the sufferings of another who has not experienced them himself though he may have divine Reason and the nature of a genuine Devil”.
I am not a journalist, I listened to all available talks of Mr Assange and I cannot express myself as he does, but I can pass my thoughts one way or another to people quite directly, unless I choose otherwise in order not to disturb the egoistic nature of man. Directly would mean: what classifies a person as a real journalist? And what is more important, the journalist or the subject he reports on? When I started to understand English a little bit, I used to watch a guy on Channel 9’s Sunday mornings if I remember correctly. He was not flashy, down to earth and he had this gift of making a captivating story out of nothing. He was able to present to a viewer a heartfelt reality of an ordinary life and to me he was a real journalist.
But then we have the current affairs, exceeding the national, even continental territories, which affect profoundly life on this planet and we do not hear about them a word from the real professional journalists in the fleshy mainstream media. Since Kyoto they have not found out why a half of the scientists is saying there is Climate Change and the other is denying it, in such an exact science of the atmosphere. I symbolize total physical and mental enslavement of millions of people by directed psychotronic energy and it evokes their cynical amusement, despite knowing, that all people who raised their voice against such monstrous abuse of science have suffered character assassinations and their lives have been destroyed. None of our cynical real professionals would further research the NYT article about gangstalking, filled in a university questionnaire on which was based the psychological study of gangstalking and which would make clear it was an academic pseudo, preventing any serious investigations of this new earthly phenomenon that can be psychologically debilitating as thousands of testimonies suggest.
The ‘real’ journalists marvel in fine and not so fine scandalmonger and “no journalists” have to do their work. Sure they have freedom to choose, but pls do not undermine the efforts of your conscientious colleagues who understand the complexity of time.
86 million barrels/year 2016 for operational purposes means over 4 trillion dollars. If we add the cost/hour of hiring the military airplanes for the global coverage, a half of the approximate number of unregistered global flights, salaries of all pilots, insurances, the wages of the craft personnel, you will get an astronomical cost for something Nature was doing for free, with far less extreems and without polluting the planet, its atmosphere and habitat.
Globally: A primer on weather and climate intervention for economists:
To refresh the history- the UN opened The Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques for signature in May 1977..the UN made it clear that
intending to harm others through deliberate manipulation of the environmental processes by any state was an
unacceptable and inappropriate use of these emerging technologies.
That was 40 years ago.
Just because the governments have covert technological means to enslave humanity does not mean they can treat humanity as colonies of ants,