Technology – a rant

If, for the last century all the technological discoveries that we would need for the future have been discouraged by academia, government and the controllers of the planet, but do exist already and have been developed by people from the earth, then demanding the release of said technologies is NOT asking to be saved, nor does it have anything to do with wanting a savior to do the work for us. It appears we, the people of earth, have already done this, and if the suppression of intelligence, the suppression of inventors, the suppression of true original thinkers had not been done, we would already have these technologies and the world wouldn’t be crashing down around us. We made these technologies – we created them. They are ours, and we have also paid for them in spades. It is our right to use them.

Because whether the UFO question is real, whether the alien question is real, whether the interdimensional question is real, whether the elites, hidden controllers – call them what you want are real, has nothing to do with this. This is about saving our planet, saving it from those few who would destroy it. This is about saving us as a viable race, saving our children and having a place they can grow and thrive in, saving every type of life that exists on this planet from sure extinction. The technologies already exist to save the planet and every last soul on it.

We are being purposefully led to keep our heads buried in the sand until it is too late to do anything about this mess, or save the situation. I have said before that this was a millennia old plan, that whoever invaded did it very slowly – almost on a molecular level – if that is possible – such that the range and scope of the invasion has taken far longer than our memory has room to hold in current lore.

That invasion is almost complete, yet here we are almost at the eleventh hour finally waking up and noticing what is happening and instead of powering up to clean out the mess, we are uselessly squabbling amongst ourselves over idiotly insane and stupid matters. But, lest we all forget, that is part of the plan, to keep us so engaged in our separated ideologies that we in all our hubris and ego fight each other instead of the invading force.

The technologies that really do exist would blow the minds of everybody on the planet. It is time to just get over it and stand up and demand they be released to the public for the salvation of the planet.

The season of the rant: A Piece of the Action

This seems to be the season of the rant, so here is some more of my 2 cents.

IMO we, earthlings are simple, give us bone to chew and it will infiltrate through the substrata of our cultures and appear, as somebody will want it enough to invent it.. Give us a new idea and we, if we like it, will run with it and make it real. Need I point out how many devices were created from the TV show Star Trek that are now real? In some cases this pays off, in others, not so much.

Now, when you are looking at the effects of an extreme disinformation campaign like the one surrounding the topic of UFO’s where (gee let me repeat myself for the third time)

We all know about the ‘Truth Embargo’, we all know we have been lied to officially.

So really the only truth we have is that we have been told untruth for the last 80 years.

You wind up with a reaction that causes

ex·trem·ism  /ikˈstrēˌmizəm/


noun: extremism; plural noun: extremisms

the holding of extreme political or religious views; fanaticism.
“the dangers of religious extremism”

Extremism means, literally, “the quality or state of being extreme” or the “advocacy of extreme measures or views”. The term is primarily used in a political or religious sense, to refer to an ideology that is considered to be far outside the mainstream attitudes of society. It can also be used in an economic context. Wikipedia


Although we who are rather embedded in this UFO issue see this as a huge issue, it could be just one of several tactics being used on the planet at this moment to destabilize society of any kind. One of the most insidious programs to break down and restructure the way relationships are conducted from person to person all the way up through the global arena has been:

Postmodernism: a broad movement that developed in the mid- to late-20th century across philosophy, the arts, architecture, and criticism and that marked a departure from modernism.[1][2][3] The term has also more generally been applied to the historical era following modernity and the tendencies of this era.[4] (In this context, “modern” is not used in the sense of “contemporary”, but merely as a name for a specific period in history.)

While encompassing a wide variety of approaches, postmodernism is generally defined by an attitude of skepticism, irony, or rejection toward the meta-narratives and ideologies of modernism, often calling into question various assumptions of Enlightenment rationality.[5] Consequently, common targets of postmodern critique include universalist notions of objective reality, morality, truth, human nature, reason, language, and social progress.[5] Postmodern thinkers frequently call attention to the contingent or socially-conditioned nature of knowledge claims and value systems, situating them as products of particular political, historical, or cultural discourses and hierarchies.[5] Accordingly, postmodern thought is broadly characterized by tendencies to self-referentiality, epistemological and moral relativism, pluralism, subjectivism, and irreverence.[5]

Postmodern critical approaches gained purchase in the 1980s and 1990s, and have been adopted in a variety of academic and theoretical disciplines, including cultural studies, philosophy of science, economics, linguistics, architecture, feminist theory, and literary criticism, as well as art movements in fields such as literature and music. Postmodernism is often associated with schools of thought such as deconstruction and post-structuralism, as well as philosophers such as Jean-François Lyotard, Jacques Derrida, and Fredric Jameson. Some philosophers have criticized the term.   From <>

(I got this idea from listening to Richard Dolan and Micah Hanks)

And what we are seeing above is the result of: the only truth we have is that we have been told untruth for the last 80 years. In other words, the kick back from being lied to – especially if you’re are not sure just when or where that occurred is to call absolutely everything suspect. The second thing is then to question the motives behind absolutely everything. The third thing that happens is … Paranoia. In a word.

Which really, in one way, is a good thing or none of us would have ever found out about things like monsanto (not capitalizing the word, as it doesn’t deserve that honor), or big pharma, or vaccines, or education, the stealing of social security and then taxing it, or, for heaven sake ancient history (its freaking endless)or any of the other myriad ways we have been lied to and manipulated.

This is part of the problem going on in the UFO genre right now between all the little guys, in the chat rooms and the twitterverse, or FB, the mood is murderous. What makes all of us think that when every other strata of society has been targeted that ours wouldn’t be is fairly insane. It has been from the beginning and that is a fact we have to take on board and work with and around to gain any real grip of some assemblance of truth. Like it or lump it. The common narrative is that: Everything has been weaponized against us.

Which is also why they can also use the idea of a savior against us. Just like a cargo cult, we want ET to come and save us. Which IMO most certainly will NOT happen. Mainly because of the real prime directive. Trust me, if we as kids can think of this idea and extrapolate the need for it, it probably is real in one form or another.

Which reminds me of:

“A Piece of the Action”, a second season episode of the American science fiction television series Star Trek, first broadcast on January 12, 1968; its repeat on August 30, 1968, was the last episode to air in the 8:30 pm time slot on Friday nights. It is episode #46, production #49, written by David P. Harmon and Gene L. Coon, and directed by James Komack.

In the comedic episode, the Enterprise visits a planet with an Earth-like 1920s gangster culture, with Runyonesque dialog and costumes. From <>

Returning to a planet last visited by an Earth ship 100 years earlier, the Enterprise finds a planet that has based its culture on the Chicago gangsters of the 1920s. Since the Horizon‘s visit was before the Federation’s Prime Directive against non-interference, Kirk, Spock and McCoy are concerned about what effects the Horizon‘s crew may have had on the Iotian culture which was just beginning industrialization at the time and had a knack for imitation. The three beam down to find a culture resembling that of Chicago in the 1920s. They are immediately greeted by two men dressed as gangsters who threaten them with Tommy guns. From <> And why? All because the Horizon’s crew left a book behind on Chicago in the roaring 20’s.

This is a clear example of a cargo cult.

Cargo cults often develop during a combination of crises. Under conditions of social stress, such a movement may form under the leadership of a charismatic figure. This leader may have a “vision” (or “myth-dream”) of the future, often linked to an ancestral efficacy (“mana“) thought to be recoverable by a return to traditional morality.[1][3] This leader may characterize the present state as a dismantling of the old social order, meaning that social hierarchy and ego boundaries have been broken down.[4] From <> (italics mine)

From what I can see, that’s pretty much the state of things down here for us ‘ground-pounders’. But now we want ‘A Piece of the Action’ too.



It was a radio show, not a court of law….

I was listening to the Jimmy Church Radio Show last night with guest Richard Dolan. I followed Richard’s chat, and I was on twitter. During the commercial breaks I listened to Richard Dolan’s conversation with his chat.

Richard Dolan is an academic, an established debater, historian and knows the rules of proper conduct in a conversation/debate. He is also a very ethical man and will not overstep the guidelines for elucidation of an idea because he knows that it’s extremely unproductive.

For those who do not know:

Ten Simple Rules For Debating

Posted by Nullus Maximus

A significant amount of my recent work has been written in response to arguments made by other libertarian thinkers. As such, the time is ripe for a guide to how this is best done. This article will take the reader through the process of an exchange of ideas from start to finish, and explain my ten simple rules for debating. Those who follow these rules are guaranteed to become more successful debaters, as well as less stressed and overworked.

  1. Pick your battles. While a person of little renown may have enough time to engage with whomever one pleases at whatever length one desires, people who have less time to spend engaging in debates must choose which opponents to engage and which to ignore, as well as how long to engage each opponent. It is best to have a consistent rubric for this, which will be discussed further in rules 2 and 9.
  2. Engage only those worthy of being engaged. Some people are capable of maintaining a rational discourse, while other people cannot seem to communicate without resorting to personal attacks, profanity, threats, and other such uncivil behavior. Some people have interesting and novel insights, while other people insist upon bringing up points which have been refuted a thousand times. Some people are experts in the fields of which they speak, while other people do not stick to their lasts. Some people make the effort to properly support an argument, while other people Gish gallop. A person’s behavior in this regard is a strong indicator of whether that person is worthy of one’s attention. Note that other debaters will judge you by a similar standard, so be the kind of person that someone else would be willing to debate.
  3. Do your research. If you know a topic in great detail, you will be more able to counter any argument your opponent may make. An uninformed debater is an incompetent debater. An unprepared debater is a sloppy debater. Also, make sure that the sources you study are reliable. If the opponent is competent, a misinformed debater will be an embarrassed debater.
  4. Do not argue to convince the opponent; argue to convince a third party. In many cases, a person worthy of being engaged will be firmly entrenched in a position, and it may even be against the nature of the format for your opponent to come over to your side. Focus instead on convincing the audience, whether they be people watching a live debate or reading a correspondence. This methodology is stated explicitly in some debate formats, but it is sound strategy regardless.
  5. Base your arguments upon logic (logos), not emotion (pathos) or authority (ethos). A debate is properly won by using reason and evidence to demonstrate that one’s position is superior to that of one’s opponent. Detouring into appeals to emotion can help one connect with the audience or provoke an opponent into a misstep, but this does not advance one’s case in a rigorous manner. Appealing to the authority of oneself or someone else can dissuade a weak opponent or convince a less intelligent audience, but attempting this against a strong opponent in front of a knowledgeable audience is a recipe for disaster.
  6. Relentlessly attack logical fallacies and weak arguments. It is important to point out every shortcoming that you can find in your opponent’s case. Doing so will make you more skilled in identifying logical fallacies and weak arguments, which means that opponents will be less able to get away with sloppy reasoning in future debates. Do not worry about being pedantic; your job is to find all weaknesses in your opponent’s case and illuminate them to make your case appear stronger by comparison.
  7. Focus on the task at hand. A debate can easily go off track, especially if the subject matter is wide, deep, or both. Avoid making arguments that neither support your case nor attack your opponent’s case. Only go into the weeds if your opponent takes you there; the person who begins the foray into many different minutiae is usually running out of solid logic and evidence.
  8. Destroy arguments, not people. Be respectful of your opponent, or at least be as respectful of your opponent as he or she is of you. Resorting to personal attacks (or escalating them if they are already in use) is a refuge of a person with weak arguments, and it will make people less willing to consider your case on its merits. Remember, your job is to defeat your opponent’s arguments, not his or her character.
  9. Know when to quit. There comes a point in every debate at which further discussion has diminishing returns or even becomes completely pointless. It is important to learn to identify that point and stop there. Sometimes this will be clear; an opponent may even announce that a particular round will be his or her closing argument. If this happens, respond with a closing argument of your own and be finished; do not repeatedly pummel the opponent after he or she has left the debate. This may also be the case in a timed or response-limited debate, in which case one should abide by the rules of the format. In other cases, it will be a matter of personal judgment to decide to walk away from a debate.
  10. Handle both defeat and victory appropriately. No one likes a sore loser or a bad winner. If you lose a debate, reflect on how and why you lost. Then, take the necessary steps to avoid losing in the same manner in a future debate. This may involve more study of the debate topic, reviewing logical fallacies, or even changing one’s position on an issue. If you win, do not gloat or boast. Accept victory graciously, then check your discourse for arguments that could have been stronger or presented more effectively. From <>   (Italic emphasis mine)

Jimmy Church is a radio host. What we were listening to last night was a radio show. Not a court of law. Jimmy has said this many times on his show, he will interview anybody. He will give them as much rope as they want. His job is to make the guest comfortable and elicit the conversation, while asking the questions that everybody wants answers to, and that is a gift he brings to the show. It is not, nor has it ever been, nor can I conceive that it ever will be a court of law or a place where emotional bashing will ever be allowed to occur! I have heard him politely hang up on people who try to take the conversation there. Those are his ethics. He will not step beyond them, just as Richard Dolan will not.

What just makes my jaw drop is the preponderance of loud noise people can make when they do not know about critical thinking or debate. The loudest voice never wins, nor does the meanest. Period. There was so much verbal battery going on in the comments last night that I was floored. What has happened to everybody’s minds???

It was not the purpose of either person speaking to provide evidence of any kind. This wasn’t even a debate, it was a conversation. It certainly wasn’t a court of law…

In a court of law:

Evidentiary Standards and Burdens of Proof

In almost every legal proceeding, the parties are required to adhere to important rules known as evidentiary standards and burdens of proof. These rules determine which party is responsible for putting forth enough evidence to either prove or defeat a particular claim and the amount of evidence necessary to accomplish that goal.

The Burden of Proof

The burden of proof determines which party is responsible for putting forth evidence and the level of evidence they must provide in order to prevail on their claim. In most cases, the plaintiff (the party bringing the claim) has the burden of proof.

The burden of proof has two components. First, the plaintiff must satisfy the burden of production, which has also been referred to as the burden of going forward. As the terms suggest, this burden requires the plaintiff to put forth evidence in the form of witness testimony, documents, or objects. After the plaintiff presents his or her case-in-chief, the burden of production shifts to the defendant, who then has the opportunity to provide evidence either rebutting the plaintiff’s evidence or supporting the defendant’s own arguments.

Evidentiary Standards in Civil Cases

Preponderance of the Evidence

Second, the plaintiff must satisfy the burden of persuasion. This burden determines which standard of proof the plaintiff must follow in presenting evidence to the judge or jury. A standard of proof determines the amount of evidence the plaintiff or defendant needs to provide in order for the jury to reach a particular determination. In most civil cases, the burden of persuasion that applies is called “a preponderance of the evidence.” This standard requires the jury to return a judgment in favor of the plaintiff if the plaintiff is able to show that a particular fact or event was more likely than not to have occurred. Some scholars define the preponderance of the evidence standard as requiring a finding that at least 51 percent of the evidence favors the plaintiff’s outcome.

Clear and Convincing Evidence

In some civil cases, the burden of proof is elevated to a higher standard called “clear and convincing evidence.” This burden of proof requires the plaintiff to prove that a particular fact is substantially more likely than not to be true. Some courts have described this standard as requiring the plaintiff to prove that there is a high probability that a particular fact is true. This standard sets a higher threshold than the preponderance of the evidence standard, but it does not quite rise to the widely recognized standard used in criminal cases, known as “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Substantial Evidence

In administrative law proceedings, the standard of proof that most commonly applies is the substantial evidence standard. This standard requires the plaintiff or moving party to provide enough evidence that a reasonable mind could accept as adequate to support a particular conclusion.

Evidentiary Standards in Criminal Cases

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

The “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard is the highest standard of proof that may be imposed upon a party at trial, and it is usually the standard used in criminal cases. This standard requires the prosecution to show that the only logical explanation that can be derived from the facts is that the defendant committed the alleged crime, and that no other logical explanation can be inferred or deduced from the evidence. The United States Supreme Court in Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1 (1994), described this standard as “such doubt as would give rise to a grave uncertainty, raised in your mind by reasons of the unsatisfactory character of the evidence or lack thereof . . . . What is required is not an absolute or mathematical certainty, but a moral certainty.”

Credible Evidence

Another common standard of proof used in some criminal law proceedings is the credible evidence standard. Credible evidence is evidence that is not necessarily true but that is worthy of belief and worthy of the jury’s consideration. Some have defined this standard as requiring the jury to conclude that the evidence is natural, reasonable, and probable in order for it to be credible.

Evidentiary Standards and Burdens of Proof Resources


Articles Web Resources Laws Glossary Law Blogs Lawyers & Attorneys

From <>


Further, IMO (here it comes) when evidentiary standards and burden of proof are applied to the UFO question, we do not even know the scope of the situation. For instance, there is a preponderance of opinion out there that consciousness needs to added into the equation to properly understand what a reasonable question could/should be. From a quantum physics aspect looking at consciousness, this makes sense because of the ‘observer effect’ and entanglement. From an experiencer aspect it appears to be the whole of the experience from the preponderance of the data.



This 820 page book details the academic research findings of the world’s first comprehensive multi-language quantitative and qualitative 5 year academic research study on individuals that have had UFO related contact with Non-Human Intelligence (NHI)– The FREE Experiencer Research Study.

Over the last 5 years FREE has collected detailed responses to 3 extensive quantitative and qualitative surveys from over 4,200 individuals from over 100 countries. Our survey findings from these thousands of “Experiencers” contradict much of what is circulating in mainstream materialist Ufology.

Our academic book will establish a new paradigm for viewing the UAP (UFO) Contact Phenomenon. FREE argues that “Consciousness” and the paranormal and psychic aspects of this phenomenon is the key to understanding this complex phenomenon instead of the traditional materialist perspective of “nuts & bolt’s” Ufology.

The Dr. Edgar Mitchell Foundation for Research into Extraterrestrial and Extraordinary Experiences, or FREE, is a 501c3 Academic Research Not for Profit Foundation. FREE was co-founded by the late Apollo 14 astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell, Dr. Rudy Schild, an Emeritus Research Astronomer at the Harvard/Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics at Harvard University, Australian researcher Mary Rodwell and Rey Hernandez, an Attorney and Experiencer who was a Ph.D. Candidate at the University of California at Berkeley. FREE is comprised of retired academic professors and lay researchers who have been researching the field of Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon (UAP) and contact with Non-Human Intelligence (NHI) for more than 30 years. The Executive Director of FREE is Harvard Astrophysicist Dr. Rudy Schild. From  <>


And this doesn’t even scratch the surface of what needs to be added to the equation or quantified and debated. And yet – we descend into gossip and snarky attitudes over one little tiny insignificant piece of the puzzle and deem ourselves capable of not only presenting all the facts, but arguing them in a legal manner. This field is not about just one tiny little question, nor one tiny little person (or several) people. It is about the whole planet!


Wake up! Put your head on the right way and act like it’s not empty in there!!!!!   grrrrrrrrrrr






Of Cages

The fights we are seeing going on right now echo two things in my mind, well maybe three.
1. the dark magic is reminiscent of the Jack Parsons/Crowley/Hubbard stuff from the 1940’s repeating and the magical alchemy of money BMMS (lol – Babylonian Money Magic System) (2)

2. the ‘two groups fighting resemble the light and the dark brotherhoods of the mystery schools (who believe it or not folks are being controlled by this larger force such that they are both too busy to see that third force)

3. this all kinda goes back to the survivors of the great cosmic war when they blew up a planet, wound up here and have never stopped creating MESS. (of which number two is only the latest iteration)

The cult mentality of all of it is even more concerning. Information on cults:

Humans desire comfort, and in a fearful and uncertain world many turn to cults because they tend to promote exactly that. Jon-Patrik Pedersen, a psychologist at CalTech, has pointed out that cult leaders often make promises that are totally unattainable, but also offered by no other group in society. Such things might include financial security, total health, constant peace of mind, and eternal life — the things every human desires at the deepest level. (savior mentality)

Cults satisfy the human desire for absolute answers.

Those with low self-esteem are more likely to be persuaded by a cult environment.

New recruits are “love bombed.”

Women are more likely than men to join a cult.

Many cult members have rejected religion.

Cults maintain their power by promoting an “us vs. them” mentality.

Cult leaders are masters at mind control.

Ways in which leaders gain control over cult members vary, but some popular methods include:

Public Humiliation: New cult members may be “love bombed” shortly after their arrival, but once they are established members, cult leaders often maintain emotional control through various exercises meant to publicly humiliate a member. One such method involves someone sitting in a chair surrounded by other members, at which time they are required to admit their recent failures, base thoughts, shortcomings, etc.

Self-Incrimination: A favorite tactic of the infamous cult leader Jim Jones, self-incrimination requires cult members to provide their leader with written statements detailing their individual fears and mistakes. The cult leader can then use these statements to shame individual members publicly.

Brainwashing: Cult leaders are known to repeat various lies and distortions until members find it difficult to distinguish between reality and cult life.

Paranoia: To maintain a false sense of comfort, cults often rely on paranoia tactics. Cult leaders convince their victims that a group, their families, and/or the government is out to get them, but that the cult can provide safety. Once a cult member comes to the conclusion that their families and country cannot keep them safe, they begin to worship and put all of their faith in their cult leader. Jim Jones was especially skilled at this mind-control trick. He would encourage members to spy on each other, and consistently spoke through loudspeakers at all hours of the day so that cult members would hear his voice whether awake or asleep.

Cult members often have no idea they’re in a cult.

Cult life can have a dangerous and lasting effect.

He specifically mentions that the “symptoms of temporal lobe epilepsy are similar to those seen or reported as resulted from cult conversions:

increased irritability

loss of libido or altered sexual interest


compulsive attention to detail

mystical states

humorlessness and sobriety

heightened paranoia

From <>

In case you choose to say, ‘Not Me’…

Before jumping into the specifics, I’d like to briefly discuss an insidious psychological process called the “Self-serving Bias.” This bias leads us to believe that we are immune to the influences that affect the rest of humanity. I run into this bias all the time when describing my work on resistance to persuasion: “I think it’s great that you’re trying to help people resist television ads. Of course, TV ads don’t persuade me…”

The self-serving bias has been demonstrated countless times: the majority of Americans believe they are smarter and better looking than average; most drivers (even those hospitalized for accidents) believe themselves more skilled than the average driver; most smog-breathing Los Angelinos believe themselves healthier than their neighbors; most college students believe they will outlive their predicted age of death by 10 years, and so on.

The most ironic example of the self-serving bias that I’ve ever heard appeared in a social psychology paper written by one of Kelton’s students. After the self-serving bias had been discussed in class, this student wrote:

“I don’t understand why they say the self-serving bias is universal. I mean, I see it in other people, but I personally don’t have a self-serving bias.”

I’m not kidding, the student really wrote that!

From <>
What do you do with information you want to have hidden and keep hidden? You swear those who know to secrecy with ideas like the destruction of mankind because mankind cannot handle the power and importance of this information and you hide it behind mystery schools. (1) This causes the information to land in two select groups. One that will have a moral and ethical bent towards the greatest good, and one that will keep and use the information for their own advancement (breakaways and ppl like those who run CERN and HARRP)
IMO we are looking at a worldwide psy-op (cult) that nobody really knows the full extent of, with even the mystery schools, prominent and excellent researchers, governments and alphabet soups and all the others being played as useful-idiots.

We are all being played.

When the

‘…only truth we have is that we have been told untruth for the last 80 years.’

is the only thing we can be sure of, then the world is operating as one giant cult.
And instead of recognizing this most people are acting like captives in a cage scrambling for the biggest scraps that land through the bars, while diligent souls who have real information are drowned out by insignificant and useful idiots such that the mass confusion creates its own control system. Problem solved for the cage tenders.


With Egg on my Face

I sit before this electronic piece of equipment that is my doorway to the greater world, with egg on my face….

Meaning : ‘To have/caught with egg on your face‘ means to be made to look foolish or to be embarrassed. Origin: “Random House Dictionary of American Slang, Vol. 1, A-G” by J.E. Lighter (Random House, New York, 1994): “have egg on (one’s) face — to look foolish or be embarrassed.…

It’s an old idiom, so there’s what it means. Yep, I’m embarrassed for several reasons. One, because I unwittingly let myself get caught in the ongoing hooha I was disparaging in my oh so acerbic opines, and two because the more I felt around inside about this issue, the more I understood it as a lesson in being kind, and collecting all the data I could before I did opine and make an ass of myself. Literally. Lastly, it was a kick in my morally oh so righteous ass that askes ‘Since when did you walk a mile in their shoes?’

So, I’m gonna dust myself off, get up, try again with maybe a little more empathy in my heart aaaand, opine again. This kind of character bashing used to be called slander and defamation of character and back before the internet when we used to have to print stuff like this on paper to make a point, could get you thrown in jail for it. It is one thing to report a verified fact, and another just to give your opinions.

I am guilty of having a bad attitude, justifiable or not to pin it on anyone else as their fault is really immature. I’m 65 – I should know better. Really. I am guilty of listening to others without doing the research – which in this case would have saved my sorry ass from looking like a sorry ass – and forming an opinion on yet another opinion. Just shoot me now. (I suppose this stems from being angry at others for doing it and thusly having the karmic pleasure of doing it myself so I could understand why… ahem)

Here’s the thing. We all complain about what a mess this field is from the half-truths linked to the truth, from the outright dis-information to the lies being almost indistinguishable from the truth.

true /tro͞o/

in accordance with fact or reality.

rightly or strictly so called; genuine.

said when conceding a point in argument or discussion.
accurate or exact.

(interestingly this was an old German word for truce )

We all know about the ‘Truth Embargo’, we all know we have been lied to officially.

So really the only truth we have is that we have been told untruth for the last 80 years.

So you see, how all of us can get testy. Just a bit… the whole game has been crafted so well, and is so insidious, that we are all ( I was going to say a bit, but this qualifies for full frontal) paranoid.

For What It Is Worth

Buffalo Springfield

There’s something happening here

What it is ain’t exactly clear

There’s a man with a gun over there

Telling me I got to beware

I think it’s time we stop, children, what’s that sound

Everybody look what’s going down

There’s battle lines being drawn

Nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong

Young people speaking their minds

Getting so much resistance from behind

It’s time we stop, hey, what’s that sound

Everybody look what’s going down

What a field-day for the heat

A thousand people in the street

Singing songs and carrying signs

Mostly say, hooray for our side

It’s s time we stop, hey, what’s that sound

Everybody look what’s going down

Paranoia strikes deep

Into your life it will creep

It starts when you’re always afraid

You step out of line, the man come and take you away

We better stop, hey, what’s that sound

Everybody look what’s going down

Stop, hey, what’s that sound

Everybody look what’s going down

Stop, now, what’s that sound

Everybody look what’s going down

Stop, children, what’s that sound

Everybody look what’s going down

Songwriters: Stephen Stills

For What It Is Worth lyrics © Warner/Chappell Music, Inc

So here we are. In the mist of another revolution, one not so fun as the sixties and way more important. What are we going to do about it? How are we going to handle it? What kind of example will we set for those who will see this as it transforms the world we live in. We need to get better at this. We really do.

I really do.

To weigh the measure of a heart in a court of law

I give my testimony not for a judgement, but to share for any other person out there who might find humor or ease in my silly words. They are true. True to my heart, true to my experience but unprovable. Others talk and write about things true to their hearts. If people like them enough to pay for them, then why not?

We are in a miraculous time when our own stories can reach many. It is very sad indeed when because somebody doesn’t like your story they need to ‘crucify’ your person. We are in a very sad time indeed when stories need to garner money for the cost of living. Once upon a time traveling bards were respected and given succor for their stories before the hearth of peoples simply for the pleasure of the story.

How have we managed to work ourselves into a corner where such luxury can now wind us up behind bars, or have your heart measured and judged before anyone? In Egypt only Osiris could do that.

The Judgement of Osiris.

The `heart’ of the soul was handed over to Osiris who placed it on a great golden scale balanced against the white feather of Ma’at, the feather of truth on the other side. From <

Now we in our great hubris have decided we are qualified for the task. The government and/or our laws-du-jour have made it possible to not only go after someone for ‘words’ but to limit the scope of information actually allowed out to the public.

As any system of facts and research advance in society there comes a time of reckoning, stepping into the legal world. If the SSP is going to be realized as an actual fact (not just testimony) founded on research and proof, then this knowledge having existed prior to CG and Associates cannot be trade marked by them. The actual fact that many years’ worth of presentation and research are verifiable in the public domain makes them ‘untrademarkable’ (if that is a word…), because they can be seen several years before CG’s use of them – especially the words Secret Space Program.

This will boil down to where was it verifiably heard and presented first as ‘prior art’. Bob Dean may have alluded – actually said those words in a Kerry Cassidy interview in 2000 called ‘Bringing in the Light’. That evidence is out there in spades. The first Secret Space Program Conference held in the US in 2014 had a list of researchers well known in this topic as the very best:

Mark McCandlish

Michael Schratt

Joseph P Farrell

Catherine Austin Fitts

Richard Dolan

Robert Morningstar

John Rappoport

Carol Rosin

and every one of their talks is on you tube for you to see. There was a second conference in 2015 which is also available on you tube. One of the very first Secret Space Program Conferences in the world was in Amsterdam in 2011…

IMO this might cause CG a bit of a problem because once they prove the information was out there, they will also have a solid case for plagiarism because no other research was sited in using said information…

Just for a bit of information on what IP is (intellectual property):

What does it mean to steal intellectual property?

Intellectual theft is stealing or using without permission someone else’s intellectual property. … Intellectual property is protected by patent for inventions, trademarks for commercial marks or branded products, and copyrights on creative pursuits such as music, photo, poems.


What is considered intellectual property?

Intellectual property refers to creations of the mind: inventions; literary and artistic works; and symbols, names and images used in commerce. Intellectual property is divided into two categories: Industrial Property includes patents for inventions, trademarks, industrial designs and geographical indications.


What does a licensing agreement allow?

A licensing agreement is a legal contract between two parties, known as the licensor and the licensee. In a typical licensing agreement, the licensor grants the licensee the right to produce and sell goods, apply a brand name or trademark, or use patented technology owned by the licensor.

(so, you have to pay to use the term SSP and CG would set for life..)


What are the 4 types of intellectual property?

The four types of intellectual property include:

  • Trade Secrets.
  • Trademarks.
  • Copyrights, and.
  • Patents.


Intellectual Property Protection. Intellectual Property Protection is protection for inventions, literary and artistic works, symbols, names, and images created by the mind. Learn how you can protect your intellectual property by using: Patents, Trademarks, Trade Secrets, and Copyrights.

(key phrase here – CREATED BY THE MIND – that immediately implies that CG’s story is NOT fact, but story. Have we ever copyrighted historical facts before?)


Copyright. Copyright is a legal means of protecting an author’s work. It is a type of intellectual property that provides exclusive publication, distribution, and usage rights for the author. … Many different types of content can be protected by copyright. Examples include books, poems, plays, songs, films, and artwork.


The importance of protecting intellectual property. Intellectual property (IP) rights are valuable assets for your business – possibly among the most important it possesses.

(taking CG’s SSP OUT of the realm of research and into the realm of business. Interesting side note is the ‘fair use’ act that allows material to be sited and used in print and in video for purposes of education. Where does academia cross over into the world of IP??)


Copyright infringement is the use of works protected by copyright law without permission, infringing certain exclusive rights granted to the copyright holder, such as the right to reproduce, distribute, display or perform the protected work, or to make derivative works.

(can research be considered derivative works?)


(If so, the fines could be heavy)

FBI Anti-Piracy Warning: The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work is illegal. Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement without monetary gain, is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by up to five years in federal prison and a fine of $250,000.


Thus my article called ‘Really???’ because we are still measuring the ethic and integrity of the use of certain words, so, all I have to say is – ‘Oh!! GROW UP!’ We are all missing the point here by allowing ourselves to be misdirected by all this caca.


But oh my, that’s the point, isn’t it?



Intellectual Theft: Everything You Need to Know – UpCounsel…>











One of the things you have to learn as a magician is how to call spirits, bind them and get them to work for you. To me that’s kind of like buying on credit. If you don’t have the cash, don’t do it, because you will pay for all of it with tons of interest… just like the golden rule (do unto others) it’s a good idea to realize these other beings have their own lives and let them be! Now, if you are the kind of person who has things interfering in your life even if you didn’t call them, it’s good to have a few tricks up your sleeve.

In my world, I keep my house – for the lack of a better word – warded. Those wards are all light structures that I have made up in my mind and placed around the house. Occasionally, I have to reinforce them – re think them, boof them up a bit, but they are quite efficient in keeping my psychic environment pretty and sparkling.

The trick is all based on intent and heart power (emotion). White light is one of the most beautiful dazzling lovely things ever. Back in my teens I had found a book about playing with the light. A simple little book, I can’t even remember the name of it and one of the games it suggested was to lob white light balls at people and to see them break apart in a million sparkles onto the person – randomly. I practiced that a lot because it was easy and fun and it did no harm, then I started lobbing them on people who were driving and being buttheads and that worked… it was literally amazing to watch.

I found that like zero point energy, white light was endless, free and perfect. Things in my box of ideas grew from there. It was the beginning of my awareness education about how things work. As a child I had been an easy mark to terrify – and terrified I was, nightly. As a matter of fact, that situation led to my first contact, but I’ve written about that already. By the time I was into my teens somehow, somewhere this idea of white light had snuck into my cosmology and I began to discover it. Now it is really second nature like in my article “411” . But it all started with playing with the energy.

I don’t know what you call the stuff I do, and I don’t want to be pigeon-holed so I don’t care. I just know that it works. I live by the my-space, your-space – I won’t bother you if you won’t bother me rule… and it works. Between beings of all kinds, the ‘do unto others’ concept is golden. Period.

What I appear to be is a Tinkerbelle. Oh well… that’s in my energy. In my real life I am the crone. Believe me when I say energy and intent rule this reality, so parse your field carefully.

This is a gift. Use it. Teach it. Spread it.

I Am The Light is six statements long.

 It is the strongest protection that I have ever known and used.

I need nothing else. It can be used personally, around you, around family members and other people, pets, plants, land and vehicles. It can be extended through time for days and weeks. It is the MOST amazing piece of consciousness software I have ever encountered.

The visuals with this are what I eventually saw in my mind’s eye after using this powerful formula. The visuals can be worked with changed or discarded as seen fit.

The words create a vibratory shield that is incredibly powerful in its protection. (1)

It was given to me freely years ago, and I give it to you.


I AM the Light.

The Light is with in me.

The Light moves throughout me.

The Light surrounds me.

The Light Protects me.


This is actual energetic technology.  It is very simple.


Just say it EXACTLY as written. The frequency of each spoken statement is the crucial point. So if you are saying it silently to yourself, enunciate each word clearly, hear it ring out clearly as you speak in your head.



Each statement has an effect. I am a visual person, a visual learner, so I got pictures in my head once I memorized it and could turn my attention inside without reading it. Because each statement builds on the next, you want to say them in order. ALWAYS. Just as it is. As you use this, you will begin to ‘notice’ with your own self what it does.


Inner vision, Mind’s Eye:

Lately, I have noticed that for me, each statement calls into being the light on a dimensional level with each chakra… I think. When said personally. The Light moves, has action and has purpose according to the spoken word. Words have vast power, hook them up with intent to the light and it is amazing.


Working in Wholeness:

On one hand I think it is as all light is, an electromagnetic effect.

You create a field of vast potential.

When you use this for other than you, instead of saying ‘I’ use the name of the person, pet, plant, vehicle or place.  White in my eyes is all colors, so it holds the greatest potential and the greatest good.


I redid  the fourth fifth and sixth images this am to bring them into sync with what I am now knowing, but my graphics software is nowhere close to being able to letting me visualize it the way I really see it in my head. Paltry example…. but as close as I could get.


Those illustrations are over 20 years old, and they have changed for me. The light stays white throughout the entire sequence, on the fourth statement, ‘The Light Surrounds Me’ it moves counter clockwise like a torus over the outer sphere while running straight up the inner column. On the last statement it is just blindly huge.



What you are looking for will come looking for you…ala Nick Refern

What you are looking for will come looking for you…and what you are remote viewing can and will look back at you. If you are into the darker aspects of spooks and phenomenology, get ready, because you will find it all. I know these things all exist aaaand… yes I am terrified of them. I learned a long time ago to avoid these life forms by not walking across their path, just like you walk around a rattle snake on the path. You give it a wide berth.

It’s that time of year again, when everybody and their brother thinks it’s fun to go poking into things that are better left to their own devices. You know, there are researchers out there that are forewarned and forearmed and even they get into the occasional tight spot. Pont in case: Nick Redfern. He has been looking into this world for a long time. Even he has had some interesting times. This video was fun. All I can say is I’m glad he’s the one doing the research, not me. On this matter, I am totally an arm chair researcher – more like observer….

Either-or vs. Both-and

This has never been – ever, nor will it at any time in future be an either/or universe.

False Dilemma: (also known as: all-or-nothing fallacy, false dichotomy*, the either-or fallacy, either-or reasoning, fallacy of false choice, fallacy of false alternatives, black-and-white thinking, the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, bifurcation, excluded middle, no middle ground, polarization)

False Dilemma – Logically Fallacious

What it has always been is a both/and universe.

Try this quick experiment. Place your hand above your head as if you’re going to trace a circle on the ceiling with your index finger. Now, trace an imaginary circle in a clockwise direction. While continuing to trace the circle, slowly lower your arm so that your finger comes down to your eye level. Keep on lowering your arm until your finger is at your waist level. Now look down at the circle you’re tracing. What’s the direction? Counter-clockwise!

How can that be? The answer lies in one word: perspective. You continued to trace the circle in the same direction, but your perspective on the situation changed when you shifted from looking up to looking down at the circle. From <


So, there is a trap in black and white/either-or thinking. But as this simple experiment shows, saying that the circle is either moving clockwise or counterclockwise doesn’t represent the full situation. The trap is: being tricked into a limited perspective where we are not being shown or told the full situation for one reason.

Control. Of us.

In both-and thinking, we can see a spectrum of things which naturally will fill in the intentionally left out information. Because the truth is never going to be told, basically because the truth is the perspective of each person. Also because for some to tell the truth would mean instantaneous death on a lot of levels.

In a way both-and thinking is a bridging mechanism between things and if you use the concept correctly it can reveal all sorts of missing information.

Black and white, either-or thinking is used to hide information, to ferret snippets of ‘wow’ into corners you can’t look at or see after you have gone to one side or the other. It keeps you from looking further or it keeps you from looking at all. In fact, it is the perfect mechanism for so clouding an issue that the real issue is totally forgotten. In fact, either-or thinking requires a savior to tell you what is truth, because you absolutely can’t know a thing without the whole picture…

Both-and is inclusive, it has every shade of grey between black and white, every nuance, every what if, every ‘wow’. It causes you to see the bigger picture, it asks of you to develop the skill of observation without naming, it demands real learning within your own self, not just because somebody else said so. It asks you to look outside of the matrix, the carefully constructed box of ‘accepted’ reality.

Within the both-and paradigm is also compassion, empathy, the real heart of the matter, and understanding. It is a forerunner of coexistence and tolerance. It is definitely NOT a tool of the divide and conquer group…

There are as many sides to an issue as there are people involved plus those observing the issue. Case in point. Experiencers: as LMH is now finding out per her last weekly you tube video and as Grant Cameron has been saying for a while, we are ALL experiencers in some way or another. If you go back in your memory you will discover that moment however fleeting or current when you noticed something that happened that didn’t belong in an either-or world. The larger you make your world, the larger it becomes. Till you try to settle on one word, like consciousness only to find it’s even bigger than that… I suppose you could call that my download. One day trying to puzzle out a problem – a real stickler, I simply heard in my head, “Try, Both-And…” The flood gates opened in my mind and it was truly cool.

I will never forget it.

…try it, you’ll like it…

(simply for nostalgia: )

This is why I can be such an ass

This is a response under my article, ‘Really???‘ on Onstellar. This person is right, you know. I don’t know about the business side of stuff. This is a really good explanation.


CG has a bunch of comics coming out about the secret space program. While I haven’t read the copyright requests myself (because boring legalese), someone can trademark certain words or phrases in the context of a certain media type. IE, CG would want to patent those particular words in the context of a comic book about travels in a secret space program, in order to keep other people from ripping off his story, AND the hard work of whoever is putting the story and art together for him. It’s a basic part of intellectual property protection and law. For example: The terms “Mass effect” are trademarked to bioware in the context of a video game about space. However, I have to use the terms “mass effect” when talking and writing about certain structures on x-rays that I see almost weekly. I don’t have lawyers sending me reams of paper demanding I stop using the term because it’s copyrighted. However, I can’t go about making a video game with the same name.

Same thing with Gaia patenting the word disclosure – if they are looking to trademark it in the context of a television show about an alleged secret space program to protect their intellectual property, then they have the right to try that. Especially if they’re looking to attempt to stop people who left the show from remaking a show titled the exact same thing on a different media platform. Copyrights of particular terms in particular contexts happen every day to protect intellectual property so that people can get paid. And it’s likely not even CG or Gaia doing this themselves – they likely have a or a team of lawyers telling them that if they want to protect their work, they need to copyright x, y, and z term. And the lawyers are likely the ones writing the papers anyway.

Now if you’re really pissed about this system, don’t complain to the people using it as it’s been used a thousand times before. Start attacking our country’s intellectual property laws that have been allowed to become hopelessly abusive thanks in a large part to Mickey friggen Mouse.

From <>

I publicly announced that I was an ass in FB after I read this post explaining the business necessities of this type of thing.

Questions for Corey Goode on Disclosure, Intellectual Property Rights, Trade Marks, and Similar SSP Testimonies.

Q: Why did Corey Goode trademark terms like ‘Blue Avians’, ‘20 and Back’, ‘SSP’ (The letters ‘SSP’ not the words Secret Space Program), ‘Full Disclosure Project’ and others? Is he attempting to put a stranglehold on the disclosure community?

Answer – Corey Goode: Recent social media posts regarding business decisions that I have made to protect my name, livelihood, story, and goodwill have seemed to cause a certain level of confusion within our community. Without a cohesive knowledge of—and transparency into—the exciting and complex web of my current creative projects and the legal means undertaken to protect those projects, it is easy to see how there could be some confusion. Recently, people have noticed through the public record that I have pending federal trademarks on certain phrases. Some have made assumptions into the motives behind this standard business legal practice—a practice that is widely utilized in the media industry (and quite honestly everywhere else including this one). Protection of one’s Intellectual Property is necessary in order to provide the consuming public with the proper assurances that they are getting content that is genuine, of high quality and from a certain particular source. The use of trademark, copyright, patent and trade secret protection (collectively known as “Intellectual Property” or “IP”) ensures that both the holder of the IP rights and the consuming/creating public are protected against harm that can be caused by those wishing to take advantage of our United States’ market-based system.

My reason for filing the pending trademarks is simple: I filed trademarks on phrases and topics unique to my testimony for protection and for their use in graphic novels, feature films, and other media-based products.

The terms I have trademarked are unique to my testimony and clearly protected under U.S. IP laws. We will not only fight to preserve my testimony and IP but also for the main mission of preserving the Full Disclosure narrative that most of us have been fighting for.

This does not stop people from telling their own stories of twenty years in a clandestine/top-secret air or space-based government operation or delivering their brand of ‘fan fiction’. They are just prohibited legally from the commercial use of the keywords associated with my testimony.

We are not trying to “attempting to put a stranglehold on the disclosure community” by asserting our rights in our claimed phrases but we do have a right—and, a duty—to defend our testimony and intellectual property rights from other individuals and corporations attempting to profit off of our goodwill. Taking the secret space program topic mainstream and creating media that expands the consciousness of humanity as fast as possible is our main focus and goal.

With that goal comes responsibility, and with that responsibility comes the need for protection. I am in no way attempting to slow or halt disclosure, in fact, quite the opposite. Media content around disclosure and consciousness topics is expanding significantly. If those in this community do not protect their information and narratives, they run the risk of being taken over by writers and producers in the entertainment industry who are constantly trolling our community for creative ideas.

The more intellectual property that is stolen, misused and wrongfully profited from, the more we will see people in our community seeking these types of protections. We will find more researchers and experiencers quietly (to avoid public shaming) trademark their intellectual property in the coming months and years as they see other situations involving intellectual property play out.

The information that our community delivers is already going from ‘fringe’ to mainstream very quickly. We are seeing more and more movies and television shows use material that is obviously from some of our biggest personalities in the Ufology and Higher Consciousness community.

I understand the business side of bringing the topics of Full Disclosure and Expanding the Mass Consciousness makes many in this community uncomfortable. Most are working or even feel called to destroy the current financial control system and do all they can to take it down. The reality is, we need funding in order to get our message out. Without it, we cannot distribute our information, and everyone loses.

Our mission is to infiltrate and use the tools of the enemy against them. We will make movies and other media that are used as anti-propaganda to awaken the masses and use the media as a way to ‘red pill’ them instead.

This is a mission that is vitally important to the future timeline of humanity and one we hold in utmost importance. We are all putting our lives and reputations on the line. Both are regularly threatened by various entities and organizations that would attempt to control or oppose Full Disclosure and desperately want to sing the masses back to sleep.

Answer – Roger Richards: We are on the precipice of a sea of change in consciousness on a global scale. If you take a look around the world right now, you will see that humanity as a whole has begun to wake up collectively. The great awakening is upon us all and it is beautiful. Every bit of life on this planet is teeming with the energy from the cosmos, everything is being brought to the surface, and we are revealing all to one another. Everyone has their own missions to fulfill in the Cosmic Karma of this all. Now—more than ever—each human being on this planet is being called to the mission of disclosure, it is unstoppable and spreading like wildfire. What is your mission? What dream have you not fulfilled? What brilliant ideas are you sitting on to bring into this world? Now is the time to create and manifest these things into every aspect of the matrix, business, finance, media, clothing, advertising, music, and art. We need to infect the programming of the matrix like a mass hack into the planetary consciousness. We need to co-opt the system against itself in order to bring it down as gently as possible with love and compassion.

Q: If you are telling the truth about your testimony, wouldn’t other people step forward with the same testimony? Unless you are the only person in the ‘SSP’ and who experienced a ’20 and Back?’ So in sending a cease and desist to another whistleblower, are you not silencing them from sharing their own testimony? Regardless if you believe them or not, should they not be allowed to share their perspectives so we can discern the truth for ourselves?

Answer – Corey Goode: The SSP Alliance and I knew others would step forward with similar testimony for sure. If they were real insiders they would not only be on the asset roles that the SSP Alliance has access to but would also know that certain information I have given in my testimony are phrases I was told to create to be associated with certain SSP terms and topics publicly.

For example, the SSP Alliance knew that disinformation campaigns would be used against genuine insiders and used a common military intelligence tactic of taking a program name or topic, replacing it with a placeholder name and use that placeholder name as a part of the testimony. This is to give an extra layer of protection to the SSP Alliance, and their sources and methods, as well as keep the heaviest heat off of assets who are disseminating information to the public.

For example, I was approached by a retired Air Force Surgeon, who I call ‘Bones’, who claimed to have been in a program that sounded exactly like the one I had described except he remembered it being called a different name. Furthermore, he was in the programs during the same time I was.

So, when people come forward using some of the terms and project names I use it is an immediate red flag. I then follow up with the SSP Alliance to verify if the people were indeed in the programs. So far, Bones and one other are the only people that have passed that test. He chooses to remain anonymous for now but has been able to provide more information on this program than any in the SSP Alliance had known prior. He provided that program’s asset roles that went back nearly 80 years as well as vital intel about its organizational structure.

I know as our movies begin to come out there will be more and more who use my testimony as a scaffolding upon which to attach their own narratives. This type of ‘Fan Fiction’ will only increase. This is dangerous to the true Full SSP Disclosure narrative but is something that will continue. Those who chose to create these stories will have to do so without using my testimony and protected terms and content. The only way I can ensure that the community receives the true and correct testimony that I have brought forth is by way of policing its quality standards and use.

From <[0]=68.ARDEqPmcx6iRrbfU7X2l4obbdIWgDJZ-fxk3Zxj_3mFxhh4v_EO6_zxSqychgB8CmTEsMixdI6cEdE7cLRyBUrPBMp_tpqdNvUePG8-hkEO64vp3Iu9Bf6g5KOld7Sc0mMphVbHZ-Ue_0UWpVIl248JwtklrtD9h_3krUlE8ionP7EYRGQDKGsg6vnw8RaIHasJ3FjQM6asRvQ&__tn__=C-R>


This is why I only write an opinionated blog. I’m a cranky old woman that had hopes of seeing some progress in the ‘Truth Embargo’ before I died. I know nothing about making money or business and truthfully I’d live under a bridge somewhere if the quality of my life depended on making money. I’m old. What I do is take care of people and animals and cook and clean and make beds and chase after grands… mundane everyday things. I guess you could assign a dollar value to what I do – most people paying for those services end up paying quite a lot. But I wouldn’t know. I suppose you could say I try to provide a good quality to life for those that I love.

Business has always escaped me. It’s a ‘stupid’ factor I have. Sometimes that can make me look like a real ass. Especially when an issue as important as ‘Disclosure’ is the center point. To that, in a way my bog post on trademarks was unkind, but in a way not. We go about our daily business, me fixing and cleaning and pondering life, my husband going to a nine to five job at a desk, and there is much we don’t see about the whole world. There is much about how things work, that I am totally clueless about. However, when I can see this world crumbling before my eyes becoming a place that my beloved children and grands are going to have to survive in, one way or another, I get testy. Yes I do.

We do not have the time to waste – and yet we need to take the time. We need to take the time to make sure that in telling the truth we do not do more damage than absolutely necessary. And yet, here we are at the precipice – walking Occam’s razor discovering there is NO easy answer.

In come the people who are trying to educate us and helping us to dream a better dream. Whomever they are, they are moving us forward, whatever you think of their personal life, they are working for mankind in opening our hearts and minds to really see what we are dealing with (whatever you think that is they made you look) – and if you have ever, in your heart of hearts dreamt of something better, then they have put those dreams into a more solid form – even if you don’t agree with the way they saw it, you then had a platform to begin your own dreams. They made you think. They made you wonder. They cracked open the door a bit and let some hope in, even for the peanut gallery, the normies, because of how far they were able to reach into society.

Aaaand, it takes business savvy to beat the establishment at their own game. That takes really monstrously good business savvy.

So, I might have been an ass – but of course I was, and an opinionated one at that – I was cranky. Cranky because I want to see this happen NOW. Much the same that Bob Dean did – before he passed on. Cranky because I’m gonna have to leave before the answer – the last chapter is written. Cranky because this is going to take generations more than the obvious three it’s been already.

I just hope we make it. I guess I’ll have to believe Bob Dean when he said he knew we would.