Conspiracy Tree: Syria: Ending War - gagablog #143

I hastily concluded the last edition last night before going to work. I was hoping it would have the effect of the one from 2013, to stop what looks like progress towards an escalation of war. Since I wrote that Trump gave the order to shoot 59 Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian Air Force base, destroying it. The American story has been that this is a response to the chemical weapons attack by Bashar Al Assad on the people of a village there, Iblis I believe. They say Trump changed his mind on Syria. Pundits have pointed out that these are the tactics of the ex-Generals he has recently appointed to his cabinet, McMasters and others. This confirms what I said here yesterday that Trump, whatever he was before -  Hillary's Puppet, Putin's Puppet, No Puppet / You're the Puppet - he is now part of the machine, just as Obama became, and the Machine is the War Machine. There were a few voices on the news, other retired Generals I think, who said Trump's response is different than Obama's since the chemical weapons attack that violated Obama's "red line" four years ago resulted in the deal to destroy their chemical weapons stockpiles instead of the military strike that seemed inevitable. The people cheering Trump's strike on the radio are praising him in contrast to Obama, trying to say he is doing well and Obama was doing badly. If you consider that the same people, the military, are controlling both Obama and Trump then why would they "hold back" and allow the situation in Syria to get worse under Obama then respond with strikes under Trump, possibly causing it to get worse in another way? Or will they see that this "ends it" so "Trump's approach" - the military options - become more accepted by the American public and the world?

Is it all a big ad for the Military, again, like Iraq was, with millions of casualties?

Before asking what the player's motivations are it is important to consider how many layers and branches of conspiracy there are to this chemical weapons and missile attack.  By considering all the different options, and all the ways to find peace instead of war regardless of which of those options appear to be true will eventually show how peace is the only way out of War -no matter who started it.

This is why I call it a conspiracy tree: there could be conspiracies at every level and different ones branch out from other ones. Maybe they can't all be true but they all point to True Realities that people experience, most likely because governments are creating these realities in order to subject us to them and subjugate us with them. I will try to address as many aspects of the conspiracies as I can but will focus on how they all branch out from a single trunk.

The Ultimate Conspiracy is that the Powers -governments, weapons dealers, oil companies, etc - really don't care how many people die and suffer they have agendas they are pursuing, basically evil. It comes down to this: we know America often violates it's own principles - the American outcry against Russia arresting protesters when we did far worse to Water Protectors at Standing Rock is a recent example. We know America often does this just to start wars, too. We are not above manufacturing evidence and attacking ourselves to start a war. And our only excuse, when seen in the Big Picture, is that "other countries are worse" which means other countries do this, too, but do "more of it" - or since we probably do the most of it, on the largest scale, they are "more guilty" of being less sneaky about it. But our only excuse for using violence to "support" our principles is that Other Countries are Worse.

And what if all bad government actions, in all countries around the world, are not "one against another" but they only pretend to be against each other when in every case they are excuses to abuse, oppress, and exploit the people. If that proves to be the case it is the Ultimate Conspiracy where all governments are allied together against all people.

I just heard another general being interviewed on NPR who was trying to stress this difference between Trump and Obama, that Trump has a spine and now the world will know the President is Serious again and means business when he says something. This fellow took this further and said that Russia had recognized Obama's "weakness" and advanced their position. They are also reporting that Obama sought military action but could not get congressional approval. The point of this storyline, that Obama and Trump are different, is to make people believe in a "Strong Leader" or Republican who is willing to use force and not ask permission. But if they set it up this way and never wanted Obama to use military force this openly, preferring drone strikes, they were saving it for a Republican in order to brand the parties this way.

Democrats have not opposed Trump's strike as far as anyone can tell. Bernie Sanders seems to be avoiding it, only applying the mildest criticism and party line that Trump should seek congressional approval for further strikes. Tulsi Gabbard is the only one I've seen who actually criticized Trump's response and even said the attack will destroy evidence that would tie Syria to the chemical attack. The whole idea that The Military plans all of this and gives some politicians credit and others blame suggests this scenario:

Obama and Clinton were "easy" on Syria and Russia in order to allow them to build up their forces there for a "real fight." It reminds me of the comment I made when the news came out last year that Hillary had arranged to sell 20% of America's uranium to Russia: "She's handicapping them for World War Three." Russia's military really doesn't compare with America's so we've been killing and displacing millions of people to prepare the battleground for a "fair fight."

Most of the posts I saw on Facebook today were about how Hillary and Trump supporters got what they voted for, War. Actually more were about how it is all false propaganda to sell War to the public and one clever post was "War - the jobs pipelines produce." However the news comes out we seem to be discovering that there is a League of Evil against us all and they only pretend to be fighting each other.

The other possibility, besides a conspiracy, coordinated League of Evil, is a "1984" scenario where world powers and government networks actually do have divergent agendas and shifting alliances jockeying for power. It could be that the details that emerge reveal there is a League of Evil or that there are 1984-like factions headed by Russia, Europe, America, and China. The Anti-China, Pro-Russia rhetoric of Trump all last year switched to Anti-Russia (presumably) and Pro-China yesterday "coincidentally" the day President Xi is visiting Trump in Florida and the day he bombed Russia's ally Syria.

The idea that this "proves" Trump is not allied with Russia can only be sold to people who don't understand the nature of conspiracy. The whole meaning of the term is working together secretly. In other words this means divisions and conflicts are fake and fabricated if they are actually working together. The difference between "1984" and the League of Evil really doesn't matter "for our purposes." For that matter, if there is a League of Evil then this is the Great Conspiracy and all lesser conspiracies "don't matter" compared to the Big One.

But of course the horrible consequences of these conspiracies do matter to the people who suffer from them - which is millions of people directly and all of us indirectly. And we can deduce how the biggest conspiracies go, how deep there roots are, by examining and comparing events.

While we don't "know" what is going on "at the top" we know that the events happening, no matter whose side we "believe", can reveal these connections, that there is something bigger, deeper, and more sinister going on. Let's just go through some branches of possible conspiracies around the recent news events to see how this works.

We can keep this in mind to remain alert: America has a history and pattern of hurting itself or other innocent people in order to start a war. The fact that our country has done this repeatedly should put us on guard. The notion that the nations governments say are our enemies are really working together and doing the same thing, attacking people to make each other seem legitimate, clears the way to catch them doing this instead of being caught up in the war they always try to manufacture. If we must suspect America of doing awful things because if we study we know we have, and we are taught to suspect other nations of being "even worse" - how much worse is it for all of them if they are secretly just working together, against us? It's very similar to the "choice" between Trump and Hillary, the idea that one government's story is better than another. Maybe we are choosing between 96% Evil and 94% Evil - and who know which is which - but if they are actually just working together behind the scenes then it really doesn't matter.

The Bernie and Green Party supporters saw this and tried desperately to break the media blackout and tell everyone else so we would have a chance of avoiding the Conspirators having their way. Now that they are getting what they wanted we can trace events with Conspiracy in mind and bust them for it, catch them red handed.

There was supposedly a chemical attack on a town in Syria.  One conspiracy I've seen online is that the attack is fake - they say the aid workers couldn't have handled people who had been gassed like this, supposedly, without themselves getting sick. They said the only footage comes from "the people in white hats" who I assume are the aid workers or actors portraying them. This is callous if untrue, this is unfair to the dead and suffering to suggest that it is not real, but it is a conspiracy at the heart of this event. If it Was True it seems to suggest America staged it in order to start a war or at least show off military power. This is entirely possible - it's basically how I understand both Bush's Iraq wars, for a ready example. With Elder Bush he had his ambassador tell Iraq they could invade Kuwait  -I saw her testify to this, once - then reacted with a war as if they didn't say it was okay at all. Junior wanted revenge for threats against his daddy, wanted to show off the military but also more or less like Trump wanted to take the country to "show for it." They made up the connections with the 9-11 attacks and made up WMDs.

So maybe we made up the chemical attack to start more war.

Or maybe we gassed the people, our CIA or mercenaries or whoever, and they really did die but it was all a false flag attack to start more war. The rest of the implications for America and the "World Order" still apply, it just makes us even worse.

There is another option that many people consider: Terrorists could have gassed the people to draw America further in, to create more violence and destabilization worldwide but also to weaken or destroy Assad so they gain more power and land and influence. Someone sympathetic to the Syrian government said this on the radio last night but I'm sure many are saying it online and around the world. Even if terrorists did gas the people, all of the above still applies, about America planning this in order to use it as an entry to war with Syria, or for Advertising Purposes to China, if you can prove the conspiracy that America and the CIA actually created the terrorists groups - we know they created the Mujaheddin and therefore the Taliban and Al Queda, back in the 1980's to resist the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. And people have said Obama created ISIS in metaphorical and literal ways depending on whom you listen to.

But if the terrorists are not controlled by America and the terrorists are the ones who gassed the people - and the advocate for the Syrian government said they were Nousra who gassed them to draw America in -  then Trump and the American Military got played.

Did they get played or were they in a conspiracy with the terrorists? Or are they in a conspiracy with the Russians and all of this is just for show?

They said six, then seven people were killed in the American missile strike on Syria. They said they destroyed six planes and the runways and control towers - they did not report these details until this morning, as far as I know, and the way they were reporting in the meantime may provide some clues. They said over 60 people were killed in the chemical weapons attack. The updated number today is that over one hundred were killed. If the American response killed seven soldiers, not civilians, and destroyed most of an airfield, it seems like a "measured and appropriate response" to send a message and degrade Assad's capabilities slightly - all the generals they interview keep reporting this. Someone mentioned that the American strike was exactly in line with the war philosophy of the main generals in Trump's cabinet so it seems easy to determine that the Military is calling the shots - Trump basically advertised his approach to governing this way, that he would defer to generals in military matters.

If we believe the story the American generals all tell this was the Right Response to Assad using chemical weapons. They all say Assad and Russia won't respond beyond verbal condemnation, that it won't escalate the conflict. They also say that the rebels should not be too encouraged by it as it does not mean America will make further strikes or insist on regime change - basically the war will continue without heating up too much. And all this is based on the idea that Assad used chemical weapons, again.

There are a few problems with this theory that become apparent in the reporting and public opinion of this storyline. One is something many people and memes point out online - what would be Assad's motivation for using chemical weapons when Trump was treating him like an ally? Why would he do it, what would he stand to gain? If we accept the storyline that he did it the explanations are that he felt he could get away with it - because he really wanted to kill this particular village with chemical weapons instead of all the regular ways he kills people, for some reason? - or to test Trump.

The idea of Assad Testing Trump is very suspicious. Why would he do this? Would he do it without Russian approval? We know Russia and Syria are allied, it's no secret, and how they are allied is shown in the news reports following the chemical weapons attack: the American story was that Syria used chemical weapons. Within hours the news was reporting that Russia's version of events was that Syrian warplanes had hit a rebel munitions factory where rebels were making nerve gas and that is what spread and killed the civilians.

It seems like everyone agrees the Syrian warplanes hit the town at this time and the dispute is who set off the chemical weapons and how. It gets more suspicious as we heard the reporting change in the hours after the American Tomahawk attack (one of the BBC reporters kept calling them "Tommyhawks")

There was a BBC host interviewing a chemical weapons expert. The host kept insisting "sarin gas burns if it explodes, it won't spread." He said numerous experts had told him so in recent hours. This expert said this was untrue, that Sarin would spread if it was exploded. He said he was not paid by anyone and did not take sides in the issue but that scientifically Sarin would spread, not burn. And he said that this was the reason America had given for not making a military strike against a chemical weapons factory, that it would spread the gas.

When we, the radio news audience, were still not sure whether Sarin would burn harmlessly or spread after an attack we hear the details that America has attacked a Syrian airbase where the chemical weapons are supposedly loaded onto the planes. The news this morning was that the American strike had killed seven people, destroyed planes, and destroyed the airfield, runways, control towers and other infrastructure, but they had NOT destroyed the chemical weapons stores there.

This seems to suggest that the expert was right - which has to make us wonder why they had enough experts to convince the BBC host that Sarin would burn if it won't - because it fit the American storyline that there was no way that the rebels could have been making the gas because it can't spread that way.

If we avoided destroying the chemical weapons because it CAN spread that way, then how can we be so sure that the Russian version of events is not true?

Did Trump cause of get suckered into a false flag attack by terrorists? By our own military, by Syrian rebels, or by Russia? We all qualify as terrorists. The only real question is who is secretly in league.

Because we can expose the Evil and end it - we will, one way or another. If we do it with our wits it will be the least violent and most improving revolution ever.

Whoever is responsible for what seems to be the potential start for a "(Last) Great War" there is another way to look at events and other futures to look into besides the one that seemed to be laid out for America whether we elected Trump or Hillary: war with Russia. All this is happening in the context of Trump meeting China's President Xi. China is quickly becoming the most powerful country in the world and their main advantage will be in Green Energy since America and Russia are "stuck fighting" over Oil. We are actually just perpetuating a cycle of Militarism and Oil profits that go hand in hand and are completely counterproductive and destructive. China is taking advantage and going Green, ending coal and making solar super efficient.

They report on this aspect, too, but everyone is wrapped up in the fear of World War Three between Russia and America. If you consider that Russia controls America, vice versa, or that we are both really on the same side, just manufacturing another war to keep our parasitic War/Oil business alive then we don't have to fear what will happen between Russia and America, like that - we can trust the generals because it is all their plan.

What it really amounts to is a "Message to China": "Do something about North Korea because one way we like to act is Violence so avoid that." North Korea fired missiles the other day, their annual response to America and South Korea's annual Military exercises, and were condemned again - verbally rebuked, but not attacked. This is the "measured response" the American generals believe in, make an example of someone "bad" to give someone else a chance to change. Here's one thing: North Korea has expressed these concerns every February/March when America and South Korea hold joint military exercises. It may by my simplistic view to wish we could just cancel these "exercises" - I feel like we are probably shooting things off into the ocean, too, so how can we condemn them? But wouldn't it be a more likely time to cancel these exercises in the year that Trump took over, when he has indicated he would drastically change American policy and meet with Kim Jong Un, and also the year that the South Korean president we supported was impeached and imprisoned and the head of their largest company, Samsung, was arrested, too? Wouldn't some of these be an excuse to cancel the exercises and seek a different path with North Korea?

Not if the Military is in charge.

"I wouldn't be yelling if I didn't love you!" George Jefferson just yelled at his mother on TV. Keep in mind even the mass murder and evil of war is really, at it's root, a cry for attention.

It kind of shows that the Military is in charge  -and it is even One Military the world over arranging it's intramural squabbles that kill its participants and spectators while the Boys in the Skyboxes toast each other.

It gets much better when we can start to see the Conspiracy, all the way up the Tree. If we had just stopped the War in Syria, and we could have and can - but as I said seven years ago the solution will be the blueprint to end ALL War - if we had stopped it years ago then the Military Industrial complex could have continued indefinitely in the shadows. But they pressed their luck too far.

Now they will be exposed and the whole conspiracy will collapse.

It's obvious to see the sides they want to draw for us  - then we just have to see beyond them. England, Israel, and Australia were some of the first countries to support America's action. They had a British official being interviewed on BBC who said the Americans called him to tell England in advance of the attack, not to ask for help but to let them know. They also called the Russians in advance so they would be able to evacuate the base and I suppose most Syrians were alerted and left as well. The final seven - nobody liked them, told them? Left as sacrifices? Holding out in case it was a hoax so no one could just take over the base? Wait, seven people? Why not just take over the base.

Oh, right, missiles are more impersonal. More business-like.

Why were Australia, Israel, and England so quick to show support? Is it an English language thing? Or just ties with America? It was frequently reported that Israel's PM Netenyahu said he hoped it would be a signal that would "resonate" in Tehran and North Korea - basically saying "look why my best friend the Bully can do, do what we tell you or you will get bullied, too". And he just has to say it blatantly for anyone too stupid to get that message on their own but to me that shows how simply and stupidly he sees things, or the simple role he is in, just America's Kim Jong Un.

War doesn't really solve problems it causes them. They think they are getting away with another one, even a big one, but as I've always said it will be the last one. And not because they destroy us all, but because we expose them and shut them down.

You just can't get away with this bullshit anymore, people aren't just going to be duped or pushed around anymore.

There is an interesting story developing at the edges of this one that I just heard more developments of last night thanks to the BBC. One "side-story" is the ethnic cleansing in Burma. An Yan Su Chi recently gave her first interview on the subject in which she says "Ethnic cleansing is too strong a word." What does this even mean? it's more of an Ethnic Dust-up? If it is even close to Ethnic Cleansing that is a Problem, not something to be hidden. And one of her excuses is that Muslim people were killing other Muslims whom they suspected of assisting the Authorities, so it wasn't "just one side killing the other." Does she not understand the English she is speaking? Is she incapable of understanding that we can all see how this means she is defending the rapist, mass-murdering forces by saying some Muslims have killed people they feel have betrayed them to these oppressors? And then she says she won't "take sides" when the Oppressors are killing the Oppressed.

Reminds me of Obama and Cops and Black People.

But the real connection between Trump, Xi, Assad and Kim Jong Un is this: Trump is sending Xi a message about dealing with North Korea but he maybe does not realize the unintended consequences and the way China will end up with the upper hand, by far, as a result of this.

Here is one scenario: Trump is really showing off to Xi to make him "take him seriously." I suspect the Chinese President is FAR more "serious" than Trump is. This does not mean he is more willing to use the military. It means he is better at playing the whole game.

Trump sent this message but I have a counter-message. War doesn't win, Unity and collaboration win.

War is generals playing a game with millions of people's lives. It doesn't really matter if the generals are all really friends, if some of them are, if alliances shift or if they are all enemies: we all suffer as long as they keep playing their game of War.

When looked at it like a club where they are all playing a "friendly game"  - for them because others are the ones who suffer the most, immediately, from it - we can see all these actions as ways of changing the rules of the game. Trump has opened up The Military Option more than it was already on the table. I am starting to suspect this will have consequences for China and Malaysia after the recent news I heard.

I've mentioned Malaysia recently because it's been in the news regarding police corruption. The president had denied any corruption and defended the police saying their actions were necessary for the War on Drugs. This also reminds me of America. But it's far worse in Malaysia than I realized. It seemed like a change of course when Malaysian President Dutuerte said he was suspending the war on drugs to focus on ending police corruption after a South Korean businessman was killed in police custody. But that was a few months ago. Since then a policeman came out and said he had killed over 300 people and 200 of them were political assassinations ordered by Dutuerte when he was mayor in the capitol city. Now the news is even worse than I could imagine: Dutuerte has ordered his police and even deputized the population to be vigilantes and kill drug dealers and addicts in the streets and so far they have killed over 8,000 people. It is a mostly Catholic country but the report said that the majority of the population reveres the president and interpret his actions as good and a way to cleanse the country of the evil of drugs. The Catholic Church has condemned this policy and Dutuerte reponded by saying they have no moral authority to tell him not to make mass murderers out of his citizens since they have not owned up to their protection of child molesters. it is true that the Catholic Church could have much better moral authority if it addressed it's own evils but no one is disqualified from condemning murder and government oppression.

It seems obvious to me that Dutuerte has let his popular approval and guilt for his evil send him into a dangerous messianic mindset. One main problem with Christianity, like it's oppression of sex, is that since it oppresses Magic when people experience magic again it often comes out in this way, with destructive and twisted Christ-complexes that enable people to do horrible things in the name of faith.

A month ago when China started taking over remote Malaysian islands Dutuerte's response was "It's China, they are too big for us to do anything." But last night the news was that he was going to send soldiers to oppose Chinese control of these islands.

What Trump does not realize, and no one seems to realize who is talking about this, is what the stakes are of "changing the game" with shows of force as Trump has done. I just watched a clip from FOX News where they say Trump has acted decisively and put China on unexpected ground by making this attack. I think anyone can reasonably expect America might start a war on any given day. China will be able to use this to their advantage. If their is friction with Malaysia they could end up taking the whole country (back? How big is China?) And they deserve it since they, anyone, could run it better than Dutuerte is, especially since he even has the backing of his people. Like Hitler and the Nazis the longer someone like this remains in power the worse the people become so it will be best for all of them if China takes over their country.

We do it all the time and are now setting new precedents for attacking in the concern of national interest.

This is an extreme example but one that become More Possible, not Less Possible, as a result of trumps recent missile strike. It's way oversimplified to say Trump sent China a message with this attack on Syria. But it doesn't have to be much more complicated than they are all working out the new set of rules for their next game of "Risk."

The problem is, like I said, we are caught up in another Oil War while China is moving ahead into the future with Solar and we will just be left behind as long as we keep fighting. "We" make money in the short term with this Oil-Military complex but the more time, energy, lives, money, and evil we put into it the less we have to compete in the Good Green Race to the Future.

So China is winning this while we fight even if they don't take Malaysia. But Trump's "message" could be all the precedent they need to overwhelm Malaysia after any scuffle over remote islands that weren't going to be fought over a month ago.

The same could be said for Spain, Britain, and Gibraltar - immediately after the Brexit process was started there were confrontations between Spanish and British ships off the coast of Gibraltar - what century is this again?

I contrast to Malaysia murdering thousands of drug users in the streets, Ecuador is starting to sell recreational weed in June. Australia is pushing to legalize drugs for users and I believe other South American and other countries have done this already. In America 8 states have now legalized weed and while our Colorado media likes to scare us with the idea that Trump wants to end it the more they suggest this the faster he will learn that this is a battle he would only Lose Big and can Win, for the World, by joining the Good Side.

Just because most of our conflicts are probably orchestrated and there is not a "Good" and "Bad" side of the ones presented to us does not mean that there is not a Good Side. We are all on it. The forces of division, oppression, and war are against us all. They ran the world and could have continued to do so, in secret, but the game is up, now, and getting more out in the open all the time, because they refused to use their power to change things for the greater good.

The Good Side is Weed and Peace - this is the origin of the Peacepipe Party political movement: focusing on Weed/Nature and Peace are all the principles we need to come together as people to solve every problem we have. Here is the group www.facebook.com/groups/peacepipeparty . Please join and pass it around!

We don't HAVE to use the military or violence at all - there is always another way. Hopefully on this anniversary of America entering World War One we haven't just started World War Three. If we have, we need to stop it before it gets going. But even if it is just a "limited strike" and "message" and does not make things "worse" but instead makes them "better" even leading to the End of the Syrian War, the problem is that it sends the same old message to everyone, again, that Violence Works or that some situations just require war.

This is untrue but if these are the only ways we allow ourselves to solve problems, with bombs, we will keep believing in them. We have other ways - the women of Gambia (?) ended a 25-year civil war with a sex strike and got the idea from a Greek play. The idea had been around for hundreds of years and when someone finally tried it, it worked.

I wrote 7 years ago that the Solomon Solution to Syria was "Give it to a woman." Looks like the political solution is to divide it.

All of this setting the rules of war, this round, like a game of Four-Square, is paralleled in the Senate debate and Supreme Court appointment of Gorsuch. They changed Senate Rules and are generally regarded as weakening the power of the Senate (and the Supreme Court?) by doing so, all to appoint this judge. It's almost like the squabbles in Congress and The White House are to distract us that the real power is in the Supreme Court and whatever else they are doing with Trump they were using him to make this appointment. Democratic opposition is always to be considered fake post-2016. But their faked opposition, knowing it won't stop the appointment, did "weaken the Senate" itself.

Who's plan is this?

Russia seems to be supporting and have the support of all the new fad of Right-Wing nationalist politicians around the globe. While these characters are sold to the people based on fear  - "you need a strong leader to deal with all the Scary" - eventually people wise up and realize we just don't need all these tough guys. We don't even need any of them. And we don't need any women who are "as tough as the men" in the traditional way.

But mostly we need us. If we get out of the fear that we are about to be nuked at any moment we can see through the way they orchestrate and report on events. You can never believe the entire story because it always comes around to some contradictions that expose the conspiracy.

Even though I don't believe in War I can see "good" in anything  - even something bad can be a symbol of something good from another perspective. Military action is bad but the idea that a more powerful military or authority will punish a lesser one who is doing bad is the basis of our idea of Justice  -something we have to enforce. If we have a more spiritual conception of Justice, not as something we have to control or enforce but something we can realize we are all naturally a part of, we can see this idea in a Good way - when evil powers are at work a More powerful, Good power will come down to correct them.

But the best way to seek this natural justice is to have faith in it, believe in it, and seek the Truth, not acting to make statements about "who we are" and insisting that our own ideas of justice are the only ones.

True Justice will always be collaborative. it can't be Just if it leaves anyone out.

We have set up and perpetuate a system when Aggression wins then we punish countries for trying to advance through their own aggression, intensifying the pressure and cycle. We need to change the whole game because naturally aggression only wins in limited circumstances  - as a whole, a a system, Nature teaches us that cooperation is what really thrives and succeeds.

Art can be political but can also take us beyond politics. I've been boycotting "Joanne" for political reasons  - since Stefani supported Hillary - but it's time to put all divisions behind us and I hope this breakthrough and return to my goddess for me, personally, will coincide with breakthroughs and return to the Goddess for the whole world. We will see but even better we will make art and magic to make it come true.