by Dee McLachlan
They say it was President Harry S Truman’s decision to drop Little Boy, the atomic bomb that obliterated Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 — exploding with an energy of about 15 kilotons of TNT. The goal of the two atomic bombs were to end the war, and as the President said, “It is an awful responsibility that has come to us.”
In 1950, Truman went on to support the development of the hydrogen bomb, a weapon hundreds of times more powerful than those dropped on Japan. And then the Russians tested their much bigger 50 megaton plus Tsar bomb in 1961 — thousands of times more powerful that Little Boy.
That was nearly 60 years ago. So what have they been working on in the meantime?
Dr Day (1969)
40 years ago, in a radio broadcast, Dr. Lawrence Dunegan was saying nuclear weapons were obsolete. He was informing the audience of his recollections of a lecture by Richard Day MD, on March 20, 1969. Dunegan wrote notes right after the lecture, and this is what he said about war and nuclear weapons:
“…now there are technological means for the individual and governments to control over-population so in this regard war is obsolete [referring to WWI and II]. It’s no longer needed. And then again it’s obsolete because nuclear weapons could destroy the whole universe. War, which once was controllable, could get out of control and so for these two reasons it’s now obsolete.”
You can be sure they have been working for decades on new sophisticated, and unthinkable weapons, to which we are not privy to. And as Truman was given the atomic bomb, what have President’s Trump, Putin and Xi been offered by their military?
However, one could ask: Are politicians even aware of the modern “weaponry” available, and what future conflicts might look like? And who really owns and controls these new elimination systems?
The Military Industrial Complex
The Military Industrial Complex is the most extraordinary business. There’s always money pouring in from tax payers to develop weapons to allegedly protect their nations. No one really knows where the money is spent, and how many trillions go “missing.” One wonders whether the Iraq war was not so much of an oil grab, but more a place to use up a trillion dollars of weaponry — so more could be ordered. (Like ordering more ink for your printer — where the ink refill is three times the cost of the machine.)
It’s now 2018, and with all the technology and artificial intelligence available, are traditional weapons not obsolete? Maybe the fighter jets, submarines, missiles are just a lucrative business diversion — while real new “elimination” and control systems are being developed for “our” future world.
So now to discuss bugs, microwave weapons and slaughterbots.
Microwave Weapons
A reader sent me a link to a document written by Barry Trower. He trained in the early 1960s with the government UK’s microwave warfare establishment, and states that we are in a new cold war, that microwave transmitters are up everywhere, and the system could be used for other effects. It has been written that Trower is “a retired British Military scientist who has made it his post-retirement career mission to preach bad science and fear mongering.” But I quote from his document and from an interview he had with Deborah Tavares from stopthecrime. (Mary believes Tavares trustworthy.):
“…microwaves from the 50’s were used as a stealth weapon as they still are today, only they’re obviously much, much more sophisticated. The 50’s was really a trial time where different countries were just using people who had no choice, prisoners, psychiatric patients, dissidents, and they would just beam people with this and see how long it takes this pulse frequency to have any effect… and so from the 50’s, 60’s, 70’s, 80’s we’ve been developing microwave weapons right up to today and they are incredibly sophisticated today. So if any government says that microwaves have no effect on you, the question is then why have you been spending billions upon billions of dollars with the military for the last sixty years improving them?”
To continue (from his document):
“As with just one pulse [microwave] frequency you can make people so suicidal they can’t be bothered to act like a demonstrator anymore…
Viruses and Bacterium
To continue with Trower’s fearmongering on how introducing bacterium and viruses could totally devastate the economic possibilities of another country:
“If I put a virus inside of a dormant bacteria that I know I can spring to life, and I go to Norway on a holiday, or Denmark, or Sweden, I just spread the virus around in the forests with the dormant bacteria and I come back. And I can wait… and then all I have to do with HAARP or a similar device is to put the frequency off the ionosphere down into Norway, whenever I feel like it, the virus will spring to life because their host has sprung to life. This is where we are.”
I remember watching a video several years of some Pentagon briefing, explaining how they had tried spraying the Iraqis with some sort of anti-terrorist aerosol, and failed. (It seemed genuine, and will try find it again.)
Killerbots
I am a fan of science fiction films, but this film (see the clip below) was specifically produced to demonstrate the capacity of killer drones. I believe it is made by a group (autonomousweapons.org) who want a global ban on AI weaponry.
They suggest that a miniature drone could easily be armed — and with tracking and facial recognition, it could hunt down an individual and assassinate them. Thus, would it be possible for an army of drones to target a group who shared a specific anti-government hash-tag — and then seek out and eliminate just those individuals? That is what the film is suggesting.
Autonomous weapons could be devastating for human security and freedom. The Guardian quotes Stuart Russell, a leading AI scientist at the University of California in Berkeley:
“The technology illustrated in the film [below] is simply an integration of existing capabilities. It is not science fiction. In fact, it is easier to achieve than self-driving cars, which require far higher standards of performance… Pursuing the development of lethal autonomous weapons would drastically reduce international, national, local, and personal security…”
As the Guardian article points out, “The military has been one of the largest funders and adopters of artificial intelligence technology.”
Australia’s Vision
Surely the days of traditional weaponry are over — and politicians are being duped into feeding this giant war-machine.
For example, several years ago Canberra agreed to spend $50 billion — that’s billion — on Australia’s next fleet of submarines, plus (or including) the $700 million to Lockheed Martin to design the weapons system for the 12 new subs. Will we ever need all those vessels with their “very potent, lethal and effective weaponry” when there are far more sophistical “elimination systems” available?
(I think I should have put in a competing bid for a thousandth of the price — $50 million to build 250 remote underwater-bots to patrol the waters of Australia.)
Are these billion-dollar orders just gobbling up hard-earned taxes to pay for a “fake” war industry?
And is the defense of Australia just a nonsense, as we are already “owned” by foreigners?
Dr Day and The New Political System
Back to Dr Dunegan’s notes:
“Anyhow, the new system would be brought in, if not by peaceful co-operation with everybody willingly yielding national sovereignty and then by bringing the nation to the brink of nuclear war. Everybody would be so fearful as hysteria is created by the possibility of nuclear war that there would be a strong public outcry to negotiate a public peace and people would willingly give up national sovereignty in order to achieve peace, and thereby this would bring in the ‘New International Political System.’ This was stated and a very impressive thing to hear then, ‘If there were too many people in the right places who resisted this, there might be a need to use one or two or possibly more nuclear weapons’ [or a regiment of slaughterbots].
“He [Dr Day] said something about, ‘This negotiated peace would be very convincing’, as in a framework or in a context that the whole thing was rehearsed but nobody would know it. People hearing about it would be convinced that it was a genuine negotiation between hostile enemies who finally had come to the realisation that peace was better than war.
“In this context discussing war, and war is obsolete, a statement was made that there were some good things about war. One was you’re going to die anyway and people sometimes in war get a chance to display great courage and heroism. If they die they’ve died well and if they survive they get recognition.”
Yep, that about sums it up. But maybe Trump and Putin have put a spanner in their works.
And now, the chilling Slaughterbot video:
So that’s where we’re at?
God gave us the earth and its fullness and then gave us human life, and then we gave ourselves civilization.
And now we are at the slaughterbot stage.
I think God made a booboo giving us fear of one another. Otherwise we would deal pre-eptively with these sick-os.
Mary, you are right, the so called scientist involved in this technology are pure evil. There is no good reason for so called “artificial intelligence”. Why do some humans want to do away with the human experience? Why do we need to invent something to replace humans? Only for evil purposes.
The little boys of yesterday having outgrown their toys now need new toys, to have a gun in hand or a battleship satisfies this loss of yesterdays toys, we boys like to kill people that are not like us, it gives us something to do whilst on earth, it sort of occupies our mind and gives us boys something to do especially when we have this feeling of loneliness within, someone must be responsible for us to feel like this and killing people whether they are the root cause of this is arbitary, the fact is if you kill enough people you may just be lucky and get one of these culprits the rest are all part of cross fire.
This article raises the question “How much bot could a bot bot bot, if a bot bot could bot bot?”
That is to say, if “they” started using the bot method of killing their fave targets, at what point would it be counterproductive for them to do so as it might finally raise enough anger at them.
I think there is a lot of miscomprehension about weaponry and its purpose.
Firstly, its for sales and, hence, profits for shareholders.
Secondly, as in Australia, it has nothing to do with Australia’s defense and everything to do with our function as a US ally in whatever theatre of war. Plenty of Aussie veterans have condemned this.
Third, aside from HAARP, the main weapon is propaganda, which is delivered by the media. For example, even though the average family size in almost every country is mum, dad, and two kids; almost everybody believes in global overpopulation. When the UN reports another doubling of populations this is universally believed.
Overpopulation then silences critics of attrition through vaccinations and propagated diseases (ie aids and ebola). Not only is this ultra cheap, the victim pays for it through taxes.
Other diseases are spread to destroy each nation’s food security. For example, the Chinese created a canker for cassava and introduced it to Africa, forcing Africans to buy the new Chinese hybrid. The Chinese can kill off this supply any time they wish and then the people living on top of resources (eg the biggest platinum deposits on this planet) can be made to die of starvation at almost no cost whatsoever.
In Australia, new pests and diseases are being introduced everyday. Ten years ago somebody introduced a cow from the Brazil/Paraguay border, which is foot and mouth disease capital territory, and left it dead in a Sydney rubbish dump. It was pure chance that an expert recognised it for what it was. The banana freckle was recently introduced from Philippines and several attempts to introduce the bee mite have been discovered. There are hundreds of new introduced insects, including ants. Monsanto and Syngenta plant to hold entire nations to ransom with glyphosate and GM foods (which destroy consumer’s organs). This is death-dealing for profit and fun.
Food toxins cause everything from cancers to heart disease to depression, with immense profits for the producers; and then more big money is made from the “cures”.
Weaponry is primarily used to destabilise regions and create wars, forcing governments to borrow from the global bankers (the Rothschilds favourite source of income since the Battle of Waterloo).
Then there are drugs. The Sassoons dominated opium for a century, all but wiping out China. Today it is the CIA that controls 90% of heroin and coccaine, which pays for its black ops. The same power elites drive the war on drugs, which creates a climate favourable for drug crime and more deaths, which the taxpayer pays for in every respect.
Finally, the US plans to create bases in allied countries which then become nuclear targets when wars are provoked. When the US installs two more bases in Arnhem Land, this plus others, will create nine targets for China once it is provoked to launch preemptive or retaliatory ICBM nukes. Object… a lot of dead and dying Australians, thereby opening up the country for free resource exploitation.
I could go on but you get my drift.
We get the drift
Perfectly presented, Tony.
All very convincing but confusing the power to do evil with conscience intent is a big mistake. Whilst I certainly agree that destructive behaviour should be confronted as such it needs to be understood that anyone, so involved, is nothing more than a naughty child.
Berry … you believe too much of what you are told.
Rethink this:
What ordinary worker, with a family and mortgage, ever started a war?
What housewife ever started a war?
What child ever started a war?
Why is it that the electorate is never permitted to vote on wars?
Quite simply, if a FULLY-INFORMED electorate were to control defense policy there would be no aggressive wars.
If one looks at history, all wars were whipped up by elites… either monarchies, dictators, religious autocracies, or other hierarchies. The creation of war hysteria is always the role of leaders, supported by the media, who are now owned by the same hierarchies.
This has nothing to do with toys, or with the Machivalian garbage of “endemic human aggression”.
I know a lot about aggression and fighting and war, yet I know of no instance of spontaneous war.
We are brainwashed to believe leaders and hierarchies and elite authority are a “good thing”, yet all evidence shows this to be a lie. As Lord Acton pointed out, “There are no great leaders, only bad men… and they write the histories.”
Look at Australia’s history. Billy Hughes was an aggressive narcissist who cherished war, and to whip up more Australian participation he tried to force conscription on Australians. The workers and their families pelted him with rotten fruit and veges and in frustration and anger he created the Commonwealth Police… to protect politicians from the anger of the people. We never should have been involved in WWI.
Bob Menzies actually twisted America’s arm to invite us into the illegal and unjustified Vietnam War purely so he could win a khaki election (otherwise unwinnable).
John Howard knew the CIA fabricated the evidence of WMD but also knew he needed a khaki election. Howard was the ultimate copyist, incapable of an original thought. He cared nothing about the young Australian deaths to come.
This is why the globalist elite need leaders. Their wars could never be launched without their active support.
Dee mentions the profits taken by the Military Industrial Complex businesses. I believe the same scam is being perpetuated with the story of colonisation of Mars. There is no way humans will ever be able to live on Mars in a human form. There is no oxygen, there is no atmosphere, there is not enough heat. Vegetation will not survive, therefore no oxygen will be produced. There is no Van Allen Belt to protect it from space litter, such as meteors or excessive radiation.
But the liars of the Military Industrial Complex just keep on spending, tax payer money on the false pretext of future security on another planet, which we cannot get to, even if we needed to.
These industries are driven by tax payers not understanding what governments are meant to be doing. It just means governments are not for the people.
Mal, thank you for mentioning the Mars heist. I have never heard it debunked before.
Mars. LOL!! There is nothing on Mars except a giant face and some pyramids. The rovers are on Devon Island off the Canadian coast. Check out the topography, add some red hue and bingo you have Mars. Most articles have been taken down recently but was enough to convince me.
Great article. Technology and weapons always seem to be sold to the population, as either making the world safer or more conveinent for everyone.
Australia is already the guinea pig for biometric scanning and new technologies. Gov and ATO already ask for voice ID when calling. Biometric scanning is already being trialed here at airpiorts to replace the passport.
And in the next year, we will all be coerced into giving retina, facial ID to government if you wish to receive Medicare or government payments.
Giving up everything to the government. We can trust them right?
Acemedusa, would you please cite the law on the bioscanning? I had not read of it.
I do not know of such a law sorry. I did find a link to the Identity-Matching Services Bill of 2018.
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A“legislation%2Fems%2Fr6031_ems_faf1ba43-d9a2-46d6-b626-e5df9ec6f504”
Human Services Minister Michael Keenan is pushing for this and wants the new MyGovID system fully operational by 2025. I believe he was helping with biometrics for counter terrorism a few years back also.
Don’t know about anywhere else but every invasive Aus “law’ is preceded by a softening up process. So far as the bulk of the population is concerned the idea of questioning a bureaucrat or wayward cop doesn’t even come onto the horizon. The “mygov” rollout is a classic scenario
So you mean our government is NOT our friend??
Well Mate, if the government puts on something like the Port Arthur Massacre to convince the people that they need to be disarmed, what do you think? – As a gunsmith friend of mine, Barry Liggins said, “A government that kills its’ own people to disarm them is not a government that you surrender your guns to.”
Gonna be interesting to see how this ‘Rule of Law’ stuff in Oz plays out in the future.
Here’s a idea, try approaching your local ‘representative’ in government to see how far you get with bringing something like Port Arthur up for discussion. We would love to see the response you get. Please, post it…
Terry
Barry Liggins’ comment is the most ‘irradiate’ (c1600 “to cast beams of light upon”) observation that I have read in many years and explains the subjugation of the people to the totalitarian criminals planned by our ignorant and gullible brainless distracted politicians.
It may amuse readers to know that many hinterland Queenslanders were not fooled by the Port Arthur exercise and decided to hide their guns.
Military advisers suggested this was an inadvisable response because such weapons were not much defense against a rogue government military, so these were handed in and the proceeds used to purchase military grade weapons, which were then sealed and buried for a rainy day.
The treatment metered out to One Nation supporters reinforced their cynicism, triggering a second round of holy burials.
I was offered no proof of this but I can say these were the type of people who I believed were fair dinkum.
I wonder if other states engaged in that level of forward planning?
When I read the comments, I realise that we have all been taught to put the cart before the horse. Governments do not raise money to pay for their projects (Taxes from taxpayers), first they borrow money from the global financiers — at interest (that’s what Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s famous credit rating alphabets are about) and tax us to pay pay down their borowings. That is why the Financial oligopoly has every country by the short and curlys, and why governments get rewards for selling off — privatising — taxpayer owned utilities and infrastructure.
When governments, in the name of “security” and “defence” load up with weapons developed by the death merchants, the financiers, too, make a killing (no pun intended).
Do a search on “Sir Basil Zacharov”, the arms procurer who was decorated by 23 countries
In South Africa, the underground A.N.C. was a Communist Party, but when it came into government, it came under the thumb of the aforesaid oligopoly. Cape Town was one of those cities like N.Y.C. which ran its own education, utilities and hospital systems; the mega-banks refused to finance them and demanded that they be privatised. The banks readily then financed the corporations that succeeded them.
Exactly, Brian.
And as the world lauded hero Mandela, he was repeatedly singing the ANC national song “Kill all the whites”, as he signed SA over to the global corporations.
I suspect Zuma was even more corrupt and it will take a civil war to introduce genuine equal opportunity in Africa.
Only one man had the capacity and means to enfranchise all Africans and he was sodomised to death with a stick, compliments of Hilary Clinton’s Liberal neocons and their “humanitarian interventions”. And in the background, discreetly cheering under his beard, was our very own Gareth Evans.
Further to the north, Saudi choppers annihilate civilians, whose pilots were trained in Australia.
I guess we should be careful where we throw stones.