Hello, and welcome to my talk on the new RHEL pipeline. My name is Stephen Gallagher. I'm a Principal Software Engineer at Red Hat. I work on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. I'm also a member of the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee, and you've probably seen my name on most of the mega threads on Fedora Devel. So let's talk a little bit about what are the problems that we're trying to solve here. The big one is this. Red Hat and Fedora and the open source community have always said that we should default to open. We should make sure that everything we do is, in the public eye, can be viewed carefully and inspected for bugs and for security issues. But then we haven't really been living that when developing RHEL. At a certain point in its development, we fork from the Fedora project. And then we do all the development behind closed doors with some interaction with privileged users or partners, software and hardware. But in general, we don't really involve the community in the actual building of RHEL. On the other side, part of this is because Fedora is just too popular. I know, it seems like a good problem to have. But what it means is that we actually have to be cautious in Fedora about making radical changes. Big, huge changes in Fedora affect tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people. As you certainly saw recently in the last couple of releases, we landed Modularity, which was a major feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8. To say that that didn't go smoothly would be a little bit of an understatement. But the good news is that we have finally gotten that into a place where it's not as disruptive as it had been. And it was kind of a mirror of other projects like that that we've done in the past. Certainly, the switch from upstart to system D was hardly a smooth transition and certainly didn't involve any kind of arguments or flame wars. We could mention GNOME 3.0, but I don't think we'd like to talk about GNOME 3.0 anymore. But some of the things that we really want to do, that we know are going to be necessary for Red Hat Enterprise Linux, are really hard to do in Fedora because it would impact negatively a large subset of the users. For example, a while back we tried to consider the possibility of changing our processor optimizations so that when we built we were required a processor that was more recent. Maybe something built in the last five years would be an absolute minimum instead of something built in the last decade, which is our current state. And what we got for feedback from that was, of course, too many people are using it. Too many people are relying on that stuff. Similarly, we have a conflict with what we call dependency minimization. There are places in the server world and in containers where we really, really want to have an absolutely minimal set of dependencies on packages. And that's not just at runtime, but also at build time. But in Fedora, we have this general policy that we've always gone with of always carrying everything that is necessary to self-host and to build the entire OS and to build every individual package. And we don't always want to carry that into REL. For example, we don't always want to run all of the upstream tests in REL because that may require us to carry a series of test suites that have an enormous dependency chain in that, which we do sometimes, but we don't want to be shipping that because we can't support that. It's unrealistic to support every package that has ever been used in that chain. Similarly, we also oftentimes in REL, we will not build the documentation directly from source. We will build it on Fedora, we'll tar it up, and we'll carry it in REL SRPM because things like Python Sphinx, for example, pull in thousands, literally thousands of packages. And most of those exist solely for the purpose of supporting the documentation generators. Well, that's not something we need to be maintaining and patching constantly. So we want to be able to remove those things. But it's really hard to do in Fedora proper and to make sure that it doesn't get broken today because we can put conditionals in if REL then do that, but if we're not actually building it constantly in that format, we know that we haven't introduced some breakage there. So why don't we just do all this stuff in Rawhide? Rawhide has its uses. Rawhide is definitely the next really cool stuff. It's everything that we want to land in the open source community. It's the best of the best. All new features must go into Rawhide, absolutely. But it's not really the right place to do this because, as I said, you can make sure that you don't break things if you're not always building them in the right in the same way. So what we're going to do is we recently instituted a new program called ELN, or Enterprise Linux Next. So what is ELN? Essentially it is an early preview of the next major release of REL. So right now ELN is going to be developing into what will ultimately become Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9. It's a subset of packages that we rebuild out of Rawhide in a build route that is designed to be more like REL than Fedora. So macros that say if REL will trigger, we may play around with those processor optimizations. When we generate composes of ELN, they will be laid out the same way that a REL release tree would be. So if you're used to using the REL repositories for your businesses and such, it'll look the same. But it'll be just rebuilt Rawhide packages with no other changes. So how does this work? Well, first and foremost, we need to have a package list. Because we don't want to rebuild the entirety of Rawhide in a REL build route because that's unmaintainable. There are probably tens of thousands of packages, binary packages in Fedora that we just are never likely to carry in Red Hat Enterprise Linux. So we want to get a view of what packages we do care about. And of course that also means getting a list of all the things that they require at runtime and that they require to build. So we created this project called Content Resolver. And you can find it at tiny.distro.builders as a web URL. And what it does is it is contributed to by all of the people working inside of Red Hat on various subsystems. Networking, kernel, virtualization, all of the various different teams that work at Red Hat have provided input content into this Content Resolver. And then it churns through, it calculates all the dependencies and it provides output that we are going to be using to provide an automatic list that we will then rebuild from Rawhide every time. To make sure that we have only the content we need so that we don't waste too many resources on Koji. And so that we are not maintaining a separate branch in DistGit. This was a major point of contention when we originally proposed this. A lot of people, a lot of maintainers dislike the idea of conditionalizing their code for REL versus Fedora. And what they wanted was that instead of rebuilding from Rawhide, just create an ELN branch in DistGit and build from that and try to write code that keeps it in sync with Rawhide or merging with Rawhide constantly. That turned out to be a bad idea for a couple of different reasons. Not the least of which that merges very quickly get complicated and manually merging doesn't make a whole lot of sense. And also we want it to be the default that everything that is on that Content Resolved list must end up in ELN at some point. Now, for those packages that don't want to have conditionals, that's fine. What they can do is they can continue to build a Justice Fedora and it will get into ELN Justice Fedora, just as it was packaged in Fedora. And that isn't an ideal situation, but it still gets us a lot closer to what we want REL to look like. And it still allows us to get a feel for what content and what feature set is going to be available to us. Down the road, we'll be able to break that and move into a separated version where we can have individual packages make REL specific changes that are independent from Fedora. But that won't happen in ELN. Where that will happen, I am proud to announce, is in CentOS Stream. Starting with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 and ELN, we are going to be building a new form of CentOS Stream. Today, we have a CentOS Stream that allows the public to contribute to the next Y stream release. That would be x.y, so REL 8.3, 8.4, 8.5. Those contributions go through CentOS Stream today. Starting with REL 9, the next evolution of ELN will be a public diskit repository for development towards the beta of REL. All REL features, not including things that must be kept secret for proprietary license agreements or CVEs, all of these things will go through and be committed to CentOS Stream first. For those packages who didn't want REL specific changes in their raw hide packages, they can wait for this phase and they can put those REL specific changes into the CentOS Stream. This will be constantly rebuilding and composing. Those composes will be publicly available and usable and will be working as hard as we can to get as many partners, users, software developers working with those so that when Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 eventually launches, they'll have certifications all taken care of and an early view of what it is that they'll be able to do. Or if they can't yet do it, they'll have a place to contribute those features that they're going to want to depend on. Ultimately, the point is this all leads to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. A long-term stable platform run for the next 10 years supporting certified platforms, hardware, software, applications. And for the very first time, we are going to be doing the majority of that process publicly in the open with accepting comment and contribution from anyone. I saw a question in the chat from Michael Konekshny. Apologize if I've mangled that. Will CentOS Stream be created from Fedora? Or will it be Fedora to REL to CentOS Stream? The answer is right now we're planning for it to actually come from ELN. We're going to fork Fedora at a certain point and that will become CentOS Stream. So it really is going to be a progression towards REL rather than building necessarily in REL and down. The actual logistics of that are a little funny because REL will also be forking from Fedora and they'll be keeping in parallel for a while, but realistically it's forking from Fedora. Will Composers for Stream 9 be published in the beginning as well? Yes, they will. All the nightlies or periodic Composers that we do will be released as they come out assuming they aren't broken, but we're trying very hard. Thank you. Pingu, did you build that castle? No, my daughter did. My two daughters actually built that. Thank you. Let's see. Some offers to help, which is always great. So there was a question to the equivalent of how would this mean we have a regular cadence for REL releases? Yes, at Summit this year there was a formal announcement that Red Hat Enterprise Linux will be releasing from now on every three years a major release and approximately every six months we'll have a minor release. So this is part of how we're going to accomplish that. So I look forward to any and all help and contribution that you can provide because it will make life easier. So with this ELN thing, will that allow the community to contribute to REL feature and stabilization development? Yes and no. It will allow you to contribute to features and certainly if you contribute a bug fix, I imagine we're going to take it. There will be a point after which we will close contribution to send a stream for 9.0 and then subsequent pull requests will be headed for 9.1. At that point we'll be going through the necessary stabilization to meet enterprise certifications and whatnot and that'll happen internally. Let's see. Yes, COVID did play havoc with our plans. We were of course, you know, that's what we get for saying we're going to do this on a schedule is that the world says ha. But yeah, we are really trying to accomplish this. We should get that info on access.redhat.com. I'm not entirely sure what that means, what that link goes to. David Duncan, are there established community meetings now? Not yet. We're still trying to ramp it up. We're still in a point where we're trying to get ELN to work. We do have composers that are functional now, but for a variety of reasons, including the mass rebuild, things are still in a little bit of a shaky state. As soon as that's done, hopefully in the next week we're going to be trying to open up much wider contribution. Can you clarify what you said in the talk about an ELN-discuit branch? I got a bit confused. So there isn't one. That's the short answer. When we first pitched this process, a lot of people wanted us to make ELN its own separate branch, so instead of having to put conditionals in their code, they could just commit to the ELN branch. But the fact of the matter is that that makes it harder to maintain and it means that the people who aren't directly interested in Enterprise Linux will just ignore it. And that wasn't something we wanted. We wanted to make sure that we were always building from the latest, and so we needed to find our way to work with Rawhide. And so we opted not to create a separate branch. We're building everything from the Rawhide commit. And in those cases where we need something to be different for REL and the maintainer is not willing to do that, we're just going to defer those changes until CentOS stream opens. Which is not ideal, but it is a good compromise for everyone, I think. Let's see. ELN is built from Rawhide branch. Okay, yes. Carl, thank you. What is the scope of the ELN SIG in terms of deliverables? Realistically, our scope is, okay, that is actually a trickier question to answer than expected. At its core, our goal is to make sure that we can always start CentOS stream basically at any moment. So at any time we could arbitrarily just branch off and say, oh, REL N plus one is now getting started over here in CentOS stream. So it's meant to be a continuously bootstrapped OS rather than every couple of years doing a big REL bootstrap to start everything over again. Let's see. Was this influenced by how OCP allowed folks to test nightly builds before release? That is actually the first I've heard of that. No, but I'm glad that they're doing this too. Do the ELN have REL or Fedora branding? It's Fedora. It is Fedora branded. It is under the Fedora umbrella. It will be Fedora. It'll just be Fedora with an Enterprise Linux flavor to it. And yes, as Matthew Miller says, we want to make sure that we keep Red Hat engineering investment in Fedora. Because the more that Fedora has moved towards being a very desktop focused and very successful desktop focused Linux distribution, the more there has been question internally as to whether or not it's particularly useful as a place to develop REL. And so by building ELN and having a very clear spot for that effort to go helps us make sure that we keep the people who are being paid to work on REL to do their work in Fedora so that we get that community contribution and we get that community feedback. All right. So if Dusty says, so if I see an ELN build in Koji, it's not built from an ELN branch. It's built against a different builder with different macros. Yes, exactly right. It's always coming from the RAHIDE branch. It will be coming from the exact same commit that the most recent successful RAHIDE commit built from. And yep, use the Fedora brand. Fedora Enterprise Linux next, yes. There's a story behind the acronym ELN and I'll tell it to anyone who wants to hear privately, but talk about it later. How to join the SIG? Look for information next week, I hope. I'm going to put out a wider call and try to start setting up a regular, probably bi-weekly meeting. Enterprise Liberation Front. I feel like there's a Monty Python skit coming on, but I will restrain myself. Yes, there also may have been some eyes raised over Butterafast, but that really came later. Okay, did earlier REL branch from Fedora Stable or RAHIDE? Is that different now with branching from RAHIDE, since no separate branch? Well, actually, CentOS Stream is probably going to branch from Fedora 34. That's pretty obvious now. But ELN will stay on RAHIDE, but we will also be running some tests against the Fedora 34 branch. Traditionally, REL has always branched from the stable release of a Fedora. Usually we've done an alpha on one release, then rebase to the GA of the next release to start stabilization for beta. But I don't think it's going to have a huge impact because the truth of the matter is that very little happens in RAHIDE during the stabilization branch of a stable Fedora. Some people get early features in, and we'll be monitoring for that. But realistically, I don't think it's going to change much. And let's see. Okay, it's a great server too. Thanks, I'm glad to hear that. How different are the ELN and Fedora build systems? Will they converge over time? Well, they're identical because we are using Koji. The difference between them is entirely in the build root contents. If there's an ELN equivalent build, the builder will prefer that build for the dependencies. It has some different macros set so that you can do if-REL, and it'll build like it was REL. But for the most part, they're pretty identical, and they are using the same exact hardware. We just build with a lower priority so we don't clobber anybody's important build with our rebuild. People were asking if ButterFS in 33 meant REL8 would get it soon. I am not answering that. Not even a little. REL10 has to come from somewhere, so ELN will go on and on. Yes, thank you, Steve. Let's see. Do you think ELN will be consumable for users, like real Fedora server users migrating to it, or more like raw hide in a number of users? ELN is absolutely and unequivocally not intended for production use. Please don't use it on your servers. It is intended entirely to be a place where we try out new functionality, where we have partners working to land hardware support, and things like that. Don't use it for anything you can't afford to lose, please. I am not going to be held responsible for that. How are you building the ELN builds with different macros since they are not defined in raw hide disk branch? Right now, I am surprised to hear that you get that question from Mohan, because you helped me set it up. The answer is currently we are setting them in the Koji build target. You can specify certain options and we are overriding the ones that you are coming from Red Hat, RPM macros, or Red Hat, RPM config, whatever it is called. However, we are actually planning in the next week or so. We are going to be changing the Red Hat RPM config package so that we will bootstrap it with the ELN target overrides. After that, it will be able to check its own build route to see that we are in ELN, so set these macros. That is a bit low level for this talk. I probably should have just said that. After CentOS Stream, we will switch to Miner. Do we expect that the build will go patch CentOS Stream REL miner? Yes, just like it does in CentOS Stream for REL 8. Could CentOS Stream be built in Fedora Koji as well? I would probably say that from a technical perspective it could, but I think that is probably not going to happen in the immediate future just because CentOS has its own build system set up and probably not a good financial reason to merge them at this point. But I don't think that it is technically impossible. Steven Smugin says we are moving the Fedora builders to ELN next month. That is okay. We can afford to lose those, right? He uses Fedora REL hide snapshot kernels to not do that. Could we branch ELN to .ELX in Fedora and distigate instead? I am not sure what you mean by that question, Neil. Sorry. I will move on to the next one. If you put a clarification, I will come back to it. What will be the cadence of CentOS Stream when it is switched to REL miner? I am not sure that is a question for me anyway. Is that a question, James? I am not closely involved with the CentOS Stream 8 folks, so I don't really know what to say there. Post ELN to REL stabilization and CentOS Stream. Oh, I mean, there are lots of things we could do. I am not sure that it makes sense to do that at this point. We are trying to work on some tools to make it easier to operate with the three different distigates, the one for Fedora, CentOS, and the internal one for REL. But I don't think there is any particular need to have... Or as of right now, I am not aware of any hard plans to merge the distigates. I know that it has been talked about, but I don't know that it is happening. Yeah, that is right. Stream does not have a cadence, it is a stream. Contributions can go into stream at any time. It is never closed or never frozen. However, it is branched from and then REL internal stabilization happens. Then when that is released, it merges back into stream and carries on. So, Neil, basically branch it there so that CentOS Stream would operate in Fedora Koji. And then Apple and CentOS would be in one place. It is worth discussing with the CentOS Stream folks, but it is not currently in the plan because it is not a blocker to doing any of the things that we have talked about today. I think I am maybe over my time, so I want to thank everyone who came and asked questions.


How wonderful. Yeah. I wonder. Hi. Welcome to Dear to Dream. This is Debbie Daschinger. And the show has been nominated for two people's choice podcast awards for a webby award. And we've been doing this for 14 years. Obviously, something's going right in our world that we do. And I do love the conversation and who I get to meet by virtue of the show. Curious mind. And I hope you do too, because today is going to prove to be yet another one of those conversations. We're going to be talking about close encounter news on UFOs. On an unidentified aerial phenomena. Extraterrestrial life in space. So you'll want to be here for my guest today. And the show is sponsored by Dr. Dane here and access consciousness. They do beautiful energy work out into the world. If you'd like to take a class, become a facilitator. Go to Dr. Dane here. Dr. Dane here. I'm a book writer and coach. I help coaches, entrepreneurs and speakers. Take the time effective action steps to write a highly engaging book. And I do this through my classes. And there are openings right now. If you'd like to join Debbie. And I also show you how to book podcast guest interviews so you can increase your visibility and get massive results. I've got a free gift for you if you'd like to learn how to do these things and become more visible by writing books and by being interviewed. Go to Debbie dashinger.com slash gift, C A C H I N G E R slash gift. My guest today is Stephen Bassett who's a political activist disclosure advocate and the executive director paradigm research group founded in 1996 to end the government imposed embargo on the truth behind extra terrestrial related phenomena. Stephen has spoken to audiences around the world about the implications of disclosure. The formal confirmation by heads of state of an extra terrestrial presence, engaging the human race. He has given more than 1200 radio and television interviews on the political implications of the UAP ET phenomena. PRG's advocacy work has been extensively covered by major national and international media in 2013 PRG conducted a citizen hearing on disclosure at the National Press Club in Washington DC. In 2014 PRG launched a two year political initiative that injected the ET issue into the 2016 presidential campaign PRG recently launched the new exo political podcast called disclosure wire. And if you'd like to learn more about my guest, go to paradigm research group.org. And with that, I welcome Stephen to the dare to dream show. I am so excited to have you here. I'm daring I'm dreaming. That's beautiful, you're in the right place right person. Oh my, we are now friends we just had the most amazing bonding experience for which I'm grateful, because I really have been excited to have this conversation with you. And I'm one of those interesting people, if you will, because I came from being one of those skeptics, one of those fear based people, and I had an awakening, couple years ago, and all of a sudden, I knew what I was hearing was truth, like I had my own disclosure. And so now my hunger for this information is unending. So thank you for being here. I want to start with you are lobbyists you tirelessly work and I'm very humbled by all that I read and researched about you, you tirelessly work to confront the US government on the existence of extraterrestrials and their presence here on earth. What for you are the latest what are the key evidence about the existence and the presence of, I would like to call them celestial beings, but also known as extraterrestrials. Well, extraterrestrials could mean a lot of different things. The common usage now for for most people is beings from other than the planet that they're from somewhere else, almost certainly other planets. So that's the common one can get into some inter dimensionals and ultra terrestrials and angels and things like that, which technically would also be extra treasure. The basic use of the term now in the news and in the public domain. It refers to non humans that have spacecraft that can do things we can't do. As far as the evidence, the evidence is overwhelming. And we knew about the presence of extraterrestrials. In 1947, because Roswell was in fact a crash vehicle, and it did contain non human bodies. And the government courses known that ever since. There's some wonderful evidence for extraterrestrials engaging us going back thousands of years. For those of you that have watched all 192 episodes of ancient aliens here with this. I happen to love the show and I've been on it a few times and I believe that ancient aliens there's a lot in there that will prove to be correct. Not all of it. But since we know that extraterrestrials are here in the modern era 47 forward it shouldn't shock anybody that they might have been here before then. And so what once you once you've accepted the reality of the tease in the modern world. It's a lot easier to go back and watch any alien ancient aliens and go, Oh, that's interesting and that's interesting. Now for those that don't even think he teaser here now, given all the evidence we have. Well, ancient aliens just drives them right up the wall, and they can't stand it and if they're an archaeologist they just start ripping their hair. And that's too bad. What can I say. So, extraterrestrials kind of a big deal. But it's a really big deal now, because we're not Egypt of 2000 3000 years ago we're not go back back late happily. We're not any of the ancient civilizations we are a fully global civilization with high technology mass global communication, and we're space fair. In other words, we're, we're pretty hot stuff right now. And we are global civilization. So, the fact that ETS are engaging us now, and engaging us in the way that they are, as opposed to way they may have an ancient past is quite significant. And it is that significance which I think we could lay in the area of exo politics or exo geopolitics, where my interest lies. I've never seen any tea and if I never do, I'll be okay. And I'm not doing this because ETS are fantastic or anything. I do my work because the implications of the extraterrestrial presence for the circumstances that the human race faces right now are just off the charts. And we should be addressing those implications and every university in the country. Commentators and pundits should be talking about it all the time and all the major networks there should be major documentary films and all the theaters so forth. And so what someone say well look if it really has huge implications, and none of that is happening. Why, and the answer for that is truth embargo. And that's when things get interesting. This is a term that I coined background 2000. And it is coined for a very important reason. Activism to succeed needs to be accurate in its language. If you, and by the way, activism is all about finding the language that reflects the truth and countering the language of the authorities which invariably does not reflect the truth. In other words, their line you're trying to tell the truth. And so but if you're an activist and you decide play fast and lose with the truth, then essentially you're literally going against the fundamental premise of what you're trying to do. So the. So we in this field for decades we were calling it the UFO cover up. And UFO is an awful term to begin with.  It was a national security policy was completely legal. That you need to call it something else. And so rather than call it a cover up, call it a truth embargo. And that's more reflective of what it is and also doesn't criminalize the people inside government that are carrying out this legal national security policy. So the truth embargo, what is it is the formal policy of the United States government with holding confirmation of the et presence which they've known about since at least 47 from us. And the policy of dissuading entities organizations and institutions and NGOs for kind of getting involved in it, particularly colleges and universities involves a little undermining of research little misdirection some sleight of hand, and so forth. It's a very, very intense, well funded policy that has gone on for 75 years. And the reason it has gone on so long. Normally this kind of thing is done under strict authoritarian governments. In other words, they don't want you to think about something or certainly speak about something or give them a hard time about something.  And so problem solved. Now the problem that they have is that authoritarian countries like that burnout. Right, they collapse under the weight of their of their immoral violence. We are not an authoritarian country. We're a constitutional republic we are a democracy of sorts. And so we don't do that. And so, in order to maintain the truth embargo we've got to do other things. And because we are a viable country. We haven't burned out we're still here 75 years later. And so the truth embargo that I'm engaging as an activist and all my colleagues are engaging and all the research are engaging and the podcasters are gauging etc and the documentaries as don't forget them is unprecedented in human history. It's never happened before. Nothing like this has ever happened before. You were doing salmon, every major political activist movement going all the way back to the foundation of the Middle East and China and everything else. You probably cannot find an activist movement in which a very big issue was in play. Large numbers of people were trying to convince the government that this is what has to happen. And the government's response to them was, what are you talking about. All right, what are you talking about, think about this for a second. Imagine if a bunch of civil rights leaders back in 1950 had gone to the White House, pressing to get a civil rights act passed so they can and segregation in the south. And, yes, segregation in the south, and spokespeople for the president came out and said, What are you talking about. And they were going, What do you mean. You're talking about what segregation in the south. There, there's no segregation in the south. Oh yes there is Oh no there's not. You're been misled confused. You're crazy.  Just imagine that can you any people would say absolutely ridiculous. I can give you other examples. Right, where the government says, What are you talking about. That is what we have had to do. We have had to deal with an issue that is apparent all over the world, seen globally by millions of people. Piling up in every manner and every form documents testimony material evidence and on and on and on. And for the entire 74 years that this has gone on, the policy of the United States government is that what are you talking about. There's nothing there. There's nothing to be activist about. And if you really think that you're kind of weird. Right here. This is an activist movement like no other in history. And it's gone on for 75 years and it's going to end fairly soon. Ah, so what makes you certain of that where is the truth embargo and disclosure as of today. All things end. And nothing lasts forever. Okay. It's not uncommon for a major activist movement to take 75 to 100 years this is not uncommon at all. The civil rights movement really doesn't start until after the end of the Civil War. Up to up till then, there were people that certainly wanted to see rights. And they wanted to see some social justice and so forth but basically they just wanted to end slavery and that was a whole nother issue. But once slavery is ended, then the issue of civil rights becomes a real issue and they began to pursue it. And it had a very difficult 100 years, let me tell you, it was a brutal 100 years. And it ended almost exactly 100 years after the Civil War ended. This, this movement is now in its 75th year. It is amazing it has lasted this long. But the United States commitment to it was extraordinary. And there were other extraordinary circumstances. But given the evidence that's been amassed the public awareness that has been generated the activities of the ETS which is relentless. And it is finally pretty much run out of steam. They stopped really invest investing much into it, terms of new energy, right energy around 2000 started kind of back and away meaning okay look just just let the momentum carry it forward. And then as time went by, we started making more and more ground, particularly with the media that's where I came in my principal job was not the lobby members of Congress they would see me the best I could do is a 19 year old intern. But that lobby the media. Since then, thousands of stories and articles have been written in English language press about this issue and that's good. But the cumulative effect of all that is that the tooth embargo as policy started breaking down. It just simply started crying. And this really gets underway. Around 2010 1112. The citizen air on disclosure was significant that impacted it quite a bit. But if I had to pick one thing that started. I guess you could say the this end game this coda, but with embargoes in that policy, it is the Clinton administration and the Rockefeller initiative. When Rockefeller approached President Clinton and his administration and said let's get the files out. And this we're talking about now Bill Clinton. 1993 to 1996 yeah. And they actually tried Rockefeller had the money. He was a very powerful person he was a major funder of the Democratic National Committee a friend of the Clintons and they couldn't tell him now and so they made an effort they really made a run at it. And he failed the Department of Defense basically told the president to go. How can I say this pound sand. Yeah. And didn't this carry over. Then when Hillary ran that she was willing to come forward. Absolutely. The reason why I say that that was probably really the beginning of the coda is that that area that time period from 93 to 96 forever connected a very significant political family and their political team to the issue. Bill Clinton Hillary Clinton, John Podesta, and others were connected. Now the press didn't cover it. And so it didn't get a lot of exposure and told 2000. When the the documents confirming it all were, but she gotten by by a researcher grant Cameron out of Canada he gave me and I gave him to the Washington Post, and the Washington Post room in the trash but the point was, is that it just started a process. And as we go forward. The Clinton team had an agenda with respect to this issue which I think I know they've never talked about this. But in the intervening years after Clinton leaves office from 2000 forward, one of the key Clinton team John Podesta kept keeping the issue alive he kept feeding it. He would do things say things get involved in things connected to the issue. The Democrats were not in power. This is the, the Bush administration 2001 to 2009. But he kept it going. And then she runs for president in 2000, and, and eight. And I have a feeling I knew exactly what she intended to do if she won she was going to, she was going to do what her husband couldn't do she's going to go and get the files. I didn't talk about it though. I was working, do I could expose that issue expose that issue but a connector to that issue. But before I could get anything going, she ends up forced out of the process, she essentially loses the primary race to to Barack Obama. Because the issue is still connected to the Clintons and she didn't go away she became Secretary of State Podesta became the chairman of his Obama's transition team. Other members of the Clinton family Clinton team, who knew about the Rockefeller initiative for government as well, particularly Leon Panetta. And so the issue carries forward. And then of course, because the truth embargo was still in place, as we entered the 2016 election cycle. She ran again. And this time, we had the resources, and we had the, the press involved that the citizen hearing on disclosure was successful I went to Capitol Hill I deliver copies to every single member of Congress. And I had my public relations person and I hit the press hard, and we started generating hundreds of articles during the campaign, which lasted two years about this connection between this leading candidate for President Hillary Clinton, and the ET issue. Hundreds of articles, which should have made it a massive story was a massive story but it didn't quite get to where I would have liked to go because the presidential debate process in the United States is dysfunctional. It's corrupt and dysfunctional and it's a failure. And so she was able to get through all of the debates and forums and so forth all the candidates were without the issue coming up.  But so she kind of glad it was okay. She really intended to disclose and I knew that and there were people inside the Department of Defense that knew that and CIA that knew that this was a big deal headed our way. We got a glimpse of it. When WikiLeaks dumped all the Democratic emails out, Podesta's emails out and we learned there were hundreds of emails between Podesta and, and a gentleman by the name of John. And, and, and interviews that were made and introductions that was actually going on behind the scenes connected to what was coming, which was Clinton was going to disclose. And so we got a taste of it there but we didn't get all the details. Anyway, point is she lost. And when she lost the whole disclosure act of this movement was brought to a halt. Boom. Stop cold. The years of work essentially was simply shoved aside. And we went into the desert, I guess you could say, we went into a strange time. And so for the last four years, what we have seen is a lot of chaos a lot of political turmoil. Yet, some major developments regarding the issue also did emerge at the same time, which has made the last four years, extremely interesting in many ways. And I spend hours talking about that. I don't think you've got many hours but let me just point out that I can go on for many hours. And, and then it just, and just when we thought this is about as interesting as we need it to be. The worst pandemic history known history of humankind arrives now worst in the sense of how many people were affected.  So it's been a rather interesting four years to say the least, but the disclosure process has survived, and it's actually made progress, and recently made extraordinary progress. And so and I'll, and you can ask me about that and I'll go into greater detail but point I'm making is, is that where we are today is that we are very close to ending the truth embargo. I believe it's, it's, it's months and it's weeks and months. It may not be more than that to coming to an end it's pretty much dependent upon the pandemic and any other wars coming to an end or starting up things like that which are somewhat assuming. But for sure we're never going backwards. There's never going to be two step one step forward two steps back as of 2017 December 2017 we crossed the Rubicon and it's now straightforward to the finish line. And that finish line is in sight so that's one way that I describe where we are right now without getting into the new shop. Was it true then in the government that there are committees within committees that committees don't know what the other committees are doing there's so much secrecy around this. And that one hand doesn't often know what the other is doing. But one thing that is maintained is that this will not be disclosed that, even though we had what you put were involved in at the national press club, even though we've got these amazing documentaries by people like Dr Stephen Greer, even though we had the disclosure that came about in June of this year that they are still maintaining that what are you talking about, and the committees don't know about the other government committees. Exactly. No, no, some of what you're some of what you're saying applies to part of this last 75 years. Yeah, there are committees within committees. That's the Congress and you got your committees and you got your subcommittee don't think committees, think stovepipes, the way that the vast classified world works. One of the ways it works is agencies often do not know what another agency is doing and though we have tried to correct that since 911. And so there's that but then within the agencies there are stovepipes. In other words, you have a very, very, very highly classified area it's large. And so you may have six different groups working in that area. And in order to maintain security. These groups do not communicate with each other. They have an area they deal in they deal in that area. And then somebody else gets that information above them and decides what to do about it. This is called stovepiping. It is, it has its advantages and disadvantages. It can be very, very helpful. It can also be extremely dangerous.  And so it's heavily stovepipes. However, just because a stovepipe doesn't mean that the truth of Bargo will last forever. No, not at all. There are a lot of ways that evidence has been gathered. There are many witnesses that have come forward, despite the stovepiping. Many because they retired, and they're no longer active whatever. But there's other evidence is plenty of evidence that's amassed independent of what the government could do. And that evidence is enough to confirm the ET presence. Right. That doesn't mean the embargo is going to end. So ultimately, what had to happen is that a sufficient number of people within our government would come to the view that the truth in Bargo needs to end. There have always been people in our government going all the way back to Roswell that felt that we probably should tell the people right now. There's always been people that would have supported that, but they couldn't carry the day. And there are reasons why they couldn't carry the day. In other words, they could raise their hand and say the people should know and they say put your hand. I get it. That started to change after 2000. I think it was held by 2013 when the citizen hearing was held. I like to think maybe we influenced. I think I know we did we influence some of these people. The number of people inside the military intelligence complex thinking this way had grown to a significant number. And what happened is that enough of them decided to take action. And the action that they decided to take, which might have been influenced by the, the, the citizen hearing on disclosure, but was definitely influenced by the massive press coverage of the connection between the leading candidate to be president Hillary Clinton, and the ET issue, the UAP ET issue, which was all over the press was I have all the articles linked on my website you can go read all 400 of them. And all of this, I think, convinced them, it's time to act. And so, what did they choose to do. They were very limited. If you're working for the Department of Defense or the CIA or the Navy or the Air Force and you decide to take some personal independent action on an issue like this. You're going to have a really rough time. You probably will not succeed you will probably end up in jail, and your career will be over. And so they, they really couldn't do that but what they did was brilliant. Working talking together. This is not a formal policy this was not an official policy this was people talking over lunch tables, and maybe it bars after work over some beers. According to the idea, why don't we set up a civilian entity, and even a corporation, because we need to make some money. I mean, we, we, this is not something you can do without money. And we're giving up an awful lot to do this so we need to get paid to set up corporation and staff it with nothing but former careers from the military intelligence complex. All of them, every single one of them retired, no longer at it, and therefore able to do things that those inside the military intelligence complex could not do. In other words, they decided to advance disclosure by proxy. And this was a bold thing to try. It had many risks, but they had a pretty good plan. And the plan I believe was to put this together and have it ready to go and launch it shortly after Secretary Hillary Clinton became the president elect. And then go to the New York Times with major stories, which would have been published before she even got in the White House. And then that combined with all the news coverage and the entire history of the connection between Clinton and the political team and the issue sets the stage for disclosure in early 2017. And their exposure would have only lasted probably in that sense for about three months. They probably would have raised $50 million on their public benefit corporation fundraising that they did. And they would have been in the front of the post disclosure world, it was a genius plan. And it almost worked. So as of the moment that they made the decision to go forward with this plan. At that moment, and I realized this, the day they launched in 2017. Something was happening that I never thought would ever happen. The military intelligence complex was leading the disclosure advocacy movement by proxy. And they pulled other bulking. All right, that is, that's someplace we've never been before. And so what happened of course is when Hillary Clinton lost the election, everything was blown to hell. And they very well could have simply pulled up the, you know, rolled up sidewalks shut the windows and gone home and there was way much more risk for them, much more exposure is going to be a huge problem. They were eventually exposed. The plan was only remotely known, it wasn't that well now. And they took them 11 months to make a decision to whether they should go forward or not, and to their enormous credit. There was some personnel changes but to enormous credit they decided after 11 months to go ahead and launch anyway and they launched on October the 11th of 2017. And there the people put the website up, held a video introduction and made it quite clear what they intended to do. They intended to end the truth embargo, without saying that, and to confirm in the proper way, the presence of extraterrestrials. And the question was what would happen next and what happened next was pretty weird. I mean it. The last couple of years have been almost indescribable politically. And they were hung out to dry, able to raise much money.  However, they have persisted. And ultimately, they achieved what needed to be achieved. They got extraordinary news coverage. The two New York Times article of not articles of December 16 2017 by Helene Cooper or less decaying and Ralph Blumenthal should have been nominated for Pulitzer Prize without question. Were it not for the fact that it dealt with the ET issue, it would have been. But those articles that there was no going back at that point since then, witnesses and evidence is simply piling up waiting for the next step. And then step is clear. And the stage has been set for that. We're going to have congressional hearings. We're going to have military witnesses, multiple committees are going to last for days and days. And those hearings, which will be national security platform. We'll provide all the confirmation that anybody in government needs to be able to go in front of the American people and say the ET presence is real and of course I'm referring to the president. That's what's coming. And you might say, well, why hasn't that happened already. It could have and should have and I was projecting that it would. There's another thing going on, which, not surprisingly, is very much the result of human incompetence and stupidity and the laws of the universe. Right. The worst pandemic in history is underway. And at the point where it looked like, we kind of had it under control. We've taken too long spread too far. And the policies were too inept that the inevitable mutations began occurring and the delta variation developed. And it's laying waste. And so it's impossible to have hearings under those circumstances. Now there's other things going on like the Afghan situation and of course major bills. You take all that together. And the hearings that are coming have been pushed back. At this point those hearings are pretty much dependent. Since, since those bills that I refer to will will be resolved one way or the other fairly soon. The Afghan war is finally ended the cleanup is underway that will settle down in a month or so. And actually it stands between us and those congressional hearings, which must be held in person is a stabilization of this of this pandemic. And that's directly connected to the vaccination level. Now I know there's a lot of people that are going to hear this and they're just going to start tearing their hair out and and so forth. I understand. It's okay. I'm an extraterrestrial phenomena disclosure activist. I'm not a vaccine activist. However, as a, as an activist, I have to tell you what I think is going on. And what I believe is the case. And I'm saying that there is a pandemic and it's massive and it's affecting the disclosure process and a lot of other things. I don't think there's a pandemic that's okay if you don't think there's extra trust here. That's okay. History is like an ocean tide. You can't make it go away. You can't talk it away. You can't rationalize it away. It comes in when it comes in. And if you choose to stand out there, it will cover you with water and you will drown. Maybe not. Maybe the tide will choose just not to come in just for political reasons. I don't know. Anyway, I don't want to belabor that. I'm just saying that this pandemic is massive and it's in its interrupted this process, but it will not end it. And in fact, I can make a very good case. And given what has happened in the last five years, political chaos, turmoil, insurrection, massive pandemic, you name it, it's all happened, and it's all awful.  I'm thinking what the world needs right now is something uplifting, something forward-looking, something with implications, right? Yeah. Okay. And disclosure's got it all. It's like there's extra trust rules here. They've been here for a long time. They're interested in us. They have unbelievable technology. We've developed some of that ourselves. All of this could change everything. Let's learn about it. Where's the downside? There's not much downside to it. We need this badly, right? Anybody that says no, no, no, no, no, no.  But let's don't have disclosure of the ET presence because that might upset people, upset people enough going, they can't get more upset. They're as upset as they can get, right? So Steve, why do you, look, I love what Dr. Greer has to say very much, but I'd like to hear your point of view. I understand you haven't met yet an extraterrestrial being from another planet. But you clearly know people. You've been very engaged with people at a deep level, with people who have, you've seen the proof. What is your contention? Why are they here? What's that important truth? Why do they want to connect? What is this great potential to alter the present course of the human affairs and the human race? Because of the truth embargo and because the extraterrestrials have elected not to sign up for Facebook or Twitter. Nobody knows for sure. We can only look at the history and try to provide an assessment. When people say, well, look, if you don't know for sure, keep your mouth shut. Well, this issue was too important to do that. You can't, you can't do that. We'll just wait until they shut. No, no, no. This is way too important. And we, this is not unusual. A lot of smart people need to try to understand this as best they can and make their assessment. Not surprisingly, that doesn't mean they're going to agree. There's plenty of variations of the assessment of the ET presence. Here is what we do know. We know they've been here a long time. We know that they're the last 74 years has been exceptionally active without question. We know that that began either intentionally or accidentally or unintentionally, right after the bombs were dropped on Japan. The contact is going on between extraterrestrials and an individual people. At which we call, well, there's some confusion. I call them contactees. There's different kinds of contactees. We know that because there's half a million to a million reports from people about it. They've written it up and sent it in, right, to researchers. Here's what happened to me. Half a million to a million reports and hundreds and hundreds of them have been interviewed and they're in books and they're in documentaries. We have a massive evidence about contact. It's happening. It's not something we're going to be dealing with in the hearings. It is one of the most difficult issues of all that the government to address and they will have to address it. But for those of you that are out there, having this experience and your closest friends and relatives think you're crazy. I don't. You're not crazy. You're having contact with extraterrestrials. Okay, so we know that's happening. We know what they look like because many of the contactees have drawn them and painted them. Because if you contact enough humans, some of them are actually pretty good at drawing and painting. We know what happens to many of these contactees because they report it. So we know that. We know that they put crop circles down in UK fields on a regular every year for decades now. We know that they harvest material from animals. It's called animal cattle mutilation. I call it animal harvesting whatever we know they do that. And that's all pretty interesting. And there's a lot of information there that one could and I could go in further if you want but from that information you could kind of speculate it's why they're here. But there's one thing above all that we know about extraterrestrials which is the most important. And that is that they have repeated it. flown their craft, either piloted or remotely hovered that craft over nuclear weapons sites. missiles off. Right. That's the most important thing of all. Have I witnesses to that in the UK. I'm sorry, in the United States. We have I witnesses to that that have come forward in Soviet Union in Russia. There's at least one known nuclear weapons tampering incident in the UK. That is of course the renders and farce incident. There may be some others. I know of no, no evidence regarding the same thing in China but China wouldn't tell us if it happened anyway. The two major nuclear powers of the Soviet Union Russia and the United States. That's what matters. Not only do we have direct evidence from with high witnesses that they have turned the weapons off. We have direct evidence they have turned them on. They turn them on. Meaning, they set them into launch sequence. I'm thinking, why hasn't that been on the New York Times front page 20 or 30 times. That is a very good question that one day I hope to ask the editors and publishers of the New York Times, I'm sure they'll have a very snappy answer for that. Why haven't any of the nuclear weapons tampering witnesses there are scores of them testified in front of the United States Congress or the UK Parliament, or the Canadian Paul. And I'm going to ask the US government's policy about these witnesses is they don't exist.  And why is that the government can push back when it wants to. But how do you push back against men, almost all men, I think there's a woman or two, mostly men, including the nuclear weapons issue. And that were cleared at the highest level of security to run a nuclear site. Had the power to play key with another individual in that site and launch nuclear missiles which would have ended civilization, and you've got scores of them. You can't push back against them, or you can call them all crazy, or playing a practical joke.   How long can we treat our own military this way. How long can we lie to the American people this way. This needs to end. And so we know that now.  I lecture on this and I have a lot more to say about it in the future. But there's only a couple of possibilities. There is a direct threat to us that you're going to do what we want you to do. When we want you to do it at a time of our choosing.  That's one possibility. And there was another possibility. Why do you have these weapons. Do you have them because you think they're going to protect you against us. It won't work.  Why would you do that.  Do you do you do you keep these weapons and keep building these weapons because you'd much rather spend trillions of dollars on nuclear submarines and nuclear aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons instead of on social justice and financial safety, so that you have billions of people in the world that are inadequately housed and clothed and are desperate and poor and ready to blow themselves up. In order to point that out to you, at least those of you that have so much. Why do you have these weapons. Now I happen to know that the majority of the witnesses to these events. have already come to a conclusion on this in the majority. They believe it's a message, not a threat. The ones that went through it. There were on the base that day when the missiles were shut down, believe it was a message and not a threat. So if that is the message. Why do you give that message at all. Why would you care, whether we use them or don't use them, we can't hurt them. We can't do a thing to them. And that is the $64,000 question and different people have different answers to that. My answer is fairly straightforward.  They are to a degree that they choose intervening to possibly prevent that from happening. That doesn't mean they would stop it just means that they're intervening. Right. This intervention has helped to drive the disclosure process, I assure you, all those millions of sightings certainly didn't slow the disclosure process down. Also turning off those nukes didn't disclose the slow the disclosure process down either. In fact, it's made that it is the fundamental platform in which the hearings will be held. So it appears that they would like to, they don't have a problem with us disclosing of acknowledging their presence. Why would they not care if we but why would it matter to them that we disclosed. There has to be a reason. If they're actually helping it happen. Why? Because once you have disclosure, then the world is informed of the ET presence and you know what the world's going to do when that happens. It's going to go to school. We're going to go fully auto didact. And everybody to one degree or another is going to start learning everything they can about the extraterrestrials what the government knows what the researchers have found out all the books all the docs everything going to look at all of going to demand information from every government in the world going to get some of that information. And it's going to be ET all the time 24 and seven. And you're literally going to see a learning curve like this straight up. Okay, around the world, thanks to cell phones, Facebook, internet, and all of that. Right. Everybody can learn together in real time. And after about two years will be pretty comfortable with the idea, even bored, bored with the idea. Yeah, there's ET here. We've learned a lot. Okay. Then open contact can take place. Non destructive open contact. Right. They could have ended this truth embargo anytime they wanted to we know that we make movies about that. Why didn't they. Obviously they must believe there is a appropriate time for that. Now again I'm just, I'm trying to give an assessment based on relatively basic logic I'm not trying to stretch things too far. So, I think it's a very simple logic like Nancy drew mysteries. Well, you know, during your career Steve even worked on some pretty complex issues like former area 51 employees like statements stories made by astronaut Edgar Mitchell, you know, Apollo 14 government cover ups and all of that. And the claims you're talking about, and the revelations that are kept from the public this has been going on a really long time. Yes, absolutely. Sure. Just like the civil rights abuses and segregation and racism went on for a very long time. Now, racism hasn't ended but why did the policies of legal segregation in this country come to an end after when it had been around for so long. You are so much younger than I, you probably don't recall this but I was there as the civil rights movement was moving towards its prize Civil Rights Act, and the voting rights act, even up until the last months. There were intellectuals in this country, not racist intellectuals but rather just intellectuals, even intellectuals of color, who felt that forcing this issue, pushing so hard, getting hose down by fire hoses and bitten by German shepherds and all that, and just causing all that fuss was not the way to go that we needed to let the South organically grow out of, and any other communities or states are grammatic organically grow out of segregation to interrogation that it would come in its own good time. All right. Well, the movement disagreed. I certainly disagree. Right. And there are people today that believe that look, don't even think about it. It'll happen when it happens. Why are you pressing. Well, this is where it gets interesting. It's lasted for 75 years. A lot has happened. A lot of people's minds have changed they just did a Gallup poll about five days ago. The numbers haven't changed since 1970 41% of the American adult population 106 million people believe that some of the phenomena that we've been seeing is extraterrestrial in order to six million Americans, and probably of the hundred and, and I think 30 other million, probably a third of those are kind of like probably on the fence. All right, maybe even a half or on the fence, maybe I could very well be I don't know. There's a massive number of people. But there's something else. And this is part of my work. I mean I've been driving this, this point forward for 20 years. I'll be as simple as I can. There's awful lot of people, particularly younger people don't understand this. They don't get it. They see the world as it is. It seems to be fine. What's the problem. Here is the problem. It's been since 1947, but really since mid 1950s, but 47 is kind of the year we have been in what is called a nuclear arms race. It didn't end with the end of the Cold War I can assure you, we have been in Cold War two for some time. At the peak we had 84, 5, 6,000 nuclear warheads with nuclear warheads of thousands of which were on immediate launch capability in eight countries. We've nearly had nuclear launches on about six occasions maybe more. We came that close on 456 occasions, which means we came that close to the end of civilization. And there are people out there they're going, well, hey, great. Obviously we're really very lucky. So let's take all the money we've made and push it back out on the table and go for broke. The truth is, the odds that we are here today are actually low. Had a nuclear war that we dodged them if you actually knew. If somebody really wants to cause heartburn, and this has not been done yet, but there have been bits and pieces. They need to do a documentary exclusively on every instance where we almost had nuclear launches. So that people can get it in their head that they have been dancing on the volcano for 75 years and eventually we're going to fall in.  We have pressed our luck way too far. We have given, we have had awful politics.  We have we have continued to act on our most grounded fundamental animal instincts. We still have 25,000 nuclear weapons. We're building more. We're building them bigger faster and we're going to soon put them in space. We don't have much many, many more years. If we do not resolve this issue, we will not survive the 21st century. We won't even probably survive to 2050. Let me state that again. For all of you out there that fear your life is going really well and everything is just fine and the politics is actually pretty good depending upon which party you're in. And you know, it's a lot of poor people out there and a lot of crises, but it's okay. It's all going to work out. You are living in dream land. We are on the edge of a nuclear war every single day. And in addition to where we were in 1985 and we had 86,000 nuclear weapons in eight countries. We now have dozens of NGOs, or I'm sorry, in SOs, non state operators, any one of which, if they could get a nuclear weapon would use it. Think about that sobering. We don't, if we don't change things, forget global warming. You don't have to worry about drowning and in the rising sea levels you will be a pile of radioactive ash long before then. We have to take action. Are we doing it? How many politicians in the last presidential election discussed this? Zero. The articles have been on the front page of the New York Times last for zero. How many people are really addressing it now? Zero. It comes up once in a while. You know, Steve, I worked at. See why this is important and not just another. Yes. Okay, sobering what you just shared. You know, I worked at NASA at Jet Propulsion Laboratory for a period. Yes, for a period of time and I was there. I was there when they started to lose their funding, and I was there in the meetings with the director of JPL. I never talked about this, but this just feels really important. Share with me. Yeah, when the director stood up and said, you know, basically we're losing our funding. And you know, it's going to be attrition. It's going to be layoffs. It's bleak. We don't have a big career for unmanned. That's our term for what we put out unmanned spacecraft at this point, and we had a little shaky record at the time. And what we were told, and I fully understood what I was being told was in order to keep us afloat and give everybody jobs. The government slash military is now going to get involved. And there is going to be some changes and departments and probably people who were working I mean these amazing people whose dream was astronomy, and here they were doing it and being told they're going to be pulled. And basically you can work for the military and probably start creating weapons. And that's where our funding is going to come from. Yeah, started to expand and provide jobs and the secret space program exists. The Space Force is a joke but whatever it's a political toy and it was a pathetic thing but nevertheless. There is a secret space program and that's fine, a classified space program. I say it's fine I mean it's normal. Yes, there are plenty of people that want to put weapons in space and they're going to try very very hard. And all that means is that the risk of us, the chances of us getting through the century just get even lower. And so the find the point that ultimately I try to drive home every time I speak is this based upon standard political policies thinking history. There's no way out of this. We can't, we can't, we can't get out of this. The United States thinks it's so powerful that it can do anything. It couldn't beat the Taliban. Probably shouldn't have beaten the Taliban the point is, and I could go on and on and on, we cannot get out of this. We cannot get out of this. There will be a nuclear war, unless there is a Deus Ex Machina. Very, very useful tool, particularly in theater in the Middle Ages. Right. Now, when I say Deus Ex Machina, I do not mean God. I am a sacred man. So I'm not looking there. But Deus Ex Machina for those that just never took Latin. It means God in the machine. So what am I talking about? I'm talking about those ETs, the ones accelerated their activity here after the bombs were dropped in Japan, the ones that have been turning off weapons. The ones that have technology that could provide solutions to a great deal of some of the worst of our problems and solving some of the worst of our problems would help to minimize the nuclear war because when people have enough food and clothing and water, they're less likely to sign up to the closest non-state organization and try to go blow themselves up. But it gets better than that, right? I say it gets better than that. Here is my whole card. This is the one I'm going to continue to play. So you don't know what you're talking about. You're just guessing. Yeah, you're right. I'm guessing, but I like this guess. I'm fond of this guess. I believe that all of this activity for 75 years is leading to disclosure and disclosure is leading to open contact two years roughly. And when open contact takes place, open contact means they're talking to CNN and we're getting the transcripts. You know what I'm talking about here. If you want to, we'll turn up on your show. That would be cool. A zoom, Debbie and an ET, big audience, whatever the point is for talking about open contact. If you're going to have open contact, what are you going to say? Are you going to make small talk? This is what I think they're going to say. They're going to say, okay, you know we're here. We've been dealing with individuals. We have reasons for that. But now we're dealing with you as a global civilization. You want to come and play with us? You want to be part of our alliance? I guess you could say. You got to get rid of the news. You can't, you can't play with us if you don't have the news. And by the way, we are well aware of your physics and its progress. We're all aware that you are very close to figuring out the workaround to relativity. That allows you to get from one star to another, not in 500 years but in three weeks. We're closing in on that in our physics. Check it out if you don't believe me. It's on the internet, right? Are we there yet? No. We're trying to find the Higgs boson and people said there's no such boson until we found the damn thing. So yeah, so what happens if we get the workaround? We're going to build ships that can go to the stars. Everybody's dreamed about that. And given where we are in our evolution, spiritual or consciousness, what do you want to call it, if we're going to go out into the galaxy in our interstellar ships, we need to be safe, right? Naturally, we're going to have to take some nukes along. Everybody's seen Star Trek and Star Wars and all that shit, right? They're like westerns. They're from close distance, which is completely ridiculous, but what the hell? The point is that we'll take the nukes with us. Now, let me just kind of turn that around just for a second. Imagine if we built those starships and we went out, went up to the... Portals, I just want to intervene. You know, portals is a thing too. Multidimensional, linear time, not linear time. About to build interstellar ships, which is exactly what's happened here. And we saw that. What do you think we would do? Do you think we would just head on back to Earth and hope that they didn't find out where we were? We would do. We would intervene. And that's what the ETs are doing, I believe. They're basically intervening. In other words, look, you can't hurt us.  You could come at us from any angle. You could turn up anywhere. And that isn't going to happen. We're already here. We already know. You're not leaving this solar system with a nuke, period. So if you want to keep your nukes, you can't play with us. We'll hang around, but we're not going to give you jack.  You're not leaving. Now that would be the quarantine that everybody's fond of. There's always been this, we've been quarantined, we've been quarantined. Not exactly. But if we build starships, yeah, we're going to be quarantined. So it's going to be a demand from these ETs that have been dealing with us so intensely. You give up the nukes. And that will be an interesting political discussion. That's going to go on for a while. That's going to be fascinating. I hope to God, I'm going to live to watch this. It's those who defend, we have to keep the nukes to those that say, hey, it's time to get rid of the nukes. And if we get rid of the nukes, then we get to engage the ETs, we get possibly access to extraordinary technology, and we can go to the stars. If we don't get rid of the nukes, we can just sit here and, and, and boil in our own oil. They won't care ultimately. I think ultimately they won't care.  You still want to build nukes and threaten each other with them. Well then you, we don't need you. The galaxy can live without you. So what's going on, Debbie, is that we're approaching the most profound event in human history, the most profound transition in human history, virtually a deadline as to whether we're going to continue as a civilization. That's just that. That's what's going down. And then people ask me, Steve, why are you so passionate about this? What can I say? How can you not be? You have an upcoming live workshop at the Conscious Life Expo in LA. It's called Disclosure the End Game. Oh, no, that's my 45. But then there's a three hour, three hour panel with Danny Shan and me and Whitley Straver. Oh, perfect. That's beautiful. This is the Conscious Life Expo. It's amazing what they're doing. They're doing two live events, one in London and Hilton and one in Los Angeles, the LA Exilton, and then online at the same time. I'm assuming, well, I'm pretty sure everybody will be wearing masks in the LA Hilton. They're picking precautions, yeah. So they've really made an effort to keep their conference alive and also to provide something different. But oh yeah, it's going to be me and Whitley and Danny Shan. And I can tell you, that's for 20 minutes or an hour, three hours. And all three of us are, how would you say, quite good at speaking. Very good at speaking. So it's going to be fascinating. And so I hope people who can come safely to the LA Exilton will come see us. Yes. And otherwise, and I think eventually all of this will be archived. In addition to the online live, I'm sure all of the live performances will be archived online and can be seen later. Well, and I want folks to know, because yeah, this is a major trifecta. Whitley has been on the show three times. You this is, I'm going to say, very prophetically this is your first time, because you are so welcome back. Danny Shan is next week. So profound, what a group. And so for folks who are interested, consciouslifeexpo.com, make sure you're looking at the 2021 program. I do give them huge kudos for stepping up during this time. I know they're setting it up very safely for everybody. And I know the cast of characters who are going to be there to speak and the experts and it's really worth it. And for those of you who may be in another country or in a situation where for whatever reason you can't go in person in person is what I recommend, but you can also live stream it. So it's available for you, their agenda is also online you can see where Steve is speaking when he's speaking so you can make sure to attend that highly recommended. And Steve, this is dare to dream. So what are you next dare to dream. Today, I have one dream. And that is the day the President of the United States walks out to the end of Cross Hall and the East Wing stands in front of that podium with all those flags behind him and 200 press I've been in that room. I have sat in that same exact place and confirms to the world. As the first head of state to do so, which is possible that we're not alone. We have visitors now. And we're going to address that together. That's my dream. I don't dare to dream for anything else because that is an awful lot to do. For folks who are interested in more about Steve Bassett go to paradigm research group.org Steve I thank you so much for coming on today and for everything you shared. This was illuminating. Thank you. Today's show with this quote from Mehmet Marj Ildan to think that there is no life outside of the world is actually an extremely sick thought a disease. So what is the disease ego. Our existence is very special our existence as a miracle and to imagine that there cannot be such a miracle elsewhere. Hmm, this is an ego, a huge problematic ego. Subscribe to the dear dream podcast to hear this weekly number one transformation conversation. My guest next week is Daniel Sheehan who has been the constitutional trial lawyer in Pentagon papers silkwood. He is no DAPL cases. He is the council for Romero Institute and Lakota law. Also, something that was mentioned today that's very interesting that we'll be talking about next week, the 2017 DoD case of Luis Elizondo, a DoD employee who wants to speak out. So we will be talking about that. And he is also widely seen in the Stephen Greer documentaries. Do subscribe. If you're listening to the podcast you want to see what we look like, go to youtube.com slash Debbie Daschinger. And remember folks, this is a big dream you heard today. I am right there I have seen craft myself in the last year on two different occasions, I engage regularly and contact work. This is my conversation my show has changed over the last few years, because this is my heart's calling. So join us in this and, and in Steve's lobbyist beautiful fight and voice voice for the voiceless really, and what he's doing support us in what this is and continue to dream and create all your dreams.


Hi, welcome to our study International Physiotherapy. My name is Pham Tung Duong from Vietnam and today we will tell you more about our study program. Hello, I'm Marion. I'm the Co-Director of Suction School of Health Physiotherapy. Well we do have a practical course in which you will have many practical classes in which you will work with 55 nationalities but also with a Dutch student. We do have a broad network in the world where you are going to do internships. The interesting part of the program is that you will be able to observe many body types with many abilities and injuries and therefore have a comprehensive view of the real world with real patients. Most students are very social and they do like sports. It's very important that you can work together and that you can cooperate and above all you need to have a natural interest in the human body and in performance. In the classroom, everyone is very open-minded and works in a professional way. The teachers are very friendly and warm and welcoming at the beginning and the student will have a very enjoyable environment to learn and practice. This course is really unique because we have a high level but we do have still a very practical approach so many students come from all over the world to gain this level. The teacher and the student has an open and honest relationship. Whenever I have something to ask, I can ask freely. Whenever I have any problem, my student study counselor is always there to help as much as he can. As a physiotherapist, you can work in a private practice or in a hospital but also you can do a master's in many areas, healthcare science but also a very more practical approach, master musculoskeletal. You should really pick this course if you are active and really like to learn everything about the human body. You will need to be committed to put in the work to read the material because this will prepare you for the future profession. Thank you for watching and good luck with making your study choice. More information can be found on the website or during an open day or digital discovery day.


You know, you never know what Boris is going to say, but you know he is always going to tell you what he really thinks. So coming up next, we have another user that is speaking for the first time here at the OpenStack Summit. From SAP, please welcome Nayaki Nayar. Good morning. Thank you, Jonathan. That was a great presentation this morning. Before I jump into the details, I do want to say this. I want to say that we are very happy and proud to be a part of the OpenStack ecosystem. And thank you for giving us this opportunity to share with you our journey and our experience with the OpenStack. There are three key things that I want to share with you today. The first, you heard Donna speak this morning about digital transformation, how we as SAP are working with customers across every industry in helping them with their digital transformation, and how we are leveraging the entire OpenStack to power our platform, our HANA Cloud Platform, which is the foundation for all of our digital applications. And finally, how we are contributing to the OpenStack ecosystem, to the community, and the various projects that we are proud of. So let's take a step back and look at what this digital transformation really means. I'm sure you all hear about digital transformation all day long. And we have defined this transformation in what we call three, four major pillars. The first one being customer experience, how you engage with your customers in today's digital world. Gone are the days when customers call you if they have a service problem. Today's customers, when they have a service issue, they will tweet about that issue. And they expect the service provider to be listening back to them and respond back to them on their Twitter handle. How you engage with your suppliers is no longer the world where you engage with your suppliers one-on-one. It's how you leverage the entire ecosystem, entire network of suppliers to optimize your end-to-end supply chain. And how you really engage with your workforce, your digital workforce. It's not just about providing basic HR services, but really about how you nurture and hire and retain top talent. And the last one, I would say, is how do you leverage this whole connected world? You hear about this. Billions of devices that would be connected. How do companies leverage this to really generate outcomes? I talked to a lot of CEOs, CFOs, and head of operations in companies. And they say, Neaki, as we go through this journey of digital transformation, where IoT is a very big part of, they really care about the outcomes. In this framework, we define what we call things to outcome. They really care about the outcomes this transformation helps them generate. Outcomes like net new customer experiences, net new revenue modules, net new reducing the turnaround times, or reducing their maintenance times. And to get to these outcomes, it's a journey that they have to go through. How they connect the things to get the insights. The insights is what generates them to take some actions. And actions is what generates all of these outcomes. And one of the key questions I get is, Neaki, give me examples of various customers that have really gone through this transformation and have generated these outcomes. I have a great example. Kaiser Compressors is the largest manufacturer of compressors in Germany. And when Kaiser started this journey last year, their number one requirement was, how do you maintain the compressors that they sell to the customers at the highest efficiency? And they not only were able to improve the efficiency and the maintenance of their compressors, but they effectively transformed their business model of not just selling compressors, but really selling compressed air. Complete transformation of the business model. I was talking to a large tire company. And they said, Neaki, we are looking at transforming our business model of not just selling tires, but really selling mileage as a service. And my favorite really is Under Armour. I'm sure you all know Under Armour as a brand. Just 10 to 15 years back, it was barely even known. Today, they're not only competing with the likes of all the majors like Neiki and Raybox, but really transforming their business model of not just selling fitness products, but selling fitness as a service. This is what we call transforming business models into what we call outcome-based services. How is all this possible? We are leveraging our platform, our HANA Cloud Platform, which is powered by the OpenStack infrastructure. And I will say this over the last few years. We are actively working towards converging. We have close to 23 different cloud infrastructures, which was a result of various acquisitions that we did. And we are converging all of those to OpenStack standard. And not only that, it helps us also not have a vendor lock-in. In addition, we are also leveraging the Cloud Foundry open source to manage all our various microservices that are a big part of this platform. As you can see, we have quite a few microservices here. On the IoT side, we have microservices that help you manage the intelligence at the edge, and also how you do smart data streaming, how you do dynamic tiering for accessing big data solutions, and how do you do end-to-end device management. Let me share with you Siemens. Siemens is a great customer of ours. And they are going through this whole industry photo transformation of building various applications like connected manufacturing, connected logistics on our platform, which is powered by the OpenStack. I want to share with you this great video that we have that shows you the entire end-to-end solution. Can we run the video? In an industry 4.0 factory, any process and every action produces thousands of sensor data records. It's essential to collect, analyze, and visualize this data. The SAP HANA Cloud Platform enables just that. The requirement is an end-to-end view on process and production data. This enables to derive relevant actions in real time to make the company processes faster, better, and more efficient. Therefore, all data produced in the factory will be transferred to the SAP HANA Cloud Platform. With an analytics application running on this stack, the company gains clear insights into how to optimize processes. With the Minesphere Cloud for Industry, Siemens answers to the challenge of tougher competition manufacturing companies are facing. It interlinks physical products and production facilities with digital data, enabling innovative solutions and getting products onto the market faster. The SAP HANA Cloud Platform provides a unique set of in-memory databases and application services built on open standards and open technologies. Deploying a new application is just a matter of seconds. From the cockpit view, new application instances can be easily created, managed, and scaled to react to peaks during processing. These applications can leverage reusable services like microservices. The platform includes a variety of microservices and dashboards, also leveraging open standards and open technologies. It's easy to monitor the system and its state. Information can be stored in databases designed for big data, such as Hadoop, with an in-memory engine like SAP HANA Vora for queries. OpenStack is the foundation of the infrastructure as a service layer for this productive internet of things scenario. The physical data center becomes a pool of resources users can access. The SAP HANA Cloud Platform uses OpenStack to manage virtual machines, networks, and storage to fully abstract the underlying hardware systems. With that, I also want to share with you that we as SAP and our engineering team is actively engaged in the community. We are working on various OpenStack projects all the way from Project Ironic, which is to help with the bare metal provisioning, Project Manila for managing the shared file systems and various other projects. We look forward to expanding our engagement and increasing and accelerating our engagement and really contributing to the overall community. With that, if you all have any questions, feel free to attend our panel session that is scheduled for later in the afternoon. And thank you all and have a great event. Thank you all. Thank you, Niyaki. Thanks. I love hearing from new users, and that video looks pretty cool, where OpenStack is out there building things.