-Alan Mercer | May 1, 2013

Following up on this, Clint Richardson put forward the strategy of expressing our non-consent through the legal system. In his post, he used the issue of geoengineering or weather modification, also known as chemtrails. He points out that there have been public notices or legal notices in Utah explicitly concerning “weather modification”.

I think that others may want to focus on other issues right away rather than weather modification because they may not see this as a reality yet or they may naturally want to focus on something else. Even if people do that, they may still coalesce together and take part in the non-consent process for multiple issues.

I liked the emphasis he placed in this interview on each individual acting for themselves – but as part of an organized effort also, but never surrendering their power to a group. The point he made is that many individual legal actions are more significant than one class action as a group.

I know there are problems with people not being able to agree with each other. I learned from my political experience that groups tend to hold people back from a) learning the truth and b) expressing the truth and c) taking independent action. Any kind of rigid group can sabotage a “truth” effort in the name of “being professional”, “being respectable” etc. People are even naturally conforming in avoiding issues that may offend others around them – even without infiltration of that group. It’s better I think to let people go through their own efforts – with some encouragement – and discover over time how much they can find agreement.

So there are problems with groups, but if people share their common concerns they may be able to build up a greater understanding and camaraderie and see how different issues are connected.

There may be people in Canada who are already carrying out this kind of legal process and it would be worth collecting together information from different sites and from individuals who have done this already or something similar in Canada. If this was to work, the idea I think would be that as many people as possible would write this kind of letter (about an issue) or adapt a letter written by others already. They would deliver it to the correct person at the correct kind of court and then follow through with the rest of the process.

So if you can, for Canada especially, please share your thoughts, knowledge and experiences on this. If you want to recommend a site or person, great, but try to dig up some specifics. Maybe groups have already tried this kind of thing in Canada (or elsewhere) for windmills or for smart meters or for Agenda 21 etc. In that case, what if the legal procedure was spread among many individuals instead?

Regardless of what you are personally accepting of, I noticed that a growing number of people are aware of issues such as chemtrails, surveillance, Agenda 21, smart meters, erosion of civil liberties, erosion of property rights, free speech, etc. This may be a minority of people but I bet it’s a growing minority. And people can be put off by one or two issues they don’t agree with, but so what? What about the issues that concern you?

The point is what action is effective? People may automatically look to the electoral system, but I have doubts about the effectiveness of political action, especially as parties. I noticed that there have been worse and worse restrictions on political donations in recent years in Canada, but it costs money to communicate your message to others. You’re competing with government subsidies, with people working hard to make ends meet and pay their debts, with television and other controlled media. We’re up against the clock with possible restrictions on the Internet. Also there are silly divisions among people across the false left-right paradigm. Also, how substantial is Internet communication and social media. One of his points is we need to also get beyond the realm of the Internet which is a type of false reality and inaction.

Please take a look at his article and see what you think. We need to collect some information for Canada and see if this is feasible.