1 Attachment(s)
Who Would Benefit From Drought? or Why Isn't Existing Tech Fixing It?
Who Would Benefit From A GeoEgineered Drought?
Or Why Isn't Existing Techology Being Used To Fix It?
Yes mother nature has been responsible for many droughts, but technology has now existed for over 70 years that could either have created this one, or able to fix it. There are reasons to believe the weather has been HAARP GeoEngineered, but more telling to me is why no admitted or unadmitted weather modification technology is being used to impact it.
The answer is frequently to follow the money and identify who benefits. For one, anything big-money-agriculture related can always be traced back to Monsanto and its 'problem-reaction-solution' profitability business model.
The modern weather modification program and the ability to modify the weather and induce earthquakes, drought, rain, and tsunamis is over 70 years old and the IPCC silence is deafening on this capability:
FOR EXAMPLE:
- Public service announcements printed in newspapers back in the 1960s warned of government intention to modify the weather and Life Magazine back in the 50s and 60s continually covered US weather modification programs, including Project Stormfury which redirected and reduced hurricane intensity from 1962 to 1983.
- The military’s weather modification program known as Operation Popeye ran from 1967 thru 1972 in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia for seeding clouds and causing torrential downpours that inhibited enemy truck and troop movements.
- In 2000, The Times of London Dr. Bertell reported, “...US military scientists have weather weapons including the enhancing of storms and the diverting of vapor rivers in the Earth’s atmosphere able to produce targeted droughts or floods....”
- Someone to call?
WEATHER MODIFICATION INC. https://www.weathermodification.com/index.php
The proven success of Weather Modification, Inc., in atmospheric and weather operations is evident by our lengthy and impressive client listing speaks for itself. Our reputation for successful cloud seeding and meteorological services.....
RECENTLY - in 2013 Monsanto paid $930M for Climate Corporation, a crop insurance underwriter "....to sell more data and services to farmers already buying it's products..." Already closely tied to the military, how easy would it be for Monsanto to know in advance of a geoengineered drought or deluge? Monsanto expects its Climate Insurance business to generate $20 billion in revenue beyond its seed and chemical business.
This is a MEGA conflict of interest equal to as if a biggest pharmaceutical company like Merck bought the biggest health Insurance Company Humana.
There is big money in controllable Problem-Reaction-Solution scenarios. We now have a big problem with a solution being ignored that could cause many average people to lose big, and this is just one mega corporation poised to benefit big from it.
Re: Who Would Benefit From Drought? or Why Isn't Existing Tech Fixing It?
I appreciate all your sources, Alex. I'm on some great informational groups on FB who share valuable articles. One that I found was a bill that didn't pass but important none-the-less- 'Text Of the Space Preservation Act of 2001' which was introduced by Dennis Kucinach on 10/2/2001 (hmmm a few weeks after 911) in a previous session of Congress and specifically mentions chemtrails-- Section 7 B ii-- as an exotic weapon (designed to damage space or natural ecosystems, such as the ionosphere and upper atmosphere, or climate, weather, and tectonic systems with the purpose of inducing damage or destruction upon a target population or region on earth or in space). It also mentions quite a few other weapons that people don't want to believe exist.https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/hr2977/text
So again, as I also knew, that Monsanto has its tentacles in another scheme besides GMO's which are in vaccines too...all connecting the dots (this article video does a great job...has patents on it too...and the music on the video is another thing) https://www.thelibertybeacon.com/201...al-tie-points/
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Alex:
Who Would Benefit From A GeoEgineered Drought?
Or Why Isn't Existing Techology Being Used To Fix It?
Yes mother nature has been responsible for many droughts, but technology has now existed for over 70 years that could either have created this one, or able to fix it....
Re: Who Would Benefit From Drought? or Why Isn't Existing Tech Fixing It?
Came upon this old post by Alex. Great work, mate! You pretty much nailed it.
So what now? Are we all going to cower before the might of Monsanto, and the other miscreants who clearly wish us ill? This seems to be the preferred option, since no one has done anything, and there seems to be a heavy blanket of self-censureship about even mentioning the subject. This, at least, we have to break through, because nothing will be achieved as long as most of us pretend that nothing's wrong, that the government would never lie to us, or that our rulers, having been supposedly chosen by us, are concerned only with making things better for us. Docility will destroy us all.
The trees are dying. My garden is dying of thirst too. We KNOW that this could easily be fixed, as Alex points out at the very start of his message. From the timid silence in the face of this outrageous destruction of the atmosphere, you'd think that we were all so servile to our masters that we have lost the ability to imagine any alternatives. There have even been people on Wacco who viciously attacked anyone who suggested there may be a connection between chemtrails and the drought. But my friends, what could possibly be so upsetting about the idea that we should at least question whether this is happening?
I think the inhibiting factor is the sense of hopelessness. Monsanto and the other corporations involved seem too powerful, their grip on the arms of government at all levels too firm to oppose. If we are going to take on such mighty giants, surely it will take more energy from us than we can spare. Life is already burdensome, it's all you can do to pay the bills and get on with your life, which involves endless struggle to keep the wolf from the door.
Here's the strategy used to keep us powerless: Imagine ten dogs, deliberately starved, given one bone. And absorbed in fighting each other, they fail to notice the strategy. They are even grateful to whoever threw them the bone! Now, in Sonoma County, everyone fights about the diminishing water. No one notices the artificiality of the scarcity. If someone should mention it, they quickly understand that this was in poor taste. It's too depressing to contemplate the long journey that will have to be made, the huge numbers of people that have to be mobilized, once you admit the scale of the problem.
But if that's the only way, then the sooner we begin it, the better, surely? We'll never get anywhere by denying the situation. "A journey of ten thousand miles begins with the place beneath your feet." That is, by acknowledging your situation. How can we all be silent, when the Air, one of the four sacred elements, is being visibly and deliberately fouled? How can we say that we love this planet, if we watch her trashed without even a whimper of protest?
It is absurd that anyone should take exception to merely suggesting that a solution to the drought is being withheld. I trust that all of us who have elected to take the Red Pill will understand just how absurd that is.
We need to MAKE LOTS OF NOISE ABOUT THIS. Question this very obvious, very serious, matter. There must at least be a huge outcry about this.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Alex:
Who Would Benefit From A GeoEgineered Drought?
Or Why Isn't Existing Techology Being Used To Fix It?
Yes mother nature has been responsible for many droughts, but technology has now existed for over 70 years that could either have created this one, or able to fix it. There are reasons to believe the weather has been HAARP GeoEngineered, but more telling to me is why no admitted or unadmitted weather modification technology is being used to impact it.
The answer is frequently to follow the money and identify who benefits. For one, anything big-money-agriculture related can always be traced back to Monsanto and its 'problem-reaction-solution' profitability business model.
The modern weather modification program and the ability to modify the weather and induce earthquakes, drought, rain, and tsunamis
is over 70 years old and the IPCC silence is deafening on this capability:
FOR EXAMPLE:
- Public service announcements printed in newspapers back in the 1960s warned of government intention to modify the weather and Life Magazine back in the 50s and 60s continually covered US weather modification programs, including Project Stormfury which redirected and reduced hurricane intensity from 1962 to 1983.
- The military’s weather modification program known as Operation Popeye ran from 1967 thru 1972 in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia for seeding clouds and causing torrential downpours that inhibited enemy truck and troop movements.
- In 2000, The Times of London Dr. Bertell reported, “...US military scientists have weather weapons including the enhancing of storms and the diverting of vapor rivers in the Earth’s atmosphere able to produce targeted droughts or floods....”
- Someone to call?
WEATHER MODIFICATION INC. https://www.weathermodification.com/index.php
The proven success of Weather Modification, Inc., in atmospheric and weather operations is evident by our lengthy and impressive client listing speaks for itself. Our reputation for successful cloud seeding and meteorological services.....
RECENTLY - in
2013 Monsanto paid $930M for Climate Corporation,
a crop insurance underwriter "....to sell more data and services to farmers already buying it's products..." Already closely tied to the military, how easy would it be for Monsanto to know in advance of a geoengineered drought or deluge?
Monsanto expects its Climate Insurance business to generate $20 billion in revenue beyond its seed and chemical business.
This is a MEGA conflict of interest equal to as if a biggest pharmaceutical company like Merck bought the biggest health Insurance Company Humana.
There is big money in controllable Problem-Reaction-Solution scenarios. We now have a big problem with a solution being ignored that could cause many average people to lose big, and this is just one mega corporation poised to benefit big from it.
Re: Who Would Benefit From Drought? or Why Isn't Existing Tech Fixing It?
It appears that technology exists to create solutions to drought and flooding, but big money is in control, and can create more of either situation for increased profits. The average person is expendable, as they slave to stay barely alive. These people have no energy to speak out. It's up to the people who have some power to be heard, like the people who are fighting against mandated vaccines.
Those who have power over the weather, control crop production, which in turn controls farmer's profits, and the prices we pay to eat. If we think our dollar doesn't go very far, imagine those people who rely on food banks to exist. Lack of quality food creates weakness and disease. Those with overburdened systems can't be expected to speak up.
And people who have the resources to buy high quality food, or at least high priced food may not be speaking up either. They may do their part with charitable contributions, but may not get involved in direct activism.
So, who will speak up? Who will hear their voices? What steps can be taken now?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by comodin:
Came upon this old post by Alex. Great work, mate! You pretty much nailed it.
So what now? ...
Re: Who Would Benefit From Drought? or Why Isn't Existing Tech Fixing It?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by comodin:
Came upon this old post by Alex. Great work, mate! You pretty much nailed it.
So what now? ...
Thanks, you nailed it too in every way. Funny how the obvious is so frequently vilified as the 'red pill'.
Maybe this is an idea..
I could go on and on about how the drought is just a factor of a much bigger interconnected agenda and seemingly a hopeless giant to fight, but history has shown that it's possible that all a big shift in awareness could be started with is one little domino, right? A simple question gaining steam about why long perfected weather modification isn't being discussed actually could be a big first domino in terms of suspicions dawning on people enough to go... "hey...why isn't this answer being pursued?" and suddenly it's the mouse that roared.
Our ace in the hole might be the big money wine industry and agriculture industries on the verge of big losses. They're likely mostly all just as asleep to HAARP or cabals or underlying agendas as any blue piller', but they're WORRIED, their profits and futures are on the line and they have money and big player connections and a lot more noise making power. I wonder why their industry isn't already discussing it, but maybe the best chance to get the ball rolling might be to point out to all of them how they're being screwed and piss them off.
The ramifications are hitting everyone too tho, so maybe it would spread without the big money agriculture, but we're being sold pending El Nino now, I wonder if it's a stall tactic or the verge of water armageddon.
Thanks for reawakening the point.
Re: Who Would Benefit From Drought? or Why Isn't Existing Tech Fixing It?
Hi Alex,
Your idea, "Our ace in the hole might be the big money wine industry and agriculture industries on the verge of big losses," is exactly the one I had.
The wine industry is being heavily criticized these days, and they must be feeling the heat. Maybe this is the moment to present to them the idea that they can deflect this anger by re-directing it towards those who are deliberately causing the problem — or anyway, not using obvious and available solutions.
This should appeal to their sensitivity to profits and losses. Grape growers make huge investments, which have to pay off. The prospect of losing all because of the demands of people for water to survive rather than make profits for a very few, and the deeper problem of there not being enough water anyway, regardless of whatever temporary advantage political favoritism gives them, may get them moving.
Even those among them who do not want to believe that the drought is contrived, and who refuse to believe it, may nevertheless be open to the strategy of diverting the rage of the 800-pound gorilla of public opinion to someone else.
Now the question is, how to present this, and to whom? The first and so far the only idea I've had is to approach the winegrowers' association(s) with this idea about saving themselves. Crude and obvious, but would it work? Could it hurt? Might it help? And what other avenues are there?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Alex:
Thanks, you nailed it too in every way. Funny how the obvious is so frequently vilified as the 'red pill'.
Maybe this is an idea..
...
Re: Who Would Benefit From Drought? or Why Isn't Existing Tech Fixing It?
It's curious to me that despite weather modification being a big, outfront, longtime casually accepted thing in the midwest agriculture world, not any covert option, it must be no secret in the wine agriculture industry either.... you'd think. Brings up why it might be being suppressed by those at the controls there too.
Good point about going to the associations first instead of trying to find a zillion emails of individual growers... if we can figure out if the foxes aren't guarding the henhouse. I'm inclined to start by calling just one friendly smaller winery in our backyard, or even visit some tasting room with the owner nearby and ask what the scuttlebutt about it, if any, is. Maybe if we both did it and compared opinions we'd know more than we do now before making any move.
If there's reason to believe it hasn't dawned on anyone, another place to drop a letter with the question is the Bohemian, maybe the local Napa and Sonoma papers too, and/or try to get them to investigate the issue and write a feature story.
How about that?
1 Attachment(s)
Re: Who Would Benefit From Drought? or Why Isn't Existing Tech Fixing It?
You might be interested in yesterday's Coast to Coast interview with Dane Wigington, a longtime activist regarding geo-engineering.
His interview starts at 1:17
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMQvtF7OARE
One of the first things he cites to point out that this technology is available and in widespread use is the statement by China when they were about to host the Olympics a few years ago and were asked about the weather cooperating and they said something like "don't worry, we've got it covered'.
The longtime military use of 'weather warfare' as a weapon is also more proof of the capability to fix OR start the drought as he cites has been done to debilitate many countries to make it easier to blackmail them or take them over... for one thing.
As I said in Shandi's recent post, the patents would be very telling. I haven't researched them recently, but remember numerous very suspicious applications over the years.
Anyway, if you feel like listening, I'd be curious if you see any flaws in his presentation.
Re: Who Would Benefit From Drought? or Why Isn't Existing Tech Fixing It?
I will check it out later but wanted to say that there were such heavy geoengineering in parts of Australia causing drought, that whole towns were sold out to Monsanto and then the rain fell again. In the US, where there are geo- engineered heavy droughts with soils being altered by bio-available aluminum, what does Monsanto come out with? Aluminum drought resistant seeds. That's no coincidence. [Monsanto develops Aluminum Resistant biotech seeds] https://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2...-biotech-seeds ]
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Alex:
You might be interested in yesterday's Coast to Coast interview with Dane Wigington, a longtime activist regarding geo-engineering.
His interview starts at 1:17
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMQvtF7OARE
One of the first things he cites to point out that this technology is available and in widespread use is the statement by China when they were about to host the Olympics a few years ago and were asked about the weather cooperating and they said something like "don't worry, we've got it covered'.
The longtime military use of 'weather warfare' as a weapon is also more proof of the capability to fix OR start the drought as he cites has been done to debilitate many countries to make it easier to blackmail them or take them over... for one thing.
As I said in Shandi's recent post, the patents would be very telling. I haven't researched them recently, but remember numerous very suspicious applications over the years.
Anyway, if you feel like listening, I'd be curious if you see any flaws in his presentation.
