The Scenario as Doc sees it

     How can one person hold two conflicting statements to be true at the same time?  The answer lies in the shades of grey and the ability to compartmentalize related topics into separate mind fields.  Those mind fields explode with shrapnel, once truth be told.  So to avoid truth, we have to shout louder than anyone else - to avoid the idea that things might not be as they seem.  Fair and balanced, y'know. 
     Let's slip away from things and puddle ourselves in the depths of a novel dilemma.  Some things we know and are rather obvious.  Like water is wet.  The definition of wetness is based on the fact that a liquid state exists and makes our solid surfaces feel different than under 'normal' air conditions.  I could wet you with other substances than water - but these substances would all fit our definition of liquids because liquidness is tied to wetness.
     We can use the term liquid to mean other things.  The banks need liquidity in order to be able to transfer assets between parties.  Rather than keepers of the asset base, the banksters have systematically looted ownership of everything not tied down to their own nefarious means.  Does this mean that we feel all wet.  I would suppose that it does.  They can lie, cheat and steal, buy the makers of the rules of the game with their 'earned income', create because only money printers can really make money.  Money is anti-life.  Actually - money is inert and has absolutely nothing to do with the concept of life.
     Now money has the ability to purse suede.  The fact that the money is printed from thin air without any reserve is casually neglected by most of the media.   Look into G. Edward Griffin's The Creature from Jekyl Island and see how the whole process of money creation has been subverted to a form that makes today the end of a con.  We know it is a con, the Russians know it is a con, the Chinese know it is a con.  Yet we seem to live in a delusional reality where we cede power to politicians, based on how much money they can raise from a rigged game.
     Now, since we know tomorrow has to be different than today - let us revisit common assumptions.  Doc has a problem here, he just isn't common.  Once you meet him, you know that you have never met anybody like him, unless you know somebody exactly like him.  Is this a contradiction?  Not really, because we have , oh, 7 billion people in the world and only so many character types.  Doc does fit into a 1% category on the Meyers Briggs test - and any fraction above zero is considered one by their counting methodology.
     The old game is over, the new game has not started yet.  The pace of time is rapidly escalating and the things that we do are creating a sense of urgency that just should not be here.  There is no rush - we have the time to analyze what we hear, to determine veracity and to act accordingly.  It does not matter at all if you vote - so unless you have a local candidate that you know personally who has asked you to support her for office - don't vote.  Voting sends a signal that you accept the story of the way it is, and i no longer can grok that narrative.
     Oh - it is still in play - i grok at my own risk.  It is just that i no longer believe any of it.  I do not know what to believe, so i fall back to my own personal education about the things i know and the things that i don't know and attempt to work from things that i have actually got to work.  I can do chemistry very well - i know the limits of the theory and have expanded beyond the text of how things work - nature is a proper teacher and i always have time to slip away to her beck and call.
     Love is a valid, true concept - if i hold unconditional love, i can do some things that i feel have to be done without the karma of doing them from a point of hate.  I have a threshold limit of value and don't really care about ownership at the trivial level.  It gets me into problems with friends who are too moralistic around their own beliefs, but if they are your beliefs, then who am i to cause you to change.  It's your bubble, not mine.  We can have different truths and still get along.
     Time has come, so Thyme has come.  I am well suited to the role - lemme notwithstanding.  If you followed Sybil, there is more to psychosis than meets the eye - she never was playing a role. Sybil always was truly who she was - her brain was partitioned in such a way that dominance was in the hands of the personality in control - no single overall monitor was present.  Look in the mirror and find your monitor personality.  It is not a difficult task, but you cannot lie to yourself - you know your personal truth.
     Doc is off til monday - Reno beckons and in the flow is really in the flow - an actor on stage in a challenging role - the outcome should lead to the income as the Fibonacci sequence spirals back and forth, an ebb and a flow, each time the wave rippling to a higher crescendo until the peak is reached and the reversal of level heads back to the mean.  The flow balances the ebb, but not exactly.  That is the wiggle room of the great spirit, how the universe differentiates among all the possibilities.
     Namaste      doc