William Garner shares his letter to Bumble Bee Seafoods. His daughter, Tripsy South, posted an article about former president and CEO Chris Lischewski. Read more
The woes of the world, explained in two hours, in this dynamic chat between William Dean A. Garner and host George Kavassilas:
There’re three main powers in this world:
- The immediate public face, e.g. President Donald Trump and the US government
- The secret power behind the throne, i.e. the Jesuits
- The extraterrestrial power that guides the Jesuits
Americans are especially angry at Donald Trump and his so-called policies.
How can this be, given he is but a mere puppet of the real power, not to mention an overblown cartoon character who is merely playing a role in a grand performance?
It is easy (and lazy) to throw stones at the most readily available target, which is always some power directly in the public eye.
In fact, it’s too easy . . . and solves nothing, except to temporarily relieve Americans of their anxiety.
A crucial purpose of any public face is to attract and absorb blows from the populace, and that’s exactly what Trump does.
Are you ready to learn and absorb these facts?
If so, please begin with two short books, Who Really Owns Your Gold, Fourth Ed. and Romanic Depression (Book One), both available on Amazon.
In the least, you will begin to realize your true intended target and take steps to adjust your aim, i.e. way of thinking and acting when you’re confronted with significant changes in America’s political system, economy, etc.
Until you understand who the true power is, you will continue to be frustrated at the system and waste your breath on public faces of power, not the actual entity that runs roughshod over all of us.
What’s more, if you feel better after blasting Trump, then you’ve truly squandered your precious energy.
Imagine if we dismantled just ONE of the Jesuits’ powerful tools: the IRS and its worldwide collection services. Yes, worldwide. That means the IRS will take your money even if you live overseas, and it will sometimes prevent your attempting to relinquish your US citizenship.
If we did in fact dismantle the IRS, $2.7 TRILLION dollars of American taxes would be available yearly to Americans. That’s an average of 27% of each Americans’ yearly income, or about $15,000.
Yes, that is accurate: each year, $2.7 TRILLION dollars of our hard-earned money goes out of this country and flows electronically all the way to Basel, Switzerland, to the Bank for International Settlements (BIS).
The American debt is an artificially created one, designed to decimate The Middle Class and place us effectively into the bottom economic category: the poor class. [Argue, kick and scream all you want, but it’s an accurate fact. After you’re done with that hissy-fit, do some basic research on the origins of our country and its economy. You’ll need about 100 hours of free time to gain a small understanding, but it’s a wonderful beginning.]
Then, with only two classes of society, the wealthy and the poor, the Jesuits can better manipulate and rule. If you’ve traveled extensively overseas, you have already witnessed this phenomenon: South America, Central America, Russia and all Eastern European nations, German, Italy, UK, Japan, China, Indonesia, etc.
If the US’s current debt continues to mount, our economy will collapse, as it cannot be sustained, owing so much to the usurious BIS, the world’s central bank.
Our artificially propped-up geoeconomy also will go the way of the dodo bird and result in a severe shock to the world’s financial system that results in The Middle Class being crushed, along with all the low rungs of the wealthy class, i.e. those earning less than $50M a year.
The previously wealthy would then constitute the new middle class, unless they lost all their earnings and thus joined the rest of us in the poor class. Have you listened to conversations among the wealthy? The men talk ceaselessly about their money and investments . . . and if any time is left in the evening, they talk about their mistresses.
Sadly, the current economic “models,” developed by some great thinking minds, are all NULL and VOID, because not one of them even considers the ever-present hidden hand of the Jesuits manipulating all markets behind the scenes. But those formulas do look impressive, backed up with reams of useless data.
Yeah, imagine if we could dismantle the IRS and its worldwide collection services.
Keep imagining. . . .
Have you ever wondered how NASA manages to get high-resolution images of Mars, but has no clue about our own moon?
We Americans don’t know anything about our moon, except what NASA tells us: it’s 238,000 miles from Earth.
That’s crap, of course.
The moon orbits above Flat Plane Earth about 3,600 miles. No more.
And it’s the same size as the sun that orbits above Flat Place Earth about 3,600 miles.
How is it that we believe NASA’s lies and never question them?
Please take a look at this article and ask yourself, “How can NASA know more about Mars than our own moon?”
- Imagery from “Mars” is faked. Period.
- Accurate facts about our moon are concealed from the public. If revealed, they would show our moon orbiting a flat plane Earth at about 3,600 miles, if not closer, and is the same diameter as our sun, which also orbits above flat plane Earth at a similar altitude.
Sean Maclaren’s first in a new series of books, Romanic Depression (Book One), details how the Jesuits have designed, built and destroyed America. Maclaren uses many different sectors of society as examples.
No exaggeration, stating they have destroyed it.
It is not a final scorched-earth destruction, for the most part.
Rather, a slow and insidious fall into what I term “fail-maintenance.”
What Is Fail-Maintenance?
Fail-maintenance refers to maintaining something that is forced to exist in a continual state of failure, or at least approaching it.
More specifically, fail-maintenance is a slow and deliberate decaying of services, products, objects and people, regardless of the apparently high quality of those entities. Read more
More details can be found in our books, Who Really Owns Your Gold, Third Edition, and Romanic Depression, Book One, both available on Amazon.
People often tell me about “researchers” and “investigators” who seemingly blow the whistle about harmful chemicals like glyphosate, then ask, “If these researchers can expose something so harmful in public, they must be legitimate.” Or, “This one investigator’s website got more than 50 million visits last year!” Read more
Little by little, we Americans are being further attacked and shackled by a system too big to fight, although most Americans don’t even notice it, because of the thousands of distractions that effectively silence one’s subconscious alarms.
Such words provide little to no hope for the rest of us who do: a system too big to fight.
For years William Garner wrote about the manipulation of Americans by a hidden power. When he discussed the details of these machinations, without actually naming the true masters behind them, people read the work with great interest, wanting to learn more on all levels.
My latest book, Romanic Depression, details many of these manipulations.
When he threw out a red herring and named the public face of this power, people still took interest and shared it with others. After all, this public face the American people could stomach, as they had been exposed to the House of Rothschild for hundreds of years. Read more
Author and researcher Sean Maclaren presents a four-part series that reveals how the nearly 500-year-old Society of Jesus, the Jesuits, have designed, built and destroyed the United States of America.
Using examples from all sectors of society, Maclaren also details the mechanisms used by the Jesuits to cleverly hide their efforts in plain sight, while distracting Americans with endless forms of entertainment.
The first book of the series includes chapters on Government; Politics; Religion; News and Media; Morals and Values; Guns, Drugs and Sex; Military; Healthcare and Medicine; Education; and Criminal Justice.
The book also contains 25 pages of excellent references for those who wish to investigate further.
Print version is available from bookstores via Ingram.
Please ask your bookstore to carry this title (ISBN: 978-0996767736).
6″ x 9″
210 pages, 50 lb. cream paper Read more
“In 1994 President Clinton signed the Brady Bill into law . . . it was a stupid crazy law, and the national media to this day has not told the truth about the Brady Bill. It was the first time in history where the federal government attempted to commandeer the office of Sheriff for federal bidding and literally forcing us—sheriffs across the country—to participate in a gun-control law and they literally threatened to arrest us if we failed to comply. I was the first sheriff in American history to sue the federal government in the United States Supreme Court and win. Six other sheriffs joined that lawsuit and Sheriff Jay Printz and I ended up at the Supreme Court together. It cost me my re-election bid and it catapulted him. . . .” —Sheriff Richard Mack
Sheriff Richard Mack is best known for having sued the federal government in 1994 over the Brady Bill, portions of which attempted to force states to perform background checks on anyone trying to buy a handgun. He and fellow Sheriff Jay Printz won their case at the Supreme Court. Now, more than 20 years later, has their landmark victory actually done any good? Sheriff Mack told me that practically no sheriff in office today has even heard of the fight, let alone read the Supreme Court decision, and that alone is heartbreaking. Moreover, that hard-fought won appears to have done next to nothing toward empowering today’s county sheriff, even though that position is arguably the most powerful in the land.
Recently, I had the honor and pleasure of chatting with Sheriff Mack about several issues, including the concept of the “Constitutional Sheriff,” a position he feels should be mandatory in every county in America.
Which US Constitution do the Sheriffs of America to enforce the laws of their counties?
I don’t think sheriffs are familiar with either one and that’s the problem. They just take orders from the legislators and the judges, and again that’s a mistake because law enforcement is part of the Executive Branch. We are the executors of the law. There are three separate branches of the government that protect our liberties. The law-enforcement community will readily admit they are completely controlled by the other two branches. Right there, we have destroyed one-third of the checks and balances established by the separation of powers. They [sheriffs] wouldn’t know either Constitution if it hit them in the head.
Sometime in US history, sheriffs stopped studying the Constitution. When and why did this occur? Was it by design?
A lot of it happened at the end of the Civil War because the federal government became all-powerful. They also needed a way to keep sheriffs and elected officials from experimenting with things like state sovereignty, so that gave rise to the legalized bribery system known as “federal grants.” So they’ve been buying off local officials through those federal grants for a long time. I’d like to remind you all that we in law enforcement are not puppets of legislators, we are not puppets of the judicial system, we must remain independent. We must know the Constitution and we must enforce it. We have lost the Executive Branch as a means of checks and balances of the corrupt judges and politicians.
What specific wording in the Constitution gives a sheriff the right to oppose the federal government?
As soon as that sheriff takes his or her oath, they’ve made that commitment. He swore to uphold, defend, protect and preserve the Constitution—the organic one. In my lawsuit, the judge said, “Sheriff Mack was given the choice of keeping his oath or obeying the law,” and I’d say that it was the most important point that every sheriff, cop and chief of police learned in this country: when a legislative body gives you a law for you to enforce, you can tell them no to the legislators, and I believe it is our responsibility to do just that.
A historical proof of that: Rosa Parks was taken to jail and booked because of the charge: not giving her seat to a white man. I ask law-enforcement officials this: you go back into time, to September 1, 1955. Are you going to arrest her or are you going to make sure that she gets home safely? Most cops say they wouldn’t have arrested her, but I say baloney because you do the opposite today: you write all these ridiculous tickets, you force people to wear a seatbelt.
The sheriff has an obligation to say no to local and federal legislators. If anybody from the federal government commits a crime ,I will stand against them, and I will protect the people of my county because that it what I promised to do and that is what my job is for, and I will not allow them to be abused or victimized by any public official of any kind or some bureaucrat from Washington, DC. That’s what we’re supposed to do. Period. End of story.
Who is a sheriff’s boss?
The people of his county.
What can a judge tell a sheriff?
Not a damn thing.
The judge is a partner.
The sheriff is required to work with a judge, but not for a judge. If a judge tells a sheriff to go arrest somebody, the sheriff investigates it and decides what to do. In my county, I opposed the judge at times. One time, he told me to go evict a Mexican family, and I told him, “I’m not going to do this. You can try and get somebody else to do it, but I will stop them, too.”
Did any politicians ever tell you what to do?
One time early on, I went to a meeting in Phoenix, where they tried to tell me this is how it’s done. I never saw so many drunks, so many people using such foul language. These people [politicians] try to look so honorable, somebody worthy of admiration, and nothing could be further from the truth. They are not honorable, they are not good people. They have drinking problems, marital problems, morality problems, and they do not care about the people they are supposed to be serving.
The only other time was the federal government telling me to enforce the Brady Bill and I sued them. I don’t think we as Sheriffs and law enforcement should be suing. We should be doing, not suing. We should be saying no and standing firm. I do not advocate violence, but I do advocate standing strong and standing with numbers.
How can American sheriffs openly oppose the federal government and do so without retribution?
A lot of them getting together and doing it. If you only have one or two, they’ll make an example of them. We have had some stand as lone rangers. Sheriff Glenn Palmer in Grant County, Oregon has been fighting the Forest Service and protecting his citizens from the capricious laws for over 12 years, and he keeps getting re-elected in landslides.
Sheriff Dave Mattis of Bighorn County, Wyoming was the first Constitutional sheriff and he stood against the IRS and others. He had a policy that all federal agents had to check with him before they did anything in his county. Every sheriff should have that. And every federal agent should want that, because they want to do it right.
Sheriff Brad Rogers from Elkhart County, Indiana defended an Amish farmer who didn’t even vote. This guy was being attacked by the FDA telling him to pasteurize his milk. They came in a did spot inspections on his dairy farm and he passed them all. They found no diseases, nothing wrong but they kept coming after him anyway. Finally, he calls the sheriff and says, “I’m tired of this charade, I’ve opened up my property to these people when I didn’t have to, and I want to left alone now.” The sheriff told the FDA that if they came back in his county again without duly signed warrants, he would arrest them for trespassing. The FDA then threatened to arrest the sheriff for felony obstruction of justice, so Sheriff Rogers called me and we drafted a letter to the FDA. Soon after, the Amish farmer got a letter from the FDA saying everything was okay and they [FDA] haven’t been back in three years.
Imagine if every state had a dozen or more sheriffs doing just that and defending liberty as their ultimate goal. What if we had somebody who put liberty and freedom first, the rights of the individual first and against any bureaucrat coming into their county. That would spell exactly what our goal is: restoring liberty.
What if we had 3,000 sheriffs doing just this: defending liberty and the organic Constitution?
We would literally change this country tomorrow.
If you want to take back America, then have a Constitutional Sheriff in your county. A Constitutional Sheriff* is one who keeps his oath of office and knows and understands the organic Constitution, and who enforces the principles of liberty.
*Today, just over 10% of all Sheriffs in America are Constitutional Sheriffs.
The following piece is from Dr. Mitch Abrams’s brilliant January 7, 2016 paper in Applied Sport Psychology, Providing Clarity on Anger & Violence in Sports, and his book, Anger Management in Sport.
Despite there being no question about the fact that emotion has significant impact on athletes, anger is an emotion that has been underexplored. Definitions of anger that have permeated for decades lack pragmatic utility that lend themselves to greater understanding and translation into interventions geared towards performance enhancement and transgression reduction. As such, this paper offers definitions for anger, aggression, hostility and violence that refine older models and are compatible with current treatment models in the field of psychology.
The International Society of Sport Psychology (ISSP) published a position statement that defined aggression as the infliction of an aversive stimulus, physical, verbal or gesture upon one person by another (Tenenbaum, Stewart, Singer, & Duda, 1996). Silva (1978) suggests that an aggressive act in sport is intentional and observable, is committed with the intent to injure, and is personal (the person committing the act is responsible for the consequences). These attempts were progressive at the time and demonstrated an effort to fill a void. There were no definitions established in the sports domain. However, those definitions presented utility problems. First, they offered no meaningful relationship between anger and aggression, thus emotion and behavior blended into each other without an explanation of the differentiation or relationship between them. And second, they held the position that aggression has, at its core, harm to another as its goal. This is an incomplete position that is antithetical to the aggressive mandate that we put on athletes when pursuing their goals.
Further, when aggression was differentiated between instrumental and reactive (or hostile) aggression, there were some who equated instrumental aggression with assertiveness, which is also not precise.
To start, anger is a normal emotion that requires no judgment be placed on it. It is no more a good or bad emotion than happiness, sadness, or any other. Yet, society puts great shame on it making individuals likely to deny that they are angry or justify their emotion and subsequent behavior when it is in response to a provocation. Thus, anger is a normal emotion characterized by antagonism toward someone or something you feel has deliberately done you wrong that is associated with a physiological activation of the sympathetic nervous system. As Speilberger noted and measured in the development of the State Trait Anger Expression Inventories, anger can be a state of emotional being, how one feels at a given time, or as a trait, lasting longitudinally pointing towards an emotional tendency. Anger may be turned inwards and it can look like depression or withdrawal, and has been associated with high blood pressure and other stress induced physical ailments, or it can be turned outwards in the form of externalizing behaviors such as yelling or physical violence. Anger can be an emotion of action as the physiological surge of the sympathetic nervous system can lend itself to an increase in strength, stamina, speed and a decrease in perception of pain. However, as there is a curvilinear relationship between emotion and pain (with individual and task specific differences), there is a point at which intense anger will decrease performance due to impairment in fine motor coordination, problem solving, decision making and other cognitive processes necessary in sport performance.
Anger is neither good nor bad. Athletes do not have to learn how to turn it on or off. It behooves athletes to learn to increase their self-awareness of their emotional state and adjust the volume of their emotions to match the emotional load that a given task requires. Without this, they are prone to mental mistakes that can sabotage peak performance. Aggression or aggressiveness, however, is not describing emotion but rather, behavior. Clearly not all aggressiveness is the same, but stating that all aggression has causing harm to another as the main goal, would leave one concluding that there is no place for being aggressive outside of the most primitive societies and should result in legal punishment. This is not the case.
Aggressiveness is the tenacity with which someone pursues their goals. Given the training schedules, obstacles that are in their way, injuries they must overcome, and competitors who would prefer to be victors, success in sport and in life would not be possible if individuals are not aggressive. Perfectionism, persistence, stubbornness, and a healthy dose of obsessiveness are commonplace in high performing individuals. All of these descriptors fall under the aggressiveness umbrella. However, it is also certainly the case that some aggression has harming others as its central aim; and so, differentiation of subtypes of aggression is required.
When an athlete perceives the actions or another as provocative or harmful, they may have the urge to respond in kind. Reactive aggression is behavior that has as its primary and sometimes solitary goal, to do harm to someone. Usually this is in response to a perceived injustice, insult, or wrongdoing. Reactive aggression is anger’s spawn. Thus, when an athlete is sufficiently angry, they may be either hyper-reactive to a slight or insult or may lash out at someone randomly with very little provocation. Because anger exists normally and at variable levels, it is not really anger management we are trying to achieve (because that would mean that we must reduce all anger) but rather, it is reactive aggression that we are aiming to reduce.
Reactive aggression can lead to performance underachievement as well as transgressions on and off the field. This comes as no surprise because in reactive aggression, the goals to harm are not compatible with any sport-related goal. An example of reactive aggression could be an offensive lineman trash-talking at a defensive player and the defensive player punches his provocateur in the head, which incurs an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty.
Instrumental aggression is goal-directed aggression in which harm to another is not the primary goal, although it can be a secondary result of the action. The focus is on achieving the sport-related goal. An example would be a basketball player who drives the lane for a layup and in the process accidentally elbows an opponent in the face. The goal was to put the ball in the hoop. The injury to the other player was an unintended consequence. Success in sports and in life comes from maximizing instrumental while minimizing reactive aggression.
As noted above, instrumental aggression has, at times, been used interchangeably with assertiveness. To be assertive is to stand up for one’s rights and assertiveness training was developed to assist those with self-esteem problems communicate in a manner that would help them more effectively and appropriately have their needs met. Though improved communication may lead to better relationships with coaches or improve team cohesion, it does not lead directly to, nor is it a requirement for success in sports. An example to illustrate this would be the soccer player asking the goaltender to move from the net so they could score a goal. An athlete does not have the right to score or win. They must compete to do so. That requires instrumental aggression.
Violence has, at its core, harming another as the intended result. Affective violence emanating from anger is an extreme form of reactive aggression. Not all forms of violence have their genesis come from anger. Predatory violence, which is akin to hunting, is necessarily precise and measured and antithetical to rageful violence. As a whole, violence is problematic in society, but specifically, Terry and Jackson (1985) clarified sport violence as harm-inducing behavior outside the rules of sport, bearing no direct relationship to the competitive goals of sport.
This was further dichotomized in the Abrams Model of Sport Violence (2010) which differentiated between Spontaneous reactive aggression related to anger and Planned reactive aggression which is reflective of poor sportsmanship, is pre-meditated and is system based, meaning it is often not just the result of the athlete, but can be a product of the athletic system that justifies such behavior in sports. When planned sports violence exists, the intervention must be systemic, not just athlete focused. Preventing such, is the impetus of Codes of Conduct (though they must be devised in an enforceable manner) and strong enforcement strategies by sports organizations, if not the legal system, in extremes of assaultive behavior.
Hostility represents more of a personality style characterized by chronic irritability and longstanding higher likelihood of angry reactions. Research has found that people who are frequently hostile tend to have a distorted cognitive set that leads them to be prone to perceiving neutral stimuli as provocative, have difficulty identifying non-hostile explanations for an event, difficulties generating non-violent responses on how to handle a situation, and a legitimization of violence as a manner in which problems should be solved. Collectively, this has been called the Hostility Bias (Dodge, 1985, Dodge et al., 1990) and provides the framework for utilizing cognitive behavioral interventions to challenge and remediate these cognitive distortions in different populations.
It is our contention that standardizing these definitions in the field of sport psychology allows for an increase in pragmatic utility and offers greater opportunities for research on etiology, prevention and treatment of anger disorders in athletics.
Dr. Abrams is currently Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers University.
Abrams, M., & Hale, B. (2005). Anger: How to moderate hot buttons. In S. Murphey (Ed.), The sport psychology handbook: A complete guide to today’s best mental training techniques (pp. 93-112). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Abrams, M. (2010). Anger management in sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Averill, J.R. (1982). Anger and aggression: An essay on emotion. New York: Springer Verlag.
Deffenbacher, J.L. (1999). Cognitive-behavioral conceptualization and treatment of anger. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55, 295-309.
Dodge, K.A. (1985). Attributional bias in aggressive children. In P.C. Kendall (Ed.), Advances in cognitive-behavioral research and therapy (Vol. 4). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Dodge, K., Price, J., Bachorowski, J., & Newman, J. (1990). Hostile attributional biases severely aggressive adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 99, 385–392.
Silva, J.M. (1978). Understanding aggressive behavior and its effect upon athletic performance. In W.F. Straub (Eds.), Sport Psychology. Ithaca, NY: Mouvement.
Silva, J.M. (1980). Assertive and aggressive behavior in sport: A definitional clarification. In C.H. Nadeau, W.R. Halliwell, K.M. Newell, & G.C. Roberts (Eds.), Psychology of motor behavior and sport (pp. 199-208). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Silva, J.M. (1983). The perceived legitimacy of rule violating behavior in sport. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 438–448.
Spielberger, C.D., Reheiser, E.C., & Sydeman, S.J. (1995). Measuring the experience, Expression, and control of anger. In H. Kassinove (Ed.) Anger disorders: Definitions, diagnosis, and treatment. Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.
Spielberger, C.D., Jacobs, G., Russell, S., & Crane, R. (1983). Assessment of anger: The State-Trait Anger Scale (STAS). In J.N. Butcher & C.D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in Personality Assessment (Vol. 2), pp. 159-187. Hillsdale
Spielberger, C.D. (1999). State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory-2: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Tenenbaum, G., Stewart, E., Singer, R.N., & Duda, J. (1996). Aggression and violence in sport: An ISSP position stand. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 27, 229-236.
Tenenbaum, G., & Kirker, B. (2003). Methodological principles in the study of behaviors in team sports. An example of aggressive acts in ice hockey and basketball. In R. Lidor,
& K.P. Henschen (Eds.), The psychology of team sports (pp. 21-56). Morgantown,WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Terry, P.C., & Jackson, J.J. (1985). The determinants and control of violence in sport. Quest, 37, 27-37.
“Jesuit math: 1/2 truth + 1/2 truth = The Whole Truth.” —William Garner
The following chapter is from my book, ROMANIC DEPRESSION: How the Deadlight of the Black Pope and the Jesuit Militia Distort the History of The United States of AmericaI, available on Amazon.
In the early 17th century, the Old World of Europe was becoming stale and unproductive, her workers and toilers growing uneasy with continued monarchical rule that favored the ruling elite and did little if anything useful for the working class and poor, which were more difficult to manipulate and control. Read more
Unfortunately, in today’s rough geopolitical climate, it is becoming more dangerous to voice one’s own opinion, especially if it counters the moves of the Jesuits. One need only read the summary of a paper by Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule, Conspiracy Theories, to appreciate the lengths the American government is willing to go to silence dissenters. In reality, it is the controllers of the American government, the Jesuits:
For more than 2,000 years, there have been secret societies and groups that have met behind closed doors. Since the mid-1500s, the Jesuits have sought to infiltrate these societies and subsequently control them from within. Some societies were dissolved, others allowed to continue, depending on their popularity and tactical and strategic usefulness to the Jesuits.
“Jesuit math: 1/2 truth + 1/2 truth = The Whole Truth.”
—William Dean A. Garner
Who Really Owns Your Gold, Third Edition began as a modest article on Chris Kitze’s BeforeItsNews.com. Chris and I discussed the content well before he suggested I write it, and we both polished it to a high shine. After reading it a few times, I decided to expand it to a book and publicize it via alternate-news radio shows like Red Ice Radio with Henrik Palmgren, SuperWoo Radio with George Kavassilas, Veritas Radio with Mel Fabrigas, etc.
That was more than six years ago.