“It’s use the Jew day in Ukraine—again. For millennia, treatment of a country’s Jews has served as the canary in the coal mine, and now the canary is tweeting all over the American and Israeli media. According to reports, a leaflet, now basically debunked and yet still inspiring fury all over Twitter, was handed out in Donetsk, the heavily Russian-speaking town in Eastern Ukraine, instructing Jews to register with authorities.
According to Ynet, the flier read as follows:
“Dear Ukraine citizens of Jewish nationality, due to the fact that the leaders of the Jewish community of Ukraine supported Bendery Junta [Stepan Bandera] and oppose the pro-Slavic People’s Republic of Donetsk, (the interim government) has decided that all citizens of Jewish descent, over 16 years of age and residing within the republic’s territory are required to report to the Commissioner for Nationalities in the Donetsk Regional Administration building and register.”
The media response was predictable. USA Today, the Jerusalem Post, and others were quick to proclaim “Jews ordered to register in Ukraine!” cleverly omitting one important question: By whom? The word “Jews” is even trending on Twitter.
The flyer is both real, and not. It’s important to see this in the context of how the Jews have been used from the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine: as fodder for the provocation machine. Indeed, Julia Ioffe at The New Republic reached out to the Donetsk Jewish community, who dismissed the flier as an attempt by Western Ukrainians to delegitimize the pro-Russian sentiment in the Eastern part of the country, just as the Russians used accusations of anti-Semitism to delegitimize the Maidan revolutionaries.
As Ioffe puts it, “This may be just another tactic to smear the so-called anti-Maidan in the east of Ukraine: you think we’re fascists? Well, take a look at these guys.” The Jews of Ukraine are not registering.”
Whenever something in the official narrative of the past becomes a sacred cow, you know there’s a lie hidden in plain sight.
To paraphrase Winston Churchill, history is propaganda, wrapped in a riddle, wrapped in an enigma.
The enigma of what happened on 9-11 has been deconstructed all over the web, by dozens of intrepid researchers whose combined efforts, red herrings and all, document a coup-d’etat conducted by a network of spymasters, political leaders, bureaucrats, and ideologues, with the backing of powerful moneyed groups, in the services of a quasi-religious global order.
(Credit to Ahmed El Fikyl for the cover of his book)
To admit this is to admit that the present order rests on lies, issues from lies, and is justified only by further lies.
To admit that is to admit that “blow-back” as an explanation of the push-back from other countries is the impetus for further expansion, disguised as reaction.
This is the point that Zahir Ebrahim has been relentless in stressing, as in his latest piece at Salem-News.com (posted in the comments section of my post on Irving), which I reproduce in part here:
Zahir Ebrahim, at Salem-News.com, writes:
“In our generation, it is the pious sanctification of the 9/11 who dunnit narrative now in brazen progress…..”
“9-11,” he argues, is undergoing the same process of sanctification as the holocaust once did, so that what follows - WW2, in the case of the holocaust, and WW3 (or 4) in the case of 9-11 - will remain unchallenged.
The benefit of that to maintaining support for the American state’s ongoing war-making is clear for everyone to see. It makes the empire virtuous and just in its aggression, never merely aggressive, expansionist or totalitarian, as it obviously is.
(See: “Washington’s Outrageous Ukraine Double-Standards,” Daniel McAdams).
“Flushed with unassailable hubris on being on the side of empire in its core Big Lies, the murderers today, their aiders and abettors, assistant stooges and dupes, whether engineering consent or dissent, all well understand that: “All murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.”
Since all ideas are relative as already boldly proclaimed by the highest court in the reigning sole superpower, but which is of course also always true in practice (with or without declaration) for every king in every kingdom, they each understand that no one can even plausibly hang them for their measure of participating in propaganda and war crimes by echoing the Big Lie alongside the emperor. They know that today, there is no power greater than the emperor’s to pursue them even in some wishful victor’s justice. Secure in that knowledge, it is safe to be a propagandist of any flavor on any side of the coin – take whichever position you like based on your psychological disposition, natural talent, skill, and egotistical gratification.
See this open letter to their most prominent and respected leader - Goebbells’ direct counterpart Machiavellianly manipulating the dissenting minority of hoi polloi by echoing the Big Lie underneath all the protestations of the already visible barbarianism of hegemony:
Credit to Inquisition-art.
Peter Kerstein defends academic free inquiry from intellectual auto-da-fe:
“Nation-states denying entry to controversial, independent-thinking scholars is increasingly common. The United States has fallen prey to such retrogressive actions as the revocation of a visa for the renowned University of Notre Dame visiting Islamic scholar, Tariq Ramadan. The politics of historical revisionism in the case of David Irving has similar baleful consequences for the unrestricted dissemination of nonconformist ideas. Mr. Irving is banned from Germany, Australia, Canada, Italy and New Zealand due to criticism of his scholarship and public utterances concerning World War II. The New Zealand decision, while literally applying its immigration law barring the entry of persons previously deported from third countries, has generated a nationwide debate whether Mr. Irving should be prohibited from lecturing on the historiography of World War II before the National Press Club. David Zwartz, president of the New Zealand Jewish Council and honorary Israeli consul in New Zealand, has led the campaign for exclusion. He described Mr. Irving as an “organism—even a two-legged one—that attacks our people.” (New Zealand Herald, July 26, 2004) Mr. Zwartz also claimed that denying entry to Mr. Irving had nothing to do “with suppressing his ideas” because his oeuvre is “available to anyone who wishes to access them.” (e-mail to author, August 3, 2004) The New Zealand Herald courageously demurred and editorialized in favor of freedom for historians. ( July 22, 2004)
Mr. Irving’s lot is that of all historians—to constantly re-appraise the events of the past. No event should be out of bounds. If, as in this case, the conclusions are palpably wrong, that is no reason for preventing their presentation—and their challenging by more profound scholarship. The only counter to flawed views is informed debate. Opinions that during this process are shown to be devoid of worth, wisdom or accuracy will quickly be discarded.
If one becomes a public figure due to widespread opposition to one’s speech—whether written or verbal—there are two choices: Fight or flight. If one determines upon reflection to maintain one’s commitment to principled beliefs, then one must avoid flight. Indeed if faced with an ideologically inspired auto-da-fé that threatens one’s occupation and livelihood, bending to the forces of conformity with their armamentarium of suspensions, reprimands, press releases, censorship and aroused public indignation, merely encourages additional coercion. One of the ironies in confronting the consensus orthodoxy of the Vital Center is when the offending rhetoric transmogrifies into protective armor and bestows a fierce commitment to stay the course and resist the firestorm. There emerges a heightened sense of self-worth and renewed dedication to one’s basic values. Recantation is not an option. Surrendering one’s ethics and core beliefs is not an option. Evolving and articulating different viewpoints are possible, and perhaps laudable, but not while under assault by Inquisitions in modern dress that substitute the Internet or economic intimidation for stake burnings.
Father Arthur Terminiello had a reputation for racist, anti-Semitic and anti-Communist epithets. The Birmingham, Alabama priest, who ministered to tenant farmers in Alabama and Florida, was known as the Father Coughlin of the South. Father Terminiello was arrested in Chicago in 1946 for haranguing against a threatening and disorderly mob that sought to disrupt his speech before Gerald L. K. Smith’s Christian Veterans of America. His detention granted his protagonists a Heckler’s veto, whereby a speaker is silenced merely due to protest against the event. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court reversed an Illinois judge’s jury instructions that Chicago’s breach of the peace ordinance proscribed any utterance that “stirs the public to anger, invites dispute, brings about a condition of unrest, or creates a disturbance. ” Justice William O. Douglas, writing for the majority in Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), affirmed free speech is essential for a free people:
Free speech…may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger…That is why freedom of speech though not absolute…is nevertheless protected against censorship and punishment…For the alternative would lead to standardization of ideas by…dominant political or community groups. [Emphasis added.]
Hopefully Justice Douglas’s stirring reaffirmation of the importance of free speech for a democratic society will dissuade those who wish to abridge it and embolden those who wish to exercise it.“
Steve Sailer writes a brave analysis (like me, he realizes that deconstructing the gay lobby is rather important to deflecting war with Russia and other countries);
“Today, under the pro-Semitic Putin, Jews make up what’s approaching a fifth of Russia’s billionaires, but that’s less than in the 1990s, so it seems to the American media as if the Cossacks must be riding in like at the end of the first act of Fiddler on the Roof.
In America, where Jews make up one-third of the billionaires, it’s hard to argue that anti-Semitism is much of a problem anymore. Hence, one outlet for anti-anti-Semitic energies has been the gay movement.
Richard Grenier, the longtime movie reviewer for Commentary, was one of the first to call attention to this connection. After going to see Tony Kushner’s Angels in America and other AIDS plays in 1993, Grenier wrote:
… in a recent week of diligent theatergoing in New York, at the more commercially successful homosexual works, I got the impression that the audiences were something like 10 per cent homosexuals and 90 per cent heterosexual Jews—to all appearances well-to-do, liberal, husband-and-wife couples. We had some heterosexual Gentiles in the audiences, no doubt, but they appeared to be a distinct minority. During a preview of Angels in America, when one of the characters uttered an expletive in Yiddish, the house positively roared with laughter …
Many liberal Jews… have fully accepted the parallel between discrimination based on race or religion and discrimination based on “sexual orientation.” This parallel is reflected in the AIDS plays—indeed, it is more than reflected. To put it plainly, these plays are about Jews and Jewishness almost as much as they are about homosexuality.… The characters talk endlessly about Jews and homosexuality, homosexuality and Jews. The playwrights themselves find a correlation.
Am I not to notice this?
Not noticing is usually the most prudent policy in modern America. Then again, is it worth heedlessly bear-baiting our way into a war with Russia because we’re not supposed to notice?
Christopher Cantwell, being brutalist:
“At the end of this discussion, it really doesn’t matter who’s right or who’s wrong, the person with the superior numbers is going to force their bad ideas on everybody else at gun point. Just imagine doing this in reverse, where you start with a threat instead of ending with it. Nobody would try to be polite about their disagreement under those circumstances.
Since we know we have inferior numbers, and the minority always gets screwed and threatened by democracy, this is exactly what this discussion looks like to us. It begins and ends with the threat of violence, so the fact that we don’t shoot you in the face really speaks volumes to our civility.”
Cantwell, a righteous atheist, is pretty good on his ten reasons why libertarians don’t need to be nice.
Note: I don’t consider myself a libertarian of the anarcho-capitalist variety.
I’m a classical liberal.
I come down on the same side as LRC on a lot - if not a majority - of issues for practical reasons. At some point, I will have the time to stop following the news and read more theory and then I will resolve the theoretical arguments for myself.
Russian lawmakers approved a bill that would make Holocaust denial illegal.
The lower house of the Russian Parliament, or Duma, passed the measure Friday on its first reading, the Voice of Russia reported Monday, making it illegal to deny the verdict of the Nuremberg Tribunal and punishing the “rehabilitation of Nazism.”
Those found guilty of the crime could be fined up to $8,300 or imprisoned up to three years. Public officials or media personalities would be fined nearly double or face up to five years in prison.
The bill also needs the approval of the Federation Council, or upper house. It was authored five years ago and resubmitted in February.”
Holocaust denial is illegal in only 17 countries, most of which are in Europe, where the majority of crimes against Jews, as a people/religion, have been committed.
However, there is a substantial body of research and evidence that argues that those crimes were reactions to previous offenses, or provocations.
Here is where the problem lies.
In order to credibly make their case, the revisionists have to enter fields of inquiry that on their face appear anti-Semitic. But since the future of Europe is very much a captive of how her history is written, the research becomes politically vital.
So though the actual number of countries that have criminalized revisionist history isn’t overwhelming by any means, the importance of the outlawing is. Because of it, history is still held hostage to power.
This long and important piece by Glenn Greenwald describes a variety of tactics used by government operatives to infiltrate, trick, and generally game internet discourse. I’ve mentioned many of the tactics I’ve spotted on the net, but there’s nothing like seeing the actual operational plan. The only problem with the piece is that Greenwald himself is likely a limited hang-out/damage-control guy. Others have said as much about the way he’s been dribbling out the Snowden material.
Also, in this piece he references Anonymous.
Well, a lot of people think Anonymous itself is an operation run by some spy agency. So, while Greenwald’s information is good, I’m sure what he reveals is only a portion of what’s going on. The real action is probably several steps ahead of us.
CORRECTION 2 I don’t endorse private property hooliganism. I fully support acts of disruption against public property.
I changed the heading of this post from “WW2 facts” to WW2 history” because my support for Irving is not a claim that I endorse his views.
Again, I need to clarify, that I do not endorse David Irving’s views as to the accuracy of the numbers of deaths in the Holocaust. However, I do agree with his belief that the Holocaust is heavily politicized, as is the history of WW2.
The politicization plays a prominent role in speech-control in the West today, with dozens of people jailed for it.
Irving himself denies being a “holocaust denier” and agrees that millions of Jews did die in the holocaust. The label anti-Semite and “hater” has been applied to him because he disputes certain facts about WW2 history. I am in no position to judge how accurate or not his beliefs are, but they are evidently sincerely held and Irving is evidently a writer with impressive accomplishments and credentials. Thus, he is by definition a political dissident.
The very essence of free speech is the protection of unpopular opinion, especially political and religious opinion.
After, having destroyed Irving’s career and reputation by labeling him a “hater,” “Nazi,” and “anti-Semite,” the state media (BBC, in this case), then lifted his work whole-sale for their own purposes, a tactic that is endlessly used.
Land-destroyer blog (Tony Cartalucci, whom I’ve linked before but whose credibility has been questioned by some people) has a great list of state oppressions that the champions of the oppressed among the humanitarian libertarians never seem to talk about:
“The US State Department-backed so-called “punk band” going by the name of “Pussy Riot,” stormed into a Moscow church, defaming the Russian government while mocking the beliefs of churchgoers with vulgarity and disruptive behavior. Marketed as an act of “freedom of expression” by the Western media and the West’s collection of foreign ministries, it was in reality what would be called both a hate-crime and disorderly conduct in the West. Furthermore, in the West, such an act would come with it steep fines and lengthy jail sentences.
In fact, similar cases have played out in the West - minus the feigned indignation over the perceived violation of free speech of alleged bigots, racists, and hooligans that have preceded “Pussy Riot.” In many cases, the West has actively pursued not only people harassing others and creating public disturbances, but also those distributing material to like minded people who’s beliefs are simply perceived as “socially harmful.”
The West Has Jailed Many For Similar or Lesser Offenses
[Lila: Actually, Cartalucci is wrong on this. Irving is a genuine political dissident, performing a vital task - elucidating history. Pussy Riot was violating publi private
[I accidentally wrote public, when I meant private property. Activism in the public sphere or on public property is fine. Tax-payers own the place anyway. But I was referring to Pussy-Riot's actions disrupting church services, which are conducted on private property.]
property, not making any kind of rational statement that I could make out.
They are agents provocateurs, not political dissidents. My own experience has proved to me that in the US there are heavy social and economic costs for even factual, even-handed and credible alternative opinions. Everywhere, the snitches and sheep-herders of the money-power are busy, along with government operatives. If you figure them out, watch out.]
- 3 Years in Jail for Revising History: In 2006, the BBC reported, ”British historian David Irving has been found guilty in Vienna of denying the Holocaust of European Jewry and sentenced to three years in prison.” The BBC also reported, ”the judge in his 2000 libel trial declared him “an active Holocaust denier… anti-Semitic and racist.”" Irving’s beliefs, as unpopular as they may be, were expressed in his writings and speeches, not in the middle of a synagogue he had burst into.
- 4 Years and 2 Years in Jail for Operating “Racist” Website: For the crime of operating a US-based “racist” website and possessing with intent to distribute “racist material,” two British men, Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle were sentenced to 4 years and 2 years respectively in the UK in 2009. The presiding judge, according to the BBC, “told the men their material was “abusive and insulting” and had the potential to cause “grave social harm.”" Unlike Pussy Riot, however, these 2 men only crammed their leaflets into the door of a synagogue - instead of bursting in. Still they received 3-4 years in prison.
- 3 Years in Jail for Harassing a Jewish Man and Public Hate Speech: In 2011, an Australian man posted an “anti-Semitic” video on YouTube earning him a 3 year jail sentence. The video apparently showed the convicted man insulting a Jewish man before going on a tirade “in front of the Perth Bell Tower,” reported ABC of Australia. Clearly insulting someone in Australia and creating a public disturbance is a punishable crime, yet somehow the Australian government sees insulting churchgoers in Russia as “freedom of expression.” Equally as clear, is that hypocrisy and selective principles are being liberally exercised.
[Lila: Again, I disagree with this case. The man has no right to an offensive tirade on private property and certainly not to propagandize children, who are not at the age of consent.]
- 5 Years in Jail for Disagreeing With Mainstream History: Also in 2009, a man was jailed for 5 years for “propagating Nazi ideas and Holocaust denial” in Austria, Reuters reported. Gerd Honsik apparently wrote books and magazines which he attempted to distribute in schools, though it was the content of the material, not the manner in which he tried to distribute it that earned him his lengthy jail sentence. Unpopular though his ideas may be, according to the latest tirade by the West, he not only should’ve been allowed to proclaim them publicly, but do so in a place of worship amongst those he despised.
- Detainment for “Hateful” Public Disturbance: This year, the British Daily Mail reported in their article, “Elmo in cuffs: Man dressed as Sesame Street character is carried away in Central Park after anti-Semitic rant in front of kids,” that “the appearance of a hate-spewing man dressed up as Elmo was a jarring one for many New Yorkers who visited Central Park on Sunday afternoon.” The article elaborated by saying that though the man was put in handcuffs and taken away, he was not arrested. While no arrest or sentence was handed down, the story clearly indicates that there is a line drawn as to what is “freedom of speech” and what is “disturbing the peace” in the United States.
- Arrested for Aggravating “religious and racial” Facebook Comments: For the crime of posting “anti-Semitic” remarks on Facebook, the BBC reported that “five men and a 15-year-old youth” were arrested in May, 2012. The BBC would elaborate by reporting, “the six people arrested were charged with a breach of the peace with religious and racial aggravations.”
Credit for the image to cartoonstock.
To militant humanitarians everywhere:
The Angry Man
by Phyllis McGinley
The other day I chanced to meet
An angry man upon the street —
A man of wrath, a man of war,
A man who truculently bore
Over his shoulder, like a lance,
A banner labeled “Tolerance.”
And when I asked him why he strode
Thus scowling down the human road,
Scowling, he answered, “I am he
Who champions total liberty —
Intolerance being, ma’am, a state
No tolerant man can tolerate.
“When I meet rogues,” he cried, “who choose
To cherish oppositional views,
Lady, like this, and in this manner,
I lay about me with my banner
Till they cry mercy, ma’am.” His blows
Rained proudly on prospective foes.
Fearful, I turned and left him there
Still muttering, as he thrashed the air,
“Let the Intolerant beware!”
A Catholic peeks behind homophile revisionist history….. and finds bunkum:
Anti-Catholic polemicist Steve Hays recently wrote:
“Given that Michelangelo was a notorious homosexual whose art reflects his homoerotic fixation, Dave’s illustration is a queer choice to prove his point.
(comment of 1-8-07)
So was he or wasn’t he? Particularly, Catholics want to know if he was a practicing homosexual (which is where the bulk of the sinfulness lies). I don’t know one way or another, myself, but I highly suspect that his case might be one of many that radical homosexual activists (who notoriously butcher biblical texts also) have chosen to distort historical evidence and fact. Basically, they conclude that anyone who was single may have been a homosexual. Cardinal Newman is one oft-cited example that comes to mind right away. Does anyone argue that Michelangelo was not a homosexual, with solid reasoning?
I found a review by Loren Partridge (Renaissance Quarterly, Vol. 37, No. 2, Summer, 1984, pp. 269-271), of Robert S. Liebert’s book, Michelangelo: A Psychoanalytic Study of His Life and Images (New Haven-London: Yale University Press, 1983). Unfortunately, access is limited, but the Google blurb which led me to it cited Partridge as follows: “Liebert argues persuasively that Michelangelo was probably not an active homosexual. This is a refreshing corrective . . .”
James H. Beck is the author of Three Worlds of Michelangelo (Norton: 1999). A review in Axiom News, 25th February, 1999, page 9 states:
Artist and gay icon Michelangelo may not have been gay according to a controversial new study into his life and works. James Beck, author of the study and specialist in Renaissance art at Columbia University, claims that his lack of sexual activity was more to do with a fear of sexually transmitted diseases, a dislike of sex in general and devotion to his family, rather than any homosexual tendency.
His study, Three Worlds of Michelangelo states: “Michelangelo may have never married out of distaste for the sexual act.”
Professor Beck said: “The fact that he admired and rendered marvellous images of young men cannot be used as evidence of real or latent homosexuality. As female models were very rare, Michelangelo based his rendering on males, usually his studio boys, as was customary.”Patricia Fortini Brown, in her review of the same book in The New York Times, wrote:
“And what about his much discussed sexual orientation? While allowing that his celebration of the male nude extended to a masculinization of his female subjects, Beck denies that Michelangelo was a homosexual, ”closet or otherwise.” Nor was he particularly attracted to women. According to the author, the sparse evidence suggests that the artist ”had few, if any, sexual experiences.” Passion he had, but it was directed toward his art.An article in the evangelical magazine, Christian History & Biography, “Larger Than Life,” by Laurel Gasque (8-17-06), denies the common assertion of Michelangelo’s homosexuality:
“Around the time he was painting The Last Judgment, Michelangelo, now nearly 60, met two people who would have a profound personal impact on his life and faith: Tommaso de’ Cavalieri (1516–1574) and Vittoria Colonna (1492-1547).
By all accounts, both Cavalieri and Colonna were of outstanding character and intelligence. Both came from ancient families. Tommaso was beautiful in appearance. Vittoria, widow of the Marchese of Pescara, radiated the inner beauty of a devout heart. Both inspired adoration in Michelangelo. In his own words, “Whenever I see someone who is good for something, who shows some power of the mind, who can do or say something better than the others, I am compelled to fall in love with him, and give myself to him as booty, so that I am no longer my own, but all his.”
Words like these taken at face value (with little consideration for the ambiguity in the use of pronouns in Italian), along with his friendship with Cavalieri, have caused many people in recent times to argue that Michelangelo was a homosexual. Some of his own contemporaries suspected him of this, and he denied the charge.
His poetry attests to the fact that he was no stranger to lust and guilt, whether from acts or thoughts alone. The conflict between his deep admiration for earthly beauty and his yearning for a love that transcended physical desires - “the tension between nature passionately loved and grace passionately longed for,” as Dixon puts it - was a source of tortuous inner struggles. However, as Michelangelo scholars John W. Dixon [possibly referring to the book, The Christ of Michelangelo] and James Beck have argued, there is no historical evidence that he ever had sexual relations with anyone, man or woman. He claimed he was married only to his art.
Loving others, for Michelangelo, was a way of loving God. Cavalieri and Colonna brought him nearer to Christ. In a madrigal addressed to Colonna, he wrote, “In your face I aspire to what I am pledged from heaven.”Is the above information all nonsense? Is it believable and credible? Can Steve Hays produce solid research for the contrary assertion? Or is his statement drawn mostly or solely from “certain knowledge” gleaned from only a fleeting acquaintance with the subject matter? Perhaps because all the so-called “gay” activists claim Michelangelo as their own, Steve accepts this without doing any research himself (as a way to run down the Catholic Church - and its art -: one of his favorite pastimes)?
You be the judge. It seems to me that this is likely yet another of the innumerable commonly-accepted myths and fairy-tales that non-Christian secularists with an agenda wish to see promulgated and assumed without argument. I don’t know enough to render a definite, strongly-held opinion, but it looks that way, based on similar myths and propaganda that I have observed time and again.”
“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”
Enterprising villagers in drought-struck, electricity-bereft Tamil Nadu have come up with a simple, low-cast way not just to survive, but thrive, under the harshest of conditions:
“”Farmers of Tamil Nadu’s Tirunelveli district have turned away from using chemical fertilizers to get good yield despite acute water shortage, monsoon failure and power cuts prevailing in the State.
Though Tirunelveli is known for its temples and halwa, about 45 km south of this bustling town is a clutch of villages, predominantly agriculture-based depending on monsoon, quietly carrying on farming activities, growing chillies, paddy, small onions and vegetables.
There are no government bus services, schools or health centres in many of these villages. For any medical emergency the villagers need to travel nearly 20 km to the neighbouring Thisayanvilai town.
Until a few years ago, many farmers in this drought-prone region sold off their lands or left them barren. Today, however, many villages here are successfully using their own inputs — Panchagavya, an organic manure — and reaping good yield.
“This year many areas in the State dependant on reservoirs for irrigation could not grow crops due to acute water shortage. Areas irrigated by wells face two problems. Many of these wells depend on rain for re-charging and several of them have dried up due to poor rainfall. Adding to this woe is the power cut. Due to power shortage even if there is water in the wells farmers cannot pump the water out. Despite these problems, our farmers have been able to raise good crops of groundnut, vegetables and paddy,” says J.H.S. Ponnaya, the 80-year-old head of the NGO Sands (Suviseshapuram and Neighbouring Development Organisation) at Suvaseshapuram in Tirunelveli.
“The reason is that all of them are consistently using Panchagavya for their crops. Panchagavya can be easily prepared by the farmer. Cow dung and urine are the main inputs required for this. We have trained hundreds of farmers in this area over the last several years in making it for their own use,” he said.
Mariapitchai, a small farmer in Vijayaachambadu village, says that he has been able to harvest his paddy crop 10-15 days ahead of the usual time of 5 months. The paddy is healthy and there are no symptoms of drying or scotched appearance due to high heat. He harvested nearly 3,000 kg from his 2.5 acres.
Zahir Ebrahim in the comments questions the figure $75 billion. Well, I used the term “apparently” because there’s not much concrete to go by, but that is the figure (or $70b) given out by critics.
How credible is it? No way to know for sure, but besides the Gazprom shares, Putin is said to secretly own shares in many other companies:
“While many previously state-owned industries were privatized, Putin allegedly has used his power to build large secret ownership stakes several multi-billion dollar commodity firms. His most vocal critics assert that Putin has leveraged his power to acquire a 4.5% ownership stake in natural gas producer Gazprom, a 37% stake in oil company Surgutneftegas and 50% stake in Swiss oil-trader Gunvor. Gazprom alone does over $150 billion in revenue annually, Guvnor does $80 billion and Surgutneftegas over $20 billion. Using their most recent market capitalizations, Putin’s combined ownership stakes would give him a personal net worth of $70 billion!So what evidence is there of Putin’s secret obscene fortune? Let’s start with the small stuff. Putin is known to sport a $150,000 Patek Philippe watch on most occasions and his total collection has been valued at $700,000. He also has full access to a $40 million ultra-luxury yacht that features a wine cellar, Jacuzzi, helipad and outdoor barbecue area. In terms of living accommodations, Putin has access to 20 mansions throughout the world including a lavish ski lodge and Medieval castle. The crown jewel of his property portfolio is a $1 billion palace overlooking the Black Sea that he allegedly owns through an anonymous trust. Furthermore, Putin makes frequent use of 15 Presidential helicopters and more than 40 private jets, many of which feature gold plated interiors.”
The reports are based on an interview given by Stanislav Belkovsky to Die Welt, also described here.
Some other related links about Putin’s associations with the oligarchs:
Roman Abramovich once had close and privileged ties to Putin.
Abramovich fell out with one-time associate Berezovsky but stayed friendly with Putin.
Oligarchs like Abramovich, Fridman, and Miller are close to Putin.
The second plundering of Russia, according to Stanislav Belkovsky
More here about Putin’s business dealings.
Corruption alleged by Boris Nemtsov, Deputy PM under Yeltsin and an Opposition leader.
NOTE: I’m going to do another post about Putin because I think I might have swallowed some disinformation put out. I didn’t realize that the $70-75b. figure only came from that interview, because I saw it repeated by another investigator, but I’m wondering now if there is some disinfo in all this.
It’s been interesting to me to see the right regarding President Putin as some kind of Christian hero
Even Bill Lind has joined the chorus.
It’s certainly true that Putin says a lot of things that conservatives want to hear.
He’s outfoxed the Bolsheviks of the US State Dept.
But, as I’ve pointed out before, there’s plenty of evidence that Putin himself is beholden to the right wing of the New World Order.
One can accept the secession of Crimea as a relatively peaceful process and an understandable reaction to the US’s own belligerent posturing and meddling in the region, but it doesn’t follow that one should then swallow the narrative of Patrick Buchanan that Putin stands for Christianity.
These are deep waters. Nothing is as it seems. Anyone who subscribes to black-and-white narratives can be easily manipulated by the powers-that-be.
A lengthy article on the Russian Orthodox church since the fall of communism argues that the Moscow Church was completely under the Soviets and acted as an agent of the KGB; that the transition to “democracy” in the 1990s was only a transition to criminality and a change in rhetoric not substance; that there is little real orthodoxy left under the Sovietized Orthodox Church; and that simony, occultism, paganism, and ecumenism reign in the present-day Russian church, not traditional belief.
The blog La Russophobe has a list of what it calls “Putin murders” - assassinations of civil society figures - journalists and activists.
That list would be the Russian equivalent of the Clinton body count.
In India, The Hindustan Times points out that no world leader annoys America’s belligerent leadership more.
But the enemy of my enemy is…sometimes….just another enemy:
The red flags are there to see:
1. Vladimir Putin to revive Soviet Hero of Labor award (Daily Telegraph, Dec 11, 2012)
2. Vladimir Putin compares Lenin to holy Christian relics (Daily Telegraph, Dec 12, 2012)
3. Vladimir Putin’s net worth
I am going to retract this assessment of Putin’s net worth. The reason is that the origin of the figure comes from an interview by a Putin biographer, Stanislav Belkovsky, in Die Welt, who claims Putin has never sued him. The estimate seems to be based on Belkovsky’s book on Putin’s finances and his research as head of a Moscow think-tank. It’s not improbable, given Putin’s career as a close associate of several oligarchs, himself a KGB chief, and allegedly involved in corrupt dealings following the death of Yeltsin, who passed on power to him.
However, I went back to look more closely and came across a retraction by the Economist of one of Belkovsky’s claims, on threat of suit.
($75 billion $40-70b, apparently from shares in companies including his 4.5% shares in Gazprom revenues). That makes him the richest man on earth
[Lila, added on 4/8): He is said to own shares in several other companies, the total of which at market valuation in 2007 was $40b. I assume the $70-75 is accounted for by the valuation since then, but I didn't calculate it myself.]
4. Vladimir Putin’s Jewish embrace: Is it love or politics?
QUOTE: “Putin has carefully cultivated relationships with Russia’s many subgroups and regions as a means of projecting his government’s authority.”
QUOTE: “Under Putin, harsh laws have led to a crackdown on ultranationalist groups that once had flourished in Russia.”
QUOTE: “Putin may be good for Jews, but he’s bad for Russia,” said Michael Edelstein, a lecturer at Moscow State University and a journalist for the L’chaim Jewish newspaper.”
QUOTE: “Freedom of expression has been severely restricted and politically motivated prosecutions remain widespread under Putin, according to Amnesty International’s 2013 report on Russia.”
QUOTE: “The preferential treatment of Chabad by Putin’s government “is creating a monolithic Jewish institutional life and preventing grass-roots development, which is the real key for Jewish rejuvenation,” said Michael Oshtrakh, a leader of the Jewish community of Yekaterinburg.”
5. Putin targets foes with zombie guns, which attack victim’s central nervous system
‘Such high-tech weapons systems will be comparable in effect to nuclear weapons, but will be more acceptable in terms of political and military ideology.” (Exactly the same rationale used by the CIA to justify “torture-lite,” radiation weapons, microwave weapons, etc.)
7. Putin is alleged to have been a Royal Arch Mason who trained with MI6, according to The Big Breach, a memoir by a disgruntled MI6 officer, Richard Tomlinson.
The relevant material is summarized at this blog.
8. 9/11 insider job “impossible to conceal” says Vladimir Putin (Russia Today, August 2, 2011)
Why does Putin deny that 9/11 could have been an intelligence coup?
Perhaps, because he himself came to power in just such a KGB/FSB coup and has too many skeletons in his own closet…
Perhaps, because one way to fight the opposition is to lead it….
Bring the popcorn and settle in to watch another chapter in the ongoing global culture war. If you cultivate the right frame of mind, fear and despair should quickly give way to malicious amusement.
In Saudi Arabia, the “hard-right” so long the favorite bogeyman of leftist demagogues, has finally turned up. In predictable response, there will be an increasing demand for thought-control in the West. The lines will be drawn even more firmly.
And all those who predicted the death of religion will have to eat their words as religion rises in every corner of the globe - whether pagan (US), Orthodox Christian (Russia), Hindu (India), Jewish (Israel and all its sycophants).
The Independent reports that Saudi Arabia, where the gloves were never on, has turned up the volume in the culture war:
“To that end, King Abdullah issued Royal Decree 44, which criminalises “participating in hostilities outside the kingdom” with prison sentences of between three and 20 years, Human Rights Watch said.
Yet last month further regulations were issued by the Saudi interior ministry, identifying a broad list of groups which the government considers to be terrorist organisations - including the Muslim Brotherhood.
Article one of the new provisions defines terrorism as “calling for atheist thought in any form, or calling into question the fundamentals of the Islamic religion on which this country is based”.
Joe Stork, deputy Middle East and North Africa director of Human Rights Watch, said: “Saudi authorities have never tolerated criticism of their policies, but these recent laws and regulations turn almost any critical expression or independent association into crimes of terrorism.”
From GreatGameIndia.wordpress.com, a report about the PR agency behind Narendra Modi:
“Apco’s involvement in various intelligence and security-related projects is done through its strategic partner and sister company Asero Worldwide. While Apco’s expertise is in the field of communications, Asero specializes in homeland security and risk management consultancy.
Ken Silverstein, the editor of Harper’s Magazine (June 30, 2007) described Apco lobbyists as the “crucial conduit through which pariah regimes advance their interests in Washington”. He exposed APCO’s specialised experience in working on behalf of authoritarian regimes such as Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and Turkmenistan.
Apco and Asero have many overlapping consultants and management members. For example, Doron Bergerbest-Eilon who sits on Apco’s International Advisory Council was also founder and president of Asero Worldwide.
Mara Hedgecoth, the daughter of Apco CEO and President Margery Kraus also sits in Asero as Vice President. At the same time, Mara Hedgecoth also serves as Vice President and Director in Apco Worldwide.
ASERO’s (MOSSAD) Management Team :
Asero is almost like a retirement home for ex-Mossad and ex-Shabak secret services officials.
David Harel - Managing Director and Vice President, Israel. Former head of international relations for the protection and security division of the Israeli Security Agency
Oded Raz - Vice President, Former Senior ranking security official of the Israeli Security Agency
Gadi Kalai – Director, Former Regional Security Manager (RSO) of the Israeli Security Agency (ISA)’s North Region
One of Apco’s favorite legislators is Senator Joe Lieberman, who is a staunch supporter of military aid to Israel. Lieberman’s wife, Hadassah was Apco’s leading lobbyist for health care and pharmaceuticals clients.
Adolf Hitler was a brilliant propagandist. Narendra Modi too believes in the power of image. This is probably why the chief minister hired a US lobbying firm which has serviced clients like former Nigerian dictator Sani Abacha and President-for-life of Kazakhstan Nursultan Abishuly Nazarbayev.
This Washington-based firm, Apco Worldwide, was hired by Modi sometime in August 2007, in the run-up to an important Assembly election, to improve his image before the world community. Among its recent clients are Mikhail Khodorkovsky, a former Communist youth leader-turned-Russian billionaire with mafia links.
The firm has a distinction of taking contracts of boosting images of leaders who fell out of favour of their followers.
On the face of it Apco Worldwide’s brief is to build and sell Brand Gujarat to the international community. APCO, through its 32 offices across the globe, has been promoting Gujarat as a great investment destination. APCO has also been managing Modi’s own behaviour and projection, for which the cost has been over $25,000 per month since 2007.
Oh…oh. This is the brouhaha that got VDay purged from his position. Apparently, he got into a verbal duel with one Ms. Jemisin, about the purpose of self-defense laws in the US.
Ms. Jemisin, probably a knee-jerk leftist on such issues, made a snide remark that provoked Day’s undoubtedly racialist rant:
Guns, she said, exist so that people like Beale (whites) can “just shoot people like me , without consequence, as long as they feel threatened by my presence.”
This run-of-the-mill articulation of a leftist bromide was apparently too much for Vox, who came unhinged and did his bit to get the boot from Science Fiction Writers of America…(he called her a “savage” and compared the IQ of her tribe unfavorably to the IQ of his).
Oh dear. Childish and offensive. But all day long English teachers teach texts, written in cold-blood, printed, and distributed to minor children, that make far more offensive statements, and it’s called “English Literature.”
Should we boot out half of our academic texts to save someone’s hurt feelings?
Or should Ms. Jemisin learn the art of racial riposte well enough that no one would dare trifle with her?
With black writing and art celebrated everywhere, it’s time for an accomplished professional to be able to shrug off that kind of thing, instead of calling for purges. Thought-control is the last thing any writer should urge, for whatever reason, at this stage of the game.
From the comments on a post by VoxDay, a writer who has joined the list of “purged” bloggers on the net:
“Bigot, homophobe, racist,”- the words have been used up. All you had was shaming language and polite enemies. Now you have neither.”
And more here from Vox, the “brutalist”…
(Repeat: I do not endorse Vox Day’s views in toto, nor do I share his Arianism or his beliefs about genetics or cultural history):
“This is for the benefit of all the logical slowpokes. It is logic so basic that even those who are intellectually limited to the rhetorical level should be able to follow it:
- If you have the right to demand that I bake you a cake, then I have the right to force you to attend church, mosque, or synagogue.
- If you have the right to fire me because you don’t like my political position on the legality of homogamy, I have the right to fire you because I don’t like your political position on the legality of homosexuality.
- If you have the right to deny me access to the news media because I don’t believe in climate change, I have the right to deny you access to the media because you don’t believe in God.
If atheists truly want a power struggle for the right to be intolerant, Christians will eventually engage and win. Because we will die before we will give up our beliefs and you will not. We invented the Crusade and the Inquisition, two institutions so historically intimidating that atheists still shiver and tell each other scary stories about them centuries after the event.
We will revive them before we will abandon our faith. And while we would prefer to live with both Christian and traditional Constitutional values, if we are forced to choose between the two, we will choose the former without even thinking twice.”
Andrew Sullivan on the persecution of heretics by gay-rights bigots:
“The guy who had the gall to express his First Amendment rights and favor Prop 8 in California by donating $1,000 has just been scalped by some gay activists. After an OKCupid decision to boycott Mozilla, the recently appointed Brendan Eich just resigned under pressure:
In a post at Mozilla’s official blog, executive chairwoman Mitchell Baker confirmed the news with an unequivocal apology on the company’s behalf. “Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn’t live up to it,” Baker wrote. “We didn’t act like you’d expect Mozilla to act. We didn’t move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We’re sorry. We must do better.”
The action comes days after dating site OKCupid became the most vocal opponent of Eich’s hiring. Mozilla offered repeated statements about LGBT inclusivity within the company over the past two weeks, but those never came with a specific response from Eich about his thousands of dollars of donations in support of Proposition 8, a California ballot measure that sought to ban gay marriage in the state.
Will he now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks? The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.
Update: A continuation of my stance here and my response to dissenting readers here.”
[Lila: Of course, the "religious right" of Sullivan's piece is a bit of a strawman. The real thought-control is always from the left, these days.]
Well, just after Nancy Powell (the US envoy during the inception of the fake-slaver nanny case) bit the dust, we now have news that Devyani Khobragade is being charged again, this time in India by the CBI:
“In fresh trouble for the Indian diplomat, the Central Bureau of Investigation has decided to file a chargesheet against her and her father, Uttam Khobragade, in the Adarsh Housing scam.
Sources said the chargesheet against the two would be filed in the next couple of weeks after the agency found “documentary evidence” to prove that Devyani obtained a flat in Adarsh Housing society on the basis of a false affidavit.”
This is probably a bit of grand-standing ahead of the April elections to show that the government is quite capable of investigating its own. It’s more evidence to to suggest that both Khobragade and Powell were disposable entities in a larger game.
Credit for the diagram of the dialectical struggle: http://www.al-ruh.org/hegelian.html
Note: I will be adding links to show the connection of the evangelizing of India to a long-term state-sponsored plan to Christianize India in the interests of Zionism and the global one-world government.
In this effort, Christian lobbies, like homosexual lobbies, are the shock-troops of the global cartel (the New World Order), while their followers are dupes, set up to be the fall guys when there is the inevitable back-lash.
Gay “shock-troops” are one pincer leg of the culture-war; religious zealots make up the other leg.
I am not now talking of religious conservatives reacting to gay propaganda. I am talking about evangelicals who are actively engaged in political work.
Thus, in India, the Hindu right, reacting to the forced conversion of fellow Hindus, looks to someone like Narendra Modi as their savior, whereas Modi himself seems to be in the thrall of the same Zionist billionaire to whom the entire Republican party leadership is beholden.
QUOTE: “I would say that Sheldon (Adelson) has aligned himself with most Baptists in South Carolina.”
Thus the pincer analogy…..
On March 14, 2014, the BBC reported on the conclusion of the Orissa nun-rape trial:
“A court in India has found three people guilty in connection with the rape of a Catholic nun in Orissa state in 2008.
The nun was raped by a Hindu mob in Kandhamal district, days after riots between Hindus and Christian there.
Riots began after a Hindu religious leader was shot dead.
Although left-wing Maoist rebels in the state claimed responsibility for the killing, hard-line Hindu groups blamed the minority Christian community for the death.”
No one would condone the heinous crime allegedly committed against the nun, but why gloss over the equally heinous and completely verified crime that provoked the rape of the nun?
[For the ambiguities and contradictions in the story of the raped nun, see reports here and here.]
Instead, the BBC reports blandly that a “Hindu religious leader was shot dead.”
Why doesn’t the BBC do the minimally ethical thing and report that last October, seven Christians were found guilty of murdering the Hindu swami they mention, specifically because he spoke out against forced conversions?
For the same reason that the leftist media in India described the murderers in its headline WITHOUT reference to their religion, although the body of their story showed that all seven were Christian and committed the murder because of their outrage at Hindu resistance to conversions:
“All of the convicts are Christians and they had committed the crime because according to them the swami was forcing Christians to convert to Hinduism, the lawyer said.”
Furthermore, why does the BBC depict the Maoists who took responsibility as simply “left-wing rebels,” while they depict right-wing Hindus with the somewhat derogatory term, “hard-line,” and the addition of a religious label?
One would suppose that MaoIsts - followers of Chairman Mao who killed some 45 million Chinese in the name of communism - would be better termed “hard-line” than a random mob of Hindus.
And Maoists who are Christians and allied with Christians are perforce “hard-line Christian groups,” aren’t they?
But no, this is the BBC, a known propaganda outlet of the West, so it must play semantic games.
Secondly, why not mention that Maoists are closely connected to the Christian churches and that many Christian leaders actively support them?
This has been admitted by Marxists themselves, long ago:
Prakash Karat in “Naxalism Today” (The Marxist, 1985) writes:
“The S N Singh minority faction in its document makes serious charges against Vaskar Nandy and company. “In our organisation also, Nandy’s close associates established contacts with a foreign voluntary agency and a native voluntary agency financed by Western monopoly capital, keeping it secret from the POC and the general secretary of the party, S N Singh. They established contact with Rural Aid Consortium of Tagore Society which is financed by West European countries and the USA and with one Danish Organisation on the Plea of providing relief to the people of Gobiballabpur in West Bengal and some areas in Bihar. Lakhs of rupees were received for digging tanks, constructing school building opening a sewing training center and distributing chickens and cattle to the needy. It also came to our notice that money was being received by some of our leaders from the Lutheran Church. When it came to light to the PCC members, an intense ideological struggle burst forth in the party on this issue.” (Our differences with Nandy-Rana group, PCC-CPI(ML), p. 29)
It goes on to state: “We thoroughly investigated (among the cadres and people) in Gobiballapur and Bhargora, where relief work was carried on through money from the “Tagore Society”, Rohtas Channpatia and Mushhari, where schools were built up by the Dabes, and party and doubted our bonafides … Several cadres have been exposed to these agencies.” It concludes with the damming indictment: “It does not require intelligence of a high order to find out why some of the former members of the PCC adopted particular policies on the question of caste, tribe, Assamese and non-Assamese.” Following a blind anti-Soviet line, Satyanarian Singh found out a few months before his death that the majority of his PCC members sided with Nandy and company in whitewashing its links with the imperialist funded voluntary agencies, most having been, corrupted with foreign money.”
At a website called Kandhamal Justice, Sandhya Jain, a Hindu activist, has argued credibly that the rape case was concocted as damage-control in the wake of the murder of a Hindu priest, who was targeted for his resistance to crass proselytizing by Baptist ministers.
Many of his converts were also Maoists, none of which is mentioned in the BBC’s slimy report.
Kandhamal Justice reports:
“It may be appropriate to put the anti-missionary violence in context. The Kandhamal violence broke out after the murder of Swami Lakshmananda, whose tireless efforts to uplift the tribal communities and protect their religion and culture against aggressive proselytisation infuriated the evangelists and Maoist goons (mostly converts). The Swami was severely injured in an attack on Christmas Eve 2007, and had then accused a Congress MP and World Vision chief for the attack. He alleged a nexus between Maoist terrorists and missionaries; which is why when Maoists claimed responsibility for the killings, public ire was directed at the missionaries. Certainly the murders had a purely religious motivation; Orissa has in recent years seen an influx of rich American Baptists, for soul-harvesting purposes.
[Lila: Indeed, there is a close connection between the Maoists and the church in India.]
“Beginning on December 26, 1970, Swami Lakshmananda was attacked eight times before he was finally struck down by AK-47-wielding assailants in 2008, according to the fact-finding commission chaired by Additional Advocate General of Rajasthan, G.S. Gill. Soon after the multiple murders in the ashram, state police arrested World Vision employee Pradesh Kumar Das while escaping from the district. Later, two men, Vikram Digal and William Digal were arrested from the house of a local militant Christian, Lal Digal, at Nugaon; they admitted having joined a group of 28 assailants.
Then, in July 2009, a Maoist couple, Surendra Vekwara and Ruby, also allegedly involved in the killings, surrendered to the Orissa police. One does not know how the state government intends to prosecute the cases against these persons, especially as the sensational rape case is silently falling apart!
However, as I have previously argued, the murder of Swami Lakshmananda closely resembles the murder of Swami Shanti Kaliji Maharaj in Tripura in August 2000. The latter was also shot in his own ashram by gun-wielding goons after several dire warnings against his anti-conversion activities in the tribal belt were ignored. Swami Lakshmananda’s murder prompted Biju Janata Dal MP Tathagata Satpathy to insist that there was an urgent need for an anti-conversion legislation as aggressive proselytisation was hurting the social fabric.”
Swami Lakshmananda Saraswati had, just before his murder, demanded a national debate on conversions and an end to the foreign funding to NGOs. This is an urgent imperative.”
This is Nancy Powell, former US envoy to India.
This is Indian consular head, Devyani Khobragade, who is married and has children.
Khobragade and other Indian diplomats were at frequent logger-heads with the US State Dept. on a number of issues - from the issue of domestic labor to the Indian SC’s ruling criminalizing homosexual activity.
That happened just before the arrest of Khobragade and her subsequent strip-search.
India Today reports:
“It was a series of diplomatic cables sent on behalf of US ambassador Nancy Powell that led to her being forced to resign by the US State Department, which didn’t want to be saddled with the Nancy legacy for doing business with a new government in New Delhi.
Top diplomatic sources said that Powell authorised cables during diplomat Devyani Khobragade arrest row described the Indian position as weak and that it will not escalate the matter as the country was in an election mode, the reverse happened because of elections round the corner there was an unprecedented Indian anger and response which dipped the relationship to an all time low.
Earlier too Powell was blamed for not advising the Washington to do business with Narendra Modi and the US only courted Narendra Modi recently after the intervention of the US State Department.
The envoy was also blamed for being on frequent trekking tours and even the Ministry of External Affairs in New Delhi had informed the interlocutors in Washington that her conduct was not helpful to the relationship.
Earlier in the day, US Ambassador to India Nancy Powell has resigned from her post, days after speculation that she may be shipped out.
“US Ambassador to India Nancy J. Powell announced in a US MIssion Town Hall meeting March 31 that she has submitted her resignation to President Obama and, as planned for some time, will retire to her home in Delaware before the end of May,” an announcement in the US Embassy website said on Monday night”
Search for the posts on Khobragade on this blog and you’ll see we were right on the money in this case - legally, morally, and politically.
As for Ambassador Powell, what went wrong can be summed up in one sentence:
Ideologues don’t do diplomacy. They’re only good at war-making, verbal and physical.
The New American has a disturbing story on a radical invasion of parental rights:
(h/t to Laurence Vance at LRC blog):
“Citing a radical United Nations treaty known as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), lawmakers in Scotland approved a deeply controversial new law assigning an individual government overseer to each and every child in the country charged with monitoring their development. However, the draconian measure, which has sparked criticism and outrage around the world as a brazen assault on parental rights and privacy, is already in the process of being challenged in court.”
Beverley Eakman explains here why the UN’s definition of “human rights” differs fundamentally from the US definition, being more a guarantee by the government of specific outcomes, and thus, Marxist, by definition.
Dr. Jeffrey Goodman, PhD has written an interesting explanation of the famous prophecy in Ezekiel about the last days, based on his study of Biblical archaeology: Chapter Nine, Comets of God.
NOTE: None of the interpretations below tallies with the evidence of history and archaeology that points to Gog and Magog being historical types that portend future actors:
Gog in history was the king of Lydia in Asia Minor.
“The erroneous belief that Russia is Magog can be traced back to a small group of 18th and 19th century theologians who wrote long before the primary evidence from the ancient Assyrian records was discovered, translated and made available to the public. Instead, they based their assertions on secondary sources, historical works written over 500 years after the time of Ezekiel, and to make matters worse some of these sources had come to be purposefully altered. These altered references include statements attributed to the first century AD Jewish historian Josephus, and first century AD Roman historian Pliny.”
You wonder if these discredited interpretations that surface in popular newspapers have something to do with the intelligence agencies of different countries stirring up the masses to support violent confrontations…
Lydia was the home of the Etruscans who emigrated to Italy and came to dominate Roman culture. The last Roman king, before Rome became a republic, was Etruscan.
So, Gyges of Lydia (Gog of Magog) is best seen as a historical type of a future ruler of the world, in the style of Rome.
Therefore, it’s plausible to argue that Gog = One World Government, or the New World Order, which is the popular name on conspiracy and right-wing sites for the corporate and financial powers behind NATO and the European Union.
Gog is not Russia at all.
Update 2: Here is a more complex interpretation, which considers Ar Rum (Rome) to be the one-world government. That suggests that the current dialectics in play (West versus East, US versus Russia; Secular vs Orthodox) are working toward a more complex end.
Update 1: An Islamic interpretation of Gog and Magog. It doesn’t identify Russia with Gog and Magog, but identifies it with militant Zionism.
In this version, the subversion of the Ukraine was effected by Soros and Co. (corporate or economic annexation). Russia is instead identified with the defense of Christianity and with “Rum” (Rome) in the Quran.
Russia, in this version, is seen as the defender of orthodox Christianity, which is seen as the true heir to the church of Rome. The inference is that the Vatican, having succumbed to materialism, atheism, and statism, is now allied with the enemies of the true church.
“Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) prophesied that Muslims will make an alliance with Rum in Akhir al-Zam?n, and it appears to me that Tatar Muslims now have a historic role to play in the fulfillment of that prophesy.”
I suppose the Muslim allies of Gog must be Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Brunei, and similar states.
From Haaretz.com, some Apocalyptic thinking:
“Of course, if Gog is Putin, then we all know who the natural candidate for the Antichrist is. But let’s put that aside for now. In any case, there is a nuclear confrontation (“I will start a fire in the land of Magog and along all the seacoasts where people live undisturbed, and everyone will know that I am the Lord) and then a massive seven-month cleanup and a mass burial, somewhere in Jordan, it seems.
If you’re a Christian, the fun is just beginning: An army of “200 million” men will come from the East, according the Book of Revelations, and there’s only one country that can raise such an army. Then, in quick succession but in a sequence that is disputed by scholars, the End Times really get going: Armageddon, Desolation, Tribulation, Rapture, Redemption, the Second Coming - the works.
Jews, by the way, make do with just the war of Gog and Magog, after which messianic days are here and “swords are beaten into ploughshares” etc. Nonetheless, Christians aren’t the only ones who are getting excited about the standoff in Eastern Europe. According to a report catching fire over the weekend in the haredi press in Israel, the Gaon Rabbi Moshe Shternbuch told his disciples this week that the times of the Messiah are upon us. And who is the source for his amazing analysis? None other than one of the top Jewish sages of all time, the Vilna Gaon himself, the Gra, “the genius of Vilnius”, the famously harsh critic of Hasidic Judaism.
According to said Shternbuch, he is privy to a closely guarded secret handed down from the 18th Century Vilna Gaon through generations of revered rabbis: “When you hear that the Russians have captured the city of Crimea, you should know that the times of the Messiah have started, that his steps are being heard. And when you hear that the Russians have reached the city of Constantinople (today’s Istanbul), you should put on your Shabbat clothes and don’t take them off, because it means that the Messiah is about to come any minute.”
I don’t know if Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan knows about Russian designs on Istanbul, but if I were you, I would take your Shabbat clothes to the cleaners, just in case.
Finally, from Moshiach.com: The husband tells the wife, “The Rabbi said that soon we will no longer suffer from the Cossacks, the Messiah is about to come and take us all to Israel.” The wife thinks for a while and says, “Tell the Messiah to leave us alone. Let him take the Cossacks to Israel!”
Examiner.com has the Zionist Christian version of the End Times. Putin is still Gog, trying to expand Magog, but in this version, the Messiah has some way to go.
More about the differences between Christianity, Reform Judaism, and Orthodox Judaism on the interpretation of this prophecy.
Here’s the relevant chapter - Chapter 38 in the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel.
Satoshi Kanazawa in The Scientific Fundamentalist:
“First, modern feminism is illogical because, as Pinker points out, it is based on the vanilla assumption that, but for lifelong gender socialization and pernicious patriarchy, men and women are on the whole identical. An insurmountable body of evidence by now conclusively demonstrates that the vanilla assumption is false; men and women are inherently, fundamentally, and irreconcilably different. Any political movement based on such a spectacularly incorrect assumption about human nature – that men and women are and should be identical – is doomed to failure.
Further, modern feminism is unnecessary, because its entire raison d’être is the unquestioned assumption that women are and have historically always been worse off than men. The fact that men and women are fundamentally different and want different things makes it difficult to compare their welfare directly, to assess which sex is better off; for example, the fact that women make less money than men cannot by itself be evidence that women are worse off than men, any more than the fact that men own fewer pairs of shoes than women cannot be evidence that men are worse off than women. However, in the only two biologically meaningful measures of welfare – longevity and reproductive success – women are and have always been slightly better off than men. In every human society, women live longer than men, and more women attain some reproductive success; many more men end their lives as total reproductive losers, having left no genetic offspring.
It is also not true that women are the “weaker sex.” Pinker documents the fact that boys are much more fragile, both physically and psychologically, than girls and hence require greater medical and psychiatric care. Men succumb to a larger number of diseases in much greater numbers than women do throughout their lives. The greater susceptibility of boys and men to diseases explains why more boys die in childhood and fail to reach sexual maturity and why men’s average life expectancy is shorter than women’s. This, incidentally, is the reason why slightly more boys than girls are born – 105 boys to 100 girls – so that there will be roughly 100 boys to 100 girls when they reach puberty.
Another fallacy on which modern feminism is based is that men have more power than women. Among mammals, the female always has more power than the male, and humans are no exception. It is true that, in all human societies, men largely control all the money, politics, and prestige. They do, because they have to, in order to impress women. Women don’t control these resources, because they don’t have to. What do women control? Men. As I mention in an earlier post, any reasonably attractive young woman exercises as much power over men as the male ruler of the world does over women.
Finally, modern feminism is evil because it ultimately makes women (and men) unhappy. In a forthcoming article in the American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers of the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania show that American women over the last 35 years have steadily become less and less happy, as they have made more and more money relative to men. Women used to be a lot happier than men despite the fact that they made much less money than men. The sex gap in happiness (in women’s favor) has declined in the past 35 years as the sex gap in pay (in men’s favor) narrowed. Now women make as much as, sometimes even more than, men do. As a result, today women are just as unhappy, or even more unhappy than, men are. As I explain in a previous post, money does not make women happ.
The feminist insistence that women behave like men and make as much money as men do may not be the sole reason for women’s rising levels of dissatisfaction with life; a greater incidence of divorce and single motherhood may also contribute to it. At any event, the culpability of modern feminism in making women steadily unhappy, because it is based on false assumptions about male and female human nature, is difficult to deny. Men’s happiness has not declined in the last 35 years, because there has not been masculinism; nobody has insisted on the radical notion that men are women, although, as Christina Hoff Sommers documents, this may be happening in our current war against boys. For anyone who is looking for an effective antidote to modern feminism, I highly recommend Danielle Crittenden’s 1999 book What Our Mothers Didn’t Tell Us: Why Happiness Eludes the Modern Women.”
Brandon Ambrosino in The New Republic admits that homosexuality is a choice, not an identity:
“One of the reasons I think our activism is so insistent on sexual rigidity is because, in our push to make gay rights the new black rights, we’ve conflated the two issues. The result is that we’ve decided that skin color is the same thing as sexual behavior. I don’t think this is true. When we conflate race and sexuality, we overlook how fluid we are learning our sexualities truly are. To say it rather crassly: I’ve convinced a few men to try out my sexuality, but I’ve never managed to get them to try on my skin color. In other words, one’s sexuality isn’t as biologically determined as race. Many people do feel as if their sexuality is something they were born with, and I have no reason to disbelieve them. But as I and other queer persons will readily confirm, there are other factors informing our sexualities than simply our genetic codes.”
Well, yes. The Human Genome project has been completed and there is no gay gene. Of course, there isn’t a clear heterosexual gene, either.
Sexual roles are both biological and sociological. They are genetic, congenital, and socially constructed.
But not so constructed that you can just turn a man into a woman by castrating him and raising him as a girl, as the tragic case of David Reimer illustrates.
But since it makes good political sense to invent a category of identity and appropriate the moral high-ground of civil rights activism, gay activists invented one.
Tim Wise analyzes and explains the flaws in the use of statistics on crimes by racialists who argue that the extent of black-on-white crime indicates a “race war” by blacks against the majority population.
[Lila: Note, while his analysis makes many good points, Wise seems to be a grand-stander on racial issues. A Tuckerian humanitarian, maybe?]
Here are some of Wise’s main points:
1. Blacks make up a smaller part of the population than whites, so the chances of a black person encountering a white person are much higher than the reverse. Thus, whites would be more likely to be victimized by black offenders than the other way around.
2. There are proportionately more crimes of any sort committed by blacks than by whites, so the likelihood of more inter-racial crime being committed by them is also higher.
3. A large number of the whites being victimized by blacks are Hispanics who live in proximity with them, so that whites who don’t live near blacks are even less likely to be the targets of black perpetrators than the numbers might suggest.
4. The disproportion in inter-racial crime is most evident in robbery, which suggests that the motivation for the crimes is pecuniary, not racial.
5. A small proportion of offenders (7%) commit most offenses (70%), meaning that the actual number of inter-racial offenders in either group, black or white, is much smaller than it would seem at first glance. Thus, the evidence of racial targeting becomes even less meaningful.
“Even if we assumed a random and perfectly mixed white and black population — such that whites and blacks encountered each other at rates relative to their population percentages — the much higher black homicide offending rates alone would predict that there should be 6.7 times more B-W murders than W-B murders. But in fact, as we saw, there were only about twice as many B-W murders as W-B murders. And when we consider the above-mentioned data on relative rates of interracial encounter, the numbers are even more striking. Even if we assume that 5 percent of all persons encountered by whites are black (an increase of 2/3 from prior and clearly documented data), and that only 63 percent of persons encountered by blacks are white (an increase of only 10 percent in the same period), we would expect 12 times more B-W homicides than W-B homicides in a given year. In a community of 3 million people, for instance, in which whites outnumbered blacks 6.7 to 1 (as is the case in the real world) there would be roughly 2,610,000 whites and 390,000 blacks. If 0.02 percent of blacks committed a murder, this would mean that we could expect 78 black homicides that year, and 63 percent of these (or 49 homicides in all) would involve white victims. If 0.003 percent of whites committed a murder that year, this would predict a similar number, roughly 78 murders committed by whites, of which only 4 would involve black victims. In other words, given relative rates of homicide offending along with relative rates of interracial encounter, we could expect 12.25 times more B-W homicides than W-B homicides in any given year. But in fact, in 2010, B-W homicide was only twice as numerically prevalent as the opposite. In other words, B-W homicide is roughly 1/6 as common as random chance would predict.
And given the relative population percentages of whites and blacks, blacks are actually more likely to be interracially murdered by a white person than vice-versa. After all, as for homicides where the race of the offender is known, 447 B-W murders as a share of the white community is 2/10,000ths of 1 percent (0.0002) of all whites killed by blacks, which is 1 in every 500,000 white people who will be killed by a black person in a given year; meanwhile, 218 W-B homicides as a share of the black community is 5.5/10,000ths of 1 percent (0.00055). So although interracial homicide is incredibly rare in either direction, any given black person is more than 2.75 times as likely as any given white person to be interracially murdered, with roughly 1 in every 180,000 black persons being killed by a white person in a given year.”
A criticism of part of Tim Wise’s use of the DOJ statistics can be found in this piece at “Feminist Critics”:
“The problem for Wise is that according to the DoJ figures, there are nearly three times as many black on white crimes of violence as there are white on black, from which it follows that, in any encounter between blacks and whites, the black is nearly three times as likely to victimise the white, than the white is to victimise the black. 31% of this excess can be explained by the higher overall crime rate for blacks. For the interracial victimisation rate to be higher than this, at least one (and possibly all three) of the following statements must be true:
- Whites victimise blacks less often than chance would suggest.
- Blacks victimise whites more often than chance would suggest
- Blacks have a much higher per encounter offending rate than whites. To put it another way, it’s much more dangerous to meet a black than it is to meet a white.
No amount of playing around with encounter rates can alter the fact that at least one of these must be true. If, as Wise argues, 1 and 2 are false, then 3 must be true, a proposition which is as likely to be as unpalatable to him as it is agreeable to the racists.
And at Breitbart.com, here is a criticism of Tim Wise, for handing progressives the ammunition that lets them win every argument with conservatives:
“In fact, what Wise has done is taken a vicious subjective prejudice that ascribes the worst motives possible–racism–to his political opponents and declared it to be an accurate diagnosis of everything that motivates them.
This tactic allows progressives to drape themselves in the mantle of a “Hero” who is fighting “Ultimate Evil” in the form of evil racists who want to destroy black people. It legitimizes the role-playing they want to be able to do, so they do not even seriously question what Wise is saying.
This is why discourse with progressives often gets so heated. They are role-playing a fantasy in which they are combating Ultimate Evil. Why would you hold back when fighting Ultimate Evil? Ultimate Evil deserves no quarter!
What results from this is a Republican who thinks he is discussing policy differences with an opponent who has a solution that simply will not work, while the Democrat thinks he is trying to save civilization from the New KKK.”
Update: This news is being contradicted on several sites, including Media Matters:
The right-wing narrative is also contradicted by an official statement from the FBI. In a statement to The Daily Caller, and FBI spokesperson said:
“Upon review, the Civil Rights program only provides links to resources within the federal government,” an FBI spokesman told The Daily Caller. “While we appreciate the tremendous support we receive from a variety of organizations, we have elected not to identify those groups on the civil rights page.”
The FBI’s statement makes sense, given that - as Bedard’s own report noted - a link to the Anti-Defamation League, which focuses primarily on combating anti-Semitism, was also scrubbed from the FBI’s “resources” page.”
Lila: However, as I scrolled through the different pages of the FBI website, I couldn’t find any links to either the SPLC or the ADL, so if indeed the FBI is still continuing to rely on them, they aren’t advertising the fact any more. They used to be mentioned on this page - Hate Crime - Overview.
They aren’t any more. Neither are they on this page on Hate Crimes.
They used to show up on the overview page, as this trace on Google indicates:
published on: 2007/04/27, Last Modified on: 2010/09/24
- FBI — Overview
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/hate_crimes/overviewThese groups include such organizations as the NAACP, the Southern Poverty
Law Center, the Anti-Defamation League, the National Asian Pacific American …
Published on: 2010/08/30, Last Modified on: 2013/05/01
So maybe the liberal blogs are just trying to spin this to look better for them….
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which supposedly monitors anti-Semitism, but more often provokes it, and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) - which does the same for other kinds of allegedly “hateful” beliefs - have both been scrubbed from the website of the FBI, after complaints from Christian groups to the Justice Department:
“The Southern Poverty Law Center, which has labeled several Washington, D.C.-based family organizations as “hate groups” for favoring traditional marriage, has been dumped as a “resource” on the FBI’s Hate Crime Web page, a significant rejection of the influential legal group.
The Web page scrubbing, which also included eliminating the Anti-Defamation League, was not announced and came in the last month after 15 family groups pressed Attorney General Eric Holder and FBI Director James Comey to stop endorsing a group — SPLC — that inspired a recent case of domestic terrorism at the Family Research Council.”
Extensive white paper on Russia’s gay legislation, which has been distorted by the neocon war-machine
The new law does not criminalize gay behavior. It simply prevents anyone (no mention of gays, specifically) from initiating contact with underage children to propagandize them about non-traditional sexual life-styles. From the history, the law appears to have resulted from activism modeled on American strategies, and it appears to target corporations, more than individuals.
The very smart, shard-tongued Ilana Mercer follows up on her brutalist critique of the Tucker-Reisenwitz thesis that Ludwig Von Mises was some kind of Austrian Betty Friedan (thoroughly rebutted at EPJ by Robert Wenzel):
“At EPJ, where “V-Day For Vagina-Centric Libertarians? Not So Fast” is now published, Lila Rajiva and myself exchange opinions about whether I was right or wrong to avoid naming the individuals discussed in the column.
Lila Rajiva March 28, 2014 at 12:37 PM
I think we should be truthful. She and Tucker ARE widely published so what’s the point of saying they are non-entities?
They are not. It just makes you sound as over-emotional as they are.
That was one thing with which I disagreed in this otherwise excellent piece.
Dispassion and professional standards entail that when you read someone, you should cite them. Leave “vanishing” people to the state and to propagandists and hypesters.
ILANA MERCER March 28, 2014 at 2:18 PM
Respectfully, you’re wrong. You are looking at this storm in a C-Cup from the insular world of the libertarian. My piece was written for a wider audience. Good or bad, the bigger picture is that the two alluded to are insignificant, the one more so than the other. The one has the run of a publishing house, and, unethically in my opinion (as it involves a conflict of interest), uses the imprint to publish some of his own books. Yet these books have hardly any buyers (Amazon rank ##649,120). My contention that in the bigger picture these people are unknown entities is correct. The female of the duo is certainly a non-entity. Given her aptitude, no matter how well promoted she is, and no matter how much she suctions face to camera, she will never muster an opinion or an analysis that isn’t second-hander material. She’s not working with much. To properly gauge the significance of these two one has to exit the libertarian orbit. Thus, addressing non-entities by name is unnecessary in a piece meant for popular consumption. On this topic, my dear friend and mentor, the influential and talented Walter Block, demeans himself and his stature by constantly addressing nobody bloggers by name, rather than just dealing with their arguments, to the extent these sorts make these.
Lila Rajiva March 28, 2014 at 2:40 PM
I agree with you in the wider world. But, in the wider world, since they are unknown, they don’t need to be rebutted at all.
However, in terms of libertarian in-fighting, everyone knows who Tucker is…
Still, it was an excellent piece. I am sick of this waving of the V. I actually thinks it’s some kind of propaganda offensive that began in 2012 with Naomi Wolf’s book.
Get us to talk, one way or other, about genitals all the time. Mainstreams the stuff, like the Lewinsky trial did.
ILANA MERCER March 28, 2014 at 3:16 PM
I see what you’re saying, Lila. As expected, we both make valid points. “Respec,” as Ali G. would say.
Ms. Rajiva is funny in the comment below. A woman with a sense of humor. Wicked (or “brutal”). Lila has to admit, though, apropos our exchange above, that the “brutal” wordplay (or swordplay) on this and other libertarian sites is an example of “inside baseball.” Everyone on here knows what is being mocked. But few outside our orbit will understand. This goes to my point about not needing to name names when addressing a wider audience.
Lila Rajiva March 28, 2014 at 10:15 AM
I think it’s grossly BRUTALIST and a violation of the civil rights of Tucker, Reisenwitz & the rest
to pit one whole Mercer in full throttle against them.
It’s downright violent and violence will not be tolerated… unless we’re for it.
I call for UN sanctions, economic sanctions (no more blintzers for you, Ms. Mercer), and carpet-bombing…..
Let the humanitarianism begin…..
For syndication rights to http://BarelyABlog.com or http://IlanaMercer.com, contact firstname.lastname@example.org. Read more @ http://barelyablog.com/v-day-for-vagina-centric-libertarians-not-so-fast-brutality-alert/#ixzz2xIUwJO35
Doesn’t that just show you how pointless the whole brutalist thesis was?
What’s on a blog or website - this is writing, you know, a form of expression - doesn’t really define the writer so easily.
People don’t fit into neat boxes.
The ones with the smoothest public personas are often not the nicest but simply the most opportunistic or most ambitious. The ones who seem rough around the edges perhaps got that way honestly.
No one knows. So let’s not buy into self-serving distinctions. We are all humanitarians and brutalists (if you must use that language).
Very often, at one and the same time.
From the comment section at EPJ, an interesting insight into Jesus’ advice to “turn the other cheek,” a real problem for me, as I see that it usually leads to “getting it in the neck”:
“Cowardice is scarcely a term one associates with Jesus. Either he failed to make himself clear, or we have misunderstood him. There is plenty of cause to believe the latter.
Jesus is not forbidding self-defense here, only the use of violence. Nor is he legitimating the abandonment of nonviolence in order to defend the neighbor. He is rather showing us a way that can be used by individuals or large movements to intervene on behalf of justice for our neighbors–nonviolently.
The classical interpretation of Matt 5:38-42//Luke 6:29-30 suggests two, and only two, possibilities for action in the face of evil: fight or flight. Either we resist evil, or we do not resist it.
Jesus seemingly says that we are not to resist it; so, it would appear, he commands us to be docile, inert, compliant, to abandon all desire for justice, to allow the oppressor to walk all over us. “Turn the other cheek” is taken to enjoin becoming a doormat for Jesus, to be trampled without protest. “Give your undergarment as well” has encouraged people to go limp in the face of injustice and hand over the last thing they own. “Going the second mile” has been turned into a platitude meaning nothing more than “extend yourself.”
Rather than encourage the oppressed to counteract their oppressors, these revolutionary statements have been transformed into injunctions to collude in one’s own despoiling.
But that interpretation excluded a third alternative: active nonviolent resistance. The word translated “resist” is itself problematic; what translators have failed to note is how frequently anthistenai is used as a military term.
Resistance implies “counteractive aggression,” a response to hostilities initiated by someone else.
Liddell-Scott defines anthistemi as to “set against esp. in battle, withstand.”
Ephesians 6:13 is exemplary of its military usage: “Therefore take the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand [antistenai, literally, to draw up battle ranks against the enemy] in the evil day, and having done all, to stand [stenai, literally, to close ranks and continue to fight].”
The term is used in the LXX primarily for armed resistance in military encounters (44 out of 71 times).
Josephus uses anthistemi for violent struggle 15 out of 17 times, Philo 4 out of 10.
Jesus’ answer is set against the backdrop of the burning question of forcible resistance to Rome. In that context, “resistance” could have only one meaning: lethal violence.
Stasis, the noun form of stenai, means “a stand,” in the military sense of facing off against an enemy.
By extension it came to mean a “party formed for seditious purposes; sedition, revolt.” The NRSV translates stasis in Mark 15:7 as “insurrection” (so also Luke 23:19, 25), in Acts 19:40 as “rioting,” and in Acts 23:10 as “violent dissension.”
In short, antistenai means more in Matt. 5:39a than simply to “stand against” or “resist.”
It means to resist violently, to revolt or rebel, to engage in an insurrection.
Jesus is not encouraging submission to evil; that would run counter to everything he did and said.
He is, rather, warning against responding to evil in kind by letting the oppressor set the terms of our opposition. Perhaps most importantly, he cautions us against being made over into the very evil we oppose by adopting its methods and spirit. He is saying, in effect, Do not mirror evil; do not become the very thing you hate.
The best translation is the Scholars Version: “Don’t react violently against the one who is evil.” “
That last part bears repeating (TL;DR version): “Do not mirror evil; do not become the very thing you hate.”
H/T to No Ma’am blog.
John Martin at OpEd News describes the Irish slaves forgotten by history:
“The Irish slave trade began when James II sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.
Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.
From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well.
During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.
Many people today will avoid calling the Irish slaves what they truly were: Slaves. They’ll come up with terms like “Indentured Servants” to describe what occurred to the Irish. However, in most cases from the 17th and 18th centuries, Irish slaves were nothing more than human cattle.
As an example, the African slave trade was just beginning during this same period. It is well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts.
African slaves were very expensive during the late 1600s (50 Sterling). Irish slaves came cheap (no more than 5 Sterling). If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive African. The English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the master’s free workforce. Even if an Irish woman somehow obtained her freedom, her kids would remain slaves of her master. Thus, Irish moms, even with this new found emancipation, would seldom abandon their kids and would remain in servitude.
In time, the English thought of a better way to use these women (in many cases, girls as young as 12) to increase their market share: The settlers began to breed Irish women and girls with African men to produce slaves with a distinct complexion. These new “mulatto” slaves brought a higher price than Irish livestock and, likewise, enabled the settlers to save money rather than purchase new African slaves. This practice of interbreeding Irish females with African men went on for several decades and was so widespread that, in 1681, legislation was passed “forbidding the practice of mating Irish slave women to African slave men for the purpose of producing slaves for sale.” In short, it was stopped only because it interfered with the profits of a large slave transport company.
England continued to ship tens of thousands of Irish slaves for more than a century. Records state that, after the 1798 Irish Rebellion, thousands of Irish slaves were sold to both America and Australia. There were horrible abuses of both African and Irish captives. One British ship even dumped 1,302 slaves into the Atlantic Ocean so that the crew would have plenty of food to eat.
There is little question that the Irish experienced the horrors of slavery as much (if not more in the 17th Century) as the Africans did. There is, also, very little question that those brown, tanned faces you witness in your travels to the West Indies are very likely a combination of African and Irish ancestry. In 1839, Britain finally decided on it’s own to end it’s participation in Satan’s highway to hell and stopped transporting slaves. While their decision did not stop pirates from doing what they desired, the new law slowly concluded THIS chapter of nightmarish Irish misery.”
Steve Weissman at the Ron Paul Institute:
“Preparing the uprising started long before Pyatt arrived in country, and much of it revolved around a talented and multi-lingual Ukrainian named Oleh Rybachuk, who had played several key roles in the Orange Revolution of 2004. Strangely enough, he recently drew attention when Pando, Silicon Valley’s online news site, attacked journalist Glenn Greenwald and the investor behind his new First Look Media, eBay founder Pierre Omidyar. Trading brickbats over journalistic integrity, both Pando and Greenwald missed the gist of the bigger story.
In 2004, Rybachuk headed the staff and political campaign of the US-backed presidential candidate Victor Yushchenko. As the generally pro-American Kyiv Post tells it, the shadowy Rybachuk was Yushchenko’s “alter ego” and “the conduit” to the State Security Service, which “was supplying the Yushchenko team with useful information about Yanukovych’s actions.” Rybachuk went on to serve under Yushchenko and Tymoshenko as deputy prime minister in charge of integrating Ukraine into NATO and the European Union. In line with US policy, he also pushed for privatization of Ukraine’s remaining state-owned industries.
Despite US and Western European backing, the government proved disastrous, enabling its old rival Yanukovych to win the presidency in the 2010 election. Western monitors generally found the election “free and fair,” but no matter. The Americans had already sowed the seeds either to win Yanukovych over or to throw him over, whichever way Washington and its allies decided to go. As early as October 2008, USAID funded one of its many private contractors – a non-profit called Pact Inc. – to run the “Ukraine National Initiatives to Enhance Reforms” (UNITER). Active in Africa and Central Asia, Pact had worked in Ukraine since 2005 in campaigns against HIV/AIDS. Its new five-year project traded in bureaucratic buzzwords like civil society, democracy, and good governance, which on the public record State and USAID were spending many millions of dollars a year to promote in Ukraine.
Pact would build the base for either reform or regime change. Only this time the spin-masters would frame their efforts as independent of Ukraine’s politicians and political parties, whom most Ukrainians correctly saw as hopelessly corrupt. The new hope was “to partner with civil society, young people, and international organizations” – as Canada’s prestigious Financial Post later paraphrased no less an authority than Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
By 2009, Pact had rebranded the pliable Rybachuk as “a civil society activist,” complete with his own NGO, Center UA (variously spelled Centre UA, Tsenter UA, or United Actions Center UA). Pact then helped Rybachuk use his new base to bring together as many as 60 local and national NGOs with activists and leaders of public opinion. This was New Citizen, a non-political “civic platform” that became a major political player. At the time, Pact and Soros’s IRF were working in a joint effort to provide small grants to some 80 local NGOs. This continued the following year with additional money from the East Europe Foundation.
“Ukraine has been united by common disillusionment,” Rybachuk explained to the Kyiv Post. “The country needs a more responsible citizenry to make the political elite more responsible.”
Who could argue? Certainly not Rybachuk’s Western backers. New Citizen consistently framed its democracy agenda as part of a greater integration within NATO, Europe, and the trans-Atlantic world. Rybachuk himself would head the “Civil Expert Council” associated with the EU-Ukraine Cooperation Committee.
Continuing to advise on “strategic planning,” in May 2010 Pact encouraged New Citizen “to take Access to Public Information as the focus of their work for the next year.” The coalition campaigned for a new Freedom of Information law, which passed. Pact then showed New Citizen how to use the law to boost itself as a major player, organize and train new activists, and work more closely with compliant journalists, all of which would seriously weaken the just-elected Yanukovych government. Part of their destabilization included otherwise praiseworthy efforts, none more so than the movement to “Stop Censorship.”
“Censorship is re-emerging, and the opposition is not getting covered as much,” Rybachuk told the Kyiv Post in May 2010. He was now “a media expert” as well as civic activist. “There are some similarities to what Vladimir Putin did in Russia when he started his seizure of power by first muzzling criticism in the media.”
One of Rybachuk’s main allies in “Stop Censorship” was the journalist Sergii Leshchenko, who had long worked with Mustafa Nayem at Ukrayinska Pravda, the online newsletter that NED publicly took credit for supporting. NED gave Leshchenko its Reagan Fascell Democracy Fellowship, while New Citizen spread his brilliant exposés of Yanukovych’s shameless corruption, focusing primarily on his luxurious mansion at Mezhyhirya. Rybachuk’s Center UA also produced a documentary film featuring Mustafa Nayem daring to ask Yanukovych about Mezhyhirya at a press conference. Nothing turned Ukrainians – or the world – more against Yanukovych than the concerted exposure of his massive corruption. This was realpolitik at its most sophisticated, since the US and its allies funded few, if any, similar campaigns against the many Ukrainian kleptocrats who favored Western policy.
Under the watchful eye of Pact, Rybachuk’s New Citizen developed a project to identify the promises of Ukrainian politicians and monitor their implementation. They called it a “Powermeter” (Vladometer), an idea they took from the American website “Obamameter.” Funding came from the US Embassy, through its Media Development Fund, which falls under the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Other money came from the Internews Network, which receives its funding from the State Department, USAID, the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) and a wide variety of other government agencies, international organizations, and private donors. Still other money came from Soros’s IRF.
New Citizen and its constituent organizations then brought together 150 NGOs from over 35 cities, along with activists and journalists like Sergii Leschchenko, to create yet another campaign in 2011. They called it the Chesno Movement, from the Ukrainian word for “honestly. ” Its logo was a garlic bulb, a traditional disinfectant widely believed to ward off evil. The movement’s purpose was “to monitor the political integrity of the parliamentary candidates running in the 2012 elections.”
This was a mammoth project with the most sophisticated sociology. As expected, the Chesno monitoring found few honest politicians. But it succeeded in raising the issue of public integrity to new heights in a country of traditionally low standards and in building political interest in new areas of the country and among the young. The legislative elections themselves proved grim, with President Yanukovych’s Party of the Regions taking control of parliament.
What then of all New Citizen’s activism, monitoring, campaigning, movement-building, and support for selective investigative journalism? Where was all this heading? Rybachuk answered the question in May 2012, several months before the election.
“The Orange Revolution was a miracle, a massive peaceful protest that worked,” he told Canada’s Financial Post. “We want to do that again and we think we will.”
The Daily Beast reported in 2012 that Mossad was behind the killing of Iranian nuclear scientists, from all the evidence:
“Six weeks ago in Washington, on the sidelines of a major U.S.-Israeli meeting known as the “strategic dialogue,” Israeli Mossad officers were quietly and obliquely bragging about the string of explosions in Iran. “They would say things like, ‘It’s not the best time to be working on Iranian missile design,’” one U.S. intelligence official at the December parley told The Daily Beast.
Those comments were a reference to a string of explosions at a missile-testing site outside Tehran on November 12. The explosions killed Maj. Gen. Hassan Moqqadam, the head of the country’s missile program. But the manner in which the message was delivered—informally and on the sidelines of an official discussion—also speaks to how Israel appears to seek to create the impression of responsibility for acts of violence and sabotage inside Iran without quite taking formal responsibility.
These kinds of actions even have their own Israeli euphemism, “events that happen unnaturally,” to quote the Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Benny Gantz, from his remarks before the Knesset on Tuesday. In his testimony, Gantz promised more such unnatural events in 2012 aimed at thwarting Iran’s nuclear program.
All told, five Iranian scientists or engineers affiliated with the nuclear program have been killed since 2007, the latest being Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, who Iran’s semi-official Fars news agency says was responsible for procurement at the Natanz enrichment facility. A sixth, Fereydoon Abbasi, survived an assassination attempt in 2010 and is now the head of Iran’s atomic energy agency.
William Tobey, a former deputy administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration and a National Security Council specialist on nuclear issues, said four of the six attacks on the scientists since 2007 used magnetic limpet bombs that would be attached to a vehicle carrying the target.
Tobey, who just published a paper on the assassinations for the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, would not speculate on the country responsible for the attacks, but Patrick Clawson, the director of research at the Washington Institute for Near Policy, said the signs point to Israel.“
Inspite of Israel boasting about assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists; Israel’s admission of having creating the Stuxnet virus which sabotaged both Iranian nuclear facilities and likely was used in the cyber attack on India’s electricity system; the involvement of Mossad and CIA in the Mumbai attacks: the involvement of the Mossad in the training both of Sri Lankan and LTTE forces…despite all this, there will always be sycophants of the New World Order who will show up and accuse any researcher with the integrity to put the facts out even-handedly, without cowering before the establishment, as anti-Semitic.
If so, one must learn to wear that scarlet letter A/S with equanimity.
STUDENTS FOR LIBERTY declares that in order to be a libertarian you MUST be for groups that have been “historically oppressed by the state”- which, of course, is a thoroughly CONTESTABLE position.
Whereas libertarians of the past learned from classic texts, large books of integrated but contained theory, these young people extract information from an hourly blizzard of news, memes, videos, social media threads, texts, forums, tweets, and group hangouts.
. “This necessarily means a special identity with groups that have been victims of State oppression and remain so in many parts if the world.”
For this reason, we should embrace the ideals of feminism in the same way we embrace the anti-slavery cause. It is our cause, our banner, our history, our movement. We should never give this up to the oppressor class.
From this to the Euston Manifesto - Bible of the liberventionist religion - is not even a step.
While mouthing pieties about being tolerant, the piece is a clear call to be INTOLERANT of those it declares are bigots ….(but who are really to be censored and pushed off the web, because their views DECONSTRUCT the leftist ideology).
So these new, new libertarians are going to use social media to shout down views they don’t like. Which is what the CIA does with Twitter and Facebook, anyway.
I’m waiting for the call to turn in people for “purist” thinking.
Jim Goad at Takimag:
“Outside the legal system, our reputedly “progressive” society has merely swapped out the scarlet “A” for a scarlet “R,” a scarlet “S,” and a scarlet “H”—sometimes all three at once. Modern social-justice warriors, those little mob-motivated creeps, justify their behavior with the excuse that at least this time around, they’re fighting for an irrefutably righteous cause.
Sure. That’s what they all say.”
Fred Reed, being brutalist about greasy purity tests:
‘The wives and girlfriends were real women and seemed to think being a woman was a good thing. Men thought it was a good thing, that’s for sure. It was like there were two kinds of people, men and women, instead of just one. It’s a novel concept, I reckon. But we liked it. And they were just nice. You could easy tell a Southern gal from a menopausing crocodile. Up North, you’d need a DNA test.
Anyway, half the crowd already knew each other and the others didn’t have to because it was a common culture and if you had a racecar, you were in.
“I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
(1) George Wallace (2) David Duke (3) Nathan Bedford Forrest (4) Abraham Lincoln.
Uh-huh. The Great Emancipator. Himself. How I do love goodness.
Colonial Roots of Gun-Control, by Abijheet Singh
I live in India and I am a proud firearm owner - but I am the exception not the norm, an odd situation in a country with a proud martial heritage and a long history of firearm innovation. This is not because the people of India are averse to gun ownership, but instead due to Draconian anti-gun legislation going back to colonial times.
To trace the roots of India’s anti-gun legislation we need to step back to the latter half of the 19th century. The British had recently fought off a major Indian rebellion (the mutiny of 1857) and were busy putting in place measures to ensure that the events of 1857 were never repeated. These measures included a major restructuring of administration and the colonial British Indian Army along with improvements in communications and transportation. Meanwhile the Indian masses were systematically being disarmed and the means of local firearm production destroyed, to ensure that they (the Indian masses) would never again have the means to rise in rebellion against their colonial masters. Towards this end the colonial government, under Lord Lytton as Viceroy (1874 -1880), brought into existence the Indian Arms Act, 1878 (11 of 1878); an act which, exempted Europeans and ensured that no Indian could possess a weapon of any description unless the British masters considered him a “loyal” subject of the British Empire.
An example of British thinking in colonial times:
“No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion.” –James Burgh (Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses) [London, 1774-1775]
And thoughts (on this subject) of the man who wanted to rule the world:
“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty.” — Adolf Hitler (H.R. Trevor-Roper, Hitler’s Table Talks 1941-1944)
The leaders of our freedom struggle recognised this, even Gandhi the foremost practitioner of passive resistance and non-violence had this to say about the British policy of gun-control in India:
“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.” — Mahatma Gandhi (An Autobiography OR The story of my experiments with truth, by M.K. Gandhi, p.238)
India became independent in 1947, but it still took 12 years before this act was finally repealed. In 1959 the British era Indian Arms Act, 1878 (11 of 1878.) was finally consigned to history and a new act, the Arms Act, 1959 was enacted. This was later supplemented by the Arms Rules, 1962. Unfortunately this new legislation was also formulated based on the Indian Government’s innate distrust its own citizens. Though somewhat better than the British act, this legislation gave vast arbitrary powers to the “Licensing Authorities”, in effect ensuring that it is often difficult and sometimes impossible for an ordinary law abiding Indian citizen to procure an arms license.
“A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie.” — Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
Also the policy of throttling private arms manufacturing was continued even after independence. Limits on the quantity and type of arms that could be produced by private manufacturers were placed - ensuring that the industry could never hope to be globally competitive and was instead consigned to producing cheap shotguns, of mostly indifferent quality, in small quantities. A citizen wishing to purchase a decent firearm depended solely on imports, which were a bit more expensive but vastly superior in quality.
This changed towards the mid to late 1980s, when the Government, citing domestic insurgency as the reason, put a complete stop to all small arms imports. The fact that there is no documented evidence of any terrorists ever having used licensed weapons to commit an act of terror on Indian soil seems to be of no consequence to our Government. The prices of (legal & licensed) imported weapons have been on an upward spiral ever since - beating the share market and gold in terms of pure return on investment. Even the shoddy domestically produced guns suddenly seem to have found a market. Also since the Government now had a near monopoly on (even half-way decent) arms & ammunition for the civilian market, they started turning the screws by pricing their crude public sector products (ammunition, rifles, shotguns & small quantities of handguns) at ridiculously high rates - products that frankly, given a choice no one would ever purchase.
“That rifle on the wall of the labourer’s cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.” — George Orwell, the author of Animal Farm and 1984, himself a socialist.”
“Therefore was the first man, Adam, created alone, to teach us that whoever destroys a single life, the Bible considers it as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a single life, the Bible considers it as if he saved an entire world.”
Rabbi Judah the Prince
The New Indian Express points out the completely political nature of the Khobragade affair, proved by recent “slavery” charges brought against Bangladesh’s consul-general by a former worker.
Although the alleged conduct is much worse in this case, the diplomat has not been arrested or stripped. Meanwhile, the zealous Preetinder Singh Bharara is going after Devyani Khobragade a second time, after a US court dismissed the first indictment against the Indian diplomat in a case that has permanently damaged Indo-US relations:
“It looks like a replay of the Devyani Khobragade affair that strained India-US relations, but it isn’t. A former domestic worker has slapped a civil suit against Bangladesh’s consul general in New York and his wife accusing them of keeping him in slave-like conditions.
But unlike Khobragade, India’s then deputy consul general in New York, the Bangladeshi diplomat has neither been arrested nor strip searched.
In papers filed in Manhattan Federal Court Friday, Mashud Parves Rana said Consul General Monirul Islam and his wife, Fahima Tahsina Prova, forced him to work from 6.30 a.m. to 11 p.m., seven days a week for 18 months - and never paid him a dime, according to New York Daily News.
Rana alleged that he was lured to the US with the promise of a “good” $3,000 a month job but was kept “in forced labour in slavery-like conditions” in the couple’s sprawling $8,000-a-month apartment.
The suit also accuses the couple of barring him “from leaving their residence under his own volition, threatening to beat him or kill him, threatening that the police will arrest him or kill him if he left their residence, physically assaulting him on at least two occasions, (and) maintaining possession over Rana’s passport and visa”.
Among his tasks, the suit as cited by the Daily News says, was cooking the family’s food from scratch, washing their clothes by hand, supervising their 11-year-old son and cleaning the apartment daily.
The Daily News said its calls and emails to the Bangladesh consulate were not immediately returned.
Rana, the Daily News said, is being represented by Dana Sussman, who is also representing Sangeeta Richard, Khobragade’s former housekeeper who has accused the Indian diplomat of underpaying her.
Khobragade returned home Jan 9 after New Delhi declined to revoke her newly acquired full diplomatic immunity with India shifting her to a UN assignment.
Dashing hopes of a closure of the Khobragade affair, Indian American prosecutor Preet Bharara has secured a second indictment of the Indian diplomat two days after a New York judge dismissed the visa fraud case against her.”
The Indian Express reported last year about the ring behind the killing of Iranian nuclear scientists:
“Iranian state television Monday showed several Iranians alleged to be part of a group of 13 who “confessed” to killing four Iranian nuclear scientists after being trained by Israeli intelligence.
It said the network received orders from “Washington and London.”
The television report, available online (http://www.yjc.ir/fa/news/4047313), showed the suspects speaking of how they purportedly prepared to murder the scientists, and broadcast a re-enactment of assassins on a motorbike fixing a magnetic bomb to a victim’s car, while dramatic music played in the background.
It also showed images of a number of prefabricated temporary buildings in an arid area and said the site was an Israeli military camp used for their training.
The 40-minute report, which was broadcast overnight, said the 13 comprised eight men and five women, all of whom were named.
One of them was Majid Jamali Fashi, who was executed on May 15 after being found guilty of spying for Israel’s Mossad spy service and playing a key role in the January 2010 murder of a top nuclear scientist in return for payment of USD 120,000.
Iran’s intelligence service recently said it had broken a ring of other “spies” linked to the scientists’ slayings, which it blamed on Israel and the United States.
The United States vehemently denied any involvement in the most recent assassination, on January 11 this year. Israel has refused to confirm or deny involvement in any of the killings.
One of the suspects presented on state television, identified as Maziar Ebrahimi, told the camera that he had been “sent to Israel to learn to handle explosives, and receive other military training, including firing weapons.”
Meanwhile, India’s own nuclear scientists are dying mysteriously. without a peep from the Indian government and major English-language media.
What sanctions in support of “human rights” really mean, explains Michael Rozeff:
“An MRI scan is a modern technique to use magnetic resonance imaging to detect abnormalities in the human body. It’s a common medical tool. Imagine sending someone to jail for 20 years for only one charge of several assembled in his alleged crime of shipping a component coil to the Netherlands where it would be shipped to Iran for medical use. That’s the potential penalty in the case of a former Iranian and now American citizen, a Ph.D. scientist, who is alleged not to have obtained an export license to ship the coil. This is a piece of what is meant by sanctions on Iran.
Furthermore, in addition to the wickedness of government sanctions, the justice system in the U.S. is also wicked and cruel by hitting the man with these charges: “conspiracy to export to an embargoed country, conspiracy to smuggle goods, money laundering and obstructing justice. If convicted, he faces a maximum of 20 years in prison on the first count alone.”
The Yeshiva world reports:
“Russia’s back-in-office President Vladimir Putin can be sure that he has a steadfast supporter in Rabbi Berel Lazar, the country’s Chief Rabbi and Head Shliach.
With continued criticism against the Kremlin’s growing control and Russian Jewish leadership which doubted “Putin’s commitment to protecting Russia’s Jews,” Lazar stands out.
“There wasn’t a single thing that he was asked to do to benefit Judaism or the Jewish communities that he did not respond to positively,” Rabbi Lazar said about Putin, who has been ruling the country since 1999.
As President and Prime Minister, Putin “constantly took interest in the situation of the Jews in the country, showed care for their needs and has done a lot to eradicate anti-Semitism and returning Jewish buildings that were nationalized,” Rabbi Lazar told the Israeli haredi ‘Hamevaser.’
“We are nearing completion on a Jewish museum which will be one of the largest in the world. President Putin has contributed alot for the advancement of its building and he himself donated one paycheck of his, which led many others to donate as well,” he added.
Putin was inaugurated in lavish ceremony in the Kremlin on 7 May 2012 in front of the inner circles of the Russian establishment. Among the religious leaders attending were Rabbi Lazar and Alexander Boroda, the Chairman of the Board for the Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia.
“I blessed him in the name of Russian Jewry and told him that the number three in Judaism symbolizes a ‘Chazakah’ (a Halachic term for permanence),” Rabbi Lazar said.”
So, here’s a question. If Putin is fighting anti-Semitism
and has the blessings of Russia’s Jewish community, are Chabad Lubavichers homophobic?
I wonder if the thick libertarians (if they really want that label, they can keep it!) can answer the following contextual questions:
1. Is Chabad Lubavich homophobic, because it is supporting Vladimir Putin, who in turn is opposing gay evangelizing of Russian children.
2. Is Vladimir Putin himself a tool of the NWO’s anti-reproduction agenda who is simply masquerading as a defender of traditionalism?
3. Is the US State Dept, in attacking Putin, simply expressing its own hatred of Chabad Lubavichers and right-wing Jews?
In other words, is the enemy of the enemy of anti-Semites a friend of anti-Semites?
“A former commander of the Swiss Guard, the small force of men whose job it is to protect the pope, has said there is “a network of homosexuals” within the Vatican, the latest in a series of claims about gay priests working at the heart of the Roman Catholic church.
Elmar Mäder, who was commandant of the Guard from 2002 until 2008, said his time at the heart of the Vatican had given him an insight into certain aspects of life there. “I cannot refute the claim that there is a network of homosexuals. My experiences would indicate the existence of such a thing,” he told the Swiss newspaper Schweiz am Sonntag.
Famed for their striking uniforms of blue, red and orange, recruits to the Guard swear to protect the pope and his successors with their lives.
Mäder, 50, from the canton of St Gallen, refused to comment on speculation that he had warned guardsmen about the behaviour of certain priests.
Earlier this month, the same newspaper reported the claims of a former, unnamed member of the Guard that he had been the target of more than 20 “unambiguous sexual requests” from clergy while serving in the force.
Recounting a dinner in a Rome restaurant, the man was quoted as saying: “As the spinach and steak were served, the priest said to me: ‘And you are the dessert’.”
At the time, spokesman Urs Breitenmoser said the rumoured gay network did not pose a problem to the Swiss Guard, whose members he said were motivated by entirely different interests.
Asked about the claims, Mäder reportedly said stories of this kind “obviously lacking in factual basis” were sometimes told. But the facts remained clear, he added. ”
A working environment in which the great majority of men are unmarried is per se a draw for homosexuals, whether they consciously seek it out or unconsciously follow an urge,” he said.
“The Roman Curia [the Vatican's bureaucracy] is exactly this kind of environment.”
Though it does not condemn gay people, whom it says should be “accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity,” the catechism of the Catholic church teaches that homosexual acts are “objectively disordered” and calls gay people to abstinence.Mäder, while he said he did not have a problem with homosexuality, said he feared that a network or secret society of gay people within the Vatican could pose security problems. He added that he would not have promoted a gay man in the Guard – not because of his sexuality but because “the risk of disloyalty would have been too high”.
Mäder said: “I also learned that many homosexuals are inclined to be more loyal to each other than to other people or institutions,” he said.
“If this loyalty were to go as far as to become a network or even a kind of secret society, I would not tolerate it in my sphere of decision making. Key people in the Vatican now seem to think similarly.”
And Breitbart.com has this:
“When Pope Francis referred to a “gay lobby” in Rome, he was not necessarily just referring to Vatican prelates whose sexual peccadilloes (with men or women or both) made them vulnerable to outside blackmail (though that’s been talked about for a long time as well).
He was also likely referring to reports of a tight network of gay clerics that wields influence within the Vatican and operates largely for its own (often financial) benefit rather than for the good of the Church.
According to some Italian news sources, the extent of this network of corruption came to light during the “Vatileaks” scandal, in which Benedict XVI’s personal butler released confidential documents. The then-pontiff charged three cardinals with conducting an internal investigation, the results of which were passed directly to his successor.
Some believe that the shocking enormity of the problem contributed to Benedict’s decision to resign early this year.”
But the most important part of Pope Francis’ remarks went unremarked - his remarks about Masonic groups in the Vatican.
Daily Kos has this:
“What Pope Francis meant by “Masonic lobbies” is a decades-old conspiracy theory advanced by rightwing Catholics that “behind every Democrat, every liberal, every progressive” are secretive and cunning Masons who want to destroy the Church and rule the world.
Vatican spokesman, Fr. Federico Lombardi, alluded to this when he declared that reports questioning Bergoglio’s role during Argentina’s military dictatorship came from “anti-clerical leftwing elements that are used to attacking the Church.”
Pope Francis’ thoughts about “Masonic lobbies” can be inferred because first, based on the interview, he considers that they are a reality, that they are a malevolent influence and that they are important enough to mention. Secondly, Francis has ties to the ultraconservative Communion and Liberation, one of the global Catholic movements which want to “return the Roman Catholic Church to its traditional role of political power.” Those who base their political and cultural ideas on “human values” rather than a belief in Jesus Christ “are considered ‘enemies of CL.’”
Bergoglio thought highly enough of CL’s founder, Fr. Luigi Giussani, that “he distributed his books at literary fairs in Argentina.” In the judgment of “a very close collaborator with Giussani,” CL bishop, Luigi Negri, “there is no question that [Masonic] values designed and conceived within a rationalistic Enlightenment mentality” are “an enemy of the Church.” Not only do Masons want the “destruction of the Church and Christian Civilization,” but also “its replacement with a culture and a society that is substantially atheistic.”
(emphasis mine)Per Negri: “Freemasonry has certainly found its strength in secrecy, in the ability to identify and assimilate the leadership of men who are unconditionally obedient to its directives, as well as its ability to influence ever-wider strata of the culture and leadership of civic and institutional life.”
…..Furthermore, “not only has Freemasonry conquered the revolutionary avant-garde in Europe and in the world but, above all, it has strongly conditioned the regimes that, arising from these Masonic-liberal revolutions, would result in the great totalitarian systems.”
….The CL bishop gives voice to the belief, strongly rooted in the ecclesiastical hierarchy, of a greater “identity-orientation” - certainly a very serious and disturbing presence, now widely documented - of many Freemasons with positions of responsibility in the great totalitarian systems.
….To deal with the still-tangled knot of the more or less hidden relations between the ecclesiastical hierarchy and the Freemasons, we must go back to the relationship between the Church and modernity. “It is not the Church that is anti-modern, but modernity that is anti-Church,” says Bishop Negri.
This is the “Masonic lobbies” to which Francis refers: prelates who secretly embrace the ideals of Freemasonry as defined by rightwing Catholics and are a threat to the Church.”
The real debate: Do you want to be a Free-Range Libertarian?
Or do you want to be a Caged Libertarian?
Everyone must decide…..
Just a little fun at the idiotic state of public debate.
Interestingly, while Mr. Tucker thinks religious opinions about homogeneous communities are “brutal” and need to be eliminated by the kind of “shaming” and “cyber-gulag” that the state already uses (SPLC write-ups, blog death, career death etc.) , take a look at the real brutality dealt out to the rest of the world by the contraceptive imperialists:
Population control, the Kenyan perspective:
“The first birth control clinic was opened in Nairobi, the Kenyan Capital, 44 years ago. The second one opened a year later in 1956 at the Port Town of Mombasa. These two amalgamated into the Family a Planning Association of Kenya (FPAK). In 1963, FPAK was affiliated with the International Planned Parenthood Federation, thus becoming the first association in Africa south of the Sahara to join this monster which has nearly destroyed our society. Our nightmare just began.
Following publication of a report on the demographic trends by the Population Council (New York; 1968), which partly talked of still unproven adverse effects of rapid population growth on socio-economic development, the Government of Kenya was coerced to become overtly involved in birth control. Thus a young nation then bustling with enthusiasm, hope and ambition for its people who had endured the yoke of colonialism suddenly offered itself to imperialism like it had never seen before, as we will soon discover.
We were then only 7.9 million people in a vast empty country rich in resources but no people to exploit them. Believe it, we were said to be overpopulated—34 years from then we are only 23 million—in this vast still empty land.
The United States of America has used vast amounts of money over time to destroy the people of Kenya. USAID and other Non-Governmental Organizations funded mainly by the U.S. Government have targeted our people with a ruthlessness that makes one shudder. The International Planned Parenthood Federation, the Population Council (a subsidiary of the Rockfeller group), Population Action International, and the United Nations through its agencies like WHO and UNFPDA have targeted Kenya for depopulation at the expense of the integral development of its people. Some examples of the stark realities living side by side with the millions of dollars for population control include:
- Our health sector is collapsed. Thousands of the Kenyan people will die of Malaria whose treatment costs a few cents, in health facilities whose stores are stalked to the roof with millions of dollars worth of pills, IUDS, Norplant, Depo-provera, most of which are supplied with American money.
- Some of these contraceptives like Depo-provera cause terrible side-effects to the poor people in Kenya, who do not even have competent medical check-ups before injection. Many are maimed for life. The hypertension, blood clots, heart failure, liver pathology and menstrual disorders cannot be treated due to the poor health services. The American Government seems to want to solve the problem of poverty by reducing the number of the poor.
- Special operation theatres fully serviced and not lacking in instruments are opened in hospitals for sterilization of women and some men. In the same hospitals, emergency surgery cannot be done for lack of basic operating instruments and supplies. Most of the women are sterilized without even knowing it is final. Some with only one child. Some are induced with financial assistance to accept sterilization. Horrified sterilized women now trot from hospital to hospital looking for reversal of the Tubal Ligation. This is breaking marriages especially when the single child or two succumb to the myriad tropical diseases—with easy treatment that is not available.
- Millions of dollars are used daily to deceive, manipulate and misinform the people through the media about the perceived good of a small family—while the infant mortality rate skyrockets. Some of this money is not used to educated people on basic hygiene, proper diet or good farming methods that would be useful development, but it appears that the aim of population controllers is to decimate the Kenyan people.
- I am a practicing gynecologist in Kenya and I would like to share with you facts about some of the patients I see daily:
A mother brought a child to me with pneumonia, but I had not penicillin to give the child. What I have in the stores are cases of contraceptives.
Malaria is epidemic in Kenya. Mothers die from this disease every day because there is no chloroquine, when instead we have huge stockpiles of contraceptives. These mothers come to me and I am helpless.
I see women coming to my clinic daily with swollen legs — the cannot climb stairs. They have been injured by Depo-provera, birth-control pills, and Norplant. I look at them and I am filled with sadness. They have been coerced into using these drugs. Nobody tells them about the side effects, and there are no drugs to treat their complications. In Kenya if you injure, you injure the whole family. Women are the center of the community. The well-being of the family depends on the well-being of the mother.
America has been a blessed country. This nation saved the world three times. During the first World War, the second World War and the Cold War. [Lila: Some would disagree here...]
The American people can still save many in the world from preventable diseases. I do not believe that Americans want their taxes used to hurt other people. Why do you not stop this money being used for contraceptives and use it instead to provide clean water, good prenatal and postnatal care, good farming methods and rural electrification. Do the American people know that the millions of dollars spent for population control are used in the ways I have described? Why does your government not deal directly with our government but instead uses a third party like IPPF, which has no respect for the values of our people and our laws? [Lila: So much for foreign aid...]
It is therefore clear, that contrary to what one is led to believe, American Aid to Kenya is not a reasonable attempt to bring about integral development, rather it is a comprehensive and highly organized campaign to kill off as many of our people as are necessary so that the U.S. and other developed countries can continue exploiting our national resources.
Therefore, for the first world to dominate the third world through contraceptive imperialism under the big stick of withholding development assistance for non-compliance makes us conclude that, not only the so-called Population Assistance to third world countries but even the “development assistance” has been tailored first to serve the interests of the richest of the rich of this world.
USAID is the single biggest supporter and promoter of population control in Kenya. The programs it funds are implemented with an aggressive and elitist ruthlessness. In Kenya the target are always the poor and the illiterate who are pressured and tricked into using dangerous drugs which are often banned in the west, or who are sterilized during childbirth without either their knowledge or consent.
You in the media, those in the White House and many in the United States Congress continue to deny these facts. We in Kenya are a people like you who are entitled to the same human rights and dignity as yourselves, but our right to live a normal human existence is ignored by globalist decision makers. If the funds you use to kill, maim, subjugate, dominate and break us to nothingness were used to cultivate our extraordinary resources, Kenya alone could feed more than half the African continent. Dear Americans, you cannot build your own security on the insecurity and degradation of others. You cannot build your own wealth on the poverty and destitution of people in the least developed nations.”
Meanwhile, the Rockefeller Foundation broadcasts false statistics to garner sympathy for its depopulation programs:
“The President’s Finding asserts no fewer than four times (pages 2, 4, 5, and 22) that “world population will double to over 11 billion by 2050.” These repeated assertions that the world’s population will double in a little over a half a century and, presumably, continue to grow after that, lend the Finding a tone of calculated urgency, if not downright stridency. And it is wrong.
The population of the world will never again double. According to all Census Bureau and United Nations median and “most probable” projections, population growth will peak in the next few decades and then begin to decline. United Nations “medium variant” projection has the population of the world peaking at 9.4 billion in the year 2050.6
In fact, according to the UN’s “low variant” population projection, which over the past decade has proven to be the most accurate of the three variants, total world population will never exceed 7.8 billion persons, and will top out between 2030 and 2040 and then sharply decline.“
Internet addiction is real, says the website yourbrainonporn.com.
Not only is prolonged use of the net inducing reversible changes in the frontal lobes of users (my physiologist mother warned me of this many years ago), it is creating long-term psychological effects whose full impact on our lives we might not yet understand.
Is the web driving us mad?
“We may appear to be choosing to use this technology, but in fact we are being dragged to it by the potential of short-term rewards. Every ping could be social, sexual, or professional opportunity, and we get a mini-reward, a squirt of dopamine, for answering the bell. “These rewards serve as jolts of energy that recharge the compulsion engine, much like the frisson a gambler receives as a new card hits the table,” MIT media scholar Judith Donath recently told Scientific American. “Cumulatively, the effect is potent and hard to resist.”
“……In 2008 Gary Small, the head of UCLA’s Memory and Aging Research Center, was the first to document changes in the brain as a result of even moderate Internet use. He rounded up 24 people, half of them experienced Web users, half of them newbies, and he passed them each through a brain scanner. The difference was striking, with the Web users displaying fundamentally altered prefrontal cortexes. But the real surprise was what happened next. The novices went away for a week, and were asked to spend a total of five hours online and then return for another scan. “The naive subjects had already rewired their brains,” he later wrote, musing darkly about what might happen when we spend more time online.”
That means it’s probably a good thing for your brain to just get off the internet completely, every so often, for a good length of time. Perhaps that’s why I’ve automatically been taking breaks.
But there’s more bad news:
“The brains of Internet addicts, it turns out, look like the brains of drug and alcohol addicts. In a study published in January, Chinese researchers found “abnormal white matter”—essentially extra nerve cells built for speed—in the areas charged with attention, control, and executive function. A parallel study found similar changes in the brains of videogame addicts. And both studies come on the heels of other Chinese results that link Internet addiction to “structural abnormalities in gray matter,” namely shrinkage of 10 to 20 percent in the area of the brain responsible for processing of speech, memory, motor control, emotion, sensory, and other information. And worse, the shrinkage never stopped: the more time online, the more the brain showed signs of “atrophy.”
What are the changes induced? Impulsiveness is one. But there’s also been a rise in OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder) and ADHD (Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder), up over 66% in the past decade.
“And don’t kid yourself: the gap between an “Internet addict” and John Q. Public is thin to nonexistent. One of the early flags for addiction was spending more than 38 hours a week online. By that definition, we are all addicts now, many of us by Wednesday afternoon, Tuesday if it’s a busy week.”
That throws an interesting light on last week’s brouhaha over Jeffrey Tucker’s remarks and the volley of rebuttals, counter-rebuttals and threads it spawned. I admit to having actively participated. With some regret. At the end of the week, someone had simply changed the dichotomy “brutalist-humanitarian” to “absolutist-contextualist,” as though this improved the situation much.
What was the point of the argument, I wonder, if the opposite side simply ignores the objections raised and restates the original assertion in a politer form?
It shows that no one actually listened to the critics.
And this piece suggests why.
Bloggers are simply firing away on the net for the sake of the dopamine squirt inside their heads and the high-fives of approval from their own side. No one is actually trying to have an interchange. Blogging and commenting is - to put it crudely - group mental masturbation.
The solution is self-evident: disconnect.
Something is not working in the model of the internet as enlightenment.
This week’s web uproar proved it: a nutty assertion coming out of nowhere. A flood of objections. A step-back. And then a reiteration of the original statement, without any acknowledgement of the validity of the criticism.
Web users, in other words, show signs of not functioning optimally. The article suggests it’s actually much worse than that: people are suffering mental problems because of web usage:
” A recent American study based on data from adolescent Web use in the 1990s found a connection between time online and mood disorders in young adulthood. Chinese researchers have similarly found “a direct effect” between heavy Net use and the development of full-blown depression, while scholars at Case Western Reserve University correlated heavy texting and social-media use with stress, depression, and suicidal thinking.
In response to this work, an article in the journal Pediatrics noted the rise of “a new phenomenon called ‘Facebook depression,’?” and explained that “the intensity of the online world may trigger depression.” Doctors, according to the report published by the American Academy of Pediatrics, should work digital usage questions into every annual checkup.”
I can second this. After a bout of intense blogging and commenting, I feel exhausted in a very unpleasant way. Not the happy exhaustion that comes from working in the garden, doing something with your hands, or writing a poem alone. Web exhaustion is wearisome and frustrating. It gives you a sense of having wasted precious time and lost touch with reality:
“Children describe mothers and fathers unavailable in profound ways, present and yet not there at all. “Mothers are now breastfeeding and bottle-feeding their babies as they text,” she told the American Psychological Association last summer. “A mother made tense by text messages is going to be experienced as tense by the child. And that child is vulnerable to interpreting that tension as coming from within the relationship with the mother. This is something that needs to be watched very closely.” She added, “Technology can make us forget important things we know about life.”
Teenagers, whose brains are still being formed, have it worst:
“”With consent of the subjects, Missouri State University tracked the real-time Web habits of 216 kids, 30 percent of whom showed signs of depression. The results, published last month, found that the depressed kids were the most intense Web users, chewing up more hours of email, chat, videogames, and file sharing.”
One student thought of his life as “just another window” he kept open. With that attitude, it’s a wonder that more don’t feel like shutting down the window.
“Recently, scholars have begun to suggest that our digitized world may support even more extreme forms of mental illness. At Stanford, Dr. Aboujaoude is studying whether some digital selves should be counted as a legitimate, pathological “alter of sorts,” like the alter egos documented in cases of multiple personality disorder (now called dissociative identity disorder in the DSM). To test his idea, he gave one of his patients, Richard, a mild-mannered human-resources executive with a ruthless Web poker habit, the official test for multiple personality disorder. The result was startling. He scored as high as patient zero. “I might as well have been … administering the questionnaire to Sybil Dorsett!” Aboujaoude writes.”
Compellingly, researchers have suggested that life on the Internet mimics life in a city - a big city, like New York. We all know that big-city living is far more stressful than living in a small town, where people are familiar. Then, imagine the stress of living in a city so big it encompasses the whole globe, stays awake 24 hours a day, non-stop, and lets you wander into hundreds of avenues and by-lanes, simultaneously, with everything in them from pawn-shops to libraries to bungee-jumping, cruises, serial-killer documentaries, historical novels, war movies, and ancient metaphysical texts.
Wouldn’t such a city simply overwhelm you and burn you out?
“The Gold brothers—Joel, a psychiatrist at New York University, and Ian, a philosopher and psychiatrist at McGill University—are investigating technology’s potential to sever people’s ties with reality, fueling hallucinations, delusions, and genuine psychosis, much as it seemed to do in the case of Jason Russell, the filmmaker behind “Kony 2012.” The idea is that online life is akin to life in the biggest city, stitched and sutured together by cables and modems, but no less mentally real—and taxing—than New York or Hong Kong. “The data clearly support the view that someone who lives in a big city is at higher risk of psychosis than someone in a small town,” Ian Gold writes via email. “If the Internet is a kind of imaginary city,” he continues. “It might have some of the same psychological impact.”
” You have your rights by virtue of being a human being, and not by anything else—not ethnicity, not religion, not race, not tribe, not sexual orientation.
I deplore, for instance, the persecution of Baha’is in Iran and the persecution of Ahamdis in Pakistan. Being a Baha’i or being an Ahmadi no doubt constitutes the identity of these people who are being persecuted. Nonetheless, there is no such thing as Ahmadi rights or Baha’i rights: there are only human rights. And our defense of them comes precisely at the level of principle in the inalienable right to freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and freedom of expression.
Were we to construct such a thing as Ahmadi rights or Baha’i rights or “gay” rights, we would be eviscerating the foundations for those very human rights, which have to be universal by definition in order to exist. If one has rights as a Baha’i, what happens to those rights if one converts to, say Christianity? Does one then lose one’s Baha’i rights and obtain new Christian rights? What happens to one’s “gay” rights if one goes straight?
One does not possess or attain rights in this way. They are inalienable because one possesses them by virtue of one’s human nature—not due to any other specificity regarding race, class, gender or religion. Either they exist at that level, or they do not exist at all. If someone tries to appropriate human rights for something that applies to less than everyone, then you may be sure that they are undermining very notion of human rights. If there are abuses, and this includes abuses against homosexuals, then they should be opposed from the perspective of human rights, not manufactured rights that obtain to just a specific group.
If the United States wishes to promote democratic principles and constitutional rule in other countries, but insists on inserting a manufactured right such as “gay” rights as integral to that program, it will be rejected overall by religious people and by those who, through the examination of moral philosophy, have arrived at the existence of human rights from natural law. If we wish not only to make ourselves irrelevant, but an object of derision in the Muslim and other parts of world, all we have to do is openly promote the rationalization of homosexual behavior, which is explicitly taught against as inherently immoral by Islam and, in fact, by every minority religion in those Muslim-majority countries, including Christianity and Judaism.
If we wish to make this part of American public diplomacy, as we have been doing, we can surrender the idea that the United States is promoting democracy in those countries because they are already responding, “If this is democracy, we don’t want it, thank you; we would rather keep our faith and morals.” This approach not only undermines the foundation of human rights abroad but here, as well.
But, of course, democracy is not the real goal; the goal is the universalization of the rationalization for sodomy. This is now one of the depraved purposes of US foreign policy. The light from the City on the Hill is casting a very dark shadow.
Gays versus homosexuals::
“Unmasking militant gays, however, has nothing to do with sexuality, much less with an irrational fear of homosexuals (the true meaning of “homophobia”). On the contrary, if History teaches us something, it is that whenever gays take political control of a country, non-militant homosexuals are the first ones who end up interned in concentration camps. It happened in Nazi Germany, it happened in Castro’s Cuba, it was attempted in Japan, and it will happen here in America if pro-NWO, militant gays are allowed to grab power.
Help your brainwashed homosexual friends to liberate themselves from the gay mental straitjacket. Tell them who their true enemy is.”