by Mike Bee

Over the last few days I have mentioned to a number of friends – because I was testing it as a hypothesis – the possibility that New Zealand’s weather is being manipulated. I recommend this as a great way to lose friends!

The first friend said without hesitation, “I’m not going to consider that,” and the temperature of the room dropped several degrees. The second got very agitated. The third was a spiritual practitioner who at other times has talked to me about the “heart exercise” where the spiritual student must practise openness to all things, even what seems at first to be impossible. I therefore had high hopes that he would be open, but it turned out that he was not. And the fourth launched straight away into a lecture about all that rain being due to a volcano that deposited water in the upper atmosphere and would consider nothing else. I never asked Jacinda Adern for her opinion, but if I had, she would surely have said that floods are due to one thing and one thing only – Climate Change!

Now I would not dream of accusing our government – or even foreign agents in touch with our government – of doing such a dastardly deed as wrecking our NZ summer. It is unthinkable! But shouldn’t we be open to the fact that someone could be doing this? Many people seem to be illogically invested in the idea that it’s not possible, so let us simply look at a few facts to see if their rejection of this is based on logic.

And before that, a plea for openness, if such is necessary: That “heart exercise” mentioned above actually states (in the words of Rudolf Steiner), that one striving for spiritual truth should confront every new experience with complete open-mindedness and break entirely with the attitude which, in the face of something just heard or seen, exclaims, “I never heard that. … I don’t believe it. It’s an illusion.”

In Steiner’s words:

Although radically expressed, if anyone were to come to you and say, ‘Since last night the steeple of such and such a church has been tilted right over,’ the spiritual student should leave a loophole open for the contingency of his becoming convinced that his previous knowledge of natural law could somehow be augmented by such an apparently unprecedented fact.

I’ve quoted this because I think it’s good advice. Of course, a person can be too open, but Steiner is describing that moment when you first hear something. People who are closed off at that moment give no chance for something new to enter. Someone (I don’t know who) once said, “Be open, but not so open that your brains fall out of your head!”

Many people are open to governmentally-sanctioned ideas such as climate change – why not adopt a thoughtful attitude to other ideas? It seems to me that kiwis are not very good at doing that, but, in the face of the massive disinformation from Pfizer and other sources, now being exposed in study after study overseas, many people might have saved themselves a lot of grief if they had been more suspicious of Big Pharma and Big Gubmint and more open to the doctors who, from the start, advocated for a different policy from what Pfizer and their national health authorities were pushing.

If we want to be open, therefore, the first thing is to see if weather manipulation is possible. On this question there is little room for doubt. I go to the very reliable Rosalind Peterson, President of the Agriculture Defence Coalition, who in 2007 addressed a United Nations conference on the dangers of weather modification. She made it very clear that geo-engineering was taking place in the world at that time and that various other geo-engineering schemes, consisting of spraying the air with barium, aluminium and strontium, were “waiting in the wings”, ready to be used. Living in California, Ms Peterson made many observations regarding the effect of these chemical additives on the health of plants, animals and people and urged those present to bring controls on what was being done before we made major, irrevocable mistakes.

https://newspunch.com/united-nations-conference-warned-weather-modification/

A caller to NewsTalkZB some days ago was open to the idea of scientists being able to improve the weather as she had read in a book at the local Library. She suggested we use weather technology to get rid of approaching cyclones and gave evidence she’d found that the technology to do this has been in operation for decades.

https://chemtrailsnorthnz.wordpress.com/2023/02/17/newstalkzb-why-not-use-weather-modification-technology-to-control-cyclones-friday-17-feb-2023/

The host, Kerre McIvor, had no problem with that and wondered why we didn’t do it? The obvious question to ask would be that if good people can improve the weather, doesn’t that mean that it might be just as possible for some bad people to use the same means to make it worse!

Going right back, one of the first statements about weather manipulation was made by Bertrand Russel in his 1931 book The Scientific Outlook. Here he speculated that “It may be that God made the world, but that is no reason why we should not make it over.”

Researcher Mark Rich states that efforts to modify the weather have been made since at least the late 1940’s. In 1947 the US Navy, Army, and Air Force, working with General Electric Corporation, made the first attempt to modify a hurricane by dropping about 80 pounds of dry ice into clouds. Rich details many other exploits through the Twentieth Century, gradually gaining in expertise. Another of these early ones, Project Cumulus, carried out by the British Royal Air Force between 1949 and 1952, allegedly caused a flood in the Devon village of Lynmouth and 34 people drowned.

In October of 2005, Business Week reported that China, Russia, and Mexico are modifying the weather, with China spending about $40 million a year on a weather management program. A company in America, Weather Modification Incorporated in North Dakota today offers services that it lists on its website at weathermodification.com as cloud-seeding, weather modification, rain enhancement, and fog dispersion, while a Russian company, Elate Intelligent Technologies, has offered a professional weather modification service using directed-energy since at least 1992.

Robert Deutsch, about whom I will speak more later, draws our attention to the Paris Agreement of 2015 and a document that came out of that which speaks of actual

geo-engineering measures being discussed there. In an article called The Paris Agreement and Geo-Engineering Governance: Benefits, Risks and Costs of Stratospheric Engineering, you can read about “potential delivery vehicles for stratospheric sulphur dioxide injection [which] include aircraft, artillery shells, stratospheric balloons, and hoses suspended from towers.” It’s clear that from 2009 there have been preparations to use geo-engineering “to cool the planet” through “direct injection of sulphuric acid” and other means.

Hey, did anyone ask we the people if we wanted this?

Of course the military has been very interested in weather modification technologies for a long time. Project Popeye was the name given to an operation by the US to increase rainfall over a trail used by the Viet Cong in the Viet Nam War. The project began in 1966, lasted for five years, and was considered a success.

Some years before Project Popeye, Lyndon Johnson had given a speech in which he called for ways to control the weather as a means of dominating the world. He imagined technologies that would “lay the predicate and the foundation for man to determine the world’s cloud layers and ultimately the weather.” Then came a phrase that has often echoed since, sounding as it does as if it comes from the lips of a James Bond villain: “He who controls the weather will control the world!”

In 1970 Zbigniew Brzezinski, cofounder of the Trilateral Commission, advocated for the covert use of weather attacks, such as long periods of drought or storm, to force a nation into compliance.

A first attempt to limit weather modification for military purposes was made in 1977 with The United Nations Weather Weapons Treaty, however the US Air Force stated that any prohibition on hostile use of weather modification, is not applicable to it.

The US Navy’s 1994 Nonlethal Warfare Proposal, acknowledged the successful use of weather modification and described how the creation of floods, blizzards, and droughts could be used to destroy a nation’s economy.

Today we hear much about the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project (HAARP), where extremely powerful electro-magnetic waves are used. In their book Angels Don’t Play This HAARP: Advances in Tesla Technology, Jeane Manning and Dr. Nick Begich refer to it as one of the most powerful multi-purpose weapons developed by the US military.

HAARP, along with similar installations elsewhere, is able to heat the ionosphere, an active, electrically-charged part of the upper atmosphere, 40 to 500 miles above the earth, which acts as a shield against the bombardment of high-energy particles from space. The Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) waves which it produces can be transmitted over thousands of kilometers and will pass through any non-shielded structure on the planet. HAARP is also able to focus energy on a specific target area with a precise delivery of electromagnetic radiation.

Professor Chossudovsky of Global Research says that although HAARP is presented to the public as a scientific research institute, its capabilities suggest otherwise. According to him, “HAARP is part of the weapons arsenal of the New World Order.” Professor Chossudovsky believes that a nation’s economy could be disrupted through climatic manipulations without the target country ever knowing that an attack had caused the collapse. The US Air Force, in its report of 1996, Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025,  stated that modification of the weather by high-powered microwaves directed into the ionosphere “offers the war-fighter a wide-range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary.”

Although Congressman Dennis Kucinich attempted to ban weather weaponry such as HAARP in his Space Preservation Act of 2001, the military forces of a number of countries seem to have found ways to avoid conforming to this. Professor Chossudovsky states:

An analysis of statements emanating from the US Air Force points to the unthinkable: the covert manipulation of weather patterns, communications and electric power systems as a weapon of global warfare.

One weather-forecaster who knows a lot about this, Robert Deutsch, already mentioned above, got things spectacularly right regarding NZ’s last weather event, seeing evidence of attacks being made from within and outside of NZ On February, 10^th, as it was beginning to rain in Auckland but before there had been any Hawkes Bay flooding, he made a report that can be seen on his Youtube channel. And worryingly, he has updated this with a new forecast on February 22^nd, warning that catastrophic flooding could occur in Hawkes Bay and parts of the central North Island when rain, greater than what the orthodox forecasts are predicting, strikes on ground that is already deep in mud

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UYlaTg1jlE

What reason could any enemy, foreign or domestic, have for doing such a thing? Perhaps that could be a topic for a future article, but those who are aware of the UN’s Agenda 2030 would not be short of ideas. There are clues also in my colleague, Thomas S’s article, The Perpetual State of Emergency, which is two articles back on the Counterspin Media blog. Thomas states there that:

Regardless of whether or not Cyclone Gabrielle was the result of weather manipulation, the government will nonetheless be seizing the opportunity to Build Back Better in alignment with its commitment to the 2030 Agenda.

Indeed, as was the case with covid lockdowns, New Zealand may well become the testing ground for radical climate action, in which our level of compliance becomes the template for the rest of the world to follow.

A large number of New Zealanders have been lulled to reject any such “speculation” and even, as I discovered earlier, to get quite aggressive at the very idea of anyone manipulating their kiwi weather. But warnings such as that of Robert Deutsch need to be heeded, and in 2023 we need to be wary of what could be going on.

If Robert’s forecast proves to be incorrect, we’ve not lost anything by being careful.