Monday, December 7, 2009


Well, well, Israel is picking a fight with Europe. Why? Because the EU will be voting on declaring East Jerusalem the capital of Palestine, which, it is. Ban Ki Moon of the United Nations says so:
link Jerusalem must be the capital of two States – Israel and Palestine – living side-by-side in peace and security, with arrangements for the holy sites acceptable to all, if peace in the Middle East is to be achieved, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned today.
And even the Americans are “asking” Israel to stop building illegal settlements in occupied East Jerusalem. Asking nicely is all Obama can do, because they dare not piss off the Israeli Lobby by saying more. Still, even the Americans surely know that East Jerusalem is not up for grabs by Zionists and that Palestinians will never agree to such a deal.

Read The Rest Here

Bookmark and Share

You Want to Understand Anti-Semitism? Just Look in the Mirror

Benjamin Weinthal, the Jerusalem Post’s correspondent in Berlin wondered earlier this week whether Germany has learned from its Nazi history? The question is in itself very intriguing. Considering its past, one may expect Germany to oppose any form of racist, discriminatory, expansionist and nationalist ideology. Bearing in mind Israelis are considered the ‘Nazis of our time’ by more than just a few commentators, one may expect the Germans to advise the Israelis what not to do. One may also expect Germany to stand by the Palestinians for the Palestinians are, de facto, the last victims of Hitler.

Do not hold your breath. When Jpost’s writer Weinthal refers to Germany learning from its history, he means the complete opposite. What he seeks is German subservience to the Zionist ideology and Jewish national interests. Weinthal, wants to see a clear diplomatic rift between Germany and Iran in the name of the Shoa and its memory. “With regard to its more future-oriented responsibility to prevent Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons and its threats to obliterate Israel, critics say Germany is stumbling.” Weinthal makes it transparent that as far as Zionists are concerned, guilt-tripping the Germans is the way forward.

Weinthal reports that the paths of Iran and Demjanjuk crossed at the International Mideast Freedom Forum Berlin conference ‘Time to Act’ last weekend. “The Berlin conference's policy experts raised questions about Germany's historic responsibility to Israel and the lessons from the genocidal Nazi anti-Semitism.” In case one is failing to understand, the Jewish lobby in Germany is mounting pressure on German politicians and academia to increasingly act against Iran in the name of Jewish suffering.

In the conference Dr. Charles Small , the head of the Yale ‘Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Anti-Semitism’ insisted that Germany had failed to extract the necessary lessons from the Nazi period. The Germans, according to this exceptionally lame ‘interdisciplinary’ academic Zionist do nothing to prevent an “Iran-organized Shoah”.

Zionist academics are indeed amusingly innovative. Interestingly enough, I myself never thought that Anti Semitism is a subject for an ‘interdisciplinary’ study. I always believed that if Zionists and Jewish tribal campaigners are interested in the origin of anti Jewish feeling all they really need to do is to look in the mirror. In fact Dr Small and the Jpost’s Weinthal who promote the prospects of a new world conflict in Germany should self-reflect so they understand where the resentment to Jewish nationalism and tribal activism are coming from. Once again, it is Jewish activists who openly promote conflict. Once again they do it in the name of Jewish suffering. This is enough to make Jewish national politics a repugnant concept.

“Holocaust denial is unlawful in Germany”, says Weinthal, yet Iranian Holocaust-deniers are welcome in German conferences. For a change Weinthal is almost correct. There is indeed an element of discrepancy here. But it can be resolved quite easily. Holocaust denial laws in Germany and anywhere else must be abolished immediately. It doesn’t make any sense that a certain historical chapter within our living memory should be legally restricted. Holocaust denial laws are an assault against humanism and free thought. Leave alone the fact that they make the Zionist Shoa narrative look highly suspicious.

Weinthal concludes by posing a criticism of German intellectual integrity. “Historical responsibility unites Demjanjuk and the Islamic Republic”, yet he continues, “the glacier-like pace at which the connection is being understood is rather surprising in a country that helped to develop philosophical thinking based on connections.”

There is a Glimpse of truth in Weinthal’s argument. On the face of it there is a discrepancy here between the German legal action and the state’s attitude towards Iran. Yet again, the solution is pretty simple: as I argued in a previous paper, Demjanjuk should have never been put on trial in Germany or anywhere else for ‘accessory’ charges. If the Germans are interested in Nazi ‘accessories’ they may start with the Jewish Kapos, continue with the Judenrat and eventually finish with the Zionist agencies that collaborated with Nazis all along the war.

According to Weinthal, the Germans fail to ‘make connections’. I would advise Weinthal that the Germans are indeed famous for their superior philosophers. It is also depressingly notable that Germany didn’t produce a single major philosophical work or a great symphony since the end of WWII. Due to its guilt and the constant Zio-centric pressure, Germany is wary of its own greatness or even greatness in general. Instead of hosting some major academic conferences that would elaborate on questions to do with Being, Ethics or Metaphysics (following the tradition of Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche and Heidegger), Berlin is welcoming some of the shallowest ‘interdisciplinary’ Zionist minds, the likes of Dr. Charles Small. Germany must immediately liberate itself of this pseudo academic trend.

Unlike Weinthal, I do believe that Germans have not lost their ability to think, to judge and to ‘make connections’. Germans do grasp what is really going on. In dismay they see the crimes that are committed in Palestine by the Jewish state. Germans may be confused by it all, but not for too long. Making the necessary ethical connections is inevitable.

To conclude, I do not think that anyone except Zionists doubt the fact that German people learned their lesson. However, it is evidently clear that Israelis, Zionists and Jewish Interdisciplinary tribal activists fail to draw the necessary lesson from the Shoa. Instead of making our planet a peace seeking habitable place the Zionists and Jewish tribal activists use Jewish suffering as an excuse for more wars and world conflicts. Zionists had a chance to open a new page in Jewish history. They obviously failed completely. The images of Israel starving Palestinians and dropping white phosphorus on populated neighborhoods depict a total Israeli ethical failure. Israel implements genocidal tactics. Israel is the only state to practice Nazi like racist discriminatory ideology and policies.

If Israel and its supporters want to tackle anti-Jewish resentments they should stop chasing their critics at once. They instead better look in the mirror and understand once and for all that the problem is inside.

Source: Gilad Atzmon

Bookmark and Share

Hate crime laws attempt to criminalize thoughts

The truth is this: Supporters of “hate crimes” laws don’t want to criminalize the conduct of those who commit crimes based on race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation. Wyoming and Texas both had murder statutes on the books that allowed the killers of Shepard and Byrd to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. It’s not like the murderers escaped punishment.

No, supporters of “hate crimes” laws want to criminalize certain thoughts and ideas. That makes them far more dangerous than those who commit nonviolent “hate crimes.”

The yokels who’d burn a cross on a lawn, paint a swastika on a synagogue or yell the dreaded “F” bomb at a gay couple are, at worst, insufferable bigots. At best they’re simply royal pains in our collective neck.

Read More Here

Bookmark and Share

What do ISPs charge the law to spy on you?

Cryptome is hosting several ISPs’ pricelists and guidelines for “lawful spying” activities on behalf of law enforcement. Included is Yahoo’s price-guide (hilariously, Yahoo tried to send them a copyright takedown notice to make this go away).

One of the more remarkable elements of Yahoo’s document is the sheer quantity of material that Yahoo retains for very, very long periods. From /.: “IP logs last for one year, but the original IPs used to create accounts have been kept since 1999. The contents of your Yahoo account are bought for $30 to $40 by law enforcement agencies.”

Read The rest Here

Bookmark and Share

Five Good Reasons to Avoid a War with Iran

As America's founding fathers clearly understood war is a serious business and should only be engaged in when there is a threat to vital national interests. The US Constitution stipulates that there must be a declaration of war from congress, a safeguard inserted in the document to prevent presidents from going to war without a clear national consensus behind them. Nevertheless, even though the federal government has fought many wars in the past hundred years only two were preceded by an actual declaration by Congress, World War I and World War II. Every other war has been both illegal and unconstitutional, including the current involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, and on various fronts in the so-called global war on terror. Given this legacy of nearly constant and unconstitutional conflict, another Middle Eastern war would only confirm in the minds of many that the United States has become a rogue nation, continuously at war as if it were a natural state. It would also increase concerns that Washington is committed to an expanding confrontation with the Muslim world, a perception, true or false, that can only have bad consequences for the American people.

Read The Rest Here

Bookmark and Share

Irish4Palestine: The "Biggest Campaign in History" Lookout..........

Zionist owned Starbucks Coffee Chain, plans a massive “hasbara” campaign (perhaps due to the coninuted boycott, let's keep it up") with assistance of Facebook, billed as the “largest ever in history” complete with music and joy. The story line goes like this; at 1:30pm GMT and consists in "a simultaneous, live performance of the legendary hit "All You Need Is Love" as a single global concert." Now, back to reality..... Whilst the music plays on "Facebook" in the real world people in Gaza continue to die for lack of medicine, treatment and the ability to leave Gaza for better hospitals. So, yeah, let's all sing "All You Need Is Love" that'll fix it! Two reports:

Read More Here

Bookmark and Share

New Website Helps Shoppers Avoid GMO Foods

Shopping for products that aren't genetically modified (GM) can be challenging, particularly in the United States where there are as yet no laws governing the labeling of products with GM ingredients. To make it a little easier on concerned shoppers, the US advocacy group Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT) this week launched a new website for consumers who want to avoid buying products containing genetically modified organisms (GMO) and gene-spliced food products.

While it's impossible to provide a complete list of GM foods marketed in the US, the new guide aims to take the guesswork out of avoiding GM food and features straightforward brand-by-brand comparisons of non-GM products and products likely to contain GM ingredients. It's been widely reported that most Americans would like to know if their food contains GMO ingredients and would avoid foods they knew contained GM ingredients.

But there are some basic rules of thumb in avoiding GM products and are applicable worldwide:

Buy 100 percent organic: Some organic products (with multiple ingredients), however, may contain non-organic ingredients, so it's best to stick to single ingredients. Because something says "organic" on it doesn't mean it doesn't contain GM ingredients. In fact, it could contain up to 30 percent GM ingredients, so be sure the labels say 100 percent organic.

Avoid processed foods likely to be made with ingredients from the "Big Four" GM crops: corn, soy, canola (for rapeseed oil), and cotton (for cottonseed oil).

Avoid sugar unless it's 100 percent cane sugar: GM beet sugar is one of the latest additions to the food supply; avoid aspartame, an artificial sweetener derived from GM organisms.

Look at what is (or isn't) on the labels: If a product is not labeled as being GMO-free, most likely it contains some GM ingredients.

The shopping guide also has a long list of so-called invisible GM ingredients that can make their way into one's diet.

For more information, go to:

There are plenty of other websites with detailed information on GM foods and genetic engineering, some of which also provide downloadable shopping guides for consumers. Some of them include:

Source: Common Dreams.Org

Bookmark and Share

Don't Let Google Close the Book on Reader Privacy

Google is poised to radically expand its book service, monitoring the digital books you search, the pages you read, how long you spend on various pages, and even what you write down in the margins. Google could then combine your reading habits with other information it has about you from other Google services, creating a massive "digital dossier" about you, your interests, and your concerns. With numerous reports of government efforts to compel online and offline booksellers to turn over records about readers, the time is now for Google to pledge to protect reader privacy.

You shouldn't be forced to pay for digital books with your privacy. Tell Google it needs to develop a robust privacy policy that gives you at least as much privacy in books online as you have in your neighborhood library or bookstore. Google must:

  • Protect your reading records from government and third party fishing expeditions by responding only to properly-issued warrants and court orders, and by letting you know if someone has demanded access to information Google has collected about you.
  • Make sure that you can still browse and read anonymously by not forcing you to register or give personal information and by deleting any logging information for all services after a maximum of 30 days.
  • Separate data related to Google Book Search from any other information the company collects about you, unless you give it express permission.
  • Give you the ability to edit and delete any information collected about you, transfer books from one account to another without tracking, and hide your "bookshelves" or other reading lists from others with access to your computer.
  • Keep Google Book Search information private from third parties like credit card processors, book publishers, and advertisers.

Email Google CEO Eric Schmidt today and demand that the new Google Book Search service protect your privacy rights. Tell him that you won't pay for digital books with your privacy and that Google Book Search must include these basic safeguards to protect readers!

Source: Electronic Frontiers Foundation

Bookmark and Share

Rein In ACTA: Tell Congress to Open the Secret IP Pact

Despite the new administration's policy of openness, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) still remains shrouded in secrecy. But language leaked from the negotiations reveal that it threatens to shift the balance of copyright law across the world, with little or no oversight from lawmakers.

ACTA is currently being negotiated between the US, Europe and other states, including Japan, Australia, and Canada. It reaches a fifth round of deliberations in Morocco next month. Some expect the document to be ready for signing by then. Even though the process has taken over a year to reach this stage, the entire negotiation has been kept secret from the public.

But some information has unofficially emerged from the closed meetings. Draft language indicates provisions that will include mandated disclosure of personal information in alleged IP disputes, a new global requirement that "commercial scale" piracy will also capture non-commercial copies, and new powers to place injunctions on IP violations with lowered standards of proof and limited due process. Much of the language is reminiscent of entertainment industry demands -- and nowhere in the draft is there mention of the rights of individual consumers and the IP balance driving innovation in the knowledge economy.

Most disturbing of all, an entire section of the treaty is devoted to "rights management technology/the Internet," suggesting that both negotiators and lobbyists are choosing to ignore the failure of DRM in the market and the complex dangers of regulating the Internet across jurisdictions to match the demands of rightsholders.

All of these radical changes are taking place behind closed doors. Of over 1300 pages of ACTA background documents requested by EFF in a Freedom of Information Act request last year, only 159 were released to the public by the United States Trade Representative (USTR). EFF and Public Knowledge are currently involved in a pending Federal lawsuit to obtain more information.

Congress can and should do more. At a time when the competitiveness of the US economy is at stake, open debate about real changes to global technology policy is too important to ignore. Instead of the public relying on lawsuits and leaked documents, Congress can tell the USTR to open up the ACTA process to true oversight and deliberation, and demand it keep to its original agenda of fighting counterfeit fake products and commercial piracy on behalf of consumers.

ACTA has been compromised by secrecy and privileged access for industry lobbyists. Tell Congress to open it up, or demand an alternative.


Bookmark and Share

UK Alert: Stop the Pirate-Finder General!

Lord Peter Mandelson, the UK's First Secretary of State, has introduced a bill to grant himself (and future politicians) the power to re-write Britain's core copyright legislation with almost no Parliamentary debate, using fast-track secondary legislation. If you're in Britain, call your MP now, and tell him or her that no Secretary of State should be able to rewrite copyright law on a whim!

In the UK, the Labour administration's impatience to pass its "Digital Economy" agenda risks throwing balanced, deliberate reform of copyright law utterly out of the window. With no warning or consultation, the draft Digital Economy bill now includes a provision granting the Secretary of State — currently Lord Peter Mandelson — the power to make statutory instruments that can re-write Britain's Copyright, Design and Patents Act with almost no Parliamentary debate.

Once the Digital Economy Bill is passed by Parliament, the Secretary of State could use sweeping powers to effect wide-ranging changes to the copyright system to swiftly meet the needs of one set of interest holders:

The Secretary of State may by order amend Part 1 [of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act] or this Part for the purpose of preventing or reducing the infringement of copyright by means of the internet, if it appears to the Secretary of State appropriate to do so having regard to technological developments that have occurred or are likely to occur.

This would allow those who lobby for more draconian copyright enforcement the ability to bypass the normal democratic process, and grant them an effective veto on new Internet technologies that concerns them.

The only way to stop constant ratcheting up of punishments and restrictions on innovation is to ensure that such broad powers are never granted. Call your MP now, and tell him or her that no Secretary of State should be able to rewrite copyright law on a whim.

Suggested message to your MP

All MPs can be contacted via the House of Commons switchboard at:
+44 (0)20 7219 3000

"I'm calling to state my opposition to Lord Mandelson's proposals to change our copyright law to benefit a few industries, and his attempts to make wide-ranging changes through secondary legislation. Please make it clear to the government that in its current form, its Digital Economy bill and any related statutory instruments affecting copyright law will damage the digital economy, not build it." (Add your own comments.)

After your call, let the UK's Open Rights Group know what your MP said here.

Bookmark and Share