I appreciate Derrick's perspective but this presentation of the "facts" leaves a lot of room for speculation. Let me try to clear the air, as a first-hand witness of a lot of what Derrick only could speculate about.
As I said in the email I sent to you, Dark Journalist, if you want a more complete presentation of what's going on, so we can better service the public with more testimony, I am here. At present, these videos are misleading, and I can say that because I am a first-hand witness to much of what is discussed. If you, or anyone reading this, is really interested in the truth, it would be a good idea to continue to investigate by asking all involved, which hasn't happened yet, and remaining skeptical in an honest capacity. Hopefully, DJ will come around and be objective enough to hear all sides.
Derrick et al weren't invited to the Saturday evening party, but that wasn't because it was a "business meeting" or because there was some secretive agenda. They only wanted Jordan and me to come. Teresa was invited as Jordan's plus one. Roger was joking when he said "bring hot chicks", mainly because there were mostly men at the gathering.
While I have the greatest respect for Derrick, I need to say here that he violated my trust by sharing things I told him in confidence. Derrick is within his rights to speak to whomever he likes, and I encourage him to do so. But by not giving me and others a chance to consent to this sharing, he dishonors himself in a lawful capacity and it marks the rapport we were building as individuals. That being said, I bear no ill will towards Derrick, and I understand that from his perspective things appear strange. This is a good example of what happens when we don't fully comprehend our beliefs. When we don't we can become emotionally reactive and irrational, looking to anything we can to make sense of things. Derrick's suspicions are off base due to the fact he doesn't know what happened, and the conclusions he drew therefrom are understandable but no less accurate.
I hope those reviewing these claims won't fall victim to the same biased stance. Keeping an open mind about our conclusions, especially when we have limited information and they largely rest on speculation, is very important else we deceive ourselves and others by sharing our beliefs as unquestionable facts.
I can tell you that there was no ritual. That was likely an off the cuff remark that Jordan made trying to be funny, as he often does. He is a jokester, and so am I. I say a lot of things that if pulled out of context could be construed as nefarious. But it isn't honest or valid to rest one's conclusions on an out of context statement overheard by someone else—hearsay in law.
The morning of Corey's QnA, as colleagues in the great work, Jordan, Roger and I were discussing Goode's QnA that was to take place on Sunday. We didn't discuss it in depth at all the night before, other than a casual conversation about the fact it was taking place in general—contrary to Derricks theory. It was an hour or two before the talk when Roger proposed that Jordan and I come on as panel guests. The intention was to have a town hall meeting style discussion, with the goal of engaging the audience dynamically, instead of it just being a pulpit style lecture, which is the norm for these kinds of events. It's better to have a discussion where everyone is on equal ground, more or less. So Jordan and I agreed.
During the talk, there was no marketing to millennials, or the younger generations, although young people were there. Two youtubers asked Jordan a question about doing their own videos, which he answered. One could speculate that Jordan is trying to "groom" these two folks, but there is no evidence to confirm this, just speculation from those who weren't actually there. If the videos are released in the future, everyone can see this for themselves.
On this theory that Roger or others are being "groomed" as some kind of disinfo agent, let me comment.
Do I want to help other researchers and presenters improve their work so that they can join the truth movement, Yes I do. And I've had discussions with many people for this reason. But to say that such discussions were part of some marketing campaign where we are trying to co-opt a movement so we can make money or deceive people isn't valid. Nor has it been materially established in these videos that this "New Age Deep State" agenda exists. It's rumor and speculation, which can easily be cleared up if DJ asks those involved directly.
As for the money question, I'll tell you right now that I have ads on my site, I take donations, and I plan on developing merchandise. One of my goals is to make money in an honest, honorable and lawful way, which I have done. Why? Because money is a resource that is needed for almost every aspect of life on earth at this time. Everyone in the truth movement has used money in some way to further their work, either directly via content creation or indirectly by feeding, clothing and supporting themselves so that they could do "free work." No one can truly claim they do spiritual, research or humanitarian work completely without money's involvement. And it's plainly obvious that this is the case if anyone bothers to think about it long enough.
So to suggest that making money from doing this work is inherently nefarious is just untrue. It isn't logical, rational, or honest. It's an ideological theory that people who haven't reconciled what money is tend to do, which I can totally understand from a psychological level. But that being said, the premise or theory that if one makes money from the work they do they must be bad or nefarious is unsound and unproven in every respect. That being said, nefarious people do make lots of money for many reasons. But just because elephants are grey doesn't mean all grey things are elephants.
Money is a tool that can and will be used to spread the truth, help heal the planet, and restore the law and the human family. I will use the money I receive, regardless of where it is from, for that purpose. If the Cabal wants to donate $1,000,000 to me, I'll take it. BUT I will use it in trust with divine law and in service of the great work, and I won't have any obligation to follow nefarious orders or plans. I can say this because I've developed enough coherence of consciousness and understanding of law to set my house in order. I know whereof I speak, and I have faced enough challenge, temptation, and hardship in my life
If anyone questions my intentions or thinks I have a nefarious agenda, the onus is on you to prove that is the case, which to date, hasn't happened. But I don't judge you for thinking this way. I just ask that you be honest about your conclusions, specifically that you should ask yourself: "how do I know what I know?" Are my beliefs substantiated and logical, or am I cherry picking reality to support my biases? If you're avoiding other people who might not agree with you, then it's likely you're more interested in maintaining your beliefs. I don't scorn you for doing so, but I do ask that you reflect on your intentions and take responsibility if you are wrong, especially if you damaged others by spreading untruths.
It behooves those seeking the truth to look EVERYWHERE, including going to the people involved and asking them to comment.
Much love to all involved, including Derrick and Daniel (DJ). I hope you'll be more open minded and critical in your thinking as time goes on.
Re: Dark Journalist - A Six Part Series on The New Age Deep State
Reply With Quote
Dear Diary,
Bookmarks