“Frankenskies”: New Film Raises Big Questions On Climate Engineering.

By Jerry Alatalo

n 1962 United States President Lyndon Johnson in a commencement address at Southwest Texas State University talked to graduates about “..controlling the weather”, and “..controlling the world”. Just to what extent the U.S. military has advanced since 1962 in the area of weather warfare is unknown except by those in the military working directly in the alleged programs.

Learning the truth will require men and women willing to take the same severe personal risks as Daniel Ellsberg (Vietnam War), Julian Assange (government/corporate crimes), Edward Snowden (government surveillance), Chelsea Manning (Iraq War crimes), John Kiriakou (illegal torture), Scott Bennett (terrorist financing), Brad Birkenfeld (banking corruption), and others determined to speak the truth.

Mr. Matt Landman directed the film “Frankenskies” about the history, development, and facts concerning the phenomenon termed climate engineering, geoengineering, and other various scientific designations. His choice to balance the amount of time in the film to information from both “sides” of the debate over weather control was a good one, adding seriousness and weight to the effort. The final effort, 120-minute film production’s quality is excellent, and a superb example for others to follow in comparison to other small-budget, independently made documentaries.

The topic of weather control technologies, for researchers, is one which can lead one down some very deep, multi-directional, even sometimes strange rabbit holes. Thankfully – and wisely, in light of its very controversial subject – Mr. Landman keeps the film’s focus inside the boundaries of logical, academic and/or scientific reasoning. The result is a very strong film message viewers will find close to impossible to ignore or forget.

Many people will immediately react to mention of weather control with labels of “conspiracy theory”, but they might experience an extreme change of perspective and attitude after watching “Frankenskies”.  They surely will come away with facts and details they’ve never seen mentioned or reported by the corporate media, but for “conditioning”, surprising reports – such as the 12 new cloud formations (or species of clouds) added institutionally recently. The film’s information has neither been transparently shared by government and/or military officials but for recent revelations – again, described in the film as a form of societal “conditioning” for what’s ahead.

What inclines one to lean toward the explanation that weather modification is essentially a tool for war? …The unanimous unwillingness by elected representatives in the U.S. Congress in responding to concerns expressed by large numbers of their constituents on the matter. Add to that government avoidance of historical facts presented in Mr. Landman’s film, and the logical conclusion to arrive at is that nations and high-level military/intelligence officials have been using weather control technology since the 1950’s as a weapon of war.

“Frankenskies” has already, just hours after posting, begun going viral on the internet. The question now becomes one of gathering sufficient momentum, creating a state of affairs making impossible continued government dismissal of legitimate concerns, and leading to where honorable action brings about open public meetings exposing the truth of the matter.

***

To  those appreciative of his work and wishing to send financial support to Matt Landman for making his next film “Frankenskies II”, please visit:

https://www.gofundme.com/frankenskies

(Thank you to Matt Landman at YouTube)

Ilan Pappe: “Israel Has Lost The Moral Argument.”

By Jerry Alatalo

any academics, political analysts, peace activists, experts in global affairs and others consider the resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict the most important international relations challenge of our time. Israel-born Jewish Professor Ilan Pappe (currently lecturing in the United Kingdom) is one of thousands of men and women academicians on Earth who firmly hold that belief. He has written a new book “Ten Myths About Israel”, a (in his words) “concise pocketbook” for those interested in learning about the situation. He visited Seattle, Washington in the northwest region of the United States recently to speak about the long-endured, at times seemingly insoluble problems – along with his vision for a solution.

During an interview while in Seattle, Professor Pappe shared both his personal experiences and knowledge of the conflict as well as some little-known facts making it clear that major changes in Israel’s political system are necessary. His view is authoritative as its foundation is the raw historic truth: Israel is the only national government on Earth implementing apartheid policies and conditions, with the example most recently seen – and rightly abolished – of South Africa.

Professor Ilan Pappe draws similarities between the settler colonialist history of America, the inhumane, genocidal treatment of Native Americans and Israel’s Zionist factions’ treatment of the indigenous Palestinian people, in particular since 1967. With experience as a professor in Israeli universities before becoming essentially thrown out of his country, he describes the role of education in Israel as a large factor responsible for perpetuation of the conflict.

***

“The whole education system is built on dehumanization of the Palestinians, so even liberal Israelis are Israelis who regard the Palestinians as aliens, but they are tolerant enough to let them be there, or have some of the land. There’s a basic misunderstanding… even the more liberal Zionists – that Zionism emigrated into the homeland of someone else, not that these natives emigrated. They’re not immigrants.”

“Not that we should treat immigrants in some bad way… Of course, we shouldn’t. But it’s funny that the whole liberal discourse in Israel about the Palestinians is the discourse of immigrants. So, if you’re a liberal person… you tolerate immigrants. You’re willing to let them be absorbed into the society. But this is not the situation – these (Palestinians) are not immigrants. You (Israelis) are the immigrants, and you have to ask the Palestinians to allow you to stay.”

“And this is something very difficult; after 100 years of oppression, to understand that the oppressor needs the legitimacy from the oppressed is very difficult to accept.”

***

Often Israel is described as the “only democracy in the Middle East”. This is one of the myths which Professor writes about in his new book, “Ten Myths About Israel”, upon which he by use of analogy says:

“If one-fifth (20%) of the American population would have been under military rule, meaning that only a military person would determine your basic rights, you would not call the United States a democracy.”

“In many ways Israel reminds me of South Africa because whites in South Africa enjoyed a certain level of democracy but the Africans did not enjoy any level of democracy. And the same is true of Israel. So, you can say that for the Jews in Israel, Israel is a democracy, but anyone who is not a Jew is a 2nd-rate, if not a 3rd-rate citizen.”

“There are practices which are not officially admitted, but very known to everyone, that discriminate against you. I will give you one fact that I think is very important, and which most of your listeners probably do not know. I’m talking pre-1967 borders, to make it clear. According to Israeli law most of the land belongs to the Jewish agency. According to the law of the Jewish agency, it is not allowed to sell land to non-Jews. So, 97% of the land of Israel is not for sale to the Palestinian citizens of Israel who are 20% of the population.”

“So they have no access to buy land, to purchase land, to expand… In fact, in the past 70 years only Jewish settlements and Jewish towns have been built – not one Palestinian citizen. Another example… We have a law in Israel which allows a Jewish community to reject the presence of a Palestinian citizen, or citizens, from their midst because they are… the only reason is they are Palestinians – they are not Jewish.”

“Imagine if there would be a neighborhood in Seattle which could be by law decided that African-Americans could not live there. I’m talking about official racism. I’m not talking about informal racism that exists in every society; I don’t think Israel is unique in that. But I think it’s quite unique for a country that pertains to be the only democracy in the Middle east to have laws that discriminate against people just because of their identity.”

“That for me is the definition of an undemocratic society.”

***

After the interviewer asked Professor Pappe toward the end of the interview for his views on what is the best option to resolve the conflict, he responded:

“The first thing I believe even before one-state solution – and I’ve devoted my life to this – is to convince the international community, that it’s in the interests of the international community, to put pressure on Israel to first of all change its immediate policies of oppression, even before we talk about a solution, in order to create conducive circumstances for a solution. We need to get the Israelis out of the life of the Palestinians in the West Bank, to lift the siege of the Gaza Strip, to stop the discrimination against the Palestinians in Israel, and to seriously consider the right of the Palestinian refugees to come home.”

“Now, if I take all these three basic rights that Israel violates, the rights to live in peace in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in a democracy inside Israel, and the right to come back home for the refugees, I can only see one political outcome that will enable us to implement these right – and that’s one democratic state for all. Because I think, otherwise, any other political solution would perpetuate it, would make it even worse than it is today. When I say worse it means mainly for the Palestinians, but I also think it’s not very positive for the Jews.”

“So I think that for everyone we should live democratically as you here in the United States, as human beings regardless of our identity, religious identity, national identity, gender or color. One person, one vote… I’m willing to take a bi-national state if that is what people want. It’s much better than what we have today. Maybe people would want a collective identity; I can appreciate it, especially on the Jewish side because they’ve built a culture of their own. I think a lot of Palestinians would go along with this. “

“But the state has to be a state for everyone, and should not be divided, or be partitioned. And the 3rd generation of settlers and the native people have a very good chance of making Palestine, and Israel – or whatever we will call it – one of the best places on Earth.”  

***

(Thank you to TalkingStickTV at YouTube)

“The Putin Interviews”: Historic Documentary By Oliver Stone.

t the end of their long and thorough series of discussions on the most important issues facing the human race, Russian President Vladimir Putin asked famed filmmaker Oliver Stone: “Have you ever been beaten?”

By avoiding an explanation about why Mr. Putin asked Mr. Stone that particular puzzling question, perhaps men and women would become more curious, and intrigued enough to watch a cinematic event quite likely of historic consequence. 

Public reaction has yet to come forth fully on Parts 1-4 of “The Putin Interviews”. One can expect a range of reviews corresponding to the each reviewer’s level of knowledge and awareness about the issues discussed between Mr. Putin and Mr. Stone. However, it is nearly impossible to consider the film’s content and not come away feeling more positive about the future.

Viewers of “The Putin Interviews” will experience a media breakthrough with regard to U.S./Russia diplomatic relations, and at the same time gain an entirely new, more optimistic perspective on world events in 2017. 

The website “Information Clearing House” has been diligently trying to maintain its posting of the 4-part documentary:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47246.htm

Kim Dotcom Claims Evidence Seth Rich Was WikiLeaks’ Source.

By Jerry Alatalo

nternet personality Kim Dotcom has delivered a statement on his website asserting he has evidence showing the late Clinton campaign staffer Seth Rich was involved in the leak of Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails to WikiLeaks. Kim Dotcom said he is prepared to testify before the United States Congress and provide proof.

His highly anticipated announcement was made on Tuesday May 23, but lost nearly all media coverage after the Monday May 22 bombing event in Manchester, United Kingdom grabbed 24/7 worldwide attention. Some have theorized the Manchester bombing might have been engineered to divert world attention away from what would have been a major, front-page category global news event – at least on independent media platforms and the internet.

***

Either Kim Dotcom has genuine evidence or he does not.

The question becomes: “Why hasn’t there been a response to his proposal from the Trump administration or Democratic members of Congress, and why haven’t arrangements been made to facilitate Kim Dotcom’s testimony?” When somebody offers evidence on one of the most consequential, controversial and divisive political situations in recent U.S. history, how can responsible government leaders ignore that offer?

It would be a simple and very inexpensive matter to allow Kim Dotcom to testify before Congress via electronic communications and live-stream, so refusal to allow his testimony because of exorbitant costs associated with travel to and from New Zealand where he resides have no merit. Such a format for his testimony is an excellent option, spares the U.S. government from possible embarrassment, and prevents wasted expenditure if Mr. Dotcom has zero evidence.

But… What if Mr. Dotcom does have credible evidence as he asserts, and that his potential witnessing does indeed prove Seth Rich – not the Russian Federation – was the WikiLeaks source? Here is the problem. If Mr. Dotcom does not receive the go-ahead, arrangements and/or other legal, manifested successful steps to hear him out from U.S. officials, then perhaps the only option for him is going it alone and publishing his information (testifying) on the internet.

Thus far, after 10 months since allegations of Russian involvement in the WikiLeaks DNC situation began, no U.S. intelligence agency has provided any evidence proving the allegations of Russian involvement. In a recently published book, “Shattered”, authors Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes describe how 24 hours after Hillary Clinton’s concession speech Clinton campaign manager John Podesta and staffer Robbie Mook led engineering of the Russian-hacking narrative to deflect attention away from DNC’s stealing of the Democratic nomination from Bernie Sanders and Clinton’s poor campaign.

Kim Dotcom wrote on his website…

Corporate media has seemingly gone far out of its way to discredit the Kim Dotcom story and those who advocate for his testifying before Congress. The following screenshot comes from “CNNMoney” YouTube channel, and its video trying to downplay, and even ridicule as a “conspiracy theory”, that Seth Rich was part of the WikiLeaks revealing of DNC emails.

Please take note of the number of likes (156) and dislikes (3,523) on this video, in what seems a clear indicator of where people around the Earth stand on this matter.

Were Kim Dotcom to testify before the U.S. Congress and prove Seth Rich had involvement in transferring DNC emails to WikiLeaks – defeating an incessant “Russia-gate” narrative that has lasted 10 months – the ramifications would be of historic, worldwide magnitude.

(Thank you to RT at YouTube)