Category: Behind the News

From New Dawn 175 (Jul-Aug 2019)

Weather modification is a reality. Every four years, the United Nations’ World Meteorological Organisation publishes a multi-hundred-page report on civilian weather modification undertaken by dozens and dozens of nations around the world. 

The two primary reasons for civilian weather modification are the inducement of rain in drought-stricken regions to help crop growth and the suppression of hailstones, which can damage crops. The chemicals used include dry ice and silver iodide. The most common and practical means of chemical dispersion are via small aeroplanes that fly into the troposphere where clouds form. 

Needless to say, the military have always been interested in weather modification. In the 1950s, the British Royal Air Force flooded the small twin towns of Lynton and Lynmouth when, as part of Operation Cumulus, they unleashed a deluge by dumping dry ice into clouds, killing 34 people. From the late-1960s to the 1970s, the US Defense Department used weather as a weapon in the Vietnam War (Project Popeye).

But climate modification is much bigger. Unlike weather modification, there is no concrete evidence that climate modification is happening on a large scale. But there are plenty of clues that covert planning and even operations could be underway. Weather control implies manipulating localised climates for a short period. Climate control implies altering global weather patterns and temperatures for months or even years. Like those involved in weather modification, there is overlap between civilian and military scientists. Like weather modification, the civilian and military tools used in the alteration of the climate – aircraft, chemicals, science, analysis – also overlap. Unlike weather modification, the existence of which few deny (though its effectiveness is still debated), authorities in science, government and the military deny that deliberate climate modification is happening. 

In more recent years, climate modification has been known as geoengineering. Since at least the early-1960s, the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) expressed curiosity about geoengineering. This article charts the history of the CIA’s interest in the topic.

CIA in the ‘60s: “A Totally New Type Of Warfare”

In the context of the Cold War and the emerging science of climate change, individuals linked to the US military strategised the weaponisation of the climate. The earliest reference to the CIA’s interest in climate modification appears to date back to November 1960, when the Agency was forwarded a confidential report on the topic. The report states: “Militarily, a climatic control capability raises the possibility of a totally new type of warfare. This type of warfare may be termed ‘Geophysical Warfare’ in which our ability to control the weather environment can be used as a weapon.” 

Rear Admiral Luis de Florez was an aviation pioneer working for the US Navy. Florez forwarded the confidential report on climate modification to the CIA’s Deputy Director, Gen. Charles P. Cabell. The report was written by the Research Division of the Travellers Insurance Company, headed by the geophysicist, Dr Thomas F. Malone. Like de Florez, Malone was a military man, having served in the Air Force as a weather forecaster. Like Florez, Malone was connected to MIT, having graduated and then taught at the Institute. Malone’s report advocated “The Need for a Climate Control Study Program” and is worth quoting at length. It says, “Large scale climate control requires the modification of the global weather patterns by altering and interfering with the large-scale physical processes which are associated with the characteristic motions on the scale of the general circulation of the atmosphere.”

People who believe that stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) of particulate matter is occurring today note the whitening of our skies (albedo effect) by persistent trails left by high-altitude aircraft. The memo notes that “proposals have been made to alter the energy balance of large areas by altering the surface albedo. Proposals of this nature involve changing surface albedos by the use of substances of appropriate absorptive or reflective characteristics which differ from the natural surface.” Ergo, the concept of SAI dates back to at least the early-1960s. Conversely, “An example is the proposal that polar areas be covered with layers of soot” to cause warming. In the 1970s, Colorado University proposed modifying jet afterburner engines to release carbon black dust (soot) in order to stimulate precipitation. 

With regards to scientific climate control in general, the 1960 report notes, “Other proposals are made to alter the energy balance of the atmosphere by injecting dust and other particulate matter into the high atmosphere which might alter the input of solar energy to the atmosphere.” This is relevant to today’s proposed geoengineering because, what has just been quoted, describes modern SAI proposals/possible secret programs. Later, we shall examine the CIA’s contemporary interest in SAI. 

The memo adds, “Proposals for altering the normal energy cycle of the atmosphere extend also to the alteration of the chemistry of atmospheric substances especially in the high atmosphere which might also affect radiational balance (sic).” Instead of seeding hurricanes with silver iodide and other chemicals as previous researchers had, in an effort to weaken and even attempt to steer hurricanes, climate modification (“changes in circulation regimes”) could “affect the normal paths of destructive storms.” But for this, supercomputers were needed. Computers allow for “various physical processes” to “be studied under controlled conditions.” The memo notes that “it has now become feasible not only to speculate about the consequences of human intervention in the atmospheric processes but also to stimulate, test and study these consequences.” 

DARPA’S “Nile Blue” & the Origins of Climate Science

Formalised climate research began in the 1970s at the Pentagon’s Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) with Project Nile Blue. Climate research continues today at various civilian institutions. ARPA later tagged the prefix “Defense” to its name for good measure. It is now known as DARPA. In the 1990s, weather modifying military scientists instructed potential weather weaponisers to “look for the butterfly,” meaning look for small effects that can be used to trigger much bigger phenomena. The 1960s report says the same. It advises readers that “so-called ‘trigger mechanisms’ will probably require access to energy sources of immense magnitude for proper exploitation. In this atomic age, we now have available truly immense potential sources of power, and it is highly likely that our lifetime will see the harnessing of hydrogen fusion power.” It is relevant that US military agencies were interested in using nuclear energy to modify the climate because they feared that the Soviets were doing the same. In fact, fear of Soviet nuclear testing for climate modification stimulated the US military’s interest in climate change science.

In March 1971, the Soviet Union detonated three nuclear bombs in an effort to form a canal trench. US sensors detected the blasts and the US charged the Soviets with violating the Limited Test Ban Treaty (1963). The US considered this domestic irrigation operation to be an act of geoengineering (albeit land-based). The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) was tasked with studying the climate to monitor any possible Soviet manipulations of the climate. Air Force Officer John Perry, who had a background in meteorology, was put in charge of the program, which was codenamed Nile Blue. The $3 million project (about $20 million in today’s money) was coordinated with the head of DARPA’s nuclear monitoring, Eric Willis.

(D)ARPA researchers created the ARPANET, which others developed into the Internet. (D)ARPA also ran ILLIAC IV, an early supercomputer. But ILLIAC IV was at risk of being de-funded, so it seemed the perfect fit for Nile Blue, which had a respectable budget and needed the services of a supercomputer. DARPA’s research concluded in 1976. But it helped establish a national climate change research program, later expanded by civilian agencies, including the National Science Foundation and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Into the 21^st Century: The CIA & Climate Change

In 2009, the CIA established the Center on Climate Change and National Security. (Congress closed it three years later.) The Center included representatives from the Directorate of Intelligence and the Directorate of Science and Technology. The Center aimed to “provide support to American policymakers as they negotiate, implement, and verify international agreements on environmental issues. That is something the CIA has done for years.” Then-CIA Director Leon Panetta said: “Decision makers need information and analysis on the effects climate change can have on security. The CIA is well positioned to deliver that intelligence.”

Two years later, two consultants working for the CIA, Michael Canes and Roger Lueken, asked the civilian climate scientist, Dr Alan Robock, some disturbing questions. They asked if: a) the US could be detected if it were to modify the climate, and b) if enemy states could be detected doing the same. Interestingly, Canes and Lueken asked whether a thin layer of cloud could be spotted by satellites or by other means. This confirms that if the US were to use aeroplanes in stratospheric geoengineering programs or experiments, such programs/experiments would produce thin stratospheric clouds. But thin stratospheric clouds are called cirrus. Aeroplanes naturally produce human-made cirrus in the form of persistent condensation trails. Many credible witnesses have long-reported unusual, persistent trails (known as “chemtrails”) in areas where commercial jets don’t usually fly. Could these observations have anything to do with the thin cloud cover noted by Canes and Lueken?

Robock responded to the CIA contractors, saying that “there’s no way to do [large-scale geoengineering] without the agreement of the rest of the world. I guess a country could do it over its own territory.” Robock also responded to the question of whether the US could detect others modifying its climate: “If somebody was creating a thin cloud in the lower stratosphere we could detect that with our current satellite and ground-based observational system. We can see the effects of various small volcanic eruptions.” He said, “If somebody were sailing ships around the ocean brightening clouds, we could see the lines in the clouds with satellite imagery. And we could see the airplanes or the ships that were doing it. So it would be impossible to do it in secret.” Robock told a journal: “Of course, what they were also asking is, ‘Can we control somebody else’s climate?’” 

Robock made another important statement: that the CIA had funded a major National Academy of Science conference which resulted in two reports. “It was funded mainly by the CIA. The CIA asked several other agencies, like NASA and NOAA, to help fund it, so that the report would look like a joint effort.” NOAA is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “I was told it was almost all the CIA, which goes by the ‘US intelligence community’ in the report. What’s wrong with this picture? The CIA wants to figure out how to control the globe’s weather.”

The conference produced two reports: Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration and Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth. 

Consider the speech given in 2016 by then-CIA Director John Brennan to the US Council on Foreign Relations, which discusses atmospheric whitening and carbon removal, like the reports Robock mentioned. Brennan notes “the array of technologies, often referred to collectively as geoengineering, that potentially could help reverse the warming effects of global climate change.” Brennan goes on to say, “One that has gained my personal attention is stratospheric aerosol injection, or SAI.” Recall that the 1960s report passed onto the CIA was discussing SAI (then under a different name). Brennan describes SAI as “a method of seeding the stratosphere with particles that can help reflect the sun’s heat in much the same way that volcanic eruptions do.” Brennan goes on to note that, “An SAI program could limit global temperature increases, reducing some risks associated with higher temperatures, and providing the world economy additional time to transition from fossil fuels.” As Robock pointed out, the question is, could it be detected? Brennan adds, “This process is also relatively inexpensive. The National Research Council estimates that a fully deployed SAI program would cost about $10 billion yearly.”

“As promising as it may be, moving forward on SAI would also raise a number of challenges for our government and for the international community,” Brennan continues. “On the technical side, greenhouse gas emission reductions would still have to accompany SAI to address other climate change effects, such as ocean acidification, because SAI alone would not remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere…. On the geopolitical side, the technology’s potential to alter weather patterns and benefit certain regions of the world at the expense of other regions could trigger sharp opposition by some nations.” Brennan concludes: “Others might seize on SAI’s benefits and back away from their commitment to carbon dioxide reductions. And as with other breakthrough technologies, global norms and standards are lacking to guide the deployment and implementation of SAI and other geoengineering initiatives.” 

Conclusion

What other evidence exists for military interest in geoengineering? In a projection out to 2045, the British Ministry of Defence (MoD) writes:

“Theoretically plausible geoengineering methods (intentional, large-scale activities intended to counteract aspects of climate change) have been proposed for a number of years. Detailed studies on the environmental implications of different geoengineering activities have recently begun to appear, but large-scale testing and implementation of such methods has not occurred – in some cases due to public opposition.” 

The document adds:

“One theoretical ‘solar radiation management’ technique would aim to disperse sulphates into the upper atmosphere, reflecting the sun’s rays back out to space, producing a cooling effect. However, as with most geoengineering techniques, there are questions about how to maintain the intervention, and minimise the potentially harmful side-effects. For example, it is not known what the longterm effects of dispersing large quantities of sulphates into the atmosphere would be. Over-reliance on particular geoengineering technology to mitigate the effects of climate change could also render users vulnerable to catastrophic effects if equipment failed or was sabotaged. It is not clear therefore what, if any, role geoengineering will play by 2045 in countering the effects of climate change, and the extent to which it could heighten international tensions.” 

Another UK MoD report out to 2050 states:

“The cost of climate change to governments and societies will increase and, as time passes, mitigation measures will become increasingly complex and expensive to implement. The demand for a coordinated global campaign to address climate change will grow as acute effects are felt from an increasingly volatile climate and concerns develop about an approaching ecological ‘tipping point’. Geoengineering (deliberate, large-scale manipulation of an environmental process) could become a strategic geopolitical (and irreversible) choice for governments… Defence and security planning assumptions, not least access, basing routes, logistics and environmental envelope in which military capabilities will have to operate, will need to be reviewed.”

The report concludes by noting the possibility of “unilateral adoption of geoengineering.” It would seem that the CIA’s interest in geoengineering, which dates back to at least the 1960s, has fuelled contemporary debates on the subject within military circles. The military origins of supercomputers and their uses in climate modelling have blurred the distinction between civilian and military climate change studies. Keep watching the skies!

[alert type=”general” dismiss=”no”]This article was published in New Dawn 175.[/alert]

[alert type=”success” dismiss=”no”]If you appreciate this article, please consider subscribing to help maintain this website.[/alert]

Footnotes

1. For a scholarly history, see James R. Fleming (2010) Fixing the Sky, Columbia University Press 

2. WMO Expert Team on Weather Modification’s website, www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/wwrp/new/weathermod_new.html

3. AIR 2/13343, “Rainfall of August 15th 1952: Flooding at Lynmouth, opened 18 August 1952.”

4. Memorandum From the Deputy Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs (Kohler) to Secretary of State Rusk, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964-1968, Vol. XXVIII, Laos, State Department, Office of the Historian, Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v28/d274. For extended discussion, see Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation (1979) Weather Modification: Programs, Problems, Policy, and Potential, 9th Congress, 2nd Session, Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, pp. 36, 428, 433

5. One report suggests that, unlike weather modification, geoengineering involves changing global temperatures. The Royal Society (2009), Geoengineering the climate Science, governance and uncertainty, London: RS, p. 4, https://royal
society.org/~/media/royal_society_content/policy/publications/2009/8693.pdf

6. The earliest scientific, in situ weather modification experiment, Project Cirrus (1940s), involved civilian scientists (researchers and theorists), the General Electric corporation (financiers), federal and local authorities (who authorised it), and the military (which provided equipment and share data). Barrington S. Havens (1952), History of Project Cirrus, Armed Services Technical Information Agency and General Electric Research Laboratory, Research Publication Services, https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/006880.pdf

7. For instance: “A coalition representing the most powerful academic, military, scientific and corporate interests has set its sights on vast potential profits … Notable among the group is David Whelan, a man who spent years in the US defence department working on the stealth bomber and nuclear weapons and who now leads a group of people as Boeing’s chief scientist.” John Vidal, “Big names behind US push for geoengineering,” Guardian, 6 October 2011, www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2011/oct/06/us-push-geoengineering

8. CIA (1960), “Climate control,” Memorandum, Executive Registry No. 60-9040, www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP78-03425A002100020014-2.pdf

9. William M. Gray and William M. Frank (1974), Weather Modification by Carbon Dust Absorption of Solar Energy Atmospheric, Science Paper 225, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, https://
tropical.colostate.edu/media/sites/111/2016/10/225_Gray.pdf

10. This was Project Stormfury. See J.H. Chaffe, M.H. Stans, E.T. Harding and R.M. White (1969) Project Stormfury Annual Report 1969, ESSA-SP-NHRL-71-08, Springfield, National Technical Information Service, https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/717498.pdf

11. Arnold A. Barnes (1997) “Weather modification,” Technology Test Symposium ’97, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Weather Modification/PL/GPA/AAB/970402 21, https://r3zn8d.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/haarp-weather-modification-test-technology-symposium-1997-
usaf-dr-arnold-a-barnes-jr.pdf

12. Sharon Weinberger, “How Soviet Bomb Tests Paved the Way For U.S. Climate Science,” The Smithsonian Magazine, 7 May 2018, www.
smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-soviet-bomb-test-led-us-climate-science-180968890/

13. CIA, “CIA opens Center on climate change and national security,” Historical Document, 25 September 2009, www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/center-on-climate-change-and-national-security.html

14. See, for instance, Robert J. Fitrakis (2005), The Fitrakis Files: Star Wars, Weather Mods & Full Spectrum Dominance, Columbus Alive, Inc.

15. Alan Robock, “Cloud control: Climatologist Alan Robock on the effects of geoengineering and nuclear war,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 71(3): 1-7

16. Council on Foreign Relations, “John Brennan on Transnational Threats to Global Security,” 29 June 2016, www.cfr.org/event/john-brennan-
transnational-threats-global-security

17. MoD (2014) Strategic Trends Programme Global Strategic Trends – Out to 2045, MoD, p. 38, https://espas.secure.europarl.europa.eu/orbis/sites/default/files/generated/document/en/MinofDef_Global%20Strategic%20Trends%20-%202045.pdf

18. Ministry of Defence (2018 (6th ed.)), Global Strategic Trends: The Future Starts Today, MoD, pp. 13, 57, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/771309/Global_Strategic_Trends_-_The_Future_Starts_Today.pdf

© New Dawn Magazine and the respective author.
For our reproduction notice, click here.

From New Dawn Special Issue Vol 18 No 3 (June 2024)

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK) has been appointed by US President Donald Trump to head the Health and Human Services Department. He leads the “Make America Healthy Again” movement. Here is a selection of his statements from recent interviews.

“A conspiracy theory is just something the government doesn’t want you to hear and doesn’t want you to think about.”

“The cost of autism is now a trillion dollars a year. My generation, I’m 70… I had eleven siblings [and] 70 cousins – nobody with a peanut allergy. Why do five of my seven kids have allergies? The autism rate in my generation today, right now, 2024, one in 10,000. 70-year-old men have autism. In my kid’s generation, it’s one in every 34 kids. One in every 22 boys, according to CDC. Nobody’s talking about this? This is bankrupting our country. It’s a trillion dollars a year just for autism… Nobody’s talking about why is this happening?”¹

• • •

“Americans didn’t suddenly get lazy. We’re being mass poisoned by a food industry that is highly subsidised, and that owns Congress… We’re the only country in the world that allows public funding for food to go to soft drinks. 10% of food stamps are going to sugar water that is designed to make you diabetic.”

Over 90% of US medicare bills are going towards treating chronic disease, a health epidemic that Kennedy describes as “gravy trains for pharma.”²

• • •

“When I was a kid, a typical paediatrician would see one case of diabetes in his entire career, juvenile diabetes. Today, one out of every three kids who walks through his door is either prediabetic or diabetic.”

“Something’s wrong. It’s high fructose corn syrup, and it’s glyphosate and neonicotinoids and atrazine and all the other crap that is in our food. We’re not feeding people; we’re poisoning them.”³

• • •

Three jury trials have now ruled that Roundup causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma and cancer. “We’re being poisoned,” says Kennedy.

Kennedy said cell phone radiation causes glioblastomas (a type of brain cancer) and penetration of the blood-brain barrier. A case in front of a full court of appeals panel ruled that “conspiracy theory” to be true.⁴

• • •

“When Columbine happened, [families of the victims] sued [Luvox]. And there are SSRIs [antidepressants]. I’ve talked about this. I’m not saying this is the answer. [I’m] saying it’s something that we should look at – that SSRIs have black box labels and benzos that say, ‘known to cause suicidal and homicidal behaviour.’ It says that.”⁵

• • •

“The money-making scheme goes as follows: 60% of Americans have at least one chronic disease. Who does that benefit? Big Pharma. Who owns portions of all major pharmaceutical companies? The answer: BlackRock. It goes even deeper. People are sick because they’re eating processed foods with ingredients that are banned in European countries. Who owns portions of all major processed food companies? The answer is BlackRock. And who is one of the biggest donors to both the Republican and Democratic parties? Once again, the answer is BlackRock.”

Kennedy says both parties are “not allowed to solve” the chronic disease epidemic. Why? “Because there are people making money on that problem who are giving them money.”⁶

• • •

“The worst thing that you can do in a democracy is to censor speech… If you have a government that can silence its critics, it has license for any atrocity.”

“Today, they’re letting pharmaceutical companies censor doctors and scientists who differ with the official orthodoxies on COVID. But I’ve been around long enough to know that once the Big Tech firms know that they can get away with that, the oil companies will be back next in line to censor their critics. The coal companies, the chemical companies, the processed food industry. Everybody else is going to get in line. Once we say, ‘That’s okay,’ we’ve let a genie out of the bottle.”⁷

• • •

Pandemic policies “destroyed an entire generation of kids and their learning.” The government “violated every pandemic protocol that we’ve developed over 50 years.”

“You do not shut down a country for respiratory illness because everybody knows it’s going to go through anyway. And it was an illness that spread indoors, not outdoors. And we knew that from the beginning.”⁸

• • •

“There are only two entities in America who are immune from litigation: the US Army Corps of Engineers and pharmaceutical companies in their production of vaccines. That’s it. And the rest of us are held accountable when we harm someone — but not Big Pharma’s vaccines.”

“Why do you think these drug companies are spending so much money on ads during the news? It’s not to sell their products. They’re doing just fine with that. It’s because they want to control the message.”⁹

• • •

RFK on the War Business Model

“This is a war [Russia vs Ukraine] that should have never happened. It’s a war that Russians tried repeatedly to settle, on terms that were very beneficial to Ukrainians. The major thing they [the Russians] wanted was for us to keep NATO out of the Ukraine. The big military contractors want to add new countries to NATO all the time. Why? Because that country has to conform its military purchases to NATO weapons specifications. Which means certain companies – Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Boeing and Lockheed – get a trapped market…

“[US Senate Republican leader] Mitch McConnell was asked can we really afford to send billions to Ukraine? He said don’t worry, it’s not really going to Ukraine but to American defence manufacturers. So he admitted it’s a money laundering scheme.

“And who do you think owns every one of these companies? BlackRock….

“So they are doing this right in front of us. They dont even care that we know anymore because they know they can get away with it. How do they know that? Because they have a strategy. And that strategy is an old, old strategy, which is they keep us at war with each other. They keep us hating each other.”¹⁰

[alert type=”general” dismiss=”no”]This article was published in New Dawn Special Issue Vol 18 No 3.[/alert]

[alert type=”success” dismiss=”no”]If you appreciate this article, please consider subscribing to help maintain this website.[/alert]

Footnotes

1. youtube.com/watch?v=1BFWR3FC2t8

2. youtube.com/watch?v=oxXiS-HAkLA

3. rumble.com/v4li860-rfk-jr-were-being-mass-poisoned-by-our-food.html

4. open.spotify.com/episode/3DQfcTY4viyXsIXQ89NXvg

5. youtube.com/watch?v=1BFWR3FC2t8

6. youtube.com/watch?v=YJqjOPUOujQ

7. vigilantnews.com/post/rfk-jr-issues-grave-warning-that-everyone-needs-to-hear

8. vigilantnews.com/post/rfk-jr-hits-chris-cuomo-with-a-series-of-covid-truth-bombs

9. x.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/1786816692611592223

10. x.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/1756561127557718286?s=20

© New Dawn Magazine and the respective author.
For our reproduction notice, click here.

From New Dawn Special Issue Vol 14 No 2 (Apr 2020)

Fluoridation amounts to public murder on a grand scale. 
– Dr. Dean Burk

More than sixty long years have passed since community water fluoridation began in Beaconsfield, Tasmania. A few decades passed and most of Australia’s water supplies had become fluoridated. 

When fluoride was first added to water supplies, asbestos was the preferred fireproofing material, PCBs were used as insulation and in pesticides, and the notoriously “safe and effective” DDT was sprayed in schools and from airplanes over large populations, killing tens of thousands of people from cancer and other diseases. All of these chemicals have been banned, except fluoridation. 

The first country to enforce fluoridation was the US that started this practice in 1945 and continues it to this day. Fluoridation is not a common practice, and in 2012 only about 5% of the world consumed fluoridated water. In the US, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) has proclaimed that water fluoridation is “one of public health’s greatest success stories” and “one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.” 

Likewise, the Australian Department of Health declared that water fluoridation has been “endorsed by leading organisations in Australia and internationally,” and it has “made a significant contribution to improving the oral health of Australians.” Regarding safety issues, they claim there is “no evidence that water fluoridation at Australian levels is associated with other health effects such as thyroid dysfunction or cancer.” Many government scientists agree with these statements, such as Matthew Hopcraft, Clinical Associate Professor at the Melbourne Dental School. In 2017, he published an article claiming that fluoridation is “one of our greatest public health achievements, with evidence gathered over more than 60 years showing it works and is safe.” He went as far as to state that “making up infant formula with fluoridated tap water at levels found in Australia is safe.” 

Australian water supplies contain about 1 ppm of fluoride, i.e. one milligram per litre of water. If we adopt the mainstream reasoning that governments and their scientists serve the interest of the people, then there is no reason to dig any further. However, if we consider tobacco and numerous other hazardous chemicals and practices that at one point were touted to be safe by health authorities, then we should always be highly sceptical of “official truths.” In fact, numerous peer-reviewed studies demonstrate that Australian health authorities have deceived the public about the dangers of fluoridation. 

Intelligence 

While the CDC and many other organisations praise and glorify water fluoridation on their respective websites and elsewhere, they omit a massive body of peer-reviewed studies that correlate fluoride exposure with reduced IQ in humans. In fact, 64 studies that included a total of 23,773 children and 245 adults have documented this link. Many of these studies examined fluoride levels equivalent to or lower than the concentration found in Australian water supplies and adjusted for relevant variables such as socioeconomic status and toxins that affect IQ. 

Mainstream ‘experts’ also omit numerous animal studies that have thoroughly established fluoride can produce cognitive impairment in animals and bring about “anxiety-depression-like behaviours in mice” (Liu et al., 2014). Here are quotations from a small sample of these studies. Bartos and associates concluded in 2019 that “the present study reveals that exposure to [fluoride] in early stages of rat development leads to impairment of memory in young offspring.” Another rat study revealed that “the learning and memory of rats in [the fluoride] group significantly decreased” (Zheng et al., 2016). Jetti et al. showed in their 2016 study that “the rats that received fluoride water exhibited impairment in their spatial learning and memory deficits.” In 2014, a study led by Jiang S. reached the conclusion that “fluoride and arsenic, either alone or combined, can decrease learning and memory ability in rats.” Chioca and co-workers concluded in their 2008 study, which can be found in the European Journal of Pharmacology, that “moderate intoxication with sodium fluoride has potentially deleterious effects on learning and memory.” 

Dozens of animal studies have shown adverse cognitive effects in animals as well as many other issues not covered to any degree in this article, including cancer, infertility, loss of bone strength, and genetic damage, each topic requiring lengthy dissertations to cover. 

Now we will briefly summarise the conclusions of a few selected epidemiological studies. In 2009, Sudhir and co-workers studied 1,000 schoolchildren exposed to several degrees of fluoride: <0.7 ppm, 0.7-1.2 ppm, 1.3-4.0 ppm, and >4.0 ppm. Sudhir and his research team observed that the “number of intellectually impaired children were gradually increased with the increase in fluoride concentration in the drinking water” and a “high fluoride environment adversely affects the development of intelligence in children.”

Ding and co-workers examined low fluoride levels, between 0.24 and 2.84 ppm, and how they had affected 331 children. They showed that 1 mg of fluoride present in urine was associated with a 0.59-point decrease in IQ. Their study, which was published in 2011 in the Journal of Hazardous Materials, reached the conclusion that “low levels of fluoride exposure in drinking water had negative effects on children’s intelligence and dental health and confirmed the dose-response relationships between urine fluoride and IQ scores as well as dental fluorosis.” 

Excessive fluoride intake produces easily seen damage to tooth enamel, called dental fluorosis. In its most severe form, the enamel begins to erode and crumble, often giving the appearance that the teeth are “rotten,” resulting in severe psychological problems, especially among children. Dental fluorosis becomes especially concerning when we consider the CDC’s own study on dental fluorosis in the United States. In the period 1999–2004, the prevalence of dental fluorosis in adolescents, aged 12–15, was 40.6%. For children and adolescents, aged 6-19, a total of 37% had dental fluorosis. A follow-up study by Eman Behbehani that focused on the period 2011-2012 showed that the number of affected had increased to 57% for those aged 6 to 19. Contrary to mainstream experts, fluoridation not only destroys health but also teeth and does so irreversibly. Numerous large-scale studies by independent scientists have demonstrated that populations with unfluoridated water do not have a higher incidence of cavities than in the US and Australia and that fluoridation is ineffective at best. 

Urine-fluoride levels are scrupulously (or rather unscrupulously) avoided by mainstream pro-fluoridation scientists in the US and Australia. However, one of the few studies that can be dug up dates back to 1985, named “Urinary fluoride levels in South Australian pre-school children in summer and winter.” It was found that in an area of South Australia (1 ppm of fluoride) the mean urine-fluoride level was 1.72 mg per litre during winter (note that children do not consume as much water as adults). A total of 103 children were excluded from the study as their parents fed them fluoride tablets as recommended by the government. According to the British Fluoridation Society, about 17,600,000 Australians consumed artificially fluoridated water in 2012. By invoking the data from the aforementioned study by Ding, it can be shown that fluoride in Australia is associated with a loss of at least 17.9 million IQ points. As we shall see, this figure underestimates the true nature of the carnage. 

In 2019, a major study was published in JAMA Pediatrics titled “Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada.” This study, which had been funded by the US National Institute of Environmental Health Science and by the Canadian government, demonstrated that an increase of 1 mg of fluoride in urine among pregnant women resulted in a 4.5-point decrease in IQ among boys, and collectively for both genders a drop of 3.66 IQ-points could be documented. 

It gets much worse. The US government approved and secretly installed “fluoridators” in schools across the US in the 1960s, and possibly earlier, and continued until the 1990s to adjust fluoride levels to as high as 5.4 ppm. In 1992, over 100,000 school children were exposed to this horror. Dr Philippe Grandjean of the Harvard School of Public Health, who has published several papers on fluoride, stated in 2014 that “fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain.” 

In a presentation on fluoride, renowned neurosurgeon Dr Russell Blaylock asked: “If you’ve demonstrated [that fluoridation] doesn’t reach its objective: that is reducing cavities… Why is it still being added to the water? If it has these profound health effects, why is it still being added to the water?… Either they’re incredibly stupid and incompetent or criminal or they are doing it on purpose.”

Other Health Effects

This article has briefly examined a few selected studies revealing that fluoride affects IQ, but the problem does not end there. Fluoride causes havoc in the body. Fluoridation can damage the male reproductive system (see, for example, Freni et al., 1994), and studies from China, India, Mexico, and Russia show that high fluoride exposure can reduce male testosterone levels (see, for example, Peizhong et al., 1997). Those who live in fluoridated areas are well-advised to filter all of their water (even that which is used for showering). Inexpensive water filters removing fluoride are easily accessible (e.g. ZeroWater). Toothpaste without fluoride is readily available in health stores and online. 

Dr Dean Burk, one of the most famous and decorated cancer research scientists in the world during the 20th century, and Dr John Yiamouyiannis, president of the Safe Water Foundation, compared in a 1975 epidemiological survey the cancer mortality rate of central cities in the United States that were either fluoridated or unfluoridated. Prior to fluoridation, the cancer death rate remained identical for both sets of cities, but subsequent to fluoridation the cancer death rate skyrocketed in the fluoridated cities, but not in the unfluoridated ones. In 1976, Dr Burk was asked: “Is this conclusive evidence that fluoride kills because of cancer?” He replied as follows: “It is one of the most conclusive bits of scientific and biological evidence that I have come across in my 50 years in the field of cancer research.” He added, “[fluoridation] amounts to public murder on a grand scale.” 

The explosive findings were a thorn in the side of the pro-fluoridation policy of the US government, and the study was criticised, the main contention being that the association could be explained away by demographic changes. In 1977, Burk and Yiamouyiannis addressed the criticism in another survey. They showed that sex, race, and age did not explain the significant cancer deaths correlated to fluoride. 

The cancer-fluoride survey led to three historic trials in Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Texas in 1978-1982. Although pro-fluoridation scientists from the National Cancer Institute, the National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Statistical Society, and the Royal College of Physicians attempted to dispute the evidence, three veteran trial judges in three different States found that water fluoridation causes cancer and other ailments in humans. In each of the trials, it had been shown that the US government, or their surrogates, had attempted to conceal laboratory studies showing that fluoride causes cancer, and left out available and pertinent data in their demographic adjustment of surveys linking fluoridation and human cancer (Graham et al., 1999). These findings were never disturbed on appeal. 

After the judicial findings, Dr Burk and co-workers published more expansive adjustments of demographic factors in epidemiological data in 1984 and 1988, showing that the evidence presented in court was too conservative. Specifically, Burk, Graham, and Morin showed in 1988 that “artificial fluoridation appears to cause or induce about 20-30 excess cancer deaths for every 100,000 persons exposed per year after about 15-20 years.” Using this data, it can easily be shown that at least a million excess cancer deaths in the United States have been caused or promoted by water fluoridation since this measure was endorsed by the government of the United States in 1951.

Fluoride also affects behaviour. Following extensive peer-review in 1995, Mullenix and co-workers published their study into the possible neurotoxicity of fluoride in rats. In order to eliminate bias, Mullenix utilised a computer-pattern-recognition-system to detect if fluoride had an effect on behaviour. Strikingly, it was discovered that fluoride produced life-long changes in behaviour. If young rats were exposed to fluoride in their drinking water for a few weeks of the rat’s lifetime, it produced hypoactivity. Mullenix later said, “they became slower, ‘couch potatoes’ if you like.” They also gave a one-time subcutaneous injection of fluoride into pregnant rats. As the offspring of those rats grew up, they became distinctly hyperactive, indicating that fluoride affects different regions of the brain depending on the time exposure. Mullenix and her team also discovered that “there was major accumulations of fluoride in all the regions of the brain, and that some areas looked like there were greater accumulations than others, that were sex-determinant.” 

Several other animal and epidemiological studies have supported the conclusions drawn by Mullenix, including Jennifer Anne Luke’s PhD dissertation in 1997 which showed that fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland affecting melatonin production and results in accelerated onset of sexual maturation in female gerbils. In regard to hyperactivity, a 2015 study demonstrated that “state prevalence of artificial water fluoridation in 1992 significantly positively predicted state prevalence of ADHD in 2003, 2007 and 2011, even after controlling for socioeconomic status…. Each 1% increase in artificial fluoridation prevalence in 1992 was associated with approximately 67,000 to 131,000 additional ADHD diagnoses from 2003 to 2011” (Malin et al., 2015). 

Pursuant to Dr Blaylock, the effects of fluoridation and other environmental toxins are immense: “We’re seeing a society that not only has a lot more people of lower IQ, but a lot fewer people of higher IQ. In other words: a dumbing down, a chemical dumbing down of society. So everyone is sort of mediocre. That leaves them dependent on government, because they can’t excel. We have these people of lower IQ who are totally dependent. Then we have this mass of people who are going to believe anything they are told because they can’t really think clearly – and very few people of a very high IQ have good cognitive function who can figure this all out. And that’s what they want.”

Successive government officials, academics, mainstream experts, dentists, and journalists continue to cover-up fluoridation’s profoundly hazardous effects. The responsible parties must be hurled before the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity. 

[alert type=”general” dismiss=”no”]This article was published in New Dawn Special Issue Vol 14 No 2.[/alert]

[alert type=”success” dismiss=”no”]If you appreciate this article, please consider subscribing to help maintain this website.[/alert]

© New Dawn Magazine and the respective author.
For our reproduction notice, click here.

From New Dawn Special Issue Vol 18 No 2 (April 2024)

The odds against tomorrow for life on Earth are not good. Genocide in the guise of fake “pandemics”; the collapse of urban population centres; a Third World War… Pick your poison! Singly or a combination of mortal body blows to civilisation are progressively demolishing every aspect of modern culture before our own eyes.

Yet, all these fatal symptoms of a self-destructive society may be thrown into a cocked hat as pathetically puny compared to what the Cosmos has in mind for us.

Potential Collision Course with Earth

On 19 June 2004, three American astronomers at the Kitt Peak National Observatory in Tucson, Arizona, discovered a peanut-shaped asteroid on a potential collision course with Earth. Because Roy Tucker, David Tholen, and Fabrizio Bernardi determined that the object had a 2.7 per cent chance of hitting our planet during its next orbital pass, they christened the object Apophis, Greek for the Ancient Egyptian god of destruction, Apep. At 370 metres in length, Apophis is larger than Australia’s tallest building, Queensland Number One, by 47.5 metres, with an estimated total weight of 1.1 million tons of solid rock and nickel-iron.¹

The stony colossus will travel at speeds between 56,327 kilometres per hour and 72,420 kph after entering our atmosphere.² Too large for burning up through its frictional descent or in an airburst, its impact will result in a four-gigaton detonation.This is the equivalent of two hundred thousand atomic bombs of the type that destroyed Hiroshima near the close of World War Two. Or eight times the explosive force of Russia’s Czar Bomba, history’s largest man-made nuclear blast, on 30 October 1961, in the Novaya Zemlya archipelago of the Arctic Ocean.³

For example, if Apophis strikes downtown Sydney, 2.4 million residents in the metro area will be instantly vaporised.⁴ Another million victims would suffer second and third-degree burns within a twenty-six-mile radius of the impact zone, while an additional four hundred thousand persons outside the fireball would die from a resulting 272-decibel shockwave.⁵ Its 1,609-kph winds would claim more than one hundred thousand more lives as they obliterate virtually every man-made structure standing inside a twenty-one-kilometre radius from the blast centre.⁶ Sixty-three kilometres outside the impact zone and travelling at a reduced speed of 322 kph, the winds would still be powerful enough to take the lives of an additional thirty-five thousand people.⁷ The only thing to mark where Sydney once stood would be a black, smouldering impact crater, 5.1-kilometres across.⁸

Repercussions would not be confined to southeast New South Wales, burned by a 129-kilometre-wide firestorm. The two thousand cubic kilometres of debris and ash ejected into the atmosphere by the asteroid strike will block sunlight sufficiently long enough to halt food production on Earth for at least the following two years. Worldwide famine inevitably follows extensive damage to whole eco-systems, with the subsequent collapse of human agriculture.⁹

As such, Apophis could starve our fragile civilisation to death with a global famine, especially given that mankind’s natural living spaces are already stressed by decades of unrelieved industrial abuse. But we are hardly the first species to have similarly died out, as witness Earth’s previous five mass extinction events, the best known and most comparable example being the infamous asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs 65.5 million years ago. Accordingly, we can make no claim on uniqueness.

Asteroid Threat is Real

Astronomers have only recently come to realise that our world is circling through a cosmic shooting gallery thick with near misses, twenty-three hundred of which are identified and classified as “hazardous,” capable of colliding with our planet. Apophis is the most threatening of them all due to the unusually extreme nearness of its orbit. Astronomers assure us, however, that possibilities for its collision with any one of mankind’s five hundred and twelve urban population centres inhabited by one million or more residents is statistically impossible. Scholarly memory is short, however.

Just eleven years ago, a ten-thousand-ton meteor detonated 23.3 kilometres over the Russian city of Chelyabinsk. The air-burst’s 500 kilo-tonnes of TNT generated were equivalent to America’s “Ivy King” bomb, the largest pure-fission nuclear weapon ever tested by the United States. About fifteen hundred people in and around Chelyabinsk were injured, with one hundred twelve hospitalised, mainly due to flying shards of glass from windows shattered by the exploded object’s shock wave. Three thousand buildings in six cities across the region were damaged by the detonation and impacts.¹⁰ Had the 15 February 2013 bolide – which descended at nineteen kilometres per second – blew apart three seconds later, it would have consumed Chelyabinsk’s 1,160,000 residents in a rapid series of cataclysmic events not unlike the hypothetical annihilation of Sydney by Apophis, described above.

It would appear our cities are not immune from heaven-sent destruction. To be sure, most materials from outer space naturally fall into seas or lakes, covering as they do, seventy-one per cent of the Earth’s surface. This is little consolation, however, because the consequences of more than a million tons of solid rock falling at seventeen kilometres per second into a large body of water could be more catastrophic than the obliteration of a single metropolitan area. Some observers – the popular American astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson among them – calculate Apophis may strike the Pacific Ocean, five hundred km west of Santa Monica on Friday, 13 April 2029, at 8:46 p.m., local California time, when it is nearest our planet.¹¹

Should a collision occur in that area, the asteroid will cavitate a hole in the sea several kilometres across before exploding. The Sentry Risk Table estimates that Apophis would impact Earth with kinetic energy equivalent to twelve hundred megatons of TNT.¹² By way of comparison, the Japanese city of Nagasaki was destroyed in 1945 by a nuclear bomb rated at 1.2 megatons. The tsunami Apophis generates will rear up six hundred metres high to radiate outward in all directions, travelling at more than eight hundred kph. Making landfall in a succession of forty to fifty waves per minute, most forms of human habitation along a thousand kilometres up and down the west coast of the United States would be wiped from the face of the Earth.¹³ San Diego, Los Angeles, Sacramento and San Francisco will no longer exist. Coastal regions of Canada, Alaska and southwestern Asia, even Australia, but especially the Hawaiian Islands, would experience some serious after-effects. Terrible as the images were of the 2011 tsunami that took at least twenty thousand lives in Japan, they would pale at the prospect of thirty-nine million people killed by Apophis.

What are the Chances?

But is there any realistic potential for such an unprecedented occurrence? Astronomers at America’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory “announced that Apophis has no chance of impacting Earth in the next one hundred years.”¹⁴ This from the same people who were blind-sided at Chelyabinsk. They nonetheless concede that no other space rock of its size has more closely approached the Earth in recorded history. So close, in fact, Apophis will be easily visible to the naked eye by millions of observers in rural as well as darker suburban areas.

The outer space visitor will be clearly discernible through ordinary binoculars from most locations, when its brightness peaks at magnitude 3.1, while passing over Europe, Africa and western Asia at only five times the radius of the Earth, ten times closer than the Moon. The asteroid is expected to traverse the surface of our planet at less than twenty-nine thousand kilometres – a hair’s breadth, in astronomical terms – beneath the geosynchronous positions of orbiting communication satellites. To maintain their geo-stationary belt formation, they must maintain a constant altitude of 37,015 kms, which is sufficiently high to escape Earth’s gravity. If the satellites descended eight thousand kms to the level of Apophis during its close encounter, tidal forces would drag them down to destruction, as they can the in-coming asteroid.¹⁵

At the very least, its rotation axis will be altered, distorting the orbital path, thereby setting the scene for another scheduled engagement in 2036, when the great bolide will get another, more likely crack at hitting us. Its orbit could be additionally changed by even a partial resurfacing of the object’s surface, a subtle enough alteration causing it to crash, if not in five years, then, with increasing inevitability, sometime in a future return, perhaps no later than during another predicted return in 2068.

As Apophis streaks downward through the orbits of our 8,337 communications satellites, running into any one of them could engender at least an incremental deflection, nevertheless influential enough to nudge it on a direct heading toward Earth. Their numerical threat pales before the vast field of space junk encircling our planet. There may be as many as 170 million pieces of debris currently in orbit.¹⁶ While the vast majority are too small to track due to the limits of current technology, these fragments are no less dangerous. Combined, their numbers alone make at least several collisions with Apophis virtually inevitable. In fact, if the asteroid strikes anything over the next five years, its orbit will be warped potentially into a collision course, given its already close near-miss predicted for 2029.

Then there is the Yarkovsky Effect. Two years before his death in 1902, a Polish-Russian civil engineer, Ivan Osipovich Yarkovsky, discovered how the heating of a rotating object in space causes it to experience a force that, while subtle, leads to significant, long-term distortions in its orbit, particularly that of an asteroid. Its irregular interaction with solar radiation – alternating heating and cooling of opposite sides, as the object spins – effects its trajectory. As Nature magazine reports, “The Yarkovsky Effect is the main source of uncertainty in impact probability estimates for this asteroid.”¹⁷

Contributing to the incalculable complexity of its unpredictability is the out-gassing an asteroid undergoes as it nears the sun when rising temperatures elicit trajectory-diverting jets. Endeavouring to factor in all these unstable variables, astrophysicists have found to their dismay that Apophis is shifting its orbital path by one hundred seventy metres per year – a change that will either take it further away from Earth or target our planet. Confirming this indeterminable effect, American scientists at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) admit that “radar measurements and ground observation discovered Apophis’ trajectory is gradually deviating from a purely gravitational orbit.”¹⁸

Would They Tell Us?

While none of the above data proves Apophis must inevitably strike the Earth sometime later this century, nor does it conclusively eliminate that probability, but, on the contrary, suggests a collision is entirely possible. What it does show is that the slender difference between a near miss and an impact is too close to call.

Doubtless, all this and more are thoroughly recognised by NASA authorities, who may feel they must downplay the bolide as a threat to ally public fears and the consequent potential for social unrest. A sampling of the many comments posted by viewers of various sites that discuss Apophis on Youtube, the internet video-sharing platform, reflects this uneasy uncertainty:

“If it was going to crash into the Earth, they would not tell us, because that would cause panic. I think we will not know the whole truth until a few days before it arrives.”

“So, this is something you shouldn’t worry about? It would be insane chaos and civil unrest if human beings knew of their demise with several years’ notice. I guarantee you that if and when one is on a collision course with earth, you won’t be made aware of it until the people in charge alone tell you that it is. They are definitely downplaying this.”

“If it is going to hit, would they tell us, or keep it secret? Do you think they are going to tell us?”

“Worked for a printing company in the early ‘90s. One day, we were printing the covers for Time magazine that had a picture of this asteroid and doomsday graphics saying it would hit in 2029. But the name they gave it then was Wormwood.¹⁹ The run was cancelled half-way thru the shift, and we never heard about it again.”

“And if Apophis was going to hit the Earth with great certainty, do you really think people would be told this? The powerful ones would just leave us in false hope while they prepare their bunkers deep underground.”

“If it was going to hit, they would not tell us. This story will be much different in a few years. Sure, if the variables in place when these measurements were made hold true and nothing changes between now and then, it won’t be life threatening. But that’s a lot of time for things to happen. Its orbit could change from gravity tugs coming from other objects, its mass could change, altering its trajectory. It’s not wise to assume it’ll be the same five years from now, as it is today.”

“I don’t believe the recalculations. I believe they know people would panic. Why would they do this, if they feel it won’t hit us?”

“I’m not convinced that the re-calculations predicting a near miss are conclusive. At that close a proximity, standard deviation in calculations alone cannot unequivocally guarantee no impact in 2029 or 2036, or again in 2068. I have the impression of this being denial of the threat of impact. Or perhaps an attempt to placate everyone.” ²⁰

NASA authorities would be extraordinarily remiss should they fail to attempt some serious means of deflecting Apophis away from a collision, even if they believed in the unlikelihood of such an event.

Only two years ago, they deliberately slammed a half-ton DART planetary defense spacecraft into another asteroid, less than half the size of Apophis, at 20,922 kilometres per hour. Their “Double Asteroid Redirection Test” was meant to test theoretical strategy for deflecting similar objects headed for Earth. The strike produced mixed results: while it succeeded in slowing down the target’s orbit around a twin meteoroid by a few millimetres per second, the trajectory of Dimorphos was not budged. Worse, DART unintentionally smashed off thirty-seven large fragments, which were ejected from the surface in a tight pattern resembling buck-shot.

A weapons’ analogy occurred to University of California (Los Angeles) astronomer, David Jewitt: “The boulder swarm [arising from Dimorphos] is like a cloud of shrapnel expanding from a hand grenade. Because those big boulders basically share the speed of the targeted asteroid, they’re capable of doing their own damage.” He added that “given the high speed of a typical impact, a five-meter boulder hitting Earth would deliver as much energy as the atomic bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima.”²¹

Hopefully, NASA scientists have made effective progress in the development of “planetary defense spacecraft” since the ricocheting Dimorphos affair. If so, they are not talking, at least about 2029’s potentially unlucky Friday the Thirteenth.

“If they say ‘no, we don’t need to worry’,” offers a Youtube commentator, “that means we do need to worry. NASA began by telling us, ‘Apophis has a 2.7% chance of impacting earth’, to, ‘actually, it will definitely pass within 29,000 kilometres, but now has a zero per cent chance of hitting.’’ I smell a monumental rat.”²²

[alert type=”general” dismiss=”no”]This article was published in New Dawn Special Issue Vol 18 No 2.[/alert]

[alert type=”success” dismiss=”no”]If you appreciate this article, please consider subscribing to help maintain this website.[/alert]

SOURCES

1. science.nasa.gov/solar-system/asteroids/apophis

2. news.yahoo.com/nasa-explains-alert-public-apocalyptic-111301382.html

3. Youtube: God of Chaos asteroid more dangerous than NASA admits. Apophis update.

4. Ibid.

5. echo.jpl.nasa.gov/asteroids/Apophis/Apophis_2013_planning.html

6. D. Morrison (6 April 2011). “Asteroid 2004 MN4 will come scarily close to Earth on April 13, 2029, but it will not hit.”

7. Youtube, Op. cit.

8. web.archive.org/web/20130317183119/http://apophisasteroid.net

9. Ibid.

10. planetary.org/articles/what-was-the-chelyabinsk-meteor-event

11. bild.de/regional/berlin/weltuntergang-ausgerechnet-4178182.bild.html

12. cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/sentry/notes.html

13. iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/PSJ/ac66eb

14. science.nasa.gov/solar-system/asteroids/apophis

15. mpainesyd.com/idisk/Public/paine_tsunami_asteroid99.pdf

16. nhm.ac.uk/discover/what-is-space-junk-and-why-is-it-a-problem.html

17. nature.com/articles/s43247-021-00337-x

18. Youtube, Op. cit.

19. The New Testament tells how, at the end of the world, “a great star fell from heaven, blazing like a torch, and it fell on a third of the rivers and on the springs of water. The name of the star is Wormwood. A third of the waters became wormwood, and many died from the water because it was made bitter” (Rev 8:10–11). Some alternative researchers speculate the Book of Revelation name describes the common exterior resemblance of multiple-cratered asteroids to worm-eaten wood, thereby inferring that ancient advanced scientific technology in the form of a powerful telescope was accessed by the late 1^st Century CE biblical author’s original sources, long before it was re-invented in Holland, in 1608. For further discussion, see the author’s Ancient High Tech: The Astonishing Scientific Achievements of Early Civilizations (2020).

20. Youtube: Apophis Asteroid and Earth at Closest Approach

21. newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/planetary-defense-nasa-dart-mission-asteroid

22. Youtube: Apophis Asteroid – Apophis is Coming in 2029.

© New Dawn Magazine and the respective author.
For our reproduction notice, click here.

From New Dawn Special Issue Vol 14 No 5 (Oct 2020)

In the so-called “developed world,” governments are working tirelessly to implement a digital dictatorship.¹ Convincing evidence shows that numerous countries are gearing up their respective countries for similar systems.² 

Since the false flag attack of 11 September 2001, the world has experienced an unprecedented escalation in the obliteration of civil and human rights.³ With suspicious synchronicity, governments acted in concert to strip citizens of fundamental rights, such as the right to privacy and many others. In retrospect, the original plan, that commenced with the controlled demolition of the three World Trade Center buildings and the attack on the Pentagon, has become manifest: an elite wants total control of you and everything else. 

The path toward totalitarianism has its victims, and today we can observe with clarity the consequences of giving power structures the privilege to manoeuvre unhindered. For example, legal systems have become geared toward injustice, science has been corrupted, technological advances that could benefit humanity have been utilised in the military and policing domain, and ‘enemy’ countries are invaded and bombed, often on false pretexts.⁴ 

Since 2001, a long list of mass casualty events – some of which were exposed as false flag attacks with direct evidence – have been conducted to maintain official narratives and further the elitist agenda of a digital gulag.^5,6 

Most recently, the supposed unprecedented ‘Black Death’-like dangers of COVID-19 resulted in the largest human experiment in history with billions of people reduced to chess pieces in a larger game directed by the mass media and other institutions.⁷ Unanimously, governments worldwide, regardless of political ideology and system, acted in near-perfect tandem, wiping out whatever was left of our rights and inventing a “new normal,” a grotesque and Orwellian term, part of a long list of modifications made to the dictionary by the mass media and government institutions. 

We now move to the all-important question: How will it be to live in a digital prison? 

Surrogate Solitary Confinement

We have plenty of historical firsthand accounts of how it was to live under dictatorships not involving advanced technology. Living in a technologically controlled dictatorship is likely to be much worse than under past dictatorships. One of the central reasons for the inevitable worsening living conditions is that the technology runs without interruption, constantly collecting and analysing massive amounts of data in a split second. In stark contrast, everything had to be done manually in the more primitive dictatorships of the past. Technology allows for total dominance and subversion (if the ‘power’ stays turned on). 

Most people – but especially those who regularly use internet-based communication – already assume they are being spied on all the time, in part due to the revelations of whistleblowers and alleged whistleblowers. There are also ‘controlled’ whistleblowers who release information to further the agenda of the elite. For example, Edward Snowden, whose documents revealed nothing new, appeared on front pages across the world. He was interviewed countless times on TV, and bestselling autobiographies were published after he went public with his supposedly secretly and illegally obtained documents from the US National Security Agency (NSA).^8,9 

Previous whistleblowers who revealed the exact same information, like Bill Binney, a former director of the NSA, are labelled “conspiracy theorists” and deliberately ignored by the mass media, a clear indication that at that time, the elite had no interest in exposing their secret surveillance. Later, it was to their advantage to tell the world about the massive spying and intrusion of privacy. Of course, an NSA-equivalent government institution exists in most developed countries, surveilling citizens and sharing data with other countries.¹⁰ 

The elite essentially wants you to believe that you have zero privacy, and they will find out if you misbehave. It is well-known that people change their behaviours when they think they are being spied on. In a highly advanced dictatorship, there will be little or no privacy; essentially, you will never know when you are private or when you are being spied on – delivering, in effect, total surveillance. The likely consequences of a digital dictatorship are as follows:

A. Isolation-like measures imposed on those who cannot stay within the framework of the system. 

B. Full ‘matrix’-style manufactured news via advanced digital manipulation. 

C. Anti-establishment content, such as this article very difficult if not impossible to find, and punishment for accessing it. 

D. In addition to the technology, strangers and friends monitor your behaviour and report you to the authorities if you are not behaving correctly (‘mental health’ issues). You will never know who is a friend or an enemy. The Chinese social credit system rewards people for spying on each other.

E. Facial recognition software identifies and tracks you almost everywhere you go. 

F. You are forced to alter your thought patterns if, in any way, your thoughts “offend” the state, which may use “cognitive spyware”¹¹ to control your thoughts. 

It can be argued that the conditions of living under constant stress in a digital prison produce the same psychiatric outcomes as when people are exposed to solitary confinement, which is classified as torture by the United Nations.¹² 

Being unable to express your innermost feelings due to fear of punishment – humans are complex biological and spiritual beings – can result in feelings of social isolation and inhibition. 

In the early 1990s, Dr Stuart Grassian conducted extensive interviews with people held in isolation at the Pelican Bay State Prison, a supermax prison in California. Dr Grassian discovered that solitary confinement “induces a psychiatric disorder, which he called ‘SHU Syndrome’, characterised by hypersensitivity to external stimuli, hallucinations, panic attacks, cognitive deficits, obsessive thinking, paranoia, and a litany of other physical and psychological problems. Psychological assessments of men in solitary at Pelican Bay indicated high rates of anxiety, nervousness, obsessive ruminations, anger, violent fantasies, nightmares, trouble sleeping, as well as dizziness, perspiring hands, and heart palpitations.”¹³

Although it is a subject with considerably many facets, including economic advancement and even spurious diagnoses, the great rise in mental disorders in the West can likely, in part, be ascribed to the increase in stress and demands of modern society. It is highly likely that mental disorders will explode under conditions of digital totalitarian confinement. 

Regardless of psychiatric diagnoses, the living conditions inside a social crediting system strongly resemble that of regular prisons: Everything has to be done in a certain way, there is no privacy, cameras everywhere, and snitches are on every street corner ready to reveal your infractions to better their own abysmal situation. No creativity is allowed within this rigid control grid, every wrongdoing instantly reduces your privileges, and you are expected to do what you are told to do and not ask questions. A digital prison will be a real-life nightmare with serious consequences for the well-being of the majority. 

Fusion between Fiction & Real-Life Events

People generally fall victim to propaganda designed to push through politically expedient laws that reduce individual discernment and disenfranchise the masses. In the future, propaganda will see new levels of sophistication such as undetectable digitally manufactured events. At that time, even dissidents and critically thinking academics, if they still exist, will have trouble discerning real-life events from that manufactured to sustain the system, and keep people asleep and conforming to the “new normal.” As the flow of information is highly restricted, it becomes easier to persuade, manipulate, and convince the masses of blatant lies. The elite will assuredly want to control your reality to the greatest extent possible.

There will undoubtedly be people who can cope with the draconian rules. It remains, however, a distinct possibility that the majority will become chronically stressed from constant surveillance, lack of privacy, and anti-human processes. 

Presenting a full description of how life will be in a digital dictatorship could easily take up several volumes. For example, we could mention transhumanist dreams of fusing AI into human biology and its effect on those going down that path or discuss how “implanted memories”¹⁴ and technology will play a key role in creating the future “model citizen.” 

Overall and essentially, in this world we will experience autonomous systems disrupting and depriving people of what has been called “the power process.”¹⁵ For instance, autonomous robotic technology and machines will replace factory workers, self-driving vehicles will replace bus and taxi drivers, food will be chemically manufactured by printers rather than harvested, etc.¹⁶ In a digital tyranny, it is essential to reduce and control the masses into simple compliant cogs in the social machine, like the reliable algorithms of AI systems and robotics. 

Ultimately, humans become depressed, lethargic, and apathetic if they do not have meaningful goals in which attainment requires effort; hence, the power process has been disrupted. We use goals to give our bodies (and minds) the exercise it needs to function optimally. Unlike historical dictatorships, the possible future one will likely offer the physical necessities of life (think ‘universal basic income’). The danger of a digital dictatorship is that may offer convenience, safety and even perceived luxuries (think ‘Brave New World’) in a wide range of areas, but the convenience comes at great cost. 

‘Morality Pills’ for Dissidents

Three years ago, I made a bold prediction in my article “The Notion of Evil Killer Genes Examined”:

In the foreseeable future, if western governments embrace the highly questionable notion that violence is, in large part, a result of genes rather than environment and culture, it could lead to enforcement of mandatory genetic editing such that future generations would not have allegedly undesirable genes. To persuade public opinion, the spurious argument could be injected via the mainstream media that opponents to genetic editing are responsible for violence and killings carried out by those with bad genes because they allow such genes to exist.¹⁷ 

Three years later, the very idea of covertly modifying behaviour – deemed undesirable by the people in power in the name of the public good – appears to be on the agenda. The elite are fully aware that the “last refuge,” when everything else fails or is corrupted, is the human mind. Power is the money of the elite, and they want control of your cognitive faculties. They want perfect citizens, a new generation of bovine conformism, created and shaped by neurologically targeting human decision-making processes.

Recently, Dr Parker Crutchfield, an Associate Professor of Medical Ethics, Humanities and Law at the Western Michigan University, advocated Nazi-like government intervention by administering “moral enhancement” to noncooperative people for the alleged “public good.”¹⁸ The doctor explicitly says that “the problem of coronavirus defectors could be solved by moral enhancement.”¹⁹ 

In a 2018 peer-reviewed paper, “Compulsory moral bioenhancement should be covert,” he argued that “a covert compulsory moral bioenhancement program is morally preferable to an overt moral bioenhancement program.”²⁰ He later suggested that it perhaps should be done via “the water supply.”²¹ His later paper, “The epistemology of moral bioenhancement,” notes that “Moral bioenhancement is the potential practice of manipulating individuals’ moral behaviours by biological means in order to help resolve pressing moral issues such as climate change and terrorism.”²²

If Nazi doctor Josef Mengele had lived to see the aforementioned recommendations and the new technological ability of modern science to manipulate behaviour, it would have brought a cynical smile to his old lips. As is well-known, Dr Mengele conducted horrific human experiments on subjects regarded as undesirable, or unworthy of life, by the establishment. His experiments revolved around the spurious philosophy that the Aryan race was superior to other races due to genetics rather than environment. Although strongly condemned by the scientific community, it is striking how some vocal scientists are publicly encouraging methods that parallel the ruthless, inhuman, and grotesque methods of Dr Mengele whose experiments were carried out within the law but without the consent of the participants. The idea that there is a necessary nexus between morality and legal validity is pseudoscientific nonsense. 

The well-paid scientific technocratic elite, legislators, and the like, in conjunction with pharmaceutical companies and other powerful institutions, frequently cite the purported lack of morality of dissidents who, for example, refuse to let their children be injected with aluminium-laden vaccines, despite the fact that studies have found a causal link between aluminium and Alzheimer’s disease.^23,24 The elite, and scientists like Dr Crutchfield, equate “good moral behaviour” with what they deem appropriate for “the public good.” Collectivism has many victims, not limited to the destruction of axiomatic individual rights. In reality, what is considered good or evil is highly variable within societies and cultures, dependant on historical and spiritual developments, and subject to change over long periods of time. 

It is increasingly apparent that the world religion of the 21^st century is scientism. In his masterpiece, “Our New Technocratic Lords,” philosopher Jerry Day eloquently describes how science has become a powerful vehicle for population control:

Science is being used as a means of social control. That means control of you. Both science and religion have been used throughout history as mechanisms of social control. The elite classes put forth the idea that they know something the common classes do not know, and therefore the common classes must heed the commands of the elites. The elites claim that they have heard God speak, or they have discovered some new mysterious science, and the common masses must, for their own survival and protection, follow the direction of the wise and learned elites. 

Science, when applied politically, is just another faith. It is a faith controlled by central authorities who pick and choose the science they wish to use to achieve goals, applying terminology such as climate change. Anything referred to as science is supposed to be taken as true or real and not to be questioned. Of course, true science is the practice of unwavering scepticism and inquiry, constant challenge, and re-evaluation. Science as a political tool is no longer science: it is behavioural control, power over others. When science is used politically, it is not research, inquiry, exploration, or progress as science is supposed to be. In political application, science is simply dogma and tyranny. Real science is always evolving, open to question, and should never be used as a device for social control. The only thing that justifies control of humans is when those humans grant informed consent to be controlled, not as a voting mass, but one by one, individually, with the power of revocation of that grant. Science is incidental to such political enterprise. 

You might say that real science is the discovery of physical reality. In politics, science is turned into something very different. Science is redefined to mean group truth, imposed reality, inflexible absolutist doctrine, something you must agree with and behave accordingly, or suffer reprisal at the hands of the state. There will never be any such thing as group truth. A group is nothing but a bunch of individuals with individual viewpoints. Individually, we believe whatever we want, whenever we want.²⁵

Conclusion: Conformity is Insanity

By observing the overall reaction of people to the ever-harsher demands of the powerful and over-privileged, we can safely conclude that people generally embrace conformity; resisting the establishment requires energy and dangerous commitment. Society, backed by the power of the mass media, largely accepts, without question, the pious platitudes regurgitated by the rich and wealthy. The masses eagerly vote for a new candidate, hoping this time it will get better, but nothing changes. Change by means of voting is an illusory quest: a system can never be changed in the long-term within the legal and moral boundaries set up by ruling elites. Voting maintains the power of the elite; if voting could transform society it would have been made illegal. 

Considering the rapid changes to living conditions in the last few years, even months, without any signs of resistance, it appears that unless a major collapse of developed countries takes place – financial and social – it is likely we will end up in a digital prison. At that time, it might be too late to resist. Thus, unless a collapse takes place or a powerful quasi-religion emerges to swallow the elite and other parasitic entities, then, inescapably, freedom will be illegal in the future.   

[alert type=”general” dismiss=”no”]This article was published in New Dawn Special Issue Vol 14 No 5.[/alert]

[alert type=”success” dismiss=”no”]If you appreciate this article, please consider subscribing to help maintain this website.[/alert]

Footnotes

1. “One World Digital Dictatorship” www.crimeandpower.com/2020/01/05/one-world-digital-dictatorship/

2. Ibid. 

3. “Key Evidence of Controlled Demolition” www.ae911truth.org/evidence/evidence-overview 

4. “US-Imposed Post-9/11 Muslim Holocaust & Muslim Genocide,” Dr. Gideon Polya (Korsgaard Publishing 2020) 

5. Ibid. 

6. “BOSTON BOMBING CHRONICLES” www.crimeandpower.com/boston-bombing-chronicles/ (Korsgaard Publishing 2020)

7. “The New 9/11: A Global Virus Pandemic,” New Dawn 180 (May-June 2020)

8. “What Do We Know About Edward Snowden? Webster G. Tarpley” www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zPkhkEr7Ko 

9. “How to identify CIA limited hangout?” https://off-guardian.org/2018/01/04/how-to-identify-cia-limited-hangout/

10. “UKUSA Agreement” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement 

11. “One World Digital Dictatorship” www.crimeandpower.com/2020/01/05/one-world-digital-dictatorship/

12. “The United States is the Largest Prison Camp in the World”, www.crimeandpower.com/2019/12/06/the-united-states-is-the-largest-prison-camp-in-the-world/

13. “What are the psychological effects of solitary confinement?” https://solitarywatch.org/facts/faq/

1. “’Implanted’ Memories Indistinguishable from Real Ones”, New Dawn 180 (May-June 2020)

15. “Technological Slavery,” Ted Kaczynski (Fitch & Madison Publishers 2019) 

16. “Here’s how 3D food printers are changing what we eat”, www.techrepublic.com/article/heres-how-3d-food-printers-are-changing-the-way-we-cook/ 

17. “The Notion of Evil Killer Genes Examined” www.crimeandpower.com/2019/09/30/the-notion-of-evil-killer-genes-examined/ 

18. “‘Morality pills’ may be the US’s best shot at ending the coronavirus pandemic, according to one ethicist” https://theconversation.com/morality-pills-may-be-the-uss-best-shot-at-ending-the-coronavirus-pandemic-according-to-one-ethicist-142601

19. Ibid.

20. “Compulsory moral bioenhancement should be covert” https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/bioe.12496

21 Ibid.

22. https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=oEHIR14AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao

23. “Alzheimer’s Disease Linked to Exposure to Aluminum” https://scitechdaily.com/alzheimers-disease-linked-to-exposure-to-aluminum/

24. “Aluminum and Amyloid-β in Familial Alzheimer’s Disease” https://content.iospress.com/articles/journal-of-alzheimers-disease/jad191140

25. “Our New Technocratic Lords” www.crimeandpower.com/2020/01/20/our-new-technocratic-lords/

© New Dawn Magazine and the respective author.
For our reproduction notice, click here.