Climate Control & Politics: The 1930’s Dust Bowl and FDR’s Plan to End Droughts plus other examples

Politicians today and ancient rulers of the past use esoteric weather knowledge and perceived control to gain leverage over the ruled.

For example the dust bowl of the 1930’s was bad. It was partly natural and partly man made do to farming practices. FDR said he was going to end drought by planting a belt of trees.


Article Preview
TO INSURE AGAINST DROUGHT, A VAST PLAN TAKES SHAPE; The Program for a Belt of Trees Reaching From Canada to Texas Envisages Modification of the Climate of the Great Plains
By F.A. SILCOX, Chief Forester, United States Department of Agriculture. ();
July 29, 1934, (Can be viewed a few pages in)

In the 1950’s the government was into weather warfare.

General RJ Dyrenforth

Rain of Error



Climate Control UNESCO 1954: The cloud-seeding trials in the central Punjab, July-September 1954

If the picture below turned to Operation Popeye only 10 years later what is the trajectory of climate control 100 years from now. What’s happening right now?




The cloud-seeding trials in the central Punjab, July-September
Observatory, Quetta


Climate Monster

1 million people die every year because they don’t have access to electricity. They burn poop and forests and garbage to cook food. This poisons the air. Let’s pretend we have 5 dollars. Clean tech costs $25 if everyone is going to get electricity. Cheap fossil fuels costs $2 for everyone to have electricity the same amount of money we’ve paid climate scientists who haven’t thought of anything new since WW2. I’m an alternative energy proponent and was told to stop writing green articles. I don’t deny we can do better we’ve already got the fossil fuel bump. Our CO2 is going down. To not give this gift to developing nations is immoral in my view. Then I researched the history of climate control and found it was tied to the military the OSS and eugenics. The main goal of climate negotiations is neo-colonialism via economic controls as framed by Gregory Bateson in his 1942 paper working for the OSS. He orchestrated the catastrophic psychedelic environmental movement designed to keep India and China and 3rd world in a subservient position. Nothing changes in history yet its all so brave and new. It’s also about population control as outlined by Gaylord Nelson founder of Earth Day. Bateson gave LSD to Ginsberg and 4,000 others at Stanford. Ginsberg made movie Circuit Earth on first Earth Day warning that development was going to usher in an Ice Age. Who can say what the proper co2 limit is and won’t cause weather to change? Who can say how many people earth can hold? Who is responsible for culling the herd? We can use rocks and sonics and cavitation and pipes to regulate CO2 level and generate power via enhanced weathering. Then we’ll see if the climate stops changing and producing bad weather. But it’ll take 100 years and by that time it’ll be too late and people won’t even remember why electricity is now a luxury. We’ll be too hungry or dead.

Academic Integrity Closed The Harry Reid Center

I used to be the student assistant to the director of the Harry Reid Center. Here is my version of events. I helped Dr. Oliver Hemmers. He was one of the people who wrote the drone proposal for Nevada (against the wishes of his boss). He also got UNLV the largest particle accelerator (with maintenance support) of any US university for free minus the renovation of a building. He studied quantum physics at the Max Planck Institute in Berlin and then Berkley for 25 years.  He told me climate science was bullshit and then explained why. Why Climate Models Fail I was looking for answers and he was the only one who would explain it to me. Even in graduate level paleoclimatology class we did not delve into greenhouse theory only accepted it.

He gave a talk to the Brookings (presentation on my profile somewhere) people and a staffer from the Harry Reid office. A few years later it was shut down. UNLV lost millions we as a society lost more.

Zero Fatalities Event in Nevada Almost Killed My Kid: Danger of Button batteries

We went to an event at Raw Remedies.!staff

The Zero Fatalities organization was there and giving away small toy cars probably made by slaves in China. My 5-year-old daughter loves to take things apart and put them back together. Each car contained three toxic batteries. I was looking for them everywhere last night. I was going to go to hospital for an x-ray. Then I found the sixth battery and rejoiced!

Organizations love what your doing but please don’t give away toxic lethal trash to kids or anyone. One battery swallowed can kill or nearly destroy a life.

Nothing against Raw Remedies or Zero Fatalities as a organization. Both are great.

The reason Nevada has fatalites on its roads is because who ever designed Las Vegas was an idiot. Some streets go on for miles and have no cross walk. The walls create wind tunnels that blow glass shards in your eye. Desert cities are supposed to be close together and shaded not strung apart. UNLV has a death zone cross walk. I personally saved a girl on her cell phone from getting hit by a car. Why not build a bridge, tunnel or catapult to get people across? Why not create shelters for babies, old, and all while they wait for bus in death creating temps. The heat is partially to blame why only 10% of graduating high schoolers in Las Vegas were able to pass ACT with a high enough score to get to college.  It boils brains…

Culling the Herd Via Climate Change, LGBT, Feminism, Prisons, College, Wars

The best way to control India population is to make sure they can’t develop. This is done by cutting CO2 production.

Another good way to cull the herd is to turn everyone out. Make them gay by giving them money. Nothing against gays.

Another good way is to keep them busy in college or work.

Prison is self explanatory. Hard to have babies there.

War is good but going out of style. But still good business for killing people and saving Gaia planet Earth.


Another good way is to make sure women work instead of have babies.

Population Controllers and Feminists:

Strange Bedmates at Cairo?

Dennis Hodgson
Department of Sociology
Fairfield University
Fairfield, CT 06430
Susan Cotts Watkins
Population Studies Center
3718 Locust Walk
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6298 Introduction

The Programme of Action (United Nations, 1994) adopted at Cairo is intended to establish international population policy for the subsequent two decades. It is an unusual population policy document. The phrase “population problem” never occurs in its pages; more significantly, no demographic factor is identified as the principal cause of any problem, and few demographic changes are sought. The Programme assigns (Principle 4) an explicit feminist agenda to population programs:

Advancing gender equality and equity and the empowerment of women, and the elimination of all kinds of violence against women, and ensuring women’s ability to control their own fertility, are cornerstones of population and development-related programmes.

The purpose of population programs is promoting reproductive health, defined (7.2) as ensuring women “the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when and how often to do so.” A family planning program is an appropriate part of such a program (7.12), if it employs no “form of coercion,” uses no “incentive and disincentive schemes,” and imposes no demographic “targets” or “quotas” on providers. The document melds feminist and human rights rhetoric into a programmatic position that bans explicit attempts to influence reproductive behavior.
Yet a neo-Malthusian subtext still runs through much of the Programme and occasionally breaks through to the surface of the document (3.14):

Slower population growth has in many countries bought more time to adjust to future population increases. This has increased those countries’ ability to attack poverty, protect and repair the environment, and build the base for future sustainable development. Even the difference of a single decade in the transition to stabilization levels of fertility can have a considerable positive impact on quality of life.
The presumptions of a population control movement that for nearly half a century has sought to make fertility reduction an important objective of international policy are invariably made: low rates of population growth are beneficial; more rapid fertility declines are better than slower declines; and population stabilization is an ultimate goal.
Despite this mild neo-Malthusianism, in volume the feminist’s commitment to the rights of the individual woman is granted much more significance than the population controller’s emphasis on the prerogatives of the group. The Programme offers a rationale for this bias by asserting (3.16) that “eliminating social, cultural, political and economic discrimination against women” is a “prerequisite” for “achieving balance between population and available resources.” Protecting the individual rights of women is thus presented as an indispensable means for achieving aggregate neo-Malthusian ends.
Cairo distinguishes itself from earlier population conferences by having its population control strategies depend so extensively upon attaining feminist aims.(1) The agenda of the population control movement coalesces with that of the feminist reproductive health movement in the Programme of Action, and both population controllers and feminists at Cairo spoke in terms of a “common ground.” Population controllers commit themselves to a gender equity strategy for attaining population stabilization, and programmatically agree to supplement family planning activities with reproductive health activities that add several times to program costs. Feminists gain an ally for gender equity campaigns and a commitment to additional funding for women’s health programs. They offer only lukewarm support for neo-Malthusian goals, and that support is heavily circumscribed with human rights rhetoric regarding choice.
What conditions make a viable alliance between population controllers and feminists likely? This question takes us beyond the specific terrain of Cairo and into a historical consideration of population control and feminism as social movements with ideologies, strategies and resources, including money, members, and organizational allies.(2) Histories of the population control movement privilege individuals and organizations, and accounts of Cairo privilege individuals and interest groups (Piotrow, 1973; Donaldson, 1990; Harkavy, 1995; Campbell, 1993a; McIntosh and Finkle, 1995). Our story, in contrast, treats population control and feminism as social movements; ones aimed at influencing state policy. It privileges ideologies — the set of beliefs that give coherence to the collective activities of a movement (Buechler, 1990: 85) — and the way that ideologies are framed, and re-framed, in specific political and social contexts (Goffman, 1974; Snow et al 1986; Mueller, 1992). We also consider the extent to which the population control movement and the feminist movement had common goals and their perceptions of mutual benefit. As we shall see, feminists and population controllers are neither natural allies nor natural opponents. At some periods alliances were impossible, whereas in others real alliances were formed.
The ideological belief that informs American feminism has been consistent over the past century: an unacceptable inequality exists between women and men.(3) Despite this degree of unity, the feminist movement has often been divided. The main fault lines have been between liberal feminists who emphasized removing legal barriers to women’s equality with men, and more radical feminists who emphasized that equality could only be achieved through the establishment of positive rights requiring a more profound transformation of economic and social structures (Freedman and Isaacs, 1993). Only occasionally did some feminists call for recasting the reproductive role of women as a way of redressing inequality. Margaret Sanger and the early birth controllers were one such group of feminists.(4)
Population control is more difficult than feminism to define ideologically since it does not refer to a single movement. A number of ideological movements have had objectives that required the molding of aggregate demographic processes. Eugenists believed that the quality of a race was genetically determined, and sought to enhance it by influencing the fertility of the “less capable” and the “more capable.” Immigration restrictionists believed in the superiority of the Anglo-Saxon stock that settled colonial America, and sought to preserve its hegemony by restricting entry into the US of those from different backgrounds. Neo-Malthusians believed that population growth was a major cause of poverty, and sought to enhance prosperity by fostering the practice of contraception. Pronatalists believed declining numbers would sap the nation’s strength, and sought to revitalize the nation by encouraging births. Although motivated by different ideological beliefs and seeking different objectives, the advocates of all these movements are “population controllers” since all had clear demographic goals.(5)
In this paper, we confine our examination to the interaction between American feminists and American population controllers. We recognize the important international component to both social movements, evidenced by international meetings and considerable cooperation among activists from many countries, and we recognize that the Programme of Action is a document that was fashioned by numerous actors, among whom Southern feminists were prominent. However, the ideology and objectives of social movements are still crucially responsive to national conditions. A focus on American feminists and American population controllers is justified because their relationship has much to do with international population policy assuming its present form(6); understanding the dynamics of this relationship in the US will provide a special insight on the formation and viability of that policy. Our analysis encompasses the period between the early 20th century and Cairo.
Feminists and population controllers have encountered each other during recurring attempts each has made to shape reproductive behavior by influencing state policy. Examining a long period of interaction will allow us to identify the conditions under which alliances develop and flourish. First we will examine early 20th century encounters, when most American feminists were focused on gaining suffrage and when American population controllers were motivated by compositional concerns rather than neo-Malthusian worries. We divide the post-WWII era into four periods: 1945-1965, 1965-1974, 1974-1985, and 1985-1995. This periodization is based on important events in one or both of the movements and is somewhat arbitrary since there are trends that cross several periods.
The 1945-65 period is characterized by a quiet alliance between a growing number of neo-Malthusians, located primarily in foundations and universities, and a mildly feminist planned parenthood movement. It ends with the adoption of an international population control policy by the US government and the establishment of the National Organization for Women (NOW). The period from 1965-1974 is characterized by a rapid growth in the resources of the neo-Malthusian movement and its extension to the United Nations. There is a revival of the feminist movement which had been quiescent since the 1920s, and with it the beginning of feminist critiques of international population control, many of them from the left and largely ignored. The 1974-1985 period begins with a turning point for neo-Malthusianism, when the international community rejects calls for an all-out fertility control campaign at Bucharest and adopts instead a mild developmentalist position that ensconces birth control firmly within individual rights rhetoric. Combat with a pro-life movement aroused by the Supreme Court’s Roe vs Wade decision in 1973 rallies American feminists around a pro-choice reproductive agenda that becomes a requirement for feminist identity. The last period, 1985-1995, sees the further weakening of neo-Malthusian ideology and the skillful elaboration of a feminist population policy and a strategy with which to implement it.

Have any suggestions on how to reduce population? You’ll probably get funded.

Another way is make women think its a good idea to starve themselves. models-too-thin



Lambdas’ monthly LGBTQ community, business luncheons are held every 2nd Wednesday of the month, EXCEPT IN AUGUST, 2016. Our special luncheon with SENATOR HARRY REID is on AUGUST 16, 2016.

Lambda Monthly Business Community Luncheon

In addition to the informal networking before, during and after the luncheon, Lambda members are able to introduce themselves and talk briefly about their business. Usually, between 75 and 90 people, members and non members attend the monthly business luncheon.

At both the monthly Lambda Luncheon and the other Lambda events, members are able to place their business cards and other marketing materials in the “give-away” bags that are given to all the attendees. Of course, the Members that experience the most success are those that consistently attend events, share ideas, information and business leads.

Why So Many Black Women in College?Population Control

Did You Know Black Women Lead ALL Groups in College Enrollment? Watch This!

If black women are busy in school they won’t be able to have babies. That is why so many people in general are in college. To waste their time and so they won’t have babies.