Monday, July 6, 2009

Holocaust Denial And Uncomfortable Truths

It has always been those few who can see through the political correctness and hypocrisy of popular attitudes who are considered dangerous.

"Holocaust denial laws" are now in place in about a dozen countries. Defenders of these laws claim that the expression of unconventional views about the Jewish genocide is "hate speech" and "incitement to violence" and therefore must be suppressed.

But history shows the greatest purveyors of lies, hatred and incitement to violence are those with the power to spread their poison by manipulating popular opinion via the control or complicity of the mass media. Through a purposefully constructed lens of political correctness the despicable becomes normal. It is by this insidious process that tyrants make it normal and acceptable to murder those whom they consider threatening or inferior. We have only to turn on the television to see that process at work.

It is not the unpopular views we should fear but the popular.

When the suppression of free speech serves no purpose other than to silence unconventional opinions we should be alarmed. We should be even more alarmed when to question oppressive laws is to risk vilification, in this case by the smear of "Holocaust denier" and "anti-Semite".

Appropriation of the term "The Holocaust" to the Nazi extermination of the Jews minimises the significance of other genocides, including those that are happening right now. Should these crimes also be closed to opinions that question the accuracy of the official "truth"?

Stifling open discussion and debate also does an injustice to the other millions of victims of the Nazi concentration camps: the Roma, Blacks, Polish and Russian prisoners, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals and the mentally and physically disabled. It sidelines the slave labourers starved, beaten and worked to death in German war industries and the horrors suffered by anyone expressing anti-Nazi views.

It is likely that most people regard the real deniers of the Jewish genocide - the ones who say the extermination crimes never happened at all - in the same light as those who espouse any number of other oddball ideas. Do we need laws to protect us from those who make obviously unsupportable claims?

The real threat posed by "deniers" is that others might be influenced to undertake serious study and uncover embarrassing facts that would refute Israel's "victim" status. This would threaten Israel's moral legitimacy, underpinned by the world's collective shame for looking the other way. All it takes to invoke that shame is the term anti-Semite, either stated or implied.

But opinions that question the widely accepted WWII Jewish genocide history are not anti-Semitic any more than opinions that question the accepted history of the Ukraine genocide (1) are anti-Russian. That we are led to label any deviation from the official history as "Holocaust denial" and "Holocaust denial" as anti-Semitism is no accident. It has come about by the same semantic sleight of hand that would have us believe anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are one and the same. They are not.

Many Christians are Zionists while many Jews throughout the world, perhaps even the majority, are anti-Zionist. Anti-Zionism has nothing to do with persecution of the Jews. It is simply anti-racism and anti-colonialism as applied to the occupation of Palestine and the subjugation of its indigenous population. (2)

When anyone goes to great lengths to stifle open inquiry and debate on any subject, alarm bells should ring. Invariably the motivation is suppression of uncomfortable truths. The uncomfortable truth of the Jewish genocide is that millions of lives would certainly have been saved had it been the priority of the Zionist leadership to save them. Their priority instead was establishment of the state of Israel. And then, as now, the suffering of Europe's Jews and the world's collective guilt was exploited to that end. (3)

Ironically, when millions of refugees were trying to escape from Europe before the war, and even while the genocide was in progress, prominent leaders of the Zionist movement were "Holocaust deniers". When the truth could no longer remain hidden, the Zionist leadership opposed attempts to save the European Jews though financial and humanitarian aid and emigration. The exception was migration to Palestine, and even the relative few who were saved were selected not according to their plight but according to their perceived value to the future state of Israel.

One proposal by 270 members of the British Parliament, as a part of diplomatic negotiations with Germany during the height of the killings, was to evacuate 500,000 Jews from Europe and resettle them in British colonies. This offer was rejected by the Zionist leaders with the observation, "Only to Palestine!" (3)

It is clear from the statements and actions of the Zionist leadership that they considered the suffering of the European Jews advantageous in securing future international support for the establishment of the Zionist state.

Shocking? That uncomfortable truth is well documented for those who care or dare to study the subject.

Throughout history Jews, like many other minorities, have indeed been persecuted, but the modern state of Israel never was the victim. Since its inception it has been the coloniser, aggressor, tormentor and oppressor. Exploiting the memory of Hitler's victims to perpetuate the myth of "victim Israel" is cynical. To do so while attacking its neighbours and inflicting Nazi-style state terrorism, apartheid and genocide on the Palestinians is cynical in the extreme.

While "deniers" are jailed for expressing unacceptable views, the real criminals - those responsible for the agony and death of millions - manipulate popular opinion to make crimes against humanity, war crimes, contempt for international law and indifference to human suffering seem normal and acceptable. And they do so with impunity.


Source: Countercurrents

Bookmark and Share

Makinh felons of tens of millions of Americans.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (Customs) has proposed a ruling that would re-define "switchblade" to include all pocket knives that can be opened with one hand. In doing so, they are arbitrarily reversing their own previous rulings. Worse, they are ignoring Congressional intent, will throw thousands out of work, endanger tradesmen and outdoorsmen, and make potential felons of tens of millions of Americans. It is just the latest reason we must pass the Write the Laws Act and prevent unelected bureaucrats from making law.

In 1958, Congress banned the possession of switchblades on federal lands, as well as the interstate sales of switchblades. This was a bad and unnecessary law, but it wasn't ambiguous. Congress was quite specific in defining what they meant by switchblade - "any knife having a blade which opens automatically— (1) by hand pressure applied to a button or other device in the handle of the knife, or (2) by operation of inertia, gravity, or both."

As the lawyers for Knife Rights, Inc. say, "Congress did not ban knives which contain springs. It could have, but did not. Congress did not broadly ban any knife that could be opened with one hand. It could have, but did not. The definition (of 'switchblade') is not nearly that broad."

Yet, Customs is determined to classify these knives as switchblades. While Customs' ruling applies to imports, its interpretation of the law and its definition of "switchblade" will be seen as binding in the federal courts and many state jurisdictions

Even though,

  • there's no evidence these knives are often misused as criminal weapons
  • tens of millions of Americans use these knives at work or outdoors
  • there are numerous instances where one must hold onto an object with one hand and access a knife with the other
  • in case of a fall or other accident, an enclosed pocket knife is much safer than a sheathed knife
  • manufacturers of such knives employ thousands of people

Moreover, this is an abrupt reversal of Customs' own previous rulings. This change is legally dangerous to individual Americans. Words have meanings, and Customs isn't changing the actual words, just how they'll define them. Individuals who think they know what the law says may be innocently unaware of the latest bureaucratic rulings that change the meanings of words.

The good news is there's growing opposition to the ruling . . .

But if the Write the Laws Act was in force, Customs wouldn't have the discretion to arbitrarily re-interpret legislative language. The WTLA says that all bills will have rules "defining the specific conduct to be prohibited" (emphasis added) and prevents bureaucrats from prescribing any rule that goes beyond the legislative language.

The Senate will be considering the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill on July 7. The best opportunity to stop Customs is to tell the Senate to amend the bill to prevent Customs from implementing their switchblade ruling. We ask that you:

  • Send a message to Congress telling them to introduce the Write the Laws Act
  • Tell them about how the U.S. Customs and Border Protection switchblade ruling goes against the Congressional intent of the Switchblade Act
  • Remind them this bureaucratic mischief would not occur under the WTLA
  • And finally, instruct them to amend the DHS Appropriations bill to stop the Customs switchblade ruling from going into effect.

To exceed the number of messages DC Downsizers sent Congress last month, we must send 1,884 messages today.

Source: DownsizeDC.Org

Bookmark and Share

NSA Shields Government Networks With More AT&T Secret Rooms

Just a week after the Defense Department announced plans to put the National Security Agency in charge of military cyber defense and attack, the agency’s reach has already expanded to include monitoring of government civilian networks.

The Obama administration has decided to proceed with a classified Bush administration plan to let the NSA monitor traffic going to and from government civilian networks to protect the networks from malicious code and activity, according to a Washington Post story on Friday.

Given the NSA’s involvement in the Bush administration’s warrantless eavesdropping program, critics are concerned that the monitoring of government traffic on private-sector telecommunication networks that are used by the general public would allow the agency to once again spy on large swaths of non-government traffic without a warrant.

AT&T, which was scheduled to launch a pilot project last February to test the monitoring program, has insisted on government assurances that its cooperation is legal. The company, along with other U.S. telecoms, were sued in 2006 for their involvement in the Bush administration’s warrantless eavesdropping scheme before being given retroactive immunity by Congress last year.

In the monitoring program, called Einstein 3, telecommunication companies would route data going to and from government networks through an NSA monitoring box, which would examine the traffic for malicious code or suspicious activity suggestive of a network attack.

But critics are concerned that proper oversight is in place to prevent non-government traffic from being vacuumed into the system. There are also concerns that the content of correspondence sent to and from government officials and workers, including personal communication sent via private e-mail accounts accessed from a government computer, would be collected and scrutinized by the NSA. The classified NSA technology that would be used to monitor the communications is codenamed Tutelage, according to the Post, and is already used on military networks.

Department of Homeland Security officials say that although the technology being used for the project will come from the NSA, DHS will oversee its implementation on private networks.

“We absolutely intend to use the technical resources, the substantial ones, that NSA has,” DHS secretary Janet Napolitano said. “But . . . they will be guided, led and in a sense directed by the people we have at the Department of Homeland Security.”

In May, President Obama declared that the government’s “pursuit of cybersecurity will not include — I repeat, will not include — monitoring private sector networks or internet traffic. We will preserve and protect the personal privacy and civil liberties that we cherish as Americans.”

Ari Schwartz, a vice president of the Center for Democracy and Technology, received a classified briefing of the Einstein program in March, along with other civil liberties advocates, and expressed some faith in Obama’s pledge to protect the public’s privacy.

“There are a number of concerns that come with this process, the main one being how do you go about protecting the system in a way that insures you’re not monitoring private systems,” Schwartz told the Associated Press. “I don’t have a full answer to that question, but the president made that pledge. That makes me more comfortable that it won’t happen.”

Source: Wired

Bookmark and Share