Pearl Harbor Day Special! Thomas Kimmel on the KB Show, ONE HOUR EARLY!

Tuesday, December 7th, 8-9 a.m. Pacific (11 a.m. – noon Eastern) on http://NoLiesRadio.org, to be archived here a few hours after broadcast…

Thomas Kimmel has taken up the fight to clear the name of his grandfather, Admiral Husband Edward Kimmel, Commander-in-Chief of the US Pacific Fleet at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack. Admiral Kimmel, along with Gen. Walter Short, were set up as Pearl Harbor scapegoats by the murderous traitors – including President FD Roosevelt and ONI Lt. Commander Arthur McCollum – who orchestrated the Pearl Harbor butchery. In fact, Kimmel and Short were heroes. They were known as men of integrity, and were therefore left out of the loop of traitors who were scheming to sacrifice American lives in order to drag the American people into a war they wanted no part of.

The truth is fully-documented in Robert Stinnett’s Day of Deceit: McCollum and FDR implemented an eight-point plan to force the Japanese to attack, closely monitored Japanese preparations for the “surprise” attack on Pearl harbor, knew exactly when and where the attack was coming, and intentionally placed thousands of defenseless sailors in harm’s way. The Pearl Harbor massacre was a classic war-trigger event designed to enrage U.S. public opinion – which was running 85% against US entry into WWII – and allow Roosevelt to bring America into the global mass slaughter of more than 60 million innocent people. A viler act of treason and homicide could hardly be imagined.

And yet it not only was imagined – it was implemented. Pearl Harbor high treason set a precedent for the even more treasonous Zionist neocons, who arranged the 9/11 inside job as a “New Pearl Harbor” designed to launch a permanent US war on Islam for Israel. (For some brand-new details about how it was done, check out Gordon Duff’s interview with an insider.)

* * *

from my book Questioning the War on Terror:

The Straussian neocon big-liars see themselves as “architects of
the lores and legends of society.”54

Are they the architects of the house (or cage) we now inhabit,
the War on Terror—the collection of lores and legends around
which our post-9/11 political life revolves?

A key War on Terror architect is Philip Zelikow, the main author
of the 9/11 Commission Report. Zelikow describes himself as a
specialist in “the construction and maintenance of public myths”
which he describes as “beliefs (1) thought to be true (although
not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared
in common with the relevant political community.” Zelikow is
especially interested in “’searing’ or ‘molding’ events that take
on ‘transcendent’ importance and, therefore, retain their power
even as the experiencing generation passes from the scene.”55 He
co-authored a 1998 article in Foreign Affairs analyzing the likely
political, psychological, and cultural reaction to a massive Pearl
Harbor-style terrorist event such as the destruction of the World
Trade Center.56 How did he foresee the near future so accurately?
And why was a man with such a background, whose apparent
foreknowledge made him a potential suspect, put in charge of the
investigation?

Other key neocon War on Terror architects include Paul
Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Dick Cheney, Douglas Feith, Scooter
Libby, and Donald Rumsfeld—all members of Project for the New
American Century (PNAC), which called for a “New Pearl Harbor”
in a document issued in September, 2000. They insisted in that
document that the U.S. needed to drastically increase its military
budget, launch wars of aggression (euphemistically referred
to as “pre-emptive” wars) in the Middle East, remove Saddam
Hussein from power in Iraq, and adapt an aggressive new imperial
strategy. “The process of transformation is likely to be a long one,”
they wrote one year before 9/11, “absent some cataclysmic and
catalyzing event—like a New Pearl Harbor.”57
Was 9/11 a “New Pearl Harbor”?

Many scholars believe that President Franklin D. Roosevelt lied
about the alleged surprise attack on Pearl Harbor—and that the lie
was a justifiable “noble lie.” Before Pearl Harbor, American public
opinion was overwhelmingly against U.S. entry into the war. Pearl
Harbor, some believe, made it possible for the U.S.A. to defeat
Hitler. Did Roosevelt manipulate the Japanese with an eight-point
plan to force Japan to strike first so as to enrage the American
people and allow U.S. entry into the war? Did he know about the
attack beforehand and intentionally fail to prevent it? Did he make
it happen on purpose by way of the eight-point plan?58

Paul Wolfowitz, a student of Strauss and leading neocon
geopolitical strategist, has long been fascinated by the immense
strategic value of Pearl Harbor, which mobilized America for total
war. Wolfowitz has exhibited a lifelong obsession with a remark by
Albert Speer to the effect that if Germany had been blessed with a
Pearl Harbor it would have won World War II.59

If the official myth of the Pearl Harbor surprise attack is a lie, is
it a noble lie? Wolfwitz, and the other cult followers of Leo Strauss,
would undoubtedly say so.

The popular myth of the dastardly Japanese surprise attack
on Pearl Harbor, and the heroic American response, transformed
Americans’ understanding of themselves and their role in the
world. Before Pearl Harbor, Americans agreed that there should be
no standing army, and that George Washington’s foreign policy of
neutrality, non-alignment, and non-involvment in foreign quarrels
was the American way.60 That is why, on the eve of Pearl Harbor,
85% of Americans opposed entering World War II.

After Pearl Harbor, Americans accepted their new role as the
world’s policeman (some would say the world’s biggest bully).
A gigantic military-industrial complex mushroomed, and more
noble lies were told to gain the people’s consent. The negligible
military threat to the U.S. posed by the Soviet Union was wildly
exaggerated in order to pump up the military budget, and the
memory of the alleged sneak attack at Pearl Harbor fed Americans’
sense of vulnerability. In this way, an aggressive imperial strategy
was made to appear defensive. While pretending to be a purely
defensive power, the U.S. regularly threatened other nations with
the use of nuclear weapons.61 It launched illegal, unconstitutional
attacks on dozens of nations that posed no threat whatsoever, killing
millions of innocent people in the process in what one scholar of
U.S. empire, William Blum, has called “the American holocaust.”62

The Pearl Harbor myth changed history. It turned the U.S.A.
from a peace-loving nation into the world’s biggest and most
aggressive military empire. How did it exert such immense power?

To find out, the U.S. military hired anthropologist Bob
Deutch, one of the world’s leading experts in using focus
groups to understand and manipulate irrational popular beliefs.
Deutch discovered that Pearl Harbor shattered Americans’ sense
of invulnerability: “Because Japan disrupted America’s selfmythology
of being invincible, the nation would never be forgiven
in the irrational American sentiment.”63 Could those who hired
Deutch have concluded that a new Pearl Harbor, blamed on Arab
Muslims, could provide the kind of “searing or moulding event”
that would convince the American public to mobilize for wars on
behalf of oil and Israel?

Deutch discovered that at the deep psychological level, the
American public, like members of the Hells Angels motorcycle
gang, engages in aggression as a defense against a sense of
vulnerability and loss: “They are protecting themselves. That’s
what their core story is about. Images are created to defend loss,
not maximize gain.”64

Another U.S. military psychological expert, S.L.A. Marshall,
discovered just how fundamentally defensive and non-aggressive
human nature really is, and how powerfully people must be
psychologically manipulated if they are to go to war. After an
exhaustive study of that vast majority U.S. infantrymen and airmen
who, during World War II, covertly refused to kill, Marshall wrote
that “the average and healthy individual…has such an inner and
usually unrealized resistance towards killing a fellow man that he
will not of his own volition take life if it is possible to turn away
from that responsibility…At the vital point (the soldier) becomes
a conscientious objector.”65

Normal human beings only kill when
under direct threat and extreme duress, as a fear-and-anger-inspired
defensive response to an aggressor. To motivate a nation to engage
in military aggression—mass killing abroad—the people must be
brainwashed into believing that they are under attack.

Zbigniew Brezezinski, a leading U.S. foreign policy strategist,
notes that the U.S. public’s attitude toward the “external projection
of American power” is “ambivalent” and depends on the sort of fear
and vulnerability awakened by Pearl Harbor: “The public supported
America’s engagement in World War II largely because of the shock
effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.”66

Brezezinski’s useof the term “shock effect” recalls the thesis of Naomi Klein’s
The Shock Doctrine.67 According to Klein, individuals and even
whole societies can be forced to accept radical, unpleasant changes
by way of sudden shocks engineered, or taken advantage of, by
unscrupulous elites.

Brezezinski seemed to be calling for a shocking event like
9/11 and the War on Terror it spawned, when he wrote in 1997:
“Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multicultural
society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on
foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive
and widely perceived direct external threat.”68

Hollywood, like Brezezinski, seemed to be preparing the
American public for 9/11. The run-up to 9/11 saw a rash of patriotic,
militaristic, apocalyptic films including the 135 million dollar
flop, Pearl Harbor.69 Most American-made action films feature an
American hero who is threatened by an evil foreigner, and whose
self-defense unfolds into extreme aggression that the audience is
taught to accept as legitimate. A grossly disproportionate number
of Hollywood’s evil foreigners are Arab or Muslim, including in
pre-9/11 films.70 Is this because Hollywood was founded as, and
remains, a Jewish enclave with a strong pro-Israeli bias? Or is it
because 80% of the world’s sweet, easily-extracted oil lies under
Arab and Muslim sand, even as an age of energy scarcity looms?71

Did 9/11 function as a “new Pearl Harbor” that mobilized
Americans for a aggressive war, disguised as a defensive one,
against Arab and Muslim countries? T.H. Meyer has called
attention to Donald Rumsfeld’s bizarre Pearl Harbor propaganda
campaign that had begun even before the Bush Administration
took office.72 Rumsfeld spent 2000 and 2001 carrying around
extra copies of Roberta Wohlstetter’s Pearl Harbor: Warning and
Decision, praising the book to the skies, and offering free copies to
journalists. (Wohlstetter’s hawkish Zionist husband Albert, named
in his obituary “the world’s most influential unknown figure of the
past half century,” was Wolfowitz’s mentor and Richard Perle’s
father-in-law.)73 Roberta Wohlstetter’s Pearl Harbor book, while
it ostensibly supports the official myth that Pearl Harbor was a
perfidious surprise attack, includes enough information to the
contrary to enlighten the discerning reader to the unspeakable
but implicitly acknowledged truth: The Roosevelt Administration
provoked the attacks, knew they were coming, and left thousands
of sailors in harm’s way as an offering to the gods of war.
Wohlstetter’s book is a perfect illustration of neocon doublespeak:
Tell a vivid, simplistic, emotionally-charged lie to the masses
(“Perfidious surprise attack! Heroic purple-fury response!”) yet
include as a subtle subtext the unspeakable truth that only the elite
is smart enough to discern and strong enough to handle: Roosevelt
sacrificed thousands of American lives to the greater good of
getting the U.S. into the war.

Rumsfeld’s pre-9/11 Pearl Harbor precognitions were echoed
on 9/11 itself. On Air Force One, as Bush flew from Florida to
Nebraska, the event was already being framed as a new Pearl
Harbor.74 Senator Chuck Hegel and Henry Kissinger quickly
echoed the Pearl Harbor comparison. Brezezinski himself
pronounced: “It (9/11) is more murderous even than Pearl Harbor,
and the psychological impact is the same.”75 On the evening of
September 11th, 2001, George W. Bush reportedly confided to his
diary: “The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today.”76

Before the nano-thermite-laden dust77 that was all that was
left of the World Trade Center had cleared, the corporate media
were echoing the Pearl Harbor meme. Time Magazine wrote:
“What’s needed is a unified, unifying, Pearl Harbor sort of purple
American fury—a ruthless indignation that doesn’t leak away in
a week or two.”78 After 9/11 family members shamed a reluctant
administration into finally mounting an official investigation, the
9/11 Commission told us that 9/11 was just like Pearl Harbor
“except it wasn’t the Japanese, but it was al-Qaeda.”79