CERN - you remember them, they're the people playing with that large Hadron collider in Europe, trying to create black holes and find the Higgs boson, the same people that use the Hindu god Shiva, "Destroyer of Worlds" as a kind of agency mascot...yea, those people - have made some interesting discoveries concerning the role of cosmic rays in the formation of terrestrial weather systems, and it's worth having a close look at this article to see what's up:

ERN \'gags\' physicists in cosmic ray climate experiment

Yes, you read that correctly, scientists are not allowed to draw the obvious conclusions from their own experiments, when such conclusions might contest the political agendas of the banksters who ultimately pay their salaries. I find this disturbing for a number of reasons, but let's talk about just two here. The first thing that disturbs me is that this means nothing less than the stifling of science, and with it, human progress, and it is a stifling that would have made a Cardinal Bellarmine (he's the one who went after Galileo folks...well, he went after Giordano Bruno too, but that's a whole other story), green with envy.  You are looking, in other words, not merely at the death of the scientific method, but at its deliberate murder. This shouldn't surprise us, since the banksters have been in the business of killing science when its results didn't quite fall within the square and compass of their Malthusian quackery. One need only think of Venice's role here, its own flirtations with early forms of Malthusian doctrine-before-Malthus, and its role in the Roman Church roasting Bruno alive for heresy (that's what they called thinking outside the box back then). Or, more recently, one may think of the convenient death of Herman Kahn after his exposure of the Malthusian quackery of the Club of Rome's reports. In short, scientists must be free to interpret and publicize the results of their experiments, or we can all shut up and go back to our caves.

But at a deeper level, what disturbs me here is the high irony of it, for as mankind develops the very technologies to modify weather on a planetary scale, and perhaps even to modify the energy output of the other major "weather creator," the Sun, perhaps the real reason for not wanting scientists to publish too many of their results is the obvious implication that might be drawn from them, namely, modify the electrodynamic properties of the earth's atmosphere, and one modifies weather itself. And modification of those electrodynamic properties of the atmosphere is possible with already-available technologies. And that implies, maybe those technologies are themselves being used to create the other end of the "global warming" crisis(or is it cooling? I always seem to get that mixed up), the "bad weather" itself, so they can then tax us all for our mere existence and alleged role in creating this "crisis."

Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and "strange stuff". His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into "alternative history and science".


  1. Jon Norris on July 27, 2011 at 11:40 pm

    I’ve felt for some time that one of the driving forces behind “Global Smarming” was to cover up weather warfare. These kinds of propaganda psy-war ops tend to have multiple levels of usefulness – political division, distraction, social control, legislative justification, forming pseudo-religions, etc. Edward Bernays himself called what he did “properganda,” because it was mind control to help people think the “right thoughts” – something he thought was a good idea, the arrogant buffoon.

    This story means that there is far more to the cabal behind Global Smarming than even the most paranoid among us thought. Let’s thank the Banksters for tipping their hand so nicely. I guess it is getting harder for them to fake the data, or else too many scientists are starting to remember the word “conscience.” That would be a good sign. (Hmm, how odd – “con” and “science” in the same word….)

  2. MQ on July 27, 2011 at 3:18 pm

    More weather manipulations?

    “About 17 inches (440 millimeters) of rain fell on Seoul and more than 13 inches (340 millimeters) on Chuncheon in the last two days, about 15 times more than the average two-day rainfall at this time of year, according to the state-run Korea Meteorological Administration.

    Weather officials said another 10 inches (254 millimeters) could fall in northern South Korea, including Seoul, through Friday.”

  3. brett on July 27, 2011 at 12:08 pm

    Herman Kahn vs. the Club of Rome? sounds fascinating — can you point me to some details?

    • MQ on July 27, 2011 at 3:46 pm

      Google is your friend (at least sometimes).

      Aligica uses the work of the two major founders of this alternative approach: Herman Kahn and Julian Simon. Herman Kahn was the first scholar and public intellectual to engage and refute the “doomsday” theses advanced by the Club of Rome and its followers. In his spirited and optimistic arguments he made a strong case for the feasibility, desirability and morality of global economic growth arguing that even given all the likely human, environmental, and material costs and risks, “the case is close to if not fully overwhelming.” Julian Simon elaborated the “anti-doomsayers” lines opened by Kahn, further developing the emerging paradigm. He articulated new and precise arguments on issues such as population growth, natural resources scarcity and technological change, and reinforced Kahn’s thesis that continued world economic development is a moral imperative as well as a practical desideratum. Together, Kahn and Simon managed to build the foundations on which rest the current counter-reaction to the “limits to growth” rhetoric and its initiatives. Both were not only public figures of great accomplishments and influence but also remarkable thinkers and personalities.

      More data here:

      Kahn died of a stroke in 1983, at the age of 61. I add that his retort to the Club of Rome came in the ’70s (after the CoR’s 1972 report), so I don’t see these two being closely related, unless there is some other evidence unavailable to me on the ‘net.

  4. Tartarus on July 26, 2011 at 11:00 pm

    Its disgraceful that scientists get their findings censored because of “political correctness”.
    This does indeed seem to be a stifling of science.

  5. Tim on July 26, 2011 at 10:58 pm

    It may be as you say but I see the decision as much more if a commentary on the dismal state of discussion/debate in the world today. Any issue or topic, from Global Warming to Artificial Turf, consist of only 2 camps – Fanatics For and Fanatics Against. Make a comment is support of one, get attacked by the fanatics on the other side. Make a comment in support of neither and get attacked by fanatics from both sides.

    As WOPR said – “Strange Game. The only winning move is not to play.”

  6. Chasser on July 26, 2011 at 9:33 pm

    Interesting article do they fear retribution of sins of secrecy committed in favor of greed? Doubt if it will lead to the true believers of so called disclosure 🙂 Wonder what Machiavelli would say about this development of politics of science these days?

  7. Shari ^i^ on July 26, 2011 at 8:43 pm

    Right on!

  8. Jay on July 26, 2011 at 7:31 pm

    Various authorities–religious, scientific, etc–don’t like open systems.

    Amazed at how many comments here seem to think this CERN thing contradicts global warming; it doesn’t.

    Seems to me that facilities like that a CERN could have dual uses, but the extra uses would only be clear to those with an understanding of black world science, or open systems, or aetherian physics, etc. Nothing really interesting discovered there is ever likely to see widespread publication. Including this article.

    This cosmic ray thing is most likely a feint, or misdirection.

  9. Robert Barricklow on July 26, 2011 at 12:38 pm

    Two good books on it:
    The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change (2003)/Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory(2011)
    Also a Harper’s Magazine article by Ken Silverstein, “Climate Change: Theres Money To Be Made(2011)

  10. Dan on July 26, 2011 at 8:21 am

    There is no such thing as “global warming.” That whole myth was made up to replace the USSR as America’s,and the world’s, next boogey-man.

    As for the CERN chief’s gag order, a quote from William Cooper will suffice:

    “They call themselves ‘The Guardians of the Secrets of the Ages.’ “

  11. Dashiell Cabasa on July 26, 2011 at 8:01 am

    I so agree with this. I’ve been convinced they are using the weather or so-called warming, as a weapon for years. Its all too coincidentally targeted at the parts of the globe they don’t happen to live in at its worst extent.

  12. Joe05 on July 26, 2011 at 7:33 am

    Very well said, I find it interesting that no one seems interested in looking at artificial causes for Global warming/cooling. Most likely agendas at work here, Banksters, religious leaders increase their influence if violent weather frightens people.

  13. Robert Totten on July 26, 2011 at 5:44 am

    100%. Understated in your exceedingly polite manner, but 100% nontheless. Sometimes you can learn more by what is not allowed to be said than by what is allowed to be said. The only clues to a black hole are what are in the periphery.

Help the Community Grow

Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.

Upcoming Events