Zionist Ideological Warfare

Zionist_Control

Zionist_Control

The single greatest feat of Israel and its overseas missions has not been material success, or the military conquest of millions of unarmed Palestinians, it has been ideological – the widespread acceptance in the US of a doctrine that claims ‘Jews are a superior people’.

Apart from small extremist rightwing sects who exhibit visceral anti-Semitism and denigrate everything Jewish, there are very few academics and politicians willing to question this supremacist doctrine. On the contrary, there is an incurable tendency to advance oneself by accepting and embellishing on it.

For example, in August 2015, US Vice-President Joseph Biden attributed ‘special genius’ to Jews, slavish flattery that embarrassed even New York’s liberal Jewish intellectuals.

Israel’s dominant role in formulating US Middle East policy is largely a product of its success at recruiting, socializing and motivating overseas Jews to act as an organized force to intervene in US politics and push Israel’s agenda.

What motivates American Jews, who have been raised and educated in the US to serve Israel?

After all, these are individuals who have prospered, achieved high status and occupy the highest positions of prestige and responsibility. Why would they parrot the policies of Israel and follow the dictates of Israeli leaders (a foreign regime), serving its violent colonial, racist agenda?

What binds a majority of highly educated and privileged Jews to the most rabidly rightwing Israeli regime in history – a relationship they actually celebrate?

What turns comfortable, prosperous American Jews into vindictive bullies, willing and able to blackmail, threaten and punish any dissident voices among their Gentile and Jewish compatriots who have dared to criticize Israel?

What prevents many intelligent, liberal and progressive Jews from openly questioning Israel’s agenda, and especially confronting the role of Zionist zealots who serve as Tel Aviv’s fifth column against the interest of the United States?

There are numerous historical and personal factors that can and should be taken into account to understand this phenomenon.

In this essay I am going to focus on one – the ideology that ‘Jews are a superior people’. The notion that Jews, either through some genetic, biologic, cultural, historical, familial and/or upbringing, havespecial qualities allowing them to achieve at a uniquely higher level than the ‘inferior’ non-Jews.

We will proceed by sketching the main outline of the Jewish supremacist ideology and then advance our critique.

We will conclude by evaluating the negative consequences of this ideology and propose a democratic alternative.

Jewish Supremacism

Exponents of Jewish Supremacism (JS) frequently cite the prestigious awards, worldly successes and high honors, which, they emphasize, have been disproportionately achieved by Jews.

The argument goes: While Jews represent less than 0.2% of the world population, they have produced 24% of the US Nobel prize winners; over 30% of Ivy League professors and students; and the majority of major US film, stage and TV producers.

They cite the ‘disproportionate number’ of scientists, leading doctors, lawyers and billionaires.

They cite past geniuses like, Einstein, Freud and Marx .

They point to the founders of the world’s great monotheistic religions – Moses and Abraham.

They lay claim to a unique learning tradition embedded in centuries of Talmudic scholarship.

Jewish supremacists never miss a chance to cite the ‘Jewish background’ of any highly accomplished contemporary public figures in the entertainment, publication, financial fields or any other sectors of life in the US.

Disproportionately great accomplishments by a disproportionate minority has become the mantra for heralding a self-styled ‘meritocraticelite’…. and for justifying its disproportionate wealth, power and privileges – and influence…

Challenging the Myths of Jewish Supremacists

There are serious problems regarding the claims of the Jewish Supremacists.

For centuries Jewish ‘wisdom’ was confined to textual exegesis of religious dogma – texts full of superstition and social control, as well as blind intolerance, and which produced neither reasoned arguments nor contributed to scientific and human advancement.

Jewish scholarship of note occurred among thinkers like Spinoza who revolted against the Jewish ghetto gatekeepers and rejected Jewish dogma.

Notable scientists emerged in the context of working and studying with non-Jews in non-Jewish institutions – the universities and centers of learning in the West. The majority of world-renowned Jewish scholars integrated and contributed to predominantly non-Jewish (Moslem and Christian) and secular institutions of higher learning.

Historically, highly talented individuals of Jewish origin succeeded by renouncing the constraints of everyday Jewish life, rabbinical overseers and Jewish institutions. Most contemporary prestigious scientists, including the frequently cited Nobel Prize winners, have little or nothing to do with Judaism! And their contributions have everything to do with the highly secular, integrated culture in which they prospered intellectually – despite expressions of crude anti-Semitism in the larger society.

Secondly , Jewish Supremacists persist in claiming ‘racial credit’ for the achievements of individuals who have publically renounced, denounced and distanced themselves from Judaism and have dismissed any notion of Israel as their spiritual homeland. Their universal prestige has prevented them from being labeled, apostate or ‘self-hating’. Albert Einstein, often cited by the Supremacists as the supreme example of ‘Jewish genius’, denounced Israel’s war crimes and showed disdain for any tribal identity. In their era, Marx and Trotsky, like the vast majority of emancipated European Jews, given the chance, became engaged in universalistic organizations, attacking the entire notion that Jews were a ‘special people’ chosen by divine authority (or by the latter-day Zionists).

Thirdly, Supremacists compile a very selective list of virtuous Jews, while omitting areas of life and activity where Jews have disproportionately played a negative and destructive role.

After all is it Jewish ‘genius’ that makes Israel a leading exporter of arms, high tech intrusive spy systems and sends military and paramilitary advisers and torturers to work with death squad regimes in Africa and Latin America?

Among the winners of the Nobel Peace Prize are three Israeli Prime Ministers who waged wars of ethnic cleansing against millions of Palestinians and expanded racist ‘Jews only’ settlements throughout the occupied Palestinian territories. These include Menachem Begin (notorious career bomber and terrorist), Yitzhak Rabin (a militarist who was assassinated by an even more racist Jewish terrorist) and Shimon Peres. Among Jewish American Nobel ‘Peaceniks’ is Henry Kissinger who oversaw the brutal and illegal US war in Indo-China causing 4 million Vietnamese deaths;who wrote the ‘template for regime change’ by overthrowing the democratically elected government of Chilean President Allende and condemned Chile to decades of police state terror; and who supported Indonesia’s destruction of East Timor!

In other words, these Nobel recipients, who Supremacists cite as ‘examples of Jewish Supremacy’, have sown terror and injustice on countless captive peoples and nations – giving the Nobel Peace Prize a dubious distinction.

Among the greatest billion dollar swindlers in recent US history, we d find a disproportionate percentage of American Jews – curiously not mentioned by the Supremacists in their usual litany: Bernard Madoff pillaged over $50 billion from his clients, Ivan Boesky, Michael Milken and Marc Rich are well-known names adding the distinction of ‘Jewish genius’ to a list of financial mega-felons.

Among the less respectable notables whose material successes have been tarnished by personal weaknesses – we have the billionaire and pedophile pimp, Jeffry Epstein; IMF Boss Dominique Strauss Kahn, entrepreneur and ‘nudist’ Dov Charney, New York Governor and ‘repeat customer’ Elliot Spitzer, Congressman and exhibitionist Anthony Weiner and the fun-loving sports impresario who brought down FIFA, the piratical Chuck Blazer. Curiously, none of these extraordinarily successful notables have been cited as examples of Jewish Supremacy.

As we contemplate the millions of war refugees driven from the Near East and North Africa, we should credit the role of US neo-liberal and neo-conservative ideologues and policymakers –a disproportionate percentage of whom are Jews. Millions of Chilean workers suffered as Milton Friedman and his Chicago Boys ‘advised’ Chilean Dictator Augusto Pinochet on dismantling the welfare state (even if it required the murder of trade unionists!). Ayn Rand (Alyssa Rosenbaum) and her fanatical free market epigones have savaged all progressive social legislation and turned the most retrograde forms of selfishness into a religion of ‘superiority’!

The biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression was largely due to the financial policies of Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan. The trillion-dollar bailout of Wall Street by Ben Shalom Bernacke and Stanley Fischer, while Janet Yellen ignored the plight of millions of Americans who lost their homes because of mortgage foreclosures. In sum, Jewish Supremacists should proudly take credit for the American Jews who have been disproportionately responsible for the largest economic and foreign policy failures of the contemporary period – including the horrific suffering these have entailed!

Back in the more normal world of crime, Russian-Jewish mobsters dominate or share supremacy with the Italian Mafia in New York, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Miami and scores of cities in between. They display their unique genius at extortion and murder – knowing they can always find safe haven in the ‘Promised Land’!

On the cultural front, the finest Jewish writers, artists, musicians, scientists have emerged outside of Israel. A few may have immigrated to the Jewish state, but many other intellectuals and artists of note have chosen to leave Israel, repelled by the racist, intolerant and repressive apartheid state and society promoted by Jewish Supremacists.

Conclusion

The record provides no historical basis for the claims of Jewish Supremacists:

What has been cited as the disproportionate ‘Jewish genius’ turns out to be a two-edged sword – demonstrating the best and the worst.

Claiming a monopoly on high academic achievement must be expanded to owning up to the Jewish authors of the worst financial and foreign policy disasters – they too are ‘high achievers’.

Donations from financial billionaires, all ‘geniuses’, have financed the war crimes of the Israeli state and made possible the expansion of violent Jewish settlers throughout occupied Palestine – spreading misery and displacement for millions.

In fairness, the most notorious Jewish swindler in contemporary America was even-handed: ‘Bernie’ Madoff swindled Jews and Goys, Hollywood moguls and New York philanthropists – he wasn’t picky about who he fleeced.

The latest fashion among Jewish Supremacist ‘geneticists’ is to extoll the discovery of uniquely special ‘genes’ predisposing Jews to experience the ‘holocaust’ and even inherit the experience of suffering from long dead ancestors. Such ‘scientists’ should be careful. As Jazz artist and essayist, Gilad Altzmon wryly notes, ‘They will put the anti-Semites out of business’.

Ultimately, Jews, who have assimilated into the greater society or not, who inter-marry and who do not, are all products of the social system in which they live and (like everyone else) they are the makers of the roles they decide to play within it.

In the past, a uniquely disproportional percentage of Jews chose to fight for universal humanist values – rejecting the notion of a chosen people.

Today a disproportionate percentage of educated Jews have chosen to embrace an ‘ethno-religious’ Supremacist dogma, which binds them to an apartheid, militarist state and ideology ready to drag the world into a global war.

Never forget! Racialist supremacist doctrines led Germany down the blind ally of totalitarianism and world war, in which scores of millions perished.

Jews, especially young Jews, are increasingly repelled by Israel’s crimes against humanity. The next step for them (and for us) is to criticize, demystify and stand up to the toxic supremacist ideology linking the powerful domestic Zionist power configuration and its political clones with Israel.

The root problem is not genetic, it is collective political dementia: a demented ideology that claims a chosen elite can forever dominate and exploit the majority of American people. The time will come when the accumulated disasters will force the American people to push back, unmasking the elite and rejecting its supremacist doctrines. Let us hope that they will act with passion guided by reason.

 

Source:  Globalresearch.ca

US military robots will leave humans defenceless

US military robots

US military robots

Killer robots which are being developed by the US military ‘will leave humans utterly defenceless‘, an academic has warned.

Two programmes commissioned by the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) are seeking to create drones which can track and kill targets even when out of contact with their handlers.

Writing in the journal Nature, Stuart Russell, Professor of Computer Science at the University of California, Berkley, said the research could breach the Geneva Convention and leave humanity in the hands of amoral machines.

“Autonomous weapons systems select and engage targets without human intervention; they become lethal when those targets include humans,” he said.

“Existing AI and robotics components can provide physical platforms, perception, motor control, navigation, mapping, tactical decision-making and long-term planning. They just need to be combined.

“In my view, the overriding concern should be the probable endpoint of this technological trajectory.

“Despite the limits imposed by physics, one can expect platforms deployed in the millions, the agility and lethality of which will leave humans utterly defenceless. This is not a desirable future.”

• Killer robots a small step away and must be outlawed, says UN official
• Britain prepared to develop ‘killer robots’, minister says

The robots, called LAWS – lethal autonomous weapons systems – are likely to be armed quadcopters of mini-tanks that can decided without human intervention who should live or die.

DARPA is currently working on two projects which could lead to killer bots. One is Fast Lightweight Autonomy (FLA) which is designing a tiny rotorcraft to manoeuvre unaided at high speed in urban areas and inside buildings. The other and Collaborative Operations in Denied Environment (CODE), is aiming to develop teams of autonomous aerial vehicles carrying out “all steps of a strike mission — find, fix, track, target, engage, assess” in situations in which enemy signal-jamming makes communication with a human commander impossible.

Last year Angela Kane, the UN’s high representative for disarmament, said killer robots were just a ‘small step’ away and called for a worldwide ban. But the Foreign Office has said while the technology had potentially “terrifying” implications, Britain “reserves the right” to develop it to protect troops.

Professor Russell said: “LAWS could violate fundamental principles of human dignity by allowing machines to choose whom to kill — for example, they might be tasked to eliminate anyone exhibiting ‘threatening behaviour’

“Debates should be organized at scientific meetings; arguments studied by ethics committees. Doing nothing is a vote in favour of continued development and deployment.”

• The US army tests a killer robot tank
• Future robots will resemble ostriches or dinosaurs, scientists say

However Dr Sabine Hauert, a lecturer in robotics at the University of Bristol said that the public did not need to fear the developments in artificial intelligence.

“My colleagues and I spend dinner parties explaining that we are not evil but instead have been working for years to develop systems that could help the elderly, improve health care, make jobs safer and more efficient, and allow us to explore space or beneath the ocean,” she said.

 

Source:   telegraph.co.uk

Government shuts down Bitcoins

US government shuts down production of physical Bitcoins:

US government shuts down production of physical Bitcoins

US government shuts down production of physical Bitcoins

Back before the recent Bitcoin boom, an enthusiast named Mike Caldwell created a physical representation of the virtual currency — the Casascius coin. The difficult-to-type Casascius Bitcoin derived its name from nowhere of interest (named after Caldwell’s online handle), but the idea is certainly an interesting one. The Casascius Bitcoin is a shiny, physical coin — each one with its own Bitcoin wallet attached. The coins are a clever way to trade Bitcoins without having access to a computer (or even a wallet you know how to access), but perhaps the idea was too clever; the US Department of Treasury shut down Caldwell’s Bitcoin mint.

Just before Thanksgiving, Caldwell received a notice from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FINCEN) stating that he must stop producing the coins, as the Treasury Department is classifying the action as transmitting money — something the government would not allow him to do unregulated. Interestingly, Caldwell only accepts a payment in BTC for the coins, which means he isn’t accepting “real,” regulated currency, so it’s odd that the Treasury Department would consider his actions as transmitting “money.”

Amusingly, because Caldwell runs a Bitcoin service, there isn’t an account the government can seize should he incur FINCEN’s wrath. Admittedly, FINCEN’s interest would make a little more sense if Caldwell were trading Bitcoins for cash, but he’s only trading Bitcoins for Bitcoins.

Using the current BTC exchange rate, Caldwell has minted around $82 million worth of Casascius coins — around 90,000. There are other physical Bitcoin (and even Litecoin) products, but perhaps Caldwell’s prolific production and popularity is why FINCEN took notice of his service and not others. Caldwell hasn’t agreed to completely discontinue the Casascius coin, but he obviously has some things to work through before he can begin again, government-willing.

 

US retiring chimps from medical research

US begins retiring most chimps, human’s closest relatives, from medical research:

 

US begins retiring most chimps, human's closest relatives, from medical research

US begins retiring most chimps, human’s closest relatives, from medical research

 

The National Institutes of Health plans to end most use of chimpanzees in U.S. government medical research, saying humans’ closest relatives “deserve special respect.”

Much of the rest of the world already had ended such research.

The NIH announced Wednesday that it will retire about 310 government-owned chimpanzees from research over the next few years, and keep only 50 others essentially on retainer — available if needed for crucial medical studies that could be performed no other way.

“These amazing animals have taught us a great deal already,” said NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins. He said the decision helps usher in “a compassionate era.”

The NIH’s decision was long expected, after the prestigious Institute of Medicine declared in 2011 that nearly all use of chimps for invasive medical research no longer can be justified.

“This is an historic moment and major turning point for chimpanzees in laboratories, some who have been languishing in concrete housing for over 50 years,” said Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The Humane Society of the United States. “It is crucial now to ensure that the release of hundreds of chimpanzees to sanctuary becomes a reality.”

Any future biomedical research funded by the NIH with chimps, government-owned or not, would be allowed only under strict conditions after review by a special advisory board. In five years, the NIH will reassess if even that group of 50 government-owned apes still is needed for science.

What’s unclear is exactly where the retiring chimps, which have spent their lives in research facilities around the country, now will spend their final years. NIH said they could eventually join more than 150 other chimps already in the national sanctuary system operated by Chimp Haven in the state of Louisiana. In that habitat, the chimps can socialize at will, climb trees and explore different play areas.

But NIH officials said currently there’s not enough space to handle all of the 310 destined for retirement. They’re exploring additional locations, and noted that some research facilities that currently house government-owned chimps have habitats similar to the sanctuary system.

The other hurdle is money: Congress limited how much the NIH can spend on caring for chimps in the sanctuary system. Negotiations are under way to shift money the agency has spent housing the animals in research facilities toward supporting their retirement.

“Everybody should understand this is not something that is going to happen quickly,” Collins cautioned.

One chimp center, the Texas Biomedical Research Institute, said keeping just 50 of the animals for ongoing research isn’t enough and could hamper efforts to fight not just human illnesses but diseases that kill apes, too.

Moreover, moving retired chimpanzees to the federal sanctuary “would take them away from their caregivers, many of whom they have known all of their lives,” said an institute statement that argued the animals would fare better if they stayed put.

The NIH’s decision came two weeks after the Fish and Wildlife Service called for protection of all chimpanzees as endangered. Until now there was a “split listing” that labeled wild chimps as endangered but those in captivity as threatened, a status that offers less protection.

That move also would affect any future use of chimps in medical research, and NIH said it would work with its government counterpart to ensure compliance.

Chimps rarely have been used for drug testing or other invasive research in recent years; studies of chimp behavior or genetics are a bit more common. Of nine biomedical projects under way, the NIH said six would be ended early. Of another 13 behavioral or genetic studies involving chimps, five would be ended early. NIH would not identify the projects, but Collins said potential future need for chimps could be in creating a vaccine against hepatitis C.

“Monsanto Protection Act,” Provison snuck into Law

“Monsanto Protection Act,” and How Did It Sneak Into Law? A provison that protects the biotech giant from litigation passed Congress without many members knowing about it:

"MON 810", a variety of genetically modified maize (corn) developed by Monsanto Company is pictured January 23, 2012. The agricultural giant posted a large increase in quarterly earnings on strong results in corn seed sales in the US and Latin America

“MON 810”, a variety of genetically modified maize (corn) developed by Monsanto Company.

“MON 810”, a variety of genetically modified maize (corn) developed by Monsanto Company. The agricultural giant posted a large increase in quarterly earnings on strong results in corn seed sales in the US and Latin America. Slipped into the Agricultural Appropriations Bill, which passed through Congress last week, was a small provision that’s a big deal for Monsanto and its opponents. The provision protects genetically modified seeds from litigation in the face of health risks and has thus been dubbed the “Monsanto Protection Act” by activists who oppose the biotech giant. President Barack Obama signed the spending bill, including the provision, into law on Tuesday.

Since the act’s passing, more than a quarter million people have signed a petition opposing the provision and a rally, consisting largely of farmers organized by the Food Democracy Now network, protested outside the White House Wednesday. Not only has anger been directed at the Monsanto Protection Act’s content, but the way in which the provision was passed through Congress without appropriate review by the Agricultural or Judiciary Committees. The biotech rider instead was introduced anonymously as the larger bill progressed — little wonder food activists are accusing lobbyists and Congress members of backroom dealings.

The Food Democracy Now and the Center for Food are directing blame at the Senate Appropriations Committee and its chairman, Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md. According to reports, many members of Congress were apparently unaware that the “Monsanto Protection Act” even existed within the spending bill, HR 933; they voted in order to avert a government shutdown.

“It sets a terrible precedent,” the International Business Times. “Though it will only remain in effect for six months until the government finds another way to fund its operations, the message it sends is that corporations can get around consumer safety protections if they get Congress on their side. Furthermore, it sets a precedent that suggests that court challenges are a privilege, not a right.”

U.S. Drone War Crimes

The NYU Student Tweeting Every Reported US Drone Strike Has Revealed A Disturbing Trend

The NYU Student Tweeting Every Reported US Drone Strike Has Revealed A Disturbing Trend

The NYU Student Tweeting Every Reported US Drone Strike Has Revealed A Disturbing Trend

NYU student Josh Begley is tweeting every reported U.S. drone strike since 2002, and the feed highlights a disturbing tactic employed by the U.S. that is widely considered a war crime. Known as the “double tap,” the tactic involves bombing a target multiple times in relatively quick succession, meaning that the second strike often hits first responders.  A 2007 report by the Homeland Security Institute called double taps a “favorite tactic of Hamas” and the FBI considers it a tactic employed by terrorists. UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings Christof Heyns said that if there are “secondary drone strikes on rescuers who are helping (the injured) after an initial drone attack, those further attacks are a war crime.” The U.S. refuses to discuss the merits of its overtly covert drone program, but the reports featured on @dronestream clearly document that U.S. hellfire missiles have intentionally targeted funerals and civilian rescuers.

Jun 18, 2009: 2 drone missiles killed 1 person. When rescuers rushed to the scene, 2 more struck, killing 8 (Pakistan) nytimes.com/2009/06/19/wor…

— Dronestream (@dronestream) December 11, 2012

Jun 23, 2009: Up to 80 more people were killed when several US drones targeted a funeral (Pakistan) aljazeera.com/news/asia/2009…

— Dronestream (@dronestream) December 11, 2012

Jan 6, 2010: Shortly after the first strike, as the rescue efforts were underway, the death toll rose to 15 (Pakistan) aljazeera.com/news/asia/2010…

— Dronestream (@dronestream) December 11, 2012

Apr 16, 2010: Missiles fired from US drones killed 4 in Tolkhel, hitting a car and people rushing in to help (Pakistan) google.com/hostednews/afp…

— Dronestream (@dronestream) December 12, 2012

And that’s only a 10-month window in Pakistan. It has happened in Afghanistan as well, and the first instance of “explicit intelligence posthumously proving” that an innocent civilian had been killed happened in Yemen. In September the NYU and Stanford law schools released a report detailing how double taps by U.S. drones affect the Pakistani population, and noted that “high-level” militants killed only accounted for two percent of U.S. drone strike casualties.

Boycott Apple

You should Boycott Apple:

Iphone 5 Sucks

Iphone 5 Sucks

The Internet is alight with outrage against Apple for winning a preliminary injunction against Samsung’s Galaxy Nexus, claiming that Samsung infringes on US patent 8,086,604. This patent basically covers the unified search feature promoted not only in Apple’s Siri, but Android as well. It was this patent, the presiding Judge Koh concluded, that enabled Apple to justify that continued sales of the Galaxy Nexus would cause “irreparable harm” to Apple, which issued a statement regarding the lawsuit:

It’s no coincidence that Samsung’s latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging. This kind of blatant copying is wrong and, as we’ve said many times before, we need to protect Apple’s intellectual property when companies steal our ideas.

Samsung’s products in the past quite obviously were made to look similar to Apple’s iPhone, the Galaxy Nexus is a phone designed by Google and loaded with software directly from Google, only left to Samsung to manufacture. The Galaxy Nexus looks in no way similar to the iPhone apart from the fact that both devices share a touchscreen. Second, Apple fights very hard when companies steal its ideas, when Steve Jobs went on record saying that Apple has “always been shameless about stealing great ideas.” Quite hypocritical. So most of Apple’s lawsuits are hypocritical, but are they wrong? Should we be punishing Apple for suing other companies for infringing on its patents? No. In fact, some would argue that Apple is simply playing the system and playing to win. Most people would agree that the state of the patent system in the US is horrendous and is the root cause of these petty lawsuits. That’s why, when the Boycott Apple outbreak started, a few suggested something different. The patent system in the United States as we know it today has been derailed significantly from the founding fathers’ intentions. In Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution, it states this:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

To put things simply, patents are not in place to protect the inventor. They are in place to promote invention and innovation. Providing the incentive of exclusivity to the inventor is simply a means to provide the end (rather than vice versa). This means that the focus of patents should be on innovation, not protection. Outright concentration on protection leads to a sheltered environment where innovation is stifled and progress is lost. But when did the patent system lose its way? Some suggest that when “processes” were finally allowed to be patented was the defining moment. You no longer had to have a machine to present to the patent office to show that you’d created something novel. All you needed was to write down a method of doing something (e.g., sliding your finger across a touchscreen to unlock a device) and all of a sudden you were a patent owner. This also allowed an influx of software patents to introduce themselves into the system. Eventually, the situation got to the point where it was considered that “a novel algorithm combined with a trivial physical step constitutes a novel physical device.” Basically, this means that new software loaded onto existing devices creates a completely new device, in the law’s eye. This is obviously a problem. Now you see companies patenting left and right methods rather than machines. Our society has been reduced from sparking great inventions and innovations to squabbling over how we move our finger around to wake our devices up.

 

Jews have control of US Department of Justice, Goldman Sachs

Anger as US prosecutors scrap probe of Goldman:

Anger as US prosecutors scrap probe of Goldman

Anger as US prosecutors scrap probe of Goldman

Goldman Sachs was let off the hook yesterday as the US Department of Justice dropped plans to bring criminal charges over claims the bank was betting against the same toxic subprime mortgage securities it sold to clients. In April last year senator Carl Levin demanded a criminal investigation after his sub-committee spent more than a year looking into Goldman. Chief executive Lloyd Blankfein faced a embarrassing grilling for hours from Mr Levin over whether it was morally correct for the firm to sell its clients products described internally as “crap”. The DoJ yesterday dropped plans to prosecute, saying: “the burden of proof to bring a criminal case could not be met based on the law and facts as they exist at this time”. The Securities and Exchange Commission also dropped a separate probe into the firm’s role in selling a different $1.3bn (£830m) subprime mortgage-related deal arranged in 2006. However, the regulator is still pursuing a civil complaint against Goldman vice-president Fabrice Tourre over its Abacus deal, which the bank settled for $550 million in 2010. Tourre was based in London while marketing the controversial investment, which saw Goldman sell loans selected by a hedge fund client it knew was betting against them. The failure to prosecute Goldman triggered frustration in some quarters. Neil Barofsky, a former watchdog for the US government’s 2008 bailout of the banks, said no individual or institution had been held accountable for the financial crisis. “Without such accountability, the unending parade of megabanks scandals will inevitably continue,” he said.

Sea Treaty Force US to Share Wealth

Rumsfeld Says Sea Treaty Would Force US to Share Wealth:

Rumsfeld Says Sea Treaty Would Force US to Share Wealth.

Rumsfeld Says Sea Treaty Would Force US to Share Wealth.

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld urged U.S. senators to reject the Law of the Sea Treaty backed by the Obama administration because it would force rich countries to give to poorer ones. “I do not believe the United States should endorse a treaty that makes it a legal obligation for productive countries to pay royalties to less productive countries, based on rhetoric about the common heritage of mankind,” Rumsfeld said today in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The Obama administration says ratifying the 30-year-old treaty is key to exerting U.S. influence in the Asia-Pacific region, a focus of the revamped global strategy the Pentagon presented in January. Rumsfeld’s position puts him at odds with President Barack Obama and also former President George W. Bush, whom Rumsfeld served as secretary of defense for six years. He resigned in 2006 amid a political backlash against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Rumsfeld, 79, said in his testimony that a system of royalty payments under the United Nations treaty compels countries such as the U.S. to make payments to developing countries without making their own “sovereign choice.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey all appeared before the Senate panel last month, urging ratification of the treaty. The administration says the accord is needed to counter China and maintain influence in Asia. The treaty was signed in 1994 by President Bill Clinton and subsequently endorsed by Bush. It has twice failed to win Senate ratification due to opposition from some conservatives who pressed the argument on sovereignty that Rumsfeld voiced today. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports the treaty, as do companies including Lockheed Martin Corp. and Exxon Mobil Corp. Business supporters say the treaty offers a stronger legal foundation for activities such as offshore oil drilling, metal harvesting and undersea cable operations. Rumsfeld’s criticism centered on the treaty’s creation of an International Seabed Authority that would be involved in commercial activity in international waters, including mining and gas exploration. The U.S. would have to transfer to the authority a big share of all royalties generated by U.S. companies. He said the system could set a precedent for outer-space resources in the future. ‘Enormous Consequences’ “This, in my view, is a new idea of enormous consequence,” Rumsfeld said. “It establishes a way of looking at industry, investment, talent, risk and good fortune that argues in favor of distributing a significant portion of the value of minerals in the deep sea beds to developing countries,” he said. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, rejected the notion that the authority is an “out of control” entity and said there are numerous misperceptions about its structure. “It’s totally separate from the United Nations,” he said. Kerry has said he’ll wait until after the November elections to advance the treaty, which also is supported by the committee’s top Republican, Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana. Underscoring the political sensitivity for Republicans, Lugar lost his May Republican primary to Indiana state Treasurer Richard Mourdock after facing criticism for past votes, including his leading role in pushing a treaty with Russia through the Senate in 2010.