Gilets Jaunes SITREP. ACT 19 and 20.

by the Francophone Saker for the Saker blog

C:\Users\ASUS\Documents\Gilets jaunes\plein la gueule.jpg

The Gj Saturdays

To try to hamper Acts 19 and 20, the government banned the demonstrators from entire neighbourhoods and perimeters. The Champs Elysées for Paris and the city centre for large cities. Any offender will receive a fine of 135 euros to be paid immediately or 190 euros to be paid later. For instance, a couple has been finedfor simply wearing a sweater that says “Yes to the RIC”.

As the government cannot totally ban demonstrations, it will try everything it can to limit their scope. Intimidations through body and bags searches, custody and fines at the slightest suspicious object, physical violence… In Paris, “8,545 preventive controls have been carried out,” the minister said. The Gj will no longer be considered as demonstrators but as rioters. The government also calls on the army by using anti-terrorist forces to back the police. As a result, some journalists will no longer hesitate to compare the Gj to terrorists.

But all these intimidations will not cool down the Gj who kept on coming numerous those two last Saturdays.

The police officers will be ordered to go hard, and that is what they will do, as shown by the long list of videos showing these chargesshotsbludgeons and humiliations against not only the demonstrators but also the street medics and journalists. Everyone is considered as a livestock to be led by the whip. A 71-year-old woman waving a rainbow flag marked “Peace” is being pushed by a CRS charge, injured to the head when she falls and will end up in hospital. Faced with this problem for the image of the police, it will try again to distort the facts: “Mrs Legay received a visit from police officers at the hospital to ask her to say that she had not been injured by the police officers’ charge but in other circumstances,” said her children’s lawyer. It is the subordination of a victim. Her lawyer will file a complaint for “voluntary violence against vulnerable persons, by persons with authority and the army”. As for Macron, always full of empathy, he wishes this lady, who is twice her age, “to be wiser”.

Image may contain: 3 people, outdoor

There have been thousands of arrests, police custody and immediate trials. Minutes are often rigged, prisoners intimidated, lawyers prevented from seeing their clients. But as, in France, justice is not as blind as we would like to think, “On the one hand8500 Gj arrested in 4 months, including 1800 already tried and sentenced to prison sentences, on the other hand 174 cases of police violence still awaiting trial”. Not to mention Benalla, always free as a bird.

To speed up judicial repression, lawyers supporting the Gj, who call themselves the Black Dresses, are prevented from doing their job. A lawyer testifies that the police did not allow her to enter the police station to assist detainees. Another testimony from a lawyer on the conditions of police custody of the Gj. A third testimony, this time from the president of the lawyers’ union in Rouen who denounces the police’s tactics to prevent the arrested Gj from seeing their lawyer.

Another technique used by the government police is to let the breakers break, or break themselves, in order to degrade the image of the Gj among the rest of the population. Even some parliament members are wondering about it.

Seeing all this, it is clear that France is becoming a police state. This reminds to the eldest the “Pétain’s police”, the French equivalent of the German Gestapo during WW2.

The Macron’s regime

While Macron had bragged, after being elected, about surrounding himself with “irreproachable” people, we are gradually discovering that in reality many are dealing with justice.

Image may contain: one or more people, people standing and textFirst, Benalla, whom we have already mentioned in previous SITREPs. Fortunately, the Senate is here to prevent the case from being buried. The Prime Minister was summoned to testify but refused to come. Out of fear or cowardice? Macron also takes it badly, would that be a sign of guilt?

At the end of March, Macron fired the Paris police prefect, the one who had not protected Benalla enough to his liking, to put a close mate in his place, Lallement. Then the newspaper Mediapart informed us that Lallement is under investigation for suspicions of favoritism when the Société du Grand Paris has been auctioned. The investigation is conducted by the Brigade de répression de la délinquance économique (BRDE), a brigade under the direction of the Prefect of Police of Paris. Then it is now Lallement who will lead the investigation on himself. There’s a good chance it will end up in a drawer.

Then, for a LREM deputy[Macron’s party], the same one who calls the Gj rioters on many TV sets, “The Court of Appeal confirmed the Bobigny Commercial Court’s judgment of 2 November 2016. Claire O’Petit was sentenced to “a prohibition to manage, administer or control directly or indirectly any commercial or craft enterprise […] for a period of five years”. However, she still can play politics.

And yet another Macron’s close mate having legal problems for “death threats on others”. Absolutely. It’s starting to sound a little gangly.

As a result, while thousands of Gj are sentenced to prison terms, the list of all French politicians who have dealt with justice and have never been in prison is circulating on social networks.

In fact, Macron’s new spokesperson sums it all up with the naivety of youth: “I totally assume to lie to protect the president.”

Image may contain: 1 person, textNot only did Macron surround himself with unfortunate people, but he also took advantage of the fact that the streets are already occupied by the Gj to sell off the French heritage to those who had put him in power. At that level it reminds us of Yeltsin’s Russia.

We have already seen in the previous SITREP that the National Assembly, where Macron’s party got the majority, had voted, by night, to privatize three very profitable national companies, Aéroport de Paris, La Française des Jeux and Engie, an electricity company.

We later learn that “to privatize Aéroport de Paris, it was Bank of America that was chosen as the sales manager. And who is at the head of the French branch of this bank? Bernard Mourad, former Drahi banker and advisor to the Macron presidential campaign.”

The looting of the nation’s assets does not stop there: “The government has announced its intention to privatize 150 hydroelectric dams in France, despite their highly strategic nature.”

And soon it will be the turn of the national roads. As incredible as it looks, those who put Macron in power are seriously thinking about it.

Not only does he sell the Nation’s family jewellery to the French oligarchs, he also allows them to benefit from “tax optimization” – a euphemism for “legal tax evasion, only for the rich”. Here is a video explaining, in figures, the extent of tax evasion in France and Europe. Fraud confirmed by this interview with a member of the opposition. These videos explain that the recovery of this fraud would be more than enough for France to continue to have a social policy. But Macron’s ultra-liberal government prefers to let the rich defraud so as not to share rather than using it for the sake of the people. It will therefore continue to close hospitals, crèches, schools and retirement homes in the name of budgetary discipline, but actually to allow the private ones to make more money. A l’américaine. But the Gj, and those who back them, do not want to live in such a system.

As a result, since this government is short of tax revenues because of “tax optimization”, the French motorist becomes the government’s cash cow.

So do the retirees. A retired Gj explains “62 years of fiscal imagination… and lies” about pensions, with date and figures to support it.

Finally, to finish this litany of “reforms to modernise France” and to make sure that the Liberals’ policy is more in favor of multinationals than that of the people, Monsanto finances the Liberal Party, to which LREM is joining, for the European elections. Here is a video explaining that this lobbying, officially forbidden in France, is quite normal in the European Parliament.

Les Gilets Jaunes

Despite this hellish police repression and pushed by the misdeeds of the Macron regime, the Gj do not give up, as they say. The motivation is still there, more than ever.

The Special Operations Group continues its actions against large companies (Société Génénrale, Apple, Starbucks…) that evade tax. it will even be received in the Senate to discuss the Pacte law. The details of the discussion will of course be made public.

In the face of permanent media defamation, they are working on a common charter.

Constituent assemblies are gradually being set up throughout the country.

The Gj from Toulouse organized a “Yellow Village” to meet and explain to the rest of the population what the movement is, its objectives… in order to thwart the media defamation they are suffering.

Citizen organizations are also beginning to support them. Intellectuals also began to support them. 350 academics support the Gjs, declaring themselves “accomplices” since Castaner said that the Gjs’ accomplices were also “rioters”.

Economist Éric Toussaint, from the Committee for the Abolition of Illegitimate Debts, gives his advice and proposeseconomic measures to the Gj.

Even the army is beginning to speak out on the subject, through the voice of retired General Tauzin. He says that the movement is “the rise of France with a human face against France of managers; of deep France against centralized France; of united and patriotic France against the contempt and arrogance of those who believe they are elites.”

The movement will therefore not give up and actions will continue to follow each other at least until the RIC is put in place. It is just a matter of patience and will. And both are here.

See you then for the next Gilets Jaunes SITREP.

Le Saker Francophone

For those who can read french and wants more detailed SITREP, the Saker Francophone is publishing one every Sunday. Here are the two last ones.

Advertisements

The Brink-a film review by Eve Mykytyn

April 04, 2019  /  Gilad Atzmon

Introduction by GA: Steve Bannon is probably the most unpopular character as far as progressives and liberals are concerned. People who like to see themselves at the Left side of the political spectrum  regard Bannon as a vile hateful character as well as a rabid antisemite. Yet, symptomatically or even tragically, those who detest Bannon shy away from tackling his populist mantra. This is rather concerning considering the fact that Bannon has proven to be a shrewd political tactician and even a kingmaker. It is probably Bannon who carries the prime responsibility for Trump’s successful presidential campaign. Those who are fearful of Bannon revert to name-calling: they slalom in between his ideas with the hope that no one notices. They do their best to avoid anything that may evoke thinking or resemble reasoning.  It is not a secret that those who currently claim to advocate social justice are apparently too fearful to engage with substance but they fail to do so in the name of social justice.  

 In the following film review Eve Myktyn tells us about Alison Klayman’s The Brink.  Mykytyn went to the film hoping to learn more about Bannon but it seems she left the cinema knowing more about Klayman’s phobia of the man. If those who call themselves progressives want to sustain relevance, sooner or later they will have to engage in a proper intellectual exchange as name calling, misquoting and crude editing tactics do not do justice to social justice. 

A film review by Eve Mykytyn

Steve Bannon may well be, as he is often called,  the ‘architect of evil.’  But Alison Klayman’s mystifying documentary, The Brink, which sets out to “[use] Bannon’s own words and behaviors to reveal his hypocrisy and expose the danger he poses to liberal democracy”  fails to show Bannon as hypocritical or dangerous.

The film’s opens begins with Bannon talking about a journey he made to World War II’s concentration camps. He notes that the Birkenau concentration camp was built using the finest of German engineering and wonders how ordinary Germans could get together and plan such a site. Perhaps Klayman felt that she couldn’t cut this otherwise disconnected scene because it showed Bannon to be an anti Semite, although he was simply musing about how a concentration camp came to be built. Is any question about any aspect of the Holocaust verboten? Apparently so, The Forward  interprets Bannon’s remarks as: “rhapsodiz[ing] about the precise engineering of one of the most evil thing humans have ever created, the Birkenau extermination camp.”

Instead, of engaging with Bannon’s avowedly nationalist politics, much of the film is devoted to a fly-on-the-wall view of Bannon’s daily routine. Bannon eats and drinks (a combination of  Red Bull and a disgusting mess of green ‘diet’ juice), speaks at rallies, poses for photos, meets with nationalist leaders in Europe, touts his propaganda movie, and texts and talks endlessly on the phone: so much film time is devoted to the quotidian aspects of Bannon’s life that the shrewd and divisive political operative is reduced to boring.

Klayman attempts to score a point by asking Bannon where he is, so that she can report that he is on an airfield for private planes. Is Bannon’s not particularly luxurious private plane, filled with his allies and journalists really relevant to the larger debate?

The film follows Bannon to Toronto where he appears for a formal debate with David From on the proposition that the “future of western politics is populist, not liberal.”  This is finally the real debate. Is it ‘country first’ or do we have a responsibility to all without regard to borders? The debate can be found here (the first 10 minutes of chatter can be skipped): the exchange between two articulate men whose views are antithetical to each other is well worth the time. Tellingly, The Brink does not show the debate, instead we see the effects that Bannon’s presence evokes. The protests outside the debate are portrayed as huge and scary, inside Bannon gently confronts hecklers, whose poor behavior he comically attributes to an ‘ex-wife.’  That’s it. The Brink apparently feels no need to counter Bannon’s views or even better, simply show From’s effective dissent.

 

When the film does allow Bannon to articulate his thesis, it is in a brief scene in which Bannon is speaking to a rally. In it, Bannon states that the benefits of citizenship should be distributed only to citizens, without regard to race, religion or sexual preference.  This is the core of the populist nationalist movement that helped elect Donald Trump and has scored victories in Britain, France, Belgium and Sweden.  Bannon’s current project is to knit together like-minded counter globalists from Europe and the United States.

The Brink’s opposition to nationalist populism is left to Guardian reporter Paul Lewis who accuses Bannon of using “anti-Semitic tropes,” then interrupts Bannon’s denial. Bannon insists that there’s nothing nefarious about using the term “globalist” or criticizing George Soros for the NGOs he funds. Vogue claims Bannon uses the term globalist “with a wink and a nod…as a stand-in for Jews.”  Bannon’s movement is opposed to globalism. Is there a non anti Semitic way to oppose globalism?

Just  in case anyone failed to understand the intended message, the film ends with a stirring homage to the current crop of new representatives with the background picture of Washington, DC lit in rainbow hues. Apparently, a diverse group of new congressmen and women is a refutation of Bannon and what he stands for, too bad that The Brink fails to explain why that may be so.

My battle for truth and freedom involves some expensive legal services. I hope that you will consider committing to a monthly donation in whatever amount you can give. Regular contributions will enable me to avoid being pushed against a wall and to stay on top of the endless harassment by Zionist operators attempting to silence me.

source: https://www.evemykytyn.com/reviews/2019/4/3/review-of-the-brink

Denote

Serious question: What is Zionism?

April 01, 2019  /  Gilad Atzmon

Introduction by GA: In the following  article John Carville digs into the belly of the beast. He questions the validity of the dichotomy between the ‘J’ and the ‘Z.’  He calls to launch a critical study of different aspects of Jewish culture, politics, identity and power. In 2011 I published The Wandering Who? A Study of Jewish Identity Politics. The book was denounced by Zionists and Jewish anti Zionists alike as it proclaimed that since Israel defines itself as the Jewish State it is Jewishness (rather than Zionism) which we must understand first.  In the book I offered a solution to some of  the questions raised by Craville. I contended that instead of asking ‘what Jews are’ or even ‘what Judaism is,’ we should study what are the set of ideologies, precepts and philosophies that people who self identify as Jews adhere to. In my work, Jews are neither a biological continuum nor they are a religious collective. In The Wandering Who Jewishness proves itself to be an elastic identitarian construct.  

We have learned to accept that we are living in a post truth era.  But here is the good news: the more is invested in suppressing the truth, the more the truth is keen to unveil itself.

Zionism.jpg

Serious question: What is Zionism?

By John Carville

If Zionism was the political movement to establish a homeland for the Jewish people in the Middle East, then surely it achieved its goal and the term ceased to have meaning in terms of defining the objectives of a political movement.

Alternatively, if Zionism then morphed into support for the continued existence of a Jewish state in the Middle East, then the only point of view what would not be Zionist would be the one that calls the Jewish state illegitimate and calls for it to be dismantled. Yet there are few political voices that call for such an approach, and governments that have referred to the Jewish state as illegitimate have been demonized for doing so. Clearly, such a view is regarded as a fringe one.

So, what is Zionism today? Is everybody who does not declare Israel to be an illegitimate state that should be dismantled and the land given back to its dispossessed people a Zionist? Would that not make nearly everyone a Zionist? And, if so, does that not deprive the term of any meaning whatsoever?

This is not just semantics. Clearly, considerable effort goes on, particularly within movements like BDS and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, to imprint the mantra into people’s minds that it is “Zionism not Judaism” that is responsible for the ongoing plight of the Palestinian people; and that, more importantly, we should not ask any questions about the role of Judaic teaching or ideology in attempting to understand what motivated and continues to motivate the supporters of what is now a genocidal apartheid state that openly defines itself as a “Jewish state” in the Middle East. If it is Zionism and not Judaism that is the problem, then clearly we need to understand what Zionism is (and, relatedly, whether it is rooted in Jewish religious teaching). And if Zionism turns out to be an empty concept, then we should be asking ask what are the ideological underpinnings of Israel’s brutal treatment of the Palestinians (and the lack of action on the part of the international community in that context) for more than 70 years.

Personally, I reject the “Zionism is not Judaism” approach and see that we are being fobbed off with nonsense. It seems clear that this wonderfully popular term “Zionism” is now devoid of content. Either no one is now a Zionist (because the goal of Zionism was achieved via the Catastrophe of 1948) or almost everyone is a Zionist (because there are very few people who would declare that the Jewish state should be dismantled and returned to its dispossessed owners). And,as Israel Shahak argued eloquently in his important and insightful work Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years, I would suggest that we cannot begin to understand Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians without examining the roots of Judaic thinking and Jewish identity in the ethnically and religiously discriminatory doctrines of Judaic religion, which has shaped the Jewish mindset for most of its history. It seems, however, that Shahak’s writing continues to reap far less attention than it merits.

Yesterday, I attended a social evening organized by BDS Granada. Towards the end of the evening, I spoke to a couple of members, who seemed very nice people, but they instantly became uncomfortable when I made this point, namely, that we cannot understand Israel’s ongoing genocide against the Palestinians without looking at its ideological roots and justification in the Jewish religion. ‘Oh no,’ they said, ‘that is dangerously close to anti-Semitism. Zionism is not Judaism,’ etc. Then their Jewish friend popped up and, well, let’s just say things went downhill from there.

Clearly, the topic continues to be both policed and silenced within many circles. It is thus no surprise that the activities of the many nice people within the BDS movement and various PSC collectives have failed to gain any real traction over the last decades, when discussion of issues highly relevant for understanding the problem continue to be policed and rendered taboo out of fear of offending Jewish feelings. And while I agree that there is always a need to respect the feelings of others in all forms of discourse, this needs to be balanced against many other needs, including the right to free speech – especially when the matter involves attempts to resolve ongoing crimes against humanity being committed against a specific collectivity, in this case the Palestinian people. To say that we cannot understand the roots of Israel’s ongoing genocide without examining the doctrines of Judaic teaching over the centuries is not to call for violence or discrimination against people who identify as Jews (and there are various different mechanisms of identification involved here, which merit considerable academic analysis in themselves). Nor is it an attempt to say that all people who identify as Jewish are involved in or support the illegal, oppressive and discriminatory actions of the Jewish state. Attempts to suggest otherwise violate our right to and need for free and open discourse on matters of great importance. Furthermore, discourse about justifications of violence in religious texts have taken place without problem in the context of other religions such as Buddhism, Christianity and Islam (and also, “Hinduism”, though this term is something of a misnomer for the various traditions that are usually grouped together under this name).

Like Professor E Michael Jones, who has also sought to open up discourse surrounding Jewish thinking so that we might understand what is going on in our world, I have never advocated violence against any specific collectivity. And, like Gilad Atzmon, too, I reject racially or biologically based generalizations to examine questions related to the political and social influence of Jewish power and ideology in our world. I have lost count of the amount of times I have had to explain that to talk about discriminatory and supremacist teachings at the core of Judaic teaching does not mean that all individuals who identify as Jewish are as equally influenced by such doctrines. Jewish thought runs the gamut from the belief that all human beings (including non-Jews) should have the same rights and be valued and treated equally to the view that non-Jews have Satanic souls, that only Jews have a Higher Soul that comes from God, and that the non-Jew exists only to serve the Jew like a clever beast of burden, with a vast range of shades in between representing various attempts to reconcile (or not) the notion of being a “chosen people” with a private covenant with their own god (hence the commandment that ‘thou shalt not have other gods before me’) and own set of laws, on the one hand, with the Enlightenment ideals of universalizable morals and the equality of all human beings, on the other. Certainly, there are many people who identify as Jews today who would seek to distance themselves from views espoused by groups such as that of the powerful ultra-Orthodox sect Chabad that it is only Jews that have a Higher Soul, or that expressed by the chief rabbi of the Sephardic community that Gentiles exist only to serve Jews. On the other hand, in noting that, we must also recognize that such an egalitarian strand within Jewish thinking is a relatively recent phenomenon, stretching back only to the post-Enlightenment period, when many Jews sought to break free of the strict mental and social control of the rabbis that had sought to keep them segregated from the rest of humanity in ghettos for so long. And the deep traces of the ancient religious teachings can still be found, and thus merit serious examination, even within today’s secular Jews. As the joke has it, and not without some merit, many secular Jews say they don’t believe in God that but still seem to think He granted them their “promised land”.

Leaving all that aside for now, though, the fact that there exist individuals who identify as Jewish but who reject (consciously or otherwise) the discriminatory ideology of Judaic teaching does not mean that we cannot or should not be allowed to talk meaningfully about the role of supremacist and genocidal teachings within Jewish thought as a Jewish phenomenon as a whole, just as the fact that there are many Americans who have opposed US exceptionalism throughout history does not mean that we cannot or should not be allowed to talk meaningfully about American exceptionalism. This should be fairly obvious. Even in the recent farcical allegations of Russian collusion made against the Trump campaign, no one suggested that all Russians were colluding with Trump, or that Trump’s team was colluding with all Russians. It’s quite simple really. The fact that there are people who see themselves as Jewish who reject (to greater or lesser degree) Jewish supremacist ideology and activity does not mean that we cannot and should not be allowed to talk about supremacist and genocidal thinking within Jewish ideology and religious teaching, nor to examine how far such thought influences events in the social and political sphere. And the fact that so much effort goes into attempting to prevent us from doing so should set off red warning lamps in the minds of any true defender of freedom of speech and academic enquiry.

I thus repeat my claim from a day or two ago, that we need (but of course will not get for what should be by now obvious reasons) full academic recognition of a critical discourse on questions related to Jewish identity, Jewish thinking and Jewish power. We might perhaps call such discourse Critical Jewish Studies. And it should be understood by any legitimate scholar of integrity that Critical Jewish Studies is not anti-Semitism, and that any attempt to silence such studies or discourse on such grounds would represent a violation of principles of free enquiry that any true academic should seek to defend, as well as of the natural law right to freedom of speech.

My battle for truth and freedom involves some expensive legal services. I hope that you will consider committing to a monthly donation in whatever amount you can give. Regular contributions will enable me to avoid being pushed against a wall and to stay on top of the endless harassment by Zionist operators attempting to silence me.

Donate

Bahraini Activist Najah Yusuf Details Her Imprisonment for Facebook Posts Protesting Bahrain Formula 1 Race

By Phillip Bupp – Awful Announcing

Najah Yusuf is an activist from Bahrain and is currently serving a three-year sentence for what the Bahrain government claimed was “defaming the state, hurting its interests and distorting the image of the kingdom abroad.”

In reality, Yusuf was jailed over Facebook posts advocating for the cancellation of Formula 1’s Bahrain Grand Prix, calling it a form of propaganda by the country and a tool to mask Bahrain’s brutal human rights record. In a special piece for the Guardian, Yusuf claimed that criticizing Formula 1 is considered a “threat to national security” in Bahrain.

In her report, Yusuf detailed some of the terrible things she has had to go through since she was arrested in 2017. Before being coerced into signing a confession, Yusuf claimed she was threatened, beaten and raped, eventually signing the confession after five days of abuse.

“For four days, I was relentlessly interrogated because of Facebook posts, including those that called for the race to be cancelled and for the release of others imprisoned for criticizing Formula One. I was lured to the Muharraq police station, under the pretense of signing a statement on behalf of my son.”

“When I arrived, the questions began. They forcibly took my phone away from me, threatening to kill my son when I refused to unlock it. They asked me about my relationships with various human rights defenders, activists and opposition groups.”

“They threatened to kill me, they tried to bribe me, they beat me. But worst of all, officers tore off my hijab and attempted to strip me of my clothes, before an officer sexually assaulted me in custody. The pain and humiliation of that week will haunt me for the rest of my life. All this because I took a stand against state repression and the grand prix.”

“On the fifth day, I could take it no more. I was physically, mentally and emotionally exhausted. I wanted it to end. Officers presented me with a prepared confession to sign. While I was reading it, the officers beat me again and threatened to rape me. So I signed it.”

Yusuf’s account is very believable when you compare it to Bahrain’s overall human rights record. Yusuf explained how things didn’t stop for her and those around her when she was put in prison:

“Since I arrived at Isa Town prison, my suffering has only continued. Prison authorities regularly discriminate against me on account of my status as a political prisoner. Last September, my cellmate and fellow political prisoner Hajer Mansoor was hospitalized following an assault by prison guards. An early day motion in the British parliament identified this assault as being led by the head of Isa Town prison, Lieutenant Colonel Mariam Albardoli. This occurred days after Hajer Mansoor’s son-in-law, Sayed Alwadaei, briefed MPs about our cases. We were subsequently cited by an MP in the British parliament, along with our cellmate Medina Ali.”

“Since then, all inmates have been punished collectively because I had the temerity to speak out, with restrictions on our family visits, phone calls and time outside the cell. The prison authorities want to silence us, but we will not stop protesting at the appalling conditions at Isa Town prison, which were recently condemned by the UN.”

“I am a mother of four, but I have not seen my children for the past six months. The same punishment has been inflicted on my cellmates, Hajer and Medina. The situation breaks my heart, but I count myself lucky compared to others.”

Formula 1 has a history of being on the side of horrible people. Despite international sanctions from many other countries, as well as many sponsors and drivers opposing South Africa in the time of apartheid, Formula 1 kept racing in Kyalami until 1985, being one of the final international sports organizations to operate in South Africa at that time. Apartheid would be abolished in 1991 and Formula 1 raced in South Africa one more time in 1992.

Formula 1 did cancel the 2011 Bahrain Grand Prix due to pro-democracy protests taking place, but that was more about the safety of those going to the race and not so much making a statement supporting the protestors or the safety of the protestors themselves. Yusuf finished her piece calling for F1 fans to not forget what is going on in Bahrain, even if they may be watching this weekend’s race in Sakhir.

“Although I am still paying for my decision to take a stand against the grand prix, my stance has not changed. For years, the ruling family has used the race to clean up its international reputation and whitewash its disregard for human rights. During this period, Formula One has consistently ignored the abuses that occur.”

“In 2017, I backed the calls for “freedom for Formula detainees”. I never thought I would become one of them. Every moment I spend in prison stains the reputation of Formula One, who have abandoned their commitment to freedom of expression and allowed injustice to be perpetrated in their name.”

“Despite the fervor of excitement, I implore all fans of Formula 1 to remember my story and the suffering of thousands of Bahraini citizens. Don’t allow the race to be stained by Bahrain’s human rights abuses.”

Formula 1 has been dragging their feet in reacting to Yusuf’s imprisonment. The organization said they were “concerned” but efforts to resolve things with the Bahrain government have been poor at best. Human rights groups have tried to reach Formula 1 and the FIA, and they have also attempted to contact five-time defending World Champion Lewis Hamilton and other drivers to inform them about what is happening.

It’s unknown what will happen to Yusuf after her report, considering she’s still in prison. If there’s a silver lining, it’s that while Bahrain is trying to treat a Formula 1 race as propaganda, they can’t hide everything.

Gilad Atzmon on Richie Allen Show Pointing at Those Who Make Britain into an Authoritarian Disaster

March 20, 2019  /  Gilad Atzmon

Yesterday on Richie Allen Show, I spoke about Corbyn’s buddies and their desperate attempts to turn Britain into a close society.  Once again, this bunch of authoritarian characters faced a wall of resistance. Not one Momentum member followed the call of  Judea to picket my sold-out concerts at the Vortex. In fact, many Momentum members resigned.  The same applies to Jewdas’ members. Even they start to detect the duplicity at the core of what is going on.  By now Brits know what Momentum stands for. They also accept  that Jewdas may have figured out  how to cook passover dinner, but an ‘alternative’ to the Zionist Diaspora they are not.

We could only be grateful for Labour’s politicians and Momentum for warning us in advance about the obscene tyrannical nature of their  party. Brits will have to decide whether they want to vote far a party that crudely intervenes with the arts, culture, freedom of speech and elementary human rights.

In the next few days I will publish Justin Brett’s (Jewdas leader, presumably) mass email to Labour politicians, including Diane Abbot.  I suggest that some Labour actors, including Hackney Mayor, consult with legal specialists as they will have to address some very difficult questions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBM7dXpZiOI my part starts around 18:35

Protest at the Vortex -the artistic/humanist take

March 19, 2019  /  Gilad Atzmon

In this beautifully made short video by Rishi Pelham you can meet both my detractors and my supporters.

Notorious rabid Zionist Jonathan Hofmann is correct in his assessment that I do manage to unite the ‘entire Jewish tribe’ against my work, and by that I include all fifteen of them. Noticeably, I am not the first one, I am actually in a good company here. Jesus was pretty effective in infuriating his contemporaries, so did Spinoza, Marx, Otto Weininger, Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Richard Falk and many others. The question we may want ponder is why Momentum’s ‘leadership’ decided to operate as a Sanhedrin  and why not a single Momentum member heeded the leadership’s call.

You can see that, once again, none of my detractors is familiar with my work. If they did, they would know that in my work I do not address ‘Holocaust ideology,’ I write about the treatment of the Holocaust as a religion. History as I understand it, is the attempt to narrate the past as we move along. When the past is persistently revisited and revised, then history becomes a meaningful pursuit. Restrictions placed on the investigation and discussion of certain past events reduce such events into dogma, a religion. I, for my part, have often declared that if the holocaust is the new Western religion, all I ask is to enjoy the right to be agnostic. 

My battle for truth and freedom involves  some expensive legal services. I hope that you will consider committing to a monthly donation in whatever amount you can give. Regular contributions will enable me to avoid being pushed against a wall and to stay on top of the endless harassment by Zionist operators attempting to silence me.

Donate

The Guardian of Judea

March 19, 2019  /  Gilad Atzmon

owen jewdeass.png

By Devon Nola

In the last week, we saw yet another organised smear campaign of hate and slander orchestrated by Jewish interest groups and Labour Party affiliates wielded against Internationally acclaimed Jazz musician, Gilad Atzmon.   A protest was planned for Atzmon’s concert at The Vortex Jazz Club after numerous emails from local Labour Council members and members of these groups demanded the cancellation of the gig fell on deaf ears.  They claimed Atzmon plays ‘Nazi-apologist Jazz.’  Personally, I’m not familiar with the genre. The chief organiser was Jewdas, a group that qualifies itself as “Radical Jewish Voices”.  The four co-sponsors were:  Momentum, an alleged grass-roots collective, Socialists Against Antisemitism, whose name is self-explanatory if not contradictory, London Young Labour and The Jewish Labour Movement.

What is most interesting is this event was supported and promoted by journalist for “The Guardian”, Owen Jones. It’s always shocking when a journalist supports any sort of censorship.  Jones posted the event on his Facebook page and within two days, managed to rack up over 350 comments telling him what a huge mistake he was making, the accusations against Atzmon were false and totally absurd, and might he provide some proof to substantiate the claims.  Many came from avid readers and supporters of Jones’ usual commentary but were aghast at his support of preventing a respected musician from earning a living and they expressed this in no uncertain terms.

When Jones finally did respond, it was to attach a hit piece that came from an ultra-Zionist website full of misquotes, quotes out of context and even completely fabricated quotes. Rather than sifting through Atzmon’s prolific body of written work to decipher if the accusations against him were legitimate, Jones instead chose this piecemeal missive full of lies.

Realising, at that point, Jones hadn’t actually read anything by Atzmon, I attached a copy of a page from Atzmon’s book, “The Wondering Who”. I assumed once he read Atzmon’s thoughts, directly, versus some bastardised fictional version, he would realise his error in judgement and deliver a swift apology.  This is what an honest journalist, a person with integrity would do. Astonishingly, Owen Jones chose a different path. He didn’t admit to his mistake (giving him the benefit of the doubt, here), but rather removed the entire thread, or shall I say, the evidence.  This was a calculated, conscious decision, by Jones, suggesting he was fully aware of the deceit being peddled in both the protest he was supporting and the piece he scrounged up to defend it.  This isn’t the behaviour one expects from a journalist.  It’s typically something one finds in a sleazy tabloid writer whose articles are printed next to ads for miracle serums to cure baldness or penis enlargement.

Some time ago, Atzmon coined the phrase “The Guardian of Judea” for the well-known paper.  Witnessing one of their journalists engaged in such a slanderous campaign, where completely unfounded accusations of antisemitism, Nazi apologist and holocaust-denier are being lobbed at an innocent man like tennis balls on the final Sunday of Wimbledon, I’m inclined to think this is yet one more astute observation by the legendary saxophonist.

%d bloggers like this: