I have watched this miniseries and considered writing my own review. I have put it off for several months and then came across this, I may still do one in the future but for now this is a worthwhile read and a very accurate review of the show.
Band of Brothers, the 2001 TV miniseries, was produced by Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks.
Episode 9 was directed by David Frankel and written by John Orloff.
Based on the 1992 book by Stephen E. Ambrose, Band of Brothers. E Company, 506th Regiment, 101st Airborne from Normandy to Hitler’s Eagle Nest, Simon and Schuster (reviewed edition by Pocket Books, 2001).
In ten episodes, Band of Brothers depicts how E (“Easy”) Company, 506th Regiment, 101st Airborne Division, trained in America and England and then fought from D-Day through to the end of the European phase of WWII. It is a technically strong and gripping production. The battle scenes are among the most realistic I have seen, though one must allow for the demands of the cinematic medium — emphasis of a few individuals and spatial compression of combat groups. I am reminded of the grim and gritty street battle sequences in Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan. This review looks at the ninth episode, which does not depict military conflict but is itself something of a black operation in the culture wars.
As our own Edmund Connelly has repeatedly demonstrated, Jewish interests have frequently been pushed by American television and Hollywood films in various ways, often as a backdrop to stories unrelated to ethnicity, like the omnipresent upper class Anglo twit and the Black genius technical expert. The 9th episode of Band of Brothers, titled “Why We Fight”, represents an unprecedented level of ambition — to claim America’s WWII sacrifices as motivated by the desire to save Jews from Nazi persecution, to make America’s sacrifice in WWII all about the Jews, not about Americans doing their duty in a tragic internecine conflict.
The episode opens with a scene of devastation in the German town of Thalem, on April 11, 1945. There is rubble in the streets and townspeople are cleaning up. A group of relaxed G.I.s looks on from a balcony. An impromptu chamber orchestra of old men is playing a Beethoven dirge.
Then a flash-back: “One month earlier, Sturzelberg, Germany”. The war is as good as over. The Wehrmacht has given up the fight. Roosevelt’s death is announced. There are scenes of looting by officers and men; of a soldier having sex with an enthusiastic blond German girl; of drinking. The bridge over the Rhine at Remagen is announced captured.
The company is still under orders, though the men are beginning to think about life back in the States. The company moves out in convoy. A Jewish G.I. — the only Jewish soldier in the series and in the book — talks about his plans for after the war. “I’m going to find a nice Jewish girl.”
Masses of German POWs march by in orderly ranks. An officer says admiringly that even in defeat the Germans look like soldiers. But the Jewish G.I. sees nothing but objects of hate and contempt, standing up in the vehicle and screaming: “You stupid fascist pigs. . . . You ignorant, servile scum!” This displays a sophisticated vocabulary for someone who we are told in the final episode went back to driving taxis after the War. The scene does not occur in Ambrose’s book.
The company drives past a scene of summary executions of three uniformed Germans, who are kicked out of a building, made to kneel, then unceremoniously shot in the head, blood spraying. Their killers then begin to go through pockets. The killers are also uniformed but are not Americans or British. Perhaps Czech troops. The troops of Easy Company are shocked by the murders. They look down grimly, except for the Jewish G.I., who smiles.
A patrol in a forest near Landsberg in Bavaria discovers a concentration camp full of starving prisoners. (A 21-minute clip, including the concentration camp material, is available here.) The 101st did in fact liberate a camp in the area. The Jewish G.I. is the company’s translator. He translates the words of an inmate being interviewed by the commander. This is a work camp for Jews, pause, and Gypsies. The scene in Ambrose’s book does not mention Jews or Gypsies. It is described as a work camp (pp. 262–263).
German civilians in the local town deny any knowledge of the camp but they are not believed by the G.I.s. Food is requisitioned from the local town, from a bakery. We see a fat baker complaining as his entire stock is removed without explanation or payment. In Ambrose’s book there is no such character. Instead an officer finds a store of cheese and has it distributed to the camp inmates without incident (p. 262).
Whether or not there was a baker, the way he is presented is an exemplary propaganda construct of the cheapest Hollywood films. His jiggling neck and self righteous possessiveness stands for all German civilians in the town who, we are led to assume, must have known of the camp. It is implied that they remained knowingly well fed while the Jews starved. An officer threatens the baker with his pistol and accuses him of knowing about the camp. The baker’s unpleasant appearance is another example of Spielberg using hackneyed propaganda technique. It is not enough that a person do wrong. He must also wear a black hat and waxed mustachio.
The G.I.s begin to feed the camp inmates but a doctor warns of the danger of overeating following starvation. The inmates must remain in the camp under medical supervision. The Jewish G.I. is ordered to make the announcement, which he does reluctantly because he knows how much the inmates desire to be free at last. After making the announcement and pleading with the inmates he collapses in tears.
The next day all able-bodied German civilians are ordered to clean up the camp. The scenes of the cleanup are disturbing, as townspeople wade among the corpses.
The wife of a German general, seen earlier in her home facing down an American looter, is now seen pulling at bodies, humbled and distraught.
Flash forward to the episode’s start date, 11 April. Hitler’s death is reported. The company receives new orders: to occupy Berchtesgaden, Hitler’s mountain retreat.
The closing message of the episode reads: “These camps were part of the Nazi attempt to effect the ‘Final Solution’ to the ‘Jewish Question’”.
In fact these were work camps for building jet fighters. As the book states: “It was a work camp, not an extermination camp.” The film makes no mention of the POWs from Russia, Italy and other countries, German communists and homosexuals who also suffered at the hands of the Nazis. Spielberg’s film and many others like it steal the memory of the camps and the sufferings of many nations and relabel them “Jewish property”. This is an obvious lapse of scholarly standards in deference to Jewish sentiment.
The next caption reads: “Between 1942 and 1945 five million ethnic minorities and six million Jews were murdered — many of them in the camps.”
This again distinguishes Jewish suffering inside and outside the camp system. It implies that Jews were not an ethnic minority, which is incorrect. And it omits the ethnic majorities in Slavic lands who suffered inside and outside the camps. The high death toll among Polish and Russian civilians during the War is deemed unworthy of mention in Spielberg’s film. If the forced labour of Jews was an act of genocide, why not pay respects to the Russian, Ukrainian, and Polish nations?
The episode claims the forced work camps for Jewish victimhood. Its lies and distortions must have been deliberate because the script was read by experts. This is a work of black propaganda that exploits fine acting and technical wizardry.
Who did Spielberg choose to direct and write the episode? With David Frankel as director and John Orloff as writer it has the appearance of complete ethnic vertical integration. Was nothing left to chance? The other executive producer was Tom Hanks, not a Jew. But he would have been no counterweight to Spielberg’s ethnic dedication. Hanks is a typical tame Hollywood WASP who has done nothing for his people, produced no equivalent of Schindler’s List.
The series received the recognition it deserved. Orloff’s depiction of the concentration camp was honoured by the American Jewish community, not at all surprising considering that it was written for them. Here he is receiving the award for Best TV film from Sam Rubin at the 2nd Annual Jewish Image Awards in Film and Television at the Four Seasons Hotel in Los Angeles, Ca. Tuesday, Sept. 24, 2002.
More on the book version
The episode’s depiction of the concentration camp differs radically from that in the book. Instead of a concentration camp full of Jews, the book describes a “Displaced Persons’ camp” at Dormagen, containing forced labourers brought from occupied Europe (p. 255). The 101st did liberate the concentration camp Kaufering IV near Landsberg on the Lech in April 1945 but this section of Ambrose’s book is not titled “Why We Fight”. The book and most of the miniseries depicted the experiences of Easy Company. Not the liberation scene. This is based on a film made by the U.S. Army at the time, and supplied to Spielberg and Hanks by the European Holocaust Memorial organization in Landsberg (see links section of the Wikipedia article).
There is documentary evidence of the mixed status and ethnic composition of workers in the Landsberg camps. In October 1944 a local administrator estimated that there were 21 camps with 5,251 inmates working for various manufacturing companies. This included eight separate Jewish camps, with one more under construction. The administrator noted that there were also prisoners of war from Poland, Russia, and France. These figures do not tally with another estimate of just one facility near Landsberg for the period 15 July to 15 August 1944, when the workforce consisted of 9,000 prisoners brought from a concentration camp — many Jewish — plus 3,000 foreign workers and 3,900 German workers. Either way there were a great many non-Jews involved.
The phrase “why we fight” does not occur in the book. Ambrose quotes Maj. Winters as saying: “Now I know why I am here” (p. 263), which was an understandable emotional reaction to the misery of the camp, not a considered philosophical statement, and not one linked exclusively to the plight of Jews. It expressed a humanitarian sentiment. It is not a warrant to rehearse the Holocaust ritual yet again and push aside the men’s true responses and priorities.
The soldiers felt that they were fighting for America, not to end suffering most Americans did not know about until after the war’s end.
Less than one page of text about the camp becomes half an episode in Spielberg’s rendering. In the book there is no mention of the Jewish Holocaust. Yet the series is presented as based on Ambrose’s book. The G.I.s did not see Jews; they saw suffering humanity. Spielberg’s biggest crime is to have rewritten the scene to represent the G.I.s as feeling and thinking like him, focused on his ethnic kin. In effect he claims the Finest Generation for the Jews.
There are also errors of omission. For example the series ignores the praiseful reaction of the G.I.s to Germans, once they began to occupy German territory. There is a story! It could have been told by someone who was sympathetic to the innocent German civilians or merely objective and looking for an interesting tale to tell. The series could have depicted American G.I.s discovering how similar the Germans were to themselves. There are dramatic possibilities in this realization. Intimate moments of self doubt, of stunned realization. Close-up encounters with vulnerable human beings; flawed but very much like Americans. One can imagine a story in which some soldiers realize they have been fighting a sort of civil war. This is not a fanciful construction — it is right there in Ambrose’s book.
The book deals with American-German relations in some details. For example the soldiers began to realize how similar the Germans were to their own loved ones — they began to realize their own ethnic kinship. On one occasion a G.I. was clearing an apartment block so that it could be requisitioned by the company. This was wartime and the G.I.s’ hearts were hardened. The procedure was to go from door to door telling the occupants they had five minutes to vacate their apartments, taking no bedclothes so that the G.I.s would be comfortable.
They came pouring out, crying, lamenting, frightened. “I knocked on this one door,” Carson recalled, “and an elderly lady answered. I looked at her and she stared at me. God, it was a picture of my own grandmother. Our eyes met and I said, ‘Bleib hier,’ or stay here.”(p. 260, emphasis added.)
This is genetic similarity at work — one genotype recognizing a similar other. The old lady did not speak. All the G.I. perceived was her face. There is more along these lines that one would never guess from Spielberg’s series, except for the Jewish G.I.’s compassion for his people in the camps
Ambrose summarizes the American soldier’s judgment of various nationalities during WWII, mostly negative.
He felt the Arabs were despicable, liars, thieves, dirty, awful, without a redeeming feature. The Italians were liars, thieves, dirty, wonderful, with many redeeming features, but never to be trusted.
The French provincials and Parisians had assorted negative traits, while the British were “brave, resourceful, quaint, reserved, dull”. The Dutch were “simply wonderful” though few American soldiers were in Holland.
Wonder of wonders, the average G.I. found that the people he liked best, identified most closely with, enjoyed being with, were the Germans. Clean, hard-working, disciplined, educated, middle-class in their tastes and lifestyles (many G.I.s noted that so far as they could tell the only people in the world who regarded a flush toilet and soft white toilet paper as a necessity were the Germans and the Americans), the Germans seemed to many American soldiers as “just like us” (pp. 248–9).
Americans admired the German civilians who, of their own volition, began picking up rubble the morning after a battle. In that regard they compared the Germans favourably to other Europeans they had encountered. How easy it would have been, how inexpensive, to have the G.I.s utter a few words of praise as they watched German civilians clearing the street at the start of Episode 9.
Ambrose suggests that some of the good impression made by the Germans was due to the comfort provided by their middle class homes. But even Webster, a convinced German hater, could not help but soften. He wrote to his parent in April 1945 that the “Germans I have seen so far have impressed me as clean, efficient, law-abiding people”. They were churchgoers. (Couldn’t Hanks persuade Spielberg to allow just one scene of Germans in church?) “In Germany everybody goes out and works”, unlike other nationalities. “They are cleaner, more progressive, and more ambitious than either the English or the French” (p. 250).
The shock of ethnic recognition experienced by G.I.s as they entered Germany has been discussed elsewhere. Ambrose quotes one author, Glenn Gray, thus: “The enemy could not have changed so quickly from a beast to a likable human being. Thus, the conclusion is nearly forced upon the G.I.s that they have been previously blinded by fear and hatred and the propaganda of their own government” (p. 250).
The only pronounced reference to ethnicity concerns the only Jewish member of Easy Company, Joseph Liebgott. He is seen early in the series objecting to an anti-Semitic outburst by a fellow private. He has no visible Jewish characteristics, unsurprising because he is played by Ross McCall, a Catholic Scotsman. Apparently Spielberg knows when genetic similarity is useful. Because the character played by McCall is so different to the real Liebgott as described in the book, I have referred to the former as “the Jewish G.I.” This is the (miniseries) character who screamed collective insults at German prisoners of war and smiled at the murder of others.
The Jewish G.I. character is given some balanced resolution in the tenth and final installment directed by Mikael Salomon. In July 1945 the division is occupying a part of Bavaria, which includes Hitler’s mountain retreat, the Eagle’s Nest. For much of that episode he is in a vengeful state of mind, occupying a black and white world where all Germans are on the dark side. He even kills a man on the hearsay that he had been a concentration camp commander and personally questioning him (well, he demands his death; another G.I. pulls the trigger). This is true to the book. We detect some softening when the Jewish G.I. translates a speech by a German officer. The officer is about to disband his company, and a watching American officer asks the Jewish G.I. to interpret. At first the translation is delivered mockingly, but the speech ends up winning the respect even of someone twisted by hate. The German officer begins by saying that it has been a long hard war. That he is proud of his men. That a spirit of comradeship has arisen from sharing the same dangers. They had become brothers. Some of the German troops weep. Later we see a friendly conversation between a German and an American soldier manning a checkpoint together, in which the German shows a human face (he recommended the Italian front over the Russian). The closing scene of the episode is in documentary format. A veteran of the 101st Airborne recites the great St. Crispin’s Day speech by Henry V in Shakespeare’s play, echoing the German officer’s words.
Other scenes relating to ethnicity include one in which half a dozen German prisoners of war are murdered in cold blood in the D-Day episode. The murderer is a handsome Anglo with Nietzschean views and homicidal demeanour, who hands around cigarettes to the unarmed Germans and gives them lights before shooting them down without provocation. The killer is not coarse or low class and he speaks standard American English without a trace of provincial or big-city accent. In the last few episodes the character is rehabilitated to become a hero. He is never punished or admonished. What is the point of this invented scene, which does not occur in the book? The closest event in the book is when a few German prisoners are shot while attempting to jump their guards (p. 77). The very different film version associates Anglo ethnicity with mindless, psychopathic aggression.
Despite a scene in which a German POW shows a human face (before being murdered as above), the Germans are once again nameless aggressors. Not much change from the usual Hollywood formula. Among the G.I.s the weak characters are all Anglos. The Italian soldiers have ethnic residues but are mainly regular guys.
The Finest Generation were fallible human beings who were nevertheless as noble a band of brothers as there could be. They fought for their nation’s interests. Most were patriots at a time when America was seen by most citizens as a White republic. The ninth episode of Band of Brothers is an act of identity theft, an attempt to rewrite history to misrepresent the American soldiers of WWII as having different identities and different motivations than they in fact had. The ninth episode and to some extent the whole miniseries is part of an effort to airbrush from the American people’s memory the authentic historical American nation and replace it with a lie that serves leftist ideology and Jewish interests.
How can this sort of outrage occur? Once a group is beyond criticism, let alone censure, its ambition can expand to fill the status vacuum thus created. That privilege is created by the ban on anti-Semitism so broadly defined that it includes reasoned criticism of Jewish political culture. Any attempt to criticize Spielberg or other Jews for ethnic bias would attract the anti-Semitism accusation, unleashing real penalties formal or informal. No other group is so privileged.
The replacement of White Christian historical memories with minority perspectives and sometimes by self-hate fantasies is limited by the inertial quality of those memories. The interviewees at the start of the 9th episode had mixed feelings towards Germans. Only one said that Germans were thought of as evil. One said that he could have been friends with them under different circumstances. All the veterans were relaxed. None got excited or showed hostility. None mentioned the concentration camp liberated by the 101st. None mentioned Nazis. This is congruent with the book’s cursory treatment of the work camp. While the cruel conditions in the camp were deplored, the G.I.s had seen other horrors.
Living memories also limit the chutzpah of the casting director. It is true that a Scot was cast as the Jewish G.I. However the predominance among the actors cast for the film of Northwestern European racial types and Anglo regional accents is accurate, as is the segregation of Negroes to transport duties. It will take one or two generations longer before these aspects can be falsified with impunity. It is reasonable to conclude that this is the direction film is moving when a Jewish producer can tell his White Gentile audience that their fathers fought and died not in defence of their nation but for his own ethnic interests, knowing that he is safe from effective reproach.
No surprise here.
An actor who appeared in hit show Ugly Betty has been arrested after allegedly killing his mother with a samurai sword inside her New York home.
Michael L Brea was taken into custody by a SWAT team after police spent 45 minutes trying to get into the apartment when neighbours reported hearing screaming from the home.
Brea had to eventually be tasered by police at the Brooklyn apartment where authorities said they were met with a ‘very bloody’ scene.
Police said they found Yannick Brea kneeling with fatal lacerations to her head in a blood-spattered bathroom.
Her son was in a nearby bedroom holding the three-foot sword and babbling about religion and repentance, police said.
A neighbour claimed the 31-year-old had taken his mother hostage and could be heard shouting passages from the Bible.
He claimed the actor had been shouting ‘repent. repent,’ before stabbing his 51-year-old mother with the sword.
There have been claims that woman was found decapitated.
Police had been called to a domestic disturbance at Brea’s home prior to the killing.
They had left, but in the early hours of this morning neighbours again called police after hearing screams of help.
Bernard Bren who lives nearby claimed he woke up when he heard screaming.
‘It sounded like a lady’s voice and after a while I just didn’t hear the woman’s voice again,’ he said.
‘I heard this wild screaming’, said Gregory Clare who lived below the apartment where Yannick was brutally killed.
‘Michael was yelling, ‘Repent, repent, sinner, sinner’, over and over again’, Clare said. ‘He was screaming, ‘You never accepted Jesus’. It was real loud’.
He added: ‘I saw Michael last Saturday. He was asking about my daughter. He was always real kind.
Another neighbour said: ‘Her screams woke me up. Screams I’ll never forget. I heard [Michael] rambling. He was incoherent’.
Brea, who appeared in one episode of Ugly Betty, was apparently taken out of the Prospect Heights apartment on a stretcher and is currently at Kings County Hospital.
He will undergo a psychiatric assessment before police decide whether to charge him.
Neighbours said they could see splattered blood on the apartment windows.
The accused killer’s cousin John Brea was stunned when he heard news of Yannick’s death.
‘She was a very loving person. She helped to raise all of us’, he said, adding that his aunt was a hard-working woman.
When notified of the killing, Brea’s ex-girlfriend said: ‘Michael had the whole world in his hands. This is a shock’.
Brea is a Haitian-American actor who was also a dancer in film Step Up 3D. He was described by neighbours as ‘quiet’ and into martial arts.
Brea, who was described by neighbors as ‘quiet,’ was into martial arts and was a low-level Mason.
He apparently took the murder weapon from a Masonic lodge after a meeting on Monday night and then later used it on his mother, said the suspect’s uncle Martial Brea.
His nephew was not cleared to take one of the ceremonial swords which typically has stainless steel blades with a short, black grip.
‘Something happened that made him do it,’ said Martial. ‘The devil entered him.’
The murder suspect has a twin brother Marcel who is a physical trainer who apparently went to the hospital this morning with a friend.
Brea bought a Subway restaurant shop three years ago and he is said to have given away 300 sandwiches for free on Thanksgiving in 2008.
‘I remember growing up and my mother was always feeding people who were less fortunate,” Brea once told Haitian movie site BelFim.com. ‘My parents raised me to always share and to give charity in the name of God.’
The next time you get in an argument with some dumbass who is in denial about racial crime stats link them to this article.
Explaining that blacks and Hispanics are more prone to violent crime than whites is like explaining that the sun comes up in the East. Everyone knows it. The crime statistics prove it, as do the nightly news programs and daily newspapers—whatever the producers of Law and Order want you to believe.
Now a black editorial writer at the Washington Post, Jonathan Capehart, has stumbled upon this truth. Capehart reports that he ran into New York City’s police chief at breakfast one morning and asked about the city’s rising crime rate. The conversation led Capehart to examine the New York City Police Department’s crime data. The color of murder and gun violence in New York
Lo and behold, Capehart learned something he apparently hadn’t known before: Blacks and Hispanics commit essentially all the violent crime in New York. They are also the most likely crime victims.
Capehart quoted the report for 2010 directly:
“Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter victims are most frequently Black (67.0%) or Hispanic (28.1%). White victims account for (3.2%) of all Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter victims while Asian /Pacific Islanders account for (1.8%) of all Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter victims. The race/ethnicity of known Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter suspects mirrors the victim population with Black (65.3%) and Hispanic (30.6%) suspects accounting for the majority of suspects. White suspects account for (1.8%) of all Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter suspects while Asian/Pacific Islanders accounted for (2.4%) of the known Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter suspects.
“The Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter arrest population is similarly distributed. Black arrestees (53.8%) and Hispanic arrestees (36.4%) account for the majority of Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter arrestees while White arrestees (7.1%) and Asian/Pacific Islander (2.2%) arrestees account for the remaining portions of the Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter arrest population.”[PDF]
Seeing the news so starkly distressed Capehart. He writes:
“In short, 95.1 percent of all murder victims and 95.9 percent of all shooting victims in New York City are black or Hispanic. And 90.2 percent of those arrested for murder and 96.7 percent of those arrested for shooting someone are black and Hispanic. I don’t even know where to begin to describe the horror I still feel looking at those numbers. But the word ‘hunted’ comes to mind.”
Capehart feels the same horror Jesse Jackson feels. “There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life,” Jackson once admitted, “than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery — then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”
Jackson is relieved when he sees whites footstepping behind him, as are all liberals, black or white, because even a staunch ideologue knows the truth: Blacks and Hispanics commit almost all of the violent crime in this country.
Capehart has finally seen the true color of crime. But six months ago, The New York Times’ Al Baker [Email him]unbosomed himself of a jeremiad that suggested the NYPD was “profiling” because a study of “stop-and-frisk” data showed that most of those stopped and frisked were, well, black and Hispanic. [New York Minorities More Likely to Be Frisked, May 12, 2010]
Reported Baker: “[b]lacks and Latinos were nine times as likely as whites to be stopped by the police in New York City in 2009, but, once stopped, were no more likely to be arrested.”
Blacks are 23 percent of the Big Apple’s population, but constituted 55 percent of the stops. Hispanics are 32 percent of the population, but were 28 percent of stops. Whites, at 35 percent of the population, accounted for 10 percent of stops.
These data, compiled by the leftist Center for Constitutional Rights, allegedly prove the police are profiling,—although blacks were not arrested more than whites after a stop. And more importantly, although the readily available crime data — that used by Capehart — demonstrates that profiling isn’t the problem.
After the Times took its shot at the thin blue line, the City Journal’s sensible Heather Mac Donald discharged a blunderbuss loaded with data to blow a hole in the profiling charge. She published a piece in her magazine and (to the Times’ credit) she was allowed to publish a similar piece on the op-ed page of the Times. [Fighting Crime Where the Criminals Are, June 25, 2010]
Wrote Mac Donald, “[y]ou cannot properly analyze police behavior without analyzing crime”. Mac Donald eviscerated the Times by quoting from the 2009 edition [PDF]of the same report that Capehart used.
“Blacks committed 66 percent of all violent crimes in the first half of 2009 (though they were only 55 percent of all stops and only 23 percent of the city’s population). [Emphasis added]Blacks committed 80 percent of all shootings in the first half of 2009. Together, blacks and Hispanics committed 98 percent of all shootings. Blacks committed nearly 70 percent of all robberies. Whites, by contrast, committed 5 percent of all violent crimes in the first half of 2009, though they are 35 percent of the city’s population (and were 10 percent of all stops). They committed 1.8 percent of all shootings and less than 5 percent of all robberies. The face of violent crime in New York, in other words, like in every other large American city, is almost exclusively black and brown. “[Distorting the Truth About Crime and Race, May 14, 2010 ]
Mac Donald observed that the police department’s Compstat process crunches crime data that tell police where the crime is—and something else important: blacks and Hispanics are stopped and frisked less frequently that the propensity for violent crime would seem to demand.
Yet the New York Times, Mac Donald correctly concludes, “assumes that policing should mirror census data”—that is, if blacks constitute 23 percent of New York City’s population, then blacks should account for 23 percent of all those stopped by police.
But the police can’t operate that way. They have to patrol crime-besieged neighborhoods and arrest the people who commit the crimes. And most of those people are blacks and Hispanics.
Thus, cops spend most of their time making busts in minority neighborhoods like the South Bronx and Harlem, not on the Upper East Side.
Unlike the professional race hustlers, Jonathan Capehart seems to understand the obvious:
“People have railed against black-on-black crime for decades. And yet it persists. Yes, there are a host of factors that push someone to a life of crime, but not all of them have to do with the limitations or failures of society. Some folks are just plain evil, and no amount of social intervention will stop them from preying on people, especially people who look like them.
“People have also railed — and rightly so — against the disproportionate application of the law against people of color. Bob Herbert has used barrels of New York Times ink against the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk policy. But when faced with such stark murder and shooting statistics, what’s a police commissioner supposed to do to ensure the safety of the public?
“All of society has an obligation to ensure that its citizens can live their lives in peace and security. The police are doing their job.”
So Capehart gets it. That’s very good.
But Capehart, perhaps innocently, missed the black-on-white aspect of these crime reports—rape being just one example.
Consider these data, right below those Capehart cited:
“Rape victims are most frequently Black (46.0%) or Hispanic (34.2%). White victims account for (15.1%) of all Rape victims while Asian/Pacific Islanders account for (4.7%) of all Rape Victims.
“Rape suspects are most frequently Black (54.9%) or Hispanic (31.3%). White suspects account for (7.4%) of all Rape suspects while Asian/Pacific Islanders accounted for (6.3%) of the known Rape suspects.
“Rape arrestees are most frequently Black (48.9%) and Hispanic (38.2%). White arrestees (6.8%) and Asian/Pacific Islander arrestees (5.8%) account for the remaining portions of the Rape arrestee population.”
So blacks and Hispanics account for about 87 percent of those arrested for rape; whites about 7 percent. These data mean that almost all inter-racial rape is black-on-white or Hispanic-on-white.
Had Capehart looked even further, he would have found data from the Justice Department, duly reported by Lawrence Auster at FrontPageMagazine.com that showed
“[i]n the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man. What this means is that every day in the United States, over one hundred white women are raped or sexually assaulted by a black man.” [The Truth of Interracial Rape in the United States May 03, 2007]
In other words, white women are as entitled to feel “hunted” as Capehart.
Upshot is, if you’re a law-abiding black man or white woman in New York City, life can be dangerous.
Blacks and Hispanics are waging a fratricidal war of murder, rape and robbery in New York City—and rampaging against whites at will.
Capehart, to his great credit, is aghast.
Not so the New York Times’ Baker. Nothing to see here, folks, he assures bystanders. Move along. Move along.
This is a police state, how long will you sit down and let it continue to degenerate?
Here is the description from the video.
Lets get the facts straight first. Before the video started the boy went through a metal detector and didn’t set it off but was selected for a pat down. The boy was shy so the TSA couldn’t complete the full pat on the young boy. The father tried several times to just hold the boys arms out for the TSA agent but i guess it didn’t end up being enough for the guy. I was about 30 ft away so i couldn’t hear their conversation if there was any. The enraged father pulled his son shirt off and gave it to the TSA agent to search, thats when this video begins.
******* THIS VIDEO OCCURRED AT SALT LAKE CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ON NOVEMBER 19TH AT AROUND THE TIME OF 12:00 PM **********
Always carry a camera with you and film these type of actions, we MUST spread the word.
Top AIPAC officials visited prostitutes, regularly watched porn at work: claim
Is US’s most influential advocate for Israel about to implode?
A former foreign policy chief for the largest Israeli lobby in the US is threatening to provide evidence members of the organization regularly trafficked in classified US government information.
The claim comes in the midst of an increasingly ugly lawsuit in which parties have alleged or admitted to mass viewing of pornography among senior staffers at AIPAC as well as extra-marital affairs.
Steve Rosen, who was in charge of foreign policy issues at AIPAC until 2005, is suing his former employer for $20 million, alleging that AIPAC defamed him when they fired him. Rosen and colleague Keith Weissman were charged in 2004 with espionage for allegedly pressuring a Washington Post reporter into running classified US government information they had obtained about Iran. The charges were dropped last year, evidently due to lack of evidence.
But AIPAC fired Rosen years before the charges were dropped, on the grounds that Rosen’s “conduct did not comport with what AIPAC would expect of its employees.”
But Rosen disputes this, and his lawsuit aims to prove that what he allegedly did was standard practice at AIPAC. The Washington Post’s Jeff Stein reports:
Rosen says his actions were common practice at the organization. He said his next move is to show that AIPAC, Washington’s major pro-Israeli lobbying group by far, regularly traffics in sensitive U.S. government information, especially material related to the Middle East.
“I will introduce documentary evidence that AIPAC approved of the receipt of classified information,” he said by e-mail. “Most instances of actual receipt are hard to document, because orally received information rarely comes with classified stamps on it nor records alerts that the information is classified.”
But Rosen said he would produce “statements of AIPAC employees to the FBI, internal documents, deposition statements, public statements and other evidence showing that [the] receipt of classified information by employees other than [himself] … was condoned … for months prior to being condemned in March 2005 after threats from the prosecutors.”
“Unfortunately for AIPAC, Rosen has 180 documents which could prove that Howard Kohr, AIPAC’s executive director, and probably the AIPAC board as well, knew exactly what Rosen was doing,” reports M.J. Rosenberg at Al-Jazeera.
He suggests that Rosen’s threat to reveal AIPAC trafficking of data is meant to intimidate the lobby group into settling out of court. Making the lawsuit go away “will not be easy – even if Steve Rosen ultimately accepts a payoff from the organization and refrains from telling what he knows,” Rosenberg writes.
Other elements of the lawsuit could prove embarrassing, if not politically toxic. Lawyers for AIPAC got Rosen to admit he viewed pornography on work computers, but Rosen has countered that the head of AIPAC and his closest colleagues openly watched porn at work. The Jewish Daily Forward reports:
“I witnessed [AIPAC executive director] Howard Kohr viewing pornographic material, [Kohr’s secretary] Annette Franzen viewing pornographic material, probably a dozen other members of the staff,” Rosen said in his deposition. He added that, according to a Nielsen survey, more than a quarter of Americans regularly view pornographic websites at their workplace.
Later in his deposition, the former lobbyist also said he had heard from directors at AIPAC about their visits to prostitutes and he claimed Kohr had routinely used “locker room language” at the AIPAC offices.
Rosenberg posits that the lawsuit “could well destroy the lobby without ever making its way on to the front page. AIPAC is under siege, and is spending millions to stay alive.”
Last week, 17 men were arrested in New York for defrauding Germany out of $42 million in payments to phony holocaust survivors. Tens of thousands of American Jews had filed for pensions from Germany claiming to be concentration camp survivors. All swore they had been in the camps, told stories about gas chambers, human skin lampshades and such but not a single one had been in a camp at all. The state of Israel claims to have, alive today, nearly one million holocaust survivors.
As many as 90% of these may well be, not only frauds but many could easily be former concentration camp guards themselves, far more likely than surviving death camps. What better place to hide than Israel?
With numbers of camp survivors going up each year, we tend to forget we are talking about death camps. There were few survivors and most of them died immediately after the war. Those alive were found dying and couldn’t be saved, and most of them weren’t Jews but rather Russians, Gypsies, Communists, trade unionists and anti-Fascists.
Look at the numbers. There were only 5.3 million Jews listed as living in Europe, outside the USSR, in 1940. In a rough average, 12 death camps, filled to the brim with gas chambers and crematoriums ran 24 hours a day for 1000 days. Some are said, in testimony of literally thousands, to have killed from 17,000 to 20,000 per day. Lets use the figure, 10,000 per day times 12 camps times 1000 days.
Where do a million survivors come from? I can see a thousand, ten thousand but not 30,000 and certainly not the 15 million necessary to justify the current number of claimed survivors according to typical actuarial tables for healthy adults of the period, those who were not starved and tortured for years. Look at Vietnam veterans. Only 700,000 of 2.9 million survive 35 years after the war. Something is wrong here.
There are laws in the United States that punish people who wear military medals they didn’t earn or claim other such honors. When veterans discover someone claiming falsely to have served in war, that individual is arrested but also publicly humiliated. They are hunted down like dogs.
There are concentration camp survivors living in America, people who suffered incomprehensibly at the hands of the Nazis. However, there are also, in America we now know, tens of thousands or more who claim falsely to be of the heroic numbers from that period and numbers inside Israel that are unimaginable. Why are these people not punished?
As a Vietnam veteran, I share a common problem with others. For 4 decades, I met veteran after veteran, many were children when the war ended, but each claims some honor tied to military service based on a movie or television show. I have met, over the years, hundreds of such individuals, many at meetings of veterans organizations. I don’t find it horrible or destructive but it is disturbing and I won’t even remotely begin comparing service in Vietnam with the experience of a death camp.
Last week, authorities announced that those who had wrongly filed for benefits had been fooled somehow. I can see fooling someone as to whether they had seen a televisions show or not but there is only one American I can think of who imagined he had been in a death camp who hadn’t and that was President Ronald Reagan and he only claimed to have visited. Reagan’s error was based on dementia, not profit or gain. Now it seems, not only do we have tens of thousands of people who have a single false memory, they seem to remember years of horror, incredible detail and all of it is utterly false. There is no comparison, not with Reagan, not with Vietnam veterans, not with anyone.
Reagan’s error, despite the respect he is held in and his obvious illness, was been used to defame him countless times. His error was not only honest but done in the context of human feeling. How many of the others are lying, not only for financial gain but for something less wholesome?
Why then, in the name of all that is holy, did the authorities and news media immediately write this off as tens of thousands of cases of minor lapses in judgement rather than one of the most horrible moral crimes of all time?
There is no greater disrespect for a holocaust victim than this.
REVISIONISTS AND DENIERS
Two thousand people in Europe are in prison today for questioning some part, no matter how minor, of the holocaust. The official story of the holocaust is a compendium of testimony of several hundred thousand people as there was little physical evidence left at the end of the war. Some facilities were reconstructed based on testimony, for historical perspective but in general, it is believed that the Germans destroyed all evidence of death camps and mass graves when they learned they were losing the war.
Thousands of those who find this explanation unsatisfactory and had chosen to disagree, some noted historians, some scientists and some simple troublemakers and activists, have been imprisoned. At the trials, holocaust victims claimed that such questioning harmed them irreparably. However, not one holocaust victim has ever spoken up about the endless numbers of phony holocaust victims who besmirch them every day and have for nearly 65 years. Why is that?
One thing the revisionists claim is that almost every story from the holocaust, including notable books and even world famous holocaust survivors are, in actuality, the worst phonies of all. The analogy of the “phony veteran” is applicable here. After each war, endless numbers of those, who for reasons legitimate or not, felt their contribution to the war effort was less than honorable or noteworthy, claim accomplishments they are undeserving of. It is also known that combat veterans are seldom seen on bar stools at service organizations talking about heroic exploits.
In fact, as Americans are learning more and more each day, combat veterans have great difficulty surviving coming home and are often homeless, incarcerated and commit suicide in huge numbers. It would be easy to extrapolate the same for holocaust survivors. There is no greater potential cause of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in the history of mankind than the concentration camps of World War 2. Not only would survivors kill themselves out of guilt, most would suffer greatly shortened lifespans. This has been amazingly well documented.
This being the case, only a few hundred holocaust survivors could be alive today, not the one million living in Israel.
HONESTY AND TRUTH
Anyone imprisoned wrongly, anyone whose family was killed or whose assets were seized illegally, should be compensated. Anyone wrongly claiming to be part of a group they are not, one this unique in the history of mankind, deserves punishment. Why is this not done? Why is there no normal social pressure to “out” these people and defend the honor of holocaust survivors?
Has anyone ever asked a real holocaust survivor what it is like to see phonies continually on television talking about the holocaust? Do they forgive? We will never know, as it seems nobody cares about real holocaust survivors. The holocaust is brought up when Israel bombs a school or asks for foreign aid but as for the people themselves, these misuses of the suffering of some cheapen human misery and the human condition.
NEVER AGAIN, WHAT DOES IT REALLY MEAN?
If one child was taken away, died in a gas chamber, typhus, shot, it doesn’t matter, one life, this is a holocaust. If it was done because of race, the crime is doubly evil in nature. The lesson of “never again” was meant to be a lesson for all mankind to treat every single life with the same honor and respect, not to use the suffering of some as an excuse for financial crime, self delusion or outrageous acts of aggression.
Instead, the holocaust has become theatre, a stage for two sides to debate, to play, to “lawyer” the world to death. Some feel they should fight the holocaust because it has become a tool of evil. Some defend it because it is a tool of evil also but they believe the world is evil and only evil men are meant to survive.
Picture the death of a single child. Then go to the trial of a “holocaust denier.” Who is evil? Who is good? Do any of them ever think of the single child or only how it died, who signed what or how many Palestinian children could be murdered just like that child, in that child’s name perhaps?
THE REAL WAR
Why ask the question if 6 million Jews died? It is equally possible that 6 million Germans died in the Ukraine and Europe, not soldiers, not in air raids, but in a holocaust type extinction. This is not talked of but it happened. All of us, Jews, Germans, the west, all of us, were silent when Josef Stalin killed twice that number or more. It started before the war and continued after. The human suffering caused by Stalin was immeasurable but is never spoken of, barely touched on except by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and now his books are banned. They fail to conform to popular mythology.
There was nothing pure about the real war as there is nothing pure about wars today. The myths we may or may not make up to protect some are never really to protect anyone. The weak and vulnerable are never protected, only the powerful. This is how the powerful become such and remain that way. We are such liars.
Nobody ever cared about the holocaust survivors only what using their suffering would bring in honor and riches. Is this the truth? Is this the partial truth? Has anyone asked the hard questions, the real questions? Isn’t it time that all the survivors got together? Some voice is needed, a voice that can say “never again’ with authority.