CEO Alex Karp’s book, The Technological Republic, is a clarion call for Silicon Valley to abandon its consumer trinkets and rush headlong into the arms of the military-industrial complex. According to Karp, America’s future depends on wielding hard power through technology—arming soldiers, AI-weaponry, and mass surveillance systems—rather than on the “soft” influence demonstrated by free markets and liberty-first principles. The book claims that “the survival of the American experiment depends on the technological revitalization of the military-industrial complex” and urges the country’s engineering talent to focus on national defense. Karp and his co-author, Nicholas Zamiska, argue that tech bros should “grow up” and start killing America’s enemies before they kill us. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- The First Photographs Ever Taken of Iran [1848-1858] by Colonel Luigi Pesce + Persepolis, Old World
- Confusion, delusion, and how Israel drives the Iran War
- After the ceasefire illusion: Why Gaza’s “Day After” still has no buyer?
- Shifting to Guerilla Warfare, Hezbollah Delivers Massive Blows to Israel
- Wired for War: Israel’s Black Cube and the infiltration of Europe
- Monitoring group finds UK media guilty of ‘systematic’ dehumanization of Palestinians
- Al-Akhbar’s Amal Khalil assassinated by Israel, left to die under rubble
- US naval blockade has disrupted but ‘not broken’ Iran’s oil exports: Kpler
- On Mass Surveillance, Will the Deep State Win Again?
- Fire breaks out aboard identity-fluid $8bn USS Zumwalt
- If Americans Knew
- Meet the Top “Content” Producers Linked to Canary Mission
- Lebanese Journalist Amal Khalil Bombed and Left to Die by Israel
- Israel Moves to Re-establish Ganim Colony In Jenin
- Two Iranian Women in ICE Detention Are Not, In Fact, Related to Qasem Soleimani, Documents Show
- “The shooting was not in the air”: Testimonies from the Flour Massacre
- Israel chases down, kills Lebanese journalist, massacres 5 in Gaza, all during “ceasefires” – Daily Update
- Gaza’s unseen casualties: A surge in stillbirths and birth defects
- ‘Day of Ordinary Terror’: Israeli Attack on West Bank School Kills Man, Child
- Final Gaza Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment
- Zionist Doxxing Campaigns Upended Their Lives. Now They’re Suing for Damages.
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: The Climate May Be 5 Times More Sensitive To Solar Forcing Than Commonly Assumed
- EV Industry Reached $70 Billion In Losses In 2024 Due To Delusional Green Ideologies
- Reality Check: Maldives Have Actually Grown In Size Or Remained Stable Over Recent Decades
- Abrupt Climate Change Also Occurred NATURALLY In The Past …25 Times During Last Ice Age
- Cave Discovery Reveals Today’s Desert Climates Were Recently Far Warmer, Wetter, Teeming With Life
- German Expert: Heat Dome Led To Record Temps In Western USA…Warmer In 1934, 1936
- New Study: No Linear Warming Or Glacier Retreat Along Northern Antarctic Peninsula Since 1980s
- An Inconvenient Tree: Uncovered In Alps… Europe Much Warmer Than Today 6000 Years Ago
- New Study Reports A 60% Slowdown In Greenland’s Ice Loss Rate In The Last Decade
- Low Intensity Tornado Wrecks Major Solar Farm, Creating A Potential Toxic Dump
Aletho News 