CHEMTRAILS: KANTAS/GONTELITSAS
G. Kantas
Professor, you recently conducted a study on airborne microparticles and you detected arsenic and other heavy metals in the atmosphere of the Athens basin. Have you examined the possibility that they might be attributable to aircraft emissions and in particular those from the aircraft that fill the sky with “white clouds”?
Would something like this be possible if we allow ourselves to think a little “conspiratorially”? Perhaps this hypothesis should be investigated. I enclose for your perusal a number of photographs I myself took and I would like you to tell me if these are natural phenomena.
T. Gontelitsas
Dear Mr. Kantas, I delayed my answer for a little so that I could inform myself on the subject you touch on ("chemtrails"). For a start let me emphasize that our research pertained to microparticles in the air of the city (a few metres above the ground) and not in the higher levels of the atmosphere where the so-called trails of some aircraft appear that are said to contain nanoparticles of certain metals such as aluminium and barium.
Thus, if some such nanoparticles are being dispersed (something I truly do not know, and your e-mail enjoined me to investigate the subject also) or remain high in the atmosphere and do not descend to the earth so that we see them in our samples (we did not see unusually high levels of either aluminium or barium) or are so very tiny (formally nanoparticles) that we cannot detect them despite the extreme sensitivity of the techniques we use here and in Germany. Please note that our study, apart from pertaining, as previously mentioned, to the air of the city, had to do with with microparticles and not with nanoparticles (1 micrometre = 1000 nanometres). If there are indeed, apart from microparticles, ALSO nanoparticles, then a much more specialized study is required, which could be carried out by our scientific team in the future if, naturally, funding were found (from the university or some ministry or other body or even a private individual). The present study, at least on the subject of microparticles at a low altitude, was covered entirely (several thousand euros) by a European programme entirely at our own initiative and in collaboration with the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology. The University, the state, etc. showed not the slightest interest. (...). Of course, as I said before, if one wanted to go from microparticles to nanoparticles, the cost would be much higher and in the event that sampling was required from higher levels of the atmosphere, higher still. You might say that if indeed there is a serious public health problem, as surmised, from the supposed nanoparticles in the “chemtrails”, then it is worth making available not only thousands but tens of thousands of euros. That is presumably a matter for the bodies responsible for matters of atmospheric pollution, i.e. essentially the Ministry for the Environment and Climate Change and the Ministry of Health. We as university teachers and researches cannot, and indeed are not obliged to, do anything more (if the European programme had not been approved we would not have done even what we HAVE done – essentially out of research curiosity and personal interest). (in Greek “ευαισθησία”) When it comes to microparticles, and also nanoparticles, the ball is in the court of the responsible authorities and they should notify citizens accordingly. If they do not have the scientific wherewithal we (in conjunction with our German colleagues) could quite well conduct the research on the proviso that we secure financial support and the project is assigned to us.
What I do not know, also, is whether other research bodies (irrespective of the fact that the responsible body should be the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change) already have programmes and funding for research, with emphasis on heavy metals and other toxic substances, in atmospheric microparticles and indeed nanoparticles, both at lower and higher levels in the atmosphere of Athens. From what I see on the Internet you have communicated with the Athens Observatory (?) as well on this subject. I would be curious to know what their reply was (…)
I would also be curious to know whether there is a Ministry of Environment and Climate Change position or view, because at least on the subject of the microparticles in the lower layers there was a report in the daily press, based on our study, mentioning arsenic and heavy metals. Nevertheless, I reiterate that we have so far not detected (even on a small scale) particles that would indicate the presence of the aluminium and barium particles that are thought to be dispersed by the “chemtrails”. As you understand, for particles on the nanoscale, and indeed at higher levels in the atmosphere of Athens, much further work would be needed, in conjunction with the responsible authorities (...). For you information I link you to the full text of our study as published in the reputable scientific journal of nuclear physics Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research. In the introduction to the publication you will see that there is extensive reference to the previous study carried out on the subject of atmospheric microparticles over Athens (from around 1980 and subsequently) from which likewise no evidence emerged of unusual concentrations of the metals that are said to be attributable to “chemtrails”. What future research might show, including specialized investigation of nanoparticles, I do not know.
Finally, I would like to note that although the matter of “chemtrails” appears very frequently on the internet (around 5,550,000 results in Google), there are not any references to them at all, to date, on purely scientific sites such as the reputable site of the American Chemical Society (http://pubs.acs.org/action/doSearch?action=search&searchText=chemtrails&qsSearchArea=searchText).
So officially the question is not posed, and let us hope that future research on nanoparticles will show, at least for the region of Athens, where we live, that this is the reality of the situation. Until then my advice would be not to worry about the “chemtrails”. There is enough, and more than enough, to affect your health in the remaining atmospheric particles, which do not come from mysterious sources but are the outcome of the modern Greek’s love of cement, tiles, excessive building density, arson in the forests, driving automobiles and riding motorcycles with defective exhausts (I, for one, rarely get a normal night’s sleep in the suburb of Zografou where I live).
I hope I have been of some help.
T. Gontelitsas.
Κυριακή 23 Οκτωβρίου 2011
Δευτέρα 29 Αυγούστου 2011
Chemtrails and HAARP activists at Food Sovereignty meeting in Austria
Here is the English translation of an article by the Serbian journalist Mara Kern, published in the webmagazine Pecat, on the recent Food Sovereignty conference at Krems in Austria that was also attended and/or by a number of chemtrails and HAARP activists and functioned as the point of departure for a new initiative.
Wayne Hall
NOAH’S ARK – NYELENI 2011
The already waken up human conscience of the necessity to set up well-organized campaign for the Food Sovereignty has led up to creation of an international social movement, La Via Campesina, (Farmers’ Road), connecting the farmers from Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America….. Organizers of the first European Forum on the Food Sovereignty – Nyeleni, which took place in Krems (16-21st August 2010) – The Austrian Branch of the above mentioned La Via Campesina, has contributed to the creation over there of the resistance nucleus against the New World Order.
Instead of the arrogant Brussels’ “negotiators” which are merely executing their tasks, making believe that they are negotiating, the Krems meeting was attended by the health food producers from 35 countries all over the world, the same not willing any more to negotiate with anybody. Connecting themselves with the people concerned from other continents, they are building up a sort of a defense wall against the Riders of Apocalypse: WTO, Codex Alimentarius, FDA, Monsanto, etc.
La via Campesina has developed the procedure of serious analysis of both the crisis concerned and practical action to be taken, in order to obtain the accurate definition of the “Food Sovereignty” notion, understanding in the first place food production for the local and national markets, the right of each country to protect its national market and to subsidize small farms, making use of the principle of sustainable agro-ecological agriculture and limitation of the land maximum area.
The movement concerned has got radicalized within the crisis area, the same indicating to which degree the population belonging to the so-called “Third World”, are jeopardized and discontented, the same feelings having culminated in La via Campesina demonstration which took place in Mexico (2003) when a South Korean farmer – as a token of protest against the intergovernmental agreement GATT (a precursor of WTO), the leader of a farmer’s movement, had committed a suicide at a central square – carrying the slogan “WTO is killing farmer”. The cause of a suicide wave resides in the fact that after the signature of the above mentioned agreement in 1992, the Korean market has become widely open to the uncontrolled importation of cheap agricultural produce. The Korean farmers have – following the government initiative – taken the credit lines in order to catch up with the competition and to fall into the debtor slavery and eventually lose their land.
The Serbian Delegation at the above mentioned meeting was headed by Milenko Sreckovic from the “Movement for Freedom”, who, in his work “Land and Freedom”, has reported the experience originating from the ex-Yugoslavian area, promoting in the same time “the people’s fight for the agrarian and agricultural reform”. The Pečat journalist at the meeting in Krems has talked to the representatives of the farmers from Mali, Mr. Ibrahim Coulibali, who had organized the first conference of Nyeleni, which took place in Mali in 2007.
“During the last conference, we had identified the main culprit for our problems relating to the food and implosion of the African eco-systems, the same being in fact the egoistic Western policy. Mali is a country which – thanks to the political changes from 1991, has succeeded to mark a victory against the cultivation of GM food. As the famine problem is not a demographical but political question, we have come to Austria in order to set up the common strategy against the criminal Western policy, which is financing in fact “the death factory” – the agro-business, pharmaceutical industry and GMO industry. Your help and assistance are needed, among other things, to get free by common efforts, from the WTO and EPA agreement dictatorship. The Conference has got its name “Nyeleni” after a heroine of the Mali people – the woman who had succeeded to sustain her family in the most severe conditions and safeguard her land and seed for her descendants. Our movement has in fact inspired a great number of countries to include the notion of the Food Sovereignty into their Constitutions. The same include Nepal, Mali, Bolivia, Ecuador, etc. IAASTD has published a report during 2008, in which is requested the transition of agriculture from corporative control to the support for agricultural production of small sustainable farms, which notion has got the support from 51 governments.”
Joel Voyllot, a representative of the Swiss branch of the Association for the Seed Kokopelli Preservation, has pointed out the importance of gathering and keeping of the domestic sorts of seed, necessary for survival of the mankind.
“The Kokopelli organization has been keeping distributing for 17 years now the fruit, vegetables` and cereals` seed, getting into grips with the seed mafia which controls the agro-chemistry, pharmaceutical sector, as well as the food distribution chains. The West has spent billions of dollars to save the banks – in order to deny the right – based on new European Laws (within the framework of the Codex Alimentarius) for free growth of medical herbs. I have brought here the book written by Dominique Guillet “Sémences de Kokopelli” (Kokopelli seeds), the Bible of our Resistance to the GMO and the New Order. Dominique asserts that this New Order does not bring anything new – “it consists only in and aggressive imposition and renewal of an inhuman, authoritarian and sclerotic system, which is also autistic and closed up for all the forces of life regeneration.” The World Government is thus financing the “death science”, by way of the GMO, and it is about the high time to get back to the myths on which the civilisation is relying. In fact, Kokopelli is a mythic person within the cosmogony of the American Indian, who is passing through the villages carrying a bag full with seeds. After his passage, there is a period of fertility – the women, animals and soil are delivering their fruits. Instead of sowing the Monsanto unfertile seeds, we would like to make Kokopelli come back, as a new-old ethical principle of our era. We are facing a struggle against an “International Poisoners Gang” - named so by Roger Hyme, the renowned ecologist, having recognized even as long ago as in 1963, the disaster signs of the “century if ignorance and blind technique”. When we look back to all the missed opportunities to fight back, among which there is the one missed by America after the famous President Kennedy’s speech of 1963 – speech in which he expressed his resolve to put an end to “chemical polluters and the destruction of soil and biodiversity”. We might not miss this opportunity. The authorities call us paranoids and fanatics, claiming that they could cure the disease they caused with the help of “a socially responsible capitalism”. She accuses them of forming their declarations on Third World hunger problem in the name of the European lobbies, and not in the name of the European people. In 2009, she obtained (from a diplomatic source) a statement of one of the Western diplomats in which he claims: “Together, we are heading toward a New World Order and nobody, I repeat – nobody, can stand in our way.” The people from the Via Campesina movement are united in their answer: “No, we refuse to follow you on this path to destruction!”
During our stay in Krems, we also met a group of scientists from the Vavilov Institute for Seed Preservation based in St. Petersburg, in whose possession is the one of the biggest collection of seed established by the Russian scientist Nikolay Ivanovich Vavilov. For decades, this “fanatic” had been collecting the old sorts of seed across the Soviet Union, only to leave his successors unprepared for this New Russia ruled by tycoons and their double standards. The St. Petersburg seed bank is currently maintained by the group of enthusiasts (or volunteers, seeing what scarce financial support they have from the government) which hope to protect Russia from the GMO cartels, in the same way they managed to preserve their collection during the Second World War and the Leningrad Siege, when many of the Soviet scientists starved to death, although they could have saved their lives by using that seed. Nobody knows for sure what will happen with this precious collecting under the “socially responsible capitalism”, but the Russian “guardians of this national treasure” refuse to give up.
Vasso Kanellopoulou, member of the Greek organization Pelliti (“oak” in the language of the Pontus), pointed out that each enthusiastic individual could achieve great results in spite of the oppressive regimes in most of the European countries. At the island of Aegina, this organization established a successful education system that teaches children, as early as the pre-elementary school age, the importance of preserving the old sorts of seed in respect of which nobody is a holder of patent rights. The Greek seed bank is based in the village of Dracha, near the city of Kavala, and Pelliti’s vision of a farm in the future is that everybody is going to make his contribution for seed preservation according to their own possibilities.
During the above mentioned conference, the Greek delegation has drawn the attention to the sowers of the “mystery seed – chemtrails” which were sown during the whole day in Krems by some very industrial pilots. In his effort to prevent the forthcoming toxic harvest, Mr. Wayne Hall spoke of the need for an international movement having for its objective the fight for truth about chemtrails and HAARP. Mr. Hall also expressed his willingness to help Nikola Aleksic, a Serbian activist whose problems are already known to this organization.
The Greek delegation was joined by Claudia von Werlhof, the professor at the Innsbruck Political Science Institute, one of the very first victims of a HAARP “secret keepers”. As a matter of fact, Ms. Claudia was threatened with sacking from her job after having expressed rather definite suspicions regarding the nature of a recent Haiti earthquake by mentioning the possibility that that the American army foe could have deliberately provoked the earthquake (by way of the HAARP system activation), with a view to seize the opportunity for a smooth invasion of Haiti. Her director, Mr. Ferdinand Karlhofer, justified his decision by arguing that she had harmed the Institute’s reputation by way of her assertions – “spreading around the conspiracy theory without providing any scientific proofs whatsoever”. Thanks to the efforts made by the newly established committee and to the open letter addressed to Ms. Catherine Ashton, Ms. Claudia von Werlhof has been readmitted to her work post, this fact opening the prospects in a fight for truth and extending the action field for Via Campesina, the members of which are holding a merit that the European civilization – as formulated by Jose Ortega y Gasset has finally begun to form suspicions in its respect.
Wayne Hall
NOAH’S ARK – NYELENI 2011
The already waken up human conscience of the necessity to set up well-organized campaign for the Food Sovereignty has led up to creation of an international social movement, La Via Campesina, (Farmers’ Road), connecting the farmers from Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America….. Organizers of the first European Forum on the Food Sovereignty – Nyeleni, which took place in Krems (16-21st August 2010) – The Austrian Branch of the above mentioned La Via Campesina, has contributed to the creation over there of the resistance nucleus against the New World Order.
Instead of the arrogant Brussels’ “negotiators” which are merely executing their tasks, making believe that they are negotiating, the Krems meeting was attended by the health food producers from 35 countries all over the world, the same not willing any more to negotiate with anybody. Connecting themselves with the people concerned from other continents, they are building up a sort of a defense wall against the Riders of Apocalypse: WTO, Codex Alimentarius, FDA, Monsanto, etc.
La via Campesina has developed the procedure of serious analysis of both the crisis concerned and practical action to be taken, in order to obtain the accurate definition of the “Food Sovereignty” notion, understanding in the first place food production for the local and national markets, the right of each country to protect its national market and to subsidize small farms, making use of the principle of sustainable agro-ecological agriculture and limitation of the land maximum area.
The movement concerned has got radicalized within the crisis area, the same indicating to which degree the population belonging to the so-called “Third World”, are jeopardized and discontented, the same feelings having culminated in La via Campesina demonstration which took place in Mexico (2003) when a South Korean farmer – as a token of protest against the intergovernmental agreement GATT (a precursor of WTO), the leader of a farmer’s movement, had committed a suicide at a central square – carrying the slogan “WTO is killing farmer”. The cause of a suicide wave resides in the fact that after the signature of the above mentioned agreement in 1992, the Korean market has become widely open to the uncontrolled importation of cheap agricultural produce. The Korean farmers have – following the government initiative – taken the credit lines in order to catch up with the competition and to fall into the debtor slavery and eventually lose their land.
The Serbian Delegation at the above mentioned meeting was headed by Milenko Sreckovic from the “Movement for Freedom”, who, in his work “Land and Freedom”, has reported the experience originating from the ex-Yugoslavian area, promoting in the same time “the people’s fight for the agrarian and agricultural reform”. The Pečat journalist at the meeting in Krems has talked to the representatives of the farmers from Mali, Mr. Ibrahim Coulibali, who had organized the first conference of Nyeleni, which took place in Mali in 2007.
“During the last conference, we had identified the main culprit for our problems relating to the food and implosion of the African eco-systems, the same being in fact the egoistic Western policy. Mali is a country which – thanks to the political changes from 1991, has succeeded to mark a victory against the cultivation of GM food. As the famine problem is not a demographical but political question, we have come to Austria in order to set up the common strategy against the criminal Western policy, which is financing in fact “the death factory” – the agro-business, pharmaceutical industry and GMO industry. Your help and assistance are needed, among other things, to get free by common efforts, from the WTO and EPA agreement dictatorship. The Conference has got its name “Nyeleni” after a heroine of the Mali people – the woman who had succeeded to sustain her family in the most severe conditions and safeguard her land and seed for her descendants. Our movement has in fact inspired a great number of countries to include the notion of the Food Sovereignty into their Constitutions. The same include Nepal, Mali, Bolivia, Ecuador, etc. IAASTD has published a report during 2008, in which is requested the transition of agriculture from corporative control to the support for agricultural production of small sustainable farms, which notion has got the support from 51 governments.”
Joel Voyllot, a representative of the Swiss branch of the Association for the Seed Kokopelli Preservation, has pointed out the importance of gathering and keeping of the domestic sorts of seed, necessary for survival of the mankind.
“The Kokopelli organization has been keeping distributing for 17 years now the fruit, vegetables` and cereals` seed, getting into grips with the seed mafia which controls the agro-chemistry, pharmaceutical sector, as well as the food distribution chains. The West has spent billions of dollars to save the banks – in order to deny the right – based on new European Laws (within the framework of the Codex Alimentarius) for free growth of medical herbs. I have brought here the book written by Dominique Guillet “Sémences de Kokopelli” (Kokopelli seeds), the Bible of our Resistance to the GMO and the New Order. Dominique asserts that this New Order does not bring anything new – “it consists only in and aggressive imposition and renewal of an inhuman, authoritarian and sclerotic system, which is also autistic and closed up for all the forces of life regeneration.” The World Government is thus financing the “death science”, by way of the GMO, and it is about the high time to get back to the myths on which the civilisation is relying. In fact, Kokopelli is a mythic person within the cosmogony of the American Indian, who is passing through the villages carrying a bag full with seeds. After his passage, there is a period of fertility – the women, animals and soil are delivering their fruits. Instead of sowing the Monsanto unfertile seeds, we would like to make Kokopelli come back, as a new-old ethical principle of our era. We are facing a struggle against an “International Poisoners Gang” - named so by Roger Hyme, the renowned ecologist, having recognized even as long ago as in 1963, the disaster signs of the “century if ignorance and blind technique”. When we look back to all the missed opportunities to fight back, among which there is the one missed by America after the famous President Kennedy’s speech of 1963 – speech in which he expressed his resolve to put an end to “chemical polluters and the destruction of soil and biodiversity”. We might not miss this opportunity. The authorities call us paranoids and fanatics, claiming that they could cure the disease they caused with the help of “a socially responsible capitalism”. She accuses them of forming their declarations on Third World hunger problem in the name of the European lobbies, and not in the name of the European people. In 2009, she obtained (from a diplomatic source) a statement of one of the Western diplomats in which he claims: “Together, we are heading toward a New World Order and nobody, I repeat – nobody, can stand in our way.” The people from the Via Campesina movement are united in their answer: “No, we refuse to follow you on this path to destruction!”
During our stay in Krems, we also met a group of scientists from the Vavilov Institute for Seed Preservation based in St. Petersburg, in whose possession is the one of the biggest collection of seed established by the Russian scientist Nikolay Ivanovich Vavilov. For decades, this “fanatic” had been collecting the old sorts of seed across the Soviet Union, only to leave his successors unprepared for this New Russia ruled by tycoons and their double standards. The St. Petersburg seed bank is currently maintained by the group of enthusiasts (or volunteers, seeing what scarce financial support they have from the government) which hope to protect Russia from the GMO cartels, in the same way they managed to preserve their collection during the Second World War and the Leningrad Siege, when many of the Soviet scientists starved to death, although they could have saved their lives by using that seed. Nobody knows for sure what will happen with this precious collecting under the “socially responsible capitalism”, but the Russian “guardians of this national treasure” refuse to give up.
Vasso Kanellopoulou, member of the Greek organization Pelliti (“oak” in the language of the Pontus), pointed out that each enthusiastic individual could achieve great results in spite of the oppressive regimes in most of the European countries. At the island of Aegina, this organization established a successful education system that teaches children, as early as the pre-elementary school age, the importance of preserving the old sorts of seed in respect of which nobody is a holder of patent rights. The Greek seed bank is based in the village of Dracha, near the city of Kavala, and Pelliti’s vision of a farm in the future is that everybody is going to make his contribution for seed preservation according to their own possibilities.
During the above mentioned conference, the Greek delegation has drawn the attention to the sowers of the “mystery seed – chemtrails” which were sown during the whole day in Krems by some very industrial pilots. In his effort to prevent the forthcoming toxic harvest, Mr. Wayne Hall spoke of the need for an international movement having for its objective the fight for truth about chemtrails and HAARP. Mr. Hall also expressed his willingness to help Nikola Aleksic, a Serbian activist whose problems are already known to this organization.
The Greek delegation was joined by Claudia von Werlhof, the professor at the Innsbruck Political Science Institute, one of the very first victims of a HAARP “secret keepers”. As a matter of fact, Ms. Claudia was threatened with sacking from her job after having expressed rather definite suspicions regarding the nature of a recent Haiti earthquake by mentioning the possibility that that the American army foe could have deliberately provoked the earthquake (by way of the HAARP system activation), with a view to seize the opportunity for a smooth invasion of Haiti. Her director, Mr. Ferdinand Karlhofer, justified his decision by arguing that she had harmed the Institute’s reputation by way of her assertions – “spreading around the conspiracy theory without providing any scientific proofs whatsoever”. Thanks to the efforts made by the newly established committee and to the open letter addressed to Ms. Catherine Ashton, Ms. Claudia von Werlhof has been readmitted to her work post, this fact opening the prospects in a fight for truth and extending the action field for Via Campesina, the members of which are holding a merit that the European civilization – as formulated by Jose Ortega y Gasset has finally begun to form suspicions in its respect.
Πέμπτη 26 Μαΐου 2011
BOB RIGG’S REVIEW OF “THE DEAD HAND”, WITH DISCUSSION
BOB RIGG’S REVIEW OF “THE DEAD HAND”, WITH DISCUSSION
Review of the Dead Hand: Reagan, Gorbachev and the Untold Story of the Cold War Arms Race
by David E Hoffman
Bob Rigg
The picture painted of the Cold War and the arms race in this Pulitzer Prize-winning work is “terrifying”, according to John Le Carre. At the height of the Cold War the US and the Soviet Union had between them more than 50,000 nuclear warheads. This book shows how ideologically hardened political and military leaders on both sides participated in nuclear war games which President Eisenhower described as “frightening the devil out of me”. The declared aim of the US, in the event of a nuclear war with the Soviet Union, was to destroy 50% of the Soviet population and 50% of its industrial base.
The book depicts almost everyone who participated in these nuclear war games as gripped by a sense of sheer horror. Each superpower of the day had a massive capacity for overkill ensuring that, in the event of war, the other would become a human and industrial wasteland. Robert McNamara, the US secretary of state, described a strategy aiming to completely cripple the Cold War adversary as “assured destruction”. Critics of McNamara termed it mutual assured destruction, or MAD, an acronym that still resonates today.
Compounding the pervasive sense of nuclear terror was the speed with which each side could strike its opponent. The days of Hiroshima, when a lumbering bomber needed to fly for hours to reach a target, were over. Russian submarines off the East Coast of the United States could turn the White House into a pile of radioactive rubble within eight minutes. The leadership of each side knew that it would be a priority target for the other side. This made them more than slightly jumpy.
The visceral hatred and demonization which developed between the US and the Soviet Union had generated an almost complete lack of trust and a breakdown of normal diplomatic relations. Paranoia reigned supreme on both sides. At the height of mutual suspicion and paranoia each side had managed to eliminate most key agents of the other side, depriving it of reliable inside information when it was most needed.
Neither side knew with confidence how it could respond within very few minutes to the speed of a possible surprise attack. The Soviet leadership, concerned that they might be burnt to a crisp before they could press the nuclear button, even envisaged the possibility of a totally automated computerized retaliatory system, appropriately enough called the Dead Hand.
The two improbable heroes of this book are Ronald Reagan and Michael Gorbachev, then heads of state of the US and the Soviet Union. At this time Reagan was an archetypal cold warrior and anti-communist. But as a young left-winger he had been a committed advocate of peace.
Fascinatingly, this enduring dislike of war was to encourage him to come nearer than any Western leader to committing to nuclear disarmament, in an utterly unsympathetic political/military environment.
Michael Gorbachev’s charismatic, reformist and open leadership style made him a popular figure worldwide. He knew that ambitious new programs such as a Soviet Star Wars, to counter that of Reagan, were a figment of the imagination of the all-powerful Soviet military/industrial complex.
Although Reagan did not warm to Gorbachev at first, the two slowly built a relationship of trust producing agreement in principle for total nuclear disarmament. Each was acting on his own initiative, without the support of his establishment. After protracted negotiations the deal foundered on Reagan’s insistence that the US should proceed with Star Wars, which he perceived as non-offensive. A unique window of opportunity for worldwide nuclear disarmament was lost.
Although the US and Russia have today reduced their stockpiles to 20,000 warheads, their destructive capacity far exceeds that of the 50,000 warheads available during the Cold War. Hoffman’s outstanding and fascinating work concludes with a warning that the “Dead Hand of the arms race is still alive.”
The equally fascinating and important second strand of this book meticulously dissects the duplicity of the Soviet Union’s covert biological weapons program. This was aimed at industrial scale production of the most deadly biological warfare agents, in blatant violation of a multilateral treaty which the Soviet Union had itself negotiated. It is still uncertain whether Gorbachev knew of this program ….
2. Reply from Enouranois
Hello Bob,
I note that you are impressed by the key idea that David Hoffman is trying to put over: the idea of Ronald Reagan as the man who really wanted to abolish nuclear weapons (but could only put this proposal to the Soviets on condition of their accepting the Strategic Defense Initiative).
In fact in taking this position at Reykjavik Reagan was doing nothing more than implementing the policies of Edward Teller, whose brainchild and priority the SDI was. It was Teller who wanted to lure the Soviets into accepting this putative anti-missile system by using the bait of universal nuclear disarmament. This involved their accepting the absurdity of signing an agreement for the construction of an anti-missile system to destroy the missiles whose abolition was simultaneously being proposed.
It was typical Teller mind-breaking methodology, and because the SDI was not only an anti-missile system but a preliminary conception for a multi-purpose directed energy weapons system, (later embodied in the ground-based HAARP and its counterparts elsewhere in the world), it continued after the "end of the Cold War", when Teller put forward at the same time assertions of anthropogenic climate change scepticism and proposals for a geoengineering scheme to "solve anthropogenic climate change".
One early report on these schemes of Teller was this video by William Thomas
http://www.enouranois.gr/video/CHMTRAILS%201.wmv
It was superseded by conceptually less confused analyses later, but these later accounts pay less attention to Teller, as his life recedes further into the past.
As for the biological warfare component of "The Dead Hand", it is natural that people whose way of thinking has been consumed by scenarios of "deterrence" should imagine that biological warfare could provide a superior form of "deterrence" to nuclear weapons, whose total lack of deterrent capacity, owing to the development of "counterforce" strategies, was shown first in the Cuban Missile Crisis and then secondly, and more conclusively, in the disintegration of the Soviet Union.
Andre Gromyko's comments are something you don't mention in your review but I see them as the central message of the book: the message the author wishes to conceal not disclose. "We made more and more nuclear weapons. That was our mistaken position, absolutely mistaken. And the political leadership bears the entire blame for it. Tens of billions were spent on production of these toys. We did not have the brains to stop."
That was the view of the last of the Soviet Old Guard. Yeltsin tried but failed to implement policies of unilateral Soviet nuclear disarmament. His successor Putin proceeded with implementation of American policies regarding Russian (or "Russian"?) nuclear weapons, I.e. continuation of the same old game.
Rather than inventing or believing fairy tales about Ronald Reagan, if anyone is to be rehabilitated that should surely be Yeltsin, whose image as a pathetic drunken deadbeat comes from the period subsequent to his failure to implement his policies on what was probably the only positive element in his programme: elimination of the shocking and disastrous military heritage of the Cold War, including the Soviet nuclear arsenal, whose 95% unilateral elimination Yeltsin recommended in the Russian Duma on 3rd September 1991. People forget how much Gorbachev relied on Yeltsin during the attempted August 1991 coup: how he maintained his self-confidence in the face of the demoralization of almost everyone around him including his wife through the faith that at least Yeltsin was someone he could depend on. And after the coup, when Yeltsin had de facto displaced Gorbachev at the head of the emerging new polity, and Bush was perhaps feeling pangs of conscience at America's betrayal of Gorbachev, he proposed that he, Gorbachev and Yeltsin should all appear on prime time American television to give the USA, and Yeltsin, a good image. And Gorbachev accepted.
WH.
3. From Aaron Tovish
Dear Wayne,
Thank you for (at last!) being more specific about Yeltsin's declaration. Do you have a translation of his speech to the Russian Duma on 3 September 1991? He was, of course, President of the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic at that time (i.e. not in charge of the nuclear forces) while Gorbachev was President of the Soviet Union (although greatly weakened by the coup); and the Russian Duma was still beneath the Supreme Soviet. Are you aware of any proposal of this nature from him after he became President of the Russian Federation?
One further point, I have looked at the government documents from Reykjavik and see no mention of the abolition of nuclear weapons by the Americans. (I have only scanned some of the documents so I may have missed a passing reference.) The Reagan position is very clear: eliminate the delivery of nuclear weapons by missiles. In that context SDI is a disincentive to return to missile systems. He wanted to rely entirely on the airplane delivery so that they could be called back in case a last-minute agreement could be reach before all hell broke loose. So there was a 'logic' to the proposal. It was probably also hugely to the US advantage as they had forward based air attack systems much closer to Moscow than Russia did to Washington. But my point is that Reagan was never an abolitionist even rhetorically. I really wonder how that idea took root?
Regards, Aaron
P.S.: I have zero interest in talking about HAARP.
4. Reply to Aaron Tovish
Hello Aaron,
My reference for Yeltsin's position in September 1993 is New Left Review 189, an article by Robin Blackburn entitled "Russia should be looking East, not West", which contains on p. 137 the statement that "On 3 September Yeltsin called for massive reductions in missile stocks and indicated that Russia might take unilateral action to bring their stockpile down to 5 percent of its previous level." I don't have a translation of Yeltsin's speech, nor is it easy for me to acquire that kind of documentation. It would be much easier for someone in your position, would it not?
One person who would be able to provide a lot of information, I am sure, would be the French Defence Minister of the time, Pierre Joxe, who was involved in negotations with Yeltsin on nuclear weapons after the defeat of the August coup and who made the public statement that "France will not be the first to put on the brakes if there is a large world-wide movement for nuclear disarmament." But no such world wide movement arose. In fact there was not a peep from the anti-nuclear movements at this crucial conjuncture. I did what I could through deluging CND, END and E.P. Thompson with letters and agitating in the parliamentary office of the ecologists in Athens, at a time when they had one parliamentarian (she later helped the anti-chemtrails campaign get off the ground in Greece). I also tried to persuade a public meeting of Greek Communist Party activists that Soviet nuclear weapons should be abolished unilaterally. In fact at that time I even spoke on the telephone with the man who is now Prime Minister of Greece, George Papandreou, and told him there had to be unilateral Soviet nuclear disarmament. He said he agreed with me. But there was no mechanism for implementing such ideas and I doubt that Papandreou would have been motivated seriously to try to implement a notion that was so far in advance of public consciousness. I was not in a position to do so, since the only mechanism that was theoretically available to me were the party organs of the Greek Ecologists-Alternatives. Their parliamentarian did not have the self-confidence to impose herself on the fiercely Marxist intellectuals manning their secretariat. My arguments from the floor did not win majority support, though they did have the result of giving some people in the parliamentary office of the Greek Ecologists the bright idea of sending a telex to the Leningrad Greens to sound them out.
To take up the points you raise on Reykjavik, let me just transcribe pp. 265-6 of "The Dead Hand":
"Then Reagan suddenly took everything further than it had ever gone before. An incredible moment in the history of the Cold War arrived abruptly, without any warning, without preparation, without briefing papers or interagency process, without press conferences or speeches, in the small room overlooking the bay.
"Let me ask this," Reagan inquired. "Do we have in mind - and I think it would be very good - that by the end of the two five-year periods all nuclear explosive devices would be eliminated, including bombs, battlefield systems, cruise missiles, submarine weapons, intermediate-range systems, and so on?"
Gorbachev: "We could say that. List all those weapons."
Shultz: "Then let's do it."
Reagan's proposal was, by any measure, the most concrete, far-reaching disarmament initiative by a U.S. president ever to be formally submitted in a superpower summit negotiation. It was not a throwaway line. If earlier he had talked about eliminating ballistic missiles, or been imprecise or cloudy about what was under discussion, at this moment he swept away any doubts and clearly proposed total nuclear disarmament."
As for HAARP, Aaron, you are not telling me anything new when you say you have zero interest in talking about it. Yet the fact remains that Leuren Moret and a number of other people are claiming that the Japanese earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disaster was deliberately caused by directed energy weapons.
http://www.examiner.com/exopolitics-in-seattle/scientist-japan-earthquake-nuke-accident-are-tectonic-nuclear-warfare
The claim is being disputed, including by people who have been close to Moret on other subjects, e.g. Doug Rokke, who like Moret has campaigned against depleted uranium. He says that the earthquake's epicentre was too deep in the earth for the quake to have been caused by a weapon. But just as in 1991 the anti-nuclear movement ignored Yeltsin and what he was trying to do, so today the anti-nuclear movement is ignoring BOTH sides of the debate over whether HAARP or some other directed energy weapon was or was not responsible for Japan's nuclear disaster.
Moret is therefore largely preaching to the converted, and those "converted" are in their majority people of libertarian and "patriotic" disposition who are only too willing to believe the worst when individuals such as the Russian nationalist Zhirinovsky join the discussion that the anti-nuclear movement is ignoring
http://www.infowars.com/secret-weather-weapons-can-kill-millions-warns-top-russian-politican/
and get good patriots speculating whether Fukushima could have been produced by a RUSSIAN directed energy weapon.
So it looks as if we could be gearing up for a whole new round of a Cold War that is the mirror image of the nuclear arms race, where the technique is not to scare the life out of your opponent with threats of nuclear Armageddon but to do the exact opposite and allow it to be inferred that it is either Mother Nature or "the other side" that is to blame.
And once again, earth-shattering events pass the anti-nuclear movements by. They are simply not perceived.
It seems you were wrong about what Reagan proposed in Reykjavik, Aaron. Over to you.
WH
Review of the Dead Hand: Reagan, Gorbachev and the Untold Story of the Cold War Arms Race
by David E Hoffman
Bob Rigg
The picture painted of the Cold War and the arms race in this Pulitzer Prize-winning work is “terrifying”, according to John Le Carre. At the height of the Cold War the US and the Soviet Union had between them more than 50,000 nuclear warheads. This book shows how ideologically hardened political and military leaders on both sides participated in nuclear war games which President Eisenhower described as “frightening the devil out of me”. The declared aim of the US, in the event of a nuclear war with the Soviet Union, was to destroy 50% of the Soviet population and 50% of its industrial base.
The book depicts almost everyone who participated in these nuclear war games as gripped by a sense of sheer horror. Each superpower of the day had a massive capacity for overkill ensuring that, in the event of war, the other would become a human and industrial wasteland. Robert McNamara, the US secretary of state, described a strategy aiming to completely cripple the Cold War adversary as “assured destruction”. Critics of McNamara termed it mutual assured destruction, or MAD, an acronym that still resonates today.
Compounding the pervasive sense of nuclear terror was the speed with which each side could strike its opponent. The days of Hiroshima, when a lumbering bomber needed to fly for hours to reach a target, were over. Russian submarines off the East Coast of the United States could turn the White House into a pile of radioactive rubble within eight minutes. The leadership of each side knew that it would be a priority target for the other side. This made them more than slightly jumpy.
The visceral hatred and demonization which developed between the US and the Soviet Union had generated an almost complete lack of trust and a breakdown of normal diplomatic relations. Paranoia reigned supreme on both sides. At the height of mutual suspicion and paranoia each side had managed to eliminate most key agents of the other side, depriving it of reliable inside information when it was most needed.
Neither side knew with confidence how it could respond within very few minutes to the speed of a possible surprise attack. The Soviet leadership, concerned that they might be burnt to a crisp before they could press the nuclear button, even envisaged the possibility of a totally automated computerized retaliatory system, appropriately enough called the Dead Hand.
The two improbable heroes of this book are Ronald Reagan and Michael Gorbachev, then heads of state of the US and the Soviet Union. At this time Reagan was an archetypal cold warrior and anti-communist. But as a young left-winger he had been a committed advocate of peace.
Fascinatingly, this enduring dislike of war was to encourage him to come nearer than any Western leader to committing to nuclear disarmament, in an utterly unsympathetic political/military environment.
Michael Gorbachev’s charismatic, reformist and open leadership style made him a popular figure worldwide. He knew that ambitious new programs such as a Soviet Star Wars, to counter that of Reagan, were a figment of the imagination of the all-powerful Soviet military/industrial complex.
Although Reagan did not warm to Gorbachev at first, the two slowly built a relationship of trust producing agreement in principle for total nuclear disarmament. Each was acting on his own initiative, without the support of his establishment. After protracted negotiations the deal foundered on Reagan’s insistence that the US should proceed with Star Wars, which he perceived as non-offensive. A unique window of opportunity for worldwide nuclear disarmament was lost.
Although the US and Russia have today reduced their stockpiles to 20,000 warheads, their destructive capacity far exceeds that of the 50,000 warheads available during the Cold War. Hoffman’s outstanding and fascinating work concludes with a warning that the “Dead Hand of the arms race is still alive.”
The equally fascinating and important second strand of this book meticulously dissects the duplicity of the Soviet Union’s covert biological weapons program. This was aimed at industrial scale production of the most deadly biological warfare agents, in blatant violation of a multilateral treaty which the Soviet Union had itself negotiated. It is still uncertain whether Gorbachev knew of this program ….
2. Reply from Enouranois
Hello Bob,
I note that you are impressed by the key idea that David Hoffman is trying to put over: the idea of Ronald Reagan as the man who really wanted to abolish nuclear weapons (but could only put this proposal to the Soviets on condition of their accepting the Strategic Defense Initiative).
In fact in taking this position at Reykjavik Reagan was doing nothing more than implementing the policies of Edward Teller, whose brainchild and priority the SDI was. It was Teller who wanted to lure the Soviets into accepting this putative anti-missile system by using the bait of universal nuclear disarmament. This involved their accepting the absurdity of signing an agreement for the construction of an anti-missile system to destroy the missiles whose abolition was simultaneously being proposed.
It was typical Teller mind-breaking methodology, and because the SDI was not only an anti-missile system but a preliminary conception for a multi-purpose directed energy weapons system, (later embodied in the ground-based HAARP and its counterparts elsewhere in the world), it continued after the "end of the Cold War", when Teller put forward at the same time assertions of anthropogenic climate change scepticism and proposals for a geoengineering scheme to "solve anthropogenic climate change".
One early report on these schemes of Teller was this video by William Thomas
http://www.enouranois.gr/video/CHMTRAILS%201.wmv
It was superseded by conceptually less confused analyses later, but these later accounts pay less attention to Teller, as his life recedes further into the past.
As for the biological warfare component of "The Dead Hand", it is natural that people whose way of thinking has been consumed by scenarios of "deterrence" should imagine that biological warfare could provide a superior form of "deterrence" to nuclear weapons, whose total lack of deterrent capacity, owing to the development of "counterforce" strategies, was shown first in the Cuban Missile Crisis and then secondly, and more conclusively, in the disintegration of the Soviet Union.
Andre Gromyko's comments are something you don't mention in your review but I see them as the central message of the book: the message the author wishes to conceal not disclose. "We made more and more nuclear weapons. That was our mistaken position, absolutely mistaken. And the political leadership bears the entire blame for it. Tens of billions were spent on production of these toys. We did not have the brains to stop."
That was the view of the last of the Soviet Old Guard. Yeltsin tried but failed to implement policies of unilateral Soviet nuclear disarmament. His successor Putin proceeded with implementation of American policies regarding Russian (or "Russian"?) nuclear weapons, I.e. continuation of the same old game.
Rather than inventing or believing fairy tales about Ronald Reagan, if anyone is to be rehabilitated that should surely be Yeltsin, whose image as a pathetic drunken deadbeat comes from the period subsequent to his failure to implement his policies on what was probably the only positive element in his programme: elimination of the shocking and disastrous military heritage of the Cold War, including the Soviet nuclear arsenal, whose 95% unilateral elimination Yeltsin recommended in the Russian Duma on 3rd September 1991. People forget how much Gorbachev relied on Yeltsin during the attempted August 1991 coup: how he maintained his self-confidence in the face of the demoralization of almost everyone around him including his wife through the faith that at least Yeltsin was someone he could depend on. And after the coup, when Yeltsin had de facto displaced Gorbachev at the head of the emerging new polity, and Bush was perhaps feeling pangs of conscience at America's betrayal of Gorbachev, he proposed that he, Gorbachev and Yeltsin should all appear on prime time American television to give the USA, and Yeltsin, a good image. And Gorbachev accepted.
WH.
3. From Aaron Tovish
Dear Wayne,
Thank you for (at last!) being more specific about Yeltsin's declaration. Do you have a translation of his speech to the Russian Duma on 3 September 1991? He was, of course, President of the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic at that time (i.e. not in charge of the nuclear forces) while Gorbachev was President of the Soviet Union (although greatly weakened by the coup); and the Russian Duma was still beneath the Supreme Soviet. Are you aware of any proposal of this nature from him after he became President of the Russian Federation?
One further point, I have looked at the government documents from Reykjavik and see no mention of the abolition of nuclear weapons by the Americans. (I have only scanned some of the documents so I may have missed a passing reference.) The Reagan position is very clear: eliminate the delivery of nuclear weapons by missiles. In that context SDI is a disincentive to return to missile systems. He wanted to rely entirely on the airplane delivery so that they could be called back in case a last-minute agreement could be reach before all hell broke loose. So there was a 'logic' to the proposal. It was probably also hugely to the US advantage as they had forward based air attack systems much closer to Moscow than Russia did to Washington. But my point is that Reagan was never an abolitionist even rhetorically. I really wonder how that idea took root?
Regards, Aaron
P.S.: I have zero interest in talking about HAARP.
4. Reply to Aaron Tovish
Hello Aaron,
My reference for Yeltsin's position in September 1993 is New Left Review 189, an article by Robin Blackburn entitled "Russia should be looking East, not West", which contains on p. 137 the statement that "On 3 September Yeltsin called for massive reductions in missile stocks and indicated that Russia might take unilateral action to bring their stockpile down to 5 percent of its previous level." I don't have a translation of Yeltsin's speech, nor is it easy for me to acquire that kind of documentation. It would be much easier for someone in your position, would it not?
One person who would be able to provide a lot of information, I am sure, would be the French Defence Minister of the time, Pierre Joxe, who was involved in negotations with Yeltsin on nuclear weapons after the defeat of the August coup and who made the public statement that "France will not be the first to put on the brakes if there is a large world-wide movement for nuclear disarmament." But no such world wide movement arose. In fact there was not a peep from the anti-nuclear movements at this crucial conjuncture. I did what I could through deluging CND, END and E.P. Thompson with letters and agitating in the parliamentary office of the ecologists in Athens, at a time when they had one parliamentarian (she later helped the anti-chemtrails campaign get off the ground in Greece). I also tried to persuade a public meeting of Greek Communist Party activists that Soviet nuclear weapons should be abolished unilaterally. In fact at that time I even spoke on the telephone with the man who is now Prime Minister of Greece, George Papandreou, and told him there had to be unilateral Soviet nuclear disarmament. He said he agreed with me. But there was no mechanism for implementing such ideas and I doubt that Papandreou would have been motivated seriously to try to implement a notion that was so far in advance of public consciousness. I was not in a position to do so, since the only mechanism that was theoretically available to me were the party organs of the Greek Ecologists-Alternatives. Their parliamentarian did not have the self-confidence to impose herself on the fiercely Marxist intellectuals manning their secretariat. My arguments from the floor did not win majority support, though they did have the result of giving some people in the parliamentary office of the Greek Ecologists the bright idea of sending a telex to the Leningrad Greens to sound them out.
To take up the points you raise on Reykjavik, let me just transcribe pp. 265-6 of "The Dead Hand":
"Then Reagan suddenly took everything further than it had ever gone before. An incredible moment in the history of the Cold War arrived abruptly, without any warning, without preparation, without briefing papers or interagency process, without press conferences or speeches, in the small room overlooking the bay.
"Let me ask this," Reagan inquired. "Do we have in mind - and I think it would be very good - that by the end of the two five-year periods all nuclear explosive devices would be eliminated, including bombs, battlefield systems, cruise missiles, submarine weapons, intermediate-range systems, and so on?"
Gorbachev: "We could say that. List all those weapons."
Shultz: "Then let's do it."
Reagan's proposal was, by any measure, the most concrete, far-reaching disarmament initiative by a U.S. president ever to be formally submitted in a superpower summit negotiation. It was not a throwaway line. If earlier he had talked about eliminating ballistic missiles, or been imprecise or cloudy about what was under discussion, at this moment he swept away any doubts and clearly proposed total nuclear disarmament."
As for HAARP, Aaron, you are not telling me anything new when you say you have zero interest in talking about it. Yet the fact remains that Leuren Moret and a number of other people are claiming that the Japanese earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disaster was deliberately caused by directed energy weapons.
http://www.examiner.com/exopolitics-in-seattle/scientist-japan-earthquake-nuke-accident-are-tectonic-nuclear-warfare
The claim is being disputed, including by people who have been close to Moret on other subjects, e.g. Doug Rokke, who like Moret has campaigned against depleted uranium. He says that the earthquake's epicentre was too deep in the earth for the quake to have been caused by a weapon. But just as in 1991 the anti-nuclear movement ignored Yeltsin and what he was trying to do, so today the anti-nuclear movement is ignoring BOTH sides of the debate over whether HAARP or some other directed energy weapon was or was not responsible for Japan's nuclear disaster.
Moret is therefore largely preaching to the converted, and those "converted" are in their majority people of libertarian and "patriotic" disposition who are only too willing to believe the worst when individuals such as the Russian nationalist Zhirinovsky join the discussion that the anti-nuclear movement is ignoring
http://www.infowars.com/secret-weather-weapons-can-kill-millions-warns-top-russian-politican/
and get good patriots speculating whether Fukushima could have been produced by a RUSSIAN directed energy weapon.
So it looks as if we could be gearing up for a whole new round of a Cold War that is the mirror image of the nuclear arms race, where the technique is not to scare the life out of your opponent with threats of nuclear Armageddon but to do the exact opposite and allow it to be inferred that it is either Mother Nature or "the other side" that is to blame.
And once again, earth-shattering events pass the anti-nuclear movements by. They are simply not perceived.
It seems you were wrong about what Reagan proposed in Reykjavik, Aaron. Over to you.
WH
Τρίτη 5 Απριλίου 2011
HAARP and the Japanese earthquake
HAARP AND THE JAPANESE EARTHQUAKE
It is not only conspiracy theorists that are apprehensive about HAARP. The European Union called the programme "a subject that concerns the whole planet" and passed a resolution calling for more information on its health and environmental risks. Despite those concerns, officials at HAARP insist the project is nothing more sinister than a radio science research facility."
-- Quote from a documentary on HAARP byCanada
-- Quote from a documentary on HAARP by
The indescribable tragedy in Japan, with its still unknown implications for the future of life on this planet, along with the parallel paroxysm of barbarous violence in North Africa suggest that human history is moving into a new and unprecedentedly dramatic phase.
Inevitably, speculation focuses on the role of secret systems such as HAARP, and its counterparts in other countries. The suggestions of the journalist George Ure are just one example of a widespread questioning:
“Over the years, a lot of crackpot theories have developed around HAARP, but it’s always been conjecture based on the magnetometers, since I’ve been unable to locate the critical data to interpret whether HAARP was causative to some of the odd phenomena afoot in the world today, like bird kills, out-of-place earthquakes, and the like, or whether it was coincident to anomalous events.”
In dramatic situations like the present, organizations in civil society, and above all the anti-nuclear movements, are called upon to react, and to react adequately. But what does one find?
At the anti-nuclear discussion forum, abolition-caucus, which brings together some key anti-nuclear campaigners, on 28th March one finds the senior anti-nuclear activist Aaron Tovish, in reference to a “tsunami bomb”, whose existence has now been declassified, saying that “any link to HAARP is as fanciful as the other links to HAARP.”
(Aaron Tovish is International Campaign Director of the Mayors for Peace and Adviser to the President of the Hiroshima Peace Culture Foundation. He is based in Vienna.)
In other words Mr. Tovish is stating that he knows there is no connection between HAARP and the Japanese earthquake. The reality is that he knows no such thing and when he makes these statements what he is doing is merely repeating a required assumption of his milieu. It is surely time for this milieu and these assumptions to change, and for a dividing line to be drawn between lazy lack of concern and the real requirements of citizen politics in today’s situation of terminal crisis.
We do not believe that anybody is in a position to make the assertion that he made and certainly people in the anti-nuclear movement should not be making such assertions.
The role of HAARP in the Japan US
One of the most damning statements in the document reveals an American refusal to account for itself regarding HAARP research:
"[The European Parliament]… regrets the repeated refusal of the United States Administration to send anyone in person to give evidence to the public hearing or any subsequent meeting held by its competent committee into the environmental and public risks connected with the high Frequency Active Auroral Research Project (HAARP) programme…."
"[The European Parliament]… regrets the repeated refusal of the United States Administration to send anyone in person to give evidence to the public hearing or any subsequent meeting held by its competent committee into the environmental and public risks connected with the high Frequency Active Auroral Research Project (HAARP) programme…."
George Ure says this: “I’d like to see HAARP open up and report all of its transmitter operations and array headings for the week prior to the Japan
All of the anti-nuclear movement should be putting forward this same demand, not doing as Aaron Tovish does: adopting a stance that is the same as that of the United States government.
Εγγραφή σε:
Αναρτήσεις (Atom)