Origin of the climate change agenda.

Origin of the climate change agenda.

The evidence for the influence of occultism over the global environmental movement begins with
the man who is credited with founding it: Maurice Strong.

Maurice Strong was a Canadian oilman, a rich entrepreneur whose involvement with the Club of Rome saw him rise to promote a worldwide green agenda based on fantasy, misanthropy, and the deliberate manipulation of public sentiment. He led the United Nations Environment Program, and later the World Economic Foundation.
The mastermind behind the 1992 Rio Earth summit, he is credited with the creation of the phrase “climate change.”

A biography on his own website proudly claims that Strong “has played a unique and critical role in globalizing the environmental movement.”

What is the Club of Rome?
The Club of Rome was founded at David Rockefeller’s estate in Bellagio in 1968. Towards the end of his life, Rockefeller responded in the affirmative to a charge that he and his family were seeking the establishment of a world government:

CO2 in our earth, no expert on the video was able to become close.

Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States,
characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to
build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.

READ: Finnish professor exposes the occult roots of the World Economic Forum

The Club of Rome promotes a planetary agenda of technocratic control. It has described the collapse of industrial society and the death by starvation of two thirds of the human population as beneficial. How can it be that this is not common knowledge? Rockefeller explained in his memoirs that such a project would have been impossible without the collusion of the press:

We are grateful to The Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years… It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years.

But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The super national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.

The fruits of Rockefeller’s garden

The club which Rockefeller funded and hosted was led by a man called Aurelio Peccei, who “with Alexander King, the Scottish Head of Science at the OECD [Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development]… convened a meeting of European scientists in Rome.”

These two men commissioned a computer model to predict the forthcoming collapse of industrial civilization – due to overpopulation. The model was wrong – but this did not deter them from publishing in 1972 a manifesto for a new Malthusian agenda of depopulation.

Called “The Limits to Growth,” it inspired much of the current Green agenda of deindustrialization, abortion, and the concept of humanity as a problem to be solved. The book continues to inspire a movement whose agenda has always relied on the deliberate distortion of reality. The Club of Rome, in its 1991 report “The First Global Revolution,” states:

In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.

The co-founder of the Club of Rome, Aurelio Peccei, was an occultist, who made no secret of his devotion to the cult of Theosophy. As noted Finnish epidemiologist Mikko Paunio notes, Peccei announced his views in print in 1977:
“Aurelio Peccei’s 1977 book ‘The Quality of Man’ reveals his worldview based on Theosophy and the discovery of the inner self.”

The organization which was foundational to the global environmental movement was formed, therefore, by a man inspired by the fraudulent cult of Theosophy.

Three elements of a revolutionary cult
The cult of climate change and the general Green agenda is often presented as the vanguard of reason, the claims of which rest on settled science.

In fact, it is a curious blend of fantasy and fetish. Its leaders were inspired by make believe and saw in science and technology an instrument of control – and persuasion – which could deliver to their managerial elite a future society granting unlimited power to the “masters of the future.”

The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful. – Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University.

Global environmentalism is a dangerous cult whose claims of apocalypse, and of the efficacy of the solutions technology presents, are as fantastical as the beliefs which inspired them. It is a revolutionary movement,and describes itself as such. It is a fusion of New Age beliefs, technology worship, and personal vanity.

There is also a great deal of money to be made.

The spirit of revolution.

These beliefs are esoteric – deeply personal convictions of a significant wisdom to be found in some cosmic inner self. They are occult – their true meaning hidden behind jargon and propaganda directed at the masses, their actual significance reserved only for the initiates.“ It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true,” stated Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace.

Revolutions do not take place due to popular sentiment. They are the result of a disaffected segment of the intellectual culture attracting sufficient financial backing to force its will upon a general population.
This is exactly the case with the “First Global Revolution” of the environmental movement.

Following revolution, it is the ordinary people, not the elites, who are murdered and dispossessed.
Revolution has been romanticized; it is another fantasy in which wicked designs seek their disguise.
According to the “First Global Revolution” report, Club of Rome members “believe humanity requires a
common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government.

It does not matter if this common enemy is a real one or… one invented for the purpose.”

The French Revolution, the Bolsheviks and the Maoists, and the cult of “Brother Number One” Pol Pot all shared this characteristic. The Jacobins killed hundreds of thousands of ordinary French, to fewer than 1700 aristocrats.
The total victim count of communism in the 20th century has been estimated at a conservative 100 million souls – by the Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm.

Revolution is a manifesto of murder fictionalized as liberation. This barbarism is the result of every utopian attempt to make a religion of man. The environmental revolution is different – it has declared man the enemy before it has even begun.

Maurice Strong and the Club of Rome
Maurice Strong fantasized about causing the collapse of industrial society during an interview in 1990.
Titled “The Wizard of Baca Grande,” it took place on his extensive New Age compound in Colorado. Speaking to writer Daniel Wood, Strong asked “What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries?”

So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized
civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about? [Emphasis added]

READ: Club of Rome report calls for massive payouts to childless women as way to curb population

Strong was influential in the Club of Rome, moving on to lead the newly minted United Nations Environment Program, and to chair the Rio Earth summit. He was a founding member of the World Economic Forum, whose Foundation he went on to lead.

His obituaries celebrate his commitment to globalizing the environmental movement.

This is an issue which has attracted much attention before, but with the recent work of Finnish scientist Mikko Paunio, the existence of a “nature pantheist cult” at the center of the environmental movement is difficult to disclaim.

Long-standing banking and business connections allowed high-ranking German leaders in 1944 to forge a formidable Nazi-controlled organization for postwar activities.
Author Jim Keith wrote, Introduction of Totalitarians control, clearly manifesting now and it’s roots going back to Germany losing WW2.

Clear by now that the plans of the Nazis did not pass, the ideology and many of the principal players
survived and flourished after the war, and have had a profound impact on postwar history, and on events taking place now.

These long-standing banking and business connections allowed high-ranking German leaders in 1944 to
forge a formidable Nazi-controlled organization for postwar activities.
Orvis A. Schmidt, the U.S. Treasury Department’s director of Foreign Funds Control, in 1945 offered this
description of a Nazi flight-capital program:

The network of trade, industrial, and cartel organizations has been streamlined and intermeshed, not only
organizationally but also by what has been officially described as ‘Personnel Union’.

Legal authority to operate this organizational machinery has been vested in the concerns that have majority capacity in the key industries such as those producing iron and steel, coal and basic chemicals.
These concerns have been deliberately welded together by exchanges of stock to the point where a handful of men can make policy and other decisions that affect us all.

Fact is that the Germans did develop disks and the technology to not only travel between the planets in our solar system but also between the stars. Managed to take control of the wormhole located above the south pole and underground including some of there U boots entering inner earth.

Clear that the possibility of the Germans to build building self-sufficient underground research factories in the Antarctic,

it has only to be pointed out that the underground research centers of Nazi Germany were gigantic feats of construction, containing wind tunnels, machine shops, assembly plants, launching pads, supply dumps and accommodation for all who worked there, including labor slave camps and continuing the master race production program.

Only Known by insiders and the US government did know about activities of former Nazi personel, a selection of military personnel and scientists had fled the fatherland as allied troops swept across mainland Europe, and had established themselves at a secret base on the Antarctic continent, from where they continued to develop their advanced aircraft technology.

Furthermore, it is interesting to note that at the end of the war, the allies determined that there were 250,000 Germans unaccounted for – even taking into account casualties and deaths.

Some twelve years later the Australians discovered a 16mm film, a technical report, of the German V-7 research project. The V-7 weapons research project involved circular disk-shaped craft. Now, we knew about programs V-1 through V-4, but we had no previous idea about the V-7 program.

The information in this documentary seemed to indicate that the Germans built their first operational disk
sometime in the early 1940’s in the first production facility in Prague. Then they proceeded to expand their design, development and research teams until by the time the Germans were being driven back into Germany, they had nine research facilities, all with projects under testing.

They successfully evacuated eight of those facilities out of Germany, along with the scientists and the key people. The ninth facility was blown up. Now, this 16mm film showed some pictures of flying vehicles in operation.

To travel between the Stars and to Aldebaran and back 67 light years away is only possible using free energy.

The main reason for hidding it and denial on a grant scale. Did not stop the US from hiring and transporting
engineers and staff in totaal 50000 to the US employing and addapting to be able to continue the research and

On the other han dsending/deploying an Army to take our and kill the German colony in Antartica in 1947 to be
beaten.The German colony kepr expanding and reconnected with there college now working in the US.

Finely merging again and producing the so-called dark fleet terrorizing others here on earth but also outside
our starsystem. The best name I can think of is alien-connect, consisting of the previous Cabal (Bankers) and
freemasons 33 plus.

Using the highly advanced technology the others (Aliens) have and mind control.

They are so advanced that they can take a human ( individual soul) out of our structure and replace it with
a hive mind controlled one and the victims not even notice. ( Soul harvesting)

Paunio recently featured in an interview with LifeSiteNews’ John Henry Westen to discuss what he calls the existence of a nature pantheist – and Malthusian – influence at the highest levels of international environmental policy.

Paunio documents how Strong moved on from the UN to the World Economic Forum.

Early on, Klaus Schwab recruited the by far ever most influential unelected UN environment official,
Maurice Strong, a wealthy, un-educated Canadian industrialist (1929–2015), to head the WEF foundation.

Maurice Strong was the central figure in pushing forward the sustainable development agenda since the
UN’s first environmental summit in Stockholm in 1972. He was also an inveterate occultist and esotericist.

A conspiracy of collapse?
Why do one man’s dreams matter at all? This was a man with the power to make his dreams real.

A 2015 profile of Maurice Strong in The National Post notes that his “green agenda now blankets the globe, from the UN through national governments to municipalities,” an agenda directed by a man whose dreams were a living nightmare for humanity.

In his 2000 autobiography, ‘Where on Earth Are We Going?’ Strong projected that, in 2031, ‘the human tragedy’ would be ‘on a scale hitherto unimagined.’ He wrote that the brightest prospect lay in forecasts that two-thirds of the world’s already diminished population might be wiped out.

He described this as ‘a glimmer of hope for the future of our species and its potential for regeneration,’
thus betraying a distinctly ambivalent attitude towards the humanity he claimed to be so desperate to save.

There is nothing conspiratorial in quoting the words of Maurice Strong, who is lauded by his followers as the founding father of the global environmental movement. His dark fantasies have a wide appeal among people who presumably consider themselves the beneficiaries of this collapse. Some will be simply satisfied by the idea of a global vengeance upon humanity. In this promise, Green utopianism offers a matchless blood sacrifice to its most ardent believers.

Esoteric futurism and the problem of humanity
Claims of occult influence are dismissed by mainstream sources on the grounds that Maurice Strong and Aurelio Peccei did not practice rituals in some sort of temple. This is not the basis of the argument. What matters is the inspiration for an ideology which, without the cuddly green window dressing, remains open about its definition of humanity as the enemy.

There is no argument that Strong, Peccei, and their organizations were indeed inspired in part by the influences drawn from the occult tradition of Theosophy. This is a means of making man a god, through the cultivation of the inner self to the point of a Gnostic awakening. He was cosmic in his outlook, saying, “I believe the great frontier of the future is the frontier between the individual spirit and the Spirit, the cosmos.”

He built a New Age compound in which to live, believing with his wife that this settlement of crystal gazers and mystics such as Shirley MacLaine was a blueprint for a post-apocalyptic culture. Look beyond the bizarre nature of his living arrangements, and marvel at the mind of anyone who believes their own fantasy world is a scalable model for worldwide human society.

It is only through fantasy that such things seem possible at all. What these fantasies betray is the vanity of
the fantasist. They are appointed, chosen in a sense, as was Strong by the burning of a bush.

Personal fantasy as a route to power is the central point. This is a means of reassessing the seemingly suicidal environmental movement as a large-scale instrument to enact the private desires of a very small number of people.

A visionary misanthrope

These desires are clearly infused with a sense of mission. Salvation and destruction are apocalyptic themes, whose presence is maintained by deliberately manipulated models of ever impending, never arriving, disaster.

Finally, those directed by the inner light wish to lead us into a future compassed by their fantasies of control.
A rational madness inspires the believer in the inner self, being directed inwards by the disappointing discord of attempts at democracy.

From the very beginning, Maurice Strong was determined to silence other voices than his own. Towards the end of the first United Nations Conference on the Environment in Stockholm, 1972, he tired of the endless discussion:

As the wrangling between delegates stretched into the predawn hours, the secretary-general of the conference, Maurice Strong, abruptly pulled the plug on their audio. The gesture shook participants and gave Mr. Strong an opening to get the conference back on track.

The track of this movement was laid by a man who demanded action, not words. The action he demanded is clearly outlined by himself.

Inspired by some demon, he was driven to encourage the coordinated collapse of civilization, and the rule of the remnant humanity by a cult of wealthy technocrats.

Grabbing control and start push off globalisation.

Sustainability is a fickle concept. And its proponents are promiscuous with scientific evidence and ignorant of the context and the development of the sustainability agenda, believing it to be simply a matter of ‘science’ rather than politics. The truth of ‘sustainability’, is that it is not our relationship with the natural world that it wishes to control, but human desires, autonomy and sovereignty.
That is why, in 1993, the Club of Rome published its report, The First Global Revolution, written by the club’s founder and president, Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider. The authors determined that, in order to overcome political failures, it was necessary to locate ‘a common enemy against whom we can unite’.

But in fighting this enemy – ‘global warming, water shortages, famine and the like’ – the authors warned that we must not ‘mistake symptoms for causes’. ‘All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself’ should be brought under control.

About Forty years ago, the two ideas about humanity’s relationship with the natural world caught the imagination of the richest and most influential people and started to sell it as being that the demands of a growing population were taking more from the planet than could be replaced by natural processes.
The second, related idea was that there exist natural ‘limits to growth’. These two reinventions of Malthusianism became the basis of a new form of global politics, which has sought to contain human industrial and economic development ever since. The rich and consequently being the owners and banks exploiters of the these industrial complexes/technology.

complexes. to take simply total control.
Fears about the possibility of global environmental catastrophe and its human consequences, as depicted by neo-Malthusians like Paul Ehrlich – author of the 1968 prophecy, The Population Bomb – and the Club of Rome –a talking shop for high-level politicians, diplomats and researchers – became the ground on which a number of organizations established under the United Nations were formed. In 1972, the UN held its Conference on the Human Environment, and began its environment programme, UNEP. In 1983, the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED, aka The Brundtland Commission, after its chair, Norwegian politician Gro Harlem Brundtland) was formed, leading to the publication of its findings in 1987 in Our Common Future. Also known as the Brundtland Report, it became the bible of ‘sustainable development’.

After having established sustainable development as an imperative of global politics, more organisations and programmed under the UN were formed to deliver it. In 1992, the UN Conference on Environment and Development, the first ‘Earth Summit’, was held in Rio, leading to the Agenda 21 ‘blueprint for a sustainable planet’, UN conventions on climate change and biodiversity, and the creation of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (UNSCD).
Since then, an entire ecosystem of global, national, governmental and non-governmental organisations has emerged, to advocate and implement the closer integration of human productive life with knowledge about the environment:
to observe the ‘limits to growth’. The most notable of these is the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), under which a global agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions is being sought.

Forty years on, and those predictions of doom have not been borne out. The average life expectancy of a human has increased by 10 years, and the number of infants dying before their fifth birthday has fallen from 134 per thousand to 58. Thus, the human population has nearly doubled, and global GDP has risen threefold. There are more of us, we are healthier, wealthier and better fed. There is vast disparity between what the advocates of political environmentalism have claimed and reality.

The conference, known as Rio+20, aims was to bring together ‘world leaders, along with thousands of participants from governments, the private sector, NGOs and other groups’ to ‘shape how we can reduce poverty, advance social equity and ensure environmental protection on an ever-more crowded planet to get to the future we want’.
But these apparently noble ends belie some shameful means. It’s not for you or I to decide what ‘the future we want’ will look like by participating in democratic processes. Instead, ‘world leaders’ from governments, businesses and NGOs are to decide it for us.

What happens then, if we don’t believe that an emphasis on sustainability is the best way to approach the
problems of poverty and inequity? What happens if we think that progress in the world has been achieved, in spite of it not being ‘sustainable’? And what if we don’t think that the Great and the Good are doing anything other than serving themselves by this new form of politics/world control?

There is, of course, no opportunity for the expression of such ideas. The Rio+20 conference proved be a meeting to extend the reach of supranational institutions that are already beyond democratic control. By design, the meeting precludes public engagement. And any recalcitrant ‘actors’ who do make it to the meeting can expect to be made pariahs.

Environmentalism is a form of politics that exists apart from the demos. It superficially aims to
resolve the problems that are putatively beyond the reach of normal politics, such as poverty, by promising to meet the merely metabolic needs of the world’s poorest people.

However, this promise comes at a price. The 1972 Stockholm meeting discussed the ‘need for new concepts of sovereignty, based not on the surrender of national sovereignties but on better means of exercising them collectively, and with a greater sense of responsibility for the common good’. In other words, the world can be fed, clothed and housed at the cost of autonomy.

This surrendering of autonomy is a price worth paying, according to its advocates, whose argument has been reduced to a neat little slogan: global problems need global solutions. For instance, while trying to understand why skepticism of climate-change policies seems to correspond to a conservative persuasion, the Guardian’s Damian Carrington recently opined:

‘The problem is that global environmental problems require global action, which means cooperation if there are to be no free-riders. That implies international treaties and regulations, which to some on the right equate with communism.’

The claim is ridiculous for many reasons; not least of which is the fact that one doesn’t need to be ‘on the right’ to be skeptical of international treaties and regulations. One might also object to the creation of powerful political institutions and far-reaching policies simply on the basis that their construction has not been democratic.

Another reason might be that the concepts of ‘global’ and ‘sustainability’ are at best nebulous. To what extent are ‘global problems’ really global? And to what extent can making and doing things ‘sustainably’ really address problems such as poverty and inequality?

Poverty is not, in fact, a problem of too much exploitation of natural resources, but too little. And poverty is not a global problem, but a categorically local one, in which a population is isolated from the rest of the world.

We can only account for poverty and inequality in the terms preferred by environmentalists if we accept the
limits-to-growth thesis and the zero-sum game that flows from it. In other words, that there are limits on what we can take from the planet and we can only solve poverty if we divide those limited resources more equitably.
Such an argument for reducing and redistributing resources has the reactionary consequence of displacing the argument for creating more wealth.

But to date, the arguments that there exist limits to growth, an optimum relationship between people and the
planet, and that industrial society is ‘unsustainable’, have not found support in reality. The neo-Malthusians’
predictions in the Sixties and Seventies were contradicted by growth in population and wealth. And now there is
a growing recognition that the phenomenon most emphasized by environmentalists – climate change – has been overstated.

The scientist who proposed that life on Earth may function as a self-regulating system, James Lovelock,
has distanced himself from the more extreme implications of his hypothesis. Where Lovelock once predicted ‘Gaia’s revenge’, he has reflected in a short interview for MSNBC.com on his alarmist tome, and criticized others such as Al Gore for their over-emphasis on catastrophic narratives.

This is a remarkable volte face in itself, but reflects a broader phenomenon: the coming to fruition of environmentalism’s incoherence.

Issues such as genetically modified foods and nuclear power have caused friction and factions to form within the
green movement. Prophecies of doom, such as sea-level rise, melting glaciers and ice caps, wars for resources,
mass extinctions and economic and social chaos have been deferred from the imminent – first by decades, then
centuries, and now perhaps even millennia, depriving the movement of its urgency and forcing its members to seek
(and fail to find) more pragmatic formulations of environmentalism. Meetings to find a global agreement on climate change have ended in disarray and bitter recriminations rather than harmony and a bright green future.
So can the Rio+20 meeting buck the trend, and settle on coherent objectives for global environmental politics?

It seems unlikely that it can. Although the meeting intends to deliver ‘the future we want’, it turns out that
what ‘we’ want is more difficult to identify than the UN had hoped. Even when we – hoi polloi – were excluded from preparatory meetings to determine the conference’s agenda, negotiators from 193 countries failed to settle on what they wanted.

Just as with the climate negotiations, it turns out that different countries have different
interests and want different things. And those other actors – the unaccountable, unelected and undemocratic NGOs – look ready to throw their toys out of the pram. For example, development charity Oxfam winged that ‘governments are using or allowing the talks to undermine established human rights and agreed principles such as equity, precaution, and “polluter pays”‘.

This is no surprise. ‘Sustainability’ is not about delivering ‘what we want’ at all but, on the contrary,
mediating our desires, both material and political. Accordingly, the object of the Rio meeting was not as
much about finding a ‘sustainable’ relationship between humanity and the natural world as it is about finding a secure basis for the political establishment. The agenda for the Rio +20 conference was the discussion of ‘decent jobs, energy, sustainable cities, food security and sustainable agriculture, water, oceans and disaster readiness’.

Again, noble aims, perhaps. But is the provision of life’s essentials, and the creation of opportunities for jobs and the design of cities, really a job for special forms of politics and supranational organizations?

The idea that there are too many people, or that the natural world is so fragile that these things are too difficult for normal, democratic politics to deliver, flies in the face of facts. It would be easier to take environmentalists and the UN’s environmental programmers more seriously if millions of people were marching under banners calling for ‘lower living standards’ and ‘less democracy’. Instead, just a tiny elite speaks for the sustainability agenda, and only a small section of that elite is allowed to debate what it even means to be
‘sustainable’. We are being asked to take at face value their claims to be serving the ‘common good’.
But there is no difference between the constitutions of benevolent dictatorships and tyrannies.

humanityandearth.com links:


Fallen Angels

Humans are not at the top of the food chain but part of it!

Pushing the fake & synthetic food agenda! – My Blog (humanityandearth.com)

Pushing the fake & synthetic food agenda!

UN and the cancel culture

Nature as the last Sanctuary

The Federal Reserve Endgame Is Not a Collapse, It’s Global Domination

New Studies Deliver Harsh Verdicts on Mask Mandates, Vaccine Mandates for U.S. Cities

Emergency powers should be used only in case of war.

Messing with vaccinations?

Skull and Bones Society & Thule society! – My Blog (humanityandearth.com)

Skull and Bones Society & Thule society!

Ron Hubbard, Founder, of the Church of Scientology.

De-population attempts?
The great food reset.
The physical Universe.
Antarctica and the hollow planets!
Is planet Earth hell?
Humanity & History!
Health and Ageing!
Mind control, US destruction from inside out!
Africa, Marduk’s Bluff? & Alien response & Putin.
The Biofield and low frequent EM field/waves.
Liberalism now lost?
Dulce, New Mexico, whistle-blower rapport by Thomas Edwin Castello.
Numbers 3, 7, 9,11,13, 33, 39.and the Free- Masons & illuminati.
Loosh, energy generated by all organic life forms.
Mad Science from Dr Mercola publication.
End of the Western Democracy and liberalism.

Banning Early Treatment Was a Crime Against Humanity? 

Messing with vaccinations? 

Big Data, Transhumanism & Why the Singularity May Be Faked.

Skull and Bones Society & Thule society! 


By Ron Hubbard, Founder.

Messing with our food? 

Power & greed, pushing for the economic collapse or great reset.

Forcing the New Dystopian future.

History of the human build UFO’s

Humanity being sold like cattle, agenda 21 UN.

EU Central bank, pushing for Digital currency.

Fake Meat & Junk Food

Pushing for a nuclear war?

energy-from-space.com links:

Use of frequencies and effects on our bio energy field that surrounds our body.

A new U.S. & Alien agreement as claimed by Israeli-Scientist?

US considering admitting working with Aliens and do research on Mars.

NWO & WHO coupe, the Alien card.

Magnetic energy generator.

China and free energy Technology.

The Moray story.

Free magnetic energy generator.

Class war & covid. 

Global tax scam. 

Owners of the empire. 

Tesla and wireless electricity. 

Healing and Channeling device. 

Big companies who brought us Toxins, food and climate changes. 

Biofuels & food. 

Nature and unification. 

The climate debate!

Finite Element Model for Atmospheric IR-Absorption Joseph Reynen. (CO2)

“There is class war, right, but it is my class, the class of the rich, that is waging war.

Free energy and T. E. Bearden, Ph.D


  1. Buster Poloskey

    I haven’t checked in here for a while as I thought it was getting boring, but the last few posts are great quality so I guess I will add you back to my daily bloglist. You deserve it my friend 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *