Having surveyed the potential devastation and idiocy of geoengineering in Part I, how can we put it into some kind of moral context? First, let’s understand that what is going on – from geoengineering, to the covid fiasco, to Ukraine, to the War of Terror – is state terrorism. In fact, it’s more than that because of its seemingly contradictory features of sheer scale accompanied by public apathy to it.
I have often used the word ‘terrorist’ to describe the criminal activity of the US, UK and other allied governments. I am not exaggerating for dramatic effect. I actually think it doesn’t go far enough in capturing the institutional psychopathy we’re dealing with. The word terrorist is typically used to describe the threat or use of violence to advance a political aim. It should go without saying that terror and fear are synonymous, but it’s important to emphasise this simple point in order to remind ourselves that, when governments use fear as a tool of coercion, they are terrorising you. And that’s before we get into an analysis of the brutal impact of these terror campaigns in the form of actual death and other harms. There is no question that this criminality by our governments is rife, not just in stoking fear to influence behaviour but in the callous termination of life in pursuance of political objectives.
Of course, ministers don’t mount the podium and tell you that they’re trying to kill you. That would be poor taste. But they know that lockdowns cause cascading misery in myriad ways and therefore shorten lives. They know that covid ‘vaccines’ are causing excess deaths. They know that they are decimating the population of fighting-age men in Ukraine in order to destroy a country so that global capital can profit from its reconstruction. They know that forced farm buyouts will restrict food supplies and cause starvation. They must know that blocking out the sun has to be one of the most outlandishly stupid and dangerous undertakings ever dreamt up since humans crawled out of the proverbial sludge. And so on, ad nauseam. So why do we let them get away with murder? Why have so many in the West signed up to this death cult?
Some would argue that state violence resulting in death is not qualitatively the same as the crime of murder, on the grounds that it isn’t premeditated. They might argue that it’s more akin to some sort of inevitable, and therefore excusable, collateral damage in pursuance of noble policy agendas. Is it murder or manslaughter by incompetence? But is the latter any less evil than the former if you can prove that the state’s actions could reasonably have been expected to result in deaths? If so, I see no reason to grant any degree of leniency. If someone wanted to get rich and also decided that achieving that goal entailed killing someone else, is the taking of life more excusable because enrichment was the primary motivator? I think not.
I am convinced that we are dealing with state terrorism here, but why is the word ‘terrorism’ inadequate to describe what governments are doing? Well, a terrorist group is by its very nature a weak entity. Terrorists resort to terror precisely because they are challenging an entity far more powerful than they are. They have calculated (always incorrectly) that terrorism is the only tool available to advance their political agenda. On the other hand, the US and its allied governments are the most powerful entities on the planet. And they are made all the more powerful by virtue of being captured by, and therefore serving the interests of, the most economically powerful interest group in modern history – global capital.
Global corporate interests have subsumed the function of the state and either created or captured supranational and unaccountable organisations to create a three-headed monster that now imposes its will on humanity. The growth of this three-headed monster – global corporates, national governments and supranational NGOs – has spawned crimes against humanity the scale of which beggars belief. One paradox of having this much power at their disposal is that the perpetrators can disguise their crimes as the inevitable consequence of large-scale bureaucratic endeavour, a camouflage that is not available to relatively small-time, amateur terrorist groups like Al Qaeda.
Al Qaeda is forced to be transparent about its terrorism, which in itself leads to its inevitable defeat. We, on the other hand, vote for our terrorists in official ceremonies called ‘democratic elections’. Politicians then claim that they are merely trying to do the difficult jobs that we elected them to do. Their jobs are so vast in scope that mistakes are bound to happen when dealing with health and safety at a national or global level. And so, in an act of insanity comparable to and supportive of the governments’ criminality, societies shrug their shoulders.
Despite these all-too-frequently occurring and colossal ‘mistakes’, media outlets are able to either bury them completely or propagandise them as the inevitable consequence of crisis management. But the reality is that The System purposefully subjects us time and again to callous and inhuman experiments. Following mass recalcitrance in the form of Brexit and Trumpism, The System’s managers told us what to expect in 2016 when they snarled: “it’s time for the elites to rise up against the ignorant masses”.
At any rate, this is why government terrorism is far more successful and effective than the amateurish ISIS or Al-Qaeda brands. Ironically, when terrorism is scaled up to the government level or, better still, the international level of the UN and the WHO with their pandemic treaties and Agenda 2030 programmes, then strangely, the terrorism becomes undetectable or more palatable to the masses. 95 people killed by police incompetence at a football match – that’s obvious and everyone cries foul. An estimated ten million killed globally by a ‘safe and effective’ ‘vaccine’ and possibly billions maimed – not so obvious. This is what makes the lethal medicine go down – it’s cloaked in arcane bureaucratic processes, the language of public health, and treaties and legislation put before our elected stooges in parliament.
And the whole enterprise is managed by an administrative class whose souls are dead; they have lost the human instinct (‘intelligence’ has nothing to do with it) to see things for what they are, or they lack the courage to resist even if they could see it.
So we need a new name for the global public-private partnership reign of terror that is being unleashed. No terrorist organisation has ever dreamed of conquering the world, but geoengineering epitomises the galactic ambition of the new self-declared masters of the universe. For these megalomaniac psychopaths, the world just isn’t enough. Confident that they now own the world, they have set their sights on conquering the sun, and in doing so, they aspire to outdo the gods of ancient Greek myth.
The bigger picture – why is it happening?
Dane Wigington explained in his interview with RFK Jnr that there is evidence that large-scale geoengineering experiments involving the US military spraying particulates began shortly after World War II. By 1962, these experiments led former US president Lyndon Johnson to declare that "he who controls the weather, controls the world". It is therefore reasonable to deduce that the military industrial complex sees the potential for disrupting crop and food production by intervening in weather patterns as a weapon of war. Degrading an enemy’s capacity to fight by degrading its resources without them either knowing or being able to prove that they have been targeted is a central tenet of 5th Generation Warfare, and weather manipulation fits perfectly into this toolkit. It is therefore highly likely that geoengineering is a military project that, owing to its increasing exposure, has, of necessity, latched onto the ‘climate crisis’ as a pretext for its ongoing development and deployment against targets of the collapsing US empire. It could then make the ‘climate crisis’ a self-fulfilling prophecy.
But that doesn’t explain why we have handed over the keys to the planet to psychotic war planners. They might be howling-at-the-moon mad but surely most of us aren’t? How did we get to the point where people who should be in straitjackets are running the world? As John Lennon correctly surmised: “our society is run by insane people for insane objectives...by maniacs for maniacal ends.”
As an aside, and as a way of unveiling madness, we should try to be alert to the abuse of language by the maniacs and their minions to disguise their insane antics. The MIT Review talks about how SRM “creates a moral hazard”. The children’s TV “News” crew at CBS used the word “controversial”. The Daily Mail is of the view that one government that thinks it has the right to unilaterally endanger the lives of every human on Earth with an act of inter-planetary terrorism is “audacious”. That word actually has positive connotations (daring and intrepid), but at worst simply implies that the US government is being a bit cheeky and insolent by toying with the lives of all Earth dwellers. When you see words like “moral hazard”, “controversial” and “audacious” being bandied about in relation to the antics of these sociopaths, understand that what we should really be saying is: “They are bypassing Satan’s intermediaries and taking orders directly from the Devil himself”.
It should go without saying that the lunatics engaging in geoengineering do not own the Earth, humanity, or the sun and therefore have no right to even contemplate, let alone engage in, the sort of destructive unilateral action that is already in train. Attempts by a parasitic class of rulers to control nature, all of humanity and indeed the planets, must be seen as the inevitable consequence of a system that selects for, and therefore rewards, psychopathy because narcissism, Machiavellianism and control-freakery are highly advantageous character traits for rising to the very top of that system.
So the language of mental illness, as a starting point, has validity. But what most of us don’t realise is that we operate in a system that does the opposite of controlling for madness. It rewards madness. That system acts as an insanity force-multiplier while paradoxically hiding its diabolical flaw from us. As I said, the terrorism this system produces is so enormous that we cannot conceive of it as being primarily the product of a few insane individuals. I say ‘primarily’ because ultimately it is our system – we are collectively doing this to ourselves. Terrorism is a word we have customarily reserved for small bands of extreme outliers. Our chosen leaders, responsible for the smooth ordering of all facets of our lives, can’t possibly be terrorists! So we transfer culpability to a less tangible process. And we are partly correct, since a few individuals would not be able to wreak such havoc if we had not handed them the controls to vast and powerful machines – the machinery of government, the economy, academic institutions, and so on.
All of this is so big that it is too big for many of us to see. Our inability to comprehend the monsters we empower is well understood by the monsters themselves. Referring to the web of lies that intelligence agencies create and navigate, the first director of the FBI, J Edgar Hoover, remarked:
“The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous that he cannot believe it exists.”
We are now at a point where all the monstrous lies created in the past several decades are coalescing into a storm that could sink us unless we see them for what they are.
Geoengineering is just part of a broader pattern of global terror that was launched with the planet-wide lockdowns and coerced vaccination of 2020-2022. Afraid that people will resist the terror wielded by the vaccinators’ needles, the Dr Strangeloves have applied their imagination to enforcing covert involuntary vaccination by developing an airborne method for delivering mRNA right to your lungs. A ‘One Health’ paradigm for the entire planet is in the process of being rubber-stamped by the global public-private partnership. Under that paradigm, one person at the helm of the WHO will have the power to declare a wide array of health emergencies and unilaterally impose pharmaceutical interventions on the entire planet, all underpinned by an elaborate infrastructure of biomedical digital ID and online censorship, paid for with your tax money, thanks very much!
The G20 sub-group of the public-private-partnership is committed to the implementation of Digital ID and programmable Central Bank Digital Currencies, the combination of which grants the controllers of these technologies the ability to instantaneously and arbitrarily control populations by locking people out of the financial payment system based on dissident behaviour detected by referencing your digital ID record. The message in all of this is clear – you are livestock, and resistance is futile. The System managers’ war cry in 2016 bears repeating – “it’s time for the elites to rise up against the ignorant masses”. The correct term for these ‘elites’ – the owners and managers of The System on which global capital is built – is parasites – life forms that leech the life out of other life forms and give nothing back in return.
Having conquered the world’s economy and established itself as the first-ever truly global hegemonic power, global capital is, as CJ Hopkins rightly points out, conducting clear-and-hold operations to extinguish pockets of resistance. Covid 1984 was the launch of project Total Control – global totalitarianism. Not only will they not back off, they can’t back off. The financial and monetary system that serves as the foundation of The System’s power is collapsing. Myriad financial assets that serve as complex, and mostly fictitious, measures of wealth are all nestled in a giant debt ponzi scheme that is about to explode. The controllers are doing what controllers are supposed to do – they’re trying to engineer a controlled demolition. The alternative is a repeat of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis on steroids. They aren’t going to sit back and watch hundreds of grenades randomly going off in their faces. This control strategy entails birthing a new system, which they would like to see emerge like a phoenix from the ashes. A system that acts as a bridge from this disaster to a stable and permanent form of technocratic global totalitarianism.
Losing control of the collapse risks losing control of their ill-gotten gains. There is therefore no limit to the depravity to which they will sink to hold onto power. Hence sun dimming, air vaxxing, planned rationing more severe than WWII, eating bugs to ‘save the planet’, attempts to normalise cannibalism, legislated censorship, and a digital gulag enforced with programmable Central Bank Digital Currency.
Humanity is now being asked to prove whether we really understand and want this thing called freedom. If we can’t collectively reject the hell that The System’s controllers have planned for us – a hell so huge that it is hiding in plain sight – then we don’t understand the value of freedom and we definitely don’t deserve it.
Very lucid and clear thinking as usual. I would like though to question one tiny thing you mention and that is the "financial crisis" of 2008 and whether it was quite what it was supposed to be.
The whole idea that banks can get into trouble is a bit difficult for me as I believe they can lend money that they never in fact possessed. Even if the so-called sub-prime borrowers never pay anything at all, which is probably very rare, they, the banks, have in fact lost nothing other than their overheads. And they can take ownership of valuable property on the strength of such loan repayment defaults and sell it for cash.
If they insist on gambling the deposits they have for a few extra percent profit and lose the lot, that is another issue and should be dealt with accordingly.
As far as I can work out, the normal "retail" bank has about 90% of its assets in created loan "money" and 10% in deposits. It seems this is a rule of fractional reserve banking; a maximum loans to deposits ratio. The bank doesn't absolutely need to invest its deposits to make money and if you can imagine the seemingly unheard-of situation where a bank has kept all deposits intact there could never be a "run" on it (I think). The silicon valley banks that sunk recently were deposit heavy with few loans as silicon valley has no need and is awash with cash. Those banks invested their deposits in bonds or whatever and had to sell them at a loss whenever depositors wanted to withdraw money. A collapse of a bank probably the result of profit maximising so as to provide returns for shareholders or to achieve executive bonus targets or who knows what else.
Also, what I'm thinking is that if bank A sells toxic loan packages to bank B and so on to bank C etc. etc. but they all end up holding the toxic products of one-another when the music stops, what's the difference? There could be, of course, differences between banks in the final accounting but the total value of bad loans is the same as it was. Bank A/B/C averaged out would be in possession of approximately the same amount of bad loans that they started with. Perhaps less, as I guess they generally managed to off-load a few chunks to "unsuspecting" pension funds etc. Could it be that this complicated exercise of packaging, repackaging, reselling etc. was just an attempt (highly successful) at making the waters extremely muddy so we can't exactly make head or tail of the transactions ? So that the average person and even financial journalists can't (or now have an excuse not to try to ) see straight through this "dip" into our pockets ?
As you say, banking is a confidence trick and a Ponzi scheme but the trigger events for the 2008 financial crisis were artificial and the fear spread deliberately by the usual suspects.
I am unconvinced that any retail banks needed to put deposits at risk, the business plan was pretty good without this option, and without retail customers' deposits at risk we would have had no appetite for taxpayer bailouts I think.