In the arena of academia there is not a more perilous time than right now, it is imperative that people understand that fascism can and will arise with the help of educational institutions if we allow it to happen. All the signs are in place, what I am going to do here is outline what is taking place in the academic realm today - pinpoint what is taking place so that the people can take action.
Let me draw your attention to this choice document, which intends to see it's force applied against dissenting (to the status quo) University professors and campus' across the nation. In fact, it is not merely formulated in the States, but has an ugly twin in Europe - here is the general government page:
U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS More specifically to a file which speaks directly to the silencing of dissent or should I say, the explication of truth in the University classroom. This is in regard to Middle Eastern Studies, but can be applied at will to any dissenting voice in whatever department to the current insane "war on terror" -
Just as a point of reference for you, take a look at this definition of antisemitism in this government document, it is the first point to "what is antisemitism:"
"Campus Anti-Semitism reports that many college campuses throughout the United States continue to experience incidents of anti-Semitism, a serious problem warranting further attention. Anti-Israeli or anti-Zionist propaganda has been disseminated on many campuses that include traditional anti-Semitic elements, including age-old anti-Jewish stereotypes and defamation. For example claiming that the Jew are responsible for the killing of Christ or alleging that Zionism is racism."
With this they try to set the framework of exposure of Zionism, by confounding it with antisemitism. Central to the Middle Eastern turmoil is the brutal Zionist occupation (illegal, continuous and murderous), if it is not addressed and put to rest you have dropped the primary key that unlocks the door to peace in the Middle East - and give a green light to further atrocities in the name of the "war on terrorism."
Please do not mistake what I am telling you as a joke, they fully intend to have this move from the recommendation form to a piece of legislation. The machinery that you see cropping up, like Campus Watch, this Commission, the vetting of teachers for the tenure track, the divesting of teachers through the administrative process on campus', the publicity of this will be used as Exhibits A, B, C etc. of a mushrooming "problem." These are merely the investigative bodies that have been empowered in a clandestine manner to deliver a body of "proof" to the legislative bodies on the United States government, coupled with the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights recommendations. They want to make their definition of antisemitism as an example, if you were in a university classroom, and the teacher who begins to talk about the plight of the Palestinians and identifies the evils of Zionism, as if he/she proceeded to call all the students of color "niggers." They want to inflame it to this point, this is their goal.
Understand this, that it is the failure to assess your enemy that is the greatest cause for defeat. Do you think that these "representatives," that scramble to every whimper and demand of the AIPAC lobby will hesitate to pass legislation? They will "purge" the campus' of the United States of any dissenting voice - if they cannot accomplish it by grass roots means, they will do it by legislative means.
So you see, our collective failure to realize the critical nature of what is going on on campus' across the country - to even make jokes about it (etc.) is to not recognize the SERIOUS nature of what is taking place right before our eyes. Do you think this is merely a sterile web-internet war? This is why we should all be on our feet to support men, as an example, like Norman Finkelstein. This is why droves of people, who care should be on the march right now on campus' across the country! If this is not done, and if people fail to understand the serious nature of what we are dealing with, you will be caught up short and jailed before you can blink your eyes! Time to wake up, NOW!
THIS IS FASCISM AT IT'S WORST, IT DESTROYS FREEDOM IN ALL INSTITUTIONS, INCLUDING COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES. MARK MY WORDS I AM SERIOUS, IF YOU DISREGARD WHAT I AM SAYING RIGHT NOW, YOU WILL ENTER A WAR TOTALLY UNARMED AND UNAWARE THAT YOU ARE IN THE SIGHTS OF THE ENEMY. I HAVE NO WAY TO FURTHER INFORM YOU, OR MAKE THIS ANY CLEARER, IT IS UP TO THE PEOPLE TO RECOGNIZE WHAT IS GOING ON, AND STOP THIS PROCESS YESTERDAY.
WHICH WAY WILL THE ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS TURN? THE USE OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE CRUDULE AGAINST PROFESSORS THAT DISSENT FROM THIS GOVERNMENTS STATUS QUO IS NOT A GOOD SIGN. AS SOME KNOW, FASCISM IS BETTER DESCRIBED AS CORPORATISM - WHEN A UNIVERSITY ACTS LIKE A CORPORATION THAT CAN AND DOES AX PROFESSORS "AT WILL" (LIKE AT WILL EMPLOYMENT) THE UNIVERSITY HAS LEFT THE GROUND OF A COMMON INSTITUTION OF THE PEOPLE. THROUGH THE PROCESS OF PRIVATIZATION ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS ARE NO LONGER FINANCED BY THE PEOPLE, BUT BY CORPORATIONS AND INTEREST GROUPS, WHICH WILL HAVE THEIR WAY AT THE EXPENSE OF YOUR ACADEMIC FREEDOM.
WHEN THIS HAPPENS, AND THE CRITICAL THINKING PROCESS IS REMOVED, THE NEXT GENERATION OF PEOPLE BECOME PUTTY IN THE HANDS OF A RULING ELITE, WHICH DO AS THEY PLEASE TO THE PEOPLE BOTH DOMESTICALLY AND AS A MATTER OF DEADLY FOREIGN POLICY. THIS IS WHAT WE ARE SUFFERING NOW, IF YOU WANT MORE OF THE SAME WHICH IS GURANTEED TO GET WORSE JUST SIT THERE AND DO NOTHING.
Posted at 02:11 am by deadringer
ADMINISTRATIVE ACADEMIC "DECIDERS" VS. ACADEMIC FREEDOM
Now, in the denial of tenure case of Norman Finkelstein, we not only have a skewed judgment in regard to an excellent scholar but an underhanded act of denying him his final year! So the administrative decider's wielding the academic ax are trying to cut a professor loose, or as Norman Finkelstein says on his site "they are practicing Vincentian values."
"This just seems so unjust and ridiculous," said Daniel Klimek, a rising senior in political science and one of the students recently informed by the university that Finkelstein's course "Equality and Social Justice" was among those called off. Klimek said that he had felt honored to be in one of Finkelstein's final courses at DePaul, and that the cancellation reinforced his view that "this is all about politics." Klimek is among the organizers of the DePaul Academic Freedom Committee, which has been organizing protests against the tenure denial (8/27/07 Inside Higher Education, by Scott Jaschik)."
There seems to be this rift taking place in academia, between some teachers and the executive administrative staff - so rather than working together we find this adversarial relationship developing, especially in hot topic subjects (one being Middle Eastern studies). Instead of a community individuals are adopting the "corporate model," and developing some of it's worse habits.
Apparently the administrative academic decider's can make their decisions but cannot give any good reason for their actions (having been queried several times) . Not only do they use a criteria that is non-existent for any tenure hearing, they act as though the candidate has the plague. They move with extreme prejudice not only in over ruling the lower boards appeal for professor Finkelstein, but now banish him as swiftly as possible, thinking this will rid them of all "burden" - yet, it is just the beginning.
Unfortunately this is the only tool that the opposition to truth has, to try to banish someone from the realm in which they cherish and they shine. They envision themselves as some "at will employers," without contractual obligations, individuals who can walk right over any principles of academic freedom. What they reflect is the intention of the status quo, the spinners of fairy tales, and if someone does not support their fetid views however despicable than they are totally expendable.
Let's get something straight, DePaul is privileged to have Norman Finkelstein as one of her professors. No, it's not the other way around, they did not extend a helping hand to him, they opened the door to a distinguished professor! Why is this such an outrage? It is because what was thought to be a recognition is now denied for no reason residing in Norman Finkelstein - it is a fall, perhaps I should use a phrase they are familiar with, it is a "fall from grace," they plummeted from a high position to the lowest of depths.
They have tried in any way possible to besmirch his character, this because they cannot undo his critical and impeccable academic work. Even to the point of accusing him, to plant the idea or the impression that he was acting in a "threatening way" toward dean Suchar, in essence planting this impression in lew of their despicable acts. They embraced a buffoon, a clown like Dershowitz who writes books by plagiarizing a hoax (Peters, From Time Immemorial - wading into areas he has no expertise), a man who tried to defame the memory of Finkelstein's mother who suffered in the holocaust by saying that he feared his mother was a kapo! Is it a wonder that a University in good standing falls so low in siding with such low character?
Professor Finkelstein is a signal of academic censorship, of interests hell bent, no matter what the facts are, to silence truth for their own gain. The issue is not "attitude" of the professor, the issue is not "questionable scholarship," the issue is not that the professor is "antisemitic or a self-hating Jew, the issue is freedom of speech in the academic arena. Lifted out of this fishbowl of the United States, when examining the issues which professor Finkelstein is being persecuted for in both the academic realm and the world at large, the world stands solidly on his side. His peril is your future in academia in the United States.
It is not that academics do not side with professor Finkelstein's position(s) the world over, both academic and popular, they have run to his side and both attested to the solid nature of his work and his person. What is most disconcerting is the INSTITUTIONAL SILENCE. I cannot speak for the professor regarding invitations to teach elsewhere, he may have received some that I know nothing about - but from the academic institutions themselves I am aware of an eerie silence in the public arena.
WILL THESE INSTITUTIONS CONTINUE TO STAND BY SILENTLY, SPINELESSLY, AND CONFIRM THAT THEY ARE NOTHING BUT THE RUBBER STAMP OF THE POWERS THAT BE NO MATTER HOW MISGUIDED? WILL THESE INSTITUTIONS FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE PNAC PLAN? OR WILL THEY LIVE UP TO WHAT THEY ARE CALLED - AN OASIS OF FREE AND CRITICAL THOUGHT AND SPEECH? WHICH ROAD WILL WE CHOOSE?
WE HAVE SEEN STUDENTS ENLISTED IN REPORTING ON THEIR TEACHERS BY CAMPUS WATCH - WE HAVE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES TRYING TO CONFOUND CRITICISM OF ISRAEL WITH ANTISEMITISM - WE ARE WATCHING HIT GROUPS HARASS AND ECONOMICALLY THREATEN AND STRANGLE OUR INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING WHICH SHOULD BE A COMMONS BUT HAVE BECOME THE DARLINGS OF "PRIVATIZATION" - THE BANISHING OF TRUE EDUCATION FOR AN ERA OF ACADEMIC MCCARTHYISM - VETTING TEACHERS FOR PATRIOTISM - MAKING SURE SCHOOL FUNDING DOES NOT GO TO SO-CALLED "TERRORISTS" (THOSE WHO DISAGREE WITH THIS COUNTRY'S DIRECTION AND IT'S POLICIES IN THE ME). YOU ARE HEADED FOR THE SAME DEBACLE AS WE ARE EXPERIENCING IN IRAQ, AND WHICH THREATENS IRAN, A SLAUGHTER OF CRITICAL THOUGHT AND OBJECTIVE WORLD CLASS EDUCATION. IF THE PEOPLE DO NOT TAKE BACK THIS COUNTRY NOW, WE ARE HEADED FOR A WASTELAND, AND ENSURE THAT OUR COUNTRY WILL BE BURIED WITH IGNOMINY IN THE SANDS OF TIME! DON'T LET NORMAN FINKELSTEIN STAND ALONE.
THE ACADEMIC PARADE?THE WORLD OF "THOSE WHO KNOW WHATS BEST FOR YOU" WANT YOU TO EMBRACE IN THE CLASSROOMTHE REWARDS OF CONFORMIST EDUCATIONDON'T LET THEM DO THIS TO YOUWE NEED NEW NOISE! THEY HAVE ALL THE WRONG SONGSRATHER BE DEAD - THAN ALIVE BY YOUR TRADITIONS, WE WANT FREEDOM!CAN YOU RESIST?WHAT ARE YOU BEING FED?WHERE YOU CAN'T AFFORD TO BE ON THIS ISSUEWHERE ARE THE PEOPLE?PEACE, PROPAGANDA & THE PROMISED LAND "I intend to go to my office on the first day of classes and, if my way is barred, to engage in civil disobedience," Finkelstein, 53, said in a telephone interview. "If arrested, I'll go on a hunger strike. If released, I'll do it all over again. I'll fast in jail for as long as it takes."
"AAUP writes DePaul yet again08.27.2007 VIA FACSIMILE (312-362-7577) The Rev. Dennis H. Holtschneider, C.M. President DePaul University 1 East Jackson Boulevard Chicago, Illinois 60604-2287 Dear President Holtschneider: We have written to you twice regarding the issue of academic due process attendant upon the DePaul University administration's refusal to recognize Professor Norman Finkelstein's right to appeal the decision to deny him tenure to a faculty committee. We are writing to you again about a new issue of due process in his case in connection with an e-mail message on Friday, August 24, from Provost Helmut Epp to Professor Finkelstein, notifying him of the administration's decision to place him on paid administrative leave, relieving him of further academic duties during his terminal year of service. (We understand that he is also being denied access to the office he had occupied.) According to the provost's message, the action removing Professor Finkelstein from further teaching was taken "based on departmental and college needs and because of [his] behavior at the end of the Spring quarter." Professor Finkelstein informs us that he takes sharp issue with the stated grounds for the action and objects to the lack of any procedural protections afforded to him. Action to separate a faculty member from ongoing academic responsibilities prior to demonstration of stated cause in an appropriate proceeding is considered to be a suspension, which is justified, according to the enclosed joint 1958 Statement on Procedural Standards in Faculty Dismissal Proceedings, "only if immediate harm to the faculty member or others is threatened by continuance." According to Interpretive Comment Number 9 on the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, "a suspension which is not followed by either reinstatement or the opportunity for a hearing is a summary dismissal in violation of academic due process." We note that the "Separation" section of the DePaul Faculty Handbook (p. 13) provides for suspension to be imposed on a faculty member "only to prevent probable and serious harm to the reputation of the University or to its ability to carry out such important functions as instruction. The faculty member is guaranteed that fair and consistent procedures will be used for making any suspension decision." The policy goes on to describe three ways in which a faculty member may be suspended, the first two of which involve a formal hearing before a faculty body. Paragraph (3) of that section provides that a faculty member may be suspended without a hearing "in the event of an emergency where potentially serious harm must be prevented immediately and there is no opportunity for a previous hearing," with the right of the affected professor "after the fact to a formal grievance hearing." We are not aware of any "emergency" reason advanced by the administration that would justify acting against Professor Finkelstein without having first afforded him opportunity for a hearing. We have taken strong issue with the argument, which we encounter from time to time, that an administration discharges its obligation to a faculty member on term appointment by relieving the individual of his or her teaching duties while continuing payment of salary for the duration of the term. In our report on the 1965 cases at St. John's University in New York, where terminal suspensions were imposed on twenty-one professors because of alleged activities variously described as harassment and unprofessional conduct, our investigating committee found that the administration "had excluded from consideration a principle crucial to the profession." The committee went on to explain as follows:
The profession's entire case for academic freedom and its attendant standards is predicated upon the basic right to employ one's professional skills in practice, a right, in the case of the teaching profession, which is exercised not in private practice but through institutions. To deny a faculty member this opportunity without adequate cause, regardless of monetary compensation, is to deny him his basic professional rights. . . . In the case of teachers at St. John's, denial of their classroom was, in itself, a serious injury. To inflict such injury without due process and, therefore, without demonstrated reason, destroys the academic character of the University. (AAUP Bulletin, Spring 1966, pp. 18, 19.) We addressed the issue of suspension of a nonreappointed probationary faculty member and the attendant standards of academic due process in the enclosed 1996 report on our investigation of a case at the University of Southern California. We urge that the administration reinstate Professor Finkelstein to his normal academic duties. If the administration is unwilling to do so, we urge that it initiate a hearing before an elected faculty body and assume the burden of demonstrating, in an adjudicative hearing of record, adequacy of cause for the suspension. I plan on calling you tomorrow to discuss the contents of this letter, at which point we would welcome your comments on the statements and recommendations we have made. Sincerely, B. Robert Kreiser Associate Secretary BRK:id Enclosure (via surface mail) cc: Dr. Helmut P. Epp, Provost Jose D. Padilla, Esq., Vice President and General Counsel Dr. Charles S. Suchar, Dean, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Professor Anne Clark Bartlett, President, Faculty Council Professor Gil Gott, Chair, Faculty Governance Council, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Professor Michael A. McIntyre, President, AAUP Chapter Professor Michael L. Budde, Chair, Department of Political Science Professor Norman G. Finkelstein "
Posted at 07:41 pm by deadringer
EDUCATION IN THE AMERICAN EMPIRE - GET AN EDUCATION?!
To gain a grasp of real history, it is hard to find anything better than Howard Zinn's, A Peoples History Of The United States. So lets take an excerpt from his chapter called "Robber Baron's And Rebels," and see what he has to say.
"This was not just a whim of the 1880's and 1890's -it went back to the founding fathers, who had learned their law in the era of Blackstone's Commentaries, which said: "So great is the regard of the law for private property, that it will not authorize the lest violation of it; no, not even for the common good of the whole community."
(Twelve year old spinner, 1910 by Lewis Hine)
Control in modern times requires more than force, more than law. It requires that a population dangerously concentrated in cities and factories, whose lives are filled with cause for rebellion, be taught that all is right as it is. And so, the schools, the churches, the popular literature taught that to be rich was a sign of superiority, to be poor a sign of personal failure, and that only way upward for a poor person was to climb into the ranks of the rich by extraordinary effort and extraordinary luck.
In those years after the Civil War, a man named Russell Conwell [interesting name huh?], a graduate of Yale Law school, a minister, and author of best-selling books, gave the same lecture, "Acres of Diamonds," more than five thousand times to audiences across the country, reaching several million people in all. His message was that anyone could get rich of he tried hard enough, that everywhere, if people looked closely enough, were "acres of diamonds." A sampling:
I say that you ought to get rich, and it is your duty to get rich. . . The men who get rich may be the most honest men you find in the community. Let me say here clearly . . . ninety-eight out of one hundred of the rich men of America are honest. That is why they are rich. That is why they are trusted with money. The is why they carry on great enterprises and find plenty of people to work with them. It is because they are honest men. . . . I sympathize with the poor, but the number of poor who are to be sympathized with is very small. To sympathize with a man whom God has punished for his sins . . . is to do wrong. . . . let us remember there is not a poor person in the United Stated who was not made poor by his own shortcomings. . .
Conwell was a founder of Temple University. Rockefeller was a donor colleges all over the country and helped found the University of chicago. Huntington, of the Central Pacific, gave money to two Negro colleges, Hampton Institute and Tuskegee Institute. Carnegie gave money to colleges and to libraries. Johns Hopkins wan founded by a millionaire. Cornelius Vanderbilt, Ezra Cornell, James Duke, and Leland Stanford created universities in their own names.
The rich, giving part of their enormous earnings in this way, became known as philanthropists. These educational institutions did not encourage dissent; they trained the middlemen in America system-the teachers, doctors, lawyers, administrators, engineers, technicians, politicians-those who would be paid to keep the system going, to be loyal buffers against trouble.
This continued into the twentieth century, when William Bagley's Classroom Management became a standard teacher training text, reprinted thirty times. Bagley said: "One who studies educational theory aright can see in the mechanical routine of the classroom the educative forces that are slowly transforming the child from a little savage into a creature of law and order, fit for the life of civilized society."
In the meantime, the spread of public school education enabled the learning of the writing, reading and arithmetic for a whole generation of workers, skilled and semiskilled, who would be the literate labor force of the new industrial age. It was important that these people learn obedience to authority. A journalist observer of the schools in the 1890's wrote: "The unkindly spirit of the teacher is strikingly apparent: the pupils, being completely subjugated to her will, are silent and motionless, the spiritual atmosphere of the classroom is damp and chilly."
Back in 1859, the desire of mill owners in the town of Lowell that their workers be educated was explained by the secretary of the Massachusetts Board of Education:
The owners of factories are more concerned than other classes and interests in the intelligence of their laborers. When the latter are well-educated and the former are disposed of deal justly, controversies and strikes can never occur, nor can the minds of the masses be prejudiced by demagogues and controlled by temporary and factious considerations.
Joel Spring, in his book Education and the Rise of the Corporate State, says: "The development of a factory-like system in the nineteenth-century schoolroom was not an accidental."
It was in the middle and late nineteenth century that high schools developed as aids to the industrial system, that history was widely required in the curriculum to foster patriotism. Loyalty oaths, teacher certification, and the requirement of citizenship were introduced to control both the educational and the political quality of teachers. Also, in the latter part of the century, school officials-not teachers-were given control over textbooks. Laws passed by the states barred certain kinds of textbooks. Idaho and Montana, for instance, forbade textbooks propagating "political" doctrines, and Dakota Territory ruled that school libraries could not have "partisan political pamphlets or books.""
In Dr. Edward Said's last volume, On Late Style, he does a critique on the content and style of Gramsci. In Italy there was a great division between the north and the south, so that when they were unified there was this great gap still apparent in the economic, social, and political actualities. Of interest in his critique is the cogent way he speaks of "intermediaries" and their purpose, which is no different in the United States today:
"What the unification of Italy did to places like Sicily,
Naples, and Sardinia was to arrest and distort, then
to isolate them in their lopsided social, economic,
and certainly political actualities. To Gramsci, then, the
south appears, he says memorably, like a vast social
disintegration: a large mass of destitute and oppressed
peasants are preyed on by a class of parasitic
intermediaries (priests, teachers, tax collectors) on
behalf of a small group of land owners."
Dr, Edward W. Said, On Late Style, pg. 101
Indeed, if you do not see this as America's past, which had receded for a short period of time in ferocity, but is now moving full steam ahead presently, you have no idea of what is going on. Unless you understand these basic realities you will become the victims, aren't you tired of this? The question is how long will the people allow this to be a present reality?
Posted at 08:52 am by deadringer
SKEWED SCIENCE, COLONIALISM AND ETHNIC CLEANSING
Today I am approaching a subject that by no means is new, but is being used to a greater degree to justify actions which are detrimental to mankind. It is not limited to one religious group, and yet at the same time can produce disastrous results, death and destruction in the name of a "god(s)" whoever it might be. Of course, there are many who do things in the name of some god who are just plain cynical, and those who attach to atrocious acts a tenuous "faith" at best. We will not be dealing with scientific method as much as the appropriation of either valid science or invalid science for questionable purposes, for less than humane purposes - or, the popularization of science for the benefit of any specific group and the detriment of another.
Because of the the sheer volume of such activity, some stamping their "beliefs" with so-called empirical science and justifying atrocities, I will limit the post to certain activities, at best take a cursory look at other examples for comparison, and by no means will I exhaust the topic. When men do bad things they always must attribute such to a higher purpose, this to enlist other men and also attempt to escape condemnation.
From the so-called "science" of yesteryear which tried to say that some men were inferior, and therefore needed to be controlled, shaped and molded, in order to become an "advanced people" - colonialism. To the misappropriation of valid science, evolution to social Darwinism as a further excuse to "tame the world." Men who take advantage of and exploit racism trying to tie it to saying certain people are inferior, the entire curve from tribalism which is supposed to be inadequate to statism (fascism, what have you) which is smothering. A thin veiling mask of natural selection to cover up blatant domination and exploitation.
The substitution of technology for culture, which merely is a shift from anthropocentric society to artificial objects. The same technology in the hands of a few so that even though humanity may benefit from the technological advance, it is used merely to enrich the few. An equal race between things which may indeed benefit mankind with ways in which to kill more people faster. Virtually any science, valid or invalid can be used inappropriately.
Sometimes we think we have advanced, but men find new ways to oppress one another, and just keep recycling old ways. Take the Israel/Palestinian conflict as an example - here a nation uses the science of archeology. It has been shoved into the spotlight recently by a tenure dispute, with pressure brought from the outside. A Professor at Columbia's Bernard College, Nadia Abu El-Haj the assistant professor of anthropology gets accosted for stating the obvious - the misappropriation of archeology to fuel an illegal occupation of the Palestinians.
One must ask with all candor, do the Zionists claim ownership through some archaeological digs during the tearing down of Palestinian homes or afterwords? This attempt to "reclaim" some ancient footprint while removing the current one of the Palestinians. So, let's look for a moment at a hypothetical - even if there are ancient Israeli artifacts found on Palestinian land how does this automatically translate into the Palestinians being ethnically cleansed and a Zionist population replacing them? In short hand, it does not.
(Israeli colonial settlers in Hebron)
Israel Finkelstein, professor of archeology at the University of Tel Aviv says Biblical archeology has been popular in Israel since the nation's founding in 1948. As Jews poured into Israel from all over Europe following the Holocaust, the "national hobby" helped newcomers build a sense of belonging. "There was a need to give something to the immigrants, to the melting pot," says Finkelstein. "Something to connect them to the ground, to history, to some sort of legacy."
Yet - "In Israel, biblical archeology was used to justify illegal settlement policy," says Hamdan Taha, director general of the Palestinian Authority's department for antiquities and cultural heritage. "Land was confiscated in the name of God and archeology. It's still going on with the construction of bypass roads and the building of the separation wall inside the Palestinian land."
The archaeologists sought out Old Testament sites and renamed places according to biblical tradition, in effect "recasting the landscape of the West Bank" in biblical terms, says Columbia University anthropologist Nadia Abu el-Haj, author of Facts on the Ground, a history of Israeli archeology. Those terms, she says, "the [West Bank] settlers now pick up."
In 2005, Ariel Sharon said the tomb justified the Israeli presence in the West Bank. "No other people has a monument like the Tomb of the Patriarchs, where Abraham and Sarah are buried," he told the Israeli journalist Ari Shavit. "Therefore, under any agreement [on the West Bank], Jews will live in Hebron."
Other contested sites include Joseph's tomb in Nablus and Rachel's tomb in Bethlehem. "It's not real archeology," Finkelstein says. "It's based on later traditions."
However, it is not only Palestinians that question what is taking place: In 1999, Ze'ev Herzog, a Tel Aviv University colleague of Finkelstein's, convulsed the Israeli public with an article in the weekend magazine of the newspaper Ha'aretz asserting that archaeologists had shown definitively that the biblical narrative of the Israelites' origins was not factual. Outraged letters poured into the newspaper; politicians weighed in; conferences were organized so the distressed public could quiz the archaeologists. But once the issues were addressed, feelings cooled. However, that does not mean that the same process is not taking place, using the archaeological spade as an excuse or a justification for criminal acts.
(Christian Zionists in the Holy Land)
So the West and Israel constantly try to mold the vision, particularly in the United States, of the "biblical" holy land - and archeology has been used as such - to crystallize for "Christians" in the West that Israeli's and the holy land setting are the only two things that belong together - Palestinians are merely shrugged off as interlopers. This is important because the place where the most support for Israel is found is among fundamentalist Christians (outside of other Zionist Jews), and the United States is where Israel gets it's biggest check.
In fact, "biblical" archeology is used as a way to silence Palestinian history. It is a "nationalist archeology," that builds that bridge to an intrusive and brutal occupation, connecting the supposed ancient past with the colonial enterprise.
Sociologist Michael Feige of Ben-Gurion University, "but people don't give it that much thought." He adds that Israel's shifting priorities may account for the less impassioned view. "In the 1950s, there was a collective anxiety: What are we doing here? How do we justify it? The very essence of Israeli identity depended on the biblical, historical narrative." Of course, this was just after the Nakba (1948), that brutal and murderous ethnic cleansing which dispossessed over 750,000 Palestinians. The biblical concept being used by the Zionists has politically spread from the Likud party, to labor, and from right wing extremists to so-called liberals.
Ben-Nun and others in the settlers' movement emphatically agree with the views of Adam Zertal and other biblical literalists. At the settlement of Elon Moreh, on a hill above Nablus, a sign quotes Jeremiah 31:5: "Again you shall plant vineyards on the mountains of Samaria." Menachem Brody, who emigrated from Maine to Israel 28 years ago and raised a family there, runs archeology tours supporting the literal interpretation of the Old Testament. On one such tour, passing through numerous army checkpoints in the occupied West Bank, he traced the Way of the Patriarchs, the road traveled by Abraham according to Genesis. Later, Brody stood in his own vineyard, which he planted to fulfill the Jeremiah prophecy, and said of Zertal's discovery: "It's the find of the century. Before, it was just a pile of stones, and it was only when we came to live here that somebody found it."
(Israeli settlers show no mercy to the Palestinians)
This is hardly "objective" scholarship in the context of it's use. Anyone, with a modicum of sense can see what is happening, and how archeology is being used as a tool of domination - a justification, preying upon people with arcane biblical texts. We have a patent problem here, lets get real folks. For those who want to argue, lets stop pontificating about scientific activity lifting it from the "context on the ground." We need to understand that scholars like Nadia Abu El-Haj would not receive such resistance if she did not know what she was talking about, and that by far we need to counterbalance the propaganda of a media machine here in the United States that wishes to bury the Palestinians and exalt the brutal and murderous occupying forces, all in the name of the biblical archaeological spade, and will use any means at their disposal - even if it means skewing science.
Posted at 10:08 pm by deadringer
THE GREAT MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
I have mentioned a number of times on this blog that the Middle East Peace Process has been nothing but a scam, hoisted upon the Palestinian people by the Israelis leadership and the United States. It is interesting to note (at least for me) that I am not the only one who holds this view, but none other than Henry Siegman is of the same persuasion. The only difference being that Mr. Siegman is the director of the US/Middle East Project, and served as a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations from 1994 to 2006, was head of the American Jewish Congress from 1978 to 1994. "When Ehud Olmert and George W. Bush met at the White House in June, they concluded that Hamas's violent ousting of Fatah from Gaza – which brought down the Palestinian national unity government brokered by the Saudis in Mecca in March – had presented the world with a new 'window of opportunity'.[*] (Never has a failed peace process enjoyed so many windows of opportunity.) Hamas's isolation in Gaza, Olmert and Bush agreed, would allow them to grant generous concessions to the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, giving him the credibility he needed with the Palestinian people in order to prevail over Hamas. Both Bush and Olmert have spoken endlessly of their commitment to a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict, but it is their determination to bring down Hamas rather than to build up a Palestinian state that animates their new-found enthusiasm for making Abbas look good. That is why their expectation that Hamas will be defeated is illusory. Palestinian moderates will never prevail over those considered extremists, since what defines moderation for Olmert is Palestinian acquiescence in Israel's dismemberment of Palestinian territory. In the end, what Olmert and his government are prepared to offer Palestinians will be rejected by Abbas no less than by Hamas, and will only confirm to Palestinians the futility of Abbas's moderation and justify its rejection by Hamas. Equally illusory are Bush's expectations of what will be achieved by the conference he recently announced would be held in the autumn (it has now been downgraded to a 'meeting'). In his view, all previous peace initiatives have failed largely, if not exclusively, because Palestinians were not ready for a state of their own. The meeting will therefore focus narrowly on Palestinian institution-building and reform, under the tutelage of Tony Blair, the Quartet's newly appointed envoy.
In fact, all previous peace initiatives have got nowhere for a reason that neither Bush nor the EU has had the political courage to acknowledge. That reason is the consensus reached long ago by Israel's decision-making elites that Israel will never allow the emergence of a Palestinian state which denies it effective military and economic control of the West Bank. To be sure, Israel would allow – indeed, it would insist on – the creation of a number of isolated enclaves that Palestinians could call a state, but only in order to prevent the creation of a binational state in which Palestinians would be the majority.
The Middle East peace process may well be the most spectacular deception in modern diplomatic history. Since the failed Camp David summit of 2000, and actually well before it, Israel's interest in a peace process – other than for the purpose of obtaining Palestinian and international acceptance of the status quo – has been a fiction that has served primarily to provide cover for its systematic confiscation of Palestinian land and an occupation whose goal, according to the former IDF chief of staff Moshe Ya'alon, is 'to sear deep into the consciousness of Palestinians that they are a defeated people'. In his reluctant embrace of the Oslo Accords, and his distaste for the settlers, Yitzhak Rabin may have been the exception to this, but even he did not entertain a return of Palestinian territory beyond the so-called Allon Plan, which allowed Israel to retain the Jordan Valley and other parts of the West Bank.
Anyone familiar with Israel's relentless confiscations of Palestinian territory – based on a plan devised, overseen and implemented by Ariel Sharon – knows that the objective of its settlement enterprise in the West Bank has been largely achieved. Gaza, the evacuation of whose settlements was so naively hailed by the international community as the heroic achievement of a man newly committed to an honourable peace with the Palestinians, was intended to serve as the first in a series of Palestinian bantustans. Gaza's situation shows us what these bantustans will look like if their residents do not behave as Israel wants.
Israel's disingenuous commitment to a peace process and a two-state solution is precisely what has made possible its open-ended occupation and dismemberment of Palestinian territory. And the Quartet – with the EU, the UN secretary general and Russia obediently following Washington's lead – has collaborated with and provided cover for this deception by accepting Israel's claim that it has been unable to find a deserving Palestinian peace partner.
Just one year after the 1967 war, Moshe Dayan, a former IDF chief of staff who at the time was minister of defence, described his plan for the future as 'the current reality in the territories'. 'The plan,' he said, 'is being implemented in actual fact. What exists today must remain as a permanent arrangement in the West Bank.' Ten years later, at a conference in Tel Aviv, Dayan said: 'The question is not "What is the solution?" but "How do we live without a solution?"' Geoffrey Aronson, who has monitored the settlement enterprise from its beginnings, summarises the situation as follows:
Living without a solution, then as now, was understood by Israel as the key to maximising the benefits of conquest while minimising the burdens and dangers of retreat or formal annexation. This commitment to the status quo, however, disguised a programme of expansion that generations of Israeli leaders supported as enabling, through Israeli settlement, the dynamic transformation of the territories and the expansion of effective Israeli sovereignty to the Jordan River. In an interview in Ha'aretz in 2004, Dov Weissglas, chef de cabinet to the then prime minister, Ariel Sharon, described the strategic goal of Sharon's diplomacy as being to secure the support of the White House and Congress for Israeli measures that would place the peace process and Palestinian statehood in 'formaldehyde'. It is a fiendishly appropriate metaphor: formaldehyde uniquely prevents the deterioration of dead bodies, and sometimes creates the illusion that they are still alive. Weissglas explains that the purpose of Sharon's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, and the dismantling of several isolated settlements in the West Bank, was to gain US acceptance of Israel's unilateralism, not to set a precedent for an eventual withdrawal from the West Bank. The limited withdrawals were intended to provide Israel with the political room to deepen and widen its presence in the West Bank, and that is what they achieved. In a letter to Sharon, Bush wrote: 'In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centres, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.'
In a recent interview in Ha'aretz, James Wolfensohn, who was the Quartet's representative at the time of the Gaza disengagement, said that Israel and the US had systematically undermined the agreement he helped forge in 2005 between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and had instead turned Gaza into a vast prison. The official behind this, he told Ha'aretz, was Elliott Abrams, the deputy national security adviser. 'Every aspect' of the agreement Wolfensohn had brokered 'was abrogated'.
Another recent interview in Ha'aretz, with Haggai Alon, who was a senior adviser to Amir Peretz at the Ministry of Defence, is even more revealing. Alon accuses the IDF (whose most senior officers increasingly are themselves settlers) of working clandestinely to further the settlers' interests. The IDF, Alon says, ignores the Supreme Court's instructions about the path the so-called security fence should follow, instead 'setting a route that will not enable the establishment of a Palestinian state'. Alon told Ha'aretz that when in 2005 politicians signed an agreement with the Palestinians to ease restrictions on Palestinians travelling in the territories (part of the deal that Wolfensohn had worked on), the IDF eased them for settlers instead. For Palestinians, the number of checkpoints doubled. According to Alon, the IDF is 'carrying out an apartheid policy' that is emptying Hebron of Arabs and Judaising (his term) the Jordan Valley, while it co-operates openly with the settlers in an attempt to make a two-state solution impossible.
A new UN map of the West Bank, produced by the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, gives a comprehensive picture of the situation. Israeli civilian and military infrastructure has rendered 40 per cent of the territory off limits to Palestinians. The rest of the territory, including major population centres such as Nablus and Jericho, is split into enclaves; movement between them is restricted by 450 roadblocks and 70 manned checkpoints. The UN found that what remains is an area very similar to that set aside for the Palestinian population in Israeli security proposals in the aftermath of the 1967 war. It also found that changes now underway to the infrastructure of the territories – including a network of highways that bypass and isolate Palestinian towns – would serve to formalise the de facto cantonisation of the West Bank.
These are the realities on the ground that the uninformed and/or cynical blather in Jerusalem, Washington and Brussels – about waiting for Palestinians to reform their institutions, democratise their culture, dismantle the 'infrastructures of terror' and halt all violence and incitement before peace negotiations can begin – seeks to drown out. Given the vast power imbalance between Israel and the Palestinians – not to mention the vast preponderance of diplomatic support enjoyed by Israel from precisely those countries that one would have expected to compensate diplomatically for the military imbalance – nothing will change for the better without the US, the EU and other international actors finally facing up to what have long been the fundamental impediments to peace.
These impediments include the assumption, implicit in Israel's occupation policy, that if no peace agreement is reached, the 'default setting' of UN Security Council Resolution 242 is the indefinite continuation of Israel's occupation. If this reading were true, the resolution would actually be inviting an occupying power that wishes to retain its adversary's territory to do so simply by means of avoiding peace talks – which is exactly what Israel has been doing. In fact, the introductory statement to Resolution 242 declares that territory cannot be acquired by war, implying that if the parties cannot reach agreement, the occupier must withdraw to the status quo ante: that, logically, is 242's default setting. Had there been a sincere intention on Israel's part to withdraw from the territories, surely forty years should have been more than enough time in which to reach an agreement.
Israel's contention has long been that since no Palestinian state existed before the 1967 war, there is no recognised border to which Israel can withdraw, because the pre-1967 border was merely an armistice line. Moreover, since Resolution 242 calls for a 'just and lasting peace' that will allow 'every state in the area [to] live in security', Israel holds that it must be allowed to change the armistice line, either bilaterally or unilaterally, to make it secure before it ends the occupation. This is a specious argument for many reasons, but principally because UN General Assembly Partition Resolution 181 of 1947, which established the Jewish state's international legitimacy, also recognised the remaining Palestinian territory outside the new state's borders as the equally legitimate patrimony of Palestine's Arab population on which they were entitled to establish their own state, and it mapped the borders of that territory with great precision. Resolution 181's affirmation of the right of Palestine's Arab population to national self-determination was based on normative law and the democratic principles that grant statehood to the majority population. (At the time, Arabs constituted two-thirds of the population in Palestine.) This right does not evaporate because of delays in its implementation.
In the course of a war launched by Arab countries that sought to prevent the implementation of the UN partition resolution, Israel enlarged its territory by 50 per cent. If it is illegal to acquire territory as a result of war, then the question now cannot conceivably be how much additional Palestinian territory Israel may confiscate, but rather how much of the territory it acquired in the course of the war of 1948 it is allowed to retain. At the very least, if 'adjustments' are to be made to the 1949 armistice line, these should be made on Israel's side of that line, not the Palestinians'.
Clearly, the obstacle to resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict has not been a dearth of peace initiatives or peace envoys. Nor has it been the violence to which Palestinians have resorted in their struggle to rid themselves of Israel's occupation, even when that violence has despicably targeted Israel's civilian population. It is not to sanction the murder of civilians to observe that such violence occurs, sooner or later, in most situations in which a people's drive for national self-determination is frustrated by an occupying power. Indeed, Israel's own struggle for national independence was no exception. According to the historian Benny Morris, in this conflict it was the Irgun that first targeted civilians. In Righteous Victims, Morris writes that the upsurge of Arab terrorism in 1937 'triggered a wave of Irgun bombings against Arab crowds and buses, introducing a new dimension to the conflict.' While in the past Arabs had 'sniped at cars and pedestrians and occasionally lobbed a grenade, often killing or injuring a few bystanders or passengers', now 'for the first time, massive bombs were placed in crowded Arab centres, and dozens of people were indiscriminately murdered and maimed.' Morris notes that 'this "innovation" soon found Arab imitators.'
Underlying Israel's efforts to retain the occupied territories is the fact that it has never really considered the West Bank as occupied territory, despite its pro forma acceptance of that designation. Israelis see the Palestinian areas as 'contested' territory to which they have claims no less compelling than the Palestinians, international law and UN resolutions notwithstanding. This is a view that was made explicit for the first time by Sharon in an op-ed essay published on the front page of the New York Times on 9 June 2002. The use of the biblical designations of Judea and Samaria to describe the territories, terms which were formerly employed only by the Likud but are now de rigueur for Labour Party stalwarts as well, is a reflection of a common Israeli view. That the former prime minister Ehud Barak (now Olmert's defence minister) endlessly describes the territorial proposals he made at the Camp David summit as expressions of Israel's 'generosity', and never as an acknowledgment of Palestinian rights, is another example of this mindset. Indeed, the term 'Palestinian rights' seems not to exist in Israel's lexicon.
(The new Middle East peace envoy)
The problem is not, as Israelis often claim, that Palestinians do not know how to compromise. (Another former prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, famously complained that 'Palestinians take and take while Israel gives and gives.') That is an indecent charge, since the Palestinians made much the most far-reaching compromise of all when the PLO formally accepted the legitimacy of Israel within the 1949 armistice border. With that concession, Palestinians ceded their claim to more than half the territory that the UN's partition resolution had assigned to its Arab inhabitants. They have never received any credit for this wrenching concession, made years before Israel agreed that Palestinians had a right to statehood in any part of Palestine. The notion that further border adjustments should be made at the expense of the 22 per cent of the territory that remains to the Palestinians is deeply offensive to them, and understandably so.
Nonetheless, the Palestinians agreed at the Camp David summit to adjustments to the pre-1967 border that would allow large numbers of West Bank settlers – about 70 per cent – to remain within the Jewish state, provided they received comparable territory on Israel's side of the border. Barak rejected this. To be sure, in the past the Palestinian demand of a right of return was a serious obstacle to a peace agreement. But the Arab League's peace initiative of 2002 leaves no doubt that Arab countries will accept a nominal and symbolic return of refugees into Israel in numbers approved by Israel, with the overwhelming majority repatriated in the new Palestinian state, their countries of residence, or in other countries prepared to receive them.
It is the failure of the international community to reject (other than in empty rhetoric) Israel's notion that the occupation and the creation of 'facts on the ground' can go on indefinitely, so long as there is no agreement that is acceptable to Israel, that has defeated all previous peace initiatives and the efforts of all peace envoys. Future efforts will meet the same fate if this fundamental issue is not addressed.
What is required for a breakthrough is the adoption by the Security Council of a resolution affirming the following: 1. Changes to the pre-1967 situation can be made only by agreement between the parties. Unilateral measures will not receive international recognition. 2. The default setting of Resolution 242, reiterated by Resolution 338, the 1973 ceasefire resolution, is a return by Israel's occupying forces to the pre-1967 border. 3. If the parties do not reach agreement within 12 months (the implementation of agreements will obviously take longer), the default setting will be invoked by the Security Council. The Security Council will then adopt its own terms for an end to the conflict, and will arrange for an international force to enter the occupied territories to help establish the rule of law, assist Palestinians in building their institutions, assure Israel's security by preventing cross-border violence, and monitor and oversee the implementation of terms for an end to the conflict.
If the US and its allies were to take a stand forceful enough to persuade Israel that it will not be allowed to make changes to the pre-1967 situation except by agreement with the Palestinians in permanent status negotiations, there would be no need for complicated peace formulas or celebrity mediators to get a peace process underway. The only thing that an envoy such as Blair can do to put the peace process back on track is to speak the truth about the real impediment to peace. This would also be a historic contribution to the Jewish state, since Israel's only hope of real long-term security is to have a successful Palestinian state as its neighbour."
(Khaled's Walweel's uncle runs while he bleeds to death, shot by IOF, blocked by Israeli IOF from reaching an ambulance)
(Deserted street in Balata, Israeli imposed curfew(s))WE WILL NEVER SUBMIT!PALESTINE BY PATRIARCH
Posted at 01:46 am by deadringer
CREATION OF ACADEMIC SPEECH AND THOUGHT CRIMES
"On July 24, Council President Marshall Bouton phoned one of us (Mearsheimer) and informed him that he was cancelling the event. He said he felt "extremely uncomfortable making this call" and that his decision did not reflect his personal views on the subject of our book. Instead, he explained that his decision was based on the need "to protect the institution." He said that he had a serious "political problem," because there were individuals who would be angry if he gave us a venue to speak, and that this would have serious negative consequences for the Council.
"This one is so hot," Marshall maintained, that he could not present it at a Council session unless someone from "the other side"—such as Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League—was on stage with us. At the very least, he needed to present "contending viewpoints." But he said it was too late to try to change the format, as the fall schedule was being finalized and there would not be sufficient time to arrange an alternate date. He showed little interest in doing anything with us in 2008 or beyond."
THE AIPAC SCHTICK For an encore Israel gets another 30 BILLION dollars over the next 10 years 2008 to 2011, as compared to 24 BILLION dollars of the last ten years - this is a firm commitment to CONTINUE to let this lobby, and Israel, determine our policy in the Middle East - and it is unacceptable. You have a debacle in Iraq and an impending one waiting to occur with Iran, both encouraged by this current alliance and reliance on AIPAC and Israel to lead Middle east policy. Two men, two clear minded academics cannot even propose that the influence of this lobby, AIPAC, is too strong on American policy - they are CENSORED!
Individuals have insidiously cemented together this lobby, Israel, and the Jewish people and have boldly proclaimed that any criticism equals antisemitism. Like talking heads people in power walk around chanting a mantra - "I believe in the right of Israel to exist," as if the only other alternative implied is the utter destruction of Israel if you even try to criticize Israel's policies - this is sheer madness. Than thinking that you can apply some form of massive duct tape over the mouths of serious academics.
TIME IS RUINNG OUT
Academics wish to speak out yet they are censored by the most questionable means, by the the most cynical methodology. Yet the Pentagon war room is crowded as well as the Pentagon offices that like a "bordello on Saturday night, with Israeli intelligence officers, crowding out members of even their own Pentagon staff - full of Mossad, full of Israeli generals in the making of Iraq policy" (to use the words of James Petras).
However, we cannot allow two outstanding academics the room to speak to this most pressing issue. We have plenty of pro-Israeli influence pundits, news rooms, think tanks (stink tanks as I have called them), but dissenting academics are not allowed. These are not antisemites, they are not even necessarily anti-Israeli on their own domestic issues, but they believe that the influence of the lobby (AIPAC) in Washington is too great - and the influence in regard to Middle East policy has not been beneficial for the United States.
Near the seat of power you have a veritable who's who of Zionists who get the undivided attention of the powers that be. Those who influence are awash in dubious loyalties. Yet some deny this influence in the face of facts that are overwhelming - "its very strange that one says Wolfowitz was not influenced by the Israeli agenda when he was caught passing documents to Israel in the 1980's. And Douglas Feith lost his security clearance for handing documents to Israel. Elliott Abrams has written a book calling for maintaining the 'purity' of the Jewish race…" (James Petras).
Feith further put together the Office of Special Plans, you know, fabrication central about Iraq, and he was constantly in contact with the Israeli government on and hourly basis! When an ethnic group pushes a foreign government as having primacy in foreign policy that jeopardizes the lives of American people you cannot turn around and say they are just kooks that make bad policy decisions! You better think twice about saying when thousands of Americans are dying, when there are rifts with our allies, while close to a million Iraqis are dying and another debacle is looming with Iran, and as we alienate ourselves by such a brutish and ill conceived Middle East policy - "what's good for Israel is good for the United States."
"On September 4, 2007, our book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy will be published by Farrar, Straus & Giroux, one of the most highly respected publishers in the United States. Through our publisher, the Council issued an invitation for both of us to speak at a session on September 27, 2007. We were delighted to accept, as each of us had spoken at the Council on several occasions in the past and knew we would attract a diverse and well-informed audience that would engage us in a lively and productive discussion."
We could go on about these embarrassments and how the United States alienates itself from the world by siding with Israel in it's occupational madness, constantly violating the Geneva Conventions and International Law. It lowers itself in getting involved in neo-colonial enterprises egged on by Zionist interest. When the vote comes up in the UN the United States repeatedly makes a fool out of itself siding with an occupation which the entire world abhors, the list goes on and on.
You could call what is happening to these fine scholars just the icing on the cake. Tenure denials are speeding up for those who do not spout the official line of support not only for this relationship with Israel and the crimes that are committed against the Palestinians, but on any deviation from the official government lines. Students are being made campus watchdogs, official agencies of the government are trying to confound criticism of Israeli policy with antisemitism, it has become a most illiberal atmosphere. SLOWLY DISSENT IS BEING CHOKED, CRITICAL THINKING IS BEING BANISHED - THE ONLY QUESTION REMAINS IS HOW LONG WILL THE PEOPLE PUT UP WITH THESE ATROCITIES? LETTING THEM SPEAK FOR THEMSELVESIF AMERICANS KNEWTHE HERITAGE OF THE WOLFOWITZ DOCTRINETHE FINANCIAL AID DEBACLENO MORE THINK TANKS (STINK TANKS)HILLARY OVER THE TOP FOR AIPAC - SHE REFLECTS THE MAJORITY OF ELECTED OFFICIALS = NO INTENTION OF CHANGING ME DISASTEROUS COURSE
(Your elected officials - AIPAC butterflies)THE UNTHINKING MAJORITYKILLING IN THE NAMEACADEMIC ORIENTALISM AND ZIONISMdisORIENTationPLANET OF THE ARABSTHE ISRAEL LOBBY: AIPAC - PART 1THE ISRAEL LOBBY: AIPAC - PART 2THE ISRAEL LOBBY: AIPAC - PART 3THE ISRAEL LOBBY: AIPAC - PART 4THE ISRAEL LOBBY: AIPAC - PART 5THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, MEARSHEIMER AND WALT WORKING PAPER AN EVER PRESENT DANGER
(Sharansky - for "democracy promotion ideas")DENIAL OF TENURE TO ME SCHOLAR AT BARNARD COLLEGE - HERE WE GO AGAINHOW THE LIGHT UNTO THE WORLD TREATS CHILDREN AT CHECKPOINTS
(Iraq/Fallujah)IN THE INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES?
Letter to Fadwa - by Kamal Nasir
"If my song should reach you
despite the blocked skies around us,
it is because I've spread my wings
to embrace your tortured span,
because we share tragedy
a dark destiny,
and together we partake of
memories, wishes, dreams.
I am what you wanted me to be
and what hardships have decreed.
I've claimed my foothold over the clouds,
bleeding till my wounds,
tinted the summits with red.
"I've loved my homeland, so my heart
aspires joyously to brave the tides.
Regret or cease? That could not be!
Since when did a poet seek honor or regret?
Sister, today you letter arrived,
bright with your lofty spirit,
bringing glad balm to my wounds
and stirring my dormant pen to reply.
Yes, I recall, I do recall
our happy evenings, our carefree friends
beneath the shading jasmine bushes,
our wings open to joy, or folded
We talked until a dream took hold of us
and we grasped its slumbering mirage.
Yes, I remember how you spoke your poems,
resplendent, proud and free on everyones lips,
more beautiful than the impossible.
Your songs, like sunrays in our country,
feed us with desire and hope
awakening to the sounds of struggle,
the fluttering of banners raised high.
I am still as you hoped I would be,
sun's rays kissing my forehead as I walk,
even alone, toward my goal.
Desire for freedom is my cross;
I thirst, though the cup is in my hand!
Life seethes in my youthful veins
yet I wander naked, seeking life for
my wounded people, that they might live
with happy pride, building their world.
And you? Should my letter arrive
and you find tears scattered among the lines,
do not worry - great hopes must weep
as they struggle to reach the heights.
Tomorrow the night shall withdraw, humiliated,
from our land, and the people abandon illusion,
discovering their strength.
Millions shall swear never to sleep
while there be yet one foothold left for wolves,
and through all the suffering they will yearn
for that moment of reckoning truth.
If my songs should reach you
despite the narrow skies around me,
remember that I will return to life,
to the quest for liberty,
remember that my people may call upon my soul
and feel it rising again from the folds of the earth."
Posted at 10:49 am by deadringer
THE TRUE FUNCTION OF THE CAPITALIST STATE
Now people are beginning to feel the heat, as the corrupt house of cards comes crashing down. It is a shame that it has to go this far, both domestic and foreign - millions threatened on the various continents through war and exploitation, and people losing their homes in the United States all for the enriching of the few. However this is just the tip of the iceberg, let me assure you we are not just entering another phase but there is a downward trend which the people pay for by allowing this country to continue on it's present course with either cosmetic change or no change at all.
The primary function of the capitalist state is to allow the accumulation of wealth for the few. First the state extracts surplus value from the labor of the people, extracting wealth from the many to enhance the few. The states second function is to protect the upward distribution of the wealth from the many to the few. The third function of the state is to protect the elite owning class from itself and the wrath of the people, so it does not kill the organism it feeds upon (this is the function I think this present administration is forgetting).
(Walter Crane, Great Britan 1885)
Wealth comes from the natural resources of the planet, all of the resources on and beneath the earth, the sea - if they are harnessed they become wealth. The second is labor, it takes labor to add use value making the resources accessible and consumable - making them marketable, a commodity. This may seem elementary to some, but bear with me.
Those who possess surplus abundance, rather than sharing, become more possessive. The beginnings of the state and class society is the wish to protect the wealth that has been accumulated by the few. We have barely moved from early slavery which brought value to products by labor, to the present day - most who labor subsist upon a very small portion of what is produced.
Class society and conflict has been banished from modern political discussion, it is not merely (class) a sociological category (upper, middle, lower) but it is a dynamic interrelationship having to do with wealth. Class is a social relationship, there is no such thing as a class in isolation - you cannot have corporate CEO's without workers.
What distinguishes the two, is the means of production - there are those who own things and there are those who work for those who own things. People who do not own anything sell their labor power, that is the majority.
(TH. A. Steinlen, France, 1894)
Capital comes in two forms, the material component and financial capital. The goal of the modern capitalist is not production, productivity, the goal is financial accumulation. This can take the form of maximizing production, or de-industrializing entire areas so no one can compete with whatever product or service. They are in the business not of producing anything, but of making the highest possible profit - to make sure that those who have get more.
Money is not merely a medium of exchange, sounds nice and neutral, but money is not neutral - within a capitalist system money is a means for extracting, multiplying and accumulating wealth. In the old days it consisted of land, crops, furs and so on, you could just accumulate so much - it (money) is a very flexible tool for wealth outside of material asset. Just like technology, which is not merely a neutral instrument (as technology has been portrayed), technology is developed in the framework of a social structure - it is owned by them (wealthy) and is used for surveillance, war, and self-promotion, etc.
(Franz Masereel, 1902, Belgium)
The impression given is that when there is more for the elite, the rich, that there is more for us - however, this is not true in the main (I am not talking about the small mom and pop business here). I am referring to the trans-national corporations, the place where 90% of the wealth resides. Great wealth creates great poverty, they are in a dynamic relationship - you cannot have great poverty without great wealth. Just like rich slaveholders had impoverished slaves, and lord's of the manor's had surfs, and you cannot have mega-corporations without workers who live from hand to mouth!
The wealthy translate their wealth into political power, into social control, and into cultural hegemony. Wealth will not stay put in any given region, but it will go abroad where it exploits for more natural resources, and finds cheaper labor - it will exit places like America and parts of Western Europe, where the workers make demands for things like a living wage do to true democratic actions (union, etc.), vacations, and health care, and pensions, etc. They go abroad where they can pay a dollar a day for labor, no controls, and the state makes sure that the foreign environment is fertile for maximum exploitation!
(Albert Hahn 1902)
Empire brings great wealth to the investing class and great expense to the people of the imperial nation. The process of empire is imperialism - imperialism is when the ruling interests of one country expropriates the land, labor, the natural resources, the markets, and the capital of another country - today they call it "globalization." The ruling class does the same to people in other countries as they do to people here.
The people are involved in empire in terms of it's cost - they, the few, get the benefits and we get the cost! We pay both the taxes and the blood, the empire always feeds off the republic - and this present empire has more power than ever. We, in the republic, have hospitals that are closing - public schools that are closing, where they do not have enough textbooks, and where the roofs are leaking!
Housing is so bad that we have hundreds of thousands of homeless, people are losing their homes, the infrastructure is crumbling, and we have beggars in the richest empire ever. States and cities go bankrupt, and human services disappearing at a record rate. Yet this administration proposed a military budget close to 800 billion dollars and hundreds of billions on top of that for an imperial war, with billions of dollars in contracts for Bechtel and Halliburton and other darling corporations! The murder of millions of people result from these activities.
The capitalist state which is there for the wealthy and elite, tell the working class to be self-reliant. All the while these corporations go to the public treasury, pulling out billions of dollars in equity subsidies, loan guarantees, export subsidies, research and development assistance, production-loss compensations, tax breaks - if mom and pop go out of business they just plain die as a concern. Hundreds of billions of dollars go from the poor workers to the fortune 500. In the face of all this the plutocrats tell the common people to stand on their own feet and stop going to the government.
Plutocracy also does not look with favor on public services - public housing, public health services, because you create jobs and tax base, answering human needs - but the plutocrats are not making a dime on it, so they hate the public sector. The goal is to "privatize" the public sector, because then the plutocrats get their pound of flesh! They get millions and billions of dollars through the privatization of the commons, etc.
These same plutocrats like beating up the defenseless, the low income, the disabled. They rape the environment, it is also unable to defend itself - they see those resources as theirs and they want to turn a quick buck on it, no matter how disastrous it is to the rest of us. The plutocracy loves deficit spending, they are the biggest spenders - you know, the people who call themselves conservatives. The deficit went from billions to trillions under the reign of these "conservatives" (Regan, Bush(s)).The government borrows from these people who have lots of money, other billionaires created abroad and domestic, and than it floats government bonds. Deficits and debts accomplish a great deal for the rich: it is a safe source of income for the creditor class. People with billions of dollars get an upward redistribution of income, from the millions who work to the few that are rich.
They lend billions to the government, and the people have to pay them back with interest! The federal budget is being privatized, the larger the debt the more goes to the rich. Than the debts become an excuse to cut the public sector service, it is a vicious circle as we get flushed down the toilet in the activity!
I could go on and on - so welcome to the the capitalist government for the rich, by the rich, and to hell with the people! This is the true function of capitalist government. Both democrats and republicans are capitalists in our system, two sides to the same coin, they live to enhance the rich in this capitalist nightmare. When we are ready to put a stop to this, than the powers that be will have to listen, because they ride on the shoulders of the people. ARE THE PEOPLE WAITING FOR EVERYTHING TO COLLAPSE BEFORE WE MOVE TO STOP THIS MAD COURSE? REBIRTH OF A NATIONA RARE MOMENT OF TRUTHRICH MANS WARCAPITALISM AND OTHER KIDS STUFF - PART 1CAPITALISM AND OTHER KIDS STUFF - PART 2CAPITALISM AND OTHER KIDS STUFF - PART 3CAPITALISM AND OTHER KIDS STUFF - PART 4CAPITALISM AND OTHER KIDS STUFF - PART 5PERSONAL CAPITALISTIC FALLOUT
(Look at the stark contrast of lanscape)SOUND OF THE REPUBLICSMASH IT UPWHERE'S THE FUTURE?"God save the queen
The fascist regime
They made you a moron
God save the queen
She ain't no human being
There is no future
In England's dreaming
Don't be told what you want
Don't be told what you need
There's no future, no future,
No future for you
God save the queen
We mean it man
We love our queen
God save the queen
'Cause tourists are money
And our figurehead
Is not what she seems
Oh God save history
God save your mad parade
Oh Lord God have mercy
All crimes are paid
When there's no future
How can there be sin
We're the flowers in the dustbin
We're the poison in your human machine
We're the future, your future
God save the queen
We mean it man
We love our queen
God save the queen
We mean it man
And there is no future
In England's dreaming
No future, no future,
No future for you
No future, no future,
No future for me
No future, no future,
No future for you
No future, no future
Posted at 08:17 pm by deadringer
WILL THERE BE A RUN ON THE BANKS?
Will there a bank run? I have always shyed away from speculation, but as this corrupt system decays with time the faith of the people will be tried in this shaky system. Tied as the market is to the real estate market, and the ever-increasing demand for a piece of the "American Dream," when will people wake up to the illusion? This is an aticle written by Mike Whitney for the Information Clearing House.
"On Friday, the Dow Jone's clawed its way back from a 200 point deficit to a mere 31 point loss after the Federal Reserve injected $38 billion into the banking system. The Fed had already pumped $24 billion into the system a day earlier after the Dow plummeted 387 points. That brings the Fed's total commitment to a whopping $62 billion.
By some estimates, $326.3 billion has now been added to the G-7 Nations' intra-banking system to prevent a breakdown. That amount will rise considerably in the weeks ahead as the situation continues to deteriorate. Some readers may remember that on Tuesday, August 7, the Fed announced that it was NOT planning to bail out the market.
My, how quickly things change.
So far, economic pundits and CEOs have applauded the Fed's intervention as a "constructive" way of staving off an impending credit crisis.
Are these same "experts" who always sing the praises of unregulated "free markets" while condemning any government intervention?
The investment banks and fund mangers love "free markets" when it means eliminating the rules that prevent them to "gaming the system". But they don't like it so much when their shabby Ponzi-rackets start to unravel. Then they're the first in line to beg for a bailout.
That's what's happening right now. The Fed is keeping the stock market afloat by increasing liquidity at the banks. If it wasn't for Bernanke's billions of dollars of low interest credit---the banking system and stock market would collapse in a heap. The Fed's "not-so-invisible hand" is the only thing holding the whole dilapidated system in place.
Is that the way it's supposed to work in a free market system---with the Fed acting as the nation's Economic Central Planner intervening whenever it suits the interests of its wealthiest constituents?
Sounds more like a Financial Politburo, doesn't it?
In truth, the "free market" means nothing to the men who run the system. It's just a public relations scam designed to dupe investors into plunking their money into a system that's rigged for the carnivores at the top of the economic food-chain.
Does anyone really believe that the market-commissars would allow the system to operate according to the arbitrary swings in investor confidence and random speculation?
This is THEIR SYSTEM and they run it THEIR WAY. The only time that changes is when their twisted schemes go haywire and they need a handout from the taxpayer. In the present case, they are asking Big Brother Bernanke to bail them out on trillions of dollars of non-performing subprime garbage-loans which masquerade as securities in the secondary market. The Fed has already indicated that it is only-too-willing to help.
But what good will it do?
The banks are currently holding (roughly) $300 billion in collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and another $225 billion in collateralized loan obligations (CLOs) More than one-half trillion dollars in debt which is essentially "illiquid" and has no clear market value. They could be worthless for all we know.
That hasn't stopped the Fed riding to the rescue, buying up many of these toxic CDOs and increasing banking reserves so the great fractional banking con-game can continue unabated. This is what one astute observer called "alchemy finance".
Central banks around the world have opened up the liquidity spigots to avoid a global credit meltdown. But their efforts are bound to fail. The banks are sitting on huge losses from assets that they can't move through the pipeline and which have gobbled up their reserves. Bloomberg News summed it up like this: "The $2 trillion market for mortgages not backed by government-sponsored agencies is at a standstill".
The same is true of the corporate bond market. As the Wall Street Journal reported last week:
"The investment grade corporate bond market HAS GROUND TO A HALT, making it difficult for companies to access capital and hard for investors to find a place to put their money to work. ….The problems in the primary market could, if they persist, throw a wrench in the workings of corporate America, making it tougher for companies to finance, among other things, investments, buyouts and equity buybacks….For July, corporate bond issuance was down 77% from June." ("Corporate Bond Market has come to a Standstill", Wall Street Journal)
The mighty wheels of commerce have rusted in place. Nothing is moving. Only the sense of panic continues to grow. Trillions of dollars poisonous CDOs need to unwind, but the banks cannot put them up for bid for fear that they'll only get pennies on the dollar. This is what a slow-motion train-wreck looks like. The Fed's cheap credit won't help either. At best, it'll just buy a little time before the true value of these bonds is established and trillions of dollars in market capitalization vanish into cyber-space. Banks, equities, hedge funds, insurance companies and pension funds are all in line to suffer major losses.
The irony, of course, is that the Federal Reserve created this mess by lowering interest rates to 1% and flushing trillions of dollars into the economy. That cheap money created a series of lethal equity-bubbles in housing, credit, stocks and bonds which are quickly falling to earth. Expanding the money-supply might be a short-term fix, but it's really just throwing more gas on the fire. Why add hyper-inflation to the long-list of existing problems?
The volatility in the stock market is a red herring. We should be paying attention to the underlying problems which are just now beginning to surface. The banks have been originating loans and bundling them off to Wall Street to avoid the normal reserve requirements. Now they've been "caught short" and don't have adequate funding to cover their bets. If the Fed doesn't help out, we'll see at least one or two major bank closures.
This is a story that won't appear in the media. Bank-runs are the beginning of the end---financial Armageddon.
And there's more bad news, too. If the stock market corrects more than 10 or 15%, the massive overleveraged $1.7 trillion hedge fund industry will crash-and-burn. This may explain why the stock market has behaved so erratically recently. There have numerous late-day rallies with no good news to support the soaring equities prices. Is the market being micro-managed behind the scenes to keep it above a certain level?
Many people think so. There's been a flood of articles about the activities of the Plunge Protection Team's in the last two weeks. The Fed's desperate infusions of credit into the banking system will only reinforce growing suspicions of market manipulation.
Banks routinely hedge against adverse moves in the market by purchasing various types of insurance in the form of derivatives contracts. Derivatives trading has skyrocketed in the last few years and the "British Bankers Association estimated last fall that by the end of 2006, the market for all credit derivatives was $20 trillion and expected to be $33 trillion by the end of 2008."These relatively new instruments are about to be put to the test by worsening market conditions. "Hedge funds may account for as much as 30% of such credit protection" but that is little solace for the banks "because hedge funds that are losing money but also selling credit insurance may not be able to honor their commitments, rendering the protection worthless." ("Insuring against Credit Risk can carry risks of its own" Henny Sender, Wall Street Journal)
Credit insurance in the form of credit default swaps have created a false sense of security that may prove to be unfounded. In fact, the Credit insurance business has probably encouraged lenders to make shakier and shakier loans believing that they were protected from risk. But that doesn't appear to be the case. For example, Bear Stearns tried to soothe investor's fears during the collapse of its two hedge funds by pointing to its derivatives coverage.
"Bear executives repeatedly referred to their dependence on hedges, including credit derivatives, to offset their losses on subprime mortgages and loans to poorly rated companies, stating that such hedges would offset losses." (Ibid, H. Sender, Wall Street Journal)
We all know how that story ended up.
Derivatives have been celebrated as a critical part of the "new architecture of the financial markets". Now we can see that they are poor-performers under real-life conditions and liable to trigger an even greater disaster. If the stock market stumbles, we can expect a major breakdown in credit insurance-trading with trillions of dollars in derivatives disappearing overnight.
The abstruse world of derivatives trading will suddenly explode onto the headlines of newspapers across the country.
HOUSING BRUSHFIRE SWEEPS THROUGH THE ECONOMY
The contamination from the massive real estate bubble has now infected nearly every area of the broader market. The swindle which began at the Federal Reserve--with cheap, low interest credit---has spread through the entire system and is threatening to wreak financial havoc across the planet. The Fed's multi-billion dollar bailout will do nothing to contain the brushfire they started or avert the catastrophe that lies just ahead. Greenspan opened Pandora's Box and we'll all have to live with the consequences."
This is simply the chickens coming home to roost on this market. Imagine with me the billions of dollars that have been syphoned off for big business to line the pockets of the wealthy, and the billions is tax breaks that went to the rich. Things may be coming apart at the seams, and all of this while your "elected official" have been undoing the safty net for the people at break-neck speed - when the crash finally arrives guess who will be at the bottom?
Articles like this, that you will not find in the local news or on coporate media are constantly being published by Information Clearing House. See the original article HERE. Information Clearing House needs your support, please consider giving so you can read the real scoop of what is taking place in the world. Consider supporting them HERE throught PayPal.
Posted at 07:41 pm by deadringer
HOW THE RULING ELITE USE POLLS
There are few methodologies that get used with such cynicism as polling. The majority of the population, particularly in the United States has no idea how and why polls are used by those who think they "know whats best for us," or should I say for themselves.
Polling was introduced by the PR industry as a tool for the control of the people, it is a "science" for measuring the direction or intent, the will of the people. What many do not understand is that he (or those) that controls the environment, what people see and hear, control the will of the people.
I am going to tell you EXACTLY what the purpose of polls are in the United States - in the sense of how the dominant media uses them. Granted, there are polls which are what you might call contrary polls, in the sense that they ask full questions, to a major and fair portion of the population, for the purpose of enlightening the people - but they are few. I am not saying if polls are good or not, I am just asking what are polls good for?
Always before a major poll is launched by the corporate media, there is a major campaign of concentrated propaganda repeatedly voiced through the major (major in the sense of the monopoly) media sources - national, such as NBC CBS CNN FOX, etc. Why? Because they wish to set a precedent of opinion, that is they try to garner authority through the majority, which has been influenced by the said propaganda blitz. This is layered, and can go on for a long period of time, to make sure that the right message is embedded in the psyche of the population.
Only after the above is done, is there a poll taken, and that with specific questions related to the media propaganda. Essentially what the polls do is verify "how effective" the propaganda blitz has been. So, when a decision is taken by the powers that be, whatever the subject, they look legitimate - as if they are just following the major "view of the people." THAT is the major use of the poll in the weapon arsenal of the PR firms, and their cognate media sources. Mind you, this is an exact science, that has been perfected to manufacture the consent of the people (to use a phrase coined by Noam Chomsky).
So, whenever you look at polls, as used by the so-called "major sources" it is good that you keep the above scenario in mind. What polls are for the most part, is the way to measure how effective the propaganda blitz has been. Plain and simple, they are a synthetic methodology, used in a cynical fashion, by a ruling elite. The question they ask themselves is "have we been effective in this quest to move the will of the people?" (lets take a poll and see).
This way they see if they can make their move, whatever that is, feeling they have influenced the people enough, or, whether they should go back to the drawing board, make some major or minor adjustments, or take a different course. The IMPRESSION that you are left with (not knowing what I told you above), "gee Marge, they really want to know what we think, isn't it grand to live in a democracy, they really care!" Or, an equally fallacious conclusion from the deception - "look Marge! Sixty five percent of the people agree with us, we are in the majority!"
You must also realize that society itself is set in motion with it's "challenges" to stack the deck, so to speak, to limit your sources - resources. The United States is set in motion with a break neck speed, to busy you to such a degree that you become exhausted.
What they count on is the fact that you will be so exhausted, trying to keep a roof over your head, put food on the table - the general nasty rat race, so that when you finally get home the only thing you will do is avail yourself of a "major" form of media like the corporate news. Hence, they have you by the balls, so to speak, and you fall into their environment from not only the necessary work schedule, but the forms of media that are so easy to use. There they are for you, after a hard days work, all you need to do is relax, press the remote, sit back and be inundated with their non-stop pounding propaganda drivel.
(Urban Rat Race - From the Schmitt-hall studios)
The problem is that when polls are being taken, the damage is already done, the PR blitz has already calcified opinions. The deception of legitimacy permeates the "major corporate media." It is "news you can trust," and "fair and balanced," etc. So, remember these facts the next time you look and rely upon polls, the deck is stacked and the game is rigged. Polls are used in conjunction with big money, they are attached at the hip with popular media which is merely the driving force for the powers that be which rely on these PR giants.
Posted at 12:38 pm by deadringer
GENERATING GHETTOS WORLDWIDE - COMING SOON TO A NEIGHBORHOOD NEAR YOU
(Warsaw, Poland Jewish Ghetto 1940 from Yad Veshem) Just in case you were not aware of it, America is famous for creating ghettos all throughout it's states. Now, this same process is being replicated all over the world. Granted, this is a picture of a Ghetto created by Nazi design in 1940 - but the same processes that created this one creates the present epidemic all over the world. Because you have to understand nothing else can be created with this system, it only recognizes the rich and substantial, and the rest of the people are cut off - sometimes in other nations they do not even build the middle class insulation, the fat, they don't have to - because there is no substantial democratic movement. Ghettos can be created in many ways, they can be mandated through a direct act of war, as found in the Nazi Ghettos of the 20th century. They can be created by a so-called liberation, which is just another war, reducing people to animalism through forced pauperism. They can be created through economic down swings through capitalistic design which as I mentioned above always enfranchises the few who feed off the many. Ghettos can come in the name of "progress" in any given nation. Where there were once factories that created little boom communities, these factories can disappear, so that the design of the corporation can be relealised in a foreign country for cheaper labor - all blessed by those in the government through legislation, and the exploitation then stalks the nations. Ghettos can suddenly appear through the application of international trade agreements. Where there were once farms run by families agri-corps rise up in their place. Where there were fishing villages refineries suddenly appear, or coastal homes for the rich and famous. The people are introduced to a new means of survival - drugs, and prostitution in the new exploitation of industrial jungles. Ghettos suddenly appear when a supposed government opens it's resources to other more "financially viable" countries. An aristocracy is created in a day, and an entire population is displaced, while the rulers become rich beyond their imaginations (and their chosen circle) while others are disenfranchised. In "previous" colonial enterprise people become dependent of created institutions, trading frameworks and armed forces from outside the region. Ghettos expand when their is racial prejudice, and a system of apartheid rears it's ugly head without seeming remedy. When one people see themselves as better and more deserving of life and liberty than another. It comes through racial hatred, or when countries are based merely upon an exclusionary preference. Ghettos proliferate when it is the design of a global elite to exploit a country or region for it's resources, whether they be material or human. They are the result of selfishness and greed, when humanity is seen as nothing more than chattel - a mere number, or when people are commodified by what they can contribute to an elite few. Ghettos appear when institutions which are supposed to be to the benefit of all become the soul province of the privileged few. When governments no longer chose to listen to their people, but to corporations which feed upon the poor. Ghettos thrive when there is merely equal opportunity in word but not in deed - when the educational tools for success are out of the reach of the needy. This is what is taking place at breathtaking speed in the United States - do you think anything else will be produced in other countries by leadership like this? The domestic carnage taking place in America will replicate itself in "client" nations.
INDEED, GHETTOS BEGIN TO APPEAR ALL OVER THE WORLD WHEN A GLOBAL ELITE ARE LED BY A NATION, LIKE THE UNITED STATES WHICH EXCELS IN THEIR CREATION IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY. WHEN THE WESTERN WORLD WHICH IS KNOWN FOR IT'S OWN APARTHEID PRACTICES SAYS IT IS GOING TO BRING THE REST OF THE WORLD PEACE AND PROSPERITY. STOP GHETTOS FROM SPREADING THROUGH THE DESIGN OF IMPERIALISM, WHOSE ENGINE IS CAPITALISM, THE COMBINATION OF WHICH IS FASCISM, BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY!
WHAT IS PRODUCED WORLDWIDEYOU WILL GET WHAT YOU DESERVEMASTER OF PUPPETS
(The spread of empire is worse than addiction)GHETTO GOSPELSTARVE THE GHETTO
(From Queens to Iraq)DYING TO LIVEBORN DEADTHAT'S GLOBILIZATIONTHE CASE FOR REVOLUTION - AN INTERESTING VIDEOdPoetry Written In Gasoline
"Scrap the extras - Let's keep our eyes wide open
Cut out the spareparts - Let's keep our eyes wide open
Keep our eyes wide open
fuck the idol - Let's keep our eyes wide open
Reject the star - Star, star, star
Let's feed ourselves some - Let's keep our eyes wide open
Convention blackmails - Let's keep our eyes wide open
Creativity - Yeah! Yeah!
This lack of challange - Let's keep our eyes wide open
Kills me, kills me, kills me, kills me
Scrap the extras - Let's keep our eyes wide open
Cut out the spareparts
fuck the idol, idol - Let's keep our eyes wide open
Reject the star
The rhymes of revolution
Poetry written in gasoline
The rhymes of revolution
Yeah! Yeah! Yeah!
Manipulate the obvious
Cowards bought by traditionalist manners
Scream at the herd that are heard the most
Without substance and with useless... banners
Banners, banners, banners
Your art, your art, is worth, is worth nothing
Like a city with no meaning
Like a city, with no meaning, with no meaning
Your creation holds, holds no hope
The rhymes of revolution
The rhymes of revolution
Poetry written in gasoline
Poetry written in gasoline
Poetry written in gasoline
You had a witness over there"
POETRY WRITTEN IN GASOLINEBOMBSWHAT YOU DON'T SEE - THE BOMBING OF AFGHANISTANFUCK THE SYSTEM
Posted at 11:14 pm by deadringer