The Breaking of the Great Artificial Drought - August 2021

[JeffMiller (Jeffrey Miller)]

THE BREAKING OF THE GREAT ARTIFICIAL DROUGHT

Great positive changes are underway at every level of our reality. They began in earnest in 2012, and have been increasing in speed and magnitude. I began writing this series of articles on the subject, entitled “Positive Changes That Are Occurring”, in July of 2013.

These historically-unprecedented positive changes are being driven by many hundreds of thousands, if not millions of simple, inexpensive Orgonite devices based on the work of Wilhelm Reich and Karl Hans Welz.

Since Don Croft first fabricated tactical Orgonite in 2000, its widespread, ongoing and ever-increasing distribution has been unknitting and transforming the ancient Death energy matrix built and expanded by our dark masters, well, all the way back to Babylon, and before. And, as a result, the Ether is returning to its natural state of health and vitality.

One of those changes is that the Great Artificial Drought has been broken. That’s because precipitation varies directly with the health of the ether.

For example, Allentown, Pennsylvania’s daily rainfall record for July 11 increased 135% from 1982 to 2019.

(I have to, er, throw this out there. I distributed a significant number of simple, inexpensive Orgonite devices in Allentown, where I was born, and in the surrounding area. This is the 4th largest out of 39 examples in this article.

I’m cross referencing that against the fact that Jonathan Pierce, of Roxborough, PA, caught the current Pennsylvania state record flathead catfish in the Schuylkill at Roxborough in May 2020. It weighed 56.3 pounds, and was 29% larger than a prior 43-pound, 9-ounce record holder from 1985. It’s a baseline average annual increase in size of .8% over those 35 years. That’s almost a third larger. I threw a bunch of TB’s off the bridge over the Schuylkill at Roxborough when my wife was in Medical School in Philadelphia, from 2008 to 2010.)

(Jonathan Pierce, with the current Pennsylvania state record flathead catfish, from May 2020, weighed 56.3 pounds, and was 29% larger than a prior 43-pound, 9-ounce record holder from 1985. It’s a baseline average annual increase in size of .8% over those 35 years. That’s almost a third larger)

Yankton, South Dakota’s daily snowfall record for January 21 increased 89% from 1982 to 2018, from 7.5 inches to 14.2 inches.

Havre, Montana’s October daily snowfall record increased 72% from 2008 to 2017, from 8.6 inches to 14.8 inches.

Daytona Beach, Florida’s daily rainfall record increased 56% from 1953 to 2018, from .91 inches to 1.42 inches.

Flagstaff, Arizona’s daily snowfall record, set in 2016, is 10.1 inches, which is 146% above the previous record of 4.1 inches set in 1916.

Syracuse, New York’s daily snowfall record for December 13, set in 2017, is 8.9 inches, which is above the previous record of 5.9 inches set in 1951.

In an article on the subject, Syracuse.com said “Syracuse breaks snowfall record - and it wasn’t even the snowiest spot in CNY”

The subhead goes on to say “Wednesday’s snowfall in Central New York was record-breaking.”

The margin between the records has been represented with the general “breaks” and “breaking”, to blunt any specific insight into the magnitude of the increase.

Spokane, Washington’s daily snowfall record for December 15th, set in 2017, is 7.1 inches, which is 48% higher than the previous record of 4.8 inches set in 1963.

In a story on the subject, Spokane’s The Spokesman said “Friday’s snowfall breaksdaily record at airport; streets remain icy as full-city plow continues”.

The story reads “On Friday, 7.1 inches fell, as measured at Spokane International Airport, crushing the record of 4.8 inches set on the same date in 1963.”

The headline depicts the margin between the records with the general hedge “breaks”, to blunt any insight into the magnitude of the near-50% increase. In the body text, the lurid, accurate but still general “crushing the record” again defrays specific insight into the historically-unpredicented margin between the old record and the new. They’re successive examples of a propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.

Such records are usually broken by tiny margins. Here, the record stood for over fifty years, and then was suddenly broken by an exponential, unexplained margin.

The author makes no mention of the fact that this record is part of a larger, wider trend. That’s an example of a propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.

There’s clearly been some great positive change in the environment in Washington State.

The author makes no mention as to what might be driving the quantum increase in precipitation. They’re desperate to keep you from recognizing that precipitation varies directly with the health of the ether.

Boise, Idaho’s snowfall record for December and January, set in 2016-17, is 35.5 inches, which is 16% higher than the previous record of 30.5 inches set in 1983-84. The Idaho Statesman bravely hedged with the general “handily surpassed the previous record”.

Minnesota’s annual precipitation record, set in 2016, was 56.24 inches, 5% more than the previous record of 53.52 inches set in 1991.

Bismarck, North Dakota’s snowfall record through January 2, set in 2016-17, is 53.1 inches, which is 8% higher than the previous record of 49.3 inches set in 1993-94.

The California water year record, set in 2016-2017, was 8% higher than the previous record set in 1982-83.

From October 2016 to February 2017, the increase in the water level of Lake Tahoe was “greater” than the same time period in the previous nine years.

Lake Tahoe was within 3 feet of the legal limit in February 2017.

Ottawa, Canada’s snowfall record for February 6, set in 2017, is 51.2 centimeters, which is 26% higher than the previous record of 40.6 centimeters set in from 1947.

Ottawa, Canada’s daily snowfall record for February 12, set in 2017, is 28 centimeters, 15% higher than the previous record of 24.4 centimeters set in 1988.

Colorado Springs, Colorado’s July snowfall record, set in 2017, is 6.56 inches, which is 25% higher than the previous record of 5.27 inches set in 1968.

Amarillo, Texas’ daily rainfall record for August 9, set in 2017, is 2.41 inches, which is 43% higher than the previous record of 1.69 inches set in 1939 to 2017.

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma’s daily rainfall record for October 4th, set in 2017, is 2.79 inches, which is 27% higher than the previous record of 2.22 inches set in 1955.

Portland, Oregon’s daily rainfall record for October 21st, set in 2017, is 1.62 inches, which is 47% higher than the previous record of 1.62 inches set in 1966.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania’s daily snowfall record for December 9, set in 2017, is 3.3 inches, which is 14% higher than the previous record of 2.9 inches set in 1942.

Tampa Bay, Florida’s daily rainfall record, from 2018, is 3.31 inches, which is 117% above the previous record of 1.52 inches from 1900.

Minnesota’s state precipitation record, set in 2018, is 60.21 inches, which is 7% higher than the previous record of 56.24 inches set in 2016.

The words “mystery”, “baffled” and “puzzled” are memes, used, among numerous similar variants, whenever anyone in the wholly-controlled-and-coopted Political, Academic, Scientific and Media establishments wants to lie about, well, basically anything. One of those variants is “absurd”.

That’s why Kenny Blumenfeld, a senior climatologist with the Minnesota state Department of Natural Resources, said “In climate terms, breaking a precipitation record by nearly 4 inches is a little absurd.”

Here’s Kenny’s picture:

(Kenny Blumenfeld, Senior Climatologist, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, using purportedly-secret Illuminist hand gestures he figures the rubes will never notice)

(Historical documentation of purportedly-secret Illuminist hand gestures)

I’ve included Kenny’s picture so you could get a better idea of what a generational Satanist in a position of marginal influence looks like.

For any lingering coincidence theorists in the readership, here are several LinkedIn profile pictures featuring the same purportedly-secret Illuminist hand gesture featured in the top left corner of the historical collection - the one where he’s pointing to the side of his head:

(Senior Software Engineer. Purple scarf, green statue of the ancient Babylonian goddess Columbia in background. Purportedly-secret Illuminist hand gesture pointing to face)

Software Engineer, purportedly-secret Illuminist hand gesture pointing to face)

(Software Engineer using purportedly-secret Illuminist hand gesture, pointing to face, with left hand, to left eye, the eye of Horus)

(Software Engineer using purportedly-secret Illuminist hand gesture, pointing to face, with left hand, to left eye, the eye of Horus)

As you can see, they’re hiding in plain sight in every city, town and village on Earth, figuring the rubes will never notice.

We get the word “Satan” from their great god Set, whom they’ve worshipped under various names and guises all the way back to Babylon, and before.

Set, also known as Seth and Suetekh, was the Egyptian god of war, chaos and storms, brother of Osiris, Isis, and Horus the Elder, uncle to Horus the Younger, and brother-husband to Nephthys.

(The repugnant god Set)

(The repugnant Jar Jar Binks)

(The repugnant god Set)

Immediately above, I’ve provided pictures of the repugnant god Set, the repugnant Jar Jar Binks, and the repugnant god Set. Generational Satanist George Lucas figured the rubes would never notice.

Grand Island, Michigan’s daily snowfall record, set in 2018, is 7.4 inches, which is 146% above the previous record of 3 inches set in 1915.

Seattle, Washington’s daily rainfall record, set in 2018, is .93 inches, which is 52% above the previous record of .61 inches set in 1971.

New Jersey’s state precipitation record, from 2018, is 64.09 inches, which is .21% more than the previous record of 63.95 inches set in 2011.

Tampa, Florida’s monthly rainfall record for January, set in 2018, is 117% higher – more than double – the previous record, set in 1900.

Central Oregon’s snowfall record for the month of January, set in 2018, is 24 inches, which is 50% higher than the previous record of 16 inches set in from 1993.

The daily snowfall record for January 16 at North Carolina’s Raleigh-Durham University, set in 2018, is 5.9 inches, which is 47% higher than the previous record of 4 inches set in 1946.

Los Angeles, California’s monthly rainfall record for December, set in 2018, is 88% above the previous record, which was set in 1997.

Caribou, Maine’s monthly precipitation record for December, set in 2018, is 5.64 inches of rain and melted snow, which is .71% higher than the previous record of 5.6 inches set in December 1995.

Caribou, Maine’s January snowfall record, set in 2019, was 34% larger than the previous record set in 1991.

In January 2020, the New York times said “2019 Was Second-Hottest Year On Record”.

In January 1992, the Washington Post said “1991 is called ‘2nd Warmest’ Year On Record”

In 2019, the second hottest year in all history, Caribou, Maine had a third more snow in January than they did in the previous snowfall-record year of 1991, which at that time was the second-hottest year in all history.

Essay: describe the crucial nature of record temperature in driving record snowfall.

Answer: I’ve exposed the con artists in charge of things via what was known in the old days as “fact checking”.

Can see how they cranked up the desperateness from the trial-balloon of “warmest” in 1991 to the hysteria of “hottest” in 2019?.

The following photograph is from Caribou:

(Caribou, Maine, December 2018)

Los Angeles, California’s winter rainfall increased 603% from 2018 to 2019.

Los Angeles, California’s winter rainfall was 55% above average in 2019.

Springfield, Illinois’ monthly snowfall record for January, set in 2019, is 27% above the old record, set 55 years previously.

Ottowa, Canada’s monthly snowfall record for January, set in 2019, is 97 centimeters, which is 4% above the previous record of 93 centimeters set in 1999.

Queensland, Australia’s monthly rainfall record for January, set in 2019, is 833 millimeters, which is 7.6% above the previous record of 774.2 millimeters set in 2010, and 210% above the average rainfall of 275.2 millimeters.Springfield, Illinois’ daily snowfall record for January 12, from 2019, is 8.4 inches, which is 27% more than the previous record of 6.6 inches set in 1964.

The Tri-Cities area of Tennessee and Virginia daily rainfall record, set in 2019, was 1.75 inches, which is 19% above the previous record of 1.75 inches set in

Toronto, Canada’s daily snowfall record for January 28, from 2019, is 26.4 centimeters, which is 97% above the previous record of 13.4 centimeters set in 2009.

Chicago, Illinois’ snowfall record for October 31, set in 2019, is 3.4 inches, which is 3,300% above the previous record of .1 inch from 2014.

HOW “GLOBAL WARMING” BOTH INCREASES AND DECREASES RAINFALL

In May 2004, Columbia.edu widened its eyes to simulate honesty and asked “CouldGlobal Warming Mean Less Sunshine and Less Rainfall***?***”

2004 was just a few years after the the literal forest of Death energy infrastructure that many still mistakenly presume only carries cell phone traffic and weather radar data popped up virtually overnight in every city, town and village on Earth.

Just three years later, in 2007, Science asked “How Much More Rain Will Global Warming Bring***?***”

2007 was the year I joined Don Croft’s Etheric Warriors forum. The complete 180 from the esteemed Columbia University’s position just three years earlier shows you how, even as early as 2007, the slow, steady, widespread and ever-increasing distribution of simple, inexpensive Orgonite devices had already scuttled the multi-, multi-trillion dollar system whose clandestine purposes in include drought creation, as well as storm steering and augmentation.

Undeterred, in June 2014, the U.K.’s Guardian widened its eyes to simulate honesty and affirmed “Global warming makes drought come on earlier, faster, and harder”.

The article goes on to say “Published in the Journal of Climate, authors Richard Seager and Martin Hoerling cleverly used climate models forced by sea surface temperatures to separate how much of the past century’s North American droughts have been caused by ocean temperatures, natural variability, and humans. What they found was expected (all three of these influence drought), but it’s the details that are exciting. Furthermore, the methodology can be applied to other climate phenomena at other locations around the globe.”

Well, if that’s true, then why is a Newsweek article from just three years later, in May 2017, headlined “Most of the U.S. Is Experiencing Record-Low Drought Levels”? I’d ask the reader to recall that, at the time, 2017 was purported to have been the 2nd hottest year on record, and is currently purported to be the third hottest.

It’s not true. The U.K.’s Guardian, the Journal of Climate, and the authors Richard Seager and Martin Hoerling are all using conscious deception while maintaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty.

But if, for the sake of argument, they’re not all lying bald-fadedly, and it is, indeed true that “Global warming makes drought come on earlier, faster, and harder”, then why does a Nature article from four years later, in November 2018, explain “Why extreme rains are gaining strength as the climate warms?”

The breaking of the great artificial drought since the publication of the first hit-piece in the Guardian in 2014 has forced Nature to switch the propaganda unapologetically from “Global warming makes drought come on earlier, faster, and harder” in 2014 to “Why extreme rains are gaining strength as the climate warms” in 2018. And the mouth-breathing Coincidence Theorists of all the nations eat it right up.

I’ve exposed the duplicity of the Guardian, the Journal of Climate, Nature, and authors Richard Seager and Martin Hoerling by using what was known in the old days as “fact checking”.

Here’s Richard Seager’s picture:

(Richard Seager, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University, who said “Global warming makes drought come on earlier, faster, and harder”.)

And here’s Martin Hoerling:

(Martin Hoerling, Research Meteorologist in the NOAA Physical Sciences Laboratory specializing in their causes, predictability, and the attribution of human influence, who said “drought conditions may be entered more quickly and alleviated more slowly owing to long-term warming”)

I’ve included their photographs so you could get a better idea of what generational Satanists in positions of marginal influence look like.

In May 2017, epa.gov said “Global warming is increasing rainfall rates”. While, in February 2018, Quora widened its eyes to simulate honesty and asked “Can global warming reduce rainfall in the world***?***”

Is the only-generally-described “global warming” increasing or decreasing rainfall? I’m so confused and ensheepled!

In February 2018, USA Today wrung its hands and assured “Drought in United States at worst level in nearly four years”.

Well, if that is true, then how could a mentalfloss.com article from December 2018 explain (only-generally) that “Most of the U.S. Is Experiencing Record-Low Drought Levels”?

As a bonus, I’ll mention that a USA Today article from roughly six months previously, in April, 2017, said “U.S. drought reaches record low as rain reigns”.

Is drought in the U.S. at its worst level in four years, per USA Today, or has it reached a record low, again per USA Today? I’m so confused and ensheepled!

Columbia University, Science, the EPA, Quora and USA Today are all pathologically-lying State propaganda organs. I’ve exposed their duplicity by using what was known in the old days as “fact-checking”.

The mental floss headline is what’s known as a “Satanic Inversion”, in which they’ve gymnastically avoided saying “record-high rainfall levels”.

Well, if that’s true, why does a carbonbrief.org guest post from May 2018 read “Climate change is already making droughts worse”?

It’s totally true, and the only-generally-described claptrap from the psychotically-named State propaganda organ “carbon brief” is patently false.

PROVING THAT INCREASED TEMPERATURES DO NOT DRIVE INCREASED RAINFALL

And now, class, we are going to take a closer look at the wholly-fallacious claim that rising temperatures drive increased rainfall. You, nodding at your telescreen - stop looking out that window at the beautiful clouds!

The average temperature in the Twin Cities area of Minnesota was 49.7 degrees in 2016, 48.5 degrees in 2017, and 46.4 degrees in 2018. If global warming is causing record rainfall in Minnesota, how can the rainfall record for 2018 be 7% higher than 2016’s record, when the average temperature was 7% lower in 2018 than in 2016?

This proves that the thesis “warmer temperatures drive an increase in rainfall” is false.

The average temperature in Minnesota’s Twin Cities area was 46.1 degrees in 1881, and 45.1 degrees in 1911. If warmer temperatures drive an increase in rainfall, how can Minnesota’s 1911 rainfall record be 2.6% higher than 1881’s, when the average temperature in 1911 was 2.1% lower than it was in 1881? Moderate decrease in temperature, moderate increase in rainfall.

This again proves that the thesis “warmer temperatures drive an increase in rainfall” is false.

The average temperature in Minnesota’s Twin Cities area was 45.1 degrees in 1911, and 45.7 degrees in 1983. The average temperature in the Twin Cities area was 1.3% higher in 1983 than it was in 1911. The annual rainfall total in Minnesota was 40.15 inches in 1911 and it was 39.07 inches in 1983 – 2.6% lower. Slightly higher temperature, slightly lower rainfall total.

This again proves that the thesis “warmer temperatures drive an increase in rainfall” is false.

If warmer temperatures drive an increase in rainfall, how could temperatures increase 1.3% from 1911 to 1983, while rainfall totals decreased 2.6%? Moderate increase in temperature, moderate decrease in rainfall.

This again proves that the thesis “warmer temperatures drive an increase in rainfall” is false.

The average temperature in Minnesota increased 8.7% from 1983 to 2016, while the rainfall total increased 54%. While showing the first possible connection within the analysis between rising temperature and rising rainfall, this combines a very significant increase in temperature and a gigantic increase in rainfall. That connection is contradicted, however, by the fact that the 2018’s rainfall total, the most in history, is 7% higher than 2016’s record, when the average temperature was 7% lower in 2018 than in 2016. The latter a significant drop in temperature, and a significant increase in rainfall, which, as noted previously, again proves that the thesis “warmer temperatures drive an increase in rainfall” is false.

The rainfall totals for Minnesota were virtually identical in 1881 and 1983 – 39.06 inches and 39.07 inches, respectively. The average temperature in the Twin Cities area was 46.1 degrees in 1881, and 45.7 degrees in 1983. If warmer temperatures drive an increase in rainfall, how can 1881 and 1983 have identical rainfall totals, when it was 8% cooler in 1983 than in 1881? Very significant drop in temperature, unchanged rainfall.

This again proves that the thesis “warmer temperatures drive an increase in rainfall” is false.

The rainfall total in Minnesota was 40.15 inches in 1911, and 39.94 inches in 1965. The average temperature in the Twin Cities area was 45.1 degrees in 1911 and 42.6 degrees in 1965. The rainfall total was .5% lower, and the temperature was 5.5% lower. Significant drop in temperature, insignificant decrease in precipitation.

This again proves that the thesis “warmer temperatures drive an increase in rainfall” is false.

1965, 39.94 inches, 1983, 39.07 inches, a 2.17% drop in rainfall. 42.6 degrees in 1965, 45.7 degrees in 1983, 7.2% increase in temperature, 2.17% drop in rainfall. Large increase in temperature, fairly significant drop in rainfall.

This again proves that the thesis “warmer temperatures drive an increase in rainfall” is false.

In 1965, the rainfall total in Minnesota was 39.94 inches, and in 1911, it was 40.15 inches. The average temperature in the Twin Cities was 42.6 degrees in 1965, and 45.1 degrees in 1911. That’s a 5.9% increase in temperature and a .5% increase in rainfall. Very large increase in temperature, negligible increase in rainfall.

This again proves that the thesis “warmer temperatures drive an increase in rainfall” is false.

I hate to subject readers to such mind-numbingly boring investigations and proofs, and apologize for not being better at statistics. Someone who was really good at this stuff would prove that it proves it.

And I don’t even know why I go to the trouble, when the people I’m debating against say things like “warming temperatures drive higher and lower levels of rainfall”, and “diabetes vaccine soon to be available!”

The weather warfare system I mentioned previously was firing on all cylinders by 1992, when Hurricane Andrew was both pumped up and steered in a way that deserves its own made for TV movie. It must have been an exciting dozen years or so for them, culminating in Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

Now, it’s very important to note that Death energy-based storm steering and augmentation and also drought creation predate what we call “modern” technology. Queen Elizabeth the 1st’s sidekick Black magician John Dee is famously known to have conjured the storm that wrecked the Spanish Armada. You know he signed his secret letters “007”, right? But those early efforts pale in comparison to what was briefly achieved with the diabolical force-multiplier of wires, conduits, cables, microwaves, and wi-fi, ad nauseum.

I think that, etherically, we’ve already stepped back to the way the world used to be, prior to the stringing of the first telegraph wires, the first telephone lines. Back prior to the first radio broadcasts. To say nothing of Television.

Please understand: those technologies exist, and carry messages, programs and information that we all can see and understand. It is difficult, however, for the modern mind to grasp that those vehicles also carry what Wilhelm Reich called “Dead Orgone Radiation”, primarily because we’ve been conditioned ceaselessly to believe that it does not exist.

This moment in time, during which the populace is sleepwalking onward in an already-transformed environment, will not last long. Actually, they’re more like the stumbling, unthinking, soulless zombies so fashionable last year - or was it the year before?

I’m being unkind – they’ve all been cruelly misled (the people, not the zombies) and will awaken happy and refreshed in moments, never to sleep, again.

And this article will be a in a history book that no one will even have to read, anymore, having cooler and happier things to do with their time.

THE RISING RATE OF POSITIVE CHANGE IN THE ETHERIC ENVIRONMENT

The annual rainfall record for the state of Minnesota increased from 39.06 inches in 1881 to 40.1 inches in 1911. It’s a textbook example of how such records are usually broken by tiny margins - a 2.6% increase over thirty years, for an annual rate of change of those records of +.08%.

The annual rainfall record for the state of Minnesota increased from 40.1 inches in 1911 to 60.21 inches in 2016. That’s a 50% increase over one hundred and five years, and an annual rate of change of those records of .47%.

Since we can see that the third place in history rainfall total for Minnesota was 39.94 inches in 1965, and the fourth-place rainfall total for Minnesota was fairly-similar 39.07 inches in 1983, we may infer that the rainfall totals rose exponentially sometime after 1983.

Summing up, the annual rate of change is seen to be .08% from 1881 to 1911, .47% from (call it) 1983 to 2016, and 3.5% from 2016 to 2018. So whatever’s going on to increase rainfall, we’ve determined that it increased over time, came on strong after 1983, and was by far the most impactful from 2016 to 2018.

THE ARTICLES

In December 2017, Scientific American widened it’s eyes to simulate honesty and averred “Scientists Link Hurricane Harvey’s Record Rainfall to Climate Change”.

Where “Scientists”, “RECORD rainfall” and “climate CHANGE” are all general.

AUSTRALIA

Curtin Springs, Australia had its highest September daily rainfall on record on October 2, 2017.

The state of Victoria had record rainfall on December 3, 2017, when “a summer’s worth of rain fell in 24 hours, causing flash floods and forcing people from their homes”.

Where “a summer’s worth of rain” is general. As you may recall, generality is a hallmark of propaganda.

The author withholds any specific information – what the amount of rainfall was, how much higher than the old record it was, when the old record was set, et al. That’s an example of a propaganda technique called “compartmentalization”.

The author makes no mention of the fact that this record is part of a larger, wider trend. That’s an example of a propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.

There’s clearly been some quantum improvement in the environment in Australia.

The author makes no mention as to what might be driving the huge increase in precipitation. They’re desperate to keep you from recognizing that precipitation varies directly with the health of the ether.

In January 2018, watoday said “Summer rain smashes Perth weather records with wettest January in history”.

Where “smashes” and “wettest” are both general. The international news blackout that is in place on this subject forbids the use of statistics that would provide specific insight into the magnitude of the trend I’m documenting here.

Since sixty to seventy percent of readers only read the headlines, it goes a long way toward “compartmentalizing” the phenomenon.

The article continues: “Perth has had its wettest January day in 18 years after ex-Cyclone Joyce drenched South West WA on Monday.”

Where “wettest” and “drenched” are, once again, general.

The article continues; “The Bureau of Meteorology said the Perth rain gauge has received 96mm since 9am Monday. This is nearly ten times the January average of 9.7mm.” Can you see how they baited and switched “the record” to “the average”?

They’ve successfully gotten though the entire article without admitting what the margin was between the old record and the new.

There is, of course no mention that the record precipitation in Australia is taking place in all the other nations on Earth, as well. That’ an example of the propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.

CANADA

On February 12, 2017, a record 28 cm of snow fell in Ottawa, Canada, 15% above the previous record of 24.4 cm set in 1988. 1310 News provided the old and new records, but carefully withheld the percentage increase between them, saying only that the new record “broke” the old. So I had to do the math. Such records are usually broken by tiny margins. Here the record stood for almost thirty years and then was suddenly broken by a very large margin.

On February 16, 2017, a record 51.2 cm of snow fell in Ottawa, Canada, 26% above the previous single-day snowfall record of 40.6 cm set in March 1947. CBS Canada provided the old and new records, but carefully withheld the percentage increase between them, saying only the the new record “broke” the old. So I had to do the math. Such records are usually broken by tiny margins. Here the record stood for seventy years and then was suddenly broken by a huge margin.

There was a record snowfall in Ottawa, Canada on December 7, 2017.

None of the authors makes mention of the fact that these records are part of a larger, wider trend. That’s an example of a propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.

There’s clearly been some quantum improvement in the environment in Canada.

The author makes no mention as to what might be driving the quantum increase in precipitation. They’re desperate to keep you from recognizing that precipitation varies directly with the health of the ether.

Toronto, Canada’s new snowfall record for January 29, 2019 was 97% higher than the previous record from 2009.

Such records are usually broken by tiny margins. Here the record stood for a decade and then was suddenly broken by a margin that is without historical precedent.

There’s clearly been some quantum improvement in the environment in Canada.

THAILAND

December 19, 2016 - Record Rainfall and Flooding in Southern Thailand

January 8, 2017 - Thailand floods: 12 dead as record rainfall persists

July 11, 2018 - Does Climate Change Have Anything to Do With Floods in Thailand***?***

January 8, 2019 - Southeast Asia records unusual January rain

August 5, 2019 - Weekly Flood Situation Report for the Mekong River Basin

of the same day then moving through Laos and Thailand on 04 August. above-average rainfall is predicted over Viet Nam, parts of Thailand

August 31, 2019 - Thailand - Low water levels to last until 2020

September 10, 2019 - Thailand’s Rice Production To Remain Elevated Despite Drought

October 7, 2019 - Most provinces in Thailand will continue to see rain throughout the week until lower temperatures signal a transition from the rainy season to the cold season.

December 5, 2019 - Mekong River’s new aquamarine color may be sign of trouble

The river usually has a yellowish-brown shade due to the sediment it normally carries downstream. But lately it has been running clear, taking on a blue-green hue that is a reflection of the sky. The water levels have also become unusually low, exposing sandbanks that allow the curious to stand i

Low water levels pose an obvious problem for fishermen and farmers, but experts say the decline in sediment exposes a different danger that can result in greater erosion of the river’s banks and bed.

The experts and people living along the river blame a large hydroelectric dam upstream in Laos that began operating in October for contributing to both problems, though rainfall has also been sparse.

UNITED STATES

ALASKA

The words “mystery”, “baffled” and “puzzled” are memes, used, among numerous similar variants, whenever anyone in the wholly-controlled-and-coopted Political, Academic, Scientific and Media establishments wants to lie about, well, basically anything.” One of those variants is “extreme”.

That’s why a Washington Post article from December 2017 is headlined ““Alaska records one of the most extreme snowfall rates on record”.

Where the author used “records” to give the subconscious of the reader the green light to say “oh, someone must have recorded that incorrectly!” The propagandist knows that the subconscious of many or most readers will grasp virtually any straw, no matter how thin, to remain off the hook of personal responsibility.

“On Wednesday, December 6, this storm dropped 12.7 cm (5 inches) of snow at Thompson Pass in 30 minutes, 25.4 cm (10 inches) in 60 minutes and 38.1 cm (15 inches) in 90 minutes. Within 72 hours (between December 3 - 6, 13:00 local time), the National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) SNOTEL site at Nicks Valley at 1 300 m (4 280 feet) picked up 210.8 cm (83 inches) of snow, making a total of 320 cm (126 inches).”

126 inches of snow in 72 hours. The author provides no insight into why or how this unprecedented snowfall is taking place, and takes care not to mention that it’s part of the larger, wider trend I’m documenting here. That’s a propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.

There’s clearly been some quantum improvement in the environment in Alaska.

The author makes no mention as to what might be driving the quantum increase in precipitation. They’re desperate to keep you from recognizing that precipitation varies directly with the health of the ether.

ARIZONA

On December 24, 2016, a record 10.1 inches of snow fell in Flagstaff, Arizona, 146% above the previous record of 4.1 inches set in 1916. The Arizona Daily Sun provided the new record, but carefully withheld the percentage increase between them, saying only the the new record “broke” the old “by six inches”. So I had to do the math to learn what the old record was, and then had to do the math again to learn the margin between them. Those are successive examples of a propaganda technique called “compartmentalization”.

Such records are usually broken by tiny margins. Here the record stood for seventy years and then was suddenly broken by a gigantic, historically-unprecedented margin.

The Arizona Daily Sun’s name is a thinly-veiled reference to the Atonist Black-Sun cult that’s ruled things in all the nations, well, all the way back to Babylon, and before.

The author makes no mention of the fact that this record is part of a larger, wider trend. That’s an example of a propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.

There’s clearly been some quantum improvement in the environment in Arizona.

The author makes no mention as to what might be driving the quantum increase in precipitation. They’re desperate to keep you from recognizing that precipitation varies directly with the health of the ether.

CALIFORNIA

Precipitation varies directly with the health of the Ether.

The Great Artificial Drought has been broken in California by the slow, steady, widespread and ever-increasing distribution of simple, inexpensive Orgonite devices in the vicinity of the weather warfare infrastructure that many still mistakenly presume only carries cell phone traffic and weather radar data.

In June 2016, a record number of rattlesnakes were said to be making their way into yards in California “Due To Drought.”

In January 2017 it was said that “Climate Alarmists Will Miss California’s Drought”.

In January 2017, in the midst of the heaviest rainfall ever seen, in all history, the psychotically named “New Humanitarian” narrowed its eyes and hissed “Why Record Precipitation May Not Be a Cure-All for California Water Shortage”.

In the future, grade school children will marvel that any person could conceive that record rainfall would not be a cure-all for a water shortage.

In February 2017, fighting a brave but desperate and ultimately hopeless rearguard action, ABC News said “California’s wet weather has some believing the drought is over”.

Where the propagandist has substituted the news blackout-approved term “wet” in place of the word “rain”.

In February 2017, fighting a brave but desperate and ultimately hopeless rearguard action, the Christian Science Monitor said “As the snowpack piles up, is California’s drought over***?*** No, say experts.

Now, that’s a gigantic, mind-boggling lie, in that an eight-station average of precipitation totals in the Sierra Nevada during the 2016-2017 season was the highest ever, in all history, 8% above the previous record. Which equals a drought that is not over to only-generally-described “experts”.

While the programmed rube eats it up, and doesn’t question.

In March 2017, in the face of a drought that “experts said was not over, California had record precipitation and snowpack. That’s why I said the stuff about this whole propaganda game being hopeless for the literally-blood-drinking generational Satanists who are for this one last moment still in charge of things in all the nations.

In April 2017, the San Diego Union Tribune said “Forecast calls for an extra buggy spring and summer”.

Where the propagandist put “Forecast CALLS for” on the front end to give the subconscious of the reader the green light to say “oh, that must be an inaccurate forecast!”

The article continues: “a prolonged inundation of insects this year in San Diego County and much of California. Experts said heavy winter precipitation has fueled plant growth not seen since at least 2005”.

You can see how the headline postures as if the increase in insects had not yet begun, and might be in question. When in fact there was a sustained increase in the insect population, which the 70% of readers who only read the headlines would have no awareness of.

It’s how the controlled press works.

In April 2017, Controlled-Opposition mouthpiece climate depot said “What “permanent drought”? New all-time rainfall record set for California”.

The author of the story has done what little they could to hedge by using “permanent drought” in the headline, which is now out there as a thought-form. The honest, non-double-agent way of writing it would be “New all-time rainfall record set for California”. Can you see now how the manipulation has taken place?

In April 2017, Wired said that California “Overcame 1/100 Odds to Beat Its EpicDrought.”

A californiawaterblog.com article from April 2017 threw down the Black magic mind-fuck “California’s drought and floods are over and just beginning”

When are we going to have a family meeting and evict this asshole roommate?

A Mother Jones article from April 2017 wagged it’s bony finger and warned “California’s drought is over, but the Rest of the World’s Water Problems are Just Beginning”.

They’re hoping that their dark masters can think up some new technology to destroy the etheric environment that is unstoppably returning to its natural state of life and vitality.

An article from April 2017, from the Guardian in the U.K. wagged its bony finger and warned “The California drought is officially over, but the next could be around the corner”.

They’re hoping that their dark masters can think up some new technology to destroy the etheric environment that is unstoppably returning to its natural state of life and vitality.

In April 2017 Governor Jerry Brown declared California’s drought emergency over “for now”.

He is, not surprisingly, a literally-blood-drinking generational Satanist, hoping that his dark masters can think up some new technology to destroy the etheric environment that is unstoppably returning to its natural state of life and vitality.

In April 2017, the Washington Post said “After 63 feet of snow, Northern California mountains break record for wettest water year”.

Where “break” Where the author cagily uses the Mil-speak “wettest water year” in place of “precipitation”, to make the subject far less searchable. Mountains “break” record is also general. That’s deliberate, to blunt your awareness of the wider trend I’m documenting here.

Those are both examples of the propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”. The author understands that sixty to seventy percent of readers only read the headlines.

The words “mystery”, “baffled” and “puzzled” are memes, used, among numerous similar variants, whenever anyone in the wholly-controlled-and-coopted Political, Academic, Scientific and Media establishments wants to lie about, well, basically anything.” One of those variants is “mind boggling”.

That’s why the author goes on to say that “A mind-boggling 751 inches of snow have pummeled the Sugar Bowl ski area near Lake Tahoe this winter. It’s emblematic of a record season for precipitation in California’s northern Sierra Nevada mountain range, and the abrupt end to a historic drought.

At eight representative weather stations in the northern Sierra, the average precipitation reached 89.7 inches (combining rain and melted snow), passing the previous record of 88.5 inches set in 1982-1983.”

“Passing” the previous record also general. That’s deliberate, to blunt your awareness of the wider trend I’m documenting here. It’s an example of the propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”

The author combined eight different locations, so you’d be spared from reading the most-impactful, and largest record. And, while they provided the old and new (average) records, they carefully hedged again by omitting the far more impactful percentage increase between them. So I had to do the math. It’s 1.35% percent above the previous record. Such records are usually broken by tiny margins.

Such records are usually broken by tiny margins. Here the record stood for almost forty years, and then was suddenly broken by a large margin.

I had to look up a separate article to learn “beating its previous snowfall record of 263 inches in February 1993.” Keeping to form within the international news blackout that is in place on the subject, that author also used the general “beating” to blunt your awareness of the wider trend I’m documenting here.

So I had to look up another article, and then do the math. That’s another example of the propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”. The all-time snow record at Sugar Bowl ski area in California, from 2017, was 751 inches, 187% higher than the previous record of 263 inches set in 1993.

Essay: Without using the “because that’s THERE” defense, or “El Nino”, explain why snowfall at Sugar Bowl ski area in California was almost three times higher during the third-hottest year in all history in 2017 than it was in the previous record year of 1993.

In January 1993, United Press International said “Winter of 1992 warmest on record.”

Essay: Without using the “because that’s THERE” defense, or “El Nino”, explain the precise physical mechanisms by which record heat drives record snowfall, using the examples of the two highest snowfall years in the history of Sugar Bowl ski area in California in 1993 (at the time was the “warmest on record”), and 2017 (the “second hottest year in all history”).

Neither author makes mention of the fact that the snowfall records that they document is part of a larger, wider trend. Those are examples of the propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.

There’s clearly been some quantum improvement in the environment in California.

The author makes no mention as to what might be driving the quantum increase in precipitation. They’re desperate to keep you from recognizing that precipitation varies directly with the health of the ether.

In April 2017, the LA Times said “Northern California gets its wettest winter in nearly a century”.

Where the author has lied bald-fadedly, in that it was the wettest winter in all history. It’s just been nearly a century since they’ve been keeping records.

The author doesn’t offer any suggestion as to what has brought the historically-unprecedented bounty of rainfall to the region. That’s an example of the propaganda technique known as “stonewalling”.

In July 2017, an article from the hilariously-named watereducation.org said “The California Drought Isn’t Over, It Just Went Underground.”

It’s an example of the “Rex block”, “bomb cyclone” school of faux-science that is still practiced here in the very late Middle Ages. Everyone at the Punch and Judy show nodded soberly and agreed “it went underground”, prior to going back to the hilarity and nuance of the puppet show they’d been watching previously.

In the midst of a completely-transformed environment and record rainfall, a humanitarian.org article from May 2017 said “California’s drought is all but over, but some wells are still dry.”

In October 2017, NOAA Climate.gov said “Very wet 2017 water year ends in California”.

The author goes on to say “Across the Northern Sierra Mountains, where the highest rainfall amounts were recorded, an eight-station average of precipitation totals during the 2016-2017 water year reached 94.7 inches, the highest on record and over six inches higher than the previous record set in 1982-83.

Did you notice that the author provided the numbers, but carefully hedged by omitting the far more impactful percentage increase between them? That’s an example of the propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”. So, I had to do the math. That’s 8% higher than the previous record. Such records are usually broken by tiny margins. Here the record stood for decades, and then was suddenly broken by an historically-unprecedented margin.

There’s clearly been some quantum improvement in the environment in California.

The Mouthpiece of the state averred that the wettest year in all history was only verywet.In December 2017, The Tribune said “Mild La Niña creating drought conditionsin California”.

Where La Nina, a quasi-mythical patch of slightly warmer than normal water in the vastness of the Pacific Ocean is falsely purported to be the driver of a drought that was not, in fact taking place.

In December 2017, the State propaganda outlet “The Verge” hissed “California will burn until it rains, climate change may keep rains away”.

They’re referring to the purportedly “wild” fires being serially set by the Feds, and are fervently hoping that some new Death-energy based technology comes online to reinstate the great artificial drought.

As you’ll see in the upcoming record rainfall stories from January 2018, it’s just a desperate hit piece from a failing regime losing control on every front.

In December 2017, The Mercury News asked duplicitously “Is California heading back into a drought***?***”

They’re hoping that their dark masters can think up some new technology to destroy the etheric environment that is unstoppably returning to its natural state of life and vitality.

The Mercury News takes its name from the Greek god “Mercurius”, rebranded in later times and worshipped by “the One Percent” today as “Lord Lucifer”. They figured that the rubes would never notice.

The snow total at the Squaw Valley Ski Area in California for 2018 and 2019 was twice that seen in 2012 and 2013. The snow total at the Squaw Valley Ski Area in California for 2018 and 2019, during the what is falsely purported to be the fourth-hottest year in all history, was twice that during 2012 and 2013,

In January 2013, National Geographic said “2012 was the hottest year in U.S. And Yes - It’s Climate Change”.

To preserve current programming levels, stop reading immediately, breathe through your mouth and affirm “The second-largest snowfall year in the history of the Squaw Valley Ski Area in California occurred in 2012, then said to be the hottest year in the history of the U.S. It was topped only by the largest-ever snowfall year of 2018, which was at that time purported to be the fourth-hottest year in the history of the world.”

Winter rainfall in Los Angeles increased 603% from 2018 to 2019, and was 55% above average.

There’s clearly been some great positive change in the environment in California.

The author makes no mention as to what might be driving the quantum increase in precipitation. They’re desperate to keep you from recognizing that precipitation varies directly with the health of the ether.

In December 2017, months after the great artificial drought was broken in California, the Sacramento Bee widened its eyes to simulate honesty and said “California has only 30 percent chance of normal winter rainfall”, and that “Scientist says California has only slim chance of normal rainfall this winter.”

With a wholly-credulous populace conditioned to a point where they literally cannot accurately perceive reality, black is white, war is peace and ignorant is strength.

The “Scientist” generally described in the headline is Michael Dettinger, a hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey.

Here’s his picture:

(Michael Dettinger, Hydrologist, US Geological Survey)

I’ve included it so you could get a better idea of what a generational Satanist in a position of marginal influence looks like.

Since a KCRA article from just a month later is headlined “Many areas across NorCal break rainfall records”, we can see that Mike was telling a “Big Lie” within what is known in the propaganda trade as a “hit piece”.

Not everyone who works within the U.S. Geological survey are generational Satanists, of course, but those quoting gross falsehoods in mainstream news publications certainly are.

They’re all genetically related to one another, and have been practicing ritual human sacrifice and cannibalism, well, all the way back to Babylon, and before.

In January 2018, the East Bay Times said “California storm sets rainfall records, triggers trouble in fire zones”.

Where SETS rainfall RECORDS is general. Set how many records? What were the margins between the records. We can’t know, because the international news blackout that is in place on this subject forbids the use of any statistics in headlines that would provide insight into the magnitude of the trend I’m documenting here.

Since sixty to seventy percent of readers only read the headlines, it goes a long way toward “compartmenalizing” the phenomenon.

The word “triggers” is, well, a trigger. The “trouble” in fire zones is general. They’re pretending the fires that the government agents set aren’t being extinguished by the record rainfall.

In January 2018, pretending to be thorough journalistic, KCRA said “Many areas across NorCal break rainfall records”.

Where you can’t get any idea of how many records were broken, or by what margin, or why. The international news blackout that is in place on this subject forbids the use of any statistics in headlines that would provide insight into the magnitude of the trend I’m documenting here.

Since sixty to seventy percent of readers only read the headlines, it goes a long way toward “compartmenalizing” the phenomenon.

The author ventures no guess as to what’s causing the most rain in all history to fall on Northern California. That’s an example of the propaganda technique known as “stonewalling”.

COLORADO

Colorado Springs, Colorado set a rainfall record in July 2017 of 6.56 inches, 25% more than the previous record of 5.27 inches set in 1968.

Such records are usually broken by tiny margins. Here the record stood for almost fifty years and then was suddenly broken by a huge margin. There’s clearly been some quantum improvement in the environment in Colorado.

The author makes no mention of the fact that this record is part of a larger, wider trend. That’s an example of a propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.

The author makes no mention as to what might be driving the quantum increase in precipitation. They’re desperate to keep you from recognizing that precipitation varies directly with the health of the ether.

FLORIDA

In January 2018, weather.gov said “Daytona Beach sees more record rainfall”.

Where “RECORD rainfall” is general. The international news blackout that is in place on this subject forbids the use of statistics that would provide specific insight into the magnitude of the trend I’m documenting here.

Since sixty to seventy percent of readers only read the headlines, it goes a long way toward “compartmentalizing” the phenomenon.

“SEES record rainfall walks it back a step from Daytona Beach actually experiencing it.

The article continues: The National Weather Service tweeted at 10 a.m. that 1.95 inches of rain has fallen in Daytona Beach since midnight, making it the wettest day in the city since Hurricane Irma.”

Where “wettest” is, once again, general. With each sentence, the odds get smaller and smaller that someone will still be reading.

The article continues: “Daytona Beach on Tuesday saw 1.42 inches of rain, toppingthe record of 0.91 inches, set in 1953.”

Where, almost unbelievably, the author has said the new record “topped” the old, which implies that the new record just exceeded the old. The far more impactful percentage increase between the records is omitted. So, I had to do the math. The new record is 56% above the old.

Such records are usually broken by tiny margins. Here the record stood for over half a century, and then was broken by a margin without historical precedent.

The author hid the magnitude of that margin, and then offered no explanation as to why the historically-unprecedented rainfall was taking place, and also didn’t mention that it was part of a wider trend occurring at once in all the nations. Those are, respectively, examples of propaganda techniques known as “stonewalling” and “compartmentalization”.

There’s clearly been some major positive change in the environment in Florida.

The new rainfall record for Tampa Bay, Florida, from January 28, 2018, was 3.31 inches, and was 117% higher than the previous record of 1.52 inches, set in 1900.

The author provided the old and new records, but carefully withheld the percentage increase between them, saying only the the new record “broke” the old. So I had to do the math. That’s an example of a propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.

Such records are usually broken by tiny margins. Here the record was stood for over a hundred years, and then was suddenly broken by a gigantic, historically-unprecedented margin.

The author makes no mention of the fact that this record is part of a larger, wider trend. That’s an example of a propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.

There’s clearly been some quantum improvement in the environment in Florida.

The author makes no mention as to what might be driving the quantum increase in precipitation. They’re desperate to keep you from recognizing that precipitation varies directly with the health of the ether.

IDAHO

In March 2017, the Idaho Statesman bravely hedged with “Boise’s winter weatherbreaks some records, falls short on others”.

Where the author cagily omits the word “snow”, to make the subject far less searchable. The impression you are left with is “an up and down snowfall winter”. Winter “weather” and “some” records and “others” and “break” records are all general. That’s deliberate, to blunt your awareness of the wider trend I’m documenting here. Those are numerous examples of the propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”. The author understands that sixty to seventy percent of readers only read the headlines.

The author makes no mention of the fact that this record is part of a larger, wider trend. That’s an example of a propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.

The author goes on to say “We ranked first in the record books for snowfall in December and January — the most ever for that two-month period. The total 35.5 inches handily surpassed the previous record of 30.5 inches in 1983-84.”

To this point in the story, the author has used “breaks”, “ranked first” and “most ever” and “handily surpassed” to describe the margin between the old record and the new. Those are all general, to blunt your awareness of the wider trend I’m documenting here.

They provided the old and new records, but carefully hedged by omitting the percentage increase between them, as printing it would be far more impactful. So I had to do the math. It’s 16% above the previous record. Such records are usually broken by tiny margins.

Here the record was stood for over thirty years, and then was suddenly broken by a huge margin. There’s clearly been some quantum improvement in the environment in Idaho.

The author makes no mention as to what might be driving the quantum increase in precipitation. They’re desperate to keep you from recognizing that precipitation varies directly with the health of the ether.

ILLINOIS

The current snowfall record for Chicago, IL for Halloween, set in 2019, is 3.4 inches, which is 3,300% larger than the previous record of .1 inch, set in 2014.

The author provided the old and new records, but carefully withheld the percentage increase between them, saying only the the new record “broke” the old. So I had to do the math. That’s an example of a propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.

Such records are usually broken by tiny margins. Here the record was broken by a gigantic, historically-unprecedented margin. There’s clearly been some quantum improvement in the environment in Illinois.

The author makes no mention of the fact that this record is part of a larger, wider trend. That’s an example of a propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.

The author also makes no mention as to what might be driving the quantum increase in precipitation. They’re desperate to keep you from recognizing that precipitation varies directly with the health of the ether.

LOUISIANA

December 8, 2017 – Louisiana – Snow in Baton Rouge: A rare December day for wintry precipitation in South Louisiana

MAINE

The new January record for snowfall in Caribou, Maine, from 2019, is 34% above the previous record, set in 1991.

Another story that I’ve appended below, from just a couple weeks ago, is headlined “Northern Maine sets January, season snowfall records.”

The story tells us that “the more than 9 feet of snow is already above the area’s seasonal average snowfall.” The author makes no mention of what that average is, or how far above average it is. That’s careful hedging.

The story goes on to say that “January 2019 also marked Caribou’s snowiest January ever on record with a whopping 59.8 inches.” The author makes no mention of what the previous January record was, or when it was set, or what the difference was between the records. That’s more careful hedging.

Instead, they wave their arms and state that “January 2019 came in second for the area’s snowiest month. It was just one-tenth of an inch shy of tying the record of 59.9 inches set in December 1972.”

This carefully baits-and-switches the dialogue from “snowiest January ever” to “snowiest month ever”.

I had to go to a completely different story to get the data. The January record for snowfall in Caribou, Maine was 44.5 inches, set in 1991. The new January record, set last month, is 34% above the previous record. Such records are usually broken by tiny margins.

The folks in charge are not your friends, and are lying to you about basically everything, including snowfall in Maine, the U.K., Austria, and everywhere else.

While controlling the media organs of all the nations in lock-step might at first appear an impressive achievement, it only makes things that much worse for the folks doing the lying once someone like me points it out.

In January 2020, the New York times said “2019 Was Second-Hottest Year On Record”.

In January 1992, the Washington Post said “1991 is called ‘2nd Warmest’ Year On Record”

In 2019, which is purported to have been the second hottest year in all history, Caribou, Maine had a third more snow in January than they did in the previous record year of 1991, which at that time was purported to be, wait for it, the second-hottest year in all history.

Essay: describe the importance of record heat in driving record snowfall.

Answer: I’ve exposed the con artists who are for this one last moment still in charge of things via what was known in the old days as “fact checking”.

Can see how they cranked up the desperateness from the trial-balloon of “warmest” in 1991 to the freedom of “hottest” in 2019?

The author provided the old and new records, but carefully withheld the percentage increase between them, saying only the the new record “broke” the old. So I had to do the math. That’s an example of a propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.

Such records are usually broken by tiny margins. Here the record was stood for almost thirty years, and then was suddenly broken by a huge margin.

The author makes no mention of the fact that this record is part of a larger, wider trend. That’s an example of a propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.

There’s clearly been some great positive change in the environment in Maine.

The author makes no mention as to what might be driving the quantum increase in precipitation. They’re desperate to keep you from recognizing that precipitation varies directly with the health of the ether.

MARYLAND

• Baltimore, Maryland had 6,392.6 inches of precipitation from 1871 to 2020. That’s a long-term average of 45.6 inches of precipitation per year over those 140 years.

• The historical record of rainfall and snowfall for Baltimore, Maryland from 1871 to 2020 has an all-time low of 27.8 inches in 1954.

• If increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is driving increased air temperatures, which temperatures are in turn driving increased rainfall, as claimed, how could the all time low rainfall number occur smack in the middle of the car boom of the 1950’s, versus in the decades preceding the invention of the automobile? The claim is patently false.

• Baltimore, Maryland had 413.4 inches of precipitation from 1870 to 1880.

• Baltimore, Maryland had 472.4 inches of precipitation from 1880 to 1890.

• Baltimore, Maryland had 403 inches of precipitation from 1890 to 1900.

• If increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is driving increased air temperatures, which temperatures are in turn driving increased rainfall, as claimed, how or why could Baltimore Maryland have had 372.5 inches of precipitation from 1960 to 1970, and 392.9 inches of precipitation from 1980 to 1990? Given that the first three examples come prior to the adoption of the automobile, and early in the Industrial Revolution, we can see that the claim is patently false.

• If increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is driving increased air temperatures, which temperatures are in turn driving increased rainfall, as claimed, how could the average rainfall in Baltimore Maryland from 1960 to 1970 (372.5 inches) be 20.5% lower than the average rainfall there from 1930 to 1940 (468.8 inches)?

• The claim is patently false.

• If increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is driving increased air temperatures, which temperatures are in turn driving increased rainfall, as claimed, how could the average rainfall in Baltimore Maryland from 1950 to 1960 (425.9 inches) be 12.5% higher than the average rainfall there from 1960 to 1970 (372.5 inches) inches)?

• The claim is patently false.

• If increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is driving increased air temperatures, which temperatures are in turn driving increased rainfall, as claimed, how could the average rainfall in Baltimore Maryland from 1950 to 1960 (425.9 inches) be 12.5% higher than the average rainfall there from 1960 to 1970 (372.5 inches) inches)?

• The claim is patently false.

• If increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is driving increased air temperatures, which temperatures are in turn driving increased rainfall, as claimed, how could the average rainfall in Baltimore Maryland from 1970 to 1980 (456 inches) be 13.8% higher than the average rainfall there from 1980 to 1990 (392.9 inches)?

• The claim is patently false.

• If increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is driving increased air temperatures, which temperatures are in turn driving increased rainfall, as claimed, how could the average annual rainfall in Baltimore Maryland from 1960 to 1970 (37.3 inches) be 22% below the long term average of 45.6 inches seen there from 1871 to 2020?

• The claim is patently false.

• If increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is driving increased air temperatures, which temperatures are in turn driving increased rainfall, as claimed, how could the average annual rainfall in Baltimore Maryland from 1980 to 1990 (39.3 inches) be 16.3% below the long-term annual average of 45.6 inches from 1871 to 2020?.

• The claim is patently false.

• If increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is driving increased air temperatures, which temperatures are in turn driving increased rainfall, as claimed, how could the average annual rainfall in Baltimore Maryland from 1990 to 2000 of 40.8 inches be 11.8% below the long-term annual average of 45.6 inches from 1871 to 2020?

• The claim is patently false.

• If increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is driving increased air temperatures, which temperatures are in turn driving increased rainfall, as claimed, how could the average annual rainfall in Baltimore Maryland of 45.4 inches from 2000 to 2010 be .4% below the long-term annual average of 45.6 inches from 1871 to 2020?

• The claim is patently false.

• I’ve refuted their propaganda prior even to cross-referencing against temperature data. Which, rest assured, I or someone else will get to.

• I’ve already done temperature and rainfall studies within this chapter that focus on other geographies that refute the same propaganda.

• The number of annual rainfall and snowfall days in Baltimore, Maryland increased 145% from 2012 to 2018, from 59 to 145.

• The number of annual rainfall and snowfall days in Baltimore, Maryland increased 11.9% from 2012 to 2013, from 59 to 66.

• The number of annual rainfall days in Baltimore, Maryland increased 19.6% from 2013 to 2014, from 66 to 79.

• The number of annual rainfall days in Baltimore, Maryland increased 7.6% from 2014 to 2015, from 79 to 85.

• The number of annual rainfall days in Baltimore, Maryland decreased 15.2% from 2015 to 2016, from 85 to 72.

• The number of annual rainfall days in Baltimore, Maryland increased 68% from 2016 to 2017, from 72 to 121.

• The number of annual rainfall days in Baltimore, Maryland increased 19.8% from 2017 to 2018, from 121 to 145.

• Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 2018 - 71.8 inches, 145 days (16.5% increase in precipitation days, .49 inch per precipitation day)

• Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 2017 – 38.3 inches, 121 days (68% increase in precipitation days, .31 inch per precipitation day)

• Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 2016 – 40.6 inches, 72 days (18% decrease in precipitation days, .56 inch per precipitation day)

• Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 2015 – 51.2 inches, 85 days (7.6% increase in precipitation days, .60 inch per precipitation day)

• Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 2014 – 52.6 inches, 79 days (16.4% increase in precipitation days, .66 inch per precipitation day)

• Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 2013 – 43.0 inches, 66 days (11.8% increase in precipitation days, .65 inch per precipitation day)

• Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 2012 – 37.4 inches, 59 days (.63 inches per precipitation day)

• Back at the height of the weather warfare ops in early 2000’s, the folks running the infrastructure had it working to a point where it wouldn’t rain, hardly at all, and, when it would, it would rain torrentially, and with terrible intensity.

• Farmers know that you want gentle, soaking rains, in plentiful measure. In desert environments, it will rain very hard, for very short periods, and the water will just run off, and not penetrate the soil.

• In the analysis above, we can see how the climate is returning to balance and vitality, with more rain in total, and with more rain days, but, signally, with smaller amounts of rain per precipitation day.

• Most fortunately for us all, the widespread, ongoing and ever-increasing distribution of simple, inexpensive Orgonite devices has drawn down, transmuted and transformed the Death Energy that Wilhelm Reich called “Dead Orgone Radiation” within the Ether to a point where the weather warfare system that relies on it can simply no longer operate.

• Rainfall volume and frequency varies directly with the health of the ether.

• Looking at the historical record, you can see how we’re returning to a level of environmental health that hasn’t been seen in over a hundred years. It struck me as I wrote this that the “five hundred year flood plain” is simply an historical record of how high the water got 500 years ago, before the painstaking, ongoing destruction of the etheric environment had gotten underway in earnest.

• Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 2020 - 57.4 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 2019 - 38.1 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 2018 - 71.8 inches, 145 days

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 2017 – 38.3 inches, 121 days

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 2016 – 40.6 inches, 72 days

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 2015 – 51.2 inches, 85 days

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 2014 – 52.6 inches, 79 days

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 2013 – 43.0 inches, 66 days

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 2012 – 37.4 inches, 59 days

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 2011 - 56.5 inches

486.9 inches, for an average of 48.7 inches from 2010 to 2020 (6.3% above the long-term average of 45.6 inches from 1871 to 2020).

Average annual precipitation in Baltimore, Maryland increased 6.8% from 2010 to 2020.

That’s a net increase in annual precipitation in Baltimore, Maryland of 18.3% from 1870 to 2020.

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 2010 - 43.5 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 2009 - 55.6 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 2008 - 45 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 2007 - 35 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 2006 - 43.2 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 2005 - 49.1 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 2004 - 45.7 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 2003 - 62.66 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 2002 - 39.6 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 2001 - 34.75 inches

454 inches, for an average of 45.4 inches from 2000 to 2010 (.4% below the long-term annual average of 45.6 inches from 1871 to 2020).

Average annual precipitation in Baltimore, Maryland increased 11.1% from 2000 to 2010, as compared to the previous decade, 1990 to 2000.

That’s a net increase in annual precipitation in Baltimore, Maryland of 11.5% from 1870 to 2010.

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 2000 - 41.9 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1999 - 43.9 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1998 - 34.4 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1997 - 38.3 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1996 - 58.3 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1995 - 36.9 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1994 - 43.3 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1993 - 42.5 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1992 - 38.9 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1991 - 30.2 inches

408.6 inches, for an average of 40.8 inches from 1990 to 2000 (11.8% below the long-term annual average of 45.6 inches from 1871 to 2020).

Average annual precipitation in Baltimore, Maryland increased 3.8% from 1980 to 1990, as compared to the previous decade, 1970 to 1980.

That’s a net increase in annual precipitation in Baltimore, Maryland of .4% from 1870 to 2000

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1990 - 41.9 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1989 - 51.9 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1988 - 32.3 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1987 - 41 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1986 - 33.7 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1985 - 36.7 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1984 - 37 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1983 - 51 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1982 - 36.2 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1981 - 31.2 inches

392.9 inches, for an annual average of 39.3 inches from 1980 to 1990 (16.3% below the long-term annual average of 45.6 inches from 1871 to 2020).

Average annual precipitation in Baltimore, Maryland decreased 13.8% from 1980 to 1990, as compared to the previous decade, 1970 to 1980.

That’s a net decrease in annual precipitation in Baltimore Maryland of 3.4% from 1870 to 1990.

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1980 - 34.7 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1979 - 59 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1978 - 41.5 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1977 - 36.4 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1976 - 43.4 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1975 - 51.8 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1974 - 37.8 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1973 - 45.8 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1972 - 52.3 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1971 - 53.3 inches

456 inches, for an average of 45.6 inches from 1970 to 1980 (equal to the long term average of 45.6 inches).

Average annual precipitation in Baltimore, Maryland increased 18.3% from 1970 to 1980, as compared to the previous decade, 1960 to 1970.

That’s a net increase of 10.4% from 1870 to 1980.

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1970 - 35.4 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1969 - 33.6 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1968 - 39.8 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1967 - 36.9 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1966 - 42.4 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1965 - 28.2 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1964 - 34.7 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1963 - 39.5 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1962 - 40.2 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1961 - 42.7 inches

372.5 inches, for an average of 37.3 inches from 1960 to 1970 (22% below the long term average of 45.6 inches).

Average annual precipitation in Baltimore, Maryland decreased 12.5% from 1960 to 1970, as compared to the previous decade, 1950 to 1960.

That’s a net decrease of 7.9% from 1870 to 1970.

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1960 - 46.8 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1959 - 37.9 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1958 - 45.1 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1957 - 34 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1956 - 39.5 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1955 - 44.1 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1954 - 27.8 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1953 - 48.3 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1952 - 56.6 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1951 - 45.8 inches

425.9 inches, for an average of 42.6 inches per year from 1950 to 1960 (7% below the long term average of 45.6 inches)

Average annual precipitation in Baltimore, Maryland decreased .2% from 1950 to 1960, as compared to the previous decade, 1940 to 1950.

That’s a net increase of 4.6%, 1870 to 1960

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1950 - 40.9 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1949 - 37.7 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1948 - 54.7 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1947 - 46.2 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1946 - 37.6 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1945 - 46.6 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1944 - 45.5 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1943 - 36.8 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1942 - 46 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1941 - 34.7 inches

426.7 inches, for an average of 42.3 inches per year from 1940 to 1950 (7.8% below the long term average of 45.6 inches)

Average annual precipitation in Baltimore, Maryland decreased 8.9% from 1940 to 1950, as compared to the previous decade, 1930 to 1940

That’s a net increase of 4.8%, 1870 to 1950

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1940 - 44.3 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1939 - 49.9 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1938 - 34.8 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1937 - 50.8 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1936 - 44.6 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1935 - 51.5 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1934 - 50.8 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1933 - 52.9 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1932 - 49.6 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1931 - 39.6 inches

468.8 inches, for an average of 46.9 inches per year from 1930 to 1940 (2.8% above the long term average of 45.6 inches)

Average annual precipitation in Baltimore, Maryland increased 17.4% from 1930 to 1940, as compared to the previous decade, 1920 to 1930.

That’s up 13.7% from 1870 to 1940

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1930 - 21.5 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1929 - 42.5 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1928 - 43.4 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1927 - 36.2 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1926 - 45.1 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1925 - 32.5 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1924 - 49 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1923 - 36.7 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1922 - 42.5 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1921 - 37.7 inches

387.1 inches, for an average of 38.7 inches per year from 1920 to 1930 (17.8% below the long term average of 45.6 inches)

Average annual precipitation in Baltimore, Maryland decreased 7.7% from 1920 to 1930, as compared to the previous decade, 1910 to 1920.

That’s down 3.7% from 1870 to 1930

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1920 - 48.4 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1919 - 47.2 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1918 - 37.5 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1917 - 37.9 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1916 - 36 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1915 - 46.3 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1914 - 36.4 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1913 - 36.1 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1912 - 45.1 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1911 - 48.6 inches

419.5 inches, for an average of 42 inches per year from 1910 to 1920 (8.6% below the long term average of 45.6 inches)

Average annual precipitation in Baltimore, Maryland decreased .81% from 1910 to 1920, as compared to the previous decade, 1900 to 1910.

That’s up 4.59%, 1879 to 1920

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1910 - 35 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1909 - 34.7 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1908 - 35.4 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1907 - 49 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1906 - 46.8 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1905 - 46.6 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1904 - 36 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1903 - 46.3 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1902 - 50.1 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1901 - 43 inches

422.9 inches, for an average of 42.2 inches per year from 1900 to 1910 (8% below the long term average of 45.6 inches)

Average annual precipitation in Baltimore, Maryland increased 4.9% from 1900 to 1910 as compared to the previous decade, 1890 to 1900.

That’s up 5.4%, 1870 to 1910

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1900 - 31.6 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1899 - 40.6 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1898 - 36.5 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1897 - 47.5 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1896 - 38.6 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1895 - 40.5 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1894 - 38.3 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1893 - 32.2 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1892 - 45 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1891 - 54.2 inches

403 inches, for an average of 40.3 inches per year from 1890 to 1900 (13% below the long term average of 45.6 inches)

Average annual precipitation in Baltimore, Maryland decreased 14.7% from 1890 to 1900 as compared to the previous decade, 1880 to 1890.

That’s up .5%, 1870 to 1900.

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1890 - 47 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1889 - 62.4 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1888 - 43.5 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1887 - 43.6 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1886 - 52.1 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1885 - 46 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1884 - 45.9 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1883 - 40.5 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1882 - 42.1 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1881 - 49.1 inches

472.4 inches, for an average of 47.2 inches per year from 1880 to 1890 (3.3% above the long term average of 45.6 inches)

Average annual rainfall increased 14.2% from 1880 to 1890 as compared to the previous decade, 1870 to 1880.

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1880 - 41.9 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1879 - 36 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1878 - 50.2 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1877 - 42.8 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1876 - 46.7 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1875 - 45.3 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1874 - 33.6 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1873 - 49.4 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1872 - 34.8 inches

Rainfall and snowfall, Baltimore, MD, 1871 - 32.7 inches

413.4 inches, for an average of 41.3 inches per year from 1871 to 1880 (10% below the long term average of 45.6 inches)

1871 to 1880 - 413.4 inches

1881 to 1890 - 472.4 inches

1891 to 1900 - 403 inches

1901 to 1910 - 422.9 inches

1911 to 1920 - 419.5 inches

1921 to 1930 - 387.1 inches

1931 to 1940 - 468.8 inches

1941 to 1950 - 426.7 inches

1951-1960 - 425.9 inches

1960-1970 - 372.5 inches

1970-1980 - 456 inches

1980 to 1990 - 392.9 inches

1990 to 2000 - 408.6 inches

2000 to 2010 - 454 inches

2010 to 2020 - 468.9 inches

MASSACHUSETTS

In January 2018, yahoo.com said “Reports: Record-setting blizzard buries New England in over a foot of snow, brings travel to a halt”

The author started the headline with “Reports:” so that your subconscious can grasp the straw of “oh, someone must have reported that incorrectly!”

The propagandist knows that the subconscious of many or most readers will grasp virtually any straw, no matter how thin, to remain off the hook of personal responsibility.

Where “record-setting” and “over a foot” are both general. The international news blackout that is in place on this subject forbids the use of any statistics in headlines that would provide insight into the magnitude of the trend I’m documenting here.

“Brings travel to a halt” wrenches the consciousness of the reader away from historically-unprecedented snow.

MICHIGAN

In January 2018, the Independent tersely said “Grand Island sets record for Jan. 22 snowfall”.

Where “sets record” is general. The international news blackout that is in place on this subject forbids the use of statistics that would provide specific insight into the magnitude of the trend I’m documenting here. Since sixty to seventy percent of readers only read the headlines, it goes a long way toward “compartmentalizing” the phenomenon.

Under the false guise of familiarity, the author has omitted “Michigan” to make the subject far less searchable.

The article continues: “The National Weather Service in Hastings reported that Grand Island received a record snowfall of 7.4 inches and .86 of an inch of precipitation from the storm. The previous snowfall record for the date was 3 inches set in 1915. The record precipitation for the date was .35 of an inch established in 1982.”

The author threw “reported” on the front end to give the subconscious of the reader the green light to say “oh, someone must have reported that incorrectly!” The propagandist knows that many or most readers will grasp virtually any straw, no matter how thin, to remain off the hook of personal responsibility.

The reporter from the Independent presented the numbers, but carefully hedged by withholding the far more impactful percentage increase between them. So, I had to do the math.

The new record is 146% above the old, set over a hundred years previously. Such records are usually broken by tiny margins. You can see why the propagandist from the Independent used the terse, general “SETS record” in the headline. The precipitation is wait for it, also 146% above the old, set 40 years before.

There’s no mention as to what caused snow and rain to suddenly well more than double, and no mention that it’s going on everywhere on

Earth, regardless of geography.

MINNESOTA

In March 2017, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources said “Minnesota Annual Precipitation Record Broken”.

Where “broken” is general. The international news blackout that is in place on this subject forbids the use of any statistics in headlines that would provide insight into the magnitude of the trend I’m documenting here.

Since sixty to seventy percent of readers only read the headlines, it goes a long way toward “compartmenalizing” the phenomenon.

The author continues: “Waseca, in south central Minnesota, set the official state annual precipitation record, coming in with the highest annual precipitation total for a National Weather Service Cooperative Observation site. Waseca finished 2016 with a total of 56.24 inches, 63% of which fell between July and September, punctuated by over 10 inches of rain in two days near the end of that period. The old statewide annual record was 53.52 inches of precipitation at St. Francis in Anoka County in 1991.”

They’ve said that the new record was “set”, which is general, and that it was the “highest”, which is also general. As you may recall, generality is a hallmark of propaganda. The author provided the old and new records, but carefully hedged again by omitting the far more impactful percentage increase between them, to blunt any specific awareness into the magnitude of the phenomenon I’m documenting here. So, I had to do the math. The new record is 5% above the old.

Such records are usually broken by tiny margins. Here the record stood for close to thirty years, and then was suddenly broken by an exponential margin , without any reason provided as to why. That’s an example of the propaganda technique known as “stonewalling”.

The author doesn’t mention that this record rainfall is part of a larger, wider trend. That’s an example of a propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.

The words “mystery”, “baffled” and “puzzled” are memes, used, among numerous similar variants, whenever anyone in the wholly-controlled-and-coopted Political, Academic, Scientific and Media establishments wants to lie about, well, basically anything. That’s why an MPR News article from January 2019 is headlined “Minnesota smashes all-time state precipitation record in 2018”.

Where “smashes”, while lurid, is general. The propagandist knows that, since sixty to seventy percent of readers only read the headlines, this hedging generalization goes a long way toward “comparementalizing” the phenomenon.

I had to read the article to learn that “The National Weather Service cooperative weather observer in Harmony recorded an astounding 60.21 inches of precipitation last year. That 60.21-inch total smashes the previous all-time state record of 56.24 inches set in Waseca in 2016.”

The author has repeated the “smash” meme, and tabled a new one, “astounding”, as further hedging generalities to mask the true magnitude of the positive change. So, I had to do the math.

The current Minnesota state precipitation record of 60.21 inches, set in 2018, is 7% higher than the previous record of 56.24 inches set in 2016.

MONTANA

In October 2017, Deseret.com said “Montana just experienced a record-breaking blizzard”.

Where the author said “EXPERIENCED” a record-breaking “BLIZZARD” to avoid writing “Record snowfall in Montana”. “Experiencing” a blizzard is a step back from “blizzard”. And it keeps the word “snow” out of the headline, so that the subject is far less searchable. That’s an example of a propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.

The subhead continues: “A record snowstorm just swept through Montana, leaving more than a foot of white stuff behind. According to Weather.com, an early season snowstorm — also deemed the “first blizzard of the season” — fell in Montana this week, sweeping through the Rocky Mountains.”

A blizzard, in early October, dropping the most snow in history, in what is falsely purported to be the third-hottest year in all history.

“Havre, Montana, reportedly received 14.8 inches of snow Monday night — setting a new record for highest snow total in October for the area, which had hovered around8.6 inches.”

The subhead used “More than a foot” as a hedge, to avoid using the correct “almost fifteen inches.”

By the way, records don’t “hover around” anywhere…they are exact. The use of “hover around” is bizarre.

Here you see how they provided the old (approximate) and new (actual) records, but carefully hedged by omitting the far more impactful percentage increase between them. So I had to do the math. It’s 72% percent above the previous record. Well toward double the previous record. Such records are usually broken by tiny margins.

The author makes no mention of the fact that this record is part of a larger, wider trend. That’s an example of a propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.

There’s clearly been some great positive change in the environment in Montana.

The author makes no mention as to what might be driving the quantum increase in precipitation. They’re desperate to keep you from recognizing that precipitation varies directly with the health of the ether.

In January 2018, weather.gov said “Duluth, Montana - A total of 5.03 inches of precipitation was recorded for the season, which was 2.05 inches above the normal of 2.98 inches. This made it the 13th wettest winter season on record for Duluth. 50.9 inches of snow fell through the season, which was 1.4 inches above the normal of 49.5 inches.”

Where the author from the State propaganda organ provided the numbers, but carefully withheld the far more impactful percentage increases between them.

The international news blackout that is in place on this subject forbids the use of any statistics that would provide insight into the magnitude of the trend I’m documenting here. So, I had to do the math.

In 2017/2018, winter season precipitation in Duluth Montana was 69% above average, and snowfall was 2.8% above average. The author doesn’t provide any guess as to what’s driving the huge increase in precipitation over normal.

In January 2018, Montana’s Bozeman Daily Chronicle said “December brought record snowfall levels to Bozeman area”.

Where “RECORD” snowfall is general. The international news blackout that is in place on this subject forbids the use of statistics that would provide specific insight into the magnitude of the trend I’m documenting here.

Since sixty to seventy percent of readers only read the headlines, it goes a long way toward “compartmentalizing” the phenomenon.

The author added the bizarre “record snowFALL LEVELS” to avoid using the more direct “record snow”.

The article continues: “Observers at the Montana State University campus station reported 46 inches of snowfall in December, which buried the old record of 38 inches from 2008.”

Where “observers REPORTED” gives the subconscious of the reader the green light to say “oh, those observers must have observed and reported that incorrectly!” The propagandist knows that many or most readers will grasp virtually any straw, no matter how thin, to remain off the hook of personal responsibility.

The author use the barely-witty but general “buried” to obfuscate the margin between the records, which they carefully withheld. So, I had to do the math.

The new record is 21% above the old. Such records are usually broken by tiny margins. Here the record stood for a decade, and then was suddenly broken by a margin without historical precedent. Clearly, there’s been some major positive change in the environment in Montana.

Greg Ainsworth, the propagandist from the Bozeman Daily Chronicle, pretends to not know that similar record snow was falling all over the world at the time. He’s using conscious deception with the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty.

NEW JERSEY

New Jersey’s current precipitation record of 64.09 inches, set in 2018, is .21% higher than the previous record of 63.95 inches set in 2011.

Northjersey.com said “New Jersey was pummeled with more precipitation in 2018 than in any other year since record keeping began in 1895, the state climatologist announced Wednesday.”

The author has used the hedging generality “more precipitation” to mask the true magnitude of the positive change. So, I had to do the math. That, along their “burying” the statistics in the body of the article, go a long way toward “compartmentalizing” the phenomenon.

NEW YORK STATE

In December 2017, Syracuse.com said “Syracuse breaks snowfall record - and it wasn’t even the snowiest spot in CNY”

The subhead goes on to say “Wednesday’s snowfall in Central New York was record-breaking.”

“At Hancock International Airport, the official measuring station for Syracuse, 8.9 inches of snow fell. The old record for Dec. 13 was 5.9 inches, set in 1951.”

The margin between the records has been represented with the general “breaks” and “breaking”, to blunt any insight into the magnitude of the increase. In the body text, the lurid, accurate but still general “crushed” again defrays insight into the margin between the old record and the new. They’re successive examples of a propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.

And, while the author provided the snowfall amounts of the old and new records, they carefully withheld the far more impactful percentage increase between them, again to defray insight into the margin between the old record and the new. So, I had to do the math. The snowfall total of the new record is 50% larger than the old. Such records are usually broken by tiny margins. Here, the record stood for over sixty years, and then was suddenly broken by an exponential, unexplained margin.

The author makes no mention of the fact that this record is part of a larger, wider trend. That’s an example of a propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.

There’s clearly been some great positive change in the environment in New York State.

The author makes no mention as to what might be driving the quantum increase in precipitation. They’re desperate to keep you from recognizing that precipitation varies directly with the health of the ether.

NEVADA

From October 2016 to February 2017, the increase in the water level of Lake Tahoe was “greater” than the same time period in the previous nine years.

Lake Tahoe was within 3 feet of the legal limit in February 2017.

The author makes no mention of the fact that this record is part of a larger, wider trend. That’s an example of a propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.

There’s clearly been some great positive change in the environment in Nevada.

The author makes no mention as to what might be driving the quantum increase in precipitation. They’re desperate to keep you from recognizing that precipitation varies directly with the health of the ether.

NORTH CAROLINA

In January 2018, wral.com said “Record snow at RDU; Here’s how much snow fell and where”.

The author has used the general “record” snow and “how much” snow because the international news blackout that is in place on this subject forbids the use of statistics that would provide specific insight into the magnitude of the trend I’m documenting here.

Since sixty to seventy percent of readers only read the headlines, it goes a long way toward “compartmentalizing” the phenomenon.

Under the false guise of familiarity, the propagandist from wral.com has omitted “North Carolina”, and abbreviated “Raleigh-Durham University” as “RDU”, both to make the subject virtually unsearchable.

The article cotinues: “Most residents of central North Carolina got a second day off Thursday while waiting for the sun to melt and road crews to clear the greater-than-anticipated snow that fell the day before.”

Where “greater than anticipated” is, once again, general, because the international news blackout that is in place on this subject forbids the use of statistics that would provide specific insight into the magnitude of the trend I’m documenting here.

The author continues: “The second snowstorm of 2018 dumped up to a foot of fluffy flakes on some areas while missing others almost entirely. On Thursday morning, those totals were still adding up.”

Under the false guise of “rushing to press”, the author has omitted the totals. They used the general “up to a foot” as another general hedge and obfuscation, and called snow “fluffy flakes” so that it would be one less “snow” data point for the search engine to pick up.

I had to look up a separate article on the subject to learn “The Raleigh-Durham International Airport got 5.9 inches of snow, a new record for the date. The previous record was 4 inches, set in 1946.”

Here, the author provides the numbers of the old and new records, but carefully hedges by omitting the far more impactful percentage increase between them. So, I had to do the math. The new record is 47% above the old. Such records are usually broken by tiny margins. Here the record stood for over 70 years, and the was suddenly broken by a margin that is without historical precedent. And at last you can see why the author of the previous article used the only-general “RECORD snow” to describe it.

Clearly there’s been a great positive change in the environment in North Carolina, a change that all the representatives of the various outlets of the controlled press are desperate to obscure, obfuscate and deny.

NORTH DAKOTA

In January 2017, the Bismarck Tribune said “Bismarck snow beats records”.

Winter “beats” records is general. That’s deliberate, to blunt your awareness of the wider trend I’m documenting here. It’s an example of the propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”. The author understands that sixty to seventy percent of readers only read the headlines.

“The total accumulation of snow so far this season — or Jan. 2 — is 53.1 inches. That is the most snowfall ever accumulated to date, according to Michael Mathews, a meteorologist at National Weather Service in Bismarck. The 1993-94 snowfall season, July 1 through Jan. 2, held the record prior and now takes second place, with 49.3 inches.”

They’re playing the “rushing to press” ruse, running a story the day the record is broken, then, later, when the season total is exponentially above the old, the generational Satanist running the Newsroom will say “we just ran a story on that.”

In 2018, the North Dakota Climate Bulletin said “Even though the overall winter temperature was 2.6 degrees cooler than average, even though the overall winter temperature was 2.6 degrees cooler than average, this winter was the 55th warmest because of the nature of the distribution of temperatures”.

Essay: describe precisely how “the nature of the distribution of temperatures” caused a winter in North Dakota 2.6 degrees colder than average to be ranked 55th-warmest in all history.

Without using the “yes, but that’s THERE” defense, or “El Nino”, describe how and why the temperature in North Dakota was 2.6 degrees below average during the third hottest year in all history.

The North Dakota Climate Bulletin went on to say that the winter of 2017/2018 was “the 25th driest on record since 1895 in North Dakota”.

Essay: Explain how the 25th driest winter on record since 1895 in North Dakota had the most snowfall in the history of the state of North Dakota.

Answer: The folks in charge are not your friends, and are lying to you about basically everything, including temperature and precipitation.

The author makes no mention of the fact that this record is part of a larger, wider trend. That’s an example of a propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.

There’s clearly been some great positive change in the environment in North Dakota.

The author makes no mention as to what might be driving the quantum increase in precipitation. They’re desperate to keep you from recognizing that precipitation varies directly with the health of the ether.

OHIO

• In January 2019, fox19.com said “Tri-State breaks record for most snow on January 13th”.

The story is from Cincinnati, Ohio. Under the false guise of familiarity, the author used “Tri-State” to make the subject virtually unsearchable. That’s an example of the propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.

Can you see how “breaks record” and “most snow” are both general? As you may recall, generality is a hallmark of propaganda. Since sixty to seventy percent of readers only read the headlines, this hedging generality goes a long way toward “compartmentalizing” awareness of the scope of the positive change I’m documenting here.

The article continues: “Sunday broke the record for the most snow that has ever fallen on January 13th in the Tri-State area.”

They’ve used the same hedging generalities and verbiage to get the reader to shut off their mind and turn the page.

The article continues: The previous record daily total was 4.8 inches in 1939. This Sunday, 5.9 inches fell.”

I’m sure you noticed how they provided the numbers of the old and new records, but carefully hedged by omitting the far more impactful percentage increase between them. So, I had to do the math. The new record is 23% above the old. Such records are usually broken by tiny margins.

OKLAHOMA

In 2017, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma set a new daily rainfall record for October 4 with 2.79 inches of rain, 27% more than the previous record of 2.22 inches set in 1955.

The author provided the old and new records, but carefully withheld the percentage increase between them, saying only the the new record “broke” the old. So I had to do the math. That’s an example of a propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.

Such records are usually broken by tiny margins. Here the record was stood for over sixty years, and then was suddenly broken by a huge margin.

The author makes no mention of the fact that this record is part of a larger, wider trend. That’s an example of a propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.

There’s clearly been some great positive change in the environment in Oklahoma.

The author makes no mention as to what might be driving the quantum increase in precipitation. They’re desperate to keep you from recognizing that precipitation varies directly with the health of the ether.

OREGON

In 2017, Portland, Oregon set a rain record for October 21, with 1.62 inches. That’s 47% more rain than the previous record of 1.1 inches set in 1966.

The author provided the old and new records, but carefully withheld the percentage increase between them, saying only the the new record “broke” the old. So I had to do the math. That’s an example of a propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.

Such records are usually broken by tiny margins. Here the record was stood for over fifty years, and then was suddenly broken by a huge margin.

The author makes no mention of the fact that this record is part of a larger, wider trend. That’s an example of a propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.

There’s clearly been some great positive change in the environment in Oregon.

The author makes no mention as to what might be driving the quantum increase in precipitation. They’re desperate to keep you from recognizing that precipitation varies directly with the health of the ether.

In January 2018, Oregon’s Bulletin said “ICYMI: Central Oregon snow officially breaks a record”.

Where “BREAKS a record” is general. The international news blackout that is in place on this subject forbids the use of statistics that would provide specific insight into the magnitude of the trend I’m documenting here.

Since sixty to seventy percent of readers only read the headlines, it goes a long way toward “compartmentalizing” the phenomenon.

And where “breaks A record” softens against the stronger “breaks record”. And “A record” is general, as well. What SORT of record?

The article continues: “Central Oregon residents woke up Wednesday morning to historic levels of snow.”

Where “HISTORIC levels” is, once again, general. And where “historic LEVELS of snow” bizarrely softens against the stronger “historic amounts of snow”.

The article continues:

“Not since 1993 has so much snow piled up in the region in January.”

The implication is that it wasn’t really a record, but rather people counted snow depth using drifts, or piles in parking lots. And where “SO much snow” is, yet again, general.

“The National Weather Service in Pendleton recorded 24 inches of snowpackWednesday at its official reporting location at the Bend Public Works Department on U.S. Highway 20 near Pilot Butte. That amount broke the Jan. 11 snow-depth record, which was 16 inches on Jan. 11, 1993.”

Can you see how they said “snowPACK”, to imply that it had “packed up”? The author used the terse, general “BROKE” the record as a hedge against providing the far more impactful percentage increase between the two. So, I had to do the math. The new record is 50% above the old.

Such records are usually broken by tiny margins. Here the record stood for more than twenty years, and then was suddenly broken by a margin without historically precedent.

Clearly there’s been some major positive change in the environment in Oregon.

The author used the trigger word “recorded” is used to give the subconscious of the reader the green light to say “oh, someone must have recorded that incorrectly!” The propagandist knows that many or most readers will grasp virtually any straw, no matter how thin, to remain off the hook of personal responsibility.

The tortuous article continues: “A couple miles outside of Bend, the weather service reported snow-depths between 28 and 32 inches. Daily records are not kept at those locations.

“A few locations could very well be at record depths for January,” meteorologist Mike Murphy said. “We don’t have records for every location.”

Welcome to what is known in the Intelligence trade as a “News Blackout”. We’ve been dragged sentence by sentence, and still cannot get any idea of what the margin was between the old record and the new - unless of course we did the math ourselves. Which we did.

Here’s Mike’s picture:

(Mike Murphy, NOAA Meteorologist)

I’ve includes his photo so you could get a better idea of what a generational Satanist in a position of marginal influence looks like. Rejoice, in that this is the best that the opposition has got.

You can’t recognize them by their appearance, beyond the occasional “secret” hand sign. You can only recognize them by the highly-codified and repetitive way in which they speak, and write.

They’ve been hiding in plain sight in every city, town and village on Earth, well, all the way back to Babylon, and before.

We’ve now documented Oregon snow records 47% and 50% above previous records, one in 2017, and one in 2018.

I think you can see that, even at this stage of the analysis, that the game is over for these people.

PENNSYLVANIA

In December 2017, the Inquirer said “Weather delay: Snow arrives late, sets record … and stays late”.

Where the hedging begins with “Weather delay”. The story’s not about the most snow in all history, but rather the “DELAY”. Then the author put “sets record” in between “arrives late” and “stays late”.

Here’s how they wrote it: ““Weather delay: Snow arrives late, sets record … and stays late”.

To avoid saying “Record snow”.

The headline uses the general “SETS record” to blunt any insight into the magnitude of the increase in snow volume. In the body text, the lurid, accurate but still general “besting” again defrays insight into the margin between the old record and the new.

“Philadelphia reported an official 3.3 inches at 7 p.m., besting the previous record of 2.9 for a Dec. 9, set 75 years ago.”

The author provided the old and new records, but carefully withheld the far more impactful percentage increase between them, so, I had to do the math. That’s an example of a propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.

The new record is 14% above the old. Such records are usually broken by tiny margins. Here the record was stood for seventy five years, and then was suddenly broken by a huge margin.

The current daily rainfall record for July 11 in Allentown, Pennsylvania, set in 2019, is 135% above the previous record, which was set in 1982.

The author provided the old and new records, but carefully withheld the percentage increase between them, saying only the the new record “broke” the old. So I had to do the math. That’s an example of a propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.

Such records are usually broken by tiny margins. Here the record was stood for almost forty years, and then was suddenly broken by a huge margin.

The author makes no mention of the fact that this record is part of a larger, wider trend. That’s an example of a propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.

There’s clearly been some great positive change in the environment in Pennsylvania.

The author makes no mention as to what might be driving the quantum increase in precipitation. They’re desperate to keep you from recognizing that precipitation varies directly with the health of the ether.

SOUTH DAKOTA

In January, South Dakota’s Yankton.net said “2018 – UPDATE: Blizzard Paralyzes Much of Region; Yankton Sees Record”.

Where the author has used the false guise of familiarity to omit “South Dakota”, to make the subject far less searchable.

And where “sees RECORD” is general. The international news blackout that is in place on this subject forbids the use of statistics that would provide specific insight into the magnitude of the trend I’m documenting here.

Since sixty to seventy percent of readers only read the headlines, it goes a long way toward “compartmentalizing” the phenomenon.

In the headline, “SEES record” hedges it back a step from Yankton actually experiencing it.

The article continues: “Yankton saw only light snow until about dawn, when the full brunt of the storm hit town. The snow, which stopped early Monday afternoon, measured 14.2 inches, according to the National Weather Service (NWS). That shatters the former record of 7.5 inches, set in 1982. Unofficially, it would also be biggest January snowfalls recorded in Yankton; there are two 16-inch records on the books, the most recent being a year ago Wednesday.”

I’m sure you noticed that, while the author provided the old and new records, they carefully hedged by withholding the far more impactful percentage increase between them, replacing it with the lurid but only-general “shattered”. So, I had to do the math.

The new record is 89% above the old. Such records are usually broken by tiny margins. Here, the record stood for almost forty years, and then was broken by a titanic, historically-unprecedented margin. Clearly, there’s been some major positive change in the environment in South Dakota.

The propagandist from Yankton.net pretends they don’t know that similar records are being set regardless of geography, all over the world. That’s an example of the propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.

They also don’t offer any suggestion as to what is driving the never previously seen precipitation levels in Yankton. That’s an example of the propaganda technique known as “stonewalling”.

TEXAS

The 18-month period from March 1, 2015, through August 31, 2016, was the rainiest 18-month period on record for the city of Houston, Texas, with 106.68 inches, 12.2% more than the previous record.

The author provided the old and new records, but carefully withheld the percentage increase between them, saying only the the new record “broke” the old. So I had to do the math. The author also omitted when the previous record was set. Those are both examples of a propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.

Such records are usually broken by tiny margins. Here the record was broken by a very large margin.

In 2017, Amarillo, Texas set a rainfall record for August 9 of 2.41 inches, 43% more than the previous record of 1.69 inches set in 1939.

The author provided the old and new records, but carefully withheld the percentage increase between them, saying only the the new record “broke” the old. So I had to do the math. That’s an example of a propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.

Such records are usually broken by tiny margins. Here the record was stood for almost eighty years, and then was suddenly broken by a huge margin. There’s clearly been some great positive change in the environment in Texas.

The author makes no mention of the fact that this record is part of a larger, wider trend. That’s an example of a propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.

There’s clearly been some great positive change in the environment in Texas.

The author makes no mention as to what might be driving the quantum increase in precipitation. They’re desperate to keep you from recognizing that precipitation varies directly with the health of the ether.

UTAH

In January 2018, US News told of “Rain Records, Avalanche Warning in Utah”.

Where “rain RECORDS” is general. The international news blackout that is in place on this subject forbids the use of any statistics in headlines that would provide insight into the magnitude of the trend I’m documenting here. Since sixty to seventy percent of readers only read the headlines, it goes a long way toward “compartmenalizing” the phenomenon.

The headline shakes the bad-news doll of “Avalanche warning in Utah” to take your eyes off the historically-unprecedented increase in precipitation. Can you see how it wasn’t even an actual avalanche, but rather only a warning? They’re making up shit out of whole cloth.

The author continues:

“An avalanche warning is in effect and precipitation records are falling after a winter storm made its way through Utah with snow in the north and heavy rain in the south.”

Once again, only general discussion of “RECORDS”, which are “FALLING”.

The word “falling” was used because it’s it’s softer than “dropping”, and also as a thinly-veiled reference to the fallen Lord Lucifer. But the main reason it was used is because it’s general.

It wasn’t just snow in the north and heavy rain in the south, it was the heaviest snow in history in the north and the heaviest rain in history in the south.

WASHINGTON STATE

In August 2017, the Washington Post bravely declaimed “Rainless in Seattle: City has longest streak on record without rain”. The article goes on to say “Seattle, the city known for its gray, rainy skies, hasn’t seen a drop in 51 days.”

Boy, sure droughty out there in Seattle, right? Well, no, actually it’s not. While the headline is technically correct, it comes within the context of a Curbed Seattle article from just five months later that reads “Seattle just finished its wettest four years on record”.

It’s hysterical, baseless drought propaganda, put forward by the Trusted Authority Figure known as “The Washington Post” that is using conscious deception with the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty.

The news event they wrote the story about was, finally a couple of beautiful dry summer months in Seattle.

In November 2017, Curbed Seattle said “Seattle hit with early November snowfall”.

It wouldn’t be any fun to read an article headlined “Seattle enjoys beautiful early November snowfall”, now, would it?

The article goes on to say “Still, today is especially cold. NWS predicted early Friday morning that we’ll set a record for lowest high temperature for the day. Early snow, NWS cautions, doesn’t necessarily mean an especially snowy winter.”

The author omitted any mention of record cold in Seattle from the headline because they know that sixty to seventy percent of readers only read the headlines. That’s an example of a propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.

They’re trying to blunt your awareness of record cold in Seattle because it’s bravely but falsely claimed that 2017 was the third hottest year in the Earth’s history.

In December 2017, Spokane, Washington’s the Spokesman said “Friday’s snowfall breaks daily record at airport; streets remain icy as full-city plow continues”.

The story reads “On Friday, 7.1 inches fell, as measured at Spokane International Airport, crushing the record of 4.8 inches set on the same date in 1963.”

The headline depicts the margin between the records with the general “breaks”, which is general, to blunt any insight into the magnitude of the increase. In the body text, the lurid, accurate but still general “crushed” again defrays insight into the margin between the old record and the new. They’re successive examples of a propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.

And, while the author provided the snowfall amounts of the old and new records, they carefully withheld the far more impactful percentage increase between them, again to defray insight into the margin between the old record and the new. So, I had to do the math. The snowfall total of the new record is 48% larger than the old. Such records are usually broken by tiny margins. Here, the record stood for over fifty years, and then was suddenly broken by an exponential, unexplained margin.

The author makes no mention of the fact that this record is part of a larger, wider trend. That’s an example of a propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.

There’s clearly been some great positive change in the environment in Washington State.

The author makes no mention as to what might be driving the quantum increase in precipitation. They’re desperate to keep you from recognizing that precipitation varies directly with the health of the ether.

In January 2018, Curbed Seattle said “Seattle just finished its wettest four years on record”. There’s a brave, fist-shaking threat of drought in there.

The author continues “Our four-year total for 2014 through 2017 is 186.4 inches of rainfall, or an average of 46.6 inches per year. Seattle … For the 1st time in over 120 years of records Seattle had 4 years in a row with at least 44" of rain.”

They venture no guess as to what’s driving the historically-unprecedented rainfall, which is “stonewalling”, and make no mention of the fact that it’s part of a larger, wider trend (which is “compartmentalization”).

In January 2018, Washington’s Bellingham Herald said “Record rain for Thursday, but guess what’s coming Sunday”.

Where the author has shaken the doll of “what’s coming Sunday” to take your eye off the most rain ever, in all history, with something general that must be very important, although you have to read the article t find out what it is. It’s “spring-like weather”, by the way, which is not as impactful as more rain than ever, in all history, and has no place sharing a headline with same.

The author said it was “record” rain, which is accurate, but once again general. It’s used to blunt any specific insight into the magnitude of the trend. The author has “compartmentalized” the phenomenon, as sixty to seventy readers only read the headlines, as the propagandist well knows.

The author continues: “Rainfall of .93 inch was recorded Thursday, January 11 at Bellingham International Airport. That breaks the daily rainfall record of .61 inches that fell January 11, 1971.”

They used the word “recorded” to give the subconscious the out of saying “oh, but someone must have recorded that incorrectly!” Many or most readers will grasp virtually any straw, no matter how thin, to remain off the hook of personal responsibility.

Did you notice that the author provided the old and new records, but carefully hedged by omitting the far more impactful percentage increase between them? So, I had to do the math. The new record is 52% above the old. Such records are usually broken by tiny margins. Here, the record stood for almost fifty years, and then was broken by an historically-unprecedented margin, which was specifically downplayed by the author of the article.

Clearly, there’s been some exponential improvement in the environment in Washington state.

The words “mystery”, “baffled” and “puzzled” are memes, used, among numerous similar variants, whenever anyone in the wholly-controlled-and-coopted Political, Academic, Scientific and Media establishments wants to lie about, well, basically anything. One of those variants is “unusual”. That’s why the author concludes with “Heavy rainfall isn’t unusual in January, which is one of Western Washington’s Wettest Months.”

While that’s completely true, on one level, having rainfall 50% above any ever seen on that date is extremely unusual.

Just another tired, formulaic hit piece, in this case from the Trusted Authority Figure “the Bellingham Herald”. They venture no guess as to what’s driving the historically-unprecedented rainfall, which is an example of the propaganda technique known as “stonewalling”, and they make no mention of the fact that it’s part of a larger, wider trend, which is an example of the propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.

WASHINGTON, D.C.

In December 2017, WTOP.co said “Saturday’s snowfall set records, but it was only 2.4 inches”.

Where “set records” is general, to blunt any insight into the magnitude of the increase in snowfall volume from the old record to the new.

Under the false guise of familiarity, the headline omits any mention of geography. That’s an example of a propaganda technique called “compartmentalization”. For the record, they’re talking about Washington, D.C.

The quibble “but it was only 2.4 inches” is particularly effective in that neither this story nor five others I reviewed would provide any information on the previous record. That’s an example of a propaganda technique called “compartmentalization”.

The closest I could get was one story that said “all besting the previous record amounts, set in 2005.”

Where “besting” is general, to blunt any insight into the magnitude of the increase in snowfall volume from the old record to the new.

The author makes no mention of the fact that this record is part of a larger, wider trend. That’s an example of a propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.

There’s clearly been some great positive change in the environment in Washington, D.C.

The author makes no mention as to what might be driving the quantum increase in precipitation. They’re desperate to keep you from recognizing that precipitation varies directly with the health of the ether.

WYOMING

Jackson Hole, Wyoming had the most precipitation in history in 2016-2017, 11.85 inches, 28% above the previous record of 9.28 inches, set in 1964-65.

The words “mystery”, “baffled” and “puzzled” are memes, used, among numerous similar variants, whenever anyone in the wholly-controlled-and-coopted Political, Academic, Scientific and Media establishments wants to lie about, well, basically anything. One of those variants is “astonishing”. That’s why Mountain Weather’s Jim Woodmency said “Water-wise: During the three months of the winter season 2016-17 Jackson had an astonishing 11.85 inches of precipitation, almost a foot of precipitation. That completely washed away the previous record from the wettest winter ever in Jackson. The old record was 9.28 inches of water from the winter of 1964-65.”

Where the dreary but deceitful “completely washed away” is a hedging generalization put forward to blunt any specific insight into the magnitude of the phenomenon I’m documenting here. So, I had to do the math. The new record is 28% above the old. An historically-unprecedented one-third more precipitation fell in Jackson Hole, Wyoming during the winter of 2016/2017.

In addition to hiding the quantum increase, he also doesn’t offer any insight into what’s driving it. Not El Nino, not Global Warming, not Carbon Forcing. Nothing. That’s an example of a propaganda technique known as “stonewalling”.

Here’s the guy doing the stonewalling:

(Jim Woodmency, of “Mountain Weather”)

It’s also more than possible that he was handed the copy and directed to publish it as his own.

I’ve included his picture so you could get a better idea of what a generational Satanist in a position of moderate influence within a Great Big Conspiracy actually looks like. He’s using conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty.

Remember, he’s obfuscated a sudden, quantum increase in precipitation without historical precedent, and he pretends he loves the weather like it’s his job. It is, in fact, his job, albeit as what is known in the trade as an “intelligence asset”.

THE BREAKING OF THE GREAT ARTIFICIAL DROUGHT IN THE U.K., EUROPE, CHINA, ICELAND, JAPAN AND SINGAPORE

Great positive changes are underway at every level of our reality. They began in earnest in 2012, and have been increasing in speed and magnitude. I began writing this series of articles, entitled “Positive Changes That Are Occurring”, in July of 2013.

These historically-unprecedented positive changes are being driven by many hundreds of thousands, if not millions of simple, inexpensive Orgonite devices based on Wilhelm Reich’s work.

Since Don Croft first fabricated tactical Orgonite in 2000, its widespread, ongoing and ever-increasing distribution has been unknitting and transforming the ancient Death energy matrix built and expanded by our dark masters, well, all the way back to Babylon, and before. And, as a result, the Ether is returning to its natural state of health and vitality.

One of those changes is that the Great Artificial Drought has been broken.

Precipitation varies in direct proportion to the health of the ether.

In January 2013, the Daily Telegraph said “U.K. – Children Just Aren’t Going to Know What Snow Is”.

The article continues: “Snow is starting to disappear from our lives. Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain’s culture, as warmer winters – which scientists are attributing to global climate change – produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.”

Can you see how “warmer winters”, “climate change” and “fewer” are all general? As you may recall, generality is a hallmark of propaganda.

The article continues: “Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increasedamounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community.”

Can you see how “global warming”, “increased gases” and “international community” are all general? As you may recall, generality is a hallmark of propaganda.

The article continues: “According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become ‘a very rare and exciting event’. ‘Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,’ he said.”

Here’s David’s picture:

(Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit of the University of East Anglia)

I’ve included his photograph so that you could get a better idea of what a generational Satanist in a position of marginal influence looks like.

In February 2017, Iceland saw “the biggest snowfall for 80 years. Up to 51cm blanketed Reykjavík, the most snow to have ever fallen on the capital in February. “

Where “most” snow is general. The article omits what the previous record was, and when it was set, and further omits any mention of the margin between the old record and the new. That’s an example of a propaganda technique called “compartmentalization”.

The author makes no mention of the fact that this record is part of a larger, wider trend. That’s another example of a propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.

There’s clearly been some quantum improvement in the environment in Iceland.

The author makes no mention as to what might be driving the quantum increase in precipitation. That’s an example of the propaganda technique known as “stonewalling”. They’re desperate to keep you from recognizing that precipitation varies directly with the health of the ether.

The words “mystery”, “baffled” and “puzzled” are memes, used, among numerous similar variants, whenever anyone in the wholly-controlled-and-coopted Political, Academic, Scientific and Media establishments wants to lie about, well, basically anything. One of those variants is “unprecedented”.

That’s why a Telegraph article from July 2017 said “Met Office warns Britain is heading for ’unprecedented’ winter rainfall”.

Where “unprecedented”, while lurid, is general. The author takes care to “bury” the actual statistic in the body of the article below. They know that, since sixty to seventy percent of readers only read the headlines, this tactic goes a long way toward “compartmentalizing” the phenomenon I’m documenting here.

The article continues: “Britain is heading for “unprecedented” winter rainfall after the Met Office’s new super computer predicted records will be broken by up to 30 per cent.”

Neither the author nor the U.K.’s national weather authorities venture a guess as to what has caused precipitation in the U.K. to suddenly increase by a third, to the highest level in history. That’s an example of a propaganda technique known as “stonewalling”.

The author also doesn’t mention that it’s part of a larger, wider trend, which is an example of the propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.

The article continues: “The Met Office WARNS Britain about the plentiful rainfall that is bringing animal populations back to health and driving unprecedented agricultural bounty.”

Now, why on God’s increasingly-green Earth would the authorities WARN about something that is, and I’m using their words, “bringing animal populations back to health and driving unprecedented agricultural bounty”?

When you’ve literally worshipped Death all the way back to Babylon, and before, that’s the kind of stuff that comes out of your mouth, I’m afraid.

In February 2018, realclimatescience.com published the hilarious “Children Just Won’t Know What an Honest Scientist Is”.

The words “mystery”, “baffled” and “puzzled” are memes, used, among numerous similar variants, whenever anyone in the wholly-controlled-and-coopted Political, Academic, Scientific and Media establishments wants to lie about, well, basically anything. Two of those variants are “culprits” and “extreme”. That’s why a Phys.org article from In January 2017, Phys.org said “Scientists find culprits for extreme rainfall over Yangtze River in May”.

The article explains: “In May 2016, an extreme rainfall occurred in the lower reaches of the Yangtze River Valley. The area averaged anomaly of total precipitation over the region (117°-121°E, 26°-34°N) was the third wettest on record since 1961. There were 25 stations that broke 56-year maximum records. Meanwhile, the 2015-16 El Niño event was regarded as one of the strongest El Niño events in recorded history, bringing heavy rains and drought around the world.”

Where “El Nino”, a quasi-mythical, magical spot of slightly warmer than normal spot of water in the great vastness of the Pacific Ocean is straight-fadedly asserted to be the driver of the highest rainfall in history in China, but, via unexplained mechanism, also creates droughts elsewhere! Is there anything it can’t do?

While the author carefully omits mention of the record rainfall that is taking place in all the nations, regardless of geography. That’s an example of a propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.

Li Chunxiang, the first author of the study, goes on to boldly and brazenly say “However, on smaller spatial scales we find that anthropogenic forcing has likely played a role in increasing the risk of extreme rainfall to the north of the Yangtze and decreasing it to the south."

Where the ensheepled reader gobbles down the doublethink that global warming both increases and decreases rainfall. Did it play a role, or did it not? What sort of role did it play, if so? Increasing to what extent? All the generalities of a desperately hedging Mouthpiece of the State.

Li is an Illuminist bloodline.

David Rockefeller visits with his friend Li Chiang, one of Red China’s Government Trade Officials. From Fritz Springmeier’s “Bloodlines of the Illuminati”, Chapter 7, “The Li Bloodline)

Li is an Illuminist bloodline that is of the distinct and separate species of human we refer to as “Neanderthal”.

In January 2018, globalvoices.org said “Chaos in the Capital: Photos of RecordSnowfall in Tokyo”.

Where “record” snowfall is general. The international news blackout that is in place on this subject forbids the use of statistics that would provide specific insight into the magnitude of the trend I’m documenting here.

Since sixty to seventy percent of readers only read the headlines, it goes a long way toward “compartmentalizing” the phenomenon.

The propagandist from “global voices” kicks off the headline with “CHAOS”, which is the opposite emotion from what beautiful snow falling on Tokyo creates. This, my dear readers, is propaganda in a nutshell, at its most pure and obvious. Here’s a picture from the article:

Record snowfall, Tokyo, Japan, January 2018)

To the wholly-credulous, mouth-breathing reader, this image depicts “Chaos in the Capital”.

Actually, 60-70% of readers would just gobble down the headline, and keep moving, never making it to even the picture.

The great news is that the world is a much better place than the newspapers are telling you that it is. This is the “Paper Tiger” that Don Croft spoke of. The generational Satanist “One Percenters” that I’m taking to task are in reality a powerless minority. The only power that they have is that which we’ve been tricked over literally Millennia into giving away, for free.

The article continues:

“At least one foot (30 centimeters) of snow accumulated in the Tokyo region over the weekend and into Monday, January 22. This is the most significant snowfall in Tokyo since 2014. Although this rare weather event shut down transportation networks, it also provided terrific photo opportunities for the nine million residents of Japan’s capital region.”

Where “at LEAST one foot” and “MOST significant” are both general. And there’s carefully no mention of the previous record, as providing it would create a vehicle toward gaining specific insight into the magnitude of the trend I’m documenting here.

The word “terrific” means “causing terror”. The Oxford English Dictionary presents that definition as “archaic”. That the because the folks in charge are not your friends, and are lying to you about basically everything, including the meaning of the word “terrific”.

In January 2018, france24.com said “Paris museums, transportation on alert as record amounts of rain push Seine’s water levels higher”.

Where “record” amounts of rain is general. The international news blackout that is in place on this subject forbids the use of statistics that would provide specific insight into the magnitude of the trend I’m documenting here.

Since sixty to seventy percent of readers only read the headlines, it goes a long way toward “compartmentalizing” the phenomenon.

“Record AMOUNTS of rain” was used as a hedge in place of the stronger “record rainfall”.

The article continues: The December-January period is now the third-wettest on record since data collection began in 1900, according to Meteo France.

Many regions have seen double the rainfall than normal, including Paris where 183 mm (7.2 inches) have been dumped since Dec. 1. More rain was forecast to fall on Thursday.

The author doesn’t make any guess as to what’s driving the historically high levels of rainfall, nor do they mention that it’s part of a wider trend. Those are examples of what are respectively called “stonewalling” and “compartmentalization”.

In January 2018, The Local said “Sweden’s snow depth sets new seasonal record”.

There are three hedges in play, to defray against “Sweden sets all time snow record”. Here, it’s “snow DEPTH”, not merely “snow”, and it’s a “new SEASONAL record”, vs. the stronger “new record”.

“Sets” record is general. You can’t get any idea of the margin between the old record and the new.

The article continues: “Most of Sweden, apart from the very far south and the west coast, was covered in snow on Monday morning – but meteorologists advised snow lovers to enjoy it while it lasts.”

Where “COVERED in snow” is, once again, general.

Mountain ski resort Kittelfjäll in Vilhelmina municipality recorded weekend snow depths of more than 150 centimetres – the deepest snow cover so far this winter, according to national weather agency SMHI. Further north, the town of Jokkmokk, currently busy preparing for its annual Sami winter market which gets under way on February 1st, boasted 135 centimetres of the white stuff. The central Svealand region, which includes Stockholm, recorded its deepest snow cover in Lillhamra in Dalarna where 102 centimetres of snow had fallen by Sunday, according to SMHI.”

In all three cases, great care is taken to omit the previous records, so you can’t get any insight into the margins between the old records and the new.

There’s also no suggestion as to what might be driving the most snow in the history of Sweden, or that the increase is taking place regardless of geography.

Those are, respectively, examples of the propaganda techniques known as “stonewalling” and “compartmentalization”.

In January 2018, InTheSnow said “Resorts in the Alps Head Towards Record Snowfall Stats”.

Where “RECORD snowfall” is general. The international news blackout that is in place on this subject forbids the use of statistics that would provide specific insight into the magnitude of the trend I’m documenting here.

Since sixty to seventy percent of readers only read the headlines, it goes a long way toward “compartmentalizing” the phenomenon.

Resorts who have already had record amounts of snow are said to only be heading TOWARD them, and where it’s hedged back another step with “record snowfall STATS”. That gives the subconscious the green light to say “oh, you can make statistics say anything!”

The article continues: “January snowfall totals are getting so big that resorts in the Alps are getting close to record snow depths and snowfall totals. Resorts reported up to 3.3m (11 feet) of snow in the 7 days to Sunday and the number of resorts passing the 4m snow depth total on upper slopes has…”

The trigger word “reports” is used to give the subconscious of the reader the green light to say “oh, someone must have recorded that incorrectly!” The propagandist knows that many or most readers will grasp virtually any straw, no matter how thin, to remain off the hook of personal responsibility.

Care is taken not to discuss previous records, as that would create the ability to gain specific insight into the magnitude of the phenomenon I’m documenting here.

There’s also no suggestion as to what might be driving the most snow in the history of Europe, or that the increase is taking place regardless of geography.

Those are, respectively, examples of the propaganda techniques known as “stonewalling” and “compartmentalization”.

In January 2018, in a spectacular example of Mil-Speak insanity, the U.K.’s Telegraph asked “Could too much snow spell disaster for the ski season***?***”

The article continues:

“Storms and heavy snow spell frustration for skiers as slopes across Europe stay closed”. Where the heaviest snow in all history is described merely as “heavy”.

There are generational Satanists at the top of all the control pyramids, and that includes the Corporations that run the ski resorts. Who closed the resorts “ACROSS Europe” in response to the highest snow levels ever seen in Europe.

But they couldn’t keep them closed long, or villagers with torches in their hands would begin forming in mobs. Or at least that’s how it was in the good old days.

But be of good cheer, in that the mob understands at the very least that the Great Artificial Drought has been broken, and that “heavy” snow does not spell “disaster for the ski season”.

The words “mystery”, “baffled” and “puzzled” are memes, used, among numerous similar variants, whenever anyone in the wholly-controlled-and-coopted Political, Academic, Scientific and Media establishments wants to lie about, well, basically anything. Two of those variants include “extreme” and “exceptional”. That’s why a dev.totalmobile.uk article from January 2019 reads “Extreme weather 2019 Records broken, exceptional snowfall Austria”.

Can you see how “records broken” is general? What records? Broken by what sort of margin?

As you may recall, generality is a hallmark of propaganda. Since sixty to seventy percent of readers only read the headlines, this hedging generality goes a long way toward “compartmentalizing” awareness of the scope of the positive change I’m documenting here.

In 2019, Skeptical Science widened its eyes to simulate honesty and asked “Does record snowfall disprove global warming***?***”

The brave and quite sociopathic propagandist goes on: “Far from contradicting global warming, record snowfall is predicted by climate models”.

In January 2019, the U.K.’s Guardian said “ Alps snow: Avalanche kills three skiers near Lech, Austria”.

The article is about the most snow, ever, in the history of the Austrian nation, but the headline bravely puts forward the hedging generalization “Alps snow”, knowing that, since sixty to seventy percent of readers only read the headlines, omitting the far more impactful statistic goes a long way toward “compartmentalizing” the phenomenon.

The article continues: “Austria has seen record snowfall, with more forecast for the weekend. Soldiers, firefighters, and volunteers have been battling to clear cut-off roads and rooftops during breaks in the weather. Some have seen 3 times their normal January snowfall already, but after a bit of a respite in Austria and southern Germany, there’s more heavy snow to come - especially through tonight and into tomorrow.”

There are, once again, no specific figures, no dates of previous records - that’s because there’s a complete news blackout on the subject. Historically-unprecedented snow described in hedging generalities. And, of course, no mention of it as being part of a wider phenomenon. That’s a propaganda technique called “compartmentalization.”

There’s also no mention in the article as to what’s driving the biggest snowfalls ever seen in Austria.

Jeff Miller, Pittsburgh, PA, August 7, 2021

If you’d like to be added to this free mailing list, or know someone who would be, please send me a note at [email protected]