Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's Blog: The Most Revolutionary Act , page 366
September 18, 2023
Denmark latest European country turning away from transgender mutilation of children
Danish FlagsShutterstockJonathon VanMaren(LifeSiteNews) — Widespread opposition to child ‘sex changes’ in Europe shows how utterly radical Canada and blue America are on LGBT issues.
The news that Denmark is moving away from the so-called “affirmative model of care” approach to youth struggling with gender dysphoria exposes, once again, how utterly radical and out of step with the rest of the world Canada and blue America are on the issue of “sex changes” for minors. Predictably, mainstream media outlets have ignored this development entirely – there is no press coverage that I can find. This may be due to the fact that this shift was published in the major medical journal Ugeskrift for Læger, the journal of the Danish Medical Association, in Danish.
Fortunately, the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM) has published a synopsis, noting that most “youth referred to the centralized gender clinic no longer get a prescription for puberty blockers, hormones, or surgery – instead they receive therapeutic counseling and support.” SEGM published a summary of the shift:
In the last several weeks, health journalists have reported that change may be afoot in Denmark. The article in Denmark’s Medical Association journal Ugeskrift for Læger leaves very little doubt that Denmark too has made a course correction in youth gender transitions, restricting this option to very few cases, while prioritizing counseling for the vast majority of the currently presenting youths.
The article is an excellent summary of the rise-and-fall-of the “gender affirmation” model of care in Denmark. It describes how in 2016, following the influence of other northern European countries, Denmark chose to offer ‘a treatment approach with few barriers to hormone treatment for children and young people with gender dysphoria.’ The treatment was justified by the foundational Dutch studies, ‘which indicated better well-being and body satisfaction after hormone treatment, a low degree of regret and few side effects.’ However, the increasing number of referrals, changes in the presentation in gender dysphoria, and growing reports of regret – combined with a lack of long-term outcomes of the one and only sample of youth (n=55) on which the entire practice of gender transition rests – led the Danish clinicians to reverse course.
This is consistent with developments in the U.K., where the Tavistock gender clinic has been shut down and the NHS is changing course on “sex change” surgeries, and Sweden, which halted “hormone therapy” for minors in February 2022.
The Finns are following a similar path. In fact, Finnish medical guidelines distinguish between early-onset child gender dysphoria and adolescent-onset gender, stating that some gender confusion or exploration can be a natural part of growing up and almost entirely forbidding medical intervention until “identity and personality development appear to be stable.” In the meantime, psychotherapy is recommended for gender dysphoria, and surgical interventions are forbidden for those under the age of 18.
Puberty blocking is also considered explicitly experimental, and if utilized in severe circumstances, the patients are sent to a research clinic and medical professionals ensure that they are “able to understand the significance of irreversible treatments and benefits and disadvantages associated with lifelong hormone therapy, and that no contraindications are present.”
Meanwhile, in Canada the National Post is reporting that Canadian surgeons are performing double mastectomies of healthy breasts on girls as young as age 14. The lawsuits have already begun as horrified young women realize they were ushered on the path to “transition” and “gender affirming care” before they could truly understand what they were doing – most recently, 21-year-old Luka Hein of Minnesota filed a lawsuit against the doctors who surgically removed her breasts at the age of 16, when she was going through a difficult time and struggled with gender dysphoria.
“I was going through the darkest and most chaotic time in my life, and instead of being given the help I needed, these doctors affirmed that chaos into reality,” she told the Daily Mail. “I don’t think kids can ever consent to having full bodily functions taken away at a young age before they even know what that means.” She’s right. The Swedes, the Finns, and now the Danes are coming to the same conclusion.
[…]
Civilizations in the Americas in 1215
Chaco Canyon
Episode 8 Civilizations in the Americas in 1215
1215: Years That Changed History
Dr Dorsey Armstrong (2019)
Film Review
Ancestral Pueblo
Armstrong begins by discussing the first advanced civilization in North America at Pueblo Bonito in Chaco Canyon. Based on recent archeological evidence (a burial site with 14 bodies wearing precious jewels), what was formally believed to be an egalitarian society now seems to have been ruled by a small hereditary elite. Mitochondial DNA shows suggests matrilineal inheritance.* However, according to Armstrong, these societies were nowhere near as hierarchical as those of medieval Europe.**
Other archeological evidence suggests Ancestral Pueblo societies in the southwest US may be thousands of years old and possibly an outgrowth of Mayan Olmec or Toltec societies.
These societies spoke multiple dialects derived from three distinct language groups. Individuals were usually multilingual, enabling them to communicate with other Pueblo societies, as well as Navajo neighbors.
By 3400 BC they had domesticated avocado, chili and corn, and they seem to have traded with ancient Mexican societies (500 miles away) for cocoa beans. Owing to the complexity of corn cultivation in an arid desert region, they studied astronomy and developed complex irrigation systems. Their religion incorporated a Great Being who they relied on for guidance in food production.
They lived in complex apartment units known as pueblos, which they entered on the second floor by ladder (making them more resistant to hostile attack. Five stories high, the largest apartment complex at Pueblo Bonito contained 700 rooms and employed passive solar architecture to stay warm during winter and cool during summer.
As pre-literate societies Ancestral Pueblo passed information via oral tradition. There’s no evidence they used draft animals or wheeled vehicles.
Incas
The Incas first established themselves in Cuzco (modern Peru) in the early 13th century, eventually expanding into a massive empire along the west coast of South America.
The were also pre-literate and had no draft animals, plows, wheels iron or steel. It’s unclear how they built such a massive structure as Machu Picchu without any of these tools.
Machu Picchu incorporates an ancient technology known as Dry Ashlar, in which carefully cut stones are fitted together without mortar.
They grew squash, corn, chilis, cocoa and quinoa and preserved food by storing it at altitude. They also built the amazing Morray Terraces, an gigantic series of circular terraces with a temperature differential of 27 degrees. Armstrong feels the purpose was to enable the production of crops requiring different climactic conditions.
Mayas
By 1215, the Mayan empire was in decline. During the height of their empire (250-900), which Armstrong compares to classical Greece, they developed written language (based on hieroglyphics), long count calendars (extending 2000 years into the future) and the concept of zero, cities, huge monuments and a passionate interest in arts, astronomy and sports.
Chichen Itza, a major Mayan city on the Yucatan Peninsula, was the only one to survive the post-classic period owing to its involvement in trade (mainly obsidian from Central America and gold from Mexico). In 1215 it encompassed an area of two square miles.
Both the Inca and Mayan empires practiced human and sacrifice as a religious ritual.
*In matrilineal inheritance possessions and positions of authority pass from mother to daughter.
**David Graeber and David Rengrow support this view in their 2021 The Dawn of Everything. If New World indigenous leaders got too bossy, their subjects simply packed up and walked away.
***This contrasts with Europe, which only adopted the concept of zero from the Muslim world in the late 12th century.
Film can be viewed free with a library card on Kanopy.
https://www.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/watch/video/12392969/12392986
September 17, 2023
Face Masks Decrease Cognitive Function and Increase Reaction Time, Study Finds
by Dr Roger WatsonDaily ScepticProlonged wearing of a surgical face mask, made compulsory in many settings in many countries during the Covid years, reduces cognitive function and increases reaction time in addition to increasing shortness of breath and fatigue. These are the findings of a study published in Nurse Education in Practice, an international peer reviewed journal, on September 15th 2023.
The study, carried out in Turkey and titled ‘The effect of prolonged use of surgical masks during face-to-face teaching on cognitive and physiological parameters of nursing students: a cross-sectional and descriptive study’ involved 61 nursing students who volunteered to participate in the study. The sample size was determined to be adequate for the study using the statistical method of power analysis. Information was collected on cognitive fatigue and dyspnoea (shortness of breath) using a self-administered questionnaire and cognitive reaction time was measured objectively using an app. Body temperature and blood oxygen saturation were also measured.
The students were asked to complete the questionnaires and measure the above parameters at the start of a five-hour class and to repeat the process at the end. Surgical face masks were worn for the duration of the class. With the exception of blood oxygen saturation, all the remaining parameters were adversely and statistically significantly affected over the course of the class.
At the end of the class, the students reported greater shortness of breath, cognitive fatigue and had demonstrably slower reaction times. They experienced a rise in body temperature which is an established correlate of physical fatigue.
The authors of the study are careful to point out that the design of their study was a pre-test/post-test where the participants were, effectively, acting as their own controls. It is possible, therefore, that alternative explanations may exist to explain the observations. For example, we do not know if or to what extent the observed changes in parameters may have taken place anyway after five hours in class. For that reason, as recommended by the authors, further study is required of these phenomena using a parallel control group who undergo the five-hour class but who are not subjected to wearing surgical face masks for the duration. The reported study was carried out under Covid restrictions, therefore, there was no possibility of incorporating a control group.
Assuming that the outcome of the study does provide evidence for the adverse effects of face masks then further study should be conducted. Furthermore, the implications of the study could be very important if transposed to clinical practice. Prolonged wearing of surgical (and even more restrictive) face masks was compulsory during Covid restrictions. The ramifications for the ability of clinicians to make the correct decisions and to act quickly in emergency situations are surely worrying.
[…]
Europe Abandons All-Electric Car Mandate
France24, Quartz, and the Wall Street Journal (paywall-free link) report that the EU abandoned its much-ballyhooed transition to electric cars, which was supposed to culminate with a total ban on gasoline cars in 2035.
The EU’s reversal allows “the sales of new cars with combustion engines that run on synthetic fuels,” which sounds very environmentally friendly. But synthetic fuels are similar to gasoline or diesel, so the decision allows internal combustion cars to continue being produced. While electric cars will still be produced and incentivized, there is no longer a 100% mandate by 2035.
This transition was announced with a lot of pomp:
The transition was supposed to go on for 13 years after its announcement in 2022 but was abandoned only a year after its adoption. What happened?
Prodded by climate activists, the EU was pressured to ban fossil fuel vehicles and replace them with battery-powered vehicles. The problem is that such a transition is impossible:
Transitioning to electric passenger vehicles will increase electricity demand by 25%.Transitioning to electric trucks will further raise electricity demand to a total of 40% increase.EU is phasing out fossil fuel generation and replacing it with unreliable solar and wind generation – thus decreasing power availability instead of increasing it to meet greater demand.As cars and especially trucks are charged at night, solar and wind power cannot contribute to charging.Are electric cars more efficient?Running a gasoline car involves:
Burning gas in the internal combustion engine and converting thermal energy to mechanical energy. That’s it.Charging an electric car’s battery from the grid and driving the car involves:
Burning gas at the power station and converting thermal energy of gas to mechanical energy of the gas turbine. This is only moderately more efficient in a power station than gasoline cars.Then, losses begin:Converting the mechanical energy of the turbine into electrical energy in the generator involves generator lossesConverting medium voltage from the generator into high transmission voltage involves transformer lossesTransmitting the power along the high voltage lines involves transmission lossesStepping down the voltage in several substations involves transformer losses againIn a home charging station, converting 220v power into DC for car charging again involves conversion lossesA chemical process in the battery being charged heats the battery, involving charging lossesRunning the car’s electrical motors from the battery requires inverter losses to generate electricity for traction motors and motor losses.Take a look at what happens when a driver needs heat in the cab:
Heating a gasoline car in winter involves redirecting waste heat (hot antifreeze) from the engine into the cab heater, thus not requiring additional fuel.Heating an electric car requires a resistance heater or a heat pump, needing to eventually consume more energy from the grid – with all the above conversion losses included.Which process (gasoline car vs. electric) is more efficient at converting fuel, burnt directly in the car engine or at distant power stations, into usable energy to propel a car traveling on a highway? The gas engines win outright.
The situation would be different if we had a clean, weather-independent, and inexpensive electrical power source. But, alas, we do not have that yet.
Last December, eugyppius wrote a nice post about Switzerland banning electric cars due to a lack of electricity to charge them (Switzerland, Facing an Unprecedented Power Shortage, Contemplates a Partial Ban on the Use of Electric Vehicles).
[…]The fact that a pompously announced thirteen-year “electric car transition” was canceled only one year after it was adopted strongly suggests that the original idea was untenably stupid.
The Stupidity of the “CO2 Transition”As I mentioned above, a 13-year policy canceled in its second year surely is stupid, almost by definition. However, the EU is not alone. California and New York, the bastions of virtue-signaling climate activism, are still going full speed ahead, banning gasoline cars while phasing out fossil fuel generation and doing nothing for nuclear power.
This so-called transition will make much money for the movers and shakers but is technologically unfeasible due to the lack of cheap, carbon-neutral baseload energy (baseload means not depending on weather).
The best outcome would be to see such plans canceled under the pretense of “unforeseen circumstances,” like it just happened in the EU.
The worse outcome would be our collective inability to have enough energy to heat our homes and drive cars. That would necessitate living in cramped “15-minute cities” that are being proposed everywhere.
[…]
I want to share a thought that many people may disagree with. Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments.
Social experiments like banning gasoline cars and simultaneously killing reliable power generation are dangerous; most readers of this substack would agree.Geoengineering experiments such as darkening the skies by spewing millions of tons of sulfur dioxide are dangerous. Most readers of this substack would agree with that as well.But emitting billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere yearly is also a potentially dangerous geoengineering experiment.The climate change field is full of crooks and is directed by those who recently gave us a non-working and dangerous Covid vaccine.
I do not believe them or their paid scientists any more than I believe the dishonest “Covid science.”
However, even though I do not believe those people, I have a concern and a feeling of responsibility for our planet.
We only have one planet. So we better be careful with it.
Somehow or other, honest humans need to band together and reach a better understanding of climate and the Earth.
At the same time, if a fraction of the billions of dollars wasted on electric cars and climate grandstanding were spent on nuclear fusion, we’d possibly have a clean, safe, and limitless energy source much sooner.
[…]
Via https://www.igor-chudov.com/p/europe-abandons-all-electric-car
Hollywood Is Dead: Here’s Why No One Cares
Zero Hedge
In the past 4 years alone theaters across the country have seen a 50% plunge in box office attendance. Meaning, the industry somehow lost half its consumer base from 2019 to 2023. The media attempted to play down the crash as a symptom of the covid pandemic, but the fact is that the decline started well before the lockdowns, the closures in red states ended quickly, and some movies (such as Spider-Man: No Way Home and Top Gun: Maverick) had explosive success while most other films lost hundreds of millions of dollars in the midst of the covid hype.
It should be noted that a large percentage of celebrities and Hollywood corporate interests supported and promoted the covid lockdowns. They also joined the online lynch mobs seeking to shame and destroy anyone who defied the mandates. Now they’re pretending like none of that ever happened, but the public has not forgotten.
In the past few months Hollywood has been dealing with the WGA and SAG worker strikes and there’s no doubt they will attempt to blame the labor conflict for the continuing decay of profits just as they blamed covid. Already, multiple major studio productions have been pushed back two years or canceled altogether, and most premier release dates have been moved to 2024 – 2025. A number of television productions have been shut down and late night talk shows are on the verge of extinction. But you don’t hear the public complain much, at least not as much as during the last major strikes in 2008.
No one cares about the writers, no one cares about the actors, and certainly no one cares about the studios for good reason. Though writers and actors might garner more sympathy than producers and CEOs due to concerns over AI, the threat of AI formulated screenplays is greatly overblown and AI generated proxies of famous actors are not going to bring back audiences in sufficient numbers to save the film industry anyway.
The strikes are seen as the last gasp of a dying institution, an institution that deserves to be cremated and replaced by a decentralized network of true creatives making content with substance and intelligence. The real reason for the death of Hollywood is simple, and it’s a truth that the media will never admit to: Get woke, go broke. As a reminder, let’s take a look at the plethora of woke failures Hollywood produced in 2022 alone…
Woke propaganda and DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) ideology are the root cause of the implosion of showbiz. There is an inherent hostility within woke culture towards American heritage, towards constitutional freedoms, towards free markets and towards legitimate imagination and creativity. This hostility and deconstruction is not lost on the average consumer, they know when they are being attacked and they don’t like it.
Beyond the industry’s attempts to “count coup” against the conservative and moderate population, there is the basic matter of content quality. If the top priority of a creative endeavor is to implant extremist political messaging rather than tell a good story, it will be virtually impossible to tell a good story and the industry will attract the worst kinds of zealots.
The survival of Hollywood now relies on their ability to accept failure and recognize their mistakes, which will never happen.
It’s not surprising that media simpletons are currently clinging to a movie like Barbie as a sample of woke success; they’re desperate for a counter-argument to the Get Woke, Go Broke mantra. That said, exceptions to the rule do not change the rule. For every Barbie, there are a dozen Little Mermaid or Woman King bombs. And, Barbie was never marketed as a woke film (except in Australia). In fact, it was marketed as a normal romantic comedy romp in the US, something which female audiences have been clamoring for.
[…]
Via https://www.zerohedge.com/political/hollywood-dead-heres-why-no-one-cares
September 16, 2023
Barack Obama Belongs In A Fucking Cage
By Caitlin Johnstone
The Twitter account of America’s 44th president just casually shared some links to organizations providing relief to the victims of the terrible flooding in Libya, which as of this writing has already killed thousands of people.
And that would of course be a fine and normal thing for America’s 44th president to do — had America’s 44th president not personally played a massive role in paving the way to the devastation we’re seeing in Libya today.
“If you’re looking to help people impacted by the floods in Libya, check out these organizations providing relief,” Obama tweeted.
Uhh, excuse me? Sir? You know you’re literally Barack Obama, right?
If you’re looking to help people impacted by the floods in Libya, check out these organizations providing relief: https://t.co/Vc9kbNgFuE
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) September 15, 2023
In 2010 the oil-rich Libya ranked higher on the UN Human Development Index than any other nation in Africa, with much better national infrastructure to protect itself from floods and other natural disasters. Today Libya is a chaotic humanitarian disaster where UN-backed investigators now say literal crimes against humanity have been taking place, including women being forced into sexual slavery.
What changed? If you’re reading this, you probably already know what changed.
In 2011, US, French and British forces helped rebels with extensive links to Al Qaeda kill Libya’s longtime leader Muammar Gaddafi, which immediately plunged the nation into violence, chaos, extremism and instability which persists to this day. It was later revealed that NATO powers knew they were backing murderous Al Qaeda-linked jihadists at the time.
Falsely branded a “humanitarian intervention” designed to prevent alleged plans for genocide and Viagra-fueled mass rapes against peaceful protesters by Gaddafi’s troops, the NATO attack on Libya quickly morphed into a regime change operation which saw Gaddafi brutally lynched in the streets and dying after being stabbed in the anus with a bayonet. Years later in 2016 a UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee found that the narratives used to justify the intervention in Libya were “not supported by the available evidence.”
“We have seen no evidence that the UK Government carried out a proper analysis of the nature of the rebellion in Libya,” the report reads. “UK strategy was founded on erroneous assumptions and an incomplete understanding of the evidence.”
This confirmed concerns voiced by Amnesty International and a UN human rights investigator months before Gaddafi’s death that the evidence for the alleged atrocities the intervention was meant to prevent simply wasn’t there to be found. Because no policy changes were made after the Iraq invasion and nobody was ever punished for inflicting that horror upon our world, no lessons were learned, and it happened again. The west was deceived into yet another disastrous military intervention, which continues to have severe consequences for people in the region to this day.
If you want to understand the human devastation we're hearing about in Libya rn, as well as why a regional war threatens to break out over Niger, you could do worse than read this brief history of the "successful" & popular 2011 Libyan intervention.https://t.co/OvYvMjnHVm
— Branko Marcetic (@BMarchetich) September 14, 2023
n an article published earlier this month in Responsible Statecraft about the crisis in Niger, Branko Marcetic made the interesting observation that the Nigerien junta which ousted the previous government has explicitly stated that the coup was necessary because of the “continuous deterioration of the security situation” which Niger and other countries in the Sahel have been suffering from for over a decade due to “the negative socioeconomic, security, political and humanitarian consequences of NATO’s hazardous adventure in Libya.”
Marcetic also notes that the regime change intervention in Libya was meant to segue into a regime change intervention in Syria by the same means:
“Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), and John Kerry (D-Mass.) all called for a no-fly zone. ‘I love the military … but they always seem to find reasons why you can’t do something rather than why you can,’ complained McCain. The American Enterprise Institute’s Danielle Pletka said it would be ‘an important humanitarian step.’ The now-defunct Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) think tank gathered a who’s who of neoconservatives to repeatedlyurge the same. In a letter to then-President Barack Obama, they quoted back Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize speech in which he argued that ‘inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later.’
“Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, reportedly instrumental in persuading Obama to act, was herself swayed by similar arguments. Friend and unofficial adviser Sidney Blumenthal assured her that, once Gaddafi fell, ‘limited but targeted military support from the West combined with an identifiable rebellion’ could become a new model for toppling Middle Eastern dictators. Pointing to the similar, deteriorating situation in Syria, Blumenthal claimed that ‘the most important event that could alter the Syrian equation would be the fall of Gaddafi, providing an example of a successful rebellion.’ ”
And that’s exactly what the Obama administration set out to do: pouring weapons into Syria with the goal of effecting regime change, once again on the side of Al Qaeda-linked fighters. Had Russia not intervened in 2015 to prevent Damascus from being toppled, Syria would likely have suffered the same fate as Libya.
So that’s two countries Obama and his cohorts tossed in the incinerator back-to-back, in much the same way the previous administration torched Afghanistan and Iraq. It was done a bit more slyly and subtly than the overt Hulk Smash ground invasions of the Bush era, but the death, suffering and destabilization caused by Obama’s depravity have been just as real.
This is as clear as day, and yet we still get imperial propaganda outlets like The Washington Post telling us that “everyone” is to blame for Libya’s current troubles. WaPo has a new article out titled “Libya’s catastrophe is everyone’s fault,” which is a bit like Charles Manson saying the Manson Family killings were everyone’s fault. The article’s author Ishaan Tharoor lays the blame for Libya’s inability to adequately protect its people from the flood on “Libya’s feuding factions and fractured polity” as well as other nations in the region before conceding that NATO’s toppling of Gaddafi would have also played some role.
"Everyone" meaning "NATO" here. pic.twitter.com/WKN9FPg3lC
— Alan MacLeod (@AlanRMacLeod) September 15, 2023
[…]
Via https://caitlinjohnstone.com.au/2023/09/16/barack-obama-belongs-in-a-fucking-cage/
Weather Warfare: “Beware the US Military’s Experiments with Climatic Warfare”
HAARP array of antennas
MIchel Chossudovsky
‘Climatic warfare’ potentially threatens the future of humanity, but has casually been excluded from the reports for which the IPCC received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.
Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) constitute a buoyant $5.3 Billion dollar business (2022) which is slated to increase to $12.9 Billon dollars by 2027. This profit-driven military-industrial market is dominated by six “Defense Contractors” including Raytheon, Northrup Grunman, BAE Systems (plc), Boeing, Lockheed Martin and L3Harris Technologies.
Raytheon and BAE Systems are also involved in ENMOD technologies on behalf of the U.S. Air Force. (Michel Chossudovsky, December 7, 2007 August 2023)
I initiated my research on Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD) in 2001 focussing on the HAARP System of Antennas, in Gokona, Alaska.
The HAARP facility was fully operational starting in the mid-1990s with advanced capabilities.
While HAARP was closed down in 2014, ENMOD techniques have in the course of the last ten years become increasingly sophisticated as well as precise. Much of the documentation has become classified.
In the United States, Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) are the object of research by several agencies linked to the Pentagon, including DARPA, the Air Force Research Laboratory, the Office of Naval Research among others.
Of relevance to the assessment of recent climatic disasters, this article first published by The Ecologist, (December 7, 2007) provides an overview as well as a history. It also confirms the role of private military contractors in the development of HAARP including BAE Systems Inc and Raytheon.
-Michel Chossudovsky, September 13, 2023
Rarely acknowledged in the debate on global climate change, the world’s weather can now be modified as part of a new generation of sophisticated electromagnetic weapons. Both the US and Russia have developed capabilities to manipulate the climate for military use.
Environmental modification techniques have been applied by the US military for more than half a century. US mathematician John von Neumann, in liaison with the US Department of Defense, started his research on weather modification in the late 1940s at the height of the Cold War and foresaw ‘forms of climatic warfare as yet unimagined’. During the Vietnam war, cloud-seeding techniques were used, starting in 1967 under Project Popeye, the objective of which was to prolong the monsoon season and block enemy supply routes along the Ho Chi Minh Trail.
The US military has developed advanced capabilities that enable it selectively to alter weather patterns. The technology, which is being perfected under the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), is an appendage of the Strategic Defense Initiative – ‘Star Wars’. [HAARP facility was closed down in 2014. Since then more advanced facilities have been developed]. From a military standpoint, HAARP is a weapon of mass destruction, operating from the outer atmosphere and capable of destabilising agricultural and ecological systems around the world.
Weather-modification, according to the US Air Force document AF 2025 Final Report ‘offers the war fighter a wide range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary’, capabilities, it says, extend to the triggering of floods, hurricanes, droughts and earthquakes:
‘Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international security and could be done unilaterally… It could have offensive and defensive applications and even be used for deterrence purposes. The ability to generate precipitation, fog and storms on earth or to modify space weather… and the production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of [military] technologies.’ *(Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025)
In 1977, an international Convention was ratified by the UN General Assembly which banned ‘military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects.’ It defined ‘environmental modification techniques’ as ‘any technique for changing –through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes – the dynamics, composition or structure of the earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space.’
While the substance of the 1977 Convention was reasserted in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) signed at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, debate on weather modification for military use has become a scientific taboo.
Military analysts are mute on the subject. Meteorologists are not investigating the matter and environmentalists are focused on greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol. Neither is the possibility of climatic or environmental manipulations as part of a military and intelligence agenda, while tacitly acknowledged, part of the broader debate on climate change under UN auspices.
The HAARP ProgrammeEstablished in 1992, HAARP, based in Gokona, Alaska, is an array of high-powered antennas that transmit, through high-frequency radio waves, massive amounts of energy into the ionosphere (the upper layer of the atmosphere). Their construction was funded by the US Air Force, the US Navy and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Operated jointly by the Air Force Research Laboratory and the Office of Naval Research, HAARP constitutes a system of powerful antennas capable of creating ‘controlled local modifications of the ionosphere’. According to its official website, www.haarp.alaska.edu , HAARP will be used ‘to induce a small, localized change in ionospheric temperature so physical reactions can be studied by other instruments located either at or close to the HAARP site’.
But Rosalie Bertell, president of the International Institute of Concern for Public Health, says HAARP operates as:
“a gigantic heater that can cause major disruptions in the ionosphere, creating not just holes, but long incisions in the protective layer that keeps deadly radiation from bombarding the planet”.
Physicist Dr Bernard Eastlund called it ‘the largest ionospheric heater ever built’.
HAARP is presented by the US Air Force as a research programme, but military documents confirm its main objective is to ‘induce ionospheric modifications’ with a view to altering weather patterns and disrupting communications and radar.
According to a report by the Russian State Duma:
‘The US plans to carry out large-scale experiments under the HAARP programme [and] create weapons capable of breaking radio communication lines and equipment installed on spaceships and rockets, provoke serious accidents in electricity networks and in oil and gas pipelines, and have a negative impact on the mental health of entire regions.’
An analysis of statements emanating from the US Air Force points to the unthinkable:
“The covert manipulation of weather patterns, communications and electric power systems as a weapon of global warfare, enabling the US to disrupt and dominate entire regions.”
Weather manipulation is the pre-emptive weapon par excellence. It can be directed against enemy countries or ‘friendly nations’ without their knowledge, used to destabilise economies, ecosystems and agriculture. It can also trigger havoc in financial and commodity markets. The disruption in agriculture creates a greater dependency on food aid and imported grain staples from the US and other Western countries.
HAARP was developed as part of an Anglo-American partnership between Raytheon Corporation, which owns the HAARP patents, the US Air Force and British Aerospace Systems (BAES).
The HAARP project is one among several collaborative ventures in advanced weapons systems between the two defence giants. The HAARP project was initiated in 1992 by Advanced Power Technologies, Inc. (APTI), a subsidiary of Atlantic Richfield Corporation (ARCO). APTI (including the HAARP patents) was sold by ARCO to E-Systems Inc, in 1994. E-Systems, on contract to the CIA and US Department of Defense, outfitted the ‘Doomsday Plan’, which ‘allows the President to manage a nuclear war’. Subsequently acquired by Raytheon Corporation, it is among the largest intelligence contractors in the World. BAES was involved in the development of the advanced stage of the HAARP antenna array under a 2004 contract with the Office of Naval Research.
The installation of 132 high frequency transmitters was entrusted by BAES to its US subsidiary, BAE Systems Inc. The project, according to a July report [2007] in Defense News, was undertaken by BAES’s Electronic Warfare division. In September [2007] it received DARPA’s top award for technical achievement for the design, construction and activation of the HAARP array of antennas.
The HAARP system is fully operational and in many regards dwarfs existing conventional and strategic weapons systems. While there is no firm evidence of its use for military purposes, Air Force documents suggest HAARP is an integral part of the militarisation of space. One would expect the antennas already to have been subjected to routine testing.
Under the UNFCCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has a mandate ‘to assess scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of climate change’. This mandate includes environmental warfare. ‘Geo-engineering’ is acknowledged, but the underlying military applications are neither the object of policy analysis or scientific research in the thousands of pages of IPCC reports and supporting documents, based on the expertise and input of some 2,500 scientists, policymakers and environmentalists. ‘Climatic warfare’ potentially threatens the future of humanity, but has casually been excluded from the reports for which the IPCC received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.
Click here to view CBC 1996 News documentary: HAARP – US military weather weapon.
[…]
Via
1215: How the Fourth Lateran Council Legitimized Persecution
Jew wearing special hat as prescribed by Fourth Lateran Council
Episode 7 The Canon of Persecution
1215: Years That Changed History
Dr Dorsey Armstrong (2019)
Film Review
Armstrong devotes this lecture to the prohibitory canons issued by the Fourth Lateran Council 1215,
These included bans on
• new religious orders (other than the Benedictines, Cistercians, Franciscans and Augustinians).
• use (by priests) of unclean vestments, altar and communion cloths.
• use of churches for storing parishoners’ furniture, except in emergencies.
• sale of relics or display of relics outside reliquaries
• bishops receiving bribes for appointing priests to churches
• priests receiving bribes to perform sacraments like marriage, last rites or burial.
• Christians charging interest for loans (usury)
Canon 68 – required Jews and Muslims to dress in ways distinguishing them from Christians, lest Christians accidentally have sex with them.
Canon 69 – forbade Jews to hold public office or work as civili servants. Combined with recent laws seizing their landholdings, this left few occupations open them other than banking and money lending (Jews were allowed to engage in usury and Christians to pay them interest on loans)/
Canon 70 – allows Jews to convert to Christianity to secure a livelihood so long as they refrain from practicing Judaism privately.
Canon 71 (the longest) calls for a 5th Crusade to start in 1217 and for Christians who do business with Saracens (Arabs or Turks who practice Islam) or travel through their lands to be excommunicated. It also asserts that crusaders are under no obligation to pay interest or repay loans to Jews. It also promises for full forgiveness of sins for all Christians who participate in crusades or help pay for them.
Film can be viewed free with a library card at Kanopy.
https://www.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/watch/video/12392969/12392984
September 15, 2023
House Republicans Launch Probe of Biden’s Handling of the Maui Wildfires
By Charlotte Hazard Just the News“President Biden built his entire reputation on empathy and compassion but failed to deliver an appropriate response when it mattered most,” the letter reads.
House Republicans on Friday announced the start of a probe into the Biden administration’s handling of the devastating wildfires in Maui, Hawaii.
House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) and Government Operations and the Federal Workforce Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas) wrote a letter to FEMA administrator Deanne Criswell, announcing the probe.
“To ensure locals are receiving the assistance they need, and taxpayer dollars being used effectively, the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability is taking action and seeking information from FEMA on all ongoing recovery efforts in Maui,” the letter reads. “The Oversight Committee has a responsibility to ensure FEMA is utilizing every tool at their disposal efficiently and will work to ensure FEMA delivers assistance in a seamless, swift timeframe.”
The letter raises concerns about a possible delayed federal response, how Federal Emergency Management Agency employees were allegedly staying in luxury hotels there and multiple people could not contact the agency shortly after the disaster.
“The deadly wildfire in Maui shocked the nation and left many, especially those directly impacted by the tragedy, with serious questions that remain unanswered today,” the letter also reads. “President Biden built his entire reputation on empathy and compassion but failed to deliver an appropriate response when it mattered most.”
Biden attracted considerable scrutiny for his response to the crisis. While on vacation in Delaware the president offered a curt “no comment” to questions about the death and destruction from the blaze.
He also announced one-time $700 payments to families affected by the fire, which critics have blasted as meager and contrasted with the sum of federal funds the administration has sent to Ukraine.
The Aug. 8 wildfires resulted in the death of at least 115 people and essential destroyed the historic resort town of Lahaina.
[…]
Via https://justthenews.com/accountability/house-republicans-launch-probe-bidens-handling-maui-wildfires
Real data behind new COVID vaccines White House pushing
Marty Makary and Tracy Beth Hoep
New York Post
What if I told you one in 50 people who took a new medication had a “medically attended adverse event” and the manufacturer refused to disclose what exactly the complication was — would you take it?
And what if the theoretical benefit was only transient, lasting about three months, after which your susceptibility goes back to baseline?
And what if we told you the Food and Drug Administration cleared it without any human-outcomes data and European regulators are not universally recommending it as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is?
That’s what we know about the new COVID vaccine the Biden administration is firmly recommending for every American 6 months old and up.
The push is so hard that former White House COVID coordinator Dr. Ashish Jha and CDC head Mandy Cohen are making unsupported claims the new vaccine reduces hospitalizations. long COVID and the likelihood you will spread COVID.
None of those claims has a shred of scientific support.
In fact, if the manufacturers said that, they could be fined for making false marketing claims beyond an FDA-approved indication.
The questions surrounding Moderna’s new COVID vaccine approved this week are still looming.
Pfizer’s version, approved this week as well, also has zero efficacy data and has not been tested on humans at all. We only have data about antibody production from 10 mice.
The FDA, or Moderna (frankly, it’s hard to tell the difference sometimes), should disclose what happened to the patient who took the new vaccine and had a complication that required medical attention.
The public has a right to know.
The last time the Biden administration approved and recommended a novel COVID bivalent booster, last fall, with no human-outcomes data, it was an epic fail.
Only 17% of Americans took it (and some of those were forced to do so by their employer or school).
Not foreseeing such weak public support for the booster last year, the Biden administration had prepaid pharma $4.9 billion for 171 million doses — many of which were tossed in the wastebasket.
Now it is making the same mistake.
Two weeks ago, the Biden administration upped its orders for the pediatric version of the new COVID vaccines from 14.5 million doses at $1.3 billion to 20 million doses for $1.7 billion, which is more than four times as many pediatric doses as were used last year.
There clearly seems to be a special push this time to give it to children — the same group European regulators are not supporting.
In fact, the original Moderna vaccine was banned in parts of Europe for people under age 30.
European doctors are not alone.
Dr. Paul Offit, a vaccine-mandate supporter and FDA adviser from the University of Pennsylvania, told The Atlantic this week that he’s not going to take the new COVID vaccine.
He didn’t take the bivalent booster last fall either, despite being 72 years old.
While he disagreed with Jha on the booster, he recently confessed, “Yes, he was wrong, but you know you can’t say that exactly.”
Yes, you can.
America is tired of political apologists as medical experts. They want the truth.
Offit is at least more honest than most experts who put their heads in the sand and parroted whatever public health officials said.
Pfizer made $100 billion during the pandemic. It can afford to fund a randomized trial to demonstrate to the American people the new booster is effective.
That’s the scientific process.
Unlike influenza, COVID-19 is constantly circulating, so there is ample opportunity to run a trial; indeed, Moderna already ran a randomized trial.
Its trial of just 50 people began four months ago and oddly only reported 14-day side effects.
Why didn’t it enroll more people in its trial? Why didn’t it report three-month effectiveness and do a proper trial?
Conducting a placebo-controlled trial in people during this time would not only yield useful information; it would enable further study of those subjects three and six months from now, when a winter surge may occur.
Let’s be honest: Follow-up studies of COVID vaccines in general have revealed a disappointing truth — mild efficacy against infection is transient, lasting just a few months.
Perhaps Pfizer and Moderna knew the FDA regulatory process was greased for them and they didn’t have to.
It’s time for the FDA to resume its role as a regulator and not the marketing department for Pfizer and Moderna.
It is possible a new booster may help downgrade the severity of COVID infection for select high-risk populations, but that’s all the more reason a proper clinical trial is needed.
It’s also worth noting the CDC’s new recommendation ignores natural immunity, which means many schools will do the same.
A February Lancet review of 65 studies concluded natural immunity is at least as good as vaccinated immunity and probably better.
So if a college student had COVID a few months ago, the CDC wants him or her to get the new shot anyway, but the correct scientific answer is the risks are expected to outweigh the benefit.
Supporters of pushing the novel COVID boosters point to the annual flu-shot approval process, which does not require a randomized trial.
But COVID vaccines are very different from flu vaccines.
COVID vaccines have higher complication rates, including severe and life-threatening cardiac reactions. Flu shots have a 50-plus-year safety record whereas COVID vaccines have been associated with a serious adverse event rate of one in 5,000 doses, according to a German study by the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut.
Another study, published last year in the medical journal Vaccine, estimated the rate of serious adverse events to be as high as one in 556 COVID vaccine recipients.
And for young people, the incidence of myocarditis is six to 28 times higher after the vaccine than after infection, even for females, according to a 2022 JAMA Cardiology study.
That’s one of the reasons a study that we and several national colleagues published last year found that college booster mandates appear to have resulted in a net public health harm.
Finally, at a molecular level, some scientists are concerned about what is called immune imprinting and additional ways multiple booster doses can weaken the immune system.
A study published last year in the journal Science described a reduced immune response among people infected who then received three COVID vaccine doses.
If public health officials get their way, a healthy 5-year-old boy will get 72 COVID vaccine shots over the course of his lifetime, if he has an average lifespan, with a risk of myocarditis after each one.
Inexplicably and defying science, the CDC is saying even if a child had COVID three weeks ago, he or she should still get the new COVID shot.
Two of the FDA’s best vaccine experts are gone. Dr. Marion Gruber, who was director of the FDA’s vaccine office, and her deputy director, Dr. Philip Krause, both quit the agency in 2021 in protest over political pressure to authorize vaccine boosters for young people.
Ever since the loss of these two vaccine experts, the agency’s vaccine authorizations have been consistent with an overly cozy relationship between pharma and the White House.
Pushing a new COVID vaccine without human-outcomes data makes a mockery of the scientific method and our regulatory process.In fact, why have an FDA if White House doctors can simply declare a drug to be safe after discussing secret data in private meetings with pharma?
[…]
The Most Revolutionary Act
- Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's profile
- 11 followers
