William M. Harnett (American, born in Ireland, b. 1848 – d. 1892), “Le Figaro”, 1880. Oil on Canvas. Permanent Collection of Joslyn Art Museum, purchased in 1961. Omaha, Nebraska. Joslyn Art Museum has always been my favourite art museum of the ones I have visited. The main issue I have now with Joslyn is that their new expansion to the museum is of a modern architecture style, and in my opinion, it does not match well with the more classical architecture style of the original building: They seem like two buildings that don’t fit together – side-by-side. However, that seems to be the trend with all architecture of modern times; nevertheless, it is not to say that I like this trend.
William M. Harnett – Master of Trompe-l’œil (Fool-the-Eye), Still Lifes of Ordinary Objects
Harnett – An Introduction
Harnett was the greatest American practitioner of Trompe-l’œil (Fool-the-Eye) painting during the 19th century. The objects in the paintings, and the settings, are created with photo-realism, which creates a visual illusion, or deception to the eye. He had a masterful skill of depicting reality, and painting textures, details, and even the subtle imperfections of everyday objects were truly uncanny.
Harnett’s Life in Brief
Harnett was born in Clonakilty, County Cork, Ireland, on 10 August 1848, which was during the Great Famine (Irish Potato Famine), that lasted from 1845 to 1852. The worst year of the famine was in 1847, which was labeled, “Black ’47”. During the Great Famine, approximately one-million Irish died of starvation and disease, and another one million fled from the country—Ireland’s population decreased during this disaster, by 20 to 25 percent, and in some towns, the population decreased by 67 percent.*
*(Source: Kinealy, Christine. This Great Calamity. Gill & Macmillan, 1994. p. 357; and, Census of Ireland 1871: Part I, Area, Population, and Number of Houses; Occupations, Religion and Education volume I, Province of Leinster.)
To escape the hardship of living in Ireland during the Great Famine, and in hope of a better life, Harnett’s family immigrated to America shortly after he was born, and they settled in Philadelphia, PA. By 1865, he received training as an engraver, and he attended classes at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts. By 1871, he headed to New York City, NY, and was employed as an etcher of silver jewelry: He designed for silverware companies, including Tiffany and Company.**
**(Source: Harnett, William Michael, et al. William M. Harnett. Fort Worth New York: Amon Carter Museum; Metropolitan Museum of Art: H. N. Abrams, 1992.)
While in New York, he took classes at the Cooper Union and the National Academy of Design. Harnett’s first exhibitions of his still lifes was in 1875, where he experienced some success selling his work. He went to Europe in 1880 for further art study and to continue his painting. Harnett returned to New York City in 1885, where he lived for the remaining six years of his life. Harnett suffered from very active and debilitating rheumatoid arthritis during the last few years of his life, which slowed down his painting output, but not the quality of his work.***
***(Source: Frankenstein, Alfred. After the Hunt: William Harnett and other American Still Life Painters 1870 – 1900. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1953. p. 92.)
Harnett died on 29 October 1892, in New York City, and he was buried at the Old Cathedral Cemetery in Philadelphia, PA.
Harnett – 19th Century Genius of Trompe-l’œil
Harnett’s mastery stemmed from several factors. Firstly, his meticulous technique involved numerous preparatory sketches and studies, ensuring each element in his final compositions was precisely rendered. Secondly, he employed the Trompe-l’œil technique that created the illusion of three-dimensionality on a flat surface. Even flat objects, like cards and sheets of paper had a three-dimensional quality—He masterfully achieved this effect by skillfully using shading, lighting effects, and careful perspective manipulation.
Harnett’s Subject Matter
Harnett’s subject matter often featured common, unassuming objects found in everyday life, such as pipes, books, musical instruments, and hunting gear. This choice, while seemingly mundane, allowed him to showcase his virtuosity in depicting textures and materials. The worn leather of a book cover, the rough grain of wood on a violin, the tarnished metal of a hunting horn – all were rendered with exquisite precision and a keen eye for detail.
At the time, the general public found the Trompe-l’œil artworks captivating. However, the “art establishment viewed them with suspicion, believing the works mere ‘trickery’ devoid of artistic inspiration. However, these paintings are not merely still lifes, but portraits. In “Le Figaro”, the French newspaper and pipe tobacco, discarded as if in mid-smoke, indicate a male of international and intellectual pursuits. The smoldering tobacco, the ‘clutter’, which is actually carefully arranged, and the paper that is, tantalizingly, almost readable, seem as if someone had just left them there.”****
Harnett’s art contribution lives on as a testament to the power of artistic illusionism. His paintings continue to captivate viewers with their lifelike quality and invite them to marvel at the meticulous craftsmanship behind them. He is rightfully considered one of the greatest American still life painters of the 19th century, and his works continue to inspire and amaze art lovers and aspiring artists alike.
Francesco Guardi (Italian, 1712-1793), The Isola della Madonnetta on the Lagoon of Venice, 1785-1790, Fogg Art Museum. Francesco Guardi was on my “Possible Candidates’ list” of top favourite artists, but with the limited spots available, Francesco was not one of my top six. Nevertheless, most assuredly, if I were to list a “Top 20 Favourite Artists” list, Francesco Guardi would be guaranteed a spot.
Attempting to narrow down a list of your top six favourite artists isn’t as easy as you may think.
If you had an option of listing 20 favourite artists, I think that would be so much easier because you don’t have to eliminate so many painters from your list that you really like: It was painful for me to have to leave Francesco Guardi out of my top six list.
And consider this point: “favourite artists” does not necessarily mean your most “influential artists”.
This is what I mean: Very few of the artists on my top six favourite artists list have been influential for me with my own artistic work. And less than half of the artists on my topmost “influential artists” list would make my Top 20 Favourite Artists list. My favourite artists are considerably different than the artists who have influenced me the most with my own art style.
Another detail about my personal favourite artists’ list is that I have seen and experienced artworks at art museums, which were created by four of my top six favourite artists.
How do I determine who my ‘favourite artists’ are?
One of the most important and obvious aspects is that I must find their work extremely interesting – which is a subjective determination. I love artworks that are technical. I like ultra-realistic Science Fiction and Fantasy painting. I’m also a big fan of surrealism. And also, there are those artists whose works really speak to me on some personal level. The artists on my “Top Six Favourite Artists” list have at least one of those qualities about their artworks.
Canaletto is #1 on my “Top Six Favourite Artists” List
#1: Giovanni Antonio Canal, aka. Canaletto (b. 18 Oct. 1697 – d. 20 Apr. 1768):
Canaletto was born in Venice, and he was a topographical painter and a master of the painting style known as veduta: This is the style of creating “detailed, largely factual paintings, drawings, or etchings depicting a city, town, or other place….Among the most famous of the vedutisti are four Venetians”: Canaletto and three members of the Guardi family, Giacomo (b. 1678 – d. 1716), Giannantonio (b. 1699 – d. 1760), and Francesco (b. 1712 – d. 1793) – Francesco being the most famous of the Guardi family painters. (Constable 2019. “Canaletto”. Britannica.) Canaletto is associated with the Rococo movement, and the Venetian school style.
I knew that Canaletto was my #1 favourite painter of all time the moment I saw his amazing painting of “Piazza San Marco, Venice”, 1730-1734, hanging on the wall in a gallery at the Fogg Art Museum. Of all the masterful works of art in the Fogg Art Museum collection, I stood in front of the Canaletto work the longest. The detail, perspective, architecture, history, and colour, got me hooked. Words, in my opinion, do not rightfully do Canaletto’s paintings complete justice – you simply need to experience his works to understand the genius of Canaletto.
Canaletto (Italian, 1697-1768), “Piazza San Marco, Venice”, 1730-1734: From the Collection of the Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University.
On 6 November 2023, Eco-terrorists smashed the glass on the front of a painting by Diego Velazquez that is officially known as the “Rokeby Venus”, or, “The Toilet of Venus”, painted between 1647 and 1651. It is located in London’s National Gallery.
Ignorant-Eco-Terrorists Attack Diego Velazquez’s “Rokeby Venus”.
The controlled, “Operation Mockingbird”, woke-owned mass media outlets, have failed to call this act of willful and deliberate damage to priceless artwork property—DOMESTIC PROPERTY DAMAGE TERRORISM!
The museum claims that “minimal damage has been sustained to the surface of the painting; therefore, it will be undergoing conservation treatment before going back on display. There is no timeline yet on when that will be.”(1) The attack on the $90,000,000.00 “Rokeby Venus” masterpiece, should never have happened in the first place.(2)
News outlets call these misfits, “climate protesters” and “climate activists”. I call them, “Low-down, dirty, rotten, jodido cabrónes!” These Eco-challenged terrorists do these attacks because they demand governments “immediately halt all licensing for the exploration, development and production of fossil fuels”.(3)
According to a TIME article about the “Just Stop Oil” group, they describe themselves as a “nonviolent civil resistance group demanding the U.K. Government stop licensing all new oil, gas, and coal projects.” (vii)
Well, they may call themselves, “activists” and “protesters”, but not everyone feels the same about this group: “Just Stop Oil should be named a terrorist group, Gareth Johnson MP urges Rishi Sunak at PMQs: Gareth Johnson accused the group of causing ‘misery and mayhem’ and asked the prime minister to take the extreme measure. ‘These people are not protesters, they are criminals,’ Johnson said….”Mr. Sunak agreed the protests had caused ‘mass misery for the public’ and claimed they ‘put people in danger'”.(viii)
The Telegraph reported that “Just Stop Oil might not be throwing bombs, but their members have clearly been through the kind of radicalisation process common in terror groups. They started with a cause with which many people sympathised, but their language has grown ever more extreme with time, to the point that they are accusing ‘our murderous government’ of causing the deaths of ‘millions’ of people around the world….Whatever you think on climate change, these are people who have been through a radicalisation process…they believe their cause to be so important that it justifies almost anything…recruits are being made to sign contracts in which they agree to get themselves arrested ‘at least once'”.(ix)
Some Eco-activists are ‘domestic terrorists’ as based on the FBI’s official definition of “Domestic Terrorism” – as referenced in U.S. Code at 18 U.S.C.2331(5)
Domestic Terrorism is:
“Involving acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any States.” Affirmative, sometimes these Eco-terrorists put other innocent people at risk with their so-called ‘protesting activities’, and in my view, that makes their activities, “acts [potentially] dangerous to human life”, and their activities violate laws of the United States. As an example, one could make the argument that screaming “FIRE!” in a crowded movie theatre could be considered “Domestic Terrorism” if there is no fire, because it puts human life at risk, and could certainly cause panic, stampedes, and mayhem; and also, it could violate federal, or state laws.
“Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr….upheld the convictions for Charles T. Schenck [Schenck v. United States in 1919] and his co-plaintiff, Elizabeth Baer, a fellow member of the Socialist Party, as well as for Debs [Eugene Debs]. He justified his ruling on the Debs case based on the Schenck case with the explanation that ‘the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting ‘fire’ in a theater and causing a panic.’… So, does falsely shouting ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater fall outside the conditions of ‘imminent lawless action’, and therefore fall under First Amendment protection? The short answer is that it depends on the circumstances….’The falsely shouted warning, while technically speech, could potentially violate a state’s criminal laws against disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct, whether or not it provokes a stampede, for instance’”.(4)
The definition of “Domestic Terrorism”:
“Domestic Terrorism” is defined as when a person or groups’ actions appear “1) to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; 2) Influence the policy of governments by intimidation or coercion; or 3) Affects the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and, 4) Occurring primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.” Art Eco-terrorists may not fall into the third part of this definition, because they generally do not cause mass destruction, assassinations, or kidnappings; but they do, I think, fit in with the other terms of the “Domestic Terrorism” definition. They attempt coercing governments by destroying priceless works of art [and doing other criminal activities]; because they demand governments “immediately halt all licensing for the exploration, development and production of fossil fuels”. “Coerce”, means “to pressure, intimidate, or force (someone) into doing something” – “to bring about or gain by pressure, threat, or force”.
There is nothing in the FBI definition of “Domestic Terrorism” U.S. Code at 18 U.S.C. 2331(5) that says that all criteria must be met for someone, or some group, to be called “Domestic Terrorists”; in fact, it is clearly written, “Intimidate or coerce a civilian population; Influence the policy of government by intimidation or coercion; OR…”, which means that if any of the criteria matches the FBI definition, a person or a group could be considered a “Domestic Terrorist”. That is my interpretation of the FBI official definition of “Domestic Terrorism”. The FBI definition goes on to state: “This is a definitional statute, not a charging statue. We talk about the threat these actors pose as Domestic Terrorism threats, but each of the FBI’s threat categories, described in further detail below [in the statute], uses the words, ‘violent extremism’ because the underlying ideology itself and the advocacy of such beliefs is not prohibited by US law.”
The FBI and DHS extremism categories include, “Animal Rights/Environmental Violent Extremism”, which is defined as a threat that “encompasses the potentially unlawful use or threat of force or violence in furtherance of ideological agendas by those seeking to end or mitigate perceived cruelty, harm, or exploitation of animals and/or the perceived exploitation or destruction of natural resources and the environment.”(5)
The methodology of domestic terrorism:
“The FBI recognized a Domestic Terrorism Incident as an ideological-driven criminal act, including threats or acts of violence made to specific victims, made in furtherance of a domestic ideological goal, that has occurred and can be confirmed. A single incident may be comprised of a scheme or a serial criminal or violent activity conducted by the same perpetrator(s) using the same tactics(s).”(6)
The attackers of the “Rokeby Venus” appears to fit the FBI ‘methodology’ description for domestic terrorism.
1) They commit “ideological-driven criminal acts”.
2) They commit destruction of private property crimes “in furtherance of [their] domestic ideological goals”.
3) This Eco-terrorism committed by the “Just Stop Oil” group, targets artwork and uses similar tactics, hitting different museums and galleries around the world. And they do other unlawful and disruptive actions as well, including conducting protests, blocking highway traffic, putting motorists at danger of getting into accidents, and other annoying and illegal activities.
The First Amendment [is supposed] to Protect Speech and Beliefs, but it does NOT Protect those Committing Crimes to Spread those Beliefs
The American Constitution’s First Amendment may protect the ideologies and beliefs of these Eco-terrorism groups; however, when these groups act on these ideologies in violent and destructive ways, then those actions become a crime—in the “Rokeby Venus” case, destruction of private property.
In America, the penalty for purposeful destruction of private property depends on the jurisdiction where the crime was committed and the dollar value of the damage. Other circumstances may also be involved in the penalty. For example, in the state of Illinois, “if the damage to property is between $10,001 and $100,000 it is a felony with a possible sentence of up to 5 years in a state penitentiary and/or a fine of up to $25,000”.(7)
I wonder exactly how much it will cost to do a professional painting restoration and repair job on the $90 million dollar “Rokeby Venus”; to replace the frame and glass that held the painting; to professionally rehang the artwork; and any other costs involved in the restoration and exhibition of the damaged artwork. Hopefully, these Eco-terrorists will receive the harshest sentences possible for their crimes.
Some Eco-Activist Groups Really are Violent Eco-Terrorists.
Perhaps the “Just Stop Oil” group is not a violent Eco-terrorist group [yet]; nevertheless, there are very violent Eco-terrorist groups, such as the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), which is made up of “autonomous” groups and individuals [covert cells] who, “according to the ELF Press Office, use ‘economic sabotage and guerrilla warfare to stop the exploitation and destruction of the environment’”.(8) ELF was founded in the UK in 1992. Other Eco-terrorist groups include the Earth Liberation Army (ELA); the Environmental Life Force and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). These groups use various weapons, incendiary and explosive devices, and they use these weapons to commit “violent acts in the name of animal rights and environmental causes”.(9)
The DHS Definition of “Domestic Terrorism”.
The DHS definition for “Domestic Terrorism” is similar to that of the FBI, but their definition under the Homeland Security Act, definition for terrorism, 6 U.S.C. 101(18), seems more focused on violent and destructive terrorism and uses the following: “Involves an act that is dangerous to human life, potentially destructive to critical infrastructure or key resources; AND [they use “and” instead of “or”] is a violation of criminal laws….appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population”, and the rest is similar, if not exactly the same as the FBI’s definition.
I am not a legal expert; however, the activities of these Eco-activist/Eco-terrorist groups, seem hell-bent on coercing and intimidating populations and governments with their illegal activities. These groups push their ideologies and agendas, and that at least, seems to fit the FBI ‘definitional statute’ parameters for “Domestic Terrorism”.
This section shows the results of asking ‘Bard’, Google’s AI system, three questions about ‘Property Damage Terrorism’. I wanted to see what information an AI system could provide. The unfortunate thing about asking Bard a question, and this is probably the same with any other AI system, is that in the reply, the AI does not provide sources and citations to back up what its response is to your question. I much prefer to back up everything I say, with legitimate citations of source materials. Nevertheless, here is Bard’s answers:
Q#1: Is there a legal definition for property damage terrorism?
Yes, there is a legal definition for property damage terrorism. The term “property damage terrorism” is not explicitly defined in international law, but it is generally understood to refer to the intentional use of violence to damage or destroy property for political, ideological, or religious purposes. This can include bombings, arson attacks, and other forms of sabotage.
The United Nations International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, which was adopted in 1997, makes it a crime to use explosives to damage or destroy property.
The legal definition of property damage terrorism is important because it helps to distinguish between criminal acts of terrorism and other types of property damage. This is important for a number of reasons, including:
Investigating and prosecuting terrorism offenses: The legal definition of property damage terrorism helps law enforcement agencies to identify and investigate acts of terrorism. It also helps prosecutors to bring charges against individuals who commit acts of property damage terrorism.
Developing counterterrorism measures: The legal definition of property damage terrorism helps policymakers to develop effective counterterrorism measures. This includes measures to prevent terrorist attacks, to protect critical infrastructure, and to respond to terrorist attacks when they do occur.
Overall, the legal definition of property damage terrorism is an important tool for understanding and addressing the threat of terrorism. It helps to ensure that acts of property damage terrorism are treated as serious crimes, that victims of these crimes are able to receive compensation, and that businesses are able to protect themselves from the financial losses that can result from terrorist attacks.
Q#2: Is the purposeful destruction of priceless artworks by ideological activist groups considered property terrorism?
The purposeful destruction of priceless artworks by ideological activist groups can be considered property terrorism, depending on the specific circumstances of the act.
In general, property terrorism is defined as the intentional use of violence or the threat of violence to damage or destroy property for political, ideological, or religious purposes. This can include bombings, arson attacks, and other forms of sabotage.
In the case of the destruction of priceless artworks, it is important to consider the motivation of the perpetrators. If the perpetrators are motivated by a political or ideological agenda, and their actions are intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, then their actions could be considered property terrorism.
For example, in 2015, a group of Islamic State militants destroyed a number of priceless artifacts at the Mosul Museum in Iraq. The militants claimed that the artifacts were idolatrous and that it was their religious duty to destroy them. Their actions were widely condemned as an act of barbarity, and they were considered to be an example of property terrorism.
However, not all acts of vandalism or destruction of art are motivated by political or ideological goals. In some cases, perpetrators may be motivated by mental illness, financial gain, or a desire for notoriety. In these cases, their actions would not be considered property terrorism.
Ultimately, whether or not the purposeful destruction of priceless artworks by ideological activist groups is considered property terrorism is a matter of law. However, in general, such acts are seen as serious crimes that can have a significant impact on society.
Here are some additional examples of the destruction of priceless artworks by ideological activist groups:
In 1933, the Nazis confiscated and destroyed a large number of works of art that they deemed to be “degenerate.”
In 1966, the Red Guards in China destroyed a number of Buddhist temples and other works of art during the Cultural Revolution.
In 2001, the Taliban destroyed the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan.
These are just a few examples of the many times that priceless artworks have been destroyed by ideological activist groups. These acts are often motivated by a desire to erase history or to impose a particular ideology on society. They are a reminder of the fragility of art and culture, and the importance of protecting them from those who would seek to destroy them.
Q#3: Give me some legal cases about artwork destruction by eco-activists as examples of property terrorism:
Greenpeace v. United States (1989): In this case, Greenpeace activists were arrested for boarding a ship that was carrying timber from an old-growth forest in Canada. The activists were charged with vandalism and trespassing, but they argued that their actions were justified because they were trying to prevent the destruction of the forest. The court ruled in favor of the government, holding that the activists’ actions were not protected by the First Amendment.
The Animal Liberation Front (ALF) v. United States (1996): In this case, ALF activists were arrested for releasing mink from a fur farm in Oregon. The activists were charged with animal cruelty and trespassing, but they argued that their actions were justified because they were trying to liberate the mink from a life of suffering. The court ruled in favor of the government, holding that the activists’ actions were not protected by the First Amendment.
Earth Liberation Front (ELF) v. United States (2001): In this case, ELF activists were arrested for setting fire to a ski resort in Vail, Colorado. The activists were charged with arson and conspiracy, but they argued that their actions were justified because they were trying to prevent the destruction of the environment. The court ruled in favor of the government, holding that the activists’ actions were not protected by the First Amendment.
Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) v. United States (2004): In this case, SHAC activists were arrested for protesting outside of a Huntingdon Life Sciences laboratory in New Jersey. The activists were charged with conspiracy and racketeering, but they argued that their actions were protected by the First Amendment. The court ruled in favor of the government, holding that the activists’ actions were not protected by the First Amendment.
Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) v. United States (2006): In this case, the AETA was challenged on the grounds that it was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The court ruled in favor of the government, holding that the AETA was narrowly tailored to address the problem of animal enterprise terrorism.
These are just a few examples of the legal cases that have been brought against eco-activists for their actions. In recent years, there has been a growing trend of prosecuting eco-activists as terrorists, even when their actions do not involve violence or property damage. This trend is concerning because it could have a chilling effect on free speech and dissent.
It is important to note that not all eco-activism is considered property terrorism. In fact, many forms of eco-activism are protected by the First Amendment. However, the line between protected eco-activism and property terrorism is often blurred, and it can be difficult for activists to know when their actions may be considered illegal. [This sounds like Bard is ‘Bardsplaining’. It is not difficult, in my opinion, to know when actions become illegal: Disturbing the peace, trespassing, vandalism, destruction of private property, breaking and entering, theft, robbery, arson, murder, mayhem, assault, aggravated assault, battery, intimidation (coercion), and terrorism, are just a few of the illegal actions that anyone with half a brain cell, should know is illegal].
The purposeful destruction of priceless artworks by ideological activist groups can be considered property terrorism, depending on the specific circumstances of the act.
In general, property terrorism is defined as the intentional use of violence or the threat of violence to damage or destroy property for political, ideological, or religious purposes. This can include bombings, arson attacks, and other forms of sabotage.
In the case of the destruction of priceless artworks, it is important to consider the motivation of the perpetrators. If the perpetrators are motivated by a political or ideological agenda, and their actions are intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, then their actions could be considered property terrorism.
These are just a few examples of the many times that priceless artworks have been destroyed by ideological activist groups. These acts are often motivated by a desire to erase history or to impose a particular ideology on society. They are a reminder of the fragility of art and culture, and the importance of protecting them from those who would seek to destroy them.
My First Reaction to Seeing the Attack on Velazquez’s “Rokeby Venus”:
When I first saw this attack on the Velazquez painting in the news, I was pissed! I am sick and tired of these soy-infested Eco-terrorists freely walking into museums and galleries around the world, and openly destroying priceless works of beautiful art, while spreading their ignorant-eco-propaganda. These fools not only destroy wonderful artworks; but they also deprive other people from enjoying seeing these targeted artworks.
And why do they always have to target real works of art?
Why don’t they go ‘share their Eco-love’ on some Cy Twombly ‘crap-art’ and do the art world an actual favour—those Twombly-art-abominations are certainly bad for the art ecosystem—I’m just saying.
That could be the Solution to this entire Eco-terrorist-attacking-Artworks Problem
If museums insist on letting these terrorists into their establishments; then why not usher them into a gallery full of Cy Twombly ‘abominations’! Any stray scribbling and random spray-painting could only go to improve a Twombly.
I want to discuss about the museum security before and during the attack on the “Rokeby Venus”?
Where was museum security as the “Rokeby Venus” was attacked?
Why did they fail so badly at protecting the artwork in the museum? Why did they not use all possible means and methods allowed to them under law, to stop the terrorists from committing the attack?
As soon as these people walked into the museum, proverbial alarms should have instantly gone off inside the security office, where someone should have been monitoring all of the CCTV cameras hung throughout the museum.
Obviously, if security and museum personnel see environmental terrorists like the fools who attacked the “Rokeby Venue”, walking into the museum wearing “Just Stop Oil” t-shirts, security personnel should have known that these people are only in the museum to destroy priceless artworks and to disturb the peace of every legitimate visitor to the museum. People who visit museums do not want to be verbally abused, unwillingly lectured, or coerced by Eco-terrorists. Museum visitors do not want to be exposed to violence that could by carried out by Eco-terrorists. In the case of the attack on the “Rokeby Venus”, the Eco-terrorists used metal hammers to destroy the glass covering the artwork – that is an act of violence. The Eco-terrorists could have just as easily tried to attack innocent bystanders as part of their ‘protest’.
These ‘stop oil’ Eco-terrorists have run this same type of attack at many museums around the world. Therefore, museum security personnel should already know that something very bad is about to happen when these people show up.
In a perfect world, the environmental terrorists should have been stopped at the front door and turned away—Period! However, there is a legal catch to that easy and logical solution: Would denying entry be discrimination?
There are most likely CCTV cameras in every single exhibition room in all major museums and galleries to keep an eye on suspicious people. Nowadays, there is nothing more suspicious at museums and galleries than people walking in and advertising on their shirts that they are members of a domestic terrorist group, like “Just Stop Oil”.
London’s National Gallery security personnel should have been more aware that a crime was about to occur. Security should have been shadowing these people from the time that they entered the museum. Once there was a clue of any trouble (i.e. destruction of property, disturbing the peace, vandalism, etc.), security personnel should have stopped them before any damage could have been done; security should have used force to detain the perps; and then, the police should have been called to take over the case. However, as I point out [down below], after watching the video of this artwork attack, again, the security guards seemed so much more aggressive to all of the innocent people who were there only to enjoy artwork. The museum security guards almost completely ignored the terrorists who had just attacked the “Rokeby Venus” and were yelling their demands.
The London’s National Gallery SecurityGuards are Pathetic!
The London’s National Gallery security team should all be fired immediately. They may be the worst security guards in the world and the case could be made that they just let this happen—even though that cannot be proven—it does seem like these guards were more afraid of appearing ‘racist’ against Eco-terrorists, than actually doing their jobs to stop this felony from happening. After all, this crime could have been stopped at the front door of the museum—these Eco-terrorists could have been turned away at the front door and not allowed to enter. It is the museum’s responsibility and prerogative to reject people who pose a legitimate threat to their establishment, their property, assets, and to assure the safety of the other people inside the building.
However, when speaking about denying people entry into an establishment, legal questions about discrimination come up. Therefore, the solution to stopping Eco-terrorists at the front door may not be as easy, or as legal, as it should be.
“Federal law in the U.S. indeed says businesses have a right to refuse service to anyone. Here’s the catch: They can refuse service unless the company is discriminating against a particular class under federal, state, or local law….the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act, [states that] no state that serves the public can discriminate based on: race or color, national origin or citizenship status, religion or creed, sex, age, disability, pregnancy, or genetic information, [or] veteran status. These laws cover ‘places of public accommodation’ – private businesses that regularly invite the public into their establishments. That includes places like restaurants, bars, hotels, stores, theaters, banks, [and museums]”.(i) Keep in mind that state laws are even more liberal than the federal laws on this topic, which puts even more restrictions on ‘places of public accommodations’ when talking about ‘right-to-refuse-service’ law. In the case of the attackers of the “Rokeby Venus”, it would be assumed that if in London, England, ‘places of public accommodation’ can refuse entry to people associated with certain radical, and possibly dangerous, and violent activities, then the “Just Stop Oil” Eco-terrorists could have been refused entry at the museum. However, I can see two problems with using the ‘refuse entry’ right that an establishment might have: 1) It would be impossible to know for certain that a person wearing a shirt, or having on their person some accessory with a terrorist logo on it, if that person was actually a member of that terrorist group—they may just be wearing a shirt with a logo on it, without being affiliated with the group. 2) If the establishment is wrong in their judgment, they may face discrimination lawsuits and a lot of unwanted bad publicity.
Even though the easiest solution may be to deny entry to anyone who appears to be shifty and sketchy, it could lead to a lot of legal and public relations problems for an establishment.
Even though sketchy people will be allowed to enter museums and galleries, once they are inside, and as soon as they have been flagged as possible threats to the establishment, then security personnel can carry out their duties to assure that these sketchy people are monitored and stopped, if they attempt to carry out any criminal activities inside the establishment.
There are certain things that security guards can and cannot do: Maybe the London’s Gallery Museum security guards missed the meeting where they would have learned what they can and cannot do on the job.
Power to Arrest: “Legally licensed security guards have the power to make a citizen’s arrest if anyone commits a crime or a felony. The only condition applied here is that they must have witnessed it or have reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed a crime (CCTV evidence for example). Once the person who committed the crime is detained, they must immediately contact the police to actually arrest the person.”(ii) Of course, this incident took place in England, but I would think that security guards in England would have similar authority to stop and detain people who commit crimes on their premises, just like they do in the United States.
Experts at Plaza Protection, headquartered in San Jose, CA., clearly state that, “the primary job of every security guard on a client site is to minutely watch different activities of people to identify and stop potential thieves and robbers [I would add violent suspects, vandals and disruptors of the peace to the list]….security guards can detain them for a long time. But that only means until the police do not arrive to further investigate.”(iii)
If you watch the video of the attack, you clearly see that at first there were no security guards there to stop the attack on the masterpiece painting.
Only after quite some time, guards showed up but they let these Eco-terrorists continue to damage the masterpiece artwork, and to spout their propaganda without acting like real security guards and taking these punks to the ground and detaining them. There were other people in the gallery at the same time of this attack and the bystanders also did absolutely nothing to stop these scumbags from attacking the artwork.
After watching the video of the attack again, I took better notice of what the so-called security guards did and said during this attack. One of the guards basically threatened the innocent bystanders in that particular room, with the following: “This room is closed…you are trespassing if you don’t leave the room”….and then the guards kicked away the hammers that the Eco-terrorists placed on the ground—that was it. The guards visible in the video, then turned their backs to the Eco-terrorists as if to protect them, while still threatening and pushing the innocent people out of the room. That is the most ridiculous security response to criminals who just attacked a priceless piece of artwork.
What the security guards should have done is the following: 1) Taser the Eco-terrorists; 2) Slam the Eco-terrorists to the ground, ‘with limited and reasonable force’; 3) Zip-tie their hands behind their backs, and zip-tie their feet together; 4) Inform the Eco-terrorists they are being placed under citizen’s arrest for destruction of private property, vandalism, disturbing the piece, and anything else that fits; and then tell them that they are being detained until the police arrive; and, 5) Call the police to have them come and make the formal arrest, and then give eyewitness statements and video recordings as evidence, to the police.
It seems obvious that the security guards didn’t know that they could use ‘reasonable force’ to detain the suspects at the museum (if that is allowed in England).
Of course, security guards can only use ‘reasonable force’ in a “very limited and reasonable way”.(iv) And in the case of the Eco-terrorists attacking the “Rokeby Venus”, any self-respecting museum security guard should have slammed the Eco-terrorists to the ground in a “very limited and reasonable way”. Even though trained and licensed security guards can use firearms; the use of firearms in a defensive manner would most likely not have been needed in this case; plus, stray bullets could have hurt innocent people and damaged other works of art. The use of tasers and cattle prods are legitimate uses of force against Eco-terrorists, and they would have been useful tools in this case, to stop the Eco-terrorists.
Wouldn’t it have been much better to stop the attack before it happened? Wouldn’t it be better if museum guards were properly trained and had the use of non-lethal tools, like tasers?
As I previously suggested, security guards should have known that these people would cause a problem. These people should have been shadowed as they entered the museum. As soon as these people stepped over the security rope hanging in front of painting, security guards should have rushed over and given the command to step away from the painting, something like: “Step away from the painting NOW!” If they refuse to comply, then repeat the command, but with the addition, “Step away from the painting NOW, or you will be tasered!” If they do not comply after being sufficiently warned, then taser them, and then initiate the steps listed previously to secure the suspects. Of course, if the crime has already been committed, then as security personnel, you should escalate your efforts to detain the perps, make the citizen’s arrest, and then call the police to take charge of the case.
The jurisdiction of a security guard is the property they have been hired to protect—such as a museum: In the United States, “they are authorized to stop people from performing prohibited acts and ask them to leave. If the behavior persists, they may arrest the individual and call the police”.(v)
“Security guards are not allowed to search anyone or their possessions unless they have their consent”.(vi) In this particular case of the attack on the “Rokeby Venus”, if museums installed metal detectors, the hammers used to commit this felony crime could have been found on the Eco-terrorists as they attempted to enter the museum. If a hammer, spray paint, glue, box cutter, or a knife is flagged during the metal detector phase of entering the museum, the museum can have a policy to hold on to such items for the ‘guests’, and then return the ‘confiscated’ items back to the ‘guests’ as they leave the museum. All of these items are usually made of detectable metals, or they are in metal containers (e.g. spray paint cans, aluminum super glue tubes.) Exceptions to this are things like ceramic knives, and other items that can cause damage to artwork that are not made of metal.
These unenlightened radical Eco-terrorists not only spout considerable nonsense regarding fossil fuels, but they know absolutely nothing about the dangers and damage to the environment caused by the mining of lithium ore to extract lithium; and ores of copper, nickel, and copper-nickel to extract Cobalt and other rare earth minerals.
Let me make it clear, I am not saying that fossil fuels do not cause environmental damage – they do. All you have to do is see the aftermath of an oil tanker crash, or an off-shore oil rig explosion, or all the exhaust fume from gasoline-powered vehicles.
However, the production and use of fossil fuels are probably not any worse for the environment than the mining, processing, production and use of rare earth minerals that are needed in the production of electronic devices and components, and electronic vehicles. In many respects, the environmental impact from the mining of rare earth minerals and the manufacturing and use of electronic “solutions” pushed in the Globalists’ Green Agenda, could be worse for the environment, but that would not be beneficial or profitable for the Globalists to admit that.
Lithium, cobalt, nickel and other rare earth chemical elements are used in the manufacturing of electronic devices and electronic vehicles. The Eco-terrorists seem not to care to understand the environmental damage caused from the production processes used to make electronic technology (e.g., gadgets, devices, vehicles, etc.) that needs lithium, cobalt and other chemical elements, and needs to be dug out of the earth. In fact, most electronic devices run off of lithium-ion batteries. As the New Scientist news outlet reported on 20 January 2021, “THEY are the widgets that quietly power our lives: lithium-ion batteries”.
There are so many environmental problems created from the mining of lithium ore, and ores of copper, nickel, and copper-nickel to extract Cobalt, but that is just part of the destruction caused by the Globalist’s Green Agenda Scam.
The waste materials created from rare earth mineral mining activity is almost unfathomable.
However, in addition to the massive environmental damage from mining, you must consider the environmental havoc caused from the disposal of ‘offline’, destroyed, and damaged lithium-powered products and components, which for the most part, are still being dumped in landfills around the world, and not being properly recycled? If people who were concerned about the environment really wanted to protest something that is very damaging to the environment, they would be protesting against the mining [raping] of the environment for rare earth minerals.They should be more alarmed about the raping of the environment for rare earth minerals than worried about an invisible gas [carbon dioxide], that the earth’s plant life depends on for its survival and is needed for plants to produce oxygen for us humans.
Also, these Eco-terrorists should be extra-concerned about the destruction of the earth from rare earth mining activities because as Hiranmayi Srinivasan writes in the article, “Rare Earth Minerals Are More in Demand than Ever—Here are the Ones to Know”, “Minerals such as cobalt, lithium, nickel, and so-called rare earth elements are known as critical minerals because they are essential to the manufacture of everything from our smartphones and laptops to electric vehicles (Evs), as well as power generation, healthcare, and military technology”.(10)
The following four images show the disastrous results of lithium ore mining in South America—these images are evidence, proving the calamitous environmental effects caused by the Globalists’ Green Agenda:
All four of these images are examples of Environmental Destruction in South America caused by lithium ore mining. All of these images are used under the Fair Use terms for Educational Purposes to show examples of environmental damage due to lithium ore mining. The photographers of these images were not listed at their Internet sources.
As of the year 2020, the area of all mining in the world that is above-ground, and visible from satellite imaging, is 57,277 km2….including open cuts, tailings dams, waste rock dumps, water ponds, and processing infrastructure….The overall accuracy, calculated from 1,000 stratified random points is 88.4%”.(11) This is a comparable area size slightly bigger than the entire country of Togo, in Africa, which has a total country area (land and water) equal to 57,000 km2. However, that figure of 57,277 km2 is only the surface of all of the mining activities–it does not include the land surface area that goes deep into the Earth–look at the images above to see what I mean–these mining holes are extensive and cover a lot of surface area below the surface of the Earth.
“The UN Climate Chief wants the ‘Globalist leaders’ to become the ‘Ringmasters’ in Pushing the Green Agenda”.(12)
The ‘Ringmasters’ obviously do not want the “you’ll own nothing and love it” crowd, to know how the UN and WEF Green Agenda creates gigantic holes in the earth that destroys the environment, the natural ecosystems, and pollutes the air, soil, and water. It would be counterproductive, and bad press, for the truth about rare earth minerals mining to get out into the general public. It is for this reason that the Globalists need to constantly use propaganda, faulty science, and lies, to push their Green Agenda. All that they want you to see is how clean an electric vehicle runs: They fear you knowing all of the negative environmental impact that is really involved in the Green Agenda.
What Don’t the Globalists Want the ‘Useless Eaters’ to Understand about the Processes and Systems Needed to Manufacture Electronic Machines and Devices? WEF Representative Yuval Noah Harari called the population’s masses, “Useless People” [“Useless Eaters”] – He was videotaped saying this pejorative: This guy is a completely despicable and supremacist person!(13)
Here are a few of the Negative Environmental Impacts that the Globalists Don’t Want the “Useless Eaters” to Know About:
The Globalists do not want you to know that a lot of fossil fuels and coal are burned in the mining process of rare earth minerals.
The Globalists do not want you to understand that there is a massive amount of pollution and carbon created during the mining of rare earth minerals; and also, about all of the pollution and carbon created in the process of manufacturing electric vehicles and electric devices.
The Globalists also do not want you to understand how much pollution and carbon is created in the shipping of all of the parts used in the manufacturing of the electric devices and electric machines.
The Globalists also do not want you to understand how much fossil fuels and coal are used to generate the electric power plants that are needed to do a majority of the charging of electric vehicles and electric devices.
The following are some of the environmental consequences caused by rare earth minerals mining and processing; and the environmental impact caused from manufacturing products that utilize lithium: I use lithium as my main example, although the damage caused by mining cobalt, nickel, and other rare earth minerals is also disastrous to the environment.
* Lithium extraction process uses approximately 500,000 gallons of water per metric ton of lithium.(14)
* According to the Institute for Energy Research (IER), in a November 12, 2020 report, they wrote: “Electric vehicles are powered by lithium batteries and require other critical metals [in which] China dominates the market. Mining and processing of lithium, however, turns out to be far more environmentally harmful than what turned out to be the unfounded issues with fracking.”(15)
* “[The] South America’s Lithium Triangle, which covers parts of Argentina, Bolivia and Chile, holds more than half the world’s supply of the metal beneath its salt flats….In Chile’s Salar de Atacama, mining activities consumed 65 percent of the region’s water, which is having a large impact on local farmers to the point that some communities have to get water elsewhere.”(16)
* “There is the potential for toxic chemicals to leak from the evaporation pools into the water supply including hydrochloric acid, which is used in the processing of lithium….In Australia and North America, lithium is mined from rock using chemicals to extract it into a useful form. In Nevada, researchers found impacts on fish as far as 150 miles downstream from a lithium processing operation.”(17)
* “Lithium extraction harms the soil and causes air contamination. In Argentina’s Salar de Hombre Muerto, residents believe that lithium operations contaminated streams used by humans and livestock and for crop irrigation. In Chile, the landscape is marred by mountains of discarded salt and canals filled with contaminated water with an unnatural blue hue. According to Guillermo Gonzalez, a lithium battery expert from the University of Chile, ‘This isn’t a green solution – it’s not a solution at all.'”(18)
* In Australia, as an example, “only two percent of the country’s 3,300 metric tons of lithium-ion waste is recycled. Unwanted MP3 players and laptops often end up in landfills, where metals from the electrodes and ionic fluids from the electrolyte can leak into the environment.”(19)
* “It is estimated that between 2021 and 2030, about 12.85 million tons of EV lithium-ion batteries will go offline worldwide, and over 10 million tons of lithium, cobalt, nickel and manganese will be mined for new batteries.”(20) Just think about how much of that estimated 12.85 million tons of EV lithium-ion waste will get dumped into landfills worldwide—if Australia was only recycling two percent, and if that small percentage is similar in other countries worldwide, then several million tons of this ‘crap‘ will end up in the ‘dumps‘ around the world, and these waste products will degrade, leak harmful chemicals and metals into the soil, the groundwater, the lakes, the rivers, and the oceans, which will contaminate the environment, causing unnecessary illnesses and death for populations of fish, amphibians, birds, and mammals. Keep in mind, that the process of mining lithium ore uses a lot of the fresh water, which should primarily be going to farming and residential use. Plus, imagine the soil erosion, air pollution, and the destruction of forests and the natural environment in tropical and sub-tropical South America, China, America, and anywhere else that rare earth mineral mining takes place. The areas affected by mining will probably never fully recover.
* In addition to the disastrous environmental effects of mining lithium ore, and the problem of what to do with ‘offline‘ lithium-ion batteries and components, there are other pollutants that are dangerous to the environment and humanity as a whole, which are caused in great part by the increase in use of electric vehicles, as an example.
1) Obviously the “Just Stop Oil” fools think that electricity magically comes out of the clouds and ‘abracadabra‘ – your electric vehicle battery is charged. Wrong! “One of Tesla’s Supercharger stations was reported to receive 13 percent of their energy from natural gas and 27 percent from coal. Power plants burn coal to generate electricity to power electric cars and emit a higher fossil fuel footprint than [the ignorant] would care to admit.”(21)
2) EV Batteries are manufactured on a very large scale in what are called, ‘gigafactories‘. “These facilities require a large amount of energy to function. Usually, this energy is generated from the burning of fossil fuels. In turn, this increases the carbon footprint of the batteries that are installed in electric vehicles. And that’s just the actual construction of EV batteries…mining of raw materials used in EV batteries is also incredibly destructive largely due to unsustainable, unethical, and environmentally hostile mining practices.”(22)
3) There is a carbon-cost for shipping all of the materials it takes to manufacture an electric car. “For an electric car, the carbon cost of transportation is not limited to just moving the vehicle from one place to another, it also includes the movement of raw materials and the various components, most of which are constructed in facilities that are separate from factories where the car is put together. In all, the carbon emissions associated with transporting electric vehicles is second only to the carbon cost of an EV battery.”(23)
4) EV battery manufacturing is responsible for a lot of carbon emissions: “according to some researchers, producing one lithium-ion battery is the equivalent to driving a fuel-powered car for one to two years. For instance, building a 75 kilowatt-hour (kWh) battery at Tesla’s battery factory in Nevada would produce apporximately 4,500 kilograms (4.9 tons) of carbon dioxide. This is about 3,000 kilograms (3.3 tons) less than if it were produced in certain Chinese factories due to Tesla using solar energy alongside fossil fuels to generate power. For context, you could produce the same amount of carbon dioxide (4.9 tons) by driving a gas-powered car for 1.4 hours a day, with an average annual distance of 12,000 miles.” (Source: Baruah, Anuraag. “CO2 Emitted in Making an EV Battery Isn’t Equal to Driving a Petrol Car for 8 Years.”(24)
5) Another thing to keep in mind for anyone thinking that an electric vehicle does not have a significant carbon footprint, is the following: “Without ample car[e] and repair work, a gasoline car’s mileage will worsen while its carbon emissions increase“. That is true but consider the following about electric vehicles: “An electric car, while still requiring care and repair, will not have the same issues. However, replacing the lithium-ion battery can significantly increase the carbon footprint of an electric vehicle. Additionally, an older electric vehicle will have a more limited range and require more charges, this can also add to the carbon footprint of the vehicle.”(25)
6) “The United States’ power grid must also be addressed. Most of the electricity used in the U.S. is generated from burning fossil fuels. As such, ‘refueling’ an electric vehicle still produces a large amount of carbon emissions.”(26)
7) “EVs Are Sending Toxic Tire Particles Into the Water, Soil, and Air: Electric cars fix one pollution problem—and worsen another.”(27) “Heavier cars’ tires release more tiny fragments into the environment….According to the International Energy Agency, EV’s tend to be significantly heavier than gas-powered or hybrid cars due to their larger, heftier batteries. The average battery for an EV on the market today is roughly 1,000 pounds, with some outliers approaching 3,000 pounds—as much as an entire gasoline-powered compact car. Emissions Analytics has found that adding 1,000 pounds to a midsize vehicle increased tire wear by about 20 percent, and also that Tesla’s Model Y generated 26 percent more tire pollution than a similar Kia hybrid. EVs’ more aggressive torque, which translates into faster acceleration, is another factor that creates more tire particulate mile for mile, compared to similar internal combustion engine cars. Tire particulate is a toxic slurry of microplastics, volatile organic compounds, and other chemical additives that enter the air, soil, and water around trafficked areas. The rubber, metals, and other compounds coming off tires settle along roads where rain washes them into waterways. Smaller bits of tire particulate linger in the air, where they can be inhaled, and the smallest of this particulate matter-known as PM 2.5, because each particle is 2.5 micrometers or less—can directly enter the bloodstream. A 2017 study(28), estimated that tire wear is responsible for 5 to 10 percent of oceanic microplastic pollution, and 2 to 7 percent of airborne PM 2.5 pollution. One particularly concerning chemical in tires is 6PPD, which is added to virtually all tires to prevent rubber from cracking. But in the environment, 6PPD reacts with ozone to become 6PPD-Quinone, a substance that has been linked to salmon die-offs in the Pacific Northwest. A 2022 study confirmed the compound is also lethal to rainbow trout and brook trout.”(29)(30)
Much more could be written about the topics concerning Stopping Eco-terrorists who Purposefully Destroy Priceless Art Pieces to Spread their Propaganda and Coerce People and Governments to Stop the Production and Use of Fossil Fuel; the Environmental Disasters of Mining for Rare Earth Minerals; the Environmental Nightmare Created during the Manufacturing of lithium-ion batteries; The Environmental Hazards Created by ‘Offline’ lithium-ion batteries and components; the Quietly Dismissed Environmental Problems and Carbon Footprint Created by Electric Vehicle Manufacturing; the Huge Problem of Lithium-ion Batteries and Components not being Recycled; and also, the Increased Environmental Disasters Caused by Dangerous Rubber Tire Pollution, which has been Proven to be a Bigger Problem with Tires on Electronic Vehicles, which are generally heavier than Gasoline-powered Vehicles.
Let me leave you with these words from a research study on extracting lithium from lithium ores:
“In general, extracting lithium from ores requires a large amount of energy and resources, resulting in a large emission of pollutants. The impact of these pollutants on the environment is 9.3—60.4 times that of extracting lithium from brine (Jiang SY et al., 2020). Taking global warming potential as an example, the intensity of lithium extraction from ore is 15.69 tCO2eq/t, 47.7 times that from brine (0.33 tCO2eq/t) (Jiang SY et al., 2020)”.(31) The most important part of that quote that you should take away with you, is that because lithium extraction from ores takes a lot of energy and resources, and it creates a large amount of pollution (a large amount of dangerous pollutants and Carbon Dioxide is created); it is therefore, not the green-solution that the propagandists want you to believe, you know, the same supremacists who are members of the World Economic Forum (WEF), Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), The Club of Rome, the Bilderburgers, and the Bohemian Grover kakistocrates, who are also the same ones who are pushing climate change, carbon taxes, anti-meat, pro-Vax, open borders, the one-world-government, Central Bank Digital Currencies, Digital IDs, Credit Scores, “15-Minute Cities” and the Forever Wars, agendas.
Let us remember the notorious statements said, and the propaganda techniques devised and used by Adam Weishaupt, and Edward Bernays, for the purpose of brainwashing and controlling the general population, as well as, to control public opinion through propaganda: This is exactly how the Green Agenda propagandists have created alarm, consent, and agreement among a large portion of the population.
Adam Weishaupt was the German philosopher who founded the Illuminati in 1776; although, several groups in history have been linked to the mysterious secret society known as the Illuminati. Let’s assume that Weishaupt was the actual originator of this secret society. “Weishaupt, a German law professor, had big dreams when he gathered a small group of students and created the Illuminati in 1776. A believer in the principles of the Enlightenment, he sought to create an organization that could act as a counterweight to religion”, to “oppose the forces of superstition and lies”.(32)
Weishaupt wrote:
“By establishing reading societies, and subscription libraries, and taking these under our direction, and supplying them through our labors, we may turn the public mind which we will.” (Adam Weishaupt)
“In like manner we must try to obtain an influence in the military academies (this may be of mighty consequence), the printing-houses, booksellers’ shops, and in short in all offices which have any effect, either in forming, or in managing, or even in directing the mind of man: painting and engraving are highly worth our care.” (Adam Weishaupt)
And also,
“We get all the literary journals. We take care, by well-timed pieces [or articles], to make the citizens and the Princes a little more noticed for certain little slips.” (Adam Weishaupt)
Mason de Luchet wrote the following in his Essai sur la secte des illumines (1789):
“There are a certain number of people who have arrived at the highest degree of imposture. They have conceived the project of reigning over opinions, and of conquering, not kingdoms, nor provinces, but the human mind. This project is gigantic, and has something of madness in it, which causes neither alarm nor uneasiness; but when we descend to details, when we regard what passes before our eyes of the hidden principles, when we perceive a sudden revolution in favour of ignorance and incapacity, we must look for the cause of it; and if we find that a revealed and known system explains all the phenomena which succeed each other with terrifying rapidity, how can we not believe it?”(33)
The Father of Propaganda, Edward Bernays, wrote the following about the power of manipulation of the masses:
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinion of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country….We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society….In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons….who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind”.
(Edward Bernays, from his work, Propaganda (1928))
I think that the statements made by these two experts in propaganda dissemination, and manipulation of mass media, are exactly what has happened in the Fossil Fuels vs. Electric-Powered, war.
The powerful and wealthy Globalists and their hired experts of propaganda and media manipulation have basically manipulated the masses into believing that fossil fuels, humans, and cow farts are bad for the environment, and that these are the so-called ‘drivers’ of global warming. This anti-human, anti-fossil fuel propaganda war is pushed by newspapers, magazines, TV news, Hollywood movies, Internet news, and it is also brainwashed into people in school. This is not to say that fossil fuels are good for the environment, because they are not. However, it would appear that all of the processes that go into making electronic devices, and vehicles that run on lithium-ion battery power, plus the problem of ‘offline’ lithium-ion powered devices and products, may be even worse for the environment. Nevertheless, the Globalist propagandists will never reveal or admit this plausible theory.
While the propagandists are busy blaming so-called ‘global warming’ on humans, cows, fossil fuels, and carbon dioxide; real climate scientists tell a different story.
Valentina Zharkova is an astrophysicist, mathematician, statistician, and she did her PhD in Solar Physics. She is a professor at Northumbria University in the UK. Professor Zharkova began doing solar activity studies in 2002. In 2008, she and her team discovered magnetic fields inside sunspots correlate with, or anti-correlates with the magnetic field of the whole sun. This discovery allowed researchers to study and gather data from the whole solar disk, which is covered with a magnetic field, and to do this you split the sun into latitude bands, and then you can extract magnetic fields from each latitude, which reveals so much more data and information about solar activity than studying single sunspots. Zharkova explains that the sun has a background field, and in the background field, you have these loops that are embedded in the sun’s background field. As she explains, sunspots are the roots of the loops that are in the sun’s background field. The cycles of the solar activity are first defined by the appearance of sunspots. During the solar minimum cycle, you have very few sunspots, and during the solar maximum, you have a lot of sunspots. Her team decided to compare the magnetic fields of sunspot groups, and the surrounding background, and what they discovered at that time was that actually the sun was in anti-phase, meaning, if leading polarity is northern, the background field has to be southern. A German scientist named Stix, in 1976, had already discovered this, he found that magnetic field comes in anti-phase, and that there is a seven-year phase difference between magnetic field of the sunspot and activity region, which was helpful because it proved that her teams’ discoveries matched previous proven research. Her team also ran correlation between the background field and sunspots and discovered that there was a very strong correlation between their features occurrences and some period of two and a half years. The solar cycle is 22 years because the leading polarity changes every 11 years, and then goes back to the same leading polarity: Thus, it takes two 11-year cycles to return back to the same leading polarity in each hemisphere. In the background field, which is called the poloidal field, this is where the loops of the sunspots come out from. The loops that come up from the poloidal field also carry the magnetic field, and that field is called the toroidal field. The sun has a rotation, and the rotation near the equator is much quicker than the rotation near the poles. So, what happens with the loops coming out of the poloidal field, they are twisting and running behind the sun (because of rotation), and this twisting creates a lot of toroidal field and this is what causes increased solar activity and an increase in the number of sunspots, leading to an increase of coronal mass ejections of solar flares and radiation coming from this. This all happens because the loops on the surface of the background are carried by the sun, and due to the rotation, the loops twist and interact with each other, and this interaction is like an electric shock in exposed wires, which creates a lot of energy discharge, and these emissions travel out everywhere through space including to the Earth. If you look at the variations of temperatures on the Earth, they follow the solar cycles. During the solar maximum, the temperature on the Earth slightly increases. During the solar minimum, the temperature on the Earth decreases. And this follows the 11-year cycle. It is not a linear interaction, there is some lag-time. The Earth responds if you have more heating from some process, like the solar maximum, of course, the Earth’s temperatures will also increase.
The Grand Solar Minimum – Beginning in 2020.
According to Zharkova, in 2020, we entered the phase of the grand solar minimum, and for the next 33 years, meaning, for the next three cycles, we have this grand solar minimum.
Typically, the temperature on the Earth during the Maunder minimum and irradiance was decreased by about .3%, or about 0.8 degrees, for example, in England. Zharkova states that “historical records show that during the Maunder minimum in the 17th century, the main rivers in Europe were frozen, [when they shouldn’t have been, so] what we expect for the modern grand minimum is the decrease of the temperature will be slightly smaller than it was during the Maunder minimum, because Maunder minimum…from the 17th century until now, the temperatures increased by about one degree because of the position of the sun, but now, if this temperature decreases by 0.8 degrees, it will still be much higher than it was in Maunder minimum, so it will be probably not as cold as it was during the Maunder minimum. However, she said that during this grand solar minimum, between cycles 25 and the 11 years in cycle 26, and up to cycle 27, this is the least active period. This will be the coldest period on the Earth [during this grand solar minimum], and it will be noticeable. For example, Zharkova said, recently there were snowstorms in the Carpathian Mountains in July. She said that had not happened in about 150 years.(34) I investigated this event, and the results of what I discovered is discussed in another section of this essay, below.
Periods of Low Solar Activity
“Currently, the Sun has completed solar cycle 24 – the weakest cycle of the past 100+ years – and in 2020, has started cycle 25. During the periods of low solar activity, such as the modern grand solar minimum, the Sun will often be devoid of sunspots. This is what is observed now at the start of this minimum, because in 2020 the Sun has seen, in total, 115 spotless days (or 78%), meaning 2020 is on track to surpass the space-age record of 281 spotless days (or 77%) observed in 2019. However, the cycle 25 start is still slow in firing active regions and flares, so with every extra day/week/month that passes, the null in solar activity is extended marking a start of grand solar minimum. What are the consequences for Earth of this decrease of solar activity?”(35)
During the previous grand solar minimum – Maunder Minimum, it is known that there were very few sunspots and that the overall brightness of the sun during this time was slightly decreased. Zharkova states that “solar irradiance during Maunder minimum” decreased “by a value of about 0.22% of the total solar irradiance in 1710, after the Maunder minimum was over….From 1645 to 1710, the temperatures across much of the Northern Hemisphere of the Earth plunged when the Sun entered a quiet phase now called the Maunder Minimum. This likely occurred because the total solar irradiance was reduced by 0.22%, that led to a decrease of the average terrestrial temperature measured mainly in the Northern hemisphere in Europe by 1.0 – 1.5 degrees Celsius….This seemingly small decrease of the average temperature in the Northern hemisphere led to frozen rivers, cold long winters, and cold summers….Shindell et al. has shown that the drop in the temperature was related to dropped abundances of ozone created by solar ultraviolet light in the stratosphere, the layer of the atmosphere located between 10 and 50 kilometers from the Earth’s surface. Since during the Maunder Minimum the Sun emitted less radiation, in total, including strong ultraviolet emissions, less ozone was formed affecting planetary atmosphere waves, the giant wiggles in the jet stream. Shindell et al. on p. 2150 suggest that ‘ a change to the planetary waves during the Maunder Minimum kicked the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) – the balance between a permanent low-pressure system near Greenland and a permanent high-pressure system to its south – into a negative phase, that led to Europe to remain unusually cold during the MM.”(36) (37)
What the Researchers at the Lebedev Physics Institute Discovered in 2017
“Based on the picture that we are seeing now, the Sun is moving inevitably towards another low, that will be reached in the late 2018 – the first half of 2019….That’s just the first stage of the process, however. According to researchers in Moscow, the regions of hot plasma will also disappear, and then solar radiation will also drop to a zero. Finally, at the minimum point, the solar magnetic energy almost completely vanishes. In this form, our star can exist from several months to a year, after which new fluxes of the magnetic field begin to float from the depth of the Sun, the first spots appear, and the flywheel of the solar cycle starts a new 11-year revolution”.(38) The Russian researchers at the Lebedev Physics Institute went on to say, “the consequences for Earth might be more cold, ice, and heavy snowfalls. The last so-called Little Ice Age, observed in the 17th-18th centuries, coincided with the known ‘failure of the solar cycle, during which for 50 years there were almost no sunspots on the Sun'”.(39)
Studies done by Physics Professor, Nir J. Shaviv, Hebrew University, Jerusalem
Professor Shaviv’s research takes a different path than Professor Zharkova’s; however, they seem to end up with similar conclusions regarding the “cosmic ray-climate link”.
“We discuss the problem of cosmic ray diffusion in the Milky Way and show that the spiral arm dynamics gives rise to a ~150 Myr periodic modulaton of the cosmic ray density in the vicinity of the solar system. We show that these predicted variations are recorded in the exposure ages of Iron meteorites. Given the suspected cosmic ray-climate link, we argue that spiral arm passages are also responsible for the periodic appearance of ice age epochs on Earth. This hypothesis is supported by the clear correlation between ice age epochs and the meteoritic record and also between longer term activity in the Milky Way and glacial activity on Earth.”(40)
(SHAVIV 2005)
Of course, there are detractors of the theory that the Sun is responsible for most of the global warming and global cooling.
“The Maunder minimum is connected to the Little Ice Age, a time of markedly lower temperatures, in particular in the Northern hemisphere. Here we use a coupled climate model to explore the effect of a 21st-century grand minimum on future global temperatures, finding a moderate temperature offset of no more than -0.3 degree Celsius in the year 2100 relative to a scenario with solar activity similar to recent decades. This temperature decrease is much smaller than the warming expected from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by the end of the century”.(41)
So, as you can see, there are also researchers who tend to think that greenhouse gas emissions are more of a cause for alarm with regard to Earth temperatures. But then again, one can ask, is their coupled climate model accurate? Is their data accurate? Is their interpretation of the results accurate? Do these researchers have a pro-global-warming agenda?
Some researchers take a balanced focus on causes for terrestrial climate changes that include both greenhouse gas emissions as a cause, as well as variations in solar activity.
“The Sun is a variable star and its output varies over vast timescales. Apart from an 11-year solar cycle, the solar activity oscillates in the cycles of the order of hundreds of years, called ‘grand solar minima’ and ‘grand solar maxima’. Several recent publications suggest a new grand solar minimum will occur in the 21st century (Abreu et al., 2010; Lockwood et al., 2011; Roth and Joos, 2013) and will last even until the end of the 22nd century (Steinhilber and Beer, 2013). Such events might have a significant impact on climate and on the ozone layer. As an example, the Dalton minimum (1790-1830) is thought to have contributed to significant cooling in Europe (Brugnara et al., 2013; Luterbacher et al., 2004). It was characterized by reduced solar irradiation (Hoyt and Schatten, 1998), estimated to range between a moderate ~ 1Wm-2 (Kopp, 2016) and as much as ~ 5Wm-2 (Shapiro et al., 2011) below present values. Anet et al. (2014) applied the forcing derived by Shapiro et al. (2011) to modulate the solar input in a climate model and found that, among other natural factors (e.g. volcanic activity), the simulated cooling was to a large degree caused by low solar activity. A grand solar minimum which was even more prolonged than the Dalton Minimum was the Maunder Minimum, the period between approximately 1645 and 1715 when sunspots were exceedingly rare”.(42)
Meehl, G. A. et al. (2013) claims that “after the initial decrease of solar radiation in 2020, globally averaged surface air temperature cools relative to the reference simulation by up to several tenths of a degree Centigrade. By the end of the grand solar minimum in 2070, the warming nearly catches up to the reference simulation. Thus, a future grand solar minimum could slow down but not stop global warming”.(43)
Scientists can’t seem to agree on the main causes of global cooling and global warming – some think it is more solar driven, and others think it is more greenhouse emissions driven. And the profiteers of climate change are just in it for the huge amount of wealth it provides them.
I am sick of the climate change tyrants and opportunists who continually blame human activity for any alleged global warming in order to control human activities, punish people, rule over people, and profit from the climate change agenda.
“The Earth is warming but physical evidence from around the world tells us that human-emitted CO2 (carbon dioxide) has played only a minor role in it. Instead, the mild warming seems to be part of a natural 1,500-year climate cycle (plus or minus 500 years) that goes back at least one million years. The cycle has been too long and too moderate for primitive peoples lacking thermometers to recount in their oral histories. But written evidence of climatic change does exist. The Romans had recorded a warming from about 200 B.C. to A.D. 600, registered mainly in the northward advance of grape growing in both Italy and Britain. Histories from both Europe and Asia tell us there was a Medieval Warming that lasted from about 900 to 1300; this period was also known as the Medieval Climate Optimum because of its mild winters, stable seasons, and lack of severe storms. Human histories also record the Little Ice Age, which lasted from about 1300 to 1850. But people thought each of these climatic shifts was a distinct event and not part of a continuing pattern….A wealth of other evidence has emerged since 1984, however, corroborating Dansgaard and Oeschger’s natural 1,500-year climate cycle: An ice core from the Antarctic’s Vostok Glacier-at the other end of the world from Iceland-was brought up in 1987 and showed the same 1,500-year climate cycle throughout its 400,000-year length. The ice-core findings correlate with known advances and retreats in the glaciers of the Arctic, Europe, Asia, North America, Latin America, New Zealand, and the Antarctic….Fossilized pollen from across North America shows nine complete reorganizations of our trees and plants in the last 14,000 years, or one every 1,650 years….The Earth continually warms and cools. The cycle is undeniable, ancient, often abrupt, and global. It is also unstoppable. Isotopes in the ice and sediment cores, ancient tree rings, and stalagmites tell us it is linked to small changes in the irradiance of the sun.”(44)
(S Fred Singer and Avery 2008)
Climate Change is Natural; But Propagandists have turned Climate Change into some sort of Power-Grabbing, Money-Making Scheme
“Cyclical, abrupt, and dramatic global and regional temperature fluctuations have occurred over millions of years, long before humans invented agriculture, industries, automobiles, and carbon-trading schemes. Many natural factors are known to contribute to these changes, although even our most sophisticated climate models have failed to predict the timing, scale (either up or down), impacts, or human influences. While theories abound, there is no consensus, as claimed, that ‘science is settled’ on any of those theories – much less is their consensus about the human influences upon or threat implications of climate change. Among these hypotheses, man-made global warming caused by burning fossils has been trumpeted as an epic crisis. Co2, a ‘greenhouse gas,’ has been identified as a primary culprit and branded as an endangering ‘pollutant.’ This, despite the fact that throughout Earth’s history the increases in the atmospheric CO2 level have tended to follow, not lead, rising temperatures. It should also be understood that CO2 accounts for only 0.04 of 1 percent of the atmosphere, and about 97 percent of that tiny trace amount comes from naturally occurring sources that humans haven’t influenced. The big lie is that we are living in a known climate change crisis. Climate warming and cooling have occurred throughout the ages. Is the Earth warming right now? Probably not, but what if it is? It might be cooling next year. The models that predict a crisis are speculative at best, and two recent events have cast even more doubt on their accuracy. One relates to undisputable evidence that influential members of the climate science community have cooked the books to advance their theories and marginalize contrary findings. The other problem is evidence provided directly by Mother Nature herself that the global climate appears to have entered a new cooling cycle. Public exposure of hacked e-mail files retrieved from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at Britain’s University of East Anglia revealed scandalous communications among researchers who have fomented global warming hysteria….confirm[ing] long-standing and broadly suspected manipulations of climate data….Correspondence leaves no doubt that the members of the network were concerned the cooling since 1998 they had observed would be publicly exposed. In an October 26, 2008, note from CRU’s Mick Kelly to Jones, he comments, ‘Yeah, it wasn’t so much 1998 and all that I was concerned about, used to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a longer 10-year period of relatively stable temperature…” He added, ‘Speculation but if I see this possibility, then others might also. Anyway, I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the effects and the recent cold-ish years.'”(45)
(Bell 2011)
Here is an example of how the modern-day Edward Bernays of the global warming ‘sciences’, use assumptions, lies, and propaganda to push their agenda:
“Trenberth, an advisory IPCC high priest and man-made global warming spokesperson, didn’t waste a publicity opportunity to link a devastating 2005 US hurricane season to this cause. After ignoring admonitions from top expert Christopher Landsea that this assumption was not supported by known research, Tenberth proceeded with the unfounded claim that dominated world headlines”.(46)
“So-called radical preachers, for example, usually succeed in broadcasting their radical ideas only when their following is prepared to accept their views.”
(Edward L. Bernays. Crystallizing Public Opinion (1923))
The following quote by Edward L. Bernays is a good example of how the global warming and climate change hucksters and carnival barkers have brainwashed a majority of the population into believing whatever the propagandists want them to believe:
“Political, economic and moral judgments, as we have seen, are more often expressions of crowd psychology and herd reaction than the result of a calm exercise of judgment. It is difficult to believe that this is not inevitable. Public opinion in a society consisting of millions of persons, all of whom must somehow or other reach a working basis with most of the others, is bound to find a level of uniformity founded on the intelligence of the average member of society as a whole or of the particular group to which one may belong. There is a different set of facts on every subject for each man. Society cannot wait to find absolute truth. It cannot weigh every issue carefully before making a judgement. The result is that the so-called truths by which society lives are born of compromise among conflicting desires and of interpretation by many minds. They are accepted and intolerantly maintained once they have been determined…..The only way for new ideas to gain currency is through the acceptance of them by groups. [there is] the urge toward suppression of minority or dissentient points of view.”(47)
(Edward L. Bernays. Crystallizing Public Opinion (1923))
I was interested to find out more about the rare July snowstorm event in the Carpathian Mountains mentioned by Professor Zharkova; thus, I did a google search for “Unusual snowstorm in July in Carpathian Mountains”. Google did everything possible to hide any results about this event – there were no results in the first 10 pages of the Google search – I gave up looking at Google.
Hiding search results about search topics that do not fit the Globalist agenda, seems typical for a Globalist-own Internet technology corporation, like Google. It is normal that pushers of the climate change/global warming agenda do not want people to read about usual weather events that suggest global cooling instead.
Therefore, I decided to ask Bard, Google’s AI chat technology, about the July snow in the Carpathian Mountains. I knew that Bard would give me some answers to this question, but I also suspected that Bard would spin the reasons for the unusual July snowstorm events in the Carpathian Mountains, as being caused by ‘global warming’.
Now ask yourself, how much scientific-sense does it make to blame COLD-EVENTS on the newest and greatest enemy to the world, ‘global warming’? I would guess that if there was an ice storm in July in Arizona, these same global warming propagandists would still blame the very rare COLD-EVENT on global warming. The Globalists need to continue the global warming scam for as long as possible because they are making hundreds of billions of dollars off of all their side-hustles they have going on related to making money from the global warming scam. If, and hopefully, when the global warming scam bubble bursts, I am sure that the Globalists will already have a new profit earning scam running.
Here is what Bard had to say about the rare July snowstorm events in the Carpathian Mountains:
“Snowfall in the Carpathian Mountains in July is an unusual event, as the region typically experiences warm summers with average temperatures ranging from 15 to 20 degrees Celsius…However, there have been a few documented cases of snow falling in the Carpathian Mountains in July in recent years.” Hummmm…Like recently, as in during the grand solar minimum when temperatures on Earth are expected to be lower because of reduced sun flare activity?
“In July 2014, a snowfall occurred in the Tatras Mountains, a subrange of the Carpathian Mountains located in Slovakia and Poland….The snow fell at…above, 1,500 meters. In July 2020, there was another snowfall in the Carpathian Mountains, this time in the Bukovina region of Ukraine. The snowfall was again caused by a cold front, and it affected areas as low as 1,000 meters.”
Now here is where Bard again, starts “Bardsplaining” and gaslighting because the AI has been, no doubt, programmed to make any climate responses pro-global-warming, even if it makes absolutely no sense. Bard states: “The occurrence of snow in the Carpathian Mountains in July is a reminder that the climate is changing. As global temperatures rise, we can expect to see more extreme weather events.” Give me a break, Bard! I suspect that if I asked Bard, if the last Ice Age (the Last Glacial Period, LGP), which took place between about 115,000 to about 11,700 years ago, was caused by global warming, it would say yes.
I just asked Bard, “What effect did global warming have on the last glacial ice age?” Here is what the all-wise Bard had to say:
“The relationship between global warming and the last glacial ice age is complex and involves a variety of factors. [LMAO!] While global warming is generally associated with rising temperatures, the end of the last glacial period was marked by a complex interplay of factors [Word Salad Much!] that led to a gradual warming trend.”
I have never seen an AI-cope as bad as this: Bard is literally making up $hit to blame the last ice age, that took place 10s of thousands of years ago, on “a complex interplay of factors” and obviously, it was still due to global warming. I guess those darn cave men were driving around in their gas-guzzling MONSTER-trucks, using their gas-powered stoves, heating their caves with “blue coal”, cutting down pesky trees with their gas-powered chainsaws, mowing the cave grass with their gas lawnmowers, feeding their cows beans because they thought cow farts were funny, and so on and so forth.
But Guess What–Bard Just Screwed Up! It Actually Told the Truth in the Next Paragraph of its Response!
Bard wrote: “Milankovitch Cycles: The Earth’s orbit and tilt around the sun change slightly over long periods of time, known as Milankovitch cycles. The changes affect the amount of solar radiation that reaches different part of the Earth, influencing global temperatures. During the last glacial period, Milankovitch cycles led to a reduction in summer solar radiation in the Northern Hemisphere, promoting ice sheet growth.” Bard admits that solar radiation (sun activity, sun flare activity) that reaches the Earth influences global temperatures. But in the final paragraphs of Bard’s response, it still credits CO2 increases for causing the end of the ice age and rising temperatures.
I think I will just continue to blame ice age global warming on “MONSTER-Truck-drive’en Cave Men who fed their prehistoric-cows beans because they liked cow fart noises.” I think that pre-historic cow farts caused the end of the last glacial ice age, so put that on the list of possible solutions for the next ice age. AS FAR AS SOLUTIONS FOR THE OUT-OF-CONTROL HYSTERIA OVER GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE; the only thing I have left to say is, Question Everything!
Sources: (Please note that citation numbering went off the rails after (3) and (9), because I moved large sections of text around that have citations, I started using Roman numbers for citing material after (3) and between (9) and (10)).
(9) Operation Backfire Press Conference. April 9, 2010, at the Wayback Machine, FBI, January 20, 2006.
(i) “Right to Refuse Service in 2022: What’s Legal, What’s Not for Your Business | Huckleberry Insurance.” Huckleberry.com, huckleberry.com/blog/right-to-refuse-service/. Accessed 21 Nov. 2023.
(ii) Sam, S. “Security Guard Legal Limitations: What They Can and Cannot Do.” San Francisco Bay Area Security Patrol Experts | Plaza Protection, 28 Dec. 2021, blog.plazaprotection.com/security-guard-legal-limitations-what-they-can-and-cannot-do/. Accessed 19 Nov. 2023.)
(21) Miller, Tom. “How Much Fossil Fuel Does It Take to Power an Electric Car?” National Motorists Association, 5 June 2022, ww2.motorists.org/blog/how-much-does-it-take-to-power-an-electric-car/. Accessed 19 Nov. 2023.
(22) Kilgore, Georgette. “Carbon Footprint of Electric Cars vs. Gasoline (the Truth No One Admits).” 8 Billion Trees: Carbon Offset Projects & Ecological Footprint Calculators, 23 Feb. 2022, 8billiontrees.com/carbon-offsets-credits/carbon-footprint-of-electric-cars-vs-gasoline/. Accessed 19 Nov. 2023.
(23) Bieker, G. “A global comparison of the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of combustion engine and electric passenger cars.” The International Council on Clean Transportation. 2021, July 20. theicct.org/publications/global-LCA-passenger-cars-jul2021.
(28) Kole, Pieter Jan, et al. “Wear and Tear of Tyres: A Stealthy Source of Microplastics in the Environment.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 14, no. 10, Oct. 2017, p. 1265, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14101265. Accessed 19 Nov. 2023.
(30) The results and findings of the salmon die-off study is at this source: Tian, Zhenyu, et al. “A Ubiquitous Tire Rubber–Derived Chemical Induces Acute Mortality in Coho Salmon.” Science, vol. 371, no. 6525, 8 Jan. 2021, p.p. 185-189, science.sciencemag.org/371/6525/185, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abd6951. Accessed 19 Nov. 2023. “The Acute Toxicity of the Tire Rubber-Derived Chemical 6PPD-quinone to Four Fishes…” study is at these two sources: Hiki, Kyoshiro, et al. “Acute Toxicity of a Tire Rubber-Derived Chemical, 6PPD Quinone, to Freshwater Fish and Crustacean Species.” Environmental Science & Technology Letters, vol. 8, no. 9, Aug. 2021, p.p. 779-84, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.1c00453. Accessed 19 Nov. 2023; and Brinkmann, Markus, et al. “Acute Toxicity of the Tire Rubber-Derived Chemical 6PPD-Quinone to Four Fishes of Commercial, Cultural, and Econological Importance.” Environmental Science & Technology Letters, Mar. 2022, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.2c00050. Accessed 19 Nov. 2023.
(31) Gao, Tianming, et al. “Lithium Extraction from Hard Rock Lithium Ores: Technology, Resources, Environment and Cost.” China Geology, vol. 0, no. 0, 2022, https://doi.org/10.31035/cg2022088. Accessed 19 Nov. 2023.
(32) Fraga, Kaleena. “The Little-Known Story of Adam Weishaupt, the German Philosopher Who Founded the Illuminati in 1776.” All That’s Interesting, 23 June 2022, althatsinteresting.com/adam-weishaupt. Accessed 19 Nov. 2023. And, Gardiner, Philip. Secret Societies: Gardiner’s Forbidden Knowledge: Revelations about the Freemasons, Templars, Illuminati, Nazis, and the Serpent Cults. Franklin Lakes, NJ, New Page Books, 2007. p. 170.
(33) Gardiner. p. 167.
(34) Transcription [to the best of my ability] of an interview with solar physics expert, Valentina Zharkova. “How the Sun Affects Temperatures on Earth (W/Valentina Zharkova, Northumbria University).” http://www.youtube.com, m.youtube.com/watch?v=JyyuouPSNEA. Accessed 22 Nov. 2023.
(35) Zharkova, Valentina. “Modern Grand Solar Minimum Will Lead to Terrestrial Cooling.” Temperature, vol. 7, no. 3, Aug. 2020, p.p. 1-6, https://doi.org/10.1080/23328940.2020.1796243.
(36) Zharkova 2020.
(37) Shindell, D. T. 2001. “Solar Forcing of Regional Climate Change during the Maunder Minimum.” Science 294 (5549): 2149-52. https;//doi.org/10.1126/science.1064363. Accessed 22 Nov. 2023.
(40) SHAVIV, NIR J. 2005. “On the Link between Cosmic Rays and Terrestrial Climate.” International Journal of Modern Physics A 20 (29): 6662-65. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0217751x05029733. Accessed 22 Nov. 2023.
(41) Feulner, G., and S. Rahmstorf. 2010. “On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the future climate on Earth,” Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L05707, doi:10.1029/2010GL042710.
(42) Arsenovic, Pavle, Eugene Rozanov, Julien Anet, Andrea Stenke, Werner Schmutz, and Thomas Peter. 2018. “Implications of Potential Future Grand Solar Minimum for Ozone Layer and Climate.” Atmosphereic Chemistry and Physics 18 (5): 3469-83. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-3469-2018. Accessed 22 Nov. 2023.
(43) Meehl, G. A., J. M. Arblaster, and D. R. Marsh (2013). “Could a future ‘Grand Solar Minimum’ like the Maunder Minimum stop global warming?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, 1789-1793, doi: 10.1002/grl.50361.
(44) S Fred Singer, and Dennis T Avery. 2008. Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield.
(45) Bell, Larry. 2011. Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power behind the Global Warming Hoax. Austin, Tx: Greenleaf Book Group Press.
(46) Bell. 2011.
(47) Bernays, Edward L. 1923. Crystallizing public Opinion. Boni and Liveright.
“SINGA” (Lion) ~ 1987 ~ Technical Pen Pointillism. This is a photograph of the ONLY 4″ x 6″ photograph ever taken of this original artwork: Sorry for the lack of details. The original photograph was taken on rather grainy, high-ASA film, under poor lighting conditions, behind glass that was giving off distracting reflections, and it wasn’t focused all that well. Plus, this is a duplicate photograph, which unfortunately, does not reproduce the fine details of this artwork. I have lots of excuses, I know, but GEEZZZZZ, give me a break.
You will want to find some means to create a record of your artworks, because you DON’T KNOW if they will exist in the future. Your artworks could be destroyed by being burned to ash in a fire; or, by being drowned in a flood; or, by being swept up into the sky by a twister; or even, by being crushed under the stinky and sweaty foot of King Kong….You never know! With all of those horrendous art-destruction possibilities, maybe the most convenient recording method nowadays is a digital photographic record. It is unfortunate there wasn’t digital photographic technology in 1987.
Here are the Descriptive Technical Details of “SINGA” (1987):
Medium: Koh-I-Noor® Rapidograph® technical pens, with Koh-I-Noor ink/dye.
Number of Points/Dots: I have no clue…but I would guess anywhere from 20,000 to 30,000 ink dots.
How much Coffee Consumed to Complete this Work: Many, many, gallons.
DOES THIS ARTWORK STILL EXIST?
I do not know.
This is the ONLY photograph I have of this artwork, “SINGA”. It is a rather large (A3-sized) Pointillism work of a lion that I originally photographed at the Henry Doorly Zoo, in Omaha, Nebraska, in 1986.
Pointillism has always been my first-love of all art forms. Georges Pierre Seurat (1859 – 1891), the legendary French post-Impressionist artist, was my main influence in taking up Pointillism. In addition to Seurat, my good friend, Pat Leapley, is a remarkable artist, and he used to work in Pointillism. I have been inspired by both Seurat, and my friend, Pat. However, I made my own particular style of working in Pointillism, using only very small-nibbed technical pens with black ink.
If I create a commissioned artwork, the piece only stays with me for a short time. If it is a personal work of inspiration, and done for myself, I enjoy more time with the piece. Nevertheless, once it leaves my protection, anything could happen to it, although the foot-stomping by King Kong possibility is unlikely. I would hope my artworks last a long time, but you never know.
I have a few Pointillism pieces still in my possession, which I need to photograph. I also plan to start working more in my oldest, and my most favourite art genre/style, Pointillism.
NAWFAL ABSTRACT ART PHOTOS 
You must be logged in to post a comment.