Expanding the Stealth Terror Thesis: Hurricane management
By James R. Hanson
The following Atlantic hurricanes, of those exceeding $10 billion in damage, are the costliest to date. Dollars are approximate, Sandy’s estimates still in flux. Those in bold occurred after the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) took responsibility for the weather-control program beginning in 2003.
Katrina $108 billion 2005 Bush 43
Sandy $72 billion 2012 Obama
Ike $38 billion 2008 Bush 43
Wilma $29 billion 2005 Bush 43
Andrew $27 billion 1992 Bush 41
Ivan $23 billion 2004 Bush 43
Irene $17 billion 2011 Obama
Charley $16 billion 2004 Bush 43
Rita $12 billion 2005 Bush 43
Gilbert $10 billion 1988 Reagan
Of the next ten in rank (less than $10 billion in damage but more than $5 billion) Bush 43 had five, thus the majority of the “top 20” hurricanes were during the presidency of George W. Bush. Only one of these, Tropical Storm Allison in 2001, was prior to DARPA’s jurisdiction. Before Obama’s entry with Irene and Sandy, George W. (Bush 43) could claim 69% of the dollar cost of this list. Following from this, those hopeful that Obama would not continue the Bush excesses may find little reassurance.
Another means of comparison of all 32 hurricanes costing more than $1 billion is by the percentage of total cost of all 32. Bush 43 had 62%, Obama had 19%, Clinton 8%, Bush 41 8%, Reagan 3%, Carter a third of 1%
Editor’s Note: Hurricane Florence is scheduled to make landfall in the US Carolinas on September 14 with likely major destruction. There is consequently broad media coverage of the pending calamity. Absent in this sensationalist reportage is the acknowledgement that scientific advancements in weather manipulation are several decades old. Indeed, political and monied interests have long possessed the capability to harness and even weaponize something as seemingly “natural” as the weather itself.
In fact, weather control is but one corollary alongside government and banker-led manufacture of war and war-evoking terror events that date at least to the 1913 establishment of the Federal Reserve. Along these lines it is notable that in late 2008 when the US presidential election season was well underway and the Western financial system was teetering on the edge, America experienced one of the busiest hurricane season in recent memory.
With the above in mind MHB below reproduces the first part of a provocative four-part series authored by Ohio-based attorney James Hanson, Stealth Terror I: Weather Warfare and the End of America, originally published here in 2013.
By James R. Hanson
Mother Nature does not engage in terrorism. Her ravages are integral to the natural world in which mankind must adapt or die. Insofar as we know, Mother Nature has no motive to induce terror. That’s where human beings come in.
The following report is about aspects of weather and environmental modification which are not presented in the corporate media but can be found at alternative news and analysis websites offering explanations of weather phenomena caused by human beings. For example, in an introductory note of an article found at Global Research, Prof. Michel Chossudovsky states:
Environmental modification techniques (ENMOD) for military use constitute, in the present context of global warfare, the ultimate weapon of mass destruction. Rarely acknowledged in the debate on global climate change, the world’s weather can now be modified as part of a new generation of sophisticated electromagnetic weapons. Both the US and Russia have developed capabilities to manipulate the climate for military use.
Multimillion Dollar Charity Aligned with US Secret Service
By James F. Tracy
Sandy Hook Promise, the multi-million dollar 501(c)3 predicated on the Sandy Hook Massacre event, is actively partnering with school districts throughout the United States to institute a nationwide, extralegal intelligence-gathering system targeting students at taxpayer-funded public schools.
The trade-marked “‘Know the Signs’ prevention programs” feature the “Say Something Anonymous Reporting System,” which encourages minor students and school staff whose institutions have partnered with Sandy Hook Promise (SHP) to divulge observational information directly to an SHP-operated “crisis center” on peers they suspect of being future “active shooters,” or who may otherwise be perceived as “at-risk of hurting themselves and others.”
SHP’s other trade-marked “violence prevention programs” include “Say Something,” “Start With Hello,” “Signs of Suicide,” and “Safety Assessment & Intervention.”
The Broward County School Board in South Florida, led by the former chief administrative officer of Chicago Public Schools Robert W. Runcie, has already signed a three year contract with SHP to implement the Say Something Reporting System across one of the largest school districts in the state.
. @browardschools extends its partnership and relationship with Sandy Hook Promise Foundation for additional resources to teach youth & adults how to be more inclusive and connected to one another and how to look for warning signs, signals and threats, especially in social media. pic.twitter.com/uxq8TQILSU
Editor’s Note: California may set the tone for a national conversation and perhaps even set of laws addressing what the state’s lawmakers deem “false information … spread online.” Since political motivation and ideology often underly what one deems “fake news” this proposed move should be especially concerning for those who truly cherish free thought and expression. As the article below suggests, Facebook’s recent nod to corporate media outlets as an antithesis to “fake news” has demonstrated how such an effort is likely to be instituted in California and elsewhere. The Electronic Frontier Foundation argues that the law is dangerous because it places the governing body in a position to determine what is true and false.
The proposed speech legislation was introduced by California State Senator Richard Pan, a practicing pediatrician and the principal lawmaker behind SB277, the state’s mandatory vaccination law. A voter-driven campaign in 2015 to have Pan ousted from office was not successful.
California is considering creating a “fake news” advisory group in order to monitor information posted and spread on social media.
Senate Bill 1424 would require the California Attorney General to create the advisory committee by April 1, 2019. It would need to consist of at least one person from the Department of Justice, representatives from social media providers, civil liberties advocates, and First Amendment scholars.
The advisory group would be required to study how false information is spread online and come up with a plan for social media platforms to fix the problem. The Attorney General would then need to present that plan to the Legislature by December 31, 2019. The group would also need to come up with criteria establishing what is “fake news” versus what is inflammatory or one-sided.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation opposes the bill, calling it “flawed” and “misguided.” The group argues the measure would make the government and advisory group responsible for deciding what is true or false. It also points out the First Amendment prevents content-based restrictions, even if the statements of “admittedly false.”
A recent study by Massachusetts-based MindEdge Learning was conducted with 1,000 young adults, ages 18 to 31-years-old. According to MindEdge’s nine-question survey, 52 percent of the respondents incorrectly answered at least four questions and received a failing grade. The number of young adults who could detect false information on the internet went down by all of the group’s measures. Only 19 percent of the college students and grads scored an “A” by getting eight or nine questions correct. That number is down from 24 percent in last year’s survey.
Facebook recently did away with its “Trending News” section – calling it outdated and unpopular. That section was criticized in the past after reports came out claiming the human editors were biased against conservatives. After Facebook fired those editors, the algorithms it replaced them with couldn’t always distinguish real news from fake.
After the 2016 election, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg denied that fake news spread on the social site he oversees influenced the outcome- calling the idea “crazy.”
A previous bill, AB 155, would have required schools to teach students the difference between “fake news” and “real news.” It died in the Assembly Committee on Appropriations.
The current bill SB 1424 was authored by Senator Dr. Richard Pan. It passed the Senate on May 30, 2018 by a vote of 25-11. It will be heard by the Assembly Arts, Entertainment, Sports, tourism, and Internet Media Committee on Tuesday.
Everyone should contemplate this very disturbing fact: There are certainly hundreds, and possibly thousands, of highly “educated” professors at colleges and universities all over this country. Most hold the “highest” degree, Ph.D. in diverse fields like mathematics, physics, chemistry, forensic sciences, criminal justice, law, and even art or political science or engineering or biology or biochemistry or genetics or geology or philosophy or earth sciences or journalism or investigative journalism or medicine or anthropology, and so on.
Are these the “experts” who are the examples of use of logic and the scientific method to discover and learn from analysis and observations of events and the world around us to discover “truth”? If so, why are they so silent about the official lies about the events at Sandy Hook School on Dec. 14, 2012, or the attacks on 9/11/01, and many others? How many of them have contacted professor Jim Fetzer, Ph.D regarding his startling discoveries about Sandy Hook or the Boston Bombing, or the many other false flag attacks to promote gun control? How many of these great “teachers” and “searchers for truth” have contacted him about his startling discoveries on who and why and what attacked the U.S. on 9/11/01?
The answer is almost zero! Essentially none, zero of these “courageous” experts even call or question the official narrative of these events. The silence is deafening.
Much of the money for their research support comes from the U.S. Government. Obviously they fear uttering a peep using their true names, although they have lifetime tenured jobs, because they might lose some of that good easy government money, or become persona non grata with the powers that be so their own ox’s might be gored.
What about truth? What about knowledge, truth and understanding? What about being an inspiration to kids to ask rude questions of the powers that be? Are not these thousands of Ph.D.’s little more than gutless cowards who likely would not call 911 if they observed a woman being raped on the sidewalk? What good are these worthless shameful parasites on the public dole?
Let’s end the easy money supply to these worthless cowards of America who set exactly the wrong example to our young who will be the new cowards on the block if something is not done soon to reverse this trend.
In fact, has not America already been destroyed by a bunch of brainwashed fools who can’t distinguish up from down or truth from fiction when Israelis own all the major media and continue a big propaganda lie every day 24/7? Let’s abolish these worthless parasites and the institutions who support them. Never donate one dollar to these useless hypocritical institutions that are destroying America from within by brainwashing its young college-age students and teaching them cowardice instead of instilling in them traits of courage, questioning and honor and truth.
Evidently our colleges are producing graduates who can’t discern truth from fiction. Let’s end these hollow institutions of lower learning and indoctrination today and stop their easy government funding. Put these cowardly professors on the street where they belong.
The Counseling and Mental Health Center at the University of Texas at Austin recently launched a new program to help male students “take control over their gender identity and develop a healthy sense of masculinity.”
Treating masculinity as if it were a mental health crisis, “MasculinUT” is organized by the school’s counseling staff and most recently organized a poster series encouraging students to develop a “healthy model of masculinity.”
The program is predicated on a critique of so-called “restrictive masculinity.” Men, the program argues, suffer when they are told to “act like a man” or when they are encouraged to fulfill traditional gender roles, such as being “successful” or “the breadwinner.”
Though you might enjoy “taking care of people” or being “active,” MasculinUTwarns that many of these attributes are actually dangerous, claiming that “traditional ideas of masculinity place men into rigid (or restrictive) boxes [which]… prevent them from developing their emotional maturity.”
Below is the UN’s press release on the report, dated March 17, 2000 — that’s how long ago the “refugee” and “migrant” plan was hatched.
NEW REPORT ON REPLACEMENT MIGRATION ISSUED BY UN POPULATION DIVISION
NEW YORK, 17 March (DESA) — The Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) has released a new report titled Replacement Migration: Is it a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?. Replacement migration refers to the international migration that a country would need to prevent population decline and population ageing resulting from low fertility and mortality rates.
United Nations projections indicate that between 1995 and 2050, the population of Japan and virtually all countries of Europe will most likely decline. In a number of cases, including Estonia, Bulgaria and Italy, countries would lose between one quarter and one third of their population. Population ageing will be pervasive, bringing the median age of population to historically unprecedented high levels. For instance, in Italy, the median age will rise from 41 years in 2000 to 53 years in 2050. The potential support ratio — i.e., the number of persons of working age (15-64 years) per older person — will often be halved, from 4 or 5 to 2.