As I was approaching Argentina from Europe in the early morning a few days ago, flying over the Brazilian coast, I was fascinated by the beautifully shimmering lights lining the Atlantic Ocean a little below a layered border of orange and dark bluish grey, heralding the approaching dawn.
Then I remembered seeing satellite pictures of the planet by night, i.e. from the dark side. It was like the world map, where all the populated areas were marked by more or less brightly shining lights with the large cities all but exploding with light visible from the Moon and beyond. A wonderful sight.
But then another thought came to the fore. What about the enormous amounts of energy required to illuminate all populated areas of the planet throughout the night, every night? Is that really necessary?
Until quite recently, we had no electric lights at all on the planet. Humanity got along without it for hundreds of millennia. If we now complain about a shortage of energy, and if the production of energy causes disastrous pollution and – according to some opinions – global warming, how do we then justify this stupefying waste of energy?
Hold on! – Actually, we could waste all that energy and infinite additional quantities without ANY problem of shortage or pollution, had we been allowed to develop all the natural, free clean energy technologies that abound, among them Tesla´s invention a century ago of so called radiant energy from space. There is NO lack of energy, since the entire universe is ultimately made of concentrated energy, and nothing else. And today there is no lack of viable technologies to harness and utilize it economically and effectively.
The problem originates with the total dominance, financially and politically, of the greedy and ruthless Rockefeller petroleum monopoly, that with bribes and threats has used the institutional power of the US government to outlaw, outbuy and suppress all alternative energies, thus setting Humanity back a hundred years in terms of energy technology.
The source of energy we have been sold, namely fossil fuels, is among the worst possible. It´s messy, expensive, in limited supply, polluting, and poisonous. The only energy source that is even worse – and exponentially so – is nuclear energy, which we have been sold as the principal alternative for “clean” energy. Clean in the sense of not producing black smoke, but what about radiation? Invisible, yes, but infinitely more dangerous than smoke – in fact so dangerous it threatens to wipe out all life as we know it, after mutating it into non-recognition. Point in case Fukushima, by far the worst nuclear catastrophe ever, in an already long series of “incidents” including Three Mile Island, Sellafield and Chernobyl. Fukushima is at least ten times worse than Chernobyl. It is affecting the entire planet in profoundly destructive ways, the consequences of which are beyond comprehension. And remember that there are some 450 nuclear power plants in the world, all potential catastrophes.
Centrally produced and distributed energy – whatever the technology used – makes us all very vulnerable in several different ways. Supply can be cut off arbitrarily, if we do not comply with whatever conditions the supplier stipulates. A war or a natural catastrophe, or even just poor maintenance or overload, can cause a blackout at any time, which can be extremely uncomfortable and costly. In certain cases or situations it could even be life-threatening.
Therefore, we should all opt for individual self-financed and wholly owned home-generators of free clean energy. The technology exists and is financially within reach of most households in the developed countries. In developing countries, villages or communities can unite to build a common energy generator for very little money. It´s just that vested interests have done their best to prevent us from having it, and even from knowing about it.
*****
The global cauldron is heating up fast. I have said it before. And I will probably have occasion to say it again, before it explodes and goes up in smoke.
New wars in Africa and Asia. Financial collapses in Europe. The US on the brink of a default with the two parties unable to reach an agreement and the government shut down for lack of money to pay bills and salaries.
And that´s when a new terrorist act shakes the world from small, wealthy, peaceful, independant Norway just a couple of days ago.
It may be too early to draw any definite conclusions about it. My first thought whenever such a terrorist act occurs is to search for the true motive behind it. Qui bono? – Who benefits? – It´s very seldom the person or organization blamed for it.
Most of the time, the indices point imperially towards the CIA or the Pentagon, or to a local dictator or other political stakeholder. Incidentally, powerful mind control techniques exist nowadays that one might forget to consider. If Al Qaeda is blamed, then you know that it is the US-Israel axis that is behind it, and the motives – usually several simultaneous ones – are easy to figure out, even obvious.
In the case of this latest event in Norway, the usual suspects were quickly brought out, only to be discarded, when the facts began to be known. No Muslim terrorists this time. Is it a False Flag operation? It would not seem so. However, the description given in media of the man arrested as suspect, a 32 year old blond well educated Norwegian from an affluent family, does not in my mind fit the perpetrator of the deeds, however politically extremist he may be, unless he is simply insane. Which could be the case, of course. Sometimes things are not what they appear, and we just have to keep an open mind.
I have a few questions:
Where did he get the explosives?
Where did he get the machine-gun? Norway is a country with very strict gun control, and machine-guns would only be available to certain categories of military, and only strictly on duty.
Where did he get the police uniform?
Where and when and how was he arrested?
If he claims to be a Christian, how can he justify indiscriminately killing a hundred teenagers, all his own Norwegian Christian compatriots, even if they have a different political opinion? If he is a hater of Muslims, should he then not have targeted Muslim immigrants, rather than Norwegian students?
What was his motive for the deeds? I mean, what did he specifically hope to achieve?
Did he really intend to give himself up as a martyr after the shooting? It happened on a small island, where he had been brought over by guards in a boat after showing a false ID as a police officer. Therefore he would hardly have had any possibility of escaping after the shootings.
Whoever is behind it, this is a desperate attempt from the old paradigm to turn the clock back and stop the emerging Aquarian Paradigm from achieving its final breakthrough.
I smell a rat or two. In spite of appearances, I would not entirely write off the possibility that it could be another staged event, like 911, the London underground bombings, the Madrid railway bombings etc, in order for the US to have a reason to push – and supervise – further draconian control measures, now in Europe, that would be difficult to justify otherwise. Or make people so scared they rally around the government for protection, giving up their previous rights and freedoms. Or sell expensive equipment for surveillance and body scanning etc.
Just recently “Homeland Security” in the US has launched a drive to make people also suspect their own kind, i.e. “white” western neighbors as likely terrorists, and not only Arabs, Muslims, or people from the Middle East. This is seen as part of a strategy to tighten controls still more, and raise the fear temperature in the population.
The Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg seemingly addressed this concern by saying that Norway would remain free and not be scared, and that its democracy would not be compromised by terrorist acts. I just want to add the caveat that we must always look to what people do – and especially so when we deal with politicians – and not to what they say. There is still a lot going on behind the curtains, even if the transparency principle of the Aquarian Paradigm is now fast banning all secrecy and bringing everything out into the open.
As Benjamin Franklin stated on the title page of a book he published in 1759, “Those who would give up ESSENTIAL LIBERTY to purchase a little TEMPORARY SAFETY, deserve neither LIBERTY nor SAFETY.”
Nor will they get it. Of that you can be sure!
Till next week – stay tuned!
Dr. Jens
