Gene monopoly

An Australian court has ruled in favor of allowing a company to patent a human gene. Concerns have been voiced that allowing a company to monopolize genes will turn the human body into a commodity, and will adversely affect healthcare.

The judge argued the act of removing a specific gene from the body and isolating it made it into a product “of new manufacture” and therefore open to be patented, despite the fact that the same gene may occur naturally in other human beings.

The patent was filed by US company Myriad Genetics in 1994 – if enforced in Australia, it would give the company exclusive rights to carry out tests on specific genes. In turn, the patent would prevent anyone else from isolating, researching or conducting tests on the gene in question.

Australia’s Federal Court dealt with the company’s patents on the BRCA1, which can be used to predict the likelihood of a woman contracting cancer

The judge’s ruling on Friday said that even if a gene has “precisely the same chemical composition and structure as that found in the cells of some human beings,” isolating it from the body creates and “artificial state of affairs,” making the gene a patentable commodity. Myriad’s claim on the genes was challenged by nonprofit Cancer Voices Australia, which argued the patent is illegitimate and unfounded.

Cancer Voices Australia has appealed to the Australian government to change the law, saying the patent could lead to worsening public healthcare and an increase in costs and restrictions on doctors. They also took issue with the logic that isolating the gene makes it fair game, arguing that the act is so commonplace, it is equivalent to snapping a branch from a tree.

"It is difficult to think of the circumstances where an artificially created state of affairs would not exist whenever there is some form of human intervention," the New Scientist quoted Dianne Nicol of the University of Tasmania, Australia, a specialist in law and human genetics, as saying.

Nicol added that the court’s decision had raised eyebrows in the Australian scientific community; the group has resolved to appeal the hearing.

Myriad had already patented the BRCA1 gene under Genetic Technologies Limited in Australia. However, the company sparked public outrage when they attempted to enforce the gene patent, and was obliged to let other companies practice tests on BRCA1.

In the US, Myriad Genetics enforces its patent on the gene and has the monopoly on tests related to it. As a result, a Myriad test costs upwards of $3,000, and is often not covered by health insurance. In neighboring Canada, where Myriad has not been allowed to impose the patent, the same test is quicker and costs one-third the price.

The Australian ruling comes just three months before a very similar appeal will be heard in a US Supreme Court case concerning Myriad and the American Civil Liberties Union, which is fighting the company’s monopoly on genes.

Currently, around 4,000 human genes have been patented by private companies.

SFG AGAINST PETROL PRICE INCREASE

The Socialist Forum of Ghana (SFG) has spoken out against the recent increase in full prices and called on the Government to review them in a statement issued in Accra yesterday.

By this statement the SFG has joined other groups such as the Trade Union Congress (TUC) ISODEC, the Committee for Joint Action (CJA) and the Association for Accountable Government (AFAG) to oppose the fuel price increases. 

 The full text of the SFG statement is published below;

The Socialist Forum of Ghana (SFG) condemns the recent fuel price increases announced by the Government as unjustifiable and insensitive to the plight of under privileged Ghanaians.

These increases coming at a time of high unemployment and general economic hardship can only worsen the sorry plight of the working people and the disadvantaged.

It is even more callous in the face of unreliable supply of electricity which has compelled many industries and other establishments to rely on fuel for the generation of electricity.

As far as the SFG is concerned, these increase are meant to enable the Government to generate more revenue to plug the holes in the national budget. It is the easiest and most vicious way of generating revenue as compared to a review of the tax system and the stimulation of the production.

The SFG calls upon the Government of Ghana to reverse its decision to increase the price of petroleum products immediately.

The people of Ghana deserve better than the continuing imposition of hardship from one government to the another.

For Convenor

The future of South Africa’s energy is uncertain

By Fabian Scherer

Almost 90% of South Africa’s electricity is generated through coal-fired power plants. Even though the government-run energy producer Eskom does not have exclusive generation rights anymore, it still has the practical monopoly on bulk electricity. However, people feel that electricity supply in South Africa is regulated less than it should be. Power shortages still occur, and Eskom has recently announced plans to increase its tariffs by 16% per year over the next five years, causing huge outcries among businesses and private households. With electricity being a scarce resource, and the promise of a significant price increases, questions about energy efficiency in the country have been raised.

In September 2012, the first public hearing concerning the issue took place. A municipality of the Southern Cape Karoo depicted its positive experiences with retrofitting existing infrastructure and establishing more renewable energy sources. Demands for more energy generation capacity were brought forward, and the importance of educational programmes concerning energy efficient behaviour were underlined.

Last month, on 31 January, the second day of hearings took place. After the Department of Energy had outlined its targets for energy savings earlier that day, the public could comment on the introduction of standards for building construction, the implementation of an energy efficiency monitoring system, and tax concessions to encourage energy efficiency. So far, different national and international institutions had provided funds for the establishment of certain energy efficient projects. However, in the current and future financial years, there will be no more funding available by the National Treasury, raising doubts about the sustainability of current energy efficiency programmes.

The Green Building Council of South Africa underlined the importance of modernising infrastructure to save energy, and the National Foundries Technology Network depicted the devastating consequences of power shortages for the internationally competing manufacturing sector. State electricity supplier Eskom briefed the energy portfolio committee about the state of its public awareness campaign, but the South African Energy Development Institute explained that energy efficiency was still not receiving enough prominence.

Considering the two hearings on energy efficiency, a few particular points seem to dominate the debate. Firstly, the private sector fears the negative consequences of power shortages. Secondly, municipal energy efficiency projects shall be promoted, however, funding ways remain unclear, as the treasury has stopped their assistance. Thirdly it shall not only be the state, which takes care for energy efficiency, but also the people, who shall be educated in the issue through awareness campaigns.

Currently, the government’s plans to rectify the growing electricity problems are too vague. While energy efficiency is definitely an important issue, it is also crucial to modernize the country’s energy production. South Africa has huge capacities for renewable energies – thousands of kilometres of windy coasts suitable for wind power, and regions with above-average sunshine hours for solar power – but a monopolist state energy giant prevents dynamism in the market. Opening the market for more flexible players would help to tackle potential power shortages, and drive the country away from its dependence on environmentally costly coal power stations.

 

Western propaganda and The Libya Revolution

By William Festus

Share | Email | Print

My memory of Col. Muammar Gaddafi was that of a Libyan revolutionary and socialist politician who does not beat around the bush, telling it straight to your face and of course such attitude can be perceived by some as dictatorial.

If I look around Africa Continent, the closest to Col. Gaddafi is late Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana who identified that African Continent is partially free politically and most definitely not economically and that Africa  need to “emancipate itself from mental slavery and that none but ourselves can free our mind” (Pan-African).

Some of my readers may wonder why the comparison of Gaddafi and Nkrumah? It was what they stood for and not who they are and by that I mean they stood for the unity of Africa as a continent through economic empowerment such as increased trade between countries on the continent as well as political and technological cooperation.

Gaddafi focused on key areas that can help prolong average life span of Libyans such as good road network; good healthcare facilities, better housing so that Libyans will not sleep rough, and he eliminated poverty focusing on those Libyans who are unable to work due to disability or ill health.

Gaddafi’s effort to stabilise Libya by bringing all different tribes together and also working with poverty-stricken West African nations did not gain popularity in the West (news blackout) because it was distorting their (West) plan for Africa and Middle East, hence incitement of tribal unrest and counter coup in Libya in the past.

They (West) use their propaganda machine (Western Media) to turn Gaddafi into Mr. Jekyll and Hyde (man with two faces) in the eyes of his neighbours as well as around the world portraying him (Gaddafi) as a tyrant/dictator/terrorist hated by his own people and the world over.

In their “War against Terrorism,” they finally succeeded to get behind Gaddafi’s skin particularly after 9/11 because he started working with them behind the scenes hence made him more enemies than friends within the Arab community because he allowed them (West) access to Libya and its facilities (marking the beginning of his downfall).

However, the financial and technical cooperation enjoyed by many West African countries under the regime of Gaddafi must be acknowledged, - countries such as Sierra Leone, Guinea-Conakry, Chad, Niger, Mali, Senegal, and Burkina Faso - because it shows the other side of Gaddafi that the world did not see.

The West also enjoyed financial support from him and his family and without a doubt it was a subject on the lips of many European and West African leaders, either they like it or not, and there were individuals who had benefited from different educational funds he supported around the world.

I was fortunate to know Libyans from Benghazi and Tripoli who acknowledged that the regime of Gaddafi gave them the chance to be true Libyans because they had peace and were able to move freely as a citizen without fear - unlike now after his demise.

The awakening that gripped Tunisia and Egypt was to the West’s detriment but perfect timing to incite regime change in Libya, because they already had their agents on the ground in Libya, making it easy for them to hijack the awakening and turning it into regime change in Libya.

The people of Benghazi under the supervision of the West seemed to be ideal to start the revolution for regime change; after all they had an old score to settle with Gaddafi even though majority from that part of the nation could vouch for political, economic and social peace enjoyed under Gaddafi and even Gaddafi had a home in Benghazi.

Some Western countries feared that allowing Gaddafi to continue as Libyan leader meant they had a lot to lose and one of such fears was over their financial indebtedness to Gaddafi, his family and people of Libya because repaying this money could deal a bigger blow to their own economy.

Also, deposing him would leave a power vacuum considering the volatile tribal division in Libya and an opportunity for them to have a say in Libya’s oil distribution network, which would in turn help sustain their businesses and economy through the period of Western economic crunch.

 Like the situation with Mali, France took the lead and of course there was more than just political undertone for former French president’s involvement in Libya, some of which came out in French press while others did not make it to the print (News blackout?).

It was obvious that Gaddafi had made many enemies in the Middle East, hence not much support came from that direction to help bring political solution, and of course Gaddafi had himself to blame because becoming Mr. Jekyll and Hyde for the West always end in regret.

In the heat of it all, even Libya’s strong ally, Russia, could not do much to resuscitate his government because by this time there had been promises and counter promises made to Gaddafi’s aides who were breaking ranks more than he anticipated and Western media were splashing news of defection daily, hence his regime was doomed.

Gaddafi losing grip on power was a combination of many factors, amongst which was his close ties forged with West during Iraq war when he allowed Libya to be used strategically against al-Qaeda, and by conniving with the West he carved enemies for himself within the Arab community, hence West collaborating to oust him seemed imminent because he lacked popular support.

The Western media news blackout on turn of events during the Libya revolution and news propaganda about atrocities purported to have been committed by Gaddafi’s supporters did not favour him, hence common conversation in public places around the world was that he must go

Africa may not have a voice, but comparing news heard from mainstream Western media and others like it, it was obvious that the continent is well aware of the Western double standard, hence factual reporting by Press TV during Libya revolution form one of the reasons for a Western coup against the network.

Africa and the Middle East have been creating awareness in the mind of their younger generations that there is double standard in news reporting by the Western media, and one of the ways to identify existence of such double standard is for this younger audience to compare online reporting with mainstream Western media before forming opinion.

The Western leaders censor Western media to only report news they want the world to hear and Western media knows how to put it across nations of the earth fancifully and convincingly with no regards for psychological damage to listeners, and those networks that did not join the bandwagon suffered a witch hunt.

Gaddafi was a victim of such Western news propaganda and spreading lies is a continuous process of reporting by Western media and most recent is the reporting by a Western media showing a picture of mass killings to have been carried out by Syrian soldiers, but it was later proved to be untrue because picture from previous reporting were used.

People from Africa and the Middle East are more aware now that accusation made by the West against activities of leaders or nations may be untrue, hence they now use news comparison for verification before forming opinion.

The Western media have lost its popularity amongst many individuals from Africa and the Middle East, because it has become apparent that Western media through its satellite channels has been feeding them with propaganda and lies, hence they are switching from mainstream satellite stations onto the Internet for latest news and update.

Press TV’s true news reporting have placed the network on the wrong side of Western leaders, and witch hunting against the news network is a further conviction that the Western leaders through media have been feeding the people of the world with propaganda far too long.

It is ironic to see that Gaddafi, who was a dictator/tyrant hated by his people, could lend money to Western nations and yet they did not refuse to accept the money neither did they decline to use Libya as a base to torture individuals accused of terrorism.

Muammar Gaddafi is dead. Saif al-Islam Gaddafi is incarcerated, hence another news blackout on the real truth behind why the West sped up regime change in Libya using military force and under the disguise of the United Nation Security Council.

The West claimed that Libya is now a free nation with peace and stability after Gaddafi’s death, but there is no stable unity government that includes all tribes in Libya and moreover the United State suffers its first casualty in Libya in 2012.

Libya has been politically volatile since the awakening and while Western media only touch on it after the death of the US diplomat, Press TV never stops reporting.

On the future of communal land in South Africa

By Fabian Scherer

It is estimated that about 20 million South Africans live on so-called communal land - land that is not owned by individuals or companies, but by certain traditional communities. In accordance with the country’s culture, traditional leaders have the say about the allocation of the land to community members. The system, which mainly concerns impoverished rural regions, is not without its detractors. In 2012, the Democratic Alliance party supported a push to privatise communal land due to a perceived lack of productivity. The party took the view that privatisation would lead to greater economic growth. What the Democratic Alliance ignores is that title deeds (private ownership or privatisation) could lead to the poorest people in South Africa being unable to get access to land, which they need for their survival.

Communal land represents the only source of life for many poor South Africans. The tribal chief allocates certain parcels to families and individuals, on which they build their homes on and grow their crops. The Democratic Alliance has criticised the current system, stating that it does not represent democratic values, as it allows people to be exposed to the arbitrariness and whims of tribal chiefs.

Worldwide, communal land has been a way to enable the survival of the poorest, when state-organised social networks were not sufficient to do so. Privatisation bears the risk that many people lose their livelihood, and realistically considered, South Africa would not be capable to care for those who need it most. On the other hand, globalisation, and the related increase of international competition, demand countries to raise their attractiveness for investors and businesses. Large areas of communal land do not promote the country’s competitiveness. The richer a country becomes, the more it is able to build up the social provisions which make communal land unnecessary.

The consequences of countries privatising communal lands too early can be seen in Mexico in the 1990s. To gain access to the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Central American country obliged itself to abolish communal lands, which had formed the basis of life for many indigenous people. As a result, subsistence farmers rebelled violently against the government, causing a long lasting conflict between the authorities and Mexicans who felt discriminated against by the land reform. Other countries, which have yielded to demands for liberalisation, have seen similar results. Granted the current volatile social situation in South Africa, which finds its expression in the ongoing labour unrest, it would be a dangerous to open up another potential debate by enraging the impoverished rural population. In the long-term, privatisation of communal land might be the way forward, but currently and in the medium-to-long-term, it will be more pragmatic to improve the welfare of those who rely on that land. If they become less dependent on subsistence farming, privatisation of communal land to boost the economy becomes more viable.

In any case, it is not necessary to privatise communal land to stimulate the economy; the first step should rather be to build up connections between the economy and those rural communities. Currently, most of them carry out subsistence farming, not because they are consciously unproductive, but because they do not have access to the market to sell excess goods. The first step should therefore be to increase the integration of rural communities into the economy. The additional wealth, which would reach the communities as a result, would help to improve education and other social protections, and in the end, decrease their dependence on subsistence farming, allowing for the discussion of land privatisation.

Crisis in the command

Mali Interim President Traore

The strange pact under which President Dioncounda Traoré appointed the serial putschist Captain Amadou Sanogo as head of the military reform committee in a grand ceremony in Bamako on 13 February exposes the contradictions at the heart of the government. It also raises questions about the fractured command of the national army and its willingness to fight alongside French and West African forces in northern Mali. These doubts will probably speed up the timetable for the United Nations’ involvement, as requested by France and now discreetly backed by the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).

The idea is that the 7,000 West African forces would be subsumed into a UN peacekeeping operation, paid for by the UN Secretariat in New York. UN Political Affairs officials would work with ECOWAS to organise and supervise national elections. That, at least, is the French and West African plan but UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon remains far from convinced.


Just five days earlier, soldiers loyal to Capt. Sanogo were in a firefight with a unit of paratroopers at the Djikoroni base in Bamako. President Traoré’s appointment of Sanogo to head the Comité militaire de suivi des réformes des forces armées et de sécurité, which was strongly supported by ECOWAS, is to lure Sanogo away from his military base at Kati, south of Bamako, into an office in town where he will no longer control troops. In fact, Sanogo’s equivocation over the launch of France’s intervention on 11 January had already made him lose face among his military supporters.

The main reason for that, we hear, is that he had been plotting a coup against the Traoré government in early January. The plan was for a twofold strike: Sanogo’s troops would knock out the Bamako government as jihadists from Iyad ag Ghaly’s Ansar Eddine forces began their southwards march on 10 January. Several officers in Sanogo’s inner circle, such as Colonel Youssouff Traoré, have links to Ansar Eddine, according to security sources in Paris.

Sanogo’s plan was to present himself as the realist who had reached a deal with the jihadists and saved the south: that would have left his junta dominant in Bamako and the south in return for recognising Ag Ghaly as the new leader of the north.

The Sanogo-Ag Ghaly axis
The overthrow of Traoré would have blocked the West African intervention approved by the UN Security Council in December. Sanogo and his allies seem to have calculated that this would call the bluff of the ECOWAS forces, even if he would appear to preside over the partition of Mali. At the same time, Ag Ghaly had concluded that the peace talks with the Traoré government hosted by Burkina Faso were going nowhere. Algeria had pressured Ansar Eddine and Ag Ghaly, who is well known in Algiers, to talk to Bamako. Yet by early January, it was clear that Algiers had lost its influence over Ag Ghaly and could not stop him from launching a fresh offensive.

The jihadist push southwards aimed to forestall the Mission internationale de soutien au Mali (Misma) by seizing the military airbase at Sévaré and other key positions around Segou. Ag Ghaly’s attack was to provide the pretext for another putsch in Bamako and the new regime under Sanogo would negotiate. The fighters from Al Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb and the Mouvement our l’unicité et le jihad en Afrique de l’ouest may have found Ag Ghaly’s plan less than compelling. They retreated very quickly from Konna and Diabali after 11 January, leaving Ag Ghaly’s mainly Malian fighters to take the full brunt of the French counterattack.

Algeria's meddling
Ministers in Bamako openly criticise Algeria for its ‘unhelpful meddling’. In 2010, Algeria established the Comité d’état-major opérationnel conjoint, which was meant to be a forum to coordinate with Mali, Mauritania and Niger against regional jihadist fighters but was also seen as a way to fend off French operations. CEMOC achieved little other than a few side deals between Algeria’s sécurité militaire and its regional counterparts. To the fury of Mali’s Defence Minister, Colonel Yamoussa Camara, Algeria did nothing to stop supplies from its southern provinces to the occupying jihadists in northern Mali. The subsequent attack on the In Amenas gas plant on 18 January, aided by collaborators inside the plant, exposed the failures of Algeria’s own powerful security services. 

Algiers had kept open communications to both Sanogo and Ag Ghaly. Some in Sanogo’s personal guard had been trained by Algeria. There is no evidence that Algeria was complicit in the Sanogo- Ag Ghaly deal although it may have suited President Abdelaziz Bouteflika’s government, which saw France’s intervention as exacerbating instability in the region. Algeria’s opposition crumbled once the jihadist offensive began and it quietly granted France overflight rights. 

After the last month’s military push by France and the African forces, there is a renewed focus on the political route ahead for Mali. The government and the transitional Assemblée Nationale have now approved the creation of a negotiating commission to tackle the grievances of the north. The Presidency Secretary General, Ousmane Sy, is looking at who should be involved in the negotiations. It is not yet clear how the commission will work and whether northern interests will be represented or be part of a wider forum. 

France is encouraging the Bamako government to include a wide range of northern politicians, activists and business people in the talks. However, it is trying to be discreet and is not making specific suggestions about members. The ground rules are that no northern groups linked to terrorism should be included. That rules out the Mouvement national pour la libération de l’Azawad (MNLA) and the Mouvement islamique de l’Azawad (MIA), which peeled off from Ansar Eddine last month (AC Vol 54 No 3). The main facilitator for the process is likely to be Burundi’s former President Pierre Buyoya, who is the African Union’s Special Representative in Bamako. Traoré faces pressure from hardline nationalists in Bamako, who oppose any concessions to the Tuareg, whom they blame for facilitating the jihadist takeover. This may explain the government’s issue of arrest warrants for MNLA leaders this week. France said nothing about the warrants which could make its position more difficult, especially in Kidal (see Box). Many politicians in Bamako believe that France’s former President Nicolas Sarkozy was financing the MNLA as a means to pressure the failing government of President Amadou Toumani Touré.

Foreign funds could start flowing soon now the European Union has unblocked 250 million euros (US$333.85 mn.) in aid. France has relaunched its bilateral development support and the International Monetary Fund is preparing a transitional economic plan. The priority is quick-impact programmes to restore water, power and other basic services in the north. That would encourage people there to see practical benefit from the expulsion of the jihadists.

The timetable for negotiations is complicated by the plan to hold elections for a government which would have the legitimacy and credibility to embark on major structural reform to the political system and economy. Many Malian politicians talk about a ‘transition to the transition’. There is widespread agreement that Traoré and his ministers must give way to an elected government. It may be possible for some dialogue over northern issues to start before elections, although it is unlikely that any long-term changes could be agreed under Traoré.

No special deal for the north
Elections will change the dynamics. Candidates in the south are likely to take a tougher stance on the north to court electors. That will make truly national negotiations more difficult, whether on political devolution or development spending. Many Bamako politicians insist there would be no special deal for the north; nor is the idea of making Mali a federation or even confederation gaining much ground.

Uncertainty also hangs over the political timetable. Traoré has promised elections by 31 July but that would mean voting in the rainy season, when some communities are hard to reach and many Sahelian villagers are preparing the fields and planting seeds. Now it seems the most likely time for polls would be between October and December, after the harvest has been gathered in.

'More Tarantino’s needed to counter Israel' 

By Gilad Atzmon

Share | Email | Print

Tarantino

Tarantino indeed turns over many stones and unleashes many vipers into the room. Yet being a devout Athenian he doesn’t intend to produce a single answer or a moral lesson. He leaves us perplexed yet cheerful. For Tarantino, I guess, dilemma is the existential essence. Spielberg, on, the other hand, provides all the necessary answers. After all, within the ‘progressive’ politically-correct discourse, it is the answers that determine, in retrospective, what questions we are entitled to raise."

History is commonly regarded as an attempt to produce a structured account of the past. It proclaims to tell us what really happened, but in most cases it fails to do that.

Instead it is set to conceal our shame, to hide those various elements, events, incidents and occurrences in our past which we cannot cope with. History, therefore, can be regarded as a system of concealment. Accordingly, the role of the true historian is similar to that of the psychoanalyst: both aim to unveil the repressed. For the psychoanalyst, it is the unconscious mind. For the historian, it is our collective shame.

Yet, one may wonder, how many historians really engage in such a task? How many historians are courageous enough to open the Pandora Box? How many historians are brave enough to challenge Jewish History for real? How many historians dare to ask why Jews? Why do Jews suffer time after time? Is it really the Goyim who are inherently murderous, or is there something unsettling in Jewish culture or collectivism? But Jewish history is obviously far from being alone here: every people’s past is, in fact, as problematic.

Can Palestinians really explain to themselves how is it that after more than a century of struggle, they wake up to find out that their current capital has become an NGO haven largely funded by George Soros’ Open Society? Can the Brits once and for all look in the mirror and explain to themselves why, in their Imperial Wars Museum, they erected a Holocaust exhibition dedicated to the destruction of the Jews? Shouldn’t the Brits be slightly more courageous and look into one of the many Shoas they themselves inflicted on others? Clearly they have an impressive back catalogue to choose from.

The Guardian vs. Athens

The past is dangerous territory; it can induce inconvenient stories. This fact alone may explain why the true Historian is often presented as a public enemy. However, the Left has invented an academic method to tackle the issue. The ‘progressive’ historian functions to produce a ‘politically correct’, ‘inoffensive’ tale of the past. By means of zigzagging, it navigates its way, while paying its dues to the concealed and producing endless ad-hoc deviations that leave the ‘repressed’ untouched. The progressive subject is there to produce a ‘non- essentialist’ and ‘unoffending’ account of the past on the expense of the so-called ‘reactionary’.

 The Guardian is an emblem of such an approach, it would, for instance, ban any criticism of Jewish culture or Jewishness, yet it provides a televised platform for two rabid Zionist so they can discuss Arab culture and Islamism. The Guardian wouldn’t mind offending ‘Islamists’ or British ‘nationalists’ but it would be very careful not to hurt any Jewish sensitivities. Such version of politics or the past is impervious to truthfulness, coherence, consistency or integrity. In fact, the progressive discourse is far from being ‘the guardian of the truth’, it is actually set as ‘the guardian of the discourse’ and I am referring here to Left discourse in particular.

But surely there is an alternative to the ‘progressive’ attitude to the past. The true historian is actually a philosopher - an essentialist - a thinker who posits the question ‘what does it mean to be in the world and what does it take to live amongst others’? The true historian transcends beyond the singular, the particular and the personal. He or she is searching for the condition of the possibility of that which drives our past, present and future. The true historian dwells on Being and Time, he or she is searching for a humanist lesson and an ethical insight while looking into the poem, the art, the beauty, the reason but also into the fear. The true historian is an essentialist who digs out the concealed, for he or she knows that the repressed is the kernel of the truth.

Leo Strauss provides us with a very useful insight in that regard. Western civilization, he contends, oscillates between two intellectual and spiritual poles - Athens and Jerusalem (al-Quds). Athens - the birthplace of democracy, home for reason, philosophy, art and science. Jerusalem (al-Quds)- the city of God where God’s law prevails. The philosopher, the true historian, or the essentialist, for that matter, is obviously the Athenian. The Jerusalemite, in that regard, is ‘the guardian of the discourse’, the one who keeps the gate, just to maintain law and order on the expense of ecstasies, poesis, beauty, reason and truth.

Spielberg vs. Tarantino

Hollywood provides us with an insight into this oscillation between Athens and Jerusalem (al-Quds): between the Jerusalemite ‘guardian of the discourse’ and the Athenian contender - the ‘essentialist’ public enemy. On the Left side of the map we find Steven Spielberg, the ‘progressive’ genius. On his Right we meet peosis itself, Quentin Tarantino, the ‘essentialist’.

Spielberg, provides us with the ultimate sanitized historical epic. The facts are cherry picked just to produce a pre meditated pseudo ethical tale that maintains the righteous discourse, law and order but, most importantly, the primacy of Jewish suffering (Schindler’s List and Munich). Spielberg brings to life a grand epic with a clear retrospective take on the past. Spielberg tactic is, in most cases, pretty simple. He would juxtapose a vivid transparent binary opposition: Nazis vs. Jews, Israeli vs. Palestinians , North vs. South, Righteousness vs. Slavery. Somehow, we always know, in advance who are the baddies and who are the goodies. We clearly know who to side with.

Binary opposition is indeed a safe route. It provides a clear distinction between the ‘Kosher’ and the ‘forbidden’. But Spielberg is far from being a banal mind. He also allows a highly calculated and carefully meditated oscillation. In a Universalist gesture of courtesy he would let a single Nazi into the family of the kind. He would allow the odd Palestinian to be a victim. It can all happen as long as the main frame of the discourse remains intact.

Spielberg is clearly an arch guardian of discourse - being a master of his art-form, he will certainly maintain your attention for at least 90 minutes of a historic cinematic cocktail made of factual mishmash. All you have to do is to follow the plot to the end. By then the pre-digested ethical message is safely replanted at the hub of your self-loving narcissistic universe.

Unlike Spielberg, Tarantino is not concerned with factuality; he may even repel historicity. Tarantino may as well believe that the notion of ‘the message’ or morality are over rated. Tarantino is an essentialist, he is interested in human nature, in Being and he seems to be fascinated in particular in vengeance and its universality. For the obvious reasons, his totally farfetched Inglorious Bastards throws light on present Israeli collective blood thirstiness as being detected at the time of Operation Cast lead.

The fictional cinematic creation of a revengeful murderous WWII Jewish commando unit is there to throw the light on the devastating contemporary reality of Jewish lobbies’ lust for violence in their relentless push for a world war against Iran and beyond. But Inglorious Bastards may as well have a universal appeal because the Old Testament’s ‘eye for an eye’ has become the Anglo American political driving force in the aftermath of 9/11.

Abe’le vs. Django

What may seem as a spiritual clash between Jerusalemite Spielberg and Athenian Tarantino is more than apparent in their recent works.

The history of slavery in America is indeed a problematic topic and, for obvious reasons, many aspects of this chapter are still kept deeply within the domain of the concealed. Once again Spielberg and Tarantino have produced a distinctively different accounts of this chapter.

In his recent historical epic Lincoln, Spielberg, made Abraham Lincoln into a Neocon ‘moral interventionist’ who against all (political) odds, abolished slavery. I guess that Spielberg knows enough American history to gather that his cinematic account is a crude Zigzag attempt, for the anti-slavery political campaign was a mere pretext for a bloody war driven by clear economical objectives.

As one may expect, Spielberg peppers his tale with more than a few genuine historical anecdotes. He is certainly paying the necessary dues just to keep the shame shoved deep under the carpet. His Lincoln is cherished as a morally driven hero of human brotherhood. And the entire plot carries all the symptoms of contemporary AIPAC lobby assault within the Capitol. Being one of the arch guardians of the discourse, Spielberg has successfully fulfilled his task. He added a substantial cinematic layer to ensure that America’s true shame remains deeply repressed or shall we say, untouched.

Needless to mention that Spielberg’s take on Lincoln has been cheered by the Jewish press. They called the president Avraham Lincoln Avinu (our father, Hebrew) in The Tablet Magazine. ‘Avraham’, according to the Tablet, is the definitive good Jew. “As imagined by Spielberg and Kushner, Lincoln’s Lincoln is the ultimate mensch. He is a skilled natural psychologist, an interpreter of dreams, and a man blessed with an extraordinarily clever and subtle legal mind.”

In short, Spielberg’s Lincoln is Abe’le who combines the skills, the gift and the traits of Moses, Freud as well as Alan Dershowitz. However, some Jews complain about the film. “As an American Jewish historian, writes Lance J. Sussman, “I’m afraid I have to say I am somewhat disappointed with the latest Spielberg film. So much of it is so good, but it would have been even better if he had put at least one Jew in the movie, somewhere.”

 I guess that Spielberg may find it hard to please the entire tribe. Quentin Tarantino, however, doesn’t even try. Tarantino is, in fact, doing the complete opposite. Through a phantasmic epic that confesses zero interest in any form of historicity or factuality whatsoever, he manages, in his latest masterpiece Django Unchained, to dig out the darkest secrets of Slavery. He scratches the concealed and judging by the reaction of another cinematic genius Spike Lee, he has clearly managed to get pretty deep.

By putting into play a stylistic spectacle within the Western genre Tarantino manages to dwell on every aspect we are advised to leave untouched. He deals with biological determinism, White supremacy and cruelty. But he also turns his lens onto slaves’ passivity, subservience and collaboration. The Athenian director builds here a set of Greek mythological God like characters; Django (Jamie Fox), is the unruly king of revenge and Schultz (Christoph Waltz) the German dentist turned bounty hunter is the master of wit, kindness and humanity with a giant wisdom tooth shining over his caravan.

Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) is the Hegelian (racist) Master and Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson) is the Hegelian Slave, emerging as the personification of social transformation. To a certain extent, the relationships between Candie and Stephen could be seen as one of the most profound yet subversive cinematic takes on Hegel’s master-slave dialectic.

In Hegel’s dialectic two self-consciousness’ are constituted via a process of mirroring. In Django Unchained, Stephen the slave, seems to convey the ultimate form of subservience, yet this is merely on the surface. In reality Stephen is way more sophisticated and observant than his master Candie. He is on his way up. It is hard to determine whether Stephen is a collaborator or if he really runs the entire show. And yet in Tarantino’s latest, Hegel’s dialectic is, somehow, compartmentalized.

Django, once unchained, is clearly impervious to the Hegelian dialectic spiel. His incidental liberation induces in him a true spirit of relentless resilience. When it comes to it, he kills the Master, the Slave and everyone else who happens to be around, he bends every rule including the ‘rules of nature’ (biological determinism). By the time the epic is over, Django leaves behind a wreckage of the Candie’s plantation, the cinematic symbol of the dying old South and the ‘Master Slave Dialectic’. Yet, as Django rides on a horse towards the rising sun together with his free wife Broomhilda von Shaft (Kerry Washington), we are awakened to the farfetched cinematic fantasy.

In reality, I mean the world out of the cinema, the Candie’s plantation would, in all likelihood, remain intact and Django would probably be chained up again. In practice, Tarantino cynically juxtaposes the dream (the cinematic reality) and reality (as we know it). By doing so he manages to illuminate the depth of misery that is entangled with the human condition and in Black reality in America in particular. Tarantino is certainly not a ‘guardian of the discourse.’ Quite the opposite, he is the bitterest enemy of stagnation. As in his previous works, his latest spectacle is an essentialist assault on correctness and ‘self-love’.

Tarantino indeed turns over many stones and unleashes many vipers into the room. Yet being a devout Athenian he doesn’t intend to produce a single answer or a moral lesson. He leaves us perplexed yet cheerful. For Tarantino, I guess, dilemma is the existential essence. Spielberg, on, the other hand, provides all the necessary answers. After all, within the ‘progressive’ politically-correct discourse, it is the answers that determine, in retrospective, what questions we are entitled to raise.

If Leo Strauss is correct and Western civilization should be seen as an oscillation between Athens and Jerusalem (al-Quds), truth must be said - we can really do with many more Athenians and their essentialist reflections. In short, we are in a desperate need of many more Tarantino’s to counter Jerusalem (al-Quds) and its ambassadors.