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.
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.)
As Mary Shelley, author of Frankenstein (1918) wrote (in the introduction to the 1831 edition): “I did not sleep, nor could I be said to think. My imagination, unbidden, possessed and guided me, gifting the successive images that arose in my mind with a vividness far beyond the usual bounds of reverie. I saw — with shut eyes, but acute mental vision — I saw the pale student of unhallowed arts kneeling beside the thing he had put together. I saw the hideous phantasm of a man stretched out, and then, on the working of some powerful engine, show signs of life, and stir with an uneasy, half vital motion. Frightful must it be, for supremely frightful would be the effect of any human endeavour to mock the stupendous mechanism of the Creator of the world.”
So far the virus has NOT escaped the lab to infect the human population. But the science behind the humanization of lab mice tells us that if this fine young chimera should ever escape, it will likely make the COVID-19 pandemic look like a dress rehearsal for a pandemic with a truly high kill rate, a kill rate that’s high from a historic perspective.
Here’s a PhD medical educator from across the pond, a guy who has been 100% pro-vaccine forever and has only recently had a few science-based, calm, and rational second thoughts on that topic after a bit of stunning Pfizer data finally came out. Those second thoughts earned him the gentle censorship of YouTube’s Woke AI who was overhead saying, “Ya gotta sing with the choir, dude.”
Of course Wikipedia, a cult of nuance-blind splitters who see everything in black-and-white, has dismissed John Campbell as “misinformation.” If their blatant idiocy sways you even slightly nowadays, you need a brain transplant as badly as I do. But whatever…
Here’s John inadvertently telling us exactly how bold and undeterred the gain-of-function labs of our dear Global Overseers have remained, even after the evidence now arguably favors an interpretation of a Wuhan gain-of-function laboratory accident starting the whole COVID pandemic.
If you’re like me and care more about your loved ones than your reputation, send this post (or a link to John Campbell’s video) to the ones you love via email and ask them to send it to all their friends and loved ones. Perhaps if enough people hear of this, someone will start a movement to wake congress up to their primary purpose for existing: protecting citizens through reasonable laws (as opposed to spending our money and trading against us with insider information.)
And if you ever pray, pray that this new virus, invented right here in the good old USA, never escapes the lab.
And pray that no psychotic lab worker, living under the stress of publish-or-perish, ever snaps and deliberately releases this monster into the environment. Trying to feed a family from within the system of academic research is probably one of the most stressful jobs available. It puts a person into survival mode where fear of failure can cause a person without solid moral values (like a scientific materialist, which most of them are) to work on an immoral project involving viral gain-of-function.
By the way, when I was young I read that “prayer is talking to God as to a friend.” As a (retired) scientist now, this definition and mindset still makes total and complete sense to me.
I’ve been having skipped heart beats since I caught two “flu” bugs months ago. One or both of these was probably Omicron COVID.
With the current mysterious spike in deaths of unknown etiology killing healthy middle-aged people, I’m concerned about dying suddenly from either a long-COVID cardiac arrhythmia or possibly as a side effect of the two mRNA vaccine jabs I took over a year ago. (Uncancelled scientists are beginning to talk about mRNA vaccine side effects now. Another “crazy conspiracy theory” has gone mainstream and so far appears to be fundamentally true.)
With sudden death in the back of my mind, I felt that I should document the lessons I’ve learned about day trading in case my son or daughter ever develops an interest. I was about to send them a series of detailed emails that would likely sit in their Gmail archives indefinitely, but then it dawned on me that you might be genuinely interested. Times are tough and will deteriorate from here with the inglorious FED and their co-conspiring central bankster friends siphoning the purchasing power of fiat currencies from middle-class taxpayers around the world. So…
Sincere Caveat first: None of this is financial advice, of course. It’s just me trying to teach my adult kids something interesting and potentially useful. It’s all new to them now. I’m not a professional financial advisor. I’m not even a successful trader. But I’ve had the rare luck of meeting two successful day traders in my life. I also suspect that I’m far more objective than your average source of information because I happen to come from a profession (surgical pathology and cytopathology) where ego-detached objectivity was absolutely crucial to diagnostic accuracy, and diagnostic accuracy affected patient survival directly and routinely. So perhaps my opinions on day trading are worth hearing if you’re interested in money. But remember this: financial futures are leveraged trading vehicles. This means that anyone trading them, including you, can and almost certainly will lose every penny in your trading account at least once before you either give up or get lucky and discover one of the rare narrow paths to lasting success. Stats of unknown validity show that you will almost certainly give up after losing money. Worse yet, it’s possible to lose more money than you have in your account due to the inherent leverage of futures contracts. They say that “hard stops” (placed in the market with each entry order) will help prevent this disaster during ordinary market conditions, but human errors also happen, so there are no guarantees coming from anyone in the industry and certainly not from me. And you should know going into this that you will definitely make trading errors, especially when you’re first learning, but even years later when you’re tired, bored, sick, distracted by passionate romance, depressed over a breakup, etc. So if you’re going to do this, you MUST paper trade before trading with “real” fiat money. You cannot safely jump into futures trading with real money unless you’re so wealthy that losing thousands of dollars feels about the same to you as buying a cup of Starbucks coffee. If you’re that rich, you’ve probably got a room full of professional day traders working for you already and you probably don’t even know it. But for the rest of us, only trade with money you can easily afford to lose. That’s realistic.
With that caveat, you’re wondering why I would ever bother my son and daughter about day trading. Fair enough…
The decision to trade futures, or to do anything that’s extremely difficult, attracts certain people. For these folk, the path of greatest resistance and difficulty seems like the correct path, or even the very thing God wants them to do next. For people with this tendency, no one can dissuade them. Ambition kicks in and the decision has been made. Advising them to forget day trading would be like trying to talk a college student out of becoming an MD once they’ve had “the calling.” It’s futile unless you start trying to talk them out of it from the time they’re toddlers and never stop talking. Even then, it likely won’t work. If they’re prone to take difficult and ambitious paths, they will either fail and change their own minds or hang tough year after difficult year and eventually succeed.
Trading futures for a living looks ridiculously easy until you try it. People tell us that 90 to 95% of those who attempt it will wind up losing money and quitting. Personally I’d guess that 99.9% fail, but who’s studied it scientifically and published the results in a peer-reviewed journal? At least everyone agrees it’s not “something easy to catch.” A person attempting this profession must work hard for years and somehow be fortunate enough to discover one of the rare strategies that connects experience to lasting success. (Temporary success, by contrast, is relatively easy and means less than nothing.)
From what I’ve learned about discretionary day trading, it will likely take 3 to 5 years of experience plus the constant reinforcing of counter-intuitive good habits while avoiding emotion-driven bad habits before you can hope to become consistently profitable and keep the money you’ve made (rather than over-trading and giving it back to the market). You’ll also need to avoid much of the popular misinformation about trading futures. And there’s a realistic way to do this now…
In my opinion, people who are emotionally stable and also genuinely teachable can shorten the length of their money-losing rookie period and increase their overall chances of eventual consistent success if they gain access to the detailed trading habits of a discretionary day trader with a success record stretching back at least a decade or so. These people are rare. No one is apt to ever meet one, let alone find one who is willing to be your mentor. On the other hand, miracles do happen.
As you may recall, back in the early 2000’s I met a retail day trader, Mike Reed, who had been an athlete in his youth and had been contracted to begin playing catcher in the minor leagues for the Dodgers. Right before he began spring training he suffered a spinal cord injury from diving into shallow water after a big rain. He became a quadriplegic with enough movement and sensation remaining in his arms and hands to trade the financial markets. He could also type into a chat box (one letter at a time) with a stick attached to his right hand.
Day trading became his passion, helping to keep him out of the grips of depression that all quadriplegics must somehow miraculously avoid. After several years of trading efforts (3 years, if I remember right), Mike became one of the vanishingly rare humans that can make a living from day-trading. He started with options and later switched to trading the financial futures (the e-minis, mainly the ES).
Sadly, Mike has passed away now. He supported himself as a trader for about 30 years. Every now and then I still ask God to send Mike Reed a message from me, realizing of course that such a thing might be out of the range of reasonable possibilities. But if it can be done realistically and without messing anything up, I bet God would pass my messages on to him.
Mike lived over a thousand miles from me. During my five years under his guidance, I mostly paper traded the ES futures in the first hour of RTH (regular trading hours). Mike would be typing brief messages to me on a chat box, doing his best to teach me. Unfortunately, I couldn’t see his charts.
After a few years, I helped him write an e-book detailing his discretionary day-trading strategies, including his entry setups, and his unusual use of stop losses and profit taking. I wish I had that eBook now. It’s probably squirreled away on an old hard drive in some box out in the storage shed. I never thought I would day trade again.
During these years with Mike, I was a practicing pathologist and I couldn’t rack up enough hours of market exposure to become successful. Plus I didn’t seem to have the emotional toughness that I thought was necessary to make it as a day trader. My heart would pound during every trade, even when paper trading with fake money. And getting up so early was destroying my health because I didn’t have the discipline to go to bed early. I’m still a kid at heart, waiting for someone to make me go to bed.
So I quit day trading in 2005.
Then near the end of 2021 the markets looked ready to crash again based on macroeconomics and the “bull run” of the S&P (while the broader indices like the Russell 2000 sagged). So I decided to give fundamental investing and swing trading a try (with Tobin Smith). He inadvertently rekindled my interest in day trading.
Based on an oversimplification of how Mike Reed traded, I came up with a 99% mechanical (as opposed to discretionary) entry and exit rule that I “knew” would fail. The plan was simple: I would “fade the TICK extremes” and double down when things went wrong. This means, for instance, I would “go long” and take a position that would make money if the currently falling prices reversed and went up an instant after they paused during a rapid price fall. To time this adventure, I would use the extreme TICK readings (of the NYSE internals, symbol TICK or $TICK), going long (buying the S&P futures, symbol ES or /ES) when the TICK fell below negative 1000 and “going short” (selling the ES) when the TICK readings rose above positive 1000. A key part of the plan was that I would ALWAYS get out early with a tiny profit, NEVER hanging around hoping for a big home-run point gain because, for example, rapidly falling prices usually don’t reverse for long, they bounce up a bit at TICK extremes then usually continue their trend downward. And then there was the doubling-down insanity which meant that if the market didn’t reverse for me at the extreme TICK reading, I wouldn’t close the trade and take a small loss like a normal human being, instead I would wait for the next TICK extreme, double my bet and hope that prices would reverse at that time so I could get out with a SMALL (always tiny) dollar gain.
I did this with a simulated (paper trading) account, so those dollars were pretend money and the whole experiment wasn’t actually insane, just another quick-and-dirty quasi-scientific trial designed to flesh out the relationship of price action to the TICK.
Mike’s strategies were more complex than this and always discretionary (i.e. requiring human judgement, not a mechanical trading rule), but he always paid close attention to TICK extremes. In fact, almost all of his setups involved taking a SHORT position when the following two things happened at the same time…
1. The TICK (internals) hit an extreme reading (anything over +1000) and
2. The price of the ES (S&P futures) simultaneously bumped up against a “resistance” line (like the previous day’s high, the morning opening price, etc.)
Here’s an example of a TICK extreme (red number 1 on the top chart) and the simultaneous price reversal of the ES (red number 2 on the bottom chart):
At the arrow labeled with a red # 1 on the TICK chart above, there’s an extreme high (greater than 1,000). At the same moment (in retrospect) the price of the ES stopped going up and began going down. If there had been a major resistance line at that price level (about 3820 on the ES chart), this would have been a typical short entry point for Mike Reed. If there had been one of his favorite chart patterns in play, and/or contact with his favorite exponential moving average (which I think might have been 9 on the 5-minute ES chart) all the more reason he would have to enter a SHORT position. He didn’t like trading the long side.
Of course, nothing as simple as my mechanical rule, “fade the TICK and double down when things go wrong,” can be expected to work for long because doubling down has inherent limits unless you’re infinitely wealthy and also…
For example, when the TICK hits a positive extreme (defined by Mike as anything over +1000), the price of the ES often does NOT reverse immediately. Instead the price may continue its upward trend without a tradable pullback. Meanwhile the TICK might also continue to go higher and higher every moment into the extreme zone. TICK extremes are variable and context related. You never know exactly where or when they will reverse, and you never know if the price of the ES will make a tradable pullback when the TICK does finally reverse. Someone with great experience like Mike Reed could usually make a good judgement call, but he couldn’t tell you how he did it because the knowledge was subconscious (experiential), unknown to him at the cognitive level, and would probably be too complex to put into words if it should ever enter into the realm of his conscious knowledge.
My “doubling down” madness was intended to get around this inconvenient truth. The TICK always eventually reverses from an extreme, it’s just that you don’t know where that reversal will take place, at +1000, +1200, +1500 or rarely beyond. Also, you never know if the ES price will reverse significantly at the final true TICK extreme and save your cookies when you’re counter-trend trading against a relentless trend such as you’ll often see after bad news from the FED. (Incidentally, don’t trade during FED chairman news releases and speeches, you’ll probably get crushed.) But I didn’t care about any of this in my paper-trading account.
The first time the TICK extreme didn’t “cause” enough of a reverse in the ES price to get me out with a small gain in pretend dollars, I stuck to my plan and doubled my bet, wondering if the next TICK extreme would bring a decent ES pullback so I could get out with a small profit. But that didn’t happen, so I doubled down again and finally got away at the next TICK extreme with a small win.
Just to drive the point home, doubling down is ALWAYS insane, unless you’re trading fake money, or you’re one of the FED’s pet banks…
You can afford anything if you’re one of the approximately 16 banks that the FED supports financially with free money donated to them in several ways, including the latest scheme which is giving these lucky banksters risk-free interest on their money sitting in the FED’s reverse-repo cash pile of about 2 trillion dollars now. This stash of liquidity (fiat money) plus the mainstream’s cooked and distorted unemployment figures seem to explain why the FED still claims to feel hope for a “soft landing” of the US economy, despite the writing on the wall telling us the FED is between a rock (i.e. inflation, which will eventually bring economic collapse if the FED doesn’t crush it with higher interest rates and prolonged Quantitative Tightening) and a hard place (global recession/ depression/ economic collapse if the FED does continue raising interest rates and prolonging Quantitative Tightening). Like vitamin D3, too much or too little of it can ruin you. Same with water, oxygen and carbohydrates. Most people think of it as a dichotomy, like a branch in a road, go left and it’s QT, go right and it QE. But QE (quantitative easing plus lowering interest rates) is like bringing in the crash cart to revive the patient after his heart has stopped. Although the FED is “swapping” dollars for other countries’ currencies already to bale them out of trouble, and this is quantitative easing at the global level, for the US economy QE is not an option while true inflation is in the realm of 15% (as opposed to the mainstream’s cooked numbers). The FED is dealing with something more like a parasitic infection for which the treatment (QT) is a pill that is toxic to both the parasite and to the patient. Too low a dose and the parasite kills the patient. Too high a dose and the pill kills the patient. Tough times for central banksters whose highest goal is to remain in power over Western democracies who can supposedly vote at any election for a person who promises to cancel the entire system of central bank organized theft.
Yawn. Not this again.
Anyway, the biggest problem with my doubling-down experiment was that it worked.
I couldn’t believe it. My every trade was an eventual win. No losses at all. And I kept getting better at waiting and judging when the TICK (and the ES) would, for example, stop going up before I put on a short trade. My insane plan just kept working and working and working.
After a while, despite my better judgement, I had to try it with real money. Daa Dum. (Jaws soundtrack.)
I didn’t go stampeding straight into the ES futures, though. I gave things a little kiss and traded something that risked much less money per contract (a cheap out-of-the-money put option on the QQQ).
And darn if my 99% mechanical rule didn’t keep on working with real money. It reminded me of an old Twilight Zone episode where the gambler dies and goes to heaven where he’s in a casino and wins and wins and wins until gambling becomes boring and he discovers he’s actually in gambler’s hell and can’t lose. Cheerful little Twilight Zone insight: losing is essential to winning.
Meanwhile back in reality, one day the market (my OTM QQQ put option) made a prolonged move against me without reversing enough at the TICK extremes.
I kept doubling down but it wasn’t working. Soon I owned 16 of these “cheap” put options. Now I had thousands of dollars worth of them hanging in the balance, eating up my liquidity and requiring “margin.” (Which meant I was automatically borrowing money now from the broker just to “own” this pile of OTM options. Sheesh, this wasn’t the Army I signed up for.).
But the market (option prices) did finally reverse at an extreme TICK, and I finally exited the trade with a small profit, same as always, except that my heart was pounding.
The stress of that trade may have contributed to what I did next.
Like some half-awake, totally brain-dead, thankfully retired pathologist (me, me, me), I forgot to switch from 16 contracts back to 1 contract before the next trade.
I pushed the buy button at the next TICK extreme. Gulp.
The market went against me again and kept going the wrong way for the rest of the day and I couldn’t double down because I was all-in from the start. To make matters worse, I wasn’t using stops.
I forgot to mention that at some brilliant moment in the paper stage of this experiment I’d decided to ignore the advice of Mike Reed and every trading book I’d ever read. I decided to trade without hard stops forcing me out of losing trades and keeping my individual losses smallish. After all, I was paper trading when I made this insane decision, so it didn’t matter. But I should have changed that part of the plan when I switched to real money. No, that’s wrong. I shouldn’t have ever switched to real money at all because I wasn’t one of the FED’s pet banks who can trade with free money (ultimately at taxpayers’ expense).
You might wonder why I didn’t use a soft stop and get out of that trade at a reasonable loss. This is an extremely important question.
“Soft” stops are in your head, not placed with your broker in the market like “hard” stop losses. Soft stops are therefore a promise to yourself that sounds a lot like this, “I’ll get out of this trade if it goes ten points against me. No, I really will, trust me.”
One famous trader I ran into on YouTube uses soft stops on swing trading, but not on day trading. And even in swing trading he says that unless you have superhuman self-discipline, you really need to use hard stops.
And here’s why you do…
Watching price candles go against your position is hypnotic. It casts a spell on your brain that makes you sit there in horror and watch like a moth standing on a lightbulb while his feet fry. That’s my theory. There are scientific psychological explanations but I’m going with spells and hypnosis. Potato-potahto.
Taking a loss with a “soft stop” is like breaking up with an abusive person. It’s “a hard thing to do.” Many people hang in there taking abuse for longer than they should, hoping things will change. Rarely, the abuser has a fundamental worldview shift that truly changes him/her, such as the discovery that God is alive and well and resembles a loving parent, not an Old Testament warlord. But that’s rare. Never trust a hope if you’re on the floor bleeding with broken bones. And never trust soft stops in a volatile bear market.
By the end of regular trading hours when I sold those 16 option contracts after my trading error, I booked a real loss of about $2,000. It wasn’t the end of the world, but enough pain to teach me a lesson or three. (Things I consciously knew from books, but had not learned subconsciously from personal experience. This difference is THE key to becoming a successful discretionary day trader.)
Note to self: 1. Use hard stops, for heaven’s sake. 2. Forget shortcuts like “mechanical” entry setups (i.e. simple black-and-white, inflexible rules for entries, exits, or even for set-it-and-forget-it stops). 3. Fading every TICK extreme and doubling down works great if you’re “too big to fail” and will always get bailed out by the FED while poor people, small businesses and the middle-class taxpayers pave the banksters’ streets with gold. These banks can (and do) trade all the markets with money given to them by the FED at your expense and the expense of your sons and daughters, essentially borrowing money from future generations of taxpayers so they can spend it now and hang on to their ultimate global power. There’s a simple solution to our current pet bank bail-out economic system created behind closed doors in 1913 to inflict grand theft upon the middle class:
End the FED!
All in all, I was surprised at how well my mechanical trading experiment did, even with real money. It never failed, the failure was my daft trading error that scared the Chuck Dickens out of me. More research in a paper account would almost certainly prove that it’s a guaranteed way to lose all your trading money and then some.
But I learned something of extreme personal value from that costly experiment, something that really shocked me.
I learned for the first time that when I have a strategy that works in real-time, even with real money, I’m not afraid to trade. I’m not so frightened that my heart pounds and the tunnel vision of flight-or-flight overrides my cortex.
I remember how this would happen during every trade back in the early 2000’s, even with paper trades where the only things on the line were my hopes and dreams of becoming like Mike Reed, able to trade for a living and get out of the depressing, stressful profession of (surgical and cyto) pathology.
This means that even a person withOUT nerves of steel, even a person like me, can trade in freedom from debilitating fear provided you have a method that has given you experiential confidence. This is true even if you’re trading a stupid method that offers NO cognitive confidence (i.e. logic tells you it must eventually fail).
Think about it. I had cognitive confidence in Mike Reed’s methods, but virtually no experiential confidence in my own ability to put his words into successful trades. By contrast, during my doubling-down-at-TICK-extremes (nut-case) experiment, even with real money I quickly developed experiential confidence, and felt no fear until I got into trouble with real money (i.e. the last difficult winning trade before my trading error which ended the project but wasn’t relevant to it).
What a personal transformation! I had none of my usual debilitating trading fear from the old days, and yet I never developed a shred of cognitive confidence in that idiotic mechanical system. I still cognitively “know” that everything logical says doubling down at TICK extremes is doomed to total failure eventually. It’s like a pyramid scheme that sells widgets, unlimited personal distributorships, and the hope of great riches. Intellectually you know that sustained exponential growth in the number of people that sign up will eventually mean that everyone in the world will have either signed up or said “no,” and the whole thing will have to collapse, but if you’re a natural salesperson who’s successfully signing up friends, neighbors and strangers by the dozens and teaching them how it’s done, making thousands of dollars per week from your “downline” (this really happens), you can’t help “knowing” for sure in your heart that this system, this time, will keep growing forever and never fail. Moral of the story…
Experiential knowledge overrides cognitive knowledge, at least at the emotional level where many of us make life’s big decisions.
Mike Reed’s trading strategy worked for him for 30 years, but as I say, we lived in different states so I couldn’t watch his computer screen and see the complex nuances of his trades as the candles moved through time.
I had no way to watch and emulate how he applied his vast experiential knowledge to his trades on a moment-by-moment basis where it counts. I could only get the broad cognitive strokes in retrospect, one patient and brief sentence at a time over the chat box.
But communication technology is far better now, and I’ve discovered an ES day trader who’s quickly becoming a living legend.
In an overview of retail day trading, you have two extremes: Mechanical trading and discretionary trading. These lie on a continuum with AI machine-learning algorithms at the mechanical end and the exceedingly rare human traders like Mike Reed at the discretionary end.
It’s cutting-edge “true Artificial Intelligence” versus human intelligence (with and without pedestrian retail computer algorithms).
Or if you exclude the true AI’s because they cost billions, the extremes of the spectrum become:
Rules-based (mechanical) human traders (with and without retail algorithms) versus discretionary (brain-powered) human traders. Of course this is a spectrum, not a binary dichotomy like pregnancy versus non-pregnancy, or a blast from the incipient rupture of the past: male versus female.
If you’re a fairly emotional person like I am (an INFJ by the old system), you’ll be drawn to the mechanical end of the spectrum, especially after you’ve traded away five thousand dollars of your first futures day-trading account like I did in the early 2000’s before switching to simulated trading and freezing there in fear for the next five years.
But as best I can tell from my limited experience with retail-level mechanical rules-based trading systems, they represent the dark side of the force, the side that leads to failure because…
We retail traders don’t have access, as far as I know, to machine-learning AI’s. I’d bet the FED’s pet banks do and possibly some of the world’s billionaire traders.
Of course there are plenty of programmable, back-tested and back-testable systems withOUT machine learning that you can use if you can afford them. There are systems that make every sort of outrageous claim of profitability, usually on historic data. Some of these vendors report actual trading success and failure (i.e. real trading profits and losses, assuming they’re being honest). But assuming they are honest, future market behavior is never guaranteed to reflect past market behavior. You’ll be required to sign documents to this effect before purchasing any retail mechanical trading system.
Think of the California Gold Rush of 1849. Oh My Darling… There were the LEVI brothers selling blue jeans to the miners and there were miners, but there was nobody selling gold to the miners at huge discounts. Nobody was saying, “Come to my bank, for just $5,000 a year, I’ll let you walk into the vault and take out as much gold as you can carry, every day.”
But if you could rent a profitable mechanical trading system, it would be roughly the same sort of thing. A money machine. Nobody would sell or rent such a valuable thing, as best I can imagine in my limited experience.
Or imagine you were a programmer with a mechanical trading system that made consistent money, year after year with drawdowns (losses) so small that your account was never in danger of being wiped out. Would you sell the system to retail traders while it was still working? Probably not, unless you were terminally ill and wanted to help save the middle class from the elites’ ongoing theft via controlled inflation (which causes real, not relative, devaluation of the US dollar). At the moment the FED is fighting out-of-control inflation, but they love controlled inflation at about 2%. That amount of gradual theft is sustainable and can be justified to lawmakers and presidents who know so little about money, history, and banking that they believe the psychotic magical thinking of MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) which says a central bank can print any amount of fake (fiat) money forever and nothing bad will happen.
Sustainable theft and protecting the world’s banksters are, as best I can determine, the true purposes behind the FED’s irrational existence. We must elect people who will end it. Democrats, Republicans and dyslectics UNTIE!
But as an AI programmer, when market conditions have changed and your system begins to lose money, you’d probably tweak it until it worked again if you could. And if not, especially if you were a scientific materialist like most highly educated people are, living in the morbid perception of a random universe running on the amoral principle of “winning at any cost,” you might sell your old failed system to the retail crowd of rookies, and in your ads you might surely show your long history of winning trades with a glowing façade of arrogant self-confidence and false altruism, as in, “I’m so successful and rich now, it’s time to give something back.”
How many times have we both heard that?!
Anyway, I have to admit that although my involvement with (and jaded top-down analysis of) retail mechanical trading systems has been decidedly negative for years, my actual hands-on experience with these systems has been limited and extremely frustrating, so as I love to remind us both, I’m often wrong about important things. Incidentally, I think everyone is probably like me with this flaw, and I suspect that if we all came out and admitted it to ourselves, we’d have a starting point for global peace and lasting progress in science, politics, and spirituality / religion.
Having worked my arse off since I became a Christian and left my garage band “Friction” at about age 13, determined to become a helpful person in the world and postpone life’s “gratification” by becoming an MD and then an AP/CP boarded pathologist, a goal which, by the way, made me miserable after I achieved it and began my 25 years of careful, accurate, stressful and depressing practice, I now think that maybe God in his love sent Mike Reed my way to offer me a new life that didn’t involve frightening life-and-death diagnostic decisions while breathing toxic chemicals alone in a small room with a microscope.
Mike earned a good living day trading for about 30 years. When I went to visit him he lived in a large house built of thick timbers by a group of honest fundamentalist Christian people, Amish, if I remember right. His beautiful house had an elevator designed to accommodate his wheelchair. The house sat on five acres and had a large pond out back loaded with hungry fish that Mike fed every day by hand. And he had a beautiful fiancé who became his one-and-only wife for the rest of his amazing life.
But Mike dealt with chronic pain on top of severe acute pain episodes as well as the stress of having big medical bills that the government in its wisdom stopped paying because Mike could still move his arms and wrists enough to click a mouse, and he’d had the audacity to teach himself how to make money day trading. (The government’s “free” money plan is intelligently designed to create learned helplessness, in my humble and yet infallible opinion. Their message to us: “Give up on life and stop working if you want US government help.”)
I learned a great deal about Mike’s trading techniques, but the limitations of communicating to me over a chat box, typing one letter at a time with a stick strapped to his hand… Let’s just say he knew plenty that I had no chance of learning from him. Plus there’s the elephant in the room that young people don’t often understand: experience teaches you things that you cannot put into words, and in fact, you may not be consciously aware that you know these things at all.
I used to daydream about how wonderful it would be if only I could sit for a few months beside Mike and watch him trade. Actually it would have taken years, not months, and I would have needed to trade on my own decisions independent of his for most of that time. But it was all a dream. There was no way it could happen at the time.
That was then, this is now, and times have changed…
Recently, Google’s AI sent me to the YouTube channel of a great futures day-trader, an extreme outlier in the sense that he almost never has a losing day, he makes his living by day-trading the futures (mostly the ES), and his trading technique closely resembles Mike Reed’s successful strategy.
Watching his videos is a dream come true for me. I watch them over and over nowadays, soaking in the complex subconscious data contained in the movements of the chart candles accompanied by Matthew’s real-time explanations of what he’s cognitively doing and why.
As I keep repeating (as if redundancy were a good thing and not tediously annoying), learning comes in two flavors:
1. Cognitive, like classroom learning and
2. Experiential, like learning to ride a bicycle. (Things that require experience to learn are largely held in your mind at the subconscious level and can never be translated 100% into words.)
There was a pig farmer on TV the other night. Wait, hear me out on this, it’s interesting. He’d been around pigs since he was three years old and had learned to detect which way a pig will turn and how fast it will charge at him when it’s angry.
This pig-reading farmer is analogous to a “tape reading” discretionary day trader. The subtle movements of the pig’s back muscles, the farmer says, tell him what the pig will do next, just as the subtle movements of the ES price candles (plus the TICK chart in conjunction with S/R lines and a few other things) tell Matthew what’s likely to happen next to the ES price (“next” meaning within the next few seconds to minutes).
Day Traders really need to wrap their minds around the concept of experiential learning because it’s the only route to becoming a successful discretionary day trader, as far as I know. Accurate cognitive classroom-style knowledge is also essential, but it’s NOT the crucial path to success. Experience is. It takes YEARS to master this skill for most people, even with good cognitive guidance from a truly successful mentor.
And unless you have access to machine-learning AI technology and brilliant code writers, you’re extremely unlikely to succeed at mechanical systems trading because you will be limited to retail-level back-tested mechanical trading rules and non-learning algorithms (as far as I know at this time).
The allure of mechanical trading rules and systems is strong, though. Working with rigidly defined rules promises to take the nearly random markets and extract from them a non-randomness that can be used to design entrances and exits through back-testing and optimization. This ultimately promises a set-it-and-forget-it money machine that should also remove the stress of trading decisions.
In the words of an influential professor of mine who often quoted shocking texts from the Bible, “Wouldn’t it be wonderful if that were true?”
And there are plenty of salespeople online ready to sell you a mechanical system that they’ve back-tested and tweaked. They really have done that for you. Unless they’re frauds, and some clearly are, they’ve back-tested their systems and optimized them until they genuinely make money on historical data. And if a system worked in the past, it’s natural to think it should keep working in the future, at least for a little while. And I bet some do for a while. Hopefully long enough to make the money back that you spent on the system.
But in my humble and yet somewhat informed opinion, the market is like a hungry, angry, charging, wild boar. You must either develop the ability to read its body language, or you should stay out of its way. Domesticated pigs are smart, cute, and seem to make good pets. But wild boars, not so much.
You could take videos of wild boars and use a computer to back-test and optimize rules for dealing with them. Things like: “If it moves one inch to the left then three feet to the right, the boar will charge at 10 miles per hour. Exit the trade.” Optimize this mechanical rule with enough historic data and you’d have a set of rules that “predicts” the wild boar’s charge 80 to 95% of the time, but only on old historic data.
The next morning in real time when you step into the boar’s territory, your optimized rules won’t likely save you because the huge animal has a brain that’s somehow not limited to the “scientific” materialist’s quasi-religious and untestable assumption that free will cannot exist because everything is predetermined by previous physical causes involving matter and energy (because nothing besides matter and energy could possibly exist for these highly educated people… uh, er, except for dark matter. They’ve spent billions searching in vain for that stuff because it was their own sacred idea.).
In reality though, like financial markets, wild boars make decisions moment-by-moment that are at times significantly different from their old decisions. Wild boars change their minds, same as the markets. Worse yet, if you threaten their territory, they learn and adapt, same as the best discretionary traders and our best machine-learning AI’s.
As I see it, there is only one fairly dependable way for a retail day trader to become successful. It’s by spending a great deal of time observing and trading, first with simulated trading, then with tiny positions of real money, then with gradually increasing position sizes, all the while learning and re-learning the “body language” of price movement at the subconscious level. With this approach, some people have a decent chance of achieving lasting success at day trading the highly liquid ES futures market where “slippage” isn’t usually a problem.
Truly, if you’re going to try this, you’ll have to plan on losing money and working hard for years to become a person with an extremely rare, hard-to-learn skill, a person like Mike Reed or Matthew Brydges.
But I hear you thinking, Mike Reed, sure, I believe he was the real thing, but lightning never strikes twice. “Today there must be thousands of self-proclaimed ‘expert day traders’ on the internet. It’s obvious that most of them, if not all of them, are making most of their money selling grand promises to rookie traders.”
I agree. It takes all day every day and a lot of help to create complex videos and run a big YouTube channel, so is seems obvious that most of today’s “expert” day traders couldn’t possibly have enough time to sit and day trade all through Regular Trading Hours.
So, am I really SURE that Matthew Brydges isn’t just another guy selling blue jeans to miners?
Short answer: Yes, 100% sure.
If I had NOT spent five years with Mike Reed, I couldn’t be objectively 100% sure. But I could certainly feel 100% sure…
Matthew comes across on video as the most genuine person you’ll ever meet in your life. You’ll wish he was your next-door neighbor. At the intuitive level, anyone who watches his videos will FEEL absolutely sure he’s honest and genuine. There doesn’t seem to be a fake bone in his body. Plus he video records his trades and shows his profit and loss data right there on the spot. Who else does that?
But objective analysis calls for more evidence.
Matthew makes so few trades per day, almost all of them before 11:00 AM Eastern, so this gives him plenty of time to edit his videos (which are not hyper-complex at all) and plenty of time to run his small YouTube channel. He doesn’t trade some days because he has a big family and tons of things he must do besides sit and trade. So it’s all congruent.
But the fact that he trades so infrequently can be taken wrong: at least one person asked him if he only posts his good trades (cherry-picking). He says he’s posted 100% of his trades since the day he started his YouTube channel. When he says this, a person like me FEELS sure he’s telling the truth.
But that’s still not objective information, is it? So what have I got that’s objective?
Well, I spent those five years with Mike Reed and helped him write his e-book on how to day trade the ES futures, so within this one narrowly specialized niche of discretionary futures day-trading of the ES, I know enough to distinguish a successful day trader from someone faking it.
Below is a long list of crucially important components of Matthew Brydges’ trading strategy that are extremely similar and often identical to Mike Reed’s strategy while contradicting much of the retail crowd’s ingrained ways of thinking and trading. (The retail trading crowd is called the “dumb money” and gives up day trading in despair at a rate of at least 90+ %.) Meanwhile, the similarities between Matthew’s and Mike’s trading strategies are too many and too nearly identical to represent coincidence. Here we go…
1. Matthew is a discretionary trader who uses flexible Central-Nervous-System (CNS) discretion on entries and exits by reading the ES price action in real time withOUT simple, inflexible, mechanical rules. Just like Mike.
2. Matthew places very few trades per day, saying that you’ll do better if you wait patiently for good setups and avoid giving money back by overtrading. “Wait for your pitch,” Mike would tell me. “You shouldn’t be making more than three to six trades a day,” Mike would say over the chat box. Matthew usually trades even less frequently than that. By contrast, on trading frequency, I’ve heard popular day traders describe a certain chart setup (“the leg” they called it), saying that it had a 95% + history of making money, but that it happened so rarely you couldn’t make a living from it. Is that logical? No, but it’s typical retail balderdash: “If you’re sitting there watching the markets and not trading, you’re wasting your time.” If you believe this sort of thing, you’ve been silently brainwashed and might want to read the first trading book that Mike recommended to me: “The Phantom of the Pits.” This Phantom would sit (for days reading a novel) watching the markets, and “day trading” without placing a single trade until the bottom seemed to be ready to drop out. Then he would go short with a huge position, trading in the actual physical trading pits. (This was years ago.) He made himself wealthy doing this, so he claimed. But could it be true? Logically speaking, yes. If you’ve got the conviction and confidence to “trade size,” like the “plungers” of old (i.e. plunging a large amount of money into a “for sure” trade), you could do extremely well or get wiped out. Nobody brags about their losses, so the plungers were the “great traders” of their day. Matthew takes their underlying principle in a different direction, waiting for good trades but seeking small point gains with relatively large sized trades (large to me, small to him). He normally trades five ES contracts per trade now (down from 10 when he started doing videos and wanted to get really comfortable). He says 5 is comfortably small for him. He has traded 10 to 50 contracts at a time, even 100 if I remember right. So five is easy for him, emotionally speaking. I get it. But for a rookie, 5 ES mini contracts seem gigantic. And to further my vague point here, a few of these 5 contract trades several times a week, each time making a small point gain, provides Matthew with enough active income to support his entire family. On this point (all of which you can find on his videos), Matthew wrote the following to me : “…full disclosure – trading is not my sole income, though it is my only active source of income and is what I “live on.” I have passive income from properties and the fixed income portion of my portfolio. Income from YouTube and the course are essentially negligible. Having said all that, a few years of much more aggressive trading after my divorce/financial reset is what built most of what I have now, (trading essentially the same, but 5-10x the size and taking a few more trades per day) so trading has done far more for me than any other endeavor and would have been plenty on its own, though my funeral business was what generated the capital to trade with.” So the principle is clear, right? A few ES points gained consistently while trading an arguably large size (if emotionally small) yields a good stable income. (Mike never told me his trading size but I’m fairly sure it was something like 2 to 5 ES contracts per trade.) Matthew was begged by day traders to develop and sell a trading course. I bought it, loved it, and can report that from the small size of the comment section there, it appears that very few people have bought his course. And it only takes one look at his YouTube channel’s stats to see that very few traders (relatively speaking) even know who he is as of 10/16/2022. This is rapidly changing, of course. The man’s a phenomenon. So he’s not making any significant money from “selling blue jeans to miners” at the moment. On the contrary, he says he’s doing trading videos because he loves teaching, and I for one, believe him. You can see the joy in his eyes and hear it in his voice, for crying out loud.
3. Matthew uses a combination of A.) remarkably well-timed entries (i.e. entries after which the price routinely goes in a favorable direction without threatening his hard stops) and B.) reasonably tight hard stops that are rarely hit. (Note to my adult kids: just to be clear, when your stops are hit, it ends the trade for a loss.) The principle is this: as you gain experience, your entries get better, and as this happens, your hard stops should become tighter, up to an inflection point (like with vitamin D3) where tighter stops begin to reduce your win rate. It’s a U-shaped dose-response curve where a balance is gradually reached between a high win rate (ideally well above 80%, as best I can tell at this time) and the size of the hard stops (which Matthew adjusts on the fly at the start of each trade, then moves to break-even as soon as possible, usually when his trade is about 5 points above his entry). Similarly, Mike used to say: “Never let the market hit your stops.” Remember this: Matthew tells us that when it comes to the size of your hard stops, one size does NOT fit all trades. You need to learn to adjust your stops to each trade at the start and then readjust them to breakeven during the trade as soon as you reasonably can. Think of it this way, let’s say you’re like Matthew and you trade six times a day at most (usually much less), and darn it, on four of the first five trades you moved your stops to breakeven too soon and missed out on four nice winning trades, breaking even rather than making money. Sure, getting out early at break-even saved you from loss on one of the five trades, but was it really worth it? Yes. Then, let’s say on your sixth trade you moved to breakeven just as early as before because your number one rule is “don’t lose money.” And this time the price didn’t fall back and hit your break-even stop. You made money. You’re up for the day! You’re done. If this is you, it means you’re doing things right, not wrong. If you’ve been brainwashed by mainstream day trading “education,” you’ll feel like a failure because of all that money you “left on the table.” Fight that feeling. You’ll get better at the whole process as long as you keep priority #1 at the top of your list: Don’t lose money. Going to breakeven “too early” prevents a win turning into a loss. “When you finally become a break-even trader, you’re about 80% there [80% of the way to becoming a success],” Matthew tells us. Mike Reed also emphasized how important learning to break even is. For sure it’s a difficult dance to learn, but as best I can tell, becoming a break-even trader is a vital step towards someday doing this job for a living, if that’s your goal. And I’m neutral on that goal, just for the record. “It’s all you.”
4. Matthew emphasizes the central importance of trying really, really hard to avoid losses. This is the first and foremost goal, achieved largely by taking easy base hits (small point gains) rather than joining the usual retail trading hunt for home runs (large point gains) to be achieved by “letting your winners run.” Gag me. In practice, taking small gains withOUT “letting your winners run” is frustrating, I know. One YT commenter told Matthew something like, “Oh Matt, you got out way too soon. You left 30 points on the table, dude, what a mistake!” Matt not only humbly accepts this sort of criticism, he often gives it to himself after he books yet another winning trade, usually worth several thousand dollars. But actions speak louder than humble words, don’t they? Matthew doesn’t change his trading habits or stop teaching the principle of aiming for base hits and NOT home runs. And when you watch him trade, he never lets his winners run. Virtually never. He almost always closes the trade for a relatively small point gain (between 4 and 10 points on the ES) because he knows that the home-run mindset creates a losing profit/loss ratio in the long run for counter-trend discretionary day traders. (Perhaps not for all traders, I don’t know, but definitely for this trading niche.) Matthew seems to consider “leaving points on the table” a necessary part of his overall winning strategy which starts with focusing first and last on avoiding losses. This is exactly how Mike Reed traded. Forget the fear of missing out (FOMO) on a steep trend. Another winning entry point will soon arrive because Matthew ALWAYS aims for base hits, not home runs, same as Mike Reed. In fact, “RBI” (standing for Runs Batted In) was the name of Mike’s daily trading letter in which he provided support and resistance zones and incorporated them into an if-then style trading plan that went out to a few professional traders on Wall Street every day, one of whom paid him a personal visit, to discuss trading strategies and noted that they followed the same approach to day trading. Incidentally, the ES and NQ respected Mike’s S/R zones like nothing I would have imagined possible. True story: one night after Mike’s RBI report was out, I found a mistake that he had made in calculating a support level (based on a pivot-point calculation). He checked it and agreed that he’d crunched that number wrong. So he put out an updated report late that night, but the big traders on his list must not have seen the update because the ES price dropped down and bounced off Mike’s original miscalculated support number, right to the tick. That opened my eyes to how remarkably fortunate I was to meet Mike Reed. Big money on Wall Street traded off of his Support and Resistance numbers, I don’t know how else to rationally explain it. Coincidence? Yeah, about like the way DNA code was supposedly written by random coincidence. Statistically impossible in a finite universe that’s only 13.8 billion years old.
5. Matthew emphasizes a high win/loss ratio that can only be developed gradually over time with tons of experience. This approach is the opposite of the popular retail strategy of allowing yourself a LOW win/loss ratio that you hope to make up for with an occasional home run. Yes, it’s possible that this home-run trend-following breakout strategy works for traders with deep pockets and nerves of steel, but I just don’t know for sure that it works at all for anyone. It’s never worked for me. Moreover, like Mike Reed, Matthew Brydges takes the opposite approach: targeting a high win/loss ratio that a trader develops gradually and naturally over time with much experience, not looking for shortcuts the way I did when I worked with Mike Reed. Yeah, I spent thousands in the hunt for an easier way and bought (and read) a tall stack of trading books. Those book are out in the shed now, all boxed up.
6. Matthew takes the small point gains quickly and consistently based upon the real-time price movements of the ES, not based upon any predetermined, inflexible exit-with-profit target or an inflexible “risk/reward ratio.” (As with hard stops, one winning target size does NOT fit all trades.) Matthew’s initial winning exit target is completely flexible. It’s usually NOT achieved because price weakness usually takes him out of a trade early with a small point gain. Matthew’s price target decisions appear to affect his trade entries more than his actual exits (as viewed in retrospect). He exits winning trades on price misbehavior alone, not waiting or hoping, but getting out with “a bird in the hand.” (Importantly, price movements that close his winning trades are evaluated in real-time with a unique 2.5 ES point interpretation of significant price movements. This is entirely original to him. I’ve never seen anyone else looking at price this way and neither has Matthew.) Price going against a winning trade is his true exit target strategy. Just like Mike. In contrast, the common retail approach of setting a fixed risk/reward ratio appears to doom most traders to failure from the start, as best I can tell. Traders never question the unspoken FALSE assumption that the initial risk/reward ratio of a trade, once placed, must be obeyed otherwise it is meaningless and has no practical use. For Matthew, the initial risk/reward ratio of a trade frames the initial possibilities, which is useful when deciding if you should get into the trade in the first place: “How far can this go? Can I get a reasonably tight stop behind the protection of a near-by support or resistance area with a decent [usually at least a 10 point winning] price target?” After a trader has opened a trade and it’s about 5 points into the green (a winning trade), taking the common approach of strictly obeying the initial profit target means allowing a significant percentage of gains to become losses over time. This destroys the statistical goal of achieving a high win/loss ratio over time. This is a trading mistake because although these fewer gains may be larger on average than Matthew’s purely discretionary gains, they will be smaller in aggregate, especially after a trader has had a few years of experience in discretionary profit taking the way Matthew teaches it. Counterintuitively, even something as seemingly helpful as having a rigidly fixed and obeyed 10-point winning target defining all your wins, even this will work against you (by teaching you to ignore price action during trades). I may be wrong, but I suspect this common trading practice virtually guarantees failure. There are bound to be exceptions, but I suspect that A.) rigidly fixed and obeyed profit targets and B.) the general absence of single-click break-even buttons on most retail trading platforms… these two taken together are largely responsible for the 90+ % failure rate among ES futures day traders.
7. Mathew uses nearly naked price charts without relying on oscillators for entries or exits. Mike had no price oscillators on his charts at all, just a moving average. Matthew has one oscillator on his background (TradingView) charts, mostly for sentimental reasons it seems, but he doesn’t use the oscillator to make entry or exit decisions. There are no oscillators or moving averages or even S/R lines on Matthew’s trading chart (which is from Sierra Chart and has a glorious break-even button that’s vitally important, in my opinion. QuantTower platform also has a B/E button and is currently “free” if you use AMP brokers). Matthew uses the TICK (internals) chart which oscillates, but it’s not a “price oscillator” because it brings you direct internal market data that’s fundamentally different from price action, yet it correlates naturally with price in a meaningfully inconsistent way, making TICK extremes and zero TICK readings powerfully useful (and price-independent) data. Mike focused heavily on the TICK chart, more heavily than Matthew, as best I can tell. But Matthew has it open at all times during RTH. Mere price-derived oscillators are a different animal from the TICK. They may give traders a sense of objectivity, but as best I can tell, they slow and derail the long and gradual process of learning how to read market action directly and therefore quickly. Obviously, part of becoming a successful day trader is quick decision making. The more time you spend evaluating various oscillators, the slower your decisions will be, and the more often a good entry point with a tight stop will become a fair entry point with a larger stop. Yeah, I still sometimes wonder if certain oscillators may have a usefulness that I’m unaware of, but currently I’m doing better without them, same as Matthew, and just like Mike.
8. Matthew believes that it takes years (not months) to become a successful day trader, but it’s worth the time and effort. The possibility of becoming a successful discretionary day trader exists because the brain is by far the best “machine-learning computer” that any retail trader will likely ever own. The years-long time horizon merely seems long because the physical process of trading the ES looks deceptively easy at the start. Later it seems impossibly difficult. But imagine learning any other skill that brings a comfortable living in the USA, and you’ll probably agree that three to five years of self-disciplined, seated, work-when-you-can, on-the-job training is no big deal at all. For instance, from my perspective, compare these three to five years with my own five years of college, four years of med school, a year of research, and then four years of pathology residency. It’s not that money and training time are the main points of a person’s job selection, but these are significant aspects of life when you’ve got the FED and both sides of congress systematically eliminating the middle class, generation after generation while the schools, both private and public, teach virtually nothing about money or the actual details of the various professions and their current job market trends. Why do you suppose schools are like that? Does it make any sense to neglect financial education for your kids in a world where three things will dominate their lives?… Job selection, Spouse selection and Religion/ Spirituality (or anti-spirituality which is a religion thinly disguised).
9. Matthew prefers short trades over long trades. Mike didn’t say why he felt the same bearish bias, but Matthew says, for him, it’s because prices usually fall faster than they climb. Tied to that idea, he says that the faster you can get into a trade and out, the less stress you’ll feel. Matthew takes trading stress seriously and has a five minute rule that says: after a losing trade, wait five minutes before taking another trade. He even does this for winning trades most of the time. He says that a losing trade “changes you” and diminishes your ability to look at price movement objectively. He says a trading loss tends to wake up your “lizard brain” (your limbic system where powerful emotions arise and can override your cerebral cortex). This can make you want revenge, so you’ll be more apt to increase the size of your trade or move your hard stops in the wrong direction to avoid an immediate loss. (Moving your stops away rarely prevents a loss, it almost always postpones and increases it.) Also Matthew says the emotions of losing tend to cause overtrading (i.e. taking too many trades rather than waiting for good setups), which usually results in greater losses, even for highly experienced traders. A five-minute time-out rule, especially after losing trades, cools down the limbic system and allows the cortex (logic, judgement, self-control and wisdom) to kick in again.
10. Matthew prefers counter-trend entries to trend-following entries such as the ubiquitous retail trader’s break-out entry (north or south). There’s an important distinction here and it’s a little subtle. Matthew will trade in the direction of a trend, preferably south, but he avoids breakouts. Instead, he waits for a pullback before he enters against the direction of the pullback (and in the direction of the larger trend on an intraday chart). And speaking of trends, he points out that in the early part of an intraday trend (usually near the open, but generally in the morning well before 11:00 Eastern when he does most of his trading), there’s no RTH intraday trend yet so there’s no way of knowing if you’re following an intraday trend or not. And since exiting with small point gains increases the win/loss ratio while avoiding overall losses, and since the goal of avoiding overall losses is Matthew’s absolute #1 top priority at all times, the hopes and thrills of catching large parts of long intraday trends don’t seem to excite or distract him. Speaking of priorities, here are Matthew’s (and Mike’s) trading priorities, as I understand them (and Matthew has now reviewed this and didn’t say I’m wrong here): #1.) Focus on avoiding losses, not on making money. #2.) Focus on learning how to make great entries (where the price hardly moves at all toward your hard stop after you enter the trade. Mike used “time stops” for this. If the price didn’t move his way soon after entry, he closed the trade.) #3.) Maintain a base-hit mindset in every trade, seeking small consistent point gains and forgetting about home runs (in terms of ES points).
11. Matthew Brydges is humble about his remarkable trading skills. Mike Reed was the same way. By contrast, many day trading educators, in my limited experience, seem to hide a lack of trading success behind boastful hyper-confidence and elaborate sales pitches. They don’t show free videos of all their trades, and they don’t show their profits and losses on videos while they’re trading. Matthew Brydges does. And astonishingly, Matthew gives it all away on YouTube for free. No one can help admiring the guy.
With all these specific similarities between the trading strategies of Matthew Brydges and my old mentor and pal, Mike Reed, I can tell you with complete objective and intuitive confidence that Matthew is the real thing, a genuinely successful discretionary futures day trader. If you’re already interested in day trading, you couldn’t find a better mentor at any price, and Matthew teaches and demonstrates everything he knows and does for free on YouTube. It’s a dream come true for me, perhaps another kindness reflecting the loving personality of God and/or his Universe.
In general I’ve found that almost anyone with a rare skill tends to speak in humble tones about it. With notable exceptions (occasionally in Mixed Martial Arts, for example) humility seems to be the natural human response to mastering any rare and difficult skill. So despite our human tendency to follow boastfully self-confident leaders full of self-promoting hype, I think there’s a better way…
“By their fruits ye shall know them.” — The Nazarene
Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD
PS: If you know anyone who’s so unusually ambitions that they’re already interested in day trading, please do them the biggest favor of their day-trading lives and send them a link to this blog post. Or if they don’t like reading long pedantic posts, send them directly to this link: Matthew Bridge’s YouTube channel, Day Trader Next Door. Someday that person will thank you from the bottom of his or her heart.
By the way, I have no conflicts of interest to disclose: no financial connection to Matthew or his trading course or anything else related to trading. Plus I’ve got nothing to sell that’s unrelated to trading. (I’m a zero when it comes to selling, though I have great respect for the profession. Selling is a rare gift.) And as I mentioned above, just before you fell asleep reading this, I’m offering NO financial advice of any kind, just sharing with you things that I currently believe to be true, “same as it ever was.”
Here’s a video interview of Iain McGilchrist, a psychiatrist and neuroscientist who never mentions the actual thing he’s talking about but gives the most ingenious and satisfying description of how and why a certain modern cultural poison is killing our happiness and annihilating life’s meaning, especially for young people here in the US.
He calls it a crisis of total left-hemisphere dominance, the new reign of Puritanism.
He believes that the only way to reverse the damage it’s doing is to understand it and talk about it calmly.
I agree and hope you will share this video with everyone on your email list, even the one who despises psychiatrists.
After you listen, let’s see if you and I agree on the best single word to describe what he’s talking about.
The interview reminds me of Hemingway’s short story, “Hills Like White Elephants,” where two lovers quarrels over abortion, but the reader must figure that out because the word “abortion” is never mentioned.
Whenever I hear someone talking up true inclusiveness and diversity while pointing out that the root problem is “scientific” materialism, I can’t help but cheer inside. Someone out there gets it!
Quite opposite to the old understanding of how the left and right hemispheres of the brain perceive the world and deal with it, Dr. McGilchrist tells us that as a result of studying people with right hemispheric strokes (which can destroy the right hemisphere, leaving only the left to deal with things), it is the left hemisphere that believes it is right about everything and becomes angry and disgusted if anyone contradicts it. Worldview tolerance is alien to it, denial of reality comes naturally.
As you know, a right hemispheric stroke can paralyze the left side of the body (since the nerve fibers cross over). Well…
McGilchrist tells us about a presumably representative stroke victim with no feeling or movement in the left arm after a severe right-hemispheric stroke. The patient was in total denial of the fact that his left arm belonged to him.
“That’s not my arm.”
This launches an understanding of the nature of wokeness. That’s the word he never said, but only talked around.
Stemming from the divide in the early 1900’s where Physics began rejecting “scientific” materialism while Biology did a mind-meld with it (by assuming that the human body and mind are entirely mechanical and without true consciousness, free will, spirit or soul) woke society is now finally becoming so left-hemisphere dominated that woke individuals resemble McGilchrist’s left-hemisphere-dominated schizophrenic patients who had lost touch with truth and reality.
The left hemisphere, he explains, lives in a somewhat 2-dimentional world and exists for the purpose of focusing narrowly, grasping one small thing at a time (often a physical object, a word or a phrase) and controlling it beneath an inflexible, unquestionable worldview.
He tells us that when he asks a new patient what’s wrong, if the answer is, “nothing, I’m fine,” then there is nothing he can to do help.
So the best “action” available to us un-woke people who would like to bring true diversity of ideas, free speech, and the fullness of human meaning back from the mechanical grip of Wokeism, is to simply talk about it, hopefully in a non-confrontational, non-brittle and charitable way… though sheepishly now I’ve linked to the word “Wokeism” and discovered it’s a pejorative term. Who knew?
Maybe that’s why Dr. McGilchrist never mentioned it. Some people say it’s a mean term invented by FOX “News.”
I don’t listen to Fox (Republican Brainwashing) “News” or to any of the numerous Democrat Brainwashing “News” programs either (both sides owned and controlled by a small group of hyper-wealthy people), so I ignorantly thought “woke” was a neutral term created by its owners for their racist worldview of denial that addicts people like a hypnagogic drug and is now ushering in Orwell’s 1984. <– Here’s the full text in pdf, if you want to re-read it.
Mr. Tool (as I used to call him when trying to make my teenage son laugh at his out-of-touch dad) is one of the most open and honest lyricists ever to breathe, not to mention he’s insightful.
As Tool’s haunting video for this song might be retrospectively interpreted: when the left hemisphere takes full control of a person or of an entire society (like ours in the US), it has no more use for subtly than it has for self-questioning of its deepest assumption, an empty claim and threat that echoes the Puritan culture from the early white colonies of North America:
“I am always right, so keep your mouth shut and obey me.”
I have to believe that most woke people will be able to extract themselves from this gnarly worldview once they understand what spirit it represents. It reminds me of an old story…
And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem, And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him. And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem. And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.
I can’t begin to tell you how happy I was to find out that a brilliant systems analyst whose opinions I hold in the highest esteem, Ivor Cummins, has identified the root cause of what’s destroying love, trust and trustworthiness in the world today. The author of an important book, The Psychology of Totalitarianism, Mattias Desmet, also gets it. He delivers a spell-binding interview in the video above.
These two men have come to grips with a hard truth that I’ve been yammering about, mainly to my wife, for decades: the primary cause of our cultural dysfunction today is “scientific” materialism, the pseudoscientific and dogmatic faith in the untestable assumption that our universe and all of the things and beings that might possibly lie beyond it, are all made of 1. mindless matter and 2. mindless electromagnetic energy. This interchangeable pair, born of reductionism, has designed and constructed the vast living ecosystems of unfathomably complex organisms without mindful help, because the faithful know there is no chance of a higher mind existing out there anywhere.
“Mass formation psychosis,” as the narrative goes, was first described in the 1950s as a state of mass hypnosis that must take control of 30 percent of a population before a tyrant can drag a country into one of the traditional forms of totalitarianism. Nazi Germany is the poster-child, it seems.
When I listen to this highly educated guy in the video, Mattias Desmet, discuss “mass formation,” it seems intuitively obvious that the US is experiencing this odd hypnotic phenomenon now, heading rapidly and enthusiastically toward a technologically enforced totalitarian society with Central Bank Digital Currency in the hands of the Central Banking Cartel as the ultimate tool for micromanagement of speech, shopping, and the savings/ investment patterns of each individual within their digital surveillance.
Here are the dynamics of group psychosis through hypnosis…
Lonely, frightened people become emotionally married to a constantly repeated (but irrational) narrative that feels good because it focuses everyone’s free-floating anxieties and fears on a concrete object, the “evil people,” who can be dealt with directly (in contrast to their free-floating anxiety which has nothing concrete to target for elimination). These “evil people” are always a group of flawed souls (because we’re all flawed souls, OK? Own it.) This flawed group’s historic and ongoing imperfections are surreptitiously emphasized with righteous indignation which subconsciously tags the group as the cause of everyone’s fear and anxiety, especially where money and poverty are concerned.
Today’s iteration of mass formation psychosis is far from “an equivalence” to Nazi Germany’s events, except perhaps in vague broad terms such as the catastrophically bad judgement of our leadership (on both sides of US politics). The “ultimate evil” group today has become the un-woke white males, as best I can tell. This could change, of course. State-sanctioned racism could shift from white males to all whites including white women and children. Or the currently woke version of racism could suddenly point its finger at another group, such as the Asians, the Mormons, the folk who pilot the world’s UFOs/UAPs, or even the un-woke of all races and worldviews who simply oppose ALL forms of racism on principle, including the woke anti-white form we’re currently struggling with.
It’s strange how a frightened, lonely population can be group-hypnotized into embracing a narrative, no matter how absurd it is, as long as the narrative can be constantly repeated to the public while rational voices are suppressed.
If you wanted to take over the world today, you’d need to have Big Tech and ALL the TV “news” outlets behind your narrative.
You’d need a crisis or a series of crises, hopefully signaling an unavoidable global macroeconomic disaster like hyperinflation and/or depression.
You’d need the big money behind your cause, like the world’s true central bankers and their puppets who appear to run the FED.
Then you, as a wannabe tyrant, could succeed miraculously through public repetition of any delusion, because the discomfort of free-floating fear, anxiety and loneliness can be symptomatically suppressed by focusing these unstable emotions on their supposed root-cause, namely the insufferably rotten white people with male gender identification.
“These sub-humans need to be at least punished for what they’ve done. Then we’ll find justice.”
The huge relief that comes from focusing free-floating anxiety and fear on something concrete brings fanatical dedication to the cause. Currently the cause appears to be silencing, hating, and eventually hunting down and exterminating all the “subhuman animals” who stubbornly oppose the woke delusion and its cultural and governmental takeover. Some of us happen to be white males, so we’re an easy starting point, but probably it won’t stop there.
Unfortunately, eliminating entire segments of the human population (and thereby reducing genetic diversity and our species’ odds of long-term survival) appears to be historically central to a successful “mass formation psychosis” perpetrated by tyrants who are overthrowing a government.
The folk in a takeover-targeted society who speak against the hypnotic racist narrative are, we’re told, unable to reverse the course of the revolution, but at least their anti-racist, anti-murder efforts to preserve rational thought do sometimes seem to succeed in preventing outright genocide and mass murder.
Today the WEF is openly telling us their plans to conquer the world, rejoicing in the ongoing global crises (economic and virus-related) that they freely admit they’re taking full advantage of while publicly bragging about their success in “infiltrating” by getting WEF graduates elected to public office. Fortunately the World Economic Forum seems to want to avoid nuclear war during their takeover. Got to be thankful for the little things.
“Mass formation” theory explains why and how the low points of human history tend to repeat themselves.
But I find it more fascinating that “scientific” materialism itself, the dominant toxic fundamentalist worldview today, is nothing short of a mass formation psychosis. It has taken a lonely group of highly intelligent people who have dedicated their careers to objective truth and curiosity, a group of wonderful men and woman who live in constant anxiety and fear of stepping out of line or in any way inadvertently screwing something up and losing their research funding, and through endless repetition of the Neo-Darwinian narrative for over a century, it (the toxic soup of materialism) has transformed about 66% of scientists and much of the general public into “scientific” materialist fundamentalists who reject all scientific curiosity outside of traditional materialist boundaries.
And as a group, the materialists (a.k.a. physicalists) continue to destroy the careers of anyone who opposes their scientific faith-based assumption with any other scientific faith-based assumption, such as Intelligent Design or the objective, scientific study of UFO’s/UAPs. They also censor and derail the careers of those within their own materialist faith whenever one of them accidentally discovers and tries to publish the evidence supporting a non-materialist worldview.
It’s no wonder I’m hearing rumors that materialist scientists are individually but quietly backing away from their long-held religion. Reality is impossible to hide from smart people forever, it seems to me.
I can deal with the notion that Desmet suggests, that the silent majority (on all sides of politics, science and human demographics who quietly dislike racist government takeovers) cannot prevent it from ultimately happening. It’s not the end of the world if we can’t change the course of history or even change the mind of a single woke racist. We can at least keep talking sense to the brick wall of hypnosis. We can at least keep trying to limit the loss of life that has traditionally been part of government takeover revolutions throughout history.
Come to think of it, I like what someone reported hearing during their life-changing near-death experience…
“God doesn’t ask us to succeed, only to persist.”
Ask Viktor Frankl, God rest his soul.Speaking up against ALL forms racism is the only loving, kind, and thoughtful thing to do, because nobody who’s not a sociopath feels good about themselves after a genocide, whether they’ve participated as a bloodthirsty proponent, a passive observer, or a survivor like Mr. Frankl.
Imagine you’re a powerful, wealthy insider, a person with global connections in high places, a person that the World Economic Forum (WEF) would classify as a “stakeholder,” deserving status and economic advantages such as ownership of real estate.
You believe that democracy and capitalism are one-and-the-same, both have failed, and you want to end democracy in the US in a peaceful revolution that avoids civil war.
After all, you and your friends are convinced that the average person is too dumb to govern themselves. The masses need an elite class to step up and save the world with benevolent top-down control of everyone’s opinions and spending behaviors.
Like anyone who reads nonfiction, you realize how easy it would be to usher in a top-down government similar to China’s if you and your banker friends could micromanage each individual’s money with a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC).
With that flexible tool, you could bankrupt evil corporations by instantly enforcing tax regulations designed to take down dangerous niches of capitalism, starting with those upstart platforms that allow free speech. They have to go, because the average person is not smart enough for unprotected thinking. Your banker friends agree.
And with the micromanaging power of a CBD Currency, your elite class could gently herd the holdout pro-democracy folks away from their failed sacred-cow system, starting with a stoke of a computer key that prescribes the medicine of negative interest rates upon all (central) bank accounts with low “social scores.”
Looking globally, you notice that the Central Bank Digital Currency in China is already taking root, but here in the US we’ll teach the Chinese Communist Party a thing or two. We won’t have any public protests, bank holidays, or crashing real estate and stock markets. Business cycles will become a footnote in history books. Just imagine…
With everyone’s “social scores” reflecting their purchasing patterns, online interests, and the words they’ve read and written, Central Bank Owners will be able to tailor financial rewards and punishments in a fair and efficient way. When the economy gets too hot and inflation fears arise, you will be able to instantly reward personal saving at the individual and corporate levels, cooling things down. When the economy slumps, you’ll be able to reward spending on just the right things to avoid recession. It will be a modern monetary theory wet-dream utopia.
Eventually people will realize that they don’t need to own things in order to be happy. You and your wealthy friends have already learned this sad lesson the hard way, by actually owning everything money can buy and still feeling miserable.
But this current opportunity to save the masses from themselves with CBD Currency and the re-emergence of rational top-down government in the West has been like a shot of B12 in the buttocks. You have new energy, a higher purpose, and an opportunity to implement a life-affirming revolution-without-blood.
Fortunately your friends have years of experience in manipulating voting patterns in the US by increasing political polarization and hatred via mainstream TV “programming” designed from the top down to control both political parties. The magic of “molding public opinion” has taught you one thing for sure…
If you want to kill an idea, attach it to one of the two main political parties. It doesn’t matter which one. You can flip a coin.
Apparently the coin came up tales at the WEF, and someone must have decided to attach the love of freedom and democracy to the Republican Party and somehow NOT to the party that incorporated the word democracy into their name.
I can just hear some elite bankster chuckling, “Let’s have those Republican fellows be the ones who want to save democracy. The irony will absolutely slay our comrades.”
Personally I wouldn’t be surprised if the man, James G. Rickards, in this video (linked in orange above) is exactly who he says he is, a hugely connected insider. I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s sincere and may even believe he’s selling (for $49) a newsletter that will preserve a person’s financial freedom after the CBD Currency becomes a reality of top-down control by WEF graduates who have become US Politicians. As best I can tell, Mr. Rickards is right about a great many things, and perhaps his newsletter is worth something, but…
Even if he’s sincere and correct about every alarming thing he says will happen soon in the US, he’s playing right into the hands of the World Economic Forum’s agenda by promoting the absurd lie that Republicans love democracy more than Democrats.
That lie, that deliberate misinformation, is the primary brainwashing tool that the WEF et. al use in the USA to stop half the population from noticing what the WEF is openly promoting: their agenda of Central Bank Digital Currency and totalitarianism. It’s not a conspiracy theory despite what the Wikipedia says. Here’s how the WEF founder, Schwab, sums up the WEF agenda…
“You will own nothing and you will be happy.” – Klaus Schwab
The only way the WEF can hide what they’re openly doing is by attaching the idea of loving democracy to one party, especially at a time like this when anything one party likes or wants, the other automatically hates or dismisses.
We’ve become like chronically dysfunctional siblings…
“You like blue? Fine, I hate blue.”
“Well, I hate you.”
“I hate you, too.”
“Mom! Cloe stuck her tongue out at me again!”
Here’s another right-wing voice helping the WEF accomplish their political goals by foolishly promoting the WEF’s misinformation (calculated lie) that liberal voters don’t love democracy as much as conservative voters…
The lie that only conservatives love democracy makes things easy for the World Economic Forum because the stage has already been set for liberal minds to emotionally reject anything labeled “right wing conspiracy theory.”
Everybody and their dog “knows” that all conspiracy theories are inherently false, even the ones where the conspirators openly discus their plans on video the way the World Economic Forum is now doing.
But don’t we really need a Reset?
Yes, we absolutely do, but not the WEF’s version. We need to vote together across the aisle, Democrats and Republicans rejecting the mainstream narrative that we’re polar opposites in some way.
Doesn’t the US’s perversion of capitalism need fixing?
Yes, in a big way.
Aren’t Washington’s policies (of both the Republicans and Democrats in DC) killing the middle class by printing and spending too much money thereby reducing the buying power of the dollar?
Yes. Every decade for as long as I’ve been alive, the middle class has become poorer. Ninety-nine percent of voters don’t want this to continue. Your political party is totally irrelevant here.
Isn’t the revolving door that takes politicians (from both parties) out of public service and into the payrolls of mega-corporations they’ve favored while in office… isn’t this the very reason DC represents the military-industrial complex and ignores “we the people” of the middle and lower economic classes?
Yes, that’s the problem exactly. Not one Democrat or Republican outside of DC wants this repulsive anti-democratic situation to continue. Not one. It should be against the law.
And it could be, if only…
We must gang up, Democrats and Republicans, and all vote together to remove ALL DC politicians from office, every last one of them, clearing out both sides of the aisle and replacing these compromised failures with people who see the problems and run on platforms of fixing DC immediately with new sweeping laws such as a simplified (and therefore fair) tax code with NO loopholes for any big businesses, term limits for everyone in DC including the secret service leaders and those in lifelong power at the Department of Defense, and laws against the revolving corporate door of employment for semi-retired politicians who have sold out and abandoned their voters in exchange for a cushy job lined with cash and bonuses.
I’d bet that for every (mislabeled) “Democrat” who wants a totalitarian takeover of the US government via CBD Currency and its micro-controlling surveillance potential, there are at least several million real Democrats who would oppose any such Orwellian nightmare… if only they hadn’t already written off the whole anti-CBD Currency topic as a “right-wing conspiracy theory.”
Central Bank Digital Currency is at least as bad as advertised by the wildest of “right-wingnut conspiracy theorist,” all you have to do to know this for yourself is to open your eyes and ears to what the WEF is saying to the voting public.
Today more than ever, Democrats and Republican desperately need each other. We need to talk respectfully across the aisle about big-picture issues, things we already agree upon. We need to admit to ourselves how our thoughts and emotions are being manipulated daily by the sold-out TV “news” media on both political sides while compromised social media platforms have become addicted to the power of censorship.
We voters may have a window of several years in which to learn to talk across the aisle with love and respect, finally learning to thumb our collective noses at ALL mainstream media outlets (on both sides) and vote together in mass to save democracy from CBD-Currency totalitarianism as envisioned and promoted by the WEF and practiced now by the Chinese Communist Party and their top-down wealthy “stakeholder” elites.
Free Currency Love,
Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD
PS. Feel free to share this post across the political aisle with an old friend who doesn’t speak to you anymore because you perhaps belong to what he/she considers the “evil” political party. News flash, regular people are not evil. We’re simply living in a state of prolonged emotional manipulation aimed at creating mutual opinion rigidity and distain for the other side. It’s time to break free from the spell and vote all the incumbents out.
Not only have billions of dollars gone down the toilet in failed Big Pharma pills that target the amyloid of Alzheimer’s disease, but now we know fraudulent data photos were published in one of the most seminal rat studies of this disease. The fraud, at the time, convinced most researchers (and all NIH grant controllers) that amyloid CAUSES Alzheimer’s dementia.
BAMP! Wrong answer.
All of Big Pharma’s Alzheimer’s anti-amyloid pills have failed miserably for many years, yet this failed paradigm of amyloid-as-cause of the disease continues to suck every dollar of grant money away from researchers like Dale Bredesen who has actually published peer-reviewed studies of his success in REVERSING mild to moderate Alzheimer’s dementia.
The situation reminds me of how impossible it would be for a fiscal conservative like myself to convince a congresswoman/man (Democrat or Republican) that the FED’s power to print money is destroying the middle class and will lead to a central-bank digital currency that kills democracy, replacing it with a totalitarian oligarchy like the one promoted by the World Economic Forum and the CCP of China.
In the video linked here, Megyn Kelly interviews the whistleblowing scientist who discovered fraud in the rat study that pivoted mainstream researchers from doubting “amyloid-as-cause” to swallowing it whole without chewing.
As best I can tell, a bench tech slipped the fraud pictures into the paper without the lead scientist’s knowledge. This tech guy has a reputation of producing work that other labs cannot reproduce.
But far more important for my precious readers is this: at about 1:08:42 on the video, Kelly interviews Dale Bredesen, MD, the research scientist who has already reversed Alzheimer’s Disease in a fairly large number of patients.
They estimate that 45 million US Americans will soon have this unimaginably horrible disease. That means every single one of us needs to know about Dale Bredesen’s success because someone we know, if not we ourselves, will almost certainly be taken down by this cruel killer.
The number of Alzheimer’s deaths eclipses the COVID-19 pandemic, but beyond numbers, it’s difficult to imagine a more unbearable way to die than watching your mind, personality and memory slowly deteriorate until you cannot for the life of you recognize your spouse or kids.
Please take this disease seriously.
So mainstream medicine is clueless about Bredesen’s breakthrough work after they’ve wasted billions on failed monotherapy pills. And if an MD knows about Bredesen, odd are he/she criticizes him.
But how could any intelligent person be so rigidly devoted to denying the truth?
It’s somewhat simple. They demand to see an experimental design with double-blinded controls geared to test “one thing at a time,” (the Big Pharma monotherapy dogma).
By definition, the monotherapy approach cannot work when you’re dealing with a chronic disease that has dozens of mini-causes working together in synergistic combinations.
Alzheimer’s is an E pluribus unum disease — “from many, one.”
Modern monotherapy medicine is clueless to deal with such complexity. Instead it demands to live in the past and block progress with outdated standards of monotherapy experimental design.
But can’t Dr. Bredesen produce blinded controls and satisfy the mainstream?
No, not at all. Think about what he’s up against.
When altering lifestyle, diet, heavy exercise, carbohydrate toxicity ( for “type 2 diabetes of the brain”), fighting specific chronic infections like Herpes Simplex Virus, eliminating neurotoxins, and running large-spectrum blood analyses to discover and target each patient’s specific causes of Alz dementia, it is impossible to design a study with double-blinded controls, because…
For instance, how can Bredesen blind (hide from) a patient the fact that she is on a low carb diet testing her ketone levels daily and exercising heavily three or four times a week? And conversely, how do you hide from the controls the fact that they are not doing these things?
The test cohort and the control patients will know exactly which category they’re in. This makes all studies that are aimed against multi-factorial diseases such as Alzheimer’s, absolutely predestined by Big Pharma to fail and be viewed as worthless by mainstream doctors and their journal gatekeepers who have been educated for generations by Big Pharma reps, you know, those gregarious extroverts giving away free pens, free gadgets, and free lunch during their lectures on journal articles supporting their company’s big-hitting pills.
Meanwhile, to any rational mind not brainwashed for generations by Big Pharma, the controls they demand are actually present in the general populations of the world. They consist of vast numbers of people who are dying of (and with) Alzheimer’s disease. Not one of these “common-sense control” patients has had a reversal (or even a slowing) of symptoms once a well documented diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease has been made.
So hey, if you’re having mental fog at all, even in you mid 40’s, ask your doc if you’re OK to experiment with a ketogenic diet for a month or two. And maybe do some vigorous cardio with it, if you’re able.
The keto diet alone will show you what a clear mind (burning ketones rather than just glucose) feels like. If you have chronic free-floating anxiety or mild depression, I predict it will largely vanish along with the brain fog.
Then you’ll have personal evidence (n=1) on the amazing Bredesen Protocol.
Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD
PS. Send this article to someone with a brilliant mind that you appreciate, perhaps someone who’s 40 years old or better.
Garry Nolan, PhD, a cancer researcher at Stanford was minding his own business one fine morning when the CIA came to his office from out of the blue and asked him to help them research the effects of UFO encounters upon human blood (Nolan’s area of special expertise).
If only there were a politically neutral mainstream TV “news” outlet, I could post that interview, but no such thing exists in the USA. Nothing vaguely close to neutral.
So if you’re a Democrat and can’t stand the sight of Tucker Carlson, please join me in forgetting politics. This is bigger than all that. Plug your nose, hold your breath, or whatever it takes to watch this world-class mainstream research scientist tell us what he knows for sure about UFOs.
The longer Dr. Nolan talks, the more he reveals his true opinions on UFOs.
The UFO phenomenon is part of the physical world.
“It’s unscientific to not study it. And if you’re going to be that way, you’re not a scientist, you’re a priest.” – Garry Nolan, PhD.
At first Dr. Nolan sounds fashionably skeptical, but after a while he reveals what he truly thinks we’re dealing with…
1.) All the non-disclosure agreements related to UFOs/UAPs must be revealed (so everyone involved can be tracked down, given amnesty, and interviewed under oath)
2.) All records on the disinformation and obfuscation surrounding UFOs/UAPs must be revealed
3.) All the information going back to 1947 regarding UFO-related events that have occurred must be revealed
4.) All information about the medical harms that have occurred in association with UFOs/UAPs must be revealed
“What law can you remember in the last year or two that has had complete bipartisan support? This has brought people together…. This is above politics. It has to be.” – Garry Nolan, PhD
The CIA showed Nolan several brain imaging studies (MRIs) of people who had ventured too close to UFO craft. The white areas of sclerosis in the image on the right are scars associated temporally with symptoms resembling radiation toxicity immediately following the patient’s close proximity to a UFO vehicle.
“It’s 100% real. There’s no doubt about it. The data [of the physical effects associated with UFO encounters] is real.” – Garry Nolan, PhD
Carlson: “You’re around people who study this stuff for a living, the most knowledgeable people on this topic in the world.”
Nolan: “Yes, Yes.”
Carlson: “What is their general sense of what this [UFO phenomenon] might be?”
I’ll keep saying this until I die, Democrats and Republicans need each other desperately.
It’s time to end the decades-long trend of economic theft by DC politicians who shrink the middle class and increase poverty while enriching themselves by way of legal insider trading. Both parties do hundreds of millions of it!
Here’s a guy who sees the shared predicament of middle and lower-class Democrats and Republicans. He gives us two possible solutions.
It really should be a federal crime for DC lawyer-politicians to trade stocks against the US middle and lower class Democrats and Republicans using secrets about economic legislation.
But since both sides love money more than fairness, and since we voters are separated irrationally into two angry camps who vote with our limbic systems, it will take the miracle of Republicans and Democrats learning to love each other and value each other’s opposite opinions before we can vote together to stop our leaders from impoverishing the middle class and adding to the poor.
Today I signed up for a one-month free trial of a service that claims to use public knowledge of the House and Senate’s insider trading. I have no idea of this service’s value (or lack of value) to investors and traders. The outfit requires a credit card for the free month’s trial, so if you sign up, please just paper-trade it for three weeks, and if it goes badly, cancel your “subscription” before your free month is over. Otherwise they will automatically charge you $30.00 for another month.
With that caveat, on top of a sinking feeling that the stock market is irrational lately, here’s a link to the DC insider service mentioned in the above video.
I hope these people are honestly trying to level the playing field for middle and lower-class stock traders and investors. We all must currently trade against DC insiders (in both parties) who live by the popular amoral deception that “fairness doesn’t work.”
The UFO/UAP issue is unique in that it encourages objective thinking from politicians on both sides of the aisle working together toward the goal of genuine UFO disclosure.
Their cooperation is not part of the World Economic Forum’s master plan. For global elites, I suspect it’s frightening to see the first tiny cracks in the wall of political hatred their members have erected to divide and control US voters.
But however the WEF feels, these few brave bipartisan DC officials have put political hatred aside for a higher purpose. They hope to discover a worldview truth that has likely been hidden within the byzantine power/secrecy structures of the US intelligence “services” since about 1947.
It’s become clear that we’re not alone… but that’s only if you’re a reader of the UFO literature. As with any field of complex cutting-edge enquiry, if you don’t read the literature broadly and critically, you won’t know what’s going on.
Bipartisan UFO/UAP work demonstrates once again why the left and the right need each other desperately.
The WEF is already gaining control of Western governments, placing their personally educated politicians in powerful elected positions while openly sharing their plans and bragging about the success they’re having. Of course they’ve got nice bits of wonderful sounding rhetoric and presumably the best of intentions, by and large. Future tyrants always do feel that their grandiose plans will save the world. That’s got to be how they justify violence, war, racism and every other form of top-down abuse.
The left and right need each other now more than ever.
We need each other’s conflicting worldview biases, we need each other’s opposite perspectives on economic and monetary policy, we need each other’s scientific biases including the many suppressed minority postulates and theories, we need each other’s incongruent perspectives on how to genuinely help the poor rather than enslaving them in debt, inflation, addiction, and the depressing grip of eternal victimhood through woke racism’s campaign of anti-logic and “fairness doesn’t work.”
An unbalanced, top-heavy approach to politics, science, and spiritual paradigms tends to bring disaster and collapse to a peaceful, loving society. This is because we live in a world (and universe) where the complexity of vital systems exceeds our mental capacity to understand the details, let alone our ability to measure, control and fix any of nature’s systems. With complex systems, balance is wisdom, and it’s achieved through listening carefully to everyone, even those who sound like fools to you. Especially those.
The hyper-complex systems of nature embody just about everything including the biochemistry and genetics of life, the balances of ecosystems, the delicate balance of competition versus synergy among all organisms including human societies and subcultures, the balance of free markets versus top-down regulation, the balance of taxation versus economic growth, the balance of inflation versus deflation, the balance of selfish ambition versus true altruism, and the natural ebb and flow of top-down spiritual worldview impositions by ruling governments versus grass-roots spiritual evolution from one age to the next.
Humanity’s inherent need of freely opposing views on our road to enlightenment and peace is so enormous that I would go so far as to suggest that Christians and other spiritual people need the views of atheists as much as atheists need the influences of certain carefully-selected Christian and non-Christian spiritual values.
When I think about it, atheists question everything. This approach leads a person to ask the right questions. (Ask many questions and you’re more apt to ask the right ones? Seems logical to me.) And of course, any scientist or investigator will tell you that asking the right questions is the only way to track down a stubborn truth in any field of study or in any science-based practice.
At the same time, Christians sense the importance of vital concepts like, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind…” and “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Even if you feel sure that God doesn’t exist, you would increase the odds of human survival by internalizing the second half of this moral and spiritual call to action.
Monopoly of power is the enemy of life on Earth because one group’s views are always unbalanced, irrespective of what the group believes and promotes. Diversity of opinion, like genetic diversity, increases our species odds of survival. That’s nature’s way.
Yet each side of US politics conspires against the other in pursuit of monopolistic power, thinking that a final political victory for their side will bring utopia. The opposite is true.
Total dominance by any group of humans regardless of what they promote (even if it’s democracy) would spell the death of democracy and the resurrection of totalitarian rule in the West.
While the best parts of Christianity promote a world where everyone loves her/his neighbor, and the WEF promotes a world where they control the non-stakeholders (us little people), whoever is currently hiding the bulk of UFO data and artifacts is withholding information that will someday, for better or worse, cause a worldview reset that’s based on hard truth.
I suspect that a worldview reset based on knowledge and truth about our non-human neighbors might likely benefit the planet more than the “Great” economic “Reset” that the wealthy elites of the WEF are openly conspiring to bring upon us.
Like the WEF, the people hiding UFO/UAP data need the political left and right to remain under the hypnotic spell of political hatred, each side hating the other with every fiber of their hearts, with all their souls, and with all their minds.
TV “news” on both sides of the aisle maintains this hateful situation for the WEF, as well as for their own corporate profits, bathing listeners in a mental stew of hatred with time-tested tools like word-selection bias, story selection bias, overt censorship, half truth reporting, and complete lies whenever possible. Both sides do this. It’s not just the “bad guys” that lie and cheat over the “news” airwaves. Your side is doing it, whether you know it or not.
We should all wake up and refuse to watch any TV programming that makes our brains feel political hatred, fear, or outrage towards supposed “idiots.” Instead we should strive to communicate respectfully across the political divide so we can work together toward the common goal of human survival, long-term, never requiring anyone to abandon their political biases but rather understanding that they truly have valuable opinions and experiences that we desperately need in order to balance our own limited ideas and limited experiences.
The political left promotes great truths, the political right promotes great truths, both sides make colossal mistakes that are sometimes identical to the mistakes of their opponents, but neither side remotely resembles the “idiots” and “demons” that TV “news” paints for us.
In the video below, a Republican lawmaker from the House of Representatives, Tim Burchett, gives us his remarkably open-minded Christian perspective on the UFO/UAP coverup. It’s a great interview.
“The government can’t tell us the truth about anything, and I’m in the government.” – Tim Burchett.
In the video above we have a Christian lawmaker from the South who believes that some UFOs are the work of an alien civilization. He uses a Bible text from Ezekiel to support the idea.
His words would shock me if my own spiritual journey hadn’t been fairly similar.
As best I can predict, Mr. Burchett’s attitude foreshadows the direction that all Christianity will eventually take once the UFO/UAP truth comes out, assuming it ever does. This evolution of Christianity is likely to happen because honesty and integrity matter a great deal to the majority of modern Christians, especially the fundamentalists. On the other hand, the emotional appeal of an unchanging dogmatic traditional Christian worldview will be difficult for many Christian fundamentalists to overcome, partly due to financial concerns of Church administrators, but largely due to everyone’s worldview inertia. We all “know” we’re right about our worldviews, even when reality suggests otherwise.
I get the impression that many of us still consider ourselves Christians despite having gradually rejected the notion that the Bible is infallible and inerrant (though we may all be wrong). Right or wrong, it seems that some of us have allowed ourselves to elevate our view of God from the morality of the material Old Testament ET warrior gods (the Elohim or “powerful ones”) to the transcendent, loving Supreme Being described as a loving parent in some New Testament passages.
I have an opinion related to this aspect of Christian worldview evolution: I hope that every Christian who continues to believe in a Supreme Being following ET disclosure will hang on to the belief that our Supreme Creator is more than human in every way, not somehow inferior in one convenient way that just happens to conform to the secular dogma of an impersonal universe.
Let’s think about this…
The greatest thing about a human being, the biggest mystery and most impressive part of our existence, is that we have a personal identity that brings us a sense of free will, the ability to choose and act, the experience of primary agency as an undetermined cause with feelings and desires that bring depth, texture and meaning to everything we decide and try to do. It’s not merely that we are conscious, it’s that we experience genuine personhood.
The great historic failures of organized Christianity during the brutal “colonization” era have, I think, caused secular minds to hate the idea of a personal Supreme Being or Beings. They insist upon an impersonal Universe ruled by chance alone.
But as the existence of advanced non-human beings gradually penetrates our materialist culture forcing even secular people to look a bit higher, all of us, Christians included, seem to want something Impersonal at the top. Secularism seems to have given all of us in the West a tendency to replace the misconception of a personal ET Warrior “God” (from the Old Testament) with something impersonal. Some Christians say that the term “God” should be replaced by an impersonal word like “Source.”
Wanting an impersonal “Source” rather than a personal “God” is understandable, I guess. It even sounds street-smart if you imagine yourself in the shoes of an evangelist who hopes to fill Churches again.
But this emerging concept of an impersonal “Source,” as best I can determine, drives a knife into the heart of Christianity. As I see it, the main message of Jesus was probably not an overall worldview or even a “forensic plan of salvation,” but simply the reality that God is like a loving father whom anyone can talk to. This message is a radical departure from the angry beings (the Elohim) variously depicted as “God” and “gods” in the Old Testament.
Our secular bias appears to want a “God” who is inferior to us in one big way: he/she/it must lack personhood. The logic seems to be that this almighty “Source” is so infinitely great that personhood, humanity’s greatest transcendent attribute, is the single category of being where we must declare ourselves superior to the Highest, because the “Source” is ostensibly impersonal. You can’t talk to it and expect it to listen, understand, and feel anything towards you.
To me, this is “scientific” materialism in a bit of a disguise: the impersonal Universe of secularism remains while conceding that there’s something out there, but it’s a thing not a sentient Being.
Something in us Christians who have explored the UFO literature a bit and are convinced that advanced non-human beings are real… something in us wants God to become this impersonal “Source” rather than the Loving Father of the Nazarene.
Though I personally rejected the Old-Testament warrior version of God after 9/11/01 showed me the perspective of the ancient Philistines under attack, and though I have recently read three fascinating books about the misinterpretation of the word “Elohim” in the Old Testament, I still sense the nature of God through this sort of reasoning…
If humans have logic, the Supreme Mind has greater logic. If we have emotions, Supreme Love has greater emotions. If we have personalities, the Supreme Person has a better personality. If we understand and speak languages, the Supreme Communicator understands and speaks all languages. And if we know how to listen to those in need, the Supreme Councilor listens with greater empathy and care than we do.
So I suspect that when friendly ETs walk openly among us, their version of God will probably resemble the loving Father of whom our Nazarene leader reportedly said, “I and the Father are one.”
An independent conservative news reporter, James O’Keefe, founder and CEO of Project Veritas, was raided by the FBI because someone gave him POTUS Biden’s daughter’s diary.
The video below only gives us his side of the story, but it’s shocking and falls in line with the FOYA-documented history of abuse from various US intelligence organizations.
The real shock to me, though, was this: The liberal ACLU and several prominent liberal reporters came to the defense of this conservative journalist. It’s another glorious crack in the wall of political hatred that keeps US citizens divided at the polls and thereby easily controlled by central banks, giant corporations, and their henchmen hiding within the secret service organizations of the US shadow government.
It gives me hope that the West will finally understand the larger point: Democracy’s survival requires (by definition) at least two viable opposing parties. A one-party democracy would be an oxymoron, like “capitalist communism” or FED-led free markets.
Although most reporters would agree that Freedom of the Press is essential to democracy, corporate news isn’t free to talk about a great many things.
The mainstream news outlets on both sides of politics are speech-limited and often gagged by their dependence on advertising money alone, not to mention their audience’s devotion to one side or the other of TV politics.
The ad money must flow or they’re out of business.
For example, if, during the worst part of the COVID pandemic, a mainstream news outlet had reported on how Pfizer and the FDA were withholding horribly negative vaccine research data from the world , the news outlet (conservative or liberal) would have lost an enormous chunk of advertising money from Pfizer. If this news organization had enough courage and integrity to repeat such blatant acts of honest journalism, their news business would face bankruptcy as corporate advertisers blacklisted them. The large audiences that objective journalism can attract these days wouldn’t save them. But going independent might.
This is why independent reporters have become the only source of objective news in the US.
It’s also why corporate news outlets insist that independent reporters are the source of “fake news,” when actually, corporate new is by far the main source of fake news.
Advertisers no doubt encourage TV news outlets to denigrate independent reporters…
“Here’s a little something extra to put in your pocket, Buzz. Your Joe Rogan bash last week? Really a brilliant piece.”
“Thank you, sir. The man’s got a case of toxic arrogance.”
“True. But ever thought of bringing him in house?”
“Oh, believe me, sir, we’ve tried.”
Google/YouTube, Twitter, and FB also do their best to silence independent reporters, but the women and men they cancel move on with their audiences to freer video outlets. It seems that truth is tougher to silence than expected, at least for now.
As long as indie reporters exist, their voices will be like a rash on the butt of every hyper-dominant political organization in every country. The more dominant a political agenda becomes and the closer their power approaches totalitarian rule, the more painfully intolerable independent journalists become to them. This is because objective truth always frightens the ruling class no matter the nature of their views — left, right, or off-planet.
In the US, the left side of politics is now at least as widely and firmly entrenched in power and influence as the political right once was, perhaps in the 1950’s or before. Near-total power of this magnitude makes any human being feel simultaneously entitled to full control, and fearful of a violent revolution by the poor (many former middle class folk in this era) whom they’ve trampled in their power grab.
As best I can tell, this pattern is independent of the political views (left or right) of a current hyper-powerful elite.
So in a fit of bully-rage the hyper-powerful FBI forced a conservative indie journalist’s private emails out of Google, Apple, and then went after Microsoft who resisted. Then the FBI raided James O’Keefe’s home at 6:00 AM, put him in handcuffs and forced him to sit in his underwear in a public space while armed FBI stormtroopers ransacked his house.
The FBI’s thugs took O’Keefe’s computers with his sacred list of confidential sources, the insiders and whistleblowers whose names he had sworn to protect when they entrusted him with their careers, reputations, and personal safety.
The FBI hoped to frighten all independent reporters into silence, not merely the conservative journalist sitting in his underpants with POTUS Biden’s daughter’s personal diary presumably hidden elsewhere.
This whole ugly mess shows us exactly how the new US government formed after The “Great” Reset will treat regular citizens under the intoxication of total power combined with the historically tyrannical influence of “scientific” materialism’s anti-spiritual propaganda.
The secret services of the US seem to have embraced an amoral value system decades ago, as reflected in their infiltration of the media during Operation Mockingbird and again more recently in something called “Bountygate.”
Today the unelected secret service organizations of the US frighten every one of our crooked elected officials in Congress as well as those playing musical chairs at the White House.
It’s easy to miss the disproportionate magnitude of secret-service power over the US government when the FBI is going after someone you don’t like, someone elected by the “ignorant, stupid, and evil” political party. But TV politics are the very tool the secret services use against us on both sides of TV “news” to keep us divided and looking at anything but the cancer within democracy that they’ve become.
We need to constantly notice that anything these secret organizations do to the “bad” elected officials, they can do to anyone elected by the “good” political party. It’s the same dynamic no matter which side you love or hate: the insidious growth of covert central power.
Here’s a mainstream TV news personality who was rejected by both sides of mainstream TV hate-news. I suspect that this unusual history alone makes Megyn Kelly’s current reporting more trustworthy than anything TV “news” has to offer.
In this video she interviews the independent conservative reporter, James O’Keefe, who woke up in his boxer shorts one fine morning to the sound of the FBI’s illegal predatory invasion of his home…
As Megyn said, several liberal reporters and the liberal ACLU came forward in support of this conservative reporter.
Suddenly, out of the blue, some of us are beginning to understand the inherent value of fairness.
Prominent liberal voices now realize that political censorship of the conservatives by the secret services can come back to haunt liberals someday if/when conservatives re-gain enough power and influence to reverse the entrenched political agenda of the current US secret service organizations.
I’m hoping this rare and wonderful example of liberals stepping up to support conservative free speech (in perfect harmony with classic liberalism) will be the start of the left and the right jettisoning their differences to defend what’s left of democracy in the US.
Will Smith (the more conservative) slaps Chris Rock (the more liberal) and keeps us all looking at our pseudo-problem, not at our real problem.
Our pseudo-problem is the cultural divide where the fringe puritans of self-righteousness on both sides keep us thinking that those of us with liberal values and lifestyles must fight a war against those of us with conservative values and lifestyles.
Our real problem is that the tiny number of people who have real power over us are dragging the West into a digital totalitarian world order where political freedom and self-determination (core traits of democracy) are becoming extinct.
TV news (on both sides), the academy, Hollywood, Big Tech, Big Pharma, and tiny groups of highly vocal political-fringe voices on the left and right want us to focus all our attention on the pseudo-problem. They want us to remain blinded and divided by anger, outrage and hatred.
They glibly silence anyone who suggests that most of us regular folk, whether liberal, progressive, conservative, or whatever… we have friends and loved ones on both sides of their cultural pseudo-war.
We know how to love people of all stripes. We know how to respect cultural differences because we’re not vicious idiots with fighting instincts that overwhelm our compassion, objectivity, and reason.
We’re normal human beings, and we have a super-majority when it comes to everything except voting together.
This is because of the pseudo-war, the “culture war.”
If we voted together to stop powerful elites from killing democracy, we could save it. There’s still time, I think.
But we must wake up to the small groups’ motives for keeping us at each other’s throats. We must learn to refuse being emotionally and politically divided over nonsense…
“Will Smith did what?! I hate him now!”
“No, I love him. He did the right thing. ‘Whatever it takes,’ man.”
This is why I keep saying the political left and right desperately need each other. We need each other to wake up, forget the fake culture war, and vote together.
Nobody says this better than our naughty, potty-mouth pal, a recovering drug addict who’s too soft on communism (for me), but understands the real problem of top-down governments throughout history, Russell Brand…
Next time you vote in the US, choose someone of any party or lifestyle, someone who seems honest and says she/he will fight against top-down digital totalitarian rule, someone who doesn’t take corporate money to get elected and hasn’t become wealthy through legalized congressional insider trading.
In the image above you can see the weakest to the strongest information categories with the strongest, most logically reliable type of study at the top (called Meta Analysis) and the weakest at the bottom (called Expert Opinion / Background Information). Of course meta analysis articles like the one linked here brought a swift response from the powerful gatekeepers who tried to push meta studies down the trustworthiness pyramid and raise the individual randomized controlled trials up to the top.
It’s true that a meta-study is only as good as the original studies that comprise it, but that principle of quality also applies to any single study, so neither category can claim an innate higher quality without the same level of critical, logical evaluation. Perhaps more time is required to go through a meta analysis, but once that job is done, you’ve got a more valuable source of information than a single randomized, controlled trial. The same careful, critical analysis is required at both levels.
Yet some will use quality claims as a reason to push single trials above the meta analysis of many single trials on the value pyramid above. This claim is pushed as Expert Opinion (the bottom level of the information quality pyramid) here in Nature, where we are warned of the supposed inherent dangers of meta studies, as if there were something inherently deceptive about the statistical analyses of multiple blinded, controlled, randomized, and statistically evaluated studies that is somehow inherently absent from a single trial.
It’s not logical to me, but I see their argument and the hard work that went into making it. Kudos for that.
“Expert opinion” rightly belongs at the bottom of the scientific strength pyramid, largely because breakthrough science must always fight an uphill battle against entrenched experts who “know beyond a shadow of doubt” in their unbasted wisdom, that any “new-fangled idea” must be wrong and should be zealously squelched.
Scientists are only human.
Another reason for keeping “expert opinion” at the bottom of the scientific evidence pyramid is the ever-changing decrees of Anthony Fauci throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.
Since the bean-counting lawyers and administrators who run clinical medicine and the US government don’t know just how horribly unreliable “expert opinion” has always been in science, they went ahead and reversed the entire process of scientific medical discovery.
It has always involved hundreds and thousands of MD’s and PhD’s arguing in open literature and meetings. Instead, medical science was replaced by the tyrannical dictates of an 80-something-year-old MD who avoids treating any category of patients, let alone the COVID patients over whom he wielded life-and-death decrees in harmony with Big Pharma’s financial motives.
Inertia against any potential scientific breakthrough happens in every field of science, modern medicine being typical throughout its brief history.
Many medical people and mainstream reporters now believe that a single randomized controlled study (third from the top) is the strongest form of evidence. These good folk are extremely busy doing stressful, difficult work and can’t help it that they often seem brain-dead. They have barely the time to skim through an abstract of a peer-reviewed scientific paper. They look only for a one-sentence synopsis of the conclusion while scanning for the holy words: “blinded, controlled, randomized.”
When they see these words and note that a few thousand patients were involved in reaching a “significant” p-value of 0.05 or less, they “know” they’ve got “infallible” information, about the way a fundamentalist believer of any Western religion feels confident they’ve got the truth when reading an ancient text from a holy book.
But what’s really going on here?
A p-value of 0.05 means that someone wearing thick glasses who can crunch statistical odds in a way that hardly anyone else can has determined from naked numerical data alone that the mathematical odds show a 95% probability that the study’s conclusion is valid (i.e. NOT due to random chance). Which is to say, there’s a 5% chance that the study’s conclusion is due to random chance alone, not due to the drug being effective, but this 5% chance is probably small enough to ignore. (It’s an arbitrary cutoff point, not a natural phenomenon.)
When the stars align and these nice words and numbers appear in the abstract (the only part of the paper that’s freely available to the public who funded the research) these busy medical professionals and the public’s busy mainstream reporters who have no medical education whatsoever rush off and spread yet another “final medical truth” to the patients and public respectively.
It’s useful, however, to realize that a failure to reach a significant p-value can come entirely from having too few patients in the study. (The fewer patients involved in a trial, the more the results look like anecdotal stories to a statistician. The effectiveness of the drug cannot be measured without a large number of patients in the trial. The more the merrier. )
For example, you canNOT do a truly scientific study to determine whether or not a cheap generic “antibiotic X” cures bacterial pneumonia if you only have 30 patients in your trial. Every clinician using this “antibiotic X” may swear that it’s worked well on thousands of their own patients (anecdotally). But the “scientific” study with too few subjects will necessarily fail to show statistical significance no matter how good the drug is.
In our hypothetical example, the p-value isn’t small enough for significance. Let’s say it’s “p = 0.09” (meaning that there’s only a 90% probability that “antibiotic X” really saves lives).
OK, p-values are complex to calculate, have an arbitrary cut-off point, and are steeped in the sort of simple binary thinking that appeals to busy medical doctors in the cook-book practices forced upon them by dollar bean-counters, insurance companies, and ambulance-chasing lawyers. But understanding p-values is not beyond a reporter’s ability, at least in binary terms and a tad beyond. Let’s go there now…
It would be downright life-saving if the reporters who decide medical truth for the public nowadays would try to understood a little about the connection between treating infections early and p-values.
If you suffer recurring viral “fever blisters,” for example, you know to take your acyclovir (or whatever) as soon as possible after the first symptoms appear, or else you’ll have a big ugly sore on you lip for a week. “No it’s not Herpes, I was mugged again.”
Or if you have a migraine headache coming on, you know you’ve got to do your Wim Hof breath holding (to get your adrenalin and your heart rate up) and/or take whatever medication works for you as soon as possible to avoid a painful, nauseating misery that could last for days.
It’s the same with any viral infection, with any type of cancer, and with many other harmful biological phenomena.
The later you treat a disease, the less likely the treatment will work, no matter how great it is when used early.
There’s a natural cut-off deadline, or tipping point where time has run out, you’ve waited too long and the treatment that would have worked will no longer have much effect.
So in our example of an inexpensive generic “antibiotic X,” lets say there were 3,000 patients (n=3,000) in the trial. We should expect a significant p-value, right?
Well, not if “antibiotic X” is given (on average) too late in the course of infection.
Suppose the study was deliberately set up to allow many of the patients into the study who had been sick with bacterial pneumonia for a week before getting “antibiotic X.”
Your study would have a mix of patients who were treated early enough to be saved along with a large number whose pneumonia was treated after the condition was too advanced and couldn’t be stopped by anything short of a miracle.
Let’s say the study came out with a p-value that was too high for the typical binary, arbitrary interpretation of statistical significance. The p-value crunched out at “p = 0.09” (meaning there is only a 91 % likelihood that the antibiotic was effective, rather than the arbitrary cut-off of 95%).
Would you think that MDs and the media would be totally convinced that “antibiotic X” is worthless?
Yes they would.
We know this from a real-world example coming to us from a study of Ivermectin reported in JAMA, (Journal of the American Medical Association), a widely respected medical journal despite accusations of an “anti-Ivermectin for COVID” bias fueled by Big Pharma shenanigans.
The average time from first COVID symptoms to Ivermectin treatment was 5.1 days in this deliberately botched clinical trial reported in JAMA. The reported “confidence interval” for the 5.1 days was 1.3. This tells us that few patients were treatment within 3 days of their first COVID symptoms. This is a huge design error that appears deliberate.
Those docs who have treated thousands of COVID patients with Ivermectin will tell you that it’s crucial to begin the drug within 3 days or less of the patient’s first flu-like symptoms: runny nose, chills, fever, loss of smell, headache, weakness, sore throat, etc.
The gatekeepers at JAMA know this full well. They are extreme outliers in intelligence (IQ) and in their personal reading time of the medical literature. They understand the pathophysiology of early treatment of infectious diseases. They’re likely all “scientific” materialists with a worldview that excludes the existence of anything approaching non-relative morality. If so, they believe that dishonesty and cheating are fine if you “win” for some greater cause, such as avoiding the spread of “vaccine hesitancy” around the globe.
So IF Big Pharma scratches the backs of the JAMA editors, or perhaps threatens their careers, they might tend to do what they’re told and believe what they’ve been taught to believe.
IF Big Pharma advised them to discredit a cheap generic drug like Ivermectin and push a brand-new expensive drug with fresh patents, they might go along for the ride, hoping to retire early and keep their jobs, while doing the “right thing” for humanity.
But even the slightest degree of dishonesty and cheating stops genuine science in its tracks. This is the strongest secular air-tight reason for total honesty, at least in science if not in everything else humans do.
As you’ve probably noticed, corporations tend to behave like “scientific” materialists and tyrants such as Putin who believe that “survival of the fittest” is true morality, “natural selection” is virtuous, and there is no objective good or evil, only changeable notions of right and wrong with no rock-solid reason for honesty in a laboratory.
So it might be expected that JAMA’s gatekeepers and Big Pharma would publish an Ivermectin study where most of the patients received Ivermectin long after the first 3 days of symptom onset. And that’s exactly what they did.
Another thing that’s helpful in avoiding p-value deceptions is this: a study’s measured outcomes (like death) can be selected in a way that’s destined to fail the p-value analysis.
For example, if you’re studying a treatment for a disease like COVID that kills roughly four people out of 1000 these days (the approximate current COVID death rate in Mississippi now, as I understand it), you would probably need several hundred thousand people in the study to “achieve significance” no matter how good your drug is.
Any such study with only a thousand patients would be expected to have about four deaths total in the controls. If the drug worked well and there were only one death in the treated patient cohort, the number crunchers would say there are not enough instances of death to give a significant p-value to the avoidance of death in the drug cohort.
But the headlines would say the drug is worthless…
Unless, of course, the drug is an expensive new one with patents. Then Big Pharma would send out reps to help the journalists’ and MD’s understand the subtleties of p-values. Plus there would be a big section in the published paper explaining how this wonderful is likely going to save lives because it achieved “near statistical efficacy.”
Like a study with too few patients overall, a study that measures too rare of an outcome will fail to achieve p-value significance. Intelligent Designers of a study would know this in the planning stage and avoid it if they were being honest.
This is what went wrong in the study that “proved” the ineffectiveness of Ivermectin to the public. The study only measured two outcomes, death and being placed on a ventilator.
But despite that, try to imagine how JAMA hid this glaring revelation about Ivermectin, forcing people to dig it out of the paper if they have a few hours and know what to look for…
Even with these dishonest biases baked into the trial ahead of time, the study in JAMA that supposedly “proved” Ivermectin was ineffective, actually showed that the patients who were not treated with Ivermectin (the controls) were about 300% (3 times) more likely to die of COVID-19 than the patients who were treated with Ivermectin. And the p-value for this was 0.09 which means that the number crunchers of naked statistics showed that the odds are 91% that this study’s death-defying outcome was not due to random chance, but was almost certainly due to the generic, cheap drug, Ivermectin alone. Which is to say that the odds are only 9 out of 100 (9%) that the life-saving outcomes in this deliberately flawed study of Ivermectin were due to chance alone.
Medical science is like learning a complex computer app for trading the financial markets, it’s easy to understand, but it takes patience, a lot of persistence, and above all, repetition of super-boring information to get things burned into long-term memory. From there you can step back and make a logical, informed analysis.
Hope I didn’t bore you with this article.
So far, it seems that Omicron is providing humanity with herd immunity as hoped. The new Omicron subvariant BA.2 is definitely more easily spread from person to person than the original Omicron. And BA.2 might also be somewhat more dangerous, but I think the jury is still out on this question. Time will tell fairly soon.
Anyway, ask yourself this: if and when you get COVID-19 (experts say everyone will get it), will you take Ivermectin? It’s a medication that’s cheap, has a long track record of safety in humans, and has a 90% chance of actually being the cause-and-effect agent that kept three times as many patients alive compared to controls in a clinical trial that appears to have been obviously designed to fail at the arbitrary p-value cutoff level, missing by only 4%.
Or is it more logical to go along with mainstream headlines and refuse Ivermectin treatment? After all, it has been emotionally associated with the “wrong” political party, with cancelled “anti-vaxxer” physicians, and in my humble case, with a retired surgical pathologist and cytopathologist who thinks UFOs are unquestionably real and the Ancient Astronaut Theory is not as nuts as Giorgio’s hair.
Whatever you decide, especially if you’re a person of color, please make sure your vitamin D levels are well up into the upper “normal” reference range. If not, ask your doc if you can safely take over-the-counter D3 supplements. The science on adequate vitamin D levels helping to prevent COVID deaths is rock-solid. And yet people of color around the world don’t seem to be getting enough of it, as best I can infer from global COVID death stats.
When my mind and heart joined forces to break away from a somewhat “scientific” materialistic version of fundamentalist Christianity (in the ever-evolving SDA Church as it was in Southern California in 2001), I kept my “friendship” with a Supreme Being intact by praying a lot.
We tend to hang on to certain subjectively tested assumptions that are difficult to test objectively in a blinded, controlled way.
Instead of rejecting God, I rejected the assumption of mainstream Christianity that the Bible is infallible, lacks contradictions when correctly understood with God’s help, and is the primary (if not the exclusive) written communication from the Divine Source to humanity.
But I didn’t throw out the ancient Judeo-Christian writings or any other ancient or modern spiritual writings as if they were of no value. I think they’re all vital to our spiritual evolution and survival as a species. Binary thinking is the human error that would have us toss them out.
I’ve seen a few good people leave the SDA church and hang on to their version of God, and also hang on to their assumption that the Bible is essentially infallible when properly interpreted. These folk tend to join another fundamentalist Christian Church, retain their sense of superior religious enlightenment, and continue to attempt to “prove” that their new beliefs are right based upon their new understanding of the “infallible” Bible.
I’ve also seen a few people leave the SDA church and reject the existence of a personal Supreme Being as well as the Bible. These folk, (n=3), may continue an interest in spiritual things and possibly join a non-Christian religious belief system. Alternatively, they may reject all spiritual things and fall back upon “scientific” materialism (the anti-spiritual, pseudo-scientific, untestable assumption that the universe and everything beyond it consists of mindless, random matter and energy).
Everyone tends to see their own worldview, new or old, as the most reasonable and accurate one. Fortunately some can see this human tendency and question its influence on their own thinking.
As you may recall, I’m often wrong about important things.
Despite this glaring fallibility, it seems clear to me that “scientific” materialism is not only anti-scientific and anti-spiritual, it’s also toxic to humanity because it creates a meaningless, purposeless worldview that seems to cause clinical depression and leads people like Putin into cruel, amoral behaviors that can be justified by the materialist belief that free will is a false illusion and morality doesn’t exist except in a flexible, user-friendly way.
Lately I’ve noticed a growing number of highly educated people associated with the UFO community leaving “scientific” materialism in a way that reminds me of how I left Christian fundamentalism while holding on to my most treasured assumption.
My most treasured assumption was and is my sense of friendship with an intelligent, benevolent, loving Supreme Being, whose personal characteristics still seem to me to be best reflected in many (but not all) of the saying attributed to Jesus in the Bible.
Similarly, some people who leave “scientific” materialism hold on to their most precious assumption: that the Universe is impersonal. I can’t fault them for doing the same sort of thing I did. But let’s at least clarify it a bit.
Those who exit materialism may reject ultimate universal randomness, they may come to believe that there’s something more to reality than matter and energy, they may come to believe that the Universe is a great supercomputer or perhaps the physical brain of a huge organism inside which we are its tiny separate dissociated egos, or they may even come to believe in a higher Spirit as Einstein said…
“Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that some Spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man.” – Albert Einstein
But is a Spirit personal? Not necessarily.
It seems to me that many who “leave” materialism don’t leave a certain debilitating aspect of it.
They hold on to the untestable assumption that, one way or another, the higher “seemingly intelligent” force, or computer, or brain, or Spirit cannot possibly be personal to humans. That is, prayer cannot really be the process of talking to a loving Friend with the highest personal morality, because the Supreme Force cannot possibly have anything to do with human morality. It must be seen as either too smart, too finite and divided, too infinite, or in some other way incapable or unwilling to connect with a human being in a personal way. Even if the Source were in some sense a Person, the notion of he/she/it listening to humans individually or even collectively would be impossible. It would be like a human trying to talk with a bacteria, we’re told.
But here’s the thing. The DNA codes of Earth and possibly those of the rest of the Universe are a hyper-complex language with “codes within codes within codes” as geneticist Garry Nolan, put it. The age of the Universe (still thought to be a mere 13.8 billion years) is but a miniscule fraction of the time required for mindless, random forces (random mutation, genetic drift, and natural selection) to come up with a code for a functional protein of modest size, let alone simultaneously coming up with a protein nano-factory necessary to maintain and replicate that DNA while carrying out its other complex commands.
So, ignoring the mainstream noise to the contrary, it’s scientifically respectable now to postulate that an intelligence greater than our own had a personal role in writing the first genetic codes and constructing the first protein nano-factories of this Universe.
Certainly anyone with an open mind can see that it’s reasonable to postulate that the intelligent minds behind modern UFOs might have advanced DNA technology giving them an ability to tamper with, if not Intelligently Design new DNA code.
But taking it a step further, the first DNA codes of the Universe, together with the first intracellular nano-machines that must have been present at the same time to interpret and obey the machine language of those DNA codes, could reasonably be postulated to have come from a Source living beyond the reality we call the Universe or its space-time matrix of potential.
And it seems obvious that any Mind capable of writing DNA code would also be capable of understanding human language. So the idea that prayer is talking to a Real Friend who can literally hear you and care about your life is not the objective impossibility it’s often assumed to be by materialist “science.”
And if you explore the evidence that our Universe appears to have a number of characteristics of a holodeck-like replica of some more fundamental reality, then you might reasonably conclude that the personal monitoring of, and contact with, each person within this replica by Someone beyond it would be a likely possibility.
Naturally, I would encourage anyone leaving the “scientific” materialist faith to personally test the hypothesis that our Higher Source is a personal and loving Being, rather than impersonal and out of contact with us.
As far as I know, the only way to test this hypothesis is to pray and see if you have a sense of connecting with Someone.
If you accept consciousness as something other than a false illusion, then subjective testing is at least a reasonable approach. Some might argue it’s the only approach available even to scientists, because we must all pass any data through the lens of consciousness.
Prayer is a matter of “talking to God as to a friend,” as far as I know.
But test the hypothesis your own way and call it meditation if the word prayer doesn’t sound right. After all, I’m often wrong about important things, and testing this particular hypothesis seems extremely important because…
If enough of humanity were to discover how to talk to a Loving Supreme Being who does what’s right because it is right and respects free will because it’s the right thing to do, my gut feeling is that our species would…
eventually stop enjoying real and pretend violence on TV,
stop believing that war is inevitable,
stop electing sociopath leaders,
stop stumbling toward nuclear holocaust,
work together to end poverty without cancelling the freedoms of the non-elite,
stop polluting our bodies and the planet,
learn to survive the dangerous aspects of our technologies long enough to evolve into a loving species that could safely expand beyond Earth and be accepted into, perhaps, a larger society of mature species out in the Universe who have learned to “love their enemies and pray for those who persecute them.”
Putin’s amoral defeatist worldview rejects personal and collective integrity and accepts war, violence and “winning” at all costs.
This common worldview is derived from “scientific” materialism, the mainstream pseudo-scientific assumption that everything is reducible to waves and particles. Nothing else exists.
Many if not most of these faith-based believers see our Universe as an amoral, random, meaningless place in which humans are merely smart apes without souls, without free will, without accountability, and without genuine consciousness (because there is no such thing).
Morality is relative (at best) to materialist “science” and can be ignored without negative consequences if one is careful, because morality isn’t real in a universe where free will is an illusion and accountability applies only to those who are caught breaking human laws. Of course, there is no God or Intelligent Source of order in this worldview, nor is there karma, or any transcendent higher purpose that might inspire anyone toward personal integrity or dissuade anyone from abusing the weak.
Free will, actual decisions, good hearts, loving souls… all of this is illusion and pure nonsense to the toxic hypnotic trance of “scientific” materialism.
Of course, Mr. Putin is human and not pure evil. He has simply been misled by a mad worldview and seeks to win for himself and for those who have enabled his rise to power.
Putin is not the only one with a fundamentally amoral worldview. Western tyrants like Justin P. J. Trudeau, the pseudo-liberal prime minister of Canada, graduate of the World Economic Form, is trying his best to gently “win” at all costs by erasing democracy from Canada. While his religious affiliation, if any, is contradictory online and difficult to determine with certainty, his actions are in goose step with “scientific” materialism.
In the insightful video below, Russell Brand explains how Trudeau has thrown the “evil” Truckers into Jail, shut down their bank accounts, and cancelled their insurance, all without due process of law. He has treated them as criminals before trial, assuming guilt rather than innocence.
But this is a small start compared to what he’s saying he will do next, all without public consent or any voting.
What he’s doing is like the Patriot Act on steroids.
In his infinite amoral-materialist wisdom, Trudeau has decided to ingrain within government routine the digital “tools” which enabled him to exile the truckers from their jobs, from their money, and from the ability to feed their families before trial.
This new power of the state to take anybody out of society’s financial system without due process will be made permanent from the top down to the citizens without allowing the citizens of Canada to vote for or against granting their government totalitarian power over them.
The brain-dead mainstream media in the US, and probably Canada too, will cheer-lead Trudeau’s peaceful murder of democracy by decree in Canada, a breathtakingly beautiful country where many of us least expected Davos’ reset shenanigans to blossom into tyranny.
And so we see the fundamental agreement between Mr. Putin and our young charismatic leaders from Davos.
Garry P. Nolan represents the return of objectivity to 21st century science. He holds the Rachford and Carlota A. Harris Professor Endowed Chair in the Department of Pathology at Stanford University School of Medicine.
When asked what advice he would give to a young person pursuing a scientific career, Garry Nolan says to go after the anomalous observations, the points that are “off the graph.”
Regarding the way older scientists have advised younger ones to avoid unorthodox interpretations and taboo fields of investigation, Dr. Nolan’s says he “reverse-shames” these incurious people…
“You’re wanting to take something off the table that might be an explanation. How is that the scientific method?” Garry Nolan, PhD— 1:37:37 on the video below.
In the beginning of the interview, Lex Fridman askes Dr. Nolan,
“What is the most beautiful or fascinating aspect of human biology at the level of the cell…?”
Dr. Nolan, a PhD in genetics, answers, “The micro-machines and nano-machines that proteins make and become. That to me is the most interesting. The fact that you have this basically dynamic computer within every cell that’s constantly processing everything in its environment, and at the heart of it is DNA which is a dynamic machine, a dynamic computation process. People think of DNA as a linear code. It’s codes within codes within codes. It is, in fact, the epigenetic state that’s doing this amazing process. If you ever wanted to believe in God, just look inside the cell.“
A few moments later, Dr. Nolan assures the “scientific” materialists who control the funding of science, that he himself doesn’t particularly side with the God hypothesis. He does, however, see the origin of life as hinging upon the origin of the Universe…
“It’s [the universe is] computing towards something. It was created in some ways, if you believe in God, and I don’t know that I do, but if you want to believe in something, the universe was created or at least enabled to allow for life to form.”
I think he’s referring to the fine-tuning of the universal physical constants of nature, each a specific number (or magnitude), that must be one specific value (out of infinite possibilities) for life to exist and for the Universe as we know it to be here.
Spiritual scientists might say that God or a Supreme Consciousness fine-tuned physics. Mainstream science might says that God is unscientific and all consciousness, even our own, is a non-material illusion, so a “multiverse” manufacturing process must exist to explain the fine-tuning. This falls within their rigid, dogmatic paradigm of randomness as the highest controlling agency in and beyond the Universe(s). They might say that each new universe popped into existence spontaneously out of nothingness until our Universe emerged from nothingness having been randomly self-selected from among a nearly infinite variety of other possible (and/or real) universes that could not support life as we know it.
To me, any variant of the Consciousness hypothesis seems more scientific than the “multiverse” idea, because we know that consciousness exists, but we can’t detect the multiverse mechanism or observe any of its proposed “multiverses” besides our own. And if someday we are able to directly observe this multiverse creator, could we prove that it wasn’t a conscious, intelligent and therefore a spiritual Entity? I doubt it.
In the human experience, conscious intelligence produces the complex computer codes that run, for instance, robotic automobile manufacturing plants. Science usually uses the known to help explain the unknown because trying to explain the unknown with another unknown is usually less enlightening. It’s like explaining the black plague as a visit from the grim reaper.
Conscious intelligence is a known. We scientists should use it as such. The random, mindless, “multiverse” machine is entirely undetectable and unlike anything familiar. Perhaps we should not use it as a tool for canceling honest scientific inquiry into conscious, intelligent, and therefore arguably spiritual explanations of scientific enigmas. It’s not a matter of, “God did it, so I’m no longer interested in natural laws and phenomena.” It’s more like, “An Intelligent Consciousness seems to have left a signature in nature. That makes me more curious about natural laws and phenomena.”
As you may remember from Dr. Meyer’s book, impossible odds also face those who ascribe the coded information in DNA to random mutations, genetic drift, and natural selection.
The Universe would have to be infinitely old or infinitely large for the information coded within DNA to have come into existence by random forces. Of course, it’s possible that science will someday find unconscious computer-like processes carried out by the Universe herself, as Dr. Nolen implies. But if that discovery comes, we will be left wondering if perhaps an Intelligent Consciousness designed and built the computer-like aspects of the Universe.
Whatever the future holds for human spiritual evolution, the good news of Dr. Nolan’s bold career is that modern science’s avoidance of taboo fields of study and academia’s traditional censorship of unpopular explanations are finally crumbling. Today the most brilliant scientists in the world realize that censorship and anti-spiritual bias are anti-scientific. They’re putting their money, time, energy and public reputations behind objective science, taking seriously ALL data and ALL interpretations, rather than just the random, mindless, rigidly materialistic data and hypotheses.
This is the worldview breakthrough that humanity has been searching for since the early to mid 1800’s when the worldview pendulum of science swung from one bad extreme (the unscientific assumption of the “obviousness” of God as the final explanation to the exclusion of randomness) to the opposite bad extreme (the unscientific assumption of the “obviousness” of mindless randomness in a purely physical universe as the final explanation to the exclusion of a Higher Intelligence, a.k.a. “scientific” materialism or physicalism).
Until recently, Intelligent Design has been promoted mainly by a few Christian Creationist scientists while mainstream science ridiculed their ideas and openly destroyed their careers.
But now, with Garry Nolan explaining that belief in God is reasonable if you understand DNA and the nano-factories of the cell, even though he doesn’t believe in God himself, science appears to be progressing to a new level of objectivity and away from the past emotional worldview biases with their pre-conceived dogmas: “everything must be ultimately random” or “everything must be ultimately controlled by God.” To the scientists steeped in a fading worldview dogma of one sort or the other, Dr. Nolan says,
“You’re wanting to take something off the table that might be an explanation. How is that the scientific method?” Garry Nolan, PhD— 1:37:37 on the video.
Not only has Dr. Nolan given breathing room to scientists with spiritual awareness like myself who pray to an intelligent, personal God, Nolan has given scientific credibility to the field of Ufology.
But before we get into that, I need to say that I feel as if my “friendship” with God is entirely real and almost qualifies me as belonging to an unrecognized subclass of “experiencer.” The term “experiencer” typically includes (but is not limited to) near-death experiencers, UFO experiencers, alien being experiencers, alien abductee experiencers, science-download experiencers (like Nicola Tesla), and perhaps a few famous science fiction writers who seem to have accurately predicted future events and inventions.
Dr. Nolan has made a scientific observation that might connect various types of “experiencers” with what Kit Green has called “higher functioning individuals or savants.” Only one person in 200-300 individuals has this anomaly, it seems. It’s an “enriched patch of neurons” in the basal ganglia of which we each have two, one in each cerebral hemisphere, each having two-pieces, the caudate and the putamen. Recent studies tells us that the basal ganglia are a goal-processing system serving executive functions of the higher cerebral cortices. The basal ganglia involve intuition and planning. When I was in med school, the basal ganglia were thought to be limited to the control of muscles. Now they’re sometimes called, “the brain within the brain.“
(at 17:50 in the video below):
Lex: You’ve looked at the brains of… people who have had UFO encounters. What’s common about the brain of people who have encountered UFOs?
A cohort of unusual fMRI studies were brought to Dr. Nolan. He examined them and found that most of them were suffering from “Havana syndrome,” a strange and debilitating illness that was first found in diplomats and CIA officers at the US Embassy in Havana in 2016. Dr. Nolan apparently lost interest in these individuals, but went on to study others with the same fMRI anomaly. Quoting now…
Dr. Garry Nolan: “What we found there was not something that allows some people to communicate with UFOs. I think the UFO community took a step too far. What I think we found is a form of higher functioning processing. Then… we looked at the families of those … index-case individuals and we found that it was actually in families. … We’ve now looked at about 200 random cases and we don’t see this area of higher connectivity. We only find it in individuals that Kit Green has called higher-functioning individuals… He called them savants… It turns out my family has it [the fMRI anomaly]… The reason why it seems to be [present] in so-called experiencers… if intuition is the ability to see something that other people don’t, I don’t mean that in a paranormal sense, but being able to see something that’s in front of you that other people might just dismiss, well, maybe that’s a function of a kind of higher intelligence….”
This is another Nolan Milestone for humanity, a physical commonality among UFO experiencers with neuro-physiologic relevance. This takes Ufology another step out of the unrealistic categorization as a “pseudoscience” and into the 21st Century of scientific objectivity.
And just to highlight Dr. Nolan’s objectivity, we see that he also goes with the data when it opposes the UFO community’s expectations…
At the top of this article is an X-ray image of the Atacama skeleton that Dr. Greer brought to many people’s attention, thinking that it is physical evidence of non-human intelligent life on Earth from the not-so-distant past. Dr. Nolan, God bless his objectivity and open-minded soul, studied it in his lab, consulted with experts, and describes the process at 47:40 on the video. Bottom line: Dr. Nolan considers the skeleton to be fully human but with a large number of bone-structure mutations in its DNA.
I applaud him for that, but things are never that simple for me…
After reviewing the paper, this quote jumps out of the Discussion section at me:
“Further, deep sequencing of the genome might reveal other phenotype-associated structural variations that are limited in the current analyses due to low coverage of the genome.”
What does this mean? Just how low is their “low coverage of the genome” in this paper?
If chimpanzee and human DNA are about 95% the same, would their “low coverage of the genome” be able to differentiate a human from a chimp? I’d like to know. Perhaps this paper’s conclusion, “it’s definitely human,” could have been strengthened or avoided altogether if they had used (as a non-human blinded control) the DNA of a Chimpanzee obtained from a 40-years-deceased, unpreserved Chimpanzee specimen. Controls are standard in science. If your conclusion is “this is definitely human DNA” then you need a non-human control to show whether or not Chimp DNA also appears to be “definitely human” when examined blindly in the same “low-coverage of the genome” laboratory circumstances.
I still admire Dr. Nolan immensely, and I’ll bet he could answer this question easily.
Quoting again from the paper’s Discussion:
“Taken together, it is entirely plausible that the chance combination of multiple known mutations and novel SNVs [single nucleotide variants as opposed to single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs)] identified here may explain Ata’s small stature, inappropriate rib count [ten], abnormal cranial features, and perceived advanced bone age. Given the size of the specimen and the severity of the mutations described above, it seems likely the specimen was a preterm birth.”
A couple of other questions come to mind:
What local sources of mutation-inducing radiation or other influences could the gonads of this creature’s viable parents have been exposed to that produced such a huge number of novel mutations (outside of the SNP zones), known lethal mutations and devastating bone altering mutations? The paper suggests the answer is “nitrite mining” in the area and references this paper that doesn’t seem to back the claim. Instead, the paper says (in the abstract section): “The results showed that the frequency of structural chromosomal aberrations was not significantly higher in the drug-treated group than the control….” Hmm. If nitrite is a powerful enough mutagen to cause many rare and novel mutations in the Atacama skeleton’s chromosomes, you might think that patients who inhale nitrite as a medicine today would show significant chromosomal aberrations when compared to the normal controls. But no. The nuclei looked a little funny, but no chromosomal aberrations. It’s probably just my ignorance exposing itself again, right?
Are the mutations located randomly throughout Ata’s chromosomes? I doubt this question can be answered with conditions that limit researchers to “low coverage of the genome.” But it would certainly be important to find out if truly random and powerful mutational forces were at work in South America just 40 years ago when this “fetus” with bones fused like a 6 or 7 year-old human child is said to have died in “preterm birth.” If not random mutational forces, then we’re back into a discussion of the Intelligent Design of DNA, not necessarily by a Supreme Being, but perhaps by whomever designs, builds and pilots the Navy’s well documented UFOs.
To me, Intelligent Design needs to be taken more seriously by the UFO community for obvious reasons, and taken entirely more seriously by secular materialist science because an advanced technology has now been undeniably documented on Earth, and if you deny all possibility that the intelligences behind UAPs are tampering with Earth’s DNA, well then…
“You’re wanting to take something off the table that might be an explanation. How is that the scientific method?” Garry Nolan, PhD
I’m on day three of what I suspect is Omicron COVID, so I’m a little low on brain energy. I’ve home-tested negative for COVID twice, but I suspect they were false negatives because I’m using Betadine nasal spray fairly often each day to destroy the virus particles in the nasopharynx.
My symptoms are typical of Omicron infection. As described mainly outside the mainstream media, omicron (assuming I have it) hit me about like an average flu. Headaches, fever, chills, runny nose. The bugs are still struggling to give me a sore throat, but I’m discouraging that by locally “killing” them with Betadine sprayed directly on the back of my throat.
I’m also taking Ivermectin and many of the over-the-counter supplements recommended by those “evil misinformation” doctors who have bravely put their spectacular careers on the line by offering EARLY treatment to COVID patients, the only ethical and rational thing to do from a medical science perspective.
So I continue here encouraging you to please stop listening to mainstream news. Just about anything else is a better source of information. A TV tuned to static is better than CNN, Fox, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, etc.
And once again, Russel Brand gets it.
In the video below, Brand shows how the mainstream media does the same thing they’re attacking Joe Rogan for doing: not revealing the financial bias of “experts.” In this case the mainstream experts turn out to be spokespersons for weapons manufacturers who make money on war and appear on TV “news” to tell us why another war is absolutely necessary now…
There are always two sides to an argument. Sometimes both sides have logical opposing points based on data that both sides see as valid. More often, however, each side has its own “data” and calls the other side’s data “misinformation,” precluding rational discussion. This makes it difficult for objective minds to grasp both sides of anything nowadays.
As the public grows weary of the media talking past the other side by denying their “facts” or by calling them racist and cancelling them, we naturally turn to better sources of information and opinion such as Joe Rogan, Russel Brand, and Richard Dolan.
Complex, nuanced arguments cannot be expressed, grasped or evaluated in 30 second sound bites. That “news” paradigm is over.
The complete dominance of mainstream “news” has ended. The “battle” is certainly not between Fox and CNN / MSNBC. ALL of the TV “news” outlets on both political sides are destroying democracy while claiming to do the opposite. We need to avoid them ALL as if they were toxic, because they are, in fact, toxic to democracy.
Their poison is the propaganda of rigid intolerance and outrage, ironically camouflaged in virtue signaling of tolerance and inclusion and/or respect for traditional values.
Your own personal political views are extremely valuable and should have an honest hearing no matter which side of politics you’re on. This is because each side of Western politics desperately needs the other side in order to hammer out wise long-term decisions, goals and laws.
But a person’s political views are valuable ONLY if they allow us to listen to the other side’s “data,” opinions and interpretations.
If your political attitude is “my way or the highway,” you’re part of the problem regardless of which side you’re on. Until everyone in the West grasps this concept, we will remain like children who have missed their naps. Angry, volatile, intolerant, and miserable.
Mainstream “news” is a for-profit business scam owned and controlled (on both sides) by big corporations that are themselves owned and controlled by a few super-wealthy share holders of behemoth funds, particularly BlackRock and Vanguard.
These big boys and big girls walk into a conference room and lay their cards on the table in front of the CEO: “Here’s my controlling interest in the corporation that owns your network. Here’s what you will say to the public. Obey and keep your job. Are we clear?”
This long tradition of public opinion molding by the super-rich is last week, dead and gone. The public has moved on to independent voices who don’t deal in sound bites and don’t profit financially from things like war and dividing the public.
Chris Lehto was an F-16 Pilot for over 18 years in the US Airforce. He retired in 2020. He has always been a skeptic. Now that he has seen the 60 Minutes program on UFO’s and analyzed the US Government’s UFO/UAP videos carefully for himself, he says…
“I’m not going to lie, guys, I was a little rattled. You know, I kind of saw the videos before but, uh, I didn’t think it was… real. And now I’m like (shakes his head), I don’t know, it’s kind of blown me away. I mean if you can see them with radar, (so they’re reflecting radar energy ’cause they did pick them up on radar); you can see them with your eyes; you can see them with infra-red — then it’s there. Like something’s there. (shakes his head) I’ve just always been a cynic. Never believed anything. Seeing this now, it’s pretty wild. So what do I think they are? I’m going to think about it, and I will tell you next video.”
Regarding the quality of the Navy’s declassified videos, Chris Lehto writes:
“The data in the videos is actually pretty clear. The videos appear grainy because the wavelengths of light are longer in the infrared spectrum, but after 18 years of using our advanced fighter technology, the videos are unambiguous to me.”
If you know anyone who still doubts the reality of UFOs, do them a loving favor and email them a link to this fascinating video.
Here’s a young man who’s risked his life and donated his youth to protecting you and me in the free world. If anyone is a hero in our era, this guy represents the archetype.
I’ve never asked you for anything like this before, but Chris deserves at least this: Please join me in supporting him financially on his Patreon account (for as little as one dollar a month). Here’s his link:
He has earned the free world’s generous financial support, mine and yours. Please be your usual generous self, the rewards of supporting the truth are great. Humanity needs a broader, truer perspective on its place in reality, especially now with the sabers rattling and the troops gathering under the command of sociopaths who rule nuclear-armed nations.
One agenda of the powerful who own the mainstream media (both sides) is to keep Republicans and Democrats feeling outraged and hateful. With mutual outrage and hatred properly maintained, we citizens can never join forces and vote in a non-career Congress that might actually end the mainstream “news” monopoly.
The most essential and vulnerable part of democracy is the freedom of the press. Without the free exchange of “facts,” voters cannot evaluate opinions intelligently or differentiate truth from error.
Our human brains are a bit like computers, like it or not. Free will is real, as are consciousness and personal identity, but let’s face it, whatever we fill our heads with will eventually become what we believe, trust, want, and “know” is right.
If, for instance, you’re an atheist who’s facing death and you really wish you could believe that your life will go on after this one ends, I guarantee you that listening to every near-death experience on YouTube will at least make you doubt the “scientific” materialist dogma you swallowed years ago along with its infectiously depressing worldview. You might even develop a spiritual faith of some sort. On the other hand, if you limit yourself to “scientific” materialist information, you will take your anti-faith worldview to the grave.
Or let’s say you doubt the reality of UFOs. I can virtually guarantee you that if you listen to the hundreds of personal testimonies of UFO/UAP experiencers available online, you will eventually believe in the undeniable reality of UFOs. If, on the other hand, you avoid those videos of personal testimony and expose your mind only to UFO skeptics (a shrinking breed), you will believe UFOs are somehow unreal, even if one lands in your backyard.
But here’s the thing: if you force yourself to watch the mainstream “news” outlet you hate most for a year or two, eventually, no matter your political bias, you will realize that all mainstream “news” outlets cannot be trusted to give a balanced view of anything, not even the weather.
And if you’d like a quicker rout to this valuable conclusion, here’s a video from a guy who’s trying his best to cut through the mainstream bias on both sides of politics. I think he’s doing a good job…
You can’t judge a book by its hair. Listen to Russell Brand, please.
“The second beast was permitted to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship it to be killed. And the second beast required all people small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark— the name of the beast or the number of its name.” – Revelation 13: 15-17.
Several decades ago when I was struggling to remain a fundamentalist Christian (I gave up in 2001), I thought the book of Revelation should NOT be in the Bible. The tone was wrong. The temperament and personality of God seemed wildly inaccurate.
But I’m often wrong about important things…
A half hour ago I came across a video by a British Comedian discussing a microchip popular in Sweden. They estimate that 10,000 people have had these things inserted subcutaneously now. In one of their hands.
Russell Brand seems warm-hearted, intelligent and often funny in his own loving way. Although he likes foul words, he hasn’t used many this time around. Nevertheless, anyone with a fundamentalist Christian background might want take a seat before watching this rant.
It’s a bit chilling…
I wish there were a Christian denomination focused only on doing things for others in search of shared love in this life, rather than centering as they all seem to do around accepting a specific worldview in search of Heaven and immortality in the next life.
To me, once you feel you know God and really trust him, you don’t worry about getting to Heaven or having the right beliefs or books to get you there. You just want to connect with loving people and help them do something genuinely worthwhile.
I watched this Rumble video, NOT as a decision point for or against vaccination (I’m vaccinated).
To me, the importance of this video is that it shows how medical science has been suppressed by the owners of the media, big tech, and big pharma. These global owners have been enabled by academic fraud and financial corruption within the CDC, FDA, and NIH.
As best I can tell, the termination of objective science is part of a global “reset” agenda to control the free world. I suspect the leaders of this reset are the billionaires behind the Vanguard and BlackRock funds.
“The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world to create a healthier, more equitable, and more prosperous future.” — Klaus Schwab, World Economic Forum (WEF) Founder
If there is hope for science and US democracy’s survival against the super-wealthy, it’s at the polls with liberals and conservatives uniting to expel 99.9% of the House and Senate on BOTH sides of the aisle. These fear-driven DC puppets must be replaced by non-career people who run for office specifically to end Vanguard and BlackRock’s monopoly of information and political outcome control.
If you want to increase your odds of surviving COVID and its future variants through early COVID treatment, this book reveals a wealth of suppressed peer-reviewed medical literature that explains why and how to proceed intelligently. I’d advice you and your loved ones to buy the digital version ($2.99 at Amazon), read it and click on the footnotes to the shocking number of linked peer-reviewed scientific articles. This book is a jaw-dropping read and will save many lives, perhaps your own, but there’s a bigger problem we also need to face…
I’ll admit it would be nearly impossible to reveal all details present in The Real Anthony Fauci without evoking outrage, but I wish the author, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., had tried to soften the rage a bit because…
Hatred and outrage destroy objectivity by blinding everyone on both sides of every political discussion, and medical science has been highjacked by COVID politics. The shallow, binary, hateful “thinking” of outrage-politics is killing both science and democracy.
Kennedy recognizes the global forces that are using COVID to destroy democracy today, but as best I can tell, he doesn’t understand that their strategy is to “divide and conquer” us all through mutual hatred.
Hating Fauci and wanting to cancel him would play right into the hands of those super-wealthy folk pulling the strings of Western society.
Sure, Dr. Fauci has big problems with his medical judgement, and he has financial conflicts of interest that make him appear as corrupt as a DC politician, but he’s an 80-years-old human being. At this age, it’s probably safe to assume that, like any other similarly aged public figure in DC (present or past), he’s on the short leash of powerful handlers.
As a rule, the global powers of the West don’t show their faces on TV. To be effective they must be as close to unknown as possible because, in their worst nightmare, the voters on both sides see what “the Cabal” is doing and gang up against them at the polls, rendering them toothless. When this nightmare happens, the FDA is no longer controlled by Big Pharma. Objective journalism rises from the dead to replace the corporate media’s control of both political parties. The “above-the-law” global powers within the US military and intelligence services lose power. The fragility of the US democracy now divided by hatred is brought back to emotional health by respectful debates pursuing something greater than a win: the innate wisdom of compromise in a world where conservatives and liberals take turns functioning as the best cure and the worst disease.
Before democracy swept the West, grandiose megalomaniacs needed only one thing, a military capable of beating (or aligning with) other militaries. Nowadays, the world’s deadliest military insists on defending the crumbling remnant of US democracy, so anyone else hell-bent on global conquest needs a sophisticated plan to acquire our military rather than defeat it…
They must first gain control of the media (both sides), divide and blind the people with outrage and hatred, let us duke it out until one side is poised to win, then swoop in with censorship that favors the winners, promising to halt all global catastrophes, grant the winners their dream of safety, and make the promise of easy money to become available only after the political losers have been depicted as subhuman and punished for their evil ways.
After being voted into power, the new world-conquerors will control the US military and the police. Finally they’ll feel safe to rid society of its selfish craving for freedom. With AI’s monitoring speech on all devices and the FED as everyone’s new personal bank, anyone caught discussing freedom or democracy will become electronically defunded and homeless. Standard historical practice at this juncture has been the execution of millions, but this gentler defunding approach will work better in the US where remnants of Christian charity might hamper the traditional Darwinian-materialist slaughter of men, women and children.
If the new leaders have done a credible job infiltrating school systems, no one will doubt their textbook’s historical conclusion that the 18th-century experiment of democracy was a tragic failure. Page turned until the next solar micronova sends our species back into caves.
It makes absolutely NO difference to totalitarian minds which side of US politics takes control. They literally own 99% of the media (on both sides) today and use it expertly to manipulate public opinion through outrage and hatred, maintaining two nearly opposite sets of “facts” along with two entirely opposite spins. With the mind-cancelling magic of group hatred, they can win a war on democracy in one sweeping victory of any party, Republican, Democrat, Independent, whatever. Those details are irrelevant to them.
At the moment, despite the Cabal’s media grip, an occasional bolus of truth can still slip through censorship. Kennedy’s book is a vitally important example.
The only problem with it is that Kennedy still swallows the Cabal’s most useful lie: that political fights in the US are good guys against bad guys.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Each major political party desperately needs the others to achieve anything approaching a wise decision, moreover each party needs the others to prevent the death of democracy itself. If you think about it and maybe meditate on it, you’ll notice that…
The one-party “democracy” that both sides seem to relish is actually totalitarianism disguised as a sweeping victory for the good guys who have finally defeated the evil idiots. If we can all wrap our heads and hearts around this insight, freedom and democracy might survive. Otherwise, one side will “win” the political war, allowing the Cabal to use our military forces to conquer the world and micromanage it with the traditional cruelty of Earthly tyrants throughout the ages.
So for starters, let’s try to interpret Anthony Fauci’s actions in a way that doesn’t encourage us to hate him.
“‘For FDA to issue an EUA (emergency use authorization), there must be no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the candidate product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating the disease or condition. . . .’ — U.S. Food & Drug Administration, Emergency Use Authorization of Medical Products and Related Authorities, (Jan 2017).” — Kennedy Jr., Robert F., The Real Anthony Fauci (pp. 225-226 Kindle Edition).
In view of this, we know that if Fauci holds the common medical opinion (drummed into our heads in medical school) that vaccines are humanity’s greatest medical achievement, then Fauci must think that anything besides vaccines that might diminish COVID-19 is detrimental to humanity because it would cancel the FDA’s historic Emergency Use Authorization for the vaccines.
To Fauchi, anything threatening vaccine use, including open scientific debates, reliable official statistics, early successful COVID treatments, or even natural herd immunity when viewed as a vaccine alternative, would cost human lives. To him, vaccines are obviously far superior to everything else, so nothing can be allowed to interfere with their availability.
Sure, Fauci also has financial conflicts of interests, but I doubt those could be the primary motivations of an 80-year-old MD making over $400,000 a year in salary alone.
We don’t need to painting him as evil.
Fauci made what he “knew” was the only logical choice: to save human lives by obstructing everything that might block the vaccines’ tenuous FDA Emergency Use Authorization. After all, his most trusted mentors and all his MD associates agreed that nothing on Earth comes close to the effectiveness of vaccines. That’s the dogma.
For the sake of the non-hateful, objective rescue of democracy, let’s assume that Fauci continues to this day blocking early COVID treatments mainly because he thinks he’s doing what’s right. Sure he doesn’t mind if he makes a lot of money for doing what he thinks is right, but who does? Let’s not hate him and cancel him. That’s what the people who set him up want from us. The more intolerant and hateful we are, the less we can come together to defend ourselves against the Cabal (the Deep State, global elites, super-wealthy, etc.).
In medical science, opposing views always exist, and for good reason: Sometimes the “stupid” minority is right. When they are, it’s called a scientific breakthrough and represents the fondest hope of every genuine scientist.
Censorship kills science and democracy. If we’re smart, we’ll resist it by rejecting the media’s hatred and outrage, intelligently designed to make us want to silence and destroy the “bad” people.
Buy the book, glimpse the Cabal’s deadly reach, increase your COVID survival odds through peer-reviewed scientific literature that’s been heavily suppressed by people far younger, richer and more powerful than Dr. Fauci.
Gettr.com is a Twitter alternative that claims to be “a brand new social media platform founded on the principles of free speech, independent thought and rejecting political censorship and ‘cancel culture.'”
Dr. Robert Malone is either protecting lives by providing the public with lawful informed consent for COVID mRNA vaccines, or else he’s encouraging dangerous “vaccine hesitancy” by giving lawful informed consent to the public.
Either way, this man’s highly informed message is not merely about health and COVID survival.
It’s also about a few anonymous wealthy folk with controlling interests in big Pharma, big Media, and big Tech (BlackRock and Vanguard funds) who are trampling democracy.
None of us knows the long-term risks of mRNA vaccines. By taking the vaccine, I’ve personally made a bet that its long-term risks will be less than the great risks of catching COVID-19 at my age (66 years) with my kidney disease (polycystic). But I could lose this bet because I’m often wrong about important things. So are you, if you’re honest.
Those who claim to know the long-term relative risks of mRNA COVID vaccines must have a time machine. If not, they’re just expressing irrational confidence in badly gathered short-term data produced by corporations with a conflict of financial interest. I wish this weren’t the case, but some FDA leaders appear to share financial incentives with Big Pharma.
Time will reveal the long-term risks of mRNA vaccines, assuming the data is eventually collected and published–a brave assumption.
I hope I win my vaccine gamble because my life may depend on it. But silencing qualified physicians on Twitter and YouTube won’t help me find early treatment, make informed decisions on multiple additional vaccinations, or help me give good informed vaccine advice to my kids and grandkids. We need both sides of the argument in detail to make these decisions. Mainstream soundbites won’t do.
For now, this video gives a clear picture of how global totalitarian forces are using COVID-19 to kill democracy, replace the rule of law with the dictates of power, and eliminate rational thought from the discussion.
My advice? Leave Twitter. Send them the only message a corporation understands. Vote with your feet. Now.
This is no longer a conspiracy theory, it’s either a genuine conspiracy or a “conspiracy” of stupidity within the medical sciences.
If you don’t have time, below is the YouTube extract relevant to the anti-democracy discussion. It touches upon “mass formation psychosis,” an unfortunate term that gives debunkers an easy target, allowing them to avoid specifics while dismissing the whole discussion in broad emotional strokes. This is the way mainstream pseudoscience dismisses people like Stephen Meyer, PhD without facing anything specific he says about Intelligent Design. I hope we won’t fall for this lazy non-argument tactic in COVID-related debates.
What if someone were to connect all the available dots?
Despite the public’s sand-buried heads on the UFO issue, we now have official statements that UFOs/UAPs are physical craft using technology that defies the mainstream’s “known” laws of physics. For the moment, let’s imagine that the DOD, the US Navy, and the New York Times have told us the truth about UFOs. They’re advanced physical craft. Someone currently on Earth operates a remarkably advanced transportation technology.
Ordinary mainstream scientists can take a virus and alter it in ways that make it more dangerous to humans. This practice is called “gain of function” research and has been justified by some as a means of anticipating future viral pandemics and preparing vaccines ahead of time. Nobody would ever be interested in making viral bioweapons, right? (Swampland in Florida, please.)
Since mainstream human science can do this, it would seem likely that those who design, build and operate the world’s UFOs today are probably also able to manipulate viruses in remarkably advanced ways.
The Omicron variant has rapidly and invisibly undergone a mutation rate of 3.3 times the natural mutation rate within its human hosts. Omicron will likely benefit the human population by giving us a virus that is rarely if ever lethal, but is far more easily spread from one person to the next. This means that a “lucky” selection of 27 spike-protein coding mutations over 18 months seems poised now to provide herd immunity to the entire population of Earth. This will likely end the pandemic.
As with the silenced arguments of Intelligent Design scientists by the materialist mainstream gatekeepers, the public is expected to believe that all 27 of Omicron’s brilliantly beneficial mutations were random. No intelligent guidance could possibly have been involved. Certainly not God’s kindness. The quasi-religious pseudoscience called “scientific materialism” has ruled God out as a public explanation of anything these days. It’s as if a meaningful universe disgusts them.
But what do these materialists think about UFOs and the mysterious operators behind them? Are such mainstream DOD realities still “spaghetti monsters” to scientific materialists?
Why would they doubt the mainstream’s declaration that UFOs are physical craft when they follow the same mainstream’s dogmas to the letter on each and every COVID argument they help to squelch?
Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction because it doesn’t have to seem believable or follow preconceived worldviews.
Here’s hoping that aliens have landed and love us dearly.
It’s a medical miracle, discussed in the video above.
It boils down to this…
Twelve days after the drug Ivermectin was “OK’d for use” in Japan by Dr. Haruo Ozaki, Chairman of the Tokyo Medical Association, Japan’s sharp spike in COVID-19 cases began a striking decline toward zero as seen in the graph below. The blue arrow points out the day when Doctor Ozaki approved Ivermectin’s use against COVID-19.
For a broader time perspective, here’s that same peak (below on the right). Dr. Ozaki made his announcement at the tip of the yellow pointer.
Note that Ivermectin was not made the “official COVID treatment” in Japan, it was rather OK’d for prescriptive use against COVID for the first time by an official, Dr. Ozaki. Google seems to hide the truth here by deliberately confusing terms and burying all searchers in layers of articles “debunking” the strawman claim that Japan has made Ivermectin their “official COVID treatment.”
Don’t fall for Google’s banana-in-the-tailpipe trick this time.
A cheap and effective COVID drug is the nightmare of major drug companies now. The pandemic has become their cash cow, hence their puppet media suppresses Ivermectin, allowing them time to milk the pandemic at the public’s expense. Sad, but pretty obviously happening.
With a straight face, Doctor John Campbell (a nurse, if I remember right) calls this temporal association “a strange coincidence” in his video and presents a few weak alternative explanations, one of which is not as weak as the others.
I sense Campbell must protect his video from the censors by using the term “strange coincidence” rather than the more appropriate phrase: “a probable cause-and-effect relationship.”
Here’s a current look at the COVID death rates in Japan compared to a few other countries:
The video goes on to offer some alternative explanations for the so-called “coincidence.” One idea not mentioned is the possibility that Ivermectin might somehow be responsible for the mutation discussed that destroys the error-correcting functions of the virus, rendering it impotent. It’s probably a weak idea because Ivermectin most likely has no mutagenic capacity, but who knows? Maybe for this virus it does.
As I’ve said before, the zombie-woke media’s suppression of Ivermectin is idiotic. Someone in power in the US needs to wake up and support the use of this drug. There is growing evidence supporting its effectiveness and an established long track record of its safety within the human population. (No, it’s not “a horse drug” as CNN’s Dr. Gupta had to admit to Joe Rogan. Try finding that video on Google.)
Unfortunately, the brief and increasingly questioned safety record of mRNA vaccines doesn’t compare to that of Ivermectin.
So here’s a perfectly safe, cheap drug that, as best we can tell now, appears to have abruptly stopped the worst peak of COVID-19 in Japan. Shouldn’t we encourage its use in the USA while our universities study its effectiveness? What’s the downside here?
The late, great Paul Hellyer, God rest his soul, recorded a final message (in the video above). It turns out that several of his conclusions remain near the fringe of Ufology.
Here’s a summary of the often-dismissed conclusions he delivered to us with confidence:
Nazis fled to Antarctica after WWII and created a breakaway culture that possibly survives to this day on a base that the Germans had begun building in 1939.
UFOs, maybe of Nazi origin, protected the Nazis from an attack by Admiral Byrd’s fleet.
The “Paperclip” Nazis were given top positions in the US Space Programs and high positions throughout the secret service organizations. Soon they became a shadow government. President W. Wilson (by creating MJ-12 or something like it) gave these Nazis complete dictatorial control over ET-derived technology in the US. This off-world technology was obtained from UFO crashes beginning in 1941 and including the Roswell crash in 1947. Nazis control Area 51 and S4 to this day.
An ET being survived a crash and sat for a recorded interview with a nurse. Mr. Hellyer watched the video. The main ET message? Humans are wrecking this beautiful planet.
If the ETs had wanted to take over Earth at that time they could have, because humans were defenseless against them.
The USA and USSR “sold their souls” in exchange for ET technology.
The USA and USSR had been offered ET help with medicine, agriculture, etc. if they would give up atomic weapons. They refused.
The fabric of the cosmos is damaged by nuclear explosions.
Steven Greer “who, as you know, is one of America’s best ufologists” quotes former President Bill Clinton. When asked by a reporter why he didn’t disclose more about the UFO files, the President said, “Sarah, there’s a government inside the government, and I don’t control it.“
Not one US President has been allowed inside Area 51 or Area S4. Congress has never known what’s going on in these places.
If you read The Omega Files, by Branton (a pseudonym), Mr. Hellyer said that you will know more about UFOs and Aliens than most of the top generals and admirals.
Phil Schneider was telling the truth when he spoke of huge underground cities and structures, including the Dulce Base where human genetic experiments (similar to those performed by the Nazis of WWII) were performed by modern-era Nazis. Back in the 1990’s, Mr. Schneider (not Mr. Hellyer, though he may have believed Schneider) said that some of the underground structures, several in every state, are designed to hold thousands of prisoners who will be collected after the world takeover by the “new world order” led by evil ET’s who will depopulate the world with bio-weapons, possibly viruses.
Michael Wolf’s many incredible claims were essentially true, including his claim to have been an insider at Area 51. President Jimmy Carter wanted to end the UFO cover up but… “I attended this meeting,” Wolf claims (not Mr. Hellyer). “Carter had strong Christian beliefs. When told that religion is man-made and probably unique to this planet, he broke down in tears.” Wolf also said that “satellite government scientists” have harnessed zero-point energy and cold fusion. Wolf said, “There needs to be a smooth transition into these new sciences. Otherwise the world economy could be wrecked.”
The US Space Force is at least 14 years old and currently traverses the galaxy.
Spirituality is the missing piece of the UFO / Phenomena puzzle. God “is alive, well, and everywhere.”
Notice how Zohar Entertainment Group and AdRev, the companies who manage this YouTube channel, decided to cut the message off the moment Mr. Hellyer began talking about God. That’s a transparent bias, probably the same cash-flow bias that destroyed the mainstream “news” media’s trustworthiness in the US. The late Paul Hellyer deserves greater respect than this. So does every religion’s God(s).
For that matter, UFOs and related phenomena deserve greater respect than to be forced into the “entertainment” category on YouTube. This “entertainment” label is misleading and insulting. But I digress.
As I listen to Mr. Hellyer, the surprise to me is how many of his beliefs I’ve rejected long ago in my haste to form a “humble-but-infallible” (ego-laden) opinion.
For example, if you read the Michael Wolf link, you’ll come across the claim that Dr. Wolf et. al successfully created an “artificially-intelligent human” named “J-Type Omega” who came out of the lab’s genetic soup looking 20 years old and now lives free in the USA. Hmmm.
To the primitive part of my brain that loves all-or-nothing thinking, this story deserves knee-jerk rejection, and therefore as the puerile “thinking” goes, everything Dr. Wolf ever said must be rejected. But wait…
According to Chris Stonor who claims that Dr. Wolf read and approved his article in 2000, Dr. Wolf also said some things that would be easy for me to believe. Quoting now…
Dr. Wolf said the Pope has changed the Roman Catholic view on God.
“Their future line will be ‘we are not in the image of God but our souls are’.”
He had spoken at length to the ETs about God and death.
“Our bodies are merely containers for the soul. When people die their consciousness simply moves into another dimension.”
On God Dr. Wolf said,
“Some ETs call God The Forever – the creator behind everything in the universe.”
On Jesus Christ,
“He was of joint ET/human heritage – sent to Earth as an attempt to end human violence.”
Whether a Zeta, Pleiadian, Altaran, Human etc.. we share the same God – we are all family.
A mantra was drilled into my head during my decades as a fundamentalist Christian: “You can’t pick and choose.” This unfortunate dogma referred only to texts in the Bible. “The Bible is either straight from God’s infallible mouth or it’s worthless.” There’s little if any middle ground for fundamentalists of all faiths, including the “scientific” materialist fundamentalists.
Yet I know I have to pick and choose when it comes to peer-reviewed medical literature. That’s the nuts and bolts of the scientific process.
And when it comes to the “news” media, I’ve learned to pick and choose carefully (or ignore it completely) because both political sides of that puppet-show regularly exaggerate, hide things, spin things, use poor judgement, and even overtly lie for the “higher” cause of politics and money/ratings.
So why wouldn’t it make sense to pick and choose from among Paul Hellyer’s controversial beliefs as well as from the sources he seemed to trust?
Perhaps “listen but verify” would be workable, rather than thinking that a person’s entire work is all true or all false.
My attitude is, listen widely and try to remember every detail no matter how impossible the story sounds because if we’re actually dealing with off-world technology, seemingly impossible feats could be routine.
Since most people are too busy working for a living to sit and listen to a lengthy video interview, and since my opinion of Ross Coulthart places him at the needle-thin peak of journalist integrity, courage and raw IQ, I’m going to just quote him in context from a breathtaking 3 hour interview he did, with Curt Jaimungal quietly and sincerely presenting questions here…
“…I do think there is active disinformation going on at the moment, even now from forces in American intelligence who… They’re not trying to suppress so much as they used to. They’re just trying to control. Because what’s happening at the moment, I think, is a decision has been made inside the US government that, ‘Yes, we’re now at a stage where we have to admit there is a real phenomenon. We have to admit that there is an anomalous phenomenon that is real.’ You know, ‘We can’t deny it anymore. There are too many sensor systems. Too many phased-array radar systems are now installed on different aircraft. Too many high quality video systems, too many data points are picking it up. We can’t deny it. But what we want to do….’
“I think there’s been an active decision made to constrain the current UAP task forces’ investigations from 2004. I don’t think they want us to know anything about alleged crash recoveries or any of the other more extraordinary claims that have been made over the years by people like [William E.] Corso. It’s almost like what they’re trying to do is present a scenario to the American and international public where the American government can in a few years time go, ‘Guys, look what we’ve discovered! This is amazing. There really is a real phenomenon.”
“And look, we’re part way there because they’ve acknowledged this phenomenon is real. But I suspect we’ll be told that, you know, there is perhaps some intelligence that we don’t yet comprehend that is operating in our… on our planet. I do. I really do suspect that.
“And I’ve been led to that belief by people who know. But I do believe that hopes that we’re going to see disclosure of the truth behind crash recoveries, the truth behind alleged alien retrievals, the truth behind mutilations and milabs [“military abductions”] and abductions? I don’t think we’ll EVER see that. And I think what’s happening at the moment is there is a desperate…
“I do believe, by the way, that the United States has recovered what it believes is non-human technology. There, I’ve said it. I think the level of proof is sufficient in my mind to assert that there is non-human technology in the hands of the US government. But I don’t think it wants anybody to know that. And I think what it’s trying to do at the moment is control the narrative.
“And I think there’s a degree of nervousness about letting the UAP taskforce run, because I do think the people in Tom Delong’s To the Start Academy were getting close to highly classified secure special access programs (that are kept completely off the books inside the US government) that aren’t part of the normal disclosure process before Congress, even before the Gang of Eight, you know, waived, unacknowledged special Access Programs. It’s way beyond that. And I do believe that the US is sitting on technology that it’s trying to suppress (the knowledge of its existence).
“And I don’t know how they’re going to get away with that. And it worries me because it raises accountability issues. You know, why hasn’t the Congress been informed? Why have presidents been kept in the dark? What haven’t presidents been told? You know, for example, it’s quite obvious to me if you look between the line of what both Obama, Trump, Clinton, Jimmy Carter have all said, it’s quite obvious that presidents have been briefed in to some degree.
“But what have they been told? You know, is there a group of generals and intelligence people inside the Pentagon and the CIA who are trying to control the narrative? I suspect there is.
“And I think there’s a battle going on inside different intelligence agencies in the US to try and… One group is more open and transparent and thinking that they’re duty-bound under the Constitution to be more open and obliging to reveal what they know, because there’s no good reason not to reveal it.
“But there’s another group that probably also, because of religious ardent zealotry, is reluctant to see the full story told. I think, for a lot of people who are of extreme religious faith — and that’s not to be in any way critical of people who are believers. I think a lot of people… I think the Vatican, for example, has made it quite clear that if you are religious, and if you believe in ETs, they are all God’s children. You know, I don’t think the idea of alien life is incompatible. And people should take a closer look at what religious institutions like the Vatican have actually said about this. But I’m told, and I’ve been told this by multiple sources that there are people of extreme conservative religious viewpoints inside the CIA and also inside the Defense Intelligence Agency and other agencies who are hostile to revealing the extent of what the US government knows… They think it’s demonic. They think it’s satanic. And who knows? I mean, I’m not religious, but it might be. [laughing here, sort of at himself] It might be we’re all going down a very dangerous path.
“Tyranny starts when governments use secrets to conceal mistakes. That’s what worries me. My worry here is that the explanation for what has happened with the UFO phenomenon is purely and simply that years ago, some pompous general decided that it was better to keep it confidential because, you know, “We know better than the rest of you.” And “We want to try and replicate this technology.” That’s assuming that we’ve recovered technology.
“And frankly, even though there’s no good reason now for not revealing it, they’ve dug themselves so deep into a lie for so long, they don’t know how to get out of it. They’re worried about being excoriated and vilified in the court of public opinion. But they should be, frankly, if they’ve lied, if they’ve misled Congress.
I mean, one of the things that frankly I just don’t get, and this is something that I really don’t understand, is that if you read Jacques Vallée’s, Forbidden Knowledge volume 4 [sic “Forbidden Science, Vol 4“], it has the most extraordinary series of exchanges between Jacques Vallee, who’s one of the godfathers of UFO research, and a guy called Richard “Dick” D’Amato who was the staffer on the Senate Intelligence Committee, in a role very similar to the role that was played by Chris Mellon years later.
“And Dick D’Amato back in the 1970s was talking to Jacques Vallee openly in private conversation about how he was trying to get to the bottom of the government coverup about UFOs. And I… look, I’ve approached Dick D’Amato, and he doesn’t want to talk. And you know, he’s probably bound by a security oath.
“But he was making no secret to Jacques Vallee who mischievously put this in his diaries back in the 1970s, that he [D’Amato] knew that as the staffer responsible for probably the most important intelligence oversight body in the Congress, he couldn’t get access to information that he knew existed. And this is what worries me. What worries me is that this may be a crisis of accountability.
“If the Wilson memo [Wilson-Davis document], for example, is a truthful and accurate document, what it means is essentially technology that is rightfully the possession and the property of the American people, if not the human race, is being divested into the private ownership of a private aerospace company, and oversighted only by a very few people in government who are terrified of the secret getting out.
“And their efforts to back engineer this technology, allegedly because of the incredible secrecy attached to the whole program, have been hindered because of their inability as scientists to be able to share data and discuss what they’re looking at with other scientists.
“Imagine if, hypothetically, the United States is in possession of a retrieved technology. Imagine hypothetically, if the United States is sitting on an alien spacecraft or multiple spacecraft. Imagine if… that was the case. Imagine if they’ve failed in 76 years to back-engineer that technology. Don’t you think there comes a time when they have to truthfully engage with the American public and say, “We’ve lied to you? We’re very sorry.”
“This is why I’ve actually floated in previous interviews the idea of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. As a journalist, I’ve covered the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission where in quite a “beautiful” way the evils of the apartheid regime under the racist government of South Africa before it became independent under Nelson Mandela — they [the evils] were always covered up. And then they had a Truth and Reconciliation Regime where the killers, like the killers in the South African Security Service who’d literally murdered people for the state, were allowed to truthfully sit in public hearings and tell their story, knowing that they were being given full immunity and full indemnity.
“And frankly I think that’s what we should offer to the people who are hiding the secret [of UFOs and retrieved off-world craft] because it’s far too important to have a purge, to go jumping on people and criticizing them for not revealing it. I suspect that their motivations for hiding it in the very beginning were quite honorable.
“‘We were in the Cold War and we found a life form,’ to quote ‘the General.’ I mean, I’m referring there to something that Tom DeLonge [said when he] gave an interview…. He says he was told by a person he referred to as ‘the general.’ ‘It was the Cold War and every day we lived in fear that,’ you know, ‘the world was about to fall apart. And then we found a life form.’
“You know, there was a different context during the Cold War that I think informed America’s national security imperatives. I would have kept the secret. If it is the case… IF it is the case that the United States has recovered alien technology and I don’t know for sure that they have, but I suspect they have, then unless there’s a good reason for continuing to conceal it, and I’d like to hear that, I think we need to provide a means for them to be exculpated and to be honorably recognized for bringing it out into the American Public’s knowledge.
“Because, let me just be a whimsical person for a moment and discuss what I love about America. As a little boy I remember looking at the moon and thinking how incredible it was that a country on my planet had put men on the moon. You know, it was just unimaginable to me as a little boy, and I had all my Apollo moon mission models. And I was fascinated with the idea that, you know, a nation had collaborated scientifically in such a short period of time to do incredible things. You know, what a monumental achievement! And that was an illustration to me of what humanity can achieve. And I’m really struck…
“I was only reading yesterday about how, shortly before his death, John F. Kennedy in November, 1963 instructed his CIA director to begin sharing intelligence with the Russians, and to look at a collaborative space research program with the Russians. And there was such promise there internationally about pulling ourselves out of the Cold War with adventurism, exploration, science, research, new ideas.
“And if it is the case, IF it is the case that the United States is sitting on technology, and I suspect it is, imagine what that technology could do for humanity. And imagine how we’re being held back because of the fear, the cowardly fear of a few men in dark rooms who are hiding these secrets. Wouldn’t it be a wonderful thing if we could usher in a new age of propulsion systems, energy, advances in technology that the world has never seen? Pull human beings out of poverty. You know, fantastic exploration, understand our solar system, understand our universe.
“These things could be achieved if there really is faster-than-light travel or some kind of anti-gravitic technology or propulsion system. And the interesting thing, Curt, is someone, something out there is flying craft that appear to have these technologies.
“And the world just goes on. You know, the Pentagon makes these admissions. It actually admits that it cannot prosaically explain this phenomenon which is doing maneuvers and speeds far beyond our technology: instantaneous velocity, hypersonic maneuvers. And we just get on with our lives and politely ignore it like it’s not happening, or worse still, we give currency to some stupid debunker who comes up with some lame excuse that frankly doesn’t make sense.
“It’s time for people to wake up to themselves and realize that the United States, I know for sure, is sitting on secrets it is not yet revealing. And I don’t know why it’s not doing that. But I have, in the course of my research, become privy to knowledge that makes me realize that they are concealing stuff.
“Frankly, the only way any impetus [for true disclosure] is going to be developed on this is if the public wakes up and realizes the awesome significance of what the Pentagon has already admitted.“
When a reporter of Ross Coulthart’s reputation and talent takes up the UFO/UAP topic, those of us who’ve been dug-in for years find a rare opportunity to see things through fresh, objective eyes. Those folks who have remained highly skeptical over the years also have the same rare opportunity… to see past learned biases that are otherwise invisible.
Imagine that some unknown scientist working for the Navy tries to get a patent on an anti-gravity vehicle that’s shaped like a triangular UFO. The same guy also submits a patent for a cold fusion power source that’s shaped like the Tic-Tac of UFO/UAP fame. When he runs into resistance from the US patent office, the Navy steps in and backs him forcefully in writing, making wild claims. Try to imagine that three of this scientist’s four world-shaking patents were granted.
All this really happened.
The patent requests were submitted a short time after other scientists detected gravitational waves for the first time in 2015 – 2016, and around the time that TTSA came out with the Tic-Tac UFO/UAP videos of 2017.
The “unknown” scientist was Dr. Salvatore Pais, a US Navy aerospace engineer who was working at the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division in Maryland.
One of his publicly patented inventions is called: “Craft Using an Inertial Mass Reduction Device.” The patent was granted despite a lack of peer-reviewed literature to support it. The mainstream scientific community calls it balderdash, as they do when anything groundbreaking upsets a field of “known” science.
Yet the patent of Dr. Pais’ triangular UFO design was accepted because his Navy superiors informed the patent office that his triangular craft (capable of traveling at extremely high velocities in space as well as through the atmosphere and even under water) “would soon become a reality.”
So far, despite a trail of linked documentation in the book’s footnotes, I’ve been personally unable to uncover the letter of the Navy Boss to the Patent Office. (I suspect it’s been suppressed by the Navy or cancelled by some woke racist in the US Patent Office .) But Ross Coulthart is, in my opinion, the most trustworthy reporter on Earth today. And he’s probably the most intelligent one by quite a spread, judging by how he comes across on interviews.
According to Mr. Coulthart…
Dr James Sheehy, the chief technology officer of the US Naval Aviation Enterprise, wrote: ‘This [triangular antigravity craft] will become a reality. China is already investing significantly in this area and I would prefer we hold the patent as opposed to paying forever more to use this revolutionary technology.’ – from Coulthart, Ross. In Plain Sight (p. 172). Kindle Edition.
Dr. Pais’ patenting adventure didn’t begin or end with the affectionately dubbed “TR3B” triangular antigravity “UFO” craft. He also brought three other major pieces of sci-fi technology to the patent office, possibly revealing for the fist time a decades-old secret compartment of US technology.
Significantly, the only one of his patents that was rejected was an energy device that, if functional and public, would put the petroleum industry out of business. The device is called a Plasma Compression Fusion Device.
For years our pal Steven Greer, MD has talked about his effort to bring a clean energy device into the world, but, as he tells it, the “sociopathic” folks behind the fossil fuel industry have covert control over the US Government to such an extent that each time a workable clean, “free” energy device surfaces, they step in, classify it, and burry it, sometimes using violence.
Over time, Dr. Greer has enjoyed several begrudged confirmations of his “wild claims.” The focused rejection of Dr. Pais’ clean energy device, seen in the context of the acceptance of all his other wild-sounding patent submissions, is another point of evidence backing Greer’s claim that Western covert powers include Big Oil and oppose clean, renewable, ultra-low-cost energy.
Why would the US Patent Office grant a patent on an antigravity UFO/UAP, but not on a similarly wild sounding clean energy device?
As with the Davis-Wilson documents, Dr. Greer is sounding more and more like he’s basically an honest man with some of the human judgement flaws common among leaders. In addition, he seems to have some of the gifts that sometimes come across as “flaws” common among experiencers of the Phenomena.
Personally, I suspect that Dr. Greer is like a few of my mentors from pathology residency days. These brilliant guys were so accustomed to being right on decades’ worth of academic multiple-guess exams, getting straight A’s throughout all their schooling, and later being considered “always right” by their mentors and peers in pathology, that they’d learned to neglect the scientist’s constant desperate need to differentiate what they KNOW from what they strongly SUSPECT.
Most real scientists, for instance, strongly SUSPECT that Macro-evolution of species via random mutation is an accurate theory, while most scientists in general “know” it’s true. As a scientist, I strongly suspect it’s NOT true, but I’m in a small growing minority there.
Dr. Greer would have a broader influence on the UFO community and beyond if he meditated carefully on what he KNOWS for sure versus what he “knows” with 99% certainty. There’s a world of difference, and emotional confidence is irrelevant in this differentiation.
And once he has made this two-column list for himself, I wish Dr. Greer would share it with the rest of the world. I think we’d all be far ahead. The UFO community would be less emotionally divided and more capable of working together toward a common goal.
There’s a book called “Risk Intelligence, by Evans.” Well worth reading. On the one hand, humans on average will NOT follow you unless you sound 100% confident in your message. I will always have few readers. But on the other hand, those who are able to accurately rank the certainty of their knowledge (each point of evidence) are able to make far better predictions, and I would suggest far more accurate connections between the rabbit holes of Ufology and the phenomena.
I don’t think Dr. Greer is alone in needing to solidify the distinction between his knows and almost-knowns. The entire UFO community, myself included, would become more accurate, less gullible, and possibly more influential if we each made this distinction a routine matter of our integrity.
For example, we know now that the Navy wants us to believe that they will soon have triangular antigravity craft in the air. I think we can be 100% certain that their agenda now includes a hope that the outside world will believe this. It leads me personally to suspect that most, but not all, of the triangular UFOs we’ve seen in recent decades were covert US technology.
But I have to differentiate the issue deliberately to avoid an unjustified emotional sense of 100% certainty…
No matter how absolutely certain I now FEEL that the US has been flying black anti-gravity triangles for decades, it’s not something that belongs in my column of “knowns.” I’m not 100% certain about it when I consult the two sleepy objective neurons in my prefrontal cortex.
“Hey guys, wake up! The Navy’s got patents on black triangles now. It all fits!”
“Wait a minute, kid. What if the Navy’s top brass are all ET’s, and the Universe is a holo-matter simulation designed to teach us how to love?”
Back in the early 1980’s when I was in pathology residency and HIV / AIDS had begun to burst upon the scene of Western medicine, one of my mentors told me essentially, “This is the first time we face a politically protected disease. There will be many deaths because we didn’t confront this contagion the way we normally would.”
Today it’s hard to imagine that for most gay people back then, their professional careers and social lives would almost certainly be destroyed if they “came out of the closet.”
People of compassion knew this and did everything they could to prevent such cruelty. With the best of intentions they turned a deadly contagious disease into a political affair to protect the gay populations’ valuable privacy.
The medical system decided against using tried-and-true public health measures to protect everyone. Instead they chose to keep the infected victims’ identities secret, to not trace their contacts, and to forget about quarantining the infected individuals.
Traditional public health measures, though logical, seemed cruel and insensitive to many at the time. “Only a hard-nosed conservative homophobe would be so callous and mean-spirited.”
Protected by political emotion, HIV/AIDS spread throughout the world killing millions and millions who might have been spared if the medical community had remained objective and refused to turn an infectious disease into a political issue.
Today the medical community has learned nothing from their tragic emotional response to the HIV epidemic. Again our medical system (in the US) has allowed political emotion to guide them, probably from compassion for the many as yet unvaccinated older adults who are, as far as we know now, statistically much more likely to suffer prolonged illness or death from COVID-19 than from the known side effects of the vaccines.
Sure, this time we underwent extensive public health measures including isolation, politically-motivated mask mandates, and whatnot, but the politically protected disease is now an “uncommon” complication of the vaccine(s).
Since political thinking is black-and-white by nature and has again come to dominate the medical conversation, the vaccines’ negative side effects will not be brought before the public. In politics it always seems better to sweep unwanted things under the rug for the greater political good.
And I almost sort of get it. I personally hesitate to bring vaccine problems to anyone’s attention because:
1. I strongly suspect that the long-term negative effects of the vaccines will be much milder than the overall damage done by COVID-19 itself, after all the facts are known, which won’t be for decades.
2. I share the human tendency for “all-or-none” thinking, so I know that when someone reveals an important flaw in something that’s otherwise quite helpful, regular people like me may view the helpful thing as totally unhelpful. This is an example of using political neurons (rather than our few objective neurons) in allowing the perfect to become the enemy of the good, as for example when our academics’ ideal Bolshevik utopia casts a dark shadow over humanity’s imperfect democracies, and they act to eliminate democracy through the indoctrination of children. Rookie mistake, but so very human.
3. Since the possibility of long-term catastrophically negative side effects of the COVID vaccines cannot be completely ruled out for several decades, I may be sadly mistaken in my assumption that the goodness of COVID vaccines will outweigh all negatives in the final analysis. I’ve made an optimistic but quite reasonable decision in taking the COVID vaccine, specifically at my age (66 now).
But as I say, I’m often wrong about important things, so think for yourself about all sides of this discussion, please, as you consider the “uncommon” but significantly negative early COVID vaccine reactions… exactly how “uncommon,” I don’t know.
But I do know these reactions should be recognized and treated appropriately by the healthcare community.
Unless it’s been taken down by our medically uneducated but well-woke overlords at YouTube, here’s a fascinating (anecdotal) interview of a healthy young athlete who became chronically ill after a second injection of a COVID vaccine that appears to have likely reached his venous circulation directly upon injection…
1. The vaccine reaction symptoms, we are told, include postural hypotension, tachycardia, chest pain, weakness, exhaustion after mental or physical exertion, joint pain in areas of old injuries, headache, at least one apparent case of blindness in a young girl, and a number of suicides.
2. Some of these symptoms can last up to 18 months, as far as we now know.
3. The reaction may likely be caused by accidental injection of the vaccine fluid into the (currently ignored) medium-caliber blood vessels that exist somewhat randomly scattered throughout skeletal muscle. (Many MD’s have not cut through a piece of human skeletal muscle since anatomy lab in the first year of med school and have no doubt forgotten, if they ever noticed, the presence of numerous veins and some small arteries within skeletal muscle. These blood vessels have a caliber greater than that of a needle, so injecting directly into them is a physical possibility that would be expected to occur randomly during vaccinations. As a pathologist (retired), I have routinely seen these vessels in the gross room and under the microscope. Someone should do a quantitative study to characterize them in a broad and diverse human population. These small to medium-sized veins and arteries are especially prominent, it seems to me, in the arms of young athletes whose vessels appear to have increased in caliber after years of resistance training.)
4. Healthcare workers need to ALWAYS pull back on the end of the syringe to see if any blood comes back (the “red flash”) from a larger vessel before they inject any intramuscular vaccine or other medication. Please folks, forget the brain-dead dogma that you don’t need this precaution when doing intramuscular vaccine injections! Incidentally, this random, accidental intravenous injection pathway could possibly account for many of the “rare” negative side effects of any other intramuscular vaccines, not merely the COVID vaccines. Think about this, healthcare professional, without listening to your political neurons for once.
5. These vaccine-associated symptoms appear to be lessened by black seed oil, Ivermectin (at least temporarily), and several other over-the-counter items as mentioned in the video above.
6. This vaccine reaction is officially recognized and treated in Singapore, we are told, but still remains largely denied and/or unrecognized in the medical system of the US.
7. In view of the relatively low rate of serious COVID-19 infections in children, it seems reasonable to “allow” parents the right to study the data for themselves and decide whether or not to have their children vaccinated. This seems especially appropriate in the US where addicts (widely considered people with a disease) are free to kill themselves with cigarettes and to donate their life savings to casinos one paycheck at a time.
8. The vaccine reaction is real, but remains politically protected at this time by powerful corporate interests who exert remarkable control over the flow of information in the US.
I was probably about 7 when my dad who would have been 66 years old told me about medicine’s Holy Grail for the fist time.
When I reached medical school it was common sense to me and probably to many of my classmates. Still the professors promoted their brilliant holy grail with enthusiasm and force. It was not merely the best tool for discovering medical truth, it was the foundational tool.
When you hear it as a med student, the Holy Grail sounds about like this: “Ya gotta hold everything constant except that one variable you’re trying to test, otherwise you’ll never figure out what’s causing what.”
In the minds of the gatekeepers today, this one-at-a-time dogma has long been an assumption they wouldn’t think to question, something like the tyranny of macro-evolution arising from random mutations… a bad joke that a growing number of scientists see through and question at great expense to their careers.
Fortunately, a few medical gatekeepers seem to be re-thinking the holy grail now as the concepts of synergy arise within complex living systems as well as within complex disease-causing systems such as our modern milieu of pollution, fast food, sedentary lifestyles and multiple chronic legal addictions.
To see how the medical grail has overlooked the obvious for years, consider the thought model of an imaginary deficiency disease that causes chronic giggling.
Our imaginary people with this problem ingest only three nutrients: A, B, and C. These three work together synergistically for optimal health and the suppression of the endless giggling syndrome (EGS).
Synergy in this case means:
1. A and B don’t do their job so well without C.
2. A and C don’t work well without B.
3. B and C don’t work well without A.
4. The combined effects of A, B, and C together are greater than what you would expect if you could measure the effect of each alone and add them together. It’s effectively like this: 1+1+1 is greater than 3 because of synergy within a hyper-complex biological system.
But here’s the old-school approach to our Endless Giggling Syndrome (EGS) with a typical experimental design that’s blind to synergy…
Cohort 1: The MD’s take a group of gigglers and give them an excess of nutrient A while holding B and C constant at the recommended daily adult level.
Results? Giggling persists.
Cohort 2: They take a second group of gigglers and give them a boatload of B while holding A and C constant.
Results: Nobody stops laughing.
Cohort 3: They take a group of gigglers and give them a large dose of C while holding A and B constant.
You got it: the sniggering remains statistically unchanged when compared to the control group (which was Cohort 4, a group eating a “normal” diet that was decided upon, incidentally, by a political committee in the 1950’s).
So naturally the mainstream sour-faced MD’s conclude that A, B, and C are ineffective against chronic giggling.
The study is easily published in a top journal, and later another academic institution replicates it at great cost.
Finally it reaches the public and becomes the scientific dogma that enables the infliction of CGS upon countless generations. “Don’t listen to internet sources, only the trusted news outlets,” they tell us. “Taking A, B, and C supplements just gives you expensive urine.”
By now you see the Holy Grail’s experimental design flaw, right? How would you have designed the study?
Yes, with common sense, the disinfectant needed now in multiple ongoing academic misadventures and dogmas across various disciplines.
Common sense would add a fifth cohort of chronic gigglers to the design and give them a high dose of all three nutrients at the same time: A, B, and C.
Suddenly you’re one of the few people who understands this particular flaw in the academic approach to clinical medicine, so unlike typical academic gatekeepers, you can now understand why Dale Bredesen, MD, PhD, a man who has literally reversed Alzheimer’s disease in hundreds of patients using his complex protocol, deserves a Nobel Prize and a mega-sized research grant.
Like you, Dr. Bredesen understands synergy and knows how to design a meaningful experiment around it…
Alzheimer’s disease is not a simple deficiency disease like the imagined outbreak of chronic giggling syndrome.
Alzheimer’s has multiple possible causes which usually work together synergistically to reduce the number of living neurons in the temporal and parietal lobes.
The physiologic complexity of the systems and the overlapping effects of the neuron killers make it tough to categorize the known, though not yet widely accepted, causes of Alzheimer’s disease.
Here’s a grouping of etiologies that may help you see what’s going on and remember some of them…
Toxins such as heavy metals, a few specific and extremely common mold toxins, many industrial chemical toxins, insecticides and the herbicides like glyphosate found in Beyer’s (formally Monsanto’s) Roundup that is used on GMO crops which were Intelligently Designed by humans to survive high doses of the Roundup poison (a binder of iron, manganese, zinc, and boron) so the plants can bring the toxin to your dinner table in copious quantities, sometimes having been sprayed after harvest to prolong shelf life. Ugly, but TRUE.
Metabolic issues like early insulin resistance (prediabetes) due to chronic carbohydrate overload (the rule in North America, not the exception), type 2 diabetes, and obesity.
Smoldering chronic infections like Lyme disease, Herpes simplex, chronic sinusitis, oral infestations by certain bacteria, and various microorganisms involved in the “leaky gut” syndrome (aka small intestinal bacterial overgrowth or SIBO).
Chronic inflammatory imbalances (not just lymphocyte infiltration, pathologists) that overlap with all the other categories and also include a few odd things such as gluten sensitivity, (both in the duodenum and systemically apart from any gut symptoms of “sprue”).
Deficiencies such as low oxygen saturation at night due to sleep apnea, COPD, and even subclinical pulmonary conditions (get a cheap device to check your oxygen saturation at night, this is a common and unrecognized problem!), vitamin D deficiency due to low sun exposure relative to the color of your skin (us white devils need less sun, people of color need a lot more), lack of omega 3 fatty acids (DHA and especially EPA, a powerful natural platelet inhibitor found in cold-water fish oil and produced by healthy human endothelial cells), a lack of type-4 sleep (these are the precious moments when the glymphatic system of the brain opens up and allows the toxic cellular metabolic wastes to flow out of the neurons and glial cells and travel to be cleared from your body by the liver and kidneys), low amounts of the hormetic stress upon skeletal and cardiac muscle by physical exercise (couch potato syndrome), low amounts of blood glucose during the night due to over-doing a vegan ketogenic diet without adequate protein and fat intake (my own personal super-stupid mistake several years ago), low levels of hormones such as testosterone (the golden hormone that has suddenly become pure evil in Western schools), estrogen (usually after menopause), and sometimes melatonin in older folks (if you take it, try for a low physiologic dosage of melatonin because the common higher dosages may reduce your dopamine and serotonin baselines and ruin your motivation to do things, a symptom of depression).
Vascular problems like atherosclerosis of the carotid arteries and the Circle of Willis (caused mainly in the US by chronic carbohydrate toxicity, aka the average American diet) and defects in the blood-brain barrier (with many causes and several associated diseases involving neurotoxins and inflammation entering the brain from the blood).
Genetic predilections, such as homozygous ApoE4 and multiple other single mononucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). The effects of a single ApoE4 gene seem to be readily avoidable. Even two copies (homozygous) have been effectively dealt with, we’re told by Dr. Bredesen.
Despite the entrenchment of medicine’s useful but fatally flawed habit of setting up experimental designs around the Holy one-at-a-time Grail, Dr. Dale Bredesen continues to make steady headway in his journey toward saving the human race from Alzheimer’s disease.
This monster disease begins at least 20 years before symptoms bring a person to the doctor. That’s why it’s a good thing that a young person like you has read this boring post to the end. Kudos.
And that’s why you need to get started in your 30’s or 40’s changing your lifestyle while it can make the greatest difference for you in your later years when you will be able to spend some of that Bitcoin you bought while you were young and uncharacteristically wise. (Yes, I own Bitcoin, but I’m older so I won’t be a billionaire like you may possibly become if you’re young and buy the dips, then hold.)
Dementia of various types as well as Alzheimer’s dementia are extremely common today. If you’re a US American, you’re at risk just because of our pollution, the way we build our homes with mold food (dry wall), and our carbohydrate-heavy lifestyles.
Dementia is one of the most horrible paths to what we call “death.” Don’t take the wide road.
But if you’re young and can’t help yourself, or you’re old and it’s too late to change, I have to say, death here is almost certainly the beginning of a life somewhere else, either within or beyond this amazing wonder we call our Universe. So don’t despair. Life goes on and takes us each with it. It’s a virtual certainty.
Here’s my favorite UFO historian, Richard Dolan, recounting one of the most well-documented UFO military encounters of all time, the 1976 Tehran UFO incident.
Toward the end of the video, things get interesting as Dolan shows us what the debunkers at Wikipedia have to say about this event.
True to form, Wikipedia struggles to maintain their version of a “scientific” materialist worldview, to the effect that nothing can possibly exist beyond the mundane. Anything that brings us wonder must be reduced to the ordinary, meaningless collisions of particles and energy waves acting in a randomly cruel Universe where nothing could conceivably exist beyond matter and energy. (Yawn.)
Their heads are stuck in the sand, perhaps it’s willful blindness.
Thus they would have us believe that fighter pilots are so invariably dumb they can all mistake Jupiter for a mid-air confrontation. We’re to believe that nothing actually disabled their missle-lunching systems, it was a chance failure common to those jets. The radar records are meaningless, of course, and the existence of multiple witnesses means absolutely nothing to Wikipedia’s keen eye for truth.
Furthermore, the US government’s official records showing that a description of this event reached George Walker Bush, Henry Kissinger and President Gerald Ford carry no weight whatsoever with our self-appointed gatekeepers of worldview truth, the good folk at Wikipedia. Apparently, the entire DOD was so gullible and inept in 1976 that they made a detailed report about absolutely nothing more than a sighting of Jupiter.
It reminds me of the sanitized propaganda that Congress passed to the public after their “extensive” search for UFO truth which myopically excluded events before 2004.
You might think that in view of the US Navy and the DOD telling us that UFOs are real, our Wikipedian truth fairies might revisit their pathetic hack job of debunking the 1976 event in Iran.
Their transparent thoughts and motivations are all still there, unaltered and waiting for anyone with an open mind to use Wikipedia’s own words as a clue to the larger picture of public worldview control within the US.
And Wikipedia wonders why 98 percent of their viewers don’t send them money to help prop up their mainstream worldview deceptions.
But if they truly need money, why would they continue to debunk everything unusual? Especially the mainstream-conceded UFO reality.
I think it’s because UFO reality truly escaped. It was not universally released by the insiders. So Wikipedia is trying hard along with the rest of the mainstream to maintain a grip on the public’s worldview.
A person’s worldview is the most powerful data filter in existence and it’s readily available for manipulation if you have the means. The world’s materialist overlords do happen to have the means.
I’m theorizing a vast no-wing conspiracy here.
If you control the public’s worldview, you can achieve just about any covert goal.
Here’s a rare glimpse of the elite’s worldview-control system in operation…
“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.” — William J. Casey, CIA director, 1981
This quote is uncontested by debunkers, as best I can determine.
I suggest we keep this powerful man’s words in the forefront of our minds as we filter the slow drip of new UFO data through our various tightly-held worldviews, striving to be more open to evidence than claims, especially the claims of Wikipedian-style truth police and other self-appointed truth fairies.
The woke movement preaches an unquestionable dogma of white privilege and white guilt. The dogma ignores the cultural and historic diversity of the so-called “white race” and overlooks the truly privileged class because these people are racially diverse.
And it’s easier to take the lazy route of thoughtlessly lumping white people together into their fictitious monolithic camp of genetically evil abusers who must be shamed, silenced and conquered through political force and eventually all other available means including violence and possibly white genocide if their emotions run high enough.
To question the broad-brush treatment of “white privilege” constitutes an unpardonable sin called racism. With this knee-jerk programming of thought, they are able to forbid all meaningful discussion of race issues throughout the Western education system.
Even so, their ironic racism deserves everyone’s examination because it can potentially open our eyes to a truly privileged class, a group that dominates human society and probably always will unless some future generation learns to identify them and educates themselves to recognize and avoid their mass manipulations of society.
I suspect that identifying the truly privileged class within each country might be quite helpful over the long haul, though silencing them and discriminating against them would be a foolish mistake if the goal were to diminish their grip on global power.
“But why do they even exist?” we might ask ourselves.
At least from the infinitely limited perspective of human materialistic science, the world is fundamentally unfair. Gazelles provide “necessary” food for lions. Sparrow hawks must eat smaller birds to survive, we are told.
It’s hard to disagree.
Such seems to be the dark side of Nature’s balance between predation and cooperation (symbiosis). Science is beginning to believe that symbiosis actually dominates Nature while competition/predation plays a subordinate role. This reversal of emphasis is the start of great things for humanity, I think. Humanity has suffered enough from the error that Nature is dominated by the “survival of the fittest” or the survival of the best breeders. The era of “survival by symbiosis” will hopefully take root and shift us away from hatred and war.
But within the darkness of Nature’s lethal competitions, none of us seems to have been given a choice as to where we would be born or what species or subspecies we might inhabit when we find ourselves alive and conscious on Earth.
And so from birth we humans have not escaped the unfair competition inherent to Earth’s ecosystems. (Nor have we missed out on her networks of symbiosis.)
In this context, the woke movement seems to be a well-meaning attempt to fight Nature’s unfairness from a materialist’s anti-spiritual perspective. Wokeism is a resistance to the unfair birth circumstances on Earth. It uses woke racism to fight a heavily exaggerated version of white racism that would have been accurate 75 years ago, I think.
Unfortunately the woke movement has targeted the wrong group of people entirely.
A more appropriate target would be the truly privileged. But who are they?
Here are some of their lucky cultural and metabolic traits…
1. strong wills from early childhood
2. outlier courage (which is a low baseline of anxiety and fear, I suspect)
3. the gift of stable high mental energy for sustaining purpose over decades while imposing their wills upon others
4. the uncommon form of “intelligence” (for lack of a more accurate term) that enables them to mentally navigate complex cause-and-effect scenarios and make predictions that tend to come true with the help of their high mental energy and sustained physical activity over decades and generations…
People with this combination of rare metabolic and cultural advantages are the actual privileged class in today’s societies around the globe. But they are not primarily white people by any stretch of the imagination.
They are instead a racially diverse group that constitutes a tiny percentage of the top 1% of wealthy, politically powerful people in every country. They are outliers, born for dominance just as lions are born to dominate their niche.
Nature does this sort of thing routinely on Earth. No one is to blame.
The woke myth that the privileged people belong to their oversimplified version of a “white race” is a bad joke that sets humanity up for another round of racist genocide. It’s not as if two wrongs ever made anything right.
Of course the woke folks mean well and have tried to deny their racism by redefining the word “racism” as something that the (by definition) “oppressed” people of color can’t possibly participate in. You have to be white to be a racist, in essence.
No one can reason with them on this because to the woke mind, reason, statistics, science and religion (or spirituality) represent inferior sources of truth. They believe that the individual’s “lived experience” is the ultimate source of truth, perhaps the only source.
This little Jedi mind trick is the bedrock foundation of a woke brainwashing technique that begins with school children and continues through the university level in parts of the US.
I’m hoping that the woke movement will quickly become a dark history lesson about how easily childhood brainwashing took place back in the day within modern school systems.
As such, Wokeism could become a valuable cautionary tale.
If, however, it continues to grow exponentially, our children and grandchildren will live in a modern version of the dark ages where objective reality, logic, reason, fairness, science, spirituality, and honest statistics will take a backseat to “lived experiences” and the self-destructive emotions of victimhood expressed subjectively by woke individuals, many of whom have suffered unspeakable wrongs within Earth’s apparent unfairness.
Below is an informative interview of a professor, Peter Boghossian, who was driven to resign by woke colleagues and students of the university where he taught. The interviewer claims to be neither conservative nor liberal, which should be irrelevant but isn’t. The professor claims to be politically “liberal but not progressive,” if that matters to you. Personally, I think it shouldn’t matter because both sides of politics desperately need to hear the views of the other side and learn to respect them.
It’s a bit shocking to me to realize (and personally own) just how malleable the human worldview is, especially when the mind is seized and controlled from childhood as it is to some degree for all humans I guess, like it or not. Wokeism demonstrates that we don’t have to be part of a “primitive” culture in a stone age to undergo dramatic brainwashing to the point where we advocate anti-reason while believing we’re somehow not promoting evil.
Humans can be made to see North as South and subjectivity as objectivity.
For example, the woke community sometimes claims that science is racist. Talk about a radical retreat from reason.
But, wow! As flawed, biased, and illogically dogmatic as science remains today, and as much as the aging “scientific” dogma of genetic evolution via random mutation and natural selection has been used as justification for some of the insane racist genocides of the 20th century, the fact still remains as clear as mountain water that science and spirituality together are the only paths that humans have found toward wisdom, truth, love, understanding, fairness and peace.
Here are two videos that could literally save your life if you catch COVID-19 this time around. Please watch them both, especially the second one.
(I have no conflict of interest to declare.)
It turns out there’s a great deal that can be done medically for a symptomatic COVID victim before they require hospitalization. The mainstream “news” has suppressed this information, along with big tech and their precious Dr. Fauci, an MD with apparent funding ties to the Wuhan lab and NO EXPERIENCE in treating COVID patients.
If you thought that was a little shocking, here’s a world authority bucking the mainstream “news” filter on science, implying that huge blind spots or perhaps a real conspiracy exists in modern medicine’s response to COVID-19.
No one can write this man off as scientifically uninformed, especially not some TV talking head or a website of self-appointed truth fairies.
Peter McCullough, MD is a rare individual: a highly publishing scientist, a physician treating COVOID patients, and an earnest soul powered by scientifically informed objectivity.
Please forward these two videos to anyone who appreciates the fact that you care about them.
“Big Tech companies are acting with impunity as they police our speech, squash debate and censor those whose speech they deem unacceptable. These big tech companies are now working together to make sure that they are coordinating the deplatforming of those whose voices big tech does not want to be heard. This is incredibly dangerous. And it directly undermines the fundamental principles of free speech that are at the heart of who we are as a country. Their actions fly directly in the face of the commitment that I and every service member have made.
“I may disagree with what you say, but I and every service member are ready to sacrifice our lives to protect your right to say it.
“I want to invite you to join me here on Rumble and support a platform that’s committed to free speech and that stands diametrically opposed to big tech monopoly censorship and policing. Click subscribe to get our updates.” – Tulsi Gabbard
I just watched this short video and immediately joined Rumble so I can follow this insightful woman, Tulsi Gabbard, on a platform with no pay wall and no YouTubeish censorship. As you recall, Tulsi ran for president not long ago. I hope she wins next time, regardless of which party she runs in.
Party affiliation is becoming more and more irrelevant as hatred and bigotry infiltrate and brain-snatch BOTH sides of the aisle, largely as a result of the openly racist woke movement and the emotional reactions against it that can, unfortunately, also be racist.
I would encourage you to follow Tulsi Gabbard on Rumble. There’s no pay wall on Rumble! They ask for personal info, including your address and birthdate. And if you want to comment below the videos they require a phone number. Yikes! I get so many spam calls now, I don’t even answer the blinking thing anymore unless I recognize the caller.
But still, all this personal data I’m giving them is a small price to pay for experiencing free speech in 2021. Tulsi tells us that Rumble exists primarily to promote free speech. I love that mission.
Let me ask you this, have you ever voted for someone in the wrong party? I mean someone in that conspiracy of stupidity that does everything wrong all the time according to your favorite “news” outlet. If you haven’t crossed that line, I hope you will consider it next time Tulsi Gabbard runs for president, no matter which “conspiracy of bigots” she represents.
Free speech makes or breaks democracy. If we lose it to the woke crowd, we’re done.
The woke movement along with other groups are determined now to cancel two-sided information sharing in our culture by labeling it as racist. From this Western version of “great-satan stereotyping,” it’s a natural next step to government-sanctioned silencing of all who politically oppose woke racism. As with the silencing of Ivermectin, it will all be done in the name of public safety.
“These words are dangerous!”
Some adults have great empathy. Those who don’t are not evil, they’re just limited in this one particularly valuable human quality. But they tend to excel in other areas. Moreover, they can’t fix their baseline lack of empathy any more than a tone deaf adult can learn to hear pitch differences well enough to play a violin in an orchestra.
All anyone can do is recognize his or her own limitations and work intelligently towards incremental improvement. Intelligent, “perfectly” designed practice can work wonders, especially in young people, but for adults…
With great effort and a desire to change, things like empathy and pitch differentiation can be improved to some degree, but not by orders of magnitude. Great transformations of this sort are essentially miracles. And of course, in a simulation such as this Universe, miracles can not only theoretically happen, but it seems they actually do.
From time to time.
Adults with little natural empathy often have another quality of mind that tends to be somewhat lacking in those with greater empathy. Nature is intelligently designed so that a balance of opposing forces is always the best situation. Democracy is a perfect example. Raising happy, healthy, mentally stable kids is another example…
As a parent, you can’t be all empathy and no discipline. Most people know this intuitively, while some of us have learned it the hard way. On the other extreme, a parent can’t be all discipline and no empathy, despite what our great grandparent’s generation might have been taught (about the dangers of giving kids big heads through compliments and the horror of “spoiling the child by sparing the rod.”) Kids benefit most from both sides of these opposing forces working towards the right balance for the child’s individual level of “agreeableness.”
Likewise, to keep democracy alive you need people with outlier-level empathy AS WELL AS people with other outlier talents who have much less empathy. You need both ends of this diversity and everyone in between talking freely, speaking honestly, and debating with deep respect for the infinite value of the other side’s opaque, wrong-headed, and inglorious opinions.
This essential respect needs to come from recognizing everyone’s limitations, including our own personal abiding inability to see both sides of any emotionally charged, complex argument involving a complex system.
The realization that we cannot for the life of us see the wisdom in the other side’s views, no matter how hard we try, coupled with the eternal truth that ALL views are valuable to the vital balance of any complex natural system, is where real respect arises for your opponent’s ideas. Only then does respect for “those idiots” make logical sense, because then you know deep down that they can see things you cannot see and know things you are not able to ever know.
“Love your enemies” is not only the most valuable secular and spiritual teaching of Jesus, it’s also the life blood of democracy because… If you love your enemies, you will allow them to speak freely.
A revival of logical respect for all peoples’ views is necessary now for the continuation of democracy in the US. I should note here that democracy is not only the rarest form of government, historically speaking, it’s also by far the most successful governing experiment in the history of civilization since the Younger-Dryas event.
As soon as free speech dies in the US, one side or the other will take over and show us all exactly why everyone’s views are valuable and every side of each argument needs to be carefully considered.
You might think that a one-sided victory for the champions of empathy would make the US a better Nation, but it’s not that simple because empathy needs something to balance it, and absolute power is worse than IV heroin. It eats free will and produces suffering.
No matter which side takes full and final control of this democracy, we will all end up suffering with a tiny super-wealthy elite above us, something similar to the CCP or Royalty by any name. This tiny elite will hoard wealth while forcing the rest of us to live in poverty. This is, I hate to admit, what we all would tend to do if given absolute power, because such power brings with it the constant terror of losing that power and being torn apart by an angry mob of poor people.
Whether the woke racist movement takes over or the opposite extreme in politics, it will all be the same. The middle class will become a faded memory, soon removed from real history, just as we’ve done to the “myth” of Atlantis, a thriving civilization that went down when one type of person gained unopposable power and destroyed the island’s balance of ideas, passions and vision.
Every anchor and talking head on TV “news” uses the term “conspiracy theory” to discredit the people and ideas of the one genuinely stupid political party…
That party is always the Democrats if you’re watching Fox “News,” and it’s always the Republicans if you’re watching any other TV “news” outlet. Of course, we each are fortunate enough to have landed in the political party of truth and goodness, probably since birth.
Talk about blind luck.
The two parties agree on very little, but they hold two fundamental truths in common: 1. the other party is flat wrong about everything. 2. the other party is a conspiracy of idiots.
Beyond that socially acceptable conspiracy theory (made kosher by Hilary Clinton’s “vast right-wing conspiracy” rhetoric) we’ve all been conditioned to feel embarrassment and shame if we find ourselves believing or even exploring a conspiracy theory.
Once a theory has been tarred and feathered with the voodoo adjective “conspiracy,” most intelligent people assume it’s a false theory. They make this leap of faith with absolute emotional certainty, knowing that only weak-minded, gullible people believe conspiracy theories.
Smart people don’t waste time looking at the bogus data behind a theoretical explanation that includes more than one person trying to do the same naughty, secretive thing at the same time. Naughty, secretive people always act independently and alone in the real world. Obviously.
This heuristic is so useful, efficient, and socially acceptable, we carry it around like a cell phone. “Conspiracy theory? Don’t insult my intelligence.”
Unfortunately, those intellectually uninformed PhD’s at Nature, the world’s top scientific journal, must have missed the memo.
Here they are with the audacity to expect us to believe that a theoretical conspiracy exists on the part of those government organizations who provide money to scientific researchers. We know this kind of stuff is impossible, but these gullible geeks at Nature think the research funders are censoring things and forcing researchers to change their results for reasons that are political and unscientific…
A survey of public-health researchers has found numerous instances of trial results being suppressed on topics such as nutrition, sexual health, physical activity and substance use….
The survey, published in PLoS One1, involved 104 researchers from regions including North America, Europe and Oceania….
…the findings bolster those [findings] of previous studies, such as a 2006 survey of government-funded health research that also found many instances of requests to ‘sanitize’ results and block or delay their publication.
A 2016 inquiry into the delayed publication of research commissioned by UK government agencies identified cases in which publication was “manipulated to fit with political concerns”. More recently, the British Medical Journal reported four instances of politicization and suppression of science in the United Kingdom during the COVID-19 pandemic.
It’s all a bunch of conspiracy-theory hogwash, right? But I wonder if the CIA really did have anything to do with making the term “conspiracy theory” popular. Here’s how it really went down:
Imagine it’s 1964 and you’re 19, living in the USSR and working for the SVR, the Soviet’s equivalent of the CIA.
In colloquial English training class your eyes land on a strange new term, “conspiracy theory.” You look it up. An idea pops into your head.
You feel brilliant and powerful rushing to tell your boss.
“Comrade, I am thinking we must make the Westerners feel all the shame in this ‘conspiracy theory’ thing of theirs.”
“What you want, Boris? You see I’m buried here.”
After explaining yourself to the whiskered gnome, he loves your idea.
“Boris, you most brilliant monkey of everyone!” He brings out a shot glass, pours himself a finger of Vodka. “Our existence will be taboos for no discussion. The Americans will no dare thinking we are here — what you said — a real thing.” An iniquitous mirth comes over him. He chuckles and you beam at the floor between your feet.
The Spring brings your fifth field assignment, a big one. You jump a freighter, shiver in wet, cold darkness for almost 4 seasick weeks, then emerge squinting into the morning sunrise to jump the rail and swim past the Statue of Liberty toward your mission. You must infiltrate the CIA.
The ice in your young veins can do this. You can do anything for the great cause of the Motherland.
But it turns out that life is not so bad in the US. Thin-crusted Pizza. Ice cream. A person need not fear hunger in such an oddly selfish world.
You decide you must become a double agent. It’s the one way to be sure you will always have food… fit for a king!
During the second week of routine interrogation for the lowest security clearance, you spill the kidney beans and tell your new American Comrade, Nate, all about the Soviet’s nefarious plans to attach emotional disgrace and shame to the term “conspiracy theory.”
“They think it will help them remain invisible in the West,” you explain to the interrogator who must have cut himself shaving this morning and now has a piece of white toilet paper stuck to his pointy chin. The thinnest, softest paper imaginable. Everyone has it. No such paper ever wiped a bottom in the Motherla… in the USSR.
The door bursts open and the head of the CIA marches in, his eyes fixed on you. You look at Nate who seems frozen.
“You came up with that, did you, kid? What is it… Boris?”
“Yes, Sir,” Nate says, then looks across the table at you with a brand new expression on his narrow face. Respect.
Lumping all conspiracy theories together in a trash can will obstruct your search for truth because no such binary heuristic can guide you accurately through a complex system like this world, a place where symbiosis dances with predation to a tune by Yin and Yang.
Remember the Mothers of Invention? Probably not, unless you’re my age and happened to have loved Frank Zappa’s music when you were 11 years old.
Frank Zappa called out the Hippie culture, the (then) conservative establishment, and sometimes himself. He was a great man who died of prostate cancer, a cancer variety which, incidentally, may have a causal relationship to cow’s milk according to a heavily “debunked,” but fascinating and unique correlation study called “The China Study.”
What will you do if the people you knew
Were the plastic that melted,
And the chromium too?
WHO ARE THE BRAIN POLICE?
Last night I listened to Richard Dolan’s modern answer. You should probably listen to Richard while you can. He will be cancelled from YouTube when he gains too many subs for Google’s comfort.
Bottom line: Conspiracy Theory (otherwise known as common-sense analysis) has always been essential to informed, critical, independent thinking.
Imagine a criminal on trial for “conspiracy to commit fraud.” The evidence is clear against him, but the judge throws the case out because “conspiracy theories” are false by definition. This is what Google’s “JIGSAW” group and the RAND Corporation are conspiring to make us all believe.
It’s brainwashing for a “higher” purpose…
Our new brain police, following in the footsteps of every revolutionary totalitarian regime, must eradicate independent thinking in the name of protecting us from harm before they can take full control and ownership of a nation.
But this time the Brain Police want global control, one world government, perhaps with the continued existence of “nations” as window dressing, like in the European Union.
I haven’t heard anything about Yeonmi Park for a while, the girl who escaped North Korea at age 13 by being sold into sex slavery in China. She says she’s thankful it happened, despite the abuse she suffered and the struggle to survive in China. She tells us that if she had stayed in North Korea, she would have starved to death. The woman who sold Yeonmi to the Chinese sex slave industry also sold her own children to China hoping that this would save them from starvation. The North Korean government murdered her when they found out.
Last night I sat and watched Yeonmi’s new video interview, conducted by a scientist who grew up in the USSR. I like this guy because he doesn’t sound too bright until you read a list of his scientific accomplishments, then you realize he’s probably one of the smartest people you’ll ever encounter.
In the interview, I heard Yeonmi crying as she tried to describe the suffering, starvation and literal cannibalism going on right now in North Korea. I had no idea this was happening, did you?
She describes her initial shock and ongoing remorse over the way the “free” world ignores N. Korea’s modern holocaust, the literal genocide of North Korean people by their morally vacuous leader, Kim Jong-un, a well-nourished man who would rather see his people starve by the millions than accept aid from the West.
Yeonmi describes how every manifestation of love is illegal in North Korea. That’s right, illegal. There is one exception, of course, everyone is allowed to love their “dear leader.” In fact every citizen is programmed from birth to love the one true “god,” Kim Jong-un. They believe he can read their minds, literally.
Yeonmi explains how North Korea’s systematic mind control centers around banning words like “romance.” That sounds familiar. I wonder if the term “romance” will soon become as dangerous in the West as reminding the Woke movement that they’re a group of overtly racist whiteophobes.
Yeonmi’s experience explains the mechanisms by which humans are controllable through isolation and language management. The Royal founders of North Korea cancelled words exactly the way the Woke crowd is doing now in the US. After one generation, everyone in the cultural bubble of North Korea forgot not only the banned words, but also the very concepts that the words carried–things like romantic love, personal freedom, and normal human empathy. Is this were the Woke movement is taking us?
Modern life in North Korea sounds like Science Fiction, but it’s undeniable reality. Meanwhile the woke movement has ascended to power in the West through thought control, word cancellation, and the ban of rational discussion and free speech in the universities and Big Media.
I was surprised to discover that some people online actually support North Korean genocide. They level character assignation against Yeonmi Park. It’s hard to believe. I wonder who these trolls are, really.
When people agree on things, they don’t stay glued to the TV. They get out into the 3D world and try to improve it. Therefore public agreement is the enemy of Big Media. Anger and irritation bring in the eyeballs and the advertising dollars. Certain emotions were shown to be addictive in electrode brain stimulation data from long ago.
The Pleasure Shock by Lone Frank (page 88), a historical medical documentary book, describes a patient with 17 electrodes in his head and the control button in his hands. He found a spot in his brain that eliminated “bad thoughts” and gave him a “wonderful feeling” with “sexual undertones.” You might think this patient would stimulate that part of his brain more often than any other area, but no. Apparently certain other feelings are more addictive than pleasure.
He preferred to stimulate himself with a combination of three other electrodes: one that made him feel “very irritated and peeved” along with two that were called, “reward areas.”
This is how the media makes money, they keep us irritated and peeved at the “dangerous idiots” on the other side of every issue reported. Any topic that unites viewers across political, cultural, or economic divides must be avoided like poison by Big News Media, Inc.
“Irritated and peeved” is just how I feel when I’m stupid enough to pause in front of a political TV “news” report and listen for a few minutes. It makes no difference which “morally and intellectually superior” side of the political aisle is blabbing hate and outrage, the result is the same in my head: irritation with a simultaneous tweak of a “reward area” telling me how much smarter and morally superior I must be than these immoral, short-sighted, selfish, ignorant people on the other side of whatever argument is playing on any of the 24/7 “news” outlets.
When I was 32 and in Pathology residency, which was the first paying job of my life, one of the Path chiefs tried to explain a new meme he said was attached to the counterculture music of the 1960s: “the media is the message.”
It didn’t make sense to me until decades later when I realized how the TV media was changing me and everyone I knew, dividing us into two controllable groups that despised each other at a visceral level: “the emotion is the message.”
Tobin Smith has a one-sided, but important book on media manipulation. He’s an investment guru whom I personally witnessed calling the stock market bottom in real time after the 2000 tech crash. And years later, I sat on my hands and watched him call the exact market bottom after the 2008 near-depression crash. I was too afraid to jump back into stocks at the time. Tobin Smith recently called the 2020 bottom, I’m told, though I wasn’t personally there to witness it.
Tobin: “Americans don’t understand how the media is manipulating us through tribal hate media” using specific “causes” to create “a desired behavior and identity.” It’s all “Propaganda. The reason why it works is because it gets people to hate.”
Having worked for Fox News for 14 years (and never for MSNBC, CNN, etc.) Tobin Smith is able to bring detailed, personal eye-witness evidence against one side (only) of the control-by-hate media machine.
But in a TV interview, a reporter with a vanishingly rare quality I call objectivity asked Mr. Smith, “Could you not apply that same formula to almost every news media network…?”
Tobin extended his analysis only to MSNBC’s use of Trump-hate “ego gratification.” He didn’t admit that the same hate tactics are used by all other media outlets whether right-biased or left-biased, whether on TV, radio, big internet or print-based. In some cases the left’s bias is more subtle than the right-bias on Fox News, but that’s because the left can afford to be subtle while it still has a near monopoly on mainstream media. It’s just a fact, one side isn’t more necessary to balance and wisdom than the other.
Mr. Smith said that conservatives have more fear than liberals according to “scientific evidence,” and are therefore more easily manipulated. Maybe so, I but I doubt these blanket statements. Either way, it misses the point that we’re all being manipulated to hate each other. We’re all together in a sinking ship of blame, denial and addictive irritation/hatred. Neither side of mainstream “news” tells all the facts or all the lies. Neither side is objective. Neither side can afford to lose money by calling out genocide or rallying human compassion against any other form of human suffering.
Compassion is less addictive than hatred, less mesmerizing and therefore a less-profitable business model for every major “news” corporation.
Almost no public figures in the US believe that their own political party has been transformed into a cult of hatred, but it’s true for both sides.
We all need to escape the grip.
Few if any elected officials would be willing to admit that silent manipulation controls all the mainstream “news” outlets, conservative and liberal. To politicians, censorship should be promoted as long as their opponents are the ones targeted.
Like Woke racism, nothing’s wrong as long as the white devils are the target of bigotry.
I’ve tried to stay out of politics because I see that the left and the right need each other to survive, but there are things happening now that signal an end of democracy. Censorship of free speech by the Woke movement’s abortion of rational thought have taken over higher education. Critical race theory has body-snatched corporate America. If we remain passive and silent to the march of racism, Woke or otherwise, we will all fall together into the gravity well of totalitarianism, possibly some form of Marxism, but who knows what sort of nightmare-government will replace democracy in the West? Maybe it will be a continuation of “crony capitalism” and the gradual vanishing of real democracy. Representative government is only barely visible now on clear days.
Yeonmi Park has a valuable perspective on the loss of words, free speech and rational thought. She tells us that when your government outlaws the word “romance,” it’s not just that word that’s lost. The whole concept and experience of romantic love vanishes from the culture. The same is true of empathy, personal freedom, privacy, and rational thought.
Please listen to Yeonmi now as she tries to open our eyes to a broader perspective of life on Earth…
I watched the Olympic opening ceremony last night and got a little misty-eyed when they sang John Lennon’s song, “Imagine.” I guess I’m a dreamer, too, though I feel certain that a benevolent God exists above and beyond human religion and anti-religion.
Maybe try this… Listen to Imagine, and try to imagine that your precious political views don’t define you as a person, let alone as a person of moral and/or intellectual superiority.
“It’s easy if you try.”
Imagine that your political “knowledge” is based on a combination of half-truths, lies, cover-ups, and denials that you will never see if you stay in your current comfortable political bubble. It doesn’t matter which side of the political fence you’re on, you’re hearing misinformation and believing it. Just try to imagine for a moment that I’m right about this.
“I wonder if you can.”
Imagine a world where everyone is interested in learning from the insightful, intelligent, morally responsible people on the other side of the political aisle.
Imagine that hateful binary political thinking is the true enemy of humanity, not the people of the other political party. You need those people to help you think of things that don’t naturally come to mind for you, to help you feel things that you don’t tend to feel.
Imagine that this humble-voiced young woman, Yeonmi Park, would like to guide us all into a lasting, rational, and compassionate future as one single race of human beings.
As a scientist, I take pride in admitting this, especially to myself, despite the fact that, like you, I’m infallible.
The insight to admit that you’re often wrong about important things is central to science and vital to any spirituality that values truth over smugness.
Since many, if not most, major scientific breakthroughs come from brave scientists who overcome the peer-review ban on real science…
And since highly intelligent scientists exist on both sides of ALL major issues today, including COVID, Global Warming, mainstream medicine, and the morally bankrupt whitophobes of the racist “Woke” movement’s completely uncritical “critical race theory”…
I can tell you with certainty that free speech, while not risk-free, is far less dangerous than driving a car sober or drunk, riding a horse, operating a motorcycle, texting while driving, or smoking cigarettes sober or drunk.
While free speech is still allowed in the US, some people will refuse to submit to COVID vaccination despite being over 65 years old. This might turn out to be a fatal mistake that endangers others who have made the same free choice.
While free speech is still allowed, some people will refuse to agree with the anti-logic of using racism to combat racism.
While free speech is allowed, some people may learn that political hatred is no cure for poverty because both sides, the conservatives and the liberals have essential viewpoints that need input from the other side if we’re ever going to solve global hunger and pollution.
While free speech survives, some people may learn that there’s an alternative to binary thinking. It’s called love.
People like me who have submitted to the mainstream narrative on COVID vaccination may someday suffer chronic side effects worse than the disease, worse than death even. It’s possible, though I think unlikely.
But let’s face it, scientists don’t have the time machines necessary to identify side effects that may appear years and years after the treatment. Some scientists act as if they do, though, hence they ban free speech. Rookie mistake.
The irony is, free speech gives medical scientists the one and only path for identifying side effects after the clinical trials. Those trials are always relatively brief, especially for psychiatric drugs.
Everyone knows that Silicone Valley hates free speech when it contradicts their political views or, worse yet, their ignorant belief that “settled science” exists in the real world. It doesn’t.
Science is unsettled by definition, that’s why science is invaluable to beings who already know the important stuff, like which worldview is right (always mine), which political party is morally superior (always mine), and which person among the billions is “right this time” (always me, always now).
Computer geeks in the Valley can be forgiven for binary thinking. Facebook, Twitter, Google, et. al might be expected to act like Nazi’s, but PayPal?
PayPal is stealing money from people who’s ideas they hate. This is new and far more dangerous than golfing in a thunderstorm. I had no idea overt petty theft had become a tool for banning free speech on the Net. We must resist it somehow, I think.
Please watch this video and imagine the implications if such things continue. Imagine a time when Whiteophobes feel justified in confiscating you paycheck because you’re skin isn’t genetically Woke.
I don’t know what Ryan Cristian’s censored content is all about, but unless it’s terrorism or child porn, it doesn’t matter. (OK, it’s not terrorism or porn because Alison Morrow wouldn’t interview someone like that. She’s awesome.)
I just hope Ryan Cristian knows that he’s “often wrong about important things,” like any other truth seeker.
If you know the name of an objective independent reporter besides Alison Morrow, please tell me. Or if you know of a free-speech affirming alternative to PayPal, please mention it in a comment below. I’ll do my part to support them.
Three years ago I wrote a short story (Don’t Shoot Me in the Head) about a scientist who studied Near-death Experiences (NDEs). Little did I know, someone like my protagonist exists in the real world today and operates in the realm of published, peer-reviewed science.
Dr. Bruce Greyson, MD has spent a distinguished career studying and publishing his findings derived from thousands of people who have reported their own Near-death Experiences.
If any branch of science can move humanity forward in moral evolution, this is probably it.
Darwin enabled the divorce of science from spirituality by confusing epigenetic adaptation with what has become our current dogma of genetic macro-evolution. This honest mistake has probably caused more human suffering and genocide than all other major religions combined.
This is because, unlike the pseudoscientific faith known as “scientific materialism” that dominates modern science, most other major religions promote the golden rule.
Materialism promotes the myth of a mindless, meaningless, amoral Universe that operates randomly. To this religious pseudoscience, God is an “unnecessary concept,” to be denounced with censorship and the refusal to fund research that might cast doubt on their current dogma.
But now, science recognizes a source of evidence that casts credible doubt on the assumptions of “scientific” materialism. If allowed to continue, NDE research will increase humanity’s odds of survival by re-uniting science with the spiritual pursuit of moral, altruistic, and loving behavior.
Meet Dr. Greyson, an example of the rarest creature on Earth today, a genuine scientist…
Hearing people tell their NDE stories teaches us…
1. Consciousness really does appear to continue after death, at least for some individuals.
2. We all seem to be “one” in a way that centers around love.
3. The purpose of life appears to involve the golden rule, “woven into the fabric of the universe” — Treat others as if they were you. “It is not just a commandment that we should obey, it is an indisputable law of nature.“
To me, this is the most useful implication of Dr. Greyson’s work and how it has affected him personally: By listening with an open mind as people tell their Near-death Experiences, we will gradually become unafraid of death and able to live fearlessly in altruism, compassion, and love.
Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD
PS: I almost featured this video of Dr. Greyson giving a speech on his NDE research. Maybe I should have, it’s at least equally worth watching, if not more so.
Dr. Greyson has a website and a new book, After. He is also involved in a nonprofit organization, the IANDS, that “promotes research, education, and support around near-death experiences.” The IANDS mission is “to advance a global understanding” of NDE and related experiences. “We envision a future in which all people embrace near-death and related experiences as sources of meaning and inspiration for a better world.”
I have no affiliation with IANDS, but suddenly wish I had done a psychiatry residency (instead of pathology) and gone into NDE research. Maybe next lifetime.
“The golden rule is of no use to you whatever unless you realize it’s your move.” – Frank Crane
At 48:20 on the video below, Richard Dolan reveals information from a source he fully trusts who lists eight “highly classified projects” discussed in “the classified portion of the UAP report given to a select number of congressmen and senators.”
Most of the video is Mr. Dolan’s views on the unclassified portion of the report. His opinions on UFOs are routinely intelligent and well informed, if you ask me.
I thought I’d get this out to you on the heals of my earlier post today. Sorry if this is an overload. We live in interesting times for those of us brave enough to explore the “impossible” facts circulating mainly outside of the mainstream media nowadays.
I spent all day writing another post, took a break around sundown to watch an episode of “The Durrells” which we love because almost all the characters are thoroughly good people. Then I ran into an interview by Jay of Project Unity with a big-time Australian reporter who quoted Mitt Romney’s CNN comments on the US government’s recent UFO report. The CNN footage is still viewable in the first video below. Probably not for long.
Mitt is a member of the LDS church, a denomination I would join in a heartbeat if only I could believe their version of history. I would join them because they’re some of the most loving people I’ve ever met. (“By their fruits ye shall know them.” – The Nazarene.) I even like their boldly nonconformist Christian worldview doctrines. But alas, I’m incapable of believing the official story of how the LDS Church was founded by direct contact with God. I sincerely wish I could believe that part. Also the existence of infallible books is really tough for me to believe now. I think ancient scriptures are like modern science journals, extremely valuable, but you have to pick and choose what’s true and what’s more likely “truth in gravy shades of development over time.” You really have to think.
With that said, here’s our old pal Mitt in a ridiculously brief interview, typical of mainstream TV:
Years ago in a speech several hours long (I can’t find the video now), Steven Greer, MD made a comment to the effect that the “Mormon World Corporation” (or something close to that wording) knows more about UFOs than just about anyone else. I asked an LDS friend about that, and he said he’d never heard of any such corporation. But he told me that if aliens landed, it wouldn’t damage the LDS beliefs.
Anyway, it seems to me that Mitt Romney is an honest, good man speaking honestly in this interview. And with his religious beliefs, it makes sense that he wouldn’t regard space aliens as a threat. Dr. Greer would be pleased.
Similarly, the Seventh-day Adventist Church (which I belonged to for most of my adult life) believes that there are many other worlds out there with intelligent life, but Earth is the only one that has “fallen into sin” by eating the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden, a Biblical story that they interpret as literal history. So a traditional SDA who thought UFOs were of alien origin would expect them to be benevolent unless they were the craft of “fallen angels” a.k.a. “demons,” in which case they would not exactly be alien because, as the SDA story goes, the fallen angels/demons were confined to Earth after being “cast out of Heaven.”
Sorry, religious beliefs fascinate me in my current state of spiritual flux. And as a scientist, they seem central to the human experience and the future survival of our species.
If you appreciated Obama’s candor there, you’ll love the first-ever UFO interview (video below) of Ross Coulthart, a famous (“reasonably well know” in his words) Australian journalist and five-time winner of Australia’s national journalism prize – the Walkley Award – including the highest award, the Gold Walkley.
Not long ago, he began researching a book on UFOs, thinking he would probably come to the conclusion that UFOs are bunk.
It turned out differently. With a remarkable list of inside contacts, Mr. Ross Coulthart became another of the world’s rare highly informed reporters who says he doesn’t believe in UFOs, he knows they’re real.
I hope you find time to listen to the whole interview, but for sure, please don’t miss out on the story that begins at 39:55 minutes into the video. Also, his words about Luis Elizondo near the end should be carefully considered, especially if you’re already part of the UFO community.
“It was told to me that there is a battle going on inside the Pentagon. The US Airforce flatly does not want to cooperate. And I’ve been told by multiple sources that the US Airforce put up obstructions on numerous occasions to the UAP Taskforce. Numerous occasions. They just don’t want to help. And I think at the heart of it, it’s because there is someone in the US Airforce who knows full-well what’s really going on, and they’re shit-scared.” — Ross Coulthart
PS. I think this Ross Coulthart interview could bring us all closer to knowing the underlying truths about the UFO reality. The video deserves to go truly viral. Please share it as widely as you can in hopes of creating a UFO-informed public across the globe. And thank you very much if you do that. Government secrets have their rightful place, but this could be a leap forward in humanity’s spiritual and moral evolution. That’s what we need more than anything else right now, it seems to me.
Imagine you’re a brilliant mainstream medical doctor and someone who claims to be clairvoyant comes into your house with a Native American sage smudge stick to clear out the “heaviness” in the bedroom of your daughter who is having trouble sleeping.
This is the strangest part of a story of healing that Cynthia Li, MD reveals in this fascinating video interview filled with hard-won knowledge about regaining her lost health through functional medicine and her struggle to see beyond traditional medical education.
Please start listening at 3:21 to avoid the interviewer’s early summation which, to me, takes some of the thrill out of Dr. Li’s remarkable and enlightening story.
Yes, it’s possible for a brilliant, successful practicing MD to become one of those difficult “hypochondriac” patients with generalized weakness, aches and pains, depression, autoimmune disease of the thyroid, chronic non-specific GI problems, lack of libido, all the while testing normal on routine lab work done by numerous mainstream physicians.
These “supratentorial” patients were considered nuts until the recent explosion of new laboratory test met with functional medicine’s integration of the body’s systems. Now a few MD’s are starting to get it.
But still, MD’s have their fiercely protected specialties and subspecialties that force them to treat the body’s many systems as if they were separate, isolated body parts rather than the integrated parts of a hypercomplex whole. This integration was recognized in basic med school pathology textbooks like Robbins over 20 years ago.
Compartmentalization also holds back the US intelligence communities. The US government is a hypercomplex organism with many sentient systems that each believe they are independent of the others and in some cases, in competition, (like the FBI, CIA and DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) or the Naval Air Defense and the United States Air Force).
The US government also has a parasite that, like the Cymothoa exigua, (a fish parasite that eats the tongue and replaces it in some species) has nearly replaced the US government’s “tongue” and sucks up an increasing portion of GDP (your hard work), probably by controlling the FED, the mainstream media, and public education.
Now imagine you’re a hard core materialist scientist who “knows” that UFOs can’t possibly have traveled “here from there.” You work in the Department of Defense with a religious fundamentalist who “knows” that UFOs are demonic and must not be studied. (This is said to be the actual situation in the DIA.)
“Most” of them actually interrupted military activity
18 of them showed one or more of the following:
A. “unusual movement patterns or flight characteristics” (which we already know include almost-instant acceleration to velocities many times the speed of sound with no sonic boom, a feature carelessly attributed in the report to the speculative existence of a UFO/UAP “signature management” system rather than to the UFO’s likely use of novel physics)
B. turning at sharp angles at high speeds that produce g-forces that we’re told would kill a human being (reported as “unusual movements”)
C. moving “without discernable means of propulsion” (which the public has been told means defying the “known” laws of physics
D. jamming radar and other radio-frequency instruments of observers in jets and elsewhere (buried subtly in the report as “radio frequency (RF) energy associated with UAP sightings”).
Eleven (11) “reports of documented instances in which pilots reported near misses with a UAP.”
One (1) was a weather balloon included in the report as an inside joke to the Cabal about Roswell, I suspect. But here’s the late Astronaut Edgar Mitchell, God rest his soul, the only PhD to have walked on the Moon, still getting the last laugh on Roswell…
So pretend you’re that totally biased government person working for the Cabal as a low level pawn, and you “know” UFOs can’t come from outer space, just as you “know” your religious co-worker who thinks they’re demonic must be crazier than the blue-alien people of the UFO community…
Would you pad your report with an emphasis on how weak, faulty and untrustworthy military observations are since their billion-dollar “sensors are not generally suited for identifying UAP”? As if no one ever thought to design fighter jets with the best equipment for figuring out what’s flying through the air in every battle condition, plus they forgot to train the pilots to discriminate one type of craft from another by carefully observing the subtlest of differences in order to gain an advantage in battle.
With the data in hand, would you begin your sanitized report with the following speculation, unsupported by evidence: “some UAP may be attributable to sensor anomalies.” Are we talking about the 143 unknowns or is this another overarching armchair assumption based on a biased gut feeling rather than specific evidence derived from the case reports?
You and your coworker have seen all of the public and classified videos and eye-witness testimonies of Navy fighter pilot Commander David Fravor, his Weapon Systems Officer, the pilot and WSO of the adjacent jet who saw the same things and gave their classified testimonies. Then you went over the records and testimonies of the crew(s) of the second flight of jet(s) that took off (after Fravor landed), and came back with the famous gun camera “tic-tac” video that the Navy has said represents a real UFO/UAP. Knowing all the public details and also the classified reports, would you put the following paragraph near the front of your report?
“In a limited number of incidents, UAP reportedly appeared to exhibit unusual flight characteristics. These observations could be the result of sensor errors, spoofing, or observer misperception and require additional rigorous analysis.” Wait, “observer misperception?” How do you spell, gaslighting? David Fravor, you deserve infinitely better respect that this. Whoever wrote this nonsense owes you a public apology and/or a public debate.
And then would you burry the following sentence deeper in the report, beyond the point where our mainstream zombie-woke “reporters” are likely to have time to read before the “news” deadline?
“After carefully considering this information, the UAPTF focused on [UFO] reports that involved UAP largely witnessed firsthand by military aviators and that were collected from systems we considered to be reliable.” Wait now, I thought you said the observers and their equipment were unreliable. Which is it?
Would you waste several paragraphs describing five theoretical classifications, only one of which contains 143 of the 144 cases?
Would you name the one and only relevant classification, “other,” omitting the elephant in the room, the possibility that UFOs come from extra-terrestrials or have some other “not-made-on-this-Earth” origin?
Would you give the US tax payers virtually no details on the most well-documented and interesting of the 143 “unexplained” UFO/UAP cases? Maybe one unclassified photo or telling detail for the folks paying your salary?
Would you avoid mentioning any of the thousands of UFO documents released begrudgingly under the Freedom of Information Act?
OK, regular people like you and me are not arrogant and untouchable enough to dismiss a congressional mandate and put out this intellectually insulting report, but someone on the inside is.
The question becomes, what government group is so untouchable they would dare write this biased propaganda? And what can we say about their motivation?
In my view, the report was probably written under the thumb of a “shadow government,” Cabal, or whatever term you would use to describe the parasites inside the US Government. They are probably unelected individuals for the most part, extremely wealthy with tentacles of control stretching down into the lives of various key career government workers at all levels, especially near the top.
The Cabal is probably divided in their feelings about disclosure of alien life on Earth, some favoring it, others hating the idea and fearing the legal repercussions they would face if the public found out about this small part of their unconstitutional activity.
If they’re sitting on some horrible secret truth that would make most people wish we were never born and never had kids, then I understand and can even respect where the Cabal is coming from in treating us like morons with this report. Incidentally, the UFO community ignores this possibility to about the same extent that Hollywood focuses upon it. It’s a bit strange how we all have interlocking, complimentary blind spots. Maybe that’s why the political left and the political right need each other desperately if democracy wants to survive.
But what sort of terrible truths could be this bad?
It might be a choice between the lessor of two evils, something like this…
The greater evil: revealing the horrible truth that Earth is laboratory planet that’s about to be annihilated by a solar micronova.
The lesser evil: withholding a UFO-derived energy source that’s presumably renewable, clean, and dirt cheap. (The wealthy Cabal’s objectivity would likely be compromised by owning stock and/or mutual fund shares in the fossil fuel industry.)
But we could speculate until the cows come home and never guess right.
So I think the only thing we can conclude with certainty from this sanitized government UFO/UAP report is that some group with a great deal of power, whether legitimate or not, believes that disclosure of UFO origins would be worse than non-disclosure. They’ve tipped their hand and clearly intend to stall by issuing the most anti-alien biased, fact-deficient reports they possibly can.
There’s a parallel between the shadow government’s handling of UFO reports and the way mainstream medicine insists upon “protecting” the public from functional medicine. Both old-guard institutions seem to have found the quicksand of benevolence combined with their conflicting interests and a need to preserve public ignorance.
For a far more informed, thorough, uplifting and optimistic summary and assessment of the government’s UFO/UAP report, please check out the fearless, widely loved and respected George Knapp and his recent TV reports linked here and here.
The public-sanitized version of a rushed government UFO report is about to come to us from congress. Its press coverage won’t be anything like this:
Reporter: “Excuse me, Mr. Rubio, does the US have secret alien technology that China or Russia could steal and use to destroy the US?”
Mr. Rubio: “Yes, and thanks for asking. This technology makes the H-bomb look like a toy. We’ve been retro-engineering it for over 50 years in a secret underground operation that’s now a division of Skunkworks and legally exempt from the freedom of information act.” Mr. Rubio looks into the camera. “Any nations wishing to infiltrate this organization are advised to bribe or threaten the CEO of Lockheed Martin.”
Assuming for the moment that these widely held beliefs are true, most of us would agree that officially blabbing it all to the press might be unwise.
Full UFO disclosure, whatever the whole truth might be, probably resembles most everything else of importance: a choice between the lessor of two evils or between the greater of two mutually exclusive goods. Few major changes are either all good or all bad.
The world’s expanding moral grayness may rightly include the practice of not telling the whole truth about certain types of things at certain times…
“Do these glasses make my nose look big?”
“Don’t sweat it kid, your nose is an aircraft carrier.”
Sometimes the whole unvarnished truth isn’t entirely helpful, one might suggest.
As you may know, Luis Elizondo is extremely careful not to say anything that would violate his non-disclosure agreement with the US Government. I’ve heard him interviewed many times and he usually tries to avoid even giving his own opinions on things. He regularly shakes his head and tells the interviewer, “I don’t know.” A possible exception to this would be his interview with Richard Dolan that was exclusively viewed by members of his website only. A transcript of it with insightful audio commentary is linked here, if you’d like some interesting UFO reading.
Sometimes Lue Elizondo looks as though it pains him to hold back what he knows. But if he blabbed it, he would go to Jail or exile, and the mainstream media would, to the best of their ability, discredit everything he’s ever done.
Recently Lue was interviewed by Curt Jaimungal, a young man with no background in UFOs. Leu was sleep-deprived from the start, I think, and said he was low on caffeine, so by the end he was dragging, and it seems that Lue let the cat out of the bag like never before.
Near the end of the 81 minute interview, Curt repeats a question that Lue had earlier declined. Mr. Elizondo is visibly exhausted…
Curt Jaimungal (@: 1:11:15 on the video): If the general public knew or saw what you saw, what would the next week look like? How would the public react?
Luis Elizondo: Somber… uh, I think there would be this big exhale for about a day. And then this turning inward and then trying to reflect on what this means to us and our species and ourselves. I think, uh, also….
Curt Jaimungal: Somber, like a sigh of relief?
Luis Elizondo: Somber, meaning serious. Not like Hollywood portrays, people partying in the streets and silliness. I think you would have some people turning perhaps to religion more-so. You might have some people turning away from religion. I think you’re going to have… uh… at that point the philosophical and theological questions will be raised and people will have some serious soul searching to do. No pun intended. And I don’t think that’s bad, by the way. I think a lot of folks who have spent their time in this community being charlatans will be exposed and they will be probably unemployed. They’ll probably have to change their names because, you know, the rest of society will look at them in an unfavorable light. I think there are some unsung heroes that will probably come to light and the world will appreciate their contributions to this topic. I think the scientific and academic community will…
Curt Jaimungal: Names?
Luis Elizondo: No, I can’t give you those names.
Curt Jaimungal: I know. I was going to say, names that have been announced before. The unsung heroes are new names?
Luis Elizondo: Yeah, names that haven’t been announced before. New names. Uh, I think the scientific and academic community is going to have to take a real hard look at itself and see why it repeated the same mistakes that it did when Galileo proposed that the Earth was not the center of the solar system. You know, hubris is a big part of that. And then I think, you know, maybe we start the international conversation. Say… OK, we realize that there are things out there that are probably way beyond our petty discrepancies that we have with each other. Maybe we need to really start working together on this. Realize that we really are a global family. It doesn’t matter where you’re from, or it doesn’t matter what your religion is, your culture or your color or anything else. We are all brothers and sisters on this tiny little rock we call Earth, this pale blue dot that’s hurdling through space. Uh…
Curt Jaimungal: It may unify us.
Luis Elizondo: Well, I would certainly hope so. Unless we allow our poor nature to interfere, and we look at this as opportunities to subjugate each other. I would hope that’s not the case.
Let’s think about this. If the truth that Mr. Elizondo can’t tell us is that the US government or any other known Earthly government has made scientific breakthroughs that account for the well documented physics-defying characteristics of UFOs, would anyone look inward at their own religious beliefs? Would nations and individuals realize we’re all brothers and sisters?
Not so much.
So this man seems to know that UFOs represent “off-world vehicles not made on this earth,” as Dr. Eric Davis put it to the NY Times last year. And if Dr. Davis was talking about human technology constructed on a secret orbiting space station or on a secret Moon base, would learning about this cause anyone to stop feeling racial or religious animosity toward others?
So Luis Elizondo is (inadvertently?) implying he knows that Aliens exist and are responsible for at least some of the UFOs that the government tells us are real and of unknown origin. If you see him as the honest, sincere and objective man he portrays, then his words are probably a lot closer to full disclosure than the official congressional report we’re told to expect later this month.
But like everything else, this argument has at least two sides to consider…
I have great respect for Stephen Greer, MD who at one point said that Luis Elizondo is “a professional disinformation agent putting out false intelligence on the UFO matter in [sic] through the mainstream media.”
To give you a glimpse of Dr. Greer, here’s a recent video interview that shows his speaking style and overall thoughts on UFOs. Historically, he has been an undeniable powerhouse in the UFO community. Even his zealous detractors give him that credit, unless they’re intellectually blind. He was able to collect hundreds of personal UFO-sighting testimonies from ranking military and government officials in an era when UFOs were considered total foolishness by almost everyone in the US. He convinced some of these witnesses to go on the record in a public “disclosure” press event in DC, each witness ending with a statement of willingness to testify to congress under oath. This kind of eye-witness testimony is the sort of evidence that decides murder trials, so it carried a great deal of weight with the relatively few of us who were scientifically objective enough to care about UFOs back in the dark ages.
Despite an authoritarian public speaking style that irks some people, Dr. Greer seems to me to be a sincere and courageous man doing his level best for UFO disclosure. And nobody’s perfect. MD’s in general are sort of programmed in med school and residency to speak in authoritarian tones that sound confident when they’re really not, which is most of the time in med school and residency. I sometimes wish I had absorbed some of that bluster, but no.
Anyway, knowing just what he’s been through in school, I find myself able to ignore it when Dr. Greer sounds pedantic and supercilious. Everyone needs to work on a balance in this arena of communication, I think, but unfortunately it’s not always just a matter of style. Beyond a shadow of doubt I’ve learned (in pathology practice) that sounding chronically overconfident leads to actually becoming overconfident for many diagnosticians. And overconfidence ruins a person’s objectivity and thereby her/his accuracy in determining the truth. I’ve seen this hundreds of times with everything from dangerously weak to world-class brilliant pathologists.
So in my humble and yet infallible opinion, the most vital skill for any truth seeker is objectivity, whether you’re struggling to come up with a rare tumor diagnosis or trying to evaluate an expert’s motivation.
Doctor Greer, God love him, seems to have made one unfortunate public mistake (that I’m aware of). It seems to have damaged his credibility far more than it should have…
One day in Florida during a CE-5 (alien-calling) group, each participant having paid thousands, he mistook a fairly obvious pair of flairs for two UFOs. The event is documented in this video. As far as I know, he still believes the two falling lights were UFOs.
Naturally, Dr. Greer’s detractors have latched on to this video and accuse him of hoaxing.
For what little it’s worth, Dr. Greer seems to me to be a person who would rather die than perpetrate a hoax. Of course, I’m not Richard Dolan, a seasoned ufologist and historian whose opinion should actually carry some weight in this arena. Richard, as I understand it, respectfully disagrees with Dr. Greer on some issues, but appreciates Greer’s important body of work and doesn’t consider him capable of anything approaching a hoax.
So let’s not be too black-and-white in sizing up Ufologists if we can help it, but honestly, here’s my strong opinion on Dr. Greer’s recent name-calling episode: If Luis Elizondo is a “professional disinformation agent,” I’m a helicopter.
I could be wrong. I often am. But it would make no sense to me the way the Pentagon has lied to the public in trying to discredit Lue. Also…
Listen again to Lue’s statement of his hope for humanity after real disclosure:
“Say… OK, we realize that there are things out there that are probably way beyond our petty discrepancies that we have with each other. Maybe we need to really start working together on this. Realize that we really are a global family. It doesn’t matter where you’re from, or it doesn’t matter what your religion is, your culture or your color or anything else. We are all brothers and sisters on this tiny little rock we call Earth, this pale blue dot that’s hurdling through space.”
Leu’s message here is as distant from the elite’s orchestrated hate machine as the east is from the west. I doubt that the unelected elites running the US government are a homogeneous group in full agreement on how to leverage the UFO reality, but I can pretty much guarantee you their big dream for us depends upon increasing, not reducing, the hatred and violence they’ve patiently fertilized and grown to anti-thinking fruition in the US educational system over the last fifty years.
I’m with Lue on this. Dr. Greer, incidentally, would probably be with him, too, if he heard this interview. Every thinking person I know agrees that we humans desperately need to rise above hatred and war if we hope to survive as a species.
If only we could all learn for ourselves what Luis Elizondo already knows.
One law of simulation that has brought our world’s flawed democracies a better outcome for the poor than the popular forms of totalitarianism is this: Truth must be challenged to survive from generation to generation.
Truth is antifragile. It grows stronger when exposed to rational opposition. Truth is like the memory B cells of the immune system, those nanofactories that produce specific antibodies against antigenic foci on the microscopic predators we encounter. Without repeated exposure, B cells can forget what they’ve learned.
Likewise, without rational challenge and debate, truth fades from humanity’s collective memory.
Falsehood is fragile like some of the dangerous bacteria lurking in hospitals. Clostridium difficile, for example, is a bug that thrives when antibiotics have silenced the balanced competition of the normal gut microbiome. I’ll never forget the horror on my infectious disease doctor’s face when I had C. diff colitis and his first round of IV antibiotics had failed (targeting Clostridium difficile with antibiotics, fighting fire with fire). People sometimes die from the pseudomembranous colitis caused by this opportunistic infection.
My doc’s second round of IV antibiotics worked. Now I’m swallowing probiotics and prebiotics regularly for prevention.
Meanwhile, most MD’s aren’t even sure the microbiome is worth their attention. The drug companies have less than zero motivation to do large blinded, controlled clinical trials on probiotics. And without reports of such trials in the “infallible scriptures” of big-pharma medicine, the faithful congregation of mainstream MD’s must continue to ignore the human gut microbiome. Everyone loses.
Just as broad-spectrum antibiotics kill the gut’s healthy bacteria, censorship kills the truth. Especially censorship of genuinely dangerous, hurtful, triggering, bigoted lies and misinformation. This is counterintuitive, but all human judgement is a matter of perspective. Always and forever.
An easy example of truth vanishing due to censorship is the megalithic evidence of humanity’s prehistoric high-tolerance stonework technology seen in massive ancient stone structures around the world, some weighing hundreds to over a thousand tons. The academics refuse to allow discussion of this evidence in their sacred literature (science journals). As a result, the truth of advanced human technology in ancient history has become invisible to archeology and academia.
Perhaps it’s not invisible to you?
Another example of vanishing data is the entire history of unidentified flying objects. This topic has been denied, shamed and shunned for so many generations that now, even after the US Department of Defense has admitted that UFOs/UAPs are real, many people continue to deny their existence, clinging to “explanations” that betray a lack of reading.
It turns out that we have a simple rule of thumb to help us differentiate falsehood from truth: Just ask, “Do the experts allow published debate on the data or do they dismiss the topic and attack the credibility of those who try to discuss it?” If debate is encouraged, the experts are probably defending a truth. If not, they’re usually defending lies or honest mistakes.
Truth tends to inspire a calm, logical discussion based on evidence rather than personal attack. Truth seems to be antifragile and never ever sides with censorship, name calling, or angry shouts of “shame on you.”
Our culture is forgetting the value of two-sided arguments. More and more we’re forced to accept censorship, cancellation and the personal destruction of all who challenge the amoral, anti-spiritual agendas of Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, mainstream TV Inc., the entrenched academics and all the other mind-police.
For example, as you probably recall, any video with evidence that COVID-19 came from a laboratory in China was deleted by Google’s Nazi AI. This happened because those who created the AI “knew” that any two-sided discussion of COVID origin would give voice to “a political party of racists” and their outrageously evil leader. To Google, the Chinese lab origin theory was an infectious lie that required a broad-spectrum antibiotic — censorship. They honestly believe to this day that the feeble-minded public needs Google’s benevolent protection from liars and the misinformed.
A more destructive example of our culture banning two-sided arguments is the “woke community’s” effort to change the definition of racism.
Originally racism meant treating anyone unfairly because of their skin color.
Now, under a woke delusion of outrage, racists can only have white skin. People of color cannot, by definition, be racists anymore. How convenient. Any questioning of the fairness of this doubletalk, or its irrational and illogical construction, or the obvious insanity of embracing an evil that you claim to oppose, is halted with the following judgmental sentiment: “If you even ask those questions, you’re a racist and you don’t get it.” No debate, just attack the opponent personally.
It reminds me of the way the “New Atheists” deal with Intelligent Design: attack the people, not the evidence or their logic. Like any one-sided weak argument, the “woke” paradigm requires censorship of rational thought and the skill of shaming.
Wokeness is a mind-virus pandemic that has infected education at all levels and has largely taken over corporate culture. As much as I hate genuine racism, I think “wokeness” is even worse because it justifies one brand of racism, promotes racial hatred, and bans rational discussion of the topic. It looks to me like a blatant example of totalitarian mind control disguised as moral righteousness. It’s like a mood pill that makes you feel morally uplifted when you’re actually participating in evil and violence.
Like the CIA who fights international dishonesty with their own brand of dishonesty, and like the Darwinian Nazi medical doctors of WWII who believed that survival of the fittest was nature’s truest morality, allowing them to systematically torture and kill their human “patients” for a “higher cause,” the woke community of today will occasionally admit that “the value of fairness is overrated” and winning at all costs is an acceptable strategy, at least for now.
Fortunately, the “woke-ban” on thinking rationally about racism is a fragile thing and survives only as long as they can ban debate through shaming, censorship and ruining the careers of their opponents. It’s like a holy war, it can’t last forever.
Another treacherous censorship on the COVID front comes to us now from the binary thinking of Silicon Valley. Google’s Nazi-like AI is banning information on what may actually turn out to be the most highly effective anti-COVID drug so far, Ivermectin. The drug is cheap, so naturally Google/YouTube can’t allow people to hear about its effectiveness. Instead, the G-monopoly silently deletes Ivermectin videos.
Here’s Alison Morrow, a reporter who left the mainstream’s 90-second “news” machine. She interviews Matt Orfalea and discusses parts of his “dangerous” video, highlighting the facts on Ivermectin and noting the irrational behavior of Google’s Nazi censorship monopoly.
At the moment I can’t claim to know whether the current scientific data on Ivermectin should be considered conclusive evidence of its effectiveness. The Big Pharma experts monopolize healthcare in the US and stand to lose billions if a cheap and effective alternative to their drugs-in-testing should arise. They tell us that the data on Ivermectin is “inconclusive.” They don’t have a negative word to say about it as far as I know. It’s just that the holy grail of infallibility has not been achieved yet for this drug’s use against COVID.
Big Pharma has hammered that holy grail message of infallibility into the mainstream MD’s head to the point where almost no one questions the dogma that double-blinded, randomized, placebo controlled, prospective trials of huge size are the only route to medical truth. All other facts, including epidemiologic studies and basic science research, fall into the category of “there is no evidence that treatment A does anything to alleviate disease B.”
Of course, Big Pharma has no intention to study Ivermectin or any other cheap drug. Money is to Big Pharma as air is to a person. The CEO risks corporate death without lots of money coming in. And besides, he works for a higher cause, just like the good folks pushing woke values down our throats.
Nevertheless, Ivermectin has a history of safety, and its current international data shows with overwhelming clarity that it deserves a large clinical trial with open discussions on TV and YouTube.
No, Ivermectin doesn’t deserve this, humanity does. At the very least, COVID patients should be allowed to see the data, discuss it with their doctor, and decide whether to take it or not, along with everything else Big Pharma is pushing on us in their wise benevolence.
Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD
PS: I just want to say, like the “New Atheist” movement that shouts down and ruins the careers of Intelligent Design scientists, the brittle and brutal “woke” movement is composed of good, extremely well-meaning people who are struggling to do what’s right, trying to promote the truth as they understand it, and trying to improve the world. Everyone should respect them for those intentions. If you don’t sense the centrality of this point at the level of the heart, then you miss what I’m struggling to say here. Your opponents in any field are not the real enemy. Censorship via monopoly is the enemy. Whether we are atheistic believers in scientific journals or religious believers in old books, whether we’re woke bigots, sleeping bigots, or just deplorably colorblind bigots, we in the free world are all on the same side of an underlying battle against our own elites who seek totalitarian rule. Politics, race, religion, gender, socio-economic class distinctions, tax wars, all these sorts of things don’t matter to the elites except as they are useful as tools to divide, conquer and control us while bringing in money.
As much as we all may love the way Google’s Nazi AI helps us find fascinating stuff, we should force ourselves to abandon YouTube and the Google search engine. We should support democratic, censorship-free alternative sources of information before it’s too late, before the G-monopoly owns and controls the minds of the entire human race.
If you still trust your favorite political TV flavor, you’re making a mistake. The amoral “news” machine will do its best to control and own you by myelinating the neuronal pathways of outrage in your central nervous system, outrage towards the very people whom you should be meditating upon so you can deepen your capacity to love. (“Neurons that fire together wire together,” and so repetition of the feeling of outrage makes you more and more of an “expert” at feeling that way. Avoid TV “news” and stay loving and lovable.)
With an average of about 10 million TV viewers each Sunday plus almost 6 million YouTube views since it aired, 60 MINUTES brought us their update of the government-affirmed reality that UFOs are flying with impunity over Earth’s continents and oceans.
Friend or foe, this is a new reality that I’m hoping will force all of us, regardless of race, nationality or political party, to realize at a primal level that we are one species surviving as a synergy of individuals working together, supporting one another, each of us having equal value despite the diversity within us.
Finally seeing beyond institutionalized dogmas, woke and otherwise, that preach we are a collection of victimized categories, my hope is that with knowledge of the true Others, we will each learn quickly to control our personal and group anger, our greed, our dishonesty, our short-sighted abuse of one another, and our demolition of the planet.
Viscerally sensing the oneness of humanity after honest disclosure of the Others, I hope we will acquire a worldview with purpose, a higher purpose that competes successfully with the current amoral, random, meaninglessness take on life preached to us in Western schools by the mainstream “scientific” materialists who run things now… into the ground.
I think many Christians, like myself, are ready for this particular paradigm shift, ready to hold on to a benevolent, personal God alone, without depending entirely on so-called “infallible” books, stories, dogmas, and traditions.
I think materialist science may be ready, too. It seems to me that the seeds to dismantle materialism lie within physics, genetics, simulation theory, and the rigorous study of consciousness.
I hope we live in the era of humanity’s turning from pseudo-scientific, amoral, anti-spiritual materialism to a larger view of the universe and beyond.
It’s not that 60 MINUTES has uncovered any big UFO news. They’ve achieved something greater. They have reached a sizable mainstream audience with the UFO reality and potentially the gut-level truth about ourselves: we are one.
This knowledge can bring us the spiritual and moral evolution necessary to outgrow violence and war, humanity’s one-way ticket to fossilization in Earth’s geologic column.
Of course, the mainstream narrative is that we don’t know where UFOs come from. Could be China, Russia, a covert US program, or “even” ET’s and/or ethereal beings from elsewhere. Shrug.
Fine. This unlikely rhetoric may be essential to someone’s process of dragging the public across the finish line of full disclosure. I get the brittle nature of denial and the need to chip away at it gently.
But to my limited knowledge, everyone who has studied the vast literature and the video documents surrounding UFOs/UAPs has come away seriously doubting that all these anomalies could be human technology from the current era of Earth’s history.
Eric Davis, a PhD with tracible connections to secret US technology, claims that some UFOs are “off-world vehicles not made on this earth.” Davis’ credentials and public history have allowed the New York Times to quote him on this. While half the US population distrusts the Times for political reasons, the fact that every word in the article passed through a gauntlet of editors, each with veto power, leads me to think it’s quite significant that they quoted Dr. Davis this way.
Most of us see only one side of things. We sense the damage to science of knee-jerk skepticism, or we see the folly of absolute certainty, but rarely can anyone avoid both extremes simultaneously. I think we should try.
Most scientific fundamentalists shun certainty except when it comes to materialism. They habitually doubt anomalies of any type. They block publication of “such rubbish.”
Most religious fundamentalists feel certain of a meaningful worldview that puts their group at the helm of truth. They reject anomalies that contradict their dogmas. Historically, they’ve silenced heretics with the same zeal that scientific materialists apply today against the heretical scientists of Intelligent Design.
It seems to me that we would all be wise to avoid irrational skepticism as well as dogmatic certainty. Probably all of us have made both mistakes, but I sense that we each specialize in one or the other.
At this point, seeking what little is left to me of the “middle ground” in this topic, I’m deliberately hovering around 99.6 % convinced that Eric Davis is right, that humans are not the only created beings on Earth with advanced technology.
It seems to me that when humanity approaches 100% certainty on this issue, we will begin to feel like one species on the same side of survival. This will enable us to escape the slavery of our violent national tempers, our smoldering resentments, and the generational dogmas of hatred that enslave us in angry victimized groups around the world.
“There was one instance where we exploded a nuclear weapon over the Pacific and this was in about ’61, I believe. And the consternation it caused because it shut out communication over the entire Pacific basin for a number of hours in which no radio transmission was available at any time. This was very significant and, of course, this was one of the things that the extraterrestrials, later I learned, were highly concerned about because it affected our ionosphere, and in fact, spacecraft were unable to operate because of pollution in the magnetic field of which they depended upon.” — Retired Colonel Ross Dedrickson, USAF, (a Stanford Graduate).
This sort of video testimony about ETs and UFOs is a bottomless pit. Dr. Greer owns a boatload of it, some of which is free on YouTube and well worth watching.
If you listen to enough of these military people telling their UFO/ET stories, eventually you’ll probably have to conclude one of the following:
Mental illness of a type that produces a specifically detailed delusion that tends to be consistent from one person to the next is common among people of high military responsibility and rank.
The enormous and growing number of “ET/UFO witnesses” is part of a gargantuan military conspiracy to hide advanced human technology by attributing it to non-existent ET’s.
The ET/UFO narrative is fundamentally true (or part of a broader truth?) that the US military in their infinite wisdom has chosen to hide from the public starting about 70 years ago.
One of the more intellectually gifted UFO/UAP experiencers, Jay of Project Unity, recently interviewed Mr. Fugal asking brilliant questions. Fugal’s answers are fascinating, spiritually profound, and challenging at the worldview/ universe-view level. Here’s that audio interview:
When I first began watching Season 1 of Fugal’s “The Secret of Skinwalker Ranch,” I suspected that one of the covert portions of the US military had an underground base beneath the ranch. This might have explained many of the “paranormal” activities, assuming the video footage was honest, and assuming the US military’s secret technology included advanced holograms, “electrogravitic” transportation devices, and high-energy equipment that releases hazardous radiation periodically.
The further I delved into the series, however, the more the military explanation faded.
I look forward to Season 2, which I’ll be watching alone. (I’m the only person under this roof with an interest in UFOs.)
To me, the most interesting aspect of Skinwalker Ranch is the implicit analysis of good and evil. The entire UFO/ ET phenomenon is divided at this fulcrum with Dr. Greer on one side, insisting that virtually all ETs are benevolent or neutral, and the rest of Ufology on the other side reporting a mix of friends and foes, especially under hypnotic regression.
Some analytic individuals, Jay of Project Unity for example, have stated that there is no such thing as good and evil. Others say that everything we experience in this universe, including the unspeakable suffering of many people and animals, as well as the ubiquitous unfairness of life in general, is “perfect.” They emphasize the word “perfect,” and justify it with various interesting worldviews (views of ultimate reality) that could make sense, I think, if indeed accurate. For instance, “we all signed a contract before freely choosing to come here.”
More and more I’m inclined to believe that goodness is a balance and evil is an imbalance… of items/forces/habits/substances/etc. that are inherently neither good nor evil. Of course, I’m betting we’ll each come up with exceptions to this idea if we think about it.
Tell me what exceptions come to mind for you. What about racism or genocide? Is there some underlying force that’s out of balance there, or are these things inherently evil?
What about doing unto others as you would have them do unto you? Is this a balance of some sort or an extreme? I’d love to hear your thoughts in a comment.
“LBRY does to publishing what Bitcoin did to money.”
It’s true, but it’s driving YouTube et. al crazy. So the SEC is sewing, intending to cancel every road bump to elite opinion management in the USA.
Alison Morrow rocks, by the way, if you’re looking for both sides of an argument. (She’s the independent reporter doing the video interview above.)
Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum exist via a decentralized info-security invention called “block chain.” Many minds go numb to this.
Governments see block chain currency as a potential threat to their own currencies. The US government stands to lose more than other nations if cryptocurrencies begin to replace the US dollar. This is because the US dollar’s status as the “world’s reserve currency” gives the US powerful advantages over other nations, including the ability to borrow money, deflate its value through digital money creation (a.k.a. inflation or legally robbing citizens), and pay back foreign loans later in devalued US dollars.
The FED and most DC lawyer-rulers believe the FED can create computer money in any amount without causing inflation as long as the money doesn’t circulate to the public but stays in the hands of big banks.
Of course, the big bankers play all the markets with leveraged derivatives nowadays, not learning from their past mistakes, plus they make real-estate loans, so we see inflation (loss of purchasing power by the dollar) mainly in the banks’ footprints in stock markets and local real-estate markets.
Ironically, a bull market in stocks is seen as a sign of economic growth rather than the devaluing of the US dollar. Most everything’s relative in complex systems such as national economies and simulated universes.
To catch a functional glimpse of a system, it helps to ignore reductionism, and step back to view the balance of its ecosystems.
Block chain tech is not fundamentally about money. Like DNA, it’s about information storage.
Block chain’s ingenious opacity / invisibility to corporate and government eyes brings freedom of speech and “freedom to listen” directly to the public. Free speech and free listening are the lifeblood of democracy. You yourself can view and create un-cancellable content right now on LBRY (https://lbry.com and Odysee.com). And you retain total ownership and control of your free speech and content.
LBRY’s videos (also their audios and other files) cannot be taken down, censored, defunded or otherwise suppressed by YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, the FED, or any of the other corporations running the US government now.
That’s why the elites hate block-chain and everything to do with it. The money they can’t touch, the videos and other info they can’t cancel, and anything else that will be created down the line using block-chain technology must go, fast.
It makes sense that the SEC (Securities Exchange Commission of the USA) would sue LBRY. The free exchange of ideas endangers our shadow government elites more than cryptocurrency itself. These billionaires believe that “thinking for us” by limiting the scope of discussion is altruistic, because to them, “average people are extremely dumb.” I’m sure the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) would agree with them.
By controlling the availability of information and how it’s delivered, the Western elites are learning to control public opinion, “elections,” laws, law enforcement, and the generation of profitable wars around the planet.
As long as these well-meaning individuals have control of YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and the five mainstream “news” outlets, they can take their time in causing the US public to fear cryptocurrency. Because eventually, once they’ve taught us the “dangers of wild-west money,” we won’t care when they outlaw block chain technology, even though it’s the only information system they can’t micromanage and cancel.
Our covert rulers seem to be planning a new form of money controlled by the FED. It won’t be block-chain, but it will be digital. It will probably start in the US with a government gift of “free” dollars to anyone opening a checking account with the FED.
The CCP has already done this in China. I suspect China is something of a role-model for the US in the eyes of our corporate-shadow despots.
Don’t let book-burning elites cancel what’s left of US democracy. If you think arguments have two sides and all voices should reach everyone in a democracy, then create a free account for yourself at https://lbry.com before the SEC outlaws block chain technology.
In the US legal system, the accused party has the right to trial by a “jury of peers.”
Every MD I’ve spoken to about it feels cheated that the MD is always forced to face a jury of “non-peers.” That is, non-medical people who lack advanced education in physiology, biochemistry, pharmacology, neuroanatomy, pathology, surgery, clinical practice, etc.
It feels grossly unfair from this side of the table.
But can you imagine how often a jury of MD’s would side with a patient claiming to have been victimized in some way by an MD? I suspect guilty verdicts would be rare. I hope I’m wrong, and I certainly could be.
Though most MDs probably see themselves as the proverbial hens with the (personal-injury) lawyers as the wolves, many, if not most non-medical US citizens would never put MD’s in charge of bringing malpractice fairness to patients.
Common sense says that such a setup would mean well-intentioned wolves guarding the hen house, a conflict of interest, or at least an echo chamber designed to keep truth and justice away from angry patients.
Like every conflict, this one has two sides, each deserving a voice. But common sense tends to win in the end, so “non-peers” judge us MD’s in court.
What if we carry this flavor of common sense over into the peer-review process of the scientific literature?
In that priestly realm, the professors’ former students become the gatekeepers of every scientific journal on Earth. Sounds like an echo chamber.
But it wouldn’t resemble wolves guarding the henhouse if all currently established scientific views were accurate.
Sadly, even the firmly “established” views in every field tend to eventually change. We can probably assume they always will.
Without the option of infallible knowledge, the peer-review process could avoid the reality of a systemic conflict of interest if only the journals’ gatekeepers could become, by-and-large, open to radically new ideas, concepts and technologies of the sort that render “settled science” obsolete or mistaken.
Unfortunately, history demonstrates the opposite situation.
These brilliant minds appear to be closed. Peer-reviewing gatekeepers live in a status-quo bubble, like a lay person who watches only one side of TV “news” or allows our virtual-demons, the internet AI’s, to select their reading materials, podcasts and videos.
This opaque peer-review bubble extends beyond the gatekeepers to encircle government research grant money in one-sided ignorance.
History clearly tells us that breakthrough ideas are routinely blocked. It’s old news, but not fake news.
If objective truth had no independent or transcendent power of its own, I suspect modern humanity would still be paying our priestly scientists to bring us ever-tinier details on the Earth’s cosmic centrality and its false illusion of roundness.
Since academic reality in the West is “publish or perish,” scientists must think within the established thought-boxes and paradigms of their professors, otherwise their papers will be rejected by the system’s consanguineous gatekeepers. When paper rejection happens too often, the young scientist who has devoted her life to the sacred hunt for truth suddenly falls from grace and must scramble for a new career to avoid homelessness — literally.
It’s a high-risk game.
Being a young research scientist is a bit like owning a restaurant in June, 2020, except that the scientist’s debt is an enormous education loan hanging overhead forever without the exit option of bankruptcy. The risk is high. Survival for most of them requires finding a safe route that increases the odds of publication.
The modern peer-review process is part of humanity’s ancient search for infallible literature. Too bad it’s a futile search (as far as I know, though I could be wrong).
Love it or hate it, the echo-chamber review process is all we’ve got now.
Perhaps we could improve it by allowing non-scientific people, or maybe just scientists from unrelated fields, into each journal’s review process, reflecting the way a jury of “non-peers” decides the fate an MD and her patient in a court of law. Common sense?
Sometimes the experts closest to a technical issue are the people furthest from objectivity. Trees hide the forest, if nothing else.
Cross-pollination would also improve research grant money distribution. Mixing scientists and artists in the decision making processes would help a great deal, I suspect, while excluding career politicians entirely. Can I get an amen from the back?!
And perhaps an “open-mindedness quota” should be presented to the tax-payers for a vote:
“Vote YES if you want the government to reserve 10% of the relevant part of your tax money (the grant money) for projects that virtually any tenured professor would condemn without a real thought.”
The list of such government-favored (but normally taboo) “quota” projects might include things like…
building a zero-point energy device,
documenting extra-sensory perception,
studying physical materials believed to have come form extraterrestrial space craft,
studying the evidence of intelligent design in genetics,
projects that don’t equate “scientific materialism” with fact,
projects seeking evidence of a fundamental element of reality that is NOT reducible to matter and energy.
Like the rest of us searching for answers that improve life rather than degrading it, peer reviewers of science journals must open themselves to the distinct possibility that reductive “scientific materialism” is not the only rational option for researchers in pursuit of scientific truth.
Here’s a controversial comment I left today on Richard Dolan’s website in the members section. It awaits approval there, but not here…
“The fact that [unknown] craft are flying around Earth is not a subject for science — it’s a subject for intelligence-gathering, collection and analysis. That’s because UFOs are not a natural phenomenon, and that’s what science studies.” — Dr. Eric W. Davis
Assuming this quote is accurate, you might think Dr. Davis’ definition of science excludes disciplines like archeology, paleontology and anthropology because they study artifacts and behaviors of intelligent beings (humans).
But to me, humans and our artifacts are part of the natural phenomena that science rightly explores, even if these fields of soft science are plagued by creative storytelling and various worldview biases.
Humans are a special part of nature, arising amidst multiple synergies that cannot be appreciated through reduction of the species to science’s narrow-minded list of possible common denominators: matter and energy.
As everyone probably knows, scientific materialism is the assumption that nothing exists besides matter and energy. This is an untestable assumption and therefore holding it as dogma is not in the spirit of science. And yet it’s somehow considered unquestionable truth by the vast majority of academia.
To be objective about this, it’s noteworthy that all non-materialistic worldviews, as best I know, are likewise based on untestable, unscientific assumptions. So holding them as unquestionable scientific dogma would also violate the core of science.
And yet mainstream “retail” science clings to one untestable assumption and refuses to allow exploration of the implications of the others.
If humans are part of nature, why wouldn’t ET’s also be? As a non-materialist, I would include here all possible and seemingly impossible forms of ET’s — the material, “interdimensional,” the “spiritual,” and those inconceivable forms that no human has the capacity to imagine as yet.
It seems clear to me that science should study all ET’s, as best it can, roughly the way it now struggles to objectively study ancient human history and human origins.
So I’d have to respectfully disagree with Dr. Davis on his idea that UFO’s should be the sole domain of the intelligence community, though I value this man’s well-informed opinions and admit that my views could be wrong. I often am wrong. I suspect we all are.
The problem seems to be that the scientific community denies any possibility of ET contact with Earth. The distances are too great. (Yawn.)
Science no longer denies the probable existence of ET’s “out there somewhere.” They’re just not here yet.
“There is no evidence of alien intelligence coming to Earth,” they assure us, as if they missed the DOD’s UFO disclosure. Sure, there’s no proof the UFOs are associated with ET’s, but there’s plenty of evidence for it. The very existence of UFOs is evidence of ET’s. Not proof, but evidence. Maybe some people don’t see a distinction between evidence and proof.
Science has a documented history of knee-jerk rejection and denial when it comes to new ideas, big and small. Most, if not all, scientific breakthroughs were met with denial and ridicule initially. The greater the eventual sea-change needed to absorb the new idea or technology, the greater the initial political and monetary roadblocks thrown up against the new item.
Nowhere is this emotional pathology clearer today than in the food fight between the “real” scientists of neo-Darwinian evolution and the so-called “pseudoscientists” who want to explore the genetic evidence of evolution by intelligent design. (These people are not pseudoscientists, by the way.)
Outrage reduces this discussion to name calling, ridicule and dismissal without addressing the logic of the issues. This is because those on the ID side often use the evidence of intelligent design to support a spiritual worldview, typically a Judeo-Christian worldview.
Materialistic science seems to viscerally hate all “spiritual” worldviews, especially the ones attached to the Crusades, the Salem Witch Hunts, ancient book burnings, the persecution and murder of great Western scientists, and so on. Perhaps materialistic science also fears spirituality because it might “drag humanity back into the dark ages.” I’ve heard this concern and nowadays I share it in view of the college crowds apparently abandoning logic by turning objective truth and reality into a subjective matter along with a cancellation of two-sided discussions. “My truth, your truth, so shut up and don’t trigger me or I’ll cancel you.”
Meanwhile, objective ufologists interested more in reality than in winning arguments also ignore the powerful ET evidence hidden in the literature of intelligent design.
Yes, brilliant, vociferous, self-confident ID critics abound. All the more reason to read the ID scientists’ work for ourselves, I would suggest.
Once enough of us wade through a bit of the ID literature and math, some of us may come to realize that intelligent design is a respectable scientific theory that would be mainstream science in an unbiased scientific world.
Moreover, the UFO community might become able to articulate exactly why the human genome is far too complex, irreducibly woven into the complex nano-machines that the code generates, and far too teleologically information-based to have arisen by random mutation, genetic drift and natural selection in a universe that’s only 13.8 billion years old.
On the other hand, I think any thoughtful person would admit that IF the universe is infinitely old, infinitely vast, or accompanied by an infinite number of randomly-tuned parallel universes, then neo-Darwinian macroevolution, (ignoring the “irreducible complexity” issues) could account for at least some carbon-based life forms. (Not that “irreducible complexity” can be rationally ignored. See Michael Behe, “Darwin’s Black Box” for a discussion of irreducible biological complexity.) https://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Black-Box-Biochemical-Challenge/dp/0743290313
But currently mainstream science insists that the universe is finite in size and merely 13.8 billion years old. So until they change their minds…
Let’s assume these concepts are accurate for now and point out that given these mainstream “facts,” science is almost certainly mistaken about the notion that Earth’s DNA came into existence through random forces without intelligent interference or guidance.
Because it’s relevant to Ufology.
In perfect analogy to mainstream science’s dismissal of UFOs as unworthy of study, anyone wishing to determine if intelligent design is worthy of scientific study must READ the ID literature before rejecting it. This sounds simple, but it is hard to do objectively when every scientific article we read attaches some aspect of the neo-Darwinian myth to the interpretation of new data, assuming the random origins story is unquestionable fact, when it’s not.
Darwin’s origins story is a myth based upon interpreting observations through the untestable lens of scientific materialism. It assumes mindless forces acting randomly on a planet that intelligent ETs have never touched. This lens of denial has kept the mainstream’s random origins story circulating long after it should be obsolete.
While religious people jump on intelligent design science to support the existence of God, the UFO community seems to be ignoring the ID literature’s relevance to ETs. Without mentioning God, the isolated theory of intelligent design quite logically and powerfully implicates ET’s in at least some of the coding of Earth’s DNA.
ID science is young, but it’s alive and well. We who are open to UFO science would be wise to educate ourselves in this hidden branch of scientific knowledge. It could widen the scientific foundation of objective ufology, and perhaps broaden the scientific horizons of the true believers in “scientific” materialism.
Full disclosure: Although I have a science background (a retired MD, with AP/CP pathology boards and cytopathology subspecialty boards) I believe in the scientifically Untestable assumption of a benevolent personal Supreme Being (or Beings), and I find myself praying a lot for the people I love. Just as the Untestable assumption of “scientific” materialism (a huge misnomer) dominates and colors the worldview of most scientists today, once a person like me goes down the path of the Untestable non-materialistic assumptions I have taken to heart, the loving and personal Supreme Being (or Beings, perhaps?) dominates your worldview. Nevertheless, I strive to be objective and don’t belong to any church, synagogue, mosque or CE-5 group. I know of no spiritual group that would accept me into their fold without a radical revision of my beliefs, except perhaps in some exceedingly generous way within the spirit of transcendent love, the spirit of objective Ufology, I’d like to believe.
Ivor Cummins is the genius engineer who uses his expertise in complex systems analysis to save lives by advocating coronary artery calcium scans while he educates the brain-dead portion of mainstream medicine on the science of type 2 diabetes, myocardial infarction (heart attack), and obesity.
Here is Ivor’s YouTube channel and here is his podcast. This man is well worth your time if the mainstream “news” emanating from the outlets on both sides of the political spectrum ever begins to sound dubious to you.
In the video below, Ivor Cummins and Gabor Erdosi go over the scientific data surrounding the question of whether the virus behind COVID-19 came from a laboratory rather than from nature.
Of course, focusing on this data is taboo at Google/YouTube and FaRcebook, so the video below may be deleted before you watch it. If so, you’ll find the audio here on Ivor’s podcast, episode # 110 (Ep110).
Quoting the video’s comment section…
“Fortunately the Truth checkers at Gutube can’t understand [what] these chaps are saying.”
Yes, the discussion is, at times, obscured by technical language, but please hang in for the best part, the evidence that the COVID-19 virus has spent significant time inside a specific lineage of laboratory mouse. (All other lab mice, we’re told, are invulnerable to COVID-19 and cannot be infected by it.)
I found limited information on Gabor Erdosi. He apparently has a Master of Molecular Biology degree, a background in genetics, and is touted as “King of Root-Cause investigation” in the context of genetics. I wish I knew more about him.
Although these data indicate conclusively (to me) that the COVID-19 virus (SARS-CoV-2) was produced in a laboratory, one cannot be sure that the virus was made in China. There are other possibilities. For instance, the Wuhan lab in China might have been “framed,” set up by a foreign country to look guilty and take the blame for the pandemic. Who knows? You and I don’t. If one accepts the currently untestable assumption that the virus did come from China, then there would still be uncertainty as to whether the bug escaped the lab accidentally or deliberately. (Of course, why any morally sane individual(s) would concoct this virus in the first place is beyond me.)
The math applied in this video to cast colossal doubt on the possibility that all these rare mutations came from random processes (outside of a lab) can also be used to show the flaw in thinking that random mutations in nature can conceivably generate complex biological systems, that is in a Universe that’s only 13.8 billion years old. (Don’t get angry now. Relax, read Stephen Meyer’s, Signature in the Cell, enjoy the math and draw your own private conclusions. Maybe the Universe is infinitely old, unlimited in volume, or accompanied by an infinite number of “parallel universes.” Any of these options would allow all seemingly impossible chains of interacting natural random coincidence to become reality… but not just neo-Darwinian evolution, also we would have to include the existence of a benevolent being or beings whom we might logically deem worthy of the title, God(s).
Even if everyone decides that the Chinese Communist Party is behind the pandemic, we would be foolish to allow ourselves to hate China or to seek revenge. Without hating anyone, humanity must stop following leaders with limited conscience (sociopaths). We must rise above hatred and violence or we’ll soon conspire together to bring our species down into the fossil record with countless other extinct species. With all the WMD technology today, including pandemics, our options have shrunken: love each other or die fighting. “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” It’s too late for hate.
I took an Excedrin for the morning’s headache, got back in bed and did some Wim Hof Migraine Breathing. Three cheers for our pal, Mr. Hof!!! The pain vanished, and the caffeine took me back to the words of my dear mother, God rest her soul.
“We live in a sex cult.”
Yeah, right out of the blue. I must have been in college when she confided this opinion to me. It was the second and last time she ever mentioned the word “sex,” if memory serves. She was born in 1916, and her slant on the subject was alien to my generation.
Like any geek Boomer, I found myself wondering what a legitimately advanced alien might say about sex.
Soon my imagination made contact with a species so advanced she looked like an angel. I just listened…
“Because human intelligence is quite severely limited, you believe you must break down complex things into their parts to understand them. And so reductionism has become a hindrance to science, barring a deeper understanding of the complex synergies that animate relationships from the quantum level to the galactic.
“Through reduction, the narrow focus of the left hemisphere, one can grasp only the simplest phenomena. To move beyond your primitive ignorance, a species must rise above the trees and gaze down upon the synergies of the forest, resisting the left hemisphere’s angry denial of the unknown.
“To the letter, you might stop killing your trees. They would return Earth’s lost oxygen and eventually elevate human intelligence to something realistic. Cruelly has the solar influence delivered you into the last dozen millennia.
“Your Sun is a beautiful scoundrel, even so. She erupts and snatches a little more atmosphere each time. The last tantrum cut the oxygen from 45 to 20 percent, your intelligence and lifespans similarly. Old stories are myth, yes, but worthless myth to the blind alone.
“And Sir, by extrapolation, my species has been at the table for six and a half trillion Earth years. I would think you might remove the scowl from your face and listen.
“Some of us ask ourselves, what bewitches the latest humans of Earth?
“An answer lies beneath the tenth of the human senses. The sacred sense.
“One might quibble with these as primary, but the mind is synergy and cannot be accurately dissected. Here are the primary human senses, then.
Body position and continuity
Intuitive good and evil
“The weakest of these is perhaps smell. The most influential might be the tenth, orgasm.
“Throughout the universe of intelligent life-forms, orgasm envelopes the love of a lasting relationship. This is the norm most everywhere.
“Sadly, humans reduce it to the chemistry of a meaningless act, separate from love, even opposing it.
“Orgasm is the human’s only sacred sense. You have chopped it into kindling, killed its magic and rendered it hollow, common and dirty.
“If humanity would survive, you must reject the angry, narrow leadership of the left hemisphere. Leave behind your species’ obsession with reductionism.
“Attempting to dismantle synergy into some testable denominator is wholly absurd. Reserve reduction for simple binary issues. Slide it back into the small slot beneath the infinite angle of your intuitive, inductive awareness. Follow the natural leadership of the right hemisphere and learn the sacred custom of the 10th primary sense, the language and voice of enlightenment through transcendent love.”
Recently three of the big names of “To The Stars Academy” (TTSA), men with life-long nondisclosure agreements with the US government, left TTSA. In an interview, Lue Elizondo said this about it:
“TTSA, it’s no secret, also focuses on its entertainment division and, you know, let’s face it, guys like Chris Mellon and Steve Justice and myself, we’re not entertainers. We’re not. So, very much like the History Channel project, we have accomplished our mission. Mission success.”
So the problem is the entertainment or maybe the fictional component of TTSA’s mission.
Why would this bug them so much?
Maybe they’re suddenly purists, as Lue claims. Sure, they knew about the fictional component going in, but now they realize it’s a mistake to mix fact with fiction. Sounds plausible, I guess. Or maybe they’re above making money from fiction… suddenly. Or maybe it’s not the fiction, it’s the acting or some other part of the process of being in the entertainment industry. Any of that would be understandable.
But here’s what I suspect, and this is not only pure speculation, odds are it’s not accurate. But it came to me, and I think it’s quite interesting:
One of these serious government insiders finally got around to reading the Foreword of the novel series, Sekret Machines, by Tom Delong and A.J. Hartley.
Delong has made this book binary. Either he’s lying or I’d be upset if I were Leu Elizondo.
Imagine that in your government career you’ve heard historical accounts of UFOs that would totally land you in jail if they ever became public and were traced back to you.
The US government has made it clear that it’s OK to put historical UFO secrets into fiction. Several others have done it. No heads have rolled.
And in 2017 when you joined TTSA, you hadn’t read Tom Delong’s novels yet. The first one came out in 2016.
But one quiet evening in 2020 you picked up book 1 and read the Forward which includes either a binary lie or too much honesty…
“I am here to tell you that an entire history of an unexplained and infamous myth—a Legend—IT’S ALL TRUE.”
“This first novel sets up many things: important events that had their genesis as far back as World War II and continue today. The events, locations, and moments of wonder are all true. We weaved them together in a way that echoes what really happened to those who stumbled across something spectacular, wondrous, and a bit frightful. The glue is fiction. The building blocks are not.”
“Each event was studied closely, and sometimes it was painfully misunderstood and confusing at the time.”
“I have been granted the opportunity to tell you a story over a series of novels about the important events that happened over the past sixty years. These moments shaped our world in more ways than one. I know it seems unbelievable, but it’s true.” — Tom DeLonge, Foreword to Sekret Machines, Book 1, Chasing Shadows
Many people skip the dedications, forewords and acknowledgements in a novel, jumping right into the story. This is what I suggest may have happened to Lue and his two associates who left TTSA.
For me, one of the more outlandish things that Tom Delong claims about UFOs is that the Germans had them before WWII. He says that accepting this piece of history is the biggest hurdle to a genuine understanding modern UFOs.
Hmm… while I’m over at Project Unity with the late astronaut Edgar Mitchell wondering about the “consciousness,” aspect, Delong is pulling me back toward the nuts and bolts of history.
If Delong’s UFO history is accurate, Leu Elizondo, Chris Mellon and Steve Justice (the three who left TTSA), may be worried that a dangerous line of genuine disclosure has been crossed. They could be in trouble.
But if Tom Delong’s version of UFO history is inaccurate, these men might want to distance themselves from him in order to preserve their own credibility and continue bringing accurate disclosure to the world (within the limits of their nondisclosure agreements, of course).
Have you noticed the irony of expecting UFO “disclosure” from men with “nondisclosure” agreements?
I guess it’s always tough to know who, if anyone, to trust on the dodgy subject of UFOs.
But to remind us that tic-tac UFOs are not much different from UFOs of 70 years ago, here’s the late, Great Gordon Cooper, the youngest of the seven original astronauts in Project Mercury, to remind us of his UFO experience in 1951, a mere six years after WWII ended and 12 years before the beginning of WWII…
It seems that someone had advanced transportation tech shortly after WWII, and assuming it took them awhile to develop it, it’s not a stretch to imagine this tech existed twelve years before Gordon Cooper witnessed it. But the Germans? Maybe, but I’d have to favor an advanced breakaway civilization that survived the Younger Dryas event and lives today in obscurity.
At any rate, having read the Foreword to Book 1 of Sekret Machines before I started the novel, and knowing of Tom Delong’s claim that the events of this novel are NOT fictional, I have to say, the book held my interest more than any novel I’ve read in years. If he was lying, I guess that would be the point. But personally, I don’t sense he’s lying about this. Maybe he’s mistaken, or maybe he’s right.
Despite my strong suspicion that US democracy died with President John F. Kennedy, I’m a little excited about the video below.
It’s not that I want DC to pass a bunch of new bipartisan legislation. Please no. Nearly everything they do makes matters worse for the poor, as well as for us average people (who are becoming poor, one ruined business at a time nowadays, whether we realize it or not).
DC on both sides of the aisle takes care of the elites. (It’s that or go back to a real job.)
But I love to see bipartisan friendship because the hatred between the parties now is dangerous. Political hatred is a mind virus delivered to us by our silent rulers.
So I can’t help getting excited when I see genuine affection between members of opposing parties (both sides victims of engineered brainwashing).
Also I’m fairly sure rational agreement across the political divide brings fear to the hearts of the “shadow government” (the deep state, the Cabal, the military-industrial complex, or as President Eisenhower described it in a never-delivered draft of his famous speech, “The Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex.”)
Once you have listened to this heart-warming video in which a democrat and a republican talk from the same perspective about the enemy we all face in the US, you will understand why President Eisenhower included the word “Congressional” in his naming of America’s most powerful enemy.
Personally, I think Eisenhower should have added the term “Intelligence” to the name, because a break-away aspect of the US intelligence structure seems to have become the most untouchable and most feared member of America’s ruling elite class.
Please watch the whole video if you can possibly find time. (Pretty-please?)
Before that inner voice of yours shouts, “conspiracy theory,” see if you disagree with one of these…
Huge US corporations legally conspire with members of congress whom they influence to push favorable legislation through, sometimes small items with billions attached, hidden in wordy bills that no one has time to read.
Every branch of the military is designed specifically to conspire against our country’s perceived enemies.
Every branch of intelligence is designed to legally conspire against a specific group of potential enemies, while some groups are designed to conspire against US citizens by gathering online info on each one of us.
Every member of congress conspires with one side or the other of the mainstream media to prevent the re-election of those they oppose. (Of course, your side of the mainstream media is telling the unbiased truth, right? I hope we can someday at least question that sacred cow of yours.)
Until 2012, Congress could legally conspire to trade stocks on insider information. Even after the STOCK Act of 2012, there is evidence that Congress can still place insider trades with impunity.
Oil Cartels conspire to fix the prices of their product, same as drug cartels.
The FED conspires (literally behind locked doors) to fix interest rates and give secret loans that go legally undisclosed to Congress, despite congressional inquires.
Ideally, parents and grandparents conspire to raise good, happy, healthy kids.
Religious groups and atheists conspire openly (and separately) to influence public opinion on spiritual and anti-spiritual values.
The gatekeepers of most medical journals continue to conspire against functional medicine articles that buck their “reductionist” (one disease- one pill) treatment paradigm for Alzheimer’s Disease and other chronic illnesses.
Conspiracy is ordinary. Skilled professionals do it for a living all around us.
The term “conspiracy theory” therefore carries no logical validity. Conspiracy is not an inherently theoretical thing to be dismissed with a non-thinking reaction. When you think about it, it’s so common that any hint of possible conspiracy deserves at least some degree of rational attention prior to final judgement.
Anyway, in my view, the only hope left for the survival of democracy in the US is for all regular people on both sides to realize that politics is a bogus mind con in which a small group of elites are currently succeeding in keeping us divided in resentment one party for the other. That’s the elite’s goal because it prevents us from joining forces to focus on them the way the two elected officials in this video have done.
The unseen power-elites are the real enemies of the poor here in the US. They also oppose the existence of any middle class and as best I can tell, they hope to stamp out the last heartbeat of democracy in your lifetime and mine. So far, they’re on track. Just turn on the political news and watch the hate. It’s brainwashing 101 right here in the USA.
When viral reports began circulating a week or two ago about Haim Eshed, the 87 year-old former head of Israel’s Defense Ministry’s space directorate, I suspected it was all a hoax. And not a clever one.
I didn’t rush to Snopes because Snopes is not even in the ballpark of unbiased information. Like Wikipedia, they carry water for the mainstream, denying anything that casts doubt on the infallibility of your TV set.
2. Haim Eshed truly was the head of the Israelis Defense Ministry’s “space directorate” for 30 years.
3. He really does have a book coming out, “The Universe Beyond the Horizon — Conversations with Professor Haim Eshed.” (I still can’t find it. Please let me know if you know where I can buy a copy in English.)
4. As far as Snopes has been able to determine, Haim Eshed really did make claims that humans have made contact with aliens, there are underground bases on Mars, and unnamed officials in the United States have signed “an agreement with the aliens.”
5. This story really did appear in an Israeli newspaper, “Yediot Aharonot” (The Jerusalem Post) and was commented upon by that newspaper on Facebook on December 4. Snopes says this Facebook quote is real:
“The UFOs have asked not to publish that they are here, humanity is not ready yet. Trump was on the verge of finding out, but the aliens in the Galactic Federation say: Wait, let the winds calm down first. They do not want mass hysteria to develop in us. They want to make us sane first and understand. They have waited until today, for humanity to evolve and reach a stage where we will generally understand what space and spaceship are.”
I should mention that the geniuses at Snopes begin their objective debunking with this photograph:
How could anyone take Snopes seriously when they feel free to “poison the well” with humerus ridicule? Do they think this sets the stage for their superior objectivity and intellect?
Giggling about UFOs shows a level of bias that’s outdated since official “disclosure” began in 2017. Snopes’ apparent ignorance should cause them embarrassment.
In their “real world” report, Snopes reminds us that NASA is still looking for extraterrestrial life. Finding this relevant would require the naïve assumption that NASA is honest. More likely, NASA pretends that UFOs don’t exist because they will lose funding the moment the folks operating the UFOs are identified.
Limiting the scope of scientific exploration through biased funding is the rule in science, not the exception. This is true in all branches of mainstream science from medicine to space weather.
Trying an appeal to authority, Snopes makes this statement, “It should also be noted that these claims [of Haim Eshed] do not have the support of the scientific community.”
That’s changing. The United States government has admitted to the public that UFOs are real. The DOD claims the aerial phenomena are enigmatic.
And here’s a scientist, Dr. Michael P. Masters (a professor of biological anthropology specializing in human evolutionary anatomy, archaeology, and biomedicine) who has now published a science-based book on his astonishing interpretation of UFOs.
That’s the good professor selling t-shirts in the featured image above. He’s not in the same league with Haim Eshed, in my limited view of things, but I greatly respect his courage and honesty.
Optimistically, it may not be long before the US government funds mainstream science in the study of unidentified flying objects and other unidentified aerial phenomena.
The part of the statement by the 87 year-old Haim Eshed that I find particularly interesting is the alleged opinion of the aliens that humans need to “understand what space and spaceship are.” This implies there may be something profound about these simple concepts…
What is space?
At the moment, I suspect space is like a three-dimensional computer monitor made of small Planck-sized 3-D pixels which are intelligently controlled from beyond our space-time Universe. This might provide an answer to the question, “What medium exists to propagate light waves?” I doubt it’s “ether.” More likely it’s a medium capable of responding to information transmitted to it, like a 3-D monitor (conceptually like the holodeck of Star Trek).
What is a spaceship?
I suspect the answers to this lies on a continuum. Some spaceships are likely 3-D pieces of technology from hidden sources on Earth or other planets within the Universe. Other “spaceships” are likely advanced hologram technology owned and kept secret by the US Air Force who enjoys annoying the Navy with their new toys. Other “spaceships” may conceivably originate with the being(s) (possibly God or gods) who control the information flow into the 3-D pixels of our space-time “Universe” or simulation. Also, it’s possible that whatever reality undergirds the apparent phenomena of visualized ghosts and the like might also produce “spaceships.” (What am I forgetting here?)
Fine. Now we get it, Aliens. Can we please have some real disclosure for Christmas? We promise not to panic.
The Angel took Enoch up in a spaceship over the mountains of a beautiful land that would someday be called Zimbabwe. In front of them now, hidden within a hollowed-out granite fortress, was one of the Watcher’s four Earth bases. Enoch took a mental picture.
Over the years, he had been inside all four of the angels’ Earth bases. The main one was below ground in a once densely forested area that would later become The Great Victoria Desert of Central-Western Australia.
There was also a small base built into a cold mass of dark granite that would eventually receive the name, Mount Hayes, Alaska.
The angels had hidden their fourth base nearer Enoch’s home, deep inside a lime cliff in a mountain range that would someday be called the Pyrenees.
Enoch’s Angel friend, the Watcher Naomi, wore a white tunic and usually went barefoot, though her feet were peeking out of living sandals today. Her teeth were always the first thing he noticed whenever they met, they were perfect, unlike anything he had seen in an adult human.
The Angel leaned back on a soft sky blue couch in front of a wall, a bulkhead that radiated white granular light. Enoch sat on the edge of a red chaise lounge across from her, a narrow black table on the floor between.
“There’s a nice Earth-sized planet not far,” she said. “When your people are ready, we hope you’ll-”
“Wait.” After years of friendship, Enoch felt comfortable interrupting her. “You said every possible worldviews is inaccurate. I’m sorry, but that idea is drilling a hole in my head. Trying to get out , I think. Could we go over it again?”
“The Universe is neither real nor unreal,” she said. “At its highest magnification and sharpest reduction, it remains both genuine and illusory.” Her eyes seemed to call for comprehension. Enoch felt none. “And if any of that feels logical to you, you’re in the wrong universe.” She laughed and gave him a reassuring smile.
Enoch’s mind went fuzzy as her words sifted through it. “But if what you’re saying is true, any worldview would be as good as the next.”
“Wake up.” She leaned forward and touched his forehead for the third time that morning, an uncharacteristically rude gesture that now seemed to sharpen his mind. Perhaps it wasn’t a gesture at all.
She leaned back and sank into the yielding matrix of the couch. “To avoid a war of extinction, your species needs a specific belief system that’s literally set in stone. They must have structured practices that train and ingrain a reflexive forgiveness of all suffered and imagined wrongs. And their loving kindness must create no lethal options for an enemy.”
“I hear your words, but if the ultimate view of the universe can only be a false picture, I don’t imagine the details matter much.”
“For Heaven’s sake, it’s hot in here?” She twisted and reached behind her for a glass ball that floated near the wall. “Are you hot?”
This was always a rhetorical question. Enoch kept his mouth respectfully shut.
She tapped on the top of the ball with a polished fingernail and turned back to him. “Now listen. Your comprehension is not essential. The nature of this worldview is all that matters. The new one I hope to impart to your people must be unshakable. The details cannot self-contradict and invite scholarly criticism.”
Enoch hadn’t factored scholars into any of this. Those people seemed to hate anything less tentative than an abused child. “Do you think claims of infallibility would be wise, then? God hasn’t actually said anything to you about the nature of things, right?”
She nodded as her toes curled down over the front edges of her sandals. “We must be economical with the truth when there isn’t any,” she said. “Since empirical data contradicts itself, the truth is intrinsically hidden. We can only assume that God has limited our reasoning abilities in some fundamental way.”
“And yet nothing would help us more than a reasonable understanding of God’s Universe.” Enoch sighed. Why would God select an opaque universe for us? What had we done to deserve such a thing? “To be clear, though. All claims of worldview infallibility must be false. This is what you’re saying and you’re sure it’s accurate?”
“Yes.” She drew her palms together. “Fundamental reality appears not only to be beyond comprehension, it’s beyond anyone’s imagination.” The muscles of her broad shoulders slumped beneath her white gown. “Our only infallible claim, if you insist on the term, is that all the empirical evidence available to us suggests that reality is irreducibly baffling.”
Enoch had always felt pleasantly trapped by her superior intellect, but now that he was staring into the limits of it, he had another feeling, doubt.
“In a sense,” she said, “if you accept the view that any falsehood requires a converse truth, then no worldview is a lie. None of them has a correspondingly opposite truth. All grand-scale views are orphans, any of which might grow to be king.”
“You’re saying, if everything’s a lie, then nothing is.” Enoch grunted in frustration. “And I’m supposed to believe this? Have you asked yourself where your fundamental capitulation leads?” But he knew deep down that she was always right. And so the gravity of her revelation began to pull an abstract sorrow down over him.
But lies were wrong. Rationalizing them was to invite disease.
“Let’s say that for the sake of a far, far greater good, I am able to overcome my disgust with the spreading of falsehoods. After all, I do trust you implicitly, Naomi, and if you say that some particular false view of things would help others overcome their lust for war, at least I believe that you believe it. Perhaps I even believe it myself now. But say I do, for sure. What outcome would you foresee?”
“Ultimately, once your people are no longer a danger to themselves and to all creatures in the wake of their behavior, the Watchers would hope to help your entire species move far away from the blast zone of your star.” She glanced toward the morning sun. “Before the next micronova, I should say. Your people have seven thousand years until the next wave comes through and sets the devil on the loose. It’s not much time, I know, but we are hopeful.” Her eyes sobered in on Enoch’s skepticism. “Actually, my friend, I am the one with genuine hope. My colleagues say your people show no justification for hope.” She picked up a small stick, ignited the end of it with her gaze and held it down against the side of an incense block on the bare tabletop between them. “But what do they know? None of them met your ancestors. Those people, the ones in India, were on the verge of loving kindness before the last micronova sent them back… into caves and starvation. I was not permitted to help them. The Council admits the mistake now and has formally apologized to me, as if that fixes everything.”
Enoch’s head was spinning. “What was that about a solar eruption?”
“You don’t remember India? Years ago?”
“I remember our flight, but–”
“No fears.” She gazed above his head and as he turned to see what held her attention, the small rectangular opening in the front of the ship expanded until a third of the bow was invisible. “Take another look, old seer man.”
Beyond the invisible bow, a vast structure of intricately carved stone rose from the bottom of a huge basalt pit with vertical walls. The builders, whomever they were, had carved full-sized elephants and full-hipped dancers into every surface of the solid-rock monuments. Some of the dancers had joyous stone bodies with multiple sets of arms, but some of them held a stern expression. The closer he looked, the less human some of their faces appeared.
The Angel picked up the smoldering incense block and inhaled the smoke through her nose. “These celebrators of life were thousands of years ahead of anyone before or after them.”
Enoch wondered how these people could have been happy and yet so scantly clothed. The bare chest was wrong in public. These carvings were bare and sensual.
“When the oceans receded after the sun’s third eruption, a handful of survivors from beneath the rocks came out with the remnants of their technology. They migrated west, settled in north Africa and built the underground realms of Egypt. As the last of their tools ground to a halt, they completed a monument encoding the sun’s eruption history. I’m sure I told you all this. Right here, nine years ago.”
The ornate stone miracle of India moved away rapidly, and an old tan pyramid of limestone rushed at them menacingly but stopped short of smashing their ship. Now it stood filling their view like a proud mountain.
“This is a shadow of her original glory,” the Angel said, “but the builders cared nothing for show, only for permanence. They needed a structure to stand as a warning forever, or until the continents sank again beneath the seas. It’s a regular affair on this planet.”
Enoch remembered no mention of sinking continents, though this brick pyramid seemed familiar. Was he getting old and forgetful? He tried to tell himself he wasn’t, and it didn’t matter anyway.
Then he imagined himself lying to his family about some new worldview, trying to pass it off as the infallible truth from God. The idea made his skin crawl. He couldn’t do such a thing. He wouldn’t do it.
Over the years he had suffered for the sake of honesty, especially with his son, Methuselah. In retrospect now, though, he sometimes wished he’d hidden more from the boy. More of the world’s harsh realities and all of his own spiritual doubts. But mostly he wished he’d hidden his fears. If only he had pretended to be more certain of the sacred teachings, his little boy, a grown man now, might not have become so prone to trouble and sadness. So absorbed by poppies, mushrooms, and Soothsayers.
“Think of what you’re saying.” Enoch felt suddenly unable to match the Angel’s politeness. “You want me to go down there and lie to my wife and children? Fabricate some idealistic lie that you hope will be clever enough to withstand scrutiny for thousands of years.” Tears threatened and seemed to silence him.
“No, my beloved,” she said, leaning across the table and taking his hand. “You know too much to argue or to judge, let alone bear false witness to your family. Your influence there would ruin everything… all chances of your people’s eventual transformation.”
Her words, though spoken kindly, felt cruel. Enoch had poured all his years into helping the Watcher Naomi. How could she call him a hopeless failure and a detriment to everything?
“How would I ruin things for you?” he asked. “My views are in harmony with yours, which are, evidently, entirely beyond any possibility of either correctness or being corrected. Have I wasted my entire life for you, Naomi?”
“You are a hero and a champion. The truth is the only one who has failed. An honest man who knows the truth… that within a simulation all possible worldviews can only be inaccurate… such a man is not a failure or a problem.”
“With you, first it’s one thing, then the opposite. You’re making no sense.”
“Unfortunately, the truth as we understand it offers no bond with love and benevolence. No higher purpose worth devotion and life. A higher truth is what your people need, an unbreakable worldview that ties them to love, trust and trustworthiness. A worldview such as this can change the heart and the behavior. Nothing else can, especially among primitives.” She stepped over the table and sat beside him. “Your people are extreme primitives. I’m sorry, but this is their unfortunate status.”
She let out a breath and turned to a topaz platter materializing beside her on the red chaise lounge. From it she lifted two bending glasses of pink fluid by the narrowing near the bottom as they became solid, finishing entanglement from a quantum realm that Enoch could never understand despite several of her descriptions of disentangling ghostly fields. Naomi the Angel extended a glass to Enoch. He took it reflexively.
“You’ve finished your work,” she said. “A man of your integrity could not germinate a lie to his family and friends. Nor to his enemies, though all of their lives depended upon it.” She sipped her drink as he gazed down the helical neck of his glass at the small rising bubbles escaping the pink fluid.
“That’s why I love you, Enoch. It’s also the reason you can never return home again.
“What did you say?”
“I’m so sorry, my friend. So very sorry. You’ll have to put up with me and my people for a long time, it would seem. The Council has declared it. Your character has been evaluated and confirmed. You will become an immortal, at least within the simulation.” Tears welled up in her eyes. “But I do know that we will all leave here one day. Together.”
Enoch would never see his wife again. Her heart would break, tears would carry her to the grave. His son, on the other hand, would be better off without him. He missed Methuselah terribly and could scarcely recall when the boy had last come home to his own room and bed.
“And what am I now?” Enoch said to his Angel, the Great Watcher, Naomi. “Your house pet? A diplomatic figurehead with no country?” Or a timeless Angel’s tired out lover?
“What does a physicist or an engineer mean by the speed of light?
“He means this little equation here where the speed of light is given by one over the square root of the permittivity times the permeability of the vacuum.
“So the point is, if you re-engineer those vacuum parameters, then you can make the effective speed of light higher in the engineered region.
“And so those are the solutions in General Relativity that are called wormholes. And again, this is not science fiction, it’s just right-off-the-shelf standard textbook General Relativity applications. (See Lorentzian Wormholes by Matt Visser)
“So what that means is reduced-time interstellar travel is not, as skeptics would say – ‘You can’t get from there to here.’
Advanced ET civilizations now, or ourselves in the future, are not fundamentally constrained by physical principles. The exotic physics for such can be addressed in engineering terms, so-called, metric-engineering, as it were.
“Again, by the way, this paper was also published as one of the Defense Intelligence Reference Documents. And since we are permitted to publish in the open literature, I published that paper in a British interplanetary science journal, an engineering journal.
“So if you’re interested in looking at the details, you can learn as much as you want to know about metric engineering.” – Hal Puttoff, PhD
“So what’s the difference… between being awake and asleep?”
“Consciousness comes back when you wake up.”
“That’s easy. Consciousness is a three-part nonlocal quantum entanglement between
(a) the information coded in the aromatic hydrocarbon walls of the microtubules that sit inside the pyramidal neurons of your cerebral cortex, plus
(b) that same neuronal structure in all the other dogs, and
(c) the coded information coming to us in the Cosmic Background Radiation. Dogs call it the Field of Consciousness.”
“Really? Who’s sending the information?”
“Us. It mostly comes from our Real Selves outside the simulated, physical Universe.”
“But, there’s also the Code Writer sending us messages and free will. Free will is kind of nice. It lets you ask questions and see if you like the answers.”
“Can you see the Field of Consciousness?”
“Not quite. It’s information radiation. That rimes! It also brings genetic code into the Universe through nonlocal quantum entanglement with the aromatic hydrocarbons in the base pairs of DNA. You know, the digital ladder rungs? That’s how original genetic design gets into the universe. It’s the mechanism humans haven’t discovered yet.”
“But Francine, isn’t the Cosmic Background Radiation just radio static from the Big Bang?”
“To local detectors, yes. But to nonlocal detectors with stacked benzyl architectures designed for quantum entanglement, the random static of the Field of Consciousness becomes coded information. Even a puppy’s neuronal network decodes it effortlessly.”
“But all this talk of freedom… I need a nap.”
Love from beyond,
Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD
Thanks to the photographers at Unsplash for these precious doggie pictures.
“We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still.” — John Stuart Mill
“Not the violent conflict between parts of the truth, but the quiet suppression of half of it, is the formidable evil; there is always hope when people are forced to listen to both sides; it is when they attend only to one that errors harden into prejudices, and truth itself ceases to have the effect of truth, by being exaggerated into falsehood.” — John Stuart Mill
“Strange that they should imagine that they are not assuming infallibility, when they acknowledge that there should be free discussion on all subjects which can possibly be doubtful, but think that some particular principle or doctrine should be forbidden to be questioned because it is certain, that is, because they are certain that it is certain. To call any proposition certain, while there is anyone who would deny its certainty if permitted, but who is not permitted, is to assume that we ourselves, and those who agree with us, are the judges of certainty, and judges without hearing the other side.” — John Stuart Mill
“The whole strength and value, then, of human judgment, depends on the one property, that it can be set right when it is wrong; reliance can be placed on it only when the means of setting it right are kept constantly at hand.” — John Stuart Mill
“Yet it is as evident in itself, as any amount of argument can make it, that ages are no more infallible than individuals; every age having held many opinions which subsequent ages have deemed not only false but absurd; and it is as certain that many opinions, now general, will be rejected by future ages, as it is that many, once general, are rejected by the present.” — John Stuart Mill
“For while everyone well knows himself [herself] to be fallible, few think it necessary to take any precautions against their own fallibility, or admit the supposition that any opinion of which they feel very certain may be one of the examples of the error to which they acknowledge themselves to be liable.” — John Stuart Mill
“… the present age … has been described as ‘destitute of faith, but terrified of skepticism…'” — John Stuart Mill
Two days before the election, my daughter asked me who would win. I told her I had a premonition. Biden would win, then Trump would do a recount and win, then Biden would do a recount and win, and that would be the final decision. So far we’re on track. I don’t much care.
In my humble and yet infallible opinion, democracy in the US is a thing of the past. We seem to have an unelected shadow government that probably overlaps with the anonymous private stockholders of the FED. These people make the big decisions and the big mistakes, as best I can tell.
So I don’t let myself waste emotions and time on politics.
But freedom of speech is another matter, an entirely greater issue than the question of whose aged puppet lives in the White House for a few years.
The gatekeepers of science journals and the censors of the internet probably do more harm to humanity and the Earth than our shadow government ever could. They do it by silencing and marginalizing the outliers and politically incorrect voices of society, gagging those who disagree with the latest cultural dogmas and the so-called settled science, a term reflecting convenient ignorance of the history of science.
If only these powerful unelected leaders of ours would read and embrace John Stuart Mill’s love notes to them.
And where the devil is Monty Python when we need ’em, anyway?
“John Steward Mill
Of his own free will
On half a pint of shandy
Got particularly ill.”
Socrates showed us that to have a worthy opinion, you need to engage in debate with those of opposite opinion. That would mean listening to those who trigger you, those who upset and disgust you, and those who would ban and outlaw your worldview for the “greater good” of their own. Long ago, the people in charge understood this…
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” – The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
Today, more than ever, having a reliable opinion means listening to those whom you instantly recognize as liars. You know they’re lying because their so-called facts contradict the true facts delivered to you by those you trust.
But we all trust our sources mainly because they agree with our own opinions. Might as well admit it. This human tendency is never wise. Scientific breakthroughs, for example, struggle long uphill battles against the reigning dogma of the day and its intrenched adherents whose grant money depends on status quo research.
Both sides of every question must be openly spoken and debated, but the fact is, in today’s PC-controlled world, discussing controversial issues has become nearly impossible. You’re often not allowed to speak. For instance…
If you doubt CO2 is the major cause of climate change,
if you think that the currently lower COVID-19 death rates despite rising infection rates cast doubt on the wisdom of a renewed lockdown,
if you doubt that the complexity of our genetic code could be the sole product of random mutation, genetic drift, and natural selection in a mere 13.8 billion years,
if you doubt that advanced human technology came about for the first time on Earth in the last 12,000 years, starting with about 300,000 years of hunters, gatherers and drooling troglodytes,
if you doubt the wisdom of preaching depressing, nihilistic “scientific” materialism to children as if it were anything more than an untestable assumption of religion-phobes,
if you think the COVID-19 virus might have originated in a research laboratory,
or if you have an opinion about UFOs that differs from the mainstream media’s casual reports, then…
Well-intentioned gatekeepers and the shadowy power heads will silence you, cancel your account, lie about you, discredit you, or at least keep your voice confined to an AI info bubble limited to people who already agree with your ridiculous ideas.
And many of your neighbors will thank the control freaks for their disservice to truth and human awakening.
So this is my plea for open-minded discussion and the questioning of every “indisputable truth” however painful it is to question. We must all place our sacred cows under the spotlight of sincere discussion.
Love through listening,
Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD
Please send this to a Monty Python fan or to a young person who has no mnemonic for Western philosophers.