America’s Long Journey: The War of 1812

The War of 1812 was a necessary corrective to British arrogance, or an unnecessary catastrophe, or a tragic blunder, or a hairsbreadth escape, or an expensive stalemate, or an amazing victory, or the basis for continued independence and lasting peace, depending on who you listen to and how you see it. Maybe it was all of these things. As with nearly all wars, the country that emerged was quite different from the one that had entered the war.

Great Britain’s provocative and often outrageous policies had been stoking American anger for years. British warships stopped American ships outside American harbors and impressed into their own navy any sailors who in their opinion were British deserters. They seized any cargo that in their opinion was contraband. In 1807, a British warship had even fired on an American warship in American waters. Years of such incidents had their effect. Jefferson’s response, as we shall see, had been the Embargo, but that policy had lapsed with his presidency, on March 4, 1809.

In 1810, the West and South elected to Congress a group of young Republicans who boiled with resentment of the economic injuries done by the British, and the national humiliation inflicted, and the British practice of inciting American Indians in the Northwest against white settlers., They intended to seize Canada and either annex it or hold it as a bargaining chip, and thought it would be easy. When, in June, 1812, President James Madison asked Congress to declare war, these War Hawks provided his margin. (Not one of the 39 Federalists in Congress voted for war.)

The war was fought on the Canadian border and the Great Lakes, on the seas, and in the Southwest.

In the North, an American invasion of Canada failed, but American naval victories on Lake Erie and Lake Champlain prevented a corresponding British invasion of the United States. More important results followed the Battle of the Thames, in 1813, when General William Henry Harrison’s forces defeated a smaller British force and killed the Shawnee chief Tecumseh.

Tecumseh had preached unity among all these Northwestern and Southwestern tribes, advocating a concerted effort to throw back the white settlers. Although he fought north of the Ohio, he encouraged the Red Stick Creek Indians to attack white settlements in northern Alabama and Georgia, and the Fort Mims massacre, which killed 400 to 500 settlers, set off what was known as the Creek War. That war ended in March, 1814, when Andrew Jackson’s mixed force of army regulars, Tennessee militiaman, and Cherokee, Choctaw and Creek Indians decisively defeated the Red Sticks in the Battle of Horseshoe Bend. This action made Jackson a Major General and, along with his victory at New Orleans ten months later, a national hero.

At sea, the British strategy was to protect its own merchant shipping and blockade major American ports (except New England, which traded with Canada in defiance of American laws). American strategy was to employ hit-and-run tactics and engage Royal Navy vessels only under favorable circumstances. After the defeat of Napoleon freed military forces for use in the New World, the British mounted large-scale raids along the seacoasts, and three invasions. One failed to invade New York state via Lake Champlain, the second took Washington, D.C. and burned the Capitol and the White House but was repulsed at Baltimore, and the third was decimated at New Orleans.

Each side used both warships and privateers to attack the other’s merchant ships. (This was the last war in which the British used privateers) . American privateers captured 219 British merchant ships in the first four months of war, damaging British commercial interests, but not enough to send insurance rates soaring, which was their hope.

As additional ships were sent to North America in 1813, the Royal Navy tightened its blockade and extended it, by May 31, 1814, to the entire American coast. American exports decreased from $130 million in prewar 1807 to $7 million in 1814 – and most of the $7 million was in food exports that went to Britain or British colonies.

However, by mid-1814, neither the Americans nor the British wanted to continue the war. After a few months of haggling, they signed the Treaty of Ghent (in Belgium) on December 24, 1814, officially ending the war by returning relations to their pre-war status, with no territory lost or gained, and impressment left unmentioned because moot. The treaty was ratified by the British on December 27, and was quickly ratified after it arrived in Washington on February 17, 1815.

Meanwhile, on January 8, with neither side knowing that the peace had been signed, 8,000 British regulars trying to capture New Orleans were decisively defeated by Andrew Jackson’s 5,000-man army, which had prepared strong defenses just south of the city. The British regulars suffered heavy losses, amounting to more than 25% of their forces — 291 dead, 1,262 wounded, and 484 captured or missing. American casualties were less than two percent of their forces — 13 dead, 39 wounded, and 19 missing. The lopsided victory earned Jackson the official Thanks of Congress, and a gold medal. Meanwhile, the British had taken Mobile, but then, the following day, learned of the Treaty of Ghent, and so sailed home.

The big losers in the war were the Indians allied to the British. The British had demanded, as late as the fall of 1814, that a large “neutral” Indian state be created in what would become Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan, but the Americans absolutely refused, and the British conceded the point. After 1814, British policymakers never again offered the Indians arms or encouragement, and without that powerful foreign sponsor, the Indians posed no further threat to white settlement.

Other than the Indians, the big losers from the war were the New England federalists, who had flirted with treason throughout the war and had met, in Hartford Connecticut, late in 1814 to discuss resistance to the war and even possible secession from the rest of the Union. But the end of the war made their publicly expressed views look defeatist or even treasonous. The Hartford Convention spelled the end of the Federalist Party.

Abstractly considered, it could be considered an unnecessary war. But in practice, while the British were what they were and the Americans were what they were, and the Indians what they were, there was little or no chance that the war could have been avoided. The best chance for that had been Thomas Jefferson’s experiment at economic coercion in place of war, as we shall see. But statesmen are rarely as reasonable as he.

Searching for verifications

[This is the text of an email exchange with a friend during the time I was trying hard to validate what I was getting from Joseph Smallwood.]


>> I admit, I am about out of patience with chasing “past-life” memories and never finding external verifications.

> Why do you need verification?

I think metaphysically inclined people are sometimes a little too inclined to explain away difficulties, rather than truly exploring them. Verification of any one detail would give me a solid place to stand.

> What would you do differently if you had it?

It isn’t so much what I would do, as where I would be. Rather than believing I would be so much closer to knowing.

> We talk about creating “reality”, about how everything is composed of energy, how reality is “our perception” and how our beliefs determine that perception. Yet we still assume that components of our “reality” have an objective existence apart from our perceptions and beliefs.

> If reality is mutable, if we’re all co-creating “reality” every nanosecond, what’s “proof” other than another of our creations?

That is all well enough in the abstract, but of course we build our everyday lives on the assumption that the sources of our perceptions have objective existence. We only resort to saying “it can’t be proved” when we are dealing with something we aren’t really quite sure is objectively real. (I know that the word “objectively” in itself could give rise to quite an argument; but let us confine ourselves to the common usage.)

> Is it enough that we take our experiences for just what they are — experiences? Perhaps it’s the experience of looking for proof that you’re after, the feelings of intrigue, discovery, frustration, betrayal…

> Are we learning to operate consciously on multiple levels: in physical reality where we eat and drink and need proof; in meta-reality where we recognize that the need for proof is an experience like any other and nevertheless we commit to fully experiencing it; in meta-meta-reality…

No, no. I do not believe that there are two categories of reality, one for everyday and one for “psychic” things. Rather, both are particular aspects of one over-arching reality, which — I think most of us on this list would agree — needs stretching. But stretching our definition of reality to include our experiences is not the same thing as pretending that we are free to believe whatever we want to believe, regardless of evidence or in the teeth of evidence.

End Email.


[Saturday, January 28, 2006]

I notice this in Dion Fortune’s novel Moon Magic that I don’t think I had noticed before.

“The churches wouldn’t agree with you.”

“The churches can please themselves. It is no business but their own what conditions they make for admission to their communion. The mistake comes when they use their influence to legislate for people outside their communion.” (p. 193-4)

Speak, friends; I will listen.

Learn to manage your depression of spirit. Rather than being overmastered by it, channel it, use it, and all will go well. So you get to feeling grim. No big deal, as you say – just express it. Your pain is real and of long standing. So is that of innumerable others. You could help some who could come to the knowledge that a path exists, and could perhaps come to it only by your words.

I guess that what I know is walking the pathless path, the Path Without a Clue, so to speak.

You know more than that. You know a life of never fitting in, of being as outcast as Robinson Crusoe though in the midst of what they call civilization. You know a life lived in books as refuge. You know a little of the life of reporter, programmer, editor, even writer. You have been husband, father, lover – and always alone. You have had a warm tribal environment and a chilly world beyond. A rich imaginative life – in a re-creating way, rather than an imagining-form-scratch way. And you have become an initiate of sorts, into a secret society of sorts. You have broad reading and shallow learning. You even played politics. But notice that what is strongest in you, what always meets response, is connection to the inner world. Even in politics you couldn’t imagine people as fundamentally different, even while it was obvious that they were. Your life has been interior, not exterior, and you hardly realize that. people do live exterior lives. Literally, you can’t imagine it.

No, not really. I can’t. There is no handle for me to grasp it by.

— Joseph, I sure would like to hear your Civil War experiences, and if you will tell me I will listen and won’t try to correct you.

[Omitted, as my conversations with Joseph about his experiences were printed as Chasing Smallwood.]


Sunday January 29, 2006

The events of the past few weeks have showed me that I was going about it all wrong – 180 degrees wrong – in trying to deduce past-life connections. In fact, it applies to anything that is connected below (or above) consciousness. Search first – and you can hardly call it searching; it will be right in front of you – for what you resonate to. If you feel connected to the South Seas (I don’t) chances are that the South Seas are important to you. If you like cowboys, it doesn’t mean you were a cowboy – but look. It’s only sense. I don’t know why it took so long to penetrate.


TGU: Mental and physical effects

Tuesday, November 13, 2018

6:45 a.m. For the past several days I have been busily undoing the results of months of careful eating, putting back the pounds at an incredible rate. Why?

Maybe your idea of yourself – your ideal image – is not realistic. Maybe you don’t exist ideally at a slim rate but at a more substantial one. You can see this easily in women who are always dieting, in order to try to reach their “ideal” size, even though others may see nothing wrong with their actual size. You don’t think of it so much with men, but if you once have your eyes opened, suddenly it should be obvious.

So there’s something more serious going on than would appear.

Any aspect of life, carefully examined, will reveal more profound connections than first appear.

Okay, so in this case –.

Why should you expect a given set of causes, unchanged, to produce different results?

That sounds pretty much like chastisement. At least, I can imagine people taking it that way, easily enough.

And that is often people’s experience. But how much good would it do, how accurate would it be, for someone to chastise you for having asthma and saying if you would only breathe differently, you wouldn’t have a problem? There are alternative pitfalls here. On the one side, the fallacy of thinking that effects are always the result of moral failings as cause. On the other side, the fallacy of thinking that physical effects have only physical causes.

I see that, easily enough. We even wrote out little book Imagine Yourself Well to point out the possibilities that arise from seeing and using the connection, but made a point of saying, “This is no panacea.”

Well, the same factors that govern physical health and illness govern physical conditions in other ways.

I’m getting, our fluctuating mental state affects our appearance (looking at weight as an issue of appearance, for the moment) the same as it does our functioning (our health in general).

Is there any reason to think otherwise?

I hadn’t thought of things that way.

Do so now. Mental states habitually fluctuate. Physical states customarily change relatively slowly. Your physical condition in general, not only your physical health, fluctuates accordingly. In some things, minor things, mental fluctuations produce unstable (or labile, depending upon how you want to look at it) conditions. Your mental world fluctuates, your physical expression fluctuates. Expressions on your face, say.

[One dictionary definition of labile is “readily or continually undergoing chemical, physical, or biological change or breakdown”; a second is “readily open to change.”]

This is one of those times when I feel a rush of potential connections, and I can only slow way down (instead of speeding up, which used to be my reflexive response, trying to catch something on the wing) and hope it comes through.

Plus, you see, all at once your wheezing worsens, and your nose fills with mucous. Coincidence?

I would have assumed so, except I wouldn’t have said “coincidence” but “unrelated.”

“Coincidence” says unrelated. That is what it means: two or more things happening at the same time, but unrelated by causality.

Only, in the larger sense there are no “unrelated by causality” happenings, only “unrelated by causality at a 3D level.”


And, as soon as you drew my attention to it, the wheezing stopped and my nose cleared. And of course these are fluctuations I have noticed for years, especially the former.

And although you know that everything is connected, you have learned that not every connection may be sniffed out, nor is it necessarily important to do so.

That’s true. It would require an impossible level of vigilance, and for what? So, let’s return to the complex of connections I caught a brief glimpse of just now.

This material won’t be something new to anybody; what is new will be the context it is set in.

As so often.

Sure. You think of yourself sometimes as an explorer, rarely as a scientist. But what is it that scientists do, if not look closely at phenomena and ask themselves how much more they can understand.

Put it that way, you are the scientists. I’m more like your lab assistant, keeping your science notebook for you. or, Watson to your Holmes, recording your adventures.

In any case, let’s look at it, backing up a bit, as usual, to focus the microscope slightly differently.

Your lives in 3D are bounded, deliberately. That is, limited. Physically you can be only in one time, one space. Physically you can be only in the present ever-changing moment. Physically you can experience only separation from others, not overall unity. Physically you experience cause and effect, that is, impetus and consequence, only with a built-in delay, whether long or short. (Even the fastest response is not immediate.) These conditions are necessary and useful components of 3D life. You know all this. And you know that the partial escape from this – the saving grace, you might say – is that your minds (being in non-3D though expressing through the 3D brain) allow you wider latitude, if you let them.

Now, here is a way to think about it. A lot depends upon how you automatically (that is, habitually) define your mind and its scope. If you accept 3D limitations as the end of the story, that’s one thing. If you recognize that the mind transcends 3D limitations, that is another story.

It is in your connection to the non-3D that your limitations are defined and at the same time transcended.

Did I get that right? It doesn’t sound right.

It is right enough, it just needs a word of explanation. Your world is a function of your view of the world.

“Argue for your limitations, and they are yours,” Richard Bach says.

By George, you’d think that man knows a thing or two!

Very funny. And so –?

The thing that started to break open a whole lot of things for you (until you got overwhelmed by the width of the incoming signal, so to speak) is the realization that facial expressions (as one example) are directly and immediately connected to fluctuating mental states.

And therefore so are many other things, shading off into physical interactions. Blood pressure, adrenalin levels, heartbeat, breathing, perspiration – which I suppose means the sympathetic and parasympathetic systems, and ultimately everything.

Of course everything. The universe has no absolute divisions. Well, you can see the usual spectrum of effects, ranging from those that are entirely responsive to mental fluctuations, all the way to things like bone density that are in effect entirely unresponsive to mental fluctuations. It isn’t just health. In fact, “health” as a concept is a lot fuzzier than you usually think. It, itself, is a ratio – as you were told some while ago – and not a thing. You have a given blood pressure or inflammation or tumor or absence of inflammation or tumor, etc., but you do not have a “health.” You might say you experience a “health,” but you are saying your ratio of factors is satisfactory or not, and to what degree and in what particulars.

So next time we could pursue this, if you wish.

Fine with me, always interesting and always a pleasure. Till next time, then.



Sunday January 22, 2006

So where were we headed?

We started by saying that when one is outside time-space, neither separation nor delayed consequences apply. Since you – we – everyone exist part in, part out of separation – every one you are likely to meet while you are still in a body, we mean! – it is helpful if you realize that a vital part of your nature exists there. It will save you from the superstition of thinking you are an orphan of the universe, marooned without connections on a pointless and mysterious ride from nowhere to nowhere. It will also make clear to you the nature of guidance as it may be experienced.

Tuesday January 24, 2006

It is a temptation, in learning something new, to see that “something” outside of the general context of life. It is said that if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Well, if what you now have is a technique like Hemi-Sync, or what you have is a subject like guidance, it is natural to consider it in isolation. There is nothing wrong with this as a method of concentration. There is everything in the world wrong with it if you never reestablish a context for it.

Now, hear us well. It isn’t that there is only one context for any given thing; it isn’t even that there is necessarily one or even a few preferred contexts. What is important – this will be so obvious it will seem not worth stating – is that it have some context, rather than existing in isolation from the rest of one’s world.

To rephrase: While you are first considering a new subject, or learning new technique, non-related matters naturally and rightly fall into the background. There is only so much that can be held together in consciousness, and this isolation makes it possible for you to deal with the new material. It is as if you are assembling a new toy with many pieces. You cannot afford too many distractions.

But after the toy is assembled, you use that toy in the context of the rest of life. How else could it be? If some new way of seeing things, some new way of doing and being, cannot be applied – practically by definition it has no real relevance. Indeed it is in the language: if it cannot be applied, it has no practical application. The redundancy in the definition is hopefully enough to drive home the point.

America’s Long Journey: Westward movement

All through the nineteenth century runs a continual, taken-for-granted background. Behind politics, and economics, and international affairs, and commerce, and the fine and useful arts, and industry and agriculture and everything else, there was this underground river, running quietly from east to west, transforming everything in its path.

The river was a river of internal immigration. People in New England upped stakes and moved to New York state, or Pennsylvania. People in the middle colonies, and people on the Atlantic seaboard of the old South moved across the Appalachians, or around them. The new nation’s boundaries extended to the Mississippi, and after the Louisiana Purchase extended to the distant Rockies, and after John Quincy Adams’ treaty extended to the Pacific Ocean. Could such vast expanses ever be populated by the new civilization?

Yes, it could.

The government of the Articles of Confederation had enacted Jefferson’s ideas in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, as we shall see. Instead of the original thirteen colonies holding land in common as a perpetual colony, that common land would be subdivided, and organized politically, and formed into states fully equal to the original thirteen. (The fact that it requires an effort for us to realize that things might have been different shows how thoroughly accepted this radical idea became.) Thus there was no political disadvantage to moving to a new territory.

No political disadvantage, and a tremendous economic advantage. America was desperately short of labor. Growing up with a new country, a man could make a good life for himself and his family. As Abraham Lincoln said, from his own experience, the paid laborer of today could become the independent laborer of tomorrow, and the employer of labor after that. Those conditions didn’t last forever, but they certainly lasted a good half-century, up to the onset of the Civil War.

And as people left the older states, their places were filled by continual and increasingly numerous immigration from the Old World, particularly after the War of 1812. What opportunity could hidebound, tightly controlled England and Scotland and Ireland offer a poor individual, compared to America? And what were the barriers? They already spoke the language. They were familiar with the political forms and the cultural background. They fit right in.

And then it wasn’t long before the various unhappy countries of Europe were providing waves of immigrants. They came, they did whatever work they found, they learned the language and absorbed the opportunities, and after a while – a few years, a couple of decades, maybe a generation – these immigrants or their children tended to move west as well, following economic opportunity, and their places in the older states were filled by new arrivals.

It was a vast, impersonal quiet kneading of peoples into one new people. No longer could the country be adequately described as New England, South, Middle Colonies. Yes, people tended to move west in more or less the same lines of latitude they were accustomed to, but the streams acted as streams do when they flow together. First there were eddies, then swirls, then mixture at the edges, and finally a new stream, larger than its constituent elements and no longer divisible. Behind the scenes, not directed by anybody, the republic was reshaping itself.

Better whole than good

Friday, November 9, 2018

5 a.m. Guys? [Personal issue.]

Do not give up hope when the hope is finally about to be fulfilled.

You will forgive me for saying that a statement like that would be all the better for some proof.

We aren’t really in the predictions business, for reasons you know well.

It took a while to get it pounded into my head, but I do know about alternative futures.

You also know about the exterior conforming to the interior.

Indicating a pretty shabby interior!

Does it? Maybe if you see it that way. Don’t fall into the pitfall of thinking that external success indicates internal worth. Rather, external obstacles (overcome or otherwise) indicate internal challenges (met or not), opportunities.

Somehow that seems like a potentially large reorientation, even though I did know that.

You heard it years ago from “the guys,” but perhaps hearing it and knowing it are not the same thing, and perhaps realizing it is a third and different thing.

Meaning, circumstances alter understandings.

Well – they can. They are often intended to, so to speak. But as Thoreau put it, it takes two to communicate – one to speak and one to hear.

And the one able to hear may take a while to show up.


I had an interesting discussion of that point when I spoke to the Guidelines class Wednesday night. Somehow having to explain something from scratch rather than being able to climb onto a previously existing understanding makes it fresh.

This is why Carl Jung said it is, or can be, better to be whole than to be good.

Did I throw in that “or can be,” or did you?

Does it matter?

A better question, yes, is are those three words an important modification of his.

Let’s not fixate on a few words, even though yes, the implication is that the statement is not universally true. Let’s concentrate on those for whom it is true, or let’s say on when it is true, for it may not be true at any given moment for any given individual.

To become whole on a conscious level – for that is what Jung is concerned with, people coming to conscious awareness – it is necessary to swallow many an inconvenient and humiliating or even repulsive realization. Sometimes, it is true, it requires realizing that you are more than you think. But mostly the news that comes in is not welcome news. But, like an external problem, it is, by the fact that it is difficult, a sign that it is an opportunity. Your lives would be easier – that is, easier to live – if you were to realize this.

I thought this was going to be a very private communication, but I see we are moving into the public sphere. I can always well when you start talking about us, plural, rather than me, singular. So you say “your lives” rather than “your life.”

Which sends you back to the evening sharing experience and wisdom with a class of earnest seekers who have their own knowledge and wisdom, and you see how much you would have liked to have been a teacher.

Minus grading, yes. I’d love it more than ever, these days.

Well, there’s your webinar idea; that could do it.

So it could. But you were saying –

Problems are automatically opportunities. This is true not only externally, as you have come to realize, but internally – which, as you know in a different compartment of your mind, is the same thing. There is no “external” in the sense of something unconnected to you.

As you say, I do know that, and perhaps I was not connecting the two things I know.

Well, if an internal conflict arises, what good is it to you?

It allows us to see that we have a choice to make?

Well, maybe. Not always. Sometimes it is a sign of things needing not to be chosen among, but reconciled. It is nonetheless an opportunity.

I see it. You are saying that new opportunities for further integration may require choice (this way or that) or they may require synthesis (this way and that) or they may require transformation (these ways into that).

Minus the word “require,” yes. They offer the opportunity, and yes, if the opportunity is to be profited from, a response is required in that sense. But there is no sense of “you have to do this or else.”

Right. Well, scratch “require.” Let’s say problems offer a new way forward, which may involve choice or compromise or re-conceptualization.

Yes, that is close enough. Well, if it is true internally, by definition it is true externally, and vice-versa. Now, if the obstacle is your thinking yourself better than you are, or let’s say it is your trying to be better than you are, how can you deal with it?

Yes, it is a problem, and one I know first-hand! On the one hand, you don’t want to admit even to yourself that you are (at least partly) that way, whatever the “that way” is. Or, if you do admit it to yourself, you are careful to keep it as secret from the world as possible. On the other hand, how can you move toward becoming a better you, save by repressing those things you are but don’t want to be?

An age-old dilemma, particularly in the West and particularly among Christians. And how do you live with that without falling into hypocrisy and self-hatred?

I’m going to title this “Better whole than good,” if I post it. And your answer is –?

You already know the answer. You recognize that you are what you are and (a) it isn’t your fault, (b) it isn’t an accident, (c) all traits represent aspects of life that deserve recognition, and (d) your life’s purpose is to choose among ways to deal with the problem that the co-existence of these things poses.

And, I gather, that means that far-sighted Dr. Jung saw that this meant not only that the individual fights his or her own battles, but does so in addition for the whole of humanity.

That’s correct. You shouldn’t get inflated (“the whole of human destiny is on my shoulders”) but it is well to remember that you are a part of a whole with a right and duty to be present and participate.

So the question devolves to: How? There may not be any one right way to do things, but there are many ways that are – if not “wrong” – at least doing things the hard way.

The best way, we would say, is to acquire enough humility to say “I’m not perfect” (in the sense of saying, “I don’t live up to my own ideal of being and conduct”) without thereby falling into the alternative mistake of saying, “I am an irredeemable sinner” (in whatever form that statement comes in a post-Christian age). You aren’t a saint and you aren’t a worm.

Starting from that more realistic point, the question of conduct becomes: “Given that I embody traits I approve and traits I disapprove, what is my proper attitude toward the situation?”

For instance, it is not enough to say glibly, “Nothing human is alien to me,” and pretend that anything goes. For you – and by this obviously we mean for any “you” reading this – some values are good and some are not. Some are a matter of taste, but others are bedrock for you. If you are opposed to cruelty and you find a cruel streak within you, what is the proper response? Nurture it? Express it? Pretend it doesn’t exist? Fight against it expressing?

I see the problem. And the answer is –?

The first step in anything is always to become fully aware of the situation, or let’s say as fully aware as possible, for there is always more light to dawn, as Thoreau reminded you.

And then?

Well, surely you see that the “and then” depends upon the individual concerned! Everybody solves the problem of life differently, because (a) everybody’s problem is different, and (b) everybody’s preferences are different. A and B are actually two ways of saying the same thing.

And enough for now.

Well, this took an unexpected turn. And all the while we have been chatting here, on another track in my mind is a new realization, for which I thank you.

Born teachers are going to teach; it’s just a matter of their finding the proper platform and the proper manner of approach.

And maybe this geminating idea is it. Well, thanks as always, and till next time.