Perhaps I should ask you too if you have actually read our Open Letter to Hands off Mother Earth
http://www.enouranois.gr/english/indexenhandsMotherEarth.htm

and if there is anything in it you disagree with.

If there is not please become a signatory, adding you name to the names of some distinguished people in the anti-chemtrails movement.

Returning to Alan Robock, my suggestion was not that (1) one should ask him why he supports the wrong side. That was more or less what Mauro and the street protesters were asking him in the video I criticize.

My suggestion was that one should ask him why he doesn't become a signatory to Hands off Mother Earth, if he is really a critic of geoengineering.

My thesis is that unlike Pat Mooney, Alan Robock really IS “controlled opposition”, which is why - although by implication Hands off Mother Earth (HOME) declare support for him by running his articles - he does not declare support for them. He wants the collaboration to be on his terms, not theirs.

As for (2) I do not support the organization that supports Robock (i.e. ETC/HOME). As explained in the Open Letter, what we support is the initiatives that the ETC group has taken in international organizations, such as, most recently, the moratorium on geoengineering.

We attach conditions to dialogue with ETC, as you will see if you read the Open Letter.

What I say is that chemtrails activists should declare unequivocally that we do not accept the credentials of any scientist to be involved in geoengineering unless we are convinced that they are really opposed to it taking place. A necessary but not sufficient condition for that would be for the scientist in question to declare support for HOME.
ETC/HOME do not acknowledge that geoengineering and/or aerosol spraying for geoengineering and/or other purposes are not a proposal or an experiment but a global reality. Their “opposition” therefore remains theoretical, not practical.

For it to become practical they have to be put into a position where they have the power to take practical decisions, or be confronted if they fail to do so.

Most chemtrails activists are climate change skeptics and opposed to the UN and therefore abstentionist from this kind of proposed involvement.

I would argue that if chemtrails activists don’t want to work through the agency of the United Nations we have to make a counterproposal, that can also represent a real challenge to groups like ETC/HOME, who ARE prepared to work through the UN.

And my proposal is that this organization should be the Commonwealth, after the United States has joined it.

The Royal Society has initiated discussions on geoengineering, and has invited submissions. At least one American chemtrails activist, Rebecca Campbell, has made a submission. A Dutch/French chemtrails activist Saskia Messager has said that she got the impression the Royal Society is not really all that committed to geoengineering but is trying to act as a referee. A proposal that geoengineering be put under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth might come as a pleasant surprise to the Royal Society and help to swing the balance in the discussion for them in favour of the chemtrails activists and against the geoengineers.



I hope I have shown you that I do not suggest either #1 or #2 as concrete action.



I was trying to be ironical, on the assumption that you would believe that American republican and democratic institutions involve a form of representation of “we the people”.

In any case, all states have fancier weapons than the citizenry of those states. We in Greece are not afraid that our state will employ open and systematic large-scale deadly violence against us. Should you Americans really have such fears of your own government??





The EU in the original form as envisaged by its pioneers such as (above all) Altiero Spinelli was a good idea. If you want to revive your original American constution, we would like to revive the constitution of Altiero Spinelli, which passed the European Parliament in the mid nineteen eighties but was rejected by the member states, so that now we have the casino-economics and militaristic Treaty of Lisbon in its place. But even the Treaty of Lisbon has a clause making possible popular initiative. And “subsidiarity”, not unnecessary centralization, is supposed to be a basic principle of the European Union.

So if you want to reform your state and get “back to basics”, please allow us the liberty to do the same. Otherwise you are no different from your oppressive “globalist” masters.



The idea of the free citizen, as expressed by G. Edward Griffin and others, has some very positive aspects to it. But to counterpose this idea of freedom to something called “collectivism” is just to continue Cold War reflexes that should have been killed twenty years ago, along with the Soviet Union. The individual and the collective are both inseparable aspects of human existence.



I am not familiar with this “gold fringe” idea. The Greek flag does not have a gold fringe. Nor does the EU flag, or the flag of the United States.

And few Russians I am sure would agree with the idea that the changes in their country are cosmetic. What has happened is that they now have the worst aspects of both Communism and capitalism together.

And before long, unless we change direction, we will be in the same situation ourselves.


In my opinion there are other tools to be used other than fear. Tools which you and I can use, because nobody is afraid of us.
Those tools are shame and inspiration.



And politics hates us too.