Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Death Squads: The French-Algerian School

English Version of “Les escadrons de la mort: L’école franco-algérienne,” a 2003 documentary by Marie-Monique Robin about how Latin American death squads were trained by the generals in charge of the “The Battle of Algiers,” and how the film by that name was used unironically as a training film. Also how these generals and Trinquier’s book created the foundation of the School of the Americas curriculum and the Phoenix program in Vietnam.

April 20, 2019 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Subjugation - Torture, Timeless or most popular, Video, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

On Jews Being United

By Gilad Atzmon | April 18, 2019

In his Times of Israel article “What All Anti-Semites Have In Common,” Andres Spokoiny, president and CEO of the Jewish Funders Network, tells us everything we shouldn’t know about the current state of the Jew/Goy divide.

“Today,” Spokoiny complains, “many Jews are willing to overlook and even excuse anti-Semitism when the bigots hate a certain type of Jews.” In the good old days, anti-Semitism was a uniting force. “Anti-Semitism used to be the big Jewish unifier. Jews were always fractious and quarrelsome, but when it came to anti-Semitism, everybody agreed. Anti-Semites hated us without distinction, so in the face of a common threat, we would recognize the danger and unite.” Spokoiny is nostalgic, he wants to see the Jews reunited into a fist of resistance against anti-Semitism.

In the eyes of Spokoiny, the three types of contemporary anti-Semitism, be it Left, Right or Islamic (“which is not only fascistic but outright genocidal,” according to Spokoiny) are in fact one by nature: “there’s just one type of anti-Semitism that simply dresses its ugly persona in different ideological garments.” So it isn’t just the Jews that should be reunited; the Goyim, or shall we say the rest humanity, aren’t diverse either, their oppositions to Jewish politics, Israel or Zionism are only a matter of “different ideological garments.”

In Spokoiny’s universe, the Jews are hated for being Jews. It is not that some oppose Israel for being racist, expansionist and genocidal. It is not because some may be upset that the Israeli Lobby dominates Western foreign affairs in the open. It is not because American and British boys and girls are sent to fight and die in Zio-con wars, it is not because some have noticed that it was a bunch of prominent Jewish intellectuals who have managed to reshape the Western ethos by means of so-called progressive ideologies. It is not because the media seems to be biased in favour of a criminal state, which happens to be a Jewish one. In Spokoiny, reasoning and self-reflection are pushed aside. In his universe some just hate Jews blindly, irrationally and for no reason.

But Spokoiny may as well be right. There is a common element in the Left-wing, Right-wing, Christian and Islamic opposition to Jewish politics, culture and ideology: opposition to choseness is how Bernard Lazare described it in his 1894 Zionist text Antisemitism: Its History and Causes. There is a shared common ground that unites all those so-called ‘anti-Semites.’ The alleged ‘enemies of the Jews’ are people who want the Jewish past to be subject to scrutiny like all other historical chapters, Israeli barbarism to be curtailed, Wall Street to be restricted, Palestine to be free. They want globalisation to be halted, immoral interventionism to die out. The so-called ‘anti-Semites’ actually follow the Zionist promise, they want Jews to finally assimilate and become ‘people like all other people.’ The so-called ‘enemies of the Jews’ are upholding the most enlightened rational universalist ethical positions. They treat Jews as ordinary people and expect their state and institutions to subscribe to ethical standards.

Spokoiny hates Alain Soral, the French intellectual who was sentenced this week to one year in prison by a French court for “negationisme” (history revisionism).

In the eyes of French Jewish institutes and Spokoiny, Soral is the ultimate enemy. He has managed to present a unifying message that appeals to the Left, the Right and Muslim immigrants. Soral calls for a universal reconciliation, between them all under a French nationalist egalitarian ethos. The French Jewish institutions see Soral’s call as a vile anti-Semitic message as it doesn’t seem to accommodate Jewish exceptionalism. However, some Jews have joined Soral’s movement. But they clearly demoted themselves to French patriots. They left chosenism behind, they see themselves primarily as French.

“We in the Jewish community need to believe him (Soral).” Spokoiny writes, “We need to stop participating in the divide-and-conquer game of those who hate us.” In other words, Spokoiny wants to see Jews as one monolithic identity. One that sticks together and exercises its power. If Spokoiny or anyone else thinks that such politics may eradicate anti-Semitism, he or she must be either naïve or just stupid. What Jews need to do is to self-reflect, to ask themselves why anti-Semitism is rising again. Jews must identify their own role in this emerging reality. Rather than constantly blaming their so called ‘haters,’ Jews may want to repeat the early Zionist exercise and ask what is exactly in Jewish culture, identity and politics that makes Jewish history into a chain of disasters.

April 19, 2019 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , , | 6 Comments

CIA Docs Shows UK, France and West Germany Wanted to Bring “Operation Condor” To Europe

By Whitney Webb | MintPress News | April 17, 2019

SANTIAGO, CHILE — A recently declassified CIA document has revealed that members of the intelligence agencies of France, the United Kingdom and West Germany discussed how to establish “an anti-subversive organization similar to [the CIA’s Operation] Condor” in their own countries. Described by the CIA as “a cooperative effort by the intelligence/security services of several South American countries to combat terrorism and subversion,” Operation Condor was a campaign of state terrorism originally planned by the CIA that targeted leftists, suspected leftists and their “sympathizers” and resulted in the forced disappearances, torture and brutal murders of an estimated 60,000 people, as well as the political imprisonment of around half a million people. Around half of the estimated murders occurred in Argentina.

The document, released last Friday as part of a release of newly declassified U.S. government documents related to the U.S.-backed military dictatorship that ruled Argentina from 1976 to 1983, states that:

Representatives of West German, French and British intelligence services had visited the Condor organization secretariat in Buenos Aires during the month of September 1977 in order to discuss methods for establishment of an anti-subversion organization similar to Condor” due to their view that “the terrorist/subversive threat had reached such dangerous levels in Europe.”

The representatives from the three countries then stated that they felt that pooling “their intelligence resources in a cooperative organization such as Condor” would be an important way of combating the “subversive threat.” Notably, England at the time was already involved in an international “intelligence sharing” program known as ECHELON, a program between the “Five Eyes” intelligence pact between the U.K., the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand that continues in a different form today.

The document, which was written in 1978, came two years after Operation Condor targeted left-wing Latin American exiles living in Europe. Several other documents in the recent release discuss a decision made by Condor member countries in May 1976 to train and send a military unit to “conduct physical attacks” against left-wing Latin American exiles and their supporters in France, in what was codenamed “Teseo.” Several Condor countries, aside from Brazil and Bolivia, were eager to participate and the training of the “Teseo” unit did occur, though the CIA was apparently unaware whether the unit was actually sent to France.

Operation Condor: Made in the West

European interest in bringing home a state-sponsored terror campaign may seem shocking, given Europe’s publicly stated concerns at the time regarding Condor member countries’ mind-boggling human rights abuses and state-sponsored murders. But it will hardly surprise those who have studied Operation Condor, as the operation itself was a Western invention that was imposed on Latin America through a series of military coups, which again were backed by Western governments.

Operation Condor officially began in 1975, though CIA documents in this recent release suggest that the inter-country intelligence-sharing aspect had likely begun a year earlier in 1974. The countries involved — Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Ecuador, and Bolivia — were all backed and supported by the U.S., which was also incidentally the largest weapons dealer to these government over this same time frame. During the latter portion of Operation Condor, one of the recently declassified documents claims that Israel took over key roles played by the U.S. in Operation Condor, including the “training of local personnel and sales of certain types of advanced military equipment,” despite the many innocent Jews murdered by several of the Condor dictatorships.

Several of the Condor countries had seen their military dictatorships installed with U.S. government involvement, as was the case in Chile and Brazil, with the U.S. government suspected in other coups that preceded Operation Condor by only a few years, such as the 1971 coup in Bolivia and the 1973 coup in Uruguay. After the 1976 coup in Argentina — Argentina’s sixth and final coup of the 20th century — it too joined Operation Condor.

The U.S. provided planning, training, funding and arms for Operation Condor, and European nations also provided a significant number of weapons. France — one of the countries interested in creating a Condor-style program for Europe — was noted in one of the recently declassified documents for its “excellent prospects for sales of jet aircraft and air defense systems” to Condor dictatorships; while West Germany, another country interested in a European Condor, “should be able to market missiles, ground force equipment and submarines.”

U.S. and European intelligence agencies were well aware of what Condor dictatorships were doing with those weapons, as indicated by past and recent document releases that detail horrific descriptions of the torture and murder of those suspected of being left-wing and those suspected of sympathizing with the left, as well as those who opposed the neoliberal economic policies imposed by all of the U.S.-backed Condor dictatorships.

Some of the more infamous tactics used by Condor nations had also been inspired by past European and U.S. war crimes. This includes the “death flights,” where victims were drugged, bound and placed in plastic body bags, and/or had their stomachs cut open before being thrown out of a plane or helicopter over the ocean. This tactic was said to have been inspired by the actions of French armed forces during the Algerian war and, according to the 2003 documentary The Death Squads: The French School, French intelligence had taught these and other methods to Argentine military officials during the dictatorship.

Whitewashing away the full horror of Condor

Notably, much of the recent coverage of Operation Condor and the CIA releases has sought to whitewash the program’s horrific legacy, with The Guardian describing Operation Condor as “a secret programme in which the dictatorships of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Chile, Bolivia, Peru and Ecuador conspired to kidnap and assassinate members of leftwing guerrilla groups in each other’s territories.” This, of course, implies that those targeted were guerilla members and thus combatants.

However, many — and one could convincingly argue the majority — of those killed, tortured and imprisoned were not members of guerilla groups, as there are thousands of documented cases of college students, musicians, writers, journalists, priests and nuns, pregnant women, teachers, indigenous leaders, union members and others who were subject to the extreme prejudice of Operation Condor despite not being combatants in any capacity. The Guardian also dramatically downplayed the program’s death toll, claiming that “the conspiracy led to the deaths of at least 100 people in Argentina,” while the actual figure is around 30,000. The Guardian also failed to mention the intimate role of the U.S. and other Western nations in facilitating and arming the program.

Such poor reporting is offensive to those who lost their lives and to their families, many of which have never stopped looking for their lost loved ones. Many of those families, such as Argentina’s “Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo,” have spent the last several decades looking for the estimated 500 children and babies separated from their disappeared and murdered parents and given to dictatorship-supporting families.

In a clear testament to how the effects of Operation Condor are still felt today, one of those babies — now over 40 years old — was identified on April 9 and is set to be reunited with her father, who survived the dictatorship and has spent the last several decades looking for his lost daughter. The mother was kidnapped while pregnant, allowed to give birth to the baby and killed immediately afterwards.

The very idea that European countries wanted to bring such a horrific terror campaign to their continent to target “subversives” should serve as a cautionary tale to Europeans who trust their government’s professed interest in promoting democracy and human rights, all while exporting terror overseas.

Whitney Webb is a MintPress News journalist based in Chile. She has contributed to several independent media outlets including Global Research, EcoWatch, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has made several radio and television appearances and is the 2019 winner of the Serena Shim Award for Uncompromised Integrity in Journalism.

April 17, 2019 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , | Leave a comment

What If Mainstream Media’s Message About Putin Was Delivered in Orwell’s Language?

By Patrick ARMSTRONG | Strategic Culture Foundation |16.04.2019

The West is under attack by Putin; he is at war with us and wars demand extreme measures. Putin’s influence is spreading: everywhere he is nibbling away at the foundations of democratic society. He is the dictator of Russiastill evil, still an empire; Russians are genetically driven to co-opt and penetrate and gain favour: it’s who they are and what they do. Russian scum! Putin interferes in referendums and elections all over the democratic world. A world that, for no good reason except his own needs, he calls his enemy. When his bots swung the US election and made his puppet POTUS, the world community began to wake up to the threat. Putin is bent on restoring the USSR and, until he can, he assembles an empire of losers, basket-cases and rogue states. When the weather is cold, we should fear him more. Putin’s whole existence depends on having an enemy and we are that enemy. We must defend against Putin’s threat to democracy; he threatens our democracy because he hates democracy and he fears democracy. We must defend against these multi-facetedaggressive, unacceptable, bullying, continual and sinister attacks on the Rules-Based International Order which our democracies uphold. (Added to which, he’s short and can’t hide the fact and that makes him a megalomaniac.)

I humbly offer a few proposals so that we can better defend our precious heritage of democracy against his attacks.

• Putin hates democratic elections and seeks to twist them to his ends. He will interfere in Your Democracy’s elections. If your Ruling Party loses, it’s because Putin wanted it to lose and interfered with the voting: if your Ruling Party loses, Putin wins. Therefore, the “election” must be annulled and the Ruling Party must stay in power. That way Putin loses and we all win.

• Putin seeks to sow division in Your Democracy. Disagreement with the Ruling Party’s policy helps Putin divide us. Russian bots are ceaselessly trying to sow division; therefore you, as a True Democrat, must resist all attempts to disagree with your Ruling Party. Remember, disagreeing with the Ruling Party is what Putin wants you to do and that means he wins; agreeing with the Ruling Party means we all win and Putin loses.

• As a corollary, objectively speaking, if you disagree with the Ruling Party, you are agreeing with Putin and he wins. Putin hates what the Ruling Party stands for and you, as a True Democrat, shouldn’t hate what Putin hates. So love the Ruling Party: we all win and Putin loses.

• Putin and his legions of trolls engage in hybrid warfare an important part of which is the spreading of fake news. Putin and his trolls know that, while full mind control may not be possible or practical, sowing doubt is much easier. The True Democrat will never risk the chance of having his opinions infiltrated and therefore will be careful to read only news that has been first authenticated by responsible news outlets. Reading unauthenticated stories can let Putin into your brain. Keep him out and we all win.

• Putin uses social media to spread fake news and sow division in Your Democracy. It was one of the most important of his tools in winning the election for his stooge Trump. Putin is subtle – he even uses children’s cartoons and he has weaponised humour – and we must be protected if we don’t want him to win. The True Democrat will encourage efforts to regulate social media by trusted and reliable authorities such as the aptly-named Minister of Democratic Institutions in Canada. If Putin wins, we all lose!

• Putin needs useful idiots in Your Democracy to further his aims. Therefore the True Democrat will continually examine his thoughts to see whether any doubt or divisions are taking root: Putin wants us all to live in his “paranoid and polarized world“. If you find any division in your mind, Putin has put it there and you should make full confession to the authorities so that the rot may be stopped early and the damage repaired. The True Democrat will monitor his neighbours for signs of infection. Always remember that doubting the Ruling Party is what Putin wants you to do: stop doubting and we all win and Putin loses.

• Your Democracy’s security services work hard to protect our freedoms against Putin’s attacks. Putin wants us to criticise and impede the work of these brave men and women who put their lives on the line for us. Only Putin is served when these institutions are attacked. Support our brave men and women in all that they do to protect us. In that way we all win and Putin loses.

• From time to time, although they never start wars, democracies must use military force to end evil in the world. Putin is on the side of evil – he opposes the Rules-Based International Order – and he supports, when he is not actually causing, most of the evil and suffering in the world. As a dictator himself, he invariably sides with dictators who are torturing their populations. Dictators are repugnant to True Democracies and, therefore, they must occasionally take up arms in order to secure peace and order and punish the dictator’s “cruel indifference to the suffering of his people“. True Democrats understand this and support the Ruling Party in its occasional but justified uses of limited force. Objectively speaking, opposing these wars is the same as supporting Putin. True Democrats understand that wars must be fought for the sake of peace so we can all win and Putin can lose.

War against Putin is Peace

Freedom to Question is Slavery to Putin

Ignorance of Putin is Strength

April 16, 2019 Posted by | Fake News, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia | , , , , | 1 Comment

Zarif’s reminder to E3: No prohibition on enrichment under JCPOA

Press TV – April 15, 2019

Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has reminded the Europeans that a 2015 nuclear deal, known as the JCPOA, does not prohibit the country from enriching uranium.

Zarif’s reprimand in a Monday tweet came after French Ambassador to the US Gerard Araud said Tehran should not need to be “massively enriching uranium after the JCPOA.”

“Reminder to our E3 partners in #JCPOA: There is NO prohibition on the enrichment of uranium by Iran under #NPT, JCPOA or UNSCR 2231,” Zarif tweeted, addressing France, Germany and Britain.

The three European countries opted to remain in the nuclear deal after US President Donald Trump abandoned it last May and reimposed sanctions on the Islamic Republic.

Araud tweeted Saturday that “sanctions could be reimposed” on Iran once the nuclear deal expires after 10 years, prompting the Islamic Republic to summon France’s ambassador to Tehran.

“Neither now, nor in 2025 or beyond. Might be useful for European partners to actually read the document they signed on to, and pledged to defend,” Zarif retorted on Monday.

In January, France’s Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian threatened Iran with sanctions if it did not address what he alleged as international concerns over Tehran’s ballistic missile program.

“We are ready, if the talks don’t yield results, to apply sanctions firmly, and they know it,” Le Drian said.

Earlier this month, Britain, France and Germany accused Iran of “developing missile technology in violation of UN resolution,” and called for a full UN report in a letter delivered to UN chief Antonio Guterres.

The EU trio also claimed that Iran’s launch of a space vehicle and unveiling of two new ballistic missiles in February were inconsistent with UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which was adopted just after the signing of the 2015 nuclear agreement.

Resolution 2231 calls on Iran “not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons.”

Iran denies having any such program and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has repeatedly confirmed the peaceful nature of Tehran’s nuclear activities.

In his Saturday tweet, deleted later, Araud said, “As we said in 2002 that enriching uranium without a credible civilian program was illegal under the NPT, we’ll be able to react likewise in 2025 if necessary. Sanctions were imposed. Sanctions could be reimposed.”

Iran’s Foreign Ministry called Araud’s remarks “unacceptable” and in “open violation” of the nuclear deal.

The ministry’s Hossein Sadat Meidani called for an explanation from Paris, saying that if the case is not addressed, Tehran will pursue it based on the mechanisms envisaged in the JCPOA.

Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi also warned France of adverse effects of Araud’s remarks, saying such statements amount to blatant violation of the nuclear accord.

Under the JCPOA, Iran undertook to put limits on its nuclear program in exchange for the removal of nuclear-related sanctions imposed against the country.

Last month, IAEA head Yukiya Amano once again reaffirmed Iran’s compliance with its commitments under the deal.

April 15, 2019 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

French-Made Weapons Reportedly Used in Yemen War, More Arms to Be Delivered

Sputnik – April 15, 2019

Journalists claim to have uncovered the “massive use” of French-made weapons in war-torn Yemen through a leak of secret military documents.

Radio France and investigative reporters from the NGO Disclose say they have obtained a classified 2018 report about French arms sold to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, both of which form part of the Saudi-led coalition fighting Houthi militiamen in Yemen since 2015.

The paper was allegedly compiled last September by France’s military agency DRM and handed over to President Emmanuel Macron and other cabinet-level officials. It apparently contains a list of all French weapons deployed in Yemen by the two Arab monarchies.

“These include Leclerc battle tanks, long-rod penetrator ammunition, Mirage 2000-9 fighter jets, COBRA counter-battery radar systems, Aravis armoured troop-carrying vehicles, Cougar and Dauphin helicopters, CAESAR truck-mounted howitzers,” reads a statement on Disclose’s website.

The journalists went on to claim that some of the French-made weapons are being used in combat operations in Yemen, including in civilian zones. Specifically, two French-made warships — a missile-launching corvette and a warfare frigate — are said to be taking part in the naval blockade of Yemen, as per the report.

The leaked report appears to include a map titled “Population under threat of bombs”, which indicates the deployment of 48 CAESAR guns near the Saudi-Yemeni border.

“Put more simply, the guns are used to bombard Yemeni territory to open up a path for the tanks and armoured vehicles invading the country,” the journalists argue. The population living within the range of potential artillery fire is estimated at being over 436,000.

According to the report, at least 129 CAESAR howitzers are due to be delivered to Saudi Arabia between by 2023.

French authorities are yet to comment on the matter.

French Minister of Armed Forces Florence Parly said in a radio interview in February that the military had “recently sold no weapons that can be used in the Yemeni conflict”.

Last October, she rejected claims that domestically made weapons were targeting civilian population. “To my knowledge, the weapons we have sold recently have not been used against civilians,” she told reporters.

The minister also described France’s weapons exports to Saudis as “relatively modest”, saying they were subject to tight restrictions. “We don’t sell weapons like they’re baguettes,” she added.

Disclose and Radio France note, meanwhile, that the French parliament has been “deliberately kept apart” from this information by the government, which has so far given only “fragmentary answers or even falsehoods”.

April 15, 2019 Posted by | Deception, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

From Bana to Neda to Genevieve: The Iconography of Turmoil

Genevieve Legay (L) and Neda Agha-Soltan (R)
By Hafsa Kara-Mustapha | American Herald Tribune | April 2, 2019

In the digital age, conflicts are sold to public opinion via powerful imagery, one that would be ingrained in the national consciousness and make for a solid casus belli.

More often than not they are of women or young girls who are presented as the victims of a brutal regime that only Western benevolence can save.

In Syria, a young girl called Bana Al Abed rapidly turned into the iconic figure of the Syrian crisis when she tweeted about the horrors of the conflict and the perils of life in a war zone.

She soon became the favorite of the celebrity Twitterati and was eventually hosted by Turkish leader Recip Tayep Erdogan, touring Western capitals and doing the talk show rounds before signing, with the help of her more eloquent mother, a lucrative book deal.

Her story precipitated Western intervention in Syria.

Before her, we’d been treated to Malaala Youzoufai, a young girl desperate to educate herself and fearlessly challenging Taliban brutality until they eventually shot her in the head but was saved by British doctors. Her face, now familiar to millions around the world thanks to her consequent fame, made Western presence in Afghanistan appear worthwhile despite its absolute failure in defeating the far less equipped Taliban.

After the talk show rounds, the book deals and the presentations at the UN she was eventually awarded half a Nobel peace prize for what appeared to be good services.

She has now entered adulthood and since she spoke out in defense of the children of Gaza has disappeared from public view.

In 2009, when the drum rolls were once again beating for war against Iran, it was the face of Neda Agha-Soltan that became the ‘poster victim’ of what was then dubbed the Green revolution.

Claims that this young woman had been shot by government forces turned her picture into the face of the rebellion.

Since it was claimed she’d been killed, it was no longer possible to invite her on the talk show circuit, instead, her face became the iconic imagery of the Middle Eastern turmoil of summer 2009.

Which brings us to Genevieve Legay.

Who? I hear you ask.

Legay is a 74-year-old French woman who was brutally pushed to the ground by French police forces during the weekly ‘Gilets Jaunes’ protests in France.

She fractured her skull and was left bleeding on the ground.

Though the disturbing images were broadcast in France, unlike those of brutalized people in other geographies, Legay’s was not transformed into the ‘iconic’ image of France’s protests.

She wasn’t invited on talk shows and the picture of her ashen face lying in a puddle of blood was not broadcast across the front pages of international media.

It’s been almost two weeks and her name is all but forgotten. No foreign head of state has invited her to discuss the brutality of the French regime.

No memes have been circulating on various social media with her face and an emotionally charged caption inviting viewers to sympathize with victims of French brutality.

There have been no twitter storms and George Clooney hasn’t waded into the controversy by condemning such violence.

It’s fair to say there will be no book deals or international prizes for Mizz Legay who is a victim but in the wrong context.

For victims of brutality to be accepted as such, they would have to be brutalized by a regime Western nations have decided was evil or at the very least evil enough.

Icons of ‘foreign’ brutality have to convey a message that aligns with the political agendas of Western powers.

It has to re-affirm in their public opinion’s mindset that state brutality is an alien, backward concept and that it only occurs far away.

For it to be considered relevant and newsworthy it has to serve a purpose, one of regime change or war or usually both.

When, however, such powerful imagery occurs in a Western setting, opinion shapers are destabilized.

What should they do? Can they avoid broadcasting the information when camera phones capture everything and everywhere?

The key is to report it but just not dwell on it.

The victim of whichever ‘tyrannical’ country is in the West’s bad books will become a household name, the one of Western tyranny will become a footnote in the news agenda.

For every war, unrest, protest in the third world we’ve had the accompanying ‘iconic image.’

For every protest, police brutality, unlawful arrest we’ve seen in the west we’ve witnessed organized mass amnesia.

Move along, there is nothing to see when Western crimes are committed.

April 2, 2019 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Defence of European empires was original NATO goal

Second in a four-part series on the 70th anniversary of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization

By Yves Engler · March 30, 2019

The first installment  in this series discussed how NATO was set up partly to blunt the European Left. The other major factor driving the creation of NATO was a desire to bolster colonial authority and bring the world under a US geopolitical umbrella.

From the outset Canadian officials had an incredibly expansive definition of NATO’s supposed defensive character, which says an “attack against one ally is considered as an attack against all allies.” As part of the Parliamentary debate over NATO external minister Lester Pearson said: “There is no better way of ensuring the security of the Pacific Ocean at this particular moment than by working out, between the great democratic powers, a security arrangement the effects of which will be felt all over the world, including the Pacific area.” Two years later he said: “The defence of the Middle East is vital to the successful defence of Europe and north Atlantic area.” In 1953 Pearson went even further: “There is now only a relatively small [5000 kilometre] geographical gap between southeast Asia and the area covered by the North Atlantic treaty, which goes to the eastern boundaries of Turkey.”

In one sense the popular portrayal of NATO as a defensive arrangement was apt. After Europe’s second Great War the colonial powers were economically weak while anti-colonial movements could increasingly garner outside support. The Soviets and Mao’s China, for instance, aided the Vietnamese. Similarly, Egypt supported Algerian nationalists and Angola benefited from highly altruistic Cuban backing. The international balance of forces had swung away from the colonial powers.

To maintain their colonies European powers increasingly depended on North American diplomatic and financial assistance. NATO passed numerous resolutions supporting European colonial authority. In the fall of 1951 Pearson responded to moves in Iran and Egypt to weaken British influence by telling Parliament: “The Middle  East is strategically far too important to the defence of the North Atlantic area to allow it to become a power vacuum or to pass into unfriendly hands.”

The next year Ottawa recognized the colonies of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos as “associated states” of France, according to an internal report, “to assist  a NATO colleague, sorely tried by foreign and domestic problems.” More significantly, Canada gave France hundreds of millions of dollars in military equipment through NATO’s Mutual Assistance Program. These weapons were mostly used to suppress the Vietnamese and Algerian independence movements. In 1953 Pearson told the House: “The assistance  we have given to France as a member of the NATO association may have helped her recently in the discharge of some of her obligations in Indo-China.” Similarly, Canadian and US aid was used by the Dutch to maintain their dominance over Indonesia and West Papua New Guinea, by the Belgians in the Congo, Rwanda and Burundi, by the Portuguese in Angola, Mozambique and Guinea-Bissau and by the British in numerous places. Between 1950 and 1958 Ottawa donated a whopping $1,526,956,000 ($8 billion today) in ammunition, fighter jets, military training, etc. to European countries through the NATO Mutual Assistance Program.

The role NATO played in North American/European subjugation of the Global South made Asians and Africans wary of the organization. The Nigerian Labour Party’s 1964 pamphlet The NATO Conspiracy in Africa documents that organization’s military involvement on the continent from bases to naval agreements. In 1956 NATO established a Committee for Africa and in June 1959 NATO’s North Atlantic Council, the organization’s main political decision-making body, warned that the communists would take advantage of African independence to the detriment of Western political and economic interests.

The north Atlantic alliance was designed to maintain unity among the historic colonial powers — and the US — in the midst of a de-colonizing world. It was also meant to strengthen US influence around the world. In a history of the 1950-53 US-led Korean war David Bercuson writes that Canada’s external minister “agreed with [President] Truman, [Secretary of State] Dean Acheson, and other American leaders that the Korean conflict was NATO’s first true test, even if it was taking place half a world away.”

Designed to maintain internal unity among the leading capitalist powers, NATO was the military alliance of the post-WWII US-centered multilateral order, which included the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, International Trade Organization (ITO) and the United Nations. (For its first two decades the UN was little more than an arm of the State Department.)

A growing capitalist power, Canada was well placed to benefit from US-centered multilateral imperialism. The Canadian elite’s business, cultural, familial and racial ties with their US counterparts meant their position and profits were likely to expand alongside Washington’s global position.

NATO bolstered colonial authority and helped bring the world under the US geopolitical umbrella, from which the Canadian elite hoped to benefit.

March 30, 2019 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , | Leave a comment

France shuts down ‘anti-Semitic’ groups after pledge to fight worst surge ‘since World War II’

RT | March 21, 2019

Emmanuel Macron has ordered the closure of four organizations accused by officials of promoting jihad and anti-Semitism. Earlier, the French president pledged to fight an unprecedented surge of anti-Semitism in the country.

The move comes at the request of Interior Minister Christophe Castaner, who said the groups “foment hatred, call for discrimination and justify violence,” and must be closed.

The ministry separately said the groups advocated armed jihad and indoctrinating young people. They also promoted organizations like Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah – all listed as terrorist organizations by the EU, the ministry stressed.

French government spokesman Benjamin Griveaux labeled the groups as “openly anti-Semitic and dangerous associations” during a cabinet meeting on Wednesday.

The development comes a month after Macron pledged to the Jewish community to fight against what he called a “resurgence of anti-Semitism unseen since World War II.” He said France will redefine anti-Zionism as a form of anti-Semitism in line with the preferences of pro-Israel groups. The decision was welcomed by the government of Israel.

The French government reported a 74-percent increase in anti-Semitic incidents in 2018 in the country compared to previous year. The pledge from Macron came after thousands of people, including two former French presidents, rallied across the country to condemn anti-Semitism in response to the desecration of a Jewish cemetery in the Strasbourg area.

The banned organizations are the Zahra Center France, the Shia Federation of France, the Anti-Zionist Party and France Marianne TV. Center Zahra France was targeted by an anti-terrorist raid in October, and was followed by the seizure of assets for six months. The French authorities accused the group, which is based in northern France, of being a vehicle for propagating radical Shiite Islam. The three others organizations are reportedly working under the center’s umbrella.

The man behind the Zahra Center and Anti-Zionist Party is Yahia Gouasmi. He is a Lebanese-born Shia Muslim, who has been living in France since the 1960s. An avowed critic of Zionism and Israel, his stated goal is to oppose the Israeli lobby in France and hold the Jewish state accountable for crimes against Palestinians and other nations. He launched the party in 2009 after the Israeli bombings of the Gaza Strip during Operation Cast Lead.

March 21, 2019 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , , , | 2 Comments

UK’s Labour Antisemitism Split

Just what the Doctor Prescribed

By Ian Fantom • Unz Review • March 21, 2019

Since the election in 2015 of Jeremy Corbyn as Leader of Britain’s Labour Party there has been a crescendo of ‘antisemitism’ talk in the party, and talk of Jeremy Corbyn “not doing enough to combat antisemitism”. There has been constant talk in the mainstream media of a resurgence of antisemitism throughout Britain, with particular attention being focussed on the Labour Party. There were reports of members being targeted for apparently innocuous comments, such as Naz Shah, who was forced to apologise for retweeting a satirical cartoon by Norman Finkelstein about relocating Israel to the United States, and former Lord Mayor of London Ken Livingston, who, in defending her, stated, “When Hitler won his election in 1932 his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews”. Ken Livingstone was suspended, and in his own defence he asked, “how can the truth be an offence?”. He stated that there was a “well-orchestrated campaign by the Israel lobby to smear anybody who criticises Israeli policy as antisemitic”.

Later, during a pro-Corbyn counter-demonstration in Parliament Square, organised by the anti-Zionist Jewish Voice for Labour, Labour Party member Stan Keable was secretly filmed by the BBC saying that the Zionist movement collaborated with the Nazi regime – “a well documented if shameful historical fact”, he wrote later. For this he lost his job with a Labour-controlled London council, and his union refused to support him. He told me he was also expelled from the party. A few months earlier a new group had been set up under the name ‘Labour Against the Witch-hunt’, and their website campaigns for the reinstatement of the growing number of members who have been suspended or expelled from the party. Stan Keable is their honorary secretary.

There has been constant pressure on Jeremy Corbyn from Zionists in the party to include the new ‘Internationally Accepted Definition of Antisemitism’ in the party’s code of conduct. By this they are referring to the ‘Working Definition of Antisemitism’, adopted in 2016 by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). Eventually this was passed by the National Executive Committee and by the Parliamentary Labour Party, with just eight Members of Parliament voting against. According to this new definition, it would be considered ‘antisemitic’ to criticise Israel or Zionism. A Scottish member of the Labour Party and shop steward in the massive GMB union, Peter Gregson, was expelled from his union for campaigning against that new definition being adopted by the union. He was defended by an orthodox rabbi. He appealed and defended himself at the London headquarters of the GMB on 4 March 2019. He was unsuccessful, but by this time had 1 560 signatures of Labour Party members declaring, “Israel is a racist endeavour”, “brazenly breaking the IHRA rule”, he states. He is currently ‘under investigation’ by the Labour Party. His own write-up of the case appears at Change.org. A different slant was put on the case by the Jewish News and the Trotskyist Alliance for Workers’ Liberty, though the Revolutionary Communist Group supported him.

I took advantage of his trip to London for his appeal at the union’s headquarters on 5 March, 2019, by inviting him to talk at a group whose meetings I organise each month, which we call Keep Talking. A colleague and I set up that group in 2010 to take over from the declining 9/11 Truth movement in London, which some of us believed to have been sabotaged from within.

The focus of our group had not been on Israel, or Zionism, and we tacitly agreed amongst ourselves not to deal with the Holocaust issue, because that was so taboo in the UK that any onslaught from the Zionist lobby could completely derail us from our main topic, which was false-flag terrorism and causes of wars. In fact, my colleague, Dr Nick Kollerstrom, author of many investigative books, including ‘Terror on the Tube’, had been targeted in a witch-hunt for a literature review he wrote on ‘The Auschwitz “Gas Chamber” Illusion’ and a comment about a swimming pool at Auschwitz, since deleted. I defended Nick Kollerstrom’s right to investigate that topic, and to write about it freely, though I myself had no knowledge of the topic, and so no views on it. That was the seminal incident that led to Keep Talking being set up.

Even so, our Keep Talking group wasn’t spared. In November 2016 our guest speaker was physicist and long-term weather forecaster Piers Corbyn, who explained his model of climate change and why he rejected the theory of the greenhouse effect for global warming. At the end of the talk he was asked by a newcomer, sitting on the front row, for his views on the Holocaust, to which he replied, “On some things it’s best not to have views”. Piers Corbyn had stated right at the beginning of his talk that if the press were to attack him it would be to get at his brother, Jeremy Corbyn, and indeed, it turned out that the newcomer on the front row was a journalist from The Daily Mail, who subsequently wrote up a story based on a book on the bookstall, ‘Breaking the Spell: The Holocaust, Myth and Reality’ by Nick Kollerstrom. I managed to get that article pulled in the paper edition, but nevertheless it appeared in the Internet pages of Mail Online. Subsequently, three of our meetings had to be called off, the first one because of an aggressive mob outside the venue, whilst the police stood idly by, even when a 74-year-old colleague of mine was thrown to the ground. The second was called off “on police advice” by the venue, when Jewish News put out a fabrication that we were about to discuss Mossad’s role in the death of Princess Diana, in the knowledge that we had stated that none of us had any knowledge or views on any involvement from Mossad. I have been persuing that under the UK’s Freedom of Information Act. The third was called off when the board of the Conway Hall Ethical Society in London, which has hosted meetings on ‘conspiracy theories’ in the past, cancelled our bookings. None of these Keep Talking meetings was about Israel or Zionism. These incidents did, however, set me off investigating the groups and individuals involved. Such events were becoming widespread in the country, even resulting in the cancellation of jazz concerts by Unz contributor Gilad Atzmon, who has twice been a speaker at Keep Talking.

In the meantime, several ‘moderate’ Labour Party Members of Parliament have resigned from the party, to form a new parliamentary grouping, the Independent Group, to be joined by some who then resigned from the Conservative Party. They all resigned because of disagreements with their parties over Brexit, and they are generally regarded as ‘Remainers’, but the former Labour Party members conflate this with ‘antisemitism’ in the party. Since then, many have been saying in the mainstream media that Brexit is being sabotaged. And now, Remainer Jess Philips, MP, who is a member of Labour Friends of Israel, is emerging as the Establishment candidate to challenge Jeremy Corbyn, saying that Corbyn “won’t admit he’s a sexist antisemite”.

In Keep Talking we eventually decided to tackle this issue head on. In my investigations, tracing the organisations and people back in time, I came across the complete diaries of Theodor Herzl. A study of his writings reveals a lot about his plans that was for many years kept from the public, and even now is little understood amongst the public. Yet these writings explain the current resurgence in ‘antisemitism’, and why this should have been expected when the Labour Party voted for a leader whose wish was to return the party to its Socialist roots.

The Doctor’s Diaries

Dr Theodor Herzl was a Viennese journalist and playwright, and, according to the dust cover of Marvin Lowenthal’s 1956 ‘The Diaries of Theodor Herzl’, was “the father of the State of Israel, a heroic and legendary figure, beloved and revered by countless followers”. Undoubtedly, many present-day Zionists will be using Herzl as a role-model. Yet until 1960 only sanitised versions of his diaries were published. Herzl specifically requested this in Book 1 of his diaries: [page 55]

When this book is published, the prescriptions for the organization of the government will be omitted. The people must be guided to the good according to principles unknown to them. Therefore the editors of the book – if I am no longer alive – shall extract the administrative maxims and keep them in the secret State Archives. Only the Doge and the Chancellor may read them. To be omitted are also those remarks which could annoy foreign governments. But the course the negotiations took shall be retained, so that our people may see how I led the Jews home.

Medical doctors in the UK used to hide their prescriptions by writing them in Latin; Dr Herzl has other means. So what was Dr Herzl’s prescription that he was hiding from the public? The present generation is allowed to know, because Herzl wrote at the end of his Book 1: “after we have done everything that is necessary to carry out our plan inexpensively, we shall make our entire program public”.

In 1960 ‘The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl’ was published. The Preface states: “Hundreds of passages, a number covering several pages, were omitted because of political or personal considerations”, adding that the diaries “belong to history, and not only can, but should be made public”. A colleague of mine, who had handed me a list of quotations from the diaries, told me: “There are many versions of the diaries – I have 6 different releases but only one is complete and no surprise the incomplete ones don’t contain the interesting parts. It took me 2 years to locate a physical source and eventually got all 5 volumes from a book dealer in Jerusalem at a cost of over £250. The complete one is by The Herzl Press in 1960 edited by Raphael Patai and translated by Harry Zohn”. It seems that the complete diaries were eventually published in order to be hidden in plain sight. The volumes were later scanned and posted on the Internet, but I was warned that I should download them quickly before they disappear.

Rich Jews and Poor Jews

Theodor Herzl. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Herzl wrote: “I wanted in particular to contrast the suffering, despised, and decent mass of poor Jews with the rich ones. The latter experience nothing of anti-Semitism which they are actually and mainly responsible for”. So he has defined the problem as having been caused mainly by the ‘rich Jews’, for which the ‘poor Jews’ were paying the price. He told a colleague at the Neue Freie Presse, “I understand what anti-Semitism is about. We Jews have maintanied ourselves, even if through no fault of our own, as a foreign body among the various nations. In the ghetto we have taken on a number of anti-social qualities. Our character has been corrupted by oppression, and it must be restored through some other kind of pressure. Actually, anti-Semitism is a consequence of the emancipation of the Jews. … They do not realize that we are what we are because they have made us that way amidst tortures, because the Church made usury dishonorable for Christians, and because the rulers forced us to deal in money”. So now he’s blaming the Christian Churches for banning usury, almost as if that were an antisemitic act. Herzl is making it clear that the root of antisemitism is the usury brought about by the ‘rich Jews’, for which the ‘poor Jews’ are made to suffer. Yet he doesn’t attempt to tackle that problem, but replaces it by another. “Throughout our two thousand years of dispersion, we have been without unified political leadership. I regard this as our chief misfortune”, he states. “Now, if we had a united political leadership, the necessity for which I need not demonstrate further and which should by no means constitute a secret society – if we had such leadership, we could tackle the solution of the Jewish question – from above, from below, from all sides”. In other words, it’s a power grab, in which the ‘rich Jews’ will control the minds of the ‘poor Jews’. Herzl takes this further by declaring, “It is a military campaign”.

Planning a War

“The exodus to the Promised Land constitutes in practical terms an enormous job of transportation, unprecedented in the modern world”, he stated then asked himself, “Did I say “transportation’?” Yes, he did, and people have been suspended from the Labour party in the present era for mentioning the ‘transportation agreement’ between the Zionists and the National Socialists. Yet mass transportation is exactly what was in Herzl’s mind. He talks of a “proletariat of intellectuals”, saying, “I shall form the general staff and the cadres of the army which is to seek, discover, and take over the land.

Earlier in his diaries [p 17] he wrote to Baron von Hirsch, a rich Jew who had been funding the resettlement of refugee Jews in Argentina, asking for a meeting. He included the first draft of his letter, saying he may have made some changes, and adding, “But in substance, those were its contents, and again the only fear I had was that Hirsch or some third party looking over his shoulder might take me for a money-seeker”. That meeting took place on Whit Monday, 1895. He “dressed himself with discreet care”, explaining: “One must not show rich people too much deference”. In fact, he was extremely arrogant when he got to the meeting. Later the same day, he wrote to Baron Hirsch: “On returning home I found that I had stopped on page 6 [of his notes], and yet I had 22 pages. Due to your impatience you heard only the beginning; where and how my idea begins to blossom you did not get to hear”. After about three pages in his diary he comes to the point:

I spoke of an army, and you already interrupted me when I began to speak of the (moral) training necessary for its march. I let myself be interrupted. And yet I have already drawn up the further details, the entire plan. I know all the things it involves; Money, money, and more money; means of transportation; the provisioning of great multitudes (which does not mean just food and drink, as in the simple days of Moses); the maintenance of manly discipline; the organization of departments; emigration treaties with the heads of some states, transit treaties with others, formal guarantees from all of them; the construction of new, splendid dwelling places. Beforehand tremendous propaganda, tremendous propaganda, the popularizition of the idea through newspapers, books, pamphlets, talks by travelling lecturers, pictures, songs. Everything directed from one center with sureness of purpose and with vision. But I would have had to tell you eventually what flag I will unfurl and how. And then you would have asked mockingly: A flag, what is that? A stick with a rag on it? – No, sir, a flag is more than that. With a flag one can lead men wherever one wants to, even into the Promised Land.

He is clearly preparing for a military campaign, and the two basic ingredients for any war of aggression are money and propaganda. He called it ‘education’ in the meeting with Hirsch, and Hirsch was having none of it.

Project Fear

In his conversation with a colleague at the Neue Freie Presse, Ludwig Speidel, he reports himself on page 10 as saying: “However, anti-Semitism, which is a strong and unconscious force among the masses, will not harm the Jews. I consider it to be a movement useful to the Jewish character. It represents the education of a group by the masses, and will perhaps lead to its being absorbed. Education is accomplished only through hard knocks”. He refers to the “education of our people” in his subsequent conversation with Hirsch on page 20, saying, “There are two possible aims: either we stay where we are or we emigrate somewhere else. … At any rate, in the meantime new generations will arise whom we must educate for our purposes”. He continues: “Now, with regard to education, I propose to employ, from the outset, methods quite different from those which you are using”, but before he has explained what they are he says some things about Hirsch’s methods, which Hirsch contests. Then Herzl continues: “To attract Jews to rural areas you would have to tell them some fairy-tale about how they may strike gold there”. In his third letter to Baron Hirsch he writes: “There are, ultimately and above all, the Jewish masses, and I shall know how to get across to them”. “After ten years”, Herzl writes on page 51, dated 6 June 1895, “the movement will be irresistible, and the Jews will come running to us barefoot through fog and darkness. Nothing will he able to stop them, at least not in the countries in which they are free to move. If there should then be attempts to impede the free passage of the Jews, we shall know how to mobilise the public opinion of the world (liberals, socialists, anti-Semites) against the imprisonment of the Jews. Then, too, our diplomats will be at work (we shall make financial concessions in the form of loans and special gifts). Once we are outside, we shall put our trust in our army, our purchased friendships, and a Europe weakened and divided by militarism and socialism. This is Jewish emancipation”. Then on page 56, dated 9 June, he writes, “In the beginning we shall be supported by the anti-Semites through a recrudescence of persecution”. According to a translator’s note, he writes ‘recrudescence’ in French. It’s an English medical term, too. It means a fresh outbreak, or a resurgence, of a condition. So he is planning a resurgence of antisemitism, in order to get his plans off the ground. That could explain how in different generations they can claim that antisemitism is getting worse.

On 12 June he describes plans for persuading governments to co-operate in the transfer of Jews, and on page 83 he writes: “It would be an excellent idea to call in respectable, acredited anti-Semites as liquidators of property. … At first they must not be given large fees for this; otherwise we shall spoil our instruments and them make despicable as ‘Stooges of the Jews’. Later their fees will increase, and in the end we shall have only Gentile officials in the countries from which we will have emigrated”. He continues on the next page: “The anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends; the anti-Semitic countries our allies”.

Still on 12 June, but now on page 96, he expresses the same sentiments without using the word ‘antisemitic’: “Today the thought arises in me that I may be solving more more than the ]ewish Question. Namely, tout bonnement [Very neatly], the social question! I don’t know, I doubt it, because in all these matters I have the creation of new conditions in mind; and the difficulty in the social question is precisely that everywhere men are bogged down in ancient abuses, lengthy stagnation, and inherited or acquired wrong. Whereas I presuppose a virginal soil. But if it turns out to be true, what a gift of God to the Jews!”

Two days later, on page 143, he says in an imagined speech to the Rothschilds’ Family Council: “I have already told you that we want to let respectable anti-Semites participate in our project, respecting their independence, which is valuable to us – as a sort of people’s control authority”. In another imagined address to the Rothschilds’ Family Council, he writes on 15 June, page 152: “Any person of discernment must see the development clearly even now. But no great exertion will be necessary to stimulate the migration movement. The anti-Semites are already taking care of this for us. As soon as our institution becomes known, the anti-Semites will agitate for the Society in the government, in parliament, at rallies, and in the papers. Good for the Jews who are going with us. Woe to them who will let themselves be forced out only by brutal arguments”.

Clearly, the plan was to use the ‘antisemites’ to instil fear amongst the ‘poor Jews’, in order to get them to move ‘voluntarily’, and those ‘poor Jews’ who don’t go along with the plan will suffer the consequences. Later, in the same imagined address, now on page 180, he writes that “the legal equality of the Jews, where it exists, can no longer be abolished”, and that “that would immediately drive all Jews, poor and rich alike, into the arms of the revolutionary parties”. “Therefore, no effective measures can actually be taken against us”, Herzl writes, “And yet, anti-Semitism increases among the nations every day, every hour, and must continue to grow, because the causes have not been and cannot be removed”. Yet he has already told Speidel about the fundamental cause of antisemitism being to do with usury, or the perception on usury, and Speidel agreed. He is clearly not trying to solve a problem, but to create one.

An honorary anti-Semite

Herzl envisaged that full disclosure of his project would eventually appear in his newspaper, to which he owed a debt of gratitude. However, in Book 2 of the diaries it becomes clear that the newspaper wanted to publicly distance itself from Zionism. An appendix at the end of Marvin Lowenthal’s 1956 Diaries, in an entry for ‘Neue Freie Presse’, states that a colleague of Herzl’s commented: “This leading Austrian newspaper was apprehensive of being identified with a movement which was, after all, only the private concern of one of its most eminent contributors. It sought rather to identify itself with German-Austrian liberalism. In Zionism it saw a kind of Jewish edition of anti-Semitism”.

The appendix also includes an entry on the publisher of the newspaper, Eduard Bacher, stating: “In the Jewish question, Bacher’s liberalism was equivalent to anti-Zionism. … In December 1899, it looked as though Bacher was prepared to sell out his interests in the ‘Neue Freie Presse’, and Herzl, with the financial backing of his family, offered to buy them. Days of exciting scenes ensued, with the negotiations spiced by quarrels and reconciliations. Eventually Bacher did not sell, and Herzl was given the highest salary on the paper and put in complete charge of its literary department”.

This power struggle constitutes much of Book 2 of his diaries. Herzl states, modestly, on page 99, “What an example I am to the poor, aspiring Jews, such as I used to be myself!”. So he was poor, but now he, supposedly with family connections, has the financial backing to purchase Vienna’s leading newspaper. Perhaps the key to understanding this lies in interpreting his subsequent mind-bending sentence: “If my object had been money, I should never have been able to come face to face with the biggest financial power on earth, the Rothschilds, the way I am going to do”. That sentence might make sense if it had ended with “the way I have done”. So how did he come into the money?

As Herzl nears the end of his Book 1, he further demonstrates his “kind of Jewish edition of anti-Semitism”, with: “The anti-Semites will have carried the day. Let them have this satisfaction, for we too shall be happy. They will have turned out to be right because they are right”. Indeed, Herzl later wrote, in Book 2, on page 266: “Bacher joked: ‘The Jews will listen to you more peevishly than the Gentiles. You will become an honorary anti-Semite’”. I doubt whether Bacher was joking.

Recrudescences

So how does one bring about a Herzlian recrudescence, as prescribed by our doctor, when he stated: “In the beginning we shall be supported by the anti-Semites through a recrudescence of persecution”?

We are clearly now in the grip of another Herzlian recrudescence. In December 2018 The Times of Israel reported “Unprecedented EU poll finds 90% of European Jews feel anti-Semitism increasing: Anti-Semitism ‘disturbingly normalized,’ says EU rights chief, after massive survey of 12 EU states finds 85% of Jews rate it the biggest social problem in their countries”. Only at the end of the article do they point out that the survey measured Jews’ “perceptions of anti-Semitism”, rather than actual antisemitism, and publish a quote saying: “We can clearly see that they feel anxious – and indeed, more anxious than they did five years ago in most instances – and whilst these are valuable indicators, genuine threat levels are much more objectively and accurately measured by security services than these types of surveys”.

Neither the article nor the survey itself states which definition of ‘antisemitism’ is being used. Since the previous survey several EU countries had adopted the new ‘IHRA’s working definition of anti-Semitism’, but the organisation that ran the poll, together with IPSOS, and published the poll, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), had not adopted that definition. One major change has been the interpretation of criticism of Israel as being antisemitic, and the survey implies that definition when, for instance, they state: “The most common anti-Semitic statements Jews come across regularly, according to the survey, are comparisons between Israelis and the Nazis with regard to the Palestinians”. ‘Antisemitism’ used to mean prejudice or hatred of Jews as Jews. If this is anti-Semitic, in the sense of anti-Jewish then it is also anti-Teutonic. But under the new Zionists definiton of ‘antisemitism’, the word is as remote as ever from the meaning of ‘anti-Jewish’. The Times of Israel report also states, “Suggestions that Jews have too much power and ‘exploit Holocaust victimhood for their own purposes’ also ranked highly”. Again, does that really suggest prejudice against Jews or hatred of Jews as Jews? The main proponent of the idea of Holocaust victimhood was Norman Finkelstein, in his book ‘The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering’.

The FRA’s director, Michael O’Flaherty, called on EU states to “take note and step up their efforts to prevent and combat anti-Semitism”. There seems to be a lack of separation between objective polling and campaigning on the basis of the results, which were not on ‘anti-Semitism’ but on perceptions of ‘anti-Semitism’. The launch of the survey was streamed, and within seconds it was announced that the survey was part of the fight against antisemitism. There is clearly an agenda in this project. The survey was carried out online, and Jews were notified via their organisations. The survey report admits: “Unaffiliated Jews are difficult to reach for surveys in the absence of the sampling frames, and it can be assumed that they are underrepresented in the current sample”. That would especially be relevant when we are talking merely about perceptions.

A clear example of Herzl’s plans to frighten the ‘poor Jews’, or the ‘little Jews’ as he sometimes called them, was Benjamin Netanyahu’s appeal to French Jews to relocate to Israel, following the Charlie Hebdo outrage. “To all Jews of France, all Jews of Europe”, he tweeted, “Israel is not just the place in whose direction you pray, the state of Israel is your home”, the Independent reported. Later he gave a speech in France, saying: “These days we are blessed with another privilege, a privilege that didn’t exist for generations of Jews – the privilege to join their brothers and sisters in their historic homeland of Israel”. He spoke, not for the first time, of every French Jew being welcomed to Israel “with open arms”.

Was Netanyahu really saying that Jews would be safer in war-torn Israel than in France? That’s the message that was coming across. To me, this is reminiscent of the Dreyfuss Affair in Herzl’s time. Herzl later put it about that he had been motivated to write ‘The Jewish State’ by the Dreyfus Affair, “in order to promote the Zionist cause among non-Jewish Americans”, according to Herzl’s biographer, Shlomo Avineri. Yet the timing does not support this idea, and there is no mention of the Dreyfus Affair in Book 1 of Herzl’s diaries. That was used retrospectively to as a scare tactic.

Then on 21 February 2019 The Times of Israel announced: ‘Anti-Semitism worst since WWII, Macron tells French Jewish group: President vows to ban racist groups and recognize anti-Zionism as a form of anti-Semitism after spate of recent incidents targeting Jews’. Macron used the word ‘resurgence’ rather than ‘recrudescence’, but it means the same. The Times of Israel then gives the game away by refering to the Dreyfus Affair, which Herzl had claimed to have led him to Zionism. “Anti-Semitism has a long history in France where society was deeply split at the end of the 19th century by the Alfred Dreyfus affair over a Jewish army captain wrongly convicted of treason”, the article states. The article also stated: “Macron announced measures including legislation to fight hate speech on the internet, to be introduced by May”. I like the beautiful ambiguity of that statement. I think May would be in dire difficulties if she tried the same thing on in Westminster, which would be akin to her failed attempt to introduce a ‘Counter-Extremism Bill’ which, if it had gone into law, would have enabled any critics of the state whom the state deemed to be ‘extremists’ to be arrested and probably imprisoned.

Zionism versus Socialism

So why should this Herzlian recrudescence be targeting Jermy Corbyn’s Labour Party in particular? I think Jeremy Corbyn is the least likely person I’ve ever met to advance ‘racist’ sentiments, whether they be anti-Jewish or anti-any-other-ethnic-group. Yet the Times of Israel article states: “The UK results [of the survey], experts suggest, may point to a ‘Corbyn factor’ connected to the ongoing row over anti-Semitism in the British Labour party”.

The former Labour Party MPs, who quit to form the Independent Group, seem to be conflating Brexit with antisemitism in the Labour Party. Yet the timing, and the coordinated resignations shortly afterwards from the Conservative Party, citing Brexit, but not antisemitism in the Conservative Party, makes it clear that the issue was Brexit, and that antisemitism had been weaponised. Jonathan Cook, writing in Middle East Eye on 27 December last year, presented an analysis of the antisemitism witch-hunt against Jeremy Corbyn, headed ‘Labour and anti-semitism in 2018: The truth behind the relentless smear campaign against Corbyn’. “Bombarded by disinformation campaigns, many British Jews are being misled into seeing Corbyn as a threat rather than as the best hope of inoculating Britain against the resurgence of right-wing anti-semitism menace”, he writes. He reports on the above survey, as well as other surveys and supposed antisemitic incidents. “The Guardian has been at the forefront of framing Corbyn as either indifferent to, or actively assisting in, the supposed rise of anti-semitism in Labour”, he writes. In fact, he writes, “Other surveys show that, when measured by objective criteria, the Labour party scores relatively well: The percentage of members holding anti-Semitic views is substantially lower than in the ruling Conservative party and much the same as in Britain’s third party, the Liberal Democrats”.

But why would Jeremy Corbyn be especially targeted? Jonathan Cook writes: “Israeli politicians loathe Corbyn because he has made support for the Palestinian people a key part of his platform”. That is a commonly held view, and is undoubtedly true. However, a study of Herzl’s complete diaries will show that the problem has much deeper foundations than that.

Herzl makes it clear that he is against democracy. He writes (page 169): “I am against democracy because it is extreme in its approval and disapproval, tends to idle parliamentary babble, and produces that base class of men, and professional politicians. Nor are present-day nations really suited to the democratic form of government; and I believe they will become less and less suited to it. … Politics must work from the top down”. He envisages an ‘aristocratic republic’. “Our people, to whom we are presenting the new country, will gradually accept the new Constitution that we give it. But wherever opposition may appear, we shall break it down. Everywhere we shall try it with friendly persuasion, but if need be we shall push it through by brutal force. … We shall impose extensive but firm limits on public opinion”. That sounds to me like a good description of where British politics is heading at the moment, especially when Herzl states in the same context, “Government by referendum does not make sense in my opinion, because in politics there are no simple questions which can be answered merely by Yes or No”. The eighth Labour MP to resign on the basis of Brexit and antisemitism was Joan Ryan, leader of Labour Friends of Israel, who had been featured in Al Jazeera’s The Lobby programme as one of the main players in the undermining of Jeremy Corbyn.

Herzl makes many references to Socialism and Socialists, and is clearly not in favour.

“You talk like a Socialist”, he told Baron Hirsch when he first met him (page 24). In an imagined speech to the Rothschild’s Family Council he states: “My view is that Socialism is a purely technological problem. The distribution of Nature’s forces through electricity will eliminate it” (page 45). In his first letter to Bismarck, he states that he is not a Social Democrat (page 119), and two pages later, in discussing the consequences that would arise if Jews were to be deprived of equal citizenship, he states, “Immediately all Jews … would join the Socialist Party, with all their resources”. In another imagined address to the Family Council, he states (page 157): “the moneyed Jews are driven to pure speculation by the persecution of capital by the Socialists and anti-Semites”. On July 15, 1895, he asked a friend what he thought of the anti-Jewish riots in Vienna. “’The Jews must turn Socialist’, the friend replied, obstinately”, wrote Herzl (page 202). Ten days later (page 214) he writes that he asked a local friend what his solution was. “The Jews have to join the Socialist movement!”, the friend replied. Herzl wrote, “In my opinion, that would be as nonsensical as Socialism itself”. It is clear that Herzl regards Socialism as a rival to Zionism, especially when he writes: “I hear that he [Birnbaum] has turned away from Zionism and gone over to Socialism when my appearance led him back to Zionism again”.

In Volume 2 Herzl makes this rivalry between Zionism and Socialism even more evident. He wrote on March 17, 1897, about the first Zionist meeting to take place in Vienna, which had taken place the previous day. “A few Socialists spoke in opposition to Zionism, using old arguments”, he wrote, “The Zionist resolution was carried, with only 50 voting against it. Then the Socialists intoned the ‘Lied der Arbeit’ [Hymn of Labour], whereupon our people responded with the ‘Bundeslied’ [Song of the Covenant], which deeply moved everyone”. In September 1897 he relates a conversation with Count von Bülow, who was about to become German Foreign Minister. “The anti-Socialist aspects of Zionism was gone into in the greatest detail”, he reported (page 666). On the next page Herzl stated: “I made my position clear – that it was folly on the part of the Jews to join the Socialist Party, which would soon rid itself of them”. And on the next page, he wrote, “With regard to the Socialist aspects of the problem, at any rate, we saw eye to eye. He was impressed when I mentioned the fact that at the University of Vienna we have taken students away from Socialism”. On page 700 he talked of “the most effective propaganda against the Socialists”.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

I think it’s very clear from this that Hezl was against Socialism. This, together with the methods advocated by Herzl, will explain why the Labour Party, as soon as it returned to a Socialist leadership, had a problem with the recrudescence of ‘antisemitism’. If criticism of Zionism is deemed ‘antisemitic’, then criticism of Zionism’s iconic figure, “the father of the State of Israel, a heroic and legendary figure, beloved and revered by countless followers”, and undoubtedly a role-model for many Zionists, will undoubtedly be deemed ‘antisemitic’. But the Labour Party is not anti-Jewish, nor is there a problem of anti-Jewish sentiment in the Labour Party. The problem is that Zionism is endemically anti-Socialist, and that in order to combat Socialism in the Labour Party the present-day Zionists are doing just what the doctor prescribed.

March 21, 2019 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | 1 Comment

French MPs approve anti-riot bill amid Yellow Vest protests, rights watchdog sounds alarm

A protester is pushed back by police during a demonstration of the “yellow vests” movement in Nantes, France, February 16, 2019. © REUTERS/Stephane Mahe
RT | March 13, 2019

The upper house of the French parliament has greenlighted a bill giving police broad powers to quell unrest. It comes as a rights watchdog warned of civil liberties being undermined in France due to crackdowns on protest.

Following hours of tense debate on Tuesday, the French Senate approved an anti-hooligan (‘anti-casseurs’) bill by a margin of 210 votes to 115.

The bill has courted widespread controversy, having been denounced as “liberticide” by the left, and hailed as a “the law of protections” by the French Interior Minister Christophe Castaner.

The government insists that the legislation will allow to distinguish between law-abiding protesters and violent rioters, while providing protection for both law enforcement and Yellow Vest demonstrators. Speaking ahead of the vote on Tuesday, Castaner defended the bill, saying that it “safeguards the right to demonstrate,” while brushing off concerns that it encroaches on civil freedoms.

“This text does not include an ounce of arbitrariness,” he said.

His view has not been shared by many among the opposition.

Senator Jerome Durain of the center-left Socialist Party (PS) slammed the draft as “useless, imprecise and dangerous,” arguing that it will only foment the unrest.

“The dramatization of the situation does not serve anyone,” Durain said.

The bill, which was first introduced in parliament last year, has already received backing from the National Assembly, France’s lower house. While the National Assembly overwhelmingly supported the bill in February, the vote saw an unprecedented number of abstentions within French President Emmanuel Macron’s own La Republique En Marche (LREM) party. Some 50 LREM lawmakers chose not to approve the bill and one MP, Matthieu Orphelin, went as far as to desert the party ranks altogether in the wake of the vote.

Many took issue with the provisions of the bill that prohibit protesters from wearing masks at rallies and allow police to single out and ban certain “troublemakers” from attending the ‘acts.’

The Yellow Vest protests have been marred by violence from both sides. While the French authorities blame radicals for inciting violence, protesters accuse the police of disproportionate use of force that has resulted in limbs getting torn off, eyes lost and other life-changing injuries for demonstrators who were caught up in the clashes.

In the run-up to the bill’s adoption, the head of the Defenseur des Droits de l’Homme (Defender of Human Rights) body, Jacques Toubon, called for change to the ham-fisted policing methods employed by the state, which he said was a legacy of the state of emergency imposed after a spate of Islamist-inspired terrorist attacks in November 2015. The state of emergency was lifted in 2017, but it has weakened the French legal system by giving police more leeway to crack down on rights and freedoms under the pretext of protecting national security, Toubon argued.

It “helped lay the foundations for a new legal order, based on suspicion, in which fundamental rights and liberties have been somewhat weakened,” Toubon said, calling it a “poisoned pill” that “gradually contaminated our common law, undermining the rule of law as well as the rights and freedoms.”

The law will now be referred to the Constitutional Council, which will ensure none of its points violate the constitution. Some lawmakers said they are placing hope on the Council to erase or modify the most troubling provisions.

“We are now relying on the Council to purge this text of all its unconstitutionality,” Maryse Carrere of the social-liberal The Radical Movement (MR) said.

Read more:

Yellow Vest protester tipped out of wheelchair onto ground by police (VIDEO)

March 13, 2019 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment