Geo-Engineering: Controlled Chaos Via Predictive Programming

To the modern “scientist,” the name of the game is control. But to control anything one must be able to accurately predict the actions and movements of that which is to be controlled. The predictively programmed populations of all the nations, especially the supposedly free Americans, is certainly a perfect example of the truth of this notion. To predict is the first step towards control. Simple. Logical. But the result is of course a spiritual wasteland.

The god of science is not so different than the God of Nature, only called as and considered by different names, which both represent the attributes of Nature as either the Design of Creation or as the randomness of unpredictable forces. Ironically, this is not a battle of correctness, for both of these descriptions are equally accurate, depending only upon the mindset of the proclaimer. While the spiritual monotheist sees God as the worship of all Nature in one perfect state of Being, the scientific mind sees a chaotic and yet somehow cohesive universe that somehow remains intact against odds, but whose source cannot be explained away so simply as with that obtuse religious notion. While the spiritual man is satisfied with the way things are and strives to protect not only God’s Nature but his place within its Ultimate and Supreme Design, the scientist in flattering title will actually tear apart each layer of that which exists without scientific explanation and destroy life so as to understand it. Of course the cessation of life itself destroys the scientists goal. For today’s science is not a natural one, but a corporate, commercial one. Just as the several denominations of religion exist as mere fractured copies of their source (the Bible), the many foundations and institutions and incorporations of “science” have nothing to do with the actual meaning and intent of the science of things nor of the scientific method, but stand in name only, as simulacra (copies without an original) that simulate science in name only while in Truth destroying its very Nature.

In my own opinion, in this way, modern religions and the modern sciences are the same things, merely institutionalized frauds as art feigning to be Reality, artificial corporations pretending to be something they are not, while using the name of their gods (God) in form without substance to justify the means to their own ends.

In the end, the Source becomes the victim, and all of Nature, including man’s place within it, is being systematically altered in the name of the scientific god (chaos), and further protected by the spiritually void defenders of the false faith (truth) of religion, whose governments violently enforce the right of licensed murder of the very Nature sought to be controlled.

But first, it must be made scientifically predictable.

This introduction may seem on its surface to be a strange one for the subject matter we are about to discover, but in fact it leads us into the wonderful and wacky world of weather modification, prediction, and ultimately therefore control of its predictably chaotic patterns.

The institutionalized atheistic point of view is not that of Godlessness, but that chaos is the essence of God, for to consider God in a form that is uncontrollable is simply hell to the unspiritual man. In fact chaos and its imagined ability to be controlled by such computerized (artificial intelligencer) systems such as we see with modern weather control techniques is at the forefront of science these days. The CERN facility with its patron god Shiva (the destroyer) watching over its massive particle accelerator is the perfect example of the extremes that the syndicalist, scientific community will go to attempt to capture the building blocks of God (i.e. chaos), even labeling its first query as the “God particle.” For the theoretical physicist, to imagine control over chaos is to control the uncontrollable and fractal Design of the universe. In other words, modern science seeks to control what the religious man would in finality call God’s Nature and Design, while simultaneously denying Its Existence. Non-content to accept It for the spiritual Nature that It Is, the institutionalized commercial business of “science” has placed all of Nature and the Universe under the god of mammon, assigning a valuation in money over all things and pretending that insurance policies will repair any damages thereof with a payout in surety for the price of the life or thing lost to the discovery process. The word/noun/name “science” is an excuse and a justification, not a literal translation, just as the active Biological Warfare Program (Title 50, Chapter 32) of the United States uses the terminology of “scientific, medical, and research purposes” to justify continuously, scientifically testing biological and radioactive weaponry (including food and airport scanners) upon its own subjects (public citizens). And along the way, all things discovered are patented for future commercial exploitation by the nation, confirming the worst of dystopian science fiction stories where the big corporations own everything, including our own discovered and re-engineered genes, and are protected by the peacekeeping forces of government in some federation of United Nations (or planets)…

And so we have a “science” that essentially works on the thesis that Creation has no Creator, and that chaos is the ruler of all things. To call this a “satanist” thought process, in terms of religious thought, is surprisingly an accurate approbation. For the word satan in the concordances of scripture simply means that which is adversarial to Life and Nature, though the corporate religions (in name only) have convinced us that satan is a creature instead of a state of mind in men. But then, it would also be correct to say that corporations calling themselves in name only as religions of the Bible are quite satanic (adversarial) to what the Bible actually says.

I’m an equal opportunity offender, calling bullshit on all incorporations (personas) just as the Bible does, including the church, the state, and the syndicates that rise in between their false powers of recreation, licensure, and protectionism. But then the Truth as the Reality of things is often the most offensive thing imaginable. If you don’t like the way I’m talking, you certainly won’t like my upcoming book, which was as equally painful to write as it will be to read. Reality hurts more than anything.

But let us go back to where chaos became a mainstay of scientific thought, slowly penetrating the already indoctrinated halls of universities and military installations. For we must look towards the reasons that modern methods were built up and exist through virtually unlimited funding and support before we can uncover the purpose of their organized, syndicalistic missions.

And so I ask you, the reader, a question. Is weather predictable?

Before you answer that, you should know that “science” declared it to be wholly unpredictable many decades ago. For in discovering the total unpredictability of non-linear weather patterns, this was the side effect that lead to chaos theory. And the question no longer became one of controlling the weather, but one of controlling chaos. For weather is the after-effect of chaos. The expression of effect is only the result of cause.

And so I wish to instill in the reader a different thought pattern, one perhaps not contemplated before. So put your conspiratorial hats on and examine this…

We often consider our local weather portion of the news with a grain of salt, noticing quite often that the virtual graphics represented by our local “meteorologist” or “weather-man” seem to never quite match what happens in Nature (under God) in that chaotic Design that we will never truly comprehend nor are supposed to. In fact, even the weather-man makes the disclaimer that weather is often or always unpredictable to cover his ass and to save his worthless job as a media entertainer, because remember, weather is unpredictable due to its non-linear movement.

Any good farmer knows by his bad knee alone that rain is coming, let alone the farmer’s almanac and other old-school tricks and tools. But the news corporations have actually convinced us that they can predict the weather, even when they know and admit they can’t.

And in the greatest of cosmic ironies what is their excuse for passing on bullshit as the latest news and information? Why can’t they deliver what is promised (without conditional disclaimer)?

An act of God.

For those who refuse to believe in God, you should know that even the legal law of government believes in God’s power and authority over even its artificial laws and design. And oh if people only knew how important this is in law. But notice also that an act of God has absolutely nothing to do with any corporate religion, for God is not the Creator of religion!!!

ACT OF GODInevitable accident; vis major. Any misadventure or casualty is said to be caused by the “act of God” when it happens by the direct, immediate, and exclusive operation of the forces of NATURE, uncontrolled or uninfluenced by the power of man and without human intervention, and is of such a character that it could not have been prevented or escaped from by any amount of foresight or prudence, or by any reasonable degree of care or diligence, or by the aid of any appliances which the situation of the party might reasonably require him to use. Inevitable accident, or casualty; any accident produced by any physical cause which is irresistible, such as lightning, tempests, perils of the seas, an inundation, or earthquake; and also the sudden illness or death of persons. Under the term “act of God” are comprehended all misfortunes and accidents arising from inevitable necessity, which human prudence could not foresee or prevent. (Black’s Law 1st Edition)

ACT OF GOD – An act occasioned exclusively by violence of nature without the interference of any HUMAN AGENCY. It means a natural necessity proceeding from physical causes alone without the intervention of man. It is an act, event, happening, or occurrence, a disaster and effect due to natural causes and inevitable accident, or disaster; a natural and inevitable necessity which implies entire exclusion of all human agency which operates without interference or aid from man and which results from natural causes and is in no sense attributable to human agency. It is an accident which could not have been occasioned by human agency but proceeded from physical causes alone. In the civil law, vis majorInevitable accident or casualty; not preventable by human care, skill, or foresight, but resulting from natural causes, misfortunes and accidents arising from inevitable necessity which human prudence could not foresee or prevent; a landslide in the Panama Canal and changes in the styles of wearing apparel are NOT “acts of God“; otherwise, however, as to a strike, accompanied with violence and intimidation. The term is sometimes defined as equivalent to inevitable accident: but incorrectly, as there is a distinction between the two; See Inevitable Accident; Perils of the Sea. (Black’s Law 4th Edition)


Why is this important?

Are you frickin’ kidding me?

I’ll give you a hint… If you aren’t (acting as) a man of God, then you are (acting as) a person of the State. And trust me when I say that your birth certificate (registration of a legal event) is not an act of God.

But you see a “scientist” is not either an act (Creation) of God. It’s a flattering title, a creation of the State designed to grant and garner respect where none should be by the victims of organized “big” science. And while God would certainly allow no license to harm or destroy its Life force and Nature of Creation, government is quite happy to pretend such licensure and credential through flattering title so long as one’s discoveries are made and patented in false legal persona and under its rule and ownership. For to the “scientist,” government is its god, as the creator of that legal title attached to that legal person, the act birthed of the state. Government is the creator of all titles that man must operate under to be funded and qualified to do so much harm in the name of Natural Science as “scientists” in name only. Just take away the harmonic consideration of nature and its laws and anything goes.

But what happens when we start questioning the reason why weather prediction became such a big business for news outlets and newspapers around the world? What happens when we question just why meteorologists are stationed in every broadcast area of every state in America, even the smallest of townships? Why so many weather radars? Why so many movies like “Twister” showing the wondrous heroism of storm-chasers? Why so many technologies on a nano-scale like smart dust if the goal was not to measure every inch or foot of space in the atmosphere in order to “read” the weather so as to predict it with fair certainty for the next hour or day only, and only then in order to control it? Why so much emphasis on something that is admittedly, wholly unpredictable past a day or two even in the most prestigious of academic and scientific circles???

Oh, did I forget to mention the real meaning of the word prestigious?

PRESTIGIOUS – adjective – Practicing tricks; juggling. (Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of the English Language)

PRESTIGES – noun – [Latin proestigioe.] Juggling tricks; impostures(Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of the English Language)

PRESTIGIATION – noun – [Latin proestigioe, tricks.] The playing of legerdemain tricks; a juggling(Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of the English Language)

LEGERDEMAIN – noun – [See Light.] Slight of hand; a deceptive performance which depends on dexterity of hand; a trick performed with such art and adroitness, that the manner or art eludes observation. The word is sometimes used adjectively; as a legerdemain trick.


Who needs slight of hand when we have green screen? The magical art of the meteorologist eludes us because he appears to be floating over the earth like a god, his hand pointing towards some human population and declaring the weather patterns according to the words spoken via the great A.I. in the sky.

It is not ironic that in my previous research article, entitled and linked as “Degrees In Geo-Engineering And Sustainable Development,” we found that indeed the most “prestigious” of universities around the world are offering courses on weather modification and control, as well as reseeding the oceans. Unfortunately, for these “scientists,” the sky is not the limit. The correct term for this internationally recognized program is of course “Geo-Engineering,” and the offering of these degrees is certainly evidence of how powerful and influential the evil science corporations of this new world technocratic order have become.

My point here is that it seems to me that the building up of an intercontinental system of linked in systems and information technology while simultaneously building an infrastructure of meteorologists and meteorological centers and radars all across the world, all with the intent to predict the unpredictable nature of chaos, to peer into the unknowable clockwork of God, seems a bit fishy to me. That is, unless I look at it as a well organized and executed plan between two or more people (a conspiracy) to control, but not really to predict in any significant way, the future of weather.

And so I leave the reader with this excerpt from a book I recommend to anyone who seeks to know his enemy. For the enemy is not man, but man’s designs to control all that supports man. Love thy enemies but hate their art, hate their “science,” and hate the tools of their destructive, adversarial ways.

From his 1987 book entitled Chaos: Making A New Science, author James Gleick beautifully describes this phenomenon of the chaos theory and its recent evolution as the ultimate scientific religion, while filling us in on the history of the desire by evil men to control the weather by dissecting its god.

“…The average person, seeing that we can predict tides pretty well a few months ahead would say, why  can’t we do the same thing with the atmosphere, it’s just a different fluid system, the laws are about as complicated. But I realized that any physical system that behaved non periodically would be unpredictable.”

“The Fifties and sixties were years of unreal optimism about weather forecasting. Newspapers and magazines were filled with hope for weather science, not just for prediction but for modification and control. Two technologies were maturing together, the digital computer and the space satellite. An international program was being prepared to take advantage of them, the Global Atmosphere Research Program. There was an idea that human society would free itself from weather’s turmoil and become its master instead of its victim. Geodesic domes would cover cornfields. Airplanes would seed the clouds. Scientists would learn how to make rain and how to stop it.

“The intellectual father of this popular notion was Von Neumann, who built his first computer with the precise intention, among other things, of controlling the weather. He surrounded himself with meteorologists and gave breathtaking talks about his plans to the general physics community. He had a specific mathematical reason for his optimism. He recognized that a complicated dynamical system could have points of instability — critical points where a small push can have large consequences, as with a ball balanced at the top of a hill. With the computer up and running, Von Neumann imagined that scientists would calculate the equations of fluid motion for the next few days. Then a central committee of meteorologists would send up airplanes TO LAY DOWN SMOKE SCREENS OR SEED CLOUDS TO PUSH THE WEATHER INTO THE DESIRED MODE. But Von Neumann had overlooked the possibility of chaos, with instability at every point.

By the 1980’s a vast and expensive bureaucracy devoted itself to carrying out Von Neumann’s mission, or at least the prediction part of it. America’s premier forecasters operated out of an unadorned cube of a building in suburban Maryland, near the Washington beltway, with a spy’s nest of radar and radio antennas on the roof. Their supercomputer ran a model that resembled Lorenz’s only in its fundamental spirit. Where the Royal Mcbee could carry out sixty multiplications each second, the speed of a Control Data Cyber 205 was measured in megaflops, millions of floating-point operations per second. Where Lorenz had been happy with twelve equations, the modern global model calculated systems of 500,000 equations. The model understood the way moisture moved heat in and out of the air when it condensed and evaporated. The digital winds were shaped by digital mountain ranges. Data poured in hourly from every nation on the globe, from airplanes, satellites, and ships. The National Meteorological Center produced the world’s second best forecasts.

“The best came out of Reading, England, a small college town an hour’s drive from London. The European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts occupied a modest tree-shaded building in a generic United Nations style, modern brick-and-glass architecture, decorated with gifts from many lands. It was built in the heyday of the all-European Common Market spirit, when most of the nations of western Europe decided to pool their talent and resources in the cause of weather prediction. The Europeans attributed their success to their young, rotating staff — no civil service — and their Cray supercomputer, which always seemed to be one model ahead of the American counterpart.

Weather forecasting was the beginning but hardly the end of the business of using computers to model complex systems. The same techniques served many kinds of physical scientists and social scientists hoping to make predictions about everything from the small-scale fluid flows that concerned propeller designers to the vast financial flows that concerned economists. Indeed, by the seventies and eighties, economic forecasting by computer bore a real resemblance to global weather forecasting. The models would churn through complicated, somewhat arbitrary webs of equations, meant to turn measurements of initial conditions — atmospheric pressure or money supplyinto a simulation of future trends. The programmers hoped the results were not too grossly distorted by the many unavoidable simplifying assumptions. If a model did anything too obviously bizarreflooded the Sahara or tripled interest ratesthe programmers would revise the equations to bring the output back in line with expectation. In practice, econometric models proved dismally blind to what the future would bring, but many people who should have known better acted as though they believed in the results. Forecasts of economic growth or unemployment were put forward with an implied precision of two or three decimal places. Governments and financial institutions paid for such predictions AND ACTED ON THEM, perhaps out of necessity or for want of anything better. Presumably they knew that such variables as “consumer optimism” were not as nicely measurable as “humidity” and that the perfect differential equations had not yet been written for the movement of politics and fashion. But few realized how fragile was the very process of modeling flows on computers, even when the data was reasonably trustworthy and the laws were purely physical, as in weather forecasting.

Computer modeling had indeed succeeded in changing the weather business from an ART to a SCIENCE. The European Centre’s assessments suggested that the world saved billions of dollars each year from predictions that were statistically better than nothing. But beyond two or three days the world’s best forecasts were speculative, and beyond six or seven they were worthless.

The Butterfly Effect was the reason. For small pieces of weather — and to a global forecaster, small can mean thunderstorms and blizzards — any prediction deteriorates rapidly. Errors and uncertainties multiply, cascading upward through a chain of turbulent features, from dust devils and squalls up to continent-size eddies that only satellites can see.

The modern weather models work with a grid of points on the order of sixty miles apart, and even so, some starting data has to be guested, since ground stations and satellites cannot see everywhere. But suppose the earth could be covered with sensors spaced one foot apart, rising at one foot intervals all the way to the top of the atmosphere. Suppose every sensor gives perfectly accurate readings of temperature, pressure, humidity, and any other quantity a meteorologist would want. Precisely at noon an infinitely powerful computer takes all the data and calculates what will happen at each point at 12:01, then 12:02, then 12:03…

The computer will still be unable to predict whether Princeton, New Jersey, will have sun or rain on a day one month away. At noon the spaces between the sensors will hide fluctuations that the computer will not know about, tiny deviations from the average. By 12:01, those fluctuations will already have created small errors one foot away. Soon the errors will have multiplied to the ten-foot scale, and so on up to the size of the globe.

Even for experienced meteorologists, all this runs against intuition. One of Lorenz’s oldest friends was Robert White, a fellow meteorologist at M.I.T. who later became head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Lorenz told him about the Butterfly Effect and what he felt it meant for long-range prediction. White gave Von Neumann’s answer. “Prediction, nothing,” he said. “THIS IS WEATHER CONTROL.” His thought was that small modifications, well within human capability, could cause desired large-scale changes.

“Lorenz saw it differently. Yes, you could change the weather. You could make it do something different from what it would otherwise have done. But if you did, then you would never know what it would otherwise have done. It would be like giving an extra shuffle to an already well-shuffled pack of cards. You know it will change your luck, but you don’t know whether for better or worse

Had he stopped with the Butterfly Effect, and image of predictability giving way to pure randomness, then Lorenz would have produced no more than a piece of very bad news. But Lorenz saw more than randomness embedded in his weather model. He saw a fine geometrical structure, order masquerading as randomness…”


Imagine what has happened in the almost 30 years of technological advancements in the art of computer and weather science.

But more importantly, never forget what technology actually is. For a scientist is not acting as himself, but as the self (person) of another. And when art becomes a science, the world turns into exactly what we see today, a self-destructing hell with a disease-riddled populace hopefully about to have a massive spiritual awakening before they sleep permanently as but a memory of their pre-technological discoveries and desires.

TECHNOLOGY – noun – [Gr. art, and word or discourse.] 1. A description of arts; or a treatise on the arts2. An explanation of the TERMS of the arts(Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of the English Language)

ART – The second person, indicative mode, present tense, of the substantive verb am. – noun – [Latin ars, artis.] 1. The disposition or modification of things by human skill, to answer the purpose intended. In this sense art stands opposed to nature2. A system of rules, serving to facilitate the performance of certain actions; opposed to science, or to speculative principles; as the art of building or engraving. Arts are divided into useful or mechanic, and liberal or polite. The mechanic arts are those in which the hands and body are more concerned than the mind; as in making clothes, and utensils. These art are called trades. The liberal or polite arts are those in which the mind or imagination is chiefly concerned; as poetry, music and painting. In America, literature and the elegant arts must grow up side by side with the coarser plants of daily necessity. 3. Skill, dexterity, or the power of performing certain actions, acquired by experience, study or observation; as, a man has the art of managing his business to advantage(Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of the English Language)

ARTIFICE – noun – [Latin artificium, from ars, art, and facio, to make.] 1. Stratagem; an artful or ingenious device, in a good or bad sense. In a bad sense, it corresponds with trick, or fraud2. ART; trade; skill acquired by science or practice. [Rarely used.] (Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of the English Language)

ARTIFICIAL – adjective  1. Made or contrived by ART, or by human skill and labor, in opposition to natural; as artificial heat or light; an artificial magnet. 2. Feigned, fictitious; not genuine or natural; as artificial tears. 3. Contrived with skill or art4. Cultivated; not indigenous; not being of spontaneous growth; as artificial grasses. Artificial arguments, in rhetoric, are arguments invented by the speaker, in distinction from laws, authorities and the like, which are called inartificial arguments of proofs. Artificial lines, on a sector or scale, are lines so contrived as to represent the logarithmic sines and tangents, which, by the help of the line of numbers, solve, with tolerable exactness, questions in trigonometry, navigation, etc. Artificial numbers, the same with logarithms. (Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of the English Language)


The art of modern science is a madhouse of psychopathy and amorality mixed with the deadly combination of an apparent lack of empathy towards any final “scientific” results. All life, all existence, seems to be collateral damage, including you and me.

I am not sure how to stop this madness from prospering by presenting some artful or political challenge to it. I can only leave the reader with a summery of what, after years of study, I have found written in the Bible. It is simply that the art, the fiction, the artificial, legalistic nature of things which we call as satanism will continue to rule over us until one and only one thing happens. It is not some return of some savior or holy ghost as the church sells in its hopium soundbites, and it is not some super-hero as Hollywood presents to us to make us forget that we individually and we alone are the problem; our own worst enemy, and so the only One that can save our selves.

The Bible says simply this: As long as man respects the art and sciences, that is the designs of man over that of Nature’s True and vibrant harmony, and as long as man respects the governors (archons) and ecclesiastical (legal) religious powers that be, and as long as man respects persons (including any corporations), flattering authoritative titles, respecting false oaths to inanimate objects and to the flags of nations, and in fact continue to do and be controlled mentally and thus physically by everything we do and do not do in political (artificial) society under governments and religions designed in their inception to be corrupt and to corrupt utterly the mind, body, and soul of every man, then we will simply reap what we allow to be sown.

And you know what, that makes a shit-load of sense to me. And I don’t think a new form of “science” is going to fix this, for this is a spiritual problem. Corporations exist because we let them, as do governments and religions, the trifecta of evil.

So either stand up or find a nice lounge-chair for the end of the world as we know it (as God intended it). The choice is and always has been yours and yours alone.

–Clint Richardson (
–Monday, January 18th, 2016