" Aruba's First International Online Newspaper "
= Follow Us and Stay With Us Because You Deserve To Be Told The Truth =

Global News ArubA 

Mr. Jonas E. Alexis graduated from Avon Park High School, studied mathematics and philosophy as an undergraduate at Palm Beach Atlantic University, and has a master's degree in education from Grand Canyon University. Some of his main interests include the history of Christianity, U.S. foreign policy, the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the new book ,Christianity & Rabbinic Judaism: A History of Conflict Between Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism from the first Century to the Twenty-first Century. He is currently teaching mathematics in South Korea. He plays soccer and basketball in his spare time. He is also a cyclist. He is currently writing a book tentatively titled Zionism and the West.Alexis welcomes comments, letters, and queries in order to advance, explain, and expound rational and logical discussion on issues such as the Israel/Palestine conflict, the history of Christianity, and the history of ideas.In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, Alexis asks that all queries be appropriately respectful and maintain a level of civility. As the saying goes, “iron sharpens iron,” and the best way to sharpen one’s mind is through constructive criticism, good and bad.However, Alexis has no patience with name-calling and ad hominem attack. He has deliberately ignored many queries and irrational individuals in the past for this specific reason—and he will continue to abide by this policy. 

Tulsi Gabbard Will Run For President; Deep State Should Be Scared

by Jonas Alexis

Historian & World Events Journalism

( South Korea - Freelance Journalism )            

Global News Aruba

Tulsi Gabbard, the intrepid congresswoman and Iraq war veteran who has over the years given the Neocons and war machine heart attacks, is running for president in 2020. “I have decided to run and will be making a formal announcement within the next week,” she told CNN.

Obviously this is not a comfortable position for the Deep State and the Neocons, the people who have spent trillions upon trillions of tax dollars in the Middle East destroying lives and livelihood. Why? Gabbard tells us exactly:

“There are a lot of reasons for me to make this decision. There are a lot of challenges that are facing the American people that I’m concerned about and that I want to help solve. There is one main issue that is central to the rest, and that is the issue of war and peace. I look forward to being able to get into this and to talk about it in depth when we make our announcement.”

Gabbard is not comparable to Kamala Harris, the woman who has been a puppet of Benjamin Netanyahu for years. Harris declared back in 2017:

“Let me be clear about what I believe. I stand with Israel because of our shared values which are so fundamental to the founding of both our nations. I believe the bonds between the United States and Israel are unbreakable, and we can never let anyone drive a wedge between us.

“And I believe Israel should never be a partisan issue, and as long as I’m a United States senator, I will do everything in my power to ensure broad and bipartisan support for Israel’s security and right to self-defense.”[1]

What about the poor Palestinians, Mrs. Harris? Do they have the right to self-defense? What if your home, your precious and lovely children, your neighbor, and the country you love have been literally obliterated by a racist and terrorist state? Do you have a moral right to fight back?

In any event, Harris is an Israeli shill, and I have no confidence in her whatsoever. Gabbard’s track record, however, indicates that she is not buying the Israeli narrative. She stood with Assad when it was politically incorrect to do so. She told Trump point-blankly that he needed to stop being “Saudi Arabia’s bitch.” It can easily be argued that Gabbard has been fighting for decent Americans for many years.

Gabbard has obviously seen the disastrous effects of the war in Iraq, which produced sodomy at Abu Ghraib. She argued that by resisting “US wars of intervention,” she and other representatives are “giving voice to millions of Americans… including my fellow veterans, who desperately want to end our country’s illegal, counterproductive war…”[2] Gabbard again declared:

“Too often we have found, throughout our country’s history, we have people in positions of power who make offhanded comments about sending a few thousand troops here, fifty thousand there, a hundred thousand there, intervening militarily here, or starting a war there—without seeming to understand or appreciate the cost of war. If our troops are sent to fight a war, it must be the last option. Not the first.”[3]

Gabbard once told talking head Donald Trump specifically to ignore “drumbeats of war that neocons have been beating.” By specifically calling out the Neocons, Gabbard was inexorably attacking the Khazarian Mafia, which is essentially an ideological movement.[4]

Gabbard was also indirectly attacking the Israeli regime, which arguably uses the Pentagon as a sort of military headquarter.[5] No wonder that the Neocons themselves conspired against Gabbard.[6] Flaming Neocon Bill Kristol responded to Gabbard’s antiwar position by saying that people like her “make a wasteland, and they call it peace.”

Gabbard has been grabbing the Neocons and ethnic cleansers in the Middle East by the balls for years. She cut them to piece by saying:

For decades, Congress has ceded its Constitutional responsibility of deciding whether or not to declare war, to the President. As a result, we have found ourselves in a state of perpetual war, without a declaration of war by Congress and without input from the American people.

“Since 9/11 alone, our country has spent trillions of dollars on interventionist regime change wars, costing the lives of many Americans, taking a toll on our veterans, and causing people in our communities to struggle and suffer due to a lack of resources.

“Our bipartisan resolution aims to end presidential wars, and hold Congress accountable so it does its job in making the serious and costly decision about whether or not to send our nation’s sons and daughters to war…

“Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the exclusive authority to declare war. But the last time Congress officially declared war was December 8th, 1941 – the day the US entered World War II.

“Ever since, Congress has failed to uphold their constitutional responsibility and have instead ceded power to the President. So, we remain in a state of perpetual war, led by presidents in both parties at great cost to the American people with no declaration of war by Congress and no input from the American people.

“The direct and indirect costs of these presidential wars are astounding. They take a toll on our troops, our veterans, and on the American people.

“Since 9/11 alone, we’ve spent trillions of dollars on regime-change wars and nation-building while people in our communities suffer and struggle because of a lack of resources here at home, what to mention the costs borne by our troops, those who pay the ultimate price, as well as those who come home with wounds that are visible and invisible. The American people deserve accountability.”

When Trump, the Israeli regime, the war machine, and the Deep State were universally shouting and screaming for an invasion of Syria, Gabbard was on the front line slicing those people to pieces. She said then:

“Who would suffer the most? The Syrian people, who are pleading to be left alone so they can try to rebuild their country. When I visited Syria, people shared their desperation with me, asking me to share their message with the American people: ‘We’re not begging for your money or your help.

“We are simply begging you to stop supporting the terrorists who are destroying our country. Please let us live in peace!’ A US attack will increase the likelihood of more US troop casualties, injuries, and suffering, and billions more dollars of taxpayer money wasted, that could instead be used to improve the lives of the American people.”

Cheers, sister! But the courageous woman was just getting started. She moved on to do a surgical strike on both the Zionist media and the political prostitutes in Washington this way:

“I believe it would strike most Americans as absolutely insane that the president of the United States, his vice president, UN ambassador, secretary of state, and the mainstream media describe the very terrorist entities that were responsible for the attack on 9/11 as ‘rebels.’ Since we know that they know Al Qaeda is the primary force in control of Idlib, we can only conclude that they no longer consider Al Qaeda to be a terrorist organization or the enemy.

“General Joseph Dunford, as well as the UN, have confirmed that Idlib is controlled by 20,000 to 30,000 Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Brett McGurk, the administration’s special envoy to counter ISIS, said that, ‘Idlib is Al Qaeda’s largest safe haven since 9/11.’ So there is no ambiguity about the situation: The United States is acting as the big brother and protector of Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in Syria.”

Whatever you may say about Gabbard, she is, as Jim W. Dean once put it, “the real deal.” She specifically went to Syria to investigate the terrorist acts of the people America was supporting. She concluded:

“There is no doubt that if the United States and its allies are successful in their war to topple Assad, the most powerful forces on the ground (Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups) would take over, and religious minorities or anyone who disagreed with Al Qaeda’s theology/ideology would be targeted.

“When I visited Syria, I met with Christian leaders in Aleppo who took me to a few of their historic churches that had been targeted and bombed to rubble by terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS who adhere to the extreme Wahhabi Salafi ideology, propagated by Saudi Arabia around the world, believing that unless you adhere to their extremist exclusivist ideology, then you must be killed or enslaved.

“Just last week, President Trump and Vice President Pence delivered solemn speeches about the attacks on 9/11, honoring the victims of Al Qaeda’s attack on our country. Yet they continue to protect Al Qaeda and other terrorist forces in Syria, and have threatened ‘dire consequences’ and an illegal war against Russia, Syria, and Iran if they dare attack these terrorists—potentially putting our country on a path towards World War III.

“The Trump administration’s continued protection of Al Qaeda is a betrayal of the American people, especially the victims of 9/11, first-responders, my brothers and sisters in uniform who have been killed or wounded in action, and their families. It’s a betrayal of the American people who have had trillions of dollars taken from their wallets, ostensibly to defeat the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11, only to find Al Qaeda is stronger today than ever before.

“This is not a partisan issue. Every American—Democrat, Republican, independent—must condemn this betrayal by our commander in chief. This regime-change war in Syria and US alliance with Al Qaeda and other terrorists must end now.”

Let us hope that Gabbard doesn’t get corrupted by the puppeteers in Washington and con men like Sheldon Adelson. But so far she is the best presidential candidate for 2020. I support her.

  • [1] Zaid Jilani, “As democrats shift left on Palestine, 2020 contender Kamal Harris gives off-the-record address to AIPAC,” The Intercept, March 7, 2018.
  • [2] Tulsi Gabbard, “Giving Voice to Millions of Americans: End US Wars of Intervention,” The Nation, November 30, 2016.
  • [3] Quoted in Kelefa Sanneh, “What does Tulsi Gabbard believe?,” New Yorker, November 6, 2017.
  • [4] Murray Friedman, The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005); Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).
  • [5] For scholarly studies, see John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy (New York: Farrar & Straus, 2006).
  • [6] Noah Rothman, “Tulsi Gabbard’s Disaster in Damascus,” Commentary, January 27, 2017.

The views in this article are those of Jonas E. Alexis
Read Global News Aruba Disclaimer Policy
Each Independent News Reporter is responsible for the News Report and Views
Contact the News Reporter
All content herein is owned by author exclusively.  Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of the Editor in Chief of Global News Aruba or The Tjon Ajong Group or Norberto Tjon Ajong, authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians or Global News Aruba.  Some content may be satirical in nature. 
All images within are full responsibility of author and NOT of Global News Aruba Inc.
"Japanese Historians and Scholars Rise Against Lies and Fabrications"
By Jonas E. Alexis 
(South Korea 2019 )
World Events Journalism
Historian and Freelance News Reporter
Global News Aruba

Many historians “argue that since absolute truth must always elude the historian’s grasp, ‘evidence’ is inevitably nothing but a biased selection of suspect ‘facts.’ Worse yet, rather than dismissing the entire historical undertaking as impossible, these same people use their disdain for evidence as a license to propose all manner of politicized historical fantasies or appealing fictions on the grounds that these are just as ‘true’ as any other account."

Seoul, the capital of South Korea, is just about two hours from Tokyo, the current capital of Japan. It was cold when I traveled to Tokyo about two weeks ago, but not as cold as it was in Korea. I don’t like cold weather; I prefer fall or spring in South Korea but not winter. After all, I’m from Florida, a state whose lowest temperature ever recorded is minus 2 degrees Fahrenheit (about minus 18.9 Celcius).

But the trip to Tokyo was nice and productive. I stayed in a pod hotel, and this was my first time. Pod hotels remind me of hyperbaric chambers. Each pod has a Panasonic-built sleeping system that smoothly puts you to sleep and generally wakes you up at a particular time by altering the light.

I thought the pods were little Hobbit-influenced chambers which provide some kind of mental peace and quiet. They also remind me of what Bilbo Baggins told Gandalf in J. R. R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit. “We are plain and quiet folk and have no use for adventures. Nasty disturbing uncomfortable things!”[1] Bilbo was too comfortable in the Shire, and going to an adventure for him was, as he put it, a nasty thing.

In any event, I went to Tokyo precisely because I wanted to have what E. Michael Jones would call “unprotected intercourse” with historians, scholars and writers who have written about the Japanese annexation of Korea and other historical topics such as World War II. I have been in communication with my friend Arimasa Kubo since last July, and I told him last November that I would be in Japan at the end of December in order to discuss some of the fundamental issues that undergird the Japanese-Korean relation. Kubo confirmed that Eiji Yamashita, emeritus professor at Osaka City University, would also be joining us. Prof. Yamashita and I corresponded in the past, and I was delighted when I was told that he would hop in.

We met for lunch on the 30th of December, and we spent three hours discussing numerous issues. I had previously read numerous scholarly studies and archival documents on what Prof. Yamashita calls the Japanese anschluss, and I will be producing those materials in the next three months.

Let me mention in passing that Dae-Sook Suh’s archival study, Documents of Korean Communism, 1918-1948 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970), is a seminal work on the Communist plan for subversion in Korea. Atul Kohli’s State-Directed Development: Political Power and Industrialization in the Global Periphery (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) has an entire chapter on the Korean economy, infrastructure, and education system during the Japanese annexation, and the issues are very complex. Moreover, archival documents from the US military, the Dutch military, the Japanese military, and even the Korean military are now readily available. But we cannot discuss them here. But rest assured that those documents will be published within three months.

Kohli, who is the David K.E. Bruce Professor of International Affairs at Princeton, is essentially saying almost the same thing that Kubo and Yamashita were arguing. But throughout our dialogue in Tokyo, I tried to play the devil’s advocates and challenge Kubo and Yamashita on a number of issues to see how they would respond. “I talked to many Koreans about the Japanese annexation of Korea, and some of them are not persuaded by the Japanese narrative,” I started. “What would you say to them?”

“I think if they love the truth,” Kubo responded, “then we would have an honest dialogue. We would start with facts that we both agree on, and we would gradually work out way toward a final conclusion.” That was indeed a stunning statement. Truth, as Plato puts it in the Republic, is that which corresponds to reality.[2] Truth will inexorably produce facts, and facts, as John Adams observed, “are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”[3]

Kubo is absolutely right about beginning a conversation with your opponent with facts and serious evidence. Unfortunately, many historians today do not believe in truth and facts at all. As historian and sociologist Rodney Stark eloquently puts it, many historians “argue that since absolute truth must always elude the historian’s grasp, ‘evidence’ is inevitably nothing but a biased selection of suspect ‘facts.’ Worse yet, rather than dismissing the entire historical undertaking as impossible, these same people use their disdain for evidence as a license to propose all manner of politicized historical fantasies or appealing fictions on the grounds that these are just as ‘true’ as any other account.”[4]

British historiographer and postmodernist Keith Jenkins declares, “We might as well forget history and live in the ample imaginaries provided by postmodern type theories.”[5]Jenkens proves to be driven by ideology rather than rational inquiry, for he knows that this opens the floodgates for irrationalism.

Historian Keith Windschuttle of the University of New South Wales noticed that the cultural trends of the 1960s energized relativism among some historians and intellectuals.[6]Martha C. Howell of Columbia University and Walter Prevenier of the University of Ghent (Belgium) trace these cultural trends even further back, arguing that relativism gradually began to take form after World War II. The historians and intellectuals who were drawn to cultural relativism were not interested in finding the truth—since they didn’t believe ultimate truth exists—but were largely motivated by Marxist ideologies to pursue their own self-interests.[7]

We are now faced with a metaphysical issue here. If historical events cannot be verified, as some people have incoherently argued, then it really does not matter whether Rome destroyed the Jewish temple in A.D. 70 or not. Everything boils down to opinion versus opinion—a sort of survival of the fittest of ideas. The strongest opinion wins, regardless of whether it is true or false.

This is not to say that historical descriptions are as black and white—one must be willing to accept that there are historical issues that are debatable. The real issue is whether history itself is a legitimate investigation of what happens and whether history can help us understand who we are from an objective point of view. As we are arguing, one of the reasons why people gravitate toward a deconstructive view of history is for ideological purposes, not for truth.

Take French intellectual Michel Foucault. As a postmodernist, Foucault set out to deconstruct the idea of universal truth—transcendent truth and reality that goes far beyond culture, race, and creed. In the process, he ended up with his own worldview, declaring, “Power produces knowledge…There is no power relation without the correlative constitution of a field of knowledge, nor any knowledge that does not presuppose and constitute at the same time power relations.”[8]

Before Foucault, French philosopher Jean Francois Lyotard argued that there is a “war on totality,” a concept which to him meant that any claim that purports to be universally true should be rejected. This war, for Lyotard, was against “meta-narratives,”[9] theories that purport to show that there must be a coherent, consistent, historically logical and objective way of seeing the world. Lyotard drew heavily on the philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein (a close friend of Bertrand Russell), who made a similar argument.[10]

So it is safe to say that the postmodern view of history is intellectually and philosophically weighed and found wanting. In other words, if the postmodern view of history is correct, then Japanese, Korean, and Western historians and intellectuals are really wasting their time trying to figure what really happened on the Korean peninsula from 1910 until 1945. To be quite blunt, if the postmodern interpretation is accurate, then the Korean government shouldn’t be angry at the Japanese precisely because the Koran narrative is just one interpretation which the Korean government is desperately trying to impose on the Japanese government.

  By the middle of our discussion, we shifted to Franklin Roosevelt, and both Prof. Yamashita and Kubo seemed to have been a little surprised when I told them that Roosevelt knew that Japan was going to attack America and that US officials were deliberately and maliciously provoking Japan.[11] Yamashita and Arimasa knew that this was clearly the case, but they didn’t seem to expect an American to say it.

“Roosevelt needed an excuse to go to war,” I said, “and he couldn’t find one. Pearl Harbor was what we now call a false flag—a covert operation that is designed and engineered by the war machine and political elites particularly in Washington and elsewhere to deceive and manipulate the masses and public opinion.”

“Do most Americans believe what you believe?” Yamashita asked. At that moment, I burst out laughing. “No,” I said, “but most Americans never liked perpetual wars. As I said before, Roosevelt himself had to use deceptive means in order to send American troops to World War II. It is the same thing with perpetual wars today. Most Americans never wanted the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, and Syria. George W. Bush also had to use deliberate lies and complete fabrications in order to get America into bloody wars in the Middle East.”[12]

Scholars now agree that the war machine and covert entities like the CIA and the Pentagon use manipulation and “psychological warfare” to seduce the masses.[13] And Roosevelt was unquestionably involved in it, particularly before World War II. As the noted historian Thomas Fleming rightly put it, Roosevelt “had seduced America into the war with clever tricks, one-step-forward one-step-back double-talk, and the last resort provocation of Japan. Deceit had been at the heart of the process.”[14]

Isolationism—the position that America’s interest is best served by keeping the affairs of other nations at a distance—was still vibrant in the 1930s. This political idea kept America out of trouble for decades, and it was established by the founding fathers themselves. Thomas Jefferson declared: “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.”[15]

George Washington, along with James Monroe and others, took similar positions. Washington declared: “My ardent desire is to keep the United States free from political connections with every other country, to see them independent of all and under the influence of none.” James Madison said way back in 1809: “Indulging no passions which trespass on the rights or the repose of other nations, it has been the true glory of the United States to cultivate peace by observing justice, and to entitle themselves to the respect of the nations at war by fulfilling their neutral obligations with the most scrupulous impartiality.”

John Quincy Adams concurred in 1821: “America well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extraction, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit… She does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.”

Charles Pinckney, Constitutional Convention, declared in 1787: “We mistake the object of our government, if we hope or wish that it is to make us respectable abroad.  Conquest or superiority among other powers is not or ought not ever to be the object of republican systems.”[16] James Madison even contented that:

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.

“In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people.

“The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”

In short, perpetual wars and unconditionally supporting a foreign entity was completely foreign to the founding fathers of America. The Neoconservatives and the entire war machine completely changed that. As Jewish legal scholar Stephen M. Feldman himself says, the Neoconservatives led “an assault on the hegemonic pluralist democratic regime that had taken hold of the nation in the 1930s.”[17]


Right before our three-hour conversation ended, Prof. Yamashita took some papers out of his bag and gave me copies of some articles he has published in Japan Times, “Japan’s largest and oldest English-language daily newspaper,” and Perspective on History, “the newsmagazine of the American Historical Association.” In these papers, Yamashita challenges McGraw-Hill publisher, and Alexis Dudden, a professor at the University of Connecticut and the author of Japan’s Colonization of Korea: Discourse and Power.[18] His challenge his challenge to both McGraw-Hill and Dudden are worth reading.

Eiji Yamashita

To the editor:

Generally speaking, it is better that governments do not intervene in the writing of history textbooks. However, if clear factual mistakes are found in textbooks, and if those mistakes have extremely negative effects on the dignity of a given country and its nationals, then it is natural that such a country’s government request revisions of the errors.

We think McGraw-Hill’s textbook is just such a case. In their March 17, 2015, booklet “Requesting Corrections of Factual Errors in McGraw-Hill Textbook,” 19 Japanese historians identified 8 apparent factual errors within 26 lines in merely 2 paragraphs concerning the issue of comfort women, and then requested that the textbook’s publisher, McGraw-Hill, correct these errors. If the US government was in the same situation, it presumably would have taken issue with the publisher and author of such an error-laden textbook, in an incomparably fiercer manner.

The title of the statement of the 20 American historians (Perspectives, March 2015) is “Standing with Historians of Japan.” However, even Professor Yoshiaki Yoshimi, whom the 20 American historians hold in high regard in their statement, could identify multiple factual errors in the McGraw-Hill textbook, if he were asked to do so. We are afraid that, in point of fact, the 20 American historians would never be able to find a single Japanese academician with whom they could stand. It would be as if they were standing with Japanese ghosts.

Both the author of the McGraw-Hill textbook and the authors and co-signers of the 20 American historians’ statement never mentioned the Interagency Working Group (IWG) report of April 2007, which stated that they could not find any documentation to show that the Japanese government committed war crimes with respect to the comfort women during the Second World War. This report was the result of very thorough research by the US National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

NARA identified 142,000 pages of Japanese-related classified documents held by the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), CIA, FBI, US Army Counterintelligence Corps (CIC), and others. This research task took 7 years and cost $30 million. If the author of the McGraw-Hill textbook and the 20 American historians did not know about the IWG report, then they should be censured for performing an inadequate study; if they did know about the IWG report but ignored it, then their impartiality as academics should be seriously questioned.

In the McGraw-Hill textbook, there are phrases such as “the army presented the women to the troops as a gift from the Emperor” and “At the end of the war, soldiers massacred large numbers of comfort women to cover up the operation.” These accounts are completely without supporting historical evidence. Writers of fiction have license to create alternative realities using their imaginations, but history textbooks written by serious scholars should contain nothing but demonstrable truths.

Furthermore, we have to say that the credibility of the McGraw-Hill textbook as a whole should be seriously questioned as 8 errors of fact in only 26 lines, mentioned earlier, on the comfort women were found in the textbook. Given how many mistakes were in just these two paragraphs, one would seriously wonder about the quality of the other parts of the textbook. This is a problem that affects the prestige of American historians as a whole.

American historians need to make an effort to check the appropriateness of American history textbooks in America, across the board, rather than point fingers at the Japanese government when it tries to call attention to these errors of fact. The efforts of American historians will determine whether or not future generations of Americans will have the correct historical view, which will be extremely important for the United States as well as for the rest of the world.

Takehiko Aoyagi, International University of Japan

Kazuhiro Araki, Takushoku University

Koji Okamoto, Osaka International University

Genki Fujii, Takushoku University

Nobukatsu Fujioka, Takushoku University

Shigeki Hakamada, Niigata Prefectural University

Michiko Hasegawa, Saitama University*

Katsuo Hiizumi, Aichi University

Yoichi Hirama, National Defense Academy of Japan

Kobo Inamura, Chuo University

Nozomu Ishii, Nagasaki Junshin Catholic University

Takashi Ito, University of Tokyo*

Hideo Kaneoka, Akita International University

Kanji Katsuoka, Meisei University

Minoru Kitamura, Ritsumeikan University*

Kei-ichiro Kobori, University of Tokyo

Tetsuo Kubota, Takushoku University

Jun Kuno, Osaka International University

Mutsuo Mabuchi, National Defense Academy of Japan

Mitsunobu Matsuura, Kogakkan University

Koichi Mera, University of Southern California

Fumio Niwa, Takushoku University

Akira Momochi, Nippon University

Tetsuji Murase, Kyoto University

Terumasa Nakanishi, Kyoto University

Kazume Nishidate, Iwate University

Kanji Nishio, University of Electro-Communications*

Tsutomu Nishioka, Tokyo Christian University

Yasuo Oh-Hara, Kokugakuin University

Mariko Okada-Collins,

Central Washington University

Nobuhiko Sakai, University Of Tokyo

Hei Seki, Takushoku University

Haruo Shimada, Chiba University of Commerce

Yoichi Shimada, Fukui Prefectural University

Shuhei Shiozawa, Keio Gijuku University

Toyojiro Soejima, Kinki University

Seishiroh Sugihara, Josai University

Shiroh Takahashi, Meisei University

Masayuki Takayama, Teikyo University

Tadae Takubo, Kyorin University*

Hidemichi Tanaka, Tohoku University*

Tetsuji Tanaka, Tashkent State Economic University in Uzbekistan

Taikin Tei, Tokyo Metropolitan University

Koh-Ichiro Tomioka, Kanto Gakuin University

Masato Ushio, Takushoku University

Shoh-Ichi Watanabe, Sophia University*

Toshio Watanabe, Takushoku University*

Hidetsugu Yagi, Reitaku University

Eiji Yamashita, Osaka City University*

Tsuneo Yoshihara, Takushoku University

*9 initiators of the 50 Japanese academics’ rebuttal

Challenging the ’20 American historians’

I organized “the 50 Japanese academics’ rebuttal of the 20 American historians’ statement,” which was announced last September and published in the December issue of Perspectives on History of the American Historical Association (AHA). This is the same periodical that published the 20 American historians’ statement last March. Our rebuttal was reported on in the Dec. 10 edition of The Japan Times and the December issue of Inside Higher Ed, an e-magazine on education based in Washington. I would like to take this opportunity to clarify the main aim of our rebuttal.

We said the 20 American historians would never find a single Japanese academician with whom they could stand, even though the title of their statement was “Standing with historians of Japan,” because there are at least eight factual mistakes in 26 lines about “comfort women” in the McGraw-Hill textbook at issue. Furthermore, we questioned their fairness since their statement had no reference to the report by the Interagency Working Group in the United States in 2007.

However, a more important reason for why we wrote the rebuttal is that we were concerned about the 20 American historians’ basic stance as scholars and educators, beyond the immediate comfort women issue. We were confident that our arguments could lead to better education for American youths, and hence were inherently beneficial to the U.S. as well as to the rest of the world in the longer perspective.

I think our concern was right. Several scholars, such as professor Alexis Dudden (University of Connecticut), professor Andrew Gordon (Harvard University) and others out of the 20 American historians were interviewed by The Japan Times or Inside Higher Ed, but none of them seemed to be worried about the education of young Americans. Moreover, it seems to me that American historians are still refusing to address the major factual errors in the McGraw-Hill history textbook.

Many English-language media outlets, including The Japan Times, refer to the comfort women as “sex slaves.” But such terminology is factually incorrect and runs counter to the Japanese government’s position. I hereby introduce the latest two examples. On Jan. 18, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe replied to a question raised by Upper House member Kyoko Nakayama in the Upper House Budget Committee that the phrases “sex slaves” and “200,000 comfort women” run counter to the facts.

Moreover, on Feb. 16 Deputy Foreign Minister Shinsuke Sugiyama replied to a question raised by the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) in Geneva that there was no evidence proving the forcible removal of comfort women from their homes by the Japanese military and government authorities.

There is a widespread misunderstanding among the Western world that the Abe administration is somehow suppressing the media. It seems to us that the situation is precisely the opposite. In fact, the reach of the Abe administration’s efforts is rather limited by both the domestic and foreign media. Japan is among the highest ranked countries in the world in terms of freedom of speech. On the contrary, freedom of speech in the U.S. is obviously lower than that of Western European countries or Japan, because there are so many social taboos there.

To take just one prominent example out of many, the U.S. government actively oppresses denunciations by former governmental staff members. Given all this, it would seem that Americans are not in a position to lecture other mature democracies on the finer points of freedom of speech. Instead, the 20 American historians should be more concerned about the free speech situation within their own country.

Upon its commencement in October 1998, the research objective of the IWG Report was limited to Nazi war crimes. Thereafter, though, Japanese Imperial government records were added to the objectives of the IWG Report in December 2000 in response to a request from the Global Alliance for Preserving the History of World War II in Asia, a group led by people of Chinese descent based in San Francisco. After very extensive research lasting seven years, the IWG could not find any documentation to show that the Japanese government committed war crimes with respect to the comfort women.

In the IWG Final Report to the U.S. Congress, a document stretching 155 pages, there is no language clearly indicating that any record of Japanese war crimes vis-a-vis comfort women had been uncovered. Instead, the report contains reams of unimportant passages, presumably with the aim of camouflaging an inconvenient truth.

But despite no evidence of war crimes by the Japanese government in the IWG Report to the U.S. Congress, on July 30, 2007, the U.S. Congress still passed House Resolution 121 on the comfort women, demanding that the Japanese government apologize for “crimes” for which no evidence had been produced. The whole process in the U.S. Congress at that time was extremely unfair — or worse — to Japan.

Today, American fairness is in serious question almost everywhere in the world, although most Americans may not know this or do not wish to know. This broad lack of trust in American fairness is one of the major factors in the failure of American foreign policy on so many fronts in the past decades.

Under such circumstances, is it wise for the U.S. to show apparent unfairness to the Japanese public, too, especially given that Japan is one of the closest American allies in the world? If the U.S. wishes to see its foreign policy succeed, it should begin with a reassessment of its fundamental fairness. The safety of Americans and of the rest of the world depends on it.

It is often said that we cannot acquire a clear picture of any given era of history until at least a century has elapsed. Since we are now 71 years past the end of World War II, it is natural that new evidence or interpretations will emerge in the years to come. Not only newly found historical facts but also new historical interpretations should be respected and subjected to academic discussion and debate. Incidentally, this year marks the 102nd anniversary of the outbreak of World War I, but we still lack a coherent historical evaluation of even that conflict.

And yet, these same Americans who have striven to fashion a consensus regardless of where the evidence leads them are quick to call us revisionists. But isn’t it always important for open-minded scholars to seek revisions when they are appropriate? Those who cry “revisionism” are unscientific; they do not behave like intellectuals. Perhaps it is time for us to return the favor and label them the “bigoted old guard.”

On this note, it is also important for us to begin to discuss the meaning of the latest world war, the Cold War, particularly in connection with World War II. It is indispensable to correctly recognize why the Cold War began soon after the end of World War II in order to clarify the characteristics of the “hot war.” It is also very important to review how we in the free world won the Cold War.

Finally, to return to our original point, McGraw-Hill Education in New York should sincerely address the major factual defects in its history textbook for the future generation of the U.S. and the rest of the world as well.

  • [1] J. R. R. Tolkien, The Hobbit (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1966), 7.
  • [2] Plato, The Republic (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 116.
  • [3] Quoted in David McCullough, John Adams (New York: Touchtone, 2001), 68.
  • [4] Rodney Stark, Cities of God: The Real Story of How Christianity Became an Urban Movement and Conquered Rome (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2007), 7.
  • [5] Quoted in C. Behan McCullagh, The Logic of History: Putting Postmodernism in Perspective (New York: Routledge, 2004), 8.
  • [6] Keith Windschuttle, The Killing of History: How Literary Critics and Social Theorists Are Murdering Our Past (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 1996), xiii-xiv.
  • [7] See Martha C. Howell and Walter Prevenier, From Reliable Sources: An Introduction to Historical Methods (New York: Cornell University Press, 2001).
  • [8] Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (New York: Vintage Books, 1977), 27.
  • [9] Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984), 82.
  • [10] See Brian McGuinness, Wittgenstein: A Life—Young Ludwig, 1889-1921 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988).
  • [11] For studies on this, see John Koster, Operation Snow: How a Soviet Mole in FDR’s White House Triggered Pearl Harbor (Washington: Regnery Publishing, 2012); Robert Stinnett, Day Of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor (New York: Touchtone, 2000); Koichi Mera, Whose Back was Stabbed?: FDR’s Secret War on Japan (Lanham: Hamilton Books, 2017).
  • [12] For scholarly studies on related issues, see John J. Mearsheimer, Why Leaders Lie: The Truth About Lying in International Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011); Paul R. Pillar, Intelligence and U.S. Foreign Policy: Iraq, 9/11, and Misguided Reform (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011); Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); Michael MacDonald, Overreach: Delusions of Regime Change in Iraq (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2014); Murray Friedman, The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); Muhammad Idrees Ahmad, The Road to Iraq: The Making of a Neoconservative War (Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press, 2014); Stephen M. Feldman, Neoconservative Politics and the Supreme Court: Law, Power, and Democracy (New York: New York University Press, 2013).
  • [13] See Christopher Simpson, Science of Coercion: Communication Research and Psychological Warfare, 1945-1960 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996).
  • [14] Thomas Fleming, New Dealers’ War: FDR and the War Within World War II (New York: Basic Books, 2001), 257.
  • [15] The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Volume 33: 17 February to 30 April 1801 (Princeton University Press, 2006), 148-52.
  • [16] Derek Bickerton, “The Founding Fathers on the Mubarak Crisis,” Psychology Today, February 3, 2011.
  • [17] Stephen M. Feldman, Neoconservative Politics and the Supreme Court: Law, Power, and Democracy (New York: New York University Press, 2013), 1.
  • [18] Alexis Dudden, Japan’s Colonization of Korea: Discourse and Power (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2006).
Winston Churchill’s Darkest Hour?
By Jonas E. Alexis World Events Journalism
Historian and Freelance News Reporter
Global News Aruba

By 1919, Churchill already had blood all over his hands. “We are enforcing the blockade with rigour,” he said, “and Germany is very near starvation.” When the dust settled, Churchill ended up slaughtering almost 90,000 German civilians. He also was responsible for the deaths of more than a million Indians.

Hollywood still hasn’t come to grip with Winston Churchill and his plan to exterminate German civilians. In the recent movie Darkest Hour, they portray Churchill as a man of the people. Church did everything he could to avoid a bloody war with Germany, Darkest Hour tells us, and he even asked the average person about their opinions on how to avoid the looming war with Hitler.

As we shall see, this is complete baloney. But that’s not all. Gary Oldman, who stars as Winston Churchill in the biopic, made even more stupid statements when he declared that “Churchill was the man who saved the world. That’s what I hope people will take away: To see the film and realize, ‘Oh boy we came very close to a different way of living.’”[1]

When Oldman was asked the question, “What do you want audiences to talk away from the film?,” he responded: “It highlights the fortitude and resilience and the humanity of its leader, Winston Churchill. We screened the movie, and I could forgive the Americans for not knowing the history, but I was amazed that Britons didn’t really know it either.”[2]

If you like a good laugh, then consider this. When Oldman was again asked, “What did you learn about Churchill while shooting the film?,” he said:

“His stock rose considerably. I realize that this was a man, he was incomparable. I don’t know if you could equate him or contrast him with other leaders. I think perhaps he’s there up with Washington and Lincoln. The achievements…He was a superman. An indispensable figure.”[3]

The humanity of Winston Churchill? Did Oldman have a different Churchill in mind when he said this? Did he actually know Churchill’s track record even during World War I? What Darkest Hour teaches us is simply this: Gone is the true history of Winston Churchill—all that is left is Hollywood’s deliberately distorted and dubious account of the man who did not hesitate to kill multiplied thousands of civilians to please his bosses.

Even the Irish Independent had this to say back in 2012: “Everything people believed about Hitler’s intentions toward Britain was a myth created by Churchill.” For example, Churchill perpetuated the categorical lie that Hitler desired to invade Britain in 1940, but it was a total fabrication.

On the contrary, Hitler “admired the British Empire,” and that he “offered terms that did not involve German control of Britain. Churchill refused to allow these terms to be read to the cabinet, and they remain prudently concealed under the 100-year rule.”[4] The same newspaper rightly reported:

“Instead, Churchill’s determination to keep Britain at war turned what had been merely a continental defeat of its army into the enduring myth that in 1940, Britain faced a war for national survival.

“But the German naval leader, Raeder, had repeatedly forbidden his staff from planning an invasion of Britain. And far from wanting to continue the war, in June 1940, Hitler ordered 20pc of his army to be demobilised, in order to get the German economy going again.

“The ‘invasion fleet’ that the Nazis began to assemble that summer was no more capable of invading Britain than it was Hawaii. It was war by illusion: its purpose was to get the British to the negotiating table.”[5]

Perhaps the bigger issue is that Churchill concocted deliberate lies about Hitler because he was working for the Powers That Be. In fact, right after his father’s death, Churchill became Ernest “Cassel’s creature,” one of the most “influential Jewish moneylenders” then.[6] Once that happened, Churchill began to hate the Germans. In the process, he starved the German civilians to death and bragged about it. This is Churchill at his best:

“Starve the whole population—men, women and children, old and young, wounded and sound—into submission.”[7]

Churchill got his wish:

“In December 1918 the German Board of Public Health claimed that 763,000 Germans had died because of the blockade. In April 1919 Dr. Marx Rubner claimed that another 100,000 Germans who died between April and the signing of the Treaty of Versailles in July, so the number of Germans who died from Winston Churchill’s starvation blockade most probably approximates the number of Irish who died during the Great Famine.”[8]

Gary Oldman should have told his interviewer that Churchill ended up joining the greatest mass murderer (Stalin) in the twentieth century in order to defeat Hitler. In 2013, popular historian Max Hastings wrote in the Daily Mail that Churchill did summon “bold lies to wage war,” but those lies were good because “Churchill did it to save Britain…”[9]

Churchill was an avowed social Darwinist and flaming Zionist at the same time.[10]Churchill became Prime Minister in 1940. During his speech, he unequivocally declared:

“You ask, what is our policy? I will say: it is to wage war, by sea, land, and air, with all our might…”[11]

Here once again we see the incestuous relationship (or competition) between the Darwinian ideology and Jewish subversive movements. Both Zionism and Darwinism support the promiscuous idea that wars will bring about the greatest good—at the expense of the weak and needy. Wars, according to Darwin, is inevitable because the “higher animals” need to wipe out the “lower” ones.

The Malthusian doctrine, said Darwin, could be applied “with manifold force to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms.”[12] In that sense, “the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life,” which incidentally is the subtitle of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, is of primary importance.

Darwin, in a covert and pernicious way, subverted the moral order and replaced it with the “favoured races.” It was no coincidence that colonial empires were viewed in a Darwinian terminology. As one historian puts it,

“Contemporaries explained this rush for land in terms of Darwin’s evolutionary theories. The fittest and most adaptable of the great powers would survive and grow stronger at the expense of the enfeebled…As Churchill observed in 1899, ‘the position of England among the nations is the position of a dog with a bone in the midst of a hungry pack.’”[13]

At one point, Churchill said: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.”[14] Toye writes that Churchill “gave his views on the Indian famine of 1873-4, claiming that Viceroy had been right to refuse demands that he prohibit grain exports.”[15]Another observer writes that

“Churchill had corroborated Malthus’s perspective, writing of an 1898 Indian plague: ‘a philosopher may watch unmoved the destruction of some of those superfluous millions, whose life must of necessity be destitute of pleasure.’”[16]

Churchill said elsewhere:

“I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum.”[17]

Darwin used similar words to describe “uncivilized men.”[18] In fact, Darwin constantly used phrases such as “higher animals” to describe how the powerful would eliminate the weak. Following Darwin’s ideology, Churchill declared,

“I do not admit for instance that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia. I do not admit a wrong has been to those people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race or… a more worldly wise race…has come in and taken their place.”[19]

When people were objecting to his views about poisoned gas, Churchill said that they were being too squeamish, adding that

“the objections of the India Office to the use of gas against natives are unreasonable. Gas is a merciful weapon than [the] high explosive shell, and compels an enemy to accept a decision with less loss of life than any other agency of war….Why is it not fair for a British artilleryman to fire a shell which makes the said native sneeze? It is really too silly.”[20]

It got even better: “when an aide pointed out that Tito intended to transform Yugoslavia into a Communist dictatorship on the Soviet model,” Churchill responded by saying, “Do you intend to live there?”[21]

Churchill, as should be evident by now, has a history of liquidating civilians mercilessly. He said way back in 1915, right after World War I broke out:

“I know this war is smashing and shattering the lives of thousands every moment—and yet—I cannot help it—I love every second I live.”[22]

Churchill continued, “The twin roots of all our evils, Nazi Germany and Prussian militarism, must be extirpated. Until this is achieved, there are no sacrifices we will not make and no lengths in violence to which we will not go.”[23]

When Stalin was sending people by the millions to the Bolshevik slaughter house, Churchill thought it was a great idea. He said:

“Why are we making a fuss about the Russian deportations in Rumania of Saxons [Germans] and others?…I cannot see the Russians are wrong in making 100 or 150 thousand of these people work their passage….I cannot myself consider that it is wrong of the Russians to take Rumanians of any origin they like to work in the Russian coal-fields.”[24]

Again, after the destruction of Dresden, Churchill tried very hard to wash his hands off. He said: “I cannot recall anything about it [Dresden]. I thought the Americans did it.”[25]When all is said and done, it was pretty clear to perceptive observers and historians that Churchill and Roosevelt intended to destroy Germany.

By 1919, Churchill already had blood all over his hands. “We are enforcing the blockade with rigour,” he said, “and Germany is very near starvation.”[26] When the dust settled, Churchill ended up slaughtering almost 90,000 German civilians. He also was responsible for the deaths of more than a million Indians.

“Britain’s wartime prime minister did not discuss in his six-volume account the 1943 famine in the eastern Indian province of Bengal, which killed 1.5 million people by the official estimate and 3 million by most others.

“One primary cause of the famine was the extent to which Churchill and his advisers chose to use resources of India to wage a war against Germany and Japan, causing scarcity and inflation within the colony.”[27]

This is the man that Hollywood, the entire Holocaust establishment, the Neoconservative movement, and outlets like the Rolling Stone revere. The Rolling Stone, the BBC, and the Guardian actually hope that Oldman will receive an Oscar for his performance as Churchill in the Darkest Hour.[28]

In a review of the film, A. O. Scott of the New York Times declares that Churchill “enjoys the push and pull of politics, the intellectual labor of problem-solving and the daily adventure of being himself.”[29] We are also told that ““Darkest Hour” is proud of its hero, proud of itself and proud to have come down on the right side of history nearly 80 years after the fact. It wants you to share that pride, and to claim a share of it.”[30]

What is missing in these flattering and sweeping pronouncements is that the average person never gets to know who Churchill really was: was a mass-murdering clown whose god was Mammon and whose diabolical enterprise left Germany and India in ruin.

Churchill was willing to steal, kill, and destroy for the people who actually put him in power. Hollywood and the Neoconservatives have been deliberately ignoring or dismissing the historical accounts on Churchill in order to maintain the historically incoherent view that Churchill was “fighting against international terrorism and tyranny.”[31] What these people end up saying is that German civilians and Indians were incontrovertibly terrorists.

The views in this article are those of Jonas E. Alexis
Read Global News Aruba Disclaimer Policy
Each Independent News Reporter is responsible for the News Report and Views
Contact the News Reporter
All content herein is owned by author exclusively.  Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of the Editor in Chief of Global News Aruba or The Tjon Ajong Group or Norberto Tjon Ajong, authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians or Global News Aruba.  Some content may be satirical in nature. 
All images within are full responsibility of author and NOT of Global News Aruba Inc. 

  • [1] Helena Andrews-Dyer, “Gary Oldman on Winston Churchill: ‘He was a superman,’” Washington Post, November 21, 2017.
  • [2] Ibid.
  • [3] Ibid.
  • [4] Kevin Myers, “Everything people believed about Hitler’s intentions toward Britain was a myth created by Churchill,” Irish Independent, June 19, 2012.
  • [5] Ibid.
  • [6] E. Michael Jones, Barren Metal: A History of Capitalism as the Conflict Between Labor and Usury (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2014), 1201-1202.
  • [7] Ibid., 1211.
  • [8] Ibid.
  • [9]  Max Hastings “Yes, they both used lies to wage war. But Churchill did it to save Britain – Blair did it to save himself,” Daily Mail, July 2, 2013.
  • [10] See for example Ralph Raico, Great Wars & Great Leaders (Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2010), 59; Mukerjee, Churchill’s Secret War, 16-17; Richard Toye, Churchill’s Empire: The World That Made Him and the World He Made (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2010), 28.
  • [11] Winston Churchill, The Quotable Churchill (Philadelphia: Running Press Publishers, 2013), 163-164.
  • [12] Quoted in Madhusree Mukerjee, Churchill’s Secret War: The British Empire and the Ravaging of India During World War II (New York: Basic Books, 2010), 204.
  • [13] Lawrence James, Churchill and Empire: A Portrait of an Imperialist (New York: Pegasus Books, 2014), 28.
  • [14] Quoted in Mukerjee, Churchill’s Secret War, 78.
  • [15] Toye, Churchill’s Empire, 30.
  • [16] Mukerjee, Churchill’s Secret War, 204.
  • [17] Quoted in Warren Dockter, Churchill and the Islamic World (New York & London: I. B. Tauris & Co., 2015), 113.
  • [18] Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1896), 1: 168.
  • [19] Dockter, Churchill and the Islamic World, 178; Gilbert, Churchill and the Jews, 120; Addison, Churchill, 137.
  • [20] Quoted in Giles Milton, Russian Roulette: How British Spies Thwarted Lenin’s Global Plot (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2013), 243.
  • [21] Raico, Great Wars & Great Leaders, 85.
  • [22] Quoted in ibid., Great Wars & Great Leaders, 101.
  • [23] Ibid.
  • [24] Raico, Great Wars & Great Leaders, 95.
  • [25] Ibid., 101.
  • [26] Ibid., 95.
  • [27] Murkerjee, Churchill’s Secret War, ix.
  • [28] Peter Travers, “‘Darkest Hour’ Review: Gary Oldman Gives Us a Fearsome, Oscar-Worthy Churchill,” Rolling Stone, November 21, 2017; Nicholas Barber, “Film Review: Darkest Hour,” BBC, November 21, 2017; Peter Bradshaw, “Darkest Hour review – Gary Oldman is a tremendous Winston Churchill in high-octane drama,” Guardian, September 14, 2017.
  • [29] A. O. Scott, “Review: ‘Darkest Hour,’ or the Great Man Theory of History (and Acting),” NY Times, November 21, 2017.
  • [30] Ibid.
  • [31] Joseph Laconte, “Winston Churchill’s July 4 Message to America,” Weekly Standard, July 3, 2010.

Novelist Alice Walker Meets the Khazarian Mafia

It is ridiculous to say that Alice Walker is an anti-Semite. But she is certainly sensing that there is more to the Khazarian Mafia than meets the eye and ear.

Anyone who has read Alice Walker’s The Color Purple knows that it is not a pleasant book to read. It is filled with violence and child sexual abuse and rape. “Harpo come up the steps from the car. My wife beat up, my woman rape, he say. I ought to go back out there with guns, maybe set fire to the place, burn the crackers up.”[1]

The Color Purple was made into a movie by the same name. It was directed by none other than Steven Spielberg. Spielberg was obviously more than willing to take the role as director because The Color Purple is essentially an attack on the black family and Logos of history. We all know that Spielberg is known to distort the facts of history, as in the case of his movie Amistad.

We must also keep in mind that the Khazarian Mafia worked very hard to turn blacks into complete revolutionaries. This was truly the case with Frederick Douglas and Lorraine Hansberry. In fact, Lorraine Hansberry (A Raisin in the Sun), John Wideman (Brothers and Keepers), and Alice Walker all married Jews.[2]

Hansberry became a thorough revolutionary because she embraced the subversive spirit which has dominated the Khazarian Mafia for centuries. As E. Michael Jones rightly puts it, “the price the Negro has to pay for marriage (both literal and figurative) with the Jews is 1) loss of faith in God and 2) moral corruption.”[3]

By the time A Raisin in the Sun got written down, Hansberry had already lost her faith in God, saying things like,

“God hasn’t got a thing to do with it….God is just one idea I don’t accept…I get tired of Him getting credit for all the things the human race achieves through its own stubborn effort. There simply is no God—there is only man and it is he who makes miracles.”[4]

The last sentence is really troublesome because it implies that Hansberry was carrying an intellectual burden which literally destroyed her position. In fact, if one follows this premise to its logical conclusion, then philosophical worthlessness or deadness is the end result.

If there is “only man” and if “it is he who makes miracles,” by what logical inference can Hansberry say that genocide or slavery is wrong? In fact, “miracles” like slavery were largely made by men. In fact, it was the Khazarian Mafia which largely brought slavery to America in the nineteenth century.[5]

If there is no ultimate transcendent moral virtue or value, who is Hansberry to tell us that might does not make right? Hansberry’s argument again is philosophically terrible and logically indefensible.

Hansberry declared at the end of her life, “Do I remain a revolutionary? Intellectually—without a doubt. But am I prepared to give my body to the struggle or even my comforts? This is what I puzzle about.”[6]

Hansberry was indeed morally confused and intellectually lost. Her ideological principles ultimately lead to moral relativism, which she ought to have known is logically unacceptable and intellectually impermissible. In fact, if Hansberry is right, then the sexual abuse which Alice Walker describes in The Color Purple is morally acceptable, and there is not a damn thing that Hansberry or Walker can do about it.

The views in this article are those of Jonas E. Alexis
Read Global News Aruba Disclaimer Policy
Each Independent News Reporter is responsible for the News Report and Views
Contact the News Reporter
All content herein is owned by author exclusively.  Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of the Editor in Chief of Global News Aruba or The Tjon Ajong Group or Norberto Tjon Ajong, authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians or Global News Aruba.  Some content may be satirical in nature. 
All images within are full responsibility of author and NOT of Global News Aruba Inc.

  • [1] Alice Walker, The Color Purple (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1982 and 1992), 95.
  • [2] Murray Friedman, What Went Wrong?: The Creation and Collapse of the Black-Jewish Alliance (New York: Free Press, 2007), 121.
  • [3] E. Michael Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2008), 908.
  • [4] Ibid., 908-909.
  • [5] I have documented this in Christianity & Rabbinic Judaism, Vol. I.
  • [6] Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, 908-909.
  • [7] “Alice Walker: By the Book,” NY Times, December 13, 2018.
  • [8] See Talya Zax, “Alice Walker Endorsed A Book By An Anti-Semite In The NYT,” Jewish Daily Forward, December 17, 2018; Yair Rosenberg, “The New York Times Just Published an Unqualified Recommendation for an Insanely Anti-Semitic Book,” Tablet, December 17, 2018; Philip Bump, “Alice Walker’s Conspiracy-Filled ‘Best of 2013’ List Is the Best List of 2013,” Atlantic, December 26, 2018.
  • [9] For scholarly studies on this, see Peter Schaefer, Jesus in the Talmud (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007); Michael Hoffman, Judaism Discovered (Coeur d’Alene: Independent History and Research, 2008).
  • [10] “Sephardi leader Yosef: Non-Jews exist to serve Jews,” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, October 18, 2010; “5 of Ovadia Yosef’s most controversial quotations,” Times of Israel, October 9, 2013.
  • [11] Ron Kampeas, “Andrew Sullivan owes Yitzhak Shamir an apology,” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, May 6, 2015.
  • [12] Quoted in Clyde Haberman, “West Bank Massacre; Israel Orders Tough Measures Against Militant Settlers,” NY Times, February 28, 1994.
  • [13] Zax, “Alice Walker Endorsed A Book By An Anti-Semite In The NYT,” Jewish Daily Forward, December 17, 2018.
  • [14] Chanda Prescod-Weinstein, “Scientists Must Challenge What Makes Studies Scientific,” American Scientist, August 15, 2017.
  • [15] Nico Pitney, “Meet The 63rd Black Woman In American History With A Physics Ph.D.,” Huffington Post, June 24, 2015.
  • [16] Ibid.
  • [17] Alexandra Alter, “Alice Walker, Answering Backlash, Praises Anti-Semitic Author as ‘Brave,’” NY Times, December 21, 2018.