samedi 10 décembre 2016

Il y a 75 ans avait lieu l'attaque provoquée de Pearl Harbor, le prétexte de l'administration FDR pour convaincre le peuple américain fermement opposé à la guerre



Le WTC (11 Septembre 2001) et Pearl Harbor (7 décembre 1941)







Durant les élections de 1940, FDR avait promis (comme Woodrow Wilson l'avait fait avant lui durant la Première guerre mondiale) qu'il n'enverrait pas les jeunes Américains se faire tuer dans une nouvelle guerre... 

Pour convaincre le peuple américain (jugé rétrospectivement "antisémite" par de nombreux historiens!) d'entrer en guerre, il aura fallu la provocation -suivie de l'attaque- de Pearl Harbor.

Non seulement le peuple américain voulait rester en dehors de cette guerre, mais exactement comme le Canada et le reste de l'ancien Commonwealth, il refusa catégoriquement d'absorber des centaines ou des milliers de migrants juifs européens persécutés. (Voilà qui en dit long sur le niveau de popularité des juifs à cette époque auprès de la population des pays dits démocratiques anglos et américains!)



WAS 9-11 THE ‘NEW PEARL HARBOR’?
Writing in Britain’s New Statesman on December 12, 2002, journalist John Pilger described, in disturbing terms, how William Kristol’s Project for the New American Century had determined that America needed a “new Pearl Harbor” as the pretext for launching a bid for global dominance. The theme laid forth by Kristol and his associates was that should such a catastrophic event take place, it would give America the opportunity to once again build up its military forces. 
On June 3, 1997—three years before George W. Bush assumed the presidency and installed the neo-conservatives in power—a host of neoconservatives including Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz signed their names to a “statement of principles” issued by Kristol’s organization. 
The statement laid forth a goal of building up American military might to ensure that the United States could pursue global hegemony, unfettered by any nation or nations that might dare to resist the agenda of America’s ruling elite—unquestionably a declaration of imperial aims. 
A subsequent design—dated September 2000—by Kristol’s Project for the New American Century, entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century,” laid forth a plan for the United States to take military control of the Gulf region whether Saddam Hussein was in power or not. It stated frankly that the American need for a presence in the Persian (i.e. Arabian) Gulf transcended the question of whether or not Saddam Hussein remained in power. 
In order to fulfill that dream, Kristol and his associates said, the United States must be prepared to be able to do battle in multiple places, at one time, around the globe. To achieve that ability, they declared, America must engage in a major transformation of its military, accompanied by massive arms buildups. However, they concluded, “The process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.” 
Given that the tragic events of September 11, 2001 provided precisely the “new Pearl Harbor” that sparked a massive build-up, accompanied by the “war on terrorism” that transformed—through neo-conservative influence—into an imperial war, first targeting Iraq and thence the rest of the Arab and Muslim world, there are many Americans and others who question whether the 9-11 attacks were either instigated and/or sponsored by the United States and/or the government of Israel, acting either together or alone. Such people are denounced as “conspiracy theorists” and/or as “hatemongers”—facts notwithstanding.(...) [AFP was one of the first journals] to reveal that key neo-conservatives had actually proclaimed a “new Pearl Harbor” could provide a pretext for the U.S to launch a drive for a global imperium. This indeed became the case when “Dubya” Bush launched war against Iraq, having deceived many Americans, through outright lies, that Iraq had played a part in the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Actually, as far back as 1975, infamous intriguer Henry Kissinger was suggesting a Middle East war could provide the foundation for establishing a realigned world of the type of which the neo-conservatives dream.


Time to Admit the Deception: 75th Anniversary of the Pearl Harbor False Flag Attack Paved Way for US Involvement in WWII

75 Years: Pearl Harbor and the Jewish Question   The world marked the 75th anniversary this week of arguably the single most pivotal international event of the 20th century: The Japanese surprise attack on the United States naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, in 1941. It was this that triggered the United States' entry into World War II, leading to the defeat of the Nazi empire in Europe and, ultimately, to the end of the Holocaust – and even the establishment of the State of Israel. Volumes have been written about the Pearl Harbor attack, what led up to it, and what it led to. Isolationism in the United States carried the day at the time, and it is likely that the Americans would not have entered the war for at least many more months, if at all, had not the Japanese attacked.  Yisrael Medad, Director of Educational Programming and Information Resources at the Menachem Begin Heritage Center in Jerusalem, says that, from a Jewish-Israeli viewpoint, it must be emphasized that "the US policy of neutrality that was being pushed by anti-Semites (who called the European war the ‘Jewish war’) was literally killing Jews in Europe." The Pearl Harbor attack meant that "finally, a non-Jewish reason to join the war made itself available."

PEARL HARBOR: IT’S TAKEN 75 YEARS FOR THE TRUTH TO EMERGE


U.S. Planned to Go to War with Japan and Germany Before Pearl Harbor Attack

Did FDR Provoke Pearl Harbor?

“Anti-Semite” Fr. Coughlin Warns in 1939 that Warmongers will Use Japan to Ensnare U.S. Into 2nd European World War


 


Two Simple Words . . . (Michael Collins Piper, Chapter 27 of False Flags: Template for Terror)
Not long after the 9-11 attacks, a prominent attorney was visiting Washington, D.C. with his 18 year old son, preparing to register the boy for college. The attorney happens to be a long-time close friend of mine, and during their visit, my friend and his son joined me for a casual lunch at Union Station on Capitol Hill. 
The attorney is conservative, politically and culturally, and instinctively a patriot in the truest sense. In addition, it should be noted, he had several family members who were active members of the elite media, including one who, during his heyday, was a very well-known journalist. 
So my attorney friend is quite well-informed (more so than most Americans, perhaps), but he, too, relies almost entirely on the media monopoly for his news and information. (...) he has become addicted to the Zionist-controlled Muslim-bashing Fox News—controlled by billionaire Rupert Murdoch, a front man for even wealthier Jewish families in the sphere of the Rothschild banking dynasty—for the “news” that he digests. 
In any case, during our lunch, the subject of the 9-11 terrorist attacks and their aftermath was a major topic of discussion. 
Pointing out that AFP had published numerous stories that presented a stark contrast to the “official” stories about 9-11 that had been handed down by the federal authorities and presented as “fact” by the media monopoly, I noted that, at the very least, there was a lot of information suggesting that, in order for 9-11 to have happened as it did, that there had to have been some foreknowledge (even cooperation) by persons in key places inside the U.S. defense establishment. 
I added my opinion that most of those involved were undoubtedly willing assets of Israel and its “neo-conservative” lobby in Washington. 
My friend expressed absolute horror at the thought. 
“I absolutely refuse to believe,” he said firmly, his eyes flashing in indignation, “that anybody inside our own government would collaborate in those terrorist attacks or simply sit back and allow them to happen, knowing that thousands of people would die.” 
I responded: “But don’t forget: those 3,000 lives were considered the necessary cost of getting us into a war that these people wanted to fight. And the only way they could get the American people riled up enough to support such a war was to have an incident like 9-11.” 
My attorney friend shook his head. 
“No, I don’t buy it. I just don’t buy it,” he insisted. 
I responded:“It’s not something that anybody wants to be true, but that’s how these things work.These things do happen.” 
At that moment, my friend’s 18-year-old son, who had been sitting quietly, listening, absorbing our exchange, piped up: “ Yeah,” he said, “What about Pearl Harbor?” You could have heard a pin drop. 
My friend’s son looked a bit embarrassed for a moment, but his father looked even more embarrassed, since—in fact—his son had hit the nail on the head. The boy had made my point precisely: in two simple words: “Pearl Harbor.” 
Needless to say, I smiled from ear to ear and nodded my head and I said, “That’s right. What about Pearl Harbor?” 
I charged forward, invigorated by the young man’s perspicuity: 
“FDR wanted to get the United States into the war. He needed an incident like Pearl Harbor, and the Japanese gave it to him. Many historians now say not only that FDR knew, in advance, of the impending Japanese attack and precisely where it would happen, but that, in addition, FDR helped provoke the attack in the first place.” 
My attorney friend—who is otherwise articulate and quick on his feet—was hard-pressed to respond. 
But it was clear that his son had made my point all too well. 
So, diplomat that I am, I said, “Well, enough of that. Let’s talk about the horse races.” 
There are a number of things that can be said about this simple story, but one thing is clear, at least to me, anyway: Young people in America are a lot smarter than a lot of world-wise adults might think. 
Although young people have been subjected to a great deal of mindbending propaganda programs in the schools and targeted by the brainwashing techniques of Hollywood and the Jewish-controlled major media, they still—when presented with facts and logic—have some capacity to make sound judgments. 
As for those who—like my attorney friend—want to think the best of the people in “our” government and refuse to believe anyone inside that government played a part in 9-11, those two simple words—“Pearl Harbor”—point in a direction that truly does raise real questions about 9-11 that do need to be answered. 
And one day they will be. Some call it Judgment Day. (...)



 


 





VIDEO - Extrait du discours du célèbre américain Charles Lindbergh du 11 septembre 1941, juste avant les événements de Pearl Harbour.


Écouter la version originale, plus longue:


VIDEO - Charles Lindbergh's - September 11, 1941 Des Moines Speech

Dans son célèbre discours du 11 septembre 1941 (l'intégrale en format texte, extrait traduit en fr.) contre les fauteurs de guerre (quelques mois à peine avant les événements de Pearl Harbour), Charles Lindbergh, le célèbre patriote américain et leader de l'organisation antiguerre America First Committee, accusait:
1) les Juifs,
2) les Britanniques (Churchill, que l'on sait avoir été dirigé par la clique de financiers juifs The Focus), et  
3) l'administration (juive) de Roosevelt (qui avait pourtant promis "pas de guerre")
d'avoir trahi et mené le peuple américain à l'abattoir en faisant pression pour que les États-Unis envoyent leur jeunesse se faire tuer dans une guerre en tous points contraire aux intérêts de la nation états-unienne.






Shocking Revelations Emerge in New Book 
Those Angry Days: Roosevelt, Lindbergh and America’s Fight Over World War II, 1939-1941
By Michael Collins Piper
Until a few years ago, most patriots fondly recalled aviator Charles Lindbergh for his leadership of the America First movement that fought to prevent Franklin D. Roosevelt from steering the United States into war against Adolf Hitler’s Germany.
However, in recent times, pernicious Internet agitprop has convinced many patriots that heroes like Lindbergh and his “isolationist” colleagues were actually traitors doing the work of the New World Order.
One broadcaster in particular promotes this nonsense by constantly harping about “the Nazis,” hyping writers who smear Lindbergh and claim Hitler’s heirs are today plotting the “rise of the Fourth Reich.”
Those conned by this garbage fail to see this is really a ploy to keep the image of “the Holocaust” alive, thereby advancing the interests of Israel, which benefits from the Holocaust in multiple ways, without ever mentioning the word “Israel” even once. And that’s propaganda at its most deceptive and calculating.
Even more disturbing is that—as a consequence of this skewed version of history taking a grip on the minds of so many—a remarkable number of today’s patriots have no idea that roughly 90 percent of the American people agreed with Lindbergh: A war against Hitler was a war America should not fight.
The history of that period has been savagely distorted and those who should know don’t have a clue as to what really happened.
Ironically, however, coming out of an elite publishing giant, Random House, is a new book presenting a fascinating look at the efforts by Lindbergh to stop the push to embroil America in that unnecessary war: Those Angry Days: Roosevelt, Lindbergh and America’s Fight Over World War II, 1939-1941.*
The flagrantly pro-British author, Lynne Olson, clearly holds Lindbergh’s traditional American nationalism in contempt, which explains why former secretary of state Madeleine Albright—who famously said the price of 500,000 dead Iraqi children was “worth it”—hails Olson as “our era’s foremost chronicler of World War II politics and diplomacy.”
Still, though soiled by its pro-New World Order slant, this is a book patriots need to read. Many books from establishment sources contain a lot of valuable facts. This is one such volume. Here are just a few of the author’s amazing admissions:
• Solid data proving that the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and its Wall Street backers did not support Hitler, but vehemently opposed him.
• British intelligence set up shop at Rockefeller Center in Manhattan and collaborated with the pro-war Fight for Freedom—mostly “upper class East Coast Protestants”—and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith, the Jewish espionage agency. All worked closely with FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover who was tapping the phones of those who opposed to the drive for war that Lindbergh said was the work of “the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration.”
• The amazing story of how many high-ranking military officers “fiercely opposed” FDR’s efforts to arm Britain. Opposing aid to the British was no less than Gen. George C. Marshall whom the author says is now “regarded as the country’s greatest military figure in WWII.”
•While Americans today believe Britain was always seen as a grand ally, the author reveals that, after World War I, “many Americans came to believe that their country had entered the war not because its own national interests demanded such action, but because it had been tricked by the scheming, duplicitous British.”
• FDR utilized warmongering rhetoric of exactly the type today coming from essentially the same sources, including advocacy of the kind of police-state measures such as the Patriot Act and the concept of “homeland security,” which patriots have become convinced was a “Nazi” invention. Substitute’s today’s Muslim-bashing for German-bashing and it is history repeating itself.
Declaring any criticism of his policies as detrimental to national security, FDR spoke of “clever schemes of foreign agents” on American soil. However, the author admits: “The United States never faced any serious threat of internal subversion before or during the war. But the American people never knew that; in fact, they were told the opposite.”
• And, despite Pearl Harbor, most Americans still didn’t see the need for war against Hitler. The author admits, “the odds are high that Congress and the American people would have pressured the president to turn away from an undeclared war against Germany . . . and focus instead on defeating Japan.” Today, most Americans think Pearl Harbor sparked a nationwide cry of “Defeat the Nazi Beast.” It never happened.
——
Michael Collins Piper is an author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and the U.S. He is the author of Final Judgment, The New Jerusalem, The High Priests of War, Dirty Secrets, My First Days in the White House, The New Babylon, Share the Wealth, The Judas Goats, Target: Traficant and The Golem.


PDF - M.S. King - The REAL Roosevelts: An Omitted History: What PBS & Ken Burns Didn’t Tell You







Voir les travaux d'Harry Elmer Barnes sur Pearl Harbor et la Seconde Guerre mondiale:


PDF - Pearl Harbor After A Quarter of a Century


PDF - Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace: A Critical Examination of the Foreign Policy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Its Aftermath (1953)

Voir aussi:



Voir aussi:


PDF - Steven Sniegoski - The Case for Pearl Harbor Revisionism



PDF - Charles Tansill - Back Door to War: Roosevelt Foreign Policy



QUESTION :


Qu'ont en commun les personnalités historiques américaines suivantes?

  • John F. Kennedy (Président des États-Unis)
  • Gerald R. Ford (Président des États-Unis)
  • Kingman Brewster (président de Yale)
  • Amos Pinchot (homme politique républicain)
  • Alice Roosevelt Longworth (fille de Theodor Roosevelt)
  • Kathleen Norris (écrivaine)
  • E.E. Cummings (poète)
  • William Saroyan (écrivain)
  • Gore Vidal (écrivain politique)
  • Frank Lloyd Wright (architecte)
  • Sinclair Lewis (écrivain)
  • Général Robert Wood
  • Général Hugh Johnson
  • Général de la marine Smedley Darlington Butler (auteur de "War is Racket")

Réponse:

Ils ont tous appuyé l'America First Committee !

D'autres populistes et patriotes importants tels Ezra Pound et Henry Ford ont été associés à l'America First Committee, qui s'opposait vigoureusement (comme le peuple américian lui-même) à l'entrée en guerre des États-Unis au cours de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, une guerre dans laquelle les États-Unis n'avaient rien à faire et tout à perdre.

Charles Lindbergh était certes antijuif et pro-nazi, tout comme son grand ami et allié Henry Ford (ce même Henry Ford qu'Hitler admirait au point d'accrocher un portrait de lui dans son bureau), or le fait est que le mouvement anti-guerre aux États-Unis était motivé surtout par le non-interventionnisme (et non par des idées nazies). Le mouvement antiguerre états-unien étant fortement enraciné dans des organisations patriotiques telles que l'America First Committee, dont Lindbergh était non seulement le fondateur mais sa plus importante tête pensante et l'un de ses plus fervents militant.



Joseph Kennedy, un autre grand ami de Lindbergh, appuya lui aussi l'idée d' "America First", car il ne voyait pas l'intérêt de mener une guerre contre les nazis en Europe. Il avait remarqué avec justesse, comme le souligne David Irving :"Et l'objet de la haine était bien les Allemands en tant que peuple, non pas « les nazis », comme on aime souvent à le faire croire aujourd'hui. « Les Anglais ne combattent pas Hitler », avait remarqué l'ambassadeur américain, Joe Kennedy, « mais le peuple allemand » (p.189)." (Source: Churchill's War, in "David Irving et Churchill" de Joseph Coutelier)

À lire:
* Il y a 40 ans disparaissait Charles Lindbergh, aviateur, inventeur, écrivain et... « antisémite »
* DEFEND AMERICA FIRST: A Compilation of Five Anti-War Addresses Delivered on Behalf of the America First Committee
* What Did Ezra Pound Really Say? by Michael Collins Piper
* "Ezra Pound Speaking" Radio Speeches of World War II, by Ezra Pound
* Henry Ford et l'antisémitisme américain, par F. Duprat

Henry Ford and the America First Committee:
Ford’s actions show that he was opposed to the forces of war. He did not do himself any favors by opposing the “destructive Wall Street.” In 1915 Ford chartered the Oscar II, otherwise known as the Ford “Peace Ship,” in the hope of persuading the belligerents of the world war to attend a peace conference. The mission received mostly ridicule. Those aboard, including Ford, were wracked with influenza. Ford continued to fund the “Peace Ship” as it traveled around Europe for two years, and despite the ridicule was widely regarded as a sincere, if naïve, pacifist. Dr. Sutton does not mention Ford’s “Peace Ship” or his peace campaign during World War I. Therefore, when he was an early supporter of the America First Committee,35 founded in 1940 to oppose Roosevelt’s efforts to entangle the USA in a war against Germany, he was too easily dismissed as pro-Nazi, as was America First.36 Very prominent Americans joined from a variety of backgrounds, including General Robert A. Wood, president of Sears Roebuck, and among the most active, aviation hero Charles Lindbergh. Socialist Party leader Norman Thomas was a regular speaker at rallies. Many Congressmen and Senators resisted the Roosevelt war machine. They included pacifists, liberals, Republicans, Democrats, conservatives. Of Henry Ford, George Eggleston, an editor of Reader’s Digest, Scribner’s Commentator, and formerly of Life, and a major figure in America First, recalled that so far from being a “Nazi,” Ford expressed the hope that there would be a “parliament of man,” “a world-wide spirit of brotherhood, and an end to armed conflict.”37 ( The Myth of the Big Business-Nazi Axis, K.R. Bolton)

Lindbergh et Ford appuyaient sans réserve Adolf Hitler et comme ce dernier ils ne voulaient pas la guerre, cependant leur opposition à cette guerre ne venait pas de leurs sympathies nazies hitlériennes, elle s'enracinait plutôt dans la pensée non-interventionniste des Pères fondateurs des États-Unis tels que George Washington, Thomas Jefferson et plus tard Andrew Jackson, qui craignaient l'emmêlement de leur pays dans des conflits à l'étranger et pour des intérêts qui ne sont pas les leurs.



ADL Urges Donald Trump to Reconsider “America First” in Foreign Policy Approach The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today urged presidential candidate Donald Trump to reconsider his use of the phrase “America First” as a slogan describing his approach to foreign affairs, citing its anti-Semitic use in the months before Pearl Harbor by a group of prominent Americans seeking to keep the nation out of World War II.
ADL Targets Trump: Saying "America First" is Anti-Semitic "The most noteworthy leader of the 'America First Committee' was Charles Lindbergh," the ADL said in a press release Thursday, "who sympathized with the Nazis and whose rhetoric was characterized by anti-Semitism and offensive stereotypes."
Trump Urged to Drop 'America First' Slogan Due to anti-Semitic Past According to a statement released by the Jewish watchdog, the most leader of the “America First Committee” was Charles Lindbergh, who "sympathized with the Nazis and whose rhetoric was characterized by anti-Semitism and offensive stereotypes, including assertions that Jews posed a threat to the U.S. because of their influence in motion pictures, radio, the press, and the government."




Sur ce blog: