#And yes Israel has used it as well and it results in a genuine hatred of Israel for what it has done and the methods used

[brick-van-dyke]

Gonna review all the sources I've been provided with (they're damning for the zio so rip to them but thanks for the sources lmao), and been searching through more sources from the time periods in question and, well, basically I started a thing.

(sorry for the blurriness) An overall essay going through the evidence and providing a small splash of input as someone noticing a lot of discord in said evidence, which isn't surprising but still it is telling how zionists cherry pick.

Anyway, the more I learn, the more I realise that there's a lot of political and nationalistic push to emit details in some papers, while pushing for certain conclusions based on the framing of the research for others. I think this is legitimately just unproductive when acknowledging the subjectivity of history as a study and the way certain overlap may point to a conclusion that isn't preferable by a variety of people, from researchers to the intuitions that may use or pay for the research to begin with. I find this in studies that delve into contentious topics in general. It's why it's so important to note the overlap and notice the inevitability of bias in understanding these topics.

As far as the history the Middle East goes and who colonised who, I think many disregard the simple theory that, perhaps, colonisation itself can be something inflicted by the post-colonised and equally be something done to a group with connections to conquest, ultimately making both the same in terms of land rights and the concept of legal ownership. Or, more specifically, that Zionists' attempts to become conquests have since reduced their claim, just as it would reduce a Babylonian, despite their deep links to the land and, arguably, being one of the first social groups before or at the same time as the Israelites.

History and Carbon Dating specifically become difficult to assign moral value of land rights to when cultures blossom and change in such extreme ways (to the point of being unrelated or unrecognisable with those from ancient eras) with the passing of time. The racial blame placed by Israel is thus shown to be one of mistaken vengeance and generally racial profiling of modern Arabs, just as the Persian, Turkish, Roman and British empires showed signs of racist attitudes to employ totalitarian tactics of rule over the peasantry. Being the colonised when one is willing to colonise with the same means reduces the ethical claims and, meanwhile, the history itself reflects greater nuance than political nationalists may desire of it.

Ultimately, as I search further and further, I find that the claim of nationalism and identity is a mere shared ideal of all empires formed through conquest and the desire for ownership of abundant resources. Meanwhile, I find that the idea of an ancient homeland to reclaim is obsolete when the people in question do not resemble those they wish to avenge. Culture evolves with geography and time, a constant for every country's history. Religion, culture and the concept of a homeland forms where the resources are abundant, rather than any legitimate greater or lesser claim from neighbouring tribes and civilisations. The wish of a Promised Land is a logical conclusion for any group seeking refuge from the elements; a moral argument filled with human necessity and a shared common ground if faced with an open mind and a willingness to review the past, while simultaneously moving on from it. The complexity becomes simple when it is understood that only the present can take responsibility for the present; and choose a better path than those who horde resources in the modern age of globalised colonialism.

[the-romantic-lady]

Power Prince

Every-so-often we are reminded of the powerful influence our Royal Family has. From charity work, global events, patronages, to the influential fashion choices. But they also, in times of deep pain and suffering, highlight how an ancient institution can heal wounds.

And once again we saw this process in action after the devastating terror attack in New Zealand. Attending on behalf of the Queen, Prince William highlighted how the Royals can be a force of good, unity and poignant respect. Something the Duke of Cambridge exemplified as he visited the Christchurch community.

It is worth noting that this isn’t the first time William has been entrusted with such a public and important visit as this one. Last year the Prince took on the historic trip to Israel, becoming the first Royal to do so within an official capacity. It was a monumental success, for both the Royals and Prince William.

So, it wasn’t surprising to royal watchers when Kensington Palace announced that William would be representing the Queen in commemorating, both Anzac Day and the horrific terror attacks in Christchurch.

With these trips now a common occurrence in the Duke’s role as ambassador for the Royal Family, what does it tell us about the future of the British Monarchy and their vision for the indelible institution on both the national and international stage?

In recent years many have noted a change in the Duke of Cambridge. Behind-the-scenes courtiers have observed that he has finally accepted the reality of his future. That future, which leads to the “top job”, is looking more and more like a perfect fit for William, as visits like New Zealand become more commonplace.

But whilst the royal side of the Duke of Cambridge is pivotal in visits like this, as we saw in his solemnity at the service to commemorate Anzac Day, it is the other side of the Duke which sets him apart.

Images and video footage quickly emerged across media outlets, as well as Kensington Palace’s Instagram and Twitter accounts. Each one showed a Prince perfectly balancing the art of compassion and stoicism with the utmost ease. Whether it be meeting the First Responders to the attack, the Prime Minister of New Zealand – Jacinda Ardern, or Alen Alsati, a 5-year-old girl injured in the attack, who had only woken from a coma a week before, William’s reaction was befitting of each circumstance.

The video footage of the Duke meeting the aforementioned Alen melted hearts across the globe. Reminiscent of his late-mother, Princess Diana, William sat at the end of her bed. There he chatted animatedly when questioned about his daughter Princess Charlotte. It is these moments which highlight the unique quality the Royal Family possess, yet with William there always seems to be an added magic.

In recent months we have seen criticism of other members of the Royals and how they conduct themselves when partaking in their own engagements. Sometimes the balance between personality and professionalism can become blurred, resulting in a tainting of the royal mystique. This unfortunate behaviour most frequently results in the numerous articles and public attention focusing on the royal individual and not on the subject of their visit.

This is never the case with the Duke of Cambridge. Each and every time he steps out, his attention is consistently focused on the job-in-hand, not himself. Christchurch’s visit has been the embodiment of this. Yes, the Prince hugged numerous worshippers who had been affected by the attack. Yes, he jokingly stated to royal fans that jetlag no longer affects him after having three children. But when the moment arrived for William to step back, and the Duke of Cambridge and future king to take centre stage, it was done with remarkable ease.

What is a credit to William, is that out of all the media coverage that emitted to news outlets across the globe, one moment took the spotlight. It wasn’t that sweet moment with Alen Alsati, or his reference to the long-awaited arrival of his younger brother’s first child. As the Duke stood at the podium, in the same room where fifty innocent Muslim worshippers were brutally murdered, he delivered a speech which many now regard as his best.

Opening with the traditional Maori dialect and the custom Islamic greeting, the Prince went on to passionately deliver an emotional, stoic and stunning speech.

“A terrorist attempted to sow division and hatred in a place that stands for togetherness and selflessness. He thought he could redefine what this space was. I am here to help you show the world that he failed,” William began.

Thanking the emergency services, the Prime Minister and the Al Noor Mosque’s Muslim community, what William did next in this wonderful speech, was to demonstrate that here was a Duke doing it differently. This difference wasn’t for headlines, popularity or praise from social media users. It was for something much more important, unity.

As he continued, there was a genuine tone to his words.: “I have had reasons myself to reflect on grief and sudden pain and loss in my own life. And in my role, I have often seen up close the sorrow of others in moments of tragedy, as I have today.”

“What I have realised is that of course grief can change your outlook. You don’t ever forget the shock, the sadness, and the pain. But I do not believe that grief changes who you are. Grief – if you let it – will reveal who you are.” He added.

Many have speculated whether the Prince was referring to the death of his mother Diana with these words, and it would certainly seem so. But, in credit to William, he doesn’t mention her name. Not out of coldness, but instead to keep the focus on his encouraging and uplifting message. This isn’t about him, Diana, or even the Royal Family. It is about all of us, and how each and every single person at some point faces pain.

This speech reminds you that whilst the Duke of Cambridge is destined for the Throne, his heart is very much with the people. There is an authenticity with William that lacks with many public figures both inside and outside the royal institution. And perhaps, he may not make as many headlines as his brother and sister-in-law. The Press may not pick apart his appearance like they do with his wife Catherine. But William’s global influence runs much deeper. Its impact is a growing flame, not a dowsing inferno.

What we all must remember is that the Duke of Cambridge is reserved a place in history. Hundreds of years from now, every word spoken, every appearance on Buckingham Palace’s balcony, the birth of his children, and every visit to places touched by unimaginable horror, will be recorded for all time. This is a man whose star-power will never fade. It may not be constantly on view, but when it is, it shines brighter than them all.

When William departed New Zealand, no-one was left discussing salacious stories or fictional rumours. No-one cared about speculative feuds or how many followers Kensington Palace’s social media pages had that day.

No. What the people of Christchurch was left with, was the relief that within the most famous family in the land, was a man who would one day become their King, but more importantly, a champion of the people. A Duke who focused on substance and not solely style. A Prince who understood the enduring power of the pubic, and not publicise his power. A future King who accepts the media’s interest and not sycophantically pursue it.

As the future of the Monarchy edges closer, and we see the dynamics of the institution shift focus, the Duke of Cambridge will see his position continue to change. And unlike others within the Royal Family, William’s future has been cemented since birth. His path is already paved, from Kensington Palace to the steps of Buckingham Palace. The media may be focused elsewhere, and perhaps not for the most flattering of reasons.

But with William and his successful visit to New Zealand, he demonstrated why the headlines aren’t always needed to create impactful change. In doing this, our future King is constantly proving that an institution dating back a thousand years, still emits that powerful act of unity. And whilst the prominence of media headlines may inject short-term attention, the love and respect of the people, William will one day reign over, endures for much longer. It is here where William’s royal and public power far outrivals any other.

x

[clubofinfo]

Expert: Last week, Jeremy Corbyn humbled the entire political and corporate media commentariat. With a little help from Britain’s student population. And with a little help from thousands of media activists. Without doubt this was one of the most astonishing results in UK political history. Dismissed by all corporate political pundits, including the clutch of withered fig leaves at the Guardian, reviled by scores of his own Blairite MPs (see here), Corbyn ‘increased Labour’s share of the vote by more than any other of the party’s election leaders since 1945′ with ‘the biggest swing since… shortly after the Second World War’. He won a larger share of the vote than Tony Blair in 2005. Corbyn achieved this without resorting to angry lefty ranting. His focus was on kindness, compassion, sharing, inclusivity and forgiveness. This approach held up a crystal-clear mirror to the ugly, self-interested cynicism of the Tory party, and transformed the endless brickbats into flowers of praise. On Twitter, John Prescott disclosed that when Rupert Murdoch saw the exit poll ‘he stormed out of the room’. As ever, while the generals made good their escape, front-line troops were less fortunate. Outfought by Team Corbyn, out-thought by social media activists, outnumbered in the polls, many commentators had no option but to fall on their microphones and keyboards. LBC radio presenter Iain Dale led the way: Let me be the first to say, I got it wrong, wholly wrong. I should have listened more to my callers who have been phoning into my show day after day, week after week. The Guardian’s Gaby Hinsliff, who had written in January, ‘This isn’t going to be yet another critique of Corbyn, by the way, because there is no point. The evidence is there for anyone with eyes’, tweeted: This is why I trust @iaindale’s judgement; he admits when it was way off. (As mine was. As god knows how many of ours was) Hinsliff promised: Like everyone else who didn’t foresee the result, I’ll be asking myself hard questions & trying to work out what changed… Annoying as ever, we asked: But will you be asking yourself about the structural forces, within and outside Guardian and corporate media generally, shaping performance? And: Is a corporate journalist free to analyse the influence of owners, profit-orientation, ad-dependence, state-subsidised news? Taboo subjects. Presumably engrossed in introspection, Hinsliff did not reply. Right-winger John Rentoul, who insisted four weeks ago in the Independent that, ‘we are moving towards the end of the Corbynite experiment’, appeared to be writing lines in detention: I was wrong about Jeremy Corbyn – The Labour leader did much better in the election than I expected. I need to understand and learn from my mistakes. Channel 4 News presenter and Telegraph blogger, Cathy Newman tweeted: Ok let’s be honest, until the last few weeks many of us under-estimated @jeremycorbyn Translating from the ‘newspeak’: many corporate journalists waged a relentless campaign over two years to persuade the public to ‘underestimate’ Corbyn, but were wrong about the public’s ability to see through the propaganda. Piers Morgan, who predicted the Conservatives would win a ’90-100 seat majority’, wrote: I think Mr Corbyn has proved a lot of people, including me, completely wrong. In a typically dramatic flourish, Channel 4’s Jon Snow’s summation was harsh but fair: I know nothing. We the media, the pundits, the experts, know nothing. Guardian columnist Rafael Behr, who wrote in February, ‘Jeremy Corbyn is running out of excuses’, also ate humble pie: Fair play to Jeremy Corbyn and his team. They have done a lot of things I confidently thought they – he – could not do. I was wrong. In March, Observer columnist Nick Cohen graphically predicted that ‘Corbyn’s Labour won’t just lose. It’ll be slaughtered.’ In an article titled, ‘Don’t tell me you weren’t warned about Corbyn’, Cohen indicated the words that would ‘be flung’ at Corbynites ‘by everyone who warned that Corbyn’s victory would lead to a historic defeat’: I Told You So You Fucking Fools! Apparently frothing at the mouth, Cohen concluded by advising the idiots reading his column that, following the predicted electoral disaster, ‘your only honourable response will be to stop being a fucking fool by changing your fucking mind’. Awkward, then, for Cohen to now ‘apologise to affronted Corbyn supporters… I was wrong’; presumably feeling like a fucking fool, having changed his fucking mind. Tragicomically, Cohen then proceeded to be exactly as ‘wrong’ all over again: The links between the Corbyn camp and a Putin regime that persecutes genuine radicals. Corbyn’s paid propaganda for an Iranian state that hounds gays, subjugates women and tortures prisoners. Corbyn and the wider left’s indulgence of real antisemites (not just critics of Israel). They are all on the record. That Tory newspapers used them against the Labour leadership changes nothing. Former Guardian comment editor and senior columnist Jonathan Freedland spent two years writing a series of anti-Corbyn hit pieces (see our media alert for discussion). Last month, Freedland wrote under the title, ‘No more excuses: Jeremy Corbyn is to blame for this meltdown’, lamenting: What more evidence do they need? What more proof do the Labour leadership and its supporters require? Freedland helpfully relayed focus group opinion to the effect that Corbyn was a ‘dope’, ‘living in the past’, ‘a joke’, ‘looking as if he knows less about it than I do’. Freedland has also, now, had no choice but to back down: Credit where it’s due. Jeremy Corbyn defied those – including me – who thought he could not win seats for Lab. I was wrong. Like Freedland, senior Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee has relentlessly attacked Corbyn. On April 19, she wrote of how ‘Corbyn is rushing to embrace Labour’s annihilation’: Wrong, wrong and wrong again. Was ever there a more crassly inept politician than Jeremy Corbyn, whose every impulse is to make the wrong call on everything? This week, Toynbee’s tune had changed: Nothing succeeds like success. Jeremy Corbyn looks like a new man, beaming with confidence, benevolence and forgiveness to erstwhile doubters… Apparently channelling David Brent of The Office, Toynbee added: When I met him on Sunday he clasped my hand and, with a twinkle and a wink, thanked me for things I had written. With zero self-awareness, Toynbee noted that the Mail and Sun had helped Corbyn: ‘by dredging up every accusation against him yet failing to frighten voters away, they have demolished their own power’. Former Guardian political editor Michael White, yet another regular anti-Corbyn commentator, admitted: I was badly wrong. JC had much wider voter appeal than I realised Former Guardian journalist, Jonathan Cook, replied: Problem is you *all* got it wrong. That fact alone exposes structural flaw of corporate media. You don’t represent us, you represent power. White responded: You’re not still banging on, are you Jonathan. You do talk some bollocks. Guardian, Telegraph, Independent and New Statesman contributor Abi Wilkinson tweeted: Don’t think some of people making demands about who Corbyn puts in shadow cabinet have particularly earned the right to be listened to… We paired this with Wilkinson’s comment from June 2016: Any hope I once held about Corbyn’s ability to steer the party in a more positive direction has been well and truly extinguished. Wilkinson replied: ‘oh fuck off’, before concluding that we are ‘two misogynistic cranks in a basement’, and ‘just some dickheads who aren’t actually fit’ to hold the media to account. When a tweeter suggested that Corbyn’s result was ‘brilliant’, New Statesman editor Jason Cowley replied: ‘Yes, I agree.’ Just three days earlier, Cowley had written under the ominous title: The Labour reckoning – Corbyn has fought a spirited campaign but is he leading the party to worst defeat since 1935? In March, Cowley opined: The stench of decay and failure coming from the Labour Party is now overwhelming – Speak to any Conservative MP and they will say that there is no opposition. Period. Like everyone else at the Guardian, columnist Owen Jones’ initial instinct was to tweet away from his own viewspaper’s ferocious anti-Corbyn campaign: The British right wing press led a vicious campaign of lies, smears, hatred and bigotry. And millions told them where to stick it. And yet, as recently as April 18, Jones had depicted Corbyn as a pathetic figure: A man who stood only out of a sense of duty, to put policies on the agenda, and who certainly had no ambition to be leader, will now take Labour into a general election, against all his original expectations. My suggestion that Corbyn stand down in favour of another candidate was driven by a desire to save his policies… Jones has now also issued a mea culpa: I owe Corbyn, John McDonnell, Seumas Milne, his policy chief Andrew Fisher, and others, an unreserved, and heartfelt apology… I wasn’t a bit wrong, or slightly wrong, or mostly wrong, but totally wrong. Having one foot in the Labour movement and one in the mainstream media undoubtedly left me more susceptible to their groupthink. Never again. We will see! To his credit, Jones managed to criticise his own employer (something he had previously told us was unthinkable and absurd): Now that I’ve said I’m wrong…so the rest of the mainstream commentariat, including in this newspaper, must confess they were wrong, too. Despite the blizzard of mea culpas from colleagues, George Monbiot also initially pointed well away from his employer: The biggest losers today are the billionaires who own the Mail, Sun, Times and Telegraph. And thought they owned the nation. And: It was The Sun wot got properly Cor-Binned’. And: ‘By throwing every brick in the house at Corbyn, and still failing to knock him over, the billionaire press lost much of its power. After receiving criticism, and having, of course, seen Jones’ mea culpa, Monbiot subsequently admitted that anti-Corbyn bias is found ‘even in the media that’s not owned by billionaires’: This problem also affects the Guardian… Only the Guardian and the Mirror enthusiastically supported both Labour and Corbyn in election editorials. But the scales still didn’t balance. This is a change from Monbiot’s declared position of three years ago, when he rejected the idea that the Guardian was part of the problem. This week, he recalled his own dumping of Corbyn in a tweet from January: ‘I have now lost all faith.’ The full tweet read: I was thrilled when Jeremy Corbyn became leader of the Labour Party, but it has been one fiasco after another. I have now lost all faith. Monbiot blamed media bias on the way journalists are selected – ‘We should actively recruit people from poorer backgrounds’ – and wrote, curiously, ‘the biggest problem, I believe, is that we spend too much time in each other’s company’. We suggested to Monbiot that this was not at all ‘the biggest problem’ with ‘mainstream’ media, and pointed instead to elite ownership, profit-orientation, advertiser dependence and use of state-subsidised ‘news’, as discussed by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky in their ‘propaganda model’. Jonathan Cook responded to Monbiot, describing the limits of free speech with searing honesty: This blindness even by a “radical” like Monbiot to structural problems in the media is not accidental either. Realistically, the furthest he can go is where he went today in his column: suggesting organisational flaws in the corporate media, ones that can be fixed, rather than structural ones that cannot without rethinking entirely how the media functions. Monbiot will not – and cannot – use the pages of the Guardian to argue that his employer is structurally incapable of providing diverse and representative coverage. Nor can he admit that his own paper polices its pages to limit what can be said on the left, to demarcate whole areas of reasonable thought as off-limits. To do so would be to end his Guardian career and consign him to the outer reaches of social media. The same, of course, applies to Jones, who made no attempt at all to account for corporate media bias. Media grandee Will Hutton, former editor-in-chief of the Observer, now Principal of Hertford College, Oxford, wrote of ‘How the rightwing tabloids got it wrong – It was the Sun wot hung it’. On Twitter, we reminded Hutton of his own article, one month earlier: Er, excuse us..! Will Hutton, May 7: “Never before in my adult life has the future seemed so bleak for progressives. Tragicomically, given the awesome extent of his employer’s anti-Corbyn bias, John Cody Fidler-Simpson CBE, BBC World Affairs Editor, tweeted: I suspect we’ve seen the end of the tabloids as arbiters of UK politics. Sun, Mail & Express threw all they had into backing May, & failed. We replied: Likewise the “quality” press and the BBC, which has been so biased even a former chair of the BBC Trust spoke out. Sir Michael Lyons, who chaired the BBC trust from 2007 to 2011, commented on the BBC’s ‘quite extraordinary attacks on the elected leader of the Labour party’: I can understand why people are worried about whether some of the most senior editorial voices in the BBC have lost their impartiality on this. Conclusion – The Corporate Media Monopoly Is Broken ne week before the election, the Guardian reported that ‘a new force is shaping the general election debate’: Alternative news sites are run from laptops and bedrooms miles from the much-derided “Westminster bubble” and have emerged as one of the most potent forces in election news sharing, according to research conducted for the Guardian by the web analytics company Kaleida. These alternative articles were ‘being shared more widely online than the views of mainstream newspaper commentators’. Remarkably, ‘Nothing from the BBC, the Guardian or the Daily Mail comes close’ to the most-shared alternative media pieces. The Canary reported that it had doubled the number of visitors to its site to six million in May. A story by Evolve Politics, run by just two people, was shared 55,000 times on Facebook and was read at least 200,000 times. These websites ‘explicitly offer a counter-narrative to what they deride as the “MSM” or mainstream media’. Indeed, the evidence is now simply overwhelming – the 100-year big business monopoly of the mass media has been broken. It is obvious that the right-wing press – the Daily Mail, the Sun, The Times and Telegraph – play a toxic role in manipulating the public to favour elite interests. But many people are now realising that the liberal press is actually the most potent opponent of progressive change. Journalist Matt Kennard commented: The Guardian didn’t get it “wrong”. It is the mouthpiece of a liberal elite that is financially endangered by a socialist program. In truth, the Guardian sought to destroy Corbyn long before he became Labour leader (see here and here). This means that it did not target him because he was an ineffective leader imperilling Labour. And this hostility was no aberration, not a well-intentioned mistake that they got ‘wrong’. To this day, the Guardian remains Blair’s great cheerleader, despite his awesome crimes, just as it was Hillary Clinton and Obama’s cheerleader, and just as it was Bill Clinton’s before them. While employing a handful of compromised fig leaves, the Guardian has ruthlessly smeared anyone who has sought to challenge the status quo: Julian Assange, Russell Brand, Hugo Chavez, Noam Chomsky, Edward Herman, John Pilger, George Galloway and many others. It has also been complicit in the great war crimes of Iraq, Libya and Syria – accepting fake government justifications for war at face value, ignoring expert sources who made a nonsense of the claims, and propagandising hard for the West’s supposed ‘responsibility to protect’ the nations it so obviously seeks to destabilise and exploit. In our view, the corporate journalists who should be treated with most caution are precisely those celebrated as ‘dissidents’. Corporate media give Owen Jones, George Monbiot, Paul Mason and others immense outreach to draw 100,000s of progressives back to a filtered, corporate version of the world that favours established power and stifles progressive change. Above all, as Jonathan Cook says, the unwritten rule is that they will not speak out on the inherent structural corruption of a corporate media system reporting on a world dominated by corporations. This is crucial, because, as last week confirms, and as we have been arguing for 16 years, if change begins anywhere, it begins with the public challenging, exposing and rejecting, not just the right-wing press, but the corporate media as a whole, the ‘liberal-left’ very much included. In the last month, we witnessed astonishing numbers of people challenging all media, all the time on every bias – we have never seen anything like it. The young, in particular, are learning that they do not need highly-paid, privileged corporate employees to tell them what to think. We don’t need to tolerate a corporate-filtered view of the world. We can inform ourselves and each other, and we can do so with very much more honesty, courage and compassion than any corporate journalist. If there is one message from last week, it’s a simple one – dump the corporate media; all of it. http://clubof.info/