Deep Historical Notes
How might the notes below (and under 9/11) tie in to the current power structure, and events at home and abroad?
A. Torah
Torah, or the Pentateuch, the first 5 books of what Christians call the “Old Testament” refers repeatedly to “treasured by G_d above all others” and from Leviticus forward, “breaking the power” of those who oppose domination by the God of Israel. It is tribalistic, ie “the seed of Abraham,” or to some, at least those credited with the required values. The references to seed of Abraham reflect over, in identifying Jews based on genetic markers . To some extent, it is also reflected in the view of some jews that a jewish grandmother qualifies one as jewish. The law of return in Israel grants citizenship based on whether a parent was jewish, reflecting the orthodox doctrine that a jewish mother makes one jewish.
References include Exodus 34:13, and thirty or more verses from Deuteronomy. 7:6, for example, reads: “For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy G_d: the LORD thy G_d hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.”
7:16 reads: “And thou shalt consume all the people which the LORD thy G_d shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them.”
Isaiah is a book of the second group of holy jewish scriptures (Na) rather than the first group, Torah or Ta. Isaiah reads in part: “The forces of the Gentiles shall come to thee…and the sons of strangers shall build up thy walls, and their Kings shall minister unto thee…Thou shalt suck the milk of the Gentiles…ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves…and the Gentiles shall come to thy light….
For thou art an holy people unto the Lord: the Lord thy G_d hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all People that are upon the face of the earth….and thou shall consume all the people which the Lord thy God shall deliver unto thee; thine eyes shall have no pity upon them... 60.10 to 61.6 (repeating Deuteronomy).
Deism.com lays out a more complete set, under “jewish superiority.”
Chauvinistic and aggressive theologies can breed a sense of entitlement, even where less explicit. Presbyterianism, (part of my own extended background), with its theory of the elect tied to prosperity, tends to do the same.
The supremicist doctrine is still very much alive. “It is hard to see how a biblical theology that did not respect the doctrine of the priority and normativity of the Pentateuch could be authentic to the Jewish tradition.” Jon Levenson, chaired faculty, Harvard Divinity, The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism, 1993, p 55. The Reform Platform of 1885 refers to “the priest of the one G_d” (p 47) and a more current one “singled out among the nations.”
Levenson’s view was was reflected in Prof. Woocher’s survey, of 309 participants in a leadership development program of the United Jewish Appeal, published in the 1981 American Jewish Yearbook. 63% explicitly affirmed jews are the chosen people, and only 18% explicitly disagree.
B. Talmud
Talmud is the oral tradition, written down. Understanding Talmud, by Jacob Neusner defines Judaism at page 1, as “a supernatural society of supernatural people.”
Israel Shahak was a concentration camp victim; grad student at Stanford; award winning Israeli chemistry professor; and leading human rights activist. In his book, Jewish History, Jewish Religion, Pluto Press 1997, he points to two sets of rules for dealing with jews or gentiles under orthodox judaism–as to taking interest, deception in business, lost property, fraud, and possibly if the Gentile is under jewish control, robbery. p 75, 89. It is severely punishable to take interest from another jew, but “under a majority of Talmudic authorities, it is a religious duty to take as much interest as possible from a gentile.” (p 42)
Specific references include:
As to Gentile property rights, “their possessions are like unclaimed land in the desert.” Baba Bathra 54b.
“It is always a meritorious deed to get hold of a Gentile’s possessions.” Shulchan Aruch.
“On the house of the goy, one looks as on the fold of cattle.” Tosefta, Erubin VIII, 1.
Protocol 15 of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, section 8, reads in part: “And how far-seeing were our learned elders in ancient times, when they said that to attain a serious end it behooves not to stop at any means or to count the victims sacrificed for the sake of that end…We have not counted the victims of the seed of the GOY cattle…” The authenticity of the Protocols is authenticated by some with an orthodox background, and denied by others. Are events unfolding in accord, or not?
All property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which consequently is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples. An orthodox jew is not bound to observe principles of morality towards people of other tribes. He may act contrary to morality, if profitable to himself or to Jews in general…
A jew may rob a Goy, he may cheat him over a bill, which should not be perceived by him, otherwise the name of God would become dishonoured.” Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat, 348.
In his You Tube video, The Jewish Talmud Exposed, Brother Nathanael Kaplan, raised orthodox jewish but now orthodox christian, said that under Talmud, Judaism is “the religion of a tribal crime syndicate.” You tube has revoked his license, for focusing on a code of silence, and other topics sometimes addressed by rabbis, to help jews leverage their power.
Kaplan’s broad brush is corroborated by the example of Ovadia Yosef, who was Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Israel from 1973 to 1983. In a 1999 sermon, while still active and 14 years before his death in 2013, he said “The sole purpose of non-Jews is to serve Jews”. He said that Gentiles served a divine purpose: “Why are Gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat. That is why Gentiles were created.”
In a 2010 Jerusalem Post interview, Yosef was quoted as comparing Gentiles to donkeys whose life has the sole purpose to serve the master: “In Israel, death has no dominion over them… With gentiles, it will be like any person – they need to die, but [God] will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money. This is his servant… That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew. Gentiles were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel.”[
The statements were publicly condemned, but between 273,000 and 850,000 attended his funeral, possibly the largest ingathering of jews since the Second Temple. Wikipedia, Ovadia Yoseph. About 58% of the 6.2 million jews in Israel are not “secular”. Thus, the 850,000 would be about 23% of the religious jews in the country attending. www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3890330,00.html
The various Talmudic references to gentiles in such terms, and the deceptive attempts to give the terms roots in the bible, were addressed in depth in Judaism Discovered, by Michael Hoffman, and a later discourse with a rabbi by Hoffman, dubbed Source of Talmudic Teaching on Gentiles as Donkeys.
Is there a connect, between the old talmudic description of gentiles as livestock, and the current power structure and events? Are gentiles validating the old description, by standing there chewing their cud, without a clue?
What about the old jewish saw, that a young Christian who really follows his religion will wind up as a priest, or a pauper?
With the asserted difference in average IQ hard to support, should gentiles take a closer look at torah and talmud, in assessing why 25 to 50% of the billionaires in the US come from 2-3% of the population?
C. Classical Judaism
This refers to the period from about 800 to 1800 A.D., and may be called medieval judaism. (Shahak, p 32, ftn 1). Shahak focuses the “Dominance of the profit motive” and “deceptions practiced by classical Judaism against non-jews and poor jews” during this period. p 49, et seq.
Michael Hoffman pointed out in Usury in Christendom: the Mortal Sin That Was and Is Not, however, that at least as to charging interest, the erosion of the traditional condemnation by the church of such charges was driven to a great extent by Catholic and protestant Christian authorities. One key question–as the atmosphere became more supportive of collecting interest from gentiles, did jewish lenders proportionately increase charges of interest to jews, as historically prohibited by Talmud?
Be that as it may, as Shahak said in chapter 1, “I strongly believe that anti-semitism and jewish chauvinism can only be fought simultaneously.” Gore Vidal felt Shahak’s book may be one of the most important, of the twentieth century.
A Gentile Association might help balance out the 500 or so U.S. organizations explicitly advancing jewish interests, and play a key role in moving us toward a more wholesome climate.
D. Eighteenth Century
The “Franklin Prophesies” predicted that if jews were allowed in the new republic, they would be in the counting houses, and gentiles in the fields, within 200 years. Based on table conversations, written down by a Charles Pinckney, the authenticity is disputed. However, Franklin spent much time in France, where Voltaire, a dominant intellect of the age of reason, was highly anti-semitic, and “his views were cited, to argue against letting jews become citizens of France.” Voltaire carried an anticlerical bias in general, but saw judaism as the head of the dragon. Richard H. Popkin, Great Thinkers of the Western World, Harper Collins, 1992, p 259.
The power of the international money cartel was also part of the context.
A quote permeating the internet, supposedly from Franklin’s biography, says: “The refusal of King George III to allow the colonies to operate an honest money system, which freed the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators was probably the prime cause of the revolution.” The authenticity of that quote is also disputed. However, Franklin did identify disallowing the colonies or colonial banks to issue money, as a key cause of the revolution. “The (1776) Examination of Benjamin Franklin” in The Parliamentary History of England from the Earliest Period to the Year 1803 (1813) Glyn Davies’ A History of Money, forms the basis of an outline at projects.exeter.ac.uk. Franklin’s testimony followed the Currency Act of 1764, which had forced the colonies back into the grips of the international banking cartel.
According to Joussef Cassis, in Finance and the Making of the Modern Capitalist World, 1750-1931, Twelfth Int’l Economic History Congress, Madrid, 1998, p 65, “Among the various religious and ethnic minorities, two main groups deserve particular attention in connection with banking and finance in the Western world–Protestants, and especially, Jews.” Banking in Germany and Austria was controlled by jews, id.
MA Bowers opened his counting house in Frankfort in 1743, changed his name to Rothschild, and sent his five sons around Europe, including Nathan to England. This was at a time when jewish money lenders were collecting interest from gentile peasants of 30-40%, although the noblemen financing the moneylenders no doubt played a role. Jewish History Blog The Rothschilds, from Money Lending to Banking. Nathan (1777-1836) reportedly said “I care not what puppet is placed on the throne of England to rule the Empire. The man who controls England’s money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply.” Nathan was naturalized in 1804. The authenticity of Nathan’s quote is disputed, but did it symbolically reflect the power of the international money cartel, over the West– as addressed by Franklin, and which the exclusive powers reserved under Art I Sec 8 of the US Constitution were designed to escape?
FDR wrote “The real truth of the matter is, as you know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.” Letter to Col Edward Mandell House (21 Nov 1933); as quoted in FDR: His Personal Letters, 1928-1945, edited by Elliott Roosevelt (New York, Duell, Sloan and Pierce, 1950) p 373.
Compare the Russian edict of September 3, 1882, for similar concern:
“For some time the government has given its attention to the Jews and to their relations to the rest of the inhabitants of the empire, with a view of ascertaining the sad condition of the Christian inhabitants brought about by the conduct of Jews in business matters…With few exceptions, they have a a body devoted their attention, not to enriching or benefitting the country, but to defrauding by their wiles its inhabitants, and particularly its poor inhabitants. This conduct of theirs has called forth protests on the part of the people…thought it a matter of urgency and justice to adopt stringent measures in order to put an end to the oppression practiced by the Jews on the inhabitants, and to free the country from their malpractices, which were, as is known, the cause of the agitations.”
Czar Alexander II had one of the fastest growing economies in the world, building the middle class critical to successful democracy. His reforms, including those benefitting some groups of jews, are addressed in Jewish Encyclopedia, under his name. The Peoples’ Will assassinated the Czar in 1881. The group was led around that time by Vera Figner, who was jewish, and Gesia Gelfman was one of the assassins, but the group was mixed. The May Laws then reversed several reforms, and the above edict ensued. There were also some pogroms, which the regime did not effectively curtail.
E. Early 20th Century
Winston Churchill suggested jewish people were “partly responsible for the antagonism that saw them branded ‘Hebrew bloodsuckers,’ according to an article made public for the first time, in 2007. The 1937 document, How the Jews Can Combat Persecution, was unearthed by Dr. Richard Toye, a Cambridge Univ historian. Paul Bignell, The Independent, 2007. However, the International Churchill Society, says the words were used by Churchill’s in house writer Diston, and Churchill may never have reviewed the unpublished article.
One must also keep in mind the limited options often available to jews, which Toye also addressed. On other occasions, Churchill spoke positively of jews as they fit into and sometimes led individual nations, but quite harshly of the “international jews.”
The double standard again
The two sets of rules from Talmud, addressed by Shahak above, helped fan the widespread anti-semitism of the 20th century.
“Even in modern times they have not become rich out of each other but out of the nations among whom they dwelt. Jewish law permitted the Jew to do business with a Gentile on a different basis than that on which he did business with a brother Jew. What is called “the Law of the Stranger” was defined thus: “unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury.
Being dispersed among the nations, but never merging themselves with the nations and never losing a very distinctive identity, the Jew has had the opportunity to practice “the ethics of the stranger” for many centuries. Being strangers among strangers, and often among cruelly hostile strangers, they have found this law a compensating advantage.”
Henry Ford, in The International Jew.
Jewish historian Bernard Lazare echoed Shahak and Ford in his 1967 book, Anti-Semiticism, London, Britons Publishing Co, p 168:
“the Jew…increases his advantage by uniting with his co-religionists possessed of similar virtues, and thus augments his powers by acting in common with his brethren; the inevitable result being that they out-distance their rivals in the pursuit of any common end…the Jews stand united as one.”
Notice Lazare speaks of “virtues”, and of course the pivotal issue is how commonly the term is unduly charitable, in describing the behavior.
In one of his videos, Jhan Moskowitz, who left judaism and became leader of Jews for Jesus, spoke frankly about the cost of being ruled a ‘traitor’ by the Orthodox enforcers. He said conversion is perceived as betrayal of the group. “We’ve been trained and socialized as Jewish people to be loyal to our group. Our group is ‘us’ and everybody else is ‘them’. ‘Them’ believe in Jesus, we don’t. Therefore when you become a believer in Jesus you become a ‘them’. – See more at: http://henrymakow.com/2013/04/Jews-for-Jesus-Leader-Jhan-Moskowitz. Moskowitz was found dead with his head bashed in on a subway deck, with no witnesses, but the officer concluded he had fallen and struck his head. Henry Makow, who had an child’s advice column for parents at age 11 and later invented the board game Scruples, also abandoned his jewish identity.
One component of the two sets of rules, the law of the mosser, is addressed in the USS Liberty page, under On the Eve.
The Federal Reserve
The establishment of this entity in 1913 largely circumvented Art I, Sec 8 of the U.S. Constitution, enabling a small basically jewish international cartel to control America’s money supply, and collect interest doing it. Was this the pivotal event, setting up the across the board domination of America’s power structure, addressed in Show Me a Democracy?
No doubt, completely democratic control of “the money” can put a free society at great risk, through majorities voting blindly for more “free stuff.” However, is turning control of “the money” over to followers of a chauvinistic and exploitive ideology a sound solution? Has America already been reduced to a faux republic, as a result?
America in WW I
Follow the Money Again
In the early stages (after the assassination of Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife in June of 1914) gentile American banks leaned toward support of England and France. Rothschild Freres of France cabled JP Morgan for a $100 million loan, before the war even started. Morgan immediately assembled a consortium of media owners to mold opinion against Germany, and promote US entry in the war. Morgan is generally perceived as a gentile banker. However, Kill Zone author Craig Roberts claims JP Morgan had become the Rothschilds’ main US agent, in 1899 (loc 2619).
The Nye Committee in congress later found that during 1915 and 1916, the US lent Germany $27 mil, and lent Britain and France about 100 times as much–$2.8 bil. June 20, 2014.
England went to great lengths to encourage this support. For example, in the spring of 1915, Germany bought huge adds in the NY papers, to warn against boarding the British Lusitania, likely carrying contraband. The British high command trolled the ship slowly past ace U boat captains, and kept the records of this activity classified for many decades. The Germans sunk her May 7, 2015, killing 128 Americans.
Kuhn Loeb & Co had a German jewish heritage, and its sympathies lay with Germany, for the additional reason that Germany was fighting the Czar. This was reflected in Kuhn Loeb’s financing of Japan in the Sino-Japanese War of 1905. Germans were the most numerous ethnic group among recent immigrants to America as well. Wilson had declared neutrality at the beginning of the war, ran on it in 1916, and narrowly won.
How the Fighting Went
Although the military events of 1914 did not result in a German victory, they left the Germans in a very strong position. The German army held the strategic initiative. It was free to retreat to positions of tactical advantage and to reinforce them with all the skill and ingenuity of German military engineering. Enormous losses had been inflicted on France. Two-fifths of France’s military casualties were incurred in 1914. These included a tenth of the officer corps. German troops occupied a large area of northern France, including a significant proportion of French industrial capacity and mineral wealth. These realities dominated the second phase of the war in the west. This lasted from November 1914 until March 1918.
German submarines were devastating, for example, until they agreed to restrict them in May, 2016, after Wilson threatened to enter the war in April following the Sussex attack, and blockade issues were addressed.
German Overtures
However, Germany regarded the war as stupid, and pushed for an armistice, back to near status quo. That was offered in Febr, 2016, but rejected by the allies, according to world history group research director John Guttman.
After Wilson sent a peace note Dec 18, Germany responded favorably to that as well, on Dec 26.
A Homeland in Palestine
Benjamin Freedman was a successful NY businessman and a Versaille insider, who changed his name from Friedman, in disgust over what he observed. (Freedman had also served as liaison to Henry Morgenthau Sr, in Wilson’s 1912 campaign.) He addressed the motives for rejection of the 1916 German peace overtures, in speeches he gave in 1961 and 1974. He pointed out Germany might have been the best place anywhere for jews, after laws passed in Germany in 1822, and jews helped anchor Germany for decades. He said that a deal, for a homeland for jews in Palestine, drew America into the war.
Freedman said that the international jews told the allies “Look, instead of going along with a status quo or near status quo peace, you can win if you draw the U.S. into the war, which we will accomplish, if you give us a homeland in Palestine.”
You tube has repressed the opinions of this major inside source as “hate speech.”
Jewish banks were enthusiastically supporting the allies, by the time the US entered the war April 6, 1917 Gentlemen Bankers: the World of JP Morgan, Suzie Pak, Harvard Univ Press, 2013, chapter 4. According to Freedman, the major media also more actively demonized “The Huns” after the Palestine deal, later dubbed the Balfour Declaration was made.
Colonel Edward Mandel House, and Walter Lippmann at his right hand, played active roles in pushing President Wilson into WW I. (Lippmann was from a German Jewish family in New York, and a big believer in the draft, but wrote solicitous letters to Felix Frankfurter and Sec of War Baker, as to why it should not apply to him.)
Anecdotes aside, Freedman’s opinion needs some vetting.
Zimmerman Letter and Renewed U Boat Attacks
These are the standard reasons given for U.S. entry.
The Zimmerman letter of February, 1917, by which Germany tried to involve Mexico if the US declared war, might be viewed largely as a red herring. Everyone was scrambling around looking for allies, and the US could deal with it, by simply maintaining the neutrality it had declared all along.
The renewed submarine activity, in the same month, remained tied to ongoing blockade issues, along with the more recent rejection of German peace offers. Responding to the peace offers and adjusting blockade policies both offered options short of declaring war.
Observations
Note Lippmann’s references to the masses as a “bewildered herd” in his seminal 1922 book, Public Opinion, later referenced in Noam Chomsky’s book Media Control: The Spectacular Accomplishments of Propaganda.
Once America was in the war, the die was cast. Near 300,000 doughboys were killed or wounded. Historian Alan Brugar has pointed out that for every soldier who died in battle, the international bankers made a profit of $10,000 dollars!
Even though “its armies were still in French and Belgian territory; Berlin remained 450 miles from the nearest front; the German armies retired from the field of battle in good order;… and Germany had won the war with Russia under the Brest-Litovsk Treaty,” Germany signed the armistice in November, 1918. The national self determination that was core to Wilson’s 14 points played a pivotal role in that decision, but as addressed below, disappeared at Versailles.
The Balfour Declaration, was not scrawled out to Baron Rothschild until Nov 2, 1917, after concerns were voiced that the deal had not been put to pen. It was 67 words, and 19 of those words were: “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.” Many feel those 19 words also largely went by the boards.
Versailles
Freedman also reports on jews flooding Versailles; playing an important role in perpetrating the oppressive treaty; and taking over much of Germany, on the cheap. Lippmann and House also were active, in shaping the post war environment. Wilson blamed House for the great disparity between the Fourteen Points Wilson introduced in January, 1918 (based upon which the Germans sued for peace in October), and the actual result at Versaille. Robert Higgs, Who was Colonel Edward House?, The Independent Institute, August 13, 2008. Note, Higgs does not support a simplistic blaming of House.
Jewishhistory.org, under The Treaty of Versailles, says:
“(Wilson’s) stroke had a fateful effect upon world history, because he was not able to campaign for his ideas or impose his will. In the end, the United States withdrew from the matter and entered a period of isolation from Europe. In the retrospect of history, the United States could have made the difference — economically, militarily and diplomatically – in restoring a stable Europe. Instead they left Europe to its own devices – which turned in World War Two after a break of two decades.” Thus leaving the question, of why Wilson’s jewish proxy failed to accomplish what jewishhistory.org thinks Wilson could have accomplished, if he had handled it himself.
And we have the small army of other critics besides Freedman. Churchill’s sharp criticism of the “international jew,” Ford, Edison, Lindbergh, and others in a much broader list of Alan Dershowitz.
WW II Brewing
The Ambassador to Great Britain, Joseph P Kennedy, said in the early stages of the Nazi clampdown, “They brought it on themselves.” A world wide boycott of German goods, and shopkeepers who sold German goods, was announced in March, 1933, less than two months after the heavily jewish Weimar republic collapsed. The purpose of the boycott was to “destroy the export trade, on which their very existence depends.” Krystalnacht, in which 100 jews were killed, followed. Kennedy supported the proposal of Reichsbank head Henry Schacht to allow jews to leave Germany with some of their possessions to start anew, in return for foreign economic concessions, according to Fatima Ahmed-Farouta, NYU student.
See the scale of crime and profile of the Bolsheviks, under 9/11 Deceptions. The moral ambiguity of World War I and II was much greater, than the major media presents. Who was behind the Bolsheviks and Stalin, and who was going to stop them? From 1926 to 1941, diplomats, military officers, party officials, successful peasants, “suspect” ethnic groups and others were wiped out. Solzhenitsin’s Two Hundred Years Together, and study.com.
White House and Soviet Ties
President Roosevelt officially recognized the Soviet Union in 1933, extending the hand of friendship to its leader just as Stalin was starving and imprisoning millions of his subjects in Ukraine and Russia, according Dan Michaels, Phi Beta Kappa, Columbia University. See video on concealment by the NY Times.
Michaels says the gulags were much worse than anything under the Czar.
FDR may have descended from jewish merchants who moved to Holland and then America, on his father’s side, but if so, apparently it was several hundred years back. His mother’s brother, Frederic Delano, was the initial VP of the Federal Reserve, but if the Delanos were of jewish background, that also would have been seven generations or so back. He surrounded himself with jews as governor of NY, however, and many came to take top jobs in Washington. See Braitman and wais.stanford.edu. (limited access).
Churchill may have been the grandson of Leonard Jacobsen, who changed his name to Jerome, the name of Churchill’s mother, Jenny Jerome. (Some claim this started as a spoof by a good journalist, much republished but not proven. A nagging concern–how hard could it have been to alter or delete a name change record?)
The West Point yearbook shows Ike as a “Swedish Jew.” Houseofnames.com. Wikipedia said in 2006 “The Eisenhower family is of Jewish German descent (Eisenhauer) and came from Germanic Forbach, Lorraine region of France but had lived in America since the 18th Century.” FDR promoted him over 30 senior officers to lead allied forces. Jewish heritage sources show Ike as a maybe.
Pearl Harbor to USS Liberty to 9/11
A flow from Pearl Harbor, addressed below, to the USS Liberty to the 9/11 stand down was laid out in the video, U.S. Enterprise False Flag. Torah, Tora, Torah? See also The New Pearl Harbor, a 2004 book about 9/11 by David Ray Griffith of Claremont Graduate University, and his 2008 follow-up, The New Pearl Harbor Revisited.
FDR assured the 80 to 88% who opposed, that there would be no American involvement in the war in Europe, as he campaigned in 1940. “I say again, and again and again..” But he was setting up Pearl Harbor at the time. His purposeful and extensive manipulations were laid out by Robert B. Stinnett in Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor, (1999) summarized by a commentary in Amazon.com by Maginot, listing actions directed not just at forcing Japan to launch an attack, but at assuring its deadliness.
“Day of Deceit provides compelling evidence that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt deliberately provoked Japan to attack the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor so that America could enter the war on the allied side. Stinnett, a distinguished World War II navy veteran who researched his subject for over sixteen years, provides the following evidence:
1. A naval intelligence officer named Arthur McCollum developed an eight-point plan to provoke Japanese hostilities. This plan reached Roosevelt who implemented all eight points.
2. Contrary to popular belief, the Japanese navy broke radio silence on multiple occasions prior to December 7, 1941.
3. More than 94% of all secret Japanese naval messages (including some with direct reference to the impending attack on Pearl Harbor) were successfully decoded by American intelligence units prior to December 7, 1941
4. Roosevelt implemented a change of naval command that placed proponents of the eight-point-provocation plan in key positions of power. However, the newly promoted commander of Pearl Harbor, Admiral Husband Kimmel was consistently denied access to vital decoded translations of Japanese naval communications.
5. Naval Intelligence and the FBI successfully monitored the communication of Japanese intelligence agents in Hawaii for months. These communications, which included a bombing grid map of Pearl Harbor, revealed Japan’s intent.
6. Much of the information successfully collected and analyzed by American Intelligence organizations prior to December 7, 1941 was reinforced by information from British and Dutch intelligence.
7. A sophisticated radio tracking system spanning from Alaska to Indonesia enabled America to track Japanese commercial and military shipping patterns. These patterns, including the movement of carrier groups and recall of worldwide merchant ships pointed to an obvious prelude to hostilities several months before December 7th.
8. Most of the critical U.S. Pacific Fleet components such as heavy cruisers and aircraft carriers were not in Pearl Harbor during the bombing. The vessels sunk were WW I relics.
9. Much of the documented information was censored or withheld from the public for decades and continues to be to this day.
10. In early 1941 Roosevelt divided the U.S. Navy into an Atlantic and Pacific command and ordered fleet construction, which included one hundred aircraft carriers to be completed by 1943. This indicates that the losses at Pearl Harbor would not interfere with America’s larger war aims and with war production that supported those aims.
These facts are well documented and reinforced with repeated examples. Perhaps the most compelling part of the book is that photocopies of evidence including the eight-point plan are provided in a massive appendix. Simply put, you can see the evidence for yourself.”
FDR had also insisted in 1940 that Pacific fleet HQ be moved from the west coast to Hawaii, where it would be much more vulnerable, over strong objection of the fleet commander.
Stinnett’s findings reflect to a great extent the observations of John Toland (who had won a Pulitzer Prize for The Rising Sun) in Toland’s Pearl Harbor and Its Aftermath, a 1982 book recanting his acceptance of the government story in The Rising Sun. James Perloff, who has written for the New American since 1985, put a detailed and troubling piece in the Dec 7, 2015 issue Pearl Harbor: Hawaii was Surprised; FDR was Not.
Here is Eddie Arnold , singing Cattle Call. Bring to mind FDR’s day of infamy speech, which brought us into WW II? Or maybe the Israeli Defense Forces high command declaring the USS Liberty a livestock transport, the night before the butchery started?
Wikipedia Bias?
Wikipedia’s item on Stinnett’s book is entirely unbalanced. There is a troubling parallel to its entry on jewish bolshevism, which ignores the acknowledgements by Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, the US Foreign Service, Churchill, Sever Plocker, Krushchev, Solzhenitsin, etc. of the dominant role of jews in that group. There is another parallel to its entry on 9/11 conspiracy theories–the second paragraph claims the civil engineering community accepts the government’s story, and sweeps aside the zionist hijacking of Popular Mechanics, replacing the editors, and ladling out the shameless government koolaid.
It also parallels the entry on Bertrand Russell’s 16 Questions on the (JFK) Assassination, which merely lists the core questions, and is utterly worthless as a conveyance of the gravity and depth of Russell’s insights. Yet another example is the entry on the USS Liberty (see page herein), which glosses over the series of compelling first hand accounts in the Chicago Tribune article by Pulitzer winner John Crewdson; reports of conversations at Israeli HQ the night before; strong evidence of Israeli war crimes in the Sinai as a motive; the likely orchestration of the bogus identification of the Liberty as along mothballed Egyptian horse transport “El Qseier;” the long discredited claim Israel had also attacked its own ground forces; and the bogus photos used by Israel on the flag issue.
This pattern is explained by a massive wikipedia editing program run by jewish community centers, the Israeli Defense Force, and other Israel supporters. See Israel’s Internet Censorship War If Americans Only Knew. Note You Tube has blocked this video as hate speech–thus censoring a scholarly attempt to discuss censoring for Israel! This has become a frightening refrain in the US, by jewish controllled social media outlets.
