Aruba's First International Signature Online Newspaper
'Follow Us And Stay With Us Cause 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. 

 = Ann Coulter: Trump is “an idiot” = Trump's and Coulter's ideology is impressively incoherent.

By Jonas Alexis Contributor and Historian

Global News Aruba


Ann Coulter, the very woman who has written books such as In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome!, in which we find chapters such as “I Don’t Care What They Say, I Won’t Stay in a World Without Trump,” is now toe-dancing and saying that Trump is a complete “idiot,” the very thing we’ve been saying for years.

Trump, according to Coulter, was “the great orange hope.” But now she is perpetuating a different message: “our president is an idiot.”[1] Coulter is slowly catching up. It took her almost three years to get to that point.

Trump seduced the masses by perpetuating the America First principle during his campaign, but we said from the very beginning that America First and the Israeli or Zionist ideology are logically incompatible. If one has to thrive, then the other has to die out. It’s just that simple.

The Israeli ideology has been the main focus of the Trump presidency from the very beginning, and Coulter herself even declared that she would love to have Benjamin Netanyahu as president of the United States.[2] What we are seeing here is that both Trump and Coulter are locked in the same Zionist ideology. Since the ideology has been incoherent and diabolical from start to finish, then both Trump and Coulter have to be incoherent as well. Coulter even invited Netanyahu to the United States to talk about the border wall issue! Coulter said:

As a gesture of friendship, you should come to the U.S. and give a speech to Congress about your wall!”

Coulter’s statement was a response to Benjamin Netanyahu’s own assertion about the Israeli wall, which read: “President Trump is right. I built a wall along Israel’s southern border. It stopped all illegal immigration. Great success. Great idea.”

Netanyahu never told the press that Israel exists precisely because the country is standing on stolen lands as well. Coulter also could not tell her readers that perpetual wars in the Middle East and covert activities virtually all over the world are two of the main reasons of mass migration.

For example, Trump can’t allow “illegal” immigrants from places like Guatemala and Venezuela in the United States, but the United States is currently destabilizing those countries as we speak. Do you see how Coulter and Trump aren’t making sense at all?

My simple questions for Coulter are simply these: will she reimburse the people who plucked down the money to buy In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome!, which was published in 2016? How about Resistance Is Futile!: How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind, which came out in the summer of last year? Or will she stop being a political puppet and ideologue? When will she “psycho-analyze” herself and realize that the wars in the Middle East have never been good for America and much of the world? When will she realize that the war in Iraq, which she risibly perpetuated was a success, was arguably one of the biggest diabolical activities in the history of the United States?


REFERENCES: 

  • [1] Christal Hayes, “Ann Coulter after Trump’s order: ‘The only national emergency is that our president is an idiot,’” USA Today, February 17, 2019.
  • [2] “WATCH: Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity: ‘I Wish Netanyahu Was Our President,’” Haaretz, August 3, 2014.

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
EDITORIAL DISCLOSURE
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.

'Nazi Germany And The Gleiwitz Incident (Part I)'

Weronika Kuzniar (also known as V. K. Clark) earned a bachelor’s degree with High Honors in Liberal Studies w/Global Political Science in 2005 and master’s degree with Honors in Military History in 2009 at Norwich University, Vermont. She has written extensively on Nazi Germany.

Jonas E. Alexis: What is the Gleiwitz Incident? Walk us through the historical record.

V. C. Clark: Well, according to most historians, the Gleiwitz incident is the “false flag” that touched off World War II. Put simply, it was the Nazis’ casus belli “heard ‘round the world.” As well, this is what most common folks accept as true. The reality is far simpler and less exciting, however.

Nothing unusual happened at the Gleiwitz transmitter station on the night/early morning of 31 August. There was certainly no false flag event initiated by SS or SD troops there. However, a few vexing questions remain unanswered. I will ask and try to answer a few right now, and then I will ask and offer a few more alternative answers later on as we proceed through the sordid details.

Firstly, we do not know who the source for the official White Book report is for this purported event. There is an entry in the White Book for 31 August 1939 which is attributed to the Police President of Gleiwitz. There is a problem with this, however. The Police President at the time was a certain Mr. Schade, and he was murdered in a postwar Polish camp after his IMT (International Military Tribunal) interrogation in 1945.  He was never cross-examined during the trial.

As such, there’s no way to confirm that he is the actual source. It is possible that this man was in cahoots with the SS men who appeared at the transmitter station to conduct a brief (and seemingly innocent) radio exercise over the weather channel and who then promptly left. (More about them later).

Did Mr. Schade take a vow of silence in this regard? If this is the case, then the report as well as the broadcast about a supposed “shootout and fatal wounding” at the station was an SS fabrication. It was bogus. Nothing happened and the fake report was planted to deceitfully implicate Poland in a scuffle and fatal shootout at the station, an event and death which never happened but which the Allies claimed did happen.

Put simply, this was a fictitious report and broadcast that ultimately backfired on the SS and was in fact used against them with all kinds of lurid details added post facto by the Allies. This is a possible explanation. But there is another possible explanation. What if these SS men were not actually SS men, but imposters with fake papers? Without Schade’s honest account, we will likely never know if either of these explanations is correct.

Secondly, we do not know the source for the presumably live Breslau broadcast supporting the claim that the station was in Polish hands and that some sort of commotion was happening there at 20:00 hours. There was a Breslau broadcast in this regard because Captain Otto Radek , who we will revisit later on, and a few other “earwitnesses” heard the broadcast. They got all excited about it since there were reportedly numerous such separate border shootouts/events that took place that night—none of which Hitler mentioned by name in his “infamous” war proclamation speech the following day.

At any rate, unless the “few SS men” were responsible for this broadcast and the station personnel on duty that night were in cahoots with them to keep quiet about it, then they cannot be the source for this broadcast. All we know is that eyewitnesses at the station, including Radek’s own subordinates with whom he spoke that night, testified that “a few SS men” showed up and conducted a radio exercise there at the station and then promptly left.

There was no shooting, no disturbance, nothing. All was quiet, they asserted. If this is the case, then these SS men were innocent of creating a fictitious commotion and broadcast, and some other source is responsible. The questions to ask given this scenario are who was it and how was it done? We may never be able to answer these questions, but they must be asked since we do not have sufficient answers.

There is one other problem I must mention up front. Unlike the SS, the Grenzpolizei is mentioned by name in the White Book entry regarding the Gleiwitz transmitter station. It turns out that the Grenzpolizei worked intimately with Admiral Wilhelm Canaris’ Abwehr (German Military Intelligence Service) on sabotage missions against Poland prior to the outbreak of war.  The significance of this oft overlooked detail will become clear as we delve into the details of the incident at Mosty.

At any rate, you can see how and why the official record is so convoluted. The official narrative actually consists of many conflicting narratives featuring a whole range of oddball characters. We won’t get into all the details here, but suffice it to say that the official story is nothing more than fanciful fiction. And poorly written fiction at that!

Let us briefly examine just a few details to unscramble this mess as best as possible. Historians overwhelmingly accept as true, as do most people who know of this “incident,” that the SS, SD and Gestapo worked together to concoct an elaborate fake raid on the radio transmitter station located in Gleiwitz (now known as Gliwice ), a small border town located on the Polish-German frontier.

By most accounts, a handful of either SS or SD men—historians are unable to agree on which it was—purportedly dressed up like “Polish soldiers” or “insurgents” and staged a shootout at the transmitter station. This shootout was purportedly led by the notorious Nazi turncoat Alfred Naujocks , the sole source behind the Nuremberg account of the raid. These SS and/or SD men were supposed to have left a deceased man—only recently identified as a Polish citizen of German descent named Franz Honiok (minus any proof) —at the scene as evidence that much more than just a scuffle took place there.

However, some historians, such as David Whitehead, seem to think that the SS/SD shot and killed a few of their own men to make the whole thing seem real, and that in fact hundreds of men took place in this whole covert operation (300 to be exact)—which includes two other “false flag” raids at Hohenlinden or Hochlinden (henceforth, H/H; historians cannot agree on which location it was) and Pitschen.

In a nutshell, Mr. Whitehead merged several contradictory versions of the Gleiwitz incident in an attempt to sell the entire “Nazi false flag” story as legit. He failed in his mission because two (or more) fiction accounts are not better than one. My own research into this incident, and the other two purported false flags at H/H and Pitschen, proves that not a single one of these historians’ claims is verified. Not a single one.

As it stands, the Gleiwitz Nazi “false flag” incident is nothing more than a hoax. It is a media fabrication that may have originated with (and/or been expanded upon by) the traitorous Wilhelm Canaris and Co. residing safely behind the security of the much respected Abwehr , abetted by fellow traitors such as General Halder, Erwin Lahousen, Herbert Mehlhorn, Hans Oster, and a handful of other traitors and sellouts during and after the war. I say this with relative confidence because the official account of what happened at Gleiwitz, H/H and Pitschen is nearly identical to the real story of the incident at Mosty. I will briefly recount this incident now, minus the fine details which are all featured in my books.

Wilhelm Canaris’ Abwehr SO- and KO-Groups were entrusted to destroy or secure certain strategic points behind enemy lines prior to Germany’s official invasion of Poland. At the last minute, and much to Canaris’ chagrin if his surviving colleagues are to be believed, Hitler called off the invasion awaiting an answer from Italy concerning support for his Polish endeavor.

Canaris’ Abwehr men had to scramble back out of Poland and retreat to Slovakia pending further notice from on high. One of Canaris’ men was caught (Josef Kulik), however, and an official inquiry was conducted by Polish military authorities as to why this German was cavorting around in their territory. He was able to assuage the Poles by feigning to have gotten lost and confused as to the border demarcation between Poland and Slovakia, and after a brief interrogation and investigation he was apparently released.

This is so uncannily similar to how the story of Gleiwitz, H/H and Pitschen is told by Mr. Whitehead and other historians that one is forced to take a second look and to compare them. Upon doing this, I have concluded that the Gleiwitz/H/H/Pitschen mega-incident is nothing more than a tall tale modeled on the real incident at Mosty, perhaps to clear the name of Canaris and the reputation of the Abwehr, instead indicting and condemning specifically “Nazi” state organs (SS, SD and Gestapo).

In other words, the Gleiwitz White Book report may be a case of cover (for the Abwehr) and projection (onto the Nazis). (I explain in my two-volume book a range of possible Allied motives for doing this.) If correct, this may explain why “Abwehr” and “Grenzpolizei”  are both mentioned in that White Book entry and why zero references to the SS, SD or Gestapo are present in that same entry.

There is zero doubt that Abwehr traitors and fellow travelers expanded upon the fictitious incident with wild and sordid details implicating every Nazi organ they possibly could during and after the war, most notably during the IMT. This is beyond any doubt. But moving along here, also curiously missing from this entry is Captain Otto Radek and 3rd Company of Border Guard Battalion 1/68.  He and his border guard, not the border/frontier police or anyone else, were in charge of station security that evening.

Thus, when Mr. Radek heard some sort of commotion at the station via the nightly Breslau broadcast, he was taken aback and immediately made for the station via motorcar. To his complete surprise, all was quiet upon arrival and his fellow guardsmen reported that nothing had happened there. The traitorous Abwehr appears to be the missing link that makes sense amidst all the conflicting information surrounding this entry and the purported “Nazi false flag” at Gleiwitz,  which I thoroughly explain and explore in my two books.  One has to read both books to piece the entire case against the Abwehr and other traitors together, as there are many layers to this rotten onion.

At any rate, “Abwehr” is an odd term to use in this entry seeing as how Die Abwehr was the name of Germany’s Military Intelligence Service at the time. We are expected to accept without question that no other term was appropriate in this entry and context. It just strikes me as odd. And again, this particular entry is attributed to none other than Police President W. Schade, a man murdered not by Nazis but, as I will address again later, by Poles in a postwar concentration camp in 1945.  After the war, when Mr. Radek attempted to properly investigate what did take place at the station that night, if anything, his efforts were thwarted in interesting ways. I detail all of this in my books. In any event, it seems obvious who was silencing who here.

Permit me to further speculate about the transmitter entry as a possible Abwehr/Grenzpolizei fake. The source for the White Book entry must also have been the source (or was in close touch with the source) for the Gleiwitz incident news stories/reports put out by the DNB (Deutsches Nachrichtenbüro ) and the Völkischer Beobachter (VB). Whoever that source was, it seems to me, was trying to make the Nazi press look bad. And it is a fact that several Abwehr traitors along with their allies were working to subvert Hitler since 1937, especially regarding his diplomacy concerning Poland.

Maybe said source planted this White Book entry knowing that not only the Nazi press but the Allied press too would pick up on it and use it against Germany (i.e., that Hitler had “started the war with a lie”). In other words, maybe the Allied press was tipped off about this purported “incident” (along with the two others at H/H and Pitschen, which the British press also reported on) and subsequent White Book report, and so they could utilize it how they wanted against Germany. Indeed, the British press had reported on these incidents (Gleiwitz, H/H and Pitschen) before they were even completed! As well, both the DNB and VB agencies reported an incident at Gleiwitz featuring contradictory details to those of the White Book and to those of the Allied versions (including that of Mr. Naujocks). I explore all of these problems in my books.

Let’s move on.

Deeper research into the purported Gleiwitz incident indicates that nothing happened at the transmitter station aside from a brief SS radio exercise/test. There was no commotion, no shootout and no fake Polish soldiers or ruffians. The Gleiwitz hoax was laid to rest for the remainder of the war. Even most mainstream historians refer to it as “forgotton,” “little known” or “insignificant.” However, it was resurrected for the IMT to indict the Nazis in particular as the sole guilty party for the outbreak of war with Poland, and all by most murderous and deceitful means!

Germany had to look bad. Because, as we all know, the USSR really was bad. The worst kind of bad. And Britain was bad too. The British leadership, notably Sir Winston Churchill, was very interested in war breaking out on the Continent to the benefit of the Empire’s longstanding “Divide and Conquer” strategy. Somehow the Nazis had to look worse than everyone else.

The spotlight of condemnation had to remain on Germany. Touching off the world’s worst war by needless murder and clandestine trickery was the perfect indictment of an otherwise honorable nation. Throughout the IMT, it only got worse for Germany. Indeed, this Gleiwitz incident set the stage for the entire Allied casus belli against Germany. Germany, and Germany alone, was the sole culprit for the outbreak of war. By any means necessary.

I would also venture to guess that the incident at Venlo, during which the Germans seized two English SIS spies just across the Dutch border, had something to do with the resurrection of the Gleiwitz hoax for the IMT. Though, your readers and fans may consult my two-volume set entitled The Gleiwitz Incident: Nazi False Flag or Media Hoax? for those (and many more) details, Jonas.

In any event, the Gleiwitz fiasco is best known to historians and the public as either Operation Himmler or Operation Tannenberg. Yes, you read that right folks! Historians cannot even agree on the name of this “false flag” without which Hitler had no just cause for war against Poland. Had so many lives not been lost in that conflagration, and had not so much needless guilt and personal smearing been meted out against otherwise innocent parties and persons, this whole thing would be comical.

Permit me to digress for just a moment and recap because the following two points need to sink in. First, qualified historians cannot even agree on what this “false flag” operation was called. Yet, without this operation (and the two others that supposedly went along with it at H/H and Pitschen), (we are told that) Hitler couldn’t even hope to sell his invasion of Poland to the German people as legit, let alone to the world.

It was, per the official historical record, his “casus belli”. Secondly, historians cannot decide if it was the Gestapo, SS or SD, or all three(!), that led the three purported border raids, nor how many men were involved in each. The official narratives are a shambles. Really, these two points alone establish the untenability of the official historical record regarding Gleiwitz. And if the record is this problematic, why should Germans (then as now) bear any guilt in this regard? This is in fact why the truth about what did and did not happen at the Gleiwitz transmitter station is so important to reveal. Germans have been bearing needless guilt and shame regarding this aspect of World War II.

I believe historian Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof has called it “the war that had MANY fathers,” not just one father. Moreover, as with Lord Dacre’s Table Talk, which Dr. Richard Carrier has again blasted as an essentially worthless record of Hitler’s utterings , real Third Reich history (Real3R) has been evading the public for decades. It is high past time to set the entire World War II record straight.

In a nutshell, my tentative conclusion about Gleiwitz is as follows:

The German White Book ‘Gleiwitz incident’ entry of 31 August 1939 originates with 1) Abwehr/Grenzpolizei traitors, or 2) Police President W. Schade. Since Herr Schade was conveniently murdered in a postwar Polish concentration camp in 1945, as aforesaid, he is not the likeliest suspect. Unfortunately, Canaris was killed by the Nazi state for his long-lived treachery, so there will likely never be a sure way to confirm who, precisely, originated this official report. Suffice it to say that in the light of all the evidence, or lack thereof, as well as the Mosty incident, which implicates the Abwehr, Grenzpolizei and Canaris in provable ‘war crimes’ as well as in regards to violation of Poland’s sovereignty when war was not yet on, the Abwehr, Grenzpolizei and Canaris are the likeliest suspects.

I hardly need mention that Hitler called the war off on 25 August , so if he was going to utilize alleged “false flag” raids at Gleiwitz, H/H and Pitschen as his reason(s) for war, why would all three “false flags” only be planned for (and actually take place on) 31 August and not also on the evening/early morning of 24/25 August as with Mosty? Talk about playing with fire! Please recall that the invasion took place on 1 September, not on 26 August as originally planned. It was not until recently that the official narrative tried to mitigate this blatant error. Every single account has asserted that all three “raids” took place on the evening/early morning of 31 August. Moreover, why did Hitler neglect to mention a single one of these most coveted of false flag events by name in his declaration of war speech the next day? That’s a huge problem that not a single historian has addressed. Until now, of course.

Permit me to ask a couple more vexing questions, which I explore in my two-book set.

The Allied press, specifically in Britain and the US, as well as the Völkischer Beobachter (official NSDAP newspaper) and the DNB (semi-official news agency with Allied connections and employees) put out conflicting and disputable versions of the alleged incident.

Why?

Who delivered the Breslau broadcast about what reportedly happened at the Gleiwitz transmitter station? Was it a traitor? An Allied mole?

Let’s ponder these possibilities for a moment.

A traitor or mole would be motivated to sabotage Hitler’s war effort and/or to undermine his credibility and/or honorable conduct. This was in fact one of the earliest goals of the traitors in the Abwehr (their collective sabotage of Hitler’s diplomatic efforts commenced in 1937).

The Allied press reported soon after Hitler’s invasion of Poland in 1939 that he had “started the war with a lie.” Who fed the Allied press this line? That “lie” consisted of the “false flags” perpetrated by the instruments of the NSDAP itself (Gestapo, SS and SD) at Gleiwitz, H/H and Pitschen. However, not one of these “false flags” has any evidence to support it.

Revisionist historian Carlos W. Porter mentions a “posh Polish bank branch” near the border which did “very little business.” It was allowed to exist and operate with the German authorities’ permission. Oddly, it disappeared right around the time of the purported Gleiwitz “false flag.” Did any of these folks have British and/or Abwehr/Grenzpolizei traitor connections or contacts?

If so, might their involvement in this “false flag” hoax (at the time) explain the murder of Gleiwitz transmitter station manager Klose (murdered by partisans in 1945) as well as the murder of Gleiwitz police president Schade? If this Polish bank branch was involved at any level in this “false flag” hoax, then my hypothesis accounts for both its existence and sudden disappearance, something that has thus far eluded historians. Perhaps the Abwehr and/or Grenzpolizei had something to do with it.

Permit me to ask another important question.

Why was this “false flag” hoax resurrected after the war, and why did it receive so much attention during the IMT and after the war as it pertains to the Allied narrative? (See accompanying appendix of actual IMT testimony.) Remember, it was “insignificant” and “little known” at the time (even though it was supposed to be Hitler’s casus belli Number One).

One sensible explanation is that the Abwehr’s traitorous agents—e.g., Erwin Lahousen and Wilhelm Canaris in absentia—as well as SD/SS turncoats, such as Alfred Naujocks (who defected to the Allies toward the end of the war) and even Heinrich Himmler’s adjutant Karl Wolff, were needed as star witnesses for the prosecution (and later on for the Cold War as American allies). As such, these people’s ‘war crimes’ and the Abwehr’s ‘war crimes’ at Mosty et. al were simply dismissed or apparently attributed to dead men and/or the SS, SD and Gestapo via Gleiwitz, H/H and Pitschen.

The Abwehr’s and these other traitors’ suspected role in concocting these “false flag” reports and stories—either at the time (in 1939) or later on during the IMT, or in postwar memoirs and magazine interviews like the one featuring Herbert Mehlhorn in Stern in 1952—seems undeniable. The purported “false flags” at Gleiwitz, H/H and Pitschen mirrored their own sabotage missions in Poland nearly to a tee. That’s uncanny. Not to mention Alfred Naujocks’ two missions against Formis and the SIS agents resemble the Gleiwitz scene enough to render Gleiwitz a fictional copycat.

Lastly, we must ask why Alfred Naujocks’ IMT affidavits mention only two “false flag” sites (Gleiwitz and Hohenlinden) while the IMT and postwar accounts of other suspected actors in this hoax (e.g., Lahousen and Mehlhorn) mention three sites, one of which is incorrect (Hochlinden)? Is this because the IMT “evidence” and postwar “history” had to match Hitler’s actual 1 September proclamation, wherein he casually mentioned three sites and not just two?

It sure makes one wonder, especially since Hitler failed to name them specifically. Indeed, he failed to exploit any of them as his casus belli. Instead, he and Dr. Goebbels’ propaganda machine exploited the Bromberg Massacre (which took place two days after the invasion on 3 September) and other alleged Polish atrocities and persecutions against German minorities residing in Poland. Just check out the book Die polnischen Greueltaten an den Volksdeutschen in Polen: Im Auftrage des Auswärtigen Amtes auf Grund urkundlichen Beweismaterials zusammengestellt, bearbeitet und herausgegeben. What’s more, the British already knew Hitler’s real casus belli, which is featured in the secret Whitehall Report.

I must admit, the Allies were clever. But they were also sloppy. They were equally sloppy regarding the Crystal Night “telexes” that they concocted out of thin air for the IMT prosecution.

Let’s recap the main points of our interview thus far.

The Gleiwitz false flag never took place.

What reportedly did take place was a brief radio exercise or test conducted by a few purported SS men who properly identified themselves to station personnel on duty that night. Since the Gleiwitz station’s weather channel was not intended to broadcast far and wide but only locally (another glaring problem with the official narrative which I delve into in my books), it was the perfect station to conduct a relatively private test or exercise. (It was also the perfect station to serve as setting for a media hoax.)

What these SS men’s motives were for conducting said exercise/test remains unclear. My own research has revealed that communications were cut or failing all along the frontier leading up to the war, so it may be that they were simply interested to see whether the station was still functioning as intended. Perhaps they might need to use it for local communications purposes. It’s hard to say, but nothing sinister happened at that station and there are several witnesses who have attested to that. Those who have contradicted this version of what happened there, or could have contradicted it, are all confirmed traitors and/or IMT prosecution star witnesses. Or, they were murdered or died untimely deaths.

Convenient, isn’t it?

The Gleiwitz false flag is based on a real Abwehr/Grenzpolizei sabotage (“war crime”) mission behind Polish lines (i.e., the incident at Mosty).

At this point in our discussion, Jonas, it should not surprise anyone to learn that all of the surviving “stars” of the Gleiwitz, H/H and Pitschen stories were Abwehr traitors or SD/SS turncoats. What’s more, many of these same “stars” featured prominently for the IMT prosecution.

What a coincidence, eh?

The Gleiwitz hoax may have originated with Abwehr/Grenzpolizei traitors and was resurrected during the IMT as revenge for the Venlo affair.

After all, it was none other than Mr. Naujocks who successfully pulled off the kidnapping of two British SIS agents, Stevens and Best, by brazenly dashing across the Dutch border and hauling them off by motorcar after a brief scuffle and shootout. Mr. Churchill was furious and had to revamp the entire SIS as a direct result. This affair embarrassed Britain immensely—to be involved in such shenanigans!

What’s more, the Dutch had violated their own neutrality by allowing said agents to use their country as a spies’ playground. Hitler exploited this incident for all it was worth, which was quite a lot. It was such a lethal blow to British prestige and fair play that Mr. Winston Churchill and his fellow British authorities would have had good reason to use the very man who captured their agents, a man who had caused them so much political pain and international embarrassment, for their IMT casus belli against Germany. That man was none other than Mr. Naujocks.

Hence the resurrection of the Gleiwitz hoax for the IMT featuring Alfred Naujocks as star witness! The IMT scene likely went something like this: “We wrote up these nice affidavits for you, Mr. Naujocks. You sign your name to them and we let you go. Sound good?”

After signing off on the Gleiwitz affidavit (along with two others), Mr. Naujocks disappeared—until his strange death in the 1960s. You see, Mr. Naujocks was just about to be brought to trial by the West German government for the death of a man at the Gleiwitz transmitter station—because that’s what the official 1961 Gleiwitz movie put out by the communist East German government claimed had happened!!—when he just up and died. Or he disappeared.

Historians are not exactly sure which it was. But the craziest thing about that trial is that Naujocks was cleared of all charges (in absentia). The man who was allegedly shot and left for dead at the Gleiwitz station could not be identified. In fact, the prosecution could not establish that a shooting or murder had even taken place there! Yeah, the rabbit hole does go deep on this one.

I could go on and on with the curious details of this incident, but that would defeat the purpose of my two-volume book on this topic. I recommend folks read both books in order to know the Gleiwitz incident, and so much more, inside and out.


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
EDITORIAL DISCLOSURE
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.

Mark Dankof is the former 36th District Chairman of the Republican Party in King County/Seattle. He was an elected delegate to Texas State Republican Conventions in 1994 and 1996 and entered the United States Senate race in Delaware in 2000 as the nominated candidate of the Constitution Party against Democratic candidate Thomas Carper and Republican incumbent William Roth.

INTERVIEW WITH MARK DANKOF 
'A War Of Aggression On The Horizon?'
by Jonas E. Alexis and Mark Dankof 
Jonas E. Elexis Historian and World Events Journalism
Global News Aruba Contributor

Jonas E. Alexis: Mark Dankof believes that a war of aggression is on the horizon, and it involves the usual suspects: The United States, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. Is this true? Well, all you have to do is look around. The United States has already hired flaming Neocon Elliott Abrams to marshal regime change in Venezuela under the name of “restoring democracy and prosperity.”[1]

Abrams declared that it is “nice to be back” on the political scene, adding that “This crisis in Venezuela is deep and difficult and dangerous and I can’t wait to get to work on it.”[2] Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova couldn’t hold her laughter because people like Abrams have a history of destroying countries under the name of democracy and freedom. As Zakharova puts it,

“Democracy was ‘restored’ in Iraq. In Libya, too. In Syria they tried but failed, or rather weren’t allowed to. And now in Venezuela.”[3]

Jill Stein agreed that Abrams is a diabolical creature. She wrote:

Trump’s Venezuela point man Elliott Abrams:

-Backed death squads in Latin America that murdered 1000s for right-wing dictators

-Lied to Congress to cover up treasonous Iran-Contra affair

-Led 2002 US coup attempt in Venezuela

Still think this is about democracy & human rights?

Other political pundits declare the same thing. It sounds like Dankof was right: the political players continue to marshal a war of aggression virtually everywhere. These people must be exposed.

Q #1: US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Friday that Washington will jointly host a global summit focused on Iran and the Middle East in Warsaw from February 13 to 14. Pompeo said the meeting would “focus on Middle East stability and peace, freedom and security here in this region, and that includes an important element of making sure that Iran is not a destabilizing influence.” What is your take on the move by the US administration?

Dankof: Pompeo and Bolton have managed to bring American foreign policy to a new level of the tragi-comedic. Your own Tasnim News Agency now reports that the United States may have to cancel the Warsaw summit due to a combination of low attendance and the attendance of junior officials dispatched by key countries who are clearly signaling their disdain at what is clearly a waste of time.

It is a waste of time since the “destabilizing influence” in the Middle East is clearly the result of the criminal policies of the United States and its Israeli and Saudi friends in disregarding international law on a global basis.  The illegal use of NATO in Libya accompanied by the extra-judicial killing of Muammar Gaddafi; the employment of Sunni Wahhabic terrorists in Syria to overthrow the Assad regime; the utilization of the MEK/MKO terrorist organization to assassinate Iranian scientists in Tehran, even as the United States maintains high-level public contacts with the MEK/MKO leadership in Albania; the co-optation of the Trump regime by Zionist forces which has facilitated the theft of East Jerusalem, the continued illegal Israeli settlements on the West Bank, and Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza; the direct American political, logistical, and military support for Saudi Arabia’s genocidal activities in Yemen; and the unilateral cancellation by Trump of the multilateral P5+1 with Iran followed by wartime economic sanctions on Iran subsequent to Tehran’s absolute compliance with the treaty, are only a few examples which illustrate that no thinking person in the world truly takes anything seriously that Pompeo and Bolton say about peace and stability in the region.

When one adds to this the NATO military buildup on Mr. Putin’s borders, and the American/EU inspired coup d’etat in Ukraine in February of 2014, the picture of who is a “destablizing influence” and an aggressor becomes crystal clear.

Q #2: A group of activists in the United States and other countries have signed a petition, calling on European countries to boycott an anti-Iran summit set to be hosted by Washington in Poland next month. The online petition urges EU countries to skip Pompeo’s “belligerent conference” and “instead host an alternative one with all nations of the region, including Iran.” What do you think? Do you believe European nations will resist against Washington’s pressure campaign?

Dankof:  The fact that the Wall Street Journal is reporting that Pompeo is considering the cancellation of his circus in Warsaw is an indication to me that the European nations and Russia are all signaling to Washington that this ridiculous event inspired by Zionist, Neo-Conservative elements in the Trump Administration and the State Department is an absolute non-starter with anyone interested in peace and stability in the region and globally.

The European countries that signed P5+1 are trying to save the agreement.  It is also dawning on them that a war in the Middle East risks a blockage of the Strait of Hormuz that would sink the world economy, and potentially draw the Europeans into a conflict with Putin’s Russia that would be both unnecessary and devastating.  It hasn’t dawned yet on Trump, Pompeo, and Bolton and their Zionist Neo Conservative pals that such a war would lead the United States into a potentially devastating situation economically, as well as a military conflict with Russia and Iran, two nations with strong conventional military capabilities.

In the case of Russia, the development of hypersonic missiles leaves the American Navy’s aircraft carrier-based task forces vulnerable to instant devastation.  China might well dump American debt instruments on the open market which would cause economic havoc on a world-wide basis.  And if the American military finds itself in a quagmire in Afghanistan and Iraq, and effectively countered by Putin in Syria, why their masters would consider adding Iran, Russia, and possibly China into the mix indicates that a considerable number of people in the Trump Administration, the State Department, and the American National Security Establishment have taken complete leave of their senses.

There is one other factor Washington is not considering:  the possibility of a Left-Right antiwar coalition in the United States domestically that may bring a final revolt against the War Party and its friends in the Israeli Lobby and the military-industrial complex that may be seismic in its implications and outcome. Mr. Trump needs to understand that his own political survival will be impossible if he betrays his America First constituency and commits his countrymen to another worthless foreign intervention and war that no one can possibly win.  There will only be losers and survivors.

Q #3: Do you think that it would make sense for Europe to participate in the conference as European countries are still a party to the Iran nuclear agreement? Some European officials have reportedly said that they will not join the event.

Dankof:  From what I have read in the Wall Street Journal, the Europeans are not about to be dragged into Pompeo’s P. T. Barnum Circus in Warsaw.  P. T. Barnum was a great circus showman and promoter in a by-gone era in the States.  He made the infamous observation many years ago that, “There’s a Sucker Born Every Minute.” The Europeans and the Russians are not suckers.  They won’t buy tickets to Pompeo’s opening night act, even if Stormy Daniels shows up.

Q #4: The Trump administration’s withdrawal from the long-negotiated agreement and its increased hostility towards Iran that have added to the instability of the region and are threatening to unleash another devastating war in the Middle East. Do you believe so?

Dankof:  I absolutely believe that the chain of events over time I have already described indicates that a war of aggression on the part of the United States, Israel, and Saudi Arabia is on the horizon.  The most recent outrage which suggests this is the recent unlawful arrest and detention of Iranian-American journalist Marzieh Hashemi of Press TV/Iran in the United States without criminal charges being filed, a process which has ended in Ms. Hashemi’s release after 10 days.

This is clearly a violation of the First and Fourth Amendments of the United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights, and a less than veiled threat to antiwar, anti-Zionist journalists on both the American Left and the American Alt-Right issued by Mr. Pompeo and Mr. Bolton to these activists, broadcasters, and print journalists, that their work exposing the criminal plans of these malefactors is going to be shut down over time.

The Zionist minions working through the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai Brith (ADL), the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), and both American and Israeli intelligence are having tremendous success with censorship of Facebook, Google, YouTube, Twitter, and the like.  The latest is the Microsoft employment of the NewsGuard software in all of their mobile phones, and in research and academic centers and libraries in the United States, which would seek to discredit and demonize sources of news information that the Pompeos, the Boltons, and the Netanyahus of the world cannot tolerate.

Eventually, American broadcasters and journalists using non-MSM means of distributing their stories and analysis will be subjected to what befell Ms. Hashemi recently.  Thomas Jefferson understood this: The government that is the aggressor abroad becomes the oppressor at home.  It’s happening before our very eyes.


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
EDITORIAL DISCLOSURE
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.
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
EDITORIAL DISCLOSURE
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.

REFERENCES:
  • [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
EDITORIAL DISCLOSURE
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. 

THIS ARTICLE'S REFERENCES:
  • [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 

By Jonas E. Alexis World Events Journalism
Historian and Freelance News Reporter
Global News Aruba

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
EDITORIAL DISCLOSURE
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.

REFERENCES FOR THIS ARTICLE:
  • [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.