Monday, December 21, 2009

Apocalypto, a narrative of the movie

Mel Gibson's new film, APOCALYPTO 10/23/2009

APOCALYPTO NARRATIVE
by H. Peter Metzger

In 1502, a war party from a large and corrupt Mayan city searches for captives to be used as human sacrifices to appease their bloodthirsty god, Kukulkan. They make a raid on a small village nearby, round up captives, and a great fight ensues. The villagers are easily subdued by the marauders and are quickly bound together for their trek back to the city.

During the raid, the main character, villager Jaguar Paw (Rudy Youngblood) is attacked by the warrior, the sadistic Middle Eye (played very believably by Gerardo Taracena), thus creating a personal feud between the two. The fight is stopped by the war party commander, Zero Wolf (a very scary character wonderfully well played by Raoul Trujillo), but it is clear that the feud is not going to end there.

The war party and it’s bound captives arrive in the city and are brought to the very top of a great pyramid to be sacrificed. In one of the best scenes in the narrative, the high priest (played by Fernando Hernandez, and obviously drawing his inspiration from Benito Mussolini), speaks to the crowds below (700 extras!), and tells of how their future will improve only if the great god Kukulkan gets his fill of human blood. So the sacrifices proceed as he cuts the still beating hearts out of the sacrificial victims to the roars of approval from the crowd below.

When it is Jaguar Paw’s turn to die, a solar eclipse interrupts. As the day turns into night, the high priest looks to the chief (Rafael Velez) for guidance. After exchanging sly smiles, the order comes to stop the sacrifices as the god’s thirst for blood is sated. Jaguar Paw is saved.

The captives are then led off to be “disposed of”. During this bloody scene, Jaguar Paw escapes, killing Cut Rock, the son of Zero Wolf in the process. A furious and revenge-driven Zero Wolf begins a long chase to avenge his son’s death by saying “I am going to peel off his skin and make him watch me wear it.”

Joining Zero Wolf in his pursuit of Jaguar Paw is his war party of eight, and they track Jaguar Paw through the jungle. It isn’t long before Jaguar Paw meets up with a real Jaguar who pursues him too. One member of the war party chasing Jaguar Paw almost catches up with his quarry but ends up just in front of the enraged Jaguar instead. Instantly, the Jaguar switches his target from Jaguar Paw to chasing the warrior, who is quickly chewed to death as Jaguar Paw makes his escape. This leaves one warrior down while the other eight continue their chase.

Next, warrior Hanging Moss is killed by a snake thus raising the toll to two warriors dead. The chase goes on until it is stopped by a giant waterfall into which Jaguar Paw leaps, arriving at the bottom safely. As the war party looks down at him, commander Zero Wolf kills a third warrior for second guessing him, having suggested that they go around the falls. Zero Wolf then commands that they all jump over the waterfall which kills one of them, raising the score to four warriors dead.

After almost drowning in black quicksand, Jaguar Paw buys time by throwing an active beehive at his pursuers. He uses the extra time to make poison darts from some big thorns and a poison toad he gathered. Then, with a blow pipe made by folding a big leaf into a tube, he kills warrior number five.

Then, to settle the old score, Jaguar Paw encounters the sadistic Middle Eye and they get into a very exciting axe battle, leaving Middle Eye dead with blood spurting from a fatal wound to his head, making six down with three to go.

By now, the running battle has moved close to Jaguar Paw’s village where he is able to check on his wife and child who have taken refuge in a deep hole. He can’t stay but a moment since what’s left of the war party is getting very close. In fact, Zero Wolf manages to get off an arrow which skewers Jaguar Paw but does not kill him.

Thus emboldened, commander Zero Wolf rushes in to finish off his victim. But being on his home ground, Jaguar Paw has cleverly led Zero Wolf into the business end of a Tapir trap which impales him thoroughly with several sharpened sticks, making him the seventh kill.

Only two warriors remain. Jaguar Paw can’t go on any longer and slowly settles to the ground defenseless, by the shore of the sea. As his last two pursuers come up from behind, the three men look up to see a paralyzing sight. It’s a Spanish fleet! And a few longboats filled with Europeans, (led by Columbus) are about to make landfall right in front of them.

The remaining two warriors, filled with wonder and amazement, immediately abandon their chase and go towards the men in the ships leaving Jaguar Paw free to escape. He makes his way back to his wife, his child, and a newly born infant son.

In the last scene, all four move back deep into the forest to make a new beginning.




======end======

Saturday, October 04, 2008

Brandeis: School for Terrorists?

Brandeis: School for Terrorists? by H. Peter Metzger, Ph.D.

Snatching a loaded M4 carbine, the diminutive mother of three fired on her FBI questioners, and was swiftly injured by return fire. She is now in federal court awaiting charges of attempted murder. The FBI had placed her near the top of its most wanted list of fugitive terror subjects. A CIA spokesman said, “I don’t think we’ve captured anybody more important and well connected as she since 2003.”
 
Her name is Aafia Siddiqui, and she is charged with being an important Al-Qaeda ”fixer,” a person who coordinates terror plots between various other terrorists within this very secret organization. In 2004, the FBI called her an “Al-Qaeda operative and facilitator who posed a clear and present danger to America.” When arrested in August just before the shoot-out, she was carrying plans to bomb various U.S. landmarks and to kill former Presidents Carter, Bush and Clinton.
But nowhere in the extensive news coverage of this event was her tie to Brandeis University explored, and that she was only the latest in a long series of terrorists coming out of that university. Now, I don’t mean kids protesting the Vietnam War either, which was common in the 1970’s, I mean real terrorists.
 
So what? You might ask. As a long ago graduate of that place, I remembered when terrorists coming out of a Brandeis education was not such an extraordinary event. In fact, Brandeis, a university of less than 5,000 students, has always provided a sanctuary for the most extreme radical thinking and action of any other university in America.
 
From its earliest days, Brandeis attracted not only leftist liberals, but many very far-left radicals too. Most of the people I cite below were arrested and spent time in prison for violent crimes which were all done in the name of far-left extremist politics.

It all began around 1970, when Brandeis saw three of its women students posted to the FBI's Ten Most Wanted List (Angela Davis, Susan Saxe and Katherine Power), no small feat since only seven women were ever put on that FBI list in all of its history.


Those Brandeis girls were all famous leftist revolutionary America-haters, but they were only the "stars" of the then Hate-America movement. There were many other lesser lights. For example, another Brandeis student was Jennifer Casolo, a revolutionary who was found to have an arsenal of weapons and explosives buried in her backyard-- “tons” of the stuff according to White House Press Secretary Marlin Fitzwater. Then there were other minor players like Brandeis students Laura Whitehorn and Naomi Jaffe. Curiously, all of these violence-prone misfits were women.

So what has Brandeis been hosting up there anyway? Well, It would appear that Brandeis has been providing a friendly intellectual climate for kids wanting to become violent domestic revolutionaries, all under the guise of elevating “social consciousness.” For example, several of the so-called Brandeis terrorists trace their intellectual development back to classes taught there by Marxist professors like Herbert Marcuse and other America haters.

Not surprisingly, as domestic terrorism finally fell out of fashion and international terrorism took over, Brandeis changed too, and it now provides a sanctuary for Islamic Jihadism.

What? A Jewish university teaching Muslim-based Jew-killing? That's right, and it wouldn't be the first time that under the guise of "scholarship" Jews themselves have supported causes that harm them first; Soviet history springs to mind. So it shouldn’t be surprising that Brandeis kept right up with the times and is now a big-time enabler of international Palestinian terror organizations. Here’s how:

Today Brandeis hosts the influential pro-Palestinian "Crown Center for Middle East Studies," run by a Jew (who else?). The Crown Center recently hired Arab scholar, Khalil Shikaki. Testimony from a trial which convicted another Arab professor, Al-Arian from the University of South Florida, shows that Shikaki, while no terrorist himself, was a key distributor of funds and information between terrorists in Palestine and other Arab professors here in America who themselves were raising money for the Palestine Islamic Jihad. So at the very least, Shikaki is simply another “fixer.”

Additionally, Khalil Shikaki's own brother was the founder of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad itself. The Brandeis professor has recently been linked to even more notorious terrorist groups such as the Islamic Committee for Palestine and the World & Islam Studies Institute, both claimed by government investigators to be front organizations for the more radical Islamic Jihad.

Another Brandeis professor who has acted as an apologist for Jihadists is Natana DeLong Bas, defender of the 9/11 suicide squads and other Arab extremist organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood, just before it was fused into Al-Qaeda. Funded by Saudi money, she is best known today for producing the definitive text, “Wahhabi Islam: From Revival to Global Jihad,” an impassioned defense of the Saudi sect of Islam which serves as the religious basis for most Islamic terrorists today.

So it should come as no surprise that Aafia Siddiqui, the latest “poster woman” for the extremism that flourishes at Brandeis, is a terrorist and Jihadist. She is in custody right now for attempted murder and she made one of the FBI's “Most Wanted Lists” too.

Seen in this light, it looks like Aafia Siddiqui is no exception, but merely the latest in a 40-year-long tradition. More importantly, Brandeis can’t claim that it was all accidental and that these terrorists could have come from any college. The fact is that on a per capita basis, Brandeis has had far more than its share of terrorists and that political extremists find an unusually sympathetic and protective administration there protected by the umbrella of academic freedom and “social consciousness.”

In all of the above, I have concentrated only on the influence of the professors upon the students, which caused this remarkable cadre of young terrorists to appear out of nowhere. What I did not explain yet is the influence that the students had on other students, because Brandeis certainly seems to have gone well out of its way to recruit students who were already radicalized.

The most outrageous example of choosing students who were already in accord with a hidden and radical political agenda was when Brandeis recruited convicted felons to join the student body. This action shows how it was Brandeis’s administrative policy that produced the climate for a terrorist factory.

This Brandeis idea was based upon one of the most harebrained schemes in American history, known in Massachusetts as the Student Tutor Education Program (STEP). It was claimed that if lower class people were exposed to the presumably higher-class people in a university, then the lower class people would rise to the same level as the higher-class people. No one ever worried that the process could work in reverse, which of course it did.

Convicted felon and stick-up man Stanley Bond was picked to be thus elevated by STEP and so he got a "get out of jail free" card (literally) from the authorities and went straight to Brandeis. Five years older than the average student, he was soon sexually involved with Brandeis student Irish-Catholic Kathy Power and Susan Saxe, and then got involved in radical campus politics. So it wasn't long before the harebrained Brandeis STEP scheme began to work its special wonders.

The formerly non-political ex-con Bond "rose" and learned how to be a student radical from the girls, while the girls in their turn "sank" and learned how to be stick-up thugs from Bond.

Bond decided that the Black Panthers needed money so the Bond-Power-Saxe trio torched an armory to get weapons, and then robbed a bank. In the bank holdup, they shot a Boston policeman in the back. The Brandeis students were all convicted and sent to prison and the Brandeis professors all went back to their drawing boards to dream up another road to Utopia. Of course, the policeman’s wife and his nine children were simply forgotten.

This all happened more than 20 years after I arrived at Brandeis to put in my four years there. But even then, I learned a lot of pro-communist lies, such as the Rosenberg's were innocent and their atom-spy trial was simply thinly disguised anti-Semitism. Also, that the Korean War was solely the result of America's provocation, and that Alger Hiss was not a communist nor did he transmit secret data to the USSR, when in fact he was guilty of both. It took me 10 years of “attitude adjustment” to unlearn all the lies I learned at Brandeis.

How could Brandeis have so utterly departed from the original intention of its founders? It wasn’t supposed to turn out the way it did at all. Brandeis was founded in 1948 by prominent Jews concerned that many Jewish students were unfairly barred from elite universities by a widely enforced quota system, like today’s "Affirmative Action" but in reverse. To make up for this, Brandeis would offer a first-class education and select its students based upon merit alone and not quotas, and certainly not politics. In 1948, this was still an unusual policy.

Now those "prominent Jews" were self-made men who felt that they owed a great personal debt to America and that it was largely due to American freedoms that they succeeded. Like so many other successful Americans, they believed in “giving something back”, a phrase I heard often in those days. They believed that creating Brandeis was one way of giving something back. So it was quite natural for them to not tolerate even a hint of anti-Americanism.

For example, in seeking to give the nascent college a high profile, the founders enlisted Albert Einstein, but he soon parted ways. A major point of conflict: Einstein wanted to offer the presidency of the school to the far-left Harold Laski. But the most prominent of Brandeis' founders, George Alpert, refused, explaining that Laski was "a man utterly alien to American principles of democracy and tarred with the Communist brush... I can compromise on any subject but one: that one is Americanism."

But by the next generation, the children of those self-made men felt no such debt to America and indeed, even became attracted to the idea of changing America by revolutionary force.

That’s because Brandeis got caught up in the Intellectual fashion of the day which held that the Cold War was not due to Soviet aggression, but was really because of provocations by America. In 1947, the Truman Doctrine was created to contain Soviet expansionism and it was seen by the American Left as the biggest obstacle to world peace, and not about to change. Leftist feelings against American anti-communism increased and solidified worldwide during those years, including Brandeis.

Student radicals all across America demanded change and demonstrations against American foreign policy became the norm. Brandeis had its share of non-violent protests as students occupied an administration building and renamed Brandeis, “Malcolm X University”, but that wasn’t enough for some.

In yearning for political change, some radicals at Brandeis adopted the idea that robbery was a political act, and therefore excusable. Even violence became romantic as Kathy Power once invited a friend to go on a “commando raid” with her, just before the bank job. And so, over a very few years, some students got used to the idea that revolutionary change wasn’t so wrong after all, and was even necessary at times.

This all came about because in the years leading up to the violence done by the Brandeis student radicals, love of country was out and hate-America was in, and Brandeis turned into a platform for extremists, a very far cry from the Brandeis envisioned by its founders in 1948.

------------end-----------

Bio of the author:

"Dr. H. Peter Metzger graduated from Brandeis University in 1953, as part of its second graduating class. He received his doctorate in Biochemistry from Columbia University in 1965. In addition to scientific papers, he is the author of "The Coercive Utopians: Their Hidden Agenda" (Simon & Schuster) and wrote a weekly column for the New York Times Syndicate and later for the NEA called "Edge of Science," which examined the places where science and politics meet. He has also written several widely circulated pamphlets dedicated to exposing how certain complex laws designed to regulate technology are really hidden agendas for extremist politics. He has been retired since 1996".

Thursday, August 28, 2008

Our First "Affirmative Action" President

Our first Affirmative Action President! (It had to happen)

by H. Peter Metzger

Affirmative Action! That's the name of the flagship program of modern Liberalism. It is the process by which minorities can enter many jobs and collect many diplomas, while being held to far easier standards than are non-minorities. The claimed reason for this is to make amends to minorities for having been discriminated against in the distant past.There are two reasons why this is wrong:

In the first place, it makes no sense. For every black taken into Harvard, Yale or Princeton under Affirmative Action, it is inescapable that some deserving white applicant is rejected. Thus, the black is rewarded for an injustice done not to him, but to his ancestors, while the innocent white pays the penalty today for something his ancestors may or may not have done. Thus, this mechanism is based upon the evil idea that justice is a commodity which can be transferred between all people and all ages as if it was an item on a grocery list.

Secondly, and far worse, is that Affirmative Action degrades the very standards of the jobs themselves since everybody knows that most minority job-holders did not get where they got solely based upon merit. Thus, Affirmative Action is a true evil in that it charms and then harms, everybody.

Now Affirmative Action has been in place for long enough so that it's effects on America can be seen. For example, it has become understandable for people to react negatively when they find themselves being treated by a black Physician. In that case, positive action can be taken without guilt because one's health is involved. People simply change doctors.

But when the job isn't so personal, people just shut down and let the mob rule. It was once a source of pride to become the Mayor of a large city. No longer. So whites don't care that most of the mayors of most of the big cities in America are blacks; they just move away. Sometimes those mayors are simply "empty suits", like David Dinkins of New York City, but most of the time, black mayors are thugs at best. Nobody cares.

How is it that no one seems to have noticed that the same lack of caring that characterizes the choosing of a Mayor has finally taken over the process of choosing the next President of the United States?

Much like David Dinkins, Barack Obama is an "empty suit" and is today, the highest ranking and most logical and ultimate extension of Affirmative Action. His "suit" is hung with diplomas and offices which he could never have attained had he not been a black, riding in on the horse of Affirmative Action.

But his "suit" is empty. Even so, he's now sliding towards the Presidency on a smile and a shoe shine, devoid of all content. Lost without his Teleprompter, his positions are made up of trite old platitudes, utterly unsuited to the terrible problems faced by America today. It is no exaggeration to say that to make Barrack Hussein Obama our Commander in Chief, would spell national disaster. The Presidency is not a Mayoral race, something that can be thrown behind just to keep the wolves at bay. We can't simply leave the city this time. If Obama becomes the next President, we will have nowhere left to go.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Why Japan Attacked Pearl Harbor

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

WHY JAPAN ATTACKED PEARL HARBOR

By H. Peter Metzger

It is always a pleasant surprise for me to gain a new insight into a part of history that has long eluded me. For example, I have always wondered why Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, since it seemed like such a self-destructive move even at the time.

I have just finished reading a small book about the Russo-Japanese war and suddenly all of my questions have been answered. Moreover, I have developed a new respect for Japan and my life-long hatred for Russia has been rekindled anew. For another surprise, this story even has a very crucial Jewish angle (¬Heroes and Friends: Behind the Scenes of the Treaty of Portsmouth, by Michiko Nakanishi, published by Peter Randall, Portsmouth, NH).

Now finding historical parallels is often the habit of historians, and while the book’s author did not dwell on these, I sure did. I think the parallels between the Russo-Japanese war in 1905 and events leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 are so strong, that they should have become the principal guide for American foreign policy towards Japan in early 1941. But best of all, I am satisfied that at last I understand why the Pearl Harbor attack happened in the first place.

GOOD JAPAN/US RELATIONS, THE FIRST 40 YEARS

It’s important to realize that the Japanese are a very proud people, being far more like Europeans in this regard than other Asians. Now, national pride cannot co-exist with humiliation for very long, particularly in a nation with a strong military tradition. But from the time that Japan was opened up to world trade in 1854, she had been treated insultingly by a series of arms limitation treaties not to mention humiliating immigration quotas by the United States. The West demanded that Japan stay a second rate power, and since she still was, she had to “endure the unendurable” and accept it. But unlike other Asian countries, Japan had a great ambition to become something much more, and so she saw the demands of the West as provocations, which they surely were. But at first she went along for the most part.

For example, only ten years after Japan’s entry onto the world stage, when she was still governed by Shogunates, a maverick Lord fired upon some European merchant ships. In a punitive expedition, British, French and Dutch squadrons retaliated by bombarding Shimonoseki harbor (only one American vessel was involved). The local Shogun sued for peace and in behavior reminiscient of The Treaty of Versailles, the European powers demanded the payment of a crushing indemnity. This caused the Shogun to be deposed, but the new government repaid the debt in full.

Most unlike the Europeans, and in the first of many honorable acts between Japan and the United States, two American Secretaries of State saw the injustice of the excessive indemnity forced upon Japan and urged Congress to re-examine the matter. Soon both houses of Congress voted that the entire amount of the American share be returned to Japan.

Thus the Americans saw something very unusual in the Japanese; that they paid their war debts. And the Japanese saw something very unusual in the Americans. Foreign Minister Okuma put it this way; “The United States voluntarily returned the indemnity out of a sense of justice and goodwill without any conditions attached”.

Thus, the behaviour of both nations began on a far higher moral plane than would have been the case had European political values been employed. And so began forty years of a golden age of mutual respect between Japan and America, ending when the American President Theodore Roosevelt received the Nobel Peace Prize for mediating the soon to come, Russo-Japanese war. At that point, another 40-year period began, this time of bad relations between the two countries, culminating in the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941.

HUMILIATION OF JAPAN BY RUSSIA AND THE WEST

But back to the turn of the century, Japan won a war against China in 1895 and then took part in the European coalition to quell the Boxer (Chinese) rebellion in 1900. Impressed with the military prowess of the Japan, Britain saw an Anglo-Japanese Alliance (1902) to her advantage in containing Russian expansion into the Pacific, which posed a threat to a British sphere of influence.

To say that the Japanese fighting spirit impressed the West would be an understatement. It was a new thing for the Europeans to see an army, which refused to surrender; even when all hope was lost. They saw a people who were quite different from what the West had grown to expect from the Asians, particularly from the apathetic Chinese.

(the illustration at the end shows how the Japanese army improvised a siege engine by making a bridge using their own bodies in order to breach the newly built Russian fortifications at Port Arthur.)

Alarmed by the unexpected appearance of Japanese power, a strange thing happened. It was called the Triple Intervention of 1895. Russia, Germany and France ganged up on Japan and forced her to return most of the territory she seized from China at the end of the recent war. There was no fighting over this matter and not a shot was fired, for it was done solely by intimidation. The Europeans offered some unsolicited “friendly advice” to Japan, to return the territory she won from China in exchange for a larger indemnity, or face war with the West. Facing a hostile coalition of Europeans, Japan backed down and returned the prized Liaotung Peninsula, along with its harbor city, Port Arthur, to China.

Having thus pried Port Arthur away from Japan, and in an act of monumental impudence, Russia immediately seized the entire Liaodong Peninsula from China for itself and began to fortify Port Arthur as a Russian warm water port of its own. In a feeding frenzy, Germany, France and even Great Britain moved in on the paralyzed China and seized more of Japan’s spoils from her recent war with China.

Much as The Treaty of Versailles is blamed for humiliating another proud people, the Germans, and thus promoting the rise of Hitler, the proud Japanese people reacted in much the same way forty years earlier. The thing that provoked them most was that they knew that they had the military power to resist these seizures but they didn’t dare use it for no Asian power had yet presumed to challenge European military power. But that was soon to change.

This continuing and further humiliation at the hands of the Europeans led to a cultural change in Japan called Gashin Shōtan, meaning “Persevering through Hardship” (for the sake of revenge), an ideology resulting in a massive increase in heavy industry and the strength of the armed forces, especially the navy, all at the expense of the ordinary Japanese subject.

RUSSIAN IMPERIALIST EXPANSIONISM

To make matters worse, Russian imperialism was fast closing in on the far East, as the Russian Trans-Siberian railroad penetrated deeply into Japan’s sphere of influence. This was the logical outcome of Russia’s eastward expansion in her quest for an ice-free port on the Pacific. Actually that penetration began forty years earlier, when Russia annexed a vast province of China, and built a fortified naval port on the Sea of Japan (Vladivostok), but which was not reliably ice-free, however. Later, Manchuria fell under Russian influence as the great foreign railroad cut through that country, another neighbor of Japan. Finally, only Korea remained as a buffer state standing between Russia and Russian command of the Tsushima strait, where she could attack the Japanese navy at will.

Clearly, Russia did not worry a bit that this encroachment might create a reaction from Japan, since a serious military threat to a European power by an Asian power was considered an impossibility. But such Russian pride had no foundation because that country was about to collapse under the weight of its own corruption. ¬

While it was surely true that Russia had the largest single army in the world, that power did not translate into strength. Much like the France of WWII, which also had the largest army in Europe but lost every battle, Russia had known few victories in all its history (except against its own people). Moreover, the Russian military and social fabric was a house of cards, waiting for the slightest push in the wrong direction, and that push came the next year in the form of the Russian Revolution of 1905.

ENCOURAGEMENT FROM THE WEST

But in 1904, Russia was still much feared and Japan knew that to make war against this colossus was a huge risk, and so was prepared to accept many defeats and great losses, as was predicted at the time by all the Japanese leaders.

But the future did not look all that bad for Japan since she had some powerful encouragement from the West. The Anglo¬-Japanese Alliance of 1902 had already demonstrated that Russia was not much liked by England while Japan was. Also The Netherlands looked upon Russian eastward expansionism with worry for its Indonesian colonies. Indeed, Imperial Russia was regarded with ill concealed contempt by many European and American statesmen.

For example, after the conflict to come, President Theodore Roosevelt said, this “preposterous Csar has been unable to make war, and now he has been unable to make peace”.

It was then that President Roosevelt told an envoy from Japan, words that no one in Japan would dare ever to have hoped to hear. He said, “Japan should be the leader and protector of all the Asiatic nations from the Suez Canal to the Kamchatka Peninsula, and shouldn’t let any European or American powers intervene. Japan ought to declare an Asiatic Monroe Doctrine”.

Even so, it must have been with a heavy heart that Japan made its decision to risk everything, and even Japan knew that their little nation could prevail against Russia for only one year at the most, but Japanese pride had been humiliated once too often. Nevertheless, it still came as a big shock to the world when Japan attacked Russia, and two days before a declaration of war too. Unlike in 1941, no nation censured Japan for that sneak attack.

THE WAR

The Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905) was a lopsided affair. Without meaning to minimizing the huge Japanese losses, Japan won every battle, and spectacularly so too, surprising even the Japanese. The war saw the largest land battle in history and the largest rout in a sea battle also, up until that time. It was a titanic humiliation for Russia and the Tsar blamed his commanders.

To be fair, not Russia, nor any other European power had seen anything like the determination of the Japanese army before. It was like a force of nature, indeed like unstoppable Army Ants, which also make bridges out of their own bodies if that's what it takes to win a victory.

(the illustration at the end depicts this)

By war’s end, a Russian Admiral was actually captured on the high seas by Japanese forces, and not a few Russian Generals were tried and convicted of treason, being accused of cowardice under fire. Moreover, the entire Russian Baltic fleet, which was sent across the world by the Tsar, was sunk by the Japanese Navy with almost no losses. Of the 38 ships in the Russian fleet, only three made it home, while Japan lost only three small torpedo boats in the bargain, with all of this happening in an astonishing five hours.

Among other things, this war illustrated how deeply the world hated Russia. And it was well deserved too, since Russia (then as now), was infamous the world over for its brutality to its own people, which gave rise to many international condemnations. Indeed, the help given to Japan was often motivated by this golden chance to punish Russia.

THE REVENGE OF THE JEWS

In fact, it was revenge that motivated the help for Japan where it really mattered the most. This help came from a most unexpected quarter and solved what could have been the only thing that Japan couldn’t manage by itself, no matter how courageous her soldiers were. It was how to pay for the war. She had to get money from somewhere and she did, as if by a magic accident.

How that happened is a story of remarkably good luck.
After months of failure in trying to float Japanese war bonds in the West, diplomat Takahashi found himself at a
dinner party seated next to one Jacob Schiff, who was very interested in Japan. Takahashi had never heard of Schiff, who was a powerful financier, but in the course of their long conversation, Takahashi told Schiff about his mission and his failure to accomplish it so far .

Takahashi soon found out that he was talking to a man
who controlled enough money of his own to make instant
decisions involving huge amounts of money, which must have been a welcome and unexpected change for Takahashi being accustomed to dealing with bank committees. Virtually on the spot, Schiff agreed to float a new bond issue to cover all that Takahashi needed to complete his mission. Not only that, but Schiff took the inexperienced Takahashi under his wing and taught him the business of international financing, introducing him to all the right people along the way.

Much later, Takahashi learned of Schiff’s motives and why he wanted to know so much about about Japan’s situation, particularly concerning Russia. As a staunch Jew, Schiff was devoted to Jewish causes and was infuriated by the fact that the Tsar himself, and the Russian government, were actively sponsoring hatred and opression of Jews.

Only the previous year, the infamous Kishinev massacre took place there, causing a great international outcry. Many Jews were murdered (under government direction) after having been accused of killing a Christian child and using his blood in Jewish religious ceremonies. According to The New York Times, “the mob was led by priests, and the general cry, ‘Kill the Jews,’ was taken up all over the city… The scenes of horror attending this massacre are beyond description. Babes were literally torn to pieces by the frenzied and bloodthirsty mob. The local police made no attempt to check the reign of terror”.

Accordingly, Schiff had decided to punish the Russians by aiding Japan. Later, the other Frankfurt-based Jewish financiers became involved too, such as the Rothschilds, the Kuhns, and the Loebs, so Japan had no more trouble in financing her war thereafter.

By another happy coincidence, several Japanese victories took place at just the same time that the various bond issues were first floated, resulting in headlines across the world, and long lines in London and New York City to snap up the new Japanese war bonds, causing all of them to sell out in a single day.

AFTERMATH OF THE WAR

As the war ended, political instability rocked both nations as riots and revolution spread, based upon the popular misconception in both countries that the war ended badly for each.

Although the war ended with a Japanese victory, popular discontent with the peace treaty erupted in riots in all the major cities in Japan. People forgot that they recovered Port Arthur, had been given the “sphere of influence” over Korea, had gained the South Manchurian Railway (which they had not built) and had gotten back the better half of Sakhakin Island in the north.

Events in Russia were far more serious, no doubt because there was far more substance to the complaint, and so it ended with the full scale Russian Revolution of 1905, which only ended finally with the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. The asassination of politicians became an everyday event, both in Russia as well as Japan. In an interesting sideshow, Jacob Schiff paid for, and George Kennan (the American explorer and pro-communist), administered, the distribution of revolutionary pamphlets among the 50,000 Russian prisoners of war still in Japan who then returned home as hardened revolutionaries.

It took longer for things in Japan to come to a head when a massive military revolution broke out in Tokyo in 1936. Led by ultra-nationalists and army officers, 1,500 rioters attacked moderate political figures in their homes, and asassination became part of the normal political process. The basis of parlimentary government was irretrievably damaged and martial law stayed in place for five months. The army became so strong, that it created incidents on its own, occupied Manchuria, and eventually created the puppet state of Manchukuo in 1932.

Neither country survived the effects of this war for a great many years. Both were soon taken over by uncontrollable forces which were set loose by the war, Russia by a single political party, and Japan by the army. Russia only gained a measure of political freedom in 1990, while Japan was freed from army rule only after losing WWII in 1945.

WHY THE JAPANESE ATTACKED PEARL HARBOR

So how was it that Japan thought that a good outcome could ever come from attacking the United States and starting a major war against a power far greater than her own? What in the world were they thinking of?

Well, the simple answer is that Japan had done it before and it had worked.

The reason for Japan to resort to war against the United States was not because Japan was being surrounded by an enemy, which was the case in 1905. In 1937, Japan was at war with China again which America duly protested. The protests soon became demands which the United States backed up by placing an embargo on all arms shipped to Japan as well as related materiel such the oil and steel needed for her war. The military government in Tokyo, riding on the wave of ultra-nationalistic anger that had been building since the end of Russo-Japanese war, now turned that anger against the United States.

It became clear to Japan that the United States was the only force standing in the way of the fulfillment of the old Japanese dream of having a free hand in Asia. Accordingly, the United States would have to be pushed back across the Pacific and out of Japan’s sphere of influence. The only way to do this was to inflict a massive blow to the American Navy and sink it in the first few hours of the war. Then a negotiated peace could be reached, setting Japan free to run Asia at last.

Japan had already beaten another country sixty times larger than itself in 1905, and since America was only forty times larger than tiny Japan, the military mindset held that it would be even easier to win a war with the United States. But there were two fatal flaws in that argument.

Japan’s first mistake turns on her definition of war at the time. A war with America could not be the kind of war in which each country fought it out until the one was destroyed. Japan knew she didn’t have the staying power for that kind of war. Japan hoped that the Americans would be like the Russians were, and soon tire of war and sue for a negotiated peace favorable to Japan, all within the first year.

Japan’s second mistake was in assuming that Americans were like the Russians, utterly decadent and risk-averse to laying down their lives for a principle. It was hoped that the vulnerability of America would be her love for pleasure and the easy life, which would hinder her natural instincts of self-defense.

Both of these assumptions were justified when applied to Russia. The much feared Russian army of one million men, was totally demoralized from the start, and not inclined fight at all. Japan assumed that the Samuraization of all Japan would give one man the strength of ten, and so on. This was true for the most part when applied to Russia but it was a fatal mistake to apply that same wish to America.

The lesson of the Russo-Japanese war convinced the Japanese military that a single decisive and successful knockout blow would cripple America and end in victory for Japan, a victory crowned by an advantageous armistice. And even though many highly placed Japanese saw through this mad scheme, the entire country was consumed with war fever and any dissent was met with swift asassination. And so with all the voices of moderation thus silenced, Japan found herself on the slippery slope to disaster with no way out.

And so that’s why Japan thought that she could win a war against the United States of America.

-------end----------

Like Army Ants, Japanese soldiers form a bridge out of their own bodies to scale the walls of Port Arthur:



Here are real Army Ants doing the same thing. How can such soldiers be stopped?

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

More on the "Surrender Monkeys, The French"

I've often made the point that France does not fight wars but achieves peace by collaborating with her enemies instead. For example, Germany marched unopposed around the "impregnable" Maginot line in 1940, and then easily defeated France in only six weeks. What is seldom mentioned is that the French army was twice as large as the German army at the time.

But the French national character wasn't the only thing that led her to ignominious defeat again. Like in World War I, it was the French general staff who were the real cowards. Churchill had to fly to Paris just before the French gave up in 1940 in an unsuccessful effort to put some spine into a general staff already defeated before the firing began. He found the French generals in a fatal self-imposed paralysis of reorganization.

General Gamelin, whom everyone in France looked upon as the Commander-in-Chief, the worthy successor of Joffre and Foch, simply lost interest in defending France against the German attack until May 19, the very day he was relieved of his command! During that time, Gamelin gave another general the power to conduct "his" battle without interference from himself. As for Gamelin's responsibility for the liaison between France and her other Allies, Gamelin gave that job away too, handing it to yet another General and that General turned around and did the same, passing to another general. All of this happened in two days!

And so, with dizzying speed, the French General staff flew round and round, in ever decreasing circles, until they finally they flew up their own assholes. Small wonder that the poor frontline soldier never have the stomach for the fight.

After this humiliating defeat, France was divided into Nazi-occupied France with its capital at Paris, and unoccupied or "free" France, with its capital at Vichy. Though "free" in name only, Vichy was a collaborationist government and totally controlled by the Nazi's. Yet that was just fine with the French people, who for the most part did not mind the arrangement at all. In fact, Hollywood notwithstanding, the French strongly supported all of the goals of Nazi Germany and would themselves have put them into effect if it could be done without too much effort.

By supporting "all" the German goals, I mean the French people dearly desired the defeat of the Anglo-Americans, the Soviets, and eagerly supported the total annihilation of the Jews of Europe. Previously I have written about how in 1942, and exceeding the orders from its German occupiers, the Paris Police crammed 13,000 Parisian Jews into an enclosed sports stadium and left them there for five days without food, water, toilets or any needed facility whatsoever, and caused the deaths of many very young children under terrible circumstances.

With that as a background, another interesting fact just came to my attention which demonstrates again how sympathetic the French were with the Nazis. When France fell to the Germans in 1940, her colonies remained intact and were unaffected and beyond German control. Overnight, each colony had the freedom to choose with which to become allied, the German puppet government (Vichy) or the "Free French" government-in-exile headed by Charles de Gaulle in London. Almost all the colonies chose to stay under German rule, administered by Vichy. This had far reaching effects elsewhere which harmed the West greatly.

For example, French control of Syria-Lebanon overnight became German controlled through Vichy. And German control of Syria overnight spread and became German controlled Iraq. The pro-Nazi regime set up in Iraq prepared the way for the long range Nazi war plan to exploit Middle Eastern oil, after supplies from Romania came under severe American air attack.

It seems that France never loses an opportunity to attack her allies in the back, just as long as her allies are busy fighting Germans in order to free France. In another email I mentioned how it was French artillery, fired by French soldiers, which killed almost 2,000 American and British troops in Operation Torch, the allied invasion of North Africa in 1942.

Of all the treacherous acts of that dishonorable nation, one French act stands out alone and above all the rest. After her ignominious defeat in 1940, France was about to turn her entire navy over to the Nazis, intact. Naturally this would have had devastating effects upon Allied naval power. But since no French ships had been captured yet, the French fleet was free to sail into allied ports and was invited to do so. However, the French navy was very pro-Nazi, and indeed it was probably the most pro-Nazi sector in all of France, and so it refused. Very soon, it became obvious that the French fleet, intact and with all her crews, would defect to serve the Nazi cause. That being the case, the British Royal Navy took the only decisive action that the French understand. The British sank the entire French fleet in 1940 as it lay at anchor in Mers-el-Kebir, Algeria.

Yet despite all of its perfidy and lack of support of the war aims of the West, French troops were given the honor of liberating Paris after the defeat of Germany, and France was given full status as an co-equal member of the victorious Allies after the war. Not only that, but France participated in a place of honor in all of the surrender ceremonies and later on became a permanent member of the UN security council, one of a group of only five nations commonly regarded as the victors of WWII. All this despite the fact that France was regarded as the next best thing to an enemy, by many of our highest ranking allied officers.


Here are some links of interest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France

http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Battle_of_France

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWarmedforces.htm

http://www.feldgrau.com/stats.html

http://open-site.org/Society/History/Wars_and_Conflicts/World_War_II/Dunkirk/

http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Here is a wonderful (if I don't say so myself) What-If scenario that I cooked up for a What-If website that I used to visit. It shows how closely we came to having a much different world today. It could ha e been a world with a totally Nazi Europe, a totally Communist Asia, and an America partitioned between the two. I call it the Wally/Wallace scenario. Here it is, in three parts:

Case one (Wallace): When Franklin Roosevelt was about to enter his fourth term, he dropped Henry Wallace, his VP, from the ticket because he was a Communist. There is some doubt as to whether he was an actual card-carrying Communist, but there is no doubt that's where his loyalties lay. Now, Vice-Presidents often make out a list of men they would make cabinet ministers should they become president suddenly and Wallace made such a list. He was so pro-Soviet that his list included only seriously pro-Soviet people, and two actual card-carrying Communists, members of the CPUSA. One was later fingered as being involved some real Soviet espionage. Anyway, on outside advice, FDR dumped Wallace and picked Harry Truman. But was a very near thing. So that's how close America came to having a totally pro-Soviet Presidency.

Imagine what the outcome of Yalta would have been if we had two Communists, Wallace representing the West, and Stalin representing the East, carving up Europe, not that it wasn't pretty one-sided as it was. OK, now keep Wallace in mind while I describe the other near miss:

Case Two (Wally): In 1936, the King of England was Edward VIII. He was a very pro-Nazi, especially pro-Hitler personally. Then along came Wally Simpson. Then Edward VIII, while king, fell in love with her, and as everyone knew then, Edward abdicated in favor of marrying Wally Simpson. So this second What-If-Scenario says that if it weren't for Wally Simpson, England would have had a very pro-Hitler King, all throughout the war, and well beyond.

Case End: So you can see, both events almost came true. I mean, it was a VERY near thing. And both events were probably decided in only a few hours, FDR deciding to drop Wallace, and Edward VIII falling in love with Wally Simpson.

So what could have happened if these two things happened as I've described? Simply that America would have entered WWII with a very pro-Soviet President, and England would have entered WWII against Germany with a very pro-Nazi King. And how would that have made a difference?

America was strongly isolationist then and against entering the new war, or any other war, for that matter. We had no heart for it, nor did most Americans want to bail Europe out of yet another mess, not after 1918 anyway. Pearl Harbor changed that in a hurry, of course, but we could easily have taken on a one front war against Japan alone if we chose. After all, that option would clearly have been highest in our own near-term self-interest.

Only through Roosevelt's personal opinion and persistence did we help England at all, and so on England's behalf, FDR violated our Neutrality Act repeatedly. Under another president, our crucial help to England would simply not have existed at all. Certainly Wallace would not have wanted to, nor could he have convinced the Congress to help England, for which there was still a great deal of hostility as most Americans traditionally hated all colonial powers and European involvement again in particular.

What Wallace would have done would have been to help the USSR with the same passion and degree that Roosevelt helped England. His loyalties blurred from the start, common among Leftists, he would have helped Russia even to the extent of depleting America's readiness for war.

With a pro-Nazi King, England would not have intervened after Hitler's conquest of Poland, but instead would have agreed to the next Hitler-ultimatum, and the next, and the next. Seeing as how in the early days, the victors of WWII could have gone either way but for a little luck this way or that, Hitler would probably have won the war. As it was, it was a near thing in a lot of ways, but more about that later.

So What-If events would have left a Nazi England, a very strong Nazi Europe, a demoralized and weak America, and a vastly strengthened and determined USSR. The world would have separated into two blocs, Communist and Nazi. More disturbed by European entanglements than ever, America would have retreated back into our traditional isolationism. Not that that would have helped us. After all, with such a huge prize awaiting them, and with very strong standing armies and nothing better to do with them, America would soon be attacked again and be fighting a four front war, which we would lose. America would then be divided up into zones, just like postwar Germany was.

So, there is not only a chance, but a good chance, that if it weren't for those two seemingly small decisions, the Wally/Wallace events, this is how the world would look today.

The Origin of Varieties? - Part Two

Darwin laid down a superb basis for understanding "The Origin of Species", but it that's all it was, only a basis. All of his proofs described only the origin of variations, and in this his contribution to science was great.

Now it is very rare indeed when a scientist can do that, when a scientist publishes a new paper proving the existence of a new basis for many heretofore unrelated facts. But that's what Darwin did, and he did so brilliantly. It is also a tradition for a scientist, once having laid down the basis, to take a great leap of faith to see the next step, which he hopes is just over the horizon. And that's what Darwin did when he entitled his work, "The Origin of Species".

That title alone is the great leap of faith, for all of Darwin's work went to presenting and then proving, "The Origin of Varieties", but he didn't say that. The fact that living things vary is a very convincing idea because any ordinary man can see it happening right before his eyes. But to take the fact that variation occurs within a species, and then to use that as a springboard from which to suggest that such variation can create new species is a great leap of faith, but a leap to which Darwin was entitled. Since most scientists know the difference between facts and theories, the misinterpretation of Darwin's work didn't come from that quarter. The complications came when people who do not know the difference between fact and theory, mixed up the two, often for private and political motivations. Theories seldom stand for very long. Consider the history of science:

Like Darwin, many other great scientists in the past have created brilliant new ways to look at old facts, and then put forth brilliant theories based upon that new understanding of those old facts. But, as brilliant as they were, most new theories turn out to be wrong in the long run. History abounds with examples:

When it was believed that the Earth was the center of the solar system, and when findings of fact controverting this view began to appear, the greatest scientist of the day created one of the most brilliant feats of mathematics of all time, explaining away the controverting data, "proving" again that the earth was still the center of the solar system. That great mathematician was Ptolemy and it was left to Copernicus 1,400 years later to prove Ptolemy wrong.

Probably the greatest physicist of all time created a way to calculate the way objects move. His theory of mechanics did explain everything mankind could measure then. But as time passed, it was found out that his terrestrial mechanics just wouldn't work when applied to outer space. There the matter rested for 200 years, until another brilliant scientist created celestial mechanics, yet another theory, which filled in the gap and let science progress still further. The first scientist in this example was Isaac Newton, and the next scientist was Albert Einstein.

And so it will be with Darwin. His facts will always stand, but the great leap of faith he made by applying the origin of varieties to the origin of species, will certainly not stand. I say "certainly" because thousands of other scientists, in the 150 years since Darwin, have tried to discover proof of Darwin's leap of faith, and all have failed. In this sense, repeated failure is proof, although certainly a weak proof, that the opposite claim is true, that species do not vary.

Indeed, even Darwin himself hedged on this point. While not generally known, the full title of Darwin's main work, the work for which he is so famous, includes a hedge. His true and full title it this: "On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". So while Darwin boldly implies that species vary in the first part of his title, the last part of his title concerns only the survival of "races", and races, as we all know, are not species at all but are varieties.

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

"The Origin of Varieties"?

DARWIN'S BOOK SHOULD HAVE BEEN TITLED "THE ORIGIN OF VARIETIES".

Concerning Charles Darwin's great work called "The Origin of Species", it is naturally very important to know exactly what a species is. There is a rule by which "species" is defined so as better to understand what Darwin meant by this very important concept. It is this:

A species is a "fundamental category of taxonomic classification ... and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding".

Thus, the horse is a species, but the donkey is a different species. They are different species because they cannot interbreed to produce fertile offspring, the way dogs can for example. Thus, the offspring of these members of different species are not complete individuals and so they fail to pass the test of being what constitutes a species.Thus, being able to interbreed is the sole criterion for determining whether two animals are of the same species or not. It's as simple as that. If they can't interbreed, then the two animals are of different species. Period.

So the best the horse and the donkey can do is produce sterile offspring, or hybrids. It is probably true that some mules have produced offspring in the past, but it is so rare as to be considered impossible, resulting in one occurrence in many millions of matings, hardly enough to survive as a different breed. And as if to close the matter, those rare offspring of two Mules (60 or so in the last several hundred years) cannot themselves breed at all, thus sealing off even the most remote possibility that the Mule could ever qualify as a new species.

Now, the mule and the hinny are hybrids.

This is a mule:













And this is a hinny:











As an aside, the most interesting thing about hybrids is that it makes a big difference just how the parents are arranged. In this case, if a stallion breeds with a jenny-ass, then a mule is produced but if a jackass breeds with a mare, something different is produced. It is called a hinny. Now these offspring are not alike. The mule is much bigger, stronger and more robust than either parent, while the hinny is the reverse. That explains why you never see any hinnys around. See this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinny

Although widely studied, most people are unaware that other closely related species can also produce sterile offspring too, like my own favorites, the Tiglon and the Liger (the Tiglon having a tiger for a father, while the Liger has a lion for a father). When I was a small boy, I actually saw a Liger at the Bronx Zoo. Being hybrids like the mule and the hinny, the Liger is always much larger, more robust and stronger than either parent, while the Tiglon is small and weaker. In fact, the Liger is by far the largest cat in the world, sometimes weighing in at 1000 pounds, which is twice as big as any lion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger

Notice how enormous these Ligers are:




















But back to Darwin's "The Origin of Species", loads of evidence is used in an attempt to prove his theory. But the evidence is entirely made up of examples of subtle changes taking place within a species, and these are called varieties, such as the beaks of the finches that Darwin himself studied on his famous voyage. Evidence for the appearance of new species is entirely lacking. It simply doesn't exist. Nothing even comes close.

That's not surprising either, since all we have to do is to look at our pets to see how many varieties can be seen within a particular species without creating a new one. Clearly, variation within a species not only doesn't prove nor even support the main point of "The Origin of Species", but variation within a species has nothing to do with Darwin's point at all. Not at all.

What is surprising to me is how many people never question that common assertion, accepted as fact by most people, that new varieties within species prove Darwin's theory that new species arise from old ones. The facts are very different because new varieties are not new species at all. That is because varieties can interbreed which means that they fail the test which would qualify them as a separate species, being the inability to interbreed.

Darwinism would be of no importance to people today if it wasn't widely used to support the claim that the appearance of new species is an inevitable consequence of variability within a species, given enough time. But there isn't a shred of evidence to support this, not even a little bit, so many ignorant claims to the contrary notwithstanding. I use the word "ignorant" because learning the meaning of the word "species" is a very easy matter, yet so few take the time to do so.

Moreover, the unquestioning and total acceptance of the claim that new species do arise in this way is so intense in our culture, that it can only be categorized as religious in nature. And like all religions, contrary beliefs are held to be heresy, which is another tip-off that Darwinism is truly a religion. And as almost always among the religious, to stamp out heresy is seen as a duty.

Only this explains why there is enough intense feeling in our culture to have created a climate which supports the ability of the state to have enacted laws forcing, under threat of penalty, the teaching of Darwinian evolution as being the only view taught in our public schools to explain how the human race came to be.

Now Darwin himself was a serious scientist and a very religious Christian. And it is said that he would be appalled if he could see how his work has been so misused today. Well, while he was a good scientist all right, it must be strongly stated that he greatly overreached himself when he entitled his work, "The Origin of Species". The only thing his book proved, and what he therefore should have entitled it is, "The Origin of Varieties".

Thursday, December 08, 2005

We all love to joke about the French, but they are in fact, a truly evil people. Consider one of the many atrocities which is the specialty of the French, and that is, killing their own defenseless citizens.

In fact, on a personal level, the French were even worse than the Nazis when it came to the murder of non-combatants. Not in raw numbers, of course, but while individual Nazis were obeying state policy and therefore their personal feelings didn't matter, the French murderers eagerly embraced the idea, and they did so because they liked it. Another reason why the French liked killing their own innocent civilians was they could commit any atrocity that they wanted to, knowing they would always be protected by their German occupiers.

France opened concentration camps even before the Nazis invaded. For example, there were camps at Gurs, Noe and Recebidou, and that's where the French imprisoned anti-fascist refugees from the Spanish Civil war, who had fled to Paris for sanctuary. Guarded by the Paris metropolitan police force, they were given over to the Nazis in order to gain favor. Naturally, all were quickly sent to Nazi death camps.

At least the Nazis did their dirty work in the East, purposefully isolating their crimes from their own people. But all the atrocities perpetrated by the French took place either right inside the city of Paris itself, or very nearby, and all the murderers were members of the metropolitan police force, in other words, the local Paris cops.


Drancy was France's biggest concentration camp. It was created and run by the French local police. In the only case in the West like this, the Nazis didn't have to bother rounding up their victims. The French were eager to do it for them. Proof exists that more than 3000 prisoners died in the French camps from lack of medical care or starvation.

In what is without doubt, the single most dishonorable act ever committed by the French people, occurred in 1942 in Paris. The Velodrome d'Hiver was a stadium in Paris designed for bike races. Asked by the Nazi administration to arrest all Jews older than 16, the French went even further and all on their own, they arrested all the children too. So closely did the French identify with their own operation that they even gave it their own code name, "Vent printanier" (Spring Wind).

All together, more than 12,800 French Jews (3031 men, 5802 women and 4051 children aged between 2 and 12) were transferred to the Velodrome d'Hiver. Locked inside in the sweltering July heat, the children were kept in there for 5 miserable days without any food or medical care and then they were transferred to Drancy, Beaune-la-Rolande or Pithiviers. The children were separated from their parents by the French police immediately after their arrival in Drancy. The parents were transported to Auschwitz and gassed. The children stayed sometimes weeks in Drancy, without care or adequate food. Babies and many very young children died in Drancy due to the lack of care and the ever present brutality of the French guards. Finally, they were all transported to Auschwitz and gassed upon their arrival. As for the rest of France, 6,000 Jewish children from all the other regions of France were arrested by the French themselves, brought to Paris, and then given over to the Nazis, to be transported to their deaths in 1942. Interestingly, and typically, there was no protest on the part of the French public over any of this.

For decades, the French Government steadfastly refused to admit the responsibility of their action and that of the French police, in the deportation of the French Jews to the death camps. But in 1995, President Chirac finally admitted the responsibility of the French people in these atrocities.

Forget about your ideas of French heroism in the face of Nazis tyranny. Forget about romantic movies like "Casablanca", making heroes out of the French. The French Resistance was tiny and powerless until just less than a year before the end of the war, when it was certain that their beloved Nazis would lose. Also, remember all those stories about the help that French farmers gave downed allied airmen? Well, all that help had to be bought with gold. That's why our pilots were equipped accordingly. Consider that thousands of allies were killed by the French military, in North Africa, when they were too afraid to kill Nazis. Here are but two selections from the more than a million citations on this subject, in Google, about how the French kill their own defensless people, but turn tail and run if faced by people with guns who fight back:

http://www.jewishgen.org/ForgottenCamps/Camps/DranEngl.html

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/cclist.html


 

Thursday, July 07, 2005

Why Are Jews So Smart?


"Common Sense: Why Jews are So Smart"

by Pete Metzger

Why are Jews so smart? There are many explanations, some of which strain common sense. But you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out why. It can all be explained quite clearly:

Through millenia of widsread illiteracy, Jewish culture valued the twin cultural ethics of learning and literacy above all else. This was true since Jesus' day, and long before. Pressures to become the most learned in the Jewish community were around forever. Many of the men were rabbis of some sort, and every one dreamed of becoming the chief rabbi. The competition for that job was stiff, and was entirely based upon mental abilities. It was not even important what was studied. Even if it had been the game of chess, it would still have produced the same result, just as long as the challenge was a hard mental contest.

Early on then, the smartest Jews rose to the highest level of their society. Moreover, the field of competition was among all men thanks to universal male literacy, and not just among a much smaller group, as it was elsewhere. So a very strong merit system was in place from the beginning, and for a very long time. This cultural accident alone can answer the question.

But there was another and even stronger pressure. As if to insure the result, the smartest men reproduced themselves moreso than ordinary males. That was because the most highly placed rabbis were freed from having to make a living. They were supported by the community so that they could study all day long. Even more significantly, the head rabbi went through wives like popcorn, a younger one each time. Culturally, it was a great honor for an ordinary father, not blessed with great intelligence but only the ability to become rich, to give up his young daughter to the Rabbis bed, once the rabbis previous wife died having her 20th child. There is even hard evidence for this gleaned from the detailed family records that Jews are well known for, even going back to Bible days. So the most intelligent men were selected not only for intelligence, but for their ability to reproduce a lot, too. This is an even surer recipe for the selection of smart genes, but the realtive smartness of the Jews was helped along from another, and most unexpected direction.

Consider how the culture of non-Jews effected their own special outcome. In the culture of Christendom, the best minds, indeed the cream of the crop, were recruited, prized, and sent into the priesthood. Thus, in a single stroke, the genes for the best minds were collected from the entire male population, every generation, and then simply sent off into the celibate priesthood, thus removing them from the gene pool forever. So while Christendom impoverished its own gene pool of intelligence, the Jews enriched theirs, thereby making the relative difference between the two populations even larger.

I can't emphasize enough the role of male universal literacy among the Jews. Not only did the Jews invent a system that produced smart men (without realizing it), but they forced their entire male population through it. That took care of all the unsung geniuses from poor families who were so often overlooked by every other system, even in lands very far away from Christendom. Indeed, who among the gentiles could read at all? Only a small part of the population, the clergy and the aristocrats. And as we all know, from the example of the colonization of South America, selecting managers solely from the aristocracy is a very bad idea.

=========================================================

Post Script: The arguments above can also be used to explain negative outcomes, of course, such as the higher than average rates of certain inherited diseases among Jews. Also, when the arguments above are applied to other groups and races, many heretofore complex and thorny issues suddenly become clear and easily understood by all.
======================================================

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Another great killer of the Chinese people


Here's another great killer of the Chinese people: The Great Wall of China

From the web: "During the Qin Dynasty--when the first Great Wall was built--workers toiled for ten years to build the wall, at a rate of about 25 miles per month".

25 miles per month? Wow! That's a mile a day. Do you believe it? In the first place, I suspect that such a feat is impossible. In the second place, since that "fact" is from the records, and the main source of the information in those records was the supervisors of construction themselves, they are the very people whose interests exaggeration serves. it's probably fake. But still, the work must have gone on at a death dealing pace.

Today the Chinese government uses their great wall as an example of their cultural superiority . Now there lies a great and popular paradox, not confined to the Chinese. Most cultures whose roots go back to antiquity, also have a long record of disrespect for, and destruction of, their own cultural treasures. Once having made a total wreck of their own relics, they are today utterly fanatic about protecting them, invariably claiming the high moral ground, and citing how foreigners don't respect their stuff enough and how outsiders are responsible for all the spoilage. Examples abound. Egypt has closed the Great Pyramid, blaming the damage caused to its inner walls, on the sweat produced foreigners. I did not make this up. This is after those very people stole the entire limestone skin off the pyramids, not to mention the golden capstones. Hey, how about the fact that every single royal grave in Egypt was already plundered in antiquity, including that of King Tut. I mean can you believe it? The history of those people is a history of vandalism, and yet they piously claim that it's all our fault. And China, having massively destroyed its own Great Wall, is today punishing people who seek to do one billionth as much.

From the web: "The Chinese government also hopes to protect the national treasure. Officials in Beijing are considering legislation that, if passed, would convict anyone caught littering or defacing the Great Wall to a jail term of up to seven years."

Ha ha wotta joke. Can you imagine the ruthless and fearsome world power Chinese communist government prosecuting someone for littering?

Now all this is happening even to this very day. I am reminded that during the recent occupation of Afghanistan by the Taliban, those Muslims completely destroyed a huge statue of Buddha that was the single most important ancient monument left in that benighted country. And they did so for religious reasons too. And they got clean away with it too. Imagine the holy uproar that would have taken place if a single American soldier so much as put a scratch on the place.

How Many Chinamen did this kill?


The largest obelisk in ancient Egypt weighed in at 500 tons. Sheer muscle and friction built them all. Masons rubbed wooden blocks against the quarry stone while a slurry of sand and water was poured over the work surface. Slowly, very slowly, the rock was worn through. Only seldom, did these people attempt to make obelisks out of granite, which was normally far too hard. See this hyperlink:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/lostempires/obelisk/bigwave.html

Interestingly, any larger obelisks, like those weighing more than 1000 tons, were left behind, unfinished and abandoned in the quarries. They are still there. Egypt, and then even Rome, once they learned their lesson, just gave up on trying to move them. It turned out that these larger projects cost far too many human lives. They can still be seen there today, unintentionally serving as the tombstone for the uncounted stone workers who died on those doomed projects.

http://www.atlantisquest.com/Baalbek.html

But the Chinese, were different. They had a secret weapon. Then as now, China had no regard for human life. That was, and still is, China's secret weapon. Around 1400 AD, China tried to build a granite tombstone for Zhu Yuanzhang, the founder of the Ming dynasty. It lays there near Nanjing today, in the Yangshan quarry, unmovable then as now. Its weight is estimated to be 34,000 tons. Long before the work was attempted, Chinese engineers had to know that they could never have moved the thing an inch. After all, this rock is 34 times larger that the largest blocks that the best efforts of the Egyptians and Romans couldn't move either. The cost in human life is unknown, naturally, but as large as it was, it must have paled before the Chinese experience only a few decades just before, in the 14th century, when epidemics and famine killed 35 million people. Here is how that enormous unmovable rock looks today:

If you want to read how China was in those days, at least its navy, and see where I got this picture, read the very latest National Geographic magazine for July, 2005.