Archive for May, 2010
As radical as the underlying message of these three videos below may seem, it is a message which has become far more mainstream over the years than most Whites have apparently grasped. And when I say mainstream, I am referring to the endorsement of labels like Warner, Interscope, EMI, Elektra, and Sony, to name but a few. Mainstream as in, your career is not only left unscathed, but networks like Mtv will grant you awards, and your albums will be carried in every shopping mall across the United States. Mainstream as in, your voice will not only be heard, your example will also be followed. This pitiful lack of awareness on our end is due, in part, to the selective, biased, and inaccurate reporting practices of the mainstream media, in conjunction with the shortsighted policy or “blind eye” turned by law enforcement and government. Though our intentions were once commendable, we have long invested trust in institutions which never truly earned such privilege, and which increasingly betray our interests. We have looked to others when we should have looked to ourselves, all along. Whites in the United States and around the world remain, to an overwhelming extent, uninformed, and therefore, ill-equipped, to adequately deal with the degree of hostility most of us never even knew existed. Unless you or your loved ones have experienced such hostility firsthand, it likely remains distant, surreal, incredible, and for the most part, inconsequential. It is swiftly forgotten or dismissed outright. Understand that, more and more, it falls to you and I to serve our interests and attend to our needs. It falls to you and I to protect ourselves and one another from the perils not only out on the distant horizon, but here in the present hour. Think before you reject this message. -W.
Excerpt from The Political Cesspool:
“I got this story from ABC news. But it happened last Tuesday [May 25th, 2010], and Google lists a total of nine news stories about it across the country.
We all know that if the races had been reversed, there would have been thousands of news stories about it by last Wednesday, and it’s all the cable news networks would be talking about, non-stop, even a week later.
But when a white teenager is brutally, savagely assaulted by non-whites, the media hushes it up.
I don’t know when this outrageous hypocrisy by the media will stop, but I can tell you this – white people aren’t going to put up with it much longer.”
Declassified GAO Report Exposes Fatally Flawed Israel Investigations
by Grant Smith, May 10, 2010
The 2010 Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is underway at UN Headquarters in New York. A working paper calls for a nuclear-free Middle East. It would require member states of the NPT to “disclose in their national reports on the implementation of the resolution on the Middle East all information available to them on the nature and scope of Israeli nuclear facilities and activities, including information pertaining to previous nuclear transfers to Israel.” On May 6, 2010, the Government Accountability Office (formerly known as the General Accounting Office) released the previously secret 1978 report “Nuclear Diversion in the U.S.? 13 Years of Contradiction and Confusion” [.pdf]. It fills in important historic gaps about weapons-grade uranium diversions from the U.S. to Israel.
U.S. presidents have long acquiesced to “strategic ambiguity” – a policy of neither confirming nor denying that Israel even possesses nuclear weapons. This pretext has allowed the U.S. to deliver the lion’s share of its foreign assistance budget to Israel, despite clear legal prohibitions imposed by the Glenn and Symington amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act. UN member countries have long suspected that the United States either turns a blind eye or actively supports the transfer of know-how, weapons-grade uranium, and dual-use technology to Israel. The 62-page General Accounting Office investigation and correspondence confirms the United States refuses to mount credible investigations that would enable warranted prosecutions of the perpetrators.
“Nuclear Diversion in the U.S.? 13 Years of Contradiction and Confusion” investigates the period between 1957 and 1967 when the Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation (NUMEC) received over 22 tons of uranium-235 – the key material used to fabricate nuclear weapons. NUMEC’s founder and president Zalman M. Shapiro was head of a local Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) chapter and a sales agent for the Defense Ministry of Israel in the U.S. In the early 1960s the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) began documenting suspicious lapses in security at NUMEC’s plant at Apollo, Pa. In 1965 an AEC audit found NUMEC could no longer account for over 200 pounds of highly enriched uranium. Subsequent estimates spiraled to almost 600 pounds.
The GAO was chartered by Congress to investigate four allegations about what happened to the uranium. The first was that “the material was illegally diverted to Israel by NUMEC management for use in nuclear weapons.” This was a result of early AEC and FBI investigations into the activities of Zalman Shapiro. The second theory “the material was diverted to Israel by NUMEC management with the assistance of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)” came from the CIA’s silence and demonstrated lack of interest in the entire matter. The final theories explored by GAO were more general, that “the material was diverted to Israel with the acquiescence of the United States Government” or “there has been a cover-up of the NUMEC incident by the United States Government.”
GAO solicited all available information developed by the CIA, FBI, Department of Energy, and AEC, but was “continually denied necessary reports and documentation … by the CIA and FBI.” GAO attempted to fill in gaps or outright refusals to cooperate by directly interviewing FBI special agents. The GAO also intended to make the report public, in order to respond to growing public concerns. Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power, who requested the inquiry, was assured six months before it was issued that only the most sensitive areas in the report would be classified. The CIA and FBI insisted that the entire report be classified at the “secret” level over the objections of Dingell, who said, ”I think it is time that the public be informed about the facts surrounding the … affair and the possible diversion of bomb-grade uranium to Israel.”
The GAO report lambastes the FBI’s on-again off-again approach to investigating NUMEC: “The FBI, which had the responsibility and authority to investigate the alleged incident, did not focus on the question of a possible nuclear diversion until May 1976 – nearly 11 years later. Initially, the FBI declined DOE’s request to conduct an investigation of the diversion possibility even though they are required to conduct such investigations under the Atomic Energy Act….”
The FBI’s initial investigation during the 1960s quickly zeroed in on NUMEC management, but FBI recommendations for action were stymied. According to the GAO, “The FBI became so concerned about the security risks posed by NUMEC’s president that they asked DOE whether it planned to terminate his security clearance or stop the flow of materials to NUMEC. According to the FBI’s liaison with GAO, the FBI recommended that NUMEC’s operating license be taken away….” When the FBI request was ignored, it dropped the entire investigation between 1969 and 1976.
It took a direct order from President Gerald Ford in 1976 for the FBI and Department of Justice to “address the diversion aspect.” The renewed investigation soon led to reversals of official U.S. government positions on NUMEC. According to the GAO report, “until the summer of 1977, the only publicized Government view on the NUMEC incident was that there was no evidence to indicate that a diversion of nuclear material had occurred.” By February 1978, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) announced it had “reconsidered” its previous position that there had been “no evidence” to support diversion.
But the 11-year gap “obviously hampered” the effort. The GAO revealed that the DOE’s nuclear materials safeguards, which before 1967 tracked the monetary value rather than the precise mass of the uranium, were seriously flawed. NUMEC claimed key records covering a period of heavy uranium loss were destroyed during a “labor dispute” in 1964. NUMEC paid a $1.1 million fine for 206 pounds of missing uranium in 1966, which closed the DOE case. NUMEC also hired away one of the DOE’s chief on-site investigators to enhance the appearance of serious materials control and accountability. The GAO found that even by 1978 the FBI had not contacted key individuals in the affair. An FBI agent-in-charge told the GAO it did not investigate the source of funds to pay NUMEC’s DOE fine anticipating “legal difficulties.” So the GAO investigated the matter, placing its own telephone calls to Mellon Bank.
The GAO report is highly critical of the CIA: “From interviews with a former CIA official and with former and current officials and staff of DOE and the FBI we concluded that the CIA did not fully cooperate with DOE or the FBI in attempting to resolve the NUMEC matter.” The report is inconclusive about exactly what happened at NUMEC, but not about the agencies involved in the investigation through 1978. “We believe a timely, concerted effort on the part of these three agencies would have greatly aided and possibly solved the NUMEC diversion questions, if they desired to do so.”
The passage of time has removed any remaining doubts that NUMEC diverted uranium to Israel. Rafael Eitan, who visited NUMEC in 1968, was later revealed as the top Israeli spy targeting U.S. nuclear, national defense, and economic targets when his agent (U.S. Navy analyst Jonathan Pollard) was arrested spying for Israel in 1985. According to Anthony Cordesman, “there is no conceivable reason for Eitan to have gone [to the Apollo plant] but for the nuclear material.” CIA Tel Aviv station chief John Hadden called NUMEC “an Israeli operation from the beginning,” a conclusion supported by its startup financing and initial ties to Israeli intelligence. Why both the Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon administrations failed to credibly investigate NUMEC as a diversion challenge is also now obvious.
John F. Kennedy’s direct diplomatic pressures for U.S. inspections of Israel’s Dimona reactor grew throughout 1962-1963. During a Dec. 27, 1963, meeting with Foreign Minister Golda Meir, Kennedy expressed his hope that the relationship was a “two-way street.” Meir reassured President Kennedy that there “would not be any difficulty between us on the Israeli nuclear reactor.” Kennedy delivered a final ultimatum to Israel on July 5, 1963, insisting that Dimona undergo serial inspections “in accord with international standards” in order to verify its “peaceful intent.” Simultaneously, the Kennedy Justice Department was waging an intense battle behind closed doors to register and regulate Israel’s elite U.S. lobby, the American Zionist Council, which was bringing in funds from overseas to lobby. Kennedy’s assassination in November traumatized the nation and led to the complete and permanent reversal of both initiatives.
According to Avner Cohen, in 1958 Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion had arranged with Abraham Feinberg, a “major Democratic fund-raiser,” to secretly finance a nuclear weapons program among “benedictors” in America. Abraham Feinberg, who backed Harry S. Truman’s successful whistle-stop election campaign, was personally succinct about his role in the U.S. political system: “My path to power was cooperation in terms of what they needed – campaign money.” Feinberg opened doors in Congress for up and coming leaders of the Israel lobby, including AIPAC founder Isaiah L. Kenen. According to Seymour Hersh, “there is no question that Feinberg enjoyed the greatest presidential access and influence in his 20 years as a Jewish fund-raiser and lobbyist with Lyndon Johnson. Documents at the Johnson Library show that even the most senior members of the National Security Council understood that any issue raised by Feinberg had to be answered.” His power and role in financing Lyndon B. Johnson’s election prospects temporarily quashed scrutiny of Israel’s nuclear weapons program – in the U.S. and abroad – at a critical moment.
On Oct. 14, 1964, less than three weeks before the 1964 presidential elections, Johnson’s top administrative assistant Walter Jenkins was arrested in a public restroom on sexual solicitation charges. At least $250,000 Abraham Feinberg raised for Johnson was located in Jenkins’ office safe. Johnson phoned his trusted aides Bill Moyers and Myer Feldman with orders to move the cash, which they did with the help of a heavy briefcase. Israel would later replenish Feinberg’s coffers (as it had with Zalman Shapiro through sales commissions) with multi-million dollar favors, such as major ownership in the nation’s Coca-Cola franchise.
In 1968 as Israel noticeably ramped up activities at the Dimona nuclear weapons facility, Secretary of Defense Clark Clifford placed a final urgent call to Johnson, “Mr. President, I don’t want to live in a world where the Israelis have nuclear weapons.” President Johnson was abrupt before he hung up on Clifford, “Don’t bother me with this anymore.” By the time Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meier lobbied President Nixon to redefine U.S. non-proliferation policy as “ambiguity” toward Israeli nuclear weapons, Israel’s stockpile and number of deployed weapons was steadily growing.
The report reveals why the 2010 Non-Proliferation Review Conference at the UN – like the GAO – isn’t really capable of challenging the true drivers of Middle East nuclear proliferation. “Nuclear Diversion in the U.S.? 13 Years of Contradiction and Confusion” is a report so unique and noble in intent that there will probably never be another like it. While it leaves unexplored the ongoing presence, influence, and effect of Israel’s lobbyists working at the center of U.S. presidential administrations, for concerned Americans the GAO provides a snapshot of a moment in time before their Congress, aspiring politicians, and mid-level management of government agencies all “got the memo.”
In 2010 that unwritten memo reads something like this: Crimes committed in the name of Israel – no matter how audacious – will never be properly investigated, let alone prosecuted… so don’t waste your time.
Read more by Grant Smith
* America’s Loose Nukes in Israel – April 13th, 2010
* Obama Can Stop Funding Illegal Settlements – April 1st, 2010
* Israel’s Lobby Imposes Crippling Sanctions on America — Again – March 11th, 2010
* Israel Violates Economic Sanctions Against Iran – February 10th, 2010
* AIPAC Celebrates 47th Birthday in Court – December 30th, 2009
This is the kind of behavior Americans are supporting by funding the Zionist occupation regime, year after year after year. Where is your disgust? Where is your honor? Are there no limits to what you are willing tolerate in this farcical “War on Terror”? -W.
Norway/Sweden: When the Natives Become a Minority
Only after moving to a school in western Oslo did Mari Morken (16) dare go blond again.
“Why is it racism if we call them ‘Black’ but not if they call us ‘White'”?
“I never called anybody ‘Nigger’ or ‘Black’ or anything like that. On the other hand, those of us who were White were talked about in a derogatory manner. It was negative to be White. Christianity and Norwegian culture were negative and there were many curses,” says Mari, and rattles them off.
Three years ago she couldn’t take it any more. She moved from a school in Groruddalen to a school on the west side. Every morning she commutes via subway to the other side of the city to escape the curses and the low-class environment. Where she now attends, it’s a nice change to have good grades, and she doesn’t stand out because she’s fair. Before, she dyed dark streaks in her medium-blond hair. Now, her hair is closer to its natural tone. Though this seems such a simple thing, she’s in the process of ‘taking back’ her Norwegian identity, and is happy to be blond without being branded ‘cheap’ or ‘whorish.’
“Ah, blond whore!” ‘Josephine’ was met with these words on the first day of school at a high-school in an immigrant-dominated suburb south of Stockholm. Josephine was quite baffled, since aside from the stereotype of her hair color there was nothing about her appearance that would indicate promiscuity. She didn’t use makeup and had completely neutral clothing. It was exclusively her hair-color that branded her a ‘whore.’
‘Josephine’ is one of the participants for researcher Maria Bäckman, who did an ethnographic field study in a suburb south of Stockholm, where ethnic Swedes make up merely 20% of the population. They are therefore a minority in their own homeland. Klassekampen met Bäckman this week when she visited the University in Oslo and the Culcom research program (cultural complexity in the new Norway). She’s the first in Sweden who has sought to research the issue of ethnic Swedes as a minority. A similar study has not yet been conducted in neighboring Norway.
“In the suburbs, the absence of Swedish culture is apparent. Ethnic Swedes are defined and labeled by their culture and religion, and are essentially treated as outsiders,” Bäckman told Klassekampen.
In her study, she focused on ethnic Swedish girls. They experience being linked to the notion of free, Swedish sexuality, which, in the densely-populated immigrant suburbs, bears a negative connotation. The strategy for the suburb girls was, therefore, to downplay their Swedish identity.
“Several dyed their hair darker. Not necessarily because they wanted to look like immigrants, but because they didn’t want to look so traditionally Swedish,” says Bäckman.
“Yes, it’s typical. Exactly like that.” Mari Morken nodded vigorously to us from the other side of the cafe table when we repeated some of what Maria Bäckman has discovered. “I was called a whore so many times, I became immune.”
We meet her and her mother, Kristin Pedersen, for a talk about why Mari changed schools. They speak of systematic bullying and harassment since Mari was only 10-11 years old, until she transferred schools when she was 13.
Pedersen is still upset at the school’s lack of handling of the case.
“They laid the responsibility for the situation on Mari, of all people. She just had to deal with it, because she was White middle-class — as if it were standard. But Mari also has a right to a safe and sound environment,” says Pedersen, who addressed the harassment repeatedly without any action being taken by the school. She was merely told that the bullies had a very difficult time at home.
Mari says that now, three years on, she’s distanced herself enough to come forward with it. “I want to show that I won’t let it break me.”
Although school was a nightmare, they like their home area, and they have a fair relationship with their Pakistani neighbors. Mari remembers her childhood as safe and comparatively quiet. She also enjoyed school during the first years. In first grade a third of the students were of non-Norwegian background. When she left, barely a third of the class were ethnic Norwegian.
“At first all the Norwegian girls were active in class, but in the end we Norwegian girls sat in the back of the classroom and were silent as a mouse while the others made a racket,” says Mari.
Kristin Pedersen thinks it happens when the group of immigrant background becomes disproportionately large and dominant — something which isn’t positive. The elementary school Mari started at, has just 5% ethnic Norwegians. Mari knows three girls who started there but then moved to a school with a smaller proportion of immigrants. All the girls are naturally blond, but had later dyed their hair dark.
Although Mari received negative attention from the boys, it was a girls’ gang made up of ethnic Norwegians and Pakistanis who harrassed her.
“The girls took on the boys’ role in a way. They were into fighting and starting conflicts,” says Mari, who was also physically attacked.
Once, the situation escalated to the point that the teacher chose to calm the situation by asking Mari to go home. After school eight of the students trooped home with her.
For a long time Mari didn’t dare go to the local center. She knew that the girls had spread gossip to the older boys in the A and B gangs [ed: Pakistani gangs] that she had said nasty things about their skin color and religion.
“That’s what provokes them the most,” says Mari.
Kristin Pedersen says that boys whose parents are assumed to be linked to the gangs, had for a long time acted threateningly towards Mari’s father as well.
But the straw that broke the camel’s back for Mari was that when she was in 7th grade, she was given the responsibility to teach the others in her class the choreography for a school play. Mari was mainly active in dance and the school therefore thought she was qualified for the job. Of course, everything went wrong when she was placed in charge of instructing the bullies.
At that point, Pedersen and her husband got tired of the lack of response from the school and complained about it to the county, which agreed with them on several points. A few days after they lodged a formal complaint, the principal was put on early retirement.
Klassekampen has been in contact with the retired headmaster. She says it is a positive thing that we’re dealing with issues of social interaction, but thinks perhaps we ought to speak with someone else. For reasons of confidentiality, she didn’t care to go into the specifics of the harassment case. She didn’t want to comment on the decision of the county, either.
“Before, I always went in long pants and t-shirts, regardless of how warm it was,” says Mari.
She changed this habit after transferring schools. She replaced the hooded sweater with more form-fitting clothing and makeup. This summer she will go with a singlet, which she wouldn’t have dared before. She was ashamed if so much as her bra strap was showing. But now, she is unconcerned with the issue of attention.
Maria Bäckman’s fieldwork outside Stockholm reveals the same trend. Girls routinely dress neutrally and tone down their femininity in order to avoid stares and undesired attention. Another thing she discovered was that several wore a cross — not necessarily because they were Christian, but because it was embarrassing under the circumstances not to have an identifiable religious affiliation.
Mari nods vigorously again.
“I know people who wear crosses in order to fit in. It’s a little like wearing trendy clothing. There are just some codes you are expected to follow.”
“Now I’ve been confirmed secularly, but I think it would be difficult to be accepted for that, if I had continued to go to a school in Groruddalen,” she said.
Though Mari doesn’t see herself as Christian, she sees Christianity as ‘her tradition.’
“We learned more about the others’ religion than about our own growing up.”
“We thought other religions were more exciting, but our own never received the same positive attention,” she says.
Upbringing, education and living conditions are the key words for the government’s effort in Groruddalen, which will continue until 2016. Mother and daughter have noticed that there are new recreational activities for the youth, but Mari has kept her distance, both because she’s uncomfortable in the community, and because she feels foreign in those activities.
“They focus on ‘excluded’ groups. The focus doesn’t unify. Many of the ethnic Norwegians don’t attend. It actually reinforces the differences,” says Mari.
Kristin Pedersen thinks the problem is the attitudes of the responsible politicians and the professions who work with integration.
“They need to understand that where we live, we all feel like a minority. Therefore, it’s also necessary to have a minority perspective for the ethnic Norwegian parts of the population as well,” she says.
When it comes to the teachers and school administration in Groruddalen, Pedersen thinks that they should be trained in creating a more positive environment.
“They are so afraid of being called racists. They fear getting involved in controversial matters, because they’re afraid it will be used against them,” she says.
U.S. mainstream media, government, and law enforcement continue to fail us. Are their hands tied, or are they simply afraid of speaking candidly on the issue of race?
Misleading or superfluous details concerning these Black-on-White attacks are often unnecessarily included, whilst more vital data is often curiously ignored — that is, if and when such attacks are even deemed “newsworthy.”
Surely, if the roles were reversed, these attacks would have secured headlines across the nation and maintained some form of presence, even a year on.
Why the sheepish approach? Why the blackout? Is there some strategy at work here? Where are the civil rights defenders? Where are the protesters? Where is the outrage? Do Black-on-White crimes just not happen to mesh with the established portrait of racism and victimhood in this country? Does someone’s livelihood perhaps depend on the inaccuracies conveyed by that portrait remaining unchallenged?
This is more than a year onward, and Black-on-White assaults continue to occur in downtown Denver. Black assailants. White targets. No considerable action. No extensive coverage or attention.
But then… this issue is surely larger than Denver, isn’t it? It is larger than Colorado. It cannot be reduced to any particular city or state. It is, by no means even unique to the U.S., as anyone who follows events recorded by the various independent media of Europe, South Africa, and Australia, for example, knows all too well.
How are the mainstream media and law enforcement addressing the issue elsewhere? Or are they addressing it at all? Is the source of fear one and the same? Are profitable myths the world over imperiled by adequate attention and exposure in this regard?
The questions answer themselves.
Let the example of Denver, as with countless others, serve to remind us that we are increasingly on our own. -W.
Information is armament, and self-reliance is key.
Wake or perish. -W.