Archives for category: Warfare & Strategy & Tactics

Terrorism may be switching gears.

In The Secret Agent: A Simple Tale (1907) by Joseph Conrad, a terrorist saboteur named Adolf Verloc seeks to wreak havoc on England’s industrial base. Looming in the background? A historical target: the Royal Observatory in Greenwich. 

In Britain, Europe and America of that period, terrorism was on the rise. Anarchists and socialists were at the forefront of the activity.

In our time, on the other hand, terrorism has centered on Islamism and . . . school shootings. 

Just how organized has this terrorism been? A matter of debate.

Now, the older form may be coming back in style: infrastructure terrorism — attacks upon our civilization’s most basic technologies. Monkey-wrenching, as Edward Abbey called it in 1975’s The Monkey Wrench Gang, a novel about environmentalist terrorists.

But what’s going on now isn’t all that novel. 

In February, three Midwest men pled guilty to planning attacks on civilian infrastructure, including power stations. Reason? White supremacy, the government tells us. In November, two power stations received gunfire, and there were six separate attacks on power stations in the Pacific Northwest. In early December, two powers stations in North Carolina were shot at, causing power outages, and a few days later someone shot a power station in South Carolina.

But federal intel agencies had been warning about this sort of thing at the beginning of the year — “DHS Warns That Right-Wing Extremists Could Attack Power Grid” was one headling — and I can imagine many people wondering if the Ohio prosecution may not be the result of another FBI set-up job.

We can think of all sorts of reasons for the return to attacking things, not people. The main point of terrorism is terror, of course, but is it a generalized terror or terror with a point? Or is some foreign power trying to send a message to our government, that the U.S. is easy to wound?

That was my first thought.

But the general worrry about civilizational collapse could be inspiring such attacks, causing them as a sort of “memetic contagion.”

Could infrastructure attacks be “the new school shootings”? For a different set of whackos?

Or is the government up to something, something so heinous that we are unlikely to believe it . . . thus making us sitting ducks for precisely that kind of ploy?

More questions than answers. So far. As futurist Bryan Alexander put it in his treatment of the topic, “this is an emerging story without a lot of documentation. It’s also potentially frightening.”

Yes. It is. 

Should we hope for a memetic contagion explanation, and the idea that this is “merely” the next form of expression of rage, frustration, and anomie that has led to several decades of spree shootings in America and elsewhere?

I am afraid I don’t really “do” hope. I find hope in this context kind of pathetic and funny. We will see how the story evolves.

twv

When the New Atheist Movement became all the rage, after the events of 9/11/01, I was so jaded about the subject that I paid it scant attention. I was more than familiar with Richard Dawkins’s work, true enough, especially The Selfish Gene, and was mildly interested in his new stance against not only Christianity but Islam. Few dared say negative things about Islam, so I considered him something of a hero. But not an awe-inspiring one.

The second major figure in the New Atheist Movement was Christopher Hitchens, my favorite socialist. Or quasi-ex-socialist. He was glib, a first-rate writer, fast on his feet — or tongue — and did a good job in debates. But his book God Is Not Great sported what I thought of as such a horrible thesis — spelled out in one of its subtitles, How Religion Poisons Everything — that I had to distance myself a bit, no matter how atheistic I may be. Indeed am. Further, his reaction against “Islamofascism,” as he called it, led him to support the West’s jihad against Muslim countries, thereby stirring the nest and exacerbating the situation, or, as F. Marion Crawford put it long ago, “sew dragon’s teeth.” As I argued at the time, exactly the wrong policy: if Islam is so dangerous, best not to poke it over and over again.

The third figure in this movement is perhaps the most important, philosopher Daniel Dennett. But, as near as I could make out, Dennett suffered from being wrong on the issues in which he carved out somewhat unique positions. I was more a John Searle man.

The fourth “horseman” of this atheistic quartet, said to be so revelatory as to be “apocalyptic,” was Sam Harris. And he was my least favorite. He spoke well. He seemed thoughtful. He was obviously smart enough. But his most interesting positions were, like Dennett’s, ones in which he was clearly wrong. And, like Hitchens, his political stances seemed, uh, worse than reactionary: exacerbatory! So I never really paid him much attention.

But the man is influential. And he is a part of the “regressive” left, even if he wishes to see himself as against that movement.

Be that as it may, I mention my initial impressions of Harris early on in the latest LocoFoco podcast, featuring David Ramsay Steele:

Steele is preparing a book of “Critical Responses” to Sam Harris, so Lee Waaks invited Mr. Steele to talk with us on the LocoFoco Netcast, which you can view on Rumble:

I encourage you to go to Rumble and Locofoco.Locals.com and sign up for my feeds. Or even send me money, to encourage me to make more videos. Whereas I know I am just learning this craft, you have to admit that Lee’s and my guests are always interesting. Very interesting. Yes?

twv

There is nothing particularly mysterious about the anti-diplomacy surrounding the Russia-Ukraine war, or, for that matter, the FTX scandal. When a ruling elite loses its intellectual bearings and what the ancient Chinese called “the Mandate of Heave” (but what we might call, loosely, the consent of the governed), it needs two things: money and an enemy.

Our ruling elites, which are largely “Democratic” — most civilian government employees are Democrats — know, now, only how to scam us, not to rule even close to wisely. The current situation shows it: inflation, supply chain problems, debt, war. The elites’ policies exacerbate (if not outright cause) each and every one of these disasters.

So they need an enemy to unite us against it.

The enemy chosen and nurtured: Russia.

The comedy is that Democrats have almost been compelled to build up Russia as an enemy ever since Obama mocked Romney for suggesting it. 

The tragedy is that it could lead to World War III and the destruction of our civilization and much of the life on the planet.

America’s actual enemy — less comic, more ominous, and chosen by Democrats for decades as an ally to build up — is, of course, China. Russia serves as a cover for all the past corrupt dealings with China, which have been going on since the Clinton Administration at least.

The Ukraine defense, which Democrats have backed as if Democracy Itself were on the line (they’ve said as much, but then they always do), has been funded with billions in aid. But this past week the weirdest financing effort was revealed: “the collapse of Sam Bankman-Fried’s crypto empire” (as MSN’s MarketWatch put it) and the formalized bankruptcy of FTX, the cryptocurrency, and the key parts played by both the Ukrainian Government and American Democrat politicians. 

Tucker Carlson drew the circlular flow chart, this week, where U.S. Government subsidies to Ukraine were put into FTX, and how FTX’s “genius” founder, Bankman-Fried, then turned that into “charity.” Which somehow includes tens of millions to Democrats for their mid-term election campaigns.

This over-shadows Iran-Contra and Bernie Madoff combined. It seems as if scripted for some dark comic epic, with even the financial culprit’s name being satirical: BANKMAN FRIED???? It’s as if the Norns have been slipping stitches while in stitches over an over-imbibing of ’shrooms.

Events are moving too quickly now to follow easily. The desperation of the players becomes obvious, now that Ukraine has bombed Poland hoping to up America’s (NATO’s) war footing to DEFCON-11.

But there’s no deep mystery. This is how elites and empires fall. With lies, financial corruption, and death all around.

twv

As the war in Ukraine continues, muddied by the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline in the Baltic Sea, it is startling how few people mention — much less sound the alarm about — a possible thermonuclear war. Why isn’t this the number one topic of conversation?

The United States has pitted itself against Russia, an old enemy with a large nuclear arsenal, and Vladimir Putin, its tyrant, has point blank stated that he will use nukes if Russian territory is attacked.

While this might seem a moment for diplomacy, that’s not what I’m hearing.

What I am hearing is that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services “is buying $290 million worth of anti-radiation sickness drugs as part of its ‘long-standing, ongoing efforts to be better prepared to save lives following radiological and nuclear emergencies.’”

Nicely worded . . . to discourage panic.

But we would have to be morons not to wonder whether some parts of government are perceiving an increasingly likely outcome of policies initiated by other parts of government.

I bring up the notion that government isn’t the unitary thing we often, for convenience, pretend it is. But we know that bureaus and personnel have distinct points of view and gameplans. Indeed, it would be no shock to learn — years hence, if years we have — that the current antagonism is not the result of a concerted, department-crossing plan at State. The fact that expanding NATO was pushed for years, in different administrations, over the warnings of a few Cassandras, and despite the threats of Putin himself.

Meanwhile, HHS is stocking up on over a quarter of a billion bucks’ worth of anti-radiation drugs.

And we’re left here on the sidelines, wondering.

For now.

twv

Until a recent video by Rebel Wisdom, I had never heard of Samo Burja. I just do not follow international affairs well enough, I guess. But Mr. Burja’s discussion of Putin and the Russian invasion of the Ukraine struck me as not only interesting, but very much along familiar lines:

This analyst makes three predictions:

1. China develops more financial alternatives to First World financial systems and offers them to rogue states around the world. (I’ve talked about this before, on Paul Jacob’s podcast a few weeks ago. This could help collapse the dollar, by the way.)

2. Russia successfully occupies large chunks of Ukraine that it did not control before. (Seems likely. Surely Putin’s keeping the eastern sectors, but, this man says, more than just the Donbas region.)

3. Putin remains in power for the next year.

He also says Russia will become something of a vassal state to China, which is something neither we nor the Russians should want. But it is something the Chinese quasi-commies want (why don’t we just call the CCP elite caste the warlords or oligarchs? Please advise). And it is something that the embargoes will ensure. This is also a point I’ve made before.

The Romney position that Russia is America’s most dangerous enemy — the position that Obama once mocked but now Democrats push with spittle flying — is something China needs us to believe, for I suspect (and, again, have said as much to friends) that China pushed Russia to do this as part of its plan to weaken America which would allow it to conquer Taiwan. That’s not the only end game, but it’s a huge one, and Burja identifies it as Xi Jinping’s life goal. Seems likely.

Given that China has invested so much in the Democratic Party (Biden being a paid stooge and almost certainly a traitor in technical terms, and worthy of the firing squad), that all of the media has rallied propaganda to this diversion is hardly surprising at all.

Above all I do not want WWIII, which I think is likely if Biden loses control of what remains of his senses. What I think the corrupt insider Democrats yearn for is a protracted set of brushfire wars with a weakened Russia. But pushing Russia is really, really dangerous. Past Ukrainian policy by the Dems has been as insane as their desire to regime change Assad and their “successful” regime change of Qaddafi. These people seem like fools, but I don’t know precisely what they want. But if they want a One World Government with the power center in Beijing, they appear to be doing great.

Secondarily I don’t want the U.S. to become any more like China. Or Russia. This element — an unintended effect of international conflict known to classical liberals for centuries — is also something that Mr. Burja makes clear.

In recent podcasts with Paul Jacob, I tried also to make this point:

First (6:50), I suggest that the COVID over-reaction police states of New Zealand and Australia maybe disqualify them from “free nation” status, and therefore as American allies. Then (9:46) I explain my concern over how disastrous American interventions have been generally — in one country after another — and most recently in Ukraine. And when I got to the subject of biolabs in Ukraine, Paul Jacob not only agreed with me but expressed a bigger worry: that these may have been established there the better to escape American law prohibiting bioweapons research (just as the American military did with torture under Bush/Cheney). And I went on (22:39) to suggest that the current war started in 2020 with the release and psy-op packaging of SARS-CoV-2 into global society, courtesy of the Wuhan biolab, and that the point of China egging on Russia was to demoralize Americans from war to allow China an easier walk-in over the Taiwan Strait. And Democrats, because they are basically crazed enviro-nuts who think that energy is bad and are willing to make Americans poor the better to virtue-signal their commitment to “the planet,” are helping China along.

This is not the first time American foreign policy has been shanghaied to subvert our own freedom. Without any pressure from Spain, the United States succumbed to liberticidal imperialism during the McKinley administration, as William Graham Sumner made so clear in “The Conquest of the United States by Spain.”

The extent to which the Democrats at large are bought off by the Chinese is probably limited. Actual, direct “Manchurian Candidate” subversion of an American political figure is probably limited to Joe Biden himself (though a subverted president is nothing to sneeze at). The rest just go along with subversion for the very reason subversion works, according to Yuri Bezmenov: you cannot subvert someone who does not want to be subverted, and Democrats have been pinko for my whole lifetime. They love big government transfer programs and all the rest, and since they themselves get involved in the government racket, they can add class-interest to their lust for subversion of the American system . . . which once upon a time was based on private property and distributed responsibility.

Which is why Democrats became such true believers in Trump’s vaccine program as well as enthusiastic pushers of lockdowns and mask mandates. They do not care about medical results, not really: they care about regimenting society, abridging the freedom of all for the sake of all (the basic idea of republican governance, but also of socialism) and, especially, of targeted victim groups. This is, after all, the basic game progressives play in psycho-politics: sacrifice by all for the benefit of a few. But the utility of the pandemic to the Chinazis and the globalists has been waning. People around the world now chafe under the lockdowns and idiotic (and obviously ineffective) mask mandates.

So: invasion to “the rescue” — the rescue of globalists’ subversion plans. The Great Reset and all.

Just how limp a noodle the COVID flail has become can be seen in how kid-gloved YouTube has been to Dr. John Campbell. In a series of videos, recently, he has explored the data that shows how destructive pandemic policy has been. And he has been allowed to continue. A half year ago he would have been de-platformed by the Deep State’s Internet service wing, Google/Alphabet.

And it is worth noting how amazing Campbell’s turn has been on the subject. Steve Kirsch, writing on Substack, explains the situation pretty well: “a former advocate of the vaccine, trusted by millions of people, has now realized he’s been deceived and he’s not happy about it at all.”

Paul Jacob wrote about Dr. Campbell’s discussion of recent Ivermectin study results, in “This Is Just Huge.” Kirsch fixes upon the doctor’s consideration of recent revelations from Pfizer about adverse effects of the mRNA treatment.

I share this not because the news seems all that new to me, but because many folks are just now realizing how wrong “the experts” were. In the wake of proof that the government has lied to us about the safety of mRNA coronavirus “vaccines,” we now get a lot of “how could people reject this information” and “how could they have suppressed information about adverse effects” sputterings.

Oh, the naivety. It is so very easy. Those on the inside had a lot of money and prestige on the line, while the masses of people are generally serviles, demanding to be saved by higher-ups. What I’ve seen over and over on this latter is incredulity that great groups of people could commit fraud and great harm, knowingly coupled with this: the belief that some must be sacrificed for the greater good — if some people must die that the majority be saved, all the better!

This sacrifice ideology, absolutely central to life in a wealth-transfer state, has been endemic for a century now. It is a sign that people have tacitly embraced what they would otherwise, in moments of clarity, describe as “fascist” or “Nazi” or “communist” principles. Because of this, along with propaganda-induced fear and tribal allegiances, the masses and the elites have pushed dangerous and deadly-to-some pseudo-vaccines while suppressing less expensive yet more efficient treatment and prophylactic regimens.

I think this is a sign of a decadent civilization.

To me, a decent, life-affirming political philosophy begins with the realization that majorities and even consensus opinion can be wrong. The low-level democratic idea insists that only a few “bad people” can commit great evils. This is obviously way off, and is the wedge notion that allows for a massacre society. Which we now live in.

And is that why we can actually encounter leftist Democrats talk about nuclear first strikes?

How low our society has sunk. But it can go lower, and, I fear, will. Under pressure to fulfill the entelechies they have already nurtured — let their adopted memes take over their lives and infect others — and as subverted by Chinese psy-ops and their own fears of imperialist Russia, American Democrats and neocons could actually destroy civilization. All it takes is a few nuclear bombs. Or a real plague. Or globalist totalitarianism.

twv

A lot of people have constructed propagandistic memes to the effect that ”things would be different” had Kyle been black. Every one of these memes have failed because the memetic engineer could not engineer the precisely opposite situation to Kyle Rittenhouse’s. So let me try. I mean, it’s a worthy counterfactual, right?

What if Kyle were black?

What if the 17-year-old African-American male traveled across a state line to his father’s community after a White Lives Matter protest turned violent and burned down a huge hunk of his father’s town. The protest was over the police shooting a white guy during a domestic squabble.

Now, the trick in this example is not to make everything opposite — this white man would have to become a white woman, right, to be “completely” opposite? If “make everything opposite” were the rule in constructing such examples, we would merely engage in Bizarro World japery. (So this haploid is carrying a ray gun…) So, let’s keep it close. And let’s make initial spark for the ”protests” this: a white criminal man got shot by police while reaching for his knife after walking away from the police who had told him to stand down. Same as the Kenosha criminal. And this man survives, though most protesters think he’s dead. It’s only the races we need to flip.

So a White Live Matter group protested the shooting, and the protest turns quickly to riot, which spreads. And the cops stand down, letting it all burn: the cops are on the side of the whites, this time, after all!

Amidst this, a number of heroic black people take to the streets to help victims, put out fires, and wash away graffiti. Our black Kyle is carrying a scary-to-liberals rifle and as the evening wears on gets chased by other black people who beat him with a skate board and try to take away his weapon. Some shots are fired, and our black Kyle kills two men, black, and wounds another, also black.

For his trouble, the Republican presidential candidate calls this Kyle a black supremacist and the major media constantly calls Kyle a murderer, moments after, and all the way into his trial.

What are the most unbelievable things about this scenario, as written? To make it the most apt opposite-race example, what should I change?

twv

Pssst: World War III began in 2020 and the West is losing, in no small part because almost no one realizes we are at war.

Sure, it is a new kind of war — bioweapon combined with a massive psy-op campaign — and we are expected to give up without fighting. And it looks like we will.

The COVID Reset is in full swing, the old order is dead man walking, and most folks — being hyper-partisan ideologues stuck in creaky old paradigms — will only realize it after the fact. How many will never realize it, I don’t know. And I of course refer to the casualties coming. The dead are utterly incapable of changing their minds.

[the above is a confidently stated conjecture]

Derelict silo.

Some plays are daring but pay off.

Say you want to remove a sitting president, but your repeated efforts fail. And then it looks like you cannot even beat him at the ballot box — your favored stooges are unpopular. With actual voters.

So you attempt major electoral fraud, focusing on swing states, under cover of a pandemic released from a lab your side “just happened” to fund. This amounts to a coup, sure. Whatchagonnado? Well, when the president resists, you call his efforts a coup.

Long shot, right?

Not if you can get the bulk of the media to repeat the message, relentlessly framing the issue always narrowly — as a coup by the defender rather than a coup by you, the offense.

Helping to keep this going? The very notion that “conspiracies” are non-existent and only believed by nuts.

Only “conspiracy theorists” are stupid enough, you see, to believe that complicated machinations can be kept secret. When the folks floating the conspiracy conjecture return volley, and state obvious truths such as that most of the facts have already been revealed, you just laugh and deny the facticity in some cases, deny the relevance in others, and call those who dare break ranks anti-social.

This works for inattentive people who want to believe that their side, at the very least — and, generally, “the government” — is good. 

It also works for sophisticates, who want to believe that all major social processes are Invisible Hand processes, not Hidden Hand processes. They’ve been trained. Even #libertarians fall for this.

Especially libertarian intellectuals! It is very hard to be a libertarian, since libertarians oppose so much of what modern states do, and how half the population lives. Intellectuals yearn to be treated with respect. One way to do this is grant to statists their good intentions. But these libertarians forget that this grant is best seen as merely a dialectical convention, or a show of manners. And thus they pretend that the state really isn’t that bad, and its participants just misinformed. Nonsense, of course.

But the nonsense is truly believed by most libertarians, and they usually side with statist intellectuals against the Conspiracy Theorists, whom they lampoon as boobs and worse.

Which is one reason libertarians have been treated so gingerly treated by the Deep State establishment, despite libertarians’ obvious ideological menace.

Libertarians have served as a loyal opposition to the Deep State, not a disloyal opposition. For their key role in the success of the Deep State psy-op that has been running for 60 years or more, they have been granted a special dispensation.

But things are changing. As soon as the beltway libertarians open up their eyes and see actual conspiracies when in play, libertarians will be quickly Brennaned. “Even libertarians” are a threat, and Brennan has shown us the next level of play.

Meanwhile, the reflexive disbelief and mockery of conspiracy theories by libertarians helps actual, existing conspiracies (of whatever nature, whether grand or petit, meticulous-and-cosmic or improvised-and-local) carry on.

This attitude by libertarian intellectuals may be one of the chief reasons why libertarianism has scant practical effect.

It is kind of amazing to watch, as they witlessly refuse to see what should be obvious to any smart person: just as altruism will be the favored public ideology of committed egoists, scorn for conspiracy theories will be one cultural meme that actual conspirators will most actively support — if behind the scenes.

Of course the epistemic problems are just as obvious. Which puts us in a trap. But we should be able to think our way out of such traps. We should be able to entertain a conspiracy conjecture without the now de rigueur freak out, look at the evidence, and draw conclusions. The number of grand hoaxes now coming to light is perhaps daunting — 1,2,3,4: an election, a pandemic, a half-assed foreign policy, a UFO cover-up and its half-assessed disclosure — but smart people should be able to handle them without feeling anxiety.

Buck up, smarties.

twv

Nearly every reference to “conspiracy“ is stupid.

People use “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracist” often incorrectly, and with baggage from their benighted instruction in public schools and from the hectoring of major media news readers.

It is common to accuse someone of [unwarranted] belief in [non-existent] conspiracies at the first drop of the hat, upon almost zero evidence. Mere association of an idea with even the whiff of “conspiracy” taints it like the lingering body odor of Seinfeld’s toxic valet.

The funny thing is, this inculcated fear of “conspiracy theory” is very likely the result of a conspiracy. Tales of Operation Mockingbird tell how the very term ”conspiracy theory” itself was encouraged by the CIA to its cadres of news readers and reporters, to dismiss anyone who brings up critiques of the Warren Commission Report on the JFK assassination.

Are these tales true? That is, are the reports that the CIA directly told its moles within the news media to dismiss those who question the Lone Gunman Theory as “conspiracy theorists” true? We hear this a lot online, especially from . . . conspiracy theorists.

Wikipedia belittles the lore of Operation Mockingbird as “an alleged large-scale program” of the CIA, despite quite a lot of evidence for the operation’s existence (most of it not mentioned), and despite the many, many links between the legacy media’s news staff and the CIA (not to mention the dominant Ethnicity We Must Not Mention), but I have had enough run-ins with Wikipedia’s editorial staff to understand that Wikipedia was long ago taken over by the same kind of propagandists who overrun most successful start-ups of influence-peddling. The history of non-profit foundations is littered with ideological takeovers. This shouldn’t be surprising. It is more class-based than anything else, and much of what is condemned as “conspiracy theory” is actually some sort of class-based analysis.

But in American intellectual culture only leftists are allowed to engage in class analysis. All others are “conspiracy theorists” — and even the left is controlled, somewhat, by the obsessive implementation of the “conspiracy theorist” charge.

It is nevertheless the case that all conjectures about conspiracies should be judged on their factual merits, with recognition that conspiracies are evasive phenomena that do not present evidence in the innocent manner that we see the phenomena of the natural world. Clues of a conspiracy often appear first as evidence of a cover-up. Elementary praxeology should warn scientists of the danger of using the smell test in these areas, pro or con, for scientists generally do not have to fight against consciously withheld data.

”The greatest trick the devil ever pulled”: successful conspiracies would hide behind a taboo against looking into conspiracies for the same reason that true, exploitative egoists would hide behind the smoke of official altruism.

Don’t be a stooge. Reject the lore that says ”conspiracy theory” must be the province of the psychotically paranoid.

For if “they” are out to get you, it is not paranoia to notice. And there are a lot of theys out there in the business of defrauding us, stealing from us, subjugating with us.

More importantly, we must not be shamed by the shameless.

To be a conspiracy theorist should be no more controversial than an “invisible hand” theorist. A conspiracy theorist is someone who has theories about conspiracies, and considers conjectures about conspiracies as legitimate subject for inquiry and disputation. Someone who believes in a conspiracy is not necessarily a conspiracy theorist. Someone who merely suspects a conspiracy lurks behind some observed events would better be labelled a “conspiracy conjecturer”!

The first question to ask an actual conspiracy theorist is not “what conspiracies do you believe in?” but “how can we learn which proposed conspiracies might be real?”

twv

There are many documents, obtained through leaks and FOIA requests, of reports about UFOs to and from military brass and naval and air forces and nuclear installations. This particular document, offered as public evidence by Luis Elizondo, late of AATIP, to Fox’s Tucker Carlson, may be new, but there are many others, such as the Admiral Twining Memo.

Now, what we have to understand is that the military has never (to my knowledge) repudiated these documents. This means, if UFOs are hoaxes or mistakes and illusions, these many documents are fakes. Which means that the U.S. Government would rather have its citizens speculating about nonsense while thinking the Government is engaged in a huge cover-up conspiracy than disabusing the alleged sovereigns of these United States of the public fraud perpetrated at their expense.

What this says about the government is obvious: it is conspiracy and psy-op no matter what, and an unconscionable one either way.

Scoffers and “skeptics” who take comfort in the notion that UFOs amount to a scientific zero somehow also must either ignore or take comfort in the Government’s complicity in a pattern of deluding its citizens.

I find this so irresponsible and anti-republican that the confident superiority of these scoffers and “skeptics” strikes me as almost more chilling yet.

Or else they are just not very bright.

Yet these “very bright people” sure pride themselves on their savvy intelligence!

Pride goeth before a disclosure?

twv