What is going on with our weather? Presently, it is very chilly in the Isle of Man with temperatures of 13C, in late May. Other areas, such as California, are experiencing heatwaves and drought. Curiously, it seems that it is almost as if a vertical line had been drawn through the United States. The states to the east of this line are experiencing quite the opposite. Sound familiar? Something like the freak snow which only the west of the island experienced a couple of years ago?
In the following presentation we learn that the agencies which monitor air quality simply do not have the equipment to measure particulates, while other agencies are puzzled by particulates that they have discovered.
Why the search for alternatives? Without alternatives the system will continue and that is for me, and many others, an unacceptable scenario. How fortunate we were that the Ukraine situation was defused. Had this not been the case World War Three would have been playing out right in the centre of Europe. Far removed from those who were pushing to initiate war. ( I am not referring to Russia btw.).
The following documentary and the soldier’s testimony must surely be a very good reason to take a look at what is really going on and why we need to focus on alternatives.
Like many others I used to blindly accept that we supported the good guys. I accepted that intervention was necessary in conflict areas. And the thought that a number of conflicts were actually induced by third parties never crossed my mind. Those who did not adhere to this line of thought were obviously leftie dissidents, I reasoned. Well, thank goodness I woke up!
The following videos are not easy viewing. However, I would suggest that anyone who blindly supports anything that emanates from western powers, without question, needs to check these out before silently acquiescing to the use of further military force anywhere in the world. Do we really need to invade so many countries in order to protect ourselves? Defence is quite another matter.
And by the way, when local politicians blindly support sanctions placed on certain countries are they not also playing a part in things?
The subtitles could be better, but I think it gives the gist.
Action has, imo, nothing to do with violence or rioting. The revolution I envisage is peaceful but effective. (McDonalds currently closing a number of outlets worldwide. People seek healthy food. Get the idea?).
It seems the world’s gone crazy? Politicians are taking liberties? What is going on? If you are puzzled, confused and perhaps outraged by world events perhaps that is because you are following mainstream media outlets. If western mainstream media is controlled by a handful of powerful people, does it seem likely that the result is unbiased coverage of the news? No – not even the beeb.
For many of us there is little time for in-depth analysis of media reports. Thus the status quo continues. The media is unimpeded in continuing to disseminate biased coverage which frequently serves to enrage or confuse the audience. What is the solution? It involves taking a little time each day to examine well-investigated alternative news. But where to start? To understand what is really going on any of the following journalists are worth checking out: Patrick Henningsen, Ken O’Keefe and James Corbett provide excellent insight into how the world really works.
Have you ever noticed how so much fear and paranoia seems to emanate from across the pond?
Patrick Henningsen takes a look at the mechanisms which provide, if not guarantee, skewed mainstream media reportage:
Ken O’Keefe provides excellent insight into the current global political situation:
James Corbett explains why central Asia is considered to be strategically crucial to the US:
As Ken O’Keefe tells us, we have the power and it is our duty to take action because if we are governed by consent then we can withhold our consent. It really is down to us.
Yes, the blog content has been slightly diverted of late. The original aim was to comment on local politics, which are frequently influenced by global issues. Hence the wider view taken in more recent posts. Staying with local issues for the moment, it would appear that the Isle of Man has its own little New World Order agenda going on. We find a new ministership has been created to ensure that MHKs toe the line. ‘To drive through change’. How convenient that the CM could find someone like Mr Robertshaw to fit the bill. But how to explain further outgoings in times of public constraint? You could always have an MHK pave the way by his turning to the media (a permitted leak?) to explain how Mr Bell was overloaded with work and needed a second-in-command. One of the recent changes that the public has become aware of is the reluctance of government to seek dialogue with us. Where would they be without us though? We put them in their present positions, after all. Many thanks to the backbenchers who have successfully responded to this by organising open discussion of any topics – to coincide with the Big Debate evenings where the audience has been selected and members will presumably be requested to vote on carefully worded proposals. Say no more! At least some of our MHKs are keen to keep in touch with us and let us have our say, it seems. However, I have yet to hear an MHK utter a word in disagreement with IOM Government stance on external affairs and can only assume that there is a narrow path to tread. External affairs are presumably decided for us and we are expected to go along with things. But just supposing we were expected to fall in line with the latest warmongering tactics of an ‘ally’?
LAND of our birth,
O gem of God’s earth,
O Island so strong and so fair;
Built firm as Barool,
Thy throne of Home Rule
Makes us free as thy sweet mountain air
Those were the days! Home rule? What does this really mean? Precious little, I suspect. How do the Manx people feel about government and representation of their wishes? I would suggest that most of us simply wish to live our lives without major interference from those we employ to take care of the island.
We like to think that we have a say in the democratic process. What is democracy anyway? In practical terms it means that you could, theoretically, belong to 49% of the population of your sheading who did not elect your MHK. However, chosen or not, our MHK is there to represent us. Right? But how can our MHKs represent us if their first allegiance is to the monarch? This is the oath they take:
I, (name), do swear by Almighty God that I will be faithfull and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Her heirs and successors. So help me, God.
And the second oath, which is administered:
Her Majesty’s Counsel, your fellows’ and your own, you shall not reveal; you shall use your best endeavours to maintain the ancient laws and customs of this Isle. You shall justly and truly deliver your opinion and do right in all matters which shall be put unto you without favour or affection, without affinity or consanguinity, love or fear, reward or gain, or for any hope thereof but in all things you shall deal uprightly and do wrong to no man. So help you God and by the contents of this book.
‘Her Majesty’s Counsel, your fellows’ and your own, you shall not reveal?’ Could someone please explain exactly what this means?
‘You shall use your best endeavours to maintain the ancient laws and customs of this Isle’ So this would exclude all those statutes introduced in the form of Maritime Law. otherwise known as Statute Law, one would assume. After all, we are told that Manx law is based on common law.
Indeed, what empowers the UK to have any say in what happens here? Can anyone refer to documents which explain this clearly and unambiguously?
‘You shall justly and truly deliver your opinion and do right in all matters which shall be put unto you without favour or affection, without affinity or consanguinity, love or fear, reward or gain, or for any hope thereof but in all things you shall deal uprightly and do wrong to no man. So help you God and by the contents of this book.’
My question: Who do MHKs serve?
Your comments are welcome.
No warming in seventeen years and nine months: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/04/the-pause-continues-still-no-global-warming-for-17-years-9-months/ yet the hysteria continues. Where is the logic here? Where is the conventional room for scientific debate? Amid threats, and even fear for his life, another scientist speaks out about IPCC pressure to adhere to the dogma or risk your future credibility in climate science circles. Professor Lennard Bengtsson has resigned from the Global Warming Policy Foundations advisory council stating:
I thought joining the organisation would provide a platform for me to bring more common sense into the global climate change debate.
‘I have been very concerned about tensions in the climate change community between activists and people who have questions.
This is not the first negative remark about the IPCC’s adherence to dogma, while it seemingly suppresses any evidence which contradicts the myth ( definition: a widely held but false belief or idea).
The scare stories continue. The 50,000,000 climate refugees forecast for 2010 thankfully did not materialise. The predicted warming is simply not happening – but why let facts stand in the way of a hugely profitable industry based on a dubious theory? However, the most curious part of all this is total lack of reference to the weather modification programmes which have been going on for decades. There exists no global database on who is spraying what and where and hence no information on how this impacts the climate (if there is a climate issue). Yet the climate clowns continue the brainwashing and ensure that those who are out of step are simply not heard. There is no debate. If you question this topic you become a ‘denier’. What kind of science is that? Not very reliable science, I would suggest.
Where is the warming? Please explain how you build up a global movement based on a myth. Words like profit, control and jobs come to mind.
Mea culpa. Mea culpa. Please forgive us for our (measly) consumption of CO2. We will of course self-flagellate by way of plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80% below the 1990 levels by 2050. Minister Gawne appears to ignore the fact that China and India may well increase CO2 production levels on a huge scale that puts them in a completely different league. In other words, our painful path to 80% CO2 reduction probably has very little effect on global statistics.
However, the really puzzling, yet noteworthy, omission in this morning’s Manx Radio soundbites is that the usual references to climate change (going back millennia ) contain not one reference to ongoing global geoengineering programmes and the effects these have on the weather – and climate. While DEFA continues to scourge us with the climate change/CO2 whip the department appears to prefer to withhold mention of a very pertinent factor in any climate change.
The fact is that man is changing the climate – intentionally. This is not only a possibility, or a theory, it is a very real and documented fact. While DEFA appears to have attempted to avoid discussion of this topic in the past, it must now not only be acknowledged but should be accompanied by the admission that while this practice continues unabated, unrestricted and unmonitored by any global authority, it has also been responsible for droughts in some countries while others enjoyed the necessary rainfall. It does not seem unreasonable to suggest that some have suffered from drought while others have suffered from severe deluges. They tell us there are winners and losers in this game. But did they consult us about this? Did they obtain our consent? They spray and alter the weather accordingly and then omit to mention this when they resume the usual lashings of blame on the commuter, the traveller or the pensioner attempting to keep warm under whatever weather conditions have been imposed upon him.
The UK Met Office is certainly privy to what is going on. Is the public clued up? We are not only entitled to be informed it is the duty of those presently attempting to further restrict our life quality, by wielding the CO2 whip, to supply us with all available information and it is the duty of those responsible for weather manipulation to obtain our consent. Do you consent to this manipulation of global weather? And if, for instance, the bizarre snowfalls of 2013 were to be attributed to weather manipulation, then who is to be held responsible – and by which means?
Is it really ok to harp on about CO2 production, while ignoring the very real and determined measures to alter weather and climate which are presently in use?
Met Office researchers have called for global oversight of the radical schemes after studies showed they could have huge and unintended impacts on some of the world’s most vulnerable people. ….The dangers arose in projects that cooled the planet unevenly. In some cases these caused devastating droughts across Africa; in others they increased rainfall in the region but left huge areas of Brazil parched.
And how are our environmental protectors affording us protection from the associated pollution?
Is the theory of man-made climate change a fanciful notion? This scary scenario is being sold to us from every imaginable source. Schoolchildren have been subjected to very graphic predictions of rising tides, causing unreasonable and unacceptable fear in some cases. Every weather event is now attributed to ‘climate change’. And the Isle of Man Government website has a brochure dedicated to predicted climate change related water shortage. Dream on!
However, man is definitely affecting weather, and hence climate, in devastating ways. Of that there is no doubt. Geooengineering projects are being carried out on a global scale. This is fact:
Strangely, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change does not appear to take this into consideration in their ‘models’. Instead the doom, gloom theorists prefer to put the blame on every one of us while ignoring the huge ongoing geoengineering programmes. Unsurprisingly, DEFA spokespersons concur with this theory. Those of us who do not are of course dubbed ‘climate change deniers.’ Would it be unkind or unfair to suggest that DEFA might require fewer personnel if CO2 were discovered to have little impact on things and that some might have a vested interest in perpetuating the theory?
While the innumerable, and to some extent unknown, (because there is no global database on who is spraying what) global geoengineering projects are undoubtedly affecting the weather it would seem that DARPA (Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency) and the US Navy have been tweaking the ionosphere, which can move the Jet Stream.
“They can use [HAARP] to warm the upper atmosphere to lift it, to create domes [in the ionosphere]. …Once you’ve got the particulates via the chemtrails laid out in the sky, you can deposit heat in the atmosphere. And as you deposit it and warm the air you create a high pressure and if you continually pulse zone – grid by grid by grid, you can accentuate that high pressure that is in place and thereby diverting the jet stream north or south of that island of air.”
Scott Stevens former TV weather presenter.
How often have exceptional weather events been attributed to Jet Stream displacement?
HAARP is to be decommissioned, but only because the US Military now has much more effective means of messing with the weather as disclosed in this video:
Is the heavy aerial spraying an essential part of the new technology? It seems that some environmental agencies are working to discover what is going on. In the following video the speaker admits that the spraying is having a very negative on the planet.
It seems that our environmental agency has little interest in protecting the environment but huge interest in thrusting a theory down our throats. This is not acceptable.
Armed with the remote, the Pringles and the chilled drinks many television viewers seem unable to process or consider what they are being told. Why else would there have been no comment on the following detailed description of military aerial spraying and the resultant effect on satellite images of weather fronts?
Military aircraft are involved in the spraying of aluminium? Isn’t that the element implicated in Alzheimers and autism? Would this have an effect on the planet and forests and wildlife? Of course. Yet where are the protests from our environmental agencies? Yes, the footage does emanate from the US but with open skies policies and no monitoring of aircraft outside of a certain elevation, together with the fact that DEFA does not monitor air content apart from periodic tests of particle size, who knows what is in the air?
As the following BBC documentary shows, the British Government has previously adopted a very cavalier attitude towards the population and when the details of aerial spraying emerged we were told that the cadmium spray (yes, cadmium!) was harmless. Well, that will be fine then. Because we have an assurance from the British Government? References are made to the fact that this happened in the Cold War period. We discover that some police were in the know. Easily silenced under security regulations? How does this compare to today’s reaction to the supposed dire threat of terrorism ? (Just ignore the millions dying of cancer and other illnesses produced by pollution). It would also be very easy to silence those in the know.
If you care about your health and that of your family, why do you remain silent in face of substantial and mounting evidence that our air is being intentionally polluted? It is irrational and irresponsible to ignore what we are seeing and what we are being told.
PS This explains how little monitoring occurs.