One of my Facebook friends - Patricia Howard - posted the following article on her wall a couple of days ago, and I thought it well worth the attention of everyone here:
I find this interesting at several levels. For some time now, I have been sitting on the fence with respect to the issue of whether or not the earthquake and tsunami there were artificially induced. A number of people have concluded it was, and a number have concluded it wasn't. For me, there just isn't enough hard data to draw a preliminary conclusion, though I certainly lean to the idea that it may have been artificially induced.
The reason I lean that way is the soft data, or, if one prefer, the contextual data, the political data. Japan in the last year sent the ruling party of that country - the party that had ruled it essentially since the end of the Second World War - packing. That party was for all intentions and purposes, a shill for the West and particularly for the geopolitical and economic interests of the United States. That party was thrown out of power. Then came the unthinkable, an event that, when I heard it was taking place, literally sent my mind into a tailspin, and that was the state visit of Japanese Emperor Akahito to Beijing.
There was, and is, as any historically informed person knows, no love lost between China and Japan, due to the latter's devastating invasion of China in the 1930s; think "Rape of Nanking" here; think the carving out of all of Manchuria as a Japanese puppet state (Menchukuo); think...well, you get the idea.
In that context, Emperor Akahito's visit was nothing less than a geopolitical earthquake. Prior to that, there had been other rumblings, rumblings that were, as usual, virtually ignored in the American media. I recall an event were the sick whackjob in North Korea was once again rattling his nuclear sabre (or rather, his nuclear pocket knife), and testing his missiles in a deliberately provocative manner by lobbing them toward Japan. Being a nightowl, I heard an interesting - and short - article on the radio, namely, that the response of the then-Japanese foreign minister(I forget his name), was that Japan could arm itself to the teeth with nuclear and thermonuclear weapons (those are the big ones folks: h-bombs), in a matter of a few weeks if it chose to do so. Suddenly, Kim-Jung-Whackjob became very quiet and docile.
Now we have this article, which, in the context of all the foregoing, makes even more sense, especially the part about Japan's nuclear industry - an industry with deep ties to the old ruling party of Japan as well as to the Western corporate elite in this country and the UK -freezing Prime Minister Kan's office out of the information stream, which would explain the conflicting statements coming out of that country since the disaster.
One disturbing thing that emerges from this article is that the NSA clearly was eavesdropping on Japanese communications, something the Japanese themselves will not have missed, and something that will not have sat very well with their elite.
All of this brings us to the problem: If Japan's disaster was brought about by technologically induced means, then who did it? One might argue, as some are already doing, that it was the Anglo-American elite. But if so, why target "their" own nuclear plant and projects? A Japanese nuclear deterrent, it could be argued, would be a powerful bargaining chip with the growing power of China. So the context for such an interpretation, to my mind, breaks down a bit here. But if not the Anglo-American elite, then who? And more importantly, how?
We're thus far from resolving the issue even from the point of view of the "soft" and contextual data.