---

“Bringing the allies together, is because they are fuller aware of, and remember, to the congresswoman’s point [Liz Cheney]. WWII remember. This concept of isolation, we were once there as a nation, and then Pearl Harbour happened. Let’s remember recent history. Europe remembers it well.

Then when we got attacked, Pearl Harbour, we jumped in. And it is because America jumped in that we were ultimately able to win that war. And it should be a constant reminder to us, we have to remember history.

That isolationism, which is exactly what Donald Trump is pushing, pull out of NATO, abandon our friends…ISOLATIONISM IS NOT INSULATION. It is not insulation, it will not insulate us from harm in terms of our national security.

So I say that to emphasise a point that the congresswoman [Liz Cheney] made and another point I make is also check out where he has been on how he thinks about America’s military and service members. One of the great great American heroes, prisoner of war, John McCain does anybody remember?”

• Kamala Harris with Liz Cheney at the “Country Over Party” platform

I am sure most of us are all quite puzzled as to how the managers for Kamala Harris thought this was somehow going to be a strategic move to win support for her as the next President of the United States…by associating herself with those who managed the George Bush Jr. administration, including the illegal invasion of Iraq that was justified using cooked British intelligence, and the creation of the Patriot Act, which was supposed to only “temporarily” remove citizen’s rights in the righteous cause to fight terrorism… and 23 years later is still in place.

Actually Biden has trumpeted himself as the originator of the Patriot Act and as early as mid-Nov 2020, just a couple of months into his Presidency, Biden was already discussing the need to pass further laws against domestic terrorism. As Glenn Greenwald would make the point in his formidable paper The New Domestic War on Terror is Coming, “what needs to be criminalized that is not already a crime?”, keeping in mind that as of June 2020, the United States has the highest prisoner rate in the world, followed by El Salvador, Turkmenistan, Thailand and Palau. I am sure Kamala fit right in with this model as Attorney General of California (Jan. 2011-Jan. 2017).

So, not so surprising after all that Kamala is buddy buddies with the Cheneys.

However, the transparent lunacy is still astounding. This is truly a case of “the Emperor has no clothes”. You would expect this sort of crazy talk to occur after you win the elections, when you unveil your diabolical plan for world government, not weeks before!

Apparently what Kamala has taken as the important history lesson of WWII, is that we need to go to war with…the Russians?!?!

It reminds me of that time in the Canadian Parliament when Zelensky was visiting just over a year ago and the Canadian House of Commons Speaker Anthony Rota said:

“We have here in the chamber today, Ukrainian Canadian world veteran from the Second World War, who fought for the Ukrainian Independence against the Russians … (becomes wide-eyed and pauses) and continues to support the troops today even at his age of 98 (applause and standing ovation).”

Yes, that happened. And yes, this Ukrainian Canadian WWII veteran was a member of the Waffen-SS Grenadier Division, where they killed not just Russians, but Polish and Jewish civilians as well.

Rota was promptly fired, even though he was clearly not the one who brought Yaroslav Hunka to be celebrated in front of Zelensky in the Canadian Parliament, nor clearly was he the one to even write his own speech.

To make things even more comical, and disturbed, Trudeau’s “apology” to Canadian citizens went like this:

“It is going to be really important that all of us push back against Russian propaganda, Russian disinformation, and continue our steadfast and unequivocal support for Ukraine as we did last week announcing further measures to stand with Ukraine in Russia’s illegal war against it.”

Apparently Trudeau’s apology for celebrating a Waffen-SS veteran in Canadian Parliament was that this was all Russia’s fault?!?

Then we have Chrystia Freeland, Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, who also blamed “ze Russians” (when in Rome do as the Romans do) and actually blamed the non-existent “KGB” for spreading an authentic picture of herself holding a UPA flag (a Ukrainian Nazi Blood and Soil flag from WWII) with the words “Glory to Ukraine” that Freeland HERSELF POSTED ON HER OWN TWITTER FEED.

Freeland has also blamed “ze Russians” for her own participation in her Uncle’s research into her grandfather’s background in Ukraine which proved that he was indeed working with the Nazis during WWII. In other words, Freeland voluntarily worked on this research with her Uncle and then blamed “ze Russians” when the research was published by her Uncle, which was his intention the entire time. According to Freeland’s logic, she is the source behind both attacks on her reputation, however, it is the fault of “ze Russians” for spreading this information. Dizzying I know.

Then we have the case of Hillary who also blamed the Russians for exposing to the world the skeletons in her closet (or more like catacomb).

Yes, apparently it is all Russia’s fault that she did not win the elections, despite the fact that her record was clearly riddled with holes as early as the early 2000s, but it was still assumed she could easily become president because they were banking on the American people having the memory of a hamster.

Let us also remember her actions as Secretary of State and her role in the Benghazi attack and the murder of US Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens on September 11th, 2012.

However, again, it is somehow all the baddy Russians fault for why we have been reminded of what was already publicly known – that Hillary has committed crimes and should be in a jail right now… If that is true, that really doesn’t sound like a diservice, but rather was something that should have been done by our very own news agencies assuming we have any left that haven’t yet been captured by the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird.

We should also remind ourselves that the Muller investigations could justify zilch of these reckless and deflective accusations on the part of Hillary and company, but that didn’t stop them from spending over $25 million, which is no doubt much higher today with the never-ending FBI probes against a non-existent bogeyman.

During the Bush/Cheney administration we saw an alignment with Britain in the official launch of operation “Clean Break” by directly and fraudulently instigating an illegal war against Iraq to which the Chilcot Inquiry, aka Iraq Inquiry, released 7 years later, attests to.

This was done by the dubious reporting by British Intelligence setting the pretext for the U.S.’ ultimate invasion into Iraq based off of fraudulent and forged evidence provided by GCHQ, unleashing the “War on Terror”, aka “Clean Break” outline for regime change in the Middle East.

It is this company of people, the orchestrators of the illegal wars, the Patriot Act suppression of human rights, and now a push for a WWIII agenda that Kamala Harris has now openly associated herself with.

So, with all of this in mind, what is the significance of Kamala and Liz stressing that we remember that Pearl Harbour moment?

That ‘Pearl Harbour’ Moment – A NeoCon product of the New American Century and RAND Corporation

In October 2019, Jake Sullivan, who became U.S. National Security Advisor in 2021, stated in an interview with “Sup China” that the U.S. needed a clear threat to rally the world and play the role of saviour of mankind and that China could be that organizing principle for U.S. foreign policy.

Does anyone else hear the echo of Condoleezza Rice, who acted as Secretary of State under the Cheney, I mean, Bush presidency?

“There is nothing like a common enemy to unite us.”

– Condoleezza Rice, US Secretary of State at the time

In the 2019 interview with Sup China, Sullivan acknowledged that the problem was that people were not going to believe that China is a global threat, that their view of China is too positive and that the United States would need a “Pearl Harbour moment,” a real focusing event to change their minds, something he calmly stated that “would scare the hell out of the American people.”

According to Sullivan, from the same man who called for Libyan and Syrian military interventionism, American exceptionalism needed “rescuing” and “reclaiming,” not of course with actual qualitative actions that would earn one’s position as a model of true democratic governance with American citizens and the world, but rather through ever aggressive PR and media shame-based social conditioning, labeling whoever points out the clear hypocrisy of these statements as “threats to national security.”

Actors like Sullivan have shown that they are willing to do anything to achieve that “Pearl Harbour moment,” even if acts of terrorism on their own people are required in order to paint their “enemy” as a monster in the eyes of their citizens, more on this shortly.

This is by no means a new strategy.

Operation Gladio is a perfect example of how NATO conducted a decades-long secret war against its own European citizens and elected governments under the guise of “communist terrorism.”

But it didn’t stay in Europe.

In 1962, General Lyman L. Lemnitzer, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, proposed Operation Northwoods, which was a proposed false-flag operation against American citizens, which called for CIA operatives to both stage and actually commit acts of terrorism against American military and civilian targets and subsequently blame the Cuban government in order to justify a war against Cuba. The plan was drafted by General Lemnitzer specifically and has a striking similarity with NATO’s Operation Gladio.

The logic of Northwoods was the stripe of Gladio. The general staff inclined towards prefabricated violence because they believed benefits gained by the state count more than injustice against individuals. The only important criterion is reaching the objective and the objective was right-wing government.

There was not a single item in the Northwoods manual that did not amount to a blatant act of treason, yet the U.S. military establishment dispatched “Top Secret – Justification for U.S. military Intervention in Cuba” straight to the desk of Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, for onward transmission to President Kennedy.

Needless to say, President Kennedy rejected the proposal and a few months later General Lemnitzer’s term was not renewed as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, having served from October 1st 1960 to September 30th 1962.

However, NATO lost no time, and in November 1962 Lemnitzer was appointed commander of U.S. European Command and as Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO, the latter to which he served from January 1st, 1963 to July 1st, 1969.

Lemnitzer’s was a perfect fit to oversee the cross-continental Gladio operations in Europe. Lemnitzer was a prime motivating force in setting up the Special Forces Group in 1952 at Fort Bragg, where commandos were trained in the arts of guerilla insurgency in the event of a Soviet invasion of Europe. Before long, the men who proudly wore distinctive green berets were cooperating discreetly with the armed forces of a string of European countries and participating in direct military operations, some of them extremely sensitive and of highly dubious legality.

NATO has never been about protecting national security but has in fact been a central threat to the very security of sovereign nation states. Just ask De Gaulle…

This is the same NATO that Kamala tried to shame Trump from wanting to exit the United States from.

The New American Century: The Art of False Flags in Modern Warfare

Jake Sullivan’s discussion with “Sup China” calling for a new Pearl Harbour moment is nothing new. Just like Liz Cheney and Kamala Harris’ call for just that.

In September 2000 a report titled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century” was published by none other than The Project for the New American Century. In the report it is written (pg. 51):

“…the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”

This need for a cataclysmic event is also echoed by the likes of Bret Weistein, whose brother Eric Weinstein is implicated in working with the United Nations to foment the migrant crisis that is now hitting the United States. Coincidence?

Interestingly, within this same report, published by The Project for the New American Century, it is written (pg. 60):

“Although it may take several decades for the process of transformation to unfold, in time, the art of warfare on air, land, and sea will be vastly different than it is today, and ‘combat’ likely will take place in a new dimensions: in space, ‘cyber-space,’ and perhaps the world of microbes…advanced forms of biological warfare that can ‘target’ specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.”

Hmmmmm.

Richard Perle, called the “Prince of Darkness,” by his adversaries and the “Pentagon’s Brains” by his admirers was an acolyte of Albert Wohlstetter, who you could say the godfather of the RAND Corporation. Paul Wolfowitz was another of Wohlstetter’s acolytes. The followers of Wohlstetter were so numerous, whom Perle said Donald Rumsfeld was among, that they called themselves “the St. Andrews prep” boys.

Perle stated the 2003 invasion of Iraq was “the first war that’s been fought in a way that would recognize Albert [Wohlstetter]’s vision of future wars. That it was won so quickly and decisively, with so few casualties and so little damage, was in fact an implementation of his strategy and his vision.” [1]

In fact, this call for the need of a “Pearl Harbour moment” originally came from the Wohlstetters themselves.

A New Pearl Harbour Moment: A RAND Corp baby

In the mid-1950s, Roberta Wohlstetter, Albert’s wife and RAND peer, produced her seminal analysis of Pearl Harbour, recognised by the Pentagon as a definitive work of twentieth-century American military history. The study began as an internal RAND document based on unclassified documents drawn from the congressional record.

Warner Schilling noted in his perceptive review of Roberta’s work on Pearl Harbour that “The main concept that Mrs. Wohlstetter brings to bear on these events [is that]…the pictures of the world that government officials build from intelligence…are not so much a matter of the ‘facts’ their sources make available as they are a function of the ‘theories’ about politics already in their minds which guide both their recognition and their interpretation of said ‘facts’.”

The primary practical lesson of Roberta’s Pearl Harbour was that the United States should invest in rapid and aggressive means for responding to surprise attacks (for more on this story refer here).

On January 12, 2003, Los Angeles Times published an article titled “Agenda Unmasked,” where they write:

“In the hours immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks, long before anyone was certain who was responsible for them, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld reportedly asked that plans be drawn up for an American assault on Iraq…

At first consideration, Rumsfeld’s early targeting of Iraq seems odd. Too little was known, too much uncertain. But the Defense secretary’s desire to attack Iraq was neither impulsive nor reactive. In fact, ever since the first American war against Iraq in 1991, Rumsfeld and others who planned and executed that war have wanted to go back and finish what they started. They said so in reports written for then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney in the last years of the George H.W. Bush administration, and they continued the push when they were out of power during the Clinton years. In the spring of 1997, their efforts coalesced when Rumsfeld, Cheney and others joined together to form the Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, and began concerted lobbying for regime change in Iraq.

In an open letter to President Clinton dated Jan. 26, 1998, the group called for “the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power,” and in a letter dated May 29, 1998, to then-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.)… Signatories to one or both letters included Rumsfeld; William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard magazine and chairman of the PNAC; Elliott Abrams, the convicted Iran-Contra conspirator whom President Bush last year named director of Middle Eastern policy for the National Security Council; Paul D. Wolfowitz, now Rumsfeld’s deputy at the Pentagon; John R. Bolton, now undersecretary of state for arms control; Richard N. Perle, now chairman of the Defense Science Board; Richard Armitage, now Colin Powell’s deputy at the State Department; and Zalmay Khalilzad [another Wohlstetter acolyte [2]], former Unocal Corp. consultant and now special envoy to Afghanistan.

… They expected that the radical changes in U.S. military policy they favored would have to come slowly in the absence of, as the PNAC report “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” put it, a “catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.” On Sept. 11, 2001, they got their Pearl Harbor.”

As the Los Angeles Times article also observes, without 9/11 as their Pearl Harbor, their entire campaign against terror in the Middle East could never have been justified.

In fact, since the disastrous PR campaign of the Vietnam War, most Americans had become horrified at the prospect of entering any more foreign wars on the clearly false and hypocritical terms of bringers of “peace” and “freedom.”

9/11 changed all that.

Thus, when Liz Cheney and Kamala Harris are lecturing you on the importance of remembering Pearl Harbour as a sentiment to bolster an image of the United States as a “saviour of mankind” you now know what they are actually calling for – a scorched earth policy.

 

Appendix: On the Subject of UFOs….yes this is relevant to the Pearl Harbour moment

Readers should also be aware that in this same interview with Sup China Jake Sullivan had the following to say on the subject of UFOs…

Around the 19:00 minute mark of the interview where Jake Sullivan discusses US Foreign Policy as if he were writing a Hollywood Blockbuster movie, his sole focus is on the choice of “narratives” to favour the orientation of the US, which has never been justified but is just accepted as the moral compass of the world:

[Note: once again the focus on “narratives” or as Bret Weinstein referred to them in his recent speech at “Rescue the Republic” our need for story-telling for myths, such as the story of the Phoenix, is brought up in context of the need for a cataclysmic event before the world they envision can form.]

Interviewer: “You said in a talk that [quoting Sullivan] ‘the US had a story about America’s role in the world throughout the Cold War that was based on a defined enemy and a defined mission. Since the end of the Cold War, that tank has run out of gas. We need a new story for people of the world what it is that we are all about. And I don’t think we have done that yet.’ So my question for you is is it possible to have a strategy that gets people to care but isn’t alarmist, idealistic to a fault, or the sort of red-blooded Jacksonian nationalism that could actually end up making situations around the world worse?”

Sullivan: “I don’t know. We don’t actually have a successful example of this in US history. The two moments where the United States really rallied to internationalism were first in the era of Teddy Roosevelt, which was basically about jingoism and imperialism and so forth, and then, in the Cold War, when we had a great enemy.

So it’s either calling forth Manifest Destiny [under the vision of a Teddy Roosevelt] and a kind of crudely racialized view of American superiority and American destiny or its an all encompassing conflict against an ideological foe. Those are the two examples we have. So is there an alternative strategy, and part of the reason that people are so into the idea of turning China into that next great enemy, well there is something in it for everyone honestly. I mean, there is something in it for the people writing articles in foreign affairs…there is something in it for progressives, who want to see much more domestic investment in the US…So, I think that this is the direction we are heading in, because there is something in it for everyone.

But that very much concerns me, I would like to say that there is an alternative which is much more focused on a set of threats and challenges that require the United States to rally the world a la ‘Independence Day’ the movie, you know, like aliens are coming…Yeah right, so like I’m thinking, you know, if aliens came down, uh yeah, we’d rally the world and that would be a great story. And I think people would get totally psyched up for it to avoid global annihilation. So how do you do the same thing with a series of issues that actually do represent genuine threats but that are not nearly as poignant as aliens; climate change, disease, the possibility of terrorists getting their hands on weapons of mass destruction, the possibility of global economic depression. Things that really do require the US to rally and marshal the resources of the globe to, you know, defend our way of life. But it’s sooo abstract. No aliens [Author’s Note i.e. it doesn’t have a great story, a mythos, like fighting aliens would have].

So, I don’t know. I don’t have a good answer, and because I don’t have a good answer and I have not heard one from others, I think we are creeping towards turning China into that answer. And just saying, you know what we are going to do to have an organising principle for US foreign policy, it’s gonna be China.”

Interviewer: “Sure, um, you know Ryan Hasse, the former NSC Director for China, he has this point that basically [pauses] people aren’t buying it. The polling numbers of the US population in respect to China are generally positive [Author’s Note: recall this interview occurred back in 2019] and on the ranking of what’s important is like number 8 to 10. Um, so, you know, is this just an elite thing, will this get translated at some point, um, will it take a, well I don’t know, not a Pearl Harbour incident, but a real focusing event. And if not, do we just sort of muddle along and not care about the world. Is the world ok? There are a lot of threats there so.”

Sullivan: “…there is an interesting dynamic going on between the national security community and the political world of Washington on the one hand and the American public on the other. And one of them is the post 9/11 era of terrorism and the other is China. In the post 9/11 era of terrorism the demand signal for mobilising everything around the terrorist threat that’s coming from people who were freaked out and the national security community and even a lot of political leaders while they responded to that, if you got them on a lie detector, they would say is this threat really as big as everyone is making it out to be. The dynamic is kind of the reverse, right now today, when it comes to China. The national security community is freaked out, the political leadership in Washington is freaked out and the American people are a bit more relaxed about the whole thing thinking well, what do you mean China is their enemy. I don’t get that, I didn’t get that memo [Author’s Note: speaking from the perspective of the American people]…So the question is, can there be a convergence, can the American people be rallied to that, mobilised or motivated to that, and the answer is only yes in my view if something similar to what happened after the second world war happens [Author’s Note: gotcha!] which is, um, as one senator said to Harry Truman, you got to scare the hell out of the American people. This would require active bi-partisan effort to basically turn China into the enemy in the eyes of the people. I think that that is a profound mistake, but again, I think that there will be forces pushing in that direction. And while I agree with Ryan’s assessment of a snapshot of today, ah, whether or not ten years from now we will look at that public opinion data and see a much deeper strain of antipathy towards China, that is an open question right now….”

The point is on this reliance of “narratives” and is what Sullivan is ultimately stressing on, not reality, but “narratives.” Pearl Harbour is one of the more powerful tools for narrative formation among Americans.

Sullivan is speaking about what will be the optimal narrative to use that will sell the American people, on basically a war with China or Cold War 2.0 with China. Not because this is necessary, not because this is for anyone’s necessary benefit or good, but simply so that the US can continue to be regarded as the moral compass of the world. I would also note that this interviewer is a student of the elitist view on foreign policy. He is not speaking in his own words but uses the phrases that he knows will be well received from this elite group of policy shapers. Thus, his words should be understood in this context. Sullivan also by the way carries forward what the interviewer was asking but in a much more nuanced way. There was no disagreement that there is indeed a need for a new Pearl Harbour moment.

His reference to Truman is in reference to the justification for the Truman Doctrine was informally extended to become the basis of American Cold War policy throughout Europe and around the world. It shifted American foreign policy toward the Soviet Union from an anti-fascist alliance to a policy of containment of Soviet expansion as advocated by diplomat George Kennan.

Sullivan is quoting Truman, because it is much safer to quote a provocative quote than to say the words yourself, however, it is essentially what Sullivan wishes to directly communicate.

Sullivan is clearly detached from reality in this interview, and it is evident that he does not actually care about the future of the world’s global citizens let alone American citizens. All he cares about is finding the narrative that will suit what they have been meaning to do this entire time, which is to be the conquerors of the world through a scorched earth policy.

Also check out our docu-series “The Hidden Hand Behind UFOs”

Cynthia Chung is the President of the Rising Tide Foundation and author of the book “The Empire on Which the Black Sun Never Set,” consider supporting her work by making a donation and subscribing to her substack page Through A Glass Darkly.

Footnotes:

[1] Alex Abella (2008), “Soldiers of Reason: The RAND Corporation and the Rise of the American Empire,” Harcourt Books

[2] Ron Robin (2016), “The Cold War They Made: The Strategic Legacy of Roberta and Albert Wohlstetter,” Harvard University Press.