When Woodrow Wilson was president, at least he pretended to oppose war and claimed that the First World War was the "War to end all Wars" and that we were fighting to defend democratic countries against non-democratic countries, even though many of the countries we were defending weren't much more democratic than those we were fighting against.
We still get plenty of politicians speaking out against war, but few of them who stand up against it when it counts, often even the ones that we trust the most. A significant percentage of our Congress has large stock holdings in defense industries, and even more of them take large campaign contribution from the, Those not taking their campaign contribution have a hard time getting any media coverage that enables them to get the name recognition they need to be viable candidates, so they never get elected in the first place.
Yet there's little or no discussion about the major conflict of interest by politicians that profit off defense companies, campaign contributions and war; although, it wasn't always that way. Ironically the last time there was a major discussion in Congress that I know of about war profiteering and an effort to expose and prevent it was in in 1934 when they saw potential war coming in Europe, which was the most important one that might defend democracy and stop genocide, and they claimed, rightfully, that there was war profiteering during the First World War. However, when there was far more justification to discuss war profiteering as the "Military Industrial Complex" Eisenhower warned us about there was little or no debate from Congress or many Presidents. Despite Eisenhower's warning in his farewell speech he enabled the MIC to grow and participate in several coups while he was president.
Based on here were even efforts to study how to use weather modification technology in the 1960s, however incompetent they turned out to be, which sounds like fringe conspiracy theory and some of it is; however, some of this comes from Congressional investigations and government reports, so even if it is fringe conspiracy theory it's relevant since the people reporting on it also control the government, and the most recent report on this is no earlier than 2005. Lyndon Johnson allegedly even said he who "controls the weather, can control the world!" However, even though this claim is repeated throughout the internet I was unable to find the official transcripts of that speech, instead only finding several copies of his speech and none of them had good enough audio for me to confirm it, but one of them had closed caption and even though the title refereed to controlling the world, the captions in the video said "approve the weather, to improve the world!"
This was followed up, after he became president by several speeches to Congress submitting them annual reports about research to control the weather; although, most modern scientists claim that it had little or no success. His quote from the closed caption does seem a little odd, and perhaps it's the one that's wrong; I can't tell since I can't get good audio from any of the videos, but if you want to judge for yourself several of the videos are listed below at the end of the segment about alleged weather control. This doesn't mean that they weren't trying, and with Climate Change so obviously relevant today, it's worth a closer look.
Even though Johnson may not have said that he wanted to use weather control to control the world, he didn't stand up to those that did, nor did he oppose the war-mongers pushing for the Vietnam war, instead helping them bring it about. A review of several of the presidents speeches, along with some historical background about how they actually acted and other activities from the time period shows how wars based on lies abroad is part of the methods the ruling class use to suppress democracy at home. Few presidents actually did oppose wars based on lies; the most recent one that might have is Jimmy Carter, but the one that may have provided the strongest opposition was John F. Kennedy, who gave several speeches trying to bring about peace and defending the working class, the most famous is his speech at the American University just over five months before he was assassinated:
Commencement Address at American University, Washington, D.C., June 10, 1963 | JFK Library
What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children--not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women--not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.
I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in an age when great powers can maintain large and relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces. It makes no sense in an age when a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all the allied air forces in the Second World War. It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by wind and water and soil and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations yet unborn.
Today the expenditure of billions of dollars every year on weapons acquired for the purpose of making sure we never need to use them is essential to keeping the peace. But surely the acquisition of such idle stockpiles--which can only destroy and never create--is not the only, much less the most efficient, means of assuring peace.
I speak of peace, therefore, as the necessary rational end of rational men. I realize that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war--and frequently the words of the pursuer fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task.
Some say that it is useless to speak of world peace or world law or world disarmament--and that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. I believe we can help them do it. But I also believe that we must reexamine our own attitude--as individuals and as a Nation--for our attitude is as essential as theirs. And every graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace, should begin by looking inward--by examining his own attitude toward the possibilities of peace, toward the Soviet Union, toward the course of the cold war and toward freedom and peace here at home.
First: Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable--that mankind is doomed--that we are gripped by forces we cannot control.
We need not accept that view. Our problems are man made--therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable--and we believe they can do it again. ......
Second: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the Soviet Union. It is discouraging to think that their leaders may actually believe what their propagandists write. It is discouraging to read a recent authoritative Soviet text on Military Strategy and find, on page after page, wholly baseless and incredible claims--such as the allegation that "American imperialist circles are preparing to unleash different types of wars . . . that there is a very real threat of a preventive war being unleashed by American imperialists against the Soviet Union . . . [and that] the political aims of the American imperialists are to enslave economically and politically the European and other capitalist countries . . . [and] to achieve world domination . . . by means of aggressive wars."
Truly, as it was written long ago: "The wicked flee when no man pursueth." Yet it is sad to read these Soviet statements--to realize the extent of the gulf between us. But it is also a warning--a warning to the American people not to fall into the same trap as the Soviets, not to see only a distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats. ........
Among the many traits the peoples of our two countries have in common, none is stronger than our mutual abhorrence of war. Almost unique among the major world powers, we have never been at war with each other. And no nation in the history of battle ever suffered more than the Soviet Union suffered in the course of the Second World War. At least 20 million lost their lives. Countless millions of homes and farms were burned or sacked. A third of the nation's territory, including nearly two thirds of its industrial base, was turned into a wasteland--a loss equivalent to the devastation of this country east of Chicago.
Today, should total war ever break out again--no matter how--our two countries would become the primary targets. It is an ironic but accurate fact that the two strongest powers are the two in the most danger of devastation. All we have built, all we have worked for, would be destroyed in the first 24 hours. And even in the cold war, which brings burdens and dangers to so many nations, including this Nation's closest allies--our two countries bear the heaviest burdens. For we are both devoting massive sums of money to weapons that could be better devoted to combating ignorance, poverty, and disease. We are both caught up in a vicious and dangerous cycle in which suspicion on one side breeds suspicion on the other, and new weapons beget counterweapons.
In short, both the United States and its allies, and the Soviet Union and its allies, have a mutually deep interest in a just and genuine peace and in halting the arms race. Agreements to this end are in the interests of the Soviet Union as well as ours--and even the most hostile nations can be relied upon to accept and keep those treaty obligations, and only those treaty obligations, which are in their own interest. ....
Second: To make clear our good faith and solemn convictions on the matter, I now declare that the United States does not propose to conduct nuclear tests in the atmosphere so long as other states do not do so. We will not be the first to resume. Such a declaration is no substitute for a formal binding treaty, but I hope it will help us achieve one. Nor would such a treaty be a substitute for disarmament, but I hope it will help us achieve it.
Finally, my fellow Americans, let us examine our attitude toward peace and freedom here at home. The quality and spirit of our own society must justify and support our efforts abroad. We must show it in the dedication of our own lives--as many of you who are graduating today will have a unique opportunity to do, by serving without pay in the Peace Corps abroad or in the proposed National Service Corps here at home. .......
The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough--more than enough--of war and hate and oppression. We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it. But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success. Confident and unafraid, we labor on--not toward a strategy of annihilation but toward a strategy of peace. Complete speech
What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children--not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women--not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.
I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in an age when great powers can maintain large and relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces. It makes no sense in an age when a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all the allied air forces in the Second World War. It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by wind and water and soil and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations yet unborn.
Today the expenditure of billions of dollars every year on weapons acquired for the purpose of making sure we never need to use them is essential to keeping the peace. But surely the acquisition of such idle stockpiles--which can only destroy and never create--is not the only, much less the most efficient, means of assuring peace.
I speak of peace, therefore, as the necessary rational end of rational men. I realize that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war--and frequently the words of the pursuer fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task.
Some say that it is useless to speak of world peace or world law or world disarmament--and that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. I believe we can help them do it. But I also believe that we must reexamine our own attitude--as individuals and as a Nation--for our attitude is as essential as theirs. And every graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace, should begin by looking inward--by examining his own attitude toward the possibilities of peace, toward the Soviet Union, toward the course of the cold war and toward freedom and peace here at home.
First: Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable--that mankind is doomed--that we are gripped by forces we cannot control.
We need not accept that view. Our problems are man made--therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable--and we believe they can do it again. ......
Second: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the Soviet Union. It is discouraging to think that their leaders may actually believe what their propagandists write. It is discouraging to read a recent authoritative Soviet text on Military Strategy and find, on page after page, wholly baseless and incredible claims--such as the allegation that "American imperialist circles are preparing to unleash different types of wars . . . that there is a very real threat of a preventive war being unleashed by American imperialists against the Soviet Union . . . [and that] the political aims of the American imperialists are to enslave economically and politically the European and other capitalist countries . . . [and] to achieve world domination . . . by means of aggressive wars."
Truly, as it was written long ago: "The wicked flee when no man pursueth." Yet it is sad to read these Soviet statements--to realize the extent of the gulf between us. But it is also a warning--a warning to the American people not to fall into the same trap as the Soviets, not to see only a distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats. ........
Among the many traits the peoples of our two countries have in common, none is stronger than our mutual abhorrence of war. Almost unique among the major world powers, we have never been at war with each other. And no nation in the history of battle ever suffered more than the Soviet Union suffered in the course of the Second World War. At least 20 million lost their lives. Countless millions of homes and farms were burned or sacked. A third of the nation's territory, including nearly two thirds of its industrial base, was turned into a wasteland--a loss equivalent to the devastation of this country east of Chicago.
Today, should total war ever break out again--no matter how--our two countries would become the primary targets. It is an ironic but accurate fact that the two strongest powers are the two in the most danger of devastation. All we have built, all we have worked for, would be destroyed in the first 24 hours. And even in the cold war, which brings burdens and dangers to so many nations, including this Nation's closest allies--our two countries bear the heaviest burdens. For we are both devoting massive sums of money to weapons that could be better devoted to combating ignorance, poverty, and disease. We are both caught up in a vicious and dangerous cycle in which suspicion on one side breeds suspicion on the other, and new weapons beget counterweapons.
In short, both the United States and its allies, and the Soviet Union and its allies, have a mutually deep interest in a just and genuine peace and in halting the arms race. Agreements to this end are in the interests of the Soviet Union as well as ours--and even the most hostile nations can be relied upon to accept and keep those treaty obligations, and only those treaty obligations, which are in their own interest. ....
Second: To make clear our good faith and solemn convictions on the matter, I now declare that the United States does not propose to conduct nuclear tests in the atmosphere so long as other states do not do so. We will not be the first to resume. Such a declaration is no substitute for a formal binding treaty, but I hope it will help us achieve one. Nor would such a treaty be a substitute for disarmament, but I hope it will help us achieve it.
Finally, my fellow Americans, let us examine our attitude toward peace and freedom here at home. The quality and spirit of our own society must justify and support our efforts abroad. We must show it in the dedication of our own lives--as many of you who are graduating today will have a unique opportunity to do, by serving without pay in the Peace Corps abroad or in the proposed National Service Corps here at home. .......
The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough--more than enough--of war and hate and oppression. We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it. But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success. Confident and unafraid, we labor on--not toward a strategy of annihilation but toward a strategy of peace. Complete speech
The alleged false belief, by the Soviet Union, Kennedy spoke of that "American imperialist circles are preparing to unleash different types of wars ...." wasn't entirely false during the Eisenhower administration when he supported coups in both Iran and Guatemala and escalating intervention in Vietnam, against the wishes of their own people who supported Ho Chi Minh far more than any of the leaders put in power either before or after Kennedy became president including Ngô Đình Diệm, who was put in power with the help of the Eisenhower administration, and at least one election that was clearly rigged, with help from the CIA and was still in power at the time of this speech. However, even though the Soviet belief was at least partly true Kennedy made it clear that he intended to change things so that it would no longer be true, while he was president. His promise not to conduct any more nuclear tests in the atmosphere and agreement to support the Peace Corp. were just the beginning of his efforts toward peace.
Following this speech JFK made plans to withdraw troops from Vietnam starting with 1,000 troops by the end of 1963, and depending on future events, full withdrawal by the end of 1965, as described in NSAM-263. There were several other of his speeches where he promised to help out the working class, before the most vigilante rose up against the ruling class, based on events both in Latin America and Russia, including the following speech, where he discusses what would have happened if they gave a modest raise to an obscure reporter, who later left the business and became more famous in the nineteenth century:
The President and the Press: Address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association, April 27, 1961 | JFK Library
You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.
We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty bourgeois cheating."
But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.
If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man. ........
The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know. .....
It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.
Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.
For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money. .....
I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.
Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level-- will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests. Complete speech
You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.
We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty bourgeois cheating."
But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.
If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man. ........
The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know. .....
It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.
Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.
For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money. .....
I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.
Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level-- will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests. Complete speech
His efforts to defend the working class, including Karl Marx would have gone a long way to stop extremists like Lenin and Stalin, neither of whom stood up for Marx's beliefs most of the time, although they pretended to, from rallying the working class. He didn't challenge the false stereotypes trying to equate Marx and all people trying to defend the working class as synonymous with Stalin, but he did far better than any politician with nearly as high a profile as him. However, we should be skeptical of his comments trying to encourage self-censorship from the media, even though it was accompanied by some comments defending free speech. And he could have done more to speak out in favor of more control of the media by the working class, including somewhat educated people that spoke out against the excesses of Capitalism, although it's far worse now after the consolidation that escalated in the Reagan years and reached it's peak when Bill Clinton enabled six corporations to control over 95% of national media.
He also spoke out against oppression of the working class in Latin America and made his famous comment, among those familiar with alternative media, although those relying on traditional media may never have heard this comment, about making "violent revolution inevitable," in the following excerpt:
Address on the First Anniversary of the Alliance for Progress by John F. Kennedy 03/13/1962
One year ago, on a similar occasion, I proposed the Alliance for Progress. That was the conception, but the birth did not take place until some months later, at Punta del Este. That was a suggestion for a continent-wide cooperative effort to satisfy the basic needs of the American people for homes, work, land, health and schools, for political liberty and the dignity of the spirit.
Our mission, I said, was "to complete the revolution of the Americas - to build a Hemisphere where all men can hope for a suitable standard of living - and all can live out their lives in dignity and freedom." ......
I know the difficulties of such a task. It is unprecedented. Our own history shows how fierce the resistance can be to changes which later generations regard as part of the normal framework of life. And the course of rational social change is even more hazardous for those progressive governments who often face entrenched privilege of the right and subversive conspiracies on the left.
For too long my country, the wealthiest nation in a continent which is not wealthy, failed to carry out its full responsibilities to its sister Republics. We have now accepted that responsibility. In the same way those who possess wealth and power in poor nations must accept their own responsibilities. They must lead the fight for those basic reforms which alone can preserve the fabric of their societies. Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
These social reforms are at the heart of the Alliance for Progress. They are the precondition to economic modernization. And they are the instrument by which we assure the poor and hungry - the worker and the campesino - his full participation in the benefits of our development and in the human dignity which is the purpose of all free societies. At the same time we sympathize with the difficulties of remaking deeply rooted and traditional social structures. We ask that substantial and steady progress toward reform accompany the effort to develop the economies of the American nations.
A year ago I also expressed our special friendship to the people of Cuba and the Dominican Republic and the hope that they would soon rejoin the society of free men, uniting with us in this common effort. Today I am glad to welcome among us the representatives of a free Dominican Republic; and to reaffirm the hope that, in the not too distant future, our society of free nations will once again be complete. Complete article
One year ago, on a similar occasion, I proposed the Alliance for Progress. That was the conception, but the birth did not take place until some months later, at Punta del Este. That was a suggestion for a continent-wide cooperative effort to satisfy the basic needs of the American people for homes, work, land, health and schools, for political liberty and the dignity of the spirit.
Our mission, I said, was "to complete the revolution of the Americas - to build a Hemisphere where all men can hope for a suitable standard of living - and all can live out their lives in dignity and freedom." ......
I know the difficulties of such a task. It is unprecedented. Our own history shows how fierce the resistance can be to changes which later generations regard as part of the normal framework of life. And the course of rational social change is even more hazardous for those progressive governments who often face entrenched privilege of the right and subversive conspiracies on the left.
For too long my country, the wealthiest nation in a continent which is not wealthy, failed to carry out its full responsibilities to its sister Republics. We have now accepted that responsibility. In the same way those who possess wealth and power in poor nations must accept their own responsibilities. They must lead the fight for those basic reforms which alone can preserve the fabric of their societies. Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
These social reforms are at the heart of the Alliance for Progress. They are the precondition to economic modernization. And they are the instrument by which we assure the poor and hungry - the worker and the campesino - his full participation in the benefits of our development and in the human dignity which is the purpose of all free societies. At the same time we sympathize with the difficulties of remaking deeply rooted and traditional social structures. We ask that substantial and steady progress toward reform accompany the effort to develop the economies of the American nations.
A year ago I also expressed our special friendship to the people of Cuba and the Dominican Republic and the hope that they would soon rejoin the society of free men, uniting with us in this common effort. Today I am glad to welcome among us the representatives of a free Dominican Republic; and to reaffirm the hope that, in the not too distant future, our society of free nations will once again be complete. Complete article
His prediction about "making violent revolution inevitable" has come true since then repeatedly, although in most cases the the worst violence were from oppressive ruling classes, not the working class, including the coups in Iran and Guatemala, before his presidency, the escalating war in Vietnam, coups in Chile, Honduras, Bolivia and more after he was assassinated. The most successful reforms weren't brought about by violent revolutions, though. Officially, our government has admitted to supporting the coups in Iran, Guatemala, Chile and more older coups; however, for years if not decades after these coups they made weak denials and the media helped them avoid the subject, even though the evidence was overwhelming. They're still in the weak denial stage for Honduras and Bolivia.
JFK made numerous statements indicating that he would defend the working class, both at home and abroad, especially in Latin America, as well as indicating that he would pull out of Vietnam. There were also some exaggerated claims or false quotes, like, "There is a plot in this country to enslave every man, woman, and child. Before I leave this high and noble office, I intend to expose this plot." However, even though there's no record of this quote until decades after he died, there are plenty of real quotes sending a similar message, although not quite so extreme; and there's plenty of evidence to indicate that even though this quote is false, there are many members of the ruling class that have been relentlessly trying to suppress the rights of working men both at home and abroad, when ever they could get away with it, and they got away with it much more abroad.
James Douglass made the most compelling case that I know of in JFK and the Unspeakable 2008 (Google excerpts) and there are many additional sources showing how much leading corporations have been fighting to suppress workers rights, even when it means supporting oppressive tyrants like Pinochet or the Shah; however, mainstream media provides little if any coverage for this. Douglass went into much more detail implicating the CIA as a leader of a conspiracy to assassinate JFK for these reasons, not that you should rely solely on even him. But there's no reason to rely solely on one single source as I pointed out in JFK and the Unspeakable James Douglass; my review of his book plus additional input on psychology leading to war. My article on the subject cites several other sources for research into his assassination as well.
One of the biggest disputes was whether he really did intend to commit a full withdrawal; most establishment pundits try to raise doubts about this, but in addition to the compelling case made by Douglass several other researcher confirmed this including James K. Galbraith in his articles, JFK Had Ordered Full Withdrawal from Vietnam: Solid Evidence 09/26/2017 and JFK’s Vietnam Withdrawal Plan Is a Fact, Not Speculation 11/22/2013 On important document is Wikipedia: National Security Action Memorandum 263 which no credible source disputes.
Eisenhower was of course famous for his warning about the "military-industrial complex," however; the speech that included this warning also included some cold war paranoia that justified the funding of the military-industrial complex, and most people don't remember the full speech, including at least one additional quote we should pay more attention that didn't get nearly as much attention:
Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Farewell Address January 17, 1961
Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle—with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment. ......
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence—economic, political, even spiritual—is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. .....
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present—and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. Complete article
Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle—with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment. ......
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence—economic, political, even spiritual—is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. .....
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present—and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. Complete article
Eisenhower's warning about the military industrial complex certainly was welcome, but we shouldn't give him too much credit of it, since he also helped build it up, contributed to the cold war propaganda and put people in positions of power that were endangering the democracy he claimed to be defended, and participated in the coups in both Iran and Guatemala, in addition to setting the stage for the disastrous Vietnam war. David Talbot went into this much more in "The Devil's Chessboard" 2015, explaining how the Dulles Bothers often did anything they wanted to, and even on some occasions how Eisenhower seemed to be taking orders from them instead of the other way around.
One other quote from this speech hasn't gotten nearly as much attention as it deserves, "Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together." We need a much better informed citizenry than we had then or even now, partly because of inadequate educational methods. The same establishment that was controlling the propaganda given to the public back then is still at it today with more sophisticated research on indoctrinating the public; and on top of that control of the media is in the hands of a much smaller percentage of the public now than it was then. Only six corporations control over 95% of the media and the biggest independent media outlets following those six are also owned by billionaires.
Furthermore, Eisenhower made other famous quotes about every bomb or tank that we paid for was using up money that could go to schools or other productive activities that could improve the quality of life at home. There's far more propaganda effort to teach people that we have to fight wars based on lies, to "defend our freedom" than there is effort to educate the public about the most effective ways to solve our problems, and learn how to recognize those lies. Some of these lies were much bigger, in some ways, during Eisenhower's day. The paranoia about the Soviet Union began with Winston Churchill's Iron Curtain speech in 1946. Since then the United States has been trying to portray the Soviet Union or Russia as "the evil Empire;" however, at that time, even though Stalin was a tyrant, they were in no position to threaten outside powers, after the damage done to them during the war, which was much worse than the damage done to the United States or Even Britain.
They still weren't nearly as much of a threat as they portrayed them to be in 1960. The alleged missile gap that was driving the arms race was based on lies; and it was discredited numerous times. Ironically, even after being caught distorting the facts several times, they repeated the same false claims over and over again which the false missile gap being exposed several times. Each time those checking the facts proved to be right, but those repeating the lies often spoke louder and got more air time; demonstrating the accuracy of the leading principle of propaganda, "A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth," or at least it seems to.
In the most extreme reports, some of which have been verified through declassified documents or public speeches, and others which have been exaggerated, there have been numerous reports of attempts to use control of the weather as a military option to fight against the enemies. Most modern scientists now say these efforts were failures, and often attribute them to fringe conspiracy theorists. This may only be partly true since the truth is often mixed up with disinformation.
One example is the following article, which has been partially confirmed; however, the text of one of Johnson's speech's may not be quite right:
President Lyndon Johnson Approves Weather Warfare MAY 27, 1962 - 1969
President Johnson would go on to authorize weather warfare over Vietnam.
Operation Popeye first came to public light in March 1971, when reporter Jack Anderson published a story based on a secret 1967 memo from the Joint Chiefs of Staff to President Johnson. The memo read:
“In his subcommittee’s detailed summary statement Johnson proclaimed that our very future depended on being the ones who first seized ownership of space. “Control of space means control of the world,” Johnson declared.
From space, the masters of infinity would have the power to control the earth’s weather, to cause drought and flood, to change the tides and raise the levels of the sea, to divert the gulf stream and change temperate climates to frigid. Johnson continued:
In essence, the Soviet Union has appraised control of space as a goal of such consequence that achievement of such control has been made a first aim of national policy. [In contrast], our decisions, more often than not, have been made within the framework of the Government’s annual budget. Against this view, we now have on record the appraisal of leaders in the field of science, respected men of unquestioned competence, whose valuation of what control of outer space means renders irrelevant the bookkeeping concerns of fiscal officers.” - Vice President Johnson
“It lays the predicate and foundation for the development of a weather satellite that will permit man to determine the world's cloud layer and ultimately to control the weather; and he who controls the weather will control the world” - Vice President Johnson at Southwest Texas State University (1962)
President Johnson would go on to authorize weather warfare over Vietnam.
Operation Popeye first came to public light in March 1971, when reporter Jack Anderson published a story based on a secret 1967 memo from the Joint Chiefs of Staff to President Johnson. The memo read:
“Laos operations – Continue as at present plus Pop Eye to reduce the trafficability [sic] along infiltration routes & Authorization requested to implement operational phase of weather modification process previously successful tested and evaluated in some area”. (US Senate, Subcommittee on Oceans and International Environment; 26 July 1972; p. 5).Complete article
One of his earliest statements about weather control is from an obscure speech at Southwest Texas State University May 27 1962 which is on video at several locations on the internet, but none of them, that I can find have very good audio; however there is one with closed caption, Lyndon Johnson control the weather, to control the world! 1962 09/02/2017 which may or may not be much better, but it says, "approve the weather, to improve the world," not "he who controls the weather will control the world.” The captions may not be perfect, I certainly wouldn't have used the phrase "approve the weather," but if your in doubt you can check this video or some of the other copies I included below and judge for yourself.
The claim about Wikipedia: Operation Popeye was confirmed independently and reported by several sources including Seymour M. Hersh in the New York Times Furthermore, Lyndon Johnson made several speeches before congress, in 1966, 1967 and 1968, that are a matter of public record claiming that they had some degree of success with experiments to control the weather, and the reports that he submitted to Congress are available on the internet, at least some of them listed below:
Message to the Congress Transmitting the National Science Foundation's Annual Report on Weather Modification 02/18/1966
To the Congress of the United States: I am transmitting, for the consideration of the Congress, the Seventh Annual Report on Weather Modification (for Fiscal Year 1965) submitted to me by the Director of the National Science Foundation.
Highly encouraging steps are being taken toward establishing safe and effective programs for modifying the weather. We can now begin to see the day when such programs may be operationally feasible. This is an encouraging development—not only for Americans but for men Everywhere.
Last year, in transmitting to the Congress the Sixth Annual Report, I indicated the need for a larger effort in basic research and in the development of means to put the knowledge we have to work.
That increased effort is noted in this report. It describes not only the vigorous pursuit of weather modification programs by the agencies of the Executive Branch—but also the valuable stimulus afforded by the Committees of the Congress, and the significant activities of nongovernmental groups.
Recent Studies
The list of recent activities in this field is heartening. For example, on January 1, 1966, the first Federal regulation on weather modification became effective. The National Science Foundation issued rules providing that advance notice of intention to modify the weather must be given to the Foundation.
More recently, two significant reports by advisory groups have been issued. A two-volume study by a National Academy of Sciences Panel, released January 14, reviewed in detail the physical science aspects of weather and climate modification. Five days later the National Science Foundation’s Special Commission on Weather Modification issued a broad report covering the biological and social aspects, statistical problems and of law and organization, and international implications, as well as physical science aspects. Additional reports by the Special Commission will soon be forthcoming.
Congress, too, has indicated its interest in scheduling additional hearings on weather and climate modification during this session.
It is striking that seperate groups dealing seriously with the problem have, after long study, arrived at similar and significant conclusions.
The National Academy of Sciences report, for example, says: “In a sense, weather modification today is reality. Man can and does interfere with the atmosphere in a number of ways. His ability to produce deliberate beneficial changes is still very limited and uncertain, but it is no longer economically and politically trivial.”
The report of the Special Commission, in a markedly similar passage, says, “Weather and climate modification is becoming a reality. The daily activities of man influence the atmosphere in a number of ways and his ability to induce deliberate changes in measurable magnitude by artificial means is progressing.”
The report I submit today says it another way: “In 1965, key words are no longer ‘whether’ and ‘when.’ They are ‘what’ and ‘how’ and ‘who’.”
ProblemsAnd—Progress
Two sets of problems face us and both are difficult. One consists of finding out how to modify the weather and climate. The second consists of determining how to utilize this knowledge for the benefit of mankind once it is achieved.
The scientists and engineers inside and outside the Government must address themselves particularly to the first set of problems. All of us, as concerned citizens, must seriously consider the second.
At present it appears feasible, under appropriate conditions, to seed some kinds of clouds and achieve increased precipitation. It is also possible, under certain conditions, to dissipate some types of fog. Partial success has been reported from abroad in reducing hail damage.
As our understanding of atmospheric processes increases, our ability to do more will also increase. Even now, men are dreaming and planning of projects that will some day enable us to mitigate the awesome and terrible forces of hurricanes and tornadoes. Such a time is still far off, but perhaps not so far off as we thought only a few years ago.
That so much is being done now is a credit not only to the men of science working in the field, but also to the understanding and support of the Congress which has expressed its interest in the support of this field of great national interest. I commend to your continuing interest this report and the important efforts that it describes.
Lyndon B. Johnson
The White House
February 18, 1966
Note: The report transmitted to the President on January 12, is entitled “Weather Modification: Seventh Annual Report, 1965” (Government Printing Office, 109 pp.).
The President also referred to a report published by the National Academy of Sciences, dated January1966 and entitled “Weather and Climate Modification—Problems and Prospects” (2vols., 28pp. And 198 pp.), and to a report of the Special Commission on Weather Modification, National Science Foundation, entitled “Weather and Climate Modification” (149 pp.). Complete article
To the Congress of the United States: I am transmitting, for the consideration of the Congress, the Seventh Annual Report on Weather Modification (for Fiscal Year 1965) submitted to me by the Director of the National Science Foundation.
Highly encouraging steps are being taken toward establishing safe and effective programs for modifying the weather. We can now begin to see the day when such programs may be operationally feasible. This is an encouraging development—not only for Americans but for men Everywhere.
Last year, in transmitting to the Congress the Sixth Annual Report, I indicated the need for a larger effort in basic research and in the development of means to put the knowledge we have to work.
That increased effort is noted in this report. It describes not only the vigorous pursuit of weather modification programs by the agencies of the Executive Branch—but also the valuable stimulus afforded by the Committees of the Congress, and the significant activities of nongovernmental groups.
The list of recent activities in this field is heartening. For example, on January 1, 1966, the first Federal regulation on weather modification became effective. The National Science Foundation issued rules providing that advance notice of intention to modify the weather must be given to the Foundation.
More recently, two significant reports by advisory groups have been issued. A two-volume study by a National Academy of Sciences Panel, released January 14, reviewed in detail the physical science aspects of weather and climate modification. Five days later the National Science Foundation’s Special Commission on Weather Modification issued a broad report covering the biological and social aspects, statistical problems and of law and organization, and international implications, as well as physical science aspects. Additional reports by the Special Commission will soon be forthcoming.
Congress, too, has indicated its interest in scheduling additional hearings on weather and climate modification during this session.
It is striking that seperate groups dealing seriously with the problem have, after long study, arrived at similar and significant conclusions.
The National Academy of Sciences report, for example, says: “In a sense, weather modification today is reality. Man can and does interfere with the atmosphere in a number of ways. His ability to produce deliberate beneficial changes is still very limited and uncertain, but it is no longer economically and politically trivial.”
The report of the Special Commission, in a markedly similar passage, says, “Weather and climate modification is becoming a reality. The daily activities of man influence the atmosphere in a number of ways and his ability to induce deliberate changes in measurable magnitude by artificial means is progressing.”
The report I submit today says it another way: “In 1965, key words are no longer ‘whether’ and ‘when.’ They are ‘what’ and ‘how’ and ‘who’.”
Two sets of problems face us and both are difficult. One consists of finding out how to modify the weather and climate. The second consists of determining how to utilize this knowledge for the benefit of mankind once it is achieved.
The scientists and engineers inside and outside the Government must address themselves particularly to the first set of problems. All of us, as concerned citizens, must seriously consider the second.
At present it appears feasible, under appropriate conditions, to seed some kinds of clouds and achieve increased precipitation. It is also possible, under certain conditions, to dissipate some types of fog. Partial success has been reported from abroad in reducing hail damage.
As our understanding of atmospheric processes increases, our ability to do more will also increase. Even now, men are dreaming and planning of projects that will some day enable us to mitigate the awesome and terrible forces of hurricanes and tornadoes. Such a time is still far off, but perhaps not so far off as we thought only a few years ago.
That so much is being done now is a credit not only to the men of science working in the field, but also to the understanding and support of the Congress which has expressed its interest in the support of this field of great national interest. I commend to your continuing interest this report and the important efforts that it describes.
Lyndon B. Johnson
The White House
February 18, 1966
Note: The report transmitted to the President on January 12, is entitled “Weather Modification: Seventh Annual Report, 1965” (Government Printing Office, 109 pp.).
The President also referred to a report published by the National Academy of Sciences, dated January1966 and entitled “Weather and Climate Modification—Problems and Prospects” (2vols., 28pp. And 198 pp.), and to a report of the Special Commission on Weather Modification, National Science Foundation, entitled “Weather and Climate Modification” (149 pp.). Complete article
Message to the Congress Transmitting National Science Foundation's Annual Report on Weather Modification 07/19/1967
To the Congress of the United States:
I am pleased to transmit the Eighth Annual Report of the National Science Foundation covering the activities of the Federal Government in the field of weather modification during the fiscal year 1966.
To some, a storm is but an inconvenience, a fog is but an hour’s delay. But to millions of others—in America and around the world—the weather can spell the difference between shelter and homelessness, between nourishment and starvation, between life and death.
This report provides clear evidence that progress is being made toward our goal of developing the capacity to modify the weather for the benefit of all mankind.
In the period covered by this Report, we found that:
For all our progress, we have still only scratched the surface. To develop the full potential of weather modification, we must continue our research and experimentation. We must bring to the effort our best skills and our most advanced technologies. We must better organize our efforts in this area.
And we must join with other nations in the search for solutions, for the weather respects no national boundary.
I commend this—Report of progress and of challenge—to your attention.
Lyndon B. Johnson
The White House
July 19, 1967
Note: This report transmitted is entitled “Weather Modification: Eighth Annual Report, 1966” (Government Printing Office, 132 pp.). Complete article
To the Congress of the United States:
I am pleased to transmit the Eighth Annual Report of the National Science Foundation covering the activities of the Federal Government in the field of weather modification during the fiscal year 1966.
To some, a storm is but an inconvenience, a fog is but an hour’s delay. But to millions of others—in America and around the world—the weather can spell the difference between shelter and homelessness, between nourishment and starvation, between life and death.
This report provides clear evidence that progress is being made toward our goal of developing the capacity to modify the weather for the benefit of all mankind.
In the period covered by this Report, we found that:
—Precipitation from some types of clouds may be increased by as much as ten percent by seeding.
—Seeding of thunderstorm clouds may reduce significantly the number of lightning strikes. —The incidence of hail may be reduced by heavy seeding.
—Large bodies of cold ground fog may be dissipated through the use of dry ice or silver iodide.
—Mathematical models will be increasingly useful for experimentation with techniques for controlling hurricanes and tornadoes.
For all our progress, we have still only scratched the surface. To develop the full potential of weather modification, we must continue our research and experimentation. We must bring to the effort our best skills and our most advanced technologies. We must better organize our efforts in this area.
And we must join with other nations in the search for solutions, for the weather respects no national boundary.
I commend this—Report of progress and of challenge—to your attention.
Lyndon B. Johnson
The White House
July 19, 1967
Note: This report transmitted is entitled “Weather Modification: Eighth Annual Report, 1966” (Government Printing Office, 132 pp.). Complete article
Message to the Congress Transmitting National Science Foundation's Annual Report entitled Weather Modification 09/26/1968
To the Congress of the United States:
For centuries man has been the helpless prey of the elements, dependent on the weather for food, health, and even survival. Only recently have we discovered that, through science, weather can be modified for the benefit of mankind.
It is, then, with pleasure that I transmit the Ninth Annual Report on Weather Modification, for fiscal year 1967.
During that year, research and field testing was increased, and action was taken by several Federal Agencies to discover the social and ecological problems of weather modification. We Know that:
This program is a pioneering effort in man’s struggle to control his environment. In the coming years we must work with other nations to apply our whole range of technological skills to the problems of weather modification. I commend this report to your attention.
Lyndon B. Johnson
The White House
September 26, 1968
Note: The report is entitled “Weather Modification: Ninth Annual Report, 1967: National Science Foundation” (Government Printing Office, 101 pp.). Complete article
To the Congress of the United States:
For centuries man has been the helpless prey of the elements, dependent on the weather for food, health, and even survival. Only recently have we discovered that, through science, weather can be modified for the benefit of mankind.
It is, then, with pleasure that I transmit the Ninth Annual Report on Weather Modification, for fiscal year 1967.
During that year, research and field testing was increased, and action was taken by several Federal Agencies to discover the social and ecological problems of weather modification. We Know that:
—Among all types of storms, hailstorms, which can severely damage crops and property, show the greatest promise for successful modification in the near future.
—Cold fog, which can cause hazards and delays at airports, can be dissipated by the application of dry ice or chemicals.
—The dynamics of cloud processes can be studied through computer-controlled, small-scale models.
This program is a pioneering effort in man’s struggle to control his environment. In the coming years we must work with other nations to apply our whole range of technological skills to the problems of weather modification. I commend this report to your attention.
Lyndon B. Johnson
The White House
September 26, 1968
Note: The report is entitled “Weather Modification: Ninth Annual Report, 1967: National Science Foundation” (Government Printing Office, 101 pp.). Complete article
Clearly there were a lot of scientists and politicians that thought they had a good chance of developing technology to manipulate the weather back in the sixties, and this began no later than the late fifties, continuing to this day. Most of this discussion hasn't been presented to the public in a high profile manner; but there were at least ten annual reports on the subject, perhaps starting with one at the end of the Eisenhower administration, although I haven't found a record of him submitting a report to congress and continuing at least into the Nixon administration. Therfe was at least one other report covering three consecutive years following this period and a much more recent one from 2005, indicating they're still at it.
On the rare occasion that it is reported to the public in the mainstream media it's often downplayed or ridiculed including a video of Michio Kaku: Can We Control the Weather? 05/20/2011 where he acknowledges the efforts in Vietnam and refers to it as a "hair-brained scheme," which it may be for all I know. But the government spent at least ten years with the help from leading scientists from that time on this "hair-brained scheme," which makes it a serious matter. In this videoMichio Kaku claims that any successful efforts to control the weather are at least a hundred years into the future; however, by 2017 he seems to think otherwise. If it's a "hair-brained scheme," then we need to put policies in place to prevent any more of these efforts, and we need to disclose the details and explain t to the public. Furthermore, there's still a possibility that it's not quite so hair-brained as it seems, either that or that even Dr Michio Kaku might be involved in another hair-brained scheme.
For starters, a report as recent as 2005 a report based on Congressional hearings indicates they're still conducting this kind or reseaerch, and there are still some that think it can be done sooner rather than later, or perhaps that it's already happening, WEATHER MODIFICATION AND S. 517, THE WEATHER MODIFICATION RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005 11/10/2005 PDF In this hearing Senator Jim DeMint opens a meeting by saying:
As I understand, the genesis of this legislation was to help provide relief to drought-stricken farmers in West Texas and across the Nation. As we are all aware, weather modification technologies have been pursued for a number of years. For decades, the Federal Government has dedicated significant resources to weather modification research, and State and local governments continue to spend millions on both operational weather modification technologies and weather modification research.
Shortly after saying this he goes on to say that many people are skeptical about this and that most of the research is to understand how weather works, which supposedly should be done before trying to modify it, implying that "operational weather modification technologies" are still supposedly being kept to a minimum, while they're focusing mostly on research. This is routine, constantly making contradictory statements, so that it's difficult to know what they mean.
The same goes for Dr Michio Kaku, six years after he claimed that weather modification was at least a hundred years into the future he went on CBS and explained that they're already experimenting with increasing rain with lasers, Dr Michio Kaku: Laser weather modification 09/09/2017 (Video with Closed Caption available) In this video he claims that it's still experimental and has lots of limitations, but seems to indicate they've already had some degree of success. After he explains some of this one of the news anchors says she heard about both Russia and China trying experiments like this in the past; and Michio Kaku responds by discussing the USA experiments from the sixties.
At this point one of the anchors interrupts to say "allegedly" implying that it's inconclusive, and Michio agrees and says yea "allegedly." Conspiracy theorists have made a big deal out of this, with some good reason, not that it matters. One reason they had good reason to make an issue of this is that the anchors didn't use this term when referring to Russia or China; another reason why, is that there are government reports saying that these attempts were made, successful or not, so it's not just alleged research, it actually happened, and they admit it. The reason it doesn't matter that much is that even though the conspiracy theorists are jumping all over it and saying they caught them, most people not familiar with the subject won't know this is true, and aren't going to check the details so they'll just think they're behaving like crazy conspiracy theorists, thanks to all the propaganda about conspiracy theorists.
I'm not completely ruling out the possibility they understood this beforehand.
I went into some of Michio Kaku's claims about weather control in a previous article, Hurricane Apocalypse Coming With or Without Fringe Conspiracy Theory which also speculates about the possibility that some of Philip Corso's claims in "The Day After Roswell," that he shared technology obtained from aliens might be at least partly true; and, if so, then it must be part of something much bigger, and that the advanced technology being shared could even include research on weather modification.
Additional evidence might come from the alleged "Miracle of the Sun" that happened in 1917, where a strange event was predicted by three children in may that would happen on the 13th of each of the next five months with the biggest event happening on October 13th the final month as I explained in UFO Hypothesis Far More Credible Than Catholic Claim of A "Miracle Of The Sun" and events on both August 13th and October 13th, and possibly some of the other events included some very strange weather events that thousands of people witnessed. There's a possibility that this may be evidence of both a connection between UFOs and religion and some degree of weather control ability or research.
I also went into this more in Could Steve Bannon Be Providing Propaganda To Enable Climate Change Research Project? which discusses the fact that before Steve Bannon became a radical denier of Climate Change, he was part of a research project, Biosphere 2, which studies this, implying that he must know more about the subject than he lets on. This create's enough evidence to show that either aliens have been sharing technology with the political and scientific establishment; or there's a massive effort to make it seem like they are, which would be almost as bizarre. However that explanation wouldn't explain many major unsolved mysteries, including how scientific advancements happened so fast over the past seventy years, especially over the past twenty or thirty, and would raise even more questions about their motive.
But even if these theories are wrong there's agreement on the claim that Climate Change is man made, which would mean that this is a form of influencing the weather or Geoengineering, intentionally or not. Congress and numerous presidents have indicated they're interested in using weather modification, yet they routinely ignore ignore one of the most fundamental principles, if this is the case, “first, do no harm.” The leading implied explanation for this is incredible amounts of greed on behalf of the oil companies and other businesses profiting from the short term destruction of the environment. Jim DeMint who opened the 2005 meeting about weather control research, for one example, has at least four or five of the top twenty industries donating to his campaigns profiting off of the destruction of the environment, and at least half a dozen more of those twenty that may be indirectly profiting off the destruction of the environment.
However, they have to know, assuming they actually want to know, that this is a major factor when it comes to controlling the weather. Furthermore, they also have to know that if they continue on as they currently are then they'll lead to epidemic levels of environmental destruction that will eventually destroy even the elites, although it's people in poor countries, or the poorest part of this country that will pay the price for their epidemic levels of corruption first.
Are they insane? Or suicidal? If they don't recognize this and have a plan to at least save themselves and their own descendants then, yes, they are.
But the establishment has accomplished enough incredibly advanced achievements that they shouldn't have been able to do, if they were that fanatical; and this explanation still doesn't explain many of the major unsolved mysteries surrounding UFOs advanced technology, megaliths moved with primitive technology, mystics, and more.
There's a strong possibility that there could be something to this theory. If so, and if the aliens have been around for thousands of years, they've intentionally withheld solutions to many of our biggest problems that could have prevented many wars, environmental disasters, plagues, and much more. This would clearly indicate that they've been treating us as expendable for thousands of years. This raises additional possibilities, like that part of the reason for the Vietnam War was so they could have an opportunity to conduct weather control experiments.
Whether or not we've been influenced by aliens, there's still enough evidence to indicate that the best education available is being withheld from the majority of the public intentionally, and many of the most effective solutions are as well.
However, if there is something to it, and we put an end to the insane activities of our corrupt leaders, then there's a chance they can share the results of this research, although we should immediately stop the damage being done and begin reversing it, with the science that we can be sure of first. If this is the case then they have little or no credibility, and we should be skeptical of the possibility that they're only trying to carry out another scam, so it will take a long time reviewing and confirming any research that may have come from this.
Whether this theory is true there are many things that we should be sure of including the fact that our government is the leading arms supplier of the world routinely arming both sides of conflicts, and that we can end most of these by simply stopping that; we need to reform our economy so that we're not destroying the planet; we need to provide the best education possible to everyone; we need Single Payer health care; and many other basic things that are easily understood.
The following are some additional related articles, including some of the annual Weather Modification reports:
President Lyndon Johnson Approves Weather Warfare MAY 27, 1962 - 1969
1962: “HE WHO CONTROLS THE WEATHER, WILL CONTROL THE WORLD” (LBJ) 11/19/2017
Lyndon Johnson control the weather, to control the world! 1962 09/02/2017
Vice President Johnson Receives Honorary Degree from Southwest Texas State College, May 1962
1962: “He Who Controls The Weather, Will Control The World” (LBJ) Post by Harold Saive – Vice President Johnson at Southwest Texas State University (1962)
LBJ Predicts Geoengineering Will Control the Weather to Control the World 1962 11/22/2017
Tucson-based Raytheon wins $900M contract to develop new nuclear cruise missile 08/24/2017
David Talbot "The Devil's Chessboard" 2015
Richard Nixon, 37th President of the United States: 1969 ‐ 1974 Message to the Congress Transmitting the National ... Science Foundation Report on Weather Modification. 10/27/1969
John F. Kennedy Message to the Congress Transmitting the National Science Foundation's 1961 Annual Report on Weather Modification 08/27/1962
John F. Kennedy Message to the Congress Transmitting the National Science Foundation's 1960 Annual Report on Weather Modification presented by Lyndon Baines Johnson 07/18/1961
It is an honor to transmit herewith to the National Science Foundation the report of the Special Commission on Weather Modification, authorized by the National Science Board at its meeting on October 17-18, 1963, 12/20/1965
WEATHER MODIFICATION AND S. 517, THE WEATHER MODIFICATION RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005 11/10/2005
A Recommended National Program In Weather Modification 11/07/1966
Wikipedia: Operation Popeye
Rainmaking Is Used As Weapon by U.S. July 3, 1972 By Seymour M. Hersh
WEATHER MODIFICATION: THE EVOLUTION OF AN R&D PROGRAM INTO A MILITARY OPERATION 10/21/1975 In the summer of 1972, however, it was reported that the United States had been using weather modification techniques in the Indochina War from 1967 through 1972 in an effort to increase rainfall as an adjunct to military operations. (3) Several U.S.Congressional Hearings then followed, both in the Senate and the House, and in one of these two years later in 1974, an official administration confirmation of the program was made
Selected Speeches and Messages of LBJ Excludes speeches about weather modification
Lyndon Baines Johnson library: On This Day in History: February Excludes speeches about weather modification
Lyndon B. Johnson: 1966 (in two books) : containing the public messages, speeches, and statements of the president. Message to the Congress Transmitting the National Science Foundation's Annual Report on Weather Modification. February I8, I966 I92
Weather Modification: Annual Report, Issue 10 based on the year 1968, presented to President Nixon in 1069
Summary Report: Weather modification, based on the years 1969, 1970 and 1971.
Weather Modification: Law and Administration Spring 1968
Weather Modification: Annual Report, Volumes 9-10
Global Opportunity Costs: How the Iraq War Undermined U.S. Influence 03/18/2013
JFK and the Unspeakable James Douglass; my review of his book plus additional input on psychology leading to war.
JFK and the Unspeakable James Douglass 2008 Google excerpts
JFK Had Ordered Full Withdrawal from Vietnam: Solid Evidence 09/26/2017 By James K. Galbraith
JFK’s Vietnam Withdrawal Plan Is a Fact, Not Speculation 11/22/2013 By James K. Galbraith
Wikipedia: National Security Action Memorandum 263
United States officially REWROTE history this V-day when it IGNORED Soviet Union’s role in defeating Nazism 05/11/2020
War Is A Racket By Smedley Darlington Butler 1935
"Merchants of Death" 09/04/1934
The Members of Congress Who Profit From War 01/13/2020
Congress: War profiteering is real. We need to end it. 01/14/2020
A Congress That Doesn’t Want to Weigh In on War 12/09/2015
The Defense Industry’s Surprising 2016 Favorites: Bernie & Hillary 04/01/2016
Open Secrets Defense Top 20 Recipients 2019-20 2 Sanders, Bernie (I-VT) Senate $443,925; 7 Warren, Elizabeth (D-MA) Senate $219,231; 8 Trump, Donald (R) $206,754; 9 Buttigieg, Pete (D) $205,885; 12 Yang, Andrew (D) $191,401; 17 Biden, Joe (D) $164,756
Here are the members of Congress who take the most money from the gun lobby 10/03/2017 NRA and other gun groups target 98% of their campaign contributions to Republicans
John F. Kennedy Address on the 20th Anniversary of the Voice of America 02/26/1962 We welcome the view of others. We seek a free flow of information across national boundaries and oceans, across iron curtains and stone walls. We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.
More Quotes by John F. Kennedy
Trump tries to re-write WW II history 04/12/2020
John F. Kennedy on Conscientious Objectors "War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today." --Letter to a Navy friend, quoted in Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1965), p. 88.
