In case you missed it, Japan recently had two earthquakes, the one political, in Okinawa Prefecture, and the other geophysical, near the city of Habuka. Now, before we talk about the second one, let's address the first one. I made this a "tidbit" story a little over a week ago, but now there's more information, and it begs commentary. Consider the original tidbit and the following information it contained:
Now, look what happened: Okinawa prefecture elected a unanimous slate of anti-American-base candidates:
Data: (* = elected)
For the Governor
* ONAGA Takeshi (Anti-base) 360,820
NAKAIMA Hirokazu (former Governor) 261,076
For the Mayor of Naha, prefectural capital
* SHIROMA Mikiko (Anti-base) 101,052
YONEDA Kanetosh (supported by LDP-Komeito) 57,768
For the Prefectural Assembly member from Naha
* HIGA Mizuki (Anti-base) 74,427
YAMAKAWA Noriji (LDP) 61,940
For the Prefectural Assembly member from Nago
*GUSHIKEN Toru (Anti-base) 15,374
SIEMATSI Bunshinmatsu Bunshin (LDP) 14,281″
Then, five days later, a major quake struck Japan near the city of Habuka:
Now note something about The USA TODAY's reportage of the latter event:
The magnitude-6.7 earthquake struck shortly after 10 p.m. Saturday west of Nagano city at a depth of 5 kilometers (3 miles), the Japan Meteorological Agency said. The agency revised the magnitude and depth from initial estimates. The U.S. Geological Survey recorded a magnitude of 6.2. Since the quake occurred inland, there was no possibility of a tsunami.
Ryo Nishino, a restaurant owner in Hakuba, a ski resort village west of Nagano, told Japanese broadcaster NHK that he had "never experienced a quake that shook so hard. The sideways shaking was enormous." He said he was in the restaurant's wine cellar when the quake struck, and that nothing broke there.
Japan's Nuclear Regulation Authority said no abnormalities were reported at three nuclear power plants in the affected areas. All of Japan's nuclear plants are offline following a magnitude-9.0 earthquake and massive tsunami in 2011 that sent three reactors at the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant into meltdown. Fukushima is about 250 kilometers (155 miles) northeast of where Saturday's earthquake occurred."
Reading the second article, it was as if USA TODAY had read my mind and taken the words right out of my mouth, for note, it is they, and not I, who are raising the comparison with Fukushima. Indeed, why mention the latter event at all? After all, there are no nuclear reactors to melt down on Okinawa; there are no tsumamis sweeping over Habuka. So what's the common thread?
Well, since USA TODAY raised the comparison (not me), the common thread is this: recall that before Fukushima, there was another, much larger, Japanese political earthquake, as a new government took power in Japan, and quickly and quietly began politely requesting that the USA remove its bases in Japan. There was talk, even, of a state visit of the Japanese Emperor to Beijing to mend old fences between the two countries. Then, recall what happened next. Then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates issued a threat to Japan (not even a veiled one), that if it persisted in that course of action, there would be dire consequences. Then, a short time later, we had Fukushima, an earthquake-and-tsunami of rare power. The coincidence of the two events had some in Japan wondering if, indeed, the earthquake and tsunami had been artificially induced.
Now, Japan suffers from earthquakes all the time. But in the Fukushima instance, a powerful geophysical earthquake followed a powerful political one, one with huge geopolitical implications. In this case, again, there is a political event (one of lesser consequence, but nonetheless important), followed by a lesser (but still powerful) geophysical event. And again, I am not the one raising Fukushima; USA TODAY is, when there is little contextual connection between the two events other than the political one of anti-American-base slates being elected. So one has to wonder, is the newspaper the messenger boy for another message for the perfect plausible deniability that mother nature affords those that might be in possession of technologies to manipulate or cause geophysical events?
First there was the inexplicable sell-off of Indonesian sovereign securities; then there was a tsunami. Then there was a new Japanese government with a decidedly anti-base agenda; then there was an earthquake and melting reactors. Then there were new local Japanese governments with a decidedly anti-base agenda; then there was an earthquake. I don't know about you, but one is an "event," two is a "coincidence," but three begins to look like a pattern.
See you on the flip side...