An Interview with Robert B. Stinnett by Douglas Cirignano.
.
On November 25, 1941 Japan’s Admiral Yamamoto sent a radio message to the group of Japanese warships that would attack Pearl Harbor on December 7. Newly released naval records prove that from November 17 to 25 the United States Navy intercepted eighty-three messages that Yamamoto sent to his carriers. Part of the November 25 message read: “...the task force, keeping its movements strictly secret and maintaining close guard against submarines and aircraft, shall advance into Hawaiian waters, and upon the very opening of hostilities shall attack the main force of the United States fleet in Hawaii and deal it a mortal blow...”
.
One might wonder if the theory that President Franklin Roosevelt had a foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack would have been alluded to in this summer’s movie, Pearl Harbor. Since World War II many people have suspected that Washington knew the attack was coming. When Thomas Dewey was running for president against Roosevelt in 1944 he found out about America’s ability to intercept Japan’s radio messages, and thought this knowledge would enable him to defeat the popular FDR. In the fall of that year, Dewey planned a series of speeches charging FDR with foreknowledge of the attack. Ultimately, General George Marshall, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, persuaded Dewey not to make the speeches. Japan’s naval leaders did not realize America had cracked their codes, and Dewey’s speeches could have sacrificed America’s code-breaking advantage. So, Dewey said nothing, and in November FDR was elected president for the fourth time.
.
Now, though, according to Robert Stinnett, author of Simon & Schuster’s Day Of Deceit, we have the proof. Stinnett’s book is dedicated to Congressman John Moss, the author of America’s Freedom of Information Act. According to Stinnett, the answers to the mysteries of Pearl Harbor can be found in the extraordinary number of documents he was able to attain through Freedom of Information Act requests. Cable after cable of decryptions, scores of military messages that America was intercepting, clearly showed that Japanese ships were preparing for war and heading straight for Hawaii. Stinnett, an author, journalist, and World War II veteran, spent sixteen years delving into the National Archives. He poured over more than 200,000 documents, and conducted dozens of interviews. This meticulous research led Stinnet to a firmly held conclusion: FDR knew.
.
. . .
..
. . .
1940 - FDR ordered the fleet transferred from the West Coast to its exposed position in Hawaii and ordered the fleet remain stationed at Pearl Harbor over complaints by its commander Admiral Richardson that there was inadequate protection from air attack and no protection from torpedo attack. Richardson felt so strongly that he twice disobeyed orders to berth his fleet there and he raised the issue personally with FDR in October and he was soon after replaced. His successor, Admiral Kimmel, also brought up the same issues with FDR in June 1941.
.
7 Oct 1940 - Navy IQ analyst McCollum wrote an 8 point memo on how to force Japan into war with US. Beginning the next day FDR began to put them into effect and all 8 were eventually accomplished.
.
11 November 1940 - 21 aged British planes destroyed the Italian fleet, including 3 battleships, at their homeport in the harbor of Taranto in Southern Italy by using technically innovative shallow-draft torpedoes.
.
11 February 1941 - FDR proposed sacrificing 6 cruisers and 2 carriers at Manila to get into war. Navy Chief Stark objected: "I have previously opposed this and you have concurred as to its unwisdom. Particularly do I recall your remark in a previous conference when Mr. Hull suggested (more forces to Manila) and the question arose as to getting them out and your 100% reply, from my standpoint, was that you might not mind losing one or two cruisers, but that you did not want to take a chance on losing 5 or 6." (Charles Beard PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT AND THE COMING OF WAR 1941, p 424)
.
. . .
nope
Newly released naval records prove that from November 17 to 25 the United States Navy intercepted eighty-three messages that Yamamoto sent to his carriers. Part of the November 25 message read: “...the task force, keeping its movements strictly secret and maintaining close guard against submarines and aircraft, shall advance into Hawaiian waters, and upon the very opening of hostilities shall attack the main force of the United States fleet in Hawaii and deal it a mortal blow...”.
Now, though, according to Robert Stinnett, author of Simon & Schuster’s Day Of Deceit, we have the proof. Stinnett’s book is dedicated to Congressman John Moss, the author of America’s Freedom of Information Act. According to Stinnett, the answers to the mysteries of Pearl Harbor can be found in the extraordinary number of documents he was able to attain through Freedom of Information Act requests. Cable after cable of decryptions, scores of military messages that America was intercepting, clearly showed that Japanese ships were preparing for war and heading straight for Hawaii. Stinnett, an author, journalist, and World War II veteran, spent sixteen years delving into the National Archives. He poured over more than 200,000 documents, and conducted dozens of interviews. This meticulous research led Stinnet to a firmly held conclusion: FDR knew..
Nope.
Newly released naval records prove that from November 17 to 25 the United States Navy intercepted eighty-three messages that Yamamoto sent to his carriers. Part of the November 25 message read: “...the task force, keeping its movements strictly secret and maintaining close guard against submarines and aircraft, shall advance into Hawaiian waters, and upon the very opening of hostilities shall attack the main force of the United States fleet in Hawaii and deal it a mortal blow...”
The fallacy of hindsight bias.
99.99999999% of intel is trash.
Very little of it would ever reach the ears or eyes that need it in a time-frame necessary to do something about it. In this case we are talking about a pre-internet, pre-digital situation. It would take time for any intel to move up the chain and for the analysts to decide what it means and for the superiors to hear about it and contact the White House.
They did know the Japanese were up to something. The Japanese were at war in Manchuria and threatening other countries at this point in time. Their fleet was thought to be heading towards Indochina where they were warring with Thailand. And even FDR expects an Japanese attack, his eyes, like those of his commanders, are trained on the Philippines, Wake Island and other far-flung posts.
FDR sent a cable to the emperor on Dec 3 trying to restart talks that had broken down 2 weeks before.
Dec 4, Chicago Tribune prints what is said to be the US plans for joining the war in Europe.
The US did not know the Japanese had trained their pilots to attack shallow bays or had developed torpedoes that worked in shallow waters. The Japanese were very new at refueling ships at sea and their fleets had never made any cross-Pacific voyages. This is how good their intel was at the time. The idea that they would be able to coordinate or cooperate to allow an attack is not even remotely possible.
Our CIA analysts were staying at work, Stimson stayed at work over the weekend.
Dec 6
Adm Kimmel decides to leave the ships there will seem sensible until about 8 a.m. tomorrow. Kimmel still thinks Pearl Harbor a far-fetched target. He does not think Japanese carriers can master such a long range and believes the harbor is too shallow for submarines. Putting his ships to sea might make them more vulnerable. It also would sharply deplete his precious fuel.
I didn't have to Quix. I am over the age of ten and I have seen all these conspiracy theories. The only way you can believe them is if you are a dead ender looking for a half baked bunch of bullshit that is poorly sourced.
According to Stinnett, the answers to the mysteries of Pearl Harbor can be found in the extraordinary number of documents he was able to attain through Freedom of Information Act requests. Cable after cable of decryptions, scores of military messages that America was intercepting, clearly showed that Japanese ships were preparing for war and heading straight for Hawaii. Stinnett, an author, journalist, and World War II veteran, spent sixteen years delving into the National Archives. He poured over more than 200,000 documents, and conducted dozens of interviews. This meticulous research led Stinnet to a firmly held conclusion: FDR knew.
Which part of this description of the 200,000 or more documents convinces you that they were "poorly sourced," a 'half-baked bunch of BS?'
Interestingly another thing that had 814K hits today his Quix's bong.
[mod snip]
Interestingly . . . [mod snip]@Quix
The need for the undetected absence of the carriers is even clearer when we consider that Toshikawa Hideo was making regular reports to Japan regarding the ships in port, and dates of sailings and returns. He made a "ships in port" report on the 6th, indicating no carriers in the harbor. This message was in the PA-K2 code and translated on Dec. 8th by the Army. We could speculate that, given the knowledge that Pearl Harbor was being watched, we could have "baited the trap" with the carriers, and actually hustled them out late on the 6th, rather than risking the enemy's calling the whole thing off because the carriers were gone. This presupposes that someone would have known about the attack in the first place.Interesting discussion of the absent carriers here: http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/myths/Missing_Carriers.html (http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/myths/Missing_Carriers.html)
[mod snip]
Conspiracy theories seem to be designed to lower the IQ of America's collective intelligence. More often than not the source of conspiracy theories are actively trying to harm or distract us.
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,236833.msg1160350.html#msg1160350
Conspiracy theories seem to be designed to lower the IQ of America's collective intelligence. More often than not the source of conspiracy theories are actively trying to harm or distract us.
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,236833.msg1160350.html#msg1160350
Yep.
I know for a fact that Japan was tweeting their intentions and somehow FDR didn't take the tweets seriously.
Part of the November 25 message read: “...the task force, keeping its movements strictly secret and maintaining close guard against submarines and aircraft, shall advance into Hawaiian waters, and upon the very opening of hostilities shall attack the main force of the United States fleet in Hawaii and deal it a mortal blow...”
I believe the sanctions in place were to bring political (economic) pressure on the Japanese. That pressure always carries a risk of warfare. I also believe that the imperfect translation of Japanese codes would lead someone to know something was up, but not necessarily where. (Recall, Midway Island had to fake water supply problems to be identified in the Japanese coded traffic in order to intercept Japanese forces there.)
I have little doubt that the diplomatic and trade pressure created a situation where war was a risk, but from New Guinea to the Philippines and east to Hawaii, Americans had naval outposts. The Japanese wave of conquest was moving South toward Australia.
Between normalcy bias on the part of command staff and politicians, and the fairly new concept of attacking someone's fleet half an ocean away with serious effect, to look back on what seems obvious now and say ''they should have know", or, "they had to know" is likely inaccurate.
Maybe in our 20/20 hindsight, walking through the maze backwards sees nothing but what seem to be obvious conclusions, but walking through the maze of history in the direction it happened exposes the myriad logical blind alleys which greeted all but the most prescient and insightful. It is easy to go from a leaf on a tree backwards to find the base of the trunk, not so easy to start at the base and find a specific leaf.
At each junction, not only must the analyst find the correct choice, they must have information which supports that conclusion. They must be capable of presenting that conclusion and the correct data to those higher in the tree, and convincing that person or committee that their analysis is correct.
That goes through multiple steps in the food chain before it gets to the top. At any juncture, the normalcy bias of those in command can scuttle the conclusion and any theory it leads to.
Consider, given what you KNOW about the Dec. 7 attack, if you were there, on November 23, given two weeks to convince the right people in command that there was an attack coming, and given some title or status enough to be able to be even slightly credible and not just some streetcorner guy in a robe with a sandwich board, would you be able to convince either the military, politicians, or both of the impending attack, time, and place?
Would you even get the opportunity to convince the people in Command?
Now, question number two. If you had the wherewithal to know every action to be taken through intelligence intercepts, broken codes, spies on the inside, or even a combination of those, knowing that you would not be looking at a definitive outcome at this point for either side, would you compromise your intel network/code-breaking advantage/HUMINT sources by acting on that intel in a way which would make it a likely conclusion on the part of your enemies that you had those resources, or would you save your high value trump card for later, when the advantage may be more decisive?
Recall, too, Coventry. The British had an enigma machine, they had the books, and knew Coventry was going to be attacked (bombed). Warning the population of that city would let the Germans know that we were reading their mail, and have caused them to change their codes. Codes which were believed to be secure by the Germans, which enabled more vital interceptions later on. Do you show your hand and let them change their codes and place your self at a disadvantage later?
You take the strategic view and make the hard choice.
Coventry was bombed by the Germans. The sacrifice of the civilians there was presented as a moral outrage on the part of the enemy, and became one more rallying point for the British population in their resolve to defeat the Nazis.
We may or may not have had such intel prior to Pearl Harbor, at least in the right hands. I note our carriers were absent from the harbor during the attack. Of the battleships sunk, the newest, the West Virginia, was 20 years old, and though she survived to fight another day after being re-floated and extensively refit in time for the Battle of Leyte Gulf in 1944. The upgrades from that refit gave her a significant radar and fire control advantage, even over the other vessels in the US contingent, advantages which helped the US Navy to prevail in that battle.
Prior to Pearl Harbor, tensions between the US and Japan were high, and the very real possibility of war was only likely to be averted if the Japanese met with demands they were unlikely to meet. The Japanese had been on their West Pacific blitzkreig longer than the Germans had been in Europe. Given that, however, the anticipated point of conflict was more likely to be somewhere in the vicinity of Wake, Guam, or the Philippines, and not so deep into the envelope of control. Concerns were more with reinforcing air assets at those far-flung bases than defending Pearl Harbor, which partly explains why the Carriers were not in the harbor on 12/7.
It was known that the Harbor was being spied upon by the enemy, just as the English knew there were spies who would relay that Coventry had been warned, had that been the case. Interesting discussion of the absent carriers here: http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/myths/Missing_Carriers.html (http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/myths/Missing_Carriers.html)
So, it wasn't as if the US was skipping down the primrose path to be caught completely unawares, commanders were aware of impending war, and the Japanese were a foe to be anticipated. Again, though sending clear signals to the enemy that you are informed of their orders or actions is a loss of strategic advantage early on, when the battle at hand will not be the end of conflict, but the beginning.
So if the attack was in fact even known about in advance, what would have been done about it? How much could be done without the Japanese suspecting we had broken their codes?
Both events, Coventry's Bombing, Pearl Harbor, were presented to their respective populations as dastardly deeds of demonic and diabolical enemies, enemies to be fought with every fiber of our being. They became rallying points to energize respective populaces. There may have been foreknowledge in both instances, and there definitely was in the instance of Coventry, but the ugly strategic question of whether that knowledge would have been acted upon in any obvious and meaningful way remains.
The events were stages in the development of the war. There was plenty enough evil in the world in those days without it all sitting down together and planning out the conflicts that developed, even though all that evil ultimately comes from the same source.
We can look back, knowing what we know now, and second guess, but it is only in the movies that some relatively obscure person who absolutely knows what adverse event is coming who can warn all the 'right' people in time to avoid it.
Today, even with the internet and social media, it would be difficult to bring something to the serious attention of those in a position to make decisions affecting the outcome, and who in those positions would have the courage to act on such in the face of possibly being wrong?
@Quix
This from the guy that drinks scotch like it is water.
Do I believe the U.S government would intentionally do something inimical to the American public every chance they get?
Absolutely.
On the other hand, just think of all the lives saved by FDR being able to force America into WWII. Americans need to be convinced before they sign on or jump in to anything major. Then the lemming tide is unstoppable.
Thanks for your great points.Well, even with prior knowledge: If ships were sunk in Pearl Harbor, they could be refloated if not too damaged and repaired. This was done with some. In the open ocean, the ships would have been lost and not recovered.
One quibble.
As quoted in the OP . . .
THIS item is NOT ambiguous:
It's nothing like 3 big puzzles mixed up on the table. Contending it is, is nonsense.
It seems to me that far more folks hereon are addicted to Kool-Aid even than Scotch--with possibly one exception.
I expected a significant amount of blow-back.
I tend to try to engage the main blow-hard in light-hearted humor consistent with his tendencies and memes.
I should know better at this point but I'm still quite taken aback by the degree and quickness of meanness and hostility. I don't know if it's a recreational avocation or a compulsive habit.
I did have, evidently delusional, fantasies that a discussion could be had on the merits & probabilities of the evidence. Given the Kool-Aid and 'normalcy bias,' it would appear not.
I'll have to look at the carriers stuff again. It's been years since I looked into the whole thing much and I know a LOT has come to light in recent years as posted in the OP re Stinnet's book DAY OF DECEIT. Might just go ahead and get the book.
As acting Director of the Univ Library's Special Collections Dept . . . I knew something about archival documents and primary source materials.
When Stinnet mentions more than 200,000 documents carefully analyzed, he's not just farting pixies. imho, indications that he was clueless, or shallow, or cursory, or a victim of hindsight bias is just ignorant.
Quality researchers like him build layers of evidence from multiple sources. Sneering at that as inconsequential and over-given to erroneous bias is, imho, arrogant and ignorant.
Of more import to our era . . . the same groups and forces are pulling the same sorts of treasonous stunts repeatedly.
They ARE determined to reshape the geopolitical landscape into a one world government and a one world religion. They are in the home stretch. And, they show increasing evidence of being more than a little barn-sour the nearer they get to their goals.
It grieves me that so many folks on a conservative forum are evidently so unaware of so many such forces and doings. They certainly WILL wake-up . . . probably like many Jews did . . . WHEN gas started coming out of the shower heads instead of water.
INDEED.
The oligarchy has been scheduling wars and forcing the world into major conflagrations since AT LEAST the French Revolution.
Certainly they were determined to use war to reshape the geopolitical landscape in the Pacific region. They would have provoked it one way or another.
I still consider it treasonous that they did it the way they did it.
A question . . . where does the meanness and willful ignorance arise from about such things? An unwillingness or an incapacity to study the puzzle pieces adequately? The meanness is likely Attachment Disorder dynamics. I can mostly understand that--though it still seems exceedingly arrogant, to me--which is also an Attachment Disorder problem.
I have an honest question, you reference "the oligarchy" above, and I wonder, which "oligarchy" do you mean? Do you see the elites of each nation/region as being separate and in contention with one another, or do you think that there is a single, world-encompassing "oligarchy" that arranges and schedules various world conflicts to further their own mysterious (to us) agenda?
Geez I miss the the days when there weren't conspiracy nuts.... :shrug:
Geez I miss the the days when there weren't conspiracy nuts.... :shrug:
If I understood history half as well I like to think the hard question was when and where. If we knew Pearl Harbor on Dec 7 was the target we wouldn't have left the battleships there.
I guess I disagree.Nah, I don't think we were smart enough to know that we could win the war with carriers and subs when the conventional wisdom said you need battleships. If we'd known why were the fighters lined up to be sitting ducks?
I think we knew it was coming within a 24-48 hour period. I strongly believe they were deliberately set-up and left in harm's way.
I believe NY City and Wash D.C. will similarly be set-up and destroyed. Which other cities will be included are less easy to predict.
Certainly likely candidates are:
Atlanta,
Boston,
Philadelphia,
Houston,
Albuquerque,
Phoenix,
Las Vegas,
San Diego,
LA
San Francisco
Portland
Seattle.
They may have exotic protections over Albuquerque. I don't think they will support the wholesale destruction of Denver because they evidently intend to use it as the new US Capital.
I don't know what they'll do with Dallas. Dallas/Ft Worth are easy enough targets.
But these folks destroy thousands of people without flinching. They're getting ready to do so with 10's of millions. That's the recreation, avocation, passion and compulsion of their boss.
One thing pizzagate should have informed folks of, is--the oligarchy can destroy very painfully and full of ruthlessly tortured terror toddler and other children. If you think they care about protecting and furthering YOUR life, then you may be into too much of Frank's Scotch or someone's weed.
Nah, I don't think we were smart enough to know that we could win the war with carriers and subs when the conventional wisdom said you need battleships. If we'd known why were the fighters lined up to be sitting ducks?
Was FDR itching for an excuse to get us in the war you bet your boots, but what good did it do for him to let us get sucker punched?
Nah, I don't think we were smart enough to know that we could win the war with carriers and subs when the conventional wisdom said you need battleships. If we'd known why were the fighters lined up to be sitting ducks?
Was FDR itching for an excuse to get us in the war you bet your boots, but what good did it do for him to let us get sucker punched?
Conspiracy theories like this are nothing more than psyops to create suspicion and distrust of American history and government among the simple minded.That's a hoot, considering the Black Robes had been all over the place with the French and the Spanish.
I saw one the other day claiming that the war of 1812 was about the British wanting to convert all the Indians to Catholicism and wage war on us so the primarily Protestant Americans would beg England to take us back.
That's hard to guess from this distance and without ALL the puzzle pieces.People don't do things for the cause they do it for money, especially because some little green men tell you to. It's not like FDR retired wealth somewhere with a bunch of unexplained loot.
However, one possibility is
We already had exotic UFO craft that were deployable--IIRC--well BEFORE Roswell. Certainly we knew they were coming online or likely could be brought online quickly. And we knew the atom bomb was being brought online quickly.
With either one or both those 'ace's' . . . FDR's bosses may well have thought that any number of games and thousands of lives and material were expendable
'For the cause.'
Always for the cause.
It's all a massive Kabuki Dance . . . a charade . . . where lives are trashed willy nilly as so much used toilet paper.
That's a hoot, considering the Black Robes had been all over the place with the French and the Spanish.
Do U Live in a BUBBLE?
This 'quiz' might give you some insights. It appears that the great majority of respondents hereon do live in quite a . . . bubble.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/do-you-live-in-a-bubble-a-quiz-2/#
I scored a 52. "A first-generation upper-middle-class person with middle-class parents."
However, the quiz had a trick question: it asked to identify Jimmie Johnson as either a NASCAR driver or a former NFL Football coach, when of course the answer is both!
I scored a 52. "A first-generation upper-middle-class person with middle-class parents."
However, the quiz had a trick question: it asked to identify Jimmie Johnson as either a NASCAR driver or a former NFL Football coach, when of course the answer is both!
53 for me but I know I'm atypical for my lower middle class upbringing. I attribute it to me being a reader and curious observer.
How sweet of you to say so.
Perhaps if you tell us who put a gun to your head to read such threads, we might be able to do something about it.
Actually, those who are truly the most nuts are those who have not awakened enough to . . .
smell the Kool-Aid.
I don't think there is anything sweet about it. Rightfully questioning the interpretation of history by various authors has been replaced by a sizable minority that sees a conspiracy in everything from today's perspective. I think conspiracy theories have a corrosive effect both on the individuals that subscribe to them and to a lesser extent on the society as a whole...
Anyone trying to judge/ascribe/interrupt the past by today's standards whether mainstream or "alternative" are dead wrong in my opinion. We live today... :shrug:
I don't think there is anything sweet about it. Rightfully questioning the interpretation of history by various authors has been replaced by a sizable minority that sees a conspiracy in everything from today's perspective. I think conspiracy theories have a corrosive effect both on the individuals that subscribe to them and to a lesser extent on the society as a whole...
Anyone trying to judge/ascribe/interrupt the past by today's standards whether mainstream or "alternative" are dead wrong in my opinion. We live today... :shrug:
Are you suggesting then that conspiracies don't exist, and never did? Or are you saying rather that we shouldn't "waste time" in trying to figure out if they might have influenced past events?
[/]
The later. Its impossible to judge the past by today's perceptions of reality....
The later. Its impossible to judge the past by today's perceptions of reality....
How you can call either of the main sources I cited in the OP as 'half-baked bunch of BS that is poorly sourced' seems to mangle the dictionary totally out of rational whack.
***
However, I do appreciate the honor of your insults. I'm thinking of notching my screen.
I don't think there is anything sweet about it. Rightfully questioning the interpretation of history by various authors has been replaced by a sizable minority that sees a conspiracy in everything from today's perspective. I think conspiracy theories have a corrosive effect both on the individuals that subscribe to them and to a lesser extent on the society as a whole...
Anyone trying to judge/ascribe/interrupt the past by today's standards whether mainstream or "alternative" are dead wrong in my opinion. We live today... :shrug:
You do by spamming the the place with these inane threads . . . [mod snip]
So it is wrong to pursue ideas that your government is capable of making decisions that effect your life in a detrimental way.
Those who don't learn the lessons...
Take a look at the scandals of administrations down the line.
But people shouldn't try to call anyone out. Just sit back and enjoy your life. Who cares if your neighbor's kid goes off to some crap war for BS reasons and gets the blown to bits. Wasn't YOUR kid. Right?
Fred I want to make it clear that this post is not referring to you personally just my observations ..
Well my friend I was thinking back today on Pearl Harbor, lost an uncle who was 23 piloting a bomber over Germany, another at 28 on Siapan winning the Silver Star. The family served in Korea, Vietnam and still serving this great country in Iraq and Afghanistan today
Quite frankly, I have little regard for the opinions of those who who have never served. I remember those who thought it was cool to spit on a soldier.. I found it was cool to cram that spit up their azz....
I try not to take much personally here, there, or anywhere. This family lost people along the way. I didn't serve. Three major players influenced me not to serve. Grandfather-WWI. Mentor, a college prof-WWII. And My dad-Korea.
They all told me if there was a need to serve, as was the case for WWII, then be the first to go.
They ALL advised to do something else. There really wasn't much call for me to join up.
I think FDR knew. It was the best way to get us directly involved in Europe. Letting Hitler take all of Europe was a bad idea. I also think they underestimated the ferocity of the Japanese. The Japanese had field tested tactics, weapons, and soldiers from their conflicts in neighboring countries--China especially--that we didn't understand. My friend, the professor, related that information to me in numerous lengthy conversations.
I am not or ever will diss anyone who served. I hate the government. I don't trust the government. That's all.
Distrust of the government is what this nation is founded on.
The military is not for everyone, and serving or not serving has nothing to do with with ones patriotism IMO.
I do think that if one has served, they will come away with the real life experience that government is full of idiots, and government is simply incapable of of doing what those believing in a conspiracy theory think it is capable of..
Look at Obamacare, how can anyone believe a government incapable of roiling that out, could also be capable of running a multi-generational conspiracy? When it comes down to it, distrust of government, in my belief, is based on the fact that big government doesn't work by design...it makes no sense to me to believe a government that doesn't work everyday is capable of running a 75 year a conspiracy ... :shrug:
This 'quiz' might give you some insights. It appears that the great majority of respondents hereon do live in quite a . . . bubble.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/do-you-live-in-a-bubble-a-quiz-2/#
Distrust of the government is what this nation is founded on.
[snip]
it makes no sense to me to believe a government that doesn't work everyday is capable of running a 75 year a conspiracy ...
77 - But I would wager that I am in a bubble from the other direction... I am rabidly anti-institutional. I go exactly the opposite direction of the crowd. The 'in thing' always makes me cringe, and thus I am relatively immune to group-think.
This is why I found that test to be biased.
If I am living in a bubble that is fine. More than fine actually. Since I am the only SOB in it.
I don't view pearl as a conspiracy theory type of thing. I don't think the whole of America really understood the threat Hitler posed. Or the threat the Japanese posed. At the time. If Hitler had taken the UK I think Germany would have been hitting US with missiles.
War with Japan was inevitable. War with Germany was inevitble. If the decision was made for that to be more on our terms, despite the early loss at Pearl, so be it. We won.
It has been documented with a great deal of supporting solid documents that ALL the wars from at least the French Revolution were set-up and lit off by the oligarchy for purposes of geo-political manipulations and reconfigurations toward their ultimate goal of a one world government. The facts of each war other than the above overriding factor . . . were mere details.
Bush's grandfather funded Hitler to insure Hitler was a success. That was documented in a Congressional investigation affirming those basic facts, emphatically. Their globalist cohorts funded the Russian communist revolution to insure it was a success. And CIA documents declassified in the last 10 years documented that the globalists in the CIA insured that MAO won the civil war.
I need to go to bed Quix. I'll talk tomorrow.
It can be said that we live within a very minimal bubble because we thrive on diversity of perspectives and search out evidence and truth wherever it might lie and regardless of the nature of the source.
I knew there was a LOT about you I really loved and appreciated . . . and found kindred in a lot of good ways. LOL. Hope that's not aversive, negative, to you.
I've typically found myself odd-man out for exactly the same reasons. Has not been all that fun given my psychodynamics/attachment disorder. LOL.
I have read most of that. And watched the shows.
Interesting how people scream about the GOP-Elite. Or the elite in general in DC but won't step that up.
Is it the Council On Foreign Relations I am thinking of now? Do you know about that?
I actually took it over, equating 'loading docks' with 'factory floor' and got an 81.
Take the test over, forgetting what it is for, and use 'Are you a Redneck' as the question. Anyone I know would score high on that thing... Could it be that it's construction was attempted by one with an in-built collegiate liberal bias?
Likewise.
But that's just it - with the exception of my Christian-Messianic bend, I am *not* odd-man-out. There is a giant swath of Jesus-land flyover country that would score well on your test...
And I would suggest that indeed there is a bubble on the other end...
I have read most of that. And watched the shows.
Interesting how people scream about the GOP-Elite. Or the elite in general in DC but won't step that up.
Is it the Council On Foreign Relations I am thinking of now? Do you know about that?
I think the test was constructed it such that ivory towered upper class elites were in a huge and relatively impermeable bubble. Those of lower class and more diverse life and work experiences weren't.
What do you mean by a bubble on the other end?
Right, I get the idea, but it's construction elicits a particular 'normalcy bias'. What is 'normal' according to the author can be deduced by the factoring, IMHO.
Being 'anti-institutional','anti-modern science','anti-government', sets one up to be rather 'organic knowledge','alt-science', 'libertarian independence' and in fairly close locus to conspiracy theories... A penchant to believe in these rather than the other. A 'bias toward', as it were.
To take the edge off of what I am saying, let my example be different than the current topic... Let's say, 'modern flat-earth theory'...
I was introduced to it by Rob Skiba, who I listen to quite a bit... His discovery thereof sent him on a tear, and with my biases being what they are, I was inclined to believe him somewhat. Now, I never did buy the t-shirt, as it were, for only one reason:
The northern hemisphere sky revolves around the north, and the southern hemisphere revolves around the south - There is no viable construct of 'flat earth' that can account for that very basic, naturally observable fact.
But there ARE arguments that make perfect sense otherwise... According to science, the roundness of the earth prevents one from seeing something flat for more than 20 miles... IOW, the other end of that flat surface should be some 4 ft below the horizon... I, myself, have disproved that by standing on the beach at Bigfork on a clear day, being able to see the beach at Polson - Across Flathead Lake - A distance of over 50 miles.
The science must needfully be wrong - But that doesn't make 'Flat-Earth' theory right... See? But many, MANY are falling for it.
I examine things differently - I look at the errata, not the evidences. ONE error will disprove a mountainous theory, no matter how well embraced. That is the only reason I stand off from most conspiracy theories.
I lost a very good friend who had gone so far down the troofer trail as to have to claim that the towers fell because of advanced black-ops nuclear bombs that literally disintegrated them in place. He could not accept my friendship because I would not believe his research, even though he had to dip deeply into sci-fi fairytales to arrive at his wholly unproved (and unable to be proved) position.
I believe a lot of what you do - But I must use great caution to reside on the provable edge... or just a bit over it.
I scored a 52. "A first-generation upper-middle-class person with middle-class parents."
However, the quiz had a trick question: it asked to identify Jimmie Johnson as either a NASCAR driver or a former NFL Football coach, when of course the answer is both!
The more posts I read from Quix... The more I think [mod snip].
I think the point of the 'bubble' term was that individuals in too much of a bubble
had no real, accurate, functional, etc. awareness of who other people were, their values, priorities, goals, and how they lived.
Sooner or later--depending on the numbers involved and the situations involved, that can become costly--even life threatening.
At some point, such a bubble becomes about as functional as the bubble a schizophrenic lives in.
And my point in including it in this thread . . . is that folks who live in a bubble utterly denying the facts of the very real and long-lived, effective, powerful globalist conspiracy stuff operant in our era are setting themselves up to be blooded by such realities in the not distant future--prematurely and maybe somewhat needlessly.
Well put.I only got a 45, but I'm guessing my complete and utter lack of devotion to the swill Hollywood puts out must have figured in. I'll just stay in my bubble with my magazines and books. Furthermore it is NOT my fault waffle house hasn't put a location up in my neck of the woods and the local tex mex hang out isn't on the list. :laugh:
May get around to taking it over.
What do you mean by a bubble on the other end?
I think the test was constructed it such that ivory towered upper class elites were in a huge and relatively impermeable bubble. Those of lower class and more diverse life and work experiences weren't.
I only got a 45, but I'm guessing my complete and utter lack of devotion to the swill Hollywood puts out must have figured in. I'll just stay in my bubble with my magazines and books. Furthermore it is NOT my fault waffle house hasn't put a location up in my neck of the woods and the local tex mex hang out isn't on the list. :laugh:I took it and got a 53, then went back and corrected the 'uniform' answer, because I did wear one as a firefighter, even though we only used them for parades and special occasions. Turnout gear was enough over whatever we were wearing when we got there for work. That got me up to a 61. I don't watch sitcoms or many network shows, haven't since I realized the 'laugh track' was being used to alter what people thought was funny. (That's another spiel).
Interesting concept though, thanks for posting it @Quix
I believe Quix is an alien on loan from the mother ship.
Quix,
Can you prove you're not?
I took it and got a 53, then went back and corrected the 'uniform' answer, because I did wear one as a firefighter, even though we only used them for parades and special occasions. Turnout gear was enough over whatever we were wearing when we got there for work. That got me up to a 61. I don't watch sitcoms or many network shows, haven't since I realized the 'laugh track' was being used to alter what people thought was funny. (That's another spiel).
We don't have any of those restaurants, either, not within a few hundred miles, so while I have eaten at a couple of them, it hasn't been for quite a few years and doesn't count.
I found some of the questions odd, too, and didn't fit the situation of a kid growing up in the sticks on a tobacco farm, making extra by crabbing and selling the catch to restaurants (what we didn't eat) or baling hay with my uncle, but my father had a white collar job for the Navy.
So, there was a lot of worldview that the questions wouldn't pick up on that I did, from farm hands, to watermen, to time as a firefighter, construction work and the like, even before I went off to college and then the oil patch. But as far as keeping up with the latest fashion or trendy stuff, not so much. I like comfortable, and that includes a vehicle I have been driving for years and can operate instinctively, and a minimum of tech stuff to demand my attention. So, if that is a 'bubble', well, I embrace it. Maybe I can find a place to hang it in my library.
I only got a 45, but I'm guessing my complete and utter lack of devotion to the swill Hollywood puts out must have figured in. I'll just stay in my bubble with my magazines and books. Furthermore it is NOT my fault waffle house hasn't put a location up in my neck of the woods and the local tex mex hang out isn't on the list. :laugh:
Interesting concept though, thanks for posting it @Quix
I believe Quix is an alien on loan from the mother ship.
Quix,
Can you prove you're not?
(http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/alienfilm/images/a/a3/Aliens-Greys-Mothership.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130507200352)
@Quix
Dear @Weird Tolkienish Figure:
Earnest T. is a good friend of mine. I try not to alienate him.
Signed,
Ernest P. Worrell
Pearl Harbor was not an acccident, a mere failure of American intelligence, or a brilliant Japanese military coup. It was the result of a carefully orchestrated design, initiated at the highest levels of our government. According to a key memorandum eight steps were taken to make sure we would enter the war by this means. Pearl Harbor was the only way, leading officials felt, to galvanize the reluctant American public into action.
.
This great question of Pearl Harbor--what did we know and when did we know it?--has been argued for years . . . But no investigator has ever been able to prove that fore-knowledge of the attack existed at the highest levels.
.
Until now. After decades of Freedom of Information Act requests, Robert B. Stinnett has gathered the long-hidden evidence that shatters every shibboleth of Pearl Harbor. It shows that not only was the attack expected, it was deliberately provoked through an eight-step program devised by the Navy.
.
Whereas previous investigators have claimed that our government did not crack Japan's military codes before December 7, 1941, Stinnett offers cable after cable of decryptions. He proves that a Japanese spy on the island transmitted information--including a map of bombing targets--beginning on August 21, and that government intelligence knew all about it.
.
He reveals that Admiral Kimmel was prevented from conducting a routine training exercise at the eleventh hour that would have uncovered the location of the oncoming Japanese fleet. And contrary to previous claims, he shows that the Japanese fleet did not maintain radio silence as it approached Hawaii. Its many coded cables were intercepted and decoded by American cryptographers in Stations on Hawaii and in Seattle.
.
The evidence is overwhelming. At the highest levels--on FDR's desk--America had ample warning of the pending attack. At those same levels, it was understood that the isolationist American public would not support a declaration of war unless we were attacked first. The result was a plan to anger Japan, to keep the loyal officers responsible for Pearl Harbor in the dark, and thus to drag America into the greatest war of her existence.
.
Yet even having found what he calls the "terrible truth," Stinnett is still inclined to forgive. "I sympathize with the agonizing dilemma faced by President Roosevelt," he writes. "He was forced to find circuitous means to persuade an isolationist America to join in a fight for freedom....It is easier to take a critical view of this policy a half century removed than to understand fully what went on in Roosevelt's mind in the year prior to Pearl Harbor."
.
Day of Deceit is the definitive final chapter on America's greatest secret and our worst military disaster.
And, Was not 9/11 called "a new Pearl Harbor?" Indeed, it was. As a Rockefeller hinted a couple of months beforehand to Aaron Russo--Director of the movie TRADING PLACES--and it was used to motivate the public toward a wholesale loss of more freedoms as well as "a War on Terror."
LOLOLOLOL.
Sigh.
The more posts I read from Quix... . . .
Geez I miss the the days when there weren't conspiracy {sillies--mod change}
@Quix
Let's, for a moment, suppose that FDR had the definitive skinny on where, when the attack was to take place, that he even had a general idea where the Japanese attacking forces would be located and flying from/to.
Okay, then what?
Had there been a preemptive strike, the Japanese would have casus belli and America would have been the aggressor, in the wrong for attacking those Japanese warships just peacefully steaming around conducting practice air operations.
Would the American people have followed Roosevelt into war under those circumstances?
Now, it gets tricky. Suppose he knew, and then American ships launched a counterattack as soon as word came that the attack was in progress from carriers already at sea and near the Japanese force. That would have tipped his hand, and possibly exposed the entire Kabuki by showing the American people that the attack was known about in advance, and nothing done to intercept it (see above).
It would have, again, short of collusion on the part of those in two opposing governments soon to be enemies, tipped the Japanese that we had, in fact broken their codes, which would have caused them to change them, leaving the US at a relative intel deficit at the beginning of what would be a protracted conflict.
This raises the killer question: Given that we knew, what major action, if any, could the US take without giving away that we were reading their encrypted messages?
A casual sortie by the carriers moved ships key to the coming conflict out of harm's way, an odd situation, because the common strategic and tactical thought in the USN of the day focused on Battleships, and not the extraordinary projection of attack power later proven inherent in a carrier navy and naval air power. It was Pearl Harbor that proved the might of the Carrier Task Force above and beyond the Battleship. What we now see as obvious was not so much so back when.
So, I must ask, what would have been done differently had the Commanders at Pearl Harbor known?
Are you suggesting then that conspiracies don't exist, and never did? Or are you saying rather that we shouldn't "waste time" in trying to figure out if they might have influenced past events?
[/]
The later. Its impossible to judge the past by today's perceptions of reality....
I answered yes on the poll because everyone else said no! I'm a contrarian you know!
[snip]
Anyone trying to judge/ascribe/interrupt the past by today's standards whether mainstream or "alternative" are dead wrong in my opinion. We live today...
No.
The fallacy of hindsight bias.
I guess I disagree. I believe NY City and Wash D.C. will similarly be set-up and destroyed. Which other cities will be included are less easy to predict. Certainly likely candidates are: Atlanta, Boston, Philadelphia, Houston, Albuquerque, Phoenix, Las Vegas, San Diego, LA San Francisco Portland Seattle. They may have exotic protections over Albuquerque. I don't think they will support the wholesale destruction of Denver because they evidently intend to use it as the new US Capital. I don't know what they'll do with Dallas. Dallas/Ft Worth are easy enough targets.@Quix
That comes across as quite personally harshly demeaning, assaultive, insulting. That is no longer acceptable. You are welcome to change it. Or, I will.
I only got a 45, but I'm guessing my complete and utter lack of devotion to the swill Hollywood puts out must have figured in. I'll just stay in my bubble with my magazines and books. Furthermore it is NOT my fault waffle house hasn't put a location up in my neck of the woods and the local tex mex hang out isn't on the list. :laugh:
Interesting concept though, thanks for posting it @Quix
@Quix
@mystery-ak
@CatherineofAragon
@Freya
Quix, you missed one of the most important targets because you and others don't know about it. Neither did I until the towers fell in NY and the other attacks that day happened.
I lived not far from this one place, a vital dam our military immediately started guarding after that attack. I saw military helicopters overhead heading somewhere but I didn't know where. I found out later, if this dam failed, it would take out all gasoline production in the Houston Ship Channel, gasoline our country depends on. No need to destroy Houston if this dam goes. I won't identify the dam.
I say this because we don't know where other sites are that would cause greater damage than bombing cities. People can be killed outright, but if vital areas to keep the country going are destroyed, the country will stop functioning and the people die. It would be easier to take over a country if it couldn't function. Think about these types of areas instead of indiscriminately bombing cities.
@Quix
@mystery-ak
@CatherineofAragon
@Freya
Quix, you missed one of the most important targets because you and others don't know about it. Neither did I until the towers fell in NY and the other attacks that day happened.
I lived not far from this one place, a vital dam our military immediately started guarding after that attack. I saw military helicopters overhead heading somewhere but I didn't know where. I found out later, if this dam failed, it would take out all gasoline production in the Houston Ship Channel, gasoline our country depends on. No need to destroy Houston if this dam goes. I won't identify the dam.
I say this because we don't know where other sites are that would cause greater damage than bombing cities. People can be killed outright, but if vital areas to keep the country going are destroyed, the country will stop functioning and the people die. It would be easier to take over a country if it couldn't function. Think about these types of areas instead of indiscriminately bombing cities.
@Quix
@mystery-ak
@CatherineofAragon
@Freya
[snip]
I say this because we don't know where other sites are that would cause greater damage than bombing cities. People can be killed outright, but if vital areas to keep the country going are destroyed, the country will stop functioning and the people die. It would be easier to take over a country if it couldn't function. Think about these types of areas instead of indiscriminately bombing cities.
Feel free to change it to whatever agrees with your point of view
@Victoria33
I'm in a very bad mood. I think I'm far away enough from NY to be safe but I still want the Sweet Meteor of Death to land on top of me.
I'm really not myself tonight, just sick of it all and everything.
I got a 38 but I don't watch much TV either anymore and I wish I lived near a Waffle House.
Some of the questions were just skewered badly, I got four out of five branches of service but it said one or none- or all five. The restaurants near me are mom and pop. Where are books on here? Watching Netflix instead of going to the movies?
Watching baseball or football games? I get points off because I don't drink? I've lived within a 30 mile radius of my college my entire life?
Weird and skewed.
You might do yourself a favor and read DAY OF DECEIT
--or at least Amazon's blurb about it, posted now below.There were at least 8 conclusively proven STEPS taken to insure it happened. It was deliberately calculated and set-up at the highest levels.
imho, that's an exceedingly understandable feeling and perspective . . . and, imho, folks who are not familiar with such feelings and such a perspective are terminally uninformed or are willfully not paying attention.
Nevertheless, I pray The Lord helps you out of such a slough of despond as soon as workable.
No doubt loved ones would greatly enjoy you in better spirits.
@Victoria33
I'm in a very bad mood. I think I'm far away enough from NY to be safe but I still want the Sweet Meteor of Death to land on top of me.
I'm really not myself tonight, just sick of it all and everything.
I just really miss my dad Quix. It's a bad time of the year to miss him. Everything is reminding me of him and I'm going to bed crying every night.
I guess time will heal it
@Freya
Oh, you're talking about your dad, not the election...I'm sorry. The first Thanksgiving and the first Christmas/Hanukkah season without a parent are very hard, I know. It gets better, I promise. *Hugs*
@Quix, with all respect to you, I'll do myself a favor by not doing so, thanks. Conspiracy theories are not my thing.
I just really miss my dad Quix. It's a bad time of the year to miss him. Everything is reminding me of him and I'm going to bed crying every night..
I guess time will heal it
Uhhhhhhhhhh . . . Ohhhhhhh Kay!
. . . a bit curious . . . on such a thread . . . but OK.
@Quix
Not really. I clicked into this thread to see what was being discussed, but it doesn't follow that I'd necessarily be interested in further research. My opinion is what it is.
@Quix
Not really. I clicked into this thread to see what was being discussed, but it doesn't follow that I'd necessarily be interested in further research. My opinion is what it is.
My sister is going to Florida. If I could walk better I'd go to NYC and hang out there. Go look at the tree and skate at Rockefeller Plaza.,
Don't fret. That boy trixquix ain't right.
Don't fret. That boy trixquix ain't right.
But he is correct.
The term "lunatic fringe" referred to a hairstyle in the 1800's..
Now people use it to marginalize other people.
I think about what President Eisenhower said:
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex."
Sounds like a conspiracy theory--lunatic fringe nut talking.
I meant it like you meant it to ignore it. {mod snip}
'Ya know, {Quix} we are all VERY DIFFERENT, ATYPICAL sorts of individuals. But YOU are the MOST atypical, DIFFERENT of all of us.'.
RIV incarnate.
Is Quix now deleting everything I write in here?
I thought we were buds man. Guess not.
Evidently you are not groking what's going on here.
.
Your choice to trash the friendship. Not my preference.
.
The new standards for the AR forum stand.
.
Folks who relentlessly push against them will end up having every post removed for however long seems fitting.
.
Where'd I trash the friendship? For making a stupid joke?
I don't know how I can explain it to you any clearer.
You are a smart man.
You don't need to play dumb or obtuse.
You will either be supportive of the valid standards for the AR forum, or you won't.
You don't allow jokes?
I never ridiculed you.
Fun is no longer allowed here. Gotcha.
That's a gross distortion of reality totally into fantasy land or an out-right lie.
Purported "fun" derisively with smug hostility pushing against the new standards will not be tolerated.
Wow, never took you for an authoritarian, Quix. Sad.
Don't PM me anymore. I can say anything I want to say to you out in the open.
Yes, it's called sit yourself down and don't click on that thread. LOL.