https://www.richplanet.net/richp_genre.php?ref=240&part=1&gen=4
Part 1: His childhood, stepfather's link to The Family cult.
Part 2: Job experience; Wiki set-up; Board members; Rape allegations: Moves to Vaughan Smith's Ellingham Hall. Smith founded of the Frontline Clubfunded up by Soros.
Part 3: Featured in The Simpsons 50th episode. Gets asylum in Ecuadorian embassy.
Part 4: Visited by Pamela Anderson and Lady Gaga, Soros connections. Wikileaks used as NSA /DS portal?
Worth remembering he said 9/11 was not a conspiracy. Lot of interesting info.
June 27, 2024 / Joseph P. Farrell
Climate engineering off US coast could increase heatwaves in Europe, study finds
Now you may be wondering why I find this article so very significant. It seems straight forward enough. Indeed, the reason I find it so significant is its' very straighforwardness, its' willingness to state the obvious. What most people will overlook is that this very obviousness is really telling you something very significant. So permit me to focus on but two paragraphs - indeed but two sentences - of this article, and draw out all that poisonous obviousness like a drawing salve draws out infections:
A geoengineering technique designed to reduce high temperatures in California could inadvertently intensify heatwaves in Europe, according to a study that models the unintended consequences of regional tinkering with a changing climate.
The paper shows that targeted interventions to lower temperature in one area for one season might bring temporary benefits to some populations, but this has to be set against potentially negative side-effects in other parts of the world and shifting degrees of effectiveness over time.
So what's so significant about that? Well, number one, that this is appearing in The Guardian at all. For those who do not know or are unaware, the three main national newspapers in Great Britain are widely known for their political leanings: The Guardian being a left-globalist leaning publication, accepting of the whole climate change narrative she-bang, and so on. Definitely not on the side of Mr, Farage, in other words. The Times of London would be center-right, but still globalist, and what used to be called more or less "Tory wet", leaving the Daily Telegraph (or as we used to call it in my Oxford days, The Daily Torygraph) being the more national-right or "Tory Dry/Thatcherite" component of the party. Obviously, these characterizations are a bit shop-worn and irrelevant by now with the near complete irrelevance of the Tory party itself which long since has lost its soul to the witless globalist meanderings of the likes of John Major, David Cameron, Liz Truss, Boris "Bojo" Johnson, and Rishi Sunak, but the essential core remains: the Guardian is more or less the paper of record for the cultural political globalist left in Great Britain.
So notice what The Guardian has just done, and it is highly significant: it has admitted that a component of climate change is not due to the demonstrably silly notion of cow farts, or carbon dioxide (which all plants need in order to breathe and live), nor even due to normal human activities like farming, but is due rather to the deliberate efforts of mankind to engineer and manipulate the weather itself. In doing so, it has also admitted something else that I and other observers of the geoengineering-weather manipulation scene have been arguing for a number of years: weather systems are complex and interlocked systems such that to engineer a change here is also to effect and engineer a change there, and that change there may be an unintended consequence. Complex systems are, after all, complex, and are probably not going to perform exactly as expected. You might be able to steer a tornado or hurricane here, but you might create a monsoon or typhoon over there that you did not wish nor intend to happen.
In short, weather systems, being open systems, are interlocked, and of planetary scale. And thus the ability to engineer them, as I've often pointed out, constitute an actual ability to engineer systems on a planetary scale.
So why would The Guardian be interested in admitting something that, at first glance, appears to be completely at variance with the standard narrative of climate change that so exercise the fantasies of screaming and indignant Swedish girls? Weather manipulation, after all, is quite a different thing from cow farts or farming or plants being able to breathe "greenhouse gases" like carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen(which they do, and which animals breathe... funny how that symbiosis works; funny too is the fact that it is almost never mentioned by the climate change screamers).
Here's The Guardian's answer, and this too should make you sit up and take notice, because what it is signaling, I believe, is The Next Big Thing to be Pushed By Mr. Globalooney and His Ilk:
The authors of the study said the findings were “scary” because the world has few or no regulations in place to prevent regional applications of the technique, marine cloud brightening, which involves spraying reflective aerosols (usually in the form of sea salt or sea spray) into stratocumulus clouds over the ocean to reflect more solar radiation back into space.
Experts have said the paucity of controls means there is little to prevent individual countries, cities, companies or even wealthy individuals from trying to modify their local climates, even if it is to the detriment of people living elsewhere, potentially leading to competition and conflict over interventions.
In other words, what the World Needs Now is a global weather regulatory structure to limit, and ultimately to plan and manipulate weather on a truly global scale. Getting everyone to agree to give up their own corporate and/or national weather manipulation technologies will be, I imagine, about as difficult as it has been to get them to give up their nuclear weapons to a global sovereignty. It's a pipe dream, but, like it or not, both remain Mr. Globalooney's goal, and weather manipulation has one advantage that nukes do not: it is possible to entice corporations and/or nations into joining such a scheme, if the resulting disaster capitalism it makes possible could be demonstrated to return even bigger profits to those involved.
Huge win - Dr Kendrick has been hounded for years for speaking out.
In a major Judgment delivered on 25 June 2024, Mr Justice Nicklin has dismissed a public interest defence advanced by The Mail on Sunday in a libel claim brought by Dr Zoë Harcombe and Dr Malcolm Kendrick. The decision follows a preliminary trial last year in what the Judge described as “the most significant piece of defamation litigation” that he had seen in a very long time.
The case relates to articles published in March 2019, which contained allegations that the Claimants had made knowingly false statements about the cholesterol-lowering drug, statins, causing a large number of people not to take prescribed statin medication with the harm to public health that flows from this (allegations which Dr Harcombe and Dr Kendrick assert are both highly defamatory and false). The Mail on Sunday refused to apologise or even remove or alter its articles. The Claimants therefore issued High Court proceedings in February 2020.
Dismissing the newspaper’s public interest defence, the Judge observed (at paragraph [457]) of his judgment) that:
“There is perhaps a palpable irony in the fact the Defendants, in Articles that so roundly denounced those alleged to be the purveyors of misinformation, so seriously misinformed their own readers.”
The case will now move on to its next phase, as the Court was not at this stage adjudicating on other aspects of the case such as the Truth defence which the Mail on Sunday is attempting to put forward, albeit the Court’s findings mean that the Defence as currently formulated, and subject to any appeal, “cannot be maintained” [562].
Dr Harcombe PhD, a writer and speaker on diet health and nutritional science, has said of the judgment:
“I am delighted by the findings of the court today, in what is a hugely complex case. I am grateful to the Judge for his detailed and careful analysis of all of the facts and pleased that he has recognised the enormity and unfairness of the public attack on our integrity.”
Dr Kendrick, a General Practitioner and author with a special interest in the epidemiology of cardiovascular disease, said:
“I am very pleased that the Judge has found in our favour, and that he has dismissed the public interest defence. It was always our position that we had not been treated fairly by the publishers, and the Judgment sets out clearly how badly we were in fact treated.”
I don’t trust Nigel Farage. But that doesn’t mean he is wrong on everything. He is not wrong, for example, when he says that the Russian incursion into Eastern Ukraine was provoked by the West. Nor is he wrong that the only acceptable solution is a negotiated peace settlement.
But that still doesn’t mean we should trust him. This is the same man who, during the fake Covid pandemic helped promote the psyop by allowing himself to be filmed banging his pots and pans for ‘Our NHS’. And the same man who urged that Tony Blair should be put in charge of the operation to roll out those safe and effective vaccines now bowling over his constituency like ninepins.
So what are we to make of it when so blatant and slippery an Establishment change agent suddenly spouts something that makes such obvious sense? Are we to go - as so many Reform voters are saying - “Well he may not be perfect. But at least he’s preferable to the Sunak/Starmer uniparty.”
No, he is not. For Farage, too, is a card-carrying member of the Sunak/Starmer uniparty. His role is merely to offer the gullible the illusion that the rigged voting system offers any alternative other than the uniparty.
It’s not always easy to work out the strategy behind the antics of Deep State players like Farage.
But if I had to guess as to the rationale behind his Ukraine comments I would say they served two main purposes.
The first is to serve as a warning to any other ‘public figures’ tempted to speak out of turn. So, for example, in the Mail on Sunday, you had political editor Glen Owen declaring ex cathedra that “The appearance of Russian appeasement was not a good look, and represents the first major misstep in a campaign which threatens to destroy the Conservative Party.” You had Rishi Sunak - currently prime minister, apparently - accusing him of ‘playing into the hands of Putin.’ And in the Telegraph letters section - not a genuine representation of what Telegraph readers think but of what the Telegraph’s letters editor wants you to think they think - there have appeared various letters claiming: “As a disgruntled Tory voter I was thinking of giving Reform a chance, but…”
Farage’s role here would not be dissimilar to the one played by fellow Deep State change agent Alex Jones in the confected Sandi Hook trial. “That’s a nice career you’ve got there. You sure you want to jeopardise it by asking questions about forbidden subjects?”
The other main purpose of Farage’s comments, I suspect, is intelligence gathering. When you’re trying to whip the populace up into a pro-war fervour, you need to gauge at intervals the extent to which your propaganda is working. The last thing you want is mass refusals to fight and ‘Not our war’ demos.
I don’t want to offer too many crumbs of consolation because I think They are going to get Their war, willy nilly, just like They do with all Their wars. Still, I do get the impression that we, the useless eaters, are not quite as hungry to send our boys and girls to the meatgrinder in order to die for a coke-snorting puppet best known for playing the piano with his penis as They might have liked us to be at this stage.
One clue is Twitter (aka Elon Musk’s intelligence gathering operation for his Deep State backers). When Toby Young, for example, puts out another of his ‘we need to escalate the war with evil Putler now’ tweets, the ratio is massive. The ‘only people’ supporting him are intelligence services bots.
Another slipped out by accident - I’m sure it was by accident because he is one of theirs too - in the Sunday Telegraph column of yet another of my old friends from the days before I saw the light, Daniel Hannan. Dan - that’ll be Lord Hannan to you - was reporting back from the General Election campaign trail. He had been canvassing in the Home Counties and had kept a tally of the reasons volunteered by former Conservatives for switching.
“They include assisted dying, HS2, Just Stop Oil, aid to Ukraine and the badger cull.”
I’m surprised that that ‘aid to Ukraine’ made it past the self-censor but somehow it did. And though the phrasing was vague, I think we can take it than none of the disappointed ex-Tory supporters Hannan doorstepped was furious that more money wasn’t being spunked on the Ukraine forever war. And if not even Home Counties Tory voters are hot for war with evil Putler, then who the hell in Britain is?
One more thing, entirely unrelated to this subject, but worth mentioning. Hannan also let slip that not a single person he canvassed mentioned Brexit. This surprised him but I don’t think it will surprise anyone here. Brexit was just another psyop. A total con. Nobody, not even the Normies, is buying that one any more.
June 19, 2024 / Joseph P. Farrell
You might have noticed, if you've been paying attention, that another bit of the cartoon we've all been watching is the recent campaign of "catch-up" the lamestream propotainment media has been waging. For literally decades the goobernment denied the reality of UFOs and their sightings, and even hired well-known academics to go out and debunk the whole idea, until said academics encountered too much of a strange thing called evidence in the form of testimony of perfectly normal rational people, and had to re-evaluate the narrative and reject it. THen came the pictures, and videos. Again, the same story: some were faked, and quickly demonstrated to be such, but many were not, or were, at least, "in a gray area." Finally, in just the recent few years, we've had the goobernment itself, in the form of "whistleblowers" and carefully stage-managed appearances of "witnesses" go before Congressional hearings with more officially sponsored stories. We've moved, in other words, from outright denial to quasi-0fficial acceptance.
This is called "a limited hangout" in the professional parlance of intelligence skullduggery, and it is an essential and necessary step if one senses one is losing control of a narrative, for rather than lose that control, one accepts certain generalized things from the opposition in order to maintain it. I can speak from some personal experience, because having been a part of two "Secret space program conferences", one in San Mateo, California in 2014, and the other in Bastrop, Texas in 2015, I can vouch that the organizers of both conferences were keen to avoid the "usual people" that ordinarily speak at such events, and invite a more serious panel of speakers, not with stories to tell, but speculations to argue and evidences to consider. By not inviting "the usual people and UFO divas" pushing the same general narratives of Et contact and so on, the hidden control over it began to slip. In my opinion, and in the thinking and understanding of our friend Daniel Liszt a.k.a. "Dark Journalist," it was in response to these two conferences that new "marketing campaigns" were launched to reassert control of the narrative; there were even attempts to copyright the phrase "secret space program", and big names were brought forward in connection with corporate projects, all in an effort to reassert influence over the UFO and associated fields.
With that in mind, consider the following story shared by W.G. (and many others):
Harvard Scientists Say There May Be an Unknown, Technologically Advanced Civilization Hiding on Earth
I'm not surprised that in the falling and failing academic standards of the modern American quackademy, that such an idea should be presented as new, or if not as completely new, at least as exciting and engaging "because we (Harvard) say so"; here's what the article says:
What if — stick with us here — an unknown technological civilization is hiding right here on Earth, sheltering in bases deep underground and possibly even emerging with UFOs or disguised as everyday humans?
In a new paper that's bound to raise eyebrows in the scientific community, a team of researchers from Harvard and Montana Technological University speculates that sightings of "Unidentified Anomalous Phemonemona" (UAP) — bureaucracy-speak for UFOs, basically — "may reflect activities of intelligent beings concealed in stealth here on Earth (e.g., underground), and/or its near environs (e.g., the Moon), and/or even 'walking among us' (e.g., passing as humans)."
Yes, that's a direct quote from the paper. Needless to say, the researchers admit, this idea of hidden "crypoterrestrials" is a highly exotic hypothesis that's "likely to be regarded skeptically by most scientists." Nonetheless, they argue, the theory "deserves genuine consideration in a spirit of epistemic humility and openness."
...
First is that a "remnant form" of an ancient, highly advanced human civilization is still hanging around, observing us. Second is that an intelligent species evolved independently of humans in the distant past, possibly from "intelligent dinosaurs," and is now hiding their presence from us. Third is that these hidden occupants of Earth traveled here from another planet or time period. And fourth — please keep a straight face, everybody — is that these unknown inhabitants of Earth are "less technological than magical," which the researchers liken to "earthbound angels."
The idea of Crypto-terrestrials is not new of course. I have before me as I type this blog a little book by Mac Tonnies, published in 2010, outlining precisely many of the ideas which are now receiving the Harvard nihil obstat and imprimatur. It is even blatantly titled The Cryptoterrestrials. Many academics have advanced these theories, and regular readers here will be aware of my own speculations regarding ancient civilizations, wars, and advanced technologies. One notices, in the article's mentions of names, a definite and discernible lack of mention - deliberate omissions - of people like Dr. John Brandenburg, or Dr. David Jacobs, or even of Harvard's own Dr. John Mack, of Dr. Jacques Vallee, of Dr. Mark Carlotto or, yes, of Richard C. Hoagland and Mark McCandlish, Michael Schratt, Catherine Fitts, Stanton Friedman, Richard Dolan and so many others who were independent thinkers and speculators and who have produced an enormous body of work to consider.
Instead, we are served up the bland and nervous dish of David Grusch, and so on. In short, the Harvard paper is only playing catchup with people and ideas that have been abroad and discussed in the serious Ufology community for decades. So what is the exercise all about? It is about those phrases nihil obstat and imprimatur: it is about asserting Harvard's - and therefore, the deep state's - supposed right to control "the narrative" of UFOs, and to determine which "sources" one may trust, and which ones are to be avoided. This is not about the UFO phenomenon, but about the influence and control over it. It is about trying to maintain curial control over it. it's yet another limited hangout, another "fake out", another "rope-a-dope". In short, I strongly suspect it's not "epistemic humility and openness", because without the presence of such people in its mentions, it's just more "business as usual," designed to keep the wavering on the reservation.
Don't fall for it. These were the same people that gave you "the Science", and covid, and the magic bullet, and so many other acadermically approved narratives and lies. In that respect, it could even be a very subtle psyop, given the fact that many people are now so cynical about our quackademic institutions: "Harvard said that? Really? Well that settles it; I don't believe it..." As a limited hangout, you've got to admit, it's quite well-done, because they win either way.
Went to visit my last remaining old friend, she told me she had just had another Covid shot. I was so shocked I yelled "YOU SILLY WOMAN! WHY?" She was taken aback and sheepishly said "new variant". I wanted to scream, rant and rage but restrained myself. She is very sweet, kind and generous but not too bright, there was no point in saying anything more. She said she hadn't been feeling well since. God help us.
I am so disappointed: I warned her about the shots, she knew my son-in-law died suddenly after Moderna x2. I lost a friend at the end of last year: she got cancer after the vaxx. So angry that this is still being pushed on the elderly and the vulnerable. Want to get a can of red paint and spray COMPLICIT IN GENOCIDE all over the local surgery. They are total BASTARDS. I know its un-Christian, but a part of me wants to see heads on spikes.
Seriously wondering who will be left at this rate. When will this end?
In Genesis, man is given dominion over God's creation.
Now the environment will dominate, control and enslave man.
Be not deceived, God is not mocked... Its going to be Biblical for sure.
https://www.politico.eu/article/nigel-farage-is-a-reality-tv-star-im-a-celebrity/
Farage built up a party that had so much potential, but all it did was waste hope, energy and time of so many people. He melted away, became a celeb and a mouthpiece, telling people to support Israel. Just another Freemason doing his bit.
So many who appear to be genuine patriots turn out to be controlled. Be careful who you follow. Matthew 10:16. KJ21. "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye therefore wise as serpents and harmless as doves.
The sad thing is Brexit was not about independence and a new start, it was to keep offshore accounts safe. Nothing has changed much: meet the new boss, same as the old boss. If anything, the illegals are arriving in greater numbers and getting more benefits.