“In India, the initiative against corruption is coming from the bottom, in Russia from the top, and in the West they simply talk about it in left of centre blogs.”
Rakesh Simha
Category Archives: Media
Intelligence Ramps Up Anti-India Pressure? (Corrected)
UPDATE:
I had a chance to look at the Vohra and Chatwal cases and neither looked to me like anything manipulated from above. The Vohra case looked like an extortion case (false rape charges) that the courts eventually threw out for lack of evidence and Chatwal was also exonerated of felony drug charges. Furthermore, I’m not entirely sure of Manchanda’s credibility since he’s a former Freemason and CIA employee.
I’ve had a few exchanges with him about this case and I didn’t post anything about it because I was leery about the whole business.
So, Makow might be tossing in a couple of red herrings in order to discredit the entire “war on India” line.
[This is just speculation on my part and my concern is that something in this story will be found to be bogus and then discredit everything else in the piece.]
Caveat lector.
ORIGINAL POST
Henry Makow, an anti-feminist conspiracy site that might be disinformation but nonetheless has a lot of good information, has an interesting piece on the travails of Rahul Manchanda, an Indian-origin diplomat who, reportedly, fell afoul of the powers-that-be when he refused to toe the line on Iran.
The dream turned into a nightmare after a fact-gathering trip to Iran in 2006, sponsored by what may have been a CIA-front group called “Network 20.”Manchanda found that contrary to Iran’s image as a fanatic terrorist state, Iranians actually love the USA and just wanted to enjoy the American Dream as well. They weresocrippled by sanctions they could barely keep their economy running, let alone pose a threat. They were friendly, intelligent, moderate people.Manchanda’s “whole world changed.” When he returned, hewas pressured to write a report which vilified Iran. Instead, he urged the US to abandon adversarial colonial approaches and support democratic change in Iran. He says his report possibly influenced the 2007 “National Intelligence Estimate” which determined that Iran was not a threat.(With President Bush in happier times.) Manchanda was a “star” being groomed for higher things. His ethnicity made war mongering more credible to Americans. Similarly, he says “Obama has killed more brown people than any other president. If McCain had done it, he would be a war criminal.”
But after writing this report, the Cinderella Carriage quickly turned into a pumpkin. A series of scurrilous and defamatory lies appeared at “Rip Off Report” online, and both clients and staff fled his law firm in droves. He was subjected to many nuisance tax, labor and disciplinary audits.
“Overnight, I became a pariah,” he says. Suddenly, he was persona non grata in the mainstream media. In 2010, he filed for bankruptcy. A one-man law firm today, he is still one of the top immigration attorneys in the United States.
A George-Soros-funded feminist group, “Sanctuary for Families” got to his wife and she divorced him, taking their two children and involving him a protracted legal battle that was unwinnable because top NYC law firms donated their staff to this agency. Judges live in fear of it. All of his motions were denied. His appeals to higher legal authorities fell on deaf ears.
But the Illuminati weren’t finish yet. A young woman, Kate Bose, left, who has connections with the NYPD Intelligence Dept. entrapped him in a romantic relationship. After they moved into together, she accused him of “menacing” her during a verbal argument. He now faces a year in jail for having an argument with a woman and he is convinced he will be murdered in prison.
Meanwhile Kate Bose, who was practically insolvent, was rewarded with a $100K job with Ralph Lauren…….
The judge Tandra Dawson, left, is reportedly on the Board of “Sanctuary for Families”……
Manchanda is one of a score of Indian-American celebrities being persecuted as a way of pressuring India to take a more anti-Iranian foreign policy. These include banker Rajat Gupta, intellectual Dinesh S’Souza, Indian ambassador Devyani Khobrogade, developer Lakhinder Vohra, hotelier Vikram Chatwal, Mathew Martoma, Indian Ambassador Prabhu Dayal, Indian Ambassador Daughter Krittika Biswas, noted human rights lawyer Chaumtoli Huq, Indian actor Shah Rukh Khan, United States India Political Action Committee CEO Sanjay Puri, and countless others – all in New York City.”
[Lila: I’ve personally verified Manchanda’s earlier troubles with the family court in New York, but haven’t checked the later allegations.]
Of course, the high-level and thorough-going corruption of the US court system and political system never counts as corruption, when it comes to those “corruption indices” produced by the West, on the basis of which writers like Jayant Bhandari come up with
[I rephrased the last line to make it politer.]
Never mind that China, which Lew Rockwell often posits as a kind of answer to the US, is more corrupt than India and is on the 2014 list of the most corrupt countries in the world along with US allies Turkey and Afghanistan.
Are Turkey and Afghanistan – both Abrahamic in faith – also pre-rational?
Never mind that the anti-corruption drive in India is a Trojan horse for a top-down coup fronted by Anna Hazare.
Never mind that the British came to power in India through the most corrupt means ever (the Doctrine of Lapse among them) – despite allegedly uniquely Western rationality and impeccable virtue.
We were all taken by surprise when Raja Saheb walked into the engineer’s house and made this proposition to him: “I know normally a contractor pays five per cent as commission to the engineer supervising his work but this is a big project and it is difficult to calculate each engineer’s share. You being the seniormost among them, I shall bring you on the first of every month a packet containing an amount equal to twice the salary of each member of the engineering staff here and you can distribute it among them.” After consultations with his colleagues, the engineer conveyed their acceptance of his proposal.
The fact is that in 1943 a government officer accepting money for favours rendered in his official capacity was as legal as the unwritten British Constitution, regardless of the stringent punishment provided against it in the written law.”
Rakesh Simha at The Russia and India Report has an excellent analysis of the “corruption” meme, as the Anglo-American powers deploy it and as it really developed:
In the West, India and Russia are depicted as corrupt to the bone. In 1976 the US embassy in New Delhi noted that “corruption is not a phenomenon which was brought to India by the West,” adding, “Hindu and other religious shrines in India have long been known for their corrupt practices.”
And where did the Americans dig up this evidence? “Kautilya, the ancient philosopher, in his treatise Arthasastra refers to various kinds of corruption and prescribes corresponding punishments,” writes the learned diplomat, whoever he or she was.
Surely ancient India did not have a monopoly on corruption. It was at any rate more transparent than most civilisations – past or present. Over 2300 years ago, the Greeks who were defeated by the Indians sent an ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya, the Indian emperor. Megasthenes wrote an account of his years at Patliputra, Chandragupta’s capital, which he described as one of the most efficiently run cities in the world.
Bookkeeping of every economic activity was meticulous and free from corruption – and Victorian moralising. Megasthenes writes: “The Superintendent of Prostitution looked after prostitutes, controlled their charges and expenditures, and appropriated their earnings for two days of each month.” Kautilya says it was the duty of the Chief Controller of Entertainers to ensure the income of a prostitution establishment was not reduced by the extravagance of its madam.
How the West won – with bribes
Nobody is arguing India was corruption-free before the British arrived. But the British institutionalised corruption in India because it was so common back in Britain.
In the year 1651 the British obtained an official order granting exemption from payment of custom duties. Again in 1715, another Mughal emperor in an act of irresponsible magnanimity signed a decree giving the British not just inland trading rights, but the right to keep a garrison.
The British regularly flashed forged decrees at border posts, to sneak through all manners of goods duty-free. They also illegally sold their duty-free passes to Indian traders.
J.M. Opal, associate professor at McGill University, says the collapse of Mughal rule and the onset of civil government by a for-profit British corporation made “an ideal milieu for corruption, venality, and violence”. In 1769-1770 when failed rains triggered severe hunger in Bengal, the British disrupted both the production and distribution of rice, in some cases profiting from the sudden spike in the price of calories – crisis turned into catastrophe. Several million people perished.
American justice: Cash for kids
For sheer venality, nothing is likely to beat the corruption that blights the American justice system. In 2009 an unprecedented case of judicial fraud unfolded in Pennsylvania, where two judges pleaded guilty to taking bribes in return for placing an estimated 5000 youths in privately owned jails.
Judges Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan received $2.6 million for sending juvenile suspects to prisons operated by two companies – the inappropriately named PA Child Care and Western PA Child Care.
Some of the children jailed were as young as 10 and at least one killed themselves because the excessive sentences ruined their lives. Some were locked up even after probation officers recommended against it – one teenager was jailed for two years for joyriding in his parents’ car.
Corruption in the West: Hidden but huge
Corruption in the West rarely makes it to the front pages. This is because income tax officers don’t get caught accepting a briefcase full of cash in exchange for a tax write-off. You don’t have to pay a bribe in London or LA to pass a driver’s test. There are no touts at railway stations.
In the West they have long since moved to the high stakes table. Why chase measly millions when you can start a war and take home billions? American bean counters will forever argue over how many dollars were spent on the disastrous Iraq War. They may settle on US$1700 billion or US$2000 billion, but what is undeniable is that American companies walked away with at least US$138 billion.
No company has profited more from the carnage in Iraq than Halliburton, the company headed by Dick Cheney. The company was given $39.5 billion in Iraq-related contracts.
Such blatant profiteering sends out only one message to future Cheneys – even during failed wars, the merchants of death profit.
Europe: Closely behind
In 2012 a poll by Eurobarometer showed that 74 percent of Europeans thought corruption was a major problem in their country. The results show around 20 million bribes are paid to officials in the 18 European Union nations covered by the report. The European Commission estimates the cost of corruption is equivalent to 1 per cent of EU GDP, some US$156 billion.
Britain’s BAE Systems, the maker of the Typhoon jet, is alleged to have operated a multi-billion pound slush fund for paying bribes to members of the Saudi royal family and senior military officials. After 9/11, American prosecutors found documents to prove that some of the BAE kickbacks to the Saudis were used to bankroll at least two of the hijackers.
Former prime minister Margaret Thatcher’s son was also allegedly involved in this affair. In fact, the American prosecutors said payments were made with the knowledge and authorisation of Britain’s Ministry of Defence officials.
Return of the bottom feeders
Even as the sharks operate with impunity, the decline in incomes and wealth in the West is coinciding with a rise in corruption in strange places. Last year, a former Apple Inc manager pleaded guilty to accepting kickbacks from suppliers and manufacturers in Asia seeking contracts with the California gadget-maker…..”
Notably, LRC, which published Bhandari, also runs neoconservative mouthpieces like Walter Williams and John Loftus; pieces by ZeroHedge and James Altucher (both carry disinformation), and race-war propaganda, for example, from Jean Raspail (via Charles Burris), thereby proving, contra J. Bhandari, that servility to power and corruption are not solely the monopoly of Indian bureaucrats but flourish even among free market actors.
[I rewrote this last paragraph to make it less ad hominem.]
Peacock Propaganda: The Masonic Yazidi Deception
Hindu geopolitics gives the inside story of how the Yazidis (objects of ISIS/ISIL persecution) are being turned into Hindus as part of a Masonic/New World Order effort to create a world-religion and to ensnare Hindus into identifying with their geo-political aims:
And so the Yezidi plot thickens… a new delegation of Yezidi (some from the United States) have landed in India, right into the hands of ex-ISKONITE Brandon Parker. Brandon Parker is one of the founders of the “Yezidi Sanatan Dharma Society”, the goal of which is to “unite the two related” civilizations of the Yezidi and Hindus. It would seem that those who wish to destroy both Hindu and Yezidi civilization under the guise of “interfaith” have not been discouraged by the recent outflow of evidence that the entire plan to label the Yezidis as Hindus is nothing more than a disingenuous plot to deflect both Hindus and Yezidis away from their own national causes and at the same time confuse their very identities.
Brandon Parker runs with the like of Mark Pinkham, a Templar (Catholic) who is also desperately trying to pervert and subvert both Hinduism and the Yezidi to create a new “Peacock Christ Cult” in India (see here), along with the cult leader Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and his Art of Living (see here) who has no interest in maintaining the integrity of any religion but melding them all together into a New Age pot of nothingness. Neither Parker and his Yezidi Sanatan Dharma Soceity, nor Mark Pinkham and his “Christ Cult” nor Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and his Art of Living have any interest in promoting a free and independent Ezdistan Nation or unique Yezidi religious culture. All three outfits are only interested in distracting the Yezidi from their own religious ideals and pushing them unto Hindus at the Hindus’ expense… creating nothing but mistrust between the two groups and facilitating the religious, cultural and national genocide of both. Why haven’t any of these groups promoted Ezdistan, a Yezidi nation, why are they all so gungho to push the Yezidi into India an confuse their identity?
Well Brandon Parker has really shown himself to have no scruples when it comes to his academic integrity and political allegiances. In the below article published by World Hindu News, Mr. Parker shameless promotes the misconception that the Yezidi are from India, when their own legends state they are from Northern Iraq. And right under his announcement that he had received the Yezidi delegation in India, he goes on to praise the recently departed Saudi King Abdullah as being a “respected soul” who “opposed Wahabbi Islam”. Um, Saudi King Abdullah ruled over an Islamic state where non-Muslims were killed for blasphemy, hardly a religious reformer or “respected soul”. Who is this Brandon Parker and why are Hindus allowing him to control Yezidi-Hindu relations?
Hindus need to stand up and help the Yezidis build their own nation of Ezdistan, not allow ex-ISKONITES and Templars to use us to fund their “interfaith” games.
– Brandon Parker is a founder of the “Yezidi Sanatan Dharma Society” and is interested in “uniting the two related and ancient civilizations” of Hinduisn and the Yezidi religion.
Vrndavan Brannon Parker attended Vedic Gurukula schools from the age of 4 to 14 years. He studied in the USA, Canada and in Vrindavan, India. His main focus has been on highlighting the similarities between the ancient cultures and civilisations around the world and defining their Vedic roots and he has been researching and publicly presenting Vedic Historical and Cross-cultural connections since 1996. Brannon dedicates his time to working with organizations that promote Vedic Dharma.Both Nallein and Mr. Parker started the Yezidi Sanatana Dharma Society ( YSDS ) to unite two related and ancient civilizations, the Indians and the Yezidis. They can be reached at Nallein Satana Al-Jilwah Sowilo - lotussuns@gmail.com Vrndavan Brannon Parker Acbsp - brannonparker.vi@gmail.com - http://worldhindunews.com/2014100933404/%E2%80%8Byezidi-sanatan-dharma-society-yezidis-and-non-resident-indians-join-hands-for-the-yezidi-cause/– Parker lies and states that the Yezidis are originally from India (they are originally from Iraq per their own legends)
The Yezidis are an Aryan people originally from Airyna Vaeja the mystical Homeland of Aryans which is in present day India. The word Aryan is not related to race but refers to ‘The righteous’. The Yezidi calendar is 6764 yrs old and is the oldest in the Middle East. About 5000 years ago Yezidis migrated to Afganistan, Iran, Iraq and Middle East. At that time they were called Children of Melek Taus. Melek is an ancient Semite God of Babel and Caanite. Another spelling in Semite of Melek is Malik. Melek or Malik can be found in Sanskrit word Malaiklavon. Malaiklavon is another name for Murugan/Skanda, a God found in South India. - http://worldhindunews.com/2014100933404/%E2%80%8Byezidi-sanatan-dharma-society-yezidis-and-non-resident-indians-join-hands-for-the-yezidi-cause/– Brandon Parker is excited to host the new delegation of Yezidis in India
– Brandon Parker praises dead Saudi ruler as being a “respected soul” and “leader of the opposition” against Wahabbi Islam
– King Abdullah oversaw a nation where non-Muslims were sentenced to death
While King Abdullah championed interfaith dialogue on the world stage, in his own country, no religion other than Islam can be practiced in public. For example, The Guardian notes an estimated 1 million Roman Catholics live in Saudi Arabia -- most of them foreign workers -- but there's not a single church. Blasphemy and conversion from Islam are punishable by death.Adherents of Islam’s Shia denomination also face discrimination under the Sunni regime. The Shia minority complains of systematic exclusion from government, jobs and education. Shiites who called for equal rights in the 2011 street protests wererounded up and jailed.- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/23/saudi-king-abdullah-reformer_n_6534298.html
Roots, Not Symptoms, Mr. Raspail
Michael Hoffman, whose other views I don’t necessarily endorse, sees through Jean Raspail’s race-war propaganda classic, “The Camp of the Saints”:
How strange – not one word from Jean Raspail about who is really at fault for the invasion of France–the French themselves! Who were (and are) too hedonistic and selfish to average three or more French children per couple. Into this vacuum quite naturally (i.e. by the iron law of biology) rush those people who have enough sense to reproduce themselves (the Muslims) and who need lebensraum. Raspail deals, as do so many others, with symptoms and scapegoating: “those politicians” and that “sepulchral media” who vex “the still healthy body of the French nation.”
I assure Monsieur Raspail that the French people are desperately sick, not healthy, and that the “sepulchre” was built by the French themselves and the bones one finds there are of the aborted children who would have obstructed the multiple vacations, the second house, the third car. This sepulchre is also peopled by the spectre of millions of French children who were never conceived, for the same reasons.
Those white nations which do not have sufficient spark of life to reproduce themselves are indeed doomed, but this is no “conspiracy.” These are the inevitable wages of the Masonic, “secular Republic” that is France. The same is true for Italy, where the Catholic Church has auto-destructed and Germany, Spain, Sweden...all secular, all playboys and playgirls.
One cannot merely pay lip service to Christianity, tossing a bone to a mere nostalgia. The French, or for that matter the American intellectuals, even on the Right, dare not look to see what culture and religion prevailed when Charles Martel marched to Poitiers in 732, when Isabella reconquered Granada in 1492, when Pius V was victorious at Lepanto in 1571 and Nicholas, Graf von Salm in Vienna in 1529 and John Sobieski in that same city in 1683.
The West today, ruled ideologically by the spirits of Jean Jacques Rousseau, Charles Darwin, Albert Pike, Sigmund Freud and Menachem Mendel Schneerson cannot conquer, except from the cockpit of a glorified airborne video game attached to missiles.
Who is to blame for the demise of Europe– the healthy, fertile Muslims or the anemic, self-extinguishing denizens of the House of Usher? If lebensraum was a virtue for the Germans is it a vice for the Muslims? The most primitive pagan in the jungle knows what the “advanced” Europeans do not know, that sex without children is death!
And the current “Crusade”? It was only forty years ago that Jacqueline Kennedy wore a black veil at the funeral of her assassinated husband, and Christian women throughout Europe and America–sophisticated women of the middle and upper classes–wore head coverings in church. Now crusader George W. Bush is on a campaign to “free Muslim women” from standards of propriety and modesty not so different–at least in spirit– from what prevailed universally in the West as recently as four decades ago.
France has banned girls from wearing head scarves in its public schools, lest the girls appear too modest, and this in a France where rectums and genitals are on display on every street-corner kiosk, yet there is a morbid fear of the least display of chastity.
The Muslims rightly despise us because we have lost all self-respect; because we are not the people of the West any longer, but the people of the alchemical crucible of constant, ruinous transvaluation.
The West cannot turn its back on God and retain any territory anywhere, and when I say God I am not speaking of the god of the rabbis.
Roots, not symptoms, Monsieur Raspail.”
Subversion Of Language As Thought-Control
Note: I have had time to read more at Kreeft’s website, and, though I think he’s a good writer and thinker, he’s also wrong on several things. Here’s one:
He claims Hinduism is pantheistic. It is not. It is panentheistic (in its most developed forms), which is quite a different thing.
It is also monistic in some traditions, theistic in others, and even materialistic in still others.
Whether this is the sign of an agenda being pursued, I don’t know, not having read enough of Kreeft.
ORIGINAL POST
Peter Kreeft, a Christian professor of philosophy, the author of 75 books defending Christianity, explains how cultural subversion works through language:
In light of the President’s recent “evolution” on same-sex marriage, here’s a 2004 interview Dr. Peter Kreeft gave to the Boston College Observer (text posted at PeterKreeft.com):
What are your thoughts on the current debate about gay marriage?
Dr. Peter Kreeft: As a philosopher the thing that strikes me most is the brilliant strategy of the gay marriage movement. Like Orwell in 1984 it sees that the main battlefield is language. If they can redefine a key term like “marriage” they win.
Control language and you control thought; control thought and you control action; control action and you control the world.
Mussolini knew that too. He made it illegal for Italians to say “hi” in the traditional way. The Italian for “how are you?” is “Come sta lei?” “Lei” is the feminine inclusive pronoun. Fascist ideology held that this was emasculating and weak, so you had to say “Come sta lui?” from now on. “Lui” is the masculine pronoun. So no one could say “hi” in Italy without identifying themselves as pro or anti-fascist.
In America, the feminists have succeeded in exactly the same way. They’ve labeled the traditional inclusive language, the language of every single one of the great books of Western civilization written in English, as exclusive because it uses “he” and “man” to include women; and they’ve labeled their new artificial ideological invention, which insists, contrary to historical fact, that “he” and “man” exclude women—they’ve labeled this “inclusive” language. And amazingly, nearly everyone follows like sheep!
So it will be easy, I think, for them to redefine marriage. Hell, they’ve already redefined “human beings” or “persons” so that they can murder the littlest ones whenever they want to. Why should they feel any guilt about dishonesty when they don’t feel any guilt about murder?
I think you will find that there is an overwhelmingly strong connection between these three agendas: gay marriage, feminism, and abortion.
Lila: It was the reading I did while researching my blog posts that led me to the same conclusion – something I’d sensed when I was much younger in a more inchoate fashion:
Very seldom do you find people who are for one but not the other, or against one but not the other. And what they all have in common is this attitude toward language: it is what the most powerful and insidious propaganda film in history called “the triumph of the will.”Already in Canada it is a crime, punishable by a fine or even imprisonment, to speak against homosexuality in public. Politically incorrect ideas, such as Biblical morality, are now defined as “hate speech.”
One of the things I fear from this is an ugly backlash against homosexuals. If the truth is now whatever we will, then just as there is nothing to stop society today from redefining marriage, there is nothing to stop it tomorrow from redefining personal dignity and rights so as to take them away from homosexuals. The Nazis did exactly that.
The Church is the best friend of homosexuals, both because she tells them they are made in God’s image and have intrinsic dignity and rights and are called to be saints, and because she is the only social force left that insists on moral absolutes—so when they sin against themselves she says NO, just as she does to heterosexuals who sin against themselves sexually, but when others sin against them she says NO also.
No one else dares to say NO. She speaks up for everyone, including homosexuals.
Read the rest at PeterKreeft.com.
Some of the best friends I’ve had in this country have been homosexuals. Their intelligence and empathy for a foreigner (I’m actually a foreign-born citizen) helped me immeasurably in my life.
Several of them were spiritually inclined; all were more than ordinarily intelligent and perceptive. No personal animosity toward them as people, no physical repugnance toward their sexuality (“homophobia” properly called) motivates me.
I simply see in the diabolically subtle propaganda surrounding this issue frightening portents of the future for everyone, including homosexuals themselves, as Dr. Kreeft convincingly argues.
The one who says “no” is not necessarily the one who is inimical to you. The one who says “yes” is not necessarily your friend.
Patriot or Shill? Deconstructing Ann Barnhardt
Update:
Also telling is the fact that Barnhardt converted to traditional Catholic teaching only in 2007.
Before that, she was a non-believer who’d rejected the universalist type of low church (United Church of Christ) she attended as a child.
The 2007 conversion is only two years before her 2009 conviction of fraud, which becomes even stranger in that context.
ORIGINAL POST
Recently, I ran across rants from a Catholic financial manager who, supposedly, called out the financial collapse in advance and then shut down her business to tour the country warning of problems to come.
ZeroHedge publishes her (a problem just there, since ZH, whom I sometimes cite , runs a lot of disinformation, as I’ve blogged before).
So does Glenn Beck, who also promotes her.
See where I’m going?
For a devout Catholic, Barnhardt swears a lot in public and engages in unnecessarily incendiary anti-Islamic actions, such as, burning the Koran in a viral video and denouncing the religion in this video.
[Barnhardt has every right to her opinion. My point is solely that the style and language of her presentation conflict with her self-portrait as a devout Christian. Some samples: “faggotry”; “pervy war-mongering Bedouin trash”; “scum”.]
Some other points:
1. Barnhardt attacks “halal” food (food made according to Islamic standards), but doesn’t attack “kosher” (food made according to Jewish standards).
2. She fears Islamic Sharia law in the US, but not the Jewish Noahide laws or Halakha.
See here for an extended discussion of Sharia, Halakha, and Canon law in the US.
3. Barnhardt refers to “shape-shifting Joooooooos“ in one post in a sarcastic slap at people who criticize the Zionist world order:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:EoSNhqZhY1QJ:www.barnhardt.biz/author/annb/page/4/+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
The problem is that the psychiatric medications, we now know, often do far more harm than good, and elicit or even create murderous, suicidal rage monster reactions. Adam Lanza, the Giffords shooter, the Aurora movie theater shooter – all of these men should have been sent to insane asylums, and all of the signs were there. Total detachment from reality.
I have multiple people who email me who are in this category, and I keep an eye on their emails just to be sure there are no suicide or murder rampage threats contained therein, but they pretty much have two things in common: they subscribe to all of the boilerplate whack job conspiracy theories, and they are all convinced that I am communicating with them personally, that they are engaged in an intimate personal relationship with me, and that I am destined to be their wife/girlfriend/sex slave/baby mama. And we shall go to the secret underground lair and vanquish the shape-shifting lizard jooooz and their mind control chemicals together.
See also: http://www.barnhardt.biz/the-one-about-sharia-finance-blankies-and-axe-body-spray/
4. She attacks 9/11 researchers as ignorant, sick, and anti-Semitic.
5. Then, in this piece she describes ethnic Jews/national Israel as proxies for humanity, which is a kabbalistic notion, not a Christian one:
In this portion, I would like to focus once again especially on the Jews in the audience. So far, we have established how Israel has been the proxy for humanity throughout Salvation History. Understanding that as we do, we can now see that to hate Israel is to hate humanity itself.
All we need do to confirm this is look at where the locus of anti-Semitism exists in today’s world. There are two main loci today: Marxism and islam. Both of these political systems have at their core an intrinsic hatred of the individual man. Both mask this seething hatred by wrapping themselves in a false cloak of collectivism, manifested in the call for Marxist class warfare and jihad. Both systems use the Jews as their primary scapegoat and whipping boy, blaming all problems in the world on Jews, and then calling for the “final solution” to the stumbling block to utopia that is the Jewish race.
From the Koran to Mein Kampf, the rhetoric is exactly the same: exterminate the Jews so that utopia can be achieved. But what this is at its core is a call to exterminate humanity itself, which is the ultimate goal of both Marxism and islam. If the Jews are exterminated, the rest of humanity will follow quickly, because if the Jews are exterminated, that means that there are no longer any people of good will on earth who could see and understand the representative quality of humanity itself in Israel. No one would be left to take up the banner of Christ and the Church Militant to march against the forces of evil in defense of not just Israel, but of all human life on earth. It is essential to approach, understand and see this coming war with the forces of evil through that lens.
6. She writes that she is going to fight the common era crowd (those who use C.E. or common era, rather than A.D. or anno domini, year of our lord), by using her own term:
So, I have decided to go super hardcore in my war against the “common era” crowd. There is actually a notation that is way old-school, that is even more in-your-face than Anno Domini. Check it:
A.R.S.H.
Anno
Reparatae
Salutis
Humanae“In The Year Of The Reparation Of Human Salvation”
I have put the request in to the webwizard to change the date formatting at the top of each post to this format. I will also be writing ARSH on everything I date from now on, replacing my standard “AD”.
The phrase “reparation of human salvation” seems to come from the writings of a medieval Cistercian prioress, Beatrice of Nazareth (in Belgium), whose meditations show up in collections of medieval feminine mysticism.
The removal of the masculine “our lord” with its reference to Jesus and its replacement with “reparation” and “human salvation” (strangely similar to the kabbalistic “tikkun olam“) is quite significant and gives us a clue to the agenda behind Barnhardt.
But this strange, made-up, religio-feminist phrase that Barnhardt feeds gullible Catholic traditionalists already has a meaning.
A: According to Muslim scholars, and the Arabic language, `Arsh means a throne or a throne belonging to a king.
The `Arsh of Allah is an extremely large and great Throne; it is the greatest thing created by Allah. It has four legs, and is carried by Angles. Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) is above the `Arsh as He (Glorified and Exalted be He) says about Himself: <> (Surah Taha 20:5). And: <<indeed, who=”” the=”” a=”” your=”” lord=”” is=”” allâh,=”” created=”” heavens=”” and=”” earth=”” in=”” six=”” days,=”” then=”” he=”” rose=”” over=”” (istawâ)=”” throne=”” (really=”” manner=”” that=”” suits=”” his=”” majesty)=””>> (Surah Al-A’raf 7:54).
Thus, it is a significantly large `Arsh; none knows how great the size of its magnificence is except Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) Who created it (but we are told by the Prophet that it is very large). This `Arsh is like a dome stretching over the entire universe; it is the ceiling of the whole universe. It is also the ceiling of Paradise; nothing is above it except Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He).
How’s that for a little New World Order insider fun at the expense of Christian rubes?
7. She’s friends with Rabbi Jon Hausman.
Hausman is a friend of Geert Wilders.
The spiritual leader of Ahavath Torah is one Rabbi Jon Hausman, we hate to give him more publicity than he deserves but a little background on him will clear this matter up sufficiently.
Rabbi Hausman is a friend and admirer of Geert Wilders, the neo-fascist Dutch politician who has called for the deportation of Muslim citizens, banning the construction of Mosques, the banning of religious freedom for Muslims, the banning of the Quran, a tax on hijabs and other similar nonsense. Rabbi Hausman invited Wilders to speak to his congregation where he spouted verbatim the above positions. Wilders, bestowed on the Rabbi the “honorific” title of “the Warrior Rabbi” which coming as it does from a fascist should send shivers down the spine of any sensible person who cares about Democratic values. That Hausman can revel in such praise from a vile cretin like Wilders exposes his moral bankruptcy and reveals how unfit and inept he is to lead a congregation. I posit another title for Hausman, instead of “the Warrior Rabbi” he may better be known as “the Betraying Rabbi” for his betrayal of Judaic values and “never again” for any people.
8. Even her persona sounds like a composite concocted by the powers-that-be. It doesn’t ring true.
Look at this photo of Ms. Barnhardt with a pink gun and red shoes.
The staring eyes resemble Michele Bachman; the pose, Sarah Palin; the macho street language and anti-Muslim rhetoric, Pamela Geller.
And she uses quotes (Tu ne cede malis….) that have been associated life-long with anti-state websites, like LRC and Mises.
[But, she trashes Ron Paul as an Islamic appeaser who wants Israel wiped off the map and she prefers Obama to him, when push comes to shove.]
9. And then I find that in 2009, while she was still a commodities broker, a couple of years before she popped up in the national media as a truth-teller and patriot hero, she had been successfully sued for fraud.
That is very similar to the past history of the Russian immigrant who (along with many others) runs ZeroHedge, although in her case, the matter is much more serious.
I like a lot of ZH’s commentary, but there’s definitely something odd going on there.
I don’t believe it is “Russian” disinformation, though, unless you want to add, Russian, with HQ in the USA.
Here’s a comment at ZH on Barnhardt’s conviction:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/first-mfglobal-now-pfg-who-next
I particularly enjoyed Annie B’s rant. All the rage of a reformed sinner. On 10/28/2009 (Case #09ARB00009, filed 01/20/09) the NFA issued a finding & award in the matter of Moiola Brothers Cattle Feeders, ltd. vs. Barnhardt Capital Mgmt. She was charged with “constructive fraud, fraud and deceit, misrepresentations of material facts, excessive trading, failure to follow instructions, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of NFA Compliance rules (listed), violation of Sections (listed) of the Commodity Exchange Act, Violation of CFTC Regulations (listed). The Moiola Brothers sought $350,000 in Compensatory damages + $100,000 in Punitive; award was $50,000 + $50,000. Bad girl, Ann Elizabeth. She’s mightily pissed because little minnows like her get caught while sharkz like Corzine swim away. Still, none of us is pure…. @ http://www.nfa.futures.org/basicnet/Arbitration.aspx?entityid=0282801&case=09ARB00009.
A conviction under federal law makes a person uniquely susceptible to any arm-twisting by the government.
It is probably the reason that Ms. Barnhardt shut down her business in 2011, a couple of years later. The conviction would have had to be disclosed to potential clients, who would naturally choose another broker.
Plus, the government would have subjected her to a variety of compliance measures that would have made continued operation impossible.
So she didn’t really “go Galt,” as she says.
My conviction is the woman is engaged in some kind of disinformation or infiltration (of the Cass Sunstein variety).
The purpose is to claim dissident status among Christians, while actually venting tropes that aid the long-term goals of the establishment.
Controlled opposition.
Googling, I find that the astute Mr. North seems to smell a rat too:
“When a woman comes in the name of Christ with this vocabulary, do not pay any attention to her. It is bad enough when a man uses such language in public. For a Christian woman, it is reprehensible.
She has become a foul-mouthed embarrassment to the Catholic Church. She should be disciplined by her priest. If she does not publicly repent and apologize for this article, she should be excommunicated….
This woman needs professional psychological counseling……….
North quotes lengthy passages from her writing and notes that she is passing on language from popular movies, a clever way to hook into the subconscious of her listeners:
“I’m your Huckleberry” was what the script writer for Tombstone put into the mouth of Doc Holliday, in his challenge to Johnny Ringo. (Just for the record, the encounter never happened.)
She is not Doc Holliday, but the IRS really is the administrative equivalent of Johnny Ringo. She can’t shoot straight. The IRS can.
She has crossed over a line: from legitimate concern over the state of the financial system and the society to a quest for ersatz martyrdom.
Avoid her.”
Bloomsbury’s Last Secret: Sado-Masochism
Lytton Strachey, the cultural critic and author of “Eminent Victorians,” a book that aimed to expose the darker nature of Christian public figures like Florence Nightingale, is one of the most celebrated figures of the early twentieth century British intellectual circle called the Bloomsbury group.
The group was named after the Bloomsbury neighborhood in central London where members lived and worked.
The circle included some of the most important intellectuals of the time – the famous economist John Maynard Keynes; the feminist writer Virginia Woolf and her husband, the critic Leonard Woolf; the author E.M Forster and the philosopher G.E.Moore.
Many of them had met while students at Cambridge and they continued to maintain close ties with Cambridge scholars and with groups like the Fabian Society.
The Fabians advocated socialism through gradualism and evolution rather than revolution, but, as with Marx and Engels, they were not from the working-class that they claimed to champion, but from the upper middle-class and higher.
Bertrand Russell, the mathematician, was one of the Fabians and he promoted the one- world government favored by the elite class, as well as its cultural agenda of rampant hedonism, practicing the latter by discarding three wives in turn.
The Fabians also included Beatrice and Sidney Webb, notorious for covering up Soviet communist atrocities; the great playwright George Bernard Shaw, who admitted that the “democratic” part of the Fabian platform was pure propaganda; Annie Besant, a theosophist who was instrumental in the founding of the Indian Independence Movement, which was thus from the start infiltrated by the British; and Harold Laski, whose socialist theories filtered down to the former colonies through his teaching position at the London School of Economics. Generations of post-colonial leaders were indoctrinated there in an ideology that was inherently atheistic, radically egalitarian, and totalitarian in nature.
[Celebrated artist Eric Gill, along with G.K. Chesterton, one of the founders of an alleged “third-way” between capitalism and socialism, was also a Fabian at one point.
Gill was regarded for a long time as a kind of secular saint.
But research in recent years has revealed a different picture.
Unknown to the public, Gill was an incestuous pedophile and adulterer, drew pornographic religious art, and dabbled in exhibitionism, homosexuality, and zoophilia, both before and after his “conversion” to Catholicism.]
Through the Woolfs and their friends, the Bloomsbury group was closely tied to the universities, the occult societies, the Fabians, the left, the anti-colonial leadership, and the League of Nations.
The ideas that permeated one area were inextricably joined with the ideas influencing another.
Property redistribution melded into wife/lover-swapping, polyamory, homosexuality, bisexuality, and pederasty.
Property, Christianity, bourgeois morality, and empire – they all had to fall together.
Not surprisingly, the enlightened Fabian agenda hid many base appetites.
Keynes was an open homosexual/bisexual and pederast:
Zygmund Dobbs wrote in his work Keynes at Harvard:
“ In 1967 the world was startled by the publication of the letters between Lytton Strachey and Maynard Keynes. Undisputed evidence in their private correspondence shows that Keynes was a life-long sexual deviate. What was more shocking was that these practices extended to a large group. Homosexuality, sado-masochism, lesbianism, and the deliberate policy of corrupting the young was the established practice of this large and influential group which eventually set the political and cultural tone for the British Empire.Keynes’ sexual partner, Lytton Strachey, indicated that their sexual attitudes could be infiltrated, “subtly, through literature, into the bloodstream of the people, and in such a way that they accepted it all quite naturally, if need be, without at first realizing what it was to which they were agreeing.” He further explained, privately, that, “he sought to write in a way that would contribute to an eventual change in our ethical and sexual mores—a change that couldn’t ‘be done in a minute,’ but would unobtrusively permeate the more flexible minds of young people.” This is a classic expression of the Fabian socialist method of seducing the mind. This was written in 1929 when it was already in practice for over forty years. It is no wonder we are reaping the whirlwind of student disorders where drug addiction and homosexuality rule the day.[9]
Virginia Woolf, who had a history of molestation and mental illness, had a lesbian affair and eventually killed herself.
Strachey himself was a homosexual pederast.
Letters published in 2005 show that Strachey also practiced S&M and once staged a blasphemous sado-masochistic crucifixion scene with his gay lover.
Thus behind the political revolution, we find the sexual revolution, and behind that an agenda that is essentially anti-Christian.
“Although Strachey had had a heterosexual relationship with the painter Dora Carrington, with whom he set up house in 1917, he soon became predominantly homosexual – with an occasional flicker of interest directed at women, including Katherine Mansfield. His last boyfriend was Roger Senhouse, who subsequently became a distinguished publisher.
Dearest old creature, what a villain you are! It was certainly settled that you were to keep Monday for me, and now I gather you’ve arranged to do something else. Tut, tut! What is to be done with you? What fearful punishment? To stand with the right ear nailed in the pillory, I think, at Piccadilly Circus, from midday to sunset on that very Monday!
To Roger Senhouse, Wednesday, July 30, 1930
Strachey had always delighted in verbal blasphemy – and, as described here, playing at crucifixion added erotic spice. I imagine the cut was made, à la Longinus’s spear, in Strachey’s side, which would have made it difficult to apply the salve.
My own dearest creature. Such a very extraordinary night! The physical symptoms quite outweighed the mental and spiritual ones – partly because they persisted in my consciousness through a rather unsettled but none the less very satisfactory sleep. First there was the clearly defined pain of the cut (a ticklish business applying the lanoline – but your orders had to be carried out) and then the much vaguer afterpangs of crucifixion – curious stiffnesses moving about over my arms and torso, very odd – and at the same time so warm and comfortable – the circulation, I must presume, fairly humming – and vitality bulking large… where it usually does – all through the night, so it seemed. But now these excitements have calmed down – the cut has quite healed up and only hurts when touched, and some faint numbnesses occasionally flit through my hands – voilà tout, just bringing to the memory some supreme highlights of sensation…”
Gay Activist: Xtians Must Be Forced To Accept Homosexuality
Frank Bruni, former food-critic, current theological airhead, and gay-wrongs advocate at The New York Times proposes that Christians be forced to embrace the gay life-style, because it’s their choice to keep believing antiquated dogmas that go against science.
Get that? Bruni is turning the Christian argument that homosexuality is a moral choice back against Christians.
So our debate about religious freedom should include a conversation about freeing religions and religious people from prejudices that they needn’t cling to and can indeed jettison, much as they’ve jettisoned other aspects of their faith’s history, rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity,” Bruni writes.
Bruni’s piece quotes prominent gay furniture-maker and philanthropist Mitchell Gold who wants conservative Christians to abandon their beliefs:
Gold told me that church leaders must be made “to take homosexuality off the sin list.”
His commandment is worthy — and warranted. All of us, no matter our religious traditions, should know better than to tell gay people that they’re an offense. And that’s precisely what the florists and bakers who want to turn them away are saying to them.”
What a difficult choice for Christians.
On on hand, the commandment of Jesus Christ, who rose from the dead; who has been worshiped as god by billions through the last 20 centuries; who was the fountain-head of some of the greatest artistic and scientific achievements of all time; who confirms moral teachings given by all the major faiths and by a preponderance of secular thinkers.
On the other hand, the querulous demand of a gay, anti-Christian crony- capitalist Yankee from the center of the Democrat political machine, New Jersey:
For the past eight years, Gold, a secular Jew from New Jersey, has been conducting a one-man campaign against what he calls “religion-based bigotry”—the invocation of biblical authority to justify denying rights to Americans on the basis of their sexual orientation. It is, to his Yankee ear, directly analogous to the way Southern preachers once cited scripture to defend the Jim Crow system. “One of the things I’ve learned is that on the other side, there are a lot of good people, and they do not want to be bigots,” Gold told me when we first met this summer at the condo he and his husband, Tim, keep in Washington, D.C. “And unless we teach them that, in fact, they are bigots, they will never know that what they are doing is really harmful to people.”
Gold is among a growing number of corporate executives pouring resources into the cause of gay rights this year. Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s chief executive, pledged $2.5 million in support of same-sex marriage legislation in Washington state, and hedge-fund head Paul Singer has given $1 million to a Super PAC that supports pro-gay Republican candidates.
Yes, a very tough call for Christians.
As Jonathan Merritt points out, coercion has always brought out the Christianity in Christians.
It will be no different in modern America:
Those who hope to direct Christianity’s future must comprehend its past. The world’s largest faith was built upon the ashes of martyrs and forged from the fires of persecution. And the narrative of oppression and struggle has united Christians throughout the centuries. To wit:
- The anonymous “Letter to Diognetus” (AD 80 – 200): “Christians…love all men, and are persecuted by all.”
- Augustine (AD 354 – 430): “If you see that you have not yet suffered tribulations, consider it certain that you have not begun to be a true servant of God.”
- Martin Luther (AD 1483 – 1546): “Men despise the Evangel and insist on being compelled by the law and the sword.”
- Dietrich Bonheoffer (AD 1906 – 1945): “When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die.”
Of course, Christians will not be killed today for refusing to comply.
They will merely lose their businesses and jobs; be refused public platforms; be ostracized by “polite” society and academia…..and even by “hip” preachers, clever enough to divorce Jesus from his message and claim the former, while abusing the latter.
It will be (as it has been) a moral martyrdom. of constant humiliation, ridicule, and libel hurled by the most powerful media ever to exist, one owned and operated by people suffering from never-extinguished spite against the teaching of Jesus Christ.
That, and not love of homosexuals, is what lies behind the pious sermons of today’s Yankee preachers.
How Many German Women Did GIs Rape?
In a recent book, “When The Soldiers Came: The rape of German women at the end of WWII ” (Random House, March 2, 2015) Miriam Gebhardt, a German feminist claims that American soldiers raped 190,000 German women during the occupation of Europe after WWII (1945-1955).
The book is being trumpeted in the mainstream press, from The Daily Telegraph to Der Spiegel and The Daily Mail , and also in the alternative media.
In the process, the 190,000 becomes “hundreds of thousands,” then, “a quarter of a million,” (adding rapes by British soldiers) and then (perhaps by adding other post 1945 occupation estimates) “nearly a million” on the Internet.
However, even the author’s central claim of 190,000 rapes by American soldiers is arrived at by extrapolation from much lower figures in the record, as Der Spiegel reports:
“The total is not the result of deep research in archives across the country. Rather, it is an extrapolation. Gebhardt makes the assumption that 5 percent of the “war children” born to unmarried women in West Germany and West Berlin by the mid-1950s were the product of rape. That makes for a total of 1,900 children of American fathers. Gebhardt further assumes that on average, there
are 100 incidents of rape for each birth. The result she arrives at is thus 190,000 victims.Such a total, though, hardly seems plausible. Were the number really that high, it is almost certain that there would be more reports on rape in the files of hospitals or health authorities, or that there would be more eyewitness reports. Gebhardt is unable to present such evidence in sufficient quantity.
Another estimate, stemming from US criminology professor Robert Lilly, who examined rape cases prosecuted by American military courts, arrived at a number of 11,000 serious sexual assaults committed by November, 1945 — a disgusting number in its own right.”
More scholarly research suggests that Gebhardt’s extrapolations are more true of the Red Army, whose post-war rape of German women is a far better known story.
In July 2009, reviewing the American premiere of “A Woman In Berlin,” a film about the mass rape of German women after the liberation/conquest of Berlin after WW II, an NPR review cites a figure of “2 million” rapes as having been established by historians through hospital records, but then writes that the vast majority were committed by Soviet soldiers. Several hundred rapes, confirmed by court-martial and other records, were committed by Allied soldiers.
In Elisabeth Jean Wood’s “Sexual violence during war: toward an understanding of variation,” (in “Order, Conflict, and Violence,” Shapiro, Kalyvas, and Masoud eds, Cambridge U. Press, 2008), she cites Norman Naimark, “The Russians in Germany: A History of the Soviet Zone of Occupation, 1946-1949“ (Belknap Press, 1995) and Anthony Beevor, “The Fall of Berlin 1945” (Viking, 2002) for estimates of the number of rapes committed by Soviet troops in Berlin alone in 1945, and says the “best estimates” were made by staff at two hospitals in Berlin alone who put the number at between 95,000 and 130,000 (Beevor, 2002, 410).
In The Guardian in May 2002, Beevor describes the situation outside Berlin thus:
“The death rate was thought to have been much higher among the 1.4 million estimated victims in East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia. Altogether at least two million German women are thought to have been raped, and a substantial minority, if not a majority, appear to have suffered multiple rape.”
But those are rapes by the Red Army, not by the allies, and that is an established historical narrative, supported by multiple credible authors.
In May 2014, Deanna Spingola, a well-known anti-Zionist “conspiracy” researcher in the alternative media, published a 794 page book on the Allied rape of women in WW II, “The Ruling Elite: Death, Destruction, and Domination“(Spingola, Trafford, 2014).
Spingola’s book only claims 14,000 rapes were inflicted by Allied soldiers, a much more sober account than the mainstream version, suggesting, as usual, that the mainstream purveys paranoia, conspiracy, and libel at least as often as the “conspiracy” community….and usually with much less warrant.
Spingola bases the 14,000 claim on hospital and court records, citing Giles MacDonogh, 2007, and Jeffrey Burds, 2009.
I looked up both books.
“After the Reich: The Brutal History of the Allied Occupation,” MacDonogh, Basic Books, 2007, is the work of a former Financial Times food journalist.
According to this review, MacDonogh’s book covers such horrors as the starvation and/killing/unnecessary deaths of some 3 million Germans in the post-war occupation, the slaughter of some 250,000 Sudetan Germans by Czechs, which I’ve blogged about earlier, and the mass rape of German women.
He writes that the mass rape of German women was largely the work of the Soviet army, although there were several thousands of rapes perpetrated by Allied soldiers, including the American and French. MacDonogh claims that the British were less culpable in this area, preferring to barter for sex.
Mark Weber of the Institute for Historical Research (a scholarly Holocaust revisionist site), reviewing MacDonogh, says this about the rapes:
“Although most of the millions of German girls and women who were ravished by Allied soldiers were raped by Red Army troops, Soviet soldiers were not the only perpetrators. During the French occupation of Stuttgart, a large city in southwest Germany, police records show that 1,198 women and eight men were raped, mostly by French troops from Morocco in north Africa, although the prelate of the Lutheran Evangelical church estimated the number at 5,000. “
Spingola’s other source is Jeffrey Burds, “Sexual Violence in Europe in WWII, 1939-1945” (Politics & Society, 2009).
I couldn’t find the 14,000 number cited by Spingola until I looked at another book from the same year, “Taken By Force: Rape and American GIs In Europe In WWII,“ (Palgrave Macmillan: August, 2007) by J. Robert Lilley, an internationally known criminologist and sociologist, which gives the 14,000 number as the count for all Allied rape victims in France, Belgium, and Germany. Note that Lilley is one of Gebhardt’s sources, from which she extrapolated her 195,000 figure.
In any case, a year before Spingola and two years before Gebhardt, the Allied rape story had already been covered in an academic book.
In “What Soldiers Do: Sex and the American GI,” (U. of Chicago Press, May, 2013) Professor Mary Louise Roberts of Wisconsin University described how GIs raped French women after WWII, again citing the figure of 14,000 for the number of women raped by GIs in Western Europe.
That would include West Germany, but not East Germany, of course, since East Germany was taken over by the Russians, not the Allies.
The book was reviewed by the New York Times. The reviewer describes why an earlier account of GI rape in 2003 by Robert Lilley had had a hard time getting published outside academia – it appeared to show the disproportionate prosecution of rapes committed by black GIs and it was written during the Iraq war.
Another figure for rape in the European theater, 17000, also comes from Lilley, with the explanation that the difference between this figure and the figures in the JAG (Judge Advocate General) record reflects that branch being overwhelmed by cases.
But Gebhardt’s thesis should not entirely be dismissed because of her failure to present convincing evidence.
Her larger argument carries weight. Calling sexual interactions between occupying soldiers and impoverished women in an occupied country “voluntary” is surely a euphemism, as this harrowing account of the interaction between American GIs and Japanese women in occupied Japan argues:
“Immediately after the Japanese surrendered in 1945, the Japanese Ministry of the Interior made plans to protect Japanese women in its middle and upper classes from American troops. Fear of an American army out of control led them to quickly establish the first “comfort women” stations for use by US troops.7 By the end of 1945, the Japanese Ministry of Home Affairs had organized the Recreation Amusement Association (R.A.A.), a chain of houses of prostitution with 20,000 women who serviced occupation forces throughout Japan.8 (Many more women known as panpan turned to prostitution in the struggle to survive in the midst of the postwar devastation.) Burritt Sabin of the Japan Times reported in 2002 that just days before the R.A.A. was to open, hundreds of American soldiers broke into two of their facilities and raped all the women.9 The situation prompted MacArthur and Eichelberger, the two top military men of the U.S. occupation forces, to make “rape by Marines” their very first topic of discussion.10 Yuki Tanaka notes that 1300 rapes were reported in Kanagawa prefecture alone between August 30 and September 10, 1945, indicative of the pervasiveness of the phenomenon in the early occupation.11
Historian Takemae Eiji reports that
. . . US troops comported themselves like conquerors, especially in the early weeks and months of occupation. Misbehavior ranged from black-marketeering, petty theft, reckless driving and disorderly conduct to vandalism, assault arson, murder and rape. . . . In Yokohama, Chiba and elsewhere, soldiers and sailors broke the law with impunity, and incidents of robbery, rape and occasionally murder were widely reported in the press. 12Two weeks into the occupation, the Japanese press began to report on rapes and looting.13 MacArthur responded by promptly censoring all media. Monica Braw, whose research revealed that even mention of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and particularly the effects of the bomb on civilians, were censored, maintains that pervasive censorship continued throughout the occupation years. “It [censorship] covered all means of communications and set up rules that were so general as to cover everything. It did not specify subjects prohibited, did not state punishment for violations, although it was clear that there were such punishments, and prohibited all discussion even about the existence of the censorship itself.”14
Censorship was not limited to the Japanese press. MacArthur threw prominent American journalists such as Gordon Walker, editor of the Christian Science Monitor, and Frank Hawley of the New York Times out of Japan for disobeying his orders. Even internal military reports were censored.15
Five months after the occupation began, one in four American soldiers had contracted VD.16 The supply of penicillin back in the U.S. was low.17 When MacArthur responded by making both prostitution and fraternization illegal,18 the number of reported rapes soared, showing that prostitution and the easy availability of women had suppressed incidents of rape.”
War Thrives On Fools And Criminals
Gordon Duff, a combat veteran of the Vietnam war, dismisses “Sniper heroics,” in a powerful piece at Veterans Today:
“If you kill more than a dozen people as a sniper and you aren’t guilty of murdering innocent civilians, I would be very surprised. If you are insane enough to convince yourself, let’s say you are in Afghanistan or Iraq, countries where it is legal for any civilian to carry a weapon and no sane person would go outside without one, that shooting “armed Muslims” makes you a hero, you are both a liar and a fool. You are probably also a psychopath.
Most of the armed “insurgents” the US has killed during the War on Terror were friendly militias, local herdsmen or, at best, armed tribal units that were armed tribal units when they fought the British and Russians as well for hundreds of years. We are talking about “patriots” defending their country against foreign invaders who support drug cartels and criminal politicians like the governments the US has placed in power over and over.
I do expect this; I expect an American Sniper to use his skills to protect American personnel from attack even if America is there as part of an armed aggression on the part of whoever it is that runs America, which sure as hell isn’t the American people. …… Yes, this is not a simple story and there are no entire good or bad people. Welcome to reality…..
99% of talk about snipers is plain bull and mythology. I am not the world expert but I have “done the work” in the worst place on earth, I collect sniper rifles and own a company that builds them. …..
I make weapons and can only hope they are used properly. There are bad people who deserve killing but most of them are trained and supplied by the Mossad, CIA and our British and French allies, I am talking Boko Harum, ISIS and that gang. You didn’t know that? Imagine that…..
In South Vietnam there were some legitimate targets, sort of. In truth, the US was in South Vietnam illegally and on the wrong side in the first place so any moral high ground disappears immediately anyway. So, if you were a “sniper” killing the enemy, one thing for certain, you were shooting people better than you are.
It took a fat minute to figure that one out and absolutely everyone knew it, something we aren’t so sure about with our new “professional” military today. …..
While working for an intelligence organization long ago, I remember meeting with fellow “Vietnam vets,” all claiming to be Navy Seals, Marines or Ranger/Special Forces. They were cooks and truck drivers, honorable occupations of course and perhaps they shouldn’t have felt pressured to make things up, but you see where I am going with this…
During one “ambush” we killed 3 people, a woman, a child and someone over 70. They had one weapon, an unloaded and broken AK47.
This was during a truce, they were coming back to see their family as per agreement and we were there to kill them in violation of the truce, something we always did. Nobody talks about such things? Imagine that……..
What we are saying is simple, snipers played no real role in Vietnam……..
Many of the special operations units spent 90% of their time in rear areas living as well as possible doing exactly what the rest of us would do if we were as smart as them. It would be impossible for any of these people to see as much real combat as an Army draftee who served as a simple “combat infantryman.”
What has been confirmed is that some American units serving in both Iraq and Afghanistan simply murdered civilians, and we mean women and children in “drive by” type shootings. They would drive down the road and simply shoot at people walking by. Americans have been convicted of this. Another “trick” is to drive by a group of kids and toss a hand grenade at them.
Were these deaths added to the “sniper kills?” My guess would be yes.
Another point that isn’t bought up is that within the US military street gangs have a very strong presence. This has made the US military an unreliable guest anywhere in the world. In Vietnam we had units that were basically “trash.” Remember the Mai La massacre? An American unit made up mostly of draftees and 3rd string officers murdered between 400 and up to 800 civilians, lining them up and shooting them down, we are talking only women, babies, small children and a few old men……
War is about thugs with guns working for banks and oil companies, for drug cartels and crooked politicians. War is a racket, but wait a minute, I stole that from someone else. There are no good wars, there never were. The Civil War wasn’t fought over slaves and the American War of Independence, in the end, turned out to be a struggle between international banking cartels with the worst one winning in the end when the Rothschilds took over the US in 1913.
After that, we fought World War I and II on their behalf and the rest is history, a history we live every day. Hiring criminals from “clown colleges” to rewrite history, making movies about snipers and staging Paris street theatre isn’t going to change any of it. The whole thing is a con.
No one has clean hands, not me, not anyone. Even speaking up isn’t enough and few speak up at all. Simply put, if you leave the US and kill a citizen of another country because George W. Bush and Dick Cheney or their friend Netanyahu makes a buck from it and you consider yourself a hero instead of a fool or criminal, talking to you isn’t going to help.”