We know they lied to us about Covid and the vaxx. We know they lied about 9-11. But where did they start lying? There's an assumption here that they didn't lie about the world wars, and so we can draw wisdom from those examples. But if they did lie, we're drawing the wrong conclusions. And that's what my research leads me to suspect.
Hi Tereza. Lovely to hear from you. I'm sure you're right about lying the hoi polloi into war. But either way, surely the sooner people cotton on that something is amiss (like a collectivist takeover) the better?
So nice to hear from you too, Jonathan. Could you define collectivist takeover for me?
You quote Primo Levi twice: "We cannot understand Totalitarianism, but we can and must understand from where it springs, and we must be on our guard...because what happened can happen again...For this reason, it is everyone's duty to reflect on what happened.” and "“Our duty is not just to remember, but to ensure that such horrors can never happen again.”
You state "After a major war, people are very keen that their loved ones should not have died for nothing, and that we learn “never again” lessons from the experience."
What if the truth is that veterans of the world wars not only died for nothing, but died for the wrong side? And that the wrong side are the ones in power today who are telling us what the lessons are? That the victims were really the perpetrators and the so-called perpetrators were the true victims and true holocaust?
Of the 140 Nazi officers tried at Nuremberg, the testicles of all but two were crushed beyond repair, according to independent medical verification. I know you'll ask me for the source and I wish I'd saved it someplace handy, but I promise I'll find it if you would then investigate and question everything you think you know about Nuremberg and the wars.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's 200 Years Together (never translated into English) is often cited to me as the real history of the Bolshevik Jews in Russia. The Wikipedia summary contradicts itself by saying it's been criticized as anti-Semitic and also that it says the Bolshevik Revolution was not funded and led by Jews--both can't be true. I can show you sources on The Red Terror with ample evidence that it was incited by Jews.
It's taken me a long time to desensitize myself from flinching away from the word 'Jew'. It's the only ethnic, religious or political group that can't be named. And therefore can't be considered as an organized entity. Overcoming the deep conditioning that two of your three wise men were instrumental in propagating is key to understanding the past.
'Never again' means not falling for the media propaganda demonizing Germans that got us into the Great War, after Rothschild and the German Jews sold out their homeland for the Balfour Declaration. WWII would never have happened if not for the crushing reparations and horrific things done to Germans. The same propagandists are at it today.
Ah ... I see. Sorry to be slow on the uptake. So one of my examples of collectivist governments was the Nazis, and you're saying they were nothing like as bad as the the other examples nor the common perception. Well you're pushing at an open door here. A good reply would be so long as to be an article - which I've put off long enough, and will get around to soon.
Yes, I realise that Truth is the first casualty of war, and that - given that lies are essential to starting a war - it would be quite surprising if Hitler and the Nazis were the caricatures they are made out to be; that those who started WWII were largely the UK & US, and that Hitler kept trying to avoid war. But I'm afraid I'm not - (although perhaps I should be) - above using people's Pavlovian response to "Nazi" for rhetorical purpose! So, while I agree that Nazi Germany may not be a good example, it doesn't take away the central point and principle, that collectivism is here and is a terrible thing, and people need to wake up to that.
Responding to your points in order ...
In the above article my explanation (which may amount to a definition) is " that is a collectivist government - one that believes society is more important than the individual."
"What if the truth ..." I realise. And the truth is indeed more uncomfortable than most people can bear.
I'm certainly aware that Höss, ic Auschwitz, was tortured, in the way you describe (and by threats to his family) by the British, until he admitted impossible things about what he had done, one result of which was that (if memory serves) the sign in Auschwitz used to read that 4 M died there, but was more recently changed 1.1 M or something. I'm aware that the Bolshevik terror was largely implemented by Jews like Kaganovich, although I assume their rôle in most cases was as "patsies" - what Stalin called "useful idiots" - true believers in the doctrine they were enforcing, but ultimately for the chop. Their involvement does not say anything about the identity of those above them.
I'm aware that the Nuremberg trials were a cynical PR exercise, after getting the PR so badly wrong at the end of WWI, when the Russians spilt the beans about the Sykes-Picot agreement, resulting in general awareness in the 1920s that their loved ones had died in The Great War for empire rather than principle, as I spelt out in the footnotes to "What's Wrong With The Greater Good".
I've noticed how people shy away from saying "Jews", preferring to say "Jewish people". (I also came across a professional "debunker" who was ignorant of "Jewry", labeling it a word used by anti-semites)!
"Never again" - quite so.
"came to lightly" - me too!
I'll read your article (which I may already have read). I intend to write something I suspect to be similar.
I read Solzhenitsyn's "200 Year Together" about a decade ago, and waited impatiently for the unofficial English version to be completed. I have a complete English version in 2 files, if you are interested, translated unofficially from the French edition, as I remember. I once had a go at reading Mein Kampf, thinking one should do so if you want to think of yourself as well-informed, and able to explain to skin-heads with swastika tatoos where they are wrong. I got about half-way through: apart from the turgidity, there was the nagging doubt about getting a reliable edition. Are you aware of one?
As I said in "What's Wrong With The Greater Good",
"It’s likely there are some details in this article that you disagree with, or even some that are just plain wrong: but don’t let that put you off taking in the main point of the article, which is surely right!"
i.e. collectivism is wrong; and a collectivist government is lethal - six times more lethal than warfare, in the C20.
G Edward Griffin explains collectivism well. (Unsurprising since he has spent about 60 years trying to wake people up. He is the momentum behind "Red Pill Universities").
Nevertheless, you'll find Hitler is quoted as saying "Society's needs come before the individual’s needs" which is, indeed, the collectivist doctrine. (I can't tell you whether he really did say that). Whilst the Nazis may not have been as bad as many suppose, Nazi doctors and nurses surely did practice eugenics (as they did in the US at the time), and I'd rather not live in such a society ... as well as live through the likely bloodshed and famine.
I see what you mean about Levi and Mayer propagating the myths, and with Mayer I would agree with you to an extent. His confusion over what he is now supposed to believe and what he had believed at the time is apparent, though.
Levi, as far as I can see, is commenting honestly about what really did happen to him. It's his observations on the appalling conditions he suffered, that Man can inflict on Man. (And those were to a large extent due to the "total war" destruction of Germany by the Allies). He does for example (if my 50 year memory is correct) make clear that often the worst kapos were Jews. People really are capable of doing appalling things if the situation is desperate enough. It also looks - as I indicated - as if he may have resisted pressure to describe gas chambers. I think they are not mentioned in his many books, and in the scientific paper, much later, where they are referred to, a) it was co-written with someone else; and b) shortly before it was published he died from falling from his apartment stairs: hard to know if pushed, tripped or jumped. The latter seems unlikely given his record up till then.
Thanks very much for your diligent reply and research. You're right: wars result from people believing lies. That's a point I'm continually trying to make; and perhaps I should be more choosy about the rhetoric, if I'd like to think of myself as a man of principle.
You say "But if they did lie, we're drawing the wrong conclusions". Well, yes: people do draw SOME wrong conclusions - but not all of them, even from the mainstream narrative.
War is, indeed, terrible.
They are started with lies.
People should be careful about what they believe. *
Collectivism is a big mistake.
PS. I've just finished your article and watched the videos in it. Great stuff: well done!
* Personally I don't go in for "believing" at all, as I explained in "Coping with Disagreement and Being Wrong".
Jonathan, you're so knowledgable about all this. I'm glad (I hope) I didn't make the mistake of talking down to you. It's not my habit anyway and I already knew and admired your work but thought this was a blind spot. What a nice experience to be reminded not to make assumptions. You're much ahead of me in reading 200 Yrs Together and Mein Kampf--which I only know in quotes posted by Julius Skoolafish.
And you watched my videos (plural!) Thank you so much, Jonathan!
I do remember Coping with Disagreement and Being Wrong, and we're in complete agreement about not believing in believing ;-)
On your larger point, I wonder if collectivism vs. individualism is a false dichotomy. I describe myself as an anarchist but what I mean by that is a small-scale sovereigntist. For an individual to interact with everyone else in the world--economically, politically, intellectually--requires centralization, some hub for everything to go through that's run by a handful of people. I look at the job of federal (lowercase) gov't to support the sovereignty of their member states, who support the sovereignty of communities, who support the sovereignty of families. If individuals leapfrog over the community, it seems like their sovereignty depends on money. But I'm not sure if I'm understanding your point correctly, so I may be wrong--and happily so!
You're so modest! You've done much more systematic and constructive work than me!
How refreshing to talk to someone who knows what an anarchist is!
False dichotomy: interesting thought. Hmm.
Hmmmmmm.
I think the essential characteristic of a collectivist state is one which feels it has the right to FORCE people to do things for the greater good. I can't think of a way in which that isn't just a binary quality - on or off, and not much in between.
We certainly agree on minimal government.
Yes - G Ed explains things much better than me! He's brilliant.
Thank you for your kind words, Jonathan. Here's a statement to try on for size:
The only legitimate use of power over others is to give them eventual power over themselves.
The clearest example, I feel, is parenting. I have one pre-Substack video called Be the Meanest Mom Ever, Your Kids Will Thank You ... eventually. There are other parents, a counselor, and certainly my kids at times who thought it was downright manipulative and abusive that I made them earn all things that weren't essential, including books, clothes, play dates and even college. Yet they all learned how to take care of a home and how to think for yourself.
My anarchist economic system scales up that model. It gives people the ability to earn what they need in a fair system, but it doesn't provide what they want for them. I never forced my kids to be participating members of the household, but I also didn't enable them to be selfish by giving them what their friends got for free (if their parents had money) or not at all (if their parents didn't).
Our economic system provides people with all the products of other people's labor, without doing anything in return, if they have money. So it enables selfishness. Or it puts the burden of supporting them on other people, if they don't. So it fosters greed and generates need at the same time, skipping over reciprocity.
When people say they want small gov't, what they usually mean is that they want weak gov't. I want small, strong gov'ts that are measured by tangible goals--increasing home ownership, intergenerational families, small local businesses and small local landlords.
If your city gov't was actually there to help, you'd want it strong. I'm not resigned to gov't that thwarts, threatens, fines and interferes--despite my current experience with a sidewalk I just got notified I needed to fix by Christmas or face hundreds in extra fees and likely thousands in fines. THAT's the gov't we should jettison!
If you are curious about the start of "lying" - let me refer you back .....ah, I don't know - maybe 80,000 years ago or so - who the hell knows - but anyhow....one primate said to the other - hey pal - what I got in my pocket? The other one responded - I ban you to Australia!
~
then - that is that.....
😊
~
If you have any questions on the text above - metaphorical or not - please ask them - I appreciate good discourse.
I'm happy you enjoy them. Memes became my mission in life when the Pfizer-owned "health" establishment was chasing me around with a needle. I figured it was the most effective way I could resist.
If you can think of better ways, or have advice for the memes, let me know.
Agreed. And yet I think that quotation sheds light, even though I may not agree with every detail. As was said, even the "evil" people feel themselves to be acting for the good?
I haven't read this all but thrilled to see a post from you - and I will - read it all closely. I've skimmed enough to know - as usual - the content is worth reading closely.
Holy Moly - I'm a third of the way through reading close.....this is after I cross-posted this - so you know the respect I have for a man teaches others how to make knots with two ropes.
~
This ain't easy to read, but it rings strong to me - that is why I reckon I had the intuition to cross-post it....and let that unfold how it does - but I be advised upon my own self to read this close if any of my readers - "so to speak" - do and then start asking questions on my butt who cross-posted this you know.....
~
I've made it into a "homework" assignment for myself - that in a way feels almost as good as tying the knot!
I've given this article more time and attention - I haven't read every word slowly, but seriously - if it takes time to compile your thoughts well presented, then by all means please post as you please and take your time as needed. I think this article is a "master-work" of good communication - and so truly - thank you Jonathan Reece.
We know they lied to us about Covid and the vaxx. We know they lied about 9-11. But where did they start lying? There's an assumption here that they didn't lie about the world wars, and so we can draw wisdom from those examples. But if they did lie, we're drawing the wrong conclusions. And that's what my research leads me to suspect.
Hi Tereza. Lovely to hear from you. I'm sure you're right about lying the hoi polloi into war. But either way, surely the sooner people cotton on that something is amiss (like a collectivist takeover) the better?
So nice to hear from you too, Jonathan. Could you define collectivist takeover for me?
You quote Primo Levi twice: "We cannot understand Totalitarianism, but we can and must understand from where it springs, and we must be on our guard...because what happened can happen again...For this reason, it is everyone's duty to reflect on what happened.” and "“Our duty is not just to remember, but to ensure that such horrors can never happen again.”
You state "After a major war, people are very keen that their loved ones should not have died for nothing, and that we learn “never again” lessons from the experience."
What if the truth is that veterans of the world wars not only died for nothing, but died for the wrong side? And that the wrong side are the ones in power today who are telling us what the lessons are? That the victims were really the perpetrators and the so-called perpetrators were the true victims and true holocaust?
Of the 140 Nazi officers tried at Nuremberg, the testicles of all but two were crushed beyond repair, according to independent medical verification. I know you'll ask me for the source and I wish I'd saved it someplace handy, but I promise I'll find it if you would then investigate and question everything you think you know about Nuremberg and the wars.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's 200 Years Together (never translated into English) is often cited to me as the real history of the Bolshevik Jews in Russia. The Wikipedia summary contradicts itself by saying it's been criticized as anti-Semitic and also that it says the Bolshevik Revolution was not funded and led by Jews--both can't be true. I can show you sources on The Red Terror with ample evidence that it was incited by Jews.
It's taken me a long time to desensitize myself from flinching away from the word 'Jew'. It's the only ethnic, religious or political group that can't be named. And therefore can't be considered as an organized entity. Overcoming the deep conditioning that two of your three wise men were instrumental in propagating is key to understanding the past.
'Never again' means not falling for the media propaganda demonizing Germans that got us into the Great War, after Rothschild and the German Jews sold out their homeland for the Balfour Declaration. WWII would never have happened if not for the crushing reparations and horrific things done to Germans. The same propagandists are at it today.
This isn't something I came to lightly. It's been a long process of discovery: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/my-hitler-journey. Thanks for listening, Jonathan.
Ah ... I see. Sorry to be slow on the uptake. So one of my examples of collectivist governments was the Nazis, and you're saying they were nothing like as bad as the the other examples nor the common perception. Well you're pushing at an open door here. A good reply would be so long as to be an article - which I've put off long enough, and will get around to soon.
Yes, I realise that Truth is the first casualty of war, and that - given that lies are essential to starting a war - it would be quite surprising if Hitler and the Nazis were the caricatures they are made out to be; that those who started WWII were largely the UK & US, and that Hitler kept trying to avoid war. But I'm afraid I'm not - (although perhaps I should be) - above using people's Pavlovian response to "Nazi" for rhetorical purpose! So, while I agree that Nazi Germany may not be a good example, it doesn't take away the central point and principle, that collectivism is here and is a terrible thing, and people need to wake up to that.
Responding to your points in order ...
In the above article my explanation (which may amount to a definition) is " that is a collectivist government - one that believes society is more important than the individual."
"What if the truth ..." I realise. And the truth is indeed more uncomfortable than most people can bear.
I'm certainly aware that Höss, ic Auschwitz, was tortured, in the way you describe (and by threats to his family) by the British, until he admitted impossible things about what he had done, one result of which was that (if memory serves) the sign in Auschwitz used to read that 4 M died there, but was more recently changed 1.1 M or something. I'm aware that the Bolshevik terror was largely implemented by Jews like Kaganovich, although I assume their rôle in most cases was as "patsies" - what Stalin called "useful idiots" - true believers in the doctrine they were enforcing, but ultimately for the chop. Their involvement does not say anything about the identity of those above them.
I'm aware that the Nuremberg trials were a cynical PR exercise, after getting the PR so badly wrong at the end of WWI, when the Russians spilt the beans about the Sykes-Picot agreement, resulting in general awareness in the 1920s that their loved ones had died in The Great War for empire rather than principle, as I spelt out in the footnotes to "What's Wrong With The Greater Good".
I've noticed how people shy away from saying "Jews", preferring to say "Jewish people". (I also came across a professional "debunker" who was ignorant of "Jewry", labeling it a word used by anti-semites)!
"Never again" - quite so.
"came to lightly" - me too!
I'll read your article (which I may already have read). I intend to write something I suspect to be similar.
I read Solzhenitsyn's "200 Year Together" about a decade ago, and waited impatiently for the unofficial English version to be completed. I have a complete English version in 2 files, if you are interested, translated unofficially from the French edition, as I remember. I once had a go at reading Mein Kampf, thinking one should do so if you want to think of yourself as well-informed, and able to explain to skin-heads with swastika tatoos where they are wrong. I got about half-way through: apart from the turgidity, there was the nagging doubt about getting a reliable edition. Are you aware of one?
As I said in "What's Wrong With The Greater Good",
"It’s likely there are some details in this article that you disagree with, or even some that are just plain wrong: but don’t let that put you off taking in the main point of the article, which is surely right!"
i.e. collectivism is wrong; and a collectivist government is lethal - six times more lethal than warfare, in the C20.
G Edward Griffin explains collectivism well. (Unsurprising since he has spent about 60 years trying to wake people up. He is the momentum behind "Red Pill Universities").
https://g-edward-griffin.aweb.page/p/6aa8c83b-e074-4d45-a899-c75e28acecd6
G Edward Griffin Collectivism vs Individualism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omwwuFS4NF0&app=desktop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqmBesHL_Es&app=desktop
and see also about 28 minutes into https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VqMph3iI1Q&app=desktop
Also illuminating - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4vTHwvioZ4&app=desktop
Nevertheless, you'll find Hitler is quoted as saying "Society's needs come before the individual’s needs" which is, indeed, the collectivist doctrine. (I can't tell you whether he really did say that). Whilst the Nazis may not have been as bad as many suppose, Nazi doctors and nurses surely did practice eugenics (as they did in the US at the time), and I'd rather not live in such a society ... as well as live through the likely bloodshed and famine.
I see what you mean about Levi and Mayer propagating the myths, and with Mayer I would agree with you to an extent. His confusion over what he is now supposed to believe and what he had believed at the time is apparent, though.
Levi, as far as I can see, is commenting honestly about what really did happen to him. It's his observations on the appalling conditions he suffered, that Man can inflict on Man. (And those were to a large extent due to the "total war" destruction of Germany by the Allies). He does for example (if my 50 year memory is correct) make clear that often the worst kapos were Jews. People really are capable of doing appalling things if the situation is desperate enough. It also looks - as I indicated - as if he may have resisted pressure to describe gas chambers. I think they are not mentioned in his many books, and in the scientific paper, much later, where they are referred to, a) it was co-written with someone else; and b) shortly before it was published he died from falling from his apartment stairs: hard to know if pushed, tripped or jumped. The latter seems unlikely given his record up till then.
Thanks very much for your diligent reply and research. You're right: wars result from people believing lies. That's a point I'm continually trying to make; and perhaps I should be more choosy about the rhetoric, if I'd like to think of myself as a man of principle.
You say "But if they did lie, we're drawing the wrong conclusions". Well, yes: people do draw SOME wrong conclusions - but not all of them, even from the mainstream narrative.
War is, indeed, terrible.
They are started with lies.
People should be careful about what they believe. *
Collectivism is a big mistake.
PS. I've just finished your article and watched the videos in it. Great stuff: well done!
* Personally I don't go in for "believing" at all, as I explained in "Coping with Disagreement and Being Wrong".
Jonathan, you're so knowledgable about all this. I'm glad (I hope) I didn't make the mistake of talking down to you. It's not my habit anyway and I already knew and admired your work but thought this was a blind spot. What a nice experience to be reminded not to make assumptions. You're much ahead of me in reading 200 Yrs Together and Mein Kampf--which I only know in quotes posted by Julius Skoolafish.
And you watched my videos (plural!) Thank you so much, Jonathan!
I do remember Coping with Disagreement and Being Wrong, and we're in complete agreement about not believing in believing ;-)
On your larger point, I wonder if collectivism vs. individualism is a false dichotomy. I describe myself as an anarchist but what I mean by that is a small-scale sovereigntist. For an individual to interact with everyone else in the world--economically, politically, intellectually--requires centralization, some hub for everything to go through that's run by a handful of people. I look at the job of federal (lowercase) gov't to support the sovereignty of their member states, who support the sovereignty of communities, who support the sovereignty of families. If individuals leapfrog over the community, it seems like their sovereignty depends on money. But I'm not sure if I'm understanding your point correctly, so I may be wrong--and happily so!
You're so modest! You've done much more systematic and constructive work than me!
How refreshing to talk to someone who knows what an anarchist is!
False dichotomy: interesting thought. Hmm.
Hmmmmmm.
I think the essential characteristic of a collectivist state is one which feels it has the right to FORCE people to do things for the greater good. I can't think of a way in which that isn't just a binary quality - on or off, and not much in between.
We certainly agree on minimal government.
Yes - G Ed explains things much better than me! He's brilliant.
Thank you for your kind words, Jonathan. Here's a statement to try on for size:
The only legitimate use of power over others is to give them eventual power over themselves.
The clearest example, I feel, is parenting. I have one pre-Substack video called Be the Meanest Mom Ever, Your Kids Will Thank You ... eventually. There are other parents, a counselor, and certainly my kids at times who thought it was downright manipulative and abusive that I made them earn all things that weren't essential, including books, clothes, play dates and even college. Yet they all learned how to take care of a home and how to think for yourself.
My anarchist economic system scales up that model. It gives people the ability to earn what they need in a fair system, but it doesn't provide what they want for them. I never forced my kids to be participating members of the household, but I also didn't enable them to be selfish by giving them what their friends got for free (if their parents had money) or not at all (if their parents didn't).
Our economic system provides people with all the products of other people's labor, without doing anything in return, if they have money. So it enables selfishness. Or it puts the burden of supporting them on other people, if they don't. So it fosters greed and generates need at the same time, skipping over reciprocity.
When people say they want small gov't, what they usually mean is that they want weak gov't. I want small, strong gov'ts that are measured by tangible goals--increasing home ownership, intergenerational families, small local businesses and small local landlords.
If your city gov't was actually there to help, you'd want it strong. I'm not resigned to gov't that thwarts, threatens, fines and interferes--despite my current experience with a sidewalk I just got notified I needed to fix by Christmas or face hundreds in extra fees and likely thousands in fines. THAT's the gov't we should jettison!
ps I'll watch the Griffin videos and that may explain more.
If you are curious about the start of "lying" - let me refer you back .....ah, I don't know - maybe 80,000 years ago or so - who the hell knows - but anyhow....one primate said to the other - hey pal - what I got in my pocket? The other one responded - I ban you to Australia!
~
then - that is that.....
😊
~
If you have any questions on the text above - metaphorical or not - please ask them - I appreciate good discourse.
BK
Spill the beans, Ken! What's this about 80 000 years and Australia?
Well a marsupial has a pocket does it not? And is a marsupial a mammal I ask thee mate?
~
Hope that answers that knot for ya!
~
I ought look up the time of marsupial's in Australia, but I don't feel like it cause I'm listening to this which I share freely!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_9H14LHqgo
Ken
Ah! A "What have I got in my pocket" riddle!
Nice.
Thanks.
Thank you for this! The vaxx mandates were the worst crime against humanity ever. It still astounds me that so many people went along with them.
Thanks Patrick. I'm still enjoying YOUR amazing diligent output.
I'm happy you enjoy them. Memes became my mission in life when the Pfizer-owned "health" establishment was chasing me around with a needle. I figured it was the most effective way I could resist.
If you can think of better ways, or have advice for the memes, let me know.
Wonderful article! Reason alone will not lead to proper action, however, but realization that we are made in the image of God. Thanks for your work.
Agreed. And yet I think that quotation sheds light, even though I may not agree with every detail. As was said, even the "evil" people feel themselves to be acting for the good?
I haven't read this all but thrilled to see a post from you - and I will - read it all closely. I've skimmed enough to know - as usual - the content is worth reading closely.
Regards,
BK
Thanks Ken. Apologies for the hiatus!
No apologies needed at all - I'm literally happy to see a post from you!
Warm Regards,
Ken
Holy Moly - I'm a third of the way through reading close.....this is after I cross-posted this - so you know the respect I have for a man teaches others how to make knots with two ropes.
~
This ain't easy to read, but it rings strong to me - that is why I reckon I had the intuition to cross-post it....and let that unfold how it does - but I be advised upon my own self to read this close if any of my readers - "so to speak" - do and then start asking questions on my butt who cross-posted this you know.....
~
I've made it into a "homework" assignment for myself - that in a way feels almost as good as tying the knot!
👍
if it's not easy to read, I'll be getting around to a podcast version imminently!
I've given this article more time and attention - I haven't read every word slowly, but seriously - if it takes time to compile your thoughts well presented, then by all means please post as you please and take your time as needed. I think this article is a "master-work" of good communication - and so truly - thank you Jonathan Reece.
~
A subscriber,
Ken Hausle