Reagan Calls Israel ‘Prime Mover’ In Iran-Contra

Zionist /Israelis are con artists by nature, no one is exempt from their cons, not even presidents.

In his new autobiography, former president Ronald Reagan says Israel was the instigator and prime mover in the Iran-contra affair.

He blames the Israelis for misleading him into believing he was selling arms to so-called Iranian moderates when some “may have had links to the Ayatollah Khomeini’s government and were trying to obtain weapons under false pretenses.”

Israel began the arms deals with Iran when it contacted Robert C. McFarlane, Reagan’s national security adviser, to propose the first sale, and continued to press the secret dealings thereafter, Reagan writes in “An American Life,” published today.

“Prime Minister Shimon Peres was behind the proposal,” the former president says.

Iranian middlemen endorsed by Israel helped “win the freedom of three hostages,” Reagan adds, but the same middlemen “behaved at times like bait-and-switch con men . . . with the sole intention of profiteering.”

How Israel helped Latin America’s death squads


Israeli military advisors — mercenaries from Spearhead, the firm whose personnel operated with the permission of the Israeli authorities — aided Guatemala’s dictator, General Efrain Rios Montt. In 1982, they participated in one of his worst crimes: the “Plan Victoria” scorched earth campaign. The Guatemala Embassy in Washington admitted that “personnel sent by the Israeli government were participating in the repopulation and readjustment programmes for those displaced as entire villages vanished.”

“Vanishing” entire villages, of course, is something of an Israeli speciality. During the 1948 ethnic cleansing of Palestine, Zionist militias bulldozed and dynamited their way through as many Palestinian villages as they possibly could, having already driven out or slaughtered their inhabitants. More than 500 Palestinian towns and villages were wiped off the map in this way. The demolition of Palestinian property continues to be an Israeli tactic to clear the occupied territories of the indigenous population.

Staged event : Reagan did NOT deliver this speech at the Republican National Convention in San Francisco. He taped it on a soundstage in Hollywood, California.

Ronald Reagan delivers his “A Time for Choosing” speech in support of Senator Barry Goldwater in the waning days of the 1964 general election. “The Speech” as it is also known launched Reagan’s political career. Two years after this film was broadcast on NBC on October 27, 1964, he was elected governor of California.

U.S. Busted Peddling Lies About Venezuela’s President Maduro

The corporate media is almost unanimous in its support for US regime change plans in Venezuela. This support naturally extends to the US-backed Venezuelan anti-Chavista opposition, which in the past 20 years has constantly tried to overthrow the government. In order to maintain uncritical support for the opposition, the mainstream media has created a series of “myths” about it.

Former US President Jimmy Carter has declared that Venezuela’s electoral system is the best in the world.

None other than the New York Times Sunday released a video disproving U.S. claims that Venezuelan President Maduro ordered the bombing of U.S Aid trucks attempting to cross into his country from Colombia.

The Times, no supporter of that country’s Bolivarian Revolution, nevertheless said its video totally contradicts U.S. claims about the recent incident.

For several days, top U.S. officials have been claiming that Maduro ordered the bombing of trucks allegedly carrying food to hungry Venezuelans.

A Times article and a video published yesterday contradict those claims.

The Colombian government, ally of the Trump administration, circulated an earlier video that was missing a key piece of footage showing it was anti-Maduro protesters, not the Venezuelan army, that set fire to the trucks.

The full video of television footage, which the Times released, shows an anti-Maduro protester lobbing a flaming Molotov cocktail toward Venezuelan soldiers.

The rag separates from the bottle and flies onto the top of one of the “aid” trucks trying to enter Venezuela from Colombia.

If the intention of the bomber was to provide propaganda material for the Trump administration, he achieved his purpose.

Florida’s Republican Sen. Marco Rubio immediately re-tweeted a claim made by an opposition journalist that Bolivarian National Guards had started the blaze.

Simpson’s Marc Rubio election

He was quickly followed by Trump’s right-wing national security advisor John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

The Trump Regime

U.S. Aid Director John Green also joined in the chorus of false claims, and the U.S. took the charges against Venezuela to the floor of the UN General Assembly.

Ignoring the evidence exposed by the New York Times, Pompeo doubled down on his false claims on the Sunday talk show circuit.

Fox News, of course, but other media outlets too, broadcast the claims for several days.

The Times narrator of the video put it better perhaps than anyone else when she said it was a classic example of how fake news really spreads.

In this case, a right-wing terrorist threw a bomb, false narratives blaming the attack on a country’s left-wing leader were put online, millions read and saw them, right-wing government officials and Trump television, i.e. Fox News, put out the story, and the leader of an American Aid organization with a history of working hand in glove with the CIA added his blessing to the whole operation.

Unfortunately, the case was not just one in which fake news was circulated to make anti-Venezuela, anti-socialist propaganda. The lies had a larger purpose.

That purpose became clear when Vice President Mike Pence announced that the U.S. was, at least in part because of the fire, further intensifying the sanctions it has imposed against Venezuela.

The sanctions are designed to bring down the elected socialist government of that country.

How long before the Trump administration goes further and launches an actual invasion? Venezuelans are fighting to prevent that and hoping Americans will do their part by opposing such intervention.

What they have going for them in this regard is that people in the U.S., like them, have nothing to gain from Trump administration lies.

Imperialism on trial

We live in a world where it is deemed a greater felony to leak details of war crimes than it is to commit them, which explains why Tony Blair and George Bush, who took us into Iraq in breach of international law, are still free men, whereas Julian Assange is not.

     ✂️   14 Sep, 2020

Fidel Narvaez was a senior diplomat at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London where Assange took refuge for six years.

In a lucid and powerful address, he explained how the ‘lawfare’ deployed to destroy Assange has also been used to criminalize leaders who defied US hegemony in Latin America, such as Rafael Correa, Evo Morales, Lula, and Cristina Kirchner.

Trumped-up legal charges (no pun intended) was the way the empire preferred to dispose of its enemies. 

“Basically lawfare has two arms, acting together,” Narvaez said. “The judicial and the media.

First, the mainstream media kills the character and destroys his or her reputation.

Presidents of South American countries meet in Rio de Janeiro. From left to right: Rafael Correa (Ecuador), Evo Morales (Bolivia), Luís Inácio Lula da Silva (Brazil), Michelle Bachelet (Chile), Hugo Chávez (Venezuela) and Nicanor Duarte (Paraguay)

Presidents of South American countries meet in Rio de Janeiro. From left to right: Rafael Correa (Ecuador), Evo Morales (Bolivia), Luís Inácio Lula da Silva (Brazil), Michelle Bachelet (Chile), Hugo Chávez (Venezuela) and Nicanor Duarte (Paraguay)

In the case of Julian, you can see how he was portrayed as a ‘rapist,’ a ‘hacker,’ a ‘narcissist,’ ‘Russian asset,’ ‘spy,’ ‘bad house guest,’ and anything else imaginable.”

Once you have discredited someone in such a way, Narvaez explained, then the way is cleared for judicial abuse.

Academic and literature expert Catherine Brown-Mercouris noted how, in the case of other journalistic scoops like the MPs expenses scandal, there was little focus on how these leaks occurred, whereas with Assange the focus is solely on that, and not on the great war crimes that WikiLeaks revealed.

We live in a world where it is deemed a greater felony to leak details of war crimes than it is to commit them, which explains why Tony Blair and George Bush, who took us into Iraq in breach of international law, are still free men, whereas Assange is not.

In the words of Fidel Narvaez: “In my experience, the most futile struggle is the one that does not happen.

So every one of us can and should fight from our own corner: lawyers, journalists, decent politicians.”

What Exactly Connects the White House, Jerusalem, Belgrade and Pristina?

Russian political figures openly wonder what exactly is going on with Vucic, to pitying him as a “rape victim.” Vucic’a troubles do not end with the announced Jerusalem embassy move, or with the rather humiliating seating arrangement he was afforded in the Oval Office during his individual meeting with Trump, which has made him the object of much derision in Serbia. 

By signing on to an agreement to move the Serbian embassy to Jerusalem, Vucic is violating UN SC Resolution 478, which calls upon all UN member states to withdraw their diplomatic missions from Jerusalem, as Israel’s “basic law” on the Holy City “constitutes a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.”

September 9, 2020 by

Aleksandar Pavic

There is a new, ironic joke making the rounds on Serbian social networks these days: What do a Serb and a Kosovo Albanian say to each other now when parting? Next year in Jerusalem!

This seemingly incongruous specter of two non-Semitic peoples mouthing the traditional Jewish prayer is directly connected to one of the most important – and controversial – outcomes of the “historic,” agreement on “economic normalization” signed by the president of Serbia, Aleksandar Vucic, and the “prime minister” of “Kosovo” (Serbia’s autonomous province, which unilaterally proclaimed its independence in February 2008), Avdullah Hoti, signed in the presence of a beaming Donald Trump in the White House on September 4, 2020.

Namely, besides the expected infrastructure deals, commitment to a regional free trade zone dubbed as the “mini-Schengen,” and matters related to energy and telecommunications (more on that later), the agreement also covered non-economic matters such as a one-year moratorium on seeking membership in international organizations (“Kosovo”) and in lobbying for “Kosovo’s” de-recognition or blocking its recognition (Serbia), freedom of religion and protection of religious sites, missing persons and the resettling of refugees and internally displaced people.

But these could still be explained as being relevant to the consequences of the Kosovo conflict of the late 1990s.

However, the parties also agreed to join the US global crusade to decriminalize homosexuality in the 69 countries that are still holding out, to designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization and, sensationally, to mutual recognition with Israel (“Kosovo”) and moving their embassy to Jerusalem (Serbia in writing and “Kosovo” in a subsequent oral pledge to Benjamin Netanyahu).

Most observers of international affairs have at least a rudimentary familiarity with the Kosovo issue, one of the world’s main unresolved conflicts of the past quarter century or so, the roots of which run back hundreds of years into the past.

In brief, Kosovo Field (or the Field of Blackbirds) was the site of a monumental clash between Serbian and Ottoman Turk forces on June 28, 1389, in which both the Serbian and the Turkish rulers were killed, but which was subsequently enshrined as a Serb national myth/covenant, symbolizing willingness to fight for one’s freedom in the face of overwhelming odds and choosing the heavenly over the earthly kingdom.

After the Ottomans finally overran Serbia and that part of Europe some 70 years later (it took them a while to recover, while the Serbian state was fatally weakened under the usual pressure from both west and east) – eventually reaching the gates of Vienna – Albanian converts to Islam gradually settled today’s Kosovo, using their newly gained privileges to repress or push out the former Serbian Christian population.

 The Serbian Army liberated Kosovo 523 years later, during the First Balkan War, incorporating it into Serbia and then Yugoslavia.

Fast-forwarding to the early 1990s, using the Kosovo Albanians as a tool of weakening Yugoslavia and Serbia and deposing its leader Slobodan Milosevic, the US threw its support behind the terrorist Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) and, under the guise of NATO, bombed Serbia in the spring of 1999.

The bombing ended with the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1244 of June 10, 1999, by which Kosovo and Metohija (the official name of the Serbian autonomous province) remained a part of Serbia pending a final peace agreement.

However, after multiple failed negotiations and supported by most Western and Islamic countries, Kosovo Albanian leaders unilaterally declared independence on February 17, 2008, which Serbia – along with the BRICS countries, among others – has refused to recognize to this day.

So how, exactly, did Israel and Jerusalem become one of the centerpieces of an agreement between two non-Jewish warring sides thousands of kilometers removed from the Holy Land?

That is a question that is still being hotly debated, not just in Serbia and “Kosovo.”

The “known knowns” are that Vucic had already made a commitment of sorts during the annual AIPAC conference in Washington DC in March of this year, pledging to open a Serbian Chamber of Commerce office as well as Serbia’s “official state office” in Jerusalem “very soon.”

But that is still short of an embassy. On the other hand, per The Times of Israel, “Kosovo” has been “publicly courting Israel since before its declaration of independence from Serbia in 2008,” but “Israel refused to recognize Kosovo because it did not want to support a unilateral declaration of statehood, which Jerusalem feared could create a dangerous precedent followed by the Palestinians.”

Contributing to the “known unknowns” is the now-viral video, seen by at least a couple of hundred million viewers globally if we include China (more on that later) showing Vucic’s apparent puzzlement at Trump’s announcement of the Serbian embassy move to Jerusalem.

Vucic subsequently claimed to Serbian media that this was entirely due to an inadvertent switch of folders given to him and the Kosovo Albanian leader and that he was entirely familiar with what he had signed.

But that doesn’t explain Vucic’s subsequent assertion that the embassy move to Jerusalem would be contingent on Israel “being attentive to Serbia’s interests” and his appeal to Israel to “carefully consider its decisions” regarding mutual recognition vis-à-vis “Kosovo.”

Especially because the last item of the agreement he signed in the White House explicitly states: “Serbia [Belgrade] agrees to… move its Embassy to Jerusalem by July 2021.”

Vucic’s position is further complicated by the Oval Office telephone conversation between Netanyahu and Hoti immediately after the signing ceremony, in which it was affirmed that “Kosovo” would indeed open its embassy in Jerusalem, as the “first Muslim-majority nation to do so.”

So much for attentiveness to Serbia’s interests. But, again, the wording in the document is clear, so it would seem that Vucic’s own interpretation is nothing more than damage control for his own domestic audience.

And there is damage to be controlled, doubtlessly. For Vucic has not only implicitly agreed to another major state’s recognition of the secession of Serbia’s historic province, he has also undermined Serbia’s own international position on the matter.

Namely, by signing on to an agreement to move the Serbian embassy to Jerusalem, Vucic is violating UN SC Resolution 478, which calls upon all UN member states to withdraw their diplomatic missions from Jerusalem, as Israel’s “basic law” on the Holy City “constitutes a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.”

On the other hand, for more than two decades Serbia has been invoking UN SC Resolution 1244, according to which Kosovo is an integral part of Serbia, pending a final peace agreement between the sides, and has the support of countries making up the majority of the world’s population behind it.

So, in effect, Vucic might be seen as practicing the same double standard against which he has railed in the past, (rightly) accusing Western states of advocating “rule of law” while violating international law themselves when they recognized “Kosovo’s” independence.

All this leads to one of two conclusions: either the item concerning the embassy move was inserted without Vucic’s knowledge – hence his stunned expression on the above-mentioned video – or Vucic knew that he’d agreed to something he shouldn’t have agreed to and is now simply using brazen denial as a survival tactic.

In any case, it is clear that the main beneficiaries of the Serbia-“Kosovo” agreement were both Israel and Trump, who used the opportunity to promote himself as not only a peacemaker but also to show that he could succeed where Biden previously not only failed but acted as a warmonger, having been a leading advocate of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia and Serbia in 1999.

In addition, Trump scored a major pre-election point with the powerful and wealthy pro-Israel lobby, and will build on this further by hosting the Israel-UAE diplomatic normalization agreement on September 15.

What remains to be seen is what Vucic – and Serbia – have gained from the help extended to Trump and Netanyahu.

What is certain is that Vucic’a troubles do not end with the announced Jerusalem embassy move, or with the rather humiliating seating arrangement he was afforded in the Oval Office during his individual meeting with Trump, which has made him the object of much derision in Serbia.

For, among the things both parties signed on to is to “diversify their energy supplies” as well as “prohibit the use of 5G equipment supplied by untrusted vendors in their telecommunications networks.”

The part pertaining to energy is clearly aimed at Russia and the Turkish Stream/Balkan Stream gas pipeline that is slated to become fully operational by the beginning of next year.

The part regarding 5G equipment is even more clearly aimed at China’s Huawei.

Both countries are not only Serbia’s allies but increasingly important economic and military partners.

Officially, both Moscow and Beijing have not reacted negatively to the agreement, although Russian foreign minister Lavrov did somewhat pointedly emphasize that Russia will support “all voluntarily reached agreements between Belgrade and Pristina.”

However, private and scattered media reactions by various Russian political figures tell a somewhat different story, from openly wondering what exactly is going on with Vucic, to pitying him as a “rape victim.”

Which is why the Serbian prime minister immediately rushed to assure both Belgrade’s important partners that “nothing was clearly defined (in the agreement), which allows Serbia to create a more strategic partnership with the US without compromising the country’s cooperation with China and the Russian Federation… The agreement opens a new door, without closing all others.”

And that is indeed another strange aspect of this strange document – no one is quite sure what to make of it, whether it’s a full-fledged international agreement, or just a glorified memorandum of understanding or intent.

For his part, the main public facilitator of the deal, former US ambassador to Germany and Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell, made sure to underline that the US is “not a signature” to the agreement.

On the other hand, as noted above, Vucic is treating it as something open to interpretation while Netanyahu is treating it as a binding agreement, as is Grenell, who openly ridiculed a Politico reporter quoting the Serbian foreign minister’s revitalization of the part of the agreement concerning the embassy move to Jerusalem as a sign that the Serbian government is “stepping back from the embassy pledge.”

Best ive made a huge mistake GIFs - Primo GIF - Latest Animated GIFs

The plot thickened a bit further when the Israeli press carried reports claiming that Serbia wouldn’t move its embassy to Jerusalem after all if Israel were to recognize “Kosovo,” specifying that a “diplomatic relationship” between the two is acceptable but that full recognition would “destroy” Israel’s ties with Belgrade.

As for Trump himself, he’d probably already mentally moved on to the next urgent items on his agenda before the ink on the signatures had even dried.

It should be noted, however, that there may be more to Trump’s interest in reaching some sort of Serbia-“Kosovo” normalization than just pure electioneering, as witnessed by his son’s Tweet from March of this year, calling for the remaining 650 US troops stationed in “Kosovo” to be brought back home.

In any case, no matter the true nature of the agreement, one can be sure that the main beneficiaries to the agreement, Israel and the US, will certainly insist on the fulfillment of what was written, while pushing for the most favorable interpretation of the parts that were supposedly “not clearly defined.”

Russia will certainly have questions regarding his commitments not only regarding energy supplies and Kosovo and Metohija but Serbia’s declared military neutrality as well – especially after Serbia, citing “terrible pressure” from Brussels, suddenly decided to cancel joint military exercises with Russia and Belarus (as well as with all other partners for the next six months).

China will wonder just how secure its “steel friendship” with Serbia really is and whether Serbia will be the next domino to fall in the US’s global crusade against Huawei.

And Hezbollah cannot be too happy either, along with Iran and Syria, both of whom have not recognized “Kosovo.”

For his part, Vucic will continue trying to balance between playing for his domestic audience and meeting the expectations of major international players from both East and West and various commitments made in the increasingly hostile global geopolitical environment.

As the Belarusian president has recently learned, pursuing a “multi-vector” foreign policy without being at least a major power is an uncertain and often perilous game in today’s world.

Why did the Zionists Choose Palestine As It’s Homeland?

Industrial killing is no problem for these devilish people playing with the world and the people as toys on a map.

The value of the minerals of the Dead Sea is estimated at five trillion dollars. This estimate appears to be optimistic but it is supported in part by the report of the Crown Agents of the British Colonies entitled “Production of Minerals From the Waters of the Dead Sea“.

It is alleged that all copies of this booklet containing this report have been destroyed except those in the British Museum, Colonial office, and House of Commons.

 This official report estimates the minerals, except oil, in 1925 as follows: Magnesium Chloride, 22,000 tons, value 600 billion dollars; Potassium Chloride, 20,000 tons, value 75 billion dollars; other minerals valued at 1,200 billion dollars; or a total of about three trillion dollars, exclusive of oil (The Palestine Mystery, pages 12 and 13).

The financial backers of Theodor Herzl were M. A. Rothschild & Son of Paris and N. M. Rothschild & Son of London. Mr. Klein confirms the opinion expressed by Henry Ford in The International Jew, viz: That the protocols explain current history.

There can be no reasonable question about the authenticity of the protocols and the fact that they were adopted by World Zionist Jewry and that they represent the plan of the Zionist Jews for creating a World Empire.

The first and second World Wars were for that purpose and so, likewise, was the Jewish invasion of Palestine.

That was also the purpose of the League of Nations and is the purpose of the United Nations – all Zionist enterprises.

Arthur Balfour (C), former British prime minister, and Chaim Weizmann (3rd-R), the then future first president of Israel, visiting Tel Aviv in 1925 Jacob Rothschild said that a scientist named Chaim Weizmann went to the United Kingdom, where he gave this idea of forming Israel to a select group of people, including the Rothschild family.

Mr. Klein says further that the “American Group,” owners of 51,000 shares of Palestine Potash, Ltd., incorporated in 1930 under the name of “Palestine Associates, Inc.,” and that “at least seven of the directors of this corporation are members of the American Jewish Committee.”

He says that ex-Governor of New York Herbert H. Lehman has been honorary head of Palestine Economic Corporation for many years and that this corporation “owns banks, water companies, land holding companies, hotels, and agricultural corporations in Palestine.”

He says that these facts have been concealed from the Jews and that they have been used as tools by their Zionist leaders.

Henry Morgenthau, Jr. is now at the head of this corporation.

Holocaust hoax is what the Germans generally refer to Auschwitzlüge (Auschwitz lie)

The “Balfour Declaration” was made in a letter from Lord Balfour to Lord Rothschild.

This same Lord Rothschild was a member of the Zionist International Conference at Bazle, Switzerland in 1897 that adopted the Protocols.

This same Lord Rothschild was also a member of the British House of Lords that gave this huge wealth to Palestine Potash Ltd.

The Rothschild interests are at the head of political Zionism and they promoted the invasion of Palestine.

Their position in our government and financial system is such that they can bring about deflation and a third world war.

A Gigantic Steal

If Palestine has one fourth of its estimated mineral value it will enable the Zionists to control the destiny of the peoples of the world.

The Zionist invasion of Palestine is a gigantic steal and an infamous outrage against Christian civilization.

Under present circumstances it means a third world war and that the new state of Israeli will line up with the Bolsheviks.

The only way to avoid it and to assure permanent peace is to destroy the Rothschild agencies, – alias Zionist Wall Street.

It is indeed the best way to restore the solvency of our country and of the world, and to restore constitutional government.

The “Balfour Declaration” to Lord Rothschild and the gift of this fabulous wealth to him and his fellow Zionists is evidence that he and his fellow Zionists then controlled the British Empire.

If the British Government were authorized to give it to the Zionists they had the power to keep it or to give it to us as security for our donations, or to give it to the United Nations for the preservation of world peace.

They gave it to the war-promoting Zionists for the obvious purpose of promoting Zionism.

Covid Alert: : IMF Gobbling Up Little Nations

Sibel Edmonds eye opening video report

The IMF has ceased to simply be a lender for troubled times in countries with cash-flow issues and became an instrument of the so-called “disaster capitalism complex”, where nations in trouble are forced to give away many state functions in exchange for their help, for the benefit of American and other western multinational companies.

This privatizing of non-concurrencial sectors invariably shifts structurally resources from the people to these companies, making the countries receiving the “help” invariably poorer and more foreign-dependent.*

Speaking of gobbling:
Israel’s largest lender bank expects UAE bank ties to follow normalization

Israel’s largest lender Bank Hapoalim expects to start working with banks in the United Arab Emirates once the two Middle East states sign a normalization agreement, its chief executive said on Wednesday.

The UAE and Israel are due to sign the agreement, brokered by the United States, on September 15 at a ceremony held by US President Donald Trump.

The three sides have talked up the economic opportunities that normalisation would bring and several business cooperation agreements have already been signed.

Hapoalim CEO Dov Kotler said a correspondent banking relationship facilitating direct money transfers between the countries would help develop trade and business ties.

“I believe that after the governments sign the agreement next week we will be able to work with the banking system here,” he told Reuters during a visit to the UAE.

In correspondent banking, a bank with no branch or network in a given country will typically channel payments there through a local bank that acts on its behalf.

Kotler is leading an Israeli business delegation on a two-day visit to the UAE as the two countries develop bilateral economic relations.

READ: Normalising ties with Israel helps promote its expansionism

“We are here to build trust before talking business. In order to build trust I believe we have to meet face to face and that is what we are doing,” he said.

Israel and the UAE on August 13 agreed to normalise relations, making the UAE the first Gulf country and the third Arab state to do so when a final accord is signed.

Kotler said he believed Hapoalim would establish relationships with the three largest lenders in the UAE, though declined to name the banks.

The UAE’s largest lender First Abu Dhabi Bank has said it would open discussions with Hapoalim and Bank Leumi, another Israeli bank.

Bank Leumi is to lead a delegation to the UAE on September 14.

Emirates BND, Dubai’s largest bank, declined to comment on the visit of Hapoalim this week.

With deal, UAE abandons Palestinian struggle - Cartoon [Sabaaneh/MiddleEastMonitor]

With deal, UAE abandons Palestinian struggle – Cartoon [Sabaaneh/MiddleEastMonitor]


What the Holocaust™ Proves

George S. Patton, commander of the U.S. Third Army: “I have been at
Frankfurt for a civil government conference. If what we are doing (to
the Germans) is ‘Liberty, then give me death.’ I can’t see how Americans
can sink so low. It’s the Jews, and I am sure of it.”

Dangerous Liaison: The Inside Story of the U.S. – Israeli Covert Relationship

excerpt Magazine article Washington Report on Middle East Affairs


The premise is that there’s a side to the relationship between the U.S. and Israel which goes much beyond just the sentimental links and the links forged by supporters of Israel in this country.

What we say, what we explain is that there has been since almost the earliest days of the Israeli state and the earliest days of the CIA a secret bond, a secret link between them, basically by which the Israelis — the Israeli intelligence — did jobs for the CIA and for the rest of American intelligence.

You can’t understand what’s been going on around the world with American covert operations and the Israeli covert operations until you understand that the two countries have this secret arrangement. Andrew Cockburn

Two hundred pages into this 416-page fact-filled book, I recognized that it is the best compendium of information about the multifaceted secret relationships between Israel and private American citizens, and with the U.S. government itself, ever assembled.

This is reason enough to recommend the book. As I continued reading the second half, however, I found it also contained much information that was new to me, despite 30 years of full-time involvement in U.S.-Middle East affairs.

For a serious student of the history of Israeli dirty tricks, U.S. voluntary and involuntary involvement in them, and their results in making the Middle East into what it is today, there can be no more useful book.

This husband-and-wife journalistic team sketches in seven short sentences the essential fact about the U.S.-Israeli relationship that could give the U.S. the power to control it, instead of being controlled by it. Describing a contemptuous reaction by Israeli journalist Gideon Levi to a live-ammunition performance by Israel Defense Force soldiers on the Golan Heights for the edification of busloads of American Jewish tourists, the authors write:

“What Levi called the `masses of women with blue hair and pseudo-athletic men’ and many others like them back in the U.S. contribute at least $1 billion a year in private donations to Israel.

These donations are tax-deductible. The state raises another $500 million a year through the sale of Israel bonds. U.S. commercial banks lend an additional $1 billion.

Such generosity is dwarfed by the contributions of U.S. taxpayers overall, which amount to almost $4 billion in military and economic aid, at least, even in peacetime. All this adds up to well over $6 billion a year, or $1,300 for each and every Israeli.

Israel’s gross national product amounts to some $24 billion a year, so the country is receiving one quarter of its total income in the form of gifts from U.S. citizens, acting either as philanthropists or taxpayers.”

Closer to the theme of the book, the Cockburns point out that “the weapons trade accounts for almost 40 percent of Israel’s export earnings S1.5 billion a year.”

How Israel has developed those weapons, with stolen U.S. technology, and markets for them, by selling arms and technology to world pariahs ranging from South Africa to Colombian drug lords while the U.S. looks the other way, is part of what the book is all about.

Ironies of tiny Israel’s gigantic weapons trade are illustrated by the book’s description of Shaul Nehemiah Eisenberg, the richest man in Israel, who, the Cockburns report, “represents the ultimate confluence of arms, intelligence and political power.”

Eisenberg supervised modernization of the Chinese army’s weaponry, an upgrading of the entire Chinese tankforce, and even an improvement of the Chinese “Eastwind” ballistic missiles, which ultimately were purchased by Saudi Arabia, “whose defense purchases from the United States have always met with strenuous Israeli objections.”

The fact that while the Israeli government, through its Washington, DC lobby, blocks the access of major Arab states to U.S. weapons, it actually works with the other arms-producing countries which ultimately get the arms orders of some of the same Arab countries is the kind of thing that is unbelievable to most Americans, but carefully documented in this book.

The Cockburns present seldom-recalled historical facts. Most of the founding fathers of Israel “were born within 500 miles of the city of Minsk.”

The best known among them, Plonsk-born David Gruen, who renamed himself David Ben-Gurion upon arriving in Palestine in 1906, was “an atheist who refused to attend a synagogue; he adopted Zionism as his religion.”

Among those early leaders who became Israeli prime ministers, Ben-Gurion rival Menachem Begin’s Irgun Zvai Leumi had split from its revisionist parent group, Lehi, over the issue of opposing Hitler during World War II.


Vietnam to Venezuela: US Interventionism

im·pe·ri·al·ism.The definition of imperialism is the practice of a larger country or government growing stronger by taking over poorer or weaker countries that have important resources.

Venezuela’s Maduro to Trump: ‘Why would you want a repeat of Vietnam?’

President Maduro inaugurated the Simón Bolívar Institute

International unity based on popular struggles for emancipation will be the objective to be realized by the Simón Bolívar Institute for Peace and Solidarity, inaugurated this Sunday in connection with the 205th anniversary of the Jamaica Charter.

LATIN AMERICA. U.S. FREE TRADE IMPERIALISM. The natural resources of the Latin American republics made them targets for a form of economic dependence called free-trade imperialism.

In a videoconference that summoned the presence of 106 international leaders, he stressed that this solidarity platform will allow the dissemination of the truth of Venezuela in the face of discrediting campaigns that threaten peace and national stability.

“I ask for all the support of the solidarity movements to bring the truth of Venezuela and with the truth win peace, sovereignty, independence and respect for our peoples,” he emphasized.

From the “Antonio José de Sucre” Yellow House, located in Caracas, the Foreign Minister of the Republic, Jorge Arreaza, indicated that the Simón Bolívar Institute will also promote “the solidarity of the peoples with all the struggles”.

Fotografía del Comandante Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías y Fidel Castro Ruz juntos. | Politica


He explained that the first day of debate addressed the validity of the thought of the Liberator Simón Bolívar “at this time of recomposition of the struggles” and of the attempts of capitalism to restore itself in the face of the structural failures that it evidenced in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic .

Colombian paramilitaries were trained by Tel Aviv

In this sense, the vice minister for North America, Carlos Ron, pointed out that “in a world where the capitalist model is exhausted, what remains for us is to go back to our roots of struggle for the peoples and emancipation.”

Israeli forces’ involvement in El Salvador runs deep

“We are making a call for solidarity to all the peoples of the world and, at the same time, receiving solidarity in turn because together we will be able to advance and create a new model whose base is solidarity and its most important principle is the construction of peace. ”, He stressed. / Presidential Press.

The Collaborator’s Reward

September 05 ,2020 BY Tim Anderson

What do Panama’s Manuel Noriega, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and the UAE’s Mohamad Bin Zayed (MBZ) all have in common?

They dreamed that their collaboration with the imperial power would allow them the freedom to pursue their own ambitions.

Very wrong. Once Noriega was employed by the CIA to betray compatriot nationalists and to be used as a tool against independent Cuba and Nicaragua, imperialism owned him.

Once Saddam was armed (including with poison gas) by NATO countries to attack Revolutionary Iran and slaughter dissident Iraqis, imperialism owned him

. And once MBZ collaborated with Mossad against the Palestinian resistance and armed terrorist groups against Syria, imperialism owned him.

After Noriega sought to play a more independent role in Central America the US, under Bush the First, invaded Panama killing thousands (see ‘The Panama Deception’), just to kidnap Noriega and jail him on drug trafficking charges.

Saddam was not allowed to pursue his own interests in Kuwait. Instead his ambitions were used as a pretext to starve and then destroy Iraq.

Saddam himself was eventually lynched, under US military occupation.

Qaddafi Warns Chuckling Arab Leaders in 2008 That Their End Is Near - The Atlantic

The  Libyan leader said America’s Arab allies could end up like Saddam Hussein….before  US and western allies murdered him and destroyed his country.

MBZ, for his supposed crime of resuming relations with Syria in 2018, was forced to recognise Israel, thus becoming the new disgrace of the Arab and Muslim world. Once a collaborator is owned he is owned.

The UAE gained nothing by openly recognising the zionist regime. There was no political or economic benefit.

The UAE was already collaborating deeply with Israel, as evidenced by the open access enjoyed by the Mossad team which murdered Palestinian militant Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai in February 2010 (Lewis, Borger and McCarthy 2010), and later kidnapped Australian-Israeli whistle-blower Ben Zygier, after he had provided Dubai authorities with “names and pictures and accurate details” of the team, supposedly in exchange for UAE protection. However Israel kidnapped Zygier in the UAE and he later died from ‘suicide’ in an Israeli jail (Rudoran 2013).

There was no independent motive behind the disgraceful UAE move, other than fear and obedience.

The Trump regime pressured and threatened MBZ into recognising Israel, just to help with its 2020 election campaign.

How do we know this? Two months before the UAE officially recognised Israel, Trump envoy James Jeffrey threatened the UAE regime for its renewed relations with Syria, which went against Trump’s subsequent ‘Caesar Act’ (MEMO 2020), a piece of legislation primarily aimed at imposing discipline on third party ‘allies’ which sought to normalise relations with Damascus.

Washington’s ‘Caesar’ law (part of an omnibus NDAA Act) pretends to authorise the US President to impose fines and confiscate the assets of those, anywhere in the world, who “support or engage in a significant transaction” with the Syrian government (SJAC 2020).

It aimed at Persian Gulf allies, principally the UAE, and perhaps some Europeans who were considering renewed relations with Damascus (Anderson 2020)

As it happened, in late December 2018, the UAE resumed relations with the Syrian Government and resumed investment in the besieged country.

This was despite the anti-Syrian role of the UAE in the early days of the conflict and, in particular, their backing of ISIS terrorism.

That role was acknowledged by senior US officials in late 2014.

Head of the US Army General Martin Dempsey in September 2014 admitted that “major Arab allies” of the US funded ISIS (Rothman 2014).

The following month US Vice President Joe Biden specified that US allies “Turkey, Qatar and the UAE had extended “billions of dollars and tens of thousands of tons of weapons” to all manner of fanatical Islamist fighters, including ISIS, in efforts to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al Assad (Maskanian 2014).

Biden later offered a hollow apology to the UAE for his remarks (Al Jazeera 2014). A sanitised Atlantic Council version of this history was that the UAE had backed “armed opposition groups – such as the Free Syrian Army” (Santucci 2020).

In any case, with Washington’s regime change war lost – certainly after the expanded role of Russia in Syria from September 2015 onwards – the UAE began to change tack.

In November 2015 UAE Foreign Affairs Minister Anwar Gargash expressed cautious support for Russia’s role and in April 2018 he characterised the conflict as one between the Syrian Government and Islamic extremism.

On 27 December the UAE reopened its embassy in Damascus (Ramani 2020). Bahrain followed suit the next day.

The MBZ regime claims to have provided over $530 million “to alleviate the suffering” of Syria since 2012 (Santucci 2020), though how much of this went into armed Islamist groups is unclear.

But there certainly have been some UAE-funded construction projects in Syria in recent times.

No doubt wealthy UAE investors saw some opportunities in post-war reconstruction.

The Emirates hosted a Syrian trade delegation in January 2019 and in August 2019 some private Emirati companies participated in the Damascus International Trade Fair (Cafiero 2020).

But in early 2020 the Trump regime passed its Caesar law, aimed at reining in its wandering ‘allies’.

In June envoy James Jeffrey pointed his finger at the UAE, saying: “the UAE knows that we absolutely refuse that countries take such steps [in Syria] … we have clearly stressed that we consider this a bad idea … anyone who engages in economic activities … may be targeted by these sanctions” (MEMO 2020).

That could mean big trouble for the UAE.

The Obama regime (through the US Treasury’s ‘Office of Foreign Assets Control’) had already ‘fined’ European banks more than 12 billion dollars for their business with Iran and Cuba, in breach of Washington’s unilateral coercive measures (Anderson 2019: 42).

Two months later in August the UAE’s open recognition of Israel presented the semblance of some sort of change in the region.

An Atlantic Council paper hoped that might be to derail the UAE’s ‘normalization policy with Syria’ (Santucci 2020).

That indeed was one part of the project: tighten the siege on the independent region: from Palestine through Lebanon, Syria and Iraq to Iran.

In the process 80% of the besieged Syrian population was living in poverty, and on the brink of starvation (Cafiero 2020).

This was a determined if failing strategy, set in place by Bush the Second and carried through faithfully by Obama and Trump, despite the latter’s pragmatic misgivings.

The other part of the project was to strong-arm the little petro-monarchy into boosting the Trump election campaign.

The UAE’s recognition of Israel did nothing to help MBZ, but was well received in Tel Aviv (though it did not change the constellation of Resistance forces) and was skilfully presented in the USA as some sort of concession to Palestine.

Yet Trump’s flimsy pretext (a ‘freeze’ on further annexations) was quickly discredited. Israeli Finance Minister Yisrael Katz said that a ‘freeze’ was in place before the UAE deal (Khalil 2020).

Netanyahu maintained that further annexations were still ‘on the table’ (Al Jazeera 2020). Indeed he had announced such ‘freezes’ before (Ravid 2009).

In any case, Trump was clearly no advocate for Palestinian or Arab rights.

He had broken with previous US regimes by giving his blessing to Tel Aviv’s annexation of both East Jerusalem and the Syrian Golan, disregarding international law (BBC 2019).

Disgraced in the region, the UAE was simply acting as Washington’s puppet. That is the collaborator’s reward.

War on Terror: Israel Profiteers

According to J.P. London’s company, CACI International, the visit of London — sponsored by an Israeli lobby group and including U.S. congressmen and other defense contractors — was “to promote opportunities for strategic partnerships and joint ventures between U.S. and Israeli defense and homeland security agencies.”

The Arlington, Virginia based CACI International has reincarnated itself under various names since it was founded in 1962 by Harry Markowitz, the 1990 Nobel laureate for Economics.[1]

Presently, it employs 9500 individuals working in its more than 100 offices in North America and Europe. According to its website, it provides ‘IT and network solutions’ in an era of ‘defense, intelligence and e-government’.[2]

Between August and December 2003, CACI was awarded 11 contracts, worth about $66 million for work in Iraq alone.[3]. In 2004 CACI was the subject of five different government investigations.[4]

CACI has strong Israeli ties and according to Robert Fisk one of Staphanovic’s co-workers, Joe Ryan – who was not named in the Taguba report – now says he underwent an ‘Israeli interrogation course’ before going to Iraq.’ [Google will deter you from the  Caci International site but just keep going]. Apparently there are those who don’t want us to read it.

J.P. London, the CEO of the company, visited Israel on a trip sponsored by an Israeli lobby group along with U.S. congressmen and other defense contractors.

In early 2004 he also attended an ‘anti-terror” training camp in Israel where he ‘was presented with an award by Shaul Mofaz, the right-wing Israeli defense minister’. [6]

This clip is from the 2006 film, “Iraq For Sale”

Arms Sales

The nature of today’s U.S. arms exports is different from those in the 1990s, as the U.S. is not supplying these weapons to allies like Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other Arab monarchies for defensive purposes.

Just as the U.S. has used its own war machine to commit aggression around the world since the 1980s, and more systematically since 2001, it now sells offensive weapons to its allies with the clear, if unspoken, understanding that they will use them to attack and threaten their neighbors, thereby expanding the U.S.’s aggressive war policy by proxy.

War crimes by U.S. allies rarely lead to any loss of U.S. logistical or diplomatic support, as we have seen after Israeli attacks on Lebanon and Palestine and in the Saudi-led war on Yemen.

In fact, the U.S. government has rallied to support its allies by quickly and quietly replenishing their weapons stocks and vetoing UN Security Council resolutions to investigate orrespond to their crimes.

The U.S. State Department has an appalling record of failing to enforce U.S. laws that require the suspension of arms sales to countries that use U.S. weapons to kill civilians or otherwise violate international humanitarian law.

The current regime of U.S. arms exports is part of a deliberate strategy to outsource U.S. war-making, projecting military power through alliances with U.S.-armed client states as a substitute for direct U.S. military action.

This minimizes both domestic opposition from a war-weary U.S. public and growing international resistance to the catastrophic results of U.S. wars, while U.S. military-industrial interests are well served by ever-growing arms sales to allied governments.

Hitching U.S. interests and foreign policy to repressive regimes around the world is nothing new.

In the 1960s and 1970s, the U.S. built the Shah of Iran’s military forces into the fifth largest army in the world, even as Amnesty International reportedthat Iranhad 25,000 to 100,000 political prisoners and “the highest rate of death penalties in the world, no valid system of civilian courts and a history of torture that is beyond belief.” The predictable result of the U.S.’s

What Does the US Have to Hide From the ICC?

Below: Winter Soldier: Hundreds of Iraq and Afghan War Veterans to Testify in Echo of 1971 Vietnam Hearings

Below: Former Israeli soldier with PTSD following combat in Gaza, speaks before the Israeli State Control Committee, on November 2015.
In his Testimony, he admits to murdering over 40 Palestinians;
“I killed for you, with these hands. You say terrorists with blood on their hands? I killed more than 40 people for you. ..
“[At night] he comes to me and says, ‘Why did you kill me?

Recent statements from the Trump administration suggest that the United States is now preparing to go to war against the ICC itself, motivated largely by an effort to silence investigations into alleged American war crimes committed in Afghanistan, as well as alleged crimes committed by Israel during the 2014 war in the Gaza Strip.

Al-Haq recalls that the US has previously revoked the visas of staff members of the Office of the Prosecutor, including the Prosecutor, threatened the Court’s Judges, and, along with its ally Israel, has, without justification, sought to smear the Court as “corrupt” and in the Situation in the State of Palestine specifically, “anti-Semitic”.

“I vow that I’ll burn every Palestinian child that will be born in this area. The Palestinian woman and child are more dangerous than the man, because the Palestinian child’s existence infers that generations will go on…” — Ariel Sharon in an interview by Ouze Merham – Verified by journalist Chris Hedges in 2001 article “Gaza Diary” – Sport-shootings of children that Hedges witnessed are official Israeli policy + British Medical Journal confirmed more than 600 sniper murders of Palestinian children by the Israeli military.

In a speech at a D.C. event held by the Federalist Society on Monday, Donald Trump’s national security adviser John Bolton denounced the ICC as “illegitimate” and expressed his intentions toward the institution in no uncertain terms.

“We will not cooperate with the ICC,” Bolton said. “We will provide no assistance to the ICC. We will not join the ICC.

We will let the ICC die on its own. After all, for all intents and purposes, the ICC is already dead to us.”

In addition to this death wish against the court, Bolton said that the United States would retaliate against any ICC investigations into U.S. activities by sanctioning the travel and finances of ICC officials, even threatening to prosecute them in American courts.

The 2016 ICC report makes allegations of serious crimes committed by the U.S., including “torture, cruel treatment, outrages upon personal dignity, and rape.”

Because it involves U.S. officials themselves, at the center of the campaign against the ICC is a 2016 report by ICC prosecutors that deals in part with the war in Afghanistan.

That report alleges the commission of widespread crimes by the Taliban and Afghan government forces.

But the report also makes allegations of serious crimes committed by U.S. military forces and the CIA, including “torture, cruel treatment, outrages upon personal dignity, and rape.”

The crimes in question appear to have been related to detention programs run in Afghanistan during the early years of the U.S. occupation.

While the report does not name the individuals responsible nor their victims, it indicates that there are dozens of cases in which torture, cruel treatment, and sexual assault were committed by American soldiers and CIA officers in Afghanistan from 2003 to 2004.

The report also states that the alleged crimes “were not the abuses of a few isolated individuals,” adding that “there is a reasonable basis to believe these alleged crimes were committed in furtherance of a policy or policies aimed at eliciting information through the use of interrogation techniques involving cruel or violent methods which would support U.S. objectives in the conflict in Afghanistan.”

Given longstanding U.S. refusals to cooperate with ICC investigations, it’s unlikely that the 2016 document — a preliminary report from the prosecutor’s office — would have succeeded in bringing U.S. officials to trial at the Hague.

Bolton’s campaign thus seems intended on solidifying the fact that the United States is free of international norms on human rights conduct, with those who even investigate its actions subject to threat.

That the ICC investigation reaches back to the George W. Bush era, when Bolton served as United Nations ambassador, is fitting.

In the years after the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States began to come under withering scrutiny for its detention policies in those countries.

In addition to high-profile cases of torture at prison sites like Abu Ghraib, the CIA and U.S. military have been accused of brutalizing and even murdering prisoners held in their custody at detention facilities like Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan.

To date, Passaro, a civilian, is the only person to have been held legally accountable for torture and murder carried out under the CIA detention program.

Civilian contractors working for the CIA have also engaged in the murder of Afghan detainees, including David Passaro, who beat to death an Afghan man named Abdul Wali who had turned himself in to authorities after being accused of involvement in a militant attack.

Passaro was later sentenced to eight and a half years in jail by an American court. Following his release, he briefly returned to the public eye in media interviews justifying his involvement in the murder.

To date, Passaro, a civilian, is the only person to have been held legally accountable for torture and murder carried out under the CIA detention program, in Afghanistan or elsewhere.

This despite a landmark 2014 Senate Intelligence Committee that documented, in excruciating detail, widespread evidence of torture and other abuses carried out by CIA officials.

The unwillingness or inability of U.S. courts to seriously investigate war crimes carried out by American citizens is part of why the ICC mandate in Afghanistan has been viewed as an important effort to bring a minimum level of accountability over the conflict. This past November, the court announced that it planned to move forward with investigations stemming from its 2016 report.

— Ariel Sharon – published in Israeli newspaper Davar Dec 17th, 1982 – Following the Sabra and Shatila most brutal massacres in human history caught red-handed.

In a statement responding to Bolton’s threats, the ICC said that “the ICC, as a court of law, will continue to do its work undeterred, in accordance with those principles and the overarching idea of the rule of law.”

Given its longstanding intransigence toward the ICC, it was unlikely that the United States would ever have cooperated with its investigation into war crimes in Afghanistan, even under a less bellicose administration.

But the Trump administration’s threats to target specific ICC officials over their war crimes investigations enters a new realm of hostility against international law.

The consequences could be a further degradation of already shaky international norms surrounding human rights in conflict zones.

“The ICC is not stepping in just for the sake of how Bolton put it, just to undermine U.S. sovereignty.

This is really nonsense. They are stepping in because we failed — the United States failed to uphold the rule of law,” said Jamil Dakwar, director of the ACLU’s Human Rights Program, in a television segment on Democracy Now! Tuesday morning about Bolton’s comments.

“This is the same Trump administration that has an abysmal record of human rights here in the United States and is trying to encourage other countries to follow its pattern.”

Top photo: National security adviser John Bolton speaks at a Federalist Society luncheon at the Mayflower Hotel on Sept. 10, 2018, in Washington, D.C.

America gives up on teaching ‘standard English’ in favor of ‘Black language’ instead


I’m with her! This is an important topic. It seems someone wants to keep Black Americans on the farm. I can swear I hear white people saying it all the time also. I’m never sure, but now I am more sure I heard right. “Don’t ax me that. Oh I love your ki-En.” Break between the syllables, hard E. Or is that Valley Girl/Ebonic? It just sounds ignorant.

Y’all show some respeck now! America gives up on teaching ‘standard English’ in favor of ‘Black language’ instead

After scholars decried English as ‘anti-black linguistic racism’, the nation’s leading academic language association acceded to the demand that black students no longer have to think about proper English, let alone use it.

The Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) has released an official statement demanding that “teachers stop using academic language and standard English” and teach the “Black language” in college classrooms. 

In the statement, titled, “This Ain’t Another Statement! This is a DEMAND for Black Linguistic Justice!,” a group of US English professors issued a long series of overlapping and somewhat redundant demands regarding language use and teaching in higher education, including the rejection of “standard English,” and that “teachers, researchers, and scholars put some respeck on Black Language.”

The announcement, the drafters note, comes on the heels of the Black Lives Matter protests and riots, as well as the Covid-19 pandemic, which they say disproportionately afflicts black people.

Listing over 25 previous statements and resolutions already issued by the CCCC on diverse language practices, the writers claim that these do not go far enough in promoting “Black linguistic Consciousness to decolonize the mind (and/or) language, unlearn white supremacy, and unravel anti-Black linguistic racism!”

Lest one think that the statement is merely a “demand” made by a handful of “Black language scholars,” the CCCC officially adopted the resolution on August 3.

This means that the most important association for the teaching of English in higher education in the United States has acceded to the demand that black students no longer should even have to think about “standard English,” let alone use it.

Despite a few stereotypical sops apparently thrown out to “Black language” use (“ain’t” and “put some respeck on”), the statement itself is written in academic language, and is marked by the overuse of jargon and an obscurantism for which academic discourse has become infamous. 

Further, while the demand “requires that all students get an opportunity to learn about Black Language from Black language scholars or experts,” it apparently limits the use of “Black language” to black people alone, forbidding as it does the “cultural appropriation” of the “Black language” by others.

That would apparently make the “Black language” the first language in history that you’re not allowed to learn to use, and which its current speakers are not eager that you speak, unless you are of the right skin colour. 

One wonders what sets these scholars apart, such that they have been able to learn and adopt “academic language,” while their students apparently cannot, and should not be challenged to do so.

Are they not thereby condemning their students to a mono-linguistic, cultural prison of sorts?

Why should these students be barred from understanding the works of “white” authors like John Milton, and be confined to those of only black writers like Tupac Shakur?

What does this say about the professors’ estimations of the abilities of their own black students? 

In fact, the proposition that black linguistics be taught and encouraged to the exclusion of standard English, or other more elaborate English language use, amounts to a form of cultural and linguistic essentialism – the assumption that all black people talk the same way, that “white” language is inaccessible to them, and that therefore whole bodies of writing should remain forever beyond their comprehension and appreciation.

This is nothing less than intentional segregation and impoverishment, the kind of cultural containment the likes of which the Harlem Renaissance writer Ralph Ellison – when arguing with the critic Irving Howe, who suggested that black writers like him must write “protest fiction” – decried as more confining than the Jim Crow South.