myth

Freedom Is a Myth: We Are All Prisoners of the Police State’s Panopticon Village

http://www.renegadetribune.com/freedom-myth-prisoners-police-states-panopticon-village/

 

Renegade Editor’s Note: I usually agree with around 95% of what this author says, but some bits here and there leave me with a bad taste in my mouth. For example, there is a quote from Patrick McGoohan that is included that references Hitler’s gang, when one could make a much better case for our police state being more like the NKVD than the Gestapo.

By John W. Whitehead of The Rutherford Institute

We’re run by the Pentagon, we’re run by Madison Avenue, we’re run by television, and as long as we accept those things and don’t revolt we’ll have to go along with the stream to the eventual avalanche…. As long as we go out and buy stuff, we’re at their mercy… We all live in a little Village. Your Village may be different from other people’s Villages, but we are all prisoners.”— Patrick McGoohan

First broadcast in Great Britain 50 years ago, The Prisoner—a dystopian television series described as “James Bond meets George Orwell filtered through Franz Kafka”—confronted societal themes that are still relevant today: the rise of a police state, the freedom of the individual, round-the-clock surveillance, the corruption of government, totalitarianism, weaponization, group think, mass marketing, and the tendency of humankind to meekly accept their lot in life as a prisoner in a prison of their own making.

Perhaps the best visual debate ever on individuality and freedom, The Prisoner (17 episodes in all) centers around a British secret agent who abruptly resigns only to find himself imprisoned, monitored by militarized drones, and interrogated in a mysterious, self-contained, cosmopolitan, seemingly tranquil retirement community known only as the Village. The Village is an idyllic setting with parks and green fields, recreational activities and even a butler.

While luxurious and resort-like, the Village is a virtual prison disguised as a seaside paradise: its inhabitants have no true freedom, they cannot leave the Village, they are under constant surveillance, their movements are tracked by surveillance drones, and they are stripped of their individuality and identified only by numbers.

The series’ protagonist, played by Patrick McGoohan, is Number Six.

Number Two, the Village administrator, acts as an agent for the unseen and all-powerful Number One, whose identity is not revealed until the final episode.

“I am not a number. I am a free man,” was the mantra chanted on each episode of The Prisoner, which was largely written and directed by McGoohan.

In the opening episode (“The Arrival”), Number Six meets Number Two, who explains to him that he is in The Village because information stored “inside” his head has made him too valuable to be allowed to roam free “outside.”

Throughout the series, Number Six is subjected to interrogation tactics, torture, hallucinogenic drugs, identity theft, mind control, dream manipulation, and various forms of social indoctrination and physical coercion in order to “persuade” him to comply, give up, give in and subjugate himself to the will of the powers-that-be.

Number Six refuses to comply.

In every episode, Number Six resists the Village’s indoctrination methods, struggles to maintain his own identity, and attempts to escape his captors. “I will not make any deals with you,” he pointedly remarks to Number Two. “I’ve resigned. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.”

Yet no matter how far Number Six manages to get in his efforts to escape, it’s never far enough.

Watched by surveillance cameras and other devices, Number Six’s getaways are continuously thwarted by ominous white balloon-like spheres known as “rovers.” Still, he refuses to give up. “Unlike me,” he says to his fellow prisoners, “many of you have accepted the situation of your imprisonment, and will die here like rotten cabbages.”

Number Six’s escapes become a surreal exercise in futility, each episode an unfunny, unsettling Groundhog’s Day that builds to the same frustrating denouement: there is no escape.

As journalist Scott Thill concludes for Wired, “Rebellion always comes at a price. During the acclaimed run of The Prisoner, Number Six is tortured, battered and even body-snatched: In the episode ‘Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darling,’ his mind is transplanted to another man’s body. Number Six repeatedly escapes The Village only to be returned to it in the end, trapped like an animal, overcome by a restless energy he cannot expend, and betrayed by nearly everyone around him.”

The series is a chilling lesson about how difficult it is to gain one’s freedom in a society in which prison walls are disguised within the trappings of technological and scientific progress, national security and so-called democracy.

As Thill noted when McGoohan died in 2009, “The Prisoner was an allegory of the individual, aiming to find peace and freedom in a dystopia masquerading as a utopia.”

The Prisoner’s Village is also an apt allegory for the American Police State: it gives the illusion of freedom while functioning all the while like a prison: controlled, watchful, inflexible, punitive, deadly and inescapable.

The American Police State, much like The Prisoner’s Village, is a metaphorical panopticon, a circular prison in which the inmates are monitored by a single watchman situated in a central tower. Because the inmates cannot see the watchman, they are unable to tell whether or not they are being watched at any given time and must proceed under the assumption that they are always being watched.

Eighteenth century social theorist Jeremy Bentham envisioned the panopticon prison to be a cheaper and more effective means of “obtaining power of mind over mind, in a quantity hitherto without example.”

Bentham’s panopticon, in which the prisoners are used as a source of cheap, menial labor, has become a model for the modern surveillance state in which the populace is constantly being watched, controlled and managed by the powers-that-be and funding its existence.

Nowhere to run and nowhere to hide: this is the new mantra of the architects of the police state and their corporate collaborators (Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google, Instagram, etc.).

Government eyes are watching you.

They see your every move: what you read, how much you spend, where you go, with whom you interact, when you wake up in the morning, what you’re watching on television and reading on the internet.

Every move you make is being monitored, mined for data, crunched, and tabulated in order to form a picture of who you are, what makes you tick, and how best to control you when and if it becomes necessary to bring you in line.

When the government sees all and knows all and has an abundance of laws to render even the most seemingly upstanding citizen a criminal and lawbreaker, then the old adage that you’ve got nothing to worry about if you’ve got nothing to hide no longer applies.

Apart from the obvious dangers posed by a government that feels justified and empowered to spy on its people and use its ever-expanding arsenal of weapons and technology to monitor and control them, we’re approaching a time in which we will be forced to choose between obeying the dictates of the government—i.e., the law, or whatever a government official deems the law to be—and maintaining our individuality, integrity and independence.

When people talk about privacy, they mistakenly assume it protects only that which is hidden behind a wall or under one’s clothing. The courts have fostered this misunderstanding with their constantly shifting delineation of what constitutes an “expectation of privacy.” And technology has furthered muddied the waters.

However, privacy is so much more than what you do or say behind locked doors. It is a way of living one’s life firm in the belief that you are the master of your life, and barring any immediate danger to another person (which is far different from the carefully crafted threats to national security the government uses to justify its actions), it’s no one’s business what you read, what you say, where you go, whom you spend your time with, and how you spend your money.

Unfortunately, George Orwell’s 1984—where “you had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized”—has now become our reality.

We now find ourselves in the unenviable position of being monitored, managed and controlled by our technology, which answers not to us but to our government and corporate rulers.

Consider that on any given day, the average American going about his daily business will be monitored, surveilled, spied on and tracked in more than 20 different ways, by both government and corporate eyes and ears.

A byproduct of this new age in which we live, whether you’re walking through a store, driving your car, checking email, or talking to friends and family on the phone, you can be sure that some government agency, whether the NSA or some other entity, is listening in and tracking your behavior.

This doesn’t even begin to touch on the corporate trackers that monitor your purchases, web browsing, Facebook posts and other activities taking place in the cyber sphere.

Stingray devices mounted on police cars to warrantlessly track cell phones, Doppler radar devices that can detect human breathing and movement within in a home, license plate readers that can record up to 1800 license plates per minutesidewalk and “public space” cameras coupled with facial recognition and behavior-sensing technology that lay the groundwork for police “pre-crime” programspolice body cameras that turn police officers into roving surveillance cameras, the internet of things: all of these technologies add up to a society in which there’s little room for indiscretions, imperfections, or acts of independence—especially not when the government can listen in on your phone calls, monitor your driving habits, track your movements, scrutinize your purchases and peer through the walls of your home.

As French philosopher Michel Foucault concluded in his 1975 book Discipline and Punish, “Visibility is a trap.”

This is the electronic concentration camp—the panopticon prison—the Village—in which we are now caged.

It is a prison from which there will be no escape if the government gets it way.

As Glenn Greenwald notes:

The way things are supposed to work is that we’re supposed to know virtually everything about what [government officials] do: that’s why they’re called public servants. They’re supposed to know virtually nothing about what we do: that’s why we’re called private individuals. This dynamic – the hallmark of a healthy and free society – has been radically reversed. Now, they know everything about what we do, and are constantly building systems to know more. Meanwhile, we know less and less about what they do, as they build walls of secrecy behind which they function. That’s the imbalance that needs to come to an end. No democracy can be healthy and functional if the most consequential acts of those who wield political power are completely unknown to those to whom they are supposed to be accountable.”

Even now, the Trump Administration is working to make some of the National Security Agency’s vast spying powers permanent.

In fact, Attorney General Jeff Sessions is pushing for Congress to permanently renew Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which allows government snoops to warrantlessly comb through and harvest vast quantities of our communications.

And just like that, we’re back in the Village, our escape plans foiled, our future bleak.

Except this is no surprise ending: for those who haven’t been taking the escapist blue pill, who haven’t fallen for the Deep State’s phony rhetoric, who haven’t been lured in by the promise of a political savior, we never stopped being prisoners.

So how do we break out?

For starters, wake up. Resist the urge to comply.

The struggle to remain “oneself in a society increasingly obsessed with conformity to mass consumerism,” writes Steven Paul Davies, means that superficiality and image trump truth and the individual. The result is the group mind and the tyranny of mob-think.

Think for yourself. Be an individual. As McGoohan commented in 1968, “At this moment individuals are being drained of their personalities and being brainwashed into slaves… As long as people feel something, that’s the great thing. It’s when they are walking around not thinking and not feeling, that’s tough. When you get a mob like that, you can turn them into the sort of gang that Hitler had.”

In a media-dominated age in which the lines between entertainment, politics and news reporting are blurred, it is extremely difficult to distinguish fact from fiction. We are so bombarded with images, dictates, rules and punishments and stamped with numbers from the day we are born that it is a wonder we ever ponder a concept such as freedom. As McGoohan declared, “Freedom is a myth.”

In the end, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we are all prisoners of our own mind.

In fact, it is in the mind that prisons are created for us. And in the lockdown of political correctness, it becomes extremely difficult to speak or act individually without being ostracized. Thus, so often we are forced to retreat inwardly into our minds, a prison without bars from which we cannot escape, and into the world of video games and television and the Internet.

We have come full circle from Bentham’s Panopticon to McGoohan’s Village to Huxley’s Brave New World.

As cultural theorist Neil Postman observed:

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared we would become a captive audience. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared that we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.” In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate would ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.

You want to be free? Break out of the circle.


Contributed by John W. Whitehead of The Rutherford Institute.

Since 1996, John W. Whitehead has taken on everything from human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia, protection of religious freedom, and child pornography, to family autonomy issues, cross burning, the sanctity of human life, and the war on terrorism in his weekly opinion column. A self-proclaimed civil libertarian, Whitehead is considered by many to be a legal, political and cultural watchdog—sounding the call for integrity, accountability and an adherence to the democratic principles on which this country was founded.

Advertisements

Myth Of The Good Jew: Why Gilad Atzmon Is Irrelevant

MYTH OF THE GOOD JEW

People new to the Truth Movement in 2016 have a lot less disinfo to sift through than the early adopters had in 2004 and 2005. Over the last 11-12 years as we’ve developed in our understanding and conception of the diabolical conspiracy against humanity, we’ve also observed tens of thousands of curious and brave new souls enter the fray and rapidly evolve in their knowledge. Long gone are most of the dead ends and pitfalls the early researchers faced trying to define and corral the nebulous entities that would be very difficult to bring to justice, namely, Reptilians, Jesuits, Germanic Death Cults, Illuminati and Globalists, to name a few.

Over time and with persistence, the naked Truth has shocked our senses over and over, unassailably revealing that this global intergenerational conspiracy is run by Luciferian Talmudic Ashkenazi Jews emanating from Rothschild’s European banking dynasties and extending their tentacles through Organized Jewry, engulfing the entire Planet.

Every single day, new people who’ve been studying the conspiracy arrive at the fearsome chasm they must brave between Zionism and Judaism. As Gentiles born without an “anti-Semitic” gene, we tend to attribute good intentions to most common Jews we come across, especially those humanistically exposing some element of Israeli barbarism. Additionally, everything from our upbringing in this Judaic Matrix reinforces the self-Chosen’s flattering mythology of a pristinely innocent and perpetually persecuted people. The Pharisaic Python reaches deep into inner city elementary schools to poison the minds of black descendants of slaves reminding them that, even you shvatzas haven’t suffered nearly as much as the Jews, while Jews were the primary slave traders in arguably the most insidiously inhumane practice of all time. This same serpent slithers into the brains of impressionable young adults at the most esteemed centers of higher learning, cloaked in innocuous Cultural Marxism, establishing hyper-aggressive, fragmented Leftist identity politics. Patriotic populism becomes Authoritarian Fascism as a labyrinthine and inconsistent, politically correct lexicon is ensconced to monitor and police discussion. Hollywood needs no introduction as a Judeo-supremacist mind control entity, though one can read Neal Gabler’s An Empire of their Own for more indisputable details.

Good Jews?

This brings us to the good Jew. The idealistic good Jew, in the popular conception, is one who doesn’t openly display bloodthirsty anti-Gentile hatred, publicly shows ‘solidarity’ with the Palestinian and / or other indigenous cause and doesn’t apparently harm living creatures by word or deed.

Thus, it is a great testament to our relentless collective evangelism of these uncomfortable truths that there seems to be a veritable explosion of good Jews sprouting up everywhere. You’re against right-wing fascism? They got Jews for that. Don’t like the soft and whiny left-wing SJWs? They got Jews for that. 9/11 Truth? They got lots of Jews for that like the Loose Change triumvirate, Dylan Avery, Korey Rowe, and Jason Bermas, along with Adam Kokesh and the accessory to the murder of Dan Wallace, Luke Rudkowski. Need an Islamophobic talking point? They got Jews for that. Need someone to save the towel heads from Islamophobia? They got Jews for that too. Hate black people? They got racist Jews for that. Hate white people? They got anti-racist Jews for that also, naturally. This is celebrated as the holy and wholly distinct Jewish tradition of diversity embrace, though arguably, it is more accurately recognized as tribal, Jewish chameleonic deception.

From Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn and Norman Finkelstein before, to Max Blumenthal and Philip Weiss now, Gentiles have been celebrating these ‘brave, honest, good Jews’ as they courageously exposed Israeli crimes already arduously elucidated by affected Gentiles, decades prior, in far more gruesome and explicit detail. In spineless acquiescence to Jewish Chosenness, Gentiles overlook the gatekeeping, limited hangout enclaves these duplicitous Jews have created to police discussion to highlight what they deem “anti-Semitic” and thus by extension, summarily inaccurate.

Immediately on arrival, anyone who claims even a fraction of Jewish heritage catapults to the summit of the discourse, invited to pontificate in demagoguery and allowed to bludgeon dissent, especially and most crucially, “anti-Semitic” dissent. The directly affected indigenous, whether BLM activists or Palestinian SJP members, learn the ‘trigger warnings’ of unacceptable talking points and serve as compliant deputies to these good Jews, subserviently policing the periphery to prevent open dialogue on the most heinous and monstrous Jew deceptions: 9/11, the Holocaust, Satanic Ritual Murder and genocidal Talmudic degeneracy. From Ali Abunimah to Rania Khalek, Remi Kenazi to Linda Sarsour, these House Browns play a mid-level managerial role in this Jewish gatekeeping extravaganza. If these Browns can’t handle it, they go to their superiors for a universally binding fatwa that all solidarity activist groups must swear an oath to uphold. This is how the cause of Palestine has been merged with the homosexual agenda as two parts of the same problem, cis-gender hetero-normative patriarchy, perhaps. Thus, staunch Muslim revolutionaries must hold their nose to stop the gag reflex as they tacitly endorse evangelical homosexuals in order to speak in equal support of Palestine and the ‘colonialist imperialist Nazi’ Jewish state, rather than the genocidal cancerous entity in the Middle East, which is an existential threat to humanity and all forms of life.

Gilad Atzmon is Useless

Wily crypto-Jew, anti-Jew, Jewish supremacist opportunist Gilad Atzmon, seized the moment for shekels and fame, jumping into this undefined space in the early 2000s using his universally accepted credentials, As a Jew, to gain attention and prominence. Changing the attack on Zionism to an attack on Jewish ‘exceptionalism’, he captured the attention of those forced to the fringes of mainstream Palestine solidarity discourse. From here, Gilad’s narrative as the sole good Jew willing to call out other Jews for their Chosenite behavior has helped him gain notoriety and devoted fans all around the world, which he wields in classic Jewish self-interest, indulging his boundless ego.

As a loose coalition of the willing and able, we are partially culpable for this paradigm. Even when Alan Sabrosky came out to expose the primary Israeli role in 9/11, we promoted him incessantly as much for his 1/4th Jewish heritage as for his Army War College credentials. Meanwhile, he simply spoke on research that came mostly from Christopher Bollyn, a strong WASP revolutionary voice who almost single-handedly exposed all Zionist Jewish and Israeli connections to 9/11. Bollyn escaped a Soviet style Judaic tribunal in grave danger and threat to his life in Hoffman Estates, a suburb of Chicago, in the fall of 2006.

Over the last several years, though his Gentile acquaintances have included brilliant visionaries and staunch Resistance voices like Nahida Izzat, Jonathan Azaziah and Mark Glenn, Atzmon, from bandmates to organizers and dear friends, has kept his closest circles distinctly Jewish. This is rather peculiar when his rhetoric seems so incendiary and spasm-inducing to the Jewish Left, which is arguably tamer than the Likudnik Right. At times, Atzmon seemingly abandons his Jewish identity and concomitant privilege while at other times, he reiterates it forcefully to remind us of his unquestionably superior Jew ability to say ‘Jew’ instead of ‘Zionist.’ His unabashed self-promotion is always on display in his writings and talks for everyone to view for themselves. He is the radical Tim Wise of the Palestine Solidarity discourse.

This underscores a key characteristic of Judaic tribal identity. Orthodox Chabadniks will more than tolerate flamboyant Jewish perverts and rabid Secular-Feminist Jewesses because they serve to erode Gentile society with inflammatory false flags, bewildering confusion and grotesquely profane provocation. This is a people that always actively hides rampant rabbinical and incestual child rape in their own communities, to their own detriment, to prevent wider exposure of the rotten Satanic core of Judaism to Gentile authorities. Desiring Jews to join us as equals or even subordinates in our Resistance to Organized Jewry is fanatically foolish and exceptionally irrational.

These ‘former Jews’ remain functionally Jewish in Jewish circles irrespective of their deceptively attempted redemptive narrative as ex-excessive self lovers. These part-time Jews will still be allowed citizenship in The Entity if they so choose. You will find their intellectual contributions overwhelmingly stale and their political commentary archaic and largely inaccurate, so there is no sensible reason to subsidize them with praise and promotion, simply for the accident of birth into a Jewish family. They will always be welcome and taken back into those private Jewish circles of insular intrigue like the profusely repentant degenerate David Cole and the profoundly apologetic son of a Rav, Ariel Toaff. Both of those men and their forays into Gentile-led discussions on Jewish deception and savagery were guided by self-interest and Jew on a Perchglory. When it came down to dropping their primary identity and having Jewish wrath unleashed on them, they slithered back into favor, disavowing and vociferously condemning their former views.

The Talmud states Jesus is boiling in feces in hell. Yes, the very hell which Jews don’t even believe in. That makes Moishe Rosen of Jews for Jesus fame yet another fascinating and revelatory example which shows how far Jews will go while maintaining Jewish identity. Even the uniquely perverse 15th Century fake Jewish Messiah Shabbetai Zevi ‘converted’ to Islam after promoting orgies and ritual human blood rites to his followers. These are not men like Myron Fagan, Benjamin Freedman, John Gunther Dean or Paul Wellstone. Certainly not Bobby Fischer or Israel Shahak.

This is why we challenge any of Gilad Atzmon’s closest Goy friends to come out and give a glowing review about his character as a person. I readily admit I never met this Jew but his Judeo-Supremacist aura overwhelms us with every single one of his long, drawn out, accented stutterances in his ‘talks.’ His unabashed and unjustifiable pomposity and self-righteousness seeps through unmistakably. This is not a good Jew, here to save us from the bad Jews. Gilad is a classic case of a Judaic NPD obliviously addicted to his own delusional sense of primal self-importance, As a Jew. There is little fresh substance here and I have a hunch that if we dig into anecdotal evidence, more creepy Talmudism may surface. He simply doesn’t have the intellectually robust, genuinely self-transcendent inquisitive feel of Stephen LendmanJoel Kovel, or Tony Judt.

Since no Goy critique of the Jew would be complete without a disclaimer:

It must be said, Gilad Atzmon’s book, The Wandering Who, gives interesting insights and serves its purpose with some tempered perspective that navigates the psychosis of Jewish Identity. This is why I mention it on my upcoming album, This Is Resistance.

Also, no one functionally cerebral can suggest Jews have an exclusive monopoly over evil. However, if an evil exists, the Jew does it the Besht™ and gets away with it the most. And when it comes to gatekeeping in a haughty Chosenite manner, Gilad is right there with the best of them, imagining himself perched above us, delineating what is certifiably kosher and what is unmistakably haram, celebrating his cult of personality and choosing which heinous acts of the Monsters™ can and should be condemned and which ones we shall remain silent about or incur his Jewish wrath and dismissive disdain.

If an ostensibly recovering, former Jew is claiming to reject a Judaic conspiracy in totality, shouldn’t the primary pillars of that conspiracy be obliterated first? If we put an asterisk by Jewish Ritual Murder as historically unverifiable, Joachim and Boaz of the Kehilla’s Oligarchy are 9/11 and the Holocaust/Hitler/NSDAP. Where does Gilad stand on those subjects, one may ask? He’s still skirting 9/11 in totality, and has celebrated persecuted Holocaust Deniers, in the name of free speech, which he amusingly fashions himself a recovering-Chosen champion of. He has never endorsed the notion that the Holocaust™ is a monumental and catastrophic fraud, and perhaps the greatest terroristic psy-op ever devised.

Beyond The Wandering Who, which is worth purchasing, and the apparent dedicated trolling of Max Blumenthal, the rest of Atzmon’s entire contribution to our liberationist discourse is that Chosen Jews will act like Chosen Jews, and, as an on-again, off-again Chosen Jew, he stands up for his own right to say so, as a bulwark for the Goyim’s right to say so. I imagine, if he didn’t have an unhealthy and cartoonish sense of self-importance, over the last decade, he would have been promoting the work of many of the fiery luminaries that make up the real grassroots of Gentile Resistance to Global Judaic Supremacy, and not just words about him.

We are to believe that once Gilad detoxed from his childhood brainwashing and extricated himself from the supremacist jingoism of ‘Israel’ that he had wholly abandoned Jewish culture and purged his demons. No, not so. Not quite. In fact, Gilad remains an archetypal secular Jew, interfacing with Gentiles with a Judaic agenda, namely, to encourage fawning approbation from his acolytes for the righteous act of saying Jew just as often as Zionist yet also dismissing exposure of the most heinous Jewish lies. He’s a dilettante historian and clearly an elementary political analyst, at best. His squatting role in our narrative as an oppressive outsider with privilege, is making fun of Jews being Jews, As a Jew.

I would openly welcome and appreciate Mr. Atzmon doing the easy, yet highly useful work of translating revelatory Hebrew speeches of the Israeli political elite, to its intensely devoted, sanguinary populace, when the Goyim aren’t watching. The principle of whistleblowing is crucial. It takes courage to take risks with your life for humanity’s sake, driven by a belief in something greater than yourself. This is how we learned from Israel Shahak about the Oded Yinon plan concocted in the 80’s which has had Syria ablaze for more than 5 years. Ex-Jew Christian, Mordechai Vanunu is still paying the price for his exposure of Israel’s vast array of WMDs. How does Gilad want to be remembered?

Hello? Bollyn!

Christopher Bollyn, ever the inquisitive and fiercely unyielding researcher, happened to meet Gilad Atzmon in the fall of 2014. His investigative scrutiny led him to ask Gilad if he had any relation to Menachem Atzmon, convicted Israeli criminal and key 9/11 conspirator as the head of ICTS, a security company implicated in 9/11, the shoe-bomber fiasco of 2001, 7/7 in 2005, the Christmas day underwear bomber of 2009 and possibly others. Gilad unhesitatingly confirmed that indeed he was. Gilad then revealed that he was also a relative of Nathan Yellin-Mor, co-founder with Avraham Stern of the Jewish terrorist outfit LEHI, commonly known as The Stern Gang. Yellin-Mor was a primary conspirator in the assassination of Lord Moyne and Count Folke Bernadotte, the two primary, high ranking officials with key roles of preventing conflagration in Mandate Palestine. Gilad also revealed that he’s related to Tzipi Livni and to Janet Yellen, chairwoman of the Fed. Impressive isn’t it?

One has to wonder, why did it take Bollyn’s curiosity, keen eye to detail and a chance meeting between them for Gilad to reveal that he is family members with a very key suspect in the 9/11 attacks which killed 3000, hundreds more first responders and probably close to 4 million human beings, primarily Muslims in the 15 year aftermath of the “War on Terror?” It had already been more than 12 years; without Bollyn, would this revelation ever been forthcoming? What would it have taken for this unanimously anointed good Jew to reveal this important nugget of vital information?

Being related to Janet Yellen and Tzipi Livni, imagine some of the other family secrets Gilad could possibly investigate and divulge to the benefit of Goyim at large. Why remain quiet? Why not ever promote genuine 9/11 Truth even after meeting Bollyn? Interestingly, the only reference to Bollyn on Gilad’s website is a reproduction of Bollyn’s review of Gilad’s aforementioned The Wandering Who.

This indeed is the enigma of the Kehilla. So few are Jews in terms of the Globe’s population, yet they are ubiquitously found in positions of authority in all aspects of power, while small enough that the goodest Jew on Earth is the nephew of the one of the most evil terrorist Jews, intimately involved in the most cataclysmic event in several decades. More disturbingly, this was uncovered by a relentless Gentile researcher, not readily revealed by Gilad himself. Is this why Gilad doesn’t want to bring attention to the Israeli role in 9/11, to protect his uncle from being prosecuted for this heinous crime via ICTS? Also, if ex-Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky was chased all the way to Canada with death threats by Jewish lunatics for a relatively innocuous, partial expose of Mossad terrorism, why has Gilad not faced the wrath of the Mishpucka for his provocative anti-Semitism, especially from his own bloodthirsty terrorist kin like Menachem Atzmon and Tzipi Livni? Why is he still treated as family by the Jews he commiserates with?

Jews like Gilad prefer to believe the Globe’s Jewish problem is not really about genetics but primarily about ideology. But from our own experience we know that ideology doesn’t fully encapsulate the nuanced behavior of any individual, despite many self-righteous claims to the contrary. Show me an ardent puritanical cleric and I can show you a vile child rapist. Genetics, however, do yield a pretty consistent track record of behavior. Any of us can look at our lives objectively and see good and bad habits we’ve innately established that are found in our parents. We can overcome the negative personality traits but it requires consistent focused attention. I look at Ashkenazi Jews this way. Consequently, the Talmud is simply an ideological reinforcement and consolidation of this genetic inheritance.

Though Mr. Atzmon should be recognized as prescient in carving out this territory for himself, he still functions as a Jewish gatekeeper clearly outlining the parameters of our narrative. Noam Chomsky and Miko Peled have done the same with Zionism. This is why we suggest anyone claiming part-time ex-Jewishness is likely trying to deceive and this shapeshifting chameleonic self-identification is mostly irrelevant because Jews are hardwired for generations into selfish, anti-Gentile behavior. You can’t be mad at a snake for shedding its skin and slithering away. That’s what snakes will do.

Gilad gets a kick out of Israeli domination of Arabs and Jewish domination of Gentiles, as a natural outgrowth of clever rabbinic eugenics. His lazy and flatulent ‘support’ of the Palestinian cause is minuscule and driven by his ability to squat on this massive, previously un-Jew-tapped, prime real estate in the discourse where the Truth Movement was always headed marketing himself as a reformed good Jew. Again, we give him credit for his shrewd discernment.

I humbly suggest we stop looking for good Jews. It’s high time we stop getting distracted and wasting precious time consuming ancient, shoddily recycled information by those angling and promoting themselves as good Jews. Focus on the Goal: global, regional, national and local sovereignty and independence from the Organized Talmudic Octopus. I fail to see how pompous, self-righteous, and contemptuous Jews fit in. Where could they possibly add value to our burgeoning Resistance to their brethren’s evil schemes?

Now, As a Pashtun descendant of the original Lost Tribe of Joseph I can’t help my own pretentious cockiness; It’s innate, and admittedly, eerily reminiscent of Chosenness. Consequently, Gilad’s clumsy blog is unworthy of my careful scrutiny and attentive analysis to pluck specific examples of his glaringly translucent, arrogant, minimalist, deceptive Jewish incrementalism. Suffice it say, the following answer from a few weeks ago, on May 6th 2016, which he gave to Eric Gajewski on his radio show is instructive on where he stands and how he wields what he knows.

Observe this monumentally clever Jewish genius confuse Hezbollah and ISIS as but two, possibly Mossad created, manifestations of ‘Islamic Resistance’. Gilad Atzmon, ladies and gentlemen:

Yes, you heard that correct, Atzmon just conflated the most revolutionary, inspiring Resistance group on Earth that has multiple victories against The Entity, Hezbollah, with the vilest, most barbaric Judaic mercenary group of all time, the Takfiri Goy Golem of ISIS.

Do you trust this Jew to walk with you in humanity through the finish line of a liberated Al-Quds?

Wake me from my aloof slumber when he confesses the Jewish lie of the Holocaust and the Israeli Masterpiece of 9/11, and promotes our greatest contributor to this discourse, the indefatigable Gentile, Christopher Bollyn, who put his life on the lineto bring us exclusive and explosive information about the real Judaic culprits of 9/11.

We aren’t calling for a boycott, sanction, divestment from, or disavowal of, Gilad Atzmon. If he’s tickling you in the right places, by all means, titillate away. But those of us who don’t need Jews to repackage our information and sell it back to us, dripping with Chosenite supremacy, will discover those who do the difficult and dangerous work of primary research, like Christopher Bollyn, and send our love and support in that Gentile’s direction.

Unless we have a repentant group of former Jews with some substantive secret information from the vile depths of the foul colon of the toxic Shul regarding an upcoming Judaic False Flag massacre, Jews should be ignored and shunned from all of our Gentile Resistance movements against their hegemony, or else Jewish Supremacy will remain supreme, donning different masks as it sadistically and ritualistically rapes us. This isn’t just about Gilad. This is about how we interface with Jews 2.0 who enter our discourse with a Save Sudan™ Tikkun Olam style smile and nothing but the shiny, holographic, embedded J-badge glued to their chest, telling us it’s time to liberate ’67 Palestine, embrace LGBTQQIAAP, stop neo-fascist imperialism, and annihilate anti-Semitism.

I’m good on the Good Jews, thanks.

The spiritual giant Malcolm X, may God rest his soul in eternal bliss, used to tell white people who wanted to join his cause to stay away from Black Liberationist movements and take on the more difficult and tangible task of fixing problems among white society, directly on their own. In that spirit, I encourage all Gentiles to form a cohesive block that prevents Jews from entering our ranks until the Kehilla has transparently given up on its multi-millennia old, genocidal dystopian dream. They must dismantle and liquidate ‘Israel’ and their usurious central banks, relinquish all their destructive weaponry and then rapidly dissolve all forms of Jewish power in media, academia and everywhere else and apologize to everyone.

… Exactly. I’m not holding my breath.

Beware, there will be a total Noahide flood of good Jews in the coming months and years that will seek to carve out a niche in our Resistance to Organized Jewry’s genocidal rampage, purely and selfishly out of a survival mechanism. Their Talmudic war path is untenable. The jig is up. They know. These good Jews will condemn Israel and the, ever so few, bad Jews, claim universalist secular piety, then intricately develop their complex adaptive system to once again dissolve and disintegrate our nascent revolution as an efficient, parasitic, tribalistic super-organism.

The entire Planet is waking up to the Pharisaic Python as it feverishly tries to suffocate the last breaths of our Gentile autonomy. We don’t need to hold the hands of good Jews and patiently and painstakingly help them navigate their own psychoses while their close relatives plot the details of WWIII. There are too many of us and too few of them. We must Save our Planet from their Samson option apocalypse.

Gentiles are well-acquainted with the corrosive Judaic hive mind. It has a long and sordid history. Codreanu tried to warn his people, Solzhenitsyn made a valiant effort in 200 Years Together. From Nesta Webster to Eustace Mullins and Elizabeth Dilling to Michael Hoffman II, we know their story and History. The good Jews will be loud and unmistakeable like Myron Fagan, Benjamin Freedman and Jack Bernstein. They will find us, out of breath from the urgency, warning us of secrets we could never know, compelled by a Divine conscience. They won’t be gatekeeping headmasters like Max Blumenthal who breaks Passover bread with his father Sydney, a Clinton handler and Judaic butcherer of Libya.

Certainly, this is nothing new or groundbreaking here. Even in this era, Jonathan Azaziah, for one, has dealt with this uniquely Jewish, shape-shifting paradigm cogently and in more depth, several years ago, with the articles linked below. This is only a reminder and an admonishment because our magnificent transcendent religion demands it of us.

—-

[5:65] And the Jews say, ‘The hand of Allah is tied up.’ Their own hands shall be tied up and they shall be cursed for what they say. Nay, both His hands are wide open; He spends how He pleases. And what has been sent down to thee from thy Lord will most surely increase many of them in rebellion and disbelief. And We have cast among them enmity and hatred till the Day of Resurrection. Whenever they kindle a fire for war, Allah extinguishes it. And they strive to create disorder in the earth, and Allah loves not those who create disorder.

[5:83] Thou shalt certainly find the Jews and those who associate partners with God to be the most vehement of men in enmity against the believers. And thou shalt assuredly find those who say, ‘We are Christians,’ to be the nearest of them in love to the believers. That is because amongst them are savants and monks and because they are not proud.

[6:71] And let alone those who take their religion for a sport and a pastime, and whom worldly life has beguiled. And admonish people thereby lest a soul be consigned to perdition for what it has wrought. It shall have no helper nor intercessor beside Allah; and even if it offer every ransom, it shall not be accepted from it. These are they who have been delivered over to destruction for their own acts. They will have a drink of boiling water and a grievous punishment, because they disbelieved.

[50:46] We know best what they say; and thou hast not been appointed to compel them in any way. So admonish, by means of the Qur’an, him who fears My warning.

Peace be upon the Wise.

The Accusation of Anti-Semitism I
The Accusation of Anti-Semitism II

The Tribal Nexus

Blowing Up the Big Marijuana IQ Myth—The Science Points to Zero Effect on Your Smarts

“Marijuana makes people retarded, especially when they’re young.” So claimed conservative commentator Ann Coulter while speaking at Politicon last week.

But while such inflammatory claims by culture warriors like Coulter are to be expected – and may readily be dismissed – the notion that smoking pot will have lasting negative impacts on intelligence is a longstanding one, and a claim that is all too often made by those on both sides of the political spectrum. Yet the latest science finds little to no factual basis for this contention.

Longitudinal data just recently published online in the journal Addiction reports that pot smoking is not independently associated with adverse effects on the developing brain. A team of investigators from the United States and the United Kingdom evaluated whether marijuana use is directly associated with changes over time in neuropsychological performance in a nationally representative cohort of adolescent twins. Authors reported that “family background factors,” but not the use of cannabis negatively impacted adolescents’ cognitive performance.

They wrote: “[W]e found that youth who used cannabis … had lower IQ at age 18, but there was little evidence that cannabis use was associated with IQ decline from age 12 to 18. Moreover, although cannabis use was associated with lower IQ and poorer executive functions at age 18, these associations were generally not apparent within pairs of twins from the same family, suggesting that family background factors explain why adolescents who use cannabis perform worse on IQ and executive function tests.”

Investigators concluded, “Short-term cannabis use in adolescence does not appear to cause IQ decline or impair executive functions, even when cannabis use reaches the level of dependence.”

They’re not alone in their conclusions. In 2016, researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles and the University of Minnesota performed a similar longitudinal analysis regarding marijuana’s potential impact on intelligence quotient in a separate cohort of adolescent twins. They reported no dose-response relationship between pot exposure and IQ decline at age 20, and observed no significant differences in performance among those who used marijuana and their non-using twins.

Investigators concluded: “In the largest longitudinal examination of marijuana use and IQ change, … we find little evidence to suggest that adolescent marijuana use has a direct effect on intellectual decline. … [T]he lack of a dose–response relationship, and an absence of meaningful differences between discordant siblings lead us to conclude that the deficits observed in marijuana users are attributable to confounding factors that influence both substance initiation and IQ rather than a neurotoxic effect of marijuana.”

The UCLA findings mimicked those of separate longitudinal data published earlier that year in the Journal of Psychopharmacology. Investigators in that study assessed IQ and educational performance in a cohort of 2,235 adolescent twins. They too reported that after adjusting for potential confounds (such as the use of tobacco and alcohol), teens who used cannabis “did not differ from never-users on either IQ or educational performance.”

Florida State researchers similarly examined the issue earlier this year. Writing in the journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence, they reported on the impact of marijuana exposure on intelligence scores in subjects over a 14-year period (ages 12 to 26). They concluded, “[O]ur findings did not reveal a significant association between cumulative marijuana use and changes in intelligence scores.”

Nonetheless, political opponents of cannabis policy reform continue to opinethat pot smoking “reduces IQ by 6-8 points.” This claim is derived from a widely publicized 2012 New Zealand study published in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It reported that the persistent use of cannabis from early adolescence to adulthood was associated with slightly lower IQ by age 38.

However, a followup review of the data published later in the same journal suggested that the observed changes were the result of investigators’ failure to properly control for confounding variables, primarily the socioeconomic differences between users and non-users, and were not unduly influenced by subjects’ cannabis use history.

A later paper by the lead investigator of the New Zealand study similarly reported that the presence of confounders make it difficult to impossible to attribute changes in teens’ academic performance on pot use alone, finding that the effects of persistent adolescent cannabis use on academic performance are “non-significant after controlling for persistent alcohol and tobacco use.”

Paul Armentano is the deputy director of NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) and serves as a senior policy advisor for Freedom Leaf, Inc. He is the co-author of the book, Marijuana Is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People to Drink? (Chelsea Green, 2013).

Dr. Darío Fernández-Morera – The Myth of the Golden Age of Tolerance in Muslim Spain

http://www.renegadetribune.com/dr-dario-fernandez-morera-myth-golden-age-tolerance-muslim-spain/

 

Apologists for Islam never tire of referring to the “Golden Age” of tolerance that supposedly characterized seven centuries of Muslim dominated Spain. This fundamentally flawed assessment draws the wrong conclusion based on fragmentary evidence and distorts the larger picture. It ignores the reality of enormous destruction wrought by the three Arab-Berber Muslim invasions that repeatedly sought to hold on to control and rule over the indigenous peoples of Spain who had been reduced to second class citizens in their own homeland.

Renegade Editor’s Note: the Muslim occupation of Spain is known as the “Golden Age” of jewish culture in Europe. Hmm, I wonder why organized jewry opened up the gates of Europe again for another Islamic invasion. This radio show does not expose the real history of the jewish collusion with the Muslim invasion, and appears in parts to go along with the counter-jihad narrative of putting jews and Europeans into the same boat in this culture clash. It’s still worth a listen, though.

The Myth of Stalin’s Nationalism

http://www.renegadetribune.com/myth-stalins-nationalism/
By Eric Thomson (2002)

The Germans have an erroneous saying that “lies have short legs”. The reality is that lies are like camels, they have exceedingly long legs and survive the hottest, driest, most brilliant light of criticism. A recent newsletter has once again revived the Big Lie that Red Russia, the former Russian Empire of the non-Russian Tsars, had been ‘liberated’ from Khazar (jew) rule by Djugashvili (Jewson) “Stalin”, a Khazar from Tiflis, Georgia, whose mentor, Kaganovich, was of the same nationality: Khazar.

As a matter of definition, a multi-national entity is not “a nation”, therefore when people prate about “nations”, they fall into the jew-Boas’ trap of equating “nation” with territory. Nations are biopolitical entities, not geopolitical, and members of a nation can exist anywhere on earth. On the other hand, no amount of crowding and cramming of nations into a given territory can produce a nation, merely an unstable, multi-national empire, such as Russia and North America.

Who did the Khazar emperor, “Stalin” liberate the disparate Gentiles of the Red Russian Empire from? “The jews!” say the myth-mongers. Not only that, but “Stalin” declared “Communism in one country!” The name, COMINTERN was duly changed to COMINFORM. Wiser scholars know that “Stalin” was merely changing tactical labels, for he was continuing the Khazar imperial policy of expansion which his congener, “Trotsky” (Lev Davidovitch Bronstein from Bronx NY) had failed to carry out previously. Moreover, the jews remained in all important positions in the Soviet state, particularly in the police apparatus. Top-ranking military officers were either Khazar (Ashkenazim) or married to Khazars, like Brezhnev, whose jewish wife I’ve seen a picture of. Even now, I shudder when I recall that gargoyle! I suspect that Brezhnev volunteered to go to the battle of Stalingrad so he didn’t have to look at his Khazar wife, who would have made The Wicked Witch look like a beauty queen.

“Stalin” purged several thousand Khazars and he replaced them with fellow Khazars. He did the same with millions of his Gentile subjects, whom he did not replace, but simply tightened the conditions of terror and enslavement of the survivors. The head of the Cheka/NKVD/KGB, propaganda (Ilya Ehrenberg), and every government department remained Khazar.

“Stalin” continued to expand Khazar imperialism with military might and terror in Spain and Finland, but his main goal was to achieve what his rival, “Trotsky”, had failed to achieve in the 1920s: the conquest of Europe! We need not take into account, the reports I have obtained from German high altitude aerial reconnaissance observers, that Red Russia was completing its preparations for the massive invasion of Europe in 1941, a few weeks too late. One observer told me that the territory of the Khazar Soviet Empire looked like a huge sandtable model from his altitude: “The smoke of endless trains revealed that the Russian (sic) rail system had been converted into a gigantic conveyor belt. Trains brought military equipment from east to west and took farming and factory equipment, along with grain and livestock from west to east.” Former Soviet Military Intelligence officer (GRU) “Suvorov” substantiates this statement in his book, “The Icebreaker”, in which he includes the names and numbers of the Red Army units en route to the west, when the German attack caught them on the hop. “Stalin” apparently believed that Operation Sealion (the touted German invasion of Britain) was genuine, whereas Operation Barbarossa (the invasion of Red Russia) was the ‘real thing’, and the German units which were, according to bogus intercepted radio traffic, standing on the French coast, were really under the large noses of Khazar observers.

“Stalin” changed nothing about jew-bolshevism, except some names and propaganda labels. The Khazar rulers remained and their policy of imperial expansion was intensified. Another indicator that the jews remained in control of Red Russia was in the fact that the jews of Britain and North America continued their staunch and substantial support for the Stalinist regime, before, during and after World War II. The jew-bolshevik policies had made the rich Russian Empire into a financial and agricultural basketcase, so overseas jews made sure their Red Monster was given continual life-support in the form of funding, food and technology, such as the atom bomb. The myth that Red Russia became “jew-free” and “nationalist” under “Stalin” was part of the other hoax called “The Cold War”. The fact that Mr. Posner of Moscow and Mr. Posner of Washington DC report the ‘news’ to each other’s Goyim should provide another clue.

Former KGB/FSB jew, Putin, and his Khazar congeners still rule the remnants of the former Soviet empire, which his fellow jew bandits continue to loot, along with recycled ‘aid’ funds from the jews’ western dominions. The jews still rule Russia, and they do not have Russian interests at heart!

Everything People Believed about Hitler’s Intentions Toward Britain was a Myth Created by Churchill

Hitler didn’t want to invade Britain. He actually admired the British Empire, with its inherent presumption of racial superiority.

It’s good that the UK Government is going to pardon the thousands of Army deserters who enlisted in the British forces during World War Two.

Of course, no army can allow desertion; however, these men were not court-martialled, but were subject to a blanket ban on state employment that deprived them of their constitutional right to due process.

The vast majority of them deserted from June 1941 onward, when the theoretical possibility of a German invasion had all but vanished.

 

The men who deserted did so after being effectively cheated into becoming soldier-serfs, cutting turf on the Bog of Allen.

That was the second great lie of their young lives. The first one was that Ireland ever faced a serious threat of invasion by Germany, which was the spawn of an even vaster falsehood — that in 1940, Hitler wanted to invade Britain. But he didn’t. He actually admired the British Empire, with its inherent presumption of racial superiority. We know from the diaries of Lord Halifax, the British foreign minister, that Hitler offered terms that did not involve German control of Britain. Churchill refused to allow these terms to be read to the cabinet, and they remain prudently concealed under the 100-year rule.

Instead, Churchill’s determination to keep Britain at war turned what had been merely a continental defeat of its army into the enduring myth that in 1940, Britain faced a war for national survival.

But the German naval leader, Raeder, had repeatedly forbidden his staff from planning an invasion of Britain. And far from wanting to continue the war, in June 1940, Hitler ordered 20pc of his army to be demobilised, in order to get the German economy going again. The “invasion fleet” that the Nazis began to assemble that summer was no more capable of invading Britain than it was Hawaii. It was war by illusion: its purpose was to get the British to the negotiating table.

This “fleet” consisted of 1,900 canal barges, only one- third of which were powered, to be towed cross-channel, in clusters of three, by just 380 tugs. These barges had tiny keels, blunt prows and small rudders, with just two feet of freeboard: the distance between the water and the top of the hull. They would have been swamped during even a direct crossing of the English Channel, a shallow and violent waterway linking the raging North Sea and Atlantic. But an invasion would not be direct. The barges, with their untrained crews, would be able to make only about three knots, from the three “invasion” centres: Rotterdam, Le Havre and Boulogne. These ports are, respectively, from any south-coast landing beaches, at best, 200 miles and 60 hours, 100 miles and 30 hours, and 50 miles and 15 hours, with seasick soldiers crammed into keel-less floundering barges without toilets or water. What army would be fit to fight after a journey like that? And then there’s the 55,000 horses that the Wehrmacht would need: its transport was still not mechanised.

All being well, and that really is a relative term, the first “wave” would take 10 days to land, with the barges plying to and from those three distant ports, requiring tides that would have to obey the demands of the Fuehrer rather than the older ones of the sea, in convoy, often at night, and always without navigation lights.

Why no lights? Ah: the Royal Navy. This is where matters become quite phantasmagorical. In August 1940, the British Home Fleet ALONE consisted of 140 destroyers, 40 cruisers and frigates, five battleships and two aircraft carriers.

The entire German navy, the Kriegsmarin, consisted of just seven destroyers, one cruiser with unreliable engines, two working cruisers, no aircraft carriers, and no battleships or battle cruisers: the Bismarck and Tirpitz were still building, and the Gneisenau and Scharnhorst were damaged and out of action until the following winter.

What about the Luftwaffe? Well, it had no torpedo-carrying aircraft, whereas the British had two (the Beaufort and the Swordfish, both of which were later to show their mettle in disabling German capital ships), and air-bombing vigorously defended warships accurately over an open sea is incredibly difficult, even for dive-bombers: Stuka bomb sights were calibrated for stationary targets. All right, but were not British shores defenceless in 1940? No — aside from a largely intact British army, two fully-equipped Canadian divisions arrived that summer, as did 200,000 rifles from the US on the ‘SS Britannic’.

This doesn’t diminish the validity of the allied cause, or the later decision of the nearly 7,000 Army deserters who enlisted in it, for they were taking arms against one of the most evil regimes in world history.

Nonetheless, just about everything that people believed about Hitler’s intentions towards Britain in 1940 — and still believe today — was a myth created by Churchill, which he probably came to believe himself. Consider all the facts above, and then consider how that myth has endured, despite them. Makes you wonder, no?

(Irish Independent)

‘Irish slaves’: Historian destroys racist myth conservatives love to share on Facebook

White supremacists have been promoting the myth that the first slaves brought to the Americas were Irish, not African — but a historian says there’s simply no evidence to back their racist claims.

Liam Hogan, a research librarian at the Limerick City Library, set about debunking the myth after spotting a widely shared Global Research article in 2013 and realized its potential for misinformation, reported Hatewatch.

“It was quite clear to me then that many would never engage with the history of the transatlantic slave trade when they had this false equivalence to fall back on,” Hogan told the website. “I think that’s what convinced me that I needed to put the record straight.”

The myth essentially equates indentured or penal servitude with racialized perpetual hereditary chattel slavery, Hogan said.

Racists claim the Irish slave trade began in 1612 and was not abolished until 1839, and they insist “white slavery” has been covered up by “politically correct” historians.
Report Advertisement
“The various memes make many claims including (but not limited to) the following: that ‘Irish slaves’ were treated far worse than black slaves, that there were more ‘Irish slaves’ than black slaves, that ‘Irish slaves’ were worth less than black slaves, that enslaved Irish women were forced to breed with enslaved African men and that the Irish were slaves for much longer than black slaves,” Hogan said.

“This is then invariably followed up by overtly racist statements,” he added. “For example, ‘Yet, when is the last time you heard an Irishman bitching and moaning about how the world owes them a living?’”

Hogan hasn’t isolated the myth’s first appearance on social media, but it’s been a common trope on the white supremacist website Stormfront since at least 2003 and has been trotted out as an argument against reparations for slavery and to attack the Black Lives Matter movement.

He pointed to a 2014 post on Alex Jones’ Infowars website that attacked both Black Lives Matter and reparations by promoting several falsehoods about “Irish slavery.”
Report Advertisement
“It appropriates the massacre of around 132 African victims of the genocidal transatlantic slave trade in order to diminish it,” Hogan said, referring to the Zong massacre in 1781. “If you look at the Infowars version of the meme you’ll see it has even appended an extra zero, making the number of victims amount to 1,302, while adding that ‘these slaves weren’t from Africa, these forgotten souls were from Ireland.’ This shameless appropriation is then used by Infowars to mock calls for reparatory justice for slavery.”

The myth has become nearly ubiquitous in social media discussions on slavery and race — and it was even promoted by a blogger on the liberal Daily Kos website.

“There was almost no situation where the meme was not used to derail discussions about the legacy of slavery or ongoing anti-black racism,” Hogan said. “Starting with Ferguson and with almost every subsequent police killing of an unarmed black person from late 2014 through 2015, the meme was used to mock and denigrate the Black Lives Matter movement. It is in a sense the ‘historical’ version of the disingenuous All Lives Matter response to demands for justice and truth telling.”

Hogan has collected hundreds of examples of the fallacious argument, which he has shared on Twitter and Tumblr, and he said some of those memes have been shared hundreds of thousands of times on Facebook.

The myth is especially popular among Confederate apologists, and Hogan cites several examples of its deployment during the debate over Confederate flag displays in the wake of the fatal shootings of nine black churchgoers by a white supremacist.

“This year I’ve tracked the meme being shared by the Texas League of the South, History of the True South, Love My Confederate Ancestors and the Sons of Confederate Veterans,” Hogan said. “They seem to believe that this meme somehow negates the fact that the Confederacy fought a war to perpetually enslave millions of African-Americans and their descendants.”

The myth is often supported with citations to the books “To Hell or Barbados,” by Sean O’Callaghan, and “White Cargo,” by Don Jordan and Michael A. Walsh — both of which are historically questionable, according to Hogan, but he said most articles about “Irish slaves” don’t even quote from those sources.

Instead, Hogan said most of those articles rely heavily on an unreferenced blog post and the self-published work of Holocaust denier Michael A. Hoffman II.

Hogan said his concerns are shared by at least 81 academics and historians, and he hopes to set the record straight in his own book.

“I would like to reclaim the history of Irish servitude in the 17th century Anglo-Caribbean and present it in context for a general audience,” he said. “The Cromwellian policy of forced transportation to the colonies in the 1650s (which included an estimated 10,000 Irish people) understandably scars our collective memory and it deserves both respect and close attention from anyone interested in the history of the unfree labor systems in the Atlantic world.”

He said the myth’s appeal reveals an essential element of racist thought — and the way those beliefs are exploited to justify discriminatory laws.

“The racism then flows as these various groups of Neo-Nazis posit why whites can overcome a ‘worse’ situation than blacks and ‘do not whine about it,’” Hogan said. “So the ‘get over it’ racism that so often accompanies the meme is not about history at all. It goes much deeper than that.”

“Their belief is that non-whites can’t move on due to racial inferiority or social pathology,” he continued. “So through false equivalence and erasure, they attempt to remove history as a determinant so that they can claim the current socioeconomic position and mass incarceration of black people in the U.S. is due to racial inferiority.”

This story was originally published April 20, 2016.

The Myth of the Democratic Rift: Despite Media Hot Air, the Data Show Sanders Supporters Will Embrace Clinton

Bernie Sanders has bowed out of the Democratic primary race and endorsed Hillary Clinton. Yet, some questions remain about whether Sanders supporters will embrace Clinton (some pundits, including Paul Krugman, suggested that Sanders would not support Clinton).  Incidents like Susan Sarandon’s ambiguous comments about possibly supporting Trump (or not voting at all) raised many eyebrows.

In the Daily Beast, Christopher Ketcham argued there is a significant contingent of Bernie supporters itching to vote for Trump (though the only one he could get on record was a friend of his living in Brooklyn). Increased use of Twitter among journalists and pundits has exposed them to more extreme positions, which they then project onto broad groups of people. Some have suggested “Bernie Bros,” a term of derision aimed at a group of leftist Bernie supporters who harbor misogynistic and racist views, represent Sanders supporters in general and may vote for Trumpin large numbers (Trump has also courted Bernie supporters).

However, more data-driven approaches often fail to support these narratives. Data don’t show widespread misogynistic attitudes among Bernie Sanders supporters, nor do they suggest widespread racial resentment or stereotyping. Moreover, I find that there are strong reasons to believe Sanders supporters will ultimately reject Trump, and most will end up supporting Clinton. Despite hot takes suggesting otherwise, the Democratic Party is currently quite unified, and there is no evidence the Bernie supporters will support Trump en masse.

Bernie Supporters Don’t Like Trump

The American National Election Studies 2016 pilot study allows us a unique opportunity to explore whether Bernie supporters would back Trump: it asks respondents both which Democratic and Republican candidate they prefer (with the option to choose none). For the purposes of the analysis explored here, I only examine respondents who choose either Bernie or Hillary and consider themselves either Democrats or Independents (throughout the whole piece). That’s because the fact that respondents are asked which Democratic or Republican candidate they would support regardless of party could distort results (if a large number of Republicans preferred Sanders to Clinton). The goal is to analyze whether Democrats and Independents who support Bernie will end up supporting Trump.

A large share of Clinton and Sanders supporters said they would support “none” of the Republicans (42 percent of both Clinton and Sanders supporters selected this option). Only 9 percent of Sanders supporters selected Trump (compared to 12 percent of Clinton supporters). Sanders supporters were more supportive of Rand Paul (12 percent) and Clinton supporters of Jeb Bush (13 percent).  Another way to explore the issues is to examine what are called “feeling thermometer” scores. Respondents are asked to place themselves on thermometer between 1 and 100, with 1 being the coldest and 100 being the warmest. Examining Bernie and Hillary supporters who identify as either Democrats or Independents, I find that the mean feeling thermometer score for Trump is 23 for Clinton supporters and 18 for Sanders supporters (not a statistically significant difference). That is, both Clinton and Sanders supporters have cold feelings towards Trump.

Bernie Supporters Are Committed To Anti-Racism

One reason that Bernie supporters will hesitate to support Trump is his racist style of politics. White Sanders supporters in the ANES dataset had lower scores on the resentment scale and stereotype scale (indicating that they are less likely to endorse stereotypes or racial resentment) than white Clinton supporters. An analysis of ANES performed by political scientist Jason McDaniel and provided to Salon suggests that these results remain after controlling for other relevant variables. The fact that Sanders supporters tend to be younger could explain the difference (with Ashley Jardina, I showed that younger people are more progressive on issues related to race).

Other sources support the idea that Sanders supporters are more racially liberal: a Reuters poll of more than 7,800 respondents suggests that Bernie supporters are less likely to endorse racial stereotypes than Clinton supporters and Republicans (the results are similar for both the full sample and among only white respondents). The biggest difference was on the question of whether black people are more “criminal” than whites, where 32 percent of Clinton supporters rated black people as more criminal compared to 25 percent of Sanders supporters.

These data belie the notion that Bernie supporters are somehow uncommitted to anti-racism. Further, these data make it incredibly unlikely that large number of Trump supporters will support a campaign that has stretched the bounds of racism in political discourse. Pundits who compare Trump and Sanders are doing their readers a deep disservice and should stop.

Democrats Are More United Now Than in 2008

By historical standards, the primary was not extraordinarily bitter. Sanders refused to go after Clinton on potential scandals (such the e-mail scandal, which he publicly denounced) and rather ran a campaign to push the Democratic party to the left on issues with broad popular support.Indeed, Sander’s endorsement signals a level of party unity that has occasionally evaded Democrats. In 1992, Jerry Brown called Bill Clinton the “prince of sleaze”and refused to endorse Clinton, even after clearly losing the primary. In 1972 the party was openly divided about McGovern, and he ended up being crushed. Though it has quickly slipped into the memory hole, the 2008 primary was quite vicious, and many Hillary supporters refused to support Obama in the general.

Indeed, the relatively low levels of support among Bernie supporters for Trump signal far more party unity among Democrats than existed in the past. Using the Cooperative Congressional Election Study 2008, I find that 24 percent of those who reported voting for Hillary in the Democratic primary supported McCain in the general (74 percent supported Obama).  According to polls from Washington Post-ABC News, in May, 20% of those who backed Bernie in the primary would support Trump in the general. By June, that number had fallen to only 8%. For comparison, in June of 2008, 20% of those who supported Clinton in the primary said they preferred McCain over Obama in the general.

YouGov data provided to me by polling analyst Will Jordansuggests that support for Trump among Sanders supporters has remained in the low teens, with a high of 18 points and a low of 9. The bigger worry would be that Bernie supporters might support a third-party candidate. Over the last two months about a third of Sanders supporters have supported a third party candidate (or “someone else”). However, as Sanders begins to campaign for Clinton, these numbers will likely dwindle. Pew Research Center data suggest a similarnumber for Trump support: 9 percent of Sanders supporters say they would support Trump (on the GOP side, 14 percent of those who did not support Trump in primary said they would support Clinton in the general).

Take policy debates: On a battery of issues, including the minimum wage, upward mobility, the environment, inequality and even birth control, Sanders supporters have more liberal views than Clinton supporters (see chart). The evidence, at least from ANES, does give us reason to believe that Bernie supporters are indeed more progressive than Hillary supporters, but these difference are quite modest, and far less important than the differences between Democrats and Trump.

As I’ve argued, the Democratic Party has moved left in ways that are consistent with public opinion and could help them mobilize single women, Latinos, African-Americans and young people, key constituencies. Partisan preferences tend to be sticky (research suggests partisan identification persists over a long time) so young people drawn to Bernie will likely stay in the Democratic Party for a long time. Young people vote at incredibly low rates, so if Sanders brings them out to the polls, he’s done a huge service for Democrats. Finally, political scientist Gabor Simonovits finds that, “the introduction of extreme alternatives into the public discourse makes mainstream policies on the same side of the spectrum look more centrist in the public eye, thus increasing support for these moderate alternatives.” By introducing a somewhat more radical vision of social democracy to the American stage, Bernie has made more modest incremental change possible.

Many pundits have relied on the unhelpful and offensive trope that Trump resembles Sanders. These takes obfuscate far more than they illuminate, and dismiss a group of young Americans who are incredibly progressive on issues of race, gender and economics. Further, the argument is rooted in the mythology that socialists and leftists don’t have the best interests of progressives or the American people at heart. Though the liberal-left and socialist-left may disagree, it’s absurd to think that large numbers of leftists subscribe to a Leninist, accelerationist view. Rather, most want to pull the country in a more progressive direction. Supporting a racist, misogynistic, warmongering ethno-nationalist won’t do that.

There are things in the primary election to be less than excited about: the tenor of the primary has at many times been divisive, particularly online. However, primaries have always been divisive and by historical standards, the Democratic party is not particularly divided. There are rifts, certainly. But the specter of Trump means that most Democrats take the position, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” It is incredibly unlikely that Bernie supporters will vote for Trump en masse. It’s unhelpful and lazy to suggest they will.

A Shocking Electric Eel Myth, Confirmed

It the turn of the 19th century, German naturalist Alexander von Humboldt was exploring South America when he hired a group of local fishermen to collect electric eels for him. Humboldt had been experimenting with creating batteries, and was eager to find what he called “living electric apparatuses.”

The locals led him to a pool, where, according to Humboldt’s account, they proceeded to fish for the eels using a rather unusual method. Rather than luring the eels with bait, they led some 30 wild horses and mules into the muddy pond filled with electric eels, and once in, kept the horses from fleeing by yelling and wielding long, thin reed canes. The resident eels defended themselves against the invading equids by swimming to the surface, where they then pressed themselves against the horses’ bodies and released electric jolts. Two horses died within the first few minutes. Once the eels exhausted themselves, the fishermen easily reeled in several for Humboldt’s research.

 

Since Humboldt published this account in 1807, no one had ever reported seeing this shocking—pun intended—behavior (the eels leaping out of the water in such a fashion, not the inhumane treatment of the wild horses, that is). Even Kenneth Catania—a MacArthur genius-grant winning neurobiologist and and modern-day electric-eel expert at Vanderbilt University—hadn’t given the story a lot of credence. “I thought, this is a crazy tale from 1800 that’s probably totally exaggerated, if not possibly false,” he said.

That is, until he saw it with his own eyes.

As he was moving his eels from one tank to another using a metal net, he noticed that the eels “would periodically turn around and change from not wanting to be near the net to explosively attacking it by leaping out of the water up the handle,” Catania says. Because he was measuring the electrical output in the aquarium with wires hooked up to a speaker, he could also hear the amount of electricity the eels were releasing shift from the quiet pop-pop-pops used to sense their surroundings, to much higher voltage, crackling volleys. The eels were leaping, and shocking simultaneously. He captured it on video, like the one seen above, using a fake alligator head as simulated predator.

He realized these were the near-mythical leaps Humboldt had described, and published his findings today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. He called the discovery serendipitous. “I love to be able to say that about something trying to leap out and shock you,” he said.

 

Bruce Carlson—a sensory and evolutionary neuroscientist at Washington University in St. Louis, who wasn’t involved in Catania’s research—writes in an email that he was surprised, specifically, by how far the eel was able to launch itself from the water, calling it a “fascinating discovery.”

Catania describes these eels as giant swimming batteries, with the long skinny part of their bodies housing the organs that make the electricity, and the rest of their viscera squished into the front. They only have two settings: a low sensory setting, and a high weapons setting.

Electric eels don’t change how much electricity they emit during their high-voltage volleys, but the voltage passing through a predator (or a voltmeter dressed up as a predator) increases as they leap farther out of the water. That’s because a current passing from the eel’s positively charged head to its negatively charged tail creates a circuit when passing through water, but when moving through air, is more forcefully applied to whatever the eel is attacking.

“[T]his is a beautiful example of how the eel has evolved a fairly simple behavior that exploits the basic physics of electricity,” Carlson says.

“I have been specializing in unusual animals for a lot of my career, and I always underestimate the animals,” Catania says. “They always do something that amazes me.”

Auschwitz Museum Director Reveals ‘Gas Chamber’ Hoax

By P. Samuel Foner
The Spotlight
Volume XIX, Number 2
5-31-4

In a dramatic and unprecedented videotaped interview, Dr. Franciszek Piper, senior curator and director of archives of the Auschwitz State Museum admitted on camera that ‘Krema 1,’ the alleged ‘homicidal gas chamber’ shown off to hundreds of thousands of tourists every year at the Auschwitz main camp, was, in fact, fabricated after the war by the Soviet Union -apparently on the direct orders of Josef Stalin.

What Piper said – in effect and on camera – was that the explosive 1988 Leuchter Report was correct: no homicidal gassings took place in the buildings designated as ‘homicidal gas chambers’ at Auschwitz.

With this admission by none other than the respected head of the Auschwitz State Museum, one of the most sacred ‘facts’ of history has been destroyed. This ‘gas chamber’ is the major historical ‘fact’ on which much of the foreign and domestic policies of all Western nations since WWII are based.

It is the basis for the $100+ billion in foreign aid the United States has poured into the state of Israel since its inception in 1948 – amounting to $16,500 for every man, woman and child in the Jewish state and billions more paid by Germany in ‘reparations’ – not to mention the constructing of Israel’s national telephone, electrical and rail systems…all gifts of the German people. It is the basis for the $10 billion ‘loan’ (read ‘gift’) made to Israel for housing its immigrants in the occupied territories…while Americans sleep on the streets and businesses are bankrupted by the thousands. (Note – As of 2004, not a single ‘loan’ of US tax money made to the state of Israel by Washington has ever been paid back. -ed)

Germany is paying ‘reparations’ – the the United States is making major contributions – to atone for the ‘gassings at Auschwitz’ and elsewhere. If the ‘homicidal gas chambers’ were postwar creations of the Soviets, in which no one was gassed regardless of race, creed, color or country of national origin, then these ‘reparations’ were unnecessary, and were based on fraud.

The videotape on which Dr. Piper makes his revelations was made in mid-1992 by a young Jewish investigator, David Cole and follows 12 years of intensive investigation by dozens of historians, journalists and scientists who have tried to get to the bottom of what really happened at Auschwitz.

Like most Americans, since his youth, Cole had been instructed in the ‘irrefutable fact’ that mass homicidal gassings had taken place at Auschwitz. The number of those executed – also declared irrefutable – was 4.1 million.

Then came the Leuchter Report in 1988 which was followed with an official ‘re-evaluation’ of the total deaths at Auschwitz (down to 1.1 million). As a budding historian – and a Jew – Cole was intrigued.

Previous to 1992, anyone who publicly doubted or questioned the official 4.1 millon ‘gassing’ deaths at Auschwitz was labeled an anti-semite, neo-nazi skinhead at the very least. Quietly, because of revisionist findings, the official figure was lowered to 1.1 million. No mention was made of the missing 3 million.

The Cole videotape interview proves that the people who run the Auschwitz State Museum had made a practice of fabricating ‘proofs’ of homicidal gassings. Keep in mind that over the years millions of tourists have been told that ‘Krema 1’ is in its original state, while officials knew that ‘original state’ is a ie.

The political, religious, fiancial and historical ramifications of this proof of no homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz cannot be measured. Coupled with the Leuchter Report, the Cole interview with Dr. Piper on videotape proves that what Western governments have taught about the Auschwitz gas chamber since WWII is a lie. It proves that what televangelists such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have been telling their flocks is simply not true.

No one, regardless of race, creed, color or country of national origin was gassed to death in any building so designated at Auschwitz. And without ‘homicidal gas chambers’ at Auschwitz, where is the reasoning for the special treatment of the state of Israel?

Note – This is excerpted from the orginal, much longer article by P. Samuel Foner.