Monday, November 29, 2021

Emma's Travail


Emma's Travail
by Alfred Lehmberg


Astonishing! As if they were the victims of an insistently coercive telepath or something, people this writer would otherwise respect still want to give Dr. David Jacobs, that noted alien abduction "expert," outre alien "officiate," and "ET doom" author, an entitled "pass" regarding his well-demonstrated transgressions and gross unprofessionalisms... but THEN rather baselessly treat his psychologically assaulted former client, Ms. “Emma Woods,” as an obsessive nut-ball or shrill psycho-harridan, an especially nasty one, mind you, touted by her "critics" as drearily grasping for a little pathetic, if unearned, public attention... and working with a psychotic fervency only to smear the "good Doctor’s" name, and by extension? The memory of an even more revered (if late) Budd Hopkins.

Pfft! 

These are "lenses" of needs more focusable and in want of a busy cleaning, even. The late Jeff Ritzmann would have stridently spit in offending eyes and charged for the wash, and did! See, "blaming the victim" is de rigueur behavior for the du jour critics of Ms. Woods... This is rejected—rejected out of hand. "Me, too" will have legs of needs and with cause for this writer. He gets it.

Also? This will not be forgetting the well-deserved torpedo of brilliant light that the seeming toxic false-narrative of Alien Abduction decidedly took, below its now post-geriatric waterline, as fallout in the horrific affair... An unplanned but necessary result as the crow flies? This writer suspects so. 

Jeremy Vaeni, a conduit for the initial exposure of this affair along with the aforementioned Ritzmann, and alerting this writer to it at the start, once described the sinking of that mal-spirited "abduction-ism" alluded to above as a happy result of the revelation. Everyone DID tread more lightly after the Woods affair... 

Verily, the field was headed to unconstructive, even destructive territory... if the subject of this essay is any measure! No, where there is no honest oversight, sensible regulation, and presumed responsibility? Corruption is begged... indeed, isn't it assured?!

Corruption was indelibly recorded in this venue otherwise sanely regarded, at pains, a venue of interest to countless persons all over the planet—like heaven would be for the adherents of Abraham embroiled in their deceptions, eh? Remains, and like that alleged reward manipulatively intimated for a life well-lived: "if heaven can fall, it probably should"!

To continue, this writer was one of those whom he "would have otherwise respected." How would that work, one might ask!

Frankly, this writer once adored these two men. He held them in the highest of high esteems. Subsequently, that same writer aforementioned has been disabused of those respectful notions over the attendant ardent decades, plainly for some cause as it is perceived, sans any relevant (or suspected?) "dogs" in the hunt? One must use one's imagination. No dogs like that.

No, reader. The writer was just... embarrassed... personally, if not mortally, and again concerning his misplaced if sincere ufological faith. More on "dogs," later.

Firstly? This writer has listened to the evidence... hours and hours of it! The anxious and incompetent smarm displayed is as obvious as it is unconscionable. Any defenses of it: as unconscionable as they are vacuous! The well-intentioned and very strong regard one had for Dr. Jacobs becomes a baking-soda statue in an especially righteous acid rain.

Secondly, the problems, the writer's "problems" (if biggies and deal breakers...) with the late Mr. Hopkins (and his acolytes) concerns rank and unjustified pride of purpose, philosophical irrelevance based on homocentric fear of ego death (one presumes), and a narcissistic "mal-religious" hubris (in this writer's citable opinion and popular these days) pushed by these two for cash and notoriety. Evil defined. 

Observed was that especially anxious Pope-like authoritarianism of despots and peanut gallery—that inexplicably steadfast and unwavering support of David Jacobs given the evidence… ...then the hypocrisy, reader, where Jacobs is found to be so profoundly, so demonstrably dirty, you know? 

Was there any cogent defense beyond "fake news"! "Witch hunt"! The ever-popular "She's crazy"... addressing the stark evidence presented? No.

One offers, also, that not much is lost vis a vis Hopkins ufological "legacy," such as it is, given Hopkins "more notorious cases," Linda Cortile, and finally Jim Mortellaro; some very likely wild blue horse muffins, muffins thoroughly discredited, credibly, by comparatively sensible researchers of the outre, George Hansen, Raymond Fowler, and Carol Rainy et sig al. These are persons ok with discovering zebras (or unicorns!) where horses were rather pompously proclaimed by a non-investigating and so incredulous science! 

These were not reflex, reactionary, and so "spring-butt," skeptibunkies, the reader will note, but noted shoulders upon which the sentient might stand regarding the highly strange shiznit they've addressed or regarded sensibly and with such selfless sincerity! Posted!

Indubitably, these are quality observers, intrepid documentarians, and adroit writers/researchers! These are not folks associated with CSI(cop) in other words, so not inexorably hardwired to the ephemerally errant and reflexive "prosaic/mundane," mechanisms used as a "reality tunnel" regarding the strange shiznit alluded to and dealt with here! 

No, These are named persons of good reputation reasonably open to finding those aforementioned zebras... only, these but shoot massive holes in the narrative and veracity of Hopkins' “Biggest” cases! The rest?  Perhaps an abuse, misinterpretation, and a self-serving distortion of real events? Clearly, something extraordinary and highly strange happened to Debbie Jordan-Kauble. It is unfortunate that Dr. John Mack was not around to take that case...

In the second case above, "Mortellaro"? This writer was very near the supportive center of that lurid affair. One can report that it turned out to be a real steaming pile of festering yak heave, personally, but we digress

Burned and shy, one is provoked to an attitude of eyes askance and arms akimbo concerning all the rest. The late Dr. John Mack, from above, an esteemed Harvard psychiatrist who had a more constructive and less homocentric or hubristic take on the phenomenon, "survives" in literature to provoke valid interest on the phenomenon, still... an interest not crippled by hubris and human arrogance.

All the preceding remains an unsettling eye-opener …and cold winds blow through dreaded halls ill-lit by those flickering exit signs in the dead of our unsettling paranormal night… verily! See, it remains that history would show Hopkins’ “biggest cases” are entirely bupkis, and David Jacobs stands revealed as a self-admitted monster (admitted stealthily to George Knapp on Coast 2 Coast one dark and stormy night) as was pointed out previously. Moreover, this writer has been speaking or corresponding with "Emma Woods" for many years, now, over a decade. ...An uncanted, entirely honest, and circumspect assessment?

In addition to being organized, objective, constructive, and comprehensive, she is also efficaciously flexible, wholly acceptable, very specific, and entirely thoughtful. She strikes one as a remarkably sane, inordinately strong, and very intelligent woman who won’t suffer a psychopath’s scurvy foot on her throat, flatly. In consideration, a pox of insistent metaphor on David Jacobs, and on some reflection eh? ...And too bad about the legacies of Bud Hopkins... and Harvey Weinstein...

Saddling up for Jacobs and donning the associative red sash (as he most stridently did), he sauntered on down to that "OK Corral" himself, and his un-asterisked legacy was mowed down in the well-provoked crossfire. Moreover, uncaring primary histories will demonstrate that a certain "lack of respect" for "women," in the aggregate, is evidenced by these two—a decided undersell in this writer's opinion. 

These were ready adherents, one would suppose, to the now outdated and outmoded, if wholly Tennysonian sentiment: "Woman is the lesser man, and all thy passions, match'd with mine, are as moonlight unto sunlight, and as water unto wine." Never! ...Gylany! Learn it. Know it. Live it. Love it.

Sadly, one can suspect David Jacobs (and the memory of that sullen, critically ill, but, most importantly, validating Budd Hopkins) as having an idiosyncratic credit with persons entirely apart from themselves, a credit plunging to worthlessness with this writer; however, when Jacobs is seen (or heard) “committing” (that rock kicked, and decidedly, over!), the betraying “crimes” alleged and senselessly perpetrated on a legitimately trusting Woods, on-air… and the late Hopkins, in the winter of his winter and apparently thinking only of his own "abduction" legacy, doubled down for Jacobs in an intellectually insulting defense regarding the unwinding and rancorous aftermath of what would come to be the Emma Woods story.

The writer says all of this having once loved Hopkins and Jacobs, himself, and verily, remember... bought their books and attended their lectures... loved them as courageous teachers and bold explorers of inner and outer space! Terence McKenna level respect! McKenna, thankfully, has not yet been disgraced. Yet? No one is immune.

Jacobs, conversely, made his own bed (or had it recorded!), in the first place, with Ms. Woods (et al), and any supporter of Hopkins has never travailed to "sail South" of him in even respectful disagreement, in the second... like this writer was once compelled to do in an issue of UFO Magazine

Hopkins could get petty, dismissive, and nasty, eh? In print, too. 

He once shouted at an aforementioned and questioning Terence McKenna during a UFO conference on one occasion last century, according to McKenna... Something similar to a Trumpian "loyalty" is demanded with some mavens of the ufological...

Do you know what this writer is betting? Jacobs supporters have never, no, not one time, ever, talked with Emma Woods. They've never listened to her clear-record evidence. These must errantly believe that this massive and well-vetted evidentiary aural pathway provided against Jacobs is faked, confabulated, or contrived! These must cling, apparently, to their eroding paradigms and betraying heroes with feet of river mud aswirl in a blackwater swamp. The writer is reminded of a Trump supporter.

Moreover, this writer waded into that "accusation" of Jacobs fully expecting to take this "obnoxious woman" Woods, down, himself, vindication assured for both Jacobs and Hopkins! ...Another notion quickly disabused. See, where one looks one may find. The reader will remember what was writ about disabused high regard and falling heavens...

Sincerely, how can these supporters then speak to her "obsessiveness”… and “stalking behavior”?! Forget for a moment she’s on the other side of the freaking planet, an expatriate of the African continent and a person wholly, and very safely, ignored… no, instead she must be very suspiciously pilloried by Jacobs' adoring fans and ready lickspittles for her "dismissable temerity" of self-defense!

...And reader, let's digress a moment and wonder about the base character of the man accused by this woman. This is the kind and gentle person his adoring public would have as a respected teacher and edge academician. That man would have loudly and unequivocally decried her fervid persecution by his legion of fans and sycophants... be outraged and offended by her treatment! Though, not so much with the good Doctor... especially where no discouragement is encouragement, right?

Reader, the opinion considered says the evidence instructs and convinces this writer that Jacobs intellectually “raped” Emma woods, he salaciously mind-f**ked her, reader, and for apparent lascivious amusement and pecuniary interests! That is a nonpartisan assessment viewing, if one stupified by the enormity of that which is illustrating such and so, and it is well-vetted with evidence acknowledged by principals in the affair.

What follows is but this writer's observed take, but when wholly innocent Ms. Woods caught wise of what our good doctor was doing, and further observed, herself, as she wanted to bail and said so, that he'd decided he couldn’t otherwise profit from her?  He cut his losses and betrayed her, psychologically infecting her, in a suggestible state, with a corrosive psychological toxicity of untoward and unlearned hypnotic suggestion, and then "skipped town," in the association sense! 

That suggested invasive mechanism regarded a risible "diagnosis" by Dr. Jacobs, of a baseless if exceedingly dangerous "psychosis" requiring psychotic drugs and perhaps even self-commitment or institutionalization—and all this from a history teacher! This seems clear to a person willing to see "forests" for "trees," eh? Moreover, it's all down hard on vetted tape and digital recordings: his malfeasance, his utter lack of due diligence, his narrative cross-pollination of his research subjects, one presumes to establish that narrative. What science was this?

Consider… Over the aforementioned and wholly unentangled long haul, this writer has come to understand Emma Woods, he believes. And she’s just not that hard to understand… she's THIS writer!

See, a similar affair happened to this writer vis a vis one particularly nasty little net-weasel's fallacious, if public (!), no-evidence suggestion. His suggestion that this writer was an f'n pedophile, for Christ's sake!

Regarding such slander… and does anybody want to criticize this writer's “obsessiveness” and “stalking behavior” in many public forums, over the years, as regards consequences for that net-weasel's horrific slander... and what then turned into years of sniping at him everywhere he's seen to raise his pointy little head?

Mmmmmm-no? Good. See, like one Rich Reynolds? This writer will happily eat your literary face, too. The offense was real and my outrage would more than match it!

No! This writer will pursue and righteously harass his graceless slanderers until he gets effusive and unabashed public apologies or six figures in “slander per se” damages, by the gods! Remember,  flawless reputations are smeared and, perhaps, the reputation of a son of the same name besmirched with unconscionable casualness, too… maybe a future embarrassment to his grandchildren! In a less enlightened time, the writer would have cut him to pieces in a duel! Let THAT be in the record!

No, it's in the court of public opinion remaining at the last. That remains the only tool for the remotest recompense for situations such as these… This writer will avail himself of them righteously and justifiably. The writer can then, of course, have no criticism for a similarly just and righteous Emma Woods!

Emma Woods, it is offered then, is cut from a similar if not a more refined yard of cloth than this writer. There is nothing obsessive in her diligent activity leading to the righteous restoration of one's own self-respect and sense of self-worth, personal attributes stolen by a platoon of seeming psychopaths for reasons most unconscionably foul and wrong-minded, it could be guessed. It’s not stalking behavior campaigning to right an egregious wrongrighted wrongs are important! Righted wrongs establish personal relevancy and aid in the aspiration to efficacious self-actualization

Moreover, the reader would feel differently were the horrors endured by Woods endured... but by the reader, eh? Why must anyone be depressed by the depraved, unwarranted, and unconscionable ignominy of erstwhile others... 

It’s important enough, perhaps, to risk a
possible positive place in recorded history, one's valued "friendships," even banishment and expulsion from one's “respected” community if that inclusion and placement denotes signing on for dishonor. Consequently, where it comes to justice for one innocently if hugely wronged, the hard-spun celebratory memory of Budd Hopkins or extended credit for a thoroughly discredited (one would think!) David Jacobs... is just not worth the price of admission.

This writer is driven to his expressed opinion by the observed selfish cruelties of the late Budd Hopkins (et al) and a presently smirking David Jacobs... with his legion of biased and conflicted supporters. Remains, one can see themselves in Emma Woods.

“Perforce we are plagued
with an _odious_ ignorance…
the sordid results
of those faults not our own,
as some lack respect
for the folk shoved beneath them…
and lacking compassion?
Blood's drawn from a stone!”

As a person aspiring to the loyal Ronin himself (Ask Nancy Birnes, Lesley Gunter, or Reagan Lee for bonafides!) this writer suspects that there are few lone wolves, really… one would offer that many of these serve their masters but are entirely toothless without them. This person aspires to own his own teeth. 

See, it is one thing to feel welcome in a camp, to stride in confidently to the fire still wearing your saber. It is wholly another having scraps thrown from that same fire and, whimpering in acrawl on your belly sans sword, be awash in cognitive dissonance, bereft of honor, and, bemused by psychopathic monsters... be enjoined to scrape for that "rich man's" crumbs. That is metaphor, reader.

What is this hold that Jacobs has on people who should know better in the face of abundant evidence to a terrible contrary? It's a talent of psychopaths. Required are only unblinking mendacity and a penchant for self-aggrandizing psychopathy to serve the profitable lusts of others.

Yeah—fervent Jacobs supporters may even be third-string Groupies thinking they’re in the band, so capering in masturbatory delight at the fuss they cause in the real world... where there is so much clear evidence to the contrary! ...But is all that actually beneath concern, consideration, and ready contempt? Yes.

Didn’t these persons reach out as third parties and try, effortlessly, to snuff out Emma Woods' voice (website and even web-presence!) like Rush Limbaugh ball-gagging Sandra Fluke? That’s why he has to be mashed like a bug, eh? Excised from all relevancy. Canceled, in a word.

This writer is asked quite a bit, “What did Hopkins or Cortile do to you?” People seem to want to know what happened in that regard. They would have no questions about this writer's criticism of Jacobs, by the way.

Folks seem to get that in spades… …and when considered, given every shred of evidence… considered evidence, and vetted evidence, forgetting the recorded admissions of Jacobs himself... how does everyone not get it! It’s like an eldritch spell of the Trumpian arcane was cast!

Hopkins was “fine,” in comparison… The writer loved him, himself, as was writ earlier… until one found one had to disagree with him… then he could turn into a lanky Big Dick Cheney, eh? ...Shoot you right in the face.

So, it was his authoritarianism eclipsed by his foursquare, steadfast, and unreasoning (self-interested?) support for Jacobs this writer can’t get past… where Jacobs was so profoundly, and so demonstrably, reader, “dirty,” one will recall... no lipstick for that pig, n'est ce pas?

...And Cortile? This writer feels or opines, based on the reports of principals concerned, that she seems the liar and psychopath and led Hopkins down a primrose path he wanted to be led down because she "proved" his thesis, a thesis ultimately not supported in any of his "bigger" cases: Linda Cortile, herself, and finally Jim Mortellaro… In the third of the three, Mortellaro, the reader will recall, this writer was very near the supportive center, as said above, and can report, again, that that affair turned out to be a real steaming pile of lurid psychosis, personally wounding and embarrassing, if one digresses for some meaningful repetition...

Sorry if the reader’s a Hopkins fan. This writer was, too. This writer, too...

…But what does anyone, reader, have to do for another, in a presumed professional sense, but not disappoint, dishearten, disillusion… or of course, let down, deceive, or betray the subject ministered to? It would seem, and early on too, that Jacobs, in this writer's considered opinion, was a stealthy practitioner of all of that!… and do you know what a named credible authority on psychopathy and serial killers, Dr. William Birnes, once told this writer about Dr. Jacobs? One bets you DO know! Dr. Birnes felt that in his considered opinion that Jacobs was cut from cloth closely related to, and every bit the dominating predator, describing the serial sex criminal... purloined soiled under-drawers and chastity belts, after all. One must wonder if that can be true.

Hopkins was cool with all that; so, and in some extreme ways, what did Hopkins "do" to this writer as a result of his lack of due diligence, his evidentiary cherry-picking, his ponderous denialism, his unlearned, ill-appropriated, misused, and pretty squirmy hypnotism, and his gravid self-interest or concern for a subsequently baseless (largely) ufological legacy? What was a legacy larded with personal betrayals and convenient mal-alliances... ...but a disappoint to dishearten, disillusion… even let down, deceive, or betray... this writer! That’s the short answer to any earnest concerns of the reader... These betrayed, in the fashion of its way, this writer.

Closing, some might provide that the dead can’t defend themselves. Untrue as it is irrelevant, legacy is earned and the writer spent too much time in reverence to Christopher Columbus to have a concern for legacy. Show the writer who you are, and he'll know you couldn't have been what you were.  Moreover, the writer offers that many supporters remain… pick one! There are ready defenders… stalwarts to take this writer to task for his transgressions upon "honored memories" in any neutral forum at any time… Indeed, Dr. Jacobs can thank the initiatives of these "supporters" for any rekindled interest in him currently playing out… …in the writer's opinion! Still, one wonders if that pleases him.

Too, has Emma Woods composed a two, maybe three, volume outline of her experience with the "good doctor" for publication? It would be a constructive initiative outlining the evolution of a betrayal to a trust. We shall see...

Did the writer go on and on? Yet, here we are.

Restore John Ford.

Wednesday, November 03, 2021

Bug Eyed Monsters? ...Not So Bad!


.
.

I must have ninety hours, now, 
good film on UFO's... 
not counting books and pictures...
other persons that I know...
If some believe me... "immature"... 
for my "consuming interest"? 
I can, but only, point straight up
to indicate... the endless...
.
...Sure, and I concede, again, 
that much of this is "crap"! 
Sure, I understand, again
that most of it is "cracked"! 
Sure, I will admit, again
there's little "proof of contact"... 
but less is more, I'll say again
and make the better contract!*
...
In ninety hours I have found, 
perhaps, ten minutes—most profound. 
These are scenes passed proffered "answers," 
scenes offered up like new-wave dancers... 
Though, all they do ... just "dodge" and "dazzle" ... 
dis the "Major,"** chump Mack Brazel. 
Humiliate their kith and kin, 
cloud the issuethreaten them!
.
I am NOT a dummy, friend. 
I've got eyes, a brain—my skin. 
I've seen them pulsing way up high, 
in morning, noon, and nighttime skies...
.
Too, I speak to folks I know with "crust." 
These are folks, quite sane, I trust. 
These maintain there's something shining... 
zipping, zooming, warping ... ~flying~..., 
something unidentified... 
but still an object they'd not hide!
.
This is NOT a "UAP"! 
Phenomenon!? Oh, stop it, please!  
"Phenomena" shan't have to be there
but "objects" MUST, we would declare!
.
Indeed, we see these "stranger" structures—
we've "entertained deranged conjectures." 
...But, we have kept our heads, at last—
tied them down, but made them fast!  
.
See, leadership betrays our trust, 
and to that "void" attention's thrust!  
They'd deny the frankly obvious, 
and that provokes "the dark oblivious"!
.
See, something hides in star-stained skies. 
Something "cosmic" strangely flies. 
Something lives beyond this Earth, 
beyond our garden, yard or hearth
Something lives by different rules... 
propending weird... peculiar schools! 
"Someone" watches from the edge. 
Something new is on the ledge
Something keeps its "eyes" on us...  
...and should we show it love and trust?!
.
We may as well, my sneering friend; 
it's Humans who've been nasty fiends! 
It's these with their obtuse agendas, 
to "these" you are dismissed minutia.  
then screw you for percentage, proud! 
And this to spite relationship
associa, clan, or kinsmanship!
...
Put your faith in Bug-Eyed Monsters, 
dripping slime from every pore, 
before you trust a mean humanity
shown malfeasant and abhorred!
No, don't you worry over-much,  
your B.E.M.'s "intentions." 
They're the least... of your concern; 
fear Humansmy contention!
.
See, it's not the "vicious" space folk 
who've sold you cigarettes
not them who planned (in secret!) 
your addictions, you can bet! 
Not them... refined their nicotine 
to a "teased up, unbound state" 
that's exploding in your brain, 
my friends, like black-fanged, smoky snakes! 
.
Not them who hooked our children, 
not them providing strife, 
not them who took our money... 
and then ruined blighted lives! 
Not them to lie about it 
and then hire on "Ken Starr"*** 
to fight their heinous battles 
from that "well respected" bar...
.
...Something lives far ~out~ there. 
I've "ten minutes" says they're here!  
They happen sure as it's a fact... 
...but, of them? Allay all "fear."  
...And no, I don't say a better deal 
awaits our lot with "them," 
but compare our present status... 
why, the best AND worst that's been?

Why, we've been raped... abused, confined... 
by our culture—skin and mind! 
Better contracts could be had!  
BEMs then... not so bad!
.


*Absence of evidence is often ill-serving as evidence of absence. 
**Jesse Marcel, with Mack Brazell, key at Roswell, NM...
***On Ken Starr
The Tobacco Companies and Kirkland & Ellis

by Stucco Holmes From http://www.umsl.edu/~thomaskp/yvrwc.htm


[Infamous prosecutor of BC's BJ, Ken] Starr's elite Washington law firm, Kirkland and Ellis, represents the tobacco companies in the litigations brought against big tobacco by the Clinton administration. Starr worked as a lead lawyer on these cases before being made special counsel and continued working on tobacco cases long after being appointed special counsel, i.e., well into last year. This is highly unusual, as special prosecutors typically drop everything else so as to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. Starr has conspicuously failed to do this. Starr is, however, sensitive to such charges and, in response, has appointed former Watergate committee counsel Sam Dash as his "ethics counselor."

The FDA, under the Clinton administration, has shown that the tobacco companies have been engaged for decades in a conspiracy to defraud the public. It's not just that they market something that hurts people. What the Clinton FDA has shown is that they've known for years that the stuff was a) addictive and b) linked to cancer and yet they've consistently lied about such knowledge. Not only that, but they actively moved to increase the addictive elements in cigarettes and consciously marketed the stuff to kids. They are, one might say, drug lords, whose deceit has gotten a lot of people killed. (Meanwhile, recall that Ken Starr claims to be deeply disturbed that someone might lie under oath. Also, note the state--North Carolina--that Senators Helms and Faircloth represent and the industry that dominates its economy.) The tobacco companies are also among the largest contributors to the Republican party.

According to the Chicago Tribune, Kirkland and Ellis is currently conducting an internal inquiry into the possibility that a partner in the firm has been providing "unapproved assistance" to Paula Jones and her lawyers. The partner in question, Richard Porter, was formerly a senior aide in the Bush administration. During the 1992 presidential race, Porter handled "opposition research" for the Bush/Quayle reelection campaign. Opposition research, or "oppo," as they call it in Washington, is a polite term for dirt-digging. The oppo specialist is charged with finding material that can be used to embarrass, undermine or smear an opponent. Clinton's lawyer, Robert Bennett, has alleged that personnel at Kirkland and Ellis may have done secret, undisclosed work for Jones and her lawyers regarding their sexual harassment suit against the president. As partners in the firm, both Porter and Starr are legally responsible for each other's work.
~~
...and he's currently down for fascism, the implosion of our Republic, and the death of Democracy.

Tuesday, October 19, 2021

Science As A Closed Institution



You shan't "profit"! You're made stupid,
and that's the role of "institutions"
which are closed to "oversight";
they're hiding stuff that lights the NIGHT!
See, we don't need to "SEARCH" for truth,
that's a pedant's dodge and ruse.
Where you want your problems "aced"
...is where you know "the truth" but "FACED"!



Science As A Closed Institution
by Alfred Lehmberg


A "closed institution" is a bad institution—generally. A lack of critical oversight on any institution leads to corruption of that institution—if it ever was uncorrupted—in all cases. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, always! Even with God, one would imagine. One gets to a certain age and that becomes obvious.

There are rules—checks & balances; break them at peril. Besides, we're just not that good, yet, eh? We lack the courage and constitution to be efficaciously arbitrary—non-constitutional—autocratic. Evidence?

Consider an unfettered plethora of scurvy chicken-hawking Christian priests, running blithely free, raping their flocks of their life-savings and  Social Security, prosecuting piracy a result of betraying their flock's faith, piracy to live splendidly in 10,000,000 dollar mansions ensconced behind jealous gates and higher walls... free to spew a toxic hatred and intolerance for the eminently tolerable. 

Still, the masses (you and me) complacently allow them this, you see? Why? Why, indeed.

Running parallel to the preceding—and related one could expect—there is a most fulsome whining and carrying on, otherwise, by our hyper-educated science religionists, presently, regarding a "belief" on the subject of a so-called "pseudo-science," a pseudo-science rotting a "legitimate" science from within! Maybe. 

Though, forgotten is that this may be a corruption that science facilitates itself. Yes, facilitates itself... and for a plethora of bad reasons.

So, again, this may be a too proud science lacking all humility and thinking entirely too much of itself, at the start. Do we betray it, or, has it first betrayed us! This is a fair question. This is asked remembering that science is, most oftentimes, not the scientist officiating it... even lofty tech mountains moved or climbed!

Grandly pontificated in this alleged "rot" is what the aforementioned and du jour science apologists proclaim is facilitated, you know, by the mere consideration of various and sundry scientific so-called "heresies"! These are the heresies, I argue, a cut to the chase, that may be too quickly and arbitrarily declared "out of bounds," by these goal-keeping enablers, even arbitrarily disallowed by these jealous and sometimes pecuniary officialities. Dismissed without a look. That's not science.

No, these may be but the anxious pronouncements tediously propounded by moaning wan pontificators who would have us believe, for example, that the study of UFOs, their ancillaries, and other unsolved "anomalies" (or unsettling "peculiarities") in their regard... must destroy the very science that the more rational of us (ironically!) would use to attempt a serious study of those very things

Science must not fear investigation it seems to this writer. No! It must welcome it! 

Were we not all taught that "Science," incapable of mere fear, is fearless investigation? Begs for it, even wrong! ESPECIALLY wrong! Admission of error is ever a step up for real science.

Now, this reflexive fear is not surprising given the abject humiliation UFOs traditionally provide for an inappropriately arrogant science (arrogance is usually bad), but still: their protests are stuff and puling nonsense which dishonors them, reader! "Science embellishes on its "sour grapes" where seemingly in-quixotic UFOs very "disrespectfully" refuse to jump into science's presumptuous test-tube, on command! Well, this writer offers that it is science's unscientific resentment of uncooperative UFOs that fuels its dismissal of them! The reader is reminded that we don't conflate science with scientists so much as to observe that science is what science does.

See? It might be these science religionists, themselves, who encourage the very rot and disinterest they would decry! It might be the science religionists, themselves, who make science dull to the layman and uninteresting to the student anxiously sought. It might be the science religionists, themselves, who limit an investigation to such a narrow reductionist band of filtered reality in method, repeatability, and measurement perhaps leaned on too much. It might be the science religionists, themselves, who unpropitiously pitch the proverbial papoose with the soiled bathwater (and... sorry... not!).

Finally, it might be the science religionists themselves who depart from the reality of science. They might do this when they obstinately CHOOSE not to go where the data ultimately leads—for shortsighted, self-serving, and status-quo maintaining reasons, too! 

Consider, ...was a broad-spectrum cancer "cure" discovered decades ago and shelved to sustain a corporate pharm's bottom line by continuing to merely treat it? Can you say, "Cannabis," reader? ...Tip of an unimaginable iceberg... somebody knows.

Some of these science religionists pompously pronounce "reasonable-sounding proclamations of scientific fidelity and high-toned due diligence," but this is merely a fallacious cloak too airily worn, reader, an appeal to a more vacuous authority. They still won't first evaluate what they dismiss. 

Wearing these cloaks, remember, are mere garden-variety human beings rife with embarrassing error and hubris and encumbered with jealousies of ego every bit as petty as any of the reader's own. Certainly this writer's! We lack awareness of that so we act inappropriately.

Human beings. Likely ten in a hundred of these, more under pressure, can be full-blown sociopaths—monsters, reader—and ninety percent of all of these are full of crap, in addition to being monsters, because ninety percent of everything, if you can believe Theodore Sturgeon, Isaac Asimov, Stanton Friedman or Jeremy Vaeni, is inconsequent crap. Look at DJT.

Fealty, fidelity, and honorable conduct won't be guaranteed in proud "Scientia," just as it can't be "guaranteed," anywhere. Verily, these obtuse science religionists can be just as crooked as anyone else... look at the "Christian Priesthood" already alluded to. So, the only way you can be assured of having these qualities also alluded to is to demand that Fealty, Fidelity, and Honorable conduct around yourself, eh?

One must produce, I re-phrase, all the justice (one can stand!) themselves, by themselves, and around themselves. The hijacked mainstream can't... won't—shan't—stand for very much of it themselves (that's contrary to the pecuniary), so don't depend on it for justice!

The "well-meaning" but certainly ax-grinding klasskurtxians (interested only in keeping coveted positions at funding troughs!) assume the cloaks of these "scientific religionists," write the rules for that discovery with its retreating, so unapproachable, evidentiary horizon, and make up from convenient cloth the definitions of "evidence," to start! They set the "sliding-scale bar" of "proof enough" for the—very manipulated, conned, and complacent—rest of us. 

What is the "sliding scale" bar? What is proof enough? Are we manipulated (non-efficaciously so) by our society for the unconscionable benefit of some shadowy elite? How could we not be, just looking around the du jour existentiality of our reality, currently? Look at the behaviors, known and unknown, of ubiquitous billionaires fomenting fascism unfettered as these words are written?


The "sliding scale bar" is the "killer app" rubric of plausible deniability employed by Skept-O-Bunkies (SOBs) regarding "extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence," for instance. The "bar that shall be cleared" is set by the SOBs, themselves, so there is never enough "extraordinary evidence" for a contested claim, resulting in Jean Van Gemert's observation regarding conjectured receding—forever backsliding—and therefore unachievable and so useless "evidentiary horizon." 

As "proof" may counter a jealously entrenched mainstream, there "shall be" no proof extraordinary enough to unseat that mainstream. A non-efficacious manipulation of crass self-interest... by any other name? It is offal sweet.

The "reasonably observant" are not fooled. Too, the now well-described duplicitousness of mainstream science is sensed by the masses even if it cannot be articulated, as such, by those masses. All begin to perceive, to one level or another, that it is this conflicted mainstream defining the provenance of the ballyhooed and bemoaned "rot from within"... if that rot "exists" ...at all! 

People remain to have a sense of being bilked, shined on, or betrayed. Why would that be unless perhaps they are being bilked, shined on, or betrayed, in truth? We may pay the price for all this in a disrespected science... and parent officiality, during pandemics and concerning climate science, say? Yes... there are prices to be paid for being allowed to deliberately lie, without consequence, on public airwaves. This has been allowed since the Reagan Administration, but we digress.

See? Asserted here is that science may encourage the "rot," to a degree, themselves.

"Anti-Truth" may not decidedly be the fault of "fringe activities" arising, at the start, only as a result of the scientific VACUUM imposed by those same reflex reductionists identified as SOBs above and alluded to in the first place, eh? This is an informational vacuum decidedly remaining after those same mainstream science religionists (and their equally limited SOB-enabling apologists for same) complete their cultural "slash and burn" of individual sensibility, journalistically, and then sail grandly on... on our wind! In other words, when did we have to start looking over our shoulders at the professional classes best created to serve humanity and not PREY upon it? ...Closed institutions.

Cops, lawyers, bank officers, preachers, CEOs, doctors... agencies, institutions, and governments? Scientists? Increasingly lacking humility, do these become only more and more predatory?

The proof of all this is a very obvious, if anomalous, aerial activity that is still giggled at by the mainstream, 50 (if a little less so currently) years after it was first identified as a bona fide matter of (mind-bogglingly!) gainful scientific study! UFOs have humiliated Science at every turn, since, for its timidity, perfidy, and its tireless dismissal of what they have steadfastly refused to investigate at all. 

The stars, ladies and gentle-bunkies! No less than the stars are lost in this bowdlerized and so artless Cartesian but reductionist intransigence, an intransigence they would too readily accuse in the "detested" fringe... a fringe largely detested because they make the scientist re-do or re-think work thought done? 


Any true investigation demonstrates that there is very little to giggle at, after all. Moreover, science, as a junior institution in the measure of things, shouldn't smile... especially condescendingly. A condescending smile's a smirk, and smirks should only earn a sneer from superiors, contemporaries, and subordinates alike. They're not constructive. We've already discussed the utility of arrogance.

Somebody knows. It's in your, very likely, gainful interest, reader, to know as well. Besides, that visit to the cosmic dentist's office can't be put off indefinitely. Precluding your "knowing" are closed institutions, institutions without oversight for convenient reasons benefiting, and known, only to, "themselves."

Most institutions are closed even if only colloquially, or become closed to an individual if an individual can't or won't be "vetted" by same—unable or unwilling to clear arbitrarily emplaced hurdles regarding sensible politics, justified curiosity about the obtuse arcane, or a sentient atheism revolted by teacher-led prayer in public schools, say... or the teaching of historical error as fact... These Non-"vetted" individuals are denigrated, marginalized, and reviled by "closed" institutions. This writer has had personal experience with same.

Ironically it remains that Individuals (sic)—a result of their singular if transmittable inventiveness—are required for any lasting cultural success. Individuals are the elements of change required because what can't change dies... or goes extinct. The consequence of rigid and unchanging 'closed' institutions is the death of evolving progressive culture, its rising and advancing. Organized religion, based on its own behavior and reputation, scientific or otherwise, is the meme of extinction!

Individuals are key. Respect your individuals; only, don't take any crap from them, either! That follows. Psychopaths may have a required utility with the odd ability to "make the quick hard call," but not without oversight! Never without oversight! Oversight is... the way

...What's closed, and WHY!

Is it honest? Is it fair? Is it constructive? Does it aspire! Then how or why is it closed?

Read on.

Saturday, October 02, 2021

The "You" You'd Recuse

.
.
.
Think what you want, friend, 
regarding "Abduction." 
A nest full of liars
mistaken, or cursed. 
Consider these making 
a play for your dollar
not worthy your notice—
revolting, or worse?
.
Then, make them a scapegoat
Make them your clown
Make them embarrassed?  
Make sure they're cast down!
.
Use them, abuse them—
why, assign "yellow stars"! 
Mock them as bar-flies 
from Venus or Mars! 
Do what you will 
to stay 'comfy' and 'safe.' 
...But lie to yourself!  
Pretend it's you, brave!
.
Yes, treat with derision 
this hapless minority
though, cling to fraternities
and stuck-up sororities! 
Stick to your "Bibles," 
your "tracts" and "epistles," 
then slink past your graveyards... 
contriving to whistle!
.
Laugh while you're able
you artless elite! 
You stuttering clot poles! 
You shameless effete!
.
We're an atom in an ocean! 
Who's to say what drifts our way... 
on those currents so indifferent 
to the games that YOU might play! 
We're a grain upon a tiny beach 
unaware we're unaware... 
or why it is that we're betrayed 
by systems, you'd forswear!
.
You know, given your foreknowledge,
observance of some fact...
some clue to what was going on...
An autodidact's act...
.
We're a tiny—larval—bit of life 
bereft most truth and sentience
We're saints, if psychopathic; 
we're seers sans all conscience
We're all the things we'd hate to be
still, carry just a tad 
of everything that grace t'would be... 
...if currently? Quite mad!
.
When you laugh at our afflicted, 
but then put them in your "shows," 
you make dishonest dollars 
while you thumb an upturned nose! 
Who profits from this disrespect; 
you frolic for the "man"! 
You caper for his pennies... 
then you buff his "penile, gland"!
.
Well, this, at best, seems ill-advised
and provoking disrespect.
That seems little aspiration
to an enlightened intellect.  
Any "credence" to that party-line? 
One gives their bland support... 
detracting from progressiveness
so we take it in the shorts!
.
On UFOs now detected,
their rejection heretofore?
So, where's your skeptibunky; 
where's your smug, denying, TV whore?
There's been no investigation
These maintained that that's unneeded
No one was even "looking," friend! 
"Looks" entreat and beg, beleaguered! 
No one has the *courage* 
...'cause they know it's unrewarded
.
...Sad crews of us cooperate 
but likely, ALL are strung along...
to give their bat-squeeze our own weight, 
'til disaster's sung its song...
.
We could have been more strident! 
We could have made commands
perhaps elected persons 
who would make our harsh demands!
.
We could have saved more money—
brought our population down
We could have cleaned our rivers—
put our wires underground
We could have told our kids the truth 
in schools of trust and light
We could have made more effort 
to get Ready, Real—Right!
.
But we maintained the status quo, 
we stayed the "party line." 
We laughed at our "abductees," 
and we wasted precious time!
.
We're given harmful counsel, 
it happens all the time—
"Gaslighting" that it's us gone mad! 
Some "doctors" should do time!  
Yeah, ask the woman, "Emma Woods"  
if she's been on that ride. 
Assess her story's elements, friend,
then see what you decide.
.
So think what you will, "Phil"—
regarding abduction! 
Stay the old course 
of your sad re-reductions! 
Forget you knew nothing
forget you're the fake! 
Pretend your foundations 
don't crumble and break!
.
Forget that the saucers 
still fly in your skies; 
forget the abducted 
and pretend that their cries... 
are musings of idiots
cretinous loons 
who scratch at your wallet 
then howl at your moon

See, it's you and not *abductees*, 
Cast as "wanting" here, today! 
It is YOU, and not abductees, 
sopped in glad naivete!
.
YOU are the cause 
of their pitiful nescience! 
 Subject to laughter, 
enduring derision...
It's you at the core 
of our lack of concision! 
We're TRAPPED in a prison
of your lack of vision!
.
Your time is now passed 
on a ship that has sailed. 
You're a "fat lady sung" 
and a bread that's gone stale. 
The pendulum swings 
as it's wont, then, to do, 
and it matters not 
Muslim, "Christian," or Jew.
.
...Not Shiva, or Krishna, 
nor Buddha have clues. 
It's your "felt experience," reader! 
The "you" you'd recuse!





A salute, then, to Emma and her genuine courage.
Let's walk with her, then, and so be less discouraged.
She's on the right path; she carries her load.
I'll walk with her gladly; she's a light on the road!

  • Too, restore John Ford at ANY cost to a landed elite! An institution which countenances this atrocity of injustice is not worthy of continuance. Verily, any institution that could be brought down by the legal and righteous efforts of just one man—SHOULD be brought down, of needs and for cause!

Monday, September 13, 2021

Tulli's Papyrus

To Touch Truth On Her Face...

"Tulli's Papyrus"—The Eternal Duel 
Of Seekers And Shirkers
By Alfred Lehmberg 



What might a person DO... to avoid being laughed at? What means might they contrive to avoid that unbearable perception of being the butt of someone else's, even ignorant, joke... or face-losing accusation?  What chances will this person take, then, to be wrong, or, even MORE damnable—too correct? From where will an act of very necessary and selfless courage then come? This writer looks at his own courage and despairs for cause.

Worse yet, and far more likely... what does a corrupt and illiberal person, one who senses an obvious threat to their worldview or pocketbook, do? Predictably, this person selfishly employs their praetorian point of view's UNJUSTIFIED instruments of unrighteous deconstruction... cognitive dissonances and employed illogics—alternative truthssits on some smoking-gun evidence, say, or even (shame!) destroys that evidence outright! These are questions more than intimated as one investigates the presumed unintentional disclosure of one Father Alberto Tulli, and how it pertains to the (assiduously AVOIDED!) subject of historical UFO's.

So, let's say it was you, honored reader. Let's say it's YOU who'd stumbled upon some bit of compelling evidence providing that first inimitable push into a startling new view of our more expansive world and the multi-verse beyond it!  Bigger than the genetics of Mendel or the implications of Darwin's Origin Of Species... the startling evidence is held in YOUR trembling hand!

What do you do with it? All courage issues aside, courage would of needs be colossal as freight is paid for "disclosure". For example, consider Messrs. Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden. Jesus, conjecturally, was killed on the cross for his disclosures. The "light bringer" is often killed, outright for their contrary stand, even the righteous one... oh, especially righteous one... 

Only, one regards our current condition: however, dismayingly. This is given the clear results endured as a result of: the toleration of superstition over science, rumor for fact, and insentience for sane sensibility... Maybe an alleged dying on a cross is a satisfactory trade-off for the efficacious elevation of a self-actualized humanity, even it were the reader? ...What would Jesus do?

Perhaps, like our Father Tulli, you stuff the revelations of a rising and advancing human spirit in a remote and dusty drawer amongst your personal possessions... only to have it found at the conclusion of your remarkably dull and pedestrian life—final proof of your regrettable cowardice? What price three days scourged and stabbed, then?

Do you DESTROY the accusing evidence (?) and live with your nagging conscience (or not!) for the remainder of a pathetically indifferent and lamentably complacent existence? Or, do you (rare bird!) offer the OTHER hand, and use it to extend your purposeful, positive, and passionate reach deeply into the waters of REAL truth... or at least a more challenging, vigorous, and dynamic INVESTIGATION into that richly complicated, but more vitally satisfying and inclusive *real* world? "What do YOU do," Keanu asks...

What DO you do!

Pausing for a moment's reflection, how many other bits of information (just like the forthcoming!) are hidden away in the sealed drawers of shadowy vaults forgotten by ALL (excepting, with difficulty, that select and secret few with total access)? The question is begged. 

How many MORE of these artfully anomalous articles are at the arbitrary WHIM of some craven and convenient coward—that faux-conservatively minded and exclusive sociopath? What dazzling documentations, momentous mechanisms, or awe-inspiring inferences lie smothered in the CONSCIOUS attempt to protect that occlusive socially conservative plutocrat's—conveniently pernicious and predatory, but wholly contrived and imaginary—position? WHAT hides—WHERE and WHY?

Exposed! All of it!! Necessary secretes has been too wee abused.

Truly, that arguable need to keep SOME secrets is an abused privilege that has been suspiciously and egregiously overexploited, as stated, and so distastefully and even dangerously, PERHAPS, a full and complete accounting must NOW be made... .  Maybe we owe it, this storm before the calm, to ourselves.

Returning to our intrepid anti-protagonist, the good Father, what kind of man was Father Alberto Tulli? Was he a gentle and cloistered academic loved by his family of friends and respected by his educated colleagues, or was he a sullen low-tiered architect of the pervasive and unjustified SECRECY crippling and trivializing the individual potentiality of every ONE of us, today? Could he (by some strange mechanism of social irony) be both? 

This is forgetting that an assessment of "either" is not within the scope of this essay. Those essays have been written by others—they will continue to be written. This essay would lance THAT particular boil!

Though, who WAS Father Alberto Tulli? Certainly, his lack of *remarkable* (conscious) contribution could be his definition, and a possible answer to the preceding question. Wool-dyed association with the Catholic Church's curious office of Egyptology, he was but a tiny cog in a tightly closed institution that has been around long enough to generate (and then jealously keep) a PLETHORA of deep and darkly shadowed secrets... all its own!  Indeed, Father Tulli's single association with the anomalous subject of this essay was to come to light, by some reports, ONLY after the event of his death.

We pause here to remind the reader that "Tulli" is another one of those UFO cases, like McMinnvilleRoswell, and Trindade, which has been dragged back and forth across the line of self-honest credulity by the ufologically disingenuous so hard and so often that the line is smeared into near illegibility. We'll remember that we need but one true UFO, right? One is all you need, and surely there is one in our human history.

Back to Tulli, the meager papers, effects, and possessions accumulated in a life of apparently unswerving institutional loyalty are, at last, revealed and examined... presumably just to identify what goes where (as in the event of ANY death, this writer's eventual death—assuredly!). Controversially, though, Father Alberto Tulli's personal and otherwise mundane academic effects contained an unsettling surprise decidedly NOT so mundane and assuredly NOT so personal.

The writer pauses to remind my patient reader that this written exploration is made in good faith. Further, the writer presupposes (and reiterates) that intelligence not of this planet is MORE than suggested by seven deep categories of OTHER pieces of evidence just as, or even more, compelling than THIS one, one which could be wild horse muffins


That doesn't matter remember, TRUFO or True UFOs only have to evidence themselves once in those seven vast categorical seas. Numerous items from our purposely contrived and foggy history provoke similar pointed questions, forgetting for a moment that this particular one was dismissed by writer Samuel Rosenburg as unfounded invention!

Ok...

His—too easy—dismissal was based on an alleged (and unsubstantiated) inexpert translation of an ancient document the Catholic church reports as currently "lost." One critique, Rosenburg's scoffing conclusion, was as dictated to Rosenburg by that SAME Catholic church cloaked in the, ever assumed, faultless integrity of an "infallible Vatican."  The reader should be feeling some unease. Infallible, this writer's south end moving north.

See, even THERE the reader can hear the weak admission that some artifact existed, even if it cannot now be produced! Is this naught but just one more piece of the ongoing puzzle lost in the convenient shadows of the planned general ignorance? Such might be so.

So, what IS this alleged artifact?

Roughly, but certainly no less than three thousand, five hundred years ago, in an unremarkable Egypt far removed from us and further distorted by murky academic antiquity, there once ruled, as it's writ, the minor Pharaoh Thutmose III—also unremarkable (at least as far as Pharaohs go). 

THIS Pharaoh, as it happens, fortuitously continued the serendipitous tradition of making a durable record of the events of his time in a manner that would (it was naively hoped) be CRYSTAL clear to the presumed unending chain of forthcoming future Pharaohs. Writing was a serious business back then, it was treated with more respect.

It is plainly suggested that he made (or had made) the following recording, inked deeply into the rough surface of one stunning sheet of startling, if lost, papyrus! The reported translation of the stylized figures in these curious hieroglyphics follows:

In the year 22, the third month of the winter, in the sixth hour of the day, the scribes of the house of life found that it was a circle of fire that was coming in the sky . . . its body was one rod long by one rod large. It had no voice, and the scribes so advise the King. Some days pass, and lo, they are more numerous than ever. They are shining brighter than the sun in the sky. The army of the Pharaoh looks on with Him in their midst. It was after a respite that the circles flew up higher and disappeared to the south. It was a marvel never occurred since in this land.

Other accounts of this intriguing document talk about a strange "stink" that the "fire rings" make in the air as they dash around (foreshadowing Flatwoods?), and further describe the Pharaoh as futilely chasing the dazzling circles from below in his horse-driven war chariot, slinging pathetically ineffective bolts at them as the fire circles darted effortlessly past. 

Perhaps exhausted, finally, from their seemingly ignored exertions, the sweating Pharaoh and his fearful men stand at last looking up at the indifferent saucers with their mouths hanging open, effected by equal amounts of enchanted wonder and abject terror. Such is reported so.

In a sidebar, one could speculate that the personal stock of this apparently fearless Pharaoh went WAY up with his relieved troops at the no harm conclusion of the terrifying, albeit one-sided, exchange. They could ALL call themselves very brave that day, and, this writer submits, likely did.

Returning abruptly to the mysterious document suggesting this astonishing occurrence, this writer questions what truly underlies the social mechanism USED to preclude a document, of this enigmatic type, from being brought to light immediately and with all deliberate speed! What hides in the shadows of that ridicule permeating the interested discussion of such a document, and the larger reality that it heralds? Much likely hides in that ponderous ignorance we continue to consciously assume like a smothering cloak, to our peril.

Consider some idle if reasoned speculations. Father Alberto Tulli was a man who did not want to be laughed at. Father Alberto Tulli was a man who did not want to compromise or contradict the untested faith, assumed fidelity, and convenient sensibility of his order and its institution. Father Alberto Tulli was a man willing to stuff an oddly smoking gun into an out-of-the-way drawer to further postpone, perhaps, humanity's rendezvous with its more secular destiny? 

Father Alberto Tulli was a... coward (yes) in the most regrettable sense of the word, was not motivated by adherence to any strict (otherwise fawned over) scientific method, and was a mere stooge for an outdated, probably criminal (certainly unethical), and decidedly back-stepping world view? Yes. 

This writer knows that he would be judged in a similar fashion upon committing the so described, or some analogous offense. What's gravy for the goose, and all that... this writer appreciates consistency only because TRUST can sometimes be born of it.

This writer challenges, with outrage, that "smoking guns" remaining hidden, and ACCUSES the owners of these drawers (into which these smoking guns are so smugly ensconced) of the aforementioned regrettable cowardice. J'accuse!

With fervent anticipation, this writer envisions a time when we will, collectively at least, more typify the courageously advancing and forthcoming seeker over the cowardly retreating and obfuscating shirker. The seeker—the one willing to run that gamut of wounding negativists to touch the truth on her shining face. The shirker, of course, is described everywhere else in this essay.

Concluding, this writer asks WHEN (and even if!) we might all ever learn to laugh at the laughter we SHOULD be laughing at! That brand of laughter alluded to is identified as toxic and that which comes from the one with substantially less COURAGE than the one PROVIDING the mal-alleged amusement. It is the laughter born of a whistle past a graveyard. It is the laughter born of those unable to face the selfish fears of their own convenient manufacture.  Turgid and turbid and not a little rabid.

Additionally, this writer wonders when we might begin to compromise and contradict that which deserves compromise and contradiction—even bite the feeding hand which offends so deeply and egregiously that it CALLS OUT to be bitten?  How much social infidelity and inconsistency are a rank and file expected to bear?

Some see evidence of the beginning of that furtive hand gnawing, a coming revolution, and assuming the patented Dan Quayle deer-stunned-by-headlights "look" on complacent faces—pretend they don't know why or how.  ...But they DO know, we all do, of course, know why and how.  

Those answers don't have to be searched for, reader; they have but to be faced!  How much is a betrayed and abused rank and file expected to endure from their own officiality, anyway?

Somebody knows.

Read on.