• All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out.

  • I.F. Stone

vrijdag 18 augustus 2017

The Neo-Nazi organiser of Charlottesville, Richard Spencer, declares that he is a White Zionist


Thursday, 17 August 2017

The Neo-Nazi organiser of Charlottesville, Richard Spencer, declares that he is a White Zionist

The founder of the alt-Right and White Supremacist leader says Israel should respect him

Heil Trump - Richard Spencer Goes into Nazi Mode

Richard Spencer first came into prominence for his ‘Heil Trump’ rally held soon after Trump’s inauguration.  He is an open anti-Semite and White Supremacist and is credited with having first come up with the name Alt-Right. When Trump ‘forgot’ to mention the fact that it was the Jews who died in the Holocaust, Spencer wrote approving of Trump’s ‘de-judaification’ of the Holocaust.  

 Jewish activists, Spencer wrote in a short post for his new website Altright.com, have long insisted on making the Holocaust “all about their meta-narrative of suffering” and a way to “undergird their peculiar position in American society.”  White Supremacist Richard Spencer Hails Trump's 'de-Judaification' of Holocaust

Spencer asks a Zionist Rabbi Matt Rosenberg if he supports multi racialism in Israel
The Holocaust, in Spencer’s eyes, has become a sort of moral bludgeon — used against white nationalists like himself.  White Supremacist Richard Spencer Hails Trump's 'de-Judaification' of Holocaust
Trumps Fascist Trinity - Bannon, Miller, Gorka
Spencer was the organiser of last weekend’s demonstration at Charlottesville in which a variety of white supremacists and neo-Nazis attacked the unarmed crowd of anti-racists, anti-fascists and members of Black Lives Matter.  The attack, which killed one woman and injured several others, was the largest White Supremacist and neo-Nazi demonstration in living memory in the United States.
It is reported that 80% of the racists were armed and they were allowed by Police to wander unhindered around Charlottesville.
Anti-fascist demonstration at Charlottesville in favour of removing statue of General Robert Lee
The election of Trump has seen a coming together of a wide variety of White Supremacists, neo-Nazis and fascists under the banner of the Alt-Right.  They have in the White House three prominent advisors to Trump. There is Steve Bannon, Trump’s Strategic Advisor and former CEO of Breitbart News, an openly racist and White Supremacist magazine. Steven Miller, who has helped devise Trump’s immigration policy and who was mentored by Spencer. Some of idea of his views can be gleaned from this profile in The Telegraph:
He took to ringing his local radio stations to rail against multiculturalism and the usage of Spanish-language announcements, and wrote for his high school newspaper a column entitled “A Time to Kill”, urging violent response to radical Islamists.
Sebastian Gorka - Hungarian neo-Nazi and Trump adviser
The third member of the unholy trinity is far-Right Hungarian Sebastian Gorka who helped form the New Democratic Coalition in Hungary with ex-members of Jobbik, an openly fascist and anti-Semitic party.  Gorka also endorsed the Hungarian Guard, an anti-Semitic militia of Jobbik.  Gorka appeared at an inauguration ball for Trump wearing the Vitézi Rend, a medal of a knightly order of merit founded in 1920 by Admiral Miklos Horthy, Hungary’s anti-Semitic ruler and Hitler’s ally during World War II. Horthy presided over the deportation of nearly ½ million Jews to Auschwitz.  Gorka was up to his ears in fascist politics in Hungary, seeing Jobbik as too moderate. [EXCLUSIVE: Senior Trump Aide Forged Key Ties To Anti-Semitic Groups In Hungary]
Steve Bannon - Trump's anti-Semitic Breitbart adviser - Invited by the Zionist Organisation of America to its annual  gala dinner as a speaker
It is no surprise then that Spencer finds no difficulty in marrying his racist and anti-Semitic views with ardent support for Zionism and Israel.  In fact he sees Israel as a kind of model  for White Supremacism.  When Rabbi Matt Rosenberg of Texas A&M Hillel challenged Spencer at a meeting to be inclusive to others, Spencer threw the challenge back at the Rabbi.  ‘Would you want Israel to be radically inclusive’ knowing full well that Rabbi Rosenberg was like many Zionist ‘liberals’ – happy to support multi-racialism in the USA but opposed to intermarriage and equal rights for non-Jews in Israel.
Spencer’s declaration will no doubt be embarrassing to those like Rabbi Rosenberg who want ‘radical inclusion’ and tolerance in the United States, because that benefits American Jews but who would be aghast if the same principles were to apply to Israel.   The fact is that what Richard Spencer says is all too true – White Supremacists are only asking for what Zionists take for granted in Israel.  They are indeed White Zionists.

Tony Greenstein

WATCH Richard Spencer Tells Israelis They 'Should Respect' Him: 'I'm a White Zionist'

Spencer tells Israel's Channel 2 News: 'Jews are vastly over-represented in what you could call 'the establishment'

Richard Spencer, a white nationalist and de facto leader of the so-called “alt-right,” described himself to a reporter on Israel’s Channel 2 News as “a white Zionist” on Wednesday evening and argued that Israelis “should respect someone like me.”

The anchor had asked Spencer about the role of “alt-right” supporters in a march in Charlottesville, Viriginia on Friday, in which torch-bearing white nationalists shouted “Jews will not replace us!” in protest of the removal of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee.

“Let’s be honest,” Spencer said, when asked whether such slogans constitute anti-Semitism. “Jews are vastly over-represented in what you could call ‘the establishment,’ that is, Ivy League educated people who really determine policy, and white people are being dispossesed from this country."

Asked how the mainly Jewish audience at home should take his remarks, Spencer responded:

 “... an Israeli citizen, someone who understands your identity, who has a sense of nationhood and peoplehood, and the history and experience of the Jewish people, you should respect someone like me, who has analogue feelings about whites. You could say that I am a white Zionist – in the sense that I care about my people, I want us to have a secure homeland for us and ourselves. Just like you want a secure homeland in Israel.”

This isn’t the first time Spencer has tried to wink at Israel. Last December, he told Haaretz that he “respects Israel” and that he would “respect” the decision to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

In an August 2010 article called “An Alliance with theJews,” published on his Radix Journal website, Spencer argued that Israel could become an ally of white nationalists in the United States. He wrote that in the face of the threat of nuclear weapons in countries hostile to Israel, there would be “hard-liners” in Israel who would prefer to see the extreme right in the White House.

Spencer, however, has also made headlines and sparked widespread outrage by making anti-Semitic remarks and engaging in Holocaust denial. Last December, for instance, the "alt-right" leader praised Trump's Holocaust Remembrance Day statement that failed to mention Jews and anti-Semitism as an important step, dubbing it the "de-Judaification" of the Holocaust.

Jewish activists, Spencer wrote in a short post for his website Altright.com, have long insisted on making the Holocaust “all about their meta-narrative of suffering” and a way to “undergird their peculiar position in American society.”

Spencer, a onetime Duke University PhD student, championed Trump through the presidential campaign – and though he has been critical of the president at times, seems to have come around to Trump. While he claims he's not a Nazi, Spencer also does not outright condemn Hitler, calling him a “historical figure.”

YNet, Yaron London|Published:  21.11.16 , 13:48

Israel does not appear shocked by the appointment of racist anti-Semitesto senior positions in US President-elect Donald Trump’s administration. There is no wonder there. First of all, it is not in our power to change it. Our complete dependence on the United States forces us to hold our tongue and restrain ourselves. 
  • Second, a world view which supports white supremacy matches our government’s interests. If Trump’s people are more disgusted by Arabs than they are by Jews (the liberals, the Wall Street people, journalists from the East Coast, lovers of black people, Hillary Clinton’s friends), we have struck quite a good deal. Trump and his friends see Israel as a forefront against the barbarians, and they are not exactly very observant.
To do the Netanyahu government justice, let me qualify my statement by saying that all forms of Zionism hold the perception that a certain extent of anti-Semitism benefits the Zionist enterprise. To put it more sharply, anti-Semitism is the generator and ally of Zionism. Masses of Jews leave their place of residence only when their economic situation and physical safety are undermined. Masses of Jews are shoved to this country rather than being attracted to it. The yearning for the land of Zion and Jerusalem is not strong enough to drive millions of Jews to the country they love and make them hold on to its clods. 

Steve Bannon, Trump's controversial new chief strategist (Photo: AFP)

As the Jews in Israel long for immigrants with a certain affiliation to their people, and as Zionism—like any other ideology—needs constant justification, we have a secret hope in our hearts that a moderate anti-Semitic wave, along with a deterioration in the economic situation in their countries of residence, will make Diaspora Jews realize that they belong with us. Is proof even necessary? No one will protest the assertion that the rise in anti-Semitism in France gave us some satisfaction, in the sense of “we warned you, didn’t we?” Late Prime Minister Ariel Sharon did not hesitate to make such a declaration, angering the French government and many Jews who see themselves as unconditional French citizens. Thousands of Jews from France who see Israel as a lifeboat, as an insurance policy, purchased apartments here and raised real estate prices in the coastal cities. That’s good. It proves Zionism was right. Furthermore, no one can deny that the economic crisis in the Soviet empire, coupled with the nesting anti-Semitism there, were the cause of the immigration to Israel of about 1 million Jews and their non-Jewish relatives, most of whom have no affiliation to Jewish culture. Neither can anyone contradict the embarrassing fact that Israel worked to lock the gates to the US, the opening of which may have directed many of these Jews and their relatives there, and perhaps even most of them. 

It was not the Jewish immigrants’ welfare that we saw before our eyes, but the state’s reinforcement. While the act of blocking and directing the Jews to Israel is ethically dubious, it was justified by the Zionist ideology which asserts that a normalization of the Jewish situation—in other words, concentrating the Jewish people in its own territory—is the only thing that will save us from another Holocaust and, according to some people, will even speed up the Messiah’s arrival. 

The Jews’ comfortable situation in America raises doubts as to whether it was worthwhile to gamble on the establishment of a Jewish state. The normalization did not provide us, the Israelis, with a normal existence and did not lessen the anti-Semitism which is now drawing some of its arguments from the way we are managing the conflict with the Palestinians. There are Israelis whose parents or grandparents immigrated to Israel out a belief that this is where the agonizing historical journey will end, and now their offspring are learning that the promise has not been fulfilled. 

In order to remove these malignant doubts, it would be good to have some anti-Semitism in America. Not serious anti-Semitism, not pogroms, not persecutions that will empty America from its Jews, as we need them there, but just a taste of this pungent stuff, so that we can restore our faith in Zionism. 

donderdag 17 augustus 2017

NATO‘s War Crimes: The Crime of Propaganda

NATO‘s War Crimes: The Crime of Propaganda

 122 
  69  0 
 
  197
The NATO military alliance is a world encompassing threat. It is now conducting various forms of hybrid warfare against Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and most of Africa. They have destroyed directly or are largely responsible for the destruction of the socialist nations of the USSR, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and too many to name in Latin America, Africa and Asia. Destruction is the fate that each nation on earth can expect unless it pays homage and obeisance to these neo-feudal overlords who promise protection in return for national servitude, in return for the complete surrender of their people and natural resources to increase the rate of profit for the capital that controls the NATO military machine. For NATO is first and foremost the armed fist not only of the United States and its allies as nations, but is the armed fist of the capitalists of those nations who are prepared to strike against any nation, capitalist or socialist, that stands in their way of obtaining profit.
The primary concern they have, in order to preserve their control, is for the preservation of the new feudal mythology that they have created; that the world is a dangerous place, that they are the protectors, that the danger is omnipresent, eternal, and omnidirectional, comes from without, and comes from within. The mythology is constructed and presented through all media; journals, films, television, radio, music, advertising, books, the internet in all its variety; all the information systems available are used to create and maintain scenarios and dramas to convince the people that they, the protectors, are the good and all others are the bad. We are bombarded with this message incessantly. They have succeeded into luring us to all their communication platforms, so that no one is able to ignore the constant flow of information into their consciousness and their subconscious. They have us locked to our screens. The have our attention. They have us hypnotised and under this state of hypnosis we are fed so many images we cannot take any of them in and so we drown in the river of information washing over us, barely able to breathe, unable to think, blind from looking.
The use of propaganda, and by propaganda I mean here the use of lies, inventions, fabrications, distortions and misrepresentations of reality in order to evoke an emotional response in the receiver of the desired type and desired action to follow, is a primary pillar of the mythology they create. The immediate means of delivery is through the news media. To turn on the television these days to watch the political, national and world “news” is a surreal experience. You have a dissociative experience as the presenters present not “news” but carefully crafted scripts inventing scenarios out of whole cloth that have nothing to do with what is really happening in any given situation. Even the weather “news” is moulded to keep mention of abrupt climate change to a minimum and sports “news” seems like a rehearsal for war news to come as our team smashes their team with our catastrophic weapons, erases them from the earth, never to play again.
But whatever form the propaganda takes it is a crime against the people, a crime against the republic, a crime against democracy, and since it is a part of the hybrid warfare campaign being conducted and because it is used to provoke a large aggressive general war, it is a war crime.
It is a crime against the people because the people are in essence the state, the nation. The leaders of our nations are merely our representatives placed in positions of power through various, more or less “democratic” mechanisms to act for our benefit, on our behalf. But when these leaders instead represent secret cabals of financiers and industrialists who want to use the government machinery for their private benefit against the interests of their people then they have betrayed the people, have sold them out to the highest bidder. Their lies flow from this betrayal for if their wars were just they would not need to use propaganda. But their wars are not just, they are the actions of gangsters writ large and so to get the people to go along, to fool them, they, by necessity, have to lie to the people.
It is a crime against democracy for the same reason, for democracy means that representatives of the people put in positions of power have a duty to inform the people honestly on all issues, to present all the facts and arguments, and most importantly, fulfil their duty to preserve the peace and to seek peaceful resolutions of differences between nations. But again, their wars for the profit of a few are always against the interests of the people and so the lies become part of the system of control, and with each lie the grave of democracy is dug deeper and deeper.
It is a crime against the republic because the republic is the people ruling themselves, in the name of the people, not the people ruled by a monarch or emperor, who rule in their own name. So when the leaders of a republic lie to the people of the republic they repudiate the republic and act against its interests and for the private interests of those who control them. They subvert the republic and destroy it.
It is a war crime because propaganda is used to provoke war, to sustain war, to turn other people, declared to be the enemy, into beings that need to be killed. It robs them of their humanity, of their kinship with us, their desires and dreams, and makes them into vermin to be destroyed with ease and even joy in the killing. It turns us into salivating monsters calling for death of the other and cheering when the bombs explode; turns us all into the Hilary Clinton lunatic who cackled like some satanic demon as she watched a great man cut to pieces before her eyes.
I could give dozens, hundreds, thousands of examples of how the propaganda is being used. The New York Times, BBC, CNN, CBC and the rest of the western media are full of it every day and every day worse than the day before, against Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Syria Venezuela, all the known targets. We all sense that the intensity if it is increasing, the vitriol becoming more hysterical and absurd with every headline.
The journalists who write these propaganda pieces and the presenters who read them on television are among the worst of criminals as they sit there looking attractive, with their fake smiles and fake concern, while taking lots of money to lie to our faces every day. It takes a very low person to sit there and lie to their fellow citizens so easily. It takes someone who has no sense of morality whatsoever. One could say they are sociopaths. But criminals they are and they deserve to be in the dock with the leaders that hand them the scripts they read so willingly.
For propaganda is a threat to peace itself. It is not only necessary to eliminate nuclear weapons and armies, it is also necessary to eliminate the psychological weapons that are used to justify, provoke and prolong war. Lenin once said that “disarmament is an ideal of socialism” and it was, we must not forget, the USSR that developed ideals of international peace and responsibility for wars of aggression. The successor state of Russia still relies on these principles.
On the second day of the creation of Soviet power the Decree on Peace was issued that made it a matter of state policy that aggressive war is a crime. Up until then it was assumed that nation states had an inherent right to go to war for their own interests. War propaganda is a way of preparing for aggressive war and consequently is a war crime. This was confirmed at the Nuremberg Tribunal in 1946.
This was echoed in the Resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations of November 3, 1947 that denounced war propaganda;
“The General Assembly condemns all forms of propaganda, in whatsoever country conducted, which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.”
A Soviet draft definition of aggression presented to the General Assembly in 1957 defined war propaganda as ideological aggression. Their draft stated that a state has committed ideological aggression when it “encourages war propaganda, encourages propaganda for the use of atomic or other weapons of mass extermination and stimulates nazi-fascist views, racial or national superiority, or hatred and disdain for other peoples.”
But before that the Supreme Soviet on March 12, 1950 passed a law on the defence of peace that stated:
“The Supreme Soviet of the USSR is guided by the high principles of the Soviet peace policy, which seeks to strengthen peace and friendly relations between the peoples, recognises that human conscience and the concept of right of the peoples, who, during one generation suffered the calamities of two wars, cannot accept that the conduct of war propaganda remain unpunished, and approves the proclamation of the Second World Congress of the Partisans of Peace, who expressed the will of the entire progressive mankind concerning the prohibition and condemnation of criminal war propaganda.
“The Supreme Soviet decrees,
  1. To recognise that war propaganda under whatever form it is made, undermines the cause of peace, creates the threat of new war and is the graves crime against humanity.
  2. To bring to court person guilty of war propaganda and to try them as having committed a most grave criminal offense.”
The western powers blocked a Russian UN resolution at that time to denounce war propaganda even though it was in accord with the principles of the United Nations Charter which makes it a duty of all member states to preserve the peace. The west relied on arguments of “free speech” arguments that do not hold water since war propaganda is not designed to enlighten people but to twist their minds into thoughts of hatred and war.
The Rome Statute today contains a clause that arguably encompasses these principles in Article 5, dealing with aggression, though this clause is not yet in effect. It is one of the grave problems with the International Criminal Court, that aside from being controlled effectively by the US and European Union for their purposes, its statute does not include a specific section on war propaganda. But then the United States and its allies prevented the inclusion of such a clause just as they prevented the adoption of the resolution at the UN in the 1950’s so that they could continue using war propaganda as part of their arsenal of world control.
So, the criminal dossier against NATO grows with the crimes committed. One day we can hope that those responsible for the war propaganda used against us will face the peoples’ justice but in the meantime we have to be aware that when we are confronted with it, when we open a newspaper, turn on the television, or radio, click that link on the internet, we are the victims of a war crime, the use of war propaganda as part of the crime of aggression, each and every one of us. And if that does not make you angry then what hope is there for peace in this world?
Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for a number of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published his novel “Beneath the Clouds. He writes essays on international law, politics and world events, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Featured image is from the author.

Narcissistic Personality Disorder in a Narcissistic Epoch

The State of Trump’s Brain

Photo by Kristoffer Trolle | CC BY 2.0<.a>
In a previous brief publication (Posted on www.counterpunch.org May 17,2017, Diagnostic Conclusions) I discussed the diagnosis “Narcissistic Personality Disorder.” While I mentioned no name (adhering to the psychiatric admonition that one should not diagnose a patient without having completed a direct thorough examination), it was perfectly clear about whom I was referring.  I now believe that not only does he fulfill all of the criteria for this disorder to a remarkable degree, but that his behavior has become worse than I thought and that not all of this can be ascribed to his personality disorder, but there is adequate evidence of deteriorating brain function.
Sharon Begley in a brief but wonderful paper, (MEDPAGE TODAY Neurology-General Neurology, “Does the Way Trump Speaks Reveal an Underlying Problem?” By Sharon Begley, STAT News, May 23, 2017) presents compelling evidence of Trump’s cognitive decline.  She bases her opinion on several studies that analyze his previous language productions that were articulate with sophisticated vocabulary and construction as contrasted with his current verbal productions and tweets that are frequently incoherent, often rambling and never, except in reading prepared material, display any of his previous superior use of language.  This contrast between past and current functioning is detailed strikingly in this paper and I urge everyone to read it.
The other striking phenomena that I observe is that President Trump’s productions are frequently destructive of his own goals and contrary to many earlier positions including earlier warm and complimentary statements about Hillary Clinton and recent vicious attacks continuing long after the election. His obvious and frequent lies, often are so obvious as to lack any degree of credibility and often at the sophistication and intellectual level of a young child. He also attacks almost everyone of importance to him in a self-destructive manner. These are not behaviors of a rational individual.
Sadly one is forced to the conclusion that we have a president whose brain health is not what we would want of our leader.   This seems particularly dangerous because of his bellicosity as well as his resistance to advise.
Ms. Begley’s paper also briefly comments on President Ronald Regan’s speech suggesting decline in brain function prior to his diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease.
I have specific memories of personal concern about Reagan. When it came out that serious and illegal activities had occurred under his watch his genial good disposition and willingness to accept advice precluded violent opposition. The reaction was more like “there goes goofy but beloved grandpa again.”  I didn’t realize it at the time but there seemed to be a belief that he was under the control of a well-functioning administration. If anything the public anger was principally directed at wayward staff members and the president was given a pass.
The situation with Trump is quite different. I believe that he has a serious personality disorder as well as a brain disorder.  I believe that it is time to call a spade a spade. This man is not only not fit to be the President, but he is a serious menace to the whole country.
Trump’s verbal production not only daily exhibits his language disorder as well as his personality disorder, but also features several other disturbing trends. One, as mentioned above, is frequently counterproductive to his very goals. He does not appear to be able to evaluate how they will be received. This is statistically evident in his dropping ratings, even when in the typical “honeymoon” early phase of a presidential term. In spite of all of the evidence that his approach is failing his response is to “double down.”  Another frightening aspect of Trump is his omnipotence and great difficulty in accepting advice from his own hand picked staff. If I had to characterize which group he is trying to please (other than himself of course) it would be to the folks with a militia orientation or membership and a danger to our society. Trump’s response to the recent events in Charlottesville appears to support this notion.
I am terribly frightened. The amount of power that this man can unleash may produce a disaster of totally unprecedented proportions. The threats he issues have a grade school mentality. This has escalated in their potential severity in his childish “I dare you” responses to North Korea. As the polling numbers drop further, and I believe they will, President Trump is likely, in my opinion, to attempt to achieve the popularity and status he desires by an act of war and, I predict it will not be on the scale as our silly invasion of Grenada.
What should we do? This brief paper is my way of speaking out.  I ask everyone with similar views find ways to speak out, including writing to your congressional representatives.  I believe that this man is serious disturbed and dangerous and must be removed from office.   Are there grounds for impeachment?  I sure hope so.
More articles by: