Wednesday, May 12, 2021

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: He Would Be Canceled in Today’s America

 

Source: https://codoh.com/library/document/aleksandr-solzhenitsyn-he-would-be-canceled-in-tod/en/

 

by John Wear

Published: 2021-05-08

 

Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn (1918-2008) was one of the greatest literary and political figures of the 20th Century. For the first 25 years of his life, Solzhenitsyn was an ardent supporter of Vladimir Lenin’s Soviet Revolution. In fact, by 1938 Solzhenitsyn’s enthusiasm for Communism had grown to the point of obsession. As a youth, Solzhenitsyn even declared, “I would gladly give my life for Lenin.”[1]

 

This article documents how Solzhenitsyn eventually became an outspoken critic of Soviet Communism, as well as his conclusion that Jews were primarily responsible for the Bolshevik Revolution.

 

Early Years

 

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was born into an environment of chaos and suffering that rivaled anything he experienced in his later life. His young father died six months before his birth in excruciating pain from wounds received in a hunting accident. His grief-stricken mother rejoined her family in a nearby summer resort, only to find herself in the middle of a vicious battle then raging between Reds and Whites in Russia’s Civil War. Lenin and his band of Bolsheviks were fighting ferociously to consolidate their power, and the whole of Russia was awash in blood.[2]

 

Solzhenitsyn’s youth was one of hardship, privation and poverty. For the first 23 years of his life, Solzhenitsyn did not know the inside of a house; he lived in huts with no running water. These huts were constantly assailed by the cold, and there was never enough fuel to keep him warm. Food shortages were common, and after the starvation of the 1930s, ordinary food shortages were only a minor problem. Solzhenitsyn regarded all of these hardships as normal, since the poverty and hunger he experienced as a youth were widespread in the Soviet Union.[3]

 

Solzhenitsyn at the Age of 12 joined the Young Pioneers, which was the junior auxiliary of the Communist Party’s youth movement, the Komsomol. Like most of his friends, Solzhenitsyn passed automatically from the Young Pioneers to the Komsomol in his 10th and final year at school. Earnest and intense by nature, Solzhenitsyn studied Marxism-Leninism with an enthusiasm and energy typical of his eager spirit. He later wrote about his interest in Communist Party doctrine: “I was absolutely sincerely enthralled by it over a period of several years.” Solzhenitsyn became a Marxist, a Leninist and a Communist.[4]

 

Despite his interest in literature, Solzhenitsyn chose to study physics and mathematics when he entered Rostov State University. His secret ambition had been to go to Moscow and study literature. However, concern for his mother, who was suffering from tuberculosis and in very poor health, held him back. Solzhenitsyn was an outstanding student at the university, receiving top marks in all his examinations. He was awarded during his last year at the university one of the newly created Stalin scholarships for outstanding achievement. This scholarship carried a stipend two-and-a-half times greater than the usual grant.[5]

 

Solzhenitsyn seemed on the threshold of a brilliant career. As an outstanding student in physics and mathematics, he could look forward to the pick of the best jobs available. However, he opted for the modest post of a village schoolteacher, turning down the higher-paying jobs and glittering prizes that were within his reach. Bursting with enthusiasm and, above all, great literary talent, Solzhenitsyn was determined to pursue his dream of becoming a published writer.[6]

 

War Service

 

Shortly after Germany invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, Solzhenitsyn attempted to enlist in the Soviet military. However, his medical examination resulted in a classification of “limited fitness” due to an abdominal disability, the result of a groin disorder in infancy that had gone undetected. While his friends marched to war, Solzhenitsyn was dispatched to the Cossack settlement of Morozovsk to work as a school teacher.[7]

 

By mid-October 1941, Moscow was threatened and the German advance seemed irresistible. Under these dire circumstances, all classifications of fitness were cast aside and Solzhenitsyn was drafted into the Soviet Army. Solzhenitsyn spent a half-year as a downtrodden soldier before being accepted into officer training school. He disliked officer training, saying “they trained us like young beasts so as to infuriate us to the point where we would later want to take it out on someone else.” However, Solzhenitsyn completed officer training and was promoted to the rank of first lieutenant in October 1942. He reached the rank of captain in June 1944.[8]

 

Solzhenitsyn experienced his first combat in the summer of 1943 in battles at Kursk and Orel. He was awarded the Order of the Patriotic War, second class, for his part in the battle at Orel. Solzhenitsyn in 1944 found himself in the middle of some of the bloodiest battles on Germany’s eastern front. Inexorably, the Soviet Army advanced until it triumphantly crossed the Polish border. Solzhenitsyn was aghast at the brutalities the Soviet Army committed against captured Soviet citizens who had chosen to fight for the Germans. Experience was slowly making Solzhenitsyn question the Soviet communist system he had embraced as a youth.[9]

 

Solzhenitsyn also abhorred the violence and atrocities committed by the Soviet Army when it reached Germany. In a hate-filled address, Stalin had told the Soviet troops to wreak vengeance on Germans for all that Russia had suffered during the war. Rape, pillage and plunder were all condoned by Stalin. Repelled by Stalin’s incitement to greed and cruelty, Solzhenitsyn lectured his men on the need to exercise moderation and restraint. However, Solzhenitsyn’s words fell on deaf ears. As the Soviet Army marched into Germany, it was Stalin’s vision that became reality.[10]

 

Solzhenitsyn described the entry of his regiment into East Prussia in January 1945: “For three weeks the war had been going on inside Germany and all of us knew very well that if the girls were German they could be raped and then shot. This was almost a combat distinction.”[11] Solzhenitsyn was a committed opponent of such atrocities, and vocally opposed the rape of German women.

 

Solzhenitsyn’s fortunes took a catastrophic turn when he received a telephone call from brigade headquarters on February 9, 1945. He was ordered to report at once to the brigadier-general’s office. Solzhenitsyn was arrested and sent to prison for derogatory comments he had made about Stalin in correspondence to a friend. He later said his arrest was a defining moment in his life, which was crucial “because it allowed me to understand Soviet reality in its entirety and not merely the one-sided view I had of it previous to the arrest.”[12] Solzhenitsyn became an outspoken opponent of Marxism after his imprisonment in the Soviet Gulag.[13]

 

Imprisonment

 

Solzhenitsyn was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment and sent in August 1945 to Butyrka Prison in Moscow. He was soon transferred to the Krasnaya Presnya transit prison in Moscow, which was in the heart of the Soviet prison system. On August 14, 1945, Solzhenitsyn and 60 other political prisoners were transferred to Novy Ierusalim (New Jerusalem) 30 miles west of Moscow. It was at New Jerusalem that Solzhenitsyn got his first bitter taste of the physically exhausting and crushing labor regimen in the Soviet camps.[14]   

 

Solzhenitsyn was transferred out of New Jerusalem when it became a camp for German prisoners of war. He spent the next 10 months doing forced labor at Kaluga Gate in Moscow, and was then transferred back to Butyrka Prison for two months. Solzhenitsyn was temporarily saved from the hardships and drudgery of the forced-labor camps by his degree in mathematics and physics from Rostov University. He was recategorized as a “special-assignment prisoner,” and was sent to several special prison institutes, known as sharashkas, for scientific research.[15]

 

The relative comfort of being a special-assignment prisoner ended on May 19, 1950 when Solzhenitsyn was transferred back to Butyrka Prison. Solzhenitsyn then began a long and insufferable two-month journey across the Soviet Union to the Ekibastuz Labor Camp, deep in the semi-arid steppes of Kazakhstan. At Ekibastuz he experienced starvation rations, cruelty and bullying, and manual labor amidst the cold icy winds which slashed across the steppe. In addition to this incredible suffering, Solzhenitsyn was diagnosed on January 30, 1952 with cancer and admitted to the camp hospital.[16]

 

Solzhenitsyn eventually made a complete recovery after an operation to remove the cancer. His close encounter with death from cancer, combined with his experiences as a front-line soldier and his subsequent imprisonment, had helped Solzhenitsyn to recognize God. Solzhenitsyn later said: “When at the end of jail, on top of everything else, I was placed with cancer, then I was fully cleansed and came back to a deep awareness of God and a deep understanding of life.” Solzhenitsyn also resolved to tell the full truth about life in Stalin’s prison camps.[17]

 

Solzhenitsyn was released from prison on February 13, 1953, four days after the official end of his sentence. He was hired in April 1953 as a teacher of math and science at a local school. Solzhenitsyn survived a second bout with cancer, and was declared politically rehabilitated following a session of the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the USSR on February 6, 1956. Having been strengthened and purified by his time in prison and bouts with cancer, Solzhenitsyn was primed and ready to explode onto an unsuspecting literary world.[18]                           

 

Literary Success

 

Solzhenitsyn wrote a short novel titled One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich describing some of his labor-camp experiences. He didn’t risk showing this novel to any editors until after Nikita Khrushchev’s second de-Stalinization speech in the fall of 1961. Khrushchev, who apparently only superficially glanced at this book, approved its publication because he thought it could be used as an effective weapon against his Stalinist adversaries. Solzhenitsyn’s book became an international bestseller when it was published in November 1962. Many Russian readers wept over its pages, while foreigners were shocked by its stark revelations.[19]

 

Solzhenitsyn managed to publish two short stories immediately after his success with Ivan Denisovich. However, Khrushchev was overthrown in October 1964 in a palace coup that placed Leonid Brezhnev at the head of the Soviet Communist Party. Brezhnev began reversing Khrushchev’s reforms, and Solzhenitsyn had many of his manuscripts confiscated by the security services.[20]

 

Solzhenitsyn managed to smuggle both volumes of his new novel, Cancer Ward, as well as some other books to the West. He forged an international reputation as Russia’s greatest living writer. Unfortunately, the new head of the KGB, Yuri Andropov, considered Solzhenitsyn to be a subversive. Andropov drafted a decree for the Politburo to deprive Solzhenitsyn of his citizenship and expel him from the Soviet Union. Consequently, when Solzhenitsyn won the 1970 Nobel Prize in Literature, Solzhenitsyn decided not to go to Stockholm to receive his prize because he feared he would be barred from returning to the Soviet Union.[21] 

 

Solzhenitsyn continued to experience literary success, and he became a world-famous living symbol of the struggle for human rights in the face of state censorship. His historical novel August 1914, which was published in the West on June 11, 1971, denounced all Marxism as evil.  Solzhenitsyn’s work was translated into 35 languages during 1972. When a copy of Solzhenitsyn’s book The Gulag Archipelago was discovered by Soviet authorities, Solzhenitsyn decided to publish it in the West as soon as possible. The Soviet authorities were enraged when the first volume of The Gulag Archipelago was published in Paris in December 1973. Solzhenitsyn had become a traitor in the eyes of the Soviet leaders.[22]                                     

 

Exile

 

On February 13, 1974, Solzhenitsyn was formally charged with treason and expelled from the Soviet Union. The United States, Great Britain and many other nations told Solzhenitsyn he would be welcome to reside in their countries if he wished. Solzhenitsyn chose Zurich, Switzerland as his initial place of residence. From Zurich, Solzhenitsyn traveled to Stockholm in December 1974 to finally collect his Nobel Prize in Literature.[23]

 

Solzhenitsyn moved to the United States two years later during the summer of 1976. He arrived in America at a time when Americans were struggling for an adequate response to a perceived Soviet threat. As a Nobel laureate and dissident, who had quite literally put his life on the line in a mesmerizing duel with Soviet authorities, Solzhenitsyn inevitably attracted the interest of influential Americans. He was asked by numerous prominent members of Congress, labor leaders, and members of the Western mass media to comment on democracy and American political life.[24]

 

In two separate speeches at AFL-CIO banquets, Solzhenitsyn alerted his audiences to the expanding communist menace. Solzhenitsyn stressed the unscientific and specious nature of Marxism-Leninism, as well as its lethal and aggressive nature. He warned that only firmness makes it possible to withstand the assaults of communist totalitarianism.[25] 

 

Solzhenitsyn resided in south-central Vermont throughout 1977 and the first half of 1978 while working on a multi-volume historical novel. He unexpectedly was asked to deliver the commencement address at Harvard University on June 8, 1978. Solzhenitsyn accepted Harvard’s invitation, and in a televised address before 15,000-20,000 guests, he made some extremely frank and critical comments on the state of the West. Among other things, Solzhenitsyn criticized the Western media, which “miseducates” public opinion and fails to provide the in-depth analysis which society needs.[26]

 

Solzhenitsyn in his Harvard address also mentioned the striking decline in courage in the West. He said this decline in courage was particularly noticeable among the ruling and intellectual elites, which gave an impression of a loss of courage by the entire society.  Solzhenitsyn said that while there were many courageous individuals in Western society, they had no determining influence on public life. Solzhenitsyn noted that from ancient times declining courage in a civilization had been the first symptom of its end.[27]

 

While rejecting socialism as an alternative to Western society, Solzhenitsyn also rejected the West as a model for the Soviet Union. Solzhenitsyn said that through deep suffering, his people had achieved a spiritual development of such intensity that the Western system in its present state did not look attractive. The insidious corruption of commercial advertising, TV stupor, intolerable music, and lack of spirituality in the West would not be attractive to the Soviet Union’s citizens.[28] Solzhenitsyn had become disillusioned with what he considered was the spiritual vacuum of the materialistic West.

 

Solzhenitsyn had a deep-seated disdain for the Western media, which he revealed in his interview with Sixty Minutes. When asked to respond to an American commentator who had branded him “a freak, a monarchist, an anti-Semite, a crank, a has-been, not a hero,” Solzhenitsyn replied:

 

The Western press works in the following way: they don’t read my books. No one has ever given a single quotation from any of my books as a basis for these accusations. But every new journalist reads these opinions from other journalists. They have been just as spiteful to me in the American press as the Soviet press was before.[29] 

 

Return Home

 

Although Solzhenitsyn had been kicked out of Russia, he always loved Russia and wanted to return to his native country. On August 16, 1990, Solzhenitsyn’s Russian citizenship was  restored almost 17 years after it had been taken away from him. Solzhenitsyn returned to Russia on May 27, 1994, for the first time in more than 20 years.[30]

 

The Russia Solzhenitsyn returned home to was transforming from communism in poor and deteriorating circumstances. Western culture and multinational corporations were moving in, with Western restaurants such as McDonalds ubiquitous in the cities. Solzhenitsyn expressed his dismay at Russia’s cultural decline in a speech he made at Saratov University in 1995. Solzhenitsyn said: “We are still holding together as a single unified country, but our cultural space is in shreds.” Solzhenitsyn later said he would refrain from voting for either Yeltsin or his Communist opponent, as neither candidate was worthy of being elected.[31]

 

After extensive research, Solzhenitsyn realized that the Russian Revolution was primarily perpetrated by Jews, most of whom were imported into Russia from other countries. He said in 2002:

 

You must understand. The leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians. They hated Russians. They hated Christians. Driven by ethnic hatred they tortured and slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of human remorse.

 

The October Revolution was not what you call in America the “Russian Revolution.” It was an invasion and conquest over the Russian people. More of my countrymen suffered horrific crimes at their bloodstained hands than any people or nation ever suffered in the entirety of human history.

 

It cannot be overstated. Bolshevism committed the greatest human slaughter of all time. The fact that most of the world is ignorant and uncaring about this enormous crime is proof that the global media is in the hands of the perpetrators.[32]

 

Solzhenitsyn wrote a two-volume nonfiction work titled Two Hundred Years Together. The first volume, published in 2001, was Russian-Jewish History 1795-1916 and ran to 512 pages. The second volume, which was published in 2002, was a 600-page investigation titled The Jews in the Soviet Union.[33] This second volume exposed the predominantly Jewish constitution of the Bolshevik Revolution. No English-language translation of this work has been commercially published, and the only version of it offered on Amazon is the original Russian, at $978 as of May 2021.

 

Solzhenitsyn lived out his final years in Russia. On June 5, 2007, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree conferring the State Prize of the Russian Federation upon Solzhenitsyn for his humanitarian work. Putin, who personally visited the writer at his home to give him the award, said about Solzhenitsyn: “His activities as a writer and public figure, his entire long, thorny life journey will remain for us a model of true devotion, selfless service to the people, motherland, the ideals of freedom, justice and humanism.” Solzhenitsyn died August 3, 2008 near Moscow at Age 89.[34]                                     

 

Conclusion

 

Solzhenitsyn had an intense sense of mission about his literary work. He felt it was his ethical duty to publicly expose the Soviet Union’s shocking and murderous gulag system. One of the particulars of Solzhenitsyn’s literary genius was his overwhelming willpower. French author Nikita Struve wrote:

 

But Solzhenitsyn’s fate, life and work are characterized above all by will. To survive four years at the front, live through the Soviet concentration camps, overcome serious illness, struggle to become a writer, gain a world reputation against inhuman odds, and finally unswervingly to follow his path—all this is a miracle of rare willpower.[35]

 

It is widely recognized that Solzhenitsyn had a major influence on the modern world. There is broad agreement that no other book contributed more directly and forcefully to the collapse of the Soviet Union than his book The Gulag Archipelago.[36]

 

Solzhenitsyn’s suffering and literary genius enabled him to expose the evils of Soviet Communism. Dr. David Duke writes about Solzhenitsyn: “He was a victim of Bolshevism and through his literary genius he laid bare the most horrific killing machine in all of world history.”[37]

 

A version of this article was originally published in the March/April 2021 issue of The Barnes Review.


Endnotes

 

[1] Thomas, D.M., Alexander Solzhenitsyn: A Century in His Life, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998, pp. 13, 59, 75.

 

[2] Scammell, Michael, Solzhenitsyn: A Biography, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1984, p. 25.

 

[3] Ibid., pp. 73-74.

 

[4] Ibid., pp. 64, 87, 92.

 

[5] Ibid., pp. 85-87, 106.

 

[6] Ibid., pp. 107-108.

 

[7] Pearce, Joseph, Solzhenitsyn: A Soul in Exile, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2001, pp. 48-49.

 

[8] Ibid., pp. 52-53.

 

[9] Ibid., pp. 56-60.

 

[10] Ibid., p. 61.

 

[11] Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr I., The Gulag Archipelago, 1918-1956: An Experiment in Literary Investigation (Vol. 1), New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1974, p. 21.

 

[12] Pearce, Joseph, Solzhenitsyn: A Soul in Exile, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2001, pp. 68-70.

 

[13] Feuer, Kathryn (editor), Solzhenitsyn: A Collection of Critical Essays, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1976, p. 110.

 

[14] Pearce, Joseph, Solzhenitsyn: A Soul in Exile, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2001, pp. 83-84, 87, 90.

 

[15] Ibid., 91-95.

 

[16] Ibid., pp. 109-110, 112-113.

 

[17] Ibid., pp. 105, 113, 118.

 

[18] Ibid., pp. 124-131, 133-134.

 

[19] Scammel, Michael, The Solzhenitsyn Files: Secret Soviet Documents Reveal One Man’s Fight against the Monolith, Carol Stream, Ill.: 1995, p. xx.

 

[20] Ibid., pp. xx-xxii.

 

[21] Ibid., pp. xxv-xxvii.

 

[22] Pearce, Joseph, Solzhenitsyn: A Soul in Exile, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2001, pp. 190, 194, 197, 202-203, 214.

 

[23] Dunlop, John B., Hough, Richard S., Nicholson, Michael (editors), Solzhenitsyn in Exile: Critical Essays and Documentary Materials, Stanford, Cal.: Hoover Institute Press, 1985, pp. 24-25.

 

[24] Ibid., pp. 25-26.

 

[25] Ibid., pp. 30-32.

 

[26] Ibid., pp. 37-38.

 

[27] Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr I., A World Split Apart: Commencement Address Delivered at Harvard University, New York: Harper & Row, 1978, pp. 9-11.

 

[28] Ibid., pp. 33-37.

 

[29] Pearce, Joseph, Solzhenitsyn: A Soul in Exile, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2001, p. 280.

 

[30] Ibid., pp. 228, 265, 281.

 

[31] Ibid., pp. 279, 284, 286-287.

 

[32] Duke, David, The Secret behind Communism, Mandeville, La.: Free Speech Press, 2013, p. 11.

 

[33] Walendy, Udo, “Nobel Prize Winner’s Writings Still Banned,” The Barnes Review, Vol. XIV, No. 5, Sept./Oct. 2008, p. 4.  

 

[34] Ibid., p. 47.

 

[35] Feuer, Kathryn (editor), Solzhenitsyn: A Collection of Critical Essays, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1976, p. 82.

 

[36] Ericson, Edward E., Solzhenitsyn and the Modern World, Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1993, p. 332.

 

[37] Duke, David, The Secret behind Communism, Mandeville, La.: Free Speech Press, 2013, p. 259.

Thursday, May 6, 2021

Here’s What Data Says About the Myth of “Racism” in Police Killings

  Source: http://www.renegadetribune.com/heres-what-data-says-about-the-myth-of-racism-in-police-killings/

 

By John Lott Jr. via RealClearPolitics.com

 

President Biden claimed that Derek Chauvin’s conviction on Tuesday “ripped the blinders off for the whole world to see the systemic racism” of police. With the police shooting that same day of 16-year-old girl in Columbus, Ohio, the White House again pushed the racism claim, noting that this was just another example of how “police violence disproportionately impacts Black and Latino people.”

 

But where is the evidence for these claims? In Chauvin’s trial, the prosecution never once mentioned evidence that the now-former officer is racist. A day after the verdict, the Biden administration announced plans for a pattern-or-practice investigation of the Minneapolis Police Department to determine if there is such racism, but the administration’s comments sure sound as if they have already determined the study’s outcome.

 

In the other case, body camera footage released by police revealed that Ma’Khia Bryant was fatally shot as she charged another girl with a knife. The officer shot one black girl in an attempt to save what appears to be another black girl from being stabbed.

 

Politicians such as Biden as well as the media have helped create a biased perception that is far from the reality of shootings by police.

 

In a study, the Crime Prevention Research Center (where I serve as president) found that when a white officer kills a suspect, the media usually mention the officer’s race. When the officer is black, news coverage rarely mentions that detail.

 

And there’s evidence that blacks aren’t all that fed up with the police. A July 2017 Quinnipiac University poll in New York City found that blacks strongly support the cops in their neighborhoods — 62% approved compared to just 35% who disapproved. That approval rating was 11 percentage points higher than for the New York City Police Department as a whole. It makes sense that people only know their local cops, and rely on media reports to form impressions about other areas they are less familiar with. A 2020 Monmouth University poll found that 72% of both blacks and whites are satisfied with their local police.

 

There is other evidence. If blacks don’t trust the police, they presumably won’t turn to them as frequently as whites when a crime occurs. Yet, blacks report violent crime to police at a higher rate than either whites or Hispanics, even when controlling for income levels. Low- and middle-income blacks are about 11 percentage points more likely to report violent crimes to police.

 

Through extensive research, we found 2,699 police shootings across the nation from 2013-2015. That’s far more than the FBI found, since its data is limited to only 1,366 cases voluntarily provided by police departments. The FBI data has other shortcomings, too: It disproportionately includes cases from heavily minority areas, giving a misleading picture of the frequency at which blacks are shot.

 

Our database keeps track of characteristics of both the suspect and the officer involved in each shooting, local violent crime rates, demographics of the city and police department, and many other factors that help determine what causes police shootings.

 

Officers kill blacks at a higher rate than their share of the population: 25% of the suspects killed were black, 45% white, and 16% Hispanic. As for where the deaths are occurring, black suspects tend to die in heavily black larger cities with populations averaging over 600,000, while whites are killed in smaller cities with an average population of 250,000.

 

White suspects were slightly more likely to be holding a firearm than blacks (63% to 61%). Black and white suspects were both equally likely to be involved in violent crime when they lose their lives at an officer’s hands, though blacks who died were more likely to be involved in drug or property offenses. But police generally have more challenging jobs in cities where blacks are killed. The average city where blacks are killed had a 61% higher violent crime rate and 126% higher murder rate than where the average white was killed.

 

After accounting for these and other factors, including averaged cultural differences in police departments, we found that black officers were at least as likely as their white peers to kill black suspects, but that black officers were more likely to kill unarmed blacks than were white officers.

 

The data offered some clues for how to reduce these fatal incidents. It can’t explain all instances, such as George Floyd’s case where Floyd resisted arrest by four officers, or possibly the Columbus case where an attack by a knife-wielding suspect was already in process. But, usually, when more police are present at the scene of a confrontation with a suspect, the odds of a fatality decline. There is about a 14% to 18% reduction in the suspect’s chances of being killed for each additional officer present. Officers feel more vulnerable if they are alone at the scene, making them more likely to use deadly force. Also, suspects may be emboldened and resist arrest when fewer officers are present.

 

It is a dangerous fiction that prejudiced white officers are going out and disproportionately killing black men.

 

But that doesn’t mean that measures can’t be taken to reduce shootings by police. The most obvious step would be to increase the number of officers responding to a call, to avoid forcing lone, vulnerable officers to make life-or-death decisions.

Monday, May 3, 2021

The Magic of Israel: Now You See It, Now You Don’t

 

Source: http://www.renegadetribune.com/the-magic-of-israel-now-you-see-it-now-you-dont/

 

By Philip Giraldi

 

The popular narrative of plucky little Israel prevailing over hordes of bloodthirsty Arabs has captured the Western imagination even though it is manifestly false in almost every detail. But Israel’s greatest accomplishment might well be something else, it’s ability to make things disappear. It plausibly all began in June 1967 when Israel attacked the USS Liberty, a lightly armed but well identified US naval vessel cruising in international waters under a large American flag. Fighter bombers and torpedo boats sought to sink the ship, destroying the lifeboats so no one would escape. In the engagement, 34 American military personnel were killed and a further 171 wounded, before a heroic defense by the crew managed to save the vessel. President Lyndon Johnson, who said he would rather see the ship sink than embarrass his friend Israel, started a cover-up which has lasted to this day. There has been no legitimate court of inquiry into the attack and when the ship’s captain received a Medal of Honor for his heroism, it was awarded secretly in the Washington Navy Yard rather than openly at the White House. Israel and its legion of apologists certainly know how to make potential embarrassments disappear.

 

Last week on this site I posted an article that I thought would prove to be extremely interesting to those who have been expressing concern about foreign interference in our government. It included a link to a series of computer screen texts provided by a credible independent source demonstrating that an employee of the Israeli Consulate General was deeply involved in what appears to be extorting millions of dollars from the father of a congressman based on assisting that congressman through some legal difficulties. The scheme being concocted also included discussion of arrangements for a commando raid on Iran to free a prisoner. The information conveyed in the screenshots that were provided of the texts has not been disputed by anyone involved in the venture, but as I thought the accompanying article was timid in its willingness to draw any conclusions, I wrote my piece attempting to connect the dots.

 

The Congressman involved was, of course, Matt Gaetz of Florida, who is now facing the House Ethics Committee, surely an oxymoron if there ever was one, concerning his primarily sexual exploits. To my surprise, however, there has been hardly a word in the mainstream media about looking deeper into the possible Israeli connection. One would have thought the copied texts would be newsworthy due to the extortion angle but even more due to the fact that an armed attack on a nation with which the US is not at war was being funded and planned by a foreign government’s diplomatic mission in New York.

 

To be sure my article did very well both on Unz and even Facebook, though I had to cut and paste it in the latter site due to its blocking of Unz. I did a bit more checking and noted something that has been occurring for some time: the piece, like others relating to Israel, was not coming up on search engines like Google, which means it was not getting the exposure that it merited. I search daily by my name assuming that my pieces if replayed elsewhere will be displayed. In the past I would sometimes get scores of hits on a popular article, but during the past year hardly anything has been appearing. I have to assume that deliberate and widespread censorship of articles critical of Israel is taking place, which was no surprise as friends of Israel are not exactly rare in the social media. Facebook’s censorship board, for example, includes a former Israeli government minister.

 

It all comes down to the power of the Israeli/Jewish lobby and its ability to make things that it does not like go away. And sometimes it can make things happen that are manifestly not in the interest of the United States. Jonathan Pollard, the most damaging spy ever in the history of the United States, was recently allowed to return to Israel. In an interview on March 26th he said that any American Jews working for US intelligence agencies must do their duty and spy for Israel because one’s real loyalty is to the Jewish state and one’s co-religionists.

 

Clearly Pollard is not alone and it was shocking to learn that outgoing president Donald Trump pardoned the Israeli agent who recruited and presumably helped “run” Pollard when he was stealing US secrets. Aviem Sella received a full pardon from Trump as part of hundreds of last minute pardons, many of which had been arranged through two Orthodox Jewish agencies favored by presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner.

 

Sella was a retired Israeli air force officer doing graduate studies and living in the US when he enlisted Pollard to spy for Israel. He fled the country after Pollard was arrested in 1985 and was charged in absentia on three espionage counts but Israel refused to extradite him to the US to stand trial. A White House statement noted that Sella’s request for clemency received support from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli ambassador in Washington Ron Dermer, the American ambassador to Israel David Friedman, and Miriam Adelson, the widow of the Republican Party’s top donor and Trump supporter Sheldon Adelson. Would anyone expect otherwise?

 

The Sella pardon should be seen for what it is. It was a gift to the corrupt Netanyahu, who was at the time facing another national election. It served no US national interest at all and in fact sent the message to those who might be tempted a la Pollard that spying for Israel might be regarded as consequence free, in fact desirable and the right thing to do. Of course, the special “exemption” when dealing with Israel should also be regarded as a tribute to Jewish power in the United States, which relies on the corruption of those in leadership positions, using financial inducements or even blackmail backed up by smears of anti-Semitism and holocaust denial for those who cannot be bought.

 

And the power to corrupt governments and media is not limited to the United States. Nearly everyone in public office or who relies on the media for an income understands one does not cross the Israel Lobby. In Britain, former Foreign Office Minister Sir Alan Duncan has written a memoir that accuses pro-Israel lobbyists of “the most disgusting interference” in British politics while also distorting the country’s foreign policy in the Middle East to favor the Jewish state.

 

Duncan also claimed that Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) went “ballistic” and blocked him from becoming the Middle East minister at the Foreign Office. Duncan has long been a major target for the Israel lobby. In 2017, an Al Jazeera documentary exposed the maneuvering of pro-Israel groups working together with the Israeli Embassy in London to “take down” Duncan and also Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn.

 

Per Duncan, Conservative Friends of Israel, which openly promotes the interests of a foreign country, had successfully promoted a “Netanyahu-type view of Israeli politics into our foreign policy.” In one chapter Duncan criticized Conservative MPs’ fawning over Benjamin Netanyahu during his visit to Britain, a performance apparently similar to the time when Bibi addressed the US Congress and received 27 standing ovations.

 

The Duncan book appeared when another story broke about how a group called “UK Lawyers for Israel” acting on behalf of the Israeli government has been altering the material included in secondary school text books. Per a statement issued by Pearson, the largest publisher of school books in the UK, the company has suspended publication of two textbooks responding to “an eight-page report, by Middle East specialists Professors John Chalcraft and James Dickins, which found hundreds of changes to the textbooks overwhelmingly favoring an Israeli narrative and removing or replacing passages that support Palestinian narratives.”

 

Censorship of course materials as well as textbooks by Jewish groups to depict Israel in a certain way has certainly been going on in the United States for many years. And the corruption of our institutions to favor Israel and protect it from criticism is incessant. It will be interesting to see if the Gaetz story in all its aspects will ever be allowed to surface or whether the congressman will be offered some inducement to allow him to quietly resign. Somehow, it reminds one of the still unresolved Jeffrey Epstein case in which Epstein and his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell obtained blackmail material relating to world leaders and celebrities having sex with young girls, somewhat similar to the claims regarding Gaetz.

 

Many including myself believe that Epstein was part of an Israeli intelligence operation, similar in scale to what was being run on 9/11, which sought to “influence” key figures on issues regarded as important by the Jewish state. Clearly, the game goes on with no one in Washington caring much about the damage being done. Do corrupted and intimidated Congressmen over their morning coffee ponder whether certain activities are “Good for Israel” and therefore not subject to further scrutiny? Judging from Epstein and Gaetz, one would have to believe that to be the case.


Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org