On Dec 1st 2010 I posted this story
http://www.truthinourtime.com/2010/12/google-banning-word-jew.html
About google banning the word jew on their search engine since apparently this was sending too much traffic to sites like this where Whites are on to their schemes.
Dec 3rd 2010 I receive the following email from the kikes at google
Hello,
We continually review all publishers according to our program policies (
https://www.google.com/support/adsense/bin/answer.py?answer=48182&stc=aspe-3pp-en
) and Terms and Conditions (
https://www.google.com/adsense/localized-terms?&stc=aspe-3tc-en ). During
a recent review of your account, our specialists found that it was not in
compliance with our policies.
Publishers are not permitted to place Google ads on sites with content
advocating against any individual, group, or organization.
As a result, your AdSense account has been disabled.
Additionally, as stated in our Terms and Conditions, publishers who have
breached this agreement may not receive further payment. The earnings on
your account will be returned to the affected advertisers. Please note
that this step was taken in an effort to protect the interests of our
AdWords advertisers, and to maintain the quality of the AdSense program.
Thank you for your understanding.
Sincerely,
The Google AdSense Team
So there you have it those spineless kikes send me a message not to speak out about their unfair manipulation of internet traffic. Those cocksuckers have an agenda and when you expose it they clearly don't care for the bad press.
Now I am a small fish in this world of big time blogs, but clearly someone monitors this website.
So while I am angry but not surprised at this stupid kike behavior I am encouraged and energized. My focus is narrowed and I look forward to continuing shining the light on what these scumbags do in the back room.
I abandon google as a search engine some time ago, I went to bing, but never felt good about supporting the batshit insane kike steve ballmer either so lately I have been using the Russian search engine Yandex.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Ron Paul Defends Wikileaks
WikiLeaks release of classified information has generated a lot of attention in the past few weeks. The hysterical reaction makes one wonder if this is not an example of killing the messenger for the bad news. Despite what is claimed, the information that has been so far released, though classified, has caused no known harm to any individual, but it has caused plenty of embarrassment to our government. Losing our grip on our empire is not welcomed by the neoconservatives in charge.
There is now more information confirming that Saudi Arabia is a principal supporter and financier of al Qaeda, and that this should set off alarm bells since we guarantee its Sharia-run government. This emphasizes even more the fact that no al Qaeda existed in Iraq before 9/11, and yet we went to war against Iraq based on the lie that it did. It has been charged by experts that Julian Assange, the internet publisher of this information, has committed a heinous crime, deserving prosecution for treason and execution, or even assassination.
But should we not at least ask how the U.S. government should prosecute an Australian citizen for treason for publishing U.S. secret information that he did not steal? And if WikiLeaks is to be prosecuted for publishing classified documents, why shouldn't the Washington Post, the New York Times, and others also published these documents be prosecuted? Actually, some in Congress are threatening this as well.
The New York Times, as a results of a Supreme Court ruling, was not found guilty in 1971 for the publication of the Pentagon Papers. Daniel Ellsberg never served a day in prison for his role in obtaining these secret documents. The Pentagon Papers were also inserted into the Congressional record by Senator Mike Gravel, with no charges of any kind being made of breaking any national security laws. Yet the release of this classified information was considered illegal by many, and those who lied us into the Vietnam war, and argued for its prolongation were outraged. But the truth gained from the Pentagon Papers revealed that lies were told about the Gulf of Tonkin attack. which perpetuated a sad and tragic episode in our history.
Just as with the Vietnam War, the Iraq War was based on lies. We were never threatened by weapons of mass destruction or al Qaeda in Iraq, though the attack on Iraq was based on this false information. Any information which challenges the official propaganda for the war in the Middle East is unwelcome by the administration and the supporters of these unnecessary wars. Few are interested in understanding the relationship of our foreign policy and our presence in the Middle East to the threat of terrorism. Revealing the real nature and goal of our presence in so many Muslim countries is a threat to our empire, and any revelation of this truth is highly resented by those in charge.
Questions to consider:
Number 1: Do the America People deserve know the truth regarding the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen?
Number 2: Could a larger question be how can an army private access so much secret information?
Number 3: Why is the hostility mostly directed at Assange, the publisher, and not at our governments failure to protect classified information?
Number 4: Are we getting our moneys worth of the 80 Billion dollars per year spent on intelligence gathering?
Number 5: Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths: lying us into war or Wikileaks revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers?
Number 6: If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the first amendment and the independence of the internet?
Number 7: Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on Wikileaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?
Number 8: Is there not a huge difference between releasing secret information to help the enemy in a time of declared war, which is treason, and the releasing of information to expose our government lies that promote secret wars, death and corruption?
Number 9: Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it is wrong?
Thomas Jefferson had it right when he advised 'Let the eyes of vigilance never be closed.' I yield back the balance of my time.
Wikileaks Struck A Deal With The Israelis and a Rebuttal
I came across these articles the other day and since they are directly related I thought it best to post them together.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
WikiLeaks 'struck a deal with Israel' over diplomatic cables leaks
by LikiWeaks
Tuesday Dec 7th, 2010 6:39 PM
We should obviously all support WikiLeaks and its founder and spokesperson, Julian Assange, who has just been arrested in Britain, in this dirty war by states around the globe against transparency and openness. But in the world of politics, sadly, things are never as innocent as they appear. According to new revelations, Assange had allegedly struck a deal with Israel before the recent 'cable gate', which may explain why the leaks “were good for Israel,” as the Israeli prime minister put it.
A number of commentators, particularly in Turkey and Russia, have been wondering why the hundreds of thousands of American classified documents leaked by the website last month did not contain anything that may embarrass the Israeli government, like just about every other state referred to in the documents. The answer appears to be a secret deal struck between the WikiLeaks “heart and soul”, as Assange humbly described himself once [1], with Israeli officials, which ensured that all such documents were 'removed' before the rest were made public.
According to an Arabic investigative journalism website [2], Assange had received money from semi-official Israeli sources and promised them, in a “secret, video-recorded agreement,” not to publish any document that may harm Israeli security or diplomatic interests.
The sources of the Al-Haqiqa report are said to be former WikiLeaks volunteers who have left the organisation in the last few months over Assange's “autocratic leadership” and “lack of transparency.”
In a recent interview with the German daily Die Tageszeitung, former WikiLeaks spokesperson Daniel Domscheit-Berg said he and other WikiLeaks dissidents are planning to launch their own whistleblowers' platform to fulfil WikiLeaks's original aim of “limitless file sharing.” [3]
Mr Domscheit-Berg, who is about to publish a book about his days 'Inside WikiLeaks', accuses Assange of acting as a “king” against the will of others in the organisation by “making deals” with media organisations that are meant to create an explosive effect, which others in WikiLeaks either know little or nothing about. [4]
Furthermore, Assange's eagerness for headline-grabbing scoops meant that WikiLeaks had not been able to 'restructure' itself to cope with this surge of interest, insiders add. This has meant that smaller leaks, which might be of interest to people at a local level, are now being overlooked for the sake of big stories. [5]
According to the Al-Haqiqa sources, Assange met with Israeli officials in Geneva earlier this year and struck the secret deal. The Israel government, it seems, had somehow found out or expected that the documents to be leaked contained a large number of documents about the Israeli attacks on Lebanon and Gaza in 2006 and 2008-9 respectively. These documents, which are said to have originated mainly from the Israeli embassies in Tel Aviv and Beirut, where removed and possibly destroyed by Assange, who is the only person who knows the password that can open these documents, the sources added.
Indeed, the published documents seem to have a 'gap' stretching over the period of July - September 2006, during which the 33-day Lebanon war took place. Is it possible that US diplomats and officials did not have any comments or information to exchange about this crucial event but spent their time 'gossiping' about every other 'trivial' Middle-Eastern matter?
Following the leak (and even before), Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a press conference that Israel had “worked in advance” to limit any damage from leaks, adding that “no classified Israeli material was exposed by WikiLeaks.” [6] In an interview with the Time magazine around the same time, Assange praised Netanyahu as a hero of transparency and openness! [7]
According to another report [8], a left-leaning Lebanese newspaper had met with Assange twice and tried to negotiate a deal with him, offering “a big amount of money”, in order to get hold of documents concerning the 2006 war, particularly the minutes of a meeting held at the American embassy in Beirut on 24th July 2006, which is widely considered as a 'war council' meeting between American, Israeli and Lebanese parties that played a role in the war again Hizbullah and its allies. The documents the Al-Akhbar editors received, however, all date to 2008 onwards and do not contain “anything of value,” the sources confirm. This only goes to support the Israel deal allegations.
Finally, it might be worth pointing out that Assange might have done what he is alleged to have done in order protect himself and ensure that the leaked documents are published so as to expose the American hypocrisy, which he is said to be obsessed with “at the expense of more fundamental aims.”
Notes:
[1] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/09/wikileaks-revolt/
[2] http://www.syriatruth.info/content/view/977/36/
[3] http://www.taz.de/1/netz/netzpolitik/artikel/1/vom-hacker-zum-popstar/
[4] http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,732212,00.html
[5] http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,719619,00.html
[6] http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/netanyahu-wikileaks-revelations-were-good-for-israel-1.327773
[7] http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2034040-2,00.html
[8] http://www.syriatruth.info/content/view/986/36/
Now The Rebuttal
Rebuttal to Article Alleging that Wikileaks CEO "Made a Deal with Israel" Over Cables
by anonymous
Thursday Dec 9th, 2010 12:37 AM
This article is a rebuttal to a anonymous piece that recently appeared in Indybay that specifically analyzes how this article is not only defamatory, but fails to meet even the most minimal journalistic standards. People are advised to use caution when reading articles that are self-published because although they MAY appear to be sourced, unless you check the footnotes, that may not in fact be the case - as was the case with this scurrilous piece of character assassination.
FACT FINDING RESULTS ON THE INDYBAY ARTICLE - Note: no author for this article is listed –the article appears under a section entitled “Palestine”
Link to Indybay article:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/12/07/18665978.php
Allegations [1] – [8] and Sources numbered as footnotes [1] - [8] at the bottom of the page, and links thereto:
The first and most damaging allegation in the Indybay piece (Indybay is an all-volunteer organization affiliated with Indymedia with links to Indymedia on its web page banner, but is not synonymous with that organization) is that Wikileaks' CEO Julian Assange struck a secret deal with Israeli authorities to insure that any documents that could damage Israel’s interests would be ‘removed’ before the rest of the documents became public. The source for that allegation, included as footnote [1] is a Wired Article, see link below. This article provides nothing to corroborate and verify this damaging allegation, rather the article focuses on disgruntled former Wikileaks employee Daniel Dorsheit-Berg, why he left Wikileaks and internal politics within the Wikileaks organization.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/09/wikileaks-revolt/
The second very damaging allegation is that Assange accepted money from ‘semi-official Israeli officials’ and that moreover he specifically agreed in exchange in a secretly taped interview not to publish any documents that would hurt Israeli interests. This allegation links to an article in Syriatruth and it is printed in Arabic, and cited as footnote [2] in the article, with no reliable verbatim translation from Arabic to English provided.
http://www.syriatruth.info/content/view/977/36/
Because the entire Syriatruth article is completely in very exquisite Arabic script it is impossible for non-Arabic readers or speakers to confirm whether the article in fact makes these allegations, let alone go any further with fact-checking on this issue, due to formidable language barriers that the authors of the Indybay article do nothing to assist readers concerned about the truth to surmount.
The third, fourth and fifth allegations footnoted [3], [4] and [5] link to articles in the German Press, as follows, NOTE the first link to taz is in German and thus non-German readers cannot check for veracity, let alone follow-up for further fact-checking.
http://www.taz.de/1/netz/netzpolitik/artikel/1/vom-hacker-zum-popstar/
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,732212,00.html
and
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,719619,00.html
The last two Der Spiegel articles in English linked directly above again relate to the saga of disgruntled former Wikileaks’ employee Daniel Dorsheit-Berg, why he left Wikileaks, internal squabbles in the organization, and Dorsheit-Berg’s opinions about Julian Assange’s leadership skills. The one article that includes quotes from an interview with Dorsheit-Berg cited as [1] includes a section that relates to internal decisions about Wikileaks decision-making concerning information is the Wired Article, previously referenced, however nothing specific is said in that article about internal issues or decisions to corroborate the damaging allegations in the Indybay article, i.e. that Assange made an agreement with Israel and accepted money from them in exchange for an agreement not to publish anything damaging to Israel’s interests. In fact the Wired piece quotes from Dorsheit-Berg only serve to underscore Dorscheit-Berg's sour grapes and his being at odds with Assange over decisions concerning organizational priorities that prevented what he felt was a much-needed reorganization - even though he was not the CEO of Wikileaks. Nothing in any of these three articles in the German Press, therefore, as presented, substantiate the general damaging claims made in the Indybay article.
The sixth allegation in the article, accusing Assange of engaging in a secret meeting in Geneva with Israeli officials and agreeing to expung any leaked documents related to the Israeli attacks on Gaza and Lebanon, in 2006, and 2008-9, references as [6] a piece in Haaretz in which, not surprisingly, Israeli leaders said that Wikileaks helped them because the leaks underscored that Arabs themselves were calling on the US and Israel to take care of the problem with Iran. Alhough this information is sourced ostensibly to ‘Al-Haqiqa sources’ – no footnote whatsoever is provided.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/netanyahu-wikileaks-revelations-were-good-for-israel-1.327773
No one can control what any government leaders say about anything and naturally they will put whatever spin serves their purpose on any news and will extract from an information dump whatever serves their interests and emphasize it. This Haaretz article does not even state, and does not prove that Assange arrived at a prior agreement with Israel concerning leaks of documents, or that he took money from Israeli officials in exchange for that agreement or that he in fact expunged such documents.
Allegation seven concerns Assange “praising Netanyahu as a hero of transparency and openness.” [7] linking to an article in Time Magazine:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2034040-2,00.html
Nowhere does this article quote Assange as saying that Mr. Netanyahu is a “hero of transparency and openness” as alleged so this article does not verify accusation #7. There ARE some areas of ambiguous language in the piece, however, that COULD be conflated to infer something. But what, is unknown from the actual language in the piece. In fact the interviewer,(I am not able to provide you his name because the link [7] is only to page 2 of 4 pages in the Time article.) was the one who suggested that the information in the leaks underscored Israel’s position with respect to Iran by revealing that certain Arab leaders wished to decapitate the Iranian government.
The last allegation in the article is that Assange met twice with a left-leaning Lebanese newspaper who offered him money to obtain documents related to a secret war meeting ostensibly held between the US, Israeli and Lebanese parties at the "US embassy in Beirut" (does the US in fact even HAVE an embassy in Beirut?) in July 24, 2006. According to source [8] the documents received by Al-Akhbar Editors left a gap and only covered information from 2008-forward, according to the Indybay article, thereby “supporting the Israeli deal allegations” - leap of the imagination by any calculation.
Unfortunately again, footnote [8] links to an article in a Syrian paper that is entirely written in Arabic so it is completely impossible for a non-Arabic speaker or reader to verify whether in fact this article actually corroborates the allegations in the Indybay article, let alone enable one in search of the truth to take their fact-checking any further.
This is the second link to Syria Truth here:
http://www.syriatruth.info/content/view/986/36/
Conclusion:
The Indybay article does not meet even the most elementary journalistic standards. Aside from being riddled with conditional adverbs like “appears” – it is basically a hack-job cobbled together by someone with vindictive and malicious motives. The sources cited DO NOT corroborate the primary damaging allegations being made, i.e. that Julian Assange of Wikileaks arrived at an agreement with Israel to redact any damaging documents prior to release, let alone that he accepted secret payments from them or from the newspaper Al-Akhbar for special dispensation. The ONLY allegations that are sourced and corroorated relate to the statements of a dismissed and disgruntled Wikileaks employee who wished Wikileaks luck, and did not corroborate the damaging allegations in the Indybay article. Moreover, knowing full well that the readers who will read the Indybay article are prmarily English readers and speakers, the article links to non-English publications as sources, two in Arabic and one in German, attempting to provide legitimacy and the 'cover of ethical journalism' for its “news” reporting, DELIBERATELY further obscuring the truth.
The Anonymous Authors of this article should be very ashamed for what they have done. Whatever their motives, the ends do not justify the means.
The principle of TRUTH is an important core human value. The battle between TRUTH and the LIE has been joined.
May TRUTH and freedom prevail.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
WikiLeaks 'struck a deal with Israel' over diplomatic cables leaks
by LikiWeaks
Tuesday Dec 7th, 2010 6:39 PM
We should obviously all support WikiLeaks and its founder and spokesperson, Julian Assange, who has just been arrested in Britain, in this dirty war by states around the globe against transparency and openness. But in the world of politics, sadly, things are never as innocent as they appear. According to new revelations, Assange had allegedly struck a deal with Israel before the recent 'cable gate', which may explain why the leaks “were good for Israel,” as the Israeli prime minister put it.
A number of commentators, particularly in Turkey and Russia, have been wondering why the hundreds of thousands of American classified documents leaked by the website last month did not contain anything that may embarrass the Israeli government, like just about every other state referred to in the documents. The answer appears to be a secret deal struck between the WikiLeaks “heart and soul”, as Assange humbly described himself once [1], with Israeli officials, which ensured that all such documents were 'removed' before the rest were made public.
According to an Arabic investigative journalism website [2], Assange had received money from semi-official Israeli sources and promised them, in a “secret, video-recorded agreement,” not to publish any document that may harm Israeli security or diplomatic interests.
The sources of the Al-Haqiqa report are said to be former WikiLeaks volunteers who have left the organisation in the last few months over Assange's “autocratic leadership” and “lack of transparency.”
In a recent interview with the German daily Die Tageszeitung, former WikiLeaks spokesperson Daniel Domscheit-Berg said he and other WikiLeaks dissidents are planning to launch their own whistleblowers' platform to fulfil WikiLeaks's original aim of “limitless file sharing.” [3]
Mr Domscheit-Berg, who is about to publish a book about his days 'Inside WikiLeaks', accuses Assange of acting as a “king” against the will of others in the organisation by “making deals” with media organisations that are meant to create an explosive effect, which others in WikiLeaks either know little or nothing about. [4]
Furthermore, Assange's eagerness for headline-grabbing scoops meant that WikiLeaks had not been able to 'restructure' itself to cope with this surge of interest, insiders add. This has meant that smaller leaks, which might be of interest to people at a local level, are now being overlooked for the sake of big stories. [5]
According to the Al-Haqiqa sources, Assange met with Israeli officials in Geneva earlier this year and struck the secret deal. The Israel government, it seems, had somehow found out or expected that the documents to be leaked contained a large number of documents about the Israeli attacks on Lebanon and Gaza in 2006 and 2008-9 respectively. These documents, which are said to have originated mainly from the Israeli embassies in Tel Aviv and Beirut, where removed and possibly destroyed by Assange, who is the only person who knows the password that can open these documents, the sources added.
Indeed, the published documents seem to have a 'gap' stretching over the period of July - September 2006, during which the 33-day Lebanon war took place. Is it possible that US diplomats and officials did not have any comments or information to exchange about this crucial event but spent their time 'gossiping' about every other 'trivial' Middle-Eastern matter?
Following the leak (and even before), Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a press conference that Israel had “worked in advance” to limit any damage from leaks, adding that “no classified Israeli material was exposed by WikiLeaks.” [6] In an interview with the Time magazine around the same time, Assange praised Netanyahu as a hero of transparency and openness! [7]
According to another report [8], a left-leaning Lebanese newspaper had met with Assange twice and tried to negotiate a deal with him, offering “a big amount of money”, in order to get hold of documents concerning the 2006 war, particularly the minutes of a meeting held at the American embassy in Beirut on 24th July 2006, which is widely considered as a 'war council' meeting between American, Israeli and Lebanese parties that played a role in the war again Hizbullah and its allies. The documents the Al-Akhbar editors received, however, all date to 2008 onwards and do not contain “anything of value,” the sources confirm. This only goes to support the Israel deal allegations.
Finally, it might be worth pointing out that Assange might have done what he is alleged to have done in order protect himself and ensure that the leaked documents are published so as to expose the American hypocrisy, which he is said to be obsessed with “at the expense of more fundamental aims.”
Notes:
[1] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/09/wikileaks-revolt/
[2] http://www.syriatruth.info/content/view/977/36/
[3] http://www.taz.de/1/netz/netzpolitik/artikel/1/vom-hacker-zum-popstar/
[4] http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,732212,00.html
[5] http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,719619,00.html
[6] http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/netanyahu-wikileaks-revelations-were-good-for-israel-1.327773
[7] http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2034040-2,00.html
[8] http://www.syriatruth.info/content/view/986/36/
Now The Rebuttal
Rebuttal to Article Alleging that Wikileaks CEO "Made a Deal with Israel" Over Cables
by anonymous
Thursday Dec 9th, 2010 12:37 AM
This article is a rebuttal to a anonymous piece that recently appeared in Indybay that specifically analyzes how this article is not only defamatory, but fails to meet even the most minimal journalistic standards. People are advised to use caution when reading articles that are self-published because although they MAY appear to be sourced, unless you check the footnotes, that may not in fact be the case - as was the case with this scurrilous piece of character assassination.
FACT FINDING RESULTS ON THE INDYBAY ARTICLE - Note: no author for this article is listed –the article appears under a section entitled “Palestine”
Link to Indybay article:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/12/07/18665978.php
Allegations [1] – [8] and Sources numbered as footnotes [1] - [8] at the bottom of the page, and links thereto:
The first and most damaging allegation in the Indybay piece (Indybay is an all-volunteer organization affiliated with Indymedia with links to Indymedia on its web page banner, but is not synonymous with that organization) is that Wikileaks' CEO Julian Assange struck a secret deal with Israeli authorities to insure that any documents that could damage Israel’s interests would be ‘removed’ before the rest of the documents became public. The source for that allegation, included as footnote [1] is a Wired Article, see link below. This article provides nothing to corroborate and verify this damaging allegation, rather the article focuses on disgruntled former Wikileaks employee Daniel Dorsheit-Berg, why he left Wikileaks and internal politics within the Wikileaks organization.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/09/wikileaks-revolt/
The second very damaging allegation is that Assange accepted money from ‘semi-official Israeli officials’ and that moreover he specifically agreed in exchange in a secretly taped interview not to publish any documents that would hurt Israeli interests. This allegation links to an article in Syriatruth and it is printed in Arabic, and cited as footnote [2] in the article, with no reliable verbatim translation from Arabic to English provided.
http://www.syriatruth.info/content/view/977/36/
Because the entire Syriatruth article is completely in very exquisite Arabic script it is impossible for non-Arabic readers or speakers to confirm whether the article in fact makes these allegations, let alone go any further with fact-checking on this issue, due to formidable language barriers that the authors of the Indybay article do nothing to assist readers concerned about the truth to surmount.
The third, fourth and fifth allegations footnoted [3], [4] and [5] link to articles in the German Press, as follows, NOTE the first link to taz is in German and thus non-German readers cannot check for veracity, let alone follow-up for further fact-checking.
http://www.taz.de/1/netz/netzpolitik/artikel/1/vom-hacker-zum-popstar/
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,732212,00.html
and
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,719619,00.html
The last two Der Spiegel articles in English linked directly above again relate to the saga of disgruntled former Wikileaks’ employee Daniel Dorsheit-Berg, why he left Wikileaks, internal squabbles in the organization, and Dorsheit-Berg’s opinions about Julian Assange’s leadership skills. The one article that includes quotes from an interview with Dorsheit-Berg cited as [1] includes a section that relates to internal decisions about Wikileaks decision-making concerning information is the Wired Article, previously referenced, however nothing specific is said in that article about internal issues or decisions to corroborate the damaging allegations in the Indybay article, i.e. that Assange made an agreement with Israel and accepted money from them in exchange for an agreement not to publish anything damaging to Israel’s interests. In fact the Wired piece quotes from Dorsheit-Berg only serve to underscore Dorscheit-Berg's sour grapes and his being at odds with Assange over decisions concerning organizational priorities that prevented what he felt was a much-needed reorganization - even though he was not the CEO of Wikileaks. Nothing in any of these three articles in the German Press, therefore, as presented, substantiate the general damaging claims made in the Indybay article.
The sixth allegation in the article, accusing Assange of engaging in a secret meeting in Geneva with Israeli officials and agreeing to expung any leaked documents related to the Israeli attacks on Gaza and Lebanon, in 2006, and 2008-9, references as [6] a piece in Haaretz in which, not surprisingly, Israeli leaders said that Wikileaks helped them because the leaks underscored that Arabs themselves were calling on the US and Israel to take care of the problem with Iran. Alhough this information is sourced ostensibly to ‘Al-Haqiqa sources’ – no footnote whatsoever is provided.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/netanyahu-wikileaks-revelations-were-good-for-israel-1.327773
No one can control what any government leaders say about anything and naturally they will put whatever spin serves their purpose on any news and will extract from an information dump whatever serves their interests and emphasize it. This Haaretz article does not even state, and does not prove that Assange arrived at a prior agreement with Israel concerning leaks of documents, or that he took money from Israeli officials in exchange for that agreement or that he in fact expunged such documents.
Allegation seven concerns Assange “praising Netanyahu as a hero of transparency and openness.” [7] linking to an article in Time Magazine:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2034040-2,00.html
Nowhere does this article quote Assange as saying that Mr. Netanyahu is a “hero of transparency and openness” as alleged so this article does not verify accusation #7. There ARE some areas of ambiguous language in the piece, however, that COULD be conflated to infer something. But what, is unknown from the actual language in the piece. In fact the interviewer,(I am not able to provide you his name because the link [7] is only to page 2 of 4 pages in the Time article.) was the one who suggested that the information in the leaks underscored Israel’s position with respect to Iran by revealing that certain Arab leaders wished to decapitate the Iranian government.
The last allegation in the article is that Assange met twice with a left-leaning Lebanese newspaper who offered him money to obtain documents related to a secret war meeting ostensibly held between the US, Israeli and Lebanese parties at the "US embassy in Beirut" (does the US in fact even HAVE an embassy in Beirut?) in July 24, 2006. According to source [8] the documents received by Al-Akhbar Editors left a gap and only covered information from 2008-forward, according to the Indybay article, thereby “supporting the Israeli deal allegations” - leap of the imagination by any calculation.
Unfortunately again, footnote [8] links to an article in a Syrian paper that is entirely written in Arabic so it is completely impossible for a non-Arabic speaker or reader to verify whether in fact this article actually corroborates the allegations in the Indybay article, let alone enable one in search of the truth to take their fact-checking any further.
This is the second link to Syria Truth here:
http://www.syriatruth.info/content/view/986/36/
Conclusion:
The Indybay article does not meet even the most elementary journalistic standards. Aside from being riddled with conditional adverbs like “appears” – it is basically a hack-job cobbled together by someone with vindictive and malicious motives. The sources cited DO NOT corroborate the primary damaging allegations being made, i.e. that Julian Assange of Wikileaks arrived at an agreement with Israel to redact any damaging documents prior to release, let alone that he accepted secret payments from them or from the newspaper Al-Akhbar for special dispensation. The ONLY allegations that are sourced and corroorated relate to the statements of a dismissed and disgruntled Wikileaks employee who wished Wikileaks luck, and did not corroborate the damaging allegations in the Indybay article. Moreover, knowing full well that the readers who will read the Indybay article are prmarily English readers and speakers, the article links to non-English publications as sources, two in Arabic and one in German, attempting to provide legitimacy and the 'cover of ethical journalism' for its “news” reporting, DELIBERATELY further obscuring the truth.
The Anonymous Authors of this article should be very ashamed for what they have done. Whatever their motives, the ends do not justify the means.
The principle of TRUTH is an important core human value. The battle between TRUTH and the LIE has been joined.
May TRUTH and freedom prevail.
Julian Assange Case Evidence Destroyed
One of the women who filed charges against Julian Assange is Anna Ardin. She stood in the elections to the community council for the social democrats and she is a public person who should be examined. So I'll publish her name.
Anna Ardin is christian, feminist, social democrat, animal rights activist, and opponent of abortion on the left political scene. She's previously been in charge of equality issues for the student union of Uppsala University - a job she won an award for. Today she works for the Brotherhood Movement and 'burns for peace and justice... for a just, open society of solidarity'. On her own blog she describes herself:
'A political scientist, communicator, entrepreneur, and freelance writer with special knowledge within faith and politics, gender equality issues, feminism, and Latin America.'
On Saturday 14 August at 14:00 she wrote the following on her Twitter account.
'Julian wants to go to a crayfish party, anyone have a couple of available seats tonight or tomorrow? #fb'
Early on the morning of Sunday 15 August (02:00) she writes again at Twitter.
'Sitting outdoors at 02:00 and hardly freezing with the world's coolest smartest people, it's amazing! #fb'
When Anna Ardin files a police complaint against Julian Assange on 20 August these tweets are removed. Why? As far as I can tell, it's not common for victims of crime to delete blogs, clean up their cellphones, and try to get witnesses to attest to things that aren't true. Why is it so important to remove these particular tweets?
If you know that the 'reported molestation' takes place on the night towards 14 August, then it all becomes easier to understand. The tweets actually indicate that Anna really liked Julian and that there had been no molestation 24 hours earlier. You can't divine in the tweets that Anna Ardin thinks Julian has a 'warped view of womanhood and can't take no for an answer'. The tweets are more an attempt by Ardin to shine in the brilliance of Julian Assange. Why else would she publish them on the Internet? The tweets don't match Anna's story given to the police on 20 August. So she simply deletes them.
Proof That Anna Ardin Is Hiding the Truth
In the beginning of September, I note that Anna Ardin has two identical 'miniblogs' - one at Twitter and the other at Bloggy.se. It looks as if Anna Ardin's tweets are posted to both blogs at the same time. The tweets that are deleted from Twitter are still visible at annaardin.bloggy.se. Anna missed the fact that she has to delete on each and every blog. Bad luck.
To see if Anna Ardin is really trying to hide her Twitter tweets, I post a comment to Sara Gunnerud's article WikiLeaks Heroes Can Also Do Stupid Things. The article is published at the Rebella blog, a social democratic feminist blog where Anna Ardin contributes and runs the website. In my comment I mention the deleted Twitter tweets. After five days, on 13 September, my comment is reviewed and removed directly. I then post a new comment where I mention that one can read the deleted Tweets at annaardin.bloggy.se. My comment is removed directly. A few hours later the entire Bloggy.se site is taken offline. When Bloggy.se reopens at 04:00 in the morning of 14 September, the tweets deleted from Twitter are also deleted from annaardin.bloggy.se.
But it's not as easy to remove things from the Internet as Anna Ardin thinks. Google takes snapshots of how web pages look - so called caches. If you search for the cached page for annaardin.bloggy.se you can see what it looked like on 19 August. (If the cache disappears, click here.) Then you can compare the page with how annaardin.bloggy.se and twitter.com/annaardin look.
As we can see, Anna Ardin is doing all she can to hide her tweets. Tweets that indicate Julian Assange is actually innocent of at least the charge of 'molestation' that he's been accused of. It looks like Anna Ardin is doing all she can to get Julian Assange convicted. By deleting and denying acquitting circumstances, she's perhaps making herself guilty of false accusation.
Penal Code Chapter 15, 7 § A person who, otherwise than in 6 §, with prosecutors, police or other authority falsely testifies of a criminal act, provides compromising circumstances, or denies acquitting or mitigating circumstances, shall be found guilty, if authority review such a case, of false accusation to imprisonment not exceeding two years or, if the crime is petty, to a fine or imprisonment not exceeding six months.
The Assange case gets really creepy if we take everything that's happened into account. Anyone wanting to read more can see this article and this article. Julian lives in Anna Ardin's flat from 11 August until 19-20 August. During this time Julian and Anna have sex. Around 18-19 August Anna gets a call from a woman wanting to speak to Julian. When Anna realises that Julian's also had consensual sex with this woman, something happens. The two women who are both christians and are connected to the Brotherhood Movement and were at the seminar at the Brotherhood Movement realise immediately that Julian doesn't have any long term serious intentions with them. They decide after discussing the matter to file complaints against Julian Assange for sexual molestation.
It might seem strange that a christian social democrat feminist would avail herself of legislation to get revenge on a man who is 'unfaithful'. When you read about Anna Ardin's post about revenge, it's no longer strange. It's completely natural. Anna Ardin has for a long time wondered how she can exact revenge on a man who dumps her, is unfaithful. When the other woman turns up, she has the opportunity to do something about her ideas. Anna Ardin plans it all well. She gets another woman to make the actual rape accusation. A case of 'revenge by proxy'. And then she gets help from Claes Borgström who's done all he can to try to get Julian Assange put on trial, frenetically cheered on by the feminist blogs.
But the truth wins out in the end. Anna's perfect 7-Step Programme for Legal Revenge failed. One deletion too few. And the Google cache. Too bad, Anna. The ways of the Lord are truly mysterious.
I'm very surprised that christian feminist 'equality' women can so idolise a WikiLeaks hero that they do all in their power to get him into bed as soon as they have the chance. And then, when they realise he's not as interested in them as they are in him, go to the police and accuse him of rape. This demonstrates an extreme contempt for the women who are real victims of violence and sexual crimes. Their behaviour is unconscionable.
If you're a groupie at heart, why not just try to keep quiet about it? It's nothing you should spread on the net or go to the police to talk about. As things look now, Anna Ardin's carefully planned character assassination and revenge on Julian Assange amounts to nothing more than a suicide bomb on her foot. A bit unlucky for Anna that Google cache keeps track of things like an Internet god. If you're going to delete, then delete good and proper.
All that remains is to see what the preliminary investigation leads to. According to the prosecutors:
'The investigation is well advanced and only a small number of investigative procedures remain to be taken before a decision.'
If the prosecutors conclude that this is a case of false accusation, then hundreds of thousands of men who claim most rape complaints are false will win their argument. This will unfortunately also lead to making it much more difficult to get justice for real victims. That would be a catastrophe.
But something good will come out of this story. We are going to learn that just because you're christian, feminist, social democrat, animal rights activist, and opponent of abortion, it doesn't mean you believe in equal rights for women and men.
Göran Rudling, born in 1951, is the editor of Samtycke Nu/Consensus Now, a site promoting sexual self-determination that uses the motto 'it is a human right to decide for oneself when and with whom we are going to have sex'. Rudling is a frequent contributor to Newsmill where he writes about the need to introduce democratic laws that are based on sexual activities needing to be consensual to not be considered criminal.
Anna Ardin is christian, feminist, social democrat, animal rights activist, and opponent of abortion on the left political scene. She's previously been in charge of equality issues for the student union of Uppsala University - a job she won an award for. Today she works for the Brotherhood Movement and 'burns for peace and justice... for a just, open society of solidarity'. On her own blog she describes herself:
'A political scientist, communicator, entrepreneur, and freelance writer with special knowledge within faith and politics, gender equality issues, feminism, and Latin America.'
On Saturday 14 August at 14:00 she wrote the following on her Twitter account.
'Julian wants to go to a crayfish party, anyone have a couple of available seats tonight or tomorrow? #fb'
Early on the morning of Sunday 15 August (02:00) she writes again at Twitter.
'Sitting outdoors at 02:00 and hardly freezing with the world's coolest smartest people, it's amazing! #fb'
When Anna Ardin files a police complaint against Julian Assange on 20 August these tweets are removed. Why? As far as I can tell, it's not common for victims of crime to delete blogs, clean up their cellphones, and try to get witnesses to attest to things that aren't true. Why is it so important to remove these particular tweets?
If you know that the 'reported molestation' takes place on the night towards 14 August, then it all becomes easier to understand. The tweets actually indicate that Anna really liked Julian and that there had been no molestation 24 hours earlier. You can't divine in the tweets that Anna Ardin thinks Julian has a 'warped view of womanhood and can't take no for an answer'. The tweets are more an attempt by Ardin to shine in the brilliance of Julian Assange. Why else would she publish them on the Internet? The tweets don't match Anna's story given to the police on 20 August. So she simply deletes them.
Proof That Anna Ardin Is Hiding the Truth
In the beginning of September, I note that Anna Ardin has two identical 'miniblogs' - one at Twitter and the other at Bloggy.se. It looks as if Anna Ardin's tweets are posted to both blogs at the same time. The tweets that are deleted from Twitter are still visible at annaardin.bloggy.se. Anna missed the fact that she has to delete on each and every blog. Bad luck.
To see if Anna Ardin is really trying to hide her Twitter tweets, I post a comment to Sara Gunnerud's article WikiLeaks Heroes Can Also Do Stupid Things. The article is published at the Rebella blog, a social democratic feminist blog where Anna Ardin contributes and runs the website. In my comment I mention the deleted Twitter tweets. After five days, on 13 September, my comment is reviewed and removed directly. I then post a new comment where I mention that one can read the deleted Tweets at annaardin.bloggy.se. My comment is removed directly. A few hours later the entire Bloggy.se site is taken offline. When Bloggy.se reopens at 04:00 in the morning of 14 September, the tweets deleted from Twitter are also deleted from annaardin.bloggy.se.
But it's not as easy to remove things from the Internet as Anna Ardin thinks. Google takes snapshots of how web pages look - so called caches. If you search for the cached page for annaardin.bloggy.se you can see what it looked like on 19 August. (If the cache disappears, click here.) Then you can compare the page with how annaardin.bloggy.se and twitter.com/annaardin look.
As we can see, Anna Ardin is doing all she can to hide her tweets. Tweets that indicate Julian Assange is actually innocent of at least the charge of 'molestation' that he's been accused of. It looks like Anna Ardin is doing all she can to get Julian Assange convicted. By deleting and denying acquitting circumstances, she's perhaps making herself guilty of false accusation.
Penal Code Chapter 15, 7 § A person who, otherwise than in 6 §, with prosecutors, police or other authority falsely testifies of a criminal act, provides compromising circumstances, or denies acquitting or mitigating circumstances, shall be found guilty, if authority review such a case, of false accusation to imprisonment not exceeding two years or, if the crime is petty, to a fine or imprisonment not exceeding six months.
The Assange case gets really creepy if we take everything that's happened into account. Anyone wanting to read more can see this article and this article. Julian lives in Anna Ardin's flat from 11 August until 19-20 August. During this time Julian and Anna have sex. Around 18-19 August Anna gets a call from a woman wanting to speak to Julian. When Anna realises that Julian's also had consensual sex with this woman, something happens. The two women who are both christians and are connected to the Brotherhood Movement and were at the seminar at the Brotherhood Movement realise immediately that Julian doesn't have any long term serious intentions with them. They decide after discussing the matter to file complaints against Julian Assange for sexual molestation.
It might seem strange that a christian social democrat feminist would avail herself of legislation to get revenge on a man who is 'unfaithful'. When you read about Anna Ardin's post about revenge, it's no longer strange. It's completely natural. Anna Ardin has for a long time wondered how she can exact revenge on a man who dumps her, is unfaithful. When the other woman turns up, she has the opportunity to do something about her ideas. Anna Ardin plans it all well. She gets another woman to make the actual rape accusation. A case of 'revenge by proxy'. And then she gets help from Claes Borgström who's done all he can to try to get Julian Assange put on trial, frenetically cheered on by the feminist blogs.
But the truth wins out in the end. Anna's perfect 7-Step Programme for Legal Revenge failed. One deletion too few. And the Google cache. Too bad, Anna. The ways of the Lord are truly mysterious.
I'm very surprised that christian feminist 'equality' women can so idolise a WikiLeaks hero that they do all in their power to get him into bed as soon as they have the chance. And then, when they realise he's not as interested in them as they are in him, go to the police and accuse him of rape. This demonstrates an extreme contempt for the women who are real victims of violence and sexual crimes. Their behaviour is unconscionable.
If you're a groupie at heart, why not just try to keep quiet about it? It's nothing you should spread on the net or go to the police to talk about. As things look now, Anna Ardin's carefully planned character assassination and revenge on Julian Assange amounts to nothing more than a suicide bomb on her foot. A bit unlucky for Anna that Google cache keeps track of things like an Internet god. If you're going to delete, then delete good and proper.
All that remains is to see what the preliminary investigation leads to. According to the prosecutors:
'The investigation is well advanced and only a small number of investigative procedures remain to be taken before a decision.'
If the prosecutors conclude that this is a case of false accusation, then hundreds of thousands of men who claim most rape complaints are false will win their argument. This will unfortunately also lead to making it much more difficult to get justice for real victims. That would be a catastrophe.
But something good will come out of this story. We are going to learn that just because you're christian, feminist, social democrat, animal rights activist, and opponent of abortion, it doesn't mean you believe in equal rights for women and men.
Göran Rudling, born in 1951, is the editor of Samtycke Nu/Consensus Now, a site promoting sexual self-determination that uses the motto 'it is a human right to decide for oneself when and with whom we are going to have sex'. Rudling is a frequent contributor to Newsmill where he writes about the need to introduce democratic laws that are based on sexual activities needing to be consensual to not be considered criminal.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
JEFF GATES: WIKILEAKS – MORE ISRAELI GAME THEORY WARFARE?
When waging intelligence wars, timing is often the critical factor for game-theory war planners. The outcome of the WikiLeaks release suggests a psy-ops directed at the U.S.
“The United States is the real victim of WikiLeaks. It’s an action aimed at discrediting them.” Franco Frattini, Foreign Minister of Italy
The impact of the WikiLeaks release of diplomatic cables fits the behavior profile of those well versed in game theory warfare.
When Israeli mathematician Robert J. Aumann received the 2005 Nobel Prize in economic science for his work on game theory, he conceded, “the entire school of thought that we have developed here in Israel” has turned “Israel into the leading authority in this field.”
The candor of this Israeli-American offered a rare insight into an enclave long known for waging war from the shadows. Israel’s most notable success to date was “fixing” the intelligence that induced the U.S. to invade Iraq in pursuit of a geopolitical agenda long sought by Tel Aviv
When waging intelligence wars, timing is often the critical factor for game-theory war planners. The outcome of the WikiLeaks release suggests a psy-ops directed at the U.S.
Why now? Tel Aviv was feeling pressure to end its six-decade occupation of Palestine. With this release, its foot-dragging on the peace process was displaced with talk of an attack on Iran.
While the U.S. bore the brunt of the damage, the target was global public opinion. To maintain the plausibility of The Clash of Civilizations, a focus must be maintained on Iran as a credible Evil Doer.
With fast-emerging transparency, Israel and pro-Israelis have been identified as the source of the intelligence that took coalition forces to war in Iraq. Thus the need to shift attention off Tel Aviv.
WikiLeaks may yet succeed in that mission.
Foreseeable Futures
Game theory war planning aims to create outcomes that are predictable—within an acceptable range of probabilities. That’s why Israeli war planners focus on gaining traction for a plausible narrative and then advancing that storyline step by gradual step.
For the Zionist state to succeed with its expansionist agenda, Iran must remain at center stage as an essential villain in a geopolitical morality play pitting the West against Islamo Fascists.
To displace facts with false beliefs—as with belief in the intelligence that induced the invasion of Iraq—momentum must be maintained for the storyline. Lose the plot (The Clash) and peace might break out. And those deceived may identify the deceiver.
Thus the timing of this latest WikiLeaks release. Its goal: to have us believe that it is not Tel Aviv but Washington that is the forefront of geopolitical duplicity and a source of Evil Doing.
Intelligence wars rely on mathematical models to anticipate the response of those targeted. With game theory algorithms, reactions become foreseeable—within an acceptable range of probabilities.
Control enough of the variables and outcomes become a mathematical inevitability.
The WikiLeaks Motive
Was the reaction to this latest WikiLeaks foreseeable? With exquisite timing, the U.S. was discredited with an array of revelations that called into question U.S. motives and put in jeopardy U.S. relations worldwide.
As the Italian Foreign Minister summarized: “The news released by WikiLeaks will change diplomatic relations between countries.”
The hard-earned trust of the Pakistanis disappeared overnight. Attempts to engage Iran were set back. The overall effect advanced The Clash storyline. If Washington could so badly misread North Korean intentions, then why is the U.S. to be trusted when it comes to a nuclear Iran?
This Wiki-catalyzed storyline pushed Israel off the front page in favor of Iran.
Even U.S. detainees at Guantanamo are again at issue, reigniting that shameful spectacle as a provocation for extremism and terror. U.S. diplomats will now be suspected of spying and lying. What nation can now trust Americans to maintain confidences?
In short, the risks increased for everyone.
Except Israel.
Should Israel launch an attack on Iran, Tel Aviv can cite WikiLeaks as its rationale. Though an attack would be calamitous from a human, economic and financial perspective, even that foreseeable outcome would be dwarfed by the enduring hatred that would ensue.
That too is foreseeable—from a game theory perspective of those marketing The Clash.
The effect of the U.S. invasion of Iraq was predictable. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia foresaw it, noting simply that the U.S. invasion would “give Iraq to Iran as a gift on a golden platter.”
With the elimination of Sunni leader Saddam Hussein, the numerically dominant Shiites of Iraq were drawn into the political orbit of the Shiite-dominant Iran.
Game theorists focus their manipulation of affairs on their control of key variables. Then events take on a life all their own. The impact of this discrediting release was wide-ranging and fully foreseeable.
A Mossad case officer explained Israel’s success at waging war by way of deception: “Once the orchestra starts to play, we just hum along.”
These, after all, are the leading authorities in the field.
“The United States is the real victim of WikiLeaks. It’s an action aimed at discrediting them.” Franco Frattini, Foreign Minister of Italy
The impact of the WikiLeaks release of diplomatic cables fits the behavior profile of those well versed in game theory warfare.
When Israeli mathematician Robert J. Aumann received the 2005 Nobel Prize in economic science for his work on game theory, he conceded, “the entire school of thought that we have developed here in Israel” has turned “Israel into the leading authority in this field.”
The candor of this Israeli-American offered a rare insight into an enclave long known for waging war from the shadows. Israel’s most notable success to date was “fixing” the intelligence that induced the U.S. to invade Iraq in pursuit of a geopolitical agenda long sought by Tel Aviv
When waging intelligence wars, timing is often the critical factor for game-theory war planners. The outcome of the WikiLeaks release suggests a psy-ops directed at the U.S.
Why now? Tel Aviv was feeling pressure to end its six-decade occupation of Palestine. With this release, its foot-dragging on the peace process was displaced with talk of an attack on Iran.
While the U.S. bore the brunt of the damage, the target was global public opinion. To maintain the plausibility of The Clash of Civilizations, a focus must be maintained on Iran as a credible Evil Doer.
With fast-emerging transparency, Israel and pro-Israelis have been identified as the source of the intelligence that took coalition forces to war in Iraq. Thus the need to shift attention off Tel Aviv.
WikiLeaks may yet succeed in that mission.
Foreseeable Futures
Game theory war planning aims to create outcomes that are predictable—within an acceptable range of probabilities. That’s why Israeli war planners focus on gaining traction for a plausible narrative and then advancing that storyline step by gradual step.
For the Zionist state to succeed with its expansionist agenda, Iran must remain at center stage as an essential villain in a geopolitical morality play pitting the West against Islamo Fascists.
To displace facts with false beliefs—as with belief in the intelligence that induced the invasion of Iraq—momentum must be maintained for the storyline. Lose the plot (The Clash) and peace might break out. And those deceived may identify the deceiver.
Thus the timing of this latest WikiLeaks release. Its goal: to have us believe that it is not Tel Aviv but Washington that is the forefront of geopolitical duplicity and a source of Evil Doing.
Intelligence wars rely on mathematical models to anticipate the response of those targeted. With game theory algorithms, reactions become foreseeable—within an acceptable range of probabilities.
Control enough of the variables and outcomes become a mathematical inevitability.
The WikiLeaks Motive
Was the reaction to this latest WikiLeaks foreseeable? With exquisite timing, the U.S. was discredited with an array of revelations that called into question U.S. motives and put in jeopardy U.S. relations worldwide.
As the Italian Foreign Minister summarized: “The news released by WikiLeaks will change diplomatic relations between countries.”
The hard-earned trust of the Pakistanis disappeared overnight. Attempts to engage Iran were set back. The overall effect advanced The Clash storyline. If Washington could so badly misread North Korean intentions, then why is the U.S. to be trusted when it comes to a nuclear Iran?
This Wiki-catalyzed storyline pushed Israel off the front page in favor of Iran.
Even U.S. detainees at Guantanamo are again at issue, reigniting that shameful spectacle as a provocation for extremism and terror. U.S. diplomats will now be suspected of spying and lying. What nation can now trust Americans to maintain confidences?
In short, the risks increased for everyone.
Except Israel.
Should Israel launch an attack on Iran, Tel Aviv can cite WikiLeaks as its rationale. Though an attack would be calamitous from a human, economic and financial perspective, even that foreseeable outcome would be dwarfed by the enduring hatred that would ensue.
That too is foreseeable—from a game theory perspective of those marketing The Clash.
The effect of the U.S. invasion of Iraq was predictable. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia foresaw it, noting simply that the U.S. invasion would “give Iraq to Iran as a gift on a golden platter.”
With the elimination of Sunni leader Saddam Hussein, the numerically dominant Shiites of Iraq were drawn into the political orbit of the Shiite-dominant Iran.
Game theorists focus their manipulation of affairs on their control of key variables. Then events take on a life all their own. The impact of this discrediting release was wide-ranging and fully foreseeable.
A Mossad case officer explained Israel’s success at waging war by way of deception: “Once the orchestra starts to play, we just hum along.”
These, after all, are the leading authorities in the field.
A New Wikileaks Emerges
If I know anything about the internet I know that movements can't be shut down. They shut down napster but did that stop file sharing? Hardly, up popped grokster, kazaa, winmx and many others to fill the void of napster. Filesharing today is as easy if not easier even though countless sites like suprnova have been taken down.
The point is that once the people decide they want to do something they do it and no amount of man made laws or bureaucracy will stop them. The same is true for wikileaks. The case can be made either way for wikileaks either they are a CIA/Mossad op or a legit organization of heroes. I sincerely pray that it's the latter but regardless now that We The People have realized this untapped avenue of information pandoras box is open. Forever.
You can take down wikileaks, but 3 more sites will pop up in it's wake. You can take those down and then you will have 9 sites pop up. I've seen it time and time again.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
The pressure on WikiLeaks is increasing. DN.se reveals that several key figures behind the website that publishes anonymous submissions and leaks of sensitive governmental, corporate, organizational or religious documents have resigned in protest against the controversial leader Julian Assange only to launch a new service for the so-called whistleblowers. The goal: to leak sensitive information to the public.
The new project, “Openleaks,” has been under way for some time and will be launched Monday. DN.se has spoken to individuals behind the new site and the message is clear.
“Our long term goal is to build a strong, transparent platform to support whistleblowers--both in terms of technology and politics--while at the same time encouraging others to start similar projects,” says a colleague wishing to remain anonymous.
”As a short-term goal, this is about completing the technical infrastructure and ensuring that the organization continues to be democratically governed by all its members, rather than limited to one group or individual.”
The news comes in turbulent times for WikiLeaks. Thousands of documents infuriating global leaders and policy-makers have been unveiled to the public via Cablegate. Meanwhile, Julian Assange has been arrested in Great Britain on suspected rape charges based in Sweden. News about WikiLeaks has been over-shadowed by Assange's personal problems.
Earlier this year, WikiLeaks experienced accessibility issues. According to information revealed to DN.se, the problem was not linked to outsiders trying to sabotage, but came from the inside as a signal to Julian Assange to step down. The colleagues were dissatisfied with the operation's association with Assange's personal problems and how he used the organization in his explanation of the criminal charges.
It is the top-down management style which is under critique.
On the other hand, the DN.se source emphasizes the fact that the new website is supportive of WikiLeaks purpose and goal.
“The two organizations are similar in that aspect that both are focusing on providing means for whistleblowers to anonymously provide the public with information,” one insider says.
Unlike WikiLeaks, Openleaks will not receive and publish information directly for the public eye. Instead, other organizations will access the Openleaks system and in turn, present their audience with the material. Documents will be processed and published by various collaborating organizations.
“We intend to split the work in a way where we handle only the anonymity and receiving end of the information,” says another colleague.
According to the internal documents shared with DN.se, Openleaks intends to establish itself as a neutral intermediary ”without a political agenda except from the dissemination of information to the media, the public, non-profit organizations, trade- and union organizations and other participating groups.”
“All editorial control and responsibility rests with the publishing organization. We will, as far as possible, take the role of the messenger between the whistleblower and the organization the whistleblower is trying to cooperate with,” says one anonymous informant.
Another intended consequence is to avoid the pressure from world leaders that WikiLeaks has experienced.
“As a result of our intention not to publish any document directly and in our own name, we do not expect to experience the kind of political pressure which WikiLeaks is under at this time. In that aspect, it is quite interesting to see how little of politicians' anger seems directed at the newspapers using WikiLeaks sources.”
Translation: Majsan Boström.
The point is that once the people decide they want to do something they do it and no amount of man made laws or bureaucracy will stop them. The same is true for wikileaks. The case can be made either way for wikileaks either they are a CIA/Mossad op or a legit organization of heroes. I sincerely pray that it's the latter but regardless now that We The People have realized this untapped avenue of information pandoras box is open. Forever.
You can take down wikileaks, but 3 more sites will pop up in it's wake. You can take those down and then you will have 9 sites pop up. I've seen it time and time again.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
The pressure on WikiLeaks is increasing. DN.se reveals that several key figures behind the website that publishes anonymous submissions and leaks of sensitive governmental, corporate, organizational or religious documents have resigned in protest against the controversial leader Julian Assange only to launch a new service for the so-called whistleblowers. The goal: to leak sensitive information to the public.
The new project, “Openleaks,” has been under way for some time and will be launched Monday. DN.se has spoken to individuals behind the new site and the message is clear.
“Our long term goal is to build a strong, transparent platform to support whistleblowers--both in terms of technology and politics--while at the same time encouraging others to start similar projects,” says a colleague wishing to remain anonymous.
”As a short-term goal, this is about completing the technical infrastructure and ensuring that the organization continues to be democratically governed by all its members, rather than limited to one group or individual.”
The news comes in turbulent times for WikiLeaks. Thousands of documents infuriating global leaders and policy-makers have been unveiled to the public via Cablegate. Meanwhile, Julian Assange has been arrested in Great Britain on suspected rape charges based in Sweden. News about WikiLeaks has been over-shadowed by Assange's personal problems.
Earlier this year, WikiLeaks experienced accessibility issues. According to information revealed to DN.se, the problem was not linked to outsiders trying to sabotage, but came from the inside as a signal to Julian Assange to step down. The colleagues were dissatisfied with the operation's association with Assange's personal problems and how he used the organization in his explanation of the criminal charges.
It is the top-down management style which is under critique.
On the other hand, the DN.se source emphasizes the fact that the new website is supportive of WikiLeaks purpose and goal.
“The two organizations are similar in that aspect that both are focusing on providing means for whistleblowers to anonymously provide the public with information,” one insider says.
Unlike WikiLeaks, Openleaks will not receive and publish information directly for the public eye. Instead, other organizations will access the Openleaks system and in turn, present their audience with the material. Documents will be processed and published by various collaborating organizations.
“We intend to split the work in a way where we handle only the anonymity and receiving end of the information,” says another colleague.
According to the internal documents shared with DN.se, Openleaks intends to establish itself as a neutral intermediary ”without a political agenda except from the dissemination of information to the media, the public, non-profit organizations, trade- and union organizations and other participating groups.”
“All editorial control and responsibility rests with the publishing organization. We will, as far as possible, take the role of the messenger between the whistleblower and the organization the whistleblower is trying to cooperate with,” says one anonymous informant.
Another intended consequence is to avoid the pressure from world leaders that WikiLeaks has experienced.
“As a result of our intention not to publish any document directly and in our own name, we do not expect to experience the kind of political pressure which WikiLeaks is under at this time. In that aspect, it is quite interesting to see how little of politicians' anger seems directed at the newspapers using WikiLeaks sources.”
Translation: Majsan Boström.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Google Banning The Word Jew
Fine with me I call them hook nosed rats.
http://www.google.com/explanation.html
If you recently used Google to search for the word “Jew,” you may have seen results that were very disturbing. We assure you that the views expressed by the sites in your results are not in any way endorsed by Google. We’d like to explain why you’re seeing these results when you conduct this search.
A site’s ranking in Google’s search results relies heavily on computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page’s relevance to a given query. Sometimes subtleties of language cause anomalies to appear that cannot be predicted. A search for “Jew” brings up one such unexpected result.
If you use Google to search for “Judaism,” “Jewish” or “Jewish people,” the results are informative and relevant. So why is a search for “Jew” different? One reason is that the word “Jew” is often used in an anti-Semitic context. Jewish organizations are more likely to use the word “Jewish” when talking about members of their faith. The word has become somewhat charged linguistically, as noted on websites devoted to Jewish topics such as these:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/jonah081500.asp
Someone searching for information on Jewish people would be more likely to enter terms like “Judaism,” “Jewish people,” or “Jews” than the single word “Jew” In fact, prior to this incident, the word “Jew” only appeared about once in every 10 million search queries. Now it’s likely that the great majority of searches on Google for “Jew” are by people who have heard about this issue and want to see the results for themselves.
The beliefs and preferences of those who work at Google, as well as the opinions of the general public, do not determine or impact our search results. Individual citizens and public interest groups do periodically urge us to remove particular links or otherwise adjust search results. Although Google reserves the right to address such requests individually, Google views the comprehensiveness of our search results as an extremely important priority. Accordingly, we do not remove a page from our search results simply because its content is unpopular or because we receive complaints concerning it. We will, however, remove pages from our results if we believe the page (or its site) violates our Webmaster Guidelines, if we believe we are required to do so by law, or at the request of the webmaster who is responsible for the page.
We apologize for the upsetting nature of the experience you had using Google and appreciate your taking the time to inform us about it.
Sincerely,
The Google Team
P.S. You may be interested in some additional information the Anti-Defamation League has posted about this issue at http://www.adl.org/rumors/google_search_rumors.asp. In addition, we call your attention to Google’s search results on this topic.
http://www.google.com/explanation.html
If you recently used Google to search for the word “Jew,” you may have seen results that were very disturbing. We assure you that the views expressed by the sites in your results are not in any way endorsed by Google. We’d like to explain why you’re seeing these results when you conduct this search.
A site’s ranking in Google’s search results relies heavily on computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page’s relevance to a given query. Sometimes subtleties of language cause anomalies to appear that cannot be predicted. A search for “Jew” brings up one such unexpected result.
If you use Google to search for “Judaism,” “Jewish” or “Jewish people,” the results are informative and relevant. So why is a search for “Jew” different? One reason is that the word “Jew” is often used in an anti-Semitic context. Jewish organizations are more likely to use the word “Jewish” when talking about members of their faith. The word has become somewhat charged linguistically, as noted on websites devoted to Jewish topics such as these:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/jonah081500.asp
Someone searching for information on Jewish people would be more likely to enter terms like “Judaism,” “Jewish people,” or “Jews” than the single word “Jew” In fact, prior to this incident, the word “Jew” only appeared about once in every 10 million search queries. Now it’s likely that the great majority of searches on Google for “Jew” are by people who have heard about this issue and want to see the results for themselves.
The beliefs and preferences of those who work at Google, as well as the opinions of the general public, do not determine or impact our search results. Individual citizens and public interest groups do periodically urge us to remove particular links or otherwise adjust search results. Although Google reserves the right to address such requests individually, Google views the comprehensiveness of our search results as an extremely important priority. Accordingly, we do not remove a page from our search results simply because its content is unpopular or because we receive complaints concerning it. We will, however, remove pages from our results if we believe the page (or its site) violates our Webmaster Guidelines, if we believe we are required to do so by law, or at the request of the webmaster who is responsible for the page.
We apologize for the upsetting nature of the experience you had using Google and appreciate your taking the time to inform us about it.
Sincerely,
The Google Team
P.S. You may be interested in some additional information the Anti-Defamation League has posted about this issue at http://www.adl.org/rumors/google_search_rumors.asp. In addition, we call your attention to Google’s search results on this topic.
The Madness Of A Lost Society
This is a democracy, these peoples vote counts just as much as yours.
It is your job and my job to wake up those around us and prepare for the things which are coming down the line. They aren't going to prepare and they are going to die, we will prepare and we will survive to pick up the pieces.
It is your job and my job to wake up those around us and prepare for the things which are coming down the line. They aren't going to prepare and they are going to die, we will prepare and we will survive to pick up the pieces.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Saturday, November 27, 2010
A Review Of Band Of Brothers
I have watched this miniseries and considered writing my own review. I have put it off for several months and then came across this, I may still do one in the future but for now this is a worthwhile read and a very accurate review of the show.
Full Story With Links
Band of Brothers, the 2001 TV miniseries, was produced by Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks.
Episode 9 was directed by David Frankel and written by John Orloff.
Based on the 1992 book by Stephen E. Ambrose, Band of Brothers. E Company, 506th Regiment, 101st Airborne from Normandy to Hitler’s Eagle Nest, Simon and Schuster (reviewed edition by Pocket Books, 2001).
In ten episodes, Band of Brothers depicts how E (“Easy”) Company, 506th Regiment, 101st Airborne Division, trained in America and England and then fought from D-Day through to the end of the European phase of WWII. It is a technically strong and gripping production. The battle scenes are among the most realistic I have seen, though one must allow for the demands of the cinematic medium — emphasis of a few individuals and spatial compression of combat groups. I am reminded of the grim and gritty street battle sequences in Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan. This review looks at the ninth episode, which does not depict military conflict but is itself something of a black operation in the culture wars.
As our own Edmund Connelly has repeatedly demonstrated, Jewish interests have frequently been pushed by American television and Hollywood films in various ways, often as a backdrop to stories unrelated to ethnicity, like the omnipresent upper class Anglo twit and the Black genius technical expert. The 9th episode of Band of Brothers, titled “Why We Fight”, represents an unprecedented level of ambition — to claim America’s WWII sacrifices as motivated by the desire to save Jews from Nazi persecution, to make America’s sacrifice in WWII all about the Jews, not about Americans doing their duty in a tragic internecine conflict.
The episode opens with a scene of devastation in the German town of Thalem, on April 11, 1945. There is rubble in the streets and townspeople are cleaning up. A group of relaxed G.I.s looks on from a balcony. An impromptu chamber orchestra of old men is playing a Beethoven dirge.
Then a flash-back: “One month earlier, Sturzelberg, Germany”. The war is as good as over. The Wehrmacht has given up the fight. Roosevelt’s death is announced. There are scenes of looting by officers and men; of a soldier having sex with an enthusiastic blond German girl; of drinking. The bridge over the Rhine at Remagen is announced captured.
The company is still under orders, though the men are beginning to think about life back in the States. The company moves out in convoy. A Jewish G.I. — the only Jewish soldier in the series and in the book — talks about his plans for after the war. “I’m going to find a nice Jewish girl.”
Masses of German POWs march by in orderly ranks. An officer says admiringly that even in defeat the Germans look like soldiers. But the Jewish G.I. sees nothing but objects of hate and contempt, standing up in the vehicle and screaming: “You stupid fascist pigs. . . . You ignorant, servile scum!” This displays a sophisticated vocabulary for someone who we are told in the final episode went back to driving taxis after the War. The scene does not occur in Ambrose’s book.
The company drives past a scene of summary executions of three uniformed Germans, who are kicked out of a building, made to kneel, then unceremoniously shot in the head, blood spraying. Their killers then begin to go through pockets. The killers are also uniformed but are not Americans or British. Perhaps Czech troops. The troops of Easy Company are shocked by the murders. They look down grimly, except for the Jewish G.I., who smiles.
A patrol in a forest near Landsberg in Bavaria discovers a concentration camp full of starving prisoners. (A 21-minute clip, including the concentration camp material, is available here.) The 101st did in fact liberate a camp in the area. The Jewish G.I. is the company’s translator. He translates the words of an inmate being interviewed by the commander. This is a work camp for Jews, pause, and Gypsies. The scene in Ambrose’s book does not mention Jews or Gypsies. It is described as a work camp (pp. 262–263).
German civilians in the local town deny any knowledge of the camp but they are not believed by the G.I.s. Food is requisitioned from the local town, from a bakery. We see a fat baker complaining as his entire stock is removed without explanation or payment. In Ambrose’s book there is no such character. Instead an officer finds a store of cheese and has it distributed to the camp inmates without incident (p. 262).
Whether or not there was a baker, the way he is presented is an exemplary propaganda construct of the cheapest Hollywood films. His jiggling neck and self righteous possessiveness stands for all German civilians in the town who, we are led to assume, must have known of the camp. It is implied that they remained knowingly well fed while the Jews starved. An officer threatens the baker with his pistol and accuses him of knowing about the camp. The baker’s unpleasant appearance is another example of Spielberg using hackneyed propaganda technique. It is not enough that a person do wrong. He must also wear a black hat and waxed mustachio.
The G.I.s begin to feed the camp inmates but a doctor warns of the danger of overeating following starvation. The inmates must remain in the camp under medical supervision. The Jewish G.I. is ordered to make the announcement, which he does reluctantly because he knows how much the inmates desire to be free at last. After making the announcement and pleading with the inmates he collapses in tears.
The next day all able-bodied German civilians are ordered to clean up the camp. The scenes of the cleanup are disturbing, as townspeople wade among the corpses.
The wife of a German general, seen earlier in her home facing down an American looter, is now seen pulling at bodies, humbled and distraught.
Flash forward to the episode’s start date, 11 April. Hitler’s death is reported. The company receives new orders: to occupy Berchtesgaden, Hitler’s mountain retreat.
The closing message of the episode reads: “These camps were part of the Nazi attempt to effect the ‘Final Solution’ to the ‘Jewish Question’”.
In fact these were work camps for building jet fighters. As the book states: “It was a work camp, not an extermination camp.” The film makes no mention of the POWs from Russia, Italy and other countries, German communists and homosexuals who also suffered at the hands of the Nazis. Spielberg’s film and many others like it steal the memory of the camps and the sufferings of many nations and relabel them “Jewish property”. This is an obvious lapse of scholarly standards in deference to Jewish sentiment.
The next caption reads: “Between 1942 and 1945 five million ethnic minorities and six million Jews were murdered — many of them in the camps.”
This again distinguishes Jewish suffering inside and outside the camp system. It implies that Jews were not an ethnic minority, which is incorrect. And it omits the ethnic majorities in Slavic lands who suffered inside and outside the camps. The high death toll among Polish and Russian civilians during the War is deemed unworthy of mention in Spielberg’s film. If the forced labour of Jews was an act of genocide, why not pay respects to the Russian, Ukrainian, and Polish nations?
The episode claims the forced work camps for Jewish victimhood. Its lies and distortions must have been deliberate because the script was read by experts. This is a work of black propaganda that exploits fine acting and technical wizardry.
Who did Spielberg choose to direct and write the episode? With David Frankel as director and John Orloff as writer it has the appearance of complete ethnic vertical integration. Was nothing left to chance? The other executive producer was Tom Hanks, not a Jew. But he would have been no counterweight to Spielberg’s ethnic dedication. Hanks is a typical tame Hollywood WASP who has done nothing for his people, produced no equivalent of Schindler’s List.
The series received the recognition it deserved. Orloff’s depiction of the concentration camp was honoured by the American Jewish community, not at all surprising considering that it was written for them. Here he is receiving the award for Best TV film from Sam Rubin at the 2nd Annual Jewish Image Awards in Film and Television at the Four Seasons Hotel in Los Angeles, Ca. Tuesday, Sept. 24, 2002.
More on the book version
The episode’s depiction of the concentration camp differs radically from that in the book. Instead of a concentration camp full of Jews, the book describes a “Displaced Persons’ camp” at Dormagen, containing forced labourers brought from occupied Europe (p. 255). The 101st did liberate the concentration camp Kaufering IV near Landsberg on the Lech in April 1945 but this section of Ambrose’s book is not titled “Why We Fight”. The book and most of the miniseries depicted the experiences of Easy Company. Not the liberation scene. This is based on a film made by the U.S. Army at the time, and supplied to Spielberg and Hanks by the European Holocaust Memorial organization in Landsberg (see links section of the Wikipedia article).
There is documentary evidence of the mixed status and ethnic composition of workers in the Landsberg camps. In October 1944 a local administrator estimated that there were 21 camps with 5,251 inmates working for various manufacturing companies. This included eight separate Jewish camps, with one more under construction. The administrator noted that there were also prisoners of war from Poland, Russia, and France. These figures do not tally with another estimate of just one facility near Landsberg for the period 15 July to 15 August 1944, when the workforce consisted of 9,000 prisoners brought from a concentration camp — many Jewish — plus 3,000 foreign workers and 3,900 German workers. Either way there were a great many non-Jews involved.
The phrase “why we fight” does not occur in the book. Ambrose quotes Maj. Winters as saying: “Now I know why I am here” (p. 263), which was an understandable emotional reaction to the misery of the camp, not a considered philosophical statement, and not one linked exclusively to the plight of Jews. It expressed a humanitarian sentiment. It is not a warrant to rehearse the Holocaust ritual yet again and push aside the men’s true responses and priorities.
The soldiers felt that they were fighting for America, not to end suffering most Americans did not know about until after the war’s end.
Less than one page of text about the camp becomes half an episode in Spielberg’s rendering. In the book there is no mention of the Jewish Holocaust. Yet the series is presented as based on Ambrose’s book. The G.I.s did not see Jews; they saw suffering humanity. Spielberg’s biggest crime is to have rewritten the scene to represent the G.I.s as feeling and thinking like him, focused on his ethnic kin. In effect he claims the Finest Generation for the Jews.
There are also errors of omission. For example the series ignores the praiseful reaction of the G.I.s to Germans, once they began to occupy German territory. There is a story! It could have been told by someone who was sympathetic to the innocent German civilians or merely objective and looking for an interesting tale to tell. The series could have depicted American G.I.s discovering how similar the Germans were to themselves. There are dramatic possibilities in this realization. Intimate moments of self doubt, of stunned realization. Close-up encounters with vulnerable human beings; flawed but very much like Americans. One can imagine a story in which some soldiers realize they have been fighting a sort of civil war. This is not a fanciful construction — it is right there in Ambrose’s book.
The book deals with American-German relations in some details. For example the soldiers began to realize how similar the Germans were to their own loved ones — they began to realize their own ethnic kinship. On one occasion a G.I. was clearing an apartment block so that it could be requisitioned by the company. This was wartime and the G.I.s’ hearts were hardened. The procedure was to go from door to door telling the occupants they had five minutes to vacate their apartments, taking no bedclothes so that the G.I.s would be comfortable.
They came pouring out, crying, lamenting, frightened. “I knocked on this one door,” Carson recalled, “and an elderly lady answered. I looked at her and she stared at me. God, it was a picture of my own grandmother. Our eyes met and I said, ‘Bleib hier,’ or stay here.”(p. 260, emphasis added.)
This is genetic similarity at work — one genotype recognizing a similar other. The old lady did not speak. All the G.I. perceived was her face. There is more along these lines that one would never guess from Spielberg’s series, except for the Jewish G.I.’s compassion for his people in the camps
Ambrose summarizes the American soldier’s judgment of various nationalities during WWII, mostly negative.
He felt the Arabs were despicable, liars, thieves, dirty, awful, without a redeeming feature. The Italians were liars, thieves, dirty, wonderful, with many redeeming features, but never to be trusted.
The French provincials and Parisians had assorted negative traits, while the British were “brave, resourceful, quaint, reserved, dull”. The Dutch were “simply wonderful” though few American soldiers were in Holland.
Wonder of wonders, the average G.I. found that the people he liked best, identified most closely with, enjoyed being with, were the Germans. Clean, hard-working, disciplined, educated, middle-class in their tastes and lifestyles (many G.I.s noted that so far as they could tell the only people in the world who regarded a flush toilet and soft white toilet paper as a necessity were the Germans and the Americans), the Germans seemed to many American soldiers as “just like us” (pp. 248–9).
Americans admired the German civilians who, of their own volition, began picking up rubble the morning after a battle. In that regard they compared the Germans favourably to other Europeans they had encountered. How easy it would have been, how inexpensive, to have the G.I.s utter a few words of praise as they watched German civilians clearing the street at the start of Episode 9.
Ambrose suggests that some of the good impression made by the Germans was due to the comfort provided by their middle class homes. But even Webster, a convinced German hater, could not help but soften. He wrote to his parent in April 1945 that the “Germans I have seen so far have impressed me as clean, efficient, law-abiding people”. They were churchgoers. (Couldn’t Hanks persuade Spielberg to allow just one scene of Germans in church?) “In Germany everybody goes out and works”, unlike other nationalities. “They are cleaner, more progressive, and more ambitious than either the English or the French” (p. 250).
The shock of ethnic recognition experienced by G.I.s as they entered Germany has been discussed elsewhere. Ambrose quotes one author, Glenn Gray, thus: “The enemy could not have changed so quickly from a beast to a likable human being. Thus, the conclusion is nearly forced upon the G.I.s that they have been previously blinded by fear and hatred and the propaganda of their own government” (p. 250).
The only pronounced reference to ethnicity concerns the only Jewish member of Easy Company, Joseph Liebgott. He is seen early in the series objecting to an anti-Semitic outburst by a fellow private. He has no visible Jewish characteristics, unsurprising because he is played by Ross McCall, a Catholic Scotsman. Apparently Spielberg knows when genetic similarity is useful. Because the character played by McCall is so different to the real Liebgott as described in the book, I have referred to the former as “the Jewish G.I.” This is the (miniseries) character who screamed collective insults at German prisoners of war and smiled at the murder of others.
The Jewish G.I. character is given some balanced resolution in the tenth and final installment directed by Mikael Salomon. In July 1945 the division is occupying a part of Bavaria, which includes Hitler’s mountain retreat, the Eagle’s Nest. For much of that episode he is in a vengeful state of mind, occupying a black and white world where all Germans are on the dark side. He even kills a man on the hearsay that he had been a concentration camp commander and personally questioning him (well, he demands his death; another G.I. pulls the trigger). This is true to the book. We detect some softening when the Jewish G.I. translates a speech by a German officer. The officer is about to disband his company, and a watching American officer asks the Jewish G.I. to interpret. At first the translation is delivered mockingly, but the speech ends up winning the respect even of someone twisted by hate. The German officer begins by saying that it has been a long hard war. That he is proud of his men. That a spirit of comradeship has arisen from sharing the same dangers. They had become brothers. Some of the German troops weep. Later we see a friendly conversation between a German and an American soldier manning a checkpoint together, in which the German shows a human face (he recommended the Italian front over the Russian). The closing scene of the episode is in documentary format. A veteran of the 101st Airborne recites the great St. Crispin’s Day speech by Henry V in Shakespeare’s play, echoing the German officer’s words.
Other scenes relating to ethnicity include one in which half a dozen German prisoners of war are murdered in cold blood in the D-Day episode. The murderer is a handsome Anglo with Nietzschean views and homicidal demeanour, who hands around cigarettes to the unarmed Germans and gives them lights before shooting them down without provocation. The killer is not coarse or low class and he speaks standard American English without a trace of provincial or big-city accent. In the last few episodes the character is rehabilitated to become a hero. He is never punished or admonished. What is the point of this invented scene, which does not occur in the book? The closest event in the book is when a few German prisoners are shot while attempting to jump their guards (p. 77). The very different film version associates Anglo ethnicity with mindless, psychopathic aggression.
Despite a scene in which a German POW shows a human face (before being murdered as above), the Germans are once again nameless aggressors. Not much change from the usual Hollywood formula. Among the G.I.s the weak characters are all Anglos. The Italian soldiers have ethnic residues but are mainly regular guys.
Conclusion
The Finest Generation were fallible human beings who were nevertheless as noble a band of brothers as there could be. They fought for their nation’s interests. Most were patriots at a time when America was seen by most citizens as a White republic. The ninth episode of Band of Brothers is an act of identity theft, an attempt to rewrite history to misrepresent the American soldiers of WWII as having different identities and different motivations than they in fact had. The ninth episode and to some extent the whole miniseries is part of an effort to airbrush from the American people’s memory the authentic historical American nation and replace it with a lie that serves leftist ideology and Jewish interests.
How can this sort of outrage occur? Once a group is beyond criticism, let alone censure, its ambition can expand to fill the status vacuum thus created. That privilege is created by the ban on anti-Semitism so broadly defined that it includes reasoned criticism of Jewish political culture. Any attempt to criticize Spielberg or other Jews for ethnic bias would attract the anti-Semitism accusation, unleashing real penalties formal or informal. No other group is so privileged.
The replacement of White Christian historical memories with minority perspectives and sometimes by self-hate fantasies is limited by the inertial quality of those memories. The interviewees at the start of the 9th episode had mixed feelings towards Germans. Only one said that Germans were thought of as evil. One said that he could have been friends with them under different circumstances. All the veterans were relaxed. None got excited or showed hostility. None mentioned the concentration camp liberated by the 101st. None mentioned Nazis. This is congruent with the book’s cursory treatment of the work camp. While the cruel conditions in the camp were deplored, the G.I.s had seen other horrors.
Living memories also limit the chutzpah of the casting director. It is true that a Scot was cast as the Jewish G.I. However the predominance among the actors cast for the film of Northwestern European racial types and Anglo regional accents is accurate, as is the segregation of Negroes to transport duties. It will take one or two generations longer before these aspects can be falsified with impunity. It is reasonable to conclude that this is the direction film is moving when a Jewish producer can tell his White Gentile audience that their fathers fought and died not in defence of their nation but for his own ethnic interests, knowing that he is safe from effective reproach.
Full Story With Links
Band of Brothers, the 2001 TV miniseries, was produced by Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks.
Episode 9 was directed by David Frankel and written by John Orloff.
Based on the 1992 book by Stephen E. Ambrose, Band of Brothers. E Company, 506th Regiment, 101st Airborne from Normandy to Hitler’s Eagle Nest, Simon and Schuster (reviewed edition by Pocket Books, 2001).
In ten episodes, Band of Brothers depicts how E (“Easy”) Company, 506th Regiment, 101st Airborne Division, trained in America and England and then fought from D-Day through to the end of the European phase of WWII. It is a technically strong and gripping production. The battle scenes are among the most realistic I have seen, though one must allow for the demands of the cinematic medium — emphasis of a few individuals and spatial compression of combat groups. I am reminded of the grim and gritty street battle sequences in Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan. This review looks at the ninth episode, which does not depict military conflict but is itself something of a black operation in the culture wars.
As our own Edmund Connelly has repeatedly demonstrated, Jewish interests have frequently been pushed by American television and Hollywood films in various ways, often as a backdrop to stories unrelated to ethnicity, like the omnipresent upper class Anglo twit and the Black genius technical expert. The 9th episode of Band of Brothers, titled “Why We Fight”, represents an unprecedented level of ambition — to claim America’s WWII sacrifices as motivated by the desire to save Jews from Nazi persecution, to make America’s sacrifice in WWII all about the Jews, not about Americans doing their duty in a tragic internecine conflict.
The episode opens with a scene of devastation in the German town of Thalem, on April 11, 1945. There is rubble in the streets and townspeople are cleaning up. A group of relaxed G.I.s looks on from a balcony. An impromptu chamber orchestra of old men is playing a Beethoven dirge.
Then a flash-back: “One month earlier, Sturzelberg, Germany”. The war is as good as over. The Wehrmacht has given up the fight. Roosevelt’s death is announced. There are scenes of looting by officers and men; of a soldier having sex with an enthusiastic blond German girl; of drinking. The bridge over the Rhine at Remagen is announced captured.
The company is still under orders, though the men are beginning to think about life back in the States. The company moves out in convoy. A Jewish G.I. — the only Jewish soldier in the series and in the book — talks about his plans for after the war. “I’m going to find a nice Jewish girl.”
Masses of German POWs march by in orderly ranks. An officer says admiringly that even in defeat the Germans look like soldiers. But the Jewish G.I. sees nothing but objects of hate and contempt, standing up in the vehicle and screaming: “You stupid fascist pigs. . . . You ignorant, servile scum!” This displays a sophisticated vocabulary for someone who we are told in the final episode went back to driving taxis after the War. The scene does not occur in Ambrose’s book.
The company drives past a scene of summary executions of three uniformed Germans, who are kicked out of a building, made to kneel, then unceremoniously shot in the head, blood spraying. Their killers then begin to go through pockets. The killers are also uniformed but are not Americans or British. Perhaps Czech troops. The troops of Easy Company are shocked by the murders. They look down grimly, except for the Jewish G.I., who smiles.
A patrol in a forest near Landsberg in Bavaria discovers a concentration camp full of starving prisoners. (A 21-minute clip, including the concentration camp material, is available here.) The 101st did in fact liberate a camp in the area. The Jewish G.I. is the company’s translator. He translates the words of an inmate being interviewed by the commander. This is a work camp for Jews, pause, and Gypsies. The scene in Ambrose’s book does not mention Jews or Gypsies. It is described as a work camp (pp. 262–263).
German civilians in the local town deny any knowledge of the camp but they are not believed by the G.I.s. Food is requisitioned from the local town, from a bakery. We see a fat baker complaining as his entire stock is removed without explanation or payment. In Ambrose’s book there is no such character. Instead an officer finds a store of cheese and has it distributed to the camp inmates without incident (p. 262).
Whether or not there was a baker, the way he is presented is an exemplary propaganda construct of the cheapest Hollywood films. His jiggling neck and self righteous possessiveness stands for all German civilians in the town who, we are led to assume, must have known of the camp. It is implied that they remained knowingly well fed while the Jews starved. An officer threatens the baker with his pistol and accuses him of knowing about the camp. The baker’s unpleasant appearance is another example of Spielberg using hackneyed propaganda technique. It is not enough that a person do wrong. He must also wear a black hat and waxed mustachio.
The G.I.s begin to feed the camp inmates but a doctor warns of the danger of overeating following starvation. The inmates must remain in the camp under medical supervision. The Jewish G.I. is ordered to make the announcement, which he does reluctantly because he knows how much the inmates desire to be free at last. After making the announcement and pleading with the inmates he collapses in tears.
The next day all able-bodied German civilians are ordered to clean up the camp. The scenes of the cleanup are disturbing, as townspeople wade among the corpses.
The wife of a German general, seen earlier in her home facing down an American looter, is now seen pulling at bodies, humbled and distraught.
Flash forward to the episode’s start date, 11 April. Hitler’s death is reported. The company receives new orders: to occupy Berchtesgaden, Hitler’s mountain retreat.
The closing message of the episode reads: “These camps were part of the Nazi attempt to effect the ‘Final Solution’ to the ‘Jewish Question’”.
In fact these were work camps for building jet fighters. As the book states: “It was a work camp, not an extermination camp.” The film makes no mention of the POWs from Russia, Italy and other countries, German communists and homosexuals who also suffered at the hands of the Nazis. Spielberg’s film and many others like it steal the memory of the camps and the sufferings of many nations and relabel them “Jewish property”. This is an obvious lapse of scholarly standards in deference to Jewish sentiment.
The next caption reads: “Between 1942 and 1945 five million ethnic minorities and six million Jews were murdered — many of them in the camps.”
This again distinguishes Jewish suffering inside and outside the camp system. It implies that Jews were not an ethnic minority, which is incorrect. And it omits the ethnic majorities in Slavic lands who suffered inside and outside the camps. The high death toll among Polish and Russian civilians during the War is deemed unworthy of mention in Spielberg’s film. If the forced labour of Jews was an act of genocide, why not pay respects to the Russian, Ukrainian, and Polish nations?
The episode claims the forced work camps for Jewish victimhood. Its lies and distortions must have been deliberate because the script was read by experts. This is a work of black propaganda that exploits fine acting and technical wizardry.
Who did Spielberg choose to direct and write the episode? With David Frankel as director and John Orloff as writer it has the appearance of complete ethnic vertical integration. Was nothing left to chance? The other executive producer was Tom Hanks, not a Jew. But he would have been no counterweight to Spielberg’s ethnic dedication. Hanks is a typical tame Hollywood WASP who has done nothing for his people, produced no equivalent of Schindler’s List.
The series received the recognition it deserved. Orloff’s depiction of the concentration camp was honoured by the American Jewish community, not at all surprising considering that it was written for them. Here he is receiving the award for Best TV film from Sam Rubin at the 2nd Annual Jewish Image Awards in Film and Television at the Four Seasons Hotel in Los Angeles, Ca. Tuesday, Sept. 24, 2002.
More on the book version
The episode’s depiction of the concentration camp differs radically from that in the book. Instead of a concentration camp full of Jews, the book describes a “Displaced Persons’ camp” at Dormagen, containing forced labourers brought from occupied Europe (p. 255). The 101st did liberate the concentration camp Kaufering IV near Landsberg on the Lech in April 1945 but this section of Ambrose’s book is not titled “Why We Fight”. The book and most of the miniseries depicted the experiences of Easy Company. Not the liberation scene. This is based on a film made by the U.S. Army at the time, and supplied to Spielberg and Hanks by the European Holocaust Memorial organization in Landsberg (see links section of the Wikipedia article).
There is documentary evidence of the mixed status and ethnic composition of workers in the Landsberg camps. In October 1944 a local administrator estimated that there were 21 camps with 5,251 inmates working for various manufacturing companies. This included eight separate Jewish camps, with one more under construction. The administrator noted that there were also prisoners of war from Poland, Russia, and France. These figures do not tally with another estimate of just one facility near Landsberg for the period 15 July to 15 August 1944, when the workforce consisted of 9,000 prisoners brought from a concentration camp — many Jewish — plus 3,000 foreign workers and 3,900 German workers. Either way there were a great many non-Jews involved.
The phrase “why we fight” does not occur in the book. Ambrose quotes Maj. Winters as saying: “Now I know why I am here” (p. 263), which was an understandable emotional reaction to the misery of the camp, not a considered philosophical statement, and not one linked exclusively to the plight of Jews. It expressed a humanitarian sentiment. It is not a warrant to rehearse the Holocaust ritual yet again and push aside the men’s true responses and priorities.
The soldiers felt that they were fighting for America, not to end suffering most Americans did not know about until after the war’s end.
Less than one page of text about the camp becomes half an episode in Spielberg’s rendering. In the book there is no mention of the Jewish Holocaust. Yet the series is presented as based on Ambrose’s book. The G.I.s did not see Jews; they saw suffering humanity. Spielberg’s biggest crime is to have rewritten the scene to represent the G.I.s as feeling and thinking like him, focused on his ethnic kin. In effect he claims the Finest Generation for the Jews.
There are also errors of omission. For example the series ignores the praiseful reaction of the G.I.s to Germans, once they began to occupy German territory. There is a story! It could have been told by someone who was sympathetic to the innocent German civilians or merely objective and looking for an interesting tale to tell. The series could have depicted American G.I.s discovering how similar the Germans were to themselves. There are dramatic possibilities in this realization. Intimate moments of self doubt, of stunned realization. Close-up encounters with vulnerable human beings; flawed but very much like Americans. One can imagine a story in which some soldiers realize they have been fighting a sort of civil war. This is not a fanciful construction — it is right there in Ambrose’s book.
The book deals with American-German relations in some details. For example the soldiers began to realize how similar the Germans were to their own loved ones — they began to realize their own ethnic kinship. On one occasion a G.I. was clearing an apartment block so that it could be requisitioned by the company. This was wartime and the G.I.s’ hearts were hardened. The procedure was to go from door to door telling the occupants they had five minutes to vacate their apartments, taking no bedclothes so that the G.I.s would be comfortable.
They came pouring out, crying, lamenting, frightened. “I knocked on this one door,” Carson recalled, “and an elderly lady answered. I looked at her and she stared at me. God, it was a picture of my own grandmother. Our eyes met and I said, ‘Bleib hier,’ or stay here.”(p. 260, emphasis added.)
This is genetic similarity at work — one genotype recognizing a similar other. The old lady did not speak. All the G.I. perceived was her face. There is more along these lines that one would never guess from Spielberg’s series, except for the Jewish G.I.’s compassion for his people in the camps
Ambrose summarizes the American soldier’s judgment of various nationalities during WWII, mostly negative.
He felt the Arabs were despicable, liars, thieves, dirty, awful, without a redeeming feature. The Italians were liars, thieves, dirty, wonderful, with many redeeming features, but never to be trusted.
The French provincials and Parisians had assorted negative traits, while the British were “brave, resourceful, quaint, reserved, dull”. The Dutch were “simply wonderful” though few American soldiers were in Holland.
Wonder of wonders, the average G.I. found that the people he liked best, identified most closely with, enjoyed being with, were the Germans. Clean, hard-working, disciplined, educated, middle-class in their tastes and lifestyles (many G.I.s noted that so far as they could tell the only people in the world who regarded a flush toilet and soft white toilet paper as a necessity were the Germans and the Americans), the Germans seemed to many American soldiers as “just like us” (pp. 248–9).
Americans admired the German civilians who, of their own volition, began picking up rubble the morning after a battle. In that regard they compared the Germans favourably to other Europeans they had encountered. How easy it would have been, how inexpensive, to have the G.I.s utter a few words of praise as they watched German civilians clearing the street at the start of Episode 9.
Ambrose suggests that some of the good impression made by the Germans was due to the comfort provided by their middle class homes. But even Webster, a convinced German hater, could not help but soften. He wrote to his parent in April 1945 that the “Germans I have seen so far have impressed me as clean, efficient, law-abiding people”. They were churchgoers. (Couldn’t Hanks persuade Spielberg to allow just one scene of Germans in church?) “In Germany everybody goes out and works”, unlike other nationalities. “They are cleaner, more progressive, and more ambitious than either the English or the French” (p. 250).
The shock of ethnic recognition experienced by G.I.s as they entered Germany has been discussed elsewhere. Ambrose quotes one author, Glenn Gray, thus: “The enemy could not have changed so quickly from a beast to a likable human being. Thus, the conclusion is nearly forced upon the G.I.s that they have been previously blinded by fear and hatred and the propaganda of their own government” (p. 250).
The only pronounced reference to ethnicity concerns the only Jewish member of Easy Company, Joseph Liebgott. He is seen early in the series objecting to an anti-Semitic outburst by a fellow private. He has no visible Jewish characteristics, unsurprising because he is played by Ross McCall, a Catholic Scotsman. Apparently Spielberg knows when genetic similarity is useful. Because the character played by McCall is so different to the real Liebgott as described in the book, I have referred to the former as “the Jewish G.I.” This is the (miniseries) character who screamed collective insults at German prisoners of war and smiled at the murder of others.
The Jewish G.I. character is given some balanced resolution in the tenth and final installment directed by Mikael Salomon. In July 1945 the division is occupying a part of Bavaria, which includes Hitler’s mountain retreat, the Eagle’s Nest. For much of that episode he is in a vengeful state of mind, occupying a black and white world where all Germans are on the dark side. He even kills a man on the hearsay that he had been a concentration camp commander and personally questioning him (well, he demands his death; another G.I. pulls the trigger). This is true to the book. We detect some softening when the Jewish G.I. translates a speech by a German officer. The officer is about to disband his company, and a watching American officer asks the Jewish G.I. to interpret. At first the translation is delivered mockingly, but the speech ends up winning the respect even of someone twisted by hate. The German officer begins by saying that it has been a long hard war. That he is proud of his men. That a spirit of comradeship has arisen from sharing the same dangers. They had become brothers. Some of the German troops weep. Later we see a friendly conversation between a German and an American soldier manning a checkpoint together, in which the German shows a human face (he recommended the Italian front over the Russian). The closing scene of the episode is in documentary format. A veteran of the 101st Airborne recites the great St. Crispin’s Day speech by Henry V in Shakespeare’s play, echoing the German officer’s words.
Other scenes relating to ethnicity include one in which half a dozen German prisoners of war are murdered in cold blood in the D-Day episode. The murderer is a handsome Anglo with Nietzschean views and homicidal demeanour, who hands around cigarettes to the unarmed Germans and gives them lights before shooting them down without provocation. The killer is not coarse or low class and he speaks standard American English without a trace of provincial or big-city accent. In the last few episodes the character is rehabilitated to become a hero. He is never punished or admonished. What is the point of this invented scene, which does not occur in the book? The closest event in the book is when a few German prisoners are shot while attempting to jump their guards (p. 77). The very different film version associates Anglo ethnicity with mindless, psychopathic aggression.
Despite a scene in which a German POW shows a human face (before being murdered as above), the Germans are once again nameless aggressors. Not much change from the usual Hollywood formula. Among the G.I.s the weak characters are all Anglos. The Italian soldiers have ethnic residues but are mainly regular guys.
Conclusion
The Finest Generation were fallible human beings who were nevertheless as noble a band of brothers as there could be. They fought for their nation’s interests. Most were patriots at a time when America was seen by most citizens as a White republic. The ninth episode of Band of Brothers is an act of identity theft, an attempt to rewrite history to misrepresent the American soldiers of WWII as having different identities and different motivations than they in fact had. The ninth episode and to some extent the whole miniseries is part of an effort to airbrush from the American people’s memory the authentic historical American nation and replace it with a lie that serves leftist ideology and Jewish interests.
How can this sort of outrage occur? Once a group is beyond criticism, let alone censure, its ambition can expand to fill the status vacuum thus created. That privilege is created by the ban on anti-Semitism so broadly defined that it includes reasoned criticism of Jewish political culture. Any attempt to criticize Spielberg or other Jews for ethnic bias would attract the anti-Semitism accusation, unleashing real penalties formal or informal. No other group is so privileged.
The replacement of White Christian historical memories with minority perspectives and sometimes by self-hate fantasies is limited by the inertial quality of those memories. The interviewees at the start of the 9th episode had mixed feelings towards Germans. Only one said that Germans were thought of as evil. One said that he could have been friends with them under different circumstances. All the veterans were relaxed. None got excited or showed hostility. None mentioned the concentration camp liberated by the 101st. None mentioned Nazis. This is congruent with the book’s cursory treatment of the work camp. While the cruel conditions in the camp were deplored, the G.I.s had seen other horrors.
Living memories also limit the chutzpah of the casting director. It is true that a Scot was cast as the Jewish G.I. However the predominance among the actors cast for the film of Northwestern European racial types and Anglo regional accents is accurate, as is the segregation of Negroes to transport duties. It will take one or two generations longer before these aspects can be falsified with impunity. It is reasonable to conclude that this is the direction film is moving when a Jewish producer can tell his White Gentile audience that their fathers fought and died not in defence of their nation but for his own ethnic interests, knowing that he is safe from effective reproach.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Black Actor Kills Mother With A Sword
No surprise here.
An actor who appeared in hit show Ugly Betty has been arrested after allegedly killing his mother with a samurai sword inside her New York home.
Michael L Brea was taken into custody by a SWAT team after police spent 45 minutes trying to get into the apartment when neighbours reported hearing screaming from the home.
Brea had to eventually be tasered by police at the Brooklyn apartment where authorities said they were met with a 'very bloody' scene.
Police said they found Yannick Brea kneeling with fatal lacerations to her head in a blood-spattered bathroom.
Her son was in a nearby bedroom holding the three-foot sword and babbling about religion and repentance, police said.
A neighbour claimed the 31-year-old had taken his mother hostage and could be heard shouting passages from the Bible.
He claimed the actor had been shouting 'repent. repent,' before stabbing his 51-year-old mother with the sword.
There have been claims that woman was found decapitated.
Police had been called to a domestic disturbance at Brea's home prior to the killing.
They had left, but in the early hours of this morning neighbours again called police after hearing screams of help.
Bernard Bren who lives nearby claimed he woke up when he heard screaming.
'It sounded like a lady's voice and after a while I just didn't hear the woman's voice again,' he said.
'I heard this wild screaming', said Gregory Clare who lived below the apartment where Yannick was brutally killed.
'Michael was yelling, 'Repent, repent, sinner, sinner', over and over again', Clare said. 'He was screaming, 'You never accepted Jesus'. It was real loud'.
He added: 'I saw Michael last Saturday. He was asking about my daughter. He was always real kind.
Another neighbour said: 'Her screams woke me up. Screams I'll never forget. I heard [Michael] rambling. He was incoherent'.
Brea, who appeared in one episode of Ugly Betty, was apparently taken out of the Prospect Heights apartment on a stretcher and is currently at Kings County Hospital.
He will undergo a psychiatric assessment before police decide whether to charge him.
Neighbours said they could see splattered blood on the apartment windows.
The accused killer's cousin John Brea was stunned when he heard news of Yannick's death.
'She was a very loving person. She helped to raise all of us', he said, adding that his aunt was a hard-working woman.
When notified of the killing, Brea's ex-girlfriend said: 'Michael had the whole world in his hands. This is a shock'.
Brea is a Haitian-American actor who was also a dancer in film Step Up 3D. He was described by neighbours as 'quiet' and into martial arts.
Brea, who was described by neighbors as 'quiet,' was into martial arts and was a low-level Mason.
He apparently took the murder weapon from a Masonic lodge after a meeting on Monday night and then later used it on his mother, said the suspect's uncle Martial Brea.
His nephew was not cleared to take one of the ceremonial swords which typically has stainless steel blades with a short, black grip.
'Something happened that made him do it,' said Martial. 'The devil entered him.'
The murder suspect has a twin brother Marcel who is a physical trainer who apparently went to the hospital this morning with a friend.
Brea bought a Subway restaurant shop three years ago and he is said to have given away 300 sandwiches for free on Thanksgiving in 2008.
'I remember growing up and my mother was always feeding people who were less fortunate," Brea once told Haitian movie site BelFim.com. 'My parents raised me to always share and to give charity in the name of God.'
An actor who appeared in hit show Ugly Betty has been arrested after allegedly killing his mother with a samurai sword inside her New York home.
Michael L Brea was taken into custody by a SWAT team after police spent 45 minutes trying to get into the apartment when neighbours reported hearing screaming from the home.
Brea had to eventually be tasered by police at the Brooklyn apartment where authorities said they were met with a 'very bloody' scene.
Police said they found Yannick Brea kneeling with fatal lacerations to her head in a blood-spattered bathroom.
Her son was in a nearby bedroom holding the three-foot sword and babbling about religion and repentance, police said.
A neighbour claimed the 31-year-old had taken his mother hostage and could be heard shouting passages from the Bible.
He claimed the actor had been shouting 'repent. repent,' before stabbing his 51-year-old mother with the sword.
There have been claims that woman was found decapitated.
Police had been called to a domestic disturbance at Brea's home prior to the killing.
They had left, but in the early hours of this morning neighbours again called police after hearing screams of help.
Bernard Bren who lives nearby claimed he woke up when he heard screaming.
'It sounded like a lady's voice and after a while I just didn't hear the woman's voice again,' he said.
'I heard this wild screaming', said Gregory Clare who lived below the apartment where Yannick was brutally killed.
'Michael was yelling, 'Repent, repent, sinner, sinner', over and over again', Clare said. 'He was screaming, 'You never accepted Jesus'. It was real loud'.
He added: 'I saw Michael last Saturday. He was asking about my daughter. He was always real kind.
Another neighbour said: 'Her screams woke me up. Screams I'll never forget. I heard [Michael] rambling. He was incoherent'.
Brea, who appeared in one episode of Ugly Betty, was apparently taken out of the Prospect Heights apartment on a stretcher and is currently at Kings County Hospital.
He will undergo a psychiatric assessment before police decide whether to charge him.
Neighbours said they could see splattered blood on the apartment windows.
The accused killer's cousin John Brea was stunned when he heard news of Yannick's death.
'She was a very loving person. She helped to raise all of us', he said, adding that his aunt was a hard-working woman.
When notified of the killing, Brea's ex-girlfriend said: 'Michael had the whole world in his hands. This is a shock'.
Brea is a Haitian-American actor who was also a dancer in film Step Up 3D. He was described by neighbours as 'quiet' and into martial arts.
Brea, who was described by neighbors as 'quiet,' was into martial arts and was a low-level Mason.
He apparently took the murder weapon from a Masonic lodge after a meeting on Monday night and then later used it on his mother, said the suspect's uncle Martial Brea.
His nephew was not cleared to take one of the ceremonial swords which typically has stainless steel blades with a short, black grip.
'Something happened that made him do it,' said Martial. 'The devil entered him.'
The murder suspect has a twin brother Marcel who is a physical trainer who apparently went to the hospital this morning with a friend.
Brea bought a Subway restaurant shop three years ago and he is said to have given away 300 sandwiches for free on Thanksgiving in 2008.
'I remember growing up and my mother was always feeding people who were less fortunate," Brea once told Haitian movie site BelFim.com. 'My parents raised me to always share and to give charity in the name of God.'
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
The Color Of Crime
The next time you get in an argument with some dumbass who is in denial about racial crime stats link them to this article.
FULL STORY WITH LINKS
Explaining that blacks and Hispanics are more prone to violent crime than whites is like explaining that the sun comes up in the East. Everyone knows it. The crime statistics prove it, as do the nightly news programs and daily newspapers—whatever the producers of Law and Order want you to believe.
Now a black editorial writer at the Washington Post, Jonathan Capehart, has stumbled upon this truth. Capehart reports that he ran into New York City’s police chief at breakfast one morning and asked about the city’s rising crime rate. The conversation led Capehart to examine the New York City Police Department’s crime data. The color of murder and gun violence in New York
Lo and behold, Capehart learned something he apparently hadn’t known before: Blacks and Hispanics commit essentially all the violent crime in New York. They are also the most likely crime victims.
Capehart quoted the report for 2010 directly:
"Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter victims are most frequently Black (67.0%) or Hispanic (28.1%). White victims account for (3.2%) of all Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter victims while Asian /Pacific Islanders account for (1.8%) of all Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter victims. The race/ethnicity of known Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter suspects mirrors the victim population with Black (65.3%) and Hispanic (30.6%) suspects accounting for the majority of suspects. White suspects account for (1.8%) of all Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter suspects while Asian/Pacific Islanders accounted for (2.4%) of the known Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter suspects.
“The Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter arrest population is similarly distributed. Black arrestees (53.8%) and Hispanic arrestees (36.4%) account for the majority of Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter arrestees while White arrestees (7.1%) and Asian/Pacific Islander (2.2%) arrestees account for the remaining portions of the Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter arrest population."[PDF]
Seeing the news so starkly distressed Capehart. He writes:
"In short, 95.1 percent of all murder victims and 95.9 percent of all shooting victims in New York City are black or Hispanic. And 90.2 percent of those arrested for murder and 96.7 percent of those arrested for shooting someone are black and Hispanic. I don’t even know where to begin to describe the horror I still feel looking at those numbers. But the word ‘hunted’ comes to mind."
Capehart feels the same horror Jesse Jackson feels. "There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life," Jackson once admitted, "than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery — then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved."
Jackson is relieved when he sees whites footstepping behind him, as are all liberals, black or white, because even a staunch ideologue knows the truth: Blacks and Hispanics commit almost all of the violent crime in this country.
Capehart has finally seen the true color of crime. But six months ago, The New York Times’ Al Baker [Email him]unbosomed himself of a jeremiad that suggested the NYPD was "profiling" because a study of "stop-and-frisk" data showed that most of those stopped and frisked were, well, black and Hispanic. [New York Minorities More Likely to Be Frisked, May 12, 2010]
Reported Baker: "[b]lacks and Latinos were nine times as likely as whites to be stopped by the police in New York City in 2009, but, once stopped, were no more likely to be arrested."
Blacks are 23 percent of the Big Apple’s population, but constituted 55 percent of the stops. Hispanics are 32 percent of the population, but were 28 percent of stops. Whites, at 35 percent of the population, accounted for 10 percent of stops.
These data, compiled by the leftist Center for Constitutional Rights, allegedly prove the police are profiling,—although blacks were not arrested more than whites after a stop. And more importantly, although the readily available crime data — that used by Capehart — demonstrates that profiling isn’t the problem.
After the Times took its shot at the thin blue line, the City Journal’s sensible Heather Mac Donald discharged a blunderbuss loaded with data to blow a hole in the profiling charge. She published a piece in her magazine and (to the Times’ credit) she was allowed to publish a similar piece on the op-ed page of the Times. [Fighting Crime Where the Criminals Are, June 25, 2010]
Wrote Mac Donald, "[y]ou cannot properly analyze police behavior without analyzing crime". Mac Donald eviscerated the Times by quoting from the 2009 edition [PDF]of the same report that Capehart used.
"Blacks committed 66 percent of all violent crimes in the first half of 2009 (though they were only 55 percent of all stops and only 23 percent of the city’s population). [Emphasis added]Blacks committed 80 percent of all shootings in the first half of 2009. Together, blacks and Hispanics committed 98 percent of all shootings. Blacks committed nearly 70 percent of all robberies. Whites, by contrast, committed 5 percent of all violent crimes in the first half of 2009, though they are 35 percent of the city’s population (and were 10 percent of all stops). They committed 1.8 percent of all shootings and less than 5 percent of all robberies. The face of violent crime in New York, in other words, like in every other large American city, is almost exclusively black and brown. "[Distorting the Truth About Crime and Race, May 14, 2010 ]
Mac Donald observed that the police department’s Compstat process crunches crime data that tell police where the crime is—and something else important: blacks and Hispanics are stopped and frisked less frequently that the propensity for violent crime would seem to demand.
Yet the New York Times, Mac Donald correctly concludes, "assumes that policing should mirror census data"—that is, if blacks constitute 23 percent of New York City’s population, then blacks should account for 23 percent of all those stopped by police.
But the police can’t operate that way. They have to patrol crime-besieged neighborhoods and arrest the people who commit the crimes. And most of those people are blacks and Hispanics.
Thus, cops spend most of their time making busts in minority neighborhoods like the South Bronx and Harlem, not on the Upper East Side.
Unlike the professional race hustlers, Jonathan Capehart seems to understand the obvious:
"People have railed against black-on-black crime for decades. And yet it persists. Yes, there are a host of factors that push someone to a life of crime, but not all of them have to do with the limitations or failures of society. Some folks are just plain evil, and no amount of social intervention will stop them from preying on people, especially people who look like them.
“People have also railed — and rightly so — against the disproportionate application of the law against people of color. Bob Herbert has used barrels of New York Times ink against the NYPD's stop-and-frisk policy. But when faced with such stark murder and shooting statistics, what’s a police commissioner supposed to do to ensure the safety of the public?
“All of society has an obligation to ensure that its citizens can live their lives in peace and security. The police are doing their job."
So Capehart gets it. That’s very good.
But Capehart, perhaps innocently, missed the black-on-white aspect of these crime reports—rape being just one example.
Consider these data, right below those Capehart cited:
"Rape victims are most frequently Black (46.0%) or Hispanic (34.2%). White victims account for (15.1%) of all Rape victims while Asian/Pacific Islanders account for (4.7%) of all Rape Victims.
“Rape suspects are most frequently Black (54.9%) or Hispanic (31.3%). White suspects account for (7.4%) of all Rape suspects while Asian/Pacific Islanders accounted for (6.3%) of the known Rape suspects.
“Rape arrestees are most frequently Black (48.9%) and Hispanic (38.2%). White arrestees (6.8%) and Asian/Pacific Islander arrestees (5.8%) account for the remaining portions of the Rape arrestee population."
So blacks and Hispanics account for about 87 percent of those arrested for rape; whites about 7 percent. These data mean that almost all inter-racial rape is black-on-white or Hispanic-on-white.
Had Capehart looked even further, he would have found data from the Justice Department, duly reported by Lawrence Auster at FrontPageMagazine.com that showed
"[i]n the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man. What this means is that every day in the United States, over one hundred white women are raped or sexually assaulted by a black man." [The Truth of Interracial Rape in the United States May 03, 2007]
In other words, white women are as entitled to feel "hunted" as Capehart.
Upshot is, if you’re a law-abiding black man or white woman in New York City, life can be dangerous.
Blacks and Hispanics are waging a fratricidal war of murder, rape and robbery in New York City—and rampaging against whites at will.
Capehart, to his great credit, is aghast.
Not so the New York Times’ Baker. Nothing to see here, folks, he assures bystanders. Move along. Move along.
FULL STORY WITH LINKS
Explaining that blacks and Hispanics are more prone to violent crime than whites is like explaining that the sun comes up in the East. Everyone knows it. The crime statistics prove it, as do the nightly news programs and daily newspapers—whatever the producers of Law and Order want you to believe.
Now a black editorial writer at the Washington Post, Jonathan Capehart, has stumbled upon this truth. Capehart reports that he ran into New York City’s police chief at breakfast one morning and asked about the city’s rising crime rate. The conversation led Capehart to examine the New York City Police Department’s crime data. The color of murder and gun violence in New York
Lo and behold, Capehart learned something he apparently hadn’t known before: Blacks and Hispanics commit essentially all the violent crime in New York. They are also the most likely crime victims.
Capehart quoted the report for 2010 directly:
"Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter victims are most frequently Black (67.0%) or Hispanic (28.1%). White victims account for (3.2%) of all Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter victims while Asian /Pacific Islanders account for (1.8%) of all Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter victims. The race/ethnicity of known Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter suspects mirrors the victim population with Black (65.3%) and Hispanic (30.6%) suspects accounting for the majority of suspects. White suspects account for (1.8%) of all Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter suspects while Asian/Pacific Islanders accounted for (2.4%) of the known Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter suspects.
“The Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter arrest population is similarly distributed. Black arrestees (53.8%) and Hispanic arrestees (36.4%) account for the majority of Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter arrestees while White arrestees (7.1%) and Asian/Pacific Islander (2.2%) arrestees account for the remaining portions of the Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter arrest population."[PDF]
Seeing the news so starkly distressed Capehart. He writes:
"In short, 95.1 percent of all murder victims and 95.9 percent of all shooting victims in New York City are black or Hispanic. And 90.2 percent of those arrested for murder and 96.7 percent of those arrested for shooting someone are black and Hispanic. I don’t even know where to begin to describe the horror I still feel looking at those numbers. But the word ‘hunted’ comes to mind."
Capehart feels the same horror Jesse Jackson feels. "There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life," Jackson once admitted, "than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery — then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved."
Jackson is relieved when he sees whites footstepping behind him, as are all liberals, black or white, because even a staunch ideologue knows the truth: Blacks and Hispanics commit almost all of the violent crime in this country.
Capehart has finally seen the true color of crime. But six months ago, The New York Times’ Al Baker [Email him]unbosomed himself of a jeremiad that suggested the NYPD was "profiling" because a study of "stop-and-frisk" data showed that most of those stopped and frisked were, well, black and Hispanic. [New York Minorities More Likely to Be Frisked, May 12, 2010]
Reported Baker: "[b]lacks and Latinos were nine times as likely as whites to be stopped by the police in New York City in 2009, but, once stopped, were no more likely to be arrested."
Blacks are 23 percent of the Big Apple’s population, but constituted 55 percent of the stops. Hispanics are 32 percent of the population, but were 28 percent of stops. Whites, at 35 percent of the population, accounted for 10 percent of stops.
These data, compiled by the leftist Center for Constitutional Rights, allegedly prove the police are profiling,—although blacks were not arrested more than whites after a stop. And more importantly, although the readily available crime data — that used by Capehart — demonstrates that profiling isn’t the problem.
After the Times took its shot at the thin blue line, the City Journal’s sensible Heather Mac Donald discharged a blunderbuss loaded with data to blow a hole in the profiling charge. She published a piece in her magazine and (to the Times’ credit) she was allowed to publish a similar piece on the op-ed page of the Times. [Fighting Crime Where the Criminals Are, June 25, 2010]
Wrote Mac Donald, "[y]ou cannot properly analyze police behavior without analyzing crime". Mac Donald eviscerated the Times by quoting from the 2009 edition [PDF]of the same report that Capehart used.
"Blacks committed 66 percent of all violent crimes in the first half of 2009 (though they were only 55 percent of all stops and only 23 percent of the city’s population). [Emphasis added]Blacks committed 80 percent of all shootings in the first half of 2009. Together, blacks and Hispanics committed 98 percent of all shootings. Blacks committed nearly 70 percent of all robberies. Whites, by contrast, committed 5 percent of all violent crimes in the first half of 2009, though they are 35 percent of the city’s population (and were 10 percent of all stops). They committed 1.8 percent of all shootings and less than 5 percent of all robberies. The face of violent crime in New York, in other words, like in every other large American city, is almost exclusively black and brown. "[Distorting the Truth About Crime and Race, May 14, 2010 ]
Mac Donald observed that the police department’s Compstat process crunches crime data that tell police where the crime is—and something else important: blacks and Hispanics are stopped and frisked less frequently that the propensity for violent crime would seem to demand.
Yet the New York Times, Mac Donald correctly concludes, "assumes that policing should mirror census data"—that is, if blacks constitute 23 percent of New York City’s population, then blacks should account for 23 percent of all those stopped by police.
But the police can’t operate that way. They have to patrol crime-besieged neighborhoods and arrest the people who commit the crimes. And most of those people are blacks and Hispanics.
Thus, cops spend most of their time making busts in minority neighborhoods like the South Bronx and Harlem, not on the Upper East Side.
Unlike the professional race hustlers, Jonathan Capehart seems to understand the obvious:
"People have railed against black-on-black crime for decades. And yet it persists. Yes, there are a host of factors that push someone to a life of crime, but not all of them have to do with the limitations or failures of society. Some folks are just plain evil, and no amount of social intervention will stop them from preying on people, especially people who look like them.
“People have also railed — and rightly so — against the disproportionate application of the law against people of color. Bob Herbert has used barrels of New York Times ink against the NYPD's stop-and-frisk policy. But when faced with such stark murder and shooting statistics, what’s a police commissioner supposed to do to ensure the safety of the public?
“All of society has an obligation to ensure that its citizens can live their lives in peace and security. The police are doing their job."
So Capehart gets it. That’s very good.
But Capehart, perhaps innocently, missed the black-on-white aspect of these crime reports—rape being just one example.
Consider these data, right below those Capehart cited:
"Rape victims are most frequently Black (46.0%) or Hispanic (34.2%). White victims account for (15.1%) of all Rape victims while Asian/Pacific Islanders account for (4.7%) of all Rape Victims.
“Rape suspects are most frequently Black (54.9%) or Hispanic (31.3%). White suspects account for (7.4%) of all Rape suspects while Asian/Pacific Islanders accounted for (6.3%) of the known Rape suspects.
“Rape arrestees are most frequently Black (48.9%) and Hispanic (38.2%). White arrestees (6.8%) and Asian/Pacific Islander arrestees (5.8%) account for the remaining portions of the Rape arrestee population."
So blacks and Hispanics account for about 87 percent of those arrested for rape; whites about 7 percent. These data mean that almost all inter-racial rape is black-on-white or Hispanic-on-white.
Had Capehart looked even further, he would have found data from the Justice Department, duly reported by Lawrence Auster at FrontPageMagazine.com that showed
"[i]n the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man. What this means is that every day in the United States, over one hundred white women are raped or sexually assaulted by a black man." [The Truth of Interracial Rape in the United States May 03, 2007]
In other words, white women are as entitled to feel "hunted" as Capehart.
Upshot is, if you’re a law-abiding black man or white woman in New York City, life can be dangerous.
Blacks and Hispanics are waging a fratricidal war of murder, rape and robbery in New York City—and rampaging against whites at will.
Capehart, to his great credit, is aghast.
Not so the New York Times’ Baker. Nothing to see here, folks, he assures bystanders. Move along. Move along.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)