|By Eva Lyman|
There are days when a number of seemingly unrelated topics swirl around in one's head, but when we stop to analyse them, we see they are all part of one large picture.
Where I live in Western Canada, you can't go anywhere without seeing artificially set clouds, developing from the so called chemtrails. (Note article in Spring 2003 D&D.) If you glance periodically up at the sky, you will see them set by high-flying planes, some developing into continuous, fluffy lines running across the sky, shortly puffing out into feathery bands, then breaking into separate sections -- almost looking like natural clouds lined up in a row. Others become feathery wisps of mist, giving the blue sky a silvery tinge. After a time they look, well, almost natural.
That's what we're probably meant to think. But there are many unanswered questions. I'd like to know, for example, how much the flying time, the fuel, pilots' wages, etc., to lay these trails down, cost the taxpayers? What country's taxpayers would they be?
Then there's curiosity about the goal of this exercise. It has been suggested that a film of aluminum acetate and boron is supposed to create a barrier to prevent greenhouse gases from escaping, and so it's meant to protect our climate. Superficially, a good idea. Maybe. Except, that there goes that military intelligence again (surely the greatest oxymoron) trying to save the planet for the oil industry giants,so they can make as much money as possible before the climate becomes unlivable, and the oil reserves run out.
I guess some people have a ticket to another planet for their kids or grand- kids. Even if there was that option, you and I couldn't pay the price of such a ticket. So we have to start asking questions -- loudly.
Another thing I wonder about is where these chemicals end up. What goes up, as the saying goes, must come down. So we might well wonder whether it's not harmful once it lands on Mother Earth. It could, for example, alter the ph chemistry of the earth and affect soil fertility. It could make rivers and lakes more acid, killing aquatic life, already a problem in places. And finally, how about the health of the people?
More on the topic of chemtrails can be found on Will Thomas's website at www.willthomas.net. Jeff Rense in the U.S. has some material, and you can find lots on any internet search under chemtrails.
What is perhaps most interesting about this subject generally, is the attitude of those who shower this chemical cornucopia on our heads. No one has asked my permission; have they asked yours? I'll bet not.
And that's the issue: what happened to democracy? Do even our elected officials know what's going on?
Let's move on to another seemingly unrelated topic for a moment.
I was happy to see legal papers copied on the web showing that Dr. Matthias Rath in Germany has decided to go into the International Criminal Court, charging the major pharmaceuticals, banking concerns, as well as President Bush, and PM Blair with mass murder and genocide.
Dr. Rath has been planning to go after the pharmaceutical cartel for at least a year now. He has worked with various eminent scientists, including Dr. Linus Pauling, on simple, unpatentable, and safe ways to prevent, and cure heart disease, and cancer, among many other afflictions. He alleges that millions of deaths could have been prevented, had the profit motive not been quite as prominent a goal in suppressing the simple, and effective cures in favour of costly, dangerous drugs that only mask symptoms. Check out Dr. Rath's web site, it makes fascinating reading: www.dr-rath-research.org . It will be interesting to see what the outcome of this gambit will be.
So here we have the chemtrails perhaps damaging our health. Then the pharmaceuticals are promoting chemical solutions that make them millions instead of using simple cures. And then we have the major user of chemical warfare -- including DU weapons, Agent Orange, and God knows what else, maybe going back to the smallpox infected blankets given to the Indians 200 years ago (quite the little tradition) -- all in the name of profits -- promoting war against various small nations. Of course, it's disguised in careful language such as "Christianizing the savages", "fighting Communism", "the war on terrorism". But it's all specifically done to enhance the bottom line.
Now I want to come to where all these things come together for me.
What blows me away is the incredible stupidity in high places of decision making. Not just among elected officials (they've been called the temporary government, one that can be bought and plugged into place or unplugged, as needed) but among the real decision makers!
How long will it be before all these essentially unsustainable gambits bring the economies of the world crashing down? Not just the economies, of course. We are ignoring warning signs of potential ecological disasters that could see a total collapse of our species.
I'm most concerned about the real movers and controllers. One would have thought they'd be smarter, more farsighted. Clearly they are not -- unless they have a pathological desire to destroy the earth, just to show God they can do it.
Fortunately, in the divine scale of things, there are no doubt countless other earths, some probably far more civilised than this one. In God's scheme of things, one planet may not be missed too badly. On the other hand, this destructiveness will leave a very bad karma for those who, given their power, could have done something good for the Earth and humanity -- rather than work to destroy them. They will probably be forced to return into another life on this earth, and experience the results of their destructiveness.
Of course, if destruction were the aim of the power elites, then one would have to conclude they possess severely pathological psyches. Is that really likely? I wonder if they are not just rather more stupid than they realize!
I have been told that some of the financial movers and shakers have been buying huge estates in Latin America, thinking that the southern hemisphere will be fine, once the North has been laid waste. This would show them to be less intelligent than they think they are. As Chief Seattle aptly put it, all things are connected. In other words, we live in one biosphere.
If the leadership of the world suffers from limited imagination and intelligence, one has to wonder where the intelligent people are. Why aren't they speaking out, or taking some action? Does it even take so much intelligence? How about plain old common sense? My maternal grandfather used to irritate grandmother by the phrase, "My mother was just a simple woman of the people, but she knew. . ."whatever it was that he felt grandmother, born into wealth, should have known. At other times, he'd state that great-grandmother knew what world leaders should have known. Maybe we need more women like my great-grandmother, a simple farm woman with a superb common sense, in positions of world leadership. Such women know that dumping toxic stuff all over parts of the earth will, in the end, contaminate the whole earth, and make their grandchildren ill. They would care about other people's childen too, because they would know intuitively that all the world's children are equally lovable.
Great-grandmother would have asked herself if, rather than spending millions or billions of dollars on dropping chemicals in the skies to slow down greenhouse gases with questionable results, it would not be more effective to spend that money on developing technologies, like car engines that run on something other than gas.
If she had been told about trickle down economics, she would have told Prof. Friedman, even before he himself came to the same conclusion recently, that he was wrong. She would tell him, from experience, that wealthy people never let a penny drop, they always take everything for themselves, and never share.
As a farmer's wife, she would have worried about chemicals dropping from the skies onto the farm, because she knew about the balance in the soils that meant some places were fertile and others were not. She would have refused to plant any chemical-resistant crops and dousing them with poison to kill weeds, because she would have known her family would end up eating the toxins. She would have also realized they would end up in the well via ground water flows. One of the reasons Europeans are so against GM crops is because there are more small family farms, and women with the common sense of my great-grandmother still living on them.
We need more grandmothers in positions of serious decision making. I don't mean pseudo-women who are really men in women's bodies. I mean women with the wisdom that women have had for millennia -- not university trained economists, but common sense ones. Abstract economics is one of the most dangerous delusions known to men. Most women know better.
I once dated a Ph.D. student in economics. He told me abstract economics was a beautiful thing, like art. I asked him what it was good for. He couldn't tell me. If it's a beautiful thing, like a piece of art, we should put it behind glass in a gallery, and leave it there. I was gratified that Prof. Friedman has recanted. He apparently now admits his economic theory was a mistake. It won't work. Millions of grandmothers around the world could have told him so years ago. Great-grandma would have told him that in five minutes flat. I suspect a great many common sense women living today would be able to do the same in about the same length of time.
Frankly, I don't really need my two professional masters degrees to see that we are heading in the wrong direction. I am really wondering why all those smart men in leadership positions don't see it as well. They must be wearing mental blinkers! Could these blinkers be called short-term greed?
One of the first steps to turn things around in Canada, and elsewhere, would be to pass legislation mandating that 51 per cent of the members of legislatures be women -- in particular, women of mature years. Not only would this reflect the actual gender break down (indeed, the percentage of women is increasing in western societies), but I believe it would radically change the way government operates.
I firmly believe we would have less dangerous frivolities, like chemtrails in our skies, and more concern for where this world will be in seven generations. Maybe these new governments could then convince the real world leaders to ask their grandmothers for advice.
|Formerly a planner in governmental agencies across Canada, Eva Lyman now lives in B.C. where she devotes her time to environmental advocacy projects.|