In a startling revelation, recently declassified documents have brought to the forefront a chilling aspect of military strategy: the deliberate use of forest fires as weapons of war. Among these documents is a particularly intriguing report sponsored by the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) which delves into the potential applications of incendiary tactics in military operations.
​
The document, published by the U.S. Department of Defense in 1970, outlines various techniques and scenarios wherein fires can be utilized to gain tactical advantages in combat situations. From creating smoke screens to obstruct enemy visibility to initiating large-scale forest fires to disrupt enemy supply lines and infrastructure, the report explores the myriad ways in which fire can be weaponized to achieve military objectives.

Of particular concern is the section detailing the use of forest fires as a means of psychological warfare, wherein the intentional ignition of fires in enemy territory is aimed at instilling fear, confusion, and panic among civilian populations. By targeting forests, which are often integral to local ecosystems and communities, military planners sought to inflict not only physical damage but also psychological trauma, thereby undermining enemy morale and resolve.

The implications of such tactics are profound, extending far beyond the immediate battlefield. Forest fires, once ignited, can rapidly escalate into uncontrollable infernos, engulfing vast expanses of land, devouring flora and fauna, and posing grave risks to human life and property. The indiscriminate nature of fire knows no bounds, sparing neither military targets nor civilian populations in its destructive path.

Moreover, the use of forest fires as military weapons raises serious ethical and environmental concerns. The deliberate ignition of fires in densely forested areas not only poses immediate risks to human safety but also inflicts long-term damage to fragile ecosystems, biodiversity, and natural resources. The toll on wildlife habitats, air quality, water sources, and soil integrity can be irreparable, perpetuating ecological devastation for generations to come.

In addition to the ecological ramifications, the revelation of forest fires being employed as military weapons underscores the nefarious tactics employed by elements within the so-called "deep state." This clandestine network, operating outside the purview of democratic oversight and accountability, is purportedly driven by ulterior motives and clandestine agendas that prioritize power and control over the welfare of people and planet.

The use of forest fires as instruments of war epitomizes the callous disregard for human life, environmental stewardship, and international law exhibited by clandestine actors operating within the deep state. By weaponizing natural disasters for geopolitical gain, these shadowy forces perpetuate a cycle of destruction and suffering that reverberates far beyond the confines of the battlefield.
​
In light of these revelations, it is incumbent upon governments, civil society organizations, and concerned citizens worldwide to demand transparency, accountability, and responsible stewardship in matters of national security and defense. The wanton destruction wrought by forest fires used as military weapons serves as a stark reminder of the urgent need for vigilance, oversight, and the safeguarding of our shared planet and its inhabitants. Only through collective action and unwavering commitment to peace, justice, and environmental preservation can we hope to mitigate the grave threats posed by the dark underbelly of militarism and covert warfare.

One of the most insidious aspects of the use of forest fires as military weapons lies in the potential manipulation of climate change narratives for ulterior motives. In the wake of devastating fires, clandestine actors within the deep state may exploit the chaos and destruction to advance agendas aimed at consolidating control and power over the masses.

By attributing forest fires to "climate change" and framing them as the result of extreme weather events purportedly exacerbated by human activity, these actors seek to justify intrusive policies and measures that encroach upon individual liberties and civil rights. This includes the implementation of carbon tracking and taxation systems, stringent environmental regulations, and centralized control over energy production and consumption.

Under the guise of addressing climate-related emergencies, governments and supranational organizations may exploit public fear and uncertainty to expand their authority and influence, thereby furthering agendas of social engineering and population control. The narrative of impending environmental catastrophe serves as a pretext for imposing draconian measures that curtail freedom of movement, expression, and economic autonomy.

Moreover, the misattribution of forest fires to climate change conveniently deflects attention away from the role of military actors in their deliberate ignition and propagation. By shifting blame to abstract concepts like "global warming" and "carbon emissions," covert agendas of militarization and geopolitical maneuvering remain obscured, allowing clandestine actors to operate with impunity and evade accountability.

In this way, forest fires become not only tools of physical destruction but also instruments of psychological manipulation and social control. The exploitation of climate change narratives serves to perpetuate a climate of fear and dependency, wherein populations acquiesce to authoritarian measures in the name of environmental salvation.

To combat such nefarious tactics, it is imperative that citizens remain vigilant, informed, and empowered to challenge official narratives and question the motives behind proposed policies and interventions. By advocating for transparency, accountability, and evidence-based decision-making, individuals can resist the manipulation of climate change narratives for political gain and safeguard democratic principles and human rights.

In the face of converging crises – from environmental degradation to militarization and authoritarianism – solidarity, resilience, and collective action are paramount. Only through a concerted effort to expose and oppose covert agendas of manipulation and control can we hope to build a more just, equitable, and sustainable world for present and future generations.

One of the most insidious aspects of the use of forest fires as military weapons lies in the speculation surrounding their origins, which range from natural causes to deliberate human intervention and even advanced technologies such as Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs). As fires rage through vast expanses of woodland, leaving devastation in their wake, questions abound regarding the true perpetrators behind these infernos.
​
While conventional explanations point to factors like arson and lightning strikes, a growing body of evidence suggests the involvement of more clandestine actors with access to sophisticated weaponry and covert operations. Among the most concerning theories is the utilization of Directed Energy Weapons, capable of emitting highly focused energy beams to ignite and propagate fires over long distances with pinpoint accuracy.

Instances such as the operations conducted by the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) in Maui, where DEWs are tested and developed for military applications, have fueled speculation regarding their potential role in the creation of forest fires. Although the AFRL maintains that their research is aimed at enhancing national security and defense capabilities, concerns persist regarding the unintended consequences of deploying such technology in civilian environments.

The prospect of military entities wielding Directed Energy Weapons to instigate or exacerbate forest fires raises profound ethical and legal questions about the use of force and the protection of civilian populations and natural habitats. In the absence of transparency and accountability, suspicions linger regarding the true intentions behind these operations and their impact on communities and ecosystems.

Moreover, the intersection of DEW technology with narratives of climate change further complicates the discourse surrounding forest fires, as speculation abounds regarding the potential manipulation of environmental crises for geopolitical ends. By exploiting public fears and vulnerabilities, clandestine actors may seek to exploit the chaos and destruction wrought by fires to advance agendas of control and domination.
​
In this volatile landscape of uncertainty and speculation, it becomes increasingly challenging to discern truth from deception and fact from fiction. As communities grapple with the aftermath of forest fires and the specter of future conflagrations looms large, it is imperative that rigorous investigation and scrutiny be applied to unraveling the complexities of these crises and holding accountable those responsible for their creation and escalation.

​Ultimately, the manipulation of forest fires for military purposes and the exploitation of climate change narratives for political gain represent grave threats to global stability and security. Only through vigilant oversight, informed discourse, and collective action can we hope to confront the multifaceted challenges posed by the weaponization of natural disasters and safeguard the well-being of humanity and the planet.

“Directed Energy – Air Force Research Laboratory.” Afresearchlab.com, afresearchlab.com/technology/directed-energy/. 

Defense Technical Information Center. DTIC AD0509724: Forest Fire as a Military Weapon. Internet Archive, US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 1 June 1970, archive.org/details/DTIC_AD0509724/page/n1/mode/2up?view=theater. 

The World Economic Forum (WEF) has offered a glimpse into a potentially dystopian future with its "8 predictions for the world in 2030." These prognostications paint a vivid picture of a world undergoing profound transformations. Let's delve into each prediction, exploring the potential dystopian aspects that lurk beneath the surface.

1. Ownership Surrender: "You will own nothing and you'll be happy." 
   The idea of relinquishing ownership raises questions about individual autonomy and the concentration of power. Who controls the resources, and what happens if the systems providing these rented services fail?
2. Global Power Shift: "The US won't be the world's leading superpower."
   A handful of countries dominating raises concerns about geopolitical tensions and potential conflicts. The concentration of power may lead to global instability and the suppression of smaller nations.
3. Organ Printing: "You won't die waiting for an organ donor."
   While organ printing offers hope, it raises ethical dilemmas about the commodification of life. Who gets access to this technology, and does it create a divide between those who can afford printed organs and those who cannot?
4. Meat Reduction: "You will eat much less meat."
   While promoting environmental sustainability, limiting dietary choices could spark debates on personal freedoms. The idea of occasional meat consumption may lead to concerns about societal control over individual decisions.
5. Climate-Induced Displacement: "A million people displaced by climate change."
   Massive displacement due to climate change underscores the potential failures in addressing environmental crises. It poses challenges to global solidarity, potentially leading to conflicts over resources and refuge.
6. Carbon Tax: "Polluters will have to pay to emit carbon dioxide."
   A global tax on carbon may lead to economic disparities and possible exploitation by powerful entities. The burden of this tax could disproportionately affect the less affluent, exacerbating existing inequalities.
7. Mars Exploration: "You could be preparing to go to Mars."
   While space exploration is exciting, the idea of mass exodus to Mars raises questions about Earth's future. Will this be an escape route for the privileged few, leaving the majority to grapple with a potentially compromised planet?
8. Values Under Strain: "Western values will have been tested to the breaking point."
   ​The erosion of democratic values suggests a world in disarray, with potential authoritarianism and loss of personal freedoms. The fragility of democratic systems could lead to societal unrest and a weakening of checks and balances.

As we peer into the speculative future outlined by the WEF, it is essential to approach these predictions with a critical lens. While some aspects hold promise, the dystopian undercurrents remind us of the importance of ethical considerations, equitable access to advancements, and the need for vigilant protection of democratic principles. As we navigate the complexities of the coming decades, a thoughtful and inclusive approach will be crucial to avoiding the darker aspects of the envisioned future.

Behind the curtain of the WEF's predictions lies a concerted effort to bring about change. The WEF has been actively engaged in influencing policies and providing financial support through diverse channels to pave the way for the envisioned future.

1. Policy Influence: The WEF has been a driving force in advocating policy changes at national and international levels. Through collaborative efforts with governments, it seeks to shape regulations that align with its predictions, promoting a future where individuals may own less and rely more on shared resources.
2. Financial Backing: Leveraging its influence, the WEF channels financial support into various governmental, private, and non-governmental initiatives. This backing aims to accelerate the adoption of technologies and systems outlined in the predictions, from organ printing to carbon taxation.
3. Public-Private Partnerships: The WEF actively fosters public-private partnerships, acting as a catalyst for collaboration between governments, businesses, and non-profit organizations. This collaborative approach aims to realize the predicted shifts in global power dynamics and environmental initiatives.
4. Advocacy for Sustainable Practices: Through its various platforms, the WEF advocates for "sustainable" practices, urging reduced meat consumption and the adoption of environmentally friendly policies, such as the use of electric vehicles. The financial backing it provides supports initiatives that align with these goals.
5. Global Initiatives for Climate Change: The WEF plays a pivotal role in driving global initiatives to address climate change, including displacement due to environmental factors. By endorsing policies and providing financial support, it positions itself as a key player in navigating the challenges posed by climate-induced migration.
6. Technological Advancements: With a keen eye on the future, the WEF supports scientific endeavors, such as Mars exploration and organ printing. Financial investments in research and development contribute to technological advancements that may shape the way we live in the coming decades.
   ​Cultural and Societal Shifts: The WEF recognizes the importance of influencing cultural and societal norms. Through its initiatives, such as mass censorship on social media platforms, it aims to bring about shifts in values and behaviors, testing the foundations of Western democracies while advocating for the proposed changes in ownership and consumption patterns.

​
​As these initiatives unfold, the global community must remain vigilant, ensuring that the pursuit of progress is coupled with ethical considerations and a commitment to the well-being of all individuals.

Professional Conspiracy Theorist
As one of the world’s pre-eminent professional conspiracy theorists, David Icke has been a regular guest on London Real, discussing topics as diverse as 5G, 9/11 and censorship.
Often described as a maverick or a renegade, David is a unique voice in the space, propounding a number of predictions around his post-Orwellian vision of society and the future.

An introduction to David Icke
"Today’s mighty oak is just yesterday’s nut that held its ground.”
Since his spiritual awakening in 1990, David enjoys a sizable global following, regularly speaking for up to 10 hours at venues such as Wembley Arena to audiences of thousands of people.
As well as public speaking, David is an acclaimed author having written over 21 books including The Robots’ Rebellion (1994), And The Truth Shall Set You Free (1995), The Biggest Secret (1999) and Children of the Matrix (2001), in which he developed his worldview of New Age thinking.
With a mission to wake up society and free our minds from what governments and mainstream media are trying to make us do, his credentials make him one of the most influential thinkers and catalysts for change.

The episode they didn’t want you to see
We knew the world would be watching when David returned to the studio, but it seems some very powerful people indeed were also watching…
…and they didn’t like what they saw…
…and they didn’t want you to see it either!
In this interview which was reported heavily by the BBC and others and subsequently BANNED, David joined us to talk about the CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC, the worldwide COVID-19 LOCKDOWN, how governments have manipulated their citizens and the wider agenda behind social control and a Surveillance Society. 
We go deeper into the global crisis, the looming economic recession and the impact of 5G technology and the violation of our rights and freedom of speech.
While we don’t always agree with everything David says, London Real will defend his right to be able to say it. So with that in mind sit back and enjoy this incredible and informative episode with David Icke.
​
Discussion topics:

• George Orwell, the U.S. First Amendment, and the RT-PCR test
• Dr. Andrew Kaufman, 5G technology, and the COVID-19 hoax
• The WHO, Eddie Large, and Lombardy air pollution
• Wuhan reporting, Dr. Neil Ferguson, and Imperial College
• Boris Johnson, the climate change scam, and Bill Gates
• The Freemasons, global fascism and Trump
• The Rockefeller family, Bill Gates and Elon Musk

From Truth Stream Media:

It is as if we went to sleep one night and woke up in Terry Gilliam’s dystopic viral film “12 monkeys”. If you haven’t seen that one recently, it’d be great timing to watch it again with fresh eyes.

This entire ordeal we are all living through together has been surreal; most of us have naturally wavered in and out of fear and anxiety, and we don’t know what’s yet be yet to come.

With the headlines constantly flooding in an information overload as this whole scene plays out, it has been difficult just to keep up with events… but alas, a narrative IS emerging.

If we could choose one word for it, we would choose “coordinated”. All these emergencies and viral situations certainly appear to be playing into a previously discussed program which would rapidly – and perhaps – irrevocably change society forever.

As this MIT Technology Review article boldly proclaims, “We’re not going back to normal” – instead, works are underway to require even more surveillance and tech-authorization for anything and everything, even controlling for our very right to go into public, and into businesses, attend events and more in the future.

Not just now, while things are reportedly getting worse, but perhaps indefinitely.

This is how THEY see the future… and it isn’t clear just how much choice any of us would have in this future being outlined now.

Of course, the future isn’t written yet, but it is clear that a number of key insiders, and many of the usual suspects, already have a draft-of-the-future in hand, and are attempting to operate from its script. What is being attempted here is like toast – there is no going back to just a piece of bread if this transformation is completed.

It may be time for a change in our society, but we should all be very, very cautious as to what change the public is preparing to accept, rally behind – and even believe wholeheartedly in under the guise of this recent emergency.

Any number of agendas and conspiracies are getting wrapped up in what appears to be a real Godfather “finishing all the family business” moment. This is a major move the likes of which we have never seen, and even the aftermath of 9/11 may stand in pale comparison to the change now being attempted.

It has been 4 days of editing, and warding off disbelief, shock, and anger over and over again… but something major is happening. Will we say no in time?

We are slowly realizing like a creeping horror this is what we’ve been reporting on all these years and didn’t know it. So many agendas coming together under one giant umbrella. Please share this one. It’s important.

Transcript:

I’m an atmospheric physicist. I’ve published more than 200 scientific papers. For 30 years I taught at MIT, during which time the climate has changed remarkably little. But the cry of “global warming” has grown ever more shrill. In fact, it seems that the less the climate changes, the louder the voices of the climate alarmists get. So, let’s clear the air and create a more accurate picture of where we really stand on the issue of global warming or, as it is now called -- climate change.

There are basically three groups of people dealing with this issue. Groups one and two are scientists. Group three consists mostly, at its core, of politicians, environmentalists and media.

Group one is associated with the scientific part of the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change or IPCC (Working Group 1). These are scientists who mostly believe that recent climate change is primarily due to man’s burning of fossil fuels -- oil, coal and natural gas. This releases C02, carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere and, they believe, this might eventually dangerously heat the planet.

Group two is made up of scientists who don’t see this as an especially serious problem. This is the group I belong to. We’re usually referred to as skeptics. We note that there are many reasons why the climate changes -- the sun, clouds, oceans, the orbital variations of the earth, as well as a myriad of other inputs.

None of these is fully understood, and there is no evidence that CO2 emissions are the dominant factor. But actually there is much agreement between both groups of scientists. The following are such points of agreement:

1. The climate is always changing.
   
2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas without which life on earth is not possible, but adding it to the atmosphere should lead to some warming.
   
3. Atmospheric levels of CO2 have been increasing since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 19th century.
   
4. Over this period (the past two centuries), the global mean temperature has increased slightly and erratically by about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit or one degree Celsius; but only since the 1960’s have man’s greenhouse emissions been sufficient to play a role.
   
5. Given the complexity of climate, no confident prediction about future global mean temperature or its impact can be made. The IPCC, acknowledged in its own 2007 report that “The long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
   

Most importantly, the scenario that the burning of fossil fuels leads to catastrophe isn’t part of what either group asserts. So why are so many people worried, indeed, panic stricken about this issue?

Here’s where Group Three comes in -- the politicians, environmentalists, and media. Global Warming Alarmism provides them, more than any other issue, with the things they most want: For politicians it’s money and power. For environmentalists it’s money for their organizations and confirmation of their near religious devotion to the idea that man is a destructive force acting upon nature. And for the media it’s ideology, money, and headlines -- doomsday scenarios sell.

Meanwhile, over the last decade, scientists outside of climate physics have jumped on the bandwagon, publishing papers blaming global warming for everything from acne to the Syrian civil war. And, crony capitalists have eagerly grabbed for the subsidies that governments have so lavishly provided.

Unfortunately, group three is winning the argument because they have drowned out the serious debate that should be going on. But while politicians, environmentalists and media types can waste a lot of money and scare a lot of people, they won’t be able to bury the truth. The climate will have the final word on that.

I’m Richard Lindzen, emeritus professor of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT, for PragerUniversity.