Hollywood Crowd: The Latest Atrocity

Followup to Followup: Natalie Portman's Genocidal Racism ...

Followup: Poisoning Human Rights Discourse

by Joachim Martillo (ThorsProvoni@aol.com)

 

 

On May 5, Dennis Perrin, who is a regular on The Huffington Post (see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-perrin) added This Season's Atrocity to his blog.

 

 

Perrin writes:

"'Hitler is alive in Burma' reads the words scrawled on a cardboard sign, held aloft by a sweet-faced llen Page, the 'Juno' star, in a 90-second human-rights public awareness message that began showing on video-sharing Web sites last week."

So began a recent New York Times piece about yet another Hollywood celeb concern, this time, human rights in Burma. The Burmese Hitler is played by Gen. Than Shwe, the latest but not last Hitler that we'll see, depending on geopolitical or pressure group need. That "Juno's" lovable homeskillet Page probably had no idea who Than Shwe was before the PSA was shot is not important. She's a hot item, and as Jack Healy of the Human Rights Action Center put it, "you have to 'brand' it up. It's the nature of the business now."

He adds:

But what if these enlightened celebs were asked to promote human rights in, say, the Occupied Territories? How many would rush forward, photos of Israeli tanks demolishing Palestinian homes in hand, and denounce starvation and death in Gaza? I'll crawl out on a frail limb here and guess zero. Okay, maybe Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins, and I'll toss in Danny Glover as well. But I can't think of many more who would dare portray Palestinians as human rights victims worthy of immediate support and solidarity, while excoriating the Israeli state for its ongoing strangulation of Gaza and continued building of West Bank settlements. There's also the minor fact that as American taxpayers, Hollywood celebs directly finance these atrocities, and so are more responsible for what they subsidize than what is fashionable in a PSA.

Like Naomi Klein in The Shock Doctrine, Perrin presents only a piece of the real issue.

 

Hollywood celebs, who generally belong to the Hollywood Crowd, which is the elite of Yiddish Hollywood, are thoroughly enmeshed in Zionism and often play a leading role in generating Zionist propaganda and in covering up or distracting from Zionist crimes.

 

Klein shows the same tendency and writes in her book (p. 118):

But by focusing purely on the crimes [of the dictatorships in the Southern Cone of Latin America] and not on the reasons behind them, the human rights movement also helped the Chicago School ideology [Friedmanism] to escape from its first bloody laboratory virtually unscathed.

 She continues (p. 121):

The refusal to connect the apparatus of state terror to the ideological project it served is characteristic of almost all the human rights literature from the period [70s]. Although [Amnesty International's] reticence can be understood as an attempt to remain impartial amid Cold War tensions, there was, for many other groups, another factor at play: money.

She discusses the role of the Ford Foundation in human rights activism (and its hypocrisy in working closely with the US State Department) but totally neglects to mention the disproportionately Jewish share of contributions to human rights organizations like AI.

 

Klein adds (p. 124):

The [Ford Foundation's] decision to get involved in human rights but "not et involved in politics" created a context in which it was all but impossible to ask the question underlying the violence it was documenting: Why was it happening, in whose interests?

In the case of AI, which receives so much Jewish funding, it was and still is important to ask in the conflict over Palestine how much AI supporters are involved in the violence that AI purports to monitor, to publicize, and to oppose.

 

Klein then shows her own biases even more obviously (p. 125):

A tool of the crudest kind of coercion, [torture] crops up with great predictability whenever a local despot or a foreign occupier lacks the consent needed to rule: Marcos in the Philippines, the shah in Iran, Saddam in Iraq, the French in Algeria, the Israelis in the occupied territories, the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Torture is hardly confined to the Occupied Territories and has been an intrinsic aspect of Zionist rule in pre-1967 stolen Palestine and has characterized the Zionist program since the 1890s.

 

Joseph Massad discusses Zionist and British torture in Desiring Arabs (pp. 45-46):

Such torture is emblematic of imperial cultures not only at present but also historically. Here is one such report:

The types of torture employed are varied. They include beatings with fists and [stomping] with boots ... as well as using canes for beating and flogging to death. They also included ... the penetration of the rectums of the victims with canes, and then moving the cane left and right, and to the front and back. They also included pressing on the testicles with the hands and squeezing them until the victim loses consciousness from the pain and until they [the testicles] get so swollen that the victim would not be able to walk or move except by carrying his legs one at a time ... They also included the starving of dogs and then provoking them and pushing them to devour his flesh and to eat off his thighs. It also included urinating on the faces of victims ... [Another form of torture included the soldiers'] sodomizing them, as it seems that this was done to a number of people.

This report, which describes in almost identical terms what the Iraqi prisoners experienced, was written in August 1938 describing how British and Zionist Jewish soldiers treated revolutionary Palestinians during the 1930s Palestinian Anti-Colonial Revolt. The author of the report, Subhi Al-Khadra, was a Palestinian political prisoner detained in the Acre prison. He came to know of the torture of these prisoners, which had taken place in Jerusalem, because the prisoners were relocated later to his prison in Acre, and told him of their experiences and showed him the physical signs of torture on their bodies. This is how he described the motivation of the British torturers:

This was not an investigation in which forceful methods are used. No. It was a vengeance and a release of the most savage and barbaric of instincts and of the concentrated spirit of hatred that these rednecks feel towards Muslims and Arabs. They mean to torture for the sake of torture and to satisfy their appetite for vengeance, not for the sake of an investigation nor to expose crimes.

Khadra's report was published in the Arabic press and sent to British members of parliament.

By omission Klein puts the issue of Jews and human rights in perspective (p. 126):

[Gisèle Halimi's] point was that the [Algerian] occupation could not be done humanely; there is no humane way to rule people against their will. There are two choices, Beauvoir wrote: accept occupation and all the methods required for its enforcement, "or else you reject, not merely certain specific practices,  but the greater aim which sanctions them, and for which they are essential." The same stark choice is available in Iraq and Israel/Palestine today, and it was the only option in the southern Cone in the seventies. Just as there is no kind gentle way to occupy people against their determined will, there is no peaceful way to take away from millions of citizens what they need to live with dignity -- which is what the Chicago Boys were determined to do. Robbery, whether of land or a way of life, requires force or at least its credible threat; it's why thieves carry guns, and often use them. Torture is sickening , but it is often a highly rational way to achieve a specific goal; indeed, it may be the only way to achieve those goals. Which raises the deeper question, one that so many were incapable of asking at the time in Latin America. Is neoliberalism an inherently violent ideology, and is there something about its goals that demands this cycle of brutal political cleansing, followed by human rights cleanup operations?

Klein merits small kudos for her comment about robbery, but until she openly "connects the dots" of Zionism, Neoliberalism, and Neoconservatism and until Perrin and Klein directly address the Jewish perversion of human rights discourse for the sake of the State of Israel, readers have to make a presumption that Klein's and Perrin's Jewishness biases their political analysis.

 

[For more information, see The Yids Take Over: Nixon, Southern Strategy, Neoconservatives, and Neoliberals and Iran Contra: The Marriage of Friedmanism and Neoconservatism. Note that Perrin like Klein can be a Jewish name. Rabbi Yaakov Perrin experienced his fifteen minutes of fame on account of his eulogy of Baruch Goldstein. See WEST BANK MASSACRE; Israel Orders Tough Measures Against Militant Settlers,  Hatred Stalks the Settlements , From Orthodox Jewish Education to Hebron; Scripture Distorted ....While liberal, humanist interpretation of Jewish scripture is possible as Rabbi Allan Miller points out in "Scripture Distorted," racist interpretations are becoming much more common among Jews today. (See Concretization of the Spiritual.) In addition, the Jewish tendency to view non-Jews as an undifferentiated animalistic mass thirsty for Jewish blood has a long history and has often served as a rationalization for exploitation or brutality toward non-Jews.]

 

Sphere: Related Content