Skip to main content

Not ‘World Wars’. White Man Wars.

Allied Forces in 'World War' 2

Let's get one thing clear.  There is no such thing as 'World War' 1 and 2.  They were ‘European Wars’ started by the Europeans, and the rest of the world was dragged into it.  The western battlefield being extended to include the whole world does not mean that the white man wasn’t leading the charge.

Calling these 'World Wars' simply serves to impress upon us that when the white man cocks up, it is the whole world that is cocking up.  And when the white man achieves something, it is the white man, and not the world, that is achieving something.

The western battlefield being extended to include the whole world does not mean that the white man wasn’t leading the charge.

And don't talk about the Japanese not being European, and thus justifying the term ‘world war’.  The Japanese war machine and global domineering mindset was a western construction as the Japanese were given a choice of either assimilating to the white man's ways, or being subjugated and pillaged like the rest of s.e.Asia.  The american commodore Matthew Perry bombed Edo Bay to force the Japanese to 'open up'.

This fact has been omitted in many official western ‘historical‘ accounts on the net, and quite unappreciated by at least some american students, and made light of, as you can see in the following video.  All that is said is that the Japanese caved in to american demands under threat of attack, and not that they were actually attacked.  Even in Wiki, the attack is presented as an effort to ‘demonstrate’ the ability of American firepower, and not as an attack.  Well, close to a century later, the Japanese returned the favour by bombing the Americans in Pearl Harbour.  Beautifully poetic justice that - though I think the americans would like to call it an ‘act of terror’.  It was just a case of the student becoming as bad as the master.

And yet, at the close of 'World War' 2, they dropped two atomic bombs on Japanese women and children in order to stop the Japanese doing unto other states what the white man had been doing to the whole world for centuries.  And even the British say that it is a good thing as it saved lots of lives because an actual invasion of Japan would have cost more lives.  What kind of twisted self-serving logic is that?  We could also use that same logic in justifying Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbour, or the Germans bombing London, or even Al Qaeda bombing the Twin Towers, as 'it would cost more lives if they were to invade these places'.  So should we should be nominating Isoroku Yamamoto, Osama Bin Laden, and Adolf Hitler for Nobel Peace Prizes?

By blaming the west's evils on the whole world, and giving credit to them when they do good, simply serves to present themselves as incapable of evil.

We need some objectivity about things here, at least, to train our ability to be objective about things, instead of just being unthinking 'fans' of the west just because, to the lesser mind, the propagandic Iron Man or Avengers series, amongst a host of others, is highly entertaining.



Popular posts from this blog

Is singapore a tyranny, or are people to dumbed down to feel it?

The following is a consideration of the perspective posted at the site, 'article14'. The site, in discussing the so-called 'Black Sunday movement' whose members wear black and congregate at Starbucks - perhaps they have an unstated desire to boost Starbucks sales of overpriced beverages, or perhaps Starbucks is paying for their black garments...silly people - to express their support for the freedom of expression - brought up certain points that seem to be commonly held by the 'singaporeans' of today.

Manifesto Against Same-Sex Marriages and Homo-Promotion

My stand against homosexuality is based on the following.  It is a logical, rather than a personal, decision.

Under the slogan, 'the freedom to love', it in principle justifies incestuous, group, etc, marriages.  All it requires is 'consenting adults', without an inquiry into what it means to be an 'adult' in intelligent, moral, and introspective terms.

This in turn encourages a ‘go with your feel’ tendency, which in itself gives rise a myriad of tendencies that go unquestioned.  Right and wrong ceases to matter, and even if something is illegal, one can still view it as society just having its own bias against it, just as it once had a ‘bias’ against homosexuality.

‘Nothing is natural.  Everything is just a matter of preference.’  That is the basic thrust of this unfortunate situation.  In fact, having a preference is in itself seen as evidence of one’s intelligence.  No attention needs to be paid to intellectuals, thinkers, philosophers, sages, religious te…