The Implosion Of Russiagate

by William Skink

Once again the skeptics were right, Russiagate was a pile of steaming shit served to us by a feckless party of corrupt losers and enabled by people in totally corrupt institutions who consider themselves to be above the law.

Let’s start with the servers where the emails were “hacked”. Did the FBI examine the servers? No, they didn’t, they farmed out this critically important first step in the investigation to a third party called Crowdstrike.

Was there any actual evidence that Russia hacked the DNC servers? No, no there wasn’t.

Six days ago the Grayzone dropped a bombshell that Crowdstrike finally had to admit there was NO EVIDENCE Russia stole those emails from the DNC server:

In newly released Congressional testimony, Crowdstrike president Shawn Henry said that “we did not have concrete evidence” that alleged Russian hackers actually took the emails from DNC servers. “There’s circumstantial evidence, but no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated,” Henry said.

Aaron Maté breaks down Henry’s testimony and why it adds new doubt about the core allegation at the heart of Russiagate.

I added the emphasis because all the rivers of bullshit that flowed through corporate media during the last 4 years stem from this CORE ALLEGATION that Russia “hacked the election”.

Skeptics like me said, um, no, no they didn’t. Why? Because the evidence pointed in a different direction.

People without functioning brains (because they have ceded their thinking duties to the party) got all worked up about Billy Barr trying to get the case against Flynn dropped. If these people had functioning brains, and were able to objectively look at the evidence, they would see that Michael Flynn walked into a perjury trap set by the FBI.

Even worse, exculpatory evidence was withheld from Flynn’s defense team. This evidence was recently unsealed, then dutifully ignored by the brain dead partisans telling us their pussy grabber is better than the bad MAGA pussy grabber.

If you are not a brain dead partisan who supports pussy grabbers as long as they are YOUR pussy grabbers, I suggest checking in with Consortium News every now and then. Their contributors have been providing skeptics like me with excellent insights over the years, accurate insights, not corporate propaganda.

Here is Patrick Lawrence about the See-No-Evil Phase of Russiagate:

Two weeks ago the Justice Department made public documents showing that when, in January 2017, prosecutors wanted to close the collusion case against Michael Flynn, who briefly served as President Donald Trump’s national security advisor, because they found “no derogatory information” against him, Peter Strzok, the philandering F.B.I. agent later found to be shaping an “insurance policy” against a Trump victory in the 2016 election, cajoled them into keeping it open — absence of evidence be damned.

The Strzok revelations turned out to be prelude to the two other developments further demolishing the Russiagate narrative. Last Thursday Justice finally dropped its case against Flynn altogether. We now know he was the victim of a perjury trap when questioned about his contacts with Sergey Kislyak, Moscow’s ambassador to Washington in 2016. “Get him to lie so we can prosecute him,” was the FBI’s directive.

Yet worse, Flynn’s guilty plea was in response to prosecutors’ threats to indict his son if he pled otherwise. Tell me the difference, please, between this kind of stuff and the treatment of the accused in the postwar show trials in Eastern Europe.

Nice FBI we got here, huh? But since TRUMP BAD, the ends justify the means. It did for the FBI, and it did for the “legacy media” that enabled this criminal farce. Here is how the media is doing damage control:

Among the press and broadcasters, it has been a spinfest this past week — led, naturally, by The New York Times, given no one in the media dares venture a syllable for which the Times has not signaled prior approval. The paper’s report on the dismissal of the Flynn case marked the judgment down as “the latest example of Attorney General William P. Barr’s efforts to chisel away at the results of the Russia investigation.” I lost count of the mentions of Flynn’s “lying” and “guilty plea” after nine. No reference to the perjury trap set for Flynn, or the threat to indict his son.

The Times ran two further pieces hatcheting Flynn and Barr in Saturday’s editions, here and here, and a straight-out character assassination of Flynn on Sunday, casting him as some kind of pathological split personality. The Gray Lady doth protest too much, in my view.

Nice “news” rag we got here, huh?

Unfortunately, none of these disclosures and exposures and admitted lack of evidence will do a damn thing to dislodge the partisans from their Russia binky. TRUMP BAD, so who cares if no evidence from Crowdstrike, and perjury trap for Flynn, and real perjury from James Clapper, and opposition research for FISA warrants, and everything James Comey did.

None of that matters. Partisans are going to partisan.

For the media, there is a little story we like to tell our children about the boy who cried wolf. The moral of that story is that if you prank people about a threat just for the LULZ, thereby losing their trust, when the threat is real, and you need a response, it won’t be there.

WHY O WHY DO PEOPLE BELIEVE CONSPIRACIES ABOUT THE DREADED COVID, corporate media laments.

Maybe because you WELL-PAID PROPAGANDISTS spent 3 years pushing your own bullshit conspiracy about RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA while actual vectors to destroy Trump, like Jeffrey Epstein, got the kid glove treatment.

In conclusion, the skeptics were right, Russiagate was bullshit, and no one should blindly believe legacy media anymore. Their lies didn’t just try to remove a sitting president; they have also lied our military into costly wars that have killed millions, and now we skeptics suspect they are lying to us about the true nature of the pandemic.

Wake up, people. Our political system is a totally corrupt divide and conquer racket protecting sociopaths and pedophiles, dumping trillions into hollowed out banks and corporations, while telling us the economy must be destroyed to save us from the Ft. Dietrich flu.

Money, Vaccines And Sociopaths With Names Like Robert Kadlec

by William Skink

Donald Trump thinks we’ll have a vaccine by the end of the year and he’s mobilizing the US military to deliver this wonderful solution to all our Covid problems.

I’m not sure how many of you will unquestionably allow these sociopaths to inject their solution into your bodies, but since your blood will be circulating their amazing vaccine, maybe you should get to know some of these individuals who will help bring this new age of medical tyranny into existence, like Robert Kadlec.

Some of these nasty ghouls have remained lurking in the shadows for decades. Thanks to more phenomenal reporting by Whiteny Webb, Kadlec’s critical role is being exposed for anyone who hasn’t retarded their curiosity about how power shapes their lives.

Here is an excerpt from the piece on Kadlec, titled Head of the Hydra:

Robert Kadlec describes himself as having been an “accidental tourist” regarding his introduction to biological warfare. An Air Force physician who had specialized in tropical diseases, Kadlec would later say his interest in the field began when he was assigned to be a special assistant for Chemical and Biological Warfare to the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), advising then-head of Special Operations Command Maj. Gen. Wayne Downing, on the eve of the first Gulf War.

Kadlec would later state that he had witnessed firsthand how the military, immediately prior to the Gulf War, had “lacked the necessary protective equipment, detectors, and medical countermeasures including vaccines and antibiotics against the immediate threats posed by Iraq,” allegedly prompting him to want to better U.S. biodefense efforts.

While holding this post at JSOC, Kadlec was privy to the advice of William C. Patrick III, a veteran of the U.S.’ bioweapons program who had developed the U.S.’ method for weaponizing anthrax and held no less than five classified patents related to the toxin’s use in warfare. Patrick, who had left government service in 1986 to become a consultant, advised the Pentagon — then headed by Dick Cheney — that the risk of a biological weapons attack by Iraq, particularly anthrax, was high. Patrick’s warning prompted the U.S. military to vaccinate tens of thousands of its troops using the controversial anthrax vaccine “anthrax vaccine adsorbed (AVA).” Kadlec would personally inject AVA into around 800 members of the U.S. Armed Forces.

The Anthrax vaccine program was beset by problems, like making US servicemen and women quite ill. These are the “side effects” of the vaccine, side effects that were bad enough to lead to litigation. Here is NBC News reporting on this all the way back in November of 2001:

The race is on for vaccines to protect us against biological weapons. The spreading risk of anthrax has made Americans realize how relatively easy it is to spread terror with germs.

YET THERE IS ONLY ONE FACTORY in the United States currently equipped to produce anthrax vaccine, and it has effectively been shut down, awaiting clearance from the Food and Drug Administration. The vaccine it makes has won FDA approval, but its revamped plant and machinery in Lansing, Mich., have not yet passed newly rigorous standards imposed by the agency.

The company’s name is BioPort, and if you haven’t heard of it, you soon will. It supplied anthrax vaccine for American troops during the Persian Gulf War and got caught up in the controversy over the vaccine’s safety. More than 500,000 U.S. troops were inoculated, and a tiny percentage of those suffered side effects. There was one death reportedly connected to the vaccine, which BioPort disputes, but which has resulted in an ongoing lawsuit. Vaccines are risky. The smallpox vaccine, which was once widely dispersed in this country, kills one of every million who are vaccinated, and hospitalizes one in every thousand.

It’s interesting this article from two decades ago mentions a small pox vaccine because the current reporting on Kadlec by the Washington Post also mentions a small pox vaccine:

After Robert Kadlec was confirmed as President Trump’s top official for public health preparedness in 2017, he began pressing to increase government stocks of a smallpox vaccine. His office ultimately made a deal to buy up to $2.8 billion of the vaccine from a company that once paid Kadlec as a consultant, a connection he did not disclose on a Senate questionnaire when he was nominated.

Under the agreement struck last year with Emergent BioSolutions, Kadlec’s office at the Department of Health and Human Services is paying more than double the price per dose it had previously paid for the drug. Because Emergent is the only licensed maker of the vaccine, Kadlec’s office arrived at the price through negotiations with the company rather than through bidding.

Kadlec is just one of many of the money-grubbing sociopaths who see big profits in forcing vaccines on us, no matter the risk, the illnesses caused, and death.

And there is risk. Even the CDC says that vaccines with made from live virus material should NOT be taken by people with weakened immune systems:

Vaccines made from live viruses, such as MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) and varicella, however, are not safe for many people with weakened immune systems. Talk to your doctor what your options are for protecting yourself against these diseases.

But Skink, vaccines are the only game in town to save us from the dreaded Covid. All the approved scientists and corporate media platforms are telling us this is so. Are you saying the profit motive could be more powerful than the need to protect tens of millions of people from a novel Coronavirus?

Yes, money trumps safety when it comes to these evil fuckers and their evil schemes.

But are vaccines really the only game in town?

I read an interesting article this morning about the origins of Nature magazine and the gatekeeper role it has played in destroying the careers of non-approved scientists. The article is titled How Huxley’s X-Club Created Nature Magazine and Sabotaged Science for 150 Years. It begins with the magazine’s attempt to conclusively shut down any speculation this iteration of the Coronavirus could have been manipulated in a lab:

Amidst the storm of controversy raised by the lab-origin theory of COVID-19 extolled by such figures as Nobel prize winning virologist Luc Montagnier, bioweapons expert Francis Boyle, Sri Lankan Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith and the head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, an elaborate project was undertaken under the nominal helm of NATURE Magazine in order to refute the claim once and for all under the report ‘The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2’.

This project was led by a team of evolutionary virologists using a line of reasoning that “random mutation can account for anything” and was parroted loudly and repeatedly by Fauci, WHO officials and Bill Gates in order to shut down all uncomfortable discussion of the possible laboratory origins of COVID-19 while also pushing for a global vaccine campaign.

So what are the origins of Nature magazine? We have to travel back in time quite some distance to start answering that question, and we have to understand how the declining British Empire saw the rise of Lincoln’s post-civil war ideology spread around the globe:

In 1865, a group of 12 scientists under the leadership of Thomas Huxley, Matthew Arnold, Joseph Hooker, and Herbert Spencer (founder of social Darwinism) was created under the name “X Club” with the mandate to reform global British Imperial strategy.

At the time of this group’s formation, Lincoln’s north was on the cusp of putting down the secessionist rebellion which the British Intelligence establishment had work decades to nurture guided by Anglo-American operatives in America itself as well as operations in British Canada.

Having far over-extended itself during the 2nd Chinese Opium War (1856-1860) to the Crimean War (1853-1856) to putting down Indian uprisings (1857-1858) and sponsoring the Southern Confederacy (1861-1865), the British Empire knew that it was on the verge of collapse. The world was quickly waking up to its evil nature, and a new paradigm of win-win cooperation was being exported from Lincoln’s America to nations across the world (American was a very different nation from the Anglo-American dumb giant the world has known since JFK’s 1963 murder -MEK).

Lincoln’s system had been known as ‘American System of National Economy’, a name created by the father of Germany’s Zollverein Friedrich List years earlier. Unlike British Free Trade, this ‘American System’ was premised on protectionism, national banking, long term infrastructure and most importantly placed the source of value on the human mind’s capacity to make discoveries and inventions as outlined by Lincoln’s 1858 speech by the same name. In this system, the Constitutional concept of the General Welfare was not mere ink on parchment but rather the governing principle of monetary value and national policy.

To better understand this approach, here is Lincoln’s chief economic advisor, Henry C. Carey, in 1851 describing his harmony of interests:

“Two systems are before the world; the one looks to increasing the proportion of persons and of capital engaged in trade and transportation, and therefore to diminishing the proportion engaged in producing commodities with which to trade, with necessarily diminished return to the labour of all; while the other looks to increasing the proportion engaged in the work of production, and diminishing that engaged in trade and transportation, with increased return to all, giving to the labourer good wages, and to the owner of capital good profits… One looks to pauperism, ignorance, depopulation, and barbarism; the other in increasing wealth, comfort, intelligence, combination of action, and civilization. One looks towards universal war; the other towards universal peace. One is the English system; the other we may be proud to call the American system, for it is the only one ever devised the tendency of which was that of elevating while equalizing the condition of man throughout the world.”

While all this historical context is fascinating, how does Nature actually function as a gatekeeper? Here is some more context describing the purpose of Nature when it was first launched:

Huxley, who is famously known as ‘Darwin’s bulldog’ for relentlessly promoting Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection (a theory in whose scientific merits he didn’t even believe) soon decided that the group should establish a magazine to promote their propaganda.

Founded in 1869, the magazine was called Nature and featured articles by Huxley and several X Club members. The deeper purpose of the X Club and its magazine as outlined in a 2013 report entitled ‘Hideous Revolution: The X Club’s Malthusian Revolution in Science’, was geared towards the redefinition of all branches of science around a statistical-empiricist interpretation of the universe which denied the existence of creative reason in mankind or nature. Science was converted from the unbounded study and perfectibility of truth to a mathematically sealed “science of limits”.

The science of “limits” became the foundation of an oligarchical economic science for the elite and naturally had to be kept hidden from the minds of the general population since it followed Thomas Malthus’ mathematical principle of population growth. Malthus’ “principle” of population supposed that unthinking humans reproduce geometrically while nature’s bounty only grows arithmetically and as such periodic population collapses were an unavoidable law of nature which could at best be managed by an oligarchical scientific priesthood who were obliged to periodically cull the herd.

Malthus and the X Club leaders believed that nature bestowed upon the ruling class certain tools to accomplish this important task (namely war, famine and disease) and Malthus stated so cold-bloodedly in his 1799 Essay on Population:

“We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague.”

I would encourage anyone reading this to go read the whole article, it’s well worth it.

Here is an example of how Nature functions as gatekeeper:

Throughout the 20th century Nature Magazine has won an ugly reputation as an enforcer of deductive/inductive models of thinking which have destroyed the careers and lives of many creative scientists.

One of these scientists was the preeminent immunologist Jacques Benveniste (1935-2004) who suffered a 15 year witch hunt led by Nature Magazine as punishment for his discoveries on “water memory and life” (ie: how organic molecules configure the geometry of H2O molecules and imprint their “information” into said water).

This defamation campaign began in 1988 when Nature Magazine conducted an “official” attempt to duplicate the results of Benveniste’s discoveries on water’s power to retain the information of allergenic substances within its structure which continued to cause allergic reactions upon living tissues and organs long after all traces of the substances were filtered from various solutions.

As outlined in the 2014 documentary Water Memory, Nature Magazine went so far as to hire a stage magician named James Randy to co-lead an investigative team which intentionally botched Benveniste’s results, lied about the data and condemned Benveniste as a fraudster. This operation ruined the scientist’s reputation, dried up his funding and kept biology locked into the materialist cage for another three decades. Nature Magazine’s slander campaigns were described by Benveniste as a “mockery” which used “McCarthy-like methods and public defamation campaigns” to crush him.

This history has never been more important. We are on the cusp of allowing an overt medical tyranny to develop where any sad little remnant of our constitutionally protected rights are finally tossed out the window for the “safety” of enriching sociopaths with a dangerous vaccine program. Or maybe you have total trust in Big Pharma and America’s new vaccines Czar who hails from Big Pharma, Moncef Slaoui.

For those who aren’t completely in the thralls of corporate media and oligarch-approved science, the reality is the medical science is not settled and vaccines are not the only solution. Furthermore, the people involved in pushing this vaccine narrative have a proven track record of lies, corruption, and doing real harm to real people who they see as nothing more than guinea pigs to exploit for their own nefarious agendas.

The Importance Of Not Being Curious About Local Government

by William Skink

It’s important to not be too curious about the workings of local government. In order to maintain a cheery disposition toward our elected brain trust, don’t scratch at the surface of their actions because you may not like what you find.

For example, remember that little bridge providing access for illegal campers and drug abusers to the West Broadway Island? In February, 2019, it was reported that the Missoula Redevelopment Agency would spend half a million to build this little bridge to nowhere:

The agency has earmarked $500,000 in tax increment financing for the project.

Chris Behan, the agency’s assistant director, says work on the project might wrap up by the end of May.

When the bridge finally opened in October of last year (not May), the reported cost had ballooned $300,000:

A press release says the $800,000 project took shape when the city took ownership of the island in 2013, and it was funded by tax increment financing in Urban Renewal District II. Landowners Joe and Dorothy Hacker donated a portion of land for the project.

Somehow, between February of 2019 and October, the cost of this project shot up $300,000. Why? And why is it a blogger asking this question and not a curious reporter dedicated to informing the public about what is being done with their limited public resources?

Another story where curiosity could be problematic is Missoula’s Poplar plantation.

Seven years ago Missoula spent over a million dollars to expand its Poplar pilot program. The main purpose of the Poplars was to divert some treated wastewater from entering the Clark Fork, but we were told back then that the trees would grow, then be sold, making much of the money back:

The project will cost an estimated $1.375 million total, and the money will come out of sewer funds, said plant superintendent Starr Sullivan. The cost may seem high, he said, but it’s 10 to 20 times cheaper than installing more equipment to meet tightening environmental standards for the levels of compounds going into the river.

“I think in the future, we’re going to see stricter and stricter requirements,” Sullivan said.

If the project goes as planned, the harvest will take place in 2027, and will yield some $2 million, according to estimates from city officials.

Guess what? Because of market forces, this project is not going as planned. Instead of turning the trees into lumber, our braintrust is just going to compost them:

“Since the market changes, we can’t use it much for board – there’s not much of a call to use it for regular lumber and that,” said Bowman. “With the approximately 80,000 trees that are out there, in the future we’ll need that for the compost facility. We’re not going to go in there and cut everything down, because that would ruin the appearance.”

Bowman said current plans will remove 80 popular trees that are ready to topple. The cost of their removal will serve as a benchmark for a future harvesting plan.

“My goal is to look at the cost of taking 100 trees out, or 500 trees out, and do it strategically throughout the plan,” Bowman said. “We have to look at this not only for this year or next, but five years from now and 10 years.”

Isn’t this fantastic perception management? Isn’t our local media wonderful? Missoula went from having Poplars to sell as a product, to Poplars that need to be removed, which will be a “cost”. Are you curious how much cost? Don’t you know curiosity killed the cat?

In my poem yesterday I mentioned that butterflies in Missoula will be getting a nice, new home. Here is the reporting on Missoula County signing the agreement for this very important project to house needy insects in our fair community:

Under Tuesday’s agreement, the Butterfly House must raise funds for the cost of construction related to the Rocky Mountain Gardens and Exploration Center. A timeline hasn’t been set and no cost estimate was provided in the agreement.

Those behind the project believe it will serve as a unique educational attraction when it opens.

It’s probably a good thing no cost estimate was provided because whatever the estimate, the actual cost will always be higher.

Like the cost for the art park, which went from $250,000 to nearly a million. Or the cost of the library, which MRA dutifully threw more money at. Or the cost of buying a water company.

Are all these numbers making your head spin? That is why it is important to maintain a lack of curiosity about what the people you elect are doing with your money, because if you don’t you might not like what you find out.

NO MORE!

by William Skink

Why wait for tomorrow to share a poem I just wrote today?

NO MORE

no more bonds
no more TIF
no more consultants
on the taxpayer tit

no more studies
no more talk
your empty words
can’t walk the walk

the camps are growing
and vehicular homes
and food bank needs
and emergency loans

while you zoom it in
to virtually shrug
over lack of tools
and mean state thugs

no more excuses
why things get worse
no accountability
with the public purse

no more bridges
or roach motels
an alarm is blaring
not whistles and bells

but you cannot hear it
in your teflon shell
in your bubble world
from which you tell

the rest of us
how things will be
butterflies get homes
people, disease

Why Is Missoula Paying Another Out-Of-State Consulting Firm To Study Housing Policies?

by William Skink

In order to be more “intentional” with housing policies Missoula has done quite a lot over the last few years. A steering committee was formed in 2017 to develop a comprehensive policy approach and an entire office of housing was created. It took years to develop these policies, and all that work was finally presented in June of 2019.

I mention this recent history because I’m confused by a Missoula Current article. The title of the article is where my confusion starts: City of Missoula embarks on review of subdivision, townhome policies.

Let me get this straight. Missoula’s housing policies were studied closely by multiple people and agencies for years, and the results were finally presented in 2019, but all that work wasn’t enough to address the problems with subdivision and townhome policies? Why not?

When you get into the article, the office of housing isn’t even mentioned. Instead there are more consultants being paid to study these policies:

Efforts to update the city’s subdivision and townhome policies touched on affordable housing Wednesday, along with the regulatory barriers that drive up development costs and hinder the supply of residential construction.

Working with consultants, the city will receive the recommended policy changes by September and take any fixes required at the state level to the Legislature next year.

Instead of Dover and Kohl getting the consulting gig (they are busy studying what to do with the Sleepy Inn), a company called Design Workshop is doing the work I thought had already been done in the three years it took to develop Missoula’s “comprehensive” housing policies. Here’s more from the article:

A survey conducted by the consultants, Design Workshop, found a number of issues in the city’s subdivision and Townhome Exemption Development (TED) review processes that could be improved.

The responses included reducing barriers to new supply, promoting access to affordable homes and simplifying the development process. They also included more predictability and cutting the time it takes to get a project reviewed.

Why the hell is another survey being done? Seriously, isn’t this just a duplication of all the work that was already accomplished? Why does our elected brain trust need another consulting firm to conduct more surveys to arrive at the same goddamn conclusions the previous YEARS of studying these issues produced?

The problem that City Council is now trying to fix is the disparity between an onerous subdivision review process and a somewhat less onerous townhome review process. Because building townhomes comes with less red tape, that is what some developers have been building, but City Council screwed that up last year as they muddled through a particularly large townhome project:

One development spent more than a year under City Council review. The result left members of the public, the developers and council members frustrated with the process.

“There seems to be a sentiment, right or wrong, that going through TED was easier than going through subdivision,” said council member Stacey Anderson. “It seems like people were trying to morph their round-hole subdivision project to fit the square peg of TED, which left us the council trying to shave off those edges to make the project work.”

So, because of problems from one development project, another out-of-state consulting firm will be paid more public money to study what should have already been studied to provide more recommendations for our elected brain trust to take to the state, where they will be ignored. Fantastic.

I said the housing office wasn’t mentioned in the article, but upon rereading the piece there is a brief reference at the end of the article that comes in response to Councilor Ramos pushing back on the “access to affordable housing” recommendation:

Council member Jesse Ramos questioned the value of going through another policy review with another consultant. He said the city had gone down this road before, though he agreed the points noted in the survey on areas needing attention were valid.

“At the end of the day, we have to be self honest and realize why a lot of these things (are on the list) is because we’re not addressing them,” said Ramos. “That’s why affordable housing is nonexistent in Missoula, because we have all these different areas and we’re paying God knows how much money for these consultants to tell us this.”

Ramos also prodded the survey’s suggestion that policy changes “promote access to affordable homes.” Whether that meant subsidized affordability or clearing the way for market-driven affordability wasn’t immediately answered.

“We’re going to take our guidance from the housing department more on that,” said Means. “With the housing policy in place, we’re looking forward to the refinement of definitions. As this process goes along, we can see what that looks like.”

I don’t know about you, dear reader, but I sure am looking forward to the refinement of definitions. That sounds like some exciting shit. I better keep my poetry skills honed so I can help with this refinement.

Stay tuned…