K. L. spotted this story, and it's worth talking about because it's an example of what's happening, or rather, not happening in the whole climate change discussion. I submit that there's an odd pattern that has emerged over the decades, if you have been following it. The pattern, briefly, is this: every few weeks a study is released "proving" that "climate change" is real and that it is anthropogenic (man made). Then, a few weeks later, another study will be released, "proving" it is not happening and not man-made. Along the way, we're treated to occasional stories where computer records have been stolen, data fabricated, and so on. And of course there's the whole tautological circular-argument nature of "climate change" itself. I've commented on this at length as well, as in the 1970s we began with predictions of gloom and coming ice ages, then it changed to "global warming," and as that was increasingly challenged, we now have "climate change," a concept so broad that in the popular imagination any change is "proof" that we need to "change our ways."

But it would take someone with their head in a paper bag not to notice that the weather has been awfully "danged peculiar" lately. Europe is baking in a heat wave with temperatures reaching 32 degrees Celsius in Norway recently. Norway! (For those in the Fahrenheit world, that's about 90 degrees). A few weeks ago the American Midwest was hit with so much rain, and so many tornadoes, that records were set, crops were left unplanted. And if you were watching the patterns, the floods began in the upper Midwest, the massive rains hit further south, just as flood waters from the north began to drain into the Missouri-Mississipi river basins, heading south. Then, as a final blow, a hurricane hit New Orleans, just as all that flood water was hitting. Parts of Brooklyn resembled Venice, and while all that was going on, I blogged about scientists wanting to dump a gimongous amount of snow on Antarctica to stop the melting ice pack there (and they seem to have forgotten that snow pack actually locks in heat, in Antarctica's case, much of it geothermal. Thus, the "solution" might be even worse than the problem itself.)

In other words, for all you "climate change deniers" out there, the weather is screwy (as are many of the scientists talking about it).

Which brings us to K.L.'s shared article, and the "pattern" of "discussion" about "climate change":

Bombshell Claim: Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice"

I want to cite much of the beginning of this article, for a purpose we'll get back to:

A new scientific study could bust wide open deeply flawed fundamental assumptions underlying controversial climate legislation and initiatives such as the Green New Deal, namely, the degree to which 'climate change' is driven by natural phenomena vs. man-made issues measured as carbon footprint. Scientists in Finland found "practically no anthropogenic [man-made] climate change" after a series of studies. 

“During the last hundred years the temperature increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C”, the Finnish researchers bluntly state in one among a series of papers.

This has been collaborated by a team at Kobe University in Japan, which has furthered the Finnish researchers' theory: "New evidence suggests that high-energy particles from space known as galactic cosmic rays affect the Earth's climate by increasing cloud cover, causing an 'umbrella effect'," the just published study has found, a summary of which has been released in the journal Science Daily. The findings are hugely significant given this 'umbrella effect' — an entirely natural occurrence  could be the prime driver of climate warming, and not man-made factors.

The scientists involved in the study are most concerned with the fact that current climate models driving the political side of debate, most notably the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) climate sensitivity scale, fail to incorporate this crucial and potentially central variable of increased cloud cover.

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has discussed the impact of cloud cover on climate in their evaluations, but this phenomenon has never been considered in climate predictions due to the insufficient physical understanding of it," comments Professor Hyodo in Science Daily. "This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect."

In their related paper, aptly titled, “No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic [man-made] climate change”, the Finnish scientists find that low cloud cover "practically" controls global temperatures but that “only a small part” of the increased carbon dioxide concentration is anthropogenic, or caused by human activity.

The following is a key bombshell section in one of the studies conducted by Finland's Turku University team:

We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why 6 J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.

This raises urgent questions and central contradictions regarding current models which politicians and environmental groups across the globe are using to push radical economic changes on their countries' populations.


And the team in Japan has called for a total reevaluation of current climate models, which remain dangerously flawed for dismissing a crucial variable:

This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect. The umbrella effect caused by galactic cosmic rays is important when thinking about current global warming as well as the warm period of the medieval era. (Boldface emphasis in the original, italicized emphasis added).

Now, if you've been following my occasional blogs on this topic, or for that matter, the work and research of Elana Freeland and others(I highly recommend her book, Under an Ionized Sky), you notice immediately that the one thing shared by most publicly available and discussed climate change studies - whether pro or con - is the complete lack of discussion of various geophysical engineering technologies: cloud seeding, and, for our purposes here, ionospheric heaters. Those technologies are real, and they can cause significant damage. The tragic flood in Rapid City, South Dakota, in 1972 followed directly upon a massive cloud seeding effort. That seeding has expanded, if you've been following the chemtrail story, to include seeding the atmosphere with very different types of heavy metals than those used for rain-making, metals designed to increase the electrical conductivity of the atmosphere, and these in turn would have an effect on cosmic ray bombardment, which will affect the weather as a byproduct of whatever motivations may lie behind this activity, and there's no doubt in my mind that this motivation is military in nature.

More important for our purposes here powerful ionospheric heaters such as the HAARP array. Again, it is admitted in the original patent for this device that it would have the capability of making significant modifications to the properties of the ionosphere on a planetary scale, affecting the magnetosphere, and thus (once again) the magnetic shielding properties of the planet. In short, there is an anthropogenic component to climate change, but, as this study evidences, no one wants to talk about it nor admit it into their studies. As Elana Freeland aptly stated in an interview recently with this author, these technologies and their use mean, in effect, that there is no longer any such thing as purely "natural" weather.

And as I've stated previously, is looks to me as if the whole climate change discussion is being carefully managed, so that those technologies never emerge into the public discussion. The reason is simple: it's not Johnny Rancher or Susie homemaker causing the screwy weather. It more likely is the military-industrial complex, the deep states of the world, and their "toys."

And this Japanese study is yet another example of the glaring material omission: not a word about chemtrails, not a word about ionospheric heaters, and other exotic geophysical engineering technologies. It's as nutty and worthless as the Ocasio Cortez's Green New Deal which it purports to challenge.

See you on the flip side...

Posted in

Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and "strange stuff". His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into "alternative history and science".


  1. Deborah Warren on July 31, 2019 at 8:01 pm

    I saw this study a few weeks ago on …. my morning coffee review of all things related to cosmic rays … they regularly have a smattering of research that challenges the climate-change dogma … well worth the 5 to 7 minutes of time each morning … plus they always start with an image of the most recent sunspot activity on the sun. I highly recommend it.

    If you need a primer on the science, they have many hours of playlists that will help … start with “Earth Catastrophe cycle”

  2. Pierre on July 31, 2019 at 12:20 am

    not a word about Fukushima and tritium in the dying Pacific, not a word about methane and its 100X CO2 effect. any word about reduction in solar rays means less’ umbrella’ from those cosmic rays and more UVB and UVC.
    12k years ago the sea was more than 100m below, which is 120 X 100 years, so when they say that sea level has risen over the last 100 years by 16cm, are they saying that the interglacial period is slowing down that rise as time goes by, and therefore we are going into cooling? we would need 1m per 100 years to get the 100 meters, 99% of that before the iron horse.
    My new theory, circumcision causes global warming , it’s in the screams of the son, and , for the orthodox, of the father too. We need to tax it, twice,as there are two scream per capita per lifetime. TV Promo song will be ♫where have all the foreskins gone, long time passing, where have all the wails gone, long time ago♫

    • zendogbreath on July 31, 2019 at 6:07 pm

      Oh man. Pick a different song and a different question. Cosmetics is one of the answers. TMI. See comments below about Ralph Ellis on a much more plausible model of cosmology as regards warming.

  3. zendogbreath on July 30, 2019 at 4:24 pm

    Whoever turned me on to Mike Morales, thank you again. Funny guy and always worth listening all the way through.

  4. zendogbreath on July 30, 2019 at 3:23 pm

    Goshawks, How do we mainstream such folk, or at least make them as easily found as they were a few years ago? Feels like Robert Epstein becomes more pertinent daily.
    Stanford Seminar – Unethical Algorithms of Massive Scale

  5. goshawks on July 30, 2019 at 3:57 am

    Ralph Ellis’ Full Length Talks on agenda-driven climate ‘science’ (very revealing) :
    FL Talk 4a – Global Warming Disinformation Pt1
    FL Talk 4b – Global Warming Disinformation Pt2
    (By the way, Ellis carefully ‘skirts the line’ by addressing the gaggle of global-warming scientists as “jumping on the bandwagon” rather than what we might call TPTB-pushed Problem ->Reaction->Solution agendas.)

  6. zendogbreath on July 29, 2019 at 11:01 pm

    Doc, I’m noting this same trend in all topics from pedovores running mafia military industrial complex to vaccine mfrs vs all humanity. Every topic is either completely memory holed or so dialected with partial and false narratives that all other intelligent possibilities are ruled out and kept out. Niki Raapana seems to be the most focused on this lately. Just ran across her last week.

    What I’m learning? We’re all focusing on the topics that are kept mute and taboo and getting into them as far as we can intelligently. We’re looking at the same elephant from a lot of different angles even as we are not allowed to describe the elephant from those angles. While we are missing out on good accurate perspectives on these different parts of the elephant, we are missing out on an overall image of the elephant. More importantly, we’re missing out on where that elephant is going.

  7. goshawks on July 29, 2019 at 10:48 pm

    (This probably belongs back in the last earthquake column, but is unlikely to be read there. And it does concern climate change…)

    “Over 80,000 Quakes have Hit California since July 4th; Aftershocks headed toward the Garlock Fault”

    comment by joego1:
    “The Long Valley Caldera is just up to the North, and it is only second to Yellowstone [Caldera] in size and potential.
    ‘Long Valley Caldera is a depression in eastern California that is adjacent to Mammoth Mountain. The valley is one of the Earth’s largest calderas, measuring about 20 miles (32 km) long (east-west), 11 miles (18 km) wide (north-south), and up to 3,000 feet (910 m) deep.’

    This is very bad; these 80k earthquakes seem to be heading north to join up with the Long Valley Caldera.

    I have lived in earthquake country all of my life and have never seen anything like this happen before.”

    More by joego1 from Wikipedia on the Long Valley Caldera:
    ‘All but one of these volcanoes, 1–2 million year old Glass Mountain (made of obsidian), were destroyed by the major (volcanic explosivity index (VEI) 7) eruption of the area 760,000 years ago, which released 600 cubic kilometres (140 cu mi) of material from vents just inside the margin of the caldera. (The 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption was a VEI-5 eruption releasing 1.2 cubic kilometres (0.29 cu mi).) About half of this material was ejected in a series of pyroclastic flows of a very hot (1,500 °F (820 °C)) mixture of noxious gas, pumice, and volcanic ash that covered the surrounding area hundreds of feet deep. One lobe of this material moved south into Owens Valley, past present-day Big Pine, California. Another lobe moved west over the crest of the Sierra Nevada and into the drainage of the San Joaquin River. The rest of the pyroclastic material, along with 300 cubic kilometres (72 cu mi) of other matter, was blown as far as 25 miles (40 km) into the air where winds distributed it as far away as eastern Nebraska and Kansas.

    The eruption initially produced a caldera 2–3 km (1.2–1.9 mi) deep. However, much of the ejecta went straight up, fell down, and filled the initial caldera about two-thirds full.’

    • Robert Barricklow on July 29, 2019 at 11:14 pm

      Yellowstone is a super volcano.
      That’s a game changer.

  8. James Woolsey on July 29, 2019 at 10:04 pm

    You should check out which has been covering space weather, magnetic field weakening, solar correlations to earth quakes. Weakening field of the sun and earth lets in more cosmic rays. PLUS, our solar system is moving out of its former protected position in the local space zone, letting in yet more cosmic rays.
    See video “Energy from space; the shift has begun.”

    • zendogbreath on July 29, 2019 at 11:34 pm

      Somehow it always feels S0 dramatizes and comlicates it. Beautiful graphics though. Perhaps that comes from his schooling (JD) and his family (Hollywood moguls).

    • zendogbreath on July 29, 2019 at 11:35 pm


  9. marcos toledo on July 29, 2019 at 7:41 pm

    One question are we humans not part of the biosphere as for carbon plants inhale that and we inhale oxygen.

  10. Syncromyst on July 29, 2019 at 7:04 pm

    I can’t remember the last time I saw a perfectly clear, deep blue sky. Perhaps back in 2015 I saw a deep blue sky when the Northeast was in a drought, but not since then.. The sky may start out blue, but by mid morning there is always a white film which may build to a gray, flat, fog-like appearance high in altitude. Some times dark gray puffy cumulus will float below the flat gray cirrus-nimbus. I can’t remember ever seeing skies like these. I agree, man-made but not from cow flatulence and auto exhaust.

    • zendogbreath on July 29, 2019 at 11:32 pm

      Last blue sky I saw: 9/11/2001 to 9/15/2001.

  11. Richard on July 29, 2019 at 5:54 pm

    Climate study? What’s there to worry about some might say as it’s just another weather report that’s likely to change soon enough. heh, so long as it doesn’t flood your basement, wreck your pickup, foul the freshwater well in the backyard, and other nasty bits of foul weather phenomena related destruction. Scorched Earth related conditions on the extreme other end.

    One is hopeful more so than other times. Clouds are important players in this whole business of weather monitoring (both short and long term), especially, those that are unseen by normal human vision – Those clouds of colorless gaseous water vapor.

    One cloud type to pay more attention to, too, are those Noctilucent Clouds (NLC’s). One of the highest if not the highest known and observed aside from the Auroras which are a type of electromagnetically charged particle formation that resemble clouds. NLC formation is not quite the same as those cloud formations in the lower atmosphere. Thus far, current hypotheses suggest that these clouds form from meteoric and interplanetary microscopic dust for their condensation nuclei. With tons and tons of this inbound dust they’re often seen near the poles during polar summertime orbital orientations and are sometimes associated with known and recurring meteor showers. Stratovolcanoes, because of their extreme heights and explosive forces behind fine volcanic ejecta might also contribute to those cloud types.

    In one’s humble opinion, there needs to be more [think] and observations of “the impacts of clouds on climate,” and fewer kleptomaniacs trying to power grab money out of bank accounts and tax returns claiming righteous deals for All. One prefers long term weather phenomena. Climate and climate change have become one of those phrase-word slurs to corrupt yet again. As for ionospheric heating, there are several radio frequency sources, that span the electromagnetic spectrum, as contributors toward heating ions of the atmosphere at varying levels. Some widespread, some isolated, some pulsed, some mobile, some enhanced through cloud seeding tactics, and on and on. Under the right atmospheric conditions one can note the locations of those high-powered sources.

    Speaking of cloud seeding, Siberian areas of combustible Tundra are currently ablaze yielding an orange hue in northern latitudes around the Arctic Circle. Rumor has it the Russians are not going to put out the blazes despite localities inundated by soot laden plums passing inhabited areas. One can expect weather related phenomena trending toward altered jet streams and pressure systems with temperature changes that seem as out of place as any to date. Not that Odd weather patterns are not occurring, anyway, but more to come. For specifics note your regional weather forecasters as they’ll have the hardware to hone in on humidity, dew points, atmospheric pressure, wind direction, and UV levels more accurately along with local atmospheric ionization with their super doppler RADAR’s than one’s wetted finger in the air will predict. One will not go into how radioactivity contributes to atmospheric ions as it is a wild ride on a high energy side as ion formation requires an energy source. Let’s keep those ideations of quantum experimentation (spooky physics) on a back burner for now but turned off as they produce their own heated environments. May as well get ready for the next data tweak.

  12. Robert Barricklow on July 29, 2019 at 12:03 pm

    I’ve recently disciplined myself towards climate “change”
    by immediately correcting it to climate “Control”.
    “Control” is soooo… “them”.

    Yes, climate Control is as real
    as it’s primary cause:
    Chemtrails/ionizing the atmosphere.
    [obfuscating discussions about the sun’s role]

    Then weeks later saying the opposite.
    But “control” can either be hotter and/or colder.
    So “Control” fits both[and all] scenarios.

    Deadly new toy?
    This power of the Gods to manipulate weather?

    Galactic rays?
    Not a good sign. Portends massive extinction if gamma.
    Of course, most of these just-in-time transnational narratives are $uspect[given that they’re on scrip].

    As I continue to read…
    I’m frustrated that all over the globe the scribblers are seeing no chemtrails. Godzilla’s smoke trails flying all around the globe 24/7/365…
    The elephant in the room is of galactic size and literally in their faces and lungs[nano-sized].
    Look up in the sky? It’s a bird. It’s a plane.
    No, It’s Climate Control Chemtrails!

    And not one discouraging word on Climate Control Chemtrails; on any nation’s home front, on any range.
    Where those deer and the antelope will be dying
    from those military-industrialized skies that are cloudy ALL Day!

    • Robert Barricklow on July 29, 2019 at 12:27 pm

      What’s the point of total spectrum dominance if you’ve killed planet rock? Plan to be some high-end, high-tech bits & pieces in some robotic cosmic wonderland?
      Can your AI’s even get you “seeing” beyond the mission?
      Or, have you answered what happens after you’ve killed living planet Earth? Is that why you want? To boldly go and kill other living planets, where no one’s gone & done it before?
      Or, are these question$ above your pay grade?
      Above your ability to think?
      Above your common sense?
      Above your humanity?
      Or, what’s left of it?
      Or, are you even human to begin with?
      Your mission should be to make “our” living Earth healthier; not kill it, by replacing life w/AI-robots.
      Or, is nature a deadly sin?
      In other words, your lively com-pet-i- sion?
      And your life’s deadly competision?

      • Robert Barricklow on July 29, 2019 at 12:32 pm

        Avoided moderation by misspelling.
        Following rules to communicate.
        Something inherently wrong in organization.
        Crazy? On the surface, yes.
        Or; is It the way, in how its organized?

    • zendogbreath on July 29, 2019 at 11:27 pm

      Love that Climate Control. I think I thought of it first in some Mandela effected universe.

      It’s all so Dune trilogy.

      Here’s another idea I keep pulling out from electric universe speculations. What if water is generated by plasma discharges? What if lightening is not a result of rain and water vapor in clouds? What if plasma discharge / lightening is a result of sun to earth and back again interplanetary electric discharges? And every time that discharge happens, more water than is shed out of the atmosphere gets produced (similar to the water jets coming off comets when they electric discharge with the sun)?

      • Robert Barricklow on July 31, 2019 at 8:33 pm

        I like your thinking ZDB/water is the result of sun to earth and back again interplanetary discharges.
        It’s outside the box; exploring eclectic energies.

        [it turns out they’ve already coined: “eclectic energies”]

        All I can say/What an Alice In Wonderland world this is!

  13. basta on July 29, 2019 at 11:59 am

    First, to state the obvious, the climate is always changing. It fluctuates wildly–naturally.

    12K+ years ago, a blink of an eye in the larger scheme of things, much of North America sat under a massive ice sheet. On a more macro level, In the 1680s, it was so cold in France that the wine froze in glasses at Versailles and the Dutch skated on their canals (leading to a whole genre of painting). At the time of Erasmus, vineyards grew in London. So I don’t see short-term fluctuations as anything unusual, and the phrase “climate change” is simply stating the obvious, and the implication that humans are causing these fluctuations is nonsense. Particularly the whole CO2 scam.

    What clearly is going on though is a heck of a lot of sinister technological intervention of various stripes that is causing destabilization of climate systems like the Jet Stream, leading to some very weird local effects.

    • zendogbreath on July 29, 2019 at 11:20 pm

      Good point.

  14. ragiza on July 29, 2019 at 10:59 am

    Atmospheric CO2 and temperature correlate strongly in ice core data over hundreds of thousands of years. There’s a feedback relationship between the two.
    There are numerous relevant factors, including the ones pointed out in the post, but the evidence indicates atmospheric CO2 is a very strong one.
    See the graph in this link:

    • zendogbreath on July 29, 2019 at 11:18 pm

      Feels more likely that temperature is driving CO2 more so than the other way around. Especially considering how other greenhouse gases are so many times more powerful. Water vapor? Methane?

      • zendogbreath on July 31, 2019 at 6:02 pm

        Interesting. Ralph Ellis replied to a question in his comments on yt and concurs both on temp driving CO2 and on pollution (probably mostly from China) bringing down albedo in northern hemisphere and warming. He has a well thought out theory based on correlation of dust levels rising for many millenia uniformly just before warming periods. Since most of the dust found in historic layers is from the Gobi Desert, he posited that the Gobi only desertifies periodically after long cooling times (ice ages) in sync with CO2 drops that correlate with cooling. CO2 drops precipitate vegetative growth drops while cooling periods correlate with shorter growing seasons. Verdant grasslands turn to desert. When a big enough desert starts to blow away, its dust settles on vast areas of previously very reflective ice and snow. As the albedo drops the temperature rises in those regions and the glaciers melt. Hmm, much melting going on in northern hemisphere lately? Thank you again Goshawks. Good reference.

  15. anakephalaiosis on July 29, 2019 at 6:18 am

    My conspiracy theory is, that globalists are at war with grassroots, that are fodder for cows, causing global warming by flatulence.

    I think that is a money scam, because Rumpelstiltskin wants all the the straws for himself, to be spun into gold.

    In Norwegian folklore, it is said, that he, who knows the name of a troll, gains power over it.

  16. goshawks on July 29, 2019 at 5:52 am

    In addition to the cosmic ray effects on clouds, there are at least two additional (contrary) effects that are not included in the climate models:

    First, the cooling effects produced by where the planet is in the early, pre- Ice Age cool-down. (Yes, Joseph, those 70s predictions of an oncoming Ice Age were real . They were based on Milankovitch Cycles. Check-out the Vostok Ice Core data from Antarctica for confirmation.)

    Second, Richard brought up a very real phenomenon not included in the models: Undersea volcanoes and rift-zone activity. Although random, they can dump a large amount of heat into the ocean, unseen by human eyes. Indeed, there are additional worries that this kind of heating may cause the release of massive amounts of methane clathrate (also called methane hydrate, hydromethane, methane ice, fire ice, natural gas hydrate, or gas hydrate) buried in the seabed – causing global warming that is also not included in the models.

    There are so many possible non-modeled effects (including MIC contributions) that it is anyone’s guess at this point how they will all add-up. Right now, various parties are trying to stampede the public into ‘pet’ agendas (including carbon taxes). Some may be good for mankind; others are just to push NWO projects or make certain parties rich…

    • DanaThomas on July 29, 2019 at 9:46 am

      Very apt observations Goshawks.

    • zendogbreath on July 29, 2019 at 11:08 pm

      Dutchsinse backs you up on these. He’s had folk on the west coast send him fresh lava rocks (nice accurate technical term eh?) found on the beaches on a few occasions to confirm for him his previous week’s predictions of earthquakes / volcano eruptions in those areas (mostly in deep waters off Oregon). He was able to extrapolate eruption areas off locations, quantities and currents. What he speculated not very far off the branch tip was the level of effort to conceal such eruptions by govt agencies (same ones constantly trying to mute Dutch). There’s way more activity geologically than govt agencies cop to.

  17. Neru on July 29, 2019 at 5:46 am

    Living in Belgium, for the moment the discussion to lower man-made emissions is to buy brown or white eggs! I kid you not brown eggs are far more popular but white eggs are better for the environment so the environmentalists say!

    Elana Freeland’s book is in English and wittingly or unwittingly by the military-industrial complex leading to the genocide of all global populace. Addiction to their toys / unlimited control passes by all sanity.

    On this subject, a lot of programming seems to kick in at the kindergarten level so “wite eggs” is way easier an effort than reading something not aligned with your personal comfort zone and in a foreign language to boot.

    Point being, it is a hard sell to get even family members to look at the subject unbiased.

    • Don B on July 29, 2019 at 7:21 am

      Isn’t that racist? lol………. Yeah, that is how low we have fallen and is a topic for another blog.

Help the Community Grow

Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.

Upcoming Events