The Most Revolutionary Act

Uncensored updates on world events, economics, the environment and medicine

The Most Revolutionary Act

The Hiroshima Nagasaki “Dress Rehearsal”: The US War Department’s Secret September 15, 1945 “Doomsday Blueprint” to “Wipe the Soviet Union Off the Map”

Posted on by
Reply

By Michel Chussodovky February 1, 2023

The Nobel Peace Laureates are casually blaming Russia, without recalling the history of nuclear war, not to mention Joe Biden’s 1.3 trillion dollar program to develop “more usable”, “low intensity” “preemptive nuclear weapons” to be used on a “first strike basis” against both nuclear and non nuclear states as a means of “self defense”. This is the nuclear doctrine which currently prevails in US-NATO’s confrontation against Russia.

It is clearly outlined in the Neocons’ Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

America’s Manhattan Project

Let us recall the history of  the “doomsday scenario” which was part of America’s Manhattan project launched in 1939 with the participation of Britain and Canada.

The Manhattan Project was a  secret plan to develop the atomic bomb coordinated by the US War Department, headed (1941) by Lieutenant General Leslie Groves.

Prominent physicist  Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer  had been appointed by Lt General Groves to head the Los Alamos Laboratory (also known as Project Y) which was established in 1943 as a “top-secret site for designing atomic bombs under the Manhattan Project”. Oppenheimer was entrusted in recruiting and coordinating a team of prominent nuclear scientists including Italian Physicist and Nobel Prize Laureate Dr. Enrico Fermi who joined the Los Alamos Laboratory in 1944.

Oppenheimer not only played a key role in coordinating the team of nuclear scientists, he was also engaged in routine consultations with the head of the Manhattan project Lieutenant General Groves, specifically with regard to the use of the first atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which resulted in more than 300,000 immediate deaths.

Below is the Transcript of an August 6, 1945 telephone conversation, declassified (between Gen. Groves and Dr. Oppenheimer) hours after the Hiroshima bombing:

Gen. G. I am very proud of you and your people [nuclear scientists]

Dr. O. It went alright?

Gen. G. Apparently it went with a tremendous bang.

Screenshot below, click here to access the complete transcript.

The September 15, 1945 Blueprint to “Wipe the Soviet Union Off the Map” 

Barely two weeks after the official end of World War II (September 2, 1945), the US War Department issued  a blueprint  (September 15, 1945) to “Wipe  the Soviet Union off the Map” (66 cities with 204 atomic bombs), when the US and the USSR were allies. This infamous project is confirmed by declassified documents. (For further details see Chossudovsky, 2017)

Below is the image of the 66 cities of the Soviet Union which had been envisaged as targets by the US War Department.

Click image to enlarge.

The Hiroshima Nagasaki “Dress Rehearsal”

The preparatory documents (see below) confirm that the data pertaining to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks were being used to evaluate the viability as well as the cost of  a much larger attack against the Soviet Union. These documents were finalized 5-6 weeks after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings (6, 9 August 1945).

“To Ensure Our National Security”

Note the correspondence between Major General Norstad and the head of the Manhattan Project, General Leslie Groves, who was in permanent liaison with Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, head of the Los Alamos team of nuclear scientists. 

On September 15, 1945 Norstad sent a memorandum to Lieutenant Leslie Grovesrequesting an estimate of  the “number of bombs required to ensure our national security.” (The First Atomic Stockpile Requirements )

Lieutenant General Groves no doubt in consultation with Dr. Oppenheimerresponded to Major General Norstad in a Memorandum dated September 29, 1945in which he refers to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

See section 2, subsections a, b and c.

“It is not essential to get total destruction of a city in order to destroy its effectiveness. Hiroshima no longer exists as a city even though the area of total destruction is considerably less than total.”

Read carefully. The text below confirms that Hiroshima and Nagasaki was “A Dress Rehearsal”.

Bear in mind the name of the country which is threatening America’s “national security” is not mentioned.

Answering the memorandum of 15 September 1945, [see response below].

The 1949 “Dropshot Plan”: 300 Nuclear Bombs, Targeting More Than 100 Soviet Cities

Numerous US war plans (under the Truman presidency) to attack the Soviet Union were “formulated and revised on a regular basis between 1945 and 1950”. Most of them were totally dysfunctional as outlined by J.W. Smith in his book entitled “The World’s Wasted Wealth 2”.

“The names given to these plans graphically portray their offensive purpose: Bushwhacker, Broiler, Sizzle, Shakedown, Offtackle, Dropshot, Trojan, Pincher, and Frolic.

The US military knew the offensive nature of the job President Truman had ordered them to prepare for and had named their war plans accordingly.”

Dr. Michio Kaku and Daniel Axelrod in their book entitled: “To Win a Nuclear War: the Pentagon’s Secret War Plans,” provide evidence (based on declassified documents) that the September 1945 blueprint was followed by a continuous plan by USG to bomb the Soviet Union (as well as Russia in the post-Cold War era):

“This book [preface by Ramsey Clark] compels us to re-think and re-write the history of the Cold War and the arms race… It provides a startling glimpse into secret U.S. plans to initiate a nuclear war from 1945 to the present.”

The September 1945 Blueprint (66 Cities) was followed in 1949 by another insidious project entitled the Dropshot Plan: 

According to Kaku and Axelrod, the 1949 DropShot consisted of  a plan directed against the Soviet Union to “drop at least 300 nuclear bombs and 20,000 tons of conventional bombs on 200 targets in 100 urban areas, including Moscow and Leningrad (St. Petersburg).

According to the plan Washington would start the war on January 1, 1957.

The Dropshot Plan was formulated prior to Russia’s August 1949 announcement pertaining to the testing of its nuclear bomb.

The Cold War List of 1200 Targeted Cities

The initial 1945 Blueprint to attack 66 cities, the subsequent 1949 Dropshot Plan(targeting 100 cities) were updated in the course of the Cold War. The 1956 Planincluded some 1200 cities in the USSR, the Soviet block countries of Eastern Europe and China (see declassified documents below).

The bombs slated for the attack significantly more powerful in terms of explosive capacity than those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (see below).

We are talking about planned genocide against the Soviet Union, China and Eastern Europe.

Excerpt from list of the 1200 cities targeted for nuclear attack in alphabetical order. National Security Archive, op. cit.

Details pertaining to the “The SAC [Strategic Air Command] Atomic Weapons Requirements Study for 1959, produced in June 1956” were declassified on December 22, 2015 (Excerpts below, click to access full text).

According to the National Security Archive www.nsarchive.org, the SAC, 1956: 

“…provides the most comprehensive and detailed list of nuclear targets and target systems that has ever been declassified. As far as can be told, no comparable document has ever been declassified for any period of Cold War history.

The SAC study includes chilling details. …  the authors developed a plan for the “systematic destruction” of Soviet bloc urban-industrial targets that specifically and explicitly targeted “population” in all cities, including Beijing, Moscow, Leningrad, East Berlin, and Warsaw.  

The SAC document includes lists of more than 1100 airfields in the Soviet bloc, with a priority number assigned to each base. …

A second list was of urban-industrial areas identified for “systematic destruction.”  SAC listed over 1200 cities in the Soviet bloc, from East Germany to China, also with priorities established.  Moscow and Leningrad were priority one and two respectively.  Moscow included 179 Designated Ground Zeros (DGZs) while Leningrad had 145, including “population” targets.  … According to the study, SAC would have targeted Air Power targets with bombs ranging from 1.7 to 9 megatons. 

Exploding them at ground level, as planned, would have produced significant fallout hazards to nearby civilians.  SAC also wanted a 60 megaton weapon which it believed necessary for deterrence, but also because it would produce “significant results” in the event of a Soviet surprise attack. One megaton would be 70 times the explosive yield of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima.  (emphasis added).

[…]

The Bulletin: Founded by Manhattan Project Scientists in September 1945

In a bitter irony, in the immediate wake of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was founded in 1945 in Chicago by Manhattan Project scientists, who had been involved in the development of the atomic bomb.

Two years later, in 1947, The Bulletin devised the Doomsday Clock, “with an original setting of seven minutes to midnight”.

The initiative was formulated at a time when there was no arms race: There was only one nuclear weapons state, namely the USA, which was intent upon carrying out a Doomsday scenario (genocide) against the Soviet Union formulated in September 1945.

In 1947, when the Doomsday Clock was created, the “justification” which was upheld by The Bulletin was that:

“the greatest danger to humanity came … from the prospect that the United States and the Soviet Union were headed for a nuclear arms race.”

The underlying premise of this statement was to ensure that the US retain a monopoly over nuclear weapons.

While in 1947, “The Plan to Wipe the Soviet Union of the Map” was still on the drawing Board of the Pentagon, the relevant documents were declassified thirty years later in 1975. Most of the former Manhattan project scientists were not aware of the September 1945 blueprint against the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union emerged as a nuclear power in August 1949, two years after the launching of the Doomsday Clock, largely in view of applying what was later entitled “deterrence”, namely an action to discourage a nuclear attack by the US. At the height of the Cold War and the Arms Race, this concept eventually evolved into what was defined as “Mutually Assured Destruction”.

While several authors and scientists featured by The Bulletin have provided a critical perspective concerning America’s nuclear weapons program, there was no cohesive attempt to question the history nor the legitimacy of  the Manhattan Project.

The broader tendency has been to “erase history”, sustaining the “rightfulness” of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while also casually placing the blame on Russia, as well as China and North Korea.

[…]

Via https://michelchossudovsky.substack.com/p/doomsday-blueprint-wipe-off-soviet-union

Cashless Society: WEF Boasts That 98% Of Central Banks Are Adopting CBDCs

Posted on by
Reply

Zero Hedge

Whatever happened to the WEF?  One minute they were everywhere in the media and now they have all but disappeared from public discourse.  After the pandemic agenda was defeated and the plan to exploit public fear to create a perpetual medical autocracy was exposed, Klaus Schwab and his merry band of globalists slithered back into the woodwork.  To be sure, we’ll be seeing them again one day, but for now the WEF has relegated itself away from the spotlight and into the dark recesses of the Davos echo chamber.

Much of their discussions now focus on issues like climate change or DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion), but one vital subject continues to pop up in the white papers of global think tanks and it’s a program that was introduced very publicly during covid.  Every person that cares about economic freedom should be wary of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) as perhaps the biggest threat to human liberty since the attempted introduction of vaccine passports.

The WEF recently boasted in a new white paper that 98% of all central banks are now pursuing CBDC programs.  The report, titled ‘Modernizing Financial Markets With Wholesale Central Bank Digital Currency’, notes:

“CeBM is ideal for systemically important transactions despite the emergence of alternative payment instruments…Wholesale central bank digital currency (wCBDC) is a form of CeBM that could unlock new economic models and integration points that are not possible today.”

The paper primarily focuses on the streamlining of crossborder transactions, an effort which the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) has been deeply involved in for the past few years.  It also highlights an odd concept of differentiated CBDC mechanisms, each one specifically designed to be used by different institutions for different reasons.  Wholesale CBDCs would be used only by banking institutions, governments and some global corporations, as opposed to Retail CBDCs which would be reserved for the regular population.

How the value and buying power of Wholesale CBDCs would differ is not clear, but it’s easy to guess that these devices would give banking institutions a greater ability homogenize international currencies and transactions.  In other words, it’s the path to an eventual global currency model.  By extension, the adoption of CBDCs by governments and global banks will ultimately lead to what the WEF calls “dematerialization” – The removal of physical securities and money.  The WEF states:

“As with the Bank of England’s (BOE) RTGS modernization programme, the intention is to introduce a fully digitized securities system that is future-proofed for incremental adoption of DLT (Distributed Ledger Technology). The tokenization of assets involves creating digital tokens representing underlying assets like real estate, equities, digital art, intellectual property and even cash. Tokenization is a key use case for blockchain, with some estimates pointing towards $4-5 trillion in tokenized securities on DLTa  by 2030.” 

Finally, they let the cat out of the bag:

“The BIS proposed two models for bringing tokenization into the monetary system: 1) Bring CBDCs, DTs and tokenized assets on to a common unified ledger, and 2) pursue incremental progress by creating interlinking systems.

They determined the latter option was more feasible given that the former requires a reimagination of financial systems. Experimentation with the unified ledger concept is ongoing.”

To interpret this into decoded language – The unified ledger is essentially another term for a one world digital currency system completely centralized and under the control of global banks like the BIS and IMF.  The WEF and BIS are acknowledging the difficulty of introducing such a system without opposition, so, they are recommending incremental introduction using “interlinking systems” (attaching CBDCs to paper currencies and physical contracts and then slowly but surely dematerializing those assets and making digital the new norm).  It’s the totalitarian tip-toe.

The BIS predicts there will be at least 9 major CBDCs in circulation by the year 2030; this is likely an understatement of the intended plan.  Globalists have hinted in the past that they prefer total digitization by 2030.

A cashless society would be the end game for economic anonymity and freedom in trade.  Unless alternative physical currencies are widely adopted in protest, CBDCs would make all transactions traceable and easily interrupted by governments and banks.  Imagine a world in which all trade is monitored, all revenues are monitored and transactions can be blocked if they are found to offend the mandates of the system.  Yes, these things do happen today, but with physical cash they can be circumvented.

Imagine a world where your ability to spend money can be limited to certain retailers, certain services, certain products and chosen regions based on your politics, your social credit score and your background.  The control that comes with CBDCs is immense and allows for complete micromanagement of the population.  The fact that 98% of central banks are already adopting this technology should be one of the biggest news stories of the decade, yet, it goes almost completely ignored.

[…]

Via https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/cashless-society-wef-boasts-98-central-banks-are-adopting-cbdcs

Psyops of 1994 Rwanda Genocide Continues With 30th Anniversary Commemoration

Posted on by
Reply
[Source: blackenterprise.com]

By Jeremy Kuzmarov

Rwandan regime and Western intelligence agencies and their media and academic assets have spread disinformation for three decades

On April 7, Rwandan President Paul Kagame commemorated the 30th anniversary of the 1994 Rwandan genocide by lighting a flame in honor of the victims in front of foreign dignitaries, and giving a speech in which he blamed the international community for “failing all of us” because of its inaction “whether from contempt or cowardice.”

Kagame also stated that Rwandans were disgusted by critics who “questioned or revised the history of the genocide,” said to have been perpetrated by Hutus against Tutsis.

One of the dignitaries in the crowd was former president Bill Clinton, who wrote in his memoir that his administration “did not act quickly enough after the killing [by the Hutu against the Tutsi] began.”[1]

President Joe Biden, a U.S. Senator at the time of the genocide, released a statement on April 7 emphasizing that “most of the more than 800,000 women, men and children killed in the one hundred days that followed the launching of the genocide were ‘ethnic Tutsis.’”

Biden’s claim is contradicted by the 1991 Rwandan census, which listed 596,000 Tutsis living in Rwanda, with 300,000 estimated to have survived. That would mean that 296,000 Tutsis were killed by Hutu and that the rest of the dead—over 500,000—were Hutus. An overwhelming number of the latter were killed by the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), which Kagame led.[2]

The RPF had helped trigger the genocide by invading Rwanda illegally from Uganda in 1990 against the wishes of U.S. Ambassador Robert Flaten, starting a civil war; and by shooting down the airplane of Rwanda’s Hutu President Juvénal Habyarimana to avoid implementing a power-sharing agreement between Hutu and Tutsis.

Contrary to Clinton’s claims that the U.S. did not act quickly enough, the Clinton administration had in reality “acted quickly” by a) providing military training to the RPF beginning in January 1994; b) allegedly supplying Kagame, through the CIA, with the missiles used to shoot down Habyarimana’s airplane; c) landing 330 Marines at Burundi’s Bujumbura Airport in April 1994; d) off-loading material rumored to be weapons to the RPF in Mombasa harbor; and e) deploying 800 U.S. soldiers after the genocide to rebuild and control Kigali’s airport and provide military training, satellite surveillance and arms to the RPF.[3]

A U.S. soldier from Texas said that “we are not supposed to let our families know that we were sent to Rwanda,” while one from Connecticut said, “human rights and democracy are none of our concerns. We are concerned with making sure that Kagame’s regime is well planted and can survive.”[4]

The myth of non-U.S. intervention in Rwanda has been used by liberal hawks like Samantha Power, National Security Adviser in the Obama administration and current USAID administrator, to initiate more “humanitarian interventions.” On the eve of the 2011 Operation Odyssey Dawn over Libya, Power claimed that the U.S. could not allow another Rwanda to happen.

The real agenda underlying U.S. intervention in Rwanda was to supplant French influence in Central Africa (France supported Habyarimana’s regime), and to establish a regional proxy that could destabilize the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and help U.S.-based investors, including prominent Clinton family donors, gain access to the DRC’s lucrative mineral wealth.

U.S. covert intelligence and guerrilla warfare operative Roger Winter, head of the U.S. Committee for Refugees, cultivated close ties with the Tutsi guerrilla exile community, beginning in the late 1980s, when Kagame emerged as a leader of the Tutsi exile force in Uganda plotting to take back power in Rwanda.[5]

The RPF forces supporting Kagame went into exile during the reign of Habyarimana (1973-1994) and his predecessor, Grégoire Kayibanda (1961-1973), who ruled Rwanda after the triumph of the so-called Hutu Power revolution in the early 1960s.

The Belgian colonial rulers had empowered a Tutsi ruling aristocracy, which badly repressed Rwanda’s majority Hutu population, who reclaimed power under Kayibanda and Habyarimana.

Paul Kagame was one of the “’59ers” who left Rwanda in 1959 when he was a child.

The organization which in the late 1980s became the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) was founded by Tutsis in Uganda who left Rwanda 1959-1967, or were the children of those. Most monarchist Tutsis chose exile over subordination to any Hutu, who they considered inferior. Kayibanda’s Hutu majority government welcomed refugees to return as long as they denounced the Inyenzi terrorism and their avowed commitment to overthrow the First Republic.

To enable the RPF’s reconquest of Rwanda, the Bush I administration had provided $183 million in economic aid to Uganda—a higher amount than in the previous 27 years combined. The aid was channeled to the RPF, enabling it to carry out its invasion of Rwanda that provoked the genocide.

Further, the Bush administration increased the military training budget for Uganda and procured TOW missiles for the Ugandan military, which assisted the 1990 RPF invasion of Rwanda.[6]

While being groomed for power, Paul Kagame was trained in psychological warfare tactics at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas—a training that has paid off handsomely.

Kagame has legitimated his rule and repeated invasions of the DRC by claiming to be a hero for saving his country from genocide carried out by Hutu militias (Interahamwe) under orders from extremist leaders who spread anti-Tutsi hatred over the radio.

However, this story is contradicted by the census data and on numerous other levels.

An alleged “genocide fax” warning of a premeditated plot by Hutu extremists sent by General Roméo Dallaire, commander of UN peacekeeping forces, to another Canadian general, Maurice Baril, in January 1994, has all the markings of a fabrication.[7]

The fax was not seen until November 1995 when it was mysteriously sent to UN headquarters bearing the address of the British military academy at Sandhurst. The informant upon whom Dallaire based his information, Jean-Pierre Turatsinze, a Hutu Interahamwe (paramilitary) defector, was an RPF agent who was conveniently killed in Tanzania after joining the RPF there.

After Habyarimana’s plane exploded in mid-air, Kagame’s RPF forces circled around Kigali rather than heading south where most of the Interahamwe killings were taking place.

Kagame refused the Rwandan government forces’ repeated requests for a cease-fire to allow civilian protection measures. An International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) witness recounted examples of General Kagame ordering his troops not to intervene to save civilians and of officers being removed from their command for attempting to do so.

Kagame’s apparent calculation was that the greater the massacres, the better their justification for seizing power, a goal the U.S. and UK governments shared.

[…]

The Atlantic used Kennedy Ndahiro to produce their agitprop, in 2019, and they did not vet him then and did not vet him as a source in 2023, but he is a Tutsi extremist, and he offers a prime example of Ubwenge put into practice.

Ubwenge is the Kinyarwanda term that describes a very sophisticated, studied and inculcated practice of lying. The term also includes an element of pride that the user demonstrates in their ability to pull something over on the victim [typically, but not only, the white man].

Ndahiro’s original piece in The Atlantic was what I would call a coup d’état achieved by the RPF propaganda machine, except that it really was nothing more than regurgitated distortion recycled, repackaged, reconstituted in a new form. The RPF won the propaganda war.

U.S. intelligence and defense attache’s who facilitated the RPF “victories” in Rwanda and Congo-Zaire—some of them on the ground with the RPF—during the multiple genocides (1994-1998) include Lt. Col. Thomas P. Odom, Richard Skow, Lt. Col. Richard K. Orth, Lt. Colonel Bud Rassmusen  and the Defense Intelligence Agency’s “Mr. Africa” spymaster William G. Thom. These guys must be very proud of their accomplishments.

[…]

Related to the question about Clinton and the U.S. government response, the people of the United States will some day actually recognize the obvious fact that virtually every U.S. president from at least Eisenhower on [and, arguably, each one before that] had a propensity to practice their own [North] American form of Ubengwe.

William Jefferson Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton’s interests in Central Africa followed a trajectory that began with their organized criminal activities in the diamond sector [and others] in Arkansas long before Bill began hosting diamond kingpin Maurice Tempelsman at the White House or on Templesman’s yacht moored off Martha’s Vineyard.

[…]

The English-speaking Tutsi RPF shot and massacred and burned[9] its way to power in Rwanda from 1990 to 1995, not caring about its role in facilitating the genocide of the French-speaking Tutsis (the so-called 100 days of genocide in 1994). The RPF also committed genocide against the Hutus in Rwanda, prior to 1994, and those Hutus who got away from the RPF [and the rest of its Ugandan military brotherhood] in Rwanda were then hunted and slaughtered in Zaire [1996-1998].

[…]

The U.S. backed Ugandan leader Yoweri Museveni and trained Kagame at Ft. Leavenworth. Uganda proxy wars for the U.S. and allies included Sudan, Rwanda, and Zaire. Then Congo and still Congo [today], Darfur, and now Mozambique. The USA instigated, supported, facilitated and participated in the 1994 genocide of the Tutsi committed by Hutu extremists and by RPF infiltrators. Ditto the genocides against the Hutus pre-1994 and post-1994. More specifically, we are talking about war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.

the Hutu dogs and snakes and other terms that dehumanized them. The Inyenzi then went about killing, bombing and assassinating Hutu leaders.Who were the henchmen for the extremist Tutsi chiefs? They were the Mwamis’ (kings’) elite commandos, the Twa, and the many still-indoctrinated Hutu loyalists who collaborated and benefited from the Tutsi monarchists’ complete control over the Hutu. [Think institutionalized white Klu Klux Klan (Tutsis) antebellum southern USA gulag over black/brown slaves (Hutus).] When Bertrand Russell screamed “genocide” over the plight of the Tutsis in 1964 (and grossly misrepresented the statistics, winners, losers, etc.), he was reacting to the propaganda campaign of the monarchist Tutsis: He had no idea what he was talking about. He was hysterical and self-righteous.

Sound familiar? Fast forward to the 1990s: Every attack by the RPF led to more death and despair. Like the Inyenzi in the 1960s, they did not care about Tutsis. They wanted total and absolute control. The Inyenzi in the 1960s wanted to force more Tutsis to leave Rwanda. The RPF wanted revenge on the Tutsis who never left.

[…]

The First Republic, which was born out of the independence from Belgium, was a situation where one people, the Hutu, were emancipated from the minority Tutsi extremist monarchist system. Previously, you had the Tutsi overlords in control of the Hutus who were the slaves, were lynched, and had their balls cut off—among other atrocities.

[…]

All of these academics completely omit the role of the U.S., Canada, Britain and Israel in the invasion of Rwanda and the genocide there—genocides really should be plural considering the RPF genocide against Hutus and their invasion of Zaire and the  genocides committed there as well.

[…]

Via https://covertactionmagazine.com/2024/04/26/psyops-regarding-1994-rwanda-genocide-continues-with-30th-anniversary-commemoration/

 

Rumble Defies Global Censorship Trends, Takes Stand Against New Zealand’s Free Speech Crackdown

Posted on by
Reply

https://reclaimthenet.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/rumble-nz-scaled.jpg

Didi Rankovic

Rumble rejects New Zealand’s censorship demand after whistleblower reveals alleged Covid vaccine-related deaths.

The CEO of Rumble, a free-speech YouTube competitor, says that global censorship levels are on the rise, but that what’s particularly noticeable are censorship demands coming from Australia and New Zealand – who seem to be following in the controversial, to say the least, footsteps of France and Brazil.

On the one hand, this is surprising, given these countries’ formal democratic provenance.

On the other hand, their actions over the last years, including site blocking at ISP level, constant demands for more stringent regulation to facilitate social media content removal, and even the draconian Covid – and post-Covid era measures, tell a different story.

Chris Pavlovski told Mat Kim that the FreeNZMedia channel has now become a deplatforming target in New Zealand, for reporting about leaked data from the National Vaccination Database, that a whistleblower, former Health New Zealand IT employee Barry Young, made available.

And the data Young gave to reporters and activists concerns Covid vaccine-related deaths and claims that these facts are being covered up.

For referring to Young, and referring to the data he provided to the public, a letter has been sent to Rumble to remove FreeNZMedia. It came from the National Health Authority.

However, Pavlovski said that the company has decided to refuse to do that, or to withdraw from the country, and will instead “challenge it and see what happens.”

Pavlovski went on to refer to this particular New Zealand case as “absurd” and “disgusting” – in that it bears resemblance to the Pentagon Papers. At that time, journalist Daniel Ellsberg emerged as a hero of free speech that was protected by the courts in the US.

But that was nearly 50 years ago, and things have clearly changed not only in faraway lands, but in the US itself, and whistleblowers face anything from deplatforming to life in prison.

Speaking about the case of Young, and FreeNZMedia, Pavlovski said that the whistleblower “has a statistics background, went through all the data, found the different batches of vaccines that had an irregular high death rate and published that, and gave out different interviews on doing it.”

[…]

Via https://reclaimthenet.org/rumble-takes-stand-against-new-zealands-free-speech-crackdown

 

Egypt’s Middle Kingdom Renaissance

Posted on by
Reply

Episode 11 Middle Kingdom Dynasty XII

The History of Ancient Egypt

Professor Robert Brier

Film Review

Brier describes the period under Dynasty XII as an Egyptian renaissance, with a revival of all the cultural traditions that preceded the chaos of the First Intermediate Period (see Egypt’s Dark Ages: The First Intermediate Period). Nearly all the information about Dynasty XII pharaohs comes from inscriptions they left on the inner walls of their pyramids.

  • Amenenhut I (1991-1962 BC), who launched Dynasty XII, was a commoner, the vizier (prime minister) of the last pharaoh of Dynasty XI. Born in Thebes in southern Egypt, he moved the capitol from Memphis to Faiyum, in a lush green area 35 miles southwest of modern day Cairo. He renamed the capitol Itali (“binder of two lands”). He divided Egypt into 42 nomes, each governed by nomarchs who collected taxes. One of these officials was Khnumhotep, whose tomb inscriptions reveal he completed a new geographical survey (the ancient origin of geometry) of Egypt. Amenenhut also began the tradition of appointing his son a co-regent to rule during the last ten years of his reign to cement his ascent to the throne.
  • Seostrist I (1962-1907 BC) Following Amenenhut’s death (murder?), his son Sesostrist I discovered a manuscript (which Sesostrist may have written himself predicting the murder and warning him to beware those plotting against him and to not trust his friends nor his brother. It suggests one of Amenenhut’s guards committed the murder. Sesostris built two forts in Kush (aka Nubia, in modern day Sudan), one on each bank of the Nile. Although his troops never marched on Nubia, it’s likely Seosostris sought to intimidate the Nubians into paying tibute (in gold) obtain Nubian gold without charging the heavy tax the Nubians charged on the gold trade.
  • Amenenhut II (1907–1897 BC) Sesostris I made his own son Amenenhut co-regent before he died. The latter led an expedition to Punt (Eritea) via the Red Sea and greatly expanded foreign trade. Jars carrying his name have been found in Lebanon.
  • Sesostris II (1897-1878 BC) Amenenhut II’s son reclaimed land on the banks of the Nile and built irrigation works to significantly expand agriculture. He build a pyramid for himself and all his princesses and queens.
  • Sesostris III (1897-1839 BC) His son was six feet six inches tall (at a time when the national average was five feet five inches. Due to increased sophistication in art during his reign his face is much more detailed (and tired looking). He built two pyramids, one for himself and one for the princess Neferu Fatah.

Sesostris III | artehistoria.com

  • Amenenhut IV (1839-1787 BC) The last pharaoh in Dynasty XII, Amenenhut IV didn’t build a pyramid.
  • Queen Sobeknefru (1787-1782 BC) As Amenenhut IV left no male heirs the dynasty ended with queen.

Film can be viewed free with a library card on Kanopy.

https://www.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/watch/video/1492791/1492819

Breaking News WHO is NOT backing down on its pandemic plans; there is no “major victory for freedom”

Posted on by
2

Rhoda Wilson

Much has been made of the draft of the International Health Regulations released last week.  Although some changes have been made and some wording moved around, the World Health Organisation’s (“WHO’s”) plans are the same as they were before.

This week, from 22 and 26 April, the 8th meeting of WHO’s Working Group on the International Health Regulations (2005) (“WGIHR”) is convening. The WGIHR’s task has been to incorporate 300+ proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) (“IHR”).

Please note that there are two instruments that WHO is attempting to have ratified at the next World Health Assembly taking place from 27 May to 1 June 2024: the IHR amendments; and, the Pandemic Treaty, also referred to as the Pandemic Accord, Pandemic Agreement and WHO Convention Agreement + (“WHO CA+”).  Both instruments are intended to achieve the same aim.  The Globalists require only one of them to be adopted next month to achieve their aims.

Although there have been several drafts of the proposed Pandemic Treaty, there has been little official information released regarding the IHR amendments.  The proposed 300+ amendments to the IHR were released in February 2023 and, a year later, an unofficial draft of the amended IHR was leaked, in February 2024.

Last week, on 17 April, the WGIHR released another draft of the proposed amended IHR labelled ‘Proposed Bureau’s text for Eighth WGIHR Meeting, 22–26 April 2024’.

With the release of this draft, it appears as if WHO has taken out some of the more controversial provisions.  While some have claimed WHO is “backing down” and this is a “major victory for freedom,” they may have been too hasty.

Related: Dr. Meryl Nass: WHO’s pandemic plans are built on lies and misdirection

Dr. Meryl Nass, who has been following WHO’s negotiations and various drafts of both the IHR amendments and Pandemic Treaty closely, has said: “The current language has been watered down, and is a bit trickier to disentangle, but the plan is exactly the same.”

Referring readers to an article published on Door to Freedom comparing the latest draft of the amended IHR to the currently applicable IHR, Dr. Nass wrote on her Substack:

People said surveillance and censorship: control of misinformation and disinformation had been removed. Not so. They are just moved to an Annex and inserted elsewhere … The control of information is now even more stringent, as “surveillance” and managing misinformation are now considered “Core Capacities” that all nations will have to develop, and on which they will be scored using a monitoring system still to be developed.

So what if the term “non-binding” is no longer crossed out? The document is still binding on nations due to other language, the requirement to report back to the WHO on how well nations are complying, and the new compliance and implementation committee, which will ride herd on nations that do not comply.

Human rights, which were crossed out in the earlier draft, are now back. This shows you that those negotiating these treaties think your human rights are negotiable and can be given or taken away with the stroke of a pen.

The language stating that the WHO [Director-General] could designate potential pandemics has been replaced with likely pandemics. A weasel way of saying the same thing.

Door to Freedom team shines a light on how little has really changed in the new version of the April 2024 amended IHR, Dr. Meryl Nass, 24 April 2024

[…]

Via https://expose-news.com/2024/04/25/who-is-not-backing-down-on-its-pandemic-plans/

Quashing University Protests And Banning TikTok To Make The Kids Love Israel

Posted on by
3

Caitlin Johnstone

It’s just a tough situation, with victims on both sides. On one side you’ve got people being slaughtered in droves by genocidal massacres and siege warfare, while on the other you’ve got people whose feelings get hurt when these atrocities are opposed. Hard to say which is worse.

I have dedicated every day of my life to the project of spreading awareness of the depravity and deceitfulness of the western empire, but I will never write anything more effective toward this end than what the empire is doing itself on university campuses right now.

I mean, you kind of have to wonder what they’re thinking. “Yeah, that’s it. Violently quash pro-Palestine protests at universities, ban TikTok to ensure the suppression of pro-Palestine content, and saturate the boomer media with obvious propaganda. That’ll make the kids love Israel.”

Meanwhile the US empire is still playing games with each and every one of our lives by continually taking insane risks in its world-threatening brinkmanship with a nuclear superpower. It turns out last month the Biden administration secretly sent Ukraine long-range Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS), which Ukraine has reportedly already used to attack a Russian base in Crimea.

In 2022 when Ukraine first started urging the United States to send it the ATACMS— which has nearly four times the range of the HIMARS weapons the US has been supplying — Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova immediately responded with a warning that their use on Russian territory would make the US a direct participant in the conflict, and Russia would respond accordingly. Crimea is considered Russian territory by the Russian Federation.

In an article published in Antiwar last year titled “ATACMS: Be Very Afraid of This Acronym,” West Suburban Peace Coalition president Walt Zlotow wrote that this missile system “has potential to draw the US and NATO into all out war with Russia”:

ATACMS are long range US missiles that can strike up to 190 miles. Top US officials, likely including President Biden, are seriously considering giving ATACMS to Ukraine in their battle to take back all Russian gains in Ukraine, including Crimea. They can reach both Crimea and the Russian mainland.

If so used by Ukraine to attack Russia, it may be a missile too far that could ignite Russian tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Further escalation into nuclear confrontation between Russia and the US/NATO alliance seeking Russia’s defeat becomes more likely.

Biden proclaimed it “a good day for world peace” when he signed the World War 3 bill which will pour weapons of death and destruction into Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan. This is the inverted reality the US-centralized empire premises its narratives about itself upon. They’ve got the mainstream public espousing a completely backwards and upside-down worldview, which is why we live in a completely backwards and upside-down civilization.

[…]

Via https://caitlinjohnstone.com.au/2024/04/25/quashing-university-protests-and-banning-tiktok-to-make-the-kids-love-israel/

Russia Says Over 3100 Mainly U.S. Mercenaries Fighting In Ukraine

Posted on by
Reply


Tsarism 

Mercenaries have long been used on both sides to fight in the Ukraine conflict raging in Eastern Europe. The Wagner Group is an infamous example of the use of paid fighters by Russian forces.

Tsarizm’s sister site, ArmedForces.press reported on this several years ago: US Special Forces Operator Tells AFP He’s Killing Russians In Ukraine – “I Stopped Counting At 500”

The Kremlin this morning alleged thousands of mercenaries, most of them with a background in the United States, are also involved in fighting for Kyiv.

Over 3,100 foreign mercenaries fight for Ukraine during Russia’s special military operation and most of them come from the United States and Canada, the press office of the Russian Investigative Committee said in a statement on Thursday, reports Russian state news agency TASS.

“Investigators have information about an overall number of over 3,100 foreign mercenaries taking part in combat activities on the Ukrainian side and the majority of them come from the United States, Canada, Great Britain and Georgia,” the statement reads.

The committee added that measures are underway to locate their whereabouts and bring them to criminal liability.

[…]

Via https://tsarizm.com/news/eastern-europe/2024/04/25/russia-says-over-3100-mainly-u-s-mercenaries-fighting-in-ukraine/

WHO backs off on Pandemic Treaty, makes substantive changes to address tyranny concerns

Posted on by
Reply

WHO backs off on Pandemic Treaty, makes substantive changes to address tyranny concerns

Dr Eddy Betterman

Some good things happened this past week concerning the World Health Organization‘s (WHO) Pandemic Treaty.

In response to widespread public outcry, the WHO substantially revised its proposed International Health Regulations (IHR) amendments, dialing the tyranny back a notch.

According to the group Us for Them UK (@UsforThemUK on X), the changes represent a serious victory “for national democracy, free speech and human rights.”

Almost all of the substantive concerns presented to the WHO Working Group for the IHR amendments have been trimmed back, one of the biggest changes being that the WHO’s recommendations will be non-binding.

“Article 13A.1 which would have required Member States to follow directives of the WHO as the guiding and coordinating authority for international public health has been dropped entirely,” Us for Them UK tweeted.

Another change is the erasure of a proposal that would have struck from the amendments wording that recognizes the “dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms” of human beings.

“This proposal marked a particularly low water-mark, and should never have been suggested,” Us for Them UK says.

If you are concerned about the WHO suddenly attaining dictatorial powers at the mere “potential” of a public health emergency, worry not: the WHO will only be able to gain total control if it can demonstrate “that coordinated international action is necessary.”

(Related: Victims of the COVID jab genocide are taking action with new lawsuits.)

WHO won’t be your daddy; corrupt Congress will

As for the controlled flow of information by the government, a process more commonly known as censorship, the WHO will have no jurisdiction over this, either.

What happened during the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) “pandemic” in terms of how the WHO applies its IHRs will also remain the same rather than be expanded to also include “all risks with a potential to impact public health.”

Of great remaining concern, however, is the explicit recognition in the revised IHR amendments that Member States – in our case, the United States – will be the ones responsible for implementing whatever WHO recommends, as they so choose.

What this means, of course, is that the always smart and never corrupted U.S. Congress, meaning the Zionists and multinational corporations that control them, will have the full and unfettered privilege of deciding how We the People get treated during the next public health “crisis.”

Other provisions that were “diluted,” according to Us for Them UK include details about the surveillance mechanisms that would have allowed the WHO to mandate the finding of thousands of potentially new so-called pandemic “signals,” as well as provisions that would have pushed the adoption of digital health passports.

Keep in mind that the entire published document as it currently exists from the WHO remains an interim draft, so it could be modified further. The IHR Working Group will pore over it and make final negotiations as to how it will appear in its final form.

If you would like to read over the latest draft of WHO’s IHR Amendments, you can do so at this link.

“We won’t be safe until the WHO are disbanded, though,” commented someone on X (@Free_ByTheSea).

“It is not acceptable that our nation is influenced by an unelected group who conceived the original amendments. Nor is it reasonable that members of our government tried to persuade us they were nothing to worry about. We shouldn’t have to defend ourselves from groups like this. The WHO needs to go.”

Another responded that while these latest developments might seem like a win for medical freedom, we must still be vigilant because the WHO is untrustworthy.

“WHO has shown itself to be an abusive partner to free nations,” this person added. “The solution to a relationship with an abusive partner is to LEAVE. Leave the WHO.”

[…]

Via https://dreddymd.com/2024/04/25/who-backs-off-pandemic-treaty-addresses-tyranny/

University Faculty and Jewish Rabbis Join Students in Largest Anti-war Protests on U.S. Campuses Since Vietnam War

Posted on by
Reply
https://healthimpactnews.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/04/Non-Zionist-Orthodox-Rabbis-Censored.jpg

Video here.

Commentary by Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News

In a major story that has been vastly under-reported in the U.S. media, but is now becoming headline news, anti-war student protests against the Israeli war in Gaza are continuing to increase on campuses all across the United States, something not seen on American University and College campuses since the 1970s and the anti-war protests over the Vietnam War.

U.S. media and politicians from BOTH the Republicans and Democrats continue to call these protests “antisemitic” protests, but nothing could be further from the truth.

Many of the College Campus groups who are participating in these protests are Jewish groups, with Jewish students joining these protests, which easily demonstrates the complete censoring of alternative Jewish voices in these protests, which are in fact anti-WAR protests.

Even among the faculty of these Universities, there is widespread faculty condemnation over how their students are being treated in what are largely peaceful protests, as many of the faculty members are joining their students in these protests.

Here is a non-western report from Al Jazeera giving a voice to one of these faculty members:

 

As of the time of this writing, Columbia University has extended their deadline for 48 hours in demanding that the encampments disband and leave, and with hundreds of students already having been arrested at campuses all across the nation, there are now grave concerns that the National Guard is going to be called into some of these campuses, which could escalate the situation.

This is exactly what happened at Kent State University and the “May 4th Massacre” in 1970, where four unarmed students were killed and 9 others wounded by the Ohio National Guard over peaceful protests against the Vietnam War. (Source.)

The Zionist Republicans continue to refer to these protests as “antisemitic,” and most Democrats agree, including President Joe Biden who has condemned the protests as “antisemitic.”

The Zionist corporate and alternative media are consistently only reporting one view of these protests, the Zionist view, using their well-funded propaganda media to try and convince Americans that all these protests are about attacking the Jewish people.

But if these protests are truly attacks against the Jewish people, and not what the protesters themselves claim it to be, which is taking a stand against war and the genocide of the Palestinian people, then what about all the Jewish people who are also taking a stand against what is happening to the Palestinian people?

Well, according to the Zionists, those Jews who don’t support Zionism are also “antisemitic”, even if they are Rabbis who had relatives who died during the Holocaust.

You probably have not heard from these conservative, Orthodox Jews who are also standing with the student protesters, have you?

Here are some videos from two of these Jewish Rabbis, one who lives in New York and one who lives in the UK.

Please educate yourself and listen to what these Jewish Rabbis say so you do not fall victim to the Zionist propaganda that only presents one side.

Rabbi Elhanan Beck from England:

 

 

Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss from New York:

 

 

These non-Zionist Jews are treated just as harshly by Zionists as the Palestinians are treated.

These non-Zionist Jews, who make up a significant portion of the student protests today, are the true Jews whose lives are currently in danger because they do not support Zionism.

The Zionists claim that the Jewish Zionist students are being harmed by “antisemtic” language used during the protests, such as “Palestinians will be free from river to the sea“, which is the same phrase used by Palestinian Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib which caused her to be Censured in Congress recently.

However, when Republican Congressman Pastor Timothy Walberg stated that Gaza should be nuked just the same as what the U.S. did to Japan in WW II to “get it over with quickly” in a recent Town Hall meeting with his constituents, not only was he not Censured, nobody in Congress even bothered to investigate or condemn the Congressman’s words of genocide and mass murder.

[…]

Via https://healthimpactnews.com/2024/university-faculty-and-jewish-rabbis-join-students-in-the-largest-anti-war-protests-on-u-s-campuses-since-the-vietnam-war/