As the covert yet blatantly obvious spraying program escalates with each passing week, so too does public awareness that something very wrong is being done to our skies. It’s become a rare and precious treat to get one full day when we don’t get sprayed like bugs. Activists worldwide are now finding it much easier to wake people up to this ecocide. The willfully ignorant are a noisy yet dwindling minority. It can’t be denied forever.
Those responsible for this chemtrail / geoengineering program – let’s just call them “the globalists” – are diligently laying groundwork for the eventual, perhaps imminent, revelation of their crime against all life on Earth. This can be seen in countless books, press articles, “debates” and radio / TV appearances. David Keith was even on the Colbert Report.
Their message is simple. Yes, geoengineering is unpleasant, but it may be the only way to save us from the catastrophic effects of runaway human caused global warming. They cite CO2, ocean acidification and methane as the deadliest threats – all derivatives of carbon.
For the spraying program to be accepted, we must believe we face an extinction-level threat from man made global warming, and unpleasant steps may have to be taken to save us. Ken Calderia likened it to chemotherapy; you have to take the poison to save the patient. The globalists can’t get us to accept something bad unless we truly believe it will save us from something terrifyingly worse. A textbook example of the Hegelian Dialectic. Fear is an excellent control mechanism.
Without widespread and deeply-ingrained fear of imminent, catastrophic global warming, the globalists can’t explain why they’re spraying us. It’s their only excuse.
But is the science completely settled on human caused global warming? The founders of Greenpeace and the Weather Channel don’t think so – and neither do more than 30,000 US scientists, including 9,000 PhDs.
global warming / carbon
Wikipedia says global warming is “unequivocal” – there is no doubt that it’s happening and it’s caused by carbon released from human activities. (Mind you, it also says chemtrails don’t exist, but let’s leave that to one side.) For brevity, let’s call the Wikipedia definition the “AGW position.” (Anthropogenic Global Warming.)
Our climate changes all the time. Ice Ages come and go, grapes were grown as far north as Scotland and Newfoundland (the vikings named it “Vinland“) during the Medieval Warm Period (950AD to 1250AD), while London’s Thames River froze solid in the 1680s. The sun goes through activity cycles which effect the temperature on all the planets. It’s been relatively quiet of late, hence the admitted 17 year “pause” in global warming. CO2 levels have been ten times higher than todays, yet life still flourished.
Carbon dioxide is a trace gas essential to plant growth and has little effect on global temperature. Water vapor is a much more significant greenhouse gas. (Cloudy nights are warmer than clear nights.) What Al Gore’s famous hockey stick graph didn’t tell you is that CO2 levels rise *after* temperatures rise. When ice sheets retreat, plants and animals move in and produce it. Before you dismiss this out of hand, please take the time to watch this excellent presentation, and try to find one factual or scientific error in it.
The message that human produced carbon emissions are causing devastating global warming has been relentlessly pushed for decades and went into overdrive with the release of An Inconvenient Truth in 2006. Every few weeks breathless stories tell us the previous month, year or decade was the the hottest in human history, the poles are melting and coastal cities will soon be underwater.
Children are imprinted with the AGW position before they can read. Ask a random five year old if he or she thinks mom is hurting the planet when she drives her car to the store. How many times since you woke up this morning have you heard, seen or read a message or logo reminding you that CO2 is a terrible thing and that you should feel guilty for adding to it? 
The hysteria has reached such absurd heights that some consider it “altruistic” to kill yourself to save the planet.
Even the oil companies are on board with the program, including Exxon, BP, Shell, and Chevron.
Scientists are routinely caught faking data to support the AGW position, most famously in the Climategate scandals. Those who disagree are defunded, fired or lose their tenure. Despite this eco-McCarthyism, more than 30,000 US scientists and 9.000 PhDs risked their careers to speak out against the AGW position. The oft-repeated “97% consensus” has some serious holes in it.
Questioning the AGW position will get you branded a “climate denier,” with a clear echoes of “Holocaust denier.” Others go further, proposing the arrest of anyone questioning the official line on global warming. One particularly chilling “green” commercial featured the summary execution of children who wouldn’t tow the AGW line. Obama’s Information Czar, Cass Sunstien considers “climate deniers” dangerous conspiracy theorists and thinks the government should conduct “cognitive infiltration” to prevent their message getting out. In other words, unleash the COINTELPRO shills, trolls and goons.
Chemtrail activists know this first hand. Every time they post evidence of the chemtrail / geoengineering program to a public forum, within minutes they are aggressively attacked by multiple anonymous posters. They are insulted, bombarded with logical fallacies and every tool in the disinfo handbook. Clearly, some things are not to be questioned. You can test this at home: If you post comments casting any doubt on the following positions to a public forum (YouTube, Facebook, Reddit, wherever), you will be attacked.
- Vaccines are safe and effective
- There’s no such thing as chemtrails – those lines in the sky are just water vapor and ice crystals
- GMO food is as safe as non-GMO; long term human studies are unnecessary
- Flouride is safe and good for you
- Office fires brought down the 47-story WTC7 at free fall speed
- Global warming is undeniable – it threatens all life on earth and is caused by carbon emissions from human activity
Conversely, if your comments support theories such as bigfoot, leprechauns, Elvis sightings or that the moon is made of cheese, there are no concerted attacks.
So why is so much time, money and effort spent silencing critics of the AGW position? What makes it sacrosanct?
timeline
- 1991: The Rockefeller-founded Club of Rome writes: “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill … The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
- 1992: The Rio Earth Summit issues the Framework Convention on Climate Change and UN Agenda 21 calling for drastic reduction in carbon emissions.
- 1997: Al Gore works with Enron’s Ken Lay to develop the first carbon tax.
- 2000: The Climate Research Unit (who were later busted for “hiding the decline” in the 2009 Climategate scandal) says snowfall will soon become “a very rare and exciting event.”
- 2006: Gore releases “An Inconvenient Truth,” while remaining a major shareholder in Occidental Petroleum. He wins an Oscar, Grammy and Nobel Peace Prize for it.
- 2007: The British High Court rules it factually incorrect and bans it from being shown in UK schools without a disclaimer.
- 2007: David de Rothschild releases “The Live Earth Global Warming Survival Handbook.”
- 2007: The BBC airs “The Great Global Warming Swindle.” <—- WATCH THIS DOCUMENTARY!!
- 2009: The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) unilaterally declares CO2 a dangerous pollutant without congressional input. Plant life, depending on it as an essential part of photosynthesis, silently disagrees.
- 2010 Al Gore buys an $8.8 million ocean front mansion, despite shrill warnings about rising sea levels.
- 2011 Rothschild bank acquires Weather Central, “the world’s leading provider of interactive weather graphics and data services for television, web, and mobile.”
- 2011: Newly elected Australian premier Julia Gillard breaks her campaign promise and imposes a carbon tax on an outraged public. Although sacked by her own party and thrown out of office two years later, carbon taxes were imposed on many other countries throughout the world, and several US states, including California.
- 2013: IPCC Chair Rajendra Pachauri (archive) and the UK’s Met Office admit global warming stopped in 1998. Egypt gets its first snow in 112 years and Europe suffers it’s coldest winter in a century.
- 2014: The world endures it’s fourth consecutive record breaking cold winter, despite CO2 surpassing 400 parts per billion. Meanwhile Antarctic sea ice keeps growing, and of late May snow is still falling across the US and Lake Superior remains icebound.
technocracy / agenda 21
The 1930’s saw the brief emergence of a crackpot group called the Technocracy movement. They believed self government, as outlined in the US Constitution, was messy and inefficient. It would be so much better to do away with all governments – and national borders. The entire world should instead be run by bankers, corporations, and other “experts.” This was effectively a retread of the “philosopher kings” in Plato’s Republic. Apparently we’re all too dumb and stupid to decide what’s in our own best interests.
But what’s more germane to this discussion was their proposal to abolish the free market / supply and demand economy (“I’ll trade you these eggs for that bale of hay”) with a new economy based on units of energy. Instead of money, we would trade “energy units” for goods and services. But for this to work, a comprehensive, instantly accessible and constantly updated inventory of all human activity and resources would have to be known, an impossible feat before high speed computing and the Internet. Needless to say, they were heckled off the public stage.
Fast forward to 1970. Zbignew Brzezinski publishes: “Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technotronic Era.” This book was pretty much a direct copy of the Technocracy agenda, complete with a world government of, by and for the bankers, replacement of the monetary system and total surveillance of all human activity. David Rockefeller loved this book so much – especially the part about bankers ruling the world – that he used it as the basis of the Trilateral Commission which he formed in 1973 with Brzezinski, war criminal Henry Kissinger and himself as founding members.
In 1976 a previously obscure governor of Georgia (and Trilateralist), Jimmy Carter, was sworn in as 39th president of the United States. His administration was stacked with 31 fellow Trilateralists, including Brzezinski as National Security Adviser. (In this role, Brzezinski installed Pol “Killing Fields” Pot in Cambodia and set up Bin Laden / Al Quada in Afghanistan. He later became Obama’s foreign policy advisor.) Trilateralists comprised a hefty chunk of every administration since then, alongside members of its sister round table group, the Council on Foreign Relations, which like the Club of Rome was also set up by the Rockefellers.
The Trilateral Commission is no toothless drinking club; its plans and agendas tend to get carried out. Nor is David Rockefeller a harmless old coot. Here’s a quote from his autobiography:-
“For more than a century ideological extremists … (have) attack(ed) the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
(Incidentally, the Rockefeller family has always been dedicated to massive depopulation and to that end funded the Eugenics movement in both the United States and Nazi Germany. They also funded mega-murderers Mao, Lenin and Stalin.)
Which brings us to UN Agenda 21, which was signed by President (and Trilateralist) George HW Bush at the Earth Summit in 1992. (For those unfamiliar with Agenda 21, here’s an excellent primer.) It’s basically a continuation of the Technotronic ideal and states we should be ruled by “experts,” not elected representatives, and that our current economic system and lifestyle is “unsustainable.” Any time you hear the term “smart” or “sustainable,” know it’s most likely code for Agenda 21. Smart Meters are a good example, minutely tracking and reporting on every electrical activity in homes and businesses across the planet, all connected to the global Smart Grid. Ask yourself how much time you spend out of range of high resolution cameras and microphones with a 24/7 connection to the ubiquitous network. Count how many cameras are on the next bus you board. Agenda 21’s total surveillance grid arrived while we were playing Flappy Bird on our smart phones. It was never about terrorism.
But the central core of Agenda 21 is the assumption that we as a human race are using too much energy – that it’s “unsustainable” and must be closely monitored, controlled and reduced. Which brings us back to carbon.
Agenda 21 ushers in control mechanisms to measure, tax and limit your carbon “footprint.” We’re already beginning to see this in the form of “green” house inspections, carbon credits, smart meters and more.
All human activity – breathing, traveling, cooking, sleeping, farming, and having babies – uses carbon. Stop to consider what zero carbon output really means. The carbon cycle is the life cycle. Carbon taxes and the increasing cost of “sustainable” energy already kill tens of thousands every winter. And since the link between carbon emissions and supposed “catastrophic global warming” is far from certain, do we really want unelected committees and bankers mandating hard limits on our carbon “allowances?” If you think that’s far fetched, just look at China’s one child policy.
If we let avowed eugenicists monitor and set limits to our carbon allowances, we are willfully agreeing to the most nightmarish scientific dictatorship imaginable. Don’t agree to it based on questionable science.
back to chemtrails
Activists studying chemtrails know there are several varieties which each behave quite distinctly. Some rapidly expand, others hold their shape for hours, others drip, others are wispy, and others leave slowly fading distinct squiggly lines. Some are dark, brown or fade within minutes. Others remain in place, with long tendrils stretching out laterally. These differing physical properties prove many different substances are being sprayed – and it’s doubtful that they’re all designed for Solar Radiation Management – reflecting sunlight out into space (the albedo effect) to prevent the surface of the earth heating up.
Moreover, it is not uncommon to see large areas covered with creepy white monofilaments, thinner than spiderwebs. Thousands suffer from Morgellons Disease, thought to be caused by nanotechnology dispersed by aircraft. Red and white blood cells have been found in sub micron airborne fibers. Geoengineer Ken Calderia admitted he discussed “adding pathogens to the clouds . . . to do chemical and biological warfare” when he worked at Lawrence Livermore weapons lab. The US Air Force has admitted spraying toxins on civilian populations without their knowledge or consent.
So why presume the spraying is solely for climate mitigation? Is it beyond the realms of possibility to consider there is a biological component? This is why we still call the spraying chemtrails – they’re trails of chemicals and the US Air Force Academy calls them that. We also tell people to search for geoengineering and solar radiation management because that’s how they can find the most damning patents, white papers, government and foundation literature on the subject.
Because the spraying program is a covert, black budget program, we can’t conclusively know exactly what they are spraying (besides the aluminum, strontium and barium showing up in rainfall). But since it is at least partly funded and advocated by foundations with a storied history of eugenics and population control (Carnegie, Gates and Rockefeller), we’d be naive to assume it’s simply to cool a warming planet.
The globalists call it geoengineering, claiming it’s purpose is to save the planet – but why believe proven liars and avowed eugenicists? Do they want to frame the debate so only the meteorological effects are discussed?
in summary
Chemtrails / geoengineering / climate engineering / solar radiation management / weather warfare – whatever it’s called – is poisoning the planet and must be stopped.
Is the earth warming up? Not according to raw data. Does carbon have more effect on our climate than, say, the sun? Of course not. Do the globalists say demonisation of carbon is the keystone of their ongoing transformation of society into a scientific dictatorship in which they will control, surveil and limit every aspect of our lives? Absolutely.
When the globalists finally admit they’ve been spraying us for The Greater Good™, we don’t want the argument to be: “Since everyone agrees the planet’s in meltdown, what balance of limited geoengineering and massive reductions of personal carbon allowances can save us all from extinction?”
Instead, the only question we need ask is whether those found guilty of conducting and/or concealing weather, chemical and biological warfare on civilian populations should serve their mandatory life sentences in solitary, gen pop or forced labor camps. Since we care about their wellbeing, we’ll make sure they get *all* their shots and have all the GMO food they can eat.
tl;dr
By supporting the questionable AGW position – that our carbon emissions are causing catastrophic global warming – we’re handing the globalists their only excuse to spray us. And blindly accepting carbon as the boogeyman could deliver us into a total scientific enslavement beyond the dreams of every tyrant that drew breath.
Patrick Roddie, May 29th 2014