Mr. W.D. shared this very important article with me, and given the fact that we often comment on geopolitical trends here, it simply must be passed along to you. You'll see why once you read the article:

Japan changes constitution to allow military to fight abroad for first time since 1945

Now let's put this in a long-term context.

You'll recall that prior to the Fukushima tragedy and the ongoing disaster, there was a change in the Japanese government as for the first time since the end of the War, a new Japanese government came to power, one less intent on fulfilling its role as an American satrapy, and one which was trying to mend fences with China. That government began quietly floating the idea of state visits of the Emperor, and quietly but politely indicated that it would like the USA to close its Okinawa military base. You'll recall as well that the then US Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, issued statements to Japan that could be taken as little more than a threat to back off from its course of actions or there would be dire consequences. Then, Fukushima occurred, and to this day, many suspect that it was a deliberate event. I too, incline often to this suspicion.

In any case, we now have the government of Mr. Abe.

And it is clear that Japan, while not exactly returning to its role of compliant satrapy, is playing second violin to Washington's "Pacific Pivot" and acting in "collective security" with the USA.

That at least, is the cover story.

But there are some paragraphs that are worthy of close examination in this article:

"The decision by Mr Abe’s cabinet, which had long been expected, changes a more than six-decade-old reading of the constitution, which had strictly limited Japan’s forces to acting solely in its own defence. The new interpretation, known as “collective self-defence,” will allow Japan to use its large and technologically advanced military in ways that would have been unthinkable for this long-pacifist nation just a few years ago, such as coming to the aid of an American ship under fire, or shooting down a ballistic missile aimed at the United States.

"Still, most Japanese seemed to at least tentatively accept the change, a sign, analysts said, of the growing anxiety here over China’s rising military might, and its increasingly forceful claims to disputed islands now controlled by Japan. They said these fears of China had made the public more willing to accept the more assertive security stance espoused by Mr Abe, who has long called for Japan to shed its postwar passivity and become a “normal” nation.

"Rather, he said the change was necessary for Japan to act more like a full-fledged ally of the United States, something Japan needs to start doing as it seeks a clearer show of American support in its territorial dispute with China.“'A strengthened Japan-United States alliance is a force of deterrence that contributes to the peace of Japan and this region,' Mr Abe said. He also said the change would allow Japan to participate more fully in United Nations peacekeeping operations, such as by allowing Japanese troops to come to the aid of other peacekeepers under attack.


"While Mr Abe focused his comments on closer ties with the United States, Japan’s postwar protector, analysts said the new policy could also make it easier for Japan to seek new military alliances with other nations including the Philippines and Vietnam, which have similar territorial disputes with China.

"Analysts also said the decision capped a series of security-related changes by the Abe government that had already gone a long way in freeing Japan to play a larger military role in the region. These included lifting a self-imposed ban on selling weapons abroad, starting Japan’s first military aid to foreign countries since the end of World War II and improving its ability to respond to a security crisis with the creation of a new National Security Council, modelled on the American one."

Japan was, of course, Allied with the Entente Powers during World War One, but that military might "changed sides" prior to World War Two. And Japan is now much more powerful economically than in either of the World Wars. It's Self Defense Force (remember folks, that's what the word Wehrmacht also means), are, as the article notes, both large and the technological equal of any great power, including the USA.
So what's going on, perhaps, between the lines of the article? What might high octane speculation make of it?
First, I suspect that Abe's goal is not only to lift the ban on the use of Japanese troops abroad, but also that the real goal here is to lift the constitutional prohibitions against the expenditure on military forces beyond a certain percentage or threshold of Japan's GNP. In effect, re-militarization might be seen as a means of reviving Japan's powerful but flagging economy. But secondly, I suspect that behind the scenes, the real motivation here is that Japan is being less forthright about ts real concern: the USA, and the increasingly counter-intuitive nature of its global agenda. A dubious and out of control ally is, if one thinks about it, as much of a security concern as the growing economic and military power of China, and as the article also notes, re-militarization would allow Japan to pursue a more vigorous diplomacy in the region, and do so independently, of the USA, with nations concerned about the rise of China. It would also thus conceivably be a diplomatic card that Japan could play to gain bi-lateral agreements with the BRICSA nations, including China.
This is high octane speculation, of course. But there is one measure that will ultimately tell if it is a viable reading, and that is if Japan(and Germany of course), should seek and insist on a permanent seat with veto power on the UN Security Council. Germany has been quietly pursuing such an objective ever since the Wiedervereinigung, and one should expect a similar pressure slowly and quietly to emerge from Japan. But Security Council permanent seats or not, Japan has signaled that it is re-entering the world of Great Power Realpolitik, and notwithstanding the public statements of support from Washington, privately, my wager is that there are justifiable concerns, just as there are in Beijing.
See you on the flip side...
Posted in

Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and "strange stuff". His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into "alternative history and science".


  1. henry on July 13, 2014 at 8:43 pm

    @”You’ll recall that prior to the Fukushima tragedy and the ongoing disaster, there was a change in the Japanese government as for the first time since the end of the War, a new Japanese government came to power, one less intent on fulfilling its role as an American satrapy, and one which was trying to mend fences with China.”

    Shinzo Abe supported Putin by attending Sochi Olympics while Western leaders boycotted it;
    He tried to communicate with South Korea’s president Park Geun-hye in her native tongue at Nuclear Security Summit in Hague;
    He supported the moderate candidate for mayor of Tokoyo Yoichi Masuzoe, who claims to “rebuild Japan-China relation” through city to city relationship;
    And recently, Shinzo Abe paid a visit to Australia, where he apologized to Australia for Japan’s WW2 actions
    “Speaking in English, he reiterated his nation’s vow of peace made after World War II, sending his condolences to Australians killed and traumatised in that conflict.
    Mr Abe said he had “absolutely no words to say” when despairing about the numerous “young Australians with bright futures” who lost their lives fighting Japanese forces.
    “May I most humbly speak for Japan on behalf of the Japanese people here in sending my most sincere condolences towards the many souls who lost their lives,” he told the parliament.”

    Former Japanese PM Yukio Hatoyama and his wife visited the Nanjing massacre museum last year, it was under his government Japan tried to “mend fences with China”,then Fukushima happened.

    It’s unlikely Shinzo Abe will be the one making a historic step, but it doesn’t mean Japan as a nation couldn’t,
    In that sense, one wonders “Is Shinzo Abe actually preparing a moderate path for his successor?”
    Is Shinzo Abe’s recent “WW2 apology” to Australia a forerunner of Japan’s future normalization with its Asian neighbours? Time will tell.
    It’s also my suspicion that Shinzo Abe’s removing of constitutional provisions to Japanese re-armament could be a sign Japan is trying to be more ‘independent’ of America.
    The same can be argued with the delayed handover of U.S. command of South Korean troops, allegedly due to Cheonan incident in 2010 and North Korea’s nuclear tests in recent times.

  2. DownunderET on July 13, 2014 at 2:23 pm

    The one thing here that should be remembered is the atrocities committed by the Japanese military during WW2. Here in Oz there are still war veterans who refuse to buy Japanese cars. So if Japan does change the law, then expect the world to remember what they did in WW2 with new eyes.
    I don’t know if there will be a WW3, but there are politicians who should have visions of what happened in WW2, and if they cannot remember, take a visit to Arlington cemetery, or watch some old WW2 footage of the carnage. MADNESS on a grand scale.

    • Neru on July 14, 2014 at 4:09 am

      Stange that is, atrocities are always committed by the “wrong side” = germans, japanese ect… Dream on, the allied forced did also commit atrocities but that is always left out of history = victors allows this, makes for a better HERO story.

  3. Daryl Davis on July 13, 2014 at 11:47 am

    Interesting counter-intuitive interpretation of Japan’s motives for re-militarization, Dr. Farrell, one which calls to mind, ironically, Sun Tzu’s ‘The Art of War’. It all becomes very confusing, though, when one tries to integrate the public, the covert, and the PsTB.

    If, for example, Fukushima was indeed a message sent to Japan, was this preternatural “missive” drawn up and dispatched by the U.S. President(LOL), by America’s covert Acronymians(the NSA, CIA, DIA…), or by the unnamed and unaccountable Western PsTB? Sec. Gates’ threat would seem to suggest that America’s entire nefarious, three-tiered command structure was apprised of and on board with the tsunami idea — though, ironically, the least likely, and likely the least knowledgeable, co-conspirator would have been the acting President. (But could Gates to this day remain ignorant of this tsunami-making capacity — and also the President — both just acting as useful PTB talking heads?)

    Furthermore, was this seaborne “Western Pacific telegram” intended for the eyes of Japan’s Prime Minister(very likely), the Self Defense Force(less likely), or for the Yakuza/Japanese PsTB(who had installed PM Naoto Kan specifically to carry out detente with China)?

    How does one properly interpret ANY world event without first understanding the relationships between the three levels of command authority operating within the countries involved or understanding their respective needs and goals? Is Japan’s current PM, Abe, for instance, a hapless puppet of the Japanese PsTB — or perhaps even a puppet solely of the coup-minded American Acronymians — who acted without interference from the Western PsTB and without the knowledge of Japan’s PsTB — or the knowledge of a Pres. Obama left to marvel that he’s happened upon this unexpected ally? (Is Putin, albeit a former covert, a puppet, a puppet master, or an entirely different animal?)

    Is in fact EVERY world leader a puppet of one PTB or another? So a few world leaders may have begun their terms of office as “pure” elected politicians — but ALL are quickly “captured” by their covert communities — or by some other nation’s Acronymians — via an initial, astonishing briefing, or by subsequent blackmail/threats — often to be further co-opted by their greater regional PsTB, whether directly, as was arguably the case with Woodrow Wilson, or through the agencies of covert Acronymians — those perhaps-unwitting but unusually-loyal proxies of the PsTB?

    Surely, no PsTB still concern THEMSELVES with oil and gas — thus, for example, with a handful of islands off the coasts of Japan or China? The modern definition of the term PTB ought in fact to include verbiage along the lines of “…who stand independent of conventional post-industrial-age energy resources…in violation of the known laws of physics…”

    It would certainly seem as though the Western PsTB are largely independent of oil, though perhaps not yet of the petrodollar upon which it was based. They daily fleece at high speeds a financial system initially based upon oil and other assets, but one which increasingly requires of itself no hard assets at all.

    How else explain why Iraq was not entirely drained of its oil reserves after the fall of Baghdad, or how it has been allowed to devolve so thoroughly thereafter? And surely there exist oil deposits in Africa or the oceans that might have long since been better exploited?

    It might be, therefore, that China and Japan’s public/Acronymian leaders are maneuvering toward a conflict with one another concerning offshore oil about which their respective PsTB harbor far less, if any, real concern.

    Might this explain why the Fukushima incident, if it truly was sent by the Western PsTB, never seemed to have been avenged by the Japanese PsTB — didn’t touch off a “tsunami” of tsunamis?

    Why should the Japanese PsTB concern themselves with a few lives lost, so long as the Tokyo Stock Exchange remained largely intact? (“Let our puppets and Acronymians joust among themselves, though! What good sport!”)

    Therefore, the most important recent trend is the one running away from resource wars and toward a total separation of actual, tangible assets from the hypothecated, binary values derived thereby. The PsTB spend their unlimited, derivative wealth upon breakaway shining cities atop their Martian or lunar hills, while we are all yet limited to what’s in our pockets today or what’s still in our zero/negative-interest savings accounts tomorrow.

    And so, perhaps, the conventional geopolitical spin on Japan’s re-militarization — their potential veto votes and whether they represent a larger concern to China or to America — pales in importance to the imperiled fate of a financial system seemingly far removed from any connection to the resources and the borders upon which conventional geopolitical conflicts have been based.

    To put it more succinctly: Their final “breaking away”, however exposed and unseemly it may have become, now would seem to be so close to fulfillment as to render an in-depth analysis of current public policy and a forecast of its geopolitical ramifications almost farcical. A shift much bigger and potentially far more earth-shaking(pun tentatively intended) than a new National Security Council would seem to be well on its way.

  4. Robert Barricklow on July 13, 2014 at 11:44 am

    Remember when Hitler through Russia rearmed?
    One it’s a fait accompli what’s to stop the aim of the weapon.
    Of course nowadays you have the implanted chip, countered by another chip. The comes the typewriter with no access except humint intelligence. So on one level you have techint and another humint. Then you have the AI algorithms bridging the gap. Then there’s the short game(hot war/money) which may capture the long game(space/inner & outer). Japan would be more aligned with China despite the differences. The game would be to keep your enemies as close as possible in order to achieve one’s overall policies. Thius a common enemy of both would be a convenience for both immediate & long term interests.
    Thus Brzezinki’s interest of Eurasia is now short term past/present; space is past/present/future. In fact, one may argue it has been the game for as long as “our” memories have existed, as well as for ” ‘our’ cousins”. For when “we” speak space we also mean consciousness, one, in a metaphysical/quantum sense, one could not exist without the other. Thus, this mercantilism control is perplexing, in that it would serve an interest that would appear to be outside of mankind’s interest in achieving “yingyang/balance”. It would seem, in a long ago, that this was the state of being from which “we” fell.

    • Robert Barricklow on July 13, 2014 at 11:55 am

      in going thru my google alerts on videos, I kept getting: “this video is no longer available”.
      This is script for: “CENSORED”.

    • Robert Barricklow on July 13, 2014 at 12:07 pm

      The “Language” is part & parcel to that “fall”.
      In fact, it’s not a ‘fall’.
      ‘We’ were “([pushed])” …?

  5. marcos toledo on July 13, 2014 at 11:34 am

    So Wehrmacht stands for self defense force. Remember this the centennial of the War To End All Wars and Germany was disarmed after that war. Japan down sized military lasted longer than Germany down sized military. Just wondering what new game of chicken will lead to happy WW1 centennial everyone.

  6. rustywho on July 13, 2014 at 5:16 am

    Interesting, do think there is any connection between this and recent Super Typhoon which recently hit the islands of japan?

Help the Community Grow

Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.

Upcoming Events