Resistance is the postmodern way

Up in Manitoba Canada, a Star Trek fan has had to give up his personalized Borg license plate ASIMIL8 because it was judged offensive to indigenous people. The Borg, of course, are a fictional evil species that force assimilation with the clever marketing phrase “Resistance is Futile.” It has absolutely nothing to do with indigenous Canadians, but the suggestion that it does isn’t frivolous in the least. It has broad ramifications for Western culture and bears a few words as a post-colonial gesture.

You could say that the Borg represent the very essence of Colonialism, the demand that those being colonized assimilate into the culture of the conquerors, the colonists. This means everything from adopting commercial, legal, and language norms to religious faith. The conquering merchants are happy, because the colonies produce profit. The conquering churches are happy, because it means more members and their tithes. This, of course, is all completely disguised as the betterment of those being colonized, but that’s mostly just hooey. Self-centered gain has always been the real motive of the “civilized” colonists, which was brilliantly played out in the Starz television series “Black Sails.”

There is, however, another critical form of assimilation in Western history and that is the requirement that those becoming new members of the colony from the outside be required to likewise assimilate. This is the birthplace of the thinking that all who wish to be American must speak English, fully embrace American customs, traditions, laws, commerce, and submit to all forms of government. This was the basis of “The Jewish Question” or “The Jewish Problem” in Europe that began in the Nineteenth Century and ended in Hitler’s “Final Solution.” The issue was the refusal of the Jews to fully assimilate into the cultures they called home, instead choosing to remain fully Jewish, with their own customs, traditions, and beliefs. This is arguably problematic for the home culture, yet it’s seldom discussed as relevant to the evil of the Holocaust and in its wake, the creation of the Zionist State, Israel. The irony of Israel’s assimilative demands of Palestinians is not lost on observers of conflict in the Middle East.

At home, assimilation is a major concern involving Muslims, for the government of Donald Trump is demanding a rising degree of assimilation than its predecessors ever imagined. The message to Muslims in America today is xenophobic: assimilate or go back to where your appearances and practices are the cultural norm. Join us or go home. The same mandate is placed upon refugees from Mexico and beyond. Speak our language. Join our society. Pay your taxes. Or go back home.

So this business of the fictional Borg versus the indigenous people of Canada is more than appears on the surface, for one must ask the question, “Where does it stop?” At what point is it proper to demand assimilation and at what point is it not? In the early part of the Twentieth Century, the demand was made that refugee Catholics be rejected, because they couldn’t fully assimilate into mostly Protestant America. Were the Catholics offended? Did it matter? Is the patriarchy right to demand assimilation of women? Do we care if women are offended by such? It would seem this question is of lasting importance to our Constitution and the very things that Mr. Trump assumes make America “great” again. It is a fundamental matter for anyone attempting to govern diversity. Do you take the hard road of encouraging diversity or the tried and true method of demanding assimilation? They cannot fully coexist.

Milton wrote the famous line, “License they mean when they cry Liberty.” Those who would fall on the side of liberty understand the value of voluntary assimilation just as they do the right of free people to function as a colorful thread in the tapestry that America has become. Those who fall on the side of license, however, demand assimilation and seek primarily the freedom to take anything and everything that benefits their own demands.

We are at a crossroads with this matter, my friends, and we’re each going to be asked to be counted for our own place along this spectrum.

Israeli soldier guilty…or not!

For the first time since 2004, a member of the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) has been convicted of manslaughter in the death of a Palestinian who had earlier participated in the stabbing of another soldier in the West Bank community of Hebron last March. The conviction of sergeant Elor Azarya was applauded by military leaders who are trying to maintain discipline through a code of ethics, but the big story is the remarkable reaction of an Israeli public that thinks Azarya should not even have been charged. He wouldn’t have had another Palestinian not videotaped the shooting and made the video public. Watch for yourself as Azaria first helps put the slightly injured soldier into an ambulance, then pulls his rifle, and kills the helpless man on the ground.

Azarya’s supporters said he fired in self-defense. Right. Military commanders, however, said his actions were unbecoming of a soldier.

Azarya will be sentenced on January 15th, but he is likely to be pardoned, given the protests by Israelis and statements by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“We have one army that is the basis for our existence. IDF soldiers are our sons and daughters, and they must remain above all disputes,” he said. But making no direct mention of the military court, he said: “I support granting a pardon to Elor Azaria.”

This incredible turn of events reveals the extent of anger and hatred towards Palestinians from people who honestly believe the man that Azarya killed “deserved to die” as a terrorist. That the execution was extrajudicial matters not one bit to this mob. But this also reveals how deeply Israeli hasbara has penetrated the very souls of the people who call Israel home and the impossibility of peace in the face of that narrative.

I repeat to my American journalist colleagues that Israel is home to the most remarkable laboratory for the study of human nature and the manufacture of consent that exists in the Twenty-First Century. It is a textbook case of the conflict between narratives in the quest for political advantage and historical validation, and the justified violence of such a conflict. It is not as simple – nor is it as complicated – as you might think, and I challenge reporters everywhere to do their jobs in covering the truth of the region.

Trust me; you have no idea based on what’s published in the American press.

Propaganda posing as news in the NYTimes

I like Google News and use it throughout the day to keep up on what’s happening. One reason I like it so much is that I’m able to control the sources of the news that appears on its scrolling page. The ability to tweak what I read is important to me, because not all news is created equal.

Take the New York Times, for example. I don’t want ANYTHING that source publishes, because I believe the whole place is unethical and plays a major role in trying to manipulate the governed through its pet issues and positions. Take, for example, the Middle East. Three of its writers, including one in its Jerusalem Bureau, have sons in the Isreali Defense Forces (IDF). The list also includes influential columnist David Brooks. The paper’s pro-Israel bias is disconcerting to me, and its lead is followed by most in the mainstream press.

How so, you ask?

This week, a 12-year old Palestinian girl was released from Israeli prison after serving a sentence for attempted voluntary manslaughter and illegal possession of a knife. “Manslaughter” being a very slippery term that apparently doesn’t mean to the Israelis what it means to us. She never tried to stab anybody. This girl, Dima Al-Wawi, pleaded guilty to the charge as part of a plea bargain that sent her home to her parents. As part of the deal, the girl admitted she was going to stab somebody. Remember, this girl is twelve! The facts are these: She was arrested February 9th at the entrance to the Israeli settlement of Karmei Tzur near Hebron for being in possession of a knife. She surrendered the knife to a security guard at the entrance of the settlement and was arrested without incident.

Here was the headline of the New York Times on her release:

Israel Frees Palestinian Girl, 12, Who Tried to Stab Guard

“Tried to stab guard?” If you think that might just be a typo or misunderstanding, here’s the lead sentence:

The Israeli prison service on Sunday released the youngest known Palestinian inmate, a 12-year-old girl who had tried to stab a security guard at a Jewish settlement.

Take a look at these pictures of the girl after her release. She’s utterly terrified. Look at her face, her body language. She’s a victim of a trauma that none of us can imagine. What will become of her, her family and extended family, her friends, and her neighbors? These pictures won’t be published in this context in the mainstream press ANYWHERE, because the New York Times is a propaganda voice for the Israeli government (once again), and everybody else just marches along in formation. Perhaps now you’ll understand why I don’t want the paper in my Google News feed.

dima

Kudos to the Washington Post, who took a more factual position. Here’s their headline:

Israel frees youngest Palestinian prisoner

This bias of the New York Times isn’t discussed among media observers and probably never will be. I’ve questioned some about it, and it comes back to me as “too complex” or “oh, that mess.” The problem is that doing it demands attention and the courage to really call a spade a spade. There’s also that having the Times on your side is a heady thing in an industry more concerned with peer approval and acceptance than facts. Moreover, if I’m able to do this, anybody can. It doesn’t take a genius to look at this stuff with an open mind. I mean, shouldn’t we be asking questions like this?

Oh but, Terry, you’re being antisemitic. Bullshit! I’m anti-Zionist. It has nothing to do with the Jewish faith, for Judaism isn’t Zionism. What’s happening there is a shame and an embarrassment to any people of faith, for “Zion” is today an apartheid state. The Zionist narrative is one of paranoia in defending its citizens against anybody and everybody who may disagree with their perceived destiny. The United States government fully supports this narrative, but there’s a growing noise in the British government that bears watching. I suggest you read up on it and note that opposition is positioning the whole thing as a “scandal.”

Honestly, the whole thing makes me sick.