After Michael Brown’s death, Ferguson, USA update


This video from the USA is called Parents Of MURDERED Teen Michael Brown…SPEAK OUT.

By Eric London in the USA:

More arrests in Ferguson, Missouri after police chief “apologizes”

29 September 2014

Tensions in Ferguson, Missouri show no sign of subsiding seven weeks after the police killing of 18-year-old Michael Brown.

In recent days, local police officials have responded to ongoing protests by combining arrests and violence against demonstrators with empty apologies. On Thursday, Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson released a video in which he apologized for leaving Michael Brown’s body on the asphalt for four hours, but did not acknowledge that his killer, Darren Wilson, did anything wrong in shooting the unarmed young man six times.

“Please know that the investigating officers meant no disrespect to the Brown family,” Jackson said, adding to the parents that he was “truly sorry for the loss of your son.”

Brown’s killer has yet to have any charges brought against him. St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch said last week that he does not expect a grand jury to come to a decision on whether to bring charges until mid-November. The grand jury has been granted an extension through early January, meaning that it might not come to a decision for five months following Brown’s killing.

Michael Brown’s father said Saturday in an interview with the Associated Press that “an apology would be when Darren Wilson was handcuffed, processed, and charged with murder.”

Later on Thursday evening, Jackson attempted to address a crowd of demonstrators, saying: “I’m sorry, and I said that from my heart. I had tried to get that off my chest. It’s been sitting there for two months.”

The crowd responded with indignation to Jackson’s apologies, with one demonstrator yelling: “If you are not resigning tonight, go home.”

When Jackson attempted to march with demonstrators, police arrested several demonstrators who expressed their opposition to the chief’s presence.

Jackson’s apology came two days after police attacked and injured several demonstrators who had gathered on West Flourissant Avenue after a memorial for Michael Brown was burned earlier in the day. Missouri State Highway Patrol Captain Ron Johnson said that he ordered the police to clear demonstrators on Tuesday because protestors were yelling and invading officers’ “personal space.”

The dominant sentiment amongst Ferguson police officers is hardly one of regret over the killing of Michael Brown. To the contrary, photos taken by demonstrators reveal that many officers on duty at demonstrations were wearing wristbands bearing the words “I am Darren Wilson” in support of the officer responsible for killing Brown.

Meanwhile, reports of two nearby shooting incidents on Saturday night underscore the continuing scale of social tensions in the suburban Midwestern city.

The first shooting took place at a community roughly two miles from the evening demonstrations on West Flourissant. According to initial reports, a resident fired shots at a police officer who was responding to a burglary call in the area. According to St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar, the officer “was able to get off a couple of shots” and was shot in the arm in the exchange. He is expected to live.

A second incident occurred several hours later, when an off-duty St. Louis police officer said he took fire from another car as he drove down a major freeway that passes through Ferguson. The officer sustained minor injuries.

Few details of the shootings have emerged, with police stating that neither incident was related to the demonstrations. Regardless of the veracity of these claims, the shootings will be used by the police to justify further crackdowns on protestors.

Just minutes after the shooting in Ferguson, dozens of police cars rushed to the area, and police armed with assault rifles took up positions around the perimeter of the scene.

USA Today noted that police went on a ninety minute “manhunt” for the alleged shooter, while Captain Johnson appeared nearby at the scene of protests and ordered the crowd to disperse.

FERGUSON POLICE ADMIT ARREST OF SOME PEACEFUL CITIZENS “St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar, who helped oversee last month’s aggressive response to protests in Ferguson, Missouri, said Monday that communications failures led police to lock up peaceful citizens during daytime hours.” The ACLU is fighting to get rid of the “five-second” or “keep moving” rule that enabled such arrests. [HuffPost]

English Defence League nazi salutes again


This video from Britain is called EDL Nazi Salute Compilation.

By David Peel in England:

Racist Ukip supporters attack protest

Monday 29th September 2014

Stand Up to Ukip march met by nazi salutes, writes David Peel

RACIST fans of Ukip leader Nigel Farage gave nazi salutes as they attacked a peaceful march on the party’s conference by local people opposed to its divisive politics.

Hundreds of trade union members and anti-racists converged on Ukip’s Doncaster conference from across Yorkshire.

People from groups scapegoated by Mr Farage also came from across Britain at the Stand Up to Ukip rally.

Campaign spokeswoman Jo Caldwell told the crowds: “Nigel Farage says he is standing up for the working class in this country.

“But when I look around at all the trade union banners here in Doncaster we know that he does not.

“We must continue to make sure workers’ organisations like the trade unions join us in this fight.”

The peaceful protest faced a barrage of abuse from street thugs who were pictured making nazi gestures — in front of an Israeli flag.

The far-right mob, thought to be members of the EDL, threatened violence and hurled abuse as the demonstration made its way through the town’s narrow shopping streets.

They chanted “paedo, paedo” at demonstrators in a desperate bid to spark violence.

But police moved in to isolate the group as their threats escalated.

Hundreds of Doncaster shoppers stood on the pavements photographing the protest and watching families with children walked past.

Stand Up to Ukip organiser Gareth Sparks told the Star: “The EDL turned up and were chanting “Ukip, Ukip, Ukip.”

Anti-racist protesters replied with chants of “Farage is a banker” and “say no to Ukip.”

Mr Sparks said the 1,000-strong rally was a huge success in spite of the racist attacks.

“I think it went really well, had a lot of people clapping and giving us thumbs up as we went down the streets,” he said.

“It is an amazing sight,” said one student and migrant minimum wage worker, who travelled from London to take part.

Another described it as a “moment of hope” for the many migrant workers contributing to the British economy and keeping the NHS and other public services from complete collapse.

British Islamophobe’s hatred of lesbian rabbi


This video, with Rabbi Elli Tikvah Sarah from England, is called Women in Judaism seminar – Part 1/2.

This video is the sequel.

From daily The Independent in Britain:

What did this lesbian rabbi do to make Julie Burchill mad?

A lesbian Jewish leader says she has endured years of vitriol from the writer renowned for her strident style

Emily Dugan

Friday 26 September 2014

Rabbi Elli Tikvah Sarah had been warned that welcoming one of Britain’s most controversial writers into her synagogue might have its pitfalls.

But when Julie Burchill, who lists “spite” among her hobbies, showed an interest in the Brighton and Hove Progressive Synagogue in spring 2009, the rabbi was keen to give her a chance. “I thought she was a very good writer and I knew she was interested in Jews,” Rabbi Sarah recalls. “I also knew that she was a bit of a loose cannon but… we don’t try to label people.”

Things began well. Burchill attended the Saturday shul regularly and was talking about converting. After a few weeks Rabbi Sarah and her civil partner, Jess Woods, even had the journalist and a friend over for a Shabbat dinner at their home.

But a couple of months later the rabbi got a sharp insight into her new congregant’s views. An email had gone round asking whether people would help with the synagogue’s 75th anniversary celebrations. Burchill replied: “No, because your rabbi respects PIG ISLAM”.

“I could have done a big public exposure,” Rabbi Sarah told The Independent this week. “But what I did was email her and said: ‘Julie, firstly this is deeply, deeply offensive. Both Jews and Muslims don’t eat pig. I don’t know what you’re doing but this is really unacceptable and offensive. I was incredibly polite.”

When this newspaper asked Burchill about the email, she replied: “PIGS AND APES are what some Muslims call Christians and Jews, by the way. Even in school textbooks! Google it.”

Burchill is not Jewish but describes herself as a Philo-Semite,

‘Philo-Semites’ of the Burchill type are basically anti-Semites turned inside out. They want to use Jews as battering ram cannon fodder in their Islamophobic violent crusade fantasies. If Jews don’t want to play along with these delusions, then these Jews become objects of hatred by these ‘Philo-Semites’.

Let us imagine that Islamophobic racists like Burchill succeed in their aim of cleansing all Muslims, supposedly the cause of all problems in Britain, ethnically from the United Kingdom. Then, people would find out there would still be problems. And who would people like Burchill blame for that, now that the Muslims were gone? Wouldn’t they blame ‘the Jews?’

and has become a vociferous defender of Israel. In a book out next month, The Unchosen, she charts her love affair with Judaism – but ends with an acerbic 23-page rant against Rabbi Sarah, whom she dubs “Call-Me-Elli” for her informal style.

In one of many withering put-downs, Burchill writes: “When not boasting about being gay and cool, she was – via the scenic route – boasting about how tolerant she was by ceaselessly ramming the merits of Islam down the collective throats of her captive audience.”

Looking at a copy of the book for the first time, in the home she shares with her partner overlooking the South Downs, Rabbi Sarah is appalled by Burchill’s words. “What do you do about somebody who has such vile attitudes which really stoke Islamophobia?” she asks.

She reads aloud a phrase about her partner Ms Wood, where she is described as “the partner-in-petting during that fateful Shabbat dinner” – and yelps. Burchill makes many more overblown references to the couple’s “canoodling” at the Shabbat dinner and whether it would “turn into a full-on Sapphic free-for-all”.

Rabbi Sarah is mortified. “It’s outrageous. In good faith I invited her into my home. My partner and I – anybody will tell you we’re not like that at all. On Shabbat what you do is greet everyone. Everybody is kissed and she will have been too. If you met my partner – I mean, how were we in our home? We are so not outrageous. We’re so ordinary and boring and middle aged. Do me a favour.”

Burchill’s deconstruction of the meal extends to the drinks the hosts did (and did not) serve, after Burchill brought bottles of champagne. “Surely I started to dislike Call-Me-Elli at the moment she substituted her homebrew for my Veuve Clicquot,” she writes.

For Rabbi Sarah, the critique epitomises the writer’s betrayal of their hospitality. “It’s such an invasion… We served the elderflower [wine] that my partner had actually made,” she says. Burchill is unrepentant, telling The Independent: “I don’t call giving someone home-brewed elderflower filth when they’ve brought two bottles of Bolly ‘hospitality’.”

Rabbi Sarah had tasted public criticism from Burchill before the book came out. In a Jewish Chronicle column in December 2009 the polemicist complained about the rabbi’s sermons, but did not name her. Ms Wood, Rabbi Sarah’s partner, who has an MBE for her charitable work with young LGBT people in Brighton, even took Burchill to the Press Complaints Commission over claims that Christians are persecuted all across the Muslim world. She lost the case because the article was judged to be fair comment.

As one of the first two lesbians to become Rabbis in Britain, 25 years ago, and as a Jewish supporter of a two state solution, Rabbi Sarah is used to being pilloried. But few have made their attacks so personal – or so concerted. Her chief crime, in Burchill’s eyes, was “nagging about the Palestinians” and using “her pulpit to hammer home the joys of Islam”.

The rabbi believes Burchill’s religious views are dangerously simplistic. “The problem is she doesn’t have any in-depth knowledge. I can imagine her endlessly watching the film Exodus with Paul Newman. She’s got a kind of Hollywood view of Jews. You know, ‘Jews are so clever, we’ve survived…’,” she says.

After five years of abuse in print from Burchill, Rabbi Sarah has come to the conclusion that the author is fixated on her. “One has to question Julie Burchill’s psychological motivation,” she says. “Here’s someone who claims she loves Jews who’s actually persecuting an individual Jew. She’s being a persecutor.”

Hitler whitewash by amateur historian Nolte


This video is called Nazi Concentration Camps – Film shown at Nuremberg War Crimes Trials.

By Peter Schwarz in Germany:

An attempt to rehabilitate Hitler

24 September 2014

The magazine the European has made Adolf Hitler the central theme of its latest edition. The Nazi leader’s brightly colored face is displayed on the front page along with the headline: “Hitlertainment: Germany’s Leading Pop Star.” Inside, along with interviews with leading politicians and cultural figures, life style articles, and much that is trivial and tasteless, Ernst Nolte makes an insistent plea in defence of Hitler.

Under the headline “Break the Taboo,” the 91-year-old historian complains that after Germany’s defeat in World War II, Hitler was transformed “from a liberator to the ‘absolute evil.’”

Nolte calls himself ‘a philosopher, not a historian’. He is indeed by training not a historian, but a philosopher in the tradition of Martin Heidegger (a nazi party member until the final collapse of Hitler’s Third Reich in May 1945). So, Nolte is an amateur historian.

After the war, he writes, a “multitude of hate and condemnation” emerged, “which made the one-time ‘liberator’ a representative of ‘absolute evil’ and a ‘taboo’ who could not be spoken about seriously or scientifically.” Nolte adds, “We are still hampered by this one-sided view today.”

Elsewhere, he complains that there is not enough Hitler in contemporary German politics. Hitler, Nolte writes, could appear “as the forgotten representative of tendencies of ‘self-assertion’ that are missing in the official politics of the German government.”

Nolte goes so far as to deny Hitler’s responsibility for the Second World War. The war in 1939 was “provoked not primarily by Hitler, but by the refusal to make compromises on the part of Britain as well as Poland,” he writes.

The “refusal to compromise” was Britain’s and Poland’s refusal to succumb to Hitler’s blackmail by giving up Danzig and the Polish corridor and allying themselves with him against the Soviet Union.

Nolte also praises Hitler’s birth policy, which he describes as a “pro-natal policy.” The Nazis made a high priority of a policy based on German women delivering the Führer a large number of Aryan offspring. This was also the aim of the SS organisation “Lebensborn,” which encouraged the pregnancy of single women because, as SS leader Himmler explained, “due to the fertility of the Russians,” Germany would otherwise be “overrun by them.”

Nolte concludes that Hitler “combated the tendency towards the ‘extinction of the people (Volkstod)’ not without success through a pro-natal policy.” With barely disguised racism, he charges that, by contrast, the “leadership of the German Federal Republic,” in place of promoting German offspring, “tolerate and even encourage a policy of uncontrolled immigration.”

In 1986, Ernst Nolte provoked the so-called “historians’ dispute” (Historikerstreit) in Germany when he played down the crimes of the Nazis and justified Hitler’s policies as an understandable response to Bolshevism. His right-wing views have become more radical since then. In 1998, he wrote in a book that Hitler had “well-founded reasons” to view the Jews as enemies “and adopt appropriate measures.”

That Nolte now openly espouses views previously associated with neo-Nazi circles does not come as a surprise. What is remarkable, however, is that a supposedly serious magazine, not attached to the extreme right-wing spectrum, publishes such a contribution without comment, and this in turn provokes no opposition.

The European has been appearing online since 2009, and since 2012 it has been published four times per year in printed form. Its editor, Alexander Görlach, was previously department head at the political magazine Cicero. With a doctorate in theology and political science, he is well connected politically. He was deputy spokesman for the Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union parliamentary fraction, and spokesman for the Association of Catholic Students. He has worked for several newspapers, radio stations and television broadcasters, and is a member of the Atlantik-Brücke think tank.

Alongside Nolte’s piece, the latest edition of the European features interviews with German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble, veteran Social Democratic politician Egon Bahr, Christian Democratic Union politician Wolfgang Bosbach, the philosopher Rüdiger Safranski, filmmaker Alexander Kluge, economist Thomas Piketty, and the general secretary of the German section of Amnesty International, Selmin Caliskan.

So far, however, none of these individuals seems concerned that his interview appears alongside a polemic calling for breaking the taboo on Hitler.

While Nolte’s more moderate theses provoked strong opposition in 1986, today silence reigns. The only conclusion that can be reached is that ideas long considered extreme right-wing and unacceptable are once again part of the mainstream and viewed as a legitimate contribution to debate.

The European, which calls itself a magazine of debate, is not the first supposedly serious magazine to publicize Nolte. His rehabilitation began in 2000, when he was awarded the Konrad Adenauer prize by the Deutschland Foundation. Then, in February of this year, Der Spiegel opened its pages to him.

Already in Der Spiegel, in an interview with Dirk Kurbjuweit, Nolte claimed, without being challenged, that the Poles and the British were partly responsible for the Second World War because they had not joined sides with Hitler. Berlin-based historian Jörg Baberowski appeared in Der Spiegel as Nolte’s advocate, declaring, “Nolte was done an injustice. He was historically correct.”

How can these attempts to rehabilitate Hitler be explained? It is obviously not just a matter of isolated flukes. Although Nolte’s contribution stands out for its open partisanship in favor of Hitler, the entire edition of the European is organized to give Nolte’s opinions credibility.

The “debate magazine” is conducting a very strange debate. It is not about clarifying what really happened in the past and what lessons are to be drawn for the present. Questions that have occupied generations of serious historians are not touched upon, such as: Who was Hitler? Whose interests did he represent? Who helped him come to power? Why did the workers’ movement fail? Terms such as Auschwitz, Gestapo, war of annihilation, and war crimes are absent.

Instead, Hitler has been transformed into a subjective cipher. The claim “whether we like it or not, Hitler is today a caricature of popular culture,” runs like a thread from the magazine’s first page to its last.

Editor Görlach declares “a de-demonisation is good for our approach to the Nazi period.” There are pieces on “The Monster Next Door” and “The Hitler in Us.” There are over seven pages of uncensored Nazi propaganda in the form of Hitler caricatures from the 1920s with the original comments by Nazi media chief Ernst Hanfstaengl. Nolte’s contribution fits perfectly into this eclectic mishmash.

The fact that the authors and producers of the magazine deal with Hitler in a thoroughly subjective way does not mean that they have no objective motives. The European ’s second major topic is significant in this respect. It is presented under the heading: “The Just War. What would we Germans still kill for?”

The attempt to rehabilitate Hitler is inseparably bound up with the campaign to end Germany’s military restraint, as propagated by German President Joachim Gauck, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and many other politicians and media representatives since the end of 2013.

History is returning with a vengeance. In 1961, Fritz Fischer in his book Griff nach der Weltmacht (Bid for World Power) exposed Germany’s war aims in World War I and proved that the Nazis pursued the same goals in World War II. Today, Foreign Minister Steinmeier—particularly in Ukraine—is walking in the footsteps of his predecessors Bethmann Hollweg and von Ribbentrop. The global crisis of capitalism and the unraveling of the European Union are posing German imperialism with the same tasks it confronted in 1914 and 1939.

Numerous politicians, journalists and academics are attempting to justify the revival of German militarism ideologically. Jürgen Habermas, who led Nolte’s opponents in the historians’ dispute of the 1980s, has been supporting “humanitarian” military interventions since the war against Serbia in 1999. Green Party “anti-fascists” are cooperating with rightists in Kiev who honor Nazi collaborators in the Second World War. They feel the irresistible urge to rehabilitate Hitler. “We must, of course, humanise Hitler,” writes the author Timur Vermes in the European.

Workers and young people should take this as a warning. Those who today call for lifting the taboo on Hitler will have no scruples about repeating his crimes, abroad and at home, tomorrow.

Whether their creators intended them as responses to the resurgence of German militarism or not, two films screened at this year’s Toronto film festival, both set in the postwar period, dealt quite strongly with the devastating consequences of Nazism: here.