We know that Israel has a great need for organs, that there is a vast and illegal trade of organs which has been running for many years now, that the authorities are aware of it and that doctors in managing positions at the big hospitals participate, as well as civil servants at various levels.
We also know that young Palestinian men disappeared, that they were brought back after five days, at night, under tremendous secrecy, stitched back together after having been cut from abdomen to chin.Hospitals and doctors participate in organ trafficking. That seems rather obvious. And since the ring extends to the United States, we're talking about American hospitals.
In case that strikes anyone as inconceivable, think about the red tape involved with medical care in the United States for people *with* insurance. Lots of paperwork, some insurance company automaton ready to stamp "DENY COVERAGE" on your procedure at the first opportunity. This is the mind-numbing reality for the lucky people *with* insurance. But somehow this reality becomes suspended in the case of organ trafficking!
According to Scheper-Hughes' informant within Rosenbaum's organization, confused and disoriented Russians would be flown into New York City by Israeli brokers who forced them at gunpoint to "donate" kidneys.How could these doctors and hospitals NOT know? To receive any substantial medical care in this country, and often just to receive routine medical care, requires that you share practically everything: your medical history, your family's medical history, your social security number, employer, insurance, medications you take, etc. Does it not? Does anyone have a different experience with the health care system?Scheper-Hughes: They told me the names of the hospitals, and they were our best hospitals!She goes on to name Mount Sinai hospital, against whom she has videotaped evidence. She brought the videotape to the attention of 60 Minutes, which did not broadcast it. Later in the interview, she refers to operations done at Albert Einstein Medical Center. Mount Sinai says that its kidney donors "undergo an extensive evaluation to provide for their safety and well-being."
Brian Lehrer: And did they know, professor, that they were performing kidney surgery on people who were unwilling participants and were being exploited and threatened?
Scheper-Hughes: My sense is, how could some of them not have known? The people that arrived, some of them didn't speak the same languages, they were poor, they were disoriented...
We have rules. We have transplant coordinating committees. We have ethical guidelines. And you don't just let people walk in off the streets.
So how exactly does some poor Russian show up disoriented and end up on an operating table "donating" a kidney? And how does 60 Minutes decide that's not a good story if it happened ONCE, let alone hundreds or thousands of times? Does anyone have a good explanation for this?
Corruption. Corruption is real, and it is systemic. It's as real as having your organs stolen right out of your body. It's as real as being involuntarily committed to psychiatric care, interrogated, and drugged with mind-numbing pharmaceuticals.
I was wrongly diagnosed as delusional by the psychiatric staff of Ward 7 at Northland Base Hospital in Whangarei and held against my will [and forced to take pharmaceuticals - ed.] for 11 days in mid-2006, because I maintained the attacks of 9/11 were orchestrated by criminal elements inside the US Administration.Claire Swinney is a journalist and member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice. If you click through to read her horrific story of human rights abuse -- at the hands of experts -- and follow through to the comments section, you will learn of other people who have been committed to psychiatric wards involuntarily for, essentially, thought crimes.
Even after the ordeal, however, Claire can't quite seem to grasp the reality of the corruption.
"Their comments, body language and the hospital notes indicated what took place was the result of ignorance and a stubborn unwillingness to look at the facts."Really? Ignorance? Stubborn unwillingness?
How exactly do experts become so ignorant and stubbornly unwilling to look at facts? Perhaps they have something to gain by this behavior?
The experts become experts by conforming to the system that confers the coveted titles of expertise. The titles confer prestige, and compensation soon follows. Thus it happens that experts OWE their lives of privilege to the system, the system that produces the fancy diplomas on the walls of their offices. Do we really expect these people to RISK all that they have worked so hard to achieve, all that prestige and money and clients and power and good tables at fancy restaurants and nice cars and houses and shopping at expensive boutiques and great vacations, by challenging The System?
Don't be ridiculous. If they lose their credentials, they lose their income stream. It's really very simple, because as long as people believe in The System, experts will behave in ways that perpetuate The System. Corruption is assured.
So where does one turn for help? To the Legal System? To the cradle of corruption?
Yes, the "Two Sides to Every Story" Plausible Lie. We see the same reasoning applied to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict whenever we hear it suggested that the problem is very complex, there are two sides, both sides have suffered, etc. Our foreign policy experts tell us this, because they have spent years and years trying to make peace in the Middle East, and they can't solve it because the problems are, supposedly, simply intractable.
Let us examine a few particulars of the legal system to see how they bring benefit to evil and work to the detriment of good. If you read what legal theoreticians have to say about the structure of the legal system you will encounter statements like this: "It is a robust system which is designed to survive liars". "We assume that one side is lying one way, and the other is lying the other, and we let the jury find the truth - which will lie somewhere between these two extremes." What a wonderfully plausible lie that is.
To see the evil behind that last plausible lie it is necessary to turn the assumption upside down. Instead of assuming that both sides are lying, let us assume that one side is innocent, honest, and tells the truth. It is obvious that lying does an innocent defendant no good; what lie is he to use - "I did it"?
The truth - due to the nature of reality - is never completely favorable to anybody; there is always some element of the truth that makes an innocent person look bad.
Since the legal system assumes that the truth lies between the testimony of the two sides - there is always a shift toward the side telling the lies, and away from the side telling the truth. Under the right set of external circumstances This tilt, along with the fact that the truth may always be presented in such a way as to bring detriment to an innocent person, is often enough to shift the outcome toward the wrong side. Advantage: evil.
The presumption that dialogue is needed in order to achieve peace completely ignores the historical context of the situation in Palestine. It assumes that both sides have committed, more or less, an equal amount of atrocities against one another, and are equally culpable for the wrongs that have been done. It is assumed that not one side is either completely right or completely wrong, but that both sides have legitimate claims that should be addressed, and certain blind spots that must be overcome. Therefore, both sides must listen to the "other" point of view, in order to foster understanding and communication, which would presumably lead to "coexistence" or "reconciliation."Aha, more experts who are ignorant and stubbornly unwilling to look at facts. Too bad for all the dead Palestinians, no?, that the international community is chock full of ignorant and stubborn foreign policy experts. The legal system will not protect people like Claire Swinney from the abusive medical system, and just as certainly, the foreign policy system will not bring justice to the Palestinians.
Such an approach is deemed "balanced" or "moderate," as if that is a good thing. However, the reality on the ground is vastly different than the "moderate" view of this so-called "conflict." Even the word "conflict" is misleading, because it implies a dispute between two symmetric parties. The reality is not so; it is not a case of simple misunderstanding or mutual hatred which stands in the way of peace. The context of the situation in Israel/Palestine is that of colonialism, apartheid and racism, a situation in which there is an oppressor and an oppressed, a colonizer and a colonized.
In cases of colonialism and apartheid, history shows that colonial regimes do not relinquish power without popular struggle and resistance, or direct international pressure. It is a particularly naive view to assume that persuasion and "talking" will convince an oppressive system to give up its power.
And I am suggesting to you that this is intentional. This is By Design. The biggest plausible lie of all is that the systems governing our lives have been designed by ethical people. On the contrary, the systems running our lives are designed and run by psychopaths. We literally live inside the beast.
The truth is that psychopaths and sociopaths have infested every single arena of human interaction that is worth controlling. Every single one. We are literally immersed in systems of their design, systems which allow them to abuse people and get away with it. It is so pervasive and long standing as to be nearly invisible to most people, who of course have been brainwashed into staying in the filthy narrow ruts that psychopaths have furrowed into the dirt for us. We think corruption is normal. We think we have to put up with it.
But that is a lie. We can design better systems, systems that work, but we will have to start from scratch. All the tinkering around the edges does nothing but waste time while preserving the essential corrupt systems with the corresponding corrupt people at the centers, which is exactly why they waste so much time tinkering around the edges. They call it politics.
We feed the system by conferring our respect to it's experts, be they political, financial, cultural, medical, whatever. We don't have to do that. We don't have to consume their opinions. We don't have to take their advice. We don't have to think the thoughts that they have prescribed for us. We don't have to supply them with the power that they use against us. We don't have to cooperate with them. We don't have to be compliant.
They will scream bloody murder because they know this will kill them, it will kill their power over us. Witness the shrieking over the organ trafficking story.
Mmm hmm. That means you're doing it right.