Mr. Happy Good News

 

‘Reform: Destruction unfolding in our times’

In weekly class, Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem says Reform movement is worse than Holocaust deniers.
Contact Editor

Mordechai Sones, 05/09/17 http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/235085

Jerusalem Sephardi Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar today (Tuesday) slammed the Reform movement following the Supreme Court petition they submitted to revive what is known as the Western Wall deal. The deal would expand the existing mixed gender prayer area at the site, join the entrances to the traditional and mixed prayer areas and create a committee for administering the Wall which would include non-observant Jews.

“I learned that there was a hearing regarding the Western Wall, the petition of the ‘accursed villains’ who are perpetrating every transgression in the world against the Torah … they marry gentiles with Jews, they have neither Yom Kippur nor Shabbat, but they want prayer … One shouldn’t think for a minute that they want to pray. What they are after is to desecrate the sacred,” he said in his weekly shiur Torah class), as quoted by the haredi news website Kikar Hashabbat.

“[This continued] until G-d intervened and canceled the previous bad plan; but the Reform movement sat idly by. The court took over the matter and warned them to implement the plan and if not, the court would rule. It was foreseeable and predictable. We said publicly that this silence reveals a prior agreement.”

He explained that the Reform movement is worse than Holocaust denial in his eyes for denying even more of Jewish history. “They are trying to blind the public and say that ‘the haredi extremists invented it (halakha)’. It’s exactly like Holocaust denial. They scream, ‘Why in Iran are there Holocaust deniers?’ They deny more than the Holocaust … They deny the Temple, all the Mishnaic sources and all the Talmudic tractates that speak of the men’s sections and the women’s sections. Is that something anyone doubts? Did we invent this ourselves?

“It is a destruction that is being created in our time; destruction, real destruction, but just as we didn’t give up after the destruction itself for almost 2,000 years, we have not given up because of them, nor are we afraid of them.”

He also criticized the Supreme Court. “It’s always seeking equal rights. Equality is a good thing, but equal rights can be taken to extremes … We see where it leads; even in security matters many countries are destroyed in the name of holy equality. But what does equality have to do with this? Is the Western Wall an object that belongs to us? It has no owner, not the government, not the court, and not the rabbi of the Western Wall. It is holy to God.”

TOP

Urgent advice to my fellow Jews (Vic Rosenthal)

November 16, 2017 Elder of Ziyon Vic Rosenthal’s Weekly Column http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2017/11/urgent-advice-to-my-fellow-jews-vic.html
Right now, today, is a critical point in Jewish history. Maybe you don’t think so, because it’s easy to be distracted by the small stuff. But we need to step back and look at the forest instead of the trees.

Israel, a Jewish state reborn after almost two millennia, is facing a real threat to its survival – perhaps as great or greater than at any time since 1948. The threat is from Iran, which a) has taken control of Lebanon and built a massive rocket and missile installation aimed at our critical infrastructure, b) has achieved strategic dominance of critical territory in Iraq and Syria, will soon have its own troops and proxy militias on our Syrian border as well (with the acquiescence of the US and Russia), and c) either already has or could presently have nuclear weapons.

Iran’s enmity to Israel is a result of religious dogma, and of Iran’s determination to dominate the Mideast and become a world superpower by defeating the US. In the past few years it has moved steadily toward its strategic goals, which include eliminating the Jewish state that it sees as both an outpost of the US and the major obstacle to its local ambitions.

Some day historians will ask why an American president, Barack Obama, did so much to help one of America’s most dangerous enemies – and also to hurt the Jewish people. But that’s not my subject today.

At the same time that the Iranian threat grows, there is a pandemic of Jew-hatred spreading throughout the world. Europe at times seems to have regressed to pre-WWII conditions or worse, with Jews caught between re-empowered right-wing Jew-baiting, fierce Islamic hatred, and left-wing “intersectional” antisemitism. Similar phenomena exist in the US, although less severe so far – except possibly on university campuses.

But while some European Jews are starting to worry about their future, in America and in Israel – where they absolutely should know better – they are acting irrationally, busying themselves with trivia or even doing exactly the opposite of what’s needed to ensure their survival and that of the Jewish state and people.

To European Jews – and here I include the UK – I have a simple message: get out. The natives don’t like you (they never did, as Herzl noticed), and Islamification is proceeding apace. It can’t get better, only worse. I would like to see you make aliyah, but I understand the economic realities, and also the risk from the coming Mideast war. This is a decision you will have to make yourselves.

The US and Canada together have about half the world’s Jews, 90% of these are non-Orthodox, and the majority of them don’t have a clue about Jewish history or the Jewish state and the conflicts and issues surrounding it. They are geographically far from the Middle East, and can’t read Jewish texts or anything else in Hebrew. For most of them, their Judaism has become attenuated and even replaced by a form of liberal humanism that makes them blind to the dangers they face and drives them away from the Jewish state. For these Jews I have several messages, depending on which of several groups they fall into.

To the supporters of J Street, Jewish Voice for Peace, If Not Now, the New Israel Fund, and so on: if you still have positive feelings about the Jewish people, please believe me that you are not doing it any favors, and find some other cause – helping the homeless in your own country is a good one – that will allow you to feel good about yourself without hurting your people.

To those who think that it is their duty to make Israel a better place by activism on behalf of Jewish pluralism, improving the treatment of our Arab citizens, protecting the rights of illegal immigrants or Palestinians, or even promoting the (impossible) “two-state solution:” please understand that you know less than nothing about these issues; and the fact that your parents were Jewish does not give you the right to intervene in our affairs. If you want to change things here, then make aliyah, vote, and send your kids to the army. Otherwise leave us alone.

To those that think that they are making things better by engaging in interfaith dialogue with Muslims, fighting “Islamophobia,” and favoring increased immigration from Muslim countries, you are being used. Don’t complain when the US and Canada have the same problems as Europe….
TOP

U.S. Jews and Israel’s Right to Be Heard

What’s so threatening about mainstream Israeli opinion?

The growing divide between Israeli and American Jews was a major topic of conversation at this week’s annual meeting of the Jewish Federations of North America. It was also the topic of a lengthy feature in Haaretz, which largely blamed the Israeli government. Inter alia, it quoted former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Daniel Shapiro as saying, in reference to that majority of American Jews who identify as non-Orthodox and politically liberal, “There is an idea that has some currency in certain circles around the Israeli government that says, ‘You know what, we can write off that segment of American Jewry because in a couple of generations their children or grandchildren will assimilate.’”

I agree that the idea of writing off this segment of American Jewry has some currency in Israel. But in most cases, it’s due less to fantasies about liberal Jews disappearing than to a belief that Israel will have to do without them whether it wants to or not, because liberal Jews can no longer be depended on for even the most minimal level of support. And by that, I don’t mean support for any specific Israeli policy, but for something far more basic: Israel’s right to be heard, by both Jewish and non-Jewish audiences.

Nothing better illustrates this than recent decisions by two campus Hillels to bar mainstream Israeli speakers from addressing Jewish students. At Princeton, it was Israel’s deputy foreign minister, Tzipi Hotovely, and at Stanford, it was a group of Israeli Arab veterans of the Israel Defense Forces. I can understand Hillel refusing to host speakers from the radical fringes. But how are Jewish students supposed to learn anything about Israel if campus Hillels won’t even let them hear from representatives of two of the country’s most mainstream institutions – its elected government and its army?

Both Hillels later termed their decisions a “mistake” – most likely under pressure from Hillel International, whose CEO, Eric Fingerhut, was the lead author on Princeton Hillel’s apology. But that doesn’t change the fact that at two leading universities on opposite sides of the country, the Hillel directors, both non-Orthodox rabbis, initially thought canceling the speeches in response to progressive students’ objections was a reasonable decision. Princeton’s Julie Roth thought it completely reasonable to deny her students the chance to hear an official Israeli government representative try to explain the government’s policies. And Stanford’s Jessica Kirschner – backed, incredibly, by the university’s “pro-Israel” association – thought it completely reasonable to deny her students the chance to hear from non-Jewish Israelis who don’t agree that Israel is an apartheid state.

American Jewish rabbis and lay leaders obviously have the right to disagree with Israeli policies. But how is any relationship possible if one side won’t even allow the other to be heard? Gagging and boycotts Israel can get from its enemies; it doesn’t need American Jews for that. So if Israel can’t even rely on them to enable interested students to be exposed to mainstream Israeli views, what exactly are they contributing to the Israel-Diaspora relationship? And why, under these circumstances, should Israel have any interest in accommodating their concerns about, say, prayer arrangements at the Western Wall?

Moreover, consider who did step in to allow the Princeton and Stanford speeches to take place as planned – the Orthodox Chabad movement, which, on both campuses, volunteered to host the speakers on very short notice. If Orthodox groups are the only ones in America these days even willing to provide a venue for Israelis who deviate from progressive orthodoxy, why wouldn’t Israel give greater weight to Orthodox views than non-Orthodox ones?

Nor is this problem limited to college campuses. The most salient example – one worth revisiting precisely because both sides consider it a turning point in the relationship – was the dispute over the Iranian nuclear deal.

Given the almost wall-to-wall Israeli consensus that the deal was dangerous (despite deep disagreements over how best to oppose it), many Israelis felt no less betrayed by American Jewish support for the deal than many American Jews felt when Israel reneged on the Western Wall compromise two years later. As former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren told Haaretz, “We went to American Jews and told them that the Iran deal endangers 6 million Jews in Israel, and that it’s not an American political issue, but rather, a matter of Jewish existence, and I don’t need to tell you what happened.” Indeed, absent that sense of betrayal, I suspect Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu might have been more willing to rebuff ultra-Orthodox pressure over the Western Wall.

But policy disagreements I can accept, even on issues of existential importance. What I found far more troubling was liberal American Jews’ reaction to Netanyahu’s efforts to lobby against the deal, which Haaretz reporter Judy Maltz accurately described as follows: “Considering that 70 percent of American Jews had voted for Barack Obama, Netanyahu’s efforts to lead a revolt against him were seen by many in the Jewish community as unconscionable.” Indeed, many prominent American Jews vociferously objected to Netanyahu’s speech to Congress against the deal, using terms like “humiliated” and “angered” to describe their feelings. Yet somehow, I haven’t heard a word from them against European leaders’ efforts today to lobby Congress to defy President Trump and preserve the deal.

In short, many liberal American Jews didn’t just oppose the Israeli government’s policy, they even objected to the government’s efforts to publicly advocate for its chosen policy. Effectively, they declared that Israel had no right to make its views heard in America if doing so discomfited them.

Many liberal Jews remain staunch supporters of Israel. Yet the ranks of the Roths and Kirschners seem to be growing every year. And though Israel and Diaspora Jewry can survive disagreements about policy, if liberal American Jews aren’t even willing to hear what Israeli Jews think, and provide a platform for others to hear it, the relationship will be over. I continue to think that would be tragedy. But you cannot have a relationship with people who don’t even acknowledge your right to speak – even if those people are your family.
TOP

Tzippy and the Iceberg

11/10/2017 http://carolineglick.com/tzippy-and-the-iceberg/

Princeton University Hillel’s last minute decision on Monday to cancel Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipy Hotovely’s scheduled address was the tip of a very dangerous iceberg.

The iceberg itself was revealed the next day on Capitol Hill. On Tuesday the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2016. The bill is intended to facilitate the fight against antisemitism on campuses by requiring university authorities to refer to the State Department’s definition of antisemitism when they consider whether harassing acts were “motivated by antisemitic intent.”

Nine witnesses appeared before the committee. Five supported the legislation. Four opposed it.

The State Department’s 2010 definition of antisemitism was formulated to fight what is referred to as “the new antisemitism.” Unlike the antisemitism of the first half of the 20th century which was directed against Jews as individuals, antisemitism today is increasingly expressed as hatred of Jews for their support for Israel – the collective Jew.

The State Department’s definition of Jew-hatred includes the delegitimization of Israel’s right to exist, demonization of the State of Israel, including by likening it to Nazi Germany, and the use of double standards to judge Israel’s actions. It also defines as an expression of Jew-hatred the allegation that Jews are more loyal to Israel than they are to their countries of citizenship.

US Jewish organizations have repeatedly asked university officials to use the State Department’s definition of antisemitism as a basis for judging allegations of antisemitic attacks and harassment against Jewish students. Most universities have refused.

Passing the bill into law is urgent. As ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt noted in his congressional testimony, attacks against American Jewish students rose 59% in the first nine months of 2017 in comparison to the same period in 2016.

Despite the increase in antisemitism, four witnesses on Tuesday – all Jewish – insisted the bill is unnecessary. Two of the bill’s opponents are Jewish studies professors.

Pamela Nadell, director of the Jewish Studies Program at American University and the president of the Jewish Studies Association, argued that while there are acts of antisemitic harassment on campuses, these acts have not “created a climate of fear that impinges upon Jewish students’ ability to learn and experience college life to the fullest.”

Barry Trachtenberg, holder of the Presidential Chair of Jewish History at Wake Forest University, took things a few steps farther. Trachtenberg not only disputed that there is a problem with antisemitism on college campuses. He rejected the State Department’s definition of antisemitism.

Trachtenberg said that it is legitimate to compare Israel to Nazi Germany. He said that it is legitimate to reject Israel’s right to exist. And he claimed erroneously that a central tenet of Zionism is that Jews are more loyal to Israel than they are to their countries of citizenship.

The two other witnesses who opposed the law, Kenneth Stern from the Rosenberg Foundation and Suzanne Nossel, executive director of the non-Jewish PEN America Center, both couched their opposition to the civil rights bill as support for freedom of speech.

Stern, Trachtenberg and Nadell cited a Stanford study of campus antisemitism to support their claim that antisemitism on campuses is not significant enough to warrant the proposed legislation.

The study, published in September by a team led by Prof. Ari Kelman, an associate professor of education and Jewish studies at Stanford, concludes that US Jewish students do not feel threatened by antisemitism on their campuses. The study also claimed that insofar as discussions of Israel are concerned, Jewish students are equally offended by Israel advocates and Palestinian supporters. In the study’s words, “They are turned off by the tone of that debate on both sides.”

As Kelman admitted and Nadell acknowledged, Kelman’s study has no scientific value whatsoever.

Its data are based on a statistically insignificant, deliberately non-representative sample of non-affiliated Jews on five California campuses. That Nadell, Trachtenberg and Stern all used a worthless study to justify their opposition to the antisemitism bill indicates they deliberately distorted the nature of the problem of antisemitism on campuses to block passage of the bill.

Kelman’s and Trachtenberg’s work to belittle the bigotry plaguing Jewish students on campuses is in line with their political activism. Kelman is a member of the Academic Council for Open Hillel.

Open Hillel is a pressure group that demands that Hillel permit activities supportive of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction movement to be carried out under its aegis.

Trachtenberg signed a petition advocating an academic boycott against the Hebrew University. He has signed petitions vilifying Israel organized by the antisemitic Jewish Voices for Peace BDS group.

As the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s director Rabbi Abraham Cooper, who testified in favor of the bill, said having Trachtenberg testify is “like inviting people from the Flat Earth Society to a hearing about NASA.”

This brings us back to Princeton and Rabbi Julie Roth, the Hillel director who disinvited Hotovely.

Like Kelman and Trachtenberg, Roth also has a public record. As Yisrael Medad reported in The Times of Israel, Roth is a member of the New Israel Fund, which supports BDS.

Her husband, Rabbi Justus Baird, is an active member of J Street and Rabbis Without Borders. The couple has donated to the BDS group T’ruah.

As David Bedein reported at Arutz 7, Roth has a record of canceling pro-Israel events. In 2009 she canceled a talk by Nonie Darwish, a former Muslim Israel advocate.

In an open apology to Hotovely published on Wednesday in The Jerusalem Post, Hillel International’s President Eric Fingerhut and Roth insisted that her treatment was “an isolated incident.”

But a similar incident occurred just weeks ago at Stanford Hillel.

Stanford’s Hillel canceled a scheduled event with Reservists on Duty, an Israeli anti-BDS group that brings IDF reservists to US campuses. Last month’s event was supposed to feature non-Jewish IDF reservists, who came to Stanford to share their military experiences.

Like Hotovely’s speech at Princeton, the Reservists on Duty event at Stanford was held at Chabad House after Hillel boycotted it at the last minute.

Fingerhut and Roth pointed to Hotovely’s speeches at New York University and Columbia University this week as proof that they are not discriminating against her. Yet according to a senior Foreign Ministry source, ministry staffers had to fight to get those events scheduled. And once they were scheduled, Hillel refused to widely publicize Hotovely’s speeches.

Only 10 students were invited to attend her lecture at Columbia. And only 40 students attended her unpublicized event at NYU.

Hillel’s desire to make light of its discrimination against center-right Israelis is eminently sensible.

The vast majority of American Jews support Israel. It wouldn’t do for pro-BDS Hillel directors to parade their hostility to the Jewish state in public.

It makes much more sense to simply block pro-Israel speakers from appearing on campuses.

Likewise, Jewish radicals who oppose civil rights protections for Jewish students beset by antisemites who express their Jew-hatred as anti-Zionism are reasonable to pretend that they are simply freedom of speech champions.

After all, professors like Trachtenberg who call for the boycott of Israeli universities while claiming that Zionists are inherently disloyal to their countries of citizenship wouldn’t want to be accused of trucking in antisemitism.

The fact that Hillel directors like Roth and radical professors like Trachtenberg, Kelman and Nadell do not reflect the views of the wider Jewish community or even of the Jewish students on their campuses does not mean that they do not pose a grave threat both the American Jewish community and to Israel.

These radical Jews who have attained positions of power in the Jewish community harm the American Jewish community and Israel is significant ways.

First, by pretending that it is legitimate to block senior Israeli officials from addressing students, they block US Jewish students from basic knowledge about Israel and the views of the majority of Israelis who democratically elect their representatives.

Second, by permitting the slander of the likes of Hotovely and Reservists on Duty, these campus Jewish leaders and professors cultivate ignorance among Jewish students while emptying the term pro-Israel of all meaning. In in their zeal to promote anti-Zionist libels and activism, they empower ignorant students to blithely and falsely slander Hotovely and other senior officials as “racists.” By extension, they libel the entire nation of Israel whose citizens democratically elected their Knesset representatives and government.

If these actions continue, a significant diminishment in levels of support for Israel among American Jews can be expected in the years to come.

Most perniciously, in pursuit of their agenda, these radical Jewish leaders and academics seek to deny adequate civil rights protections for American Jews. By claiming that the most significant form of antisemitism on college campuses – antisemitism rooted in hatred of Israel and its supporters – is not antisemitism, and by lobbying to prevent the Antisemitism Awareness Act from being passed into law, they are working to undermine the civil rights protections of American Jewry.

As these events unfold, these radical forces in the community are also seeding their ranks in leadership positions in the community.

For instance, in September, backed by deep-pocketed donors, BDS activist David Myers was appointed head of the Center for Jewish History in New York.

Myers is a member of several BDS groups including Jewish Voices for Peace, J Street, the New Israel Fund, and If Not Now. Kelman and other anti-Zionist Jewish academics applauded his appointment.

Myers’ animosity toward Israel is reflected in his scholarship. Justifying anti-Zionism is a major focus of his work. He has authored sympathetic articles about the anti-Zionist Satmar Hassidic sect.

When considering how to stem the growing power of anti-Israel and antisemitism-enabling Jews in the American Jewish community, it is worth considering the response to Myers’s appointment.

When the Center for Jewish History announced his hiring, a small coalition of pro-Israel activists organized protests against it. True, the demonstrations failed to cancel his appointment. But the instinct that informed them was correct.

Israel advocates – supported by the Israeli government – should oppose the hiring and advocate the firing of anti-Israel activists in major Jewish groups. For instance, following her discriminatory treatment of Hotovely, Israel should demand that Hillel International fire Roth and replace her with a pro-Israel Jewish professional.

So, too, Trachtenberg and professors like him who truck in antisemitic propaganda masquerading as academic research should not be given a free pass.

Pro-Israel activists should file complaints with his university for his advocacy of antisemitic positions is sworn congressional testimony.

The abuse Hotovely endured this week was a symptom of a much larger problem. A small but powerful minority of American Jews seeks to silence Israeli voices, as part of a larger movement to deny civil rights protections to pro-Israel American Jews. To defeat these efforts both the symptom and the disease must be fought relentlessly.

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

TOP

Hillel At Princeton: On the Roof?

The 19th Knesset swearing in ceremony at the Knesset Plenom in Jerusalem. In the picture, MK of Halikud Beiteinu Party, Tzipi Hotovely (center).

The 19th Knesset swearing in ceremony at the Knesset Plenum in Jerusalem. MK Tzipi Hotovely (Likud)Photo Credit: GPO

Most of us have heard, or should have, of the adventures of Hillel the Elder on a roof on a snowy night.  As recorded in Yoma 35b

Hillel the Elder every day he used to work and earn one tropaic, half of which he would give to the watchman at the house of study; the other half he used on food for himself and the members of his household. One day he was unable to earn anything, so the watchman at the house of study did not let him in. He then climbed [to the roof] and hung on, sitting over the opening of the skylight, so that he could hear the words of the living God from the mouths of Shemaiah and Avtalion. It is said that the was a Sabbath eve in the winter solstice, and snow came down on him from heaven. When the dawn rose, Shemaiah said to Avtalion, “Brother Avtalion, every day this house is bright with light, but today it is dark. Is the day cloudy?” When they looked up, they saw the figure of a man in the skylight. They climbed to the roof and found Hillel, covered with three cubits of snow. They removed the snow from him, bathed and anointed him, and, as they seated him in front of an open fire, they said, “This man deserves to have the Sabbath profaned on his behalf.”…

Hillel of Princeton seems to be stuck up on a roof.

The bare facts about the Hotovely-Princeton Hillel Affair are known.

Protests from a dovish Jewish campus group, the Alliance of Jewish Progressives (AJP) caused the Hillel of Princeton University to cancel a scheduled talk by Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely that was to take place this past Monday evening at the last moment. Chabad picked up the talk.

The protest went public in a letter published in the campus daily. Afterwards, AJP claimed they were only upset that proper procedures for inviting guests to events of the Center for Jewish Living were not followed through on,but were quite forthright that

We firmly reject the CJL’s choice to host a racist speaker like Hotovely while it continues to quiet progressive voices.

While Deputy Minister Michael Oren demanded a boycott, I tweeted him

No, more should come until the Hillel staff there is removed

At the campus newspaper article I commented that its content is what someone has called an “Reality inversion alert” –

You write:
“Hotovely’s alarming vision for the future of the region is coupled with a complete rejection of Palestinian history and connection to key sites such as the Haram al-Sharif [Temple Mount].”But it is the Muslims, from the Mufti to Arafat to Abbas who reject any Jewish claim to or identity with Mount Moriah, the First and Second Temples, the attempt to build a Third Temple in 363 CE or anything Jewish about Jerusalem. Have the signees ever studied anything about Jewish history…Do they possess knowledge or slogans? Outlook or out-of-touch? This is all so embarrassing for we Jews who, of whatever political stripe, at least actually know something of what we speak and write.

added that

throwing around a charge of “racism” really gets one no where when, on the record, the most racist element in the conflict are Arabs who wish to deny a ethnic national community any political, civil and human rights the international community recognized and guaranteed consistently since 1917

A late-burner was the AJP post-event claim that they were misunderstood:

MK Hotovely clearly misunderstands the intricacies of the Princeton Jewish community and the aims of our protest. Our Hillel’s response to the concerns of progressive Jewish students does not constitute a “liberal dictatorship.” Rather, the events of the past two days show the CJL’s commitment to more equitable standards of inclusivity and diversity.

But they weren’t. They clearly sought to shut her down,

“We firmly reject the CJL’s choice to host a racist speaker like Hotovely…”

and succeeded, while claiming all they wanted was for the rules for inviting speakers, the “Israel policy”, by applied equally.

Be that as it may, what raised eyebrows even more was AJP’s claim that a Jewish Agency shaliah was somehow involved. They published

On the evening of Nov. 5, in an email to students and members of the community who planned to attend an address by Tzipi Hotovely, a member of Israel’s Knesset, Rabbi Julie Roth, the executive director of the Center for Jewish Life, and the CJL Israel Fellow, Lior Sharir, announced they would be postponing Hotovely’s visit to the CJL pending further review by the Israel Advisory Committee.

Yigal Palmor left a comment at my Facebook post, writing:

We’ve checked and I can confirm that any suggestion that the Shaliach was behind the cancellation is *untrue*. Hillel have published an apology and it clearly shows this had nothing to do with the shaliach…the Shaliach had nothing to do with the cancellation.

I should trust him as he is, after all, Director of Public Affairs and Communications at The Jewish Agency for Israel. I did ask him if he would call out AJP as liars. I am still waiting.

What is even more intriguing than an Israeli-funded shaliah quashing a government minister’s right to free speech is the role of Rabbi Roth. Could she not have simply picked up a phone and within 5-10 minutes received a confirmation that Ms. Hotovely’s right to appear at Hillel is approved? Did she really think Hotovely is a racist and her arrival should be stymied by rules?

Rabbi Roth is active in the New Israel Fund.

She’s #163 on this petition and #1868 on this one. She has full free speech. Even progressive free speech. And she has unique insight into other radical groups as her husband is Rabbi Justus Baird who has written:

The Torah was received in the diaspora. Most of Jewish history was lived out in the diaspora. Diaspora Judaism deserves a foundational, equal place in the self-identity of the Jewish people, right alongside the Jewish state.

That is, I should stress, a legitimate opinion. It is also radical and skewed, but that’s my opinion. The Diaspora, I think, does not deserve, in Judaism, equality to Israel.

He’s with Rabbis Without Borders. They, at least, hold to the principle that a Rabbi should “strive[s] to be aware of the partial truth in a view with which we deeply disagree”. He is on the Rabbis & Cantors Board of J Street. He identifies with T’ruah and he and his wife have donated a sum of between $1,00-$2,499 to the group.

T’ruah promotes positions – and I don’t know if one would term them mainstream, radical, progressive or extreme – that include that they

advocate for an end to the military occupation of the West Bank and an end to the continued expansion of the settlements that extend this occupation, that infringe on the human rights of Palestinians, and that compromise the safety and security of Israelis…We urge all members of the North American Jewish community to engage in debate and disagreement for the sake of greater truth, justice, and peace.

That sounds to me a little like…Tzipi Hotovely and her predicament which someone termed an example of moral panic by left-wingers.

And at T’ruah they

are concerned about efforts to shut out a growing segment of our community based on their support for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement. Despite our disagreements with this movement, we believe that the Jewish community is strengthened by vigorous debate on issues that are vital to the well-being of Israel and the worldwide Jewish community.

That sounds very much like support for AJP.

He was a supporter of Linda Sarsour as published here at TOI:

“Anyone who has worked closely with Linda knows that she has a deep love for and appreciation for Judaism and Jews,” he said. “Linda and I don’t agree on everything about Israel, Palestine or about other issues, and that is OK with me. I fully support CUNY giving a pubic platform to Linda Sarsour, and I think its graduates have a lot to learn from her voice.”

Hillel has apologized. But I still cannot figure out Rabbi Roth’s role in all this. Was she too busy?

Why didn’t she convene the committee to obtain approval prior to the protest? Why couldn’t she do that in a quick round of phone calls after the AJP protest? She is signed on the ‘apology’ that notes Hotovely’s appearance cancellation was done

because it had not been reviewed by the Center for Jewish Life’s Israel Advisory Committee, which is designed to review and facilitate a broad range of Israel programming throughout the year…This was not a good enough reason to postpone the event… we should have engaged a broader range of students in this program from the beginning…

I am sorry but that sounds very weak and less plausible each time I read it. Was there any doubt in Roth’s mind that Hotovely should be a welcome guest? Or does she think providing her a platform, perhaps, should be debated? Did she really think she was a racist and that AJP had the power over her to stop the event? Does she agree with her husband that the Diaspora is at a level of offsetting Israel?

Why hasn’t AJP been called out on suggesting Sharir was not involved? Did they lie or what? Why haven’t we heard of an investigation or a review of what occurred? Will Rabbi Roth be censured or found innocent of any possible wrongdoing?

Until Next Year in Jerusalem?

(with thanks to AB)

TOP

Happy Birthday CIA: 7 Truly Terrible Things The Agency Has Done In 70 Years

by Tyler Durden Sep 19, 2017 http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-19/happy-birthday-cia-7-truly-terrible-things-agency-has-done-70-years

Authored by Carey Wedler via TheAntiMedia.org,

On Monday, President Trump tweeted birthday wishes to the Air Force and the CIA. Both became official organizations 70 years ago on September 18, 1947, with the implementation of the National Security Act of 1947.

 

After spending years as a wartime intelligence agency called the Office of Strategic Services, the agency was solidified as a key player in the federal government’s operations with then-President Harry Truman’s authorization.

In the seventy years since, the CIA has committed a wide variety of misdeeds, crimes, coups, and violence. Here are seven of the worst programs they’ve carried out (that are known to the public):

1.Toppling governments around the world

The CIA is best known for its first coup, Operation Ajax, in 1953, in which it ousted the democratically elected leader of Iran, Mohammed Mossadegh, reinstating the autocratic Shah, who favored western oil interests. That operation, which the CIA now admits to waging with British intelligence, ultimately resulted in the 1979 revolution and subsequent U.S. hostage crisis. Relations between the U.S. and Iran remain strained to this day, aptly described by the CIA-coined term “blowback.”

But the CIA has had a hand in toppling a number of other democratically elected governments, from Guatemala (1954) and the Congo (1960) to the Dominican Republic (1961), South Vietnam (1963), Brazil (1964), and Chile (1973). The CIA has aimed to install leaders who appease American interests, often empowering oppressive, violent dictators. This is only a partial list of countries where the CIA covertly attempted to exploit and manipulate sovereign nations’ governments.

2. Operation Paperclip

In one of the more bizarre CIA plots, the agency and other government departments employed Nazi scientists both within and outside the United States to gain an advantage over the Soviets. As summarized by NPR:

The aim [of Operation Paperclip] was to find and preserve German weapons, including biological and chemical agents, but American scientific intelligence officers quickly realized the weapons themselves were not enough.

They decided the United States needed to bring the Nazi scientists themselves to the U.S. Thus began a mission to recruit top Nazi doctors, physicists and chemists — including Wernher von Braun, who went on to design the rockets that took man to the moon.

They kept this plot secret, though they admitted to it upon the release of Operation Paperclip: The Secret Intelligence Program That Brought Nazi Scientists To America by Annie Jacobsen. In a book review, the CIA wrote that “Henry Wallace, former vice president and secretary of commerce, believed the scientists’ ideas could launch new civilian industries and produce jobs.” 

They praised the book’s historical accuracy, noting “that the Launch Operations Center at Cape Canaveral, Florida, was headed by Kurt Debus, an ardent Nazi.” They acknowledged that “General Reinhard Gehlen, former head of Nazi intelligence operations against the Soviets, was hired by the US Army and later by the CIA to operate 600 ex-Nazi agents in the Soviet zone of occupied Germany.”

Remarkably, they noted that Jacobsen “understandably questions the morality of the decision to hire Nazi SS scientists,” but praise her for pointing out that it was done to fight Soviets. They also made sure to add that the Soviets hired Nazis, too, apparently justifying their own questionable actions by citing their most loathed enemy.

3. Operation CHAOS

The FBI is widely known for its COINTELPRO schemes to undermine communist movements in the 1950s and anti-war, civil rights, and black power movements in the 1960s, but the CIA has not been implicated nearly as deeply because, technically, the CIA cannot legally engage in domestic spying. But that was of little concern to President Lyndon B. Johnson as opposition to the Vietnam war grew. According to former New York Times journalist and Pulitzer Prize-winner Tim Weiner, as documented in his extensive CIA historyLegacy of Ashes, Johnson instructed then-CIA Director Richard Helms to break the law:

In October 1967, a handful of CIA analysts joined in the first big Washington march against the war. The president regarded protesters as enemies of the state. He was convinced that the peace movement was controlled and financed by Moscow and Beijing. He wanted proof. He ordered Richard Helms to produce it.

Helms reminded the president that the CIA was barred from spying on Americans. He says Johnson told him: ‘I’m quite aware of that. What I want for you is to pursue this matter, and to do what is necessary to track down the foreign communists who are behind this intolerable interference in our domestic affairs…’

Helms obeyed. Weiner wrote:

In a blatant violation of his powers under the law, the director of central intelligence became a part-time secret police chief. The CIA undertook a domestic surveillance operation, code-named Chaos. It went on for almost seven years… Eleven CIA officers grew long hair, learned the jargon of the New Left, and went off to infiltrate peace groups in the United States and Europe.”

According to Weiner, “the agency compiled a computer index of 300,000 names of American people and organizations, and extensive files on 7,200 citizens. It began working in secret with police departments all over America.” Because they could not draw a “clear distinction” between the new far left and mainstream opposition to the war, the CIA spied on every major peace organization in the country. President Johnson also wanted them to prove a connection between foreign communists and the black power movement. “The agency tried its best,” Weiner noted, ultimately noting that “the CIA never found a shred of evidence that linked the leaders of the American left or the black-power movement to foreign governments.

4. Infiltrating the media

Over the years, the CIA has successfully gained influence in the news media, as well as popular media like film and television. Its influence over the news began almost immediately after the agency was formed. As Weiner explained, CIA Director Allen Dulles established firm ties with newspapers:

Dulles kept in close touch with the men who ran the New York Times, The Washington Post, and the nation’s leading weekly magazines. He could pick up the phone and edit a breaking story, make sure an irritating foreign correspondent was yanked from the field, or hire the services of men such as Time’s Berlin bureau chief and Newsweek’s man in Tokyo.”

He continued:

It was second nature for Dulles to plant stories in the press. American newsrooms were dominated by veterans of the government’s wartime propaganda branch, the Office of War Information…The men who responded to the CIA’s call included Henry Luce and his editors at Time, Life, and Fortune; popular magazines such as Parade, the Saturday Review, and Reader’s Digest; and the most powerful executives at CBS News. Dulles built a public-relations and propaganda machine that came to include more than fifty news organizations, a dozen publishing houses, and personal pledges of support from men such as Axel Springer, West Germany’s most powerful press baron.”

The CIA’s influence had not waned by 1977 when journalist Carl Bernstein reported on publications with CIA agents in their employ, as well as “more than 400 American journalists who in the past twenty?five years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency.”

The CIA has also successfully advised on and influenced numerous television shows, such as Homeland and 24 and films like Zero Dark Thirty and Argo, which push narratives that ultimately favor the agency. According to Tricia Jenkins, author of The CIA in Hollywood: How the Agency Shapes Film & Televisiona concerted agency effort began in the 1990s to counteract negative public perceptions of the CIA, but their influence reaches back decades. In the 1950s, filmmakers produced films for the CIA, including the 1954 film adaptation of George Orwell’s Animal Farm.

Researchers Tom Secker and Matthew Alford, whose work has been published in the American Journal of Economics and Sociology, say their recent Freedom of Information Act requests have shown that the CIA — along with the military — have influenced over 1,800 films and television shows, many of which have nothing to do with CIA or military themes.

5. Drug-induced Mind control

In the 1950s, the CIA began experimenting with drugs to determine whether they might be useful in extracting information. As Smithsonian Magazine has noted of the MKUltra project:

The project, which continued for more than a decade, was originally intended to make sure the United States government kept up with presumed Soviet advances in mind-control technology. It ballooned in scope and its ultimate result, among other things, was illegal drug testing on thousands of Americans.”

Further:

The intent of the project was to study ‘the use of biological and chemical materials in altering human behavior,’ according to the official testimony of CIA director Stansfield Turner in 1977. The project was conducted in extreme secrecy, Turner said, because of ethical and legal questions surrounding the program and the negative public response that the CIA anticipated if MKUltra should become public.

Under MKUltra, the CIA gave itself the authority to research how drugs could:’ ‘promote the intoxicating effects of alcohol;’ ‘render the induction of hypnosis easier;’ ‘enhance the ability of individuals to withstand privation, torture and coercion;’ produce amnesia, shock and confusion; and much more. Many of these questions were investigated using unwitting test subjects, like drug-addicted prisoners, marginalized sex workers and terminal cancer patients– ‘people who could not fight back,’ in the words of Sidney Gottlieb, the chemist who introduced LSD to the CIA.

Further, as Weiner noted:

Under its auspices, seven prisoners at a federal penitentiary in Kentucky were kept high on LSD for seventy-seven consecutive days. When the CIA slipped the same drug to an army civilian employee, Frank Olson, he leaped out of the window of a New York Hotel.”

Weiner added that senior CIA officers destroyed “almost all of the records” of the programs, but that while the “evidence that remains is fragmentary…it strongly suggests that use of secret prisons for the forcible drug-induced questioning of suspect agents went on throughout the 1950s.

Years later, the CIA would be accused of distributing crack-cocaine into poor black communities, though this is currently less substantiated and supported mostly by accounts of those who claim to have been involved.

6. Brutal torture tactics

More recently, the CIA was exposed for sponsoring abusive, disturbing terror tactics against detainees at prisons housing terror suspects. An extensive 2014 Senate report documented agents committing sexual abuse, forcing detainees to stand on broken legs, waterboarding them so severely it sometimes led to convulsions, and imposing forced rectal feeding, to name a few examples. Ultimately, the agency had very little actionable intelligence to show for their torture tactics but lied to suggest they did, according to the torture report. Their torture tactics led the International Criminal Court to suggest the CIA, along with the U.S. armed forces, could be guilty of war crimes for their abuses.

7. Arming radicals

The CIA has a long habit of arming radical, extremist groups that view the United States as enemies. In 1979, the CIA set out to support Afghan rebels in their bid to defeat the Soviet occupation of the Middle Eastern country. As Weiner wrote, in 1979, “Prompted by Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter signed a covert-action order for the CIA to provide the Afghan rebels with medical aid, money, and propaganda.

As Weiner detailed later in his book:

The Pakistani intelligence chiefs who doled out the CIA’s guns and money favored the Afghan factions who proved themselves most capable in battle. Those factions also happened to be the most committed Islamists. No one dreamed that the holy warriors could ever turn their jihad against the United States.”

Though some speculate the CIA directly armed Osama bin Laden, that is yet to be fully proven or admitted. What is clear is that western media revered him as a valuable fighter against the Soviets, that he arrived to fight in Afghanistan in1980, and that al-Qaeda emerged from the mujahideen, who were beneficiaries of the CIA’s program. Stanford University has noted that Bin Laden and Abdullah Azzam, a prominent Palestinian cleric, “established Al Qaeda from the fighters, financial resources, and training and recruiting structures left over from the anti-Soviet war.” Much of those “structures” were provided by the agency. Intentionally or not, the CIA helped fuel the rise of the terror group.

Weiner noted that as the CIA failed in other countries like Libya, by the late 1980s “Only the mujahideen, the Afghan holy warriors, were drawing blood and scenting victory. The CIA’s Afghan operation was now a $700-million-dollar-a-year-program” and represented 80% of the overseas budget of the clandestine services. “The CIA’s briefing books never answered the question of what would happen when a militant Islamic army defeated the godless invaders of Afghanistan,” though Tom Twetten, “the number two man in the clandestine service in the summer of 1988,” was tasked with figuring out what would happen with the Afghan rebels. “We don’t have any plan,” he concluded.

Apparently failing to learn their lesson, the CIA adopted nearly the exact same policy in Syria decades later, arming what they called “moderate rebels” against the Assad regime. Those groups ultimately aligned with al-Qaeda groups. One CIA-backed faction made headlines last year for beheading a child (though President Trump cut off the CIA program in June, the military continues to align with “moderate” groups).

*  *  *

Unsurprisingly, this list is far from complete. The CIA has engaged in a wide variety of extrajudicial practice, and there are likely countless transgressions we have yet to learn about.

As Donald Trump cheers the birthday of an agency he himself once criticized, it should be abundantly clear that the nation’s covert spy agency deserves scrutiny and skepticism — not celebration.
TOP

The Future Of The Third World

by Tyler Durden Aug 20, 2017 http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-20/future-third-world
Authored by Jayant Bhandari via Acting-Man.com,

Decolonization

The British Empire was the largest in history. At the end of World War II Britain had to start pulling out from its colonies. A major part of the reason was, ironically, the economic prosperity that had come through industrialization, massive improvements in transportation, and the advent of telecommunications, ethnic and religious respect, freedom of speech, and other liberties offered by the empire.

The colors represent the colonies of various nations in 1945, and the colonial borders of that time – click to enlarge.

After the departure of the British — as well as the French, German, Belgians, and other European colonizers — most of the newly “independent” countries suffered rapid decay in their institutions, stagnant economies, massive social strife, and a fall in standards of living. An age of anti-liberalism and tyranny descended on these former colonies. They rightly became known as third-world countries.

An armchair economist would have assumed that the economies of these former colonies, still very backward and at a very low base compared to Europe, would grow at a faster rate. Quite to the contrary, as time went on, their growth rates stayed lower than those of the West.

Socialism and the rise of dictators were typically blamed for this — at least among those on the political Right. This is not incorrect, but it is a merely proximate cause. Clarity might have been reached if people had contemplated the reason why Marxism and socialism grew like weeds in the newly independent countries.

 

Was There a Paradigm Shift in the 1980s?

According to conventional wisdom, the situation changed after the fall of the socialist ringleader, the USSR, in the late 1980s. Ex-colonized countries started to liberalize their economies and widely accepted democracy, leading to peace, the spread of education and equality, the establishment of liberal, independent institutions. Massive economic growth ensued and was sustained over the past three decades. The “third world” was soon renamed “emerging markets.”

Alas, this is a faulty narrative. Economic growth did pick up in these poor countries, and the rate of growth did markedly exceed that of the West, but the conventional narrative confuses correlation with causality. It tries to fit events to ideological preferences, which assume that we are all the same, that if Europeans could progress, so should everyone else, and that all that matters are correct incentives and appropriate institutions.

 

The beginning and end of the Soviet communist era in newspaper headlines. The overthrow of Kerensky’s interim government was the start of Bolshevik rule. To be precise, the Bolsheviks took over shortly thereafter, when they disbanded the constituent assembly in in early 1918 and subsequently gradually did the same to all non-Bolshevik Soviets that had been elected. A little more than seven decades later, the last Soviet Bolshevik leader resigned. It is worth noting that by splitting the Russian Federation from the Ukraine and Belorussia, Yeltsin effectively removed Gorbachev from power – the latter was suddenly president of a country that no longer existed and chairman of a party that was declared illegal in Russia. [PT] – click to enlarge.

 

The claimed liberalization in the “emerging markets” after the collapse of the USSR did not really happen. Progress was always one step forward and two steps back. In some ways, government regulations and repression of businesses in the “emerging markets” have actually gotten much worse. Financed by increased taxes, governments have grown by leaps and bounds — not for the benefit of society but for that of the ruling class — and are now addicted to their own growth.

The ultimate underpinnings of the so-called emerging markets haven’t changed. Their rapid economic progress during the past three decades — a one-off event — happened for reasons completely different from those assumed by most economists. The question is: once the effect of the one-off event has worn off, will emerging markets revert to the stagnation, institutional degradation, and tyranny that they had leaped into soon after the European colonizers left?

 

The One-Off Event: What Actually Changed in the 1980s

In the “emerging markets” (except for China) synchronized favorable economic changes were an anomaly. They resulted in large part from the new, extremely cheap telephony that came into existence (a result of massive cabling of the planet implemented in the 1980s) and the subsequent advent of the new technology of the internet. The internet enabled instantaneous transfer of technology from the West and as a consequence, unprecedented economic growth in “emerging markets.”

Meanwhile, a real cultural, political, and economic renaissance started in China. It was an event so momentous that it changed the economic structure not just of China, but of the whole world. Because China is seen as a communist dictatorship, it fails to be fully appreciated and respected by intellectuals who are obsessed with the institution of democracy.

But now that the low-hanging fruit from the emergence of the internet and of China (which continues to progress) have been plucked, the “emerging markets” (except, again, for China) are regressing to their normal state: decay in their institutions, stagnant economies, and social strife. They should still be called the “third world.”

There are those who hold China in contempt for copying Western technology, but they don’t understand that if copying were so easy, Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, and South Asia would have done the same. They were, after all, prepared for progress by their colonial history.

European colonizers brought in the rule of law and significantly reduced the tribal warfare that was a matter of daily routine in many of the colonies — in the Americas, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. Britain and other European nations set up institutional structures that allowed for the accumulation of intellectual and financial capital. Western-style education and democracy were initiated. But this was helpful in a very marginal way.

 

What is Wrong with the Third World

For those who have not traveled and immersed themselves in formerly colonized countries, it is hard to understand that although there was piping for water and sewage in Roman days, it still isn’t available for a very large segment of the world’s population. The wheel has existed for more than 5,000 years, but a very large number of people continue to carry water in pots on their heads.

 

Lead piping supplying water to homes already existed in Roman days, 2000 years ago.

 

The Ljubljana Marshes Wheel, which is more than 5,000 years old

 

 

Carrying pot of water, Maralwadi, Karnataka, India, Asia

There are easily a billion or more people today, who have no concept of either the pipe or the wheel, even if they went to school. It is not the absence of technology or money that is stopping these people from starting to use some basic forms of technology. It is something else.

 

 

Sir Winston Churchill, the war-time Prime Minister of Britain, talking about the future of Palestine said:

“I do not admit… that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race… has come in and taken their place.”

 

Cigar-puffing British war-time PM Winston Churchill was as politically incorrect as they come. If he were alive today, he would probably be labeled the newest Hitler by the press and spend 90% of his time apologizing. Perhaps we shouldn’t mention this, but there are many Churchill monuments dotted across Europe and one can be found in Washington DC as well (alert readers will notice that a decidedly non-triggered Washington Post fondly remembered Churchill as an “elder statesman” a mere 10 months ago; rest assured that won’t stop the social justice warrior brigade if they decide to airbrush him out of history). Just to make this clear, your editor is not exactly the biggest fan of the man who traded away half of Europe to Stalin because he felt he could “trust the Soviet communist government” and who was clearly a tad too enamored of war, a characteristic Robert Kaplan described in his strident, amoral pro-war screed Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Demands a Pagan Ethos as follows: “Churchill’s unapologetic warmongering arose not from a preference for war, but from a breast-beating Victorian sense of imperial destiny…” Neither the breast-beating nor the sense of imperial destiny are really our thing, but we tip our hat to the man’s utter lack of political correctness and his associated willingness to offend all and sundry with a nigh Trumpian alacrity and determination. [PT]

 

On Islam, he said:

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist…”

Talking about India he famously said:

“I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.”

A remark often attributed to Churchill, although this remains unverified, has certainly stood the test of time so far:

“If independence is granted to India, power will go to the hands of rascals, rogues, freebooters; all Indian leaders will be of low caliber and men of straw. They will have sweet tongues and silly hearts. They will fight amongst themselves for power and India will be lost in political squabbles. A day will come when even air and water will be taxed in India.”

Europeans of that time clearly knew that there was something fundamentally different between the West and the rest, and that the colonies would not survive without the pillars and the cement European management provided.

With the rise of political correctness this wisdom was erased from our common understanding – but it is something that may well return to haunt us in the near future, as the third world fails to fulfill expectations, while people who immigrate to Europe, Canada, Australia and the US from there fail to assimilate.

 

The Missing Underpinnings: Reason And All That Depends On It

Until now, the hope among people in the World Bank, the IMF, and other armchair intellectuals was that once the correct incentives were in place and institutions were organized, these structures imposed from on high would put the third world on a path to perpetual growth. They couldn’t have been more wrong.

The cart has been put in front of the horse. It is institutions that emerge from the underlying culture, not the other way around. And cultural change is a process taking millennia, perhaps even longer. As soon as Europeans quit their colonies, the institutional structures they left started to crumble.

Alas, it takes a Ph.D. from an Ivy League college and a quarter of a million dollar salary at the World Bank or the IMF to not understand what the key issue with development economics and institutional failures is: the missing ingredient in the third world was and is the concept of objective, impartial reason – the basis of laws and institutions that protect individual rights.

This concept of reason took 2,500 years to develop and get infused into the culture, memes, and genes of Europeans — a difficult process that, even in Europe, was never fully completed. European institutions were at their root products of this concept.

 

A justly famous quote by Thomas Paine (a prolific writer with a side job as a founding father and revolutionary). Paine was deeply suspicious of self-anointed authorities, both of the secular and clerical variety, who in turn regarded him as dangerous. His writings inter alia provoked a so-called “pamphlet war” in Britain (it would be best if all wars were conducted via pamphlets). [PT]

 

Despite massive efforts by missionaries, religious and secular, and of institutions imposed on poor countries, reason failed to get transmitted. Whatever marginal improvement was achieved over 200 to 300 years of colonization is therefore slowly but surely undone.

Without reason, subsidiary concepts such as equality before the law, compassion and empathy won’t operate. Irrational societies simply cannot maintain institutions representing the rule of law and fairness. The consequence is that they cannot evolve or even maintain institutions the European colonizers left behind.

Any institutions imposed on them — schools, armies, elections, national executives, banking and taxation systems — must mutate to cater to the underlying irrationality and tribalism of the third world.

 

Western Institutions Have Mutated

Education has become a dogma in “emerging markets”, not a tool; it floats non-assimilated in the minds of people lacking objective reason. Instead of leading to creativity and critical thinking, it is used for propaganda by demagogues.

Without impartial reason, democracy is a mere tribal, geographical concept, steeped in arrogance. All popular and “educated” rhetoric to the contrary, I can think of no country in the non-western world that did well after it adopted “democracy.”

The spread of nationalism (which to a rational mind is about the commonality of values) has created crises by unifying people along tribal lines. The most visible example is provided by events in the Middle East, but the basic problem is the same in every South Asian and African country and in most of South America.

India, the geographical entity I grew up in, was rapidly collectivized under the flag and the national anthem. It has the potential to become the Middle East on steroids, once Hindutava (Hindu nationalism) has become deeply rooted in society.

 

Assessing the Current Predicament

In Burma, a whiff of democracy does not seem to have inhibited a genocide perpetrated by Buddhists against the Muslim Rohingya. Thailand (which was not colonized in a strictly political sense) has gone silent, but its crisis continues.

Turkey and Malaysia, among the better of these backward societies, have embarked on a path of rapid regression to their medieval pasts. South Africa, which not too long ago was considered a first-world country, got rid of apartheid only to end up with something even worse.

The same happened with Venezuela, which was among the richer countries of the world in the not-too-distant past. It is ready to implode, a fate that may befall Brazil as well one day. Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, and East Timor are widely acknowledged to be in a mess, and are getting worse by the day.

Indonesia took a breather for a few years and is now once again in the thrall of fanaticism. India is the biggest democracy, so its problems are actively ignored by the Western press, but they won’t be for long, as India continues to evolve toward a police state.

Botswana was seen as one of the countries with the fastest and longest-lasting economic growth. What was ignored was the fact that this rather large country has a very small population, which benefited hugely from diamonds and other natural resources. The top political layer of Botswana is still a leftover from the British. The local culture continues to corrode what was left by them, and there are clear signs that Botswana is past its peak.

 

Part of the central business district in Gaborone, Botswana. Long time readers may recall an article we posted about 2.5 years ago: “Botswana – Getting it Right in Africa”. We are not sure if much has changed since then, but it is worth recalling that Botswana started out as the third-poorest country in Africa when it became independent in 1966 and is today one the richest. The very small population (by African standards) combined with the large income the country obtains from diamond mining no doubt played a role in this, but being rich in natural resources means very little per se. Botswana never fell for Marxism. When the country gained independence, its political leadership adopted democracy and free markets and never looked back. Botswana is a very homogenous society in terms of religious and tribal affiliations, which differentiates the country from most other former colonial territories in Africa. From our personal – admittedly by now a bit dated – experience, we can state that Botswana is the only African country in which one is unlikely to encounter any corruption – not even the lowliest government minion will ask for bribes as far as we could tell (in many African countries, officials begin demanding bribes the moment one wants to cross the border). Considering all that, we are slightly more hopeful about Botswana, but it is not an island. Deteriorating conditions in neighboring countries may well prove contagious at some point. [PT]

Papua New Guinea was another country that was doing reasonably well before the Australians left. It is now rapidly regressing to its tribal, irrational, and extremely violent norms, where for all practical purposes rape is not even considered a crime.

 

Conclusion: A Vain Hope

The world may recognize most of the above, but it sees these countries’ problems as isolated events that can be corrected by further impositions of Western institutions, under the guidance of the UN or some such international (and therefore “non-colonialist”) organization.

Amusingly, our intellectual climate — a product of political correctness — is such that the third world is nowadays seen as the backbone of humanity’s future economic growth. Unfortunately, so-called emerging markets are probably headed for a chaotic future. The likeliest prospect is that these countries will continue to cater to irrational forces, particularly tribalism, and that they will consequently cease to exist, disintegrating into much smaller entities.

As the tide of economic growth goes out with the final phase of plucking the free gift of internet technology nearing its end, their problems will resurface rapidly – precisely when the last of those who were trained under the colonial system are sent to the “dustbin of history”.
TOP

95% of status quo scientists FAIL this simple SCIENCE QUIZ… (take it yourself and see why)

Saturday, March 25, 2017 by:

 

(Natural News) As an independent scientist and lab science director of a globally accredited analytical laboratory (CWClabs.com), I’ve come to discover that most “status quo” scientists are woefully ignorant about real science.

Most of what gets paraded around as “science” in our society is nothing more than corporate propaganda pretending to be science. This is where all the “fake science” lies come from that tell us glyphosate is harmless, GMOs don’t cause cancer, fluoride is wonderful to ingest and mercury in vaccines is safe to inject into children.

But as I’ve interacted with university laboratories, science paper authors and scientific “thinkers” across the realm of science, I’ve come to realize something truly astonishing: Most status quo scientists are clueless about reality. What they think they know is mostly pseudoknowledge that’s been pushed onto them by medical schools or industry propaganda (Big Biotech, Big Pharma, Big Ag, the cancer industry, etc.). They absolutely do not want anyone waking people up to legitimate, independent science that might question the false narratives of the status quo. (My own efforts to educate the public about real science are so successful that the biotech industry maintains a full-time “negative P.R.” firm whose entire mission is to discredit me personally by spreading obviously fictional accusations. That’s how desperate they are to silence independent scientists who are educating the public.)

But don’t take my word for what I’ve said above. You need to see for yourself how incredibly ignorant many status quo scientists really are.

95% of status quo scientists FAIL this simple science quiz

To demonstrate the astonishing ignorance of status quo scientists and doctors, I’ve created a science quiz, found below, that 95% of status quo scientists FAIL for the simple reason that they are dogmatists more than they are legitimate scientists.

For example, nearly all scientists ridiculously believe that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. This has been taught to every scientist with such repetitive insistence that nearly all scientists now take the concept as a matter of faith. (Note the word “faith,” not “fact.”) Even scientists reading this will initially think I’m wrong and that they are right, because the false idea that “the speed of light is a constant” has been hammered into their brains from the very first day of academic science training.

Yet it turns out that the speed of light isn’t a constant at all. Not even in a vacuum. And to make sure nobody uncovers the truth about the variance in the speed of light, the NIST literally defines the speed of light using circular logic which references the speed of light itself as a factor in determining the speed of light (see the full mathematical explanation below). As a result, when NIST says the speed of light is a constant, it is the mathematical equivalent of saying X = X, which of course is always true, no matter what the value of X. Yet, in the real universe, the speed of light isn’t a constant as you’ll see below. (Right there, nearly 95% of status quo scientists fail the quiz.)

Any scientist who says the speed of light is always a constant in a vacuum is scientifically ignorant and has been living under a massive cover-up perpetrated by the status quo scientific community (read below for more details) which pretends that c is a constant. But that’s nothing more than fake science.

Check out the quiz for yourself. If you know any science friends or colleagues, give them this quiz and see if they get even a single answer correct. I’ve given this quiz to many scientists, and not a single person has answered every science question correctly. Most scientists fail every question here. Every single one.

What does that tell you about the sad state of the “scientific” establishment in society today? It tells you that much of what its members believe is pseudoscience.

The SCIENCE QUIZ that 95% of status quo scientists FAIL

Here’s the five-question quiz. Answers are below.

#1) TRUE or FALSE: In a vacuum, the speed of light is a constant.

#2) TRUE or FALSE: In mammals, the lungs produce enormous quantities of blood platelets.

#3) TRUE or FALSE: At over 400 ppm, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are now the highest they’ve ever been on our planet.

#4) TRUE or FALSE: Mercury is extremely toxic in the environment but totally safe when injected into children via vaccines.

#5) TRUE OR FALSE: Type-2 diabetes can be reversed and cured.

Answers are given below, with detailed scientific citations, charts and additional links for exploration. Most of the links you’ll find here are links to science publications recognized by mainstream science such as Science Daily and Science Alert.

Also, watch my new documentary here which explains how independent, grassroots scientists (like myself) are now taking back “science” from the corrupt, corporate poisoners who have infested the scientific status quo with twisted falsehoods and deliberate disinformation to suppress human knowledge:

 

ANSWERS to the science quiz that 95% of status quo scientists FAIL

#1) TRUE or FALSE: In a vacuum, the speed of light is a constant.

Correct answer: FALSE

The speed is not a constant. Even in a vacuum, it varies in two important ways.

First, the speed of light varies based on the structure of the light. As explained in an article on ScienceNews.org — a well-known publication of mainstream science — entitled Speed of light not so constant after all, “Researchers led by optical physicist Miles Padgett at the University of Glasgow demonstrated the effect by racing photons that were identical except for their structure. The structured light consistently arrived a tad late.”

The article, which cites the peer-reviewed science paper at this link, goes on to state:

“It’s very impressive work,” says Robert Boyd, an optical physicist at the University of Rochester in New York. “It’s the sort of thing that’s so obvious, you wonder why you didn’t think of it first.”

They call it “obvious” now, you see, yet nearly the entire status quo scientific community still believes in the falsehood that the speed of light is a constant.

The very definition of the speed of light is a circular logic science hoax

Even the ScienceNews.org article openly admits the definition of c (the speed of light) is a science hoax, saying, ” While measuring c was once considered an important experimental problem, it is now simply specified to be 299,792,458 meters per second, as the meter itself is defined in terms of light’s vacuum speed.”

Hold the presses! Do you grasp what Science Alert just admitted? They’re saying that the very definition of the speed of light is a hoax because it’s defined in terms of the time it takes light to propagate across one meter of space. Yet the meter is, itself, defined as how far light travels in a certain amount of time, which is itself derived from the speed of light.

Thus, the speed of light is quite literally defined as a circular logic science hoax… the equivalent of a dictionary’s entry for the word “tadpole” saying literally, “See tadpole.”

In essence, the scientific community has engaged in a massive conspiracy to conceal variations in the speed of light by defining the speed of light as a self-referenced term, in total violation of scientific rationality and honesty. Because of this arbitrary definition of the speed of light, any variations in the actual speed of light will be hidden from all scientists, by definition.

Pioneering science thinker Rupert Sheldrake explains the obfuscation in more detail in his must-read book, Science Set Free which challenges many assumptions of the dishonest scientific establishment and points to a possible cyclical variation in the speed of light:

Not surprisingly, early measurements of the speed of light varied considerably, but by 1927, the measured values had converged to 299,796 kilometers per second. At the time, the leading authority on the subject concluded, “The present value of c is entirely satisfactory and can be considered more or less permanently established.” However, all around the world from about 1928 to 1945, the speed of light dropped by about 20 kilometers per second. The “best” values found by leading investigators were in impressively close agreement with each other. Some scientists suggested that the data pointed to cyclic variations in the velocity of light.

In the late 1940s the speed of light went up again by about 20 kilometers per second and a new consensus developed around the higher value. In 1972, the embarrassing possibility of variations in c was eliminated when the speed of light was fixed by definition. In addition, in 1983 the unit of distance, the meter, was redefined in terms of light. Therefore if any further changes in the speed of light happen, we will be blind to them because the length of the meter will change with the speed of light. (The meter is now defined as the length of the path traveled by light in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second.) The second is also defined in terms of light: it is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of vibration of the light given off by cesium 133 atoms in a particular state of excitation (technically defined as the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state).

#2) TRUE or FALSE: In mammals, the lungs produce enormous quantities of blood platelets (yes, the LUNGS)

Correct answer: TRUE

Nearly all status quo scientists fail this question because they’ve been taught that blood is solely produce in bone marrow, while the lungs are solely engaged in respiration, they believe.

It turns out that’s wildly false, even according to mainstream science publications such as Nature. It turns out that in mice, the lungs produce more blood platelets than bone marrow — an idea that nearly all present-day doctors and scientists will immediately condemn as “fake news” until they are properly educated about biological reality.

Here’s an article in ScienceAlert.com — a well-respected mainstream science publication — that spells it out, entitled An Unexpected New Lung Function Has Been Found – They Make Blood:

In experiments involving mice, the team found that they produce more than 10 million platelets (tiny blood cells) per hour, equating to the majority of platelets in the animals’ circulation. This goes against the decades-long assumption that bone marrow produces all of our blood components.

Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco also discovered a previously unknown pool of blood stem cells that makes this happen inside the lung tissue – cells that were incorrectly assumed to mainly reside in bone marrow.

Gee, do you mean to tell me that doctors and scientists didn’t already know everything? Do you mean to tell me that after hundreds of years of medical science, somehow nobody noticed that more blood cells are manufactured in the lungs than in bone marrow?

Say it ain’t so… that doctors don’t know everything and might still have something to learn about anatomy, physiology and biology!

Just in case you don’t believe Science Alert, Science Daily also covers the story at this link:

Using video microscopy in the living mouse lung, UC San Francisco scientists have revealed that the lungs play a previously unrecognized role in blood production. As reported online March 22, 2017 in Nature, the researchers found that the lungs produced more than half of the platelets — blood components required for the clotting that stanches bleeding — in the mouse circulation. In another surprise finding, the scientists also identified a previously unknown pool of blood stem cells capable of restoring blood production when the stem cells of the bone marrow, previously thought to be the principal site of blood production, are depleted.

#3) TRUE or FALSE: At over 400 ppm, carbon dioxide levels are now the highest they’ve ever been on our planet

Correct answer: FALSE

This question trips up the younger “scientists” — if you can even call them that — nearly all of whom have been wildly indoctrinated by the climate change science hoax into thinking that 400 ppm of CO2 is a global emergency that will spell doom for humankind.

The entire climate change narrative is just pseudoscience being pushed onto gullible scientists who believe anything if it’s stated to them by an apparent “authority.” Most status quo scientists, it turns out, are obedient conformists who have long lost any real ability to think for themselves. So they go along with the most absurdly false ideas like believing that CO is a “pollutant” when, in reality, it’s the molecule of life for food-producing plants, rain forests and even greenhouse plant production. Plants across the planet are, in reality, starving for CO2. Without CO2, we would all die and the global food web would immediately collapse.

The following charts show you something that most climate change proponents have simply never seen: The true history of CO2 level variation and global temperature variation throughout Earth’s known history.

This first chart reveals how atmospheric CO2 was at nearly 7000 ppm in the Cambrian period, over 4000 ppb during the Devonian period, over 2500 ppm during the Jurassic period and has plummeted to nearly its lowest point in Earth’s history today, at around 400 ppm.

At the same time, Earth’s average global temperature has gone through several cycles, varying roughly from 12 C to 22 C, and it currently stands at nearly its lowest average point in Earth’s history. (You can find dozens of different charts depicting the same data, by the way. This isn’t some secret archive of temperature and CO2 data.)

 

Yet when climate change alarmists show us charts that claim to show a catastrophic rise in CO2 levels, they zoom in to the scale of just a few centuries, wildly exaggerating a short-term rise to make it look like a catastrophic level of CO2 that’s never been witnessed before. Look at this chart, for example, from GSU.edu:

 

Source: GSU.edu

Notice anything fishy about the chart? While the age of planet Earth is billions of years, this chart only shows you 260 years of CO2 data. It also cuts off the entire Y axis of the chart below 270 ppm. That’s sheer intellectual dishonesty, because anyone can take any snippet of Earth’s temperature data and zoom in to create whatever visual effect they want. Using all the same data, I could show you a chart depicting a catastrophic global cooling emergency that looks just as visually convincing. It all comes down to which part of the data set you’re zooming in on.

When climate charts are artificially zoomed in to show you just the window of time they want you to see — without the greater context of the history of CO2 — that’s not science. It’s pseudoscience, which is exactly what “climate change” is based on.

Now, to demonstrate the kind of truly delusional thinking currently exercised by climate change “scientists” — if you can even call them that — I’m including a mind-blowing chart by John Englander, a “sea level rise risk” expert consultant.

This chart, which also shows the history of CO2 levels throughout hundreds of millions of years of Earth’s history, disagrees slightly from the chart shown above, but it also shows the same general trend of very high CO2 in Earth’s past — 5000 ppm over 500 million years ago — plummeting to the lowest point on the chart, which is the 400 ppm of CO2 we have in the atmosphere today.

Now, in an amazing leap of delusional pseudoscience, Englander draws a completely arbitrary vertical burst of rising CO2 from the present point, accompanied by a provocative question, “Near Future Extinction?”

The intellectual dishonesty demonstrated here is not merely astonishing, but widely shared across the delusional “climate change” pseudoscience community, which has more in common with the Flat Earth Society than legitimate science. Englander’s painful attempt at making a point is that CO2 peaks have been temporally associated with mass extinction events, yet he points to quite literally the LOWEST point on the entire chart — the present CO2 level of 400 ppm — and magically cites that point as somehow being a “peak” that might lead to mass extinction. The total absence of logic and reason in this magical “extinction leap” is just staggering, yet it’s also quite indicative of the delusional thinking that’s commonplace among climate change pseudoscientists:

 

Source: http://www.johnenglander.net

But wait, there’s more!

Even if you focus the timeline to more recent millennia, it turns out that global temperature variation has experienced a roller coaster ride of peaks and valleys long before the combustion engine ever came along.

This temperature variation chart, created by climatologist Cliff Harris and meteorologist Randy Mann, shows temperature variations from roughly 2500 B.C. to present day. In this chart, you can see that the average global temperature was far warmer in 1100 B.C. than it is today. It also shows that the 1600s saw a very cold period — a “Little Ice Age” — which was temporally correlated with 90 large volcanic eruptions.

The conclusion from the chart is that “whenever solar radiation has DECREASED and volcanic activity has INCREASED, global temperatures suddenly plummet…”

 

When you’re looking at average global temperatures, by the way, it helps to have a wider view of Earth’s temperature history, so here’s a chart showing the Greenland Ice Core temperature data over the last 10,000 years:

 

Source: JoanneNova.com.au

As you can see from this “big picture” point of view, Greenland’s present average temperature is on the low side of this 10,000-year trend, which saw far higher temperatures just 3300 years ago. But dishonest climate change scare mongers zoom into this chart to show just the short-term rise on the lower right-hand corner of this chart. If you zoom in enough, you can make it look like Earth is undergoing a temperature apocalypse. But in reality, we’re actually still on the low side of the temperature scale.

Now, according to the pseudoscience of the climate change cultists, rising CO2 causes rising average global temperatures. This is an assumed matter of faith across the entire climate change narrative, it turns out. Because when you actually look at Earth’s history in terms of CO2 levels vs. temperature, there is virtually no meaningful causation correlation:

 

The conclusion from all this? First off, at just barely over 400 ppm, the current CO2 level in Earth’s atmosphere is, without question, close to the lowest it’s ever been in the history of the planet. There is no debate on this point, as even the climatologists have to admit that CO2 levels have been wildly higher in the past. Yet most “scientists” today ridiculously believe that CO2 has risen to alarming, historically high levels that are about to doom the planet. You hear this in the climate doom and gloom in the New York Times, Washington Post and other pseudoscience propaganda publishers.

Nearly everything that modern-day “scientists” are taught about climate change is factually false and lacking the full context of historical data which encompass CO2 and temperature trends throughout Earth’s history. The fact that both CO2 and average global temperatures were both much, much higher millions of years before modern civilization even existed is obvious proof that CO2 and temperature are driven by far more powerful forces than humankind alone. This is irrefutable unless someone abandons logic entirely.

#4) TRUE or FALSE: Mercury is extremely toxic in the environment but totally safe when injected into children via vaccines.

Correct answer: FALSE.

Again, nearly all status quo scientists fail this answer because they’ve been ridiculously told that methylmercury — usually the kind found in the environment — is extremely toxic, while ethylmercury — the form used in vaccines — is somehow inert and completely safe.

In truth, all forms of mercury are toxic to human biology, including organic, inorganic, elemental and mercury compounds. To believe that certain forms of mercury are harmless when injected into the human body is to exercise a kind of mercury denialism that, again, smacks of Flat Earth Syndrome.

If you know anything about mercury — and I know quite a lot about detecting mercury via ICP-MS instrumentation in the lab — you know that its electron orbital structure makes it extremely reactive to certain biological molecules. Although considered a “heavy metal,” its unique atomic structure and chemical properties allow it to easily replace or even displace nutritional elements in the body (such as zinc) while permeating tissues and crossing the blood-brain barrier where mercury damages neurological tissue.

One of the key CDC “researchers” who conducted so-called “scientific” research to prove that Thimerosal (the mercury preservative) is safe in vaccines is an international fugitive from justice named Poul Thorsen, who worked as part of the “vaccine deep state” that’s steeped in quack science and financial fraud. Working closely with the CDC and Emory University, Thorsen fabricated science studies, then eventually fled the country with millions of dollars in government research money. He remains at large to this day, and his studies are still widely cited by pro-vaccine mercury zealots who claim this international criminal can be trusted when it comes to his mercury science.

See the full web of CDC vaccine fraud in this PDF infographic from Natural News.

As further evidence of the mercury vaccine fraud that’s endemic to the scientific status quo, a science paper published in BioMed Research International found that over 165 scientific studies have found Thimerosal (mercury) to be harmful to human biology.

That same study also found “evidence of malfeasance” (i.e. science fraud) in the studies that claimed Thimerosal was safe to inject into children.

Robert F. Kennedy’s World Mercury Project “Thimerosal Myths Debunked” page gives a more detailed history of mercury in vaccines, including the little-known fact that mercury was NOT removed from all vaccines in the United States as it falsely claimed by so-called “doctors” who seem to know nothing about what’s really in vaccines. (Vaccines also contain human fetal cell lines and even African Green Monkey kidney cells, as is openly admitted by the CDC itself.)

In my ISO-accredited laboratory, which is audited every year for international accreditation, I have personally tested flu shots and found them to contain over 50,000 ppb of mercury, which is consistent with the known dose of 25 mcg of mercury administered at 0.5 mL per dose.

The EPA’s limit of mercury in public drinking water is 2 ppb, meaning that flu shots are injecting children (and pregnant women) with 25,000 times higher mercury concentrations than the legal limit of mercury in water set by the EPA. Even mercury in tuna fish — which has environmentalists extremely alarmed — is typically just 250 ppb.

#5) TRUE OR FALSE: Type-2 diabetes can be reversed and cured

Correct answer: TRUE

For decades, holistic health pioneers such as Dr. Gabriel Cousens have been reversing type-2 diabetes through diet alone. (He promotes a vegan diet based on a lot of juicing.)

Natural News has helped teach hundreds of thousands of type-2 diabetes sufferers how to reverse diabetes over the last 15 years, with countless testimonials sent to us by former disease sufferers who are now 100% cured and no longer need any insulin or medication whatsoever.

I even reversed by own borderline diabetes over two decades ago through simple changes in food and exercise.

Yet, to this very day, most doctors and “scientists” — if you can even call them that, again — insist that type-2 diabetes can’t be reversed and can only be “treated” with — guess what? — expensive patented medications that enrich the profits of Big Pharma.

Now, nearly two decades after pioneering holistic health doctors began teaching people how to reverse type-2 diabetes with a very high success rate, mainstream science now admits type-2 diabetes can be reversed.

Once again following in the footsteps of holistic nutrition pioneers like Natural News, Science Daily now covers the results of a peer-reviewed clinical trial originally published in The Endocrine Society.

Entitled, “Intensive medical treatment can reverse type 2 diabetes,” the article reveals how “Intervention induced several months of remission in up to 40 percent of clinical trial participant.”

Note carefully that, in accordance with the delusional myth of the medical status, Science Daily dares only describe the reversal of diabetes as a “remission” — that’s code for “any cure that medicine can’t explain.” But because type-2 diabetes is not an infection, a superbug, a parasite or a genetic mutation disorder, its entire definition rests on the identification of metabolic symptoms. When those symptoms are gone, the diagnosis is also gone. No symptoms means no diabetes, by definition, as the “disease” is simply a medical label assigned to an observable set of symptoms (such as cellular resistance to insulin, which can be readily reversed through exercise and nutrition).

So here we have another case where mainstream science is once again about 15 years behind the pioneering holistic health doctors who have been reversing type-2 diabetes for decades… often with a far higher success rate than the 40% cited in this science article. The reversals achieved through holistic health interventions are also permanent reversals of type-2 diabetes, not temporary “remissions.”

I have personally witnessed type-2 diabetes being 100% reversed in just four days at the Tree of Life Rejuvenation Center in Arizona. Literally in just four days on the Dr. Cousens protocol, individuals who were told they were insulin dependent for life were able to get completely off all insulin forever. No medication needed ever again. This was all accomplished with nothing more than food, nutrition, meditation, simple walking exercise and strategic calorie restriction. Astonishingly, most doctors are still completely ignorant of all this, remaining nutritionally illiterate and hopelessly incompetent when it comes to helping patients overcome type-2 diabetes.

Why isn’t this diabetes cure celebrated by the entire medical community? For all the obvious reasons, of course: Treating diabetes is a multi-billion-dollar industry, and all the corporations that profit from disease have no financial incentive to lose customers by teaching people how to cure their own disease without expensive chemical medications.

Vitamin C can also treat cancer stem cells

In addition to most scientists and doctors having no clue that type-2 diabetes can be reversed and cured using simple nutritional interventions, they also have no clue whatsoever that Vitamin C has been scientifically found to halt the growth of cancer stem cells, even working 1000% better than a common cancer drug.

Similar nutritional ignorance is found among doctors and scientists when it comes to the cancer reversal potential of vitamin D, or the anti-cancer effects of selenium, or even the ability of silica-rich mineral water to eliminate aluminum from the body and protect the brain from Alzheimer’s and dementia.

The weaker the “science,” the more aggressively people are attacked for questioning it

The primary assertion of today’s arrogant “scientists” is rooted in absurdity: It is the assertion that science alone has a unique and divine monopoly over facts, truth and knowledge. Under the cover of that delusion, the label of “science” is deployed to demand immunity against all questioning or skepticism, asserting that anything backed by “science” is beyond reproach.

A few centuries ago, the same assertion was demanded by the Catholic Church, which insisted that its beliefs were unassailable and rooted in divine truth (a truth, by the way, which only the High Priests could access, must like the high priests of scientism today). Anyone who questioned the Church was slandered and labeled a heretic. Yet today, “science” has taken over the role of the Church, demanding the same faith-based obedience to its twisted dogma while simultaneously discrediting and destroying anyone who dare question a single assumption of the “Church of Science.”

Just like the high priests of the Church, today’s arrogant status quo scientists claim that only they can access, interpret or gauge scientific truth, insisting that non-scientists have no right to even engage in discussions of science (or questioning science, an even more dire sin). Their ridiculous claim that “science is self-correcting” ignores the simple truth that any self-correcting system must embrace critical questions that challenge the current dogma… and modern science honors no such process, instead insisting that its truth is absolute and therefore can never be questioned. (Just try asking a vaccine pusher why they think injecting children with mercury is somehow okay, and you’ll get an earful of raving mad dogma in response.)

In effect, “Science” has become what the Church used to be: A self-reinforcing cabal of cultist dogmas parading around as absolute truth. That doesn’t mean there isn’t some truth to be found in science — I use science myself in my environmental laboratory projects such as alerting to the world to high levels of lead in rice protein — but the use of the “science” label as a weapon to stifle dissent, silence skeptics and demand absolute obedience to conformist dogma is, at its core, no different from the intellectual tyranny of the once-dominant Catholic Church which absurdly claimed a monopoly on truth.

As this science quiz easily shows, even those who consider themselves to be informed adherents to science are often shockingly ignorant of reality. Their ideas on physics, medicine, chemistry and even cosmology can only be considered rudimentary at best — or even desperately conformist and therefore contradictory to the very tenants of legitimate science. The gaps in human knowledge over the recognized sciences are far larger than the areas filled in with conclusive knowledge. The total sum of human knowledge possessed today by the sciences is inconsequential compared to that which has yet to be learned, and in many ways, modern “scientists” are behaving in self-deluded patterns of thought that can be more accurately described as “scientific mysticism,” where mystical truths are “believed” as a matter of faith, then labeled “science” in an attempt to lend them credibility.

When modern scientists insist they already know everything there is to know about a given topic — we hear this in the “science is settled” fallacy — you know it isn’t really science at all.

The Health Ranger threatens the entire scientific establishment with a grassroots, people-based scientific REVOLUTION

As final proof of the dogma behind the scientific status quo today, bear in mind that I alone am routinely named the “most anti-science person on the internet” (by the negative P.R. firms hired by biotech companies to discredit grassroots scientists) and yet I engage in way-beyond-PhD-level science on a daily basis, developing new methods for mass spec analyses of food, dietary supplements and environmental samples for heavy metals, nutritive elements, pesticides, phytochemicals and more. My laboratory is internationally accredited far beyond the accreditation of most university labs, and I have singlehandedly analyzed and published a paper on the heavy metals analysis of over 600 municipal water samples from across the United States. Read my science paper in the Natural Science Journal at this link, which describes the ICP-MS analysis of these water samples.

I also pioneered a breakthrough LC/MS-TOF method for the quantitative analysis of cannabinoids with about about 1,000 times greater precision than the UV-DAD method currently used across the cannabis industry. You can read my CBD analysis method description at this link from CWC Labs, my privately owned independent laboratory.

By the way, just today I achieved a breakthrough in liquid handling automation systems which transforms about two months of calibration work into a 60-second test to almost instantly derive the liquid coefficient for extremely precise remote arm pippetting (with accuracy typically within +/- one microliter). I’ve recorded a podcast on that breakthrough and will be sharing that soon. It might even be turned into another published science paper to teach other scientists across the country how to more efficiently run liquid handling automation robot systems.

Stay informed on all my science innovations, published science papers, science breakthroughs and censored science documentaries at Natural News.

Recommended reading: Get the book Science Set Free by Rupert Sheldrake. It will forever wake you up to the truth about the fictions parading around as status quo “science” in our corporate-controlled world.
TOP

As for the risks living in Israel with Hamas, Fatah (PA) and the other crazies;

To quote General George S. Patton

“The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his. “

 “You (the Arabs) have a choice , The peace of prosperity or the peace of unburied death. The choice is yours”

The Israel-Palestinian Peace Process Has Been a Massive Charade

So long as Palestinian rejectionism runs rampant, debates about one-, two-, and three-state solutions are for naught.

Daniel Pipes April 10 2017
About the author
Daniel Pipes (DanielPipes.org, @DanielPipes) is president of the Middle East Forum.


Daniel Polisar of Shalem College in Jerusalem shook the debate over Palestinian-Israeli relations in November 2015 with his essay, “What Do Palestinians Want?” In it, having studied 330 polls to “understand the perspective of everyday Palestinians” toward Israel, Israelis, Jews, and the utility of violence against them, he found that Palestinian attackers are “venerated” by their society—with all that that implies.He’s done it again with “Do Palestinians Want a Two-State Solution?” This time, he pored over some 400 opinion polls of Palestinian views to find consistency among seemingly contradictory evidence on the topic of ways to resolve the conflict with Israel. From this confusing bulk, Polisar convincingly establishes that Palestinians collectively hold three related views of Israel: it has no historical or moral claim to exist, it is inherently rapacious and expansionist, and it is doomed to extinction. In combination, these attitudes explain and justify the widespread Palestinian demand for a state from “the river to the sea,” the grand Palestine of their maps that erases Israel.

With this analysis, Polisar has elegantly dissected the phenomenon that I call Palestinian rejectionism. That’s the policy first implemented by the monstrous mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husseini, in 1921 and consistently followed over the next near-century. Rejectionism demands that Palestinians (and beyond them, Arabs and Muslims) repudiate every aspect of Zionism: deny Jewish ties to the land of Israel, fight Jewish ownership of that land, refuse to recognize Jewish political power, refuse to trade with Zionists, murder Zionists where possible, and ally with any foreign power, including Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, to eradicate Zionism.

The continuities are striking. All major Palestinian leaders—Amin al-Husseini, Ahmad al-Shukeiri, Yasir Arafat, Mahmoud Abbas, and Yahya Sinwar (the new leader of Hamas in Gaza)—have made eliminating the Zionist presence their only goal. Yes, for tactical reasons, they occasionally compromised, most notably in the Oslo Accords of 1993, but then they reversed these exceptions as soon as possible.

In other words, the Israeli-Palestinian “peace process” that began in 1989 has been a massive charade. As Israelis earnestly debated making “painful concessions,” their Palestinian counterparts issued promises they had had no intention of fulfilling, something Arafat had the gall publicly to signal to his constituency even as he signed the Oslo Accords, and many times subsequently.

TOP

April 7, 2017
by Steven Stotsky
Quantifying the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict’s Importance to Middle East Turmoil

More Lonely, Fewer ‘Friends’, Less Sex – Have Smartphones Destroyed A Generation?

More comfortable online than out partying, post-Millennials are safer, physically, than adolescents have ever been. But they’re on the brink of a mental-health crisis…

The Atlantic’s Jean Twenge asks the most crucial question of our age“have smartphones destroyed a generation?”

Unlike the teens of my generation, who might have spent an evening tying up the family landline with gossip, [teens today] talk on Snapchat, the smartphone app that allows users to send pictures and videos that quickly disappear. They make sure to keep up their Snapstreaks, which show how many days in a row they have Snapchatted with each other. Sometimes they save screenshots of particularly ridiculous pictures of friends. “It’s good blackmail,” Athena said. (Because she’s a minor, I’m not using her real name.) She told me she’d spent most of the summer hanging out alone in her room with her phone. That’s just the way her generation is, she said. “We didn’t have a choice to know any life without iPads or iPhones. I think we like our phones more than we like actual people.”

I’ve been researching generational differences for 25 years, starting when I was a 22-year-old doctoral student in psychology. Typically, the characteristics that come to define a generation appear gradually, and along a continuum. Beliefs and behaviors that were already rising simply continue to do so. Millennials, for instance, are a highly individualistic generation, but individualism had been increasing since the Baby Boomers turned on, tuned in, and dropped out. I had grown accustomed to line graphs of trends that looked like modest hills and valleys. Then I began studying Athena’s generation.

Around 2012, I noticed abrupt shifts in teen behaviors and emotional states. The gentle slopes of the line graphs became steep mountains and sheer cliffs, and many of the distinctive characteristics of the Millennial generation began to disappear. In all my analyses of generational data – some reaching back to the 1930s – I had never seen anything like it.

What happened in 2012 to cause such dramatic shifts in behavior? It was after the Great Recession, which officially lasted from 2007 to 2009 and had a starker effect on Millennials trying to find a place in a sputtering economy. But it was exactly the moment when the proportion of Americans who owned a smartphone surpassed 50 percent.

The more I pored over yearly surveys of teen attitudes and behaviors, and the more I talked with young people like Athena, the clearer it became that theirs is a generation shaped by the smartphone and by the concomitant rise of social media. I call them iGen. Born between 1995 and 2012, members of this generation are growing up with smartphones, have an Instagram account before they start high school, and do not remember a time before the internet.

More comfortable in their bedrooms than in a car or at a party, today’s teens are physically safer than teens have ever been. They’re markedly less likely to get into a car accident and, having less of a taste for alcohol than their predecessors, are less susceptible to drinking’s attendant ills.

Psychologically, however, they are more vulnerable than Millennials were: Rates of teen depression and suicide have skyrocketed since 2011. It’s not an exaggeration to describe iGen as being on the brink of the worst mental-health crisis in decades. Much of this deterioration can be traced to their phones.

There is compelling evidence that the devices we’ve placed in young people’s hands are having profound effects on their lives – and making them seriously unhappy.

You might expect that teens spend so much time in these new spaces because it makes them happy, but most data suggest that it does not. The Monitoring the Future survey, funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and designed to be nationally representative, has asked 12th-graders more than 1,000 questions every year since 1975 and queried eighth- and 10th-graders since 1991. The survey asks teens how happy they are and also how much of their leisure time they spend on various activities, including nonscreen activities such as in-person social interaction and exercise, and, in recent years, screen activities such as using social media, texting, and browsing the web. The results could not be clearer: Teens who spend more time than average on screen activities are more likely to be unhappy, and those who spend more time than average on nonscreen activities are more likely to be happy.

There’s not a single exception. All screen activities are linked to less happiness, and all nonscreen activities are linked to more happiness. Eighth-graders who spend 10 or more hours a week on social media are 56 percent more likely to say they’re unhappy than those who devote less time to social media.

The allure of independence, so powerful to previous generations, holds less sway over today’s teens, who are less likely to leave the house without their parents. The shift is stunning: 12th-graders in 2015 were going out less often than eighth-graders did as recently as 2009.

Today’s teens are also less likely to date. The initial stage of courtship, which Gen Xers called “liking” (as in “Ooh, he likes you!”), kids now call “talking”—an ironic choice for a generation that prefers texting to actual conversation. After two teens have “talked” for a while, they might start dating. But only about 56 percent of high-school seniors in 2015 went out on dates; for Boomers and Gen Xers, the number was about 85 percent.

The decline in dating tracks with a decline in sexual activity. The drop is the sharpest for ninth-graders, among whom the number of sexually active teens has been cut by almost 40 percent since 1991.

Even driving, a symbol of adolescent freedom inscribed in American popular culture, has lost its appeal for today’s teens. Nearly all Boomer high-school students had their driver’s license by the spring of their senior year; more than one in four teens today still lack one at the end of high school. For some, Mom and Dad are such good chauffeurs that there’s no urgent need to drive. “My parents drove me everywhere and never complained, so I always had rides,” a 21-year-old student in San Diego told me. “I didn’t get my license until my mom told me I had to because she could not keep driving me to school.”

The number of eighth-graders who work for pay has been cut in half. These declines accelerated during the Great Recession, but teen employment has not bounced back, even though job availability has.

At the generational level, when teens spend more time on smartphones and less time on in-person social interactions, loneliness is more common.

So is depression. Once again, the effect of screen activities is unmistakable: The more time teens spend looking at screens, the more likely they are to report symptoms of depression.

Teens who spend three hours a day or more on electronic devices are 35 percent more likely to have a risk factor for suicide, such as making a suicide plan. Since 2007, the homicide rate among teens has declined, but the suicide rate has increased. In 2011, for the first time in 24 years, the teen suicide rate was higher than the teen homicide rate.

This trend has been especially steep among girls. Forty-eight percent more girls said they often felt left out in 2015 than in 2010, compared with 27 percent more boys. Girls use social media more often, giving them additional opportunities to feel excluded and lonely when they see their friends or classmates getting together without them. Social media levy a psychic tax on the teen doing the posting as well, as she anxiously awaits the affirmation of comments and likes.

The correlations between depression and smartphone use are strong enough to suggest that more parents should be telling their kids to put down their phone. As the technology writer Nick Bilton has reported, it’s a policy some Silicon Valley executives follow. Even Steve Jobs limited his kids’ use of the devices he brought into the world.

If you were going to give advice for a happy adolescence based on this survey, it would be straightforward: Put down the phone, turn off the laptop, and do something—anything—that does not involve a screen. Of course, these analyses don’t unequivocally prove that screen time causes unhappiness; it’s possible that unhappy teens spend more time online. But recent research suggests that screen time, in particular social-media use, does indeed cause unhappiness. One study asked college students with a Facebook page to complete short surveys on their phone over the course of two weeks. They’d get a text message with a link five times a day, and report on their mood and how much they’d used Facebook. The more they’d used Facebook, the unhappier they felt, but feeling unhappy did not subsequently lead to more Facebook use.

I realize that restricting technology might be an unrealistic demand to impose on a generation of kids so accustomed to being wired at all times. Prying the phone out of our kids’ hands will be difficult, even more so than the quixotic efforts of my parents’ generation to get their kids to turn off MTV and get some fresh air. But more seems to be at stake in urging teens to use their phone responsibly, and there are benefits to be gained even if all we instill in our children is the importance of moderation. Significant effects on both mental health and sleep time appear after two or more hours a day on electronic devices. The average teen spends about two and a half hours a day on electronic devices. Some mild boundary-setting could keep kids from falling into harmful habits.
TOP