By William Wraithwrite
[Note: An anonymous sent this story. The content expresses his/her own view. I decided to share this article to encourage readers' participation and in the context of alternative media. Local editor]
In the first week of August heat was really coming to boil over massive and
blatant war crimes perpetrated by Israelis against Palestinian civilians in
Gaza this summer of 2014.
Even Benjamin Netanyahu was busy contacting supposedly our U. S.
Congress-people then in early August to shield his-self, and his likes,
from war crime allegations and potential tribunals, as were being demanded
by exploding numbers of protests around the entire world. (See: "Netanyahu
Asks US to Help Israel Avoid War Crimes" at:
http://nypost.com/2014/08/06/netanyahu-asks-us-to-help-israel-avoid-war-crime-charges/ ;
Report: Netanyahu Asks US Lawmakers To 'Help Israel Avoid War Crimes
Charges'" and
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/08/07/report-netanyahu-asks-us-lawmakers-to-help-israel-avoid-war-crimes-charges/.
Also note the photos at Mondoweiss at:
http://mondoweiss.net/2014/07/worldwide-protest-israeli. It is important to
check out those photos to get a real appreciation of just how angry was the
entire world.
A strong message was finally being sent to Zionists world-wide, that even a
dumber-down, and more or less well-propagandized world of Christian
sheeple, and plenty other orientations as well (especially now with
Internet's alternative communication) people would only tolerate so much of
the hideous double standard from Israel's too long list of criminal
actions. And what happened in Gaza this summer amounted to no less than
blatant and deliberate terrorism on a grand scale. Yet ironically
'terrorism' was defined by none other than Benjamin Netanyahu himself some
years earlier in a book he supposedly wrote--namely terrorism is the
"killing of innocent civilians" (see: "Fighting Terrorism: How Democracies
Can Defeat the International Terrorist Network, 2001 Edition Chapter 1,
page 8." (Likely you can find it in your public library.)
Meanwhile law professor and prolific human rights activist Majorie Cohn was
quick to legally document those war crime charges, and she was interviewed
by Scott Horton on his radio show (ScottHorton.Org) about her recent
publication of Israeli crimes in the professional law journal The Jurist
(see: "US Leaders Aid and Abet Israeli War Crimes, Genocide & Crimes
against Humanity" at:
http://jurist.org/forum/2014/08/marjorie-cohn-israel-crimes.php ). Yet
surprisingly this interview has become "lost", that is, has mostly
disappeared from Internet search engines such as on Google and Yahoo--no
doubt showing the 'vestige' (as in the word 'investigate') to its potential
damaging effect, that is to the too often false image of what Israelis and
right-wing Jews worldwide want to project about themselves versus a much
different reality.
The fact this interview disappeared from being able to find it on a very
prominent and highly respected foreign news analysis website, is major
violation of free speech (ACLU where are you), and is in itself an
important clue to understanding motives and issues taking place (and so
"you" do want to find it and listen to this interview--if you are a true
truth seeker). A few less known search engines still make it available
(search DuckDuckGo.com but at the moment I can't find it and yet it is out
there somewhere).
Media attention had dramatically shifted in August, for many people,
especially those of the rainbow coalition (a huge political chunk of the
U.S. population), as well as for plenty other liberal as well as
conservative suasions, as many have become convinced what happened in
Ferguson Missouri was a "hate crime" because it involved a white police
officer and a black death. A massive amount of psychic energy has fervently
bought into the notion that Darren Wilson, whatever his human
vulnerabilities, was motivated by one primary reason--the other perpetrator,
who apparently slugged him in his police car, was a black person, and that
he, the white cop, therefore had a dark soul motivated to kill this man
because not only was he potentially violent but he was black. That is to
say the black and white features of skin color is all that really matters
to many who demand the entire world accept this premise as forgone
conclusion--another example of selected stories highlighted by some activist
journalists and non-profits to suggest specific cases prove vast racism by
police everywhere.
And maybe this scenario of officer Wilson blatant racist is true? I do not
claim to know.
And yet what I question are the motives of some people and organizations
that were, and are, so zealously motivated to convince me one way or
another, as if these opinion shapers know beyond a shadow of a doubt the
absolute truth.
For example I do not respect news sources who continuously show pictures of
Michael Brown as a young boy when it turns out he weighed over two hundred
fifty pounds and was 6' 4" the day he died--already there is distortion of
information being presented while same sources keep referring to him in
stock terms such as innocent teenager, as if young age automatically equals
innocence--whereas many people know plenty of violence happens from young
people (although "all" (or at least most) people are somewhat innocent in
the sense that all people are not all knowing, all calculating, and all
evil).
Few, if any, people actually know beyond a shadow of a doubt the full
story. The Internet offers us various versions and arguments and many are
at odds with each other. For example some argument Michael Brown had a long
list of previous crimes including felonies, while others argue he did not
have any serious previous crime history. Some argue the autopsy shows the
officer's version was correct (including a report in the Washington Post)
whereas other arguments claim differently.
It is in this ambiguity of how the arguments have been brought to our
attention, that is to the public, that has made this case so media
consuming--and certain groups and websites have taken this issue on as a
major cause--which is neither praiseworthy nor disturbing on that fact
alone--but people have a right to question the motives of some of these
sources as well as to what all drives them who claim to only want to find
truth and who equally claim they have the truth and you should accept their
version.
And even if news highlights of some witnesses later are accused of lying by
other news sources the prosecutor allow all self-claimed witnesses to make
a case and found it was obvious there was lying from both sides--but this is
not how certain websites present such realties--rather they attempt to
discredit witnesses that their side of persuasion want others to believe
and down play regarding the complexity of the situation.
But what exactly is a "hate crime" if what happened in Gaza this summer
doesn't qualify? How did this imminently important story, more or less,
just slip away from activists' attention here in the United States?
What happened this summer by the Benjamin Netanyahu government, in respect
to its deliberate deceit and deliberate violation of every imaginable idea
of human right is very important for the entire world to focus (especially
here in the United States that basically was the one nation that could have
made a difference, and yet our government, that is to say our supposedly
elected leaders (even as they are all more or less 'vetted' by AIPAC
influence) allowed these levels of crimes to ensue--while they played puppet
and parrot to lame excuse about Israel's right to defend itself--as in
abetting those crimes).
For the majority of the media to suddenly ignore this immensity of recent
history by getting sidetracked primarily to one domestic issue of related
racism stories is tragedy--because it allows those who perpetrated those
massive hate crimes to get away with (again) as what should never be
allowed--especially by a so-called Jewish nation of people who claim to be
so concerned about human dignity and rights.
Surely how police agents operate in any society is an extremely important
political subject especially as related to race relations.
But Americans need to pay attention not just to national police issues as
brutality, profiling, racism, injustice, violence, broken glass policies,
etc., but also to who and why some organizations may be playing up such
hyper-awareness of specific events, that is certain individuals are groping
to find a pattern from a statistical field of close to 320 million people,
with about eight percent of its entire population having felony convictions
of which blacks have about twenty percent (being thirteen percent of the
population).
Obviously numbers or facts alone do not paint an entire humanist picture.
But examining statistics that some circles do not find much solace or
intellectual comfort isn't the same as trying to make up imaged patterns
for any particular crime, such as murder or injustice. But if you consider
there are about one million police officers in the United States, and
although there are no exact figures on the number killed by police, numbers
discussed, as tentatively surmised, range from estimates of 500 to 1500 a
year.
So if we assume 1,000 people are killed by police officers in a given year
(a fair to exaggerated assumption) then we get a statistic that says one in
one thousand officers will kill someone in a given year.
Eugene Robinson, black columnists of the Washington Post Syndicated Group
says the FBI's "justifiable police killings" over the last years is roughly
400 a year with an average of 96 white police officers killing blacks. But
let's say white police officers kill 200 black people annually--this is a
fair guestimate. Then one million police officers nationally (many but not
all are white) divided by 200 deaths equals 5000 (or one in 5000 police
officers kill a black person per year). That means 4,999 out of 5000 do not
and yet there is little focus on this big disparity?
This is a very different picture then what some people want to suggest.
Rather they give the impression racism is a super rampant truth here in the
United States and that white police officers are killing black men
willy-nilly left and right. In another words there is a certain amount of
alarmist deception going on that few people are talking about--especially
from those websites that claim to be so hoity-toity truth seeking.
Because once again when you have so many millions of people in a given
country there will always be cases of racism and racist violence even
within the population of the police industry--a profession whose members do
not deal as routinely with law abiding citizens as they do with criminals,
socio-paths, and potentially dangerous individuals and groups.
Those who are fanning the flames and are not willing to tamp down on their
own biases or pre-conceptions, often because of various "political" or
personal motives (or because their personalities dictate truth through
their own perceptual lens), and so they engage in the act of cherry picking
stories across the entire nation to suggest more extremist versions of
racism--painting a distorted picture--but claiming they have discovered the
more accurate version of reality, and that is white people must now
surrender to their obvious superior understanding of life.
For too many there is little attempt to find shades of gray as they want
the story and all the stories related to be black or white, one side
totally and consciously guilty while the other side to be innocently the
saint. For example many protestors do not come to arguing and alleging
injustice without their own preconceptions and prejudices.
Some sources and protesters in no way attempt to show any balance of
conflicting accounts--rather they show only arguments or evidence of what
seems to show the conclusion they wish for themselves and other people to
believe. There is little attempt to parse the story--rather it is ram a
preconceived conclusion down everyone's throat.
More importantly there is an intimidating McCarthyism style of pressuring
people in not even daring to ask questions that contradict one side's
conclusion or attempt to seek clearer clarification of potentially more
complicated issues. Example, given the seeming ridiculousness of addressing
Eric Garner for selling cigarettes, and the fact he died over complete
over-reaction to such a seeming trivial issue, already stifles people into
questioning anything about the conclusion protestors want the public to
agree--deliberate murder as racism. One dare not ask: "How can a man say "I
can't breath' eleven times and not be breathing in the process of making
such statements"? Or "Is it possible that Mr. Eric Garner had some special
vulnerabilities that contributed to his death as well?" One can take a
waist life guard belt for boating and put it too tight and feel a panic
feeling of not being able to breath even when you can breath. But such
physical phenomenon entwined with pain and emotional trauma can be
overwhelming for some,
Few people dare ask such questions even if routinely thought within because
of the psychological McCarthyism that you are immediately out line for
doubting the protesters' already reached conclusions.
Their conclusions are one that in every case of racism they find to
highlight is one of white police equals racism and black person innocent;
and if you choose to question any of their "it-should-be-so-obvious" shout
down to your face demands then there is something obviously wrong with you
and your skepticism.
However Juan Williams, a famous black journalist and columnist, was willing
to talk about this too and he said: "Black on black homicide was the number
#1 killer of black males between the ages of 15 and 34.
Randomly looking at some Internet websites I came across a statement from a
2007 U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics report that said in 2005 there were
7,999 black homicides and 93% of those were committed by blacks of the same
race. This amounts to 21 blacks killing blacks each day of that year.
Whereas there in not the equivalent of one white police officer killing a
black every day of the year (and equally almost all the 7,999 murders were
crimes as none were legally justifiable).
Ferguson became the place where some so-called experts wanted the American
public's focus to ingrain itself--that is to focus on what they would market
as an example of hate crimes committed by people who they readily label,
and think of as, white male extremists (that is goyim or non-Jewish whites
who they want to point out are Thee most racist of people in America and
who are endlessly oppressing minorities), people like what one assumes to
belong to KKK, Neo-Nazis, or other so-labeled white hate groups, etc.
[Note: my argument is not to denigrate or slight any unjustified death.
Certainly racism in police work is an important vein of research and
activity to pursue for people who feel violated or threatened, especially
as blacks--and who feel such ideas corroborate with life experiences--they
should put their spiritual and psychic energy to causes they feel most
imminent.]
But it is important to notice there has been a major re-focusing to racist
issues here in the United States (not just by mainstream media but
alternative media) from what people "know" were blatant and obvious war
crimes of killing and maiming of thousands (and many children) in Gaza by
white Caucasian Jews. Instead we got a marketing campaign that alleged hate
crime were rife in Ferguson Missouri (even if the facts on the ground were
more ambiguous and yet more appealing for allegations and passions).
Racism has always been an issue here in the United States as plenty places
elsewhere and it could be true it is more prevalent than what too many
assume--especially for those who feel profiled as blacks. This is not being
disputed.
Nevertheless for a short while even activists here in the United States
were back to the street (generally a torpid lot) and were protesting war
crimes in Gaza that week of July the 27th (in which the entire world held
huge parades abounding everywhere). It really was quite amazing.
But where did all that indignity and righteous anger dissipate?
Suddenly along came to the media radar Michael Brown's death just when the
world was in a real uproar about repeated violence and blatant attacks on
civilians and children --knowing intuitively such attacks were deliberate
crimes.
Granted the Ferguson killing reports and angry outbursts seemed spontaneous
anger and allegation and no one suggests otherwise.
At the end of July, here within the United States, high numbers,
representing a wide spectrum of the American society was paralyzed by these
Israeli forms of repeated offensive violence, some back to marching in
parades--as American apathy momentarily died--and then it suddenly was about
to hopscotch to another funeral entirely.
True police brutality had been on the radar before with cases like the much
publicized story of Trayvon Martin's death in Florida, in which there was a
huge activist push to convince this country of white racism in police
departments, and the country as a whole, as some liberal websites concluded
"killed for being black"; and yes suspicious events and circumstances
allowed for such a conclusion of injustice haunting too many black people
everywhere.
From then racism stories about police were to take a life of its own as the
media world and think tanks could now pin prick any needle from any
haystack to focus on those particular stories that gave examples of
injustice (even if mathematical statistics could throw cooler water on
those who continued to create alarmist pictures of police murder and
harassment happening everywhere).
However to ignore, what also seems intuitive, that is what seems attempt by
some to deliberately engage in propaganda campaigns that exaggerate
violence from white police to certain individuals and groups, as equally
ignoring their invitation to these groups or persons to allow their other
frustrations, such as high unemployment rates or various resentments about
life in general, that have little to nothing to do with white police, as
making for an exaggerated scapegoat as completely "outside" one's own
identity--that is as the single definable and tangible problem--is something
too that deserves some thought.
There are white people killed by white police officers and seldom are these
questioned unless those killed are homeless or mentally ill. This statement
might seem indifference to the truth of racism, but it is possibility for
think tanks to focus on white males killed by white officers in the
statistical ball park of 320 million people to make some kind of case of
skewed violation as to argue with a show of a selected incidents to give
impression white people are not especially safe. It may not be as easy to
create such a view as few suspect racism within the same ethnic lines and
few are motivated to try to confirm anything of the sort, but the point is
with enough of a statistical ball park one can find various patterns of
one's choosing--and why not elicit opinions from professional statisticians
on such matters?
I'm not arguing there is not a good deal of racism in police work. The
reality of police dealing routinely with the less civil elements of society
may reinforce a kind of roughshod attitude towards various peoples (and we
should not forget that black people call the police too on other black
people).
Still you do not need statistics to lie or create distorted views--you can
do it even more fluidly without numbers such as raw personal opinions that
just happen to believe in somewhat distorted perceptions especially if
reinforced by groups to claim to be objectively expert or just plain
objective. Haven't you ever met some of those battle ax feminists, who now
are in their seventies, who still insist practically everything wrong with
the world is because of white, chauvinist men? You think there is little
prejudice is some camps that claim to demand for justice?
Again this is not to argue there is no serious racism in America or racist
murder. There has always been racism here. Nor is this an attempt to
explain the difference in which many police are white and too many arrested
are black and how those roles create their own dynamics.
And yet one argument hardly ever asked publicly is how much racism do white
police officers deal from people of color? This is equally an important
issue and reality.
Perhaps police deal with a great deal of hostility and hatred of authority
in general (this phenomenon certainly exists) and white officers may deal
with a lot of hatred by black people? How come this issue is seldom
discussed in the media and in the liberal presses and websites? We are
supposed to believe that the "we versus them" mentality is only or
primarily on one side? We are expected to believe there is no peer pressure
affecting one's attitudes?
In fact there are a lot of people who hate police from all colors, and
equally a lot of people who hate any kind of authority asserting itself.
Some of that hatred of police may be arguably justified, and some of it may
be more based on personality trait, selective thought, and criminal
identity.
One could even argue that some political activists and journalists, who
constantly focus on creating a picture of rampant white police racism
against black victims, are actually attempting to increase black hatred and
racism of white police and white people? And also it is possible to imagine
that some who do equally have their own bias in which they also hate
police, or hate white people (at least some) or both--but this is not the
road many want to explore.
Even within the so-called white community there are plenty of whites that
hate other whites they see as different from themselves. Some equally hate
forms of authority they assume represent groups they despise. But there is
not much discussion of these other less black and whites forms of prejudice?
And frankly hatred as an emotion is little distinguished from hatred as an
act. People are often manipulated to feel guilt for any feeling of
hostility, which may be viewed as politically incorrect (by those who claim
to dictate standards of what is or is not correct). But perhaps anger and
feelings of hostility and thoughts of hostility are healthy at times (or
why did they even evolve). Still political correctness and
self-righteousness makes for fodder for guilt-trips (and some groups even
within the white world seem better as assuming themselves superior then
others and feel it is their place to guilt-trip others).
Nevertheless, we, the American public, are presumed to not assume
hostility, defiance and attitudes of disrespect are seldom acted out in the
real world unless the white man first shows disrespect, including very ugly
forms of defiance and disrespect acted out toward police and especially at
white police?
Why is this important subject seldom discussed in the supposedly want of
dialogue between the races. Why is it that whites are supposed to carry all
or most of the guilt trips as if the "only" variable between how whites and
blacks react toward each other has to do with the color of skin. Could it
not be possible that some with the rainbow are in denial about how much
excess of prejudice there exists on their part?
How is it, for example, that a police officer can know ahead of time,
whether who he is confronting, is armed, is dangerous, or has a criminal
record versus someone who is generally a law abiding citizen? Surely there
are cases in which people can surmise quickly whether one is armed but it
may not always be so easy just because people can ideologically argue
police should never shoot at unarmed suspects.
An issue never seemingly brought up but sometimes a reality is those
suspects who deliberately choose to act so as to be shot dead rather than
spend time incarcerated. Even specialists who study driving and traffic
behavior know that on occasion there are people who literally commit
suicide by crashing their vehicles. For example if I was about to be
arrested for some felony of sorts I would rather die than spend time being
incarcerated in a prison system and I might even act in ways that invite an
officer to shoot me. As cynical as this may sound there are such mine-sets
out there. Yet no one brings this truth up either.
Eric Hoffer wrote a book back in the 1970s, The True Believer, in which he
describes how many mass movements arise from fanaticism, frustration and
self-righteousness (there are videos on the Internet that discuss this book
as worthy of comprehending); and yet when it comes to any and all issues
raised by the rainbow coalition, be it feminist issues about ever growing
violence against women and the need for more laws, or racist issues, there
is seldom questions raised about the mindset of some of those people who
yell and scream about their righteous causes. Rather it is presumed any
distortion of reality is more likely to emanate from white people who
supposedly are always in denial on matters?
I do argue then that anger and indignation has its place in human
interaction. But when people constantly try to over-shout others so as to
intimidate their 'minority' opinion (irrespective of their ancestry) into
submission and acquiescence then justice is not served.
If certain people eagerly plot to riot and burn down businesses (even if
those businesses are owned by fellow black business owners) then supposedly
that is OK for rioting criminals who pretend to being saintly activists,
that is it's OK for them to engage such activist activity as worthy because
they verbally claim they have no alternative way of getting justice? They
think they can't possibly be wrong and everything they think and feel must
be Gospel truth and so the world should not only tolerate their
belligerence but accept they style of confrontation as nothing but
legitimate and sanctimonious?
See: "Ferguson residents torn over property destruction" at:
xhttp://xrepublic.tv/node/11569
Our public is not much invited to suspect 'some' attracted to protests
against authority, are not equally within themselves authoritarian and
anti-social personalities, who readily engage a life and philosophy of
anarchism, in which they do not really believe in any form of acceptable
and coherent authority save their own life of willfulness? Instead if they
claim to fight for the underdog as the victim then it must be true. No
unconscious or misunderstood motives from their souls.
But maybe the public has a right to be skeptical of some peoples'
assertions about blatant racism everywhere irrespective of how strongly
they may believe what they claim--equally true of those who report and opine
on such matters?
Many people are naïve to the amount of actual hatred (not just latent but
acted out) some black people have shown routinely toward white police
officers--especially some of those who have actually engaged in crime.
Some ideological and political idealists think the "only" reason black
people are represented in higher rates of arrests and imprisonment is
because of a highly dishonest system of racism. They can't imagine that
just maybe, for whatever reason, blacks, on average, do engage more crime
and hostility. And so if there are a lot of interactions between police and
black communities then some want to believe that hostilities on either side
is the result of the police primarily being the bad guys (and yet a lot of
idealists whites would not choose live in some communities where they are a
minority).
So consequently for various reason there is a hatred of all things police
(in some circles), and things regarding white authority (especially if it
can be painted as goyim racism--even if truth has it New York is a highly
Jewish city and such population too contributed to the policing policies
there, even while we seem to be selectively led to believe that somehow any
racial profiling there was purely the result of some Italian Mayor or
mostly Irish or WASP police officers then say by Jewish lawyers who act as
if they assume themselves to be of a more sophisticated class)?
If you have ever been arrested, for say drunk driving, and have rubbed
elbows in county jails in big urbane cities, you may know or have learned
some perpetrators of crime, and especially some black perpetrators, act in
very dangerous and psychologically ugly modes to all they interact
including jail personnel (not strictly blacks but they have a strong game
going). This is to say they can act like what one would call an "n-word"
stereotype in as blatant way as hatred can be dramatized but damn you as a
white person ever if you call someone a "n-word". The politically correct
will haunt you as most evil of anathema--that is enough guilt-trippers who
never did live across the rail-road tracks--as they 'project' their own
guilt onto the general white race--themselves being holier-than-thou as
often also privileged.
It is good thing now that some lawyers are getting involved in this debate
and protesting as well. However maybe they should also get more involved in
issues related to torture (torture by the way too much related to AIPAC and
NeoCon foreign policy goals) as well as what happened to innocent
Palestinians this summer? Where are all the lawyers speaking out on those
atrocities?
This fervency of demanding the world get on its knees and admit blatant
racism everywhere here in the United States was also fanned by some
websites that gave limited attention to racist events in Israel?
For example, the Daily Kos, a major Democratic Party website of sorts, and
one heavily focused almost exclusively on convicting Darren Brown in the
court of public opinion, did report some on Gaza atrocities this summer,
but their editorial team and large association of writers didn't expend any
great effort or passion either getting much riled up about those ugly facts
on the ground (or were not selected for mention in emails), even if they
needed no priming or cosmetic filtering. Kos offered little opinion like
refuting, for example, the false claims by the Israeli government as to why
they felt they had to attack Gaza and Hamas.
Nevertheless this highly activist website has gone to great lengths to
bring the Ferguson story into question at every conceivable level so as to
show it was undoubtedly white police racism, and to keep the country's mind
focused there? Why the double standard? Furthermore and equally important
their editorial group and associates (supposedly of a Democratic website)
doesn't seem at all bothered Hilary Clinton could become the next Democrat
President candidate--a person who upsets a lot of real progressives knowing
what that would likely mean.
I'm not arguing a focus on Ferguson is not worthy or justified but why so
much disparity between hundreds or thousands who suffered in Gaza for 50
days of aggression by Israel versus one death in Ferguson. So this then is
not only a fair question to ask from a website that has so much influence
on Democrats and Liberals with it constant emails but one that assumes to
be so adamantly self-righteous at times.
Despite then, clean and courageously stated criminal allegations made
against the Israeli government (where even many lawyers dare not tread) by
law professor Marjorie Cohn's indictment of Israel this summer, the story
was fast falling off the radar and today it has pretty much disappeared
under a cloud. Maybe lawyers in Los Angeles and New York City might see
this issue as important for the legal profession to take a stand?
Going back to August you can see the dramatic shift of focus for public
attention going into DemocracyNow.Orgarchives to the first few weeks of
August. There we see the heat on Israel's monstrosities and then what
happened in much of the media was almost a complete 180; however Amy
Goodman at Democracy Now did manage to get some very important interviews.
See
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/9/1/a_slaughter_of_innocents_henry_siegman
and
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/8/11/sadistic_grotesque_noam_chomsky_on_how
Americans were pulled into another controversy, whether intended or not,
that worked as deflection, away from United Nations efforts with civilians
being bombed because of Zionist racism in Palestine--entirely buried from
conscious awareness as new fires were stoked.
Where is the vociferous anger the terribly managed State Department debacle
demanded? Some lost soul named John Kerry, who once was an idealist
Lieutenant in Vietnam, was now caught complaining "...that was a hell of a
pin-point operation..." attesting to those who cannot see the obvious, that
not only is Israel not honest with the American culture, it is far from
honest in dealing with our Government and leaders as well, because
Netanyahu went out of his way to engage in the most blatant civilian crimes
imaginable, and he did it with the assumed audacity he and his likes would
get away with it, as how mafia Dons basically act.
Their willful criminality was meant to tell the world nobody ever tells the
Israeli people anything about how to be or what to do. We must ask
ourselves what kind of class of people assumes to rise to such a level of
arrogance and hostility.
Perhaps we might start with religious presumptions? To the end of this long
essay we will close on the idea of examining closely a comparison to the
many cases of violence cited in the Old Testament to these latest series of
criminal acts that took place this summer, to show little difference in
spirit--thus it demonstrates the Bible cannot possibly be a legitimate form
of moral or political authority.
Barack Obama's White House, or whoever really controls it these days, and
most of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives deliberately looked
the other way when all those egregious acts of bombs and killing of
children and innocent people, the destruction of important infrastructure
such as schools and hospitals, the many homes lost took place (over 50
days), not to mention United Nations people being routinely attacked, etc.,
all this truth from this summer would be side-swept away by an obsession
with some to suddenly decide the most important and dire issue for
Americans to think about was to re-focus to domestic violence by police
(and this push was reinforced by some political think tanks and certain
news stations).
Not surprisingly The Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization that has
come under much criticism over their controversial tactics, style, and
conclusions, came out shortly after the Brown killing to denounce it right
off, arguing it was, in one way or anther, tied to other forms of racism
presumably by white supremacists, Neo-Nazis and other "goyim" white radical
groups. And it's important to understand this was happening at the "peak"
of when the entire world was vigorously protesting against Israel, which is
to note, Israel and Zionism did in fact suddenly have a major public
relations problem to deal quickly as it became suddenly a tether of deep
anxiety (and guilt and rightly so).
The Southern Poverty Law Center seems to act as a de facto a Zionist
organization like the Anti-Defamation League. It is not officially so but
it acts as if it were a cousin to the NeoCon powers in Washington, creating
hysteria about racism and hate crimes with great attention on getting
people to think about labeling some goyim white groups as the most racist
and most likely to engage in hate crimes (not to argue they do not exist).
Yet even the Weekly Standard had to take issue to with this organization's
politics and conclusions. Wow!
So if one surveys the SPLC website (self-purported team investigating hate
crimes) there is very little about hate-crimes of deception committed by
official news media personnel such as those who invariably argue for war
against Muslims (using Islamo-phobia) or those who continuously suggest
that Muslims are fanatics, barbarians, invariably violent, etc. so as to
continue to justify a "clash of cultures" that benefits the culture of
Israel and Saudi Arabia. And the newly named ISIS/ ISIL media campaign
would follow up to do just that reinforcement campaign.
Was it not a hate crime for the New York Times to allow Judith Miller and
her crony ethnic look-alike Michael R. Gordon (see:
http://antiwar.com/blog/2014/08/03/beware-the-new-york-timess-michaelr-gordon/
to lie the American public into an illegal war in Iraq--given how many tens
to hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would then suffer in very serious
ways--that is given such reporting comprised of deliberate lies and not
simply naiveté as explained?
It must noted the Southern Poverty Law Center has a minor smidgeon of
articles on obviously blatant cases of some minor number of Jews who have
spread racist ideas, but when you really think of the vast numbers of
Muslims that have been killed and affected by American foreign policy (and
the media's complicity) one would think that the SPLC and the ADL would
have massive data-bases of racist Jews and racist Americans who support
right-wing and too often Zionist actions in the Middle East? But instead
both these groups focus almost all their energy on labeling other goyim
groups as hate groups and then inviting the likes of the FBI or Homeland
Security (and Israel intelligence as well) to spy on these many American
peoples they have fingered.
If you believe that the SPLC and the ADL are objective then do yourself a
study--read and listen to what David Duke has actually written and said in
his own words at his website DavidDuke.Comand then survey and read what
these supposedly hate-identifying websites have claimed about him. Even if
you are convinced David Duke is a racist or Klan member or a hypocrite you
can see a significant departure from objectivity and fairness. Both these
organizations are far from honest or objective as if they also have an
unstated agenda that deviates from their stated purpose.
And there are at least two important reasons why this kind of reverse
racism is important. One is that if there is ever any real reason The
People of the United States need to rise up against tyrannical government,
it is likely within some Patriot and Tea Party groups here might have some
ability to rebel against such a strong and well-armed government as the
United States. Whereas the fact that too often America's foreign policy
serves Israel's interests over our own invites some to want to continue
illegal wars and aggression abroad even if it is not ethical or financially
wise. And yet special interests would espouse massive scale spying on
Americans who are critical of these truths.
Furthermore some so-called hate-fighters and identifiers of haters are, or
seem, more motivated also to get the government to confiscate the citizen's
right to own guns--an exceedingly foolish idea--as no government should ever
be trusted to the point that they are allowed to outlaw guns from the
populace--and yet that is exactly what some so-called progressives are in
effect doing--finding every case of gun violence to focus so as to create a
political movement to outlaw weapons and create an exceedingly vulnerable
society.
And another reason why it is alarming certain groups, such as some
progressive Jewish people, that claim to represent minorities "against"
white goyim men, are engaged in a long time propaganda campaign to convince
minorities and women of the rainbow coalition they are Thee experts on
racism and hate crimes, and they are always on the side of people of color
and all who feel discriminated against, be whatever ethnicity, gender,
sexual orientation, etc., that is they have the moral stature to define who
are the haters, and when it is legitimate to call something a hate crime,
etc.
Any yet despite their public relations, such as education on hate crimes
against homosexuals, these groups are not completely objective or lacking
in their own biases or political motives--rather Americans in general have a
right and a duty to question their motives.
We Americans live in a schizophrenic world. We are asked to tolerate mass
murder of Afghans, Iraqis, Syrians, etc. (if the NeoCon types desire it),
and yet to not have any tolerance that hurts the ears of sensitive souls.
For example, it's one thing to argue one's feelings have been hurt by
critical statements of others, such as by certain professors who criticize
Israeli policy and practice on American campuses (a practice ADL and other
groups have attempted to outlaw as a standard of hate crime--that is how one
subjectively feels) such as some Jewish students claiming to feel
intimidated on American campuses by other Middle Eastern peoples who
express strong opinions contrarian to what these intimidated one's want to
think or believe or want they want others to think or believe (thus
attempting to shutter out free speech on campuses against all who criticize
Israel here in the United States): ... and it is another thing entirely to
feel the hatred of the Israeli government and their think tank culture
operating here to manipulate our war weapon machine to engage enormous
violence abroad or sell Israelis weapons that they may use on innocent
peoples. Most people would choose to have their feelings hurt rather than
their homes destroyed, their families bombed, and their friends tortured.
Still you can read the likes of Caroline Glick's "It's Time to Beat the Jew
Haters" because that is still free speech looks like, and then also think
about the possibility that just maybe some Jewish people can also actually
be people who engage in the "hating" of other peoples--a concept we are not
much invited to contemplate, that is from a people who claim to be so often
history's victims of hated. That they too actual have capacity to hate and
some trained minority to engage hate crimes--in the same manner we might
imagine some who complain about hatred against blacks also have an equal or
even more fervent appetite to hate white people?
Another idea seldom discussed--the true self-esteem levels and
hatred-of-self levels of various peoples within ethnic cultures. Seldom do
people think about or debate, as subjective as it may be, there might be
some Afro-American individuals who are not especially likeable or social,
and that some may display attitudes of being psychologically ugly or
egotistical, even exhibiting behaviors of being hateful toward people--that
is they are not all truly much fun to be around. Why is this seldom
discussed in those so-called demands for "dialogues about racism"? Rather
there is an implied insinuation the only reason for animosity between
groups is one of color and has nothing to do with such things as loud or
blatant intensity or confrontational style or manner of displaying anger or
acting disrespectful while at the same time demanding respect from those
they show little.
Many white people would not choose to be a police officer in a black
neighborhood. Still there are many normal people who can appreciate some
levels of up to enormous amounts of stress levels a teacher could have in a
more civil classrooms in a school, some nevertheless find it difficult,
within their capacities to imagine the stress levels, authority figures of
other sorts, dealing with at times people with antisocial dispositions and
criminal propensities, face?
This is not an excuse for mistakes or shortcomings, but is damn easy as a
outside commentator to always play critic and yet how often will we expect
to see how many journalists would dare take on the role of police office
even for one year?
One example of this an ethnocentric angle--like some kinds of music
attitude--that if one gets loud enough, or angry enough, or demanding
enough, or in mob numbers enough, or protests long enough, or acts bully
enough, then one is inevitably right--which seems to be the style of some
who claim to know so much about all versions on racial issues. Where then
are those spokespersons discussing how anger can be an intimidation tool
and tactic to over-ride discussion in more relaxed manner?
Again this is the "unequal" style of how some rainbow coalition/ black
politicians gurus want it portray life and reality--that is if one "feels"
one is anger enough that is all that matters about who and what is
right--even if it reflect the baby bully mentality that simply needs to cry,
scream and shout, that then proves who is right. This is the double
standard of race relations too many minority protesters and their
supporters expect white people to accept--the idea that if black anger is
strong enough and loud enough then nothing much else matters and it is OK
to engage in criminal violence, rioting, and burning down of innocent
businesses or buildings that had nothing to do with what they claim to be
angry. This sanctioning of ominous psychology by anger and declaring
complete victimization is deceit as it pretends one's own group is but
saintly and innocent--as some "religious" guru running around with mystic
visions--claiming the devils are "them" and not "us".
With over 300 million people there will always be examples of criminal
racism acted out--including some by police and some specifically by white
police while interacting with black people. What some activists seem to be
trying to demand is none ever happen or they will be highlighted with klieg
light (which is not realistic to create a perfect world--which doesn't mean
things cannot improve).
Meanwhile such attitude has a hard time understanding the way they act
toward others and the attitudes they present are greater barriers then
their skin color. And yes there are a lot of disparities between being
white and being black but why does it seem like some people who want to
constantly highlight the worst of it are also some white people who
actually grew up as more, privileged then the average white person?
Whereas as it not a hate-crime for Paul Wolfowitz and his Neo-Con-Artist
Pentagon usurpation of Intelligence to create a separate office within the
Pentagon for the purpose of manufacturing phony intelligence to get an
illegal war of aggression in the Middle East met--illegal destruction of
people and culture? It is exceedingly important to understand the war of
aggression in Iraq was not so much American as it was Israel and Saudi
Arabia.
This U.S. illegal invasion of Iraq did not happen because of the "several"
false excuses explicitly given and very well crafted as deliberate
propaganda to the American public as told, such as Hussein was behind 9/11,
or he had weapons of mass destruction, etc., but because, as confirmed,
took place because it was what right-wing Israel, AIPAC and the Neocons
wanted--that is war, more war, and now they are still arguing for even more
against Syria and Iran (see "STEPHEN M. WALT
I don't mean to say I told you so, but..." at:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2010/02/08/i-dont-mean-to-say-i-told-you-so-but/
When we consider, as we should, the fact that Barack Obama, who was
basically succored to opportunities in Harvard, then University of Chicago
for teaching, and later funded by progressive Jewish liberals (and rightly
so as he had such potential), that these facts did little to truly move
many progressive causes. Besides siding with Wall Street and continuing the
previous Bush Administration's horrific foreign policy and Security Police
State issues, he did, as the Democratic Party top-down expected, or what
AIPAC wanted--that is when Benjamin Netanyahu and his likes engaged in war
crimes this summer--he acted, in one of his lowest points, the Manchurian
candidate to puppet "Israel had a right to protect its citizens"--as if that
was the real issue.
This remains our American problem--we cannot get anyone elected if Zionist
lobbyists do not approve. Barack Obama's, and almost all in both chambers
of legislative branches, violated American trust by their cowardly
acquiescence to Israel's war crimes--as blatant as they were.
Then they became all too willing to scream about war crimes committed by
ISIS--the second wave of attention grabbing news stories to equally work as
more continuous cover for Israel's crimes. The entire story of ISIS is as
much a public relations feat as it is any kind of new reality. The covert
activities of this whole phenomenon are worth investigating as some already
have.
Some middle of the road Americans, even in the white world, thought we had
a good candidate with a new "hopeful" Obama, and yet all we really got was
another puppet with a silver tongue. White men like myself, who had voted
for Obama, as Kucinich was edged out, had expected, or had at least hoped,
for better than the mediocrity of Rahl Emanuel being appointed Chief of
Staff, who deliberately defied doing anything important in regards to
closing Guantanamo. See: "U.S. TV Provides Ample Platform for American
Torturers, But None to Their Victims" at
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/12/16/u-s-tv-media-gives-ample-platform-american-torturers-victims/
Instead of a new White House taking back the Bill of Rights and stopping
the growth of the Police State, we got the opposite--a grass roots effort
being usurped by another top-down continuation of the Democratic Party that
soon forgot its roots.
And instead of a long overdue re-evaluation of America's relationship with
Israel we again became sidetracked with domestic issues and the convenience
of ISIS creating beheading headlines.
So now as of 2014 every violation any black person has ever felt or
imagined from a white police officer would be put to trial. The entire
profession of policing would suddenly become the issue of prominence. Over
all police brutality, profiling, abuse, etc., would be larded into an
incident between one white police officer and one black male--building from
a crescendo from New York City profiling to Florida Trayvon Martin death,
later to Eric Garner of Staten Island to a continuous focus that will not
end as certain political activists have found a weapon to incite anger over
and over and dominate headlines as any incident can be made to dominate the
national conversation--because there will always be a few flagrant cases of
unjustified violence.
In New York City alone there are a minimum of 300 or 400 murders a year and
for the last couple decades numbers far exceeding--enough violence in one
city to keep shows like Law and Order well supplied with ideas.
Whereas in the henpeck order of American's moral ladder, as projected and
perceived by mass propaganda, we seem to accept the idea white men, that is
white goyim men, as opposed to white Jewish people, have the least
political, social, moral, and ethical capital. This is to say some feel
minority people and women are superior to goyim white men, intellectually,
socially, morally, politically etc., and therefore they have moral capital
to discuss racism and to criticize others. Whereas white men (the eternal
enemy in the great divide and conquer) have the least moral capital and so
what they think doesn't really mean all that much because many are suspect
in motive and lacking on face.
But we don't think this reverse racism?
And yet there are plenty people, who, when given an opportunity to choose
sides between a white male's versus a black male's statement of events,
when one is arguably victimized and both statement conflict, will side with
the black person and assume the white person guilty (and vice a versa). But
we are not so ready to call this racism? And yet such racism is more
prevalent than what some think (and in some camps there is a lot of such
prejudice).
[Again my arguments are not meant to suggest racist issues are not highly
relevant on their own. Nor is this paper an attempt to suggest a general
media focus on the Michael Brown killing was some deliberate attempt to
sideline focus on Gaza (things can happen and still not be premeditated).
Still it is true that when more people could have been more strenuously
focused on what happened in flagrance at Gaza (and more importantly
thinking about what we could do about it), we were now, once again, invited
to focus attention elsewhere, so a history of injustices in Israel could
once again be skirted from scrutiny and confrontation.]
American wars of aggression of late in the Middle East could and should
also be labeled forms of hate crime (and there should be more independent
research on 9/11, that so readily allowed the NeoCon plan to attack several
Middle Eastern countries come into play). Much of these misadventures were
the result of distorted or fallacious arguments made up by these Neo-Cons
and their correspondent media pundits as public relations people. Since
9/11 indiscriminate war, as murder, has happened on a massive scale--let us
have more discussion with black GI s who have returned from combat.
Also the militarization of police departments finally came to a head at the
Ferguson showdown. Finally more news organizations were focused on how
local police departments are now heavily supplied with implements of war,
so as to crack down on huge populations of people, and to be able to do so
with much muscle and violence (and technology).
But this phenomenon of creating so much coordination and centralization of
police work is primarily a reality of the Department of Homeland Security;
and its important to remember this restructuring of U.S. intelligence,
basically an American version of the Stalinist Cheka, was Senator Joseph
Lieberman's doing.
As sometimes biased websites likeDemocracyNow.Org came to discuss the
militarization of police departments they still failed to discuss the many
millions of hollow point bullets obtained by DHS Departments and the
thousands of machine guns by police departments and state guards groups
(not that they had never been invited to do)? Why these important facts
were still omitted from discussion of a Police State Arising as potentially
far more ambitious than just attacking political protests? People, it
seems, here have a hard time imagining that what has happened in other
countries such as the massive concentration prisons in Russia or massive
starvation there as elsewhere could ever happen here--apparently because of
American exceptionalism (really naiveté--and meanwhile for decades American
foreign policy has supported death squads elsewhere, so why would the
"average" Joe (or presumed insider) assume any kind of immunity.
Many people critical of our government have been looking warily on the
Department of Homeland Security as the Police State, especially in gains
after 9/11 for a very long time, and still have questions as who really was
behind those attacks not believing the media-hyped stories. And yet the
militarization of police departments only comes up in the context of
protests and riots involving issues of race--why is that--why is there no
discussion that the SPLC was inviting our government to spy on white, goyim
groups that they claimed represent hate and danger to the general public?
And why is there no parallel being drawn to the evolution of the Soviet
Cheka and the evolution of the DHS heretoday? Why is it so hard for people
to understand the level of personal records being stored in massive
databases?
Also why are some of the biggest critics of people like Edward Manning,
Glenn Greenwald, Julian Assange and Bradley Chelsea Manning thought as
normally liberal or centrist lawyers like University of Chicago's law
professor Geoffrey Stone and Harvard's Alan Dershowitz (who ironically just
wrote: Terror Tunnels: The Case for Israel's War Against Hamas)?
Skepticism has its legitimate place in intellectual history. It is fact the
United States foreign policy in the Middle East is dominated by Zionist and
Saudi Arabian interests. It is equally a fact American mainstream media is
highly influenced by Jewish interests, as are major political campaigns.
Chuck Hagel should not have been put in position in which it was suggested
he apologize for saying he is an American Senator not an Israeli one. Nor
should he be victim to the "political" foreign policy of the State
Department.
And yet there is something even more disturbing than what happened this
summer in Gaza and that is how the Old Testament itself advocated for war
and violence. If you compare the list of legitimate war crimes Israelis
engaged this summer to the longer list of violence advocated in the Old
Testament, you see very similar patterns of war crime. Google: "Cruelty and
violence in the Old Testament" at:
www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruely/ot_list.html and compare current
allegations of war crimes with the Bible.
It is time for mankind to recognize some ancient religions of the Middle
East for what they really were and still primarily represent. The modern
world can no longer hope for moral authority from a source of authority
that has proven itself too different than what rational justice assumes.
If Sheldon Adelson can publicly say he would have already bombed Iran (he
would willingly kill thousands and thousands of human people en masse) as
he now vows to help finance Hilary Clinton's campaign, are we not to notice
his willingness to kill so many peoples, especially given the Iran threat
was so deceitfully a massive propaganda campaign, and his statement even if
naïve of this truth, is not in and of itself a hate-crime? (See
MediaRoots.Org video clip "Ferguson: Riot Double Standard" and especially
six & half minutes into this clip with her interview with Max Blumenthal on
Germany' left-wing's inability to cognitively deal with free speech at
Media Roots and all Max Blumenthal has to say on the matter). By the way
where are the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League on
Sheldon's speech?
It may well be time for the world to consider officially banning the Bible
from having any authority in politics whatsoever. This idea should be
brought to the attention of the United Nations to argue and debate, because
any religion that advocates violence, as does the Bible, literally condones
terrorism. And any organization or government that places credence on these
kinds of fanatical religious institutions should be considered fanatical in
and by themselves.
Israel--you are coming down your mountain--you and your Yahweh!
Amen
[Note: If you feel this message is important, then by all means, email,
fax, print, manually mail, propagate, tweet, twitter, and publish to all
that Paul Revere and Thomas Paine would gather.]
A few other essays by William Wraithwrite:
YOU CANNOT DIE IN HELL: Using Indefinite Detention for Political and
Religious Purposes http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2014/03/515855.html
The Demonization of Dissent in the United States
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/102642
Israeli Smack-Down of Christian Political Philosophy: A Deeper Analysis of
the Latest Israeli Atrocities in Palestine
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/08/05/18759603.php
See also: "When God Became the Terrorist: Traces Of The Authoritarian
Nature of the Three Abrahamic Religions" at:
https://indymedia.org.uk/en/2013/07/511565.html ; free ebook
Plus check out related:
The Islamophobia of "Homeland" - Deepa Kumar on Reality Asserts Itself
(4/5) at:
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=12531
The Ferguson Distraction by Sheldon Richman
http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/ferguson-distraction/
*****Lastly if think this essay is anti-Semitic I suggest you read
Alexander Cockburn and Jeffery St. Clair' The Politics of Anti-Semitism
before you jump to too many conclusions.*****
Regards,
will write | wwwwwwwwwwww@yahoo.com
Note: This email was sent via the Contact Form gadget on
http://www.arabworld360.info
