REMAIN PURE, OR MARRY A MONSTER???

 The period leading up to WWII was full of intrigue and political division.  With whom should we ally?  Prepare for war?  Should we think mainly of our interests in the Pacific, or Europe? or???

       I did not plan to raise this topic, but when I saw Bose quoted, well, here goes.  Bose had been elected Mayor of Calcutta on the Congress Party ticket, I guess in the late 1930s.  Unlike Congress leaders Gandhi and Nehru, Bose was not inclined toward pacifism.  When war broke out, he was more interested in using force to free India from its colonial masters.  Brits held him under house arrest.  With help ov the Abwehr, he escapes, first to Afghanistan, and thence to Moscow (during the Nazi-Soviet Pact), and finally flown to Berlin. 

     Like Sir Roger Casement during the Great War, who recruited Irish POWs for the Reich, Casement also boarded a U-boat and emerged in Ireland, to be quickly apprehended by the Brits who knew of the forthcoming Easter Rebellion of 1916.  Tho it half-started badly, and many involved in the early episode would be executed, including Casement, it was the beginning of the end of Brit rule in Catholic Ireland.

    Once in Germany, Bose recruited Indian POWs for the Wehrmacht, and he broadcast over Radio Berlin to India.  Also broadcasting on Radio Berlin, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, with a simple message - kill the Jews.  He later visited Auschwitz.  Meanwhile, broadcasting from London was an Indian born gent (born in Burma, but I think Burma was then assigned to India) the man known as George Orwell. Orwell's broadcasts urged the colonials to support Britain.

    Remaining in Germany, Bose felt left behind in the struggle.  To activate things,  Bose boarded a German U-boot, and "sailed" to the coast of Vichy French Madagascar, where Bose switched to a Jap sub, and off to Asia.  With Japanese support, he proclaimed a provisional Republic of India, declared war on Britain and the US, and recruited the Indian National Army from among the Indian POWs of the Japs.  They finally had a major battle in 1945 at Imphal, and tho the Brits won, they were afraid that a Bose victory might see British rule crumble. (For a terrific account of this era, see the old series The Jewel in the Crown, n early, costly, and superb tv series from Britain's ITV)  But with the A-bombs, the Japs surrender, Bose loses his support, and dies in an airplane accident.  I did not know he said, Hitler, Stalin, Tojo, whatever is best for India.  But what is wrong with that?  FDR decided Hitler was the strongest enemy, so we would help Stalin.  And we did with considerable material.  And the FDR Adm. let Hollywood know, we needed some kindly Uncle Joe Stalin movies, and so North Star and other pro-Stalin Hollywood films were made and shown.  Truman had early said it would be best if the 2 monsters fought it out till both were ruined, but he was not then President.  America did choose, Stalin, helping him directly, and indirectly through spies.  Remember, Putin, in a speech in the early 21st century thanked Western scientists for their help in developing new weapons, providing suitcases of secrets.

    What about Gandhi?  Here is an AI discussion of another Congress Party leader's views of the era:

 

Mahatma Gandhi, a proponent of non-violent resistance, controversially suggested that Jews in Nazi Germany should respond to persecution with non-violent resistance and even embrace suffering as a form of protest. 

 

Here's a summary of his views:

1. Embracing Suffering and Non-violent Resistance:

• Gandhi believed that Jews should offer themselves to be killed rather than resist violently or flee.
• He argued that "suffering voluntarily undergone will bring them inner strength and joy".
• He suggested they should have "thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs," believing such extreme acts of non-violent resistance would "arouse the world and the people of Germany". 

2. Remaining Courageous and Asserting Equality:

• Gandhi urged Jews to remain courageous and practice non-violence, even in the face of extreme brutality.
• He believed they should assert their rights as equal citizens within Germany and refuse to be discriminated against. 

3. Criticisms and Controversies:

• Gandhi's views on Jewish resistance during the Holocaust were widely criticized, even by those who admired his broader philosophy of non-violence.
• Critics argued that his advice was unrealistic and impractical in the face of Nazi atrocities.
• Some questioned whether Gandhi truly understood the scope of the Nazi persecution and the threat it posed to Jewish survival. 

In Conclusion:

Gandhi's recommendations for Jews in Nazi Germany were rooted in his strong belief in the power of non-violent resistance. However, his specific proposals were considered controversial and largely unrealistic by many, particularly in the context of the Holocaust. 

 

    Orwell was one of many critical of Gandhi.

 

   I am often critical of FDR, but like Bose, he thought of what might be best for his country.  And you make a marriage of convenience, even to a monster.

   Tony and I work together on many items, but we do disagree on many things too.  Yes, I think that Stalin was a monster, in many ways; but at times he was our monster ally in the struggle against another monster.     Hugh Murray

ANOTHER LEGACY OF DR. FAUCI?

 On today's Drudge Report website, there is this headline: Heart Or Panic Attack? Young Men Calling Ambulances For Unmanaged Anxiety...

The link takes you to an article in the Wall Street Journal.  Is it a real heart attack or just a new trendy way of trying to handle anxiety?  

I am no physician, but something comes to my mind - The Covid vax and especially the after-shot, the follow up, that was pushed by Dr. Fauci and his madicrats and medictators.  There were already indications that the vax was causing some heart problems in young men, and the problems were exacerbated by the follow-up booster shots.  Has anyone studied the present increase in alarms about the hearts of young men?  What % received the vax; what % received both vax and follow-ups?  Is there a correlation?  Is there a cause and effect?

Another headline on The War Room's running news tape; Fauci's scientists apparently destroyed documents sought by Congressional investigators probing the Covid mess.----Hugh Murray

FROM ANTHONY G FLOOD'S WEBSITE

 A few days ago National Public Radio's Morning Edition had a segment to remind listeners of the centennial of the birth of Malcolm Little, who became Malcolm X;  I spoke with Mr. Flood soon after on other topics, mentioned the NPR report, and complained to Flood, that as usual, the liberal radio network did not mention an important aspect of Malcolm's critique of the civil rights movement.  Mr. Flood then composed an addition to his website for the following day.  I have copied part of his site and placed it on my own blog today.  It is below -  I copied only one of the 2 letters for my blog.

Marking Malcolm X’s centennial: Hugh Murray’s probing letters from the 1990s.

I missed it by a day (sorry!). The centennial of the birth of Malcolm X and 60 years since his assassination (a few months after his Queens home was firebombed a few miles from me) warrant swiping from my old site two letters that my friend Hugh Murray got published in 1994 and 1995. Without further ado:

 

 

What about the Nation of Islam’s Historical Ties to Fascism?

The New York Times, February 23, 1994

It was widely reported when Louis Farrakhan, head of the Nation of Islam, suspended Khalid Abdul Muhammad, who told an audience at Kean College of New Jersey that Jews are bloodsuckers, gays are sissies, and the Pope is a cracker.

Mr. Farrakhan rebuked the manner in which Mr. Muhammad delivered his message, but Mr. Farrakhan reaffirmed the “truths” of that message! Reporters speculate if this is a repudiation of bigotry or not.  But they are silent about the history of the Nation of Islam on these subjects.

American Nazi Party Commander George Lincoln Rockwell (center) at a Nation of Islam (NOI) rally, Uline Arena, Washington, DC, June 25, 1961. During the collection, he shouted: “George Lincoln Rockwell gives $20!” (almost $135 in today’s money). Malcolm X, noting the applause, asked him: “George Lincoln Rockwell, you got the biggest hand you ever got, didn’t you?” Elijah Muhammad, NOI founder, invited Rockwell to speak at their next Savior’s Day Convention, which he did on Sunday, February 25, 1962, before 12,175 people in Chicago’s International Amphitheater. (Muhammad Speaks, April 1962, p. 3.) At the podium, in full Nazi regalia, Rockwell opined “that Elijah Muhammad is to the so-called Negro what Adolph Hitler is to the German people. He is the most powerful black man in the country. Heil Hitler!” (Black History and the Class Struggle, Spartacist League, August 1994, p. 37.)

In the early 1960’s, at a large gathering of the Nation of Islam, the featured speaker was Elijah Muhammad, its leader.  But the speaker just before him, addressing Elijah Muhammad’s followers, was George Lincoln Rockwell, leader of the American Nazi Party.1

In the early 1960’s Malcolm X, as a Nation of Islam spokesman, mocked the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement.  At the height of civil rights protest Malcolm traveled to the South, not to partake in civil rights protest, but to negotiate with leaders of the Ku Klux Klan on how to thwart the struggle for civil rights.  This scene is omitted from Spike Lee’s film and from the recent PBS documentary on Malcolm X.

And in the 1920’s, even before the founding of the Nation of Islam, Marcus Garvey led the Universal Negro Improvement Association, which became America’s largest black nationalist organization.  The association created the Black Cross Nurses, the African Legion, the Knights of the Nile and established the Black Star Steamship Line.  Though black liberals and socialists like A. Philip Randolph and W. E. B. Du Bois bitterly opposed Garvey, Garvey found other associates—the leaders of the Ku Klux Klan.

Garvey and Klansmen met and shook hands in the 1920’s.  Eventually, Garvey was deported and lived in Britain, where he supported the Conservative Party and hoped Britain would transfer some of its African colonies to him.  Garvey also admired some European leaders, like Mussolini.  Garvey even reminded his followers, “We were the first Fascists.”2

Thus, the problem is not a single speech by Khalid Muhammad.  Behind much of black nationalism and the Nation of Islam lurks the idea of fascism.  And black fascism, like white fascism, is still fascism.

When Jesse Jackson and the Congressional Black Caucus attempt to embrace Louis Farrakhan, they are seeking an alliance with a tradition of fascism.

Notes

1 See William H. Schmaltz’s When George Lincoln Rockwell, Elijah Muhammad, and Malcolm X Shared the Same Stage and Rockwell’s own account.—A.G.F.

2 For the source of this quote, see the third reference note to Hugh Murray, “From the Communist Party to Affirmative Action.”—A.G.F

Hugh Murray, Milwaukee

PS--- Kanye is not the first

In January 1965 Malcolm was the featured speaker at the Militant Labor Forum in NYC.  In Feb. 1965 Malcolm was shot dead.  In August 1966 I was the featured speaker at the Militant Labor Forum in NYC.  Happily, I have not been shot. 

CONTRAST - JOE BIDEN'S ECONOMIC INVADERS WITH REAL REFUGEES FACING CONFISCATION AND RACIST MURDERERS

This is my comment on Newser's site.  The Economic Freedom Fighters got about 10% of the vote in the last election.  Unfortunately, the song of murder is sung beyond the ranks of the EFF.  Hugh Murray

 Most of Biden's invaders were not refugees facing confiscation and death because of their race, they were econoc migrats, which by definition are NOT refugees. Not coming in legally, they should be deported. By contrast the leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters political party in South Africa, sings in a stadium filled with supporters - "Kill the Boers, Kill the whites" as his rifle the makes the sound, tat, tat, tat, of gun fire. The masses in the stadium laugh and join in the song, again, and again. South Africa is a racist state today, with one of the highest murder rates in the world masking the racist nature of many murders. We in America should have room for real refugees; but others should apply to enter legally, or be deported under Trump's reasonable policies.

 0

Reply

From RT - CHINA'S MILITARY CAPABILITY

I include this article because it mentions wars in recent history about which I know nothing.  In discussing the Peoples Liberation Army, that includes the nave, and the article does not include China's aggression against the Philippines in the South China Sea.  Still, it is a short article that opens possible research into many little known battle spheres.  I hope you find it informative.  Hugh Murray 

Think China is a ‘nation that can’t fight’? Think again

The West has mocked Beijing’s military for decades – it may soon regret it

By Vasily Kashin, Political Science PhD, Director of the Centre for Comprehensive European and International Studies, HSE

FILE PHOTO. ©  CFOTO/Future Publishing via Getty Images

The internet is flooded with quotes attributed to Chinese philosophers. Who hasn’t seen a meme with a “Confucius” saying or heard of the so-called “ancient Chinese curse” about living in interesting times? In reality, 99% of these quotations are fake, reflecting Western projections of Chinese wisdom rather than its reality. Yet one saying – “good iron does not make nails; good men do not make soldiers” – is genuinely Chinese. Known since at least the Song Dynasty (late 10th – early 12th century), it remains in use today, much to the irritation of China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) political officers.

Globally, the proverb helped fuel a myth that China “never liked to fight” and “always lost wars.” Yet the absurdity of this view is clear if one simply looks at the world map today. Nevertheless, it persists – and now, as China becomes a true superpower, this misconception could have dangerous consequences for the world.

Historical roots

To understand the proverb’s origin, we must look at the structure of the Song Dynasty's military. Early Chinese empires such as the Han relied on conscription, but over time, mercenary armies became the norm. Chronic shortages of volunteers were addressed by drafting criminals and debtors – turning armies into collections of society’s “undesirables.”

Officers, by contrast, came from privileged classes who passed imperial military exams. These exams, though less prestigious than their civilian counterparts, still conferred status. But it is crucial to remember that the civil bureaucracy was tiny, making its officials extraordinarily powerful, while rank-and-file soldiers remained socially degraded.

Read more

 The West is breaking up – here is what Russia and China must do

This pattern closely resembled Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries: a privileged officer corps and low-status, often criminal, enlisted men. Wellington’s remark in 1811 that “only men of the worst character enter the regular service” could have been said about China too. Military service was a punishment; soldiers were feared more for their misbehavior than admired for their valor. In that context, the “men and nails” proverb made perfect sense – and was hardly unique to China.

The modern Western glorification of the soldier – tied to mass conscription, nationalism, and industrial militarism – only emerged in the 19th century. In China, where social and political backwardness lingered longer, this transformation began only in the 20th century with enormous difficulty.

China’s true military record

A regular, centrally commanded, professionally trained army – the PLA – was only created in the 1950s, after the Communist victory. Almost immediately, the PLA demonstrated its effectiveness by intervening in the Korean War, inflicting a series of defeats on UN forces and saving North Korea. The Soviet Union, by contrast, limited itself to sending small air and anti-aircraft units.

In 1962, China launched a well-timed, surprise offensive against India, achieving a quick victory and territorial gains. Beijing struck while the world was distracted by the Cuban Missile Crisis. Throughout the 1960s, China also provided major military support to North Vietnam, at times deploying up to 170,000 troops – considerably more than the Soviet Union ever committed.

In 1969, Beijing provoked and fought small border clashes with the USSR – a calculated show of strength aimed at achieving key foreign and domestic policy goals, including paving the way for rapprochement with the United States. The military component was minor; the political impact was enormous.

Meanwhile, the PLA fought a prolonged counterinsurgency campaign in Tibet, defeating US- and Indian-backed guerrillas by the early 1970s. It also engaged in recurring military action against Taiwan, demonstrating clear superiority across the Taiwan Strait.

Read more

 Fyodor Lukyanov: Forget land – this is Russia’s main demand from the West

Risk-taking and adaptation

In February 1979, China launched an invasion of Vietnam, a newly minted Soviet ally. This bold action risked conflict with a nuclear superpower. The campaign exposed PLA shortcomings but also demonstrated its resilience, willingness to absorb heavy casualties, and ability to carry out major offensives.

While Vietnam held out thanks to Soviet military threats against China, Beijing’s ability to act – and to compel both Moscow and Washington to recalibrate their policies – was a major achievement.

The Sino-Vietnamese conflict evolved into a decade-long border war marked by artillery duels, naval clashes, and raids, culminating in China’s decisive naval victory in the Spratly Islands in 1988.

Comparing China’s record from 1949-1989 to the Soviet Union’s reveals a striking fact: China used military force more frequently, and arguably more effectively, than the USSR during the Cold War.

Modernization and patience

After Mao’s death, the PLA underwent profound modernization, both politically and socially. Military service gained prestige. During the Cultural Revolution, the army became a pillar of governance and society. Yet, China’s foreign policy turned defensive from the 1990s onward – not from weakness, but from strategic calculation.

After the Soviet collapse, China faced a unipolar world dominated by the United States. Survival and development required patience. Beijing avoided major military engagements for nearly 30 years, instead focusing on economic and technological breakthroughs. Shows of force were reserved for defending “core interests,” such as during the 1995-1996 Taiwan Strait Crisis.

Read more

 Challenging anarchy: Russian roulette in post-Assad Syria

By the late 2010s, the global environment had changed. American dominance weakened. The unipolar order eroded. China’s rise, both economic and military, became undeniable.

Beijing’s gradual reassertion of military power has been cautious but unmistakable: expanding operational reach, forging military partnerships, and conducting exercises in potential conflict zones.

A dangerous myth

The myth of Chinese military incompetence is not only historically false; it is potentially catastrophic. In the past, underestimating China’s capabilities led adversaries to miscalculate – to their great cost. Today, as China carefully prepares for its first major combat operations in decades, its adversaries would do well to shed illusions and study history more carefully.

Beijing will not rush into war. It will act only under conditions it judges favorable and under circumstances it has painstakingly prepared. But make no mistake: when it acts, China will not be the passive, incompetent power that outdated stereotypes imagine.

This article was first published by the magazine Profile and was translated and edited by the RT team.

ANALYSIS

FROM RT - DEPRESSING NEWS FROM CHINA

I saw nothing about this on today's news in America, but I do not watch all the programs.  This is not the news I expect on Easter, or any day for that matter.  Hugh Murray                           The RT story is below: 

China detonates non-nuclear hydrogen bomb — media

The South China Morning Post has cited researchers as saying the 2kg magnesium hydride device generated a 1,000 degrees Celsius fireball

FILE PHOTO. ©  Getty Images/JulNichols

Chinese researchers have successfully tested a non-nuclear hydrogen bomb that created a sustained fireball, far outperforming traditional explosives, the South China Morning Post has reported.

In an article on Sunday, the newspaper cited the researchers’ study published last month in the Chinese-language Journal of Projectiles, Rockets, Missiles and Guidance. According to the report, a team from the China State Shipbuilding Corporation’s (CSSC) 705 Research Institute — a key player in underwater weapon systems — developed a 2kg (4.4lbs) bomb primarily composed of magnesium hydride, with conventional explosives serving as the catalyst.

In a field test, the device reportedly generated a fireball with temperatures exceeding 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,832 degrees Fahrenheit) that lasted for more than two seconds, which is "15 times longer" than what an "equivalent TNT blast" is capable of producing.

READ MORE: Russian flamethrowers pound Ukrainian positions (MOD VIDEO)

In the reaction, magnesium hydride, a compound originally developed as an efficient fuel, rapidly releases stored hydrogen gas, resulting in a sustained inferno.

The novel explosive device’s destructive power thus is said to lie not in its blast pressure, but rather in the ability to generate extreme heat.

The South China Morning Post quoted CSSC research scientist Wang Xuefeng as explaining that its properties also allow for “precise control over blast intensity, easily achieving uniform destruction of targets across vast areas.”

If fully developed, the method could presumably yield a weapon similar to a thermobaric device – ideal for annihilating defensive structures and armored vehicles.

While the production of magnesium hydride used to be mostly small-scale and rather complicated, China has recently developed a cheaper and safer production method and built a plant capable of producing 150 tons of the compound per year.

You can share this story on social media:

MUSINGS ON EASTER

     If I were in a sad mood, depressed, and chose to cut my wrist, then what to do?  I can sit and watch the blood flow out.  Or I can use my good hand to grab my mobile phone and call an ambulance.  Which way?  I do not have all day, for I will get weaker, and then unable..  What should I do?  What do I do?

     Then, there is Jesus on the cross.  He certainly did not hammer the nails into his feet or hands/wrists.  On the other hand, his preachings were so outrageous, so blasphemous to the orthodox Jewish community of that era, that they demanded the Roman authorities put him on trial.  When the Roman adjudicator sought to make inquiries, he seemed confused as to the charges.  What was this all about?  What is truth?  The conventional Jews had given him an earful, and more.  Now he asked the accused, Jesus, for his side of the story.  Jesus remains silent.  Enough, Pilate will let the verdict go to the jury, in this case to the people assembled before him.  Is Jesus guilty of high blasphemy, disturbing the peace, and other crimes.  The people judges - not merely guilty, but to be executed through crucifixion.

      Jesus is to be crucified along with 2 regular criminals.  For irony, the Romans label him, INRI, Iesus of Nazareth  King of the Iudea.  Not only must Jesus endure the terrific pain of the nails in his body, but the very weight of his body enhances the pain.  In addition to the physical pain, taunts come from the crowd - If you really are a son of god, come down from the cross!  If you are god's chosen, turn the nails into flowers and step down from the cross.  The response of Jesus, "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do."

    So Jesus remained on the cross, suffering.  Till death.  Why?  According to his followers, Jesus had performed miracles.  He turned water into wine.  When there was not enough food to feed a multitude of his followers, he delivered enough fish through another miracle.  And after Lazarus had died, Jesus raised the dead man.  If he could waken the dead, surely he could turn nails into roses.  Or, if he was a fakir all along, a clever magician at best, well of course he could not perform a miracle on the cross.

     But if he has the power to stop the execution, and does not use the power, is Jesus not a suicide?

     On the other hand, if he does not have the power to stop it, perhaps he was simply a regular man, like the rest of us; but also a teacherpreacher who infuriated his "betters" and paid a heavy price for that.  Perhaps, his teachings were worth the gamble of spreading them, while making many others angry.  Perhaps.  So Jesus would not be a suicide, but a religious teacher who paid for his unyielding pushing of his views.  Jesus paid in death, like Socrates had before him.

        Hugh Murray

For a somewhat related post to Easter, see my SOME ODD THOUGHTS post of 12 May 2024, though that is far less serious and more off beat.  Hugh