Well I went to the
presentation on Geo-engineering (for which chemtrails it seems is
something of a laymen’s term) and I found it very
interesting. I certainly now understand why people are so concerned about this issue! I've been looking into it these past few days but it's
all still very new to me at this moment, all I can do for now is
post one of the videos we were shown on the subject of cloud seeding
and its wider environmental implications. Maybe I Just haven't been
paying attention but I was really quite shocked at the extent to
which governments are using the technique of cloud seeding to increase rain fall, I
checked the sources and this much all appears to be quite factual. Beyond that, at
the moment I can't speak to the potential toxic effects of spraying
silver iodide into the atmosphere or the wider implication seeding
clouds may have on the climate, but it's something somebody certainly should be concerned about!
The film is called 'Skywatcher: The Incredible Story of Artificial Clouds and Weather
Modification', it's shocking, very interesting and well worth watching
The website for the film contains a good deal of documentation backing up its claims: http://artificialclouds.com/
If you like this post then please 'like' Deep State News on facebook at:
The Vigilant Citizen
has completed his three part series into the esoteric, occult and
black magic symbolism encoded in Stanley Kubrick's last film, Eyes
Wide Shut. Whether you agree with him or not that Kubrick was
revealing knowledge of how the elite in the real world operate,
gathering at mansions to preform dark magical rituals, I think you'll
have to concede that his analysis of the depth of the symbolism in
the film is incredible.
Just to balance out the line being presented by William Hague and the majority of the British media, here's Patrick Henningsen explaining why he feels it's unlikely that the Syrian Government are behind the recent alleged chemical attacks.
You can read Patrick's article as well as a host of other good articles on this issue at the Centre for Research on Globalization:
When Ian R Crane spoke
on the Isle of Man last month one of the issues that raised the most
controversy and disagreement amongst the audience was that of
'chemtrails', the idea that whole populations are being sprayed with
chemicals from aeroplanes. The suspected purpose of this ranges from
anything between weather modification to population control. I
personally know next to nothing about it, but out of all the things
Ian said it's probably the issue people have mentioned to me most
since, either to say it deeply concerns them, or that that is where
they lost Ian's narrative completely.
A talk/discussion has
been organised on the Isle of Man to investigate this issue further,
it's taking place this coming Wednesday at the South Douglas Old
Friends Club and I've copied the information from the poster in
below. Everyone is welcome.
My entire knowledge of
the subject is basically contained within the following video, that
there is at least historical precedence of the US military using planes to spray US citizens with chemical concoctions to test the effects.
Engineer
the Climate and Kill the Planet?
Are
Scientists Playing God?
·Global
dimming.
·Trees
and plants withering.
·Bee
colonies collapsing.
·An
increase in chronic illnesses and allergies.
Is
there a ‘hidden’ source of pollution? Why is this question
stonewalled by governments worldwide? How can we effectively engage
in dialogue?
Discussion
of this topic:
Wednesday
21stAugust 2013 at Old Friends
Finch
Road
Douglas
7pm
(No
admittance fee. Donations to help cover overheads would be
appreciated)
See you there!
If you like this post then please 'like' Deep State News on facebook at:
Quick link to a We Are Change video investigating the effects of the Dutch governments recent crackdown on cannabis, and the resulting rise in crime. Amazingly people didn't all stop buying cannabis when the government told them to, rather they just started buying it from criminals instead. Contains some dramatic footage.
Article from the Daily
Mail about a mother from Manchester who has been fined £405 because
her son missed a day of school nine years ago, due to headaches
caused by a brain tumour. Mrs. Darilyn Rothwell has been given seven
days to pay the fine, before thugs calling themselves bailiffs will
be sent round to her house to force entry and steal her possessions.
On a previous post on
this blog I described schools as being 'prisons for children', I
would challenge anyone to explain to me how this is not the case.
Here's the earlier post, it's actually probably my favorite one so far:
atomic bomb survivors sniveling in the darkness . . .
not a single candle between them . . .
the odor of blood . . .
the stench of death . . .
the sickly-sweet smell of decaying humanity . . .
the groans . . .
the moans . . .
Out of all that, suddenly, miraculously, a voice:
"The baby's coming!"
In the hellish basement, unexpectedly,
a young mother had gone into labor.
In the dark, lacking a single match, what to do?
Scrambling to her side,
forgetting their own . . .
By Hiroshima Survivor Kurihara Sadako, translated by Michael R. Burch*
Today is the
anniversary of the Atomic bombing of Hiroshima. I'm copying a
section of a John Pilger article to the blog, where he refutes the
notion that this act of mass murder was in any way necessary to end
the war, but rather was about establishing US Imperial domination in
the post war world.
"When I first went to Hiroshima in 1967, the shadow on the steps was still there. It was an almost perfect impression of a human being at ease: legs splayed, back bent, one hand by her side as she sat waiting for a bank to open. At a quarter past eight on the morning of August 6, 1945, she and her silhouette were burned into the granite. I stared at the shadow for an hour or more, then walked down to the river and met a man called Yukio, whose chest was still etched with the pattern of the shirt he was wearing when the atomic bomb was dropped.
He and his family still lived in a shack thrown up in the dust of an atomic desert. He described a huge flash over the city, "a bluish light, something like an electrical short", after which wind blew like a tornado and black rain fell. "I was thrown on the ground and noticed only the stalks of my flowers were left. Everything was still and quiet, and when I got up, there were people naked, not saying anything. Some of them had no skin or hair. I was certain I was dead." Nine years later, when I returned to look for him, he was dead from leukaemia.
In the immediate aftermath of the bomb, the allied occupation authorities banned all mention of radiation poisoning and insisted that people had been killed or injured only by the bomb's blast. It was the first big lie. "No radioactivity in Hiroshima ruin" said the front page of the New York Times, a classic of disinformation and journalistic abdication, which the Australian reporter Wilfred Burchett put right with his scoop of the century. "I write this as a warning to the world," reported Burchett in the Daily Express, having reached Hiroshima after a perilous journey, the first correspondent to dare. He described hospital wards filled with people with no visible injuries but who were dying from what he called "an atomic plague". For telling this truth, his press accreditation was withdrawn, he was pilloried and smeared - and vindicated.
The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a criminal act on an epic scale. It was premeditated mass murder that unleashed a weapon of intrinsic criminality. For this reason its apologists have sought refuge in the mythology of the ultimate "good war", whose "ethical bath", as Richard Drayton called it, has allowed the west not only to expiate its bloody imperial past but to promote 60 years of rapacious war, always beneath the shadow of The Bomb.
The most enduring lie is that the atomic bomb was dropped to end the war in the Pacific and save lives. "Even without the atomic bombing attacks," concluded the United States Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946, "air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that ... Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
The National Archives in Washington contain US government documents that chart Japanese peace overtures as early as 1943. None was pursued. A cable sent on May 5, 1945 by the German ambassador in Tokyo and intercepted by the US dispels any doubt that the Japanese were desperate to sue for peace, including "capitulation even if the terms were hard". Instead, the US secretary of war, Henry Stimson, told President Truman he was "fearful" that the US air force would have Japan so "bombed out" that the new weapon would not be able "to show its strength". He later admitted that "no effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the bomb". His foreign policy colleagues were eager "to browbeat the Russians with the bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip". General Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan Project that made the bomb, testified: "There was never any illusion on my part that Russia was our enemy, and that the project was conducted on that basis." The day after Hiroshima was obliterated, President Truman voiced his satisfaction with the "overwhelming success" of "the experiment"."
The full article goes on to address the current nuclear situation in the Middle East, you can read it at:
“It
is well known that the libertarian political philosophy is
antagonistic to coercively imposed rules that limit people's freedom
to use their private property as they see fit. Indeed, the very
essence of libertarianism is the nonaggression principle that
condemns the initiation of force against person or property. As a
result, libertarians have been critical of zoning laws, which
restrict the ability of property owners to develop their property or
use it for their desired purposes.”
Ben
O'Neill*
I was in the studio
when Ian Crane was being interviewed on the local radio station during his
visit to the Isle of Man a couple of weeks ago. I had to suppress a
laugh when the presenter asked him if he knew anything about
conspiracies on the Isle of Man, Ian said he didn't, but that they
would almost certainly involve property developers, as they're
corrupt everywhere.
I blogged a while back
about the plight of Charlie Hague and Megan Williams, how they'd
built a beautiful eco-house, which the local council wanted to tear
down because they didn't acquire planning permission. You can see my
rather irate post on it here:
Charlie and Meg have
started an online petition which they intend to present to
Pembrokeshire County Council and the Welsh Assembly, to gain
retrospective planning permission. You can help them out by signing
it at the following link:
For me the issue is not
that this house is beautiful, frankly they could have
plonked a concrete block in the middle of their land and I'd still
sign the petition. It's about whether the world is going to work
better when people make decisions on how to develop their own private
property, or whether we need a group of self appointed experts
dictating to everyone else what they can and can't do with their own
land. I know which one the corporate property developers think is
the best option.
Those who fail to learn
from history are doomed to repeat it.*
The organisation
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth has launched a campaign to
have the above 'ReThink9/11' posters displayed prominently across
eleven major cities, nine in the US and Canada, plus Sydney and
London. AE9/11Truth has gone from having one founding member in
2006, to just shy of two thousand today, and they're not ready to let
the events of September 11th 2001 pass into history just yet! With seven
days to go they've nearly reached their fund-raising goal, so please
watch their video below and consider supporting this endeavour.
There are various
videos on the site explaining the campaign, I'm just linking to the
one by Dr. Graeme MacQueen as I particularly like it. I linked to a
presentation before by Dr. MacQueen, back in January when he spoke at
the 9/11 Revisited Conference, regarding the anthrax attacks.
Today is the 49th
anniversary of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, where then US President
Lyndon Johnson completely lied to the American people about a US Navy
ship being attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin, to justify initiating a
genocide in Vietnam. Here's Alex Jones to explain:1
The following is a
section from John Pilger's book 'Heroes' and describes the Gulf of
Tonkin incident as well as other distortions the CIA and wider
Military Industrial Complex used to goad the American people into
consenting to this slaughter.
"During
the spring and summer of 1964 the United States organised commando
raids from the South against the North, using South Vietnamese and
landing them from the sea. Hence, Washington was already engaged in
unprovoked hostilities against Vietnam. An American spy ship, the USS
Maddox, took part in this action. On August 2 the Maddox fired on two
torpedo boats off the coast of North Vietnam in the Gulf of Tonkin. The boats had neither attacked the Maddox nor returned its fire. Two
days later Captain John J. Herrick, on the bridge of the Maddox,
noticed two 'mysterious dots' on his radar screen and concluded they
were torpedo boats. It was a blustering, stormy night and visibility
was nil. Again, no attack materialised. However, Herrick had sent an
emergency call to his headquarters in Honolulu and this was passed
quickly to President Johnson, who was 'furious' and wanted to order
the bombing of North Vietnam immediately. A few hours later a cable
arrived from Captain Herrick. It read:
Freak
weather effects on radar and over eager sonar men . . . No actual
visual sightings by Maddox. Suggest complete evaluation before any
further action taken.
President
Johnson asked his Defence Secretary, Robert McNamara, for urgent
'clarification' while he prepared to address the nation. Captain
Herrick cabled back that there was 'a confusing picture', although he
was now certain that the report of an attack was 'bona fide'. What he
did not say, until 1985, was that this confirmation of a 'bona fide'
attack was based on 'intercepted North Vietnamese communications'
which he had not seen. Johnson's television speech was now written;
America was going to war. But a third cable now arrived from the
Maddox in which Captain Herrick reverted to his original doubts. Half
an hour after this was received, and ignored, the President was on
networked television telling his fellow Americans, 'Renewed hostile
actions against United States ships on the high seas have today
required me to order the military forces of the United States to take
action in reply.'
This
became known as the 'Gulf of Tonkin Incident' and as a direct result,
a resolution was sent by the White House to Congress seeking
authority for the United States to invade Vietnam. Seven years were
to pass before the Pentagon Papers, the official 'secret history' of
the war, would reveal that administration officials had drafted the
'Gulf of Tonkin Resolution' two months before the alleged attack on
the Maddox. On August 7,1964 Congress authorised President Johnson to
take 'all measures' to protect US forces from 'any armed attack'. American-planned sabotage attacks increased against the North. Six
months later the State Department published a White Paper whose
centrepiece was the 'provocation' of the 'Gulf of Tonkin Incident',
together with seven pages of 'conclusive proof' of Hanoi's
preparations to invade the South. This 'proof' stemmed from the
discovery of a cache of weapons found floating in a junk off the
coast of central Vietnam. The White Paper, which would provide the
legal justification for the American invasion, was, in the words of
Ralph McGehee, a 'master illusion'. McGehee told me:
Black
propaganda was when the US Government spoke in the voice of the
enemy, and there is a very famous example. In 1965 the CIA loaded up
a junk, a North Vietnamese junk, with communist weapons ... the
Agency maintains communist arsenals in the United States and around
the world. They floated this junk off the coast of Central Vietnam. Then they shot it up and made it look like a fire fight had taken
place. Then they brought in the American press and the international
press and said, 'Here's evidence that the North Vietnamese are
invading South Vietnam. 'Based on this evidence two Marine battalion
landing teams went into Danang and a week after that the American air
force began regular bombing of North Vietnam.
The
bombing was code-named 'Operation Rolling Thunder' and was the
longest campaign in the history of aerial bombardment. Few outsiders
saw its effects on the civilian population of the North. I was one
who did. Against straw and flesh was sent an entirely new range of
bombs, from white phosphorus (1966) to 'anti-personnel' devices which
discharged thousands of small needles (1971). North Vietnam then had
no air force with which to defend itself. The scale of the American
bombing in the mid-1960s, both in the North and South, together with
the American-directed terror of the South, eventually persuaded Ho
Chi Minh to send regular army units south in support of those South
Vietnamese opposing the American invasion.
This
was not how propaganda in the United States explained the origins of
the war. Neither is it how many people remember the war today. In the
opinion poll quoted at the beginning of this chapter, in which more
than a third of those questioned expressed confusion as to who were
'our allies', almost two-thirds said they were aware that the United
States had 'sided with South Vietnam'. As Noam Chomsky has pointed
out, this is the equivalent of being aware that Nazi Germany sided
with France in 1940 and the Soviet Union now sides with Afghanistan.
The
accredited version of events has not changed. It is that noncommunist
South Vietnam was invaded by communist North Vietnam and that the
United States came to the aid of the 'democratic' regime in the
South. This of course is untrue, as documentation I have touched upon
makes clear. That Ho Chi Minh waited so long before sending a regular
force to resist the American attacks seems, in retrospect,
extraordinary; or perhaps it was a testament to the strength and
morale of those South Vietnamese who had taken up arms in defence of
their villages and their homeland. In 1965 the American
counter-insurgency adviser, John Paul Vann, wrote in a memorandum
addressed to his superiors in Washington that 'a popular political
base for Government of South Vietnam does not now exist' and the
majority of the people in South Vietnam 'primarily identified' with
the National Liberation Front.
When
the US marines finally 'stormed ashore' at Danang in central Vietnam
on March 6, 1965 they were bemused to find that there were no
'Vietcong' defending the beaches, dug in like the Japanese in all
those Second World War movies. Instead, there were incredulous
fishermen and curious children and beautiful girls with flowing black
hair, wearing silk dresses, split at the waist, and offering posies
of flowers. Men in white shirts had supplied the flowers and they
watched from a distance as the press photographers and the film crews
recorded this moving illusion of welcome, while the jungles and
highlands beyond cast a blood-red shadow no one saw. Ten years, one
month and eighteen days were to pass before the last marine left,
pursued by an embittered mob up the stairwell in his country's
fortress embassy.
During
those years the United States dispatched its greatest ever land army
to Vietnam, and dropped the greatest tonnage of bombs in the history
of warfare, and pursued a military strategy deliberately designed to
force millions of people to abandon their homes, and used chemicals
in a manner which profoundly changed the environmental and genetic
order, leaving a once bountiful land petrified. At least 1,300,000
people were killed and many more were maimed and otherwise ruined;
58,022 of these were Americans and the rest were Vietnamese. President Reagan has called this a 'noble cause'."2
1. The above clip is taken from Alex Jones' excellent documentary 'Terrorstorm - A History of Governmnet Sponsered Terror'. The full film can be watched at this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrXgLhkv21Y
2. John Pilger covered the Vietnam Genocide from inside the country and made several documentaries of its horrors, which can be found here: http://johnpilger.com/filmography
You can 'like' Deep State News on facebook and receive notification of all the posts at:
Picture of a Sussex Police Officer reading article entitled 'Fracking Nightmare' in the UK Column.
Here's
a video of Ian Crane reporting from the fracking protests at
Balcombe, assessing the impact the protests are having, the conduct of the police, and calling
out for re-enforcements.
Here's also a quote I've lifted from Ian's facebook page, illustrating the concern the police have over the potential of fracking protests taking place all over the country.
“The following is part of a message I received earlier today from a serving Police Officer, based in another area of the Country soon to be targeted by the FRACKers:”
' ... What my inspector did say, which was quite interesting, is that he knows one of the guys who is involved in the planning of policing of protests nationally, and the police are actually terrified up and down the country, basically because they know that Balcombe is going to happen everywhere and they know the strength of feeling about Fracking in the public. This just proves what people power can do, I reckon! Anyway, best wishes ... '
You can like Ian's page on facebook and receive his updates about the protest directly here:
"What
most frequently meets our view (and occasions complaint) is our
teeming population. Our numbers are burdensome to the world, which
can hardly support us... In very deed, pestilence, and famine, and
wars, and earthquakes have to be regarded as a remedy for nations, as
the means of pruning the luxuriance of the human race."
Tertullian,
2nd Century CE, when the world population was approximately 190
million.
"A
cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the
population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We
must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the
cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently
brutal and heartless decisions.''
Prof Paul
Ehrlich, The Population Bomb.
I missed some of the
question and answer section of Ian Crane's talk on the Island last
week, I was out of the room organising a projector for the following
day. One part I did catch was an exchange on the overpopulation
crisis, or non-crisis as Ian would have it.
The idea that the world
is overpopulated, that some sort of population crisis exists is I
think casually accepted by most people. Furthermore, I think the
idea that this will lead to a future crisis is generally accepted
also. I know I had this concept in my mind for many years, without
ever really looking into it. Various members of the audience seemed
to feel this way, with Ian claiming the opposite, that overpopulation
is a myth and nothing to be worried about at all.
I have to say I now
agree with Ian on this one, fortunately too as the typically proposed
solutions to overpopulation are so draconian and inhumane they don't
bear thinking about. My unquestioned concerns regarding
overpopulation didn't stand much scrutiny once it was applied. The
rate of population growth is slowing, it's predicted to peak in
twenty five years and go into decline after that. In much of the
developed world the birth rate is already too low to sustain the
existing population. It also seems to me that it's mathematically
flawed to suggest that people who produce more than two or three
children are acting irresponsibly, (I think even the Beckham's were
accused of this after the birth of their last child). It is of
course only the average birth rate in a society that counts and if it
wasn't for some people having lots of children, the population would
fall off a cliff due to many others not having enough. It just seems
to be a really happy thing that in industrialised societies the
population becomes very stable, so there's no need for an
orchestrated mass kill off every so often!
Here's James Corbett to
explain things some more, his video is called 'The Last Word on
Overpopulation', but if anyone wants to dispute it I'd be happy to
hear.
Here's a link to a site
called 'Overpopulation is a Myth'. It has a series of short and
entertaining videos examining various aspects of the population
question.
