Wiki-Leaks Is Israel, Like We All Didn’t Know

© unknown

By Gordon Duff

Wiki-Leaks Is Israel, Like We All Didn’t Know

Lame “Leak” Site Nothing More Than Thin Cover For The “Tel Aviv Tango”

Now “Wiki-Leaks” is busy selling phony bin Laden stories, having the long dead Osama humiliating the CIA by running around villages in Afghanistan selling vacuum cleaners. What is our “leak” site really about? This is a dead news cycle. The World Cup is over, lots of people on holiday and no major stories. Only in a dead news period like this, as Oliver Stone pointed out, could the Israeli controlled media dump a pile of lame rumors mixed in with box loads of chickenfeed, passing it off as the story of the century.

Even the cover story, the mysterious Assange fleeing the murderous CIA, working to save the world is lame. WikiLeaks is lame. Please, everyone, go to the site and read everything there. I have seen more confidential information on a weather report. Assange is hardly a James Bond figure. Woody Allen is masculine in comparison.

Journalists all get leaks, and frankly, we don’t print most of them. Some we can’t trust. Some are just too dangerous. Some are simply illegal. Some are blatantly self serving Israeli propaganda coated with a veneer of anti-Americanism. This is “Wiki-leaks” material. What is important is what they don’t print. The only things that come out about Israel, the country most vulnerable to leaks, the country always up to the most skulduggery, is an occasional harmless story like their major leak on East Jerusalem settlements. It hit the New York Times first.

When you read Mr. Assange’s output, you are looking at one of the Mossad games, nothing more. They send some stories to Fox News, some to CNN, some to the Washington Post or London Times. They have their pick as their friends and co-workers own those outlets and so many more. The game today is using Wikileaks, given its 15 minutes of fame for trashing the US in Iraq with the helicopter video, to spread imaginary stories about Pakistan, the only nuclear power in the Middle East capable of standing up to Israel and the enemy of India.

India is what it is all really about. Israel is playing India for a fall, drawing them into their games they way they did with the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan. India will wake up with their government bought off, blackmailed, up to their neck in wars and insurgencies at home and fighting Israel’s enemies abroad. India is the next real target for rape, destruction, destabilization by Israel and our “Wiki-leak” is part of that game.

Another chosen victim, of course, is the United States, hated enemy of Israel, not for public consumption, however. Check the names of those who looted the American economy. In the top dresser drawer of 80% of those who took the US into bankruptcy, you will find an Israeli passport.

Did anyone ask why nothing was reported in 90,000 pages regarding the massive drug dealing in Afghanistan? With stories in the press around the world reporting that President Karzai and his brother are the biggest druglords in the world, why would this not be mentioned? Is it because Karzai is a good friend of the Indo-Israeli alliance that runs Wiki-leaks?

Classified Army documents are filled to the brim with reports that the CIA and their private contractors are involved in drug operations with Karzai but also other names are named including many prominent Americans, some members of congress. I won’t leak their names but I know they are in the documents. If Wiki got what they say they got, then most of their documents would have reported corruption, drug dealing, governments of a dozen countries would have been mentioned.

If real leaks were made public and we did something about it, first by arresting the gangsters and spies filling congress, the White House and every federal agency, we might balance our budget but who would be left to do the Sunday morning talk shows? If you want the names of those who would really be on leaked documents, check your TV listings. It isn’t a coincidence. Those chosen to lie on television are also being paid for other duties as well.

Israel would have been cited for laundering drug money for the Taliban. It is in the documents. I didn’t release them. That is illegal.

BG Asif Haroon Raja of Pakistan, former Attache to Egypt and respected intelligence analyst had the following to say about the Wiki barrage:

“Unsubstantiated and fabricated allegations against Pakistan and its premier institutions are so absurd and decayed that it gives nausea to the reader. Only ones who enjoy the stale jokes are its manufacturers or the game players. ISI-Taliban closeness has been drummed up in such a manner as if it is the biggest sin ever committed. Each time it is presented with a new flavor to make it look more breathtaking. This unholy practice has been going on systematically and incessantly for the last six years to condition the minds of the world audience and to convert falsehood into truth. Story of this nature is routinely published in western media every fortnightly.

In the last few months write ups on this subject have suddenly gained impetus. Previously, accusations were in the form of allegations made by newspapers and think tanks. Now top US civil and military officials have jumped into the arena with loins girded up and have started using high handed tactics openly without caring for diplomatic decorum. Propaganda assault together with verbal assaults by visiting officials and drone attacks have become a norm. They have become xenophobic and overbearing. This can be gauged from the mood of the three US visitors who visited Islamabad recently.

Prickly Hillary Clinton can see ghost of Osama sauntering in Pakistan each time she lands in Pakistan . Through her lens she sees ISI in cahoots with Taliban. She again reminded our harried rulers that any attack on US homeland with connection to Pakistan would have devastating consequences upon Pak-US relations. She conceitedly dangled few carrots to make them do more. Grim looking Holbrooke and tense ridden Adm. Mike Mullen harbored similar ideas. The trio wanted Pak Army to cut off its entire links with Taliban, consider Indians as friends and to promptly launch an operation in North Waziristan to chase out Haqqani network and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), the two outfits most dreaded by USA . LeT has been put on the hit list to please India.

Wikileaks is a follow up of London Report and some of the objectives behind it are to keep Pakistan pressured and cornered, authenticate Indian allegations about ISI’s involvement in various acts of terror in Afghanistan, demonise LeT and defame ISI, exert pressure on Obama Administration to affect a change in its policy of softness towards Pakistan, reconciliation with Taliban and withdrawal of coalition forces. India together with Northern Alliance and pro-war American senior officials are possibly behind the Wikileaks scandal. This report is less harmful for Pakistan and more injurious for USA since source reports on Pakistan mostly provided by RAAM and RAW agents were never taken seriously by the receivers. Receiving officers have been noting their remarks on such reports as lacking in authenticity, biased and devoid of credibility. Moreover, such manipulated leakages would further widen rather than build trust gap between USA and Pakistan .”

When Joe Biden and General Petraeus both reported that Israel was endangering American troops, the classified portion of this involved Israeli operations in Afghanistan, which are extensive. Why would General Petraeus have gone to congress about Israel if he didn’t have documents? We couldn’t manage to leak those also? They are all over Washington, anyone could pick them up. They just don’t. Ask Oliver Stone why.

Hundreds of pages of reports of Israeli and Indian operatives in Pakistan’s region called Baluchistan were tossed out also. Their involvement in terrorism, not only against Iran but working directly with the Taliban in Pakistan was there but not included. So much wasn’t included.

Nothing involving drug flights being serviced by Israeli companies was released. It was in the files. If we really want to leak things, they are out there. It can get bloody.

Wikileaks leaves a trail of stench from Mr. Assange right to Tel Aviv. If anyone couldn’t see it, the corporate press or the Israeli press or the Zionist prWikileaks is Israel. Assange works for them, I hope not unwittingly. I hate it when people are duped. I would rather he were paid or being blackmailed. I always want the useless to be rewarded in this life because, just in case their is another one after this, they know what they can expect there.ess or whatever the current buzz word is for the useless press, they put you on the path. They are the ones putting a spotlight on the disinformation and failing miserably to note how obviously the leaks have been edited to serve Israeli games.

It won’t be pleasant.

I didn’t want to write this, add to the problem. Even negative publicity is publicity. Every time I am attacked, my readership goes up dramatically. It almost encourages one to be abrasive and unnecessarily controversial, like with Fox News.

Let’s cut this short. Wikileaks is simply another ploy by the ultra powerful Israel lobby, a cheap game meant to humiliate the United States, destroy Paksitan and build a reputation for a puppet. I suspect it will fail. I hope this effort is useful in that endeavor.

Symbolic Identifiers and Jewish Stereotypes

April 18, 2010: By Gilad Atzmon

Symbolic Identifiers and Jewish Stereotypes

Jews are usually proud to define themselves as Jews. Some Jews may, for instance, proudly carry the Jewish banner (Jews for Peace, Jews for Justice, Jews for Jesus and so on) as if they believe that the ‘J’ word contains special righteous attributions. However, they also will be gravely offended if they are called a ‘Jew’ by others. Suggesting to a Jew that “he is a Jew” or “behaves like a Jew” can be regarded as a serious ‘racist’ offence.

It is linguistically noticeable that the symbolic identifier ‘Jew’ or ‘Jewish’ operates as both noun and as an adjective. As much as the term points to a ‘thing’ it is also descriptive. However, I assume that symbolic identifiers associated with ideological and identity politics tend to function in a dual grammatical mode. The words ‘feminist’, ‘socialist’, ‘Nazi’ and ‘white supremacist’ can point to a human subject but they can also be descriptive. I guess, for instance, that a feminist who proudly carries the feminist flag may also accept that being called ‘a feminist’ will also assign some particular characteristics and ideological beliefs.

Crucially, we also accept that being a feminist, a socialist, a Nazi or a white supremacist are matters of political choice. People are not born feminists or as socialists. They adopt those ideologies or identities later in life.

From this perspective the ‘Jew’ signifier or symbolic identifier is slightly different for the Jews who are born into a collective identity.

Almost like any case of biologically determined conditions such as ‘women’, ‘men’ or ‘blacks’, some people are born Jews However, here we are clearly setting ourselves into an interesting twist. First, European Jews can easily disappear into a white Western crowd by means of assimilation and integration and leave their Jewish identity behind, where as black people and women have to live their life accepting and enjoying who they are.

Second, the duality between the noun and the adjective in the case of ‘black’ and ‘women’ is not necessarily realised as a gulf. Neither black people nor women are offended being called ‘black’ or ‘women’.

To a certain extent the manner in which ‘Jew’ as a signifier, operates within the discourse may be similar to the case of the ‘gay’ symbolic identifier. While many gays are also offended when being labeled as ‘gays’ by others. In different cases of identity and marginal politics we can notice a parallel and simultaneous tendency to ‘own’ and ‘disown’, a clear inclination to ‘identify’ with a collective yet a refusal to be ‘identified’ as such by others.

In multicultural reality we tend to believe that this contradictory mode of behavior is something to do with the usage and misusage of stereotypes.

A stereotype is commonly defined as a public or common belief about specific social groups, or types of individuals. It is often a product of an essentialist generalization by the means of induction: it involves a nonscientific assumption about the properties of a class of subjects based on an accumulation of observations or anecdotal encounters which become reinforced with time and repetition.

The concept of ‘stereotype’ is often confused with the notion of ‘prejudice’. Rather often we notice that a stereotype attached to ethnicity, class or any group are a means of performing an opinion, usually an unfavorable one, based on insufficient knowledge and irrational feelings.

On the face of it, it would seem as if Jews are over sensitive to the ‘racial’ discriminatory implication of the ‘J’ word. However most Jews are not that concerned when being associated collectively with some great minds, adorable violin players or conductors. In short to safely apply the ‘Jew’ category, you just have to make sure you say the right things. No one will ever cause you any trouble for mentioning Albert Einstein in reference to Jewish intelligence or even bringing up Anne Frank as an exemplary motif of Jewish innocence but you may get into some serious trouble once you mention the following list of real and fictional characters: Bernie Madoff, Fagin, Wolfowitz, Lord Levy, Shylock, Alan Greenspan, Netanyahu and Nathan Rothschild without even identifying them as Jews.

All of the above depicts a very obscure, yet far from surprising picture. As it seems, Jews, largely do not mind stereotypes or collective categories. They do not mind racial generalizations and essentialist stigmas as long as they are positive.

Fagin Vs Anne Frank

It occurred to me recently that by juxtaposing Jewish stereotypes (those Jews seem to hate versus those Jewish ethnic campaigners try to promote) may throw some crucial light over issues to do with Jewish collective identity. It would also suggest to us how Jews might see themselves and even more importantly, it may also help us to grasp how they prefer to be seen.

It is rather obvious that some Jews are rather unhappy with Charles Dickens’ Fagin and Shakespeare’s Shylock who they regard as ‘anti Semitic’.

I get the impression that the prominent Zionist enthusiast and London Barrister Anthony Julius would like to see these cultural iconic characters diminished from popular discourse. On the other hand, the British Holocaust Education Trust (HET) already managed to plant Anne Frank within the British curriculum.

It doesn’t take a genius to gather why Julius and others are concerned with Fagin or Shylock. Fagin is the ultimate plunderer, a child exploiter and usurer. Shylock is the blood-thirsty merchant. With Fagin and Shylock in mind Israeli barbarism and organ trafficking seem to be just other events in an endless hellish continuum. However, it is also obvious why the HET is so thrilled by Anne Frank. On the face of it, and for obvious reasons, Frank is there to convey an image of innocence. And indeed not a single moral system could ever justify the ordeal this young girl went through along with many others.

Yet, Anne Frank wasn’t exactly a literary genius. Her diary is not a valuable piece of literature. She wasn’t an exceptionally clever either. She was in fact a very ordinary girl and this is exactly her power within the post WWII Western cultural discourse. She was just an innocent average girl. In fact, the attempt to make Anne Frank into a cultural hero may be a genuine reflection of the Zionist inclination towards sameness. Frank mirrors the desperate Zionist attempt to prove to the world that ‘we the Jews’ are people like other people. Moreover, the success of Anne Frank’s Diary is there to suggest the West’s willingness to accept Jews as people amongst peoples.

Yet, once again, the Jewish discourse is caught in a limbo. Jewish people can never achieve their task. They can never be like ‘other people’ for no other people aim to be like other people. In fact, those who demand to be seen as equal must feel inherently and categorically different. Once again we face a repetition of the Jewish identity’s collective unresolved chasm between ‘who one claims to be’ and ‘what one happens to be.’

In his latest book Trials of The Diaspora, Anthony Julius renews his attack on those whom he labels as ‘anti Semites’ for being anti Zionists. The problem with anti Zionism, says Julius, is that “it denies the Jews the right that it upholds for other comparable people, it adheres to the right of self determination except in the Jews’ case…. It affirms international law. Except in Israel’s case. It regards Jewish nationalism (i.e. Zionism) as uniquely pernicious, rather than merely another nationalism” (Trials of The Diaspora, Anthony Julius pg Xl, Oxford University Press). The cry for legitimacy and sameness in Julius’ text is pretty embarrassing, especially due to the fact that the Jewish ‘right of self determination’ is celebrated at the expense of someone else (the Palestinians). Zionism is uniquely pernicious at least for being devastatingly sinister to the indigenous population of the holy land. It is apparent in Julius’ text that the London barrister somehow prefers to evade engaging with the notion or the meaning of ethical thinking.

For Hasbara (propaganda) to win a debate and for Julius to win his argument, Jews have to prove that they are truly the same rather than demand to be seen as similar. Surely Julius must know that winning a moral argument is very different from winning a court case.

Presumably Julius is familiar enough with Kant’s ‘categorical imperative’ that suggests that to behave ethically is to ‘act in such a way that the maxim of one’s actions can be willed as a universal law’. Julius may fail to grasp that ethnically cleansing the vast majority of the Palestinian population cannot be ‘willed as a universal law’. Locking millions in concentration camps such as Gaza is not exactly a maxim of profound ethical standing. Dropping white phosphorous on people hiding in a UN shelter doesn’t make the Jewish state look like every other state. In fact, it doesn’t make Jews look like other people either. Watching Jewish lobbies around the world push for a war against Iran doesn’t make Jews look like ordinary people. And this is something that even Anne Frank cannot change.

As much as Julius and others would like to remove some crucial stereotypes from our collective cultural discourse, they can actually expect the complete opposite. Fagin and Shylock are now more popular than ever before. Devastatingly enough, it is Fagin and Shylock who shed light over the Jewish state and its lobbies around the world. Fagin is neither alone nor is he an isolated fictional episode. The list of Zionist crimes is emerging so rapidly that it is almost impossible for us to keep up.

I am reluctant to suggest to Julius that his attempt is in vain. The world out there is turning rapidly against Israel, Jewish nationalism and Jewish supremacy. Removing Fagin, Shylock and TS Eliot won’t stop the word ‘Jew’ from being an adjective and a negative descriptive emblem. For that to change, or for Jews to be genuinely respected, self-reflection is of the essence. Instead of pointing out what is so wrong with the Goyim, Jews may want to consider looking in the mirror. I tried it once many years ago. I have never recovered. It transformed me into a profound self-hater.

Related stories:

April 19, 2010: Israel celebrates its independence from humanity

Financial Terrorists Who Destroyed Our Economy Will Pay Zero in Taxes and Get $33 Billion in Refunds

By David DeGraw

The Financial Terrorists Who Destroyed Our Economy Will Pay Zero in Taxes and Get $33 Billion in Refunds

Journalist David DeGraw has put together a devastating report detailing how Wall Street continues to pillage the economy with the government’s help. “The staggering level of theft continues unabated,” writes DeGraw.

“Our future is going up in flames and our government isn’t even making the slightest effort to put out the fire. In fact, they are purposely pouring gasoline all over it.” DeGraw’s investigation is a follow up to his previous report The Economic Elite Vs. The People of the United States of America

The first thing people need to understand is that the economic crash wasn’t a crash for the people who caused it. In fact, these financial terrorists are now doing better than ever. In a recent report, titled “Social Inequality in America: Widening Income Disparities,” more evidence of the unprecedented transfer of wealth was revealed:

“As of late 2009, the number of billionaires soared from 793 to 1,011, and their total fortunes from $2.4 trillion to $3.6 trillion…. Despite the crisis, the list of billionaires has grown by 218 people and their aggregate capital has expanded by 50%. This may seem paradoxical, but only at first glance. This result was predictable, if we recall how governments all over the world have dealt with the economic crisis.”

The inequality of wealth in the United States between the economic top 0.5% and the remaining 99.5% of the population is now at an all-time high. The economic top 1% of the population now controls a record 70% of all financial assets. The point here is that while the economic crisis has been devastating for 99% of America, the Wall Street elite are awash in record breaking profits. The most profitable firm in Wall Street history, Goldman Sachs, just had their most profitable quarter in their 140-year history and Wall Street firms issued an all-time record breaking amount in bonuses.

All of this is occurring after giving these firms $14 TRILLION in taxpayer support – that works out to be $46,662 of your hard-earned money. That’s $46,662 for every man, woman and child in this country. If you have a family of four, sorry, your future just got robbed and you and your children just lost $186,648!

So what are all these firms doing with these record-breaking profits? Are they returning them into the tax system in which they came from, the tax system that was looted just to keep their scam running?

No!

Let’s start with Wells Fargo. After being bailed out with our money in 2008, their top five executives DOUBLED their compensation and each one of them made over $11 million in 2009. Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf made off with a cool $21.3 million last year.

And now comes news that Bank of America and Wells Fargo will pay zero, yes ZERO in federal taxes for 2009. Bank of America will net a $3.6 BILLION benefit from the federal government in 2009. Wells Fargo, after $8 BILLION in earnings for 2009, will net $4 BILLION from the federal government.

So you and I are working our asses off just to make ends meet, paying 30% of our limited income in taxes, and gizillionaire John Stumpf’s company is paying ZERO in taxes so that he can personally swipe another $21.3 million of tax payer funds.

Al Capone is a dime store thief compared to this guy!

Well, to be fair, Mr. Stumpf is just a small-timer himself in this all-time greatest heist. JP Morgan Chase made $12 BILLION in profit in 2009, as a direct result of our tax money – yes, I need to keep repeating this fact. These are profits that would not exist if it weren’t for our tax dollars.

It’s also important to point out that this is just the level of theft that has already occurred. However, as I also can’t stress enough, the theft still continues without any let-up.

Now comes news that JP Morgan is on the verge of getting a $1.4 BILLION tax refund! Yes, you heard me right, a $1.4 BILLION TAX REFUND. But JP is not alone in this latest theft. In total, the financial terrorists are due to receive $33 BILLION IN TAX REFUNDS!

Do you comprehend how depraved it is to give these people another $33 billion in tax refunds? I assume that they’re thinking that after stealing $14 TRILLION, another $33 billion really isn’t all that much. After all, last year, Goldman Sachs, the most profitable firm Wall Street history, only paid 1% in taxes, so what’s another $33 billion kickback among friends?

Let’s be clear about this latest $33 billion of which the US tax system is being robbed. What could we do with $33 billion?

For one, we could put over one million unemployed people back to work and pay them the average national median wage for the next year. Add the record-breaking $150 billion in bonuses (our tax money) that Wall Street handed out this past year to the $33 billion and guess what? We can now put over six million people back to work making the average annual wage! Do you think that would stimulate the economy? Green shots galore.

But why do that? Jamie Dimon needs another new 40,000 square foot mansion and Goldman Sachs needs to upgrade their fleet of luxury jets filled with the finest wine, champagne, cigars and hot tubs.

Maybe we could use that $33 billion to save some of the hundreds of schools that are being forced to close this year due to devastating State budget deficits. Or maybe pay the thousands of teachers who just found out that their jobs have been cut. How about using that money to feed the 50% of US children who need to use food stamps during their childhood to eat? How about using it to give a raise to the 15 million US workers who work 40 hours or more a week and still fall below the poverty line.

Wait, I know, how about helping the millions of Americans who have been foreclosed upon due to JP Morgan’s predatory lending schemes and illegal subprime “liar’s loans.”

And don’t even get me started again on how we can better use the $14 TRILLION that Wall Street made off with.

People of the United States to Obama: Hello! This is happening on your watch!

Change We Can Believe In!

Oh, but wait… it gets even better. This just in from the Roosevelt Institute:

De facto bailout for Freddie and Frannie

Did the Fed and the Treasury orchestrate a de facto bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — at public expense and sans Congressional approval? John Hussman thinks so. He provides a detailed account of just how 1.5 trillion dollars got diverted to Freddie and Fannie — money that we can all kiss goodbye. American taxpayers, it seems, have gotten the middle finger once again.

And then in comes this little known, highly underreported news item: U.S. Taxpayers on Hook for $5 Trillion of Fannie, Freddie Debt

“After years of winks and nods, there’s no doubt that Fannie and Freddie now enjoy an explicit guarantee, according to most observers.

The U.S. government placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in conservatorship in September 2008: ‘This means that the U.S. Taxpayer now stands behind $5 trillion of GSE debt,’ according to the Congressional Research Service.”

Hank “Pentagon-Sachs” Paulson’s right-hand man Tim Geithner, now Obama’s hand-picked Treasury Secretary and point man for the continued looting, recently assured his friends on the Financial Services Committee: “We will do everything necessary to ensure these institutions have the capital they need to meet their commitments.” Geithner then acknowledged that US taxpayers will take “very substantial” losses on this bailout.

Yep, Obama’s Chief-of-Theft, Rahm “Freddie Mac Daddy” Emanuel’s former company now has unlimited ability to rob taxpayer money and is making off with $5 TRILLION. And I thought Cheney’s Halliburton was as bad as it could get.

Yes We Can… Get Robbed Even More!

But don’t worry, if you thought the past two years were bad, the history books will recall them as a walk in the park compared to what is coming our way. You don’t have trillions looted from the economy and continue to just keep going about your life business as usual. I wish I was wrong, and I wish this was just my opinion, but facts are facts and every societal and economic indicator says things are going to get worse, MUCH WORSE.

© 2010 Amped Status All rights reserved.

Related stories:

April 19, 2010: “Primordialism” and the decline of human culture by Gordon Duff
April 19, 2010: Noam Chomsky Has ‘Never Seen Anything Like This’ by Chris Hedges

Targeting Academic and Speech Freedoms: The Case of Canadian Professor Denis Rancourt

Steve Lendman, who I have tagged as a “critical issues” blogger, recently wrote about Professor Denis Rancourt who was fired from the University of Ottawa (U of O) on March 31, 2009, he says ostensibly for pedagogical reasons from a very dark side of academic thinking.

His article speaks of the destruction of “thought and inquiry”, something that specifically is replaced by mystic beliefs, where learning is removed from one’s life path for a place in the sun.

However, as Steve reports on the case, Rancourt’s syllabus for social and cosmic order clashed with the staunch support of the hyperbolic system (removing the soul) which now infests not only the U.S., but Canada as well.

(BDS), the U.S. Campaign for the Academic & Cultural Boycott of Israel represents a significant marker to express the disease in question. And this was dealt with by illegal means to suppress the truth which resulted in the removal of Rancourt’s job, and ability to make a living.

If this kind of activity is allowed to continue, we cannot expect justice to be available in the future, for us, or any of our children. We must learn how to act against corruption for the betterment of mankind.

There is an old saying that is usually associated with guns: “In order to remove my freedom of thought, you will have to pry it out of my cold dead hand.” In this case, it is your mind that is the target. What happened at the University of Ottawa must be classified as a war crime, an unjust act against innocence. Those responsible must be brought to justice.

It makes no sense to punish Rancourt for a wrong that doesn’t exist. A true wrong is best dealt with by a lesson, punishment as violence is always useless. If those who dealt the blow in getting Rancourt fired really had to stand up and explain why they did what they did, they would be fools.

By Steve Lendman

Targeting Academic and Speech Freedoms: The Case of Canadian Professor Denis Rancourt

Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a constitutional bill of rights, states:

“Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.”

Article 7 assures “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person and the right not to be deprived thereof in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”

According to Yale Law Professor and constitutional scholar Thomas I. Emerson (1908 – 1981):

“Maintenance of a system of free expression is necessary (1) as assuring individual self-fulfillment,

(2) as a means of attaining the truth, (3) as a method of securing participation by the members of society in social, including political, decision-making, and (4) as maintaining the balance between stability and change in society.”

With no free expression right, all others are at risk at a time dissent is called a threat to national security, terrorism, or treason. Howard Zinn called it “the highest form of patriotism,” and according to Voltaire, “I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

In a post-9/11 climate, it’s more than ever endangered, academic tenure affording no protection; to wit, Professor Denis Rancourt’s University of Ottawa (U of O) March 31, 2009 firing, ostensibly for pedagogical reasons, but as he said:

“I was fired under the false pretext of having arbitrarily assigned high grades in one course in the winter 2008 semester. (To do so), the university had to dispense with due process. In the words of the professors’ union’s lawyer, my dismissal was ‘both a denial of substantive and procedural rights….and a contravention of the basic principles of natural justice.’ ”

On rancourt.academicfreedom.ca, he states:

“Most students agree to give up their independence of thought and enquiry and to serve the insane system of due dates and senseless assignments in exchange for the certificate (a degree. They spend four years) to be certified persistently obedient. (In return, they get) access to a privileged position in the wage hierarchy and professional social status. It’s a trade….It requires survival….that, in turn, requires adopting the ideology of the profession….and self-indoctrination” to expunge the impulse to learn. “Your soul (is exchanged) for a place in the sun.”

Rancount’s “critical pedagogy” focuses on learning, not regurgitating professorial views for high grades, or as he said in a January 5, 2009 letter to Marc Jolicoeur, Chairman of the University Board of Governors:

His focus shifted “from evaluation to education, from rank ordering of students to learning (to remove) intimidation and anxiety from the educational equation. As a result, student performances in my courses have improved significantly and in fact have been excellent.” University interference was “politically motivated and resisted in the name of academic freedom and in defence of the best education for my students.”

His political activism lay behind “the university’s attempts to discipline (him) since September 2005;” specifically over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, “in articles, on radio, in blog postings, at public venues, and in classes.”

In 2007, after criticizing the university’s position on academically boycotting Israel, repression against him intensified after Allan Rock became president on June 3, 2008 – a former Canadian politician, UN ambassador, and staunch Israeli supporter.

On his March 8 U of O Watch blog posting, Rancourt said Rock, as UN ambassador, “abruptly changed Canada’s longstanding policy on Israel,” henceforth “vot(ing) against UN resolutions for Palestinian human rights along with the US and Israel,” contrary to virtually all other UN members save for a Pacific island or two.

As U of O president, he was “reprimanded by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association for banning a student poster about Israeli Apartheid Week, (then) strong-armed a student union president into distancing the (organization) from the student-run Ontario Public Interest Research Group (OPIRG) which had expressed a principled stance towards Israel.”

In September 2008 at Rock’s urging, the Executive Committee of the Board of Governors (EBOG) suspended Rancourt, recommended dismissing him in December, barred him from campus, then fired him in March 2009.

A University of Ottawa physics professor, he was tenured, a full professor since 1997, a recognized expert in his field, and a “phenomenal teacher” according to members of the Environmental Studies Student Association for providing an “extremely enriching individualized….empower(ing and) positive learning environment where inspired students gained confidence and courage.”

How could his pedagogical approach and grading methods “justify ordering the university police to remove (and ban him) from campus, (assign) his graduate students to other faculty, fir(e) his post doctoral research fellow, and summarily fir(e) him without due process?”

It’s “particularly ironic given its Vision 2010 strategic plan (stating) that the university will “Support and recognize initiatives designed to implement a range of new and diversified strategies for learning and evaluation.”

Rancourt wanted a stronger, more democratic U of O – better pedagogically with a new syllabus, community service offerings, course content, and right to challenge established practices.

He was also vocal on environmental concerns, professional ethics, lobbying, media influence, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In response, university officials tried to silence him, finally by dismissal, the same disposition for others like Bard College’s Joel Kovel, De Paul University’s Norman Finkelstein, and University of Colorado’s Ward Churchill, each distinguished academicians, scholars, and outspoken critics of injustice.

Until his July 2007 firing, Churchill was an award-winning tenured professor. He sued, prevailed, was reversed at the district court level, appealed, and was supported by National Lawyers Guild, Center for Constitutional Rights, Society of American Law Teachers, Latina/O Critical Legal Theory, and Law Professors and Attorneys through amici curiae filings to reverse the lower court’s ruling. In summary of argument comments, they stated:

“Academic freedom, a central component of the First Amendment (similar to Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) and essential to a thriving democracy, is imperiled when state university officials succumb to political pressure to fire a tenured professor over constitutionally protected statements. Affording the shield of absolute immunity to university officials and vacating a jury finding of wrongful discharge in violation of the First Amendment threatens the fundamental rights of all faculty members.”

Such action “will have a chilling effect on professors, students, and citizens whose speech is unpopular but constitutionally protected. The resultant suppression of free inquiry and critical thinking vitiates the First Amendment and undermines the foundation of higher learning in this country.”

It holds for Canada under constitutionally protected freedoms, Rancourt saying tenure produces obedient academics who won’t challenge injustices in society or their university environs. He wrote:

“One antidote to the university as boot camp in the service of capital is for tenured professors to use their tenure. This would turn tenure on its head, as it is free society’s coercive tool of choice for fabricating aligned and docile academics. Not the job security itself….but the filtering and moulding process known as the tenure track….Tenure is death, risk is life, and collaboration is criminal. Collaborating in an institutionalized system of resource looting, labour exploitation, and genocidal demographic engineering is criminal, especially when its ultimate weapon is the foremost crime known as war, such as the present Canadian war in Afghanistan.”

In a detailed February 23, 2009 brief (five weeks before his firing), he said university officials used a “fast track process” against him, wouldn’t engage in dialogue, and refused to evaluate him by a committee of his peers to facilitate his firing:

“on a first offence without ever having the right to be heard at any stage, including the final decision meeting of the Executive Committee of the Board of Governors….Canadian society is witnessing the contrived and intentional firing of an outspoken dissident professor, as harsh as the most prominent recent cases in the US under Bush” that continue under Obama.

Freedom of information (FOI) documents showed intense illegal university surveillance, “including an extensive use of a student spy and the hiring of professional reporters to produce commented transcripts of my academic and conference talks at other universities.”

Methods used included:

— “covertly recording conversations of others;

— covertly attending a presentation….under false pretence and covertly voice recording the event

and preparing reports;

— using a false Facebook identity (Maureen Robinson = Nathalie page) to covertly join activist

student events and discussion groups;

— using a false Facebook identity to covertly make enquiries about student events;

— using a false gmail account….to make covert email enquiries;

— making false pretence enquiries to outside (blog) editors and outside conference organizers;” and

other methods.

Rancourt concluded that “This may be the first time in North American academic history that a university administration (through its highest legal office) hire(d) a student to practice extensive covert surveillance of a professor and (other) students” in violation of Canadian and international law.

Part VI – Invasion of Privacy under the Criminal Code of Canada prohibits “private communication” intercepts from one person to another within Canada. Provision 184(1) states:

“Every one who, by means of any electro-magnetic, acocustic, mechanical or other device, willfully intercepts a private communication is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.”

Provision 193(1) prohibits disclosure of illegal intercepts, subjecting offenders to imprisonment for up to two years.

Article 17 of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states:

“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation (and) Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”

Article 19 states:

“Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.”

FOI evidence also revealed interference to prevent Rancourt from reserving an auditorium, secure computing services, participate in campus demonstrations, enlist students for research projects, accept new graduate students, negotiate his teaching load, propose new courses and curriculum changes among other things. In addition, since 2005, measures “included a multitude of tenuous and invalid disciplinary attempts and interventions including and not limited to….the Dean barging into” his….Physics and the Environment course to close it down.”

In 19 prior U of O teaching years, he hadn’t once encountered discipline. Thereafter it became intense, malicious, repeated, and wholly unjustified, culminating in his dismissal because of Allan Rock’s collusion with Israeli Lobby efforts to “enforce (its) ideological alignment within the University….”

As a result, “At a snap (December 10, 2008) meeting, (he) was effectively summarily dismissed, physically barred from campus, and escorted off the premises by university police” for bogus reasons.

Then on January 23, 2009, he was “arrested, cuffed and removed from campus by Ottawa Police” by order of the university administration, “and charged with trespass to property – while hosting (his) weekly Cinema Academica event.”

In a December 2009 activisteacher.blogspot.com posting, he called the actions against him “an indicator of emergent fascism. (It’s) not a distant historical anomaly. It is an optimum end-state towards which large-scale disruptive and predatory economic hierarchies tend. It is the state of total and unchallenged control of every facet of life by corporate masters of the economy, achieved by an optimized balance of force and a designed mental and social environment. Independent thought is eliminated (and its) influence rendered foreign.”

America is already in an advanced state, Canada close behind toward a dark future, prevented only by “authentic (determined) rebellion.”

Letters Supporting Professor Rancourt

Ones from U of O included:

Adjunct Professor Valerie Whiffen, School of Psychology, calling the university’s action “an appalling and unprecedented lack of respect for both academic freedom and due process” in urging his immediate reinstatement.

Department of Criminology Adjunct Professor Robert Gaucher calling the attack on academic freedom “extremely upsetting….I am appalled by it….If a colleague with such outstanding credentials can be treated (this way), then the academic freedom of all of us is threatened.”

Instructor and doctoral candidate Claire Delisle, Department of Criminology, expressing concern about the university “exercising rigid control over the staff and the students” and for subverting academic freedom.

Ones from other universities included:

Members of College and University Workers United (CUWU) calling Rancourt “a dedicated educator and a fearless defender of justice (for his) stand for human rights and students’ rights. We are thankful to count Denis Rancourt among the rare public intellectuals who do not compromise their principles when they become aware of institutional folly; but instead use their positions to expose and correct flawed practices….We conclude that the charges (against him) are a contrived pretext, that they are preposterous as reasons to summarily remove a tenured professor….”

University of Manitoba Mineralogy and Crystallography Professor, Frank C. Hawthorne, calling Rancourt “an outstanding scientist (among the very) few of his calibre, (a man) the community can ill afford to lose….”

Ryerson University Professor Emeritus Helmut Burkhardt calling the action against him “totally inadmissible….”

Drexel University Assistant Professor of Sociology Mary Ebeling calling Rancourt’s firing “truly shocking (for having) violated, with impunity, the very principle of academic freedom” U of O claims to uphold.

Babes-Bolyai University (Romania) Faculty of Economics and Business Administration Assistant Edmond Nawrotzky-Torok saying he was “appalled by the violation of academic freedom and the totalitarianism which seems to characterize a university that allegedly stands for ‘freedom of expression in an atmosphere of open dialogue, enabling critical thought.’ ” Retired McGill University Biology Professor John Southin expressed academic freedom concerns.

University of Western Ontario Professor Emeritus Arthur Jutan, Department of Chemical and Biochemical Engineering, said:

“It takes an extreme level of courage to stand up to the Emperor. I congratulate you for this. Long after these Houses of cards come falling down, and they will some day, and new more solid structures to replace them are built….your name will be remembered, as someone who had the courage to stand up to all the administrative hacks, that tried to hang onto their little deck chairs as the Titanic slowly slipped under the sea.”

University of Calgary Associate English Professor, Aruna Srivastava “express(ed) not simply dismay but shock that a university would adopt such heavy-handed tactics to eliminate (a colleague) whose opinions and ideas were (to some) abrasive and unpopular.”

Guelph University & Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, University Professor Emeritus John McMurtry, described a similar “harrowing witch-hunt” he once endured, saying “It will be an enduring disgrace if this shocking administrator persecution is permitted to stand.”

University of Lethbridge Professor of Globalization Studies, Anthony Hall, compared Rancourt’s persecution “to a twenty-first century Canadian version of the Spanish Inquisition.”

Others expressed their alarm and disgust as should we all in condemning assaults on academic and speech freedoms, democratic principles, and inalienable liberty in a free and open society.

Mark Twain called “irreverence….the champion of liberty and its only sure defense.” Benjamin Franklin explained that “Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.” John Stuart Mill called the “evil of silencing the expression of an opinion….robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation….”

US Supreme Court William O. Douglas spoke for others in calling “Restriction on free thought and free speech….the most dangerous of all subversions….It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies. (There must be no restraint against the right to) protest even against the moral code that the standard of the day sets….”

From the web site wewon’tbesilenced.com, “My free speech is not negotiable.”

Nor are human and civil rights, social justice, and democratic freedoms, ones that tolerate no subversion of constitutionally guaranteed rights because the alternative is repugnant despotism.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://prognewshour.progressiveradionetwork.org/

http://lendmennews.progressiveradionetwork.org/

Related stories:

April 2, 2010: Mass Closures of Public Schools, Promotion of Charters Raise Fears of Privatized Detroit Education System
March 30, 2010: Scholar Norman Finkelstein on Next Steps Towards Resolution in Israel-Palestine
March 23, 2010: Canadian University Tells Ann Coulter To Watch Her Mouth
December 8, 2009: ‘Anti-Semitism up, Islamophobia down” a New Academic Research Says
October 8, 2009: Old Testament God is not the Creator, claims academic

Easter 2010: Way Past Time To Break Silence On Militarism

By Gary G. Kohls, MD

“A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death,” warned Martin Luther King Jr. in his famous speech at Riverside Church in New York City on April 4, 1967, 43 years ago this Easter Sunday.

The speech was titled “Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence.” It was delivered exactly one year to the day before his 1968 assassination in Memphis.

The people who heard that speech recognized it as one of the most powerful speeches ever given articulating the immorality of the Vietnam War and its destructive impact on social progress in the United States. In explaining his decision to speak out, King said:

“I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.”

But King went farther, diagnosing a broader disease of militarism and violence that was afflicting the United States.

“I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today — my own government,” King said.

King added that this disease of violence was killing more than social progress in America, but the nation’s soul as well. “If America’s soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read Vietnam,” he said.

King urged his fellow citizens to take up the causes of the world’s oppressed, rather than taking the side of their oppressors. He said:

“I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a ‘thing-oriented’ society to a ‘person-oriented’ society.

“When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism and militarism are incapable of being conquered.”

In a segment of the speech, cited often by President Barack Obama, King added: “We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked and dejected with a lost opportunity. …

“We still have a choice today; nonviolent coexistence or violent co-annihilation. We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace and justice throughout the developing world – a world that borders on our doors.

“If we do not act we shall surely be dragged down the long, dark and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality and strength without sight.”

King pointed to an alternate path into the future: “Now let us rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter – but beautiful – struggle for a new world. This is the calling of the sons of God, and our brothers wait eagerly for our response.

“Shall we say the odds are too great? Shall we tell them the struggle is too hard?”

Signing His Own Death Warrant

In hearing the speech, some of King’s followers understood that he was, most likely, signing his own death warrant by denouncing so forcefully the war crimes that the U.S. military was committing daily in the killing fields of Vietnam.

But King was speaking from a deep sense of moral outrage over the horrible suffering of the millions of Vietnamese civilians.

He knew that women and children were the main victims of modern warfare, especially wars that utilized so indiscriminately the massive arsenal of highly lethal weapons, including one of the U.S. Air Force’s favorites, napalm, which burned the flesh off of whatever part of the body that the flaming, jellied gasoline splashed onto.

King also connected the killing of dispensable “gooks” and “slants” on the battlefields of Southeast Asia to the oppression, impoverishment, imprisoning and lynching of dispensable blacks in America.

King linked the violence of racism to the violence of poverty to the violence of militarism. He traced them to the same sources, fear of “the other” and the perceived need to defend one’s own wealth and privilege, no matter how unjustly acquired.

King knew, too, that fortunes are made in every war, with the Vietnam War no exception. That, in turn, meant his Riverside Church speech was threatening not just the powerful interests already arrayed against his civil rights movement but also the interests of the national security establishment.

As the Vietnam War wore on, weapons manufacturers thrived. With their money, they financed battalions of industry lobbyists and pro-military propagandists to surge over political battlements in Washington to claim even more billions and billions of dollars for weapons research, development and manufacture.

With that funding secured, armies of workers were hired to staff hundreds of weapons factories, strategically located in congressional districts around the nation. Thus, arms manufacturing and wars became vital for the budgets of millions of Americans who directly or indirectly benefited from the unspeakable suffering of others in the war zone.

King’s strong anti-militarism stance – and his standing as an international icon for peace – made him a particularly dangerous threat to the military-industrial complex. There was a powerful motive to discredit and silence him, first by smear campaigns and later by an assassin’s bullet.

King’s Prophetic Vision

Now, more than four decades after his speech and his assassination, it’s clear how prophetic King’s observations were. Violence has become an American epidemic, especially the “triple evils” that King preached against: poverty, racism and militarism.

Gun violence results in world record-breaking levels of homicides and suicides in the United States. Yet, the influential gun industry has sabotaged even the most modest and common-sense handgun and assault rifle controls.

Both upper- and middle-class Americans have succumbed, starry-eyed, to the lure of well-propagandized predatory capitalism, looking for get-rich-quick schemes that eventually will tank in the predictable overblown economic bubbles that are bursting with increasing regularity. Those bubble bursts have wiped out many small investors, leaving the taxpayers to clean up the messes that were created by the so-called “invisible hand” of high-flying, conscienceless corporate gamblers whose dirty deals are done in the proverbial “smoke-filled rooms” that virtually guarantee the success of their investments in compliant politicians. These “investments” are also known as “political campaign contributions”, and some of the most nefarious of the big winners are now bankrolling the attempts to destroy the Obama presidency that has been trying to deal with the economic crash that clearly originated in the previous administration.

For most Americans, who don’t have the cash to get into the big-money Wall Street casinos, there are lower-end addictive behaviors that result in occasional emotional “highs” such as entertainment, gambling, shopping, drugs (both legal and illegal), sex, sports and charismatic religions. Sadly, these adrenalin highs are always followed by emotional crashes, which are then usually self-treated by another hit with the substance or activity that produced the “high” in the first place, as commonly happens when the nicotine, caffeine, Paxil, Valium, Ritalin, cocaine or methamphetamine addict runs out of his stash, decreases his dose or tries to quit the addicting substance suddenly.

And, besides the many millions of domestic violence victims inside America, including tens of thousands of annual gun violence victims, there also are tens of millions of people around the world who have suffered from U.S. military interventions and the greedy exploiters whose interests invariably get protected – in Asia, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East.

The hundreds of billions of American tax dollars wasted annually for war, war preparations and the massive, endless costs of the physical and mental health care that are needed by the combat-traumatized veterans is money that is then unavailable for programs of social uplift, including hunger relief, poverty reduction, affordable housing, education, health care or meaningful jobs.

The federal debt reached a crippling $7 trillion during George W. Bush’s open-ended wars of the past decade, and that was before the economic crash of 2008, which pushed the debt to $12 trillion. This unsustainable debt obligation will make social projects otherwise worth paying for unaffordable for decades into the future.

The Wall Street financiers and members of the investor class still profit handsomely from war – partly because federal borrowing to pay for war pays interest mostly to the upper classes (as well as foreign investors) – but the extravagant bill will eventually have to be paid back by us taxpayers, including Tea Partiers and Coffee Partiers, and our innocent children and grandchildren.

Regarding King’s warning about America’s spiritual death, many observers feel that the corpse has already been placed on the idolatrous altars of the Gods of War and Greed.

America’s non-peace churches (whether fundamentalist, conservative, moderate or liberal, with very few exceptions) have failed King’s vision. “Patriotic” churches have refused to take a consistent stand both for peace and against war.

On a political level, warmongering administrations, particular Bush’s, have been eliminating, one by one, the individual rights and noble ideals that America’s Founders articulated more than 200 years ago.

Possible Awakening? Or Are We Past the Point of No Return?

Yet, it may not be too late for a resuscitation attempt. But that can only happen if we awaken from our slumber and stop being distracted by the trivia that fills up our waking hours.

True democracy would require rejection of the clever political ad campaigns designed to get Americans to buy answers that further empower corporations and the military-industrial complex. There needs to be sharper awareness, too, of the slick propaganda that often masquerades as mainstream “news.”

There are other necessary steps as well: shaking off addictions to dangerous substances and behaviors that prevent clear-headed action; demanding the restoration of lost freedoms, especially from the latest Bush years; supporting the few true peace patriots hanging on in a broken Congress, most of whom are barely surviving in the “democratic wing of the Democratic Party.”

But perhaps most importantly, King’s central warning must be listened to. There must be an end to the financial and moral hemorrhaging from the many hot and cold wars that have entangled the United States around the globe, in the 130 countries where the U.S. maintains budget-busting military bases.

The Pentagon budget lately averages around $700 billion per year which amounts to about $2 billion per day with no visible return on investment, except for the military contractors, the oil industries and Wall Street financiers.

And, if peace doesn’t happen soon – if King’s 43-year-old warning continues to be ignored – America’s future is bleak. It holds the dark seeds of economic chaos, hyperinflation, worsening poverty, hunger, armed rebellion, street fighting, and perhaps, ultimately, a totalitarian police state.

Martin Luther King Jr. pointed toward a very different future in 1967. At that time, many Americans considered his vision too idealistic, the task too great, the obstacles too imposing and no will for the churches to reverse age-old religious dogmas. But many of them probably wish now they could turn the clock back and give King’s path a try.

King finished his speech with this conclusion and these challenges:

“War is not the answer. We still have a choice today; nonviolent coexistence or violent co-annihilation. We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace and justice throughout the developing world – a world that borders on our doors. If we do not act we shall surely be dragged down the long dark and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality and strength without sight.”

And he had these sobering words for the churches that are immersed in a polytheistic culture and thus are tempted to quietly ally themselves with the gods of wealth and war rather than the “one true God” of Love:

“I have traveled the length and breadth of Alabama, Mississippi and all the other southern states. I have looked at her beautiful churches with their lofty spires pointing heavenward. I have beheld the impressive outlay of her massive religious education buildings. Over and over again I have found myself asking: ‘What kind of people worship here? Who is their God?'”

Today, the task is even tougher, the obstacles much more imposing, but the path remains. This Easter season should be a good time to seriously reconsider King’s challenges.

Dr. Kohls is a retired physician who writes about peace, justice, militarism, mental health and religious issues. He is a founding member of Every Church A Peace Church (<a href="http://www.ecapc.org/”>www.ecapc.org).

Source: Counter Currents

World-wide Revolution

This blog is dedicated to the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. where he speaks truth to power on April 4, 1967 at a meeting of Clergy and Laaity Concerned at Riverside Church in New York City; this is a documented treatise that is not well known and describes Jericho road.

“I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a “thing orientated” society to a “person orientated” society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.”

“A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand we are called to play the good Samaritan on life’s roadside; but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life’s highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial.”

This quote was obtained from here: Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence.
You may also read a related article by By Gary G. Kohls, MD in dedication to Dr. King’s speech here.

Please contact me if you are a journalist, blogger, or author about getting exposure on category topics related to speaking truth to power. Videos are unavailable through the WordPress.com blog, however, links to your book or other work are permitted.