"I do have to say I’m not 100% percent sold on Malone. "

Not intending to be accusatory here, but why are you even thinking about being 100% sold on anybody? Is there anyone here (the world) who is 100% perfect?

I get that you are expressing (I think) that you have reservations about Malone, but I find that idea of being sold 100% (like many who say "I don't trust (this person)" being strange and the expression of a fundamentally problematic mindset....

I mean, is there anyone, for example, that is 100% sold on you? That you can do no wrong, or that your opinions are all perfect, or that you cannot have limited understanding on somethings while have a brilliant or useful understanding on others? Are you even 100% sold on yourself?

Setting up ANYONE as someone we might be 100% sold on seems like a risky proposition to me. Too many people in our collective society have been trained and raised on a framework of reliance on "authority". I mean, there are some people who actually "trust" their government, or are sold on Fauci or CNN etc, "100%".

I guess I feel that when anons etc, set up anyone else as "100%" etc, or "trust" as in "trust that I can rely on ...", that we are simply perpetuating that training to rely on authority, albeit in a new form. I guess I feel like it's something to be always wary of, as the programming for that runs deep inside us.

Many simply exchange the old authorities in their lives with new ones, because they find it too hard or uncomfortable to live confidently without such authorities.

Note: I'm suggesting that you are doing that specifically, but I wonder if what you write above isn't in some way an echo of that sort of programming. One signal that sometimes (note sometimes) indicates such programming is the use of absolutes (such as "not being sold 100%, as if one should ever be sold 100% on anyone).

I personally believe that Malone will be a good "authority" on certain things, for example, his particular area of expertise, but not on everything. And scientists who are actually scientists often disagree on things. ("Trust the Science" being an inherently contradictory statement and simply another attempt to establish unquestioned "authority" in some people or things.

I think one might look at people and consider the net effect of what they do - are they a plus in this war/transition, or are they a minus? Do they add to the direction of humanity towards our freedom, or do they take away from it? From that perspective, you don't need to be sold 100% on anyone. You can simply appreciate that you think they are a force for good, and you don't need to set them up as some sort of authority you can rely on.

Although I trust that God is using Donald Trump, for example, I am under no pretension that DJT can "do no wrong". Imperfect humans are imperfect. I do trust Trump, but I don't understand him 100% and I don't blindly accept whatever he says, either.

Anyway, just saying. I get that you are simply expressing that you have reservations about Malone, but I think that the framework or programming by which we evaluate and attach credibility or 'trust' to people living and acting in the world is an important, fundamental issue for all engaged with the Awakening.