Climate Mafia May Soon Be Forced to Acknowledge Chemtrails Are “Real” 9

Max Bliss Header

Activist, Max Bliss recently traveled to Oxford to attend a meeting set to determine the final stages of the Governance for the Regulations on Geoegineering.

According to Max, the meeting revealed the awareness of the current geoengineering and chemtrails operation is well known by high level policy-makers including the United Nations.
Due to hisaffable but  out-spoken nature, Max was contacted by one of the policy insiders who reevealed information that confirmed high level awareness and secrecy about the global spraying operation.

The climate cabal is accutely concerned that public awareness has reached a critical mass of intolerance and anger in the developed countries around the planet.  The geoengineering managers are rightfully worried that public reaction will be severe since it is clear that chemtrailing breaks nearly every rule under the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)  and Joint Aviation Authority (JAA).

According to Max, the cabal may be planning to disclose the geoengineering operation to the public in the near future. Of course they will claim the secrecy was required to protect mankind from scorching temperatures, public panic and to keep global economies stable.

Max believes he has cracked the code of GE/chemtrail denial among the climate experts who should know better but who pretent to be blind to massive jet aerosol geoengineering.

Lord Mankton, S. Fred Singer and others campaign the globe preaching that global warming does not exist.   This road-show of AGW deniers would lose their argument if they were to acknowledge that jet aircraft aerosols were artificially keeping the thermostat low.

In the begining, Monkton’s group probably accepted that some of the CO2 and GHG argument was valid enough to be worrisome but still far from conclusive.   Hitching their AGW denial star to a secret geoengineering program provided a pair of loaded dice to work in their favor. But as the years have passed, the Monktonians have become even more educated and more skeptical of the GHG argument that could cause a need for geoengineering.

More significantly, the effectiveness of the covert GE/chemtrails project to cool the planet may already be eclipsed by our own Sun’s ability to plunge Earth into an imminent ice-age.

The global warming debate has so dominated the media that the real story about the future of earth’s climate remains mostly in science and technical journals.

In one exception to the rule, a recent science article in the Irish Times provides a comprehensive view of what the media has been missing:  Sun’s bizarre activity may trigger another ice age

An extensive collection of information is provided here

Video by Max Bliss:



  1. I cannot for the life of me imagine how such an “admission” would be organized: who would be the spokesperson, who would take political responsibility, what the position of the climate change sceptics would be. Such an admission would also make everything immeasurably harder for chemtrails activists. I think it should be the objective of our movement that WE be the ones to take responsibility finally for what is happening. Any other outcome will just mean a worsening of our problems. The denials and lies of the other side are in their way an acknowledgement of the unacceptablity of what they are doing. It is not in our interest for them to start pretending that what they have tacitly acknowledged as unacceptable is now to be regarded as acceptable.

    • Ludicrous to think governments can save us from the climate while they launch nuclear Armageddon. We have to snap out of this delusion.

    • NASA Scientist put himself on record as knowing the word chemtrails is different than contrails. Read today’s post. This is how it begins. Drip, drip, drip….then corpse media is told to start covering the story little by little….that’s how these things are achieved.

  2. H Saive, on the subject of “nuclear Armageddon”, what do you say to this text?

    A New Disarmament Movement?

    A notification reached me recently about an initiative programmed for June in Santa Fe and entitled “The New Disarmament Movement”. As a former nuclear activist with more than slightly jaded views of “the old nuclear disarmament movement”, but a more positive attitude to the writings of Greg Mello, one of the organizers of the coming Santa Fe function, I took the liberty of writing to him to ask if the statements on the anti-nuclear movement contained at the end of my “Climate Change and Geoengineering” video could be part of the input into the “New Disarmament Movement”.

    An opportunity arose not long ago for me to discuss these anti-nuclear matters with a relative insider from abroad. I was able as a result of it to confirm and document the conclusions that in 1991 led to the parting of the ways between myself and the “old nuclear disarmament movement”.

    In “Climate Change and Geoengineering” I quoted former Soviet Foreign Minister Andre Gromyko as saying shortly before his death: “We made more and more nuclear weapons. That was our mistaken position, absolutely mistaken. And the political leadership bears the entire blame for it. Tens of billions were spent on the production of these toys. We did not have enough brains to stop.” In August 1991, at the time of the coup against Gorbachev, as a member of the Greek Greens, (at that time we had a deputy, Tasia Andreadaki, in the national parliament), I made persistent efforts to have Tasia speak out and raise the demand for abolition of the Soviet nuclear arsenal. Apart from lobbying her, our parliamentarian, and leading cadres of the Greek Greens I was then also in correspondence with the British Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and in particular with the leading intellectual and activist E.P. Thompson, who after much indecision and irritation finally agreed that unilateral Soviet nuclear disarmament was the appropriate demand for that time. But Mr. Thompson was also at the very end of his life and did not have the energy and/or the will to try to translate his agreement into action. Perhaps he also judged it impossible to get such a demand understood. Other discussions I had at the time, including a telephone conversation with later Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou, who also professed agreement with my conclusion, without feeling inclined (or perhaps able) to act, provided me with motivation to continue the effort to persuade. The Secretariat of the Greek Greens discussed the matter, but the proposal was defeated in a vote, largely under the influence of the then Secretariat members Diakos and Karabelias. Today’s European parliamentary leadership of the Greek Greens, Chrysogelos and Tremopoulos, were at that time more open to discussion and less resolute in their opposition to the idea of the Greek Greens calling for unilateral Soviet nuclear disarmament.

    Other information soon began to come out to corroborate the appropriateness of the demand. On 3rd September 1991, in the Russian Duma, Yeltsin proposed 95% unilateral abolition of the Russian nuclear arsenal. The proposal fell on deaf ears outside Russia. No statement was issued by any recognized spokesperson of the Western anti-nuclear movements. Some months later it became known that the last head of the KGB Krioutchkov, a participant in the Communist coup against Gorbachev, at his trial defended his involvement in the coup on the grounds of the necessity to prevent the Soviet nuclear arsenal from coming under the control of the United States.

    This brings us to the subject of more recently acquired “insider” information. My informant said that Yeltsin at the time of the August 1991 coup (I am not sure whether it was before or after the coup) surrendered to the United States the codes to the Soviet nuclear arsenal. My informant characterized this (though not with any great passion) as treason, but did not protest when I made the point that if the Soviets were not willing to use their nuclear weapons, what was the point of having them? He also said that Putin, who was at that time not a person of official significance, did not disagree with Yeltsin’s action, whatever might be concluded later on the basis of his officially acknowledged moves.

    The story of Putin’s rise to power, through an interaction of United States pressures, demands from the oligarchs and compromises with Yeltsin and his family, is too complicated and perhaps not relevant enough to the present narrative to warrant going into it (even if I knew more of the detail). But it seems that after winning the war in Chechnya, with the rising demands for self-assertion on the part of the Russian state, Putin later declared that he had reestablished control over the codes and thus presumably over Russian nuclear weapons. The credibility of this claim is difficult to judge because there are obvious internal political pressures for making it, and no leading party has an interest in disputing it publicly. The Russian leadership needs to be able to maintain an image of power, as well as preferably a genuine capacity for military resistance. “The West”, for its part, needs to have its Russian bogy. The only potential political actors who might have an interest in disputing the reality of Russian “nuclear deterrence” might be the anti-nuclear movement, but this would presuppose on their part a different strategy of exposing the fraudulence that permeates the whole nuclear weapons game, rather than the tried and trusted self-defeating nuclear disarmament movement non-strategy of relying on fear of nuclear war, thus providing a role for “macho” (and probably sometimes better informed) right-wing Republican warmongers.

    There is another imaginable possibility that must remain in the realm of speculation, that of the United States activating Russian nuclear weapons (i.e. starting a nuclear war) while claiming that “the Russians are doing it”. In order to know the degree of likelihood of such a stunt being tried out, one would have to know how much truth there is in Putin’s claim to have regained control of the Russian nuclear arsenal. Something which I cannot provide, and our glorious anti-nuclear movements do not seem even to be trying to provide.

    So, over to “The New Nuclear Disarmament Movement”. Are any of the questions raised here going to make it onto their agenda in Santa Fe?

    By the way, as an afterthought, although Tasia Andreadaki was not allowed by the Secretariat of the Greek Greens to be a participant in a call in August 1991 for unilateral Soviet nuclear disarmament, she was able to play a role in launching what was later to become the Greek anti-chemtrails movement.

    Aegina, 26th June 2013

    • The integrity of all parties is too compromised by dishonesty on the issue of covert chemtrails/geoengineering to be trusted with any concept that does not first ackowledge this 25 + year operation.

      How can the IPCC promise to protect mankind from CO2 when they are completely helpless on the issue of nuclear disarmament?

      • The integrity of ALL parties is compromised. On this subject it is the stance of the anti-nuclear movement rather than the IPCC that is relevant. But no Cold Warrior either tried to help Yeltsin abolish the
        Soviet nuclear arsenal. And it seems that the failed anti-nuclear movement model is indeed the model which virtual opposition to geoengineering, such as that of the ETC group, follows. But there is no point wasting time in polemics against them. Take advantage of the useful research they do and show the right way.

  3. Nice to see lots more comments on this site Harold.

    “eclipsed by our own Sun’s ability to plunge Earth into an imminent ice-age?

    I’ve known of the extended grand solar minimum since 2009 and have been praying for it to continue, to teach certain people a lesson they would never forget. My prayers have been answered.

    • Latest Scientific American post on Geoengineering has David Keith offering cash for chemtrails. Is this desperate..or what?

Leave a Reply to Wayne Hall Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s