Revised: Michael Brown Story Killed All Focus To Semitic Hate Crimes in Gaza (January 4, 2005)

By William Wraithwrite

[Note: If you feel this message is important, then by all means, email, fax, print, manually mail, propagate, tweet, twitter, and publish to all that Paul Revere and Thomas Paine would gather.]

In the first week of August heat was really coming to boil over massive and blatant war crimes perpetrated by Israelis against Palestinian civilians in Gaza this summer of 2014.

Even Benjamin Netanyahu was busy contacting supposedly our U. S. Congress-people then in early August to shield his-self, and his likes, from war crime allegations and potential tribunals, as were being demanded by exploding numbers of protests around the entire world. (See: “Netanyahu Asks US to Help Israel Avoid War Crimes” at:
 http://nypost.com/2014/08/06/netanyahu-asks-us-to-help-israel-avoid-war-crime-charges/ and

“Report: Netanyahu Asks US Lawmakers To ‘Help Israel Avoid War Crimes Charges’”  http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/08/07/report-netanyahu-asks-us-lawmakers-to-help-israel-avoid-war-crimes-charges/.

Also note the many eye-opening photos at Mondoweiss, seet:  http://mondoweiss.net/2014/07/worldwide-protest-israeli. It is important to check out those photos to get a real appreciation of just how angry was the entire world.

A strong message was finally being sent to Zionists world-wide, that even a dumber-down, and more or less well-propagandized world of Christian sheeple, and plenty other orientations as well (especially now with Internet’s alternative communication) people would only tolerate so much of the hideous double standard from Israel’s too long list of criminal actions. And what happened in Gaza this summer amounted to no less than blatant and deliberate terrorism on a grand scale. Yet ironically ‘terrorism’ was defined by none other than Benjamin Netanyahu himself some years earlier in a book he supposedly wrote—namely terrorism is the “killing of innocent civilians” (see: “Fighting Terrorism: How Democracies Can Defeat the International Terrorist Network, 2001 Edition Chapter 1, page 8.” (Likely you can find it in your public library.)

Meanwhile law professor and prolific human rights activist Majorie Cohn was quick to legally document those war crime charges, and she was interviewed by Scott Horton on his radio show (ScottHorton.Org) about her recent publication of Israeli crimes in the professional law journal The Jurist (see: “US Leaders Aid and Abet Israeli War Crimes, Genocide & Crimes against Humanity” at:
 http://jurist.org/forum/2014/08/marjorie-cohn-israel-crimes.php ). Yet surprisingly this interview has become “lost”, that is, has mostly disappeared from Internet search engines such as on Google and Yahoo—no doubt showing the ‘vestige’ (as in the word ‘investigate’) to its potential damaging effect, that is to the too often false image of what Israelis and right-wing Jews worldwide want to project about themselves versus a much different reality.

The fact this interview disappeared from being able to find it on a very prominent and highly respected foreign news analysis website, is major violation of free speech (ACLU where are you), and is in itself an important clue to understanding motives and issues taking place (and so “you” do want to find it and listen to this interview—if you are a true truth seeker). A few less known search engines still make it available (search DuckDuckGo.com but at the moment I can’t find it and yet it is out there somewhere or see: www.Anonalyradio.com/blog/2014/08/081114-marjorie-cohn ).

Media attention had dramatically shifted in August, for many people, especially those of the rainbow coalition (a huge political chunk of the U.S. population), as well as for plenty other liberal as well as conservative suasions, as many have become convinced what happened in Ferguson Missouri was a “hate crime” because it involved a white police officer and a black death. A massive amount of psychic energy has fervently bought into the notion that Darren Wilson, whatever his human vulnerabilities, was motivated by one primary reason—the other perpetrator, who apparently slugged him in his police car, was a black person, and that he, the white cop, therefore had a dark soul motivated to kill this man because not only was he potentially violent but he was black. That is to say the black and white features of skin color is all that really matters to many who demand the entire world accept this premise as forgone conclusion—another example of selected stories highlighted by some activist journalists and non-profits to suggest specific cases prove vast racism by police everywhere.

And maybe this scenario of officer Wilson blatant racist is true? I do not claim to know. Many people with various motives have attempted to influence my generally naïve space one way or another.

And yet what I question are the motives of some people and organizations that were, and are, so zealously motivated to convince me one way or another, as if these opinion shapers know beyond a shadow of a doubt the absolute truth.

For example I do not respect news sources who continuously show pictures of Michael Brown as a young boy when it turns out he weighed over two hundred fifty pounds and was 6’ 4” the day he died—already there is distortion of information being presented while same sources keep referring to him in stock terms such as innocent teenager, as if young age automatically equals innocence—whereas many people know plenty of violence happens from young people (although “all” (or at least most) people, save some within the dark corners of politics and corruption, are somewhat innocent in the sense that all people are not all knowing, all calculating, and all evil as in the classic example of Satan in Biblical mythology).

Few, if any, people actually know beyond a shadow of a doubt the full Michael Brown story. The Internet offers us various versions and arguments and many are at odds with each other. For example some argument Michael Brown had a long list of previous crimes including felonies, while others argue he did not have any serious previous crime history. Some argue the autopsy shows the officer’s version was correct (including a report in the Washington Post) whereas other arguments claim differently.

It is in this ambiguity of how the arguments have been brought to our attention, that is to the public, that has made this case so media consuming—and certain groups and websites have taken this issue on as a major cause—which is neither praiseworthy nor disturbing on that fact alone—but people have a right to question the motives of some of these sources as well as to what all drives them who claim to only want to find truth and who equally claim they have the truth and you should accept their version.

And even if news highlights of some witnesses later are accused of lying by other news sources the prosecutor allow all self-claimed witnesses to make a case and found it was obvious there was lying from both sides—but this is not how certain websites present such realties—rather they attempt to discredit witnesses that their side of persuasion want others to believe and down play regarding the complexity of the situation.

But what exactly is a “hate crime” if what happened in Gaza this summer doesn’t qualify? How did this imminently important story, more or less, just slip away from activists’ attention here in the United States?

What happened this summer by the Benjamin Netanyahu government, in respect to its deliberate deceit and deliberate violation of every imaginable idea of human right is very important for the entire world to focus (especially here in the United States that basically was the one nation that could have made a difference, and yet our government, that is to say our supposedly elected leaders (even as they are all more or less ‘vetted’ by AIPAC influence) allowed these levels of crimes to ensue—while they played puppet and parrot to lame excuse about Israel’s right to defend itself—as in abetting those crimes).

For the majority of the media to suddenly ignore this immensity of recent history by getting sidetracked primarily to one domestic issue of related racism stories is tragedy—because it allows those who perpetrated those massive hate crimes to get away with (again) as what should never be allowed—especially by a so-called Jewish nation of people who claim to be so concerned about human dignity and rights.

Surely how police agents operate in any society is an extremely important political subject especially as related to race relations.

But Americans need to pay attention not just to national police issues as brutality, profiling, racism, injustice, violence, broken glass policies, etc., but also to who and why some organizations may be playing up such hyper-awareness of specific events, that is certain individuals are groping to find a pattern from a statistical field of close to 320 million people, with about eight percent of its entire population having felony convictions of which blacks have about twenty percent (being thirteen percent of the population).

Obviously numbers or facts alone do not paint an entire humanist picture. But examining statistics that some circles do not find much solace or intellectual comfort isn’t the same as trying to make up imaged patterns for any particular crime, such as murder or injustice. But if you consider there are about one million police officers in the United States, and although there are no exact figures on the number killed by police, numbers discussed, as tentatively surmised, range from estimates of 500 to 1500 a year.

So if we assume 1,000 people are killed by police officers in a given year (a fair to maybe an exaggerated assumption) then we get a statistic that says one in one thousand officers will kill someone in a given year.

Eugene Robinson, black columnists of the Washington Post Syndicated Group says the FBI’s “justifiable police killings” over the last years is roughly 400 a year with an average of 96 white police officers killing blacks. But let’s say white police officers kill 200 black people annually—this is a fair guestimate. Then one million police officers nationally (many but not all are white) divided by 200 deaths equals 5000 (or one in 5000 police officers kill a black person per year). That means 4,999 out of 5000 do not and yet there is little focus on this big disparity?

This is a very different picture then what some people want to suggest. Rather they give the impression racism is a super rampant truth here in the United States and that white police officers are killing black men willy-nilly left and right. In another words there is a certain amount of alarmist deception going on that few people are talking about—especially from those websites that claim to be so hoity-toity truth seeking.

Because once again when you have so many millions of people in a given country there will always be cases of racism and racist violence even within the population of the police industry—a profession whose members do not deal as routinely with law abiding citizens as they do with criminals, socio-paths, and potentially dangerous individuals and groups. Further there are many thousands of white police officers who do good and honorable things on a routine basis—including protecting law abiding citizens who live in black communities. (Note: the semantics of ‘black’ versus ‘Afro-American’ is based on one’s own willingness to accept one’s own assumptions and not those of others attempting to discredit and allege motives they just as likely do not know as they may claim.)

Those who are fanning the flames and are not willing to tamp down on their own biases or pre-conceptions, often because of various “political” or personal motives (or because their personalities dictate truth through their own perceptual lens), and so they engage in the act of cherry picking stories across the entire nation to suggest more extremist versions of racism—painting a distorted picture—but claiming they have discovered the more accurate version of reality, and that is white people must now surrender to their obvious superior understanding of life.

For too many there is little attempt to find shades of gray as they want the story and all the stories related to be black or white, one side totally and consciously guilty while the other side to be innocently the saint. For example many protestors do not come to arguing and alleging injustice without their own preconceptions and prejudices.

Some sources and protesters in no way attempt to show any balance of conflicting accounts—rather they show only arguments or evidence of what seems to show the conclusion they wish for themselves and other people to believe. There is little attempt to parse the story—rather it is ram a preconceived conclusion down everyone’s throat.

More importantly there is an intimidating McCarthyism style of pressuring people in not even daring to ask questions that contradict one side’s conclusion or attempt to seek clearer clarification of potentially more complicated issues. Example, given the seeming ridiculousness of addressing Eric Garner for selling cigarettes, and the fact he died over complete over-reaction to such a seeming trivial issue, already stifles people into questioning anything about the conclusion protestors want the public to agree—deliberate murder as racism. One dare not ask: “How can a man say “I can’t breath’ eleven times and not be breathing in the process of making such statements”? Or “Is it possible that Mr. Eric Garner had some special vulnerabilities that contributed to his death as well?” One can take a waist life guard belt for boating and put it too tight and feel a panic feeling of not being able to breath even when you can breath. But such physical phenomenon entwined with pain and emotional trauma can be overwhelming for some,

Few people dare ask such questions even if routinely thought within because of the psychological McCarthyism that you are immediately out of line for doubting the protesters’ already reached conclusions.

Their conclusions are from an unspoken series of highlighted events that presume in every case their was undoubted racism by white police as if white police routinely are about racism and being black and involved in police interactions means either being innocent or a victim; and if you choose to question any of their “it-should-be-so-obvious” shout downs to your face as demands there is something obviously wrong with you and your skepticism—then that is the intimidation game. Who are you to think for yourself!

However Juan Williams, a famous black journalist and columnist, was willing to talk about this too and he said: “Black on black homicide was the number #1 killer of black males between the ages of 15 and 34.

Randomly looking at some Internet websites I came across a statement from a 2007 U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics report that said in 2005 there were 7,999 black homicides and 93% of those were committed by blacks of the same race. This amounts to 21 blacks killing blacks each day of that year. Whereas there in not the equivalent of one white police officer killing a black every day of the year (and equally almost all the 7,999 murders were crimes as none were legally justifiable).

Ferguson became the place where some so-called experts wanted the American public’s focus to ingrain itself—that is to focus on what they would market as an example of hate crimes committed by people who they readily label, and think of as, white male extremists (that is goyim or non-Jewish whites who they want to point out are Thee most racist of people in America and who are endlessly oppressing minorities), people like what one assumes to belong to KKK, Neo-Nazis, or other so-labeled white hate groups, etc.

[Note: my argument is not to denigrate or slight any unjustified death. Certainly racism in police work is an important vein of research and activity to pursue for people who feel violated or threatened, especially as blacks—and who feel such ideas corroborate with life experiences—they should put their spiritual and psychic energy to causes they feel most imminent.]

But it is important to notice there was a major re-focusing to racist issues within the United States (not just by mainstream media but alternative media) from what people “know” were blatant and obvious war crimes of killing and maiming of thousands (and many children) in Gaza by white Caucasian Jews. Instead we got a marketing campaign that alleged hate crime were rife in Ferguson Missouri (even if the facts on the ground were more ambiguous and yet more appealing for allegations and passions).

Racism has always been an issue here in the United States as plenty places elsewhere and it could be true it is more prevalent than what too many assume—especially for those who feel profiled as blacks. This is not being disputed.

Nevertheless for a short while even activists here in the United States and especially all around the world (see previously mentioned Mondowiess photos) were back to the street and were protesting war crimes in Gaza that week of July the 27th (in which the entire world held huge parades abounding everywhere). It really was quite amazing.

But where did all that indignity and righteous anger dissipate?

Suddenly along came to the media radar Michael Brown’s death just when the world was in a real uproar about repeated violence and blatant attacks on civilians and children —knowing intuitively such attacks were deliberate crimes.

Granted the Ferguson killing reports and angry outbursts seemed spontaneous anger and allegation and no one suggests otherwise.

At the end of July, here within the United States, high numbers, representing a wide spectrum of the American society was paralyzed by these Israeli forms of repeated offensive violence, some back to marching in parades—as American apathy momentarily died—and then it suddenly was about to hopscotch to another funeral entirely.

True police brutality had been on the radar before with cases like the much publicized story of Trayvon Martin’s death in Florida, in which there was a huge activist push to convince this country of white racism in police departments, and the country as a whole, as some liberal websites concluded “killed for being black”; and yes suspicious events and circumstances allowed for such a conclusion of injustice haunting too many black people everywhere.

From then racism stories about police were to take a life of its own as the media world and think tanks could now pin prick any needle from any haystack to focus on those particular stories that gave examples of injustice (even if mathematical statistics could throw cooler water on those who continued to create alarmist pictures of police murder and harassment happening everywhere).

However to ignore, what also seems intuitive, that is what seems attempt by some to deliberately engage propaganda campaigns that exaggerate violence from white police to certain groups, as equally ignoring their invitation to these same groups to allow their other frustrations, such as high unemployment rates or various resentments about life in general, that have little to nothing to do with white police, as making for an exaggerated scapegoat as completely “outside” one’s own identity—that is as the single definable and tangible problem—is something too that deserves some thought.

Some libertarians have argued that the left no longer has Marxism and socialism to argue and win votes and so they turn more and more to identity politics in which if one can be painted as a minority one can assume to be discriminated against and one can assume to be victimized. There is truth in this reality of leftists and liberals in continuation to create a divide and conquer strategy blaming white men (mostly goyim men) as somehow the enemy as supposedly the only group that every had any power when in fact most white men had little power and still mostly have little.

There are white people killed by white police officers and seldom are these questioned unless those killed are homeless or mentally ill. This statement might seem indifference to the truth of racism, but it is possibility for think tanks to focus on white males killed by white officers in the statistical ball park of 320 million people to make some kind of case of skewed violation as to argue with a show of a selected incidents to give impression white people are not especially safe. It may not be as easy to create such a view as few suspect racism within the same ethnic lines and few are motivated to try to confirm anything of the sort, but the point is with enough of a statistical ball park one can find various patterns of one’s choosing—and why not elicit opinions from professional statisticians on such matters?

I’m not arguing there is not a good deal of racism in police work. The reality of police dealing routinely with the less civil elements of society may reinforce a kind of roughshod attitude towards various peoples (and we should not forget that black people call the police too on other black people).

Still you do not need statistics to lie or create distorted views—you can do it even more fluidly without numbers such as raw personal opinions that just happen to believe in somewhat distorted perceptions especially if reinforced by groups to claim to be objectively expert or just plain objective. Haven’t you ever met some of those battle ax feminists, who now in their seventies, who still insist practically everything wrong with the world is because of white, chauvinist men? You think there is little prejudice is some camps that claim to demand for justice?

Again this is not to argue there is no serious racism in America or racist murder. There has always been racism here. Nor is this an attempt to explain the difference in which many police are white and too many arrested are black and how those roles create their own dynamics.

And yet one argument hardly ever asked publicly is how much racism do white police officers deal from people of color? This is equally an important issue and reality.

Perhaps police deal with a great deal of hostility and hatred of authority in general (this phenomenon certainly exists) and white officers may deal with a lot of hatred by black people? How come this issue is seldom discussed in the media and in the liberal presses and websites? We are supposed to believe that the “we versus them” mentality is only or primarily on one side? We are expected to believe there is no peer pressure affecting one’s attitudes?

In fact there are a lot of people who hate police from all colors, and equally a lot of people who hate any kind of authority asserting itself. Some of that hatred of police may be arguably justified, and some of it may be more based on personality trait, selective thought, and criminal identity.

One could even argue that some political activists and journalists, who constantly focus on creating a picture of rampant white police racism against black victims, are actually attempting, whether consciously or not, to increase black hatred and racism of white police and white people? And also it is possible to imagine that some who do equally have their own bias in which they also hate police, or hate white people (at least some) or both—but this is not the road many want to explore.

Even within the so-called white community there are plenty of whites that hate other whites they see as different from themselves. Some equally hate forms of authority they assume represent groups they despise. But there is not much discussion of these other less black and whites forms of prejudice?

And frankly hatred as an emotion is little distinguished from hatred as an act. People are often manipulated to feel guilt for any feeling of hostility, which may be viewed as politically incorrect (by those who claim to dictate standards of what is or is not correct). But perhaps anger and feelings of hostility and thoughts of hostility are healthy at times (or why did they even evolve). Still political correctness and self-righteousness makes for fodder for guilt-trips (and some groups even within the white world seem better as assuming themselves superior then others and feel it is their place to guilt-trip others).

Nevertheless, we, the American public, are presumed to not assume hostility, defiance and attitudes of disrespect are seldom acted out in the real world unless the white man first shows disrespect, including very ugly forms of defiance and disrespect acted out toward police and especially at white police?

Why is this important subject seldom discussed in the supposedly want of dialogue between the races. Why is it that whites are supposed to carry all or most of the guilt trips as if the “only” variable between how whites and blacks react toward each other has to do with the color of skin. Could it not be possible that some with the rainbow are in denial about how much excess of prejudice there exists on their part?

How is it, for example, that a police officer can know ahead of time, whether who he is confronting, is armed, is dangerous, or has a criminal record versus someone who is generally a law abiding citizen? Surely there are cases in which people can surmise quickly whether one is armed but it may not always be so easy just because people can ideologically argue police should never shoot at unarmed suspects.

An issue never seemingly brought up but sometimes a reality is those suspects who deliberately choose to act so as to be shot dead rather than spend time incarcerated. Even specialists who study driving and traffic behavior know that on occasion there are people who literally commit suicide by crashing their vehicles. For example, if I was about to be arrested for some felony of sorts I would rather die than spend time being incarcerated in a prison system and I might even act in ways that invite an officer to shoot me. As cynical as this may sound there are such mine-sets out there. Yet no one brings this truth up either. Is this not a legitimate avenue to explore by those not so naïve?

Eric Hoffer wrote a book back in the 1970s, The True Believer, in which he describes how many mass movements arise from fanaticism, frustration and self-righteousness (there are videos on the Internet that discuss this book as worthy of comprehending); and yet when it comes to any and all issues raised by the rainbow coalition, be it feminist issues about ever growing violence against women and the need for more laws, or racist issues, there is seldom questions raised about the mindset of some of those people who yell and scream about their righteous causes. Rather it is presumed any distortion of reality is more likely to emanate from white people who supposedly are always in denial on matters?

I do argue anger and indignation has its place in human interaction. But when people constantly try to over-shout others so as to intimidate their ‘minority’ opinion (irrespective of their ancestry) into submission and acquiescence then justice is not served.

If certain people eagerly plot to riot and burn down businesses (even if those businesses are owned by fellow black business owners) then supposedly that is OK for rioting criminals who pretend to being saintly activists, that is it’s OK for them to engage such activist activity as worthy because they verbally claim they have no alternative way of getting justice? They think they can’t possibly be wrong and everything they think and feel must be Gospel truth and so the world should not only tolerate their belligerence but accept they style of confrontation as nothing but legitimate and sanctimonious?

See: “Ferguson residents torn over property destruction” at: x http://xrepublic.tv/node/11569

The public is not much invited to suspect that ‘some’ types besides idealists are attracted to protests against authority, and may be within themselves authoritarian and anti-social personalities, who readily engage a life and philosophy of anarchism, in which they do not really believe in any form of acceptable and coherent authority save their own life of willfulness? Instead if they claim to fight for the underdog as the victim then it must be true. No unconscious or misunderstood motives from their souls.

But maybe the public has a right to be skeptical of some peoples’ assertions about blatant racism everywhere irrespective of how strongly they may believe what they claim—equally true of those who report and opine on such matters?

Many people are naïve to the amount of actual hatred (not just latent but acted out) some black people have shown routinely toward white police officers—especially some of those who have actually engaged in crime.

For example, some political idealists think the “only” reason black people are represented in higher rates of arrests and imprisonment is because of a highly dishonest system of racism. They can’t imagine that just maybe, for whatever reason, blacks, on average, do engage more crime and hostility. One can tentatively accept a study that shows blacks get busted more for thing like smoking marijuana, as racial profiling, but it may also be true that on average whites are more respectful of the police uniform and are less likely to alienate?

And so if there are a lot of interactions between police and black communities then some want to believe that hostilities on either side is the result of the police primarily being the bad guys (and yet a lot of these idealists whites would not choose live in some communities where they are a minority? They seem too busy projecting their assumed guilt on others of their same color.).

So consequently for various reason there is a hatred of all things police (in some circles), and things regarding white authority (especially if it can be painted as goyim racism—even if truth has it New York is a highly Jewish city and such population too contributed to the policing policies there that have received so much criticism of racial profiling, harassment, injustice, racism, etc., even while we seem to be selectively led to believe that somehow this amount of racial profiling was purely the result of some Italian Mayor or mostly Irish or WASP police officers then say by a class of Jewish lawyers who act as if they assume themselves to be of a more sophisticated class)? Once again, even in a city highly population with Jewish peoples, we are kind of strung along that this so-called rampant countrywide discrimination is mostly a goyim problem?

If you have ever been arrested, for say drunk driving, and have rubbed elbows in county jails in big urbane cities, you may know or have learned some perpetrators of crime, and especially some black perpetrators, act in very dangerous and psychologically ugly modes to all they interact including jail personnel (not strictly blacks but they have a strong game going). This is to say they can act like what one would call an “n-word” stereotype in as blatant way as hatred can be dramatized but damn you as a white person ever if you call someone a “n-word”. The politically correct will haunt you as most evil of anathema—that is enough guilt-trippers who never did live across the rail-road tracks—as they ‘project’ their own guilt onto the general white race—themselves being holier-than-thou as often also privileged.

It is good thing now that some lawyers are getting involved in this debate and protesting as well. However maybe they should also get more involved in issues related to torture (torture by the way too much related to AIPAC and NeoCon foreign policy goals) as well as what happened to innocent Palestinians this summer? Where are all the lawyers speaking out on those atrocities?

This fervency of demanding the world get on its knees and admit blatant racism everywhere here in the United States was also fanned by some websites that gave limited attention to racist events in Israel?

For example, the Daily Kos, a major Democratic Party website of sorts, and one heavily focused almost exclusively on convicting Darren Brown in the court of public opinion, did report some on Gaza atrocities this summer, but their editorial team and large association of writers didn’t expend any great effort or passion either getting much riled up about those ugly facts on the ground (or were not selected for mention in emails), even if they needed no priming or cosmetic filtering. Kos offered little opinion like refuting, for example, the false claims by the Israeli government as to why they felt they had to attack Gaza and Hamas.

Nevertheless this highly activist website has gone to great lengths to bring the Ferguson story into question at every conceivable level so as to show it was undoubtedly white police racism, and to keep the country’s mind focused there? Why the double standard? Furthermore and equally important their editorial group and associates (supposedly of a Democratic website) doesn’t seem at all bothered Hilary Clinton could become the next Democrat President candidate—a person who upsets a lot of real progressives knowing what that would likely mean.

I’m not arguing a focus on Ferguson is not worthy or justified but why so much disparity between hundreds or thousands who suffered in Gaza for 50 days of aggression by Israel versus one death in Ferguson. So this then is not only a fair question to ask from a website that has so much influence on Democrats and Liberals with it constant emails but one that assumes to be so adamantly self-righteous at times.

There are some cultural forces of racism that never or seldom addressed and this essay is already too long to go into some matters. People might consider that the comprehensive picture is not being presented.

But despite then, clean and courageously stated criminal allegations made against the Israeli government (where even many lawyers dare not tread) by law professor Marjorie Cohn’s indictment of Israel this summer, the story was fast falling off the radar and today it has pretty much disappeared under a cloud. Maybe lawyers in Los Angeles and New York City might see this issue as important for the legal profession to take a stand?

Going back to August you can see the dramatic shift of focus for public attention going into DemocracyNow.Org archives to the first few weeks of August. There we see the heat on Israel’s monstrosities and then what happened in much of the media was almost a complete 180; however Amy Goodman at Democracy Now did manage to get some very important interviews. See  http://www.democracynow.org/2014/9/1/a_slaughter_of_innocents_henry_siegman
and
 http://www.democracynow.org/2014/8/11/sadistic_grotesque_noam_chomsky_on_how

Instead Americans were pulled into another controversy, whether intended or not, that worked as deflection, away from United Nations efforts with civilians being bombed because of Zionist racism in Palestine—entirely buried from conscious awareness as new fires were stoked.

Where was the vociferous anger the terribly managed State Department debacle demanded? Some lost soul named John Kerry, who once was an idealist Lieutenant in Vietnam, was now caught complaining “…that was a hell of a pin-point operation…” attesting to those who cannot see the obvious, that not only is Israel not honest with the American culture, it is far from honest in dealing with our Government and leaders as well, because Netanyahu went out of his way to engage in the most blatant civilian crimes imaginable, and he did it with the assumed audacity he and his likes would get away with it, as how mafia Dons basically act.

Their willful criminality was meant to tell the world nobody ever tells the Israeli people anything about how to be or what to do. We must ask ourselves what kind of class of people assumes to rise to such a level of arrogance and hostility.

Perhaps we might start with religious presumptions? To the end of this long essay we will close on the idea of examining closely a comparison to the many cases of violence cited in the Old Testament to these latest series of criminal acts that took place this summer, to show little difference in spirit—thus it demonstrates the Bible cannot possibly be a legitimate form of moral or political authority.

Barack Obama’s White House, or whoever really controls it these days, and most of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives deliberately looked the other way when all those egregious acts of bombs and killing of children and innocent people, the destruction of important infrastructure such as schools and hospitals, the many homes lost took place (over 50 days), not to mention United Nations people being routinely attacked, etc., all this truth from this summer would be side-swept away by an obsession with some to suddenly decide the most important and dire issue for Americans to think about was to re-focus to domestic violence by police (and this push was reinforced by some political think tanks and certain news stations).

Not surprisingly The Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization that has come under much criticism over their controversial tactics, style, and conclusions, came out shortly after the Brown killing to denounce it right off, arguing it was, in one way or anther, tied to other forms of racism presumably by white supremacists, Neo-Nazis and other “goyim” white radical groups. And it’s important to understand this was happening at the “peak” of when the entire world was vigorously protesting against Israel, which is to note, Israel and Zionism did in fact suddenly have a major public relations problem to deal quickly as it became suddenly a tether of deep anxiety (and guilt and rightly so).

The Southern Poverty Law Center seems to act as a de facto a Zionist organization like the Anti-Defamation League. It is not officially so but it acts as if it were a cousin to the NeoCon powers in Washington, creating hysteria about racism and hate crimes with great attention on getting people to think about labeling some goyim white groups as the most racist and most likely to engage in hate crimes (not to argue they do not exist). Yet even the Weekly Standard had to take issue to with this organization’s politics and conclusions. Wow!

So if one surveys the SPLC website (self-purported team investigating hate crimes) there is very little about hate-crimes of deception committed by official news media personnel such as those who invariably argue for war against Muslims (using Islamo-phobia) or those who continuously suggest that Muslims are fanatics, barbarians, invariably violent, etc. so as to continue to justify a “clash of cultures” that benefits the culture of Israel and Saudi Arabia. And the newly named ISIS/ ISIL media campaign would follow up to do just that reinforcement campaign.

Was it not a hate crime for the New York Times to allow Judith Miller and her crony ethnic look-alike Michael R. Gordon (see:  http://antiwar.com/blog/2014/08/03/beware-the-new-york-timess-michaelr-gordon/
to lie the American public into an illegal war in Iraq—given how many tens to hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would then suffer in very serious ways—that is given such reporting comprised of deliberate lies and not simply naiveté as explained?

It must noted the Southern Poverty Law Center has a minor smidgeon of articles on obviously blatant cases of some minor number of Jews who have spread racist ideas, but when you really think of the vast numbers of Muslims that have been killed and affected by American foreign policy (and the media’s complicity) one would think that the SPLC and the ADL would have massive data-bases of racist Jews and racist Americans who support right-wing and too often Zionist actions in the Middle East? But instead both these groups focus almost all their energy on labeling other goyim groups as hate groups and then inviting the likes of the FBI or Homeland Security (and Israel intelligence as well) to spy on these many American peoples they have fingered.

If you believe that the SPLC and the ADL are objective then do yourself a study—read and listen to what David Duke has actually written and said in his own words at his website DavidDuke.Com and then survey and read what these supposedly hate-identifying websites have claimed about him. Even if you are convinced David Duke is a racist or Klan member or a hypocrite you can see a significant departure from objectivity and fairness. Both these organizations are far from honest or objective as if they also have an unstated agenda that deviates from their stated purposes.

And there are at least two important reasons why this kind of reverse racism is important. One, if there is ever any real reason The People of the United States need rise up against a tyrannical government within, it is likely some Patriot and Tea Party groups here might have some ability to rebel against such a strong and well-armed government as the United States. Whereas the fact that too often America’s foreign policy serves Israel’s interests over our own American interests invites some to want to continue illegal wars and aggression abroad even if it is not ethical or financially wise. And so such special interests would (and do) espouse massive scale spying on Americans who are critical of these truths.

Furthermore, some so-called hate-fighters and identifiers of haters (people we do readily believe wear white hats) are, or seem, more motivated also to get the government to confiscate “the citizen’s” right to own guns—or to highly restrict their capacity—an exceedingly foolish idea—as no government should ever be trusted to the point that they are allowed to outlaw guns from the populace—and yet that is exactly what some so-called progressives are in effect doing—finding every case of gun violence to focus so as to create a political movement to outlaw weapons (or much real capacity) and create an exceedingly vulnerable society. It is true that the 2nd Amendment was indeed the first and best Department of Homeland Security.

And another reason why it is alarming certain groups, such as some progressive Jewish people (ADL, SPLC types), that claim to represent minorities “against” white goyim men, are, and have been, engaged in a long time propaganda campaign to convince minorities and women of the rainbow coalition they are Thee experts on racism and hate crimes, and they are always on the side of people of color and all who feel discriminated against, be whatever ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc., that is they have the moral stature to define who are the haters, and when it is legitimate to call something a hate crime, etc.

Any yet despite their public relations, such as education on hate crimes against homosexuals, these groups are not completely objective or lacking in their own biases or political motives—rather Americans in general have a right and a duty to question their motives and to consider more deeply how they operate both overtly and covertly.

We Americans live in a schizophrenic world. We are asked to tolerate mass murder of Afghans, Iraqis, Syrians, etc. (if the NeoCon types desire it), and yet to not have any tolerance that hurts the ears of sensitive souls.

For example, it’s one thing to argue one’s feelings have been hurt by critical statements of others, such as by certain professors who criticize Israeli policy and practice on American campuses (a practice ADL and other groups have attempted to outlaw as a standard of hate crime—that is how one subjectively feels) such as some Jewish students claiming to feel intimidated on American campuses by other Middle Eastern peoples who express strong opinions contrarian to what these intimidated one’s want to think or believe or want they want others to think or believe (thus attempting to shutter out free speech on campuses against all who criticize Israel here in the United States): … and it is another thing entirely to feel the hatred of the Israeli government and their think tank culture operating here to manipulate our war weapon machine to engage enormous violence abroad or sell Israelis weapons that they may use on innocent peoples. Most people would choose to have their feelings hurt rather than their homes destroyed, their families bombed, and their friends tortured.

Still you can read the likes of Caroline Glick’s “It’s Time to Beat the Jew Haters” because that is still free speech looks like, and then also think about the possibility that just maybe some Jewish people can also actually be people who engage in the “hating” of other peoples—a concept we are not much invited to contemplate, that is from a people who claim to be so often history’s victims of hated. That they too actual have capacity to hate and some trained minority to engage hate crimes—in the same manner we might imagine some who complain about hatred against blacks also have an equal or even more fervent appetite to hate white people?

Many white people would not choose to be a police officer in a black neighborhood. Very few would. Still there are many people who can appreciate levels up to enormous amounts of stress for a teacher, even if not in a so-called failing school, as there is still more a civil atmosphere on average in a school, yet they nevertheless find it difficult, within their capacities to imagine, the stress levels, authority figures of other sorts, especially police, who deal with, at times, people with antisocial dispositions and criminal propensities, and danger opportunities and what this means to face?

This is not an excuse for mistakes or shortcomings made by police and trigger happy outcomes, but is damn easy as a outside commentator to always play the critic (and yet how often will we expect to see how many journalists and editors would dare take on the role of police office even for one year in a high-crime neighborhood)?

One example of this an ethnocentric angle—like some kinds of music attitude—that if one gets loud enough, or angry enough, or demanding enough, or in mob numbers enough, or protests long enough, or acts bully enough, then one is inevitably right—which seems to be the style of some who claim to know so much about all versions on racial issues. Where then are those spokespersons discussing how anger can be an intimidation tool and tactic to over-ride discussion in more relaxed manner?

This is the “unequal” style of how some rainbow coalition/ black politicians gurus want it portray life and reality—that is if one “feels” one is anger enough that is all that matters about who and what is right—even if it reflect a baby / bully mentality that simply needs to cry, to scream and to shout expletives, then that proves who is right? This is the double standard of race relations too many minority protesters and their supporters expect white people to accept—the idea that if black anger is strong enough and loud enough and mob enough then nothing much else matters and it is OK to engage in criminal violence, rioting, and burning down of innocent businesses or buildings that had nothing to do with what they claim to be angry. This sanctioning of ominous psychology by anger and declaring complete victimization is deceit pretending one’s own group is but saintly and innocent—as some “religious” guru running around with mystic visions—claiming the devils are “them” and not “us”. It is all good.

With over 300 million people there will always be examples of criminal racism acted out—including some by police and some specifically by white police while interacting with black people. What some activists seem to be trying to demand is none ever happen or they will be highlighted with klieg light (which is not realistic to create a perfect world—which doesn’t mean things cannot improve).

Another idea seldom discussed—the true self-esteem levels and hatred-of-self levels of various peoples within ethnic cultures. Seldom do people think about or debate, as subjective as it may be, there might be some Afro-American individuals who are not especially likeable or social, and that some may display attitudes of being psychologically ugly or egotistical, even exhibiting behaviors of being hateful toward people—that is they are not all truly much fun to be around. Why is this seldom discussed in those so-called demands for “dialogues about racism”? Rather there is an implied insinuation the only reason for animosity between groups is one of color and has nothing to do with such things as loud or blatant intensity or confrontational style or manner of displaying anger or acting disrespectful while at the same time demanding respect from those they show little.

We have well educated (privileged) white and minority liberals who think their own conceited ways of parsing arguments are realized by less educated masses of the public. They can’t imagine the pictures they paint are witnesses as much less sophisticated by some who get the most riled and upset—as they imply that specific acts of violence is far more prevalent and so encourage people with less discriminatory education to buy into their self-righteous tirades.

Some people have an attitude that tunnel visions as hard time understanding the way one acts toward others (and self) are greater barriers then their skin color. And yes there are a lot of disparities between being white and being black but why does it seem like some people who want to constantly highlight the worst of it are also some white people who actually grew up as more privileged then the average white person?

Whereas as it not a hate-crime for Paul Wolfowitz and his Neo-Con-Artist Pentagon usurpation of Intelligence to create a separate office within the Pentagon for the purpose of manufacturing phony intelligence to get an illegal war of aggression in the Middle East met—illegal destruction of people and culture? It is exceedingly important to understand the war of aggression in Iraq was not so much American as it was Israel and Saudi Arabia.

This U.S. illegal invasion of Iraq did not happen because of the “several” false excuses explicitly given and very well crafted as deliberate propaganda to the American public as told, such as Hussein was behind 9/11, or he had weapons of mass destruction, etc., but because, as confirmed, took place because it was what right-wing Israel, AIPAC and the Neocons wanted—that is war, more war, and now they are still arguing for even more against Syria and Iran (see “STEPHEN M. WALT
I don’t mean to say I told you so, but…” at:  http://foreignpolicy.com/2010/02/08/i-dont-mean-to-say-i-told-you-so-but/

When we consider, as we should, the fact that Barack Obama, who was basically succored to opportunities in Harvard, then University of Chicago for teaching, and later funded by progressive Jewish liberals (and rightly so as he had such potential), that these facts did little to truly move many progressive causes. Besides siding with Wall Street and continuing the previous Bush Administration’s horrific foreign policy and Security Police State issues, he did, as the Democratic Party top-down expected, or what AIPAC wanted—that is when Benjamin Netanyahu and his likes engaged in war crimes this summer—he acted, in one of his lowest points, the Manchurian candidate to puppet “Israel had a right to protect its citizens”—as if that was the real issue.

This remains our American problem—we cannot get anyone elected if Zionist lobbyists do not approve. Barack Obama’s, and almost all in both chambers of legislative branches, violated American trust by their cowardly acquiescence to Israel’s war crimes—as blatant as they were. Equally if any white men speak out critically, as in accusing of crime and treason, against Israel’s and the Israeli Lobby here in the United States, they are quickly tainted with not only being racist and anti-Semites but being white extremists as hate criminals? (You can and are encouraged of suspecting Muslims of anything and everything and the ADL and SPLC doesn’t seem to mind?)

Then Obama Administration became all too willing to scream about war crimes committed by ISIS? Not like there wasn’t a need for a new Osama bin Laden? ISIL would magically and very effectively become the second wave of attention grabbing news stories to equally work as more continuous cover for Israel’s crimes. Whether this too is mere coincidence is too complicated to fathom. The entire story of ISIS is as much a public relations feat as it is any kind of new reality. The covert activities of this whole phenomenon are worth investigating as some already have.

Middle of the road Americans, even in the white world, thought we had a good candidate with a new “hopeful” Obama, and yet all we really got was another puppet with a silver tongue. White men like myself, who had voted for Obama, as Kucinich was edged out, had expected, or had at least hoped, for better than the mediocrity of Rahl Emanuel being appointed Chief of Staff, who deliberately defied doing anything important in regards to closing Guantanamo. See: “U.S. TV Provides Ample Platform for American Torturers, But None to Their Victims” at  https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/12/16/u-s-tv-media-gives-ample-platform-american-torturers-victims/

Instead of a new White House taking back the Bill of Rights and stopping the growth of the Police State, we got the opposite—a grass roots effort being usurped by another top-down continuation of the Democratic Party that soon forgot its roots.

And instead of a long overdue re-evaluation of America’s relationship with Israel we again became sidetracked with domestic issues and the convenience of ISIS creating beheading headlines.

So now as of 2014 every violation any black person has ever felt or imagined from a white police officer would be put to trial. The entire profession of policing would suddenly become the issue of prominence. Over all police brutality, profiling, abuse, etc., would be larded into an incident between one white police officer and one black male—building from a crescendo from New York City profiling to Florida Trayvon Martin death, later to Eric Garner of Staten Island to a continuous focus that will not end as certain political activists have found a weapon to incite anger over and over and dominate headlines as any incident can be made to dominate the national conversation—because there will always be a few flagrant cases of unjustified violence.

In New York City alone there are a minimum of 300 or 400 murders a year and for the last couple decades numbers far exceeding—enough violence in one city to keep shows like Law and Order well supplied with ideas.

Whereas in the henpeck order of American’s moral ladder, as projected and perceived by mass propaganda, many seem to accept the idea white men, that is white goyim men, as opposed to white Jewish people, have the least political, social, moral, and ethical capital. This is to say some feel minority people and women are superior to goyim white men, intellectually, socially, morally, politically etc., and therefore they have moral capital to discuss racism and to criticize others. Whereas white men (the eternal enemy in the great divide and conquer) have the least moral capital and so what they think doesn’t really mean all that much because many are suspect in motive and lacking on face.

But we don’t think this reverse racism?

And yet there are plenty people, who, when given an opportunity to choose sides between a white male’s versus a black male’s statement of events, when one is arguably victimized and both statement conflict, will side with the black person and assume the white person guilty (and vice a versa). But we are not so ready to call this racism? And yet such racism is more prevalent than what some think (and in some camps there is a lot of such prejudice).

Equally there are plenty who believe, even if at an unacknowledged state, that white people on average are more racist then are other peoples. Despite the fact that no other minority would stand for such racism—white people, it seems, are expected to.

[Again my arguments are not meant to suggest racist issues are not highly relevant on their own. Nor is this paper an attempt to suggest a general media focus on the Michael Brown killing was some deliberate attempt to sideline focus on Gaza (things can happen and still not be premeditated). Still it is true that when more people could have been more strenuously focused on what happened in flagrance at Gaza (and more importantly thinking about what we could do about it), we were now, once again, invited to focus attention elsewhere, so a history of injustices in Israel could once again be skirted from scrutiny and confrontation.]

American wars of aggression of late in the Middle East could and should also be labeled forms of hate crime (and there should be more independent research on 9/11, that so readily allowed the NeoCon plan to attack several Middle Eastern countries come into play). Much of these misadventures were the result of distorted or fallacious arguments made up by these Neo-Cons and their correspondent media pundits as public relations people. Since 9/11 indiscriminate war, as murder, has happened on a massive scale—let us have more discussion with black GI s who have returned from combat.

Also the militarization of police departments finally came to a head at the Ferguson showdown. Finally more news organizations were focused on how local police departments are now heavily supplied with implements of war, so as to crack down on huge populations of people, and to be able to do so with much muscle and violence (and technology).

But this phenomenon of creating so much coordination and centralization of police work is primarily a reality of the Department of Homeland Security; and its important to remember this restructuring of U.S. intelligence, basically an American version of the Stalinist Cheka, was Senator Joseph Lieberman’s doing.

As sometimes biased websites like DemocracyNow.Org came to discuss the militarization of police departments they still failed to discuss the many millions of hollow point bullets obtained by DHS Departments and the thousands of machine guns by police departments and state guards groups (not that they had never been invited to do)? Why these important facts were still omitted from discussion of a Police State Arising as potentially far more ambitious than just attacking political protests? People, it seems, here have a hard time imagining that what has happened in other countries such as the massive concentration prisons in Russia or massive starvation there as elsewhere could ever happen here—apparently because of American exceptionalism (really naiveté—and meanwhile for decades American foreign policy has supported death squads elsewhere, so why would the “average” Joe (or presumed insider) assume any kind of immunity.

Many people critical of our government have been looking warily on the Department of Homeland Security as the Police State, especially in gains after 9/11 for a very long time, and still have questions as who really was behind those attacks not believing the media-hyped stories. And yet the militarization of police departments only comes up in the context of protests and riots involving issues of race—why is that—why is there no discussion that the SPLC was inviting our government to spy on white, goyim groups that they claimed represent hate and danger to the general public?

And why is there no parallel being drawn to the evolution of the Soviet Cheka and the evolution of the DHS here today? Why is it so hard for people to understand the level of personal records being stored in massive databases?

Also why are some of the biggest critics of people like Edward Manning, Glenn Greenwald, Julian Assange and Bradley Chelsea Manning thought as normally liberal or centrist lawyers like University of Chicago’s law professor Geoffrey Stone and Harvard’s Alan Dershowitz (who ironically just wrote: Terror Tunnels: The Case for Israel’s War Against Hamas)?

Skepticism has its legitimate place in intellectual history. It is fact the United States foreign policy in the Middle East is dominated by Zionist and Saudi Arabian interests. It is equally a fact American mainstream media is highly influenced by Jewish interests, as are major political campaigns. Chuck Hagel should not have been put in position in which it was suggested he apologize for saying he is an American Senator not an Israeli one. Nor should he be victim to the “political” foreign policy of the State Department.

And yet there is something even more disturbing than what happened this summer in Gaza and that is how the Old Testament itself advocated for war and violence. If you compare the list of legitimate war crimes Israelis engaged this summer to the longer list of violence advocated in the Old Testament, you see very similar patterns of war crime. Google: “Cruelty and violence in the Old Testament” at: www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruely/ot_list.html and compare current allegations of war crimes with the Bible.

It is time for mankind to recognize some ancient religions of the Middle East for what they really were and still primarily represent. The modern world can no longer hope for moral authority from a source of authority that has proven itself too different than what rational justice assumes.

If Sheldon Adelson can publicly say he would have already bombed Iran (he would willingly kill thousands and thousands of human people en masse) as he now vows to help finance Hilary Clinton’s campaign, are we not to notice his willingness to kill so many peoples, especially given the Iran threat was so deceitfully a massive propaganda campaign, and his statement even if naïve of this truth, is not in and of itself a hate-crime? (See MediaRoots.Org video clip “Ferguson: Riot Double Standard” and especially six & half minutes into this clip with her interview with Max Blumenthal on Germany’ left-wing’s inability to cognitively deal with free speech at Media Roots and all Max Blumenthal has to say on the matter). By the way where are the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League on Sheldon’s speech?

It may well be time for the world to consider officially banning the Bible from having any authority in politics whatsoever. This idea should be brought to the attention of the United Nations to argue and debate, because any religion that advocates violence, as does the Bible, literally condones terrorism. And any organization or government that places credence on these kinds of fanatical religious institutions should be considered fanatical in and by themselves.

Israel—you are coming down your mountain—you and your Yahweh!

Amen


[Note: If you feel this message is important, then by all means, email, fax, print, manually mail, propagate, tweet, twitter, and publish to all that Paul Revere and Thomas Paine would gather.]



A few other essays by William Wraithwrite:

YOU CANNOT DIE IN HELL: Using Indefinite Detention for Political and Religious Purposes  http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2014/03/515855.html

The Demonization of Dissent in the United States  http://www.indymedia.ie/article/102642

Israeli Smack-Down of Christian Political Philosophy: A Deeper Analysis of the Latest Israeli Atrocities in Palestine
 http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/08/05/18759603.php

See also: “When God Became the Terrorist: Traces Of The Authoritarian Nature of the Three Abrahamic Religions” at:
 https://indymedia.org.uk/en/2013/07/511565.html free ebook


Plus check out related:

The Islamophobia of "Homeland" - Deepa Kumar on Reality Asserts Itself (4/5) at:  http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=12531

The Ferguson Distraction by Sheldon Richman  http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/ferguson-distraction/

*****Lastly if think this essay is anti-Semitic I suggest you read Alexander Cockburn and Jeffery St. Clair’ The Politics of Anti-Semitism before you jump to too many conclusions*****.