Category: Articles

From New Dawn 206 (Sept-Oct 2024)

Behind the scenes, puppet masters of the so-called deep state have become so self-assured of an impending global triumph that they no longer thoroughly camouflage their crimes against humanity with multi-layered disinformation and the propaganda of illusion. Instead, uncritical, dumbed-down majorities everywhere are more easily gulled than past generations by today’s perfunctory attempts at concealment. Such translucent cover-ups allow investigators unprecedented access to the truth simply because our over-confident rulers, less intimidated by it, have let their guard down. 

A recent case in point is the attempted assassination of former US president and (at the time of writing) current presidential Republican candidate, Donald Trump, at a mid-summer rally near the city of Butler, in western Pennsylvania. 

That it was, in gangster vernacular, “an inside job,” is self-evident, if only because every chief-of-state from Julius Caesar to John Fitzgerald Kennedy and beyond could have only been killed by persons with immediate access to the human target, given the otherwise impenetrable, state-of-the-art protection surrounding the victim, from Rome’s Pretorian Guard to America’s Secret Service. Assassination is impossible without their complicity, as most recently and clearly demonstrated by the Trump incident. 

Although the Organisation armée secrete (OAS) – the “Secret Army Organisation” – attracted leading French armed forces’ officers and trained sharpshooters, repeated attempts by the OAS to kill the President of France, Charles de Gaulle, were consistently thwarted by the government-sponsored expertise, numbers and surveillance of his Gendarmerie nationale.

So, too, the US Secret Service is considered among the world’s foremost federal agencies entrusted with the life of a Chief Executive. Its professional reputation was sharply contrasted on 13 July 2024, stemming from untypical incompetence almost beyond belief. Or due to something else. 

For example, the gunman fired from a position only 100 paces from Trump. This close range was well within the security parameters otherwise invariably and previously staked out by Secret Service agents assigned to such events. How could the assassin have escaped their attention, especially when members of the public saw him with a firearm on the roof of a nearby building just north of the Butler Farm Show grounds where Trump’s rally was held? These same eyewitnesses urgently pointed out the rifleman to the attending police, who did nothing. They refrained from even notifying their fellow officers.¹

For the past several years, standard Secret Security practice includes reconnoitering (mapping) each public meeting to which agents are assigned with remotely operated drones before, during and after the event, in real-time and digitally recorded. If so, how did aerial photography fail to alert the authorities on 13 July? Were drones even used on that day? If not, their absence suggests something darker than ineptitude. 

Revealingly, the accused assassin fired an AR-15, the civilian version of the military M-16. To qualify on an M-16, US Army recruits must score a shot on a human-sized silhouette at the end of a nine-week training period from 150 metres – the same distance from which the right temple of Trump’s head was missed by one centimetre.² This narrow escape implies that his hitman was a qualified marksman trained in the US armed forces.

An easier mark was the target’s larger, relatively stable upper torso, but hitting the chest area is less lethal than a more difficult headshot, even for a professional rifleman, whose assignment was to score a death blow. As such, the apparent expertise of the Butler County assassin casts serious doubt on the alleged Pennsylvania shooter. According to current and former Bethel Park High School students, Thomas Matthew Crooks tried out for his school’s rifle team but was disqualified due to poor aim during tryouts.³ The nursing home dietician was never a member of any American military organisation, and his sub-standard shooting skills were at variance with the skilful headshot that so narrowly missed the former president. It seems clear that Crooks was not the likely shooter, although he may have randomly shot into the crowd of “deplorables” (Hillary Clinton’s snobbish derogation of Trump’s followers) to take the life of an attendee and wound two others.

What was Crooks, then? A “patsy,” the same term used by another improbable assassin to self-describe his role in an earlier presidential murder. Just as Lee Harvey Oswald was himself gunned down after having been set up as the fall guy to deflect attention from the actual killers of sixty-one years ago, so Crooks was conveniently silenced to take full blame for the attempt on Trump’s life. Both men were and are continuously categorised as “the lone gunman,” a historical “lone ranger,” and just as fictitious; a characterisation necessarily applied to every high-level assassin as cover for the real murderers, whose identity, if exposed, could threaten the sham democracy covering their tracks.

Although multiple crowd members independently observed a second shooter from a water tower⁴ at the rally site outside Butler, such a line of inquiry diverts from more essential issues, such as Bethel Park School District officials, who claimed no record exists of Crooks trying out for the rifle team.⁵ It has vanished along with Facebook, Twitter and YouTube accounts, all of which disappeared down an Orwellian memory hole within hours after his death. He left no digital footprint and virtually no social media trace, which is remarkable for a young adult in these cyber-days. His only prior claim to fame – and an uncredited one, at that – was his brief appearance on a television commercial for BlackRock, Inc., the largest investment firm in the world, with more than $10 trillion in assets.⁶ It owns or is a major shareholder of CBS, MSN, CNN, FOX, NBC, ABC, YouTube, Disney, Walmart, Google, Facebook, Amazon, Twitter, and a great deal more. 

BlackRock, Inc. controls 90% of the world news and entertainment media, including China’s US congressionally black-listed companies that manufacture facial recognition software for government spying on its own citizens. Some of BlackRock’s top holdings include Coca-Cola, Microsoft and Apple, together with large positions in Broadcom and Nvidia, two of the largest semiconductor companies in the United States. BlackRock’s founder and CEO, Larry Fink, sits on the board of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). BlackRock acts as the financial powerhouse for the globalist CFR and World Economic Forum, adjuncts of the New World Order, with its genocidal scamdemics and attacks on freedom.

Despite Crooks’ apparently studied anonymity, a chronology of events culminating on 13 July begins to emerge from the facts available. A perfect storm of disparate but at least fundamentally complementary interests had been swirling around each other at least since 2017 when self-styled comedienne Kathy Griffin held up a mock-severed head of President Trump. They coalesced on 27 June with Joseph Biden’s positively calamitous performance during an internationally televised debate with the Republican candidate, whose long-desired liquidation seemed a viable option to at least some of his Democratic opponents.

Days later, a Democrat Congressman from Mississippi, Bennie Thompson, called for removing Trump’s personal security by cancelling the former president’s Secret Service protection, a measure still under consideration up until the assassination attempt.⁷ On 8 July, Biden exclaimed at a meeting of his donors, “it’s time to put Trump in the bullseye.”⁸ Had the order been given? In any case, five days later, Trump was shot. For the last eight years, he has been consistently demonised and hysterically blamed by most news media spokespersons for everything from runaway inflation and violent street crime to “climate change” and Covid-19. When this relentless campaign of vilification could not undermine his popular support, Congress impeached him, and he was indicted on minor charges. Again, without effect.

Having failed to stop him by public methods, some of his most hate-crazed enemies in high places may have decided upon the final argument to which tyrants traditionally resort. Many others would certainly cheer a successful outcome, as indicated by an article written for The Atlantic by David Frum, “The Gunman and the Would-Be Dictator. Violence stalks the president who has rejoiced in violence to others,” one day after the assassination attempt.⁹

But why Donald Trump? He has threatened, if re-elected, to suspend all further aid to Ukraine, both economic and military, unless Kyiv immediately negotiates with Russia for a cease-fire. Such an armistice might save thousands of lives, but it would most definitely negate Larry Fink’s plans to rebuild Ukraine after the current war has reduced the entire country to ashes. Therein may lie the connection between BlackRock, Inc. and Thomas Matthew Crooks. It certainly explains Fink’s close ties with the Democrat Party, which has given (as of this writing) $175 billion of US taxpayer money to Ukraine. Many American politicians like Lindsay Graham openly encourage the subsequent military defeat and destruction of Russia. BlackRock’s prospects for rebuilding the warring nations offer far greater profits.

Domestically, Trump is mostly hated and feared not for what he is but for how he is perceived by millions of mostly white, middle-class Americans. They want to see in him the embodiment of effective resistance to the disgraceful condition of their country. To people like Lindsay Graham or David Frum, Trump followers are “deplorable” racists and nationalists, comprising the growing vanguard of a looming fascist dictatorship. To circumvent such an existential threat to democracy, when all else fails, you cut off the snake’s head and the serpent dies. This was the analogy that culminated on 13 July.

Had Trump been killed, Biden would have stayed on as the Democrat nominee to handily win the presidential election because the Republican Party, not unlike the ‘Jack Ass Party’, is made up entirely of inept non-entities. Instead, Trump’s survival in good health instantly gave him more political influence than any candidate for the White House could ever hope for. The shooting that was supposed to take him out of the running and clear a direct path to the presidency for the Democrat hopeful resulted in its precise opposite. Biden had no choice but to nod out of the race. His comparison with Trump was too humiliating.

As the deep state puppet masters undoubtedly had pre-arranged contingencies in place before the attempted assassination, allowing them to profit from the event – regardless of the outcome – they must just as surely lock and load acceptable alternatives to the November election, certainly where their most important interests lie. 

Meanwhile, the masses of naïve voters, encouraged in their folly by a complicit news media, will yet again imagine they are saving democracy or determining the destiny of their country when they are actually nothing more than unwitting performers in a stage play produced for the ulterior purpose of deceiving them into innocuous passivity while lending counterfeit legitimacy to a criminal syndicate of profiteers insatiably obsessed with unbridled power.

In Act III, Scene 7 of Major Barbara, by the great Irish playwright Bernard Shaw, an early 20^th century version of Larry Fink confronts a democratic politician ambitious for government office: 

“The government of your country? I am the government of your country: I, and Lazarus [his corporate partner]. You will do what pays us. You will make war when it suits us and keep peace when it doesn’t. You will find out that trade requires certain measures when we have decided on those measures. When I want anything to keep my dividends up, you will discover that my want is a national need. When other people want something to keep my dividends down, you will call out the police and military. And in return you shall have the support and applause of my newspapers and the delight of imagining that you are a great statesman. Government of your country? Be off with you, my boy, and play with your caucuses and leading articles and historic parties and great leaders and burning questions and the rest of your toys! I am going back to my counting house to pay the piper and call the tune.”

[alert type=”general” dismiss=”no”]This article was published in New Dawn 206.[/alert]

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

Footnotes

1. Clear Signs Pres Trump’s Butler Pennsylvania Rally Assassination Attempt Was A Set Up, bitchute.com/video/7npoG2G2VSvl

2. Boot Camp Training Manual, U.S. Army. Revised Edition. U.S. Army Printing Office, 2016.

3. Thomas Matthew Crooks, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Matthew_Crooks

4. Multiple Eyewitnesses At The Trump Rally Says There Was Another Shooter At The Water Tower, bitchute.com/video/LkGg71Q9K0z9. While Crooks was allowed to get off as many as five or eight shots into the crowd before he himself perished in a barrage of anti-sniper bullets, this noisy gunfire allowed the second and professional shooter in the water tower to make good his escape under cover of the ensuing chaos. Crooks had unknowingly served the assassin’s purpose as a sacrificial distraction.

5. bpsd.org/apps/news/article/1942738

6. What Are The Odds Of Blackrock Putting Out A Commercial That Has Donald Trumps Shooter Thomas Crooks, bitchute.com/video/vBDxNqhl0JrX

7. newsweek.com/trump-assassination-attempt-bennie-thompson-secret-service-security-1924954

8. bbc.com/news/articles/cw0y9xljv2yo

9. theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/07/donald-trump-democracy-dictator/679006/

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

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.