“Guided by the meticulous work of Dr. David E. Martin, Plandemic II: Indoctornation, tracks a three decades-longmoney trail that leads directly to the key players behind the COVID -19 pandemic. Plandemic II connects the dots between all forms of media, the medical industry, politics and the financial industry to unmask the major conflicts of interests with the decision makers that are currently managing this crisis.”
Pland3micIndoctornation
“…the most viewed and banned documentory of all time.”
Part 1: interview with Dr. Judy Mikovits, the highly-qualified molecular biologist whose groundbreaking work and her book, Plague of Corruption: Restoring the Promise of Science, resulted in her losing her grants, being arrested without charge and jailed without charge–she “lost everything” but continues to speak out.
The film, based on her work and that of many other scientists–including a Nobel Laureate–exposes the abuse of scientific method in justifying the genocidal lockdown. The film went viral when first released–then deleted from, and/or ridiculed on, every social media site. Still is, as you can see if you google her name, or the name ‘Plandemic’.
FreedomPlatform is an independent people-powered site that allows you to WATCH and/or DOWNLOAD this explosive, mind-expanding, holistic view of our current manufactured crisis, based on the best science: the “political virus”.
Eric Hecker, interviewed by Clayton Morris on Redacted, talks of his work as a contractor for Raytheon, holder of the patent for Nicola Tesla’s invention for transmitting energy wirelessly. The ionospheric heater installed at the USAP is three times more powerful than the first H.A.A.R.P at Gakona, Alaska.
The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program at Gakona was deceptively named as an academic study to hide its weather warfare purpose. Local Alaska activists first publicized the military purpose of the array of 180 antennas beaming radio waves into the upper atmosphere to manipulate the weather. Nick Begich and Jeane Manning publicized it in Angels Don’t Play This HAARP (Earthpulse Press, Anchorage, AK, 1995). Dr. Rosalie Bertell provides details and proposes remedies in her book, Planet Earth: The Latest Weapon of War (Black Rose Books, Montreal/New York/London, 2001). Professor Michel Chossudovsky, who recognized her ground-breaking work, provides the development history and corporate ownership: https://www.globalresearch.ca/weather-warfare-beware-the-us-military-s-experiments-with-climatic-warfare. A CBC News program in January 1996, US military weather weapon, included in this link, gives extensive video footage.
The ionospheric heater at the South Pole Station extends down into the ice, providing three- dimensional power. Hecker calls it HAARP on steroids. It can be operated by the push of a button to cause earthquakes, intensify storms, and activate weather warfare anywhere on the planet. Nexrad radar images of hurricane Helene from Dane Wiggington’s site Geoengineering, show bursts of energy moving the hurricane. Footage of the storm and its effects shows horrific damage. Images of ball lightning, emitted by earthquakes, convey a sense of the power of these systems.
Misdirection by self-styled whistleblowers from the UFO disclosure community, who have been to Antarctica only as tourists, talk about the big hole at the South Pole. Hecker shows a map of the area, an Atmospheric Research Observatory in one quadrant. “It is a clean air studies facility at face value in that area where a no-fly zone is listed; you must fly above 8000 feet. So reasonable logic dictates that you can fly anywhere you want at the South Pole except in one small area…so this would provide no restriction of view if there was a hole at the South Pole Station.”
Motive? To muddy the waters. Standard intelligence and counter-intelligence…so they can continue to do what they are doing.
Hecker testified at the U.S. Intelligence Committee hearings about “rogue factions” trying to “control the narrative to hide the truth”. He’d hoped the Committee would do something, but they did nothing.
Who is running the facility? EH is not sure. The USAP—acronym also for Unacknowledged Special Access Program—has to be secreted away because it would breach the Antarctic Treaties to make the continent “a demilitarized zone to be preserved for scientific research” https://www.britannica.com/event/Antarctic-Treaty.
An Air Traffic Control Center monitors interstellar travel: craft going out into the solar system and beyond. These use “exotic propulsion systems” that emit neutrinos; can do what witnesses say ‘UFOs’ can do. The Ice Cube Neutrino Detector, the largest phaser transmitter on the planet, is about to be increased in size tenfold. Why? What’s the return on investment? What’s the cost?
Morris raises the question of Israel and Iran, looming WWIII, and the election. Hecker points out that a false flag alien invasion would throw out the continuity of government, the President becomes void, and NORAD becomes the de facto leader of the U.S. We are already subject to the Patriot Act. People are happy to relinquish their rights, as they did in 911, when facing a common enemy. We already take off our shoes at airports. They could bust out American military technology and claim it’s the aliens. Global warming: we’re doing it with our own technology.
Hecker points out that the U.S. is not the only nation state working in this capacity. “I believe nation states are puppets of military-industrial corporate contractors—no FOI—they manufacture whatever they want and sell it to the highest bidder. Nothing prevents them from building their own fleets of UFOs. Nothing’s stopping them from secretly mining asteroids. People don’t know the technology exists because it’s not regulated, so these corporations can invent stuff, they don’t have to put it to market, it’s more valuable in an unregulated state.
These corporations have nation-states bowing to them right now. The patent for ionospheric heaters has been transferred to Lockheed Martin. Why can only weapons grade contractors get these contracts? Even for maintenance and janitorial services? They don’t make weapons at the South Pole Station.”
Morris and Hecker raise the issue of the Nazi scientists who came over—were invited—given homes, worked for the government, suddenly went from evil to good. Hecker shows images of Camp Siegfied on Long Island, New York (his home town) of parades in full Nazi regalia. These Nazis were not hiding anything. As in Argentina, they were continuing their plans despite losing the war.
With the election approaching, a spark to the fire could be an alien invasion to set off continuity of government. “People watching should demand actionable intelligence. Podcasters are not journalists; they’re making things up. People deserve the truth.”
As I prepared this post for publication, I happened on this article in the October 2024 issue of Druthers, the independent Canadian newspaper prepared and distributed by volunteers, publishing writers on issues censored or absent from mainstream media.
“The Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA) is a professional organization of police executives representing the largest cities in the United States and Canada. The organization provides a unique forum for urban police chiefs, sheriffs, and other law enforcement executives to share ideas, experienced, and strategies for the advancement of public safety.
In June of 2024, MCCA released its UAP Reference Guide. UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon) has replaced UFO (Unidentified Flying Object) as the go-to term, the acronym for Unidentified Anomolous /Aerial Phenomena. The guide states that it is in the interest of law enforcement to be aware of trends and reporting on UAP due to the “unknown threat’ they may pose and their “continued presence in controlled and restricted airspace “ where police air support units operate. The guide delivers an overview and summary of current mainstream media news articles, government programs, US whistleblower testimonies, Congressional interest in the phenomena, and government and civilian UAP reporting programs. But, the package doesn’t tell all, and this is my argument. The story is clearly one that has arisen from deep within the corridors of government where truths and rights are placed at the bottom of the file, and the narrative is tightly controlled.
Section. 1 of the UAP Refernce Guide presents an article published on March 5, 2024 in The Hill, entitles “Spy balloons, droned, and advanced UAP pose a clear and present danger.” The article states: “Unidentified objects in defended airspace represent a domain awareness gap…that…poses a clear and present danger to pilots and our soldiers that is more acute than ever.”
Coming from an authoritarian background (Russia-German and Catholic) I’m familiar with repression, control, and conflict. At the same time, my experience of intense family love in the midst of our troubled war-torn inheritance (my part of our extended family narrowly escaped Stalin’s genocide in Ukraine, the Holodomor, only to suffer the War in Europe and its aftermath) has me looking to resolve polarities. Long in revolt, I see my default setting of rage and opposition activated by survival urgency and everyone’s distress. I felt I was losing it.
So it was a great relief to happen on Principles of Tsawalk:An Indigenous Approach to Global Crisis (2011). Coming to understand polarity and diversity as part of the indivisible whole of creation eased both emotional and spiritual stress of conflict; I began revisioning core beliefs.
“In a view of reality described as tsawalk (one), relationships are qua (that which is). The ancient Nuu Chah Nulth assumed an interrelationship between all life forms – humans, plants and animals. Relationships are. Accordingly, social, political, economic, constitutional, environmental, and philosophical issues can be addressed under the single theme of interrelationships, across all dimensions of reality – the material and the non-material, the visible and the invisible. As a consequence, certain words in the text, such as “polarity”, “spiritual”, “numinous” and “belief” are placed within the view of reality described as tsawalk – one. These definitions offer a Nuu Chah Nulth perspective on the nature of reality in that all questions of existence, being, and knowing, regardless of seeming contradictions, are considered to be tsawalk – one and inseparable. They are interrelated and interconnected.
After 40 years of working in support of Indigenous Nations, teaching school and living on reserve, learning from indigenous mentors, I still struggle to fathom the Respect that is evident in all community relations, so alien is it to my culture. Dr. Atleo’s work gives new depth to my understanding: sacred Respect, for all life. Consent and Continuity present new challenges. If it’s possible for a child of authoritarianism to assimilate this world view, reconcile polarity and diversity in my personal life and work in the world, it is clearly a lifetime engagement.
Five minutes into the movie The Day After Tomorrow I realized: ‘they’ are blaming us for the ice age! Naïve me, imagining that once the cold starts to really manifest as we get close to 2030, the lowest solar minimum in 400 years—a mere 6 years away—everyone will realize that the planet is not overheating. That it’s the normal low sun cycle, the Maunder minimum following on the maximum of the sun cycle, and we are ‘allowed’ to use fossil fuels again to keep us from freezing. Dream on.
Never let a good lie go to waste: the global control freaks reuse and recycle the fear and panic generated by their global heating lie, decades in the making, with this movie. Why else would the United Nations target 2030 for their Agenda, weaponizing sustainable development? Klaus Schwab and his World Economic Forum add 2050 to that target. Fear to the tenth power.
During the ice age 400 years ago, millions of people died of cold and starvation. The global dominators’ depopulation agenda by ice age, their disrespect for life, is hard for us to imagine, given our conditioned trust in our institutions. They are expert at exploiting that trust.
This movie is cinema fear porn at its best. Using the incredible power of panoramic, wide-screen visual effects, they have us going from zero to sixty in two minutes. Long views of stark glacier images bring us to men drilling ice cores on a body of water. The ice is cracking—possibly because a neophyte is allowed to use the drill—isolating them from their equipment, from each other, and from the essential ice core cylinders. The guilty hero risks his life to save them, gets onto the retreating ice floe by a centimeter, only for all of them to be overwhelmed by further collapsing ice disaster. In public assemblies, panic erupts, stoked by politicians and professors warning of coming disaster if we don’t stop using fossil fuels.
I thought, how clever, to introduce the idea, right off, that a man ignorant of procedures is to blame for the drillers’ disaster. I could take no more, left my friends to continue the ‘wild ride’. Resorting to the supper dishes to ease my own panic, I realized, with a shock, that ‘they’ are blaming us for planet heating and ice age both. Brilliant twist. What now?
Psychopathic human causation syndrome convinces us that we can influence planet and solar system cycles. Feeling powerless in our own political systems, we transfer our need for some vestige of control to those willing to exploit human fear. Who engineer world control for their greater power and wealth addiction—and their criminal willingness to murder millions of people to seize what’s left of our Commons. Unaware, they are in denial of their own mortality.
Hard to imagine how so many environmentalists, and how many well-intentioned people, can stay ignorant for so long, despite the many truth tellers who disseminate the reality: the large numbers of scientists who quit the UN IPCC panel to expose its political agenda; those establishing the C02 Coalition to illuminate Earth’s need for that gas, essential for plant growth. Censorship is now global. It takes only a few influential leaders buying into the lie, or selling out, to influence thousands.
We need a movie to illuminate the sun cycle. To show, in brilliant hi-tech visual power, our Sun and Earth interacting with planets. To play the music of the spheres, the astonishing part of the universe that creates our cyclic reality. To show our Earth changes through the millennia.
We need interviews with Ice Age Farmer Christian Westbrook and electroverse creator Cap Allon; with astrophysicists Piers Corbyn and Valentina Zharkova. We need Climate Depot Marc Morano quoting his ‘small sample’ (19) of scientists who quit the UN IPCC. We need to reclaim the brilliant interview with the late Dr. Nils-Axel Moerner, sea level expert, which was scrubbed from u-tube and Rumble; we need his comprehensive, wholistic, reassuring picture. We need Andrei Kapitsa, UN IPCC critic and Russian Antarctic ice core researcher, and the many other Russian scientists who detail the realities.
Let’s get on with it: a movie detailing the solar cycle, and the ice ages, throughout the eons. Defuse this movie porn fear bomb with the truth of our glorious universe.
Negotiators failed to submit final texts of the WHO’s pandemic agreement and amendments to the IHR before the May 24 deadline, but some critics of the proposals warned against celebrating prematurely.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website. Negotiations for the World Health Organization’s (WHO) proposed “pandemic agreement” — or “pandemic treaty” — and amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) have failed, for now at least. The New York Times reported that negotiators failed to submit final texts of the two documents before the May 24 deadline for consideration and a vote at this year’s World Health Assembly taking place this week in Geneva, Switzerland. The WHO said the proposals are intended to prepare for the “next pandemic.” But critics called the proposals a global “power grab” that threatened national sovereignty, health freedom, personal liberties and free speech while promoting risky gain-of-function research and “health passports.” “Sticking points,” according to The Times, included “equitable access to vaccines and financing to set up surveillance systems.” Instead of considering a full set of proposals from both documents, a more modest “consensus package of [IHR] amendments” will be presented this week, according to the proposed text of the Working Group on Amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) (WGIHR). World Council for Health is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Upgrade to paid The text states: “The text does not represent a fully agreed package of amendments and is intended to provide an overview of the current status and progress of the WGIHR’s work. … “The mandate of the WGIHR Co-Chairs and Bureau has now ended but we stand ready to support the next steps agreed by the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly, including facilitating any further discussions if so decided.” The final report of the International Negotiating Body (INB) for the “pandemic agreement,” dated May 27, states “The INB did not reach consensus on the text.” Mary Holland, CEO of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), credited global opposition to the WHO’s proposals for shutting them down. She told The Defender: “It is a huge tribute to civic action that the WHO treaty and regulations have apparently failed. While delegates to the World Health Assembly are still engaged in last-minute negotiations, outside of approved procedures they do not have a consensus to move forward with a legal infrastructure to conduct COVID operations. “This is great news for the world’s citizens and shows us how powerful we can be when we work together creatively.” The Times reported that negotiators plan to ask for more time. According to The Straits Times, “Countries have voiced a commitment to keep pushing for an accord.” Opening the World Health Assembly on Monday, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus suggested efforts to finalize the two proposals will continue. “We all wish that we had been able to reach a consensus on the agreement in time for this health assembly and crossed the finish line,” Tedros said, in remarks quoted by The Straits Times. “But I remain confident that you still will, because where there is a will, there is a way.” Internist Dr. Meryl Nass, founder of Door to Freedom — an organization working to defeat the WHO’s proposals — celebrated the news and suggested the WHO’s efforts have failed irreversibly. “The treaty is done,” Nass wrote on Substack. “Nothing in the treaty can rise from the ashes of the negotiations to be voted on this week.” She characterized the news as a “first round” win “in the war of democracy versus one-world government. Share WHO proposals ‘rolled out through lies and stealth’ Negotiations failed despite efforts by Tedros and others to persuade negotiators and WHO member states to agree on the two texts in time for a vote at the World Health Assembly. At the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in January, Tedros warned of the pandemic threat posed by a yet-unknown “Disease X” and said the pandemic agreement “can help us to prepare for the future in a better way because this is about a common enemy.” In March, over 100 former world leaders, including former U.K. prime minister Tony Blair — a proponent of “vaccine passports” and digital ID — signed a letter urging WHO member states to finalize negotiations on the “pandemic agreement.” Biden administration officials negotiating on behalf of the U.S. also pushed for the two documents to be finalized. Loyce Pace, assistant secretary for global affairs at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, told The Times. “Those of us in public health recognize that another pandemic really could be around the corner.” In December 2023, Pace testified before Congress in support of the two documents. “It’s only a matter of time before the world faces another serious public health threat,” she said, noting the U.S. role in drafting some of the proposed IHR amendments. But according to Nass, the entire pandemic preparedness project has been rolled out through “lies and stealth.” “Globalists created legal documents replete with euphemisms and flowery language, always disguised to hide the documents’ true intentions,” she said. “But we saw through them and didn’t let them get away with it.” Nass wrote that the “consensus” on the IHR proposals delivered to the World Health Assembly are “the flowery language ones, not the meaningful ones.” There is one exception, Nass said. Referring to Article 5 of the IHR amendments, she noted that “the negotiators were fine telling nations to surveil their citizens and combat misinformation and disinformation.” “Nearly all governments are already surveilling and propagandizing us,” Nass said. “So, while this provision is odious, it really doesn’t change anything.” She also noted that while consensus was reached on Article 18, the implementation of “health passports” and other similar documents during a health emergency is now a “recommendation” instead of a requirement. Definite language — such as the word “shall” — has been removed from the text. Share ‘They are not going to go away’ Other legal experts and health freedom advocates welcomed the news but said the WHO will likely continue pushing for the two proposals. Australian attorney Katie Ashby-Koppens, who helped advocate for New Zealand’s rejection of a previous set of IHR amendments last year, told The Defender, “I don’t know that we should be celebrating the failure to reach agreement at this stage as a milestone.” Journalist James Roguski told The Defender, “Member nations and the WHO have not given up. To the contrary, they have every intention of continuing in their attempts to finalize the negotiations.” “Now is not the time to celebrate,” Roguski continued. “Now is the time to come together in order to take focused and massive action.” Dutch attorney Meike Terhorst told The Defender, “According to my information, if the pandemic agreement fails, then they can continue negotiations later this year, with the view of trying again at next year’s World Health Assembly.” “Given the WHO/World Health Assembly is a law unto themselves, and they desperately want these treaty reforms to pass, then the mandate to continue and finalize their negotiations may be extended,” Ashby-Koppens said. Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., professor of international law at the University of Illinois, told The Defender the WHO’s proposals were “the first time … that globalists spent an enormous amount of time, effort, money and brainpower to construct a worldwide totalitarian police state under the guise of protecting public health.” Boyle said: “The WHO won’t back down from its proposals easily. They are not going to go away. They have come this far, and they will keep at it until they get their objective by hook or by crook. The only way to protect ourselves from these globalists is to pull out of the WHO.” But Nass believes the WHO may encounter difficulty in bringing back its proposals, telling The Defender it would be “unlikely to get far with either document unless they are pared down to what does not actually matter much to any nation.” “I expect they will patch together a few [proposals] and vote yes and claim victory. But their major desires are all smashed,” Nass said. “They needed secrecy and ignorance, and they lost those advantages.” Experts told The Defender a key factor in the WHO’s failure to achieve consensus on the two proposals was opposition from several nations — and by people worldwide. “People and politicians around the world were educated about what was really being negotiated, what was really in the documents,” Nass said. On Saturday, CHD participated in a rally against the WHO proposals, across from the United Nations headquarters in New York. Watch Mary Holland speak at the New York rally:
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
A profound division exists between Zionist advocates of Israel on the one hand, and both secular and religious Jews, on the other, who reject Zionism and thus the very idea of a separate state for the Jews. Most Jews must be somewhere in between. For years, they have cringed at Israel’s actions without, however, questioning the ethnocratic nature of the Israeli state. For them, “Israel’s right to exist” is sacred because they fear that the only alternative is a physical destruction of Israeli Jews. Even though most of them live in liberal democracies, it is hard for them to fathom that Israel may change its nature, like South Africa did a few decades ago, and become a liberal state with equal rights for everyone on the entire territory under Israeli control between the Mediterranean and the river Jordan.
Israel’s assault on Gaza has made many Jews worldwide, particularly the young, to recoil from any association with the state of Israel. But at least just as many refused to remain “Jews of silence” and came to denounce Israel’s vengeful response to Hamas’ attack on its territory on October 7, 2023.
Especially in the United States, Jews have prominently cried out against the violence in Gaza. Hundreds of protesters closed down New York’s Central Station asking for an immediate ceasefire.
A week earlier, Jews wrapped in prayer shawls staged a sit-in at the U.S. Congress in Washington. After demanding an end to the violence, they opened prayer books and began reciting the ancient words that have steadied Jews for generations. Just a few days ago, Jews unfurled banners reading “Palestinians should be free” at the base of the Statue of Liberty in New York.
Anti-Zionist Ultra-Orthodox Jews have burned Israeli flags at their protests around the world. They believe that the Zionist state is not simply an ‘appropriation’ of their Jewish symbols and identity, but the root cause of a bloody conflict in which innocent Jews and Palestinians suffer.
Indeed, Israel is a Zionist state. Calling it Jewish only creates a confusion because it is hard to define it. Israel embodies European ethnic nationalism shaped in late 19th century, rather than Judaism that has developed for millennia. From the start, Zionists despised Jews and Judaism as they aimed at breeding a new species: the intrepid Hebrew warrior farmer. They have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. Israel has built a mobilized society and a formidable high-tech war machine. As Israeli society has moved steadily to the right, it has consolidated the support of right-wing extremists and racists, including antisemites, around the world, such as white supremacists in the United States.
Israel is the most recent settler colony. Rhodesia and Algeria are now a distant memory. South Africa has freed itself from the official apartheid. While settlers in the Americas and Oceania perpetrated genocide against the aboriginals in the 19th century, Israel initiated massive ethnic cleansing rather late, only in 1947. Some, like the Israeli historian Benny Morris, who documented it, regretted that the Zionists did not complete the job like the white Americans, Argentines or Australians, who wiped out most of the local populations. Indeed, Israel now has under its control approximately equal numbers of Palestinians and Jews, but most Palestinians don’t have political rights.
Many Jews, both in Israel and elsewhere, have been trying to come to terms with the contradictions between the Judaism they profess to adhere to and the Zionist ideology that has taken hold of them. A new variety of Judaism has taken root in Israel: National Judaism, dati-leumi in Hebrew. For some Jews, this new faith assuages these contradictions.
Among its most fervent followers one finds the assassin of prime minister Itzhak Rabin who had attempted to find an accommodation with the Palestinians, and prominent members of today’s Israeli government. National Judaism is also the ideology of many vigilante settlers who, since the onset of the war on Gaza, have intensified the harassment, dispossession, and murder of Palestinians on the West Bank. The vigilantes armed with rifles are proud to complement what the Israeli army is doing with tanks, bombs, and rockets in Gaza.
Quite a few Jews now wonder if this separate state for the Jews chronically generating violence is “good for the Jews.” The tardiness of this questioning reflects the success of Israel’s masquerading as “the Jewish and democratic state”, a theoretical and ideological oxymoron. The bombing of Gaza has punctured that propaganda balloon and exposed Israel’s character as a bellicose settler colony, victim of its own practice of exclusion and oppression.
Many Jews deplore this practice because it contradicts all that Judaism teaches, particularly the core values of humility, compassion, and kindness. They realize that those Jews – in truth, the vast majority of them – who rejected Zionism over a century ago, may have been right. Other Jews also find themselves in an emotional bind. Deeply saddened by Hamas’ attack on Israel and likewise devasted by Israel’s implacable response, they are also worried about the surge in anti-Jewish sentiment all around them.
The deadly Hamas attack of October 7, 2023 shows how Israel’s displacement and oppression of the Palestinians breeds their hatred. Consequently, it physically endangers Jews in Israel. The subsequent killing of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza imperils Jews both in Israel and elsewhere. (Muslims do become targets too, as the tragic killing of a six-year-old American Palestinian shows.)
When Israel claims to be the state of all the Jews it turns them into hostages of its policies and actions. When Jewish community organizations declare “We stand with Israel!” they act as proxies for Israel rather than representatives of Jews. To be more precise, they represent those Jews whose identity has become mainly political: believers in Israel, right or wrong.
Israel and Zionism have long polarized the Jews. While Jews worldwide are largely split between these “Israel-firsters” and those who denounce Israel, neither camp influences Israel’s actions. They are akin to fans, rooting for one or the other side, watching from the outside as the situation unfolds. Blaming and attacking Jews for Israel’s actions is wrong and antisemitic. It also strengthens the core Zionist claim that Jews can be safe only in Israel.
It remains to be seen whether the fracture between those who hold fast to Jewish moral tradition and the converts to ethnic nationalism may one day be repaired. However fateful for Jews and Judaism, this fracture is less important for Israel, which nowadays counts many more evangelical Christians than Jews among its unconditional supporters.
Massive world-wide protests have so far affected neither Israelis’ vengeful violence in Gaza nor the supply of American weapons to support it. There is reason to despair. But Judaic tradition encourages Jews to continue, even in seemingly hopeless circumstances: “It is not your duty to finish the work, but neither are you at liberty to desist from it…” (Pirke Avot 2:16) This is why many Jews remain at the forefront of the struggle against Israel’s wanton violence. But when the violence ends, many will realize that their protests have emancipated them from Israel’s emotional stranglehold.
This emancipation from the Zionist state has been observed in very different Jewish communities, Ashkenazi and Sephardi, strictly observant and more liberal. Thus, an ultra-Orthodox critic of Israel, usually antagonistic to Reform Judaism, commends a Reform rabbi for saying that “when Israel’s Jewish supporters abroad don’t speak out against disastrous policies that neither guarantee safety for her citizens nor produce the right climate in which to try and reach a just peace with the Palestinians … they are betraying millennial Jewish values.”
The nuclear armed Israel endangers not only the Palestinians and the Jews. It threatens an Armageddon for the region and the Samson option for the world. These apocalyptic scenarios may be triggered if an Israeli government decides that the country cannot cope with an existential threat. This may mean not only the threat of physical destruction but also the looming end of the institutionalized dominance of Israeli Jews over the Palestinians, the end of ethnocracy.
There is hope. England oppressed Ireland for centuries. France and Germany bitterly fought many wars. What will it take for Israelis and Palestinians to live peacefully side by side? Many Jews and many more Palestinians believe that the apartheid-like structure of the Zionist state, which explains why it has lived by the sword since its inception, must change. They know that only when all the inhabitants of the Holy Land enjoy equal rights and have a stake in whatever political arrangement is reached (one state, two states or something else) will the cycle of death stop.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on Pressenza.
Yakov M. Rabkin, author of “A Threat from Within: A Century of Jewish Opposition to Zionism” and “What is Modern Israel?” is professor emeritus of history and associate of the Centre for International Studies at the University of Montreal (CERIUM). His e-mail is yakov.rabkin@umontreal.ca
A profound division exists between Zionist advocates of Israel on the one hand, and both secular and religious Jews, on the other, who reject Zionism and thus the very idea of a separate state for the Jews. Most Jews must be somewhere in between. For years, they have cringed at Israel’s actions without, however, questioning the ethnocratic nature of the Israeli state. For them, “Israel’s right to exist” is sacred because they fear that the only alternative is a physical destruction of Israeli Jews. Even though most of them live in liberal democracies, it is hard for them to fathom that Israel may change its nature, like South Africa did a few decades ago, and become a liberal state with equal rights for everyone on the entire territory under Israeli control between the Mediterranean and the river Jordan.
Israel’s assault on Gaza has made many Jews worldwide, particularly the young, to recoil from any association with the state of Israel. But at least just as many refused to remain “Jews of silence” and came to denounce Israel’s vengeful response to Hamas’ attack on its territory on October 7, 2023.
Especially in the United States, Jews have prominently cried out against the violence in Gaza. Hundreds of protesters closed down New York’s Central Station asking for an immediate ceasefire.
A week earlier, Jews wrapped in prayer shawls staged a sit-in at the U.S. Congress in Washington. After demanding an end to the violence, they opened prayer books and began reciting the ancient words that have steadied Jews for generations. Just a few days ago, Jews unfurled banners reading “Palestinians should be free” at the base of the Statue of Liberty in New York.
Anti-Zionist Ultra-Orthodox Jews have burned Israeli flags at their protests around the world. They believe that the Zionist state is not simply an ‘appropriation’ of their Jewish symbols and identity, but the root cause of a bloody conflict in which innocent Jews and Palestinians suffer.
Indeed, Israel is a Zionist state. Calling it Jewish only creates a confusion because it is hard to define it. Israel embodies European ethnic nationalism shaped in late 19th century, rather than Judaism that has developed for millennia. From the start, Zionists despised Jews and Judaism as they aimed at breeding a new species: the intrepid Hebrew warrior farmer. They have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. Israel has built a mobilized society and a formidable high-tech war machine. As Israeli society has moved steadily to the right, it has consolidated the support of right-wing extremists and racists, including antisemites, around the world, such as white supremacists in the United States.
Israel is the most recent settler colony. Rhodesia and Algeria are now a distant memory. South Africa has freed itself from the official apartheid. While settlers in the Americas and Oceania perpetrated genocide against the aboriginals in the 19th century, Israel initiated massive ethnic cleansing rather late, only in 1947. Some, like the Israeli historian Benny Morris, who documented it, regretted that the Zionists did not complete the job like the white Americans, Argentines or Australians, who wiped out most of the local populations. Indeed, Israel now has under its control approximately equal numbers of Palestinians and Jews, but most Palestinians don’t have political rights.
Many Jews, both in Israel and elsewhere, have been trying to come to terms with the contradictions between the Judaism they profess to adhere to and the Zionist ideology that has taken hold of them. A new variety of Judaism has taken root in Israel: National Judaism, dati-leumi in Hebrew. For some Jews, this new faith assuages these contradictions.
Among its most fervent followers one finds the assassin of prime minister Itzhak Rabin who had attempted to find an accommodation with the Palestinians, and prominent members of today’s Israeli government. National Judaism is also the ideology of many vigilante settlers who, since the onset of the war on Gaza, have intensified the harassment, dispossession, and murder of Palestinians on the West Bank. The vigilantes armed with rifles are proud to complement what the Israeli army is doing with tanks, bombs, and rockets in Gaza.
Quite a few Jews now wonder if this separate state for the Jews chronically generating violence is “good for the Jews.” The tardiness of this questioning reflects the success of Israel’s masquerading as “the Jewish and democratic state”, a theoretical and ideological oxymoron. The bombing of Gaza has punctured that propaganda balloon and exposed Israel’s character as a bellicose settler colony, victim of its own practice of exclusion and oppression.
Many Jews deplore this practice because it contradicts all that Judaism teaches, particularly the core values of humility, compassion, and kindness. They realize that those Jews – in truth, the vast majority of them – who rejected Zionism over a century ago, may have been right. Other Jews also find themselves in an emotional bind. Deeply saddened by Hamas’ attack on Israel and likewise devasted by Israel’s implacable response, they are also worried about the surge in anti-Jewish sentiment all around them.
The deadly Hamas attack of October 7, 2023 shows how Israel’s displacement and oppression of the Palestinians breeds their hatred. Consequently, it physically endangers Jews in Israel. The subsequent killing of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza imperils Jews both in Israel and elsewhere. (Muslims do become targets too, as the tragic killing of a six-year-old American Palestinian shows.)
When Israel claims to be the state of all the Jews it turns them into hostages of its policies and actions. When Jewish community organizations declare “We stand with Israel!” they act as proxies for Israel rather than representatives of Jews. To be more precise, they represent those Jews whose identity has become mainly political: believers in Israel, right or wrong.
Israel and Zionism have long polarized the Jews. While Jews worldwide are largely split between these “Israel-firsters” and those who denounce Israel, neither camp influences Israel’s actions. They are akin to fans, rooting for one or the other side, watching from the outside as the situation unfolds. Blaming and attacking Jews for Israel’s actions is wrong and antisemitic. It also strengthens the core Zionist claim that Jews can be safe only in Israel.
It remains to be seen whether the fracture between those who hold fast to Jewish moral tradition and the converts to ethnic nationalism may one day be repaired. However fateful for Jews and Judaism, this fracture is less important for Israel, which nowadays counts many more evangelical Christians than Jews among its unconditional supporters.
Massive world-wide protests have so far affected neither Israelis’ vengeful violence in Gaza nor the supply of American weapons to support it. There is reason to despair. But Judaic tradition encourages Jews to continue, even in seemingly hopeless circumstances: “It is not your duty to finish the work, but neither are you at liberty to desist from it…” (Pirke Avot 2:16) This is why many Jews remain at the forefront of the struggle against Israel’s wanton violence. But when the violence ends, many will realize that their protests have emancipated them from Israel’s emotional stranglehold.
This emancipation from the Zionist state has been observed in very different Jewish communities, Ashkenazi and Sephardi, strictly observant and more liberal. Thus, an ultra-Orthodox critic of Israel, usually antagonistic to Reform Judaism, commends a Reform rabbi for saying that “when Israel’s Jewish supporters abroad don’t speak out against disastrous policies that neither guarantee safety for her citizens nor produce the right climate in which to try and reach a just peace with the Palestinians … they are betraying millennial Jewish values.”
The nuclear armed Israel endangers not only the Palestinians and the Jews. It threatens an Armageddon for the region and the Samson option for the world. These apocalyptic scenarios may be triggered if an Israeli government decides that the country cannot cope with an existential threat. This may mean not only the threat of physical destruction but also the looming end of the institutionalized dominance of Israeli Jews over the Palestinians, the end of ethnocracy.
There is hope. England oppressed Ireland for centuries. France and Germany bitterly fought many wars. What will it take for Israelis and Palestinians to live peacefully side by side? Many Jews and many more Palestinians believe that the apartheid-like structure of the Zionist state, which explains why it has lived by the sword since its inception, must change. They know that only when all the inhabitants of the Holy Land enjoy equal rights and have a stake in whatever political arrangement is reached (one state, two states or something else) will the cycle of death stop.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on Pressenza.
Yakov M. Rabkin, author of “A Threat from Within: A Century of Jewish Opposition to Zionism” and “What is Modern Israel?” is professor emeritus of history and associate of the Centre for International Studies at the University of Montreal (CERIUM). His e-mail is yakov.rabkin@umontreal.ca
How has is come to pass that young people out to save the world can say nuclear is a “safe” alternative to fossil fuels and carbon dioxide emissions? Plutonium produced by nuclear fission in reactors is the essential component of nuclear bombs. The myth of the “peaceful atom” was exposed as a ploy by the wealthy global dominators and their puppets, the nuclear weapons industry, when nuclear reactors around the world melted down, poisoning air, water, land, people and fellow creatures with a wide array of radioactive isotopes. Nuclear wastes, radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years, impossible to contain; the extreme cost at every stage, wasting essential resources; all revealed that nuclear is in no way about peaceful energy.
The American nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, with 300,000 immediate deaths, millions of injuries, and decades of inter-generational genetic damage, alerted the world to the deadly atom. The meltdown of the Russian reactors at Chernobyl in 1986; of the U.S. Three-Mile Island reactors in 1979; and the three Fukushima reactors in 2011, made nuclear hazards a global concern. The 2023 release of 15,600 tons of radioactive water from the decommissioned Fukushima reactors contaminates Japan, neighbouring countries, the West Coast of North America, and the world’s oceans. A further million tons will be released over the next 30 years.
Russia and China developed nuclear weapons in defense and the nuclear arms race was on, leading to today’s array of weapons and delivery systems beyond imagining. With the long US/NATO proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, we teeter on the cliff edge of nuclear annihilation.
How has it come to pass that carbon dioxide is seen as a greater threat?
Dr. Nils-Axel Moerner,Professor Emeritus of paleogeophysics and geodynamics at Stockholm University, sea level expertfor the 2000 UN International Panel on Climate Change, explains.
The first theory of C02 global warming was posited by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in 1896, and was disproven. In the 1970s Prime Minister Olaf Palme and Swedish meteorologist Bert Bolin, his boyhood friend and advisor, agreed to move from dependence on oil into nuclear in order to become an industrial power. Sweden built twelve reactors; Bolin became the first chairman of the IPCC, and global warming by fossil fuels, established disinformation. (But only the civilian economy was blamed; the IPCC makes no mention of military emissions after the US lobby at Kyoto claimed national security.) Sweden decommissioned the reactors in the 90s when the hazards became obvious.
The second coming in 2020: nuclear is again hailed as the saviour of mankind from the global heating hazards of C02. Today the Green Party in Germany and the West Vancouver chapter of the Party, among others, actually use the word ‘safe’ about the nuclear industry.
Wyoming is switching from their rich fossil fuel resource to nuclear (and imported uranium) with an experimental reactor sold to the State by Bill Gates.
Today’s young generationmissed the decades-long struggle of Canadians to prevent deadly radioactive pollution, and keep the costly nuclear industry from hijacking their economy. High cancer death rates among uranium miners; radioactive contamination of the environment; ethical concern for exporting uranium from Saskatchewan to reactors around the world; and evidence of cancer and birth defects in the general population; spurred citizen education and action. Point Lepreau in New Brunswick (1983) and the eight Pickering reactors in Ontario (1965-86) were built despite widespread opposition; likewise, the 19 reactors built in Canada over 58 years.
In 1978 citizens from coast to coast worked together to form the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility http://www.ccnr.org/, where Dr. Gordon Edwards still provides comprehensive oversight on today’s critical nuclear issues. In BC, fifteen years of citizen action (1970-1985), supported by this country-wide coalition, prevented the proposed nuclear reactors at Chemainus on Vancouver Island and uranium mining around the province.
In 1971 the BC NDP, at that time a party of and for the people, hosted a debate on the nuclear question between U.S. anti/nuclear scientist Dr. John Gofman and the ‘father’ of the Canadian Candu reactor; the audience voted unanimously against nuclear. Open discussion was an NDP principle back then; but at the federal convention delegates accepted Tommy Douglas speaking, against the rules, three times on one subject. He defused the proposed policy against nuclear on behalf of the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Union by suggesting that our Candu export to India will help feed people. (Tragically, in BC and federally, the New Democratic Party morphed into the Neo-Nazi Doom Party.)
But the Candu lives on: as SMR, Small Modular Reactors, 300 Megawatt experimental reactors produced by SNC Lavalin, successor to AECL, the crown corporation Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. A private engineering corporation with offices world-wide, SNC avoided criminal charges of fraud in 2019 by arranging a “deferred Prosecution agreement” with Justin Trudeau’s government to allow them to remain eligible to bid on government projects. They bought the Candu in 2011 for $15 million, and “immediately received $85 million in government grants to proceed to try and sell the darn things…But AECL still owns the assets — and more significantly, the liabilities — at the Chalk River [nuclear waste] site, and at other “federal” nuclear sites….” http://www.ccnr.org/Who_owns_AECL.pdf. SMRs, intended for industrial sites and small communities in the North, are as hazardous and more expensive than the large reactors.
BC citizens won a moratorium on uranium mining and reactors in 1986 with the help of Dr. Rosalie Bertell, who in 1973 gave her time to a province-wide speaking tour on the health impacts of low-level ionizing radiation.
Dr. Bertell was head of the adult section of the Tri-State Leukemia Data, a 9-year 36-million person-year study for the American Cancer Society, which found that the primary cause of leukemia in three eastern states was high-dose medical x-rays. The children’s section, headed by Dr. Irwin Bross, found widespread birth defects even when either parent was X-rayed before conception. Congress reduced allowable radiation standards by 10%; Rosalie said it should have been 90%. She suffered two attempts on her life, one in Buffalo and one after she moved to Toronto. But she carried on her work around the world, consulting for third-world countries damaged by nuclear bomb testing and radioactive contamination.
“Rosy, the nuclear nun” was Vancouver radio host Jack Webster’s affectionate name for the gently humorous Grey Nun of the Sacred Heart. The Federal Deputy Minister for Environment acknowledged that she shifted the tide of public opinion to citizen activists, successfully preventing reactors and mines in BC.
Later that year Rosalie was invited to the US Congress Environmental Assessment of the Solar Space Program. She realized that, at $3000 per kilowatt-hour, this was not about civilian solar energy. She became expert on military experiments in the atmosphere destabilizing our planet: http://www.pbme-online.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Bertell.Slowly-Wrecking.pdf
and the electromagnetic weapons (based on Nicola Tesla’s work) developed by global militaries. Her book, Planet Earth, The Latest Weapon of War, details the global politics leading to the use of EM weapons, the massive ecological and human damage, and illuminates her radical path to peace. radical path to peace.
Dr. Michel Chossudovsky, Professor Emeritus of Economics at Ottawa University, acknowledges her cutting edge work, pointing to flood and drought devastating ‘rogue states’ since 1995, and the recent earthquakes in Turkey and Syria, as weather warfare.
Today, electromagnetic warfare releases the four horsemen of the Apocalypse: conquest, war, famine, death. EM war also opens the last three seals: fire, flood, earthquake—escalating C02 climate terror and global depopulation. Radioactive Apocalypse, unknown to Biblical prophets, is today’s Fifth Horseman.
Dr. Philip Lloyd, South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications:
“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil…I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science…I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.”
Dr. Madhav Khandekar, retired Environment Canadascientist, lashed out at those who
“…seem to naively believe that the climate change science espoused in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) documents represents ‘scientific consensus.’ …Nothing could be further from the truth!… “Unfortunately, the IPCC climate change documents do not provide an objective assessment of the earth’s temperature trends and associated climate change.”
Andrei Kapitsa, renowned Russian geographer and Antarctic researcher, cites composition of the atmosphere and air temperature going back 400,000 years of ice core layers.
“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact.”
Cold Climate Change: the coming “little ice age”
The fewest sunspots in 400 years are expected by 2030. Yet the UN Agenda 2030 sets that year
as their goal for finally saving our planet from burning up by implementing draconian, genocidal
measures to limit carbon dioxide. This choice looks like psychotic evil glee in the projected
Responding to unprecedented, high-tech criminal psychopathology—known throughout human history as evil—the universal and timeless human drive to resist oppression, to understand all things, shifts our energy for life into overdrive. While our Sun’s shift is censored, people everywhere work with unprecedented globalized energy to share awareness. To share healing.
Hildegard Bechler worked with Dr. Bertell and citizens province-wide to bring essential information to the public. She continues her work for peace.
This search into our past has admittedly been depressing….
There appear to be two paths towards global stabilization of population and resource: the first would use force, and violence, to reduce populations and limit consumption; the second would propose reducing the felt need for population increase through fulfilling basic survival requirements, providing security from violence, and increasing resource productivity. This second path has many supporters…. Can we find ways of achieving greater eco-efficiency and eco-sufficiency, peace and rule by law? Can we accomplish an equitable distribution of goods and services both within and between nations?
I believe that there are clear steps we can take. As in most serious illnesses, there is emergency treatment, followed by a long recovery period, counting on nature’s own restorative power. In my view the emergency action we must take is to terminate the military. Both this and the long process of behavioural modification rest on the human ability to change.
PART III RETHINKING SECURITY
CHAPTER 6 MILITARY SECURITY IN THE NEW MILLENNIUM
The problems we face at the beginning of the twenty-first century involve interconnected issues of militarism, economics, social policy and the environment. Global consumption of resources is exceeding Earth’s restorative capacity by at least 33 per cent. War and the preparation for war drastically reduce the store of these resources still further, leading to a self-perpetuating cycle in which competition for raw materials leads to further conflict. This means that global survival requires a zero tolerance policy for the destructive power of war.
However, I recognize that exposing the extremes of today’s military and outlining the crisis in resources will only bring about change if we also tackle the question of security. Popular support for the military comes from fear, and that fear is based on hundreds of years of recorded history. We feel that we must have weapons to protect ourselves from the weapons of the enemy. This fear legitimizes the development and stockpiling of new weapons and results in the election of public officials who will not hesitate to use violence. This in turn attracts the warrior to public office and reinforces his or her belief that military might is the best assurance of security. If the public were convinced that there were real, viable alternatives to war, such figures would lose their mandate.
Therefore, it is vital that a new concept of security is devised, which puts Earth and its inhabitants first. The old paradigm of security protects wealth, financial investment and privilege through the threat and use of violence. The new concept embraces a more egalitarian vision, prioritizing people, human rights, and the health of the environment. Security itself is not being abandoned; it is just being achieved through the protection and responsible stewardship of the Earth. I would call this emerging new vision ‘ecological security’. Such a shift in focus requires a complex, multi-faceted approach to resource protection and distribution, to conflict resolution and the policing of the natural world. In Chapter 7, I will outline some of the directions we might take towards achieving these goals. But in order to do this, we must first challenge the belief that military force is a necessary evil.
WORKING FOR CHANGE
Altering the Core Belief
Social change always follows a period when a core belief is identified and rejected. As support and awareness of this new way of thinking grows, the political climate changes and the old way of doing things is no longer acceptable. That is the lesson we learn from history. I believe, for example, that the vast social changes of the 1950s and 1960s came about when people began to challenge the idea that everyone should conform to socially imposed patterns of behaviour. This shift resulted in a new understanding of human and civil rights, with a focus on the freedom of the individual and an acceptance of racial, religious and sexual diversity.
Once a core belief is overturned, related changes spread under their own impetus. In the 1950s and 1960s we saw the growth of movements for civil rights, women’s rights, black power and gay rights. Consciousness-raising in turn yields changes in legislation, social behaviour, policy, and even language. More recently we have seen the recognition of the rights of the child, the movement against child soldiers, and animal rights groups.
There will always be those who resist change—in the 1960s, the rejection of socially imposed behaviour led to fears of social chaos. But we are quick to monitor when things go ‘too far’ and we adjust our beliefs accordingly. So whilst we recognize the freedom of the individual, for example, this does not mean that we tolerate them violating the rights of another. Self-correction and adjustment following the rejection of a core belief is a vital part of the process.
The core belief being challenged today is that military power provides security. There exists more than enough evidence to show this belief is untrue….
Lobbying for Change
The first step in change is the conviction that change is needed. This could be said to be the theoretical stage based on observation and reassessment. The next step is practical, when people come together to exchange ideas and information and to lobby for social transformation. What we find in reality is that these two processes occur simultaneously – discussion gives rise to groups of like-minded people wo engage in further analysis.
It is clear that the multi-faceted problems outlined in this book will require a multi-faceted solution. No one person or organisation will have the wisdom needed to deal with all of the issues that must be addressed. Those working for peace, economic justice, social equity and environmental integrity must all stay connected, sharing their ideas and insight. ‘Staying connected’ in such a grandiose project will never mean total agreement in everything, rather a constant cycle of communication, action, feedback and evaluation. Honest dialogue about successes and failures is a protection against major mistakes during alternative policy development.
The good thing about such a complex range of problems is that the process of change can engage a wide variety of talents. Everyone should be able to find a comfortable niche where he or she can be useful and appreciated….
Once an individual has identified the skills they have and the issue they want to address, they need to find a suitable group of like-minded people with whom they can work and from whom they can derive support…. The most important thing is that these efforts must be cooperative and not competitive. The way we organise for reform is part of the solution for healing. If confrontation and competition have led to excessive greed and violence, then we require the opposite skills to rectify the imbalance.
PHASING OUT THE MILITARY
So how would we actually go about bringing an end to the military? The first and most important requirement is that the military come under civilian control; then we must look at effective disarmament and the redirection of military resources, including human resources, towards more humanitarian aims; finally we must seek alternative means of resolving conflict. We also need to bring the research community into this question so that disarmament becomes a long-term reality.
Control of the Military
Many people were shocked when NATO decided to bomb Kosovo on its own authority. If NATO or some other coalition outside of the United Nations can dictate military policy then the chances of promoting a peaceful solution to any crisis are seriously damaged. There is more security for the public when international actions are based on decisions made by a civilian authority and are backed by the rule of law…. When power is dispersed, it is less likely to be abused.
However, it is clear that the goal of change is not just civilian supervision of the military but the dismantling of the military altogether. This change will not be easy. No country is going to terminate its military forces unless it can be absolutely sure that other countries are doing the same—the fear of being vulnerable to attack would be much too strong.
Disbanding the Military
The United Nations, with the assistance of NGOs like SIPRI, has been tabulating military expenditure and arms race transfers for many years. Enough data is now available to successfully monitor a freeze in military spending….
An alternative suggestion is to redefine the military’s job description. After all, they are supposed to work for us and in our name. Proposals include using military personnel for civilian assistance in ecological crises such as floods or volcanic eruptions. They could also carry out genuine peacekeeping, with new nonviolent training programmes and the development of conflict resolution skills. Imagine unarmed peacekeepers trained in the art of diplomacy. When the option of war is not available, people are forced to think about the many possible but untried responses….
Some members, or former members, of the military have begun to question the relevance of their activities, such as the Retired Generals Opposed to Nuclear War, who have been so vocal in support of eliminating all nuclear weapons….
Of course not everyone in the military takes such an enlightened view, and there is bound to be military resistance to the new concept of security. I regard NATO as one of the greatest obstacles to general disarmament in Europe and North America….
War itself needs to be banned. There are no disputes between nations that cannot now be skills, we should be heading towards an exciting new era of real diplomacy. Indeed even after a war negotiations are necessary before ‘peace’ is established. The main accomplishment of the violence is to force concessions at the negotiating table, but because a war influences the ‘freedom’ of the loser, post-war negotiations are notoriously unjust. Often this sets the stage for the next war—one reason perhaps why the Second World War followed on so swiftly from the First. With the Chemical Weapons Convention, banning chemical warfare, which came into force on 29 April 2000, and review of nuclear weapons reduction on the United Nations agenda for the same year, it seems to be the opportune moment to push this nonviolent agenda.
TWO SUCCESS STORIES
Landmines
One of the most effective citizen initiatives in recent history has been the global ban on landmines. Jody Williams, who spearheaded the International Coalition to Ban Landmines, won a Nobel Peace Prize for her efforts.
The United Nations estimates that landmines kill or maim about 25,000 people every year. The problem is immense, with an estimated 60 to 70 million mines deployed around the world. Africa is the most heavily mined, with as many as 30 million devices in 18 countries.
Removing landmines is a difficult, slow, and nerve-racking job. Greg Ainsley, a 21-year-old from Edmonton, Canada, explains how it is done….
The peace movement, largely through the efforts of women, has been working to ban landmines since the early 1990s and in 1994 the International Red Cross added its voice to the protest. The campaign enlisted the help of Diana, Princess of Wales, who used her celebrity to bring the humanitarian dimension of the problem to the public, emphasizing the extraordinary proportion of children killed or maimed for life. In October 1996, the Canadian government convened a meeting in Ottawa of 50 governments favourable to a complete ban, and in December 1997 some 90 countries signed a special treaty drafted in Oslo. Britain and France, major exporters of landmines, agreed to the ban, but the US decided not to sign because it wanted to use the weapons in the demilitarised zone of Korea. Other non-signing producers of landmines were Russia, China, India, Pakistan and Israel….
The treaty does not tackle the problem of the 80 million mines already planted, nor does it prohibit mines designed to blow up vehicles or disable tanks. Nevertheless, it is one small step towards phasing out the violence of war. It clearly places great value on individual lives, especially those of women and children, and it has the added benefit of protecting agricultural land that becomes useless when strewn with bombs. The ban on landmines provides a model of cooperation between non-governmental organisations, with widespread grassroots support, and gives encouragement for future initiatives.
Nuclear Weapons
The World Court Project
A second successful initiative was the World Court Project, an idea strongly promoted by Commander Robert Green, a retired British navy officer. According to Green, although there are prohibitions against weapons of mass destruction, military personnel are told that nuclear weapons have never been outlawed. Quoting from the US Military Manual: ‘The use of atomic weapons cannot be regarded as a violation of international law in the absence of any customary law or convention restricting their use.’ As a commander of ships carrying nuclear warheads, Green has always been bothered by this. Since both the US and UK military manuals require personnel to adhere to principles of international law relating to warfare, Green reasoned that a declaration of the International Court of Justice would go a long way towards eliminating those weapons and supporting military personnel who refused to use them.
Retired Commander Green spoke out publicly in Europe and North America, in support of the International Court of Justice review. General Charles Homer, head of the US Space Command, also spoke in favour of abolishing nuclear weapons. These individuals and others, such as international law expert Richard Falk, gave impetus to popular support for the initiative. In fact, the World Court motion was accompanied by intense civilian action through a coalition of international peace groups such as the International Peace Bureau, the War and Peace Foundation, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom and the International Association of Lawyers for the Abolition of Nuclear Arms. This coalition activity focused on a provision of the World Court constitution that had never been used before. According to this provision, the judges are obliged to take into account ‘the dictates of public conscience’. For this reason over a hundred million individuals sent in a declaration of conscience, stating:
It is my deeply held conscientious belief that nuclear weapons are abhorrent and morally wrong. I therefore support the initiative to request an advisory opinion from the World Court on the legality of nuclear weapons.
After receiving briefs from various governments and these public statements of conscience, The International Court of Justice issued a Communique in July 1996 stating that:
THE COURT unanimously DECIDES a threat or use of force by means of nuclear weapons that is contrary to Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter and that fails to meet all the requirements of Article 51, is UNLAWFUL….
Unanimously, DECIDES, a threat or use of nuclear weapons should also be compatible with the requirements of the international law applicable in armed conflict particularly those of the principles and rules of international humanitarian law, as well as specific obligations under treaties and other undertakings which expressly deal with nuclear weapons…
By seven votes to seven, it follows from the above mentioned requirements that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law. However, in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in extreme circumstances of self-defense, in which the very survival of the State would be at stake. [author’s emphasis]
Unanimously, DECIDED there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.
[The International Court of Justice, Peace Palace, The Hague, Communique No. 96/23, 8 July 1996]
It is interesting that the court’s support for nuclear disarmament was unanimous whilst it was split on the section dealing with ‘extreme circumstances’. Observers who were actually present at the court say that this compound statement was really a political ploy so that the court did not have to deal with each part of the resolution separately….
Overall, however, the outcome was encouraging. It demonstrated that there was some support within the military for placing limits on violence, especially for banning nuclear weapons. Moreover, it demonstrated that ordinary citizens could successfully engage international organisations like the World Court. It was heartening to see that both governments and the public respected this legal intervention to limit weapons of war. This second success story, like the first, involved collaboration between individuals, governments, and international organisations.
Dr. Sister Rosalie Bertell
Grey Nun of the Sacred Heart
1929-2012
Hildegard Bechler is a community activist who organized a province-wide speaking tour for Dr. Bertell, a leading expert (in 1978) on the health impacts of low-level ionizing radiation. Rosalie’s new information galvanized public opinion in support of citizens working cooperatively for 15 years to successfully prevent nuclear reactors and uranium mining in British Columbia, Canada.
This search into our past has admittedly been depressing….
There appear to be two paths towards global stabilization of population and resource: the first would use force, and violence, to reduce populations and limit consumption; the second would propose reducing the felt need for population increase through fulfilling basic survival requirements, providing security from violence, and increasing resource productivity. This second path has many supporters…. Can we find ways of achieving greater eco-efficiency and eco-sufficiency, peace and rule by law? Can we accomplish an equitable distribution of goods and services both within and between nations?
I believe that there are clear steps we can take. As in most serious illnesses, there is emergency treatment, followed by a long recovery period, counting on nature’s own restorative power. In my view the emergency action we must take is to terminate the military. Both this and the long process of behavioural modification rest on the human ability to change.
PART III RETHINKING SECURITY
CHAPTER 6 MILITARY SECURITY IN THE NEW MILLENNIUM
The problems we face at the beginning of the twenty-first century involve interconnected issues of militarism, economics, social policy and the environment. Global consumption of resources is exceeding Earth’s restorative capacity by at least 33 per cent. War and the preparation for war drastically reduce the store of these resources still further, leading to a self-perpetuating cycle in which competition for raw materials leads to further conflict. This means that global survival requires a zero tolerance policy for the destructive power of war.
However, I recognize that exposing the extremes of today’s military and outlining the crisis in resources will only bring about change if we also tackle the question of security. Popular support for the military comes from fear, and that fear is based on hundreds of years of recorded history. We feel that we must have weapons to protect ourselves from the weapons of the enemy. This fear legitimizes the development and stockpiling of new weapons and results in the election of public officials who will not hesitate to use violence. This in turn attracts the warrior to public office and reinforces his or her belief that military might is the best assurance of security. If the public were convinced that there were real, viable alternatives to war, such figures would lose their mandate.
Therefore, it is vital that a new concept of security is devised, which puts Earth and its inhabitants first. The old paradigm of security protects wealth, financial investment and privilege through the threat and use of violence. The new concept embraces a more egalitarian vision, prioritizing people, human rights, and the health of the environment. Security itself is not being abandoned; it is just being achieved through the protection and responsible stewardship of the Earth. I would call this emerging new vision ‘ecological security’. Such a shift in focus requires a complex, multi-faceted approach to resource protection and distribution, to conflict resolution and the policing of the natural world. In Chapter 7, I will outline some of the directions we might take towards achieving these goals. But in order to do this, we must first challenge the belief that military force is a necessary evil.
WORKING FOR CHANGE
Altering the Core Belief
Social change always follows a period when a core belief is identified and rejected. As support and awareness of this new way of thinking grows, the political climate changes and the old way of doing things is no longer acceptable. That is the lesson we learn from history. I believe, for example, that the vast social changes of the 1950s and 1960s came about when people began to challenge the idea that everyone should conform to socially imposed patterns of behaviour. This shift resulted in a new understanding of human and civil rights, with a focus on the freedom of the individual and an acceptance of racial, religious and sexual diversity.
Once a core belief is overturned, related changes spread under their own impetus. In the 1950s and 1960s we saw the growth of movements for civil rights, women’s rights, black power and gay rights. Consciousness-raising in turn yields changes in legislation, social behaviour, policy, and even language. More recently we have seen the recognition of the rights of the child, the movement against child soldiers, and animal rights groups.
There will always be those who resist change—in the 1960s, the rejection of socially imposed behaviour led to fears of social chaos. But we are quick to monitor when things go ‘too far’ and we adjust our beliefs accordingly. So whilst we recognize the freedom of the individual, for example, this does not mean that we tolerate them violating the rights of another. Self-correction and adjustment following the rejection of a core belief is a vital part of the process.
The core belief being challenged today is that military power provides security. There exists more than enough evidence to show this belief is untrue….
Lobbying for Change
The first step in change is the conviction that change is needed. This could be said to be the theoretical stage based on observation and reassessment. The next step is practical, when people come together to exchange ideas and information and to lobby for social transformation. What we find in reality is that these two processes occur simultaneously – discussion gives rise to groups of like-minded people wo engage in further analysis.
It is clear that the multi-faceted problems outlined in this book will require a multi-faceted solution. No one person or organisation will have the wisdom needed to deal with all of the issues that must be addressed. Those working for peace, economic justice, social equity and environmental integrity must all stay connected, sharing their ideas and insight. ‘Staying connected’ in such a grandiose project will never mean total agreement in everything, rather a constant cycle of communication, action, feedback and evaluation. Honest dialogue about successes and failures is a protection against major mistakes during alternative policy development.
The good thing about such a complex range of problems is that the process of change can engage a wide variety of talents. Everyone should be able to find a comfortable niche where he or she can be useful and appreciated….
Once an individual has identified the skills they have and the issue they want to address, they need to find a suitable group of like-minded people with whom they can work and from whom they can derive support…. The most important thing is that these efforts must be cooperative and not competitive. The way we organise for reform is part of the solution for healing. If confrontation and competition have led to excessive greed and violence, then we require the opposite skills to rectify the imbalance.
PHASING OUT THE MILITARY
So how would we actually go about bringing an end to the military? The first and most important requirement is that the military come under civilian control; then we must look at effective disarmament and the redirection of military resources, including human resources, towards more humanitarian aims; finally we must seek alternative means of resolving conflict. We also need to bring the research community into this question so that disarmament becomes a long-term reality.
Control of the Military
Many people were shocked when NATO decided to bomb Kosovo on its own authority. If NATO or some other coalition outside of the United Nations can dictate military policy then the chances of promoting a peaceful solution to any crisis are seriously damaged. There is more security for the public when international actions are based on decisions made by a civilian authority and are backed by the rule of law…. When power is dispersed, it is less likely to be abused.
However, it is clear that the goal of change is not just civilian supervision of the military but the dismantling of the military altogether. This change will not be easy. No country is going to terminate its military forces unless it can be absolutely sure that other countries are doing the same—the fear of being vulnerable to attack would be much too strong.
Disbanding the Military
The United Nations, with the assistance of NGOs like SIPRI, has been tabulating military expenditure and arms race transfers for many years. Enough data is now available to successfully monitor a freeze in military spending….
An alternative suggestion is to redefine the military’s job description. After all, they are supposed to work for us and in our name. Proposals include using military personnel for civilian assistance in ecological crises such as floods or volcanic eruptions. They could also carry out genuine peacekeeping, with new nonviolent training programmes and the development of conflict resolution skills. Imagine unarmed peacekeepers trained in the art of diplomacy. When the option of war is not available, people are forced to think about the many possible but untried responses….
Some members, or former members, of the military have begun to question the relevance of their activities, such as the Retired Generals Opposed to Nuclear War, who have been so vocal in support of eliminating all nuclear weapons….
Of course not everyone in the military takes such an enlightened view, and there is bound to be military resistance to the new concept of security. I regard NATO as one of the greatest obstacles to general disarmament in Europe and North America….
War itself needs to be banned. There are no disputes between nations that cannot now be skills, we should be heading towards an exciting new era of real diplomacy. Indeed even after a war negotiations are necessary before ‘peace’ is established. The main accomplishment of the violence is to force concessions at the negotiating table, but because a war influences the ‘freedom’ of the loser, post-war negotiations are notoriously unjust. Often this sets the stage for the next war—one reason perhaps why the Second World War followed on so swiftly from the First. With the Chemical Weapons Convention, banning chemical warfare, which came into force on 29 April 2000, and review of nuclear weapons reduction on the United Nations agenda for the same year, it seems to be the opportune moment to push this nonviolent agenda.
TWO SUCCESS STORIES
Landmines
One of the most effective citizen initiatives in recent history has been the global ban on landmines. Jody Williams, who spearheaded the International Coalition to Ban Landmines, won a Nobel Peace Prize for her efforts.
The United Nations estimates that landmines kill or maim about 25,000 people every year. The problem is immense, with an estimated 60 to 70 million mines deployed around the world. Africa is the most heavily mined, with as many as 30 million devices in 18 countries.
Removing landmines is a difficult, slow, and nerve-racking job. Greg Ainsley, a 21-year-old from Edmonton, Canada, explains how it is done….
The peace movement, largely through the efforts of women, has been working to ban landmines since the early 1990s and in 1994 the International Red Cross added its voice to the protest. The campaign enlisted the help of Diana, Princess of Wales, who used her celebrity to bring the humanitarian dimension of the problem to the public, emphasizing the extraordinary proportion of children killed or maimed for life. In October 1996, the Canadian government convened a meeting in Ottawa of 50 governments favourable to a complete ban, and in December 1997 some 90 countries signed a special treaty drafted in Oslo. Britain and France, major exporters of landmines, agreed to the ban, but the US decided not to sign because it wanted to use the weapons in the demilitarised zone of Korea. Other non-signing producers of landmines were Russia, China, India, Pakistan and Israel….
The treaty does not tackle the problem of the 80 million mines already planted, nor does it prohibit mines designed to blow up vehicles or disable tanks. Nevertheless, it is one small step towards phasing out the violence of war. It clearly places great value on individual lives, especially those of women and children, and it has the added benefit of protecting agricultural land that becomes useless when strewn with bombs. The ban on landmines provides a model of cooperation between non-governmental organisations, with widespread grassroots support, and gives encouragement for future initiatives.
Nuclear Weapons
The World Court Project
A second successful initiative was the World Court Project, an idea strongly promoted by Commander Robert Green, a retired British navy officer. According to Green, although there are prohibitions against weapons of mass destruction, military personnel are told that nuclear weapons have never been outlawed. Quoting from the US Military Manual: ‘The use of atomic weapons cannot be regarded as a violation of international law in the absence of any customary law or convention restricting their use.’ As a commander of ships carrying nuclear warheads, Green has always been bothered by this. Since both the US and UK military manuals require personnel to adhere to principles of international law relating to warfare, Green reasoned that a declaration of the International Court of Justice would go a long way towards eliminating those weapons and supporting military personnel who refused to use them.
Retired Commander Green spoke out publicly in Europe and North America, in support of the International Court of Justice review. General Charles Homer, head of the US Space Command, also spoke in favour of abolishing nuclear weapons. These individuals and others, such as international law expert Richard Falk, gave impetus to popular support for the initiative. In fact, the World Court motion was accompanied by intense civilian action through a coalition of international peace groups such as the International Peace Bureau, the War and Peace Foundation, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom and the International Association of Lawyers for the Abolition of Nuclear Arms. This coalition activity focused on a provision of the World Court constitution that had never been used before. According to this provision, the judges are obliged to take into account ‘the dictates of public conscience’. For this reason over a hundred million individuals sent in a declaration of conscience, stating:
It is my deeply held conscientious belief that nuclear weapons are abhorrent and morally wrong. I therefore support the initiative to request an advisory opinion from the World Court on the legality of nuclear weapons.
After receiving briefs from various governments and these public statements of conscience, The International Court of Justice issued a Communique in July 1996 stating that:
THE COURT unanimously DECIDES a threat or use of force by means of nuclear weapons that is contrary to Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter and that fails to meet all the requirements of Article 51, is UNLAWFUL….
Unanimously, DECIDES, a threat or use of nuclear weapons should also be compatible with the requirements of the international law applicable in armed conflict particularly those of the principles and rules of international humanitarian law, as well as specific obligations under treaties and other undertakings which expressly deal with nuclear weapons…
By seven votes to seven, it follows from the above mentioned requirements that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law. However, in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in extreme circumstances of self-defense, in which the very survival of the State would be at stake. [author’s emphasis]
Unanimously, DECIDED there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.
[The International Court of Justice, Peace Palace, The Hague, Communique No. 96/23, 8 July 1996]
It is interesting that the court’s support for nuclear disarmament was unanimous whilst it was split on the section dealing with ‘extreme circumstances’. Observers who were actually present at the court say that this compound statement was really a political ploy so that the court did not have to deal with each part of the resolution separately….
Overall, however, the outcome was encouraging. It demonstrated that there was some support within the military for placing limits on violence, especially for banning nuclear weapons. Moreover, it demonstrated that ordinary citizens could successfully engage international organisations like the World Court. It was heartening to see that both governments and the public respected this legal intervention to limit weapons of war. This second success story, like the first, involved collaboration between individuals, governments, and international organisations.
Dr. Sister Rosalie Bertell
Grey Nun of the Sacred Heart
1929-2012
Hildegard Bechler is a community activist who organized a province-wide speaking tour for Dr. Bertell, a leading expert (in 1978) on the health impacts of low-level ionizing radiation. Rosalie’s new information galvanized public opinion in support of citizens working cooperatively for 15 years to successfully prevent nuclear reactors and uranium mining in British Columbia, Canada.
Gearing up for global heating while our Sun and Earth cool
Two causes of today’s weather extremes are man-made: weather war, and its public face and false flag, geoengineering. We can stop these crimes against humanity. We can’t affect the third cause: the Sun cycle shifting from maximum to minimum must be borne; yet it is censored on the internet and absent in the mainstream.
Catastrophic fires of electromagnetic weather war (the global military’s best-kept secret) ignite terror of a burning planet. Geoengineers, spraying incendiary toxins world-wide, intensify the fires. Claiming to dim the sun to cool the planet, they further reduce the sun’s heat as its electromagnetic fires slow. These psychopathic crimes misdirect us from the “little ice age” we can’t avoid. To kill with “Shock and Awe”?
Shock and Awe are actions that create fears, dangers, and destruction that are incomprehensible to the people at large, specific elements/sectors of the threat society, or the leadership. Nature in the form of tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, uncontrolled fires, famine and disease can engender Shock and Awe. 1
Shock and Awe: Achieving Rapid Dominance, the military doctrine for the U.S. war on Iraq. 1
Weather war:Weaponizing the electromagnetic systems of Earth with ionospheric heaters using high-frequency radio and radar. “The key to geophysical warfare is the identification of environmental instabilities to which the addition of a small amount of energy would release vastly greater amounts of energy.” 2
Planet Earth: The Latest Weapon of War
Dr. Rosalie Bertell details military experiments since World War II in Slowly Wrecking Our Planet. She describes America’s ionospheric heater, the central electromagnetic weapon in Alaska interconnecting their global and space EM weapons systems. H.A.A.R.P., High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, creates Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) waves which are reflected back to Earth by the ionosphere, modifying this “highly complex life support system, in order to aid military objectives.” (120-122)
She explains how earthquakes are initiated by ELF waves, and documents massive genocide by earthquakes around the world caused by American and Russian ionospheric heaters. (130-136)
She describes electromagnetic lightning: “The ELF antenna loop used the ionosphere as the outer shell of a spherical capacitor (storing more electrical potential than the surrounding Earth) with the inner conductor composed of Earth’s surface. This circuit duplicates the process that occurs during thunder and lighting storms.” (134)
She points to effects on people: “The 10-Hertz ELF wave can easily pass through people, and there is concern that since it corresponds to brain wave frequency it can disrupt human thought.” (131)
Dr. Michel Chossudovsky, Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University Ottawa, recognizes Dr. Bertell’s pioneer work. He provides history and photos of H.A.A.R.P: ”Owning the Weather”. He details evidence of weather war on ‘rogue states’ in the 1990s: cycles of extreme drought and flood in North Korea, Cuba, Afghanistan and Iraq, causing famine, killing millions, destroying economies.
March 6, 2023: Dr. Chossudovsky analyzes the three devastating earthquakes in Turkey and Syria. “The damage and loss of life is beyond description.” He details the 700-year history of quakes in the region, and calls for an investigation under the 1977 ENMOD convention against environmental modification for hostile purposes. He includes video by the head of the Turkish Space Agency, Serdar Hussein Yildirim, describing a new weapon capable of causing earthquakes, deployed from space.
On January 7, 2023 Dr. Chossudovsky wrote:
“You cannot win a war against Russia when the second largest military power member state of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is “sleeping with the enemy”
I am referring to Turkey which is both a “NATO heavyweight” as well as a firm ally of the Russian Federation.”
Canada’s North Warning System is an essential part of U.S. EM weapons systems.
We provide sites and maintenance for their high-frequency radio and radar installations. In 2018 Canada committed to pay untold billions for ‘over-the-horizon’ radar for US Space Force.
Environment and Climate Change Canada is replacing the horizontalradar at its weather stations with dual polarization (“Double polarization and improvement of product quality”) adding vertical Doppler radar to the horizontal. Claiming to better forecast and protect us from climate change, dual polarization multiplies the radio-frequency health impact on 95% of the most populous regions of the country.
By these means, with the collusion of governments, global militaries destabilize planet systems, kill millions of people and fellow-creatures, devastate life-support ecosystems with fire, flood, drought, earthquake, devastate people with famine and terror: all the horsemen of the Apocalypse.
Catastrophic forest fires in British Columbia, California, Australia, Russia, Portugal and elsewhere around the world exhibit the same unusual erratic fire behaviour. Intensified by incendiary chemtrail metals and chemicals, these deadly, traumatizing fires are indicators of weather ‘war’—government-sponsored genocide—‘waged’ for various motives.
In Portugal, citizen activists Groupo Why Fire? identified intense, erratic fires that destroyed thousands of acres, the local hospital and residential housing, as weather war. They organized events and public support. After the fires, mining corporations applied to extract the rich lithium deposits in the burned lands.
Evil Fire by Annie, Groupo Why Fire?
In British Columbia, Canada, fires devastated the homelands of Indigenous Nations around the province. Hunting, fishing, wild foods and medicines were limited, people were displaced, distressed; businesses suffered losses. Millions to rebuild communities meant ‘debt bombs’ for future generations: “disaster capitalism”.
In 2017/18 more BC forestlands burned than in the past 25 years combined: 2.57 million hectares. In 2018, 1,528 lightning strikes caused an unprecedented 2,068 extreme wildfires. In northwest BC 118,318 hectares of Tahltan Nation homelands burned. Campers near Alkali Lake saw infrared emissions in 2016; the following year others heard and saw the extreme lightning blast at the fire point.
Other provinces and Indigenous Nations suffered likewise. These disasters limit their energy for asserting Aboriginal Title and Rights, easing corporate access to minerals, timber, land and water.
Solar Cycle 25
Solar cycle 25 is the current solar cycle, the 25th since 1755, when extensive recording of solar sunspot activity began. It began in December 2019 with a minimum smoothed sunspot number of 1.8.[2] It is expected to continue until about 2030.[3][4]Wikipedia
The sun cyclemoving from solar maximum to minimum is expected to bring the lowest minimum in 400 years, causing extremes of weather as the sun cools, such as we see around the world today.
From 1645 to 1715, freezing temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere caused fuel shortages and crop failures, killing millions of people—and wildlife—with cold and starvation.
Solar physicists and scientists in every field predict another “little ice age” possibly by 2030.
Could it be that the United Nations One World Government—dictatorship by fear through the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—don’t know about this?
The United Nations Transforming Our World: THE 2030 AGENDA FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
They claim to provide every human need and enlightened process, distracting us from their ruthless genocidal expansion and enforcement of their CO2 dictate: controlling world development for corporate mega-profit; distracting us from what lies ahead.
The Coming Ice Age
Piers Corbyn, British astrophysicist, weather forecaster: “We point out that the world is now cooling not warming and there is no observational evidence in the thousands and millions of years of data that changes in CO2 have any observable effect on weather or climate in the real world.” http://www.weatheraction.com/…“The fact is the sun rules the sea temperature, and the sea temperature rules the climate…What we have happening now is the start of the mini ice age…it began around 2013. It’s a slow start, and now the rate of moving into the mini ice age is accelerating.”
Dr. Nils-Axel Moerner, Professor Emeritus of paleogeophysics and geodynamics at Stockholm University, sea level expertfor the 2000 UN IPCC, quit the panel, saying that the UN claims scientific consensus for political reasons. In this video interview he explains globally-variable sea levels, inter/planetary influences, the pro-nuclear origin of the UN CO2 dictate, IPCC censorship, and the failures of imperialism. “A new solar-driven cooling period is not far off”. His booklet, The Greatest Lie Ever Told, details the “The Great Sea Level Humbug—there is no alarming sea level rise”.
Nukes to combat C02 climate change emerges again, with Wyoming, coal state, starting to eliminate the coal economy for experimental Natrium nuclear reactors and mega-dams.
“Investing in nuclear technology is presented by philanthropist billionaire Bill Gates as a means to combatting global warming and CO2 emissions. What nonsense.
The Bill Gates project is generously funded by the US Department of Energy.
Let us be under no illusion, the so-called civilian use of nuclear technology does not contribute to “clean energy”. Moreover the development of “advanced” reactors (for civilian uses) is related (indirectly) to the Biden administration’s nuclear weapons program.
Professor Valentina Zharkova – Northumbria UniversityDepartment: Mathematics, Physics and Electrical Engineering, PhD in Astrophysics ‘Radiative transfer of solar prominences’ at Main Astronomical Observatory, Kiev, Ukraine, viva in 1984.
Professor Valentina Zharkova’s recent paper ‘Oscillations of the Baseline of Solar Magnetic Field and Solar Irradiance on a Millennial Timescale’ has been accepted for publishing in Nature. She confirms a Grand Solar Minimum (GSM) from 2020 to 2055, as all four magnetic fields of the sun go out of phase, while also suggesting centuries of natural warming post-Minima.
Zharkova’s team’s expanded ‘double dynamo’ calculations match-up almost perfectly with the timelines of past Grand Minimas: the Maunder Minimum (1645–1715), Wolf minimum (1300–1350), Oort minimum (1000–1050), Homer minimum (800–900 BC); as well as with the past Grand Maximas: the Medieval Warm Period (900–1200), the Roman Warm Period (400–150 BC), and so on…
The C02 Coalition provides a full spectrum of facts about this ‘natural’ gas: “First and foremost, C02 is plant food”.
NASA provides beautiful photos, with graphs, explaining the 11-year sun cycle and the coming maunder minimum.
Marc Morano at Climate Depot writes:
“Not all solar scientists agree with such predictions. Although NOAA (the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) has recognized that sunspot numbers are falling and may approach zero in the 2030s, the international Solar Cycle 25 Prediction Panel forecasts that the sunspot number will remain the same in the coming 11-year cycle (Cycle 25) as it was in the cycle just completed (Cycle 24). Declaring that the recent decline in sunspot number is at an end, panel co-chair and solar physicist Lisa Upton says: “There is no indication we are approaching a Maunder-type minimum in solar activity.”
Moranoquotes 19 whistleblower scientists from every discipline who quit the Panel, exposing the politics and censorship of the IPCC process.
Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia, geologist at Punjab University, board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet: “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.”
John McLean, Australian climate data analyst: “…Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all. Repeating: only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis.”
Dr. Madhav Khandekar, CanadianIPCC, retired Environment Canada scientist, lashed out at those who “seem to naively believe that the climate change science espoused in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) documents represents ‘scientific consensus.’ …Nothing could be further from the truth!”
Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit, one of the individuals responsible for debunking the infamous “Hockey Stick” temperature graph, slammed the IPCC Summary for Policymaker’s process.
On January 24, 2007 McIntyre wrote:
“So the purpose of the three-month delay between the publication of the (IPCC) Summary for Policy-Makers and the release of the actual WG1 (Working Group 1) is to enable them to make any ‘necessary’ adjustments to the technical report to match the policy summary. Unbelievable….Words fail me.”
Vladimir Radyuhin, blogger,quotes seven Russian scientists in every field, and in the Russian Academy of Sciences, on the carbon lie and the related politics of the Kyoto Protocol.
Renowned Russian geographer Andrei Kapitsa calls Kyoto “the biggest ever scientific fraud”. Opponents of man-made global warming are routinely denied the floor at international climate forums. “A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact.”
Vladimir Bashkirtsev and G.P. Mashnich, solar physicists, Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics: Long-term solar activity and prediction of Earth’s climate for century 21. They provide graphs and analysis.
“Numerous studies show that the Earth’s climate changes are to a great extent in phase with long-term solar activity variations, …i.e. Earth’s climate is mainly determined and controlled by the sun.”
The Russian Academy of Sciences advised President Putin to reject the Kyoto Accord as having “no scientific foundation. He ignored the advice and sent the Kyoto pact to Parliament for political reasons: Moscow traded its approval of the Kyoto Protocol for the European Union’s support for Russia’s bid to join the World Trade Organisation. Russian endorsement was critical, as without it the Kyoto Protocol would have fallen through due to a shortage of signatories.
Sergei Golubchikov, Russian ecologist, points out that “The European Union pushed through the Kyoto Protocol in order to reduce the competitive edge in the U.S. and other countries where ecological standards are less stringent than in Europe”.
Freeman Dyson, Independent scientist, provides elder wisdom at age 91:
“To me, the really urgent risks are still war and peace and that’s far more serious to me than anything that can happen as a result of climate change.”
October 2021: “At the beginning of October, Italy hosted the preparatory meeting of the UN Conference on Climate Change, currently taking place in Glasgow. Two weeks later Italy hosted another international event that, unlike the first widely advertised, was passed over in silence by the government: the NATO exercise of nuclear warfare Steadfast Noon in the skies over northern and central Italy. For seven days, under US command, the air forces of 14 NATO countries participated, with dual-capacity nuclear and conventional fighter-bombers deployed at the bases of Aviano and Ghedi.”
While the UNIPCC insists that carbon emissions by civilian economies are turning the planet into a hothouse, they never mention military impacts: the result of the US lobby at the Paris Accord (p4 of 18) claiming national security, financed by the Rockefeller Brothers and corporate friends.
Today, the US/NATO proxy war against Russia, devastating Ukraine, threatening nuclear war; their provocation of conflict with China; bring catastrophic expectations to new life.
Jeremy Kuzmarov reports one clear summary: Grandson of Charles de Gaulle, an Old CIA Nemesis, Condemns West’s Policy in Ukraine; Says the U.S. and NATO triggered the conflict and are making Europeans suffer.
Global militaries escalate their consumption of our common resources for globalized, space-based ‘permanent war’ to maintain totalitarian control. To expedite government-enabled high-tech slavery and genocide of world populations. To terrorise and distract us from the cooling of our planet.
Censoring our Sun
Popular websites discussing the solar minimum are scrubbed from the internet, generating the creation of many alternative servers and news providers.
Cap Allon, authorof electroverse.co, reports on the influence of Jupiter and Saturn on the solar cycle and ice ages: “DOCUMENTING EARTH CHANGES DURING THE NEXT GRAND SOLAR MINIMUM”. He provides updates as cold weather escalates around the globe.
Robert Felix, author of Not by Fire but by Ice,describes the solar retrograde cycle influenced by the alignment of Jupiter and Saturn.
“On earth, the solar retrograde cycle triggers fluctuations in geomagnetic-field intensity while causing abrupt – and extreme – changes in climate. The changes are so severe that at every other beat of the cycle – approximately every 360 years – the earth plunges into a Little Ice Age.”
He provides a wealth of information on falling sea levels, maps of the extent of the last ice age, growing glaciers around the world, global warming in the solar system, ocean warming, and on scientists who disagree with the UN C02 dictate.
Christian Westbrook, Ice Age Farmer, details increasing totalitarian control over the global food supply. In his podcast Stalin would be proud he quotes the dictator’s restructuring of agriculture from private farms to huge collectives, the pattern followed today toward massive industrial farming.
In his book My Life, Leon Trotsky describes the process of change from the successful worker revolution to Stalin’s dictatorship. In Lenin’s Death and the Shift of Power3 we see the same human dynamics we work with today. After Lenin’s death Stalin had Trotsky assassinated to establish his dictatorship—the precursor of today’s governing Ukrainian Nazi party.
My Russia-German parents narrowly survived Stalin’s starvation of millions of Ukrainians in 1932-33, long-denied and now recognized as genocide: the Holodomor—“death inflicted by starvation”.
“In the case of the Holodomor, this was the first genocide that was methodically planned out and perpetrated by depriving the very people who were producers of food of their nourishment (for survival).”
Russia-German and peasant farmers suffered when Stalin seized lands, tools, animals, and harvests, forcing self-sufficient farmers to labour in collectives. My mother’s job at the commune was to hoe three hectares a day, then at night care for her father, seven sisters, and help look after the 100 chickens, one pig, one cow and one horse they were allowed.
From the planet burning up—to ice age? In 8 years?
While social devastation, family and personal trauma, injuries and deaths by covid lockdown and bioweapon shots blind us with grief and terror, global dominators load every human on Earth, all wildlife and ecosystems, with endless toxins, 5G radio-frequency, and stress—the silent killer. Terrorize us with threats of nuclear holocaust and annihilation. Distract us, weaken us, for what lies ahead. To depopulate our world with repeated Shock and Awe.
Future Shock:the final weapon of mass destruction.
Responding to unprecedented, high-tech criminal psychopathology—known throughout human history as evil—the universal and timeless human drive to resist oppression, to understand all things, shifts our energy for life into overdrive.
While our Sun’s shift is censored, people everywhere work with unprecedented globalized energy to share awareness. To share healing. “The awakening of humanity cannot be stopped.”
“Our most precious resource is the human spirit”
Dr. Sister Rosalie Bertell
Grey Nun of the Sacred Heart
1929-2012
Notes
1 Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine, Alfred A. Knopf Canada, 2007, Intro.
In Bud Edney, “Appendix A: Thoughts on Rapid Dominance,” in Harlan K. Ullman and James P. Wade, Shock and Awe: Achieving Rapid Dominance (“Washington, DC: NDU Press Book, 1996), 110.
2 Dr. Rosalie Bertell, Planet Earth: The Latest Weapon of War, Black Rose Books, 2001, 131.
In Harold Puthoff, ‘Everything or Nothing’, New Scientist, 28 July 1990; and Bill Sweetman, op cit, pp91-94.
Bill Sweetman, Aurora: The Pentagon’s Secret Hypersonic Skyplane, Motor Books International, Oscela WI, 1993, pp152-169.
3 Leon Trotsky, My Life, Pathfinder Press Inc. 1970, Chapter XLI p502.
Hildegard Bechler is a community organizer focused on peace, energy, economics and waste. She worked with Dr. Bertell and citizens province-wide to prevent nuclear reactors and uranium mining in British Columbia. She supported Indigenous Nations working for land rights, preventing mega-dams, and mines in sacred territories. Public meetings, government consultations, university seminars and media interviews with Rosalie Bertell, Amory Lovins, Hazel Henderson and Paul Connett helped inform citizens establishing alternatives to essential services.
“Russia will deploy its tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus at the request of Minsk,” President Putin announces. “In fact,” he clarifies, “we are doing everything the United States has been doing for decades.
Moscow points out that the U.S. has placed its tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, in six NATO countries – Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Turkey, and Greece (Greece does not currently have them, but there is a depot ready to receive them). The B61 nuclear bombs, which in Italy are deployed at the Aviano and Ghedi bases, are now being replaced by the new B61-12s, which the U.S. Air Force is already transporting to Europe. They have features that make them much more lethal than their predecessors: each bomb has 4 power options depending on the target to be hit, is directed on the target by a satellite guidance system, and can penetrate the ground to destroy enemy command center bunkers. The U.S. will probably also deploy B61-12s in Poland and other NATO countries even closer to Russia.
Three NATO nuclear powers – U.S., Britain, France – and four U.S. nuclear-armed NATO countries -Italy, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands – participate in Operation Baltic Air Policing in the airspace of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Poland, with aircraft that can carry tactical nuclear weapons.
In addition to these, B-52H strategic bombers of the U.S. Air Force carry out nuclear warfare training missions in the Baltic region and other European areas adjacent to Russian territory. The European Allies provide 19 airfields for such missions. The United States, having torn up the INF Treaty, also prepares intermediate-range nuclear missiles for deployment in Europe.
Adding to this offensive deployment are the bases and ships of the Aegis “missile defense” system deployed by the U.S. in Europe. Both the ships and the Aegis ground installations are equipped with Lockheed Martin’s Mk 41 vertical launchers that – as documented by the same manufacturer – can launch not only interceptor missiles but also cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads.
After the U.S. and NATO rejected all Russian proposals to stop this increasingly dangerous nuclear escalation, Russia is responding with deeds, deploying nuclear bombs and intermediate-range missiles ready to be armed with nuclear warheads in Belarus, in close proximity to U.S.-NATO bases in Europe.
The included video by Manlio Dinucci, Italian associate at Global Research, provides mind-blowing detail on the stand-off crisis; the new nuclear weapons, complete with ads and videos from Lockheed Martin; take-offs of NATO planes constantly patrolling Russia’s borders with conventional and nuclear warheads. Nuclear missiles designed to fit into any silo. Nukes targeted by satellite. And more absolutely essential information.
Dr. Michel Chossudovsky, Professor Emeritus of Economics at Ottawa University, founder of Global Research:
Introduction
The latest reports point to a death toll in Turkey and Syria well in excess of 50,000, more than half a million injured, tens of thousands of people missing. The social devastation and destruction is beyond description. The first and second earthquakes on February 6, 2023 in Kahramanmaras province in Southern Turkey were respectively of the magnitude of 7.6 and 7.8 (Richter scale).
A third earthquake of a magnitude of 6.3 was recorded on February 20th.
In Turkey, some 530,000 people have been evacuated from the disaster area. Ankara confirms that “173,000 buildings have so far been recorded as collapsed or severely damaged, with more than 1.9 million people taking refuge in temporary shelters or hotels and public facilities.”
In the words of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan: ““We are living through the most painful days in our history”.
In Syria, the earthquakes have largely affected the cities of Aleppo, Lattakia and Hama which are within proximity of Syria’s Northwestern border with Turkey. The latest announced death toll in Syria was 5,914, with 8.8 million people affected.
President Bachar Al Assad underscored that US-NATO has been at war with Syria for almost 12 years, while emphasizing that “Syria has not been an earthquake area for about two and a half centuries”.
In this article, Part I will focus on the History of Earthquake Activity in Turkey
Part II will provide a Review of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD).
What is significant in regards to the Turkey-Syria earthquake disaster is that the 1977 UN Convention (cited above) contains provisions for the conduct of an investigation in regards to “destruction, damage or injury” incurred by the “State Parties”, under the auspices of a UN “Consultative Committee of Experts”.
There are also provisions in the Convention for referral to the United Nations Security Council on behalf of the “State Parties”. These issues are outlined in Part IV.
….
Concluding Remarks
We are in solidarity with the people of Turkey and Syria.
At this stage, it would be unwise and premature to draw simplistic conclusions.
There is a forbidden truth. I have attempted to provide a framework of analysis and understanding.
The damage and loss of life is beyond description: The issue should be the object of analysis, dialogue and debate, with reference to the 1977 International Convention banning “military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques”.
Turkey and Syria as “State Parties” must, as a first step, conduct their own internal investigation before referring it to the UN Consultative Committee of Experts and/or to the United Nations Security Council.
Stop-weather-war 