The night of April 14 through April 15 marks the anniversary of the catastrophic sinking of the famous RMS Titanic, along with the appalling loss of over 1,500 lives in the icy waters of the North Atlantic.
After leaving the US Army and reading more about the details of the Titanic catastrophe, and in particular the contrasting actions of Captains E.J. Smith of the Titanic, Stanley Lord of the Californian, and Arthur H. Rostron of the Carpathia, I often wondered why the actions of these three captains were not used as a valuable leadership study for officers. Later, after encountering some of the analysis which challenges the official story (that is to say, the "conspiracy theory" which examines evidence that the Titanic disaster was actually deliberate, at least in the sinking of the ship itself if not the horrendous loss of so many lives), the fact that such an obvious potential study in action and inaction in the face of disaster was never actually mentioned in all the days I spent at West Point or in the Regular Army as an officer on active duty becomes (perhaps, if any of those theories are correct) more understandable.
For the record, such leadership studies and discussions were a nearly constant feature of life both as a cadet at West Point and an officer in the 82nd Airborne and 4th Infantry Divisions. We studied and discussed (over and over, on not just one but on multiple occasions) the actions of the officers involved in the Breaker Morant incident during the Boer War (for example), or of the officers involved in the airborne invasion of Holland (which were dramatized in the movie A Bridge Too Far). But the actions of the officers involved in the Titanic disaster were never even mentioned. Perhaps this is because those actions took place on ships at sea (perhaps officers in the Navy discuss them all the time -- I don't know). However, it is also possible that they are not discussed because there appears to be strong evidence suggesting the possibility that something more was at work than an accident at sea, and that too much examination of the facts of the case would suggest this possibility even to young officers or cadets without much -- or any -- knowledge of the sea.
It is a fact that the US Congressional investigation, conducted by a Senator who was famously not personally familiar with the ocean or with maritime operations (and who was lambasted in the media for that fact, particularly by the media in Great Britain), uncovered the fact that Captain Stanley Lord of the Californian (the ship closest to the Titanic on the night that the Titanic sank) was told by his officers during the night of rockets being fired by a ship nearby, but that he neither came to the deck nor even ordered his wireless operator to be awakened to turn on the wireless set; had he done so, the wireless operator would have heard the multiple distress signals being broadcast by the wireless operators on Titanic.
Further, the US Congressional inquiry, as well as the subsequent British inquiry, determined that there was a "suspicious lack of any entries about rockets in the Californian's log" and that the pages of the "scrap log" -- an informal log which the officers use to record entries prior to recording them in the official log for the record -- pertaining to the night of April 14 to 15 were missing, while the rest of the log was intact (the quotation is from page 194 of Daniel Allen Butler's book Unsinkable, which notes that the transcript and official findings of both the American and British formal inquiries into the disaster call attention to this same suspicious fact regarding the log of the Californian)*. The captain of the Californian's failure to get up from his nap on the settee in his chartroom, or even to order the wireless to be activated and the wireless operator to be roused upon multiple reports of white rockets being fired nearby, is well-nigh inexplicable, and it is clear that both inquiries found his actions inexcusable and culpable and said so.
It is also curious, as some of the documentaries examining the possibility of a conspiracy in the Titanic disaster have noted, that the passenger liner Californian was making its way from England to Boston without any passengers on board, and that it had stopped for the night quite close to the point where Titanic would eventually founder. Some astute analysts of the disaster have wondered at the fact that Californian was sent on that mission despite the fact (well-known to Titanic historians) that there was a major coal strike going on throughout Great Britain, and that coal was difficult to come by at the time that Californian and Titanic left England.
Lord's inexcusable inaction could be contrasted with the commendable -- and, in fact, heroic -- action of Captain Arthur Rostron of Carpathia, who immediately ordered his ship to steam at full speed towards the reported location of Titanic the moment his wireless operator perceived that Titanic was in distress. While Californian was probably eleven miles away, Carpathia was about fifty-eight miles away, and it took Rostron about four hours to arrive on scene -- the Titanic sank only two hours after Carpathia began steaming towards her. Nevertheless, Rostron and his ship's crew were responsible for rescuing those in the lifeboats when they arrived, and the captain of the Carpathia made several correct decisions in order to get there as quickly as possible, including cutting off heat and hot water to the rest of the ship in order to maximize the steam available for locomotion, and doubling the lookouts both aloft and on deck in order to watch for ice as the steam plowed through the ice fields at night towards the site of Titanic's distress call.
Rostron's clear-headed and decisive action also contrasts sharply with the aimless inaction of the captain of Titanic, and with the haphazard and desultory loading of lifeboats on the stricken ship. The videos included on this page, however, contain the analysis of those who suggest that there is evidence that the Titanic was deliberately sunk, possibly as an insurance scam -- a theory which would explain the lack of real concern among the captain and officers, if they had been told that Californian would be standing by in the vicinity in order to pick everyone up before the ship went down.
Many of those who believe Titanic was sunk deliberately believe that it was actually Titanic's sister ship Olympic which was sunk -- that Olympic had been badly damaged by the same Captain Smith in an earlier event for which her captain was found culpable, and that because of this culpability, the insurance coverage would not pay for the repair of the fundamental structural damage on the Olympic. Instead of just "eating the loss" (and probably going out of business), this theory proposes that the owners of Olympic and Titanic switched the ships, dressed the damaged Olympic up as Titanic, and then sank it on purpose on its maiden voyage. Those holding this theory often posit that Californian was maneuvered into place to await the rescue of the crew and passengers, and that Lord either erroneously failed to realize that the signals being sent were from the ship he was supposed to rescue (perhaps because the pre-arranged signals were supposed to be colored rockets and all those reported by his officers were white rockets), or did not see the signals because one or both ships were in slightly the wrong place (this theory is harder to maintain, in light of the fact that an engineer of the Californian went and made a sworn affidavit that the officers on his ship had said they had seen rockets and had reported them multiple times to their captain, who remained on the settee in the chartroom the entire night, and in light of the missing pages in the Californian's scrap log, which probably mentioned the rockets).
A more sinister theory suggests that, although the captain and officers of the Titanic had been told a ship was coming to rescue them, Lord had been told not to do so in order to deliberately cause the loss of life of some of those aboard Titanic, in particular those with a powerful voice against the formation of a central bank in the United States (a central bank which was, in fact, created in the year following the disaster).
Thus, while the Titanic disaster was never used as a leadership laboratory for cadets or officers while I was at West Point or in the US Army, this horrendous tragedy should be carefully examined for the possibility that the "conventional narrative" may be very far from the truth of what actually took place. The videos embedded on this page (links to those videos are here, here and here) present numerous pieces of evidence which suggest the strong possibility of conspiracy in the sinking of the ship. Among the evidence which suggests this possibility are minute differences between the Olympic and Titanic which suggest that the ship which sailed on April 12 may have been the damaged Olympic and not Titanic, the fact that several notable passengers including J. P. Morgan (a strong advocate for the creation of a central bank in the US) booked passage on the ship and then made excuses to miss the voyage, the fact that Titanic had trouble finding enough men to shovel coal in the engine rooms despite the fact that work was scarce elsewhere and times were difficult with high unemployment, reports that Titanic listed suspiciously to one side just as the damaged Olympic was known to do, and many others, in addition to the very suspicious activities of Captain Smith, Captain Lord, and the desultory fashion in which the lifeboats were loaded (which directly contributed to the death toll being even larger than it might otherwise have been).
On the other hand, at least one of the videos (this one) presents some strong evidence which suggests that Olympic and Titanic were not in fact switched, and indeed concludes at the end that such a switch never did happen. Even without a switch, it is still possible that Titanic (the real one, in this case) was sunk deliberately for other reasons, although without the insurance scam and switch excuse, getting the captain and crew to go along with a plan to deliberately sink the ship would seem to be much more difficult and perhaps impossible (if Smith was culpable for the damage to Olympic, and faced with intense pressure to go along with the insurance scam to prevent the business failure of the White Star Line due to his own error, his decision to go along with such a plan -- especially if he had been told that the Californian would be nearby to prevent loss of human life -- might be more easily understood).
Whatever the reader's actual conclusion about these momentous events, the importance of doing proper "due diligence" and not simply rejecting the possibility that history may be different than we have been led to believe should be overwhelmingly obvious from the foregoing discussion. There is a regrettable tendency among some individuals to loudly denounce any investigation into the possibility that conspiracies of powerful men (or women) could arrange tragic catastrophes for their own nefarious purposes, and to say that such investigation is somehow unseemly, or even an insult to those who died or whose lives were horribly altered by such events. However, this impulse is completely wrong-headed, and it is even possible that some of those protesting so loudly against such inquiry have their own reasons to try to steer others away from conducting such due diligence. To the extent that these major events impact each of our lives, we have every right to do our own examination of the evidence and to refuse to simply take someone else's analysis of the situation as the "final word" simply because conventional opinion tells us to.
Furthermore, trying to find out the true picture in no way does disrespect to those who did in fact lose their lives in those events (such as the over 1,500 souls who perished in the Titanic disaster), or to their family members. In fact, if the events and motives behind such incidents were radically different than the world has been led to believe, then papering over the truth with a less-disturbing lie would be in no way more respectful to the memories of those who died, or to their grieving relatives and friends. Those who lost loved ones would most likely want to know the truth, and those who perished deserve the truth and not a fabrication that serves the interests of those whose machinations may have been responsible for those deaths.
Further, if in fact powerful forces are at work behind such historical events as the Titanic disaster, then there are dire implications for everyone alive today, because it means that there are people who will not balk at the outright murder of over a thousand innocent men, women and children in order to achieve their selfish and illegal ends. If this is in fact the case, then others are at risk if such hideous crimes are allowed to be whitewashed by history, and the villains left to continue to use similar tactics again. If those crimes enable those murderers to gain even more power and control, it is even possible that failure to discover those crimes makes others even more vulnerable to the possibility of future actions by those who have already demonstrated their willingness to kill innocents in order to get their way.
It is only by searching out the truth of history and making it known that such incidents can be stopped, by good men and women who believe that no one has the right to violate natural universal law by murdering others, and who refuse to tolerate or condone or overlook such heinous violations and crimes against nature and humanity.
This year, as the fateful anniversary of April 14-15 approaches, supporters of natural law everywhere should make the effort to examine the evidence surrounding the awful sinking of the Titanic in 1912, both for the sake of those who lost their lives that night and for the sake of those alive in the world today, a world that was profoundly changed by that disaster.
Furthermore, whatever their conclusion as to the evidence surrounding the Titanic, we should all commit to the same level of due diligence into other disasters which profoundly alter the course of human history and the world in which we live, and to rejecting those who tell us that the "official narrative" is the only possible account of these major events, and that anyone who dares to question the official narrative should be marginalized, discredited, and ashamed of themselves for even daring to look at the facts for himself or herself. These are the witting or unwitting voices of mind control.
Far from being a reason for shame or ridicule, such investigation is the only way to honor those whose lives have been harmed or ended as a result of such incidents, and the only way to seek justice if in fact there is enough evidence to determine that conspirators have been at work, and to prevent such conspirators or those who emulate them from doing even worse in the future.
* Note that Daniel Allen Butler's Unsinkable does not put forward any actual conspiracy theories such as those discussed in this post nor condone them in any way; however, his description of the actions of the captain of the Californian, and the findings of the American and British inquiries, certainly describe evidence which those investigating the possibility of conspiracy would find very pertinent to that investigation.