For The Record  

← FTR #271 The Hazard of Dukes   |   Why is TV news ignoring the relationship between Moon and the Bush family? →

FTR #272 ” . . .They Shall Reap the Whirlwind”

Posted by Dave Emory ⋅ February 19, 2001Post a comment Email This Post Email This Post Print This Post Print This Post
Tags  , , , , , , , , , ,

Lis­ten:
MP3 One Seg­ment
RealAu­dio
NB: This RealAu­dio stream con­tains FTRs 271 and 272 in sequence. Each is a 30-minute broadcast.

Recorded on 1/26/2001
Intro­duc­tion: Dur­ing Jimmy Carter’s admin­is­tra­tion, a treaty was rat­i­fied by the U.S. and for­mer U.S.S.R. ban­ning the manip­u­la­tion of envi­ron­men­tal dis­as­ters for mil­i­tary pur­poses. Cov­er­ing earth­quakes, tsunamis, tor­na­does and other weather events, the agree­ment was real­ized in order to pre­vent the devel­op­ment and use of a truly insid­i­ous gen­er­a­tion of WMD’s. In inter­views with Dr. Nick Begich, co-author (with Jeanne Man­ning) of Angels Don’t Play this HAARP, we ana­lyzed Project HAARP, the patents for which specif­i­cally refer to appli­ca­tions alter­ing the weather for mil­i­tary pur­poses.

In this pro­gram, we exam­ine the pos­si­bil­ity of another appli­ca­tion of weather mod­i­fi­ca­tion tech­nol­ogy with poten­tial mil­i­tary appli­ca­tions. A project funded by the Euro­pean Space Agency and par­ented by a “Ben” East­lund uti­lizes micow­ave beam tech­nol­ogy to neu­tral­ize tor­na­does. (The descrip­tion of East­lund as a for­mer Star Wars sci­en­tist sug­gest strongly that he is the Bernard East­lund who devel­oped HAARP, which also has poten­tial mis­sile defense appli­ca­tions.) In addi­tion to the fact that tor­na­does are a very rare occur­rence in Europe, they had pre­vi­ously been known to kill an aver­age of 100 Amer­i­cans a year–a rel­a­tively low casu­alty rate that has moved crit­ics to sug­gest that it wouldn’t be worth the expense of development.

One won­ders why this project would have been of inter­est to the Euro­pean Space Agency or Euro­peans in general.

Feared to carry the poten­tial to make tor­na­does worse, the tech­nol­ogy might very well have poten­tial mil­i­tary applications.

In the wake of a dev­as­tat­ing tor­nado sea­son in the United States, it might be worth­while to inquire as to whether such tech­nol­ogy may in fact have been devel­oped and uti­lized. Note that, in addi­tion to the ini­tial dev­as­ta­tion and loss of life inflicted by these dev­as­tat­ing storms, the fed­eral funds for aid and recon­struc­tion place fur­ther strain on the U.S. bud­get at a time when the national debt and deficits are at the fore­fron of polit­i­cal debate in the United States and elsewhere.

An enemy of the U.S. could inflict both loss of life, prop­erty dam­age and fis­cal destruc­tion on the United States through the appli­ca­tion of such technology.

(Note that it is more than thirty years since the envi­ron­men­tal treaty was con­cluded. Just con­sider the advance­ment of mil­i­tary tech­nol­ogy in the thirty year period from 1918–the end of World War I–and 1948, when the atomic bomb, jet bombers designed to deliver that weapon and long range bal­is­tic mis­siles were devel­oped and/or in and advanced state of R & D. It would be unwise to assume that sim­i­lar advance­ments in mil­i­tary tech­nol­ogy have not taken place in the last thirty years.)

It is also impor­tant to remem­ber that earth­quakes, tor­na­does, tsunamis and sim­i­lar cat­a­stro­phes are nat­ural phe­nom­ena that have always existed. Cli­mate change experts are of the belief that the destruc­tive effects of global warm­ing are already being man­i­fested, sug­gest­ing that the severe tor­nado sea­son may result (in part at least) from CO2 lev­els in the atmos­phere. When an envi­ron­men­tal cat­a­stro­phe does occur, it would be fool­ish to fall into the trap of auto­mat­i­cally con­clud­ing that “Oh my God! It must the Project HAARP! [Con­trolled by “The Illu­mi­nati”, no doubt.]

Such think­ing and action exhibits “con­spir­acy the­ory at its worst,” and plays in to the hand of cyn­i­cal crit­ics, in addi­tion to obscur­ing real, sub­stan­tive inquiries into the pos­si­ble mil­i­tary appli­ca­tion of envi­ron­men­tal mod­i­fi­ca­tion tech­nolo­gies.

1. Past broad­casts have explored the use of envi­ron­men­tal mod­i­fi­ca­tion for mil­i­tary pur­poses. Those pro­grams are the foun­da­tion for this broad­cast. The title is a Bib­li­cal ref­er­ence (Hosea, 8:7), and refers to those who “. . . sow the wind” as being doomed to “. . .reap the whirlwind.”

2. Ben East­lund, described as “a for­mer Star Wars defense pro­gram sci­en­tist,” has pro­posed using an orbital, space-based microwave beam to neu­tral­ize tor­na­does. (“Could Tor­na­does Be Pre­vented?” by Jerry Bowen; CBS News Online; 1/16/2001, www.cbsnews.com/now/story.)

3. East­lund appears to be the “Bernard” East­lund who devel­oped the HAARP sys­tem, described in the broad­casts enu­mer­ated above. The alter­ation of the weather for mil­i­tary pur­poses, and the destruc­tion of incom­ing enemy mis­siles are among the stated appli­ca­tions of the HAARP sys­tem patents. (The destruc­tion of enemy mis­siles would, obvi­ously, be a “Star Wars” application.)

4. Crit­ics of Eastlund’s pro­posal believe that his “tor­nado pre­ven­tion” sys­tem could, in prac­tice, make tor­na­does worse and/or kill birds or knock down air­planes. (Idem.)

5. Mr. Emory dis­cusses the pos­si­bil­ity that the same tech­nol­ogy could be used to cause tor­na­does. In that con­text, it should be noted that Eastlund’s research has been funded by the Euro­pean Space Agency. (Idem.)

6. It should be noted that Europe rarely has tor­na­does and only 100 Amer­i­cans a year are killed by these storms. (One won­ders why the Euro­pean Space Agency would fund such research.) The pro­posed tor­nado tar­get­ing sys­tem would require “pre­ci­sion tar­get­ing” sys­tems. (Idem.)

7. Next, the pro­gram exam­ines the pro­posed sale of a key Sil­i­con Val­ley firm to a Dutch hold­ing com­pany, ASM Lith­o­g­ra­phy. (“Spy Tech: The U.S. Edge” by Alan Tonel­son; San Jose Mer­cury News; 1/9/2001; p. B7.)

8. Sil­i­con Val­ley Group Inc. has Tins­ley Lab­o­ra­to­ries as a sub­sidiary. (Idem.)

9. The lat­ter “has been the sole man­u­fac­turer of many of the state-of-the-art mir­rors and lenses in the high-powered cam­eras car­ried by America’s spy satellites-systems that the Clin­ton admin­is­tra­tion has called ‘among the most valu­able national secu­rity assets.’” (Idem.)

10. Mr. Tonel­son wor­ried “that ASM’s far-flung global oper­a­tions and cor­po­rate alliances with com­pa­nies like Germany’s Carl Zeiss and Schott Glass could make it more dif­fi­cult to keep SVG/Tinsley’s advanced optics and lith­o­g­ra­phy capa­bil­i­ties from migrat­ing to unfriendly coun­tries.” (Idem.)

11. By way of empha­siz­ing the his­tory of the firms to which ASM Lith­o­g­ra­phy is con­nected, the pro­gram illus­trates that the Zeiss firm was among the char­ter firms pro­posed by SS Gen­eral Scheid as a par­tic­i­pa­tory ele­ment in the Bor­mann flight cap­i­tal pro­gram. (Mar­tin Bor­mann: Nazi in Exile; by Paul Man­ning; copy­right 1981; Lyle Stu­art [hard­cover]; ISBN 0–8184-0309–8; p. 25.)

12. When con­sid­er­ing Ger­man cor­po­ra­tions, it is impor­tant to remem­ber that they are con­trolled by the Bor­mann Orga­ni­za­tion. This insti­tu­tion has per­pet­u­ated its power in an effec­tive, clan­des­tine, and deadly, Mafia-like fash­ion in the years since World War II. Amer­i­can cor­po­ra­tions are dri­ven by the profit motive, and coor­di­nate poli­cies on labor, envi­ron­men­tal, mar­ket­ing and tax­a­tion issues–they are oth­er­wise rel­a­tively apo­lit­i­cal. In con­trast, Ger­man cor­po­ra­tions (under con­trol of the Bor­mann group) func­tion as coor­di­nated ele­ments of inter­na­tional eco­nomic and polit­i­cal con­trol, not unlike the divi­sions in an army. Although they, too, strive to make money, profit is sub­or­di­nate to the goal of national hegemony.

13. The Schott firm also has a his­tory of work­ing against Amer­i­can inter­ests. The pro­gram excerpts Mis­cel­la­neous Archive Shows M-11 (orig­i­nally recorded on 5/23/80.) Dis­cussing the car­tel arrange­ments which per­mit­ted Ger­many to restrict the pro­duc­tion of strate­gic mate­ri­als in other coun­tries, M-11underscores the role of the Schott firm in such arrange­ments. (All Hon­or­able Men; James Stew­art Mar­tin; copy­right 1950 [hard­cover]; Lit­tle, Brown & Company.)

14. Because of its role in arm­ing Sad­dam Hus­sein, the Schott firm was also among the defen­dants in a class action law­suit brought by vet­er­ans of the Per­sian Gulf War. (See also: FTR-87.) (The role of the Bor­mann group in arm­ing Sad­dam Hus­sein is dis­cussed in FTR#155.)

15. Next, the pro­gram high­lights the fact that ASM has Intel as its largest cus­tomer. (“ASM Lith­o­g­ra­phy Will Wait to Acquire Sil­i­con Val­ley Group” by Glenn R. Simp­son; Wall Street Jour­nal; 1/9/2001; p. B7.)

16. The com­pany will wait for approval from the U.S. gov­ern­ment before com­plet­ing the sale, hav­ing delayed the trans­ac­tion until after George W. Bush takes office. (Idem.) It remains to be seen whether the Bush admin­is­tra­tion will approve the sale.

17. In the dis­cus­sion of ASM Lith­o­g­ra­phy, the broad­cast high­lights the fact that the company’s full name is “ASM Lith­o­g­ra­phy Hold­ing.” (Idem.)

18. Mr. Emory notes that hold­ing com­pa­nies have been one of the finan­cial cloak­ing vehi­cles through which the afore­men­tioned Bor­mann group has hid­den its own­er­ship of key com­pa­nies around the world. (Mar­tin Bor­mann: Nazi in Exile; by Paul Man­ning; pp. 134–5.)

19. Sil­i­con Val­ley Group has an inter­est­ing his­tory as well. One of its founders, Carl Story, has become a key finan­cial backer of the Aryan Nations. (“Com­puter Mil­lion­aires Fund Hate: Carl Story, Vin­cent Bertollini and 11th Hour Rem­nant Mes­sen­ger”; pp. 1–2; accessed from the ADL’s web site at www.adl.org/tycoons.)

20. It should be noted that SVG has dis­avowed Story’s beliefs. (Ibid.; pp. 4–5.)

21. One of the off-shoots of the Aryan Nations was the Nazi ter­ror­ist group the Order.

22. The broad­cast points out that the group received fund­ing from “Ger­man fam­i­lies liv­ing in South Amer­ica.” (Unholy Alliance; by Peter Lev­enda; copy­right 1995 [soft­cover]; Avon Books; p. 338.) Those “fam­i­lies” were, in all like­li­hood, the Bor­mann organization.

23. The broad­cast asks (and jux­ta­poses) sev­eral piv­otal ques­tions. First, is ASM a Bor­mann com­pany? Is (or was) SVG a Bor­mann com­pany? Is the Bush admin­is­tra­tion (as seems prob­a­ble) con­nected to the Bor­mann group? Could Eastlund’s tor­nado tech­nol­ogy be mar­ried to the opti­cal espi­onage tech­nol­ogy of Tins­ley lab­o­ra­to­ries to cre­ate weather weapons that could be used against the United States?

24. In that con­text, it is impor­tant to con­sider what the Nazi phi­los­o­phy espoused by Story pre­dicts. His pub­li­ca­tion, The 11th Hour Rem­nant Mes­sen­ger fore­casts the destruc­tion of the United States as pun­ish­ment for its racial and reli­gious “heresy.” (“Com­puter Mil­lion­aires Fund Hate: Carl Story, Vin­cent Bertollini and 11th Hour Rem­nant Mes­sen­ger;” p. 6.)

25. The pos­si­bil­ity that such an “Armaged­don” could be man­u­fac­tured using the East­lund tech­nol­ogy, guided by Tins­ley equip­ment, is one to be con­sid­ered. The pos­si­bil­ity of the mar­riage of tech­nol­ogy, fas­cism and reli­gion to cre­ate a world-wide fas­cist theoc­racy is explored at length in L#2.)

Discussion

14 comments for “FTR #272 ” . . .They Shall Reap the Whirlwind””

  1. “Cli­mate change experts” — inter­est­ing con­cept. Despite the author’s hor­ror of “con­spir­acy think­ing at its worst,” the truth is that “cli­mate change” (for­merly known as “dis­rup­tive cli­mate change,” “global warm­ing,” and prior to that “global cool­ing”) is most prob­a­bly the work of a con­spir­acy. I refer you to the excel­lent cli­mate site http://wattsupwiththat.com/ for a sci­en­tif­i­cally based dis­cus­sion of cli­mate sci­ence, its uses and abuses.

    “Cli­mate change” is almost cer­tainly a pro­pa­ganda smoke­screen for weather mod­i­fi­ca­tion projects being car­ried out by numer­ous gov­ern­ments, though to what end is unclear. If the hoax results in big trad­ing prof­its for the invest­ment bank­ing bunch and tax rev­enues for founder­ing poli­ties, so much the better.

    Posted by SnowballsChance | June 1, 2011, 4:20 am

  2. My mind is not set entirely on this but I would tend to agree with Snow­ballschance. Every time I hear about global warm­ing, I can’t help but to feel some­thing is bogus. But don’t get we wrong. I am not some­what of a Koch broth­ers type to deny global warm­ing because it hurts my invest­ments in oil. I have none any­way. My point is, I don’t buy the expla­na­tion that we are sold. Are humans, just by CO2 and CO, capa­ble of chang­ing the weather of a whole planet? It seems a lit­tle extreme.

    Is this a coin­ci­dence if global warm­ing has been “dec­o­rated” with car­bon cred­its, which will soon become an impor­tant part of the econ­omy? Who is ben­e­fit­ing from global warm­ing? I agree that HAARP is not respon­si­ble for every tor­nado, earth­quake, flood, etc. But it is con­ceiv­able that some­times, it is. And is it con­ceiv­able that global warm­ing is a con­ve­nient hoax, scam, front to cover for the fact that nations ARE con­duct­ing war­fare through weather mod­i­fi­ca­tions and electro-magnetic waves?

    Of course HAARP has a large num­ber of appli­ca­tions and the mil­i­tary ones are impor­tant. But because we are not spe­cial­ists in arms and WMD, changes in weather pat­terns are eas­ier to notice.

    Have a great day.

    Posted by Claude | June 1, 2011, 9:42 pm

  3. @Snowballschance:
    I guess you haven’t seen who’s been fund­ing the cli­mate change denial pro­pa­ganda, then.

    Here, take a look at these arti­cles, and try to tell me there isn’t some sort of pro-denial conspiracy:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/01/exxon-mobil-climate-change-sceptics-funding

    http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/

    http://www.developmentcrossing.com/profiles/blogs/are-you-funding-koch-climate?xg_source=activity

    http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/04/koch-industries-climate-denial.php

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-demelle/greenpeace-unmasks-koch-i_b_518036.html

    http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/02/republican-climate-nasa-budget

    And there’s also a user on Above­TopSe­cret by the name of ‘TheSword’ who’s done his own research.
    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread626244/pg1

    I used to be a big-time AGW skep­tic myself, until I started find­ing this out. It also has become more and more appar­ent that these same forces pro­mot­ing cli­mate denial have also been try­ing to repress clean energy; solar & hemp in particular.

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/03/31/koch-brothers-slammed-funding-climate-denial/

    It is also becom­ing more & more appar­ent that ‘weather control’{Unfortunately, most of the weather con­trol the­o­ries are pretty much bull­shit, par­tic­u­larly the direct stuff, involv­ing the steer­ing of hur­ri­canes, manip­u­lat­ing of Gulf mois­ture, and directly cre­at­ing and manip­u­lat­ing tor­na­does, etc., although a few indi­rect forms, like what cloud seed­ing does, cer­tainly do seem to be plau­si­ble, how­ever......} is also being used as a last-minute des­per­ate effort to dis­credit legit cli­mate change research.

    Posted by Steven | June 2, 2011, 1:35 am

  4. Also, as for weather manip­u­la­tion, it should be pointed out that East­lund & com­pany did try to research the pos­si­bil­ity of halt­ing tor­nado for­ma­tion using microwave power, which could actu­ally make things worse under the right con­di­tions, as seen here{I don’t think it’d fall out­side the ‘indi­rect’ cat­e­gory, though. When I say direct, I mean truly hands on stuff, instead of just putting the energy some­where and let nature take care of the rest}.

    And if the crit­ics are correct{I would highly sus­pect they are.}, then why haven’t we seen hardly any plane crashes right after major severe weather events? Some­thing to think about, IMHO, espe­cially if another out­break occurs and we DO see a sud­den rash of plane acci­dents, either just before, dur­ing, or after said event.

    Posted by Steven | June 2, 2011, 1:41 am

  5. I will go fur­ther with my thoughts. What if, for exam­ple, global warm­ing was a nat­ural phe­nom­e­non? We know that, in the his­tory of the Earth, there were ice ages and much warmer peri­ods. What if the “solar year” is respon­si­ble for changes in tem­per­a­tures? The pre­ces­sion of the Earth’s axis takes 26 000 years to com­plete. The axis takes that time to meet again a fixed point in space from where it departed. It is not far­fetched to think that the Earth is expe­ri­enc­ing “sea­sons” that last for millenia.

    Is pol­lu­tion aug­ment­ing this phe­nom­e­non? Pos­si­bly. I might be wrong but I think that what we are wit­ness­ing is a com­bi­na­tion of this nat­ural phe­nom­e­non with weather mod­i­fi­ca­tions induced by electro-magnetic waves, for var­i­ous pur­poses. The the­ory of global warm­ing is con­ve­nient because the peo­ple have to believe what is said at face value, leave their crit­i­cal think­ing at the door...and car­bon cred­its will be good for business.

    Ques­tion: do sci­en­tists have the data about tem­per­a­tures going back to Antiq­uity? I don’t think so. They prob­a­bly have only a few decades and that’s not enough to draw con­clu­sions on the effect of pol­lu­tion. The Earth exist since mil­lions of years.

    Your thoughts? It’s a team work. Together, we have a chance to get closer to the truth.

    Posted by Claude | June 2, 2011, 10:31 pm

  6. @Steven:

    But BOTH sides are funded. The AGW cause is advanced by Wall Street, opposed by Big Oil. So what else is new? In a mature cap­i­tal­ist econ­omy, the big boys play for big stakes, and the truth be damned.

    Fund­ing may — or may not — influ­ence the “sci­ence.” Not all sci­en­tists are cor­rupt­ible. By the same token, not all are pure as the El Nino-driven snow, either.
    If I were a sci­en­tist with a strong opin­ion on AGW, pro or con, and was offered fund­ing to advance my point of view, I’d take it; that doesn’t make me cor­rupt. If I then fudge the data to hide incon­ve­nient truths, such as the Medieval Warm­ing Period, that makes me corrupt.

    So we are left, as always, to trust our own judg­ment. In mine, AGW is highly unlikely. Con­sider: there’s no con­sis­tent link­age between CO2 lev­els and temp (CO2 lev­els have been many mul­ti­ples higher than at present yet temps were only slightly higher than now; con­versely, temps have been much higher than at present yet CO2 was not ele­vated). Con­sider: one vol­canic erup­tion can influ­ence weather glob­ally for years; yet the cumu­la­tive effect of human emis­sions remains debat­able: This tells me, humanity’s effect on weather must be much less than the volcano’s. Yet bio­log­i­cal processes and the planet con­tinue to thrive despite vol­ca­noes and other nat­ural sources of green­house gases. (If any­thing, the future looks colder, not warmer; we’re liv­ing at the end of an inter­glacial period.)

    As for the geo-engineering capa­bil­i­ties of HAARP, con­sider the math:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/54447230/High-power-ELF-radiation-generated-by-modulated-HF-heating-of-the-ionosphere-can-cause-Earthquakes-Cyclones-and-localized-heating

    Posted by Snowballschance | June 3, 2011, 4:40 am

  7. @Claude: The prob­lem is, is that cer­tain types of weather con­trol the­o­ries are being used to try to dis­credit legit­i­mate cli­mate change research.

    I’m sorry, but as I said ear­lier, direct weather con­trol, such as tor­nado cau­sa­tion, steer­ing hur­ri­canes, etc. is still absolutely inconceivable{probably always will be, too}, and like it or not, there’s too much evi­dence in favor of human influ­ence of cli­mate change NOT for it to be fea­si­ble, and too lit­tle evi­dence for direct weather con­trol for it to even be remotely plausible{and no, Eastlund’s microwave research doesn’t count as direct, either}.

    We really do need to look at who ben­e­fits from cli­mate denial and direct weather con­trol bullshit{again, not refer­ring to indi­rect manip­u­la­tion like Eastlund’s microwave research, which isn’t actu­ally so far-fetched}. And guess what? We find names like Koch, Exxon, B.P., etc.

    We also find that this also ben­e­fits those who would want to give a bad rep­u­ta­tion to actual hon­est researchers out there{even some who may have bought into some of the B.S.}.

    In any case, guess who gets screwed over, Claude? WE DO.

    Posted by Steven | June 3, 2011, 7:04 am

  8. Def­i­nitely Dave, you have opened a Pandora’s box with that post. This dis­cus­sion is memorable.

    Thank you Snow­ballschance, for pro­vid­ing that paper. It is so rare to have a sci­en­tific doc­u­ment with which we can form an edu­cated opin­ion on hard sci­ence mat­ters, such as electro-magnetic and other types of waves occur­ing in our envi­ron­ment. I will post it on my blog, this is too excellent.

    I agree that we have to be care­ful not to fall into the con­spir­acy the­ory booby trap, but we have to avoid the oppo­site mis­take, i.e. dis­miss­ing the pos­si­bil­ity of any arti­fi­cial weather phenomena.

    In the end, I think that if we put together all the good points that we have cov­ered here, we have made quite a good job.

    Thanks to all of you and thanks to you Dave for bring­ing out Pandora’s HAARP.

    Posted by Claude | June 3, 2011, 8:50 pm

  9. [...] is a sci­en­tific paper that came up dur­ing a dis­cus­sion about HAARP on the SpitfireList.com web­site. We were talk­ing about the level of cred­i­bil­ity that we should give to the hypoth­e­sis that [...]

    Posted by Scientific paper on HAARP and ELF electromagnetic radiation | lys-dor.com | June 4, 2011, 7:46 pm

  10. @Claude: “
    I agree that we have to be care ful not to fall into the con spir acy the ory booby trap, but we have to avoid the oppo site mis take, i.e. dis miss ing the pos si bil ity of any arti fi cial weather phenomena.”

    True, but we should also avoid falling into the trap of try­ing to find some­thing which sim­ply isn’t pos­si­ble, because as I’ve said, cer­tain things are being used to dis­credit real research.

    And, Claude, if you’d like proof that man-made influ­ences on cli­mate change are indeed real, then you’re in for a treat: A guy by the name of Peter Sinclair’s been doing some fan­tas­tic research on the sub­ject for more than 30 years now. And here’s his YouTube chan­nel:
    http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610

    Nobody has ever said that nature was pow­er­less, or that cli­mate doesn’t change nat­u­rally. It does. But the evi­dence that human activ­i­ties have not only influ­enced cli­mate change in the past cen­tury or so, but have even started to cause some sig­nif­i­cant dam­age, is prac­ti­cally all but infi­nite at this point in time{after all, it’s not just air pol­lu­tion; is it Nature who has been cut­ting down trop­i­cal rain­forests? What the deniers won’t tell you is that that is a major part of our problem}.

    And yet, we find that the oil indus­try & cer­tain other spe­cial inter­ests are hard at work fund­ing cli­mate deniers to put out false and mis­lead­ing B.S. And guess who else ben­e­fits, btw? None other than the Islamic fas­cists who’s prof­its and power almost exclu­sively derive from oil, as well as the West­ern oil barons!

    C’mon, you two. We’re sup­posed to be more knowl­edge­able than the Alex Jones crowd, but we can’t see thru the B.S.{including the crooks who invented the ‘Cli­mate­gate’ so-called ‘scan­dal’} just yet?

    I used to be a CC denier, before learn­ing about the Koch Bros. and all the other peo­ple behind the so-called ‘cli­mate skep­ti­cism’ movement.

    Posted by Steven | June 5, 2011, 12:45 pm

  11. Here, I’ll even put up a few videos of Sinclair’s for you guys:

    The “Temp Leads Car­bon” Crock: Updated

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nrvrkVBt24&feature=channel_video_title

    What the Ice Cores Tell Us, and How Deniers Dis­tort it:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c90nab5i-TQ

    He also went after the glob­al­ist flunky{and a pos­si­ble clos­eted fas­cist, as I’ve sus­pected for some time}Lord Monckton.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfA1LpiYk2o
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duxG4lyeSlc&feature=related

    “It’s so Cold, there can’t be Global Warm­ing!“
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDTUuckNHgc&feature=channel_video_title

    “In the 70s, They said there’d be an Ice Age“
    http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/50/XB3S0fnOr0M

    Birth of a Cli­mate Crock:
    http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/55/khikoh3sJg8

    And here’s a good one-US Navy Chief Oceanog­ra­pher: I Was For­merly a Cli­mate Skep­tic:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3dcc0mV-n4

    Posted by Steven | June 5, 2011, 1:06 pm

  12. And Snow­ball, if there is an ice age.........well, let’s just say that if HAARP truly can cause indi­rect weather manip­u­la­tion, and I’m increas­ingly tempted to believe so, then that’ll be what causes such an occur­rence, with­out a doubt, because the Under­ground Reich & the fel­low elites might get des­per­ate enough to try that at one point; the deniers are being slowly but surely debunked every week, month, and year that passes by. And to the Under­ground Reich, that spells DISASTER.

    And finally, yes, both sides have been cor­rupted, and sadly, the pol­i­tics on the AGW side are com­plete B.S. as well. But at least the hon­est pro-AGW people{such as Mr. Sin­clair here} do have plenty of qual­ity research to back up their claims. The hon­est skep­tics & the pro­fes­sional deniers? Not so much, even in the case of the for­mer group.

    Posted by Steven | June 5, 2011, 1:13 pm

  13. And of course, what’s even more inter­est­ing is that one of the pri­mary CC denial push­ers, the ‘Heart­land Insti­tute’, also seems to have had a his­tory of defend­ing the tobacco industry.

    http://thedakepage.blogspot.com/2009/12/well-disarmed-skeptic-how-climate.html
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-heartland-institute-a_b_171262.html

    Posted by Steven | June 5, 2011, 2:06 pm

  14. Hello my friends,

    I was lis­ten­ing again to the broad­cast and I couldn’t help to remem­ber a small detail that is on my mind for some time. If you think I am a con­spir­acy cook, don’t hes­i­tate to say so. For myself, I would pre­fer that this lead of inves­ti­ga­tion is bull­shit: I don’t like the per­spec­tives it opens. How­ever, I have restrained myself to share this thought but now, mostly con­sid­er­ing the 11th Hour the­ol­ogy of Story and Bertollini, I think it is relevant.

    I am a great admirer of pro­fes­sor Begich. I think he is just amaz­ing. He has a web­site called “Earth Pulse” ded­i­cated to HAARP and elec­tro­mag­netic tech­nol­ogy. Up to that, no prob­lem. But when I was brows­ing on the site, I saw the con­tact information...

    The last four dig­its of the phone num­ber is...9111! Like in 9/11/01. Don’t you find it strange? Con­sid­er­ing Story and Bertollini’s the­ol­ogy and the rest of the con­nec­tions any­way, is it far­fetched to envi­sion that elec­tro­mag­netic weapons could have been used to redi­rect the planes on 9/11 to hit the twin tow­ers? Is it rea­son­able to think that the “hijack­ers” could only have been accessory?

    If you think it is “con­spir­acy the­ory at its worst”, please tell me, I will accept your call. And Dave, if you think it is pure non-sense, just don’t pub­lish it. I won’t mind.

    Have a great day bril­liant ones.

    Posted by Claude | June 8, 2011, 10:59 am

Post a comment

Anti-Fascist Archives

1984Looking Back from 1984 Int’l fascism as reaction to early 20th century socialist movements; U.S. industrial and financial support for Hitler. Read more »