Here Thar Be Monsters!

From the other side of the argument to the other side of the planet, read in over 149 countries and 17 languages. We bring you news and opinion with an IndoTex® flavor. Be sure to check out the Home Site. Send thoughts and comments to luap.jkt at gmail, and tell all your friends. Sampai jumpa, y'all.



Well, it took ten years and well over 1,000 articles, but we finally passed one million page views!  The YouTube channel reached a half-million views in half that time, while the Twitter and Gab accounts are slowly growing, along with BitChute, DTube and the various other outlets we use.

This milestone is due great measure to the wonderful readership here.  This blog attracts a highly intelligent group of folks who won't let me get away with unfounded speculation and baseless assertions.  I am very appreciative of this, as it has sharpened my writing skills and thought processes over the years.

And, of course, there's Mom, whose patient and tireless instruction taught me mastery of my literal Mother Tongue.  Credit also goes to dear old Dad, who forced me to learn the Latin and Greek roots, and to study Latin for two years in high school.  The benefits of a Classical Liberal Arts education can not be overstated.

A special note of thanks go to amazing folks like Jeff Rense, Joseph P. Farrell and Lew Rockwell, who have helped promote our efforts here with links and cross-posts and interviews.  Thanks to them, our readership jumps four-fold in the past few years, and for that we are deeply grateful.

Most importantly, thank you, Dear Reader, for helping me achieve this prestigious moment.  In a world driven by visual stimulation, it is gratifying to know that many of us still find the written word a valuable resource for understanding our wildly insane world.  I deeply appreciate every comment and criticism as the crucible for testing my mettle, as it were.

In an amazing stroke of luck, I have recently been hired as the General Manager of Indonesia's newest, largest and most advanced fine arts center.  This is an incredible honor and responsibility.  I have an unparalleled opportunity to help guide the development of the arts in Indonesia and I am dedicated to making the most of it.

Based on past experience, I realize my output here will slow a bit as I focus on the new challenges presented to me.  I apologize to the readers who come here frequently looking for new ideas and fresh perspectives.  I will endeavor to make each post even better in compensation for the lack of quantity.

I would like to invite regular readers to my sister blog and channel at Pure Theatrix, where we are planning some exciting content covering the arts and entertainment.  Of course, there's our Radio Far Side website, too.

To keep up with developments at the new theater, please check out the JIExpo website for upcoming announcements and details about the new venue.

Life is always exciting and unexpected on the Far Side!  Chronicling the wild twists and turns, and speculating on meaning and outcome were the prime motivations for starting this blog.  Much like life itself, it has grown and expanded, shifted and lurched, but it is still here and still fighting the Good Fight.

We sincerely hope that you, Gentle Reader, will continue on the ride with us.  As my fellow Houstonian and colleague Bill Hicks put it:
:Life goes up and down, round and round; it's got thrills and chills and it's very brightly colored, and it's very loud; don't worry, don't be afraid, it's just a ride and you can change it anytime you want; it's only choice between fear and love..." 

Thank you for your support and dedication.  We are still here and will continue describing and analyzing the ride.


Melting Pot Or Melting Down?

A new law taking effect in Belgium in October, and later in Flanders, highlights one of the fundamental problems with the concept of cultural melting pots and integration.  The fact of the matter is that most people want to be around others like themselves.  It is a primary instinct of the human condition and no amount of force will make oil and water bind to each other.

The law bans Kosher and Halal animal slaughter, which involves slitting the throats and bleeding out the animals.  The Belgium and Flanders laws require that the animals be electrocuted before killing, in a manner considered more humane.  This, however, violates the strict food codes of Judaism and Islam.

Throughout history, when two opposing philosophical systems (religions) come into direct contact, conflict always follows.  Primarily Catholic/Christian Europe has profound conflicts with both Judaism and Islam, regardless of how much happy talk one slathers over the situation.  The contact point between the two philosophies ultimately boils over into pogroms, with the indigenous group usually winning.  It is a fact that can not be erased by wishful thinking.  History is clear on the subject.

When it comes to examples of cultural blending, many commentators point to the US as an example of the "melting pot".  This ignores one of the most poorly hidden secrets of America, though.  As waves of immigrants came to North America, they settled into ghettos, towns and even entire regions of cultural identity.  In Texas alone, there are German (Groene, New Braunsfelds), Czech (Moulton, Moravia, Praha), Spanish (San Antonio, Laredo, El Paso), Scotch-Irish (New Dublin, Shannon), British (New London, Derry) areas that can be clearly defined by culture, architecture, and even climate (just like home).

Around the country, there are the Pennsylvania Dutch, the Irish cops of Boston and New York, the Welsh miners in West Virginia and Montana, the Minnesota and Dakota Swedes, the Louisiana Cajuns, and so on.  People tend to congregate in groups and in regions where they feel most comfortable, and where the ethnic, cultural and physical environment match their fundamental values.

There is a basic and profound reason why Chinatowns spring up, Jewish ghettos exist, New York City Burroughs were delineated, and so forth.  There is a gut-level reason why even those groups that successfully integrate with existing cultures tend to congregate around ethnic restaurants, bars, places of worship, and community centers.

Even in my hometown of Houston, a thoroughly modern American city, there are entire sections of town with signs in Vietnamese and Mandarin.  There are entire neighborhoods where nearly every house has a mezuzah nailed to the doorpost.

Historically, all efforts to force people to integrate will fail, and often violently.  Only when clear lines of demarcation are mutually established does peace and harmony reign once again.  Whether the forced integration is an invasion, or the result of political policy, eventually the two opposing groups will repel each other with a force commensurate with the amount of force pushing them together.

Prejudice, bias and racism are at the core of the human condition.  Over time, groups organically integrate out of necessity or relaxing standards.  This can be clearly seen in the US, where immigrants ultimately show their willingness to pitch in and build a better community.  The Irish invasion of the late 1800s brought strife and violence with it.  Over time, the Irish became accepted and integral parts of the community and now St. Patrick's Day is one of the most celebrated holidays in the country.

There are many voices who promote racial, ethnic and religious integration, and preach loudly of the ideal humanity living in well-mixed bliss.  This is a lofty goal and no one can deny making it a reality is a long-term target for the human race.  To be sure, modern cities are "melting pots" where ethnic, racial and philosophical groups slowly blend over time through intermarriage and cultural blending.  It is a slow and tedious process, and any attempt to force it is met with equal and opposite force, frequently breaking out in bloody conflict.

The Belgian and Flemmish laws, along with others that will likely follow, represent the bow shock of backlash.  Conflicitng religious, philosophical and ethnic needs between the predominantly Catholic/Christian Europe and the Islamic invasion over the past few years will inevitably lead to conflict.  The needs and sensibilities of the two groups are fundamentally at odds.  The resistance to Halal slaughter techniques must overflow into the long-established Kosher industry, since the two are basically the same thing. 

Though Jews have been established for centuries in Europe, the revulsion against Halal slaughter must perforce include Kosher, as these types of backlash inevitably try to return to a perceived starting or neutral position and the integration process resets.

Society after society, culture after culture, from Sumeria to the present day have seen this type of rejection.  When integration is gradual, cultures blend and create new ones.  When integration is overwhelming and rapid, the invading culture makes too many sudden demands, and the extant culture slams the door.

In my own experience, I emigrated to a country (Indonesia) that was wildly different from my own.  I was careful not to inject my sensibilities onto my adopted home.  Rather, I learned the lingua franca, as well as parts of three other dialects.  I observed and adopted cultural mores and habits.  One thing you will almost never heard from my lips is, "The way we do it back home..."  I am not home and I didn't come here as an invader.  I cam to learn.

For those reasons, I have been accepted into the extant culture, despite the fact that I look nothing like the inhabitants.  I am pale, with red hair and blue eyes, and stand head and shoulders above most of the locals.  I couldn't blend in if I tried.  But, I speak the language and even in my house we speak English, Indonesian and Javanese.  I am the only white person in my neighborhood.  I eat the food, observe the manners and rituals, and even sing the national anthem on demand.  I am accepted and people are not threatened or intimidated by me.  It took years of hard work to achieve.

Already, voices are howling in protest at the new laws in Belgium and Flanders.  They want everyone to make immediate concessions to an invading culture that refuses to integrate.  This is a recipe for disaster, and no amount of political correctness will ameliorate the situation.  The backlash is spilling over into a cultural reset that will include other groups that have long been established.  It is no different from the suspicion and distrust that followed German and Japanese Americans during World War 2.

Though great progress has been made, especially in the US, over the past 50 years towards racial, ethnic and philosophical harmony among disparate groups, there is still an innate reset trigger in each of us that is activated when we feel our sensibilities are offended.  Humans can no more change it than cats can stop hunting mice.  It is an integral part of our species.  We can chose to defuse it, but it is a slow and difficult process to submerge our instincts.

If our social and political leaders would stop forcing mass displacements of people for ideological purposes, the world would be a much quieter and harmonious place, where folks could chose the culture and environment in which they prefer to live.

Humanity always makes the biggest messes when it attempts to subvert Nature.


Musings On Feral Gummint

If the people of the United State of America have any sense whatsoever, then we should hear almost immediately calls for an end to the Transportation Safety Administration, loud and unending demands for the dismantling of the surveillance state and Homeland Security, and gun sales should not only hit the roof, but blow through it.


Because one of the most notorious criminals in recent decades was being held in a federal maximum security facility in New York City on suicide watch with 24-hour surveillance while in solitary confinement guarded by dozens of government agents and employees.  And, died at a moment when the round-the-clock cameras just happened to fail and somehow this person had the means to "hang" himself though completely denuded of strings, belts, sheets, or other material suitable for the job.

If the feral gummint could not protect this person - either from himself or others - with all of this security around him, then it is completely powerless to protect anyone anywhere at any time.

There is, in fact, no place that is secure under the watchful eye of omnipresent gummint.  It can not stop anyone from harming me or my family at any time in any circumstance.  The only real alternative is to arm every man, woman and child, teach them proper gun handling and use, and stop paying for police services, prisons, surveillance, spies, military, et cetera ad nauseum.  It is all completely useless and Jeffrey Epstein is the proof we all need to see.

Gummint is by definition a concentration of power and wealth initially justified as a means to protect the rights and safety of a people.  However, the very act of concentrating power and wealth attracts corruption the way sugar attracts ants.  The most vile individuals in society gravitate towards gummint and ultimately they find ever new and creative ways to bilk, rob and control humanity.

History is replete with examples of gummint gone wild.  Tale after tale demonstrate that gummint is the deadliest force ever conceived by our species.  Millions upon millions of lives have been shattered and destroyed by gummint.  There is no scenario where it remains benign.  It is a cancer that grows and spreads until it consumes the society off which it lives.  The greatest contradiction of all time is the term "good gummint".

What the Epstein example shows us is that there is no place safe, no amount of security, that comes from gummint.  It is controlled by powerful individuals who can turn its knobs, push its buttons and pull its levers to make anything they choose happen.  It is painfully plain that gummint does not exist to protect us, its sole function is to ensure "they" are safe and sound from us.

Jeffrey Epstein had the power - through corruption - to bring down the global political, financial and academic power structure.  He was a glorified pimp to those who fancy themselves masters of humanity.  In an unguarded moment, he could have uttered a handful of words that could collapse entire nations (and may yet do so).  He spent most of his adult life providing forbidden fruit to the most wealthy and powerful individuals in the world. 

Do we really think he wouldn't have spilled the beans to save his own hide?  He figured, in his warped little mind, that either his own fortune or that of others would get him off (again) so that he could return to business as usual.  He had no reason to kill himself and thought no one else would either.  What's more, he was protected by the full force and power of the US feral gummint.

Fat lotta good it did him.

The point is one I have made repeatedly on this site: there is no reforming a broken System.  It is a self-protecting and self-perpetuating morass of evil and corruption that can not be excised, healed, repaired, or rehabilitated.  At best, people can take back their right and responsibility to protect themselves, but this cancer will only grow back more malignant than before.

The US feral gummint is a three trillion dollar per year fiasco that could not protect one individual is a maximum security facility - either from himself or others - surrounded by all the trappings of power.

This is not just true of one gummint, it is true of all of them.  This is just the most recent and blatant example.

The next time you are subjected to a phalanx of metal detectors, surveillance cameras, body pat-downs, luggage searches, interrogations, X-ray machines, safety rules and regulations, and calls for the elimination of self-defense tools, ask yourself:

What would Jeffrey Epstein think of all this?

If the goal is to save our children from predators, then let's begin with the Beast at the lowest level of Hell - the one that protects and enables all the others.


The Qiller Q

Previous posts:
Deep Throat v. Q
Q The Conspiracy - A Phenomenon
The Gospel According To Q
A-Marketing We Will Q
The Name Of The Q
Q The LARP Carp
Spe-Q-lating On Q
In The Twilight Of The Q
Jonesing For Q
Analyzing Q-Analysis
The Q Prophesy
To Q Or Not To Q
A Quantum Of Q-Bit
Surfing the Q Wave
Q Tips And Quislings
Some Quick Q
The Voice Of Q
The Q Treason
Q The Endgame
Right On Q?
Q The God-Emperor
Who Is Q?
Behold The Qult
Notre Dame du Q
The Q Genesis
Behind the Q Ball

It should be noted right off the top that InfinityChan or 8Chan has been dropped by its carrier as of this writing.  This is in spite of the fact that Q said several times that it was impossible for this to happen, since it was "in control" of the board.  I suspect that Q facilitated this move in order to foster a siege mentality, which is essential for Personality Qults to survive and flourish.  

Join me with Jeff Rense Friday night, 9 August 2019, for more discussion on this topic.  Our profound thanks to Dr. Joseph P. Farrell for posting a link on Giza Death Star!

My father, who was both an historian and a politician, taught me one important lesson that has followed me for life:

Never trust a government any time, anywhere, for any reason.

To that, I would add: most especially when the military gets involved in civilian affairs.

With the Q Phenomenon, we have an anonymous entity which claims to be part of military intelligence manipulating civilian affairs admittedly using disinformation all for the benefit of one person - the President of the United States of America - known as Donald Trump.  Taken together, these elements combined in unified action should set off enough alarm bells in a thinking person's head to drown out all other thoughts.

Q2 - military intel operation
From it's second Drop, Q has made it clear that it is a function of military intelligence and that it is supporting POTUS (Trump) in "clearing" out the "Deep State".  Just what the Deep State means in the Qnuverse is undefined by Q - though Qvians all 'know' what it is when they see it.  Q has also said the "disinformation is necessary," meaning essentially that no one can trust anything Q posts.

Yet, judging by subscription numbers on various commentator (Acolyte) channels, hundreds of thousands of people not only trust Q, but spread its pronouncements like a surreal gospel.

I am about to make the case that Q is at least partly responsible for the four mass shootings in the US (Gilroy, CA, El Paso, TX, Dayton, OH, Chicago, IL) over the past week.  I will use Q's own Drops, but interpret what I see quite a bit differently than the True Q Followers do.  Even (or especially) if you are a hard-core Qvian, you should at least hear me out and consider the alternatives to your adopted philosophy.

In my analysis, I don't care which political party, religion, social organizations, or other demographic affiliations the shooters belonged to.  I don't care what sympathies the reader has towards government or politics.  Those details can and will be argued back and forth for the rest of this news cycle, but these details have nothing to do with what I see.

Q1685 - disinformation is necessary
For many reasons, I don't trust or believe any of the information about these people or the events that are floating around the media and netsphere.  Part of what predicates my suspicions is the ongoing talk from POTUS and among the Qvians about national Voter ID and Red Flag gun registries.  Another reason is that I view all mass shootings as part of a much larger picture and not existing in a vacuum.  That can be interpreted as "flase flag," but really my view is even much wider than that - a form of mass psychosis promulgated by "They" to maintain a constant state of fear and anxiety to deflect attention from "Them".

Having established a context, let's briefly revisit the death of Senator John McCain in August 2018, almost exactly one year ago.  Q is widely believed to have accurately predicted McCain's death from brain cancer, not only to the day, but to the minute.  The reasoning behind this belief can be found in my article "The Q Prophesy".  As I noted then, in order for Q to so accurately predict McCain's death from cancer, it would have had to have a part in killing McCain.

Q3570 - August is HOT
We now find ourselves in a similar situation, only on a much larger scale.

On 1 August 2019, Q posted Drop #3570, in which it notes, "The month of AUGUST is traditionally very HOT."  Keeping in mind that Q claims to be military intel, then "hot" in military parlance means a situation where one has been discovered and/or a fire-fight ensues.  Obviously, four mass shootings in four states in eight days would be considered "hot" situations to a group of military planners.  The emphasis on the word "hot" by placing it in all caps tells me that we are to assume it is a term and not a word.

A term is a word or phrase with a special meaning in a given context, such as in law when special terms are capitalized to indicate they have non-standard definitions within the context (four corners) of a law, contract or similar document.  The context here is that Q claims a military genesis, so we use that as context to interpret the term "HOT" as meaning live-fire situations.

Q3550-3551 - RED Hot
It is important to note that the California shootings took place on 28 July 2019, the Texas shootings took place on 3 August 2019, and the Ohio and Illinois shootings on 4 August 2019.  It's also interesting to note that the California shootings vanished from the news cycle almost as fast as they happened, and the Chicago shootings were drowned out by the almost constant mass killings in that city.  Now keep in mind Q's statement was released on 1 August.

Prior to the 1 August Drop, Q published Drops #3550-3551, on 30 July 2019.  These two Drops appear to be a code of some kind, widely interpreted by the Qvians as giving directions to the board operator (aka Code Monkey).  There are two seemingly related Drops.

The Drops mention or allude to the number "2" in several ways.  The word "Hot" appears twice with the numbers 8 and 9.  The term "RED" appears twice.  The line "Insert_key" could be a keyboard reference, or using the military context, could mean putting agents into a situation is essential.  We also note the California shooting took place before this Drop and received little attention, while the Texas and Ohio events came after and still dominate the news.  The Illinois shootings can be written off as just another day in Chicago - noise in the data.

Q3559 - watch the news this week
One could interpret these messages as activation codes for "sleepers," or agents undercover in the field.  Going "hot" may mean becoming active, and "RED" might imply blood, emergency or danger.  One could also view the numbers 8 and 9 as coded target listings or some similar notation, perhaps agent numbers like 007.

In fact, this interpretation makes more sense than some kind of computer instruction code.  Even the term "insertion" has a military connotation of putting an agent into enemy territory.

Q3568 - 24-hour warning
Also on 30 July 2019, Q posted Drop #3559, telling Qvians to "watch the news this week."  This message clearly implies foreknowledge of some major event(s) and that those events would dominate the news cycle, if not deadly.  The combination of "see something say something," "watch the news" and the next message (#3568), which clearly gives a 24-hour warning implies Q had full knowledge of something deadly or dangerous.

No amount of apologetics can wave away the clear impression that Q had foreknowledge of the mass shootings and did not use the full power of the federal government to attempt to stop the events, nor did it use any other channel but its Drops to give a warning.   There was no national warning message, no news announcements, nothing other than a few messages on its preferred 8Chan outlet.

Q3570 - August is HOT
At best, this makes Q responsible for the deaths because it did nothing to stop them (accessory after the fact), and at worst, it makes Q guilty of instigating them (first-degree murder).  No other conclusions are possible with the given data.

Q's final Drop #3570, on 1 August 2019, before being (supposedly) deplatformed again stated that "August is HOT," which I interpret using the military connotation of a live-fire operation (going hot).

Furthermore, since the message covers the entire month of August, we might assume that other events are forthcoming.

In the wake of the shootings, 8Chan was taken down - ostensibly by the provider to silence the "hate speech" on the boards.  However, Q has said repeatedly in the wake of being deplatformed last year that it is "in control" and that it had taken steps to secure 8Chan so that it could not be taken down.  In my model, this leads to yet another unsavory conclusion.

Over the past two years, Q has gone silent during the months of June and July.  I interpret this to be a process called "clearing the waters," whereby an entity that wants to measure how effectively its message is disseminating, stops posting to go into listening mode.  This is called q-analysis, a kind of data mining where networks are mapped and information is measured, including who is getting the information and what they are doing with it - emailing friends and family, tweeting Drops, making videos, etc.

Q was down for six weeks during June and July 2019, which I view as a "listening" period to see how the message is being received and interpreted.  In early July, Q started up again and posted over 200 Drops in July, vanishing again on 1 August 2019, supposedly because of deplatforming - something that was supposed to be impossible at this point.

The way I see it, Q activated sleepers to go do the shootings, while at the same time put out warnings that something "HOT" was coming.  The deplatforming, then, is an excuse to go dark again and see what happens with the information before, during and after the shootings.  Questions might include who are the distribution hubs and who are their primary, secondary and tertiary contacts (3-hop rule under FISA warrants)?  Are the interpretations favorable or unfavorable for Q/POTUS?  What actions are the Qvians taking (cross-reference credit card purchases, phone calls, etc.)?  How do these items change/evolve over the course of and in the wake of the shootings?

Had 8Chan stayed up after the shootings, Qvians would be demanding more information, but being deplatforming provided a convenient excuse to disappear for a time to perform q-analysis and the Qvians would be sympathetic rather than suspicious of the silence.

The conclusions we get from all this seem very clear and straight-forward:

1) Q is a military intelligence operation with the implied ability to monitor the internet and catch indications of mass killings before they happen;
2) Q confirms this by issuing warnings well ahead of the mass shootings that use language easily interpreted as indicating live-fire events;
3) Q posted two Drops with some kind of Qode that could be waved away as computer instructions, but could also be interpreted in a military context as activation Qodes for sleeper agents;
4) 8Chan was taken down in the wake of the shootings, which Q has said was not possible now, and which can be interpreted as going into "listening" mode for q-analysis to see what internet users/Qvians are doing with the information provided by the Drops.

Thus, Q activated two sleeper agents (RED-RED_y) to do the shootings and either noted targets (8 & 9) or indicated certain agents to do the jobs.  Q posted warning messages to "plant the seeds" that it would need to do q-analysis.  Q vanished two days before the shootings started so as not to "stir the waters" while analyzing net traffic related to Q.  The Qvians reacted as one might expect, praising Q for having predicted the events (a Proof), rather than condemning Q for being complicit in the killings.  We expect Q will reappear in the next week or so, after the full data analysis is complete.

Qvians may be able to dismiss this interpretation because it does not fit with their myopic loyalty to an invisible entity, but they can not dismiss it as impossible.  It fits the available facts and uses the exact same text they use to find a hero - where I find a villain.  It is difficult, given the death of Sen. John McCain and now these incidents, to deny that Q may in fact be acting against the national interests of the people of the USA.  For every positive item the Qvians can list, I can simply point to the need for disinformation and the distinct possibility that they are being played for a nefarious purpose.

In any case, there are multiple interpretations of the available data that are plausible and possible.  I have used the exact same data available to the Qvians and have not left out anything that could invalidate this analysis.

Beyond all this, Q has convinced its followers that they are under siege and that their Great Leader Donald Trump is being attacked by Dark Forces.  This creates and promulgates a Personality Qult.  These are classic signs of such and can not be denied, and they are just as applicable to Jim Jones or David Koresh.

We have no objective reason to believe that Donald Trump could become a megalomaniac, given the right set of circumstances and his obviously over-sized ego.  Nor do we have any objective reason to trust Q and its motives.  One could easily make the cases that Trump is using Q as a front to take full control of the government, or that he is being blackmailed and coerced into Q's dictates, or that Trump is little more than a pitchman for a sinister group of military rouges hell-bent on taking over the world.  Compelling cases can be made for any of these scenarios, given what any of us know at this point.

Furthermore, Q has convinced its followers that certain Trump policies, which are clearly and dangerously anti-Constitutional are both good and necessary.  This, however, is a topic for my next article - entitled "The Qonstitution."  Stay tuned!
UPDATE 9 August 2019- I think I need point no further than some of the responses to this article.  People who follow a literal "ghost in the machine," who have exactly zero proof of who/what Q is - an entity that claims to be military intel and admits that it spreads disinformation - and who have no more information about their "leader" than I have posted here call me delusional.  

They vehemently defend Q and call everyone that takes a cynical eye to this kind of psy-op crazy.  Sorry folks, but you are the victims of a Personality Qult.  You believe you are under siege, that you will be vindicated when all is revealed, and that your "leader" is all powerful, all on nothing more than faith.  Belief in an entity with no known corporeal existence?  Revelation when all will be laid bare and the wicked will be tossed in Hell (GITMO)?  An all-seeing Deity that knows everything about everyone?  This is a religion, plain and simple.

How can you pluck the mote from your brother's eye when you can not see the plank in your own?


Aceh Versus The Civil War

I entered into a Twitter argument the other day that highlighted a number of issues due to the lack of critical thinking and gross generalizations.

The fellow posted a video showing an Indonesia woman and man being flogged.  Not only did he not know the story behind the video, he extrapolated this behavior to an entire nation without any comprehension of the social and political currents behind it.  Indeed, my correspondent didn't even know why the folks in the video were being flogged.

He lamented that all of Indonesia condoned such behavior.  I pointed out that the incident took place in Aceh, which is a small region at the far northwestern tip of Sumatera, which is semi-autonomous and ruled by Islamic fundamentalists.  I said that public flogging is not condoned or practiced anywhere else in the country, and that if the government attempted to force the region to stop shari'a practices, it would likely cause riots and secession, which would spread through the rest of the country.

The fellow's response was, suppose the Northern states had not stopped slavery in the South.

In the space of a couple of brief text messages, this individual had displayed a profound ignorance of history, politics and human behavior.

To begin with, Indonesia and the US share many traits.  Indonesia is about the same size as the continental US, with roughly the same population and both have religious majorities that spend an inordinate amount of time trying to force everyone else to adopt their values.

Indonesia is composed of more than 300 tribes, each with unique cultures and histories, bound into a loose confederation.  Indonesia's motto, "Bhinneka tunggal ika," is the Sanskrit equivalent of "E pluribus unum," or "one out of many" in English.  Both countries adopt the eagle as their national symbols, and both are republics that constantly promote democracy (they are mutually exclusive terms and ideologies).

On scale, Aceh is roughly equal to the Seattle-Tacoma metroplex, though wildly different in context.  After the 2004 quake and tsunami, Aceh has virtually returned to a medieval state, with all the attendant theocratic allusions that come with that statement.

Of all the regions in the vast sprawling archipelago known as Indonesia, Aceh is the closest to an absolute theocracy under shari'a, or religious law, and like most theocracies, it chooses some of the worst aspects of shari'a to enforce.

The primary issue is that if the central government attempted to stop Aceh from its practices, it would risk having the Islamic majority in the country rally around Aceh, and likely spark national riots and possibly secession movements across the country, especially in Papua where the Christian majority has long sought to extract itself from the rest of the nation, taking its vast mineral wealth with it.

When my Twitter correspondent casually waved the US Civil War comment at the situation, I was triggered.  The two situations were/are not remotely equivalent, and to so blithely conflate the two was more than I could bear.

The US Civil War had almost zero to do with ending slavery.  It was all about northern bankers and industry trying to keep the costs of raw materials from the south as low as possible.  The southern states, wanting to increase profits, were competing in open markets and getting higher prices in Europe.  The morthern interests blockaded southern ports to shut down the South's markets, and levied exorbitant tariffs on exports to effectively steal profits from the south, while leaving the finished goods from the north untouched.

The Confederacy, after secession, was de jure and de facto a separate and independent nation and blockades against it were in fact acts of war by the same reasoning and international law used by the colonists in their fight for independence from England.  Only in the tiniest of factions in the Civil War was ending slavery and issue, and folks on both sides of the Mason-Dixon Line wanted the practice ended.

The US Civil War was about economics and the right of people to throw off tyrannical government in favor of something more to their liking.

In Aceh, the situation is only vaguely analogous to the US Civil War, in that a dictatorial effort by the central government to change the local regime would be disastrous and likely lead to mass death and destruction.

The fact is that the people of Aceh submit to the theocracy of their own choice.  They can easily walk or take the bus south to other regions of Sumatera, or even leave the island altogether for greener pastures elsewhere.  That the young man and woman in the video allowed themselves to be flogged was their own choice.

Unlike the US Civil War, there is no economic component.  No outside force is trying to starve out competition and effectively enslave an entire nation.  The people of Aceh willingly choose to live under such conditions because they have convinced themselves that this is a viable and virtuous way to live.

In other words, what my Twitter correspondent was proposing is tyranny by a central power over a group of people who voluntarily choose to live as they see fit.  From the outside, we can abhor and condemn the practice of flogging.  We can offer aid and shelter to anyone escaping such practices.  But we cannot mandate our values on those folks by force.  That would effectively be as immoral as the practices we condemn.

In a republic, as Indonesia and the US nominally are, the fundamental rights of the minority are protected against the tyranny of the majority.  Among those fundamental rights in both countries is religious freedom.  It would be no more moral and ethical for Indonesia to force Aceh to adopt a different culture, than it would be for Aceh to force the rest of the nation to adopt shari'a (or at least its interpretation of it).

It is also wildly fallacious to draw parallels between they US Civil War and the situation in Aceh, other than to say that if the central government forced Aceh to change, then it would be the moral equivalent of what the Union did to the Confederacy.  In both cases, internal forces will eventually overcome habit and tradition, and reform will come of its own accord.

It is important to note that Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was not aimed at the Union, where slavery persisted quite some time after that war, nor was it legally binding on the Confederacy, which was a wholly different jurisdiction and not subject to US law.  It was nothing more than a propaganda tool to undermine the Confederate economy at its weakest point.

The people of Aceh have a choice to stay or move to other parts of the same country with widely varying social and political customs and laws.  They are not prevented by the nation's laws from moving elsewhere, with lawful employment and residency throughout the country.  Those who stay and submit to public floggings for being alone with their paramours without supervision do so of their own accord.

This Twitter-vation also highlights the dire need of folks to educate themselves on real history, and not the propagandistic efforts to justify immoral acts foisted on them by vested interests.


One Small Step For A Man

I was born just three months after Alan Sheppard's 1961 sub-orbital Mercury flight, and six months before John Glenn's orbital flight in 1962.

Due to Cold War propaganda, I knew precious little about Yuri Gagarin, who became the first human to orbit the Earth a full three months before Sheppard's ballistic shot.  Nor was I aware of Alexei Leonov's historic EVA in 1965, until years later.

I was born with the Space Age and my life and hobbies have been intricately tied to this epoch in history.  I have fostered a life-long interest in astronomy and aerospace, studying the topics both independently and at university.  I can recite facts and figures about the Universe that would induce narcolepsy in most normal humans.

During the Apollo 11 mission, I absorbed every second of broadcast time, getting exhilarated every time I saw fellow Houstonian Walter Cronkite's visage appear on the fuzzy black-and-white cathode-ray tube, futzing with the rabbit ears to draw in the clearest possible picture of the events as they unfolded.  It was a very rare occasion that my strict parents let me stay up late, glued to the TeeVee (but not too close as it would ruin my eyes).

Perhaps it was my youthful naivete, or my willing suspension of disbelief, or my indoctrination into the Cult of American Greatness, or perhaps a bit of all three that led me to unquestioningly accept everything I saw.  It would be decades until I started critically examining the Moon landings.

Being an expert in optics, lighting, set construction, special effects, and film production in general, I take most of the photographic theories with a grain of salt.  I think Stanley Kubrick was far too careful to make simple mistakes (wink).  I do think a good number of the iconic Moon photos were staged, but that does not a priori rule out actual landings.

My suspicions are centered much more on the technology.  There are some serious and fact-based questions that have never been adequately addressed by NASA, nor satisfactorily answered by Apollogists (pun intended).

There are two issues in particular that have long puzzled me, and the NASA documentation is vague and dodgy.  There have never been any clear explanations for these two issues and some of the design data are still classified.  The first is how the astronauts' backpacks exchanged heat in a vacuum, and the other is the Aerozine 50 fuel used in the descent and ascent stages of the Landing Module (LM).

The first of these mysteries is the Primary Life Support System, or PLSS, which are the bulky backpacks worn by the moon-walking astronauts.  Among the many functions of a PLSS - radio, CO2 scrubbers, micro-meteor protection, insulation, humidity control, etc. - was the removal of internal and external heat and exchange it with the environment.

One may think this is a simple and straightforward process, and inside an atmosphere, one would be right.  We must recall, however, that the Moon has no atmosphere.  We are told repeatedly by NASA and other agencies that the surface is a perfect vacuum in which the entire Universe sucks on any object exposed to it.  While this presents a number of issues with the moonsuits and lander construction, we will focus on the heat exchange.

Anyone familiar with the function of a Thermos will instantly appreciate the problem of exchanging heat with a vacuum.  In a Thermos, an inner glass container is held in a vacuum enclosed by an outer container, which prevents heat from being lost to the surrounding environment.  Because there is no medium of transfer, i.e. air, to dissipate heat to the environment, hot liquids inside the Thermos retain heat.  Simple concept, but presents unique challenges for astronauts on the Moon.

Not only is the astronaut's body generating heat, which gets uncomfortable rather quickly if not vented, the astronaut would quick cook when exposed to direct sunlight on the Moon.  Any surface on the Moon reaches up to 250F in direct contact with sunlight on the Moon.  The moonsuits are not immune to this, even given the bright white reflective materials.  Inside, the astronaut is generating heat, both at rest and especially when working.

The solution was a form-fitting body stocking (LCVG) infused with tiny capillaries circulating cool water to a heat collector inside the backpack.  The heat exchangers then "vent" the heat into the vacuum by sublimation.  This presents a number of major issues.

The astronauts must carry to the Moon a large amount of water to be wasted by sublimating the waste water.  This process will take some time inside the PLSS endangering electronic systems, or it must be sprayed directly into the environment creating clouds of ice crystals and/or steam that can blind the astronauts' visors (among other problems).

Sublimation is the process of a solid converting directly to gas without a liquid state.  To watch sublimation at home, get a piece of dry ice and place it on the kitchen counter.  Note the time and watch how long it takes for the ice to sublimate.

It's a similar problem with water ice in the PLSS on the Moon.  For one thing, a large chunk of ice must be stored somewhere while it sublimates.  There's an additional problem in that water ice at temperatures below -200F is as hard as rock and apparently does not sublimate quickly, since Mars has large amounts of water all over the place, and a number of moons in the solar system are composed entirely of water ice.

If the water ice in the PLSS is not thrown away somehow, then it will melt (presumably) inside the PLSS and the LM, causing all sorts of issues with the electronics, not to mention a slip-and-fall hazard.  Since we never saw the astronauts helping each other get rid of ice balls in their packs, we must assume sublimation was not the means by which waste heat was expelled.

Since footage from the Moon never showed clouds of vapor spraying into the environment from the suits, and any collected inside the PLSSs would melt and cause problems inside the LM, we cannot fathom how the heat was exchanged with the environment.  After all, a vacuum is a critical component of a Thermos, which retains heat.  All of the available documentation either leads the reader in a circular argument, or waves the problems away with vague statements.

The second problem concerning the fuel for the descent and ascent stages of the LM is even bigger.  There is no dodging the issue with hand-waving and circular arguments.  The available documentation simply ignores this issue altogether.

The LM used a hypergolic binary fuel (self-oxydizing and ignites the moment to two liquids come in contact with each other) called Aerozine 50.  There are so many problems with this fuel that it is almost never used for human spaceflight.  In fact, the Apollo program is the only one I can find that used it for a manned mission.

Correction 27 July 2019 - Aerozine 50 was used on the Titan GLV rockets in the Gemini program that preceded Apollo.  A number of modifications were made to make it human-rated.  This fact, however, does not change the concerns and issues mentioned here.

Aerozine 50 combines a form of hydrazine with dinitrogentetroxide as an oxydizer to create a highly explosive fuel with a very high specific impulse.  An accident in 1980 punctured a hydrazine tank on an ICBM missile and the explosion lifted a 750-ton silo door right off, while launching the second stage and nuclear warhead out of the silo.

In addition, hydrazine freezes at 38F/2C, and the shade on the Moon is -250F.  None of the available specifications mention the ability to lower the freezing point to -250F.  Aerozine 50 is a special mixture that does lower the freezing point a bit, but certainly not anywhere near the temperatures found in space or on the Moon.

Hydrazine is highly caustic and will eat through many common materials, such as mylar sheeting, Kevlar spacesuits, etc.  The descent would have spewed vast amounts of highly caustic and poisonous exhaust  all over the landing sites.  This not only would have contaminated any rock and soil samples they collected making them scientifically useless, but would have been carried inside the LM, thus poisoning the astronauts and eating away at the electronics and air scrubbers if it didn't eat through the suits first.

While all of these issues are problematic, at best, the most obvious problem is that burning Aerozine 50 creates thick clouds of red smoke and bright flame, even in a vacuum (self-oxydizing).  In an airless environment like the Moon, this smoke would completely surround the landing sites and take a significant amount of time to dissipate.

To sum all this up, the Aerozine 50 fuel used to land and take off from the Moon placed two astronauts on top of highly caustic and explosive liquids that would have required very intricate heating systems to stay liquid.  The landing would have created a thick cloud of smoke that should have taken days or more to dissipate, leaving the astronauts blind visually and photographically.

Finally, the specific impulse of the Aerozine 50 means that the astronauts would have been pinned to the floor of the LM on launch (they were free-standing) for at least several seconds until acceleration peaked.

It should be noted that there is some discussion whether the ascent engine was powerful enough to lift the weight of the craft, men and samples.  These arguments are generally inconclusive because the weight data is not consistent or not complete, and in some cases, the specifications of the engine are in doubt.

The PLSS cooling system and Aerozine 50 fuel not only have a number of direct issues, there are dozens if not hundreds of ancillary and corollary problems introduced by these two things alone.

If we assume, as I do, that humans have indeed walked on the Moon, then we are faced with either or both of two possibilities: 1) the events did not occur as publicly acknowledged, and/or 2) technologies were employed that are not public knowledge.

These are just two of a number of glaring problems with the Apollo missions.  Other include the vacuum on the Moon and the construction of the LM and moonsuits, micro-meteor bombardment, weight of supplies and equipment versus the power of engine designs, and many more.

All of these issues are highlighted by the fact that humans have not (publicly) returned to the Moon in 50 years and apparently lack of engineering capability at NASA and other agencies to overcome the inherent problems of a return trip to the Moon.

While I have no desire to diminish the achievements of gutsy and talented individuals, there is some underlying reason why America has not be back to the Moon for 50 years, and why the Soviet Union (and later Russia) abruptly cancelled its plans after achieving nearly 90% of the tasks to get there.

History tells us that humans do not suddenly abandon or "lose" radical new technologies without compelling reasons.  It is not a "conspiracy theory" to question the existing facts.  Something has stopped humanity from following in those tentative first steps, at least openly.  Those of us who paid for those steps certainly deserve more than we have received.

One other solution presents itself: everything we have been told about the Moon's environment is false.
Update 28 July 2019 (Anonymous Comment)
 With regard to IR radiation being the means by which heat is released into a vacuum, this is true HOWEVER:

The heated surfaces must be exposed to the vacuum in order for the heat to radiate away.  The astronauts and their PLSSs were highly insulated internally and externally.  Since they were not wearing mirrors, they were not perfect reflectors, therefore the amount of heat put into the system was over unity with the amount released through IR.

Diagrams of the PLSS show it being entirely enclosed, thus the IR would build up inside and damage critical circuits and machinery, thus killing the astronaut.  Furthermore, the sweat collected off the astronaut would have to be stored somehow, or released somehow.  There is no evidence of either solution being used.  AND the circulated cooling water would have to BE COOLED somehow, which comes right back to the heat release mechanism.  As I mentioned, the whole thing is a circular argument with dozens of corollary and ancillary issues.

No matter how you slice this problem, you always end up with more heat in the system than it can radiate away, especially considering all possible outlets for IR were insulted and unable to radiate heat away.

With regard to local time on the Moon, the Apollo missions were timed to land in the Moon's local morning, which may reduce heat problems, but increased cold problems.  No matter how you frame this argument, you end up with dead astronauts - whether by boiling or freezing.

As for thermal camera images, I have never found any from the Apollo landings, so difficult for either side to cite such things.  In any event, the IR reflected off of exposed surfaces would make the thermal images useless in this argument.

If water ice sublimates at extremely low temperatures, why aren't Europa, Callisto, Ganymede, Pluto, Charon, and other bodies composed of water ice not sublimating away - even in direct sunlight, and in some cases inside the highly radioactive magnetic field of Jupiter? After billions of years (theoretically), these primarily water ice bodies should be nothing but tiny balls of rock.  These moons and planets should be shrouded in steam as the surface ice sublimates.

Sublimation is sublimation, whether it's dry ice or water ice at 1,013.25 mbars and 25C, or more, or less.  That was the point, not whether or when CO2 exists as a liquid.

As for specific impulse, yes it is similar to octane ratings, but not exactly the same.  Regardless, if you are standing in the back of a pickup with nothing to hold on to and the driver floors the accelerator, does it really matter how much octane the fuel has when you fly out the back end and hit the tarmac?

Hypergolic fuel was ostensibly used because the engines are simple and reliable, but that does not address ANY of the other problems caused by using it.  One tiny pin-prick in the hydrazine tank - with micro-meteor threat and hypersonic dust particles accelerated by the exhaust - and there wouldn't be much left to collect in a bread box.  This is a huge amount of risk to take on a program that was so vital to US propaganda efforts.

Furthermore, this does not address the fact that the hydrazine would be frozen solid at -250F,thus useless as a propellant without a whole infrastructure to heat the tanks that would suck valuable battery life away from all the other critical systems.  Even if Aerozine 50's freezing point were magically lowered to -100F (which it wasn't), one is STILL 150F below that.  Again, a circular argument with no published sufficient remedies.

All of these issues get exponentially more problematic as surface times increase from hours to days in subsequent missions.  To put it as simply as possible, no amount of hand-waving and conditional language eliminates all of the problems.  Yes, they COULD have done a lot of things, but the available documentation is insufficient to answer the questions raised.


Behind The Q Ball

Previous posts:
Deep Throat v. Q
Q The Conspiracy - A Phenomenon
The Gospel According To Q
A-Marketing We Will Q
The Name Of The Q
Q The LARP Carp
Spe-Q-lating On Q
In The Twilight Of The Q
Jonesing For Q
Analyzing Q-Analysis
The Q Prophesy
To Q Or Not To Q
A Quantum Of Q-Bit
Surfing the Q Wave
Q Tips And Quislings
Some Quick Q
The Voice Of Q
The Q Treason
Q The Endgame
Right On Q?
Q The God-Emperor
Who Is Q?
Behold The Qult
Notre Dame du Q
The Q Genesis

READER NOTE: be sure to listen to the Rense Radio interviews on Q.  It should also be said I do not edit or censor ANY comments unless they are blatant attempts to profit off my work without sharing, or contain private contact information like phone numbers or email (may be an attempt to flame someone).

Even if you only invest a mild curiosity about the Q Phenomenon, you've likely heard the phrase, "Future Proves Past."  In the wake of the Jeffrey Epstein fiasco and Q's triumphant return after battling Nancy Pelosi's best efforts to block it (Q3370), you are going to hear this phrase a lot more.

Q virtually vanished on 26 May 2019, with just 3 Drops between then and 8 July, but roared to life on 8 July 2019, with 80 Drops in 7 days, and counting.  This is going to be fun.

Fair warning to the reader: there is a lot of jargon in the Qniverse, and I've written a couple of dozen articles on topic this past year.  You might feel a bit lost if you don't go back and catch up.  Probably the best summary I have, concerning what Q is and how it operates, is Who Is Q?

Where we stand as of this moment is that Jeffrey Epstein is the key to unraveling the Deep State.  Jeff Sessions was actually working on this particular case when all the world thought he was soaking up a free paycheck at the DOJ.  Sara Carter, John Solomon and Sean Hannity are Deep Q plants who've been under Super Secret Surveillance - until Q recently shut it down.  JFK Jr. is really dead.  And Q predicted all of this a year ago.

So the story goes...hang on for the ride.

Let's try to sort this bowl of spaghetti out.  We'll get back to Epstein in a bit, but for the rest:

Former US Attorney General Jeff Sessions has a strange history with Q.  Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation and was widely seen as completely useless and ineffective.  Within the Qniverse, Sessions alternated between White Hat and Black Hat.  Q Drops occasionally hinted that he was working behind the scenes to bring down Hillary Clinton.  Later, Sessions was doing nothing and the Trump Team really needed a bulldog in the position.  The Qvians by turn praised him and reviled him.  At the point of his resignation, Trump tweet-bashed Sessions and the Qvians turned their backs on him.  Lo and behold!  He's back in the Qniverse and this time he was secretly investigating Epstein.

Note that the confusion is not on the part of the Qvians.  They've just been following whatever cryptic clues Q has given them.  Of course, none of the Qvians mention the bad times, Sessions is once again a hero.  The Q Memory Hole is truly amazing to watch.

Sara Carter is an independent journalist attached to Fox News through Sean Hannity.  Her articles are widely credited within the Qniverse with exposing key activity within the Trump Administration and the Deep State.  Think of her as Bob Woodward to John Solomon's Carl Berstein, with Q playing the part of Deep Throat (see Watergate if these names are a complete mystery to you).

John Solomon writes for The Hill and is also a staple on Sean Hannity's program.  Both he a Carter have formed an unofficial team investigating all the shenanigans behind the scenes in Washington DC.  Both are also widely thought to be following Qlues to help expose the corruption.

Sean Hannity of Fox News appears to be Trump's favorite talking head.  The president often calls his show and Hannity seems to have a line on major announcements just slightly before anyone else.  He is also seen in the Qniverse as being a Acolyte.  Hannity makes certain comments that are interpreted to be "signals" of Q Solidarity.  Most recently, Hannity gave the "follow the pen" signal, and if you don't know what that is, I covered it some time back.  Essentially, it is a Q Signal of upcoming Executive Orders to address the Issue du jour.

The Storm is everything we see going on in US domestic and geopolitics.  The Storm is a military intel operation, conceived in the Obama years and launched with the election of Trump - or more importantly the loss of Clinton.  It is a "4-D" chess game of hidden messages, Autistic Anons, Trump tweets, Q Drops, and a swirling wind of chaos.

"The Patriots are in control" is the Qniverse equivalent of a secret handshake.  No matter how out of control and insane things appear, the Qvians repeat the phrase to themselves and it alleviates fear and apprehention.  When Q is wrong, when Trump looks like a fool, when North Korea and Iran look like they are on the verge of war with the US, we just calmly repeat the mantra and all is well.

And just how accurate and helpful has Q been?

We've got Julian Assange and Tommy Robinson in jail.  Trump's Labor Secretary Alex Acosta has resigned due to Jeffrey Epstein blow-back.  The US federal deficit is wildly ballooning.  The Persian Gulf is teetering on war, with the UK and Iran hot at each other's heels.  The southern US border is a joke from any perspective.  Trump just gave up the fight to get a citizenship question on the 2020 census after activating his base to fight for it.  In fact, the entire geopolitical theater seems on the verge of spinning into oblivion, but fear not.

The Patriots Are In Control.  It's all part of The Plan.

Rather than confident control of the situation, the world appears to be a bunch of ad hoc foolishness with no one in control and Trump little more than a trickster randomly pulling strings to see what falls out.

Into this swirling global bathwater we throw the entity and phenomenon of Q.  The Qvians are absolutely convinced that Q imparts wisdom and truth on behalf of their Qult leader, Donald Trump.  Even while Q constantly exalts "logic" and "reason," the Qvians (for the most part) abandon such things for blind adherence to Q's Drops and proclamations.

While the Qvians (and Q) rail against the GeezerMedia setting and controlling the public narrative for any given situation, they fail to notice that they are simply being fed an alternative narrative.  That Q/Trump proclaim it does not make it any more true than the corporate-controlled viewpoints.  It is simply establishing an alternative narrative that counters, but does not prove.

In the recent slurry of Q Drops, the two primary focuses have been the Jeffrey Epstein affair and Abortion via an attack on Planned Parenthood.  To listen to the Commentators (all across YouTube), the ideas of mutual criminality, blackmail and well-laundered slush funds controlled by NGOs and foundations are sudden and jolting revelations.  The "evidence" for these things is little more than subtle interpretations of Q Drops, a great many links to publicly available articles and tweets, and a vast array of implications and suggestions that the Qvians are expected to "research" for themselves.

Perhaps the Q Phenomenon is more an indictment of government-run education, than revelation of anything new.  The use of "mutual criminality" and "blackmail" are ancient and rife.  It has been used for political ends by the ancient Greeks, Romans and Chinese, the mafia, street gangs, and all manner of secret societies and organizations.  That anyone could be so naive as to think that every political system on the planet is not rotten with such things is inexcusable denial, at worst.

One of the most common excuses that Q uses to explain away the glacial pace with which its predictions are "fulfilled" is that the world is not ready to see how corrupt their governments have been.  Q either assumes that we are all ignorant beasts, or has no other means to wave away criticism for its failed prognostications.  We are quickly approaching two years since Q stated unequivocal that Hillary Clinton would be arrested and that troops were being stationed across the US to quell civil unrest, and yet...

Ask a Qvian to list Q's most successful prediction, and they will invariably mention the death of John McCain.  If one points out that the best way to know exactly when someone will die is to murder them, they wave it away as a "good thing" because Q told them McCain was a traitor without any solid evidence to the assertion.  In a sense, this makes all Qvians accessories after the fact to Murder One, and not a one of them bats an eye at this.  The ends justify the means.  The Storm is War, they tell us.

The Commentators sound as if they have been let in on some Great Secret of the Ages to learn of child kidnapping, abuse and murder.  In fact, the abuse of children in ritual sacrifices is nearly as old as humanity.  The use of bloody sacrifice   to seal covenants is a primary feature of the Big Three Religions.  Drinking the blood of children was a central part of Aztec, Maya, Inca, Mongol, Kazak, and many other aristocracies.

The Qvians might respond that Q/Trump are trying to end this practice and bring the perpetrators to justice, but that is a huge and magnificent claim that will take years to unwind.  In fact, it could also be interpreted as a form of blackmail itself to allow one faction of the global elite to subdue another.  Arrest a few key players and put out the narrative that this will lead to thousands of arrests and convictions, and the opposing side may offer up a great many concessions to protect themselves.

Related to the Epstein matter is the other Q focus of late on abortion, particularly as it relates to Planned Parenthood.  Here we find what may be proof of Q using Fake News in its narrative.

Q posted a photo (Q3405) of someone sorting through tubs of dead infants that was implied to be what goes on behind the scenes at Planned Parenthood.  One researcher, Patrick Mack at IPOT channel, was able to trace the photo to a story about a family in Vietnam that collected aborted fetuses there and gave them proper burials.  If true, this is the first time Q has been caught openly using "re-tasked" information to rally the troops.  Q did not give any indication that the photo was representative or unrelated to the assertions of criminality at Planned Parenthood.  It was presented as implied evidence, and if the story uncovered by Mack is correct, the photo has nothing to do at all with any organization in the US.  In fact, it may be a violation of IP laws, since no citation or link was given to the original.

Ironically, Q admonishes its followers for being kept passive by the GeezerMedia while doing the exact same thing.

That anyone is "suddenly" indignant at the way aborted fetuses are sold for parts, or that Planned Parenthood is just one of a network of organizations that funnel taxpayer money back into political campaigns is a sad indicator of the willful ignorance of the American public.

Political corruption in the US is an open secret.  The use of book sales, foundations and foreign aid as sources of campaign and personal funds is nothing new.  Scandals have flaired up over the decades.  Cursory patches have been applied that shifted the streams, but stopped nothing.  And business has gone on as usual since at least the Tea Pot Dome scandal.  The corruption is obvious, which makes the American public facilitators of it through their willful ignorance and unwillingness to call it out.

One thing that makes me extremely suspicious of Q is something I have mentioned repeatedly throughout this series: Q keeps telling the Qult to "sit back and enjoy the show."  Take no action.  Eat popcorn and be passive, as the masses always have been.  The Patriots will handle this for you.  Your job is "research" and keep busy while military intelligence takes over the Ship of State.

Obligingly, the Qult do just that - sit at their screens diligently reporting whatever Q tells them, or disseminating what the Anons post, but never taking real action.  Their job is to shelter in place and let the Big Boys handle things.  Not one of the Commentators has ever thought to organize a rally to show the extent of their numbers. There have been no calls for Q Marches or Conventions.  In fact, they seem almost afraid to learn the true extent of the Qniverse, as if they are unsure just how powerful they are.

Most of the Commentators I listen to regularly have 100,000-200,000 subscribers.  They regularly get 50,000-60,000 views on their videos.  Why have none of them suggested a show of force?  Are they worried that those numbers are inflated?  Or are they so controlled by Q that they can see no other course of action than to sit passively at their screens and wait for the next Drop?

Most of the Qvians do little more than crow about how much they know, but knowledge implies action.  That none of them have taken the step to turn knowledge into action tells me that Q has such a lock on their thinking that they are incapable of taking initiative outside of Q Commands.

Child Trafficking and Abortion are issues that have been around for centuries.  There have been numerous researchers that have spent lifetimes exposing this issues and the political corruption they engender.  I personally have been aware of the issues since the 1970s, and have gone head to head with them at great personal cost.

I do not see this kind of activism with Q.  Instead, Q has subtly steered its followers into sideline roles, clicking links and making videos explaining how great Q is.  These people do nothing active, nor does Q.

For anyone who has watched the Q Phenomenon closely, it rides on the backs of truly great activists like Tom Fitton and Judicial Watch, James O'Keefe at Project Veritas, and the journalists Sara Carter and John Solomon.  Q does nothing more than repackage the work of these good folks, and the Qvians dutifully ascribe credit to Q for simply putting a link in a Drop or two.

Q Activism amounts to little more than trying to smuggle Q Gear past Secret Service at a Trump rally in the hopes of getting the Secret Hand Sign or a gesture in their general direction as "proof' of Q.

For the vast majority of Qvians, the extent of their involvement is limited to watching Commentator videos, where the host reads the Q Drops, shows the links, and perhaps adds a bit of color commentary.  For a group that claims millions of followers worldwide, that's hardly a show of power.
Post Scriptum: Here is a typical reaction from Qvians when a little logic and reason is introduced into the conversation.  As you read the invectives to piss off, note that I did not inject myself into the conversation, but was addressed in the initial post.  I simply responded with a few salient points and was viciously attacked right off.  This is a common feature of Personality Cults.  Members cannot stand any assault of reason on their closely held beliefs.  Nor are any of the groups willing to rationalize the Fearless Leader's mistakes.  They simply turn and attack at the mere mention of a weakness.


What's In A Name?

An issue that seems to keep rising up to the top of the putrid news cycle is the artificial "problem" of gender-neutral pronouns.  A tiny but extremely noisy group of individuals, aided and abetted by a media agenda that seeks to destroy Western culture, demands that we use the pronouns of their preference when speaking to them.

This rubbish is so insane that I feel compelled to address it from a linguistic perspective.

To be clear, "sex" is a biological designation, and "gender" is a linguistic function.  People and animals do not have "genders," only the language we use does.  People and animals have "sexes," and 99% of humans have one or the other of "male" and "female," while the English language uses three "genders": masculine, feminine and neuter.

Of the European languages, English is the least gendered.  They are divided into two primary groups, the Romance and the Germanic.  English is a hybrid of the two, plus ancient Norse, which falls outside the two dominant groups present today.  Both Romance and Germanic languages have gendered nouns, which affects the articles, adjectives and pronouns used with them.  Romance languages have two (masculine and feminine), and Germanic have three (masculine, feminine and neuter).

When I use an adjective with a gendered noun, I must decline it to match the gender of the noun.  In the same way, if I substitute a pronoun for a gendered noun, I must choose the appropriate gender for the noun.  In French, "the war" is "she", while in German, it is "he".  In English, "the war" is "it".  It has no gender at all.  In fact, in English we use the neuter "it" for anything that does not have a sex.

The gender of a noun has little or nothing to do with our perceptions and assumptions of which "sex" the noun is generally associated with.  For instance, "the war" is a feminine noun in Romance languages (la guerra in Spanish), and a masculine noun in German (der Krieg).  "The house" is neuter in German (das Haus) and feminine in French (la maison).  Notice in both cases, the article changes to match the noun's gender, while in English it is always the same: the.

English does not have gendered nouns, although we sometimes assign genders to some objects.  In common usage, a ship is sometimes referred to as "she," and dogs are often referred to as "he" regardless of the actual sex of the animal.  Human babies are generally referred to as "it," a genderless pronoun, until we know the sex of the child, as in, "You're pregnant?! Do you know what it is yet?"

Let's take a moment to review the English pronouns, since many readers probably don't remember their grade school classes, though we use them all the time without thinking about it.

First, we have "singular" and "plural" pronouns - obviously depends on the number of nouns referred to.  Then we have three "persons": first, second and third.  Thus, a matrix of English pronouns looks like this:

The reader will notice that when I address someone directly, I use the pronoun "you".  Strictly speaking, this is the formal variant, but the informal "thou" has fallen into disuse over the last century, and "ye" which is the plural form, also no longer in general use.

In any case, when I address someone directly, any of the pronoun choices I have do not reference any gender - they are completely and totally genderless.  "You," "thou" and "ye" do not imply or connote gender in any way, nor can I infer a gender if I don't know who "you" refers to.  Thus, when I speak to someone and use "you" in my speech, I say nothing about that person's gender or sex, and the only possible option I have is to add "all" to specify a plural object.  The fact that I can use "you" to refer to a group proves that it is all-inclusive and genderless.

When I speak about someone to a third party, I now have a number of options, two of which reference gender, and the other two being completely neutral, or neuter.  I can use "he" when I perceive the subject/object to have masculine gender, and "she" when feminine.  In both cases, it is the perception of the speaker, and the speaker's choice, which gender or none will be used.  When I refer to a baby as "it," I indicate that I do not know the sex of the child.  When I refer to unsexed or inanimate objects, "it" is used to indicate that the thing is not human, or is not living at all.

The underappreciated pronoun "one" indicates a general reference to a human being whose sex is unknown or not important to the predicate.  For example, "When one visits Paris, one must see the Eiffel Tower."

In some English dialects, particularly in Ireland and western England, "your one" is frequently used to reference a third person whose sex is a given (both speaker and listener know it), or is unknown, or is unimportant.

Now, to address the ridiculous assertion by a tiny but vocal group of individuals who wish to change an entire language to suit their political goals.

English, and most European languages are based on the fact that there are only two sexes among human beings - and in fact most higher forms of life on Earth - male and female.  These designations are NOT genders, they are sexes, of which there are only two.  It takes one female and one male to create a third person.  There are no other options.  Any other variants are unable to reproduce.  Thus, there are only two sexes.

In language, I use "he" or "she" to refer to a third person because 99% of all human beings are either male or female.  There is a very tiny number of individuals who are born with both or neither sex, and they are usually unable to reproduce and will often choose a sex to publicly display to others for the purpose of fitting in to the general culture.  These individuals are called hermaphrodites and represent about 0.05%, or about 1 in 2,000 births globally.

As to the argument about which pronoun I should use for an individual, the point is moot.  When I speak directly to you, I use the pronoun "you," which is entirely genderless.  When I speak about you to a third person, which pronoun I use is frankly none of your business.  I will choose a pronoun based on my perceptions and opinions, and which is mutually understood to refer to you.  Since I am not speaking to you, you have no say in which pronoun I choose, since that matter is entirely between me and the one listening to me.  You have no moral right to try to modify my language - it falls solidly under free speech - and I have no moral obligation to use language that you choose for me.

Thus, when I speak to you, I always use non-gendered pronouns, whether you are an individual or group.  When I speak to a third person, the only concern you have is whether my speech is slanderous, but you have no right to modify my speech a priori.  Your only concern is whether my speech has harmed your person or reputation, in which case you are welcome to prove such harm in a court of law and ask for restitution.

If your feelings are hurt by my choice of pronouns to refer to you, this is entirely your problem and does not concern me.  If I start to edit my language to ensure that no one's feelings are hurt, then I quickly reach the point of not being able to communicate at all, since there is always someone who will take offence at just about anything I say.

Furthermore, your feelings are not tangible or quantifiable by any metric.  You can claim your feelings are hurt, but I have no way to objectively verify that statement.  You may be saying such a thing to manipulate me and do not genuinely feel such emotions.  I may choose to modify my language in your presence as a matter of social politeness, but I am under no moral obligation to do so.

The entire argument concerning pronouns flies in the face of thousands of years of linguistic evolution and centuries of legal advancements, primarily free speech.  Any law which attempts to abridge my superseding and unalienable right to free speech is prima facie immoral and untenable.  I choose my pronouns based on grammatical norms, intended meaning, and the right to choose whichever pronoun I want for any given person, place or thing.

The only viable solution in the English language, for those for whom this is a vital concern, is to use "it" or "one" for third-person singular pronouns.    Trying to force change on a language is a Sisyphean task, since language comes from the roots up, not from the branch down.  Furthermore, it violates every moral and legal precedent in Western law.

Referring to another person as "your one" is a viable option.  It is completely gender-neutral and has a long history in the common use of the language.  Additionally, "your one" does not have the emotional and connotative baggage that "it" does, since "it" is sometimes used in a pejorative manner.

"They" is frequently used in common speech when one wishes to hide the number and/or gender of a noun, but it quickly gets confusing in complex sentences.

The primary agenda behind this artificial issue is the destruction of an organic culture.  Language and culture are inextricably linked to each other.  By destroying one, you destroy both.  The issue of gendered pronouns and related attempts to artificially alter language is designed to destroy cohesive culture.  It is one of the fundamental tools posited by George Orwell to erase the past and control minds.

If a culture's language is sufficiently modified, then the people will no longer be able to read and understand literature.  Once the literature is meaningless, then the people have no way to access and understand the lessons our forebears committed to writing to teach us what they learned.

Gendered language is only one of many fronts in the Culture War, but it is a vital one.  If we acquiesce in this battle, then dozens of other fronts will open and a key bit of ground will have been lost.  We must reject this argument with prejudice and never allow any group, no matter what the grievance, to forcefully modify our language.  Language is our bond to the past and our key to the future, and that is precisely what this battle is about: erasing the past and controlling the future.