Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's Blog: The Most Revolutionary Act , page 68
May 24, 2025
RFK Urges Other Countries to Join the U.S. in Leaving the WHO: «We Don’t Have to Suffer the Limitations of a Dying WHO»
Rafa Gomez-Santo Martin
In an unprecedented act of political courage, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., current U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, has openly challenged the World Health Organization (WHO), describing it as “dying” and accusing it of being riddled with corruption and influenced by political interests—particularly those of China.
In a recorded message delivered during the World Health Assembly in Geneva, Kennedy called on other countries to follow the United States’ lead and withdraw from the organization. According to Kennedy, the WHO mishandled the COVID-19 pandemic by concealing information about human transmission of the virus and promoting false theories about its origin.
He also criticized the new pandemic treaty adopted by the WHO, calling it a perpetuation of systemic dysfunction. In response, the Trump administration has begun forming a new global health alliance with countries such as Argentina, Italy, and Israel.
[…]
Biden Regime Labeled Opponents of Covid mandates as domestic violent extremists
By Michael Shellenberger | May 23, 2025Former President Joe Biden announces Covid vaccine mandates on September 9, 2021, in Washington, DC. Three months later (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
The Biden Administration labeled Americans who opposed the COVID-19 vaccination and mask mandates as “Domestic Violent Extremists,” or DVEs, according to newly declassified intelligence records obtained by Public and Catherine Herridge Reports. The designation created an “articulable purpose” for FBI or other government agents to open an “assessment” of individuals, which is often the first step toward a formal investigation, said a former FBI agent.
The report, which the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, has declassified, claims that “anti government or anti authority violent extremists,” specifically militias, “characterize COVID-19 vaccination and mask mandates as evidence of government overreach.” A sweeping range of COVID narratives, the report states, “have resonated” with DVEs “motivated by QAnon.”
The FBI, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) coauthored the December 13, 2021 intelligence product whose title reads, “DVEs and Foreign Analogues May React Violently to COVID-19 Mitigation Mandates.”
The report cites criticism of mandates as “prominent narratives” related to violent extremism. These narratives “include the belief that COVID-19 vaccines are unsafe, especially for children, are part of a government or global conspiracy to deprive individuals of their civil liberties and livelihoods, or are designed to start a new social or political order.“
“It’s a way they could go to social media companies and say, ‘You don’t want to propagate domestic terrorism, so you should take down this content,’” said former FBI agent Steve Friend…
[…]
VE Day 80th anniversary: The Anglo-Nazi global empire that nearly came to be
By Kit Klarenberg
As VE Day (Victory in Europe Day) approaches, Western officials, pundits and journalists are widely seeking to exploit the 80th anniversary of Nazism’s defeat for political purposes.
European leaders have threatened state attendees of Russia’s grand May 9th victory parade with adverse consequences. Meanwhile, countless sources have drawn historical comparisons between appeasement of Nazi Germany throughout the 1930s, and the Trump administration’s ongoing efforts to strike a deal with Moscow to end the Ukraine proxy conflict.
As The Atlantic put it in March, “Trump Is Offering Putin Another Munich” – a reference to the September 1938 Munich Agreement, under which Western powers, led by Britain, granted a vast portion of Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany.
Mainstream narratives of appeasement state that this represented the policy’s apotheosis – its final act, which London believed would permanently satisfy Adolf Hitler’s expansionist ambitions, but actually made World War II inevitable.
Appeasement is universally accepted today in the West as a well-intentioned but ultimately catastrophically failed and misguided attempt to avoid another World War with Germany, for peace’s sake. According to this reading, European governments made certain concessions to Hitler, while turning a blind eye to egregious breaches of the post-World War I Versailles Treaty, such as the Luftwaffe’s creation in February 1935, and Nazi Germany’s military occupation of the Rhineland in May the next year.
In reality, though, from Britain’s perspective, the Munich Agreement was intended to be just the start of a wider process that would culminate in “world political partnership” between London and Berlin. Two months prior, the Federation of British Industries (FBI), known today as the Confederation of British Industry, made contact with its Nazi counterpart, Reichsgruppe Industrie (RI). The pair eagerly agreed that their respective governments should enter into formal negotiations on Anglo-German economic integration.
Representatives of these organizations met face-to-face in London on November 9th that year. The summit went swimmingly, and a formal conference in Düsseldorf was scheduled for next March. Coincidentally, later that evening in Berlin, Kristallnacht erupted, with Nazi paramilitaries burning and destroying synagogues and Jewish businesses.
The most infamous pogrom in history was no deterrent to continued discussions and meetings between the FBI and RI representatives. A month later, they inked a formal agreement on the creation of an international Anglo-Nazi coal cartel.
British officials fully endorsed this burgeoning relationship, believing it would provide a crucial foundation for future alliance with Nazi Germany in other fields. Moreover, it was hoped Berlin’s industrial and technological prowess would reinvigorate Britain’s economy at home and throughout the Empire, which was ever-increasingly lagging behind the ascendant US.
In February 1939, representatives of British government and industry made a pilgrimage to Berlin to feast with high-ranking Nazi officials, in advance of the next month’s joint conference.
As FBI representatives prepared to depart for Düsseldorf in March, British cabinet chief Walter Runciman – a fervent advocate of appeasement, and chief architect of Czechoslovakia’s carve up – informed them, “gentlemen, the peace of Europe is in your hands.”
In a twist, they arrived on March 14th, while Czechoslovakian president Emil Hácha was in Berlin meeting with Hitler. Offered the choice of freely allowing Nazi troops entry into his country, or the Luftwaffe reducing Prague to rubble before all-out invasion, he suffered a heart attack.
After the revival, Hácha chose the former option. The Düsseldorf conference commenced the next morning, as Nazi tanks stormed unhindered into rump Czechoslovakia.
Against this monstrous backdrop, a 12-point declaration was ironed out by the FBI and RI. It envisaged “a world economic partnership between the business communities” of Berlin and London. That August, FBI representatives secretly met with Herman Göring to anoint the agreement. In the meantime, the British government had via back channels made a formal offer of wide-ranging “cooperation” with Nazi Germany.
Political partnership
In April 1938, journeyman diplomat Herbert von Dirksen was appointed Nazi Germany’s ambassador to London. A committed National Socialist and rabid antisemite, he also harboured a particularly visceral loathing of Poles, believing them to be subhuman, and eagerly supporting Poland’s total erasure.
Despite this, due to his English language fluency and aristocratic manners, he charmed British officials and citizens alike, and was widely perceived locally as Nazi Germany’s respectable face.
Even more vitally, though, Dirksen, in common with many powerful elements of the British establishment, was convinced that not only could war be avoided, but London and Berlin would instead forge a global economic, military, and political alliance.
His 18 months in Britain before the outbreak of World War II were spent working tirelessly to achieve these goals by establishing and maintaining communication lines between officials and decision makers in the two countries while attempting to broker deals.
Dirksen published an official memoir in 1950, detailing his lengthy diplomatic career. However, far more revealing insights into the period immediately preceding World War II, and behind-the-scenes efforts to achieve enduring detente between Britain and Nazi Germany, are contained in the virtually unknown Dirksen Papers, a two-volume record released by the Soviet Union’s Foreign Languages Publishing House without his consent.
They contain private communications sent to and from Dirksen, diary entries, and memos he wrote for himself, never intended for public consumption.
The contents were sourced from a vast trove of documents found by the Red Army after it seized Gröditzberg, a castle owned by Dirksen where he spent most of World War II.
Mainstream historians have made no use of the Dirksen Papers. Whether this is due to their bombshell disclosures posing a variety of dire threats to established Western narratives of World War II, and revealing much the British government wishes to remain forever secret, is a matter of speculation.
Immediately after World War II began, Dirksen “keenly” felt an “obligation” to author a detailed post-mortem on the failure of Britain’s peace overtures to Nazi Germany, and his own.
He was particularly compelled to write it as “all important documents” in Berlin’s London embassy had been burned following British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s formal declaration of war on September 3, 1939. Reflecting on his experiences, Dirksen spoke of “the tragic and paramount thing about the rise of the new Anglo-German war”:
“Germany demanded an equal place with Britain as a world power…Britain was in principle prepared to concede. But, whereas Germany demanded immediate, complete and unequivocal satisfaction of her demands, Britain – although she was ready to renounce her Eastern commitments, and…allow Germany a predominant position in East and Southeast Europe, and to discuss genuine world political partnership with Germany – wanted this to be done only by way of negotiation and a gradual revision of British policy.”
German response
From London’s perspective, Dirksen lamented, this radical change in the global order “could be effected in months, but not of days or weeks.” Another stumbling block was the British and French making a “guarantee” to defend Poland in the event she was attacked by Nazi Germany, in March 1939.
Thisbellicose stance – along with belligerent speeches from Chamberlain – was at total odds with simultaneous conciliatory approaches such as Düsseldorf, and the private stances and utterances of British officials to their Nazi counterparts.
In any event, it appears London instantly regretted its pledge to defend Poland. Dirksen records in his post-mortem how, subsequently, senior British officials told him they sought “an Anglo-German entente” that would “render Britain’s guarantee policy nugatory” and “enable Britain to extricate her from her predicament in regard to Poland,” so Warsaw would “be left to face Germany alone”.
In mid-July 1939, Horace Wilson – an extremely powerful civil servant and Chamberlain’s right-hand man – approached Göring’s chief aide, Helmuth Wohlthat, during a visit to London.
Wilson “outlined a program for a comprehensive adjustment of Anglo-German relations” to him, which amounted to a radical overhaul of the two countries’ “political, military and economic arrangements.” This included “a non-aggression pact”, explicitly concerned with shredding Britain’s “guarantee” to Warsaw. Dirksen noted:
“The underlying purpose of this treaty was to make it possible for the British gradually to disembarrass themselves of their commitments toward Poland, on the ground that they had…secured Germany’s renunciation of methods of aggression.”
Elsewhere, “comprehensive” proposals for economic cooperation were outlined, with the promise of “negotiations…to be undertaken on colonial questions, supplies of raw material for Germany, delimitation of industrial markets, international debt problems, and the application of the most favoured nation clause.”
In addition, a realignment of “the spheres of interest of the Great Powers” would be up for discussion, opening the door for further Nazi territorial expansion. Dirksen makes clear that these grand plans were fully endorsed at the British government’s highest levels:
“The importance of Wilson’s proposals was demonstrated by the fact that Wilson invited Wohlthat to have them confirmed by Chamberlain personally.”
During his stay in London, Wohlthat also had extensive discussions with Overseas Trade Secretary Robert Hudson, who told him, “three big regions offered the two nations an immense field for economic activity.”
This included the existing British Empire, China and Russia. “Here, agreement was possible; as also in other regions,” including the Balkans, where “England had no economic ambitions.” In other words, resource-rich Yugoslavia would be Nazi Germany’s for the taking, under the terms of “world political partnership” with Britain.
Dirksen outlined the contents of Wohlthat’s talks with Hudson and Wilson in a “strictly secret” internal memo, excitedly noting “England alone could not adequately take care of her vast Empire, and it would be quite possible for Germany to be given a rather comprehensive share.”
A telegram dispatched to Dirksen from the German Foreign Office on July 31st 1939 recorded Wohlthat had informed Göring of Britain’s secret proposals, who in turn notified Nazi Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop.
Dirksen noted elsewhere that Wohlthat specifically asked the British how such negotiations “might be put on a tangible footing.” Wilson informed him “the decisive thing” was for Hitler to “[make] his willingness known” by officially authorizing a senior Nazi official to discuss the “program”.
Wilson “furthermore strongly stressed the great value the British government laid upon a German reply” to these offers, and how London “considered that slipping into war was the only alternative.”
Authoritarian regimes
No “reply” apparently ever came. On September 1st 1939, Nazi Germany invaded Poland, Britain declared war on Germany two days later, and the rest is history – albeit history that is subject to determined obfuscation, constant rewriting, and deliberate distortion.
Polls of European citizens conducted in the immediate aftermath of World War II showed there was little public doubt that the Red Army was primarily responsible for Nazi Germany’s destruction, with Britain and the US correctly perceived as playing mere walk-on roles.
For example, in 1945, 57% of French citizens believed Moscow “contributed most to the defeat of Germany in 1945” – just 20% named the US, and 12% Britain.
By 2015, less than a quarter of respondents recognized the Soviet role, with 54% naming the US as Nazism’s ultimate vanquisher. Meanwhile, a survey on the 80th anniversary of D-Day in June 2024 found 42% of Britons believed their own country had done more to crush Hitler than all other allied countries combined.
The same poll identified a staggering level of ignorance among British citizens of all ages about World War II more generally, with only two-thirds of respondents even able to place D-Day as having occurred during that conflict.
The pollsters didn’t gauge public knowledge of Britain’s long-running, concerted attempts to forge a global Empire with Nazi Germany in the War’s lead up, although betting is high that the figure would be approximately zero.
Meanwhile, in 2009, the European Parliament instituted a day of remembrance on August 23rd each year, to “mark the European Day of Remembrance for Victims of All Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes”.
This is just one of several modern-day moves to perversely conflate Communism and Nazism, while transforming Wehrmacht and SS collaborators, Holocaust perpetrators, and ultranationalists and fascists in countries liberated by the Red Army into victims, and laying blame for World War II at Russia’s feet, by dent of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
What British officials were proposing to Hitler in 1939 far eclipsed the terms of that controversial agreement, but this has been lost to the sands of time.
[…]
US moves to implement Trump’s ‘vision’ for Syria
FILE PHOTO: US President Donald Trump shakes hands with Syria’s interim leader Ahmad al-Sharaa, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, May 14, 2025 © Bandar Aljaloud / Saudi Royal Palace via APRT
Washington has eased sanctions and appointed a special envoy to Damascus to oversee its path to “greatness” promised by the US president.
The White House has initiated a significant shift in policy toward Damascus by easing longstanding sanctions and appointing a special envoy, following US President Donald Trump’s recent meeting with Syria’s interim leader Ahmed al-Sharaa.
Al-Sharaa, also known by his nom de guerre Abu Mohammad al-Julani, rose to prominence as the leader of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), an Islamist group with ties to Al-Qaeda, which led a coalition of opposition groups that toppled longtime leader Bashar Assad last year.
“I will be ordering the cessation of sanctions against Syria in order to give them a chance at greatness,” Trump announced at an investment forum in Riyadh last week, where he met al-Sharaa and expressed hope that the new government would “succeed in stabilizing the country.”
On Friday, the US Treasury Department issued General License 25 (GL25), authorizing previously prohibited transactions under the Syrian Sanctions Regulations (SSR). The measure effectively lifts restrictions on dealings with Syria’s central government, including the Central Bank of Syria, several state-owned banks, energy firms, telecommunications providers and national carriers such as Syrian Arab Airlines.
Simultaneously, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a 180-day waiver of the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act, suspending some of the most punitive measures passed by Congress in 2019. The waiver covers financial services, engineering, and logistics support for projects involving water, electricity, sanitation, and public health. Rubio described the move as a “first step” in fulfilling Trump’s new “vision” for Syria.
Earlier this week, Rubio warned US lawmakers that a civil war of “epic proportions” could erupt in Syria within weeks. Although the country’s new leadership “didn’t pass their background check with the FBI,” Rubio said the US must support them in order to prevent wider regional instability. He defended Trump’s approach, arguing that maintaining a pragmatic foreign policy means the US human rights agenda is “different in certain parts of the world” than in others.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated in February that the sanctions were “harming the Syrian people” and should be lifted without preconditions.
In order to oversee Washington’s growing ties with Damascus, Trump has appointed Tom Barrack, his ambassador to Turkey and longtime confidant, as US Special Envoy for Syria. Barrack said on Friday that the administration’s goal was to “integrate Syria into a peaceful, cooperative Middle East,” and hinted that reopening the US Embassy in Damascus was “on the table.”While sanctions relief is significant, most measures remain temporary, with GL25 expiring in six months unless renewed. Congress would need to pass legislation to permanently repealing the Caesar Act and related sanctions packages imposed since Syria was designated a state sponsor of terrorism in 1979.
May 23, 2025
Nightmare of Jerusalem Part VII – The Birth of Islamic Nationalism
Nightmare of Jerusalem Part 7
Press TV (2025)
Film Review
This episode briefly summarizes the decline of secular Arab nationalism and rise of Islamic nationalism.
Following World War II, the socialist Arab parties across the Middle East united under the pan-Arab Baath Party. Built on ethnic pride, the Ba’ath Party took power in Egypt, Iraq, Syria and Jordan. Constrained by internal struggles and deliberate destabilization by Western governments and Israel, it eventually collapsed (Syria was the last Ba’ath party regime to fall in December 2024).
Beginning in the 1960s, Shiite scholars in Homs (Syria) organized to to rebirth the movement along Islamic principles. Integral to this movement, Iran’s revolutionary leader Iman Khomeini wrote many letters to the Shah, warning him about negative US and CIA influences on Iran. Once he began addressing public gatherings, he was arrested and exiled. He spent his 14 years in exile continuing to organize against the Shah’s government.
Not in our name: US citizens take action over tax dollars fueling Gaza genocide
By Alireza Akbari
On May 14, the grassroots group Taxpayers Against Genocide (TAG), along with the National Lawyers Guild International Committee, submitted a legal filing to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, charging the US government of enabling Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza.
The historic complaint states that US military and financial support for the Israeli apartheid regime has played a direct role in the destruction of Palestinian lives in Gaza.
The 133-page document includes sworn affidavits from Palestinian-American plaintiffs who lost loved ones in Israel’s ongoing genocidal war on Gaza, where more than 53,000 Palestinians have been killed and nearly 120,000 injured over the past 19 months, as per official estimates.
The complaint names former US presidents Joe Biden and Donald Trump, as well as members of US Congress, accusing them of funding and arming a genocidal campaign.
Huwaida Arraf, a civil rights attorney and Palestinian solidarity activist, announced the filing of the complaint in Washington, D.C.
Arraf, who also helped lead the Freedom Flotilla Coalition, drafted the petition and is serving as lead attorney on the case.
Huwaida Arraf, human rights attorney and a founder of the Freedom Flotilla Coalition, speaking at the May 14 press conference in DC.She said the complaint was brought before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights because the US has “effectively shielded itself from accountability for its international crimes under its own legal system, even for crimes against humanity and genocide.”
“The US cannot continue to finance, arm, and politically cover for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide abroad while remaining immune from international scrutiny,” she noted.
“This petition is a call for accountability where none has yet been possible.”
Arraf was joined by several co-complainants, including Robert S. McCaw, director of government affairs at the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR); Dr. Nidal Jboor, co-founder of Doctors Against Genocide (DAG); and Jacqueline Luqman, chair of the coordinating committee for the Black Alliance for Peace (BAP), along with TAG members and Palestinian-American plaintiffs.
The complaint is supported by a broad coalition of advocacy groups, including the Arab Resource Organizing Center Action, Palestinian Youth Movement, US Palestinian Community Network, CAIR, the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network, CODEPINK, Black Alliance for Peace, Doctors Against Genocide, Friends of Latin America, the Nicaraguan Solidarity Coalition, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, the Alliance for Global Justice, and many others.
At a press conference held Wednesday in Washington, several plaintiffs delivered prepared statements condemning US support for the Israeli regime’s genocide in Gaza. They called for an immediate halt to the use of American tax dollars to fund Israel’s genocidal campaign.
Seth Michael Donnelly, a social worker and co-founder of TAG, cited his long-standing activism against US-backed human rights abuses worldwide.
“As a social worker,” he said, “I’ve spent years trying to stop human rights violations perpetrated by the US government.”
Donnelly also emphasized the efforts of high school students in his community, who, in January 2024, met with Congressman Mike Thompson to express their concerns about US complicity in the ongoing campaign of extermination of Palestinians in Gaza.
“They urged him to stop sending weapons and US tax dollars as military aid to Israel in light of the growing evidence of genocide in Gaza,” he said.
Despite the students’ appeal, Donnelly said, “Representative Thompson did not heed the information he was provided. Thompson willfully ignored the concerns of these students, and the majority of his own constituents.”
Donnelly pointed out that Thompson was one of 365 members of Congress who, on April 20, 2024, voted to approve $26.38 billion in funding through the so-called ‘Israeli Supplemental Security Act’, with most of it designated for military aid to the Tel Aviv regime. On April 23, 2024, 79 Senators also approved the $26.38 billion Israeli aid package as part of a broader spending bill. “In so doing, these representatives demonstrated a blatant disregard for the bill’s illegal provision of US weapons to support ongoing war crimes and plausible genocide,” he stated.
According to the plaintiffs and human rights advocates, the vote came despite mounting evidence that US-supplied weapons were being used by the Israeli military to commit acts that meet the legal definition of genocide in the Palestinian territory.
Jacqueline Luqman, Chair of the Coordinating Committee of the Black Alliance for Peace, speaking at the May 14 press conference.Jacqueline Luqman, chair of the Coordinating Committee of the Black Alliance for Peace (BAP), reiterated the group’s full support for the legal effort led by TAG.
“We support TAG’s campaign to end the use of US taxpayer dollars to fund genocide in Palestine, Lebanon, and everywhere else Israel is implicated in human rights violations and war crimes, such as in Congo,” she stated.
She also emphasized that while US citizens struggle to make ends meet under a capitalist dictatorship that deprives people of their basic needs for the profit of a few, the US government is once again violating international law and its own Congressional mandates by facilitating genocide using its citizens’ resources.
Palestinian-American plaintiff Tarik Kanaan underscored Israel’s “systematic destruction” of Palestinian history, heritage, and culture.
“The intentional destruction of the ancient Al-Omari mosque, the ancient Byzantine Church and the Church of Jabalia, the third oldest in the world, to name a few, inflicts irreversible damage to our traditions and cultural history,” he said.
Kanaan added that Israel’s acts of genocide have only been possible because of Washington’s unwavering support. He pointed to “the full support and protection of the US” that has allowed the Israeli regime “to destroy anything and everything that sustains life to the Palestinian people.”
Tariq Raouf, a human rights activist and one of the plaintiffs, described Israel’s genocidal actions in Gaza as “a blatant violation of morality, human rights, and ethics.” He added that without accountability, the genocide would continue unchecked.
“I did not consent to my tax dollars being used to commit violence against my own family; I did not consent to paying for the bullets and bombs that have killed 43 of my family members,” he said.
Raouf called on fellow Americans to reject the use of public funds for war.
“It is a ludicrous and delusional expectation that we, the American taxpayers, will stand idly by while money that should be going to our education, healthcare and veterans is instead going on to fund more war crimes, and more deaths,” he remarked.
Dr. Nidal Jboor, co-founder of Doctors Against Genocide, emphasized the medical community’s alarm over the Israeli weaponization of basic necessities in Gaza.
“We are doctors. We swore to protect life—not to fund its destruction,” he said. “In our name, with our tax dollars, children in Gaza are being starved and bombed while food and medicine sit just five miles away,” he said.
Robert S. McCaw, Director of Government Affairs at the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), also voiced support for the plaintiffs and their legal team.
He stated that CAIR offers its fullest support in efforts to hold the US government accountable for its complicity in Israel’s ongoing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, as well as its occupation and apartheid of Palestinians throughout the region, including the occupied West Bank.
Nida Liftawiya, a Palestinian refugee, US taxpayer, and organizer with the Arab Resource and Organizing Center (AROC), expressed her outrage at how public funds have been used.
Committed to justice and human rights, she said she seeks “restitution” for the US government’s role in “misusing” her “tax dollars to commit genocide and ethnic cleansing” of Palestinians.
Cynthia Papermaster, Bay Area coordinator for the anti-war group CODEPINK, condemned the US government’s continued military support for the Israeli regime.
She pointed to the early April 2025 allocation of $8.8 billion in additional weapons and aid, saying the funding amounts to “thousands more 2,000-pound bombs and thousands more Hellfire missiles which are shredding the children of Gaza.”
She also called for a shift in focus to humanitarian relief. “We demand that our Senators and Representatives stop funding this barbaric and illegal massacre,” she said.
Monadel Herzallah, another plaintiff who lost 43 family members in the ongoing genocidal war, added, “We as Palestinians in the US have sought accountability in federal court, but we also made a pledge to seek justice in any other possible venue available.”
They further denounced the blockade of Gaza and the prevention of basic necessities from entering the blockaded territory, as well as the regime’s weaponization of starvation against Palestinians. Banners read, “bread not bombs” and “let the children eat.”
The legal filing came just one day before the anniversary of Nakba Day and followed months of sustained activism.
On April 7, TAG, a growing movement of over 2,000 American taxpayers, submitted a groundbreaking report to the UN Human Rights Council, detailing US congressional votes that have enabled Israel’s war on Gaza.
“We have gone through all the channels open to us in our effort to stop US officials from using our tax dollars to fund genocide. We have called and met with these officials, we have peacefully protested, and we have taken them to federal court. To date, none of this has stopped them,” Donnelly said following the April report.
He added that the genocide in Gaza continues, driven by American tax dollars.
“We have now elevated our struggle to the international arena, starting with our report to the UN Human Rights Council, as one necessary step towards countering the impunity of the US government.”
The report centers on violations by the US Congress and the executive branch, charging them with misusing taxpayers’ money to support, aid and abet genocide in Gaza.
TAG asserts that Israel’s acts of aggression against Palestinians would not be possible without US support, which supplies the majority of weapons used in war on Gaza.
It condemns US officials’ direct complicity in the genocide, presenting evidence that both the Biden and Trump administrations, as well as specific members of Congress, used federal funds to support war crimes—violating the US Constitution, domestic laws, and the Genocide Convention.
In December, after being repeatedly denied meetings with their representatives, the taxpayers filed a federal lawsuit—Seth Donnelly et al. v. Mike Thompson and Jared Huffman—against two Democratic congressmen.
[…]ViaUS attorney general labels pro-Palestine protesters ‘domestic terrorists’
US Attorney General Pam Bondi on January 15, 2025 in Washington, DC © Chip Somodevilla / Getty ImagesRT
Pam Bondi claims that demonstrators “incite violence” against Jewish students
US Attorney General Pam Bondi has described pro-Palestinian student protesters as “domestic terrorists,” warning that universities could lose federal funding if they fail to address anti-Semitism on campus.
Speaking to Fox News on Sunday, Bondi addressed recent unrest at Columbia University and urged institutions to take stronger action to protect Jewish students.
“It’s absurd that these universities are not stepping in to protect them, yet they’re shielding these protesters who are also, I believe, some domestic terrorists,” she said. Bondi claimed that demonstrators were “inciting riots and… violence against students on college campuses,” although she did not offer specific examples.
“We’re going to pull it from every university if you do not comply with the law,” Bondi warned, referring to the move by the administration of President Donald Trump to withdraw $400 million in funding from Columbia over its failure to stop anti-Semitic harassment.
In February, the US Justice Department formed a multi-agency task force focused on combating anti-Semitism, with its top priority targeting harassment in schools and universities. Officials said the group would coordinate federal enforcement and “root out” anti-Semitic behavior on campuses nationwide.
Protests erupted last year at campuses across the United States, with students demanding an end to Washington’s support for Israel amid the war in Gaza. The demonstrations followed the October 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, which killed around 1,200 people and saw 250 taken hostage. In response, Israeli forces launched a large-scale offensive that has killed more than 50,000 people, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, and has devastated much of the Palestinian enclave. Columbia became a focal point of the protest movement in the US, alongside UC Berkeley, Harvard, Yale, Michigan, and Northwestern.Protesters, including Jewish students, argue that criticism of Israeli policy does not constitute anti-Semitism. They say advocacy for Palestinian rights aligns with core American values. However, others on campus said the protests created a hostile environment. A Columbia University task force later found “serious and pervasive” issues affecting Jewish students.
[…]
Via https://www.rt.com/news/614680-us-attorney-general-labels-pro/
Trump bans Harvard from admitting foreign students
FILE PHOTO: Students protesting against the war in Gaza at an encampment at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, April 25, 2024 © AP / Ben CurtisRT
The Ivy League institution has been given 72 hours to comply with the White House’s demands
The White House has revoked Harvard University’s authorization to enroll international students, escalating its ongoing conflict with the Ivy League institution over its refusal to address alleged antisemitism on campus and dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.
Since returning to office, US President Donald Trump has called on colleges and universities to put a stop to anti-Israel protests, which he has characterized as antisemitic, and dismantle DEI initiatives, which he has claimed promote “division and radicalism.”
The ultimatum, announced on Thursday by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, gave the university 72 hours to comply with a list of federal demands in order to have its Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) certification reinstated. These demands include turning over all disciplinary records for non-immigrant students from the past five years, along with any electronic records, video, or audio documenting their “illegal, dangerous or violent” activity on campus.
“Harvard can no longer enroll foreign students, and existing foreign students must transfer or lose their legal status,” Noem wrote in a letter to Harvard President Alan Garber dated May 22. “Let this serve as a warning to all universities and academic institutions across the country.”
“This administration is holding Harvard accountable for fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus,” she stated.
The revocation of Harvard’s SEVP certification could affect nearly 6,800 international students currently enrolled at its Cambridge, Massachusetts campus, comprising approximately 27% of its 2024–25 student body.
“It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments,” Noem added.
Harvard has denounced the decision as unlawful and politically retaliatory, arguing that the administration’s actions pose serious harm to the university’s academic mission and global reputation.
“We are fully committed to maintaining Harvard’s ability to host international students and scholars, who hail from more than 140 countries and enrich the University – and this nation – immeasurably,” said Harvard spokesperson Jason Newton in a statement.
The clash marks a major escalation in the Trump administration’s pressure campaign against elite universities, amid a growing political backlash over their handling of pro-Palestinian student protests.
After Harvard rejected federal demands and pledged to address internal issues on its own terms, the administration froze $2.2 billion in federal funding to the university, part of a broader review of nearly $9 billion in public grants awarded to Harvard and its affiliated research institutions.
[…]
Via https://www.rt.com/news/618026-harvard-foreign-students-ban/
Military base in paradise: Why decolonisation by the UK turns out to be fake again
The Chagos Islands © Pictures From History/Universal Images Group via Getty Images
By Tamara Ryzhenkova
London and Washington attempt to forge a new neocolonial reality using old tactics, and at the expense of other nations.
The UK and Mauritius have signed an agreement to transfer sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago in the Indian Ocean to Mauritius. Under the terms of the deal, London will relinquish control of the archipelago – which hosts a joint US-UK military base on its territory – but will retain authority over its largest island, Diego Garcia, under a 99-year lease in exchange for financial assistance.
According to The Guardian, the administration of US President Donald Trump, which was consulted on the deal, has approved it.
“The strategic location of this base is of the utmost significance to Britain, from deploying aircraft to defeat terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan to anticipating threats in the Red Sea and the Indo-Pacific,” UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced.
What is the Chagos Archipelago?News of the UK’s decision to return the strategically significant Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius first became known on October 3, 2024. The long-awaited decision came after years of negotiations with Mauritian officials, involving 13 rounds of discussions, and was made amid intense debates and international pressure.
Diego Garcia and the other islands of the archipelago were discovered by the famous Portuguese explorer Vasco da Gama in 1512 and remained uninhabited until the French began using the archipelago as a settlement for lepers and later, in the late 18th century, for coconut plantations worked by African slaves.
From 1715 to 1810, Chagos was part of the French overseas territories in the Indian Ocean, governed by the French colony of Isle de France which would later be renamed Mauritius. During the Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815), the British took control of these territories, and under the Paris Agreement of 1814, France ceded Isle de France along with the Chagos Archipelago to Britain.
The territory remained a British colony for over 150 years. In 1965, the UK promised to withdraw from Mauritius, but first it removed the Chagos Archipelago from the jurisdiction of Mauritius, paying the latter £3 million in compensation. Consequently, Mauritius gained independence in 1968 without Chagos, which was officially declared part of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) on November 8, 1965.
A military base in paradiseIn 1966, despite the UN’s objections to British control over the archipelago, London leased Diego Garcia to the US for 50 years in exchange for a $14 million discount on the purchase of Polaris ballistic missile submarines. The island has an area of just about 27 sq km and the lagoon is surrounded by a narrow strip of surface coral reefs. It has the largest continuous atoll rim in the world – about 60km in length; the dryland rim has a maximum width of 2.4km, and at its highest point the island is 7 meters above sea level. With its coconut palms, it looks like paradise on earth.
At the time of the lease, in 1966, Diego Garcia had a population of fewer than 1,000 people, primarily contract workers tending to coconut plantations. However, by 1973, the residents of Diego Garcia, along with those from the entire Chagos Archipelago, were forcibly removed to Mauritius and the Seychelles to make way for the US military base. Since then, the Chagossians have been barred from returning home. Washington established a naval and air force base on Diego Garcia, jointly operated with the UK, housing around 4,000 American and British military personnel and civilians. In 2016, the US extended its lease for another 30 years.
In October 2024, the UK finally decided to transfer the Chagos Islands – its only overseas territory located in the Indian Ocean – back to Mauritius. The decision followed intense negotiations and disputes at both local and international levels.
It all started in the 1990s when several Chagossians, exiled from their islands and holding British citizenship, filed lawsuits to assert their right to return home but were unsuccessful. In the early 2000s, around 4,500 Chagossian descendants living in the UK, Mauritius, and the Seychelles sought compensation but also met with failure. Meanwhile, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq only solidified Diego Garcia’s strategic importance as a launchpad for airstrikes carried out by the US and its allies.
In June 2017, the UN General Assembly passed resolution 71/292, requesting an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice regarding the legality of the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965. Based on the court’s findings, which called for the complete decolonization of Mauritius, the General Assembly demanded the unconditional withdrawal of British troops from the archipelago.
London rejected the ruling, but a few years later, on November 3, 2022, under international pressure, it announced the resumption of negotiations with Mauritius, ultimately leading to a joint statement on the transfer of the Chagos Islands, including Diego Garcia, back to Mauritius.
Military air baseThe UK has fought to retain Diego Garcia, as the island plays a crucial military, strategic, and economic role in advancing its geopolitical interests in East Africa, the Middle East, and the Indian Ocean.
The joint US-UK military base, equipped with a runway, is used for positioning navy ships and long-range bombers. It is essential to American operations in the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf and played an active role during Operation Desert Storm (1991), Operation Enduring Freedom (2001–2021), and other operations in the Middle East.
Utilizing the base is significantly cheaper than deploying expensive aircraft carriers at sea and allows for a quicker response to external threats. Situated at the heart of Indian Ocean shipping routes, it allows the US and UK to oversee the transit of energy resources and goods between Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, while also serving as a tool against maritime piracy and terrorism.
Geostrategically, Diego Garcia is vital for the US and UK in their global competition with China, which established its own base in Djibouti in 2017. China is expanding its influence through the ambitious ‘One Belt One Road’ initiative which the Seychelles, Madagascar, and Comoros are part of. Mauritius, which remains an ally of the West, has not yet joined this initiative.
B-2 SpiritRecent reports indicate that the US has deployed Northrop B-2 Spirit strategic bombers to Diego Garcia. The Wall Street Journal described the deployment as a warning to Iran and the Houthis, against whom Washington is conducting military operations in the Red Sea.
Six bombers, each valued at $1.1 billion, were sent to the region from the Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri. This is nearly a third of the US Air Force’s fleet of flying wing aircraft. According to the Air Force Global Strike Command, the deployment is part of the Pentagon’s efforts “to deter, detect, and, if necessary, defeat strategic attacks against the United States and its allies.”
Threat to IranGiven the current situation in the Middle East, there is speculation that the US might utilize the aircraft stationed at Diego Garcia for a potential nuclear strike on Iran. National Interest noted that by December 2024, the US had successfully completed a significant upgrade of the B61-12 nuclear warhead, which cost $9 billion. The modernized version is the latest iteration of the B61 since its introduction in 1968 at the height of the Cold War.
The recent enhancements effectively transform the “dumb” gravity bomb into a precision weapon with a circular probable deviation of just 30 meters. The B61-12 is certified for use on F-15E, F-16, F-35A, B-2 Spirit, and NATO’s Tornado aircraft.
Whether the B61-12 would specifically target alleged Iranian nuclear facilities remains uncertain. However, it is known that “support for nuclear-capable military platforms is a key function of Diego Garcia,” according to a report from the Lowy Institute. The likelihood of B61-12 warheads being temporarily stationed at Diego Garcia is quite high. Additionally, Diego Garcia is not subject to the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free-Zone Treaty (Pelindaba Treaty).
Iran’s response to the deployment of B-2 bombers at the Diego Garcia base has been quite firm. On March 29, The Telegraph, citing a senior Iranian military official, reported that Iran would not hesitate to strike the Diego Garcia joint US-British naval base in retaliation for any American attack on its territory.
“Iran possesses adequate weapons for such an attack from its mainland, such as newer versions of the Khorramshahr missile that have an intermediate range, and the Shahed-136B kamikaze drone with a range of 4,000 kilometers (2,485 miles),” the article stated, referencing Iranian media.
What about the Falklands?Despite reaching an agreement to transfer the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius, residents of the islands have little hope of returning to Diego Garcia – the most habitable island of the archipelago – from which they were expelled by the British in the 1970s during the construction of the military base. Under the terms of the deal, access to the island remains prohibited.
This agreement has also stirred controversy regarding other overseas territories of the UK. On October 3, 2024, the same day the deal with Mauritius was announced, Argentina urged Britain to return the Falkland Islands.
“We will restore full sovereignty over our Malvinas Islands through concrete actions, not empty rhetoric. The Malvinas were, are, and always will be Argentine,” stated Argentina’s foreign minister, Diana Mondino.
Argentine President Javier Milei has repeatedly emphasized the necessity of returning the Falkland Islands to Argentina. At the same time, discussions have emerged about Spain reclaiming Gibraltar. However, in early October 2024, the UK firmly stated that the sovereignty of both the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar is “non-negotiable” and that the agreement with Mauritius should not be seen as a precedent for other territorial disputes, as the Chagos Islands represent “a unique situation based on its unique history and circumstances.”
The situation with the Chagos Islands demonstrates the reluctance of Western powers to relinquish their colonial past, which allows them to maintain control over formerly dependent but currently sovereign nations. Losing control of the Chagos Islands would be too painful for the geostrategic ambitions of the UK and the US, which seek to uphold global hegemony at the expense of the interests of the native inhabitants of the formerly colonized states. Diego Garcia is a clear example of post-colonialism which is pulling the world back into an era of oppression, subjugation, and international inequality.
[…]
https://www.rt.com/africa/617999-uk-not-return-chagos-archipelago-mauritius/
May 22, 2025
Unexplained Flaws in the Evidence for the NASA Moon Landings; and NASA’s Use of Augmented Virtual Reality Technology
By Reality Books
Given that a 2019 poll, conducted by YouGov, found that 29 percent of respondents 50 years old or younger expressed some belief that the U.S. government “faked the 1969 Apollo moon landing”,[1] this article will examine the decades old controversy surrounding NASA’s Apollo moon landings. Then we will dive a little deeper into the matrix of deception and illusion; and what may lie behind it. I explore:
some of the unexplained flaws in the evidence for the NASA moon landings;methods, technologies and technical trickery that Hollywood uses to simulate space and zero-gravity in movies;technical trickery and augmented virtual reality technology that space agencies, such as NASA, appear to have used to ‘fake’ space and zero-gravity, as well as live video feeds from the International Space Station (ISS);augmented virtual-reality technology in which it becomes difficult to discern what is ‘real’ and what is actually computer-generated imagery (CGI), and the space agency’s contract with a company that produces advanced virtual reality simulation videos.This article is largely based on the book Fake Moon Landings and the Lies of NASA.
NASA’s ‘Moon Landings’ – NASA Received $2400 Billion of US Taxpayers Money, but Say They ‘Lost’ All the Technology and Telemetry DataThe NASA missions to the moon reportedly cost the US government, and thus the American tax payer, in the region of $2400 billion, yet all NASA have to show for it apparently is some moon dust and a few small rocks that they claim came from the moon. That is a lot of money to obtain a few rocks. They also tell us that “All the moon rocks were stolen including the safe they were in” at NASA Headquarters. Following Freedom of Information requests in America NASA admitted it had lost original video footage, voice data, bio-medical monitoring data, and telemetry data to monitor the location and functioning of the spaceship, and original plans/blueprints for the lunar modules, space suits and lunar rovers, and for the entire multi-sectioned Saturn V rockets[2]. They lost ‘all’ the alleged record of the moon landings, including 13,000 reels that are said to be ‘missing’! Is it any wonder that over the past decades there has been a growing consensus that NASA faked the Apollo moon missions in the 1960’s – that it was only a hyped-up TV show.
“over 700 boxes of magnetic data tapes recorded throughout the Apollo program that have not been found… On August 16, 2006, NASA announced its official search, saying, “… NASA engineers are hopeful that when the tapes are found they can use today’s digital technology to provide a version of the moonwalk that is much better quality than what we have today.” – Wikipedia[3].
Shadows on the Moon Pointing in Different Directions
From an analytical standpoint, let’s examine photographic anomalies in the NASA photos of the astronauts on the moon. These anomalies have to be analysed with an understanding of lighting and shadow.
When objects are lit solely by the sun as all the scenes on the moon were said to be, then all shadows regardless of the landscape will run parallel to each other. However, in the above photos of the moon landings obtained from a NASA archival site, the shadows point in different directions, proving that there were two different lighting sources – it is clear the scenes were lit with artificial light. One of the shadows is of the astronaut; and the other shadow appears to be of a pole. There are additional examples of this mistake by NASA. The argument that shadows can point in differing directions in uneven terrain does not explain the significant differences observed.
NASA brought 3 lunar vehicles to the moon, but never brought a telescope to view and photograph the Earth.
Furthermore, you would think the view of the stars would be magnificent from the moon, yet, there are no stars in any of the pictures or video footage from the moon – ever. When asked about the stars at the NASA post-flight press conference it was the only question to which Armstrong responded with an absence of memory. Furthermore, we are led to believe that over the course of several missions to the moon NASA brought three lunar vehicles that cost $60 million dollars each, but never brought a single telescopic telescope to view and photograph the stars or the Earth.
In addition, there is the anomaly in the NASA video footage of the US flag blowing the wind, twice, on the ‘atmosphere-less’ moon. In addition, when the footage of the astronauts walking and jumping along on the moon is doubled in speed, it is clear that they are walking in Earth gravity and are no more leaving the ground than they would on Earth. There are numerous documentaries exposing these, and other anomalies. Furthermore, how did the moon buggy fit inside the spaceship? and why was there no blast crater under the lander module. The reality is that, there is way more evidence to support the assertion that NASA never went to the moon than vice-versa.
Science or Science Fiction?The following is an apt extract from an article title The Apollo Moon Landings are Science Fiction, published on March 8th, 2022[4].
“Since the alleged moon landings [until 2022], no country even claims to have gone more than 400 miles from Earth and that was in the Space Shuttle… There is a big difference between 240,000 miles and 400 miles. Why can’t anyone make it more than 400 miles from Earth today if we could make a 480,000 mile round trip in 1969?
NASA further asserts that three men were loaded into a rocket, flew 240,000 miles to the moon… and they then hung out on the moon for up to three days in 250-degree heat, hit golf balls, rode a moon buggy – but what powered their life support and equipment? They say BATTERIES.
They then supposedly blasted off the surface of the moon, docked with the third man going around the moon at over 4000 miles per hour, and made it 240,000 miles back to Earth. They re-entered Earth’s atmosphere going 25,000 mph, but parachutes assured a safe landing in the ocean. We hope you will agree that… proves the absurdity of NASA’s claim in a clear and convincing fashion.”
NASA Astronauts Are Walking in Earth Gravity – The Video Speed Appears to Have Been Slowed and AdjustedAn independent researcher produced comprehensive video analysis[5] in which the slow motion movement of the astronauts on the Moon is examined in detail, as well as many other mysterious and questionable aspects of the footage of the Apollo Moon mission. This includes analysis of sand falling from the astronaut’s hands during the Apollo experiments. He had the following to say:
“I measured the speed of falling objects… in the Apollo television footage… And, based on my evaluation for how the footage was captured and altered into slow-motion, the measurements are precisely consistent with Earth gravity. My measurements are reproduce-able by independent scientists, and I give clear reference to the source footage so that this can be done with the least amount of effort.”
Another independent researcher stated:
“The Apollo “astronauts” appear to move as if underwater, walking along the sea floor. All in slow motion. Even when they jump upwards it’s all shown in slow motion. But there is no scientific basis for this. There is no reason that someone walking or moving on a low gravity planet or moon would be moving in slow motion like this. At least not while jumping upwards. What would slow them down? They are supposedly moving in a low gravity, no atmosphere environment. What is there to slow them down? … The problem is that free falling objects in low gravity would move more slowly than on earth but other motions would move at normal or perhaps even faster-than-normal speed. This must have presented a technological nightmare for a 1960s film maker.
So, the probable solution was to create and release a major motion picture just prior to Apollo 11 showing men in space and on the moon, all moving in slow motion and tell the public that this is the most technologically accurate movie ever made about space travel. They would even include a short scene showing men walking on the moon, also in slow motion of course… That movie, of course, was 2001: A Space Odyssey.”
.
.
NASA Even Admit that All NASA’s Pictures of the Earth Are CGI CompositesFurthermore, incredibly, it appears that all pictures of the Earth, supposedly taken from outer space by NASA, are actually CGI (Computer Generated Image) composites. NASA even admits on its website that the NASA pictures of the globe earth are composite computer-generated images, i.e., composites of multiple images they claim are taken by satellites or (they claim) by the international space station.
See the NASA images of the Earth[6], these images are clearly computer generated. We are expected to believe that NASA can send probes with high-definition cameras to take pictures of Jupiter, Mars, Saturn etc., but they cannot turn the camera around to take one full shot of Earth? The following text is quoted from the NASA website:
“Image composites are the fusing of several images together taken in an overlapping sequence. The images in this collection feature several composites from the International Space Station taken of various beautiful features around the Earth. The green markers on the map indicate the locations of all of the composites listed in this collection, and the dropdown menu below also showcases all of the image composites available.” – NASA[7]
“The new image is a composite of six separate orbits taken on Jan. 23, 2012 by the Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership satellite. Both of these new ‘Blue Marble’ images are images taken by a new instrument flying aboard Suomi NPP, the Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS).” – NASA[8]
During my research I was not able to find a single picture of the ‘whole’ earth as a globe that was not a CGI composite, or subject to tampering, i.e., there is no ‘actual’ single picture of the whole Earth taken from ‘space’. Surely with the NASA moon missions and claimed launches of probes into ‘deep space’ there should be hundreds of such pictures.
NASA’s Earthrise Photos – Claims of Photographic TamperingThe famous ‘Earthrise’ photos, which claim to show the Earth rising above the moon’s horizon were allegedly taken during the Apollo 11 mission in 1969. The official NASA website blurb states: “Taken aboard Apollo 8 by Bill Anders, this iconic picture shows Earth peeking out from beyond the lunar surface as the first crewed spacecraft circumnavigated the Moon.”[9]. However, various researchers and photographic experts have provided evidence that the NASA photos have been tampered with[10]. These analyses show telltale marks where parts of a photo were copied from another source and pasted in, where parts of a photo have been reworked, and where a globe-shaped earth has been pasted into the photo.
When the decades old pictures from the NASA archive are viewed with modern picture editing tools artifacts appear in pictures. Artifacts appear when pictures have been edited and tampered with. I also note that in a video presentation[11], an independent researcher Nimāi Nitāi dāsa showed the evidence of these artifacts in the NASA pictures. In the example below we can clearly see the editing artifacts with different shading showing that earthrise image has been cut from another source and pasted into the picture!
[…]
The Most Revolutionary Act
- Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's profile
- 11 followers
