1979 INTERVIEW WITH GEORGE S. FRANKLIN, JR.

1979 INTERVIEW WITH GEORGE S. FRANKLIN, JR.
COORDINATOR OF THE Trilateral Commission

Introduction

In the original analysis of the Trilateral Commission in the 1970’s, the only persons to actually interview and debate members of that elite group were Antony C. Sutton and myself, Patrick Wood. From 1978 through 1981, we together or individually engaged at least seven different Commission members in public debate.

On July 27, 1979, Radio Station KLMG, Council Bluffs, Iowa aired a highly informative interview with George S. Franklin, Jr., Coordinator of the Trilateral Commission and long-time associate of David Rockefeller.

Joe Martin, the commentator on the program, invited authors Antony Sutton and Patrick Wood to participate in the questioning. The program was probably the most penetrating view of Trilateralism yet uncovered.

Only one complete transcript remains intact from those interviews, and it is reproduced below. Hopefully, this will give you some insight into the inner workings, attitude and mindset of Commission members.

Lest anyone make accusation that this transcript was selectively edited to show a "bad light" on the Commission, it is reprinted in full, without edit. Editor's comments are added in certain places to clarify the facts, when appropriate and are clearly identified to the reader as such. Members of the Trilateral Commission are noted in bold type. The entire interview was first and only published in the Trilateral Observer in 1979, which was published by Patrick Wood and The August Corporation.



The Interview

Commentator: Hello.

Wood: Hello.

Commentator: Is this Mr. Wood?

Wood: Yes, it is.

Commentator: Patrick Wood, we have Antony Sutton on the other line. You two are there now, right?

Wood: Yes.

Commentator: Are you there too, Mr. Sutton?

Sutton: Yes.

Commentator: All right. Before we get Mr. Franklin on the phone, tell us, what is your concise opinion of the Trilateral Commission?

Sutton: It would seem that this is David Rockefeller's concept, his creation, he financed it. The Trilateral Commission has only 77 or so American members. It's a closed elitist group. I do not believe that they in any way represent general thinking in the United States. For example, they want to restrict the rights of the media in violation of the Constitution.

[Ed: Compare this initial statement to Franklin's admissions during the interview.]

Commentator: They want to restrict the rights of the media?

Sutton: Yes.

Commentator: All right, we have Mr. George Franklin on the phone right now, okay? Hang on, gentlemen. Hello, am I talking to Mr. George S. Franklin?

Franklin: That is right.

Commentator: You are coordinator of the Trilateral Commission?

Franklin: That is right.

Commentator: Mr. Franklin, my name is Joe Martin. I have two other gentlemen on the line and I have listeners on the line too, who would like to ask a few questions regarding the Trilateral Commission. Are you prepared to answer some questions, sir?

Franklin: I hope so.

Commentator: Is the Trilateral commission presently involved in any effort to make a one-world?

Franklin: Definitely not. We have not. We have no one-world doctrine. Our only belief that is shared by most of the members of the Commission itself, is that this world will somehow do better, if the advanced industrial democracy that serves Japan and the United States can cooperate and talk things out together and try to work on programs rather than at cross purposes, but definitely not any idea of a world government or a government of these areas.

[Ed: "Definitely not," says Franklin. Numerous statements in Trilateral writings show Franklin is in error. For example: "The economic officials of at least the largest countries must begin to think in terms of managing a single world economy in addition to managing international economic relations among countries," (Emphasis in original.) Trilateral Commission Task Force Reports: 9-14, page 268.]

Commentator: Why is it, in the Trilateral Commission that the name David Rockefeller shows up so persistently or [the name of] one of his organizations?

Franklin: Well, this is very reasonable. David Rockefeller is the Chairman of the North American group. There are three chairmen: one is [with] the North American group, one is [with]the Japanese group, and one is [with] the European group. Also, the Commission was really David Rockefeller's original idea.

[Ed:Note that Franklin does not say (at this point) that the Trilateral Commission was financed and established by David Rockefeller.]

Commentator: On President Carter's staff, how many Trilateral Commission members do you have?

Franklin: Eighteen.

Commentator: Don't you think that is rather heavy?

Franklin: It is quite a lot, yes.

Commentator: Don't you think it is rather unusual? How many members are there actually in the Trilateral Commission?

Franklin: We have 77 in the United States.

Commentator: Don't you think it is rather unusual to have 18 members on the Carter staff?

Franklin: Yes, I think we chose some very able people when we started the Commission. The President happens to think well of quite a number of them.

Commentator: All right, we would like to bring in our two other guests - men who have written a book on the Trilateral Commission. You may be familiar with Mr. Antony Sutton and Mr. Patrick Wood?

Franklin: I have not met them, but I do know their names, yes.

Commentator: Mr. Sutton and Mr. Wood, would you care to ask Mr. Franklin a question?

Sutton: Well, I certainly would. This is Tony Sutton. You have 77 members of which 18 are in the Carter Administration. Do you believe that the only able people in the United States are Trilateralists?

Franklin: Of course not, and incidentally, the 18 are no longer members of the Commission because this is supposed to be a private organization and as soon as anybody joins the government they no longer are members of the Commission.

Sutton: Yes, but they are members of the Commission when they join.

Franklin: That is correct.

Sutton: Do you believe that the only able people in the United States are Trilateralists?

Franklin: Of course not.

Sutton: Well, how come the heavy percentage?

Franklin: Well, when we started to choose members, we did try to pick out the ablest people we could and I think many of those that are in the Carter Administration would have been chosen by any group that was interested in the foreign policy question.

Sutton: Would you say that you have an undue influence on policy in the United States?

Franklin: I would not, no.

Sutton: I think any reasonable man would say that if you have 18 Trilateralists out of 77 in the Carter Administration you have a preponderant influence.

Franklin: These men are not responsive to anything that the Trilateral Commission might advocate. We do have about two reports we put out each year and we do hope they have some influence or we would not put them out.

[Ed: The Trilateral Commission puts out considerably more than two reports each year. In 1974 and 1976, it was four in each year plus four issues of "Trialogue"]

Sutton: May I ask another question?

Franklin: Yes.

Sutton: Who financed the Trilateral Commission originally?

Franklin: Uhh. . .The first supporter of all was a foundation called the Kettering Foundation. I can tell you who is financing it at the present time, which might be of more interest to you.

[Ed: This is what Franklin said in another interview: "In the meantime, David Rockefeller and the Kettering Foundation had provided transitional funding."]

Sutton: Is it not the Rockefeller Brothers' Fund?

Franklin: The Rockefeller Brothers' Fund? The North American end of the Commission needs $1.5 million over the next 3 years. Of this amount, $180,000 will be contributed by the Rockefeller Brother's fund and $150,000 by David Rockefeller.

Commentator: Does that mean that most of it is being financed by the Rockefellers?

Franklin: No, it means that about one fifth of the North American end is being financed by the Rockefellers and none of the European and Japanese end.

Commentator: Do you have any further questions, Mr. Sutton?

Sutton: No, I do not.

Commentator: Do you have a question, Mr. Wood?

Wood: Yes, I have one question. In reading your literature and reports, there is a great deal of mention of the term "Interdependence".

Franklin: Right.

Wood: While we can see that there is some need for the world to cooperate in many areas, this system of interdependence seems to have some very profound effect on the United States structure as it is today. For instance, our national structure versus the interdependent structure in the world. Now, do you feel that this interdependent structure has been properly presented to the American public for approval or disapproval?

Franklin: Well, I don't think that it is a question of approval or disapproval altogether. For example, we get a great deal of our natural resources from abroad. Everybody knows that we get a great deal of oil from abroad. So, whether we like it or not, we are much more dependent on other nations that we used to be. Now, this does not mean that they make our decisions for us on what our policies are going to be and our energy policies are made here by the President and Congress. Now, they do consult others about them because they have to, because unfortunately we are forced to become interdependent.

[Ed: The term "interdependent" is a key word in Trilateralism. Think for a moment: The known world has always been more or less interdependent. Trilateralists use "interdependence" in a manner analogous to the propaganda methods of Goebbels: if you repeat a phrase often enough people will begin to accept it automatically in the required context. The required context for Trilaterals is to get across the idea that "one-world" is inevitable."]

Commentator: Does that answer your question, Mr. Wood?

Wood: Well, perhaps not completely, let me phrase that another way. Do you feel that your policy - that is, those who represent the Trilateral policy as well as interdependence - do you feel that that philosophy is in accord with the typical American philosophy of nationalism and democracy and so on?

Franklin: Well, I think I would answer that this way. First, we are in fact interdependent. I say, unfortunately, we depend on much more that we used to. Therefore, we have to cooperate far more than we used to. But, that does not mean that we are giving other people the right to determine our policy and we do not advocate that. You will not find that in any of our reports.

[Ed: Notice how Franklin ducks around the key issue presented by Wood, i.e., whether the concept as used by Trilaterals is inconsistent with generally accepted American ideals. Wood said nothing about "...giving other people the right to determine our policy." This is a straw man erected by Franklin to duck the issue.]

Wood: Do you feel that the Trilateral Commission position has been publicized really at all around the country?

Franklin: We try to publicize it, we do not altogether succeed because there are so many other people who also want publicity, but we do try. Anything we do is open to public scrutiny.

[Ed: The August Corporation had recently commissioned a thorough search of the massive New York Times computerized data base. We came up with a very meager list of references to Trilateralism. Only 71 references in the past six years in all major U.S. and foreign publications. Many of these were no more than short paragraphs. We know that the Trilateral Commission mailing list has only 4,000 names including all its 250 members, 600 or so Congressmen and elitists. In brief, media coverage has been - and is - extremely small. The 71 citations by the way include mostly critical articles from independent authors. It also includes such efforts as the Time front-page promotion of Jimmy Carter for President - probably the key effort on Carter's behalf. Hedley Donovan was then Editor-in-Chief of Time.]

Commentator: Mr. Sutton?

Sutton: Paul Volcker was a member of the Trilateral Commission and has just been appointed Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Does Paul Volcker have any connection with Chase Manhattan which is dominated by Rockefellers?

Franklin: He was, quite a long time ago, on the staff of [Chase] Manhattan.

[Ed: Paul Volcker has twice worked for Chase Manhattan Bank. In the 1950's as an economist and again in the 1960's as Vice President for Planning. We cannot deny that Volcker "knows about (Trilateral) financial policies" as stated by Franklin.]

Sutton: Don't you think that this is quite an unhealthy situation, where you have a man connected with Chase who is now Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board? Doesn't this give some credence to the criticism of elitism?

Franklin: Conflict of interest?

Sutton: Yes.

Franklin: It does give some credence to it. On the other hand, it is very important that the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank know about our financial policies and, therefore, will certainly have been connected to some financial institution. This has not always been the case. I think that anyone who knows Paul Volcker, knows that he is an extraordinarily objective person. I think if you would notice, that the editorial comments on his appointments were almost uniformly favorable, there must have been some that were unfavorable, but I have not seen them.

Sutton: May I ask another question?

Commentator: Go Ahead.

Sutton: Mr. Donovan, of Time-Life, has just been appointed Special Assistant to President Carter. Mr. Donovan is a member of your Commission.

Franklin: That is correct.

Sutton: Does this not emphasize the fact that the Carter Administration is choosing its administration from an extremely a narrow range. In other words, the Trilateral Commission?

Franklin: I do not think that that needs any confirmation. That is a matter of fact that he has chosen most of his main foreign policy people, I would have to say, from the people he got to know while he was on the Trilateral Commission.

[Ed: Franklin admits that the "Carter Administration is choosing its administration from an extremely narrow range."]

Sutton: Well, I can only make the statement that this leaves any reasonable man with the impression that the Carter Administration is dominated by the Trilateral Commission with your specific ideas which many people do not agree with.

Franklin: Well, I would certainly agree that people who were members of the Commission have predominant places in the foreign policy aspects of the Carter Administration. They are not, because they are members of the Commission, controlled in any sense by us. I do think that they do share a common belief that is very important that we work particularly with Europe and Japan or we are all going to be in trouble.

Sutton: But this common belief may not reflect the beliefs of the American people. How do you know that it does?

Franklin: I do not know that it does. I am no man to interpret what the people think about.

Sutton: In other words, you are quite willing to go ahead [and] establish a Commission which you say does not necessarily reflect the views of the people in the United States? It appears to me that you have taken over political power.

Franklin: I do not think this is true at all. Anybody who forms a group for certain purposes obviously tries to achieve these purposes. We do believe that it is important that Europe, Japan, and the United States get along together. That much we do believe. We also chose the best people we could get as members of the Commission. Fortunately, nearly all accepted. The President was one of them and he happened to have thought that these were very able people indeed, and he asked them to be in his government, it is as simple as that. If you are going to ask me if I am very unhappy about that, the answer is no. I think that these are good people.

Wood: May I ask a little bit more pointedly, if Carter got his education from the Trilateral Commission, was not his dean of students, so to speak, Mr. Brzezinski?

Franklin: I cannot tell you exactly what role Brzezinski had, but certainly he did have considerable effect on the education Carter received on foreign policy.

Wood: Mr. Brzezinski is on record in more than one of his books as being a proponent of rejuvenating or redesigning the U.S. Constitution, is this correct?

Franklin: I have not read all his books, I have not seen that statement, and I have worked with him very closely for three years and he has not said anything of that sort to me.

Wood: As a matter of fact, he is on record and in one of his books as indicating that the U.S. Constitution as it is today is not able to lead us into an interdependent world and that it should be redesigned to reflect the interdependence that we must move ahead towards.

Franklin: As I say, if you tell me that, I must believe it, and I have not read that book and I have never got any inkling of that between 1973 and 1976.

[Ed: Here is what Brzezinski writes in one of his books "Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era":

"Tension is unavoidable as man strives to assimilate the new into the framework of the old. For a time the established framework resiliently integrates the new by adapting it in a more familiar shape. But at some point the old framework becomes overloaded. The new input can no longer be redefined into traditional forms, and eventually it asserts itself with compelling force. Today, though, the old framework of international politics - with their spheres of influence, military alliances between nation-states, the fiction of Sovereignty, doctrinal conflicts arising from nineteenth century crises - is clearly no longer compatible with reality." (Emphasis added)

and specifically on changing the U.S. Constitution:

"The approaching two-hundredth anniversary of the Declaration of Independence could justify the call for a national constitutional convention to re-examine the nation's formal institutional framework. Either 1976 or 1989 - the two-hundredth anniversary of the Constitution – could serve as a suitable target date culminating a national dialogue on the relevance of existing arrangements... Realism, however, forces us to recognize that the necessary political innovation will not come from direct constitutional reform, desirable as that would be. The needed change is more likely to develop incrementally and less overtly ... in keeping with the American tradition of blurring distinctions between public and private institution." (Emphasis added)

Obviously Franklin is either unaware of the writing of his "close" associate Brzezinski or is evading the question.

Commentator: I would like to interject a question if I could. Mr. Franklin, within the Trilateral Commission, are there any Trilateralists who have control of the energy resources in this world?

Franklin: No. We have no major oil companies represented on the Commission.

Commentator: I mean stockholders in oil companies.

Franklin: I am sure that David Rockefeller must have some stock in an oil company. I do not know.

Commentator: Doesn’t David Rockefeller have stock in Chase National Bank?

Franklin: Definitely

Commentator: Doesn't Chase National Bank have stock in Exxon?

Franklin: Honestly, I do not know.

Commentator: Standard Oil? Mobil?

Sutton: Well, I do.

Franklin: I would be certain that some of their pension trusts and some of the trusts that they hold for individuals, undoubtedly do.

Commentator: So, the Trilateral Commission has no effect at all in the energy field at all?

Franklin: Yes, the Trilateral Commission has written a report on energy. There were three authors, there were always three authors. The American author was John Sawhill, who was formerly head of the Energy Administration and is now presently of New York University.

Commentator: I have read where the oil and gas world is dominated by seven major firms, do you agree with that?

Franklin: I do not have expertise in this field, but I think it sounds reasonable.

Commentator: Well, a listing of controlling ownership in these major oil and gas companies by banks - by Trilateral Commissioners - is listed as Manufacturer's Hanover, Chase Bank, Wells Fargo Bank, First National Bank of Chicago, and First Continental of Illinois. And these all supposedly are of Trilateral representation. Is that true, sir?

Franklin: No, sir, it is not true. Give me the list again. I think I can tell you which are and which are not.

Commentator: Manufacturer's Hanover.

Franklin: No, sir, it is not.

Commentator: There are no stockholders in that, who are members of the Trilateral Commission?

Franklin: Wait a minute. I cannot tell you whether there are no stockholders in Manufacturer's Hanover. I might even be a stockholder in Manufacturer's Hanover. I am not.

Commentator: Chase Manhattan figures prominently.

Franklin: Chase Manhattan certainly.

Commentator: ..which is David Rockefeller's Bank!

Franklin: There is no question about that.

Commentator: So there is some connection with the energy field.

Franklin: Well, yes.

Commentator: So, if Chase Manhattan has stock in Exxon, Mobil, and Standard Oil, then there is a direct connection there?

Franklin: Well, yes.

Commentator: So, if Chase Manhattan has stock in Exxon, Mobil, and Standard Oil, then there is a direct connection there?

Franklin: I am sure that is true. Every bank runs pension trusts, so it must have some of its trust money in some of those companies.

Commentator: I have read, and I do not know if it is true, you may answer this, that Chase Manhattan is a number one stockholder in Exxon, number three in Mobil, and number two in Standard Oil.

Franklin: I just would not know.

Commentator: Do you have any questions, Mr. Sutton?

Sutton: Yes, the figures you have just quoted about Chase Manhattan stock ownership in the oil companies: these were published by the U.S. Senate some years ago. There is a series of these volumes. One, for example, is entitled "Disclosure of Corporate Ownership."

[Ed: Any reader investigating further should note that the ownership is heavily disguised by use of nominee companies. For example "Cudd & Co." is a ficticious nominee name for Chase Manhattan Bank.

A partial list of nominees which have been used by Chase Manhattan Bank includes the following:

Andrews & Co.

Elzay & Co.

Reeves & Co.

Bedle & Co

Gansel & Co.

Ring & Co.

Bender & Co.

Gooss & Co.

Ryan & Co.

Chase Nominees Ltd.

Gunn & Co.

Settle & Co

Clint & Co.

Kane & Co.

Taylor & Witt

Cudd & Co.

McKenna & Co.

Timm & Co.

Dell & Co.

Padom & Co.

Titus & Co.

Egger & Co.

Pickering Ltd. & Co.

White & Co.

Ehren & Co.



Franklin: I am sure that these banks could run billions of dollars through trusts and some of the trusts must be invested in some of these major oil companies.

Commentator: Then the Trilateral Commission member who has stock in the bank and who is also a high-ranking Trilateral Commission member, would have some jurisdiction over energy?

Franklin: No, not really. I know some of the management of these companies. They are not controlled by the stockholders the way they used to be.

Wood: Let's put that question another way if we might. It perhaps would be erroneous to say Chase Manhattan Bank controlled Exxon, because in fact, they do not. However, Chase Manhattan Bank is the largest single shareholder that Exxon has. Considering the discussion going on about the major oil companies, and their part in this energy crisis, don't you think that it would be possible to exercise control from Chase Manhattan Bank to put pressure on Exxon to help alleviate the energy crisis?

Franklin: Well, I think you could answer that kind of question just as well, as I can. Everybody has their own views on these things.

Commentator: You must be familiar with the members of your Commission, especially with Mr. Rockefeller and his various holdings?

Franklin: I am extremely familiar with Mr. Rockefeller, I have known him for nearly 50 years.

Commentator: ... and his holdings?

Franklin: I am not at all familiar with his holdings.

Commentator: I think everybody is familiar with his holdings. I thought everybody was familiar with his holdings, I know he owns Chase Manhattan Bank.

Franklin: No, that is not true.

Commentator: I mean, he is the largest stockholder.

Franklin: That, I would agree to. I would say that he has about five percent, I am not sure.

Commentator: Five percent? Would you agree with that, Mr. Sutton?

Sutton: Yes, plus he is chairman of the board.

Franklin: Yes, that is correct. I have no doubt that he does control Chase Manhattan Bank.

Commentator: You have no doubt about that?

Franklin: No, basically, no. Directors are important.

Commentator: Do you have any doubt that as chairman, he controls the bank and Chase Manhattan also controls or at least partly controls the American Electric Power [the utility company]?

Franklin: I do not know anything about it.

Commentator: You are not sure about that?

Franklin: I just don't know. These things do not ever really enter into consideration. If you look at our energy report that will tell you whether you think this is an objective or effective document or not.

[Ed: Chase Manhattan Bank owns 1,646,706 shares of American Electric Power Company through two nominees, . This gives it a direct 2.8 percent of the total. However numerous other holding in American Electric Power are maintained by banks and firms where Chase has some degree of control. For example, Morgan Guaranty has almost 500,000 shares and is dominated by J.P. Morgan; the second largest stockholder in J.P. Morgan is Chase Manhattan Bank.]

Commentator: Mr. Sutton?

Sutton: Can we go off energy for a while?

Commentator: Yes.

Sutton: I have a question for Mr. Franklin. Who chooses the members of the Trilateral commission?

Franklin: The Trilateral Commission's Executive Committee.

Sutton: Who comprises the committee?

Franklin: Who is on that committee?

Sutton: Yes.

Franklin: Okay. William Coleman, former Secretary of Transportation, who is a lawyer; Lane Kirkland, who is Secretary-General of the American Federation of Labor; Henry Kissinger, who does not need too much identification; Bruce McLaury, who is president of the Brookings Institution; David Rockefeller; Robert Ingersoll, who was formerly Deputy Secretary of State and Ambassador to Japan; I. W. Able, who was formerly head of United Steelworkers; and William Roth, who is a San Francisco businessman and was chief trade negotiator in the previous Kennedy trade round.

Sutton: May I ask a question? How many of these have a rather intimate business relationship with Mr. Rockefeller?

Franklin: Henry Kissinger is chairman of Mr. Rockefeller's Chase Advisory Committee.

Sutton: Coleman?

Franklin: Coleman, I don't think has any business relationship with him, he is a lawyer.

[Ed: In fact William Coleman is a Director of Chase Manhattan Bank which Franklin has already admitted to be controlled by David Rockefeller.]

Sutton: Mr. Ingersoll?

Franklin: Mr. Ingersoll, I don't think has any business relationship.

Sutton: Isn't he connected with First Chicago?

Franklin: He is vice chairman of the University of Chicago.

Sutton: No, what about the First Bank of Chicago? [First Chicago Corp.]

Franklin: I don't believe that Ingersoll has any relationship with banks in Chicago, but I don't know for certain on that.

[Ed: Robert Stephen Ingersoll before joining the Washington "revolving door" was a director of the First National Bank of Chicago, a subsidiary of First Chicago Corp. The largest single shareholder in First Chicago is David Rockefeller's Chase Manhattan Bank. Ingersoll has also been a director of Atlantic Richfield and Burlington Northern. Chase Manhattan is also the largest single stockholder in these two companies. Thus, Ingersoll has a long standing relationship with Rockefeller interests.]

Commentator: We are adding another man to the interview, his name is Mr. John Rees, a very fine writer from the Review of the News, Washington, D.C., who is in the area right at this time to make some speeches.

Sutton: Mr. Franklin, do you believe in freedom of the press in the United States?

Franklin: Definitely, of course.

Sutton: Let me quote you from a book "Crisis In Democracy," written by Michel Crozier, who is a Trilateral member.

Franklin: Correct.

Sutton: I am quoting from page 35 of his book: "The media has thus become an autonomous power. We are now witnessing a crucial change with the profession. That is, media tends to regulate itself in such a way as to resist the pressure from financial or government interests." Does that not mean that you want to restrict the press in some way?

Franklin: I can't quite hear you.

Sutton: Let me paraphrase this for you. I think I will be clear in my paraphrasing. The Trilateral Commission is unhappy with the press because it resists the pressure from financial or government interests. That is one of your statements.

Franklin: Now, let me say something about our book. The book that we put out, the report, is the responsibility of the authors and not of the Commission itself. You will find that in the back of a number of them, and that book is one of them, that other members of the Commission will hear dissenting views, and you will find dissenting views in the back of that book on the press question.

Sutton: I would like to quote a further statement from the same book and leave the questions at that point: "The media deprives government and to some extent other responsible authorities of the time lag and tolerance that make it possible to innovate and to experiment responsibly." What the book recommends is something like the Interstate Commerce Commission to control the press. This seems to me to be a violation of the Constitution.

Franklin: I would agree with you that we do not want something like the Interstate Commerce Commission to control the press.

[Ed: Michel Crozier, et al, in Crisis In Democracy make the following statements with reference to the "Interstate Commerce Act and the Sherman Anti-trust Act":

"Something comparable appears to be now needed with respect to the media.... there is also the need to assure to the government the right and the ability to withhold information at the source" (page 182).

The authors go on to argue that if journalists do not conform to these new restrictive standards then "The alternative could well be regulation by the government."]

Sutton: I fail to understand why the Trilateral Commission would associate itself with such a viewpoint.

Franklin: As I just mentioned to you. We hired three authors for each report. The authors are allowed to say what they think is correct. What the Trilateral Commission does is this: It says we think this report is worthwhile for the public to see. This does not mean that all the members of the Commission agree with all the statements in the report and, in fact, a majority of them might disagree with certain things. Now, where a statement is one that many Commissioners seem to disagree with we then do put in the back a summary of the discussion. That book does have a summary of the discussion of our meeting which questions various things in the book, in the back of it.

Sutton: Would you say Mr. Franklin that the members of the Commission do have a common philosophy?

Franklin: Yes. I think a common philosophy. I think that all of them believe that this world will work better if the principal industrial powers consult each other on their policies and try to work them out together. This does not mean that they will agree on everything. Of course, they won't. But, at least they will know what the other countries feel, and why they feel it.

Sutton: The Financial Times in London -- the editor is Ferdy Fisher, a Trilateralist. He fired a long time editorial writer, Gordon Tether, because Tether wanted to write articles criticizing the Trilateral Commission. Do you have any comments?

Franklin: I didn't know that at all. It sounds terribly unlikely, but if you say that it is so, probably it is.

[Ed: See Chapter Seven "Trilateral Censorship: the case of C. Gordon Tether" in Trilaterals Over Washington. Trilaterals see the media as the "gatekeeper" and comment as follows:

"Their main impact is visibility. The only real event is the event that is reported and seen. Thus, journalists possess a crucial role as gatekeepers of one of the central dimensions of public life."]

Rees: Frankly, Mr. Martin, with Antony Sutton on the line, I feel absolutely a novice, because Antony is a real expert on the Trilateral.

Sutton: Well, I am looking for information.

Commentator: Are you getting information?

Sutton: Yes, I am very definitely getting information.

Commentator: Do you have any other questions?

Sutton: Not at the moment. I'd rather hear someone else.

Commentator: Alright.

Wood: I do have one question, if I might. You mentioned earlier that as you decided to issue a report, whether it reflected Trilateral policy or not, you felt that it was worthy to be shared with the public. Is that correct?

Franklin: We do not have a Trilateral policy, except for the very broad policy [which] is that each of these major areas ought to know what the other countries are doing and why and try to work things out as much as possible. That is our only Trilateral policy, I would say. We don't have a policy on energy and a policy on monetary reform and a policy on, etc.

[Ed: The latest issue of Trialogue (Summer 1979) has an opening paragraph as follows:

"The draft report presented in Tokyo by the Trilateral Task Force on Payments Imbalances analyzes the extreme payments imbalances which have marked the world economy throughout the 1970's and offers a series of broad policy recommendations...”

Part II of the same issue has the following opening paragraph:

"The draft report presented in Tokyo by the Trilateral Task Force on Industrial Policy... reviews the desirable aims and criteria of trilateral industrial policies and their international implications."

Yet Franklin asserts "We don't have a policy on energy and a policy on monetary reform, etc."]

Wood: Okay, let me ask a question. Based on that then, what efforts have you made, if any, to publish these articles or these studies so they might be reviewed by the general American public? For instance, I have never seen one study published in any major popular magazine, whether it be Time Magazine, a newspaper -- in fact, there have been very few references. Over a period of six years now, there have been few mentions of the name "Trilateral Commission" in the nations press. This is backed up by the New York Times data base, which is one of the most extensive in the world. Now if these are made public, can you tell me how these are made public?

Franklin: Yes. What we do is, that we have a list of about 4,000 people, some of whom request them and some of whom we thought would be interested if we sent them -- and we send them free -- and we would be glad to send them to you, for example, if you would like to have them. Now we also, when we publish, when we send them out to a considerable list of press correspondents. We also have press lunches and things. Because of the nature of this thing, it can't be printed in full, because they are just too long. No newspaper wants to print a 40- or 50-page study. But, there have been mentions of one or two of the studies in Newsweek. We would like to get more published, frankly, very much more than we have been getting. Now in Japan, for example, we have done much better. At our last plenary session in Tokyo, members of the Commission who were there, gave over 90 separate interviews to members of the Japanese press who were present. In fact, there were many more requests than that which we could not honor because there was not time. We have not done anything like as well in this country.

Wood: Allow me to ask you this. This takes specifically one case, the case of Time Magazine. Hedley Donovan is the former editor-in-chief of that magazine. I understand he is recently retired, and also you have as a member of your Commission, Sol Linowitz, also a director of Time. Now, Time-Life books, of course, you have Time Magazine, Fortune, Money and People. Now I would ask you -- considering the special advantage you have by having such a giant as Hedley Donovan and Sol Linowitz as well, both connected to Time -- don't you feel that if you really wanted to publicize these "position papers" that it would only take a scratch of the pen by Mr. Donovan?

Franklin: No, I don't, and I will tell you why. Hedley Donovan is not only a member of the Commission, but he is one of my close personal friends. Hedley Donovan is also a person of great integrity. He will not publish anything we do because he is connected with it. He looks out for the interest of Time, and he does not feel we were worth Time publicity, and I am sure he will be exactly the same way in the White House. He is going to be loyal to his President and to his job.

Wood: But Time Magazine is the largest news magazine in the country?

Franklin: Right. We only had a little publicity, but we had only what Hedley would have given, whether or not he was a member of the Commission.

Wood: So, he basically thinks that the Commission really does not matter.

Franklin: No. He does not, or he would not be a member of the Commission at all. Time Magazine does give us some money, not very much, but $2,500 a year to be exact. But, his editorial judgment is not biased by the fact that he is a member of the Commission.

Commentator: Mr. Rees, would you like to ask a question?

Rees: Yes, Mr. Franklin, I noticed that you were saying that the Trilateral Commission takes no responsibility for the use of the publisher's imprimatur, but I would be interested to know about how you go about selecting your writers to put out the various positions.

Franklin: Well that is a very interesting question. We have a meeting with the chairmen. The way the situation is organized is this. There are three chairmen, one from each of the three areas. Three secretaries, one from each of the three areas, and I, have got an intermediate staff job called "coordinator." Now, the chairmen and secretaries meet with what they have jointly, will discuss not only topics they think will be useful to have, but also authors for these topics. The topics are then discussed by the whole Commission and approved or changed slightly. The authors are chosen by members of the staff and consultation with the chairmen.

Rees: So, although you do not take responsibility for the finished product you are responsible for the selection of the writers.

Franklin: Very much. No question about that.

Rees: So it does have your imprimatur stamp of approval each time?

Franklin: In that sense. We certainly choose the writers, and we choose them because we think they are very good, obviously. So far, every single report that has been written by the authors has, in fact, been accepted for publication by the Commission.

Rees: Then the report on the news media was accepted?

Franklin: It was accepted, but there was a lot of disagreement with that. It was felt that it was an important statement, with quite a lot of interesting new ideas in it. It was also a very strong opposition which was reflected in the back of the report in a section, I think it is entitled, "Summary of Discussion."

Commentator: Mr. Sutton, do you have any other questions?

Sutton: I have one more question, that goes to a new field entirely: taxation. We have established that David Rockefeller is chairman and single most powerful influence in Chase Manhattan Bank. Now, do you happen to know the tax rate that Chase Manhattan pays in the United States?

Franklin: I don't know . . . happen to know -- it is about 50% [fifty percent].

Sutton: I will give you some figures. In 1976, Chase Manhattan Bank's tax rate was precisely zero. I am wondering why, if you are so influential politically, why at least you cannot pay a tax rate more equivalent to that of the average American Taxpayer, which is 15% or 20% or 30%.

Franklin: I have nothing to do with Chase Manhattan Bank. But if the tax rate was zero, it must have been because it had very large real estate losses in that year, I think.

Sutton: In 1975, it was 3.4%. It is always way under 10%.

Franklin: Well, that is extremely interesting. It is a new fact for me.

Sutton: Well, my point is this, that you are willing to guide the United States into the future, but apparently you are not willing to pay your fair share of the costs.

Commentator: You are talking about the Commission members as a whole?

Sutton: Yes.

Franklin: I think you will find that the Commission members pay whatever the laws says they are supposed to pay under the circumstances. I do not know what the particular reason was on Chase. They did have heavy losses, I am not familiar enough with their situation to be able to tell it to you.

Wood: May I ask another question along that same line, please?

Commentator: Go ahead.

Wood: In that same year, 1976, it is recorded that some 78% of Chase Manhattan's earnings came from International operations. That leaves 22% from the U.S... Don't you think perhaps this might be a conflict of interest, between choosing their international policy versus their domestic policy in the United States?

Franklin: Well, I think that is true of most of the major banks. Now, that does not answer your question, I recognize.

Wood: Where would their loyalty lie? If on one hand they are trying to look out for America, yet on the other hand they are trying to look out for their bread and butter, which is not America.

Franklin: First, in the long run, I think any of our major corporations must recognize, that unless the United States does well, they are going to be in the soup. Secondly, some of these people, you may or may not believe it, have enough integrity, they can divorce their interest, like Hedley Donovan could, on the question of publicity on the Trilateral Commission.

Commentator: Gentlemen, I think we are running out of time here. I think we have reached the end of the interview. We would like to thank you, Mr. Franklin, Mr. Wood, and Mr. Sutton. Thank you for being guests on our show.

Bukovksy: EU is Soviet Union Reborn

Sunday June 24th 2007, 9:27 pm

It takes a victim of sovietism to recognize a likewise process in Europe. “Vladimir Bukovksy, the 63-year old former Soviet dissident, fears that the European Union is on its way to becoming another Soviet Union,” writes Paul Belien for the Brussels Journal. “In a speech he delivered in Brussels last week Mr. Bukovsky called the EU a ‘monster’ that must be destroyed, the sooner the better, before it develops into a fullfledged totalitarian state.”

“In 1992 I had unprecedented access to Politburo and Central Committee secret documents which have been classified and still are even now, for 30 years,” Bukovksy declared in a speech delivered at a Polish restaurant opposite the European Parliament. “These documents show very clearly that the whole idea of turning the European common market into a federal state was agreed between the left-wing parties of Europe and Moscow as a joint project which [Soviet leader Mikhail] Gorbachev in 1988-89 called our ‘common European home.’”

Bukovsky fingers the usual globalist suspects:

In January of 1989, for example, a delegation of the Trilateral Commission came to see Gorbachev. It included [former Japanese Prime Minister Yasuhiro] Nakasone, [former French President Valéry] Giscard d’Estaing, [American banker David] Rockefeller and [former US Secretary of State Henry] Kissinger. They had a very nice conversation where they tried to explain to Gorbachev that Soviet Russia had to integrate into the financial institutions of the world, such as Gatt, the IMF and the World Bank.

In the middle of it Giscard d’Estaing suddenly takes the floor and says: “Mr. President, I cannot tell you exactly when it will happen—probably within 15 years—but Europe is going to be a federal state and you have to prepare yourself for that. You have to work out with us, and the European leaders, how you would react to that, how would you allow the other Easteuropean countries to interact with it or how to become a part of it, you have to be prepared.”

For Bukovsky, the European Parliament resembles “the Supreme Soviet. It looks like the Supreme Soviet because it was designed like it. Similarly, when you look at the European Commission it looks like the Politburo…. If you go through all the structures and features of this emerging European monster you will notice that it more and more resembles the Soviet Union.”

The Soviet Union used to be a state run by ideology. Today’s ideology of the European Union is social-democratic, statist, and a big part of it is also political correctness. I watch very carefully how political correctness spreads and becomes an oppressive ideology, not to mention the fact that they forbid smoking almost everywhere now. Look at this persecution of people like the Swedish pastor who was persecuted for several months because he said that the Bible does not approve homosexuality. France passed the same law of hate speech concerning gays. Britain is passing hate speech laws concerning race relations and now religious speech, and so on and so forth. What you observe, taken into perspective, is a systematic introduction of ideology which could later be enforced with oppressive measures. Apparently that is the whole purpose of Europol. Otherwise why do we need it? To me Europol looks very suspicious. I watch very carefully who is persecuted for what and what is happening, because that is one field in which I am an expert. I know how Gulags spring up.

Here in North America, we are in for much of the same. “Former President of the Soviet Union Gorbachev on March 23, 2000, in London, referred to the European Union (EU) as ‘the New European Soviet.’ If he refers to the EU in that way, it only stands to reason that he would refer to the North American Union (NAU) as the ‘New American Soviet,’ since the NAU is modeled on the EU,” writes Charlotte Iserbyt. “United States government officials, elected and unelected, with enormous financial assistance from the tax-exempt foundations, have for many years been working to implement unconstitutional regional planning at the local, state, national and international level, all of this required for full implementation of a One World Socialist Government…. It is a well-known and documented fact that Wall Street funded the Bolshevik Revolution and the corporate communists and our government have been supporting the communist regime in Russia since 1917.”

Iserbyt hits the nail square on the head. In school, I learned that communism represented a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production, in its beginning stage characterized by the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. Of course, the so-called proletariat never had their day in the sun and instead a massive Soviet totalitarian state emerged, a vampire-like leviathan designed to feed on the proletariat. Now we have “corporate communism,” although it is more accurately defined as corporate fascism, as Mussolini, the grand daddy of fascism, knew fascism is nothing if not corporatism. Sovietism, with its nomenklatura of globalist bureaucrats, is simply the most effective control mechanism, far better than anything Mussolini or Hitler devised.

A Google News search returns but one U.S. publication mentioning the comments of the “uroskeptic” Vladimir Bukovsky: the Washington Times. “Liberty and democracy require limited governments, while supranationalism by definition tends toward unlimitedness,” writes Paul Belien for the newspaper on June 20. “The former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky refers to the EU as the ‘EUSSR.’ He does so, he explains, because the former USSR and the EU share the same goal: the obliteration of nations. ‘The European Union, like the Soviet Union, cannot be democratized,’ he says. If the EU becomes a genuine state it is bound to be an evil empire, because there is no European nation.”

Same applies for North America, soon enough to become a supranational entity on par with the European Union. Of course, this time around, there will be no Maastricht Treaty, no embarrassing referendums, no Edinburgh Agreement with frustrating exceptions attached, as our rulers have little patience for the objections of commoners and are woefully behind schedule implementing their one-world project, that is to say global corporatism, more accurately described as transnational corporate fascism.

Courtesy of ADE

CHEMTRAILS: Covert Climate Control?

Under the banner of some top-secret scientific agenda, the US military continues to weave chemical-laden contrails in the skies, causing health problems for unprotected people on the ground.

Extracted from Nexus Magazine, Volume 8, Number 6 (October-November 2001)
PO Box 30, Mapleton Qld 4560 Australia. editor@nexusmagazine.com
Telephone: +61 (0)7 5442 9280; Fax: +61 (0)7 5442 9381
From our web page at: www.nexusmagazine.com

by William Thomas © 2001
Heron Rocks 1-9
Hornby Island, BC
Canada V0R 1Z0
Email: willthomas@telus.net
Website: www.lifeboatnews.com

For nearly three years, chemtrail observers have hoped an official would step forward to explain the origin and purpose of broad white plumes criss-crossing the skies above a dozen allied nations. Their wait is over...



It was nearly noon when S.T. Brendt awoke and entered the kitchen of her country home in Parsonsfield, Maine. As she poured her first cup of coffee, the late night reporter for WMWV Radio could not have guessed that her life was minutes away from drastic change. Her partner Lou Aubuchont was already up, puzzling over what he had seen in the sky a half-hour before. The fat puffy plumes arching up over the horizon were unlike any contrail he had ever seen, even during his hitch in the Navy.

Like breath exhaled on a winter's day, the contrails he was used to seeing would flare briefly in the stratosphere as hot moist engine exhaust flash-freezes into a stream of ice-crystals. These pencil-thin condensation trails are pretty to watch but short-lived, subliming into invisibility as exhaust gases cool quickly to the surrounding air temperature.

But in late 1997, Aubuchont started observing thicker 'trails extending from horizon to horizon. Hanging in the sky long after their creators had flown from view, these expanding white ribbons would invariably be interwoven by more thick lines left by unmarked jets, Air Force white or silver in colour.

On this March 12th morning in 2001, Lou did not mention his sighting as S.T. indulged in caffeine. Sipping gratefully, she glanced out the window. It looked like another gorgeous, cloudless day. But not quite. Brendt baulked at several chalk marks scrawled across the crystalline blue sky. "Contrails or chemtrails?" she jokingly remarked. Lou got up and looked. What kind of clouds run exactly side by side in a straight line? he wondered. It's just too perfect to happen naturally. When he said he wasn't sure, S.T. stopped smiling and went outside.

Looking up towards the southeast over West Pond, she spotted the first jet. A second jet was laying billowing white banners to the north. Both aircraft appeared to be at over 30,000 feet. Turning her gaze due west, Brendt saw two more lines extending over the horizon. She called Lou. Within 45 minutes the couple counted 30 jets. This isn't right, S.T. thought. We just don't have that kind of air traffic here. While Lou kept counting, she went inside and started calling airports. One official she reached was guarded but friendly. He had relatives in West Pond.

The Air Traffic Control manager told Brendt her sighting was "unusual". His radars showed nine commercial jets during the same 45-minute span. From her location, he said, she should have been able to see one plane.

And the other twenty-nine? The FAA official confided off the record that he had been ordered "by higher civil authority" to re-route inbound European airliners away from a "military exercise" in the area. "Of course, they wouldn't give me any of the particulars and I don't ask," he explained. "I just do my job."

Excited and puzzled by this information, S.T. and Lou got into their car and headed down Route 160. Looking in any direction they could see five or six jets flying at over 30,000 feet. Never in the dozen years they'd lived in rural Maine had they seen so much aerial activity.

A former US Navy Intelligence courier, Aubuchont was used to large-scale military exercises. But he told S.T. he had never seen anything this big. "It looked like an invasion," he later recounted.

Another driver almost went off the road as he leaned over his dashboard trying to look up. As they passed, he acknowledged them with a nod.

As far as they could see stretched line after line. Two giant grids were especially blatant. Instead of dissipating like normal contrails, these sky trails grew wider and wider and began to merge. Looking towards the Sun, Aubuchont saw what appeared like "an oil and water mixture" reflecting a prismatic band of colours. He couldn't call it a rainbow. Rainbows aren't sinister.

As Lou and S.T. completed their errands, the jets kept them company, leaving lines and even circles that resembled smoke rings. Even living near Kennedy, LaGuardia and Newark jetports, Aubuchont had never seen so many big jets performing identical manoeuvres in the same sky. When they returned to Parsonsfield around four, the lines were starting to merge into a dingy haze.

Richard Dean called back. After receiving S.T.'s message, the assistant WMWV news director had gone outside with other news staff and counted 370 lines in skies usually devoid of aerial activity.

Brendt put in another call to the FAA official. He had never heard of chemtrails. In their first face-to-face interview, the chain-smoking controller responsible for air traffic over the northeastern seaboard repeated his earlier statements on tape. Similar military activities were ongoing in other regions, he added. On his 'scopes he could track the tankers flying north into Canadian airspace.

Speaking before witnesses at WMWV on condition of strict anonymity, our "Deep Sky" source answered a series of yes/no questions I helped Brendt prepare when she contacted me.

After nearly three years on this case, I wanted to corroborate extremely high levels of aluminum [aluminium] powder found in samples of rainwater falling through thick sky plumes over Espanola, Ontario, in the spring of 1998.

The Espanola lab tests were conducted after residents began complaining to the provincial environment ministry. Severe headaches, chronic joint pain, dizziness, sudden extreme fatigue, acute asthma attacks and feverless "flu-like" symptoms over a 50-square-mile area coincided with what they termed "months of 'spraying'" by photo-identified US Air Force tanker planes.

The USAF denied the intrusions. But former Ontario Provincial Police Officer and Supreme Court expert witness Ted Simola reported lingering Xs and numerous white trails, some of which "just ended" as if they had been shut off but remained in the sky.

Another Espanola resident told me that mental confusion and short-term memory loss were so prevalent that forgetting where their cars were parked had become "a standing joke" in the tiny town.

On November 18, 1998, the people of Espanola petitioned Parliament. Addressing the Canadian government on their behalf, defence critic Gordon Earle explained:

"Over 500 residents of the Espanola area have signed a petition raising concern over possible government involvement in what appears to be aircraft emitting visible aerosols. They have found high traces of aluminum and quartz in particulate and rainwater samples.

"These concerns combined with associated respiratory ailments have led these Canadians to take action and seek clear answers from this government. The petitioners call upon Parliament to repeal any law that would permit the dispersal of military chaff or of any cloud-seeding substance whatsoever by domestic or foreign military aircraft without the informed consent of the citizens of Canada thus affected."

The Ministry of Defence eventually replied: "It's not us."

Which was true. While the US Air Force counts 650 four-engine KC-135 Stratotankers and 50 KC-10 Extenders in its active inventory, Canadian Forces do not fly armadas of tankers. But they do operate the biggest radar installation in Canada at CFB Comox on Vancouver Island, easily capable of tracking the American formations coming up from the south.

"Was the classified operation a radar experiment?" we asked Deep Sky.

"That wasn't what I was told."

Were ATC radars "enhanced or degraded", we wanted to know. The barium spread in exercises conducted out of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base acts as an electrolyte, enhancing conductivity of radar and radio waves. "Wright Pat" has also long been deeply engaged in HAARP's electromagnetic warfare program.
A SKY SHIELD TO COMBAT GLOBAL WARMING?

The puzzle pieces fell into place with Deep Sky's revelation that ATC radars were being "degraded" by tanker-released particles showing up as a "haze" on their screens. This radar characteristic matched the high concentrations of aluminum powder found along with a preponderance of quartz particles in Espanola's chemtrail-contaminated rainwater.

The tankers' aluminum powder emissions also matched the Welsbach patent. Issued in 1994 to the Hughes aerospace giant "for Reduction of Global Warming", the sky shield blueprint calls for dispensing microscopic particles of aluminum oxide and other reflective materials into the upper atmosphere to reflect one or two per cent of incoming sunlight. Computer simulations by Ken Caldeira at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory calculated that this would be enough to stop warming over 85 per cent of the planet, despite an anticipated doubling of carbon in the atmosphere within the next 50 years.

Lawrence Livermore priced the aerial spray program at US$1 billion dollars a year--a cheap fix to maintain massive petroleum profits in the face of Kyoto's internationally agreed carbon cutbacks.

Livermore's founder, Edward Teller, lobbied hard for another chance to play with planetary processes. At the 1998 International Seminar on Planetary Emergencies, the Father of the H-bomb presented his Next Big Idea. Having earlier pressed for detonating nuclear bombs to carve new harbours out of American coastlines, Teller now called for reflective chemicals to be spread like mirror-shades over the Earth. Or at least over allies who could agree in secret for this unprecedented geoengineering experiment to be carried out over their unsuspecting constituents.

In a draft report leaked to me soon after it appeared for peer review in May 2000, an expert panel chosen among 3,000 atmospheric scientists looked at Caldeira's computer simulations and agreed that Teller's scheme might work. But the IPCC warned against unpredictable upsets of the atmosphere, as well as against angry populaces reacting to "the associated whitening of the visual appearance of the sky".

Caldeira was so concerned he went public, warning that deflecting sunlight would further cool the stratosphere, concentrating icy clouds of ozone-gobbling CFCs that could destroy Earth's solar radiation shield.

Was the sky shield experiment already underway? Deep Sky hinted that it was.

Were the tankers involved in weather modification? Our FAA source hesitated before responding. "That approximates what I was told."

For the third interview we rephrased our key question. Were the tankers repeatedly observed on ATC radars involved in climate modification? I caught my breath as Deep Sky confirmed that this is what he was told was the object of the missions.

Here at last was our "smoking nuke" admission. After years of "airliner" double-speak, we could now corroborate Deep Sky's report of military aircraft dispensing reflective materials with an earlier report by a Canadian aviation official.

On December 8, 2000, Terry Stewart, the Manager for Planning and Environment at the Victoria International Airport, had broken this story wide open when he responded to a caller's complaint the previous day of Xs, circles and grids being woven over the British Columbia capitol. Leaving a message on an answering machine tape, later heard by more than 15 million radio listeners, the public servant explained: "It's a military exercise, US and Canadian Air Force exercise that's going on. They wouldn't give me any specifics on it."

Stewart added that he found the incident--one of hundreds reported over Canada's west coast since the fall of 1998--"very odd".

Tasked with defending Canadian airspace in the region, CFB Comox chose instead to defend a classified collaboration. "No military operation is taking place," the base information officer tersely told me when I called for details. But Stewart later told the Vancouver Courier that his information had come directly from CFB Comox.
CONTRAILS vs CHEMTRAILS

Across the strait from the island air base, a concerned mother of three children was noticing that people in Gibsons were coming down with ailments that coincided with constant chemtrail activity. Suzanne Smart's husband contracted asthma; their children were always sniffling and coughing. Smart ended up in the small coastal town's Emergency unit with a sore throat, "super-stiff" neck, pounding headache and ears "ringing like crazy". Even her teeth hurt.

It was all very nerve-wracking. Smart contacted a Transport Canada investigator who had noticed the jet trails too and was convinced it was normal contrail activity. Why he took special notice of normal contrails was not explained. But the TC official told Smart he hoped the Canadian equivalent of the FAA would be notified of any military exercises taking place.

On June 17, 2001, after photographing massive plumes over Gibsons, Smart checked with aviation authorities and found that no airline flight plans had been filed for that airspace at that time. Official weather data showed that when her photos of multiple white plumes were taken, the 30 per cent humidity at 30,000 and 35,000 feet was less than half that needed for contrails to form.

As NOAA meteorologist Thomas Schlatter explains, for even short-lived condensation trails to form, "we're talking temperatures lower than about minus 76 degrees Fahrenheit, and humidity at jet altitudes of 70 per cent or more".

Smart sent her findings to Transport Canada with a request for an explanation of how contrails could form when they couldn't. "It is my understanding," she wrote, "that the only way to form jet trails at yesterday's low humidity is to introduce very fine particulates into the atmosphere."

Smart's homework hit like hardball. According to the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, the only way to form artificial clouds in warm dry air is to introduce enough particulates into the atmosphere to attract and accrete all available moisture into visible vapour. If repeated often enough, the resulting rainless haze can lead to drought.

Following standard procedure to ignore all evidence contradicting the official line, Transport Canada's Randy Phillips responded by advising Smart to check out the "urban legends" website ridiculing chemtrails.

Col. Walter Washbaugh, Chief of the Congressional Inquiry Division for the Secretary of the Air Force in Washington, DC, also calls chemtrails "a hoax". In an April 20, 2001, letter to a US senator, Washbaugh blamed the increased number of contrails on "significant civil aviation growth in the past decade".

He was right. A National Science Foundation study has found that, in certain heavy traffic corridors, artificial cloud cover has increased by as much as 20 per cent since the jet age took off. Dr Patrick Minnis, a CERES atmospheric researcher and ardent chemtrails critic at NASA's Langley Research Center, reports that cirrus cloud cover over the United States is up five per cent overall because particulates in engine exhaust are acting as cloud-forming nuclei. As the number of flights currently exceeds 15 million annually worldwide, the NSF, NASA and EPA predict artificial clouds will intensify as air travel continues climbing sharply.

What about chemtrails? Colonel Washbaugh ascribed widely reported grid patterns to overlapping aircraft flying north-south, east-west airways. The only thing wrong with this explanation, an air traffic controller told me in Texas, is that US airways do not run north-south.

The biggest laugh came when the colonel told the senator: "The Air Force is not conducting any weather modification and has no plans to do so in the future."

In fact, attempts to steer hurricanes by spraying heat-robbing chemicals in their paths began in the 1950s. The recipe for creating "cirrus shields" was outlined in an unusually arrogant US Air Force study. Subtitled "Owning the Weather by 2025", the 1996 report explained how "weather force specialists" were dispersing chemicals behind high-flying tanker aircraft in a process the air force calls "aerial obscuration".

Official denials reached new altitudes of absurdity when another colonel claimed: "The US Air Force does not conduct spraying operations over populated areas." USAF spokeswoman Margaret Gidding told a Spokane newspaper: "The Air Force doesn't do anything that emits anything other than a normal contrail, which is vapor."

So were their replies. Apparently Anderson and Gidding had forgotten how US Air Force spray planes crippled a country and a culture by dispensing over Vietnam thousands of tons of "Agent Orange" defoliants containing dioxin toxins as hazardous as plutonium.
SEEING IS BELIEVING?

In the end, it has proved impossible to continue skywriting giant billboards advertising government duplicity, while insisting they are not there. By the summer of 2001, the controversy entered a new phase. Pictures of contrails were being distributed to newspapers by the Associated Press, and "chemtrails" could be overheard in coffee shop conversations across an entire continent.

When it comes to chemtrails, seeing is disbelieving official disinformation. As public awareness grows, people like war veteran David Oglesby are looking up. The 11 fat plumes fanning out over his Coarsegold, California, home did it for Oglesby last June.

"The trails formed a grid pattern," he told WorldNetDaily News. "Some stretched from horizon to horizon. Some began abruptly, and others ended abruptly. They hung in the air for an extended period of time and gradually widened into wispy clouds resembling spider webs."

A retired US Air Force radar tech named Shimera called a colonel responsible for all military operations in central California. "What would you say if I said there are three aircraft up there right now?" Shimera asked. "Are they there?"

"No," the colonel replied. "They are not there."

The Houston study is not so easily dismissed. Mark Steadham was looking for contrails when he started observing the skies over this busy Texas hub last winter. Using FAA tracking software called Flight Explorer to identify each aircraft, Steadham clocked contrails trailing from Boeing, McDonnell-Douglas and Airbus airliners. All but two of these condensation trails sublimed into invisibility within five to 20 seconds; the only exceptions persisted for two and 25 minutes.

Flight Explorer does not show altitudes for military jets, but, according to the FAA, tankers and transports usually transit continental airspace at around 30,000 feet to ensure safe separation from airliners flying between 35,000 and 39,000 feet. Military "heavies" flying below 30,000 feet should not leave contrails at all. Major-General Gregory Barlow confirms that Air Force tankers do not perform refuelling missions at contrail-forming altitudes.

But Steadham found just the opposite in his study. While observing air traffic for 63 days, the Houston skywatcher found that thick white plumes laid by similar-sized military aircraft--at the same time, in the same airspace as 20-second airliner contrails--lingered for four to eight hours.
GLOBAL CHEMTRAIL REPORTS

Sightings of oddly lingering plumes sometimes resembling rocket trails are not confined to North American skies.

While on leave in Italy in the summer of 1999, the US Navy's Kitty Chastain sat on her hotel balcony and watched aerial grids being laid all day just offshore over the Bay of Naples. "People were coughing all over Naples," she wrote. On the bus ride in from the base, Chastain explained chemtrails to many sailors with hacking coughs.

On October 12 that same year, a Paris correspondent reported "...heavy activity from all directions, X upon X. The pilots here seem to like to play chicken; they fly right at each other and then one will swerve, their trails forming pitchforks and Xs." No contrails were being left by "normal planes" in the same skies. But the next day, planes flying over Paris "from all directions" obscured the sky with more Xs that continued into the evening.

In Spain on April 27, 2000, American tourist John Hendricks dashed off a quick email from El Café de Internet: "Were we surprised to see that the chemtrails are as bad here as they are anywhere, both in Mallorca and in Barcelona." He and his wife "took plenty of pictures" before noticing a postcard they'd bought captured a perfect chemtrail.

"Add Sweden to the list," a Swedish resident wrote after spotting eight to 10 parallel 'trails and contracting flu for the first time in years. Weather conditions at the time were not conducive to contrail formation. "I know the commercial routes, and we have a bunch of them, but not where these trails were."

Chemtrail activity has been reported in at least 14 allied nations including Australia, Belgium, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Holland, Ireland, Italy, New Zealand, Scotland, Sweden and the United States. Croatian chemtrails began the day after that country joined NATO.
ATMOSPHERIC ORGANISMS

Many chemtrail observers note that chemtrails are often laid down at the leading edge of approaching frontal systems. While rare "sundogs" form ice-crystal circles around the Sun in advance of strong winds, much more common "chemdogs" create prismatic solar halos during stable weather.

More and more observers, like this Vancouver resident, wonder why "on the days of heavy spraying you will notice a rainbow around the Sun". Many more people who have been healthy all their lives wonder why they keep getting desperately sick whenever the chemplanes appear.

Unlike the refined aluminum in cooking utensils that is tenuously linked to Alzheimer's disease, aluminum oxide is as inert as sand and is not considered toxic.

But in a story headlined "Tiny particles can kill", the August 5, 2000, edition of New Scientist reported that "city-dwellers in Europe and the US are dying young because of microscopic particles in the air".

Looking at byproducts of hydrocarbon burning, a Harvard School of Public Health team determined particulates with a diameter less than 10 microns as being a serious threat to public health. (A human hair is about 100 microns across.) In 1987, US environmental regulations limited airborne concentrations of particles less than 10 microns in diameter.

But air pollution has grown worse. On April 21, 2001, the New York Times warned: "These microscopic motes are able to infiltrate the tiniest compartments in the lungs and pass readily into the bloodstream, and have been most strongly tied to illness and early death, particularly in people who are already susceptible to respiratory problems."

David Hawkins, a lawyer for the Natural Resources Defense Council, speaks for "about a quarter-million Americans who have died prematurely as result of fine-particle exposure".

That number may be boosted sharply by chemtrail spraying. On December 14, 2000, the New England Journal of Medicine reported that inhaling particulate matter of a size 10 microns or smaller leads to "a 5% increased death rate within 24 hours".

Teller's sunscreen calls for spraying 10 million tons of talcum-fine reflective particulates of 10 to 100 micron sizes.

Allergic reactions to airborne fallout do not explain the entire syndrome of chemtrail-related illness. Falling blood temperatures accompanying symptoms of intense yet feverless "flu" is a classic sign of chronic fungal infection. Blamed for a host of auto-immune dysfunction, from chronic fatigue to fibromyalgia and multiple sclerosis, the fungus within us also signals its presence in sharp joint pain, sudden extreme fatigue, sudden dizziness, mental confusion and short-term memory loss.

After nearly three years of intense investigation, I have found no proof that chemtrails constitute a deliberate biological attack. Research for my books on the Gulf biowar and earlier germ warfare experiments (Bringing The War Home; Scorched Earth) show that bio-attacks are conducted at low level and never in daylight, in order to avoid ultraviolet sterilisation of toxins.

The biohazards in chemtrails may be bad LUC. The "Law of Unintended Consequences" states that every human intervention creates unpredictable consequences. Chemtrails can cause drought by soaking up all available moisture, and drooping chemical curtains fall through vast colonies of UV-mutated bacteria, viruses and fungi living in the upper atmosphere. Could these malevolent micro-organisms be piggy-backing on the plumes?

A series of balloon flights made in the US during the 1960s collected startling stratospheric samples swarming with bacteria and fungi as well as viruses bigger than any known at the time.

If viruses fall from the sky, most would land in the sea. Dipping their beakers into coastal seawater, scientists found as many as 10 million large virus-like particles per quart. As one researcher said: "No one knows where they come from or what they do. Their size and shape match the virus-like particles found in the upper atmosphere."

Other life-forms, even tinier than bacteria, are also thriving in our atmosphere. The discoverer of nanobacteria, Dr Robert Folk, describes the most populous organisms on Earth as "dwarf forms of bacteria, about one-tenth the diameter and 1/1000th the volume of ordinary bacteria".

The Professor Emeritus at the University of Texas figures that these ultra-tiny bugs are "possibly an order of magnitude more abundant" than normal bacteria that swarm everywhere.

Since chemtrails are commonly spread over populated areas where temperature differentials are greatest and solar shading most needed, it is probable that particulate-laden plumes are precipitating airborne viruses, bacteria and fungi down into human lungs and respiratory systems unable to recognise or resist the alien invaders.

This possibility was further strengthened when Dr Folk chose a lightweight metal as a matrix to grow bugs too small to be seen by optical microscopes. Folk viewed under electronic magnification entire ecologies of swarming nanobac. The bacteria were feasting on (he called it "metabolising") aluminum.
PUBLIC CONCERN SPREADS

Are we worried yet? An August 2001 WorldNetDaily poll asked Americans: "Do you think 'chemtrails' are anything to worry about?" Forty-three per cent answered "Yes"; another 30 per cent wanted more information on chemtrails--a total 73 per cent of US respondents concerned about chemtrails.

As lawyers across the US discuss filing the "Mother of All Lawsuits" against Boeing, Bush and the US Air Force, their case now appears tight enough to force further disclosures. The last glaring evidential gap--photos of ground-based chemtrail operations--may soon be forthcoming.

What to do?

A British campaigner involved in another bid to reclaim individual sovereignty and local autonomy held out the best hope for change when she told a CBC radio interviewer: "The only way to get government to do anything is if enough people stand up and shout, 'This is ridiculous!'"

Stay tuned. With chemtrails confirmed as a military operation aimed at climate modification, the biggest trial is about to begin--in the court of public opinion.
References:

* Vancouver Courier chemtrails coverage:
www.vancourier.com/085101/news/085101nn1.html
* WorldNetDaily chemtrails coverage:
www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24152
* Mark Steadham's Houston contrails study:
www.chemtrailcentral.com/report.shtml
* "Tiny Bits of Soot Tied to Illness", New York Times, April 21, 2001,
www.nytimes.com/ 2001/04/21/science/21AIR.html
* NOAA meteorologist Thomas Schlatter:
www.weatherwise.org/qr/qry.chemtrail.html

About the Author:

William Thomas specialises in health and environment issues. His award-winning writing has appeared in more than 50 publications in eight countries. His editorial commentaries have been published in The Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, Vancouver Sun and Times-Colonist newspapers as well as Earth Island Journal and Ecodecision magazines. He has also appeared on CBC radio and TV, CNN and New Zealand national television. His articles, "Poison from the Sky: the 'Chemtrails' Crisis" and "Probing the 'Chemtrails' Conundrum", were published in NEXUS 6/03 and 7/02 respectively. He can be contacted by email at willthomas@ telus.net, or via his Lifeboat News website, www.lifeboatnews.com.

Americans Unready to Revolt, Despite Revolting Conditions

New poll data show the public's lack of confidence in government, but rebellion remains elusive.

Americans Unready to Revolt, Despite Revolting Conditions
The latest NBC/Wall Street Journal national poll results vividly show a population incredibly dissatisfied with their nation’s political system. In other countries in other times such a depressing level of confidence in government would send a signal to those running the government that a major upheaval is imminent. But not here in the USA. Why?

First, here are the highlights of the poll that surveyed 1,008 adults from June 8-11, with a margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points.

A whopping 68 percent think the country is on the wrong track. Just 19 percent believe the country is headed in the right direction - the lowest number on that question in nearly 15 years. And most of those with the positive view are probably in the Upper Class.

Bush’s approval rating is at just 29 percent, his lowest mark ever in the survey. Only 62 percent of Republicans approve, versus 32 percent who disapprove. Take Republicans out of the picture and a fifth or less of Americans have a positive view of Bush.

Even worse, only 23 percent approve of the job that Congress is doing. So much for that wonderful new Democratic control of Congress. Bipartisan incompetence is alive and well.

On the economic front, nearly twice as many people think the U.S. is more hurt than helped by the global economy (48 to 25 percent). Globalization does not spread wealth; it channels it to the wealthy, making billionaires out of millionaires.

I have long asserted that Americans live in a delusional democracy with delusional prosperity and these and loads of other data support this view. There is a super wealthy and politically powerful Upper Class that is literally raping the nation. Meanwhile, the huge Lower Class continues to lose economic ground while their elected representatives sell them out to benefit the Upper Class. Yet no rational person thinks that a large fraction of the population is ready to rise up in revolt against the evil status quo political-economic system that so clearly is not serving the interests of the overwhelming majority of Americans. Why not?

For a nation that was built on a revolt against oppressive governance by the British, something has been lost from our political DNA. We apparently no longer have the gene for political rebellion. It has been bred out of most of us. And those of us that urge a Second American Revolution are seen as fringe, nutty subversives.

Part of the genius of our contemporary ruling class elites is that they have engineering a state of political and economic oppression that paradoxically is still embraced by the Lower Class. The rational way to understand this is that ordinary, oppressed Americans are in a deep psychological state of self-delusion. Despite all the empirical, objective evidence of a failed government, they fail to see rebellion opportunities. Many still believe they live in the world’s best democracy. But across all elections considerably less than half the citizens even bother to vote anymore. Yet, as the new NBC/Journal poll results show, people are cognitively aware of just how awful the political-economic system is. Yet they are not feeling enough pain to seriously consider rebellion. And it is visceral pain that must drive people to the daring act of rebellion.

Why is there insufficient pain for revolution? This is a deadly serious issue. What is historically unique about America is that even the most oppressed and unfairly treated people are distracted by affordable materialism, entertainment, sports, gambling, and myriad other aspects of our frivolous, self-absorbed culture. Even failed school and health care systems do not drive people, paying enormous sums to fill up their SUVs, to rebellion. So, Americans are aware of their oppression, but the power elites have successfully drugged them with a plethora of pleasure-producing distractions sufficient to keep them under control. We are free to bitch, but too weak to revolt. The Internet has provided a release valve for some pent up anger and frustration. But it too has mostly become another source of distraction, rather than an effective tool for rebellion.

Though these new poll statistics make news, those in control of the political-economic system are not afraid that the population is on the verge of retaking their constitutionally guaranteed sovereign power and take back their nation. Thousands of people like me keep writing books and articles and creating protest groups and events. Those in power just find new, ingenious ways to keep the population distracted – if not through pleasure, then certainly through fear of terrorism. Growing economic insecurity also contributes to self-paralysis, as do never-ending political lies.

What a system.

Even as the population has growing awareness of the dire condition of their nation, the move by the politically powerful on the right and left continues to seek a new immigration law that will solidify the selling out of America. Business interests want more of those fleeing Mexico and other nations to keep wages low. Instead of Mexicans rising up in rebellion against their oppressive government and economic system they escape to the USA. But Americans have no such viable escape solution. Though global warming will certainly make Canada increasingly attractive.

So what do Americans have – other than a terribly bleak future? Where is hope in our dismal world?

In a bizarre twist of history that further illustrates just how impotent Americans have become, virtually all citizens are either unaware of or unreceptive to the ultimate escape route that the Framers of our Constitution gave us. They anticipated that Americans could become quite dissatisfied with the federal government. They feared that the political system could become incredibly corrupted by moneyed interests. They were right.

So here we sit over 200 years after our nation was created unwilling to use what is explicitly given to us in Article V of the Constitution – the option to have a convention outside the control of Congress, the President and the Supreme Court to make proposals for constitutional amendments. Do we really believe in the rule of law? If so, then we should understand that the supreme law of the land – what is in our Constitution – is the ultimate way to obtain the deep political and government reforms to restore true democracy and economic fairness to our society.

Make no mistake: an Article V convention has been stubbornly opposed by virtually all groups with political and economic power. This is most evidenced by the blatant refusal of Congress to obey the Constitution and give us an Article V convention, even though the single explicit requirement for a convention has been met. This fact alone should tell rational people that they are being screwed and oppressed. The rule of law is trumped by the rule of delusion. Our lawmakers are lawbreakers.

Come learn more about the effort to get an Article V convention at www.foavc.org and become a member. Do not keep witnessing the unraveling of American society, voting for lesser evil candidates, and believing the propaganda that putting different Democrats or Republicans in office will actually improve things for most of us. Choose peaceful rebellion by using what our Constitution gives us. Fight self-delusion.

[Joel S. Hirschhorn is the author of Delusional Democracy (www.delusionaldemocracy.com); and a founder of Friends of the Article V Convention (www.foavc.org).]
By Joel Hirschhorn
Published: 6/14/2007

Vaclav Klaus, Eco Criminal

Kurt Nimmo
Friday June 15th 2007, 10:35 am

Consider Vaclav Klaus, eco criminal. Klaus, due to his status as the president of the Czech Republic, is allowed to speak his mind on the pages of the Financial Times. In the not too distant future, however, such dialogue will be forbidden, even for national presidents, as the scientific dictatorship, masquerading under the cloak of environmentalism, will punish all who dare question the new orthodoxy of control, no matter status. Soon enough, such dissidents will be persecuted, even punished as heretics, enemies of mankind, or rather enemies of the global elite who sell us one problem-reaction-solution trick after another in their quest for total domination.

Mr. Klaus dares question the emerging eco-fascist hierarchy, namely Al Gore, Tony Blair, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Gang of Eight, commonly known as the Group of Eight, all conspiring to hammer out control mechanisms predicated on a foundation of junk science. “Rational and freedom-loving people have to respond,” Klaus argues. “The dictates of political correctness are strict and only one permitted truth, not for the first time in human history, is imposed on us. Everything else is denounced…. As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.”

Vaclav Klaus agrees with professor Richard Lindzen from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who said: “future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.”

Of course, future generations, if the global elite are successful, will not possess the capacity for “bemused amazement,” as they will be bio-chipped, medicated, surveilled via the pantopticon and, to use the Matrix metaphor, reduced to mere batteries, that is to say rendered into a greatly reduced, through the coming Great Culling (i.e., “population control”), slave class in perpetual service to their psychopathic rulers, the heirs of Al Gore, Tony Blair, and the Gang of Eight.

“The issue of global warming is more about social than natural sciences and more about man and his freedom than about tenths of a degree Celsius changes in average global temperature,” Klaus notes, and follows with specific suggestions:

“Small climate changes do not demand far-reaching restrictive measures.”

Certainly not, but then the idea here is not to save the planet and humanity from fantastical climatological cataclysm, but rather, as noted above, impose a water tight social control mechanism, one far more effective in frightening the blinkered masses than the current emphasis on manufactured terrorism, almost effortlessly forgotten, unlike “climate change.”

“Any suppression of freedom and democracy should be avoided.”

Indeed, but again Mr. Klaus misses the point: our rulers fully intend to eradicate not only the possibility of “freedom and democracy,” but eliminate, in Orwellian fashion, the very presumption of natural rights and freedom, a postulation already working its way to the graveyard of ideas, toward the memory hole where the past is methodically liquidated. Few of us understand that natural or universal rights are inherent in the nature of people and not contingent on human actions or beliefs, not predicated on political absolutism or the repellent idea of the divine right of kings, or in the modern context the divine right of transnational corporatism.

“Instead of organizing people from above, let us allow everyone to live as he wants.”

Surely, a commendable thought, but one that will soon be extinct as the ill-fated dodo bird. Our oligarchic rulers fully intend to organize humanity, or more accurately the emerging slave class, “from above,” or on-high, as they have done for several millennia. In order for the global slave plantation to function as the psychopathic oligarchy intends, the very idea humanity has a natural right to decide how (or where) to live must be exterminated, put on the extinction list same as the dodo bird.

“Instead of speaking about ‘the environment,’ let us be attentive to it in our personal behavior.”

Our “personal behavior,” by and large, here in the United States and somewhat to a lesser degree in Europe and the “Western” world, is bound and determined by rampant consumerism and “status-enhancing appeal,” e.g., the idea that frivolous and transitory products, increasingly manufactured by slaves in China, “make the man,” or woman for that matter. According to the new eco-fascist paradigm emerging under the “climate control” rubric (actually a human control mechanism), such mindless consumerist behavior will be deemed a crime against the planet, as the agenda calls for a massive and global-wide feudal order based on the China Model thus dictating the elimination of the middle class.

“Let us be humble but confident in the spontaneous evolution of human society. Let us trust its rationality and not try to slow it down or divert it in any direction.”

Let us, instead, confront the psychopathic oligarchy, the plutocracy of death and disease, of poverty and diminishment. Unfortunately, with the current degree of stepfordization endemic among the masses, this task will be extremely difficult, to say the least, as most people do not realize they are working their way toward a dismal future in cradle-to-grave service as batteries to the plutocratic oligarchy.

“Let us not scare ourselves with catastrophic forecasts, or use them to defend and promote irrational interventions in human lives.”

Indeed, although the process of frightening the masses is well underway—a process hardly unique, as the masses were long ago inculcated by the “irrational interventions” of the state by way of its subordinate propaganda apparatus, otherwise known as the “mainstream media,” so accomplished at not only diversion by way of bread and circus “entertainment,” but the highly advanced art of gussying up the truly horrific as benevolence.

Dissidents Against Global Warming Dogma

CounterPunch | Jun 10, 2007

By ALEXANDER COCKBURN

We should never be more vigilant than at the moment a new dogma is being installed. The claque endorsing what is now dignified as “the mainstream theory” of global warming stretches all the way from radical greens through Al Gore to George W. Bush, who signed on at the end of May. The left has been swept along, entranced by the allure of weather as revolutionary agent, naïvely conceiving of global warming as a crisis that will force radical social changes on capitalism by the weight of the global emergency. Amid the collapse of genuinely radical politics, they have seen it as the alarm clock prompting a new Great New Spiritual Awakening.

Alas for their illusions. Capitalism is ingesting global warming as happily as a python swallowing a piglet. The press, which thrives on fearmongering, promotes the nonexistent threat as vigorously as it did the imminence of Soviet attack during the cold war, in concert with the arms industry. There’s money to be made, and so, as Talleyrand said, “Enrich yourselves!” I just bought two roundtrip British Airways ticket to Spain from Seattle and a BA online passenger advisory promptly instructed me that the CO2 “offset” cost would be $7.90 on each ticket, which I might care to contribute to Climate Care. It won’t be long before utility bills will carry similar, albeit mandatory and much larger charges. Here’s a forewarning of what is soon going to happen, courtesy of Samuel Brittan in the Financial Times, under the menacing title, “Towards a true price for energy”:

“An enhanced [climate change levy] could be the basis for a genuine shadow price for energy, which could become the basis for energy policy and replace the mind-boggling variety of specific schemes now in place. But for this to happen the consumer exemptions would have to go, and the levy first increased and then raised each year by more than inflation. An approach along these lines would be a contribution to an international effort to reduce dependence on imported and polluting fuels; but it would also benefit any particular country taking this route. And if Opec made disapproving noises we would know that we were really on to something.”

Back in the 1970s, as the oil companies engineered a leap in prices, the left correctly identified and stigmatized the the conspiracy. Some thirty five years, here’s the entire progressive sector swallowing, with religious fervor, a far more potent concoction of nonsense to buttress a program which will savagely penalize the poor, the third world and the environment.

The marquee slogan in the new cold war on global warming is that the scientific consensus is virtually unanimous. This is utterly false. The overwhelming majority of climate computer modelers, the beneficiaries of the $2 billion-a-year global warming grant industry, certainly believe in it but not necessarily most real climate scientists-people qualified in atmospheric physics, climatology and meteorology.

Geologists are particularly skeptical. Peter Sciaky, a retired geologist, writes to me thus:

“A geologist has a much longer perspective. There are several salient points about our earth that the greenhouse theorists overlook (or are not aware). The first of these is that the planet has never been this cool. There is abundant fossil evidence to support this–from plants of the monocot order (such as palm trees) in the rocks of Cretaceous Age in Greenland and warm water fossil in sedimentary rocks of the far north. this is hardly the first warming period in the earth’s history. The present global warming is hardly unique. It is arriving pretty much “on schedule.” One thing, for sure, is that the environmental community has always spurned any input from geologists (many of whom are employed by the petroleum industry). No environmental conference, such as Kyoto, has ever invited a geologist, a paleontologist, a paleoclimatologist. It would seem beneficial for any scientific investigatory to include such scientific disciplines.

“Among all my liberal and leftist friends (and I am certainly one of those), I know not a one who does not accept that global warming is an event caused by mankind. I do not know one geologist who believes that global warming is not taking place. I do not know a single geologist who believes that it is a man-made phenomenon.

“There are hundreds of reasons–political, pragmatic and economic, health and environmental–for cleaning up our environment, for conservation of energy, for developing alternate fuels, cleaning up our nuclear program, etc. Global warming is not one of them.”

Take Warsaw-based Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, famous for his critiques of ice-core data. He’s devastating on the IPCC rallying cry that CO2 is higher now than it has ever been over the past 650,000 years. In his 1997 paper in the Spring 21st Century Science and Technology, he demolishes this proposition. In particular, he’s very good on pointing out the enormous inaccuracies in the ice-core data and the ease with which a CO2 reading from any given year is contaminated by the CO2 from entirely different eras. He also points out that from 1985 on there’s been some highly suspect editing of the CO2 data, presumably to reinforce the case for the “unprecedented levels” of modern CO2. In fact, in numerous papers prior to 1985, there were plenty of instances of CO2 levels much higher than current CO2 measurements, some even six times higher. He also points out that it is highly unscientific to merge ice-core temperature measurements with modern temperature measurements.

Or take Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, of St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory. He says we’re on a warming trend but that humans have little to do with it, the agent being a longtime change in the sun’s heat. He predicts solar irradiance will fall within the next few years mainly based the well documented sunspot cycle, and therefore we may well face the beginning of an ice age very shortly, as early as 2012. The Russian scientific establishment is giving him a green light to use the nation’s space station to measure global cooling.

Now read Dr. Jeffrey Glassman, applied physicist and engineer, retired from California’s academic and corporate sectors, who provides an elegant demonstration of how the absorption and release of CO2 from the enormous carbon reservoir in the earth’s oceans controls atmospheric CO2 concentrations. This absorption and release is very much a function of the earth’s temperature and Glassman shows how the increase in atmospheric CO2 is the consequence of temperature, not the cause.

Move to that bane of the fearmongers, Dr. Patrick Michaels, on sabbatical from the University of Virginia, now at the Cato Institute, who has presented in papers and recently, in his book Meltdown, demolitions of almost every nightmare scenario invented by the greenhousers, particularly regarding hurricanes, tornadoes, sea rise, disappearing ice caps, drought and floods. A qualified climatologist, he analyses the data invoked to buttress each of these scenarios and shows the actual climate history not only fails to support the claims but also that in the majority of cases the opposite is true. Hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts and floods and other weather extremes are currently decreasing, contrary to Hansen, Mann and the other sensationalists. Michaels is particularly good on the ludicrous claims regarding catastrophic sea rise as well as the by now universally trumpeted melting icecaps and supposed impending disappearance of the Greenland ice sheet. Michaels is sometimes slammed as a hired gun for the fossil fuel industry, but I haven’t seen any significant dents or quantitative ripostes to his meticulous scientific critiques.

Then there’s Christopher Landsea. A research meteorologist at the Atlantic Oceanic and Meteorological Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, he described to Lawrence Solomon (author of a very interesting series on “The Deniers” in Canada’s National Post in February of this year) how the IPCC utterly misrepresented his work to concoct a scare scenario about warming and increased incidence of hurricanes and cyclones.

There are many others. The geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta, was once a passionate adherent to the theory of anthropogenic global warming. He even started to build a “Kyoto house” in honor of the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol which was signed in 1997. These days he’s changed his views entirely and indeed has written a book, “The Emperor’s New Climate: Debunking the Myth of Global Warming.” Wiskel says global warming has gone “from a science to a religion” and noted that research money is being funneled into promoting climate alarmism instead of funding areas he considers more worthy.

The astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel’s scientists, also abandoned his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. “”Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. Shaviv is quoted as saying in the the Canadian National Post series. “Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming” . Shaviv believes that even a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100 “will not dramatically increase the global temperature.”

One of the best essays on greenhouse myth-making from a left perspective comes from Denis Rancourt, an environmental science researcher and professor of physics at the University of Ottawa. I recommend his February 2007 essay “Global Warming: Truth or Dare?” on his website, Activist Teacher, which has also featured fine work by David Noble on the greenhouse lobby. Rancourt is a good scientist and also a political radical and the conflation is extremely stimulating though –alas–very rare:

“The planet will continue to change, adapt and evolve, with or without us The atmosphere will continue to change as it always has under the influence of life and of geology. We can’t control these things. We can barely perceive them correctly. But we can take control of how we treat each other. The best we can do for the environment and for the planet is to learn not to let undemocratic power structures run our lives. The best we can do is to reject exploitation and domination and to embrace cooperation and solidarity. The best we can do is to not trust subservient scientists and to become active agents for change beyond head-in-the-sand personal lifestyle choices.

“We need to get political, beyond corporate-controlled shadow governments and co-opted political parties. We need to take charge more than we need to recycle. Global warming is strictly an imaginary problem of the First World middleclass. Nobody else cares about global warming. Exploited factory workers in the Third World don’t care about global warming. Depleted uranium genetically mutilated children in Iraq don’t care about global warming. Devastated aboriginal populations the world over also can’t relate to global warming, except maybe as representing the only solidarity that we might volunteer.”

The Achilles’ heel of the computer models (which form the cornerstone of CO2 fearmongering), is their failure to deal with water. As vapor, it’s a more important greenhouse gas than CO2 by a factor of twenty, yet models have proven incapable of dealing with it. The global water cycle is complicated, with at least as much unknown as is known. Water starts by evaporating from oceans, rivers, lakes and moist ground, enters the atmosphere as water vapor, condenses into clouds and precipitates as rain or snow. Each transition from one form of water to another is influenced by temperature and each water form has an enormous impact on global heat processes. Clouds have a huge, inaccurately quantified cooling effect: they reflect heat received from the sun, though how much is unknown. Water on the Earth’s surface has different effects on retaining the sun’s heat, depending on whether the water is liquid and dark, as are the oceans, which are highly absorbent; or ice, which is reflective; or snow, which is even more reflective than ice. Such water cycle factors cause huge swings in the Earth’s heat balance; they interact with global temperatures in ways that are beyond the ability of computer climate models to predict.

The first global warming modelers simply threw up their hands at the complexity of the water problem and essentially left out the atmospheric water cycle. Over time a few features of the cycle were patched into the models, all based on unproven guesses at the effect of increased ocean evaporation on clouds, the effect of clouds on reflecting the sun’s energy and the effect of cloud warming on rainfall and snow. All of these “band aid” equations are hopelessly inadequate to repair the computer models’ inability to describe the water cycle’s role in temperature.

Besides the inability to deal with water, the other huge embarrassment facing the modelers is the well-researched and well-established fact published in many papers that temperature changes first and CO2 levels change 600 to 1,000 years later. Any rational person would immediately conclude that CO2 could not possibly cause temperature if the rise in CO2 in comes centuries after the rise in temperature. The computer modelers as usual have an involuted response: They say the temperature increase is initiated by the “relatively weak” effect of increasing heat from the sun during the rising phase of the Milankovich cycle (Milankovich’s meticulously calculated cycles on rising and falling heat input from the sun are universally accepted by astrophysicists). That effect initiates the warming of the oceans, which - just as Dr. Martin Hertzberg says - releases lots of CO2. According to the modelers the released CO2 is the real culprit because it amplifies the “relatively weak” effect of the sun, turning minor warming into a really serious matter.

This is a cleverly concocted gloss which would be a wonderful argument for demonstrating that once warming starts, CO2 will make it worse and worse until all life on earth dies. Unfortunately for the climate modelers the history of the earth’s many temperature and CO2 swings tells us that it obviously does not get worse and worse. After any given warming phase begins, thousands of years later the cyclical Milankovitch decrease in the sun’s heat kicks in. The warming stops, reverses and an ice age ensues. Where the modelers’ clever gloss founders is onm explaining how the “relatively weak” decrease in the sun’s heat makes all that extra CO2 disappear. Obviously the “bad” C02 must disappear due to some “feedback” that the modelers haven’t thought of yet, i.e., one that keeps the earth’s climate in rough equilibrium.

If the public swallows this new greenhouse dogma, it won’t just be carbon taxes on an airline ticket. It will be huge new carbon offset charges on your utility bill for the alleged carbon savings of the hundreds of immensely expensive nuclear plants the industry is so eager to build. And you, having been softened by the propaganda of the CO2 fearmongers, will be delighted to pay those hefty levies to give a cooler, cleaner world to your grandchildren.

Finally, A word on sources and authorities. They begin with papers and talks by Dr Martin Hertzberg. These are being scanned and as soon as this is done, I will give the relevant links–probably in a week–in an updated version of this piece.

M. Hertzberg and J. B. Stott, “Greenhouse Warming of the Atmosphere”, 25th International Symposium on Combustion, Irvine, CA (1994), Poster Session No. 5, Paper # 73, p459

M. Hertzberg, “The Facts and Fictions of Global Warming”, talk presented at the ‘Cafe Scientifique at the Summit’, Frisco, CO, Oct. 3, 2006

J. A. Glassman, “The Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide”, posted in www.rocketscientistsjournal.com

F. Goldberg, “Climate Data Show That the Increase in CO2 in the Atmosphere is Due to Natural Causes”, lecture at Cal Tech, Pasadena, Jan 10, 2007, work in progress available by request from:
Fred@materialdata.se

M. Milankovitch, 1940, “Canon of Insolation and the Ice-Age Problem” Royal Serbian Academy, Special Publications, Vol 132, Sect. on Math & Natural Sciences, Vol 33, Belgrade (in German, translated by the Israeli Translation Services)

R. Essenhigh, Chemical Innovation, May 2001, Vol 31, No.5 pp 44-46, available on line at http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/ci/31/special/mayo1viewpoint.html

R. Essenhigh, Energy and Fuels, 2006, Vol 20, pp 1057-1067

Z. Jaworowski et al, “Do Glaciers Tell a True CO2 Story”, The Science of the Total Environment, 144
(1992) pp 227-284

Z. Jaworowski, “Ice Core Data Show No Carbon Dioxide Increase”, 21st Century Science & Technology, Spring 1997, available on line at www.21stcenturysciencetech.com

D. G.Rancourt, “Global Warming: Truth or Dare”, Activist Teacher: Global Warming: Truth or Dare?

R. Lindzen, The Wall Street Journal, Wed. April 12, 2006, Editorial Page

R. Lindzen, “Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?”, Oct 12, 2005, Yale Center for the Study of Globalization, on line at: www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714

The following are all available on the John Daly web-site:

J. L. Daly, “The ‘Hockey Stick’: A New Low in Climate Science” available at
www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

J. L. Daly, “Days of Sunshine”, available at www.john-daly.com/solar.htm

H. Hug, “The Climate Catastrophe - A Spectroscopic Artifact”, available at
www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm

J. Ahlbeck, “Absorption of Carbon Dioxide From the Atmosphere”,available at
www.john-daly.com/co2-conc/ahl-co2.htm

J. Ahlbeck, “Increase of the Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration Due to Ocean Warming”,
available at www.john-daly.com/oceanco2/oceanco2.htm

Footnote: a much shorter version of this piece ran in the print edition of The Nation that went to press last Wednesday.

_____________________________________________