Martyn Brown — Daily Express May 2, 2013

It lays bare the effect of decades of immigration and claims that white Britons will be in a minority by 2066.

A mass influx of migrants has given the UK the fastest-rising percentage of ethnic minority and foreign-born populations.

The report – which also reveals the huge impact of Labour’s open-door policy to immigration between 1997 and 2010 – says foreigners and non-white Britons living here will double by 2040 and make up one third of the UK population.

Report author Professor David Coleman said: “On current trends European populations will become more ethnically diverse, with the possibility that today’s majority ethnic groups will no longer comprise a numerical majority.”

The findings mean that the UK could overtake the United States as the world’s melting pot, with fewer people describing themselves as British or white.

The projection comes after David Cameron sought to reassure voters that the influx of migrants from Bulgaria and Romania will be “nothing like” the levels seen when Poland joined the European Union.

The professor of demography at Oxford made his findings from a study of international population projections, carried out for the academic organisation Migration Observatory.

In the study, minorities are classed as people who also describe themselves in censuses as Irish or another nationality, as well as by their skin colour.

Prof Coleman said migration has become the “primary driver of demographic change”.

According to the data, around a fifth of people in the UK are non-white or non-British. But this is expected to rise to a quarter by 2025, a third by 2040 and reach up to 38 per cent by 2050.

The increase from 2010 to 2050 in the UK – by 22 percentage points – is the highest of the main western countries analysed.

Over the same period, the proportion of non-whites and migrants in Denmark will rise from 10 per cent to 14 per cent.

Declining birth rates among white Britons is another factor.

In England and Wales, 25 per cent of births are to foreign-born mothers, the report said. A similar trend is seen in France and Germany.

The calculations are based on the current net rates of immigration, which have been running at more than 200,000 a year.

Prof Coleman pointed to a study which suggests “the crossover for the whole country when the combined population of all ethnic minority groups together would exceed the population of white British will occur at around 2066.

However, he says the Coalition’s plans to limit net migration could have an enduring effect on the impact on the make-up of the British population. Immigration campaigners yesterday raised concerns about newcomers’ ability to integrate into society, and their impact on the health and education systems.

The UK’s population is estimated to hit 77 million by 2051.

Andrew Green, from campaign group MigrationWatch, praised the importance of the study.

He said: “It brings out the consequences if the mass immigration triggered by Labour is not rapidly brought under control.

“Nearly four million immigrants have arrived since 1997 and the impact is felt in maternity units, housing and primary schools.

“We now need concrete proposals to reduce immigration. No less important is the task of integrating such huge numbers into society.”

The Government has promised to control the impact of new arrivals from Romania and Bulgaria next year.

Mr Cameron said the huge number coming from Poland since it joined the EU in 2004 – put at 1.1 million – was due to Britain putting no controls on immigration. He said: “When a country joins the European Union you can put in place transitional controls. You can say to that country, ‘You can’t all come here for the first seven years’.

“The last government, when Poland and a lot of other countries joined, didn’t put those controls in place.

“Because other European countries did, we did have an enormous influx of people from Poland and those other countries. This time, because the transitional controls have been put in, we are not lifting the restrictions on Romania and Bulgaria alone, it’s happening across Europe.

“So I don’t think we’ll have anything like the situation we had in the Polish situation.”

Source

Steve Doughty — Daily Mail April 26, 2013

Children who are given anti-racism lessons in school are more likely to be intolerant outside the classroom, a major study found yesterday.

It said accusing white pupils of racism causes animosity, and discussing sensitive ethnic concerns such as honour killings paints minority group children in a bad light.

The survey said children who live in mixed neighbourhoods are often free of hostility towards other racial groups.

But it found that ‘when more attention in class is being paid to the multicultural society, the liberalising effect of positive contact in class on youngsters’ xenophobic attitude decreases’.

The project carried out in the Netherlands comes at a time of controversy over the place of multiculturalism – which blames Britain for historic racism and demands the encouragement of minority cultures – in the national curriculum and teaching in British schools.

Education Secretary Michael  Gove has been under fire from Left-wing academics over plans to stop teaching teenagers about topics such as ‘the wide cultural, social and ethnic diversity of Britain from the Middle Ages to the twentieth century and how this has helped shape Britain’s identity’.

Instead, in future pupils will be taught much more British history. The study, published in the European Sociological Review, was based on a survey of 1,444 pupils aged 14 and 15 in ten schools in the city of Nijmegen.

The teenagers, drawn from different class and racial backgrounds, and with differing academic abilities, were questioned on their attitudes to those from different ethnic backgrounds and about multicultural teaching in their schools.

It said boys tended to be more intolerant of other groups than girls, and intolerance was greatest among those with strong religious or ethnic identity, among those from Turkish or Moroccan backgrounds, and those with the lowest educational achievements.

But it said the teaching of multiculturalism had an ‘unexpected negative effect’.

It added: ‘The impact of positive inter- ethnic contact in class disappears  or even reverses when multiculturalism is more emphasised during  lessons. Discussing discrimination and the customs and habits of  other cultures during lessons affects the youngsters’ xenophobic attitudes indirectly.’

The report added that bad feelings among minority groups could be generated by discussion of topics such as honour killings or female  circumcision. Animosity could also be caused by ‘a one-sided offender- victim approach to racism’.

The findings echo the views of Bradford head teacher Ray Honeyford, who was driven from his job nearly 30 years ago over his claim that multicultural teaching was harming pupils.

Mr Honeyford said that pupil performance was hindered by ‘the notion of the multi-racial curriculum urged by the authorities, and of making colour and race significant, high-profile issues in the classroom’.

Patricia Morgan, an author on  the family and education, said  yesterday: ‘If you rub children’s noses in their supposed racism, they resent it.

‘Pupils are being accused of things they haven’t thought or done. Multiculturalism attempts to manipulate children’s thoughts, beliefs and emotions, it amounts to indoctrination, and it doesn’t work. It is counter-productive.

‘This study shows that when people try to manipulate children’s minds, it bounces back on them.’

Source

Jews, only 1.8 percent of college age population, comprise an astounding 25 percent of Harvard and Ivy League enrollment.

David Duke was not invited to a recent White nationalist conference because he focuses on the role of Organized Jewry in the subjugation of American Christians. He refers to this as the “big hairy gorilla in the room.” If White nationalists are afraid even to mention the J-word, the Illuminati have nothing to fear. They can stop accumulating ammunition at their Dept. of Homeland Tyranny.

by David Duke – “The Big Hairy Gorilla in the Room” (abridged & edited by henrymakow.com) March 29, 2013

The most critical purview of racial discrimination in America is in the elite universities of the United States. Harvard and the Ivy League are the primary source for the rulers of the rest of academia, as well as media, finance and politics. In short, it is the source of the real elite of America.

In the elite universities of the United States, European Americans are far more victims of racial discrimination in favor of Jews, than of discrimination on behalf of African Americans or Hispanics.

Continues …

For the past two years Ireland’s immigration policy has been in the hands of Alan Shatter, a Jew and an outspoken partisan of Israel. Alan Shatter, born and bred in Dublin of Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe, has made it Irish policy to increase Third World immigration to the Emerald Isle. As Minister of Justice, Equality, and Defence, Shatter is exerting his considerable clout to skew the Republic’s Middle East policy, formerly supportive of the Palestinians and critical of Israel, toward Zionist aims. 

Before Shatter, the Irish government had taken steps to reduce non-European immigration, including abolishing automatic citizenship for children born to foreigners in Ireland and drastically reducing the admission of asylum seekers. Since taking office in early 2011, after his Fine Gael party ousted the ruling Fianna Fail amid Ireland’s continuing economic woes, Shatter has busied himself with increasing the numbers of Africans and Asians resident in Ireland.

Immigration to Ireland from outside Europe during 2011 was twice that of the previous year. Last year, the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service granted visas to 91 percent of the 88,000 non-Europeans who applied for them (citizens of the twenty-six other member states of the European Union can travel to Ireland without having to obtain a visa). An additional 115,000 migrants from outside Europe were given permission to remain in Ireland in 2012, with India, China, Nigeria, Turkey, and the Philippines among the top six countries of origin. To be sure, the number of permits to non-Europeans to reside in Ireland has declined over the previous two years—but only because Shatter’s ministry has been granting them citizenship, at several times the rate of the preceding years.

Shatter is aggressively promoting new measures to further increase non-European immigration, including making immigration easier for investors and entrepreneurs and their families. More ominously still, he is working industriously to replace existing Irish legislation on foreign immigration, including applications for asylum, with a bill that will, according to Shatter’s stated priorities for the current year, will “radically reform and modernize” Irish immigration law. 

Shatter has attempted to veil his immigration policies under the subterfuge of streamlining administrative procedures. After all, while exposed to the same globalist propaganda and pressures as America, the Republic of Ireland is a small and still largely homogeneous nation. It is also a land in which cant about “a nation of immigrants” won’t sell: until only a couple of decades ago, Ireland was a nation of emigrants. And today, Irish unemployment continues to hover at around 15 percent, twice the stated rate in the U.S.

What was Shatter to do? Why play the Holocaust trump card, of course!  

Now, Ireland has not been known for its role in World War II anti-Jewish measures. Like most countries at the time, however, including Germany’s fiercest opponents, Ireland was reluctant to accept large numbers of Jewish immigrants.

So, last fall, in a speech in honor of Raoul Wallenberg, the Swedish businessman who traveled to Hungary at American instigation in 1944 to impede deportation of Jews to German concentration camps, Ireland’s Jewish immigration czar attempted to justify flooding his homeland with Third World immigrants by attacking Ireland’s World War II immigration policy:

There were many who did nothing in the face of the industrialised genocide and the destruction of European Jewish civilisation. Indeed the Irish Government of the day sat on its hands. And even after the death camps were liberated, the Irish Government denied Jews refuge in Ireland.

It won’t surprise TOO readers to learn that, for all his efforts to pass as a champion of universalist ethics (“It is not enough to bear witness. We must also honor our fundamental moral obligation to protect our common humanity against inhumanity.”), Shatter has been anything but a protector of the Palestinians’ humanity. What may surprise is that, in a nation virtually devoid of Jews, and one which has been more supportive of the Palestinians than most Western countries, the extent to which Shatter has been a strident voice in defense of Israel’s ruthless policies, in the Gaza Strip or on the West Bank.

As a member of the Irish legislature, Shatter defended Israel’s brutal 2009 invasion of Gaza. He opposed the “freedom flotillas” organized in 2010 and 2011 to breach the Israeli blockade of the already impoverished Gaza strip, although each of the aid expeditions included a ship from Ireland (although Shatter did a brief turnabout after Israeli commandos killed nine men aboard a ship in the first flotilla). He has opposed visas for members of organizations hostile to Israeli policies, and resoundingly condemned calls for the Irish to boycott performances in Israel as “cultural fascism.”

It would be interesting to know what Ireland’s minister of justice thinks of Israel’s recent strict measures to control and to curtail Third World immigration—but he seems to have maintained a prudent silence in that regard.

Shatter has not merely parroted Israel’s justifications for oppressive policies aimed at preserving Israel as a Jewish state for a Jewish people, he has in effect served as a second Israeli ambassador to Ireland, functioning without the diplomatic constraints of the former. 

We may take it, then, that Ireland’s Jewish minister of justice is moved by something other than an abstract sense of fairness that, however misguidedly, invites the world’s “wretched refuse” (as a very influential tribune of indiscriminate immigration once called it) to Ireland’s shores. Seen in the light of his dedication to a dogma that the United Nations General Assembly once declared racist, Shatter’s promotion of Third World immigration, as well as his long career as a lawyer promoting birth control, abortion, and gay marriage—takes on a more sinister hue, as do such recent initiatives as his condemning Ireland’s national television network for failing to depict today’s “intercultural Ireland” rather than the homogeneous Irish people of decades past.

In other words, Shatter has at best dual loyalties—but his double standard on Israel and Ireland would seem to indicate that his loyalty is primarily, if not exclusively, to the Zionist state rather than the Emerald Isle. What factor his Jewish loyalties play in promoting an immigration that is at most minimally Jewish, yet increasingly non-White, to the land of his birth remains an unanswered, though provocative, question. Nevertheless, Shatter’s attitudes are entirely in sync with those of the organized Jewish diaspora communities throughout the West. As often noted in TOO (see also here, p. 241ff), Jewish attitudes on immigration in the West are best explained as Jewish ethnic strategizing motivated by hostility toward the traditional people and culture of the West because of historical anti-Semitism (e.g., Shatter’s construction of Ireland’s role in the Holocaust) combined with fear that ethnically homogeneous populations may eventually rise up against Jews.

As noted, Alan Shatter is also Ireland’s minister of defence. In that role, he has announced that Ireland will continue to buy arms from Israel. As one of his critics has observed, “It is not unusual for a Defence Minister to be steeped in nationalism, but for the ‘nation’ in question to be a foreign state, and a rogue state at that, must be unprecedented.”

It’s hard to imagine the mirror image of Alan Shatter in Israel. Just imagine one Alan O’Slattery, devoted to promoting non-Jewish immigration to the Zionist state and putting the military and diplomatic needs of Ireland above those of the nation he serves, wielding comparable power in Israel!

But it’s not so difficult to imagine Alan Shatter finding a ministerial role in yet another country. In the eyes of John McCain and Lindsay Graham, Shatter might well be eminently more qualified to serve as U.S. Secretary of Defense than Chuck Hagel. After all, Hagel has the wrong loyalties, and Shatter has the right ones.

Source

Rosa Parks was not a simple seamstress whose lonely act of defiance in 1955 sparked the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement. In fact, she was a trained Communist Party (CPUSA) activist.

Her refusal to move to the back of the bus wasn’t a spontaneous gesture, but a provocation organized by her longtime employer, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).  The white man in the picture was a sympathetic reporter.

In 2005, Rosa Parks’ body lay in state under the Capitol Rotunda; an honor accorded only 29 times in US history, to people like Abraham Lincoln, John Kennedy, and most recently Ronald Reagan. 

This treatment illustrates how the American public is routinely deceived and betrayed by its political leaders and mass media. The New York Times obituary said her arrest “turned a very private woman into a reluctant symbol and torch bearer.” President Clinton said her action “ignited the most significant social movement in American history.” 

THE PATTERN OF ELITE DECEPTION

Continues …

The problem with getting women to accept their passive nature and allow men to lead,  as you suggest in “Hidden Knowledge of Heterosexuality” is that many white men no longer can provide for their families due to “Affirmative Action.”

Women are deciding to either go it alone or marry someone that can get a decent job.  I’ve heard countless times American women expressing prejudice toward India for arranged marriages. Is this any different?  Double standard.

White men – the majority of men in America – are being held out of jobs.  I am married to a woman who happens to have two sisters. All three are married.  All three have jobs that pay 50k or more.  It’s so easy for women to get jobs.

Us three husbands all have more education than the girls and are older but cannot find work.  We have to take odd-job work and end up spending more than we make on the supplies.  This sucks.

Continues …

Israel Recognizes its Medical Crimes

In which language should one speak to be understood? On January 27, 2013, Israel formally admitted having injected Ethiopian-Jewish women with venom against their will, so that they won’t get pregnant. Israel brought them to Israel in a propaganda-program aimed at showing the world that Jews are not racists, and then applied Nazi techniques to ensure that they won’t reproduce. Several years ago, I published Israel’s Eugenics Program: Dr. Mengele Blues, which describes the frightening “Dor Yeshorim” (roughly “Straightening Generation”) Israeli eugenics program, who seeks to destroy embryos who do not fit the Zionist dream. Not surprisingly, the program originates directly in the work of Dr Epstein, a Jewish aide of Nazi Dr Mengele (see The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing And The Psychology Of Genocide ).

Dr. Josef Mengele was a German SS officer and a physician in the Nazi concentration camp Auschwitz-Birkenau, where he supervised the selection of arriving prisoners. He continued his research on heredity in that camp, especially in the field of identical twins. Less prominent in Israeli textbooks is the fact that he recruited a Czech named Berthold Epstein, a Jewish pediatrician to help him. The latter fully cooperated in non-consensual experiments on humans carried out in the camp. “Cooperated” is not the exact word to define his crimes. He proactively “proposed research on the treatment of noma” (page 296 in the linked book) and led non-consensual research on humans. Quietly, this became the basis for the Israeli “Dor Yeshorim” program, a clear example of that state crimes against humanity.

Yet, the arrogance of the Israeli doctors worked against them. For many years they kept injecting Depo-Provera every three months to Ethiopian women, against the women’s will. This venom is a long-acting hormonal contraceptive birth control drug, which has severe side effects, including irreversible bone-loss. Oddly, the USA suffers of a related problem. Dorothy Roberts claims that black teenagers in the US using birth control use Depo-Provera at a far higher rate than white teenagers because they are disproportionately targeted for the least safe, cheapest contraceptives⁺. These Crypto-Nazi Israeli doctors didn’t realize that these women will eventually learn to speak Hebrew. Afterwards, they began shouting. Last December, the Israeli Educational Television broadcast a research by Gal Gabai in a program called “Vacuum,” which exposed 35 testimonies of Ethiopian women who were violated in such a fashion by the Israeli doctors. “They threatened not to allow us into Israel,” Amawish Elena—one of the victims—described the first time she was poisoned by an Israeli doctor in Ethiopia.

Against all expectations—that network is notorious for its shallowness—the program was good. It was so good, that lawyer Sharona Elyahu from the Association for Civil Rights in Israel picked up the story and acted swiftly. She forced Professor Roni Gimzo—General Manager of Israel’s Ministry of Health—to react publicly in Haaretz on the abovementioned date. Until recently, the Ministry had refused to acknowledge the systematic violation of these women by the State. Yet, before the interview, Mr. Gimzo sent a public letter to the relevant organizations in Israel ordering them to stop immediately the venom injections to Ethiopian women. His language showed no repentance: “Without stating a position or stating facts regarding the claims of this issue, I ask to guide all the doctors working with women…not to renew the use of Depo-Provera with Ethiopian women…” he wrote. The broadcast showed that in the last decade, the fertility of Ethiopians in Israel has decreased in over 50%. Dr. Gimzo, Hitler is proud of you! “They told us that we shouldn’t have children, that those who have children suffer in their life… in Israel you will work for your food, it will be difficult for you, that is what they told us… we got the injection, we got it every three months. We didn’t want it. We said ‘no’ and opposed it. We said that we didn’t want it…” said one of the violated women to the Educational Television.

How many times does one need to repeat the truth until the feeble minds of the violating doctors understand the facts? Which language should one use? Hebrew, German? I won’t repeat the arguments presented in Israel’s Eugenics Program: Dr. Mengele Blues, except for reminding these eminent doctors that Ludwig van Beethoven would have been killed by them on the grounds that he had a tendency to become deaf. However, these people listen only to their criminal music. The sad truth is that this is not an issue of language or the number of repetitions. Israel probably has a hundred times more doctors than a normal society needs. Most of these salary-men state-workers desperately seek for ways to justify their salaries, honors, and pensions; essentially that was the way they justified their crimes to the women (“in Israel you will need to earn your food…”). The inevitable result is a Nazi-revival period characterized by the inflation of unjustifiable treatments. Mr. Gizmo, your beloved Fuhrer is so proud of you…

Source

This post began the way a good number of them do: an enterprising Israeli noticed a newspaper article had been available online for an hour or a day or a year and then, all of a sudden, it disappeared. What happened? Who ya gonna call (to paraphrase Ghostbusters)? Who else? So thanks to David Sheen, the enterprising videographer, and documentarian of Israel’s anti-African race hate, for noting the following mysterious disappearance.

A Jerusalem Post report from 2010 featured some especially noxious remarks by Shas founder, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, likening non-Jews to donkeys whose job was to serve Jews in the days of the messiah. This Nana-Channel 10 report features video of the former chief rabbi’s original statements. Here are a few passages translated:

The Goyim were only created to serve us. If that wasn’t the case they [Goyim] would have no place in the world.

…Jews earn eternal life in the days of the messiah. Goyim don’t. Like all people, they must die. But they earn long life. Why? Think about someone’s donkey. If it dies, he loses it, the money. The same with a servant [ or "the one who serves you"]. You also lose money [when he dies]. That’s why Goyim are given long life so they may work well for the Jews.

…Why do Goyim exist? So that they work [for Jews]. They thresh, they plant, they harvest, while we [Jews] sit like effendi and eat [our fill]. That’s why Goyim were created.

The remarks are especially important in the context of the Israeli work force which is filled with poor migrant labor from around the world, but especially from Asia and Africa. Without this cheap, victimized workd force, Israel’s economy (especially the agricultural sector) couldn’t function.

It’s no accident that some of the most virulently racist language attacking African refugees in Israel has come from the Shas interior minister and disciple of Rabbi Yosef, Eli Yishai. In this sense, Yishai is giving license to his followers to incite such hate through sermons like this one.

The remarks also impact (or should) the close relationship between the evangelical Christian Zionist movement and the Likud-settler political agenda. Though it’s doubtful anything can break the hold of this ideological kinship, at least true believers like Hagee and his flock should know that they’re held in deep disdain by Rabbi Yosef and tens of thousands of his true believers.

In the past few weeks the Post article, which had been publicly-accessible since publication, vanished. When clicked, the old link brought a reader back to the Post’s main page. There wasn’t even a Page Not Found message. Just gone. Why?

I called the Post and spoke briefly to the editor of the online edition, who asked me to send an e mail. After I did, I received a response from Steve Linde, the editor, who wrote that he ordered the article expunged after receiving a condemnation of the Rabbi’s remarks from a reader who was affronted by them and believed they would encourage anti-Semitism. Because of the supposed danger that this posed to Jews and the Post’s own responsibility for fomenting such violence, the central European reader, in stilted Germanic-phrased English, insisted that it be removed:

The speech [by Rabbi Yosef] is frightening and should be removed from access. The content is (1) not true Judaism and (2) harmful to the Jews all over the world.

1. His sayings violate the European Convention on Human Rights – which Israel is committed to.

2. Such speech is doubtless to be categorized as definite hate-speech, it would be prosecuted due to Criminal Law in European States.

We, the Jews in the Galut, seek protection by law enforcement against hate speech nowadays from Muslims and Nazis. We, Jews, should therefore not be excepted from those standards, we claim for.

3. We, the Jews in the Galut, are sensitive against Hate Speech specialy in Europe, after experiences of Nazism and Antisemitism.

4. That Rabbi is irresopnsible about the Jews in the Galut, but also for the Jews living in Israel. Any withdrawal or correction of his words is missing. Your distribution extends the broadcasting.

5. The source and proof of his sayings is not retraceable as based on thora. It is contradicting to core principles of humanity and equal diginity of men…

7. The resonsibility of Broadcasters is to be claimed, for distributing Hate Speech uncontrolled. We criticise muslim media for broad-casting hate against jews. How are ours ?

8. It is the responsibility of competing media, as JP, to claim, that such “nonsense thora” which is merely “succed out of the fingers;” deserves to be daemonized.

9. It is in the responsibility of the Official Israel, the Cabinet, to mark clearly and expressively her distance from such speech, which its intentions are not and against the standards of a “Jewish State of Israel” they claim for. Because : R. Yossef is not just a irrelevant “stibl darschan”.

10. It is the obligation of Israeli Prosecutors to investigate and check the criminal charge of the speech, as they would have to act in case of a muslim hate speech of that category.

11. It is the responsibility of the Chief Rabbanut to correct and to eliminate such pseudology as being not part of the Jewish Religion and Jewish Self-understandig.

Further they have to provide to the public in the future responsible content, which is correcting that wrong attituded ideology.

12. That Rabbi destroys any credibility of believers in Judaism. Belivers and Chilonim have the duty and obligation to ban explicite and clearly such poisoning snaky bits.

13. I cannot understand, why that Rabbi is harming the identity of Jews all over the world, which do have to stand their belive in the eyes of toleant goim and against the critic friends of jews. If due to his curled logic, we deserve to be humiliated – in retorsion.

14. I cannot understand, why I have to defend my suchwise discredited jeopardized Jewishness against goim, who will refer to his authoratiative Speech.

15. Expecting some consequences, pls delete your report from J.P. accessibility

Though I sympathize with some of the arguments offered by the reader, especially the ones critical of Yosef’s tenuous connection to actual Jewish sources, the stance of the reader and the Post’s subsequent actions should be seen in a far different context. What is the purpose of a newspaper? Or to be more explicit, a Jewish newspaper? Are those purposes different? If so, why?

Is it the responsibility of a Jewish newspaper to protect the sensibilities of its readers? To censor from its pages news that is either disturbing or troubling or even possibly dangerous in some ill-defined way (I’m not talking about an article that reveals personal information that might put a specific person in danger)? Is the Jewish periodical’s primary duty as a journalistic enterprise to Judaism or journalism? What if there is a conflict between the two?

Clearly, the Post editor chose the easy way out on this one. He could’ve engaged with the reader’s suggestions and asked for an editorial denouncing Yosef’s comments. He could’ve even asked for another news article in which the reporter queried the police as to whether the rabbi’s drasha violated Israeli law. He couldn’t asked for comment from Israeli religious authorities on the statements to put them into a more critical context.

Instead, he opted to take the article down. Among the many reasons that this was a terrible idea: a newspaper is the media forum of record for a community. It tells us what we did and said on any given day in time. It is a reflection of who we were at that moment. If we decide to fudge and shape that record by removing the nasty bits then we will leave a distorted record of who we were. Instead of showing the real people of our time, we show a prettied up version. One that doesn’t rock the boat. That doesn’t overly upset anyone. It’s history gussified, a photo retouched in order to remove wrinkles and other blemishes.

If Jewish leaders espouse racist views should we expunge them from the record and pretend they didn’t happen? Or should we address them head on and rebut them vigorously? Do we take the easy way or the hard? Does it serve the nation for Israel’s leading English-language paper to refinish and retouch contemporary Israeli reality?

I don’t mean only to single out the Post here since all Jewish media, almost without exception, is guilty of this practice in one form or another. The allegiance isn’t to journalistic principle, accuracy or even truth, but rather to some polite, unthreatening consensus of who we are as Jews. Jewish newspapers don’t rock the boat. They generally tilt pretty far to the right in terms of pro-Israel views, but they try to avoid the extremes (at least as they see them). Don’t offend the sensibilities of the readers, seems to be the rallying cry.

This isn’t journalism. It’s boosterism. It’s looking at our existence as Jews through blue and white colored glasses. It does no one any favors.

Sarah Benton of Jews for Justice for Palestinians pointed out that Haaretz covered this same story in 2010 and thankfully has different journalistic standards, as its story remains available here.

When Jewish historians looks back in 100 years over these times, the publications that will be least useful to them will be the ones that pulled their punches, that censored or tailored their coverage to what they thought people wanted to read instead of what really happened.

In the particular case of this story, Linde’s decision was especially unfortunate. Yosef is a former chief rabbi and the founder of the most powerful religious party serving in the Knesset. He is a political king maker. Even Bibi Netanyahu consults with the rabbi and solicits his blessing for an attack on Iran. What this man says has vital bearing on Israeli society. If he’s a stark-raving racist lunatic, then expunging his remarks from the online record does a terrible disservice to the Israeli public who ought to have a record of his remarks to consult.

When pro-Israel advocates point to the perceived outrages of the nation’s Arab enemies they love to talk about anti-Semitism, racism, genocide. All the normal tricks of the trade of the political spinmaster. But the Post has done political debate a great disservice by making it less possible for researchers to know that there is as much racism and ignorance on the Israeli side as there is in the Arab world. The only way we can come to an accommodation in the long run is by recognizing that each side is wrong and each side is right. None is all wrong, none all right. To know this, to understand that we are each flawed, allows us to come to terms with each other eventually. What the Post has done has made it harder for Jews to recognize their own flaws in order to combat and rectify them.

Further, Israel is in the middle of election season. Shas, Yosef’s political party, promises to play a key role in determining the next government. Again, voters deserve the right to know everything the candidates and their mentors say on issues of import to the nation.

One may argue that at his advanced age, Yosef may be barely in control of his mental or verbal faculties (his speech is barely intelligible and required Hebrew subtitles for TV viewers). Like Pat Robertson, he’s prone to frequent embarrassing gaffes of this type. These incidents invariably hold the Rabbi and his movement up to scorn. But they do nothing to distance his followers from him. Their adoration has no bearing on logic or reason. Which is part of the danger of the movement he leads.

Despite his infirmities, what Yosef says matters. It has impact on the nation. It should not be cleansed. It should be seen and read and debated.

Finally, lest any bona fide anti-Semites be reading this, know that Ovadia Yosef is about as authentic a representative of any authentically Jewish tradition as any radical Islamist cleric is of Islam or John Hagee is of Christianity. In other words, before you make the claim that what Yosef says represents what most Jews believe you better be ready to make the same claim of Muslims and Christians. We know that these individuals, no matter how noxious their views and how many followers they have, do not represent more than a small minority of the adherents of their particular faith.

I do concede that Yosef is especially dangerous because he is well-connected both religiously and politically. His views do reflect those of many Israelis, (but not of most Jews, not nearly). It’s one of the special themes in fact of this blog: warning readers of Israel’s decline into a vortex of racism and hate. But let’s be careful not to overgeneralize.

I’ve captured a screenshot of the Google cache version of the page and featured it here so you can read the original story.

Source

A woman who told police she had been subjected to a racist attack in which three men set her alight and scrawled KKK on her car was lying, according to US investigators.

“The wounds were self-inflicted,” said Kyle Hanrahan, a spokesman for the FBI’s Louisiana bureau.

Sharmeka Moffitt, 20, was seriously burned in the fire and remains in a critical condition.

She called police from a park in the town of Winnsboro on Sunday night and told them three men in white hoodies had doused her with a flammable liquid and ignited it.

The letters KKK, for the white supremacist organisation Ku Klux Klan, and a racial slur were scrawled on her car in what appeared to be toothpaste.

According to local media, investigators decided the burns were self-inflicted after finding Ms Moffitt’s fingerprints on a cigarette lighter and lighter fluid.

Louisiana’s KATC News reported her family had issued a statement saying: “Our family is devastated to learn the circumstances surrounding our daughter’s injuries.

“While this was not the resolution we had expected, it is a resolution, and we appreciate the thorough investigation by the local and state police as well as federal agencies.

“We are sincerely sorry for any problems this may have caused and wish to express our appreciation for the outpouring of love, prayers and support we have received from friends, acquaintances, church organisations and government officials.”

The FBI was called in to assist local authorities because the apparent attack was initially considered a possible hate crime.

Source

Barack Obama‘s “African American Education Initiative” creates a new Federal bureaucracy. One of its goals will be to stop disciplinary action against black public school students who misbehave.

Back in 2007 I had two white female public school teachers tell me why Barack Obama was desperately needed as president. They said that black male students have no male role models. If only Obama was elected, black male students would improve their behavior and academic performance, they claimed.

In many major cities, black academic performance has actually gotten worse since Obama took office. We have also seen the dramatic nationwide rise of black teen mob violence under the Obama administration.

On July 26th Obama signed an executive order titled the “African American Education Initiative.” The order essentially gives a green light for black students to misbehave in public schools. In two places, Obama’s executive order calls on schools to reduce the number disciplinary actions taken against blacks students. The order specifically calls on schools too “not rely on methods that result in disparate use of disciplinary tools.”

To comply, public schools would have to engage in a racial quota system of discipline. The executive order will create a new Federal bureaucracy to pressure school systems to comply with the president’s demands. The executive order makes no mention of any effort to get black students to improve behavior.

There is a reason why blacks are more likely to be disciplined in school. Black students are more likely to misbehave. The U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that there is a huge crime rate disparity between blacks and other racial groups.

Based on those disparities, one should expect that there would be a disparity in frequency of bad behavior between black and white school students in the public schools.

The DOJ reports that the homicide rate in the black community is nine times greater than in the white community. Between 1976 and 2005, the DOJ reported that blacks averaged 13 percent of the population, but accounted for 59 percent of felony homicide charges and 53 percent of non-felony manslaughter charges. It also might come as no surprise that 93-95 percent of black homicides victims are killed by a black perpetrator. Most of the rest are killed by a Latino perpetrator.

In reality, blacks are already less likely to be suspended for bad behavior than whites. Often, white teachers and administrators are afraid to discipline black students for fear of being called “racists.” Even some black school officials are afraid of being labeled a “sell-out” by black students.

The executive order also states that black students “lack equal access” to education. This statement, by the White House, is outrageous and easily disproved. Across the nation, majority black public schools routinely receive more funding per pupil than majority white public schools.

Washington DC is the perfect example. It has the highest average per pupil funding of any public schools in the nation. It also has the blackest public schools in the nation. Yet, this over-funding of black students yields no results in terms of academic improvement. DC public schools are widely touted as the worst performing schools in the entire industrialized world.

If DC was a state, it would be the state with the highest average per pupil expenditure and the lowest average performance. More money does not equal better test scores.

Missouri leads the nation in its black/white state funding gap. The state has spent billions of dollars in a failed effort to improve the academic performance of black students. Majority black schools in St. Louis and Kansas City have Olympic sized swimming pools, lavish theater and music departments, and state of the art computer labs. Per pupil spending is over double that of poor majority white public schools in the Ozark Mountain region of Missouri.

Once again, we see that the over-funding of black students yields no benefits. The very poor white students in the Ozarks have none of the lavish amenities enjoyed by the black students. However, the poor whites in the Ozarks outperform the better funded black students in the big cities.

Ohio has some pretty outrageous examples. Cincinnati’s majority black public schools are lavished with state funding that far exceeds what goes to schools with a poor white student body. Yet last February, the state launched a program to give Cincinnati schools even more money to pay students not to drop out.

In Chicago, majority black public schools have so much extra money they are hiring speakers from militant Black Power groups to give “motivational speeches.” (see video)

The reality is that there is a massive transfer of wealth from white taxpayers to black public school students. Obama’s blatantly false claims are an insult to all white people who pay taxes.

Obama’s excuse making will only continue to make things worse.

Source

Four African migrants have been hurt in a suspected arson attack on their home in Jerusalem, Israeli police say.

The fire was started at the entrance to the two-story building on Jaffa Street in the city center after 03:00 (00:00 GMT), trapping the 10 Eritreans inside.

Graffiti found at the scene read: “We want the foreigners out.”

There is increasing argument and dissent in Israel over what to do with the 60,000 Africans who have entered the country illegally in recent years.

On Sunday, a new law came into force allowing immigration authorities to detain illegal migrants for up to three years.

‘Targeted specifically’

The four Eritreans injured in Monday’s attack were taken to hospital with burns on their hands and suffering from smoke inhalation.

Israeli police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld told the BBC’s Focus on Africa program: “We believe that those individuals from the African foreign community were targeted specifically.”

He said the building had graffiti sprayed on its walls saying: “We want the foreigners out.”

In recent weeks there have been violent scenes in Israeli towns and cities where many migrants live and work, reports the BBC’s Wyre Davies in Jerusalem.

In south Tel Aviv, in particular, African-run businesses have been attacked and many migrants have been abused in the streets, our correspondent adds.

“This was the first incident which has taken place… on a level of a specific attack,” Mr Rosenfeld said.

The police spokesman said that of the 60,000 illegal immigrants living in Israel, an estimated 35,000 of them lived in the Tel Aviv area and about 5,000 in Jerusalem.

‘Infiltrators’

In a newspaper interview on Friday, Interior Minister Eli Yishai referred to African migrants as a demographic threat who could “end the Zionist dream”.

“We don’t need to import more problems from Africa,” Mr Yishai, leader of the religious Shas party, told Maariv.

“Most of those people arriving here are Muslims who think the country doesn’t belong to us, the white man.”

One politician from the governing Likud Party recently compared asylum seekers to “a cancer.”

While such language has been deplored by human rights groups, politicians from right-wing parties in the governing coalition say something has to be done about illegal immigrants who are mainly from Sudan, South Sudan and Eritrea, our correspondent says.

They blame the migrants for a rise in crime and say they could eventually undermine Israel’s Jewish majority.

The Israeli government also dismisses claims that the migrants, who cross the Sinai desert at the rate of 2,000 a month, are fleeing persecution in their own countries.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently described African migrants as “infiltrators” who had come here for economic reasons and who were a problem that had to be “solved”.

The new law will allow immigration authorities to detain illegal migrants for up to three years, without trial or deportation.

An interior ministry spokesman said it would hopefully stem the flow of Africans entering Israel illegally across the vast desert border with Egypt.

Source

A contingent of border guards has been sent in to help maintain law and order in Tel Aviv neighbourhoods rocked by race riots, a police spokesman said on Friday.

“A unit of border guards comprising 60 men, including 40 police officers, has been deployed in south Tel Aviv to ensure order,” Micky Rosenfeld told AFP.

The riots on Wednesday night in impoverished neighbourhoods around the city’s central bus station erupted when a protest by 1,000 people against the rising number of Africans moving into the area turned violent.

Witnesses described scenes of chaos as demonstrators went on the rampage with sticks and stones, attacking African-run shops and smashing up a car driven by two African men.

Police said afterwards 20 people had been arrested on suspicion of vandalising shops and attacking cars driven by Africans, but added that there were no reports of anyone being injured.

The riots sparked shock in Israel, but also prompted top-level calls for the immediate arrest and expulsion of tens of thousands of African migrants, most of whom originate from Sudan, South Sudan and Eritrea.

Media reports said the rally turned nasty after the crowd was whipped up by several racist speeches by rightwing MPs, several of them from the ruling Likud party of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“The infiltrators are a cancer in our body,” Likud MP Miri Regev told the crowd, as fellow MP Danny Danon shouted: “The infiltrators must be expelled from Israel! Expulsion now!”

Regev’s comments were slammed on Friday by parliamentary speaker Reuven Rivlin, a member of Netanyahu’s Likud party.

“I am shocked by these statements,” Rivlin told public radio. “I was born at the start of World War II and these comments remind me of the hate speech aimed against the Jewish people.”

Interior ministry statistics show there are more than 60,000 African immigrants living illegally in Israel. Some are refugees fleeing persecution back home, while others are economic migrants.

The issue of illegal immigration from Africa has thrown into relief sharp divisions within Israel, with many top officials, including Netanyahu, warning that the growing number of “infiltrators” poses a major threat to the security and identity of the Jewish state.

Netanyahu Thursday issued a statement promising to resolve “the problem of the infiltrators” by sending them back to their home countries in a process which he said would start “soon.”

President Shimon Peres said on Thursday night that “hating foreigners is against the foundations of Judaism.”

But Interior Minister Eli Yishai, who has frequently tried to expel non-Jewish immigrants sparking accusations of racism, demanded that all Africans living illegally in Israel be put “behind bars.”

Source

THE Indian obsession with fair skin has always been a distasteful phenomenon. The fairness cream industry is gigantic, with men as well as women lathering these silly potions on their faces to make their skin a few shades lighter.

Pregnant women in rural areas believe they will give birth to light-skinned babies if they consume lots of ”white” dairy products such as milk, cream, yoghurt, and butter. Dark models and actresses struggle for work as their skin isn’t regarded as desirable.

Now an Indian company has taken this bizarre self-hating obsession to a new level with a ”feminine” hygiene product that not only promises to keep a woman’s genitalia ”fresh” but also lighten the skin around the vagina.

The television ad for Clean & Dry Intimate Wash shows an attractive, modern woman sitting at home looking wistful. Her partner (presumably her husband) is in the same room and seems to be ignoring her.

The next scene shows her in the shower, where a piece of animation shows the unsightly brown hue around her crotch (blurred mercifully) giving way to a lighter flesh colour.

In the next scene, the partner is far more interested in her and the newly confident woman, now in shorts and looking flirtatious, grabs his car keys, puts them in her pocket and invites him to give chase.

He responds by lifting her into his arms lovingly. Clearly all is well between them now that her vagina is lighter skinned. Online, the advert reads: ”Life for women will now be fresher, cleaner and more importantly fairer and more intimate.”

This fairness mania maddens me. If some Jews used to suffer self-hatred, at least you knew it was because previous generations had undergone persecution for centuries. If some African Americans used to have low esteem and tried to lighten their skin and straighten their hair, at least you knew that a history of slavery must have cast a shadow on their confidence.

But what can explain this Indian hatred of the colour of their own skin? Yes, I know that the British Raj was white, but Mughal rule in India lasted much longer and the Mughals were not white, so the ”colonial complex” theory doesn’t quite do the job.

If the theory were correct, Indians would hanker after slanted eyes as the Mughals were Mongols from Central Asia, but Indians refer to their own people from the north-east disparagingly as ”chinky-eyed”.

What is so repugnant about this product is that it is guilty of a double self-hatred – of race and gender. Indian women should be ashamed of their dark skin and, as women, should be ashamed of genitalia that is dark and, presumably, unappealing.

In the West a couple of decades ago, companies tried to peddle a nefarious vaginal spray to keep a woman’s private parts fresh. Doctors and feminists pointed out that a daily shower or bath was all a woman needed to be fresh.

In any case, why did the man not need sprays to keep his organ fragrant? And why has no one manufactured a ”skin-tightening” product to improve the turkey giblets look of male genitalia?

Mercifully, the Indian product has become controversial and Information and Broadcasting Minister Ambika Soni (a woman), has asked the Advertising and Standards Council of India to ban it.

Women’s groups have been outraged and vocal about the product. As one woman wrote online: ”This is the ultimate insult – skin whitening for your vagina.”

But I wonder how it got this far? You wonder why the advertising team had no doubts about it.

Why no one at the company wondered if such a product was insulting to women. Why the actor and the actress in the ad failed to realise that the idea they were peddling was noxious.

It’s bad enough that fairness cream ads make it seem as though a dark-skinned woman will never have a career or get a husband until she is fairer.

But to sell something which is so utterly misogynistic – that hoary stuff that feminism had to fight, about female genitalia somehow being dirty and repulsive, which is why European art for centuries showed women with no pubic hair – shows an astounding degree of ignorance about how the world has moved on from such backward notions.

It is really time for Indians to change their attitude towards their own skin. Just as African Americans launched a Black is Beautiful campaign in the US, so India needs a similar self-affirming movement. Fast.

Amrit Dhillon is a freelance journalist based in New Delhi

Source

After more than 20 years, I’ve finally decided to tell the world what I witnessed in 1991, which I believe was one of the biggest turning point in popular music, and ultimately American society.

I have struggled for a long time weighing the pros and cons of making this story public as I was reluctant to implicate the individuals who were present that day. So I’ve simply decided to leave out names and all the details that may risk my personal well being and that of those who were, like me, dragged into something they weren’t ready for.

Between the late 80′s and early 90’s, I was what you may call a “decision maker” with one of the more established company in the music industry. I came from Europe in the early 80’s and quickly established myself in the business.

The industry was different back then. Since technology and media weren’t accessible to people like they are today, the industry had more control over the public and had the means to influence them anyway it wanted. This may explain why, in early 1991, I was invited to attend a closed door meeting with a small group of music business insiders to discuss rap music’s new direction. Little did I know that we would be asked to participate in one of the most unethical and destructive business practice I’ve ever seen.

The meeting was held at a private residence on the outskirts of Los Angeles. I remember about 25 to 30 people being there, most of them familiar faces. Speaking to those I knew, we joked about the theme of the meeting as many of us did not care for rap music and failed to see the purpose of being invited to a private gathering to discuss its future.

Among the attendees was a small group of unfamiliar faces who stayed to themselves and made no attempt to socialize beyond their circle. Based on their behavior and formal appearances, they didn’t seem to be in our industry.

Our casual chatter was interrupted when we were asked to sign a confidentiality agreement preventing us from publicly discussing the information presented during the meeting. Needless to say, this intrigued and in some cases disturbed many of us.

The agreement was only a page long but very clear on the matter and consequences which stated that violating the terms would result in job termination. We asked several people what this meeting was about and the reason for such secrecy but couldn’t find anyone who had answers for us. A few people refused to sign and walked out. No one stopped them. I was tempted to follow but curiosity got the best of me. A man who was part of the “unfamiliar” group collected the agreements from us.

Quickly after the meeting began, one of my industry colleagues (who shall remain nameless like everyone else) thanked us for attending. He then gave the floor to a man who only introduced himself by first name and gave no further details about his personal background. I think he was the owner of the residence but it was never confirmed.

He briefly praised all of us for the success we had achieved in our industry and congratulated us for being selected as part of this small group of “decision makers”. At this point I begin to feel slightly uncomfortable at the strangeness of this gathering.

The subject quickly changed as the speaker went on to tell us that the respective companies we represented had invested in a very profitable industry which could become even more rewarding with our active involvement. He explained that the companies we work for had invested millions into the building of privately owned prisons and that our positions of influence in the music industry would actually impact the profitability of these investments.

I remember many of us in the group immediately looking at each other in confusion. At the time, I didn’t know what a private prison was but I wasn’t the only one. Sure enough, someone asked what these prisons were and what any of this had to do with us. We were told that these prisons were built by privately owned companies who received funding from the government based on the number of inmates. The more inmates, the more money the government would pay these prisons.

It was also made clear to us that since these prisons are privately owned, as they become publicly traded, we’d be able to buy shares. Most of us were taken back by this. Again, a couple of people asked what this had to do with us. At this point, my industry colleague who had first opened the meeting took the floor again and answered our questions.

He told us that since our employers had become silent investors in this prison business, it was now in their interest to make sure that these prisons remained filled. Our job would be to help make this happen by marketing music which promotes criminal behavior, rap being the music of choice.

He assured us that this would be a great situation for us because rap music was becoming an increasingly profitable market for our companies, and as employee, we’d also be able to buy personal stocks in these prisons.

Immediately, silence came over the room. You could have heard a pin drop. I remember looking around to make sure I wasn’t dreaming and saw half of the people with dropped jaws. My daze was interrupted when someone shouted, “Is this a f****** joke?” At this point things became chaotic.

Two of the men who were part of the “unfamiliar” group grabbed the man who shouted out and attempted to remove him from the house. A few of us, myself included, tried to intervene. One of them pulled out a gun and we all backed off. They separated us from the crowd and all four of us were escorted outside.

My industry colleague who had opened the meeting earlier hurried out to meet us and reminded us that we had signed agreement and would suffer the consequences of speaking about this publicly or even with those who attended the meeting. I asked him why he was involved with something this corrupt and he replied that it was bigger than the music business and nothing we’d want to challenge without risking consequences.

We all protested and as he walked back into the house I remember word for word the last thing he said, “It’s out of my hands now. Remember you signed an agreement.” He then closed the door behind him. The men rushed us to our cars and actually watched until we drove off.

A million things were going through my mind as I drove away and I eventually decided to pull over and park on a side street in order to collect my thoughts. I replayed everything in my mind repeatedly and it all seemed very surreal to me.

I was angry with myself for not having taken a more active role in questioning what had been presented to us. I’d like to believe the shock of it all is what suspended my better nature. After what seemed like an eternity, I was able to calm myself enough to make it home. I didn’t talk or call anyone that night.

The next day back at the office, I was visibly out of it but blamed it on being under the weather. No one else in my department had been invited to the meeting and I felt a sense of guilt for not being able to share what I had witnessed. I thought about contacting the three others who wear kicked out of the house but I didn’t remember their names and thought that tracking them down would probably bring unwanted attention.

I considered speaking out publicly at the risk of losing my job but I realized I’d probably be jeopardizing more than my job and I wasn’t willing to risk anything happening to my family. I thought about those men with guns and wondered who they were.

I had been told that this was bigger than the music business and all I could do was let my imagination run free. There were no answers and no one to talk to. I tried to do a little bit of research on private prisons but didn’t uncover anything about the music business’ involvement. However, the information I did find confirmed how dangerous this prison business really was.

Days turned into weeks and weeks into months. Eventually, it was as if the meeting had never taken place. It all seemed surreal. I became more reclusive and stopped going to any industry events unless professionally obligated to do so. On two occasions, I found myself attending the same function as my former colleague. Both times, our eyes met but nothing more was exchanged.

As the months passed, rap music had definitely changed direction. I was never a fan of it but even I could tell the difference. Rap acts that talked about politics or harmless fun were quickly fading away as gangster rap started dominating the airwaves.

Only a few months had passed since the meeting but I suspect that the ideas presented that day had been successfully implemented. It was as if the order has been given to all major label executives. The music was climbing the charts and most companies were more than happy to capitalize on it. Each one was churning out their very own gangster rap acts on an assembly line.

Everyone bought into it, consumers included. Violence and drug use became a central theme in most rap music. I spoke to a few of my peers in the industry to get their opinions on the new trend but was told repeatedly that it was all about supply and demand. Sadly many of them even expressed that the music reinforced their prejudice of minorities.

I officially quit the music business in 1993, but my heart had already left months before. I broke ties with the majority of my peers and removed myself from this thing I had once loved. I took some time off, returned to Europe for a few years, settled out of state, and lived a “quiet” life away from the world of entertainment.

As the years passed, I managed to keep my secret, fearful of sharing it with the wrong person but also a little ashamed of not having had the balls to blow the whistle. But as rap got worse, my guilt grew. Fortunately, in the late 90’s, having the internet as a resource which wasn’t at my disposal in the early days made it easier for me to investigate what is now labeled the prison industrial complex.

Now that I have a greater understanding of how private prisons operate, things make much more sense than they ever have. I see how the criminalization of rap music played a big part in promoting racial stereotypes and misguided so many impressionable young minds into adopting these glorified criminal behaviors which often lead to incarceration.

Twenty years of guilt is a heavy load to carry but the least I can do now is to share my story, hoping that fans of rap music realize how they’ve been used for the past two decades. Although I plan on remaining anonymous for obvious reasons, my goal now is to get this information out to as many people as possible.

Please help me spread the word. Hopefully, others who attended the meeting back in 1991 will be inspired by this and tell their own stories. Most importantly, if only one life has been touched by my story, I pray it makes the weight of my guilt a little more tolerable.

Source  

Also see: YES – Hip-Hop Holds Blacks Back

what international media purposely ignores…

On April 27, 2012, five Molotov Cocktails were thrown in Shapira Neighborhood, a poor area in Tel Aviv’s south. One of them hit a kindergarten, where children were sleeping (see picture); the others hit private homes. In one case, the terrorists opened the window of a house—where people were sleeping—and threw an ignited bottle inside. God’s unsleeping angels made sure nobody was hurt. The event was barely mentioned in the Hebrew media and was completely ignored by the international one. The main report on the event was done by the Israeli website Maavak (“struggle” in Hebrew; www.maavak.org.il). I almost forgot to mention that the victims were black people; the attackers were Jews.

The terror attack followed agitation by a racist Jewish group led by Michael Ben Ari, a Knesset member on behalf of the National Union party. This party is a union of four ultra-nationalist political parties, namely Moledet, Hatikva, Eretz Yisrael Shelanu, and Tkuma. In the current Knesset it has four members, out of the 120. Michael Ben Ari is leader of the Eretz Yisrael Shelanu (“The Land of Israel is Ours” in Hebrew) faction. They are right of Netanyahu’s coalition, and do not form part of the current extremist coalition; simply, they are even more extreme. Michael Ben Ari is the first outspoken disciple of Rabbi Meir Kahane to be elected to the Knesset. Rabbi Meir Kahane was an American-Israeli ultra-nationalist rabbi that founded both the Jewish Defense League (JDL) in the USA, and the Kach (literally “So;” roughly “This is the Way”) political party in Israel. In 1984, Kach gained one seat in parliamentary elections, and Kahane became a member of the Knesset. In 1988, the Israeli government banned Kach as “racist” and “undemocratic” under the terms of an ad hoc law; Kahane was subsequently assassinated in New York, in 1990. In 1994, following the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre perpetrated by Baruch Goldstein, a Kahane follower, Kach was outlawed completely. Following the massacre, the US State Department listed it as a terrorist organization. Recently, Michael Ben Ari was denied a visa to the USA (see USA Denies Visa to Jewish Knesset Member).

The attack was aimed at Sudanese and Eritrean refugees. In Israel there are several thousands (estimations vary between 4,000 and 8,000) refugees who arrived from Sudan and are seeking refuge from the ongoing military conflicts in their home country. Small numbers of Eritrean and Ethiopian refugees can also be found. All of them arrived by land, after a perilous trip across the Sinai and Negev deserts; reports on the horrors faced by them along the way should be enough to grant recognition as refugees to the survivors upon arrival. In order to accomplish the feat, they use the help of local Bedouins, the only masters of the dessert (see Explosion in Sinai). Israel has formally recognized as refugees only a few hundreds of them; the rest work as illegal workers, hiding in the vast population of foreign workers building up the Zionist dream. They replaced the Palestinians, who are not welcome anymore in Tel Aviv. In this precarious and rather violent conditions, Sudanese workers face deportation back to war and death. Yet, racism in Israel runs deeper.

On the Jewish Heart

Contrary to what one may think, the Jewish state doesn’t show neither compassion nor mercy. In Jewish Compassion I reported the case of Evelyn Belseng, 38, who came to Israel from the Philippines in 2002 to work as a caregiver at Kibbutz Kfar Menachem. After her employer died in 2006, she went to work in Ashdod. In December 2007, she met Michael David, a religious Israeli Jew from Gedera. “We met through a childhood friend of Miki’s,” she said in an interview. “I worked at the time in Ashdod and it was important for me to keep my job, so we met mostly on Saturdays and he would sometimes come visit me. My employers met him and were very supportive of us.” In early May 2009, after living together for two years, Michael went to the Interior Ministry in Rehovot and made residence arrangements for her since her Israeli visa was due to expire later that month. An official recommended that he begin the process of having her recognized as a common-law spouse. But the process of obtaining the necessary documents, mostly from the Philippines, was time-consuming and expensive. It is almost impossible for someone defined as Jew by Israel’s Internal Affairs Ministry to marry somebody defined by that fine and egalitarian institution as a “goy,” a non-Jew. “Meanwhile our son Gilad was born, and Miki assumed that when we registered him, everything would be fine,” she said. After the child was born, David asked the family court in Rishon LeTzion to recognize Belseng as his partner, because he couldn’t legally marry her in Israel; she is a hated goy. Later that year, he became sick with cancer, which drained their energy. They therefore concentrated on trying to settle Gilad’s status. In June 2010, the Family Court recognized David as Gilad’s biological father and ordered the child registered in the population registry, meaning he became an Israeli citizen. Ten days later, David died. Due to David’s death, Belseng’s residency process was halted and in August 2010 she was issued a deportation order, which wasn’t enforced. Israel is about to deport a toddler citizen. Probably they will say he is a potential terrorist.

Are you Falash Mura or Beta Israel?

It is not easy to be a foreign worker or a refugee in Israel, because nobody helps them. Few even report attacks on them. Israel had developed over the years a public image that doesn’t allow the publication of these cases. Yet, reality is different. No better way of reinforcing the new image portrayed here than with the cases of Beta Israel and the Falash Mura, two groups of Ethiopian citizens seeking Israeli citizenship under Law of Return. The Law of Return gives automatic and immediate citizenship to every Jew arriving in Israel. A Jew is defined in that law as a person born Jewish (with a Jewish mother or maternal grandmother), with a Jewish ancestry (with a Jewish father or grandfather) or a convert to Orthodox Judaism (Reform and Conservative converts are recognized only if the rites were performed outside the State of Israel, other groups are rejected). The basis for this racist law is what is known as “Jus Sanguinis” in Latin, namely “Blood Law.” In ancient times, it was used to attribute citizenship on the basis of family relations. However, the Law of Return denies citizenship to Jews who have converted to other religions out of their free will. Did their blood change during the conversion process? (see Is Israel Sovereign? for more on this)

Somehow, Israel’s public image consistently fails to convey the reality of the Zionist state. While asked to link northeast Africa and Israel, most people will immediately mention Beta Israel, a group of Jewish Ethiopian citizens that immigrated to Israel through the Mossad-run Operation Moses (1984), Operation Sheba (1985) and Operation Solomon (1991). According to tradition the name “Beta Israel” originated in the 4th century when the community refused to convert to Christianity during the rule of Abreha and Atsbeha, the monarchs of the Aksumite Empire who embraced Christianity. In 1973, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, then the Chief Sephardic Rabbi of Israel, ruled that the Beta Israel were Jews and should be brought to Israel. That was the foundation for their arrival at Israel according to the Law of Return. Other notable poskim (“deciders” in Jewish Halakha Law), from non-Zionist Ashkenazi circles, placed a Halakhic “safek” (“doubt;” Halakha is the Jewish parallel of the Muslim Sharia) over the Jewishness of the Beta Israel. Such dissenting voices include the notorious rabbis Elazar Shach and Yosef Shalom Eliashiv. Later on, a 1999 study by Lucotte and Smets studied the DNA of 38 unrelated Beta Israel males living in Israel and 104 Ethiopians living in regions located north of Addis Ababa and concluded that “the distinctiveness of the Y-chromosome haplotype distribution of the Beta-Israel from conventional Jewish populations and their relatively greater similarity in haplotype profile to non-Jewish Ethiopians are consistent with the view that the Beta Israel people descended from ancient inhabitants of Ethiopia and not the Levant.” Other studies reached similar conclusions. Despite these, the Halakha ruling issued by Rabbi Ovadia Yosef still holds.

In contrast to the discrepancies regarding their Jewishness, there is no doubt on the link between Beta Israel and the Falash Mura. Both groups acknowledge that Falash Mura were people from Beta Israel who accepted Christianity in various waves of conversion since the 15th century. In comparison to the roughly 130,000 Beta Israel living now in Israel, the number of the Falash Mura is small; apparently less than 10,000 still live in Ethiopia. They are not recognized as Jews by the State of Israel, and thus are not allowed to reach the state under the clauses of the Law of Return applied to their brothers from beta Israel. In February 2003, the Israeli government decided to accept religious conversions of Falash Mura people organized by Israeli rabbis, and that converted Falash Mura can then migrate to Israel as Jewish. Yet, Israeli government continued to limit, from 2003 to 2006, their entry to about 300 Falash Mura immigrants per month. In November 2010 the Israeli cabinet approved a plan to allow 8,000 Falash Mura immigrate to Israel; since then nothing has been done. Due to their Christianity, Falash Mura reaching Israel independently would be treated as illegitimate foreign workers and deported if caught. Meanwhile, their Beta Israel brothers live mainly in “development towns” and are widely discriminated by the Israeli society. As a former IDF officer, I remember IDF pamphlets explaining how to treat Ethiopian soldiers, which included rather racist remarks. Eventually, this discrimination is accepted by the international community. What would be the reaction if Germany was to legislate a law allowing the immigration of Christian Turks to Germany, but denying the immigration of Muslim Turks to its territory? Why is Israel allowed to perpetrate a parallel crime?

It is very difficult to read this. You can’t be only half-racist. You can’t just endorse positive-discrimination towards certain groups. If you do so, violence would appear as it recently did in Tel Aviv. Racism is racism, and Jewish racism is not different from Nazi racism. The State of Israel cannot enjoy immunity for such crimes; sanctioning them is calling for a A New Holocaust.

Source

How many tracts, books, documentaries, speeches and doctoral theses have been written and produced about Islamophobia? How many denunciations have been made against the Sarkozys and the Le Pens and the Wilders for their anti-immigration (for which, read largely anti-Muslim) policies or – let us go down far darker paths – against the plague of Breivik-style racism?

The problem with all this is that Muslim societies – or shall we whittle this down to Middle Eastern societies? – are allowed to appear squeaky-clean in the face of such trash, and innocent of any racism themselves.

A health warning, therefore, to all Arab readers of this column: you may not like this week’s rant from yours truly. Because I fear very much that the video of Alem Dechasa’s recent torment in Beirut is all too typical of the treatment meted out to foreign domestic workers across the Arab world (there are 200,000 in Lebanon alone).

Many hundreds of thousands have now seen the footage of 33-year-old Ms Dechasa being abused and humiliated and pushed into a taxi by Ali Mahfouz, the Lebanese agent who brought her to Lebanon as a domestic worker. Ms Dechasa was transported to hospital where she was placed in the psychiatric wing and where, on 14 March, she hanged herself. She was a mother of two and could not stand the thought of being deported back to her native Ethiopia. That may not have been the only reason for her mental agony.

Lebanese women protested in the centre of Beirut, the UN protested, everyone protested. Ali Mahfouz has been formally accused of contributing to her death. But that’s it.

The Syrian revolt, the Bahraini revolution, the Arab Awakening, have simply washed Alem Dechasa’s tragedy out of the news. How many readers know – for example – that not long before Ms Dechasa’s death, a Bengali domestic worker was raped by a policeman guarding her at a courthouse in the south Lebanese town of Nabatieh, after she had been caught fleeing an allegedly abusive employer?

As the Lebanese journalist Anne-Marie El-Hage has eloquently written, Ms Dechasa belonged to “those who submit in silence to the injustice of a Lebanese system that ignores their human rights, a system which literally closes its eyes to conditions of hiring and work often close to slavery”. All too true.

How well I recall the Sri Lankan girl who turned up in Commodore Street at the height of the Israeli siege and shelling of West Beirut in 1982, pleading for help and protection. Like tens of thousands of other domestic workers from the sub-continent, her passport had been taken from her the moment she began her work as a domestic “slave” in the city; and her employers had then fled abroad to safety – taking the girl’s passport with them so she could not leave herself. She was rescued by a hotel proprietor when he discovered that local taxi drivers were offering her a “bed” in their vehicles in return for sex.

Everyone who lives in Lebanon or Jordan or Egypt or Syria, for that matter, or – especially – the Gulf, is well aware of this outrage, albeit cloaked in a pious silence by the politicians and prelates and businessmen of these societies.

In Cairo, I once remarked to the Egyptian hosts at a dinner on the awful scars on the face of the young woman serving food to us. I was ostracised for the rest of the meal and – thankfully – never invited again.

Arab societies are dependent on servants. Twenty-five per cent of Lebanese families have a live-in migrant worker, according to Professor Ray Jureidini of the Lebanese American University in Beirut. They are essential not only for the social lives of their employers (housework and caring for children) but for the broader Lebanese economy.

Yet in the Arab Gulf, the treatment of migrant labour – male as well as female – has long been a scandal. Men from the subcontinent often live eight to a room in slums – even in the billionaires’ paradise of Kuwait – and are consistently harassed, treated as third-class citizens, and arrested on the meanest of charges.

Saudi Arabia long ago fell into the habit of chopping off the heads of migrant workers who were accused of assault or murder or drug-running, after trials that bore no relation to international justice. In 1993, for example, a Christian Filipino woman accused of killing her employer and his family was dragged into a public square in Dammam and forced to kneel on the ground where her executioner pulled her scarf from her head before decapitating her with a sword.

Then there was 19-year old Sithi Farouq, a Sri Lankan housemaid accused of killing her employer’s four-year-old daughter in 1994. She claimed her employer’s aunt had accidentally killed the girl. On 13 April, 1995, she was led from her prison cell in the United Arab Emirates to stand in a courtyard in a white abaya gown, crying uncontrollably, before a nine-man firing squad which shot her down. It was her 20th birthday. God’s mercy, enshrined in the first words of the Koran, could not be extended to her, it seems, in her hour of need.

Source

The rising Hispanic population in the United States may come as good news to some Latinos, but others recognize that the Zionists who helped facilitate this epic demographic shift are also exploiting it to employ a “divide and conquer” strategy that may ultimately undermine their efforts of achieving self-determination.

Throughout the twentieth century, powerful Zionist interests have sowed the seeds of multiculturalism to create a more generic society. Now, as we sink deeper into the twenty-first century, those seeds are starting to bear bitter fruit.

According to a study conducted by the National Policy Institute “As a percentage of world inhabitants the white population will plummet to a single digit (9.76%) by 2060 from a high-water mark of 27.98% in 1950.”

So what does that mean for the demographics of the United States?

The US Census Bureau projects that, “The non-Hispanic, single-race white population is projected to be only slightly larger in 2050 (203.3 million) than in 2008 (199.8 million). In fact, this group is projected to lose population in the 2030s and 2040s and comprise 46 percent of the total population in 2050, down from 66 percent in 2008.”

“Meanwhile, the Hispanic population is projected to nearly triple, from 46.7 million to 132.8 million during the 2008-2050 period. Its share of the nation’s total population is projected to double, from 15 percent to 30 percent. Thus, nearly one in three U.S. residents would be Hispanic.”

Both the National Policy Institute and US Census Bureau base their projections on trends and assumptions about future childbearing, mortality and net international migration. However, they fail to factor in a predictable future that could further dilute both America’s White and Hispanic demographics. I’m talking about a future where millions of displaced Arabs, Persians and Africans are relocated to the U.S. after being forced out of their native homelands to make room for Eretz Yisrael: an expansion of the Zionist empire from the Nile River to the Tigris and Euphrates.

The manufactured “Arab Spring” launched the beginning of the end for those living in this region, where old tired dictators are now being replaced by even more brutal Wahhabbi regimes with close ties to the Qataris and the House of Saud. It also set the stage for mass sectraian warfare that will continue to balkanize each existing nation into smaller fractionalized sub-entities. This may very well lead to a cataclysmic war in the Middle East (probably sparked by a Saudi led conflict against Iran that will be postured as a Sunni vs. Shiite war), which could ultimately leave the Islamic world in shambles.

Once the Middle East/North African (MENA) region is littered with millions of corpses, the ruins of demolished cities, and the wardering hordes of battered bodies, the Zionist entity will step in to clean up the mess and trimphantly raise their flag over their newly “reclaimed” homeland.

Then begins the ethnic cleansing—à la Palestine!

That’s not to say that the Zionists won’t allow a few of the indiginous to remain. Eretz Yisrael will still need caddies to carry golf clubs at their country clubs in Cairo. They’ll still need card dealers for their blackjack tables in Baghdad. And they’ll still need strippers to entertain Rabbis in Damascus. But what is to become of the millions of refugees displaced during and after that war?

Make no mistake, my friend, the United States is one of the intended destinations for these exiled masses. As the Middle East is transformed into a Jewish utopia, America will degenerate into a third world cesspit with no dominant majority—Hispanic or otherwise.

That’s why it astonishes me that the very same Americans who decry Middle East immigration also support these unnecessary wars waged on behalf of the Zionist state. History shows that Israeli expansionism is directly responsible for sending large numbers of Arab refugees to American shores.

The first major migration occurred as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, which displaced 750,000 (out of 1.3 million) Palestinians from their ancestral homeland. Though most relocated to neighboring nations, 80,000 “officially” emigrated to the United States from 1948 until 1966. More would have come were it not for restrictive immigration laws.

That all changed with the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act, championed by Jewish Zionist Senator Jacob K. Javits (R-NY), who triumphantly proclaimed “Open the flood gates” when it was signed into law in 1965.

Is it a mere coincidence that less than two years after this new immigration policy came into effect, an Israeli act of aggression would spark the largest ever wave of Arab immigration into the United States?

In 1967, Israel’s Six Day War motivated a massive Palestinian exodus that marked the beginning of a series of Israeli engineered conflicts that has since sent nearly 800,000 Arabs to American shores. That’s a tenfold increase from any previous wave of Arab immigration prior to 1967. However, that number only represents Arab immigration from 1967 to 2000 and is based on data released by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2003. At that time, the Census estimated the U.S. Arab population to be 1.2 million, up 38% since 1990 and double the number in 1980. Since then, the Arab population in the U.S. has risen to 1.7 million. Of those, the number of refugees is undetermined.

Aside from the Six Day War, other conflicts contributing to this influx include the 1975 Lebanese Civil War, Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982, the Iraq/Iran War (1980-1988), both Palestinian Intifadas (1987-1993) and (2000-2005), the 1991 Gulf War, and the Iraq War (2003-2011)—all of which were assisted, engineered and/or outright perpetrated by Zionist war criminals.

America is also host to tens of thousands of refugees from a number of African nations like Somalia, Libya and Sudan,whose homelands have been rendered unliveable as the result of U.S. “humanitarian” interventions. This exodus is bound to continue as U.S. forces extend their reach into Uganda and other regions of the dark continent.

The current population of the MENA region is between 381 million to 523 million inhabitants. A significant number of these reside in what Eretz Yisrael intends on “reclaiming” as an expansion of its Jewish homeland. Using Palestine as a model (where more than 80% of the indigenous population has been expelled since 1948), Israel’s ethnic cleansing could potentially displace 100 million non-Jews currently living in this territory.

Considering that the United States has one of the most lenient immigration policies in the world, it is not far fetched to envision a future where tens of millions migrate to America. This not only poses a potential sustainability crisis in the U.S., but also exposes Arabs and Africans to a society that is becoming increasingly hostile towards Islam.

The Zionist strategy is a dual-edged sword. While so-called “liberal” Zionists promote open immigration and the demonization of white Americans as racists and xenophobes, so-called “conservative” Zionists promote closed borders and are spearheading the Islamophobia movement that postures Arabs as enemy insurgents intent of wiping out white Christian culture and replacing it with a fictional version of Sharia law. In effect, both sides of this false left/right paradigm are setting the stage for a “Clash of Civilizations:” a war that will not likely be waged in the Middle East, but rather in Europe and on American soil—with the net result of wiping out the last vestiges of Talmudic Judaism’s sworn enemies: Christians and Muslims.

Meanwhile, as eviction notices are served throughout the MENA region, Zionists continue to peddle their multiculturalist doctrine in the United States and Europe. Though they preach tolerance to others, they themselves view Arabs, Persians and Africans as refuse that blights the landscape of their precious Jewish homeland.

For example: Barbara Lerner Spectre is one Zionist Jew who left America several years ago to make Aliyah (migration to Israel). In 2000, she founded Paideia—The European Institute of Jewish Studies in Sweden, which is funded by the Swedish government to promote multiculturalism and “the revival of Jewish culture in Europe.” According to their website, “Paideia is reviving a European Jewish voice long silenced by Communism and post-Holocaust trauma – a voice that can contribute to a culturally rich and pluralistic Europe.”

Lerner says, “I think there is a resurgence of anti-Semitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. And I think we are going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the center of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode and Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role and without that transformation, Europe will not survive.”

This is the height of hypocrisy coming from a citizen of Israel: a true monolithic society where racial segregation, bigotry and xenophobia define its very existence. This is a place where ethnic cleansing has left the Palestinians with less than 20% of their original homeland; where Jews are discouraged from marrying non-Jews; where Palestinians may be required to take a “loyalty oath” that recognizes Israel as a Jewish state before being allowed citizenship; and where foreign-born Jews are subsidized for migrating to Israel, while Palestinians are not even allowed the “right of return” to the place where they were born.

And this racism is not confined to Palestinians. Recently, the Zionist entity has responded to the Sudanese refugee crisis by beginning construction on a massive prison in the Negev desert to indefinitely house blacks seeking asylum in Israel.

Yeah…so much for racial tolerance, right?

Here in the United States, this hypocrisy is just as blatant. In 2010, following passage of Arizona’s highly controversial immigration law, the Anti-Defamation League’s (ADL) Regional Board Chair of Arizona, Miriam Wiseman, stated, “As a nation of immigrants, we must endeavor to embrace the diverse groups that make ours the most enviable and pluralistic democracy in the world. By engendering fear, encouraging discrimination and fanning the flames of hatred, SB 1070 serves to divide rather than unite us. Arizona can do better.”

Again—Zionist Jews, like those from the ADL, have no problem casting aspersions on those who promote reasonable immigration as xenophobes and racists. However, it’s a different story when it comes to their defense of Israel.

Late last month, the ADL’s Abraham H. Foxman denounced Jewish critic Peter Beinart for advocating a one-state solution that would allow Palestinians equal voting rights. In an article, entitled “Peter Beinart: is Right, but for the wrong reasons,” Foxman writes, “…if Israel were to hold on to all the territory, the demographic challenge would emerge in full force. Even if one takes seriously those who argue that the number of Palestinians living in the West Bank has been exaggerated (and most Israeli demographers disagree with that assessment), the ratio of Jews to Arabs in one-state would be near the 50 percent mark and would make the concept of a Jewish and democratic state, the hallmark of Israel through its history, a practical impossibility. A truly Jewish state can exist, as it does now, only with an overwhelming Jewish majority.”

Fortunately, this double standard has not gone unnoticed by some in the Latino community. In a February article for the Huffington Post, entitled “Latinos Won’t Be Fooled by AZ’s New Pro-Israel Bill,” Chicano-Jewish writer Garbriel Schivone calls out the bipartisan hypocrites who championed Arizona’s recently passed “Supporting the Nation of Israel” resolution bill: “Generally, The Democratic and Republican parties and their constituents are in uninterrupted harmony on the issue of Israeli border security and preserving Israel’s predominant Jewish character, writes Schivone. But when it comes to American liberals of various stripes, many are firmly rooted in the immigrant rights movement.”

Elsewhere in the same article, Shivone writes,“In regards to maintaining Israel’s ethnic Jewish majority, American bipartisan support likely also resounds in agreement (like most of Israeli society) around Israeli immigration policies that prompted the government’s current construction of a $1.5 billion ‘border fence’–across Israel’s own southern desert borderlands–to keep out ‘illegal’ migrants, mostly from North Africa. After all, as Prime Minister Netanyahu warns, the invading ‘flood’ represents ‘a concrete threat to the Jewish and democratic character of Israel.’”

Hopefully, anti-Zionist activism will take root in the Hispanic community. One optimistic sign that it already has—took place on May 12, 2011, when Latino members of the Esparanza Peace and Justice Center took part in distrupting a shameful pro-Israel sermon by John Hagee, pastor of the Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas. Courageously, the group stood their ground until Hagee’s secret police took them into custody and had them charged with criminal trespass. In typical fashion, Hagee’s bloodthirsty crowd of fanatical pro-Zionist nut-jobs salivated and cheered as the protestors were led away (kind of reminiscent of the Jews who screamed “crucify him” as Christ was marched to his death).

Of course, Zionist Jews are quick to denounce any anti-Israel activism (regardless of the ethnic group) and have already formulated a diagnosis to explain the Hispanic problem. Last February, Allen Elsner, an Executive Director for The Israeli Project (TIP) stated that Hispanics are relatively hostile towards Israel because they are ignorant of Middle East Affairs and are influenced by traditional anti-Israel Catholic views. Perhaps Elsner was responding to the Latino revolt against John Hagee’s church, or maybe he was reacting to a March, 2011 survey conducted by the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding (FFEU), which concluded that nearly 50% of Hispanic Americans believe that the U.S. is too supportive of the state of Israel.

When the results of this survey were released, FFEU president Rabbi Marc Schneier threw a fit because all Latinos were not in lockstep with the murderous Zionist agenda. According to Haaretz, “These findings are a wake-up call to both communities,” says Schneier. “We need to understand how real anti-Semitism is within the Latino community and how we can counter it as well as find more effective ways to communicate the value of Israel to bolster Latinio empathy for the Jewish state.”

“This is truer then ever as Latinos now number more than 50 million in the U.S.” Schneier added. “One out of 6 Americans is Latino. It therefore behooves the Jewish community to reach out and foster an alliance with this significant ethnic group.”

Rabbi Schneier should know better than anyone that the Jewish community has been reaching out to “foster an alliance with this significant ethnic group” for many years.

Though they may have encountered some resistance from segments close to the Catholic Church, Zionists have made major inroads with weak-kneed Hispanics who have fallen victim to the poisonous influence of Christian Zionism. In a December, 2011 article for the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN), Pastor Carlos Ortiz, national coordinator for Christian’s United For Israel, is quoted as saying, “There’s an excitement, a passion to support Israel…just because we believe what the Bible says… We believe in the Bible. And the Bible says that we are blessed by blessing Israel and that it’s our job to bless Israel.”

The article goes on to say, “A growing number of Hispanic believers take that job seriously. CUFI, America’s largest pro-Israel group, has seen a major increase in Hispanic members over the past few years. ‘We let them know that Israel is in danger,” Ortiz said. ‘And that there’s imminent danger from countries like Iran. So we’re trying to teach them.’”

Over the years, numerous Jewish organizations have worked diligently to influence Hispanic organizations and keep them in line with the Zionist agenda. The most prominent of these is the American Jewish Committee (AJC), which founded the Latino and Latin American Institute in 1995 for the purposes of furthering “American Jewish relations with the Latino community in the U.S. and countries across Latin America.”

The American Jewish Committee’s Project Interchange regularly sponsors Latinos on trips to Israel and has an intimate relationship with members of The National Council of La Raza (NCLR), a group that has been described as a radical left wing organization that allegedly supports continued mass Mexican immigration to the United States in hopes of achieving the re-partition of the American Southwest as a new state called Aztlan. This is a charge that NCLR adamantly denies. On its website, the NCLR states that it “has repeatedly recognized the right of the United States, as a sovereign nation, to control its borders. Moreover, NCLR has supported numerous specific measures to strengthen border enforcement.”

The NCLR can more adequately described as a Hispanic NAACP, and its clear by their funding mechanisms that they are anything but a grassroots organization that puts the needs of Hispanics above the agendas of its wealthy donors: The Ford Foundation,The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, The Open Society Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation, Citigroup and Walmart.

One Hispanic with longstanding ties with the NCLR is Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, an Obama appointee, and a strong supporter of Israel, who visited the Zionist state in 1986 (sponsored by the AJC’s Project Interchange) and again in 1996. In 2009, Sotomayor also participated in a U.S.-Israeli forumn on immigration.

Another Hispanic woman, Cecelia Munoz, was Vice President for the Office of Research, Advocacy and Legislation at the NCLR before serving three years at the White House as director of intergovernmental affairs. In January, Obama appointed Munoz as his top domestic policy official.

In March, the ADL sponsored 14 influential Latino media executives, publishers, editors and reporters from New York, Los Angeles, Miami and Washington, D.C. on the ADL Latino Media Executives Mission to Israel to “give Spanish-language media executives a fuller understanding of Israeli society, culture, politics and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

Zionists have taken a prominent role in Hispanic television and other media venues. A prime example is Univision, the leading Spanish-language television in the United States, which is owned by Israli-American businessman Haim Saban. Since taking control in 2006, Saban has used the media outlet as a political tool to spread neo-conservative propaganda that supports a strike on Iran.

Latinos who think that alliances with the Jewish community will help bring them into a position of racial dominance in the U.S. should take time to analyze the two-faced nature of Zionist infiltartors.

In his 1993 book, “A Durable Peace,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned that Palestinian statehood would inspire Hispanics to reclaim parts of the American Southwest. He writes, “The United States is not exempt from this potential nightmare. In a decade or two the southwestern region of America is likely to be predominately Hispanic, mainly as a result of continuous emigration from Mexico. It is not inconceivable that in this community champions of the Palestinian Principle could emerge. These would demand not merely equality before the law, or naturalization, or even Spanish as a first language. Instead they would say that since they form a local majority in the territory (which was forcibly taken from Mexico in the war of 1848), they deserve a state of their own. ‘But you already have a state — it’s called Mexico,’ would come the response. ‘You have every right to demand civil rights in the United States, but you have no right to demand a second Mexico.’ This hypothetical exchange may sound far-fetched today. But it will not necessarily appear that way tomorrow, especially if the Palestinian Principle is allowed to continue to spread, which it surely will if a new Palestinian state comes into being.”

Again–Zionists are working all sides of every group. But in the end, it is their own self-interests that they are advanacing.

For more information of Zionist intrigues into the Hispanic community, I suggest you read my article, entitled Newt Gringo Wants Your Brown Babies, which explores the Republican party’s efforts to tap into the Latino market, their support of open immigration policies, and the grooming of the half-Hispanic George P. Bush for the office of President.

Source

The Trayvon Martin case took a bizarre turn Tuesday when George Zimmerman’s attorneys quit, complaining that they had lost all contact with him and that he called the prosecutor and talked to a TV host after they told him not to speak to anyone.

And late Tuesday, special prosecutor Angela Corey said she would announce “new information” about the controversial case within 72 hours. She did not elaborate.

Attorneys Craig Sonner and Hal Uhrig portrayed the former neighborhood watch volunteer as erratic and his mental state as shaky, and they expressed fear for his health under the pressure that has been building since he shot and killed Martin, an unarmed black teenager, on Feb. 26.

“As of the last couple days he has not returned phone calls, text messages or emails,” Sonner said at a news conference outside Seminole County Courthouse in Sanford, Fla. “He’s gone on his own. I’m not sure what he’s doing or who he’s talking to. I cannot go forward speaking to the public about George Zimmerman and this case as representing him because I’ve lost contact with him.”

Uhrig added, “Whenever we call him, the call goes to voicemail.”

The attorneys said they had not spoken with Zimmerman since Sunday. Since then, they said, they had learned that he spoke to Corey’s office and to Fox News TV host Sean Hannity without consulting them, in an attempt to give his side of the shooting. They said Corey refused to talk to Zimmerman without his attorneys’ consent and Hannity wouldn’t tell them what was discussed.

Uhrig said the final straw was Zimmerman’s call to Corey, which came at 10:55 a.m. Tuesday.

“We were a bit astonished,” Uhrig said. He praised the prosecutor for refusing to speak with Zimmerman unless he had legal counsel.

On Monday, Corey said she would bypass a grand jury and decide on her own whether to charge Zimmerman, who contends that he was acting in self-defense. The case has raised questions about racial profiling. Martin was black; Zimmerman’s father is white and his mother is from Peru. The case has also highlighted Florida’s “stand your ground” law, which allows anyone who feels threatened to use lethal force.

Zimmerman, 28, shot and killed Martin, 17, after reporting him as a suspicious person in a gated Sanford community. Martin was walking to the home of his father’s fiancee, who lives in the community. They fought, and Zimmerman says he shot Martin in self-defense.

Both lawyers were adamant Tuesday that they believe Zimmerman is innocent, and when questioned by reporters they defended at length his actions on the night of the shooting.

Zimmerman has been in hiding since the incident. His former attorneys said he had left the state but was still in the U.S.

“I will not tell you where George Zimmerman is because I don’t know,” Uhrig said.

The attorney for Martin’s family, Benjamin Crump, said he was alarmed by that news.

“The family is deeply concerned that George Zimmerman is unaccounted for,” Crump said. “They worry he may be a flight risk if he does indeed face charges.”

Crump said that the situation could have been avoided if police had “just simply arrested him.”

Zimmerman surprised his former attorneys in another way: He set up his own website even as they were setting up one for him at his request. On the website, Zimmerman says he wants “to ensure my supporters they are receiving my full attention without any intermediaries.” The site allows visitors to give Zimmerman money for living expenses and legal bills.

Uhrig said Zimmerman had been under extreme stress.

“This has been a terribly corrosive process,” he said. “George Zimmerman, in our opinion, and from information made available to us, is not doing well emotionally, probably suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome. We understand from others that he may have lost a lot of weight. … We’re concerned for his emotional and physical safety.”

Sonner said he would be willing to represent Zimmerman again in the future, if Zimmerman were to get back in contact with him.

The lawyers admitted they had an unusual business arrangement. Neither had met Zimmerman; they communicated strictly by phone and email.

And Zimmerman had paid them nothing yet, Sonner said.

The arrangement was that unless the special prosecutor filed charges, Sonner would work for free. In the last few weeks, he and Uhrig have traveled to New York at least twice to appear on network news shows.

Source

Well, I’m waiting. I’m waiting for something to wake up White people all over the world, especially in America. I’ve thought before there was enough out there to do the job, but people’s survival instincts have yet to kick in. And now we have the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman affair.

I really thought this anti-White media propaganda campaign was a no-brainer, but my brother surprised me by piping up about how terrible it was that a White guy had shot this innocent black boy in cold blood. In other words, my brother had swallowed the media line hook, line and sinker.

What is so discouraging about this is that I’ve kept him informed over the years about racial realism and the real state of crime in America. Further, I’ve situated it in the context of a “culture of critique” explanation showing how ethnic warfare on Whites is being carried out in education, the government, courts, and most explicitly in the mass media.

This time I gently tried to tell him that Zimmerman was (half) Hispanic and the facts were far from all in. My brother wrote back, “Are you sticking up for the shooter?”

I replied, “I’m not sticking up for the shooter at all.  In fact, I haven’t even thought about him or the dead guy.  America is a violent country, along with many other parts of the world, and killing is the norm. Among the various killings in America on a given day, this one seems garden variety, just two dudes getting in a fight.”

I’ve learned over the years not to lecture on these topics, but in this instance I indulged myself. My letter continued:

But what have you heard about Chicago last weekend?  Here’s what went on [I was writing on March 28th; I’ve also added links]:

At least 10 people were killed, including a 6-year-old girl, in shootings over the weekend in Chicago. The slain were among at least 49 people wounded in shootings from 5 p.m. Friday to 6 a.m. Monday, according to information compiled by the Chicago Tribune.

Or what about in San Francisco:

A 35-year-old Vietnam citizen now faces murder charges in the deaths of five people whose bodies were found Friday in what police initially thought was a murder-suicide.

Those are pretty spectacular but the national press is not yet breaking a sweat over them.  Don’t expect a Hollywood movie about this stuff either.

[BTW, I can now add yet another instance of  the “Immigrant Mass Murder Syndrome” in America, this one in Oakland on April 2nd. “A gunman opened fire Monday at a Christian university in California, killing at least seven people, wounding three more and setting off an intense, chaotic manhunt that ended with his capture at a nearby shopping center, authorities said.”

So how did the liberal media headline this? The Washington Post said: “7 dead, 3 injured in shooting attack at Calif. Christian university; suspect detained.” Those oh-so-objective folks at NPR wrote: 7 Dead In Shooting At Christian University In Oakland. Yes, the school is Christian, but it is also well-known for being Korean. Wouldn’t that be the more informative adjective for the headlines?]

Returning to my letter to my brother:

In addition to those murders, you’ve probably got dozens of other more typical ones. Another day in the life of America (or Brazil or Nigeria or Mexico, etc.)

So why did the mass media suddenly latch on to this case?  And why have they been pushing it so hard?  And why are they basically lying about so many details? Why did Obama’s handlers have him say what he did?  When have you heard him talk about Asian victims or child victims, let alone plain old White victims?

I guess because I’ve taught this stuff for 14 years now, I tend to take it seriously. And what I’ve found is that you can’t understand what’s going on unless you understand Jewish power in the media. The Tribe is leading all this and they damn well are doing it for a reason. Consider that not only will we read about it hundreds of times in the big newspapers, we’ll hear Bill Maher going on about it, Jon Stewart (Leibowitz) going on about it, right on down to the liberal reporters from towns near you and me.

The Tribe will of course weave this into Hollywood fare to make for a consistent message: “Whites” victimize innocent minorities all the time, past, present and future. For instance, don’t you just love how Hollywood has Don Johnson’s character in Machete shooting an innocent, pregnant Mexican woman? You know, just sport for the average White guy.

Of course the reality has been entirely the opposite for decades.

Here’s a statistic that has always impressed me. In any given year, the FBI counts about 30,000 black on White rapes. Yes, THIRTY thousand.  That’s not far from a hundred a day. Black men raping White women. A fact. [See The Color of Crime: Race, Crime and Justice in America, which concludes: “Of the approximately 1,700,000 interracial crimes of violence involving blacks and Whites, 90 percent are committed by blacks against Whites. Blacks are therefore up to 250 times more likely to do criminal violence to Whites than the reverse.”]

Now here are two still shots from the 1996 film A Time to Kill, by Jewish director Joel Schumacher. Note carefully all the props:

So what do you think happened in this scene?  Here’s a 30-second clip.

Well, the filthy Southern rednecks beat and rape this 10-year-old girl. Then they lynch her.

This sort of thing happens non-stop, from Hollywood to the New York Times to late night TV shows.  . . . a consistent drum beat, spun just the way they want it, even if it’s all a lie.

But in mass society, the mass media message wins every time.  They didn’t spend a trillion dollars to monopolize the world’s mass media for no reason.

Here’s another example. A few years ago, a Black nurse was high on drugs and hit a homeless White man while she was driving. The poor guy who got stuck in the window was very much alive, yet the woman drove on home and parked in her garage. She continued getting high and having sex with her boyfriend over the next few days, occasionally checking on the honkey in the window.

Finally, he died, and she and her boyfriend dumped the body.

Hollywood picked up on this story (Jewish director, of course).  Who did they cast in the role for the nurse?  Mena Suvari:

Anyway, no sense going on. I expect the mass media, government, legal and education systems, etc. to continue this propaganda because they have a goal and are working toward it relentlessly.

I just wonder, though, when a sense of self-preservation will kick in among more Whites, Whites who are actually the victims most of the time . . . and are getting duped by the institutions I just mentioned.

It will be interesting to see how this Trayvon Martin case plays out.

The Trayvon Martin shooting case may be the worst example of media duplicity in history—at least for media that is not explicitly fictional. We know that NBC, MSNBC and the New York Times altered the 911 call by Zimmerman to make it sound like Zimmerman was focusing on Martin’s race. ABC took 5 days to release an enlargement of a photo showing a very large gash on Zimmerman’s head “after releasing the same video without enhancement and a headline that declared: ‘Trayvon Martin Video Shows No Blood or Bruises on George Zimmerman.’” CNN backpedaled after assuring its audience that Zimmerman had uttered a racial slur (in fact, he said ‘cold’, not ‘coon’). And then there’s the New York Times writer taken to task by Bill O’Reilly for claiming that Zimmerman killed Martin “in cold blood.”

And while the media continues to spin its lies, John Dergyshire just got fired from National Review for writing common sense on race. Self-policing by the “conservative” media.

How far will this obvious media slandering of Whites go toward waking up more Whites to their perilous situation? I’ve covered this question in my “What will it take?” essays (see also here). Kevin MacDonald appears optimistic, writing “I suspect that people like Hannity realize that their mainly White audience is fed up with the ‘Whites victimizing Blacks mantra’—a good example of appealing to implicit Whiteness.”

I hope he’s right, but we all know it’s a long road between implicit Whiteness and explicit Whiteness. The day implicit Whiteness becomes explicit is the day I’ll dance a radiant Irish jig. Somehow, however, I don’t think the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman Affair is enough to trigger it. I guess Whites need far more pain first.

Source

Amidst all of the hoodie-wearing,the accusations, the posturing and prostelytizing that has gone on during the past couple of weeks over the shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman, I was intrigued by a passage in a recent New York Times article that referred to Zimmerman as a “white Hispanic.”

“Mr. Zimmerman, 28, a white Hispanic, told the police that he shot Trayvon in self-defense after an altercation.”  That line comes from a March 22 New York Times news story about a development in the case. 

Of course, this mere reference has caused a signifcant amount of consternation and objections from those whom you’d expect – “conservative” media members particularly.  And, while I don’t deem myself conservative, in this case I can at least “understand” where they are coming from to some extent.

Fox News contributor Bernard Goldberg described his concern:

“The national media doesn’t do stories on black-on-black crime. . . . They don’t do stories on black-on-white crime. . . . The New York Times, in almost a caricature of a liberal media, refers to George Zimmerman as a ‘white Hispanic.’ I guarantee you that if George Zimmerman did something good — if he finished first in his high school graduating class when he was younger — they wouldn’t refer to him as a white Hispanic, he’d just be a Hispanic. . . . He’s only a ‘white Hispanic’ because they need the word ‘white’ to further the story line, which is, White, probably racist vigilante shoots an unarmed black kid.”

National Review’s Jonah Goldberg took offense with the use of the “white Hispanic” term: “It’s the way the blame for Martin’s death belongs squarely at the feet of ‘the system.’ And ‘the system’ is a white thing, don’t you know?”

While these two writers/commentators – Goldberg and Goldberg – may be taking the arguments to their illogical extremes as representatives of their niche in the media, it seems odd that a new way of characterizing a person’s ethnicity has now developed in this case.  Have you ever heard anyone referred to as a “white Hispanic” before this?

Eric Wemple of the Washington Post conducted a Nexis search of the use of the term white Hispanic in the New York Times over the past five years.  According to Wemple, the search yielded 112 results, but found that the number is deceptively large.

For example, Wemple found that a great deal of the search found stories like one described here from a March 2007 story on crime in Denver.

Once hailed as the Harlem of the West for its jazz scene, the historic black business enclave and its surroundings have given way to an influx of professionals, most of them white, and Hispanic immigrants.

Or from a March 2008 story on the Democratic presidential primaries:

Clinton advisers said her decisive victory in Ohio and her narrow one in Texas — where exit polls showed her winning the votes of women, whites and Hispanics in an extremely close race . . .

Clearly the “white Hispanic” reference is not something that has been used commonly to refer to someone born of one white and one Hispanic parent.

We know that race and ethnicity have been brought into the arguments on both sides of the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman story.  For example, would Congressman Bobby Rush (the congressman from the District where I live) wear a hoodie on the floor of Congress if my white son had been shot by a white Hispanic in Chicago while wearing a hoodie?  No.  How about if my black step-son were wearing a hoodie and got shot by a black crack addict in West Englewood?  No.  On the other hand, would Geraldo Rivera have blamed the hoodie in either of my examples?  No to that as well.

Moreover, since race is an issue in this case because the specter of a “hate crime” hangs over the investigation, the characterization of Zimmerman as a white Hispanic is more compelling.  If the New York Times’ new description of a mixed race potential defendant in a criminal case persists, the media, sociologists, the legal system and all of the rest of us regular people will have to be taught a completely new way of describing ourselves and each other.

My parents are both white, so does that make me a white white?  Or, in my case, since I’m Jewish and both my parents are as well, am I a white Jew or a Jew Jew?  My wife’s father is mixed race and her mother is black, so what does that make her, “white black black?”

And of course, my 8 week-old daughter is no longer mixed race according to the New York Times, I guess she is “black white” or “white black.”  (Or, as we like to call her mixture of Russian and black, “Blussian.”)

Then, there is the President of the United States, commonly referred to as the first black President.  That moniker would have to be revised if the New York Times were consistent and he would hereafter be known as the first (that we know of) black white or white black President of the United States.

And on and on it will go in this country… To what end?  Does it really matter whether George Zimmerman’s father is white or mother is Hispanic?  Does it really matter that both of Trayvon Martin’s parents are black?  What if Trayvon’s father or mother were white – would there be as much call for justice and would Trayvon indeed be “black” for the purpose of this case?

Here’s a novel idea – let’s wait for all the facts to play out and see how the justice system operates.  Then, we can draw conclusions as to fairness and equality in this case.  In the meantime, the focus on the color of everyone’s skin and what to call people seems to be getting a bit overwrought.

Source