Illegitimate Transfer of Inalienable European Rights via Convention(s) & Supranational Bodies Establishment of Sovereignty-Usurping Supranational Body Dictatorships Enduring Program of DEMOGRAPHICS WAR on Europeans Enduring Program of PSYCHOLOGICAL WAR on Europeans Enduring Program of European Displacement, Dismemberment, Dispossession, & Dissolution
No wars or conditions abroad (& no domestic or global economic pretexts) justify government policy facilitating the invasion of ancestral European homelands, the rape of European women, the destruction of European societies, & the genocide of Europeans.
U.S. RULING OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR TO SALVAGE HEGEMONY [LINK | Article]
Who's preaching world democracy, democracy, democracy? —Who wants to make free people free?
While WikiLeaks continues to make strong interventions into the global news cycle, important debates have been simmering betweeneditor Julian Assange and international relations scholars about whether or not the more than 2 million US diplomatic cables and State Department recordsWikiLeaks began publishing in 2010 (2,325,961 to be exact) are relevant to understanding how the world’s super-power operates and if Anglo-American academic institutions in the international relations discipline are biased toward the interests of US empire.
The debate raises difficult questions. Do the cables provide insight into full-spectrumdiplomacy, foreign relations, and concepts of sovereignty? If so, how can the indifference of certain prestigious associations and journals in the international relations discipline to WikiLeaks’ material be explained? Do these powerful institutions prefer to turn a blind eye to evidence that shows their theories wanting?Do they operate to provide a distorted view of the world and help prepare international studies graduates for jobs serving questionable US government interests?
Speaking to Germany’s Der Spiegel magazine in July 2015, Assange suggested that institutions within the international relations discipline have failed to understand the intersection between current geopolitical and technological developments. Specifically, Assangecharged that the US journal International Studies Quarterly (ISQ), published by the prestigious International Studies Association (ISA), would not accept manuscripts based on WikiLeaks’ material.
Professor of international politicsDaniel W. Dreznerhit back on July 30 in The Washington Post, arguing that there were other explanations for why the journal was not publishing WikiLeaks’ material. However, he did concede that it is possible that the “structural forces” opposing WikiLeaks were so powerful that a scholar would eschew WikiLeaks’ publications for “fear of being blackballed”.
For the thousands of undergraduate to PhD students, fellows and academic researchers facing a precarious employment market,self-censorship for fear of freezing one’s career is not unlikely. One publicised incident from November 2010 concerning the office of career services at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA), which according to The New York Times “grooms future diplomats”, provides the perfect illustration. That year the office sent an email to students warning them against commenting on or posting WikiLeaks’ documents on social media because “engaging in these activities would call into question your ability to deal with confidential information, which is part of most positions with the federal government”. The warning came to the office through a SIPA alumnus working at the State Department.
Years later, the tone of the warning continued to reverberate through the halls of one of the most reputable universities in the world. In documenting human rights abuses in June 2013 a Columbia University graduate class produced the anonymous academic paper“WikiLeaks and Iraq Body Count: the sum of parts may not add up to the whole — a comparison of two tallies of Iraqi civilian deaths”. The acknowledgements section of their report refers to the 2010 warning email and states that in light of that email it would be “unwise and perhaps unethical to acknowledge all the participating students by name”.
Others participating in a peer-review process have cited additional factors curtailing their use of comprehensive and illuminating WikiLeaks publications.Former US presidential candidate for the Green Party Cynthia McKinney, for example, says that she was forced to scrub her PhD dissertation from any reference of WikiLeaks material.
However Drezner, who is an ISA member and on the ISQ’s web advisory board, claims that WikiLeaks’ published diplomatic cables “are not nearly as significant as Assange believes” and that the “academic universe is indifferent to WikiLeaks”. A surprising claim, given that international human rights courts have not been indifferent to evidence derived from WikiLeaks’ published cables, including cables that show the insidious ways in which European officials attempt to conceal CIA torture in secret prisons.
To help address the gap in scholarly analysis of the more than 2 million US diplomatic cables and State Department records published by WikiLeaks since 2010, WikiLeakshas produced a new book, The WikiLeaks Files: The World According to US Empire, published September 7, 2015.
The book brings together journalists, researchers and experts on international law and foreign policy to examine the current cables and records. The documents are extensive. They expose US efforts — across Bush and Obama administrations — to use bribes and threats to keep the US protected from facing war crimes allegations, conveying the fading effervescence of concepts such as “international justice” or “rule of law” in the face of a superpower that clearly believes that “might makes right”.
Analysts review the efforts US diplomats take to maintain ties with dictators. They examine the meaning of human rights in the context of a global “War on Terror”. Like the cables they seek to illuminate, the 18 chapters of the book touch upon most major regions of the world.
Experts on US foreign policy such as Robert Naiman, Stephen Zunes and Gareth Porterexamine cables that reveal US meddling in Syria, US acceptance of Israeli violations of international law, and how the US dealt with the International Atomic Energy Agency in relation to Iranian nuclear development. The book offers a user guide written by WikiLeaks’ investigations editor Sarah Harrison on how to research WikiLeaks’ cables including meta data and content.
Writing in the book’s introduction, Assange proposes that the diplomatic cables provide “the vivisection of a living empire, showing what substance flowed from which state organ and when”. Assange notes in his introduction that academic disciplines outside international relations, and where career aspirations do not go hand in hand with patronage by government institutions, have voluminous coverage of the cables.But the ISA does not accept submissions citing WikiLeaks’ material. Although ISA executive director Mark Boyerdenies that the association has a formal policy against publishing WikiLeaks’ material, he says that journal editors have discussed the implications of publishing material that is legally prohibited by the US government.
According to Gabriel J. Michael, author of the Yale Law School paperWho’s Afraid of WikiLeaks? Missed Opportunities in Political Science Research, the ISQ has adopted a “provisional policy” against handling manuscripts that make use of leaked documents if such use could be interpreted as mishandling “classified” material. According to an ISQ editor quoted in Michael’s paper, this policy prohibits direct quotations as well as data mining, and was developed in consultation with legal counsel. Stating that editors are currently “in an untenable position”. According to the editor, ISQ’s policy will remain in place pending broader action from the ISA, which publishes several other disciplinary journals.
The ISA and ISQ concerns about handling material that the US government forbids — which include WikiLeaks’ cables — amount to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The cables go into the heart of an empire, and reflect on matters that affect everyone.
Without WikiLeaks, the public would still be in the dark about the Trans-Pacific Partnership “agreement” currently being negotiated. The treaty aims to rewrite the global rules on intellectual property rights and would create spheres of trade which would be protected from judicial oversight.Such agreements have the potential to change the fabric of how states operate, and the leaked cables shed light on how states negotiate significant treaties, aiming to keep citizenship participation in politics out.Where academia bans the use of important leaked documents the public loses out.
Did a summary, which I'll post and link to, once I edit.
I'm sure everyone out there can read for themselves ... but it's my way of trying to remember.
Don't know how much of this I'll remember. It all makes sense now, but my retention isn't all that great. I've read an article recently on this topic, but I forgot all about it.
In a weird way, I even forget how serious the US are about targeting WikiLeaks. I knew about an 'investigation' but documents released under US freedom of information provisions refer to FBI and Dept. of Justice 'proceedings', which would mean US law enforcement is (and has been) officially mounting a case.
In turn, this means that Ecuador's decision to grant political asylum is vindicated.
And shows how the British have done away with justice and democracy, to politically persecute Australian journalist, Julian Assange, who has:
been detained for 5 years by the British, without charge; and
has been subjected to a 3-year Ecuador embassy siege, at over $19-million (American dollars);
in an effort to block his rightfully granted political asylum.
In the article, this was a huge stand-out for me:
paraphrasing
American efforts (bribes & threats) to dodge being held to account for war crimes.
Resorting to bribes and threats means there's not one, but two, wrongs committed.
WikiLeaks, having exposed the American war crimes, has also exposed US efforts to escape accountability for war crimes.
That puts the American efforts to prosecute WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange (and WikiLeaks personnel/associates) into perspective: and it's not a pretty one.
Below is confirmation in US court documents that the FBI and US Department of Justice are officially conducting a 'proceeding' against WikiLeaks.
Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.
Harvard professor argues for 'abolishing' white race
By - The Washington Times - Wednesday, September 4, 2002 Noel Ignatiev, a founder of a journal called Race Traitor and a fellow at Harvard's W.E.B. DuBois Institute, a leading black-studies department, argues in the current issue of Harvard Magazine that "abolishing the white race" is "so desirable that some may find it hard to believe" that anyone other than "committed white supremacists" would oppose it. In excerpts appearing this week in newspapers nationwide, Mr. Ignatiev, who is white, writes that "every group within white America," including "labor unionists, ethnic groups, college students, schoolteachers, taxpayers and white women" has at one time or another "advanced its particular and narrowly defined interests at the expense of black people as a race." Mr. Ignatiev pledges in the essay that his journal, Race Traitor, intends to "keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females, too, until the social construct known as 'the white race' is destroyed not 'deconstructed' but destroyed."
His colleagues at Harvard seem not to take his proposal entirely seriously. Others cite the article as an example of Harvard's institutional racism. Sara Stillman, assistant to the publisher of Harvard Magazine, says there's clearly some "misunderstanding" about what Mr. Ignatiev means by the inflammatory language. Asked in a 1997 interview with the New York Times if he hates his own white skin, Mr. Ignatiev said, "No, but I want to abolish the privileges." "The white race is like a private club based on one huge assumption that all those who look white, are, whatever their complaints or reservations, fundamentally loyal to the race. We want to dissolve that club, to explode it," he said. Christopher Reed, executive editor of Harvard Magazine, defended what Mr. Ignatiev wrote in the September-October issue. "He's arguing against the mind-set and attitude that automatically grants privileges to white people he wants more fairness," Mr. Reed said in a statement. The university's public affairs office said it had no comment. The article already has stirred anger among some conservatives, who see the article as typical of the liberal climate in academia. "Suppose Frontpagemagazine.com ran a headline 'Abolish the Black Race'?" asks David Horowitz on his magazine's Web site. "What do you think the reaction would be? But at Harvard, where demonizing whites is merely the standard curriculum, an article like this can appear in a glossy magazine whose cover story is 'Whither the Art Museum?' "Race hatred, if directed against white people, is just part of the progressive culture," says Mr. Horowitz, a radical-turned-conservative and author of "Civil Wars: The Controversy Over Reparations for Slavery." Mr. Ignatiev, a one-time steelworker and Marxist activist who earned a doctorate at Harvard, could not be reached for comment. But he writes about what he believes at the Web site of Race Traitor, whose motto is: "Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity." "The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race, which means no more and no less than abolishing the privileges of the white skin. Until that task is accomplished, even partial reform will prove elusive, because white influence permeates every issue, domestic and foreign, in U.S. society," the journal's statement of purpose says. "The existence of the white race depends on the willingness of those assigned to it to place their racial interestsabove class, gender, or any other interests they hold. The defection of enough of its members to make it unreliable as a predictor of behavior will lead to its collapse." Among the "privileges" of being white, according to Race Traitor, are not being followed by security in stores, not being harassed by police, having easier access to better schools, jobs and housing, and not being asked whether skin color or affirmative action got you a job. In the essay in Harvard Magazine, Mr. Ignatiev says he always expected "bewilderment" at his views from "people who still think of race as biology."
"We frequently get letters accusing us of being 'racists' just like the KKK, and have even been called a 'hate group.'" he wrote. Mr. Ignatiev attempts to clarify how he could be seeking to abolish the white race without calling for genocide. "Our standard response is to draw an analogy with anti-royalism: to oppose monarchy does not mean killing the king; it means getting rid of crowns, thrones, royal titles, etc." Abolition of a monarchy has often been marked by killing the monarch and sometimes his family members; for example, England in 1649, France in 1792, Russia in 1917 and Iraq in 1958. Even those nations that have abolished kings or emperors without regicide generally have forced the monarch into exile. Mr. Ignatiev grew up in a Philadelphia family that he says was devoid of racial bias. As a child, he swam at a free community pool, where he was the only white patron. He says his parents refused to pay a $1 fee that was designed to keep other public pools all-white. Mr. Ignatiev's parents, Jewish immigrants from Russia, were not college educated, but he attended the University of Pennsylvania, dropping out after three years. He worked in a Chicago steel mill and in factories that made farm equipment and electrical parts for two decades. At the steel mill, he helped organize strikes and protests by the predominantly black work force. He was laid off from the steel mill in 1984, a year after he was arrested on charges of throwing a paint bomb at a strike-breaker's car. He set up Marxist discussion groups in the early 1980s. In 1985, Mr. Ignatiev was accepted to the Harvard Graduate School of Education without an undergraduate degree. After earning his master's, he joined the Harvard faculty as a lecturer and worked toward a doctorate in U.S. history.
His dissertation was his book, "How the Irish Became White." Mr. Ignatiev said the book told how Irish immigrants came to the United States and became "oppressors" by emulating American whites.
Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.
EU-NATO IMPERIALISM ❌ 
