I'd like to remind you now that one of these peaks [of cometary activity] that you are looking at here - the 1601 occurs round about 1640 through 1680, and it coincides with the end of the Thirty Years War in Europe, and the Civil War in England. I mentioned this briefly last night. Cromwell, and others of that time - I only name him because, of course, he's a familiar name to you, but there are many others - described all the upheaval of the time, in millennarian terms, as due to "God's revolution" only a century after Copernicus' De Revolutionibus.As we have seen in Part I, Earth Changes Are Upon Us, 'angels, demons and invisible gods' are back in the form of earthly and cosmic changes. At the same time, the world of men is marked by control, revolts and wars. We do not believe it is a coincidence. Still, whether the elite knew what was coming and whether the masses sensed it or not, we want to map out the details of how this happened at the level of society, politics and economy. It is a story that can be traced at least as far as 11 September 2001, from the beginning of the War on Terror™ - a diabolical stratagem of distraction, terror and oppression to prevent people from seeing the signs of cosmic threats - to the genocide of whole nations and the manufactured economic crisis, all of which Sott.net has followed closely. In this follow-up to Part I we will attempt to bring our readers up to date with the orchestrated chaos unfurling across the planet.
My point here is that the word "revolution" is popularly used nowadays in a social sense. It didn't have that at the time Copernicus was writing; it acquired it. It acquired it at the time of the English Civil War. And it was because of the perception that things in the sky were driving things, terrible things, that were happening on the ground. Only three hundred and fifty years ago, then, mankind was still in the era of an invisible sky god from a once visible heaven associated with angels, fallen angels, and dangerous demons hurling thunderbolts.
We have to get rid of the idea that our ancestors thought that space was empty. They didn't have [the] specialized astrophysical knowledge that has allowed me to build the Taurid stream for you; they just knew it was there. That's really rather a remarkable thing. We've had to unlearn that knowledge in the last three hundred and fifty years in order to put ourselves in the state of rediscovering it.
©Samuel Coccius Basel, Switzerland, 1566
So, what was The Enlightenment only forty years after Cromwell? It was the pragmatic English decision to get rid of all the angels and demons, invisible sky gods, and a once visible heaven. It was the decision to stop worrying about the evidence of fireballs and the supposed behavior of comets. It was a decision to reconstruct the cosmos without heaven in the solar system and put it in the ether or outside the cosmos altogether of infinity a la Bruno. It was the decision to create a purified, less frightening cosmos in much the same way as Aristotle did after Plato. On both occasions we shifted from astrology to physics, and from a sky of foreboding to a sky of inspiration, from prison and terror to freedom and hope.
Indeed, the cry of the revolutionary periods of 1640 to 1680 and 1760 to 1800, the time of the American War of Independence, was the cry of freedom from heavenly oppression, demons, and fireballs.
For the last two hundred years of Enlightenment we have been rewriting history so that the cry of freedom is from earthly oppressors. No wonder the world has gone wrong and the astrophysicists today cannot come to terms with the Taurid torus. I'm really trying to say that this is just not an astrophysical discovery that we are talking about. Everything has got to, sort of, turn around in order to come to terms with what is being said. And this, in a way, is rather like what Irving was describing beforehand. There is a paradigm shift involved in recognizing that it's not just ancient history we have got wrong - it's all history.
It seems irrefutable to me after 20 years of analyzing the career of Stephen Harper that he is incapable of providing democratic governance. Harper arguably shows some traits of what psychologists refer to as malignant narcissism, a dangerously heightened sense of self importance. Otto Kernberg, a leader in the study of personality disorders, describes malignant narcissism as "extreme self-absorption and insensitivity that often result in a trail of victims -- emotional wreckage left in the narcissist's wake." The victims Kernberg refers to are, of course, individuals, but in our case the principal victim is the Canadian nation -- its humanist accomplishments, its art and culture, the foundation of its science, its international standing and its democratic governance.Canada is in the the middle of another federal election, and this time there is a good chance that Stephen Harper's Conservative Party will win a majority government. This is very bad news for the Canadian people and the country as a whole.
Murray Dobbin, Sept 10th 2009, The Tyee
"The Agency shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world."Moreover, many UN agencies are subordinate to the IAEA. This particularly applies to the World Health Organization (WHO). On the strength of an agreement signed on 28 May 1959 (WHA 12-40), the IAEA can veto any research carried by WHO which would be in opposition to implementation of paragraph 2 of the IAEA statute. One statement in this agreement reads:
"It is recognized by the World Health Organization that the International Atomic Energy Agency has the primary responsibility for encouraging, assisting and coordinating research on, and development and practical application of, atomic energy for peaceful uses throughout the world without prejudice to the right of the World Health Organization to concern itself with promoting, developing, assisting, and coordinating international health work, including research, in all its aspects."So it's easy to assess the relative value of reports about the effects of nuclear disasters published by the pro-nuclear institutions, including the famous 2005 report on Chernobyl (a favorite reference for pro-atomic lobbyists). In short, in the interest of "encouraging, assisting and coordinating research on, and development and practical application of, atomic energy" such reports are very probably biased and tend to downplay the extent of the radiation danger to people.