New Ancient Crystal Skull

 

 

The Mitchell-Hedges Crystal Skull is no longer unique! Out of Africa – by way of California – emerges another ancient skull, “Compassion”, with a detachable jaw. Already, this skull is re-carving the crystal skull landscape!

 

With the 2008 release of “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull”, crystal skulls attained a far higher level of exposure than ever before. Before, crystal skulls had only become somewhat famous in the 1980s, particularly in New Age circles. Today, there are hundreds of crystal skulls, almost all of them of modern fabrication (most made in China) and used in various New Age-type seminars. Only a handful of skulls are suspected of having ancient origins, including the most famous of all crystal skulls: the Mitchell-Hedges crystal skull.
“Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” makes scant references to the Mitchell-Hedges crystal skull. It stands out for it is by far the most complex, and the only skull with a detachable jaw, meaning that whomever made this, was a master artist in carving crystal – able to create a feat that modern carvers have been unable to accomplish. Gerald Leandro De Souza, a master skull carver from Brazil with 25 years of experience behind him, notes that “the process of cutting the jaw from a skull causes the jaw to break and is almost impossible for skull carvers to accomplish.”
Still, sceptics, principally led by Jane Walsh, an anthropologist at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, try to argue that all these skulls are of modern fabrications. So far, none of the claims made by Walsh and co. have been substantiated, let alone supported by factual evidence. Specifically, Walsh tries to point the finger to Germany and the town of Idar-Oberstein, arguing most of these skulls were carved there by the resident artists. However, no records of skull carving have ever been found there; there are no records of any carver doing carving in the middle of the 19th century, when some of these skulls are said to have been made. In short, Walsh’s theories remain totally unsubstantiated – not very scientific!
On the other side of the debate are the likes of Nick Nocerino, one of the first crystal skull researchers, who travelled extensively throughout Central America, in search of them. He noted how on several occasions, Indian tribes offered skulls on sale to him, as with the money, the local shamans could buy precious Western medicine and like, to help their tribe at a time when the Mayan people were subjected to genocide. Nocerino always refused such offers, as he strongly believed the skulls were such an integral part of Mayan society, that these tribes needed their precious talisman. (Though he did everything to help the tribes in other ways.)

The Mitchell-Hedges crystal skull too comes with a Central American origin. The family itself stated that Anna Mitchell-Hedges found the skull in the ruins of Lubaantuun on her 17th birthday in 1924. It is a story Anna adhered to until her death, though it was subjected to intense criticism from the sceptics. Indeed, a more likely story about how her father found the skull is told in his novel, “The White Tiger”, published in 1931. In it, he relates a largely autobiographical account of an Englishman who is initiated by a Mayan tribe, to become the principal caretaker of a most important treasure. When the Mayan priest shows him the treasure, the Englishman is led down into a series of tunnels, before the treasure is unveiled to him: “Before him, piled in endless confusion, lay the treasure of the Aztecs. Gold chalices, bowls, jars and other vessels of every size and shape; immense plaques and strange ornaments all glittered dully. Of precious stones there were none, but many rare chalchihuitl (jadeite pendants) [sic]. Masks of obsidian and shells beautifully inlaid were all heaped together with heads carved from solid blocks of crystal. Legend had not exaggerated the treasure of the Aztecs. Almost boundless wealth lay at the disposal of the White Tiger.”
“Heads carved from solid blocks of crystals”: a reference to crystal skulls made by Frederick “Mike” Mitchell-Hedges in 1931, more than a decade before he – according to the likes of Walsh – acquired a skull at auction at Sotheby’s in London in 1943.

Because it is the most complex, the Mitchell-Hedges crystal skull is both the most famous and the most debated. It is unique. But today, the Mitchell-Hedges skull is no longer unique: on August 6, 2009, former Alaskan fisherman Joe Bennett was able to finally buy, from a Californian import shop, a crystal skull… with a detachable jaw, which he soon named “Compassion”. A new era in crystal skull research had therefore dawned, for a number of reasons.
Bennett is a retired fisherman from Alaska. He had earned the nickname “the crystal sailor”, as for years, he had been collecting an impressive array of crystals. In his hunt for crystals, in 2006, he stumbled upon a crystal skull, in an import store in Carmel, California. The skull had belonged to a close friend of the owners, who had brought it over from Africa. Upon his death his family liquidated the estate and asked the import store to sell the crystal skull for them.
Bennett relates how he “noticed a crystal skull in the back of this shop on a high shelf. I admired the extreme craftsmanship, saw the price and forgot about it. Like most people I didn’t have any reference for crystal skulls other than Halloween witches or Black Magic.” However, the skull did not let go of Joe, who had a series of vivid dreams about the skull, so much so that he dispatched his sister – who lived nearby – to make a series of photographs, which she sent to Joe. It was now only a matter of time before the skull would end up in Bennett’s care.

Compassion is human-sized and clear quartz, 5.5” tall, 5.5” wide and 8 inches long, weighing 11 pounds – very similar in dimensions to the Mitchell-Hedges skull. The mouth has 28 teeth. Little is known of the origins of the skull. It is known that the skull was in storage in the United States for five years prior to the shop putting it up for sale. Before, it had spent 22 years in a warehouse in Africa. The name of the people who owned it in Africa is not a matter of public record, but initial analyses of the skull have shown that the crystal is not from Brazil. Gerald Leandro De Souza argues that the “quartz probably is from Africa”. The likeliest source is Namibia, Africa, which is a well-known location where quartz crystal can be found.
Whereas the Mitchell-Hedges skull is “crystal clear”, Compassion is more like another crystal skull, known as MAX: Compassion is made out of three distinct layers (MAX has five such layers). The largest, frontal part is made of the clearest quartz crystal. Behind, roughly the top of the forehead, is a somewhat softer section of less-clear crystal. Behind is a final, third layer, separated from the others by a small fissure of iron oxide, which one can only truly see from the back of the skull.
The possibility that the material inside the fissure is iron oxide was first suggested by crystal carver James Ziegler, who added that the material at the bottom of the fissure was feldspar. This conclusion was confirmed when Bennett had the skull examined by Dr. Ray Corbett, Associate Curator of Archaeology at the Natural History Museum in Santa Barbara and Geologist Dr. John Minch on March 30, 2010. It was Minch who confirmed that the fissure was filled with iron oxide.
These experts furthermore accepted that the grounding of the crystal had occurred by hand, and not by machine. One area of the skull show pie-shaped areas, which a carver would keep, but a grinding wheel would smooth out. There are other aspects of the skull, especially to do with a lack of symmetry between the right and left side, which show that the work was carried out by human hands. Corbett and Minch also identified that the natural growth of the crystal is for the skull to be placed with the teeth pointing up. This means that the iron oxide layer was at the bottom of the then axis of the crystal, with the layer of the face being the clearest and the top one. The carver would have to carve against the grain of the skull and skip over these fractures, a task which crystal carvers say is extremely hard to do – surpassing their expertise.
When one runs a fingernail along the top of the skull, one can feel the fractures between the layers. Dr. Minch said that whoever made this skull, would have to do so very slowly, for if the quartz were to get hot, it would shatter – thus underlining that the usage of tools in the making of this skull was unlikely.
During testing, Dr. Minch also noted there was an “air bubble” inside the skull. When the skull is rocked, the bubble moves over half the thickness (about 1mm) up and down in a solution which he believes is water, which somehow made its way into the skull and trapped the air bubble inside. Bennett has speculated whether this air bubble should be interpreted as a representation of the pineal gland, a part of the brain that is often referred to as the “third eye”, and which is therefore heavily imbued with esoteric meaning. René Descartes even labelled it the seat of the soul, echoing a belief that goes back thousands of years.
Minch also found golden rutile in both skull and jaw. Rutile is a major ore of titanium, and is found as microscopic inclusions in quartz and other precious gemstones. It is responsible for many of the light effects that one sees within these objects.
Scientists have a hard time admitting that the detachable jaw of the Mitchell-Hedges crystal skull is made from crystal (it is), and is from the same crystal as the rest of the skull (it is). But no such doubt can arise in the case of Compassion: its right cheek has a foil in the crystal that runs from the right cheek into jaw, and hence clearly shows that both the main part of the skull and the jaw are from the same crystal.
It will be interesting to see what sceptics are now going to do. In the case of the Mitchell-Hedges crystal skull, they tried to debate the jaw away, as the creation of such a jaw has never been accomplished by modern crystal workers. But Compassion will not look compassionately upon these sceptics, who will have to come up with stronger arguments, if they want to persist in continuing the same old controversies in trying to explain away what is one of the most interesting recent discoveries.

However impressive Compassion is, its face is not symmetrical. With its detachable jaw placed underneath the skull’s teeth, Compassion looks and is symmetrical, but remove the jaw, and it becomes clear that the skull is off-centre: the teeth are slanted to the right. The only place where polishing marks are evident to the human eye is under the maxilla. This area was not finely polished, maybe to illustrate it was hand carved. The rest of the skull does not show any of these marks. Indeed, Compassion brings us to an interesting conclusion: the skull is clearly made by human hands, but whomever made it, had an expertise in working with quartz crystal, which exceeds that of anyone alive today. In short, there is an entire lost science of working with quartz crystal. But where did it come from, and where did it go?
Finally, when we stare into its eyes, it is clear that both are not identical: the left eye is far clearer than the right. It was in fact while Bennett and his wife stared into the skull’s eyes, that they felt “it” looked sad. His wife said she “showed compassion in her gaze” and a name was born. Both also felt that Compassion held a feminine energy.
Bennett has photographed the skull extensively. Some of the close-ups have revealed a number of interesting subliminal images that Compassion conjures up. When the skull was placed on a light-box, one such image that emerged was of an enigmatic head, while nearby, there was the outline of a horse’s head.

The key question is whether Compassion can ever be proven to be ancient. As mentioned, the likes of Jane Walsh from the Smithsonian have gone out of their way – abandoning the scientific process altogether – to argue come what may that all skulls are of modern origin. Their scientific bias was apparent during the testing of the Mitchell-Hedges crystal skull in 2008, when one member of the team straightforwardly proclaimed that the detachable jaw clearly was and could only be glass. When it was found out not to be glass soon afterwards, he exclaimed somewhat reservedly “this did not mean it was crystal” – even though previous testing by Hewlett-Packard had clearly shown that the jaw was indeed crystal!
The problem is that crystal is impossible to date, so any dating needs to happen through other, secondary means. Evidence of tools, especially the wheel, has been put forward as the key indicator as to whether a skull is ancient (read: pre-Columbian) or modern. However much this argument is flawed, it cannot apply to a skull that comes from Africa – Africa was never an isolated continent, witnessing the origins of Mankind several tens of thousands of years ago. The argument only works if we see crystal skulls as a purely American phenomenon, whereby the wheel is assumed to have been introduced with the arrival of Western Europeans.
Of course, the skull’s presence in Africa for a number of decades does not mean it was always there. Equally, the origins of civilisation in Central America itself remains enigmatic. The Olmec civilisation dates back to at least 1200 BC, and some have argued for an African origin to this civilisation. In 1972, Dr. A. Wiercinski argued that some of the Olmecs were of African origin, supporting his claim with skeletal evidence from several Olmec sites. According to Clyde Winters, the Olmecs were from the Mandinka region of West Africa (north of Namibia). Their language is known as Mende, the script which was actually found on monuments at Monte Alban in Mexico. Interestingly, it is at Monte Alban that evidence has been found that the Mayans were definitely familiar with crystal artefacts.
Still, the quartz crystal itself having Namibia as its likeliest origin means that the skull itself must have had an African connection, wherever it was carved or used. And whereas there are Mayan legends of how skulls with removable jaws could “sing and talk” during certain religious ceremonies that were performed in the many Mayan sanctuaries, the question is which African cultures held crystal skulls dear.
Little is known about Compassion and seeing its existence is only known about for a year, most discoveries about it are still to come. If we were to assume that it is indeed of African origins, then we are confronted with crystal skulls on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean, bearing great similarities. Are they evidence of pre-Columbian contact between the two continents, in which case the Olmecs are the likeliest candidate, or should we look at much older origins, including the fabled lost civilisation of Atlantis?

Those who have communicated with the skulls – in trance, meditation or otherwise – keep referring to an Atlantean connection. During a crystal skull conference in September 2009 – one of the first public airings of Compassion – Mayan elder Hunbatz Men was one of the speakers and he became intrigued by Compassion. Studying the skull closely, he exclaimed “Atlantis!” He added that there was a matrix in the back of the skull which showed an ancient map which he did not understand. Several months later, Bennett realised that the iron oxide layer in the skull largely resembles a map of the African continent. Coincidence, or not?
Another psychic who has worked with Compassion is Carole Wilson/Davis. Wilson originally worked with the Mitchell-Hedges skull, resulting in “The Skull Speaks”, published in 1985 and one of the first books to appear on crystal skulls altogether. For Wilson, the iron oxide came in the shape of a phoenix, spreading its wings, with a head and a beak in the centre. She added that the information from Compassion changed, whereas that of the Mitchell-Hedges was stable – “the same information every day.”

Within Mayan creation mythology, there is a special role for skulls. Ancient temple complexes like Chichen Itza are three-dimensional renderings of the Mayan creation myth. Near the famous pyramid and ball court is an unimpressive “Platform of the Skull”. In the creation myth, when playing ball, the Twin Maize Gods disturbed the lords of Xibalba, the Mayan underworld. The Xibalbans summoned the Maize Gods to the underworld to answer for their disrespectful behaviour. There, they subjected them to a series of trials. When they failed these tests, they were killed and buried in the ball court of Xibalba. The eldest twin was decapitated, his head hung in the tree next to the ball court, as a warning to anyone who might repeat their offence. This was visualised on the Platform of the Skull. There is no archaeological evidence as to what type of skull hung there, but seeing it was a divine skull, which spoke and spat, a crystal skull with a detachable jaw would definitely have impressed all visitors – in a way any other type of skull would not have been able to accomplish!
Crystal balls are also used for scrying. Is it possible that Compassion was used for scrying? The various images that people have seen inside of her, would thus be parts of the scrying process. And extended staring in the skull might have placed the person in a trance. Users of Compassion are sometimes transported to another reality, for example by staring into its eyes – especially the left one.

In the 1980s, when the Central American crystal skulls came to prominence, various atrocious crimes were committed against the Mayan population there. In countries like Guatemala, an oppressive regime slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Mayan people. It took years before the news of this “Silent Holocaust” became known; throughout the genocide, Western governments supported the Guatemalan government. Only able to rely on themselves, the Mayan people began to organise themselves – becoming terrorists or freedom fighters, depending on your perspective – and they began to use key dates from the Mayan calendar for their campaigns, hoping to shake the Mayan people awake and embrace their true origins and common heritage – one that transcended the modern borders Western world powers had created. Sociologists have labelled it the “Mayan Renaissance”. Today, three decades later, the world is very much aware of the Mayan calendar – especially its key date, December 21, 2012 – and millions of people visit the various Mayan monuments of Central America.
The 2010 World Cup in South Africa was seen as a joyous event for Africa, showing that Africa is not just a country of civil war and hunger. There is great joy in a continent that gave us the Ancient Egyptian civilisation, while Kenya is seen as the “cradle of Mankind”, for the remains of the earliest hominids have been found in that country. Twenty years ago, American bestselling author Kathleen McGowan attended a crystal skull workshop lead by Susan McCune. McGowan was told that in the future, she would work with skulls from Africa and that several skulls would emerge from that continent. When she saw Compassion in July 2010, McGowan remembered McCune’s prophecy. And if McCune is right, Compassion is but the first in a series of African skulls that will make their existence known the world. And with their emergence, will there be a renewed appreciation for the African continent?

At this moment in time, Compassion’s existence has already changed the entire crystal skull debate, showing that the Mitchell-Hedges skull is not unique in its complexity, and that Central America is unlikely to be the only origin of crystal skulls. The question as to the origins of the crystal skulls has therefore been redefined: did various ancient cultures have them? Did an African civilisation bring them to the American continent? Or do we need to delve further back in time, to a lost civilisation, like Atlantis, from which these skulls originated? A new dawn in crystal skull research has just broken…

Climate Change: The Man Made Myth

Claude Allegre, a leading French scientist, who was among the first scientists to try to warn people of the dangers of global warming 20 years ago, now believes that “increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena”. Allegre said, “There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the “science is settled.” He is convinced that global warming is a natural change and sees the threat of the ‘great dangers’ that it supposedly poses as being bloated and highly exaggerated. Also recently, the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus said, when discussing the recent ruling by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that global warming is man-made, “Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it’s a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It’s neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment.” And if you are about to ask why no politicians here seem to be saying this, Klaus offered up an answer, “Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice”. Nigel Calder, the former editor of New Scientist, wrote an article in the UK Sunday Times, in which he stated, “When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works.” He further stated that, “Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis”. And in reference to how the media is representing those who dissent from the man-made theory he stated, “they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies”, which is exactly what I believed up until I did my research. He also wrote, “Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages”.

For those who saw Al Gore’s “documentary”, it was very convincing of its hypothesis that global warming is a man-made phenomenon that has the potential to kill us all and end humanity. After all, the film was filled with graphs and charts, so it must be true. Let’s just get something straight here, Al Gore is not a climatologist, meteorologist, astronomer, or scientist of any kind; he is a politician. And as we all know, politicians always tell the truth. However, as Al Gore’s popularity grows and with his recent winning of an Academy Award for his movie, the issue has spiraled into massive push for quick action and stifled debate, forcing many scientists to speak out and challenge the political status quo. A group of scientists recently stated that the research behind Al Gore’s film and in fact, the concept of greenhouse gases causing global warming, is “a sham”. They claim that in fact, there is very little evidence to prove that theory, and that the evidence actually points to an increase in solar activity being the cause of climate change. In Gore’s movie, he presented evidence that was found in the research done on ice core samples from Antarctica, which he claimed is proof for the theory of CO2 being the cause of rising temperatures. However, this group of scientists state that “warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels”, meaning that a rise in Carbon Dioxide follows a rise in temperature, rather than increasing temperature following rising CO2 emissions. And not only that, but it follows behind the rise in temperature by about 800 years. The group also mentions that, “after the Second World War, there was a huge surge in carbon dioxide emissions, yet global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.” They also claim that the report given by the UN, which said it was backed by over 2,000 of the worlds leading scientists, “was a ‘sham’ given that this list included the names of scientists who disagreed with its findings.”

Timothy Ball, one of the first Canadian doctors in climatology, recently wrote an article addressing the issue of why no one seems to be listening to scientists who claim that global warming is NOT man-made. He starts by writing, “Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science”. He continues, “We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification.” Then he mentions how Environment Canada is spending billions upon billions of dollars on “propaganda” which defends an “indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.” Then Dr. Ball brings up a very interesting point that everyone should take into consideration, citing that 30 years ago, in the 1970s everyone was talking about “global cooling” and how it was the defining issue of our lives, our species, that our very survival depended on what we did it about it. Interesting, sounds like every Canadian politician. Ball continues to explain that climate change is occurring, but that it is because it is always occurring, it is a natural change that is a result of the changes in the Sun’s temperature. He explains that we are currently leaving what was known as a Little Ice Age and that the history of Earth is riddles with changes in the climate. That’s what climate does and is always doing, changing. Dr. Ball claims that “there is nothing unusual going on,” and that he “was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as [he was] to the threats made about Global Warming.”

Dr. Timothy Ball later wrote, in commenting on the problems that arise for scientists who speak out, that, “Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.” He also mentions how he “was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies.” He concludes in referencing others who have and continue to speak out against the prevailing myth of man-made global warming, such as author Michael Crichton, who’s book, ‘State of Fear’, explains the inaccurate science behind the man-made myth. Another prominent name is that of Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, who often speaks out against the man-made theory, yet no one seems to be listening to him.

An article in the February 12th Washington Times discussed how skeptics of global warming are “treated like a pariah”. The article begins, “Scientists skeptical of climate-change theories say they are increasingly coming under attack — treatment that may make other analysts less likely to present contrarian views about global warming.” He cites an example of this by mentioning how a climatologist in Oregon might be stripped of his position by the governor for speaking out against the origins of climate change. Most skeptics don’t claim that climate change is not occurring, they just disagree with what is causing it, and yet they are treated like traitors. A NASA funded study in 2003 found that, “Changes in the solar cycle — and solar output — are known to cause short-term climate change on Earth.”

In a storm of scientists speaking out against Al Gore’s movie, an Australian professor of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory has publicly stated, “Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.” In response to the use of images in Gore’s movie of glaciers breaking off, Dr. Boris Winterhalter, a professor on marine geology and former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland, said that, “The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier.” Makes sense, especially since history tells us that glaciers move, after all, that’s what helped form our valleys and reshaped mountain ranges at the end of the last ice age about 10,000 years ago. Maybe my memory isn’t very good, but I don’t think people were driving SUVs 10,000 years ago. Another clever use of images to manipulate facts that Gore has in his movie is that of a polar bear seemingly stranded on a piece of a broken off ice berg, stating that polar bears are becoming extinct because of global warming. However, there are a few things wrong with this assessment, first of all, that according to a paper published by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov, “the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise.” Secondly, if the polar bear is in such danger according to Al Gore, then why does a recent government survey in Canada show that they are not declining, but rather rising in numbers? Thirdly, the very idea of a polar bear “stranded” on a small block of ice is in itself misleading for Gore’s argument, as polar bears are excellent swimmers and according to Sea World, “They can swim for several hours at a time over long distances [and] they’ve been tracked swimming continuously for 100 km (62 mi.)” Professor Carter, speaking about Gore and his personal crusade, said, “The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science.” Even if Al Gore was telling the truth about the causes of global warming, or climate change, which most evidence points to the fact that he is not, but even if he was, he would still be a hypocrite. It was recently revealed that Al Gore doesn’t exactly practice what he preaches, such as what he said in his Academy Award acceptance speech, “People all over the world, we need to solve the climate crisis. It’s not a political issue; it’s a moral issue.” Well, in that case, why is it that a recent study by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research found that one of Al Gore’s mansions uses 20 times the amount of electricity that the average American does. It was also reported that Al Gore consumes twice as much the electricity in one month that the average American consumes in one year.

In examining that there is more evidence to prove the basis for a conclusion that changes in climate are more related to an increase in the temperature of the Sun rather than influence of people, we must examine why efforts to expose this myth are stifled and those who speak out are attacked. In fact, there are reported cases of scientists who speak out against the man-made theory as having received death threats. There has even been talk of relating those who speak out against the currently held theory on global warming as being equal to those who deny the Holocaust. In a recent op-ed piece in the Boston Globe commenting on the report issued by the UN, Ellen Goodman wrote, “Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.” This is a very disturbing comment, not only because there is reason to scientifically doubt the man-made theory, but also because this is a scathing attack on freedom of speech, the most vital and important of all rights and freedoms.

With the UN Panel’s judgment in, western politicians are quick to declare that the debate is over, and action must be taken immediately. What is this action that they are planning on taking? The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the UK, Gordon Brown, soon expected to be the next Prime Minister after Tony Blair steps down, has publicly called for a “new world order” to combat the threat of climate change. So let’s have a look at this New World Order that’s being implemented to combat the threat of global warming.  One major thing being pushed through with little, cancel that, no debate, is a UN recommendation that we impose “a global tax on greenhouse gas emissions”. Most people will hear this and think, “Good, polluters need to be taxed”. Well, this means people who drive cars will be taxed, because according to Al Gore, when you drive your car, you’re causing global warming. This is no joke, as an article in the UK’s Guardian Newspaper reported that, “The government is throwing its weight behind a revolutionary plan that would force motorists to pay £1.30 a mile to drive on Britain’s busiest roads”. That is approximately $3.00 per mile. A study conducted by an expert in transportation and infrastructure found that, “a Birmingham commuter might end up paying about £1,500 a year for driving 19,000 miles.” That’s equal to about $3,000 per year. I don’t know about you, but I don’t know many people who can afford that. In the European Union, plans are being made to impose an increase of taxes on diesel. The European Commission recently proposed to “raise the minimum tax on commercial diesel fuel by nearly 20% over the next seven years”. This, they claim, is to help protect the environment because it will act as a deterrent for people to drive. This is just excellent news, because as anyone who has driven in the past two years knows, gas prices are just too low. Another concern arising out of the concept of taxing people for how far they drive is how it is done. According to the Transport Secretary in the UK, “Every vehicle would have a black box to allow a satellite system to track their journey”. This has been raising concerns in the UK of an increase in Big Brother technology and government programs. Proposals currently being made in Canada recommend that, “Canadians would pay an extra 10 cents per litre at the gas pumps”, mirroring plans in the European Union. Another important recent news item is that Toronto “Mayor David Miller said yesterday he would support ‘region-wide’ road tolls”, to combat climate change.

The European Union is also imposing a ban on conventional light bulbs, replacing them with energy-saving bulbs. That ban would fully be in effect within two years, forcing all 490 million citizens of the EU’s member states to switch from the current conventional lights they now have. However, some problems of this plan have been raised considering that the supposed energy-efficient light bulbs “have to be left on all the time, they’re made from banned toxins and they won’t work in half your household fittings. Yet Europe (and Gordon Brown) says ‘green’ lightbulbs must replace all our old ones.” They also are “up to 20 times more expensive” than conventional light bulbs. They also give off a much harsher light and do not produce a steady stream of light but rather just flicker 50 times a second. These special “efficient” light bulbs also need more ventilation than conventional bulbs, which means that they cannot be in an enclosed light fitting. I’m sure that this won’t inconvenience any of the 490 million who are being forced to switch. In Canada, talk is taking place of having a ban on conventional light bulbs being included in Stephen Harper’s clean air act. This discussion was recently brought about by the act of Australia taking moves to ban conventional light bulbs by the year 2010. As well as that, a lawmaker in California has introduced a bill to ban the selling of conventional bulbs by 2012, with a similar bill also being introduced in New Jersey. Royal Phillips Electronics, one of the leading corporations in producing light fixtures announced that they would stop selling conventional bulbs by 2016. This will result in a massive cost to the consumer, who is losing their free will in where they spend their money and how they choose to help the environment. Hoping to get by without buying new bulbs and sneak it by the government? Good luck. As a recent report pointed out in the UK, the government has very intrusive plans to make the UK the world’s first green economy. Part of this plan is that every home in the UK is to be ‘carbon neutral’ within 10 years, making every house updated to “green” standards. The government said they would provide the renovators, which has led many to fear that it is a method of spying on homeowners to make sure they go green. Blair Gibbs, a member of the Taxpayer’s Alliance and critic of the plan stated, “It’s bad enough that politicians want to take so much of our money away in tax. For them also to intrude into our homes in order to have the ability to penalise us even further is simply unacceptable.”

I am not saying that it isn’t a good idea to take action to help the environment, but I ask you to consider this: if the majority of scientific data points to the fact that global warming is caused by the Sun, then how will a tax on carbon emissions help to stop it? How does us driving cars cause climate change on Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Pluto, Neptune and Triton? Can Al Gore please fill me in on this? If CO2 increases as a RESULT of temperature increases, then how can we hope to accomplish anything by taxing emissions? That’s like saying we will prevent the process of humans ageing by dying their grey hairs. It’s not grey hair that causes people to age; it’s ageing that causes grey hair. And nothing that you do to your hair will have any affect on how long you live. Especially since ageing is a natural process that cannot be stopped and has always occurred and will always occur. Just like climate change.

It seems worrisome that politicians are all too eager to grab onto this man-made myth of global warming in order to make us afraid and guilty. Guilty enough to want to change it, and afraid enough to give up our freedoms and undergo massive financial expenses in order to do so. So this lie, being pushed by big money and big governments, is a convenient lie for those who want to exert control and collect money. However, it’s inconvenient for the mass amount of people who are already experiencing the problems of a widening wage-gap and fading middle class.

If the problems we are being presented are based on lies, then how do we expect to find any true solution to helping the environment? A Global Tax won’t clean up the oil spilled by the Exxon Valdez, which is still polluting waters in Alaska nearly 18 years after the spill occurred. A Global Tax won’t stop Shell from making the Niger Delta the most endangered Delta in the whole world. No, we have to first be realistic, mature, and have debate about the problems we are facing, and then, and only then, can we even hope to achieve any sort of solution.

HAARP

High frequency Active Auroral Research Program

HAARP currently consists of 48 antennas that are 72′ tall. When the project is finished it will have 180 antennas and be the most powerful ionosphere heater in the world. With just 100 volts of power you can move clouds in the atmosphere, HAARP will send up to 1 BILLION volts of energy. It is located in Gakona, Alaska, which is 260 miles northeast of Anchorage.

HAARP was originally created by a private company to look inside the earth for oil, gas and mineral deposits, but was soon taken over by the Air Force. They had a smaller HAARP location in Montauk until the Navy stepped in and took over the project (some even say they took over Montauk and the HAARP project with force.) The Navy knew the earth had a natural frequency of 7.83 Hz, which will make a person feel happy and calm. Through some testing they soon learned that 10.80 Hz will cause riotous behavior in humans and 6.6 Hz will cause depression.

Through the Navy’s testing and control of HAARP they could use it not only to control weather, but control humans. The electromagnetic mind control can be used anywhere in the world by bouncing it off the ionosphere.  Basically the US military can now cause riots anywhere in the world, make humans depressed, make enemy soldiers not sleep well and be restless before battle or even calm insurgents down with the 7.83 Hz frequency.

Once HAARP is fully complete and operational it will be able to control the weather across the US and also control the minds of the world. However, if you believe we are the only ones who have this technology you are foolish. The Russians have a smaller version called ELATE. ELATE is a much smaller version and can be used currently to only fine tune weather for 200 miles. One of the ELATE towers is currently being used to keep weather in line at the Moscow Airport.

Also I sure hope you do not think your underground bunker will keep you safe from the electromagnetic mind control of the military. GWEN is not just an idea anymore, the military is currently installing GWEN stations all across the midwest. Ground Wave EmergencyNetwork is a series of towers that shoot the energy even with and under the ground. It is copper wires spread out in a spoke like fashion buried under the ground with a tower on top, maybe a windmill to power it. The copper wires will emit the frequency  out for a 200 mile range in a full 360 degrees. These underground wires will push the frequency into basements and other underground facilities. GWEN can also distort the earth’s natural frequency causing every person in the area to be affected by the signals. Basically GWEN is the military and government’s way of controlling it own citizens through fear, depression or just to calm them enough to accept whatever plan they are proposing.