Admittedly, this is still in its experimental phase. I run a business myself, but it’s a small Remodeling Company with zero employees. I do have to hire subcontractors from time to time, however, and working only with subcontractors is very much the same as treating all your employees as equals. You don’t have a choice with subcontractors because legally you can’t tell them how to do their job, you can only demand a certain result and hold them to it. But there is a relationship that ensues, then, between how they do the work and thus, how much you end up having to pay for it. So, it’s not as though I don’t have real experience running complex projects with multiple people and having to treat them all as equals. Also, I have a friend who has a small business with a few employees. Enough to create one Mastermind Group, but not multiple. So, it is a partial experiment in the works as well.
So, this article is not without merit. It has a solid foundation. But I would really love to test this idea out on a much larger and more complex organization. I hope this article inspires at least one person willing to give this a try in their organization so I can help them set up this model in their business and help them become more successful doing so. By doing that, I can figure out how to work out all the kinks and knots that I haven’t yet come across and figure out what it really takes to help a business go through this process so I can figure out how I can charge for this service in the future.
If you’re not yet familiar with me, my name is Kamiron Freeman, and I was lucky enough to discover the underlying organizational system of nature, which I have since come to term the “Metatocracy.” However, I am also now thinking of calling it “Holanarchism.” You may have heard of “Holacracy” which practices the use of the Holarchy. Arthur Koestler coined the term Holarchy in his book “The Ghost in the Machine,” where he explained how the brain and neurology system act as a Holographic Processor and used that to explain the “Hierarchy of Nature,” aka, the Holarchy. The problem is, he incorrectly, like so many other people, interpreted Holographic Organization to be hierarchical. This is because we assume everything is hierarchical because we are indoctrinated into authoritarian hierarchies from a very young age, when our ability to resist is at its lowest. Therefore, we interpret Holographic Organization through the lens of hierarchical models. But just because holographic organization can be explained hierarchically doesn’t mean it is hierarchical. After all, hierarchies cannot be explained holographically. That is the key difference! If Holographic Organization was also Hierarchical, then hierarchies would be able to be described Holographically. Therefore, Holographic Organization must be Anarchical. Hence, “Holanarchism.”
It turns out the organizational system of nature has always been known throughout all ages and civilizations, but it’s always been kept hidden from the masses. You have probably seen it yourself countless times throughout your life and didn’t even know you were seeing it. You probably just thought, “Oh, what a pretty pattern,” or even, “Ugh, what an ugly pattern.” This pattern is nothing more or less than the Flower of Life pattern (seen below).
For as long as we have known we have used the Pyramid Power Structure – a Hierarchical Authoritative structure that assumes the inherent inequality of all people – to manage our businesses, governments and militaries. Those that have offered solutions to this in the past have been branded Socialists or Communists, or Marxists. The idea that all people should be and are equal has been a splinter in the Collective Mind of Humanity since our very beginning. Marx wasn’t the first and he certainly wasn’t the last, but he sparked a curiosity that the Collective Human Mind simply could not allow to be extinguished. There must be a way to attain equality in a way that manages society better than a hierarchy. Through the collective efforts of many different people throughout history and now, we are finally beginning to make some headway.
As you will see when we study this pattern, the Flower of Life, never does it create a hierarchy. Instead, it generates Holographic Organization. Holographic means that the same pattern get’s repeated throughout every part of the whole at every scale. The beauty of the pattern is that it allows for infinite variability amongst parts and scales, much like the Mandelbrot set. As we study the Flower of Life Pattern, we are studying Sacred Geometry, which is the simplest version of the many complex structures created throughout the universe and on our planet. It is the very underlying structure of Consciousness, itself. By studying the Flower of Life Pattern and Sacred Geometry we are studying Universal Natural Law in its purest form.
I am not going to go into depth breaking down this pattern into all the different Natural Laws it entails in this article. I have already done that in many other articles. Instead, I’m going to skip right to the end of the pattern in this article, because that is where we get to the geometric pattern that we can use to organize our businesses, governments and militaries insomuch that everyone remains equal at all times, and the system works better than any hierarchy.
We begin with the Fruit of Life Symbol, the very last symbol generated by the Flower of Life Pattern (see below). This symbol is the underlying heart of the organization of everything throughout the universe at every scale from super-galaxies down to super-strings. Now, when you take the 13 circles of the Fruit of Life Symbol and draw a line from the center of every circle to the center of every other circle, you get what is called Metatron’s Cube – a geometric form that holds every single Sacred Geometric form – the building blocks of this Universe.
Now, we are not creating a universe here, so we can disregard the sacred geometry and focus entirely upon the circles. Traditionally, we are used to visually organizing our business by writing our name on the top, then writing the names of the few people under our direct leadership, then the people under theirs, and so forth. This 2 dimensional up/down left/right system gives the perspective of automatic inequality. Someone is “above” or “below” my authority. When you choose this perspective, you choose these behaviors, and the culture of your business follows suit. What we are going to practice is something fundamentally different. We are going to practice using these circles to organize our business/organization. But we’re going to simplify it a bit.
You see this pattern repeats holographically throughout the universe. It’s simplest form, as you can see here, is repeated most notably across the scales from the planetary system to the galactic system. You have moons that orbit planets, and planets that orbit stars, and stars that orbit galaxies. Within this and beyond this things get a bit more complex. This pattern is repeated again at the atomic scale where you have quarks that orbit protons/neutrons, electrons that orbit atoms, atoms that orbit cells. Again, beyond this things get more complex. We are going to focus on these systems of orbitals because that is the simplest way to organize complex groups in terms of equality.
Notice there is always a center in every part of the system around which others orbit. The straight lines heading out from the center circles are showing you how each outward circle is a zoomed in version of the one inward from it. The more you zoom in, the more complex detail can be shown. In truth, I need a software engineer to help me build a program we can use to set up these models for our businesses, and not just that, but also to use that same software for intra-organizational communication. It would be best if was on some type of blockchain to preserve data integrity so everyone can be held equally accountable for their communications, miscommunications, mistakes and successes. If this interests you, please contact me at the email address listed below.
For simplicity, in this model I use terms related to the scales of our outer universe to refer to the different layers of an organization. It just so happens that the Universe has about as many layers as any Organization could ever really need. We setup the model so that the Satellites are always the innermost layer. I call them the innermost layer because you have to zoom all the way in on the model to see them. So, from the inside out, we have Satellites, Planets, Stars, Galaxies, Galactic Clusters and the Universe. For simplicity, in our model, we’ll think of them all as simple systems of orbitals.
Instantly, you might recognize that a fundamental difference between this model and the Pyramid Power Structure is that every position is on the same tier. There is no up or down in this system. The general perception is that everyone has the same level of authority. In this system, everyone is within or without another persons Sphere of Influence as referenced by their circle in the diagram. Everyone that falls within a persons circle upon zooming into that circle is within that person’s Sphere of Influence. As this model is holographic, we call these Sphere’s of Influence “Holospheres” for short. Here are some examples of what an organization might look like with this model:
So far, you’re probably thinking there isn’t really much difference between writing everyone’s names into all these little circles and writing names in pyramid form on a piece of paper. And so far, you’d be right. There isn’t much difference. Organizationally, nothing has actually changed. The only thing that’s happened is a shift in perspective. But this small shift in perspective leads to a huge shift in Organizational Management.
You’re used to having to be the most responsible person. You’re used to having to take on all the liability. You’re used to people lounging around, maybe asking what to do, maybe doing it well. You’re used to having to crack the whip, micro-manage everyone and step on toes to get things done (or have managers to do that for you). With this model, everyone is equal, so everyone takes on an equal amount of responsibility, and an equal amount of liability, and therefore an equal amount of accountability. If you’re going to evenly distribute authority, then you must evenly distribute responsibility, liability and accountability. There is no way around that.
Now, you might be complaining right now that if you implemented this model, you might lose half your staff overnight because they don’t want real responsibility, they don’t want liability, they don’t want accountability. And you’d be right again! But the real question is, why do want people like that working for your organization? They’re costing you money and giving the bare minimum in return. They aren’t helping your company grow. And quite frankly, your company, the way it is currently organized, isn’t helping them grow.
Now that you understand the basic idea of the organizational structure, let’s get into how you can use this model in your business to help you become more successful. Structurally, it looks different. Organizationally, it doesn’t seem that much different. But functionally, it is extremely different from how you are used to managing a business. The old structure of people doing what they’re told by the person one link up from them in the chain of command is over. If everyone is equal, no one can command another. No one has authority over anyone else, so that means everyone has to become self-managing. How many underqualified, over-paid managers can you cut from your payroll if all their employee’s took over and collectively shared those management responsibilities themselves, and managed themselves accordingly.
But how do you get people to manage themselves, let alone take over the other responsibilities of the managers? It’s a lot simpler than we think it is once we understand that our common idea’s about human nature are simply wrong. We look out at the world the way it is and we see people behaving a certain way in response to a certain thing and we think, “Oh that must be human nature,” but we never stop to look at how the systems we have to operate within are the reason behind WHY a certain thing leads to a certain response. What we typically blame on human nature should actually be blamed on the mechanistic nature of our inhumane systems. If we were using different systems, certain things would lead to different behavioral results. The input may be the same, but process it through a different set of stimuli and you will get a different result.
Believe it or not, most of your employees are craving responsibility, liability and accountability. But they are craving it under their terms, first and foremost, the term of doing what they really want to be doing with their lives. Notably, most of your employees probably do not wish to be doing what they are doing. They are literally only coming to work for the paycheck. It’s a survival mechanism to them. It’s not even a job. So, that is the first place to start. You will find out very quickly who doesn’t really want to be there doing their job when you suddenly have all your employees begin implementing Holanarchism, forcing them to become truly responsible, liable and accountable. And it will be really easy to weed out any new hires that don’t really want the job because they too will not be willing to take on so much responsibility and liability for something they don’t really care about. If they’re just looking for a paycheck, they won’t want to work for you with this model, even if you can pay them better than anyone else.
Human nature is not to be lazy. Human nature is to shut down, stop caring and get depressed when we are stuck doing something we don’t want to be doing for too long. In truth, if everyone was able to do whatever they wanted whenever they wanted, everything that needed to be done would get done, and to the highest level of quality and sustainability. The problem is we’ve designed our world to prevent exactly this kind of behavior. But with this system, and eventually a Free Access Economy in the future, we can eventually make that a reality. For now, we can simply focus on hiring people that actually want to do what needs to be done, and if you find no one actually wants to do that then you need to ask yourself 2 questions:
Does it need to be done? And if yes, can it be done by machines?
I mean, look, if no one really wants to take on that much responsibility and liability to work for you, that says a lot more about your business than it does about them. For example, if McDonalds used this model, they would probably go out of business overnight. Who would want to share liability with a company that literally poisons its customers in exchange for super cheap food for minimal pay? Everyone would quit. No one would apply. So this model is not for businesses that shouldn’t exist, like McDonalds and Monsanto and hundreds of others I won’t name. But it is for any business that operates based on the principles of Honesty, Integrity, and Transparency, because it requires all three of those principles to work – from every employee.
So, let’s finally get back to how everyone shares management responsibilities, liabilities and accountabilities. It is simple. Rather than having a chain of command, you take the idea of the Mastermind Group previously at the pinnacle of the pyramid and holographically replicate that model throughout every other group in the business turning the entire business into one great big Holographic Mastermind.
I suppose I should define the proper meaning of “Mastermind.” Some people may assume I am referring to the individual Criminal Mastermind. No. What I am referring to, here, is Napoleon Hill’s definition of a Mastermind, which is a group of people who, when they come together in a spirit of harmony and good will to fulfill the same goals or mission create thereby another mind – a Mastermind – who’s collective intelligence is exponentially greater than the sum of the group. This is one of his most important principles for how to achieve success in any endeavor. The Mastermind Principle.
What Napoleon Hill didn’t know at the time was the actual mathematical equation for determining just how much more more intelligent that Mastermind is than the sum of the individuals. This mathematical equation has been right under our nose forever, it’s called the Law of Doubling. If every person in a group equals, on average, an intelligence factor of 1, then a group of 2 people can have a total potential of 2 intelligence units. Nothing special. However, when you have a group of 3 people, 2 doubles again to 4. So, a group of 3 people can produce more intelligence collectively than they can any smaller group of people. Now add a 4th person. That doubles the total potential intelligence output to 8. At only 4 people we can actually produce twice the intelligence of the input at maximum efficiency. By the time we get to a group of 7 people, we can produce a total potential intelligence output of 64 units. That’s a 64:7 over-unity ratio at maximum efficiency. At half efficiency, that’s still 32 units of intelligence from only 7 people. Now imagine how much intelligence is produced when you have many different Masterminds all working together as a Holographic Mastermind? Sparing you the math, let’s just say that 7 groups of 7 people produce well over 4 trillion units of collective intelligence. What happens when you have a larger organization?
The group will always be more intelligent than any individual within the group so long as every individual within the group is operating in a sense of harmony with the others. As we are all familiar, the opposite can also easily be true, where groups, especially larger groups can become very stupid very fast and commit atrocities that no individual would ever commit alone. This is why I advise against large Mastermind groups. A group should never exceed 13 people, and if possible, should never have less than 3. 3 is required for synergy and the Fruit of Life maxes out at 13 circles. This is for a reason. 12 around 1. This concept is seen everywhere. Jesus Christ had 12 Apostles. No more. No Less. The lunar calendar has 13 months that are in alignment with 13 zodiacs. Some people think the number 13 is cursed or evil. It is really quite a sacred and important number. Studies have shown that groups can maintain efficiency up to a maximum of 13 people. Any more than that and efficiency is lost. I believe the first to discover the problem of larger groups was Dr. Ringelmann, for whom the Ringelmann effect was coined for this very phenomena, which is also called Social Loafing. I will excerpt what Wikipedia says about it here as it is an important reason as to why many of the processes and functions in this model are what they are.
“Loss of motivation
“Motivation loss, or social loafing as it is otherwise known, is the reduction of exerted individual effort observed when people work in groups compared to when they work alone (Williams, Harkin, & Latané, 1981).[3] According to Ringelmann (1913), group members tend to rely on their co-workers or co-members to furnish the desired effort required for a communal task. Although group members generally believe that they are contributing at maximum potential when asked, evidence has indicated that members exhibit loafing even when they are unaware that they are doing so (Karau & Williams, 1993).[4] In order to reduce the level of social loafing in a group, several “solutions” have appeared in the literature on social facilitation. A selection of these solutions is as follows:
- Increase identifiability: When people feel as though their individual ideas or outputs are identifiable (e.g., subject to evaluation), they are motivated to exert greater effort towards a group task (Harkins & Jackson, 1985).[5] This is because people become concerned about being evaluated by others (evaluation apprehension) when a task is simple and individualistic, in turn increasing productivity through social facilitation. By the same token, should a task allow group members to be anonymous (that is, stay in the background of group interactions and contribute in non-salient ways), they feel less pressure about being evaluated by others, leading to social loafing and reduced productivity on the group task (Forsyth, 2006).[6]
- Minimize free-riding: Individuals who exhibit social loafing typically fail to contribute to standard because they believe others will make up for their slack. Therefore, individual members should be made to feel like they are an indispensable asset of the group. By increasing the perceived importance of their personal roles within the group, members tend to work harder towards achieving group goals (Kerr & Bruun, 1983).[7] A similar effect can also be achieved by reducing the size of the group, because as group size shrinks, the role of each member in that group becomes increasingly integral, so there is less opportunity to loaf (Forsyth, 2006).
- Set goals: According to Harkins & Szymanski (1989), groups that establish clear, explicit goals tend to outperform groups that have lost sight of their objectives.[8] Setting unambiguous goals is believed to stimulate an array of production-enhancing processes, including increased commitment to the group, thorough planning and quality-monitoring of group work, and improved effort exertion (Weldon, Jehn, & Pradhan, 1991).[9] A similar effect can also be achieved by reducing the size of the group, because as group size shrinks, the role of each members in that group becomes increasingly integral, so there is less opportunity to loaf (Forsyth, 2006). Aside from clarity, it is important that group goals be challenging. This is because easy tasks do not necessitate a group to complete them and thus provide an opportunity for members to loaf, whereas reaching challenging goals requires full collaboration from all groups members (Forsyth, 2006). For example, a group is unnecessary to answer the question “what is 2+2”, and if a group were created to do this, only one member would have to work. In contrast, a group might be necessary to complete integral mathematics assignments, because this goal is obviously more challenging and requires input from all members (Forsyth, 2006).
- Increase involvement: Another option to reduce social loafing is to simply increase how involved group members are with the task or goal at hand. This can be achieved by turning the task into a friendly competition between group members, or attach rewards or punishment to the task, contingent on the performance of the group as a whole (Forsyth, 2006). In a similar vein, loafing can also be prevented by convincing individual group members that the goal at hand is important, but that their colleagues are unmotivated to reach this goal, in a process called social compensation (Forsyth, 2006).”
Well, I’m not sure about that last bit of advice, but the model I’m presenting here hits all these points.
Point one about identifiability is in alignment with equal accountability. Everything must be written and recorded at all times. Everyone must sign contracts agreeing to their daily accountabilities and must sign Action and Project Request forms to take responsibility for certain tasks and projects as needed. This way, all results for all tasks and projects can be traced back to who signed off on taking responsibility for them. If this is done through an online, blockchain based social management server, all contracts, forms and other communications can be logged and easily searchable. In order for everyone to have equal accountability in an organization, you have to have the ultimate transparency.
Point two is solved in three ways and these solutions apply to points three and four, as well.. First, by limiting groups to no more than 13 people wherever possible. Wherever it’s not possible, divide the larger groups into smaller groups that still work together as a group of groups. Secondly, you give as many people as possible extra managerial responsibilities. This makes them more involved, not only with the actual work at hand, but with the the management of the business which makes them feel integral and necessary, thereby boosting morale and motivation. In this model, this is accomplished with what I call the Mastermind Chakra System. Just as the Chakra System has 7 primary Chakra’s, each one serving a particular role in the type of information perceived and processed in the mind, we use the same idea to operate the Administrative Masterminds of the Organization. 7 Chakras, 7 managerial roles.
- Crown Chakra = Advisor/Mentor/Coach/Therapist
- Third Eye Chakra = Visionary/Strategist
- Throat Chakra = Operator/Communications Specialist/Operation Manager
- Heart Chakra = Central Processor/Balancer/Facilitator/Link to Outer Holospheres
- Solar Plexus Chakra = Mediator/Arbitrator/Judge
- Sacral Chakra = Resource Manager/Treasurer/Schedule Manager
- Root Chakra = What I call Angel’s. The non-managerial role, but actual functional role. Everyone is an Angel somewhere in this model as everyone has non-managerial responsibilities.
Thirdly, you minimize free-riding by not having any more staff than you need. You may find you need less people when using this model. As you can probably see, the third point and final point are also answered by the previous points. First of all, there is the Visionary/Strategist whose job it is to keep of track of and plan out how to achieve the various goals given to them as well as the ones they decide upon themselves. Weekly Mastermind Meetings keep everyone involved and focused by going over progress, obstacles and brainstorming solutions together. And to maintain harmony amongst everyone, you let them hire and fire themselves as a group. Let them put the ads out. Let them do the interviews as a group. Let them decide who they’re going to work with. And let them decided when someone needs to be fired from their group. They’ll be happier and more productive for it.
See that? You don’t even have to do the work of rehiring all those employees you’re going to lose when you start using this model. ^_^ More work for them means less work for you. But if you’re afraid that will cause them to lose productivity, fear not. With higher motivation comes higher productivity, as long as we remain within the group size limitations and don’t have too many employees. Although, let’s be honest here, this far into the new system, they are no longer “employees.” They are “Managing Members.” The Corporate world looks down upon a business having all Managing Members and no Employees, but they also fill themselves with pride for believing in the automatic inequality of humankind. Besides, with this model you can reorganize into a Private Membership Association and never have to pay income taxes again! You won’t even have to file a return anymore. Feel free to ask me about that.
So, everyone takes on these various roles. If you need more add some. If you need less, take some away. Just don’t have less than 3 or more 13. Try to give everyone an additional managerial responsibility that matches their personality. Rather, let them choose their own. Let it be what they want. Only when conflicts arise between what group members want should some sort of decision making process come into play. If the situation can be resolved by allowing them to share the responsibility, that is all well and good, as long there aren’t too many people sharing the same responsibilities.
Let’s finally talk about the meat and bones. The decision making processes that happen when conflicts and obstacles arise. How does this work in a Holographically Organized Egalitarian system – a Holanarchy?
Okay, so, the first thing to remember is that every group is its own Mastermind. Just like every individual manages themselves, every group manages itself, and together, all groups manage the organization as a whole. This system basically ends up being the synthesis between all currently and previously existing conceptions of governance. It contains the best of Direct Democracy, Representative Democracy, The Republic, Communism, Socialism, and Egalitarianism all rolled up into one. It contains harmonic and synergistic parts from every pair of opposite that exists in our systems. It draws from both Socialism and Capitalism, Communism and Democracy, Centralization and Decentralization, top/down and bottom/up management, etc.. This is what it means to be Holographic. To be Holistic. To be whole. All other systems are only one part of the equation. That’s why they always lead to eventual failure, even if that does take hundreds of years, sometimes.
So first things first, individuals who have conflicts first try to settle those conflicts amongst each other. If they are unable to resolve such conflicts within a reasonable amount of time, then the Solar Plexus Chakra get’s involved and acts the Mediator/Arbitrator to help resolve the dispute equitably. Secondly, conflicts or obstacles faced by the group must be resolved by the group unless and until those conflicts or obstacles begin to affect other groups, at which point those affected groups may get involved. Naturally then, conflicts and obstacles affecting the organization as a whole must be resolved in a way that includes all groups and individuals. There is a very simple way to do this that ensures the “Will of the Masses” is always the deciding factor in the most efficient way possible. And remember, with this system, the Will of the Masses will always be far more intelligent than any individual or single group.
Setting conflicts between individuals aside and focusing primarily on solving production issues and administrative affairs, the process always works from the inside out to make the decisions, and the outside in to enact decisions, and decisions always remain within the smallest amount of groups possible by only allowing those directly affected by the decisions to participate. This way, not all decisions need to include the entire organization and can be made more efficiently.
Decisions always begin with the Satellite layer, where the most amount of people are employed, or as is the case now, Members. Rather than everyone taking a vote simultaneously and tallying up the total, voting begins at the Satellite layer. In fact, only the Satellites ever actually get a vote. The Heart Chakra’s of each group then carry their vote outward until it gets to the point at which the vote can be settled. In this way, those people in positions of administrative management never have the ability or chance to make decisions which absolutely prevents any possible corruption from ever arising. Everyone, especially those in administration can make proposals to debate and vote upon, but only the satellites may vote as they are the ones who have to deal with the decisions the most, and they know best how these decisions will impact their work and the customers, clients or patients of the organization.
If you think this sounds like a co-op on steroids, you might be right. But let me ask you a question, do you prefer voting for a senator or president to make decisions for you? Or would you rather participate in the decisions being made and only have the senator or president enact the decisions made by the population? Which one of these sounds more like a true Democracy? Which one of these is Anarchistic rather than Archonic? If you would rather have the vote and only let the politicians enact the decisions you made, then congratulations! You’re officially Holanarchistic.
Since there are different kinds of decisions that need to be made, there are different types of administrative meetings for these purposes. Heart to Heart Meetings are meetings between two individuals for any reason, whether casually or formally. Administrative Meetings are for changing policies and procedures of a Mastermind, Department, or entire Organization. Election Meetings are for choosing Chakra Roles between competing parties and for Promoting people into outward positions, what we call Harvesting. They can also be used to fire someone, which we call Forced Uprooting. Resigning is Graceful Uprooting, and transferring is Transplanting. Finally, Mastermind Meetings are for each group to get together on a regular basis to go over progress, introduce new goals or milestones, update the strategy, brainstorm solutions to problems, and more. There may be other types of meetings that different types of organizations may need.
In the end, decisions should be made by a majority vote of at least 61.8%. I define this as an “Overwhelming Majority.” 61.8% is the proportion PHI, which is 1:1.618. This proportion governs the growth and evolution of everything throughout the universe. Hence the reason for this selection. This proportion determines the bare minimum agreement necessary to achieve “Global Coherence.” If you wish to simplify, you could just call it 2/3’s. If an Overwhelming Majority is needed to make decisions rather than a simple majority, that means not every decision may come down to yes or no. If 2/3 vote is not achieved either way, then the vote is considered “undecided.” Therefore, we have more a -1, 0, +1 relationship. This ensures that that most votes will change nothing until there is enough agreement on the decision to consider it “Globally Coherent.”
So, that’s basically it in a nutshell. If you would like to try and implement this in your business, please let me know. I would be honored to help you re-organize your business into this model free of charge, because you would be helping me figure out what it takes to consult a business through this change so I can figure out what to charge future clients. To contact me, just reach out to info@KamironFreeman.com.
I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Namaste~
Kamiron Freeman
Greetings.
I enjoyed reading this and am digesting it all.
Hi Tiffany. I’d love to know what you think when you’re done digesting.