We’ve just passed the fourth anniversary of a piece I wrote entitled “Why Chemtrails Are My Favourite Conspiracy Theory.” Four years! How time flies when you are a batshit crazy, tinfoil hatted, ever-deeper-down-the-rabbit-hole loon!

Chemtrails - My Favourite 'Conspiracy Theory'

I’ve just re-read the piece and I think it stands up quite well. At least I don’t say anything embarrassing like “Chemtrails are my favourite conspiracy theory because they are so demonstrably, ludicrously absurd.” Rather, I manage to have my cake and eat by saying that even though I haven’t yet made up my mind about chemtrails that I really want to believe them because it’s a ‘conspiracy theory’ that ‘pisses off so many people.’

Since then, you won’t be surprised to hear, my position on chemtrails has become rather less nuanced. Of course they are real - and so very obviously so that I’m amazed that as recently as April 2020 I ever had any doubts.

But I suppose, in defence of the more recently-Awake person I then was, I wanted to be sure of my subject before committing myself to a conclusion. This isn’t like me. I’m generally more of a gut-feeling, shoot-first-ask-questions-later conspiracy theorist than the kind of autist who has to dot all the is, cross all the ts and get affidavits signed in triplicate from a dozen accredited experts before making up his mind.

In the case of chemtrails, though, I think I must have recognised that this was too important a subject to be given my usual wing-and-a-prayer treatment. If chemtrails were real, then I needed to know not just why they were real, but how they were real, what they were made of, who - at least roughly - was behind them, how they were distributed, what was their purpose, and so on and on.

https://jamesdelingpole.locals.com/post/6878238/matt-landman

Now, thanks mainly to my latest wide-ranging and mind-blowing conversation with Matt Landman, though bolstered by information I have absorbed from other podcasts, I’m more sure of my ground.

Here are my rough conclusions:

Chemtrails are not distributed by commercial airliners but mainly by drones, light aircraft and decommissioned commercial aircraft flying from private or military airfields. Among the materials they distribute into the atmosphere are fine particles of aluminium, barium, strontium, arsenic and other toxic metals. This happens daily across the world. Nowhere appears to be wholly exempt.

The purpose of this spraying is multifarious. So multifarious, in fact, that it could easily be used as a way to discredit the very notion of chemtrails: “All those things? Really??”

Yes really. Here are a few things that chemtrails are used for:

Poisoning the populace (eg through the Alzheimer’s caused by aluminium exposure) and livestock.

Increasing the chances of fire.

Damaging crops.

Mind control (eg spraying particular areas with mood-changing chemicals; or inducing a general sense of despair at yet another day completely blanketed with grey-white cloud).

Depriving people of exposure to beneficial sunlight

Weather manipulation.

I’ll add more to the list, if anyone has any good suggestions. I think the last one - weather manipulation - is the primary purpose of chemtrailing. Who controls the weather controls the world.

This is roughly how it works: the particles of metal in the sky are bombarded with electro magnetic radiation, which causes them to vibrate and get warmer. By manipulating selected parts of the atmosphere with targeted radiation The Powers That Be can now create whichever kind of weather they wish: heavy cloud, bright sunshine, storms, rain, even hurricanes and tornadoes. Perhaps not since the Nineties have we experienced anything close to ‘natural’ weather. [If I’ve got any of technical details wrong here I’m happy to amend].

From the early Nineties this weather manipulation was carried out largely by the HAARP (High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program) in Alaska. There is another HAARP installation at Capel Dewi, Carmarthenshire, Wales. But these days, most of the weather manipulation is carried out, locally, from NEXRAD (Next Generation Radar) facilities. These are now at strategic locations, almost everywhere, on cliffs, mountains and other promontories, as well as on the decks of ships. They look like giant golfballs.

Clearly if the mass of the public ever woke up to the fact that real-life Mr Burns characters are genuinely stealing their sunshine - and poisoning their food and brainwashing their kids and destroying grandma’s brain with Alzheimers - then the jig would be up for The Powers That Be. Which is why, perhaps more than with any other ‘conspiracy theory’, all discussion of chemtrails is so heavily policed, so corrupted with misinformation and disinformation.

Normies have, to a large extent, been persuaded to ignore the chemtrail evidence in front of their eyes by a number of false narratives: that chemtrails is the craziest of all conspiracy theories - and has been put out there by the intelligence agencies just to make some of us look stupid; that no one would have the power or ability or desire to spray on such a scale (the “But why would they do this?” fallacy); that weather has always behaved in this way; that chemtrails are in fact just ‘contrails’.

Their delusion is reinforced by all manner of carefully placed fake or misleading ‘evidence’: testimonies from pilots insisting that such a thing has never happened and that if it had they would know; easily debunkable videos purporting to prove chemtrails but which are actually designed to make chemtrail ‘conspiracists’ look ridiculous; photos from World War II showing thick white contrails coming from Flying Fortresses or lingering in the sky with all manner of twists and turns in the aftermath of a dogfight; etc.

Not all of this misinformation and disinformation emanates from bots, paid shills, or cyber propaganda specialists like 77th Brigade. Some of it comes from ordinary members of the public who’ve bought into the narrative that chemtrails aren’t real and feel compelled to reinforce this message by chipping in with their own supposedly relevant experiences. "[“I was a pilot for 45 years and…” etc] This is a phenomenon I call “Doing the Enemy’s work for them.” And it’s what Catherine Austin-Fitts calls ‘building the walls of your own prison’. It’s an unfortunate tendency among the purple-pilled which, of course, suits the Cabal’s divide-and-rule purpose very well.

To further muddy the waters, They have so arranged it that chemtrails are simultaneously a) a crazy, nonsense theory that has no basis in reality and b) a well established fact, so nothing to see here. If you use the Enemy’s preferred euphemism ‘geoengineering’ you will be amazed - or not - to discover that this non-existent phenomenon can be studied at well-established courses at various universities around the world, and that experiments have been conducted on it since at least the 1940s.

Here is a report from the Daily Telegraph in 2002:

Millions of pounds are already being spent on "cloud seeding" worldwide, notably in dry areas, yet weather scientists still look furtive if you ask them about rainmaking: despite decades of anecdotal evidence that it works, most feel that they lack statistically significant data to prove that it is possible to create an artificial downpour.

History is littered with attempts to alter weather patterns by shamans, witches and rain dances but the first suggestion that rainmaking might indeed be feasible came in the Forties as a result of Project Cirrus, a study of rain and snow formation.

Conducted by General Electric, America, the project was led by Nobel laureate Irving Langmuir, who believed, wrongly, that seeding in New Mexico could trigger rain in New York. But he did make important advances in understanding how to make drops fall.

And here is an April 2025 report from the same newspaper, suddenly re-remembering the existence of a phenomenon which it has generally preferred either to ignore or dismiss as a conspiracy theory.

Experiments to dim sunlight to fight global warming will be given the green light by the Government within weeks.

Outdoor field trials which could include injecting aerosols into the atmosphere, or brightening clouds to reflect sunshine, are being considered by scientists as a way to prevent runaway climate change.

Aria, the Government’s advanced research and invention funding agency, has set aside £50 million for projects, which will be announced in the coming weeks.

Prof Mark Symes, the programme director for Aria (Advanced Research and Invention Agency), said there would be “small controlled outdoor experiments on particular approaches”.

Our dark overlords love to play this game. Mark Schreckenstein summarised well the process in this tweet:

1. Of course they could never do that! 2. Perhaps they could, but they wouldn’t of course! 3. Maybe they will, but only at some point in the future. 4. Of course they’re doing it - because it’s actually good for you! We always said so.

Yes. There are many candidates for the worst conspiracy being practised against us by the Predator Class. But I think chemtrails - and all that relates to them - have to top the bill because they are so universal and inescapable. You can choose, with a bit of effort and determination, not to take their kill shots, eat their processed junk food, drink their poisoned water, engage in their corrupt system. But no matter how hard you try, you cannot escape their weather.

It’s even worse than that, though. What a lot of even Awake people fail to grasp - I was guilty of this myself till quite recently - is how intimately connected chemtrails/weather manipulation are with the ‘global warming’ scam. I write about this in the updated edition of my book Watermelons. (You can get a copy here https://jamesdelingpole.co.uk/Shop/index.html#Books)

When I first published the book in 2012, I knew full well that the climate industry was based on one almighty lie - and that all the claims made by politicians, eco-loons and other shysters on the alleged threat of global warming rested on the shonkiest of made-up, fake science. But back then, I was still missing one piece of the jigsaw: the fact that man-made global warming IS a reality, only not in the form that They claim.

They’ve been telling us that climate is man-made and a lot of us sceptics have fallen into the trap of saying “No it’s not. Climate is a natural phenomenon - and here is the evidence.” But what, even now, most climate sceptics don’t quite dare acknowledge is that ‘natural’ weather no longer exists - and has not done so in most of our lifetimes.

In my days serving in the climate trenches, what would often happen is that the mainstream media would give great prominence to the latest unprecedented weather disaster - Cat 5 hurricanes; ice storms; wild fires destroying Australia; whatever. Then, various sceptical bloggers would put up posts patiently explaining that these weather events, though they might seem extreme, were perfectly normal in the context of climatic history. A good recent example of this was the Valencia floods.

Valencia: Man Made Climate Change is REAL

We thought we were being very clever, and pro-science, we sceptics. But actually, unwittingly, we were doing the Enemy’s work for them. The more we promoted the idea that weather and climate are both natural phenomena, the more we distracted from what was really going on behind the scenes: the Cabal were quite literally creating all the weather disasters we were doggedly insisting were normal.

Chemtrails (if understood as shorthand for weather manipulation) are the conspiracy that embraces everything: media scaremongering to promote fear and division; disaster capitalism; 15 minute cities; the war on freedom of movement, including car travel and flights; the war on public health; the war on private property; deeply sinister, unaccountable forces on a mission to torment us, control us, impoverish us, enslave us and destroy us. There is almost no area of our lives that their tentacular reach does not touch. Chemtrails are the Forces of Darkness in excess. No wonder They work so extra-hard to persuade us that they don’t exist.

Watching - or trying to - the painful encounter between Douglas Murray and Dave Smith on the Joe Rogan show, I was reminded how much I dislike ‘debates’.

I explain why in a long-read piece I wrote a while back called ‘No I Don’t Want To Take Part In Your Stupid Debate.’

https://delingpole.substack.com/p/no-i-dont-want-to-take-part-in-your

It’s a good read. But if you haven’t time, the short version goes something like this…

Debates are the enemy of truth. They pretend that they are trying to get to the bottom of this or that important issue. But really all they tell you is which side is better at rhetorical trickery. Or which side the moderator is secretly rooting for. Or which side the audience is already biased towards. Or which side is prepared to play dirtiest. They are about as fair a way as achieving justice as trial by combat. I think debates stink.

Douglas Murray is a model debater. I certainly wouldn’t go up against him myself. But that’s because he plays to win not to make friends. To this end, he is more than happy to bring a knife to a fist fight, which is what he did on the Joe Rogan show.

Murray’s mission, it was evident from the off, was to crush - and crush utterly - his opponent, a stand-up comedian and libertarian political commentator called Dave Smith. He did so using a technique which students of rhetorical fallacy will know as ‘Argument from Indignation.’ That is, Murray’s tone throughout was a mix of lofty disdain and of but-barely-restrained righteous outrage.

Here, or something like it, was the message we got from Murray: “I cannot believe that I find myself having to engage with someone so inferior to me both morally and intellectually. But I shall endeavour - sigh - to be as polite as I possibly can under these extreme circumstances, and will do so by feigning to agree with my worm-like opponent on the occasional trivial point, in order to make him feel slightly less uncomfortable and to show everyone else how reasonable and amenable and magnanimous I am.”

Or, if you want to visualise his approach, imagine someone in a periwig, knee breeches and a gold-embroidered, Louise XIV-style silken coat stooping reluctantly to deal with a turd that his King Charles spaniel has inconsiderately left on his host’s lawn in the middle of a croquet match, there being no staff immediately available to remove it.

It’s a devastatingly effective technique because it puts your opponent instantly on the back foot. Rather than being treated as an equal addressing in good faith a different but valid point of view your opponent is represented as someone whose position is so ugly and reprehensible or so ignorant and incoherent - or both - that it barely deserves the courtesy of consideration. In this instance, rather than being given space to make his case, Dave Smith had to defend himself against the imputations that, first, as a mere comedian he simply wasn’t qualified to be talking about grown up subjects like history and politics and that second, he was dangerously close to being an anti-Semite, a Holocaust denier and a fan of Adolf Hitler/Vladimir Putin/Evil generally.

When you see someone whose opinions you dislike being given this brutal treatment it’s quite tempting to join the lynch mob and cheer on their destruction. But in this case, I felt that Dave Smith was making some perfectly reasonable points and that he deserved a more generous hearing.

I especially agreed with Smith on the subject of ‘experts.’ Murray’s argument appeared to be that we should defer to them on almost every occasion. For example, on the subject of Winston Churchill he declared that we should listen to professionals like ‘his current greatest living biographer’ Andrew Roberts and not to ‘guys [who] are not historians’ like Darryl Cooper. Also, in Murray’s view, we shouldn’t listen to ‘very, very discredited’ historians like David Irving.

But what if the people Murray is insisting are the go-to experts have got it wrong? What if Ukraine and Gaza expert Murray is wrong about Ukraine and Gaza? What if Churchill expert Andrew Roberts has got it wrong about Churchill? It has been known to happen before, experts getting stuff wrong - as eminent (and no doubt ‘expert’) historian Lord Dacre once famously demonstrated when he verified as genuine the fake Hitler diaries.

I’ve experienced this ‘experts being wrong’ phenomenon on one or two occasions myself. Climate change, for example. After spending about ten years looking into the subject, I came to the conclusion that all the award-winning expert climate scientists are a bunch of bullshitting liars, cheats and shills. It’s not that they are a teeny bit wrong about man-made climate change here and there. They are totally wrong about it in every last detail. The whole thing is a hoax - and a very expensive and destructive one at that. For more details, you can read the book I wrote on the subject, now available in an updated edition.

Then, of course, we had another handy example of the ‘experts being wrong’ phenomenon in the form of the Covid vaccine. Or, as I prefer fondly to call it, the Death Jab. I remember well the period when it came out, because all the ‘experts’ - from my doctor to the Chief Medical Officer on TV to the vaccine manufacturers - were telling me, quite persistently, that I had to take it. Apparently it was ‘safe and effective’. It offered a high degree of protection against this deadly disease doing the rounds called ‘Covid’. And not to take it was an act of selfishness which might endanger the life of every granny in the neighbourhood and which by rights ought to render me liable for incarceration in an isolation camp, or which at the very least ought to prevent me from being allowed to go on holiday - or shopping or anywhere else.

Bizarrely, despite my not being at all an expert in either epidemiology or vaccinology, I somehow knew enough to resist all these blandishments and decide that the ‘experts’ were all wrong. I refused to take the jab. So did one or two other ignorant chancers who, merely on the basis of stuff they’d read or heard on the internet from people who sometimes weren’t even doctors. You’ll never guess what happened to us. Yes, that’s right. We all contracted this novel, Chinese-bioweapons-lab-generated disease called Covid and died hideously shortly afterwards, blood bubbling out of our mouths as we gasped our last desperate words “If only I’d listened to the exp…arrggh”.

No, I jest. What actually happened is that, despite having pointedly ignored the experts, we all ended up not getting any of the following conditions: myocarditis; blood clots; turbo cancer; reproductive issues; heart attacks; sudden death. If only the same could be said of the people who trusted the experts and did take the jabs. Sadly that isn’t the case. Some developed conditions that more or less ruined their lives. Others simply dropped dead, suddenly and unexpectedly. And those who were lucky enough to have escaped apparently unscathed must now live with the possibility that this could change at any moment, for the long term consequences of these expert-approved, safe and effective jabs remain as yet unknown.

Some unkind souls have suggested that people who took the vaccine have only themselves to blame. I disagree. We are culturally programmed to trust the ‘experts’ whether it’s the gent in the tweed jacket on Antiques Roadshow evaluating that cracked vase great-great-great-Uncle Jack brought back from the Sack of the Summer Palace, or the diet guru on breakfast TV telling us how much kale we should eat or the doctor telling us how cancerous that lump is. It takes a real effort of will to resist our ingrained inclination to go along with whatever plausible-sounding prescription we’re being sold by the people we assume know better than us. Especially when, as during Covid, you’re simultaneously being subjected to all manner of psychological warfare techniques to nudge you in the right direction.

What the authorities did to us during Covid was so horrifying that I’m not sure many of us have yet really come to terms with it. Perhaps most of us never will because to do so would involve accepting the almost unimaginable: that governments in every country in the world participated in a co-ordinated experiment designed to weaken, impoverish, immiserate, divide, maim and kill their populace under the risibly inappropriate pretext of ‘public health.’ And the reason they got away with it, in large part, was because of the misplaced faith so many of us have in those experts to whom my old friend Douglas - against all evidence - insists we should continue to defer.