If you like this blog

Don't miss Kevin Barrett's radio shows! And visit TruthJihad.com for more...

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Pearl Harbor Treason? Special Two-Hour Debate on the KB Show!

 

Special Two-Hour Episode of the Kevin Barrett Show: A Debate on Pearl Harbor featuring Thomas Kimmel and Webster Tarpley
Did President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Lt. Commander Arthur McCollum, and other U.S. actors commit de facto high treason by implementing an eight-point plan to provoke a Japanese attack on the US, then hiding intelligence on the approaching Japanese fleet from Gen. Short and Admiral Kimmel?  Did they welcome the slaughter of 2,403 Americans as "a pretty cheap price to pay for the unification of the country" as explained by Lt. Commander J.J. Rochefort, commander of Naval Intelligence Station HYPO, Pearl Harbor? And did the treasonous slaughter of Americans in an orchestrated war-trigger incident at Pearl Harbor set the stage for the even more treasonous 9/11 "new Pearl Harbor"?

Arguing in defense of Admiral Kimmel and the foreknowledge thesis (first hour): Thomas Kimmel, grandson of the Admiral, backed up by yours truly.  Defending FDR (second hour): historian Webster Tarpley, author of three crucial books on Obama as well as the seminal 9/11 truth book 9/11: Synthetic Terror.

Read more about the show here.  Listen to the archive here.

9 comments:

  1. Webster Tarpley sent me an email headed "Stinnett copies Hitler's view of FDR: 'provocateur,' sole cause of WWII." The body of the message contained an extract from Germany’s Declaration of War Against the United States
    Hitler’s Reichstag Speech of December 11, 1941.

    My response:

    If WWI and WWII were two phases of the same war, it seems to me that the British were the real aggressors (since the 1914-1945 war was incited to preserve the world domination of the Anglosphere and the financiers who own it). Could it be that Hitler is telling more truth in this speech than FDR and Churchill ever told? Can you deny that Roosevelt was basically lying the whole time he was pretending he wanted to stay out of the war -- while in this speech Hitler is basically telling the truth about FDR's lies? Isn't it way past time to re-think the official mythology of the Anglo-Jewish war to pre-emptively smash Germany that we falsely divide into two "world wars"? Maybe this, like most other conflicts, was not one in which one side -- the stronger side that won and got to write history -- had a monopoly on virtue?

    Webster, I think your admiration for FDR has forced you into a position of cognitive dissonance. Your defense of FDR on the Pearl Harbor issue boils down to "he didn't do it -- and it's a good thing he did it!"

    Kevin

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ha, Tarpley comes on your show and tells you how to run it. What an arrogant loud mouth.

    He throws around this word 'libertarian" to cover up his fudging of history.

    TARPLEY never ever mentions the issue of Jewish Power, in any of his critiques, which makes him highly suspect.

    I remember years ago he made fun (in his usual condescending way) of the idea that Israel was involved in 911, I am sure he would still say the same thing.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Tarpley needs to read Douglas Reed and The Nameless War by Archibald Ramsey!

    from a friend who studies WWII...

    OK. I don't like Webster Tarpley. The guy is a joo apologist for a joo agender. He seems to be very fond of using terms such as "libertarian" and "Facist" to describe this clique responsible for maligning FDR. I would like to challenge anyone in attempting to understand fascism rather than use it as a basis for comparison which Tarpley is obviously fond of doing.

    Tarpley also goes into the ridiculous such as "facism spreading over the Euro/Asia landmass with Hitler conquering North Africa for the hell of it then "magically leap-frogging" into Latin America. When Barret mentions the massive atrocities committed by Stalin, Tarpley simply ignores him. Explanation for that is that Roosevelt WAS PRO- STALIN and there is documentary proof of that. If Tarpley had denied it, he would of gone on record for denying something that was undeniable.

    Further examples of Tarpley's ridiculous take on things:
    The prospect of a joint German/Japanese attack on SU. Tarpley dismisses it because the "SU were too tough for Japan". He cites the clash between Japanese forces and SU on 20 August1939 before outbreak of WW2. It occurred on the border of Japanese controlled Manchuko and SU controlled Mongolia. It started off as a border clash and escalated into a full scale war. The SU did trounce Japan due to the fact that the SU outgunned and had more numerous tanks and aircraft compared to the Japs. Tarpley cites that incident as the reason why Japan never invaded SU because the SU were simply "too tough". What Tarpley omits and Barnett fails to pick up on was that things were different in 1941 compared to 1939. In 1941 Germany and their allies were tearing into the SU and destroying their forces piece meal. What opportunity did that present Japan? A golden opportunity. If Japan had pursued the course that Matsuoka had pleaded for, the SU would of been defeated WW2 would of come to an end, but Roosevelt and his joo/masonic handlers had other ideas who obviously had some degree of influence in the Japanese leadership which I have discussed before.

    Tarpley ADMITS THAT ROOSEVELT WAS "LOOKING FOR A CLASH IN THE NORTH ATLANTIC". US SHIPS WERE ORDERED TO FIRE ON GERMAN SUBS. WAR MATERIAL WAS SENT TO AID BRITAIN. US BASES WERE ESTABLISHED IN GREENLAND AND ICELAND AND THROUGHOUT THE ATLANTIC. GERMAN AND ITALIAN FORCES WERE BEING KILLED BECAUSE OF US WAR PRODUCTION. ROOSEVELT WAS AIDING THE USSR, TARPLEY ADMITS TO ALL OF THAT. SO HOW CAN HE SAY THAT ROOSEVELT WAS NOT TRYING TO DRAG THE US INTO A WAR?!!!? AND ANYONE WHO SAYS OTHERWISE IS A "LIBERTARIAN FASCIST". IT'S TOTAL BULLSHIT!

    Both Kimmel of Tarpley both clearly state that Roosevelt's agenda was to involve the US in the war. Tarpley simply denies that Roosevelt had anything to do with the Japanese strike on Pearl Harbor and lays the blame at the feet of Winston Churchill and the "libertarian fascist elite" embedded in the US armed forces. Churchill is to blame along with FDR. Both were controlled by their joo handlers, and both had set the course for the destruction of Germany. Japan simply served as a means to an end.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh my my,

    I understand you like to have guests with opposing views, that is good, and rare in these days in group-think.

    But the overall consensus among those in the know about Tarpley is negative, he may be really really smart but he is

    still a liar.

    As for Rancourt, unbelievable, the guy pooh poohs chemtrails?! And since when is he a soil expert?

    If you listen to him carefully he sounds like Alan Dershowitz, lots of clever Talmudic tricks to gain the audience confidence

    while covering up the important facts. Sure, more data is wanted, but for him to take that tack

    really shows what a suspicious character he is indeed. Many suspicious characters out and about these days.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh my my,

    I understand you like to have guests with opposing views, that is good, and rare in these days in group-think.

    But the overall consensus among those in the know about Tarpley is negative, he may be really really smart but he is

    still a liar.

    As for Rancourt, unbelievable, the guy pooh poohs chemtrails?! And since when is he a soil expert?

    If you listen to him carefully he sounds like Alan Dershowitz, lots of clever Talmudic tricks to gain the audience confidence

    while covering up the important facts. Sure, more data is wanted, but for him to take that tack

    really shows what a suspicious character he is indeed. Many suspicious characters out and about these days.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Rancourt's weak attack on Harrit showcased the strength of Harrit's position.

    And since I lean toward Pearl Harbor revisionism, and oppose the good-vs.-evil myth of WWII, I don't think it hurts my credibility to show I'm willing to listen to opposing views. Tarpley seems to believe what he's saying, so whatever he is, he isn't a liar.

    Also I think radio works better when it sometimes serves up opposing viewpoints. Some of the other 9/11 truth shows ("Visibility" etc.) are predictable echo chambers.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This program with Tarpley is amazing. Kevin, you and your readers/listeners should definitely listen to my program from Dec. 6 and my upcoming one on Dec. 13.
    http://reasonradionetwork.com/20101206/the-heretics-hour-gordon-duff-prescott-bush-and-the-interview-that-wasnt

    ReplyDelete
  8. As a matter of fact, you should listen to this program too.
    http://reasonradionetwork.com/20101129/the-heretics-hour-the-roosevelt-legacy-on-world-history

    ReplyDelete