I was exactly the same Anna. Despite hearing so many background murmerings for years, that nuclear energy was one of safest, cleanest energy sources we have, I - like most people - bought the lie. It has not been until recently that doubts around the mainstream narrative have entered my consciousness. Galen Winsor's statements, the artic…
I was exactly the same Anna. Despite hearing so many background murmerings for years, that nuclear energy was one of safest, cleanest energy sources we have, I - like most people - bought the lie. It has not been until recently that doubts around the mainstream narrative have entered my consciousness. Galen Winsor's statements, the article I linked above, plus the one I link below (ESPECIALLY the one I link below - which raises a strong case that the damage in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was much more likely to be attributable to incendiary devices, not to an atomic bomb) have given me a whole new perspective.
What better boogieman to keep up their sleeve than "total planetary annihilation". One couldn't wish for a more powerful threat to humanity. And fear of it keeps us all afraid of nuclear energy, and subservient to paying ever-increasing energy bills by exploiting our fear and ignorance (and making those doing the exploiting exceedingly wealthy in the process, because they've convinced us the alternatives are just too dangerous).
The Duke Report article you linked to was very interesting - thanks for sharing it. I'd heard the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were likely incendiary, not nuclear, but that article was pretty thorough!
A few parallels to more recent psy-ops that occurred to me while reading:
- using mustard gas to mimic radiation sickness reminded me of the way respiratory illnesses were mis-characterized as "a novel illness" during covid;
- developing weapons-grade uranium in an incredibly short time period reminded me of how they "miraculously" developed the covid vaccine in months, instead of years;
- the eye-witness reports of multiple explosions in the Japanese cities reminded me of the multiple blasts heard when "airplanes" hit the Twin
Towers on 9-11.
And of course, all the money thrown at the Manhatten Project to supposedly develop nuclear bombs reminded me of the money-laundering project known as Landing on the Moon.
EDIT: from the final chapter (which nicely ties to the premise of all the events in your comment above):
"Why was it done?
The war might have ended weeks earlier, he [MacArthur] said,
if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the
retention of the institution of the emperor. [Norman Cousins, 311, p. 71].
Several hypothetical motives for staging the ‘atomic’ bombings are considered. The most widely espoused motive—namely, shocking Japan into surrender—is rejected for the following reasons:
1. Japan was not surprised but colluded in the bombings, and
2. Japan had long been ready to surrender on terms similar to those implemented after the war.
The alternate explanation that the bombings were staged in order to intimidate Stalin is dismissed, not only because Stalin was not intimidated, but also because such a plan could not even have been expected to work.
We propose that the ‘atomic’ bombings were acts of state terror, directed at the international general public: general fear of impending nuclear war should induce the people to voluntarily surrender their national sovereignty and submit to a world government. The motives behind this plan and the reasons for its failure are examined."
You hit the nail on the head in that last paragraph.
The citizens of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were the first casualties of the bombings in the summer of 1945... but every other member of the human race was an intended target for decades to follow.
It's hard to think of the entities who were "in on it" as legitimate members of humanity.
I was exactly the same Anna. Despite hearing so many background murmerings for years, that nuclear energy was one of safest, cleanest energy sources we have, I - like most people - bought the lie. It has not been until recently that doubts around the mainstream narrative have entered my consciousness. Galen Winsor's statements, the article I linked above, plus the one I link below (ESPECIALLY the one I link below - which raises a strong case that the damage in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was much more likely to be attributable to incendiary devices, not to an atomic bomb) have given me a whole new perspective.
What better boogieman to keep up their sleeve than "total planetary annihilation". One couldn't wish for a more powerful threat to humanity. And fear of it keeps us all afraid of nuclear energy, and subservient to paying ever-increasing energy bills by exploiting our fear and ignorance (and making those doing the exploiting exceedingly wealthy in the process, because they've convinced us the alternatives are just too dangerous).
https://open.substack.com/pub/thedukereport/p/exposing-the-real-story-of-hiroshima?r=nll84&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
The Duke Report article you linked to was very interesting - thanks for sharing it. I'd heard the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were likely incendiary, not nuclear, but that article was pretty thorough!
A few parallels to more recent psy-ops that occurred to me while reading:
- using mustard gas to mimic radiation sickness reminded me of the way respiratory illnesses were mis-characterized as "a novel illness" during covid;
- developing weapons-grade uranium in an incredibly short time period reminded me of how they "miraculously" developed the covid vaccine in months, instead of years;
- the eye-witness reports of multiple explosions in the Japanese cities reminded me of the multiple blasts heard when "airplanes" hit the Twin
Towers on 9-11.
And of course, all the money thrown at the Manhatten Project to supposedly develop nuclear bombs reminded me of the money-laundering project known as Landing on the Moon.
Very prescient observations - all of them with a common denominator of public deception.
The Duke Report article was eye-opening.
One of the commenters kindly posted the link to a free pdf of the book on which the article is based if you're interested.
Just a scan of the index was intriguing.
https://archive.is/INd0K
EDIT: from the final chapter (which nicely ties to the premise of all the events in your comment above):
"Why was it done?
The war might have ended weeks earlier, he [MacArthur] said,
if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the
retention of the institution of the emperor. [Norman Cousins, 311, p. 71].
Several hypothetical motives for staging the ‘atomic’ bombings are considered. The most widely espoused motive—namely, shocking Japan into surrender—is rejected for the following reasons:
1. Japan was not surprised but colluded in the bombings, and
2. Japan had long been ready to surrender on terms similar to those implemented after the war.
The alternate explanation that the bombings were staged in order to intimidate Stalin is dismissed, not only because Stalin was not intimidated, but also because such a plan could not even have been expected to work.
We propose that the ‘atomic’ bombings were acts of state terror, directed at the international general public: general fear of impending nuclear war should induce the people to voluntarily surrender their national sovereignty and submit to a world government. The motives behind this plan and the reasons for its failure are examined."
You hit the nail on the head in that last paragraph.
The citizens of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were the first casualties of the bombings in the summer of 1945... but every other member of the human race was an intended target for decades to follow.
It's hard to think of the entities who were "in on it" as legitimate members of humanity.