It's just the beginning of the week man
What I do know is that amid this financial chaos the government is hard pressed to find some poor bastard to become the local president of the republic...
and the just did. The motherlovers name is Stavros Dimas and he a pro depopulation advocate. Just done reading this sc@t.
B.O.R. meets Mr Dimas at the EU over chemtrails. Yes I know this is bizzare
To the fifth question on possible disadvantages of the spraying, the Commissioner replied: “None of the substances referred to are hazardous per se, but some effects on environment and public health can not be ruled out if large scale releases to the air occurred.”
To the sixth question on whether the European Union is co-ordinating action to prevent unilateral actions with cross-border impact, Stavros Dimas said: “The Commission is not aware of any evidence suggesting that there is any reason to act.”
Rosalind Peterson’s comments
So far the only comments available on Dimas’ reply to Erik Meijer are those made by the Californian farm activist Rosalind Peterson. Arguably the most effective “realpolitiker” amongst the chemtrails opponents, Peterson has adopted a tactic of avoiding the term “chemtrail” and ignoring distinctions between “accidental” airline emissions and the “deliberate” use of aircraft emissions for geoengineering purposes. What this amounts to of course is ignoring the most likely reasons for the strategy of avoidance and deceit practised by governments. But it is a tactic that appears to have paid off, insofar as Rosalind Peterson has been invited to speak in September 2007 to a United Nations meeting of Non-Governmental Organizations in New York . This makes her the only chemtrails activist to have received anything approaching this degree of recognition.
Peterson’s comments on Meijer’s submission and the Dimas response to it on behalf of the European Commission are instilled with the same spirit of “realism”, realism in this instance meaning concentrating on playing the game more effectively on the terms that Dimas and the Commission require.
To Dimas’s explanation for the formation of long-lasting condensation trails, Rosalind Peterson says: “This is the standard answer and lets them off the hook. You have to ask why NASA is making statements in their reports and studies which show that persistent jet contrails turn into man-made clouds, that exacerbate global warming, increase earth's cloudiness, affect natural resources and change our climate. Face them with real documents, etc. Then they can't squeeze out with the usual stories and explanations.”
To Dimas’ assertion that the Commission is “not aware of any evidence that particles of barium, aluminium or iron are being emitted, deliberately or not, by aircraft”, Peterson says: “What we can prove are the spikes in drinking water supplies. And we can also prove that these chemicals are being used by NASA in atmospheric heating and testing experiments.”
To Dimas’ assertion that “none of the substances referred to are hazardous per se, but some effects on environment and public health can not be ruled out if large scale releases to the air occurred” Peterson says “increasing acid rains combined with aluminum can kill trees, which can't absorb the nutrients and water through the root systems once aluminum is found in the roots. They look as if they are dying of drought.”
Rosalind Peterson argues that Dimas’ positions can be countered “just by the facts on jet fuel emissions alone, the nitric acid which reduces the beneficial ozone layer, the fact that NASA states they exacerbate global warming..” But this displacement of focus from “geoengineering” to the aircraft emissions debate if anything strengthens the credentials of Commissioner Dimas, who after all acknowledges an aircraft emissions problem. What he is not prepared to acknowledge is his own compromise with scenarios in which aircraft emissions are seen not as a problem: a contributing factor to global warming, but as a SOLUTION, a way of mitigating global warming..
When Erik Meijer mentions “intended benefits of emitting substances into the air” (in a context of also mentioning “disadvantages”), he is apparently trying to offer a “sweetener” to Commissioner Dimas, to assist him in “coming clean” about some hypothetical “real attitudes” the Commissioner might have. (“We are not going to be overly censorious,” Meijer seems to be implying, “just tell us what you are trying to do.”)
Rosalind Peterson will have none of this nonsense. “What benefits are we talking about, and for what?” she says: .“Let them prove any benefits.” She then lists some disadvantages: “How about bee health: without them no flowers, tree crops, agriculture crop production will be cut. How about lack of photosynthesis? We can talk about what impacts the lack of sunlight is creating for human health, such as rickets. Depression can be caused (SAD) by a lack of sunlight.”
Rosalind Peterson’s stance of “let them prove any benefits” may seem more tough-minded, but there is an alternative and not necessarily less tough-minded view which would see the attitude of Stavros Dimas and the Commission as amounting to political abdication. Faced by the task of political management of a programme that has chosen to go ahead without first acquiring legal cover they can see no solution for themselves other than to continue forever to lie about it. Even generational turnover, and the coming to maturity of young people accustomed to the sight of chemtrails, in the sky and on the media, will not solve their problem, which at some point must be tackled at the level of words, ideas, concepts, not just images. Europe ’s leaders, like their American masters, have painted themselves into a corner. The political ignominy of their stance on chemtrails/geoengineering/weather modification in a way makes them unworthy of being subject to further petitioning. Should one waste more time asking the Commission to “prove any benefits” of chemtrails? Should not one instead seek to find ways of replacing such anti-democratic institutions as the European Commission (not to mention the backward-looking European Council) with new institutions: a European Parliament with real powers, Social Forums that can be given real constitutional functions. In the context of such a strategy Europarliamentarian Erik Meijer’s willingness to consider the possibility of the spraying programme having “benefits” could well facilitate the task of subjecting the geoengineering/weather modification programmes to the democratic social control that the Commission’s policy of denial makes impossible. Rather than placing burdens of “proof of benefits” on discredited people and institutions one stakes the claim to be seeking to assume oneself the responsibility that present office-holders shirk. One becomes an upholder of the principles of the rule of law in place of the prevailing habit of rule by deceit.
p.s. Erik Meijer’s view of the Commission’s reply to his questions
While writing this article we received mediated news from Erik Meijer that “chemtrails are not his priority” and that he “cannot say anything serious about the answer of the Commission, because he has no serious information.” What this amounts to is further confirmation of the tendency already noted with other parliamentary politicians to drop the chemtrails issue when confronted by official stonewalling, either at national governmental level, or as now, from the European Commission. The fact is that so far no politicians have been elected to office on the strength of their stance on chemtrails, a fact which could well raise in any politician’s mind the question “how many votes are there in this for me”? It is probably worthwhile trying to get some chemtrails politicians elected. But at the same time there should, in Europe , be movement on the institutional front, linking the abdication of the political system on the chemtrails/weather modification front with a wider crisis of legitimation. Perhaps it is time to bring out an international (US/Canadian/European) version of a petition already circulating in the United States , with thousands of signatures, and reading as follows:
WE THE PEOPLE of the United States of America, pursuant to the Bill of Rights, Amendment One, which gives the right of the American people to petition the United States government for a redress of grievances, hereby state the following:
WHEREAS, unmarked aircraft are daily painting American skies with bio-hostile substances; and
WHEREAS, aircraft which carry no identifying markings can not be identified as American and are, therefore, presumed to be hostile aircraft; and
WHEREAS, these unmarked aircraft have been proven to be emitting substances which drift to the ground and are hostile to the health and well-being of American citizens;
THEREFORE, it is concluded that Americans are, and have been for years, under attack and have become the victims of BIOCHEMICAL WARFARE.
FURTHER, the United States government has allowed, and is continuing to allow, these unidentified aircraft to release harmful substances over American soil, which have been proven harmful to the American people; and
WHEREAS, the United States government has neither satisfactorily explained nor proffered any compelling reason(s) why it is in the interests of the United States government to allow harm to the majority of its people with these disease-producing, potentially lethal emissions; and
WHEREAS, when asked about the situation, the United States government has engaged in evasion, deception, and stonewalling the American people in their pursuit of the truth of this matter.
THEREFORE, it is presumed that the aircraft either belong to the United States government and are operating under the direct command and with full knowledge of the United States government or, in the alternative, the United States government has knowingly and willfully conspired with an outside, hostile group to allow harm to American citizens.
THEREFORE, it appearing that the United States government is violating numerous rights of its citizens and in so doing is in a state of treason against its citizens, it is up to the American people to exercise their rights and hold the United States government accountable for its actions or inactions, as the case may be.
CONSEQUENTLY, the people of the United States of America declare the following,
TO THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT: Pursuant to the Bill of Rights, Amendment One, we, the people of the United States, declare that we are grieved over the presence of "chemtrails" in the airspace over the United States and hereby petition the United States government to take immediate action to cease all chemtrail activity in the airspace over the United States of America.
We, the People, further DEMAND an immediate, thorough and honest investigation into what the substance called "chemtrails" actually consists of and discover the true purpose of spraying America (and its people) with harmful substances. Such investigation will include independent, impartial experts, as well as ordinary citizens.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
http://www.enouranois.gr/english/sygrafeisenglish/wayne/indexeuropianparliament.htm