text stringlengths 0 473k |
|---|
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_300] | [TOKENS: 412] |
Contents Committee of 300 The Committee of 300 is a conspiracy theory that claims a powerful group was founded by the British aristocracy in 1727 and rules the world. Proponents of the theory alleging the Committee's existence believe it to be an international council that organizes politics, commerce, banking, media, and the military for centralized global efforts.[citation needed] Background The theory dates to a statement made by German politician Walther Rathenau in a 1909 article, "Geschäftlicher Nachwuchs", in Neue Freie Presse: Three hundred men, all of whom know one another, guide the economic destinies of the Continent and seek their successors from their own milieu. In context, Rathenau was actually deploring the oligarchic implications of this statement, and did not suggest that the "three hundred" were Jewish. However, by 1912, Theodor Fritsch had seized upon the sentence as an "open confession of indubitable Jewish hegemony" and as proof that Rathenau was the "secret Kaiser of Germany". The idea became more popular after World War I, and the spread of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Rathenau addressed the issue in a 1921 letter, stating that the three hundred referred to were leaders in the business world, rather than Jews. After Rathenau's assassination in June 1922, one of his assassins explicitly cited Rathenau's membership in the "three hundred Elders of Zion" as justification for the killing. Later theory Arthur Cherep-Spiridovich wrote that the group may also be known as the "Hidden Hand", which is headed by the Rothschild family of international financiers and based loosely around many of the top national banking institutions and royal families of the world. This version of the conspiracy theory claims that the Rothschild family are merely a part of the club and not the leaders. In popular culture The Committee of 300 is the main antagonist of the Science Adventure multimedia series. References |
======================================== |
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_Occupation_Government_conspiracy_theory] | [TOKENS: 1736] |
Contents Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy theory The Zionist Occupation Government, Zionist Occupational Government, or Zionist-Occupied Government (ZOG), sometimes also called the Jewish Occupational Government (JOG), is an antisemitic conspiracy theory claiming that Jews secretly control the government of the United States. More recent versions apply it to the governments of other countries. ZOG is often directly personified as the Anti-Defamation League. The concept of the "Zionist Occupation Government" and the acronym "ZOG" were coined in a 1976 article by the neo-Nazi activist Eric Thomson. The concept was further developed and spread in the 1970s by American white supremacists, particularly Christian Identity activists, before being imported into Europe. The highly publicized criminal actions of the neo-Nazi group the Order resulted in the terminology rising in popularity among white supremacists. The expression is used by white supremacist, white nationalist, far-right, or antisemitic groups in Europe and the U.S. Some contemporary militant, authoritarian, and theocratic Islamist and Islamic extremist organizations, including Salafi-jihadist groups, have also used the term "ZOG" in propaganda campaigns. The word Zionist in "Zionist Occupation Government" is used to equate being Jewish with the ideology of Zionism. The theory thus depicts Zionists as conspiring for Jews and Israel to control the world. Conspiracy The ZOG conspiracy theory is that Jews secretly control the government of the United States. Later versions apply it to other countries. Kaplan defined it further as "a deeply Manichaean conceptualization of the federal government and of what is seen as its Jewish puppeteers", who are often directly personified as the Anti-Defamation League, due to its many conflicts with the neo-Nazi movement. Believers in ZOG see it as a secret, all-powerful government entity, sometimes of the whole world. Alternate names for it include Zionist Occupational Government, Zionist-Occupied Government, and Jewish Occupational Government (JOG). In 2000, scholar Jeffrey Kaplan called ZOG "at once the most caricatured and the most characteristic facet of the American radical right wing today". He wrote that it was the reification of the neo-Nazi movement's "perception of unremitting persecution". He described it as emphasizing the neo-Nazi movement's "feeling of helplessness that is reflected in the ZOG discourse—a vision of a movement that sees itself as relentlessly persecuted by the inextricable forces of the state and the Jews, as personified in particular by the ADL." The association of Jews with the control of economic forces is a modern resurgence of an old stereotype, that of the "greedy Jewish merchant", present in the Christian world since the Middle Ages. The conspiracy theory illustrates a specifically American far-right agrarian preoccupation, namely the possibility of extinction allegedly faced by the rural world, seen as the backbone of America, a danger caused by a remote, centralized, power-hungry metropolitan elite corrupted by "alien" influences. ZOG is an evolution of early conspiracy theories of Jewish control of the world. Activists imagine a variety of plots related to the original conspiracy theory—for instance, that as many as 4,000 Jews were warned of the September 11 attacks. Believers also claim that ZOG-like forces control U.S. foreign policy. Most ZOG theories involve the idea of Jewish power over finance or banking, such as control of the Federal Reserve. History In late 19th-century France, the insinuation that Jews controlled the French government was commonplace in anti-republican discourse. Early ideological influences on the conspiracy include the antisemitic The Dearborn Independent and the forged tract The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. The origins of the ZOG idea specifically are connected to the U.S. civil rights landscape and particularly Jewish anti-hate activist groups. In an effort to stop antisemites like Gerald L. K. Smith and George Lincoln Rockwell (the leader of the American Nazi Party) from getting attention and therefore more power, the Jewish watchdog organization the American Jewish Congress (AJC) encouraged a "quarantine" of them in the media by asking Jewish groups and newspapers not to react to their provocations. Kaplan identifies Rockwell's frustration with this policy and his later assassination as the origin of the ZOG idea, which served to reinforce his followers' belief in a Jewish conspiracy, as they considered the policy evidence of collusion between these groups and the government. After Rockwell's assassination, his party ceased to be perceived as a real threat to the Jewish community, and it devolved into schismatic factions. The AJC was meanwhile largely supplanted by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) as the most prominent Jewish watchdog group. Antisemitism had declined in the U.S. and neo-Nazi movements were struggling to remain relevant, but in its opposition to the American neo-Nazi movement the ADL was far more aggressive than either the U.S. government or the AJC. It regularly engaged in dubiously legal and outright illegal activities in order to surveil and counter the neo-Nazi movement. Kaplan attributes the prevalence of the ZOG idea among neo-Nazis to their resulting belief that "the ADL was an omnipresent—and, indeed, omnipotent—presence". The specific term "Zionist Occupation Government" was coined by the American neo-Nazi Eric Thomson in a 1976 article titled "Welcome to ZOG-World". Thomson was allegedly a former agent for the Central Intelligence Agency turned neo-Nazi activist. The concept and terminology were developed and spread in the 1970s by American white supremacists, particularly Christian Identity activists. It was later imported into Europe. The concept (though not the term) is a major theme in the 1978 book The Turner Diaries by William Luther Pierce, founder of the National Alliance, a white nationalist organization. Pierce himself later identified the U.S. government as "ZOG". The term only became popular following a 27 December 1984 New York Times article about robberies committed in California and Washington by a white supremacist group called the Order. According to the Times, the crimes "were conducted to raise money for a war upon the United States government, which the group calls 'ZOG', or Zionist Occupation Government." Resultingly, the idea spread in usage among the far-right in the 1980s and 1990s. It spread through white power music in the U.S. and Europe, particularly Sweden. Though the term initially referred to the U.S., European white nationalists were using it in reference to their governments by the late 1980s. The term appeared extensively in Aryan Nations literature. In 1985, the ADL reported that Aryan Nations had set up an electronic bulletin board system, "Aryan Nation Liberty Net", to offer information about the locations of Communist Party USA offices and "ZOG informers". In 1996, Aryan Nations posted on its website an "Aryan Declaration of Independence" saying that "the history of the present Zionist Occupied Government of the United States of America is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations [...] having a direct object—the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states." Claiming that "the eradication of the White race and its culture" is "one of its foremost purposes", the declaration said ZOG relinquished government powers to private corporations, white traitors and ruling-class Jewish families. It accused ZOG Jews of subverting the constitutional rule of law; responsibility for post-Civil War Reconstruction; subverting the monetary system with the Federal Reserve System; confiscating land and property; limiting freedom of speech, religion, and gun ownership; murdering, kidnapping, and imprisoning patriots; abdicating national sovereignty to the United Nations; political repression; wasteful bureaucracy; loosening restrictions on immigration and drug trafficking; raising taxes; polluting the environment; commandeering the military, mercenaries and police; denying Aryan cultural heritage; and inciting immigrant insurrections. Since 1996, the term has spread in usage. It is now popular with many other antisemitic organizations. Swedish Neo-Nazis say that Jews—in what they call the Swedish Zionist occupied government—are importing immigrants to "dilute the blood of the white race". Slovak politician Marian Kotleba, whose party (People's Party Our Slovakia) won two seats in the European Parliament in the 2019 election, claims that the "Z. O. G." controls Slovak politics. See also References California drought manipulation |
======================================== |
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family#Conspiracy_theories] | [TOKENS: 8981] |
Contents Rothschild family The Rothschild family is a wealthy Ashkenazi Jewish noble banking family originally from Frankfurt, Germany. The family's documented history starts in 16th-century Frankfurt; its name is derived from the family house, Rothschild, built by Isaak Elchanan Bacharach in Frankfurt in 1567. The family rose to prominence with Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744–1812), a court factor to the German Landgraves of Hesse-Kassel in the Free City of Frankfurt, Holy Roman Empire, who established his banking business in the 1760s. Unlike most previous court factors, Rothschild managed to bequeath his wealth and established an international banking family through his five sons, who established businesses in Paris, Frankfurt, London, Vienna, and Naples. The family was elevated to noble rank in the Holy Roman Empire and the United Kingdom. The only subsisting branches of the family are the French and British ones. During the 19th century, the Rothschild family possessed the largest private fortune in the world, as well as in modern world history. The Rothschild family dominated international finance in Europe between the 1820s and the 1870s, when their hegemony over European finance was broken by joint stock banks. The family's wealth declined over the 20th century and was divided among many descendants. Today, their assets cover a diverse range of sectors, including financial services, real estate, mining, energy, agriculture, and winemaking. The family additionally has philanthropic endeavours and nonprofits. Many examples of the family's rural architecture exist across northwestern Europe. The Rothschild family has frequently been the subject of antisemitic conspiracy theories. Overview The first member of the family who was known to use the name "Rothschild" was Isaak Elchanan Rothschild, born in 1577. The name is derived from the German zum rothen Schild (with the old spelling "th"), meaning "at the red shield", in reference to the house where the family lived for many generations (in those days, houses were designated not by numbers, but by signs displaying different symbols or colours). A red shield can still be seen at the centre of the Rothschild coat of arms. The family's ascent to international prominence began in 1744, with the birth of Mayer Amschel Rothschild in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. He was the son of Amschel Moses Rothschild (born circa 1710), a money changer who had traded with the Prince of Hesse. Born in the "Judengasse", the ghetto of Frankfurt, Mayer developed a finance house and spread his empire by installing each of his five sons in the five main European financial centres to conduct business. The Rothschild coat of arms contains a clenched fist with five arrows symbolising the five dynasties established by the five sons of Mayer Rothschild, in a reference to Psalm 127, "Like arrows in the hands of a warrior, so are the children of one's youth". The family motto appears below the shield: Concordia, Integritas, Industria ("Unity, Integrity, Industry"). Paul Johnson writes "[T]he Rothschilds are elusive. There is no book about them that is both revealing and accurate. Libraries of nonsense have been written about them... A woman who planned to write a book entitled Lies about the Rothschilds abandoned it, saying: 'It was relatively easy to spot the lies, but it proved impossible to find out the truth.'" Johnson writes that, unlike the court factors of earlier centuries, who had financed and managed European noble houses, but often lost their wealth through violence or expropriation, the new kind of international bank created by the Rothschilds was impervious to local attacks. Their assets were held in financial instruments, circulating through the world as stocks, bonds and debts. Changes made by the Rothschilds allowed them to insulate their property from local violence: "Henceforth their real wealth was beyond the reach of the mob, almost beyond the reach of greedy monarchs." Johnson argued that their fortune was generated to the greatest extent by Nathan Mayer Rothschild in London; however, more recent research by Niall Ferguson indicates that greater and equal profits also were realised by the other Rothschild dynasties, including James Mayer de Rothschild in Paris, Carl Mayer von Rothschild in Naples and Amschel Mayer Rothschild in Frankfurt. Another essential part of Mayer Rothschild's strategy for success was to keep control of their banks in family hands, allowing them to maintain full secrecy about the size of their fortunes. In about 1906, the Jewish Encyclopedia noted: "The practice initiated by the Rothschilds of having several brothers of a firm establish branches in the different financial centres was followed by other Jewish financiers, like the Bischoffsheims, Pereires, Seligmans, Lazards and others, and these financiers by their integrity and financial skill obtained credit not alone with their Jewish confrères, but with the banking fraternity in general. By this means, Jewish financiers obtained an increasing share of international finance during the middle and last quarter of the 19th century. The head of the whole group was the Rothschild family..." It also says: "Of more recent years, non-Jewish financiers have learned the same cosmopolitan method, and, on the whole, the control is now rather less than more in Jewish hands than formerly." Mayer Rothschild successfully kept the fortune in the family with carefully arranged marriages, often between first- or second-cousins (similar to royal intermarriage). By the late 19th century, however, almost all Rothschilds had started to marry outside the family, usually into the aristocracy or other financial dynasties. His sons were: The German family name "Rothschild" is pronounced [ˈʁoːt.ʃɪlt] in German, unlike /ˈrɒθ(s)tʃaɪld/ in English. The surname "Rothschild" is rare in Germany. Families by country: The five sons of Mayer Amschel Rothschild were elevated to the Austrian nobility by Emperor Francis I of Austria, and they were all granted the Austrian hereditary title of Freiherr (baron) on 29 September 1822. The British branch of the family was elevated by Queen Victoria, who granted the hereditary title of baronet (1847) and later the hereditary peerage title of Baron Rothschild (1885). Napoleonic Wars The Rothschilds already possessed a significant fortune before the start of the Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815), and the family had gained preeminence in the bullion trade by this time. From London in 1813 to 1815, Nathan Mayer Rothschild was instrumental in financing the British war effort, organising the shipment and transfer of bullion and funds from Britain to the Duke of Wellington's armies across Europe, as well as arranging the payment of British financial subsidies to their continental allies. In 1815 alone, the Rothschilds provided £9.8 million (equivalent to about £850 million in 2023) in subsidy loans to Britain's continental allies. The brothers helped coordinate Rothschild activities across the continent, and the family developed a network of agents, shippers and couriers to transport gold across war-torn Europe. The family network was also to provide Nathan Rothschild time and again with political and financial information ahead of his peers, giving him an advantage in the markets and rendering the house of Rothschild still more invaluable to the British government. In one instance, the family network enabled Nathan to receive in London the news of Wellington's victory at the Battle of Waterloo a full day ahead of the government's official messengers. Rothschild's first concern on this occasion was not to the potential financial advantage on the market which the knowledge would have given him; he and his courier immediately took the news to the government. That he used the news for financial advantage was a fiction then repeated in later popular accounts, such as that of Morton. The basis for the Rothschilds' most famously profitable move was made after the news of British victory had been made public. Nathan Rothschild calculated that the future reduction in government borrowing brought about by the peace would create a bounce in British government bonds after a two-year stabilisation, which would finalise the post-war restructuring of the domestic economy. In what has been described as one of the most audacious moves in financial history, Nathan immediately bought up the government bond market, for what at the time seemed an excessively high price, before waiting two years, then selling the bonds on the crest of a short bounce in the market in 1817 for a 40% profit. Given the sheer power of leverage the Rothschild family had at their disposal, this profit was an enormous sum. Nathan Mayer Rothschild started his business in Manchester in 1806 and gradually moved it to London, where in 1809 he acquired the location at 2 New Court in St. Swithin's Lane, City of London, where it operates today; he established N M Rothschild & Sons in 1811. In 1818, he arranged a £5 million (equal to £440 million in 2023) loan to the Prussian government, and the issuing of bonds for government loans formed a mainstay of his bank's business. He gained a position of such power in the City of London that by 1825–26 he was able to supply enough coin to the Bank of England to enable it to avert a market liquidity crisis. International high finance Rothschild family banking businesses pioneered international high finance during the industrialisation of Europe and were instrumental in supporting railway systems across the world and in complex government financing for projects such as the Suez Canal. From 1895 through 1907 they loaned nearly $450,000,000 (equivalent to $15,500,000,000 in 2025) to European governments. During the 19th century, the family bought up a large proportion of the property in Mayfair, London. The Rothschild family was directly involved in the independence of Brazil from Portugal in the early 19th century. Upon an agreement, the Brazilian government should pay a compensation of two million pounds sterling to the Kingdom of Portugal to accept Brazil's independence. N M Rothschild & Sons was pre-eminent in raising this capital for the government of the newly formed Empire of Brazil on the London market. In 1825, Nathan Rothschild raised £2,000,000, and indeed was probably discreetly involved in the earlier tranche of this loan which raised £1,000,000 in 1824. Part of the price of Portuguese recognition of Brazilian independence, secured in 1825, was that Brazil should take over repayment of the principal and interest on a £1,500,000 loan made to the Portuguese government in 1823 by N M Rothschild & Sons. A correspondence from Samuel Phillips & Co. in 1824 suggests the close involvement of the Rothschilds in the occasion. Major 19th-century businesses founded with Rothschild family capital include: The family funded Cecil Rhodes in the creation of the African colony of Rhodesia. From the late 1880s onwards, the family took over control of the Rio Tinto mining company. The Japanese government approached the London and Paris families for funding during the Russo-Japanese War. The London consortium's issue of Japanese war bonds would total £11.5 million (at 1907 currency rates; £1.11 billion in 2012 currency terms). The name of Rothschild became synonymous with extravagance and great wealth; and the family was renowned for its art collecting, for its palaces, as well as for its philanthropy. By the end of the century, the family owned, or had built, at the lowest estimates, 41 palaces, of a scale and luxury perhaps unparalleled even by the richest royal families. The British Chancellor of the Exchequer David Lloyd George claimed, in 1909, that Nathan, Lord Rothschild was the most powerful man in Britain.[failed verification] Niles' Weekly Register, Volume 49 had the following to say about the Rothschilds' influence on international high finance in 1836: The Rothschilds are the wonders of modern banking ... we see the descendants of Judah, after a persecution of two thousand years, peering above kings, rising higher than emperors, and holding a whole continent in the hollow of their hands. The Rothschilds govern a Christian world. Not a cabinet moves without their advice. They stretch their hand, with equal ease, from [Saint] Petersburgh to Vienna, from Vienna to Paris, from Paris to London, from London to Washington. Baron Rothschild, the head of the house, is the true king of Judah, the prince of the captivity, the Messiah so long looked for by this extraordinary people. He holds the keys of peace or war, blessing or cursing. ... They are the brokers and counselors of the kings of Europe and of the republican chiefs of America. What more can they desire? Changes to family fortunes The Neapolitan Rothschilds was the first branch of the family to decline when revolution broke out and Giuseppe Garibaldi captured Naples on 7 September 1860 and set up a provisional Italian government. Because of the family's close political connections with Austria and France, Adolph Carl von Rothschild was caught in a delicate position. He chose to take temporary sanctuary in Gaeta with the last Neapolitan king, Francis II of the Two Sicilies; however, the Rothschild branches in London, Paris, and Vienna were not prepared nor willing to financially support the deposed king. With the ensuing unification of Italy, and the mounting tension between Adolph and the rest of the family, the Naples house closed in 1863 after forty-two years in business. In 1901, the German branch closed its doors after more than a century in business following the death of Wilhelm Rothschild with no male heirs. It was not until 1989 that the family returned to Germany, when N M Rothschild & Sons, the British branch, plus Bank Rothschild AG, the Swiss branch, set up a representative banking office in Frankfurt. By the start of the 20th century, the introduction of national taxation systems had ended the Rothschilds' policy of operating with a single set of commercial account records, which resulted in the various branches gradually going their own separate ways as independent banks. The system of the five brothers and their successor sons all but disappeared by World War I. The rise of Nazi Germany in the 1930s led to a precarious situation for the Austrian Rothschilds under the annexation of Austria in 1938 when the family was pressured to sell its banking operation at a fraction of its real worth. While other Rothschilds had escaped the Nazis, Louis Rothschild was imprisoned for a year and only released after a substantial ransom was paid by his family. After Louis was allowed to leave the country in March 1939, the Nazis placed the firm of S M von Rothschild under compulsory administration. Nazi officers and senior staff from Austrian museums also emptied the Rothschild family estates of all their valuables. Following the war, the Austrian Rothschilds were unable to reclaim much of their former assets and properties. Later, the fall of France during the Second World War led to the seizure of the property of the French Rothschilds under German occupation. Despite having their bank restored to them at the end of the war, the French Rothschilds were powerless in 1982 as the family business was nationalised by the socialist government of newly elected President François Mitterrand. In addition, The New York Times wrote that the Rothschilds "grossly misjudged the opportunities directly across the Atlantic" and quoted Evelyn de Rothschild as saying that despite the accomplishments made by the various branches of the family in international high finance for over 200 years, "we never seized the initiative in America and that was one of the mistakes my family made." Hereditary titles In 1816, four of the five sons of Mayer Amschel Rothschild were elevated to the Austrian nobility by Emperor Francis I of Austria. The remaining son, Nathan, was elevated in 1818.[dubious – discuss] All of them were granted the Austrian hereditary title of Freiherr (baron) on 29 September 1822. As a result, some members of the family used the nobiliary particle de or von before their surname to acknowledge the grant of nobility. In 1847, Anthony de Rothschild was made a hereditary baronet of the United Kingdom. In 1885, Sir Nathan Rothschild, 2nd Baronet, was granted the hereditary peerage title of Baron Rothschild in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. This title is currently held by the 5th Baron Rothschild. Branches The Rothschild banking family of England was founded in 1798 by Nathan Mayer Rothschild (1777–1836), who first settled in Manchester but then moved to London. Nathan Mayer von Rothschild, the third son of Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744–1812), first established a textile jobbing business in Manchester and from there went on to establish N M Rothschild & Sons bank in London. During the early part of the 19th century, the Rothschild family's London bank took a leading part in managing and financing the subsidies that the British government transferred to its allies during the Napoleonic Wars. Through the creation of a network of agents, couriers and shippers, the bank was able to provide funds to the armies of the Duke of Wellington in Portugal and Spain, therefore funding the war. The providing of other innovative and complex financing for government projects formed a mainstay of the bank's business for the better part of the century. N M Rothschild & Sons' financial strength in the City of London became such that, by 1825–26, the bank was able to supply enough coin to the Bank of England to enable it to avert a liquidity crisis. Nathan Mayer's eldest son, Lionel de Rothschild (1808–1879), succeeded him as head of the London branch. Under Lionel, the bank financed the British government's 1875 purchase of Egypt's interest in the Suez Canal. The Rothschild bank also funded Cecil Rhodes in the development of the British South Africa Company. Leopold de Rothschild (1845–1917) administered Rhodes's estate after his death in 1902 and helped to set up the Rhodes Scholarship scheme at the University of Oxford. In 1873, de Rothschild Frères in France and N M Rothschild & Sons of London joined with other investors to acquire the Spanish government's money-losing Rio Tinto copper mines. The new owners restructured the company and turned it into a profitable business. By 1905, the Rothschild interest in Rio Tinto amounted to more than 30 percent. In 1887, the French and British Rothschild banking houses loaned money to, and invested in, the De Beers diamond mines in South Africa, becoming its largest shareholders. The London banking house continued under the management of Lionel Nathan de Rothschild (1882–1942) and his brother Anthony Gustav de Rothschild (1887–1961), and then to Sir Evelyn de Rothschild (1931–2022). In 2003, following Sir Evelyn's retirement as head of N M Rothschild & Sons of London, the British and French financial firms merged under the leadership of David René de Rothschild. There are two branches of the family connected to France. The first was the branch of James Mayer de Rothschild (1792–1868), known as "James", who established de Rothschild Frères in Paris; he married his niece Betty von Rothschild. Following the Napoleonic Wars, he played a major role in financing the construction of railways and the mining business that helped make France an industrial power. By 1980, the Paris business employed about 2,000 people and had an annual turnover of 26 billion francs (€4.13 billion or $5 billion in the currency rates of 1980). — Wilhelm I, Emperor of Germany, on visiting Château de Ferrières. The Paris business suffered a near death blow in 1982, when the socialist government of François Mitterrand nationalised and renamed it as Compagnie Européenne de Banque. Baron David de Rothschild, then 39, decided to stay and rebuild, creating a new entity named Rothschild & Cie Banque, with just three employees and €830,000 (US$1 million) in capital. In the 21st century, the Paris operation has 22 partners and accounts for a significant part of the global business. Ensuing generations of the Paris Rothschild family remained involved in the family business, becoming a major force in international investment banking. The Paris Rothschilds have since led the Thomson Financial League Tables in Investment Banking Merger and Acquisition deals in the UK, France and Italy. James Mayer de Rothschild's other son, Edmond James de Rothschild (1845–1934), was very much engaged in philanthropy and the arts, and he was a leading proponent of Zionism. His grandson, Baron Edmond Adolphe de Rothschild, founded in 1953 the LCF Rothschild Group, a private bank. Since 1997, Baron Benjamin de Rothschild chairs the group. The group has €100bn of assets in 2008 and owns many wine properties in France (Château Clarke, Château des Laurets), in Australia, or in South Africa. In 1961, the 35-year-old Edmond Adolphe de Rothschild purchased the company Club Med, after he had visited a resort and enjoyed his stay. His interest in Club Med was sold off by the 1990s. In 1973, he bought out the Bank of California, selling his interests in 1984 before it was sold to Mitsubishi Bank in 1985. The second French branch was founded by Nathaniel de Rothschild (1812–1870). Born in London, he was the fourth child of the founder of the British branch of the family, Nathan Mayer Rothschild (1777–1836). In 1850, Nathaniel Rothschild moved to Paris to work with his uncle James Mayer Rothschild. In 1853, Nathaniel acquired Château Brane Mouton, a vineyard in Pauillac in the Gironde département. Nathaniel Rothschild renamed the estate Château Mouton Rothschild, and it would become one of the best known labels in the world. In 1868, Nathaniel's uncle, James Mayer de Rothschild, acquired the neighbouring Château Lafite vineyard. In Vienna, Salomon Mayer Rothschild established a bank in the 1820s and the Austrian family had vast wealth and position. During the 19th century, their main business rivals were the Macedo-Romanian Sina family. The crash of 1929 brought problems, and Baron Louis von Schwartz Rothschild attempted to shore up the Creditanstalt, Austria's largest bank, to prevent its collapse. Nevertheless, during the Second World War they had to surrender their bank to the Nazis and flee the country. Their Rothschild palaces, a collection of vast palaces in Vienna built and owned by the family, were confiscated, plundered and destroyed by the Nazis. The palaces were famous for their sheer size and for their huge collections of paintings, armour, tapestries and statues (some of which were restored to the Rothschilds by the Austrian government in 1999). All family members escaped the Holocaust, some of them moving to the United States, and returning to Europe only after the war. In 1999, the government of Austria agreed to return to the Rothschild family some 250 art treasures looted by the Nazis and absorbed into state museums after the war. The C M de Rothschild & Figli bank arranged substantial loans to the Papal States and to various Kings of Naples plus the Duchy of Parma and the Grand Duchy of Tuscany. However, in the 1830s, Naples followed Spain with a gradual shift away from conventional bond issues that began to affect the bank's growth and profitability. The Unification of Italy in 1861, with the ensuing decline of the Italian aristocracy who had been the Rothschilds' primary clients, eventually brought about the closure of their Naples bank, due to a forecasted decline in the sustainability of the business over the long-term. However, in the early 19th century, the Rothschild family of Naples built up close relations with the Holy See, and the association between the family and the Vatican continued into the 20th century.[citation needed] In 1832, when Pope Gregory XVI was seen meeting Carl von Rothschild to arrange the 1832 Rothschild loan to the Holy See (for £400,000, worth €43,000,000 in 2014), observers were shocked that Rothschild was not required to kiss the Pope's feet, as was then required for all other visitors to the Pope, including monarchs. The 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia described the Rothschilds as "the guardians of the papal treasure". Jewish identity and positions on Zionism Support for Zionism within the Rothschild family was not uniform across its branches. Many Rothschilds were supporters of Zionism, while other members of the family opposed the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. Within the French branch of the family, after the death of James Jacob de Rothschild in 1868, his eldest son Alphonse Rothschild took over the management of the family bank and became active in supporting Eretz Israel. Another influential supporter was Baron Edmond James de Rothschild, Alphonse’s younger brother, known in Israel simply as "the Baron Rothschild" or "the Benefactor" (Hebrew: "HaNadiv"). Edmond financed some of the first Jewish agricultural colonies in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, which included being a patron for the first permanent settlement in Palestine at Rishon-LeZion (1882), and also provided funds for the establishment of Petah Tikva as a permanent settlement (1883). Overall, he bought from Ottoman landlords 2–3% of the land.[a] After Baron de Hirsch died in 1896, the Hirsch-founded Jewish Colonisation Association (ICA) started supporting the settlement of Palestine (1896), and Baron Rothschild took an active role in the organization and transferred his Palestinian land holdings as well as 15 million francs to it. In 1924, he reorganized the Palestinian branch of the ICA into the Palestine Jewish Colonisation Association (PICA), which acquired more than 125,000 acres (50,586 ha) of land and set up business ventures. In Tel Aviv, the Rothschild Boulevard is named after him, as are a number of localities throughout Israel which he assisted in founding, including Metulla, Zikhron Ya'akov, Rishon Lezion and Rosh Pina. A park in Boulogne-Billancourt, Paris, the Parc Edmond de Rothschild (Edmond de Rothschild Park), is also named after its founder. Other members of the family, including Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild, were also supportive of Zionism. In Britain, Lord Walter Rothschild played a significant political role as a leading member of the Zionist Federation and served as an intermediary between the British government and Zionist leaders such as Chaim Weizmann and was the addressee of the 1917 Balfour Declaration to the Zionist Federation, a letter which committed the British government to the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. His nephew, Victor, Lord Rothschild was against granting asylum or helping Jewish refugees in 1938.[b] The Rothschild family archives show that during the 1870s, the family contributed nearly 500,000 francs per year on behalf of Eastern Jewry to the Alliance Israélite Universelle. The Rothschilds also played a significant part in the funding of Israel's governmental infrastructure. James A. de Rothschild financed the Knesset building as a gift to the State of Israel and the Supreme Court of Israel building was donated to Israel by Dorothy de Rothschild. Outside the President's Chamber is displayed the letter Dorothy de Rothschild wrote to then Prime Minister Shimon Peres expressing her intention to donate a new building for the Supreme Court. The Rothschilds also established the "Yad Hanadiv" philanthropic foundation in 1958. Interviewed by Haaretz in 2010, Baron Benjamin Rothschild, who was a Swiss-based member of the banking family, said that he supported the Israeli–Palestinian peace process: "I understand that it is a complicated business, mainly because of the fanatics and extremists – and I am talking about both sides. I think you have fanatics in Israel. ... In general I am not in contact with politicians. I spoke once with Netanyahu. I met once with an Israeli finance minister, but the less I mingle with politicians the better I feel." Due to a dispute with the Israeli tax authorities, the baron refused to visit Israel. But his widow Ariane de Rothschild often visits Israel where she manages the Caesarea Foundation. She says: "It is insulting that the state [Israel] casts doubt on us. If there is a family that does not have to prove its commitment to Israel, it's ours." Primarily due to the generosity and influence of Baron Edmond James de Rothschild, HaNadiv (the Benefactor), on the history of the Land of Israel and the State of Israel, a tradition exists of naming cities, towns and other settlements in Israel in honor of members of the Rothschild family. Six of these places are grouped in the same vicinity, on the Sharon plain, while the others are scattered throughout the country. They are, listed in order of founding: Modern businesses, investments, and philanthropy Since the late 19th century, the family has taken a low-key public profile, donating many famous estates, as well as vast quantities of art, to charity, and generally eschewing conspicuous displays of wealth. Today, Rothschild businesses are on a smaller scale than they were throughout the 19th century, although they encompass a diverse range of fields, including: real estate, financial services, mixed farming, energy, mining, winemaking and nonprofits. Since 2003, a group of Rothschild banks have been controlled by Rothschild Continuation Holdings, a Swiss-registered holding company (under the chairmanship of Baron David René de Rothschild). Rothschild Continuation Holdings is in turn controlled by Concordia BV, a Dutch-registered master holding company. Concordia BV is managed by Paris Orléans S.A., a French-registered holding company. Paris Orléans S.A. is ultimately controlled by Rothschild Concordia SAS, a Rothschild's family holding company. Rothschild & Cie Banque controls Rothschild banking businesses in France and continental Europe, while Rothschilds Continuation Holdings AG controls a number of Rothschild banks elsewhere, including N M Rothschild & Sons in London. Twenty per cent of Rothschild Continuation Holdings AG was sold in 2005 to Jardine Strategic, which is a subsidiary of Jardine, Matheson & Co. of Hong Kong. In November 2008, Rabobank Group, the leading investment and private bank in the Netherlands, acquired 7.5% of Rothschild Continuation Holdings AG, and Rabobank and Rothschild entered into a co-operation agreement in the fields of mergers and acquisitions (M&A) advisory and equity capital markets advisory in the food and agribusiness sectors. It was believed that the move was intended to help Rothschild Continuation Holdings AG gain access to a wider capital pool, enlarging its presence in East Asian markets. Paris Orléans S.A. is a financial holding company listed on Euronext Paris and controlled by the French and English branches of the Rothschild family. Paris Orléans is the flagship of the Rothschild banking group and controls the Rothschild Group's banking activities including N M Rothschild & Sons and Rothschild & Cie Banque. It has over 2,000 employees. Directors of the company include Eric de Rothschild, Robert de Rothschild and Count Philippe de Nicolay. N M Rothschild & Sons, an English investment bank, does most of its business as an advisor for mergers and acquisitions. In 2004, the investment bank withdrew from the gold market, a commodity the Rothschild bankers had traded in for two centuries. In 2006, it ranked second in UK M&A with deals totalling $104.9 billion. In 2006, the bank recorded a pre-tax annual profit of £83.2 million with assets of £5.5 billion. —A traditional family maxim. In 1953, one Swiss member of the family, Edmond Adolphe de Rothschild (1926–1997), founded the LCF Rothschild Group (now Edmond de Rothschild Group) which is based in Geneva and today extends to 15 countries across the world. Although this group is primarily a financial entity, specializing in asset management and private banking, its activities also cover mixed farming, luxury hotels and yacht racing. Edmond de Rothschild Group's committee is currently being chaired by Ariane de Rothschild. In late 2010, Benjamin de Rothschild, the chairman at the time, said that the family was unaffected by the 2008 financial crisis, due to their conservative business practices: "We came through it well, because our investment managers did not want to put money into crazy things." He added that the Rothschilds were still a small-scale, traditional family business and took greater care over their clients' investments than American companies, adding: "The client knows we will not speculate with his money". Edmond de Rothschild group includes these companies. In 1980, Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild resigned from N M Rothschild & Sons and took independent control of Rothschild Investment Trust (now RIT Capital Partners, a British investment trust), which has reported assets of $3.4 billion in 2008. It is listed on London Stock Exchange. Lord Rothschild is also one of the major investors behind BullionVault, a gold trading platform. In 2010, RIT Capital Partners stored a significant proportion of its assets in the form of physical gold. Other assets included oil and energy-related investments. In 2012, RIT Capital Partners announced it was to buy a 37 per cent stake in a Rockefeller family wealth advisory and asset management group. Commenting on the deal, David Rockefeller, a former patriarch of the Rockefeller family, said: "The connection between our two families remains very strong." In 1991, Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild, founded J. Rothschild Assurance Group (now St. James's Place Wealth Management) with Sir Mark Weinberg. It is also listed on London Stock Exchange. In 2001, the Rothschild mansion located at 18 Kensington Palace Gardens, London, was on sale for £85 million, at that time (2001) the most expensive residential property ever to go on sale in the world. It was built in marble, at 9,000 sq ft, with underground parking for 20 cars. In December 2009, Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild, invested $200 million of his own money in a North Sea oil company. In January 2010, Nathaniel Rothschild, 5th Baron Rothschild, bought a substantial share of the Glencore mining and oil company's market capitalisation. He also bought a large share of the aluminium mining company United Company RUSAL. During the 19th century, the Rothschilds controlled the Rio Tinto mining corporation, and to this day, Rothschild and Rio Tinto maintain a close business relationship. The Rothschild family has been in the winemaking industry for 150 years. In 1853, Nathaniel de Rothschild purchased Château Brane-Mouton and renamed it Château Mouton Rothschild. In 1868, James Mayer de Rothschild purchased the neighbouring Château Lafite and renamed it Château Lafite Rothschild. Into the 21st century, the Rothschild family owns many wine estates: their estates in France include Château Clarke, Château de Malengin, Château Clerc-Milon, Château d'Armailhac, Château Duhart-Milon, Château Lafite Rothschild, Château de Laversine, Château des Laurets, Château L'Évangile, Château Malmaison, Château de Montvillargenne, Château Mouton Rothschild, Château de la Muette, Château Rieussec and Château Rothschild d'Armainvilliers. They also own wine estates across North America, South America, South Africa and Australia. Especially, Château Mouton Rothschild and Château Lafite Rothschild are classified as Premier Cru Classé—i.e., First Growth, the status referring to a classification of wines from the Bordeaux region of France. Saskia de Rothschild was named Chairwoman of Château Lafite Rothschild in 2018, succeeding her father, Éric de Rothschild. Château Mouton Rothschild was managed by Philippine de Rothschild until her death in 2014. It is now under the direction of her son Philippe Sereys de Rothschild. The family once had one of the largest private art collections in the world, and a significant proportion of the art in the world's public museums are Rothschild donations which were sometimes, in the family tradition of discretion, donated anonymously. Hannah Rothschild was appointed in December 2014 as chair of the board of the National Gallery of London. In January 2026, it was revealed that the family had held extensive ties with Jeffrey Epstein, cultivating deep personal relationships with several prominent members of the family (especially Ariane and Lynn Forester) as well as helping them to manage their financial and legal affairs from 2013 until his death in 2019; despite Epstein having been convicted in 2008. Epstein acted as a mediator for the family numerous times, both internally and with other entities which included the United States Department of Justice and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. List of financial holdings The following is a list of businesses in which members of the Rothschild family have held a controlling or an otherwise significant interest. Cultural references In the words of The Daily Telegraph: "This multinational banking family is a byword for wealth, power – and discretion... The Rothschild name has become synonymous with money and power to a degree that perhaps no other family has ever matched." Writing of the Rockefeller and Rothschild families, Harry Mount writes: "That is what makes these two dynasties so exceptional – not just their dizzying wealth, but the fact that they have held on to it for so long: and not just the loot, but also their family companies." The story of the Rothschild family has been featured in a number of films. The 1934 Hollywood film titled The House of Rothschild, starring George Arliss and Loretta Young, recounted the life of Mayer Amschel Rothschild and Nathan Mayer Rothschild (both played by Arliss). Excerpts from this film were incorporated into the Nazi propaganda film Der ewige Jude (The Eternal Jew) without the permission of the copyright holder. Another Nazi film, Die Rothschilds (also called Aktien auf Waterloo), was directed by Erich Waschneck in 1940. A Broadway musical entitled The Rothschilds, covering the history of the family up to 1818, was nominated for a Tony Award in 1971. Nathaniel Mayer ("Natty") Rothschild, 1st Baron Rothschild appears as a minor character in the historical-mystery novel Stone's Fall, by Iain Pears. Mayer Rothschild is featured in Diana Gabaldon's novel Voyager as a coin seller summoned to Le Havre by Jamie Fraser to appraise coins, prior to the establishment of the Rothschild dynasty, when Mayer is in his early 20s. The Rothschild name is mentioned by Aldous Huxley in his novel Brave New World, among many names of historically affluent persons, scientific innovators and others. The character, named Morgana Rothschild, played a relatively minor role in the story. The name Rothschild used as a synonym for extreme wealth inspired the song "If I Were a Rich Man", which is based on a song from the Tevye the Dairyman stories, written in the Yiddish as Ven ikh bin Rotshild, meaning 'If I were a Rothschild'. In France, the word "Rothschild" was throughout the 19th and 20th centuries a synonym for seemingly endless wealth, neo-Gothic styles, and epicurean glamour. The family also has lent its name to "le goût Rothschild," a very glamorous style of interior decoration whose elements include neo-Renaissance palaces, extravagant use of velvet and gilding, vast collections of armour and sculpture, a sense of Victorian horror vacui, and the highest masterworks of art. Le goût Rothschild has influenced designers such as Robert Denning, Yves Saint Laurent, Vincent Fourcade and others. "Yes, my dear fellow, it all amounts to this: in order to do something first you must be something. We think Dante great, and he had a civilization of centuries behind him; the House of Rothschild is rich and it has required much more than one generation to attain such wealth. Such things all lie much deeper than one thinks." — Johann Wolfgang Goethe, October 1828 Conspiracy theories Over more than two centuries, the Rothschild family has frequently been the subject of conspiracy theories. These theories take differing forms, such as claiming that the family controls the world's wealth and financial institutions, or encouraged or discouraged wars between governments. Discussing this and similar views, the historian Niall Ferguson wrote: Without wars, nineteenth-century states would have little need to issue bonds. As we have seen, however, wars tended to hit the price of existing bonds by increasing the risk that a debtor state would fail to meet its interest payments in the event of defeat and losses of territory. By the middle of the 19th century, the Rothschilds had evolved from traders into fund managers, carefully tending to their own vast portfolio of government bonds. Now having made their money, they stood to lose more than they gained from conflict. ... The Rothschilds had decided the outcome of the Napoleonic Wars by putting their financial weight behind Britain. Now they would ... sit on the sidelines. Most conspiracy theories about the Rothschild family arise from antisemitic prejudice and various antisemitic tropes.[c] Prominent descendants of Mayer Amschel Rothschild Prominent lineal descendants of Mayer Amschel Rothschild include among many others: Prominent marriages into the family include, among many others: Coat of arms See also Notes References Further reading External links History Foundations |
======================================== |
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeopolonia] | [TOKENS: 300] |
Contents Judeopolonia Judeopolonia, also Judeo-Polonia, is an antisemitic conspiracy theory positing future Jewish domination of Poland. The idea had its roots in an 1858 book by Julian Ursyn Niemcewicz, but did not gain currency in anti-semitic tracts until around 1900. In 1912, author Teodor Jeske-Choiński had Jews in his book rhetorically say: "If you do not allow us to establish a 'Judeo-Polonia state' and a nation of 'Judeo-Polish people,' we will strangle you." This myth has been revived every so often in connection with the Bodenheimer plan (League of East European States), most notably by Andrzej Leszek Szcześniak in his books Judeopolonia (2001) and Judeopolonia II (2002). Zoltán Halasi [hu] writes that Szcześniak presents Jews as informers for the tsar, "tightfisted hyenas" and arrogant oppressors of the Polish people. Szczęśniak gives the name of Judeopolonia to the League of East European States, a suggested German client state with autonomous Jewish cooperation, proposed for the territory between Germany and Russia by the German Committee for Freeing of Russian Jews in 1914. See also References This Poland-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by adding missing information. |
======================================== |
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_bloodline] | [TOKENS: 6123] |
Contents Jesus bloodline The Jesus bloodline refers to the proposition that a lineal sequence of the historical Jesus has persisted, possibly to the present time. Although absent from the Gospels or historical records, the concept of Jesus having descendants has gained a presence in the public imagination, as seen with Dan Brown's 2003 best-selling novel The Da Vinci Code and its 2006 movie adaptation of the same name that used the premise for its plot. It is dismissed generally by scholars. These claimed Jesus's bloodlines are distinct from the biblical genealogy of Jesus, which concerns the ancestors of Jesus, and from the alleged Brothers of Jesus and other kin of Jesus, known as the Desposyni. Jesus as husband and father Ideas that Jesus Christ might have been married have a long history in fringe Christian theology, though the historical record says nothing concerning the subject. Bart D. Ehrman, chairperson of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, commented that, although there are some historical scholars who claim that it is likely that Jesus was married, the vast majority of New Testament and early Christianity scholars find such a claim to be historically unreliable. Much of the literature of this type has a more specific emphasis, on a claimed marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. There are indications in Gnosticism of the belief that Jesus and Mary Magdalene shared an amorous, and not just a religious relationship. The Gnostic Gospel of Philip tells that Jesus "kissed her often" and refers to Mary as his "companion". Several sources from the 13th-century claim that an aspect of Catharist theology was the belief that the earthly Jesus had a familial relationship with Mary Magdalene. An Exposure of the Albigensian and Waldensian Heresies, dated to before 1213 and usually attributed to Ermengaud of Béziers, a former Waldensian seeking reconciliation with the Catholic Church, would describe Cathar heretical beliefs including the claim that they taught "in the secret meetings that Mary Magdalen was the wife of Christ". A second work, untitled and anonymous, repeats Ermengaud's claim. The anti-heretic polemic Historia Albigensis, written between 1212 and 1218 by Cistercian monk and chronicler Peter of Vaux de Cernay, gives the most lurid description, attributing to Cathars the belief that Mary Magdalene was the concubine of Jesus. These sources must be considered with caution: the two known authors were not themselves Cathars and were writing of a heresy being actively and violently suppressed. There is no evidence that these beliefs derived from the much earlier Gnostic traditions of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, but the Cathar traditions did find their way into many of the 20th-century popular writings claiming the existence of a progeny of Jesus. Produced during the late 19th-century were the first of several expansions of this theme of marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene, providing the couple with a named child. The French socialist politician, Louis Martin (pseudonym of Léon Aubry, died 1900), in his 1886 book Les Evangiles sans Dieu (The Gospels without God), republished the next year in his Essai sur la vie de Jésus (Essay on the life of Jesus), described the historical Jesus as a socialist and atheist. He related that after his crucifixion, Mary Magdalene, along with the family of Lazarus of Bethany, brought the body of Jesus to Provence, and there Mary had a child, Maximin, the fruit of her love for Jesus. The scenario was dismissed as 'certainly strange' by a contemporary reviewer. During the late 20th century there was a flourishing of a genre of popular books claiming that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had a family. Donovan Joyce's 1972 best-seller, The Jesus Scroll, presented an alternative timeline for Jesus that purportedly originated from a mysterious document. He claimed that, after being denied access to the Masada archaeological site, he was met at the Tel Aviv airport by an American University professor using the pseudonym "Max Grosset", who held a large scroll he claimed to have smuggled from the site. Relating its contents to Joyce, Grosset offered to pay him to smuggle it out of the country, but then became spooked when his flight was delayed and snuck away; he was never identified and the scroll was not known of again. According to Joyce, the 'Jesus Scroll' was a personal letter by 80-year-old Yeshua ben Ya’akob ben Gennesareth, heir of the Hasmonean dynasty and hence rightful King of Israel, written on the eve of the capture of the city by the Romans after a suicide pact ended Masada's resistance. It was said to have described the man as married, and that he had a son whose crucifixion the letter's author had witnessed. Joyce identified the writer with Jesus of Nazareth, who, he claimed, had survived his own crucifixion to marry and settle at Masada, and suggested a conspiracy to hide the contents of the Dead Sea Scrolls in order to suppress this counter-narrative to Christian orthodoxy. Barbara Thiering, in her 1992 book Jesus and the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Unlocking the Secrets of His Life Story, republished as Jesus the Man and made into a documentary, The Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls, by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, also developed a Jesus and Mary Magdalene familial scenario. Thiering based her historical conclusions on her application of what she calls the Pesher technique (interpretation based on ancient commentaries) to the New Testament. Thiering dates the betrothal of Jesus and Mary Magdalene precisely to 30 June, AD 30, at 10:00 p.m. She relocated the events in the life of Jesus from Bethlehem, Nazareth and Jerusalem to Qumran, and related that Jesus was revived after an incomplete crucifixion and married Mary Magdalene, who was already pregnant by him, that they had a daughter Tamar and a son Jesus Justus born in AD 41, and Jesus then divorced Mary to wed a Jewess named Lydia, going to Rome where he died. The account was dismissed as fanciful by scholar Michael J. McClymond. In the television documentary, The Lost Tomb of Jesus, and book The Jesus Family Tomb, both from 2007, fringe investigative journalist Simcha Jacobovici and Charles R. Pellegrino proposed that ossuaries in the Talpiot Tomb, discovered in Jerusalem in 1980, belonged to Jesus and his family. Jacobovici and Pellegrino argue that Aramaic inscriptions reading "Judah, son of Jesus", "Jesus, son of Joseph", and "Mariamne", a name they associate with Mary Magdalene, together preserve the record of a family group consisting of Jesus, his wife Mary Magdalene and son Judah. Such theory has been rejected by the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars, archaeologists and theologians, including the archaeologist Amos Kloner, who managed the archeological excavation of the tomb itself. During the same year a book was published with a similar theme that Jesus and Mary Magdalene produced a family, authored by psychic medium and best-selling author Sylvia Browne, The Two Marys: The Hidden History of the Mother and Wife of Jesus.[non-primary source needed] The Jesus Seminar, a group of scholars involved in the quest for the historical Jesus, were unable to determine whether Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a matrimonial relationship due to the dearth of historical evidence. They concluded that the historical Mary Magdalene was not a repentant prostitute but a prominent disciple of Jesus and authority in the early Christian community. The claims that Jesus and Mary Magdalene fled to France parallel other legends about the flight of disciples to distant lands, such as the one depicting Joseph of Arimathea traveling to England after the death of Jesus, taking with him a piece of thorn from the Crown of Thorns, which he later planted in Glastonbury. Historians generally regard these legends as "pious frauds" produced during the Middle Ages. In 2014, Simcha Jacobovici and fringe religious studies historian Barrie Wilson suggested in The Lost Gospel that the eponymous characters of a 6th-century tale called "Joseph and Aseneth" were in actuality representations of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. The story was reported in an anthology compiled by Pseudo-Zacharias Rhetor, along with covering letters describing the discovery of the original Greek manuscript and its translation into Syriac. In one of these, translator Moses of Ingila explained the story "as an allegory of Christ's marriage to the soul". Jacobovici and Wilson instead interpret it as an allegorical reference to an actual marriage of Jesus, produced by a community believing that he was married and had children.[citation needed] Israeli Biblical scholar, Rivka Nir termed their work "serious-minded, thought-provoking and interesting", but described the thesis as objectionable, and the book has been dismissed by mainstream Biblical scholarship, for example by Anglican theologian, Richard Bauckham. The Church of England compared The Lost Gospel to a Monty Python sketch, the director of communications for the Archbishop's Council citing the book as an example of religious illiteracy and that ever since the publication of The Da Vinci Code in 2003, "an industry had been constructed in which 'conspiracy theorists, satellite channel documentaries and opportunistic publishers had identified a lucrative income stream'." The Lost Gospel was described as historical nonsense by Markus Bockmuehl. Early Mormon theology posited not only that Jesus married, but that he did so multiple times. Early Mormon officials Jedediah M. Grant, Orson Hyde, Joseph F. Smith and Orson Pratt stated it was part of their religious belief that Jesus Christ was polygamous, quoting this in their respective sermons. A number of the early church officials claimed to be the lineal descendants of Jesus by such a marriage. The Mormons also used an apocryphal passage attributed to the 2nd-century Greek philosopher Celsus: "The grand reason why the gentiles and philosophers of his school persecuted Jesus Christ was because he had so many wives. There were Elizabeth and Mary and a host of others that followed him". This seems to have been a summary of a garbled or second-hand reference to a quote from Celsus preserved in the apologetics work Contra Celsum ("Against Celsus") by the Church Father Origen: "such was the charm of Jesus's words, that not only were men willing to follow Him to the wilderness, but women also, forgetting the weakness of their sex and a regard for outward propriety in thus following their Teacher into desert places." Jesus as ancestor of a progeny Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln developed and popularized the idea of a progeny descended from Jesus and Mary Magdalene in their 1982 book The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail (published as Holy Blood, Holy Grail in the United States), in which they asserted: "... we do not think the Incarnation truly symbolises what it is intended to symbolise unless Jesus were married and sired children". Specifically, they claimed that the sangraal of medieval lore did not represent the San Graal (Holy Grail), the cup drunk from at the Last Supper, but both the vessel of Mary Magdalene's womb and the Sang Real, the blood royal of Jesus represented in a lineage descended from them. In their reconstruction, Mary Magdalene goes to France after the crucifixion, carrying a child by Jesus who would originate a lineage that centuries later would unite with the Merovingian rulers of the early Frankish kingdom, from whom they trace the descent into medieval dynasties that were almost exterminated by the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars, leaving a small remnant protected by a secret society, the Priory of Sion. The role of the Priory was inspired by earlier writings primarily by Pierre Plantard, who in the 1960s and 1970s had publicized documents from the secretive Priory that demonstrated its long history and his own descent from the lineage they had protected that traced to the Merovingian kings, and earlier, the biblical Tribe of Benjamin. Plantard would dismiss Holy Blood as fiction in a 1982 radio interview, as did his collaborator Philippe de Cherisey in a magazine article, but a decade later Plantard admitted that, before he incorporated a group of that name in the 1950s, the very existence of the Priory had been an elaborate hoax, and that the documents on which Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln had relied for inspiration had been forgeries planted in French institutions to be later "rediscovered". The actual lineage claimed for the portion of the Plantard and Holy Blood bloodline that passes through the medieval era received very negative reviews in the genealogical literature, being considered as consisting of numerous inaccurate associations that were unsupported, or even directly contradicted, by the authentic historical record. The Woman with the Alabaster Jar: Mary Magdalen and the Holy Grail, a 1993 book by Margaret Starbird, built on Cathar beliefs and Provencal traditions of Saint Sarah, the black servant of Mary Magdalene, to develop the hypothesis that Sarah was the daughter of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. In her reconstruction, a pregnant Mary Magdalene fled first to Egypt and then France after the crucifixion. She considers this as the source of the legend associated with the cult at Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer.[citation needed] She also noted that the name "Sarah" means "Princess" in Hebrew, thus making her the forgotten child of the "sang réal", the blood royal of the King of the Jews. Starbird also considered Mary Magdalene as identical with Mary of Bethany, sister of Lazarus. Though working with the same claimed relationship between Jesus, Mary Magdalene and Saint Sarah that would have a major role in many of the published progeny scenarios, Starbird considered any question of descent from Sarah to be irrelevant to her thesis, though she accepted that it existed. Her opinion of Mary Magdalene/Mary of Bethany as wife of Jesus is also associated with the concept of the sacred feminine in feminist theology. Mary Ann Beavis stated that unlike others in the genre, Starbird actively courted scholarly engagement concerning her ideas, and that "[a]lthough her methods, arguments and conclusions do not always stand up to scholarly scrutiny, some of her exegetical insights merit attention . . .," while suggesting she is more mythographer than historian. In his 1996 book Bloodline of the Holy Grail: The Hidden Lineage of Jesus Revealed, Laurence Gardner presented pedigree charts of Jesus and Mary Magdalene as the ancestors of all the European royal families of the Common Era. His 2000 sequel Genesis of the Grail Kings: The Explosive Story of Genetic Cloning and the Ancient Bloodline of Jesus is unique in claiming that not only can the Jesus bloodline truly be traced back to Adam and Eve but that the first man and woman were primate-alien hybrids created by the Anunnaki of his ancient astronaut theory. Gardner followed this book with several additional works in the bloodline genre.[citation needed] In Rex Deus: The True Mystery of Rennes-Le-Chateau and the Dynasty of Jesus, published in 2000, Marylin Hopkins, Graham Simmans and Tim Wallace-Murphy developed a similar scenario based on 1994 testimony by the pseudonymous "Michael Monkton", that a Jesus and Mary Magdalene progeny was part of a shadow dynasty descended from twenty-four high priests of the Temple in Jerusalem known as Rex Deus – the "Kings of God". The evidence on which the informant based his claim to be a Rex Deus scion, descended from Hugues de Payens, was said to be lost and therefore cannot be verified independently, because 'Michael' claimed that it was kept in his late father's bureau, which was sold by his brother unaware of its contents. Some critics state that the informant's account of his family history seems to be based on the controversial work of Barbara Thiering. The best-known work depicting a progeny of Jesus is the 2003 best-selling novel and global phenomenon, The Da Vinci Code, joined by its 2006 major cinematic release of the same name. In these, Dan Brown incorporated many of the earlier progeny themes as the background for his work of conspiracy fiction. The author attested both in the text and public interviews to the veracity of the progeny details that served as the novel's historical context. The work became so well known that the Catholic Church felt compelled to warn its congregates against accepting its pseudo-historical background as fact, which did not stop it from becoming the eleventh highest-selling novel in American history, with tens of millions of copies sold worldwide. Brown mixes facts easily verified by the reader, seemingly-authentic details that are not actually factual, and outright conjecture. An indication of the degree to which the work became popular is given by the numerous imitations that it inspired, replicating his style and thesis or attempting to refute it. In Brown's novel, the protagonist discovers that the grail actually referred to Mary Magdalene, and that knowledge of this, as well as of the progeny descended from Jesus and Mary, has been kept hidden to the present time by a secret conspiracy. This is very similar to the thesis by Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln in Holy Blood and the Holy Grail though not associating the hidden knowledge with the Cathars, and Brown also incorporated material from Joyce, Thiering and Starbird, as well as the 1965 The Passover Plot, in which Hugh J. Schonfield claimed that Lazarus and Joseph of Arimathea had faked the resurrection after Jesus was killed by mistake when stabbed by a Roman soldier. Still, Brown relied so much on Holy Blood that two of its authors, Baigent and Leigh, sued the book's publisher, Random House, due to what they considered to be plagiarism. Brown had made no secret that the progeny material in his work drew largely on Holy Blood, directly citing the work in his book and naming the novel's historical expert after Baigent (in anagram form) and Leigh, but Random House argued that since Baigent and Leigh had presented their ideas as non-fiction, consisting of historical facts, however speculative, then Brown was free to reproduce these concepts just as other works of historical fiction treat historical events. Baigent and Leigh argued that Brown had done more, "appropriat[ing] the architecture" of their work, and thus had "hijacked" and "exploited" it. Though one judge questioned whether the supposedly-factual Holy Blood truly represented fact, or instead bordered on fiction due to its highly conjectural nature, courts ruled in favor of Random House and Brown. A presentation of analogous concepts in a Mormon context was published in 2006: Dynasty of the Holy Grail: Mormonism's Sacred Bloodline by art historian Vern Grosvenor Swanson. Formatted as a footnoted scholarly study and claiming to be the culmination of almost three decades of research, the work was produced partly as a response to "a fuzzy gnostic, leftwing, liberal, and adamantly feminist bias" regarding the divine feminine and sacred marriage that pervaded recent literature concerning the subject, and that the author considered as "ideologically corrosive to faith in Jesus Christ". He nonetheless drew from the same pseudohistorical grail legend as Holy Blood, combining it with concepts related to British Israelism, beliefs of the early Mormon fathers, and modern genetic genealogy. Swanson presents a Jesus who was the son of an English- or Irish-born Mary, and who visited England to study Druidism before wedding Mary Magdalene. After Jesus's death, Swanson portrays his widow as taking her children by Jesus, whom he refers to as the 'Shiloh Dynasty', to England, and that one of these became a male-line ancestor of Joseph Smith, to whom the author also attributes a matrilineal derivation from the same Shiloh Dynasty. He claims that in uniting patrilineal and matrilineal descents from the marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, a marriage that itself, according to Swanson, healed a longstanding breach between the houses of Judah and Ephraim, Joseph Smith was not only a prophet but the 'Davidic king of all Israel', and that all of the Mormon presidents and major officials were members of this lineage either by birth or ritual adoption. Reviewers found aspects of his argument problematic, particularly his utter rejection of the work of Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln as authentic history, while at the same time using their work as a basis for the 'Holy Grail' portion of his own reconstruction. The 2008 documentary Bloodline by Bruce Burgess, a moviemaker with an interest in paranormal claims, expands on the Jesus progeny hypothesis and other elements of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. Accepting as valid the testimony of an amateur archaeologist codenamed "Ben Hammott" relating to his discoveries made in the vicinity of Rennes-le-Château since 1999, Burgess claimed Ben had found the treasure of Bérenger Saunière: a mummified corpse, which they believe is Mary Magdalene, in an underground tomb they claim is associated with both the Knights Templar and the Priory of Sion. In the movie, Burgess interviews several people with alleged connections to the Priory of Sion, including a Gino Sandri and Nicolas Haywood. A book by one of the documentary's researchers, Rob Howells, entitled Inside the Priory of Sion: Revelations from the World's Most Secret Society - Guardians of the Bloodline of Jesus presented the version of the Priory of Sion as given in the 2008 documentary, which contained several erroneous assertions, such as the claim that Plantard believed in the Jesus progeny hypothesis. In 2012, however, Ben Hammott, using his real name of Bill Wilkinson, gave a podcast interview in which he apologised and confessed that everything to do with the tomb and related artifacts was a hoax, revealing that the 'tomb' had been part of a now-destroyed full-sized movie set, located in a warehouse in England. Claims to a Jesus bloodline are not restricted to Europe. An analogous legend claims that the place of Jesus at the crucifixion was taken by a brother, while Jesus fled through what would become Russia and Siberia to Japan, where he became a rice farmer in the village of Shingo, Aomori Prefecture, at the north of the island of Honshu. It is claimed he married there and had a large family before his death aged 114, with descendants to the present. A Grave of Jesus (キリストの墓, Kirisuto no haka) there attracts tourists. This legend dates from the 1930s, when it was claimed that a document was discovered written in the Hebrew language and describing the marriage and later life of Jesus. The document has since disappeared. In South Asia, the founder of the reformist Ahmaddiyya religion, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835-1908), likewise claimed that Jesus survived the crucifixion and escaped the Levant, but instead placed his subsequent activities in Afghanistan and India. Specifically, he identified Jesus as the holy man, Yuzasaf, buried at the Roza Bal shrine in the Kashmir Valley of Srinagar. Fida M. Hassnain, as part of a 1970s study of this myth that brought it to the attention of western popularizers, found that the guardian of the shrine claimed to be a descendant of Jesus and a woman named 'Marjan'. Other works of fiction including Jesus's descendants in the story include Harry Harrison's 1996 novel King and Emperor, the 1995 comic book Preacher and its 2016 TV-adaptation. Adherence In reaction to The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, The Da Vinci Code, and other controversial books, websites and movies with the same theme, a significant number of people during the late 20th and early 21st centuries have become intrigued by a Jesus bloodline hypothesis despite its lack of substantiation. While some simply entertain it as a novel intellectual proposition, others consider it as an established belief thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed. Prominent among the latter are those who expect a descendant of Jesus will eventually emerge as a great man and become a messiah, a Great Monarch who rules a Holy European Empire, during an event which they will interpret as a mystical second coming of Christ. The eclectic spiritual opinions of these adherents are influenced by the writings of iconoclastic authors from a wide range of perspectives. Authors like Margaret Starbird and Jeffrey Bütz often seek to challenge modern beliefs and institutions through a re-interpretation of Christian history and mythology. Some try to advance and understand the equality of men and women spiritually by portraying Mary Magdalene as being the apostle of a Christian feminism, and even the personification of the mother goddess or sacred feminine, usually associating her with the Black Madonna. Some wish the ceremony that celebrated the beginning of the alleged marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene to be considered as a "holy wedding"; and Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and their alleged daughter, Sarah, to be considered as a "holy family", in order to question traditional gender roles and family values. Almost all these claims are at odds with scholarly Christian apologetics, and have been dismissed as being New Age Gnostic heresies. No mainstream Christian denomination has endorsed a Jesus bloodline hypothesis as a dogma or an object of religious devotion since they maintain that Jesus, believed to be God the Son, was perpetually celibate, continent and chaste, and metaphysically married to the Church. He died, was resurrected, ascended to heaven, and will eventually return to earth, thereby making all Jesus bloodline hypotheses and related messianic expectations impossible. Many fundamentalist Christians believe the Antichrist, prophesied in the Book of Revelation, plans to present himself as descended from the Davidic line to bolster his false claim that he is the Jewish Messiah. The intention of such propaganda would be to influence the opinions, emotions, attitudes, and behavior of Jews and philo-Semites to achieve his Satanic objectives. An increasing number of fringe Christian eschatologists believe the Antichrist may also present himself as descended from the Jesus bloodline to capitalize on growing sympathy with the hypothesis in the general public. Criticism The notion of a progeny from Jesus and Mary Magdalene and its supposed relationship to the Merovingians, as well as to their alleged modern descendants, is strongly dismissed as pseudohistorical by a qualified majority of Christian and secular historians such as Darrell Bock and Bart D. Ehrman, along with journalists and investigators such as Jean-Luc Chaumeil, who has an extensive archive on this subject matter. In 2005, UK television presenter and amateur archaeologist Tony Robinson edited and narrated a detailed rebuttal of the main arguments of Dan Brown and those of Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln, "The Real Da Vinci Code", shown on Channel 4. The programme featured lengthy interviews with many of the main protagonists, and cast severe doubt on the alleged landing of Mary Magdalene in France, among other related myths, by interviewing on film the inhabitants of Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer, the centre of the cult of Saint Sarah.[citation needed] Robert Lockwood, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh's director for communications, considers the notion of the Church conspiring to cover-up the truth about a Jesus bloodline as a deliberate piece of anti-Catholic propaganda. He considers it as part of a long tradition of anti-Catholic sentiment with deep roots in the American Protestant imagination but going back to the very start of the Reformation of 1517. Ultimately, the notion that a person living millennia ago has a small number of descendants living presently is statistically improbable. Steve Olson, author of Mapping Human History: Genes, Race, and Our Common Origins, published an article in Nature demonstrating that, as a matter of statistical probability: If anyone living today is descended from Jesus, so are most of us on the planet. Historian Ken Mondschein ridiculed the notion that a distinct bloodline of Jesus and Mary Magdalene could have been preserved: Infant mortality in pre-modern times was ridiculously high, and you'd only need one childhood accident or disease in 2,000 years to wipe out the bloodline … keep the children of Christ marrying each other, on the other hand, and eventually they'd be so inbred that the sons of God would have flippers for feet. Chris Lovegrove, who reviewed The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail when first published in 1982, dismissed the significance of a Jesus bloodline, even if it were proven to exist despite all evidence to the contrary: If there really is a Jesus dynasty – so what? This, I fear, will be the reaction of many of those prepared to accept the authors' thesis as possible, and the book does not really satisfy one's curiosity in this crucial area. References |
======================================== |
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory] | [TOKENS: 16924] |
Contents Christ myth theory The Christ myth theory, also known as the Jesus myth theory, Jesus mythicism, or the Jesus ahistoricity theory,[a] is the fringe[b] view that the story of Jesus is a work of mythology with no historical substance.[c] Alternatively, in terms given by Bart Ehrman paraphrasing Earl Doherty, it is the view that "the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity."[d] The mainstream scholarly consensus, developed in the three quests for the historical Jesus, holds that there was a historical Jesus of Nazareth who lived in first-century AD Roman Judea, but his baptism and crucifixion are the only facts of his life about which a broad consensus exists.[e] Beyond that, mainstream scholars have no consensus about the historicity of other major aspects of the gospel stories, nor the extent to which they and the Pauline epistles may have replaced the historical Jesus with a supernatural Christ of faith.[f] Proponents of mythicism, in contrast, argue that a historical Jesus never existed, and that the gospels historicized a mythological character.[d][g][h] This view can be traced back to the Age of Enlightenment, when history began to be critically analyzed; it was revived in the 1970s. Most mythicists employ a threefold argument: they question the reliability of the Pauline epistles and the gospels to establish Jesus's historicity; they argue that information is lacking on Jesus in secular sources from the first and early second centuries; and they argue that early Christianity had syncretistic and mythological origins as reflected in both the Pauline epistles and the gospels, with Jesus being a deity who was concretized in the gospels.[i][j] The non-historicity of Jesus has never garnered significant support among scholars.[web 1] Mythicism is rejected by virtually all mainstream scholars of antiquity,[web 2][k] and has been considered a fringe theory for more than two centuries,[b] but has attracted more attention in popular culture with the rise of the Internet. Traditional and modern approaches on Jesus Mainstream scholarship asserts that there was a historical Jesus. However, scholars differ about the accuracy of the biblical accounts about Jesus, with only two events supported by nearly-universal scholarly consensus: Jesus' baptism, and his crucifixion.[e] The mainstream scholarly view is that the Pauline epistles and the gospels describe the "Christ of faith", presenting a religious narrative which replaced the historical Jesus who did live in first-century Roman Judea.[l] Martin Kähler made the famous distinction between the "Jesus of history" and the "Christ of faith", arguing that faith is more important than exact historical knowledge. According to Ehrman, Jesus was a first-century Judean Jew, who was not like the Jesus preached and proclaimed today,[m] and that the most widely held view by critical scholars is that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet who was subsequently deified. The origins and rapid rise of Christianity, as well as the historical Jesus and the historicity of Jesus, are a matter of longstanding debate in theological and historical research. While Christianity may have started with an early nucleus of followers of Jesus, within a few years after the presumed death of Jesus in c. AD 33, at the time Paul started preaching, a number of "Jesus-movements" seem to have existed, which propagated divergent interpretations of Jesus' teachings. A central question is how these communities developed and what their original convictions were, as a wide range of beliefs and ideas can be found in early Christianity, including adoptionism and docetism,[web 3] and also Gnostic traditions which used Christian imagery, which were all deemed heretical by proto-orthodox Christianity. A first quest for the historical Jesus took place in the 19th century when hundreds of biographies about Jesus were proposed. German theologian David Strauss (1808–1874) pioneered the search for the "historical Jesus" by rejecting all supernatural events as mythical elaborations. His 1835 work, Life of Jesus, was one of the first and most influential systematic analyses of the life story of Jesus, aiming to base it on unbiased historical research. The Religionsgeschichtliche Schule, starting in the 1890s, used the methodologies of higher criticism,[web 4] a branch of criticism that investigates the origins of ancient texts in order to understand "the world behind the text". It compared Christianity to other religions, regarding it as one religion among others and rejecting its claims to absolute truth, and demonstrating that it shares characteristics with other religions.[web 4] It argued that Christianity was not simply the continuation of the Hebrew Bible, but syncretistic, and was rooted in and influenced by Hellenistic Judaism (Philo) and Hellenistic religions like the mystery cults and Gnosticism.[web 5] Martin Kähler questioned the usefulness of the search for the historical Jesus, making the famous distinction between the "Jesus of history" and the "Christ of faith", arguing that faith is more important than exact historical knowledge. Rudolf Bultmann (1884–1976), who was related to the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule,[web 5] emphasized theology, and in 1926 argued that historical Jesus research was both futile and unnecessary; however, Bultmann slightly modified that position in a later book. The first quest ended with Albert Schweitzer's 1906 critical review of the history of the search for Jesus' life in The Quest of the Historical Jesus—From Reimarus to Wrede. The first quest was challenged in the 19th and early 20th centuries by authors who denied the historicity of Jesus, notably Bauer and Drews. The second quest started in 1953, in a departure from Bultmann. Several criteria, the criterion of dissimilarity and the criterion of embarrassment, were introduced to analyze and evaluate New Testament narratives. This second quest declined in the 1970s due to the diminishing influence of Bultmann, and coinciding with the first publications of George Albert Wells, which marks the onset of the revival of Christ myth theories. According to Paul Zahl, while the second quest made significant contributions at the time, its results are now mostly forgotten, although not disproven. The third quest started in the 1980s and introduced new criteria. Primary among these are the criterion of historical plausibility, the criterion of rejection and execution, and the criterion of congruence (also called cumulative circumstantial evidence), a special case of the older criterion of coherence. The third quest is interdisciplinary and global, carried out by scholars from multiple disciplines and incorporating the results of archeological research. The third quest primarily yielded new insights into Jesus' Palestinian and Jewish context rather than the person of Jesus himself. It also has made clear that all material on Jesus has been handed down by the emerging Church, raising questions about the criterion of dissimilarity, and the suitability of ascribing material solely to Jesus rather than the emerging Church. To establish the existence of a person without any assumptions, one source from one author (either a supporter or opponent) is needed; for Jesus there are at least 12 independent sources from five authors in the first century from supporters and 2 independent sources from two authors from non-supporters. Since historical sources on other named individuals from first century Galilee were written by either supporters or enemies, these sources on Jesus cannot be dismissed. Bart Ehrman estimates that there are about 30 surviving "independent sources that know there was a man Jesus" written by 25 authors, including 16 in the New Testament. With at least 14 sources by supporters and non-supporters, within a century of the crucifixion, there is much more evidence available for Jesus than for any other notable person from first-century Galilee. These critical methods have led to a demythologization of Jesus. The mainstream scholarly view is that the Pauline epistles and the gospels describe the "Christ of faith", presenting a religious narrative that replaced the historical Jesus who lived in first-century Roman Judea,[l] but that a historical Jesus did exist. New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman states that Jesus "certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees". Following the criteria of authenticity-approach, scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus, but the baptism and the crucifixion are two events in the life of Jesus that are subject to "almost universal assent".[n] According to historian Alanna Nobbs, While historical and theological debates remain about the actions and significance of this figure, his fame as a teacher, and his crucifixion under the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate, may be described as historically certain. Historical portraits of Jesus have often differed from each other and from the image portrayed in the gospel accounts.[o] The primary portraits of Jesus resulting from the third quest are: apocalyptic prophet; charismatic healer; cynic philosopher; Jewish Messiah; and prophet of social change. According to Ehrman, the most widely held view is that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet who was subsequently deified. According to New Testament scholar James Dunn, it is not possible "to construct (from the available data) a Jesus who will be the real Jesus".[p] According to Philip R. Davies, a biblical minimalist, "what is being affirmed as the Jesus of history is a cipher, not a rounded personality".[web 7] According to Ehrman, "the real problem with Jesus" is not the mythicist stance that he is "a myth invented by Christians", but that he was "far too historical", that is, a first-century Judean Jew, who was not like the Jesus preached and proclaimed today. According to Ehrman, "Jesus was a first-century Jew, and when we try to make him into a twenty-first century American we distort everything he was and everything he stood for." Since the late 2000s, concern has grown about the usefulness of the criteria of authenticity.[web 8] According to Chris Keith, the criteria are literary tools, indebted to form criticism, not historiographic tools. They were meant to discern pre-gospel traditions, not to identify historical facts, but have "substituted the pre-literary tradition with that of the historical Jesus". According to Anthony Le Donne, the usage of such criteria is a form of "positivist historiography". Keith, Le Donne, and others[q] argue for a "social memory" approach, which states that memories are shaped by the needs of the present and that instead of searching for a historical Jesus, scholarship should investigate how the memories of Jesus were shaped, and how they were reshaped "with the aim of cohesion and the self-understanding (identity) of groups". James D. G. Dunn's 2003 study, Jesus Remembered, prompted the "increased ... interest in memory theory and eyewitness testimony".[web 9] Dunn argues that "[t]he only realistic objective for any 'quest of the historical Jesus' is Jesus remembered." Dunn argues that Christianity started with the impact Jesus himself had on his followers, who passed on and shaped their memories of him in an oral gospel tradition. According to Dunn, to understand who Jesus was, and what his impact was, scholars have to look at "the broad picture, focusing on the characteristic motifs and emphases of the Jesus tradition, rather than making findings overly dependent on individual items of the tradition". Le Donne elaborated on Dunn's thesis, basing "his historiography squarely on Dunn's thesis that the historical Jesus is the memory of Jesus recalled by the earliest disciples".[web 9] According to Le Donne, memories are refactored, and not an exact recalling of the past.[web 9] He argues that the remembrance of events is facilitated by relating it to a common story or "type", which shapes the way the memories are retained and narrated. He therefore means that the Jesus tradition is not a theological invention of the early Church, but is shaped and refracted by the restraints that the type puts on the narrated memories, due to the mold of the "type".[web 9] According to Chris Keith, an alternative to the search for a historical Jesus "posits a historical Jesus who is ultimately unattainable but can be hypothesized on the basis of the interpretations of the early Christians, and as part of a larger process of accounting for how and why early Christians came to view Jesus in the ways that they did". According to Keith, "these two models are methodologically and epistemologically incompatible", calling into question the methods and aim of the first model. Mythicists variously argue that the accounts of Jesus are completely or mostly of a mythical nature, questioning the mainstream paradigm of a historical Jesus in the beginning of the first century who was subsequently deified. Most mythicists note that Christianity developed within Hellenistic Judaism, which was influenced by Hellenism, and that early Christianity and the accounts of Jesus are to be understood in this context. Yet, where contemporary New Testament scholarship has introduced several criteria to evaluate the historicity of New Testament passages and sayings, most Christ myth proponents have relied on comparisons of Christian mythemes with contemporary religious traditions, emphasizing the mythological nature of the Bible accounts.[r] The most radical mythicists hold, in terms given by Price, the "Jesus atheism" viewpoint, that is, there never was a historical Jesus, only a mythological character, and the mytheme of his incarnation, death, and exaltation. They hold that this character developed out of a syncretistic fusion of Jewish, Hellenistic and Middle Eastern religious thought; was put forward by Paul; and historicised in the gospels, which are also syncretistic. Notable 'Jesus atheists' are Paul-Louis Couchoud, Earl Doherty,[d] Thomas L. Brodie, and Richard Carrier.[s][t] Some authors argue for the Jesus agnosticism viewpoint. That is, whether there was a historical Jesus is unknowable and if he did exist, close to nothing can be known about him. Notable 'Jesus agnosticists' are Robert Price and Thomas L. Thompson. According to Thompson, the question of the historicity of Jesus also is not relevant for the understanding of the meaning and function of the Biblical texts in their own times. Wells in his early works and Alvar Ellegård have argued that "the first Christians had in mind Jesus who had lived as a historical figure, just not of the recent past." Ellegård identified this figure with the Essene Teacher of Righteousness, de facto proposing a historical Jesus. Wells, in his later writings, came to view the gospel stories of Jesus as containing elements of a historical figure "traceable to the activity of a Galilean preacher of the early first century," preserved in the Q source, who was added to Paul's mythical Jesus in the gospels, arguing for "two originally quite independent streams of tradition", which were fused in the gospels,[u] leaving open the question regarding Paul's Christ "as to whether such a person had in fact existed and lived the obscure life that Paul supposed of him." According to Wells, "There is no means of deciding this issue." Overview of main mythicist arguments According to New Testament scholar Robert Van Voorst, most Christ mythicists follow a threefold argument first set forward by German historian Bruno Bauer in the 1800s: they question the reliability of the Pauline epistles and the Gospels to postulate a historically existing Jesus; they note the lack of information on Jesus in non-Christian sources from the first and early second century; and they argue that early Christianity had syncretistic and mythological origins. More specifically: Mainstream and mythicist views on the arguments The mainstream view is that the seven undisputed Pauline epistles considered by scholarly consensus to be genuine epistles are generally dated to circa 48–62 AD and are the earliest surviving Christian texts that include information about Jesus.[y] Most scholars view the Pauline letters as essential elements in the study of the historical Jesus, and the development of early Christianity. Mythicists agree on the importance of the Pauline epistles, some agreeing with this early dating, and taking the Pauline epistles as their point of departure from mainstream scholarship. They argue that those letters point solely into the direction of a celestial or mythical being, or contain no definitive information on a historical Jesus. Some mythicists, though, have questioned the early dating of the epistles, raising the possibility that they represent a later, more developed strand of early Christian thought. Theologian Willem Christiaan van Manen of the Dutch school of radical criticism noted various anachronisms in the Pauline epistles. Van Manen claimed that they could not have been written in their final form earlier than the second century. He also noted that the Marcionite school was the first to publish the epistles, and that Marcion (c. 85 – c. 160) used them as justification for his gnostic and docetic views that Jesus' incarnation was not in a physical body. Van Manen also studied Marcion's version of Galatians in contrast to the canonical version and argued that the canonical version was a later revision that de-emphasized the Gnostic aspects. Price also argues for a later dating of the epistles, and sees them as a compilation of fragments (possibly with a Gnostic core), contending that Marcion was responsible for much of the Pauline corpus or even wrote the letters himself. Price criticizes other Christ myth theorists for holding the mid-first-century dating of the epistles for their own apologetical reasons.[z] According to Gregory A. Boyd and Paul Rhodes Eddy modern biblical scholarship notes that "Paul has relatively little to say on the biographical information of Jesus" compared to the Gospels. However, Paul was "a recent contemporary" of Jesus. and he alludes to some aspects of Jesus' life in the letters. Paul's letters states that he knew eyewitnesses of Jesus including his close disciples and Jesus' brother James going as far back as 36 CE.[aa] Paul and other sources enumerate that Jesus had siblings named James, Joseph, Symeon, and Jude. Paul viewed Jesus as being a descendant of David, having an upbringing in the Jewish Law, gathering disciples, involved in the Last Supper, being betrayed, being executed, and resurrecting. The early references by Paul about the life of Jesus support that Jesus existed and that Paul had a general interest in his life. According to Christopher Tuckett, "[e]ven if we had no other sources, we could still infer some things about Jesus from Paul's letters" such that he was a Jew with siblings, and that he was a preacher who was executed. Robert Price says that Paul does not refer to Jesus' earthly life, also not when that life might have provided convenient examples and justifications for Paul's teachings. Instead, revelation seems to have been a prominent source for Paul's knowledge about Jesus. The consensus among scholars is that the gospels are a type of ancient biography similar to Xenophon’s Memoirs of Socrates. Ancient biography is a genre which was concerned with providing examples for readers to emulate while preserving and promoting the subject's reputation and memory, as well as including propaganda and kerygma (preaching) in their works.[ab] Biblical scholarship regards the gospels to be the literary manifestation of oral traditions that originated during the life of a historical Jesus, who according to Dunn had a profound impact on his followers. There are archeological finds that corroborate aspects of the time of Jesus mentioned in the Gospels, such as context from Nazareth, the High Priest Caiaphas' ossuary, numerous synagogue buildings, and Jehohanan, a crucified victim who had a Jewish burial after execution. Written sources and excavations on Nazareth correlate with Jesus' existence, Joseph and Jesus' occupation as craftworkers, presence of literacy, existence of synagogues, Gospel accounts relating to Nazareth, and other Roman period sources on Nazareth. Oral traditions in the gospels precede the surviving gospels by decades, going back to the time of Jesus and the time of Paul's persecution of the early Christian Jews, prior to his conversion.[ac] Most available sources are collections of early oral traditions about Jesus and the historical value of traditions are not necessarily correlated with the later dates of composition of writings since even later sources can contain early tradition material. Theissen and Merz state that these traditions can be dated back well before the composition of the synoptic gospels, that such traditions show local familiarity of the region, and that such traditions were explicitly called "memory", indicating biographical elements that included historical references such as notable people from his era. According to Maurice Casey, some of the sources, such as parts of the Gospel of Mark, are translations of early Aramaic sources which indicate proximity with eyewitness testimony. Mythicists argue that in the gospels "a fictitious historical narrative" was imposed on the "mythical cosmic savior figure" created by Paul. According to Robert Price, the gospels "smack of fictional composition",[web 11] arguing that they are a type of legendary fiction and that the story of Jesus portrayed in the gospels fits the mythic hero archetype. The mythic hero archetype, present in many cultures, often has a miraculous conception or virgin births heralded by wise men and marked by a star, is tempted by or fights evil forces, dies on a hill, appears after death and then ascends to heaven. According to Earl Doherty, the gospels are "essentially allegory and fiction". According to Wells in his later writings, a historical Jesus existed, whose teachings were preserved in the Q source. Wells said the gospels weave together two Jesus narratives, namely the Galilean preacher of the Q document, and Paul's mythical Jesus. Doherty disagrees with Wells regarding the teacher of the Q-document, arguing that he was an allegorical character who personified Wisdom and came to be regarded as the founder of the Q-community. According to Doherty, Q's Jesus and Paul's Christ were combined in the Gospel of Mark by a predominantly Gentile community. Ehrman notes that the gospels are based on oral sources, which played a decisive role in attracting new converts. Christian theologians have cited the mythic hero archetype as a defense of Christian teaching while completely affirming a historical Jesus. Secular academics Kendrick and McFarland have also pointed out that the teachings of Jesus marked "a radical departure from all the conventions by which heroes had been defined". Myth proponents claim there is significance in the lack of surviving historic records about Jesus of Nazareth from any non-Christian author until the second century,[ad] adding that Jesus left no writings or other archaeological evidence. They note that Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria did not mention Jesus when he wrote about the cruelty of Pontius Pilate around 40 AD. No ancient sources, even by enemies of Christianity, never claimed that Jesus never existed. Bart Ehrman estimates that there are about 30 surviving independent sources written by 25 authors who attest to Jesus. Including by non-Christians in the first century. According to archeologist Ken Dark, for Jesus there are at least 14 independent sources from seven authors who were supporters and non-supporters within a century of the crucifixion. Since historical sources on other named individuals from first century Galilee were written by either supporters or enemies, these sources on Jesus cannot be dismissed. With at least 14 sources by supporters and non-supporters there is much more evidence available for Jesus than for any other notable person from first-century Galilee. Paul's letters are the earliest surviving sources on Jesus. Paul states he personally knew eyewitnesses of Jesus such as his closest disciples and even his brother James since the mid 30s CE.[aa] Paul's reference to James as Jesus' brother in particular is distinctive. Additionally, there are other independent sources (Mark, John, Paul, Josephus) affirming that Jesus had brothers. Theissen and Merz observe that even if ancient sources were to be silent on any individual, they would not impact their historicity since there are numerous instances of people whose existence is never doubted and yet were not mentioned by contemporary authors. For instance, Paul is not mentioned by Josephus or non-Christian sources; John the Baptist is not mentioned by Paul, Philo, or rabbinic writings; Rabbi Hillel is not mentioned by Josephus - despite him being a Pharisee; Bar Kochba, a leader of the Jewish revolt against the Romans is not mentioned by Dio Cassius in his account of the revolt. Nonetheless, even non-Christian sources do exist and they do corroborate key details of the life of Jesus that are also found in New Testament sources. According to Classical historian Michael Grant, that when the New Testament is analyzed with the same criteria used by historians on ancient writings that contain historical material, Jesus's existence cannot be denied any more than secular figures whose existence is never questioned. Mainstream biblical scholars point out that much of the writings of antiquity have been lost and that there was little written about any Jew or Christian in this period. Ehrman points out that there is no known archaeological or textual evidence for the existence of most people in the ancient world, even famous people like Pontius Pilate, whom the myth theorists agree to have existed. Robert Hutchinson notes that this is also true of Josephus, despite the fact that he was "a personal favorite of the Roman Emperor Vespasian". Hutchinson quotes Ehrman, who notes that Josephus is never mentioned in first-century Greek or Roman sources, despite being "a personal friend of the emperor". There are three non-Christian sources that are typically used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus, namely two mentions in Josephus, and one mention in the Roman source Tacitus. Myth proponents note that the Testimonium Flavianum is likely a forgery by Christian apologist Eusebius in the 4th century or by others.[ae] Richard Carrier further argues that the original text of Antiquities 20 referred to a brother of the high priest Jesus son of Damneus, named James, and not to the Jesus of Christianity. Carrier further argues that the words "the one called Christ" likely resulted from the accidental insertion of a marginal note added by some unknown reader. Christ myth theory supporters such as Carrier note that sources such as Tacitus and others, which were written decades after the supposed events, include no independent traditions that relate to Jesus, and hence can provide no confirmation of historical facts about him. From these two independent sources alone (Josephus and Tacitus), we can adduce certain facts about Jesus: that he existed, his personal name was Jesus, he was called a messiah, he had a brother named James, he won over Jews and gentiles, Jewish leaders had unfavorable opinions of him, Pontius Pilate decided his execution, he was executed by crucifixion, was executed during Pilate's governorship. Josephus was a Jewish historian and commander in Galille who trained 100,000 men in the region, stationed in Sepphoris for a time, which was 3 miles away from Nazareth, the hometown of Jesus; and so he dwelled with inhabitants who would have known Jesus and knew participants in the trials of Jesus and his brother James such as the Sanhedrin and Ananus II. Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to the biblical Jesus in Books 18 and 20. On the first reference, known as the Testimonium Flavianum in Book 18, since the late 20th century, the general consensus has held that the Testimonium is partially authentic in that an authentic nucleus referencing the life of Jesus was original to Josephus. Josephus scholars note that up to the Enlightenment, the Testimonium was never used against the existence of Jesus since no ancient source or ancient reference to the Testimonium supports that hypothesis. On the second reference to Jesus from Josephus, Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman states that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20, 9, 1 ("the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"). Roman historian Tacitus referred to "Christus" and his execution by Pontius Pilate in his Annals (written c. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.[af] The very negative tone of Tacitus' comments on Christians makes most experts believe that the passage is extremely unlikely to have been forged by a Christian scribe. The Tacitus reference is now widely accepted as an independent confirmation of Jesus' crucifixion. In Jesus Outside the New Testament (2000), Van Voorst considers references to Jesus in classical writings, Jewish writings, hypothetical sources of the canonical Gospels, and extant Christian writings outside the New Testament. He concludes that non-Christian sources provide "a small but certain corroboration of certain New Testament historical traditions on the family background, time of life, ministry, and death of Jesus", as well as "evidence of the content of Christian preaching that is independent of the New Testament", while extra-biblical Christian sources give access to "some important information about the earliest traditions on Jesus". However, New Testament sources remain central for "both the main lines and the details about Jesus' life and teaching". Most historians agree that Jesus or his followers established a new Jewish sect that attracted both Jewish and gentile converts. Out of this Jewish sect developed Early Christianity, which was very diverse, with proto-orthodoxy and "heretical" views like Gnosticism alongside each other. According to Ehrman, a number of early Christianities existed in the first century AD, from which developed various Christian traditions and denominations, including proto-orthodoxy. According to Dunn, four types of early Christianity can be discerned: Jewish Christianity, Hellenistic Christianity, Apocalyptic Christianity, and early Catholicism. In Christ and the Caesars (1877), philosopher Bruno Bauer suggested that Christianity was a synthesis of the Stoicism of Seneca the Younger, Greek Neoplatonism, and the Jewish theology of Philo as developed by pro-Roman Jews such as Josephus. This new religion was in need of a founder and created its Christ. In a review of Bauer's work, Robert Price notes that Bauer's basic stance regarding the Stoic tone and the fictional nature of the gospels are still repeated in contemporary scholarship.[web 11] Doherty notes that, with the conquests of Alexander the Great, the Greek culture and language spread throughout the eastern Mediterranean world, influencing the already existing cultures there. The Roman conquest of this area added to the cultural diversity, but also to a sense of alienation and pessimism. A rich diversity of religious and philosophical ideas was available and Judaism was held in high regard by non-Jews for its monotheistic ideas and its high moral standards. Yet monotheism was also offered by Greek philosophy, especially Platonism, with its high God and the intermediary Logos. According to Doherty, "Out of this rich soil of ideas arose Christianity, a product of both Jewish and Greek philosophy", echoing Bruno Bauer, who argued that Christianity was a synthesis of Stoicism, Greek Neoplatonism, and Jewish thought. Robert Price notes that Christianity started among Hellenized Jews, who mixed allegorical interpretations of Jewish traditions with Jewish Gnostic, Zoroastrian, and mystery cult elements.[ag] Some myth proponents note that some stories in the New Testament reinforce Old Testament prophecies and repeat stories about figures such as Elijah, Elisha, Moses and Joshua in order to appeal to Jewish converts. Price notes that almost all the gospel stories have parallels in the Old Testament and other traditions, concluding that the gospels are not independent sources for a historical Jesus, but "legend and myth, fiction and redaction". According to Doherty, the rapid growth of early Christian communities and the great variety of ideas cannot be explained by a single missionary effort, but points to parallel developments that arose at various places and competed for support. Paul's arguments against rival apostles also point to this diversity. Doherty further notes that Yeshua (Jesus) is a generic name, meaning "Yahweh saves" and refers to the concept of divine salvation, which could apply to any kind of saving entity or Wisdom. According to mainstream scholarship, Jesus was an eschatological preacher or teacher, who was believed by his followers to be exalted after his death. The Pauline letters incorporate creeds, or confessions of faith, that predate Paul, and give essential information on the faith of the early Jerusalem community around James, 'the brother of Jesus'. These pre-Pauline creeds date to within a few years of Jesus' death and developed within the Christian community in Jerusalem. The First Epistle to the Corinthians contains one of the earliest Christian creeds expressing belief in the risen Jesus, namely 1 Corinthians 15:3–41: For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures,[ah] and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures,[ai] and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. James Dunn states that in 1 Corinthians 15:3 Paul "recites the foundational belief", namely "that Christ died". According to Dunn, "Paul was told about a Jesus who had died two years earlier or so." 1 Corinthians 15:11 also refers to others before Paul who preached the creed. According to New Testament scholar Larry Hurtado, Jesus' death was interpreted as a redemptive death "for our sins" in accordance with God's plan as contained in the Jewish scriptures.[ah] The significance lay in "the theme of divine necessity and fulfillment of the scriptures," rather than the later Pauline emphasis on "Jesus' death as a sacrifice or an expiation for our sins." For the early Jewish Christians, "the idea that Messiah's death was a necessary redemptive event functioned more as an apologetic explanation for Jesus' crucifixion", "proving that Jesus' death was no surprise to God."[aj] According to Krister Stendahl, the main concern of Paul's writings on Jesus' role, and salvation by faith, is not the individual conscience of human sinners, and their doubts about being chosen by God or not, but the problem of the inclusion of gentile (Greek) Torah observers into God's covenant.[web 13][ak] Secular scholars often explain the appearances of Jesus as visionary experiences, in which the presence of Jesus was felt. According to Ehrman, the visions of Jesus and the subsequent belief in Jesus' resurrection radically changed the perceptions of his early followers, concluding from his absence that he must have been exalted to heaven, by God himself, exalting him to an unprecedented status and authority. According to Hurtado, the resurrection experiences were religious experiences that "seem to have included visions of (and/or ascents to) God's heaven, in which the glorified Christ was seen in an exalted position", and that may have occurred mostly during corporate worship. Johan Leman contends that the communal meals provided a context in which participants entered a state of mind in which the presence of Jesus was felt. Conservative Christian scholars object against this theory, but instead argue in favor of a real, bodily resurrection. According to Wright, Paul "believed he had seen the risen Jesus in person, and [...] his understanding of who this Jesus was included the firm belief that he possessed a transformed but still physical body." The Pauline creeds contain elements of a Christ myth and its cultus, such as the Christ hymn of Philippians 2:6–11,[al] which portrays Jesus as an incarnated and subsequently exalted heavenly being.[am] Scholars view these as indications that the incarnation and exaltation of Jesus was part of Christian tradition a few years after his death and over a decade before the writing of the Pauline epistles.[an] Recent scholarship places the exaltation and devotion of Jesus firmly in a Jewish context. Andrew Chester argues that "for Paul, Jesus is clearly a figure of the heavenly world, and thus fits a messianic category already developed within Judaism, where the Messiah is a human or angelic figure belonging ... in the heavenly world, a figure who at the same time has had specific, limited role on earth". According to Ehrman, Paul regarded Jesus to be an angel, who was incarnated on earth.[ao][ap] According to James Waddell, Paul's conception of Jesus as a heavenly figure was influenced by the Book of Enoch and its conception of the Messiah.[web 15][aq] Christ myth theorists generally reject the idea that Paul's epistles refer to a historical individual.[ar] According to Doherty, the Jesus of Paul was a divine Son of God, existing in a spiritual realm where he was crucified and resurrected. This mythological Jesus was based on exegesis of the Old Testament and mystical visions of a risen Jesus. According to Carrier, the genuine Pauline epistles show that the Apostle Peter and the Apostle Paul believed in a visionary or dream Jesus, based on a pesher of Septuagint verses and Zechariah 3 and 6, Daniel 9 and Isaiah 52–53. Carrier notes that there is little if any concrete information about Jesus' earthly life in the Pauline epistles. According to Carrier, originally Jesus was a celestial or "angelic extraterrestrial" who came from a "cosmic sperm bank" and was tortured and crucified by Satan and his demons, buried in a tomb above the clouds, and resurrected - everything occurring in outer space. According to Carrier "[t]his 'Jesus' would most likely have been the same archangel identified by Philo of Alexandria as already extant in Jewish theology", that Philo knew by all of the attributes by which Paul knew Jesus.[as] According to Carrier, Philo says this being was identified as the figure named Jesus in the Book of Zechariah, implying that "already before Christianity there were Jews aware of a celestial being named Jesus who had all of the attributes the earliest Christians were associating with their celestial being named Jesus".[web 10] Raphael Lataster, following Carrier, also argues that "Jesus began as a celestial messiah that certain Second Temple Jews already believed in, and was later allegorised in the Gospels." Ehrman notes that Doherty, like many other mythicists, "quotes professional scholars at length when their views prove useful for developing aspects of his argument, but he fails to point out that not a single of these scholars agrees with his overarching thesis." Ehrman has also criticized Doherty for misquoting scholarly sources as if in support of his celestial being-hypothesis, whereas those sources explicitly "[refer] to Christ becoming a human being in flesh on earth—precisely the view he rejects."[web 2] James McGrath criticizes Carrier, stating that Carrier is ignoring the details, adding that "Philo is offering an allusive reference to, and allegorical treatment of, a text in Zechariah which mentioned a historical high priest named Joshua."[web 17] According to Hurtado, for Paul and his contemporaries Jesus was a human being, who was exalted as Messiah and Lord after his crucifixion.[web 1] According to Hurtado, "There is no evidence whatsoever of a 'Jewish archangel Jesus' in any of the second-temple Jewish evidence. ... Instead, all second-temple instances of the name are for historical figures."[web 1] Hurtado rejects Carrier's claim that "Philo of Alexandria mentions an archangel named 'Jesus'", instead stating that Philo mentions a priestly figure called Joshua, and a royal personage whose name can be interpreted as "rising", among other connotations. According to Hurtado, there is no "Jesus Rising" in either Zechariah nor Philo.[web 18][web 19] Ehrman notes that "there were no Jews prior to Christianity who thought that Isaiah 53 (or any of the other "suffering" passages) referred to the future messiah." Only after his death were these texts used to interpret his suffering in a meaningful way, though "Isaiah is not speaking about the future messiah, and he was never interpreted by any Jews prior to the first century as referring to the messiah."[at] Simon Gathercole at Cambridge also evaluated the mythicist arguments for the claim that Paul believed in a heavenly, celestial Jesus who was never on Earth. Gathercole concludes that Carrier's arguments—and more broadly, the mythicist positions on different aspects of Paul's letters—are contradicted by the historical data and that Paul says a number of things regarding Jesus' life on Earth, his personality, family, etc. Jesus should be understood in the Palestinian and Jewish context of the first century AD. Most of the themes, epithets, and expectations formulated in the New Testamentical literature have Jewish origins and are elaborations of these themes. According to Hurtado, Roman-era Judaism refused "to worship any deities other than the God of Israel," including "any of the adjutants of the biblical God, such as angels, messiahs, etc."[web 20] The Jesus-devotion which emerged in early Christianity should therefore be regarded as a specific, Christian innovation in the Jewish context.[web 20] According to Wells, in his early years, Doherty, and Carrier, the mythical Jesus was derived from Wisdom traditions, the personification of an eternal aspect of God, who came to visit human beings.[web 21] Doherty notes that the concept of a spiritual Christ was the result of common philosophical and religious ideas of the first and second century AD, in which the idea of an intermediary force between God and the world were common. According to Doherty, the Christ of Paul shares similarities with the Greco-Roman mystery cults. Authors Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy argue that Jesus was a deity, akin to the mystery cults, while Dorothy Murdock argues that the Christ myth draws heavily on the Egyptian story of Osiris and Horus. According to Carrier, Jesus came from a tradition of "dying-and-rising" savior gods like Romulus, Osiris, and Zalmoxis. Along with Mithras, these gods were all the children of a higher god, underwent a passion, conquered death, and existed on Earth within human history. Alvar Ellegård has argued that Paul's Jesus may have lived far earlier, in a dimly remembered remote past. Wells argues that Paul's Jesus did not have a definite historical moment in mind for when he was supposedly crucified.[au] According to Price, the Toledot Yeshu places Jesus "about 100 BCE", while Epiphanius of Salamis and the Talmud make references to "Jewish and Jewish-Christian belief" that Jesus lived about a century earlier than usually assumed. According to Price, this implies that "perhaps the Jesus figure was at first an ahistorical myth and various attempts were made to place him in a plausible historical context, just as Herodotus and others tried to figure out when Hercules 'must have' lived".[aw] Mainstream scholarship disagrees with these interpretations, and regards them as outdated applications of ideas and methodologies from the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule. According to Philip Davies, the Jesus of the New Testament is indeed "composed of stock motifs (and mythic types) drawn from all over the Mediterranean and Near Eastern world" but this does not mean that Jesus was "invented"; according to Davies, "the existence of a guru of some kind is more plausible and economical than any other explanation".[web 7] Ehrman states that mythicists make too much of the perceived parallels with pagan religions and mythologies. According to Ehrman, critical-historical research has clearly shown the Jewish roots and influences of Christianity. According to historian of religion Jonathan Z. Smith, modern scholars hold that the "dying and rising gods" trope is wrong since early sources on numerous gods show that gods who have died, do not resurrect or even go through rebirth. Furthermore, claims of dying and resurrected gods is based on dubious reconstructions of later sources since early indigenous sources never make such claims, and there is no clear instance of a dying and rising deity. Many mainstream biblical scholars respond that most of the perceived parallels with mystery religions are either coincidences or without historical basis and/or that these parallels do not prove that a Jesus figure did not live.[ax] Boyd and Eddy doubt that Paul viewed Jesus similar to the savior deities found in ancient mystery religions. Ehrman notes that Doherty proposes that the mystery cults had a neo-Platonic cosmology, but that Doherty gives no evidence for this assertion. Furthermore, "the mystery cults are never mentioned by Paul or by any other Christian author of the first hundred years of the Church," nor did they play a role in the worldview of any of the Jewish groups of the first century. Boyd and Eddy criticize the idea that "Paul viewed Jesus as a cosmic savior who lived in the past", referring to various passages in the Pauline epistles that seem to contradict this idea. In Galatians 1:19, Paul says he met with James, the "Lord's brother"; 1 Corinthians 15:3–8 refers to people to whom Jesus' had appeared, and who were Paul's contemporaries; and in 1 Thessalonians 2:14–16 Paul refers to the Jews "who both killed the Lord Jesus" and "drove out us" as the same people, indicating that the death of Jesus was within the same timeframe as the persecution of Paul. Late 18th to early 20th century According to Van Voorst, "The argument that Jesus never existed, but was invented by the Christian movement around the year 100, goes back to Enlightenment times, when the historical-critical study of the past was born", and may have originated with Lord Bolingbroke, an English deist. According to Walter Weaver, the beginnings of the formal denial of the existence of Jesus can be traced to late 18th-century France with the works of Constantin François Chassebœuf de Volney and Charles-François Dupuis. Volney and Dupuis argued that Christianity was an amalgamation of various ancient mythologies and that Jesus was a totally mythical character. Dupuis argued that ancient rituals in Syria, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia, and India had influenced the Christian story which was allegorized as the histories of solar deities, such as Sol Invictus. Dupuis also said that the resurrection of Jesus was an allegory for the growth of the sun's strength in the sign of Aries at the spring equinox. Volney argued that Abraham and Sarah were derived from Brahma and his wife Saraswati, and that Christ was related to Krishna. Volney made use of a draft version of Dupuis' work and at times differed from him, for example, in arguing that the gospel stories were not intentionally created, but were compiled organically. Volney's perspective became associated with the ideas of the French Revolution, which hindered the acceptance of these views in England. Despite this, his work gathered significant following among British and American radical thinkers during the 19th century. In 1835, David Strauss published his extremely controversial The Life of Jesus, Critically Examined (Das Leben Jesu). According to Elisabeth Hurt, Strauss "arrived at a Christianity depersonalized and anonymous, reducing Jesus to nothing more than a gifted genius whom legend had gradually deified." While not denying that Jesus existed, he did argue that the miracles in the New Testament were mythical additions with little basis in fact. According to Strauss, the early church developed these stories in order to present Jesus as the Messiah of the Jewish prophecies. This perspective was in opposition to the prevailing views of Strauss' time: rationalism, which explained the miracles as misinterpretations of non-supernatural events, and the supernaturalist view that the biblical accounts were entirely accurate. Strauss' third way, in which the miracles are explained as myths developed by early Christians to support their evolving conception of Jesus, heralded a new epoch in the textual and historical treatment of the rise of Christianity. German Bruno Bauer, who taught at the University of Bonn, took Strauss' arguments further and became the first author to systematically argue that Jesus did not exist. Beginning in 1841 with his Criticism of the Gospel History of the Synoptics, Bauer argued that Jesus was primarily a literary figure, but left open the question of whether a historical Jesus existed at all. Then in his Criticism of the Pauline Epistles (1850–1852) and in A Critique of the Gospels and a History of their Origin (1850–1851), Bauer argued that Jesus had not existed. Bauer's work was heavily criticized at the time, as in 1839 he was removed from his position at the University of Bonn and his work did not have much impact on future myth theorists. In his two-volume, 867-page book Anacalypsis (1836), English gentleman Godfrey Higgins said that "the mythos of the Hindus, the mythos of the Jews and the mythos of the Greeks are all at bottom the same; and are contrivances under the appearance of histories to perpetuate doctrines", and that Christian editors "either from roguery or folly, corrupted them all". In his 1875 book The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors, American Kersey Graves said that many demigods from different countries shared similar stories, traits or quotes as Jesus and he used Higgins as the main source for his arguments. The validity of the claims in the book have been greatly criticized by Christ myth proponents including Richard Carrier, and are largely dismissed by biblical scholars. Starting in the 1870s, English poet and author Gerald Massey became interested in Egyptology and reportedly taught himself Egyptian hieroglyphics at the British Museum. In 1883, Massey published The Natural Genesis, in which he asserted parallels between Jesus and the Egyptian god Horus. His other major work, Ancient Egypt: The Light of the World, was published shortly before his death in 1907. His assertions have influenced various later writers such as Alvin Boyd Kuhn and Tom Harpur. In the 1870s and 1880s, a group of scholars associated with the University of Amsterdam, known in German scholarship as the Radical Dutch school, rejected the authenticity of the Pauline epistles and took a generally negative view of the Bible's historical value. Abraham Dirk Loman argued in 1881 that all New Testament writings belonged to the second century and doubted that Jesus was a historical figure, but later said the core of the gospels was genuine. Additional early Christ myth proponents included Swiss skeptic Rudolf Steck, English historian Edwin Johnson, English radical Reverend Robert Taylor and his associate Richard Carlile. During the early 20th century, several writers published arguments against Jesus' historicity, often drawing on the work of liberal theologians, who tended to deny any value to sources for Jesus outside the New Testament and limited their attention to Mark and the hypothetical Q source. They also made use of the growing field of religious history which found sources for Christian ideas in Greek and Oriental mystery cults, rather than Judaism.[ay] The work of social anthropologist James George Frazer has also influenced various myth theorists, although Frazer himself believed that Jesus existed. In 1890, Frazer published the first edition of The Golden Bough which attempted to define the shared elements of religious belief. This work became the basis of many later authors who argued that the story of Jesus was a fiction created by Christians. After a number of people claimed that he was a myth theorist, in the 1913 expanded edition of The Golden Bough he expressly stated that his position assumed a historical Jesus. In 1900, Scottish Member of Parliament John Mackinnon Robertson argued that Jesus never existed, but was an invention by a first-century messianic cult of Joshua, whom he identifies as a solar deity. The English school master George Robert Stowe Mead argued in 1903 that Jesus had existed, but that he had lived in 100 BC. Mead based his argument on the Talmud, which pointed to Jesus being crucified c. 100 BC. In Mead's view, this would mean that the Christian gospels are mythical. In 1909, school teacher John Eleazer Remsburg published The Christ, which made a distinction between a possible historical Jesus (Jesus of Nazareth) and the Jesus of the Gospels (Jesus of Bethlehem). Remsburg thought that there was good reason to believe that the historical Jesus existed, but that the "Christ of Christianity" was a mythological creation. Remsburg compiled a list of 42 names of "writers who lived and wrote during the time, or within a century after the time" who Remsburg felt should have written about Jesus if the gospel accounts were reasonably accurate, but who did not. Also in 1909, German philosophy Professor Christian Heinrich Arthur Drews wrote The Christ Myth to argue that Christianity had been a Jewish Gnostic cult that spread by appropriating aspects of Greek philosophy and life-death-rebirth deities. In his later books The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus (1912) and The Denial of the Historicity of Jesus in Past and Present (1926), Drews reviewed the biblical scholarship of his time, as well as the work of other myth theorists, attempting to show that everything reported about the historical Jesus had a mythical character.[az] Revival (1970s–present) Beginning in the 1970s, in the aftermath of the second quest for the historical Jesus, interest in the Christ myth theory was revived by George A. Wells, whose ideas were elaborated by Earl Doherty. With the rise of the internet in the 1990s, their ideas gained popular interest, giving way to a multitude of publications and websites aimed at a popular audience, most notably Richard Carrier, often taking a polemical stance toward Christianity. Their ideas are supported by Robert Price, an academic theologian, while somewhat different stances on the mythological origins are offered by Thomas L. Thompson and Thomas L. Brodie, both also accomplished scholars in theology. The French philosopher Paul-Louis Couchoud (1879–1959), who published in the 1920s and 1930s, was a predecessor for contemporary mythicists. According to Couchoud, Christianity started not with a biography of Jesus but "a collective mystical experience, sustaining a divine history mystically revealed". Couchaud's Jesus is therefore a "religious conception", rather than a "myth" in the strictest sense. Robert Price mentions Couchoud's comment on the Christ Hymn, one of the relics of the Christ cults to which Paul converted. Couchoud noted that in this hymn the name Jesus was given to the Christ after his death, implying that there cannot have been a ministry by a teacher called Jesus. George Albert Wells (1926–2017), a professor of German, revived interest in the Christ myth theory. In his early work, including Did Jesus Exist? (1975), Wells argued that because the gospels were written decades after Jesus' death by Christians who were theologically motivated but had no personal knowledge of him, a rational person should believe the gospels only if they are independently confirmed. From the mid-1990s onwards, Wells came to accept that the Jesus of the gospel stories was partly based on a historical figure. In The Jesus Myth (1999) and later works, Wells argues that two Jesus narratives were fused into one, namely Paul's mythical Jesus, and a historical Jesus from a Galilean preaching tradition, whose teachings were preserved in the Q source.[u] According to Wells, both figures owe much of their substance to ideas from Jewish Wisdom literature. In 2000, Van Voorst gave an overview of proponents of the "Nonexistence Hypothesis" and their arguments, presenting seven arguments against the hypothesis as put forward by Wells and his predecessors, detailing his criticisms. According to Maurice Casey, Wells' work repeated the main points of the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule, which are deemed outdated by mainstream scholarship. His works were not discussed by New Testament scholars, because it was "not considered to be original, and all his main points were thought to have been refuted long ago, for reasons which were very well known". Canadian writer Earl Doherty (born 1941) was introduced to the Christ myth theme by a lecture by Wells in the 1970s. Doherty follows the lead of Wells, but disagrees on the historicity of Jesus, arguing that "everything in Paul points to a belief in an entirely divine Son who 'lived' and acted in the spiritual realm, in the same mythical setting in which all the other savior deities of the day were seen to operate".[ba] According to Doherty, Paul's Christ originated as a myth derived from middle Platonism with some influence from Jewish mysticism and belief in a historical Jesus emerged only among Christian communities in the second century. Doherty agrees with Richard Bauckham that the earliest Christology was already a "high Christology", that is, Jesus was an incarnation of the pre-existent Christ, but deems it "hardly credible" that such a belief could develop in such a short time among the Jews.[an] Therefore, Doherty concludes that Christianity started with the myth of this incarnated Christ, who was subsequently historicised. According to Doherty, the nucleus of this historicised Jesus of the Gospels can be found in the Jesus-movement that wrote the Q source. Eventually, Q's Jesus and Paul's Christ were combined in the Gospel of Mark by a predominantly gentile community. In time, the gospel narrative of this embodiment of Wisdom became interpreted as the literal history of the life of Jesus. Eddy and Boyd characterize Doherty's work as appealing to the "History of Religions School". In a book criticizing the Christ myth theory, New Testament scholar Maurice Casey describes Doherty as "perhaps the most influential of all the mythicists", but one who is unable to understand the ancient texts he uses in his arguments. American independent scholar Richard Carrier (born 1969) reviewed Doherty's work on the origination of Jesus and eventually concluded that the evidence favored the core of Doherty's thesis. According to Carrier, following Couchoud and Doherty, Christianity started with the belief in a new deity called Jesus,[s] "a spiritual, mythical figure".[t] According to Carrier, this new deity was fleshed out in the gospels, which added a narrative framework and Cynic-like teachings, and eventually came to be perceived as a historical biography.[s] Carrier argues in his book On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt that the Jesus figure was probably originally known only through private revelations and hidden messages in scripture, which were then crafted into a historical figure to communicate the claims of the gospels allegorically. Those allegories were subsequently believed as fact during the struggle for control of the Christian churches of the first century. Citing the methodological failure of the criteria of authenticity and asserting a failure of the "entire quest for criteria", Richard Carrier writes, "The entire field of Jesus studies has thus been left without any valid method." American New Testament scholar and former Baptist pastor Robert M. Price (born 1954) has questioned the historicity of Jesus in a series of books, including Deconstructing Jesus (2000), The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man (2003), Jesus Is Dead (2007) and The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems (2011). Price uses critical-historical methods, but also uses "history-of-religions parallel[s]", or the "Principle of Analogy", to show similarities between gospel narratives and non-Christian Middle Eastern myths. Price criticises some of the criteria of critical Bible research, such as the criterion of dissimilarity and the criterion of embarrassment. Price further notes that "consensus is no criterion" for the historicity of Jesus. According to Price, if critical methodology is applied with ruthless consistency, one is left in complete agnosticism regarding Jesus' historicity.[bb] In Deconstructing Jesus, Price claims that the Jesus of the New Testament is a "composite figure" out of which a broad variety of historical Jesuses can be reconstructed, any one of which may have been the real Jesus, but not all of them together. According to Price, various Jesus images flowed together at the origin of Christianity, some of them possibly based on myth, some of them possibly based on a historical "Jesus the Nazorean", and that the historical Jesus has become obscured behind the dogma. Price concluded that it is plausible that there might have been a historical Jesus, whose story was completely assimilated into the "Mythic Hero Archetype", but that it was no longer possible to be sure there had ever been a real person underneath all the fiction. In Jesus is Dead (2007) Price again stated the possibility that the gospel Jesus is not based on a historical individual, and that the "Christ of faith" is "a synthetic construct of theologians". In his later contribution, "Jesus at the Vanishing Point", appearing in The Historical Jesus: Five Views (2009), Price concludes that the gospel story is a "tapestry of Scripture quotes from the Old Testament." He further states that the gospel story also incorporates many of the recurrent features of the Indo-European and Semitic hero myths—what Price calls the "Mythic Hero Archetype". Price acknowledges that he stands against the majority view of scholars, but cautions against attempting to settle the issue by appeal to the majority. Thomas L. Thompson (born 1939), professor emeritus of theology at the University of Copenhagen, is a leading biblical minimalist of the Old Testament. According to Thompson, "questions of understanding and interpreting biblical texts" are more relevant than "questions about the historical existence of individuals such as ... Jesus". In his view, Jesus' existence is based more on theological necessity than historical evidence. He believes that most theologians accept that large parts of the Gospels are not to be taken at face value, while also treating the historicity of Jesus as not an open question. In his 2007 book The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David, Thompson argues that the biblical accounts of both King David and Jesus of Nazareth are not historical accounts, but are mythical in nature and based on Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Babylonian and Greek and Roman literature. Those accounts are based on the Messiah mytheme, a king anointed by God to restore the Divine order at Earth. Thompson also argues that the resurrection of Jesus is taken directly from the story of the dying and rising god, Dionysus. Thompson concludes, "A negative statement, however, that such a figure did not exist, cannot be reached: only that we have no warrant for making such a figure part of our history." Thompson co-edited the contributions from a diverse range of scholars in the 2012 book Is This Not the Carpenter?: The Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus. In the introduction he writes, "The essays collected in this volume have a modest purpose. Neither establishing the historicity of a historical Jesus nor possessing an adequate warrant for dismissing it, our purpose is to clarify our engagement with critical historical and exegetical methods." Ehrman[bc][bd] and Casey have characterized Thompson's position as mythicist, and Ehrman has criticised Thompson, questioning his qualifications and expertise regarding New Testament research.[bc] In a 2012 online article, Thompson defended his qualifications to address New Testament issues, and objected to Ehrman's statement that "[a] different sort of support for a mythicist position comes in the work of Thomas L. Thompson."[be] According to Thompson, "Bart Ehrman has attributed to my book arguments and principles which I had never presented, certainly not that Jesus had never existed", and reiterated his position that the issue of Jesus' existence cannot be determined one way or the other.[need quotation to verify] Thompson further states that Jesus is not to be regarded as "the notoriously stereotypical figure of ... (mistaken) eschatological prophet", as Ehrman does, but is modelled on "the royal figure of a conquering messiah", derived from Jewish writings. In response to Thompson's article, Maurice Casey dismissed Thompson as "an incompetent New Testament scholar". In 2012, the Irish Dominican priest and theologian Thomas L. Brodie (born 1943), holding a PhD from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome and a co-founder and former director of the Dominican Biblical Institute in Limerick, published Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus: Memoir of a Discovery. In this book, Brodie, who previously had published academic works on the Hebrew prophets, argued that the gospels are essentially a rewriting of the stories of Elijah and Elisha when viewed as a unified account in the Books of Kings. This view led Brodie to the conclusion that Jesus is mythical. Brodie's argument builds on his previous work, in which he stated that rather than being separate and fragmented, the stories of Elijah and Elisha are united and that 1 Kings 16:29 – 2 Kings 13:25 is a natural extension of 1 Kings 17 – 2 Kings 8 which have a coherence not generally observed by other biblical scholars. Brodie then views the Elijah–Elisha story as the underlying model for the gospel narratives. In response to Brodie's publication of his view that Jesus was mythical, the Dominican order banned him from writing and lecturing, although he was allowed to stay on as a brother of the Irish Province, which continued to care for him. According to Gerard Norton, "There is an unjustifiable jump between methodology and conclusion" in Brodie's book that "are not soundly based on scholarship". According to Norton, they are "a memoir of a series of significant moments or events" in Brodie's life that reinforced "his core conviction" that neither Jesus nor Paul of Tarsus were historical. In his books The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross (1970) and The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth (1979), British archaeologist and philologist John M. Allegro advanced the view that stories of early Christianity originated in a shamanistic Essene clandestine cult centered around the use of hallucinogenic mushrooms. He also argued that the story of Jesus was based on the crucifixion of the Teacher of Righteousness in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Allegro's position was criticised sharply by Welsh historian Philip Jenkins, who wrote that Allegro relied on texts that did not exist in quite the form he was citing them. Based on this and many other negative reactions to the book, Allegro's publisher later apologized for issuing the book and Allegro was forced to resign his academic post. Alvar Ellegård, in The Myth of Jesus (1992), and Jesus: One Hundred Years Before Christ. A Study in Creative Mythology (1999), argued that Jesus lived 100 years before the accepted dates, and was a teacher of the Essenes. According to Ellegård, Paul was connected with the Essenes, and had a vision of this Jesus. Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, in their 1999 publication The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God? propose that Jesus did not exist as a historically identifiable individual, but was instead a syncretic re-interpretation of the fundamental pagan "godman" by the Gnostics, who were the original sect of Christianity. The book has been negatively received by scholars, and also by Christ mythicists. Influenced by Massey and Higgins, Alvin Boyd Kuhn (1880–1963), an American Theosophist, argued an Egyptian etymology to the Bible that the gospels were symbolic rather than historic and that church leaders started to misinterpret the New Testament in the third century. Building on Kuhn's work, author and ordained priest Tom Harpur in his 2004 book The Pagan Christ listed similarities among the stories of Jesus, Horus, Mithras, Buddha and others. According to Harpur, in the second or third centuries the early church created the fictional impression of a literal and historic Jesus and then used forgery and violence to cover up the evidence.[bf] In 2014, Raphael Lataster, a lecturer in religious philosophy at the University of Sydney wrote an opinion piece in The Conversation and The Washington Post, stating that the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth "just doesn't add up" and that "there are clearly good reasons to doubt the existence of Jesus". His works were met with widespread criticism from the scholarly community.[bg] His 2019 peer-reviewed publication Questioning the historicity of Jesus received negative reviews. The Christ myth theory enjoyed brief popularity in the Soviet Union, where it was supported by Sergey Kovalev, Alexander Kazhdan, Abram Ranovich, Nikolai Rumyantsev and Robert Vipper. However, several scholars, including Kazhdan, later retracted their views about a mythical Jesus, and by the end of the 1980s Iosif Kryvelev remained as virtually the only proponent of the Christ myth theory in Soviet academia. Reception In modern scholarship, the Christ myth theory is considered a fringe theory, and finds virtually no support from scholars,[web 2][b] to the point of being addressed in footnotes or almost completely ignored due to the obvious weaknesses they espouse. Common criticisms against the Christ myth theory include: general lack of expertise or relationship to academic institutions and current scholarship; reliance on arguments from silence, lack of evidence, dismissal or distortion of what sources actually state, questionable methodologies, and outdated or superficial comparisons with mythologies.[k] According to scholar Bart D. Ehrman, nearly all scholars who study the early Christian period believe that Jesus did exist, and Ehrman observes that mythicist writings are generally of poor quality because they are usually authored by amateurs and non-scholars who have no academic credentials or have never taught at academic institutions. Maurice Casey, a scholar of New Testament and early Christianity, stated that the belief among professors that Jesus existed is generally completely certain. According to Casey, the view that Jesus did not exist is "the view of extremists", "demonstrably false" and "professional scholars generally regard it as having been settled in serious scholarship long ago". In 1977, classical historian and popular author Michael Grant in his book Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, concluded that "modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory". In support, Grant quoted Roderic Dunkerley's 1957 opinion that the Christ myth theory has "again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars". He also quoted Otto Betz' 1968 opinion that in recent years "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus—or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary". In the same book, he also wrote: If we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. Graeme Clarke, emeritus Professor of Classical Ancient History and Archaeology at Australian National University stated in 2008: "Frankly, I know of no ancient historian or biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ—the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming". R. Joseph Hoffmann, who had created the Jesus Project, which included both mythicists and historicists to investigate the historicity of Jesus, wrote that an adherent to the Christ myth theory asked to set up a separate section of the project for those committed to the position. Hoffmann felt that to be committed to mythicism signaled a lack of necessary skepticism and he noted that most members of the project did not reach the mythicist conclusion.[web 22] Hoffmann also called the mythicist theory "fatally flawed".[bh] Philip Jenkins, Distinguished Professor of History at Baylor University, wrote, "What you can't do, though, without venturing into the far swamps of extreme crankery, is to argue that Jesus never existed. The 'Christ-Myth Hypothesis' is not scholarship, and is not taken seriously in respectable academic debate. The grounds advanced for the 'hypothesis' are worthless. The authors proposing such opinions might be competent, decent, honest individuals, but the views they present are demonstrably wrong. ... Jesus is better documented and recorded than pretty much any non-elite figure of antiquity."[web 23] According to Daniel Gullotta, most of the mythicist literature contains "wild theories, which are poorly researched, historically inaccurate, and written with a sensationalist bent for popular audiences." According to James F. McGrath and Christopher Hansen, mythicists sometimes rely on questionable and outdated methods like Rank and Raglan mythotypes that end up resulting in misclassifying real historical persons as mythical figures. Critics of the Christ myth theory question the competence of its supporters.[bd] Maurice Casey has criticized mythicists, pointing out their complete ignorance of how modern critical scholarship actually works. He also criticizes their frequent assumption that modern New Testament scholarship is Christian fundamentalism, insisting that this assumption is not only totally inaccurate, but also exemplary of the mythicists' misconceptions about the ideas and attitudes of mainstream scholars. According to Bart Ehrman: Few of these mythicists are actually scholars trained in ancient history, religion, biblical studies or any cognate field, let alone in the ancient languages generally thought to matter for those who want to say something with any degree of authority about a Jewish teacher who (allegedly) lived in first-century Palestine. ... These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99% of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology According to Van Voorst, mythicism has a long history of being pushed by individuals with anti-religious sentiment from radical Deists, to Freethought advocates, to radical secular humanists and activist atheists. Contemporary mythicists are usually atheists or agnostics. According to Ehrman "It is no accident that virtually all mythicists (in fact, all of them, to my knowledge) are either atheists or agnostics. The ones I know anything about are quite virulently, even militantly, atheist." According to Casey, mythicists are former fundamentalists who push for an atheist agenda and tend to be related to atheist activism. Gullota notes that mythicists are "apologists for a kind of dogmatic atheism" and that usually the proponents are atheist activists who have disdain for religion. Robert Van Voorst has written, "Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed [Christ myth] arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely. ... The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question." Paul L. Maier, former professor of Ancient History at Western Michigan University and current professor emeritus of its Department of History has stated, "Anyone who uses the argument that Jesus never existed is simply flaunting his ignorance." In 2000, Van Voorst gave an overview of proponents of the "Nonexistence Hypothesis" and their arguments, presenting seven arguments against the hypothesis as put forward by "Wells and his predecessors": In 2003, Van Voorst added an eighth "final argument"—that Wells had since accepted the "historical basis for the existence of Jesus". In his book Did Jesus Exist?, Bart Ehrman surveys the arguments "mythicists" have made against the existence of Jesus since the idea was first raised at the end of the 18th century. Regarding the lack of contemporaneous records for Jesus, Ehrman notes that no comparable Jewish figure is mentioned in contemporary records either and there are mentions of Christ in several Roman works of history from only decades after the death of Jesus. He adds that the authentic letters of the apostle Paul in the New Testament were likely written within a few years of Jesus' death and that Paul likely personally knew James, the brother of Jesus. Ehrman writes that although "our best sources about Jesus, the early Gospels, are riddled with problems ... written decades after Jesus' life by biased authors", they "can be used to yield historically reliable information". He adds, "With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul)", which he says is "pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind". Ehrman dismisses the idea that the story of Jesus is an invention based on pagan myths of dying-and-rising gods, maintaining that the early Christians were primarily influenced by Jewish ideas, not Greek or Roman ones, and repeatedly insisting that the idea that there was never such a person as Jesus is not seriously considered at all by historians or experts in the field. Alexander Lucie-Smith, Catholic priest and doctor of moral theology, states that "People who think Jesus didn't exist are seriously confused," but also notes that "the Church needs to reflect on its failure. If 40 per cent believe in the Jesus myth, this is a sign that the Church has failed to communicate with the general public." Stanley E. Porter, president and dean of McMaster Divinity College in Hamilton, and Stephen J. Bedard, a Baptist minister and graduate of McMaster Divinity, respond to Harpur's ideas from an evangelical standpoint in Unmasking the Pagan Christ: An Evangelical Response to the Cosmic Christ Idea, challenging the key ideas lying at the foundation of Harpur's thesis. Porter and Bedard conclude that there is sufficient evidence for the historicity of Jesus and assert that Harpur is motivated to promote "universalistic spirituality".[bi] In a 2015 poll conducted by the Church of England, 22% of British respondents indicated that they did not believe Jesus was a real person. A 2020 poll by Yougov stated that the number of British respondents who did not believe Jesus existed is just 15%. Ehrman notes that "the mythicists have become loud, and thanks to the Internet they've attracted more attention". Within a few years of the inception of the World Wide Web (c. 1990), mythicists such as Earl Doherty began to present their argument to a larger public via the internet.[bj] Doherty created the website The Jesus Puzzle in 1996,[web 24] while the organization Internet Infidels has featured the works of mythicists on their website and mythicism has been mentioned on several popular news sites. According to Derek Murphy, the documentaries The God Who Wasn't There (2005) and Zeitgeist (2007) introduced the Christ myth theory to a larger audience and gave the topic broad coverage on the Internet. Daniel Gullotta notes the relationship between the organization "Atheists United" and Carrier's work related to mythicism, which has increased "the attention of the public".[bk] Documentaries Since 2005, several English-language documentaries have focused—at least in part—on the Christ myth theory: See also Notes Surely he has borne our infirmities and carried our diseases; yet we accounted him stricken, struck down by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the punishment that made us whole, and by his bruises we are healed ... Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him with pain. When you make his life an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, and shall prolong his days; through him the will of the Lord shall prosper. Out of his anguish he shall see light; he shall find satisfaction through his knowledge. The righteous one, my servant, shall make many righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. Come, let us return to the Lord; for he has torn us, that he may heal us; he has struck us down, and he will bind us up. After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him. References Further reading Journals Surveys History Criteria for Authenticity Demise of Authenticity and call for Memory Studies Criticism External links |
======================================== |
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_election_of_Giuseppe_Siri_theory] | [TOKENS: 1665] |
Contents Giuseppe Siri conspiracy theory The Giuseppe Siri conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory that asserts that Cardinal Giuseppe Siri (then Archbishop of Genoa) was elected pope in the 1958 papal conclave, taking the papal name Pope Gregory XVII, but that his election was suppressed. Siri did not associate himself with this idea. Exponents of this theory claim a prolonged emission of white smoke on the first day of balloting at the conclave indicated the election of Siri, but that threats applied from outside the conclave caused his election to be reversed, allowing Pope John XXIII to be elected two days later. The source of the threats has been variously identified as Jews and Freemasons, or the Soviet Union. Adherents of the theory say the election of John XXIII was invalid and regard him and his successors as imposters and antipopes. 1958 conclave On 25 October 1958, the papal conclave to elect a successor to Pope Pius XII commenced. The staunchly conservative Cardinal Siri, then 52 years old, was considered a strong candidate in the election. At 11:53 a.m. on 26 October 1958, the first day of balloting, white smoke was seen coming from the chimney of the Sistine Chapel, a traditional signal to the crowds in the square outside that a pope has been elected. It was followed after a few minutes by black smoke. The Italian radio network and the Italian news agency had to retract their initial reports that a pope had been elected. At 5:53 p.m., white smoke again appeared to come from the chimney, and this time it did not quickly turn black. At 6 p.m., after the smoke had continued white for several minutes, Vatican Radio told the world: "The smoke is white... There is absolutely no doubt. A Pope has been elected." After about half an hour, the smoke turned black, indicating that there was no result. Vatican Radio corrected its report. The New York Times reported: "The crowd lingered for more than a half hour, apparently hoping against hope that a new Pope would appear." The paper further reported that problems getting the straw to catch fire likely caused the morning’s problem and added: "The second signal was misunderstood because it came well after nightfall. The smoke was lighted from below by a spotlight, which made black appear white." The official responsible for arrangements outside the conclave notified the cardinals that the colour of the smoke had been misread and provided them with "smoke torches from a fireworks factory". The third day's four ballots again failed to select a pope and there was no confusion about the colour of the smoke. On the afternoon of the next day, 28 October, white smoke signalled the election of a pope. On their eleventh ballot the conclave had elected Cardinal Angelo Roncalli, who took the name John XXIII. While considered a favourite for election before the conclave, Siri did not feature in the early voting, and ultimately was never in the running. He was thought too young at 52; a long pontificate would have been anticipated, and this was allegedly felt to be undesirable because a long pontificate would have prevented other cardinals who wanted to be elected pope from having the chance of being elected. History of the theory Sometime in the late 1980s, an American traditionalist Catholic named Gary Giuffré began to expound the belief that Siri was the true pope, and that he was being held against his will in Rome. According to Giuffré and supporters of the theory, the white smoke that was seen on 26 October 1958 did indeed mean that a pope had been elected, and that pope was Siri, but he was forced to surrender the papacy in the face of dire threats from outside the conclave, including the threat of a nuclear bomb. With the electors unsure how to proceed, Roncalli, who they claim was a Freemason, supposedly offered himself as a compromise with the promise he would call a synod soon after his election to regularize the unusual situation. Roncalli was elected as John XXIII instead of Siri. The theory further claims that a similar process occurred at the 1963 papal conclave that followed John XXIII's death. Once again white smoke was seen indicating that Siri had been elected, and again it turned black, and under threats from outside the conclave a different cardinal was elected, Giovanni Montini, who took the name Paul VI. During this conclave, it was alleged that the threats of terrible retribution if Siri were elected were passed into the conclave by the B'nai B'rith, working on behalf of a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy. The assertion that Siri's 1963 election had been set aside after the intervention of the B'nai B'rith was contained in an article written in 1986 by Louis Hubert Remy in the French publication Sous la Bannière and translated into English in 1987 for Dan Jones's newsletter The Sangre de Cristo Newsnotes. That article made no mention of the 1958 conclave. In his apocalyptic 1990 book The Keys of This Blood, Irish-American Catholic priest Malachi Martin said that in the 1963 conclave Siri received sufficient votes for election but refused it. According to Martin, the reason was that he believed that "only thus could foreseen possibilities of grave danger be avoided—but whether harm to the Church, his family, or to him personally, is not clear", and Siri's refusal followed a conversation on the subject of Siri's candidacy between a member of the conclave and somebody outside it, who was "an emissary of an internationally based organisation". In a 1997 interview on the radio programme Steel on Steel, hosted by John Loefller, Martin claimed that Siri had also obtained a majority of votes in the August 1978 papal conclave but that he had received a written note after his election threatening him and his family with death should he accept. Followers of the theory recognize him as "Gregory XVII", and also refer to him as "the Red Pope". In his 2003 book The Vatican Exposed, Paul L. Williams claimed that United States State Department documents confirmed that Siri had been elected pope in 1958 as Gregory XVII. According to Williams, the election was quashed not by a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy but by fear of the Soviet Union. He argued that Roncalli was known as the "pink priest" because of his ties with both the French and Italian Communist parties, while Siri was "rabidly anti-Communist". Siri received the requisite number of votes on the third ballot and was elected as Gregory XVII but "the French cardinals annulled the results, claiming that the election would cause widespread riots and the assassination of several prominent bishops behind the Iron Curtain." It was then decided to elect Cardinal Federico Tedeschini but as he was too ill, Roncalli was elected instead. Williams cited "Department of State secret dispatch, 'John XXIII,' issue date: November 20, 1958, declassified: November 11, 1974" and "Department of State secret file, 'Cardinal Siri,' issue date: April 10, 1961, declassified: February 28, 1994" in support of his claims. In subsequent editions, the references were changed to simply "F.B.I. source". Significance Traditionalist Catholics oppose the liturgical changes and perceived modernist theological positions resulting from the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), which many of them see as a heretical council. Sedevacantists are a minority group within traditionalist Catholicism who maintain that none of the popes from John XXIII (who called the council) onward were true popes, and that therefore the papal seat is vacant. The idea that John XXIII and Paul VI were not true popes is explained by the Siri theory. The magazine Inside the Vatican has estimated that the theory was believed "by hundreds, perhaps thousands of people around the world". See also References |
======================================== |
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpIndia#Bihar_human_sacrifice_claims] | [TOKENS: 2894] |
Contents OpIndia OpIndia is an Indian far-right news website known for frequently publishing misinformation. Founded in December 2014, the website has published fake news and Islamophobic commentary on numerous occasions. OpIndia is dedicated to criticism of what it considers liberal media, and to support of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Hindutva ideology. According to University of Maryland researchers, OpIndia has shamed journalists it deems to be in opposition to the BJP and has alleged media bias against Hindus and the BJP. In 2019, the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) rejected OpIndia's application to be certified as a fact checker. IFCN-certified fact checkers identified 25 fake news stories and 14 misreported stories published by OpIndia from January 2018 to June 2020. A study of 54,850 OpIndia articles published between 2014 and 2023 found that OpIndia consistently characterised Hindus in positive terms and Muslims in negative terms to further the website's Hindu nationalist ideals. OpIndia published a series of reports in 2020 falsely claiming that a Hindu boy was sacrificed in a Bihar mosque. The website is owned by Aadhyaasi Media and Content Services, a former subsidiary of the parent company of the right-wing magazine Swarajya.: 2 The current CEO of OpIndia is Rahul Roushan, and the current editors are Nupur J Sharma (English) and Chandan Kumar (Hindi). History OpIndia was founded in December 2014 by Rahul Raj and Kumar Kamal as a current affairs and news website. OpIndia is owned by Aadhyaasi Media and Content Services, a private limited company. In October 2016, Aadhyaasi Media was acquired by Kovai Media Private Limited, a Coimbatore-based company that also owns the right-wing: 2 magazine Swarajya. Kovai Media's most prominent investors were former Infosys executives T. V. Mohandas Pai (three percent ownership) and N. R. Narayana Murthy (two percent ownership). Kovai Media retained ownership of Aadhyaasi Media until July 2018. Raj left OpIndia over a disagreement with the site's editorial stance. OpIndia and Aadhyaasi Media separated from Kovai Media in November 2018. Rahul Roushan was appointed the CEO of OpIndia, and Nupur J. Sharma became the editor. Roushan and Sharma each owned half of Aadhyaasi Media after the transition. In January 2019, Aadhyaasi Media was acquired by Kaut Concepts Management Pvt Ltd, which gained 98 percent ownership of Aadhyaasi Media and left Roushan and Sharma with one percent each. Kaut Concepts has a 26 percent stake in TFI Media Pvt Ltd, the operator of TFIpost—a Hindu nationalist website also known as The Frustrated Indian, and is directed by Ashok Kumar Gupta, who is associated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and campaigns for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Aadhyaasi Media's directors are Sharma, Gupta, and Roushan's wife, Shaili Raval. In the 2018–2019 financial year, Aadhyaasi Media reported ₹1 million (US$12,000) in profit. Between March and June 2019, OpIndia purchased ₹90,000 (US$1,100) of political advertising on Facebook. The BJP petitioned Facebook to allow OpIndia to receive advertising revenue on the social network in November 2019. In 2020, the West Bengal Police filed first information reports (FIRs) against Sharma, Roushan and Ajeet Bharti (then editor of OpIndia Hindi) in response to content published on OpIndia. The Supreme Court of India stayed the FIRs in June 2020 after hearing a plea from the defendants which argued that the matter was outside the jurisdiction of the government of West Bengal. In December 2021, the Supreme Court quashed the FIRs after the West Bengal state government informed the court that they had decided to withdraw the FIRs. In 2022, OpIndia was sent a legal notice by a woman at the Tikri protest site for doxxing her and falsely claiming that she was raped at the site. Content OpIndia denounces what it describes as "liberal media". In an analysis of the 284 articles published by OpIndia in 2018, University of Maryland researchers Prashanth Bhat and Kalyani Chadha identified five recurring patterns in OpIndia's content: Raj, in 2014, intended for OpIndia to combat media manipulation and distinguish "what is being reported" from "what the facts are". In 2018, Sharma stated that OpIndia is openly right-leaning and does not claim to be ideologically neutral. Sharma described OpIndia's dislike of left-liberal ideas as one of the website's "ontological positions on the basis of which we operate" in 2019. As of June 2020, OpIndia declares on its website that it aims to produce content "that is free from the burden of liberal bias and political correctness". The site accepts article contributions from its readers. Fact checkers certified by the Poynter Institute's International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), including Alt News and Boom, have identified multiple instances in which OpIndia has published fake news. According to a Newslaundry data compilation, OpIndia published 25 fake news stories and 14 misreported stories between January 2018 and June 2020 that were fact-checked by other organisations. False reports on OpIndia frequently criticise Muslims. Newslaundry found 28 articles on OpIndia released from 15 to 29 November 2019 with headlines that explicitly named Muslims as perpetrators of various crimes. A writer who left OpIndia due to this trend told Newslaundry, "If the accused in an incident belongs to the Muslim community, then you have to mention his name in the heading. The news is to be published in such a way that if the reader is a Hindu, then he starts developing hatred for Muslims." In April 2020, Bharti blamed the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic in India on Muslim "martyrdom" in an OpIndia video that was disseminated among Hindutva-oriented WhatsApp groups. According to Alt News, OpIndia propagated 18 instances of misinformation in 2022. In June 2020, Newslaundry compared OpIndia to the American far-right website Breitbart News, stating, "It's fair to say even Breitbart wouldn't publish the sort of stuff that you'd routinely see on OpIndia." An August 2021 Association of Computing Machinery conference paper that examined website articles and Twitter posts related to the COVID-19 pandemic in India showed that "~ 66% of the 50 most frequently occurring articles from OpIndia portrayed Islamophobic behaviour", that OpIndia's COVID-19 coverage focused on Muslims and the Tablighi Jamaat, and that OpIndia prominently published tweets that the Perspective evaluator identified as "rude, disrespectful, or unreasonable content". The paper concluded that "The widespread presence of media sources like OpIndia in our dataset, that frequently publish anti-Muslim content, shows that people used external sources to further Islamophobic views." Discourse & Society released an analysis of 54,850 OpIndia articles published from December 2014 to May 2023, determining that OpIndia's content conformed to a Hindu nationalist discourse that designated Hindus as the in-group and Muslims as the out-group. For Hindus, OpIndia used first-person pronouns (such as "we") and positive descriptions that depicted the in-group as "innately good, non-offending, hapless" people who are "surviving and enduring atrocious crimes and being on the verge of perishing". For Muslims, OpIndia used third-person pronouns (such as "they") and negative descriptions that characterised the out-group as "self-victimising, conspirators, radical elements, merciless, brutal, blood lusty, brainwashing, and demanding privileges". OpIndia promoted the love jihad conspiracy theory and terms including "mob", "Taliban" and "Al Qaeda" to present an exaggerated representation of Muslims as violent offenders, while using the term "community" for Hindus and minimising instances of violence conducted by Hindu nationalists. After the Wikipedia community declared OpIndia an unreliable source in March 2020, OpIndia began publishing news content on a regular basis portraying Wikipedia in a negative light; it has accused the English Wikipedia of having a left-wing and socialist bias, and has published the real names and employers of editors it accuses of being "Islamists" or "leftists". The Verge noted in 2025 that OpIndia attacks Wikipedia "in ways that parallel attacks from the US right, down to citations of Manhattan Institute research and quotes from the disgruntled cofounder, Sanger." Between 9–14 May 2020, OpIndia published a series of seven articles (one in English and six in Hindi) falsely claiming that Rohit Jaiswal, a Hindu boy, was sacrificed in a mosque in Bela Dih – a village in Kateya, Gopalganj, Bihar – after which his body was disposed of in a river on 28 March. In the articles, OpIndia alleged that the suspected perpetrators were "all Muslims". One of the articles asserted, "A new mosque had been built in the village and it is being alleged that there was a belief that if a Hindu was 'sacrificed', the mosque would become powerful and its influence would increase." The stories were accompanied with videos of Jaiswal's sister and father, in which neither of them mentioned a sacrifice or mosque. Jaiswal's postmortem report indicated that his cause of death was "asphyxia due to drowning". Local residents in the village, including Jaiswal's mother, declined to corroborate the human sacrifice claims, and a local journalist said that the village did not have a new mosque. The first information report (FIR) filed by the father on 29 March listed six suspects (five Muslim boys and one Hindu boy) and did not reference a sacrifice or mosque. OpIndia later released an audio recording of its interview with Jaiswal's father, in which he claimed that Jaiswal was murdered in a mosque. In a follow-up interview with Newslaundry, the father retracted the claim and said that he made the accusations in "sheer frustration" of the attention around Jaiswal's death. After Newslaundry interviewed Bharti—then editor of OpIndia Hindi, OpIndia deleted the word "all" from the phrase "all Muslims" in its description of the suspected perpetrators. Vijay Kumar Verma, a Deputy Inspector General of Bihar Police, disclosed on 14 May that he had filed an FIR against OpIndia under Section 67 (obscenity) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 295(A) (inciting religious outrage) of the Indian Penal Code for its reporting of the false human sacrifice claims. The FIR stated that OpIndia published the claims "without knowing or understanding the case". On 17 May, the Director General of Bihar Police, Gupteshwar Pandey, examined the drowning incident and found no evidence supporting the human sacrifice claims or the suspicion of communal motives behind the death. OpIndia has also been engaged in plagiarism and copyright violation in their articles without attributing to the original publishers. It was later discovered by Alt News when OpIndia published an article covering 2020 Pulitzer Prize nomination about three Kashmiri journalists who were awarded for their photographs taken during the state-wide lockdown imposed in 2019 by the ruling party, the BJP, after the revocation of article 370 involving the Kashmir conflict. Reception In March 2019, the IFCN rejected OpIndia's application to be certified as a fact checker. While noting partial compliance on a number of categories, the IFCN rejected the application on grounds of political partisanship and lack of transparency and raised concerns over questionable fact-checking methodologies. The rejection disqualified OpIndia from fact-checking contracts with web properties owned by Facebook and Google. In response, Sharma criticised the IFCN assessment and urged for acceptance of outlets with "declared ideological leanings". After co-founder Raj departed OpIndia, he described the website as a "blind mouthpiece" of the BJP on Twitter in August 2019. Raj criticised Sharma, alleging that she and others "started as trolls" and "abuse and play victim card when questioned". OpIndia was blacklisted from Wikipedia in March 2020 (alongside Swarajya and TFIpost) after Sharma, in an OpIndia piece, published personally identifying information about a Wikipedia editor who helped write the encyclopedia's article on the 2020 Delhi riots, which resulted in the editor leaving Wikipedia. OpIndia was characterized as "an Indian version of The Gateway Pundit that pretends to be The Onion when others catch them publishing false and misleading information." Stop Funding Hate, a British social media campaign, urged organisations to withdraw their advertising from OpIndia in May 2020 after the website published an article asserting that businesses should be able to declare that they do not hire Muslims. The head of the campaign, Richard Wilson, said that "OpIndia is becoming internationally notorious for its hateful and discriminatory coverage" and that the campaign has "rarely seen such overt advocacy of discrimination on religious grounds". Over 20 organisations, including advertising network Rubicon Project, video streaming service Mubi, personal care brand Harry's and the Saïd Business School, ceased advertising on OpIndia as a result of the campaign. Sharma responded that she would "stand by our article and our content 100%" and that OpIndia would "never alter its core belief system or content". Roushan stated that advertisements constitute a minority of OpIndia's revenue and claimed that OpIndia received a "700% jump" in donations during the campaign. See also References |
======================================== |
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_billion] | [TOKENS: 1414] |
Contents Golden billion The Golden Billion (Russian: золотой миллиард, romanized: zolotoy milliard) is a conspiracy theory that a cabal of global elites are pulling strings to amass wealth for the world's richest billion people at the expense of the rest of humanity. It is a popular term in the Russian-speaking world. The term was coined by Anatoly Tsikunov (writing as A. Kuzmich) in his articles in the late 1980s and the early 1990s. They were assembled in 1994 in the book The Plot of World Government: Russia and the Golden Billion. The term was popularized by Russian nationalist and writer Sergey Kara-Murza. Details According to Kara-Murza, the majority of all resources on the planet are consumed by the top billion people, which is referred to as the 'Golden Billion'. He alleges that the 'Golden Billion' is a term used by Western elites, which means a synthesis of western concept of "Golden Age" of progress and prosperity and pessimistic recognition of the limited resources of the Earth and the impossibility of extending this prosperity to the entire current population of the planet. Kara-Murza posits that at the Earth Summit a conclusion was reached that resources would be sufficient only for near term needs of the population of the West, he claims that the expert community knows the conclusion well and never disputes it but keeps it silent. Among other sources Kara-Murza used to demonstrate that Western elites are very concerned about resources were The Limits to Growth and articles by David Pimentel. In the article which popularized the term, "Концепция "золотого миллиарда" и Новый мировой порядок",[note 1] Kara-Murza alludes to the concept of a New World Order, a conspiracy theory associated with antisemitic tropes. Additionally, the term "мировой элиты" is used, which translates to "world elite" and has associations with other antisemitic conspiracies. According to Kara-Murza, in Russia it was Tsikunov who formulated the main idea of the “Golden Billion”: developed countries maintain high levels of consumption for their citizens, and endorse political, military and economic measures designed to keep the rest of the world in an undeveloped state and as a raw-material appendage area for the dumping of hazardous waste and as a source of cheap labor. In his 1990 article, Tsikunov argued that there were only resources for one billion people, and by year 2000 due technological progress the world would be able to sustain only 2 billion people, for this reason Western countries want to control Russia's resources due to lack of their own. For those people outside of sustainable 2 billion population, according to Tsikunov, there were plans by Western elites for artificial population reduction, and the people in developing countries outside sustainable population would be limited in their use of resources to subsistence levels, while only Westerners would be able to enjoy full material well-being. In his opinion, reforms in the late USSR were imposed by Western elites to limit use of resources in Russia, with the ultimate goal of their actions was the creation of a centralized totalitarian World Government by 2005. To support his conspiracy theory, he used incorrect citations of documents from the UN, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and completely non-existent documents. Kara-Murza, following Tsikunov, in turn claims that the West is waging a hot and cold war against Russia for resources. He posits that due to policies allegedly imposed by Western elites, Russia's population would decrease by two-thirds. Russian proponents of the Golden billion theory and even officials cite invented quote by former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, falsely claiming she said it would be “economically feasible for only 15 million people to live in Russia". The theory follows ideas of Thomas Malthus, a Russocentric extension of Malthus' emphasis on the scarcity of natural resources. A key change being that Malthus was mostly concerned with finite global crop yields, proponents of a "golden billion" are mostly concerned with finite natural resources such as fossil fuels and metal. Counter-arguments Available data indicates that many countries are approaching consumption levels of developed countries. Modern estimates indicate that mineral shortages are not a threat. Resource usage trend analysis finds no imminent problems. Various economic studies of price trends since 1979 did not reveal resource exhaustion. Joel E. Cohen says that median estimation of all studies of limits to world population is 7.7 billion people, given current technology (at the time of estimation). In his book The Ultimate Resource, Julian Simon claimed that scarcity of physical resources can be overcome by human ingenuity. For example, the argument of oil scarcity could be overcome by energy development, such as use of synthetic fuels. Application to the Russian invasion of Ukraine During Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine, the concept has been used by leading Russian politicians including Vladimir Putin to justify the military invasion. In May 2022, Nikolai Patrushev, secretary of the Security Council, accused "Anglo-Saxons"[note 2], of "hiding their actions behind the human rights, freedom and democracy rhetoric," while pushing ahead "with the ‘golden billion’ doctrine," which implies that only select few are entitled to prosperity in this world". In June 2022, speaking at the International Economic Forum, Vladimir Putin "reiterated his position that the Kremlin was 'forced' to initiate the invasion of Ukraine [...] 'Our colleagues do not simply deny reality,' Putin added. 'They are trying to resist the course of history. They think in terms of the last century. They are in captivity of their own delusions about countries outside of the so-called golden billion, they see everything else as the periphery, their backyard, they treat these places as their colonies, and they treat the peoples living there as second-class citizens, because they consider themselves to be exceptional.'” General use in Russia The conspiracy theory is widely used by the Russian authorities. For example, in 2000, Vladimir Putin used the expression "golden billion" to explain the difference between the rich "Global North" and the poor "Global South" to participants in the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit. In 2022, Vladimir Putin cited this conspiracy theory to explain the introduction of sanctions against Russia that year, which were in fact introduced due to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The conspiracy theory of the "golden billion" was used in speeches by Mikhail Kovalchuk, Dmitry Medvedev, Nikolay Patrushev and Sergey Lavrov. Putin and the aforementioned officials attribute a unified will to the "golden billion", and that allegedly some secret forces deliberately arranged for one part of the countries to remain in humiliating poverty. See also Conspiracy theories Other concepts Notes References |
======================================== |
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golpe_Azul] | [TOKENS: 1578] |
Contents Golpe Azul Golpe Azul (English: Blue Strike), also known as Operation Jericho, was an accusation by the Venezuelan government that resulted in the arrest of several people, including the metropolitan mayor of Caracas Antonio Ledezma. The accusation consisted in an alleged coup d'état plan against the presidency of Nicolás Maduro, which reportedly would take place on 12 February 2015 and would have several targets in Caracas. The name of the plan refers to the blue uniform of the Venezuelan Air Force in which several suspects were officers. Venezuelan NGO Foro Penal declared that the accused suspects were political prisoners and that they were convicted without evidence, and its director Alfredo Romero described the sentence as arbitrary. Based on the accusations, Antonio Ledezma was arrested in his office on 19 February by SEBIN officers. According to opposition reports, Golpe Azul was the twelfth coup d'état attempt that President Maduro alleged. Plot and arrests On 12 February 2015, President Nicolás Maduro announced an alleged coup. Libertador Municipality Mayor Jorge Rodríguez, during a special broadcast of Con El Mazo Dando on state-run Venezolana de Televisión (VTV), denounced the participants of an alleged attempt planned by aviation general Oswaldo Hernández, who was convicted in May 2014 along with nine other military personnel for the crimes of rebellion and against military decorum. National Assembly president Diosdado Cabello announced the arrests of eight people in Aragua by officials of the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service (SEBIN) and the seizure of various equipment, including a computer with information on the tactical objectives of the coup group. He also showed maps allegedly located on the computer equipment of the protagonists of Golpe Azul, where buildings appeared in Caracas that were marked as tactical objectives such as the Miraflores Palace, the Public Ministry of Venezuela, the Caracas mayor's office, the Ministry of Defense headquarters, the Ministry of Interior, Justice and Peace building, the Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ), the National Electoral Council (CNE), the Directorate General of Military Counterintelligence (DGCIM) and offices of Telesur. During the program, Mayor Jorge Rodríguez accused National Assembly deputy and opposition politician Julio Borges of choosing the places indicated as tactical objectives. Cabello also revealed the alleged possession of AR-15 rifles, grenades, military and security uniforms, as well as an eight-minute video with a statement from the protagonists. According to Cabello, the bombing would be carried out with a Tucano artillery plane after publishing a statement in the national press requesting the government, among other things, the dissolution of public powers, the call for elections and the affiliation to organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and later the military would issue a uniformed message where they would make a called the population to calm. Arrest of Antonio Ledezma On 19 February 2015, Antonio Ledezma was detained by the Bolivarian Intelligence Service at his office in the EXA Tower in Caracas. In the operation, the security forces made warning shots to the air to disperse a crowd that was forming. He was then transported to SEBIN's headquarters in Plaza Venezuela. His lawyer declared that the charges for his detention were unknown. The New York Times stated that Ledezma was arrested by the Venezuelan Government after accusations made by President Nicolás Maduro about an "American plot to overthrow the government" that he presented a week before Ledezma's arrest. Ledezma mocked the accusations stating that the Venezuelan government was destabilizing itself through corruption. The United States denied the accusations by President Maduro and stated that "Venezuela’s problems cannot be solved by criminalizing dissent". Following the news of the arrest of Ledezma, his supporters quickly created protests and called the arrest a "kidnapping" and that the coup conspiracy was created for political purposes. Hours after the news broke, hundreds of Ledezma supporters gathered in a Caracas plaza to denounce his arrest. Protesters also gathered outside of the SEBIN headquarters. Human rights groups quickly condemned Ledezma's arrest and the similarity of the case to Leopoldo López's arrest was noted by The New York Times. Amnesty International condemned Ledezma's arrest calling it politically motivated, noting the similar cases of arrests made by the Venezuelan Government in what Amnesty International described as "silencing dissenting voices". Human Rights Watch demanded his release with Human Rights Watch's Americas division director, Jose Miguel Vivanco, stating that without evidence, Ledezma "faces another case of arbitrary detention of opponents in a country where there is no judicial independence". In March 2015, the court ordered Ledezma to be taken at the Ramo Verde military jail, where he would be imprisoned before standing trial. On the same month, former socialist Prime Minister of Spain, Felipe González, agreed to take over the defense of Ledezma in his trial after Ledezma's family requested his assistance. Two months later, he was sent back home for health reasons, where he had been placed under house arrest and unable to express himself publicly. On 1 August 2017, Ledezma (along with Leopoldo López) were re-arrested by SEBIN, which did not file any legal arrest warrant. According to the pro-Maduro Venezuelan Supreme Tribunal of Justice, it said that it had received intelligence reports alleging the two were trying to flee Venezuela. The court also said that it had revoked Mr Ledezma's and Mr López's house arrest because they had made political statements relating to the 2017 Venezuelan Constituent Assembly election. Lopez and Ledezma were sent to Ramo Verde prison and Ledezma was released back to house arrest on 4 August. On 17 November 2017, Ledezma slipped past guards and fled to Colombia. He departed the same day from El Dorado International Airport in Bogotá to Adolfo Suárez Madrid–Barajas Airport in Madrid, Spain. Upon landing he declared he would continue his fight of opposition to the Venezuelan Government and was reunited with his family.[citation needed] Trial The eight defendants, three civilians (Pedro Maury, Jesus Salazar and Luis Colmenares) and five military officers of the Venezuelan Air Force (Ricardo José Antich, Luis Lugo, Peter Moreno, Carlos Esqueda, Henry Salazar and Laided Salazar) were sentenced in the second military court of Maracay on 12 January 2017. Captains Ronald Ramírez and Jackson García were witnesses at the trial. They were witnesses promoted by the Prosecutor. They were taken as experts in these aircraft to tell at the trial if these soldiers were able to fly some Sukhoi that were in Lara, they alone without help, to give a coup d'etat. And the answer of these two witnesses, very professional, was no, that to artillery a plane for a rebellion 14 people were needed and they were eight. They also accused the military that they were going to bomb Caracas and some buildings aboard those Tucano planes and they also asked both of them. They explained that it was impossible to move those bombs in a way other than by land, and that those bombs were not in Lara but in Guárico, Zulia and in the east. In addition, the trial showed that the planes could not be used because they had the landing gear damaged. — Carlos Javier Salazar, lawyer of Laided Salazar, captain sentenced to eight years and seven months for crimes of instigation to rebellion and against military decorum. On 26 December 2018, the sentence was ratified by the TSJ. References |
======================================== |
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pallywood] | [TOKENS: 2968] |
Contents Pallywood Pallywood (a portmanteau of "Palestine" and "Hollywood") is a derogatory term used to falsely accuse Palestinians of staging scenes of suffering and civilian death in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. It has been described as a conspiracy theory and a prominent element of Israeli disinformation in the conflict. Gazawood, a variant of the term, refers to similar footage originating in the Gaza Strip. The term gained prominence following the 2000 killing of Muhammad al-Durrah during the Second Intifada, after some pro-Israel commentators alleged that the incident had been a media hoax. Israeli pundits have used the term to dismiss videos showing Israeli violence or deny Palestinian suffering, particularly during the Gaza war and the Gaza genocide. Origin The term was coined and publicized in part by Richard Landes, as a result of a 2005 online documentary video he produced called Pallywood: According to Palestinian Sources, alleging specific instances of media manipulation. Journalist Ruthie Blum describes "Pallywood" as a term coined by Landes to refer to "productions staged by the Palestinians, in front of (and often with cooperation from) Western camera crews, for the purpose of promoting anti-Israel propaganda by disguising it as news." Landes himself describes Pallywood as "a term I coined... to describe staged material disguised as news." In Pallywood: According to Palestinian Sources, Landes focuses in particular on the widely publicized killing of Muhammad al-Durrah, a 12-year-old Palestinian boy killed by gunfire (widely reported to have been Israeli gunfire) in the Gaza Strip on 30 September 2000 at the beginning of the Second Intifada. His death was filmed by a Palestinian freelance cameraman and aired on the France 2 television channel. Landes questions the authenticity of the footage and disputes whether al-Durrah was killed at all, arguing that the entire incident was staged by the Palestinians. Landes and pro-Israel advocates argue that the Israeli government is insufficiently robust in countering Palestinian accounts of events in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Besides the killing of al-Durrah, Landes cites the 2006 Gaza beach explosion and Hamas's alleged exploitation of electricity shortages during the 2007–2008 Israel–Gaza conflict as incidents of Pallywood. Subsequent usage Anat Berko, a research fellow with the conservative Israeli think-tank, International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism, and Edna Erez, head of the criminal justice department of the University of Illinois at Chicago, said that "the phenomenon of manufacturing documentation about the conflict has been referred to as "Pallywood" (Palestinian Authority Hollywood)."[non-primary source needed] The Mackenzie Institute, a conservative Canadian defense and security think tank, has argued that given "a long history of posing for the cameras ... the cynical 'Pallywood' nickname from once-deceived journalists for [Palestinian Authority] news services becomes understandable."[non-primary source needed] David Frum alleged that pictures taken during the 2014 Gaza War that showed two brothers, weeping and wearing bloodied T-shirts after carrying the body of their dead father, had been faked. The pictures, which were published by Reuters, The New York Times, and Associated Press, had been targeted for criticism by a pro-Israeli blogger. Frum backtracked from his accusation, and apologized to New York Times photographer Sergey Ponomarev, after extensive debunking by Michael Shaw, but justified his "skepticism", describing other "Pallywood" claims. Frum was criticized by Washington Post media writer Erik Wemple, and also by fellow correspondent for The Atlantic, James Fallows, who called Frum's tweets "a major journalistic error". In 2014, after the death of two Palestinian teenagers in Beitunia, Michael Oren and an Israeli army spokesman argued that the video from a security camera was manipulated and the teenagers had only pretended to be hit. The official investigation discovered misconduct by a Border Police officer, who was put on trial for his actions. During the 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis, Yair Netanyahu claimed a 2013 video from Egypt was an example of Pallywood and showed Palestinians faking their casualties. A 2023 BBC Verify analysis found that usage of the term increased during previous flare-ups in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, such as the 2014 Gaza War, the 2018–2019 Gaza border protests and the 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis. After the 2024 documentary film No Other Land, which depicts life under the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, won the 2025 Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature Film, Israeli news outlets Ynet and Israel National News published articles characterizing the film as "Pallywood propaganda". Analyses conducted by BBC Verify and Logically Facts found that usage of the Pallywood term had increased on social media platforms following the October 7 attacks, with BBC Verify finding a peak of 220,000 uses on Twitter in November 2023. Logically Facts also found that most usages of the term came from the United States, followed by India and Israel. During the Gaza war, conspiracy theories involving online influencers mocking victims and claiming that Palestinians are using "crisis actors" went viral on social media, often citing the "Pallywood" term. Israel's official Twitter account accused Gazans of placing live people in body bags before deleting the Tweet, while AIPAC promoted similar content. Many of the viral videos used to "prove" that crisis actors exist have been disproven. The term often results in anti-Muslim hate speech and was especially popular after Israel announced plans to increase its aerial bombardment of Gaza. A video showing a Palestinian child killed during an October 11 Israeli airstrike on Zeitoun was falsely claimed to be staged using a doll. The claim was promoted by official Israeli government social media accounts, including the X accounts of Israel's embassies in France and Austria, as well as pro-Israel and anti-Hamas accounts. In November 2023, Saleh al-Jafarawi, a Palestinian blogger and singer who lived in Gaza, was falsely accused by several pro-Israeli figures, including the country's official Twitter account, of being a "crisis actor". The false accusation claimed that al-Jafarawi pretended to be injured and hospitalised in a video while a social media post the next day showed him in good health. However, the included video actually depicted a Palestinian teenager wounded in a raid on Tulkarm in July 2023, who was falsely presented as al-Jafarawi. In the same month, Israeli diplomat Ofir Gendelman circulated a clip from a Lebanese short film, claiming that it was proof that Palestinians were faking their suffering and calling it an example of "Pallywood". Gendelman subsequently deleted the post after it was fact-checked. In early December 2023, The Jerusalem Post published an article falsely claiming that a dead 5-month-old Palestinian baby from Gaza was a doll. The Jerusalem Post later retracted the report with a statement on X, saying, "The article in question did not meet our editorial standards and was thus removed". The false claim was also promoted by others such as Israel's official Twitter account, Ben Shapiro, Hen Mazzig, Yoseph Haddad and StopAntisemitism. Israel's 2024 Rafah offensive led to a resurgence of Pallywood claims. Online posts misrepresented behind-the-scenes footage from the Palestinian drama series Bleeding Dirt as showing "crisis actors" in Rafah. In 2025, Marc Owen Jones wrote in Third World Quarterly, "As Israel's killing of thousands of Palestinian children and babies became harder to hide, high-profile Israeli accounts and media outlets claimed that Palestinians were fabricating casualty numbers and staging the killing of babies. The so-called 'Pallywood' narrative – a derogatory term suggesting that Palestinians stage scenes of suffering for propaganda purposes – has been a recurring theme in disinformation campaigns against Gaza." Jones also characterized US president Joe Biden saying in October 2023 that he had "no confidence in the number [of deaths] that the Palestinians are using" as reinforcing the Pallywood narrative. In August 2025, German newspapers Bild and Süddeutsche Zeitung published articles questioning the authenticity of photos from the Gaza Strip, with Bild accusing Anas Zayed Fteiha, a photojournalist working for Turkey's Anadolu Agency, of staging his photos of the Gaza Strip famine. The articles were cited by Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs as evidence of Pallywood. Fteiha denied the accusations and accused Bild of repeated breaches of journalistic ethics. He stated, "The photo they published to distort me is entirely real. It was taken during the filming of a documentary documenting the famine in Gaza, as children were scrambling for food or water. Everything in it was real, not staged or directed." The claims made in the Bild report were debunked by the Israeli fact-checking organization FakeReporter and the French newspaper Libération. Also in August 2025, sociologist Ron Dudai analysed the widespread denial among Israelis of Israeli atrocities in the Gaza war as being a part of the longstanding Pallywood strategy, noting that while in earlier iterations it consisted of elaborate work to create conspiracy theories to deny atrocities as in the case of Muhammad Al-Durrah, in the Gaza War era, "the intricate conspiracy theories of the past have given way to a cruder form of denialism that scholars call conspiracism — the reflexive dismissal of any evidence that contradicts one's interests as fabricated. Documentation is simply dismissed with a single word: 'Fake'." He notes the examples of the denialism about mass starvation and what he terms the ongoing Gaza genocide, stating: Israel's ongoing genocidal campaign in Gaza may be the most thoroughly documented atrocity in recent history, measured both by the sheer volume of evidence and the speed of its circulation. Smartphones and social media — which were still a world away during the genocides in Bosnia and Rwanda — allow events to be captured instantly, from countless angles, and shared globally in real time, with traditional media still playing a not-insignificant supporting role. And yet, faced with an unending flood of photos and videos of dead civilians, starving children, and entire neighborhoods reduced to rubble, much of the Israeli public — and a significant portion of Israel's supporters abroad — responds in one of two ways: either it is all fake, or else the Gazans deserved it. Often, paradoxically, it is both at once: "There are no dead children in Gaza, and it's good that we killed them." An Israeli Twitter account named Gazawood was created in November 2023. The account attempts to discredit Palestinians by claiming that they are exaggerating or faking their casualties, and uses out-of-context videos of cafés and restaurants to insinuate that the Gaza Strip famine is a hoax. FakeReporter researcher and OSINT specialist Ghassan Mattar stated, "Only around 5.75% of its content is actual debunking or fact-checking. The other content is just finding the most ridiculous information inside the video to claim it's fake, which is not how fact-checking works." Reporters Without Borders reported that the Gazawood term has been used as a pretext to discredit the credibility of Palestinian journalists reporting from the Gaza Strip. An investigation of the Gazawood account by Forbidden Stories, The Seventh Eye and Radio France Internationale found that it is run by Idan Knochen, an ultra-Orthodox Jew and fantasy novel author from Jerusalem. Richard Landes and Yossi Kuperwasser, former Director General of Israel's Ministry of Strategic Affairs, were also identified as being associated with the Gazawood account. Analysis Ruthie Blum wrote in 2008 that Richard Landes's claims, which she calls "pretty harsh", have led to him being labeled as a right-wing conspiracy theorist in certain circles. Chrisoula Lionis writes that Landes's language related to Pallywood "has all the hallmarks of conspiracy theory", but that the term nonetheless "does tap into a genre of Palestinian victim reportage", which T. J. Demos calls "clichéd and thus all too easily dismissed ... intended both to expose the truth of the traumatic suffering that has resulted from Israel's political and military policies and to elicit the audience's emotional sympathy as a way of mobilizing support for Palestinians". In 2014, Larry Derfner described Pallywood in +972 Magazine as "a particularly ugly ethnic slur". In 2018, Eyal Weizman, whose work with Forensic Architecture has been called "Pallywood" in Israel, replied that "the bastards' last line of defence is to call it 'fake news'. The minute they revert to this argument is when they've lost all the others." In an article published by Mondoweiss, Jonathan Cook argued that "Pallywood" was a convenient excuse used by Israelis to dismiss filmed evidence of brutality by their soldiers. In 2023, Muhammad Idrees Ahmad, Director of Journalism at the University of Essex, said that "cynical actors" misrepresenting footage from the Syrian civil war as being from the Gaza war "are handing a gift to the Hasbara crowd. The fact that they are posting this out-of-context footage is being used to suggest that all the footage online, including footage of real atrocities in Gaza, is somehow dubious." In 2024, French historian Jean-Pierre Filiu compared Pallywood claims of staged deaths to "the lies spread by the Kremlin when Russia struck a maternity hospital in March 2022 in the besieged Ukrainian port of Mariupol." Marc Owen Jones wrote that Pallywood "served to cast doubt on any evidence of Israeli attacks on civilians, framing such reports as manipulations or fabrications. By discrediting Palestinian voices and visual evidence, this narrative undermines the legitimacy of Palestinian grievances and attempts to shield Israeli actions from international scrutiny." In 2025, journalist Laila Al-Arian said that Pallywood was no more credible than the crisis actor conspiracy theories used to dismiss mass shootings in the United States, and said, "If you paint Palestinians as irrational, obsessed with martyrdom, you shift the conversation away from settler colonialism, land theft, ethnic cleansing." See also References California drought manipulation |
======================================== |
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_Massacre_denial] | [TOKENS: 4564] |
Contents Nanjing Massacre denial Denial of the Nanjing Massacre is a negationist claim asserting that the murder and rape of hundreds of thousands of Chinese soldiers and civilians by Imperial Japanese forces in Nanjing is a fabrication or exaggeration. Most historians accept the findings of the Tokyo tribunal with respect to the scope and nature of the atrocities which were committed by the Imperial Japanese Army after the Battle of Nanjing during the Second Sino-Japanese War. In Japan, however, there has been a debate over the extent and nature of the massacre, with some historians attempting to downplay or outright deny that the massacre took place. Estimates of the death toll vary widely, ranging from 40,000 to 200,000. Some scholars, notably negationists in Japan, have contended that the actual death toll is far lower, or even that the event was entirely fabricated and never occurred at all. These negationist accounts of the killings have become a staple of Japanese nationalist discourse. The massacre is also only briefly mentioned in some Japanese school textbooks. Scholars have also said that the Japanese version of the Wikipedia article (南京事件) emphasizes negationist narratives. Some Japanese journalists and social scientists, such as Tomio Hora and Katsuichi Honda, have played prominent roles in countering Nanjing Massacre denialism in the decades after the killings. Nonetheless, denialist accounts, such as those of Shūdō Higashinakano, have often created controversy in the global media, particularly in China and other East Asian nations. China–Japan relations are affected negatively by denial of the massacre, as it is seen in China as part of an overall unwillingness on Japan's part to admit and apologize for its aggression, or a perceived insensitivity regarding the killings. National identity Takashi Yoshida asserts that, "Nanjing has figured in the attempts of all three nations [China, Japan and the United States] to preserve and redefine national and ethnic pride and identity, assuming different kinds of significance based on each country's changing internal and external enemies." In Japan, interpretation of the Nanjing Massacre is a reflection upon the Japanese national identity and notions of "pride, honor and shame". Takashi Yoshida describes the Japanese debate over the Nanjing Massacre as "crystalliz[ing] a much larger conflict over what should constitute the ideal perception of the nation: Japan, as a nation, acknowledges its past and apologizes for its wartime wrongdoings; or ... stands firm against foreign pressures and teaches Japanese youth about the benevolent and courageous martyrs who fought a just war to save Asia from Western aggression." In some nationalist circles in Japan, speaking of a large-scale massacre at Nanjing is regarded as "'Japan bashing' (in the case of foreigners) or 'self-flagellation' (in the case of Japanese)". David Askew, an associate professor of law at Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University, characterizes the Nanjing Massacre as having "emerged as a fundamental keystone in the construction of the modern Chinese national identity". According to Askew, "a refusal to accept the 'orthodox' position on Nanjing can be construed as an attempt to deny the Chinese nation a legitimate voice in international society". Former Taiwanese President Lee Teng-hui had, on numerous occasions, claimed that the Nanjing Massacre was purely propaganda perpetrated by the Chinese communists and which could be placed into the same category as "fictitious history"; a position which has stirred controversy in both Mainland China and Taiwan. Lee had spent the first 22 years of life in Taiwan under Japanese rule, serving as a military officer when the island-nation was still under Japanese rule. In general, attitudes in Taiwan towards Japan are more positive than in the PRC due to the longer and less harsh Japanese administration of Taiwan compared to the Japanese occupation in the PRC. Furthermore, the geopolitical alignment of Taiwan and Japan against the PRC mean that the perception of Japan is less influenced by Japanese actions in WWII and more influenced by contemporary Japanese cultural exports. Issues of definition The precise definition of the geographical area involved, duration of the massacre, as well as who is to be considered and counted among the victims, forms a major part of both the definition of the massacre and the arguments of denialists. Among the most extreme denialists, casualty claims range from several dozen to several hundred. Masaaki Tanaka, a denialist, engaged in academic misconduct to support his claim that the massacre was a fabrication and death tolls were low. However, figures within the range of 50,000–300,000 are typically articulated among more sophisticated and mainstream historians. The International Military Tribunal for the Far East estimated at least 200,000 casualties and at least 20,000 cases of rape.[full citation needed] The common revisionist viewpoint, made by denialists such as Higashinakano Shudo, is that the geographical area of the incident should be limited to the few square kilometers of the city, and they typically estimate the population to be about 200,000–250,000. However, this geographic definition is almost universally unheard of outside of revisionist circles. Their use of 200,000–250,000 civilians also only includes those in the Nanjing Safety Zone, which does not include everyone inside of the city. Most historians include a much larger area around the city, including the Xiaguan district (the suburbs north of Nanjing city, about 31 km2 in size) and other areas on the outskirts of the city. In 2003, Zhang Lianhong estimated that the population of greater Nanjing was between 535,000 and 635,000 civilians and soldiers just prior to the Japanese occupation. In 2008, he revised his estimate to 468,000–568,000. Some historians also include six counties around Nanjing, known as the Nanjing Special Municipality. With the six surrounding counties included, the population of Nanjing is estimated to be more than 1 million. The duration of the incident is naturally defined by its geography: the earlier the Japanese entered the area, the longer the duration. The Battle of Nanjing ended on December 13, when the divisions of the Japanese Army entered the walled city of Nanjing. The Tokyo War Crime Tribunal defined the period of the massacre to the ensuing six weeks. More conservative estimates say the massacre started on December 14, when the troops entered the Safety Zone, and that it lasted for six weeks. Most scholars have accepted figures between 50,000 and 300,000 dead as an approximate total. Negationists in Japan, however, have contended at times that the actual death toll is far lower, or even that the event was entirely fabricated and never occurred at all. According to part of the official stance of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs: The Government of Japan believes that it cannot be denied that following the entrance of the Japanese Army into Nanjing in 1937, the killing of noncombatants, looting and other acts occurred. However, there are numerous theories as to the actual number of victims, and the Government of Japan believes it is difficult to determine which the correct number is. This interpretation of events questions the true number of victims killed in Nanjing and avoids directly stating the culpability of Japanese soldiers for the atrocities. The remainder of the Ministry's stance reiterates the lengths to which Japan has so far apologized for the war actions, including in statements from several prime ministers. However, the Ministry's definition of the Nanjing Massacre remains vague and open to more revisionist interpretations. History and censorship during the war During the war, Japanese media and newspapers typically portrayed a positive view of the war in China. Reports on the massacre were generally muted, and newspaper reports and photos typically emphasized cooperation between Chinese civilians and Japanese soldiers. Massacre denialists claim that the news published in the Japanese media and newspapers were "true" and "reliable" stories. However, most mainstream historians counter that it is well known that the Naikaku Jōhōkyoku (Cabinet Information Bureau), a consortium of military, politicians and professionals created in 1936 as a "committee" and upgraded to a "division" in 1937, applied censorship of all the media of the Shōwa regime and that this office held a policing authority over the realm of publishing. Therefore, the Naikaku Jōhōkyoku's activities were proscriptive as well as prescriptive. Besides issuing detailed guidelines to publishers, it made suggestions that were all but commands. From 1938, the print media "would come to realize that their survival depended upon taking cues from the Cabinet Information Bureau and its flagship publication, Shashin shūhō, designers of the 'look' of the soldier, and the 'look' of the war". Article 12 of the censorship guideline for newspapers issued in September 1937 stated that any news article or photograph "unfavorable" to the Imperial Army was subject to a gag. Article 14 prohibited any "photographs of atrocities" but endorsed reports about the "cruelty of the Chinese" soldiers and civilians. Owing to the censorship, none of the hundred Japanese reporters in Nanjing when the city was captured wrote anything unfavorable to their countrymen. In 1956, however, Masatake Imai, correspondent for the Tokyo Asahi Shimbun who reported only about the "majestic and soul-stirring ceremony" of the triumphal entry of the Imperial Army, revealed he witnessed a mass execution of 400 to 500 Chinese men near Tokyo Asahi's office. "I wish I could write about it", he told his colleague Nakamura. "Someday, we will, but not for the time being. But we sure saw it", Nakamura answered. Shigeharu Matsumoto, the Shanghai bureau chief of Dōmei Tsushin, wrote that the Japanese reporters he interviewed all told him they saw between 2,000 and 3,000 corpses around the Xiaguan area and a reporter, Yuji Maeda, saw recruits executing Chinese prisoners of war with bayonets. Jiro Suzuki, a correspondent for the Tokyo Nichi Nichi Shimbun, wrote, "When I went back to the Zhongshan Gate, I saw for the first time an unearthly, brutal massacre. On the top of the wall, about 25 meters high, the prisoners of war were rounded up in a line. They were being stabbed by bayonets and shoved away off the wall. A number of Japanese soldiers polished their bayonets, shouted to themselves once and thrust their bayonets in the chest or back of POWs." Historian Tokushi Kasahara notes, "Some deniers argue that Nanjing was much more peaceful than we generally think. They always show some photographs with Nanjing refugees selling some food in the streets or Chinese people smiling in the camps. They are forgetting about Japanese propaganda. The Imperial Army imposed strict censorship. Any photographs with dead bodies couldn't get through. So photographers had to remove all the bodies before taking pictures of streets and buildings in the city ... Even if the photos were not staged, the refugees had no choice but to fawn on the Japanese soldiers. Acting otherwise meant their deaths". Iris Chang's 1997 book, The Rape of Nanking, renewed global interest in the Nanjing Massacre. The book sold more than half a million copies when it was first published in the US, and according to The New York Times, received general critical acclaim. The Wall Street Journal wrote that it was the "first comprehensive examination of the destruction of this Chinese imperial city", and that Chang "skillfully excavated from oblivion the terrible events that took place".[citation needed] The Philadelphia Inquirer wrote that it was a "compelling account of a horrendous episode that, until recently, has been largely forgotten".[citation needed] The text, however, was not without controversy. Chang's account drew on new sources to break new ground in the study of the period. Japanese ultranationalists maintained that the Nanjing Massacre was a fabrication which sought "to demonize the Japanese race, culture, history, and nation". Takashi Hoshiyama characterizes opinion in Japan about the Nanjing Massacre as "broadly divided into two schools of thought: the massacre affirmation school, which asserts that a large-scale massacre took place, and the massacre denial school, which asserts that, a certain number of isolated aberrations aside, no massacre took place". In the massacre affirmation school, both Ikuhiko Hata and Tokushi Kasahara are representative academic leaders of this school. The books the two wrote were published and widely read, based on reliable researches. However, even in the school over 300,000 casualties are decided to be too large, considering the population and the scale of the military and this is against the formal released number of China. In Japan, the comments in the webpage of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan and the description of Japanese textbooks are consistent with the academic theories of the school. David Askew asserts that the debate over the Nanjing Massacre has been hijacked by "two large groups of layperson activists". "Chinese" are turned into a single, homogenised voice and portrayed as sinister and manipulative twisters of the truth, while the similarly homogenized "Japanese" are portrayed as uniquely evil, as cruel and blood-thirsty beyond redemption, and as deniers of widely accepted historical truths. Both positions are victimisation narratives. One depicts the Chinese as helpless victims of brutal Japanese imperialism in the winter of 1937–38, while the other depicts the gullible Japanese, innocent in the ways of the world, as victims of Chinese machinations and propaganda in the post-war era. Japanese affirmationists not only accept the validity of these tribunals and their findings, but also assert that Japan must stop denying the past and come to terms with Japan's responsibility for the war of aggression against its Asian neighbors. Affirmationists have drawn the attention of the Japanese public to atrocities committed by the Japanese Army during World War II in general and the Nanjing Massacre in particular in support of an anti-war agenda. The most extreme denialists, by and large, reject the findings of the tribunals as a kind of "victor's justice" in which only the winning side's version of events are accepted. Described within Japan as the Illusion School (maboroshi-ha), they deny the massacre and argue that only a few POWs and civilians were killed by the Japanese military in Nanjing. More moderate denialists argue that between several thousand and 38,000–42,000 were massacred. Prominent Japanese denialists Massacre denialists such as Higashinakano argue that the Nanjing Massacre was a fabrication and war-time propaganda spread by the Chinese Nationalists and Communists. He argues that the activities of the Japanese military in Nanjing were in accordance with international law and were humane. Among other claims, he has denied that there was execution of POWs in uniform, and cited anecdotes claiming that Chinese POWs were treated humanely by Japanese soldiers. However, Higashinakano has also claimed at times that the executed POWs were illegitimate combatants, and so their execution was legitimate under international law. Higashinakano believes some several thousand "illegitimate combatants" may have been executed in such a fashion. What Higashinakano believed is against the articles of Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, which was ratified by Japan and China. Japan violated the spirit and the letter of the laws of war. For example, according to historian Akira Fujiwara, on August 6, 1937, deputy minister of Military of Japan notified Japanese troops in Shanghai of the army's proposition to remove the constraints of international law on the treatment of Chinese prisoners.[clarification needed] This directive also advised staff officers to stop using the term "prisoner of war". During the massacre, Japanese troops in fact embarked on a determined search for former soldiers, in which thousands of young men were captured, most of whom were killed. In another case, Japanese troops gathered 1,300 Chinese soldiers and civilians at the Taiping Gate and killed them. The victims were blown up with landmines, then doused with petrol before being set on fire. Those that were left alive afterward were killed with bayonets. F. Tillman Durdin and Archibald Steele, American news correspondents, reported that they had seen bodies of killed Chinese soldiers forming mounds six feet high at Nanjing's Yijiang Gate in the north. Durdin, who was working for the New York Times, made a tour of Nanjing before his departure from the city. He heard waves of machine-gun fire and witnessed the Japanese soldiers gun down some two hundred Chinese within ten minutes. Two days later, in his report to the New York Times, he stated that the alleys and street were filled with civilian bodies, including women and children. A claim that Harold Timperley, whose report formed the basis of the Tribunal's findings, was reporting only hearsay, and that thus, the figure of 300,000 dead was "unreal", drew a response from Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi, who suggested that Higashinakano's assertions and conclusion were not "sensible": Higashinakano jumps to this conclusion in all earnestness because he clings to a hypothetical fixation that the Atrocity never happened. This forces him to seize any shred of evidence, whether sound or not, to sustain and systematize that delusion. Higashinakano has also at times denied the occurrence of mass rape on the part of Japanese troops, at times ascribing it to Chinese soldiers, and at other times simply denying its occurrence. The occurrence of rape during the massacre is testified to by John Rabe, elected leader of the Nanjing Safety Zone, who writes: Two Japanese soldiers have climbed over the garden wall and are about to break into our house. When I appear they give the excuse that they saw two Chinese soldiers climb over the wall. When I show them my party badge, they return the same way. In one of the houses in the narrow street behind my garden wall, a woman was raped, and then wounded in the neck with a bayonet. I managed to get an ambulance so we can take her to Kulou Hospital. ... Last night up to 1,000 women and girls are said to have been raped, about 100 girls at Ginling Girls College alone. You hear nothing but rape. If husbands or brothers intervene, they're shot. What you hear and see on all sides is the brutality and bestiality of the Japanese soldiers. Minnie Vautrin, a professor at Ginling College, wrote in her diary on that day, "Oh God, control the cruel beastliness of the Japanese soldiers in Nanking tonight", and on the 19th, "In my wrath, I wished I had the power to smite them for their dastardly work. How ashamed women of Japan would be if they knew these tales of horror." Vautrin also wrote in her diary that she had to go to the Japanese embassy repeatedly from December 18 to January 13 to get proclamations to prohibit Japanese soldiers from committing crimes at Ginling because the soldiers tore the documents up before taking women away. Xia Shuqin, a woman testifying that she had been a massacre victim, sued Higashinakano for defamation for a claim made in a book written in 1998 that the murder of her family had been performed by Chinese, rather than Japanese, soldiers. On 5 February 2009, the Japanese Supreme Court ordered Higashinakano and the publisher, Tendensha, to pay 4 million yen in damages to Xia. According to the court, Higashinakano failed to prove that she and the girl were different persons, and that she was not a witness of the Nanjing Massacre, as Higashinakano had claimed in his book. Masaaki Tanaka was discredited after it was proven that he engaged in academic misconduct by altering several hundred places of an important document. In his book The Fabrication of the 'Nanjing Massacre', Masaaki Tanaka alleges that there was no indiscriminate killing in Nanjing and that the massacre was a fabrication manufactured by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) and the Chinese government for the purpose of propaganda. He alleged that the Tokyo Tribunal was "victor's justice" and not a fair trial; that there were 2000 deaths for the entirety of the massacre; and that many civilians were killed by the Chinese military. Japanese Wikipedia The Japanese Wikipedia, the fourth largest Wikipedia edition, has been criticized for promoting negationist or revisionist narratives about the Nanjing Massacre. Scholars have compared and contrasted the article on the massacre (as well as other World War II–era topics) across various languages. In a 2018 book, Florian Schneider of Leiden University noted that a 2015 version of the Japanese article attempted to imply that the rape and murder of Chinese civilians had occurred in the context of apprehending Chinese defectors. Schneider also noted that there were few to no images on the article; instead it contained a single image of Japanese soldiers checking Chinese prisoners for weapons. In a 2019 paper, Karl Gustafsson of Stockholm University noted that the first paragraph of the Japanese article expressed doubt about the details of the incident and "thereby portrays the Japanese military less negatively". In a 2021 article published in Slate magazine, Yumiko Sato similarly reported that the article read, "The Chinese side calls it the Nanjing Massacre, but the truth of the incident is still unknown", and identified a lack of pictures on the article. The Japanese Wikipedia editor and academic Sae Kitamura agreed that revisionism was an issue, but corrected some technical aspects of Sato's arguments. See also Defunct Defunct Notes and references Bibliography |
======================================== |
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theories_in_Turkey] | [TOKENS: 390] |
Contents Conspiracy theories in Turkey Conspiracy theories are a prevalent feature of culture and politics in Turkey. Conspiracism is an important phenomenon in understanding Turkish politics. This is explained by a desire to "make up for lost Ottoman grandeur", the humiliation of perceiving Turkey as part of "the malfunctioning half" of the world, and a "low level of media literacy among the Turkish population." Prevalence Turkish author and journalist Mustafa Akyol describes the reason for the prevalence of conspiracy theorizing in Turkey as "it makes us feel important. If the world is conspiring against us, we must be really special. It is, I believe, the way we Turks make up for our lost Ottoman grandeur." Turkish economist Selim Koru has pointed to the humiliation of perceiving Turkey as part of the "malfunctioning [half]" of the world. Turkish consumers are the second-most media illiterate when compared to countries in Europe, leaving them especially vulnerable to fake news, a 2018 report released by the Soros Open Society Institute said. A combination of low education levels, low reading scores, low media freedom and low societal trust went into making the score, which saw Turkey being placed above only North Macedonia. According to the Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2018, Turkey with some distance is the country with most made-up news reports in the world. A distinct feature of conspiracy theorizing in Turkey is that at the alleged command and control end of an alleged conspiracy scheme is usually narrated to be governments because the worldview taught in the Turkish education system is massively focused on the state. Doğan Gürpınar, a scholar whose areas of study include nationalism, historiography, and ideologies in Turkey, argues that conspiracism's power to shape intellectual discourse and ideological standpoints and to represent the state tradition is "unique to Turkey". List of conspiracy theories See also References Bibliography Further reading California drought manipulation |
======================================== |
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theories_in_the_Arab_world] | [TOKENS: 1532] |
Contents Conspiracy theories in the Arab world Conspiracy theories -- (i.e. explanations for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy, generally by powerful sinister groups, often political in motivation), but always when other explanations are more probable -- are a prevalent feature of Arab politics, according to a number of sources. A 1994 paper in the journal Political Psychology by Prof. Matthew Gray writes they "are a common and popular phenomenon" that are important to understanding the political landscape of the Arab world. Variants include conspiracies involving Islamic anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism, the machinations of Western colonialism, superpowers, oil, and the war on terror, which is often referred to in Arab media as a "War against Islam". Roger Cohen theorizes that the popularity of conspiracy theories in the Arab world is "the ultimate refuge of the powerless". The prevalence of conspiracy theories reflects effective top-down dissemination of disinformation by state actors, rather than a unique susceptibility of Arab culture to conspiracy, as some have claimed. State hostility and weak protections for journalists present major obstacles to challenging conspiracy theories, as journalists struggle to gather information and put their lives at risk by contradicting their governments. The spread of antisemitic and anti-Zionist conspiracism in the Arab world and the Middle East has seen an extraordinary proliferation since the beginning of the Internet Era. Gray points out that actual conspiracies such as the 1956 plot to seize control of the Suez Canal encourage speculation and creation of imagined conspiracies. After the 1967 Six-Day War which resulted in a decisive Arab defeat, conspiracy theories started to gain traction in the Arab world. The war was perceived as a conspiracy by Israel and the United States—or its opposite: a Soviet plot to bring Egypt into the Soviet sphere of influence. Thomas Friedman notes the numerous conspiracy theories concerning the Lebanese civil war, attributing the source of the conflict to "Israelis, the Syrians, the Americans, the Soviets, or Henry Kissinger" in an attempt to destabilize the Lebanese government. Jewish conspiracies The Anti-Defamation League lists conspiracies about Jews and Zionists including spreading poisons (Jan 1995, Al-Ahram), spreading AIDS (Al-Shaab), blood rituals (June 1995, Al-Ahram), leading an international conspiracy against Islam (March 1995, Al-Ahram), and that the Holocaust is a myth (Dec 1995 – Feb 1996, Egyptian Gazette). Conspiracy theories hold the Jews responsible for killing American Presidents Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy, and causing the French and Russian Revolution. Zionists are seen as a threat to the world. A widespread conspiracy theory after the September 11 attacks blamed Israel and Mossad for the attacks. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an infamous hoax document purporting to be a Jewish plan for world domination, is commonly read and promoted in the Muslim world. Conspiracy theorists in the Arab world have claimed that ISIL leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was in fact an Israeli Mossad agent and actor called Simon Elliot. The rumors claim that NSA documents leaked by Edward Snowden reveal this connection. Snowden's lawyer has called the story "a hoax". In early 2020, according to Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) reports, there have been numerous reports in the Arab press that accused the US and Israel of being behind the creation and spread of the deadly COVID-19 pandemic as part of an economic and psychological war against China. One report in the Saudi daily newspaper Al-Watan claimed that it was no coincidence that the coronavirus was absent from the US and Israel, despite the US having had at least 12 confirmed cases. The US and Israel have also been accused of creating and spreading other diseases, including Ebola, Zika, SARS, avian flu and swine flu, through anthrax and mad cow disease. Animal-related conspiracy theories involving Israel are prominent, alleging use of animals by Israel to attack civilians or to conduct espionage. These conspiracies are often reported as evidence of a Zionist or Israeli plot. Examples include the December 2010 shark attacks in Egypt and the 2011 capture in Saudi Arabia of a griffon vulture carrying an Israeli-labeled satellite tracking device. Writing in The Times, James Hider linked the responses to the shark incident with those to the vulture incident and ascribed the reactions in Arab countries to "paranoia among Israel's enemies and its nominal friends", adding that "evidence of Mossad using animals is scant". Gil Yaron wrote in The Toronto Star that "Many animals undoubtedly serve in Israel's army and security services: dogs sniff out bombs and alpaca help mountaineers carry their loads. [...] But tales about the use of sharks, birds, rodents or, as has also been claimed, insects in the service of the military are more the fruit of imagination than hard fact". American conspiracies Following Egypt's 2012 presidential election, an Egyptian television station stated that the United States government and Egypt's ruling military council had rigged the election in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohammed Morsi. The theory was seen as fueling a 15 July 2012 attack of tomatoes and shoes by Egyptian Copt protestors on the motorcade of the visiting US Secretary of State. The widespread view that America was conspiring to support Morsi prompted President Barack Obama to note that conspiracy theories abound both alleging US support for and against Morsi. The rise of the Islamic State gave rise to conspiracy theories that it had been created by the US, CIA, Mossad, or Hillary Clinton. The same happened after the rise of Boko Haram. In Commentary, Daniel Pipes accused prominent Palestinian journalist Said Aburish of attributing the problems of the Arab world "to a vast British and American conspiracy." Reviewing Aburish's A Brutal Friendship: The West and the Arab Elite, Pipes remarked that "outlandish as it may be, the book represents a main line of Arab thinking" and therefore "cannot be so easily dismissed." Conspiracy theorists in the Arab world have advanced rumors that the US is secretly behind the existence and emboldening of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, as part of an attempt to further destabilize the Middle East. After such rumors became widespread, the US embassy in Lebanon issued an official statement denying the allegations, calling them a complete fabrication. The "War against Islam" conspiracy "War against Islam", also called the "War on Islam" or "Attack on Islam", is a conspiracy theory narrative in Islamist discourse to describe an alleged conspiracy to harm, weaken or annihilate the societal system of Islam, using military, economic, social and cultural means. The perpetrators of the conspiracy are alleged to be non-Muslims, particularly the Western world and "false Muslims", allegedly in collusion with political actors in the Western world. While the contemporary conspiracy theory narrative of the "War against Islam" mostly covers general issues of societal transformations in modernization and secularization as well as general issues of international power politics among modern states, the Crusades are often claimed as its supposed starting point. Other conspiracies After the fall of Morsi, xenophobic conspiracy theories have singled out Palestinians and Syrian refugees as part of a plot to bring the Muslim Brotherhood back to power. Pro-Morsi supporters single out Saudis and Emiratis as part of a counter conspiracy. A common conspiracy theory is about soft drink brands Coca-Cola and Pepsi, that the drinks deliberately contain pork and alcohol and their names carry pro-Israel and anti-Islamic messages. See also References Bibliography |
======================================== |
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_genocide#Views_in_Pakistan] | [TOKENS: 11612] |
Contents Bangladesh genocide Systematic events § indicates events in the internal resistance movement linked to the Indo-Pakistani War.‡ indicates events in the Indo-Pakistani War linked to the internal resistance movement in Bangladesh. The Bangladesh genocide[a] was the ethnic cleansing of Bengalis residing in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) during the Bangladesh Liberation War, perpetrated by the Pakistan Army and the Razakars militia. It began on 25 March 1971, as Operation Searchlight was launched by West Pakistan (now Pakistan) to militarily subdue the Bengali population of East Pakistan; the Bengalis comprised the demographic majority and had been calling for independence from the Pakistani state. Seeking to curtail the Bengali self-determination movement, erstwhile Pakistani president Yahya Khan approved a large-scale military deployment, and in the nine-month-long conflict that ensued, Pakistani soldiers and local pro-Pakistan militias killed between 300,000 and 3,000,000 Bengalis and raped between 200,000 and 400,000 Bengali women in a systematic campaign of mass murder and genocidal sexual violence. West Pakistanis in particular were shown by the news that the operation was carried out because of the 'rebellion by the East Pakistanis' and many activities at the time were hidden from them, including rape and ethnic cleansing of East Pakistanis by the Pakistani military. Although the majority of the victims were Bengali Muslims, Hindus were especially targeted. In their investigation of the genocide, the Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists concluded that Pakistan's campaign also involved the attempt to exterminate or forcibly remove a significant portion of the country's Hindu populace. The West Pakistani government, which had implemented discriminatory legislation in East Pakistan, asserted that Hindus were behind the Mukti Bahini (Bengali resistance fighters) revolt and that resolving the local "Hindu problem" would end the conflict—Khan's government and the Pakistani elite thus regarded the crackdown as a strategic policy. Genocidal rhetoric accompanied the campaign: Pakistani men believed that the sacrifice of Hindus was needed to fix the national malaise. In the countryside, Pakistan Army moved through villages and specifically asked for places where Hindus lived before burning them down. Hindus were identified by checking circumcision or by demanding the recitation of Muslim prayers. This also resulted in the migration of around eight million East Pakistani refugees into India, 80–90% of whom were Hindus. Both Muslim and Hindu women were targeted for rape. West Pakistani men wanted to cleanse a nation corrupted by the presence of Hindus and believed that the sacrifice of Hindu women was needed; Bengali women were thus viewed as Hindu or Hindu-like. Pakistan's activities during the Bangladesh Liberation War served as a catalyst for India's military intervention in support of the Mukti Bahini, triggering the Indo-Pakistani War that began on December 3, 1971. The conflict and the genocide formally ended on 16 December 1971, when the joint forces of Bangladesh and India received the Pakistani Instrument of Surrender. As a result of the conflict, approximately 10 million East Bengali refugees fled to Indian territory while up to 30 million people were internally displaced out of the 70 million total population of East Pakistan. There was also ethnic violence between the Bengali majority and the Bihari minority during the conflict; between 1,000 and 150,000 Biharis were killed in reprisal attacks by Bengali militias and mobs, as Bihari collaboration with the West Pakistani campaign had led to further anti-Bihari sentiment. Since Pakistan's defeat and Bangladesh's independence, the title "Stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh" has commonly been used to refer to the Bihari community, which was denied the right to hold Bangladeshi citizenship until 2008. Allegations of a genocide in Bangladesh were rejected by most UN member states at the time and rarely appear in textbooks and academic sources on genocide studies. Background Following the Partition of India, the new state of Pakistan represented a geographical anomaly, with two wings separated by 1,600 kilometres (1,000 mi) of Indian territory. The wings were not only separated geographically, but also culturally. The authorities of the West viewed the Bengali Muslims in the East as "too 'Bengali'" and their application of Islam as "inferior and impure", believing this made the Bengalis unreliable "co-religionists". The Pakistani leadership perceived elements of Hindu influence within Bengali language and culture. As a result, they made repeated efforts to mitigate or eradicate these perceived Hindu influences. Politicians in West Pakistan began a strategy to forcibly assimilate the Bengalis culturally and religiously. Muslims of Western Pakistan held political power over and looked down on Bengali Muslims, denigrated as darker skinned as compared to light skinned Punjabi-Pathans. The Bengali people were the demographic majority in Pakistan, making up an estimated 75 million in East Pakistan, compared with 55 million in the predominantly Punjabi-speaking West Pakistan. The majority in the East were Muslim, with large minorities of Hindus, Buddhists and Christians. In 1948, a few months after the creation of Pakistan, Governor-General Muhammad Ali Jinnah declared Urdu as the national language of the newly formed state, although only four per cent of Pakistan's population spoke Urdu at that time. He mentioned that the people of East Bengal could choose what would be its provincial language, and branded those who were against the use of Urdu as the national language of Pakistan as communists, traitors and enemies of the state. The refusal by successive governments to recognise Bengali as the second national language culminated in the Bengali language movement and strengthened support for the newly formed Awami League, which was founded in the East as an alternative to the ruling Muslim League. A 1952 protest in Dhaka, the capital of East Pakistan, was forcibly broken up, resulting in the deaths of several protesters. Bengali nationalists viewed those who had died as martyrs for their cause, and the violence led to calls for secession. The Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 caused further grievances, as the military had assigned no extra units to the defence of the East. This was a matter of concern to the Bengalis who saw their nation undefended in case of Indian attack during the conflict of 1965, and that Ayub Khan, the President of Pakistan, was willing to lose the East if it meant gaining Kashmir. The slow response to the Bhola cyclone which struck on 12 November 1970 is widely seen as a contributing factor in the December 1970 general election. The East Pakistan-based Awami League, headed by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, won a national majority in the first democratic election since the creation of Pakistan, sweeping East Pakistan. But, the West Pakistani establishment prevented them from forming a government. President Yahya Khan, encouraged by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, banned the Awami League and declared martial law. The Pakistani Army demolished Ramna Kali Mandir (temple) and killed 85 Hindus. On 22 February 1971, General Yahya Khan is reported to have said "Kill three million of them, and the rest will eat out of our hands." Some Bengalis supported a united Pakistan and opposed secession from it. According to Indian academic Sarmila Bose, these pro-Pakistan Bengalis constituted a significant minority, and included the Islamic parties. Moreover, many Awami League voters who hoped to achieve provincial autonomy may not have desired secession. Additionally, some Bengali officers and soldiers remained loyal to the Pakistani Army and were taken as prisoners of war by India along with other West Pakistani soldiers. Thus, according to Sarmila Bose, there were many pro-regime Bengalis who killed and persecuted the pro-liberation fighters. Sydney Schanberg reported the formation of armed civilian units by the Pakistani Army in June 1971. Only a minority of the recruits were Bengali, while most were Biharis and Urdu speakers. The units with local knowledge played an important role in the implementation of the Pakistani Army's genocide. American writer Gary J. Bass believes that the breakup of Pakistan was not inevitable, identifying 25 March 1971 as the point where the idea of a united Pakistan ended for Bengalis with the start of military operations. According to John H. Gill, since there was widespread polarisation between pro-Pakistan Bengalis and pro-liberation Bengalis during the war, those internal battles are still playing out in the domestic politics of modern-day Bangladesh. Operation Searchlight Operation Searchlight was a planned military operation carried out by the Pakistani Army to curb elements of the separatist Bengali nationalist movement in East Pakistan in March 1971. The Pakistani state justified commencing Operation Searchlight on the basis of anti-Bihari violence by Bengalis in early March. Ordered by the government in West Pakistan, this was seen as the sequel to Operation Blitz which had been launched in November 1970. On 1 March 1971, East Pakistan governor Admiral Syed Mohammed Ahsan was replaced after disagreeing with military action in East Pakistan. His successor Sahibzada Yaqub Khan resigned after refusing to use soldiers to quell a mutiny and disagreement with military action in East Pakistan. According to Indian academic Sarmila Bose, the postponement of the National Assembly on 1 March led to widespread lawlessness spread by Bengali protesters during the period of 1–25 March, in which the Pakistani government lost control over much of the province. Bose asserts that during this 25-day period of lawlessness, attacks by Bengalis on non-Bengalis were common as well as attacks by Bengalis on Pakistani military personnel who, according to Bose and Anthony Mascarenhas, showed great restraint until 25 March, when Operation Searchlight began. Bose also described the atrocities committed by the Pakistani Army in her book. According to Anthony Mascarenhas, the actions of the Pakistani Army compared to the violence by Bengalis was "altogether worse and on a grander scale." On the night of 25 March 1971, the Pakistani Army launched Operation Searchlight. Time magazine dubbed General Tikka Khan the "Butcher of Bengal" for his role in Operation Searchlight. Targets of the operation included Jagannath Hall which was a dormitory for non-Muslim students of Dhaka University, Rajarbagh Police Lines, and Pilkhana, which is the headquarters of East Pakistan Rifles. About 34 students were killed in the dormitories of Dhaka University. Neighbourhoods of old Dhaka which had a majority Hindu population were also attacked. Robert Payne, an American journalist, estimated that 7,000 people had been killed and 3,000 arrested in that night. Teachers of Dhaka University were killed in the operation by the Pakistani Army. Sheikh Mujib was arrested by the Pakistani Army on 25 March. Ramna Kali Mandir was demolished by the Pakistani Army in March 1971. The original plan envisioned taking control of the major cities on 26 March 1971, and then eliminating all opposition, political or military, within one month. The prolonged Bengali resistance was not anticipated by Pakistani planners. The main phase of Operation Searchlight ended with the fall of the last major town in Bengali hands in mid May. The countryside still remained almost evenly contested. The first report of the Bangladesh genocide was published by West Pakistani journalist Anthony Mascarenhas in The Sunday Times, London on 13 June 1971 titled "Genocide". He wrote: "I saw Hindus, hunted from village to village and door to door, shot off-hand after a cursory 'short-arm inspection' showed they were uncircumcised. I have heard the screams of men bludgeoned to death in the compound of the Circuit House (civil administrative headquarters) in Comilla. I have seen truckloads of other human targets and those who had the humanity to try to help them hauled off 'for disposal' under the cover of darkness and curfew." This article helped turn world opinion against Pakistan and decisively encouraged the Government of India to intervene. On 2 August 1971, Time magazine correspondent sent a dispatch that provided detailed description of the Pakistani army-led destruction in East Pakistan. It wrote that cities have whole sections damaged from shelling and aerial bombardments. The dispatch wrote: "In Dhaka, where soldiers set sections of the Old City ablaze with flamethrowers and then machine-gunned thousands as they tried to escape the cordon of fire, nearly 25 blocks have been bulldozed clear, leaving open areas set incongruously amid jam-packed slums." It quoted a senior US official as saying "It is the most incredible, calculated thing since the days of the Nazis in Poland." Archer K. Blood, American diplomat, wrote on 28 March 1971 in the Blood Telegram addressing Richard Nixon administration's disregard for the situation: "with support of the Pak military, non-Bengali Muslims are systematically attacking poor people's quarters and murdering Bengalis and Hindus." Estimated death toll On the high end, Bangladeshi authorities claim that as many as 3 million people were killed; the lowest estimate comes from the controversial Hamoodur Rahman Commission, the official Pakistani government investigation, which claimed the figure was 26,000 civilian casualties. The figure of 3 million has become embedded in Bangladeshi culture and literature. Sayyid A. Karim, Bangladesh's first foreign secretary alleges that the source of the figure was Pravda, the news-arm of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Independent researchers have estimated the death toll to be around 300,000 to 500,000 people while others estimate the casualty figure to be 3 million. Midway through the genocide, the CIA and the State Department conservatively estimated that 200,000 people had been killed. The estimate of 3 million has come under strict scrutiny. According to Sarmila Bose's controversial book Dead Reckoning: Memories of the 1971 Bangladesh War, the number lies somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000. However, her book was the subject of strong criticism by journalists; writer and visual artist Naeem Mohaiemen; Nayanika Mookherjee, an anthropologist at Durham University; and others. In 1976, the International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh undertook a comprehensive population survey in Matlab, Noakhali where a total of 868 excess wartime deaths were recorded; this led to an estimated overall excess number of deaths in the whole of Bangladesh of nearly 500,000. Based on this study, the British Medical Journal in 2008, conducted a study by Ziad Obermeyer, Christopher J. L. Murray, and Emmanuela Gakidou which estimated that 125,000–505,000 civilians died as a result of the conflict; the authors note that this is far higher than a previous estimate of 58,000 by Uppsala University and the Peace Research Institute, Oslo. This figure is supported by the statements of Bangladeshi author Ahmed Sharif in 1996, who added that "they kept the truth hidden for getting political advantages." American political scientists Richard Sisson and Leo E. Rose give a low-end estimate of 300,000 dead, killed by all parties, and they deny that a genocide occurred, while American political scientist R. J. Rummel estimated that about 1.5 million people were killed in Bangladesh. Indian journalist Nirmal Sen claims that the total number killed was about 250,000 and among them, about 100,000 were Bengalis and the rest were Biharis. A 2018 paper by Christian Gerlach concluded that overall deaths due to the war in East Pakistan slightly exceeded half a million and could not have exceeded 1 million, adding that the majority of the dead were rural dwellers who died of "hunger, want, and exhaustion" with many deaths occurring in the year following the conflict. Out of 200,000 members of the Awami League, the paper states that, 17,000 were killed with the leaders of the league experiencing a death ratio of 15 to 20 out of 167. The paper also denies based on statistical evidence that there was a coordinated attempt to exterminate the Bengali intelligentsia stating: "if one accepts the data published by the Bangladesh propaganda ministry, 4.2 per cent of all university professors were killed, along with 1.4 per cent of all college teachers, 0.6 per cent of all secondary and primary school teachers, and 0.6 per cent of all teaching personnel. On the basis of the aforementioned Ministry of Education data, 1.2 per cent of all teaching personnel were killed. This is hardly proof of an extermination campaign." Many of those killed were the victims of radical religious paramilitary militias formed by the West Pakistani Army, including the Razakars, Al-Shams and Al-Badr forces. There are many mass graves in Bangladesh, and more are continually being discovered (such as one in an old well near a mosque in Dhaka, located in the Mirpur region of the city, which was discovered in August 1999). The first night of war on Bengalis, which is documented in telegrams from the American Consulate in Dhaka to the United States State Department, saw indiscriminate killings of students of Dhaka University and other civilians. On 16 December 2002, the George Washington University's National Security Archive published a collection of declassified documents, consisting mostly of communications between US embassy officials and USIS centres in Dhaka and India, and officials in Washington, D.C. These documents show that US officials working in diplomatic institutions within Bangladesh used the terms selective genocide and genocide (see Blood telegram) to describe events they had knowledge of at the time. The complete chronology of events as reported to the Nixon administration can be found on the Department of State website. Pro-Pakistan Islamist militias The Jamaat-e-Islami party as well as some other pro-Pakistani Islamists opposed the Bangladeshi independence struggle and collaborated with the Pakistani state and armed forces out of Islamic solidarity. According to political scientist Peter Tomsen, Pakistan's secret service, in conjunction with the political party Jamaat-e-Islami, formed militias such as Al-Badr ("the moon") and the Al-Shams ("the sun") to conduct operations against the nationalist movement. These militias targeted noncombatants and committed rapes as well as other crimes. Local collaborators known as Razakars also took part in the atrocities. The term has since become a pejorative akin to the western term "Judas". Members of the Muslim League, Nizam-e-Islam, Jamaat-e-Islami and Jamiat Ulema Pakistan, who had lost the election, collaborated with the military and acted as an intelligence organisation for them. Jamaat-e-Islami members and some of its leaders collaborated with the Pakistani forces in rapes and targeted killings. The atrocities by Al-Badr and the Al-Shams garnered worldwide attention from news agencies; accounts of massacres and rapes were widely reported. Killing of Bengali intellectuals During the war, the Pakistani Army and its local collaborators, mainly Jamaat e Islami carried out a systematic execution of the leading Bengali intellectuals. A number of professors from Dhaka University were killed during the first few days of the war. However, the most extreme cases of targeted killing of intellectuals took place during the last few days of the war. Professors, journalists, doctors, artists, engineers and writers were rounded up by the Pakistani Army and the Razakar militia in Dhaka, blindfolded, taken to torture cells in Mirpur, Mohammadpur, Nakhalpara, Rajarbagh and other locations in different sections of the city to be executed en masse, most notably at Rayerbazar and Mirpur. Allegedly, the Pakistani Army and its paramilitary arm, the Al-Badr and Al-Shams forces created a list of doctors, teachers, poets, and scholars. During the nine-month duration of the war the Pakistani Army, with the assistance of local collaborators, systematically executed an estimated 991 teachers, 13 journalists, 49 physicians, 42 lawyers, and 16 writers, artists and engineers. Even after the official ending of the war on 16 December there were reports of killings being committed by either the armed Pakistani soldiers or by their collaborators. In one such incident, notable filmmaker Jahir Raihan was killed on 30 January 1972 in Mirpur, allegedly by armed Beharis. In memory of the people who were killed, 14 December is observed in Bangladesh as Shaheed Buddhijibi Dibosh ("Day of the Martyred Intellectuals"). Notable intellectuals who were killed from the time period of 25 March to 16 December 1971 in different parts of the country include Dhaka University professors Dr. Govinda Chandra Dev (philosophy), Dr. Munier Chowdhury (Bengali literature), Dr. Mufazzal Haider Chaudhury (Bengali Literature), Dr. Anwar Pasha (Bengali Literature), Dr M Abul Khair (history), Dr. Jyotirmoy Guhathakurta (English literature), Humayun Kabir (English literature), Rashidul Hasan (English literature), Ghyasuddin Ahmed, Sirajul Haque Khan, Faizul Mahi, Dr Santosh Chandra Bhattacharyya and Saidul Hassan (physics), Rajshahi University professors Dr. Hobibur Rahman (mathematics), Prof Sukhranjan Somaddar (Sanskrit), Prof Mir Abdul Quaiyum (psychology) as well as Dr. Mohammed Fazle Rabbee (cardiologist), Dr. AFM Alim Chowdhury (ophthalmologist), Shahidullah Kaiser (journalist), Nizamuddin Ahmed (journalist), Selina Parvin (journalist), Altaf Mahmud (lyricist and musician), Dhirendranath Datta (politician), Jahir Raihan (novelist, journalist, film director) and Ranadaprasad Saha (philanthropist). Violence The generally accepted figure for the mass rapes during the nine-month long conflict is between 200,000 and 400,000. Both Muslim and Hindu women were targeted for rape. West Pakistani men wanted to cleanse a nation corrupted by the presence of Hindus and believed that the sacrifice of Hindu women was needed; Bengali women were thus viewed as Hindu or Hindu-like. Imams, mullahs, and a fatwa from West Pakistan declared that Bengali women could be handled as gonimoter maal ("war booty" or "public property"). Bangladeshi sources cite a figure of 200,000 women raped, giving birth to thousands of war-babies. The soldiers of the Pakistan Army and razakars also kept Bengali women as sex-slaves inside the Pakistani Army's camps, and many became pregnant. The perpetrators also included Mukti Bahini and the Indian Army, which targeted noncombatants and committed rapes, as well as other crimes. Among other sources, Susan Brownmiller refers to an estimated 200,000 to 400,000 women raped. Pakistani sources claim the number is much lower, though they have not denied that rape incidents occurred. Brownmiller writes: Khadiga, thirteen years old, was interviewed by a photojournalist in Dacca. She was walking to school with four other girls when they were kidnapped by a gang of Pakistani soldiers. All five were put in a military brothel in Mohammedpur and held captive for six months until the end of the war. In a New York Times report named 'Horrors of East Pakistan Turning Hope into Despair', Malcolm W. Browne wrote: One tale that is widely believed and seems to come from many different sources is that 563 women picked up by the army in March and April and held in military brothels are not being released because they are pregnant beyond the point at which abortions are possible. The licentious attitude of the soldiers, although generally supported by their superiors, alarmed the regional high command of the Pakistani Army. On 15 April 1971, in a secret memorandum to the divisional commanders, Niazi complained, Since my arrival, I have heard numerous reports of troops indulging in loot and arson, killing people at random and without reasons in areas cleared of the anti state elements; of late there have been reports of rape and even the West Pakistanis are not being spared; on 12 April two West Pakistani women were raped, and an attempt was made on two others. Anthony Mascarenhas published a newspaper article titled 'Genocide in June 1971' in which he also wrote about violence perpetrated by Bengalis against Biharis. First it was the massacre of the non-Bengalis in a savage outburst of Bengali hatred. Now it was massacre deliberately carried out by the West Pakistan army ... The West Pakistani soldiers are not the only ones who have been killing in East Bengal, of course. On the night of 25 March... the Bengali troops and paramilitary units stationed in East Pakistan mutinied and attacked non-Bengalis with atrocious savagery. Thousands of families of unfortunate Muslims, many of them refugees from Bihar who chose Pakistan at the time of the partition riots in 1947, were mercilessly wiped out. Women were raped, or had their breasts torn out with specially-fashioned knives. Children did not escape the horror; the lucky ones were killed with their parents... Pakistani Major General Khadim Hussain Raja wrote in his book that Niazi, in presence of Bengali officers would say 'Main iss haramzadi qom ki nasal badal doonga (I will change the race of the Bengalis)'. A witness statement to the commission read "The troops used to say that when the Commander (Lt Gen Niazi) was himself a raper (sic), how could they be stopped?" Another work that has included direct experiences from the women raped is Ami Birangona Bolchhi ("I, the heroine, speak") by Nilima Ibrahim. The work includes in its name from the word Birangona (Heroine), given by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman after the war, to the raped and tortured women during the war. This was a conscious effort to alleviate any social stigma the women might face in the society.[citation needed] There are eyewitness reports of the "rape camps" established by the Pakistani Army. The US based Women Under Siege Project of the Women's Media Center have reported the girls as young as 8 and women as old as 75 were detained in Pakistan military barracks, and where they were victims of mass rape which sometimes culminated in mass murder. The report was based on interview with survivors. Australian Doctor Geoffrey Davis was brought to Bangladesh by the United Nation and International Planned Parenthood Federation to carry out late term abortions on rape victims. He was of the opinion that the 200,000 to 400,000 rape victims were an underestimation. On the actions of Pakistan army he said "They'd keep the infantry back and put artillery ahead and they would shell the hospitals and schools. And that caused absolute chaos in the town. And then the infantry would go in and begin to segregate the women. Apart from little children, all those were (sic) sexually matured would be segregated..And then the women would be put in the compound under guard and made available to the troops ... Some of the stories they told were appalling. Being raped again and again and again. A lot of them died in those [rape] camps. There was an air of disbelief about the whole thing. Nobody could credit that it really happened! But the evidence clearly showed that it did happen."[better source needed] In October 2005, Sarmila Bose published a paper suggesting that the casualties and rape allegations in the war have been greatly exaggerated for political purposes. Whilst she received praise from many quarters, a number of researchers have shown inaccuracies in Bose's work, including flawed methodology of statistical analysis, misrepresentation of referenced sources, and disproportionate weight to Pakistani Army testimonies. Historian Christian Gerlach states that "a systematic collection of statistical data was aborted, possibly because the tentative data did not substantiate the claim that three million had died and at least 200,000 women had been raped." An article in Time magazine, dated 2 August 1971, stated "The Hindus, who account for three-fourths of the refugees and a majority of the dead, have borne the brunt of the Muslim military hatred." Pakistan army eastern command headquarters officials in Dhaka made clear the government's policy on East Bengal. After the elimination or exile of Hindus, their property was going to be shared among middle class Muslims. According to Colonel Naim, Hindus "undermined the Muslim masses." He said Bengali culture to a great extent was Hindu culture, and "We have to sort them out to restore the land to the people." In April 1971 at Comilla, Major Rathore said to Anthony Mascarenhas, regarding Hindus: "Now under the cover of fighting we have an excellent opportunity of finishing them off. [...] Of course [...], we are only killing the Hindu men. We are soldiers, not cowards like the rebels." Hindus were alleged to have corrupted the Awami League. Pakistani soldiers repeatedly boasted to US Consul Archer Blood that they came "to kill Hindus." A witness heard an officer shouting to soldiers: "Why you have killed Muslims [sic]. We ordered you to kill only Hindus." US government cables noted that the minorities of Bangladesh, especially the Hindus, were specific targets of the Pakistani Army. US consulates reported methodical slaughter of Hindu men in cities starting in the first 24 hours of the crackdown. Army units entered villages asking where Hindus live; it was "common pattern" to kill Hindu males. Hindus were identified because they were not circumcised. There were barely any areas where no Hindu was killed. Sometimes the military also massacred Hindu women. There was widespread killing of Hindu males, and rapes of women. Documented incidents in which Hindus were massacred in large numbers include the Jathibhanga massacre, the Chuknagar massacre, and the Shankharipara massacre. Senator Edward Kennedy wrote in a report that was part of United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations testimony, dated 1 November 1971, "Hardest hit have been members of the Hindu community who have been robbed of their lands and shops, systematically slaughtered, and in some places, painted with yellow patches marked "H". All of this has been officially sanctioned, ordered and implemented under martial law from Islamabad." More than 60% of the Bengali refugees who fled to India were Hindus. It has been alleged that this widespread violence against Hindus was motivated by a policy to purge East Pakistan of what was seen as Hindu and Indian influences. Buddhist temples and Buddhist monks were also attacked throughout the course of the year. Lt. Colonel Aziz Ahmed Khan reported that in May 1971 there was a written order to kill Hindus, and that General Niazi would ask troops how many Hindus they had killed. The genocide and gendercidal atrocities were also perpetrated by lower-ranking officers and ordinary soldiers. These "willing executioners" were fueled by an abiding anti-Bengali racism, especially against the Hindu minority.[citation needed] According to R. J. Rummel, professor of political science at the University of Hawaii, Bengalis were often compared with monkeys and chickens. Said Pakistan General Niazi, "It was a low lying land of low lying people." The Hindus among the Bengalis were as Jews to the Nazis: scum and vermin that [should] best be exterminated. As to the Moslem Bengalis, they were to live only on the sufferance of the soldiers: any infraction, any suspicion cast on them, any need for reprisal, could mean their death. And the soldiers were free to kill at will. The journalist Dan Coggin quoted one Punjabi [Pakistani] captain as telling him, "We can kill anyone for anything. We are accountable to no one." This is the arrogance of Power. The Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist Sydney Schanberg covered the start of the war and wrote extensively on the suffering of the East Bengalis, including the Hindus both during and after the conflict. In a syndicated column "The Pakistani Slaughter That Nixon Ignored", he wrote about his return to liberated Bangladesh in 1972. "Other reminders were the yellow "H"s the Pakistanis had painted on the homes of Hindus, particular targets of the Muslim army" (by "Muslim army", meaning the Pakistan Army, which had targeted Bengali Muslims as well).[citation needed] Missionaries in Bangladesh reported to Schanberg that massacres occurred on a nearly daily basis. One reported the slaughter of over a thousand Hindus in the southern district of Barisal in a single day. According to another, a Peace Committee in northeastern Sylhet district called residents together. Troops arrived and from the gathered crowd selected 300 Hindus and shot them dead. Bengali attacks on Biharis In 1947, at the time of partition and the establishment of the state of Pakistan, Bihari Muslims, many of whom were fleeing the violence that took place during partition, migrated from India to the newly independent East Pakistan. These Urdu-speaking people were averse to the Bengali language movement and the subsequent nationalist movements because they maintained allegiance toward West Pakistani rulers, causing anti-Bihari sentiments among local nationalist Bengalis. After the convening of the National Assembly was postponed by Yahya Khan on 1 March 1971, the dissidents in East Pakistan began targeting the ethnic Bihari community which had supported West Pakistan. In early March 1971, 300 Biharis were slaughtered in rioting by Bengali mobs in Chittagong alone. The Government of Pakistan used the 'Bihari massacre' to justify its deployment of the military in East Pakistan on 25 March, when it initiated its infamous Operation Searchlight. When the war broke out in 1971, the Biharis sided with the Pakistani Army. Some of them joined Razakar and Al-Shams militia groups and participated in the persecution and genocide of their Bengali countrymen, in retaliation for atrocities committed against them by Bengalis, including the widespread looting of Bengali properties and abetting other criminal activities. When the war finished Biharis faced severe retaliation, resulting in a counter-genocide and the displacement of over a million non-Bengalis. According to the Minorities at Risk project, the number of Biharis killed by Bengalis was reportedly about 1,000. Rudolph Rummel gives an estimate of 150,000 killed. International estimates vary, while some have put the deaths as several thousands; Biharis faced reprisals from the Mukti Bahini and militias, and from 1,000 to 150,000 were killed. Bihari representatives claim a figure of 500,000 Biharis killed. After the war the government of Bangladesh confiscated the properties of the Bihari population.[citation needed] There are many reports of attacks on Biharis and alleged collaborators that took place in the period following the surrender of the Pakistani Army on 16 December 1971. In an incident on 18 December 1971, captured on camera and attended by members of the foreign press, Abdul Kader Siddiqui, together with Kaderia Bahini guerrillas under his command and named after him, bayoneted and shot to death a group of prisoners of war who were accused of belonging to the Razakar paramilitary forces. International reactions Time reported a high US official as saying of the slaughter of the East Pakistanis by their West Pakistani enemies, "It is the most incredible, calculated thing since the days of the Nazis in Poland". Genocide is the term that is used to describe the event in almost every major publication and newspaper in Bangladesh; the term is defined as "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group" A 1972 report by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) noted that both sides in the conflict accused each other of perpetrating genocide. The report observed that it may be difficult to substantiate claims that the "whole of the military action and repressive measures taken by the Pakistani Army and their auxiliary forces constituted genocide' that was intended to destroy the Bengali people in whole or in part, and that 'preventing a nation from attaining political autonomy does not constitute genocide: the intention must be to destroy in whole or in part the people as such." The difficulty of proving intent was considered to be further complicated by the fact that three specific sections of the Bengali people were targeted in killings committed by the Pakistani Army and their collaborators: members of the Awami League, students, and East Pakistani citizens of the Hindu religion. The report observed, however, that there is a strong prima facie case that particular acts of genocide were committed, especially towards the end of the war, when Bengalis were targeted indiscriminately. Similarly, it was felt that there is a strong prima facie case that crimes of genocide were committed against the Hindu population of East Pakistan. As regards the massacres of non-Bengalis by Bengalis during and after the Liberation War, the ICJ report argued that it is improbable that "spontaneous and frenzied mob violence against a particular section of the community from whom the mob senses danger and hostility is to be regarded as possessing the necessary element of conscious intent to constitute the crime of genocide," but that, if the dolus specialis were to be proved in particular cases, these would have constituted acts of genocide against non-Bengalis. After the minimum 20 countries became parties to the Genocide Convention, it came into force as international law on 12 January 1951. At that time however, only two of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council were parties to the treaty, and it was not until after the last of the five permanent members ratified the treaty in 1988, and the Cold War came to an end, that the international law on the crime of genocide began to be enforced. As such, the allegation that genocide took place during the Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971 was never investigated by an international tribunal set up under the auspices of the United Nations.[citation needed] Rudolph Rummel wrote, "In 1971, the self-appointed president of Pakistan and commander-in-chief of the army General Agha Mohammed Yahya Khan and his top generals prepared a careful and systematic military, economic, and political operation against East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). They planned to murder that country's Bengali intellectual, cultural, and political elite. They planned to indiscriminately murder hundreds of thousands of its Hindus and drive the rest into India. And they planned to destroy its economic base to insure that it would be subordinate to West Pakistan for at least a generation to come. This despicable and cutthroat plan was outright genocide." The genocide is also mentioned in some publications outside the subcontinent; for example, The Guinness Book of Records lists the atrocities as one of the largest five genocides in the twentieth century. President Richard Nixon viewed Pakistan as a Cold War ally and refused to condemn its actions. From the White House tapes: "The President seems to be making sure that the distrusted State Department would not, on its own, condemn Yahya for killing Bengalis." Nixon and China tried to suppress reports of genocide emanating from East Pakistan. Nixon also relied on Americans not paying close attention to events in Asia, comparing it to reactions over the atrocities in Biafra during the Nigerian Civil War: "Biafra stirred up a few Catholics. But you know, I think Biafra stirred people up more than Pakistan, because Pakistan they're just a bunch of brown goddamn Moslems." The US government secretly encouraged the shipment of weapons from Iran, Turkey, and Jordan to Pakistan, and reimbursed those countries for them despite Congressional objections. A collection of declassified US government documents, mostly consisting of communications between US officials in Washington, D.C., and in embassies and USIS centers in Dhaka and in India, show that US officials knew about these mass killings at the time and, in fact, used the terms "genocide" and "selective genocide", for example, in the "Blood Telegram". They also show that President Nixon, advised by Henry Kissinger, decided to downplay this secret internal advice, because he wanted to protect the interests of Pakistan as he was apprehensive of India's friendship with the USSR, and he was seeking a closer relationship with China, which supported Pakistan. In his book The Trial of Henry Kissinger, Christopher Hitchens elaborates on what he saw as the efforts of Kissinger to subvert the aspirations of independence on the part of the Bengalis. Hitchens not only claims that the term genocide is appropriate to describe the results of the struggle, but also points to the efforts of Henry Kissinger in undermining others who condemned the then-ongoing atrocities as being a genocide. Hitchens concluded, "Kissinger was responsible for the killing of thousands of people, including Sheikh Mujibur Rahman". Some American politicians did speak out. Senator Ted Kennedy charged Pakistan with committing genocide, and called for a complete cut-off of American military and economic aid to Pakistan. Attempted trials for Pakistani war crimes As early as 22 December 1971, the Indian Army was conducting investigations of senior Pakistani Army officers connected to the massacre of intellectuals in Dhaka, with the aim of collecting sufficient evidence to have them tried as war criminals. They produced a list of officers who were in positions of command at the time, or were connected to the Inter-Services Screening Committee. On 24 December 1971, Home minister of Bangladesh A. H. M. Qamaruzzaman said, "war criminals will not survive from the hands of law. Pakistani military personnel who were involved with killing and raping have to face tribunal." In a joint statement after a meeting between Sheikh Mujib and Indira Gandhi, the Indian government assured that it would give all necessary assistance for bringing war criminals into justice. In February 1972, the government of Bangladesh announced plans to put 100 senior Pakistani officers and officials on trial for crimes of genocide. The list included General A. K. Niazi and four other generals. After the war, the Indian Army held 92,000 Pakistani prisoners of war, 195 of whom were suspected of committing war crimes. All 195 were released in April 1974 following the tripartite Delhi Agreement between Bangladesh, Pakistan and India, and repatriated to Pakistan, in return for Pakistan's recognition of Bangladesh. Pakistan expressed interest in performing a trial against those 195 officials. Fearing for the fate of 400,000 Bengalis trapped in Pakistan, Bangladesh agreed to hand them over to Pakistani authorities. The Bangladeshi Collaborators (Special Tribunals) Order of 1972 was promulgated to bring to trial those Bangladeshis who collaborated with and aided the Pakistani Armed forces during the Liberation War of 1971. There are conflicting accounts of the number of persons brought to trial under the 1972 Collaborators Order, ranging between 10,000 and 40,000. At the time, the trials were considered problematic by local and external observers, because they appear to have been used for carrying out political vendettas. R. MacLennan, a British MP who was an observer at the trials stated that 'In the dock, the defendants are scarcely more pitiable than the succession of confused prosecution witnesses driven (by the 88-year-old defence counsel) to admit that they, too, served the Pakistani government but are now ready to swear blindly that their real loyalty was to the government of Bangladesh in exile.' In May 1973, the Pakistani government detained Bengali civil servants stranded in Pakistan, as well as their family members, in response to Bangladesh's attempt to try POWs for genocide. Pakistan unsuccessfully pleaded five times to the International Court of Justice to contest Bangladesh's application of the term "genocide". The government of Bangladesh issued a general amnesty on 30 November 1973, applying it to all persons except those who were punished or accused of rape, murder, attempted murder or arson. The Collaborators Order of 1972 was revoked in 1975. The International Crimes (Tribunals) Act of 1973 was promulgated to prosecute any persons, irrespective of nationality, who were accused of committing crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, war crimes, "violations of any humanitarian rules applicable in armed conflicts laid out in the Geneva Conventions of 1949" and "any other crimes under international law". Detainees held under the 1972 Collaborators Order who were not released by the general amnesty of 1973 were going to be tried under this Act. However, no trials were held, and all activities related to the Act ceased after the assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in 1975. There are no known instances of criminal investigations or trials outside Bangladesh of alleged perpetrators of war crimes during the 1971 war. Initial steps were taken by the Metropolitan Police to investigate individuals resident in the United Kingdom who were alleged to have committed war crimes according to a Channel 4 documentary film aired in 1995. To date, no charges have been brought against these individuals. On 29 December 1991, Ghulam Azam, who was accused of being a collaborator with Pakistan in the war of 1971, became the chairman or Ameer of the political party Jamaat-e-Islami of Bangladesh, which caused controversy. This incident prompted the creation of a 'National Committee for Resisting the Killers and Collaborators of 1971', in the footsteps of a proposal by writer and political activist Jahanara Imam. A mock people's court was formed, which on 26 March 1992 found Ghulam Azam guilty in a widely criticised trial, which sentenced him to death; he ultimately died in prison in 2014. A case was filed in the Federal Court of Australia on 20 September 2006 for alleged crimes of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity during 1971 by the Pakistani Armed Forces and its collaborators. Raymond Solaiman & Associates, acting for the plaintiff Mr. Solaiman, released a press statement which among other things said: We are glad to announce that a case has been filed in the Federal Magistrate's Court of Australia today under the Genocide Conventions Act 1949 and War Crimes Act. This is the first time in history that someone is attending a court proceeding in relation to the [alleged] crimes of Genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity during 1971 by the Pakistani Armed Forces and its collaborators. The Proceeding number is SYG 2672 of 2006. On 25 October 2006, a direction hearing will take place in the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia, Sydney registry before Federal Magistrate His Honor Nicholls. On 21 May 2007, at the request of the applicant leave was granted to the applicant to discontinue his application filed on 20 September 2006. On 30 July 2009, the Minister of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs of Bangladesh stated that no Pakistanis would be tried under the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act of 1973. This decision has drawn criticism from international jurists, because it effectively gives immunity to the commanders of the Pakistani Army who are generally considered to be ultimately responsible for the majority of the crimes that were committed in 1971. The International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) is a war crimes tribunal in Bangladesh set up in 2009 to investigate and prosecute suspects for the genocide committed in 1971 by the Pakistan Army and their local collaborators, Razakars, Al-Badr and Al-Shams during the Bangladesh Liberation War. During the 2008 general election, the Awami League (AL) pledged to try war criminals. The government set up the tribunal after the Awami League won the general election in December 2008 with more than two-thirds majority in parliament. The War Crimes Fact Finding Committee, tasked to investigate and find evidence, completed its report in 2008, identifying 1600 suspects. Prior to the formation of the ICT, the United Nations Development Programme offered assistance in 2009 on the tribunal's formation. In 2009 the parliament amended the 1973 act that authorised such a tribunal to update it. Throughout the years, tens of thousands of mostly young demonstrators, including women, have called for the death penalty for those convicted of war crimes. Non-violent protests supporting this position have occurred in other cities as the country closely follows the trials. The first indictments were issued in 2010. By 2012, nine leaders of Jamaat-e-Islami, the largest Islamist party in the nation, and two of the Bangladesh National Party, had been indicted as suspects in war crimes. Three leaders of Jamaat were the first tried; each were convicted of several charges of war crimes. The first person convicted was Abul Kalam Azad, who was tried in absentia as he had left the country; he was sentenced to death in January 2013. While human rights groups and various political entities initially supported the establishment of the tribunal, they have since criticised it on issues of fairness and transparency, as well as reported harassment of lawyers and witnesses representing the accused. Jamaat-e-Islami supporters and their student wing, Islami Chhatra Shibir, called a general strike nationwide on 4 December 2012 in protest against the tribunals. The protest leaders demanded that the tribunal be scrapped permanently and their leaders released immediately. One of the most high profile verdicts was of Abdul Quader Mollah, assistant secretary general of Jamaat, who was convicted in February 2013 and sentenced to life imprisonment, which culminated in the massive Shahbag protests. The government, although initially reluctant, eventually appealed the verdict in the Supreme Court, which then sentenced Mollah to death. Abdul Quader Mollah was subsequently executed on Thursday 12 December 2013, amidst controversies on the legitimacy of the war tribunal hearings, drawing wide criticisms from countries such as the US, UK and Turkey, as well as from the UN. A period of unrest ensued. The majority of the population, however, was found to be in favour of the execution. Delwar Hossain Sayeedi was convicted of war crimes due to his involvement in mass killings, rape, arson, looting and forced conversion of Hindus to Islam. He was sentenced to death by hanging; his sentence, however, was later commuted to life imprisonment. Motiur Rahman Nizami was hanged on 11 May 2015 for 16 charges of genocide, rape and torture. Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury and Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujahid, both of whom had been convicted of genocide and rape, were hanged in Dhaka Central Jail shortly after midnight on 22 November 2015. On 3 December 2016, business tycoon Mir Quasem Ali, convicted of crimes against humanity for torturing and killing suspected Bangladeshi liberationists, was hanged at Kashimpur Prison. In 2016, a draft of the Digital Security Act was finalized and placed for cabinet approval. The law proposed to declare any propaganda against the War of Liberation as cognizable and non-bailable. Views in Pakistan The Hamoodur Rahman Commission set up by the Pakistani government following the war noted various atrocities committed by the Pakistani military, including: Widespread arson and killings in the countryside; killing of intellectuals and professionals; killing of Bengali military officers and soldiers on the pretence of mutiny; killing Bengali civilian officials, businessmen and industrialists; raping numerous Bengali women as a deliberate act of revenge, retaliation and torture; deliberate killing of members of the Bengali Hindu minority; and the creation of mass graves. The Hamoodur Rahman Commission wrote: "[I]ndiscriminate killing and looting could only serve the cause of the enemies of Pakistan. In the harshness, we lost the support of the silent majority of the people of East Pakistan.... The Comilla Cantonment massacre (on 27th/28th of March, 1971) under the orders of CO 53 Field Regiment, Lt. Gen. Yakub Malik, in which 17 Bengali Officers and 915 men were just slain by a flick of one Officer's fingers should suffice as an example". The commission's report and findings were suppressed by the Pakistani government for more than 30 years, but were leaked to the Indian and Pakistani media in 2000. However, the commission's lowly death toll of 26,000 was criticised as an attempt to whitewash the war. Several former West Pakistani Army officers who served in Bangladesh during the 1971 war have admitted to large-scale atrocities by their forces. The government of Pakistan continues to deny that the 1971 Bangladesh genocide took place under Pakistan's rule of Bangladesh (East Pakistan) during the Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971. They typically accuse Pakistani reporters (such as Anthony Mascarenhas) who reported on the genocide of being "enemy agents". According to Donald W. Beachler, professor of political science at Ithaca College: The government of Pakistan explicitly denied that there was genocide. By their refusal to characterise the mass-killings as genocide or to condemn and restrain the Pakistani government, the US and Chinese governments implied that they did not consider it so. Similarly, in the wake of the 2013 Shahbag protests against war criminals who were complicit in the genocide, English journalist Philip Hensher wrote: The genocide is still too little known about in the West. It is, moreover, the subject of shocking degrees of denial among partisan polemicists and manipulative historians. In the 1974 Delhi Agreement, Bangladesh called on Pakistan to prosecute 195 military officers for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide under relevant provisions of international law. Pakistan responded that it "deeply regretted any crimes that may have been committed". It failed to bring the perpetrators to account on its own soil, as requested by Bangladesh. The position taken by Pakistan was reiterated by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in 1974, when he simply expressed "regret" for 1971, and former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in 2002, when he expressed regret for the "excesses" committed in 1971. The International Crimes Tribunal set up by Bangladesh in 2009 to prosecute surviving collaborators of the pro-Pakistani militias in 1971 has been the subject of strong criticism in Pakistani political and military circles. On 30 November 2015, the government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif retreated from earlier positions and said that it denies any role by Pakistan in atrocities in Bangladesh. A statement of the Pakistani Foreign Ministry, after summoning the Acting Bangladeshi High Commissioner, said that "Pakistan also rejected insinuation of complicity in committing crimes or war atrocities. Nothing could be further from the truth". The statement marked a growing trend of genocide denial in Pakistan, which picked up pace after controversial Indian academic Sarmila Bose accused the Mukti Bahini of war crimes. Bose asserts that there is greater denial in Bangladesh of war crimes which were committed by Bengalis against Biharis. Many in Pakistan's civil society have called for an unconditional apology to Bangladesh and an acknowledgement of the genocide, including former Pakistan Air Force chief Asghar Khan, former Prime Minister Imran Khan, noted journalist Hamid Mir, former Pakistani ambassador to the United States Husain Haqqani, human rights activist Asma Jahangir, cultural activist Salima Hashmi, and defence analyst Muhammad Ali Ehsan. Asma Jahangir has called for an independent United Nations inquiry to investigate the atrocities. Jahangir also described Pakistan's reluctance to acknowledge the genocide a result of the Pakistani Army's dominant influence on foreign policy. She spoke of the need for closure on the 1971 genocide. Pakistani historian Yaqoob Khan Bangash described the actions of the Pakistani Army during the Bangladesh Liberation war as a "rampage". Documentaries and films See also Notes References Further reading External links |
======================================== |
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_War_Party] | [TOKENS: 1893] |
Contents Global War Party The "Global War Party" (Georgian: გლობალური ომის პარტია, globaluri omis p’art’ia) is a conspiracy theory created and advanced by Georgian Dream, a Georgian political party. It is an alleged international organization exerting a key influence on the European Union and the United States. According to some commentators connected to the party, the "Global War Party" includes the American military-industrial complex, George Soros and neoconservatives. Georgian Dream has accused it of prolonging the Russo-Ukrainian war and spreading it to other countries, assassinating sovereignist leaders, orchestrating revolutions around the world, and plotting to topple Georgian Dream from power. In the spring of 2024 Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze portrayed his government as in a fight against the "Global War Party", stating "there is no alternative to the fight against the 'Global War Party', it is a very painful, difficult fight, including from a personal point of view." He added that surrender would lead to the "Ukrainization of Georgia". But in autumn 2024, with the backdrop of increased international pressure, Kobakhidze expressed desire to improve relations with the "Global War Party", hoping to "reestablish relations" with the entity due to shifting circumstances. The claim has been widely dismissed by the West, with the US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs James C. O'Brien describing the claims as a "Reddit page coming to life". Responding to the conspiracy theory, the Foreign Affairs Minister of Lithuania, Gabrielius Landsbergis has stated "The only war party is in Moscow". Members Despite frequent mentions from the Georgian government, Georgian Dream has not specified the members of the "Global War Party". The term has been described as a dog whistle to refer to actual or perceived political opponents such as the European Commission, the European Parliament, the European Council, the U.S. Congress, the U.S. State Department, the Western media, the NGO sector, Swiss banks, and the Georgian opposition – in particular, United National Movement (UNM). Kobakhidze has stated that the term was not a reference to the European Union or the United States, and that "the EU is one of the main victims" of the alleged organization. Georgian Dream MP Mariam Lashkhi has compared the "Global War Party" to the Freemasons. According to the Georgian Dream-connected commentators, the "Global War Party" stands for the American military-industrial complex corporations such as BlackRock, The Vanguard Group, State Street Corporation and Fidelity Investments, which they accuse of war profiteering, pushing America and other countries into endless wars, and making financial profit from the Russo-Ukrainian War. Some commentators additionally name George Soros and Western neoconservatives as members. A splinter party of Georgian Dream, People's Power, has mentioned Danish Embassy in Georgia as being a part of the organization. Irakli Kobakhidze has stated the influence of the "Global War Party" can be felt on President Salome Zourabichvili. He has further added that the United National Movement, Giorgi Vashadze, Giorgi Gakharia, Girchi - More Freedom, and Lelo for Georgia are agents of the "Global War Party". Furthermore, Kobakhidze has explicitly referred to the UNM as a member of the "Local War Party". History Shortly after the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the Secretary of the Ukrainian National Security Council Oleksiy Danilov called Georgia and Moldova to open a "second front" against Russia. Additionally, Oleksiy Arestovych, advisor to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, stated that it was a "historic opportunity to retake Abkhazia and South Ossetia". Following this, Georgian Dream has frequently accused the West of trying to open a "second front". Irakli Kobakhidze criticized these remarks, saying that the Ukrainian officials want to pursue their own interests at Georgia's expense because opening a second front would "make the situation worse for Russia", but it would also come at the cost of "destroying Georgia" as Russia's military is significantly stronger than the Georgian military. Georgian Dream MP Gia Volski called on the EU and US to "distance themselves" from statements from some Ukrainian officials to "see Georgia engage in war". Soon after, Georgian Dream's rhetoric turned conspiratorial accusing a so-called "Global War Party" of being behind such calls, with which the NGO sector and Georgian opposition are supposed to be affiliated, most specifically the largest and highly pro-Western opposition party - United National Movement. The Georgian Dream leaders accused their arch-rival United National Movement of being involved in the efforts to "drag Georgia into the ongoing military conflict in Ukraine and open a second frontline". Party chair Kobakhidze claimed "coordination and convergence of interests" between the UNM and the Ukrainian government. Speaker of the Georgian Parliament Shalva Papuashvili claimed that Ukraine had become a "shelter" for the Georgian "criminals", the former United National Movement members convicted on numerous charges in Georgia, such as the Deputy Head of Ukrainian military intelligence Giorgi Lortkipanidze, in top public posts in Ukraine and that these functionaries had been allegedly involved in organizing unrest in Georgia. In June 2022, the European Parliament passed several resolutions against the Georgian government and refused to grant Georgia candidate status. Kobakhidze criticized these actions and said that they were influenced by the "Global War Party". Meanwhile, a total of nine MPs left the Georgian Dream parliamentary faction to establish People's Power group in 2022. The MPs maintained their support for the government, and thus provided for the parliamentary majority, but left Georgian Dream in order to freely speak "the truth about the West" and its officials. The MPs expressed strong anti-western sentiments and spread conspiracy theories such as that in exchange for EU candidate status, the West ordered Georgia to partially give up its sovereignty and go to war with Russia. Kobakhidze has accused the "Global War Party" of seizing $2 billion belonging to the Georgian oligarch, founder, and informal leader of Georgian Dream Bidzina Ivanishvili, calling it de facto sanctions. This has been cited as a reason why Ivanishvili has refused meetings with the representatives of the country's traditional allies. While it is unclear what he is referring to, Credit Suisse has been ordered to pay $926 million to Ivanishvili for failing to safeguard his assets. At a Georgian Dream rally in Tbilisi on 29 April 2024 Ivanishvili spoke as the headliner. Ivanishvili said that the "Global War Party" had a crucial role in the decision not to admit Georgia and Ukraine in NATO, therefore, putting them in the vulnerable position with regards to Russia, later to earn profits from the subsequent military conflicts. Therefore, Ivanishvili blamed the "Global War Party" for pitting Georgia and Ukraine against Russia and orchestrating the 2008 Russo-Georgian War, 2014 Russo-Ukrainian conflict, and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Ivanishvili said that Georgia and Ukraine are cannon fodder for the "Global War Party". He stressed that the main reason the Georgian Dream government was in a conflict with the "Global War Party" was that he did not let them open a "second front" in the country. He pointed to a resolution critical of Georgian Dream that was passed by the European Parliament and said it was proof that "the European Parliament had become yet another one of ["Global War Party's"] tools". On 23 May 2024, Kobakhidze expanded the "Global War Party" conspiracy theory and accused it of being responsible for the attempted assassination of Robert Fico. He also accused Olivér Várhelyi, the Hungarian European commissioner, of threatening his life. He later elaborated: However, even in the face of prolonged blackmail, the threat voiced during a telephone conversation with one of the European Commissioners was shocking. During our conversation, the European Commissioner listed a number of measures that Western politicians might take if the veto on the transparency law is overcome. While listing these measures, he mentioned, "You've seen what happened to Fico and you should be very careful". He stated that he was in favor of starting an investigation relating to the alleged death threat. The State Security Service of Georgia has dismissed the existence of the "Global War Party" as an entity, but has stated that it will investigate any actor who wishes to destabilize the country. Kobakhidze went on to emphasize the importance of deoligarchization of both the European Union and the United States of America, a process he describes would entail freeing them from the "Global War Party's" influence. On 14 July 2024, Kobakhidze subsequently accused the "Global War Party" of being responsible for the first assassination attempt against Donald Trump. References |
======================================== |
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vril_Society] | [TOKENS: 4305] |
Contents Vril Society The Vril Society was a fictitious secret society that is said to have existed in Germany in the early to mid-twentieth century. A series of conspiracy theories and pseudohistorical texts claim that it was involved in the rise of Nazism and used supernatural energies to develop innovative flying machines during the Nazi era or "Reichsflugscheiben". There is no evidence for the existence of a secret society of this name and the achievements attributed to it. Likewise, there is no evidence for the historical significance attributed by representatives of this legend to the "Vril Society" and some actually existing occult groups. The term Vril was coined by the English writer Edward Bulwer-Lytton (1803–1873) for his novel The Coming Race (1871), and likely derives from the Latin term virilis (manly, powerful). Bulwer-Lytton used the term for a supposed vital energy which grants its users with telepathy, telekinesis, and a number of other abilities. Background The word Vril comes from the novel The Coming Race published in 1871 by the English writer Edward Bulwer-Lytton (1803–1873) and was probably derived from the Latin word virilis (manly', 'powerful'). In this novel, the narrator encounters a subterranean race of humans, the Vril-Ya, who possess a psychic vital energy called Vril that is far superior to that of the human race. The Vril powers enable them to use telepathy and telekinesis and allow them to influence any form of animate or inanimate matter to heal, to resurrect the dead or to destroy. Originally a people who lived on the surface of the earth, the Vril-ya were cut off from the rest of humanity by a natural disaster and moved into an underground cave system where they found a new home. There, in a history marked by wars and social upheaval, they eventually evolved into an egalitarian society practicing eugenics, superior to all other races, through the discovery of a new force of nature - the Vril Force. Through contact with the novel's narrator, the Vril-ya learn about the humans living on the surface of the Earth and question him in detail about human society. The narrator manages to escape from the realm of the Vril-ya and at the end of the novel he warns his readers of the danger that the Vril-ya would pose to humanity if they were ever to return to the surface. While contemporary critics saw The Coming Race as satire, other sections of the public regarded it as an occultist roman à clef. In these circles, the view was held that Bulwer-Lytton was a member of the Rosicrucians and that the "Vril" force was an actually existing universal life force. According to this view, the novel was merely a vehicle with which Bulwer-Lytton wanted to communicate secret knowledge to his readers under the guise of anonymity. Helena Blavatsky and other occult authors adopted the term "Vril" as a synonym for secret natural forces that could only be used by magic. In Blavatsky's first work Isis unveiled (1877), Vril was portrayed as a real, independent force. In her second book The Secret Doctrine in 1888, she described how the inhabitants of Atlantis had used Vril to build colossal structures. After the fall of Atlantis, a small group of surviving priests would have preserved this knowledge and only passed it on to a select few. This psychic energy should therefore allow the mastery of all of nature. Several books mention a Vril-ya Club founded in London in 1904, which is said to have addressed this issue. Bulwer-Lytton's writings are passed on in the New Thought movement. It was particularly momentous that the theosophist William Scott-Elliot described the vril in his 1896 pamphlet The Story of Atlantis in connection with airships, which it served as the driving force behind. This characteristic of the vril, already described in The Coming Race, became a main reference for certain developments after World War II due to Scott-Elliot's explicit Atlantis association. As early as the mid-1890s, new scientific discoveries, such as the discovery of X-rays, led to the widespread view, even among intellectuals, that science could not yet claim to have finally solved the world's mysteries and that invisible natural forces and energies still existed. Occult theories were not only cited as counter-concepts to natural science, but common thematic points of contact were also identified. Many occult circles responded to the unease caused by the materialism of scientific and technological modernity by attempting to formulate a doctrine of the control of earthly and cosmic forces that was on a par with the natural sciences. Around 1900, the fields of occultism and mysticism experienced a great upswing that lasted until the 1930s. As Theosophy was widespread at this time of the revival of occult movements, the "Vril" concept was also familiar in occult circles in Germany. Bulwer-Lytton's primal force appeared above all in contexts involving the creation of a "magic technique", whose designs expressed the desire for a unification of science and religion. A total of four translations of Bulwer-Lytton's book were published in Germany between 1874 and 1924, including one, which Anthroposophist Guenther Wachsmuth at the request of Rudolf Steiner. The term "Vril" therefore became known to a wider public in Germany until the 1920s. As a result, lay theories flourished, claiming to be able to fill alleged gaps in the sciences, without taking into account that Bulwer-Lytton only wanted to write an entertainment novel in the style of Jules Verne. Development and content of the legends about the Vril societies Before World War II, there was at least one private circle in Berlin whose members were explicitly involved with the "Vril" force. The few sources that prove the existence of this circle of people later became one of the starting points for the creation of the Vril society legend. One of the sources of evidence for the existence of such a group is an article by the German rocket pioneer Willy Ley, which he published in 1947 in the American science fiction magazine Astounding Science Fiction. In it, he attempts to explain to his readers why National Socialism was able to fall on fertile ground in Germany and attributes this to the great popularity of irrational beliefs in pre-war Germany. He describes various examples of pseudoscience and esoteric currents and in this context also mentions what he sees as a particularly peculiar group: In 1930, two smaller pamphlets entitled Weltdynamismus were published and Vril. Die kosmische Urkraft, which were published by an occult circle that called itself the "Reichsarbeitsgemeinschaft 'Das kommende Deutschland'" (RAG). In it, the RAG claimed to have an elaborate technology that was suitable for utilizing the "Vril" force. The structure and functional principle of the machine described and the political program outlined are almost identical in structure and content to a brochure published by two Austrian authors as early as 1928, which propagated a perpetuum mobile that the Austrian Karl Schappeller is said to have invented. The RAG plans only differ from this in a few details. Overall, the impression is created that this is an improved version of Schappeller's machine, the function of which is not explained in (pseudo-)physical terms, but in occult terms. In a longer section of one of the texts, the image of an apple cut in half is used as a model for the structure of the earth and its connection with the "space force". This and the contributions by proven Schappeller supporters suggest that it was primarily followers of the Austrian inventor who contributed to the RAG publications. From another RAG publication, of the Zeitschrift für Weltdynamismus, it becomes clear that RAG was founded in Berlin in 1930 by a certain Johannes Täufer. Täufer was also responsible for the brochure "Vril". Die kosmische Urkraft, but nothing more is known about his person. The name is probably a pseudonym, and it has been suggested that it may have been the publisher Otto Wilhelm Barth, who had published two of the RAG publications. Fritz Klein, a patron of Schappeller whose writings were recommended by RAG, may also have been behind this. A comparison between Ley's memoirs and the contents of the RAG writings leads to the conclusion that the "Truth Society" and the RAG could actually have been the same group. However, it seems to have only had a short-term and marginal significance in the occult scene of the time. There is no evidence of RAG in official registers, nor are there any records of its publications at the time in the archives of the Otto Wilhelm Barth publishing house. No further issues of either the Zeitschrift für Weltdynamismus or the Archiv für Alchemistische Forschung, which was published jointly with it, appeared. No documents exist for the period after 1930 that prove RAG's continued existence or influence on other circles. Nor can RAG's claim that it possessed "Vril" technology be regarded as proof that it actually succeeded in using it. Above all, however, it does not seem to be relevant to the invention of a Vril company after 1945 whether Willy Ley had actually referred to RAG: as will become clear below, later authors were at best inspired by Ley's statements for their own fantasies. Nonetheless, this group later formed a central building block for justifying the legends of the secret activities of a "Vril Society" in Germany from the 1920s to the 1940s. In the period after the Second World War, numerous conspiracy theory and pseudohistorical interpretations of the Third Reich developed. pseudo-historical interpretations of the Third Reich, in which occult elements played a central role. In this context, the "Vril" concept and the aforementioned references to occultist groups were also cited as historical evidence. The earliest reference to an alleged secret society with the name "Vril Society" can be found in a publication from 1960. Since then, the topic has been taken up again and again in several variations in conspiracy theory and esoteric literature. While the first versions of this legend still rejected National Socialism, more recent versions of the legend directly or indirectly serve a positive reinterpretation of the Third Reich. The existence of a "vril society" was first claimed by the French authors Louis Pauwels and Jacques Bergier. In their book Le matin des magiciens (Departure into the third millennium), published in 1960, they represented the thesis that the Nazi leadership attempted to enter into alliances with supernatural powers. An occult secret society had played a central role in these efforts. Referring to the statements of Willy Ley and on the basis of research they had allegedly carried out themselves but not specified further, they claimed that this society had called itself the "Vril Society" or "The Lodge of the Brothers of the Light" (Luminous Lodge). The "Vril Society" maintained close contacts with the Theosophical Society, the Rosicrucians and in particular the Thule Society and was an important Nazi organization. The sect that Ley recalls bears only a superficial resemblance to the "Vril Society" of the book Dawn of the Third Millennium. The authors never provided further evidence for their far-reaching speculations, not even for the alleged names of this group. Their claims must therefore be classified as fictions. In addition, historical research came to the conclusion that the occult groups existing at the time (for example the Thule Society) did not exert any significant influence on Hitler and the NSDAP. Although connections between occult ideas and the world view of individual National Socialists (especially Himmler) can be proven, they do not support the thesis that these occult circles had a comprehensive, systematic influence on Hitler and the entire National Socialist leadership. Pauwels and Bergier's book inspired other authors to speculate about the alleged role of the "Vril Society", such as J. H. Brennan or Trevor Ravenscroft. In the 1990s, the legend of the "Vril Society" was further developed. Norbert Jürgen-Ratthofer and Ralf Ettl linked them in 1992 in their publication The Vril Project mit dem älteren Mythos der „NS-Flugscheiben". According to them, the "Vril Society" had developed from the Thule Society and pursued esoteric studies. In the early 1920s, the Aldebarans made telepathic contact with it and with an inner circle of the SS, through which they received plans to build a flying machine. In 1922, the "Vril Society" is said to have used this information to build a saucer-shaped flying ship, the so-called "Beyond Flying Machine". Through various intermediate steps, in which the Austrian inventor Viktor Schauberger is said to have been involved, this then allegedly led to the construction of a version ("V7"), in which members of the "Vril Society" are said to have traveled to Aldebaran in 1945. In addition, further saucer-shaped aircraft (with names such as "Vril" and "Haunebu") were allegedly developed, with the help of which members of the Vril Society and the SS finally set off for Antarctic New Swabia in 1945. Jürgen-Ratthofer and Ettl were members of the so-called Tempelhof Society, which had been active since the 1980s under the aegis of its "grand commander" Hans-Günter Fröhlich. The Tempelhof Society brought out several small publications and organized regular meetings that demonstrated its connections to the German-speaking right-wing extremist network of the time. The first comprehensive publication of the Tempelhof Society appeared in 1987 under the title Einblick in die magische Weltsicht und die magischen Prozesse (Insight into the magical world view and the magical processes). Excerpts from this publication and from articles in the right-wing extremist magazine CODE prove that an exchange took place between the members of the Tempelhof Society and the circle around Wilhelm Landig, which mainly revolved around the Sumerian/Babylonian origins of the Germans and the concept of the Black Sun. The publications of the Tempelhof Society were instrumental in linking this esoteric concept of the Black Sun, which had been discussed in the circle around Landig since the 1950s. The text Das Vril-Projekt (The Vril Project), published by the Tempelhof Society, was originally little known. The legend attracted greater attention when it was taken up by Jan Udo Holey and reached a wider readership through his books. Holey, who is associated with brown esotericism, published the book Geheimgesellschaften und ihre Macht im 20. Jahrhundert (Secret Societies and their Power in the 20th Century) in 1993 under the pseudonym "Jan van Helsing", which is said to have sold 100,000 copies by 1996 alone. In it, he reproduces the scenario by Jürgen-Ratthofer and Ettl, but without clearly identifying their authorship. Her writing is listed in Holey's bibliography, but there is no reference to her authorship in the relevant chapter. In his 1997 book Unternehmen Aldebaran, Holey repeated this scenario and expanded it with more extensive references to Nazi UFOs and secret bases in the Antarctic. Variations of this legend can also be found in more recent publications by other authors, e.g. Heiner Gehring and Karl-Heinz Zunneck, in the Study Buddhism, in Arcanorum Causam Nostrum, with Armin Risi and not least Henry Stevens. Other variations of the legend focus more strongly on the alleged role of a woman, who was already mentioned in 1992 in the Vril Project by Jürgen-Ratthofer and Ettl and also later at Holey was mentioned: a medium named Maria Oršić. According to the Vril Project, Maria Oršić from Zagreb (Croatia) was involved in the founding of the "Vril Society" and also established the spiritualist contact with the Aldebarans. In a later text, which only circulates anonymously on the internet, the figure of Maria Oršić is transformed from a minor character into a central protagonist. This text claims that Maria Oršić, a native of Vienna, founded the "All German Society for Metaphysics" in Munich in 1919 or 1921, which was linked to the "Vril Society". According to this text, the originally only female members of this society were involved with magical energies that were connected to the "Vril force". The protest against the short hair fashion of the 1920s and the wearing of long hairstyles played an important role in connection with the use of these "vibrational magical" energies. These energies were also used to power so-called "otherworldly flying machines", in the construction of which they were involved. According to the text, the "Alldeutsche Gesellschaft für Metaphysik" later formed the "Antriebstechnische Werkstätten". There, other scientists and technicians, including a Munich professor named "W. O. Schumann", were involved in the development of Reichsflugscheibes and other armaments projects. After the dissolution of the Tempelhof Society, Ralf Ettl founded the Causa Nostra circle of friends, which continues to disseminate such ideas to this day, sometimes in a modified form. Causa Nostra also maintains links with the Swiss publisher Unitall, whose publications incorporate the ideas of the Tempelhof Society / Causa Nostra in the form of novels and non-fiction books. The myth of the Nazi UFOs arose independently of the aforementioned authors and was essentially inspired by the writings of Miguel Serrano, Ernst Zündel and Wilhelm Landig characterized. The graphic representations of German flying disks circulating today are mostly based on drawings that were distributed in the 1980s by Ralf Ettl's Abraxas Videofilm Produktionsgesellschaft mbH and first published by D. H. Haarmann and O. Bergmann. The drawings were apparently inspired by the photos in George Adamski's UFO classics. There is a complete lack of verifiable evidence for the scenarios described; the books contain only a few illustrations of questionable origin. There is no substantiated evidence for the references to the groups discussed above or to real people from contemporary history. The authors refer to messages transmitted by the media and anonymous informants (cf. e.g.), that defy all scrutiny. The topic seems to be particularly well received in circles of right-wing esotericism or esoteric neo-Nazism. A characteristic feature of this trend, which has been observable for some years now, is that the "Third Reich" is being reinterpreted and positively valorized from the perspective of esoteric world views. Concepts originally developed there, such as the Black Sun, have now also had a significant influence on popular culture outside these circles, as can be seen in computer games such as Wolfenstein. No reputable sources were provided on the life and work of Maria Oršić and the members of the society she allegedly led. Nevertheless, in the wake of the publications of the "right-wing extremist esotericist" Jan Udo Holey wrote a series of neo-pagan and, in part, neo-Nazi publications, secret societies, as well as a novel based on facts about the life and work of Maria Oršić and the "Vril Society". Not least through a publication by the authors Peter Bahn and Heiner Gehring, in which an attempt was made to support the concept of a "primal energy" underlying all other forms of energy by referring to the historical tradition of this concept, the topics of "Vril" power and "Vril society" also attracted attention in those circles that believe in the reality of so-called "free energy". However, the "Vril" concept was also used by representatives of "brown esotericism" for a positive reinterpretation of the "Third Reich". For example, references to Bahn and Gehring's interpretation of the RAG can be found in the publications of the Sonnenwacht association, which, according to critics, "uses neo-pagan esotericism as a cover for right-wing extremism". Literature References Final Solution Pre-Machtergreifung Post-Machtergreifung |
======================================== |
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Catilinarian_conspiracy] | [TOKENS: 1321] |
Contents First Catilinarian conspiracy The so-called first Catilinarian conspiracy was an almost certainly fictitious conspiracy in the late Roman Republic. According to various ancient tellings, it involved Publius Autronius Paetus, Publius Cornelius Sulla, Lucius Sergius Catilina, and others. Ancient accounts of the alleged conspiracy differ in the participants; in some tellings, Catiline is nowhere mentioned. Autronius and Sulla had been elected consuls for 65 BC but were removed after convictions for bribery. New consuls were then elected. The supposed goal of the conspiracy was to murder the second set of consuls elected for 65 BC and, in their resulting absence, replace them. Almost all modern historians believe the conspiracy is fictitious and dismiss claims thereof as merely slanderous political rumours. The core of the legend, a plot by the two consuls-elect for 65 BC to kill and usurp the consuls, is dismissed as inconceivable. The participation of others, such as Catiline, is rejected as inconsistent with their immediately following political actions; most claims of participation are believed to be discrediting retrojections introduced in the aftermath of the real Catilinarian conspiracy in 63 BC. Ancient accounts The inciting incident for the conspiracy was the election of two consuls-designate for 65 BC, Publius Autronius Paetus and Publius Cornelius Sulla, followed by the invalidation of the results. They were accused and convicted of ambitus, electoral corruption, preventing them from entering office and expelling them from the senate. The two other leading candidates, Lucius Manlius Torquatus and Lucius Aurelius Cotta, were elected in a second election and then slated to enter office on the first day of 65 BC in their place. Catiline supposedly became involved when his consular candidacy was rejected by the presiding magistrate for the comitia in 66 BC, Lucius Volcatius Tullus. Cicero's account survives, although scattered over a number of speeches. At various times and contexts, he claimed there was a conspiracy: Sallust describes a conspiracy developed in December 66 BC involving Autronius, Catiline, and Piso to make Autronius and Catiline consuls by violence on 1 January 65 BC. His description then includes a further conspiracy to murder many senators and assume the consulship on 5 February 65 BC after the discovery of the first plot. Livy's account survives only in the Periochae. The summary thereof states only that a conspiracy, by those who had stood for the consulship but were convicted of ambitus (Autronius and Sulla), to kill the consuls was suppressed. Suetonius' account has no mention of Catiline and instead has Autronius conspiring with Julius Caesar (later dictator) and Marcus Licinius Crassus (later Caesar's ally) to butcher the replacement consuls and have Crassus made dictator with Caesar as magister equitum. Caesar would help by cooperating with Piso to raise an insurrection in Hispania and elsewhere. Crassus and Caesar would then restore Autronius and Sulla to their vacated consulships. Cassius Dio gives no mention of Crassus and Caesar, relating instead that Autronius, Sulla, Catiline, and Piso conspired to make Autronius and Sulla consuls. In the aftermath of the rumours, the senate voted to provide bodyguards for the consuls and to establish an inquiry; the inquiry, however, was vetoed by one of the tribunes. When Catiline was tried for corruption later in 65 BC, one of the sitting consuls he was alleged to have planned to murder, Lucius Manlius Torquatus, appeared in his defence and indicated his disbelief of the rumours. Cicero, on his part, however, continued to slander Catiline through following years with the allegations, due both to his personal enmity with Catiline and his desire to embellish his suppression of Catiline's revolt in 63 BC. Modern views Modern historians today, almost universally, doubt that the conspiracy ever existed and view it as fictitious. Older scholarship had varied views, positing various theories: The conspirators could have been agents of a shadowy anti-Pompeian faction or a motley group of opportunists. Catiline may have been an ally of Torquatus, Sulla, or have been unrelated, engaging only tangentially because of the trial of Gaius Manilius in December 66 BC. But since the 1960s, basically all historians now reject the conspiracy's historicity. Robin Seager in a 1964 article proposes means by which the legend was developed: Cicero sought to discredit Catiline prior to his consulship by associating him to a supposed plot that came to nothing; he later excised Publius Sulla from his descriptions when he needed to defend him. Another tradition attempted something similar by putting Caesar's name into the mix. Of the possibility of a core conspiracy by the two consuls-designate unseated for corruption, Seager writes "it is inconceivable that there was such a plot... they could have had no hope of recovering the consulship even for a single day". As to Suetonius' claims, beyond the fact that Crassus and Caesar could have had no part in a non-existent conspiracy, they would have had no reason to join one: the two would have had nothing to gain and everything to lose. As to Piso's involvement, Seager dismisses any such involvement as implausible given that he soon received the honour of an early governorship in Hispania from the senate. Erich S. Gruen in a 1969 article similarly dismisses the ancient descriptions as "hopelessly muddled by propaganda and invective", explaining that after the actual Catilinarian conspiracy in 63 BC, "it was in any politician's interest to associate his enemies with Catiline" and that later stories embellished this by inventing a role for Caesar and Crassus after Caesar's polarising consulship in 59 BC. Catiline may have engaged in some demonstrations related to a riotous trial – that of Manilius – at the end of 66 BC, but there is little reliable evidence of a connection between those demonstrations and any attempts to overturn the consular elections. References Further reading |
======================================== |
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statesmen_(conspiracy_theory)] | [TOKENS: 4625] |
Contents Statesmen (conspiracy theory) The Statesmen, or Statesmen Clan (Lithuanian: "valstybininkai", "valstybininkų" klanas, generally written with quote marks) is a conspiracy theory which claims that a deep state of unelected officials, based in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the State Security Department of Lithuania (VSD), seeks to influence the actions of elected officials, protect each other in power and take control of Lithuania. The conspiracy theory emerged in 2006, after the death of VSD officer Vytautas Pociūnas in Belarus, who the theory claims was a whistleblower of the clan's activities. The conspiracy theory was promoted by politicians in the Homeland Union (TS-LKD). Though primarily connected with investigations from 2006 to 2010, the theory has experienced a revival since 2019, after opponents of the Homeland Union claimed that the "clan" remains active and is pressuring the Šimonytė Cabinet. Content According to Valdas Vasiliauskas, editor-in-chief of Lietuvos žinios (later a Member of the Seimas for the Way of Courage party), the Statesmen are "a clan-like group of persons connected by constant mutual relations, distribution of roles and tasks among group members", it is a highly organized and hierarchical organization (Vasiliauskas identified Albinas Januška as its leader), has control of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the State Security Department, the President of Lithuania, the military, police, the political sciences faculty of Vilnius University and is connected with the courts, political parties and the media. Pociūnas was generally described as a whistleblower, a VSD official who was aware of the conspiracy and was killed for attempting to reveal it to the media. The specific information differed. In 2008, Vasiliauskas claimed that Pociūnas investigated the connections between the "Statesmen" and the energy company Dujotekana, as well as the company's influence in government institutions. Later, in 2014, he claimed that Pociūnas was aware about the CIA black site in Antaviliai, near Vilnius, and the alleged bribes to VSD officials which allowed its creation. It had been alleged that the "Statesmen" were responsible for the fall of Brazauskas Cabinet II and convinced members of the Labour Party to support the formation of the Kirkilas Cabinet. Viktor Uspaskich accused "statesmen" of attempting to destroy his political career and his party via Labour's "dark accounting" case. Rolandas Paksas, President of Lithuania impeached in 2004, claimed that he opposed the "statesmen" during his presidency and was removed for refusing to allow the establishment of the Antaviliai CIA black site. In 2007, he claimed that "statesmen" conspired to raise attention towards LGBT rights in Lithuania to distract attention from their case. According to Rasa Juknevičienė, Member of the Seimas from the Homeland Union, the deep state emerged after the 1998 Russian financial crisis and the 2000 Lithuanian parliamentary election, which spurned a group of individuals to "take the reins of the state to their hands" with Russian financial support. Vasiliauskas claimed that the conspiracy formed as early as 1990, within the deputies of the Supreme Council of Lithuania, also known as the Reconstituent Seimas, including members of the former Communist Party of Lithuania. Antanas Valionis claimed that "TS-LKD campaign against the so-called Statesmen" could have been motivated by the struggles of business groups in the energy sector in 2000–2006 and VSD investigations into previous unexplained violent acts, such as the Bražuolė bridge bombing in 1994 and the bombing of the editorial office of Lietuvos rytas in 1995. According to the politician, the TS-LKD interpreted this as a conspiracy against them. History Though the pejorative term "valstybininkas" ("Statesman", meaning an official who belongs to a group of influential figures seeking personal gain) has been used in Lithuanian media since at least 2005, the conspiracy theory emerged after Vytautas Pociūnas, a VSD officer stationed in Brest, Belarus, was found dead after falling out of the window of Hotel Intourist on 23 August 2006. The death was ruled an accident, but it was rumoured that Pociūnas was killed for his alleged investigations into a deep state within the Lithuanian government and institutions, and their anti-state activities. It became more prominent after an investigation into Pociūnas' death by the State Prosecutor's Office was closed in late 2006 after a very quick investigation (including a claim that Pociūnas fell out of a window while urinating, which was interpreted as a smear campaign), and after an Ekstra magazine interview of VSD deputy director Darius Jurgelevičius in September 2006, in which he commented on the public interest in the Pociūnas case: There are many nuances and details. And if all this rummaging around in those bones continues, moments that will not add honor to the whole thing will start to emerge. I think someone is trying to make a big show, but the result, I believe, will be disappointing. Unfortunate. Numerous protests were held in support of Pociūnas and his surviving family, and the final annual commemoration of his death was held in 2016. The death was also followed by an investigation by the Seimas National Security and Defense Committee (Lithuanian: Lietuvos Respublikos Seimo nacionalinio saugumo ir gynybos komitetas, NSGK) into VSD activity, initiated by Homeland Union Member of the Seimas Rasa Juknevičienė. On 4 December 2006, NSGK published their conclusion on the activities of the State Security Department. 33 active (in December 2006) and 4 former VSD officials, Seimas members Andrius Kubilius, Jurgis Razma, Antanas Valionis, former secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Albinas Januška, former Director General of VSD, ambassador to Spain Mečys Laurinkus, consul general in Grodno Daiva Mockuvienė, television journalist Joana Lapėnienė, Vytautas Pociūnas's wife Liudvika Pociūnienė and brother Algimantas Pociūnas, and signatory of the Act of March 11 Algirdas Endriukaitis testified before the committee. The investigation was controversial. Januška resigned from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, claiming that he is unable to answer public criticism while keeping state secrets, but was immediately reappointed as advisor to Gediminas Kirkilas. NSGK members unsuccessfully demanded certificates from the VSD related to possible corrupt connections of high-ranking officials. Refused, the politicians turned to President Valdas Adamkus hoping to convince him to temporarily suspend the then head of the VSD, Arvydas Pocius, whose decision not to provide information was assessed as a mockery of the Seimas. However, the president refused to meet with members of the Seimas. During the investigation, independent journalists published information regarding the suspects' alleged membership in the KGB and connections with the Russian state energy company Gazprom. In the committee's opinion, Pociūnas was removed from his previous duties within the VSD and assigned to Belarus in order to stop corruption investigations he was conducting in the transport and energy sectors. In addition, the committee stated that certain signs identified during the parliamentary investigation allow to assume that some VSD investigations, actions of directors and officials in some cases may have been carried out or their results used for the benefit of certain political groups, in other cases - to influence these political groups or politicians themselves. The committee's opinion statement first coined the term "statesman" to refer to individuals allegedly involved, to Albinas Januška, without a negative connotation. The term "statesmen" was originally claimed by the accused politicians and civil servants themselves, to express their patriotism. Mečys Laurinkus commented on the existence of a group which "formulated tasks" for the State Security Department on 30 October 2007: In many democratic states, there is a mechanism for forming tasks for the intelligence service and even reviewing them annually. These are special groups of politicians in the government or presidency. There is no such mechanism in Lithuania, the VSD works according to the Law on the Fundamentals of National Security, like a radar signaling an impending threat. It is effective, but very expensive, and it also duplicates the work of other services. Several influential Lithuanian politicians, who are quite rightly called by the honorable name of "statesmen", took the initiative of formulating tasks. Unusual, new, but very necessary work has received distorted evaluations from both inside and outside the institution. This was taken by various politicians in the country to be a confirmation of the existence of the conspiracy, and Member of the Seimas Algimantas Matulevičius (Civic Democracy Party), in charge of a parliamentary investigation into VSD activity, described it as an unconstitutional act. Laurinkus later claimed that he does not remember the existence of such a scandal. Vytautas Pociūnas' widow, Liudvika Pociūnienė, requested the reopening of the terminated investigation in November 2006, claiming that it lacked detail and was not impartial. She was joined by Member of the Seimas Saulius Pečeliūnas (TS-LKD), who formed a nonpartisan civil society organization, Rally of Citizens (Lithuanian: Piliečių santalka), claiming to combat perceived cliques in the government and a "nomenklatura more powerful than the law". Both complaints were dismissed by the General Prosecutor's Office in July 2007 on lacking grounds. Pociūnienė received support throughout the political spectrum. Vytautas Landsbergis, former leader of the Homeland Union, asserted that the conclusions of the prosecutor's office that Pociūnas died in an accident were "worthless", and the New Union (Social Liberals) lodged a demand that the General Prosecutor's Office should make the materials of the investigation file public. On 17 August 2007, Prime Minister Gediminas Kirkilas announced the formation of a special work committee which would investigate the circumstances of Pociūnas' death, led by publicist Vytautas Ališauskas and staffed by Seimas and European Parliament members from several political parties. New forensic and medical experts were hired after Pociūnas' widow and the press criticized the negligence of the forensic experts during the initial investigation. The renewed investigation was slow and controversial. It was criticized by President Valdas Adamkus as a threat to the independence of the prosecution system. The committee could only meet in 2008 due to conflicting schedules of the committee members (including two EP members, who worked in Brussels and could only participate on Fridays), and several of the committee's members resigned before the first meeting due to this inactivity. Meanwhile, at the order of court, the General Prosecutor's Office renewed investigation into the case, which doubled the work of the committee. It was shut down in March 2008. An independent investigation commission was organized by Sąjūdis in July 2008. Vygaudas Ušackas alleged that asking for Landsbergis's support to be selected as Minister of Foreign Affairs in October 2008, he was requested to "eliminate the Statesmen element administered by Albinas Januška". On 24 February 2009, the case was closed again and the General Prosecutor's Office reaffirmed that Pociūnas' death was an accident. Liudvika Pociūnienė once again protested the verdict. On 9 June 2009, the Vilnius District Court ordered the prosecutors to reopen the case a third time. Under court order, the case was also reclassified as a murder case. After investigations into official documents, over 100 witnesses questioned and experiments organized in the Inturist hotel in Brest, the case was closed as an accident again on 1 February 2013. Pociūnienė requested the case to be reopened again, but her request was dismissed. On 26 March 2008, an article titled "Lithuania Has Been Taken Over by the Statesmen Clan?" (Lithuanian: "Lietuvą užvaldė „valstybininkų" klanas?") was published on the newspaper Lietuvos žinios. This article compiled a list of 43 civil servants, diplomats, advisors of then-president Valdas Adamkus, VSD employees, businessmen, political scientists, and members of the Seimas, who were allegedly members of a single hierarchical structured "clan" which seeks to take over the state. According to editor-in-chief Valdas Vasiliauskas, it was published under a pseudonym to "protect the author from possible retaliation". In the same month, Mečys Laurinkus published an open letter for Vytautas Landsbergis, requesting him to use his authority to end "the idiotic persecution of some civil servants that has been going on for almost two years now". Laurinkus also asked the leadership of TS-LKD to mention a single crime committed by the alleged "statesmen". An investigation into the circumstances surrounding the formation of the Kirkilas Cabinet was proposed in the Seimas in 2008, but was voted down. Discussion of the "List of Statesmen" and the high point of the conspiracy theory coincided with the 2008 Lithuanian parliamentary election, which was seen as an opportunity for "De-Albinization". Several parties vowed to destroy the conspiracy's perceived power in their electoral campaigns. Opponents of the perceived "statesmen" described themselves as "patriots" (Lithuanian: "pilietininkai"). Both sides alleged that the other side was influenced or controlled by corporations and foreign interests - "statesmen" referred to the holding company MG Baltic and chemical company Achema, while "patriots" referred to Dujotekana and the business alliance "VP Ten", led by Nerijus Numavičius. Both sides accused the other of collusion with Russia. The election was won by the Homeland Union, which was joined by the Liberal and Centre Union, the National Resurrection Party and the Liberal Movement in a centre-right "Coalition for Change" (Lithuanian: Permainų koalicija), which formed the Kubilius Cabinet II. In November 2008, VSD director Povilas Malakauskas informed the newly appointed Homeland Union prime minister Andrius Kubilius of the existence of an alleged anti-state group called "Hawks" (Lithuanian: "vanagai"). "Hawks" were journalists and politicians affiliated with the political right who were actively involved in the alleged "unmasking" of "statesmen" activity. Valdas Vasiliauskas, journalist Tomas Čyvas, Darius Kuolys (later founder of the Lithuanian List), Audrius Bačiulis, Virgis Valentinavičius (advisor of Andrius Kubilius), Vladas Laučius (chief editor of news portal Alfa.lt, previously consultant for MG Baltic Media) and others were alleged as members of this counter-conspiracy. Alleged members of this group claimed that this was a VSD attempt to control the media and influence politicians. Edvardas Čiuldė claimed that "hawks" represented the interests of large media companies and were financed by the alcohol producer Stumbras, owned by MG Baltic. Dalia Grybauskaitė, President of Lithuania from 2009 to 2019, won the 2009 Lithuanian presidential election with an anti-systemic platform and was supported by the Homeland Union. After her inauguration, several state officials implicated in the conspiracy theory were removed from office. In August 2009, in a controversial decree, she fired deputy director of the VSD Darius Jurgelevičius, while Mečys Laurinkus was accused of politicking in diplomatic service and recalled from the Lithuanian embassy in Georgia in late 2009. Valdas Vasiliauskas described it as "a war between the President and the Statesmen". Albinas Januška retired from politics in late 2008 to herd sheep in a farm near Zarasai, but continued to unofficially advise politicians on state affairs. By late 2010, the Homeland Union dropped their interest in the "statesmen" conspiracy theory and ceased investigations in government institutions such as the VSD, although it was still maintained by independent "hawk" journalists, the Civic Democracy Party and the Way of Courage party. According to declassified VSD information, officials allegedly a part of the "Statesmen" group (including Albinas Januška and Raimondas Lopata) attempted to appoint Mindaugas Bastys as Minister of Agriculture in the Butkevičius Cabinet in 2012. In early 2023, the conspiracy theory was revived after the publication of the book "The Whistleblower and the President" (Lithuanian: Pranešėjas ir prezidentas) by Dovydas Pancerovas and Birutė Davidonytė, which described alleged business and VSD involvement in the Gitanas Nausėda campaign during the 2019 Lithuanian presidential election, including illegal collection of personal information. After the publication of the book, MPs of the Lithuanian Farmers and Greens Union alleged that the book was published to discredit the incumbent president and proposed an investigation into "statesmen" activity, but the proposal did not find support even among the opposition. In January 2024, Gitanas Nausėda's chief advisor Frederikas Jansonas claimed that appointments to vacant ambassador positions are delayed due to "statesmen" sabotage, and alleged that the conspiracy group is allied with the Šimonytė Cabinet. He identified members of the government, such as Žygimantas Pavilionis, as individuals listed in the 2008 "List of the Statesmen". Albinas Januška dismissed the allegations. Alleged members Proponents of the conspiracy theory generally refer to individuals named in the "List of the Statesmen" (Lithuanian: "valstybininkų" sąrašas), which lists the alleged deep state's members and supporters. The list was originally published by the newspaper Lietuvos žinios on 26 March 2008: The newspaper also claimed that other, unmentioned figures are affiliated with the conspiracy within political parties, in the legal system and in business. Impact The Statesmen conspiracy theory was pronounced during the 2008 Lithuanian parliamentary election. In their 2008 election programs, the Civic Democracy Party vowed to "destroy the "statesmen clan"", and Order and Justice claimed that they "seek power in order to restore the state to the people, which they were robbed by the "statesmen" clan". The conspiracy was also frequently referred to by politicians of the Homeland Union, such as Rasa Juknevičienė, as well as President Dalia Grybauskaitė, who connected it with Russian influence in the Lithuanian government. During Kubilius Cabinet II, the death of Vytautas Pociūnas was brought up by Conservative politicians, such as Jurgis Razma, as waving the bloody shirt to support reforms to the State Security Department and the dissolution of the national energy company LEO LT. The Statesmen conspiracy theory emerged at a similar time as the Case of Drąsius Kedys, another controversial legal case which led to public protest against perceived corruption and "clans" in the state apparatus. According to controversial journalist and TV presenter Rūta Janutienė, in both cases, "the victim is turned into the culprit of the accident, labels of alcoholics and drug addicts are attached to the deceased". Tomas Čyvas claimed that state security services connected to the conspiracy were responsible for separating Drąsius Kedys and his daughter. Similarly, the investigation into the unexplained assassination of VSD officer Juras Abromavičius took place in 2007, and some journalists and conspiracy theorists stated that they were committed by the same "mafia clan". Vytautas Pociūnas' widow, Liudvika Pociūnienė, became a member of TS-LKD and was elected as a Member of the Seimas in the 2020 Lithuanian parliamentary election. A 2006 November file on the resignation of Albinas Januška by the United States embassy in Lithuania was leaked from a document cache by WikiLeaks. In it, US officials express their surprise at Januška's resignation, mention his influence in the Kirkilas Cabinet and state theories about his resignation by questioned Lithuanian officials, including possible Russian involvement. According to the document, Whenever a prominent official in Lithuania becomes the victim of a scandal, it is usual to blame Russia. We may never know why this mysterious official resigned. What still confuses us is that A. Januska resigned because of such hard-to-prove and unfounded accusations. For all we know, he could have overcome this situation if he had wanted to. However, we believe that this Svengali of Lithuania will remain active and influential in the circles of Lithuanian domestic and foreign politics in the future. A previously unnamed street in the Pilaitė district in Vilnius was named Vytautas Pociūnas Street in 2016. The conspiracy theory was parodied on the Lithuanian political satire TV show Dviračio žinios. See also References |
======================================== |
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_Barack_Obama_spying_on_Donald_Trump] | [TOKENS: 2585] |
Contents Allegations of Barack Obama spying on Donald Trump As part of a large and baseless conspiracy theory, Donald Trump posited that Barack Obama had spied on him, which Trump described as "the biggest political crime in American history, by far." The series of accusations have been nicknamed Obamagate. Obama had served as the 44th President of the United States from 2009 until 2017, when Trump succeeded him; Trump served as the 45th president until 2021 (first presidency) and later he was re-elected in 2024 as the 47th president (second presidency). During key points of the 2020 campaign, including the Republican National Convention and both presidential debates, Trump frequently repeated this theory, claiming "they spied on my campaign" in reference to these allegations. The specific allegations of inappropriate politically motivated surveillance or "spying" all involve the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Crossfire Hurricane investigation of the Trump campaign and transition and their ties to Russia. No evidence has been found that legal surveillance, as part of Crossfire Hurricane, was at the direction of Obama, Obama administration political officials or improper deep state influence, or that the Steele dossier was used to launch the Russia probe, or that the surveillance was designed to surveil the Trump campaign and Trump White House transition team for political purposes. Trump has claimed that as part of Crossfire Hurricane, his "wires" at Trump Tower were wiretapped. This was refuted by Trump's own Justice Department. In addition, Trump has claimed that after the Crossfire Hurricane investigation recorded Michael Flynn's conversations with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, Flynn was improperly "unmasked". This was also refuted by the Trump Justice Department. Specific actions undertaken by the FBI that have been highlighted include the use of an informant who met with Trump advisors Sam Clovis, George Papadopoulos, and Carter Page, as well as obtaining a FISA warrant to legally surveil Carter Page after he left the Trump campaign. The Inspector General report on the Crossfire Hurricane investigation did not find evidence that "political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI's decision to seek FISA authority on Carter Page", but did point out serious inconsistencies and improper procedures that were followed with regard to the obtaining of the warrants. The Inspector General wrote that his review "found no evidence that the FBI attempted to place any" FBI source in the Trump campaign. The review also "found no evidence" that the FBI had tried to "recruit members of the Trump campaign" to serve as their sources. Finally, the review did not produce evidence that "political bias or improper motivations influenced" the FBI's usage of confidential sources or undercover agents for interactions with members of Trump's campaign. In July 2025, Tulsi Gabbard distributed documents that she insinuated placed guilt for certain members of the Obama administration, that she termed "treasonous", and were a part of the Obamagate conspiracy theory. Several days later Trump accused and affirmed Gabbard's allegations during a July 22 meeting with the Philippine President Bongbong Marcos, where he claimed Obama attempted a failed "coup" in the 2016 election which implicated former President Obama for treason. That same day a spokesperson for Obama's office stated that normally out of respect for the office of the Presidency, Obama's office rarely made public comments, however as Trump's claims were both "outrageous" and "bizarre" the situation called for a response. The spokesperson added that these allegations were attempts at "distraction". Political commentators have suggested that by distraction, that Trump was using the Obamagate conspiracy theory to deflect allegations that Trump was involved with the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking scandal. Background According to the results of a U.S. Senate investigation, the government of Russia directly and through intermediaries sought influence within 2016 U.S. presidential election candidate Donald Trump's political campaigns and also to sow discord within American society. Thus, actions taken by the then-current Obama Administration in its investigations into these alleged Russian influences provide the bases for claims that it spied on Trump. Conspiracy theory elements Investigations launched Timeline On May 10, 2020—one day after former president Barack Obama criticized the Trump administration's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic—Trump posted a one-word tweet: "OBAMAGATE!" On May 11, Philip Rucker of The Washington Post asked Trump what crime former president Barack Obama committed. Trump's reply was: "Obamagate. It's been going on for a long time ... from before I even got elected and it's a disgrace that it happened.... Some terrible things happened and it should never be allowed to happen in our country again." When Rucker again asked what the crime was, Trump said: "You know what the crime is. The crime is very obvious to everybody. All you have to do is read the newspapers, except yours." On May 15, Trump tweeted that Obamagate was the "greatest political scandal in the history of the United States." This was the third time Trump claimed to be suffering from a scandal of such magnitude, after previously giving Spygate and the Russia investigation similar labels. Also on May 15, Trump linked Obamagate to the "persecution" of Michael Flynn, and a missing 302 form. Trump called for Congress to summon Obama to testify about "the biggest political crime". Senator Lindsey Graham, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that he did not expect to summon Obama, but would summon other Obama administration officials. Meanwhile, Attorney General William Barr stated that he did not "expect" Obama to be investigated for a crime. Some of Trump's allies have suggested that the "crime" involved the FBI launching an investigation into incoming national security advisor Michael Flynn, or possibly the "unmasking" by outgoing Obama officials to find out the name of a person who was reported in intelligence briefings to be conversing with the Russian ambassador. In a May 2020 op-ed at the news website RealClearPolitics, Charles Lipson, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Chicago analyzed the content of "Obamagate". He claimed that the concept refers to three accusations: (1) The Obama administration conducted mass surveillance through the NSA; (2) the Obama administration used surveillance against Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, and (3) the Obama administration did not transfer power seamlessly to the new Trump administration. Lipson further claimed that "these abuses didn’t simply follow each other; their targets, goals, and principal players overlapped. Taken together, they represent some of the gravest violations of constitutional norms and legal protections in American history". The Associated Press (AP) in May 2020 addressed Obamagate in a fact check, stating that there was "no evidence" of Trump's suggestion that "the disclosure of Flynn's name as part of legal U.S. surveillance of foreign targets was criminal and motivated by partisan politics." AP stated that there is not only "nothing illegal about unmasking," but also that the unmasking of Flynn was approved using the National Security Agency's "standard process." Unmasking is allowed if officials feel that it is needed to understand the collected intelligence. AP further pointed out that the Trump administration was conducting even more unmasking than the Obama administration in the final year of Obama's presidency. In May, attorney general Bill Barr appointed federal prosecutor John Bash to examine unmasking conducted by the Obama administration. The concept underlies in part a 2020 U.S. Senate investigation into the 2016–onward FBI's Crossfire Hurricane investigation. Former deputy attorney general Sally Yates on August 5, 2020, testified before the Committee that investigators were concerned that the national security adviser to President-elect Trump, Michael Flynn, was conversing in private with the Russian ambassador. According to Yates, Obama was interested in whether Flynn ought to be considered a safe recipient for sensitive briefings and Obama "did not in any way attempt to direct or influence any kind of investigation. Something like that would have set off alarms for me." (According to news reports, the belief that Flynn may have violated the Logan Act – a rarely prosecuted and vague law which constrains individuals from countervailing the existing foreign policy of the United States by way of secretive meetings – supplied the initial rationale for the FBI to target Flynn.) Accusations have been leveled that Senate Republicans used investigations of "Obamagate" to help provide the Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign with talking points. In September, Sen. Ron Johnson, Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, led Republicans on the committee in securing subpoenas to look into Trump's Obamagate claims. Johnson had received criticism for stating "the more that we expose of the corruption of the transition process between Obama and Trump, the more we expose of the corruption within those agencies, I would think it would certainly help Donald Trump win reelection and certainly be pretty good, I would say, evidence about not voting for Vice President Biden". With the news that the Durham special counsel investigation into potential abuses within the Obama's administration's handling of the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane investigation would not produce a report or indictments before the 2020 presidential election, President Trump began publicly calling out Attorney General Bill Barr for lack of arrests of major political figures he believes were involved, including his 2020 opponent Joe Biden. The Washington Post reported on October 13 that Bash's unmasking inquiry had concluded with no findings of substantive wrongdoing and no public report. On October 25, Trump repeated his allegations in an interview on 60 Minutes, claiming "the biggest scandal was when they spied on my campaign. They spied on my campaign, and they got caught." Host Lesley Stahl challenged the assertion, claiming "there's no real evidence of that. This is 60 Minutes, and we can't put on things we can't verify." Trump disagreed, claiming "they spied on my campaign, and they got caught. And then they went much further than that, and they got caught. And you will see that, Lesley, and you know that, but you just don't want to put it on the air." The dispute was part of a contentious interview that ended with Trump walking out. On July 18, United States Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard distributed documents that she insinuated placed guilt for certain members of the Obama administration, that she termed "treasonous", and were a part of the Obamagate conspiracy theory. Several days later Trump accused and affirmed Gabbard's allegations during a July 22 meeting with the Philippine President Bongbong Marcos, where he claimed Obama attempted a failed "coup" in the 2016 election which implicated former President Obama for treason. That same day a spokesperson for Obama's office stated that normally out of respect for the office of the Presidency, Obama's office rarely made public comments, however as Trump's claims were both "outrageous" and "bizarre" the situation called for a response. The spokesperson added that these allegations were attempts at "distraction". Political commentators have suggested that by distraction, that Trump was using the Obamagate conspiracy theory to deflect allegations that Trump was involved with the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking scandal. These allegations were widely circulated earlier in July by former Trump ally and head of Department of Government Efficiency Elon Musk, who accused Trump of collusion with the deceased child predator and trafficker on Musk's X social media platform. The next day July 23, the Justice Department announced a strike force that would investigate the documents that Gabbard had discovered. On July 25, Trump stated that "He owes me, Obama owes me big," as Obama had immunity from prosecution due to Trump's legal battles for presidential immunity which were broadened on July 1 with the Trump v. United States ruling. Subsequently in late July, FBI director Kash Patel claimed to have discovered a secret room inside FBI headquarters at the Hoover Building. Inside the room was a collection of "Burner Bags" filled with documents which according to Patel were evidence of members of the Obama administration colluding in the Obamagate conspiracy. Patel claimed that there was a secret room in the Hoover Building in June during an interview with Joe Rogan on the Joe Rogan experience. In early August of 2025, United States Attorney General Pam Bondi decreed that a grand jury investigation would be initiated after Gabbard and Patel's allegations were made public. Later on August 10, Vice President JD Vance appeared in an interview on Fox News where he predicted that there would be numerous indictments coming in the near future, after Patel and Gabbard's alleged discoveries. See also References |
======================================== |
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montauk_Project] | [TOKENS: 664] |
Contents Montauk Project 41°03′44″N 71°52′26″W / 41.06222°N 71.87389°W / 41.06222; -71.87389 The Montauk Project is a conspiracy theory that alleges there were a series of United States government projects conducted at Camp Hero or Montauk Air Force Station in Montauk, New York, for the purpose of developing psychological warfare techniques and exotic research including time travel. The story of the Montauk Project originated in the Montauk Project series of books by Preston Nichols which intermixes those stories with stories about the Bulgarian Experiment.[clarification needed] Origin Stories about the Montauk Project have circulated since the early 1980s. According to UFO researcher Jacques Vallée, the Montauk Experiment stories seem to have originated with the highly questionable account of Preston Nichols and Al Bielek, who both claimed to have recovered repressed memories of their own involvement. Preston Nichols also claims that he was periodically abducted to continue his participation against his will. Nichols, born May 24, 1946, on Long Island, New York, claims to have degrees in parapsychology, psychology, and electrical engineering, and he has written a series of books, known as the Montauk Project series, along with Peter Moon, whose real name is Vincent Barbarick. The primary topic of the Montauk Project concerns the alleged activities at Montauk Point. These center on topics including United States government/military experiments in fields such as time travel, teleportation, mind control, contact with extraterrestrial life, and staging faked Apollo Moon landings, framed as developments that followed the 1943 Philadelphia Experiment. Both Peter Moon and Preston Nichols have encouraged speculation about the contents; for example, they wrote, "Whether you read this as science fiction or non-fiction you are in for an amazing story" in their first chapter, describing much of the content as "soft facts" in a Guide For Readers and publishing a newsletter with updates to the story.[citation needed] The work has been characterized as fiction. In media In 2015, Montauk Chronicles, a film adaptation of the conspiracy featuring Preston Nichols, Alfred Bielek, and Stewart Swerdlow, was released online and on DVD and Blu-ray. The film won the best documentary award at the Philip K. Dick Film Festival in New York City and has been featured on Coast to Coast AM and The Huffington Post. The Netflix TV series Stranger Things (2016-2025) was inspired by stories of the Montauk Project, and at one time Montauk was used as its working title. The Montauk Experiment was featured on a season 8 episode of Discovery Channel's Mysteries of the Abandoned on October 23, 2003. The episode, titled, "The Montauk Conspiracy" documented the conspiracies that "swirled around an abandoned military base" (Camp Hero) on Long Island. Experts discussed the critical role that the base played in defending America's coastline. It was featured in a 2023 season 10 episode of the Science Channel's Mysteries of the Abandoned. See also References External links |
======================================== |
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastel_QAnon] | [TOKENS: 1110] |
Contents Pastel QAnon Pastel QAnon is a collection of techniques and strategies that use "soft" and feminine aesthetics – most notably pastel colors – in order to attract women into the QAnon conspiracy theory, often using mainstream social media sites like Instagram, Facebook, Telegram and YouTube. Pastel QAnon social media influencers focus on aspects of the conspiracy theory that tend to appeal to maternal instincts, such as the prevention of child sexual abuse and child sex trafficking, and utilize emotive and personable language. They are popular among wellness, yoga and New Age influencers. The term "Pastel QAnon" was coined by Marc-André Argentino, a researcher at Concordia University in Canada. Background QAnon is an ongoing, American far-right, political conspiracy theory and mass political movement centering around false claims made by an anonymous individual or individuals known as "Q" that a cabal of Satanic, cannibalistic sexual abusers of children operate a global child sex trafficking ring that conspired against U.S. President Donald Trump during his first term in office. Although QAnon arose from mostly male-dominated online groups, women were and still represent a key demographic of QAnon supporters. According to political scientist Lorna Bracewell, right-wing movements that focus on child protection, such as QAnon, "speak to a distinctively feminine set of anxieties and fears to mobilize a distinctively feminine species of anger". Bracewell noted a similarity to the Tea Party movement, which attracted both local and national female leaders – most notably vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin. The QAnon movement appeals to the maternal notion of guardianship; for example, "mama grizzlies" who protect their children. Groups targeted According to BuzzFeed News, lifestyle influencers began to spread pastel QAnon-related messages on Instagram as early as April 2020, largely using content relating to the COVID-19 pandemic, but were also one of the primary sources of misinformation. Pastel QAnon targets several existing communities and movements that are aimed at women. The messages appealed to white, Republican-voting women, particularly suburban "soccer moms". This community is sometimes referred to as "QAmoms", a term followers use to refer to themselves. It has been associated with multilevel marketing groups, the wellness industry, and social media influencers, as well as a commercialisation of the QAnon movement in general, operating "within the concept of spectacle". Many wellness and New Age groups mistrust mainstream institutions, authority, and pharmaceutical companies, and as such are susceptible to QAnon beliefs. Researchers have identified scandals in the food industry, concerns over additives in food and genetically modified organisms (GMOs), conflicting scientific advice on child-rearing and the U.S. opioid epidemic – all of which disproportionately affect women – a lack of investment in women's health and general gender discrimination in medicine as key drivers for some women to reject mainstream science in favour of conspirituality – conspiratorial thinking combined with New Age spirituality – and QAnon beliefs, particularly anti-vaccine conspiracies or rhetoric. QAnon believers facilitated this popularisation by moving from encrypted pages and anonymous message boards to mainstream websites such as Facebook and Instagram. The negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on many businesses led leaders to contact social media influencers or use viral marketing to promote their services. Content Pastel QAnon uses existing social media messages about child protection, child trafficking, health and other topics as a gateway into the movement, and frames them using familiar, inspirational language. This is often done in an anecdotal, informal style. The messages do not always identify themselves as being related to QAnon and posters often deny any knowledge of QAnon but spread the same conspiracy theories in ways that are framed for a female audience, such as #SavetheChildren campaigns, which purport to be about child sex-trafficking but contain other QAnon-related content. Gateway messaging is also done to avoid the deletion of posts; explicit QAnon references are banned on many social media sites. The movement also uses private groups, and the technique of posting and then auto-deleting stories on Instagram to promote their claims, giving conspiracy spreaders semi-plausible deniability. People and groups pushing pastel QAnon messages often deny any knowledge of QAnon. The messages tend to use and expand upon the targeted groups' existing distrust and misunderstanding, positive reinforcement, and fears for children's safety and security that became heightened during the COVID-19 pandemic. Pastel QAnon uses feminine aesthetics, a pastel color palette, inspirational imagery, cute fonts, design language and phrases that are commonly used to market products and services aimed at women. These aesthetics include glitter; diluted colors; cursive fonts; illustrations and photographs of natural scenery, fashion, make-up and aspirational lifestyles; along with language in the form of spiritual and motivational quotations, in styles with which the targeted groups are familiar to make them attractive. Becca Lewis, Stanford University researcher of online political subcultures, said: We say you "fall down a rabbit hole". But it's not how the ecosystem actually works. So much of this content is being disseminated by super popular accounts with absolutely mainstream aesthetics ... If you're able to make this covetable, beautiful aesthetic and then attach these conspiracy theories to it, that normalizes the conspiracy theories in a very specific way that Instagram is particularly good for. See also References |
======================================== |
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Azorian] | [TOKENS: 4064] |
Contents Project Azorian Project Azorian (also called "Jennifer" by the press after its Top Secret Security Compartment) was a U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) project to recover the sunken Soviet submarine K-129 from the Pacific Ocean floor in 1974 using the purpose-built ship Hughes Glomar Explorer. The 1968 sinking of K-129 occurred about 1,560 miles (2,510 km) northwest of Hawaii. Project Azorian was one of the most complex, expensive, and covert intelligence operations of the Cold War at a cost of about US$800 million (equivalent to $3.9 billion in 2024). The US designed the recovery ship and its lifting cradle using concepts developed with Global Marine (see Project Mohole) that used their precision stability equipment to keep the ship nearly stationary above the target while lowering nearly three miles (4.8 km) of pipe. They worked with scientists to develop methods for preserving paper that had been underwater for years in hopes of being able to recover and read the submarine's codebooks. The reasons that this project was undertaken included the recovery of an intact R-21 nuclear missile and cryptological documents and equipment. The Soviet Union was unable to locate K-129, but the US determined its general location from data recorded by four Air Force Technical Applications Center (AFTAC) sites and the Adak Sound Surveillance System (SOSUS) array. The US identified an acoustic event on March 8 that likely originated from an explosion aboard the submarine, and was able to determine the location to within five nautical miles (5.8 mi; 9.3 km).[clarify] The submarine USS Halibut located the boat using the Fish, a towed, 12-foot (3.7 m), two-short-ton (1.8 t) collection of cameras, strobe lights, and sonar that was built to withstand extreme depths. The recovery operation in international waters about six years later used mining for manganese nodules as its cover story. The mining company and ship were nominally owned by reclusive billionaire Howard Hughes, but secretly backed by the CIA, who paid for the construction of the Hughes Glomar Explorer. The ship recovered a portion of K-129, but a mechanical failure in the grapple caused two-thirds of the recovered section to break off during recovery. Wreck of K-129 On February 24, 1968, K-129, a Soviet Project 629A ballistic missile submarine attached to the 15th Submarine Squadron of the Soviet Pacific Fleet, left Rybachiy Naval Base in Kamchatka on a routine missile patrol, the boat's third since completing a major modernization the previous year. On the first day, the sub cruised out to deep water, conducted a test dive, surfaced to radio in, and embarked for its patrol station. The sub was to make standard radio contact with its commanders in Kamchatka when crossing the 180th meridian and when arriving on station. But K-129 missed its designated check-ins and did not respond to communication attempts. By the third week of March, the submarine was declared missing. In April 1968 many Soviet Pacific Fleet surface and air assets deployed to the North Pacific Ocean were observed performing unusual search operations. The activity was evaluated by the United States Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) as a possible reaction to the loss of a Soviet submarine. Soviet surface ship searches were centered on a location known to be associated with Soviet Golf II-class strategic ballistic missile (SSB) diesel submarine patrol routes. These submarines carried three nuclear missiles in an extended sail/conning tower and were routinely deployed within missile range of the US west coast. After weeks of searching, the Soviets were unable to locate the sunken boat, and Soviet Pacific Fleet operations gradually returned to normal. The US Navy analyzed acoustic data recorded by the SOSUS hydrophone network in the northern Pacific—four AFTAC sites and the Adak, Alaska SOSUS array—and found evidence of the implosion that had sunk the Russian sub.[citation needed] Naval Facility (NAVFAC) Point Sur, south of Monterey, California, isolated a sonic signature on its low-frequency array recordings of an implosion that had occurred on March 8, 1968. Using NavFac Point Sur's date and time of the event, NavFac Adak and the US West Coast NAVFAC were also able to isolate the acoustic event. With five SOSUS lines-of-bearing, Naval Intelligence was able to localize the site of the K-129 wreck to the vicinity of 40.1° N latitude and 179.9° E longitude (close to the International Date Line). In July 1968, the United States Navy began "Operation Sand Dollar" with the deployment of USS Halibut from Pearl Harbor to the wreck site. Sand Dollar's objective was to find and photograph K-129. In 1968 Halibut, which had been configured to use deep submergence search equipment, was the US Navy's only such specially-equipped submarine. Halibut located the wreck after three weeks of visual search using robotic remote-controlled cameras. (It took almost five months of search to find the wreck of the US nuclear-powered submarine Scorpion in the Atlantic, also in 1968). Halibut is reported to have spent the next several weeks taking more than 20,000 closeup photos of every aspect of the K-129 wreck, a feat for which Halibut received a special classified Presidential Unit Citation signed by Lyndon B. Johnson in 1968. The photos were sent to the National Photographic Interpretation Center at the CIA to determine what, if anything, could be determined about the status of the wreck. CIA analysts wrote a report indicating that there was a good probability that the nuclear missile in the #3 missile tube was still intact. In 1970, based upon this photography, Defense Secretary Melvin Laird and Henry Kissinger, then National Security Advisor, proposed a clandestine plan to recover the wreckage so that the US could study Soviet nuclear missile technology, as well as possibly recover cryptographic materials. The proposal was accepted by President Richard Nixon, and the CIA was tasked to attempt the recovery. Building Glomar Explorer and its cover story Global Marine Development Inc., the research and development arm of Global Marine Inc., a pioneer in deepwater offshore drilling operations, was contracted to design, build and operate Hughes Glomar Explorer to secretly salvage the sunken Soviet submarine. The ship was built at the Sun Shipbuilding yard near Philadelphia. Billionaire businessman Howard Hughes – whose companies were already contractors on numerous classified US military weapons, aircraft and satellite contracts[citation needed] – agreed to lend his name to the project to support the cover story that the ship was mining manganese nodules from the ocean floor, but Hughes and his companies had no actual involvement in the project. K-129 was photographed at a depth of over 16,000 feet (4,900 m), and thus the salvage operation would be well beyond the depth of any ship salvage operation ever attempted.[citation needed] On November 1, 1972, work began on the 63,000-short-ton (57,000 t), 619-foot-long (189 m) Hughes Glomar Explorer (HGE). At least two preparatory missions were carried out in the general area of the recovery site using other ships. From September 1970 to January 1971, the drilling ship GLOMAR II collected site data as part of Project AXMINSTER. From January to July 1972, the R.V. SEASCOPE surveyed the general area to within 45 nautical miles of the recovery site. Both missions also probed the Soviet reactions to research ships in the region. The primary objective was to recover a major portion of the submarine. In particular, the United States Intelligence Board (USIB) expected to recover cryptographic equipment, a nuclear warhead, a SS-N-5 missile, the navigation system, fire control system, sonar system, ASW countermeasures, and related documentation. Recovery Hughes Glomar Explorer employed a large mechanical claw, which Lockheed officially titled the "Capture Vehicle" but affectionately called Clementine. The capture vehicle was designed to be lowered to the ocean floor, grasp the targeted submarine section, and then lift that section into the ship's moon pool for processing. One requirement of this technology was to keep the floating base stable and in position over a fixed point 16,000 feet (4,900 m) below the ocean surface. The capture vehicle was lowered and raised on a pipe string similar to those used on oil drilling rigs. Section by section, pairs of 30-foot (9.1 m) steel pipes were strung together to lower the claw through a hole in the middle of the ship. This configuration was designed by Western Gear Corp. of Everett, Washington. Upon a successful capture by the claw, the lift reversed the process: 60-foot (18 m) pairs drawn up and removed one at a time. The salvaged "Target Object" was thus to be drawn into the moon pool in the center of the vessel, the doors of which could then be closed to form a floor for the salvaged section. This allowed for the entire salvage process to take place underwater, away from the view of other ships, aircraft, or spy satellites. Hughes Glomar Explorer arrived at the recovery site (40°06′N 179°54′E / 40.1°N 179.9°E / 40.1; 179.9) on July 4, 1974, after departing from Long Beach, California, on June 20, and sailing 3,008 nautical miles (5,571 km). The ship conducted salvage operations for over a month. During this period, at least two Soviet Navy ships visited Hughes Glomar Explorer's work site, the oceangoing tugboat SB-10, and the Soviet missile range instrumentation ship Chazma. It was found out after 1991 that the Soviets were tipped off about the operation and were aware that the CIA was planning some kind of salvage operation, but the military command believed it impossible that they could perform such a task and disregarded further intelligence warnings. Later, Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin started sending urgent messages back to the Soviet Navy warning that an operation was imminent. Soviet military engineering experts reevaluated their positions and claimed that it was indeed possible (though highly unlikely) to recover K-129, and ships in the area were ordered to report any unusual activity, although the lack of knowledge as to where K-129 was located impeded their ability to stop any salvage operation. US Army Major General Roland Lajoie stated that, according to a briefing he received by the CIA during recovery operations, Clementine suffered a catastrophic failure, causing two-thirds of the already raised portion of K-129 to sink back to the ocean floor.[citation needed] Former Lockheed and Hughes Global Marine employees who worked on the operation have stated that several of the "claws" intended to grab the submarine fractured, possibly because they were manufactured from maraging steel, which is very strong, but not very ductile compared with other kinds of steel. Video evidence and eyewitness reports have stated that multiple claws of Clementine sheared off, causing a 100-foot (30 m) section of the submarine to fall back to the seafloor. Eyewitnesses have stated that only the 38-foot (12 m) bow section was raised, while the sail portion containing the nuclear missiles was lost during the raising operation. The recovered section included two nuclear torpedoes, and thus Project Azorian was not a complete failure. The bodies of six crewmen were also recovered, and were given a memorial service and with military honors, buried at sea in a metal casket because of radioactivity concerns. Other crew members have reported that code books and other materials of apparent interest to CIA employees aboard the vessel were recovered, and images of inventory printouts exhibited in the documentary suggest that various submarine components, such as hatch covers, instruments and sonar equipment were also recovered.[original research?] White's documentary also states that the ship's bell from K-129 was recovered, and was subsequently returned to the Soviet Union as part of a diplomatic effort. The CIA considered the project one of the greatest intelligence coups of the Cold War. The entire salvage operation was recorded by a CIA documentary film crew, but this film remains classified. A short portion of the film, showing the recovery and subsequent burial at sea of the six bodies recovered in the forward section of K-129, was given to the Russian government in 1992. Public disclosure Time Magazine credited Jack Anderson as breaking the story in a March 1975 radio broadcast. Rejecting a plea from the Director of Central Intelligence William Colby to suppress the story, Anderson said he released the story because "Navy experts have told us that the sunken sub contains no real secrets and that the project, therefore, is a waste of the taxpayers' money." In February 1975, investigative reporter and former New York Times writer Seymour Hersh had planned to publish a story on Project Azorian. Bill Kovach, the New York Times Washington bureau chief at the time, said in 2005 that the government offered a convincing argument to delay publication – exposure at that time, while the project was ongoing, "would have caused an international incident." The New York Times published its account in March 1975, after a story appeared in the Los Angeles Times, and included a five-paragraph explanation of the many twists and turns in the path to publication. CIA director George H. W. Bush reported on several occasions to U.S. president Gerald Ford on media reports and the future use of the ship. The CIA concluded that it seemed unclear what, if any, action was taken by the Soviet Union after learning of the story. After stories had been published about the CIA's attempts to stop publication of information about Project Azorian, Harriet Ann Phillippi, a journalist, filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the CIA for any records about the CIA's attempts. The CIA refused to either confirm or deny the existence of such documents. This type of non-responsive reply has since come to be known as the "Glomar response" or "Glomarization". A video showing the 1974 memorial services for the six Soviet seamen whose bodies were recovered by Project Azorian was forwarded by the U.S. to Russia in the early 1990s. Portions of this video were shown on television documentaries concerning Project Azorian, including a 1998 Discovery Channel special called A Matter of National Security (based on Clyde W. Burleson's book, The Jennifer Project (1977)) and again in 1999, on a PBS Cold War submarine episode of NOVA. In February 2010, the CIA released an article from the fall 1985 edition of the CIA internal journal Studies in Intelligence following an application by researcher Matthew Aid at the National Security Archive to declassify the information under the Freedom of Information Act. Exactly what the operation managed to salvage remained unclear. The report was written by an unidentified participant in Project Azorian. President Gerald Ford, Secretary of Defense James R. Schlesinger, Philip W. Buchen (Counsel to the President), John O. Marsh, Jr. (Counselor to the President), White House Chief of Staff Donald Rumsfeld, USAF Lieutenant General Brent Scowcroft (Deputy Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs), and William Colby (Director of Central Intelligence), discussed the leak and whether the Ford administration would react to Hersh's story in a cabinet meeting on March 19, 1975, the same day that The New York Times published the story. Secretary of Defense Schlesinger is quoted as saying, This episode has been a major American accomplishment. The operation is a marvel – technically, and with maintaining secrecy. Schlesinger indicated at least some form of success that should be confirmed publicly. CIA Director William Colby dissented, recalling the U-2 crisis, saying: I think we should not put the Soviet Union under such pressure to respond. The Los Angeles Times published a four-page story the next day by Jack Nelson with the headline "Administration Won't Talk About Sub Raised by CIA." Conspiracy theory Time magazine and a court filing by Felice D. Cohen and Morton H. Halperin on behalf of the Military Audit Project suggest that the alleged project goal of raising a Soviet submarine might itself have been a cover story for another secret mission. Tapping undersea communication cables, the cover up of an assassination, the discovery of Atlantis, the installation of a missile silo, and installation and repair of surveillance systems to monitor ship and submarine movements are listed as possibilities for the actual purpose of such a secret mission. Eyewitness accounts W. Craig Reed told an inside account of Project Azorian in his book Red November: Inside the Secret U.S. – Soviet Submarine War (2010). The account was provided by Joe Houston, the senior engineer who designed leading-edge camera systems used by the Hughes Glomar Explorer team to photograph K-129 on the ocean floor. The team needed pictures that offered precise measurements to design the grappling arm and other systems used to bring the sunken submarine up from the bottom. Houston worked for the mysterious "Mr. P" (John Parangosky) who worked for CIA Deputy Director Carl E. Duckett, the two leaders of Project Azorian. Duckett later worked with Houston at another company, and intimated that the CIA may have recovered much more from the K-129 than admitted publicly. Reed also details how the deep submergence towed sonar array technology was used for subsequent Operation Ivy Bells missions to wiretap underwater Soviet communications cables. The documentary film Azorian: The Raising Of The K-129 features interviews with Sherman Wetmore, Global Marine heavy lift operations manager; Charlie Johnson, Global Marine heavy lift engineer; and Raymond Feldman, Lockheed Ocean Systems senior staff engineer. They were the three principals in the design of the Hughes Glomar Explorer heavy lift system and the Lockheed capture vehicle (CV or claw). They were also on board the ship during the mission and were intimately involved with the recovery operation. They confirmed that only 38 ft (12 m) of the bow was eventually recovered. The intent was to recover the forward two thirds (138 ft [42 m]) of K-129, which had broken off from the rear section of the submarine and was designated the Target Object (TO). The capture vehicle successfully lifted the TO from the ocean floor, but a failure of part of the capture vehicle on the way up caused the loss of 100 ft (30 m) of the TO, including the sail. Norman Polmar and Michael White published Project Azorian: The CIA And The Raising of the K-129 in 2010. The book contains additional documentary evidence about the effort to locate the submarine and the recovery operation. CIA Museum artifacts A number of artifacts from Project Azorian and Glomar Explorer are on display at the CIA Museum. The museum has shared declassified images and video featuring the artifacts through its website; however the physical grounds of the museum are on the compound of the George Bush Center for Intelligence and thus physically inaccessible to the public. Documentaries The documentary film Azorian: The Raising Of The K-129 was produced by Michael White and released in 2009. Spy Ops: Project Azorian (Season 1, Episode 8) is a short documentary also produced by Michael White which adds some details to his earlier work. Two former CIA officials (Robert Wallace, John Cardwell) make their appearance in this film for Netflix. Neither Confirm Nor Deny is a documentary on Project Azorian. See also References Notes Sources External links |
======================================== |
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_government_(conspiracy_theory)] | [TOKENS: 685] |
Contents Shadow government (conspiracy theory) The shadow government, also referred to as cryptocracy, secret government, or invisible government, is a family of theories based on the notion that real and actual political power resides not only with publicly elected representatives but with private individuals who are exercising power behind the scenes, beyond the scrutiny of democratic institutions. According to this belief, the official elected government is subservient to the shadow government, which is the true executive power. Some of the groups proposed by these theories as constituting the shadow government include central banks, Freemasons, communists, Nazis, the Rothschilds, intelligence agencies, think tanks, organized Jewry, the Vatican, Jesuits, or Catholics in general, as well as secret societies, moneyed interests, extraterrestrials, Satanists, and globalist elites and supranational organizations who seek to manipulate policy in their own interest or in order to serve a larger agenda that is hidden from the general public. History Literature on the subject postulates the existence of a secret government which is the true power behind the apparent government. Examples of such literature include works by Dan Smoot, William Guy Carr, Jim Marrs, Carroll Quigley, Gary Allen, Alex Jones, Des Griffin, G. Edward Griffin, David Icke, and Michael A. Hoffman II. Some of these authors believe members of the secret government may represent or be agents for groups such as the Council on Foreign Relations, United Nations, the Royal Institute for International Affairs, Tavistock Institute, the Trilateral Commission, the Club of Rome, the Bilderberg Group, the World Health Organization, George Soros, and the Koch Brothers, in co-operation with international banks and financial institutions such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and the Bank for International Settlements. Milton William Cooper claimed that the shadow government was in cooperation with extraterrestrial aliens. His 1991 book Behold a Pale Horse, influential among "UFO and militia circles", describes "the doings of the secret world government" and "a variety of other covert activities associated with the Illuminati's declaration of war upon the people of America". Cooper claimed to have seen secret documents while in the Navy describing governmental dealings with aliens. Cooper linked the Illuminati with his beliefs that extraterrestrials were secretly involved with the US government, but later retracted these claims. He accused Dwight D. Eisenhower of negotiating a treaty with extraterrestrials in 1954, then establishing an inner circle of Illuminati to manage relations with them and keep their presence a secret from the general public. Cooper believed that aliens "manipulated and/or ruled the human race through various secret societies, religions, magic, witchcraft, and the occult", and that even the Illuminati were unknowingly being manipulated by them. Also popularizing the idea was the hit US television show, The X-Files, in the series' story arc, Mythology of The X-Files. During the American Revolution, Committees of Safety were different local committees of Patriots that formed a shadow government to take control of the Thirteen Colonies including New York away from British royal officials. The most popular video game franchise that was created by Ubisoft was Assassin's Creed which is also part of the shadowy organization in all of human history between the Order of Assassins and the Knights Templar for generations. See also References |
======================================== |
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maritime_law#Conspiracy_theory] | [TOKENS: 4847] |
Contents Maritime law Maritime law or admiralty law is a body of law that governs nautical issues and private maritime disputes. Admiralty law consists of both domestic law on maritime activities, and private international law governing the relationships between private parties operating or using ocean-going ships. While each legal jurisdiction usually has its own legislation governing maritime matters, the international nature of the topic and the need for uniformity has, since 1900, led to considerable international maritime law developments, including numerous multilateral treaties.[a] Admiralty law, which mainly governs the relations of private parties, is distinguished from the law of the sea, a body of public international law regulating maritime relationships between nations, such as navigational rights, mineral rights, and jurisdiction over coastal waters. While admiralty law is adjudicated in national courts, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea has been adopted by 167 countries[b] and the European Union, and disputes are resolved at the ITLOS tribunal in Hamburg. History Shipping was one of the earliest channels of commerce, and rules for resolving maritime trade disputes were developed early. An ancient example was the Rhodian law (Nomos Rhodion Nautikos), of which no extensive written specimen has survived, but which is alluded to in other legal texts (Roman and Byzantine legal codes). In southern Italy the Ordinamenta et consuetudo maris (1063) at Trani and the Amalfian Laws were in effect from an early date, and later the customs of the Consulate of the Sea and the Hanseatic League. Bracton notes that admiralty law was also used as an alternative to the common law in Norman England, which previously required voluntary submission to it by entering a plea seeking judgment from the court. A leading sponsor of admiralty law in Europe was the French Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine. Eleanor had learned about admiralty law while on the Second Crusade in the eastern Mediterranean with her first husband, King Louis VII of France. Eleanor then established admiralty law on the island of Oléron, where it was published as the Rolls of Oléron. Some time later, while she was in London as regent for her son, King Richard I of England, Eleanor instituted admiralty law in England as well. In England and Wales, a special Admiralty Court handles all admiralty cases. Despite early reliance upon civil law concepts derived from the Corpus Juris Civilis of Justinian, the English Admiralty Court is a common law court, albeit sui generis, that was initially somewhat distinct from other English courts. After around 1750, as the Industrial Revolution took hold and English maritime commerce burgeoned, the Admiralty Court became a fertile source of legal innovation to meet the new situations of the modern economy. The Judicature Acts of 1873–1875 abolished the Admiralty Court as such, and it became conflated in the new Probate, Divorce and Admiralty division of the High Court. However, when the PDA was abolished and replaced by a new Family Division, admiralty jurisdiction passed to a so-called Admiralty Court which was effectively the King's Bench sitting to hear nautical cases. The Senior Courts Act 1981 then clarified the admiralty jurisdiction of the Queen's Bench, so England and Wales once again has a distinct Admiralty Court (albeit no longer based in the Royal Courts of Justice, but in the Rolls Building). English Admiralty courts were prominent in the disputes leading to the American Revolution. For example, the phrase in the Declaration of Independence "For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury" refers to the practice of the UK Parliament giving the Admiralty Courts jurisdiction to enforce the Stamp Act 1765 in the American colonies. The Stamp Act was unpopular in America, so a colonial jury would be unlikely to convict a colonist of its violation. The Admiralty Court, which has never allowed trial by jury, was thus empowered to enforce the statute more effectively. Admiralty law gradually became part of United States law through admiralty cases arising after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution in 1789. Many American lawyers prominent in the American Revolution were admiralty and maritime lawyers, including Alexander Hamilton in New York and John Adams in Massachusetts. In 1787, Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison proposing that the US Constitution, then under consideration by the States, be amended to include "trial by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land and not by the laws of Nations". The result was the United States Bill of Rights. Alexander Hamilton and John Adams were both admiralty lawyers and Adams represented John Hancock in an admiralty case in colonial Boston involving seizure of one of Hancock's ships for violations of customs regulations. In the more modern era, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes was an admiralty lawyer before ascending to the bench. Features Matters dealt by admiralty law include marine commerce, marine navigation, salvage, maritime pollution, seafarers' rights, and the carriage by sea of both passengers and goods. Admiralty law also covers land-based commercial activities that are maritime in character, such as marine insurance. Some lawyers prefer to reserve the term "admiralty law" for "wet law" (e.g. salvage, collisions, ship arrest, towage, liens and limitation), and use "maritime law" only for "dry law" (e.g. carriage of goods and people, marine insurance, and the Maritime Labour Convention).[c][citation needed] The doctrine of maintenance and cure is rooted in Article VI of the Rolls of Oléron promulgated in about 1160 AD. The obligation to "cure" requires a shipowner to provide medical care free of charge to a seaman injured in the service of the ship, until the seaman has reached "maximum medical cure". The concept of "maximum medical cure" is more extensive than the concept "maximum medical improvement". The obligation to "cure" a seaman includes the obligation to provide him with medications and medical devices which improve his ability to function, even if they do not "improve" his actual condition. They may include long-term treatments that permit him to continue to function well. Common examples include prostheses, wheelchairs, and pain medications. The obligation of "maintenance" requires the shipowner to provide a seaman with his basic living expenses while he is convalescing. Once a seaman is able to work, he is expected to maintain himself. Consequently, a seaman can lose his right to maintenance, while the obligation to provide cure is ongoing. A seaman who is required to sue a shipowner to recover maintenance and cure may also recover his attorneys fees. Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 U.S. 527 (1962). If a shipowner's breach of the obligation to provide maintenance and cure is willful and wanton, the shipowner may be subject to punitive damages. See Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend, 557 U.S. 404 (2009) (J. Thomas). Shipowners owe a duty of reasonable care to passengers. Consequently, passengers who are injured aboard ships may bring suit as if they had been injured ashore through the negligence of a third party. The passenger bears the burden of proving that the shipowner was negligent. While personal injury cases must generally be pursued within three years, suits against cruise lines may need to be brought within one year because of limitations contained in the passenger ticket. Notice requirements in the ticket may require a formal notice to be brought within six months of the injury. Most US cruise line passenger tickets also have provisions requiring that suit to be brought in either Miami or Seattle. In England, the 1954 case of Adler v Dickson (The Himalaya) allowed a shipping line to escape liability when a bosun's negligence resulted in a passenger being injured. Since then, the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 has made it unlawful to exclude liability for death or personal injury caused by one's negligence. (Since then, however, the so-called "Himalaya clause" has become a useful way for a contractor to pass on the protection of a limitation clause to his employees, agents and third-party contractors.) Banks which loan money to purchase ships, vendors who supply ships with necessaries like fuel and stores, seamen who are due wages, and many others have a lien against the ship to guarantee payment. To enforce the lien, the ship must be arrested or seized. In the United States, an action to enforce a lien against a US ship must be brought in federal court and cannot be done in state court, except for under the reverse Erie Doctrine whereby state courts can apply federal law. When property is lost at sea and rescued by another, the rescuer (salvor) is entitled to claim a salvage award on the salvaged property. This applies only to the saving of property: there is no "life salvage", as all mariners have a duty to save the lives of others in peril without expectation of reward. There are two types of salvage: contract salvage and pure salvage (merit salvage). In contract salvage, the owner of the property and the salvor enter into a salvage contract prior to salvage operations, for an agreed payment. The most common form is a "Lloyd's Open Form Salvage Contract". In pure salvage, there is no contract between the owner of the goods and the salvor, and the relationship is imputed by law. The salvor must bring his claim for salvage in court, which awards salvage based upon the merit of the service and the value of the salvaged property. Pure salvage claims are divided into "high-order" and "low-order" salvage. In high-order salvage, the salvor and his crew risk of injury and damage to equipment during salvage operations: for example boarding a sinking ship in heavy weather, boarding a ship on fire, raising a ship which has already sunk, or towing a ship away from the surf near shore. In low-order salvage, the salvor takes little or no personal risk, for example towing a vessel in calm seas, supplying fuel, or pulling a vessel off a sand bar. High-order salvage earns a substantially greater salvage award. In both high-order and low-order salvage, the amount of the salvage award is based first upon the value of the property saved. If nothing is saved, or if additional damage is done, there will be no award. The other factors to be considered are the skills of the salvor, the peril to which the salvaged property was exposed, the value of the property which was risked in effecting the salvage, the amount of time and money expended, etc. A pure or merit salvage award will seldom exceed 50 percent of the value of the property saved. The exception is in the case of treasure salvage. Because sunken treasure has generally been lost for hundreds of years, while the original owner (or insurer, if the vessel was insured) continues to have an interest in it, the salvor or finder will generally get the majority of the value of the property. While sunken ships from the Spanish Main (such as Nuestra Señora de Atocha in the Florida Keys) are the most famous type of treasure salvage, other types – including German submarines from World War II which can hold valuable historical artifacts, American Civil War ships (the USS Maple Leaf in the St. Johns River, and the CSS Virginia in Chesapeake Bay), and sunken merchant ships (the SS Central America off Cape Hatteras) – have all been the subject of treasure salvage awards.[citation needed] Due to refinements in side-scanning sonars, many more ships are now being located and treasure salvage is less risky, although it is still highly speculative and expensive. In maritime law, it is occasionally desirable to distinguish between the situation of a vessel striking a moving object and that of it striking a stationary object. The word "allision" is then used to mean the striking of a stationary object, while "collision" is used to mean the striking of a moving object. Thus, when two vessels run against each other, courts typically use the term collision whereas when one vessel runs against a stationary object, they typically use the term allision. The fixed or stationary object could be a bridge or dock. While there is no great difference between the two terms and often they are even used interchangeably, determining the difference helps clarify the circumstances of emergencies and adapt accordingly. International conventions Before the mid-1970s, most international conventions concerning maritime trade and commerce originated in a private organization of maritime lawyers known as the Comité Maritime International (International Maritime Committee or CMI). Founded in 1897, the CMI drafted numerous international conventions, including the Hague Rules (International Convention on Bills of Lading), the Visby Amendments (amending the Hague Rules), the Salvage Convention, and many others. While the CMI continues to function in an advisory capacity, many of its functions have been taken over by the International Maritime Organization (IMO). In 1948 an international conference in Geneva adopted a convention formally establishing IMO (the original name was the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization, or IMCO, but the name was changed in 1982 to IMO with UN Convention on the Law of the Sea). The IMO Convention entered into force in 1958 and the new Organization met for the first time the following year. The IMO has prepared numerous international conventions concerning maritime safety, including the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), the Standards for Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping (STCW), the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (Collision Regulations or COLREGS), Maritime Pollution Regulations (MARPOL), International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR Convention) and others. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) defined a treaty regarding protection of the marine environment and various maritime boundaries. Restrictions on international fishing such as International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling also form part of the body of conventions in international waters. Other commercial conventions include the "International Convention relating to the Limitation of the Liability of Owners of Sea-Going Ships", Brussels, 10 October 1957. and International Convention for Safe Containers. Once adopted, most international conventions are enforced by the individual signatory nations, either through their Port State Control, or through their national courts. Cases within the ambit of the European Union's EMSA may be heard by the CJEU in Luxembourg. By contrast, disputes involving the Law of the Sea may be resolved at ITLOS in Hamburg, provided that the parties are signatories to UNCLOS. Piracy Throughout history, piracy has been defined as hostis humani generis, or the enemy of all mankind. While the flag state normally has jurisdiction over a ship on the high seas, there is universal jurisdiction in the case of piracy, which means that any nation may pursue pirates on the high seas, including pursuing them into a country's territorial waters. Most nations have signed onto the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which dictates the legal requirements for pursuing pirates. Merchant vessels transiting areas of increased pirate activity (i.e. the Gulf of Aden, Somali Basin, Southern Red Sea and Bab-el-Mandeb straits) are advised to implement self-protective measures, in accordance with most recent best management practices agreed upon by the members of the merchant industry and endorsed by the NATO Shipping Centre, and the Maritime Security Centre Horn-of-Africa (MSCHOA). Individual countries The common law of England and Wales, of Northern Ireland law, and of US law, contrast to the continental law (civil law) that prevails in Scottish law and in continental Europe, which trace back to Roman law. Although the English Admiralty court was a development of continental civil law, the Admiralty Court of England and Wales was a common law court, albeit somewhat distanced from the mainstream King's Bench. Most of the common law countries (including Pakistan, Singapore, India, and many other Commonwealth of Nations countries) follow English statute and case law. India still follows many Victorian-era British statutes such as the Admiralty Court Act 1861 [24 Vict c 10]. While Pakistan now has its own statute, the Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980 (Ordinance XLII of 1980), it also follows English case law. One reason for this is that the 1980 Ordinance is partly modelled on old English admiralty law, namely the Administration of Justice Act 1956. The current statute dealing with the Admiralty jurisdiction of the England and Wales High Court is the Senior Courts Act 1981, ss. 20–24, 37. The provisions in those sections are, in turn, based on the International Arrest Convention 1952. Other countries which do not follow the English statute and case laws, such as Panama, also have established well-known maritime courts which decide international cases on a regular basis. Admiralty courts assume jurisdiction by virtue of the presence of the vessel in its territorial jurisdiction irrespective of whether the vessel is national or not and whether registered or not, and wherever the residence or domicile or their owners may be. A vessel is usually arrested by the court to retain jurisdiction. State-owned vessels are usually immune from arrest. Canadian jurisdiction in the area of navigation and shipping is vested in the Parliament of Canada by virtue of s. 91(10) of the Constitution Act, 1867. Canada has adopted an expansive definition of its maritime law, which goes beyond traditional admiralty law. The original English admiralty jurisdiction was called "wet", as it concerned itself with things done at sea, including collisions, salvage and the work of mariners, and contracts and torts performed at sea. Canadian law has added "dry" jurisdiction to this field, which includes such matters as: This list is not exhaustive of the subject matter. Canadian jurisdiction was originally consolidated in 1891, with subsequent expansions in 1934 following the passage of the Statute of Westminster 1931, and in 1971 with the extension to "dry" matters. Recent jurisprudence at the Supreme Court of Canada has tended to expand the maritime law power, thus overriding prior provincial laws based on the provinces' power over property and civil rights. Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution grants original jurisdiction to U.S. federal courts over admiralty and maritime matters; however, that jurisdiction is not exclusive, and most maritime cases can be heard in either state or federal courts under the "saving to suitors" clause. There are five types of cases which can only be brought in federal court: The common element of those cases are that they require the court to exercise jurisdiction over maritime property. For example, in a petitory and possession action, a vessel whose title is in dispute, usually between co-owners, will be put in the possession of the court until the title dispute can be resolved. In a limitation action, the shipowner will post a bond reflecting the value of the vessel and her pending freight. A sixth category, that of prize, relating to claims over vessels captured during wartime, has been rendered obsolete due to changes in the laws and practices of warfare. Aside from those five types of cases, all other maritime cases, such as claims for personal injuries, cargo damage, collisions, maritime products liability, and recreational boating accidents may be brought in either federal or state court. From a tactical standpoint it is important to consider that in federal courts in the United States, there is generally no right to trial by jury in admiralty cases, although the 1920 Jones Act grants a jury trial to seamen suing their employers. Maritime law is governed by a uniform three-year statute of limitations for personal injury and wrongful death cases. Cargo cases must be brought within two years (extended from the one-year allowance under the Hague-Visby Rules), pursuant to the adoption of the Rotterdam Rules. Most major cruise ship passenger tickets have a one-year statute of limitations. A state court hearing an admiralty or maritime case is required to apply the admiralty and maritime law, even if it conflicts with the law of the state, under a doctrine known as the "reverse-Erie doctrine". While the "Erie doctrine" requires that federal courts hearing state actions must apply substantive state law, the "reverse-Erie doctrine" requires state courts hearing admiralty cases to apply substantive federal admiralty law. However, state courts are allowed to apply state procedural law.[unreliable source?] This change can be significant. Claims for damage to cargo shipped in international commerce are governed by the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), which is the U.S. enactment of the Hague Rules. One of its key features is that a shipowner is liable for cargo damaged from "hook to hook", meaning from loading to discharge, unless it is exonerated under one of 17 exceptions to liability, such as an "act of God", the inherent nature of the goods, errors in navigation, and management of the ship. The basis of liability for the shipowner is a bailment and if the carrier is to be liable as a common carrier, it must be established that the goods were placed in the carrier's possession and control for immediate carriage. Seamen injured aboard ship have three possible sources of compensation: the principle of maintenance and cure, the doctrine of unseaworthiness, and the Jones Act. The principle of maintenance and cure requires a shipowner to both pay for an injured seaman's medical treatment until maximum medical recovery (MMR) is obtained and provide basic living expenses until completion of the voyage, even if the seaman is no longer aboard ship. Admiralty law in Pakistan is also classified as shipping law. The Pakistan Merchant Shipping Ordinance 2001 has replaced the Merchant Shipping Act 1923. This replacement was done in 2001 to handle the constantly upgrading modern shipping industry. The purpose of the Pakistan Merchant Shipping Ordinance 2001 is to provide a strategy and rules under which the government authorities will function in dealing with stuff related to the shipping industry. This law also handles duties internationally required under the ILO (International Labour Organization) conventions as Pakistan is an active member of the ILO. Academic programs There are several universities that offer maritime law programs. What follows is a partial list of universities offering postgraduate maritime courses: Conspiracy theory A pseudolegal conspiracy theory of American origin, notably present among the anti-government sovereign citizen and freeman on the land movements, asserts that at some point maritime law, which they consider to be the law of international commerce, substituted for the original, legitimate "common law" system as part of a broader conspiracy which secretly replaced governments with corporations. The judiciary hence became admiralty courts with no jurisdiction over people. Sovereign citizens notably claim that the presence of gold fringes on the American flags displayed in courtrooms is evidence of maritime law being in effect. One variation of this theory is based on a misinterpretation of the English Cestui Que Vie Act 1666 which stated that a person missing at sea shall be assumed to be dead after seven years; conspiracy theorists claim that the government uses this Act to secretly enslave people, by assuming any person to be legally dead from the age of seven and thereafter considering their person and/or property as its possessions. The origin of the maritime law conspiracy theory is unknown, though it may stem from a misunderstanding of some nautical-sounding words in common usage in the English-language judiciary such as ownership, citizenship, dock or birth (berth) certificate. This theory is entirely devoid of merit: when invoked by litigants, it has been consistently dismissed as frivolous. See also Notes References External links |
======================================== |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.