Sunday, 19 January 2020

Space Force Commander Sworn In

Service guarantees citizenship! A ceremony has been held in which General John W "Jay" Raymond took an oath of office and became the first ever commissioned officer of the United States Space Force. This is a few weeks after President Donald Trump officially established it, see here for essential background: The event was handled by the Vice-President Mike Pence and Col. Curtis Fernandez of the National Space Council. It took place in the Vice-President's Ceremonial Office in Washington DC. The people all stood while a US Air Force choir-member sung The Star Spangled Banner. Interestingly the national anthem of the USA contains the lyric "and the rocket's red glare". The composer of the anthem was referring to signal rockets launched by the US Army during the Anglo-American war of 1812. However, there is a strange cosmic joke with the anthem being sung at the establishment of a space force; perhaps doubly so because rockets themselves are obsolete technology that are only used today because of the secrecy in which free energy and antigravity are held. In the background link above I go into more detail about that. After the song there were prayers led by a chaplain; this is America after all. Then Vice-President Pence did a speech, thanking various individuals, including some of the names in the above background article. Gen. Raymond took his oath with his hand on the bible and became the first ever Chief of Space Operations. Then he made a speech about his personal feelings, with some humour. Mixed with that was the usual statements about the supposed need to extend military might into space, although just as a "deterrent", Gen. Raymond said. Source: There has been some criticism of the USSF uniforms; they supposedly look too much like those of the other services. There has been particular scorn shown to the DPM camouflage utilities that are worn during everyday duties. Why do space force members need to wear them when they're only meant for land forces? One reason is simply military culture and traditions. Members of the navies and air forces often wear them, both in the States and other countries. Also it is far cheaper to make them. Instead of a tailor designing and weaving totally new outfits, they usual line can be continued, simply with different badges on them. The same goes for the officers' dress number 1's. They're the same colour as the USAF's, and for the same reason. This question came up on the recent episode of the Mind Set Podcast, see (coming soon). Where this new organization will lead us in the 2020's is anybody's guess, but in the background links, above and below, I explore possibilities. Would you like to know more?

Wednesday, 15 January 2020

The Mind Set Podcast Programme 384

I have been featured on Programme 384 of the Mind Set Podcast.
Subjects discussed include: the Alien Autopsy film returns, the Harry and Meghan scandal, big trouble in Iran and much much more.
See here for my previous appearance on The Mind Set Podcast:

Sunday, 12 January 2020

US Navy has More Nimitz Evidence

The United States Navy has made a stunning announcement. Following its statement in September last year that the "Tic-Tac" footage was real government material, see:, it has now revealed that more evidence exists. They said this in reply to a Freedom-of-Information Act request by a researcher called Christian Lambright. It proves that at least one other UFO video from the same encounter exists. It could be that it is the full version of the original clip that was leaked and published by the To the Stars Academy back in 2017, or it may be an entirely separate video, maybe shot from another aircraft. The US government maintains its stance that the objects featured in this evidence are "UAP- Unidentified Aerial Phenomena". They have now added that there exists not only more video, but further evidence in the form of briefing slides. The problem is that this new evidence is all currently classified as Top Secret. The FOIA response does state that the reason for the classification is technical and auxiliary. It seems not to be because of the nature of the content itself; it is because it might reveal information about intelligence gathering methods, sources and other matters whose confidentiality is needed for national security interests. This scoop comes at a good time because just a few weeks ago another pilot, Chad Underwood, came clean about being involved and joins his colleague David Fravor in the list of witnesses to the Nimitz UFO Encounter, see: This story has been widely circulated in the mainstream media, including the inevitable and unavoidable interview with Nick Pope, see: Pope believes that the additional material might include telemetry, data from other sensors and targeting systems that will tell us more about the properties of the UFO. Source: It remains to be seen what happens next. The government have so far not given any indication that the material under discussion will have its classification reviewed in the foreseeable future or at any time in the future. I am filled with curiosity about what it says and so obviously I hope that it will be published soon.

Saturday, 11 January 2020

Peter Croft and Ben Emlyn-Jones 7

See here for the programme:
A discussion between me and Peter Croft, real name Chris. We discuss demonic possession and how it relates to human beings on a personal and political level.
See here for my previous interview with Peter Croft:

Friday, 10 January 2020

Peter Tatchell- What's Wrong with the Left?

Although I've never met him, Peter Tatchell could be considered a former colleague of mine on The People's Voice, a now defunct internet TV service. Tatchell is originally from Australia, but rose to prominence in 1960's Britain when he was part of the Gay Liberation Front, an organization campaigning for the civil rights of homosexuals. He has also become renowned as an activist for many other causes; most notably, to his immense credit, he arrested Robert Mugabe. I have had major problems with some of the things Tatchell has come out with in the past, especially his worrying fixation on sex around the borders of the age of consent. I denounced him at the time for such disgusting statements; however in recent years he has changed his attitude. He has developed a more libertarian outlook. He refused to condemn Ashers Bakery, the Belfast company who declined to make a cake for a gay wedding and as a result he was "cancelled". I suspect it was this experience that inspired him to give a lecture at the Institute of Art and Ideas called "What's Wrong with the Left?" He makes the point that the Left defines itself more by what it is against than what it is for. Just think how many organizations there are that are called "so-and-so against such-and-such". Therefore the Left is essentially negative, identified purely by what it opposes. It seems undecided or even unaware of what it is in favour of. It is beset by infighting (as if the Right is not!?). Momentum activists turned viciously against Owen Jones when he came out and said he did not support Jeremy Corbyn in the Labour leadership race, see: Tatchell complains that the Left cannot perceive a good intentions. They have this "one strike and you're out" rule in which a single deviation from orthodoxy results in total and permanent excommunication. He wants to see the Left become more forgiving and embrace a wider range of opinions. He decries complete state ownership of industry and calls for that ultimate expression of capitalism: employee cooperatives. He stresses the need for free speech in the same kinds of words Dr Jordan Peterson or Sargon of Akkad would use. Source:

The Left criticizing itself from within is not a new thing, in fact George Orwell did this a lot in the 1930's, see: Oddly enough some of the stereotypes he runs through are recognizable to somebody living in the modern world, almost ninety years later; the "fruit juice drinking, sandal wearing, nudist, sex maniac, pistachio-coloured shirt wearing crank!" The thing which both Orwell and Peter Tatchell do not understand is that the Left doesn't have a problem, the Left is the problem. It cannot be reformed or healed because it is fundamentally pathological. It is a mind virus created by the New World Order to imprison human beings on a deep psychological and cultural level. (And I'm not just condemning the Left; the same can be said for most of the Right, but that's a topic for a separate article.) It is revealing to see the acerbic fury which the Left descends into over its own internal conflicts, for example the TERF's versus intersectional feminists, see: The anti-Semitism row in the Labour Party is another example. The reason Labour is not tackling their anti-Semitism problem is because it is coming almost exclusively from the radical Islamist tendency who have infiltrated the party. Labour have painted themselves into a corner. Not to tackle the issue is "anti-Semitic!", but to tackle the issue would be "Islamophobic!" It's easier just to run away and turn Jeremy Corbyn into a scapegoat. It's interesting and encouraging that Peter Tatchell now has viewpoints that are very much in flux. This is the only response any intellectually honest thinking person can have when confronted with the cultic brutality and logical contradictions of the leftist milieu. I hope he continues on his journey much further and I wish him luck.

Thursday, 9 January 2020

Peter Croft and Ben Emlyn-Jones 6

See here for the programme:
A discussion between me and Peter Croft, real name Chris. We discuss the drone strike in Iraq, the fall of Gold Standard finance and global warming or cooling?
See here for my previous interview with Peter Croft:

Tuesday, 7 January 2020

Ricky Gervais Golden Globe Speech

Ricky Gervais is a comedian best known for creating and starring in the TV sitcom The Office. This year he was the master-of-ceremonies at the Golden Globe Awards. Like the Academy Awards, the Golden Globe is one of the biggest celebrations on the Hollywood calendar. All the most famous stars in cinema attend to pick up their trophies or to watch others doing so. Gervais' speech was not what anybody expected and has proved beyond doubt that he is well and truly "based". He opens by saying: "You'll be pleased to know that this is the last time I'll be hosting these Awards." I've no doubt that is true; in fact I'll eat my hat if he ever gets invited back again! At 3:30 he makes a joke about Jeffery Epstein's fake suicide and adds: "I know he's your friend!" The audience gasp and hoot with a mixture of amusement and confused derision. At 5:20 he tells a joke about Prince Andrew. Ricky repeats several times: "I don't care!" and he doesn't. Source: Just remember, Ricky Gervais did not kill himself! It is encouraging that things like this happen. I was just talking about it today with an old Truther friend and we considered this a sign of the times. Cover-ups are becoming harder to engineer and maintain. Oddly enough just after this speech a number of media outlets began distributing pictures that are allegedly photographs of Epstein's prison cell; for example see: However, these are very different from the initial photos and diagrams published of his cell, see background links below. The cell in these new photos looks far less "suicide proof" than the original ones. See here for a good analysis: The other suspicious elements are also present, such as that CCTV cameras were trained on the prisoner at all times; and that warders were on standby just fifteen feet away. These new media spots sound like a reaction to Ricky Gervais' speech. They hope to dampen the rising tide of awareness in the people. They have as much chance of that as King Canute.