Tôi lớn lên trong một nền huy hoàng thuộc màn ảnh bài bản của Mỹ, hầu như tất cả điều này là một sự bóp méo thực trạng. Tôi đã chẳng biết rằng chính Hồng Quân Sô Viết mới là lực phá hủy hầu hết guồng máy chiến tranh của Đức Quốc Xã" ( “I grew up on a cinematic diet of American glory, almost all of it a distortion. I had no idea that it was the Red Army that had destroyed most of the Nazi war machine.” )
Ông Paul Craig Roberts giới thiệu bài viết "Tại Sao Sự Trỗi Dậy của chủ nghĩa Phát Xít tại Âu Châu một lần nữa là vấn đề" Why the rise of fascism is again the issue. Trong bài Paul Craig Roberts lẫn John Pilger đào xới lại đống rác giáo dục lịch sử kiểu phim ảnh của Âu Mỹ đã từng giảng dạy nghiên cứu trong các đại học Âu Mỹ Úc hơn nửa thế kỷ qua rằng Mỹ là cứu tinh của nhân loại.. Và rằng kẻ hiếu chiến gây tai họa là Đức, Nhật .. Và rằng Âu Mỹ và chủ nghĩa tư bản với các định chế của nó là tốt nhất, đem đến hạnh phúc cho nhân loại ... Tất cả chỉ là một tiến trình bóp méo sự thât bằng quyền lực thông tin phim ảnh khổng lồ của Âu Mỹ mà thôi.
Nó như "lịch sử 6 triệu người Do Thái bị hơi ngạt", một loại lịch sử không chứng cớ ngoài các lời kể được củng cố bằng phim ảnh Hollywood với kỹ nghệ làm tiền của bọn tài phiệt Do Thái.
Do Thái (JEWS) không phải là một "chủng loại giống người", DO THÁI là một tôn giáo theo mẫu hệ. Bất cứ ai được đẻ ra từ một phụ nữ tín đồ "Do Thái Giáo" đều mặc nhiên là một người Do Thái giáo... Như vậy cái gọi là "người do thái giáo" sinh ra từ không biết bao nhiêu người Bố thuộc các sắc dân, tôn giáo khác, làm sao là một chủng nòi sắc dân được?
Do Thái không phải là một "giống nòi đặc biệt được Chúa chọn" như tuyên truyền... Nhưng nó đã được tuyên truyền trong học đường sách báo, phim ảnh một cách thường trực.. và trở thành sự thật theo tín lý mê tín.
Không chỉ riệng các loại lịch sử, dân tộc sử, tôn giáo bị hư cấu bóp méo, mà ngay cả các "nghiên cứu khoa học" cũng bị bóp méo cho mục tiêu chính trị.. như thực phẩm, di tính v.v nguy hại nhất vẫn là những "kiến thức" về chính tri kinh tế, những lý thuyết được bẻ méo nhồi nhét thành GIẢO THUYẾT về TÀI CHÍNH, NGÂN HÀNG, TIỀN TỆ, ĐỊNH CHẾ v.v đang tràn ngập trong các giảng đường đại học hàng đầu thế giới. Và các ủy ban TIẾN SĨ thiết lập những điều lệ sao cho các ứng viên tiến sĩ KHÔNG THỂ CHỌN MỘT CHỦ ĐỀ (THESIS) đi ra ngoài tầm đã được định sẵn, hoặc vào những lãnh vực "cấm kị" thuộc "thuyết âm mưu". Đó là lý do chúng ta đang chứng kiến hàng hàng lớp lớp các "tiến sĩ" nhưng ngây ngô hoang tưởng dại dột hơn trẻ lên ba, như Stephen Kim.
7-3-2015
nkptc
Crazed Washington Drives the World to the Final War
Crazed Washington Drives the World to the Final War
Paul Craig Roberts
John Pilger is the kind of well-informed, hard-hitting journalist with gobs of integrity that no longer exists in the Western mainstream media. He has the most distinguished career of all in the business.
In the article below he brings stunning information to one of my own themes–the creation by Washington and its NATO vassals of an artificial reality consisting entirely of propaganda into which Washington has placed the entire Western world and all outside who inspire to be part of it. Westerners live in The Matrix, and the presstitutes keep them there. The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, NPR, and the TV channels perform as agents (as in the Matrix film) actively suppressing any glimmer of factual reality.
Western people have no comprehension of the real reasons for Washington’s murderous interventions in Yugoslavia, Middle East, Afghanistan, Libya, Ukraine, Indonesia, or Latin America. The most transparent lies are fed to people too ignorant to recognize the lies. The lies have cost huge numbers of deaths and injuries and are leading directly to war with Russia and China.
It is probably too late to stop this war. The war is inevitable because Washington’s doctrine of world hegemony does not permit the existence of other strong countries with independent foreign policies. Unless the House-of-Card US economy collapses, the only way Russia and China can avoid war is to accept Washington’s overlordship.
John Pilger himself speaks of growing up inside The Matrix as did all of us:
“I grew up on a cinematic diet of American glory, almost all of it a distortion. I had no idea that it was the Red Army that had destroyed most of the Nazi war machine.”
I doubt that even the most determined of us ever become completely free of the disinformation in which we are indoctrinated. Pilger himself still shows traces of it when he assumes that Hitler started World War II by invading Europe when in fact Great Britain and France initiated World War II when they declared war on Germany. Hitler’s invasion of Europe was a response to the declaration of war on Germany. From day one the propaganda was that Germany started World War II by rolling up the British and French armies. This lie was enshrined in 1946 by the Nuremberg Tribunal when the Tribunal defined “the supreme international crime” to be “to initiate a war of aggression” and ascribed this crime to Germany.
The Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes are more guilty of “the supreme international crime” than was National Socialist Germany. Today the crazed Washington warmongers are driving toward war with Russia.
Those pathetic Americans who think that their government is so good and pure and only commits wrongs by mistake and would never “kill its own people” need to remember the response of the US high command to the report that American POWs were in Nagasaki: “Targets previously assigned for Centerboard (the atomic bomb attack) remain unchanged.” Washington cared no more about its own soldiers than Washington cared about the innocent civilians of a country whose government was desperately trying to surrender. If you have any doubt that the entire history of the United States is one of murder and mayhem, you need to read Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States.
The Nazis have returned. They are ensconced in the governments in Washington, London, and Germany. The New Nazis have made certain that there has been war every year of this 21st century.
Pilger tells the truth about these wars:
Why the rise of fascism is again the issue — John Pilger
26 February 2015
The recent 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz was a reminder of the great crime of fascism, whose Nazi iconography is embedded in our consciousness. Fascism is preserved as history, as flickering footage of goose-stepping blackshirts, their criminality terrible and clear. Yet in the same liberal societies, whose war-making elites urge us never to forget, the accelerating danger of a modern kind of fascism is suppressed; for it is their fascism.
“To initiate a war of aggression…,” said the Nuremberg Tribunal judges in 1946, “is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
Had the Nazis not invaded Europe, Auschwitz and the Holocaust would not have happened. Had the United States and its satellites not initiated their war of aggression in Iraq in 2003, almost a million people would be alive today; and Islamic State, or ISIS, would not have us in thrall to its savagery. They are the progeny of modern fascism, weaned by the bombs, bloodbaths and lies that are the surreal theatre known as news.
Like the fascism of the 1930s and 1940s, big lies are delivered with the precision of a metronome: thanks to an omnipresent, repetitive media and its virulent censorship by omission. Take the catastrophe in Libya.
In 2011, Nato launched 9,700 “strike sorties” against Libya, of which more than a third were aimed at civilian targets. Uranium warheads were used; the cities of Misurata and Sirte were carpet-bombed. The Red Cross identified mass graves, and Unicef reported that “most [of the children killed] were under the age of ten”.
The public sodomising of the Libyan president Muammar Gaddafi with a “rebel” bayonet was greeted by the then US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, with the words: “We came, we saw, he died.” His murder, like the destruction of his country, was justified with a familiar big lie; he was planning “genocide” against his own people. “We knew… that if we waited one more day,” said President Obama, “Benghazi, a city the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.”
This was the fabrication of Islamist militias facing defeat by Libyan government forces. They told Reuters there would be “a real bloodbath, a massacre like we saw in Rwanda”. Reported on March 14, 2011, the lie provided the first spark for Nato’s inferno, described by David Cameron as a “humanitarian intervention”.
Secretly supplied and trained by Britain’s SAS, many of the “rebels” would become ISIS, whose latest video offering shows the beheading of 21 Coptic Christian workers seized in Sirte, the city destroyed on their behalf by Nato bombers.
For Obama, David Cameron and then French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Gaddafi’s true crime was Libya’s economic independence and his declared intention to stop selling Africa’s greatest oil reserves in US dollars. The petrodollar is a pillar of American imperial power.
Gaddafi audaciously planned to underwrite a common African currency backed by gold, establish an all-Africa bank and promote economic union among poor countries with prized resources. Whether or not this would happen, the very notion was intolerable to the US as it prepared to “enter” Africa and bribe African governments with military “partnerships”.
Following Nato’s attack under cover of a Security Council resolution, Obama, wrote Garikai Chengu, “confiscated $30 billion from Libya’s Central Bank, which Gaddafi had earmarked for the establishment of an African Central Bank and the African gold backed dinar currency”.
The “humanitarian war” against Libya drew on a model close to western liberal hearts, especially in the media. In 1999, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair sent Nato to bomb Serbia, because, they lied, the Serbs were committing “genocide” against ethnic Albanians in the secessionist province of Kosovo. David Scheffer, US ambassador-at-large for war crimes [sic], claimed that as many as “225,000 ethnic Albanian men aged between 14 and 59″ might have been murdered. Both Clinton and Blair evoked the Holocaust and “the spirit of the Second World War”. The West’s heroic allies were the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), whose criminal record was set aside. The British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, told them to call him any time on his mobile phone.
With the Nato bombing over, and much of Serbia’s infrastructure in ruins, along with schools, hospitals, monasteries and the national TV station, international forensic teams descended upon Kosovo to exhume evidence of the “holocaust”. The FBI failed to find a single mass grave and went home. The Spanish forensic team did the same, its leader angrily denouncing “a semantic pirouette by the war propaganda machines”. A year later, a United Nations tribunal on Yugoslavia announced the final count of the dead in Kosovo: 2,788. This included combatants on both sides and Serbs and Roma murdered by the KLA. There was no genocide. The “holocaust” was a lie. The Nato attack had been fraudulent.
Behind the lie, there was serious purpose. Yugoslavia was a uniquely independent, multi-ethnic federation that had stood as a political and economic bridge in the Cold War. Most of its utilities and major manufacturing was publicly owned. This was not acceptable to the expanding European Community, especially newly united Germany, which had begun a drive east to capture its “natural market” in the Yugoslav provinces of Croatia and Slovenia. By the time the Europeans met at Maastricht in 1991 to lay their plans for the disastrous eurozone, a secret deal had been struck; Germany would recognise Croatia. Yugoslavia was doomed.
In Washington, the US saw that the struggling Yugoslav economy was denied World Bank loans. Nato, then an almost defunct Cold War relic, was reinvented as imperial enforcer. At a 1999 Kosovo “peace” conference in Rambouillet, in France, the Serbs were subjected to the enforcer’s duplicitous tactics. The Rambouillet accord included a secret Annex B, which the US delegation inserted on the last day. This demanded the military occupation of the whole of Yugoslavia – a country with bitter memories of the Nazi occupation – and the implementation of a “free-market economy” and the privatisation of all government assets. No sovereign state could sign this. Punishment followed swiftly; Nato bombs fell on a defenceless country. It was the precursor to the catastrophes in Afghanistan and Iraq, Syria and Libya, and Ukraine.
Since 1945, more than a third of the membership of the United Nations – 69 countries – have suffered some or all of the following at the hands of America’s modern fascism. They have been invaded, their governments overthrown, their popular movements suppressed, their elections subverted, their people bombed and their economies stripped of all protection, their societies subjected to a crippling siege known as “sanctions”. The British historian Mark Curtis estimates the death toll in the millions. In every case, a big lie was deployed.
“Tonight, for the first time since 9/11, our combat mission in Afghanistan is over.” These were opening words of Obama’s 2015 State of the Union address. In fact, some 10,000 troops and 20,000 military contractors (mercenaries) remain in Afghanistan on indefinite assignment. “The longest war in American history is coming to a responsible conclusion,” said Obama. In fact, more civilians were killed in Afghanistan in 2014 than in any year since the UN took records. The majority have been killed – civilians and soldiers – during Obama’s time as president.
The tragedy of Afghanistan rivals the epic crime in Indochina. In his lauded and much quoted book ‘The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives’, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the godfather of US policies from Afghanistan to the present day, writes that if America is to control Eurasia and dominate the world, it cannot sustain a popular democracy, because “the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion… Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilisation.” He is right. As WikiLeaks and Edward Snowden have revealed, a surveillance and police state is usurping democracy. In 1976, Brzezinski, then President Carter’s National Security Advisor, demonstrated his point by dealing a death blow to Afghanistan’s first and only democracy. Who knows this vital history?
In the 1960s, a popular revolution swept Afghanistan, the poorest country on earth, eventually overthrowing the vestiges of the aristocratic regime in 1978. The People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) formed a government and declared a reform programme that included the abolition of feudalism, freedom for all religions, equal rights for women and social justice for the ethnic minorities. More than 13,000 political prisoners were freed and police files publicly burned.
The new government introduced free medical care for the poorest; peonage was abolished, a mass literacy programme was launched. For women, the gains were unheard of. By the late 1980s, half the university students were women, and women made up almost half of Afghanistan’s doctors, a third of civil servants and the majority of teachers. “Every girl,” recalled Saira Noorani, a female surgeon, “could go to high school and university. We could go where we wanted and wear what we liked. We used to go to cafes and the cinema to see the latest Indian film on a Friday and listen to the latest music. It all started to go wrong when the mujaheddin started winning. They used to kill teachers and burn schools. We were terrified. It was funny and sad to think these were the people the West supported.”
The PDPA government was backed by the Soviet Union, even though, as former Secretary of State Cyrus Vance later admitted, “there was no evidence of any Soviet complicity [in the revolution]”. Alarmed by the growing confidence of liberation movements throughout the world, Brzezinski decided that if Afghanistan was to succeed under the PDPA, its independence and progress would offer the “threat of a promising example”.
On July 3, 1979, the White House secretly authorised support for tribal “fundamentalist” groups known as the mujaheddin, a program that grew to over $500 million a year in U.S. arms and other assistance. The aim was the overthrow of Afghanistan’s first secular, reformist government. In August 1979, the US embassy in Kabul reported that “the United States’ larger interests… would be served by the demise of [the PDPA government], despite whatever setbacks this might mean for future social and economic reforms in Afghanistan.” The italics are mine.
The mujaheddin were the forebears of al-Qaeda and Islamic State. They included Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who received tens of millions of dollars in cash from the CIA. Hekmatyar’s specialty was trafficking in opium and throwing acid in the faces of women who refused to wear the veil. Invited to London, he was lauded by Prime Minister Thatcher as a “freedom fighter”.
Such fanatics might have remained in their tribal world had Brzezinski not launched an international movement to promote Islamic fundamentalism in Central Asia and so undermine secular political liberation and “destabilise” the Soviet Union, creating, as he wrote in his autobiography, “a few stirred up Muslims”. His grand plan coincided with the ambitions of the Pakistani dictator, General Zia ul-Haq, to dominate the region. In 1986, the CIA and Pakistan’s intelligence agency, the ISI, began to recruit people from around the world to join the Afghan jihad. The Saudi multi-millionaire Osama bin Laden was one of them. Operatives who would eventually join the Taliban and al-Qaeda, were recruited at an Islamic college in Brooklyn, New York, and given paramilitary training at a CIA camp in Virginia. This was called “Operation Cyclone”. Its success was celebrated in 1996 when the last PDPA president of Afghanistan, Mohammed Najibullah – who had gone before the UN General Assembly to plead for help – was hanged from a streetlight by the Taliban.
The “blowback” of Operation Cyclone and its “few stirred up Muslims” was September 11, 2001. Operation Cyclone became the “war on terror”, in which countless men, women and children would lose their lives across the Muslim world, from Afghanistan to Iraq, Yemen, Somalia and Syria. The enforcer’s message was and remains: “You are with us or against us.”
The common thread in fascism, past and present, is mass murder. The American invasion of Vietnam had its “free fire zones”, “body counts” and “collateral damage”. In the province of Quang Ngai, where I reported from, many thousands of civilians (“gooks”) were murdered by the US; yet only one massacre, at My Lai, is remembered. In Laos and Cambodia, the greatest aerial bombardment in history produced an epoch of terror marked today by the spectacle of joined-up bomb craters which, from the air, resemble monstrous necklaces. The bombing gave Cambodia its own ISIS, led by Pol Pot.
Today, the world’s greatest single campaign of terror entails the execution of entire families, guests at weddings, mourners at funerals. These are Obama’s victims. According to the New York Times, Obama makes his selection from a CIA “kill list” presented to him every Tuesday in the White House Situation Room. He then decides, without a shred of legal justification, who will live and who will die. His execution weapon is the Hellfire missile carried by a pilotless aircraft known as a drone; these roast their victims and festoon the area with their remains. Each “hit” is registered on a faraway console screen as a “bugsplat”.
“For goose-steppers,” wrote the historian Norman Pollock, “substitute the seemingly more innocuous militarisation of the total culture. And for the bombastic leader, we have the reformer manque, blithely at work, planning and executing assassination, smiling all the while.”
Uniting fascism old and new is the cult of superiority. “I believe in American exceptionalism with every fibre of my being,” said Obama, evoking declarations of national fetishism from the 1930s. As the historian Alfred W. McCoy has pointed out, it was the Hitler devotee, Carl Schmitt, who said, “The sovereign is he who decides the exception.” This sums up Americanism, the world’s dominant ideology. That it remains unrecognised as a predatory ideology is the achievement of an equally unrecognised brainwashing. Insidious, undeclared, presented wittily as enlightenment on the march, its conceit insinuates western culture. I grew up on a cinematic diet of American glory, almost all of it a distortion. I had no idea that it was the Red Army that had destroyed most of the Nazi war machine, at a cost of as many as 13 million soldiers. By contrast, US losses, including in the Pacific, were 400,000. Hollywood reversed this.
The difference now is that cinema audiences are invited to wring their hands at the “tragedy” of American psychopaths having to kill people in distant places – just as the President himself kills them. The embodiment of Hollywood’s violence, the actor and director Clint Eastwood, was nominated for an Oscar this year for his movie, ‘American Sniper’, which is about a licensed murderer and nutcase. The New York Times described it as a “patriotic, pro-family picture which broke all attendance records in its opening days”.
There are no heroic movies about America’s embrace of fascism. During the Second World War, America (and Britain) went to war against Greeks who had fought heroically against Nazism and were resisting the rise of Greek fascism. In 1967, the CIA helped bring to power a fascist military junta in Athens – as it did in Brazil and most of Latin America. Germans and east Europeans who had colluded with Nazi aggression and crimes against humanity were given safe haven in the US; many were pampered and their talents rewarded. Wernher von Braun was the “father” of both the Nazi V-2 terror bomb and the US space programme.
In the 1990s, as former Soviet republics, eastern Europe and the Balkans became military outposts of Nato, the heirs to a Nazi movement in Ukraine were given their opportunity. Responsible for the deaths of thousands of Jews, Poles and Russians during the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, Ukrainian fascism was rehabilitated and its “new wave” hailed by the enforcer as “nationalists”.
This reached its apogee in 2014 when the Obama administration splashed out $5 billion on a coup against the elected government. The shock troops were neo-Nazis known as the Right Sector and Svoboda. Their leaders include Oleh Tyahnybok, who has called for a purge of the “Moscow-Jewish mafia” and “other scum”, including gays, feminists and those on the political left.
These fascists are now integrated into the Kiev coup government. The first deputy speaker of the Ukrainian parliament, Andriy Parubiy, a leader of the governing party, is co-founder of Svoboda. On February 14, Parubiy announced he was flying to Washington get “the USA to give us highly precise modern weaponry”. If he succeeds, it will be seen as an act of war by Russia.
No western leader has spoken up about the revival of fascism in the heart of Europe – with the exception of Vladimir Putin, whose people lost 22 million to a Nazi invasion that came through the borderland of Ukraine. At the recent Munich Security Conference, Obama’s Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, Victoria Nuland, ranted abuse about European leaders for opposing the US arming of the Kiev regime. She referred to the German Defence Minister as “the minister for defeatism”. It was Nuland who masterminded the coup in Kiev. The wife of Robert D. Kagan, a leading “neo-con” luminary and co-founder of the extreme right wing Project for a New American Century, she was foreign policy advisor to Dick Cheney.
Nuland’s coup did not go to plan. Nato was prevented from seizing Russia’s historic, legitimate, warm-water naval base in Crimea. The mostly Russian population of Crimea – illegally annexed to Ukraine by Nikita Krushchev in 1954 – voted overwhelmingly to return to Russia, as they had done in the 1990s. The referendum was voluntary, popular and internationally observed. There was no invasion.
At the same time, the Kiev regime turned on the ethnic Russian population in the east with the ferocity of ethnic cleansing. Deploying neo-Nazi militias in the manner of the Waffen-SS, they bombed and laid to siege cities and towns. They used mass starvation as a weapon, cutting off electricity, freezing bank accounts, stopping social security and pensions. More than a million refugees fled across the border into Russia. In the western media, they became unpeople escaping “the violence” caused by the “Russian invasion”. The Nato commander, General Breedlove – whose name and actions might have been inspired by Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove – announced that 40,000 Russian troops were “massing”. In the age of forensic satellite evidence, he offered none.
These Russian-speaking and bilingual people of Ukraine – a third of the population – have long sought a federation that reflects the country’s ethnic diversity and is both autonomous and independent of Moscow. Most are not “separatists” but citizens who want to live securely in their homeland and oppose the power grab in Kiev. Their revolt and establishment of autonomous “states” are a reaction to Kiev’s attacks on them. Little of this has been explained to western audiences.
On May 2, 2014, in Odessa, 41 ethnic Russians were burned alive in the trade union headquarters with police standing by. The Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh hailed the massacre as “another bright day in our national history”. In the American and British media, this was reported as a “murky tragedy” resulting from “clashes” between “nationalists” (neo-Nazis) and “separatists” (people collecting signatures for a referendum on a federal Ukraine).
The New York Times buried the story, having dismissed as Russian propaganda warnings about the fascist and anti-Semitic policies of Washington’s new clients. The Wall Street Journal damned the victims – “Deadly Ukraine Fire Likely Sparked by Rebels, Government Says”. Obama congratulated the junta for its “restraint”.
If Putin can be provoked into coming to their aid, his pre-ordained “pariah” role in the West will justify the lie that Russia is invading Ukraine. On January 29, Ukraine’s top military commander, General Viktor Muzhemko, almost inadvertently dismissed the very basis for US and EU sanctions on Russia when he told a news conference emphatically: “The Ukrainian army is not fighting with the regular units of the Russian Army”. There were “individual citizens” who were members of “illegal armed groups”, but there was no Russian invasion. This was not news. Vadym Prystaiko, Kiev’s Deputy Foreign Minister, has called for “full scale war” with nuclear-armed Russia.
On February 21, US Senator James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma, introduced a bill that would authorise American arms for the Kiev regime. In his Senate presentation, Inhofe used photographs he claimed were of Russian troops crossing into Ukraine, which have long been exposed as fakes. It was reminiscent of Ronald Reagan’s fake pictures of a Soviet installation in Nicaragua, and Colin Powell’s fake evidence to the UN of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
The intensity of the smear campaign against Russia and the portrayal of its president as a pantomime villain is unlike anything I have known as a reporter. Robert Parry, one of America’s most distinguished investigative journalists, who revealed the Iran-Contra scandal, wrote recently, “No European government, since Adolf Hitler’s Germany, has seen fit to dispatch Nazi storm troopers to wage war on a domestic population, but the Kiev regime has and has done so knowingly. Yet across the West’s media/political spectrum, there has been a studious effort to cover up this reality even to the point of ignoring facts that have been well established… If you wonder how the world could stumble into world war three – much as it did into world war one a century ago – all you need to do is look at the madness over Ukraine that has proved impervious to facts or reason.”
In 1946, the Nuremberg Tribunal prosecutor said of the German media: “The use made by Nazi conspirators of psychological warfare is well known. Before each major aggression, with some few exceptions based on expediency, they initiated a press campaign calculated to weaken their victims and to prepare the German people psychologically for the attack… In the propaganda system of the Hitler State it was the daily press and the radio that were the most important weapons.” In the Guardian on February 2, Timothy Garton-Ash called, in effect, for a world war. “Putin must be stopped,” said the headline. “And sometimes only guns can stop guns.” He conceded that the threat of war might “nourish a Russian paranoia of encirclement”; but that was fine. He name-checked the military equipment needed for the job and advised his readers that “America has the best kit”.
In 2003, Garton-Ash, an Oxford professor, repeated the propaganda that led to the slaughter in Iraq. Saddam Hussein, he wrote, “has, as [Colin] Powell documented, stockpiled large quantities of horrifying chemical and biological weapons, and is hiding what remains of them. He is still trying to get nuclear ones.” He lauded Blair as a “Gladstonian, Christian liberal interventionist”. In 2006, he wrote, “Now we face the next big test of the West after Iraq: Iran.”
The outbursts – or as Garton-Ash prefers, his “tortured liberal ambivalence” – are not untypical of those in the transatlantic liberal elite who have struck a Faustian deal. The war criminal Blair is their lost leader. The Guardian, in which Garton-Ash’s piece appeared, published a full-page advertisement for an American Stealth bomber. On a menacing image of the Lockheed Martin monster were the words: “The F-35. GREAT For Britain”. This American “kit” will cost British taxpayers £1.3 billion, its F-model predecessors having slaughtered across the world. In tune with its advertiser, a Guardian editorial has demanded an increase in military spending.
Once again, there is serious purpose. The rulers of the world want Ukraine not only as a missile base; they want its economy. Kiev’s new Finance Minister, Nataliwe Jaresko, is a former senior US State Department official in charge of US overseas “investment”. She was hurriedly given Ukrainian citizenship. They want Ukraine for its abundant gas; Vice President Joe Biden’s son is on the board of Ukraine’s biggest oil, gas and fracking company. The manufacturers of GM seeds, companies such as the infamous Monsanto, want Ukraine’s rich farming soil.
Above all, they want Ukraine’s mighty neighbour, Russia. They want to Balkanise or dismember Russia and exploit the greatest source of natural gas on earth. As the Arctic ice melts, they want control of the Arctic Ocean and its energy riches, and Russia’s long Arctic land border. Their man in Moscow used to be Boris Yeltsin, a drunk, who handed his country’s economy to the West. His successor, Putin, has re-established Russia as a sovereign nation; that is his crime.
The responsibility of the rest of us is clear. It is to identify and expose the reckless lies of warmongers and never to collude with them. It is to re-awaken the great popular movements that brought a fragile civilisation to modern imperial states. Most important, it is to prevent the conquest of ourselves: our minds, our humanity, our self respect. If we remain silent, victory over us is assured, and a holocaust beckons.
http://johnpilger.com/articles/why-the-rise-of-fascism-is-again-the-issue
Judaism:
Who Is A Jew?
by Rebecca Weiner
Judaism: Table of Contents | Jewish Holidays | Modern History
 |
Judaism is a religion as well as a nation and culture. Approximately 13.75 million people worldwide indentify as Jewish, with the vast majority living in either the United States or Israel.
Jews come in all shapes, sizes, ethnicities and nationalities. There are black Jews from Ethiopia, Chinese Jews from Shanghai and Indian Jews. Ther are Jews from Morocco and Iran, Jews from South America and Oceania. The practices and beliefs held by Jews range from those who openly identify as Orthodox and strictly observe ancient precepts to those that have nothing to do with the religion or culture.
Today, Judaism is comprised of four major movements: Orthodox, Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist. Most Israelis are often described as "secular," but the majority observe Jewish holidays and are very knowledgeable about Jewish history and culture, which is taught in public school. The Conservative and Reform movements are particularly strong in the United States, but have yet to make significant inroads in Israel. Reconstructionism is a small and relatively new movement. Orthodoxy has grown in recent years in the United States and remains the strongest movement in Israel. The Orthodox, more so than the other movements, are also divided among different sects.
The Jewish movements have different interpretations of the Torah, which lead to different rituals, spiritual practices and beliefs. The diversity of beliefs and practices has led to different definitions of "Who is a Jew." This question is not just philosophical, it has political and legal ramifications. In Israel, questions of Jewishness have implications for immigration, conversion, marriage, divorce and the allocation of government money.
Origins of the Words "Jew" & "Judaism"
The original name for the people we now call Jews was Hebrews. The word "Hebrew" (in Hebrew, "Ivri") is first used in the Torah to describe Abraham (Gen. 14:13). The word is apparently derived from the name Eber, one of Abraham's ancestors. Another tradition teaches that the word comes from the word "eyver," which means "the other side," referring to the fact that Abraham came from the other side of the Euphrates, or referring to the fact Abraham was separated from the other nations morally and spiritually.Another name used for the people is Children of Israel or Israelites, which refers to the fact that the people are descendants of Jacob, who was also called Israel.The word "Jew" (in Hebrew, "Yehudi") is derived from the name Judah, which was the name of one of Jacob's twelve sons. Judah was the ancestor of one of the tribes of Israel, which was named after him. Likewise, the word Judaism literally means "Judah-ism," that is, the religion of the Yehudim.Originally, the term Yehudi referred specifically to members of the tribe of Judah, as distinguished from the other tribes of Israel. However, after the death of King Solomon, the nation of Israel was split into two kingdoms: the kingdom of Judah and the kingdom of Israel (I Kings 12; II Chronicles 10). After that time, the word Yehudi could properly be used to describe anyone from the kingdom of Judah, which included the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi, as well as scattered settlements from other tribes. The most obvious biblical example of this usage is in Esther 2:5, where Mordecai is referred to as both a Yehudi and a member of the tribe of Benjamin.In approximately 722 B.C.E., the kingdom of Israel was conquered by Assyria and the ten tribes were exiled from the land (II Kings 17), which left only the tribes in Judah's kingdom to carry on Abraham's heritage. The people of Judah's kingdom called themselves and were known to other nations as Yehudim (Jews), a name still used today.In common speech, the word "Jew" is used to refer to all of the physical and spiritual descendants of Jacob/Israel, as well as to the patriarchs Abraham and Isaac and their wives, and the word "Judaism" is used to refer to their beliefs. Technically, this usage is inaccurate, just as it is technically inaccurate to use the word "Indian" to refer to the original inhabitants of the Americas. However, this technically inaccurate usage is common both within the Jewish community and outside of it, and is therefore used throughout this site.
Who is a Jew According to Halacha (Jewish Religious Law)?
According to Jewish law, a child born to a Jewish mother or an adult who has converted to Judaism is considered a Jew; one does not have to reaffirm their Jewishness or practice any of the laws of the Torah to be Jewish. According to Reform Judaism, a person is a Jew if they were born to either a Jewish mother or a Jewish father. Also, Reform Judaism stresses the importance of being raised Jewish; if a child is born to Jewish parents and was not raised Jewish then the child is not considered Jewish. According to the Orthodox movement, the father’s religion and whether the person practices is immaterial. No affirmation or upbringing is needed, as long as the mother was Jewish.Besides for differing opinions on patrilineal descent, the various streams also have different conversion practices. Conversion done under the auspices of an Orthodox rabbi, entails Jewish study, brit milah (for men), mikvah (for both men and women) and a stated commitment to follow the laws of the Torah. Conservative conversions use the same requirements as the Orthodox do; however, conversions by the Reform movement and other streams do not have the same requirements. Since the conversion practices are not uniform, many Orthodox Jews do not recognize Reform or Conservative conversions as valid and, hence, do not consider the converts Jews. Once a person has converted to Judaism, he is not referred to by any special term; he is as much a Jew as anyone born Jewish.
About Matrilineal Descent
Many people have asked why traditional Judaism uses matrilineal descent to determine Jewish status, especially because for tribal affiliation, priestly status and royalty, patrilineal descent determines membership.The Torah does not specifically state anywhere that matrilineal descent should be used; however, there are several passages in the Torah where the child of a Jewish woman and a non-Jewish man is considered a Jew, and several other passages where the child of a non-Jewish woman and a Jewish man is not considered a Jew.In Deuteronomy 7:1-5, G-d prohibits intermarriage, saying "he [ie, the non-Jewish male spouse] will cause your child to turn away from Me and they will worship the gods of others." The Torah does not include a similar concern is for the child of a non-Jewish female spouse. From this, one can infer that a child of a non-Jewish male spouse is Jewish and can be turned away from Judaism, but the child of a non-Jewish female spouse is not Jewish andturning away is not an issue. Also, Leviticus 24:10 speaks about the son of an Israelite woman and an Egyptian man as "among the community of Israel" (i.e., a Jew).On the other hand, in Ezra 10:2-3, the Jews returning to Israel vowed to put aside their non-Jewish wives and the children born to those wives. They could not have put aside those children if those children were Jews.Several people have asked how King David could be a Jew given that one of his female ancestors, Ruth, was not a Jew. However Ruth converted to Judaism before marrying Boaz and bearing Obed. (In Ruth 1:16 she states her intention to convert.) After she converted, Ruth was Jewish, and her children born after the conversion were Jewish as well. Even so, Ruth is David's paternal ancestor, so Ruth's Jewish identity or lack thereof would not impact King David's status as a Jew because King David's Jewish status is determined matrilineally.
Implications on Israeli Society
Immigration:In 1950, the Law of Return was passed in Israel stating that every Jew has the right to immigrate to Israel, and granting automatic citizenship and benefits to any Jew who makes aliyah. Jewish immigrants receive better benefits than non-Jewish immigrants, including guaranteed housing, ulpan (Hebrew language study), full tuition for graduate degrees, and other benefits including discounts on major purchases, such as cars and appliances. The absorption process is more arduous for non-Jews and may take many years, during which they might not have health insurance and other government services.Three famous cases tested the Law of Return and a Jew’s right to immediate citizenship. The first example involved Brother Daniel (born Oswald Rufeisen), a Jew who converted to Christianity during the Holocaust and had become a Carmelite Monk. During his youth, Rufeisen was active in a Zionist youth movement and fled to Vilna, Lithuania at the start of World War II. There he worked as a slave laborer and escaped to Mir where he worked for the police as a translator. Rufeisen took advantage of his position and smuggled arms to his Jewish friends and helped drive the police out from Mir before it was liquidated, saving nearly 300 Jews. Rufeisen hid in the forest and later a convent, where he decided to convert to Christianity. In 1962, Rufeisen, now Brother Daniel, applied to immigrate to Israel and, after being denied, he appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that despite the fact he was born to a Jewish mother, he had since converted and should not be recognized as a Jew by the State of Israel.Following the Brother Daniel case, a new regulation was adopted stating that individuals registered as Jews for the "nationality" and ‘religion" section of their identity cards must be Jews according to halacha and they must not practice another religion. The Shalit case challenged this new ruling. Benjamin Shalit married a non-Jewish Scottish woman. Since he was an Israeli, she and their children automatically received Israeli citizenship. The two considered themselves atheists, but part of a Jewish nation and wanted their children’s identity cards to state Jewish for the nationality designation and to remain blank for religion. The Ministry of Interior wanted to keep both designations blank, so the case was appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled in the Shalits’ favor.The decision sparked controversy and, in 1970, an amendment to the Law of Return passed stating that only persons born to a Jewish mother or who had converted to Judaism were allowed to immigrate to Israel under the Law of Return. This amendment did not specify what type of conversion is needed, thereby allowing different interpretations. Since the amendment was passed, religious parties in the Knesset have tried to change it to apply only to Orthodox conversions, a move that angered the Reform and Conservative movements in the United States, which felt that it was an attempt to delegitimize their movements.The Shoshanna Miller Case in 1980 tested the new amendment. She applied for citizenship under the Law of Return as a Reform convert. Initially her petition was refused and she appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled that she should be granted citizenship, in what became known as the Miller precedent.Conversion:Non-orthodox conversions done outside Israel are allowed; however, in Israel, only Orthodox conversions are accepted by the government and the Rabbinate. While the issue of conversion had sparked controversy in Israel for many years, the need for a comprehensive conversion policy was heightened after the arrival of 800,000 Russian immigrants in the late 1980's. They immigrated under the Law of Return, however, about 200,000 -300,000 were not Jewish according to halacha. To find a solution acceptable to Orthodox and non-Orthodox streams, the Neeman Committee was formed. In February 1998, Finance Minister Yaakov Neeman recommended that conversions should be done according to halacha through a special Conversion Court, and that a special institute would be created to prepare applicants for conversion, in which they could take courses offered by all streams of Judaism. The Neeman Committee’s proposal was endorsed by the Cabinet and the Knesset, however it was not accepted by the Chief Rabbinate. Lacking the support of the Rabbinate, the Neeman Committee’s proposals were never implemented.In December 1998, Jerusalem District Court Judge Vardi Zeiler ruled that Conservative and Reform converts are allowed to be registered at the Interior Ministry as Jews, regardless of where the conversion took place. Following this case, appeals were expected and legislation has been proposed to allow only Orthodox conversions. The conversion issue has yet to be resolved.The issue of conversion also became controversial after the arrival of thousands of Jews from Ethiopia. Ethiopian Jews did not practice any rituals or laws pertaining to the Oral Torah and, instead, practice a purer form of Biblical Judaism, which is different than mainstream Ashkenazic and Sephardic Judaism. Because of these differences and for other ritual purposes, the Rabbinate proposed a symbolic conversion of all Ethiopian Jews to be done before they married. The Ethiopians refused stating that it delegitimized them as Jews. Eventually the issue was circumvented as a rabbi sympathetic to their cause was able to register their marriages. Ethiopian rabbis still have difficulty gaining legitimacy for their marriages and divorces performed in Israel.Marriage and Divorce:Marriage ceremonies and divorce proceedings are not allowed to be performed or issued by Conservative or Reform rabbis in Israel. In fact, only Orthodox rabbis are allowed to marry Jews and many secular Israelis travel to Cyprus and other foreign countries to have a civil ceremony, which they can not receive in Israel. Israel does recognize marriages performed abroad by the Conservative and Reform movements; however, divorces issued abroad by rabbis from these movements are not recognized by the Rabbinate in Israel.One of the reasons why issues of conversion, marriage and divorce are so important to religious Jews is because of the possibility of mamzerim (illegitimates). In a Jewish divorce, a get must be signed by the husband. If he does not sign, then the divorce is not official and the couple is still legally married according to Jewish law. If the get is not issued, the woman is not free to remarry and have children, and if she does remarry and have children, then those children are considered to be bastards according to Jewish law. (There is no biblical injunction against multiple wives, however, it has been ruled illegal according to the Rabbis.) The bastard child cannot be issued a Jewish identity card and will not be permitted to marry another Jew in Israel. The illegitimate child is only permitted to marry other illegitimate children. Hence, many Orthodox Rabbis claim the reason they want to retain control over conversions, marriage and divorce is to avoid the problem of mamzerim.Allocation of Funding:In Israel, another political implication for the "Who is a Jew" question is the allocation of government funds. The government of Israel sets aside part of their annual budget for religious purposes, much of these funds are then distributed by the Ministry of Religious Affairs. In 1994, the High Court of Justice ordered the allocation of funds to non-Orthodox institutions in Israel. The Ministry of Religious Affairs agreed to abide by the ruling of the court, however, officials decided that they would not earmark funds for non-Orthodox supplementary religious education or for non-Orthodox Torah culture funds.In 1995, the Ministry of Religious Affairs gave less than a half of a percent of the available funds to Hebrew Union College (HUC), the Reform Rabbinical Institute in Israel. Angered by the poor funding, petitions were sent to High Court to request increased funding for HUC and other Reform institutions.Funding is also determined by local religious councils. Until recently, non-Orthodox rabbis were unable to sit in religious councils, which control funds to local institutions.Alternative sources of funding have been found by the Conservative and Reform movements for their schools and programs. Funding for non-Orthodox schools, such as the Tali schools (run by the Masorti movement in Israel) has received funds from foundations, non-governmental organizations and the Jewish Agency.
Sources: *The sections on the origins of the word "Jew" and matrilineal descent were written by Tracey Rich on her Judaism 101 site.
David Singer, Ed. American Jewish Year Book 2000, NY: American Jewish Committee, 2000.
"The Conversion Crisis: Testing the principles." Anti-Defamation League
"Conversion Law Update IV." B’nai Brith World Center. June 05, 1998.
"Jewish Identity." Encyclopedia Judaica. CD-ROM edition 1995.
Landau, David and Hugh Orgel."1998: ‘Who is a Jew’ controversy." Jewish Telegraph Association.
"Law of Return." Israeli Foreign Ministry
Meirorich, Harvey. The Shaping of the Masorti Judaism in Israel. American Jewish Committee
"News from the Courts and the Knesset, Nov. 1st." The Masorti Movement in Israel.
"Religion, Courts and Elections." Jerusalem Journal. January 27, 1999
Report of the Neeman Committee on Conversion Proposals, Israeli Foreign Ministry. February 11, 1998.
Schneider, Alan. "Conversion Law: Update III." B’nai Brith World Center. February 10, 1998.
Tabory, Efraim. Reform Judaism in Israel: Progress and Prospects. American Jewish Committee.
Twersky, David. "The strange case of ‘Brother Daniel’." Jewish World Review. August 5, 1998.
Who is a Jew? Judaism 101.
No comments:
Post a Comment