Updates from November, 2017 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Jack 4:06 am on November 22, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: , , , , world religions   

    Adam and Eve 

    Scientists are coming closer and closer to the Bible, as the evidence more and more suggests that it is, after all, accurate, according to a report in Breaking Israel News.

    In fact, science how supports the biblical account of the first man and woman in that it recognizes “Mitrochondrial Eve” and “Y-Chromosomal Adams,” the report said.

    BIN reports end times expert Rabbi Pinchas Winston describes the developing scientific view as “signal of redeption.”

    “During the exile there was great Hester Panim – a hiding of God’s face,” he told BIN. “As a result the Bible became relegated to the back of man’s consciousness. At the same time, science at first seemed to diverge from religion.

    “But since the Torah is the basic fabric of reality it cannot be hidden forever. As the redemption moves forward and the Jews return home, the Bible is coming back to the forefront of man’s consciousness. Along with this we see a growing harmony between science and the Bible. We have even gotten the point where science is now borrowing concepts from the Bible – such as with Mitochondrial Eve.”

    What did Adam and Eve specifically have to do with “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world”? Learn stunning Bible insight never discussed in church in the best-selling “Shocked by the Bible 2: Connecting the Dots in Scripture to Reveal the Truth They Don’t Want You to Know” — autographed only at WND!

    The report explains the scientific view that now is suggesting all humanity has a common ancestry.

    “The Torah has always claimed one common ancestor to all humanity as well as creation ex-nilo,” Rabbi Avraham Arieh Trugman said in the BIN report.

    It was a few years back, in 1987, “when leading science journal Nature published a study investigating humanity’s origins. The study researched mitochondrial DNA, which is passed down from mother to both daughter and son. Because mitochondrial DNA is only passed on by the mother and never the father, it reveals maternal lineage,” the report said.

    “Knowing this, the researchers were able to determine that every human being alive today can trace their ancestry back to a single woman now referred to as ‘Mitochondrial Eve.’”

    BIN reported that now is “generally accepted in the scientific community.”

    DNA expert Karl Skorecki told the news publication, “Analysis of mitochondrial DNA of all contemporary humans sampled today indicates that all of the different variations in the sequence of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) trace back, or converge to an original sequence in a given woman. That woman, Mitochondrial Eve, transmitted her mtDNA sequence to her offspring, and over generations slight variations in sequence occurred and accumulated, leading to the diversity of existent sequences in men and women populating the earth today.”

    BIN reported, “Ancestral Adam was found in 1995, when a separate study on male ancestry examined the Y-chromosome, passed directly from father to son. Science published the results of a study in which a segment of the Y-chromosome from 38 men from different ethnic groups were analyzed for variation. Their conclusion was that every man alive today actually descended from a single man whom scientists now refer to as ‘Y-Chromosomal Adam.’”

    Rob Faw, a master Christian life coach who is a research fellow with the Arthur C. Custance Centre for Science and Christianity, revealed separately that he analyzed 144-generations of mankind and it confirms a lineage beginning with Adam and Eve and moving onward to Queen Elizabeth II.

    It is, in fact, James Ussher’s rare “Annals of the World” that revealed, hundreds of years ago, the origins of mankind, down to the exact birth date for Adam.

    Originally written in Latin, it now has been translated into English and includes more than 10,000 footnotes and 2,500 citations from the Bible and Apocrypha,.

    Ussher, who entered college at 13 and got his master’s at 18, spent more than five years researching and writing.

    Ussher traveled throughout Europe to gather information from actual historical documents, many of which are no longer available in this century.

    He used the death of Nebuchadnezzer, a known date, to work backward through the genealogies to determine the age of the earth, at about 6,000 years.


  • Jack 2:59 am on November 17, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: , buddha, ,   

    Buddha Found? 

    Human remains buried by a pair of monks in China over a millennia ago are claimed to belong to Buddha.

    Believers say the 2,000 pieces of cremated bones belonged to Siddhartha Gautama, whose teachings became the foundations of the Buddhist religion.

    The cremated bones were found in an ceramic box with an inscription claiming they belong to Buddha, who is believed to have died 2,500 years ago.

    The box was found in Jingchuan County, China, alongside more than 260 Buddhist statues.


    In addition to the chest, archaeologists also found a collection of 260 two metre (6.6 foot) high statues.

    However, they are unsure whether the stone figures were buried at the same time as the collection of bones.

    The carved objects depict the Buddha and his followers, as well as deities and a collection of steles, tall stone blocks which may be inscribed, carved or painted.

    The statues were carved between the Wei dynasty (386 to 534 AD) and the Song dynasty (960 to 1279 AD.

    Archaeologists also found the remains of a building that could be from the now lost Mañjuśrī Hall part of the temple complex.

    Monks from the Mañjuśrī Temple of the Longxing Monastery in China’s Jingzhou Prefecture, named Yunjiang and Zhiming, are said to have spent two decades collecting the artefacts from neighbouring countries.

    Buddha, the philosopher and teacher, who is thought to have renounced his royal inheritance to follow a life of a spirituality, was born in modern day Nepal.

    Holy texts say he travelled through the eastern parts of India sometime between the 6th and 4th centuries BC.

    Legend also says that upon his death, around 2,500 years ago at the age of 80, Siddhartha Gautama’s remains were divided up among his disciples and royalty and spread far and wide.

    The Buddha’s remains were originally meant to to go only to the Shakya clan, to which he belonged.

    However, six clans and a king demanded the relics.

    To avoid fighting, a religious leader divided them into ten portions, eight from the body relics, one from the ashes of Buddha’s cremation pyre and one from the pot used to divide the relics, which he kept for himself.

    The Buddha’s relics were then enshrined and worshipped in stupas by his followers.

    Any relic said to relate to known to relate to the Buddha, whose name means ‘enlightened one’, is known as a śarīra.

    The discovery of the chest, known as an ossuary, was made by villagers conducting roadworks near the temple around five years ago.

    It has only just been reported in English by the journal Chinese Cultural Relics.

    Archaeologists who have translated an inscription on the box report that it said: ‘The monks Yunjiang and Zhiming of the Lotus School, who belonged to the Mañjuśrī Temple of the Longxing Monastery in Jingzhou Prefecture, gathered more than 2,000 pieces of śarīra, as well as the Buddha’s teeth and bones.

    ‘[They] buried them in the Mañjuśrī Hall of this temple.’

    In addition to the chest, archaeologists also found a collection of 260 two metre (6.6 foot) high statues.

    However, they are unsure whether the stone figures were buried at the same time as the collection of bones.

    The carved objects depict the Buddha and his followers, as well as deities and a collection of steles, tall stone blocks which may be inscribed, carved or painted.

    The statues were carved between the Wei dynasty (386 to 534 AD) and the Song dynasty (960 to 1279 AD.

    Archaeologists also found the remains of a building that could be from the now lost Mañjuśrī Hall part of the temple complex.

    This not the first time that remain said to belong to the Buddha have been uncovered.


    The legends associated with the major events of Buddha’s life are based on a number of different historical sources, according to theVictoria and Albert museum.

    The most important is the Buddhacarita or ‘The Acts of the Buddha’, the first full length biography of the Buddha written by an Indian poet called Ashvaghosha in the 1st century AD.

    He is believed to have lived between just after the mid 6th century and the late 5th century BC.

    The Buddha’s parents were Suddhodana, king of the Sakyas, people living on the Indian borders of Nepal, and his wife Maya.

    The young Siddhartha Gautama grew up surrounded by luxury and wealth.

    He was protected from the harsh realities of life by his father who had been warned that his son would withdraw from the world should he encounter such sights.

    However, one day when riding outside the palace grounds, the future Buddha saw suffering for the first time.

    This kick started a chain of events that would lead him on the path to enlightenment.

    After his enlightenment, Buddha travelled on foot throughout northern India, teaching constantly for forty-five years.

    People of all castes and professions, from kings to courtesans, were drawn to him.

    He answered their questions, always pointing them towards the true nature of reality.

    Throughout his life, Buddha encouraged his students to question his teachings and confirm them through their own experience.

    This non-dogmatic attitude still characterises Buddhism today.

    Upon his death, Buddha’s remains were originally meant to to go only to the Shakya clan, to which he belonged.

    However, six clans and a king demanded the relics.

    To avoid fighting, a religious leader divided them into ten portions, eight from the body relics, one from the ashes of Buddha’s cremation pyre and one from the pot used to divide the relics, which he kept for himself.

    The Buddha’s relics were then enshrined and worshipped in stupas by his followers.

    Any relic said to relate to known to relate to the Buddha, whose name means ‘enlightened one’, is known as a śarīra.

    A chunk of skull, mixed with a collection of remains of Buddhist saints, were found during excavations at a Buddhist temple in Nanjing, China, in 2010.

    When they opened a stone chest in a crypt underneath the temple, they found an ornate shrine called a stupa, used for meditation.

    According to Live Science, the shrine is a box 117 cm tall and 45 cm wide (4 feet by 1.5 feet) made from sandalwood, gold and silver with jewels embedded and contained the bone inside.

    The bones were found within a tiny gold chest less than 8 cm (3.1 inches) tall, which itself was stored in a larger silver casket 20 cm (7.8 inches) tall.

    This casket was locked within the stupa, before the entire nest of boxes was stored safely within the stone chest – suggesting the contents held great importance to the monks at the Grand Bao’en Temple.

    Inscriptions carved into the protective stone chest tell the story of how Buddha’s skull bone came to lie in the tiny golden chest within.

    According to a man known as ‘Deming’, after the Buddha died his body was cremated at the Hirannavati River, before the ruling king divided the remains into thousands of portions, 19 of which found their way to China.

    One of these fragments was the fragment of parietal bone which inhabits the golden box along with the remains of other Buddhist saints.

    But the journey took a number of turns, with the original resting place for the relic destroyed during a period of unrest.

    The temple was then rebuilt by Emperor Zhenzong in the 11th Century, with the shrine placed safely within its crypt.


  • Jack 3:39 am on November 11, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: , danelle cloutier, poppy, remembrance day,   

    The Poppy 

    How a First World War poem about poppies blossomed into an annual Remembrance Day campaign raising $14 million each year to assist veterans.

    Written by Danelle Cloutier

    April 5, 2015

    Amid the blasting bombs, lifeless bodies, and muddy trenches of the Great War, bright red poppies flourished in Flanders Fields, Belgium. This sight inspired a poem that moved the British Empire. Now, each Remembrance Day, many people wear the blood-red flower (albeit artificial ones) to honour those who died at war. Here’s how the poppy became an enduring symbol.

    Lt.-Col. John McCrae and his dog Bonneau.
    Library and Archives Canada

    Lieutenant-Colonel John McCrae was serving as medical officer in Belgium when he wrote “In Flanders Fields.” A friend had just died from wounds sustained on the battlefield, and, in May 1915, as he awaited the wounded from nearby Ypres, he drew inspiration from the blood-red poppies that grew in the region. London magazine Punch published McCrae’s work in December 1915 and it quickly became one of the most popular war poems.

    alt text

    Moina Michael

    Two days before the Armistice, American humanitarian and academic Moina Michael read McCrae’s poem while on duty at the YMCA Overseas War Secretaries headquarters in New York. Servicemen would go there to say goodbye to family and friends before heading overseas.

    Inspired by McCrae’s poem, Michael wrote her own called, “We Shall Keep the Faith,” in which she vows to wear the poppy to remember the war dead: “And now the torch and poppy red, we wear in honor of our dead.”

    In 1920, Anna Guérin, a French woman, was inspired by Michael’s idea to make poppies a memorial flower. Soon after, Guérin made red silk poppies and sold them in Britain to raise money for the Earl Haig Fund in support of former soldiers and the families of those who died during the war.

    The newly formed British Legion sold nine million of the poppies on November 11 of that year, raising more than 106,000 British pounds.

    Guérin convinced the Great War Veterans Association of Canada to use the poppy as a symbol of remembrance while fundraising, which it first did on July 5, 1921.

    By 1922, poppies distributed in Canada were made by disabled veterans, via the Department of Soldiers’ Civil Re-establishment.

    Veterans assemble wreaths and poppies in Montreal in this undated photo.
    Canadian War Museum,

    On Remembrance Day in 1933, the Co-operative Women’s Guild — an organization in Great Britain that encourages and educates women — distributed the first white poppies to challenge the continuing push for war.

    A year later, the Peace Pledge Union (PPU) started distributing the white poppies and still does today. Although the PPU says the white poppies aren’t meant to insult the war dead, many view them as disrespectful.

    Article continues below…

    From 1980 to 2002, poppy centres were green. The colour reverted to black to better represent the colour of the poppies in Flanders. Over the years poppies have been made from different materials.

    In the United Kingdom, early poppies were made from silk but now are made from paper, whereas in the United States wearing fake flowers on Remembrance Day never took off. In Canada, our weather makes plastic a better medium.

    The Royal Canadian Legion in Princeton, B.C.
    Joe Mabel/Wikipedia Commons

    Today, the Royal Canadian Legion holds its Poppy Campaign from the last Friday in October to Remembrance Day. The money raised from this campaign provides financial assistance to veterans, funding medical equipment, research, home services, long-term facilities, and more. The campaign raises about $14 million annually from donations.

    On the Legion website you can:link opens in new window

    • • learn more about the poppy
    • • find teaching materials for the classroom
    • • find information and services for veterans
    • • locate your local Legion branch

    Although their primary fundraising campaign is in the few weeks leading up to Remembrance Day, they accept donations all-year round. You can make your cheque out to Dominion Command Poppy Trust Fund and drop it off or mail it to the legion branch closest to youlink opens in new window.


  • Jack 3:23 am on November 7, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: , daniel mandel, , isreali history, , , uk history   

    Balfour Declaration 

    A mere sixty-seven words helped alter the course of history. A century years ago this past week, November 2, 1917, the Balfour Declaration was issued, declaring British support for the establishment within the then-Ottoman Empire territory of Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

    The British Foreign Secretary, Arthur James, Lord Balfour, sent the following communication to Walter, Lord Rothschild, one of the most prominent Jews in England, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland:

    His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

    The Balfour Declaration was the first step on the political road to reversing two millennia of Jewish statelessness and exile which had resulted in the Jews being the most dispersed and persecuted minority in history.

    The British commitment did not envisage Jewish statehood in all or indeed any part of Palestine, a sparsely populated, backwater district of the soon-to-be dismembered Ottoman Empire, even though some such prospect was in the fullness of time anticipated by its proponents, especially Balfour and also the Prime Minister, David Lloyd-George. Supporters of Zionism, like South Africa’s Jan Smuts, believed as early as 1918 that a heterogeneous population like Palestine (512,000 Muslims, 66,000 Jews and 61,000 Christians at the time of the Balfour Declaration — the Jewish population had dropped by about a third due to Ottoman depredations during the War) required something other than outright autonomy, with its minorities thrown on the mercy of the majority. (Similar thinking with regard to Lebanon, with its large, multi-confessional Christian population, was also prevalent at the time.)

    The Declaration resulted in the subsequent, post-war British Mandate over the territory being dedicated to the upbuilding of the Jewish national home. Even though the British later reneged on this commitment in a bid to appease the Arabs on the eve of the Second World War by drastically curtailing Jewish immigration and land purchases, the state of Israel did eventually arise when the Mandate was terminated in May 1948.

    Accordingly, Israel was not anyone’s gift to the Jews. The Jews of Palestine sacrificed scarce blood and treasure to obtain and preserve their independence from five invading Arab armies and internal Palestinian Arab militias led by the war-time Nazi collaborator, Haj Amin el Husseini. One percent of Israel’s population was killed defending Israel from the invasion which all Arabs belligerents declared would result in the destruction of Israel and the massacre of all its Jews.

    However, precisely because the Arabs lost and because that loss has been recast to depict the Palestinian Arabs as innocent victims assaulted and dispersed by aggressive Zionism, the Balfour Declaration, as the first installment in the political drama leading to Jewish statehood, has been vilified as an injustice inflicted on Palestinian Arabs.

    Thus, the PLO has claimed Britain has primary responsibility for the “historical injustice in Palestine,” while Mahmoud Abbas told the UN General Assembly last year that “Britain gave, without any right, authority or consent from anyone, the land of Palestine to another people.” Or, in the famous formulation of Arthur Koestler, “one nation solemnly promised to a second nation the country of a third.”

    It has also been ceaselessly argued that the Balfour Declaration defrauded the Arabs who, it is alleged, had been promised an independent Arab state in territories that included Palestine by Sir Henry McMahon, the British High Commissioner in Egypt, in correspondence with Sherif Hussein ibn Ali of Mecca and King of the Hijaz, during 1915-16 (the Hussein–McMahon Correspondence).

    All of this turns out to be untrue.

    First, the Balfour Declaration was not a lone, imperial act: it was an allied commitment, agreed upon by the allied powers in the First World War. It was incorporated in the Treaty of Sèvres, signed by the 13 allied powers, including the Kingdom of the Hijaz, the chief Arab interlocutor at the post-War Paris Peace Conference, as well as Turkey. In 1922, the Declaration was incorporated into the terms of the Mandate for Palestine awarded Britain by all 51 members of the League of Nations. Whatever force of argument commended the Declaration to the British who first issued it also communicated itself to the international community that endorsed it.

    For these reasons, Ashley Perry has rightly observed, “the Balfour Declaration was unique, not only in Jewish history, but possibly in the history of national movements. For a short period, all the major powers, the leader of the Arab world and most interested parties created a mechanism to fulfill the Zionist dream.”

    The moment in time proved short-lived. As Europe in the next two decades was to prove, there was no way to confer self-determination on some peoples without creating new minorities, because populations were intricately intertwined. The best that might be achievable — and this is the course that was followed — was to seek statehood for both Arabs and Jews across the region. Mounting Arab opposition to Jewish self-determination foredoomed a peaceful post-war settlement in the Middle East along these lines and led eventually to Zionism being put to the test of the sword.

    Second, Britain had no control at all at the time over the territory in question, which was still lodged firmly in Ottoman hands. It was thus in no position to give the territory to the Jews, merely to state its preferred policy.

    Third, nor was a country or people being usurped; no Palestinian country or nationality had pre-existed its Ottoman landlords, nor did the local population conceive of itself as anything other than the inhabitants of the southern part of Syria. Their political allegiance was centered on the Ottoman Empire, not on any national aspirations which were then virtually non-existent.

    Fourth, no British commitment to create an Arab state in Palestine was at any time given to Sherif Hussein or any other Arab interlocutor. As Isaiah Friedman demonstrated in exquisite detail in his 2000 book, Palestine: A Twice Promised Land?, the original Arabic letter of October 24, 1915 from McMahon to Hussein (which Friedman uncovered), as well as its retranslation into English by the British in Cairo in November 1919, makes it clear beyond peradventure that the territory of what became the British Mandate of Palestine west of the Jordan River was not among the territories earmarked for Arab statehood. Moreover, there was no unilateral British commitment of any sort, but rather a conditional promise in the event of an Arab revolt against the Ottoman Turks which never materialized; to the contrary, the Arabs of Palestine and Syria in their overwhelming majority fought on the Ottoman side.

    While T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) raised an army of Arab irregulars in the Hejaz, no indigenous revolt occurred in Syria or Iraq and indeed only the landing of a British army led to the driving out of Ottoman forces from Palestine after the victories of Gaza, Beersheba, and Megiddo. There was thus no “twice-promised land” — and consequently no fraudulent British dealings — which both friends and foes of Israel have frequently alleged to lie at the root of the conflict.

    It is one thing to see the Balfour Declaration as a vital link in a chain leading to Israel’s creation over thirty years later, which it was. It is quite another to invest the Declaration with responsibility for the tragic consequences of the war Arabs insisted upon launching to abort Israel’s creation.

    The Palestinian tragedy is not the Balfour Declaration. It is the Arab and Muslim supremacism that has determined Palestinian Arab political decisions at virtually every turn in the past century, ensuring that the Palestinian leadership opposed and denied — and continue to deny — any Jewish claim or connection with the land and refuse to countenance the idea that Jews are entitled to the self-determination they insist upon for themselves. The Palestinian Arab leadership’s demand of a British apology for the Declaration leading up to its anniversary merely underscores this fact.

    This ongoing tragedy is unlikely to end until Palestinian Arabs relinquish the dream of Israel’s dismemberment, recognize the right of the Jews to their sovereign existence, and undertake to work with it to bring about peace, not war.

    Blame for all manner of decisions and acts across intervening decades can be leveled at all parties involved. But that is no reason for Israel, or Britain, not to celebrate Lord Balfour’s high-minded act of statesmanship one hundred years ago which helped the Jewish people to rejoin the family of sovereign nations after two millennia of statelessness, persecution, and massacre.


  • Jack 3:19 am on November 4, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: bolshevik revolution, , , cuban history, judson phillips, , ussr,   

    Nov. 7, 1917 

    On Nov. 7, 1917 (Oct. 25 on the Western Calendar), the Bolsheviks in Russia, launched the first successful communist revolution in history. A century later, the death toll is still not certain. It is well into the hundreds of millions. It could be as many as a billion, if you count lives shortened through communist policies.

    The media has remained mostly silent as the centenary of the Bolshevik revolution has come and now gone. After all, the media does not want to appear too biased in their support of their favorite country, the old Soviet Union.

    The Russian Revolution of 1917 did not immediately create the Soviet state. Vladimir Lenin declared it almost immediately. But a three-year, very bloody civil war raged before the white, or non-communist Russians, were finally defeated.

    Then Lenin was finally able to completely devote his efforts to destroying the remnants of the “Bourgeois” society. Members of the aristocracy, land owners, businessmen, bishops, priests, deacons and countless faithful of the Russian Orthodox church were liquidated.

    After Lenin’s death in 1925, Joseph Stalin raised the body count with the Holodomor or the Ukrainian famine. As many as seven and a half million people may have died as a result of this man-made famine.

    Thanks to the Soviet Union, revolution was spread throughout the world. And what followed Communism was poverty, tyranny and far too often, mass murder. After the Second World War, as communism captured eastern Europe, this was proven. In 1949, when the Communists defeated the Nationalists in China, it happened again.

    A conservative estimate is that after Mao Tse Yung led the communists to victory, his regime killed thirty-five million. That is a conservative estimate and that is only the estimate of those murdered, not those whose lives ended as a result of brutal conditions.

    The communists took over southeast Asia and look what happened. In the small nation of Cambodia, the killing fields occurred and six million died. In Cuba, just ninety miles from Florida, Fidel Castro killed thousands after his communist revolution was successful.

    Today, the old Soviet Union is a memory. The hammer and sickle came down for the last time in 1991. Lenin’s tomb remains, but only as a tourist attraction. The Russian Orthodox Church has canonized Patriarch Tikhon, who was most likely murdered by the Bolsheviks, as well as numerous bishops, priests and others who were executed by the communists.

    In America, communism is seeing a resurgence. The Democrats love “Bolshevik” Bernie Sanders. His platform was completely socialist. The Democrats embrace the worst of the radical left. The Democrats have no problem with the violent radical, “Antifa” agitators engaging in violence against anyone who disagrees with them. They have no problem with the racist black lives matters crowd that demands people be assigned privilege or be discriminated against, on the basis of race.

    The Democrats move further and further to the left with each passing day. They no longer believe in freedom, liberty and individual rights. They believe in the collective, just like the Bolsheviks.

    Today at American universities and colleges, a new generation of young people embrace socialism. They are taught that Republicans and Donald Trump are evil, while the mass murder of hundreds of millions by the evil political system the Democrats embrace, is not even mentioned.

    What follows communism is poverty, tyranny and usually mass murder. One hundred years ago, the Russian people would not have believed the new Bolshevik regime was going to engage in a program to murder millions of their countrymen. In America, no one believes our government could fall and be replaced with a socialist dictatorship.

    Given the current beliefs of the Democrat Party, 100 years after the Bolshevik revolution, that is a foolish assumption.


  • Jack 3:20 am on November 1, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: chairman mao, , , douglas murray, genocide, , , mass murder, , ,   


    Editor’s Note: This article and its accompanying sidebars originally appeared in the October 30, 2017, issue of National Review magazine.

    If there is one line we surely will never hear uttered, even in these times, it is any variant of this statement: “I grant that the Nazis committed excesses, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t something to be said for Fascism.” While there certainly are groupuscules of neo-Nazis around, they do not get a polite reception on campuses, let alone tenure. Watered-down versions of Fascism do not emerge in the manifestos of mainstream political parties in the West. No student is ever seen sporting a T-shirt with a chic Reinhard Heydrich likeness emblazoned across the front.

    If the bacillus of Fascism is never dormant, then at least we appear to have retained significant stockpiles of societal antibiotics with which to counter it. It is unlikely that Richard Spencer will address the Conservative Political Action Conference anytime soon. Unlikely that there will be celebratory centennials for Mussolini’s rise to power. And less likely still (despite the cries to the contrary of professional anti-Fascists, who need Fascists for business purposes) that anyone dreaming of a fairer Fascism will reach the White House in any coming electoral cycle.

    Yet 100 years on from the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, can the same be said about the Communist dream? Only the wildest optimist could say so. For in fact wherever you turn in the world today, it seems that the virus of Communism — in every Marxist, socialist strain — remains alive and well. Conditions for its spreading range from moderate to good.

    In June, Russians were asked in an opinion poll to name “the top ten outstanding people of all time and all nations.” Perhaps it is unsurprising that the joint second most commonly given name was Pushkin. Even less surprising that Russia’s national poet should have shared this position with the country’s current strongman, Vladimir Putin. What is more startling for any outsider is that the person whom the largest number of Russians declared the “most outstanding” person in world history was Joseph Stalin. It is true that the man responsible for the deaths (around 20 million, by most moderate estimates) of more people than any other in Russian history has slipped slightly. This year he was at 38 percent, down from 42 percent in a 2012 survey. Yet still he leads the polls. Were the greatest mass murderer in Russian history able to return from his grave today, he could resume power without even needing to fix the ballot.

    Of course, if Adolf Hitler remained the most popular figure in modern Germany, the world would be worried. But with the Communists it was always different. An admirer of General Franco who opposed Primo de Rivera is somehow not the same as a Trotskyist who opposed Leninism (a type that remains a staple of the media and academic worlds). Perhaps the 20th century’s greatest remaining mystery is how, between the twin totalitarian nightmares, it remains acceptable to have spent a portion of your life envying, emulating, or celebrating the global cataclysm that commenced in 1917.

    It is not surprising that Russians have not reckoned with their past. Five years ago, on a visit to Stalin’s birthplace in Gori, Georgia, I paid a visit to the Soviet-era museum that still stands alongside the tiny wooden hut where the dictator was born and that is still preserved, like a relic. Here you can view the train carriage in which Stalin traveled, a suitcase he used, his writing implements and furniture, and, of course, gifts from the many people who admired him. The last room you enter on this tour of the house is somber and contains his death mask. This whole tour uncritically celebrates the great leader who, from the moment he succeeded Lenin, caused a disproportionate number of deaths of people from this region of his birth.

    Then, in 2012, the Georgian authorities were only at the start of what would turn out to be a failed attempt to transform their fawning, Communist-era memorial to the region’s most famous son into a museum of “Stalinism.” At that stage they had made only one half-hearted effort to put the man into anything other than a hagiographical context. After learning about his astonishing rise and rule, and before being presented with a slim volume of his early poetry (“The lark sang its tune / High up in the clouds. / And nightingale joined / In the jubilating song”), visitors were taken under the main staircase. There two rooms had recently been added, to commemorate all the people who died in the Gulag, with a desk to re-create an interrogation cell from the time of his rule. It was like visiting a museum dedicated to the career of Adolf Hitler only to learn at the last moment (after due recognition of the Führer’s skill as a watercolorist) that there had been this thing called Auschwitz. The gift shop sold Stalin wine (red), lighters, and pens. No memorial to the victims of Fascism can finish with an attempt to sell visitors a Heinrich Himmler tea towel.

    Anyone hoping that such attitudes would remain confined to what was once the Soviet Union will feel deflated when they look about the rest of the world. Not only because there are still countries attempting to perfect the experiment (North Korea most ascetically, Cuba and China with increasing laxness) but because, away from the scenes of the 20th-century charnel houses, the experiment is barely remembered at all. And where it is, it is not remembered in a negative light.

    Last year, the research firm Survation conducted a poll to ascertain the attitudes of young British people in the 16–24 age bracket. The oldest among this group would have been born in the year the Soviet Union collapsed, the youngest around a decade after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The respondents were asked to look at a list of names and say which ones they most associated with “crimes against humanity.”

    Adolf Hitler finished first, with 87 percent of young people seeing him in a negative light. Much further down (below Saddam Hussein) came Joseph Stalin, whom 61 percent of young people associated with such crimes, with 28 percent of all respondents admitting that they had never heard of him. Half of young people admitted they had never heard of Lenin. And while 8 percent were ignorant of Adolf Hitler, and therefore clearly as ignorant as swans, it is what happened farther down the name-recognition list that was more alarming.

    Fully 39 percent of young people associated George W. Bush with crimes against humanity, and 34 percent associated Tony Blair with the same. Which were higher percentages than for either Mao Tse-tung (20 percent) or Pol Pot (19 percent). The cause is not fellow-traveling but sheer ignorance. No less than 70 percent of young people said they had never heard of Chairman Mao, while 72 percent had never heard of the Cambodian génocidaire.

    Were the low numbers replicated for historical figures related to the Holocaust or Fascism, they would cause an outcry. There would be calls for great education drives and the erection of museums and monuments to the victims of Nazism and Fascism. If young people were discovered to know so little about those crimes, every teacher in the land would be hollering about the inevitability of replaying history we do not remember.

    But it is always different with the Communist virus let loose on the world a century ago. The figure of 6 million Jews murdered in the Holocaust is rightly set in our collective consciousness and conscience during our years of education and constantly reinforced through popular culture, political reference, and a whole panoply of institutions devoted to keeping memories alive. Consider the recent film Denial, about the attempt by David Irving to sue the American historian Deborah Lipstadt for accurately identifying him as a Holocaust-denier. Some people might have thought this comparatively tangential corner of Nazi history to have been well furrowed, only to discover that a new generation hadn’t seen it done and that it was understandable and even necessary to see it furrowed again.

    But what are the consequences of societies with so little memory of 20 million deaths in the USSR? Or the 65 million deaths caused by efforts to instill Communism in China? If those 65 million Chinese deaths cannot detain us, what are the chances that anyone will care about the 2 million deaths in Cambodia? The million in Eastern Europe? The million in Vietnam? The 2 million (and counting) in North Korea? The nearly 2 million across Africa? The 1.5 million in Afghanistan? The 150,000 in Latin America? Not to mention the thousands of murders committed by Communist movements not in power, a number that could almost seem meager compared with the official slaughter?

    Who could survey this wreckage — 100 million deaths in a century alone — and not recoil? Who would stand on top of these 100 million tragedies and think “Once more, comrades, though this time with subtly different emphases”?

    Few would do so boldly. Of course there was the celebrated historian Eric Hobsbawm, who remained in the Communist Party even after the invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia and earned his place in infamy in 1994 by saying in an interview that, yes, if another 20 million deaths had been necessary to achieve the socialist utopia of his dreams, then 20 million deaths would have been fine by him. Irving claimed that 6 million Jews had not been murdered, and he achieved rightful ignominy. Hobsbawm expressed approval of several times the number of Communist murders and subsequently received from a Labour government one of the highest civilian honors.

    Yet Hobsbawn’s infamous admission is striking for its uncommonness as much as for its drawing-room barbarism. Commoner, especially among the denizens of the academy in the West, is a form of evasion that goes hand in hand with emulation. This is the process, familiar to anyone who has studied the sewers of thought in which some people seek to diminish Nazi culpability in World War II, by which small platoons of intellectuals fight to divert blame from the Communist cause. They blame a few rogue elements and diminish the body count to form some kind of equivalence of their own with whatever crime of the West they can find within reach.

    For decades, America’s public intellectuals have been noteworthy for chipping away at the lower reaches of the Communist canon. It is over the genocide in Cambodia that America’s most cited public intellectual, Noam Chomsky, retains some notoriety. As reports of Pol Pot’s genocide emerged, Chomsky was one of those who wished to ignore the reporters accurately describing what was happening. Instead he relied on Richard Dudman, a source who after two weeks in Cambodia described working conditions in the country as “hard” but “by no means intolerable.” For Chomsky it was clear that, in the wake of America’s involvement in Vietnam, it remained the capitalist U.S.A. that must be focused on as the source of all crimes. Local actors, especially socialist and Communist actors, could be viewed only in a secondary light, and even then with the presumption of innocence, while always and everywhere America met with the presumption of guilt. This is the trick that Irving attempted with the Holocaust and the number of deaths resulting from the bombing of Dresden. American college students are of course not fed — or encouraged to digest — a diet of Irving.

    Other prominent intellectuals in the years since have also viewed the “excesses” of the Marxist dreamers as being either a necessary evil or a necessary evil that did not even happen. Some have managed to hold both thoughts in their heads, as Paul Hollander among others has chronicled.

    Consider that other present favorite of American students, Slavoj Zizek. This is a man who praised the Khmer Rouge “for attempting a total break with the past” and criticized them for being “not radical enough” and for failing to “invent any new form of collectivity.” Thus the jocular imbecility that constitutes Zizek’s style also reveals its moral imbecility. This is a man who, while praising the “humanist terror” of Robespierre, asserted that the French revolutionary “redeemed the virtual content of terror from its actualization.”

    The campuses of the West too often loosen up the politics of the young through such immoral effusions. While the concepts and realities of borders and national identity, which are erroneously believed to encompass a “Fascist” worldview, remain so tainted as to be unusable before any audience of people under 30, the concepts of solidarity, equality, and other benign spillages from the Marxist-Communist worldview remain wreathed in halos. What their exponents mean in practice, what endpoint they seek and what restraints they would ever exercise, never gets asked. But it is in this environ of spilt Marxism that such figures as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren now address their growing young audiences. Were equality (which they press instead of fairness) to have been tainted by an ideological ordure equivalent to that heaped on the concept of borders, then our current conversation would be very different.

    But it is not. And amid the ignorance and the deliberate efforts, the presumption remains that while the perpetrators of Fascism always meant to do evil, the inheritors and emulators of 1917 meant to do good. Only accidentally (and even then only arguably) did they do unparalleled harm. All the while, the people whom students might study and revere to correct this view are disappearing into history. While everybody knows the stories of the good anti-Nazis from more than seven decades ago, the heroes of anti-Communism are becoming forgotten. That 2016 poll of British youth found that 83 percent of young people had never even heard of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

    Well, young people don’t know anything about anything very much” is one response to such findings. But they can, and they do. Alternatively, they can be encouraged to pile optimism on top of ignorance. Consider what the simple iconography and popular history would suggest to an impressionable young mind (what other is there?).

    It is there not just for anybody who seeks it out — such as at the May Day marches, where banners depicting Lenin, Stalin, and Mao are still carried proudly aloft across the West, all without a single hostile demonstrator (let alone Antifa) in sight. It is there even for those not hoping to seek it out. Recently, schoolchildren in Cuba gathered to honor Che Guevara on the 50th anniversary of his death. “Be like Che,” they chanted. But it is not only in Cuba. Also this month, the Irish postal service issued a new commemorative stamp to honor the 50th anniversary of the death of the Argentinian Marxist mass murderer. On and on it goes. When Fidel Castro died last November, it was not Kim Jong-un but Justin Trudeau, the prime minister of Canada, who issued a statement describing the late despot as “a legendary revolutionary and orator” who had “made significant improvements to the education and healthcare of his island nation.” About Castro’s skills at running the trains on time, Trudeau remained perhaps self-consciously coy.

    So what are they loosened up for, these young people who view the 20th century as having had only one besetting evil? The answer is in the politics bubbling up all around us: the politics at which conservatives are everywhere losing. The politics that got away with its crimes in the 20th century only to reboot itself with a softer, friendlier façade in the 21st.

    That movement includes people who have consistently chipped away at the top as well as the bottom of the barbarism of their forebears. Nine years ago on a television program in Britain, Diane Abbott, a prominent Labour backbencher in Parliament and a rising star of TV punditry, said in passing that “on balance Mao did more good than harm.” For her, the move away from feudalism and the alleged agricultural advances that Mao instituted made up for the 65 million deaths. Back then Diane Abbott seemed as far from the center of power as the even more obscure backbench MP Jeremy Corbyn. Yet as a result of the global financial crisis and specific local political shifts, Corbyn is now the leader of the Labour party and of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition. If there were a general election in Britain today, the polls suggest, he would become prime minister.

    This is a man whose consigliere Seumas Milne used to distinguish himself as a staffer at the Guardian by, among other things, working to whittle down the number of people claimed in articles to have been killed by Comrade Stalin. How everyone laughed at Milne’s persistent Stalinism — until his closest political ally took over the party of the Left and made Stalinism mainstream again.

    Two years ago, after Corbyn first became Labour leader, his shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, stood at the dispatch box in the House of Commons and waved a copy of Mao’s “Red Book” to give the Conservatives some lessons in economics. McDonnell has also called for a popular “insurrection” against the elected government. He later said the stunt was a “joke.” He is a man who has consistently advocated violence in the pursuit of political goals and who would be the second-most-important person in government — the man in charge of the nation’s finances — if an election were called in Britain today. Suddenly it has become acceptable on the political left, including the parliamentary left, to open the whole socialist possibility up again. Labour politicians openly debate the merits of forcibly removing private property from “the rich.”

    And so we see revealed the persistence not just of this ideological worldview but of the edifice its modern adherents have been hoping to reconstruct all these decades. Not in Venezuela, or in Cuba, but in a developed modern Western democracy.

    How hard they have worked, these people. And how hard they work still. Never leaving a comrade behind. Never demoralizing those who are working towards similar goals. In recent years they exercised considerable energy defending their comrades in Venezuela. Today, as Venezuela’s troubles have burst into everybody’s view, they lament the tiny mistakes they consider their allies to have made along the way. But the result is always the same. As are the excuses. The problem is never the dish. The problem is that the dish has just not yet been perfectly served. How often it brings to mind that famous exchange between George Orwell and a Stalinist. Orwell was eventually able to make his Stalinist concede that there had been excesses and mistakes — the famines, the show trials — in the attempt to attain the state they were striving towards. And finally the inevitable cliché leaked out: “You can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs.” To which Orwell replied, “Where is the omelette?”

    The question lingers still: not just in Russia, Cuba, and Venezuela but now again in the West. How come we are still watching this attempt to make this horrible, bloody recipe, which aims for utopia yet always leaves the same catastrophic, bloody mess?

    There are some people who worry that T. S. Eliot was right: “We do not know very much of the future / Except that from generation to generation / The same things happen again and again. / Men learn little from others’ experience.” Perhaps the only way that the next generation will learn the horror of the Communist experiment is if they experience a bit of it. It is a dangerous gamble to take. It was a theory among some on the moderate left before Corbyn took over their party. Instead of being a healthy working organism that could benefit from the careful inoculation, it turned out that the party was deracinated and weak and ended up getting a full-blown outbreak of the virus it was seeking to inoculate itself against. It is a parable that social democrats and conservatives across the developed world should study with caution. One hundred years on from 1917, it turns out that our stocks of inoculation to this virus remain not just low but dwindling.

    Mr. Murray is the author, most recently, of The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam.


  • Jack 1:26 pm on October 11, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: battle of tours, charles martel, french history, , , writer in black, writerinblack.com   

    Battle of Tours 

    On this date, in AD732, Charles Martel led the Franks against Muslim invaders near the city of Tours and turned back the tide of Islamic advance at the Battle of Tours (sometimes called the Battle of Poitiers).

    In the preceding 110 years, Islam, thanks to the diligent efforts of polite young men in white shirts and ties on bicycles going out two-by-two, had spread from its origins in the Arabian peninsula through south-central Asia and across the north of Africa, and up into the Iberian peninsula.

    Did I say polite young men in white shirts and ties on bicycles going out two-by-two?  Just kidding.  That’s Mormons.  The Muslims did it by going out conquering and to conquer, slaughtering everyone who would not submit, in a tide of blood across all their conquered lands.

    It seemed that Muhammed and his successors did not understand that “Jihad” meant internal struggle over oneself and that “Islam” meant “peace” and the meaning of “submission” was ones own submission to Allah.  They apparently thought “Jihad” meant real war against unbelievers, using real swords and spears, leaving real dead and mutilated bodies in its wake and the “submission” was forcing those not in Islam to submit to it.  But what did they know?  They only founded the religion or followed in the footsteps of the founder.

    Muslims of the Umayyad dynasty, chiefly Berbers, invaded the Iberian peninsula (really, it was a military invasion, not a lot of missionaries on bicycles.  Besides, the bicycle hadn’t been invented yet).  With an decade they had essentially conquered the Iberian peninsula and were expanding across the Pyrenees into what would eventually be part of southern France.

    In the spring of 732, these Umayyad Muslims defeated Duke Odo at the Battle of the River Garonne, thus setting the stage for what was to come.

    Odo, surviving the battle, asked the Franks for help.  Charles Martel, “Mayor of the Palace” (Ruler in all but name but it would wait for his son, Pepin the Short, for his line to officially claim the throne) would only promise aid in return for Odo submitting to Frankish authority.

    While this was going on, the Umayyads, in apparent unconcern about possible Frankish might, advanced toward the Loire river.  Lax in scouting and unconcerned, they did not note the power massing to oppose them.

    The Umayyads were mostly cavalry.  Charles, according to accounts, was mostly infantry, but heavily armed and armored infantry.  One of the Frank’s main weapons was the Francisca, a heavy-headed, short-handled throwing axe.  The Byzantine historian Procopius (c. 500–565) described the axes and their use thus:

    …each man carried a sword and shield and an axe. Now the iron head of this weapon was thick and exceedingly sharp on both sides while the wooden handle was very short. And they are accustomed always to throw these axes at one signal in the first charge and thus shatter the shields of the enemy and kill the men.

    And at the time of Charles Martel, the axes were still in common use.  It would be some time yet before the Frankish forces converted to being primarily cavalry under the successors to Charles Martel.

    When the Umayad’s reached the Franks and their allies, they faced off with skirmishes while waiting for their full force to arrive.

    Finally, the forces were all ready and the day of battle arrived.  Abd-al-Raḥmân, the leader of the Umayyad forces, trusted to the strength of his cavalry and had them charge repeatedly at the Frankish infantry lines.  The incredibly disciplined infantry stood its ground staunchly despite (according to Arab sources) Umayyad cavalry breaking into their formation several times.

    A charge of Umayyad broke through, attempting to reach Charles reasoning, probably correctly, that if they could kill Charles the Frankish army would break.  However Charles’ liege men surrounded him and held off the attack.

    While the battle still raged, rumors went through the Umayyad forces that Frankish scouts were threatening the Umayyad baggage train and threatening to carry off the loot they’d already gathered in their march northward.  Arab reports indeed claim that this was the case (in a second day of battle where Frankish reports say it only lasted one day).

    This, apparently was too much for many of the Umayyads.  Fight them on the field of battle.  Throw axes at them.  Stab at them with spears and slash at them with swords.  All good.  But threaten their loot?  No way.

    However, they didn’t appear to make clear to their compatriots what exactly they were doing and why.  The others saw them heading back the way they’d come and thought they were in retreat.  And “if he’s retreating, maybe I should be too” is a thought soldiers have shared many a time throughout history.  The result was the Umayyad’s went into full-fledged retreat.  Abd-al-Raḥmân tried to stop the retreat and, as a result, was surrounded and killed.

    The next day, Charles, fearing the possibility of an ambush, kept his troops in formation in their relatively secure position.  He did, however, send out extensive reconnaissance which discovered that the Umayyad’s had abandoned not only the field of battle but their own camp so fast that they’d left their tents behind, heading back to Iberia as fast as their horses and wagons could carry them taking what loot they could carry with them.

    Had to protect that loot.

    The Umayyad’s retreated south back over the Pyrenees and that remained the end of Muslim advance into Europe.  Further attempts into the European heartland were made but they came to nought in the end.  Charles Martel and his forces had broken the back of the Muslim conquest of Europe for many centuries to come.

    How Charles Martel would weep to see Europe inviting in a new generation of invaders with open arms.


  • Jack 2:43 pm on October 1, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: , , , ,   

    Shock Claim? 

    HISTORIANS has thrown doubt on the Ancient Egyptians ever having built the Great Pyramids of Giza instead claiming the monuments could have been built by a lost civilisation.

    The authors of a forthcoming book investigating the only remaining wonder of the ancient world throw doubt on conventional thinking that it was the Ancient Egyptians that built the Pyramids at Giza around 2,500 BC.

    Instead Gerry Cannon and Malcolm Hutton claim that the Sphinx in front of the pyramids must have been carved out of natural rock and long before any sand covered the area, meaning that at one time, long ago the area must have been fertile.

    Mr Cannon told Express.co.uk: “The Sphinx had to have been carved when there was no sand there. You can’t carve a rock when it’s under sand.

    “When it was not under sand was about 12,000 years ago and the Egyptians weren’t there.”

    This would mean, according to the pair’s research, the pyramids and sphinxes were built at least 12,500 years ago which could have been before the start of the Ice Age.

    Conventional thinking about when the Pyramids of Giza were built date construction to between 2,560 to 2540 BC, a difference of around 10,000 years.

    The significant time difference would mean that the artefacts were not built by the Ancient Egyptians, according to Mr Cannon.

    Mr Cannon, although not completely convinced, believes it could have been by the hands of the people of the advanced civilisation of Atlantis that was ultimately consumed by flooding.

    He said: “The theories are, and I can believe them, that there was some advanced civilisation – and I can’t say they are 100 per cent right – that came to this planet tens of thousands of years ago.

    “I’ve done some research and there’s a direct line from the pyramids to a submerged continent with a sea mount and on the sea mount there are two pinnacles that look like pyramids.

    “It’s possible, and I don’t say 100 per cent, that it’s Atlantis – when Atlantis sunk they went to another place, probably Egypt and they had the technology to build those pyramids. There’s no one else that could have done it, we don’t have the technology.

    “Nobody knows who was there 12,000 years ago. The three smaller pyramids at Giza probably were built by the Eygptians as they could be built by man but it’s impossible that the three bigger ones were, simply from the size of them – they’ve got 2,250,000 blocks in them and each block weighs about 250 tonnes, we couldn’t even move it with all the equipment we have today so it had to have been done by a civilisation that was more advanced than any of us.

    “The Egyptians couldn’t have done it, they didn’t have the tools.”

    However the word of Mr Cannon and others who have raised doubts regarding the Egyptians building the pyramids have been met with a brick wall by the Egyptian authorities who maintain the Ancient Egyptians built them.

    Mr Cannon said: “The Egyptians have their blinkers on and they won’t even look at anything else because all their work, all their books, all their history will be thrown out of the window and they are all against anyone that says anything different.

    “There have been big problems. The Egyptians are adamant they built it.”


    • Jack 2:54 pm on October 1, 2017 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Anyone who has been following this kind of information will find this latest claim credible. There’s a ton of information on the net about the great pyramid and other ancient wonders which have yet to be explained properly.

      Here are ten facts on the great pyramid well reinforced in other publications which will cause any reasoning mind to doubt the screams of Egyptian historians.

Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc