Could this be your long lost cousin?

According to a press release issued by a company called DNA Diagnostics that details the work of a Texas veterinarian, “Researchers’ extensive DNA sequencing suggests that the legendary Sasquatch is a human relative that arose approximately 15,000 years ago.” The report comes from Melba S. Ketchum who somehow managed to obtain three “whole nuclear genomes from purported Sasquatch samples” and that “the genome sequencing shows that Sasquatch mtDNA is identical to modern Homo sapiens, but Sasquatch nuDNA is a novel, unknown hominin related to Homo sapiens and other primate species.” (Mitochondrial DNA, or mtDNA, is the DNA that resides in the cell’s energy-producing structures, and is typically passed down from mothers, while nuclear DNA, nuDNA, resides in the cells’ nuclei and is passed down from both parents to offspring.)” This means that an unknown hominin species knocked-up female Homo sapiens resulting in a hybrid, i.e. Bigfoot.

The five-year long DNA study is currently under peer-review and Ketchum is keeping her evidence in the dark for now. Only Ketchum and her team know anything about this supposed sample of evidence, anybody could have collected it. We have no way of knowing if this was collected by experts who knew what they were doing or amateur Bigfoot enthusiasts who may have contaminated it.

Whatever her evidence, Ketchum seems fairly sure of herself and has issued a statement to the U.S. government requesting that they immediately recognize Bigfoot as “an indigenous people and immediately protect their human and Constitutional rights against those who would see in their physical and cultural differences a ‘license’ to hunt, trap, or kill them.” To which the U.S. government replied “LOL”. OK, the U.S. government did not actually say that but considering that nobody can even get any decent photographs or any real evidence, until now supposedly, of said beastie then a request that they are protected from being hunted, trapped or killed is probably not necessary at this time.

Vlad the Impaler, or Dracula, is believed to have a connection to the Royal Family.

The legendry Count Dracula originated from a novel by Bram Stoker whom he based on Vlad Tepes or “The Impaler”, ruler of the Kingdom of Wallachia. The author described Vlad the Impaler as someone who would transform into a Vampire bat in the hours of darkness and drink the blood of his victims.

Vlad Tepes (the Impaler) was renowned for his gory campaigns against not only his enemies, the Ottomans, but also towards his own people. His victims were estimated to be in the region of many thousands, which apparently inspired Bram Stoker to write his famous novel.

A commentary by Prince Charles in the promotional video refers to his ancestry in relation to Romania and its murky past, and the kinship between himself and Vlad Tepes. He also produced some dry British humour by connecting his genealogy, his family’s kingdom and Vlad the Impaler, with the statement that he does have a “bit of a stake in the country”.

In a book by Sir Iain Moncreiffe published in 1982, Prince Charles is referred to as a sixteen times removed, great grandson of Vlad Tepes. A further belief is that Mary, the Queen Consort of George V who is the great grandfather of Prince Charles, was a relation of Vlad Tepes. One historic fact is that Marie, a cousin of George V, married the Romanian Crown Prince and following the end of the 1914-1918 Great War, ruled that European country.

The video and brochures were launched at the World Travel Market in London, and it has been indicated that the apparent fondness portrayed by the British Royal Family for Romania could be a positive influence in promoting the country.

BridgeAnne d’Avignon with her president family tree.

The majority of the United States presidents have something shocking in common. While all of them have held the coveted commander-in-chief title, it seems that every president other than one, both past and present, are cousins.

This shocking and amazing discovery was found out by a twelve year old named BridgeAnne d’Avignon from Salinas, California. She spent time and research creating a family tree which connects 42 out of 43 presidents to one ancestor: King John of England.

Most famously known for his signing of the Magna Carta in 1215, King John or John ‘Lackland’, limited how much power the monarchy had and began the formation of the British Parliament.

The Monte Vista Christian seventh-grader from Watsonville, d’Avignon, began the project to be able to trace her bloodline to France. On her path towards finding her own bloodline she took a turn and began a new quest on a much higher level.

Her months of hard work paid off to reveal a connection few people, if any, ever knew.

The twelve year old dedicated months towards going through 500,000 names in genealogy looking for the “presidential Adam” to be able to create the family tree. Her grandfather, who is 80, has traced roots for almost 60 years and he helped her with making her links for the presidents.

Starting with the first United States president, George Washington, she was able to trace both of the male and female family lines to be able to make the connections.

Before the discovery, there were only 22 links to families of the presidents done by genealogists. This could be possible due to male bloodlines being the primary focus.

Out of all of the 43 presidents, Martin Van Buren is the only one who is not related to King John. His family heritage consisted of Dutch roots.

During her discovery, she was also able to learn that she is actually the 18th cousin of President Barack Obama. She quickly wrote her findings in a letter to the White House to share with him. However, she has only received a regular White House letter response.

Is there something genetic about the way we strive for power? With so many world leaders having the same bloodlines as a well-known ruler of the world, it could be possible they are driven with a desire for power at the very base of their blood.

email: timothychilman@yahoo.com

An artist's representation of the craft with which Napoleon was to invade Britain

As the 19th century commenced, Britain was embroiled in a war with France where the very survival of the nation was at stake. In 1797, a French invasion fleet embarked for Ireland, which was ruled by Britain at the time, but the weather was so violent that troops could not land.

Both countries sought to prevent the other from trading with the United States. France made noises, but could do little to enforce an embargo without a decent navy. Britain was the world’s leading naval power after Lord Nelson’s victory at Trafalgar in 1805. In 1807, Britain ordered that all ships acquire a license from British authorities before trading with France or its colonies.

A major point of conflict between Britain and the United States was impressment, where sailors could be taken from boarded U.S. ships and obliged to serve in the Royal Navy. The practice had been indulged in since the reign of King Edward I in the thirteenth century. The Navy was 140,000 strong and much deserted-from. Impressment provided half its crews. Boardings were common to check for “contraband” and deserters. Six thousand sailors fell victim. Sailors were taken who had been born British but were American citizens (“Once an Englishman, always an Englishman”) and some were actually American from the start.

U.S. maritime interests did not opposes impressment forcefully, as losing a few sailors did not significantly affect the bottom line. Trade with Britain remained extremely profitable. The country at large, however, took impressment as an insult to the flag, and tempers reached fever-pitch in June of 1807 with the Chesapeake Affair.

Sailors on the USS Chesapeake firing the one shot they managed against HMS Leopard

Four British sailors had deserted and joined the U.S. Navy. The 38-gun USS Chesapeake’s captain was aware his crew included deserters. The 50-gun HMS Leopard attempted to board the Chesapeake to search it, but the U.S. ship did not heave to. The Leopard opened fire, killing three men and injuring 18. The British then boarded and seized the four men, of whom one was later executed for desertion. Britain offered to pay damages, but even level-headed Americans were outraged.

In the United States in May, 1810, the Non-Intercourse Act prohibited trade with France and Britain. Napoleon suggested he would cease restrictions on trade, and President James Madison relented in France’s case. Measures against Britain were frequently circumvented by smuggling from Canada.

New members of Congress known as the War Hawks agitated for war. In the northwest, Britain was held responsible for encouraging Injun hostility to American expansion. After every Injun raid, stories circulated of captured British muskets and other equipment. In the south, the states of Tennessee, the Mississippi Territory, and Georgia had designs upon Florida, which was ruled by Britain’s ally, Spain. Southerners also wished to remove from play a destination for escaped slaves.

On June 1, 1812, Madison asked Congress to declare war. Both houses approved wholeheartedly. War was declared on June 18. To its supporters, it was the Second American Revolution. Its detractors believed Madison had been dragged into war by the War Hawks and called it Mr. Madison’s War.

Spencer Percival, the only British Prime Minister to be murdered while in office

On May 11, 1812, the British prime minister, Spencer Percival, was shot in the House of Commons (“Argh! My House of Commons!”). He was shot dead by John Bellingham, a merchant who had become bankrupt after a business venture in Russia. This is a popular trivia question, and is worth remembering. The bloodstains are visible to this day. Bellingham had entreatied Percival for help, but none had been forthcoming. Bellingham was arrested, tried, and executed within the space of a week, which was indecent haste even at the time. The jury took 14 minutes to arrive at its decision. It is said that the night before his murder Percival had a dream where he was murdered in the lobby of the House of Commons, and he told his family of it on the morning of his demise. Bellingham’s descendants own a manufacturing business in the unfashionable NotLondon area of England, and the company website boasts of the association.

Percival was a hardliner. His replacement, Lord Liverpool, rescinded the requirement for a license to trade with France days before the United States declared war. There had been a poor grain harvest in Britain, which therefore needed American provisions for its troops on mainland Europe. Madison said that had he known, there would have been no war. Had the telegraph been invented, the War of 1812 would never have happened.

When war began the army of the United States was 11,744 strong. The navy amounted to 20 vessels. At the same time there were approximately 7,000 British and Canadian regular soldiers. Canada had a population of only around half a million, and therefore less militia. There were about 10,000 militia during the war, compared to 480,000 in the United States, of which no more than half ever fought. Injuns felt they required British support to prevent American settlers from forcing them from their land, providing a source of manpower, 3,500 at its peak, which the United States lacked. Being somewhat preoccupied by Napoleon, Britain could spare only 34 frigates and eleven ships of the line.

The disunity of the country was a significant weakness of the American position. Opposition to the war was strongest in New England, which traded extensively with Britain. Many shipbuilders in Connecticut and Massachusetts constructed privateers – privately owned, armed vessels – but New England otherwise made little contribution to the war effort. Merchants in New England continued to sell provisions to the British.

Brig. Gen. William Hull, who led the first American invasion of Canada during the War of 1812

Enthusiasm for war in the west was greater and Canadian forces were weak, making it the safest theater of operations, although one with few strategic possibilities. Brig. Gen. William Hull, governor of Michigan, led the first American invasion of Canada across the Detroit River. In Canada, he issued a histrionic proclamation to the Canadian people, but sent only small raiding parties further.

The British dispatched forces to sever Hull’s communication with Ohio. Fort Michilimackinac in Michigan was seized. A dashing young officer during the Revolution, Hull had become timid with age. He overestimated British reinforcements of Fort Malden tenfold, and withdrew across the river to Fort Detroit. A column retreating from Fort Dearborn, present-day Chicago, was massacred by Injuns, who destroyed the fort. The British followed Hull to Fort Detroit, and shelled it. On August 16, when the British General, Isaac Brock, led a force across the river in the direction of the fort, Hull and his 1,600 men surrendered. Hull was taken prisoner but paroled, and was court-martialed for incompetence when he returned States-side.

The USS Constitution defeating HMS Guerriere

On August 19, around 400 miles southeast of Halifax, the 56-gun USS Constitution sighted the 38-gun HMS Guerriere. The two ships exchanged broadsides and boarding parties. On seeing an 18-pound cannonball bounce off the Constitution’s hull, one U.S. sailor exclaimed, “Huzzah! Her sides are made of iron!” which gave the U.S. ship its nickname of Old Ironsides. The Guerriere lost two of its masts, leaving it unable to maneuver. Its captain surrendered. The ship was so badly damaged it was set on fire and abandoned.

Maj. Gen. Henry Dearborn invaded Canada with 4,000 men. Outnumbered two to one, the British retired, abandoning Forts George and Queenston. Dearborn sent 2,000 men in pursuit two days later, and they struck camp within 10 miles of the British. During the night, around 700 British attacked and beat off the Americans. Dearborn withdrew to Fort George. Around two weeks later, 500 of Dearborn’s men surrendered to a force of British and Injuns half their size.

William Henry Harrison, the governor of Indiana, had led U.S. troops to victory against the Injuns at Tippecanoe in 1811. Dependent on homemade cartridges and clothing, he made a move on Fort Malden. Hugely outnumbered, the British abandoned Forts Malden and Detroit. Harrison pursed the enemy with around 3,500 men. On October 5, he encountered the British around 85 miles from Malden on the banks of the Thames River. There were 900 British regulars and 2,000 Injuns under Tecumseh. Harrison ordered a mounted attack. The British surrendered and the Injuns fled. Tecumseh was killed, but Harrison could not exploit his victory as his Kentuckians wished to return to their farms for the harvest.

Tecumseh

The Injun defeat at Thames River led to the Curse of Tecumseh. It is said that either the man himself or his half-brother, Tenskwatawa, said, “Harrison will die, I tell you, and after him, every great chief chosen every 20 years thereafter will die. And when each one dies, let everyone remember the death of my people.”

Harrison was elected President in 1840 with John Tyler as veep under the slogan, “Tippecanoe and Tyler, Too.” Harrison made an inaugural speech one hour and forty five minutes long, longer than that of any other President, in freezing weather. He wore no coat or hat, and caught a cold which turned into pneumonia. He died one month after his election, making him the shortest-serving President ever.

The seven presidents elected every 20 years after that died in office, which is most unlikely to have occurred naturally. The chain was broken by Ronald Reagan. Reagan was shot by John Hinckley in an attempt to impress Jodie Foster, but his surgeon said the bullet missed his heart by an inch. He was brain dead for a period much shorter than his detractors claim. Possibly, he survived because the emaciated Nancy was aware of the curse and took corrective action, consulting voodoo witch doctors and other mystics. Dubya should have died, but perhaps escaped the curse because he was not elected and was instead chosen by the Supremes.

The monument to Isaac Brock at Queenston Heights

The United States lost at the Battle of Queenston Heights on October 13 after militiamen refused to enter Canada because it violated their terms of employment. Brock was killed during this engagement while leading his troops personally, and a statue of him stands in Queenston on a pillar 14 feet higher than Nelson’s Column.

Harrison made for Detroit with 6,500 men. 1,000 were sent to the small, Canadian outpost of Frenchtown, and defeated by a marginally larger enemy force on January 22, 1813. 100 Kentucky riflemen were killed and around 500 captured. Wounded American prisoners were killed by their Injun guards in the Raisin River massacre, giving rise to the battlecry, “Remember the Raisin”.

At the end of 1812, Commodore Isaac Chauncey amassed a fleet of 14 ships at Sackett’s Harbor, New York. On April 27, 1813, 1,700 U.S. troops assigned to Maj. Gen. Henry Dearborn landed unopposed around four miles west of York, present-day Toronto, where a powerful warship was being built to challenge Chauncey.

The British garrison of 300 regulars, 300 militia, and 100 Injuns was bested. British troops set fire to the gunpowder magazine of the warship, the explosion of which killed 36 people including the American field commander, Brig. Gen. Zebulon Pike, who was standing in for the sick Dearborn. Almost 20 percent of Dearborn’s men were killed or wounded. U.S. soldiers plundered the city, burning many buildings. A British attack on Sackett’s Harbor while the U.S. fleet was at the other side of the lake failed after two frontal assaults.

Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry transferring between ships during the Battle of Lake Erie

Hull had claimed that British control of Lake Erie allowed the enemy to reinforce at will. The two sides assembled fleets on the spot: the Americans, nine ships, and the British, six. They came to blows on 10 September 1813 at Put-in-Bay. U.S. Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry triumphed, and wrote: “We have met the enemy, and they are ours.” He was the first man in history to defeat a whole British squadron. American soldiers ransacked Canadian property.

The U.S. expedition against Montreal was one of the greatest disasters of the war. 4,000 men were commanded by Brig. Gen. Wade Hampton and 6,000 by Maj. Gen. James Wilkinson. Neither could capture Montreal alone, but the pair barely spoke. Hampton retreated after an advance party was defeated at the Battle of Châteauguay on October 26. Wilkinson retreated in Hampton’s wake. Hampton resigned from the Army shortly after.

In December 1813, the British recaptured Fort George, then crossed the river and took Fort Niagara. The Americans burned the town of Newark and a section of Queenston before departing. Newark was occupied by only wimmen and children who were made homeless in the depths of winter, and many were found dead from exposure by British troops the next day. In retaliation, the British unleashed their Injun allies upon the countryside, and the towns of Buffalo, Youngstown, Machester, and Lewiston were burned, with many American deaths.

The British blockaded Delaware and Chesapeake Bays, confining the U.S. frigates Constellation and Adams. Only small American gunboats took to the sea. The Constellation was anchored at a Navy yard at Norfolk. There were 580 regulars and militia, and 150 sailors and marines from the Constellation. The British plan was to land 800 men on the mainland and than have another 500 arrive by rowing boat. Extremely accurate gunnery by the Constellation caused the British to retreat after taking 81 casualties. The British had more joy at Hampton, whose 450 miltiamen were defeated. The town was pillaged.

Davy Crockett, who said of the Injuns at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend, "We shot them like dogs."

The U.S. government had attempted to transform the society of the Creek Injuns from hunting and gathering to agriculture and from rule by clans to rule by a council nominated by whites. Inspired by Tecumseh, Creek insurgents known as Red Sticks perpetrated a number of outrages culminating in the massacre of more than 500 civilians at Fort Mims. Gen. Andrew Jackson did not take action against the 800 Injuns until he had almost 600 regulars, 2,000 militia, and several hundred friendly Injuns under his command. At the Battle of Horseshoe Bend on March 27, 1814, American regulars mounted a bayonet charge which routed the Injuns, who were hunted down. Present was a Tennessee soldier by the name of Davy Crockett, who said, “We shot them like dogs.” Only around 100 Injuns survived.

American privateers captured 1,300 British merchant ships during the war. By the opening of 1814, Britain was effectively blockading the entire coast which forced American naval ships and privateers to not venture forth. Wilkinson’s foray from Plattsburgh with around 4,000 men penetrated a whole eight miles into Canada before 200 British and Canadian troops halted it.

Brig. Gen. Jacob Brown crossed the Niagara River on July 3 and took Fort Erie, then moved toward the Chippewa River, around sixteen miles away. An advance party of 1,300 men under Col. Winfield Scott came upon 1,500 British regulars who had crossed the river undetected. Scott ordered a charge, which the British advanced to meet. At their closest, they were between sixty and eighty yards apart. The British line broke. 48 of Scott’s men died while 227 were wounded, and the British suffered 137 dead and 304 wounded.

American infantry at the Battle of Lundy's Lane

Brown followed the British to Queenston where he awaited Chauncey’s fleet, but Chauncey did not oblige. Brown withdrew to Chippewa and then embarked upon a cross-country march along Lundy’s Lane. Brown’s force of 2,900 men met 3,000 British. The battle took place mostly after nightfall, lasted two hours, and was the fiercest of the war, but was inconclusive. Scott and Brown were both severely wounded. The two British generals were also wounded, and one, Riall, was captured. Brown’s invasion of Canada ended there.

British troops burning buildings in Washington in 1814

In 1814, Britain reinforced Canada with 16,000 men who were no longer needed against Napoleon. Raids upon the American coast were staged. Eastport and Castine were occupied without resistance. On August 19, 4,000 men under Maj. Gen. Robert Ross marched on Washington. Ross’ force easily saw off 5,000 Americans five days later at the Battle of Bladensburg. The British entered Washington and burned any private houses from which shots were fired and all public buildings with the exception of the Patent Office. Burned were the Capitol and Executive Mansion, an act as shocking as the destruction of the World Trade Center in 2001. The latter was rebuilt and painted white – the White House. Madison’s wife, Dolley, saved a famous painting of George Washington when she fled with her husband. Governor Sir George Prevost’s 11,000 veterans of the Napoleonic Wars were defeated at Plattsburgh on Lake Champlain, source of a major tributary of the St. Lawrence River.

On September 13, 1814, Fort McHenry at Baltimore withstood 25 hours of bombardment by 19 British ships. The next morning, soldiers hoisted an enormous American flag, the sight of which inspired Francis Scott Key to write the poem, Defense of Fort McHenry, while detained aboard a British ship some miles distant. It was sung to the tune of an old English drinking song, The Anacreontic Song. Later known as The Star-Spangled Banner, it was adopted as the national anthem of the United States in 1931.

Dismayed by the failed attack on Baltimore, Britain sued for peace. Britain promised to desist from efforts to create a buffer state of Injuns. On Christmas Eve, the Treaty of Ghent was signed.

Gen Andrew Jackson commanding U.S. troops in the repulsion of British soldiers

Unaware of moves toward peace, around 8,000 British soldiers under Maj. Gen. Edward Pakenham arrived at Lake Borgne on December 12. New Orleans, control of which granted control of the Mississippi River, was defended by Jackson and 4,000 men. 42 British armed longboats saw off the five American gunboats on the lake, allowing troops to land. The armies met ten miles south of the city on January 8, 1815. In slightly more than two-and-a-half hours, Jackson’s force defeated the British. 1,900 British were killed or wounded, while the Americans suffered seven dead and six wounded.

New Orleans is often cited as the final battle of the war, however the final engagement was between the USS Peacock and the British merchant, Nautilus. The Peacock ignored British insistence of a peace treaty, and captured the other ship after a 15 minute battle.

News of the peace deal came at roughly the same time as news of Jackson’s victory in New Orleans, causing some people to regard the war as an American victory. ABC News said, “The British lost.” The Conservapedia said, “The Americans thus achieved all their main war goals.” Had it truly been an American victory, however, the date of its end would be a national holiday. Most historians consider the war to have been a draw.

U.S. soldiers losing the War of 1812

The United States had two aims: the end of impressment and the conquest of Canada. Britain had three: to retain impressment, to defend Canada, and to create an Injun buffer state. The United States scored zero out of two while Britain managed two out of three. Impressment had virtually ceased by 1814. It ended because it was no longer needed and thousands of sailors were being discharged, and not due to American pressure.

John Hopkins University professor, Eliot Cohen, who advised Dubya’s administration on geopolitical strategy from 2007 to 2009, wrote in his book, Conquered into Liberty: “The nominal causes for which <the Americans> had fought the war had advanced not an iota.” In Forgotten Conflict, historian Donald Hickey wrote: “Far from bringing the enemy to terms, the nation was lucky to escape without making extensive concessions itself.”

When the War of 1812 began, the U.S. battlecry was: “On to Canada!” By the end, it was: “Not an inch of territory lost!” Jonathan Vance, a historian at Western University in Ontario said, “The acid test is, if we hadn’t won, we wouldn’t be independent, we’d be part of the U.S.”

In 1990, Saddam Hussein’s forces invaded Kuwait. They were ejected in 1991, Iraq did not lose any territory, and Saddam remained in power. Who says that was a draw?

Bibliography

“American Merchant Marine and Privateers in War of 1812.” American Merchant Marine at War. n.d. 1 April 2012. <http://www.usmm.org/warof1812.html.>
“Battle of York: Tainted American Victory in War of 1812.” News in History. 27 April 2011. 1 April 2012. <http://www.newsinhistory.com/blog/battle-york-american-war-1812-victory-tainted.>
“Brief History of Tennessee in the War of 1812.” Tennessee State Library and Archives. n.d. 1 April 2012. <http://www.tennessee.gov/tsla/history/military/tn1812.htm.>
“The War of 1812: Our war.” The Spec. 25 March 2012. 1 April 2012. <http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/692150—the-war-of-1812-our-war.>
“The War of 1812.” National Museum of American History. n.d. 1 April 2012. <http://americanhistory.si.edu/starspangledbanner/the-war-of-1812.aspx.>
“The War of 1812.”U.S. Army. n.d. 1 April 2012. <*.> <http://www.history.army.mil/books/AMH/AMH-06.htm.>
“USS Peacock vs. British East India Company Brig Nautilus.” U.S. Naval Institute. 30 June 2010. 1 April 2012. <http://www.navalhistory.org/2010/06/30/uss-peacock-vs-british-east-india-company-brig-nautilus/.>
“War of 1812 Bicentennial Celebration in Baltimore.” Visit Baltimore. n.d. 1 April 2012. <http://baltimore.org/arts-and-culture/war-of-1812/.>
“War of 1812: Battle of Lake Erie: Oliver Perry’s Miraculous Victory.” Historynet. 12 June 2006. 1 April 2012. <http://www.historynet.com/war-of-1812-battle-of-lake-erie-oliver-perrys-miraculous-victory.htm.>
“War of 1812.” Canadian Encyclopedia. n.d. 1 April 2012. <http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/war-of-1812.>
Boswell, Randy. “Canada won the War of 1812, U.S. historian admits.” National Post. 27 November 2011. 1 April 2012. <http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/11/27/canada-won-the-war-of-1812-u-s-historian-admits/12/.>
Cruickshank, Dan. “Napoleon, Nelson and the French Threat.” BBC. 17 February 2011. 1 April 2012. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/french_threat_01.shtml.>
Hatcher, C.J. “January 8 (1815) – Battle of New Orleans.” Examiner. 5 January 2012. 1. April 2012. <http://www.examiner.com/lesson-plans-in-las-vegas/january-8-1815-battle-of-new-orleans.>
Remini, Robert. “The Battle of New Orleans.” New York Times. n.d. 1 April 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/r/remini-battle.html.>

email: timothychilman@yahoo.com

<After almost eleven months of weekly updates, I’ve run out of stuff to write about. The next update will be in two weeks. If anyone can suggest something, I’d be very grateful if they were to email me.>

Spontaneous human combustion (SHC) is the phenomenon whereby a human body catches fire for no apparent reason. More than 200 cases have been reported within the last 300 years, almost always resulting in the death of the victim.

The cover of the first installment of Bleak House

In fiction, Charles Dickens wrote of a character suffering SHC in his 1852 novel, Bleak House. Dickens’ character, Krook, was a heavy drinker who found the gin he imbibed warmed his stomach rather more than usual, and then he caught fire. Dickens caused some consternation by fueling the belief that excessive drinking could cause SHC. In response to criticism that he was encouraging nonsense, in the second edition of Bleak House, Dickens wrote that he knew of 30 instances of SHC, although he mentioned only two, which had both occurred over a century earlier. He said, “I have no need to observe that I do not willfully or negligently mislead my readers and that before I wrote that description I took pains to investigate the subject.” These stories likely came from Jonas Dupont’s 1763 work, De Incendiis Corporis Humani Spontaneis, which was a collection of cases of SHC, most of which involved alcohol. Alcohol, however, does not burn with the heat associated with SHC.

SHC featured in the novel, Jacob Faithful (1834) by Charles Marryatt and three novels by the nineteenth century Russian author, Nikolai Gogol. More recently, in The X Files, Scully suggested SHC in one instance, causing Mulder to remark: “Dear diary, today my heart leaped when Agent Scully suggested spontaneous human combustion.” In the film, Repo Man, a person spontaneously combusts and a government agent comments: “It happens sometimes. People just explode.” In South Park season 3, episode 2, some of the residents of the town die from SHC after holding in their farts for too long.

Famed science fiction author, Arthur C. Clarke, said, “There's one mystery I'm asked about more than any other: spontaneous human combustion."

Arthur C. Clarke, the author of 2001: a Space Odyssey, said, “There’s one mystery I’m asked about more than any other: spontaneous human combustion. Some cases seem to defy explanation, and leave me with a creepy and very unscientific feeling. If there’s anything more to SHC, I simply don’t want to know.”

SHC confounds police and fire investigators as partially burned corpses are found next to unburned furniture or rugs. Where the victim was abed, the bedding does not catch fire. No possible source of ignition such as a cigarette is present. People nearby do not report hearing cries of pain or calls for help. The body is reduced to ashes with the exception of a leg or foot, while the remainder of the room is untouched by flame. The victim’s body is generally more severely burned than is true of a normal house fire. Usually, SHC occurs indoors, and victims are often female, overweight, and alcoholic.

The human body is mostly comprised of water, and there is little within it which burns readily: only fat and methane, although these contain enough energy to entirely consume a body. During cremation, bodies are subjected to a temperature of 1,600 degrees Fahrenheit for around two hours, and even this does not break down bones, which must be ground.

If the dead person had recently eaten a vast quantity of hay infested with bacteria, it is possible that enough heat could be generated to ignite the hay, but virtually all that would burn would be the gut and intestines. If the corpse of a person who had eaten newspaper and drunk oil had been left to rot for several weeks in a well-heated room, the gut might ignite. A burning sensation in the hands, arms, or feet can be an early sign of osteoporosis. The website, The Skeptic’s Dictionary, says that osteoporotic bones burn at a lower temperature than they would otherwise, however this condition is otherwise unknown to Google.

A chemical reaction on a person’s clothing can cause fire, as in the case of a women whose clothes caught fire who had placed in her pocket a shell which was covered in sodium from a fireworks display on the beach where the shell was found. The woman later inserted a wet handkerchief to her pocket, which could have causeed the ignition of the sodium. One man left his workplace and burst into flame upon lighting a cigarette. He had been in the habit of using a compressed air hose to blow detritus from his clothing, and on this occasion he had used pure oxygen, which considerably increased the flammability of his clothing.

The body of Adolf Hitler was supposedly still identifiable after more than five gallons of fuel had been applied to it.

Many murderers have attempted to burn the bodies of their victims, but once the accelerant is consumed, the fire ceases. Adolf Hitler’s body was supposedly still identifiable after more than five gallons of fuel had been applied to it.

The wick effect has been suggested as an avenue by which bodies could burn in rooms without the whole room burning. After a body is ignited by an external source, this theory says that the body’s clothes act as a wick and fat fuels the fire, so the body burns like an inside-out candle with sufficient heat that even bones could be destroyed. No victim of SHC has ever been reported to have been nekkid. Fat contains much energy due to the presence of long hydrophobic chains.

Limbs could be left intact because the lower half of a body is cooler than the top.
Greasy stains are often reported where SHC is thought to have occurred, and these could be caused by residue from the individual’s body fat.

To illustrate the wick effect, Dr. John de Haan of the California Criminalistic Institute wrapped a dead pig in a blanket, poured a small quantity of gasoline onto the blanket, and then ignited it. The flames of the fire were no more than 20 inches high, so the fire did not spread, but even bones were destroyed after five hours of burning. The fat content of a pig is very similar to that of a human being (and they taste the same, too). According to Dr. de Haan, the damage to the pig was “exactly the same as that from supposed spontaneous human combustion.” Dr. de Haan ascribed the cause of SHC to murder. A National Geographic special attempted to replicate this experiment, but failed, probably because a door had been left open and the resultant draft led to the ignition of everything in the room. It has been claimed that if the room had been enclosed, as in the cases of many elderly victims of SHC, the pig would have smoldered for hours without the rest of the room catching fire.

Professor Michael Green, a retired pathologist for the British Home Office, said, “The way the body burns – the so-called wick effect – seems to me and to my colleagues to be the most scientifically credible hypothesis.” Professor Green specifically ruled out divine intervention: “I think if the heavens were striking in cases of spontaneous combustion then there would be a lot more cases.” The experiment featured in the episode of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation entitled, Face Lift.

The wick effect is less likely because the smoldering it features contrasts with the rapidity and ferocity of flames in cases of SHC. The combustion would not be spontaneous if, as in the case of the wick effect experiment, accelerants had been present.

Professor Green also said that there had to be some external source of ignition, and static electricity has been suggested. Professor Robin Beach of Brooklyn founded the scientific detective agency, Robin Beach Engineers Associated. One of the agency’s first clients was the owner of a factory in Ohio where as many as eight small fires occurred every working day. Beach asked each of the factory’s employees to step onto a metal plate while holding an electrode. A voltmeter gave a reading. When one worker, a young woman, stepped onto the plate, there were 30,000 volts of electricity. When the woman was transferred to an area of the plant where she did not come into contact with combustible materials, fires became much less common. The professor postulated that static electricity can build up in the one person in 100,000 who has abnormally dry skin. Explosions have been reported in hospital operating theaters where the air was filled with anesthetic vapor. The professor suggested that the skin of employees of ordnance factories be tested to ensure they would not be subject to this effect.

Beach’s theory does not adequately explain SHC, as the flames usually are found to have come from within. Also, static electricity is generated when two surfaces brush against each other, which is unlikely to result to any great extent where a person sits in an armchair.

Dr. John Fisher and Dr. Joe Nickell investigated a number of cases of SHC, and found that where the destruction of the body was minimal, the only significant source of fuel was the person’s clothes, but where destruction was widespread, other fuel sources fed the flames. If bodies are not entirely consumed, the pair claim, it is because the victims were seated, and flames move upward.

Thomas Bartholin, author of Historiarum Anatomicarum Rariorum

Possibly history’s first case of SHC was an Italian knight named Polonius Vorstius in 1470. He had been drinking strong wine, then belched fire in front of his parents. He died. In 1613, a pamphlet was distributed by John Hilliar named Fire from Heaven, which spoke of the incident. The episode was recounted again in Thomas Bartholin’s 1641 work, Historiarum Anatomicarum Rariorum, a collection of strange medical phenomena. Bartholin had spoken to Vortius’ direct descendants.

Jonas Dupont decided to write De Incendiis Corporis Humani Spontaneis after hearing of the case of Nicole Millet in 1725. She was a serious drinker who was found burned to death. Her skull, some backbones, and lower legs were unburned. The chair in which she sat, a nearby straw bed and wooden objects were untouched. Her inn-keeper husband was convicted of her murder, but the conviction was overturned after a physician who had stayed at the inn that night said it was the result of a “visitation of God.”

In Italy in 1731, the skull and unburned legs of Countess Cornelia de Bandi were found one morning. There was much soot in the room, although no evidence of fire other than on the corpse. In England in 1744, gin-loving, pipe-smoking Grace Pett was found, resembling “a log of wood consumed by a fire.” Her surroundings were undamaged. In Chelmsford, England, in 1938, Maybelle Andrews caught fire at the top of a flight of stairs before her fiance and a room of partygoers, with no known source of flame.

All that was left of Mary Reeser in 1951 was a skull on a chair and an intact foot in a slipper resting against the chair. The only damage to her flat was soot on the ceiling and walls. A pile of loose newspaper beside the chair had not caught fire. Police determined that her dressing gown had caught fire, although no flame source was found. Wilton Krogman, a professor of anthropology who investigated the case, said, “I cannot conceive of such complete cremation without more burning of the apartment itself. In fact, the apartment and everything in it should have been consumed.” He said it was “the most amazing thing I have ever seen,” that it made the hairs on his neck bristle, and that had he been alive in the Middle Ages, he would have thought witchcraft to be responsible.

In Pennsylvania in 1964, Helen Conway burned while sitting in an upholstered chair in her bedroom. Her remains were unrecognizably charred. Conway was elderly, inform, and a heavy and careless smoker whose room showed many cigarette burns, but cremation does not result from a cigarette burn. It took no more than 21 minutes for Conway to be found, ruling out the wick effect. Robert Meslin, a volunteer fireman who was present, said, “The amazing part of the incident, in my opinion, is the time element.” Meslin later became Fire Marshal. The fire chief who was present at the scene, Paul Haggarty, said he believed Conway was the victim of SHC. He said, “There is no way you could explain it. None of the firemen had seen anything like it.”

In Pennsylvania in 1966, John Bentley combusted at some point between 9p.m. one evening at his home, when his friends departed, and the morning the next day when a person called to read a meter in the house. All that remained of Bentley was a pile of ashes and a right leg next to a toilet. The meter reader noticed a strange smell and blue smoke. A metal walker was over the ash heap, with its rubber tips untouched by fire. There was a hole in the floor, but the rest of the house was unaffected. A photograph of Bentley’s remains is famous.

In London in 1967, office workers awaiting a bus around 5 a.m. noticed flames in the upper window of a building. They called police, who entered the building to find the still-burning body of Robert Francis Bailey, a homeless man. The first policeman to arrive reported that a blue flame was emitted by a four-inch slit in Bailey’s abdomen. No external source of ignition was found. Bailey did not smoke, but was known to be an alcoholic who drank methylated spirits.

Clothing salesman, Jack Angel, went to sleep in a trailer in a hotel parking lot in Georgia In 1975. He awoke four days later, with burn marks on his body. He did not feel pain, and showered and dressed as he normally would. He walked over to the hotel, and collapsed. He awoke in hospital in considerable pain. His hand was infected and had to be amputated. There was no fire damage to the trailer. He later appeared in court to sue the manufacturer of the trailer’s water heater for $3,000,000. Then, he said that he had been scalded by hot water from a pressure valve in his shower unit. The doctor who examined Angel, however, said Angel had burned from the inside out, and ie would appear he had suffered from SHC but later changed his story to allow him to litigate.

In 1980 in Wales, 73 year-old Henry Thomas burned with the exception of his legs below the knee and the skull. The clothing on the leg remnants was virtually untouched by fire. He had been sitting in an easy chair. There was a fire nearby, but no evidence that fire had spread from there to Thomas. It was suggested that Thomas’ hair had caught fire, but a police officer who analyzed the scene said he did not think a man whose hair was on fire would be unaware of the fact and could then burn to such a degree.

In London in 1982, a 61 year-old, mentally handicapped woman, Jean Lucille Saffin, burst into flames in her kitchen. Her father, sitting at a nearby table, saw a flash of light in the corner of his eye, and turned to see his daughter afire, mostly around her face and hands. He and his son-in-law put the fire out with water, but Jean died after spending eight days in a coma. The fire had lasted for only one or two minutes. No cause for the fire was found, and an unnamed policeman told the family that he believed it to be a case of SHC, although the brevity of the fire explains why no surrounding objects were damaged by fire. SHC was proposed as the cause of Jean’s death, but medical examiner, Dr. John Burton, said there was “no such thing,” and recorded no verdict.

In 1986, George Mott watched an episode of the Twilight Zone in his home in New York, and said, “Nothing weird like that ever happens to me. I wish it would.” It did. Weird New England reported that the next day, his son found the three-and-a-half pounds of bone and ash which had been his father. Mott did not smoke and no source of fire was discovered. Mott was a retired fireman.

In Donegal in the Republic of Ireland in 2010, the charred remains of 50 year-old Elizabeth McLaughlin were found in her home by her nephew, who at first thought he was looking at a burned Christmas tree. There was no fire damage other than to the immediate vicinity, which policeman Sergeant John McLaughlin (no relation) said was an “unusual aspect.” Pathologist Dr. Michael Curtis conducted the autopsy, and said there had been talk of SHC, including by the woman’s love partner at the resultant inquest, but he believed that SHC was “probably an urban myth.”

No discussion of SHC today is complete without mention of 76 year-old Michael Faherty, who died in 2011. In the United Kingdom, his tale was told by the BBC and the newspapers, the Daily Telegraph, the Guardian, the Independent, and the Daily Hate. In the United States, it was told by ABC News, MSNBC, and the Washington Post. In other countries, the story appeared in the New Zealand Times, Asian Tribune, the Irish Times, and the Irish Independent. Online, the story featured on Slate and Yahoo.

Faherty’s badly burned body was found face down close to an open fire in his living room in Galway in the Republic of Ireland. Other than his body, the floor below it, and the ceiling above it, nothing had been damaged by fire. Forensic experts did not believe the domestic fire caused the burning of Faherty. No hint of an accelerant such as gasoline or alcohol was present, nor had any person entered or departed the house at 64 Clareview Park. Damage precluded determination of the cause of death. The West Galway medical examiner, Dr. Kieran McLoughlin, returned a verdict of SHC for the first time in his 25-year career and for the first time in the Republic, after consulting medical textbooks and enacting other research. He said, “This fire was thoroughly investigated and I’m left with the conclusion that this fits into the category of spontaneous human combustion, for which there is no adequate explanation.” Faherty’s daughter, Mairin, said his family was satisfied with the investigation of the case.

SHC may possibly have been at work when a man caught fire inside a private video booth at the Golden Gate Adult Superstore in San Francisco in 2011. The man ran out of the store, “engulfed in flames,” according to SFPD Lt. Kevin McNaughton. CCTV recorded the incident. Firefighters were located one block away, and they arrived and extinguished the fire. Arson investigators said it was not clear how the man had caught fire. He was treated for 90 percent burns.

Both the wick effect and static electricity can be disregarded. There is ample proof that, from time to time, human beings just, y’know, combust.

Bilbiography

“De Incendiis Corporis Humani Spontaneis.” Www.Reference.com. n.d. 15 March 2012. <http://www.reference.com/browse/de+incendiis+corporis+humani+spontaneis.>
“Man ‘Engulfed In Flames’ At San Francisco Porn Shop.” CBS Local. 13 April 2011. 15 March 2012. <http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/04/13/man-engulfed-in-flames-at-san-francisco-porn-shop/..>
“New light on human torch mystery.” BBC. 31 August 1998. 15 March 2012. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/158853.stm.>
“Spontaneous human combustion.” Chemistry Daily. n.d. 15 March 2012. <http://www.chemistrydaily.com/chemistry/Spontaneous_Human_Combustion.>
“Spontaneous human combustion.” Economic Expert. n.d. 15 March 2012. <http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Spontaneous:human:combustion.html.>
“Spontaneous human combustion.” Nationmaster. n.d. 15 March 2012. <http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Spontaneous-human-combustion.>
“Spontaneous human combustion.” Pattaya Daily News. n.d. 15 March 2012. <http://www.pattayadailynews.com/en/2010/04/09/spontaneous-human-combustion/.>
“Spontaneous human combustion.” Skeptics’ Dictionary. n.d. 15 March 2012. <http://www.skepdic.com/shc.html.>
Conradt, Stacy. “Seven Cases of Spontaneous Human Combustion.” Mental Floss. 14 July 2009. 15 March 2012. <http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/28878.>
Ensor, Josie. “Irish pensioner ‘died of spontaneous human combustion’.” Daily Telegraph. 23 September 2011. 15 March 2012. <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ireland/8783929/Irish-pensioner-died-of-spontaneous-human-combustion.html.>
Hayes, Cathy. “Second case of spontaneous human combustion – Irish mother bursts into flames.” Irish Central. 14 November 2011. 15 March 2012. <http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Second-case-of-spontaneous-human-combustion—Irish-mother-bursts-into-flames-133797633.html.>
Rosenhek, Jackie. “A fire within.” Doctor’s Review. 1 December 2011. 15 March 2012. <http://www.doctorsreview.com/history/fire-within/.>

email: timothychilman@yahoo.com

Was it all a load of bullshit?

The Jewish World Review declared, “If the Exodus did not occur, there is no Judaism.” It is a mitzvah – commandment – to tell the story to children. Questioning whether the Exodus occurred is rather more serious than calling into question the Epic of Gilgamesh or the Song of the Nibelungen. And so it is so much fun to ask: did the Exodus happen?

The story is that many Jews – Israelites – moved to Egypt because of famine in their land of Canaan. Eventually, their numbers grew so large that the Pharaoh came to believe they could upset his rule. He enslaved them. Under the leadership of Moses, the Israelites departed Egypt with such alacrity there was no time for their bread to rise.

When might the Exodus have happened? Kings 6:1 says it happened 480 years before the construction of Jerusalem’s temple by King Solomon – around 1450 BCE. Exodus 1:11, however, says that the Pharaoh used Jewish slaves to build the “treasure cities” – cities of store houses – of Pthom and Raamses. Scholars do not agree as to the location of Pthom, but Raamses is thought (Kitchen 2003: 255; Wood 2004; Hoffmeier 2005: 53, 55) to be Pi-Ramesse, a large, capital city which was constructed during the reign of Ramesses II circa 1270 BCE. Recent excavations show that Pi-Ramesse was built upon an earlier city, and it is possible that this is what the Babble referred to: the city of Raamses is mentioned in an inscription in the tomb of the pharaoh, Amenhotep III, who ruled from c.1391 – c.1354 BCE almost a century before Ramesses II, who ruled from c.1303-1213 BCE. The latest date for the Exodus would be around 1209 BCE during the reign of Merenptah, when an inscription of “Israel is desolate, and has no seed” was carved – Israel existed as a nation by that time. This was the only time Israel was mentioned in Egyptian records. It is generally believed that if the Exodus took place, it was during the reign of Ramesses II, between 1304 and 1237 BCE.

David Roberts’ 1829 painting of the departure of the Israelites

And how many Israelites were there? After departing Egypt, G-d asked Moses to carry out a census. Numbers 1:46 says of the adult males, “Even all they that were numbered were six hundred thousand and three thousand and five hundred and fifty.” Adulthood began at 14, and there were generally seven children per family, so 603,550 men with attendant wimmen and kiddies would have been around two million people all told, which is rather a lot to leave no archaeological or documentary trace.

The Hebrew word, “elef,” can be translated not only as “thousand,” but also as “family,” “tribal unit,” or “leader.” Most recent studies have taken this to mean there would have been about 20,000 Israelites.

Since the 19th century, archaeologists have been surprised to find no archaeological evidence of the Exodus, while there are traces of smaller groups of people in the same area. Despite the availability of ground-penetrating radar and satellite imagery, there is not one shard of pottery, Hebrew carving, bone, nor campsite remains. Rabbi Dovid Lichtman countered: “It is nearly impossible to find traces of large Bedouin encampments in the Sinai Desert from 200-300 years ago. So would one expect the remains of large encampments after 3,000 years?”

Slightly more than a century after the rule of Ramesses II came the turn of Ramesses III, who ruled (1186-1155 BCE). In this time there was massive construction in Egypt, and successful military campaigns on land and at sea, which is not consistent with an Egypt which had been struck by devastating plagues and lost much of its slave population.

Inscriptions on the walls of the palace of the Abyssinian emperor, Sennacherib, were propagandistic.

The Exodus supposedly occurred at a time from which much documentation has survived. The Egyptians would have preferred not to have recorded such a humiliation as the Exodus. R. Alan Cole, once a lecturer in the Old Testament at Sydney’s Moore Theological College and Singapore’s Trinity Theological College, said, “Egyptian monarchs were never given to recording defeats and disasters, and certainly not the loss of a chariot brigade during the pursuit of runaway slaves.” An example of the propagandistic nature of records at that time is the inscriptions from the walls of the palace of the Assyrian Emperor, Sennacherib. These display scenes from Sancheriv’s military campaigns of the 8th century BCE. They show decapitated and impaled enemies, but no dead Assyrians.

Some twisted re-telling of the tale would have endured, however, or a record from a private tomb. Hatsheput was the third female Pharaoh in 3,000 years, and by far the most successful female Pharaoh ever. She was one of the most successful pharaohs of either gender. She is believed to have died of bone cancer, which was possibly the result of a skin lotion she used. Her successor, her stepson, Thutmosis III, ordered the destruction of all records of her. Thusmosis III attempted to rewrite history to show that rule had passed directly from his father to him, with Hatshepsut never acting as regent. Thutmosis’ motivations were more likely to have been political than personal, perhaps to support the standing of his own son, as the censoring of Hathsheput did not begin until the end of his reign (c.1458-1425). Statues of Hathsheput were smashed. Her image was chiseled from walls. Her body was removed from its tomb. Her name was omitted from lists of kings. Evidence of her rule (c. 1479-1458 BCE) was not found until 1903. A very deliberate attempt was made to suppress record of Hatshepsut, but some images of her survived.

A deliberate attempt was made to destory all trace of the Pharaoh, Akhenaten, but it was not entirely successful.

Decades later, nearly every trace of Pharaoh Akhenaten was destroyed, as his monotheism was perceived as heretical. A great deal of the radical, naturalistic art of the period was destroyed, and buildings dismantled. His name was removed from monuments and lists of kings. But again, some trace survived, such as the Amarna Letters, a collection of diplomatic correspondence.

The 106 times the Pharaoh is mentioned in the book of Exodus, his name is not. If the writer of Exodus had but named the pharaoh, many trees would have been saved, as the subject has been done to death. But it was not Egyptian practice to name kings: the Annals of Thutmose III refer to the King of Kadesh as “that wretched enemy of Kadesh.” When Egyptian scribes listed the booty which was taken after the Battle of Megiddo, they did not name the king whose possessions they were, calling him “the Prince of Megiddo.” The Amada Stele of Amenhotep II does not name the Syrian chieftains who were defeated.

This, however, was not the practice of later Biblical writers. Shishak is mentioned by name seven times, and Neco nine times. Hence, the absence of the Exodus pharoah’s name, his praenomen, is suspicious. The author of Exodus was not writing history.

Camels are mentioned 32 times in Genesis, the first book of the Babble, and once in Exodus, the second. Camels, however, were not domesticated until between 1200 and 1000 BCE and not widely used as beasts of burden until long after 1000 BCE. Genesis 37:25, incidentally, speaks of “camels bearing spicery and balm and myrrh,” which were not the main products of trade until the 8th and 7th centuries BCE. Exodus 13:17 says, “G-d led them not through the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near,” but the Philistines did not establish themselves as a country until the 10th century BCE.

What was published as the Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage from a Hieratic Papyrus in Leiden is known to its friends as Leiden Papyrus #344, being held at the Dutch National Museum of Antiquities at Leiden. It was discovered in the early 1800s, written during the New Kingdom of Egypt (16th-11th century BCE) and is a copy of a document the Encyclopedia Britannica said was “perhaps” written between 1850 BCE and 1600 BCE by an Egyptian called Ipuwer.

A papyrus has been found which describes events similar to the plagues visited upon Egypt.

The Admonitions speak of events reminiscent of the plagues G-d visited upon Egypt: “Plague is throughout the land” (cf. Exodus 7:21); “The river is blood” (cf. Exodus 7:20); “Men shrink from tasting” (cf. Exodus 7:24); “That is our water! That is our happiness! What shall we do in respect thereof? All is ruin!” (cf. Exodus 7:21); “Trees are destroyed” (cf. Exodus 9:25); “Forsooth, gates, columns and walls are consumed by fire” (cf. Exodus 9:23-24); “Lower Egypt weeps… The entire palace is without its revenues. To it belong (by right) wheat and barley, geese and fish” (cf. Exodus 9:31-32); “Forsooth, grain has perished on every side” (cf. Exodus 10:15); “All animals, their hearts weep. Cattle moan” (cf. Exodus 9:3); “The land is not light” (cf. Exodus 10:22); “Forsooth, the children of princes are dashed against the walls” (cf. Exodus 12:29); “He who places his brother in the ground is everywhere” (cf. Exodus 12:30); “Behold, the fire has mounted up on high. Its burning goes forth against the enemies of the land” (cf. Exodus 13:21).

Renowned Egyptologist, Joachim Quack, said the Admonitions were “strikingly close to the Sumerian city laments.” When the Admonitions say “the river is blood,” they could be speaking of the Nile turning red due to large quantities of red earth when it flooded. While the similarities between the Admonitions and Exodus are striking, Egyptologists do not generally believe the Admonitions refer to the events of the Exodus, or to history at all, and it was anyway written fart oo early. This is the only Egyptian mention of anything resembling the alleged plagues.

The Sinai peninsula the Israelites crossed was strewn with Egyptian forts housing many troops to facilitate the reinforcement of Canaan, an Egyptian territory, at a time when Egypt was becoming the dominant power of the region. The writer of the book of Exodus seems to have been ignorant of these. As the Hebrew Bible says on page 55, “The Egyptians kept tight control over their eastern border and kept careful records. If a large group of Israelites had departed, we should expect some mention of it.” A papyrus from the 13th century BCE says that people could only leave if they were in possession of a permit. This papyrus mentions Succoth and Pithom, which appear in the Exodus story, but does not tell of masses of fleeing slaves.

Israeli Prime Minister, Menechem Begin, said Jewish slaves built the pyramids. Photo: upyernoz.

The ancient Greek historian, Herodotus, said slaves built the pyramids and Israeli Prime Minister, Menachem Begin, said the slaves were Jewish, but tombs of the builders of the pyramids of Gizeh discovered in Egypt in 2010 were evidently those of paid laborers, and not slaves. Their burial near the pyramids would not have been accorded to slaves. Melvin Konner, anthropologist and teacher of Jewish studies at Emory University, said in his book, Unsettled, An Anthropology of the Jews: “Except for the Torah text, there is no decisive proof that the Hebrews were slaves in Egypt, that they rebelled and walked away from the place, or that a leader such as Moses arose and took that people into the desert.” Dieter Wildung, one-time director of Berlin’s Egyptian Museum, said, “The myth of the slaves building pyramids is only the stuff of tabloids and Hollywood.”

Jews, in fact, were not present in Egypt at all in great numbers. Donald Redford, Professor of Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies at Pennsylvania State University, studied Egypt and its neighbors and found there was no evidence of a large population of Jews. Carmen Weinstein, leader of the Egyptian community of Egypt, said, “Were it not for the Bible, anyone looking at the Palestinian archaeological record data would conclude that whatever the origins of the Israelites, it was not Egypt.” Israeli archaeologist Ze’ev Herzog said, “The Israelites never were in Egypt. They never came from abroad…. It is a later legendary reconstruction – made in the seventh century < BCE> – of a history that never happened.”

The sites where the Israelites settled in Canaan are named in the Babble’s book of Numbers. Kadesh Barnea is now Ein Qadis and Ezion Geber is in the area of Aqaba and Eilat. They were founded no earlier than 700 or 800 BCE, and have revealed not a trace of evidence of an exodus. The cities of Pthom and Raamses which Israelite slaves are said to have built never existed at the same time. Extensive excavations in Israel have shown no change in pottery or buildings consistent with a large influx of people at the supposed time of the Exodus.

Nicolas Poussin’s 1633 painting of the Israelites’ crossing of the Red Sea

At least 13 locations have been suggested as that of the Israelites’ crossing of the Sea of Reeds, now known as the Red Sea, pursued by the army of the Pharaoh. The story is that G-d parted the waters of the sea to allow his people to escape before allowing the waters to return to their natural state while the Pharaoh’s army was still crossing.

Self-taught archaeologist, Ron Wyatt, settled on Nuweiba, on the Egyptian coast, as the location of the Red Sea crossing. The name of the place was given as Pi-hahiroth in the book of Exodus, meaning “mouth of the gorges,” which reflects Nuweiba.

In 1978, Wyatt discovered what he claimed was a gilded chariot wheel while diving at Nuweiba at depths of 60 to 200 feet. The wheel was photographed on the sea bed, but no other objects are in the frame, so the wheel’s size cannot be ascertained. The wheel was sent to Nassif Mohammed Hassan, the Director of Antiquities in Cairo. Hassan dated the wheel to around 1400 BCE, somewhat earlier than the likely date of the Exodus. He was recorded on video saying that the finding “resembled an ancient Egyptian chariot wheel.” He is unable to provide further comment on account of being dead.

There was no coral on the wheel. Lennart Moller of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, author of The Exodus Case, said coral did not grow on gold or electrum (silver and gold), but any archaeologist who has spent time in the field would differ. Coral is an animal rather than a plant, and it derives nutrients from zooplankton and other minuscule marine lifeforms as well as sea water. Gold is toxic to mycobacterium tuberculosis but not to gold or anything else. The wheel was all-too-close to the surface for something that has lain in the Red Sea for three-and-a-half millennia. It does not have the joins seen in drawings of Egyptian chariot wheels.

The beach at Nuweiba today. Photo: watchsmart.

Moller said that the coastal slope at Nuwaiba is “within current U.S. standards for handicapped ramps.” Wyatt Archeology, the organization Wyatt left behind him, says, “Only here, on the shores of Nuweiba, does the ‘pathway’ drop off at a gradual slope of one in fourteen, to a depth of just over 850 meters. On the Saudi side the slope climbs again at a slope of one in ten.” A map produced by the British Admiralty said the sea in this area was between 2,500 and 3,000 feet deep. It would not have been practical for thousands of people and their animals to descend and ascend the steep cliffs which characterize the gulf of Aqaba. People wishing to believe the Babble say the chart is inaccurate, but no proof has been offered and the Admiralty is an internationally recognized brand which has purveyed nautical maps since 1795.

Wyatt’s wife, Mary Nell, said that the Egyptian government does not currently allow archaeological finds to be removed from protected areas, making identification of any finds difficult. Fossilized bones were discovered, but fossilization precludes carbon dating. Wyatt also claimed to have discovered Noah’s ark and the Ark of the Covenant: obviously a reliable source.

The tale of the Exodus appears to have been a folkloric creation concocted to legitimize the goal of its author: to unite the Israelites in their struggle against Egypt. Respected archaeologists, Professor Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman, believe the evil Pharaoh of the Exodus story was modeled on Psamethicus I, who ruled from 664 to 610 BCE, and that the Exodus in general reflects the Egypt of the day. Finkelstein said that more than 90 percent of scholars do not believe the Exodus took place. The Hebrew Bible said that some scholars are of the opinion that a number of small exoduses transpired over several centuries, and these were combined for narrative purposes. While most Christians heard at Sunday school that Moses wrote the pentateuch, the first five books of the Babble, this is no longer believed outside the most conservative circles, and it is now commonly held that the pentateuch was the work of several authors. The Jewish Encyclopedia says that this was the result of “the many inconsistencies and seeming contradictions” of the books. The five books are now thought to have been written in the sixth and seventh centuries BCE using stories dating as far back as the 13 century BCE.

The story of Moses’ rescue from the Nile is the same as that of King Sargon of Akkad, almost one millennium before.

We have an idea of how the story of Moses arose. Cuneiform texts quote King Sargon of Akkad around 2360 BCE: “I am Sargon, the powerful king, the king of Akkad. My mother was an Enitu priestees, I did not know any father . . . . My mother conceived me and bore me in secret. She put me in a little box made of reeds, sealing its lid with pitch. She put me in the river. . . . The river carried me away and brought me to Akki the drawer of water. Akki the drawer of water adopted me and brought me up as his son. . .”

The really good thing about questioning the Exodus is that it undermines Jesus, who used the story for legitimacy and based some of his teachings upon it. Moses is mentioned 79 times in the New Testament. Jesus spoke of the Exodus in John 6:49-51, referring to the Jews eating manna while exodussing. John 1:17 said, “For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” Jesus quoted Moses in Mark 7:10 – “For Moses said, honour thy father and thy mother; and, whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” Jesus was compared to Moses in John 3:14 – “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up.” The spirit of Moses put in an appearance before Jesus and his disciples, Peter, James, and John in Matthew 17:1-3.

If the Exodus never occurred, Jesus was wrong. And by the way, Jonah never lived in a whale and Noah never took pairs of every animal species onto his ark.

Bibliography

“Akhenaten.” AllExperts. n.d. 5 March 2012. <http://www.associatepublisher.com/e/a/ak/akhenaten.htm.>
“Did Skin Cream Kill Egypt’s Queen Hatshepsut?” . 19 August 2011. 5 March 2012. <http://www.history.com/news/2011/08/19/did-skin-cream-kill-egypts-queen-hatshepsut/.>
“Historical Evidence for Moses & Pharaoh.” Bible History. n.d. 5 March 2012. <http://www.biblehistory.net/newsletter/moses_pharaoh.htm.>
“Ipuwer.” Encyclopaedia Britannica. n.d. 5 March 2012. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/293311/Ipuwer?anchor=ref256973.>
“The Exodus Route.” The Interactive Bible. n.d. 5 March 2012. <*.>
“The Exodus.” Jewish History. n.d. 5 March 2012. href=”http://www.jewishhistory.org/the-exodushttp://www.jewishhistory.org/the-exodus/”>http://www.jewishhistory.org/the-exodushttp://www.jewishhistory.org/the-exodus/.>
Dunn, Jimmy. “The Israelite Exodus from Egypt.” Tour Egypt. n.d. 5 March 2012. <http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/egyptexodus.htm.>
Fields, Helen. “Digging out the truth of Exodus.” U.S. News. 12 October 2003. <http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/031020/20exodus.htm.>
Isaacs, Roger. “Passover In Egypt: Did the Exodus Really Happen?” Huffington Post. 9 September 2011. 5 March 2012. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roger-isaacs/passover-in-egypt-did-the_b_846337.html.>
Kovacs, Joe. “Pharaoh’s chariots found in Red Sea?” WorldNetDaily. 21 June 2003. 5 March 2012. <http://www.wnd.com/2003/06/19382/.>
Kratovac, Katarina. “Egypt unveils more proof that Jews did not build pyramids.” JWeekly.com. 14 January 2010. 5 March 2012. <http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/41055/egypt-unveils-more-proof-that-jews-did-not-build-pyramids/.>
Petrovich, Doug. “Amenhotep II and the Historicity of the Exodus Pharaoh.” Associates for Bible Research. 4 February 2010. 5 March 2012. <http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2010/02/04/amenhotep-ii-and-the-historicity-of-the-exodus-pharaoh.aspx#Article.>
Rosch, Staks. “The Jewish Exodus from Egypt never happened.” Examiner.com. 17 April 2011. 5 March 2012. <http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-philadelphia/the-jewish-exodus-from-egypt-never-happened.>
Seiglie, Mario. “The Exodus Controversy.” Associates for Bible Research. 9 August 2009. 5 March 2012. <http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/08/09/The-Exodus-Controversy.aspx#Article.>
Slackman, Michael. “Did the Red Sea Part? No Evidence, Archaeologists Say.” New York Times. 3 April 2007. 5 March 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/world/africa/03exodus.html?_r=1.>
Wilson, Elizabeth. “The Queen Who Would Be King.” Smithsonian Magazine. 1 September 2006. 5 March 2012. <http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/The-Queen-Who-Would-Be-King.html.>

email: timothychilman@yahoo.com

One of the most effective things the United States did during the Vietnam War was the Phoenix Program. Counter Spy magazine called it “the most indiscriminate and massive programme of political murder since the Nazi death camps of World War 2.” The United States could do with more of this sort of thing in the counter-insurgencies it keeps finding itself fighting.

In Vietnam, the government ruled by day, but the infrastructure of the Viet Cong ruled by night. Photo: Department of Defense.

Counterinsurgency requires that government forces neutralize not only the military capabilities of an insurgency, but also the infrastructure: the intelligence, recruitment, and logistics functions. In Vietnam, the Viet Cong Infrastructure (VCI) was a shadow government. One CIA veteran who served in Vietnam said, “the GVN may have ruled during the day, but these guys ruled at night.”

The VCI disseminated propaganda and established associations of students, wimmen, and farmers to weaken existing social institutions and make the Communist People’s Revolutionary Party the new focal point of society. The VCI mounted demonstrations and disrupted government efforts toward tax collection and military conscription. One estimate put the number of such people at between 70,000 and 100,000 in 1967.

Legal VCI cadres possessed valid identity documents, such as this pass card. Photo: Bình Giang.

U.S. intelligence divided the VCI into two categories: legal and illegal cadres. Legal cadres were citizens of South Vietnam who possessed legitimate identity papers. While termed “legal,” they operated covertly. Illegals, on the other hand, were generally well known to locals and the GVN. They were obvious targets, and so lived in well-defended areas with armed guards. By the end of the 1960s, it had become difficult for illegal cadres to operate in the hamlets of South Vietnam.

In the early 1960s, the GVN, encouraged by American advisers, instituted programs to counteract the shadow government. The GVN devoted most of its resources to engaging V.C. units, and later the North Vietnamese army, but anti-infrastructure efforts achieved some success.

A leaflet publicizing the Chien Hoi (“Open Arms”) program. Photo: National Archives and Records Administration.

Chien Hoi (“Open Arms”) was launched in 1963, and sought to persuade V.C. and, later, NVA members to defect through offers of amnesty and resettlement. One estimate found that 194,000 “ralliers” were lured between 1963 and 1971. While many were low-level personnel, and few were from the NVA, much valuable intelligence was gained as to the motivation, morale, and organization of the insurgents.

The Census Grievance program saw teams of GVN personnel sent to villages to interview a member of each family under the guise of better understanding the anti-government sentiment of the population, but in reality to collect intelligence on the VCI. Knowing who was related to whom was critical to counterinsurgency, as recruitment at the village level was generally initially based on family ties. Vast quantities of information were gleaned, but before computers were in widespread use, it was time-consuming and difficult to exploit the data.

The Revolutionary Development cadres were a CIA initiative which developed from the inchoate recruitment and propaganda endeavors of the Diem government, such as the Xay Dung Nong Thon (Rural Development) programs. These copied the V.C., sending armed teams of young men to the countryside to live among villagers, spread government propaganda, and recruit for village militias and other organizations. One scholar said, “The R.D. cadres did not accomplish much. When confronted by the V.C., they usually withdrew to safer environs rather than fight.”

While not usually placed in the category of counter-infrastructure measures, the GVN’s strategic hamlet program had that effect. Hamlets were encircled by moats and sharpened bamboo stakes and defended by locally-raised militias, with the intention of denying the V.C. access to the manpower and other resources of the location. The hamlets were no great obstacle to Communist plans in the countryside, but as they grew in number, the politburo in Hanoi became alarmed and gave orders to their commanders to infiltrate and destroy them.

Counter-Terror Teams (CTTs) were, like R.D. cadres, organized, trained, and equipped by the CIA and modeled on V.C. methods. They were trained for small-unit operations deep in V.C.-controlled areas with the aim of capturing or killing VCI members. As was true of the other aspects of pacification, the quality of the CTTs varied from team to team. Sometimes, province chiefs misused CTTs as bodyguards, or to settle personal grievances. President Thieu himself used them to eliminate his political rivals. Arrangements for command and control were inadequate, and the teams acquired a reputation for thuggishness. Press accounts accused them of being death squads.

The CTTs were later rebranded as Provincial Reconnaissance Units, which is rather friendlier. The units became more concerned with apprehending VCI suspects rather than killing them. As John Mullins, an American who advised the PRUs, said, “Prisoner snatches were key. You can’t get information out of a dead man.”

In June, 1967, anti-VCI operations were centralized to afford greater coordination. Ambassador Robert “Blowtorch Bob” Komer secured approval for a CIA plan for a program named Intelligence Coordination and Exploitation (ICEX). An officer of the Rural Development Cadre/Programs won a region-wide competition to come up with a name for the program. His suggestion was Phuong Hoang, the mythical “all-seeing bird” of South Vietnamese culture which represented grace, virtue, peace, and concord, and was similar to the phoenix. The program was known in English as the Phoenix Program.

The Phoenix Program was not a separate body, but instead a structure which brought together the various agencies which combated the VCI, and it was made of civilians rather than soldiers. Most of the Program’s manpower was South Vietnamese: the national police, the special police branch, Chieu Hoi, the R.D. cadres, the Military Security Service, military intelligence, the PRUs, and more.

The PRUs were the principal operational arm of the Phoenix Program. They were active throughout the war, but mostly from 1967 to 1972. There were never more than 5,000 men so employed, and they were essentially an intelligence-driven police force, albeit better trained, equipped, and paid than the South Vietnamese National Police due to their sponsorship by the CIA. The CIA attempted to ensure PRU commanders were generally of good quality. They were at least able to ensure that, in contrast to other elements of the forces of South Vietnam, commanders were not appointed for reasons other than merit. To prevent the PRUs from being used for personal reasons, multiple sources of information were necessary prior to the launching of an operation. Operations were frequently rejected if the U.S. advisers believed the intelligence to be inadequate.

The PRUs served in the provinces from which they hailed, making their knowledge of local conditions unparalleled by other South Vietnamese government agencies, never mind U.S. forces. Although other agencies were supposed to supply the PRUs with intelligence, in practice both South Vietnamese and U.S. agencies were rarely willing to do so, and so the PRUs generally collected and exploited their own intelligence. A CIA study said, “Successful PRUs developed [their] own sources of information, such as defectors, informants, and personal contacts in contested areas.” Major Dang Van Son, who was attached to the Phoenix program, told of an initiative known as Thien Nga – “wild geese” – where beautiful, young high school girls were used to infiltrate the local communist apparatus. Van Son said that when he served in Cantho, nearly all the Communist organizations were neutralized.

An American adviser, Andrew Finlayson, said, “Seventy-five percent of the time, the PRUs did their own targeting: ‘This guy’s sister is pro-V.C. He comes to the market and is buying way too much food,’ etc.” The PRUs used their own family members and friends, giving them informants in almost every village and hamlet. The resultant intelligence was of far superior quality to that provided by either South Vietnamese or U.S. agencies. Another American adviser, John Walsh, said, “What little intelligence we got was virtually useless.” He added that PRU members “knew their territory intimately… We advisers came to rely on their knowledge.”

Sergeant Ronald J. Lauzon was a Marine who was assigned to a PRU in Hue 1967. He said that he read hundreds of intelligence reports from the U.S. and South Vietnamese militaries, and not one was timely or wholly accurate. Clues were the times, dates, and map coordinates. He had taken part in dozens of interrogations and knew that the V.C. gave times as “after a specific event,” “soon,” “pretty soon,” or “now” and they used place names rather than map coordinates. The only reliable intelligence came from the PRUs or the Census Grievance program.

District Intelligence and Operations Coordination Centers were the offices of the Phoenix adviser in each of the 250 districts of South Vietnam. Province Intelligence and Operations Coordination Centers operated at that higher level. These were permanent organizations, rather than committees which met now and then. The CIA tended to operate at the provincial level, as it lacked the staff to man the DIOCCs, even after recruiting numerous contractors. Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV) was able to make use of the thousands of U.S. officers present in Vietnam to man the DIOCCs. By 1970, in excess of 700 advisers served in the Phoenix Program, and most were special forces officers. At that time, 102 U.S. military personnel and five civilians advised the PRUs. There were between 4,000 and 6,000 Vietnamese PRU personnel between 1967 and 1975.

Jeremy Kuzmarov, assistant professor of history at Tulsa University and author of The Myth of the Addicted Army: Vietnam and the Modern War on Drugs, spent months examining the files of the Phoenix Program when he worked on another book, Modernizing Repression: Police Training and Nation-Building in the American Century. He said the PRUs indulged in indiscriminate brutality and did not affect the senior ranks of the revolutionaries. The importance of the PRUs to senior CIA personnel in South Vietnam diminished because they felt it was more constructive to concentrate on the higher ranks of their enemy.

“Blowtorch Bob” Komer meeting President Lyndon Johnson

There was much inaccurate reporting under the Phoenix Program. A Phoenix adviser who had served in Czechoslovakia in the Second World War said, “The reports that I would send in on the number of Communists that were neutralized reminded me of the reports Hitler’s concentration camp commanders sent in on how many inmates they had exterminated, each commander lying that he had killed more than the other to please Himmler.” Internal reports stored at the National Archives show that there was widespread corruption among the PRUs, who abused their positions for revenge and extortion: people would be threatened with classification as VCI if huge sums of money were not forthcoming. Bribes were accepted in return for the release of prisoners. Ambassador Robert Komer, the director of the pacification program of MACV, accepted that there were many “phantom kills.” Non-VCI people killed during operations were identified as VCI. Report padding was at its worst in Long An province, where Phoenix adviser, Evan Parker, Jr., said, “the numbers just don’t add up.”

Kuzmarov was certainly correct in saying that most of the VCI neutralized by the PRUs were of low rank. A comprehensive Pentagon study of 1971 found that a mere three percent of Viet Cong personnel neutralized operated above the district level. Regional reports stated that one percent, and possibly less, of the people neutralized held key VCI leadership positions. Ralph McGehee, the CIA chief in Gia Dinh province and the Phoenix adviser there, said in his memoirs that “Never in the history of our work in Vietnam did we get one clear-cut, high-ranking Viet Cong agent.” Communist immunity was vastly aided by penetration of the GVN.

One Phoenix adviser said, “It was common knowledge that when someone was picked up their lives were about at an end because the Americans most likely felt that, if they were to turn someone like that back into the countryside it would just be multiplying NLF followers.” In one well-publicized case, a detainee was held in an air-conditioned room for four years because he feared the cold. His body was later disposed of at sea. K. Barton Osborne, a military intelligence specialist, testified to Congress that he saw acts of torture such as the prodding of a person’s brain through his ear with a six-inch dowel. He was active with the Phoenix Program for a year-and-a-half, and said, “Not a single suspect survived interrogation.”

Many U.S. government-provided statistics concerning the war have been shown to be profoundly flawed, which devalues quantitative estimates, but William Colby said the Phoenix Program caused the deaths of 20,000 V.C., while the GVN put the figure at 40,000. 95 percent of VCI was eliminated in some locations. It has been estimated that 5,000 innocent civilians died. Deborah Nelson and Nick Turse studied hundreds of declassified files held by the National Archives, and found that the army had investigated many claims of atrocities made by veterans and deemed them almost all accurate. The New York Times ran a number of prominent exposes of Phoenix in the early 1970s.

Nevertheless, the effect on the VCI was striking. The Viet Cong required people to collect taxes, spread propaganda, and recruit new members, and these were targeted by the Phoenix Program. A radio broadcast from Hanoi singled out the “Phoenix organization” for targeting in an offensive. After the war concluded, senior North Vietnamese officials testified to the effectiveness of the Phoenix Program. NVA Colonel Bui Tin said the Phoenix Program was “devious and cruel” and accounted for “thousands of our cadres.” General Tran Do, the deputy commander of communist forces in South Vietnam, said the Program was “extremely destructive.” Veteran V.C. leader, Madame Nguyen Thi Dinh, said, “We never feared a division of troops but the infiltration of a couple of guys into our ranks created tremendous difficulties for us.”

Many Viet Cong sympathizers were killed as a result of the Phoenix Program. Photo: Vietnam Center and Archive.

CIA Director, William Colby, said the Communists “attributed their problems to Phoenix, when they really should have attributed them to the growth of self-defense forces and that sort of thing.” The Vietnamese Communists, however, possessed what was possibly the most advanced intelligence apparatus of any insurgency of the twentieth century, and they are unlikely to be in error as to the source of their problems. The PRUs killed or captured approximately 380 cadres for every 1,000 of their men at their peak in 1970. The CIA said that anti-infrastructure efforts led to the capture, killing, or defection of more than 80,000 people. Thomas Thayer, Director of the Southeast Asia Division of the Department of Defense’s systems analysis branch at the time of the war and author of War without Fronts: The American Experience in Vietnam, said, the PRUs were “the single most effective anti-VCI forces. . . . No other force came close to this.”

The typical PRU comprised five teams of 18 men. Operations were usually staged late at night or early in the morning to maximize surprise, and were of short duration: rarely more than a few hours. The units were made of and led by Vietnamese men, but U.S. advisers helped to plan the operations and generally accompanied PRUs to the field. U.S. special forces were also available. This gave the PRUs access to air support, and the ability to summon helicopters to rapidly evacuate wounded personnel. The low level of PRUs casualties, assisted by this latter factor, had a greatly beneficial effect on morale. The presence of U.S. advisers granted first-hand knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of units.

And what kind of man served in the PRUs? The U.S. adviser, Andrew Finlayson, said, “Most were professional soldiers: they liked soldiering, and they were nationalistic. And they had scores to settle with the Communists.” Many were former V.C. or South Vietnamese soldiers. The latter included some from special forces. Some had affiliations which made them natural enemies of the Communists, be it ethnically in the case of Montagnard tribesmen or religiously in the case of Cao Dai and Catholics. Colonel Terence M. Allen, senior military adviser to the PRU program from 1968 to 1970, said the most effective PRU teams were drawn from these groups. The men of the PRUs generally hated the Viet Cong, and it was difficult to infiltrate them.

Warren H. Milberg, the senior CIA officer in Quang Tri province, said that by the middle of 1967, the war was “heating up” and young men of military age were either in the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) or the Citizen Irregular Defense Groups (CIDGs), or were farmers. Not many men were available, and Milberg said that those who were recruited had “issues.” He said, “In the end, they became a great group of brave fighters, but they were not unlike a pack of pit bulls.” PRU members often solicited the recruitment of brothers, cousins, and nephews.

Elton Manzione was another American active in the Phoenix program. He said, the PRUs were “a combination of ARVN deserters, V.C. turncoats and bad motherfuckers; criminals the South Vietnamese couldn’t deal with who were turned over to us. Some actually had an incentive plan: if they killed X number of commies, they got X number of years off their prison term.” There were less paroled criminals after 1968.

When DIOCCs were not effective, U.S. advisers said it was primarily due to bureaucratic selfishness: agencies contributing to the project did not wish to share operational leads in case they did not receive credit, and hence budget allocations. Personality conflicts could also be a problem.

PRU teams dressed in the black pajamas worn by the peasants of Vietnam, or tiger-stripe uniforms. Some had V.C. or NVA clothing. The weapons of the PRUs were mostly M-16 rifles, 45 caliber pistols, M-79 grenade launchers, and M-60 machine guns. Other weapons used included M-2 carbines, Swedish K submachine guns, British Bren guns, 38-caliber Colt Cobra revolvers, and Browning 9mm automatic pistols. There was usually no shortage of ammunition.

Viet Cong Weapons. Photo: BrokenSphere.

Many PRUs often made use of their extensive collections of captured enemy weapons. PRUs equipped with AK-47 rifles and RPGs would initially be considered to be friendly by insurgents and would thus gain a tactical advantage. A drawback became evident, however, when the CIA began to interfere with enemy ammunition in late 1967 so that rounds would explode when fired. PRUs could often live with this risk.

Prisoners were held without trial in hundreds of jails and internment camps throughout the country. As a National Security Council report of 1969 said, these prisons were frequently overcrowded. Around 60 percent of prisoners taken in 1968 were later released..

Jane Barton, who monitored the treatment of prisoners for the American Friends Service Committee, said that captives would be chained to their beds with Smith & Wesson handcuffs. When they were tortured, it was by Americans in the late 1960s, and with American advisers present later on. Sidney Towle, the head of district intelligence in Vinh Long, became aware of the mistreatment of prisoners when he heard screams from the room next door, which was an interrogation center. Prisoners were connected to crank telephones with wires. A Pentagon report in 1968 found that electric shock treatment was widely applied to prisoners. A Naval Institute historian said that “the large majority of South Vietnamese interrogators tortured some or all” prisoners, including mere suspects.

Former CIA Director, William Colby, said, “If you torture, you’ll get what you want to hear or you’ll get something that the fellow invents.” Photo: CIA.

Is torture so bad? Hell, Jack Bauer did it. William Colby, however, said, “If you torture, you’ll get what you want to hear or you’ll get something that the fellow invents.”

The CIA instituted six “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” in March, 2002, for use on the most important and recalcitrant prisoners. These are the attention grab, when the interrogator grabs the front of the shirt of a prisoner and shakes him; the attention slap, where a prisoner is slapped with an open hand; the belly slap, which is a hard slap to the stomach; prolonged standing, one of the most effective techniques; the cold cell, where prisoners are kept in such a room, nekkid, and periodically doused with cold water; and waterboarding. Sleep deprivation and other forms of stress, of course, make memory less reliable. While the CIA claims that enhanced interrogation techniques are not torture, George Washington University professor of law, Jonathan Turley, counters that bank robbery is no more than enhanced money withdrawal.

Ed Peters, a historian at the University of Pennsylvania, said that waterboarding was first used in the 14th century. It is the pouring of water over the face of a subject, over which cloth has been laid. Now, cellophane is used instead of cloth. A sensation of drowning is produced. Waterboarding was originally referred to as “water torture,” “the water cure,” or “tormenta de toca,” which refers to the thin fragment of cloth placed over the mouth of the victim. At the time, it was regarded as cross-examination is today. A doctor would be present.

President Theodore Roosevelt approved of waterboarding. Photo: Library of Congress.

In 1902, President Theodore Roosevelt wrote in a letter: “The enlisted men began to use the old Filipino method: the water cure… Nobody was seriously damaged.” The technique was used by the Japanese in the Second World War, U.S. troops in the Philippines, the French in Algeria, the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, and the British in Palestine. It has in the past been used by U.S. police forces. It was widely employed in the 1970s in Latin America, particularly by the dictatorships of Argentina and Chile, where it was known as “Asian torture.”

The Nazis and Soviets did not make use of waterboarding. They used harsher methods which left permanent scars or caused death. Darius Rejali, a professor at Reed College in Oregon and author of the book, Torture and Democracy, said that democracies prefer waterboarding. CIA officers who underwent waterboarding lasted for an average of 14 seconds before yielding.

In his testimony to a Senate Judiciary subcommittee, Air Force General Thomas Hartmann said, “Torture is prohibited under U.S. law.” When asked if this meant waterboarding was not used, he replied, “No ma’am, I didn’t say that.”

As argument can be made that legal codes prohibiting torture were drafted prior to the rise of terrorism, and these rules are out of date. Stephen Rickard, Washington director of the Open Society Institute, say that this justification has been used for centuries.

Harvard law professor, Alan Dershowitz, was one to suggest that torture be applied only after a torture warrant has been obtained. But when Israel experimented with “torture lite,” 85 percent of Palestinian prisoners were soon given the harshest treatment permitted. No government has ever successfully calibrated torture. Dubya’s General Counsel of the Navy, Alberto Mora, said that the “ticking time-bomb” justification could be used on every day on every battlefield of every war.

According to a U.S. interrogator, abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib was one of the most common reasons given by foreign fighters for fighting U.S. forces in Iraq. Photo: Department of Defense.

Matthew Alexander led a Special Operations interrogation team in Iraq in 2006. He wrote How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq. He said that the primary reason foreign fighters gave for their involvement was the abuse doled out at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. He also said that half of U.S. casualties in Iraq were inflicted by foreigners who joined their cause because of detainee abuse.

A detailed investigation by the New York Times in 2011 found that, contrary to the accounts of CIA chief Leon Panetta and House Homeland Security Chairman, Rep. Peter King, torture “played a small role at most” in the location of Osama bin Laden. The U.S. Army Training Manual’s section on interrogation states that “The use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.” The Intelligence Science Board provides scientific advice to the intelligence community of the United States. Its 2006 study, Educing Information, said that “coercive interrogation methods” have never been proven to be effective in the elicitation of intelligence.

The Phoenix Program was not one of assassinations. True, Tricky Dicky thought so. He said, “We’ve got to have more of this. Assassinations. That’s what they [the Vietnamese Communists] are doing.” William Colby said that if a battle occurred outside a village, the local guerilla chief would often be found dead the next morning. Robert Slater. the chief of the CIA’s Province Interrogation Center Program from June 1967 to 1969, said “The Allies have frequently found out where the District Party Secretaries live and raided their homes: in an ensuing fire fight the secretary’s wife and children have been killed and injured.”

Financially, the Phoenix Program cost little: $4 million from 1968 to 1972, excluding support to operational units. The political price, however, was steep. Negative perceptions saw the United States to be at war with the South Vietnamese people. In 1969, the Lower House of the South Vietnamese Congress held hearings into the Phoenix Program. 86 deputies signed a petition calling for an end to the Program. In 1970, four members of Congress concluded that the Program violated international law and the Geneva Convention. Rep. Ogden Reid said that if the Union had conducted a Phoenix Program against the Confederacy, its targets would have included Jefferson Davis and the mayor of Macon, Georgia. The Phoenix Program left an enduring legacy of suspicion of U.S. power. Official secrecy went some way to encouraging unfavourable estimations of the Phoenix program.

Insurgents in Iraq

The insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan both feature an extensive infrastructure for intelligence, counter-intelligence, media, finance, recruitment, and religious affairs, although not as well-organized as that of the V.C. It will not be difficult to find people who have legitimate grievances against insuragents. CIA selection of commanders would be especially useful in Afghanistan, where nepotism is rampant, and CIA supervision could prevent units from being used for personal reasons. If CIA personnel accompanied units, they could effect even closer supervision and ascertain the effectiveness of units. As for where the U.S. personnel would come from, sources told the Associated Press that soldiers would be put under CIA control so they would not be counted as troops. Torture should not be used, although perhaps a little waterboarding could be gotten away with. The program should be admitted to and explained to obviate false perceptions of it. Now that computers are readily available, more use could be made of the prestigious quantities of data elicited. The use of locals would be attractive at a time when U.S. forces are leaving these countries. At a time of economic hardship, a Phoenix-like program is attractive because it is a dirt cheap. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how to win at counter-insurgency.

Bibliography

“Communists vow to smash Phoenix program.” Www.history.com. n.d. 16 February 2012. <http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/communists-vow-to-smash-phoenix-program.>
“Does torture work?” Guardian. n.d. 16 February 2012. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/nov/04/2.>

Dozier, Kimberley. “Pentagon may put special OPS in Afghanistan under CIA control to meet 2014 pullout deadline.” Mercury News. 3 March 2012. 13 March 2012. <http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_20094901http:/www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_20094901.>
“Phoenix 1967-1971.” Www.globalsecurity.org. n.d. 16 February 2012. <http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/ops/vietnam-phoenix.htm.>
“Pragmatic approaches to torture.” BBC. n.d. 16 February 2012. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/torture/law/practical.shtml.>
“The Phoenix Program.” Ausvets. n.d. 16 February 2012. <http://ausvets.tripod.com/phoenix.htm.>
“Vietnamizing the War (1969-1973).” PBS. n.d. 16 February 2012. <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/vietnam/series/pt_07.html.>
Fertik, Bob. “Efficacy of Torture.” Www.Democrats.com. 7 February 2009. 16 February 2012. <http://www.democrats.com/efficacy-of-torture.>
Finlayson, Colonel Andrew R. “Marine Advisors with the Vietnamese Provincial Reconnaisance Units, 1966-1970.” History Division, United States Marine Corps. n.d. 16 February 2012. <http://www.tecom.usmc.mil/HD/PDF_Files/Pubs/VN%20Advisors%20Boards_Marine%20Advisors.pdf.>
Hayden, Tom. “Reviving Vietnam War Tactics.” The Nation. 13 March 2008. 16 February 2012. <http://www.thenation.com/article/reviving-vietnam-war-tactics.>
Kuzmarov, Jeremy. “The Phoenix Program Was a Disaster in Vietnam and Would Be in Afghanistan–And the NYT Should Know that.” George Mason University’s History News Network. 6 September 2009. 16 February 2012. <http://hnn.us/articles/116462.html.>
Rosenau, William and Long, Austin. “The Phoenix Program and Contemporary Counterinsurgency.” Rand Corporation. n.d. 16 Feburary 2012. <http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/2009/RAND_OP258.pdf.>
Ross, Brian. “CIA’s Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described.” ABC News. 18 November 2005. 16 February 2012. <http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Investigation/story?id=1322866#.Tz1mk7TTP3Y.>
Turchick, Chuck. “A useful way of looking at torture: the bank robbery analogy.” Minnpost. 21 July 2010. 16 February 2012. <http://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2010/07/useful-way-looking-torture-bank-robbery-analogy.>
Valentine, Douglas. “Fragging Bob.” Counterpunch. 17 May 2001. 16 February 2012. <http://www.counterpunch.org/2001/05/17/fragging-bob/.>
Weiner, Eric. “Waterboarding: A Tortured History.” NPR. 3 November 2007. 16 February 2012. <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15886834.>

email: timothychilman@yahoo.com

U.S. government documents tell of a planned invasion of Canada. Such a thing has been attempted before.

Quebecois defend against American attack in 1775

The first major military effort of the American Revolutionary War was an invasion of Canada led by Benedict Arnold prior to his turning traitor. In the course of Mr. Madison’s War (1812-1815), several invasions were attempted. It was in 1839 that Americans in Maine challenged Canadians over a border squabble known formally as the Aroostock War and informally as the Pork ‘n Beans War. No shots were fired, but an American cow, a Canuck pig, and a few American militiamen were injured. In 1866, 1870, and 1871, around 800 Americans of Irish extraction sought to deliver a blow in the name of Irish liberty by invading Canada. In the 1866 episode, they traversed the Niagara River and moved to Ontario, bested some Canadian militiamen, and then fled in the face of British soldiers.

The premiere Confederate warship, the CSS Alabama, was built in the United Kingdom

During the War of Northern Aggression (1861-65), the United Kingdom came close to war with the Union. Confederate sympathizers sheltered in Canada, from which they launched raids. One of the ships the United Kingdom built for the Confederates was the CSS Alabama, which destroyed or captured 65 ships. British diplomat Lord Lyons wrote to his superior: “There can, unhappily, be no doubt that three-quarters of the American people are eagerly longing for a safe opportunity of making war with England.” The United Kingdom’s sympathies for the Confederates were the prime reason for the emancipation of slaves by Abe Lincoln – the United Kingdom opposed slavery so British support for Johnny Reb would be undermined. In 1895, President Cleveland threatened the Untied Kingdom with war over a border dispute between Venezuela and British Guiana (present-day Guyana).

In October 1970, in response to Québécois separatist activity, U.S. troops and armor moved to the Canadian border and prepared to occupy Montreal and Ottawa, according to an interview the Royal Canadian Mounted Police director of counter-intelligence gave to the Toronto Star in 1973. The story was confirmed by a nameless Canadian army officer. It is rumored that U.S. armed forces were put on alert at the time of the sovereignty referendum in Quebec in 1980.

The poster for "Canadian Bacon"

The idea of invading Canada has manifested itself in American popular culture. The 1995 film, Canadian Bacon, had American president Alan Alda decide to stimulate the economy through initiating conflict with Diet America. His call to arms was: “Surrender pronto, or we’ll level Toronto.” The 1999 film, South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut, saw the United States declare war on Canada. 2002 saw the right-wing magazine, the National Review, featured an essay entitled “Bomb Canada: the Case for War,” which suggested the the United States mount a lightning raid on Canada, where something would be blown up, possibly a vacant hockey stadium. Canada would then stop wasting money on the frippery of universal healthcare and instead lavish cash on its underdeveloped military. Author Jonah Goldberg said that this would transmogrify “Canada’s neurotic anti-Americanism” into “manly resolve.”

The website, invadecanada.us, lists many sound reasons for invading Canada, although it says it doesn’t want the permafrost bit. Alaska would be joined to the rest of the United States, for starters – so many Alaskans perpetually complain of being separate from the “continental 48 states.” An invasion could be justified, as so often, by humanitarian reasons: the magnetic north pole is in Canada, and Santa Claus must be protected.

The military hero of the United States is General Douglas MacArthur. That of Canada is Dudley Do-Right. They don't really compare, do they?

Success, the website says, would be guaranteed. The military hero of the United States is General Douglas MacArthur, while that of Canada is Dudley Do-Right. Due to Canada’s French streak, the white flags would be out before U.S. forces even left home.

War Plan Red was a plan to defeat the British Empire. The Empire was Red, while Canada was Crimson. The plan was approved in May, 1930, by the Secretaries of War and the Navy. Its objective was: “ULTIMATELY, TO GAIN COMPLETE CONTROL OF CRIMSON.”

In a joint Army/Navy mission, troops would travel the 370 miles from Boston to St. Margaret’s Bay and seize the port of Halifax early in the war. This would isolate Canadian forces from their British allies: Halifax is the only ice-free port on the east coast, and it was where the transatlantic cable came ashore.

Among the other targets were Montreal, then Canada’s largest city, Quebec, the railroad hub of Winnipeg, and the nickel mines of Ontario. The Navy would take the Great Lakes and blockade Canada’s essential Pacific and Atlantic ports. Power plants near the Niagara Falls would be captured so that, as Peter Carlson put it in the Washington Post, the people of Canada would “freeze in the dark.”

Winnipeg is 60 miles from the U.S. border. Seizure of Quebec and Winnipeg would, the plan said, cripple those Canadian industries which depended on steam power. The plan said that Winnipeg was “the nerve center of the transcontinental railroad,” control of which would effectively separate the eastern and western halves of Canada, and prevent transportation of men, oil, grain, coal, and meat to eastern Canada. British Caribbean possessions would be conquered to prevent a British attack from the south. Carlson added that the plan would “bring these Molson-swigging, maple-mongering Zamboni drivers to their knees!”

War Plan Red assumed the British would capture Hawai’i, the Philippines, the Panama Canal, and Guam.

In 1934, the plan for the U.S. invasion of Canada was changed to include chemical weapons.

An amendment to the plan was made in 1934 in a memo to the Joint Board from Colonel W. Krueger and Commander A.S. Carpender. The U.S. Army was directed to prepare for the use of chemical weapons against Canada. This would, needless to say, be a humanitarian move, as abbreviating the war would save American lives.

The plan anticipated a long conflict as “the RED race” was “phlegmatic” and well-known for its talent for fighting to the bitter end. The British Empire would be greatly assisted by its generous supply of darkies from around the Empire: “Some of the colored races however come of good fighting stock, and, under white leadership, can be made into very efficient troops.”

Invasion of Canada by the United States was enough of a risk that the Canadian military formulated countermeasures. The solution was to attack first, and divert U.S. attention for long enough for British reinforcements to arrive. Defense Scheme No. 1 was drawn up by First World War hero, James Sutherland “Buster” Brown, who loathed Americans. His total annual budget was $1,200, and he entered the United States in plain clothes to take pictures and obtain free maps from gas stations.

Brown proposed the rapid deployment of flying columns to occupy Seattle, Minneapolis, Great Falls, and Albany. Fancy a Republic of New England? Surprise, he said, was more important than preparation. The American military recognized that a number of American beaches such as Ocean City and Rehoboth would be “excellent” locations for British landings.

Defense Scheme No. 1 was withdrawn in 1928, two years before War Plan Red was authorized, but it could have been dusted off. The United States was undeterred. A military expert, Captain H.L. George, testified to Congress that Canada’s thousands of lakes could serve as bases for seaplanes, from which aircraft could take off and bomb Baltimore and Boston. A secret reconnaissance team was sent to Labrador and Hudson Bay to identify concealed Canadian seaplane facilities. George made those wily Canucks sound really scary. He began: “They know now what they are going to bomb. They know where every railroad crosses every river. They know where every refinery lies. They know where every power plant is located. They know all about our water supply systems… Now they are dispersed widely out over this area. Their location is most difficult for us to learn, for our own air force to learn. We have to hunt them up.”

There is a sizable Canadian fifth column within the United States

Canada has always maintained a sizable fifth column within the United States. These days, it is spearheaded by the likes of Mike Myers and Celine Dion. The news departments of the major television networks are riven with Canucks, and in the event of hostilities, the United States could expect to lose the information war, just as it did in Vietnam. These potential insurgents have thoroughly penetrated U.S. society, and you might be sitting next to one right now! As the plan put it, “it would be necessary to deal internally” with these undesirable elements, plus domestic “pacifists” and other professional complainants. We’re talking internment camps.

The weather would be an obstacle to a U.S. invasion of Canada, so all that “Red” forces need do would be to delay the advance by “Blue,” destroying bridges and railroad tracks and the like. War Plan Red conceded that operations between November 1st and April 15th would be “difficult, if not impossible.”

While any army should prepare for every possible eventuality, War Plan Red went beyond the drawing board. Concrete measures were undertaken to facilitate the invasion of Canada. In 1931, the U.S. government dispatched record-breaking flying hero (and Nazi sympathizer) Charles Lindbergh to Hudson Bay to determine the prospects for using sea planes in warfare.

In February 1935, $57 million was allocated to construct three air bases close to the Canadian Border, to allow for pre-emptive attacks on Canadian airfields. They would be given the appearance of civilian airports. This can be seen on p61 of the February 11-13, 1935 Hearings of the House of Representatives Committee on Military Affairs. The testimony was supposed to be secret, but it was published mistakenly and ended up on page one of the New York Times on May 1. The Canadian government protested, but President Franklin Roosevelt gave reassurances that the United States was not considering war.

Prior to his election to President, Theodore Roosevelt said war between the United States and the United Kingdom was "the greatest boon I could confer upon this nation."

Half-a-dozen years before himself being elected president, President Roosevelt’s fifth cousin, Theodore Roosevelt, penned a letter to General James Harrison Wilson on November 5, 1895 which was quoted in The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt. It said that “the greatest boon I could confer upon this nation” was a prompt war with the United Kingdom to take Canada. He said, “I will do my very best to bring about the day.” So of course, we believe the other Roosevelt’s protestations.

In August 1935, the United States held what was then its largest ever peacetime mobilization of forces when 36,000 troops converged south of Ottawa and 15,000 were held in reserve in Pennsylvania. The scenario was a vehicle-borne invasion of Canada. It was well-documented by the Souvenir of the First Army Maneuvers: The Greatest Peace Time Event in US History.

In 1939, as the Second World War began, the U.S. Army War College and Naval War College planned an “Overseas Expeditionary Force to Capture Halifax from Red-Crimson Coalition.” War Plan Red received much more attention than War Plan Black, the plan for war with Germany, with whom the United States actually went to war.

When questioned about War Plan Red, the director of the Canada Institute in Washington said, “I’ve never heard of it.” The spokesman for the Canadian Embassy in Washington said, “I remember sort of hearing about this.” The mayor of Sudbury, Ontario, where nickel mines were prime targets of the plan, said, “It’s the first I’ve heard of it.” A Pentagon spokesman said that he was unaware of War Plan Red, but conceded that he would not admit to it even if he were not. The mayor of Winnipeg, another major target, said that weather would cause a U.S. invasion of Canada to end up like Napoleon’s venture into Russia: “I’m quite convinced that you’ll meet your Waterloo on the banks of the Assiniboine River.”

Any invasion of Canada by the United States is likely to begin at Fort Drum, half an hour from the Canadian border. In 1984, Fort Drum accommodated only an engineering battalion, but it was later expanded in the largest Army construction project ever by the Corps of Enginqueers, although there was already a surplus of military bases. Now, Fort Drum is home to a rapid assault light division and a reserve armored division of 30,000 troops.

Perhaps the Canadian Airborne Regiment could have halted a U.S. invasion of Canada, if only it had not been disbanded in 1995.

It would be simplicity itself to seize the Canadian military communications center at Kingston, Ontario and cut Canadian forces off. Taking Highway 2 and Highway 401 would prevent reinforcements from reaching Toronto and the capital of Ottawa. “Surrender pronto, or we’ll level Toronto.” Perhaps the Canadian Airborne Regiment could have stopped it, if only it had not been disbanded in 1995.

Unlike paratroopers or Marines, the 10th Mountain Division is not designed to attack defended borders. It specializes in surprise attack, and is trained and equipped for house-to-house combat and winter warfare. There is a center for urban warfare at Fort Drum. Fort Drum’s troops are not well-disposed to rapid deployment to overseas troublespots because of the area’s chronic bad weather: snowfall is 10 feet on average, and a nearby village boasts the New York State record of 40 feet. The site is actually used for Arctic weather training, and the Corps of Enginqueers found that Fort Drum had the worst weather in all the eastern United States.

The light vehicles and helicopters of the 10th Mountain Division would be considerably better suited to an attack on Ontario or Southern Quebec. Invasion was also planned in 1888, 1893, 1896, 1909, 1912, 1913, 1914, 1916, and 1921. In 1896, the Secretary of the Navy instructed Commodore “Damn the torpedoes! Full steam ahead!” Gridly to evaluate Canadian defenses and plan an invasion. Gridly recommended the attack originate below Ogdensburg, close to present-day Fort Drum. It would have been a surprise attack not preceded by a declaration of war, just like Pearl Harbor. War games in 1910 produced the headline “Canadian Army Crushed” in New York.

The official spokesman for Fort Drum said, “We most certainly are not preparing to invade Canada” and that the idea was difficult to believe. Many Canadian soldiers were training there, he said: “I bumped into a Canadian officer in the bathroom the other day.”

If the United States wished to conduct war against Canada, an excuse could be manufactured, such as the sinking of the USS Maine in Havana in 1898.

It will not be long afore the oil runs out, unrestrained commercialism has left U.S. aquifers too poisonous to supply drinking water, and global warming has turned the U.S. heartland into desert. Then, the United States will gaze north, covetously. A crisis will be manufactured, along the lines of Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction or the USS Maine, and then the United States will invade. It could so easily be flavored as some kind of Christian crusade. The American public can be deceived into allowing its soldiers to be sent anywhere on the flimsiest of pretexts.

War Plan Red acknowledged that the Royal Navy could not

Obesity in the U.S. military has doubled since 2003.

be defeated, and even now it is down to about three ships and NO AIRCRAFT CARRIER, the famed British ingenuity could perhaps pull off a naval blockade to starve the United States of oil. Hey, the United States is rather large and its terrain passable. Mayhaps Mexico could be persuaded to undertake a little irridentism, and bring the Texicans back into the fold. Fuck you, Major General Paul Vallely. U.S. cities are densely populated, and would be highly susceptible to the merest hint of cold steel. Obesity in the U.S. military has doubled since 2003.

The hostile intentions of the United States toward Canada are plain to see, and should they become so evident as to guarantee public support, the United Kingdom would be well-advised to get its retaliation in first, just like with Defense Scheme No. 1. It would be time to send in the lads, and the British Empire would rise again.

Bibliography

“A 1935 US Plan for Invasion of Canada.” Glasnost – Archiv. 1 February 1995. 23 September 2011. <http://www.glasnost.de/hist/usa/1935invasion.html.>
“War Plan Crimson.” Globalsecurity.org. n.d. 23 September 2011. <http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/war-plan-red-crimson.htm.>
“War Plan Red.” Globalsecurity.org. n.d. 23 September 2011. <http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/war-plan-red.htm.>
“Why invade Canada?” InvadeCanada.US. n.d. 23 September 2011.
Carlson, Peter. “Raiding the Icebox.” Washington Post. 30 December 2005. 23 September 2011. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/29/AR2005122901412.html.>
Gerrie, David. “War on the ‘Red Empire’: How America planned for an attack on BRITAIN in 1930 with bombing raids and chemical weapons.” Daily Mail. 21 September 2011. 23 September 2011. <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2039453/How-America-planned-destroy-BRITAIN-1930-bombing-raids-chemical-weapons.html.>
Rudmin, Floyd. “Bordering on Aggression.” Peace Magazine. n.d. 23 September 2011. <http://archive.peacemagazine.org/v09n2p20.htm.>
Rudmin, Floyd. “Secret War Plans and the Malady of American Militarism.” Counterpunch. 18 February 2006. 23 September 2011. <http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/02/17/secret-war-plans-and-the-malady-of-american-militarism/.>
Soniak, Matt. “America’s Plan to Invade Everyone.” Mental Floss. 21 January 2008. 23 September 2011. <http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/11388.>

More and more companies are requiring their customers to forfeit driver’s license identification when purchasing products.

If you’re buying an Xbox game at Target, the clerk may want to scan your driver’s license. If you’re dropping off a package at UPS, the clerk may want to scan your driver’s license. If you’re buying a drink at the bar, the server may want to scan your driver’s license. If you’re buying medicine for a cold, the pharmacist may want to scan your driver’s license.

America is nearing the police end game state now, requiring people to prove their identities to do anything. It’s the modern version of “Papers, please”, when proof of identification was required to travel anywhere within Nazi Europe in WW2.

A girl infected with smallpox in Bangladesh in 1973.

Dubbed “the virus that should never have been created”, an extremely deadly modification of the H5N1 Bird Flu virus has been developed in a laboratory.

The most frightening aspect of the virus is the ease in which it spreads. It can travel in the air and people coming into contact with those already infected are certain to catch it.

Scientists not sure whether to publish doomsday virus recipe

If it isn’t enough to make such a deadly virus to begin with, the scientists who created it are ready to publish the procedure in a scientific journal for the whole world to see. They’re ready to reveal their findings, but not sure if they should.

Half of human race to die

Scientists predict it could kill half the human population, or 3.5 billion people, if it is released from the laboratory.

Those of us alive now are lucky to be born at a time when most of the world’s lethal diseases have been virtually eradicated. Smallpox spans back to 10,000 B.C. and is responsible for 500 million deaths in the 20th century alone. Through vaccination, it was certified eradicated by the World Health Organization in 1979.

Why the virus is so deadly

One reason why the new virus is so deadly is because the human race has never had any time to develop immunity against it. As mentioned before, smallpox came about in 10,000 B.C. Other diseases, like measles and cholera, have been around for centuries as well. When these diseases first spread, the death count was catastrophic. The few humans to survive were the ones that had natural immunity against the virus, which they passed on to their children. Those that did not have immunity died, and could not pass on their weak genes.

If this new doomsday virus were to be released, our generation would be the unfortunate first wave to experience it. That means widespread death and very low odds of survival for you and everyone else.