The American CIA Didn’t Even NEED to Hire Over 1600 Nazis to Become Pure Evil…

Abolish Terrorist Agencies

By David Swanson, World BEYOND War, July 28, 2019

Every government on earth, beginning with the United States, should shut down and be done with secret agencies, spy agencies, agencies used for murder, torture, bribery, election-manipulation, and coups.

While these agencies prevent the public from knowing what is being done in its name, they do not acquire any knowledge that benefits the public and that couldn’t have been acquired openly, lawfully, through simple research, diplomacy, and law-enforcement actions that respect human rights.

While these agencies occasionally succeed in their criminal enterprises on their own terms, those successes always create blowback that does far more damage than the good — if any — accomplished.

The CIA and all of its relatives in the U.S. government and around the world have normalized lying, spying, murdering, torturing, government secrecy, government lawlessness, distrust of foreign governments, distrust of one’s own government, distrust of one’s own qualifications to participate in self-government, and acceptance of perma-war.

Labeling terrorism “counter-terrorism” doesn’t make it something other than terrorism and doesn’t change the fact that it increases rather than decreases terrorism by others.

We should do something that Woodrow Wilson never did, and take seriously the first of his 14 points: “Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view.” This is as critical a democratic reform as public financing of elections or public counting of paper ballots.

Annie Jacobsen’s latest book is called Surprise, Kill, Vanish: The Secret History of CIA Paramilitary Armies, Operators, and Assassins. It’s based on interviews with former top members of the CIA who simply adore the CIA. The book simply adores the CIA. Yet it remains a chronicle of endless disastrous failure after failure after failure. This is a collection of pro-CIA voices leaking super-top-extra-special-secret information, much of it over 50 years old. And yet there’s not a speck of justification for the CIA’s existence to be found.

Jacobsen’s book on Operation Paperclip, which I reviewed here, told the story of how the U.S. military and CIA hired large numbers of former Nazis. The scandal that one is supposed to see in that story is, apparently, that people had been Nazis, not that they had participated in horrific atrocities, because participating in horrific atrocities is depicted as a courageous and noble service in Jacobsen’s newer book.

There is, of course, a case to be made for the existence of Nazi influence on post-WWII U.S. atrocities. As I wrote at the link above,

“The U.S. military shifted in numerous ways when former Nazis were put into prominent positions. It was Nazi rocket scientists who proposed placing nuclear bombs on rockets and began developing the intercontinental ballistic missile.  It was Nazi engineers who had designed Hitler’s bunker beneath Berlin, who now designed underground fortresses for the U.S. government in the Catoctin and Blue Ridge Mountains.  Known Nazi liars were employed by the U.S. military to draft classified intelligence briefs falsely hyping the Soviet menace. Nazi scientists developed U.S. chemical and biological weapons programs, bringing over their knowledge of tabun and sarin, not to mention thalidomide — and their eagerness for human experimentation, which the U.S. military and the newly created CIA readily engaged in on a major scale.  Every bizarre and gruesome notion of how a person might be assassinated or an army immobilized was of interest to their research. New weapons were developed, including VX and Agent Orange.  A new drive to visit and weaponize outerspace was created, and former Nazis were put in charge of a new agency called NASA.

“Permanent war thinking, limitless war thinking, and creative war thinking in which science and technology overshadowed death and suffering, all went mainstream.  When a former Nazi spoke to a women’s luncheon at the Rochester Junior Chamber of Commerce in 1953, the event’s headline was ‘Buzz Bomb Mastermind to Address Jaycees Today.’ That doesn’t sound terribly odd to us, but might have shocked anyone living in the United States anytime prior to World War II. Watch this Walt Disney television program featuring a former Nazi who worked slaves to death in a cave building rockets.  Before long, President Dwight Eisenhower would be lamenting that ‘the total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government.’ Eisenhower was not referring to Nazism but to the power of the military-industrial complex.  Yet, when asked whom he had in mind in remarking in the same speech that ‘public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite,’ Eisenhower named two scientists, one of them the former Nazi in the Disney video linked above.”

It may be worth noting that all five Democratic members of Congress who just voted for continuing the gravest human disaster currently underway, the war on Yemen, are former members of the CIA and/or military. Total influence means the end of awareness of the influence. While Jacobsen’s book doesn’t document any successes, it exhibits a certain kind of success through the familiar propaganda subtly built into it.

“Every operation reported in this book, however shocking, was legal,” Jacobsen claims, despite acknowledging some 450 pages later the existence of the Kellogg-Briand Pact, and despite noting the existence of the Geneva Conventions and the UN Charter, and despite no doubt being aware that the nations within which the CIA commits many of its crimes have laws forbidding them. Those nations don’t count. They’re made up of nothing but “indigs,” the term used throughout the book for mere indigenous people. On page 164 Jacobsen writes: “The reason for SOG’s [Studies and Observation Group] highly classified nature was that it violated the Geneva Agreement of 1962, the declaration on the neutrality of Laos, which forbade U.S. forces from operating inside the country.” But don’t be shocked or you’ll forget that everything the United States (not just Richard Nixon) does is, by definition, legal.

Jacobsen opens and closes the book by claiming that the purpose of all the horrors recounted has always been to avoid WWIII, but never does she provide the slightest documentation or evidence or logic for that claim. She also claims that smaller-scale murders and sabotage are justified as a “third option” because sometimes war is a bad idea (when isn’t it a bad idea? she never says) and sometimes diplomacy is “inadequate” or has “failed” (when? how? she never says). Wars go on failing on their own terms for decades but we’re never told to resort to diplomacy. What counts as diplomacy failing and justifying a resort to war? The answer is not very little. The answer is: less than nothing.

Of course, Jacobsen also builds her case on the false and unargued claim that Pearl Harbor was a “surprise attack.” In the same paragraph she suggests that Hitler invented the very idea of all-out war without proper rules and decency. She states in one sentence that Reinhard Heydrich was a main architect of the Final Solution, and in the next that he was at the top of a British kill list, as if to imply some connection between the two facts, playing into the propaganda that the allies fought the war to prevent murder. (She pulls the same trick with the nuclear bombings of Japan and the ending of the war, implying a causal connection to any indoctrinated reader.) Of course when the British killed Heydrich, the Nazis killed 4,000 people as revenge, and halted no other activities. Hurray!

From the beginning of the book to the end, the central character, Billy Waugh, is depicted as acting out a childish childhood fantasy about engaging in beneficial and dangerous violence. This is repeated so often that it’s normalized. We’re not supposed to despair that people acting out childish fantasies have been given the power to murder and wreak havoc. We’re supposed to celebrate his good fortune in being able to act out his boyhood dream.

Two weeks after the killing of Heydrich, the U.S. government created the OSS and hauled the residents of what is now Prince William Forest Park outside of Washington, D.C., away from their homes and their land, kicking and screaming, in order to fence off an area in which to practice spying and murdering. What fun! (The area had contained a somewhat hopeful, somewhat integrated community that had prospered during reconstruction and suggested a better path forward, rather than something to brush aside so that grown men could make a game of murder.)

In Jacobsen’s world, the Soviets started the Cold War when Stalin simply inexplicably ceased behaving as a friend. The Russians lost 20 million lives in WWII, by her count, rather than the 27 million more commonly reported (and the Vietnamese later lost 0.5 million rather than the 3.8 million a Harvard/University of Washington study found). But none of those lives had any impact on Soviet policy, in Jacobsen’s telling, which was pure irrational aggression. So, in response to the commies, the CIA was created “to protect U.S. national security interests around the world” — all of which acts of protection somehow failed to make it into Jacobsen’s book.

And then “the unthinkable happened,” as North Korea invaded South Korea. South Korea was ruled by a U.S.-educated puppet who was actively provoking North Korea with his own invasions, but “unthinkable” here doesn’t mean the people involved couldn’t think it; it means that we must not think they thought it. A mentally ill Frank Wisner led CIA efforts in Korea to get thousands of people killed killing thousands of other people to no other effect, before killing himself. Jacobsen believes this left “a black mark” on the agency. Yet, even as white-supremacist an outfit as the CIA, cannot really make a discernable black mark on an edifice of infinite black marks. Jacobsen’s book rolls on through black mark after black mark, unrelenting, yet somehow unaware that there isn’t something there other than the black marks.

Jacobsen promotes as plausible the CIA-idea that Kim Il Sung was an imposter and a soviet puppet as controlled by Stalin in this story as Trump is by Putin in the fantasies of Russiagate. During the war against North Korea, everything that could be imagined done wrong was. Double agents were widely employed and informed. Fighters were trained and parachuted pointlessly into enemy territory by the thousands. No information of benefit to any human population was gathered. The CIA found its own conduct “morally reprehensible” but kept such reports secret for decades in order to do more of the same in other parts of the world. Meanwhile the military thought it could do a better job and created its own criminal groups of special forces and green berets.

“What choice was there?” Jacobsen asks, typically, of the CIA decision to develop guerilla warfare corps. This is in the context of the Cold War paranoia that held that every liberation struggle around the world was a Soviet plot to take over the United States. What choice was there? Would dropping the paranoia have been out of line? In January 1952 the CIA began keeping lists of people to murder around the world. “Murder is not morally justifiable,” the CIA’s own instruction manual admitted. But the point was that “Persons who are morally squeamish should not attempt it,” not that it shouldn’t be done or that moral persons shouldn’t go along with it from their comfortable desks.

When the CIA overthrew the government of Guatemala in 1954 on behalf of exploitative corporations, and not in defense against any threat to the United States, it lied that only 1 fighter, rather than 48, had been killed. This somehow made it a success rather than a failure, and thus a basis for more such crimes. But the blowback, as with the earlier coup in Iran, and the one before that in Syria which Jacobsen doesn’t mention, was extensive. Turning Che Guevara into a revolutionary was the least of it. The coup turned the United States into an enemy of the people of Latin America, whom it fought on behalf of dictatorships for decades to come, generating great suffering, resentment, crime, and refugee crises. After the CIA later murdered Guevara and cut of his hands and mailed them to Fidel Castro, they were brought out to inspire anti-U.S. fighters.

Jacobsen’s telling of the 1953 coup in Iran seeks to justify it in the context of scary Islamic terrorism. She claims “Diplomacy wasn’t working, and military intervention was unwise.” Therefore, thou shalt “legally” overthrow the government. But what did “working” mean? Iran was not bothering the United States in any way. Iran was resisting exploitation by oil corporations. Diplomacy is said to not be “working” not because there isn’t peace, but because some horrible agenda is not being accomplished. Out of this coup came horrendous suffering, militarization, Middle-Eastern hatred of the United States, the Iranian revolution, and the CIA’s lovely (and oh-so-successful) strategy of encouraging religious fanatics as an alternative to atheist commies.

It’s always a struggle to decide whether to interpret world affairs as evil or incompetent. “Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it,” is a quote incompetently attributed to Mark Twain. Jacobsen recounts training exercises in which U.S. government employees acting in our name have parachuted with nuclear bombs strapped to them in pieces, landed, assembled, and pretended to set off or actually set off the nuclear bombs — something they seriously contemplated doing as part of the war on Vietnam and who knows where else. They also advertised such plans in the North of Vietnam as a way of supposedly motivating people to move south and befriend the monsters who were about to nuke the North.

Even when they were not to actually set off the nukes, they practiced using real nukes. Once they accidentally dropped one of these nukes into the sea on the coast of Okinawa. “These kinds of mishaps are always resolved,” says Billy Waugh meaninglessly and falsely — as we know even from those that have not been hidden from us because they’ve happened in the United States. But not to worry, as Jacobsen refers to something comfortingly called a “precision nuclear strike.”

Woodrow Wilson wouldn’t meet with Ho Chi Minh publicly or privately, as the man wasn’t even white. But the OSS trained Ho Chi Minh and Vo Nguyen Giap, who fought the U.S. with weapons the U.S. had left behind in Korea, after Eisenhower was compelled, in Jacobsen’s telling, to stir up violence in Indochina because “diplomacy was out of the question.”

Surprise, Kill, Vanish contains lengthy discussions of crimes committed by Russia and Cuba, presumably meant to somehow excuse crimes committed by the United States. Yet nowhere is there any discussion of turning in the other direction and supporting the rule of law. There are also lengthy discussions of the Secret Service protecting U.S. presidents, presumably meant to make us imagine that there is something defensive about the CIA. And there are very lengthy sections recounting various military actions in detail, apparently intended to make us appreciate bravery even when put to evil ends. Yet, for every Bay of Pigs disaster recounted, there are a dozen more similar disasters.

And each disaster meant well. “Kennedy lost the battle for a democratic Cuba,” Jacobsen tells us, without citing any plan by Kennedy to support democracy in Cuba. Then she quotes Richard Helms suggesting that one or more foreign governments killed Kennedy. No evidence required.

Jacobsen recounts the U.S. murder of one of the many double-agents that U.S. fighters were using against themselves in Vietnam, and spends a great deal of time trying to justify it. Basically, insane ideas like making the guy a trustworthy triple-agent didn’t pass the laugh test, and nothing else could be imagined. Even the existence of prisons had escaped their brains. The U.S. government was even going to prosecute this murder as murder until it understood that in the course of the prosecution it would be forced to reveal much larger crimes. So it dropped the case. But everything was “legal”!

Then, “[t]he cold-blooded, in-plain-sight assassinations of American diplomats inside another sovereign nation’s embassy in Khartoum demanded a formidable response. Except most Americans had zero appetite for getting involved in terrorist disputes overseas.” Those stupid “most Americans.” Didn’t they know that an event could anthropomorphize under the pen of a propagandist and make demands of human beings? What were they thinking? Jacobsen comes back many times to the suggestion that September 11th happened because of U.S. failure to act, rather than because of U.S. complicity in crimes against Palestinians, U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia and the region, U.S. bombings in Iraq, etc.

More so, Jacobsen is intent on making the ridiculous case that the CIA’s many crimes and scandals are not the fault of the CIA because they are the fault of presidents whose orders the CIA was following. “CIA officers simply carry out the wishes of the American presidents they serve.” Well that’s generally true, and they are generally evil and criminal wishes. Blame, I hate to keep breaking it to U.S. culture, is not limited. There’s plenty for the CIA *and* the presidents.

Jacobsen deems William Casey “prescient” for predicting international terrorism in 1981. I think a better word is “prescriptive.” Decades of engaging in and provoking terrorism has results. It doesn’t moronically excuse terrorism. Try to remember that blame is not limited. But it does predictably generate it.

Jacobsen claims that Ronald Reagan’s thugs legalized assassination by renaming it “preemptive neutralization,” thereby placing it under Article 51 of the UN Charter. But can you legalize taking the place and the office of your elected misrepresentative, and sending him or her on a publicly-funded 10-year world cruise, by using the same phrase? Of course not, because you are only you, and because only murder can be “legalized” through nonsense phrases.

But isn’t murder a lesser evil? Jacobsen quotes a CIA employee: “Why is an expensive military raid with heavy collateral damage to our allies and to innocent children okay — more morally acceptable than a bullet to the head?” None of this evil is OK, and which bit is less evil is not a simple question that can be divorced from the full results including the normalization of practices that will be widely imitated.

The closest thing to a beneficial result in the whole book is probably the CIA-facilitated arrest by the French of terrorist Ilich Ramirez Sanchez. But that arrest could be imagined without the use of a lawless agency, whereas the crimes that provoked the terrorism could not — except perhaps by Jacobsen who seems to believe that the Palestinians started each cycle of hostility.

As if the CIA’s pre-2001 record were not catastrophic and reprehensible, there is also what followed. An agency that had no clue about the attacks of September 11th until moments after they happened, when it knew for certain who was behind them, was chosen to lead the way on the wars to come. The CIA gave itself, with a rubber stamp from Bush and Congress, the right to commit any crime. “There was no way to foresee where this would all go,” claims John Rizzo, the lawyer who wrote that the CIA could use “lethal direct action” and could “capture, detain, interrogate.” Rizzo had noooooooooooooo idea that this would mean that anybody would get killed or harmed, any more than Joe Biden had any reason to imagine that telling Bush he could start infinite wars would result in any wars.

The CIA has now led 18 years of catastrophe, including leading the creation of drone wars, fully normalizing small-scale murder. Jacobsen expends many words on the super high qualifications of the extra-elite experts who began the war on Afghanistan. The fact that their disaster has gotten worse for 18 predictable years seems not to make all their titles and qualifications as laughable to some people as they are to me. Many more words explain what a s—hole Afghanistan was, as if an invasion and occupation might have somehow gone well in a nicer place.

People who participated in the Bay of Pigs invasion may have failed too, but when they show up in later wars they are “freedom fighters.” The Iraqis they are attacking are anything but “freedom fighters” of course. And the propaganda used to launch the war on Iraq is merely “the dark side of covert action” — the light side of which we have yet to discover.

In fact “the paradigm was the same” for plans for war on Afghanistan — the same as had been used to great failure in Vietnam. Afghanistan was now invaded by what Jacobsen bizarrely calls “American-led invaders, but invaders nonetheless.” The implication seems to be that Americans cannot actually be invaders, even though they’re — you know — invading, or at least not in a legal sense, because invasions are crimes and the United States doesn’t commit crimes.

At the end of her book, Jacobsen visits Vietnam and walks through a garden where “General Giap and his commanders sat long ago plotting the demise of the United States,” which they most certainly did not. This absurd claim immediately precedes a discussion of U.S. plans to nuke Vietnam. The CIA was advised against parachuting nukes into Vietnam and using them as part of the war by a group of scientists who warned that doing so would result in numerous groups of terrorists around the world seeking to acquire nukes and do the same. This recognition of the power of copy-catism in international criminal affairs is odd here, because it doesn’t show up in all the discussions of the CIA’s development of drone murders or death squads or coups. Why is it only certain crimes the imitation of which should bother us? Clearly it is because other crimes have already been so widely imitated and normalized that they are not questionable anymore, not even crimes anymore.

Here are some lists of CIA accomplishments.

Here is a petition to abolish the CIA.

From Washington’s Blog, here.

מאיר אטינגר: חזון גדול ורעיונות עמוקים – משפיעים יותר מהפוליטיקה

איך להוציא את הפוליטיקה מהחיים שלנו?

האם הבחירות לכנסת והפוליטיקה אכן משפיעות על חיינו? מאיר אטינגר מבקש לשים דגש על העיסוק במהות במקום להישאב לשיח ‘דיעבד’

מאיר אטינגר

ג’ אב תשע”ט – 10:15 04/08/2019

הטור הזה, הוא בעיקר טור אישי, מעין חשבון נפש עצמי בשאלה איך ולמה אפשר להוציא, או לכל הפחות למזער עד כמה שאפשר את השפעתה של הפוליטיקה על החיים שלנו.

השנה האחרונה על שתי מערכות הבחירות רוויות הכותרות והספינים, בניצוחה ועידודה של תקשורת משועממת ויצרית, העמיסה את חיינו בטונות של פוליטיקה מאוסה, גם אלו שלא נוטלים חלק ישיר בפוליטיקה, או משתדלים שלא להתעניין, מתקשים למצוא מקום לברוח.

על אחת כמה וכמה שאלו שכן מנסים לעסוק בענייני ציבור, נוטלים חלק במאבקים ציבוריים, בין אם אלו של שלמות הארץ, שלמות העם או שלמות התורה מתקשים להפריד, להימלט ולברוח. הגבולות בין אידאולוגיה לפוליטיקה היטשטשו מזמן, והשיח הרעיוני מהול ומזוהם בשיח האישי. הרצון העז לשנות ולהשפיע, ייצר סטנדרט חדש של מצליחנות סרגלי מדידה חדשים, וקשה כבר לזכור מה בדיעבד ומה לכתחילה, מה רצינו ולאן הגענו.

ההתכתשויות הפוליטיות, הוויכוחים על חודו של מקום, גם אם מאחוריהם מסתתרת כוונה ראויה, מעלים ריח של צחנה וריקבון. אנשים מוערכים, שקל היה לפרגן להם על המסירות בשביל עם ישראל משני צדדי המתרס, הופכים לנלעגים ומתבזים, השיח הנדרש על אידיאולגיה, חזון ואפילו על הדרך להגשים את החזון, נשאר בצד כשאת הבמה תופסים ספינים, קטטות, ומריבות אגו (לשם שמים – בציניות ובלי ציניות כאחד).

   | האם הבחירות והפוליטיקה אכן משפיעות על החיים שלנו?

בטור הזה ארשה לעצמי לכפור באחת האמונות הרווחות בציבור – האמונה בהשפעתן של הבחירות והפוליטיקה על החיים שלנו.

הציבור הימני – מוכה הטראומה מההתנתקות, רואה בכל מערכת בחירות מערכת גורלית על עתיד ההתיישבות. דא עקא שהוא שוכח שאת המכה הגדולה ביותר הוא ספג כאשר הביא לעצמו את אחד ההישגים הגדולים ביותר. (ממשלת ימין-ימין, ליכוד גדול, 13 מנדטים למפלגות מימין לליכוד),

גם התזכורת התכופה על מה שמכונה ‘בחירות 92’ משכיח מאתנו את העובדה שתהליך אוסלו לא התחיל ולא נגמר בעליית השמאל לשלטון. אין לומר שניצחונו של רבין היה חסר השפעה, אבל חשוב לזכור שהתהליך התחיל אצל שמיר, והמשיך אצל נתניהו, שהיה אחראי על הסכמי וואי, שהיו נוראיים לא פחות ואולי יותר מאוסלו עצמו. באותה מידה מדיניות הימין המוגבלת של העשור האחרון, אינה נזקפת כלל לפוליטיקה. נתניהו אינו יותר ימני משרון, הליכוד של היום אינו יותר אידאולוגי, וגם נציגי המפלגות שמימין לליכוד לא שונים מאלו שהיו בעשור שלפני.

המשיכה לעיסוק בפוליטיקה, דומה להתמכרות להימורים בקזינו, אי אפשר להכחיש את העובדה שניתן לגרוף רווחים נאים יותר בפוליטיקה בזמן יותר קצר, בין אם מדובר בפרסום, ומודעות ברמה כזו שבלעדי הפוליטיקה היתה עולה כסף רב על רכישת שטחי פרסום וכדומה, ובין אם מדובר על הישגים ושינויים מקומיים בחוקים שונים וכדומה, אלא שבאותה המידה שמרוויחים בקלות כך גם העוסקים בפוליטיקה מפסידים בקלות.

קשה לספור את אלו שפזורים בצידי הכביש שנשרו מרכבת הפוליטיקה הדוהרת, אנשים בעלי השפעה, שעלו על הרכבת והתרסקו ממנה. הדמיון שהם יצליחו להועיל יותר מאשר בעבודה הסיזיפית הציבורית, הוביל אותם אל עבר ההתרסקות. ממש כמו אנשים, ככה גם ערכים ורעיונות, כאלו שהתעצבו בבתי המדרש, במוכני המחקר ונאלצו להתקמט לכדי שתי דקות ראיון עם שלושה הפרעות באמצע, הפכו לכלי נשק בתוך סכסוכי אגו, ונשארו בלויים ומרוטים בשולי השיח, כי לא כדאי לדבר עליהם כעת, הם פוגעים במנדטים.

אומנות הפוליטיקה היא אומנות ה’דיעבד’, יתכן והיא נצרכת ומועילה בשולי החיים, אך כשהיא הופכת לסדר היום שלנו, אנחנו הופכים לחיות חיים שה’דיעבד’ הוא לכתחילה.

הביקורת הזאת פחות או יותר מוכרת. הפעם אני רוצה לתהות גם על הנחת היסוד של הרווחיות של העיסוק בפוליטיקה, ולהזכיר שבקזינו – גם כשאתה מרוויח, אתה תמיד יוצא בסופו של יום מופסד. הכוונה היא גם לאותם ערכים ורעיונות שאילוצי הפוליטיקה מאלצים לוותר עליהם בשם הפרקטיקה. אך גם אותם רווחים עצמם שכביכול מקנה הפוליטיקה – פרסום רחב, הופכים עד מהרה לרועץ, כשם שרעיונות חיוביים מקבלים במה נרחבת, כך גם כישלונות אישיים. בסופו של דבר “יעלו שמים – ירדו תהומות”, מדובר לרוב בבמה רגעית, שכאשר נופלים ממנה נשארים בחוסר כל.

התקשורת עושה הכל, כדי להחזיק אותנו במתח, שנרגיש כל הזמן שהעתיד תלוי בידיעה שתצא בפוש עוד חצי שעה. האמת הנעימה והכואבת היא שלכל הספינים והדרמות האלו כמעט אין השפעה על חיינו. כאילו, אם נחזיק בכל המידע הנכון, נוכל לבחור את מה שטוב עבורנו. האמת היא שאחרי כל שטף המידע אנחנו כלל לא מסוגלים לבחור בחירה רציונלית, ההשפעה הפוליטית של אדם, ואפילו של מפלגה, חבר כנסת או שר היא כמו של משחק ברולטה רוסית, מרוב נתונים איש לא יודע ולא מסוגל לדעת מה תהיה תוצאות מעשיו.

השליטה של האדם על תוצאות מעשיו בפוליטיקה מוגבלת מאד, אפשר להזכיר כאן דוגמאות רבות: (מנהיגות יהודית שהעלתה על נס את הליכוד וההתנתקות, מפלגת התחיה המפורסמת, הפילוג האחרון בבית היהודי ועוד ועוד) – אין זה מקרי, היכולת של אדם לנבא את תוצאות מעשיו במערכת רווית נתונים היא מזערית בלבד.

לעומת זאת – דווקא תהליכים קבועים, כאלו שנוצרו מחוץ לפוליטיקה – ייצרו השפעה רבה יותר, גם אם הפוליטיקאים קצרו את התהילה (זה לא מה שחשוב לנו).תהליכי אוסלו מצד אחד ושיח הריבונות מצד שני, לא זה ולא זה היו תוצר של הפוליטיקה, הפוליטיקה בסך הכל קצרה את הפעילות של ארגוני שטח והזירה הרעיונית.

הפוליטיקה, ובמובן זה כמעט ולא משנה מי הן הדמויות, מושפעת מדעת הקהל ולא להפך. הפוליטיקה לעומת זה עיקרה את האפשרות לנהל דיון עומק, שיוכל להוביל תהליך אמיתי של תשובה ציבורית, תהליך שבו עוברים אנשים מגוש אחד למשנהו, ונשאלות שאלות יסוד, שאלות הקיום שלנו.

ומכאן להערה נוספת בעניין הכסף. אחת הסיבות הממריצות יותר מכל אנשים לפוליטיקה, הוא הכסף הרב שנשפך שם – למה הכוונה כסף רב? מפלגה עם 11 מנדטים מקבלת כ50 מליון ש”ח, מפלגה עם 5 מנדטים תגיע בכנסת ל25 מליון ₪ למפלגה. רק כדי לקבל סדר גודל “הקרן החדשה לישראל” שכולם מדברים על השפעותיה על החברה הישראלית, מגייסת בשנה כ-30 מליון דולר. סכום לא גדול בהרבה מהכספים שהיו לליכוד לצרכים פוליטיים. אם נאמר זאת בעדינות, אם נשווה את השפעתה של הקרן החדשה לישראל, להשפעתו של הליכוד, שהפוליטיקה משחיתה כסף, דמיינו לעצמכם היקף פעילות בסדר גודל של ה’קרן’, ועכשיו, תבינו עד כמה לא עושים עם הכסף הזה כלום, כל כך הרבה כסף כדי לסמם אותנו ולהוציא אותנו מטושטשים.

אז מה כן?

ככל שנתאמץ (וזה בהחלט קשה) להוציא את הפוליטיקה מהחיים שלנו, לדחוק אותה אל שולי השיח, ככה נוכל להשקיע את מירב כוחותינו בשינויים האמתיים, אלו שמשפיעים בשטח, אלו שמשפיעים על החברה, ואלו שמכריעים את שוק הרעיונות.

ככל שנצליח לקיים תנועה רעיונית חזקה ויציבה, שתהיה מונעת מחזון גדול ורעיונות עמוקים, נצליח להשפיע ולשנות יותר, גם ללא נציג אחד בכנסת. צאו ולמדו מ”גוש אמונים”, צאו ולמדו מ”תנועת ריבונות” צאו ולמדו מ”שלום עכשיו”.

ככל שנצליח לעקר את שיח ה’דיעבד’ ולעסוק במהות, ככה גם בפועל נצטרך לקבל הרבה פחות החלטות של ‘דיעבד’. אם נבין שלעשייה שלנו ביום-יום, יש פי אלף השפעה מלפתק ששמים בקלפי, נצליח להחזיר את החיים שלנו לאיזון, ואולי אפילו לשפיות.

ובשולי הדברים גילוי נאות:  אני לא מצביע בבחירות – זו החלטה אישית שלי, שראוי לכתוב עליה טור בפני עצמו. למרות זאת –  הדברים שכתבתי למעלה אני מאמין – נכונים גם למי שבוחר ללכת ולשלשל פתק לתיבה.

מאתר הקול היהודי, כאן.

Israel’s Politicized Injustice System: Join Likud; Get Indicted!

‘Israel’s Deep-State’s War Against Netanyahu Claims their Latest Victim’

How can you say, “We are wise, And we possess the Instruction of Hashem”? Assuredly, for naught has the pen labored, For naught the scribes! Jeremiah 8:8 (The Israel Bible™)

“Most people don’t realize that like America, Israel has its own deep-state” explains political analyst Avi Levinger. “This deep-state has infected the most powerful branch of Israel’s government including the Judicial, Foreign ministry, Defense ministry, Education and even Israel’s state-run media. The latest example is Gal Hirsch” he said.

Hirsch has been under investigation for the past four years but as soon as he joined Netanyahu’s party, the police recommended indicting him.

“The Israeli police are run by extreme left-wing activists who would like nothing more than to bring down Netanyahu’s government” Levinger added. Although it may sound like a conspiracy theory, it is actually the sentiments of a man named Boaz Gutman, a retired official in Israel’s police fraud investigation unit.

This is the same unit that investigated Prime Minister Netanyahu on various charges. According to an expose by the Israeli news site Mida, Gutman admitted that the Israeli police, more specifically the National Fraud unit, has a political vendetta against Netanyahu and the right in general. “Many senior police and prosecutors have a pathological hatred for the right-wing, and for Netanyahu in particular. For the most part, they belong to the school of thought that the right-wing government must be taken down along with the Prime Minister” Gutman said.

Gutman even recalls a time when he closed an investigation against Avigdor Liberman, another right-wing politician due to lack of evidence. When that happened, a more senior investigator chastized saying “because of you, the Labor party will not rise to power”.

Gutman goes on to list all of the trumped-up charges the deep-state within the police tried to pull against Netanyahu.  

During his tenure, Gutman provides a list of investigations that had to be closed due to lack of evidence. He names former head of investigations Sandu Mazur, who “rushed to indict Prime Minister Netanyahu. But in the end, the attorney general had to close the case.

He speaks of another investigation Amdi affair in 2000, which tried to nail Netanyahu for receiving gifts had to be closed. Despite the fact that there was no evidence to bring the investigation to trial, Miri Golan, who was then the head of the fraud unit simply ignored his findings and went directly to the media to release a statement saying that they are going to recommend an indictment against Netanyahu.

“There were many closed-door meetings between Israel’s mainstream media and top police officials for hours on end, which leaked intimate details of the investigation to the press. This enabled Israel’s media outlets like Channel 1 to accompany the investigators at the precise time that they would search for Netanyahu” Guttman said.

Gutman also recalls an instance where a journalist named Moshe Lichtman tried to blackmail him to leak information about highly sensitive cases.

Gutman also explains that the police’s agenda to bring down the right is two-fold: utilitarian and ideological. “In the police, the motive is more utilitarian,” he says. “Police officers like to be photographed and enjoy positive media exposure. The best way to achieve this is to please journalists. Every police officer knows what the holy grail for journalists is to witch hunt the Likud and right-wingers as well. If you start an investigation against right-wingers, you take on minimal risk; If the investigation is successful, you will be applauded. If you fail, no one will remember it and you will fall into obscurity (as far as the media goes). On the other hand, if you dare to examine criminal acts of leftists, you will be called a fascist and will be censored by the media. ”

Gutman also argues that “at the same time, there are the ideologues.

Those who are convinced that the right stole the country from them, and whose sole mission is to “restore an ornament”. There are several police officers who hold this view of the world, but it has mainly been controlled by the prosecutor’s office. Liora Galt-Berkowitz, who leaked sensitive data from late prime minister Ariel Sharon’s investigations, was an extreme example of the same school of thought. However, it represented the general mood there. The Prosecutor’s Office despises not only the right but also Netanyahu, who dares to win elections. ”

Gutman laments the “fact that there is a persecution of right-wingers for wrongdoing by means of straw-man investigations and the filing of baseless indictments”.

When asked if anything has changed since he was still on the job, Gutman replies: “Nothing changed. The fact that former investigations unit head Efraim Brachah leaked sensitive details of (the Prime Minister’s wife), Sarah Netanyahu’s wife for fraud and breach of trust.

“People aren’t idiots. The police are the same police. The elites are the same elites and the mainstream media are the same media” Gutman adds.

Is Gal Hirsch the latest sacrificial lamb of the media and their accomplices in the Police?

Gal Hirsch was a brigadier general who commanded the 91st Division of Israel Defense Forces during the 2006 Lebanon War. He as nominated in 2015 to serve as Israel’s next police commissioner. This would have made him Israel’s first police commissioner who came from outside of the police.

“The police did not like this idea one bit” explained political analyst Avi Levinger. It was, for this reason, they opened a straw-man investigation against him. Their message was loud and clear, any outsiders who get appointed to head the police will face the consequences of trumped-up charges”.

Following the announcement of Hirsch’s nomination, Israel’s Police Fraud unit opened an investigation against Hirsch for bribery and tax evasion. The investigation dragged on for four years.

However, less than a week after Hirsch joined Netanyahu’s Likud party, the police recommended indicting him.

The recommendation to indict was on tax evasion only. That’s because the more serious charge of accepting bribes fell through for lack of evidence. And although the police are calling the investigation “strenuous and complicated”, the Likud party released a statement saying sarcastically: “A week after Hirsch announced that he is joining the Likud, the police recommended he stand trial, that’s certainly a coincidence.”

“The deep-state within the police sent a message loud and clear: We appoint our commissioners and no one else” Levinger concluded.

From Israel Breaking News, here.

אפשר לברר: מדוע אין היום שימוש בבדיקת אבהות?

של מי התינוק שנולד: רב העיר הכריע

אישה גרושה ילדה בת, תשעה חודשים בדיוק לאחר שקיבלה הגט – מי אבי התינוקת והאם היא מותרת לכל אדם? • הרב יהודה דרעי התבקש לתת מענה לסוגיה הסבוכה

אלי שלזינגר, ג’ אב תשע”ט 04/08/2019 17:27

ההרכב המיוחד ליוחסין של בית הדין הרבני האזורי בבאר שבע בראשות הראב”ד הרב יהודה דרעי, רבה של העיר, התמודד לאחרונה עם שאלה כבדת משקל.

סיפור המעשה: שני בני זוג התגרשו לפני עשרה חודשים כדת משה וישראל בבית הדין הרבני האזורי בבאר שבע. בסיום המעמד, כמו בכל סיום גט, קבעו הדיינים כי האישה מותרת לכל אדם לאחר תשעים יום.

אלא שלפני חודש, כעבור תשעה חודשים, הופיעה האישה שוב בבית הדין הרבני לאחר שילדה תינוקת ועמה בן זוג חדש – כשהשניים מבקשים לרשום את התינוקת כבתם המשותפת. בנסיבות אלה, כאשר התינוקת נולדה תשעה חודשים מיום הגט ללא שלושה חדשי אבחנה כנדרש – הדבר מעלה חשש הלכתי חמור.

הסיפור המורכב והעדין הופנה על ידי היועץ המשפטי לממשלה להרכב יוחסין מיוחד של בית הדין בבאר שבע. בית הדין בראשותו של הראב”ד דרעי תחקר לעומק את המבקשת, ואת הצדדים ובדק את כל המסמכים הרפואיים והדו”חות.

בפסק דין המשתרע על פני 11 עמודים התמודד הרב דרעי עם שורה של סוגיות הלכתיות הנוגעות לנסיבות המיוחדות. לאחר שסקר את ההיסטוריה ההלכתית בנושא מימי השולחן ערוך ועד פוסקי דורנו, הוא פסק כי למרות שהתינוקת נולדה ללא חודשי אבחנה ותשעה חודשים מיום הגט – הרי היא בתו של בן הזוג החדש והיא כשרה לבוא בקהל ומותרת להינשא כדת משה וישראל לכל אדם ואפילו לכהן.

עורך הדין אורי נחמני מומחה לדיני משפחה מגיב: “בדיקה גנטית אמורה להיות הפתרון הקל והפשוט, אך על מנת למנוע מקרה של ממזרות, ברגישות הראויה בית הדין קובע בביסוס ראוי כי אין חשש ממזרות, חשוב להבין כי הממזר (וצאצאיו) אינו רשאי לשאת יהודיה כשרה, והוא רשאי להינשא רק לממזרת, לשפחה או לגיורת. אך מכיוון שהאיסור על הממזר לשאת כשרה הוא רק איסור לאו, אם הממזר מתחתן עם כשרה, הנישואין תופסים, וגירושין חייבים להיעשות בגט”.

“אין הבדל בין זכר לנקבה לעניין ממזרות. זו הסיבה שבתי הדין למשפחה אינם ששים לקיים בדיקת אבהות ומסתפקים בבחינה של בני הזוג באמצעות שאלונים,בחינת ההיריון וקיבעות הלכתיות כיוון שבכל הנוגע לנישואים חלים במדינת ישראל דיני ההלכה, ממזר אינו רשאי להתחתן בישראל אלא עם ממזרת או גיורת. למימוש הגבלה זו מנהלת הרבנות הראשית רישום של ממזרים.”

מאתר בחדרי, כאן.

Here’s Why You Can No Longer Find Home Remedies Online

Google Is Burying Alternative Health Sites to Protect People from “Dangerous” Medical Advice

For their unorthodox views, some physicians are being treated as medical heretics. Google’s search engine algorithm has essentially ended traffic to their websites.

In Ray Bradbury’s classic novel Fahrenheit 451, firemen don’t put out fires; they create fires to burn books.

The totalitarians claim noble goals for book burning. They want to spare citizens unhappiness caused by having to sort through conflicting theories.

The real aim of censorship, in Bradbury’s dystopia, is to control the population. Captain Beatty explains to the protagonist fireman Montag, “You can’t build a house without nails and wood. If you don’t want a house built, hide the nails and wood.” The “house” Beatty is referring to is opinions in conflict with the “official” one.

If you don’t want a man unhappy politically, don’t give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none. Let him forget there is such a thing as war. If the government is inefficient, top-heavy, and tax-mad, better it be all those than that people worry over it.

When making decisions, we often face conflicting theories. Daily, we face choices about what to eat. Although the government issues ever-changing dietary guidelines, thankfully, the marketplace supports personal dietary decisions ranging from carnivore to vegan. We are free to choose our diet based on our evaluation of the available evidence and the needs of our bodies.

When we face health issues, decisions become tougher. There is an orthodox opinion, and there are always dissenting opinions. For example, the orthodoxy recommends statins to reduce high cholesterol. Others believe high cholesterol is not a health risk and that statins are harmful.

Nobel laureate in economics Vernon Smith was taking a prescribed statin and recently observed the impact it was having on him:

In the last week I had a very clear (now) experience of temporary memory loss. I did a little searching and found this article summarizing and documenting the evidence over many years.

Smith continues,

Such incidents have been widely reported, but the problem did not arise in any of the clinical trials, but neither were they designed to detect it.

Smith had to weigh the purported benefits against the side effects:

Statin effectiveness in reducing heart/stroke events needs to be weighed against this important negative. Since I am actively writing, this is a primal concern for me, and I have stopped taking it.

A free person understands that there is no one “best” pathway. Although experts have knowledge, a free person takes responsibility, makes a choice, and bears the consequences. We never know what the consequences would have been had we made a different choice.

Some people don’t like to take responsibility for health choices. They prefer to do what they’re told by the doctor.

“Do you understand now why books are hated and feared?” asks Ray Bradbury’s character Professor Faber in Fahrenheit 451. Faber responds to his own rhetorical question:

Because they reveal the pores on the face of life. The comfortable people want only wax moon faces, poreless, hairless, expressionless.

Bradbury is reminding us that life is messy. Often there is no comfortable one-size-fits-all solution to the challenges we face.

Despite the evidence against statins, the medical orthodoxy would like you to believe that those who question statins are being hoodwinked by fake news. The orthodoxy wants you to believe there is one size for all.

There are good reasons to be concerned that we are losing access to information with which to evaluate opposing sides of health issues.

Duke University’s Dr. Ann Marie Navar is the Associate Editor of JAMA Cardiology. In her article, “Fear-Based Medical Misinformation,” she rails against the “fake medical news and fearmongering [that] plague the cardiovascular world through relentless attacks on statins.”

She writes many patients remain concerned about statin safety. In one study, concerns about statin safety were the leading reason patients reported declining a statin, with more than one in three patients (37 percent) citing fears about adverse effects as their reason for not starting a statin after their physician recommended.

Dr. Navar takes the position that concerns about safety are “fake medical news,” spread in part by ignorant patients via social media. Don’t worry, she counsels, reports are incorrect when they claim “that statins cause memory loss, cataracts, pancreatic dysfunction, Lou Gehrig disease, and cancer.”

Fake news? Dr. David Brownstein (no relation) disagrees:

The Physicians Desk Reference states that adverse reactions associated with Lipitor include cognitive impairment (memory loss, forgetfulness, amnesia, memory impairment, and confusion associated with statin use). Furthermore post-marketing studies have found Lipitor use associated with pancreatitis. Other researchers have reported a relationship between statin use and Lou Gehrig’s disease. Finally, peer-reviewed research has reported a relationship between statin use and cataracts. Statins being associated with serious adverse effects has nothing to do with fake news. These are facts.

To be sure, more physicians would agree with Dr. Navar than Dr. Brownstein, but should treatments be dictated by those on one side of the argument? After all, due to human variability, statins may both save some lives and impair or kill other people.

With some doctors questioning whether to prescribe statins for everyone, there is a large financial incentive to stifle debate.

Can you imagine a future government-controlled health care system, completely captured by the pharmaceutical industry, mandating statins for everyone? I can.

There are good reasons to be concerned that we are losing access to information with which to evaluate opposing sides of health issues, like the statin debate. Already Google is “burning” sites that question the medical orthodoxy about statins.

Mercola.com, operated by Dr. Joseph Mercola, is one of the most trafficked websites providing alternative views to medical orthodoxy. If I were researching statins, I would certainly read several of the numerous essays questioning statin use and the cholesterol theory of heart disease. Essays at Mercola.com usually provide references to medical studies. Personally, since Dr. Mercola sells supplements and I am a supplement skeptic, I read his essays—like I read all medical essays—with a grain of salt.

Dr. Kelly Brogan is a psychiatrist who has helped thousands of women find alternatives to psychotropic drugs prescribed to treat depression and anxiety. In her book, A Mind of Your Own: The Truth About Depression and How Women Can Heal Their Bodies to Reclaim Their Lives, Brogan reports that one of every seven women and 25 percent of women in their 40s and 50s are on such drugs. She explains,

Although I was trained to think that antidepressants are to the depressed (and to the anxious, panicked, OCD, IBS, PTSD, bulimic, anorexic, and so on) what eyeglasses are to the poor-sighted, I no longer buy into this bill of goods.

For their unorthodox views, Dr. Brogan, Dr. Mercola, and others like them are treated as medical heretics. Dr. Brogan and Dr. Mercola have documented (here and here) how a change in Google’s search engine algorithm has essentially ended traffic to their websites.

From time to time, Google updates algorithms determining how search results are displayed; there is nothing inherently nefarious in such actions. Google has achieved its market position by doing a better job than other search engines.

According to Dr. Mercola, before Google’s most recent June 19 algorithm update,

Google search results were based on crowdsource relevance. An article would ascend in rank based on the number of people who clicked on it.

After their June 19 algorithm update, Google is relying more on human “quality” raters. Google instructs raters that the lowest ratings should go to a “YMYL page with inaccurate potentially dangerous medical advice.” YMYL stands for “Your Money or Your Life.” Google says,

We have very high Page Quality rating standards for YMYL pages because low-quality YMYL pages could potentially negatively impact users’ happiness, health, financial stability, or safety.

Does that sound reasonable? If a site argues for treatments other than the medical orthodoxy then, by definition, the site can arouse readers’ cause for concern and, for some people, unhappiness. Do we really want Google to assume the role of Bradbury’s firemen?

Google wants to protect you from conflicting opinions. And if you don’t think that’s a problem, imagine sometime in the future when searching for information on monetary policy you only find results for Modern Monetary Theory.

Google thinks its intention to “do the right thing” is enough to prevent abuses; some Google employees would disagree.

Google is not eliminating access to alternative health pages; it is making it harder to find them. Typical health searches will still generate plenty of “facts,” just not conflicting facts. In Fahrenheit 451 Captain Beatty explains the government’s strategy: “Give the people contests they win by remembering the words to more popular songs or the names of state capitals or how much corn Iowa grew last year.”

Instead of “conflicting theory,” Captain Beatty explains the strategy is to “cram” the people “full of noncombustible data, chock them so damned full of ‘facts’ they feel stuffed, but absolutely ‘brilliant’ with information.”

Filled with “facts,” Captain Beatty explains, people will “feel they’re thinking, they’ll get a sense of motion without moving.” Beatty assures Montag that his fireman role is noble. Firemen are helping to keep the world happy.

The important thing for you to remember, Montag, is we’re the Happiness Boys, the Dixie Duo, you and I and the others. We stand against the small tide of those who want to make everyone unhappy with conflicting theory and thought. We have our fingers in the dike. Hold steady. Don’t let the torrent of melancholy and drear philosophy drown our world. We depend on you. I don’t think you realize how important you are, to our happy world as it stands now.

The only way Google will maintain its dominance is to continue to meet the needs of consumers. Whether Google continues to “burn” websites is up to us. Google will continue to sort out unorthodox views as long as “we” the consumer continue to rely on Google’s search engine.

From FEE, here.