Joseph P Farrell – G.P. noticed this article, and sent it to me, and when I saw what the title of it was, I thought to myself, “You’ve got to be kidding.” But no, they’re not kidding.

Now, before we get started on all that, let me lay my cards on the table: I am not a believer in climate change, at least, not of the standard narrative which has John Q Farmer or Susy Q Homemaker creating all of it by running a cattle ranch or the vacuum cleaner and causing a looming environmental apocalypse.

In fact, you can call me crazy (many already do, so you’ll have lots of company), but I’ve always found it a bit “odd” and  perhaps a little too coincidental that all this concern about “the environment” and the looming apocalypse began right around the same time that “they” began writing papers back in the 1950s about seriously tinkering with the physics of the entire planet, which of course includes weather modification.

For those old enough to remember, the first “climate change” meme was “the coming ice age,” then it became “global warming”, but now they’ve wised up and are covering all bases with “climate change.”

In short, it always struck me as just remotely possible that all the “environmental concern” was simply about creating a narrative to distract people from what the technocrats and black projects boys were doing to the environment by trying to weaponize it.

It’s the old “blame someone else” tactic. The same holds true in this article: it wants to talk about “climate change” without any mention of the technologies – seeding, chemical spraying, ionospheric heaters and a host of other technologies – that are probably creating a lot more of it than John Q Farmer or Susy Q Homemaker.

“Climate change” is to this technology what “swamp gas” and “temperature inversions” are to the UFO: a convenient explain-nothing narrative to prevent people from looking too closely at off-the-books technologies like high flying reconnaissance aircraft or people experimenting with the electrical cavity and conductivity of the entire planet.

But oddly enough, as G.P. said in the email I received, one can read between the lines in the article, and when one does so, it becomes “creepy”:

Earth EXODUS: Plan to alter Earth’s ORBIT to escape being eaten by dying Sun

And in case you missed it, the article starts out with a bow to the altar of “climate change” without so much as one mention of the insane technocrats most likely behind it:

Man-made climate change is an immediate concern, meaning a global warming apocalypse appears increasingly likely. However the planet’s long-term prognosis is even more dire, because the sun will one day run out of fuel and expand, most likely destroying the Earth in five billion years. Moving the Earth to a wider orbit to escape this fiery oblivion may seem like a far-fetched solution, but an engineer has now outlined several theories for escaping this fate.

Now, before you call me completely crazy (please at least wait to the end of the blog before you do that), what’s noteworthy here is that in this article we notice something very unusual, indeed, a “first” as far as I can tell: the coupling of the “climate change” meme to that of our Sun going nova. What that is designed to do (if indeed there was any design at all) is to couple the climate change meme to the feeling of helplessness: after all, we cannot control when or how the Sun goes nova, can we? It’s all “an inevitable process.”

Except, as I’ve argued many times, when one is tinkering with little things like ionospheric heaters and spraying metals into the atmosphere to increase the electrical conductivity of the planet, and then playing with the planet’s magnetic field, one is inevitably tinkering with not just the weather (an electromagnetic phenomenon in itself), but one can, perhaps,  via the planet’s magnetosphere which is coupled with that of the Sun, introduce resonance effects in the Sun itself.

Pointing your little toy horseshoe magnet at the Sun probably isn’t going to affect it much, nor are your flatulating cows. “Pointing” the Earth’s  magnetosphere at it is a different matter.

But… back to the article. What to do when your planetary-scaled geoengineering experiments begin to backfire, and John Q Farmer and Susy Q Homemaker are no longer as easily persuaded that they’re to blame for all the “climate change”? Why, point to the “inevitable physics” of the Sun, and then propose, in true technocratic fashion, to solve the problem by shunting the orbit of the planet “out there” a little bit further:

However, in an extreme case of future planning, University of Glasgow space engineer Dr Matteo Ceriotti has proposed some radical solutions to help Earth change orbit.

The proposals have to be extreme as, for example, the Earth’s mass is so large we do not have enough power to move the planet using conventional rocket propulsion.

The radical ideas are loosely based on current technologies, although it is safe to assume any surviving humans will have significantly advanced science by then.

…

One such idea is targeting asteroids which pass by Earth’s vicinity and then using the space rocks’ gravitational attraction to pull the orbit of the Earth away from its current location.

Dr Ceriotti told Express.co.uk: “With this idea we would need a huge number of spacecraft to be able to fly to asteroids and then divert the asteroids into an orbit that passes within Earth’s vicinity.

In other words, simply go “out there” and lasso enough asteroids, position them near enough to the Earth that their gravitational pull drags the Earth from its current orbit and parks it near that of Mars (hmmm….). And, please note, that’s more or less doable now with current technology, though obviously extremely expensive.

But the key here is that they’re thinking in terms not just of geoengineering the planet (Farrell Corollary to the Kardashev Class I civilization) but of geoengineering the solar system and its gravitational mechanics(Farrell Corollary to the Kardashev Class II civilization: rather than use the energy of an entire planet or star, demonstrate the capability of engineering systems of those scales).

For those who remember the reference from my book Giza Death Star Destroyed and The Cosmic War, it is sort of like Marduk “remeasuring the structure of the deep” after having destroyed the planet Tiamat.

But wait, there’s more:

“So we may, for example be able to move an asteroid into Earth’s vicinity and then be able to extract its material.

“And then using automated 3D printing in space, you can use the resulting material to create a solar sail in space.”

And final project proposed is the construction of huge solar power plants capable of convert the light of the Sun into electric power, and then this power could be converted into lasers, which would then be shot into space in order to move the Earth.

…

“This is not something which is going to change in the next billions years, and although new technologies may be developed, the physics is not gong to change.”

I don’t know about you, but my suspicion meter is in the red zone here: why bother about something that will only happen in a few billion years (the Sun going nova), unless your chemtrail-ionospheric heater experiments have “tickled” the Sun “a little too much” via magnetic resonance and you suspect that “nature’s timetable” may have been moved up a bit?

And while we’re at it, all this talk about using asteroids to create gravity wells to move the Earth around not only sounds like Marduk “remeasuring the structure of the deep” but actually tinkering with it. Thus, if one couples this whole article with what we in the alternative research field have suspected and been writing about for years, that there is a whole off-the-books-physics and technology, not to mention an off-the-books finance system that helped to create it, and if DARPA and NASA want to have the USA “warp capable” within the next century (and that’s nothing but a manipulation of gravity too), then perhaps the idea of lassoing asteroids and moving planets may be “a little further along” than we suspect.

There will inevitably be some who will write all of this off as my usual high octane speculation, and indeed, it is. But there’s one final, very disturbing little statement in this article:

“But in the future we may develop technologies in which we can actually built(sic) structures direct(sic) in space.

“And some of this research is actually being conducted here in Glasgow University.” (emphasis added)