Exactly who is it that is in ‘Denial’?

February 16, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

A somewhat biased film review

By Gilad Atzmon

In her book Denying the Holocaust (1993), Deborah Lipstadt confessed that it was David Irving’s considerable reputation as an historian that made him “one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial.” “Familiar with historical evidence,” she wrote, “he bends it until it conforms with his ideological leanings and political agenda.” Irving responded by claiming that Lipstadt’s words were libellous and filed a legal case against her and her publisher Penguin Books.

Was Irving brave or naïve in putting the Holocaust on trial? Probably both. Back in 1996, was Irving a hero or just grossly miscalculating in believing he stood a chance in taking on the Holocaust, still the most popular Jewish religion? Again, probably both.

The other day, I watched Mick Jackson’s ‘Denial’. The film tells the story of Irving’s 2000 defeat in court – a disaster he voluntarily brought upon himself and indeed, Irving has clearly made some mistakes in his life. Yet, in 2017 it is impossible to deny that, back in 2000, Irving was well ahead of most of us.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYcx43AmAyY

Watching the film in the aftermath of Brexit, the Trump victory and the surge of Right Wing consciousness in the West in general, it is clear that Irving, undoubtedly one of the greatest living biographer of Hitler, understood human nature better than the British judge, Lipstadt’s legal team, the BBC and probably the rest of us altogether.

Back in 2000, the Holocaust narrative was as solid as a rock. The Jews were perceived as the ultimate victims and their plight at the time of World War II was unquestionable.  No one dared ask how is it is possible that, three years after the liberation of Auschwitz, the newly-born Jewish state ethnically cleansed Palestine of its indigenous population? At the time of the trial, no one dared ask why is the Jewish past just a chain of holocausts – that is, no one except David Irving (and a few others).

At the time of the trial, I read an interview with David Irving that opened my eyes to the idea that history is a revisionist adventure, an attempt to narrate the past as we move along. I realised then that the past is subject to changes. It morphs along with humanity.

In that interview, Irving was quoted as‘ blaming the victims.’

“If I were a Jew,” he said, “I would ask myself why it always happens to us?”

At the time, I was a still Jew but I took up Irving’s challenge. I looked in the mirror and didn’t like what I saw so I decided to leave the tribe and I stopped being a Jew.

But Irving is no longer a lone voice. Two weeks ago, on Holocaust Memorial Day, it was actually the American president himself who managed to universalize the Holocaust by omitting to mention the Jews or their shoah. As we Westerns obliterate country after country with our immoral interventionism, the Holocaust is no longer a Jews-only domain and all the time more and more people grasp that it is actually Israel and its affiliated Jewish lobbies that are pushing us into more and more unnecessary global conflicts.

‘Denial’ was made to sustain a ‘progressive’ vision of the past. In this progressive but misguided universe, people ‘move forward’ but their past remains fixed, often sacred and always untouched. Nationalists, on the other hand, often see the past as a dynamic, vibrant reality. For them, nostalgia, is the way forward.

But some Jews are tormented by this nostalgia. They want their own past to be compartmentalized and sealed, otherwise, they are fearful that some people may decide to examine Jewish history in the light of Israeli crimes.

In the film, Irving is an old style British gent who sticks to his guns and refuses to change his narrative just to fit in with any notions of correctness. Irving states what he believes in and stands firmly behind it.

For Irving, one of the most damaging pieces of evidenced presented to the court was a little ditty he wrote to his daughter when she was just a few months old, and conceived by the court as the ultimate in crude misanthropy.

 

“I am a Baby Aryan,

Not Jewish or Sectarian.

I have no plans to marry-an

Ape or Rastafarian.”

 

On the day of the verdict, Irving visited the BBC Newsnight studio to be grilled by Jeremy Paxman who read the little ditty to Irving.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Anx4ZRgpQbY&t=23m7s

“What’s racist about that?” Irving wondered. “You are not being serious,” was Paxman’s  reply. Paxman, one of Britain’s best TV journalists, was, like the rest of us, trained to react to soundbites. “Aryan is a racial categorisation” he insisted.

Back in 2000, Paxman probably failed to see that,

if Jews are entitled to identify politically as a race, as a biology or as set of cultural symptoms then Whites, Muslims and everyone else must surely be entitled to do the same.

Back in 2000, Irving understood this potential Identitarian shift. Sixteen years later, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage translated this Identitarian shift into a victory. The Clintons, the Soros’ and the Deborah Lipstadts of this world are still struggling to make sense of it.

‘Denial’, is actually a film about righteousness, exceptionalism and victimhood.  It is about the condition of being consumed by self-love, that blind belief that justice is always on your side, that you are the eternal victim and the other, namely the ‘Goy’ is always the murderous aggressor.

But this type of ‘denial’ can be dealt with easily and here is just one example: The Jewish press in Britain  complains constantly that antisemitism is soaring. The more funds the British government dedicates to fighting antisemitsm, the more antisemitic incidents are recorded. I guess the time is ripe for Jews to listen to David Irving and ask themselves why?

If Jews want anti-Semitism to come to an end once and for all, all they need do is to self-reflect. However, my personal experience suggests that once you do that, you may stop being a Jew.

Note: It is worth mentioning that, since the 2000 trial, Irving is on record on numerous occasions as revising his views on the Holocaust and on the destruction of European Jews. Certainly, as he moves along, David Irving at least is able to revise the past.

 

The US warning to Iran الإنذار الأميركي لإيران

The US warning to Iran

Written by Nasser Kandil,

It can be said after the ratification of the Congress on adopting the new US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson that the US President Donald Trump has completed the formation of his presidential team, thus it can be said too that Trump has tested with the decision of banning the nationals of the seven countries which were included in his decision the extent of his ability to go on through the popularity of his electoral statements as an agenda for his presidential mandate, and the size of the complications which will confront him badly if he continues going on in this path. Now he is in front of internal unenviable situation in respect of media, popularity, and law, and he is in front of external protest campaign that caused the disintegration of his allies and their disavowal of his policies from Britain to France and starting from his closest neighbor Canada which always obeys the US decisions.

The international checker of Trump is full of issues, full of blocks, and traps, the search for an achievement does not seem available with a decision, and the decision needed by Trump must achieve two goals together; to preoccupy the people away from the randomness of his rash procedures and to be in conformity with the image of the strong man which he wanted, but there is no opportunity to do that under forming a safe zone in Syria according to the common previous description, as an area of aerial embargo that includes a risk of military collision with Syria, which soon may turn into collision with Russia. This was said previously by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey before the Congress, and  will affect the agenda of Trump which is based on the search for a cooperation with Russia in many issues, he considered that the US failure in them is due to the avoidance of the previous administration to cooperate with Russia, while the transfer of the US embassy to Tel Aviv will relieve his relation with the occupation government and its supporters in America who are many and do not belong neither to the Republican party nor the Democratic one, they are active in media, so they will ensure the promotion of his influence into the US borders, but the political result will complicate the act of any US administration regarding the peace issues and will embarrass all the Arabs of America in addition to the Palestinian authority, it will lead to provoke the Arab Islamist background against America, that is added to the decision of banning ,but it will not disable it, on the contrary it will be accumulated because the two decisions are an expression of racism against the Arabs and the Muslims. According to Israel the profit will be politically and in media but in the ground, it will be a trouble that outbreaks the Palestinian street which is already igniting. So what will tyrannize over the failure that affects the image of the President in his first days in the office and tenses his followers and allies, and shows that Israel is the most important for presenting the image of the strong President even in negotiation? It is only Iran.

The information that came from Yemen shows that the issue has started with the US military leadership and the bloc of the military industries with the destruction of the Saudi barge which was hit by a missile by the Yemeni army and the popular committees. It was among the US advanced destroyers which was received recently by Saudi Arabia, its status surpasses the status of the Israeli Sa’ar which was bombed by the resistance in the war of July in 2006 off the coast of Beirut. The information shows that the barge has been completely bombed, and approximately two hundreds of military, navigators and technicians were killed on its board knowing that among them there were Americans. In this regard the US tension surpasses the tension in the issue of the tests of the Iranian Ballistic missiles which the Americans know that they are the outcome of the understanding on the nuclear program. They know that the speech of the President Trump regarding this understanding which did not have too much attention of the US media according to what was quoted by a phone talk between Trump and the Saudi King has formed qualitative regression of his electoral speech where the talk about the strict application of the agreement has replaced its reconsideration.

Trump and his National Security Advisor Michael Flynn takes a first step in escalation with Iran by talking about a warning stems from an incident that they know that it is difficult to be repeated as bombing the Saudi destroyer or the Saudi Sa’ar as nominated by the Yemenis, and it is difficult to punish Iran for it legally even if the Americans said that the incident was under the leadership, the supervision, and the arming of Iran. While in the issue of the tests of the Ballistic missiles the Americans know that Iran will not stop them and that lifting the tension to the level of warning recalls the uptime to interpret this warning with first new similar test which will surely happen. So will Trump and his team resort to sanctions or the military messages in this case? This is the change which will present new image. Everything shows that the media escalation will focus on the Red Sea in the light of destroying the Saudi Sa’ar to avoid the military confrontation, and transferring the talk about the ballistic tests to the diplomatic and escalated talk and the sanctions in order to avoid a confrontation, which the administration of Trump knows that the reason for not going on in it by who preceded it was not the cowardice but the inability.

By the time the outcome of the test of the meaning of the US warning becomes clear, Trump may have ignited what is enough to prevent the outcome of his own decision of banning the nationals of the seven countries. This was the first advice of Michael Flynn; addressing a strong message then get the satisfaction of the allies in the Gulf and Israel, getting the attraction of Iran for a serious dealing, and thus overcome the crisis of the nationals through the smoke of escalation.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

RELATED VIDEOS

الإنذار الأميركي لإيران

ناصر قنديل

– يمكن القول مع تصديق الكونغرس على اعتماد وزير الخارجية الأميركية الجديد ريكس تيليرسون يكون الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب قد أكمل تشكيل فريقه الرئاسي، وبالتالي يمكن القول إيضاً إن ترامب قد اختبر مع قرار منع رعايا البلدان السبع التي شملها قراره مدى قدرته على السير بشعبوية بياناته الانتخابية كبرنامج عمل لولايته الرئاسية، وحجم التعقيدات التي ستواجهه وتنفجر بوجهه إذا مضى في هذا السبيل، وها هو أمام وضع أميركي داخلي لا يُحسد عليه من الزوايا الإعلامية والشعبية والقانونية، وأمام حملة احتجاج خارجية سببت انفكاك حلفائه من حوله وتبرُّئهم من سياساته، من بريطانيا إلى فرنسا وانطلاقاً من الجار الأقرب كندا الذي لم يشق عصا الطاعة يوماً على قرار أميركي.

– رقعة الشطرنج الدولية على طاولة ترامب تحفل بالملفات، لكنها تحفل بالمطبات والفِخاخ، فالبحث عن إنجاز لا يبدو متوفراً بقرار، والقرار الذي يحتاجه ترامب يجب أن يحقق له هدفين معاً، أن يُشغل الناس عن عشوائية ما ارتكب بإحراءاته المتسرّعة، وأن ينسجم مع صورة الرئيس القوي التي أرادها لنفسه، ولا فرصة لفعل ذلك تحت عنوان إنشاء المنطقة الآمنة في سورية، وفقاً للتوصيف السابق والرائج لها كمنطقة حظر جوي، تتضمّن مجازفة بصدام عسكري مع سورية، سرعان ما قد يتحوّل لصدام مع روسيا، وهو ما قاله سابقاً رئيس أركان الجيوش الأميركية مارتن ديمبسي أمام الكونغرس، وما يقلب جدول أعمال ترامب القائم أصلاً على البحث عن عمل مشترك مع روسيا في العديد من الملفات، التي اعتبر الفشل الأميركي فيها عائداً خلال الإدارة السابقة، لتجنبها التعاون مع روسيا، أما نقل السفارة الأميركية إلى تل أبيب فسيريح علاقته بحكومة الاحتلال ومناصريها في أميركا وهم كثر وعابرون للحزبين الجمهوري والديمقراطي، وفاعلون إعلامياً، وسيتكفّلون بتسويق صورته داخل الحدود الأميركية، لكن النتيجة السياسية ستعقد عمل أي إدارة أميركية على ملفات السلام، وتُحرج كل عرب أميركا، عدا عن السلطة الفلسطينية، وتتكفّل بإنتاج مناخ عربي إسلامي ملتهب بوجه أميركا يُضاف لقرار المنع ولا يحجبه، بل يتغذّى به ويفعّل الحملة عليه باعتبار القرارين تعبيراً عن عنصرية معادية للعرب والمسلمين، وبالنسبة لـ«إسرائيل» سيكون الربح إعلامياً وسياسياً، لكنه ميدانياً سيكون ورطة تفجّر الشارع الفلسطيني المشتعل أصلاً. فماذا تبقى من الملفات التي يمكن لها أن تطغى على الفشل الذي يصيب صورة الرئيس في أول أيامه، ويشدّ عصب جمهوره وحلفائه، ويُري «إسرائيل» فيما هو أهم، ومعها يشكل رأس جسر لتقديم صورة الرئيس القوي ولو تفاوضياً، ليس هناك إلا إيران.

– تفيد المعلومات الواردة من اليمن أن القضية بدأت عند القيادة العسكرية الأميركية وتكتل الصناعات الحربية مع تدمير البارجة السعودية التي أصابها الصاروخ الذي أطلقه عليها الجيش اليمني واللجان الشعبية، هي من المدمّرات الأميركية المتطورة التي حصلت عليها السعودية حديثاً، وتضاهي مكانة ساعر «الإسرائيلية» التي فجّرتها المقاومة في حرب تموز 2006 قبالة شواطئ بيروت. وتقول المعلومات إن البارجة تفجّرت بالكامل وقتل على متنها قرابة مئتي عسكري وملاح وتقني، وإن بينهم أميركيين، وإن التوتر الأميركي بهذا الصدد يفوق التوتر في قضية تجارب الصواريخ الباليستية الإيرانية، التي يعرف الأميركيون أنها خارج التفاهم على الملف النووي، ويعرفون أن كلام الرئيس ترامب الذي لم يتوقف أمامه الإعلام الأميركي ملياً عن هذا التفاهم، في ما نشر عن الحديث الهاتفي بين ترامب والملك السعودي شكل تراجعاً نوعياً عن خطابه الانتخابي، حيث حل الحديث عن التطبيق الصارم للاتفاق بدلاً من إعادة النظر فيه.

– يخطو ترامب ومستشاره لشؤون الأمن القومي مايكل فلين خطوة أولى نحو التصعيد مع إيران، بالحديث عن إنذار ينطلق من حادث يعرفون أنه صعب التكرار، كتفجير المدمّرة السعودية، أو ساعر السعودية، كما يسمّيها اليمنيون، ويصعب محاسبة إيران عليها قانونياً، ولو قال الأميركيون إن الحادث بقيادة إيران وإشرافها وتسليحها، بينما في شأن التجارب الباليستية الصاروخية فيعرف الأميركيون أن إيران لن توقفها، وأن رفع الموقف منها لمستوى الإنذار يستدعي الجهوزية لترجمة هذا الإنذار مع أول تجرية مماثلة جديدة، وهي آتية حكماً. فهل سيلجأ ترامب وفريقه للعقوبات أم للرسائل العسكرية في هذه الحالة؟ هذا هو التغيير الذي يمكن أن يقدّم صورة جديدة، وكل شيء يقول إن التصعيد الإعلامي سيركز على البحر الأحمر في ضوء تدمير ساعر السعودية لتفادي المواجهة العسكرية، ونقل الحديث عن التجارب الباليستية إلى سجل الحديث الدبلوماسي التصعيدي والعقوبات تفادياً لمواجهة تعرف إدارة ترامب أن سبب عدم سير من سبقه إليها ليس التخاذل بل العجز.

– حتى يحدث ما يستدعي اختبار معنى كلمة الإنذار الأميركي وترجمته، يكون ترامب قد أشعل ما ينتج الدخان الكافي لحجب سحب التفاعلات الناجمة عن قراره الخاص بمنع رعايا الدول السبع، تلك أولى نصائح مايك فلين، نوجّه الرسالة القوية، ونرضي الحلفاء في الخليج و»إسرائيل»، ونجذب إيران لجدية التعامل معنا، ونتخطى أزمة الرعايا بدخان التصعيد.

(Visited 4٬754 times, 1 visits today)

No Ban! No Wall! No War?

As I watched the corporate news on demonstrations against Trump’s travel ban, I was struck by the fact that on-going wars in the Middle East were not mentioned. It was as if these refugees were fleeing Nazi Germany. No, they are fleeing the wars that we the American people have been waging against them for many years

It is a good thing to show compassion, declare our solidarity with Muslims, or to talk about our own immigrant histories, but we will fail to oppose Trump and make a real difference if we do not act against war and empire.

The corporate media avoids connecting our wars to Trump’s ban because war and empire is a matter of agreement among the political elites, an elite that the corporate media is very much a part of.  In a remarkable reversal of the Russian hacking story — which was broadcast constantly for weeks without evidence — the connection between war and refugees is patently obvious and glaringly absent.  What are they trying to hide?

If a new anti-war movement emerged from the resistance to Trump it would have the potential to shake the entire system. So the Democrats try to focus as narrowly as they can on Trump’s social and psychological pathologies while waiting to make up for their loses in the 2018 mid-term elections as the default party. The corporate media follows suit.

The anti-war movement of the Vietnam era was so powerful not just because of its compassion for others and moral condemnation of evil, but because it was a real political resistance movement that led people beyond the “liberal consensus.” The liberal consensus was a set of interlocking cultural norms and beliefs. It basic assumption was that  America was the supreme and exceptional leader of the free world.   The passage beyond conventional ways of thinking and acting occurred because being anti-war demanded a deep criticism of the established order both liberal and conservative.

Remember that the Vietnam war was fought by liberals like John F. Kennedy  Kennedy’s war advisors became known as the “Best and the Brightest,” a high powered  team of academic and industrial superstars that could, it turned out, calculate everything but understand nothing. Lyndon Baines Johnson escalated the conflict but was also the president that passed civil rights legislation on a scale that no other modern president has even dared. Liberal leaders like Hubert Humphrey and Edward Kennedy pursued the war as well.

Nixon won in 1968 largely because he ran to Humphrey’s left, as an anti-war candidate of sorts.  He returned the war to conservative leadership but, it was a conservatism  that would fit comfortably within the corporate wing of the today’s Democratic Party. Both Nixon and Hillary Clinton embraced Henry Kissinger who, seeking power like a missile seeks heat, has now gone over to Trump’s side.

It was the anti-war movement, against this basket of political icons, that crossed the threshold to a meaningful, principled opposition.  Two example will suffice to show just how deep it all went.

In April 1967 Martin Luther King rocked the civil rights movement and the nation with his first major speech opposing the war in Vietnam and linking war to racism and poverty. King crossed into revolutionary territory, stepped outside the liberal consensus, and became the leader of a movement for peace, racial equality and economic democracy. Let’s not forget that King was not a Democrat or a Republican. Leading up to the 1968 election, King supported dissenting candidates and even considered an independent run for president.

We must also recall the other truly revolutionary frontier crossed by American soldiers and veterans. In an unprecedented political movement, thousands of American soldiers and veterans opposed the very war they had fought in.

The leadership of the GI and Veteran anti-war movement were not reluctant draftees but rather gung-ho volunteers who were willing to risk life and limb to do the right thing. When the reality of combat in Vietnam dashed their high hopes they turned against war and empire. The military peace movement made history in ways no other peace movement could: soldier resistance slowed the war effort through direct action while the political resistance of the veterans challenged the symbolic and cultural foundations of the war.

The Iraq Veterans Against the War and the Veterans for Standing Rock continue this tradition.  The Vietnam Veterans Against the War took the same smears and attacks Tulsi Gabbard does today for her courageous acts against war.

Endless wars have been fought by Republicans and Democrats to secure oil and produce huge profits for major corporations. No wonder the media is silent on just where all these refugees are coming from.

Nothing captures the deception better than Madeline Albright’s claim that she will register as a Muslim given her bloody record of killing Muslims in Iraq.  Albright agreed with New Mexican Bill Richardson, that “the price was worth it.”  That “price,” according to former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark and other observers, was the devastation of Iraq including the deaths of up to 500,000 people.

For us protestors, maybe its that war has been normalized. We started this cycle of conflict in the Greater Middle East in 1978 when we organized the Mujahideen in Afghanistan — the same rebels that would later become Al Qaeda and fight alongside of the “moderate rebels” we currently fund in Syria. We started bombing Iraq as far back as the First Gulf War in 1990. For many Americans these wars have been fought for their entire lives.

Trump’s war talk may or may not escalate beyond Obama’s rush to expand US military operations in Eastern Europe and Africa and invest a trillion dollars into nuclear weapons.  Trump is nonetheless challenging us to restart an anti-war movement that wages peace on many fronts: the Middle East, Iran, China, Mexico and the growing dangers of nuclear war.

Trump’s reckless provocations can only be answered by the renewal of a peace movement large enough to disrupt business as usual; by a peace movement that looks to soldiers and veterans for leadership; by a peace movement that understands, as Dr. King did, the deep connections between racism, war, economic exploitation, and now we must add, climate change.

Trump’s war plans, climate denial and support for big oil are a dangerous formula as it becomes increasingly clear that war and climate change are intimately connected. We will fail to oppose Trump and everything he stands for if we do not oppose war and empire.

No Ban! No Wall! No War!

Congresswoman Says Berkeley Riot was “a Beautiful Sight’

 photo demings_zpsb0zdncgc.jpg

Rep. Val Demings (D-Florida)

More mass insanity. Val Demings is the representative to Congress from Florida’s 10th district. According to Demings, the riot which took place in Berkeley, California on Wednesday, Feb. 1–in which protesters set fires, smashed shop windows, and lobbed fireworks and Molotov cocktails–was “a beautiful sight.” What is even more bizarre is that Demings is a former police officer and the former police chief of Orlando, Florida.

Furthermore, according to Wikipedia, she is marred to Jerry Demings, who is currently the sheriff of Orange County, Florida. It would appear we have finally entered The Twilight Zone.

Demings was first elected to Congress in 2012. You can go here to see a list of her top contributors in her 2016 campaign. It includes a $42,230 donation from Emily’s List and a $24,760 contribution from JStreet, the pro-Israel lobby organization.

French Islamophobia data: Punching the garbage man’s wife

February 03, 2017

French Islamophobia data: Punching the garbage man’s wife

by Ramin Mazaheri

There wasn’t an official award handed out, but the Islamophobic statement of 2016 in France has to go to the politician who said that Muslim women who wear the hejab are like the “American niggers who were in favor of slavery”.

LOL, she did even not say “blacks”, she said “niggers” – “nègres”, in French. You simply cannot use that word in polite society. I know because I tried – simply to understand what the level of acceptable racial discourse here was in France – and was roundly admonished. Fortunately, I could honestly plead ignorance.

The person who said it was Laurence Rossignol, of the Socialist Party, so she’s also a candidate for “French fake leftist of the year”.

It gets worse: This was not some nobody Socialist politician, she said it while serving as a member of President Francois Hollande’s cabinet!

But wait, there’s more! She was the Minister for Women’s Rights, hahaha.

Yes, Muslims in France truly have nobody in power on their side, LOL – ya gotta laugh to keep from crying.

And yet…“Islamophobic acts in France were down in 2016”, is what tomorrow’s headlines will blare from the mainstream media.

Because, of course, the issue of Muslims being attacked should be treated exactly like how capitalists treat the economic growth rate: “But did we get more than last year?”

(Coincidentally, those numbers were out today as well: a paltry 1.1% economic growth rate in 2016 for France. Another year of failure, but you can send me all the mainstream media reports which do not put a positive spin on the numbers.)

Back to Islamophobia: the number of Islamophobic acts was indeed down 36% in 2016 when compared with 2015.

“Three cheers for France! Pass the halal croissants!”

For those of you new to this planet: In 2015 there were 2 huge terror attacks in France and an enormous outpouring of Islamophobic violence, both private and state-sanctioned. That was the year that Islamophobia “went mainstream”- it became ok to openly talk about every Muslim as if they lived in a cave, were stuck in the year 742 AD and had 4 wives.

So, had the Collective Against Islamophobia in France (CCIF) – the nation’s watchdog on the subject – reported that the numbers had actually increased in 2016…ooh la, now that would have meant 2016 was a Muslim massacre.

I can feel…people clicking away from this article, because I’m sure people are so fed up that they will read the words “Collective Against Islamophobia in France” and move on – because aren’t we all tired of such subjects? I know I am sure as hell tired of reporting it!

So let me pass on the actual good news: On the personal level, Islamophobia truly is decreasing in France.

I covered the CCIF’s press conference for Press TV and they told me that their years of work are paying off: they see more and more solidarity and help for the victims of Islamophobia. Some government workers, teachers and cops have realized there is a problem, and they are actually putting their authority to good use (as opposed to throwing up obstacles, as many civil servants still do).

That’s what grassroots activism does – it thinks long-term, it’s committed for the long-term and it really wins…long-term.

Keep in mind that it was only in 2015 that France decided to finally join the 20th century and admit that “Islamophobia” actually existed so…baby steps. But if you’ve been sucker-punched and had your hejab pulled off, such baby steps are important – if only to get the bleeding stopped.

Politically, Islamophobia is worse than ever

Again, to the aliens among us, France has been a police state dictatorship (the correct term) since November 2015. It will be until May 2017, depending on who is elected president.

As regards the Muslim community, France’s state of emergency has been one big “we run this place” message.

Intimidation, arrests, house arrests, brutal tactics, smashed doors, smashed reputations, smashed lives, smashed innocence of children…but it’s been effective in the fight against terrorism, right?

Wrong – 4,000+ raids by the French state have produced just 6 investigations opened regarding terrorism. I haven’t been able to find any new data, but going back about 6 months there had been just 1 indictment from such raids. There had been 0 convictions.

I don’t want to waste much of our time on this because the state of emergency is so obviously wrong for all Frenchmen and racist towards Muslims, so I’ll just throw out some key phrases the CCIF used at the press conference – I think you are smart enough that I don’t have to clarify: “climate of general suspicion”, “winning electoral formula”, “Muslim frustration with Hollande”, “lack of a clear message of ‘zero-tolerance’”, “Islamophobic security state”, and here’s what it was really all about in 2016: “institutional validation of Islamophobia”.

Even if you think these shifty Muslims deserve it for being born Brown, isn’t your libertarian, anti-authority side upset? I hope so.

There are, as always, only 2 poles of thought on dealing with us lousy immigrants: “live and let live”, which is known as “multiculturalism”, or you have what France has pushed all their chips behind: “assimilation”.

The problem with assimilation is that it inherently implies that other cultures have nothing of value to add. Secondarily, it necessarily freezes the growth of French culture, which is implied to be “perfect”, and thus cannot progress. Doesn’t such cultural chauvinism sound so very French? It is.

But why keep abusing the already-abused?

But enough of this ethno-racial analysis – you can find identity politics and please for tolerance all over, but it’s rarely enough: keeping the boot on the Muslims’ neck has two class components which are vital to understand.

The point I need to make to those who don’t live in France is:

Blacks & Muslims are the underclass here.

In France, the security guards in supermarkets are big and Black (the riot police are all big and White, of course). The cashiers are pretty Arab young ladies. The office cleaning ladies are middle-aged Black women. The bleary-eyed people you see unhappily taking the buses on your way home from a night of carousing are Black and Arab. The garbagemen are Black, Arab, Muslim or all three.

And it’s the wives and sisters of these garbagemen who suffer the most from Islamophobia: 75% of all such attacks are against women. Muslim women were the victims in physical Islamophobic attacks 100% of the time last year.

This is what Islamophobia in France basically boils down to: White guys scaring Muslim women, or pulling off their hejab or maybe beating the woman who is simply on her way to clean their office toilets.

This is cowardice, tragedy, deadly, misogynistic, anti-feminist, and reactionary, of course. But this Muslim underclass has nothing, is going to get nothing and poses no threat. So if France hates Muslims and tolerates violence against them, what are they for?

France – rich, rich France – needs Muslims two reasons: number one, to staff these low-level service jobs.

It’s the same reason why the only Palestinians allowed inside Israel’s football stadiums are to work as low-level service workers: “Get me my large Coke, boy, and mop it up when my kid kicks it over.”

Capitalism cannot replace these types of workers with robots. It’s the same with Mexican fruit-pickers – some jobs have to be done by human beings.

In France’s it’s the non-Whites who are fated to serve in this caste. Of course, they are not all Muslim simply because they are non-White, of course, but such collateral damage hardly keeps the Roman Catholic 1% up at night.

And we must remember that the 1% has no interest in letting Muslims improve their station, because then who would clean their toilets and check them out at the supermarket?

No class is more at the mercy of the 1% than the negative-99%, and that is Muslims are in France. What good is being in the 1% if you cannot abuse your butler, I guess is their thinking?

But Islamophobia is not just for kicks – attacking women are just one of the ways to keep all Muslims on edge, insecure, isolated and – above all – disunited. Class unity is any sort, of course – of course! – is what the 1% fear most.

To disempower an entire underclass and keep them your servants, it’s not enough just to not provide basic services like health and education or good jobs – you have to get them to short-circuit their own lives, and a simple way is via racial violence and the promotion of it; through constant media messages that your group is associated with terrorism, death and backwardness; through the constant message that your group has no values to share, and that you must “become French”, which is something French people have told me here over and over.

This is all simply colonization at home instead of abroad – i.e., capitalism!

These are all the same tactics reported by Franz Fanon in the French Caribbean or by Amilcar Cabral by the Portuguese in Angola.

To paraphrase Cabral, the French want to break the Muslims here down like any other “bush people” – they want to make Muslims “cling” to the French; to make them want to “pretend as hard as they can to be” French; they want Muslims to forget their origin because “That, unhappily, is what many people want.”

I told such French people that in a multicultural society such an order to “become French” is rightly considered to be fascistic and prejudiced. In inheritance there is richness, for all people.

Furthermore, even if France can get all the 3rd-generation Muslims here to 100% believe in their hypocritical assimilationist “everyone is French under the law” nationalist hypocrisy, they still cannot get people to give up their Allah in exchange for either the Roman Catholic God, or their French atheism.

But keeping the 99th percentile down is one thing, what about the 98% in between?

The Islamophobic safety valve for leftist indignation

The second class component is that Islamophobia is so heavily promoted by both the mainstream media and government police is because it is a flaming distraction from the real issues. We all know this.

Who does not know this are the idiot White French who go around attacking Muslims. They fail to realize they are the modern-day equivalent of the poor White sharecroppers in Jim Crow America – yeah, you have a bit more status than French Muslims, but not much, you dumb crackers.

Islamophobia is a tool not just against French Muslims, but against French non-Muslims who are not in the 1%.

These attackers are double-losers because they have also imbibed the false leftism of identity politics – they are told to worship their French nationality instead of the universal respect for hard work which unites everyone not in the 1%.

They are content with the privilege of wielding Islamophobia instead of being a real leftist like their great-grandfathers, who demanded real rights prior to World War One. My most tepid congratulations on not being in the lowest rung of society….

Why is racism and Islamophobia rising across the West?

There is no mass influx of Syrian immigrants here – France has only taken in about 12,000 Syrians while probably arming 2-3 times that number – and there won’t be. France already has their caste of non-White low-level service workers, and we understand their place in the French capitalist system. Hollande’s state of emergency has only pushed them down deeper in fear, cultural exclusion and institutionalized racism.

Germany, probably because of their incredibly racist legacy, did not have such a non-White underclass. They have a sizable Turkish minority, but France’s Muslim community is 3 times larger, proportionally.

Well, they just got theirs – 600,000 Syrians – and they have already re-closed the gates.

What happened to Merkel’s reportedly-big heart? Did you think Time Magazine’s Person of the Year was actually good person and not just a sharp capitalist businesswoman?

Germany needs a new underclass for these low-level service sector jobs nobody wants, and these jobs are even worse than in France because Germany permits part-time work – what they call “minijobs”.

Such underemployment is banned here, and that’s why France’s poverty rate is so much lower than in Germany, the US and the UK. But this is what the patsy Hollande was for – to ram through right-wing roll backs which permit part-time jobs for 45-year old men instead of 14-year old boys – and he did it.

German capitalists told Merkel that they already rolled back their wages and worker rights in the 2000s, and in order to keep an economic leg up on France they need a new pressure to keep workers from asking for better wages: and that’s why you have Syrians in Germany.

They’ll be, like all refugees, desperate for work and ready to work for subsistence wages. It’s a German capitalists dream! But if you think there is anti-refugee sentiment in Germany now, just wait – it will get far worse.

In America, Mexicans have long-provided the same function of depressing worker wages and security. But why do you think so many want a wall to keep out Latin Americans – free trade sends jobs to Mexico and desperate Latin American immigrants depress wages in America. Voila.

Is America racist? Yes, history proves that but, again, the proper analysis is not just “France, Germany and the US are a bunch of racists”. No, racism and Islamophobia is a diversionary tactic used by the 1% to keep the negative 99th% and the 98% down.

If one is content with railing against the racial angle, as falsely-superior fake leftists are, one cannot see that these racists are responding to capitalist manipulation, above all.

Charlie Hebdo – ‘fake leftism’ of Biblical proportions

It’s hard not to talk about Islamophobia without bringing up Charlie Hebdo, because that’s when it all went really bad. My God! That was the motherlode of French “fake leftism”! Ugh! What a terrible story that was to cover!

I interviewed the CCIF’s Marwan Muhammad for my report for Press TV, and he was eloquent as usual. I laughingly reminded Marwan of his debate with Charlie Hebdo cartoonist Luz on CNN in September 2012, just after Luz had penned some pictures of the prophet Muhammad.

Marwan wiped the floor with him.

I don’t know what made Luz arrogant enough to think his terrible English was good enough to outdo Marwan, who speaks like a native, on such a subject….

Luz barely managed 5 minutes of unintelligible and unsatisfying philosophic rationale – to a totally impatient Christiane Amanpour – for drawing pictures of the Muhammad bent over and spreading apart his buttocks, filming a porno movie, etc. Pure class, that Luz.

Charlie Hebdo will always be a sore subject in France because there is so much phony philosophical bull surrounding the violence, but it’s worth re-reading Marwan’s interpretation, because it helps explain my fundamental class-based premise of Islamophobia:

“I don’t think at all that Charlie Hebdo’s cartoonists are racists – I think they’re just stupid, and they don’t know what they are doing. This is a band of friends, and they are in their basements with their pencils and paper, and they don’t know the consequences of what they are doing. And that’s why you have just heard Luz saying that, ‘Well, we are just making cartoons; and we don’t expect anything bad to happen; and we are journalists; but at the same time we are not responsible at all.’ Well this doesn’t stand, because whenever you take responsibility for something you say, on national TV or on paper – you need to stand with the consequences of this. And what we see when we speak with perpetrators of hate crimes towards Muslims is that this type of cartoons, this type of ideology, is building their will to act. It legitimizes them when they to turn to actions, to stab a Muslim woman in a German court or to discriminate (against) a Muslims child in a school, so this is conducive to violence.’

I wonder if Luz thinks doing prophet Muhammad-based porn was worth it? Doesn’t every kid dream of being a man like that? In France, I guess. Luz threw in the towel at Charlie Hebdo about 3 months after the attacks – he reported that the workplace culture had changed. It did – Charlie Hebdo used to not pick on the weak and powerless, but their shift to pro-Zionism, pro-NATO & Islamophobia is another story.

As your intrepid reporter in France I could find out what Luz is doing now, but I won’t. I’ll assume he’s still in his basement drawing porn, probably like this one kid I knew in high school. That kid was a riot…when I was 14.

Not even the French left supports the Muslim underclass

One mainstream French reporter asked the CCIF about their close ties with Benoit Hamon, the surprise Socialist candidate. LOL, Marwan said that he had no relationship at all with Hamon, and I didn’t write it down so I can’t be sure, but he might have said they have never even met.

This is, of course, part of the right’s effort to scare voters that Hamon is too leftist, too close to Muslims, too willing to increase welfare to 750 euros per month, etc.

Hamon, to his credit, said he was proud of his new nickname of “Bilal Hamon”. Boring…that’s just their same old tactics: The far-righters would have come up with something similar for Manuel Valls if he had beaten Hamon, even though Valls visibly seethes on his favorite subject – holy French secularism.

Of course, good ole’ Bilal Hamon will surely be very well received in Syria, Mali and Libya, right? He supported all those foreign interventions, like all fake leftist Socialist Party members.

Anyway, Marwan did fairly criticize Hollande and his henchmen when I brought up the subject of Hollande’s Islamophobic legacy at the press conference. Remember back in 2012? Islamophobia was all Sarkozy’s fault, right? In 2017 that answer is a clear “no”.

Technocratism won’t work, even with Islamophobia

The CCIF refuses to give voters political advice, and I think that’s a mistake: the CCIF are the “technocrats” of Islamophobic facts, but what good are facts without ideology? If they are the experts and study these things, then they should take a stand and advise voters which parties are Islamophobic and which are not.

The idea that technocrats can stay above the fray is totally false. With another terrible economic year imposed by (pro-capitalist) economists in Brussels officially in the books, technocratism as a governing ideology needs to be demolished: what’s needed is activism of the side of right.

Because just giving data is not enough – and the clear proof will be in the headlines which say “Islamophobia down in France”! It’s not down, in any sort of a real sense. It’s far worse!

I understand the reticence of the CCIF to possibly tarnish their data –– but they need to get even more involved than they already are. Of course, everyone in France knows that the National Front, the conservative Les Republicains, the Socialist Party, and half of the culturally-chauvinistic far left are all Islamophobic. Still…take a public stand and get political, even if it just means telling the truth about these parties.

Predictions for French Islamophobia for 2017: Hopefully Marine Le Pen wins, and I say that seriously. I predict that a “Mexican Power” movement will rise up in the US against Trump to advance civil rights, and a “Muslim Power” movement would be the response here to Marine Le Pen. Both are what’s needed to lift the underclass out from hell…and this is the only proven route, failing a successful communist-inspired revolution like in the USSR, Cuba, China, Iran etc.

Just like Mexicans in the US, you can kick out the illegal Muslims in France, but then you are still left with 3 generations of legal French Muslims, and there’s no solution for them.

Ya gotta accept your phobias if you want to work past them…and truly live.

Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. His work has appeared in various journals, magazines and websites, as well as on radio and television

Hasbara is Desperate to stop David Icke (video)

January 30, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

But with Goldman Sachs and Soros destroying one country after another, they do not stand a chance. By now we are all Palestinians.  David Icke knows it and he is not alone!!!

The following pathetic video was produced by the Campaign Against Antisemitism, an Israeli Hasbara unit operating in Britain. This video won’t hurt David Icke. Instead, it proves once again that Jewish power is the ability to silence discussion on Jewish power.  This power is proving less effective by the day.

Related

Are Americans Racists?

By Paul Craig Roberts

January 23, 2017 “Information Clearing House” – “Racist” is the favorite epithet of the left. Every white person (except leftists) is a racist by definition. As we are defined as racists based on our skin color, I am puzzled why we are called racists a second, third, and fourth time due to specific acts, such as favoring the enforcement of immigration laws. For example, President Donald Trump says he is going to enforce the immigration laws. For the left this is proof that Trump has put on the White Sheet and joined the KKK.

The left doesn’t say what a president is who does not enforce the laws on the books. But let’s look at this from the standpoint of the immigration laws themselves. In 1965 a bill passed by the “racist” Congress and signed by the “racist” President Lyndon Johnson completely changed the racial composition of US legal immigration.

In 1960 75% of US legal immigration was European, 5% was Asian, and 19% was from Americas (Mexico, Central and South America and Caribbean Islands).

In 2013 10% of legal immigrants were European, 30% were Asian, 55% were from Americas, and 5% from Africa. http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/fifty-years-1965-immigration-and-nationality-act-continues-reshape-united-states

The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act is a very strange law for racists to have enacted. Would racists pass a law, which has been on the books for 52 years, that fundamentally transformed the racial profile of the US by limiting white immigration, thereby ultimately consigning whites to minority status?

We could say the racists did not know what they were doing, or thought they were doing something else. However, the results have been obvious at least since 1980, and the law is still on the books.

We live during a time when there is an abundance of information, but facts seldom seem to inform opinions. The left delights in branding the Founding Fathers racists. The left was ecstatic when a 1998 DNA study concluded that Thomas Jefferson was one of eight possible ancestors of Eston Hemings, a descent of Jefferson’s slave Sally Hemings. The left seized on the implied sexual relationship as proof of Thomas Jefferson’s racism.

Let’s assume Jefferson had a sexual relationship with Sally Hemings. Does this prove he was a racist, or does it prove the opposite? Why is it a sign of racism for a white to have sex with a black? Does this prove that James Bond was a racist in the film “Die Another Day”? Do we really want to define racially mixed marriages as racist, as a white conquest over a black, Asian, or Hispanic?

The left has declared the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to be racist documents and, therefore, proof that the US was founded on racism. The left is particularly incensed that the Constitution counts enslaved blacks as three-fifths of a white person. Is the three-fifths clause a sign or racism, or was it a compromise to get an agreement on representation in the House of Representatives?

It was the latter. Indeed southerners, such as James Madison and Edmund Randolph, wanted blacks to be counted one to one with whites. It was northerners, such as Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, who wanted blacks to count as fractions of a person. Why was this?

The issue was whether the North or the South would have majority representation in the House. The country already had different economic interests which came to conflict in the War of Southern Secession, which is mischaracterized as a civil war. (A civil war is when two sides fight for control of the government. The Confederacy was not fighting for control of the government in Washington. The South was fighting to secede from the union in order to avoid economic exploitation.)

The southern states were agricultural, and from early colonial times long before there was a United States or a Confederate States of America the absence of a work force meant that the agricultural labor force was imported as slaves. For the South slavery was an inherited institution, and from the South’s standpoint, if blacks were not included in the population on which US representation in Congress would be based, the South would have a minority voice in Congress and would not agree to the Constitution. The three-fifths clause was a compromise in order to move the Constitution toward agreement. It had nothing to do with racism. It was about achieving balance in regional representation in Congress. http://www.blackpast.org/aah/three-fifths-clause-united-states-constitution-1787

The Southern Secession resulted from divergent economic interests and was not fought over slavery. In former times when the left had real intellects, such as Charles A. Beard, a historian who stressed class conflict and a founder of the New School for Social Research and president of both the American Political Science Association and the American Historical Association, the left understood the divergence of interests between northern industry and southern agriculture. Those who think Lincoln invaded the South in order to free slaves need to read Thomas DiLorenzo’s books on Lincoln. DiLorenzo establishes beyond all doubt that Lincoln invaded the Confederacy in order to preserve the Union, that is, the American Empire, which has continued its growth into the 21st century.

The preponderance of war correspondence on both sides shows that no one was fighting for or against slavery. According to the 1860 US census, slave owners were a small fraction of the Southern population. http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html The Confederate Army consisted almost entirely of non-slave owners who fought because they were invaded by Union armies.

As for Thomas Jefferson, he was opposed to slavery, but he understood that the agricultural South was trapped in slavery. The “discovery” of the New World provided lands for exploitation but no labor force. The first slaves were white prisoners, but whites could not survive the malaria. Native Indians were tried, but they were not only as susceptible to malaria as whites but also used their native knowledge of the terrain to resist those who would enslave them. Blacks became the work force of choice because of genetic superiority in resistance to malaria. As Charles C. Mann reports in his book, 1493, “About 97 percent of the people in West and Central Africa are Duffy negative, and hence immune to vivax malaria.”

Thus, the real “racist” reason that blacks became the labor force was their survivability rate due to genetic superiority from their immunity to malaria, not white racists determined to oppress blacks for racial reasons.

The myth has taken hold that black slavery originated in white attitudes of racial superiority. In fact, as a large numbers of historians have documented, including Charles C. Mann and the socialist economic historian Karl Polanyi, brother of my Oxford University professor, the physical chemist and philosopher Michael Polanyi, black slavery originated and flourished in Africa where tribes fought one another for slaves. The victorious would market their captives to Arabs and eventually as time passed to Europeans for transport to the new world to fill the vacuum of a missing labor force. (See for example, Karl Polanyi, Dahomey and the Slave Trade.)

It is a mystery how the myth of Thomas Jefferson’s alleged racism and love for slavery survives his drafts of the Declaration of Independence. One of Jefferson’s drafts that was abandoned in compromise over the document includes this in Jefferson’s list of King George’s offenses:

“he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.”http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/ruffdrft.html

Jefferson’s attack on King George sounds like the left’s racist attack on Jefferson.

It is amazing how proud some Americans are of their ignorance and how quick they are to hate based on their ignorance. In America the level of public discourse is so far below the gutter level that a person who ventures forth to tell the truth can expect to be met with violent hatred and every epithet in the book. Criticize ever so slightly the Israeli government’s theft of Palestine, and the Israel Lobby will immediately brand you an “anti-semite,” that is, a hater of Jews who wants to send them to the gas chamber. If you don’t denounce whites, especially Southern whites, as racists, you are not only a racist but also a member of the KKK who wants to lynch blacks.

Yes, I know. It works also in the other direction. If you don’t hate the left, you are one of them. Because I criticized the George W. Bush regime for its war crimes, conservatives branded me a “pinko-liberal-commie” and ceased to publish my columns.

Hardly anyone, even southerners, understands that racism in the South originated in the horrors that were inflicted on the South during the Reconstruction era that followed the military defeat of the Confederacy. The North inflicted blacks on southerners in ways that harmed prospects for relations between the races and gave rise to the KKK as a resistance movement. As Reconstruction faded, so did the KKK. It was later revived as a shadow of its former self by poor whites who were ambitious for personal power.

The question remains: How can President Trump or anyone unite a country in which historical understanding is buried in myths, lies, and the teaching of hate?

Try to imagine the expressions of hatred and the denunciations that this factual article will bring to me.

If we care about humanity and the creatures on Earth, our task is to find and to speak the truth. That is what I endeavor to do.

When the left abandoned Marxism and the working class, the left died. It has no doctrine to sustain itself, just hatreds based on historical ignorance and misunderstanding of the limits within which life is lived. Humans are not superheros or magicians who can reconstruct humanity by waving a wand or smashing evil. Everyone lives within limitations, and the many submit more than do the few.

It is the few who fight against the limits to whom we owe the defense of our humanity.

It is the haters who are the barriers to moral and social progress.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

Click for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.

%d bloggers like this: