Editor's Note: T.J. Coles, Axis of Logic columnist presents a brilliant case that documents the insanity that pushes the world closer to midnight. His meticulous research and impeccable logic leads us to penetrating insights into the human condition where lies hope for the future.
- Les Blough, Editor
Although the media would never report it that way, the anti-NATO demonstrators beaten up and arrested in Chicago by the militarised police performed a great service for the survival of the species. The George W. Bush administration announced proposals for the construction of a missile system in Eastern Europe, which will fall partly under NATO’s command. Offering slight technical modifications, the Obama regime has continued the project, risking potentially unmanageable consequences.
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists have moved their clock one minute closer to midnight, the first change since 2010. (UPI Photo/Roger L. Wollenberg)
In 2012, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the hands of their Doomsday Clock forward to five minutes to Midnight. One of the reasons given was the “disagreements between the United States and Russia about the utility and purposes of missile defense.”1 The reflexive “defence” appellation is pure propaganda. In 1997, the Pentagon issued a formal declaration of war on the entire world when it announced America’s commitment to achieve Full Spectrum Dominance by 2020: a doctrine of total control in which the proposed missile system will play a significant role.2
Doomsday
As part of the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Pentagon “provided assistance worth nearly $2 billion to help Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus safely transport and store weapons and eliminate launchers under the START Treaties,” Congress reported.3 In reality, the scheme was designed to clear Russia’s nuclear weapons from the former USSR in order to allow the US to expand its Ballistic Missile Defense system in the region:
In 2000, the Project for the New American Century lamented that “the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty with the Soviet Union has frustrated development of useful ballistic missile defenses.”4 The problem was remedied in 2002 when the Bush regime dismantled the Treaty. Russia followed, dissolving the NATO-Warsaw Pact Agreement.
|
|
| On September 17th, 2009, U.S. President Barack Obama announced that he will be offering a new missile defense system in Eastern Europe, discontinuing the system set up by President George W. Bush. |
The Eastern Europe missile system “has caused an increase in tensions between NATO and the Russian Government,” a UK House of Commons Library paper noted. The system “would consist of missiles based on US warships based in the Mediterranean. Three years later, the system would be augmented by land-based missiles based in Romania and Poland and a radar system based in Turkey,” the paper added. “After that, the system would be enhanced to be able to intercept longer-range missiles that would put London within range”—exemplifying the British government’s contempt for their citizens—“and the last phase would be an upgrade to be able to deal with inter-continental ballistic missiles.”5
“On Feb. 23 [2007], a spokesperson for the British government confirmed reports that London was involved in talks with Washington about the potential deployment of interceptors in the United Kingdom,” the Arms Control Association reported, “and that the government welcomes “plans to place further missile defense assets in Europe.”6 That was under New Labour. Under the unelected Tory-Liberal “coalition,” the plan appears to still be on-track.
Deployment of the missile system also illustrates the contempt of the Pentagon for majority opinion in host nations. “Polls have consistently indicated that a majority of Poles disapprove of a missile defense base being established in their country,” Congress noted. “Public opinion surveys consistently have shown strong (60%-70%) opposition to the plan among Czechs, who share many of their Polish neighbors’ concerns.”7
“In late May [2010], a U.S. Patriot missile battery was deployed in northern Poland, close to Kaliningrad, sparking public protests from Moscow.” The move impelled Russia to move its poorly guarded and poorly maintained mobile nuclear weapons up to the border, the Wall Street Journal reported. “Moscow has long considered the U.S. missile defense build-up in Europe a challenge.”8 (For the obsequious media, it is axiomatic that the system is “defensive.”)
U.S. Patriot Missile launch like those now deployed in Poland.
Russia’s mobile nukes appear to be on hair-trigger alert, susceptible to theft, and prone to computer malfunction. “Many analysts argue that Russia’s aging satellite and communication systems, when combined with the high alert rates for U.S. and Russian nuclear forces (both can launch on very short notice), increase the possibility of a nuclear attack,” warned Congress. “If Russia lacks complete information about the status of U.S. forces it might interpret ambiguous events as a missile launch.”9
A book published by the Strategic Studies Institute in 2011 noted that “Very limited (nonexistent for practical purposes) Russian capability to detect single launches from submarines is likely to complicate the matter further,” highlighting the incident in which “a single Norwegian research rocket triggered a false alarm in the Russian strategic command services” in the mid-1990s. “[T]he rocket closely fit one of the first-strike scenarios built into the early warning system,” giving an example of any number of typical escalation scenarios.10
According to former Minuteman operator Bruce Blair, “severe risks” of the Russo-American launch-on-warning systems include “patterns of sunlight on clouds … interpreted by sensors as rocket exhausts.” This potential trigger is being exacerbated by the global aerosol dispersion operations being conducted by the US and NATO (chemtrails). Other risks include the possibility that “lower-level commanders would abuse the predelegated launch authority,” and “the risk that the accidental launch of a few missiles … would be interpreted as a full-scale attack.”11
Commenting on Blair’s observations, Royal Society of Canada Fellow, Professor John Leslie, noted that “Faulty attack-detection systems are yet better known as sources of risk. (Here … it is US data to which there is a fair amount of access. Heaven knows what went on in the Soviet Union.)” A Senate investigation identified 147 “serious false alarms” from 1979-80 alone, just in the US. “False alarms become all the more serious when the time for evaluating them becomes shorter,” Leslie noted.12 This should be of grave concern, as the quest for Full Spectrum Dominance will peak with the ability of the US to deploy violence instantaneously: with anticipated catastrophic results:
“The amount of time necessary to identify and strike a target shrank from twenty-four hours in Operation Desert Storm [1991] to forty-five minutes in Afghanistan [2001] to some eleven minutes most recently in Iraq [2003]”, weapons developer Bruce DeBlois noted, concluding that the “U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff John Jumper ha[d] stated his desire to decrease response times still further, to one minute or less.”13 Naturally, reductions in response-times increase the likelihood of retaliatory error. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists contributor Matthew Hoey warned of “light-speed escalation scenarios,” potentially unmanageable ones.14
“Many of the concerns over the development of new technologies lie in their safety, including the potential for disastrous outcomes, planned and unplanned,” the UK Ministry of Defence noted in a thirty-year projection. Artificial Intelligence, upon which drone, nuclear, and other weapons operators are increasingly relying, “could be superior to that of humans, but without the restraining effect of human social conditioning.” As a result, “Various doomsday scenarios arising in relation to these and other areas of development present the possibility of catastrophic impacts, ultimately including the end of the world, or at least of humanity.”15
See T.J. Cole's article: Weather Weapons and Earthquake Bombs: World Leaders Condemn Britain and America’s Secret Arsenal, Jan, 2012
It is impossible to prove what these “other areas of development are,” but it is easy to guess:
Electromagnetic Pulse Weapons
 |
|
HAARP’s Full Spectrum Dominance (Wired Magazine) |
The missile system being developed in Eastern Europe appears to be a Trojan Horse designed to impel nations to develop conventional, nuclear-based deterrents. The US and Britain, conversely, are developing new electromagnetic weapons that range “from tap on the shoulder through to toast”, in the words of the US Air Force.16 Russian President Vladimir Putin “argued that the proposal” to build the missile system in Europe “would reignite the arms race and upset U.S.-Russian-European security relations,”17 which appears to be the agenda. With its new electromagnetic weapons, the US is already ahead of the race.
 |
|
Harp Alaska, built by BAE Systems. (US Defense Department) |
MIT Professor Theodore A. Postol’s co-authored report with Cornell’s George N. Lewis found that X-band radars are “fundamentally not suited for the role of acquisition and surveillance.” Low frequency radars operating at Very-High-Frequency, High-Frequency, Ultra-High Frequency, or L-Band “are all far more suitable for this mission,” the authors reported. The development of the missile system, Presidential National Security Directive-23, “would indicate to the Russians that the current defense deployment in Europe is only the leading edge of a much larger and more capable future deployment.”18
Confirming Postol and Lewis’s suspicions, the Ground-based Mid-course Defence system deployed in Eastern Europe is actually an “element of the larger Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS),” Congress noted.19 The BMDS is intended to transform the atmosphere of the planet into an electrified gas (or plasma) with the intended effect of using “heave” weapons to lift a portion of the magnetosphere in order to knock ICBMs off-course, or to kill them upon re-entry via atmospheric scintillation.
 |
|
Official slide: HAARP injects power into the atmosphere |
Having weaponised the atmosphere the US will achieve Full Spectrum Dominance of the electromagnetic fields of the Earth (upon which all life depends), seismic activity, the climate, and the weather. In 1968, the New Statesman’s science editor Nigel Calder edited a book, entitled Unless Peace Comes (London: Penguin). In a chapter titled “How to Wreck the Environment,” Lyndon B. Johnson’s science advisor, Gordon MacDonald, noted the possibility of injecting power into the Earth’s magnetic field in order to trigger earthquakes. Clinton’s Defense Secretary, William Cohen, announced in 1997 that he and his Pentagon developers were “intensifying our efforts” to develop such systems.20
Unprecedented amounts of power can be harnessed from natural systems and directed at targets anywhere on Earth. This has been a goal of the secret power structure for more than a century. In 1904, Rudolf Steiner, an initiate of the Misraim-Memphis Lodge of Freemasonry, announced that in the so-called sixth epoch, “Great and mighty forces will ensue from discoveries that will turn the entire globe into a kind of self-functioning electrical apparatus.” Steiner, exemplifying his “brotherly love” of humanity, added that a “tiny handful will be protected in a way that cannot be discussed,” presumably meaning the subterranean bunkers being constructed at a record rate.21
Steiner was probably referring to the work of Nikola Tesla, whom, in 1900 proposed transforming the atmosphere into a plasma, to “Transmit Electrical Energy Through the Natural Mediums.” Tesla’s patent (#787,412) was registered the year after Steiner’s talk. After decades of research, the Pentagon began work on Tesla’s ideas in the form of Bernard Eastlund’s patents for high-altitude energy pulses.22
The Eastlund patent #4,686,605 referenced the work of Tesla, and advocated the “release [of] large clouds of barium in the magnetosphere so that photoionization will increase the cold plasma density, thereby producing electron precipitation through enhanced whistler-mode interactions.” [23] This concept appears to have been inspired by US Air Force tests conducted in the 1970s, in which barium was found to increase the persistence of once ephemeral jet condensation trails.24
In 1994, the SPACECAST 2020 advocated “modifying the ionosphere through insertion of gaseous compounds … [which] can also be enhanced by shooting a high energy laser, microwave, or particle beam … [thus] having a jamming effect on the enemy’s radiowave propagation.”25 By 2025, the US Air Force announced, America will “own the weather” by various methods being employed today, “including injection of chemical vapors and heating or charging via electromagnetic radiation or particle beams (such as ions, neutral particles, x-rays, MeV particles, and energetic electrons).”26
The “chemical vapors”, or “chemtrails,” are listed as an “exotic weapons system” by Congressman Dennis Kucinich in his Space Preservation Act (2001).27 A 1996 Pentagon Geophysics Directorate publication mentioned “Measurements of effluent plumes and chemical clouds by ground-based and airborne LIDAR.” The document added that “Under the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), research was initiated to assess the viability of using ionospherically generated ULF/ELF/VLF radio waves for the detection of underground tunnels and structures.”28 HAARP can, however, charge the globally dispersed aerosols, which are also part of the “owning the weather programme”, in order to “disrupt lines of communications,” as the UK MoD noted.29
Author: "What the hell are they spraying?" (Amateur footage, 2011)
That this is not vapour can be seen: the substance has come out of two separate tanks, the southern material is some kind of foam. Notice at the sticky trail on the far right where the spray engine has switched off: it doesn’t even match the upper foam.
As a ground-based laser, HAARP has also been blamed for a spate of downed space systems, mostly notably Russia’s Mars probe, Phobos-Grunt.30 A decade prior to the failure, the Russian State Duma warned that:
"Under [HAARP] … the U.S. is creating new integral geophysical weapons that may influence the near-Earth medium with high-frequency radio waves … When these facilities are launched into space from Norway, Alaska and Greenland, a closed contour will be created with a truly fantastic integral potential for influencing the near-Earth medium … capable of breaking radio communication lines and equipment installed on spaceships and rockets, provoke serious accidents in electricity networks and in oil and gas pipelines and have a negative impact on the mental health of people populating entire regions."31
It would appear that the missile system being deployed in Eastern Europe is the conventional, back-up element of the global electromagnetic pulse system, the Tesla Triode, which has been constructed in the Northern Hemisphere.
Hope for the Future?
In 1963, Animal Psychologist Konrad Lorenz posited:
“An unprejudiced observer from another planet, looking upon man as he is today, in his hands the atom bomb, the product of his intelligence, in his heart the aggression drive inherited from his anthropoid ancestors, which this same intelligence cannot control, would not prophesy long life for the species”32
In Obedience to Authority, psychology professor Stanley Milgram noted
“the capacity for man to abandon his humanity, indeed the inevitability that he does so, as he merges his unique personality into larger institutional structures,”
... echoing C.G. Jung’s observations concerning the “mass man.”33 Milgram continued,
“This is a fatal flaw nature designed into us and which in the long run gives our species only a modest chance of survival.”
The hope, however, is in the “strain”, such as guilt or fear, which, “if sufficiently powerful, leads to disobedience”—the kind that took place at the anti-NATO demonstrations.34
It is the role of the media, however, to keep important issues, such as the threat of extinction, from entering into public consciousness. When Milgram, Lorenz, and Jung use the word “man”, their inherent chauvinism is not entirely unfounded. The National Intelligence Council reported in a fifteen-year trend study35 that when freed from the coercive structures of male-dominated social systems (after a war in which the male population is reduced, for instance), political women tend to reduce military spending substantially, investing instead in social welfare programmes: the kind that would lift millions from the poverty inflicted by male-dominated banks and businesses, and may in fact be required in order to save humanity from the apocalyptic “externalities” of Full Spectrum Dominance.
READ MORE ANALYSES & ESSAYS BY
T.J. COLES, AXIS OF LOGIC COLUMNIST
NOTES
1. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “Doomsday Clock moves to five minutes to midnight”, 12 January, 2012.
2. US Space Command, “Vision for 2020”, February, 1997.
3. Amy F. Woolf, “Nuclear Weapons in Russia: Safety, Security, and Control Issues”, Congressional Research Service, 15 August, 2003.
4. Thomas Donnelly, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”, Project for the New American Century, September, 2000, Washington, DC: PNAC,
5. Ben Smith, “Iran’s nuclear programme: an update,” House of Commons, SN/IA/6039 21 July, 2011.
6. Oliver Meier, “Europeans Split Over U.S. Missile Defense Plans”, Arms Control Association, news release, April, 2007.
7. Steven A. Hildreth and Carl Ek, “Long-Range Ballistic Missile Defense in Europe”, Congressional Research Service, July 24, 2008.
8. Jorge Benitez, “Russia Moves Nuclear Warheads Near Border with NATO Allies”, Wall Street Journal, 30 November, 2010.
9. Amy F. Woolf, “Nuclear Weapons in Russia: Safety, Security, and Control Issues”, Congressional Research Service, 15 August, 2003,
10. Nikolai Sokov, “Nuclear Weapons in Russian National Security Strategy” in Stephen J. Blank (ed.), Russian Nuclear Weapons: Past, Present, and Future, Strategic Studies Institute, November, 2011, pp.187-258.
11. John Leslie, 1996, The End of the World, London: Routledge.
12. Ibid.
13. Bruce M. DeBlois, Richard L. Garwin, R. Scott Kemp and Jeremy C. Marwell, “Space Weapons: Crossing the U.S. Rubicon”, International Security, Vol. 29, No. 2, Autumn, 2004, pp. 50-84.
14. Matthew Hoey, “The proliferation of space warfare technology”, Council on Foreign Relations, 11 December, 2008,
15. Ministry of Defence (UK), “Strategic Trends Programme: 2007-2036”, 23 January, 2007.
16. US Air Force, 2004, Flight Transformation Plan,
17. Steven A. Hildreth and Carl Ek, “Long-Range Ballistic Missile Defense in Europe”, Congressional Research Service, July 24, 2008.
18. Theodore A. Postol and George N. Lewis, “The Proposed US Missile Defense in Europe: Technological Issues Relevant to Policy”, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 28 August, 2007.
19. Steven A. Hildreth and Carl Ek, “Long-Range Ballistic Missile Defense in Europe”, Congressional Research Service, July 24, 2008,
20. William Cohen, “Cohen address 4/28 at Conference on Terrorism: Weapons of Mass Destruction, and U.S. Strategy”, University of Georgia, 28 April, 1997.
21. Rudolph Steiner, 1997, The Temple Legend, London: Rudolph Steiner Press.
22. Nick Begich and Jeane Manning, 2007, Angels Don’t Play This HAARP, Anchorage: Earthpulse Press.
23. United States Patent Office, Patent Number 4,686, 605, 11 August, 1987.
24. H. S. Hoffman and G. T. Best, “The initial behavior of high altitude barium releases—II. The expanding vapor cloud”, Journal of Army Terr. Physics, No. 36, 1974, pp. 1475-1486.
25. SPACECAST 2020, “Space Weather for Communications”.
26. Col. Tamzy J. House, Lt. Col. James B. Near, Jr., LTC William B. Shields, Maj. Ronald J. Celentano, Maj. David M. Husband, Maj. Ann E. Mercer, Maj. James E. Pugh, “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025”, Air Force 2025, August, 1996.
27. Dennis Kucinich, “The Space Preservation Act (2001)”, United States Library of Congress, HR 2977 IH, 1st Session, 2 October, 2001.
28. United States Air Force Materiel Command, “FY97 Geophysics Technology Area Plan”, 1 May 1996, Directorate of Science and Technology, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.
29. Ministry of Defence, “Strategic Trends Programme: Out to 2040”, 9 February, 2010 (4th edition).
30. Jim Nash, “Off the beam”, Scientific American, 14 December, 2011.
31. Federation of American Scientists, “Russian parliament concerned about US plans to develop new weapon’, No. FBIS-SOV-2002-0808, 8 August, 2002.
32. Konrad Lorenz, 1967, On Aggression, London: Methuen and Co.
33. C.G. Jung, 1967, The Undiscovered Self, London: Routledge.
34. Stanley Milgram, 1971, Obedience to Authority, London: Tavistock.
35. National Intelligence Council, “Global Trends 2025”, November, 2008, Washington, DC: NIC.