Archives for category: Warfare & Strategy & Tactics

When the definitive history of the last three decades is written, my bet is that the black-and-white of it will characterize the policies from George Herbert Walker Bush through Barack Hussein Obama as deeply, deeply anti-Christian as well as just murderously anti-christian — and, of course, criminally stupid. Their mid-east wars displaced, demoralized, and killed Christian communities in Syria, Iraq and environs. And American Christians let it happen because — why? why? — well, maybe because they whored out their loyalties to the powerful American super-state, trading in God for guns, and perhaps because those foreign Christian communities were neither Catholic nor Protestant. Heretics!

Trump did not stop bombing those lands, alas. But — and this is one of his few minor successes, but a major reason I had some sympathy for him — he at least did not start any new wars. Still, I see little evidence that he managed to repair much of the destruction of Christian, Jewish and Yezidi populations after the defeat of the mostly tolerant thugs of the Baathist regime.

As the second decade of this century draws to a close and we perhaps turn our eyes to the Democrats’ horrific globalist policies, and to the threat of China, with which they are complicit, maybe we should remember past victims of American globalist hegemony.

And maybe we should ask ourselves if there might be any reason why our Deep State wanted to kill off mid-East Christians. Sure, the most likely explanation is the utter stupidity of American foreign policy — a bipartisan hackery with knaves and fools like

  • Henry Kissinger
  • Zbiegniew Brzezinski and his idiot daughter and her doltish husband
  • Paul Wolfowitz
  • Dick Cheney
  • John Kerry
  • Hillary Clinton
  • all our CIA and NSA chiefs, et al.,

and other mass murderers and clueless purveyors of buncombe —but mightn’t something more sinister and Book-of-Revelation-y have been in play?

I cannot properly appraise how malign these luminaries have been, what damage they have done, or how untrustworthy they remain, since much of the information about them is socked away in secret, or kept from our eyes by the American taboo against speaking truth about our global neo-imperialism. Patriotism! The first refuge of scoundrels.

Our rulers are fools and knaves, and, if you ever despair of your place in this world, maybe you can take this as consolation: not one of you has done as much harm as these celebrated jet-setter antichrists have.

Remember, American military and diplomatic policy is a bipartisan affair, by which I mean that when the two parties disagree, they are usually right about each other, and when they agree they are worse.

Whatever we may say about our current president, the reason the Democratic establishment (and no smallpart of the GOP establishment, too) hated him so much was not because of his “narcissism” or “sexism” or “racism,” it was because Trump had a commonsense hunch about their competence and moral standing: he suspected (correctly) that they were a putrid mix of incompetence and corruption. They constituted The Swamp. Against which — ah, to Drain! — Trump strained in vain, since he knew almost nothing.

It is dangerous to vote for unlearned, incurious blowhards.

Now another chapter is opening and we get to see how long the least impressive P/VP picks in American history play out. I assume they will serve as earnest toadies to our murderous Deep State, but eagerness and earnestness may not prove enough. Will His Senility last a year in office? A month? Will Her Hollowness implode like the vacuous pufferfish she appears to be? I do not know.

Meanwhile, the persecution of Christians and Yezidis that Sadasm Hussein prohibited will no doubt continue as Muslim populations solidify their own wins. Will there be any left?

Islamophile Democrats in America, of course, don’t care. Mid-east Christians are an embarrassment to them. But less embarrassing when safely dead.

Happy Boxing Day.

twv

We were not convinced of the desirability of mask mandates, social distancing and lockdowns on the basis of science. We were convinced of the plausibility of a few conjectures. Then our manipulators (in media, politics, and social networks) took our sense of plausibility and got us to commit to the policies.

This amounted to the leveraging of a cognitive bias. And salesmen will recognize a sales technique right there. Add in fear, and voilà!

This carrot (plausibility) / stick (fear) scenario was then coupled with a few memes not scientific in nature but deliberately anti-scientific, in that they discouraged criticism.

And the extremity of the solutions — in effect ruining many people’s lives, blighting many more who are not technically ruined, leading to starvationin some parts (conveniently far away) — then makes for an anxiety that we assuage with self-righteousness. The “Karen” problem becomes a solution, at this point, for people, being sold a pogrom out of fear, then get to lash out at dissenters. This gives us a social mania that can easily spread by social mechanisms familiar to us all.

The pandemic panic was, in a word, a psy-op — a psychological operation more sophisticated than (but not entirely distinct from) your average advertising campaign — conducted precisely as leaders construct cults and whoop for war.

How psy-ops work is a fascinating thing. Note that one of my joke self-descriptors is “memetic engineer.” My interest in constructing what amounts to con jobs has been, largely, self-defense. Indeed, the tools of defense against such manipulations come in several flavors. Philosophy and science are two of those toolkits.

Most people know almost nothing about either. I wish I knew more. For maybe, had I seen the current psy-op forming in front of my eyes a few weeks earlier, I could have saved (who knows?) millions of lives.

In my own defense, a number of my academic heroes in philosophy and economics saw none of this, and, apparently, still don’t.

Humans are astoundingly easy to trick.

twv

Donald Pleasance as SPECTRE’s Ernst Stavro Blofeld, You Only Live Twice (1967).

Major cyber attack, we are told. “Russian,” we are told.

That latter is likely spin. Our leaders definitely do not want to play up the possibility that the Chinese did it. Or, for that matter, “SPECTRE.”

I cannot think of one reason to believe attribution at this point.

Attribution must be uncertain in accuracy, but certainly manipulative.

Russia is weak, globally; China is strong. So working up an image of a dangerous Russian Bear distracts the weak-minded voting population, allowing our leaders not to confront a threat that cannot likely be overcome.

I mention these things not because they are arcana, but commonplace — or should be.

I would have thought epidemic realism were commonplace a year ago. People are so easily fooled, so easily made to forget what they had known mere days before (amnesia; abulia; apathy). So stressing the obvious is worthwhile. As a counter-agent.

After all, do not forget the context: last week the big story was the cracking of a major Chinese spy ring, which had compromised prominent Democratic Party politicians (Swallwell; Feinstein) and (though almost no one dares say it) the Clintons and (most obviously) the Bidens, too. So the timing of this current disclosed cyber attack is worth mentioning. The spin to play up Russia sounds like a way that (here I turn to complete speculation) Trump can “negotiate” with Democrats — or the Dems can fight Trump, who now has grounds to overturn an election. I mean, think of this: America appears to be at war, what with two major espionage events revealed within one month, and a “Manchurian Candidate” was just “elected” — and one with deeply corrupt ties to one (or more) of the malign powers.

Pretending that the current epoch is “normal” and “safe” would be insane.

I of course have no idea how deep the lies run. Remember, in America, as elsewhere, the chief purpose of an intelligence agency is not gathering information but seeding disinformation. Why? There is a logic to it. We have known what that logic is since William B. Casey explained it to Ronald Reagan. We forget the lesson at our peril.

twv

Scott Adams’s representation of the current bias.
What we aren’t talking about:

A month ago, the New York Times published a major UFO story, doubling down on its previous recent efforts, with research journalist Leslie Kean serving as the driving force. The article relates that not only does the UFO/UAP constitute a real, non-natural/extra-civilizational phenomenon, and that the U.S. military admits this, but it indicates that there seems to be some reality to the ufology lore that there have been crashed UFO retrievals. And that the Deep State is studying them.

Yet almost no one talks about this.

What must we make of this? The ‘newspaper of record’ unleashes onto the world what could be the biggest story in human history, yet smart people either snicker or avert their eyes, back on to (1) the ‘pandemic’ and (2) the riots and (3) the upcoming election.

Honest inquirers should consider the possibility that while we may now be gleaning the first few data from the (4) trickling UFO disclosure, we have indeed learned something HUGE about human nature.

And what is that? 

Well, boy, do we Homo boobiens have an ability to put blinders on and let dogmas rule us, while at the same time allow ourselves to be manipulated by the contrivances of politicians and media, no matter ungainly. 

What if these linked stories are deeply linked?

We may also have been given a clue as to why the coronavirus contagion has successfully turned a whole population into willing serviles to the biggest assault on freedom in American history, for so little good reason. Ours is a decadent civilization, and the people are easy to control because they are poltroonish. Fearful of death. Manipulable.

I cannot help but wonder: are the four major stories of this year related?

It is easy to speculate that the pandemic panic and the protests/riots have been orchestrated by Democrats to regain control of the White House. But what if it . . . be . . . bigger

What if it is all being done to soft-pedal the most unsettling story of all time? That is, what if (1), (2), and (3) all revolve around (4)?

After all, UFO disclosure was a pet project of John Podesta and Hillary Clinton. When Trump won, within the year AATIP was revealed and the TTSA moved mightily behind the scenes to nudge the first disclosures. 

The nature of the disclosure was determined by the Trump win.

And even the Trump win could be part of the story. After all, Trump’s most significant achievement during his presidency so far has been engagement with China. The SARS-CoV-2 came from China. The Democratic Party has served for a generation as the pro-China party. And China is quickly building a powerhouse of a space program. If the world’s governments have been sitting on the biggest story in human history, but the epochal secrecy is now in jeopardy, perhaps this is why (or at least part of why) they are now are scrambling into space. Advantage. Priority. Positioning. 

The Chinese warlords/pseudo-communists want in on whatever is coming.

And the reason the least attractive and least plausible candidates for the Democratic Party’s P/VP ticket were selected over better alternatives? Both are in on parts of the secret — Biden having been Vice President and briefed; Harris being on the Senate Intelligence and briefed — and both can be trusted by the DNC or the donor billionaires (or the archons or whoever) to leverage the information and advantage “correctly.”

Further, Donald Trump, nephew of the scientist who inventoried Nikola Tesla’s many trunks after the inventor’s death, himself may be playing for another faction — also likely Deep State — to gain that UFO advantage.

He who controls the disclosure controls the world.

But I am dubious that it can be controlled. Not really. It is too huge.

twv

Sen. Ted Cruz alerted us, weeks ago, to the uncomfortable fact that the U.S. Government had helped fund the Wuhan research into the coronavirus:

But what is at issue is obviously not just a matter of funding.

A coronavirus was developed specifically to make it infectious to humans. From bats. There is an academic paper trail. Here it is, courtesy of Dr. Peter Breggin, who calls it “the perfect weapon.” Check it out:

Breggin famously and successfully opposed the once-common practice of lobotomization.

Is it our coronavirus? No, says Breggin, but it is very similar. “Closely related.” He believes the current virus was made from this, or used it as a first attempt.

I do not know if the almost-in-the-open yet-still-clandestine development of the current offending coronavirus was a result of scientific hubris and government incompetence, as we ‘hope,’ or the result of something like the international cabal that Tony Blair mentioned so soon after 9/11.* But Americans, programmed to despise conspiracy theories (by the CIA!) will likely avoid the whole subject because, well, they love their murderers, and despise some ‘other’ side’s murderers.

My takeaway is pretty consistent with my past findings: our governments are evil and their spokespeople should not be trusted.


* Blair’s statement about an international conspiracy is one of those pregnant admissions that most folks avoid thinking about:

Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization with ties to a global network, which has been in existence for over ten years.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair, New York Times, October 05, 2001

I do not know which “global network” (conspiracy) is involved in our current crisis. But I suspect at least one is indeed in play.

Here is a man whose place in history demonstrates something different than what he intended. John Flammang Schrank (March 5, 1876 – September 15, 1943) shot Theodore Roosevelt in the chest during a speech on October 14, 1912, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. TR survived. 

Schrank claimed to have had nothing against TR the man (I do: TR was a lunatic, as many of his contemporaries testified), but, instead, TR “the third-termer.” 

A good grudge, on the whole. But . . . not a good act.

Schrank’s claim that former President William McKinley, himself famously fatally shot by Chuckles the Anarchist, had come to him in a dream instructing him to do the deed got him into a nuthouse instead of prison.* And, as a warning to future presidents not to seek a third term, Schrank proved spectacularly unsuccessful, considering that another Roosevelt survived a third term in office and got part way into his fourth.

TR went on to make a terrific speech — one that I largely disagree with for a variety of reasons, but it was quite good rhetorically. This part still carries some power:

When the Republican Party — not the Republican Party — when the bosses in the control of the Republican Party, the Barneses and Penroses, last June stole the nomination and wrecked the Republican Party for good and all; I want to point out to you nominally they stole that nomination from me, but really it was from you. They did not like me, and the longer they live the less cause they will have to like me. But while they do not like me, they dread you. You are the people that they dread. They dread the people themselves, and those bosses and the big special interests behind them made up their mind that they would rather see the Republican Party wrecked than see it come under the control of the people themselves. So I am not dealing with the Republican Party. There are only two ways you can vote this year. You can be progressive or reactionary. Whether you vote Republican or Democratic it does not make any difference, you are voting reactionary.

Note, however, the pure demagoguery of stealing an election ‘from you.’ Such men as TR, alas, are almost impossible to keep away from power. 

Trump seems a bit like that, though far less tyrannical and murderous than TR. I mean, Trump doesn’t have TR’s death count and deeply racist version of American imperialism and eugenics.

It is common among today’s Democrats to admit to admiring only one Republican, Teddy Roosevelt. This does not reflect well on them, in my opinion, and as much as I shrink from murderous violence, my mind not rarely drifts to Schrank.

That admission being made, and daydreams acknowledged, I make no more outrageous confessions: though in my dreams I may or may not follow others’ instructions, and I may or may not commit crimes, I insist that I do not take Dream Time commands and put them into action during Waking Life.

Further, my support for term limits itself is subject to certain limitations. One of them is: I will not kill for them.

twv


* Wisconsin, the state in which he shot TR, did not have the death penalty — indeed, Schrank followed TR state to state, waiting to pull the trigger until he got to a Progressive state lacking the death penalty.

We are often told that sometimes we must act as if the worst could happen, even if the worst is unlikely, because the worst is so bad.

This is the precautionary principle.

I am dubious about the usual applications of the principle, in part because of framing.

That is, the prophet of doom who delivers the extremist message of disaster has framed the imagined situation in such a way as to preclude other, equally valid scenarios in which the same principle works against his dire warning.

Take the current situation with the coronavirus.

We are being corralled like cattle with little or no respect for our rights. We are being told the government must do these things to stave off the worst outcomes.

There is a lot going on here. But consider another use of the same extremist imagining:

Conspiracy.

We were introduced to the contagion immediately along with the possibility that it was the product of human engineering leaked from a medical lab, perhaps by accident, perhaps by sabotage or worse.

Quickly the major news sources and political players and the usual academic upholders of Respectable Opinion worked to squelch such notions. Almost certainly, we were told, it was the inadvertent if predictable outcome of the Chinese practice of raising and selling cultivated wild animal meat in “wet markets.” The caging of farmed wild animals brought them too close together, allowing for a new virus to spring up and infect the world.

Plausible story. Likely story. But it is by no means certain.

As I argued with Emile Phaneuf on the last episode of the LocoFoco Netcast, if you were Doctor Evil and sought to engage in an international power play using a major contagion as a weapon, but wanted to hide your activity, you would release it in Wuhan.

That would be cover.

And, as David Icke notes, if you take note of the infection patterns in America’s Public Enemy No. 1, Iran, and do not at least suspect a weaponization, how stupid are you? Just how much of a mark, a sap, a willing victim do you have to be?

I say: you would be a stooge. The useful idiot of malign forces.

You don’t have to believe in the conspiracy conjecture. You don’t have the evidence.

But if you resist thinking about the possibility, you make yourself an easy mark for the worst of our species.

And we know that the worst of our species can be very bad indeed.

Belief is not the issue: it is suspicion and caution that the precautionary principle requires.

We do not KNOW if the coronavirus was deployed as an instrument of social control. But we do know it IS being used to rob us of freedoms and create a nation, indeed, a world, of servile sheep to be corralled and shorn and perhaps slaughtered for the benefit of an elite who likes being in charge.

That being the case, it would be a form of the precautionary principle to act as if the coronavirus had been deployed as a weapon, and therefore resist tyrannical paternalism and instead promote distributed responsibility as the way to increase the safety of the population.

Note what I’m saying here: if the precautionary principle seems to require a fixation on an extremely bad outcome of a contagion, just so it requires us to consider that it is being used as a means of suppressing freedom. That is, the bad outcome of a plot to take away our freedoms.

Belief in the face of the unknown is not relevant. Probability comes into play in cultivating wisdom, and so do other principles of prudence.

So, to those of you who reject “conspiracy theories” out of hand? I say: don’t be a stooge, either to a possible malign organization or to the tricky nature of a system spinning out of control, and into a new form of dangerous control.

Free people aren’t stooges.

twv

A few days ago I heard but had not bothered to confirm that only Chinese people were being killed by the coronavirus. Being a science fiction reader living in our stefnal age, my first thought was pretty obvious — and straight out of Heinlein: biowarfare.

And it is not as if biowarfare had not been rumored, for weeks now.

Yesterday, Scott Adams (on his Periscope vlog) drew out this line of conjecture explicitly, speculating on who might wish to kill millions, perhaps billions, of Chinese people, using bioweaponry, and why:

Scott Adams’s talk is important for several reasons. . . .

First, he figures the probability on the bioweapon angle as very low. One reason that he gives for a low probability rests on the commonplace that is coincidence. He says it is likely “just a coincidence” that an outbreak would occur near a viral research/bioweapons research laboratory. I suspect it is not. Near a bio-research laboratory is where you would expect accidental leaks to happen. Where viruses are bred, studied and stored is where they might break out into the general population. Since in research even non-weaponized viruses are studied, any could break out of the confines.

We do not need to go to conspiracy, though conspiracy is also a possibility — we’ve all read Greg Bear’s Blood Music, right?

So I would not relegate a non-conspiratorial outbreak of a contagion near a research facility as being just an example of a conspiracy. I would not even say it is more likely to be mere coincidence.

But also, were I a murderous conspirator unleashing a weaponized virus, I would also likely wish to let it out near someone else’s biolab, merely to confuse the targeted population.

Second, Adams goes through a Likely Suspect list, and he does a pretty good job. Yet he gets one thing very wrong, I think. He dismisses the idea that the U.S. could be a likely bioweaponry/genocide suspect. I do not dismiss the idea. “Our” Deep State is extremely rogue, and would do anything to maintain its advantage. China is horning in on a very important space-oriented arms race, and the Deep State might stop at nothing to nip that in the bud. Killing thousands or millions? Well, sure: look up Operation Northwoods. Deeply embedded statists could probably cook up a plausible, half-earnest rationale to justify almost any enormity.

They have in the past.

Third, “goodness” — Scott runs through possible justifications of biowarfare to test the possibility of warfare, using the “Never Again” mantra as the hook upon which he hangs his hat. He says that many, many people — including himself — would, if given the opportunity, use genocide to retaliate for someone else’s program of genocide . . . as well as to prevent further genocide. Yikes. Does he not see the trap here?

This reasoning rests upon the idea of democracy — a very low-level democracy, admittedly, since China isn’t one. As both Étienne de La Boétie and David Hume observed, the number of people who actually govern are smaller than the ranks of the governed, so even tyrannical government rests upon a kind of consent of the governed — an accommodation to governance, let’s say. And since the masses let their governments do outrageous things, they are, themselves, morally responsible. And if the crimes committed by the governors are worthy of the death penalty, then the people themselves are worthy of same.

People should carefully contemplate this line of thought. Adams’s speculations in the moral realm do more than suggest a justification of all kinds of horror on the dubious basis of preventing other outrageous moral horrors. Further, Adams’s line of reasoning is the common line of reasoning on such matters, and it completely demolishes our umbrage taken at terrorists and mass murderers. It is a prescription for never-ending war, dominance, and mass slaughter.

Everyone should pull the strings on his speculation, here.

To unravel the argument.

Fourth, take a breath. What he is talking about is something he breezes right through: mass murder as an apt revenge for other mass murder. But it is indeed more than that. His logic could also “morally justify” preëmptive mass murder.

Now, I’m not saying that he is not ably reflecting common-sense statism. Indeed, that is the reason his speculations are important. They are how humans often think and judge. But I am saying he perhaps (and without intending it) provides an apocalypse of statism itself — a revelation of its core character, its quiddity.

A robust common sense would have to reject statism to remain sane.

Thankfully, the odds for the Coronavirus As Bioweapon are likely as Scott Adams puts them: very unlikely. But we should consider the outside chance. And, alas, he appears to be correct: no fact we now possess falsifies a bioweapon possibility.

twv

A Facebook post.

I am glad I waited a few days to comment on the Christchurch shooting. It is apparent that one of the big takeaways from the atrocity is that center-left opinion makers are wildly mischaracterizing the opinons of the mass murderer. And, had I shot my mouth off early, I may have missed this, the biggest story.

John R. Lott, Jr., clarifies:

The shooter wrote: “The nation with the closest political and social values to my own is the People’s Republic of China.” And the political figure with whom he most closely identifies? England’s Sir Oswald Mosley, who self-identified as a member of the “left” and proponent of “European Socialism.”

Ever encountered a right-winger who pontificates about the need for minimum wage increases and “furthering the unionization of workers”? Or who denounces “the ever increasing wealth of the 1% that exploit the people for their own benefit.” He goes on to declare that “conservatism is dead” and “global capitalist markets are the enemy of racial autonomists.” He called himself an “Eco-fascist.”

Media Calls The New Zealand Shooter ‘Right-Wing,’” Townhall, March 18, 2019


The shooter was a self-declared leftist.

That being said, very few people are wholly left- or wholly right-wing in political bent. And I am very tempted to call murderous racism a rightist obsession. It is just inconvenient in this case, as in so many others, that the shooter was basically leftist . . . except in his racism.

But even that is not quite correct, for being against Islam and third-world immigration is not, in the shooter’s case, really racist: he opposed both because of population growth fears. Eminently a leftist canard.

He frequently uses the term invader, but his reason was an environmentalist one. “The environment is being destroyed by over population.” Did he hate minorities? He certainly did: “We Europeans are one of the groups that are not over populating the world. The invaders are the ones over populating the world. Kill the invaders, kill the overpopulation and by doing so save the environment.”

You certainly won’t find any of the media, including CNN, blaming environmentalists for the carnage at the mosques.

And it is worse: one reason for his rampage was to spur New Zealand and America to establish further degrees of gun control.

The media also conveniently ignores what the killer hoped to accomplish by his attack. He did it to help achieve “the removal of gun rights” for New Zealanders and Americans. And within a day, politicians in both countries were doing what he wanted. The New Zealand government has already promised a complete ban on semi-automatic guns. American gun control advocates such as Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action, quickly applauded the move and suggested that it is a model for United States lawmakers. 

Of course, this isn’t the first time that mass public shooters have supported gun control. The Columbine school killers were also gun control advocates.

This armament regulation position is preëminently left-wing, in that socialism (and leftism in general) denies the individualist foundation of government legitimacy as expressed in Anglo-American liberalism, which rests on the very idea of self-defense. Government is said to gain its just powers from the rights and consent of the governed. To deny self-defense is to find a different source for government legitimacy. Which is far, far left — not liberal or conservative.

So, the murderous ideologue is a leftist, confessedly so. Anyone holding the leftist line that this massacre provides a good reason to confiscate guns is actually siding with the murderer in his own intent. Arguably, if you use this event to push for greater gun control, you have chosen a side: mass murder.

Propaganda by the deed, a century ago, was notoriously counter-productive. The anarchists who engaged in terrorism, way back then, miscalculated. They thought that by attacking the institutions of business and government — and, most specifically, the people who run them — that they would undermine general support for those institutions. But the opposite was the case. Anarchists, not surprisingly, did not understand human nature.

Nowadays, anyone with a lick of sense knows that committing acts of terrorism against individual persons will unite most people against either the murderer’s cause or the murderer’s weapons. Or both. Which is one reason why I expect to see more leftists engage in more shooting: they can count on leftist media and politicians to focus attention away from the cause and against the weaponry.

The only defense, really, is to arm ourselves with the weapons . . . and target the lies of the leftist media and political class, shooting them down one by one.

One of the odder works to bubble up out of the political landscape in the days of anarchist terrorism. More standard fare? Joseph Conrad’s The Secret Agent.
Anomalous radar results.

One website calls them “chaff plumes” and “chaff clouds”: huge areas over land that show up on radar as something but, when you look at the affected skies in a sight check, you see nothing special.

Two days after a huge cloud of chaff lit up weather radar covering portions Illinois, Indiana, and Kentucky, as well as social media, more plumes have now appeared over Maine and Florida. We have no official confirmation as of yet, but the formations look very similar in composition to the one that developed in the Midwest.

Now Massive Plumes Of Chaff Are Lighting Up Radar Over Maine and Florida Too,” Joseph Trevithick, The Drive, December 12, 2018.

This term, “chaff plume,” is based on what the government tells us. The U.S. military has explained multiple radar-detected wide-area aerial events in mostly clear skies as the result of releasing ”chaff” into the atmosphere — in Illinois, Indiana, and Kentucky, Maine and Florida, to name just a few of the states showing positive results. Chaff is designed to hide things from radar. It is a counter-measure, which you have probably seen in the movies.

Now, a new radar clip shows the formation of a big chaff cloud near Cannon Air Force Base in New Mexico.

The event occurred on March 5th, 2019 at around 19:20 UTC, which equates to roughly 12:20pm local time. Over a swath of sky beginning to the west of Cannon Air Force Base, the plume first appears, covering roughly 30 miles over a couple hours time. Cannon AFB is used by Air Force Special Operations Command and is home the 27th Special Operations Wing and its MC-130s, AC-130s, CV-22s, MQ-9s, U-28s, C-146s and other propeller-driven aircraft, some of which could have deployed the chaff from their expendable countermeasures systems. 

Mysterious Cloud Of Chaff Lights Up Radar Over Dozens Of Miles Of New Mexico Airspace,” Tyler Rogoway, The Drive, March 7, 2019.

UFO enthusiasts are wondering what the military is trying to hide. Of course they are.

I have not seen anyone make a more obvious inference: it is not UFOs, and what is being released is not chaff, but, instead, swarms of micro-drones, proof-of-concept technology.

One might hope that it were the American military doing this, and not a foreign power, on the theory that our military is less likely to be disruptive than a foreign power would. (Though as a tool for tyranny, implementation of this tech could be frighteningly efficacious.) Remember that this drone tech is said to be capable, right now, of face-recognition targeting and focused lethality: 

The effectiveness of micro-drone technology for suppression of insurrection, or targeting terrorist incursions, appears to be established. And these would also be useful, perhaps, for massive data collection — spying.

So, why would the government — most likely, the Deep State — be engaged in such exercises?

Perhaps as sub rosa signaling. The news stories on the radar events will be picked up by foreign intelligence agencies, and would likely be interpreted by foreign powers as warnings. In this scenario, the military is demonstrating to enemies that no one is safe. The American government can kill anyone it wants anywhere it wants.

More ominously, a foreign power could be signaling to U.S. military and intelligence agencies that America is now completely vulnerable.

The robots are coming. And they fly.

Maybe. Why the military would be implementing chaff over American skies is something of a puzzle. Which is why I advance my conjecture.

Or it could be aliens.

twv