Are hate crimes legalizing treason?

irish 2009/11/24 14:46:20
Add Photos & Videos
Are Hate Crimes Legalizing Treason?
By Jeff Gates

Winning wars in the Information Age largely depends on winning the
battle for public opinion. Thus the opinion-shaping role of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) when it attacked a high profile California professor for his criticism of Israeli policy in Palestine.

That ADL intimidation campaign successfully chilled debate on campuses
nationwide during several time-critical months while a new president, promising the hope of change, reassessed U.S.-Israeli relations. His only change-endorsing more Israeli settlements on Palestinian land-quashed any hope of peace.

This ADL silencing strategy offers a microcosm of how the U.S. was induced to war in Iraq based on false intelligence. From the provocation of September 11, 2001 until the invasion of March 2003, war-planners ignored, dismissed or sought to silence anyone critical of the spurious premises offered for war.

Only later did we discover that the intelligence was fixed around a preset agenda. Even now, Americans are unaware that the U.S.-led invasion had long been an Israeli goal.

In similar fashion, an ADL campaign silenced on-campus criticism of Israel's December 2008 assault on Gaza. At the University of California Santa Barbara, ADL-initiated charges were lodged against sociology Professor William Robinson.

The disciplinary action dragged on until June 24th when 100 professors and 20 department heads demanded an end to all proceedings.
By then the damage was done-to the reputation of Professor Robinson, to academic freedom at the University of California and to national security as this campaign silenced academics countrywide. While Robinson's reputation can be restored, the damage to national security is irreparable.

Manipulating Thought

The ADL and the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles coordinated the
assault on Robinson after he shared with students from his globalization website a photo essay critical of Israel. The essay had circulated for weeks on the Internet.

Aaron Ettenberg, a member of the Faculty Senate Charges Committee,
collaborated with Santa Barbara Rabbi Arthur Gross-Schaefer who reviled Robinson in the local community and urged-along with the ADL-that he be disciplined by the university for his "anti-Semitic" behavior.

Chancellor Henry Yang was subjected to threats to withhold funding featuring a campaign led by ADL National Director Abe Foxman and Rabbi Marvin Heir from the Wiesenthal Center.

Professor Ettenberg had served the previous two years as president of the local chapter of B'nai B'rith, an ADL affiliate. Rabbi Gross-Schaefer was director of the local chapter of Hillel, an on-campus ADL affiliate.

Mark Yudof, president of the University of California, opted not to intervene even as this silencing campaign attracted international attention. Yudof's wife, Judith, is the immediate past international president of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism representing 760 synagogues. She is also a director of Hillel.

As with the dominance of Jewish Zionists among neoconservative war-planners, the pro-Israeli bias was all-pervasive. Richard Blum chairs the statewide Board of Regents for the University of California. His wife, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, chairs the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. What was their reaction as this professor was silenced? Silence.

Coincidence or Faith-Based Coordination?

Would a professor and a local rabbi have risked their careers and their reputations absent their confidence that-based on the shared bias of university administrators and government officials-they could intimidate with impunity?

Absent such implied support, would this silencing operation have dragged on for so long?

Absent their silence-with its tacit approval-what might have been the impact of campus criticism when Israel's assault on the captive population of Gaza left 1300 dead, one-third reportedly women and children? Those complicit in this silencing campaign knew the impact on public opinion of student protests against the Vietnam War-particularly on California campuses.

Those concerned about anti-Semitism must explain how this broadly coordinated intimidation campaign was allowed to succeed. In the same way that public opinion was manipulated prior to an invasion that launched the Global War on Terrorism, this campaign sought to deny students the facts required to understand Israel's role in provoking that terror.

Absent access to facts, how can the U.S. preserve a system of self-governance founded on the premise of informed consent? Without facts, how can national security be protected from those who "fix" intelligence in order to deploy the U.S. military for the interests of a foreign nation?

Unless those complicit are held accountable, how will American youth learn the essential role of free and open debate on topics of direct relevance to their lives?

In a representative system of government, the greatest threat to liberty is manipulation of the facts required for informed citizen participation. Anyone who cherishes freedom should be alarmed at the ongoing success of such manipulation and outraged that its common source traces to a purported ally.

Psychological warfare targets knowledge as a means to manipulate thought, opinion and emotion (the "hearts and minds") and thereby influence behavior. At the center of such disinformation is the displacement of facts with false beliefs meant to prod decision-making toward a preset goal. Thus the false reports of Iraqi WMD, Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda, Iraqi mobile biological weapons laboratories and so forth. Thus the high profile assault on a high-profile center of learning to silence a professor who threatened to replace
manipulated beliefs with confirmed facts.

Where U.S. policies toward Israel are at stake, facts are routinely
suppressed to shape debate. Such strategic deceit systematically undermines U.S. national security.

Treason in Plain Sight

Intimidation campaigns have long been a key tool for organized crime and for those whose undisclosed agenda can succeed only when shielded from public scrutiny. Those complicit in such "psy-ops" know their agenda could not prevail in an open debate. They also know that if their treachery is detected they face charges of treason, a capital crime.

That's why this form of treason instead targets knowledge to corrupt the facts required for informed choice. That focus denies those targeted a meaningful choice while leaving intact the appearance of open debate. Meanwhile the perpetrators seek refuge behind the very freedoms they undermine-freedom of speech, press, assembly and religion.

In this case, pro-Israeli operatives silenced on-campus criticism of Israel while Israel committed dozens of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Evidence of those crimes was depicted in the Internet-posted photo essay that the ADL attacked as "anti-Semitic."

What was the strategic result? That assault on Gaza marked yet another
violent provocation guaranteed to catalyze a violent reaction (aka "terrorism"), adding plausibility to the narrative of "militant Islam." The result made the U.S. appear guilty by its association with this criminality.

We then compounded our complicity by covering up the facts when the Congress, dominated by the Israel lobby, overwhelmingly approved a resolution portraying as "irredeemably biased" a chronicle of those war crimes in "The Goldstone Report," a comprehensive account by an eminent Jewish jurist. [See How the Israel Lobby Took Control of U.S. Foreign Policy http://criminalstate.com/2009/07/how-the-israel-lobby-took-co...

The U.S. was doubly damaged. We not only discredited ourselves, we also endangered our national security by condoning criminality destined to provoke more violence directed at our troops.

When such psy-ops campaigns are detected, defenders of democracy must fight back by making the perpetrators transparent and their common motivation apparent. This is how Israel wages war on the U.S. from inside the U.S.-by deceiving us to wage its wars and by provoking others to hate us due to our alliance with religious extremists and their apartheid policies.

Duplicity has long been a weapon deployed to "wage war by way of deception." That's the operative motto of the Mossad, the intelligence and foreign operations branch of the Jewish nationalists who have dominated Israeli politics since a Christian-Zionist president erred in 1948 by recognizing as a legitimate "state" this enclave of Jewish extremists and ultra-nationalists.

Israel specializes in what the Pentagon calls unconventional warfare. Such warfare is only "unconventional" for the targeted population (us). For militant Zionists, this is how war is waged. When your numbers are few and your ambitions vast, deceit becomes an essential force-multiplier.

In the Information Age, why would anyone expect war to be waged in any way other than by deception? Where else but in plain sight could such warfare be waged?

For freedom to prevail against such psy-ops requires a shift in strategic focus. A robust defense would make this manipulation transparent in real time before deception can work its intended impact on public opinion. The dominance of pro-Israelis in mainstream media complicates that task. Media complicity was essential to succeed in the deceit that took the U.S. to war and that now seeks to obscure Israeli war crimes.

A Special Relationship with Fanatics

The Pentagon warned six decades ago that Jewish extremists sought military and economic dominance over the entire Middle East. As the Joint Chiefs of Staff cautioned Harry Truman:

"All stages of this program are equally sacred to the fanatical concepts of the Jewish leaders. The program is openly admitted by some leaders, and has been privately admitted to United States officials by responsible leaders of the presently dominant Jewish group-The Jewish Agency."

Other than religious fanatics, who would deny Americans-including college students-the facts required to make informed choices on an issue as critical as taking the U.S. to war in the Middle East? Other than pro-Israeli publishers and broadcast media owners, who would have the motivation to report as "facts" the phony intelligence that was fixed around Israeli goals?

If not Israel and its Zionist advocates-both Christians and Jews-who would have the means, motive, opportunity and, importantly, the stable nation state intelligence required to corrupt the intelligence that took the U.S. to war? Or to silence academic critics just when those who induced the invasion of Iraq intensified their efforts to expand this war to Iran and now Pakistan?

If the behavior described is not treason, what is? If this is treason, why have those complicit not been charged? Is Professor Ettenberg still employed by the university? If so, why? Have rabbis Gross-Schaefer and Heir been dismissed from their positions of influence? If not, why not?

Why hasn't the ADL's Abe Foxman been indicted? Did he confer with the Yudoffs during this silencing campaign? Has a federal grand jury been impaneled to consider charges of treason? Foxman was invited to the White House for the October 28th signing of the ADL's "model hate crimes" bill. Will that federal legislation now be deployed to lawfully intimidate critics?

Have mainstream publishers and media owners been investigated for their complicity in this national scale fraud on public opinion? If not, why not? Is the Federal Communications Commission moving to revoke the broadcast licenses of those who used the public airwaves to deceive the public? If not, why not?

Are news reports correct that an investment firm run by Richard Blum made more than $100 million on the rising value of its stock in a top defense contractor? Did his firm also invest in media outlets that sold us this war?

In an irony of epic proportions, ADL's amendment to federal hate crimes law was tacked onto an appropriations bill for the Department of Defense. Will the ADL now seek to portray as "anti-Semitic" those who document for a long-deceived military the common source of the psy-ops that took U.S. forces to war in the Middle East?

Will those who repeat the Joint Chiefs' warning about religious fanatics be targeted for federal prosecution? Will allegations of hate be deployed to silence debate? Is treason now lawful?

Jeff Gates is author of Guilt By Association, Democracy at Risk and The Ownership Solution. Author, educator, attorney, merchant banker and adviser to policy-makers worldwide and U.S. Veteran.
Add a comment above

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest

  • Waiting 2009/11/24 15:12:27
    They are not.
  • irish Waiting 2009/11/24 15:14:38
    yes they are. if you silence people for their opinion and call it a hate crime what else is it?
  • Waiting irish 2009/11/24 15:39:55
    I have seen no evidence of that.
  • irish Waiting 2009/11/24 15:43:23
    eyes wide shut.
  • Waiting irish 2009/11/24 16:16:26
    Show me evidence then.
  • irish Waiting 2009/11/24 16:19:21
    read the article. and i might add i do not fall for that assinine nonsense about providing any "proof" . it is a waste of time as people who refuse to understand or want to understand denounce any and all "proof". if you want it look for it yourself.
  • Waiting irish 2009/11/24 16:23:31
    I will accept any proof that is valid. Proof is never asinine.

    It is interesting how you make extreme statements and then when asked to back it up say look for yourself. If I make claims I back them up. I am not afraid to give proof.
  • irish Waiting 2009/11/24 16:28:24 (edited)
    comprehension is your problem then. i did not say proof was assinine. i suggested you read the article again . therein lies proof but you either did not read it or did not understand it. i am not afraid to give proof,and your pathetic attempts to make me feel as if i must won't work. why should i hunt proof for you? if you are interested look for yourself.
  • Waiting irish 2009/11/24 16:38:12
    You are assuming I am not going to understand or want to understand.
    The article is too long to comment on in any degree. It is full of assumptions.
  • irish Waiting 2009/11/24 16:39:49
    i was right,you did not read it nor do you want to read it. i rest my case. if you were truly interested you would have read it.
  • Waiting irish 2009/11/24 16:50:29
    I have skimmed it. It is verbiage describing events from the authors point of view. There are no sources to back anything up.

    For me to be interested I would need to shown there is something worth reading. I have had so many people do the same thing. They make some claim, cut and past something that huge and expect people to read it all and if they do not or criticize it claim the reader for not working hard enough.

    It is your claim and you need to prove it.
  • irish Waiting 2009/11/25 13:12:25
    you do this all the time. no proof is good enough for you. you have no real interest in anything actually. i have noted this before about you. i am not wasting my time.
  • Deere G... irish 2009/11/25 14:40:43
    You can't argue with an idiot........a total waste of time and hard drive memory........
  • irish Deere G... 2009/11/25 14:42:38
    isn't that the truth?
  • Deere G... irish 2009/11/25 15:11:28
  • Waiting Deere G... 2009/11/25 19:15:23
    Then prove I am an idiot.
  • Deere G... Waiting 2009/11/26 02:03:50
    You have already succeeded in that without my help........
  • irish Deere G... 2009/11/26 11:25:25
    well said! many ,many times that person has proven it!
  • Waiting irish 2009/11/26 15:58:46
    I proved over and over that I think for myself and do not except things simply told to me. I proved that I ask for sources and proof and am skeptical about all things. I try to examine everything and come to my own conclusion.
    I also respond to points put forth by people I discuss with and try to answer their questions and very rarely insult people.

    Be well.
  • Deere G... irish 2009/11/27 02:32:38
    Yes I know.......need we say more?
  • Waiting Deere G... 2009/11/26 15:56:16
    If you say so.

    Be well.
  • Waiting irish 2009/11/25 19:14:41
    I have many strong beliefs based on proofs. You assume because I do not accept your "proofs" that I will accept none.
  • Deere G... irish 2009/11/25 14:39:59 (edited)
    Bottomline.......if you commit an act, you're prosecuted......if you look like a duck, you quack like a duck and you walk like a duck then you must be a duck.......the hate crime crap is just another means to silence the discention and opposition.......another piece of Political Correctness crap that soon will paralyze this country of it's freedoms.....hell people were shot in the old West for snoring........let alone if you actually committed a crime.......if the shoe fits, then wear it.......
  • irish Deere G... 2009/11/25 14:44:09
    sad isn't it? the first thing these shills do when they come to a poll is either call you names or demand proof. 2 obvious signs they don't want real answers.
  • Deere G... irish 2009/11/25 15:14:46
    They ignore the realities......they always have.....typical brainwashing that our media and our professors are teaching in our colleges and universities.......yet we as tax paying americans subsidize their salaries and the sad part is, most of'em are full tenured.....you can't get rid of'em.......
  • irish Deere G... 2009/11/25 15:21:02
    that is even worse i fear! that keeps the bad ones teaching for yrs!
  • Deere G... irish 2009/11/25 15:47:20
    You got it......Unfortunately very true.......
  • irish Deere G... 2009/11/25 16:03:11
    and so corruption goes on. http://www.sodahead.com/unite...
  • Deere G... irish 2009/11/25 17:33:18
    And always will I guess......as long as you have the peoples money at their disposal it'll continue.......we need to make these people be held accountable.......
  • irish Deere G... 2009/11/26 11:25:48
    i agree.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2016/02/11 00:28:15

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals