The Club of Rome has us by the balls. What are we going to do about it?……….. Nothing.


A 45 minute “intro” of sorts:


Full detail:


Posted in Uncategorized by earthling on March 22, 2020

The Milgram experiment on obedience to authority figures was a series of social psychology experiments conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram.

While people like Ron Paul, ex Republican candidate for President of the United States – shot down in flames by the media and his own party because he was not, at all, in line with the people with the real power’s wishes – tells you a truth.


This is ALL about Global Government and depopulation, what can I tell you? It takes years and years to dissect all of this and understand the nuances of every event leading up to it. To researching archives and books written by the very people implementing it all.

The media will consistently reference “crazy conspiracy theories” and, to an extent, there are some crazy theories, I’ll give them that. But this is NOT one of them. This is reference-able all the way down the line. You can hear those, in their own words, telling you what the plan is. Of COURSE they don’t say “We unleashed this virus” (or the hoax of it to make you fear) and they couch their words well. But this “virus” is close coupled with “Climate Change” and every one of these people will say “Well, what did we tell you?” and speak in terms of it having to happen to save their beloved “Gaia” (Mother Earth and biodiversity). The very results of this hoax implement the very things they want to achieve. They are rubbing their hands and breaking open bottles of champagne as we speak.

To depopulate – for the moment at least – what you want is as many abortions at the front end as possible and as many people dying one they are of no use to society because they are not productive: i.e. The retired and the incapable. So, front end: Abortion. Back end: Let them die (but with “palliative care” because “we want to be humane about it”). The sooner you hit retirement and die the better.


First, I have to say I am repeating things in this video but, to an extent, it is for those who may not have watched the others.

However, I came across something that Paul R Ehrlich said and my jaw dropped. This gives you a greater insight into how these men think, collectively, PLUS it considers what you may consider as a ‘code’ being dropped into Ehrlich’s talk. Now, I do not believe things such as this are just coincidences. Not when you know the background and the connections of these people. Make of it what you will however.



Taxing you, literally, to death

Posted in "Climate Change", Agenda 21, Science by earthling on December 6, 2015

My first and my last words on Climate Change which is in print and for all to see while it’s from the same body of people who, essentially, lurk in the shadows and “advise” governments and the United Nations. One must also simply understand that the Rockefeller and Rothschild families control so many of these little known organisations – little known, not to those of us who research it all but to the vast majority of the population who just do not and have no interest in doing so but just accept everything the BBC and the rest of the mainstream press and media tell them on whatever subject.


While I’m glad to see this on the BBC, I think to myself “Why now? And why Piers Corbyn? There have been others who have spoken out but they have been silenced and, on a few occasions, sacked by the BBC”. So, again, why now and why Piers? Could it be the timing is perfect to undermine Jeremy Corbyn from another angle? “The Corbyn family all have ‘extreme’ views” and while it has been essentially the left who have supported and been vocal on Climate Change and the need to do something about it, the BBC then use Jeremy’s brother to create a significant split in Labour and their supporters, therefore diluting Jeremy’s position even further. Some other Labour candidate comes along to unite Labour and take on the party leadership role and they suit the establishment far better than Corbyn – Hilary Benn for example?


Anyhow, “Climate Change” (or “Global Warming”) was promulgated by the Club of Rome. Do your homework on the Club of Rome if you do not already know who is in it, who the movers and shakers are, how they influence, who they influence etc if you haven’t already.

Here is those first and last words:

“Because of the sudden absence of traditional enemies, “new enemies must be identified.” “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.””

In one passage the authors conjecture about new needed enemies or rally points for global society, “either a real one or else one invented for the purpose.”

Now really, be my guest if you simply wish to ignore what you’ve just read but remember, insodoing, you have no idea what you are allowing to happen to your children and your children’s children. Piers says it’s just a con and a fraud. It is, but it’s not just that. It has a far greater purpose than that. If you are a climate change enthusiast, totally invested in believing it to be real and you also are totally invested in the belief the world is overpopulated, then sit your children down and explain to them you are supporting their ultimate demise. Tell them you’d like them to be sterilised. In fact, sterilise them at birth. Even better, don’t have children. Not even one.



Posted in "Climate Change", Science, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on February 11, 2014

If Scotland really went down the route of absolute independence, there’s a good chance such weapons would be used upon it. GET WITH THE FCUKING PROGRAMME WILL YOU? Start to understand this world around you instead of sitting on your fat ass and thinking a vote is going to change your life!


And our lads fought for freedom and democracy. Well this is your freedom and democracy asshole!

What you or I have to do to get people to understand that what we tell them is real, is beyond me. You say “Weather Weapons” and people just roll their eyes. The haven’t looked at the history of the Vietnam war and Cambodia etc. They don’t look at United States Armed Forces documents (and the elite KNOW they can produce such because only .01% of the population will read them, note it and take heed of it and then, if we speak of it? “Conspiracy theorist” even when the documents are in the public domain!!)

So, for those of you who have heard about this and rolled your eyes, I just ask you why you ignore the EU Parliament making statements that acknowledge they exist and are dangerous to people’s lives. They are weapons of genocide and people just roll their fcuking eyes!


The HAARP project and non-lethal weapons.
Experts alarmed – public debate needed.

The hearing on the HAARP project and non-lethal weapons was held in connection with a European Parliament own-initiative report, to be drawn up by Maj Britt THEORIN (PES, S), on the possible use of military resources in environmental strategies.

Non-lethal (or non-deadly) weapons – a varied scenario
As Peter TRUSCOTT (PES, UK) said in his introduction, “There is an invisible line between what is acceptable and what is suspect”. This is the nub of the issue.

Non-lethal weapons constitute a trend in military thinking which has developed since the end of the Cold War. The world is dealing with a different sort of crisis, which is less easily identifiable and less easy to manage with traditional methods and weapons – hence the desire to master the violence by means other than the same violence. Non- lethal weapons are compared by some authors to “straitjackets” and defined as “any action capable of modifying the behaviour of the adversary while avoiding his annihilation”. This appears to be a significant element of crisis prevention but can be – and is – also used in civilian situations (e.g. crowd control).

Mr Luc MAMPAEY, a researcher at GRIP, the Brussels-based European institute for research and information into peace and security, said he believed the expression “non-lethal weapons” was semantically contentious. He argued that the term had reassuring connotations. It was the politically correct term, and one which could delude the public into thinking that nowadays a clean war was possible and hence morally acceptable. In fact, as he himself and the Red Cross representative, Mr Robin COUPLAND (Geneva), pointed out, the dividing line between deadly and non-deadly weapons was not clear. Some weapons might result in death, while others could incapacitate their victims permanently or temporarily. Mr COUPLAND was quite categorical: the term “non-deadly”, he said, was ultimately a marketing slogan.

The problem of definition “by default” led all the experts to stress that there was no single type of non-lethal weapon and that a careful distinction must be made between the various types, from the simplest to the most sophisticated. These new weapons covered a broad spectrum of technologies, from optical systems with a dazzling or blinding effect, through sound and electro- magnetic waves, chemical, medicinal, adhesive, slippery, super-caustic and acidic substances, biological agents, bacteria and micro-organisms, to rubber bullets and electric-shock batons.

Dangers to health and the environment

The effects on health and the environment were also described as variable. Any weapon designed to disrupt an organism, as well as weapons capable of affecting an organism indirectly, by chemical or biological means, or optical, acoustic or neurological stimuli, could become fatal under certain conditions. Adhesive foam, it was said, could also have extremely dangerous side- effects.

Only if a precisely calculated dose were perfectly delivered could it be guaranteed that sensory (or xenobiotic) stimuli would not have irreversible, or indeed, fatal effects. In practice, this perfect control over the degree of disruption was the first thing likely to go by the board under extreme conditions, where the desire for a swift and decisive solution would rapidly override considerations of ethics or toxicology.

The risk of abuse in democratic societies

However, it was argued, health and environmental issues were not the only concerns raised by the use of non-lethal weapons. Mr COUPLAND expressed concern about an overlap of civil, police and military applications. He was also afraid that these weapons might be used not to replace conventional weapons but in addition to them.

In Mr MAMPAEY’s view, as non-lethal weapons developed, links were bound to be created between military and law-and-order operations, which, he said, would enable certain current conventions to be bypassed. There was a danger of growing militarisation of domestic police forces, which would have access to more sophisticated weaponry. This could raise problems in any state which was supposed to be based on the rule of law and to be mindful of human rights and individual freedoms.

The HAARP project

Tom SPENCER (EPP, UK), chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, said that the United States had been invited to state its viewpoint on this matter to the hearing. Although the US had declined an initial invitation, Mr SPENCER reiterated his offer, saying that the Americans could send a representative to address the committee in future if they wished.

Ms Rosalie BERTELL, from Toronto (Canada), is one of the best-informed experts about HAARP (the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Programme), a programme which has been developed by the US military.

She described the background to HAARP. The ionosphere is a high-altitude layer of the atmosphere with particles which are highly charged with energy. If radiation is projected into the ionosphere, huge amounts of energy can be generated and used to annihilate a given region.

The HAARP project involves the manipulation of the earth’s ionosphere, whose natural role is to moderate energy transfer from the sun to the earth and is used as a missile trajectory and as a reflector for radio communication. The aim of HAARP is to control and manipulate the ionosphere so as to enable the manipulator to wipe out communications at will on a global scale, or to make them resilient in the event of a nuclear war.

It also enables communications to take place with submerged submarines and can, in theory, create geomagnetic pathways to guide particle beams which could then deposit large amounts of energy anywhere on the globe. In simpler terms, HAARP, with its power of intimidation, of delivery or denial of electrical energy on a global scale and its control of communications, is an element of a system which could control the global village in some frightening ways.

According to Dr Nick BEGICH, an expert from Alaska and author of one of the leading publications on the subject*, the HAARP programme would allow such concentrations of energy to be attained that an entire region of the planet could be deprived of water. Electromagnetic waves can cause earthquakes or tidal waves. Mr SPENCER pointed out that, under international conventions, any actions leading to climate change were prohibited.

Mr BEGICH said that in his eyes the project was purely and simply “Star Wars technology”. Moreover, it was a secret project, as the US Congress had refused to finance Star Wars. The USA, he claimed, had allocated 91 million dollars to the main programme, to which must be added the related programmes. Over the last 50 years, he said, certain levels of security had been developed which were protected from public scrutiny. State secrets were acceptable in themselves but if they involved such major repercussions for human beings and the environment they must be made public. In his view, the international community should be allowed to evaluate the risks of the HAARP programme.

Eurico DE MELO (EPP, P) said he regarded the revelations as terrifying and said that there was a need for a campaign to inform the public about it.

Winding up, Magda AELVOET (Green, B) told the hearing that there was a saying: “War is too important to be left to the generals”. She feared we had forgotten this truth.

and this…

Finally, some excerpts from UK Parliament:

HC Deb 21 October 2002 vol 391 c56W56W

§Paul FlynnTo ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the HAARP programme; and what contribution Britain is making to it. [75022]

§Dr. MoonieThe Ministry of Defence is fully aware of the HAARP project. However the MOD has made no specific assessment of the project for defence purposes nor has it contributed towards it.



HC Deb 17 October 2002 vol 390 cc494-570

Paul Flynn (Newport, West) 

In June, a group of scientists from America packed a container with uranium, loaded it on a train in Austria and sent it through Turkey and across the sea to America. They landed it on the American coast, and it is now lodged in the heart of New York. They did that to make the point that although the container went through border controls and tests—it was active uranium, so it should have been detected—no one detected it.

We should ask what is the greatest risk. There is no safe course ahead, but we must find the least perilous course. We all felt a chill of fear when we saw the pictures of the chemical weapons protection suit that has now been issued to frontline health service workers and when we heard that they have had smallpox injections.

One of my worst experiences during my 15 years as a Member of Parliament was when someone from the city of Newport came back from the Gulf war in a body bag. As a supporter of the Gulf war and of all the other military actions taken by the present and previous Governments, I find myself deeply unhappy with the present proposals because we are taking the wrong course.

What frightens me, as I am sure it frightens everyone, is the terrible nature of biological weapons, which make no distinction between warrior and civilian, young and old, Christian or Muslim. There could be terrible destruction, with diseases that have been dormant since medieval times being unleashed. We know that Saddam Hussein has biological and chemical weapons, but what is the risk? I believe that the greatest or only risk—the only conceivable situation in which he is likely to use the weapons will arise if there is a military invasion of his country. We have heard today that he is a wicked, evil man. He is indeed, but he is not a suicidal maniac.

Every time that Saddam Hussein has attacked a group of people, he has done so in the certainty in his own mind that he was going to win. When he attacked the Kurds in Halabjah, he knew that the rest of the world was not interested and would not help them. When he attacked Iran, he was again certain that the Ayatollah was a weak leader whose country was in chaos, and he was sure that he would have an easy victory. He attacked Kuwait in the belief that the American ambassador had given him an assurance that the Americans would not intervene. Under what circumstances would this man, the great survivor, attack another state? Under what circumstances would he use his weapons of mass destruction?

I do not know of any plausible scenario except one, and it is the one that we are walking straight into. If he is defeated and is in one of his palaces, like Hitler in the Berlin bunker, he might use his biological weapons—not by using his ramshackle missiles, which are useless and cannot be sent far, but by doing a deal with his 540ideological antithesis, al-Qaeda. In those circumstances, he might well do that, and the horror that we all dread might take place.

The change in the world situation resulted not from what happened on 11 September but from the election of George W. Bush. We should examine the right-wing fundamentalists who are now in government in America and their plans for a new American century, which were drawn up before they took office. They are now fulfilling those plans, which did not start last September. They started when Bush was elected, with a rogue state creation programme.

When Bush took office, the situation between North and South Korea was one of rapprochement. It was going very well, but George W. Bush immediately cancelled a meeting that had been arranged by Madeleine Albright. He tried to turn that rapprochement into antagonism. A mythology was spread about the danger of missiles from North Korea hitting Seattle, when the North Koreans had great difficulty in targeting its missiles on South Korea. He made sure that the situation deteriorated.

The position in respect of Iran was an improving one over many years. There were visits from representatives from western countries, but President Bush has made sure that the situation has grown far worse. With Iraq, there was stability for almost 10 years. Iraq had been contained by the bombing programme, which I fully supported. The inspectors left because they were fed up; they believed that they were close to finding significant weapons, but left because they believed that there was going to be bombing of the sites that they could not inspect. There might have been some justification for action then, but there is no justification now.

The plans from PNAC—the project for the new American century—make alarming reading. They were drawn up not last year, but in 2000. One of them speaks of the American armed forces asthe cavalry on the new American frontier. The blueprint supports a document written by Wolfowitz and Cheney—Pearl and Rumsfeld are also involved—that says that the US mustdiscourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role. They talk of regime change not only in Iraq but in Syria and Iran. However, their greatest target is China, which they see as the next state that might challenge them as a new world power.

In an extraordinary speech, the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) suggested that we could become a vassal state of America by abandoning a dearly cherished policy of this country, and of almost all Council of Europe countries—our opposition to capital punishment. Suddenly, we should accept that.

The Americans have said that they regard the United Kingdom as the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership. That was and is Bush’s policy. He has used the dreadful events of 11 September to accelerate that policy. Most people have forgotten the events that occurred before then.

The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood made an interesting point, although we would take his expert views on South America a little more seriously if he had 541not been an apologist for certain aspects of Pinochet’s actions. The hon. Gentleman referred to Colombia. The United States’ attempt to impose its failed policies of drug prohibition on a vassal state had dreadful results, leading to continuous chaos and at least three armies, two of which were funded by drugs. What if we apply that policy to Afghanistan? We went in because the Taliban were protecting al-Qaeda. That was a justified objective, and it was successful up to a point. However, another objective was to eliminate the drugs trade from Afghanistan. At the time, as the United Nations has reported, the Taliban had reduced by 92 per cent. the growth of poppies in their areas, whereas the Northern Alliance had increased by 300 per cent. the growth of poppies in their areas.

Our victory in Afghanistan, if that is what it was, did not decrease the use of drugs and the growth of the drug trade, but if we had gone in with the same policy as the Americans pursued towards Colombia, the drug trade would have expanded in Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and the country formerly known as Burma, now Myanmar. The worry is that by following the policies of the United States we will see the Colombia-isation of a whole area of mid-Asia.

I have another concern that is discussed only rarely. We have heard of star wars, but other weapons are being planned and may exist. A very interesting one is HAARP—the high frequency active auroral research programme. The Americans view it as having innocent intentions, but it terrifies the Soviet Union and many other countries because its effect has been described as boiling the ionosphere. Terrible weapons might exist beyond the ones of which we are aware.

It is significant that the document on the project for a new American century refers to combat likely to take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes. It says that advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool. The people who wrote that and believe that it is the future are in charge of the only superpower in the world. It is a tragedy that we have not taken a more critical stance and challenged them in the way that leaders of other European countries have done.

Finally, I thought that the best speech that I have read, possibly in my life time, on how to deal with the world, how to deal with the third world and how to guarantee peace was made by the Prime Minister at last year’s Labour party conference. I urge him to take some time off to read his own words. We should take the least dangerous course, not the most dangerous one.