by Brenda Baletti

Nurse and author Twila Brase joined CHD.TV and “The Solari Report” to discuss the dangers of Real ID and QR Codes and how people can resist them.

“They’re trying to build a control grid and they’re building it in different steps,” Catherine Austin Fitts, founder and publisher of “The Solari Report,” told viewers of “Financial Rebellion” on an episode of “Good Morning, CHD.”

Biometric scans, QR codes, Real ID and digital money — they’re all steps in that process, said Austin Fitts.

“And when they all link together, you are in a digital concentration camp and they can take all of your assets, they can take your kids, they have complete control,” she said.

Some people oppose some steps and not others, Austin Fitts said. Conservatives tend to support a biometric surveillance system at the border, for example. But people don’t understand that the pieces are all part of building a total biometric surveillance system.

Austin Fitts — the former U.S. assistant secretary of Housing and Urban Development — cited historian Carol Quigley, who argued that part of the goal of financial capitalism was to concentrate financial control in private hands so that those who controlled the financial system could also control the political system.

Austin Fitts said today this type of control depends on the ability to centrally control the rules of finance. The central bankers are now merging with big tech, creating a control system. “And they’re doing it leg by leg, bit by bit,” Austin Fitts said. “And if you buy into the different bits, it’s going to snap together.”

She likened it to marching into the slaughterhouse. “We are helping to build our own prisons. You’ve got to back out,” she said

Austin Fitts said the key to a successful financial control grid is a high-quality national ID system like the national Real ID, that can be aggregated globally.

Co-host Carolyn Betts explained that in 2005, Congress passed the REAL ID Act, establishing a national system for sharing driver information across states. The system included federal requirements for more onerous forms of identification to obtain a driver’s license.

Under the law, a Real ID would be needed to access some federal facilities, commercial aircraft and nuclear power plants.

The federal government has been trying to push the program forward, but almost 20 years after the law passed, it hasn’t been fully implemented.

Twila Brase, R.N., is co-founder and director of Citizens Council for Health Freedom, a health privacy nonprofit that has been challenging the Real ID.

Brase, author of “Big Brother in the Exam Room: The Dangerous Truth about Electronic Health Records,” said the places and services that could require a Real ID may be expanded if people don’t resist. She said her organization was concerned people would be required to have a Real ID to access healthcare — or anything else, including government services.

Brase said several states resisted the program initially, which is partially why it stalled. However, in 2020, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) worked with state DMVs to move it forward nationally.

All states now plan to implement the program, although 45 states don’t yet require them.

Brase said there’s a push — in the form of a regulation proposed by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and the DHS — to make the system national by May 7, 2025.

Her group has been educating people on how to resist the IDs. She said 31,764 concerned people commented on the proposed rule before the Oct. 15th deadline.

Brase also said 44% of driver’s licenses are not Real ID-compliant. She suggested that that number to could grow, if people return their Real IDs — which many people don’t know they have — and replace them with regular ones.

She also noted that people can fly with passports if they want to resist getting a Real ID.

People can find out if they have a Real ID by visually inspecting their licenses. Real IDs have a special symbol — usually a star. Also, if a license isn’t a Real ID, it will typically say that the ID is not for federal identification purposes, or something similar.

Brase said the move toward Real ID is also a move toward a mobile ID that could be uploaded on a cellphone. This would facilitate new forms of surveillance, she said.

For example, a proposed bill in New Jersey would allow people to have mobile driver’s licenses that they carry on their phone or any internet-ready device.

‘Don’t use QR codes ever. Period. No exception.’

Austin Fitts told viewers she views QR codes as “one of the legs of the digital concentration camp that is going to snap into place.”

QR codes are easy to hack and manipulate, she said. She played a news clip explaining how the codes can be modified to include commands the user is unaware of.

For example, some QR codes can make your phone download malware that gives others access to your phone. Or they can run data-collection software in the background.

“The moral of the story? Don’t use QR codes ever. Period. No exception,” the news clip advised.

Austin Fitts pointed out that when companies like Google make QR codes, they can capture data that they aggregate with all the other data Google already has about users.

CHD.TV Program Director Polly Tommey said at Children’s Health Defense, fundraisers have been concerned that if a nonprofit doesn’t use QR codes, people won’t donate, because QR codes offer a convenience people have come to expect. She asked Austin Fitts how she would respond.

“I do think it makes it more convenient to raise money from people who don’t know better in the short run,” Austin Fitts said. “But in the long run, you’re talking about a system that is going to basically drain or steal all the assets of everybody … it’s like getting a sugar fix that kills the patient.”

Betts said these digital issues can be hard for people to understand. “Unlike the gulags in prisons of the past, where you could actually see the bars, they can’t be seen today, right? They are invisible.”

Most Americans don’t understand how this all works, she added. “So it’s much harder than if you actually had real bars to convince people that this gulag is being created.”

Watch ‘Financial Rebellion’ here:

Ben Norton

For the 32nd consecutive year, the entire world voted at the UN General Assembly to demand an end to the illegal US embargo against Cuba.

The United States and Israel opposed the international community in a vote of 187 to 2, on the resolution titled “Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba”.

Just one country abstained: Moldova, a former Soviet republic that now has a pro-Western government that is seeking to join the European Union and NATO.

Ukraine did not vote. In 2023, Kiev had abstained.

Venezuela expressed strong support for the resolution, but is unable to vote. Venezuela lost its voting rights because it cannot pay UN membership fees, due to illegal US unilateral sanctions against it, and because Washington and numerous European countries stole Caracas’ foreign exchange reserves.

Afghanistan is not able to vote in the General Assembly either, due to unpaid UN fees. Like Venezuela, Afghanistan suffers from unilateral US sanctions, and Washington unlawfully seized billions of dollars from its reserves.

If Venezuela and Afghanistan had not been denied their voice at the UN due to illegal US sanctions, the vote would have been 189 to 2.

There are 193 member states of the United Nations.

One surprise in the October 30 vote was that the far-right government of Argentina supported the resolution. This was because the South American nation’s Foreign Minister Diana Mondino had disobeyed orders and joined the rest of the international community in endorsing it.

Argentina’s avowedly pro-US President Javier Milei, a self-declared “anarcho-capitalist”, fired Mondino in rage and condemned Cuba. He then appointed his US ambassador as the new foreign minister.

The BBC noted that this act of protest by Mondino “was the first time since Milei’s arrival in office that Argentina has not aligned itself with the US and Israeli governments”.

#BREAKING
UN General Assembly ADOPTS resolution on the necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States against Cuba

Result of the vote:
In favor: 187
Against: 2 (Israel, US)
Abstain: 1 (Moldova) pic.twitter.com/LMmYjRhCWR

— UN News (@UN_News_Centre) October 30, 2024

In the 2023 vote on the same resolution in the UN General Assembly, the tally was nearly identical: 187 to 2, with only the US and Israel in opposition.

In 2023, Ukraine had abstained, whereas Moldova did not vote.

In 2022, the vote was 185 to 2, with two abstentions, from Ukraine and Brazil – which at the time was led by far-right President Jair Bolsonaro.

Cuba has suffered under illegal US sanctions and a blockade for six decades.

Washington’s stated goal in waging economic war on Cuba is to bring about “hunger, desperation, and overthrow of government”.

This was revealed in a 1960 State Department cable, titled “The Decline and Fall of Castro”.

In the document, a top State Department official admitted that the “majority of Cubans support [Fidel] Castro”, referring to the leftist leader who came to power in a 1959 revolution against US-backed right-wing dictator Fulgencio Batista.

“There is no effective political opposition” to the new revolutionary government in Cuba, the State Department admitted.

It therefore concluded, “The only foreseeable means of alienating internal support is through disenchantment and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship”.

The State Department insisted “that every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba”.

Washington’s strategy, according to the document, is to make “the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government”.

A.T. Freeman

Reparations row shows the Commonwealth is long past its sell by date.

From 21-26 October, the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting (CHOGM) took place in Apia, the capital of the Pacific island of Samoa. The meeting was overshadowed by a storm around the demand that Britain face up to its criminal responsibility for the gross violation of the human rights of millions of people that it conquered and enslaved within its empire. In particular, the point was raised that Britain must make reparations for the ongoing human and social damage caused by its role as the chief human trafficker in enslaved Africans and one of the greatest perpetrators of this crime against humanity.  In many ways, this row underlines the fact that the Commonwealth is nothing more than a colonial relic of Britain’s imperial days, underpinned by the same racist ideology and that it is time for it to be disbanded.

The Commonwealth currently has 56 member countries, 21 of which are located in Africa and 12 of which are CARICOM members. There are another 17 former British colonies from Asia and the Pacific which bring the total number of non-European countries in the Commonwealth to 50, or nearly 90% of the organisation’s membership. However, this numerical preponderance does not translate into power within the organisation. This rests firmly with Britain and the European settler colonies it established such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The small European countries of Malta and Cyprus are the other 2 member states.

This racist distribution of power within the organisation originated in the development of Britain’s empire.  By the late 19^th century, Britain had already established a racist distinction between its colonies. Those which were European settler colonies were classified as dominions and allowed a large amount of self-governance while colonies without significant European settlement were denied any such control over their own affairs. In 1926 at the Imperial Conference – attended by the leaders of Britain and its dominions, including Australia, Canada, India, the Irish Free State, Newfoundland, New Zealand and South Africa – the decision was taken to establish the British Commonwealth of Nations, which is now referred to as the Commonwealth. As part of the agreement, they all pledged allegiance to the British monarch.  India was represented by Frederick Smith, 1st Earl of Birkenhead who was Britain’s colonial Secretary of State for India and his under-secretary Edward Turnour, the 6th Earl of Winterton. There were no Indians present. South Africa was represented by Barry Herzog, a Boer general and then prime minister of the Union of South Africa. He was accompanied by his finance minister Nicolaas Havenga. There were no Africans present.

In many ways, today’s Commonwealth is simply a continuation of Britain’s empire but one in which Britain exercises its control through neo-colonial means rather than through direct colonial rule. Just like its predecessor, today’s Commonwealth is an important source of wealth and global power for Britain’s ruling oligarchy and its politicians. The population of the Commonwealth amounts to 2.7 billion people which is an enormous market for Britain’s capitalist corporations. According to the House of Commons Library, in 2023 Britain’s exports to the Commonwealth were worth £89 billion and it maintained a trade surplus of £14 billion with these countries. Trade with Commonwealth states accounts for 9% of Britain’s total trade. With regard to foreign direct investment, the Commonwealth is a lucrative market for Britain’s monopolies which invested an average of £20 billion in Commonwealth countries in 2021 and 2022. Clearly, the Commonwealth continues to serve the interests of Britain’s ruling oligarchy. To ensure that this is done efficiently, the Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council (CWEIC) has been established.

This is the context in which the row about reparations erupted at the CHOGM. The demand that Britain take responsibility for its past colonial crimes and make reparations to those who continue to suffer the consequences of its wrongdoings is a longstanding one. Therefore, in the days leading up to the heads of government meeting, British prime minister Keir Starmer declared that the issue of reparations was not on the agenda for the meeting, that Britain would not apologise for its role as the main human trafficker in enslaved Africans and that with regard to reparations, “The government’s position on this has not changed – we do not pay reparations”. Keir Starmer’s Labour government’s arrogant refusal to acknowledge Britain’s responsibility for its colonial crimes reflects the consistent position of successive British governments, whether Conservative or Labour.

To add insult to injury, Britain’s King Charles then attempted to gaslight people in his address to CHOGM. In his speech of over 1500 words, not once did he mention the word slavery, nor acknowledge the criminal role that Britain had played in it. Repeatedly referring to the member countries of the organisation as ‘our Commonwealth family’, he declared, “I understand, from listening to people across the Commonwealth, how the most painful aspects of our past continue to resonate……None of us can change the past”. Through this sleight of hand, Britain’s king is trying create the impression that the perpetrator and his victim have a shared past in which each is responsible for the crime. The criminal alone is responsible for the crime and the pain is inflicted on those who suffered at the hands of the criminal.

The fact that the British state, of which he is the head, refuses point blank to acknowledge its crime, let alone apologise or make reparations for it shows clearly that Britain’s rulers couldn’t care less about the past and current pain that its colonial crimes have caused. If this is the behaviour within a family, then it is an abusive family. Further, the king raises the old worn-out argument about changing the past as if anyone thinks it’s possible to change the past. The demand is that the crimes committed in the past and their consequences both in the past and present be openly acknowledged and addressed.

The British state’s gaslighting and arrogant refusal to acknowledge its colonial crimes contrasts sharply with its attitude towards the crimes of the Nazis in Europe. It routinely acknowledges this holocaust while denying its own holocausts of indigenous genocide, human trafficking and enslavement. It has declared its intention to build a memorial to the victims of the Nazi holocaust, while telling the victims of its own holocausts to get over it. Not surprisingly, the final communique of the CHOGM did not contain a single word of condemnation of Britain’s colonial crimes nor a call for it to make reparations. It did, however, contain a statement in support of the US organised invasion of Haiti. It is evident that the British Commonwealth of Nations continues to be a reactionary organisation which serves the imperial interests of Britain’s financial oligarchy.

The position expressed by Britain’s king and government shows that they remain committed to its imperial ideology of racism. Rather than addressing this central issue Britain has, instead, opted to develop an entire industry based on fake anti-racism. This involves co-opting into the system individuals from communities which are the targets of colonialism and racism so as to give Britain’s state racism a multi-cultural face. This was fully demonstrated by the fact that David Lammy, the current British Foreign Secretary, himself a descendant of enslaved Africans, accompanied Keir Starmer and the king to the CHOGM to defend Britain’s disgraceful colonial crimes.

In 2024, when people are striving to bring about a world of justice and equality for all, an organisation like the Commonwealth, in which the most abhorrent crimes against humanity cannot even be acknowledged, is an organisation which is past its sell by date. It’s time for it to be disbanded.

[…]

Via https://libya360.wordpress.com/2024/11/01/commonwealth-an-outdated-colonial-institution/

by Nick Corbishley

Canada and Australia shelve plans for retail CBDCs while the US could soon become the first country to explicitly ban the central bank from issuing a CBDC.   

As we warned in May 2022, a financial revolution is quietly sweeping the world (or at least trying to) that has the potential to reconfigure the very nature of money, making it programmable, far more surveillable and centrally controlled. To quote Washington DC-based blogger and analyst NS Lyons, “if not deliberately and carefully constrained in advance by law,… CBDCs have the potential to become even more than a technocratic central planner’s dream. They could represent the single greatest expansion of totalitarian power in history.”

At the time of writing that post, around 90 countries and currency unions were in the process of exploring a CBDC, according to the Atlantic Council’s CBDC tracker. Today, just two and a half years later, that number has increased to 134, representing 98% of global GDP. Around 66 of those countries are in the advanced stage of exploration—development, pilot, or launch.

But they do not include the United States. In fact, the US is not just trailing most countries on CBDC development; it could soon become the first country to explicitly ban the central bank from issuing a CBDC, to the undisguised horror of certain think tanks.

“CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act.”

In May, the US House of Representatives passed HR 5403, also known as the “CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act.” The bill, first introduced in September 2023 and sponsored by US Senator Ted Cruz, proposes amendments to the Federal Reserve Act to prohibit the US Federal Reserve from issuing CBDCs. It also seeks to protect the right to financial privacy and prevent the U.S. government from “weaponizing their financial system against their own citizens.”

If passed, HR 5403 will prevent the Fed from:

1. Offering products or services directly to individuals.
2. Maintaining accounts on behalf of individuals.
3. Issuing a central bank digital currency or any digital asset that is substantially similar under any other name or label directly to an individual.

To become law, the bill still needs to clear the Senate, which is by not means guaranteed. But it is likely to receive added impetus from a new Trump administration, assuming Trump wins the election and isn’t assassinated before taking office or thwarted by a colour revolution, as Lambert posited yesterday. In January, Trump announced, to thunderous applause, at a New Hampshire that as president, he would “never allow the creation of a central bank digital currency.” Such a currency, he said, “would give a federal government, our federal government, absolute control over your money.”

Even a Kamala Harris administration is unlikely to fast-track a digital dollar, with progress set to continue to lag other jurisdictions, according to an article in The Banker. US voters — particularly Republican ones — are increasingly aware — and wary — of the threat posed by CBDCs, as demonstrated by the crowd’s reaction to Trump’s announcement. This, if nothing else, stands as testament to the power of social and independent media, and goes a long way to explaining why governments across the West are trying desperately to muzzle them.

Teeth Gnashing in Think Tankland

The prospect of the US, current holder of the world’s reserve currency, permanently pulling out of the global race to develop a CBDC is prompting all manner of teeth gnashing in think tankland. In March, the Brookings Institute warned that while “the US dollar remains king” — for now — “unless US policymakers take decisive steps to adapt to an increasingly digital financial system, the United States risks losing the economic and geopolitical advantages afforded to it by the dollar’s dominance of the global financial system.”

The Atlantic Council put it in even starker terms. In an article titled, “Don’t Let the US Become the Only Country to Ban CBDCs,” Josh Lipsky, the senior director of the Council’s GeoEconomics Center, and Ananya Kumar, the associate director for digital currencies at the GeoEconomics Center, warn that the passage of HR 5403 could do significant harm to the future of the dollar as well as throttle innovation across both the public and private sector.

[…]

Among the countries that have decided, or at least claim to have decided, not to issue a “retail” CBDC — i.e., one meant for use by members of the public — are two fellow five-eye nations: Canada and Australia.

The Bank of Canada was one of the first Western countries to begin exploring the idea of issuing a CBDC, a whole seven years ago. Until recently, it seemed that the central bank was intent on launching a retail CBDC. In the summer, it argued that Canada would need its own digital currency to maintain monetary sovereignty and financial stability, among other reasons, as people continue to use less cash. Then, just a month ago, it quietly reversed policy. As CBC reported, the central bank is now less eager to develop a digital Loonie.

[…]

The announcement came almost a year after a public consultation by the central bank revealed widespread public hostility and skepticism toward the proposed launch of a CBDC. Eighty-five percent of respondents said they would not use a digital Loonie in their own lives (unless, of course, forced to) while 92% said there were no circumstances in which they would rather use a digital Canadian dollar over current forms of payment.

The respondents also flagged issues with trust and security with 87% saying they distrusted the ability of the Bank of Canada to create a secure CDBC that is resistant to cyberattacks (87%). Sixty-three percent raised concerns about the security of current forms of digital payment, such as debit and credit cards, money transfers, and digital wallets (63%). Survey respondents also reported concerns about the federal government (86%), tech firms (86%), financial institutions (72%), and the Bank of Canada itself (79%) accessing personal payment data.

In September, the Bank of Canada Governor governor Tiff Macklem said “there is not currently a compelling case to move forward with a CBDC in Canada.” The central bank is not closing the door entirely on the possibility, however, stating that it will “continue to monitor global retail CBDC developments,” and that “the body of knowledge built over recent years will be invaluable if, at some point in the future, Canadians, through their elected representatives, decide they want or need a digital Canadian dollar.”

The chances of that are pretty slim if the public’s response to the consultation is anything to go by. Meanwhile, at the opposite end of the Pacific Ocean the Reserve Bank of Australia has also expressed doubts about developing a retail CBDC, turning its attention instead to a wholesale CBDC.

What is the difference?

A retail CBDC is meant for use by the general public and businesses of all shapes and sizes while a wholesale CBDC is intended for transactions, particularly cross-border ones, between banks and other financial institutions. Speaking at the recent Intersekt Conference in Melbourne, the RBA’s assistant governor Brad Jones said the central bank sees more value in a wholesale digital currency:

“I can confirm that the RBA is making a strategic commitment to prioritise its work agenda on wholesale digital money and infrastructure – including wholesale CBDC – rather than retail CBDC.”

The RBA believes that a retail CBDC poses more potential “challenges” to the financial system while its impact on the Australian economy is likely to be less “promising”. A wholesale CBDC would be more of an evolution than a revolution, Jones said, making it easier for the commercial banks and payments firms to adapt to the changing reality.

This near-simultaneous shift by Canada and Australia appears to be part of a broader global trend away from retail CBDCs. In recent months, central banks in Switzerland and Taiwan have both expanded wholesale CBDC projects at the expense of retail alternatives. A report by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) has also confirmed this shift, revealing a sharp rise in wholesale CBDC projects, particularly in advanced economies. The likelihood of issuing a wholesale CBDC within the next six years now surpasses that of issuing a retail CBDC.

That’s not to say that many of the world’s largest economies aren’t aggressively pursuing a retail CBDC, including all five of the BRICS founding nations, Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, as well as the EU, Turkey and Iran, all of which are at the pilot phase.

In the two other Five-Eye nations, the United Kingdom and New Zealand, the central banks are moving ahead with their retail CBDC plans but both are a long way from reaching pilot phase. Both also face strong resistance from their respective commercial banking sectors. In New Zealand, the national banking association has warned that a retail CBDC could accelerate bank runs. In the UK, the head of the City of London Corporation, London’s Lord Mayor Michael Mainelli, told a recent conference organised by the Digital Pound Foundation that while CBDCs can fight financial crime, as payments are traceable, they have a dark side: “loss of privacy.”

Meanwhile, Back in the US…

Dollar-backed stable coins are being touted as a means of entrenching US financial supremacy supremacy in global finance. Trump appears to be on board with the idea, pledging at the recent Bitcoin Conference 2024 to “create a framework to enable the safe, responsible expansion of stablecoins […] allowing us to extend the dominance of the US dollar to new frontiers all around the worlds.”

That will not be the only dark side of this new vision. As Mark Goodwin and Whitney Webb report in Bitcoin Magazine, the fast-growing stablecoins being issued by the likes of Tether, Circle, Stripe and Paypal will be just as programmable and surveillable as CBDCs.

[…]

In recent years, stablecoin operators have become big buyers treasuries, “gobbling up $150 billion of U.S. debt –– in the form of securities issued by the Treasury –– in order to ‘back’ the issuance of their dollar-pegged tokens with a dollar-denominated asset.” Stablecoin issuers are now the 18th largest holder of US debt. And as Godwin and Webb document, the companies that own them are zealously collaborating with US authorities in seizing funds of blacklisted individuals and companies:

In the case of the dollar stablecoin Tether (USDT), Howard Lutnick, the CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald which holds Tether’s Treasuries, has stated his affinity for the company by making reference to Tether’s recent trend of blacklisting retail addresses flagged by the U.S. Department of Justice. “With Tether, you can call Tether, and they’ll freeze it.” On Saturday, Trump mentioned Lutnick by name in his speech, calling Lutnick – one of the longest standing, top traders of U.S. government debt – “incredible” and “one of the truly brilliant men of Wall Street.”

Last October, Tether froze 32 wallets for alleged links to terrorism in Ukraine and Israel. The next month, $225 million was frozen after a DOJ investigation alleged that the wallets containing these funds were linked to a human trafficking syndicate. During December 2023, over 40 wallets found on the Office of Foreign Assets Control’s (OFAC) Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) List were frozen by the stablecoin issuer.

Not only is Trump’s plan nothing new, it already has a name — in fact, has done since 2019 when two senior IMF economists, Tobias Adrian and Tommaso Mancini-Griffoli, gave it one: “synthetic” CBDC, or sCBDC. The IMF has been one of the biggest proponents of CBDCs and has even released a handbook for global central banks regarding their development and implementation. The Fund was a major consultant in the development and roll out of Nigeria’s eNaira, which together with the central bank’s disastrous demonetisation program, contributed to the country’s current economic crisis — its worst in decades.

[…]

Via https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2024/10/central-bank-digital-currency-cbdc-projects-are-foundering-in-all-five-eye-nations.html

Voltaire Network

Israeli Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir took part in a two-day meeting on Israel’s southern border entitled “Preparing for our resettlement in Gaza” on the occasion of the Jewish holiday of Sukkot. He said: “What we have learned this year is that everything depends on us. We are the owners of this land. Yes, we have experienced a terrible catastrophe. But we must understand that a year later, so many Israelis have changed their mentality. They have changed their mindset. They understand that acting as the rightful owners of this land brings results.

Referring to the Palestinian prisoners, he went on: “We took their jelly sandwiches. We took their chocolate. We took their televisions. We took their ping-pong tables and practice time. You should see them crying and weeping in their cells. This is our proof: when we decide we can, we do succeed.”

“We will encourage the voluntary transfer of all citizens of Gaza. We will offer them the opportunity to move to other countries because this land belongs to us,” he concluded.

Spokesperson for the “Mothers’ Parade” Sima Hasson said “I’m going to say something that not everyone here is ready to say, but I am, and I know many of you are, ready to say it: “Conquer, expel and resettle”. I’m not just talking about an area of Gaza. I’m not just talking about northern Gaza. I mean every area of land. This is the only way to prevent our boys from constantly going to war. To all those in Europe who have an opinion about what is going on here, I say: do not meddle. Your entire continent is invaded by radical Islam!”

Pasionaria of the settler movement Daniella Weiss said: “We came here with a clear objective: to occupy the entire Gaza Strip… Every inch from north to south. We are thousands of people and we are ready to go to Gaza. October 7 changed history. As a result of the brutal massacre, the Arabs of Gaza have lost their rights to be here forever, they will not stay here.

Minister of the Negev, Galilee and National Resilience Yitzhak Wasserlauf said: “For 2,000 years, we dreamed of returning to our Jewish homeland. I know that those who disagree with us call it messianism. I call it Zionism. We are true Zionists. We love our land, we love our people, and we value life. And we have a responsibility to create a safe, Jewish nation on the land God has given us.

Minister of Social Equality and the Advancement of Women May Golan said: “We will hit them where it hurts: their land. Whoever uses his plot of land to plan another holocaust will receive from us, with God’s help, another Nakba [catastrophe].”

In February 2024, the settler movement had already organized a “Conference for Israel’s victory – settlements bring security: return to the Gaza Strip and northern Samaria” in Jerusalem in which they threatened the United States and the United Kingdom with resurrecting the Stern terrorist group [1].

[…]

Via https://www.voltairenet.org/article221426.html

Dr Eddy Betterman

Ohio attorney Tom Renz has dropped another bombshell exposing the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) for licensing the use of deadly DNA vaccines in America’s food supply.

While the USDA had previously given the green light for salmon to be vaccinated with the latest mRNA (modRNA) chemicals, this newest scheme is even worse in that it allows even more questionable pharmaceutical chemicals to be administered to animals that people consume as food.

“… the deadly mRNA poison vaccines weren’t enough for the Biden Harris administration,” Renz notes. “They and their big pharma partners are now licensing DNA vaccines for use in our foods.”

Renz shared screenshots from two documents showing that these DNA vaccines not only exist – and the world was not told about them until now – but are already licensed and being used in the U.S. food supply, unbeknownst to most of the country.

“Our food supply is simply NOT safe,” Renz warns.

https://twitter.com/RenzTom/status/1851177743783780834

Check out the following video to see what the salmon industry is already doing to the sea-based food supply:

https://twitter.com/catsscareme2021/status/1851037372218999015

(Related: Be sure to also check out our earlier report about how RNA and DNA contamination of the food supply is already much worse than most people realize.)

Beware GMO salmon

Renz’s bombshell so upset Rainmaking CEO Kim Greenhouse (@Rainmaking) that she called on X / Twitter for the USDA to be “charged with crimes, including the FDA.”

“GOD HELP US,” she added in desperation.

Another echoed the sentiment that the USDA – or at least the people running the thing – needs to be taken down as soon as possible because “this is our last chance” to save the country.

“RFK Jr. can’t come on board fast enough as Food Health Czar,” wrote another, desperate for Donald Trump to win reelection and appoint Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as the lead guy for cleaning up the nation’s food supply.

The same person who celebrated RFK Jr.’s potential recalled how during a recent trip to the grocery store, she noticed what she described as “an unusually large supply of salmon on sale.”

“Typically it’s so high priced the store doesn’t stock much,” she continued. “Now I know why mass quantities are available at affordable prices.”

It is clear, wrote another, that the powers that be (TPTB) really want to lower the average lifespan to keep their human herd in check.

“It’s time to raise our own food,” wrote another about a possible solution to America’s highly polluted food supply. “Either alone or in communities.”

“I’m not eating poison or having it put in my body by a vax. I’ll raise my own thank you. Or support small organic local farms. Anything but swallow whatever the global elites want us to swallow. Don’t go along. Demand testing of our food. Raise your own. Go to small farms or on line small co-ops. Anything but taking the govt poison.”

Another agreed, noting that this is why TPTB are starting to go so aggressively against small farmers “so that we do not have a choice.”

“They are even passing laws for backyard chickens to be vaccinated,” this person added. “Some places are making it illegal to sell local products to people.”

[…]

Via https://dreddymd.com/2024/10/31/usda-licensing-dna-vaccines-in-food-supply/

Episode 4 Indo-European Languages Spoken in Asia

Language Families of the World

Dr John McWhorter

Film Review

At present 1/6 to 1/5 of the world speaks an Indo-Aryan language derived from Sanskrit, which has even more case endings than Latin. A sub-family of Indo-European languages, the most common Indo-Aryan languages include Hindi, Urdu, Punjabi, Bengali, Gujarati, Marathi and Romani (spoken by Europeans commonly known as “travelers” or “gypsies”)

The Indo-Aryan languages look and sound very different from most Indo-European languages because they adopted many grammatical constructions and the retroflex consonants* of India’s indigenous Dravidian languages (now only spoken in southern India).

Another Indo-European subfamily, Indo-Iranian languages derive from Old Persian. Like Old English, Old Persian became streamlined (ie lost its case endings) under the Persian empire, when (as in Britain) large number of adults (mainly slaves) learned it as a second language.**

Sogdian, similar to Old Persian, is an obsolete language spoken by Silk Road traders.

Persian is also spoken in Afghanistan (where it’s called Dari) and Tajikistan and Uzbekistan (where it’s called Tajik). Bukharen is a Tajik dialect spoken in Central Asia with many words adopted from Hebrew.

Other Indo-Iranian languages:

• Pashto, a language spoken in Afghanistan, is more similar to Old Persian, in that it still uses case endings.
• Kurdish, spoken by Kurds in Turkey, Iran and Syria.
• Hittite, an extinct language spoken on the Anatolia peninsula, believed to be a streamlined version of Proto-Indo-European before it developed complex verb and case endings.

Armenian is considered to be an Indo-Eruopean language but has adopted numerous Indo-Iranian words.

*Retroflex consonants are articulated with the tongue curled back against the roof of the mouth, specifically the alveolar ridge or postalveolar area.

**Similarly large number of Vikings learned English as adults when they occupied large swaths of England from the 8th to the 11th century. In contrast, Icelandic is more like the original Proto-Indo-European language, in that it has preserved many case endings.

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

https://www.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/watch/video/6120000/6120008