The Great Canada Wildfires:

What Caused Them and What Agendas Are Being Pushed?

During the period of June 6 through June 8, 2023, I remember having the distinct taste of dirt in my mouth, accompanied by coughing and irritation in my lungs and eyes. Was I sick during this time? No, in fact, you could smell smoke every time you left a building, and the sky became a post-apocalyptic-looking hazy yellow, tan, gray, and orange (not unsimilar to the Kuwaiti sandstorms I had experienced years ago). These unprecedented effects came from the Canada wildfires, and Upstate New York happened to be in the path. On June 7, New York City registered as the worst city on the planet for air quality, and Philadelphia issued a “code red” alert telling citizens to remain at home (are climate change lockdowns coming?), as over 75 million people in the eastern United States were living under unhealthy conditions. From British Columbia to Alberta to Quebec, Canada seemed to be burning out of control, with 22,780 square miles (59,000 square kilometers or 14.5 million acres or 5.9 million hectares) consumed among 2,600 fires; but for whatever reason, the smoke from the fires travelled along the curvature of the earth and past border security to invade the United States.

Immediately, left-wing and right-wing conspiracy theories came out of nowhere, the former of which was making claims that oil production caused these fires, and the latter of which was claiming that they were from directed energy weapons or Antifa arsonists. Yes, Ontario Premier Doug Ford conspired with oil companies to slash the forest firefighting service and allow his province to be burned, and it was Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s fault that her oil-rich province was bringing in investigators to see if arsonists started the fires, when she could have just simply blamed climate change and moved on. Of course, the largest conspiracy theory on the left was the unsubstantiated allegations that the fires were caused directly by climate change.

According to climate experts, such as British Columbia Research Chair Mike Flannigan, the climate crisis is causing more flammable vegetation and lightning strikes, and the evidence of this is what exactly? Duh, having warmer temperatures means longer fire seasons, and because of this, the atmosphere is able to suck more moisture out of the air and increase energy for lightning production. Even the tree-destroying mountain pine beetles are to blame, as the winters in Canada are no longer harsh enough to kill them (I do not know about Canada, but the insects in Upstate New York are still dying in the winter).

To challenge the climate change alarmist bells, one only needs to bring in historical data of Canada’s and the United States’ wildfires. In fact, the quantity of fires and the area of destruction in Canada has fluctuated greatly from 1980 to 2021 (2022 and 2023 data are not yet available), and the overall quantity of fires has actually been decreasing (though it varies) during this period (the area burned is in constant fluctuation, with no clear trend), according to the Canadian National Fire Database (CNFDB).

In the United States, the numbers from the National Interagency Fire Center show no pattern of increasing fires either. In fact, 2006 was the peak year for quantity of fires. 2022 was on par with the figures from 1990, 1997, 2012, 2015, and 2016, and it was far under what the late 1990s and mid-to-late 2000s produced (just like in Canada, there was no actual pattern). In New York State, the wildfire quantities and acres burned data also showed no definitive conclusion that these events are increasing rapidly or that climate change is to blame. So, if one cannot use the data to prove that there are more wildfires now than in the past, how can scientists claim in good faith that this is happening? Somehow, they do, and they get away with it in front of the naïve public, which eats up every climate change hysterical piece of propaganda that is produced.

If you do not blindly comply with the authority figures on this issue, you are a science-denying spreader of misinformation. Just like with the Covid-19 pandemic, the nationalistic infrastructure is in place to silence and correct those who challenge the narrative. If the federal government censored information on social media platforms, we can safely assume that the same tactic will be used with climate change (and likely already has been). Our usual opinion checkers, masqueraded as fact checkers, like The Toronto Star, point out that Alberta Premier Smith’s arsonist investigation is not only a slap in the face to those effected, but because only about five percent of Alberta’s fires are caused by arson (in comparison with thirty to forty percent from lightning), it is ludicrous to even think that that could have been the origin. Just because a low number of people start fires historically, it automatically means that in this one chain of cases, it would be impossible for organizers to have started the fires (this is the logic that fact checkers use to cast doubt on unpopular claims). It could never be arsonists, even though there have been several arrests for exactly that in recent weeks.

Some would suggest that the fires were started by drones or helicopters, however, footage of such a thing could just simply show controlled or prescribed burns taking place. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), for example, initiates prescribed burns on a regular basis to manage and care for the forests that make up 61% of the land area of the state (forest cover has been as much as 63% in recent years, and forests have been regenerated due to management and abandonment of the agricultural practices of clearing vast tracts of land). Still, reports of drones flying overhead around the time that several fires started simultaneously in unprecedented numbers should raise some concerns, and some even believe that Canada was not having enough controlled burns to be able to prevent wildfires (it may have been poor forest management that led to this event). Others believe that satellite imagery displays all of the fires in Quebec being lighted up simultaneously, perhaps as weather manipulation or artificially-created lightning strikes directed at multiple forest areas.

Could the fires have been started by weather-induced weapons or some other method that utilized wildfires as an intentional political tool? The United States Department of Agriculture (DoA) released a report in 1970 called “Forest Fire as a Military Weapon,” which shows exactly how it could be done (measuring the flammability of vegetation). Lockheed Martin, which is working in conjunction with the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Office of Naval Research (ONR), is developing laser-weapon technology (were the Canada fires an exercise for future weapon use?). The DoD has directed-energy weapon (DEW) research programs (using electromagnetic energy instead of kinetic energy) through the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

If you think that environmental manipulation would not be used as a weapon or that the technology is not yet available for such a thing, you might need to reconsider your position. In 1967, the DoD’s and Department of State’s (DoS) Operation Popeye successfully extended the monsoon season in northern Vietnam and southern Laos (and other areas along the Ho Chi Minh Trail) as a means to make the Vietcong supply lines less accessible, and if such weather modification techniques were available then, think about what the government can do now. In fact, cloud seeding, which has the potential to artificially create rain or snow by the release of chemicals (such as silver iodine) in the air to form ice nuclei clouds, has been improved and is used on a regular basis, begging the question of whether or not many of the so-called natural disasters or out-of-the-ordinary weather events of recent years have been caused by government and corporate manipulation (but chemtrails are just a conspiracy theory, right, even though it is being admitted publicly?).

Another example of weather modification was the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) 1962 to 1983 Project STORMFURY, which involved the alteration of four real-world hurricanes. Scientists are also considering using solar radiation modification to block the sun and counteract the effects of greenhouse gases and prevent cataclysmic events (there has been pushback on this, so were the Canada wildfires used as cover to be able to use such technology?).

So, yes, governments do have the technology and motive to manipulate the weather. I just hear the liberal pundits and opinion checkers saying, “well, there’s no evidence that it’s happening with these particular wildfires, so let’s not investigate it and just wait for five, ten, twenty, fifty years for the information to be released to the public when it’s too late to do anything about it.” Of course, the government would only manipulate the weather for the public’s benefit, and there would never be any nefarious tactics utilized for the purposes of profit or political gains, so we do not need to worry. Governments and corporations do not operate in that manner, after all.      

Now, to be clear, I am not saying definitively that the fires were deliberately started, but rather, I am suggesting that it is peculiar that a couple thousand fires started simultaneously in what became an unprecedented event that sent a signal to the United States that something needed to be done about climate change. Could this have naturally occurred? Yes, but as shown previously, this year is out of the ordinary when compared with the data from previous years, so what occurred does not appear to comport with natural phenomena. It was an emergency that seemed to pop out of nowhere, as opposed to past fires that occur one at a time, and the weather pattern just happened to be perfect to blow smoke in our direction.

Though I cannot prove that the fires were intentional, and I cannot point to a specific organization that would have done so (though if done, it probably involved government agencies of some sort), but I can say that there would be motive. The climate change activists are out in full force trying to convince people that something needs to be done (again, they have not proved that there was a link between the fires and climate change, and the historical data does not show an increasing trend). New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for example, tried to push her Green New Deal because of what transpired, even though she cannot even prove that climate change caused it (show me the connection between the two). The typical chorus is singing songs of warnings for the impending doom that is upon us.

Just as you would expect, the misinformation police are out trying to justify climate change and paint conspiracy theorists as enemies of the state or dangerous to the public’s well-being. Now that Covid-19 can no longer frighten us into submission, climate change is the next “existential” threat that needs to be addressed. The climate change agenda is the perfect tool for controlling the population, as it can be utilized for many years (unlike a pandemic). Fearmongering headlines will continue to be ingested into our brains, as we pretend that the planet will die or blow up in twenty or fifty years from now (it might be negative twenty now, as I recall most of the doomsday predictions have been unfulfilled). And hey, if climate change does not work, they can always pull the alien and unidentified flying object (UFO) stunt.

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.