merylnass | Here is another wonderfully researched and written look into the long
morbid history of how the powerful repeatedly sterilize the powerless.
Hard to believe, but California was still sterilizing women in prisons
until about 20 years ago, that we know of. The Midwestern Doctor has
produced another tour de force.
“Billionaires Try to Shrink World’s Population”: Secret Gathering Sponsored by Bill Gates, 2009 Meeting of “The Good Club”
Is Worldwide Depopulation Part of the Billionaire's "Great Reset"
For more than ten years, meetings have been held by billionaires described as philanthropists to Reduce the Size of the World’s Population culminating with the 2020-2022 Covid crisis.
Recent
developments suggest that “Depopulation” is an integral part of the
so-called Covid mandates including the lockdown policies and the mRNA
“vaccine”.
Flash back to 2009. According to the Wall Street Journal: “Billionaires Try to Shrink World’s Population”.
In
May 2009, the Billionaire philanthropists met behind closed doors at
the home of the president of The Rockefeller University in Manhattan.
This Secret Gathering was sponsored by Bill Gates. They called themselves “The Good Club”.
Among the participants were the late David Rockefeller, Warren Buffett, George Soros, Michael Bloomberg Ted Turner, Oprah Winfrey and many more.
In May 2009, the WSJ as well as the Sunday Times reported: (John Harlow, Los Angeles) that
“Some
of America’s leading billionaires have met secretly to consider how
their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population
and speed up improvements in health and education.”
The emphasis was not on population growth (i.e Planned Parenthood) but on “Depopulation”, i.e,. the reduction in the absolute size of the World’s population.
alt-market | When I think back to the first days of the covid pandemic lockdowns, I
suspect the majority of people, even many conservatives and liberty
movement types, had a healthy concern about the effects of the virus and
the potential for structural upheaval if it turned out to be as deadly
as the World Health Organization initially claimed. If covid had an
Infection Fatality Rate of 3% or more as global health officials warned,
then the damage would be substantial enough to change our world for
many years to come.
Anyone who was not at least partially
concerned about a biological disaster (or biological warfare) was
probably an idiot. Anyone who was smart was prepared. However, after a
few months of the spread of the virus and after the first flurry of
scientific data, several facts became evident:
2) The masks were useless and did nothing to prevent transmission of the virus.
3) The IFR of covid was a tiny 0.23%, and that’s not accounting for all the co-morbidity deaths that were falsely labeled as covid deaths.
4) The vaccines did not prevent transmission for millions of people. They did not prevent infection in many cases and numerous vaccinated people have died from the virus. Not only that, but unvaccinated people with natural immunity were better protected than those that took the vaccine and boosters.
5) Studies show that the vaccines cause dangerous side effects at a much greater rate than the CDC admitted.
Everything
government officials told us during the pandemic was a lie. It was not a
mistake, it was not bureaucratic confusion, it was a lie. Even after
this information became available, they KEPT GOING – They kept people
locked down, kept them masked and they even tried to force-vaccinate the
population. There were some Republican politicians that also went along
with the panic, many of them Neocons (fake conservatives). However,
the majority of red states quickly ended the restrictions once the
contradictory data was made public. In the meantime, the blue states
looked ridiculous and paranoid as they desperately clung to the
mandates.
I believe the only reason Biden, the Democrats and
globalist institutions eventually stopped was not because they realized
their science was incorrect; it was because they realized millions of
conservatives and independents were ready start a shooting war over the
mandates and they knew they would lose.
Even today, months after
Biden was forced to finally end the national emergency status on covid,
there are still a lot of people out there running around with masks,
still isolating in their homes and still complaining all over social
media that the public has moved on from the pandemic hysteria. Where
does this behavior originate? And why did so many Americans (mainly
leftists) jump on the authoritarian bandwagon when it comes to lockdowns
and forced vaccination?
I want to explore the psychology of such
people here, because I think it’s the natural inclination of the public
today to move on quickly from the discomfort of terrible events and
ignore the deeper implications. We cannot move on from this, because the
ultimate problem was never solved. These same leftists and globalists
were never admonished for their behavior, they never had to admit they
were wrong and they WILL attempt the same draconian measures again in
the future if left unchecked.
Here is what I think happened during the covid cult frenzy…
A Useful Weapon Against The Constitution
Leftists
are quick these days to change the subject or outright deny their
authoritarian activities during covid. It makes sense, they view the
next election as a defining election and they want people to forget that
we almost lost what remains of our constitutional rights because of
their policies. But again, we can’t allow these things to fade into the
ether. Here’s a list of the worst trespasses on the part of leftists and
globalists during the pandemic:
They lied about the effectiveness of the lockdowns.
They lied about the effectiveness of the masks.
They lied about the effectiveness of the vaccines.
They lied about how extensive the testing was for the covid vaccines.
They lied about the “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”
They enforced lockdowns OUTSIDE where it is nearly impossible to contract a virus.
They tried to put the population under house arrest.
They put legislation in motion in some states to build “covid camps” in the US.
In some countries, they did build covid camps, not just for travelers, but for everyone.
They conspired to suppress ample evidence linking the Wuhan Lab in China with the outbreak.
They (Government and Big Tech) conspired to use social media as a tool for mass censorship of conflicting data.
They exploited algorithms through search engines to bury any and all contrary information.
As
many leftists openly admitted, the goal was to make life so difficult
for the unvaccinated that they would eventually comply in order to
survive. In this way, establishment elites and leftists could claim that
people “volunteered” for the vaccines and no one was forced. What they
really meant was, no one was forced at gunpoint, but we all knew that
threat was coming next. In fact, polling showed that a large percentage of Democrats were willing to scrap the Bill of Rights altogether and declare war on the unvaccinated…
espionagehistoryarchive | A notable example of the breakaway civilization in film is the 1979 film adaptation of Ian Fleming’s Moonraker. Moonraker
the film differs significantly from the Fleming’s novel, but the
differences and parallels are important to highlight: the novel focuses
on a kind of Operation Paperclip scenario, wherein
Sir Hugo Drax is secretly building a V-2 rocket in tandem with the
Nazis to destroy England and rebuild the Reich. For many, the film
adaptation a few decades later represented an exceedingly outlandish
interpolation on a pulp spy novel that failed to achieve much more than
mimicking the box office success of science-fiction blockbusters it
attempted to copy, cinematic innovations like 2001 and Star Wars.
On the contrary, more is at work here than just inserting 007 into a
Star Wars laser-battle setting. The most obvious factor to recall is
that 1979 is roughly the birth of the Strategic Defense Initiative (born
at Bohemian Grove), where plans would be posited for a DARPA-style space-based weapons system in the vein of Skynet. Thus, concurrent with this deep- state project initiated under the auspices of the Cold War showdown with the Soviets, Tesla-esque satellite decapitation and directed-energy weapon scenarios would become the Skynet/Smartgrid Internet of Things as we see it today.
In tandem with the decades early planning, predictive programming in
Hollywood blockbusters would prepare generations for the implementation
of that grid – such as ARPANET (the Internet) – in the near future.
Thus, Moonraker the film represents the second phase of the
Operation Paperclip/NASA program that birthed the rocket and “UFO/foo
fighter” aerospace technology. Taking a step back, the 1954 Fleming
book Moonraker was the first stage of the same “space program” that Moonraker the film symbolically updated, and that
is the deeper reason for the science-fiction trajectory of the
narrative. Recall as well that by the late 1970’s, 007 was already
history’s largest film franchise, so we can expect it to have been
crucial in preparatory induction for the planned technocratic age.
And so with Moonraker, the most ridiculous and silly of
007 films, all the obligatory puns and innuendos so characteristic of
the Roger Moore era serve to mask a rather profound secret of the
overall deep-state agenda. In the plot we discover that Hugo Drax has
stolen a space shuttle through his German underlings to reverse-engineer
the technology for nefarious machinations. Meanwhile, 007 is on his
trail battling the laughable Jaws (Richard Kiel) in mid-air as Jaws
loses his parachute, plummeting into no less than a circus tent. At
first, one can brush this off as pure absurdity common to the Moore era,
but comparisons to Diamonds Are Forever began to emerge, as
the circus theme of Las Vegas functioned prominently there, as well.
Both films run roughly parallel, describing the same themes and events –
a private space program that operates under various fronts and shells, intent on cornering the market under a shadow-government technocracy (SPECTRE) intent on mass depopulation and the creation of a “new world” modelled after Noah’s Ark.
In both films our respective villains also work together with the
mafia and criminal underground to achieve their designs, with the
various crime groups subservient to the overriding, internationalist SPECTRE.
Even though Drax is not a member of SPECTRE like Blofeld, the
principles he enacts are all the same. Blofeld’s jewel heist and his
casino/aerospace takeover operation perfectly mirror Drax’s
technological theft and private aerospace company, with various shells
and fronts funding the true programs of both “fictional” oligarchs. In
fact, the Moonraker facility Drax runs resembles NASA and other deep state-facilities, yet it is not the real Drax aerospace facility.
espionagehistoryarchive | We’ve analyzed 007 in the past, as well as Howard Hughes in light of Scorcese’s The Aviator,
but could there be a connection between the two? What if Ian Fleming
was encoding an explosive, real-world conspiracy involving Howard
Hughes, JFK, Aristotle Onassis and a legendary kidnapping? Not only is
there evidence to suggest this, but the film version of his 1954 novel Diamonds Are Forever
subtly suggests much more. We know Fleming was a high-level Royal Navy
psychological warfare specialist and involved in numerous covert
operations, and as I’ve argued many times, Fleming’s novels and the film
versions, in their own respective ways, elucidate these clandestine
activities, touching on everything from black-market smuggling networks
to actual espionage and assassinations.
Fleming’s inspiration for the novel stemmed from meetings and
discussions with former MI5 chief Sir Percy Stillitoe, then working for
the DeBeers diamond empire. Combined with these tips, as well
as information he received from wealthy socialite William Woodward
and Los Angeles police intelligence on organized crime and smuggling
operations, Fleming composed the fourth Bond novel in 1954 as a literary
means of detailing the dark world of precious gem and jewel markets. To
add intrigue to this already intriguing tale, Fleming was also
approached by Aristotle Onassis for a film version of either Casino Royale or Dr. No, with Onassis desiring to be a part of the funding (Ian Fleming
by Andrew Lycett, pgs. 336-7). No stranger to Hollywood, Onassis was
also a friend of numerous tinsel-town heavyweights, including the Greek
film executive Spyros Skouras.
With these connections, my thesis here, in concert with the fascinating insight of Basil Valentine, is that Diamonds Are Forever the film provides a crucial insight into the coded reference of Willard Whyte as a stand in for Howard Hughes. As I argued in my Scorcese analysis, Hughes was intimately tied to the CIA through Robert Maheu,
an intelligence-establishment figure who emerged from the CIA-dominated
advertising world. It is possible Maheu was involved in the reported
kidnapping escapade of Hughes, which TheGemstone Files allege was orchestrated by Onassis, leading to Hughes being spirited away to the magnate’s lavish island, Skorpios.
In regard to Diamonds Are Forever the 1971 film, it is a
curious note that Whyte, the Hughes stand-in, is said to have been
kidnapped and/or never emerging from his penthouse for years. As it
turns out, it is the inimical Bond villain Blofeld, and particularly
Ernst Stavro Blofeld, that is behind the
diamond smuggling plot as a means of moving in on Whyte’s aerospace
operations. If Basil’s thesis is correct, then Stavro could be a
composite of Onassis and Niarchos, the brother-in-law of Onassis and a
rival shipping magnate. Stavros Niarchos is reported to have been
counted as a Bilderberg member, as well as being a close associate of the Rockefeller Foundation for certain. These considerations are admittedly speculative.
When we consider Hughes’ close connection to the CIA through operations like Project AZORIAN,
which sounds just like a SPECTRE-style operation from a 007 film, we
can certainly presume much more was being conveyed here. Even questions
relating to the moon mission arise, given the seemingly out-of-place
shot of Bond stumbling across a sound stage in Hughes’ facility, where
actors in astronaut suits are staging a phony lunar landing. Is Fleming
implying that the moon mission itself was a psychological operation?
Speculation is welcomed here, but the real message of Diamonds centers around exotic weaponry along directed energy lines. The same theme re-emerges in the 1974 film adaptation of Fleming’s The Man with the Golden Gun, where alchemy and techne
combine to reveal the Pentagon’s darkest future tech. Given that Jackie
married Aristotle Onassis just five years after JFK was gone, could
this signify a mafia-mandated marriage tradition? Perhaps Fleming knew the answer about this and the real SPECTRE.
theintercept | On Tuesday evening, Ross Coulthart, an Australian independent journalist who covers UFOs and has interviewed Grusch, posted a statement attributed to Grusch on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter.
“It has come to my attention that The Intercept intends to
publish an article about two incidents in 2014 and 2018 that highlights
previous personal struggles I had with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
(PTSD), Grief and Depression,” the statement reads. “As I stated under
oath in my congressional testimony, over 40 credentialed intelligence
and military personnel provided myself and my colleagues the information
I transmitted to the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG)
and I took the leadership role to represent the concerns of these
distinguished and patriotic individuals.”
Grusch’s wife, Jessica Grusch, did not respond to several requests for comment.
A former colleague of Grusch’s expressed shock that he retained his
clearance after the 2014 incident, which was also documented in public
records obtained by The Intercept.
“I think it’s like any insular group: Once you’re in, they generally
protect their own,” said the former colleague, who asked not to be named
because they feared professional reprisals.
The former colleague said that the 2014 incident was known to
Grusch’s superiors, a claim that Coulthart appeared to confirm in an
interview on NewsNation, a subscription television network owned by
Nexstar Media.
“The intelligence community and the Defense Department clearly
accepted there was no issue because he was allowed to keep his security
clearance,” Coulthart told Chris Cuomo Tuesday night.
Two Republican members of the House Oversight Committee, Reps. Anna
Paulina Luna and Tim Burchett, were tasked with organizing the July 26
hearing after Grusch’s whistleblower claims became public. Not all House
Republicans are supportive of the effort. Rep. Mike Turner, chair of
the House Intelligence Committee, has taken a dim view of Grusch’s
claims.
“Every decade there’s been individuals who’ve said the United States
has such pieces of unidentified flying objects that are from outer
space,” Turner said.
“There’s no evidence of this and certainly it would be quite a
conspiracy for this to be maintained, especially at this level.”
Grusch emerged as the hearing’s star witness, but his evidence was largely secondhand: When asked, Grusch said
he hasn’t seen any of the recovered alien vehicles or bodies himself.
While two former Navy fighter pilots alleged unidentified aerial
phenomena, neither said anything about their provenance. Grusch was alone among the witnesses in attributing them to extraterrestrials.
“My testimony is based on information I have been given by
individuals with a longstanding track record of legitimacy,” Grusch said
in his opening statement.
Shortly after The Intercept reached out to Grusch for comment for
this story, Coulthart went on Cuomo’s show and said that The Intercept
was planning to publish “confidential medical records” about Grusch that
had been leaked by the intelligence community. Coulthart, an ardent
defender of Grusch, told NewsNation that “Grusch believes the government
may now be behind an effort to release his medical records in an effort
to smear his credibility.”
“This is a document that would be, if the media had done the right
thing, it would be in his police department file, in the file in the
county sheriff’s office,” Coulthart said in his interview with Cuomo.
“But Dave has checked today, because he assumed that the journalist had
done his homework and just asked the local sheriff for the files. The
sheriff has confirmed it did not come from him. The only other place
that had this information is the intelligence community, Dave’s personal
files inside the intelligence community, where quite properly, when
anybody is security assist, things like this have to be looked at, and
somebody inside the intelligence community leaked it.”
Coulthart went on to compare the purported leak to Richard Nixon’s
attempts to discredit Daniel Ellsberg, who shared the Pentagon Papers
with the New York Times.
“I think there should be an inquiry into the circumstances of how
sensitive records pertaining to a decorated combat veteran’s file found
their way to a journalist not through the proper channels,” Coulthart
said. “This could’ve been requested under FOI, as is normal, but the
county sheriff has confirmed that did not happen.”
theintercept |While perception management
involves denying, or blocking, propaganda, it can also entail advancing
the U.S.’s own narrative. The Defense Department defines perception
management in its official dictionary
as “[a]ctions to convey and/or deny selected information and indicators
to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and
objective reasoning.” This is the part that has, historically, tended to
raise the public’s skepticism of the Pentagon’s work.
The term “perception management” hearkens back to
the Reagan administration’s attempts to shape the narrative around the
Contras in Nicaragua. The Reagan administration sought to kick what his
Vice President George H.W. Bush would later call the “Vietnam syndrome,”
which it believed was driving American public opposition to support for
the Contras. Ronald Reagan’s CIA director, William Casey, directed
the agency’s leading propaganda specialist to oversee an interagency
effort to portray the Contras — who had been implicated in grisly
atrocities — as noble freedom fighters.
“An elaborate system of inter-agency committees was eventually formed
and charged with the task of working closely with private groups and
individuals involved in fundraising, lobbying campaigns and
propagandistic activities aimed at influencing public opinion and
governmental action,” an unpublished draft chapter of Congress’s
investigation into Iran-Contra states. (Democrats dropped the chapter in
order to get several Republicans to sign the report.)
The Smith-Mundt Act, passed in 1948 in the wake of the Second World
War, prohibits the the State Department from disseminating “public
diplomacy” — i.e., propaganda — domestically, instead requiring that
those materials be targeted at foreign audiences. The Defense Department
considered itself bound by this requirement as well.
After the invasion of Iraq, the Pentagon triggered backlash after
U.S. propaganda was disseminated in the U.S. In 2004, the military signaled that it had begun its siege on Fallujah. Just hours later, CNN discovered that this was not true.
But in 2012, the law was amended to allow propaganda to be circulated
domestically, under the bipartisan Smith-Mundt Modernization Act,
introduced by Reps. Adam Smith, D-Wash., and Mac Thornberry, R-Texas,
which was later rolled into the National Defense Authorization Act.
“Proponents of amending these two sections argue that the ban on
domestic dissemination of public diplomacy information is impractical
given the global reach of modern communications, especially the
Internet, and that it unnecessarily prevents valid U.S. government
communications with foreign publics due to U.S. officials’ fear of
violating the ban,” a congressional research service report said
at the time of the proposed amendments. “Critics of lifting the ban
state that it may open the door to more aggressive U.S. government
activities to persuade U.S. citizens to support government policies, and
might also divert the focus of State Department and the BBG
[Broadcasting Board of Governors] communications from foreign publics,
reducing their effectiveness.”
The Obama administration subsequently approved a highly classified
covert action finding designed to counter foreign malign influence
activities, a finding renewed and updated by the Biden administration,
as The Intercept has reported.
The IPMO memo produced for the academic institution hints at its role
in such propagandistic efforts now. “Among other things, the IPMO is
tasked with the development of broad thematic messaging guidance and
specific strategies for the execution of DoD activities designed to
influence foreign defense-related decision-makers to behave in a manner
beneficial to U.S. interests,” the memo states.
As the global war on terror
draws to a close, the Pentagon has turned its attention to so-called
great power adversaries like Russia and China. Following Russia’s
meddling in the 2016 election, which in part involved state-backed
efforts to disseminate falsehoods on social media, offices tasked with
combating disinformation started springing up all over the U.S.
government, as The Intercept has reported.
The director of national intelligence last year established a new
center to oversee all the various efforts, including the Department of
Homeland Security’s Countering Foreign Influence Task Force and the
FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force.
The Pentagon’s IPMO differs from the others in one key respect:
secrecy. Whereas most of the Department of Homeland Security’s
counter-disinformation efforts are unclassified in nature — as one
former DHS contractor not authorized to speak publicly explained to The
Intercept — the IPMO involves a great deal of highly classified work.
That the office’s work goes beyond simple messaging into the rarefied
world of intelligence is clear from its location within the Pentagon
hierarchy. “The Influence and Perception Management Office will serve as
the senior advisor to the USD(I&S) [Undersecretary of Defense for
Intelligence and Security] for strategic operational influence and
perception management (reveal and conceal) matters,” the budget notes.
When asked about the intelligence community’s counter-disinformation
efforts, Lt. Gen. Scott Berrier, director of the Defense Intelligence
Agency, told Congress this month, “I think DIA’s perspective on this,
senator, is really speed: We want to be able to detect that and it’s
really with our open-source collection capability working with our
combatant command partners where this is happening all over the world —
and then the ability to turn something quickly with them, under the
right authorities, to counter that disinformation, misinformation.”
defensescoop | AARO Director Sean Kirkpatrick issued a fiery statement spotlighting
“his own personal observations and opinions” — but “not necessarily
official DOD and IG positions” — on social media Thursday. The Pentagon
authenticated his post Friday.
In it, Kirkpatrick wrote
that he “cannot let yesterday’s hearing pass without sharing how
insulting it was to the officers of” the Defense Department and the
intelligence community who have been “working diligently, tirelessly,
and often in the face of harassment and animosity, to fulfill their
Congressionally-mandated mission.”
Allegations of “retaliation, to include physical assault and hints of
murder, are extraordinarily serious, which is why law enforcement is a
critical member of the AARO team, specifically to address and take swift
action should anyone come forward with such claims. Yet, contrary to
assertions made in the hearing, the central source of those allegations
has refused to speak with AARO,” Kirkpatrick wrote — pointing at Grusch
without directly stating his name.
He also said AARO has yet to see credible proof regarding allegations
of any reverse-engineering programs for non-human technology, and that
some information reportedly obtained by Congress has not been shared
with his office.
Pentagon spokesperson Sue Gough declined to weigh in on Kirkpatrick’s
statement in an email to DefenseScoop late Friday evening.
“The department is aware of Dr. Kirkpatrick’s post, which are his
personal opinions expressed in his capacity as a private citizen and we
won’t comment directly on the contents of the post. We do want to
reinforce the department’s unwavering commitment to openness and
accountability to the American people and Congress,” she wrote.
Still, Gough’s official Pentagon responses also echoed some of the notions articulated by the AARO director.
“The department has no information that any individual has been
harmed or killed as a result of providing information to AARO. Any
unsubstantiated claims that individuals have been harmed or killed in
the process of providing information to AARO will serve to discourage
individuals with relevant information from coming forward to aid in
AARO’s efforts,” she wrote.
“To date, AARO has not discovered any verifiable information to
substantiate claims that any programs regarding the possession or
reverse-engineering of extraterrestrial materials have existed in the
past or exist currently,” she reiterated.
Gough did not respond to follow-up questions from DefenseScoop Monday
regarding new or existing channels for service members to flag UAP
incidents, and whether or not there’s been an uptick in new reports to
AARO — or intensified harassment — since the hearing.
According to Graves, the former F-18 pilot who testified last week,
DOD’s responses reflect “a perfect example of why witnesses are
reluctant to come forward.”
“The Pentagon Press Office statement following the hearing was
misleading. The disconnect between pilot witness testimony under oath at
the Congressional hearing and the Pentagon Press Office’s dismissal is a
perfect example of why witnesses are reluctant to come forward. It
makes zero sense that our military would undermine its own servicemen
and women when they are reporting serious flight risks,” he told
DefenseScoop on Monday.
Based on his own experiences with military-connected UAP, Graves
formed and now runs the witness program Americans for Safe Aerospace to
provide an entity for the public to safely and securely report
observations or encounters. He testified at the hearing that his team
estimates roughly only 5% of UAP sightings are currently reported to
AARO.
“I hope Congress will hold DOD accountable and push for more support
for witnesses and whistleblowers. For example, the [Pentagon] Press
Office says AARO welcomes witness accounts — but AARO has not even
implemented a public reporting mechanism as required by last year’s
[National Defense Authorization Act]. How are witnesses even supposed to
get in contact?” Graves told DefenseScoop.
washingtontimes |EXIT INTERVIEW: Army Gen. Mark A. Milley
has had a momentous — and at times polarizing — four-year run as
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Presidents Trump and Biden.
In the first of a series of articles ahead of the scheduled end of his
tenure in October, Gen. Milley
sat down with senior Washington Times military correspondent Ben
Wolfgang to discuss some of the achievements and controversies of his
time as the Pentagon’s highest-ranking military officer.
Some UFO sightings by military personnel are “difficult to explain,” said Gen. Mark A. Milley,
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but the nation’s top general
insists he has seen no evidence to back up public allegations that the Pentagon has recovered extraterrestrial beings or has engaged in decades of cover-ups to hide the truth from the American public.
In an exclusive interview with The Washington Times, Gen. Milley
acknowledged that some reports of what the government now calls
unidentified aerial phenomena, or UAP, lack easy explanations despite
serious, ongoing research inside the Pentagon
and a growing belief that at least some of the craft could pose
national security threats. He made the comments less than two weeks
after former U.S. intelligence officer David Grusch told Congress under oath that he is aware of “a multidecade UAP crash retrieval and reverse-engineering program” and even suggested that the Pentagon has been secretly keeping extraterrestrial bodies in storage.
Gen. Milley
didn’t address the credibility of Mr. Grusch’s testimony but made clear
he has seen no evidence backing up the extraordinary claims.
“The guy was under oath. I’m sure that he was
trying to say whatever he thought was true. … I’m not going to doubt his
testimony or anything like that,” Gen. Milley told The Times during a wide-ranging interview in his Pentagon office on Friday. “I can tell you, though, that as the chairman, I have been briefed on several different occasions by the [Pentagon’s]
UAP office. And I have not seen anything that indicates to me about
quote-unquote ‘aliens’ or that there’s some sort of cover-up program. I
just haven’t seen it.”
sputnik | Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov earlier said that Kiev’s counteroffensive, which was launched on June 4, has been unsuccessful on all fronts as Russia continues its special military operation in Ukraine.
The next few weeks will see the Ukrainian counteroffensive “run its course”, former International Monetary Fund (IMF) economist and Bank of America strategist David Woo has told Russian media.
Woo said that he was “really impressed” with the fact that "Russian military technology has literally been going through a revolution every three months" and "the Russians are constantly learning from their mistakes."
“The Russians are now fighting with weapons they didn’t have 18 months ago because they didn’t exist 18 months ago. And that to me is the most impressive thing, […] whereas the West is still walking around in the same circle, Russia’s getting better and better, and this war is gonna [sic] be won by technology in the end,” the former IMF economist argued.
Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov earlier said that Kiev’s counteroffensive, which was launched on June 4, has been unsuccessful on all fronts as Russia continues its special military operation in Ukraine. The next few weeks will see the Ukrainian counteroffensive “run its course”, former International Monetary Fund (IMF) economist and Bank of America strategist David Woo has told Russian media.
Woo said that he was “really impressed” with the fact that "Russian military technology has literally been going through a revolution every three months" and "the Russians are constantly learning from their mistakes." “The Russians are now fighting with weapons they didn’t have 18 months ago because they didn’t exist 18 months ago. And that to me is the most impressive thing, […] whereas the West is still walking around in the same circle, Russia’s getting better and better, and this war is gonna [sic] be won by technology in the end,” the former IMF economist argued.
He was echoed by the Russian Defense Ministry, which, in turn, said that Ukrainian troops kept trying, but were failing to advance as they continue to suffer heavy losses in men and materiel. A number of Western media outlets also pointed to the unimpressive results of Kiev's counteroffensive, admitting that its progress was "slower than desired." Fist tap Dale
tomdispatch | In his message to the troops prior to the July 4th weekend, Secretary
of Defense Lloyd Austin offered high praise indeed. “We have the
greatest fighting force in human history,” he tweeted, connecting that
claim to the U.S. having patriots of all colors, creeds, and backgrounds
“who bravely volunteer to defend our country and our values.”
As a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel from a working-class
background who volunteered to serve more than four decades ago, who am I
to argue with Austin? Shouldn’t I just bask in the glow of his praise
for today’s troops, reflecting on my own honorable service near the end
of what now must be thought of as the First Cold War?
Yet I confess to having doubts. I’ve heard it all before.
The hype. The hyperbole. I still remember how, soon after the 9/11
attacks, President George W. Bush boasted that this country had “the greatest force
for human liberation the world has ever known.” I also remember how, in
a pep talk given to U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2010, President
Barack Obama declared them “the finest fighting force that the world has ever known.” And yet, 15 years ago at TomDispatch, I was already wondering
when Americans had first become so proud of, and insistent upon,
declaring our military the world’s absolute best, a force beyond
compare, and what that meant for a republic that once had viewed large
standing armies and constant warfare as anathemas to freedom.
In retrospect, the answer is all too straightforward: we need something to boast about, don’t we? In the once-upon-a-time “exceptional nation,” what else is there to praise to the skies or consider our pride and joy these days except our heroes?
After all, this country can no longer boast of having anything like the
world’s best educational outcomes, or healthcare system, or the most
advanced and safest infrastructure, or the best democratic politics, so
we better damn well be able to boast about having “the greatest fighting
force” ever.
Leaving that boast aside, Americans could certainly brag about one thing this country has beyond compare: the most expensive
military around and possibly ever. No country even comes close to our
commitment of funds to wars, weapons (including nuclear ones at the
Department of Energy), and global dominance. Indeed, the Pentagon’s
budget for “defense” in 2023 exceeds that of the next 10 countries (mostly allies!) combined.
And from all of this, it seems to me, two questions arise: Are we
truly getting what we pay so dearly for — the bestest, finest, most
exceptional military ever? And even if we are, should a self-proclaimed
democracy really want such a thing?
The answer to both those questions is, of course, no. After all,
America hasn’t won a war in a convincing fashion since 1945. If this
country keeps losing wars routinely and often enough catastrophically,
as it has in places like Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, how can we
honestly say that we possess the world’s greatest fighting force? And if
we nevertheless persist in such a boast, doesn’t that echo the rhetoric
of militaristic empires of the past? (Remember when we used to think
that only unhinged dictators like Adolf Hitler boasted of having
peerless warriors in a megalomaniacal pursuit of global domination?)
Actually, I do believe the United States has the most exceptional
military, just not in the way its boosters and cheerleaders like Austin,
Bush, and Obama claimed. How is the U.S. military truly “exceptional”?
Let me count the ways.
The Pentagon as a Budgetary Black Hole
In so many ways, the U.S. military is indeed exceptional. Let’s begin
with its budget. At this very moment, Congress is debating a colossal
“defense” budget of $886 billion for FY2024 (and all the debate is about issues
that have little to do with the military). That defense spending bill,
you may recall, was “only” $740 billion when President Joe Biden took
office three years ago. In 2021, Biden withdrew U.S. forces from the
disastrous war in Afghanistan, theoretically saving the taxpayer nearly
$50 billion a year. Yet, in place of any sort of peace dividend,
American taxpayers simply got an even higher bill as the Pentagon budget
continued to soar.
Recall that, in his four years in office, Donald Trump increased
military spending by 20%. Biden is now poised to achieve a similar 20%
increase in just three years
in office. And that increase largely doesn’t even include the cost of
supporting Ukraine in its war with Russia — so far, somewhere between $120 billion and $200 billion and still rising.
Forbes | In two prior columns, which can be accessed here and here,
Mark Skidmore and I wrote about $21 trillion in federal government
transactions in the Departments of Defense (DOD) and Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) that our government indicated were undocumented and
unexplained. As the concerns and questions we raised gained traction,
investigative reporter Dave Lindorff dug into the issue, recently
publishing the article “Exclusive: The Pentagon’s Massive Accounting Fraud Exposed”
in The Nation. Based on a series of interviews with current and former
government officials, Lindorff concluded that Pentagon accounting is
“phony”, composed of made up numbers designed to obfuscate and thus
propelling “US military spending higher year after year”.
The issue received additional attention in the media when incoming
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez referred to the $21 trillion in a
Tweet:
$21 TRILLION of Pentagon financial transactions “could not be
traced, documented, or explained.” $21T in Pentagon accounting errors.
Medicare for All costs ~$32T. That means %66% of Medicare for All could
have been funded already by the Pentagon. And that’s before premiums.
This comment captured the attention of numerous media outlets
including the New York Times and the Washington Post where the focus was
on fact checking (see here and here,
for example). The near universal assessment was that the comment by
Ocasio-Cortez was misleading—the $21 trillion in undocumentable
transactions do not reflect actual unauthorized spending. However, there
is a very important point that is missed by nearly everyone.
Despite our efforts as well as those of Dave Lindorff, our government
has not shared any underlying data or information regarding the nature
of the undocumentable transactions. For example, both Mark Skidmore and
Dave Lindorff have repeatedly asked the Office of the Inspector General
(OIG) to provide an addendum to a report
published by the OIG in 2016, which indicated that the Army had $6.5
trillion in undocumentable transactions. Typically, undocumentable
transactions are a just small fraction of authorized spending. How could
a $122 billion Army financial statement generate undocumentable
adjustments that were 54 times authorized spending?
More specifically, both Skidmore and Lindorff requested that the OIG
provide more detailed information about the nature of 170 transactions
that generated $2.1 trillion in undocumentable transactions (see page 6
of the OIG report).
Why would the Army make up such huge phony numbers, as Lindorff and his
sources assert? And yet is difficult to imagine that such huge sums
could flow in and/or out of the Army financial statement in a way that
was unauthorized. It is impossible to verify without greater
transparency.
We have consistently argued that in order to determine what these
transactions were presumably for, one would need access to the
underlying data. And yet the OIG has refused to provide any additional
information, even with a FOIA request. Without any supporting
documentation, we are all left with having to decide whether or not we
“trust” that government authorities are sharing accurate information. At
some level, we all must operate with some degree of underlying faith,
but in this context there is reason to doubt. As we demonstrated in our
last article,
Comptroller of the DOD, David Norquist, clearly withheld critical
information from Congressman Walter Jones, thus making his testimony
deceptive. Greater transparency is needed to re-establish public trust.
Instead, we are blocked from accessing any further information. Indeed,
the most recent OIG report was fully redacted!
Last year the Pentagon conducted its first ever independent audit,
which it failed. During the audit process Pentagon officials became
concerned that the audit would reveal potentially sensitive information.
Several months after beginning the audit, the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) posted a new document,
which recommended that the government be allowed to misstate and move
funds in order to hide expenditures if it is deemed necessary for
national security purposes.
See page 3 of the document for a summary:
This Statement permits modifications that do not affect net results
of operations or net position. In addition, this Statement allows a
component reporting entity to be excluded from one reporting entity and
consolidated into another reporting entity, and the effect of the
modification may change the net results of operations and/or net
position.
worldpoliticsreview | A potentially world-changing revelation was made last week. I am not referring to the reported breakthrough in fabricating room-temperature superconductors,
though that claim would be Nobel Prize-worthy if it overcomes the
widespread skepticism with which it was greeted. Instead, I’m talking
about the congressional hearings last Wednesday that suggested the U.S.
government possesses what used to be commonly referred to as
unidentified flying objects, or UFOs, but are now officially known as Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena, or UAPs.
Former U.S. intelligence official David Grusch as well as naval pilots Ryan Graves and David Fravor all testified to that effect before a House Oversight subcommittee last Wednesday. Their testimony came on the heels of Grusch’s claim
last month that multiple government agencies are operating programs
aimed at recovering and analyzing UAPs, without any congressional
oversight. But last week on Capitol Hill, Grusch went even further,
maintaining that some of the UAPs the government has recovered contained
“non-human” biological material.
The three men’s testimony is the latest twist in a story that has
long trailed the Pentagon as a conspiracy theory, but took on a more
serious veneer with the release by the U.S. government in 2019, 2020 and 2021 of footage and documentation of UAPs that it had gathered over recent years. Those releases followed the revelation
in 2017 that the Pentagon had been operating the Advanced Aerospace
Threat Identification Program—a pet project of former Sen. Harry
Reid—since 2007, to investigate claims of UAPs. But while there have been other recent congressional hearings on UAPs, they did not include forceful claims of recovered crafts of extraterrestrial origin.
As with the claims about the breakthrough on superconductors,
skepticism seems warranted. The objects in question might be truly
“unidentified,” and therefore worth investigating. But Grusch’s claims
that they are of extraterrestrial origin or contained the remains of
extraterrestrial life forms is for now dubious. As Jordan Bimm, a
postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Chicago’s Institute on
the Formation of Knowledge, remarked,
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” And for now,
extraordinary evidence—or any evidence, for that matter—is not
forthcoming.
Perhaps the best argument against the UAPs being or containing ETs is what one might call “the Trump Test”:
Since former President Donald Trump would have in all likelihood asked
about it during his time in office, surely he would have revealed that
the U.S. had proof of their existence if he had been told so, given his
penchant for mishandling secrets and his disdain for “deep state”
bureaucrats. Since he didn’t, the logic goes, the U.S. must not have
such proof. While it’s possible that Trump was not told the truth for
this very reason, the possibility of a large bureaucracy keeping such a secret hidden for so long is yet another reason for skepticism.
But for the sake of argument, let us suspend disbelief. What if it is
eventually confirmed that intelligent, extraterrestrial life forms have
visited Earth and continue to do so? Such a revelation would be
important and jarring in many ways, but the impact on international
politics could end up being the most profound. Three key implications
are particularly worth noting.
First, this would be a “reality-compromising event”
that could dramatically alter how citizens view and interact with their
own governments. As the political scientists Alexander Wendt and
Raymond Duvall argued,
confirmation of extraterrestrial UAPs regularly visiting earth could
raise doubts about the competency of national governments to protect
their citizens, and even the need for governments to do so. Stated
simply, if the aliens are seen as clearly superior to humans, their
sovereignty might be preferred to our own governments.
It is commonly assumed that a hostile alien invasion
will cause humankind to set aside its many divisions and make common
cause to fight it off. But that is far from certain.
This feeds what Wendt calls the “UFO taboo,”
whereby the U.S. government essentially ignores UFOs or, more
accurately, refuses to seriously entertain the possibility of alien
UFOs, at least publicly. For example, while the government does
acknowledge the existence of UAPs, it is quick to deny claims, such as those made by Grusch under oath, that they are extraterrestrial.
Second and related, confirmation of intelligent, extraterrestrial
life could alter how nation-states interact with one another. The
possibility of aliens arriving on Earth is often seen as threatening.
Indeed, the above-mentioned Pentagon program was started because UAPs
were seen as a security risk. And as Rep. Andy Ogles remarked
during last week’s hearing, “There clearly is a threat to the national
security of the United States of America. As members of Congress, we
have a responsibility to maintain oversight and be aware of these
activities so that if appropriate we take action.”
It is commonly assumed that whatever action we take to respond to
such a threat will be a cooperative global endeavor. After all, one of
the most common tropes in science fiction plots is that a hostile alien
invasion will cause humankind to set aside its many divisions and make common cause to fight it off. But that is far from certain. As the failure to coordinate global responses to the climate crisis and COVID-19 pandemic
have shown, cooperation is far from a universal response to a global
crisis. Some nations might work together to counter the alien threat.
But some could seek to protect themselves by going it alone, while
others might even align with the aliens if the latter adopt a
divide-and-conquer strategy.
Even if extraterrestrials are not directly or immediately
threatening, the revelation of their existence could still pull nations
apart, rather than bring humanity together. It is possible that the
desire to communicate with an alien civilization could spur the same cooperative spirit on display
in the International Space Station, but on a grander scale. But it is
also possible, and perhaps even likely, that governments will see it as
another arena for competition and invoke nationalism to spur efforts to
be the first to make contact, much like the space race during the 1950s
and 1960s.
Third, the arrival of intelligent extraterrestrial life would point
to one hopeful outcome for the future of humans: We may not completely
destroy ourselves.
To understand why this is the case, consider Fermi’s Paradox,
named after the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Enrico Fermi. The idea is
captured in the simple question Fermi apparently voiced at lunch one
day with his colleagues at Los Alamos: “Where are they?” But the
simplicity of Fermi’s question masks a profound idea. Given the vastness of space, there must be extraterrestrials somewhere. And since some of these extraterrestrials would, like humans, want to explore space, they should have found us by now. Why haven’t they? Numerous answers have been offered, but a common one portends an ominous future for humanity: extinction.
Specifically, if alien civilizations much older and more advanced
than humans on Earth have not yet found us, then they must have
destroyed themselves before they could master interstellar space travel.
If so, what happened to those aliens could happen to humans. As
University of Manchester physicist Brian Cox opined this past week, “Maybe just ‘getting along’ as a global civilization is harder than science.”
But if, to the contrary, aliens have already visited us, then there’s
still hope for us. Fermi’s paradox would be solved, but in a way that
suggests humanity is not destined for self-destruction.
At the end of the day, all of these speculations are the result of a
thought experiment. We still lack credible evidence that the UAPs
discussed on Capitol Hill last week are from another world. This is not
to say that investigations of UAPs should be discontinued. Even if not
alien in origin, they are still in need of explanation. But that should
not distract humanity from focusing on the many problems we already face
here on Earth, of clearer origin and nature.
caitlinjohnstone | Iraq war cheerleader David Brooks has an article in The New York Times titled “What if We’re the Bad Guys Here?“,
another one of those tired old think pieces we’ve been seeing for the
last eight years that asks “golly gosh could we coastal elites have
played some role in the rise of Trumpism?” like it’s the first time
anyone has ever considered that obvious point (the answer is yes, duh,
you soft-handed silver spoon-fed ivory tower bubble boy).
One worthwhile paragraph about the media stands out though:
“Over the last decades we’ve taken over whole professions and locked
everybody else out. When I began my journalism career in Chicago in the
1980s, there were still some old crusty working-class guys around the
newsroom. Now we’re not only a college-dominated profession, we’re an
elite-college-dominated profession. Only 0.8 percent of all college
students graduate from the super elite 12 schools (the Ivy League
colleges, plus Stanford, M.I.T., Duke and the University of Chicago). A
2018 study found
that more than 50 percent of the staff writers at the beloved New York
Times and The Wall Street Journal attended one of the 29 most elite
universities in the nation.”
Brooks is not the first to make this observation about the drastic
shift in the socioeconomic makeup of news reporters that has taken place
from previous generations to now.
“The class factor in journalism gets overlooked,” journalist Glenn Greenwald said
on the Jimmy Dore Show in 2021. “Thirty or forty years ago, fifty years
ago, journalists really were outsiders. That’s why they all had unions;
they made shit money, they came from like working class families. They
hated the elite. They hated bankers and politicians. It was kind of like
a boss-employee relationship — they hated them and wanted to throw
rocks at them and take them down pegs.”
“If I were to list the twenty richest people I’ve ever met in my
entire life, I think like seven or eight of them are people I met
because they work at The Intercept — people from like the richest
fucking families on the planet,” Greenwald added.
Journalist Matt Taibbi, whose father worked for NBC, made similar observations on the Dark Horse podcast back in 2020.
“Reporters when I was growing up, they came from a different class of
people than they do today,” Taibbi said. “A lot of them were kind of
more working class — their parents were more likely to be plumbers or
electricians than they were to be doctors or lawyers. Like this thing
where the journalist is an Ivy League grad, that’s a relatively new
thing that I think came about in the seventies and eighties with my
generation. But reporters just instinctively hated rich people, they
hated powerful people. Like if you put up a poster of a politician in a
newsroom it was defaced instantaneously, like there were darts on it.
Reporters saw it as their job to stick it to the man.”
“Mostly the job is different now,” Taibbi said. “The fantasy among
reporters in the nineties about politicians started to be, I want to be
the person that hangs out with the candidate after the speech and has a
beer and is sort of close to power. And that’s kind of the model, that’s
where we’re at right now. That’s kind of the problem is that basically
people in the business want to be behind the rope line with people of
influence. And it’s going to be a problem to get us back to that other
adversarial posture of the past.”
gaiusbaltar | The main thing to understand is that western societies and economies
have been put on an ideological footing. Productivity, competitiveness,
technology and science are simply not priorities anymore in the West.
Explaining the consequences of this process for the West would take many
articles, or a book of several hundred pages. Still, let’s mention a
few examples.
The inverse competence crisis
– The goal of this entire project has been to place the ideologically
pure in all positions of power at all levels of society. These positions
are, in a normal and competitive society, occupied by the highly
competent 1.5/8 group. The process has now reached near-completion with
most positions of power occupied by the ideologically pure. Some of
those people have high IQs but they are neither objective nor
independent thinkers. The Ideology they must subscribe to is simply
incompatible with those qualities. This has some serious consequences.
Remember
that positions of power and influence are more likely to demand general
competence than other positions (as opposed to specific competence).
The greater the power, the more the position demands general competence.
The people in these positions now are selected by ideological fervor
and reliability – so the higher you go, the more ideologically
enthusiastic the people who hold them. This means that the least
objective and independent thinking people hold the positions which
require the greatest objectivity and independent thinking. Therefore, in the West incompetence becomes greater and more common the higher you go.
As someone said - “a general is an incompetent colonel.” This can be
seen absolutely everywhere except in some holdout private companies.
Those exceptions are of course being addressed as we speak.
The
second problem is that many of the irrational/subjective people holding
all the power have reasonably high IQs. That may seem to be a positive
thing but it has a major disadvantage. Moderate to high IQ irrational/subjective people are the easiest to brainwash of all people. The
reasons for that are complicated and need to be addressed in another
article – but what this means is that the top tier in the West is not
only the most incompetent it can possibly be in comparison to what their
jobs require – but are also the most malleable and delusional.
The cost and debt crisis
– The migration of the ideologically pure into the ideological power
base and positions of influence has created millions of jobs in western
societies which create no value. These jobs are much more numerous and
more widespread than most people realize, and I wouldn’t be surprised if
something like 20%-30% of the entire labor force of the West could be
fired without any adverse effect. In fact, the effect would be positive,
especially if those people could be made to work the (mostly menial)
real-economy jobs they are suitable for.
Deindustrialization
has been blamed for the extreme debt levels and tax burdens of the
West. That is, as far as it goes, true – but maintaining this giant
group of incompetents in their fake jobs is also placing an extreme
burden on the West. Western societies are now completely unsustainable
and cannot be run without constant debt increase.
The competition crisis
– This crisis can be explained by the following example: Let’s say
there are three companies with combined 100% market share in some
sector. There is no real competition between them and everybody can just
relax because the customers can’t go anywhere else. These companies can
get away with absolute incompetence on most levels, including in
management. They don’t need to think about efficiency, safety,
productivity or costs, except on their websites and in annual reports.
However, if a competitor with competent employees manages to infiltrate
the sector, those three companies will hit a wall. There will be an
enormous crisis and one or more of them will most likely go under.
This
is exactly the situation in the western economies now. Monopoly and
oligopoly is the rule and the main objective of most large western
companies is to prevent anyone from infiltrating their sector – usually
by bribing regulators or by buying the competition. This is a necessity
because a huge number of western companies are now run by incompetent
management and staffed by incompetent people, particularly in support
and management functions. The immortal words of the nameless Boeing
employee about the 737 MAX apply to most large western companies; “this
airplane is designed by clowns who in turn are supervised by monkeys.”
Western companies are no longer competitive. They cannot compete with
Chinese companies now and soon they won’t be able to compete with
companies in general outside the West. They simply can’t function except
inside an economic safe-space. In fact, the situation is such that the
Chinese already do the real work for many of them and reshoring the work
is problematic because of (surprise!) the human capital degradation in
the West caused by the repurposing of its education system.
This
also applies to western societies as a whole. The entire leadership and
diplomatic classes of the West are no longer competitive against the
rest of the world for exactly these reasons. They are being
outmaneuvered by the Chinese, the Russians, the Indians, and everybody
else at every turn. Even African leaders are now more competent than
western leaders. They have consistently made decisions that are better
for their people than leaders in the West - for the last few years
anyway.
The complexity crisis – Earlier in
this article I stated that the 1.5/8 group is extremely valuable for
modern societies and without it complicated modern societies cannot be
managed. In the West this group has been successfully sidelined to a
great degree and a good part of it doesn’t even bother with university
education anymore. The situation, however, is even worse than that. The
reconfiguration of the education system and the break between competence
and reward in the job market has fundamentally changed the decision
making process behind the selection of university education. Why study
engineering (which is hard) when you can get an even better paying job
with a degree in psychology (which is easy nowadays)? The
reconfiguration of the western education system has changed the reward
structure, encouraging young people to pursue easy and useless education
– simply because the “system” will provide them with jobs.
This
has already caused a major crisis in western societies, particularly in
the US. The “maintenance” of complex aspects of US society needs a
large group of engineers and people with related education. This
maintenance is faltering now, and significantly relies on foreign
engineers educated in US universities. You see, why would Americans
study engineering in a system which doesn’t reward it? If China and
India could somehow recall their engineers and others with hard
education from the US, the US system could probably not be maintained,
let alone advanced. This will get progressively worse and we will soon
reach a point where complex systems which underpin society cannot be
kept running. That will require some kind of “reset” to a less complex
society, with less prosperity of course.
There are far more crises than those four, but I wouldn’t want to sound like a doomsayer by listing more.
A Foundation of Joy
-
Two years and I've lost count of how many times my eye has been operated
on, either beating the fuck out of the tumor, or reattaching that slippery
eel ...
April Three
-
4/3
43
When 1 = A and 26 = Z
March = 43
What day?
4 to the power of 3 is 64
64th day is March 5
My birthday
March also has 5 letters.
4 x 3 = 12
...
Return of the Magi
-
Lately, the Holy Spirit is in the air. Emotional energy is swirling out of
the earth.I can feel it bubbling up, effervescing and evaporating around
us, s...
New Travels
-
Haven’t published on the Blog in quite a while. I at least part have been
immersed in the area of writing books. My focus is on Science Fiction an
Historic...
Covid-19 Preys Upon The Elderly And The Obese
-
sciencemag | This spring, after days of flulike symptoms and fever, a man
arrived at the emergency room at the University of Vermont Medical Center.
He ...
