I was listening to a frustrating interview of Ryan Graves, a retired Navy fighter pilot and UFO witness who has much to say, but was frequently interrupted by tangential questions when things got interesting.
After an hour of this, I wondered if there might not be someone else who had recently interviewed this highly intelligent and credible UFO witness, someone with the rare talent of encouraging a guest to talk candidly at length like Joe Rogan does. I googled Ryan Graves, but no other interviews showed up that were recent.
Later I was thrilled to find that Ryan Graves himself has a new channel on YouTube. I clicked the Like and Follow buttons immediately. Here is his first video where he interviews one of the great scientists of our day, Garry Nolan…
Gary Nolan PhD, as you probably know, is a famous UFO experiencer and Nobel-Prize-nominated Professor who currently works in the Department of Pathology at Stanford University School of Medicine. (Go Pathology!)
Ryan Graves demonstrates how to get to the heart of an issue, then, God bless the man, he lets his guest speak! What an absolute joy.
“The lessons from this specific investigation are applicable to a wider range of issues in reverse engineering of complex, esoteric materials, and aerospace forensics.”
In the context of science, a UFO sighting is an anecdote. Mainstream reporters often use the term “anecdote” to dismiss an observation, but scientists often use anecdotal evidence as the starting point for major scientific work that gradually becomes reproducible in labs around the world.
A true scientist therefore doesn’t shun outlier anecdotal data that appears to be impossible from within the current box of established theory. A genuine scientist is attracted to weird things, often from her or his early childhood days.
On the other hand, established, tenured professors of my generation have lost much of the mental flexibility and curiosity of youth. They have built careers on broadly engrained theories that have usually become “established facts” in most scientists’ minds. Naturally, they tend to reject outlier observations at a moment’s glance and dig in their heels with snide remarks about the absurdity of any outlier observation.
Dr. Nolan suggests that there comes a time when many harmonious anecdotal observations have piled up high enough to deserve statistical evaluation in an effort to determine if they have gradually reached a tipping point and become genuine scientific data points in and of themselves.
I couldn’t agree more.
Incidentally, the piling up of anecdotal evidence from the past is the basis of courtroom decisions that place people in jail for life or on death row. If it were logical to throw out all anecdotal accounts as UFO debunkers do, then how likely would it be that we would use anecdotal evidence so heavily in our legal system here in the US?
So as a scientist, I’m happy to keep an open mind, listen to anecdotal reports on UFOs and see what makes sense to me.
One of the least popular UFO origin stories is the one that includes tales of Nazis in Antarctica.
Imagine that the Nazis knew they were going to lose WWII long before it happened because they realized they couldn’t match the troops and weapons manufacturing capacity of the combined US, UK and Russian militaries. Might they have tried to escape ahead of time to a part of the world where no one would likely find them?
We know that Germany had rocket technology that surpassed that of the rest of the world, but what if they had other technologies that were even more advanced? Wouldn’t they have gone to the trouble of arranging “plan B” in some remote coroner of the world rather than accepting defeat and a painful, humiliating death in front of a firing squad?
If only we had historians who were also scientists, we might have someone qualified to look into these sorts of things.
But wait, we do have them. We call them anthropologists.
Here’s one now, Robert Sepehr. Nobody’s right all the time, in fact this gentleman is “known” to be a “far-right conspiracy theorist” and “racist” of “Jewish ancestry,” according to the linked source. I’m not familiar enough with Robert Sepehr’s work to make this judgment, maybe those who hate him and want to silence him are right and maybe they’re wrong, I don’t know yet. But rather than listening to hateful name-callers, I prefer to listen to what a person has to say and sift through those details for myself. “Poisoning the well” to silence people through name-calling is generally unhelpful, as far as I know.
Anyway, the second section of this video is a must-see speech by William Mills Tompkins, not by Robert Sepehr. It begins at about 10:09, right after the first section which is a haunting speech by Phil Snider, a man who claimed to be a whistleblower regarding underground bases that allegedly exist all over the US as part of a conspiracy against the non-elite public. The third section is an old, low-tech film that’s tough to understand on my computer. I had to listen to it several times before I caught all the details hidden from me by the man’s accent and the limits of the old recording technology.
The story of Nazi UFO’s in Antarctica is probably the most extreme end of the UFO spectrum in terms of “scientific” materialism versus non-materialism or “idealism.” The only element of idealism in this version of UFO history is that the Vril women allegedly learned how to build flying saucers through ESP-like contact with non-human sources (as best I understand the story at this time). Here’s an alternative reporter from the 1980’s doing a radio broadcast in which she mentions in passing (at 24:12 on the video) that the alleged UFOs in Antarctica have been developed by the US Air Force and NASA in collaboration with Nazi Scientists, some of whom escaped Germany before the end of WWII.
Somewhat closer to the middle of the materialism-idealism spectrum is Dr. Stephen Greer. Here’s a current example of his views on UFOs and the shadowy details of the coverup, as he sees things. In my opinion, it would be as big a mistake to ignore Dr. Greer as it would be to follow him with indiscretion or unquestioning trust.
Then somewhere near the non-materialist UFO worldview extreme we have the (apparently well caffeinated) Grant Cameron who now believes in idealism, (meaning that consciousness is fundamental to reality rather than mindless matter and energy). Here’s a video reflecting Mr. Cameron’s current views on UFOs, lumping them together with other “paranormal” phenomena. In my opinion, it’s likely that our universe is a holo-physical simulation, or maybe a dreamlike self-simulation in the mind of God. But human pain and love are real enough for me to take matter and energy seriously, even though I strongly doubt matter and energy are fundamental to human “reality.” Same deal for nuts-and-bolts UFOs. I suspect that some of them are “real” enough to be taken seriously and measured scientifically, despite the likelihood that some may be capable of altering human perception, mood, and thought.
There are two things that bother me about the state of the UFO community’s discourse at the moment:
We tend to be splitters who see things in brittle binary terms. Uncomfortable with gray areas, we refuse to admit that we’re very often wrong about important things, same as every other human being on the planet. “UFO’s are nuts-and-bolts craft from another star system, period,” one side says. Another group insists, “UFOs are no different from any paranormal phenomena–not exactly real, but sort of real because we live in a simulation.” It seems to me we’re too often unwilling to admit that UFOs could be both nuts-and-bolts machines from another planet AND ethereal paranormal things from another dimension, OR neither of these, but simply the least popular view: UFOs are machines created by humans on Earth (with or without non-human help), capable of altering human perceptions.
We tend to be critical name-callers, resembling childish cult members in this way. “If you disagree with me, you’re a lunatic or a CIA operative.” In general, whenever an actual conspiracy goes on in which a small powerful group seeks to control a larger group (i.e. routine human history), one of the most effective tools the small group has is to divide and conquer the masses by stoking hatred among them. Today, bots and their creators do this to us online. First they define an unpardonable sin, then they teach both sides to use it freely against the other. In modern US culture this would be racism. In the UFO community, the unpardonable sin is probably having a “top secret clearance” at some point in your career. Nothing else matters, if you ever had a clearance status with the government, you’re untrustworthy forever by definition. It’s a little like being automatically defined as a racist because of your skin color: lame but effective. Anyone who cares about the UFO/UAP situation should wake up and rise above this common human tendency to “love your friends and hate your enemies.” Otherwise we’re probably looking at another seventy years of coverup: “nothing to see here folks, move along.”
I just finished watching a video documentary that connected a lot of depressing dots between Hollywood, the news media, the giant corporations that censor free speech, a global cult of powerful religious pedophiles, and the apparent partial takeover of the CIA by Nazis who were brought into the US after WWII via “Project Paperclip.”
There’s no end to real (as best I can tell) conspiracies where powerful people hurt the rest of us through brainwashing, legalized theft, child trafficking, etc., etc.
And seriously, kudos to the brave people who offer us the red-pill. It’s a valuable perspective. But…
Do I really want to focus on evil right now? Do you?
Maybe it’s time to think about something astonishingly wonderful.
Consider this energetic young man, Paul Rosolie, who’s living big in Peru, doing something of epic value for humanity in the Amazon Rainforest. His life-and-death encounters are spellbinding and should rattle the cages of us complacent US citizens.
While I was watching this, I had to remind myself that nobody’s right about everything. Sure this busy kid briefly disrespects the great Gram Handcock at one point in the video. I can forgive him for a lot more than that. If only Paul were a bit older and wiser, though, he’d realize that Gram Handcock is on his side in his planet-saving work and would promote Paul’s story to Gram’s huge audience of independent thinkers with no hesitation. If only.
But nobody’s perfect. People like me have to remind ourselves of this because…
Please find the time to listen to Paul Rosolie’s whole video interview and see if it doesn’t help you find your way home to your tribe. You’ll probably feel inspired and hopeful. And maybe you could check out his website here and join him. Or at least forward his video (or this post) to three of your truest friends. One of them will probably thank you profusely.
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.
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?”
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.”
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
The picture of the Jewish Women and Children above is from a group of 1,684 Jews, of whom 1,670 survived the ride to Switzerland aboard the Kasztner train in 1944. The man who made this possible was Rezső Kasztner.
He sounds like a hero to me, but some people want more than results, they demand documentation of faultlessness, or else.
An Israeli judge, Benjamin Halevy, found Rezső Kasztner guilty of “selling his soul to the devil.” The Judge decided that Kasztner didn’t warn other Jews to flee. Kasztner’s motive was supposedly to selfishly save a “smaller number of Jews,” including his family and friends.
An angry citizen, acting on one-sided publicity and outrage, assassinated Rezső Kasztner in 1957.
Judge Halevy was appointed to the Supreme Court of Israel in 1963, but before that…
The Supreme Court of Israel posthumously exonerated Kasztner in 1958. One of those judges, Shneur Zalman Cheshin, wrote this:
“On the basis of the extensive and diverse material which was compiled in the course of the hearing, it is easy to describe Kastner as ‘blacker than black’ and place the mark of Cain on his forehead, but it is also possible to describe him as purer than the driven snow and regard him as ‘the righteous of our generation.’ A man who exposed himself to mortal danger in order to save others.” — Shneur Zalman Cheshin of the Israeli Supreme Court, 1958
Erwin Lutzer, the author of When a Nation Forgets God, quotes a German man…
“I lived in Germany during the Nazi Holocaust. I considered myself a Christian. We heard stories of what was happening to the Jews, but we tried to distance ourselves from it because what could anyone do to stop it? A railroad track ran behind our church, and each Sunday morning we could hear the whistle in the distance and then wheels coming over the tracks. We became disturbed as we heard the cries coming from the train as it passed by. We realized that it was carrying Jews like cattle in the cars. Week after week the whistle would blow. We dreaded to hear the sound of those wheels because we knew that we could hear the cries of the Jews on route to a death camp. Their screams tormented us. We knew the time the train was coming and when we heard the whistle blow, we began singing hymns. By the time the train came past our church, we were singing at the top of our voices. If we heard the screams, we sang more loudly and soon we heard them no more. Years have passed, and no one talks about it anymore. But I still hear that train whistle in my sleep. God forgive me. Forgive all of us who called ourselves Christians and yet did nothing to intervene.” — When a Nation Forgets God, 7 lessons we must learn from Nazi Germany, by Erwin W. Lutzer.
You’re a trillionaire with the power to force your people in the FED to “print” the world’s reserve currency, the US dollar, whenever you please.
You own the people who own the mainstream media because you’ve gathered dirt on each of them and have either educated them to agree with your political worldview objectives, or you’ve threatened them with a humiliating scandal and financial ruin if they step out of line.
There’s only one thing that’s a little out of your control, sometimes dangerously out of your control, and it drives you mad…
It’s the remnants of democracy that exist in parts of the “free” world. It can be challenging at times to control the darn voters.
But thank heavens the problem has been solved for you.
Over the years, you’ve discovered that if you can keep a two party system alive and keep the active voters on each side roughly equal in number, your can control the outcome of major elections.
Your best tools for the job used to be your CIA assets working in the mainstream media, but nowadays there’s something equally helpful, and in a way, far better…
It’s artificial intelligence. The gift that keeps on giving.
The genius here is that AI’s have been designed not only to keep customers happily spending money, but more importantly, to preserve the customers’ political biases.
With the voting public voluntarily held hostage to one or the other of two political information bubbles, never hearing the other side, constantly reinforced to think that the other side fabricates fake news, which they do, you have a permanently and equally divided electorate.
With voters evenly divided, it’s easy to tip the balance in either direction using your control of both the real and the fake news on both sides. It’s easy now to get the most controllable candidate voted into office.
It’s impossible to say how much of this second person story is fiction. I suspect there’s truth to it, but even if there’s not much, one thing is certain. The people who actually get out and vote are fairly evenly divided, and the evenness of that divide is kept in place by the “news” we encounter, which is determined by artificial intelligences designed to feed us only what we want to hear.
I’m not sure what the solution is, listening to “news” that you “know” is fake? Maybe there is no solution and totalitarianism is already running the world from the shadows, or maybe they’re still struggling for full control. I don’t know, but I’m sure of one thing in all this: it’s foolishly self-destructive to allow yourself to hate people because they’re on the “wrong” side of the political debate.
Schrödinger, the great physicist, might have agreed, saying that the people with the unforgivable politics are actually you in another body and mind…
“I submit that both paradoxes will be solved (I do not pretend to solve them here and now) by assimilating into our Western build of science the Eastern doctrine of identity. Mind is by its very nature a singulare tantum. I should say: the over-all number of minds is just one. I venture to call it indestructible since it has a peculiar timetable, namely mind is always now. There is really no before and after for mind. There is only a now that includes memories and expectations. But I grant that our language is not adequate to express this, and I also grant, should anyone wish to state it, that I am now talking religion, not science.” —Schrödinger, What is Life?: With Mind and Matter and Autobiographical Sketches, p. 134–135
Practice loving kindness meditation instead of detesting political opponents, that’s my plan. This is likely our species best practical hope of long-term survival.
Here’s a video telling how the internet can ruin our capacity for productivity. I knew it was happening to me, I just didn’t know why or how.
And here’s another video by the same guy telling us how addiction destroys the dendritic connections in the prefrontal cortex where agency (free will) and executive functioning (including decision making and self-control) happen (connecting us via the zero-point field to ourselves in the transcendent realm beyond space and time, I suspect).
I gotta stop watching so many YouTube videos!
I have too many “vital” interests and too many tangentially related projects going. Spinning the wheels.
There’s an important UFO documentary out today, The Phenomenon. I spent the $19.99 at VIMEO based on a tweet from Lue Elizondo that I saw on this video from Project Unity (at about 6:20). I couldn’t find the full quote on twitter (@LueElizondo). I guess it was too long, so they censored most of it, helping drones like me avoid thinking beyond micro-blurbs. Twitter has, incidentally, made censorship of complexity the rule of the road. I avoid them.
Anyway, here’s what Lue had to say, some of which seems quite significant…
“Folks, I am normally silent and careful not to endorse products (even if I support them); however, I am making an exception in this case. Although not part of the production, the movie by Jamie Fox “Phenomenon” is the one worth watching. It says things I cant! Its accurate, it’s verified and it’s REAL! I know this because while at the Pentagon we had the files. Yes many of you will already know SOME of the information, but not all of it. Literally thousands of files have yet to be released that only bolster this production. Once they are, you will realize how on the mark this movie is. Knowing now what it takes to make a quality production, I am amazed at the access that was gained by the Producers and the Director. Something tells me this is only the beginning. Bravo Mr. Fox and Dan! For the record, I had absolutely nothing to do with this production. There is NOTHING in it for me. That is why I feel I can honestly endorse this effort. I am a neutral party. In fact as AATIP director I am almost unnoticed. This story pertains to ‘all of us’ IMHO!” — Lue Elizondo
Here’s the trailer…
Here’s a brief interview of Director James Fox telling us why the most exciting part of creating this film was talking to former Senator Harry Reid about UFOs.
To me, aside form the transcendentally heart-warming footage of the beautiful and innocent children of Zimbabwe, the big deal here is that Lue Elizondo, the government’s retired insider who seems to be under life-long oath to pretend he doesn’t know anything about aliens, has come out now and said that this particular documentary is accurate and verified. Which wouldn’t mean much except that this film clearly states and shows good evidence that some UFOs are piloted by smallish beings of another culture, most likely a culture from another planet. That’s one small step toward government disclosure.
The Safire Plasma Reactor will become a source of clean energy if the petroleum industry doesn’t shut them down soon. It may be too late. Word is getting out…
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it….
“Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality…
“Because Galileo saw this, and particularly because he drummed it into the scientific world, he is the father of modern physics — indeed, of modern science altogether.
“To him [her] who is a discoverer in this field [theoretical physics], the products of his imagination appear so necessary and natural that he regards them, and would like to have them regarded by others, not as creations of thought but as given realities.”
— Albert Einstein, “On the Methods of Theoretical Physics” The Herbert Spencer lecture, Oxford, June 10, 1933.
“We’re not trying to trap high-energy photons and electrons comparable to the Sun’s photosphere — but it [the Safire plasma engine apparatus] does … We’re just trying to replicate what we think nature may be doing.
“Uniformitarianism is the idea that gradual changes over billions of years is [sic] the cause of all the effects that we see. It became philosophical theory, but not scientific fact.
“Charles Darwin, Charles Lyell, James Hutton, Thomas Huxley, Karl Marx and other historical characters held to the view of ‘Uniformitarianism.’ And it is Uniformitarianism that lays at the heart of much of modern science… that gradual changes over long periods of time is [sic] the primary factor of evolutionary development.
“It is Uniformitarianism that lays at the heart of the Big Bang theory which claims gravity is the primal driver of the universe. So the problem that you have is that none of these things are testable. The process of evolution is lacking sufficient factors to test.
“On the other hand, there are those who hold to the view that intelligence is the genesis of creation.
“Neither has anything to do with empirical science, and as a matter of fact, to claim either is science corrupts science.” — Montgomery Childs
I couldn’t agree more!
“I think that modern cosmology took an unfortunate turn several hundred years ago by denying or ignoring the question of function or purpose in the larger Cosmos. Biologists recognize the principle that form follows function so why do astrophysicists not recognize this principle? Why are astrophysicists not asking this question? The idea that life or intelligence would be attached to a planet or a star was too much for our consciousness so we denied its possibility. There was never any evidence to substantiate that denial…. Denying that a star could be alive is a misuse of the scientific method.” — Michael Clarage…
And so as a scientist, I think mainstream macro-evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory should show one another some respect. One side should not censor the other from kindergarten to the university system…
Love and empirical respect,
Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD
PS: Sorry for posting too many videos, but each one is worth watching. The third (the one by Michael Clarage) seems especially profound to me.
My absolute favorite ufologist, Richard Dolan, seems to feel pessimistic about the possibility of the public ever being officially informed by the US shadow government of the presence of an other-worldly intelligence here on Earth.
Richard hasn’t put out his usual amount of UFO video material in the last few months, which worries me a little. I worry that his beautiful wife, Tracey, might for some unknown reason leave him.
You have to understand, I’ve been writing fiction for too long and have developed a running suspicion that when any character’s plot seems to be making them wonderfully happy, and Richard Dolan’s life has been looking absolutely wonderful since he married Tracy, there’s always a writer lurking behind the scenes, setting things up for a letdown.
So I literally pray for Richard Dolan and Tracey, hoping that my heartfelt, if neurotic concern will influence God and the Universe to keep their love alive forever. And I think that will happen.
But as for genuine disclosure? After watching this video lecture by Michael Schratt (below), I think Richard has good reason to doubt full disclosure is coming.
Let’s assume for discussion that the government is hiding physical aliens. For that to be true, there must be at least one thing that the aliens and the shadow government agree upon: the secrecy. Otherwise, one side or the other would expose the truth in a day or two.
So let’s say there are aliens conspiring with the shadow government to keep their presence secret. Eventually, some of these humans would see the benefits of allowing a bit of advanced technology out into the public arena. For instance, a clean energy source would help us avoid the far-reaching ecologic damage our species is currently inflicting upon the planet.
So how would the shadow government get this technology out to the public without admitting it came from aliens? Simple. They would tell us “the whole truth” about all the UFOs everyone has ever seen…
“These things are black budget aerospace technology that previous generations in their stupidity (not us) foolishly kept secret. But once the old guard retired and died, and we inherited their secret mess, we came clean for the sake of the planet. No, we’re not heros, we just did what anyone else would have done in our place.”
And here’s the video that comes close to setting that up.
(It starts out interesting, then gets boring with the declassified black budget craft. Then it picks up again at minute 37 when the speaker, Michael Schratt, makes a convincing case for a certain well-documented UFO sighting in the US being actually a man-made craft with antigravity tech (electrogravitics).
I doubt that a partial disclosure would satisfy the UFO community, but I’m sure an official “UFOs-are-us” story would satisfy that portion of the public who subject themselves to mainstream TV brainwashing.
And on the positive side, not knowing the whole truth would allow those of us who naturally love enigmas to maintain a sense of ongoing wonder and awe when we look at the stars.
If I were to say something bold and probably a bit inappropriate to my favorite and most-respected UFOlogist, Richard Dolan, it would be this: Please sir, for the sake of joy, take up meditation, markedly limit your carbohydrate intake, do circadian eating and intermittent fasting, exercise regularly, do whatever it takes to get good sleep every night, and make every relevant effort to be a genuinely happy person in the face of frustration. The success of your business and even your marriage depends profoundly upon your own happiness.
Love and hope for genuine disclosure,
Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD
Disclaimer: Richard, always check with your healthcare provider before making any lifestyle or dietary changes. But find a functional medicine doctor first.
Not that you need one more thing to worry about, but with Earth’s magnetic shield weakened by 9 to 15 percent, and scientists saying that in the next 15 years or so another coronal mass ejection like the Carrington Event of 1859 will probably fry all the bank computers and wipe out the records of our financial holdings, maybe it’s time we made some simple adjustments.
Like hoarding freeze-dried food, buying noncollectable silver coins, and learning how to grow vegetables?
I don’t know.
Another option would be to believe those who tell us that the circuit breakers in today’s grid will protect us. “I’m sure we’ll all be perfectly safe.”
Either way, this video is an important message from a bright young mind…
It’s charming how Anton Petrov smiles right through predictions of global disaster. From his LinkedIn page, he appears to have a Christian background of some sort. All the more reason to appreciate his delivery, says I.
For people of faith, it’s tempting to use any dire warning from scientists as a springboard to proclaim superiority: “If God allows this, so be it. I have bigger fish to fry… spiritual fish.”
From studies outside my expertise, I strongly suspect that Noah and his flood story were not mythical inventions but historic realities, at least in the broad strokes.
If this is right, the religious elites of Noah’s day surely said to him, “Have a little faith, old man. Stop worrying about the things of this world and get rid of those stinking flamingos.”
Back in the day, when the fundamentalist church I belonged to was transitioning from “salvation by works” to “salvation by faith,” the reformers abhorred Benjamin Franklin’s words, “God helps those who help themselves.” They would have disliked the original Greek saying even more, “The gods help those who help themselves.”
But Ben and the Greeks were right, I think. Noah would have agreed. And James, too.
Speaking of James, what do you make of this, attributed to Jesus in the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas:
Wow. I mean, geocentric religion is one thing, but the whole cosmic enchilada was created for brother James?
It reminds me of how some Christians think that their church is the most important thing in the Universe from God’s perspective. “And don’t be ridiculous, there’s no way God would let my church be devastated by a blast from the sun.”
Maybe that’s right. But possibly that belief will someday be about as apocryphal as the Gospel of Thomas and the near-divinity of James.
So maybe it would make sense to care about solar activity and prepare for what’s coming.
You may not watch MSNBC but just know that this problem still affects you, too. All the commercial networks function the same – and no doubt that content seeps into your social media feed, one way or the other.
How does this cancer affect all commercial networks?
It forces skilled journalists to make bad decisions on a daily basis.
It’s possible that I’m more sensitive to the editorial process due to my background in public radio, where no decision I ever witnessed was predicated on how a topic or guest would “rate.” The longer I was at MSNBC, the more I saw such choices — it’s practically baked in to the editorial process – and those decisions affect news content every day. Likewise, it’s taboo to discuss how the ratings scheme distorts content, or it’s simply taken for granted, because everyone in the commercial broadcast news industry is doing the exact same thing.
Is this just the opinion of one disgruntled producer?
…behind closed doors, industry leaders will admit the damage that’s being done.
“We are a cancer and there is no cure,” a successful and insightful TV veteran said to me. “But if you could find a cure, it would change the world.”
In what way?
As it is, this cancer stokes national division, even in the middle of a civil rights crisis. The model blocks diversity of thought and content because the networks have incentive to amplify fringe voices and events, at the expense of others… all because it pumps up the ratings.
Here’s a heuristic worth remembering: The more you yearn to silence your opponents, the more subjective your opinions.
Unfortunately, Ariana’s resignation has been misused as evidence that a conservative bias is superior to a liberal bias.
This misses the point entirely!
Diversity of opinion sustains life.
Monopoly is life’s enemy, whether it’s an invasive species wiping out native life forms or a monopoly of opinion wiping out voices of dissent.
When google’s artificial intelligence locks you into an echo chamber of bias, it doesn’t matter which chamber you’re in. They’ve got you. You will make bad decisions because you have been rendered unable to apply rational thought to the opinions of the other side, the opinions that would normally offer you some diversity.
Diversity is the lifeblood of free will. Without it, we become puppets of google’s AIs or other totalitarian forces.
When TV news industry leaders privately admit that “we are a cancer,” and a cure would “change the world,” where can we turn?
In my humble and yet infallible opinion, (ha, ha) the cure is educating ourselves on the UFO phenomenon and the intelligent mind(s) behind it, possibly aliens of both physical and ethereal substance. Possibly “breakaway” Earthlings of some variety.
Whether or not this idea sounds completely nuts to you now, it’s nearly certain that after you’ve spent a year or two acquainting yourself with the world’s most credible UFO data, you’ll find your devotion to conservative and/or liberal politics fading into a broader perspective.
Humanity is one. Philosophical and political diversity are as essential to our survival as genetic and spiritual diversity.
This morning I was way unmotivated, as if I’d sabotaged my day with carbohydrates in the morning. Rookie mistake, but that wasn’t it.
So I took my side-kick, Halo, down to the man cave, sat in the dark on my couch and did a YouTube search for Jay at Project Unity.
Glad I did.
Remember Leslie Kean and Ralph Blumenthal, the two reporters who (with the Washington correspondent Helene Cooper) broke the major UFO stories in the NY Times back in 2017, and recently brought us the NY Times news that Eric Davis, PhD…
gave a classified briefing to a Defense Department agency as recently as March about retrievals from “off-world vehicles not made on this earth.”
I thought the whole interview was full of fascinating details and cautious perspectives, but the following quote was the highlight for me (41:35 on the video)…
Leslie Keen: “I just want to comment further because you brought up the whole concept of aliens, Jay, right? I have a bit of a problem because people do tend to extrapolate. You know, like, people will pick up the story and have something in the headlines that says, you know, “The New York Times Says Aliens Have Crashed on Earth.” If that’s what you’re asking by your question, I just think, you know, it’s very important not to take this beyond what we are actually reporting and what we actually know. And even if there are crashes that have been, that are being reverse-engineered, our sense is that they haven’t made a lot of progress with that reverse engineering. And I don’t think anybody knows much about where these craft are from, or all the questions that everybody has a desire to understand.”
Later, Jay follows up:
Jay: “…reverse-engineering. And you thought it was probably a long process without much success. And I was just wondering if that’s an opinion brought on by your research into the Admiral Wilson—Eric Davis notes.”
Leslee Kean: “You know, I probably shouldn’t have, you know, I don’t think I can expand on that anymore. It’s a sense that I have from sources I’ve spoken to. But I really don’t think I can say anything more about it, Jay. Sorry about that.”
I get the impression Leslie Kean almost said, “I probably shouldn’t have said that.”
Later Leslie had this to say about Dr. Eric W. Davis:
Leslie Kean: “I have tremendous – and so does Ralph – we have tremendous respect for Eric Davis. He’s a fantastic source. He’s been very cooperative with us and very, very helpful and forthcoming. And so we take our hat off to him.”
The following statement by Ralph Blumenthal also seemed significant to me (because Richard Dolan is my favorite UFO historian):
Ralph Blumenthal: “There are people who are very rigorous in their approach, like Rich Dolan… and you, Jay, who are very rigorous in their approach, and careful, and understand what the issues are….”
Three cheers for Dolan!
He did an interview with Jay here. Jay describes one (and a half?) of his UFO experiences for which he meditated, hoping to initiate contact with the phenomenon.
At the end of the interview, Dolan talks about something dear to my heart, the Christian concept of loving your enemies. As interested as I am in UFOs and Alien beings, I’m far more interested in learning how to love our enemies without being devoured by them.
I’m a little jittery about all this. With my lengthy and abandoned background of fundamentalist Christianity, I can’t help being worried about “opening the door” to ethereal forces that the Church said were evil. But that’s my baggage. I’ll deal with it.
If UFOlogy is leading us all to love our enemies, you can count me in.
The so-called Davis-Wilson document is said to be the most important UFO document of all time.
I spent several weeks gradually listening to an entire 5-hour discussion of the document here. It’s a fifteen-page document written by Eric Davis, PhD, about a meeting he had with Vice Admiral Thomas Willson. You can read it here. I think Astronaut Edgar Mitchell, God rest his soul, and UFO Guru Steven Greer, MD were also at the meeting, but maybe they were at a preliminary meeting, I’m not clear on this. The meeting took place decades ago and covered a wide range of UFO topics, including Wilson’s failed attempt to get info about a covert project going on at a defense contractor’s hideout, reportedly involving a recovered UFO.
Yesterday I saw an article in the NY Times (here) in which Eric Davis PhD himself, states that he’s aware of retrievals of alien spacecrafts. Here’s the quote from the NY Times article:
Eric W. Davis, an astrophysicist who worked as a subcontractor and then a consultant for the Pentagon U.F.O. program since 2007, said that, in some cases, examination of the materials had so far failed to determine their source and led him to conclude, “We couldn’t make it ourselves.”
The constraints on discussing classified programs — and the ambiguity of information cited in unclassified slides from the briefings — have put officials who have studied U.F.O.s in the position of stating their views without presenting any hard evidence.
Mr. [sic] Davis, who now works for Aerospace Corporation, a defense contractor, said he gave a classified briefing to a Defense Department agency as recently as March about retrievals from “off-world vehicles not made on this earth.”
Mr. Davis said he also gave classified briefings on retrievals of unexplained objects to staff members of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Oct. 21, 2019, and to staff members of the Senate Intelligence Committee two days later.
Committee staff members did not respond to requests for comment on the issue.
So far, I’m hearing crickets from the media. Once again, one of the most paradigm-shattering pieces of information that our Western culture has stumbled upon in modern times will become yesterday’s ignored news.
For what it’s worth, here’s that 5-hour Dolan interview of an anonymous UFO enthusiast who, to me, sounds like a church school principal scolding a freshman skeptic. (Mellow out, dude, whoever you are.)
The lack of media response to the Times article probably stems from the way the editors tucked in Davis’ earth-shaking admission at the end of an otherwise yawn-worthy rehash of yesterday’s UFO news.
For me, UFO crash recovery is undeniable now. I’m 100% convinced that humans have been retro-engineering recovered alien craft for several years, possibly since the 1940s.
If anyone listens to Dolan’s whole 5 hour interview, please let me know. You’ll have my sympathy and admiration. I was spellbound pretty much throughout, but I like long lectures.
The NY POST also mentions Dr. Davis and quotes Senator Rubio:
“We have things flying over our military bases and places where we are conducting military exercises and we don’t know what it is — and it isn’t ours,” Rubio said. “Frankly, that if it’s something from outside this planet — that might actually be better than the fact that we’ve seen some technological leap on behalf of the Chinese or the Russians or some other adversary that allows them to conduct this activity.”
OK, the man’s English ain’t real good, but I like his enthusiasm for this topic. It’s amazing to realize we live in a time when senators talk openly about UFOs and a certain PhD says he’s already got one at the office.
In real life, we tend to think in binary, black-and-white terms. The good guys versus the bad. It’s simple and ingrained.
But, as you know, if you spend a few years trying to become a fiction writer, you learn that villains can’t be all bad, and good guys can’t be flawless. Otherwise your characters are flat, unrealistic and boring.
In the UFO community, binary thinking dominates. The “evil” people of the “Cabal” (the super-dark aspects of the military-industrial complex) are supposedly all sociopaths whose only motivation is to continue hiding free energy technology and advanced propulsion technology from the public so they can line their pockets in petrodollars while petting a black cat.
The feeling is, if only we could get rid of these misanthropes, we’d have free energy, clean air, no more world hunger, and vacations to Andromada.
Maybe so, but…
Actual life is not like TV politics. The good guys are not limited to your political party, backed by the truth on the news stations you watch. The bad guys are not all members of the opposite political party, backed by the fake news on the outlets you dislike.
Real life probably isn’t even reflected in any fundamentalist religious or anti-religious group’s version of truth that puts God (or no God) on their side, while the falsehoods of other religious or anti-religious groups put Satan (or no Satan) in charge of them.
Here’s a video that describes in great detail one sincere, honest-sounding man’s insights into a 1960s flying saucer, allegedly built by Skunk Works.
Personally, I’m about 95% convinced that humanity actually has this type of technology now. Your mileage may vary. 🙂
But the thing I’m not convinced of is that the entire UFO community has an accurate assessment of the bad motivation of the insiders, the “evil sociopaths” who seem to hide and control this technology.
Let’s think about it…
Imagine you’re a fiction writer trying to get into the head of your “villain” to make her/him more of a realistic, rounded character. You need to find a legitimate reason for this person to hide zero point energy and electrogravitics from the rest of the world.
Here are some possibilities that jump out at us:
1. The technology behind zero point energy, like the technology behind nuclear power, can be used in weapons of mass destruction in addition to warming water for clean electricity production.
2. There may be some negative health or environmental side effect to the use of zero point energy. So far, nearly every technological advance we’ve made has brought an unintended negative consequence or three. A few examples: antibiotics save lives but create superbugs, all pharmaceuticals bring symptomatic (rarely causal) relief but cause lists of possible negative side effects (rarely fatal), the internal combustion engine made transportation easier but brought pollution and the megacity’s impersonal culture with ironic human isolation, diminished eye contact and a near absence of smiling… the list of examples is endless.
3. The unelected “Cabal” within the free world’s governments considers zero point energy and electrogravitic technologies to be their highest military advantages over their perceived enemies in the communist dictatorships. They are therefore loath to surrender these military advantages.
4. The use of small zero point energy devices in the houses and cars of billions around the globe might affect climate change or something much worse. All publically available energy devices generate heat as a byproduct. Perhaps a zero point energy device that could run a person’s home would not only make the grid obsolete (a wonderful thing) but also elevate the average temperature of the earth to a detrimental degree, or worse yet, warm the interface of the Earth’s crust with its core allowing the crust to detach and tilt due to the centrifugal force acting upon the heavy polar ice caps (an idea detailed in a scientific context at SuspiciousObservers.org).
5. Unlimited free energy would mean that food could be grown hydroponically in virtually inexhaustible quantities, the limitation being only in the technology of liquid fertilizers, grow lights, and the vertical stacking of crops. Ocean water could be desalinated at little cost and freely pumped to the distant corners of every desert. While this would eliminate world hunger, (yeah!) it might also eliminate humanity’s primary motivation for working. It’s difficult to speculate with confidence about this, but work seems to be essential to most people’s mental health (including children), just as exercise is essential to everyone’s physical health (including children). If free energy were to vastly diminish our need to work, it might become an extinction-level evolutionary stressor for us, or worse yet, a negative force upon the average person’s integrity. “Idle hands are the devil’s playground.”
6. The term “alien reproduction vehicle” implies the existence of literal aliens, of course. While the average person nowadays knows very little about the existence of UFOs, let alone the technology behind them, we know even less about the motivations of any alleged alien species. Stepping around the knee-jerk binary thinking of the respectable Dr. Steven Greer versus the rest of the UFO community (including my favorite UFOlogist Richard Dolan), it seems unlikely that all alien species with the capability of contacting humans would have purely benevolent or purely malevolent feelings about us. (Sentient reality, like biology, is rarely binary.) This would leave the door open to an infinite variety of motivations that the human “Cabal” might have for keeping zero point technology and electrogravitic transportation secret. For instance, perhaps an alien species has told them that secrecy is essential because widespread knowledge of these technologies leads primitive warlike species (like us) to certain self-destruction. Or perhaps aliens have threatened the “Cabal” with something terrible if they blab what they know to the public.
If you’re thinking of other possibilities, I’d like to hear them.
Anyway, the point is, the UFO community might want to look carefully and humbly at their assumptions about the binary evil of “Cabal” secrecy before stampeding downhill on their current path of public disclosure at any costs.
Have you seen this yet? It looks to me like a new flavor of google fraud, but maybe someone knows a harmless explanation. What do you think?
Anyway, go to Google search engine and type in any number followed by “new cases” and…
No matter what number you search this way, you’ll find exactly that number of “new cases” of COVID-19 in some high-ranked report.
Here’s the video where I learned of this:
Please try it yourself a few times on the google search engine and see if it gives you the same eerie feeling it gave me.
Any idea how to explain this away?
Do you think it will become TV news, or will it be ignored like the UFO information explosion of recent years?
It’s my opinion that modern “news” is carefully designed to keep one half of the population (at least in the US and Europe) angry and frustrated with the other half about political issues.
The six giant corporations owning and controlling mainstream news have now achieved what seems to be a long-term goal of theirs, namely having the US population evenly divided on politics with each half completely dumbfounded at the ignorance, stupidity and moral depravity of the other half.
Do you think they’ve acted deliberately or was this development just a natural response to public demand for political outrage porn?
At any rate, I think we’d all be far better off if we took political hate news with a grain of salt at all times and tried to think of the people on the other side of the political aisle as normal human beings deserving love and respect.
Also, I think we’d be wise to regard ourselves and others as equally manipulatable by the “news-bubble” echo chambers we individually create for ourselves with google’s online help.
Notice it’s a .gov website, which, as far as I know, cannot be faked.
Here’s the entire (I think) UFO portion of this lengthy document:
Advanced Aerial Threats
The Committee supports the efforts of the Unidentified
Aerial Phenomenon Task Force at the Office of Naval
Intelligence to standardize collection and reporting on
unidentified aerial phenomenon, any links they have to
adversarial foreign governments, and the threat they pose to
U.S. military assets and installations. However, the Committee
remains concerned that there is no unified, comprehensive
process within the Federal Government for collecting and
analyzing intelligence on unidentified aerial phenomena,
despite the potential threat. The Committee understands that
the relevant intelligence may be sensitive; nevertheless, the
Committee finds that the information sharing and coordination
across the Intelligence Community has been inconsistent, and
this issue has lacked attention from senior leaders.
Therefore, the Committee directs the DNI, in consultation
with the Secretary of Defense and the heads of such other
agencies as the Director and Secretary jointly consider
relevant, to submit a report within 180 days of the date of
enactment of the Act, to the congressional intelligence and
armed services committees on unidentified aerial phenomena
(also known as “anomalous aerial vehicles”), including
observed airborne objects that have not been identified.
The Committee further directs the report to include:
1. A detailed analysis of unidentified aerial
phenomena data and intelligence reporting collected or
held by the Office of Naval Intelligence, including
data and intelligence reporting held by the
Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force;
2. A detailed analysis of unidentified phenomena data
a. geospatial intelligence;
b. signals intelligence;
c. human intelligence; and
d. measurement and signals intelligence;
3. A detailed analysis of data of the FBI, which was
derived from investigations of intrusions of
unidentified aerial phenomena data over restricted
United States airspace;
4. A detailed description of an interagency process
for ensuring timely data collection and centralized
analysis of all unidentified aerial phenomena reporting
for the Federal Government, regardless of which service
or agency acquired the information;
5. Identification of an official accountable for the
process described in paragraph 4;
6. Identification of potential aerospace or other
threats posed by the unidentified aerial phenomena to
national security, and an assessment of whether this
unidentified aerial phenomena activity may be
attributed to one or more foreign adversaries;
7. Identification of any incidents or patterns that
indicate a potential adversary may have achieved
breakthrough aerospace capabilities that could put
United States strategic or conventional forces at risk;
8. Recommendations regarding increased collection of
data, enhanced research and development, and additional
funding and other resources.
The report shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may
include a classified annex.
The above-quoted section of the document is located a tad past the half-way point.
I try to stay positive, but I despise the political hate-porn that dominates the “news” these days. I avoid it like the virulent mind plague it is.
But when I’m forced to watch TV news, I remind myself that none of us has a scientific method of determining which group of outraged political talking heads is feeding us objective truth rather than biased information selection, half-truths, and outright misinformation.
Since each side calls the other “fake news” and touts a cache of “facts” that contradict the “facts” of the other group, you might think one side is right and the other wrong.
If actual living systems were ever that simple, politics would be a matter of thinking carefully and joining the enlightened side of this violent, hateful political war.
But herein lies the media’s deception: political problems are almost always “wicked problems” that have NO simple binary solutions. The media doesn’t want us to know this because if we all understood it, we would see why Democrats and Republicans need one another desperately if we’re ever going to solve our complex problems with a minimum of unexpected negative side-effects.
Medical diseases are superb examples of wicked problems that parallel political problems. The wealthy drug companies would have us see our diseases as simple problems with binary solutions, exactly the way the TV would have us view political problems: “Take our pill. It’s the simple, obvious solution.”
But nearly all pills are binary attempts at solutions to complex problems. They have unintended negative side effects because they’re negotiating the delicate complexities of biochemical pathways with interwoven feedback loops in all directions.
Negative side effects (unintended consequences) arising in complex systems are the very signature of “wicked” problems being addressed by simple binary solutions. It is dangerous to treat wicked problems as if they were binary and had simple black-and-white solutions without the potential for unintended negative consequences.
In medicine, the side effects are sometimes far worse than the disease. The same is routinely true in politics, though it takes some soul-searching and stretching for objectivity to see it for yourself.
Unfortunately, this binary approach to politics is exactly what our “news” outlets and politicians force upon us. They make it look as if there is no alternative to outrage, hatred and binary political thinking.
The side effect of this rookie mistake is violence and hatred.
It’s inherent in the system, though, because virtually all politicians, like the six large “news” outlets promoting and opposing them, must dance to the tunes of the corporate entities that fund them.
Despite the heated political bifurcation, the worst media lie of all time comes to us from both sides equally. It is the notion that one political party is uniformly right and the other is uniformly wrong (evil, ignorant, morally compromised, and factually inaccurate in every detail of their agendas, values and beliefs). This is the Achilles’ heel of peace in the free world.
If you can agree with this perspective, please join me in ignoring the political orientation of the man responsible for bringing us this rare piece of evidence that UFO’s are real and deserve organized analysis by elected officials, the DOD, the Navy, and our many rogue intelligence organizations.
As I understand it, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) is behind this piece of legislation. If you’re one who prays, please pray that political prejudice won’t put the kibosh on this rare act of rationality from DC.
Here’s an honest sounding man, Ken Johnston, who claims to have been working at NASA when the US astronauts landed on the Moon. He says he saw what looked like alien bases in the pictures that came back.
If you’re like me, interested in fringe science and examining all the remarkable claims you can find, you’ve heard this moon-base stuff before from two or three other sources claiming to be eye-witnesses to original photos.
Johnston says that the whole “alien coverup” will probably be ended by the US government this November, and when it happens, it won’t be the world’s religions that are shaken to the core, it will be the world’s scientists.
More than anything else the man says, this bit about scientists is the part that rings true for me.
Science has always deluded itself into believing that the current level of sophistication, at any point in time, is no longer primitive.
No delusion has been more persistent, and none has hampered scientific progress more than this one. Forgetting that we’re still a primitive species trying to do science with limited intelligence has closed our minds to important things that seem at first glance to be impossible. Worse yet, our lack or appropriate scientific humility has declared entire fields of scientific inquiry taboo, leaving our species ignorant by choice. Examples include the study of ESP, the study of the paranormal, the study of the cultural effects of scientific and spiritual fundamentalism, and the application of geology to archaeology, to name a few.
In an editorial debunking the “liars” who, like myself, believe there is considerable legitimate scientific evidence for intelligent design in nature, especially in the genetic code, Adam Wilkins, a mainstream scientist, makes a remarkably broad-minded statement:
“Furthermore, those scientists with passionate anti-religious convictions should accept that Science can no more disprove the existence of a Deity or immortal souls than religious people can prove the existence of either. More tolerance of private religious belief, coupled with insistence on what scientific evidence does actually tell us about the history of the world and living things, would be appropriate.
If, in contrast, scientists insist on atheism as the only “logical” belief system or demand that people choose between “evolutionism”—the quasi-philosophic belief in evolution as a guide to what should be—and belief in God, the outcome is not in doubt. More than half the people in the U.S. would choose religion and reject the science.”
Ironically, if Adam Wilkins and other mainstream scientists would read Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer, PhD, with the tolerance Wilkins and authentic science call for, they would probably recognize that Intelligent Design makes better scientific sense than Neo-Darwinism as an explanation for the origins of life and the diversity of forms on this planet.
But the human mind has a special place for an individual’s worldview. It seems to be a place near the core of identity, a place that triggers emotion and squelches reason, and a place that fervently resists change.
For us Christians, the “worldview neurons” tend to be filled with an untestable and unquestionable set of doctrines that include information about the soul, what happens when we die, and what behaviors and beliefs we must accept in this life to get what we want in the next.
For about two-thirds of scientists, the “worldview neurons” are filled with an equally untestable and unquestionable doctrine called “scientific materialism” that assumes there is no soul, no afterlife, and no behavioral norms relevant to an afterlife.
The reason many Christians think of atheism as a religion is probably because the “worldview neurons” of atheist scientists often take on a religious-style resistance to change and an urge to proselytize that reminds us of religious zeal.
Most educated people seem to think that if humans ever come into open contact with an extraterrestrial intelligent species, the aliens will be highly advanced, highly intelligent, and definitely secular, not religious or spiritual.
In the video below, Ken Johnston implies that the reason alien contact will shake the scientific community to the core will be the shock of learning that the aliens are scientifically thousands of years ahead of us. This would expose human science as primitive and perhaps destined to remain far behind the Universe’s most advanced species.
I think Mr. Johnston is partly right. But I think the more shattering aspect of alien disclosure for scientists would be the galling realization that advanced beings are, in fact, devoutly religious and deeply spiritual… at least the benevolent species.
See if you think Ken Johnston really believes what he’s saying in this video…
Would advanced aliens be spiritual or secular? Would they make such a distinction at all? I’d be interested in your opinion.
Love and ESP hugs,
Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD
PS: If you’re over 55, please be especially cautious about transitioning from lock-down mode.
Make sure you’re not vitamin D deficient. (Vit. D deficiency puts you at a much higher risk of serious complications from this virus as well as from several other respiratory viruses.)
Wearing a face mask primarily protects others from you if you’re infected but asymptomatic, which happens a lot. This is because the COVID-19 coronavirus travels several yards through the air when an infected person (even with no symptoms) coughs, sneezes or speaks loudly. So wear a mask as a sign of love and concern for others. Forget all the lame TV coronavirus politics. They’re deliberately manipulating us into outrage and frustration, partly to improve ratings and keep their jobs, and partly to protect their precious political worldviews. To remain employed, they have no choice but to create political outrage porn. Just ignore it.
“Learn to place your intellect in the sheath of your awareness rather than in the sac of memoryand identification. Once you do, this tremendous instrument can cut its way effortlessly toward the ultimate.” – Sadhguru
The big problem we face as a struggling species is our need to filter data through an inflexible worldview. This process rejects a significant portion of good accurate data thereby hindering us in spiritual growth and scientific advancement.
Worldviews (or cosmic paradigms) become central to our personal identitieswhich we defend with denial, outrage and a false sense of superiority to those who hold conflicting views. The memoryof things we’ve been taught by parents and trusted teachers in youth ties us to rigidity, denial and the rejection of useful knowledge.
And yet many of us seem convinced that spiritual growth and scientific advancement fully demand a rigid, data-filtering worldview.
For instance, theophobia has the geological community in a headlock preventing publication of anything supporting the ancient accounts of great floods and fires that nearly erased humanity. This is because lending credence to “holy myths” threatens paradigm identity and is therefore emotionally intolerable to most geologists.
For them to give in and admit these “myths” were basically accurate would feel something like an Orthodox Jew eating pork, a Muslim drawing Mohamad, or a Christian doubting Jesus’ historical existence.
So the evidence of periodic geological cataclysms in Earth’s history has been downplayed for generations, but unfortunately it’s looking like our “experts” have made a grievous error in protecting their theophobia with the paradigm of geologic gradualism.
There’s good scientific evidence that the Sun is a periodic nova or “micro-nova,” that coronal mass ejection material from the Sun nearly wiped out our species about twelve thousand years ago.
The perceived problem with this data set is not merely that it supports humanity’s ancient “mythical” records, but that it is inherently frightening to scientists because those few who look into it also find evidence that a similar geological catastrophe may happen within our lifetimes.
The more practical problem with this data is that scientists can’t get funding for research that gives an inch of ground to the “crazy” people who believe in God or any historic veracity of ancient human records.
But it’s not just mainstream scientists whose worldviews prevent an objective look at this. Many Christians have a worldview that doesn’t allow the possibility of a return of global flooding or any other global catastrophe because the “inerrant” scriptures include a rainbow with a promise that God will never drown us again.
Sadguru is wrong in thinking that sleeping only a few hours a night is healthier for everyone than sleeping 8 or 9 hours a night, but the man is divinely inspired when he suggests letting your intellect experience the “sheath of your awareness” rather than “the sack of memory and identification.”
If you want to give his advice a whirl and transcend your worldview for a moment with some controversial but important scientific data and theory, here’s a video that could truly save our entire species from the next major periodic sun eruption…
The narrator and creator of this video is Ben Davidson. Here’s his website. Here’s his beautiful family.
“Look deep into nature and then you will understand everything better.” – Albert Einstein
“Dr. Tour is one of the world’s top synthetic organic chemists. He has authored 680 scientific publications and holds more than 120 patents. In 2014, Thomson Reuters named him one of “The World’s Most Influential Scientific Minds,” and in 2018 Clarivate Analytics recognized him as one of the world’s most highly cited researchers. Tour is also fearless. He joined more than a thousand other scientists in signing the “Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.” More recently, he has become a thorn in the side of the origin of life research community, offering blunt assessments of the current state of origin of life research.”
When kids from the vanishingly rare religious families of the US go away to college, they need something to save them from being sucked over the emotional falls of determinism, materialism, Neo-Darwinism and nihilism. Professors pound these untestable philosophic worldviews into their students’ heads as if they were facts of “settled science.”
This shocking video lecture could help spiritual kids resist the standardized brainwashing of our era. Please forward it to the young people you know.
It’s my opinion that US politics is a fraudulent brainwashing machine owned and run by six US corporations who control the mainstream media (both sides) and make money using group hatred, so I don’t give political views in public and try not to care about the window dressings, i.e., which set of untrustworthy politicians wins.
Ironically, this approach is black-and-white thinking on my part, fueled by my unbalanced desire to avoid confrontation. Nevertheless, pursuing this flawed view is the lessor of two evils for me. I can either mind meld with the mainstream political hatred or reject the whole mess as a bogus nightmare not worth the exasperation. I maintain that we simply cannot identify accurate political data with any certainty. It’s not possible.
More mature people might partake in mainstream politics without the enveloping disgust, loathing and outrage. I salute you all if such saints really exist.
But I do publically wonder how so many of us believe that winning the political war is more valuable that freedom of speech.
Here’s an academic, Jonathan Haidt, who has a vivid explanation, though he talks like he’s negotiating with a suicide bomber. It’s a fear-based reaction that makes perfect sense once he describes his academic work environment…
After hearing how uniquely harmful social media is to middle school children, and being a kid at heart, I decided to turn off my “like” buttons. “Likes” give me a dopamine rush that influences the way I write on the topics I’m exploring. It’s subtle but powerful. I don’t want to censor myself by writing for “likes.”
I appreciate all the “likes” you’ve given me over the years. And I “like,” no, I LOVE your artwork, your writings, your poetry, and the photography you post. I fully intend to keep clicking your “like” buttons and commenting on your blogs as always, but as you might expect, with 7,082 followers, I can take in only an insignificant fraction of the remarkable blog posts you create each week.
Just know that I love your work.
My comment section will remain open below. If you know a joke, please share it. We’re all too serious these days.
Here’s something Eddie Murphy (Edward Regan Murphy) told the kids in his audience way back in the 1980s. (This isn’t word-for-word.)
A bear and a rabbit were taking a dump together in the woods. The bear said to the rabbit, “Does cr#p stick to your fur?” The rabbit said, “no.” So the bear picked the rabbit up and wiped his butt with it.
Hmm. Somehow that was hilarious when Eddie Murphy told it. “It’s all in the delivery,” my son used to tell me.
I’m at a loss to grasp why this story isn’t front-page news. The Navy has now officially admitted that the UFO/ “UAP” phenomenon is a genuine mystery and the famous videos are not a hoax or explainable by any traditional means.
Here’s a mainstream TV report on the Navy’s official statement…
Here’s a link to the NBC News report from yesterday (9/18/19):
Notice that the closing lines of this mainstream article seek to shepherd public opinion toward status quo denial:
“Shostak, a regular contributor to NBC News MACH, said in an email, “Now I think if the answer were easy, that would be known by now. But when I look at these things I see no reason to consider them good evidence for ‘alien visitation,’ which is what the public likes to think they are.”
“He said that in some reported sightings of unidentified flying objects other explanations, like birds, seem plausible.”
If you’ve been keeping up with the Navy’s UFO sightings since 2017, you know exactly how irrelevant and beyond absurd that last sentence is. And yet these are professional journalists. Their deliberate ignorance is mindboggling.
If you haven’t kept up with all this UFO news, here’s a link to several relevant videos:
Among them is this video. If you ignore the melodramatic delivery of the narrator, it’s the best video for hearing what the witnesses have to say and how they say it…
Some experts tell us there’s reason to think the most advanced human space technology has now slipped not only out of the hands of elected US officials but also out of the control of covert US groups such as the “dark” or unacknowledged projects of the Department Of Defence. The story is, years ago several subdivisions of the DOD placed our most advanced anti-gravity technology into the hands of private corporations to move it beyond legal discoverability by our elected officials whom they distrusted.
That would be understandable. Anyone would be nieve to trust those people with a box of plastic forks.
If the story is true, maybe all we’re dealing with here are global corporations and their proprietary technology. I hope that’s the case, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the story or a similar conspiracy theory accounts for a large part of the UFO phenomena.
But I doubt it’s the whole truth. I’m keeping my mind open to the possibility of an alien component. It seems prudent at this point.
And I hope Nick Pope’s fears of “some secret too terrible to be told” are not justified.
Pretty much no one clicks on a blog’s videos, but all this newer stuff on UFO’s (since 2017) coming to us from former DOD employees and fighter pilots is turning the public’s heads. Even the geniuses on mainstream news are no longer laughing.
If you’re not up to date on this and don’t find UFO’s boring, then this video might seem interesting. If you’re a closet UFO buff like I am, you probably have complex suspicions about this long-awaited “disclosure.”
It’s becoming impossible for professional skeptics to maintain credibility insisting that all UFO’s are banal, bogus, or just plain Venus on a clear night.
But if we buy into the quasi-governmental narrative that, “gee, they are real,” then what exactly are they?
At the moment, the government’s people, most of them retired but still sworn to some level of DOD secrecy, are saying they don’t know what UFO’s are, but at the same time they’re hinting that they actually do. They say things to the effect that, “If we admit we think they’re Aliens, the public will write us off the way they’ve rejected the UFO fringe community.”
The government-associated team has made it clear that they want no part of the fringe’s mix of careful UFO researchers, imposters, posers, alleged victims, and salivating fanatics. Keeping their distance from us is understandable since anything they say is negatively interpreted by one element of the UFO fringe or another, myself included in a moment.
Nevertheless, this overall “narcissism of small differences” among the believers has become the strangest piece of irony I’ve ever seen. I would have thought the UFO fringe would rejoice to see their “normal” skeptical family members no longer able to think of them as easily influenced and lacking healthy discretion.
Loving conspiracy theories like any self-respecting science fiction writer, I can’t help speculating that some of these new UFO people, maybe a guy like Christopher Mellon, a former US Secretary of Defence, may have a slick endgame on the horizon.
Maybe not him, but someone near this level might want to appear to be pushing the government to confess that all this UFO stuff is real, but…
It’s all legitimate covert defence work.
“Doggone it, you caught us in the act, but we’re not at liberty to talk about sensitive US defense technology.”
End of disclosure. Forget the entire breadth and depth of actual UFO history and its uncomfortable implications. Forget people like Richard Dolan, the brilliant UFO historian. Forget Paul Hellyer, the former Minister of Canadian Defense.
But if there is a trillion-dollar covert conspiracy reverse engineering downed UFO’s, as most of us in the fringe suspect, then one way to avoid disaster and maintain secrecy despite all these US fighter pilots coming forward, would be to reveal low resolution clips of the visual aspects of UFO’s to the public saying it’s nothing more than DOD technology that must be kept secret.
“We learned our lesson the hard way with the spread of nukes after WWII.”
Who knows? None of us following the public UFO fringe can know for sure. Though, as one of my pathology mentors said regarding the medical literature, the fewer data points available, the more emotionally invested people become, and the more confidently they argue.
But until two US Presidents (one from each of our preferred political football teams) tells us that genuine UFO’s are all simply covert US technology, let’s consider some juicier options just for fun and completeness’ sake…
UFO’s might also represent:
A covert breakaway culture that began inside the US government and became global and independent.
Another country that’s leapfrogged US technology.
An ancient civilization of humans that survived the Younger-Dryas event and lives somewhere in hiding, perhaps no longer entirely on Earth.
Laser holographic technology producing visual images that are somehow detectable on the Navy’s advanced radar systems.
Flesh and blood (or at least physical) aliens from another planet, sometimes phase-shifted and ethereal, let’s say.
“Aliens” who are not physical beings but something akin to traditional spirits, angels, demons, jinns or other seemingly nonmaterial intelligent beings.
A bit of our synthetic reality that’s “manifested,” either by some of us within this detailed “simulation” or by Someone from beyond it (assuming we do live in a simulation, which seems unprovable but worth consideration).
All of the above (my favorite).
What have I left out? I think the classic skeptic’s explanations of UFO’s are unrealistic nowadays. Swamp gas and weather balloons are so last-week.
Right quick, I need to say that Richard Dolan, the most level-headed and objective UFO investigator in the field, has heavily influenced and informed my views on this stuff. (I have no affiliation with Richard or his beautiful wife, Tracey, but I’m a big fan. I trust they won’t mind me sharing one of their public internet pictures at the top of this post.)
If there’s another UFO expert you feel is in Richard Dolan’s league, please mention her or him below so I can adjust my ignorance. Thanks!
Your thoughts are welcome below. Keep the sarcasm hilarious, please.
Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD
Share this post with your skeptical friends, fence-sitters and true believers.
When John Lennon approached the end of, “All You Need Is Love,” he burst into the chorus of another great Beatles song, “She loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah.”
When I heard this years ago, it seemed to derail his message of humanity’s desperate need of a higher love.
We carefully distinguish between romantic love and all the other loves, but could this be inaccurate or even misguided?
How might things look from the perspective of The Cosmic DNA Coder?
Imagine he’s putting together a new reality, a “simulation” where people can go to learn to love in an environment where anger, fear, pain and hunger make it difficult.
If love requires a minimum of two, he might divide the players into males and females, a novelty in his realm, no doubt. He invents procreation with a physical and emotional climax of love that begins gestation, allowing another player to enter the Love-Challenge environment.
In the Challenge, some individuals become technically advanced and tamper with the original DNA codes, splicing amalgamations such as the duck-billed platypus, and wreaking havoc on God’s ideal coding for procreation through love. Loveless perversions spring forth, but love’s key elements survive on some planets.
In these lucky worlds, falling into romantic love remains the most powerful, meaningful and ubiquitous form of love, rivaling even the love of parents for their children and grandchildren.
On the luckiest of planets like Earth, the distinction between platonic and romantic love begins to seem arbitrary. Couples grow old, procreation leaves the picture, and yet love continues to grow and deepen.
Despite the Earthling’s lifelong struggle for food and shelter, some of them adopt other species and discover what they believe is the purest form of platonic love.
God smiles with interest and appreciates even their dreams…
Last night I awoke from a recurring nightmare. I had lost Halo, my little black labrador retriever while the rest of our family was on vacation.
The loss of my gentle little dog was shattering. I imagined her shivering alone, hungry and confused in a dog shelter awaiting a death sentence and wondering what in the world she could have done wrong to make Daddy leave her.
I didn’t know where I’d lost her or how. I had only vague recollections of taking her with me, but where? It seemed I was losing my memory like both of my parents did years ago.
I said something like a prayer, but not to God. It was to Halo, trying to reach her through the ether and tell her I still loved her. I asked her to forgive me for being such a fool and losing track of her. I said I was so, so sorry and cried for her forgiveness until the anguish woke me up.
When my eyes popped open, I knew she was OK. I remembered putting her to bed that night and playing in the backyard with her and two of my grandkids that afternoon.
The flood of relief was beyond wonderful! I smiled at the darkness in the room and thanked God, remembering a time years ago when a similar dream about my son had shaken me to the core.
Eventually I got back to sleep, knowing that one of the most loving beings I’ve ever met was safely sleeping downstairs on her little bed with the brand new Naugahyde cover Sandi finished sewing onto it that afternoon.
And that’s platonic love, not romantic, not parental? Does love really need any qualifiers?
In God’s eyes, I doubt there’s a black-and-white distinction between romantic love and all the other forms we think we’ve identified. In my heart they all feel equally transcendent and sacred.
I wonder if John Lennon saw beyond the distinctions we make in the way we love.
“Because she loves you.
And you know that can’t be bad.”
Many years ago, Neil Young wrote something profound and worrisome, “Only love can break your heart.”
But just this morning Ellie, my granddaughter asked, “Why are we here?”
Auntie Teri laughed and said, “That’s the great philosophical question that everyone wants an answer to.”
I blurted out, “I can tell you why we’re here. It’s so we can learn…”
But I hesitated as thoughts rushed through my head. Things like, “We’re here to find out what it’s like to live in a place where God isn’t physically present to influence us… so we can see who we really are. Our souls are from another realm called Reality. Life in this Universe is an E8 simulation that Johanna calls 229 H Street. God is The Great Surfer who lives outside of space and time and misses us when we’re away from home…”
My words, “So we can learn…” hung awkwardly in the air. I was starting to realize I had nothing appropriate to say to someone her age.
Until she rescued me and finished my sentence…
“to love?” She made it look and sound like a genuine question, but it felt to me like an angel’s solemn message.
I said, “Yes,” and grinned the biggest ever, realizing that she knows more about life than I do.
“We’re here to learn to love,” I said firmly, pretending that “love” was the word I was searching for all along.
“For only love can break your heart. What if your world should fall apart?”
No, Neil Young, your world won’t fall apart. Hang tough. Ellie says the whole reason we’re here is to learn to love. And she should know, she’s five years old.
Just as the Genesis serpent was sort of right and wrong when it told Eve, “You won’t die,” John Lennon was both right and wrong about turning off the mind and not dying.
He was right that we’d all do well to turn off our inner critics sometimes and rise above the fears that bind us.
Turning off the inner voice allows the silent parts of the mind to shine. For me, this has become a major goal of meditation: waking up my subconscious gifts by temporarily shutting up inside.
The exercise lets the silent parts of my mind arrange things wordlessly and efficiently, making intuitive and logical connections that would take way more time in the verbal realm. Sometimes, in fact, it’s like a message blinks into my head from beyond like the proverbial “download.” Who knows what this is, really? I don’t.
The wise and occasionally depressed King Solomon wrote, “For everything there is a season… a time to keep silence and a time to speak.”
This passage advocates balance, not black-and-white labeling. I like that.
With a little reflection, it’s clearly not in our best interests to always keep a silent mind, focusing only on what the hands and eyes are doing in the present moment.
If you’re depressed, of course you must learn to “live in the present moment,” shutting off that blasted verbal and visual habit of going over past hurts, fights, losses and embarrassments, as well as future worst-case scenarios. This kind of rumination will drown you unless you put in the time and effort to learn inner silence and the skill of stopping and diverting inner “tapes” when they turn self-destructive. Everyone knows this.
But if you’re not depressed, your inner voice can help you with all sorts of nice things.
Like when you’re washing your hair in the shower and your mind wanders. Some of the best stories come directly from heaven to Earth through shower nozzles. Ask any writer.
Some of my blog posts spring into my head in nearly final form while I’m sitting on the floor with my legs crossed planning to focus only on conscious, deliberate breathing.
Just as some academics are misguided in thinking that maleness is inherently evil, so some gurus are confused into believing that inner chatter is inherently negative.
It’s understandable. I’ll admit that my dog, Halo, avoids inner monologue assiduously and she’s the happiest person alive, but still, some of the spiritual and psychological advice I read regarding the inner voice can’t possibly apply to humans.
Not only do they imply that the inner voice is an unqualified negative to be abandoned for the eternal superficial concrete present moment, they also have the obtuseness to equate the inner voice with the total mind.
I’m sorry, but some of these experts are like a mouse with its head stuck in a coke bottle. Myopic but enjoying the flavor.
The inner voice is just a tiny part of the mind, gurus. Come on, the non-verbal parts are the iceberg below the surface. Things like:
1. Free will (the non-physical core). 2. Conscience (molded by the environment but innately sensing fairness). 4. Silent analysis of math, physics and ecosystems. 5. Autonomic and deliberate breathing. 6. Circadian timing of the body’s organ systems. 7. Consciously moving body parts. 9. Doing body-scan meditation. 11. Intuitive self-preservation (for instance, sensing that the guy leading your meditation group is more of a crooked cult leader than a loving mentor.)
That last one is significant to trusting souls like me…
I took a $2,000 online meditation class a few years back from a PhD claiming to be doing breakthrough scientific investigation, the goal of which was ongoing bliss. His success rate was through the roof, he said. And I was “special” for even reading his email ads. Gee.
In retrospect, some of the participants did find bliss by the halfway point. But I wouldn’t call it enlightenment because there were side effects not mentioned until after the money changed hands. After that, he discussed the side effects as if they were trifles and “perfectly normal,” a phrase he repeated often over the weeks as students shared their growing concerns.
Tell me, are these side effects normal?
1. Memory problems. 2. Loss of organizational skills to the point where “enlightened” people from the prior group had to use lists to keep track of simple everyday tasks. 3. Diminished interest in fiction of all types. 4. Loss of interest in other people’s lives and stories. “You’ll have to fake interest.” 5. The showstopper: those who achieve the highest level of ongoing enlightenment would experience the complete loss of emotion, including love.
Would a scientist fail to mention these details until after he had your money? I doubt it, but maybe the pop business literature of the 1980’s was right — suckers deserve to be fleeced. I doubt anyone reading this believes such Darwinian dogma, but who knows?
To be fair, I did sign many pages of legal docs that I didn’t read. The side effects of eternal bliss might have been listed there in the fine print, but it wouldn’t have made any difference because the legal papers were sent to us only after the good doctor had stashed our cash safely in his account.
Anyway, this next part is interesting. During the classes, there were always questions from the students about how one or another of the PhD’s ideas could be integrated into the concepts of other famous gurus.
The doctor’s answer? If you want bliss, such questions miss the point: Forsake all thinking and do the exercises.
“The mind,” he said, would only interfere with the highest possible human goal: obtaining a permanent blissful state of enlightenment. He had his own proprietary words for enlightenment, of course. But the mind must be turned off during this bliss-through-meditation process. We were building new neural pathways, after all. We needed only to stop thinking critically and follow his instructions to the letter.
And so I lay on my back in my bedroom with electrodes on my chest doing endless varieties of body-scanning type meditation, two hours and more each day for eight weeks. Plus online small group meetings and other assignments.
About that time (which was halfway through the course) one of the people in my subgroup on Google Hangouts reported serious memory problems that were getting worse.
Both of my parents died with significant dementia, as you may recall from other posts, so I have zero tolerance for memory loss. And now the “perfectly normal” side effects of this man’s bliss scheme appeared to be real.
I left the program quietly.
He later kicked me out of his Facebook group when, in response to his own request for feedback on how to improve the success rate, I suggested he might in effect pre-screen the participants by telling them the potential side effects of success before taking their money.
This was to imply that a PhD should act like a scientist not a drug dealer. I wish I’d said it that way.
Bottom line, I would never trade my memory, my love for fiction, or my interest in other people’s lives for ongoing bliss.
And I certainly wouldn’t risk my ability to love people. Not for anything. One day when I was a new Christian in a Church-run High School I experienced a sense of God’s love flowing through me to the other students. It was weird, probably the most joyful and meaningful experience of my life.
“Love is all and love is everyone. It is knowing, it is knowing.” – John Lennon
John was totally right about that. I’ll never give up hope of someday revisiting that feeling. I’d never trade the faintest hope of agape love for an emotionless, loveless life of ongoing zombie bliss. “No tanks, uh?”
Although self-love runs contrary to my upbringing, I also wouldn’t want to lose the ability to love myself, even if it feels wrong to say so — and it does. (Some people of my generation were taught that self love indicates there’s something terribly wrong with you. It sounds bizarre, I know, but “correct” thinking was 180 degrees different back then.)
I’m telling you all this to illustrate the danger and stupidity of turning off your mind’s critical thinking and logical objective analysis for the bliss offered by a guru or “bliss researcher.” Not that they’re all the same. I really don’t know. But in some cases, the bliss is real and the cost is your empathy and love. I suspect these methods rewire the circuitry of mirror neurons.
At any rate, the DNA Code Writer would not have gone to all the trouble of coding for the human brain and its transcendent access to free will if the ultimate purpose of humanity was to turn off the whole cognitive process for a flat-affect bliss that kills empathy like an opiate addiction.
I’d guess the severely depressed and suicidal among us might be tempted to trade almost anything for bliss. I don’t blame or shame them for it. Major depression is hell on Earth, often fatal. Don’t cast the first stone.
But I’m talking about seeking a higher spiritual path when your life is pretty much OK.
In that context, it’s unhealthy, stupid and dangerous to shut off your mind. All money hungry cult leaders demand that you stop thinking critically and fall in line. Usually they do it more subtly and artfully than my PhD friend with his little ongoing-bliss scam.
So be intelligently careful and balanced. If you’re depressed, use inner-silence meditation to deal with rumination. If you’re fine and seeking a more spiritual life, try inner-silence, slow breathing and yoga to discover the gap between your free-willed self and the brain-fixed aspects of your mind and body. Use your silent techniques to connect with your highly efficient subconscious creative talents. And probably I’ll meet you in a non-physical realm of agape love someday. Stranger things happen.
“Remember how electrical currents and ‘unseen waves’ were laughed at? The knowledge about man is still in its infancy.” – Albert Einstein.
Slow deep breathing shunts blood to the prefrontal cortex and the subjacent pleasure center on the left. Science can tell us this much, but it cannot detect the non-physical field of free will interfacing with the brain.
When science leaps in faith beyond its self-imposed physical limitations and denies the existence of free will and all else non-physical, it is like a man who has refused to open his eyes since birth, declaring now that all vision is an illusion. He, being superior to the uneducated in intellect, insight, courage and integrity, stands alone as willing to face the difficult and oppressive truth that human vision is a false, meaningless illusion.
Science must learn to admit the obvious: it has chosen materialism, to be blind to the non-physical realm and all evidence of its existence, including the most obvious, free will.
While this choice persists, science cannot claim to be informed about the realm it ignores, much less pose as an infallible anti-spiritual authority in Western textbooks and classrooms.
The Wim Hof method of life improvement through hyperventilation, breath holding and cold exposure has gone mildly viral, but until I googled “Wim Hof and headaches,” I thought I would be the first to mention a headache connection.
Mr. Hof is no joke, by the way, though he comes across as happier and more enthusiastic than our jaundiced society allows. For this, some call him crazy.
But he’s not above reproach, either. Who is? He makes a few over-the-top claims. For instance, he’s made medical claims that jerk the black-and-white chains of professional skeptics whose logic casts out the baby with the ice water at the slightest provocation.
But many scientists, journal gatekeepers, and healthcare providers depend on the “incurable” adjective. And they’re human. Where would they all go if, for instance, type 2 diabetes disappeared along with a few of the most common cancer types? How can anyone expect them to be objective about feeding their children?
I’m afraid I’m not.
So let the skeptics howl while the rest of us avoid their binary thinking. We’d be nuts to write off Wim Hof for simply being as excitable and capable of exaggeration as most of the rest of us.
You probably know he’s earned many world records for things like sitting in ice water for roughly 2 hours and swimming a terrifically long distance under surface ice, once overshooting the exit hole and nearly drowning.
He recalls no fear of dying during the incident and now says he has no baseline fear of death. That’s fascinating and probably important. Who knows?
Under medical supervision, a few brave scientists injected him with toxic bacterial antigens, waited, then drew his blood for analysis. It showed a lack of the expected spike of inflammatory markers. He had no fever and felt no flu-like symptoms.
Wondering if Wim was unique in this ability to suppress inflammatory markers, they had him train a dozen new students for 2 weeks, then tested them.
The students’ bloodwork showed a low inflammatory response compared to controls, and they reported less intense flu-like symptoms.
And as if destiny wanted to remove all suspicion that Wim has “superhuman” talent, the man has an identical twin with no unusual cold tolerance.
Another group of scientists put Wim in an MRI scanner wearing a cold-immersion bodysuit. This was fascinating. They found peculiar activity in his insula and the periaqueductal gray areas of his brain. Also, he had increased glucose metabolism in his intercostal muscles.
I’d like to know if he was panting. I vaguely remember a video clip of him panting in a tub of ice, but I can’t find it now.
It’s safe to say that Wim Hof’s path to “health, strength, and happiness,” has a few credible underpinnings in physiology. And there’s also the “life-changing” effects asserted by his raving students.
Unfortunately, the body is too complex for our hyper-segregated sciences to explain the morphologic, physiologic, biochemical, epigenetic and genetic details of anything much beyond conditions like sickle-cell anemia, but an obvious feature of Wim’s achievements is human antifragility, a counterintuitive response that includes hormesis, the beneficial middle-dose of something toxic or even lethal at higher exposures.
Oh dear, I hope the medical thought police don’t revile me for suggesting there’s hope of preventing such lucrative diseases through simple hormesis.
Anyway, in the Wim Hof method, the hormesis comes from hypoxia and cold exposure, either of which might kill you at too high an exposure.
What doesn’t kill us wakes us up, it seems.
Since my first breath-holding ocean dive (with no wetsuit) at Shell Beach, California, age 12, I’ve loved holding my breath — just for the relaxation and clarity of mind it brings. As we know, the mammalian diving response kicks in, shunting blood to the brain, lungs and heart.
What a fortunate setup for anyone living on a water planet, though! Who do I thank?
Later when I took SCUBA, I learned that by hyperventilating before breath-holding, I could stay down longer because huffing and puffing expels carbon dioxide and makes the blood less acidic. This shifts the oxygen dissociation curve to the left, allowing the red blood cells to deliver more of their oxygen to the tissues, giving us the feeling that hyperventilation supersaturates the blood with oxygen. It doesn’t as far as science can so-far determine.
It’s also true that CO2 buildup in the blood provides us with the urge to breathe. That’s why blowing it off in hyperventilation lets you stay down longer before air thirst forces you up for a breath.
This scenario is dangerous, though, because hyperventilation can make you pass out and drown — as can hypoxia.
I urge you not try hyperventilation in the water. Wim Hof says to do it lying down. (Far from a pool or bathtub, I’d add.)
And here’s another caveat: too much hypoxia causes brain damage, depression and dementia. We know this from studying sleep apnea, a common ailment that’s vastly underdiagnosed and contributes to a truckload of human misery. So “moderation in all things” is the faithful heuristic. And for the careful, swimming underwater in the cold (without hyperventilation) wakes up the mind and makes you feel sharp as a tack.
Since life on Earth was intelligently designed, our bodies keep us fully conscious and awake under water because the alternative tends to be fatal. Whoever wrote this planet’s genetic codes must have designed life around water and decided that we would hold our breath and spear cold-water fish during the ice ages. This would have the side effect of providing a diet rich in marine oils to supply DHA to our brains which are predominantly lipid and heavy with DHA, an omega-3 fatty acid.
Periodic ice ages awaken humanity’s epigenetic adaptations to cold, it seems, switching on genes that become dormant during warmer eras. Activating our “cold-shock” genes to produce cold-shock proteins renders us not merely cold-resistant, but antifragile to cold. We don’t merely survive the ice ages, we thrive — mentally, physically, emotionally and probably spiritually.
We’ve all seen clear evidence of this in the ancient megalithic structures on most continents — evidence the mainstream detests because it falls outside their “gradualism” dogma of all history.
Nevertheless, since the Younger-Dryas event ended the last ice age about 11,600 years ago, our species has forgotten the value of God’s latent gift of cold-adaptive epigenetics. Fortunately, Wim Hof and a few scientists are rediscovering it, uncovering what may be a human capacity for broad volitional immune regulation and substantial mood management.
Some of this magic results from the “mammalian diving response.” It’s a well-studied physiologic mechanism that shunts blood to vital organs, as I mentioned. This includes the brain’s center of higher decision making, the prefrontal cortex, which is close to a quasi-pleasure center located just below the left prefrontal region.
It would seem that Earth’s DNA Code Writer has worked to keep us alive, healthy, happy and eating cold-water fish with our broccoli sprouts.
“The God Hypothesis is now a more respected hypothesis than at any time in the last 100 years.” — Frederic Bradford Burnham, PhD.
I haven’t taken the Wim Hof course, as yet, but I’ve watched enough relevant YouTube videos to know the basics, and I’ve been doing an easy version of cold exposure and hyperventilation-with-breath-holding for five months now, several times a week. In my view, Wim Hof is onto something big with the potential to help many of us, not just my fellow headache sufferers. But let’s be careful not to over-do the hypoxia aspect.
Although I’m not quite as predisposed to euphoria now as when I was younger, I do feel exhilarated after a cold shower, and mentally sharp with temporary mood elevation after the intermittent hyperventilation and hypoxia.
By the way, if you try cold showers, consider my method. I’m careful not to let my subconscious mind learn to hate the whole experience. To me, this principle of catering to the subconscious is a key to sustaining purpose with anything that requires discomfort and ongoing effort.
Here’s how I avoid hating cold shower…
First I step back out of a hot shower, turning the knob all the way cold. Then I put one part of myself into the shower at a time. I stay in the cold spray for seven breaths, step out and warm up for a few breaths then rotate another section of me into the cold.
In the past I’ve tried cold showers by sudden immersion and wound up avoiding the whole process after a few weeks, having never consciously decided to stop. It seems that when anything is judged by the subconscious self to be too uncomfortable, we avoid it reflexively without conscious deliberation. In this way, the subconscious mind makes many decisions about survival. We see this happening with hunger avoidance, cold avoidance, pain avoidance, and the avoidance of believing things that will bring us rejection by our peers and bosses.
There’s good scientific evidence now that cold showers should improve most people’s health and well-being, but the most unexpected thing for me was the headache remedy.
I’ve had headaches all my teen and adult life, originally caused by something in fresh fruit (probably fructose) or in my 30’s by caffeine withdrawal.
Nowadays, my headaches come mainly from eating a little naturally occurring sucrose in my low-carb, circadian diet. (Sucrose or “table sugar” is half fructose, so that may be the primary cause of my headaches now.) Incidentally, the low-carb, circadian diet brings me mental clarity like nothing else ever has.
I’ve had about 12 headaches (all associated with “natural” sucrose intake) since I’ve been doing my easy version of the Wim Hof method. Each headache has vanished after hyperventilation and breath holding, usually after 4 or 5 cycles. That’s 12 our of 12!
Cold exposure doesn’t seem to affect my headaches, though at least one observant writer describe evidence that “cryotherapy” of this sort might prevent migraine headaches by reversing the low norepinephrine levels found in migraine sufferers.
Also, it may be noteworthy that at least one anecdotal report has surfaced of a headache appearing after doing the Wim Hof technique.
One size rarely fits all in biology. Perhaps it’s tangentially relevant that when I’m trying to get rid of a headache, it sometimes feels worse during the hyperventilation phase, diminishes during the breath holding, and then vanishes after several cycles.
My last headache inspired me to write this article. It woke me at 5:30 AM pounding in my skull. It felt like one of the monster headaches that lasts all day and brings nausea.
I did the usual 4 cycles of Wim Hof hyperventilation and breath holding and although the pain diminished, it quickly came back. Not willing to give up and waste the entire day in pain, I kept at it, hyperventilating more and more vigorously and holding my breath longer and longer as my heart chugged in my chest. Finally, after about 12 intense cycles, the pain vanished completely and never came back, not even a dull ache.
Dude! Thank you, Wim Hof.
I speculate that the diving reflex, while shunting blood to my central nervous system as designed, also sent blood flowing swiftly through my scalp where the nerve endings for headache are thought to reside, diluting out vicious chemicals released by mast cells. These chemicals were causing vasoconstriction and pain while signaling for inflammatory cells to rush in.
And because I treated the headache early in its course, I postulate that the inflammatory cells that would have migrated in, set up shop and made the headache a full-day affair never had time to arrive in significant numbers.
Of course, not all headaches have the same pathophysiology. What stops mine might not touch yours, and might even make yours worse. But the Wim Hof Headache Fix is worth a try if you suffer headaches. Just promise me you won’t hyperventilate near water, pass out and drown, OK?
I wish I’d had the Wim Hof Headache Fix when I was a highschool boy lying in bed on Sunday afternoon in my dorm room in throbbing pain, praying to God for relief and assuring him that I understood if this wasn’t the time for a miracle.
And I wish scientists weren’t so quick to shout down everything that moves contrary to their “knowledge.”
Science has historically made quantum leaps by seeking the unexpected, the weird and impossible. It’s tragic that many scientists today express pride in their skepticism. It would serve us all if skepticism were a source of scientific shame.
And it doesn’t matter what’s new, weird, or improperly boxed, my generation of baby-boomer scientists will attack and viciously debunk it, often without studying the work they’re struggling to bury. For example…
The “fringe” evolutionist, Elaine Morgan’s theory that humans evolved from aquatic apes is rejected by mainstream evolutionists for purely emotional reasons, as best I can tell. The phrase, “aquatic apes,” doesn’t sound right to them regardless of the evidence.
The non-materialist research scientist, James Tour, makes an absolutely stunning case for intelligent design in origins theory, only to hear the materialist establishment reject his insight and expertise because they already “know” that life’s origins are mindless and meaningless.
Governmental officials team up with fighter pilots to show evidence that UFO’s are real, someone in our skies seems to have breakthrough technology, but academics remain invested in denial of anything beyond their insular, inbred boxes of narrow expertise.
I’m hoping that something will change with the next generation of scientists and thinkers.
Maybe the next team will value objectivity over skepticism.
Science could use their help right now.
Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD
Please share this post with friends who suffer from headaches or chronic dogma impairments.
“The thing that we all know most directly and most certainly – that is, the existence of ourselves – is ultimately incompatible with materialism.” – Jay Richards, PhD.
When I attended a Christian university in the 1970s (now called La Sierra University) I took an upper division genetics class from Gary Bradley, my hero to this day, who subtly taught the logic of associating a Code Writer with this planet’s unfathomably complex DNA. His scientific insight was ahead of its time and became the intellectual basis of my faith in God.
Although my unbalanced version of Christianity made me a doormat in the dog-eat-dog world of pathology, the realization that God existed and, being smart enough to write genetic code, could easily understand English and undoubtedly hear my thoughts and prayers, improved my life dramatically, giving me a sense of meaning and purpose, despite my habit of not standing up for myself.
Today, more and more brave scientists and thinkers are making the connection between Earth’s code-based life and an intelligent code writer. Random mutation and natural selection don’t stand up to mathematical scrutiny when you know something of the complexity of proteins and the DNA codes that produce them.
But breaking with tradition is dangerous. Modern scientists are like preschoolers fighting to control the rules to the latest game. And they are literally religious fundamentalists who believe that their dogma alone can save the world.
The dogma is materialism: the arrogant, arbitrary, inflexible assumption that nothing could possibly exist besides matter and energy. This is a philosophical assumption that cannot be tested. Hence we should not equate it to science or let it be preached to school children as “the foundation of the scientific method.”
It’s actually the foundation of scientific fundamentalism, a religion that has quietly slipped in and taken rigid control of the minds, careers and publications of the scientific community. Materialism has become a roadblock to the funding of any project that doesn’t knuckle under to the dogma of a random, meaningless, depressing, purely material universe.
But here’s a breathtaking video that brings hope that perhaps today’s young people will rescue science from fundamentalism…
“Oddly, the [scientific] materialist has to deny the existence of the scientist.”
So true, and so ironic.
Back in the day, Gary Bradley openly questioned Neo-Darwinism in class, emphasizing the crucial importance of protecting the genetic diversity, natural order and purity of Earth’s ecosystems from the myopic intrusions of corporate science.
At the time, I did not understand how rare this part of my education was. But now I know that at least in the last fifty years, professors and textbooks have assumed without question that science is materialistic – there can be nothing but matter and energy anywhere, ever. Therefore, the mind is an illusion. Intelligence is an accident of matter, a random epiphenomenon with no meaning or higher purpose.
During their impressionable college years when objectivity writes on a clean slate, very few modern scientists have been allowed to hear both sides of the argument between materialism and intelligent design. Nevertheless, some have heard it now and are coming around, saying that there’s evidence in favor of the concept that we are genuine beings with free will.
Here’s a video touching on some of that evidence…
“No, You’re Not a Robot Made Out of Meat“
In college, students are usually taught what to think not how to think. The struggle for most undergraduates is to memorize quickly for multiple-choice tests. We tacitly assume that everything we have crammed into our heads is true, including this western secular worldview disguised as the foundation of science.
But the mainstream answer to this question, “Does the Universe consist of only matter and energy or is there also something more, such as mind, identity, or a Supreme Being?” is not directly testable and therefore not capable of being the foundation of science. It’s a worldview, a philosophy, a spirituality or, if you ask me, a cultish religion that has morphed into today’s academic culture of scientific fundamentalism.
Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD
Please share these videos with the young minds you know and love. Give them something to balance the dogmatic materialism that undermines happiness and limits science itself. Give someone a glimpse of the rational universe where depression and suicide are avoidable through the pursuit of a higher, loving purpose.
My father was born today (December 27, 1897). He was an MD with board certification in Radiology, Anatomic Pathology and General Surgery. His life was all about studying science, publishing medical articles and living far beyond frugality. He was an atheist who preferred religious people because he thought they were more trustworthy. “It’s too bad everything they believe in isn’t true,” he said.
This post is dedicated to Dad…
We live in a simulated universe created by means of a language that’s projected from beyond, possibly using the crystal structure called “E8,” in which the fundamental building blocks are not irreducible strings or electromagnetic waves or subatomic particles or even intelligently driven perturbations in the zero-point field (though this idea is related, I think).
Instead, the fundamental building blocks of our simulated reality appear to be the symbols of a language.
This is a language in which each physical symbol, its meaning, and the hardware needed to interpret or “manifest” the meaning within our 3D space are one-in-the-same.
The Supreme Being (or Beings) exist outside the simulation, but can enter it and undoubtedly have. We (our full selves) inhabit a Reality outside of the simulated universe, a place that is beyond our ability to imagine because it’s “outside of time” and contains something like “extra dimensions” which can only be vaguely imagined by people with expertise in math and physics.
Our simulated universe was invented for us by the Supreme Being(s) because we requested it.
We enthusiastically spend simulated time here in hopes of expanding the depth and breadth of our love, wisdom and character in a place made specifically for developing these personal attributes.
There’s a respected web of cause and effect stemming from free decisions that each of us has made within the simulated universe. This free-choice web limits our ability to create a reality based upon a belief system.
For example, if I want to believe in a fundamentalist Christian paradigm (or any other spiritual system), but I’ve been convinced in school that scientific materialism is undeniable, then I am incapable of believing in any fundamentalist paradigm other than scientific materialism itself (a.k.a. physicalism). And vice versa.
On the other hand, if for any reason I have retained the ability to believe in a given spiritual (or anti-spiritual) paradigm, and I pursue it, then that system of belief will become literally true for me within the simulation.
In practical terms, this means that there is always a “reality that’s out there” in the simulated universe whether or not I believe in it.
Examples of realities that won’t go away with denial include the reality of UFO’s, the reality of DNA’s hyper-complex code, the reality of dinosaur fossils, the reality of Near-Death Experiences, the reality of Angels, demons and various ethereal beings, the reality of World Bank domination in modern times, the reality of all souls being ultimately one, the reality of an intelligent universe, and the growing reality on Earth of a mindless, meaningless universe.
Logically opposing belief systems can be fully manifest in separate parts of the simulation on an individual basis, especially after a person’s current life ends, but also to some extent during this current life. The more something is collectively believed, the more real it becomes due to the simulation’s basic nature and the careful respect for free will. (When the effects of a free will decision are eliminated, the reality of that decision is also eliminated. Hence the respect for the effects of free will decisions and actions.)
Our experience in the simulated universe is not necessarily limited to one lifetime. Depending on what we are able to believe, we may ride the simulation for multiple lifetimes.
Each of us is here for our own specific purpose.
For some, the purpose is to learn courage and love.
For others (particularly scientists) we’re here to learn open-mindedness and the ability to question things we know are true. The odds are against us achieving such objectivity on Earth, but the very challenge of it attracts us here.
One characteristics of the simulation that renders it particularly useful to our souls’ growth is the ubiquitous “dualism” in which every good thing can have a negative side effect and every negative thing can have a positive side effect. This becomes a source of cognitive dissonance, particularly in questions of morality.
For instance, our dependence upon food requires us to kill plants, bacteria, insects, and perhaps to some degree, higher organisms, to stay alive. And yet our innate sense of morality (a.k.a. love) makes us loath to kill certain creatures. Similarly, our need to procreate, driven largely by testosterone in all genders, is necessary to our species’ existence, yet it also manifests as a strong force in breaking trust, destroying families and making life more difficult on our dear children.
And yet the dissonances here teach our souls balance and perspective. That’s a huge attraction.
Realizing that our universe is simulated may seem to present a new problem of rejecting all other worldview paradigms. It might tempt one to say, “If our souls exist with God in another realm and nothing here is real, then nothing here is worth believing in or caring about.”
But despite the literal simulation of matter and energy, our cognitive awareness here is real, not simulated. Our love and our pain are genuine because our souls experience them. We don’t have the option of dealing with the simulated universe as an illusion because it reaches beyond the simulation into our hearts.
In view of all this, the logical thing to do is to identify your own personal reason(s) for entering this simulation, and based upon those, choose a personally believable worldview that offers support for someone on your quest.
For instance, if you’re here primarily to learn open-mindedness, which means you’re probably a scientist, then you might read about the search for UFOs and alien life, although you already “know” such things are complete nonsense aimed at “lesser minds” than yours. Be prepared for the surprise your soul is seeking.
Or if you’re here to learn courage, then choosing a live-for-the-moment worldview might make sense, leading you into a lifestyle of courage, such as mixed martial arts, public speaking, surfing giant waves, doing open heart surgery, smuggling Bibles into North Korea, or standing up to politically correct hatred and prejudice.
Or if you discover that you joined the simulation to increase your capacity for self-sacrificing love, then any of the major religions will probably steer you in that direction. Find one you can truly believe in, if possible. If not, pick and choose from among them, or make up something of your own as I’ve done. Your beliefs will be real for you when you need them most.
If you’ve joined the simulation to discover who you would be apart from God’s physical presence and influence, then materialistic science and atheism might be what your soul needs (assuming you’re capable of believing). If so, make the world envious of your good character the way Gillette Penn has done. And like him, don’t be offended by others who believe in undetectable realities besides Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
And if you’re one of the family of suffering people who feel overwhelmed by the seemingly infinite loss of someone precious to you, then focus on the Reality beyond this simulation. Imagine a Real place where time is independent of us, allowing a loving Supreme Being all the time in the world to travel with your lost loved one to a meaningful, great place doing exciting things. As infinitely horrible as it feels to lose your loved one, the loss is temporary and only exists within this simulated universe. Trust me. This is literally true.
Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD
As a pathologist (retired now), I’ve been trained to observe and interpret complex visual and biologic systems, so my diagnostic opinion of Reality is worth consideration. Conflicting belief systems are part of what unites us here as souls from Reality seeking personal growth in this Divine Simulation.
I was deeply disappointed when my 23&Me genetic analysis came back and told me I don’t have any Jewish ancestry.
The Three Stooges were the brightest part of my world when I was three years old. I was an adult when I discovered that they were all Jewish.
I’ve been an Einstein devotee since I was six and my Dad told me about the relative nature of time and velocity. I was probably in high school before I heard that Einstein was Jewish.
I’ve been a Bob Dylan / Robert Zimmerman freak with his lyrics bouncing around in my brain since I was eleven and my sister let me borrow Blond on Blond, my favorite album to this day. I was probably in 8th grade when I learned he was Jewish. Not that I had a clue what that meant.
One of the two most talented cytotechnologists I ever worked with was Jewish. The other, whom the local pathologists called “God” because of her unearthly diagnostic accuracy with fine needle aspirations, was of Middle Eastern Arab descent and therefore possibly a descendent of Abraham.
And when I was fourteen, I began reading the gospels over and over for decades becoming dominated by my admiration for a one-sided interpretation of Jesus — a Jewish man who, by tradition, was recognized and appreciated at birth by wise men from “the East” who followed his star.
What was that really all about?
The longer I live, the more I see ancient stories and “myths” supported by new evidence from mainstream materialistic science. The evidence for an advanced human civilization before the Younger Dryas event is mounting as the sheer mass, complexity and global extent of megaliths is delivered to the public on YouTube, and huge impact craters, especially the recent one in Iceland, suggest a causal connection. Meanwhile, UFO’s have been to some extent accepted as real by the mainstream media, senators and at least one billionaire.
Who were these wise men from the East who brought gifts to a Jewish baby? They don’t seem fabricated. What motivated their journey?
On top of my general appreciation for Jews, my mother, God rest her soul, told me that she thought my Dad had some Jewish blood. His mother’s last name was Talmage, an English name that was sometimes adopted by Jewish people who had migrated into England in the remote past.
It was nice thinking that I was probably at least partly Jewish. I had that deep-down sense of belonging to an important Tribe of amazing people.
You might imagine my disappointment when my genetics came back with no evidence of Jewish heritage at all. The report told me I’m over 99 percent Western European, almost all British. Plus I’m a male, for crying out loud!
How repulsive can you get genetically speaking in today’s PC world?! It’s hard to be more genetically incorrect than I am.
And I’ve got no one to blame but myself when you think about it…
I chose to be born male and white in some prior realm of existence. Can I get an Amen from a materialist? No. How about from a Christian? Doubt it.
Either through greed or masochism I decided to become a genetic member of the only Tribe that’s fair game for open stereotyping, prejudice and hatred: the “White Patriarchy.”
Silly me. What was I thinking?
But to my temporary and yet infinite relief, 23&Me also said I’ve got 0.2 percent Native American blood. Mom’s family myth was true. A man named “Monk” must have really married a woman named “Squa.” (Forgive the non-PC word, but “Squa” was my ancestor’s literal name in my Mom’s family story.)
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if 0.2 percent non-white blood could rescue me from PC shaming and loathing? And make me a genuine member of a politically correct Tribe?
I’m not getting my hopes up.
Is it even right for someone like me with over 99 percent inherently “PC evil” genetics to attempt an escape from mediocrity? Wouldn’t it be better for the Universe if people with my deplorable white-male genetics would just shut up, go away and accept Karma’s payback for choosing the moral inferiority and genetic guilt of white maleness?
You see where I’m going with this madness?
My little grandkids are right. My mom was right. Hatred is always wrong because it’s always unfair to the one doing the hating, no matter how convincingly any given society or subculture singles out a genetic whipping boy as the wise target of modern (or “postmodern,” gag me!) moral outrage and hatred.
No matter what our Ivory Tower professors teach us about the lack of meaning and true morality in the Universe (based on their untestable assumption of materialism or physicalism with the nature of existence being a Darwinian fight to the death, and the joy of victim-group hatred being the fabric of all merry winners) it’s still true…
“Two wrongs don’t make a right.” Mom was nobody’s fool.
Well, that’s easy for me to say, with my genetics supposedly placing me into a comfortable world of white patriarchal dominance and aggression.
But here’s the thing, I understand both sides of grudge holding and hatred. One of my siblings beat me mercilessly from age three through age twelve, then emotionally tortured me for most of my adult life. Later the same person stole my entire inheritance which I was told was worth 3 million dollars at the time. Do you think I’m idiotic enough to hate that sibling?
Well, no, I’m not now. I was for a while there, but not for long.
It only made me sicker and more depressed to be owned by humanity’s worst enemy: hatred. This emotion is a mind virus replicating on justified anger that takes over your life through rumination.
I escaped the abusive environment and let go of everything I’d lost, including most of my self-confidence. Getting free helped me forgive my sibling while separating me from continual emotional abuse.
Hating and shaming those who abuse you or your Tribe only makes you angrier and sicker inside.
“Sicker now and sicker all the way down,” as my son puts it in his song, Sicker.
You need to separate yourself from your specific abusers, resist painting whole groups of people, even white males, with the broad strokes of hatred and prejudice. Then forgiveness can come and free you inside.
The “wise men from the East” were not part of the Jewish “Tribe.” But somehow they knew that such things don’t matter. And they probably knew that disconnecting from hatred, humanity’s worst flaw, depended in some mysterious way on this newborn Jewish baby lying in the cold with his mom and all the stable animals.