The Plunge Protection Team Wags the Dog with Futures to Manipulate Stock Markets and Bitcoin

12 Comments

I was surprised after all these years to find a major conspiracy theory that doesn’t have a lame debunking article on Wikipedia.

Now that I’ve found one, I’m hopeful that Wikipedia is getting the message: People won’t support censorship outfits like yours, because you’re often wrong about important things (same as me and everyone else).

The non-debunked conspiracy theory I’m talking about is the real-world function of the The Working Group, also known as the “Plunge Protection Team.” The PTT was set up on March 18, 1988, by Ronald Reagan in response to “Black Monday” (October 19, 1987) when the stock market did a one-day black swan dive, the likes of which had never been seen before. This titanic yet brief crash was due to programmed trading by the primitive software of the era.

The Working Group’s existence is mainstream knowledge. Its official marching orders included this admonition: “consult, as appropriate, with representatives of the various exchanges, clearinghouses, self-regulatory bodies, and with major market participants [big stock traders] to determine private sector solutions wherever possible.”

In other words, “Now hear this: all you governmental market regulators and massive non-government stock trading institutions (the 16-ish Fed-favored banks and the gigantic funds like BlackRock, Vanguard, Charles Schwab, State Street Global Advisors, and Fidelity Investments), the new 1988 official government policy is that you people WILL artificially prop up the US stock market during major crashes. Capeesh?”

OK, that’s a paraphrase, but it’s the message.

Ten years later in 1997, The Washington Post came up with the nick name for The Working Group: “The Plunge Protection Team.” Soon other people woke up to the reality that the US stock market is being propped up artificially during downturns in response to an official government mandate.

One of these awakening elites was, in fact, a former FED member, Robert Heller, who not only believed that the whole fraud was happening, but he thought it was a good idea and suggested a better way to dishonestly and covertly prop up a falling US stock market…

To quote Wikipedia (gag me): “Former Federal Reserve Board member Robert Heller, in the Wall Street Journal, opined that ‘Instead of flooding the entire economy with liquidity, and thereby increasing the danger of inflation [as Joe Biden recently did and Trump before him], the Fed could support the stock market directly by buying market averages in the futures market [the S&P 500 futures contract, symbol ES], thereby stabilizing the market as a whole.'” (This has nasty implications for Bitcoin, by the way.)

The thing these sorts of well-meaning experts don’t realize (or more likely they do realize it as part of their plan) is that when a country’s government takes over private enterprise, you’re left with a totalitarian government. Simple as that. Whether it’s communist or fascist makes little difference to the millions of people they tend to exterminate.

Knowing (from their dealings with England) all about the totalitarian instinct that dominates ALL human organizations from Christian Churches to secular Kingdoms, the “Founding Fathers” of the US did their best to segregate the forces of central power, giving us the separation of law makers, law enforcers, judges, and arguably “church and state” to some degree. Remember this old quote from the day they founded the USA:

“Well Doctor, what we got, a republic or a monarchy?”

“A republic,” replied the Doctor, “if you can keep it.”

Keeping it is today’s colossal struggle. It ain’t looking good, folks.

Today’s power-monopoly that the “Founding Fathers” couldn’t foresee and avoid was the takeover of the US government by corporate industry (through re-election bribes and threats) and the simultaneous government takeover of asset control by strong-arming the largest market participants with the creation of the Plunge Protection Team and its official mandate (to fight market crashes by “temporarily” ending free markets in the US).

The US experiment in freedom has been sweet, but it will be brief unless we citizens wise up in a superhuman way and stop voting for people who promise to give us expensive things that our great grandchildren will have to pay for, including the mainstream mirage of an eternally expanding money supply (through debt and central control).

The sweetness of free markets in the US is this: they have lifted the vast majority of poor people from life-threatening poverty into a relatively starvation-free type of poverty where obesity is now a problem among the poor. As far as I know, free markets are the only human experiment that has accomplished this incredibly hopeful feat. All other attempts, including communism, have failed miserably.

I suspect the success of free markets comes from the way they inspire people to work harder than they ever have before. We’ve seen this in real-time in China, for example, when they opened the doors a narrow crack to free market enterprise. In record time their country’s GDP skyrocketed and the poor began climbing out of poverty. Lately, unfortunately, the Chinese Communist Party has been frightened by the whole thing and seems to have pulled the rug out from under their own economy, but who knows what the truth really is in China?

The answer is, only their “president,” Xi Jinping, who has recently become a life-long dictator in response to his own human greed for power and control. He alone knows China’s truth because totalitarian governments throughout history have considered lies an essential tool, not an ethical gray area, and certainly not an inherently destructive force that destroys trust, trustworthiness, and love, the foundations of every stable culture, marriage, and friendship on Earth.

I think it’s well to remember that our loss of free markets in the US (and the resulting loss of the true democracy we once had) is just as likely to have happened as a manifestation of either

1. unintended consequences of well-meaning experts, or

2. the planned, bloodless takeover of western democracies by tyrants, possibly communists from China and Russia, and/or the well-intentioned sociopaths who run the World Economic Forum and seem blind to the “unintended” negative consequences of their wonderful sounding plans and dreams for a top-down utopia (owned and operated by wealthy stakeholders).

Hey, Klaus Schwab, the world has tried every sort of pseudo-democracy with wealthy elites running things. It does not work. Totalitarianism does not work, dude.

No matter who winds up at the top, the outcome is never sweet for the poor and the middle class.

Ironically, many, if not the vast majority of people in the US who openly favor totalitarianism are good-hearted, smart people whose sincere desire is to elevate the poor. But thinking critically about complex human systems while trying to see both sides of a political argument was not part of their education because US public schools and universities don’t allow it on campus.

At the moment, the latest addition to the “tools” of the Plunge Protection Team is the Reverse-repo Market that was created in recent years and later began collecting trillions of dollars in deposits from the FED-favored banks after the FED raised the free money (interest rates) they donate to their powerful puppets.

And since “there’s no free lunch” in this world, these lucky puppet banks, being part of the Plunge Protection Team, will be called upon to support the stock market when it crashes in 2023.

But they won’t be buying individual stocks or unleveraged exchange traded funds (ETFs).

Instead, as Robert Heller suggested (linked above), the Fed’s pet banks and obligated trading firms will simultaneously prop up the US stock market by buying stock index futures (mainly the ES). What Heller didn’t know is that they will also sell short the futures contracts of one specific asset that the public presently despises.

I’m talking Bitcoin. The government’s machine will be selling Bitcoin futures.

Here’s why.

The totalitarian instinct of all human institutions will kick in when they realize that Bitcoin could limit their plans for top-down micromanagement of the US citizen’s spending habits.

The US government is moving towards a central bank digital currency (CBDC) that will give them total financial surveillance over citizens as well as the ability to influence our spending and savings through “incentives” like “spend it now or lose it” and “you bought too much meat and used too much electricity last week, a $666.00 fine has been deducted from your account. Sincerely, Klaus Schwab.”

This hellish CBDC reality is on the way. If you’re a Democrat, imagine Trump wielding this kind of power. If you’re a Republican, imagine Biden with this level of instant and direct control over your bottom line.

The only competition to a US CBDC today is Bitcoin. It can’t be outlawed by the The Securities and Exchange Commission because (unlike Ethereum and nearly all other cryptocurrencies) Bitcoin is not a security, it’s an asset, vaguely resembling a platonic form of gold, and it’s 100% the opposite of a central bank digital currency because it cannot be artificially created or destroyed.

When the folks at the FED begin promoting their CBDC, they will need a way to keep the price of Bitcoin from rising and attracting the buying power of the masses. Before long, they will remember brother Heller’s advice on how to do this devious thing most efficiently by SELLING Bitcoin futures contracts (BTCZ2).

Bitcoin’s “tail”, the Bitcoin Futures contract, is so highly leveraged that big money can use it to manipulate the underlying asset (actual Bitcoin) and “wag the dog” with relatively small amounts of money. They don’t have to buy up most of the Bitcoin to corner the market and then trickle-dump a bit of it every time Bitcoin’s price rises. That plan was so last week. Today…

Big trading firms and Fed-funded banks working together in silent but legally mandated conspiracy can move the broader stock market indices, according to former FED member Heller.

And since they can do that, we know they can certainly control the price of Bitcoin and stop it from competing with CBDC and limiting the grip of the FED’s exciting new totalitarian powers, delivered to them through the glorious miracle of central bank digital currency.

Why do these things happen?

Well, some people probably come into this simulated version of Reality to learn what it feels like to be a power-hungry control freak in order to avoid being this way when they “die” and return to Reality.

The rest of us probably volunteered to come here for reasons specific to us and to those we love.

“To everything…There is a season…And a time to every purpose under Heaven.”

Hang tough and keep your faith in God, whatever worldview details you believe.

…

Decentralized Love,

Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD

First-principle thinking on Bitcoin and Banks

3 Comments

Drawing from the video below, consider this:

If you parked your car at a fancy restaurant, gave your keys to the valet, went in for dinner and the restaurant went bankrupt while you finished your Tiramisu, you could still legally step outside, grab your car keys and drive home. The vehicle was your property the whole time you were eating, even though you gave the keys to the valet. Common sense prevails in this situation because elites don’t enrich themselves by complicating it. But…

The opposite is true at your bank and in your brokerage account. Your property rights in these arenas are NOT respected because slick predators have greased the wheels of Congress for a long time and have gained the legal right to take your money, your stocks and your bonds and use them as if they owned them. They can lend them out, leverage them, create derivatives from them and use them for collateral in their own investing and horse trading. When they go bankrupt, you can’t legally grab your car keys and drive off with what you thought was your property (your money, stocks and bonds). Heck no. You gave them ownership. They robbed you with a fountain pen as Bob Dylan called it years ago when he left New York.

Common sense and fairness mean nothing to corporate and institutional thieves because they “own” Congress through huge campaign donations and their revolving-door job policy for retired lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle, senators and congresspersons who created laws for them during their DC “public-service” careers.

The unfair, illogical practice of legal hypothetical ownership ought to have a name that people can remember, but no, it’s called hypothecation. The term seems to derive from the notion that an institution that borrows an asset (i.e. “holds” your money or your stocks for you) actually takes “hypothetical” (imaginary but legal) ownership of the thing they borrowed from you. If they go belly up, they don’t owe you a thing. All that stuff they lost was legally their own property. Your assets became legally theirs to lose when you signed below the fine print.

And you probably had no idea you were making a loan at all, let alone a stupid loan that gave them legal ownership of your property.

Truth is stranger than fiction, again and again. Red pills all around.

It’s as if you gave your keys to the valet and signed a document you didn’t have time to read or the vocabulary to understand and BOOM, the valet owned your car in hypothetical but legally binding terms. And that young kid can now go out and drive your Bentley, trade it, sell it, lend it to someone, or smash it into a brick wall and it’s all cool in court because you signed your name to the IOU below the strange word hypothecation.

Let’s forget the word hypothecation, then. It’s too much like the term UAP (unidentified aerial phenomenon), it was created to hide the truth.

Instead, let’s call it “H” (like heroin, close to pure evil).

As the video below explains, H happens like this: I borrow a candy bar from you and give you an IOU, then I loan the candy bar out to someone else who loans it out to someone else…. This goes on until your candy bar has been loaned out many times, creating the false impression that there are dozens of new candy bars in existence now, not just the one. This false impression of many new candy bars tends to lower the value (or price) of real candy bars via the market forces of supply and demand. (Banks do this with the dollars you “loan” them, reducing the buying power of real dollars, i.e. causing inflation.) At some point in the candy bar borrowing market, someone eats the candy bar and it’s gone forever. All the IOU’s are suddenly worthless. Everybody in the trail of debt (multiple IOU’s) has just experienced the legalized theft of their candy bar, made possible by the evil and absurd legality of H (hypothetical ownership).

Incidentally, the “person” who finally ate the stale candy bar will probably be the only one who gets bailed out by us tax payers because he/she/it will be considered “too big to fail” by DC lawmakers who are too busy raising campaign funds to sit down, read a book and educate themselves on money and macroeconomics. These people are not dumb, they’re just busy, dishonest materialists and variably “owned” by the heartless money machines we call giant corporations. And as you know, we’re talking about the “ownership” of all DC Democrats and Republicans, including your favorite, the cute ones and the ugly, tough, no-nonsense ones alike. Statistics might argue that there must be a good politician somewhere in DC. Fine, but it’s not apt to be the ones you and I keep voting back into office decade after decade as both sides continue to spend our grandchildren into poverty and lethal debt.

We should vote them ALL out at once. Both sides and soon. Then work together across the aisle with loving respect for all political ideas and opponents on both sides.

Here’s a video interview of a brilliant woman, Caitlin Long, the Founder & CEO of Custodia Bank, a next-generation Bank designed for a different world in which Bitcoin and it’s rapidly maturing Lightning Network will hopefully save us from our tradition of legalized theft through H (hypothetical ownership). Caitlin Long, by the way, predicted the fall of FTX way back in 2018, but she’s not a prophet, she an objective thinker who understands money better than the rest of us. Ya really gotta hear this woman explain things! Wow.

There are many people who just naturally tend to see the foundational causes of humanity’s big problems. They’re first-principal thinkers. They understand both the forest and the trees. This gives them an enviable talent for true objectivity in evaluating problems and pinpointing root causes.

Just as Elon Musk does this with technology and Ivor Cummins with Type 2 Diabetes and atherosclerotic heart disease, Caitlin Long is doing it now with Bitcoin, Banking and the problems created by fiat currencies.

She’s a new person on my radar, so check her out for yourself. Maybe I’m overly impressed or star-struck, but I doubt it after listening to her interview above.

…

Common Sense Love,

Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD

“Every good tree bears good fruit.” – the Nazarene

Leave a comment

I just finished watching a video documentary that connected a lot of depressing dots between Hollywood, the news media, the giant corporations that censor free speech, a global cult of powerful religious pedophiles, and the apparent partial takeover of the CIA by Nazis who were brought into the US after WWII via “Project Paperclip.”

There’s no end to real (as best I can tell) conspiracies where powerful people hurt the rest of us through brainwashing, legalized theft, child trafficking, etc., etc.

And seriously, kudos to the brave people who offer us the red-pill. It’s a valuable perspective. But…

Do I really want to focus on evil right now? Do you?

Maybe it’s time to think about something astonishingly wonderful.

Consider this energetic young man, Paul Rosolie, who’s living big in Peru, doing something of epic value for humanity in the Amazon Rainforest. His life-and-death encounters are spellbinding and should rattle the cages of us complacent US citizens.

While I was watching this, I had to remind myself that nobody’s right about everything. Sure this busy kid briefly disrespects the great Gram Handcock at one point in the video. I can forgive him for a lot more than that. If only Paul were a bit older and wiser, though, he’d realize that Gram Handcock is on his side in his planet-saving work and would promote Paul’s story to Gram’s huge audience of independent thinkers with no hesitation. If only.

But nobody’s perfect. People like me have to remind ourselves of this because…

If your friends and lovers have to be perfect, you’ll soon have no friends or lovers. Same deal with worldviews. If your religious or spiritual worldview has to be perfect, you’ll either live in chronic denial to stay semi-connected to a group, or you’ll find yourself behind closed doors singing alone over your new acoustic carbon guitar, “But I’m near the end and just ain’t got the time, And I’m wasted and I can’t find my way home.”

Please find the time to listen to Paul Rosolie’s whole video interview and see if it doesn’t help you find your way home to your tribe. You’ll probably feel inspired and hopeful. And maybe you could check out his website here and join him. Or at least forward his video (or this post) to three of your truest friends. One of them will probably thank you profusely.

…

Oxygen Love,

Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD

Private Text Messages Devastate Scientists’ Authority

10 Comments

In a recent analysis of COVID origins, Dr. Campbell regrets his previous trust in the two most authoritative and prestigious scientific journals on Earth: Nature and Lancet.

You can sense the shame he feels in the video linked here as he first explains the 2020 version of mainstream science and then compares that mess to what has come out now and can no longer be completely blocked by the woke kids at Google’s Ministry of Censorship.

Bottom line: The lack of intermediate COVID-19 viral forms, the lack of multiple independent breakouts of initial viral illness, and several other scientific data points combine to force the conclusion that the Wuhan COVID-19 virus did, despite mainstream denials in the past, truly originate in the Wuhan Lab. There’s no longer room for rational doubt, as best I can tell.

But wait! That’s not what I’m writing to you about.

Yes, John Campbell, PhD believes that the big lesson for him in this ugly fiasco is he needs to learn to think for himself more, rather than always trusting the highest scientific authorities to be honest, transparent, unbiased, and accurate in their peer-reviewed journal articles.

I agree with John, but that’s not why I’m writing. And yes, I suspect that all of us will learn the same lesson eventually, but that’s not my point either.

Nothing is perfect. The failures of mainstream science don’t justify throwing it out and adopting the view that each person’s version of reality will bend to his or her own beliefs, demands and expectations. Sure, your energy will cause people to either like you and treat you favorably or reject you, and this may feel as if the universe bends to your will, but beneath and beyond the huge benefits of being an energetically (“vibrationally”) attractive person, the laws of this universe rarely bend for anyone. Miracles can happen, yes. But they’re rare. Even though, from a scientific and spiritual perspective, I think we live in a universe that should be conceptualized as a quasi-material replica of an underlying truer Reality (a semi-physical simulation), I don’t think our natural laws such as gravity are likely to reverse for me or you if we can just “truly believe.” Genuine miracles (i.e. the suspension of natural laws) are probably just as rare as they seem.

The laws of this replica we call the Universe were derived from intelligently selected cosmic constants that operate in a cause-and-effect framework with rare exceptions. These natural conditions bring outcomes that sometimes seem fair and politically correct but quite often feel unfair and outrageous. As best I can tell, the benevolent Being(s) who designed this place continue to “allow” horrible suffering because we asked for it as part of a learning experience and/or because our collective free will must be allowed to play out in pure cause-and-effect without interference from the designer(s) and code writer(s) living in Reality.

Whatever our spiritual or scientific theories project, the natural scientific rules underlying a disaster here on Earth cannot be changed much by wishful thinking. Therefore, in the future, many lives will depend upon how wisely, honestly, and openly our scientists are allowed to debate the data and “conspiracy theories” surrounding the next global catastrophe whether it turns out to be a nuclear accident, another viral “accident,” a natural weather disaster, a volcanic winter, a rogue AI, or something like the 1859 Carrington Event (solar flare/ storm) that’s thought to be periodic and overdue to hit Earth again while the geomagnetic shield is weak.

Will scientists and politicians pursue the truth however unpleasant or unpopular?

Or will they once again put political ambition above the hunt for valuable truths? Will scientists openly debated and come to a rational consensus or will they shrink into silent compliance with the censorship that modern society and corporate power favored during the COVID fiasco?

We’ll have to wait and see.

But either way, you and I should learn to question mainstream “settled science” in a balanced way that avoids our bivalent human tendency to swing like a pendulum from one extreme to the other…

“Scientists ain’t one iota different from them stinking, lying politicians.”

Sure, we’ve been brutally let down by medicine’s anti-science COVID response of censorship and zero informed consent when administering poorly studied experimental mRNA vaccines. But I doubt anyone reading this feels like some young lover in a break up. Yeah, science has cheated on us and must now gradually admit it despite the silence of the mainstream media. (See the 2020 text messages from key scientists, released under the Freedom of Information Act as detailed in Dr. Campbell’s video.)

But this is not a breakup with science. We’re adults, most of us. Even some of us Crybaby Boomers are growing up a little, I want to think. We’re learning to wrestle with our own biases and sacred-cow fundamentalisms both scientific and spiritual. We’re learning to see the U-shaped curve of political truth within this simulation: The extremes on both sides are valuable for perspective but toxic to human life without the voices of the opposite toxic extreme for balance. Both extremes are needed to find non-toxic conclusions, rules and behaviors. This is why Democrats and Republicans need each other desperately. This is why the anti-spiritual “scientific” materialists and all of us spiritual people on Earth need each other desperately. Left alone to dominate, we’re all toxic to human life, even though most of us are convinced that we have the corner on THE truth.

And let’s just admit it, humans require an unquestionable (if untestable) worldview of some sort. It’s in our nature.

For 2/3’s of scientists, it’s the anti-spiritual foundation of “scientific” materialism: a mindless universe.

For spiritual people, it’s usually a rejection of materialism that’s replaced by a worldview that allows something or Someone somewhere to be literally composed of something other than (or in addition to) mindless, meaningless matter and energy.

Spiritual worldviews tend to boil down to this: “consciousness is fundamental, not matter and energy” or “our universe is a simulation of an actual Reality” or “God transcends time and space but remains in personal contact with us.” My own spiritual fundamentalism encompasses all of these theories, and like you, I feel confident I’m right.

But the fact remains that, like you, I’m often wrong about important things. Can we both admit it?

At the worldview level we’re all pretty much doomed to being fundamentalists whether we’re “scientific” materialists or some version of spiritual or religious folk.

Rarely someone with a materialist worldview will switch sides, perhaps after a near-death experience or after seeing the solar system from space. (I’m thinking of the astronaut and scientist, Edgar Mitchell, PhD).

But whatever side we’re currently on, we tend to remain there. And virtually no one is a lifelong worldview fence-sitter. We decide if the Cosmos is spiritual or non-spiritual, then we dig in to that position and hang on like ticks on a dog.

This truth about human nature limits us as scientists because the ideal scientist would be someone who is always ready, willing and able to follow the data wherever it leads and report it with transparency even when it contradicts a “known” scientific, political, or spiritually established “fact.”

Since we’re all hampered by this biased human nature we share, we should each strive to avoid dogmatism and superficial rejection of new ideas and outlying data points. We should avoid blocking or silencing “pseudoscientists” or non-scientists or scientists working outside of their own specialties. When these people claim to have shocking new data and opinions that look like conspiracy theories and fabrications, we should pride ourselves in listening carefully to them with open-minded hope rather than ego-driven, angry, rude skepticism. Only after listening and weighing things thoroughly should we allow ourselves to make an initial tentative judgement against a new or unpopular scientific idea.

And we must base our judgments on careful analysis of the details, and express those details in written arguments rather than following the anti-scientific modern movement of attacking the individual with angry negative references to his or her educational background, sanity, political stance, or other forms of lazy, unscientific, and scientifically irrelevant political tactics that avoid substantive debate.

Total rejection of new ideas within five to ten minutes of hearing them is a pretty good sign that you’re acting as an enemy of science, not a friend. This is true for materialist scientists as well as for spiritual people, including the minority of scientists with spiritual worldviews because…

Breakthroughs routinely come from fresh minds thinking about unexpected outlying data points, and from brilliant rogues who cross the boundaries of specialization to find an unexpected, disturbing synthesis. Established authorities tend to reject everything these box-free thinkers put in front of them (in less than five minutes because they “can tell” at a glance it’s all rubbish).

An ideal scientist would welcome anything that doesn’t fit his or her “known” truths. The history of science makes this clear.

The same holds true, in my humble and yet infallible opinion, for spiritual people who place actual truth above their desire to corner “the truth” as revealed in the sacred literature of their culture. Christians like me, for example, would do well to absorb a broad and conflicting array of near-death experiences, asking ourselves why God would provide humanity with these life-changing, usually love-filled experiences where the worldview details of religion are usually specific to the person’s religious culture.

And there seems to be no “evolutionary advantage” to having a near-death experience. Instead, the NDE speaks to us of the benevolence of the Being(s) beyond who must have been motivated to give each individual a tailor-made “exit protocol” from this simulated life and into the next life.

Just as all humans, including scientists, are fundamentalists at the worldview level, all humanity are scientists at the worldview level in the sense that we all want the ultimate truth, especially if it agrees with what we already think we know to be true.

So here’s my point:

Spiritual and/or religious people would do well to emulate Dr. Campbell in his crisis of (scientific) faith and trust. For most scientists, their “Bible” (or “Koran” or “Mahabharata” or “Book of Mormon,” etc.) is the collective peer-reviewed scientific literature. That’s the “word of God” to scientists. When this Literature proved to be dangerously inaccurate on an important issue, Dr. Campbell didn’t throw all scientific literature out the window and become anti-science, he simply became more determined to think for himself and grow beyond his (now embarrassingly naive) total trust of scientific authorities.

As spiritual/ religious people, there will come a time when our sacred literature will prove to be grossly inaccurate about something important to us. It will be something that disrupts our smug worldviews.

For example, the existence of non-human, non-angelic, non-demonic, non-jinn beings with various motivations, some benevolent, some not, will almost certainly become obvious and undeniable to us all eventually. If you don’t already suspect that these beings are here now, then try to imagine it becoming undeniably real for you next Friday afternoon. For many, especially for those of us who are Christians, this new data point about the Universe will contradict what we’ve learned (at the worldview level) from our sacred scriptures. For example, “Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”

If and when people from another planet come here with the recorded histories of thousands, perhaps billions of other planets, each with a history going back for millions if not billions of years, and yet none of them has ever heard the story or the name of Jesus of Nazareth, what then?

The logical, scientific, and truly spiritual thing to do will be to follow John Campbell’s example and strive to think more for ourselves while becoming less naively trusting of Earth’s top church authorities and their claims to the one and only infallible, inerrant scripture, applicable throughout the universe.

Our bivalent human tendency for simple heuristic thinking will try to kick in and cause us to reject the Bible entirely and become some new form of “scientific” materialist living in a universe without personhood at its foundation.

An example of this happening now is the likeable and courageous Paul Wallis, a former mainstream Christian Church pastor and expert in ancient Biblical languages who has followed truth no matter where it might lead.

Rather than avoiding or denying the problems he had discovered over the years in the translation of key Biblical words like “Elohim” in the Old Testament (OT), he pursued the truth and uncovered the apparent re-writing of the Old Testament in ancient times (about 600 BC).

In short, he became convinced that the Old Testament was rewritten from older documents about Extraterrestrials visiting Earth to the monotheistic narrative we have today.

Personally, I like this idea because it solves problems I’ve had for decades about some of the violence ascribed to the OT “God” who supposedly ordered Israel to attack neighboring cities and kill all their people.

For me, the New Testament Jesus gives a largely opposite and much more accurate view of God’s character and personality than the OT. Now I have a logical explanation. No problem.

But for Mr. Wallis, the shock of his discovery has taken him from a non-materialist worldview in which the universe was created by a Being who is a Divine Person to the opposite pole of “scientific” materialism in which the universe was “created” by a zero-point field or “Source” that’s without personhood.

Remarkably, while making this shift, he has maintained much of the language and feel of a spiritual worldview.

I’m still supporting Paul with my small donations, even though I disagree with the direction he’s heading in his view of God, which, as best I can tell, is a non-being sort of energy field with no personality, no power of choice, no wants or desires, and no ability to hear anyone’s prayers.

To me, the core of the spiritual journey is talking to a Supreme Being who hears what I’m saying, understands my language, and cares about me personally. I’m not worried about the question of miracles or whether our free will causes God to limit his actions within the Universe. And I don’t need God to be Santa Claus, to have a gender, or to be one, two, or three Divine Persons.

All I need is a Personal Supreme Being(s) who’s overflowing with love and trustworthiness.

But I continue to listen to people who want a non-being in charge of a meaningless universe because the broader my perspective becomes, the more likely I’ll derive an accurate worldview. (Assuming truth actually does come to us in a U-shaped dose-response curve. I’m betting it does.)

…

Worldview love,

Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD