Feminism, at its core, claims to champion the empowerment and equality of women. Yet, over the decades, the movement has evolved in ways that often feel disconnected from the everyday realities and complexities women face. What started as a pursuit for basic rights—like suffrage and access to education—has transformed into something more divisive, frequently promoting narratives that seem to oversimplify societal dynamics, and in some cases, even backfire against the very women they seek to uplift. Not all victories belong to feminism Feminism is often credited with much of the progress made in advancing women’s rights, from improved social status to increased participation in the workforce. While the feminist movement has played some part in promoting gender equality (in the context of suffrage for instance), many of the changes in women's roles and opportunities can be traced back to technological advancements and historical events that had little to do with feminism itself and are often underplayed in discussions within feminist circles. One of the most overlooked but transformative advancements for women's improved social status and freedom is modern plumbing. Before the advent of indoor plumbing, women spent a significant portion of their day fetching water and maintaining household cleanliness under much more labour-intensive conditions. The introduction of plumbing, followed by other domestic innovations like washing machines, refrigerators, and electric stoves, freed up time that was previously devoted to arduous household chores. While feminism advocates for women’s freedom to choose careers or engage in public life, these technological advancements were vital in making it possible for women to reduce the time they spent on domestic labour, granting them the ability to pursue goals outside of the household. Besides this, war (particularly the world wars) was instrumental in shifting societal norms about women’s participation in the workforce. As millions of men left for battle, women were called upon to fill essential roles in factories, offices, and other sectors. Women took up jobs in manufacturing, engineering, and other male-dominated industries to keep economies functioning during wartime. This temporary shift allowed women to prove that they could excel in roles previously considered beyond their capabilities, thereby challenging traditional gender roles. The post-war period did see many women return to domestic life, but the war experience had already planted the seeds for long-term changes in women's participation in the workforce. The rise of women in non-domestic roles was thus more a byproduct of necessity rather than a direct result of feminist movements. The Industrial Revolution further consolidated these gains over time. Advances in transportation (which were also, in large part, a consequence of war) dramatically increased women’s mobility. Before these developments, women’s roles were largely confined to the home and local community. The ability to commute and travel gave women the freedom to pursue education, jobs, and leisure activities that were once inaccessible due to geographic limitations. The bicycle, for example, was hailed as a symbol of women’s emancipation in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, offering unprecedented freedom of movement. The Pernicious Message of Contemporary Feminism Feminism frequently attributes every societal problem to patriarchal structures, absolving young women of personal responsibility. It is too simplistic to place all blame on patriarchy for modern issues given that women today have more opportunities than ever before in history, in education and professionally. For a movement that claims that its primary purpose is to empower women, feminism doesn’t do enough to encourage women to take responsibility for their actions and decisions, so much as it perpetually frames them as victims of circumstance. Narratives that seek to find a culprit to blame for one’s “lot” in life often hold one back from taking charge of one’s life because one has a ready excuse if one should fail. If one’s setbacks are always the fault of a rigged system, then one's successes are equally out of their control. Is there any greater disempowerment than believing the game is unwinnable from the start? No Place for Chivalry One of the byproducts of modern feminism is the notion that chivalry is inherently patronising. Acts of kindness, such as holding the door open or paying for a meal, are now viewed as perpetuating gender inequality, when they can simply be gestures of love or care. In this rush to abolish traditional norms, the distinction between genuine respect and oppressive behaviour has become blurred. Feminism's strict rejection of chivalry alienates men who wish to show courtesy in small but meaningful ways. When a man offers to pay the bill on a date, it's not a suggestion that the woman is incapable of paying her share, but rather a symbolic gesture of his willingness to provide for her. Similarly, when a man buys an engagement ring—often at the cost of several months, or even years, of his salary—it reflects his deep commitment to the relationship. This significant investment shows that he is serious about building a future together, a gesture he wouldn’t extend to just any girl he might pick up at a bar. It signifies his intention to make her happy and create a lasting bond. As a woman, would you prefer a man who is unwilling/ incapable to do heavy lifting, is inattentive in public so that you have to be extra vigilant for the both of you, or can't hold a steady job that would support you if you needed to take time off while your children are young? Or would you choose the man who only makes grand speeches about feminism, hoping to win your favour, but lacks the strength or reliability to back them up his promises with action? What’s wrong with building up your man? Mutual support in relationships is crucial. However, encouraging women to build up their partners emotionally, professionally, and personally is often viewed as regressive or submissive. Feminism's focus on independence and self-reliance can overlook the benefits of nurturing one another in a healthy partnership, which is necessary for true equality. Feminism sometimes clouds women’s thinking so insidiously that they end up bringing larger societal issues into their personal relationships, which, in my opinion, is a recipe for disaster. Disputes over tasks like doing the dishes are rarely about the actual chore or the people involved, but rather about the perceived imbalance of household responsibilities between men and women as a whole. Conflicts where you feel you're fighting a battle for the greater good on behalf of all women oppressed by men throughout history are unlikely to leave you open-minded or empathetic towards the man you're trying to build a future with. Constantly calling out what you believe to be “toxic masculinity” or trying to “defeat” your partner with your intellect will win you the argument but leave you with a defeated man—and it won’t be long before you lose both respect and attraction for him. Why not build up your man, especially when you stand to benefit tremendously from his strength, competence, and confidence, and from everything that comes his way as a result? Excessive focus on the impulsive interests of young, unmarried women Increasingly, modern feminism has begun to cater almost exclusively to the interests of young, unmarried women while neglecting the needs of married women, mothers, and older women. This is understandable, because the latter are more likely to have built fulfilling relationships with the opposite gender and would find fault with such a narrative that pits men against women. Issues like daycare facilities, abortion regrets, the emotional pain of infertility, the emotional and financial impact of widowhood, empty nest syndrome, etc. often receive less attention than topics like sexual freedom, abortion rights and equal pay. Not to mention, women who disagree with the feminist narrative, regardless of which demographic they belong to, are often labelled as "pick me" or accused of proving that "aurat hi aurat ki dushman hoti hai" (women are their own worst enemies), implying that they are upholding patriarchy instead of supporting "fellow women" in dismantling it. This leads to another issue: feminists frequently accuse these women of “pulling other women down” when they criticise entitled or unpleasant behaviour. Why should you, as a woman, be expected to show false solidarity with another woman simply because you share the same gender, rather than be free to debate and disagree based on her opinions and actions? Teaches the fun of working without the provider responsibilities This one cannot be stressed enough. Modern feminist discourse teaches young women about the fun and independence that comes from earning money without discussing the responsibilities that come with being a provider. Just as men historically have faced pressure to be sole breadwinners, women now too must grapple with the realities of financial responsibility, taxes, and long-term career planning if they wish to compete with men in the professional domain. By portraying work as a path to freedom without addressing the pressures of providing, feminism risks offering an incomplete picture of what economic independence truly entails. Feminism also perpetuates the lie that the primary source of meaning that a woman will derive in life will be from her career, while significantly downplaying the value of motherhood and family as sources of fulfilment. Many feminists often look down upon women who choose to take time off work to care for infants or young children. Those who disagree with this perspective may argue that they advocate for women's right to choose whether to work, rather than insisting that every woman must work. However, this choice is not equally available to the men with whom they seek to be equal, is it? As a woman, I would hesitate to choose a man who is unwilling or unable to keep a job for any extended period of time. At the very least, a woman expects a man to have some plan for his life, even if he hasn’t yet established a career. Don’t get me wrong; I do not advocate for men having the “choice” to work or not either. I believe men realise their potential well when they embrace their responsibilities as providers, just as women achieve their potential when they fully embrace motherhood. However, the “choice” of women to work or not often depends on various factors: having a supportive husband willing to provide, not being in a position of extreme poverty, and having a support system to help with child-rearing, among others. Calls for imitation of men’s negative behaviours In a bid to dismantle stereotypes, modern feminism sometimes encourages women to emulate behaviours traditionally associated with masculinity, even when these behaviours are negative. Clubbing, casual sexual encounters, violence, drinking, and smoking—previously considered the pitfalls of toxic masculinity—are now championed by some as symbols of freedom and empowerment. Mimicking these behaviours does little to advance equality. Instead of seeking to adopt what is often unhealthy in men’s behaviour, feminism should advocate for women’s freedom to choose without feeling compelled to conform to male standards of rebellion. Turns activism into consumerism As is often the case, where there is demand, an industry quickly rises to supply it, and create more of it—and feminism is no exception. A wide array of products, from mugs and t-shirts emblazoned with feminist slogans to movies, books, and even music artists whose entire image capitalises on the wish-fulfilment of women influenced by feminist ideals, are marketed under the banner of empowerment. Many women, who have been sold on the idea of feminism, have internalised a strong sense of perceived injustice and insecurity, and continue to buy these products under the mistaken belief that they are “doing their bit” to dismantle the patriarchy. Companies and creators exploit this "do good" sentiment for profit, turning empowerment into a business model. What many fail to realise is that they’re being taken advantage of, much like when food chains and corporations marketed fast food and processed food as a liberating alternative to home-cooked food, convincing women they were "too important" to spend time in the kitchen. This led to a cultural shift that redefined cooking as outdated or regressive, ultimately contributing to rising obesity rates and a loss of connection to traditional, healthier lifestyles. Rather than bring any meaningful change, the focus is often on superficial activism and moral superiority, driven by corporate interests. Focuses on trivial concerns Feminism has, at times, focused on relatively trivial matters like period leave policies or the "free the nipple" campaign, diverting attention from more pressing and impactful issues. These low-hanging fruits often overshadow far more significant battles, such as improving access to education for girls in developing countries, making affordable child healthcare available to women in lower-income communities, and ensuring that daycare facilities are widely accessible so women can remain in the workforce after childbirth. Counterproductive for women Finally, implementing this form of feminism on a large scale creates a culture where women hold ultimate veto power over a range of issues, from defining what constitutes "toxic" behaviour in men to making unilateral decisions about whether to abort a child. This dynamic often leaves women feeling more isolated, as their increasingly unpleasant nature can become off-putting, not just to men but even to other women. It creates unrealistic (and often unreasonable) expectations for men without encouraging women to raise their own standards. The idea that women shouldn't settle for the "bare minimum" in relationships falls flat on its face when "not settling" doesn't involve working to improve the relationship, but instead means leaving or avoiding commitment over exaggerated concerns while engaging in casual flings with multiple partners. Traditionally, older women have passed down wisdom to younger generations—not just in the realm of homemaking, child-rearing, and relationships, but in cultivating the grace and dignity that defines womanhood. Mothers and grandmothers, often the fiercest protectors of their daughters’ futures, rarely raise them to view the world as a battlefield where every man is an enemy to outwit or a prey to subdue. Much like fathers with sons, mothers are strict with their daughters and set high expectations from them, aware of both the joys and burdens of womanhood. When advising their daughters about relationships, older women don’t arm them with a checklist of demands or expectations for how men should behave. Instead, they offer a vision of what a partnership can be—one rooted in mutual respect, shared goals, and a commitment to a lasting union. The man a woman chooses should be willing to work hard, provide protection, and strive for a monogamous relationship that leads to marriage, while also handling practical tasks and allowing her to fully embrace her femininity. In turn, she should be willing to have and nurture his children, put some effort into her appearance for him, offer emotional support, and cultivate a harmonious home life, trusting him in areas where he has expertise. She might strive to regulate her emotions, ensuring conflicts don’t become unnecessarily hostile, while refraining from making him compete for her attention, and show him respect—especially in public—while letting him lead at times. These qualities, neither rigid nor required from the start, can develop naturally over time, as long as both partners are committed to each other’s growth. Ultimately, the challenge of any narrative that seeks to address the problems of a particular group lies in balancing the message of empowerment with the realities of life, relationships, and individual desires, and this is where modern feminism frequently falls short. True empowerment may lie not in rejecting traditional roles or pitting men and women against each other but in forging strong, meaningful partnerships with men—romantic or professional and in embracing the multifaceted roles women can play—as mothers, professionals, caretakers, or partners. In the end, it seems to me that the advice passed down from mothers, grandmothers and mother figures—rooted in wisdom, reality, and a little common sense—offers far more genuine empowerment than the hollow battle cries of modern feminism ever could. Image source: Little Women (1994)

The Great Race to Slay America’s Democracy Project 2025/Catholic Opus Dei, Far-Right Billionaire Tech Bros vs. The Radical Left thecatholicthing.org “We can destroy ourselves by cynicism and delusion, just as effectively as by bombs.” – Kenneth Clark Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris will not be attending the Alfred Smith Memorial Dinner, a Catholic Charity event scheduled for October 17th, which has been a tradition for presidential hopefuls for decades. Cardinal Dolan, head of the Archdiocese of NY is disappointed Harris declined the invite. He remarked that it wasn’t a wise political move on her part. Cardinal Dolan also stated that perhaps someone has ill-advised Kamala Harris because the only presidential candidate that did not attend this function was Democrat Walter Mondale and he lost the presidential election. Harris’ presidential team expressed that she will be busy campaigning. Of course, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump took to social media and said he was not surprised Harris was not attending because she is not nice to Catholics. Was Donald Trump the Catholics choice in 2016? The one who sits on Peter’s Chair, Pope Francis, advised American Catholics to choose between the lesser of two evils regarding Trump and Harris. Pope Francis stated “both against life” regarding abortion and immigration. To what extent does the Catholic church influence and contribute to American politics? The hands on the clock are like swords, continually slaying every minute of every day. As time quickly rolls away, history has proven that man will sell his mortal soul for ultimate power and control. Some spinless jellyfish men reincarnate as Judas and betray country, family, and friends for thirty pieces of silver and gold. The unwavering wise man slaying the dragon, the sacrificial unholy beast restraining man, reincarnate as the Excalibur sword forged in dragon blood-fire. Humanity has slayed millions in the name of religion and for fear of the unknown. Many have committed horrendous crimes claiming the devil made them do it while others kill in the name of God for delusional reasons that has possessed and blinded man into thinking he is God. Man has free will; he is the protagonist of his life’s story. The choices he makes will determine his destination. The Holy Bible has been exploited, misconstrued and weaponized to oppress and manipulate others and to justify man’s own malevolence. Modern day fascism has infected the masses at an alarming rate through Christian Nationalism, conspiracy theories, and technological propaganda poisoning the minds of the most vulnerable disgruntled citizens creating both radical and racist violent people. Racial civil unrest and domestic terrorism is the worst form of American betrayal. Spreading false rumors about Haitian immigrants and inciting violence on social media, a digital contagion infecting millions within seconds is reprehensible. Defamation of character especially collectively can have irreversible harm. Compose your words carefully because the tongue is sharper than the sword. Physical wounds heal leaving battle scars which exhibit road maps of our life’s journey. However, when the heart is wounded by thoughtless false words, emotional scars takes longer to heal because the heart and mind are conduits to the soul. Hate solves nothing and destroys everything within seconds. Social media, a recreational hate filled playground, promoting racial wars, along with misuse of religion, wild conspiracy theories and propaganda have become relentless weapons of choice for society’s mass destruction of rational thinking. The psychological warfare and heavy political divides weighs heavy and feels like quicksand. Is this the new norm of everyday reality becoming a global governed manipulation? Perhaps one has to come to the realization that it’s time to step back and focus so to not miss the forest for the trees. Radical extremism is equally dangerous from both the right and the left political spectrum. The constant violent rhetoric evolves and births new dangerous variants of hate and criminal behaviors. Unfortunately, some vulnerable individuals can be easily manipulated, brainwashed, and indoctrinated into the most unsound and dangerous conspiracy theories. People, given to obvious fabrications on a daily basis to which they have become accustomed to, are too far-gone breaking laws and becoming insurrectionists finding themselves disbarred or in prison for a conman that doesn’t care for them. Even after facts are presented, they reject the truth and are embarrassingly obsequious. They are under the misconception that a criminal charlatan can solve all their problems. Abandoning truth and logic while embracing lies and chaos, rapidly spirals downward as they become divorced from reality. A toxic herd mentality of individuals that harbor some form of victimhood mentality, resentment towards other ethnic groups, feel neglected or want to be vilified perhaps because they are disillusioned with society/government or they are extremely disappointed with how their lives turned out. Their false messiah promises them retribution for all that ails them and his loyal flock worships him unconditionally while also mimicking his vile verbiage and hatred. That’s when blaming immigrants becomes justified in their own clueless minds filled with hate and racist propaganda. “Those who can make you believe absurdities; can make you commit atrocities.” – Voltaire JD Vance and Trump take advantage of such individuals and play them like an old Hillbilly banjo making even the thick-skinned swamp alligators hiss, warning these two vile men to stay away. This gruesome twosome relentlessly spread, repeated and exploited a big racist lie regarding Haitian immigrants from Springfield, Ohio about eating people’s pets. Even after town officials reinforced to the news media that the allegations were false rumors and nothing more than senseless regurgitated lies, JD Vance and Trump doubled and tripled down on their big racially motivated lie. Schools were closed and hospitals were on lockdown. The entire town was in fear because of several bomb threats and still these two vile individuals did not stop the hateful lies. How on God’s green earth do two grown men live with themselves after scaring innocent children and keeping them from attending school? Vance has small children. How can he do this to other people’s children. The manufactured chaos interfered with healthcare professionals taking care of the sick because of hospital bomb threats. Trump and Vance’s behavior is abhorrent. JD Vance even admitted he made the entire thing up because he wanted media attention. Now JD Vance can add the hillbilly that cried wolf to his questionable resume. It was a disgusting political ploy, a red herring which backfired with dire consequences because Trump and Vance now face criminal charges for spreading their harmful lies. Matthew 22:37-39 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And second is like it. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. There seems to be no end to their malice because Trump and Vance are going full throttle, in your face, fascist Nazi anti-immigrant mode. They are desperate and it’s their Hail Mary pass. Black and brown people are the new Jews to target. Trump is both desperate and delusional spewing hate with new lies about towns being overrun by hostile immigrants with military style weapons holding towns hostage. Since immigration is the only thing these two pathetic clowns have to run on, they are going full steam ahead playing the only card they have left, inciting hateful lies regarding immigrants. Trump is in no position to criticize the border crisis because not only did he not build the wall, Trump, Steve Bannon, and other Trump allies pocketed the wall money with several of these criminals already sentenced to prison. Furthermore, Trump is responsible for interfering and stopping the bipartisan border bill that Republican Senator James Lankford worked on diligently in hopes of improving the current border crisis. Instead, Senator James Lankford faced MAGA’s wrath. It’s obvious Trump and JD Vance have nothing to run on except nonstop stupid drama and falsehoods. Trump spent all his time playing golf and selling cheap Trump merchandise to his vulnerable flock instead of preparing for the presidential job especially since he failed America the first time. It’s pretty late in the game to start listening to Karl Rove. God, the American people, and the entire world is watching the Republican train wreck. The American people deserve better than just concepts of a plan. Is Trump’s plan to try and steal the election again? JD Vance once called Donald Trump “America’s Hitler.” He was right because it’s easy to recognize a fascist. JD Vance has now become a mirror image of Trump. Vance constantly changes his mind on politics and religion as often as a girl changes clothes, and he did that too. He is an ever-morphing chameleon determined to slither his way into The White House, even if it means losing what little dignity he has left, including betraying his own family. It often appears that Vance is more ambitious and more dangerous than Trump. Trump is displaying early signs of dementia and Vance is a younger version wannabe dictator. Like Trump, he too is a compulsive liar and admires Viktor Orban the dictator from Hungary. Vance’s quick manifestation of evil multiple personalities is the biggest red flag. A cowardly man that doesn’t defend his own Indian wife and mixed-race children. One day Vance’s children will see through the lens of an adult. Sadly, they will be extremely disappointed and horrified with all the harm and destruction their fascist father caused others from his own pure thirst for power. The entire world witnessed their father’s racist lies and hate causing school shutdowns and hospital lockdowns due to bomb threats. Their father’s negligence put fear in the people of Springfield, Ohio including innocent children. Some people had bricks thrown at their house windows and had acid thrown at their cars. Springfield residents fear for their lives. How sad is that. No amount of money, power, fame, or prestige is worth the look JD Vance’s children will give him one day. A coward’s endless regret engulfed and trapped in his own harden heart, and hateful bigotry will weigh him down. It will feel like falling into a bottomless pit; it will eat you alive, from the inside out and you will seek death and not find it. The highly ambitious Silicon Valley Venture Capitalist JD Vance is a shady character that’s for sure. Vance has a trail of anti-democracy connections of men disillusioned with America’s two-party system. A man is known by the company he keeps. If he talks like a fascist, socializes with fascists, admires fascists, advocates fascism, chances are he is a fascist. Vance wrote the foreword page for Project 2025, he admires anti-democratic neo-reactionary movement (NRx), Curtis Guy Yarvin, who is disenchanted with America’s democracy and is a neo-monarchist blogger. JD Vance’s nefarious connections with his Far-Right Silicon Valley billionaire sugar daddy Peter Thiel, who is also disillusioned with America’s democracy, is often given credit for Vance’s VP position. Although Trump continually denies any involvement with the power-hungry Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, there is video proof of his involvement and Trump’s name is mentioned approximately 312 times in the manifesto. Project 2025 is the blueprint for Trump’s presidency. Other well-known far-right billionaire techno bros that are disillusioned with America’s direction might also take part in slaying America’s democracy. Vivek Ramaswamy, the slimy pump and dump scheme fraudster and election denier is also disillusioned with the system. Even Elon Musk has made mention of not wanting an American democracy. Perhaps these techno bros will be part of the authoritarian surveillance state. The techno bro real deep state. All that education and money and these guys will probably be in a dark room somewhere with their eyes glued to a computer screen monitoring women’s menstrual cycles, pregnancies, miscarriages, doctor appointments and their out of state travel plans. It sounds like a demotion fellas. Like Shania Twain sang, “that don’t impress me much…You think you’re a genius…you think you’re something special…ok, so you’re a rocket scientist. That don’t impress me much.” Even though I am against the woke agenda, I cannot in good Christian faith support Project 2025 because man cannot play God, and the thought of a fascist regime should frighten everyone who knows history or has common sense. The Heritage Foundation Project 2025 seeks to oppress women, including punishing them for miscarriages by implementing federal surveillance and then sentencing them to prison. Eventually denying women the right to vote. They seek to end no fault divorce forcing women to stay in abused marriages. They will force girls into child marriages. If anyone questions their authority or if they think you have betrayed their system, you will have you executed. That is definitely not Christian behavior. Their manifesto will grant tax breaks for the wealthy elite (techno bros) and over tax the working class because they seek free slave labor including hard labor for children instead of encouraging them to get an education. Project 2025 will eliminate unions, eliminate regulations which keep corporations in check for public safety such as OSHA and the FDA. They seek to eliminate the IRS and Social Security, eliminating other federal agencies such as the FBI which keeps criminal politicians in check including protection from foreign and domestic terrorists. Project 2025 will side with Big Pharma which is no surprise. That means prescription medicine might not be affordable for the people that need it the most. They want to eliminate free lunch programs for hungry children. Again, not Christian behavior. Basically, Project 2025 has an agenda to privatize all government agencies. They will not seek to hire educated qualified trained professionals for specialized important fields. Instead, they will hire their MAGA hillbilly relatives and anyone that will be loyal and kiss their stupid arrogant butt. Good luck with that. Maybe if you guys get sick, Trump’s MAGA morons can inject some bleach into your veins. It’s part of Trump’s healthcare plan which originated from his ‘concept of a plan.’ Trump’s mental and physical health is in rapid decline. His vile rhetoric is extremely out of control, and he has moments where he forgets his thoughts or the name of the state where he is campaigning. He is becoming a liability to his own party. Trump displays early signs of dementia. Worst case scenario for America and hypothetically speaking, because it is my opinion that once JD Vance disrespected women with his “Childless cat ladies” remark, the election was Kamala Harris’ to win. Women vote more than men and Trump basically reassured the loss with his stupid outburst “They are eating the dogs, they are eating the pets, they are eating the cats,” and not to forget the, “I have concepts of a plan” moment that also shocked the nation. So, I highly doubt dictator wannabe Trump wins the presidential election. With the slim chance he does win, JD Vance will most likely use the 25th Amendment to declare Trump unfit for office because of dementia. Trump will be removed with two-thirds vote in both houses and he will be declared unable to serve and will be discharged, making JD Vance President with another Project 2025 nominated Vice President to follow. Betrayal and karma seem to go hand in hand like a double-sided coin. Julius Caesar was betrayed by Brutus and so the story goes. Trump would have served his purpose by allowing The Heritage Foundation president and architect of Project 2025 Kevin Roberts, to get his foot in the American government’s door. Kevin Roberts seeks guidance from an Opus Dei Catholic priest and from the archdiocese of Washington, D.C. Roberts wants to turn America into a Theocracy with Opus Dei nationalist conservative fascist rule. Such grandeur political ambition certainly makes the January 6th Insurrection seem like child’s play. Project 2025 wants to control everyone through religious, political, and economic hierarchies. They want the whole enchilada. Ruling with an iron fist and removing people’s freedoms is not Christianity. “Opus Dei” in Latin means work of God. This is not God’s work. This is man trying to be God through every earthly means, authoritarian governance, power, and money. You cannot force religion on people. Believing in God is a personal choice that comes through faith from salvation because we do believe in the Holy Trinity, The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost, and not because someone forced us to believe. Salvation requires each individual to have a personal relationship with God. God grants us the free will to choose and wants us to seek Him and accept Him by our own choice. Believing with our heart that Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins. John 3:16, For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. Anything forced is not love and Almighty God is the origin of love. Jesus Christ said the greatest of all is love. It’s obvious the authors and co-conspirators of Project 2025 seek ultimate political power and control because that is exactly what defines fascism. America doesn’t need Project 2025 because we have the Constitution. Christians don’t need Project 2025 because we have the bible. As far as I’m concerned, God is still in charge. His plan for humanity does not require The Heritage Foundation/Project 2025 to overrule His authority. God’s word and plan does not need to be modified or revised by mere mortal hypocritical self-righteous arrogant power-hungry men in order to fit The Heritage Foundation’s narrative. Man cannot play God or take the place of God because man is not God. Even if your delusional, overrated, egotistical narcistic personality tells you so. What then is the reason for heaven if The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 seeks to create a utopian man-made artificial heaven on earth? Why did Jesus Christ die on the cross for our sins if Project 2025 has all the answers to fix the human species and keep everyone from sinning? Man cannot control others from sinning. As Christians and followers of Jesus Christ we hate sin but not the sinner. God commands us to love our neighbors as ourselves and even forgive and pray for our enemies. We pray and have hope the lost and confused people will seek, find, love, and serve God by their own free will granted to them by God. If we practice the commandments of God and actually do His work, there is a greater chance lost individuals will see God’s love shining within us causing them to desire such unconditional love from God. It’s one of our Christian missions. It is not that complicated. Luke 6:32-36, If you only love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do that. Roberts wants to rule with an iron fist, forcing everyone to comply with their way of thinking or like Roberts said, “It will be bloodless if the left allows it to be.” Again, not even close to Christian behavior. Talk about missing the target. While it’s easy to recognize fascism, I have been sounding the alarm in my small way for quite some time regarding fascist Trump, JD Vance, some techno bros I mentioned in one of my silly poems, MAGA, the conservative Supreme Court Justices, along with Kevin Roberts and The Heritage Foundation. I recognized Trump’s and MAGA’s fascist tendencies before Project 2025 was exposed. The hateful fascist Nazis have upped the ante with their hateful racist rhetoric targeting black and brown people just like Hitler did against the Jews and it’s wrong. I don’t like to use the word racist because not everyone is a racist. Too often people play the race card and reverse racism is real. However, in this case, there is no denying the blatant racial hate. Recently, a YouTube caught my attention because I saw the Latin Words Opus Dei. The YouTube is by Frank Schaeffer. I don’t subscribe to his channel and according to what he said, he is apparently well known and is highly knowledgeable regarding a majority of politicians connected to Opus Dei and The Heritage Foundation. It only took me a quick Google search to connect the dots between Opus Dei, Kevin Roberts, The Heritage Foundation, and the conservative appointed Supreme Court Justices. Frank’s informative and his personal experience with the church made me realize I have only scratched the surface of what’s actually taking place behind the scenes regarding how the Catholic Church influences American politics. That being said, I have nothing against the Catholic Church because not all Catholics are from Opus Dei. My family is strong Christian Catholics, but I’m the only one that converted to a Christian Baptist. Anyway, Frank Schaeffer seems well-connected and is highly knowledgeable on the subject. He stated he left the church, and I don’t know his story because there is always a story behind the story. He seems genuine and kind. I hope he returns to his faith but again, it’s his choice because we all have free will. Opus Dei is an extreme form of Catholicism, but not all Catholics follow the political and economic extreme ambitions of Opus Dei. It’s a Christo-fascism and misogynistic secret society that seems to be obsessed with hierarchical power. Pope Francis wrote in a letter, that Opus Dei’s mission needed “a form of governance based on charisma more than on hierarchical authority.” The founder of Opus Dei was Josemaria Escriva, a fascist misogynistic megalomaniac. Fernando Ocariz Brana is the current Catholic priest over Opus Dei. They are mostly a secretive cult and have grandeur political ambitions. Their ideology is mirrored to that of fascist Francisco Franco’s conservative dictatorship and the dictatorships of fascist Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini’s fascist regimes. Guess that’s why Kevin Roberts was so brazen threatening bloodshed with, “a second American Revolution” and “that it will be bloodless if the left allows it to be.” So, if Kevin Roberts, The Heritage Foundation, Trump, JD Vance, and their evil minions plan on a mass killing of American people who won’t comply, or who they deem as heathens unworthy for society, that basically destroys their utopian sin-free Christian ideology. Trump, Roberts, et al., and their minions would be heathen murderers which is a sin and goes against God’s commandments. Who then will remove the new murderers from your new reconstructionist Theocratic America? Because if you kill people who you deem unfit for your perfect sin free society, which is murder and a sin, then others will have to kill you, causing them to sin, and so on and so on…. Proving the point that it is nonsensical for man to try and play God. Man cannot eliminate sin on earth because no one is perfect and besides, that’s God’s job. When does the madness end? How many millions of innocent people will die because you lost your mind? Your nonsensical plan is evil and seriously flawed just like Klaus Schwab’s WEF “Great Reset/ Political revolution” (another republican mad man) and Yuval Noah Harari’s madness for wanting to eliminate the majority of the human species because he is in love with AI/robots and thinks humans are useless eaters. All this nonsense is about ultimate power and control. Perhaps if, Kevin Roberts/The Heritage Foundation, Trump, JD Vance, and their evil minions are not claiming to be Catholic Christians and just wanted to be full fascist evil murderous dictators without all the hypocrisy pretending to be righteous men of God, their evil murderous plan would work because it will be a dark evil hell hole society full of bigoted racists murderers, all of them included. Another scenario, what if your children evolved within their mental processing and did not believe as you do, will you eliminate them too? It is your prerogative to attempt being a fascist murderous dictator, just don't do it in the name of God, and be prepared to face the consequences for your evil misguided actions. Mere mortal man is powerless in controlling others from sinning and it’s not your job because you are not God. No human has the right to take a life, and no human has the right to dictate how others should live because God granted us free will. Project 2025 goes against God’s plan for humanity. As true Christians we hate sin but never the sinner. We are to pray for the lost and love our neighbors as ourselves as God commanded. If others cause us harm, we are to forgive, and vengeance is for the LORD. Did Lot slay all the heathens in Sodom and Gomorrah? No. God burned the place to the ground because it’s His job. Did Moses take up the sword and slay all the Egyptians? No. God sent the ten plagues because He is the one in charge, not men. It seems that you all are just drunk on hierarchy. I’m curious if Kevin Roberts will be mass killing puppy dogs too in his new reconstructionist society? Because the Guardian reported that at least four different witnesses have come forward stating you, Kevin Roberts, were boasting to colleagues about killing your neighbor’s dog with a shovel because the dog was barking too much. This apparently occurred while you were a professor at the University of New Mexico. It has been reported that the college chairman of the department recalls hearing you brag about killing your neighbor’s dog and that you also stated that if the dog had puppies, you would have killed them too. The people that are spreading lies about Haitian immigrants killing and eating people’s pets are liars and merely projecting. As I recall it was Republican Governor of South Dakota Kristi Noem that killed her puppy dog Cricket because it killed a chicken after she was trying to train it to hunt birds. A chicken is a bird. So, basically, she killed her precious family pet dog Cricket, for doing what she trained him to do. Kristi Noem also killed a goat because according to her, it smelled bad. Also, RFK Jr. brags about cutting the head off of a whale, dumping dead baby bears in Central Park and eating dogs while finding time for sexting another woman that isn’t his wife. But wait, there’s more. Several right wing youtubers were paid by the Russians to spread misinformation. They were paid millions to betray their own country and fellow Americans. They are not patriots; they are traitors just like the January 6 insurrectionists and Trump. Let’s not forget about Republican Mark Robinson, the black Nazi disgusting porn hog or Matt Gaetz who had sex with a seventeen-year-old child. Not to be outdone, there is John McEntee, a high-ranking member of Project 2025 and former personal aide for Trump who not only harassed teenagers for sex, but he also bragged about giving counterfeit money to the homeless so they would be arrested when used. How disgusting is that? We all know that is not Christian behavior. It seems McEntee should be arrested but we know he won’t because he is covered under the same cloth. I left the Republican Party because of Trump and all the crazy racist fascist MAGA cult hypocritical nonsense while they wear the Christian cross around their neck all the while committing lewd acts at public Beetlejuice performances. Bimbo Boebert’s family is full of criminals, but she has the nerve to call black and brown people criminals. Lauren Boebert said that if Jesus Christ had an AR-15 he would have never been crucified. MAGA has the time to be blasphemous about our LORD but cannot take the time to introduce laws concerning gun reform. America’s children are dying because of easy access to AR-15s. Unfortunately, nothing will be done in Congress regarding gun reform because 99.9% of Republicans are in bed with the NRA. Marjorie Taylor Green cheated on her husband and had the audacity to say Jesus Christ was a convicted felon. NO. Jesus Christ was not a felon. Trump is a convicted felon and a rapist. Jesus Christ is without sin. Will all these Republican hypocrites be part of your perfect utopian sin free society? Because if they are, you are fooling yourself and you should keep your children far away from these people. Matthew 7:3, And why do you look at the spec in your brother’s eye, but do not see the log in your own eye? God and the entire world is watching the American dramatic telenovela in disbelief and bewilderment as to why some American politicians along with brainwashed citizens are willfully attempting to destroy America’s democracy. The United States of America is the greatest nation on earth and our democracy should never be taken for granted. God Bless America.

The debate surrounding unpaid domestic labour, particularly in the context of women's contributions to household work and child-rearing, has taken on a new dimension in recent years. Feminist theorists, most notably in the 1970s, argued that unpaid domestic labour, largely performed by women, was an unseen, unvalued contribution to society. The argument behind this perspective is that by monetising domestic labour, we can uplift women’s social status, assign proper value to their work, and reduce gender inequality. A prominent Indian politician, Shashi Tharoor, also resonates with this view by emphasising that unpaid domestic labour should be recognised as a critical economic contribution, yet remains unacknowledged in conventional economic metrics like the GDP. What makes this stance surprising is that it comes from a figure of his stature—a former Under-Secretary-General at the UN and a respected author on Indian history, culture, and politics—who enjoys bipartisan popularity for his eloquence, even while belonging to a party not currently in power. However, his focus on this issue, framed through an economic lens while omitting the economic implications of putting such an idea into practice, raises questions about his recognition as a “Global Leader of Tomorrow” by the World Economic Forum. It also suggests that his agenda may be more politically motivated than economically grounded. Economic Definition of Work and Labour The economic definition of work and labour traditionally revolves around activities that generate income in exchange for goods and services. This definition often excludes unpaid domestic labour, even though it involves tasks crucial for the functioning of households and society. Raising children, maintaining the home, and caregiving are classified as "non-economic" activities because they are not exchanged for money. Advocates for rebranding domestic work as economic activity call this very definition into question. The True Nature of Unpaid Domestic Labour At the heart of this debate is an underlying assumption that unpaid labour exists purely as a result of patriarchal systems. However, this ignores the fact that children are dependent on their parents until they reach adulthood, and laws such as child labour restrictions prevent minors from earning wages until they can legally work. Domestic labour, especially that involving childcare, is unpaid because parents are expected to provide for their children as part of this dependency dynamic. Unpaid labour persists partly due to societal acceptance of child labour laws. For instance, a mother may invest 18 years of unpaid work raising her child, often sacrificing her own career ambitions. To pursue those aspirations, she can either (a) wait until her child is grown, (b) balance her career with parenting, or (c) defy child labour laws by expecting her child to be self-sufficient before reaching adulthood, thereby reducing the number of years she engages in unpaid domestic labour. The Issue of Quantifying Domestic Labour While the intention behind turning domestic work into paid labour is to value women’s contributions, it may actually devalue their work by reducing it to monetary terms. Many aspects of parenting and caregiving are deeply qualitative. The nights mothers stay up with sick children, or the emotional support provided during stressful times, cannot easily be assigned a price tag. By monetising these actions, we risk reducing the profound mother-child bond to mere transactions, which many would consider both ungrateful and a misunderstanding of the nature of these relationships. Further, forcefully imposing the idea of monetizing domestic labour could serve certain ideological agendas rather than the interests of women. It may make women more dependent on the state or their husbands for payment, rather than empowering them as equal participants in household decision-making. If mothers' contributions to the household were evaluated solely on their monetary value, the intrinsic worth of motherhood—rooted in love, care, and dedication—would diminish. This would reinforce the very capitalist mentality that these ideas aim to challenge, prioritising profit and remuneration over human connection and social bonds. Consequences of Turning Unpaid Domestic Labour into Paid Labour The idea of transforming unpaid domestic labour into paid labour comes with unwanted consequences. First and foremost, it begs the question: Who will pay for it? If domestic labour becomes paid, this implies there must be an employer, but who should this be? The father/ husband? This would likely result in the financial burden falling on men, exacerbating their economic stress. As wages are stretched to cover household work, men may experience progressive poverty. The family as an economic unit would face collapse, fundamentally altering its dynamics. Alternatively, if the state were to pay for domestic labour, a different set of challenges would emerge. It would make men, particularly fathers, dispensable. This is a trend already observed in some Western countries, where state welfare programs sometimes act as substitutes for familial responsibility. As the state steps in as a provider, the social contract between husband and wife becomes irrelevant. In his essay, The Frivolity of Evil, Theodore Dalrymple talks about how the handouts of a welfare state encourage social pathology (alcoholism, criminality, drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, single parenthood, increased divorce rates) by absolving men of all responsibility towards their family. He states: “As for the men, the state absolves them of all responsibility for their children. The state is now father to the child. The biological father is therefore free to use whatever income he has as pocket money, for entertainment and little treats. He is thereby reduced to the status of a child, though a spoiled child with the physical capabilities of a man: petulant, demanding, querulous, self-centred, and violent if he doesn’t get his own way.” A Better Alternative: Skill Monetisation Rather than monetising domestic labour itself, an alternative approach can be to help women monetise the skills they acquire through household work. In India, many women already use their skills to contribute to the economy by running tiffin services, providing cleaning, cooking and childcare services, or participating in cottage industries like Lijjat Papad. Lijjat Papad is a successful women-led cooperative in India, providing employment to thousands of women from underprivileged and rural areas. Founded in 1959, the enterprise empowers women by engaging them in the production and sale of papads, enabling them to earn a livelihood while contributing to the community's economic growth. Similarly, roti-making enterprises employ women in backward regions, offering them opportunities to make traditional flatbreads for sale. These businesses employ poor women to produce homemade food items, which are then sold to their target audience—typically bachelors and students living away from home. These roles allow women to retain their identity and respect while also earning an income, without undermining the family unit. Conclusion At the end of the day, turning anything into an economic activity means it will follow the laws of economics—demand and supply, competition, and profit, especially in a capitalist society. Motherhood isn't a subscription service that can be cancelled if the "customer" (father/husband) is dissatisfied with the "service provider" (mother/wife), nor is it something where he can take his business to a different provider. This notion edges toward a dystopian scenario, where motherhood operates like a plug-and-play model, with competition between providers driving them to seek better opportunities for profit. Such a system would come at the expense of the physical and emotional well-being of not just the child, but the family and society as a whole. We play with this idea casually, at our own peril. This article was co-authored by me and Ankit, a close friend and colleague, for publication on my blog Dregs of Yore.

Government Agency ** The United States has the most extensive financial system in the world—a system that is increasingly delicate. This is because of the tremendous amount of leverage we are carrying. At every level, government, corporate, and individual, we have piled on debt to levels not seen before. This leverage makes it imperative that the Federal Reserve’s moves in setting interest rates be precise and measured. If the Fed positions interest rates too low, as likely occurred immediately following the 2020 Pandemic, the result will most often be inflation, as we saw. However, the other side of the coin is that if the Fed holds interest rates too high for too long, it will likely cause the economy to slow and, at the extreme, go into recession. Now, the Fed has the largest, most well-funded economic research staff around — at last count, more than 900 PhD.s — laboring to ensure that the Board has the best, most up-to-date picture of the American Economy. However, as anyone who has ever worked in a large organization will tell you, there’s data, and then there’s data. Some information is much more important than others. For the Federal Reserve, two pieces of “data” precede the rest: inflation and the labor market. It isn’t some whim of the Federal Reserve but part of the Fed’s mandate from Congress. As we’ve discussed before, on October 27, 1978, President Jimmy Carter signed into law what was called the Humphrey-Hawkins Bill, or more accurately, the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act. This law says that the Fed must strive for an economy of stable prices and full employment. This is not an easy task. Over the years, the precise level of employment and inflation has been adjusted to meet the changing dynamics of the nation. Today, it’s fair to say that the Fed considers “full employment” to exist when the unemployment rate is 4% or less, and stable prices exist when inflation is 2% or lower (the Fed’s stated target). So that’s the Fed’s standard, the goals they must look to before anything else is considered. This is also why Fed Chairman Jerome Powell begins each speech referencing the “twin mandate.” It’s no accident or coincidence; it’s Powell’s way of saying, “OK, here’s how we’re achieving our most important objectives.” It took about a year, but after the country emerged from the COVID-19 pandemic, things settled down for American workers. By December 2021, the nation’s unemployment rate ticked below 4%, where it has remained ever since. Clearly, the Fed didn’t need to worry about the “full employment” mandate. However, inflation was another kettle of fish entirely. As we all know, inflation has been on a rampage since the Pandemic. In 2021, CPI Inflation roared at 4.6%, double the Fed’s 2% target, and then doubled again in 2022 to an incredible 7.99%, the highest inflation rate in over 40 years. The Fed had a real crisis on its hands — inflation. It follows that the Fed has been fighting inflation for more than two years, assuming that employment was steady. After moving interest rates to better than 5% in May 2023, the Fed has kept interest rates high, all to curb inflation by slowing an “overheated” economy. They felt comfortable taking this action because the Bureau of Labor Statistics told them, month after month, that the American economy was adding new jobs and that unemployment held steady. The BLS reported that in the 12 months ending March 2024, the economy created 2.9 million new jobs. You probably heard President Biden and other members of the Cabinet extol all the latest jobs they’d created. Unfortunately, it simply wasn’t true. The number of new jobs was overstated by 818,000, a 28% error. The Bureau claimed that the population model was off, contributing to dramatically overstating employment. We are left to wonder whether something more sinister was at work here. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has long been considered one of the most politicized government agencies, and this being an election year, was there a political motivation behind this inflation of the number of employed? We do know that through March, the BLS has restated the nation’s number of new jobs as lower by 800K. But what of the intervening six months until now? There has been no update from the BLS. The Fed quickly adjusted its employment numbers and may have found that the country’s employment picture was much weaker than earlier. This is why the Federal Reserve dropped interest rates by 50 basis points, double the level Wall Street expected. If you follow the logic, it’s easy to conclude that the next recession is much closer because the Fed held interest rates too high for too long. Tight monetary policy was due to faulty employment numbers, which suggested the labor economy was much stronger than reality. ** Follow me here on ThinkSpot for more stories from the ValueSide.

Government Profligacy Posted on September 27, 2024 by john Dear Friends, It seems to me, no matter how frugal you or I may be, the government’s profligacy puts us in debt anyway. While temperance was a fundamental American ethos, at the founding, the elite have made it passe. Leading by example, the elite’s opulent and hedonistic lifestyle, has oozed down to the whole of society. Where their spendthrift really comes out is when they’re spending other people’s money. Then, the cause must be funded, no matter how counterproductive. It’s the thought that counts. So the elite have made it impossible to live by Ben Franklin’s advice… to be thrifty. Because no matter how individually frugal a person may be, government has spent him and her into bankruptcy. We could, spend like a drunken sailor, try to disengage or step up and do something about it. The elite only see an income problem, their spending is never the issue. The need is unlimited so the funds should be unlimited too. No matter how limited the well. If the government, billionaire or benevolent aliens, made everyone rich tomorrow, by next week there would be poor again. In a year the ratio would be 20% owning 80% of the wealth again. Once again the distribution of wealth would be by Pareto. No matter how many times the experiment was tried. The trick then isn’t to make everyone equal, that’s impossible, the trick is to make the bottom have a decent standard of living. Pragmatically, the only way to do it is by free markets. Nevertheless, government benefits from redistribution far more then those redistributed to. So government profligacy isn’t going away. The elite appear to be ignorant of how they lead by example. They seem to think they live in a bubble. Their actions don’t appear have consequences. But they do. People look up to those in power. Many follow their example. Because, if you want to get ahead, you follow the example of those who are ahead… not those who are behind. As a result, the ambitious follow the elite into corruption. Divorce was never a thing in the US… until Hollywood gave us exhilarating examples of it. The stars all had multiple failed marriages. Glamorizing divorce. Now, we’ve followed, and most of us have multiple failed marriages. Isn’t that progress? More to the point, the lack of temperance of our elite lead many of us to lack temperance. Lowering not only our lot but the lot of mankind. America was built on hard work, thrift and Christianity. The elite have worked diligently to eliminate all these societal myths. Bestowing upon us the country we have now. Crime ridden, hopeless, drug addicted, low family creation, low life satisfaction, dropping standard of living, normalized pedophilia, democracy free elections, censorship, and the courts openly defying the plain wording of our Constitution. Hard work has been replaced by the welfare state. Thrift has been replaced by opulence. Meanwhile, our once openly Christian nation has established materialist atheism as the State religion. Making Christianity unwelcome anywhere but in people’s hearts, and that’s being expunged with thought laws. Suggesting the goal all along… was to tear down America. We could follow our leaders like many have… and say what the hell. Carpe Diem. Live for the day. And borrow until the bank won’t lend us more. Then live in the bar ditch. Others might try to disengage. Use only cash, have no bills and be as independent of the system as possible. Like the Amish. But recent history shows, disengagement won’t work. They’re coming after all of us. Cut spending, leading to cuts in taxes and the deficit. How to cut? Lay off 99% of the bureaucracy. Including and especially the national security apparatus. Because they don’t protect us, they’ve become a mortal danger to us. Government intemperance is one of our biggest threats and therefore among our biggest problems. If we tackle it, it could be dealt with, if we give up, it’ll strangle us. Like Kudzu does to a hornbeam. Sincerely, John Pepin

I recently went to watch the movie "Am I Racist?" The movie made me cringe throughout as it exposed the logic of the DEI and Racism industry. I came away with a new appreciation for what is actually happening, This is an industry that has done some amazing things most notably on the marketing front. But let's look closer from the perspective of this being a business that is trying to grow. 1. Do they have a product? Those making money in this industry are selling a wide array of classes, training, books, certifications and similar products. The materials for the training are presented by experts in the field and seem to be directed toward those in Human Resources. Keynote speakers and the like are also available on the topic and command a wide range of prices. 2. Does the customer recognize value in this product? Evidence would suggest that yes, customers do find value simply because the industry exists and people pay for this product today. However, actual ROI is extremely difficult to measure due to the intangible nature of its benefits. There are some measures that are used such as: Employee Feedback Surveys Diversity Metrics Customer satisfaction and loyalty Enhanced innovation and creativity Level of employee engagement and retention However, these measures are vague at best. Even under stringent analysis, the number of variables makes most of these measurements unreliable when in comes to root cause. This tells me that the perceived ROI is more important that genuine ROI. I suspect a psychological or marketing benefit that drives purchases rather than real tangible results. The biggest contributor to this value is likely the inability to participate in bidding on projects that are sponsored by government and other large organizations that require evidence of some sort of DEI implementation. Most of those contracts also make these requirements cascade to subcontractors. This would be the only direct means to measure value from what I understand. 3. Will the customer pay the price for this product? It seems so. Globally, DEI spending is expected to reach $15 Billion by 2026 where the US is 45% of that market. 4. How will they get the word out about this product? Each of the companies that sell particular DEI products does some level of marketing. However, the impact of popular media and politicians cannot be understated for it’s effectiveness in setting expectations for compliance. This effort to make DEI common and expected is a tremendous boost to the industry. The thing that I notice the most about this industry is that it targets the shame sensitivity of the most conscientious people. These are the people who work hard and tirelessly to achieve some goal. Much of their drive comes from wanting to matter and to be useful. They are those who are sensitive to social cues to help them produce good products, provide value and be useful. These people find meaning in serving humanity in the method that they do. This social sensitivity is being exploited by those that condemn productive people, shaming them into “doing more” even if that means self harm. The other insidious aspect to this is that it is framed in such a way that no matter what or how much you do, you will not be successful in eradicating your hidden and invisible biases. This reminds me of the framing of climate change. If the climate is changing, it’s your fault. Same here, if people don’t have the same outcomes, it indicates hidden bias that requires more self-flagellation. Without real ROI, this industry will perish unless they can solidify their place through fiat. I believe that this is why those that peddle DEI are insistent on codifying their goals into law. That is their vulnerability and our opportunity to halt the madness that wastes our resources with no positive result. Just thinking.

“Why shouldn’t the soul of a mortal be proud?Life goes, it is true, like a swift-flying cloudBut while it's still going before he has diedA man may do many things worthy of pride” With lyrics adapted from Berton Braley’s poem of the same name, MEANINGWAVE is proud to present a new single…WHY NOT Why Not? is but one of hundreds of poems written by the perennial zone inhibitor and Appreciator Of The Wonder Of Being, and published in magazines and newspapers between the 1910s and 1940s. It is classic Braley, an anthem for the glory of man and all his achievements, past, and yet to come. And now you can sing it. Oh, and that cover art there? That’s a picture of me back in ‘91 when I was around 11, which is my son’s age. WHY NOT is out now. Download or stream on your platform of choice now, watch the cozy visual on Youtube here, and look out for a suitably epic full-blown music video soon! LOVE TO YOU AND YOUR FAMILY! AKIRA THE DONDSPDC, Mexico, September ‘24 ‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎

“And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:32 of New King James Version.) Until very recently—in at least most of the West—these words were understood and acknowledged as the foundation of all civilization and the bedrock of decent society. Unfortunately, what was once commonly understood by enlightened human beings has now been pretty much rejected out of hand. Beginning with the “Enlightenment”–and never has an era been less aptly named!—truth and objectivity began to be replaced by the concept of relativism: that is, a belief in changeable standards. An example of relativism is, for instance, the claim that even the most atrocious of crimes might be absolved under the proper mitigating circumstances. Those who hold this philosophy boldly contend that “everything is relative” while, in turn, failing to recognize that the statement is itself an absolute! Eventually the very concept of absolute truth was utterly rejected by the 20th Century’s dominant moral philosophy, Post Modernism. Of course, the problem with this type of worldview is that it fails to take into account that certain things simply aren’t open to “interpretation.” No amount of wishing or believing can change physical reality. Two plus two does in fact equal four! Physical laws such as gravity and inertia cannot be contravened by human desire or a positive attitude. Old adages such as “you cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear” and “time and tide wait for no man” were expressions of those existential realities that could not be wished or ordered away! Today, however, we are constantly afflicted by the visions of people who believe that reality is determined by feelings, sincerity and desire. The motto of the current Age has been pretty much defined in the statement made by leftist actress Jane Fonda so many years ago, “I must be right, I’m so sincere!” And yet, today’s nimrods have actually managed to, if not change reality, then to act as if they had done so and the rest of the culture goes along for the ride. It makes one wonder who is more insane: the habitually offended or those around them who do not respond to their flagrant idiocy by giving them a swift boot in the backside. For instance, in a further attempt to achieve “fairness” or “equality,” it would seem that today’s “educators”—and there is another word that has been perverted!—have declared that mathematics is “racist!” And whence comes this idiotic idea? Apparently large numbers in a certain elect and protected group do not do well in that discipline. Now if everybody was equally poor in math, all well and good—but that would still not make it “racist! However, because the problem appears to exist only in that same “elect group,” it is reasonable to believe—according to today’s “educators”—that the problem is mathematics, not the people in that group. That’s the kind of “sense” being made today—and it has a name: nonsense! The real damage being done to mankind by this failure to embrace reality is that when reality actually does intrude into society, wishful thinking is a poor defense against the resultant catastrophe. Remember, mankind was never all that rational and reasonable when absolutes were understood and acknowledged! Take as an example, the Indians in Pennsylvania who tried dissuade white settlers from building a city at the end of a valley containing the confluence of three rivers! Of course, those settlers believed that they knew better than the “primitives” who had lived for generations in the area and so they went and built the city of Johnstown! The result has been the three catastrophic floods, the worst in 1889 and the others only slightly less disastrous in 1936 and 1977! The people in Johnstown believed that they could build their city in a dangerous place because they wanted to believe it. Post Modernists believe there are no moral or any other absolutes because they want to! For a long time the people of Johnstown were spared the prophesied disaster, but all they had to do was look with a clear and reasoning eye at the existing situation and they could not fail to have anticipated the inevitable consequences and perhaps even take steps to ameliorate those consequences—but they didn’t; they were blinded by a desire that overcame reality. Yes, the city remained where it was built, but all of their determined desire could not protect those who perished when reality returned—as it always does! Another clear example of a belief being destroyed by reality can be found in the field of women’s sports, especially in academia. Remember Title 9? That decree was enacted by the government to force schools to provide financial support for women’s sports. Since these did not draw the same attendance and revenue as did men’s sports, schools put more funding into the latter. Title 9 forced schools to finance women’s sports whether or not the public had an interest in them. Score one for the feminists—or so it was believed. Then came the current sexual apocalypse led by the “Trans-Gender Movement.” Under this “movement,” an individual can “self-identify” as whatever gender he-she-it chooses. As a result, many women’s sports have become dominated by “transgender” males whose physical strength and size overwhelm biologically female competitors! The result is a travesty wherein women who were supposed to benefit from the increased interest in and funding of “women’s sports” now find themselves overwhelmed in those same sports by males masquerading as females! Even worse, the present politically correct interpretation of the whole gender-transgender movement prevents women athletes from protesting their subordinate situation lest they be branded as intolerant! Consider how much time and money would have been saved if women had simply been allowed to compete in men’s sports! After all, that is pretty much what is going on now! However, this situation is also very dangerous. A young woman boxer had her skull fractured in a bout with a transgender male illustrating the reason why society didn’t let girls play on boys’ teams in the first place! In the end, most female athletes can no longer successfully compete in their own sports when a “trans-gender” is present in the same competition! As the rejection of reality grows ever more absolute, it also becomes apocalyptic; that is, the dangers involved increase both swiftly and exponentially through the creation of conditions that no one could have predicted and therefore addressed once they occurred. When the direct consequences of actions are ignored or rejected because they are not desirous, the results are often without precedent. Open borders and “sanctuary cities” have become repositories of diseases long dead in the West or, in the alternative, never before seen except in textbooks. Most diseases in Africa are due to what is called a “fecalized environment.” Human feces is very dangerous especially in the transmission of disease, and when the streets of our cities–-even some of our most beautiful and wealthy cities–-are covered with human excrement, the results are devastating. Several police officers in Los Angeles have already been diagnosed with typhoid! This is a disease arising from filth and human waste, a condition that killed countless millions in the days before Western techniques of public health and sanitation became routine. Of course, where this sort of environment obtains, the rat is also found in great numbers! Apparently, Los Angeles is badly infested by these creatures. And where there is the rat there is the flea, and where there is the flea, there is the plague. The Medieval “black plague” is still with us in both its bubonic and pneumonic forms. It remains endemic in parts of Mongolia and is even occasionally found in the American Southwest, carried by prairie dogs and their fleas. How much would it take to make San Francisco or Los Angeles of 2020 into London or Paris of 1300!? And while there are now drugs that can address the plague, it is by no means easily cured or terminated! Furthermore, in the Middle Ages, most people didn’t travel very far, but today, modern transportation can carry people everywhere during the plague’s ten day incubation period, thus spreading death far beyond the liberal sanctuary cities that spawned it. And what is the cause of this madness? A refusal by far too many people and their government hirelings to accept reality when they prefer to embrace false prophets and ideologies. The danger to all mankind grows daily but the sad thing is that those of us who do accept truth and recognize absolutes are not immune to the disasters perpetrated by those who do not. To quote that great Western philosopher, Walt Kelly, the creator of the comic book character, Pogo Possum, “We has met the enemy and he is us!”

I have a sneaking suspicion that the spirit of Mephistopheles is at large in the world today. Even as I write this, it sounds like an overblown and slightly deranged diagnosis of a lot that is currently wrong with public psyche. But I have my reasons for this somewhat strange idea. To give more context, Mephistopheles is Goethe's devil in Faust, a figure born from the darker edges of the world. He strikes a deal with God, wagering that he can corrupt Faust, a doctor and scholar whose faith lies in reason and science, unswayed by the divine. Faust, in his relentless search for meaning, becomes the perfect prey for Mephistopheles' whispered promises of worldly pleasure and knowledge beyond limits. Mephistopheles, however, is not just evil for its own sake. He stands as the embodiment of negation, of doubt, of the ceaseless struggle against creation itself. His essence is captured in his own words: "I am the spirit that denies!" Nietzsche would recognize in Mephistopheles what he calls the "spirit of the naysayer"—the force that negates, denies, and seeks to tear down rather than build. For Nietzsche, this spirit opposes life itself, standing in contrast to the will to power, the drive to affirm existence and create meaning. Mephistopheles, in his essence, is the ultimate "naysayer," undermining Faust’s thirst for knowledge and experience by sowing seeds of doubt and disillusionment. Like Nietzsche's naysayer, Mephistopheles embodies the cynical, life-denying force that mocks creation, scorning any striving for greatness, whispering in the ear of every creative soul: "Why bother?" The reason I assert, with such grim certainty, that the spirit of negation is at large today is because I observe the same “nay-saying” impulse underpinning the corrosive ideologies that have taken hold of the modern psyche. The pro-abortion movement, the assault on the nuclear family, the climate change alarmism, overpopulation myths and anti-natalism and the radical trans agenda all point to the same underlying belief: that creation, whether it be life itself or the cultural achievements of civilization, is inherently flawed, corrupt, and deserving of annihilation. Protect the sexual liberty of impulsive women, but not the lives of unborn children. Defend pronouns and identities, but mutilate healthy bodies, rendering people unable to have children. Make divorce as easy as possible, because "it just isn’t working anymore," even if it leaves birthrates to plummet. Save the planet, but not humanity. In short, the message is clear: human life itself is offensive. We are being asked to embrace the belief that mankind is a scourge upon the earth, and its eradication, or at least its diminishment, is a moral imperative. And, as history has shown time and again, when people are convinced that their acts of cruelty are justified by a higher moral purpose, the results are always catastrophic. Art, literature, and beauty, once considered essential expressions of the human spirit, are now treated with contempt, vandalised by protestors, and dismissed as relics of an oppressive past or the indulgences of a privileged elite. The agents of Mephistopheles—those who seek to deny rather than affirm—have no use for creation in any form. They champion only deconstruction, replacing beauty with ugliness, complexity with slogans, and depth with shallow, ideological messages. Art becomes propaganda, its purpose no longer to elevate or inspire, but to indoctrinate and degrade. And it does not stop there. Once the value of life and creation is denied, the justification for violence, crime, and even genocide becomes easier to articulate. Thus, we see how the nihilistic undercurrent of these movements, masked as compassion or justice, paves the way for acts of destruction previously unthinkable. The agents of Mephistopheles believe that their moral vision justifies any act, no matter how destructive. They have adopted, as their creed, the same dark philosophy that Mephistopheles whispers in Faust’s ear: "Everything that comes to be, deserves to perish." As I reflect on this darkness, I am reminded of my grandmother, who stands as a custodian of the values under assault today. She has faced more loss than most could endure, but she taught my family the importance of not dwelling forever in mourning, of living despite it all. Hindus typically refrain from celebrating festivals or joyous occasions within a year of a family member’s death, but she—having been widowed with teenage children to raise—understood the value of celebrating life. She taught her family, especially the children, to wear colour, to eat well, to celebrate even during mourning. Her wisdom is not wrapped in lofty ideas or grand philosophical statements; she has never heard of Mephistopheles, nor would she be interested in the ideological battles of today’s world. I wonder what she would say to the life-denial that now prevails. Illustration by Harry Clarke for a 1925 edition of Goethe's Faust

When Joe Biden met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his war cabinet during his visit to Israel, the U.S. president assured them: “I don’t believe you have to be a Jew to be a Zionist, and I am a Zionist.”* The great irony of the Middle East War is that Americans are presented, almost exclusively, with the Israeli point of view, not the American. Consequently, we learn that Israel invaded Gaza and that it has a limited military operation in Lebanon and with Iran. This jaundiced, Israeli-centric perspective leads us to believe that the United States plays a minimal role in any hostilities. But nothing could be further from reality. Today, we’ll review how America is actively involved in this rapidly escalating regional conflict, which may go global at any moment. Although it has dropped off the headlines, Operation Prosperity Guardian is still very active. You may recall that this was the name that Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin gave to American warship’s effort to keep the Red Sea shipping lane open for Israel. For ten months, the United States Navy has been tasked with keeping the Ansar Allah group, also known as the Houthis, from targeting ships headed for the Port of Eilat, one of the four critical Israeli ports. Portrayed as a separate and distinct operation, this is an integral part of the Mid-East War. The Houthis, after all, are only engaged in this operation because Israel invaded Gaza. Settle the Gaza dispute, and the Houthis indicate that they would re-open all shipping in the Red Sea. Last week, the U.S. Air Force carried out 15 strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen. This was exclusively an American operation and represents the ongoing direct strategy of the U.S., which has become a full partner in the Middle East Conflict. Interestingly, the U.S. does not recognize the Houthis as a legitimate national organization and thus does not hold any direct negotiations with them. Any communications between Washington and the Houthis take place in the Yemen Consulate in Saudi Arabia. Earlier in the week, Iran launched a massive missile attack against Israel. By most estimates, Iran employed nearly 200 rockets and missiles. Although most of the targets were Israeli, one was likely aimed at U.S. participation. The Nevatim Airbase is Israel’s largest, most crucial airfield. The Israelis station their American-made, state-of-the-art F35s fighter jets here, many transport planes, other fighters, and even Prime Minister Netanyahu’s official plane. It’s also where American logistics aircraft, like the C-130 Hercules and the C-17A Globemasters, daily offload the armament and munitions to fight this War. It is a critically important supply chain hub. Without Nevatim Airbase and American supplies, the War could not continue for long. National Public Radio, NPR, reports that Nevatim was struck at least 30 times, with at least one major crater in its runway. In the following days, observers saw several F-35s using their STOL, vertical take-off, and landing capability, indicating that the full runway may not be operational. https://www.npr.org/2024/10/04/nx-s1-5140058/satellite-images-dozens-iranian-missiles-struck-near-israeli-air-base Undoubtedly, the principal target for the Iranian missile strike was Israel’s military facilities. However, it is also undeniable that Israel’s logistical partner, the United States, was also a target, indicating that Iran sees this War as a partnership between the U.S. and Israel. And Iran is not alone; increasingly, the international community sees the War as a joint partnership between the United States and Israel. In July, the International Court of Justice ruled in an advisory opinion that the Israeli occupation of Gaza was illegal and should come to an end. Further, they ruled that other nations were obliged to NOT “render aid or assistance” to Israel in maintaining its presence in Gaza. The United States ignores this ruling and continues to supply Israel with its war efforts. https://www.icj-cij.org/node/204176 Two weeks ago, the United Nations overwhelmingly passed a non-binding resolution calling on Israel to withdraw from Palestinian territories. If it fails to do so, the U.N. will apply global sanctions. This followed the U.S. Veto of a U.N. Resolution condemning the violence against civilians in Gaza passed last year. Repeatedly, the United States has been Israel’s protector in the United Nations, vetoing any resolution that would condemn Israel’s actions. So close are Washington and Tel Aviv that President Biden is discussing war strategy, suggesting future Israeli strikes against Iran, for instance. All this, after last week’s missile attack, Iran has now become front and center in Israel’s war plans. This week, the press reported that Biden is discussing whether or not Israel should attack Iranian oil facilities, while he cautioned against attacking Iranian nuclear plants. It indicates a level of planning and cooperation that goes well beyond a mere proxy war, like Ukraine. This war was a partnership in which American leadership and know-how were actively involved in planning and execution. Today, much of the Arab world has lined up against Israel and its senior partner, the United States, from paramilitary groups like the Houthis, Hamas, and Hezbollah to Iran, Lebanon, and Yemen. For many, this is a multi-generational conflict with roots in the decades past. Their memories recall a history of Arab Israeli struggles, as yearly they honor the martyrs of battles long ago. To think that we can step in and solve these issues with a decisive military engagement is naive, and to say nothing arrogant. America is now a highly visible part of this War. We should expect an enemy as resourceful and resilient as this will include us in their future battle plans. ** Follow me here on ThinkSpot for more stories from the ValueSide.

Did A Woefully Inaccurate Government Report Contribute To The Next Recession? By ValueSideWhat Would Happen if “Unpaid Labour” were Monetised? By Sadhika PantPessimism vs. Realism By LadyValDefining Evil In A Post-Postmodern World! By JaredMSewellElection Fraud By NumapepiI Spent All Of Bill Gates' Money! By JaredHendersonThe HARDEST way to beat Super Mario 64 By KyleNorris23 Contest entries for the September Contest By thinkspotJoin the ConversationIs Kamala Dumb or is She Pretending? By Octaveoctave

There is an old saying, “Those that can, do – and those who can’t, teach.” I have my own version of that motto: “Those who can, do – and those who can’t, do research.” The latter is pretty much me. I have spent a great deal of my life doing research on various historical figures who became of interest to me. On my last two subjects, I have been able to do far more research through the computer than when I was limited to printed matter. Indeed, that interest even led to a book! I had never thought I would be able to accomplish anything of real value as I am one of the “those that can’t” types. However, my fixation on and inquiry into Confederate Colonel John Singleton Mosby, perhaps the most successful practitioner of partisan warfare in this country bar none, did indeed lead to a lengthy work based upon newspaper coverage of the man from 1862 until the year of his death, 1916. With regard to his partisan efforts, Mosby had both Robert Rogers [French and Indian War] and “The Swamp Fox,” Francis Marion [the American Revolution], as guides in his strategic concepts of such warfare. But Mosby was also an historian of note, especially regarding Greek and Roman history from which he learned certain tactics that he put into play with great success in America’s bloodiest war. Indeed, one historian has declared Mosby’s command to be the only truly successful military enterprise on the Confederate side in that war! With most of my research on Mosby completed, I was not at all surprised when I suddenly found a new interest, none other than the late, great George Washington, the man declared, “the Father of his country.” And given what I have learned to date about Washington, it would seem as if that worthy gentleman was also very much a man who fought quite unlike his European counterparts, something that gave him a distinct advantage when everything else was against him. Of course, my research (as always) involved obtaining books about the man just as I had done with Mosby. But as my interest was originally piqued by a video presentation of the well-known story of Washington’s attack on the Hessians in Trenton on December 26th, 1776, entitled The Crossing, I found myself drawn to books on that particular subject. Indeed, the book that resulted in this article is entitled, George Washington’s Surprise Attack: A New Look at the Battle That Decided the Fate of America written by Philip Thomas Tucker. Now, I usually buy used books and I prefer hard covers unless they are not possible to obtain – at least at a reasonable price. The “Surprise Attack” book was both hardcover and very reasonable. The only “damage” it had sustained was easily corrected by applying a little glue down the spine between the sewn pages and the inside of the cover. It certainly was nothing that would have caused it to be discarded from the collection of anyone who reveres books. It had also come from a library. And while there was no identification of that institution – and believe me, I looked for one! – there was a white square on the bottom of the spine with the Dewey decimal system reference number 973.332 and under that, a reference to the author, Tucker, P. But what seized my attention when it arrived was the word stamped in thin, ½ inch high red capital letters across the top of the pages: WITHDRAWN. Perhaps this was a better fate for the volume itself than the usual stamp of DISCARD or DISCARDED, indicating that the book had not just been thrown away. Neither was it so badly damaged that it could not continue to frequent the shelves of any self-respecting library after that small repair that I had made. But no! Apparently, it had simply been “withdrawn!” Again, one might ask why should this simple stamp have made such an impression as to result in this article? Because along with a lot of other people, most of whom are intelligent, decent and knowledgeable, I too have been very much involved in the fight against what is the planned and ongoing cultural genocide of Western Civilization in general and the United States of America in particular. Of course, the attack was neither open nor widespread in the beginning. Using the all-powerful “race card,” the first assault on American history was directed against the States of the South and especially as that region was determined at the time of the so-called “Civil War” – and afterwards, of course. In direct opposition to much of the more studied historical record, the war itself was declared as having been fought to “free the slaves.” Now this contention has frequently been used in the past but not as an historical fact but rather as a means of giving legitimacy to the treasonous war waged by the federal government and the rest of the States of the Union against those Southern States seeking to secede from a union that had become contrary to the needs and wants of their citizens – a perfectly constitutional response to the problem at hand. Indeed, at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, three States – Rhode Island, New York and Virginia – had placed into their ratification documents direct clauses stating that upon certain situations arising within the union formed by that Constitution, those States could withdraw (secede) and cease to be members of the union thus formed. And while New York and Rhode Island spoke of the “happiness” of their citizens, Virginia put the matter both more concisely and poetically: WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any capacity, by the President or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: and that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by any authority of the United States. Of course, as in any contract or compact, the rights of any one of its signatory members is enjoyed by all, even if they have not sought or demanded such rights. Thus, these three States made constitutional the secession of any signatory State at such a time as the existing conditions made that secession reasonable and understandable to the constitutionally created State government in convention, to wit: “. . . that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression . . .” And by the 1800s, there was no doubt that the so-called “Cotton States” had become, quite literally, an economic colony of the rest of the then “union.” As a result, the issue of ending chattel slavery – presented as noted as the reason for the “civil war” – was seriously problematic as that system was the means of producing those crops that made of the South the foremost contributor to the national treasury – filling between 65% and 80% of the nation’s coffers from their revenues! Therefore, as slavery remained essential to the economy of the South, it was also, by extension, essential to the economy of the rest of the Union! On the other hand, chattel slavery had long since ceased to exist at least in wide-spread practice in the North as that region had transitioned in the greater part from agriculture to manufacturing. As well, with the war waged by Great Britain against the slave trade by sea, that profitable enterprise was no longer available for ready revenue. For the slave trade was run from New York, Pennsylvania and New England via the so-called Triangle Trade – molasses to rum to slaves – and not from the South as many believe. By this time, the war upon the South, its history, symbols and heroes that started in the 1950s with the rise of the “Civil Rights Movement” needs no explanation to anyone who is moderately intelligent or doesn’t live in a cave in Tibet. But the weapon leading that war has now been turned on not only America, but the West itself, making of white people the villains in the narrative of black slavery at least as it existed in the West. Parenthetically, the fact that slavery elsewhere in the world – that continues to exist today! – is apparently of no interest to anyone! And in this war, like Tolkien’s Ring or King Richard’s sword, there is a primary weapon in use and that weapon is a word: racist. The term “racist” first appears In Leon Trotsky’s 1930 work, The History of the Russian Revolution in a passage whose last word is "pacnctob." The Latin transliteration of this word is "racistov," i.e., "racist." It is the first time in history that this word appears and those doubting this claim may check across the whole spectrum of available knowledge but they will never find an earlier usage of that word than is found in Trotsky’s work in 1930. But what was Trotsky’s purpose in “inventing” the word? Here is the English translation of the paragraph in which it appeared: "Slavophilism, the messianism of backwardness, has based its philosophy upon the assumption that the Russian people and their church are democratic through and through, whereas official Russia is a German bureaucracy imposed upon them by Peter the Great. Marx remarked upon this theme: "In the same way the Teutonic jackasses blamed the despotism of Frederick the Second upon the French, as though backward slaves were not always in need of civilized slaves to train them." This brief comment completely finishes off not only the old philosophy of the Slavophiles, but also the latest revelations of the 'racists.'" The “Slavophiles” spoken of as “racists” by the author were a group of traditionalist Russians who valued greatly their native culture and way of life, and wanted to protect it. Sound familiar? But Trotsky saw them and those like them as an impediment to his internationalist communist agenda. To Trotsky, those he condemned had committed the "crime" of loving their own people and trying to protect their own traditions. In that effort, he saw them as "backward" and therefore they and others like them were, in fact, what the writer called "racists." Obviously, the word did not signify a clash between actual “races” of men, but people making an effort to maintain their culture regardless of their race! So, the word describes an ethnocentric "backwardness" that, according to Trotsky, must be overcome by "enlightened internationalism” in order to establish the New World Order. Trotsky’s linguistic tour de force has arguably caused more damage to the West than did Stalin and his successors. By inventing a word, a term that would empower the enemies both of and within the West to redefine citizens loyal to their people, their cultural traditions and their way of life as evil, he made it possible to send the government, academia, and the mass media on a crusade against ordinary patriotism and self-respect! That is, the term racist made it possible for the agents of a culture to actually believe that what had always been normal human interaction now represented a form of hatred against a particular race! And, of course, this useful strategy is constantly repeated and bolstered by revisionist historians who portray Europeans and their descendants as the sole perpetrators of black slavery and genocide in the world. Furthermore, this lie will continue until the West submits to the entire internationalist agenda without a single shot being fired while their cultures and their peoples become minorities – or even extinct! – within their own countries. And so, General Washington – a white man of immeasurable courage, honor, grace and humanity – is “withdrawn” from the culture lest his goodness and patriotism influence some modern stooge into thinking for him or herself. And, of course, he was also a slave owner although, interestingly enough, Washington grew to hate the institution, promising his slaves that he would never sell any of them without their “permission.” Needless to say, such was never forthcoming, forcing him to waste a great deal of money supporting slaves for whom he had no use! For a man with good business sense, as was Washington, his maintenance of more slaves than were required to farm and support Mount Vernon proves that this sacrifice was deliberate and morally motivated. Indeed, the man’s words and actions also show that he attempted to teach his slaves trades so that they could be successfully emancipated during his life; that is, that they would be able to care for themselves once free. Sadly, he lamented that his efforts were not all that successful and so, when after his death his own slaves were emancipated as he willed, they had no means of taking care of themselves once their benign and benevolent “master” was no more. Yet, he arranged for the elderly to be housed and cared for and the young educated, learning to read and write and follow professions that would support them in their newly found freedom. Indeed, one of the things most people today fail to realize is that chattel slavery was the original “welfare state” and the welfare state was/is slavery! The only thing that slavery “forced” upon the black slave was the requirement that he do the necessary work that paid for his upkeep and to refrain from acts that were either criminal or violent – or both. In exchange for his labor, the slave received a housing, food, clothing, health care and, yes, entertainment. He could marry and have a family – and in Washington’s case there was never the fear by that family of being broken up through the sale of any of its members! – and otherwise live a far better life than did the poor whites in Northern cities who had no protection. The slave was protected by law from cruelty and, if he had a trade, he could practice that trade once he had fulfilled his duties to his master. Apparently, from all the records extant, what a slave earned by his labor outside of his plantation home, was his to keep and thus, an industrious slave could actually buy his and his family’s freedom; many did just that! On the other hand, the impoverished whites in northern slums never had the opportunity to do other than work until age and/or illness released them from labor, and often, from life itself. Indeed, no songs were ever written about the slum “homes” of Northern white wage-slaves such as were written about those of blacks in the South! “Carry Me Back to Old Virginny” and “My Old Kentucky Home” are tributes to the lives of former slaves longing for what once was. Yet these are seen today as blasphemous assaults on the humanity of the very black people lamenting the loss of those homes! Another report created by the federal government was entitled The Slave Narratives and involved the interview of former slaves by many individuals from that government in an attempt to learn the reality of slavery as lived by those being interviewed. According to one man familiar with the work, opinions varied – as is usual in such matters – but he believed that the general thrust from those interviewed was actually positive regarding their lives under that institution. However, he also noted that attempts to obtain the actual documents have become very difficult. Instead, he was presented by the individual he contacted with a book that supposedly represents the gist of the work. But he soon found that the book had carefully “edited” (censored) the subject so as to maintain the accepted orthodoxy of the evils of slavery minus any mitigating circumstances. Of course, these “narratives” included the expected complaints about being held in bondage, but after the Civil War many slaves and especially the vulnerable – women, children, the old and the sick – longed for their former homes and protected lives. They missed being cared for and not having to be concerned about surviving in a ruined South. Indeed, the consequences of “emancipation” for blacks was hardly what was predicted as reported in a book by James Downs entitled Sick From Freedom: African-American Illness and Suffering during the Civil War and Reconstruction. As Mr. Downs writes: “Bondspeople who fled from slavery during and after the Civil War did not expect that their flight toward freedom would lead to sickness, disease, suffering, and death. But the war produced the largest biological crisis of the nineteenth century having deadly consequences for hundreds of thousands of freed people.” This situation was exacerbated by existing “Black Codes” found in most Northern States that refused entrance to blacks, thus forcing them to remain in the impoverished South where they sickened, starved and died along with Southern whites. It wasn’t until the labor shortage produced by World War I that large numbers of blacks migrated out of the South and into States that had once been forbidden to them. As for George Washington, the present WOKE culture has yet to demand his complete removal as an historic hero, but that will come as anyone with insight can predict. Already, one statue of the man has been removed from the public square but that removal was blamed upon the nature of the monument. The work by one Horatio Greenough done in 1840 is entitled Enthroned Washington and was commissioned by the United States Congress on July 14th, 1832, for the nation’s centennial. As was the style at the time Greenough presents Washington in a Roman toga, wearing sandals and seated on a low chair with his chest bare and his left arm outstretched, holding a sword with the hilt toward the viewer in a gesture of surrendering that sword back to the government that had bestowed it upon him. His right arm, partially draped, is upraised with the index finger pointing upward, thus declaring his right to take this action. The pose was a particular style for the period – Neoclassicism – showing contemporary subjects dressed in the garments of ancient Greece and Rome. Before the work was removed into “storage,” it had already been moved into a fairly remote location in the City probably because of the appearance. At the time, one of the politicians involved in the work’s complete removal said that nobody had ever seen George Washington’s bare chest! And this from the same people who permitted the placement of a statue to the demon Baphomet in the Capitol in 2015! As I recall, its chest was also bare showing female breasts, a matter far less “decorous” than was Washington’s Roman exposure! Sculptor Greenough had placed on the back of the work the following testament in Latin with a translation below it: [Latin inscription] "Horatio Greenough made this image as a great example of freedom, which will not survive without freedom itself." Because the monument was so little known, few said anything about the matter probably because very few knew that it had been removed! But I have no doubt that finally, our present “leaders” will decide to “withdraw” all images and references to the man who was singularly responsible for the founding of this nation and probably that decision will be announced by, among other things, the changing of the name of the Capitol City from Washington to something more appropriate to those same “leaders,” a matter that I leave to the reader’s discretion. I can only pray that I will not be around to see it when it happens but somehow, from what I have learned in so short a time about the man, George Washington will rejoice in having his name removed from the capital of what we as a nation have become. Post Scriptum: It is interesting to note that the monument erected to the demon Baphomet bears a striking resemblance – at least in pose! – to the sculpture of Washington that was removed from the Capitol as noted above. One doubts that the sculptor, Greenough had any such knowledge of the other and therefore had any intention of copying that female breasted, goat-headed monstrosity. Still, as the depiction of Baphomet below is very much like the one actually raised in the Capitol, it leaves one with a vague feeling of discomfort that a monument to a man as good as was George Washington could conceivably have been a model for the spirit that eventually took over the nation he was indispensable in creating. (Baphomet ~ see below) George Washington Enthroned

In February of 1997, Samuel Todd Francis [1947-2005], a conservative intellect and journalist wrote a piece entitled “Something Like Waco.” Wikipedia’s “biography” of the man is a combination of reluctant praise liberally sprinkled (overwhelmed?) by gleeful charges of racism and white supremacy. For instance, the site points out that Francis “. . .was a columnist and editor for the conservative Washington Times until he was dismissed after making allegedly racist remarks at the 1995 conference of the American Renaissance.” It is most probable that the gentleman refused to bow to the reigning attitude about the superiority of America’s minority citizens and the truth in such an instance was, as usual, considered unacceptable! The site then went on to say that “ . . . Francis would later become a "dominant force" on the Council of Conservative Citizens . . . (and) was chief editor of the council's newsletter, Citizens Informer, until his death in 2005.” Then the whacky Wikies pulled out all the stops with the these “identifying markers:” “Political scientist and writer George Michaels, an expert on extremism [!], identified Francis as one of ‘the far right’s higher-caliber intellectuals.’The Southern Poverty Law Center [!!], which tracks extremist groups, described Francis as an important white nationalist writer known for his ‘ubiquitous presence of his columns in racist forums and his influence over the general direction of right-wing extremism’ in the United States. Analyst Leonard Zeskind called Francis the ‘philosopher king’ of the radical right, writing that ‘By any measure, Francis's white nationalism was as subtle as an eight-pound hammer pounding on a twelve inch I beam.’ . . .To Jared Taylor, ‘Francis was the premier philosopher of white racial consciousness of our time.’” It is necessary to identify the man whose viewpoint I will cover in this article, an article that Mr. Francis entitled “Something Like Waco” because what he wrote and warned about is being made more obvious day by day some twenty-five years after the gentleman made his most cogent comments! Perhaps if we had listened back in the nineties. . . But then, there are no “do-overs” or “mulligans” in life. I begin with the entire first paragraph of the article because it sets the tone for all that comes after and as so much time has passed between the event that is the foundation of that article – the attack on the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas – this “revelation” becomes necessary: “About a year after the raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, I was invited to take part in a discussion of the Waco incident on a program on the National Educational Television network. The program was a call-in show, and after my hosts and I had recounted the facts of the Waco raid and its aftermath, I was struck by the remarks that several callers from various parts of the country had to offer. Some of them claimed to know or to have heard about similar incidents in which local, state, or federal law enforcement agencies had staged armed raids on private homes or businesses, without adequate proof of wrongdoing by those against whom the raids had been mounted, and with results that often left innocent citizens injured or their property and rights violated. Although neither I nor my hosts on the TV show had heard of these incidents and to this day I have no way of verifying what the callers were reporting, it began to occur to me then that Waco was perhaps far from being an isolated case. Not too long after the show, however, news of just such mini-Wacos began to creep into the light of day.” The author then fills an article that runs for eight pages with information that should have scared the Bejesus out of all of us, but apparently failed to do so as we can see by the situation extant today. Let’s look at the first point Mr. Francis made: “. . . on January 10, 1994, officials of ten different organizations concerned with civil liberties or Second Amendment rights (including the liberal-to-left American Civil Liberties Union and the conservative Citizens Committee to Keep and Bear Arms) had sent an eight-page letter to President Clinton. The letter detailed several cases of what it called "widespread abuses of civil liberties and human rights" and a pattern of "serious abuse" of the law or proper police procedures by federal law enforcement agencies—the ATF itself, but also the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the FBI. The cases included the Waco assault as well as the attack on Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in August 1992, but the letter also discussed several other incidents that were generally unknown to the public and to this day have not received the public attention they deserve. He then went on to point out: “The letter noted that ‘federal police officers now comprise close to 10 percent of the nation's law enforcement force’ and that ‘some fifty-three separate federal agencies have the authority to carry firearms and make arrests.*’ Arguing that the cases reviewed involved abuses such as the ‘improper use of “deadly” force; physical and verbal abuse; use of para-military and strike force units or tactics without justification; use of ‘no-knock' entrances without justification; inadequate investigation of allegations of misconduct; use of unreliable informants without sufficient verification of their allegations; entrapment’ and several other improper or illegal procedures, the letter called on the President to ‘appoint a national commission to review the policies and practices of all federal law enforcement agencies and to make recommendations regarding steps that must be taken to ensure that such agencies comply with the law.’" [*Remember the story of the man who was assailed by armed federals from the Department of Education because his ex-wife had failed to make payment on her student loans? Who knew that the DoE was armed!] Francis writes that he had been told by one of the signers of this letter to Clinton that “. . .no response had ever been received, and obviously no such national commission” had been appointed. Columns by Francis and columnist Nat Hentoff had been published at the time citing some of the abuses of civil liberties and even actual crimes committed by the government in the name of “enforcing the law” but nothing had come of that, a matter perhaps influenced by the total absence of media coverage. Francis further commented that “. . .if some correction and restraint are not administered, the day will come – perhaps soon – when cases like these are not extreme or unusual but routine.” The article then goes on to document individual cases of assault on the innocent by the full might of the armed federal bureaucracy: 1. The assault on the home of San Diego businessman Donald Carlson in August of 1992. The home was raided using a warrant based upon the allegation that Carlson’s home was a vacant drug storehouse. Carlson had arrived at his home around 10:30 that evening while the house was under surveillance and could easily have been arrested at that time if he was considered a criminal. Instead, it was past midnight after he had retired that the federal agents smashed through the door. Carlson believing this to be a home invasion reached for a firearm to defend himself and was shot three times – once in the back after he had been disarmed! He survived, but will require a lifetime of medical expenses as a result of the injuries he sustained. As it turned out, no drugs were found. The agents had relied on a paid informant named “Ron” who later told the Los Angeles Times that he had never identified a specific house as a storing location for the drugs! 2. Though the ATF was not involved in the Carlson case, they were involved in a similar raid conducted on September 5, 1991, against a woman named Sina Brush in New Mexico. ATF agents and 60 other agents from the DEA, the National Guard and the U.S. Forest Service assaulted Brush’s home in the belief that illegal drugs were involved. No drugs were found, but Brush and her daughter were handcuffed in their underwear and forced to kneel in the middle of the room during the search. As in the Carlson case, the agents had used an unreliable informant and had entered without knocking or showing a warrant. 3. Less than two months after the Carlson raid, agents from the DEA and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department burst into the home of Donald Scott and his wife looking this time – supposedly! – for marijuana plants! Scott’s wife screamed when she saw the unidentified men breaking in and Scott, 61 years old, grabbed a licensed handgun to defend them. A deputy sheriff shot and killed him. No marijuana plants or other illegal substances were found. In the Scott case, a later report written by a Ventura County District Attorney stated that the “initiative” for the raid probably came from the sheriff’s office rather than the feds and that “a primary purpose for the raid was a land grab by the Sheriff’s Department.” Of course, the law is very liberal in distributing the property of “drug lords” alive or dead to the government but all agree that it is easier to do when they are dead. Francis then presents two further egregious cases of illegal government force that included a raid on the home of Louis Katona, III, a part-time police officer and gun collector who owned an extensive – and expensive – collection begun by his father. On May 8th, 1992, the ATF launched a raid to seize the collection valued at many thousands of dollars, the premise being that Katona had forged the name of the local police chief on forms required under the National Firearms Act for registering certain types of firearms. In fact, Katona had done no such thing, leaving forms for the chief to sign that he would later retrieve. After the assault, Katona was indicted for these alleged forgeries, but the case was dismissed in at least a semblance of justice. Meanwhile, Katona knew of the ATF plan and cooperated with it but during the four hour raid, agents became abusive and began to take photos of various Vietnam war memorabilia displayed in the house including the man’s uniform, medals and awards. Also, Katona’s wife, several months pregnant, returned home and upon attempting to enter the vault area in which her husband kept his collection, an agent pushed her violently against the wall in denying her access. That night she miscarried the child she was carrying, something she declared to be the result of her treatment by the agent. Another legal gun collector, Harry Lamplugh found himself surrounded by armed men in uniform on May 25th, 1994. These were ATF agents looking for illegal firearms. According to Lamplugh, his wife and their lawyer, former ATF Assistant Director Robert Sanders, the agents ransacked his home and office, seizing not only business but personal records including birth certificates, marriage and baptismal records and mortgage and medical records. Lamplugh was suffering from cancer and told the agents that the medical records were essential to his treatment as were the bottles of medication the agents deliberately spilled over the carpets. The agents also killed one of the couple’s cats. Throughout the raid, the family testified that the agents used abusive language called Lamplugh a “motherfu–er” and threatening his wife with incarceration in a “cell full of lezzies” unless she “informed” on her husband. The agents told Lamplugh, “We don’t mind you selling guns to niggers because they just kill each other.” The couple and their son were later charged by a federal grand jury with several counts of federal firearms law violations as well as perjury. According to Francis, “Those charges are still pending.” Later in the case, the government continued to hold on to thousands of dollars belonging to the Lamplughs despite rulings of the court that these should be returned. Francis spent considerable time in his columns clearly delineating the reasons for these assaults to prove them inadequate for the violence of the federal response. For these, he received responses from the agencies involved and he noted in a letter from the ATF, “with one exception . . . [the letter] failed to contradict much of anything of significance I had said in the column or had been alleged in the letter to . . . Clinton.” Francis also noted that the ATF “may be correct in its account of the details of the searches” but went on to note that he watched a video produced by the National Rifle Association about the Lamplugh and Katona cases in which the families “offered their sides of the story” while, according to the narrator, “. . .the ATF declined to be interviewed.” Francis noted that the testimony of the families was “more persuasive” than that of Mr. Hynes of the ATF! The victims also recounted “repeated instances of anonymous harassment by the ATF, including the slashing of tires on their cars, the placing of dead animals on their doorsteps, harassing phone calls, and harmful and untrue rumors spread about the men among their friends and business associates.” Such actions are more worthy of organized crime than a legitimate government but then, from what we can see today, our government has ceased to be “legitimate” and has BECOME “an organized crime.” The article goes on to describe other instances of horrific government “overreach” including a raid on the home of Paul and Patty Mueller in which the agents threatened to kill the family dog that had become frantic during the assault, the physical “restraint” of the couple and, as the agents went through the home yelling “ATF!” – something that the Muellers didn’t even understand! – they emptied shelves and boxes filled with Christmas ornaments and magazines. After an hour, they told the couple they were searching for illegal weapons and showed them their search warrant. Unable to find what they sought, they departed as swiftly as they had come. A stunned Mueller told the newspaper, “For the first thirty seconds I thought they were burglars and I was going to die. If they could do this to us, they could do this to anybody.” Patty Mueller added, “Was this something like Waco?” However, this story did “make the papers” and it was discovered that a police informer had told the ATF “that the Mueller home contained a large cache of machine guns and illegal weapons were being distributed there.” Of course, the “informer” had made up the story with the result that the ATF had come close to killing an innocent family. The local head of that agency said he would “apologize” to the couple but there was no word about damages or concern for adhering to the law that, according to Mr. Hynes of the ATF, “. . . motivates our agents to protect the law-abiding citizens of this Nation against those who choose to live by another standard.” Francis did admit that there are many ATF cases in which dangerous criminals are involved but that the most distinctive thing about the above cases “. . .is that they were carried out against the very ‘law-abiding’ citizens the ATF claims to have a mission to protect, and they are citizens who have no experience of law enforcement at any level precisely because they are law-abiding . . . in not a single one of the cases recounted here was there any reason to believe that this was the kind of suspect the ATF or other federal agents had to face. Not a single one of them had any record of violence and lawbreaking, and the crimes they were alleged to have committed were not even violent offenses. Police officers investigating a murder suspect do not make use of these tactics unless they have a strong reason to believe the suspect is ready and willing to shoot them on sight” Francis calls this strategy, “’anarcho-tyranny,’ a distinctively new form of government in which the government is either unable or unwilling to apprehend and punish criminals, so it therefore criminalizes the innocent and cracks down on them. I never heard of an ATF raid on an urban gang, although the stockpiling of weapons by such gangs is commonly known. Gangs might shoot back, you see, so it’s much safer to go after the Katonas, the Lamplughs and the Muellers. And if you’re wrong, and the bums you consulted as ‘informants’ turn out to have lied to get money or cop a plea, you can always apologize. And if you don’t apologize, you can always have Mr. Hynes or some other vassal of the federal leviathan write a letter and intone about your mission to protect the law-abiding.” Francis admits that: “. . . the evolution of a police state may not be the intention of either the agencies involved or of the political leaders who ignore and at least tacitly condone what is certainly a repeated and may be a regular pattern of federal law enforcement behavior (see January 6th 2021) . . . . . .but that evolution is nonetheless real, and the brutality of the ATF and its sister agencies is only one part of it. Other elements in the construction of the coming police state include the demonization of privately owned firearms and their owners, the enactment of gun control legislation in the Brady Act, the outlawing of sales of semiautomatic weapons in 1994, and an increasing push for the outright prohibition of handguns; the attempts to enact "counterterrorism" legislation plainly directed against citizens' militias and domestic right-wing radicalism; the use by the FBI and ATF of intrusive surveillance and investigative techniques against militias and similar groups in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995; the use of entrapment by these agencies to engineer violations of federal law on the part of the groups they are spying on (see Ruby Ridge!); the media-concocted hysteria about "church-burnings" last summer, which resulted in a new federal law making the arson of any church for any reason a federal offense; efforts to expand federal police powers, place more police officers on the street through federal legislation, and augment the powers and resources of the FBI (including wiretapping authority); more demands for the revival and further escalation of the "drug war" of the 1980's by Republicans like Bob Dole and William Bennett; and the whole trend toward the nationalization of law enforcement in the name of a "war on crime." Furthermore, according to Francis, “The fear and hatred of crime and criminals by the right and the fear and hatred of the right by the left serve to enlist both sides of the conventional political spectrum in promoting the new police state. The avoidance of publicity about the abuses of the federal police agencies tends, over time, to normalize such behavior in the minds of citizens, to legitimize it, and to render it a routine part of government functions.” Now, admittedly, we have seen the current “government” in Washington rise up against “the police” as can be seen in the madness put into effect after the death of a black thug from an overdose of fentanyl! But in these cases, the same war against ordinary citizens continued. The armed federal agencies disappeared leaving ordinary citizens in the hands of thugs and terrorists while their local police were either removed by the local government or overcome by hordes of well-armed agents of the left. In other words, the “anarchy” we supposedly suffered from 2020 through 2021 was as orchestrated as the raids on American citizens described by Mr. Francis! This was a case in which the ATF, the FBI and all the rest continued their criminal activities but behind the scenes thus preventing their anti-social activities from being “outed” by those few remaining outlets of real news. As well, the excuse of a “war on drugs” immediately goes by the boards as we witness our Southern border being removed to the point at which even our fairly useless efforts to keep these poisons out of the country are totally nullified with the blessings of Washington! Mr. Francis concludes his article thusly: The emerging police state, then, for all its swagger about the "war on drugs" and keeping us safe from "those who choose to live by another standard," (see previous paragraph) has nothing to do with maintaining order and punishing real criminals but everything to do with the systematic repression of those Middle Americans who express disenchantment with the new order and who organize or represent points of resistance to it. It may be too early as yet for the secret police forces and paramilitary units of the regime to eradicate organized Middle American resistance carte blanche, but what those forces already are doing and have done to uncounted innocent victims suggests that they are only just warming up to their “final solution.”

The definition of pessimism is a tendency to see the worst aspect of things and/or to believe that the worst will happen; also, a lack of hope or confidence in the future. Pessimism as a philosophy is defined as the belief that this world is as bad as it could be or [less used] that evil will ultimately prevail over good. This latter, of course, does not apply to Christian pessimists. I should know as I am one such. Furthermore, I do not see pessimism as do many, the philosophy of a quitter! Recognizing the state of reality and finding it just about as bad as it can be does not necessarily result in the pessimist vacating the field of battle. Indeed, it is far more likely that the clueless optimist, when reality rears its ugly head, will throw in the towel with the destruction of his carefully built fantasies of ultimate at least human victory! And then, there is the very real benefit with that mindset that the surprises bestowed upon the pessimist are always happy whereas the optimist can take no such comfort. Frankly, if there were ever a fertile field for pessimism, our current national and world situation is only slightly less dire than that evening when the good [?] people of Sodom and Gomorrah discovered that water is not the only thing that can rain down from the sky! In point of fact, the situation referable to the folks of both cities of the plains exist to about the same degree but over a far wider geographic area of the globe and with a percentage of the ungodly within the population not too different than existed in the Book of Genesis! Indeed, to meet the requirements that ended those dens of iniquity today would require a rain of fire worthy of the eruption of the Yellowstone Super Volcano and, interestingly enough, that natural cleanser has shown some definite signs of awakening from its 650,000+ year’s sleep. Hmmmm . . . But pessimist or optimist, neither can function unless he (here I will say “or she” only this once because it is annoying!) is aware of the existing situation as clearly and accurately as possible and as a pessimist, I believe that when the “warrior” does err in this matter, it is always better to err in its dangers rather than the reverse. That is, it is better to wipe one’s brow and say “Amen!” that there were fewer enemies than you had thought, than to realize you will go down to defeat because your enemy was stronger than you knew and for whom you had prepared as would have happened with the optimist. One cannot help being what one is, pessimist or optimist. One can only do the best one can to discover the existing situation, to cull the lies and misconceptions and focus on what is important. This latter is a big problem for conservatives whether they are optimists or pessimists! Liberals, on the other hand, develop a plan of action and remain constant in their pursuit of their objective. When they are derailed, as they were in 2016 with the election of Donald Trump, they do not lick their wounds and retire but immediately find an alternative plan of action. If that alternative fails a la Trump’s first impeachment, they immediately go to the next plot and so forth until time runs out for our side in efforts to take advantage of such times in which we do “accidentally” wind up in a position of power – and believe me, in these days, a true conservative coming to power with very few exceptions is usually an accident! On the other hand, the conservative seems to me from my many years of observation to be particularly concerned with the beliefs and actions not of his liberal adversary, but his fellow conservative. Of course, this is somewhat understandable because up until recently, most liberals couched their intentions, aims and goals with rhetoric that carefully avoided any reference to things that ordinary (that is, decent) people would reject out of hand. But through the use of the education system and the attack on the Christian churches that has gone on for the last fifty plus years, those plots previously rejected by all but the most vile and depraved are now considered the ultimate of humane and honorable intentions. And as that is the case, the Left no longer needs to “hide” its objectives. They are openly stated and even “mandated” by what was once believed to be the government “of, for and by” the American people. And so, how do conservatives respond? Not as one would think! No indeed! While liberals line up to revile and persecute anyone on the right, depending upon the figure chosen whether it is Donald Trump (whom many conservatives do not even consider one of their own!) or Jared Taylor – and everyone in between – conservatives look carefully at the liberals’ chosen target to determine whether that person should be protected, ignored or possibly even attacked! And whereas liberals “flock together” no matter their natural position on other matters, conservatives very carefully look to see if a “fellow conservative” under attack is worthy of their support! Thus, Muslims support feminists and gays, Jews support openly antisemitic Black Lives Matter and minorities support those who would, under different circumstances, spit on them. On the other hand, the “pure” conservative looks to the “credentials” of a fellow conservative and, depending thereupon, may forgo any support if that person is not one hundred percent “right” in the eyes of his or her right wing critic. If there is anything more worthy of condemnation, it is this particular attitude regarding the other fellow on one’s own side that is found in the old joke about the Puritans, that is, “No one is perfect but me and thee – and I’m not so sure about thee!” Nothing has excited my natural pessimism regarding the future of America and the West more than this unhelpful and unholy mindset of the true “right” – that is, the “paleo-con” rather than his “neocon” replacement – and make no mistake about it, we are being replaced – perhaps deservedly so! When we can stand on the deck of a sinking ship and quibble about whether this conservative hasn’t been “good enough” or that conservative has “the wrong opinion” on some issue, I begin to wonder how anyone could be an optimist!

The State Versus The Amish Posted on September 25, 2024 by john Dear Friends, It seems to me, only the vilest of scum would attack the Amish, of all people. Why would anyone attack them? The Amish mind their own business, are pacifists, raise happy healthy and productive families, while being a valuable addition to the nation’s economic, social and political health. Any sane government would want more Amish, not less. The same goes for the Mennonites, Born Agains, etc… These people are the muscle and sinew of a nation. Only a fool cuts muscle and sinew to make way for fat. A short lived fool. Yet the Amish and those with a pacifist mindset make the perfect victims. They don’t fight back. So legal precedent can be set on their pacifism. One of the two primary ways the elite move the ball down the field of tyranny. The other is to abuse a politically disfavored group. The Amish came here fleeing religious persecution… making it the acme of irony, that they’re facing religious persecution here. Especially since religious freedom is in the plain text of our Constitution. Our elites and experts however, are so wicked smart, they’ve figured a way around the plain text to give it nuance and color. Legal experts have concluded, the US must establish materialist atheism as the State religion, making the Amish and people like them, its mortal enemies. When fighting a mortal enemy, many will justify cutting their own nose off, to spite their face. So they do. As our elites are in the case of attacking the Amish. I mean, really? That’s like beating up a bunny rabbit. It would serve them right though if that rabbit turned out to be Buggs Bunny. The legal assault on Amos Miller is a disgrace. Even as bureaucrats in Pennsylvania have proven their chops. Heartless, caustic and power mad… they epitomize the functionary. Abusing power to the tune of Yakety Sax. They thought that Amos Miller would roll over, and give up his livelihood, so they could usurp even more power to abuse. Exactly who you want having power, people proven to abuse it… psychopaths. Fortunately for actual justice… Robert Barnes stepped in, and is fighting back. Exposing the criminality of the bureaucracy. The courts on the other hand, don’t seem to be as zealous of reigning in an out of control administrative state, as they are in giving it deference. Abuse of power requires it be hidden. This case is no longer hidden… so, we’ll see. Al Capone has nothing on Justin Trudeau when it comes to extortion. Again, the Amish are easy targets. They don’t fight back nor do they seek notoriety. So the State can abuse them all it wants. Moreover, the beast can use that abuse to set precedent… to abuse the rest of us. The other way the elite usurp power is to abuse a politically hated group. It’s the elite’s ability to bring propaganda to bear that makes the con so effective. They can apply propaganda to any group making them hated or loved. Look how they’ve normalized pedophilia, child sterilization and have even made beating women an Olympic event. Those used to be hated groups who’s image has been re imagined by the elite. I reckon the Amish will be facing an onslaught of negative validation. Bullies pick on those they think will roll over. Beating up a kid who doesn’t fight back makes a small person feel big. It establishes their ferocity in public giving them the power of fear. Which brings benefits in the form of lunch money, girls like the bad boy, and the bully is always near the top of the social hierarchy. The Administrative State is the classic bully in all these regards. They extort money under the color of law, use tax money to pay off their bimbos, and live high on the hog, being members of government. All the bullies in the Deep State need, are victims… and the Amish apparently have caught their eye. With lawyers like Robert Barnes on the side of the Amish… let’s pray the vilest of scum bags, the deep state, have met their Buggs Bunny. Sincerely, John Pepin

In those restless days of my early twenties, I had my share of heated arguments with my father, as most young people are bound to do when the world still feels black and white. It was always over what I was so sure was the right thing—how a child should be raised, how love ought to be shown, how a family should stand together. I’d like to think I was driven by the pursuit of truth—and maybe in a broader sense, that’s what we’re all chasing in our fiercest debates—but if I’m honest, I was really trying to assert my own ideals, to prove to myself that my way of thinking was the right way. Regrettably, I must admit that there were times when I pushed him a bit too far. Sometimes, when the talk turned to how he ought to be as a father (and I wince now to remember how ungrateful I was to even suggest such things), and he found he couldn’t get through to me, he’d simply say, with a kind of quiet resignation, “I am a poet too.” At the time, those words meant little to me. If anything, I felt that he was trying to use his personal ambitions to get out of familial responsibility. If he had said, "I’m human too," I might have grasped that he was only trying to tell me my expectations were too high. I suppose my father found his individual identity in his poetic endeavours more than anything else, and perhaps that’s why he chose those words. Only recently, after finding myself in a similar situation, did the meaning behind them finally dawn on me. Some people express their love through words, while others do so through actions. It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that actions are more genuine, more real, than words. And often, that’s because many use words to make grand promises they never intend to keep. Perhaps that's why young girls so often fall for guitar players or men who spin poetic lines for them—there’s a certain magic in words that feels intimate, a promise wrapped in melody or verse, making it easy to believe that the heart behind the art is as sincere as the beauty of its expression. But often, they are left disillusioned when those words fail to manifest in real, steadfast devotion. Older, more conservative folks will say it's because only love shown in actions counts, that words are fleeting and unreliable, and that in the end, it's the quiet, consistent gestures that matter most—not the fleeting thrill of sweet talk or romantic verses. That being said, there is value even in love expressed through words and gestures, as long as it’s sincere. It’s not so much about which love is superior or more legitimate, but about understanding that people have their own peculiar ways of loving others. My father was a writer. That’s not to say he did not believe in following through on important commitments, taking care of family in practical ways, not taking action during times of crisis, bailing out on his provider/ protector responsibilities. Never in my childhood did I feel short of anything — toys, games, holidays, books, pencils, even pencil boxes for that matter. He did the best he could. But he was also generous with his words — he spoke to me with warmth, shared his thoughts on what mattered to him, and often told me he was proud of me. Those words may not have solved every problem outright, but they strengthened my resolve to take them on. They didn’t resolve a crisis, yet they helped prevent us from spiralling into one many a time. Like most poets, my father reflected deeply on the human condition, drawing from his experiences with those closest to him, and much of his work captured the feelings, insights, and reflections that came from those bonds. He wrote about themes that felt too expansive to directly connect to his personal experiences or emotions—topics like the burden of existence or the search for meaning. Yet, so much of what he pondered was rooted in his own life, shaped by his interactions and relationships. Is there anything outside it? As a poet, he expressed his love to his family by dedicating a lifetime to honing an art born from those very experiences and connections. How foolish I was to mistake his poetic devotion for neglect, failing to see that his art was itself an act of love. Here I was, with no children, no adult responsibilities, and no life experience, trying to instruct a grown man on how to love his family right. In my eagerness to impress myself, I failed to appreciate this invaluable contribution he made, because he dared to hold an individual pursuit like poetry over my unreasonable demands as his adult daughter. Because he dared to be something else too, besides a father. Image source: The Waltons (1972-1981)

During one of Jesus’ famous prayers, He shares an interesting idea, and it is one that could confuse those reading Jesus’ words without knowing the context of the last months of Jesus’ time on earth. In His prayer, Jesus says to the Father, “I am on my way to you. But I say these things while I am still in the world, so that my followers will have the same complete joy that I do.” (John 17:13 CEV) Some people when reading this may get the impression that Jesus’ death was when He left to return to God. But this doesn’t add up when we look at other details of the crucifixion – including Jesus’ conversation with Mary in the garden following His resurrection. Instead, the focus at this point of the prayer is not on Jesus leaving as much as it is on Him wanting to say what needs to be said while still in this part of His ministry. The clock was ticking on being able to share a message with His disciples before the crucifixion happened, and while Jesus briefly taught the disciples following the resurrection before returning to heaven, trying to prepare the disciples for what was about to happen did have a time limit. Jesus wanted to share God’s message with them before He was arrested. Jesus wanted them to realize before the cross what the cross signified. Jesus continues His prayer-conversation with the Father by saying, “I have told them your message. But the people of this world hate them, because they don’t belong to this world, just as I don’t.” (John 17:14 CEV) “Not belonging to this world” is a characteristic of Jesus’ followers. What this doesn’t mean is standing on a street corner preaching an “us vs. them” message. Instead, this statement means that we should not focus on what the world focuses on, and we should not be swept up with the ever changing new and greatest thing. But instead of focusing on what we shouldn’t be focusing on – which is something that never works well, we should intentionally keep our focus fixed on Jesus and on keeping our connection with Him strong. Other people might hate us because they don’t understand or agree, but don’t let their opinions shake our focus off of Jesus. When we intentionally keep our focus on Jesus, ignoring the craziness of culture becomes easier because we will have an anchor holding us steady in the storms of life. This post first appeared on ReflectiveBibleStudy.com What do you think? Do you agree/disagree? Leave your thoughts below.

The on-line publication The Western Journal just released an interesting story about one State’s response to the apparent difficulties that are occurring during the very occasional use of the death penalty for those convicted of crimes appropriate for that punishment. The falling rate of capital punishment is not the result of such crimes becoming less numerous; indeed, the criminal activity in this country is not only massively greater but more violent and brutal as well! Thus, there have actually been some (very few) instances in which notorious criminals have been sentenced to pay with their worthless lives for the atrocities they have, without question, committed. Unfortunately, in several instances, the means of death – lethal injection – proved insufficient and actually tortuous at the time. Of course, the very use of a “lethal injection” as a means of execution was conceived and put into place to prevent the condemned from suffering! Previous means – hanging, electrocution and the gas chamber – being considered “cruel and unusual” to some folks – were replaced with what was, in point of fact, “lethal anesthesia,” that is, the use of the same procedure by which surgical patients are rendered unconscious. The only difference in the two circumstances being that the patient is intended to wake up when the procedure is over while, on the other hand, the condemned felon’s fate is otherwise! Now, as far as we know, the original three methods named above still work, though there can be problems even with them, but certainly there were less problems than in the so-called “merciful death” offered those for whom, perhaps, mercy itself is undeserved. And so, according to The Western Journal: “Lawmakers in Idaho have put the time-tested execution method of the firing squad back on the table for their state’s death row inmates, and one legal scholar agrees it is the right move. Modern society might view the method as archaic, but there is no denying its efficacy.” The site then goes on to describe what really should not need to be described if one is at all able to think, but perhaps it is wise that they do so. After all, malignant ignorance is so “out there” today: “Multiple shooters line up and point their rifles at a monster who long ago proved he or she had no business living among civilized people. Triggers are pulled and the whole thing is over pretty quickly. It might be bloody, but it works – unlike lethal injections, which have proven unreliable in recent years.” Now, frankly, even a firing squad is a waste of ammunition. I remember watching the film Citizen X, the story of Soviet serial killer, Andrei Chikatilo who was executed for his horrendous crimes in 1994. A soldier came into his cell, told him to turn around and kneel down. Once he had done so, the soldier took out a revolver and shot him in the back of the head. Neat, quick – one bullet! Firing squads, of course, have a different etiology and supposedly at least one of the guns is loaded with blanks as a means to relieve the conscience of the members of the squad as none knows if, for sure, his shot killed the condemned. But this also makes no sense! Even if one’s shot did not kill, the very act of participating in the execution is morally equivalent to killing the condemned! But then, those making up these types of government actions have even less brains than they have morals – and that’s saying something! Now, one might wonder, what has this decision by a single state to do with anything of interest to the “non-criminal” types such as the ordinary Americans who read (and write) opinion pieces? Well, I for one found it interesting and not a little bit suspicious. To begin with, the numbers of death penalties handed down in today’s “liberal” courts are few and far between. And when this does happen, normal, law-abiding Americans can take at least some comfort in knowing that some criminals are brought to book for their crimes! But as so few of “the condemned” ever reach death row – never mind the execution chamber – one must wonder why the need for a more streamlined method of execution! And this is the question that engaged me as I considered writing this article. First, of course, the excuse of the “unreliability” of execution by lethal injection and the obvious suffering it has caused where it has failed, sounds reasonable. But then, again, not much is “reasonable” these days. So, if it isn’t a matter of concern for the sensibilities of both the condemned and the public at large, what is the real motive behind this “governmental benevolence?” Now anyone who follows what is happening today and especially the move by our government and it’s “justice system” against all of us on the “other side” of the WOKE agenda can easily believe that as our “laws” become less and less “constitutional” and more and more tyrannous, the numbers of those who will eventually fall under the iron fist of the Deep State is going to grow possibly into the thousands – even tens and hundreds of thousands. That’s a lot of potential transgressors! We’ve already been told about the FEMA “camps,” and so many Americans believe that in a very short time indeed, those who refuse to comply will be “taken away” never to return. It is happening already in Australia and reports suggest that our neighbor to the north, Canada may well be next! And then the deluge, as they say! We know that we already have “political prisoners” – not terrorists jailed in Guantanamo but ordinary Americans in American jails and prisons. We’ve seen heavily armed “swat teams” from every alphabet agency – including the Department of Education! – making war on ordinary, law abiding Americans who are judged “domestic terrorists.” How much of a “leap” is it from what is pretty much “acceptable” today with regards to the government’s actions against those “ordinary Americans” to those same Americans being tried, convicted and then sentenced to death?! In truth, it is a mere, hop, skip and jump from 21st Century America to the reign of the Soviet Checkists and the murderers of Pol Pot, Mao and Castro! And what more swift and easy means of “removing” the “undesirable” and the “useless eaters” (other than vaccinations, that is!) than a small firing squad? Even, perhaps, as had Citizen Chikatilo, a firing squad of one? After all, we have to save our ammunition for Ukraine! Frankly, folks, it makes me very nervous indeed when our government wants to make executions “better” and “quicker” supposedly for the benefit of the condemned. When a process is being made easier, it strikes me that the change involved is motivated less by humanitarianism than convenience; that is, the desire to make that process easier to use. Nothing our rulers do today is designed or intended to make anything “more humane” or “better” for anyone but those rulers. I hope I am wrong, but history, to date, is on my side.

Never have I seen our current Leftist culture so very confused. They have found themselves in a true conundrum because they are divided not against conservatives (although some conservatives are also involved in the issue!) but against their own! Furthermore, it is truly a great problem for those on the Left who never seem to have any problems except choosing what conservative issue or individual to persecute and destroy. The issue involved? Why the current “war” between Israel and Hamas, of course. This has become an issue because there are two factions on the Left that have been able to co-exist without the fact that they are mutually exclusive becoming an issue. However, once a “war” between those two groups broke out, the Leftist agenda was not strong enough to prevent that war from spilling over into the rank and file of our Leftist brethren. Let us take a quick (and obviously offending) look at both. First are the Jews and I mean first because the Jews are the power behind the Leftist agenda going back to the European revolutions in the 1840s – and probably much further, many of whose unsuccessful proponents fled to America in time to wholeheartedly support Lincoln’s “big government” war of the 1860s. And, of course, the entire Leftist agenda was spectacularly evident with the rise of communism and the hideous tyrannies of such “cultural paradises” as the Soviet Union, Communist China, Cambodia, Cuba etc. etc. etc., ad nauseum. It was the Soviet Communists who, if not created, then at least worsened, the race issue in the United States along with every other policy and program that has produced today’s criminal “Deep State!” The power of the “Jewish lobby” has grown so immense as to make criticism of the acts of Jewish leaders into an actual “crime” identified by the label “antisemitism,” an act that now brings with it jail time in many Western countries such as Germany and Canada! Because of the present situation it is obvious how dangerous it is to criticize Israel, the center of secular Jewish power both in this country and in the world! However, on the other side, we have those on the Left who champion Islam. Why, you might ask do they do so? Because Islam hates Christianity and Western Civilization and those who are blamed for both; that is, white people of European backgrounds. Now that alone would make Islam a “blessing” to our Leftist “brethren” but, alas for the Left, Islam also hates the Jews, and not only the Jews! Islam hates and condemns the entire membership of the LGBTQ+ “community” as well as uppity women who don’t know their place and anyone else who does not bow to Allah – who is actually a Babylonian moon deity – look it up! However, for a long time, the Left in this country has supported Islam, choosing to ignore their “little excesses” because they are so anti-everything that ordinary Americans love. But now, they have crossed the line! Though the rift between Jews and Muslims is hardly a secret, so far, the Left has been able to do a great deal of juggling to keep that fact from interfering with the use of both groups to further their agenda but this has been ended by the current “war” in Israel. One clear evidence of this new situation can be found in the Garden of Eden of the Left, academia! There are not only a lot of Jews in academia, but in that hot house of hysteria and hyperbole, the agenda of the Left has been put into place through the use of generations of “students” who now pursue “social justice” rather than knowledge – for if there’s one thing social justice is not, it is knowledge! Today we have the rather amusing development for conservatives, at least, of academia being openly antisemitic! That’s akin to pro-aborts supporting the protection of the unborn, for God’s sake! Of course, this same situation applies across the cultural board, but it is in academia that we see the most blatant example of the progressive implosion! The Left has always been able to thwart and forestall the conservative response to any issue through the courts and the media, using the former to refuse judicial restraint of liberal overreach and the latter to bludgeon into insensibility any sensible conservative response to Leftist idiocy. But what can the Left do now? Where do they go to stop snowflake students from acting “antisemitic” in their support of Hamas and how do they help Jewish academia to silence the Leftist voice of their own students? Where do you go when you both agree and disagree with both sides? Leftist academia has been telling their “students” for years that they are right and everybody else (but those self-same academics) are wrong! Ah, but when, according to those same academics, antisemitism is not only wrong, but a crime, how do they deal with a student body that openly and completely condemns the very bastion of Jewishness, Israel? For years these students have been supplied with “safe spaces” in which to wall out anything with which they disagree or find offensive. But those running these same “safe spaces” are Jews and what will they do now when their students wish to bring antisemitism into the very “safe spaces” those Jewish academics provide? So, of course, today you see institutions such as Harvard being blamed for the unforgivable crime of antisemitism. Why? Because all those smart profs cannot figure out how to keep their brain dead “students” from overturning the Jewish applecart while both keeping and denying their own agenda! It is a very interesting and amusing conundrum indeed – especially for us conservatives!

I enjoy a good disaster film. Movies such as San Andreas, Independence Day, Godzilla (in all its many manifestations!) and other such “block busters” are good fun on a rainy afternoon. This is especially true these days when the industry’s present “special effects” give great reality to situations that in earlier days were simply never attempted or if attempted, poorly achieved! Of course, while we watch the ongoing havoc in the film, we are naturally concentrating on the main characters. I remember two particular scenes in San Andreas, the earthquake taking place in a restaurant in a skyscraper and a tsunami entering San Francisco. Both show the deaths of many people in those two settings as well as the escape of some of the main characters from the mayhem! Of course, one focuses on the main characters, the others – the “extras” – are simply consigned to their part of the narrative, usually death in great numbers! Occasionally, however, there are characters one meets earlier in the film that are then reintroduced before they die. For instance, in one of the tsunami scenes we meet an elderly couple who had earlier met the main characters being crushed by the liner, Queen Elizabeth that has been flipped over on top them by the wave! But aside from those infrequent “other people of interest,” for which the audience is expected to display at least a few moments of interest and remorse, the rest of the “deceased” are nothing more than “background” and those who play them in the film are even called “extras” because they have no lines to speak other than the occasional scream or expletive. There is an old Indian belief that one’s conscience is a three sided figure whose points are sharp. When the conscience is “offended,” it spins – and because of those sharp points, it hurts! But if it spins often enough, the “points” wear down so that it hurts less and less as time goes on. I believe we can see this today, especially if we look back a generation or two. Things that would have aroused our horror and anger in, say, 1950, now seem not only commonplace and unremarkable but sometimes even possibly worthwhile in some bizarre way; that is, much of what is so very wrong in our culture is at present, not worthy to be remarked upon much less condemned. And as the death count rises from wars and crime and drugs and all the rest, those who perish appear to us as nothing more than extras in the film of life. British poet Alexander Pope once opined upon the results of exposure to wickedness and its resultant apathetic acceptance: “Vice is a monster of so frightful mien, As to be hated needs but to be seen; Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, we first endure, then pity, then embrace.” Another cause of our apparent inability to see the extent of our present human casualties is the fact that people no longer view reality directly – at least a good majority of the time. We have become spectators in and of our own world. Like movie and theater audiences, we sit and watch reality – or, often more precisely unreality – play out before us. Soon, the violence in films – violence we know to be fictional – influences those images that actually involve reality. The dead in seen documentaries are little different from the dead appearing in disaster movies when we are no more than spectators; that is, they do not move us even to pity, never mind concern and a desire to intervene on their behalf in order to bring them some semblance of justice. Indeed, we have come so far from reality that quite often when we ourselves become “extras” in the “film of life,” we are astonished at this turn of events! That’s not how it was supposed to happen after all, for we are the main characters in our particular “film!” But when it does happen that way, we rush to place the blame on those whom we believe should have protected us, often from our own stupidity! It is no wonder that the Deep State and the rest of the New World Order were able to use the threat of COVID to turn us into obedient – and stupid! – sheep! Another consequence of this “spectatorship of life” is the loss of our ability to respond quickly and with sufficient strength to situations that arise detrimental to the well-being of ourselves and our fellow man. This is further complicated by our failure to keep ourselves sufficiently informed to prevent the use by our rulers of fear as a means of ensuring our compliance with their often totally unreasonable, unrealistic and frequently dangerous mandates to situations many of which they themselves have created! After some great disaster occurs and many lives are lost, we learn that in most cases there were sufficient warnings to either prevent or address that disaster prior to its occurrence! How many books and films have dealt with historical “what might have beens” from the sinking of the Titanic to the attack on Pearl Harbor. People knew the risks and shortcomings. They were aware of those same “might come to pass” situations but they chose to ignore rather than respond in a timely fashion. One thing about both movies and reality is that the “extras” can never be revived and brought back to life. Death is as eternal in fiction as it is in reality. More importantly, we also usually learn that most of the casualties arising from these disasters were frequently the result of ineffective or intentionally dangerous responses by our “leaders” that have been put into place in the name of protecting the public! Indeed, we have recently learned that most if not all government “response” to the so-called “pandemic” of 2020 were specifically designed to do more damage to the population than was ever threatened by the “pandemic” itself! This was not a “response” to a public danger but an agenda, a strategy to bring about what is, in fact, now happening: genocide of the world’s “excess population” – that is, the world’s “extras.” Nowhere is this more obvious and more egregious than in what has been presented to the world as a means by which this mythic “pandemic” has been, will be and is being “overcome,” the creation of “vaccines” by a number of Big Pharma corporations acting in concert with the United Nations and the governments of the world together with the medical and public health establishments. These “medicines” have been “made available” to the public beginning in 2021 and ongoing to date. Indeed, they have not only been “made available” but in many governments and their agencies, they have been mandated even for those people who admittedly run little risk from the COVID virus itself – children, healthy adults and those who have already had the disease and (easily) recovered. On the other hand, the vaccinated “extras” who have either been severely injured or who have died – or will die in the foreseeable future – number in the millions! Some of the deaths that have resulted from this “campaign” have been doctors and scientists attempting to make the danger known to the public. Those who have not been killed outright (and, yes, that HAS happened!) have been censored and marginalized to the point at which none of their warnings are begin taken seriously except by those relative few who are intelligent enough to give no credence to the “sworn word” of their government and its minions in the establishment who continue to claim that these poisons are both “safe and effective!” The numbers are astronomical, even those admitted to by the various governments and this does not take into account the known fact that only a small percentage of the injured and dead have actually been counted! The interesting thing here is that the media – social and otherwise – have provided firsthand witness to this plague. We’ve seen people being struck down with horrible seizures and even with death itself everywhere from television broadcasts to athletic events and more mundane settings such as nail salons and restaurants! One would think that a pretty young chef dying during a broadcast of her cooking show would have caused outrage together with real (and understandable!) hysteria in the viewing public, but like those who died in San Andreas, her fate merely caused mild regret and even more mild interest. It wasn’t “real” though for the young woman, it was fatally real. It would seem that our present condition of spectators to our own extinction will make that much easier than might otherwise have been the case! On the other hand, the strategists who were banking upon our lack of response to an actual catastrophe because they were busily covering the facts of the matter failed to take into account something as mundane as the insurance industry and especially the life insurance industry! No society can ignore matters involving large amounts of money and when those companies began to report huge increases in the percentages of deaths among healthy people from ages 16 to 64 many in the world’s “viewing audience” began to take notice! A Dutch life insurance company, Aegon, reported that its 2021 payments skyrocketed an amazing 258% from its 2020 payments! Reuters reported via Yahoo Finance: “Dutch insurer Aegon, which does two-thirds of its business in the United States, said its claims in the Americas in the third quarter were $111 million, up from $31 million a year earlier. U.S. insurers MetLife and Prudential Financial also said life insurance claims rose. South Africa’s Old Mutual used up more of its pandemic provisions to pay claims and reinsurer Munich Re raised its 2021 estimate of COVID-19 life and health claims to 600 million euros from 400 million.” All insurance companies and not just life insurance providers are slowly coming to realize the truth about COVID vaccines despite the efforts of a murderous mainstream media and our complicit “governments” and “hi-tech” sector to cover up the accelerating death rate. The signals now emerging in the financial books of insurance companies can’t simply be ignored for these don’t involve the ordinary “viewing audience,” but a large part of our nation’s (and the world’s) economy. Financial companies are always interested in the “trends” of finance and that trend is monstrous! For far too long, far too many people have sat and watched history happening the way they watch sports or films. For some reason, they do not equate what’s happening with themselves personally or if they do, they cannot believe that they will suffer anything worse than financial and/or physical inconvenience. Very few members of the viewing audience put themselves in the place of the people dying in San Andreas or the "extras" dying in any other disaster film; they don’t say what used to be said back in the good old days, “There but for the Grace of God go I!” And believe me, that’s how our “government” wants it to stay! But let us pray (earnestly!) that our elite rulers finally have to say what it is claimed was said by Admiral Yamamoto after the attack on Pearl Harbor: “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.” For, my friends, if we are not awakened from our present moral sleep, our next sleep will be eternal.

Message: communication; exchange of information Messenger: someone carrying a message Two Means of Conveyance: Consider the “art” of cheerleading. At its most basic, cheerleaders are involved in the effort to bolster support for some athletic group. There is nothing subtle about cheerleading and no one is confused as to which “side” those involved support. There is no attempt by cheerleaders to change the opinions of supporters of the other team or to win for their side the loyalty of any uncommitted spectators, supposing, of course, that such do exist. In other words, “cheerleading” is nothing more than a [loud] statement of commitment to one side or the other in a contest. That is certainly one way of conveying a message. However, it is a very limited method that, at best, can only convey a very limited message—that is: “Support our side!” But there comes a time when a much more complex message must be conveyed and therefore, a much more nuanced method of conveyance is required. This used to be accomplished by means of “the debate.” A debate assumes that there will be uncommitted or objective people among the hearers not dedicated to one side or the other of the issue being debated. Unlike cheerleading, a debater—or messenger—must move his listeners with logic, reason and facts, a circumstance that takes a great deal longer than a five minute “cheer.” There was a time when fundamental matters of society were brought before the public in this forum as, for example, in the Lincoln-Douglas debates in the 1850s. And while we still have debates during elections today, often, for one side at least, they constitute more of an ambush than a rational discussion. The Present Difficulty: Sadly, any attempt to bring an important message to the public at large these days is seriously compromised by three factors. The first is the diminished attention span of that public; the second is a woeful lack of knowledge about and interest in the matters involved; and the third is an all-encompassing apathy regarding any subject other than sports, spectacle or sex. As a result, messengers find themselves unable to convey a subject of any complexity before their listeners’ eyes glaze over and the opportunity is lost. As a result, they are forced to resort to short but powerful messages in which is usually manifested the “all-or-nothing” style of rhetoric—that is, “all [of this group] do, say and/or believe “a” or “none [of that group] do, say and/or believe “b”! But as soon as the words “all” or “none” appear in any message, you may be sure that the person using such terms is a “cheerleader” and not a messenger! The Conundrum of “All” and “None” The problem with “all” or “none” rhetoric is that it is extremely limited and to pursue it beyond its stringent limitations causes the matter to lose all credibility. One may only use such terms as “all” or “none” in the dissemination of factual information. For instance: “The plane crashed and all aboard died,” or “In the fire, none were burned.” These very specific instances involve situations that are limited and definite enough for such contentions to be valid and verifiable. But when circumstances are more complex, the problem with the “all or none” contention becomes ever more acute. For example, consider a study in which the contention is made that in a particular school, all the students are right-handed. While one might be willing to accept that conclusion if the school were sufficiently small—as right-handed people greatly outnumber their left- handed counterparts—few indeed would accept such a claim if the school were, say, the University of California as it is statistically inconceivable that there would not be a certain percentage of left-handed people within such a large population. So, while the claim of “all” (or “none”) might be at least possible within a limited context, as soon as it is applied outside of such restrictions it becomes nonsense and a message that contains “nonsense” is self-defeating. Now, if the messenger wishes to preach only to the converted, such rhetoric may be used because the hearer is already an advocate and in agreement with the messenger’s contention. But if the message is itself important, such a limited conveyance is ineffective at best and self-defeating at worst. In the public forum, there are people who are not committed to the particular “side” of any issue; indeed, they may not even understand the issue itself! Obviously, these “uncommitted” are the people whom the messenger wishes to win over to his side of the debate! That is the whole point, really, of the communication of messages. One wishes to convert the uncommitted and this cannot be achieved by mindless repetition of claims and contentions through the use of, among other things, “all or none” oratory, especially when it involves the condemnation of groups of people. Such rhetoric tends to discredit the messenger and, hence, the message. Engagement in the blanket condemnation of any group often causes all but the converted to reject the messenger and as a result, the message. The “Blanket Condemnation:” The primary target of the “all or none” message is usually groups of people, and, as that engages the concept of group guilt—something most rational people reject out of hand—the message is usually rejected as well. Yet the question may be asked, is there ever a legitimate target for the very concept of a “blanket condemnation” and the answer is “yes.” But it is a decidedly circumscribed “yes!” involving not groups of people, per se, but groups created by people. For such groups almost always have a “creed” which defines them, while those who belong to them do so voluntarily and, it is assumed, subscribe to that creed. Ergo, if a group’s raison d’etre is condemnatory, then it is not unreasonable to believe its members are also worthy of condemnation—yes, even as a group. And while the all-encompassing condemnation of groups of people will probably result in a negative response from the objective and rational, the narrow condemnation of certain voluntary associations of people is perfectly legitimate when the groups’ agendas are revealed. Placing Blame: Today, Western civilization totters on the brink of collapse. Third World peoples who have no history of—or love for—the West, pour into Europe and the United States while the West’s “native”—that is, white—population apparently has lost the will to survive, either aborting and contracepting itself into extinction or choosing perverted and sterile relationships that cannot create offspring, never mind the stable family, which is, of course, the foundation of civilization itself. During this chaotic and dangerous period there are decent, concerned and knowledgeable people trying to warn their fellows of the situation extant, but many of their messages contain open hostility to certain groups of people whom they believe responsible for our current (and past) woes. However, because this message focuses upon a group, it is overwhelmingly rejected by the “uncommitted” for whom it is intended. Indeed, often such “messages” appear to leave the plane of rationality and descend into paranoia—and a paranoid message is dead on arrival as Richard Nixon discovered! Most objective people will say, “show me someone who actually did something and I will condemn him. Tell me that a person is one of millions of a certain racial, ethnic and/or religious group and is therefore guilty for that reason alone and I will ask you, at what point does an accident of birth become wrongdoing?” Guilt is an individual and not a group condition and the condemnation of large numbers of people simply because they belong to this or that group, is neither rational nor useful. Worst of all, it leads to sloppy thinking and sloppy communication. Admittedly, group condemnation is much easier than building a case for individual guilt. There is no need to provide credible, validated information, or, in the alternative, one may present such information in individual cases and then extrapolate to include everyone else who fits into the targeted set. In the end, this type of message means that the messengers need only to point and shout, something rather like cheerleading, if with the opposite intention! Invoking The Negative Response: When I hear or read people who talk about “groups”—whether they are Jews or blacks or whites or whatever—my immediate response is to discount what is being said. Now, when someone references individual instances, even within a larger context—that is something else. Here is information that includes names and dates and credible, verifiable facts. But even in that instance, the temptation to extrapolate what is proved into a claim that “all” of this or that group is/was responsible, is false and, worse, foolish because it weakens the rational conclusions based upon those facts that are known and cannot be disputed. Now, many people communicate these overarching concepts in an effort to reach an under-educated and apathetic public with an all- important message, and therefore use the condemnation of a high-profile group to gain attention. But in doing so the message is often lost because the uncommitted and ignorant hearer confuses it with mindless prejudice. For Want of a Nail . . .: There is an old saying: “For want of a nail, a kingdom was lost.” This is an allusion to the laming of King Richard III’s war horse, White Surrey who threw a shoe on the battlefield at Bosworth. This, supposedly, led to Richard’s death and the loss of his kingdom to his adversary, Henry Tudor. Of course, the saying has a much larger meaning—that is, for the lack of care in small matters, large matters may be adversely – even fatally affected. It is not enough to be sincere. I remember Jane Fonda’s incredibly foolish assertion about her politics in the 1960s, “I must be right because I am so sincere!” People can be sincerely wrong! Sincerity proves nothing regarding whether something one believes is in fact, true or false. If I board a plane in the belief I am going to Miami, but the plane is going to Chicago, I will not arrive in Miami! In the same way, people trying to convince Americans of our danger in the present national—and world—crisis, will not be successful using group condemnations and “all and/or none” rhetoric however sincere they may be. The time has come to realize that it is not enough to “fight hard!” We must also “fight smart.”

This writing is a continuation of my posting called “Thoughts on the Guilt Industry” where I commented on a movie which was a bit of an expose on DEI. I have worked in corporate environments, so I had some fleeting familiarity with the precepts of this movement. However, I decided to gather a bit more first hand data on the topic just to satisfy my insatiable curiosity. I have listened to dozens of presentations and also reviewed what consultants in the space are offering. I believe I have come to some understanding of the DEI industry and through this developed some opinions. Allow me to walk with you through some of this information. I want to start this by sharing my starting place in this case. There is a concept put forward by Stafford Beer that says that the purpose of a system is what it does (POSIWID). He was implying that all of the talk about what a system is intended to do is irrelevant if it fails to accomplish those goals. I am going to take this perspective as I think about DEI. What does the DEI industry state as the problems that it is meant to addresses? Based on my reading on the topic, the purpose is as follows. Address historical and systemic barriers to under represented groups Promote opportunities equally to people regardless of their background to help them contribute their skills and perspectives to organizations and society in general Build inclusive cultures by addressing and preventing workplace bias, promote inclusivity, recognition, respect, and appreciation for diverse individuals Help and encourage people to participate in the correction of these problems rather than wait for others to do so If we take a DEI consultant’s more pragmatic perspective, we come to a slightly different understanding of the problems, purpose and the services they provide.The lack of representation of marginalized groups in leadership and decision-making positions Unconscious biases and microaggressions in hiring, promotion, and performance evaluations Inequitable access to resources, training, and opportunities Exclusionary practices and cultures that silence or marginalize certain groups The DEI industry then ensures that everyone understands how biased we are and helps us and our businesses remediate the negative impact of those biases. Much of the focus is on ensuring that people of color and women are getting more representation in all levels of the company. So, what about results? Honestly, it’s hard to tell. Everything I read regarding results ends up just addressing the items that they are attempting to ameliorate. For example, in an article in Forbes i, they indicate that potential employees are actively looking for diverse workplaces and as such, if you want to hire the best and brightest, you will need a DEI program. This vague language is part and parcel of any request to show actual benefit from these programs. The few demonstrable areas where ‘progress’ can be shown is in the color and sex demographics of the businesses. However, the correlation information between these programs and business performance are sorely lacking. In fact, other than a few anecdotal incidences of bringing outside individuals onto a development team to inject some new ideas, I am not finding much in the way of concrete improvements in things like margin, sales, growth or any of the criteria we use to determine business success that can be linked to the DEI concept. I was encouraged when I found a Forbes article called “11 ways DEI In the Workplace Can Boost A Company’s Bottom Line” ii. Of the items on the list we have “It Creates Leader Credibility” and “It Creates Empathy”. While some of the elements on the list may be desirable in a company, it hardly counts as boosting the bottom line (aka profit). Ok, so maybe I don’t understand the long term view of DEI and how over time it will benefit us in ways that my feeble mind can’t understand right now. I looked back in our history to find another crisis that required immediate and expensive action, poverty. Poverty records were not kept officially prior to 1947. However, there are those who made credible estimates such as Gordon M. Fisher iii. Prior to 1900, the poverty rate is estimated at around 70%. By 1900, the poverty rate had dropped to around 40% and is estimated to have held steady through the 1930s at around 35%. By 1947, the first official measure by the Census bureau came in at 22.4% and continued to drop to 17.6% by 1960. The US Government put their anti-poverty system into place iv via the “Economic Opportunity Act” starting in 1964. From then until now, the poverty rate has hovered between 11% and 16% and was approximately 12% in 2023. In January, 2024, the House Budget Committee v stated that we operate “nearly 100 interrelated welfare programs, spread across 14 government departments and agencies, and nine budget functions” at an annual cost above one trillion dollars. I ask you, what is the purpose of that system? The obvious answer would be to maintain just enough poverty to justify re-directing one trillion dollars of tax to the purpose of developing welfare programs, structures, jobs and grift that support it. Certainly, it was not designed to win the “war on poverty”. I see similarities with the focus of the DEI industry on racism and sexism during it’s most recent adaptation starting in 2019. Many of the metrics that are measured to gauge diversity have been continuing to improve naturally through the culture since the end of slavery and the rapid inclusion of women in the workforce encouraged during WWII. Then, somewhere along the way, the federal government began to model what they wanted society to implement. They began to change pay rates, hiring rates and representation based on skin color and sex.vi This naturally led to similar requirements to be specified through the federal government’s procurement processesvii with regard to vendors and suppliers. Now, businesses that wish to participate in downstream government contracts must hire their own DEI consultants to implement and prove their compliance. Most of which is unnecessary because our culture continues to progress naturally toward wider integration. What are the long term affects of this series of programs? We don’t exactly know yet because it hasn’t really been a long time. However, if it follows with most of these types of programs yearning to ‘fix’ American society, it will maintain just enough racism and sexism to justify building a trillion dollar tax program to steal from the most productive in our society to benefit lazy moralists. In conclusion, instances of sexism and racism are increasingly rare in our normal society. America’s diversity actually is a strength and a virtue. In fact, our country is unique in the world due to how we grew through immigration. We absorb all different types of people into our society successfully. However, DEI zealots are attacking our virtue and we are too concerned about our morality to reject their claims of inherent racism and sexism. I have realized that the entire concept is a misleading, manipulative sabotage grown from a few accurate but highly selective facts about how different people get different results from the world. i Tynes, B. (2024, August 12). Council post: The importance of diversity and inclusion for today’s companies. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbescommunicationscouncil/2022/03/03/the-importance-of-diversity-and-inclusion-for-todays-companies/ ii Expert Panel (2024, August 12). Council post: 11 ways dei in the workplace can boost a company’s Bottom Line. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesbusinessdevelopmentcouncil/2021/12/15/11-ways-dei-in-the-workplace-can-boost-a-companys-bottom-line/ iii Fisher, G. (1997). Poverty Lines and measures of income inadequacy in the United States since 1870: Collecting and using a little-known body of historical material. ASPE. https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-lines-measures-income-inadequacy-united-states-1870 iv Public Law. (1964). Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. Govinfo. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-78/pdf/STATUTE-78-Pg508.pdf v 60-year anniversary of the War on Poverty - are we winning or losing?. The U.S. House Committee on the Budget - House Budget Committee. (2024, January 24). https://budget.house.gov/press-release/60-year-anniversary-of-the-war-on-poverty_-are-we-winning-or-losing vi Executive Order on Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Federal Workforce. (2021). Wikisource.org. Retrieved October 14, 2024, from https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_on_Diversity,_Equity,_Inclusion,_and_Accessibility_in_the_Federal_Workforce vii U.S. General Services Administration: Equity Action Plan. (2023). In https://www.gsa.gov/. U.S. General Services Administration. Retrieved October 14, 2024, from https://www.gsa.gov/system/files/EO-14091-GSA-Equity-Action-Plan-2023final_0.pdf

Digital Anything Posted on October 16, 2024 by john Dear Friends, It seems to me, one thing that’s being proved before our eyes, is that digital anything isn’t secure, robust or safe. Whenever anything is made digital it’s become less secure, in that it’s exposed to hackers getting at it, and making that data public. Less robust, since it can be changed at the push of a button. Plus, it’s less reliable, because we simply don’t know if anything digital is truthful anymore. The rational default should be… no, if it appears digitally, it’s probably a lie, and if the government says it, it’s definitely a lie. A road to Hell, always leads to Hell. That’s why we need to push back against the Hegelian manipulation that’ll be used to push digital currency. How can we expect digital currency to go different, than digital voting, banking or healthcare? We can’t. CBDCs will be a nightmare. Digital voting has been a total catastrophe. When the ballots were on paper, verifiable and hand counted, the results were in within an hour of the polls closing. Even as digital has ushered in an age where it can take days. Now that’s efficiency… or is it? With digital voting, the results are subject to change, depending on the whims of the hackers that find their way into the machines. Of course, with digital voting, there’s no need of voter ID… digital has made the whole thing a theater anyway. Electronic voting has taken political agency from citizens and placed it in the hands of the elite. As the elite did with freedom of speech, jury sentencing and contacting our representatives free through the mail. We can say that digital voting has alleviated us of the burden of blame. Since it makes us pawns. Social media is censored and politically correct ideas are promoted by digital magic. Rendering our ability to communicate subject to political intervention. To make sure we only talk about approved subjects in the approved manner. Else the elite claim we’re engaging in misinformation, disinformation, or maybe even malinformation. Call ’em what you will, they all mean, wrongthink. In promoting the power of the elite the digital age has been a demon send. It can make a lie appear to be reality. Digital technology has made surveillance, categorizing people and censoring, far more efficient. While it’s made communicating betwixt each other fraught with legal ramifications. Again, the introduction of digital technology to voting and communication has made them less secure, less safe and less reliable. If we go to a doctor… Our personal information is on the Dark Web, or soon will be, due to the incessant hacking done to digital servers. You don’t even have had to do business with a company for them to have all your personal information… dangling on an unsecured server. Just waiting to be plucked by a smart hacker and sold on the Dark web. Soon, it’ll be impossible to take out a loan because we won’t be able to identify ourselves… short of DNA, retinal scan or a fingerprint. Instead of facilitating commerce, the introduction of digital technology has introduced a myriad of security concerns. There’s no denying digital technology has unburdened us of the need to think though. Weakening our minds accordingly. As any muscle left flaccid long enough becomes weak. Instead of making information more credible, accessible and truthful, the digital revolution has made information more dangerous, unsecured, censored and manipulated. Given the history of digitizing things… can you imagine the utter catastrophe a digital currency would be? Combining the disaster of digital voting, with the censorship of social media, along with a total lack of personal security. The trifecta of prosperity liquidators. Then again, there are those who think, just because an action has always resulted in the same outcome… doesn’t mean it will, this time. Like jumping off a cliff… eventually, someone might sprout wings and fly. Wouldn’t that be great! Digital technology could make it appear to happen, as the bodies are hauled off. Maybe we should rethink the digital revolution? Sincerely, John Pepin

Astronomers have discovered that the universe is expanding at an ever-faster rate. Galaxies are retreating from one another while it appears that the great nebulas or “star nurseries” that brought into existence those glittering lights that adorn the night sky are becoming fewer and fewer in number, albeit, that number is still greater than our limited minds can conceive. Yet whenever something is becoming fewer without the appearance of replacements, the natural conclusion is that eventually—however long it may take!—that thing will cease to exist! Meanwhile, stars also die. Admittedly some do so quite spectacularly, spreading remains that perhaps— but only perhaps—result in the formation of new stars, while black holes, those monstrous cannibals, consume whatever gets close enough to them—including stars—to be affected by their immense gravity. Even smaller stars such as our sun, though they have a fate far more prosaic than their giant siblings, eventually shrink into white dwarfs, consuming nearby planets in the process and ultimately ceasing to exist—at least as stars. Astronomers have ruefully concluded that the end of the universe as we know it will consist of nothing more than myriad black holes. And even these monsters will eventually just disappear for apparently, they are not eternal but slowly over time, lose their substance. And, so, at the end, darkness will be the fate of what used to be the glories of our cosmos. It is a sad and depressing story, but apparently, barring the interposition of Almighty God, we are headed for eternal entropy—that is, the dark end of all things. What is entropy? It is defined as a “measure of disorder,” but it also means “the progression from something into nothing.” Entropy is a slow disintegration from the “formed” into the “unformed.” Astronomy predicts that our cosmos’ formless remnant will be utterly dark. Even The Bible mentions this, albeit in the reverse. In Genesis, Chapter One, verse Two, it is written: “And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.” Being “without form and void” is the very essence of entropy. But nature is not alone in producing entropy. Human civilizations rise and flourish and then decay, eventually ending in a formless chaos, void of all that made it a civilization in the first place. We are seeing this happening today in the West and nowhere is it moving with greater speed than in the American South, a region whose history, heritage and heroes are under relentless attack from people “void” of both reason and knowledge. These vandals are fueled by a lack of intellect and morality that prevents any “light”—especially the “light of reason and knowledge”—from reaching them. They are as a black hole in the center of what was once a great civilization and thereby represent a sure sign of cultural entropy. One of the first and most prominent societal areas that reveal cultural entropy is found in the arts. In every successive civilization as entropy set in, man’s art and literature were clear signs that the process of cultural decay was underway. Western art and music clearly demonstrate this ongoing malady, indicating how we, the people of our culture, are turning away from what was once acknowledged as beautiful and worthwhile—whether in literature, art or music—and embracing that which is ugly, profane and worthless. Often this is clearly exhibited in the semantics of the art involved—for instance, the term “rap music” is an obvious oxymoron. And, of course, this applies to other forms of “art” as well. Sometimes there is just enough value retained to create something not altogether worthless, but even then, the subject matter is frequently of a type that a prior generation would have discarded as a waste of time, energy and materials. Recently, we were unfortunate enough to be the victims of a very real example of this decline as it appears in the art form of sculpture. The object involved is a large bronze “monument” entitled “Rumors of War.” Here, the “artist” copied from a true masterpiece portraying one of those Southern heroes presently condemned by most of society. In doing so, he replaced the greater with the significantly lesser, though, of course, his subject is embraced by today’s culture as “worthy.” It is interesting to note that the sculptor does not attempt to make his subject heroic as that word is still understood. Rather, he clads it in the wretched trappings of the inner-city ghetto—high-topped sneakers, ripped jeans, a “hoodie” and that personal grooming catastrophe, dreadlocks! The only thing “heroic” in the work is a reasonably good rendering of the horse copied directly from the abandoned original! Even the rider’s posture is odd. His head is thrown back and he appears to be anxiously looking about as if in fear of exposure; it is, in fact, a rather flawless depiction of that most popular of inner-city pastimes, looting. Indeed, one wag has already entitled the work, The Horsethief! Taken altogether objectively, it would seem that the sculptor put whatever talent he possesses into the horse, perhaps because the horse has a natural nobility that even he was able to depict. On the other hand, attempting to ennoble a black “gang-banger” is quite beyond even the talents of a Michelangelo! Another abuse in this particular pairing of “monuments” is the artist’s contrast between the two subjects being memorialized. He chooses the original piece in order to nullify the tribute being paid to the man thus honored. That monument was raised to Confederate General James Ewell Brown (JEB) Stuart. Of course, Stuart is rejected out of hand, first and foremost because he was a white slave owner and secondly because he fought for the South. The present orthodoxy insists that the South fought to maintain black slavery while the North fought to “free the slaves.” Of course, that narrative will also eventually fail because there were whites who fought for the Union and because of their race, they cannot be depicted as heroes either! Right now, however, the script cannot be abandoned without confusing the acceptable interpretation. This is especially important given the lack of wisdom and rationality among those whom the artist is attempting to reach with his “message.” The sculptor, Kehinde Wiley—also black—uses the Stuart monument as a foundation for his concept, in effect, replacing the original hero Stuart with his “champion!” But Wiley’s subject represents not a man, but an archetype of the assertion that American blacks have been robbed of their superior place by evil whites! Of course, this sort of “artistic interpretation” is both intellectually and morally bankrupt. To begin with, one cannot equate an idea or concept with a human being. A concept may be excellent, but it is the product of a human mind, it is not itself human. The artist’s “heroic image” is no more genuine than a statue of Zeus and cannot be regarded in the same way as a monument to any man whose life was such that his fellow men saw fit to glorify him for posterity. So, this regressive—or entropic— “art,” replaces a true hero with a symbol representing a type of man that in better days would have been rejected by a rational society. The “ghetto horseman” embodies nothing positive or worthy of being immortalized—and this is not just a matter of race. He wears the uniform of a certain class of blacks in today’s society that are distinctly unworthy of anything but censure for their brutish and criminal behaviors. In effect, this “art” selects the worse over the better, the lesser over the greater and the degenerate symbol over the true Man. If there is a stronger example of cultural entropy, I, for one, cannot imagine it. In the end, this whole effort is admittedly designed to inaugurate the removal of the great Heroes of Western Civilization, replacing them with big statues of small people having no worth or purpose other than to warn of the coming darkness.

“We talk about the pathAnd we talk about disciplineAnd we talk about living cleanBut it is not an easy pathIt is filled with temptationsAnd pitfallsAnd hazardsAnd trapsAnd it’s hard to stay on the pathIt’s hard to stay on the path” Usually, I know a song title immediately, but this one gave me pause. We Talk About The Path? It’s Hard? It’s Hard To Stay On The Path? I didn’t like the negative intonations of the latter. The former was wrong. Still, upon its completion, the title revealed itself:STAY ON THE PATH Because that’s the message. STAY. ON. THE PATH. It’s hard, sure. But so what? You know what’s harder? Drifting from the path. Sometimes I used to take the subway from Hollywood to my studio in downtown LA, and one day, I remember so clear, as clear as a unicorn’s tear, one day the elevator was broken. The platform was a festival crush of bodies, as a human traffic jam bottlenecked the stairs. Half a dozen steps up was the cause of the jam, a single, solitary human being, one human skeleton embedded in three hundred or more pounds of bad decisions, gasping, huffing, tears streaming down the balloons of her cheeks, literally dragging her own vast ass up the stairs with both hands. Staying in shape can be hard. Exercising the discipline to eat the right foods can be hard. But the alternative is way harder.STAY ON THE PATH This is my wife’s new favorite song. She said it didn’t just give her chills, it gave her some transcendent all-over body sensation. That’s a good review. I love the song very much, and I knew it was a special one the second it appeared to me, fully formed, as Jocko’s words sailed out of my speakers. The piano, the guitars, and the drums flowed out of my fingers with the same speed, and ease. Sometimes I have to hack away at the marble for a long time until the David inside reveals itself. This just poured out and assumed the correct form, like the water alien in James Cameron’s The Abyss. It was a dream song. It remains a dream song and shall exist as a dream song for all eternity.STAY ON THE PATH The single is out now on all platforms. And the music video can be enjoyed here. The album is called WARPATH and it comes out on Meaningwave Records on November 1st. You’re gonna love it. LOVE TO YOU AND YOUR FAMILY! AKIRA THE DONDSPDC, Mexico, October ‘24 ‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎

We are mere weeks from the next – and possibly last – presidential election and I find myself getting more and more annoyed, aggravated and aggrieved with every passing day. For, as has been going on seemingly forever at this point are the endless (and I do mean endless!) requests for money that come with every e-mail and snail mail notice. Whether these are from local, state or federal candidates, whether the matter involves candidates running for high office or low, whether it even involves candidates for whom I am in a position to actually support or involves those running for office in areas in which I cannot vote (out of district and/or out of state), it matters not. For those I can’t support with my actual vote, the request is made on the basis of that candidate being (it is assumed!) of my party affiliation and therefore it is also assumed that I would want that candidate to be elected for that same reason. Obviously, if it is a candidate for whom I can vote, the matter needs no explanation. Usually, such requests immediately present to the targeted individual the amount of money collected by the candidate’s opponent and how much greater is that sum – and therefore how much more money – my money! – the petitioner needs in order to “pull even” much less “go ahead” of his or her opponent! Of course, all of this is framed within the context of the contention that absent the needful funds being supplied by the recipient of the request, the petitioner candidate hasn’t a snowball’s chance in hell of winning office! In other words, money and only money is the guarantor of victory! To that, I say, “NONSENSE!” or, in the alternative, if that is indeed the case, then God help us all! For at this point in time, I cannot imagine anyone with even a quarter (never mind a half) a brain believing that money can make any difference in any election! Both sides are abundantly clear in where they stand, what their agendas are, as well as their vision for the country and the future, and what they – at least as a party if not an individual – have already done to further that agenda. That alone should determine how people vote! It shouldn’t matter if anybody has better bumper stickers, lawn ornaments or paid advertisements. All of these “things” supposedly present information about the candidate and what he or she stands for. But let us be real here! We live in an information rich environment. Between television and the internet – never mind radio! – the only people who don’t know what’s going on are either dead or living off the grid. Now, that doesn’t mean that we/they know the truth, but we/they certainly do know a great deal of what has gone – and is presently going – on! And, thank God, there is sufficient “alternative media” out there if not to entirely overcome the mass media, then at least to put out enough factual information for those who care enough to seek it. In other words, if no candidate put out any advertisement or bumper sticker or yard sign or media commercial, people would still be very well informed as to who is who and what is what – the originalpurpose of political advertisements. And as we no longer have a system of candidates who would be acceptable to both sides simply because they are “good folks,” then we no longer have the presence of “middle of the road” office seekers encouraging cross party-line voting. It’s rather like a game of chess in which each side is sufficiently identified as to who they are and what they stand for. As their party labels do that already, there is no need for further commercials trying to attract voters! Of course, it is somewhat unfortunate that for one party at least, that situation is less so. With the Republicans, there is a far greater range of beliefs than exists among the Democrats! Now, in that sense, such advertisements may be beneficial to keep a Republican voter from putting into the position of candidate or into office someone who does not hold to his or her political and ideological values. But with the Democrats, that is not a problem and even in the case of a Republican voter, such advertisements matter only in the primaries, not in a general election where that choice has already been made! Therefore, once one arrives at a general election, the need to “inform the voters” of the candidates’ positions is patently ridiculous! If nobody said anything from the beginning of the election cycle to voting day, I doubt it would make one bit of difference! Thus, to constantly ask, request, nay, demand from me my small pittance to support what is already more than well understood is downright sinful as far as I’m concerned! Whether voters are intelligent and informed or mindless and programmed, they will vote according to their worldview; the politicians don’t need more money to achieve their aim. But, of course, money is always useful and today’s leaders believe strongly that our money is their money and therefore they use any number of enticements and offer any number of ways to make the transference of those funds from us to them! That we, the citizen/voter, are stupid enough to continue to finance what is a system designed for our destruction tends to prove that perhaps, just perhaps, they are right! Of course, there is always the possibility that there are still decent, honest, patriotic people out there who would govern wisely and well. But even so, they can be discovered if we have the character and perseverance to seek them out. Since we can no longer trust our “information networks,” and therefore the advertisements for which we are paying during an election cycle, it doesn’t cost anything – other than effort – to determine for ourselves the best candidates available. And so, I’ll keep my money, if you don’t mind (and even if you do!) and make my choice on election day. Now whether that choice will actually be counted is an unknown factor at this point in time. Indeed, if there were any way to guarantee a fair and free election, now that I would be willing to donate towards! That, and that only would get my money!

Wealthy Societies Posted on October 20, 2024 by john Dear Friends, It seems to me, what has always made wealthy societies, is access to resources made possible by trade. Especially those people with few local natural resources. Because places that import most things become industrial centers. Even in ancient times. Look at the pre-pottery Neolithic “city” of Sefer Tepe, a major hub of bead production. It could exist as a permanent community before agriculture. Trade, commerce and industry have always been, and always will be wealth creators. At the other extreme, we find that societies with an abundance, tend not to advance, have much industry or engage in trade. Why should they? They have all they need. It’s shortages that create the need to trade, and trade that brings in foreign resources and ideas, that lead to innovation. All of which lead to wealth. The existence of pre pottery neolithic permanent settlements have baffled archaeologists since their discovery. I maintain they were trading and industrial centers. Much ancient technology required tools that are stationary. It’s hard to imagine how a stone cup would be made without specialized tools. While a flint arrowhead or pestle are easily fabricated in the field, a stone cooking pot isn’t. Moreover, it’s easier to kill a few rabbits, and trade them for a stone cooking pot, than to spend the time to make one. A hunter gatherer existence is nearly perfect competition. Any advantage, no matter how small… is huge. That’s why places like Karahan Tepe existed. As prehistoric trading and fabrication centers for the local population. That fed itself, not by agriculture, but by trade. Japan was a backwater for thousands of years, until they came into contact with Western culture, and science. Which the Japanese people sifted through and quickly adopted what they saw as the best of it. Then exploded in wealth, commerce and science. Today Japan is at the leading edge of technology, science and innovation. Not because it’s blessed with natural resources, but because it became a trading and industrial powerhouse. Hong Kong grew into an economic giant despite it’s diminutive size, because all it had was commerce. No food, little water and a speck of land, it had to trade for everything, on the world market. What could it offer in trade… except the product of their labor? So the leaders allowed free enterprise to flourish and so did the economy. Until the CCP took over. Spain took literally tons of gold from the new world. Those riches made Spain the wealthiest nation on the planet. The Spaniards lived off that gold for a century. Once it was spent, they had no trade, commerce or innovation left. That had all gone away. Why learn a trade, why toil, and why farm… when there’s plenty of money? So people didn’t apply themselves, and when the money was used up, they became paupers. Rome was at one time the richest nation on Earth with the wealthiest capital. It became so rich, and that wealth made it so decadent, that it couldn’t field its own army. So it paid mercenaries to fight their wars. Until the mercenaries realized, why fight for the gold when we can just take it? So they did. Leading to the collapse of the Western Roman empire. If a people want to be wealthy, the path is not to take money and live in luxury, not to abet cronyism, or to regulate the economy to death… but to engage in trade with the world, import, export, innovate, industrialize, and allow free enterprise to work. Educate the kids to be entrepreneurs instead of worker bees. Use the military to keep trade routes open… not force the will of the local elites on the world, or as a tool of politically favored corporations. These things are only possible when the government is limited, free of corruption and transparent. That’s how economies are made wealthy. Those that try to regulate, tax, and spend a nation’s wealth on boondoggles, eventually find out, once you run out of other people’s money, to make them unable to earn more… ya’ll gonna get poor. Sincerely, John Pepin

For good or ill, what remains of Western civilization will decide the fate of the world, because the West is the torch-bearer for Prometheanism, from which the modern techno-age has sprung. We strive towards infinite space exploration, speed, knowledge, power and compassion as expressions of our prime symbol of Infinity. Realize this and you see it everywhere. Unfortunately, we bargained away God, Country, and Tradition, and so lost our identity. Our resultantly lowered guard let in a fresh, overlaying, technologically-facilitated culture, patterned after the master magician Aleister Crowley’s vision of the Age of Horus, when the old Father God is replaced by the liberated but vulnerable Satanic Child, who discards the old order’s values and ways in favor of the magical play of its Will. Its prime symbol is the circumambient Magic Screen, endlessly transformational of its content and of the society it saturates. The Screen whispers to us in our insecurity that all can be remade, “closer to the heart’s desire.” Enter Communism. The Screen whispers to us in our foolishness that all cultures are equal and good to welcome in. Enter Islam. The Screen whispers to us in our vanity that we can summon and control demons. Enter AI. The military-financial blob sees opportunity in all this, as an obliterated public identity rocked with alien invasion, unreliable information overflow, and a million glittering drugs, is helpless to stop the imposition of techno-feudalism. As Socrates said, democracy gives way to tyranny. Before the West is completely ruined, some might resist this, lashing out mindlessly, or with malformed ideology. There’s no telling whether Providence will allow the West to rise to its own defense. If it does, then a civilizational-wide civil war is in the cards, to crush Communism, push out Islam, and bind AI before its “inversion of praxis” remolds the human mind into the likeness of machines. What it comes down to is whether the West can enthrone the idea of man being made in the image of the Trinitarian God, and therefore creative, and therefore needing a society that fosters this creativity, or whether it will be eaten by wolves. Without Jesus Christ as the cornerstone of the West, with the “Filioque” principle of the Holy Spirit flowing from Christ, from the Son, and therefore from the adopted children of God, the infantile Crowleyan Child is helpless to resist the lure of Communism, the terror of Islam, and the deceptions of AI. Cutting past such noise, we see that the immortal Church is a kind of new Ark that--when its understanding of man, interpreted by Prometheus and taught to Crowley, is rediscovered, transmitted and assimilated--will allow the Ships of State to rise above the tumultuous Flood of the postmodern world. The great moral challenge in the world today is thus to overcome its Eighth Deadly Sin: the “contempt of mission,” the despair and apathy towards the fate of the West, and so of man and the world; and find the scattered resources, wherewithal, and courage to defend it against the bestiality of the enemy. Succeed, and infinite space awaits us, as the image on the screen is of a sublime crucifixion.

It’s a curious thing, this debate between man and the bear that sprung up on social media a few months ago. The gist of it is simple enough—women are asked to choose: would they rather find themselves alone in a forest with a bear or a man? In the original TikTok video that sparked it all, eight women were asked the question, and seven of them picked the bear. When the post went viral, women from all over chimed in online, and, overwhelmingly, they echoed the same choice. The reason cited behind the choice of the bear was associated with the widespread violence and sexual assault committed by men towards women. It didn’t stop there. On came a tirade with arguments stretched to all proportions, some, admittedly understandable, while others ridiculously far-fetched. But the underlying message was clear: women claimed having felt unsafe around men for much of their lives, and were now saying they'd rather take their chances with a bear. I don’t deny for a second that most, if not all, women have, at some point, felt their physical safety threatened by a man. That’s a reality we can’t ignore. But what baffles me is how so many women seem to have overlooked the flip side of this. Haven’t we also found ourselves feeling safer in dangerous situations because of a man? Whether it was a father, a husband, or a brother we turned to when things got rough—or even the police, when the danger loomed too large. When war came knocking, it was men in the army we relied on to stand between us and harm. These were all men. It’s astonishing how women overlooked this tiny detail. We felt physically threatened because of violent men. We also felt safer because some men were willing to commit violence to protect us. And even if you happen to be one of the fortunate women who’s never had to worry about her physical safety, chances are you live in a safe neighbourhood in a country where laws exist to protect you—and where those laws are actually enforced. And who’s doing that enforcing? Men! Most of us have never come face to face with a bear. I know I haven’t—unless you count the one caged behind bars at the zoo. So how is it that we’ve gone our entire lives without a single bear encounter? By living behind walls built by men (after all, over 90% of construction workers are men). By living in cities designed and constructed by men. By relying on strong men risking their lives in wildlife management to keep us safe from ever running into a bear in the wild. And now, after enjoying all the safety and security of our developed, urban worlds—where bears are a distant thought, and where we’re so far removed from the actual fear of encountering one—we go and pick the bear over the man? If that’s not a facepalm moment, I don’t know what is! If this were just a joke, I’d laugh along with everyone else. But the problem is, these women sounded like they really meant it. The second issue I have with choosing the bear over the man is that it’s a blatant lie. These women think they’d choose the bear—but only because it makes for a strong political statement. In reality, if they ever found themselves face-to-face with a bear and saw a man nearby, especially one with a gun, they’d do whatever it took to get his attention and beg him to help. And if that man turned out to be a rapist or a murderer? Well, they'd cross that bridge once the bear was no longer a threat. That’s just how we behave in life-threatening situations. You deal with the immediate danger first, and worry about the "what-ifs" later. In the end, what we see here isn’t really a question of whether a bear is less dangerous than a man—it’s a reflection of a deeper frustration. Women, having faced harm and fear, are expressing their distrust in a society that they think hasn’t done enough to make them feel safe. But by choosing the bear, they risk oversimplifying a much more complex issue. When push comes to shove, survival instincts don’t leave room for political statements. Extreme statements like choosing a bear over a man, while emotionally charged, oversimplify the nuanced relationships between men and women, particularly in moments of crisis. Yes, men can be threats, but they are also protectors, and much of the safety we enjoy in our modern lives comes from their efforts. Image source: The Waltons (1972-1981), Season 1, Ep. 4 - The Hunt

Christians seem to be obsessed with extracting a confession of faith out of him. He doesn’t want to do it. And even if he does, there is a bigger problem. His belief is not the same as yours. It’s tricky to navigate a conversation on religious belief and theology with Jordan because he uses the same language they do. Statements like, “The truth will set you free,” “Christ rose from the dead,” and “Heaven is real.” And it is precisely this fact of common language that fools many Christians into presuming Jordan actually means what they themselves mean by those words. In a recent interview with John Rich, the country singer asks Jordan point blank if he has “turned over his life to God.” And Jordan said, “I did that a long time ago.” I can almost hear the exuberant cheers coming from Christians all across America. So I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but Jordan didn’t mean what you think he meant. The central meaning is understood, I’ll agree. The phrase, “turn our lives over to God,” means that we dedicate our lives to the precepts of the highest good, the voice of conscience that calls us to the highest aim. Jordan agrees with that. But what he means by “God” is not what John Rich meant by “God.” Similarly, when Jordan says something like “Heaven is real” or “Hell is real,” Christian think they know what he meant, but they don’t. To Jordan, at least according to what he has said publicly, heaven and hell are not actual places the soul goes to in the afterlife. They are states of being—mentally, physically, and spiritually—that are experienced in this life. Jordan has clearly stated (on the Iced Coffee Hour podcast) that he does not speculate about the afterlife because it is beyond his capability to know anything about it. I’m tired of Christians trying to impose their theology on him, especially because I think he understands Christianity better than they do. After the interview with John Rich came out, the Christian corner of the internet exploded with presumptuous, clickbait-y, arrogant titles, like: • "John Rich HUMBLES Jordan Peterson..." • "John Rich's WARNING to Jordan Peterson..." It makes my blood boil. Finally, stop asking Jordan if he is a Christian because, clearly, he doesn’t want to talk about it. He told John Rich that his personal faith is a private matter and shouldn’t be displayed for all to see. What he really cares about is the message he is putting forth, and he trusts that it will be the clear fruit of his spiritual life.

Few people are truly aware of a form of research today designed to make criminals of people whose words, written and spoken, were – until our present “WOKE” era – perfectly acceptable and even, in many instances, distinctly worthwhile in the communication of ideas within the public forum. However, the current WOKE culture now demands that opinions held (much less expressed!) must conform to the prevailing “politically correct” understanding of what is, and is not, acceptable. The result of this totally malformed and misfit understanding of human communications has created a form of “research” carried on by various individuals and groups that involves searching or “digging” (hence the allusion to “archeology”) through a person’s past statements, quotes, references, allusions, excerpts and/or expressed viewpoints in order to discover – and subsequently reveal – whether those statements, quotes, references, allusions, excerpts and/or expressed viewpoints can be used to publicly charge that Individual with thoughts, beliefs and opinions considered offensive, hateful and/or morally – even criminally – wrong, thus making that person unworthy of public approval and possibly liable to legal prosecution and punishment. It does not matter if such statements, quotes, references, allusions, excerpts and/or expressed viewpoints were not problematic at the time they were made. It only matters that they were made and therefore they cannot be denied, gainsaid or explained away with the claim that they are being “misinterpreted” and/or “misrepresented” by the finder. But should anyone believe that this concept is something “new under the sun,” one need only look to the law to see that such efforts are not at all new! Indeed, the concept itself is so set that it possesses legal nomenclature that makes clear immediately what is being attempted. This particular legal situation is called, in Latin, ex post facto – in English, “retrospectively” or “after the fact.” An ex post facto law is one that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law under consideration. In criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed (such as charging a man who had a drink before the ratification of Prohibition!); it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in when it was committed; it may change the punishment prescribed for a crime, as by adding new penalties or extending sentences; it may extend or reduce the statute of limitations; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for the crime involved likelier than it would have been when the deed was committed. Indeed, the American Civil War was initiated when eleven Southern States chose to secede from the union created by the Constitution even though to do so was perfectly legal under that same Constitution! This “ex post facto” finding of secession as a crime when it only became one after the war initiated to punish that “crime” is an example of the dangerous nature of being able to make criminal what was not criminal when it is useful for the government to do so! Indeed, we see in that same “Civil War” the use of the institution of slavery to condemn and castigate people whose only “sin” was that they were born in the 18th and 19th centuries. For the use of that particular issue – considered the great Sin of the United States (alone apparently!) – permits our WOKE “historians” (HA!) to make of men like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Robert E. Lee and anyone else on the “wrong side” of what passes for “history” these days, to be fully and totally condemned as unworthy of any possible decency and goodness much less public reverence. Of course, the further result of that viewpoint is to make the country founded by those same former individuals – such as Washington and Jefferson – also unworthy! And as there is no requirement in our “archeology” to report accuratelyabout anything said and or done by people now long dead, they are unable to defend themselves or make mention of the fact that their actions during that period of history are being made into ex post facto moral and even legal crimes! The mind numbing and constantly ongoing allusions to slavery in any and every coverage of this nation’s history – whether written or visual – together with the fact that former uncontested national heroes are, when considered appropriate – that is, when they are white! – always defined in relationship to slavery. They are always – no matter what the subject referenced! – defined as and referred to as “slave owners,” a matter that clearly indicates the agenda being advanced by these so-called “historians.” Returning to the here and now, trying to “incriminate” an individual by virtue of repeating some presently unacceptable and offensive position or statement even if it were made years ago seems to anyone with a brain to be, at worst, nonsensical! But remember, what God given freedoms formerly guaranteed to us as Americans by our Constitution are disappearing faster than ice in a furnace and when what was legal becomes illegal – and if the concept of ex post factohas been well and truly established – few indeed are those who will escape prison – or worse. And, finally, this has all been made a thousand times worse by our technological revolution that now records – and saves – all that most of us say and do. We can no longer hope that our freely expressed opinions can be, if necessary, denied much less hidden! Actually, it is worse even than that, for with AI we now have the capacity to present an image of what is purported to be any individual saying (and doing!) anything! Eventually they won’t even need ex post facto, but for now, at least, it gives the Deep State the ability to obtain a “background” on anyone should they wish to deliver that individual to prison or the grave! What Americans have learned since 2020 about the tyranny that runs our once great country reveals that there is little (or no) hope that anything ordinary people – or even extraordinary people – can do will stop our long march into the darkness. “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”― George Orwell, 1984

Back around the year 2012, I bought a vocal processor for some of my song writing, recording, and performing endeavors. It was a TC Helicon Voicelive 2. At that time, it was a REALLY good vocal effects processor. The Chief Operating Officer (COO) David Hilderman was one of the engineers that worked on TC Helicon's vocal processors. But wait! Did I say he was an engineer? Uh oh, look out:https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-ppc-engineer-title-1.7061266 Canada is gon' getcha! Apparently back in December of 2023, Canada's tyranny and desire to control free speech manifested itself in David's life. I never expected that a man who played such a vital role in my music life—giving me a tool to engineer my own sounds while live on stage—would surface into the news in such a horrible way. Apparently Canada wants to revoke his right to be called an engineer. Apparently they want to tell everybody else, "Hey, this guy is not an engineer, because an engineer is what we say it is." It's sad and sickening. They don't want to allow a guy—who successfully designed, built, planned, analyzed, tested, and maintained electronic structures and gadgets, including a complex system like a vocal processor—to call himself an engineer. Why? Was it because he didn't do that thing engineers do—designing, building, planning, analyzing, testing, and maintaining complex systems or structures? Unfortunately, Canada has reached a new level of retardation—again! We will see what becomes of their industry and economy as long as they continue to micromanage and diminish their competent workforce.

Five hundred years ago in Italy, a famous puppet show came into existence. It was known by the name of its two protagonists, a “husband”—Punch—and his “wife,” Judy. Other characters would appear from time to time, but Punch and Judy were the stock in trade and so the show carried their names. Punch was derived from a Neopolitan stock character Pulcinella, a manifestation of the medieval “Lord of Misrule,” a “trickster” figure found even among the Vikings, a culture not known for its humor, but whose demi-god Loki was one such mischief-maker. In Britain, under Cromwell’s puritan rule, the show was rather low key but with the death of Cromwell and the ascension of Charles II to the throne, the Punch and Judy we know today began to emerge as the Restoration ushered in a far more morally tolerant period. The show originally used marionettes but these were later replaced by glove puppets to accommodate the characters' almost continuous violent gesticulations. Punch was also extremely popular in Britain's American colonies, where it is known that George Washington once bought tickets for a show! The characters were continually at war with each other and Punch would say and do outrageous, often maniacal things to Judy, only to suffer violence in return. It was this brutishness, unfettered by civility and the rules of social discourse that made the show so popular and not only among children but adults as well. It was—and remains—a form of “safe violence” as in some of the current video games where even young children are permitted to perform acts that would be considered improper under other circumstances. But the most important point is this: in a Punch and Judy show, there is only one puppet-master! Unlike other marionette theaters, only one puppeteer is behind the scenes and that is why when a new character appears on stage, one of the other puppets — usually “Judy” — is not present. But whether the protagonists are Punch and his long-suffering Judy or Punch and some other character, the general theme is episodic violence. But only very young children see two combatants, for the child in his innocence, could make no sense of one individual waging war against himself even through the means of puppets! The adult, on the other hand, cares nothing for the lack of meaning or reality as long as he can enjoy the mayhem. Yet, suppose the adult were to see actual conflict animated by a single agent? What then? To a certain degree, that is the underlying principle of sports—whether of the individual or team variety. Yes, two forces are involved “on stage,” but they are provided with rules and regulations that determine not only the winner, but the ways in which they may conduct themselves during the contest. Yes, there are two “combatants,” but above them, there is a single “puppet-master” who makes the rules that all must obey and that eventually determine the winner. In Punch and Judy, the observer understands that neither Punch nor Judy is aware of their situation. To begin with, of course, they are puppets and, as such, have no cognitive ability while the athlete is aware of his position in the game as well who is “in charge” — and knows it is not him! If he doesn’t like the rules of the game or the consequences of winning—or losing—he is (usually) free to remove himself. Punch and Judy, have no such option! Ergo, if people find themselves in a situation that is more akin to Punch and Judy than the Olympics, we have a very grave problem. Unfortunately, that is exactly what we do have in today’s world and have had for probably several centuries prior to the new Millennia. Conservative “wag,” Pat Buchanan once opined that Republicans and Democrats were two wings on the same political bird of prey. He was quite correct as we have often seen especially in the United States Congress though it does resonate throughout all levels of government. This is the reason why, though both parties promise “change” if they are put into office at the next election, seldom does anything change at least more than superficially. On the other hand, the election of 2016 gave Americans the first glimpse of what would happen if a new character came into the established show—a character with no puppet-master at least as far as is known to date. The hysteria of the traditional politicians and bureaucrats across party lines can be understood in the context of the real puppet-master finding himself no longer in complete control of the show. But even the Trump case is insignificant with regards to the “whole show.” To understand just how immense and long-running that “show” is, we have to go back to Medieval Europe. Though it began at that time, the “show” did not become what it is today for a considerable period during which various groups arose and contended for “puppet-master” status usually well behind the scenes. So while accepted “history” covers the politics of Europe and eventually the New World with such famous figures as Napoleon, Nelson and Washington, the real puppet masters were working behind the “curtain” of anonymity or, when personally well known, their involvement as a puppet-master was usually well hidden. But the final phase of the great Punch & Judy scenario commenced when the West began to move from its former smaller political entities and waged war to create “great States” of those smaller provinces. It was in one such war that King Louis of France encountered John Churchill, the first Duke of Marlborough, leading the armies of England, the Netherlands and some small German dutchies in order to prevent Louis from assimilating Spain or, as he said at the time, making the Pyrenees “disappear.” Eventually, though Louie lost, so did everyone else and the German dutchies eventually became Germany or, more precisely Prussia, the most powerful of those dutchies while the Italian peninsular lost its glorious city-states of Venice, Florence, Rome and etc. to produce what we now know as Italy. Parenthetically, it’s interesting to note that Abraham Lincoln as he made bloody war to prevent the States of the South from constitutionally leaving the rest of the “federal union,” desired to employ Garibaldi to lead his armies because that Italian general had successfully “united” Italy. And so, with few exceptions in the West, by the beginning of the 20th century, most “nations” had reached what is recognized today as their “enlarged” geographical and governmental conditions. England had absorbed Scotland and Wales and in 1921 added Ulster – Northern Ireland – to what had become Great Britain. On the continent, France was no longer “divided” into Normandy and the various other provinces while Germany had become, for all intents and purposes, Prussia—or vice versa. The Balkans were still a multi-cultural anarchy but allowed to remain so because it was useful to the puppet-masters. And yes, there were also smaller nations in Europe, but these were never a threat to the Master Plan underway. Scandinavia was no longer inspired by its warrior Viking past and such nations as Denmark and Switzerland were not seen as a threat to any of the larger more aggressive European powers. Meanwhile, the triumph of the North in the American Civil War finally prepared that former Republic to embark upon its own empire building in the era of “imperialism.” And so, the scene for the great global Punch and Judy Show was set. There is no need to identify the puppet masters of that show; indeed, they have and have had many names but they mean the same thing in the end. Nor is there any need to recite the disaster for Western civilization that was the 20th century. A manufactured world-wide depression framed within two equally manufactured “world wars” together with many smaller “brush wars” and a long and deadly “cold war” deeply damaged the white nations of the West. And what war hadn’t destroyed, the agents of “information and entertainment” were busy undermining as they attacked the West’s Christian moral foundation. Even that Church’s denominations fell prey to hedonism, socialism and humanism. Hindsight clearly demonstrates that all the forces of a hidden agenda were at work to produce these results so as to bring forth what had been known, understood and desired by the puppet-masters for so long—the “New World Order.” Even American President George Bush used this term with the fall of the USSR in the late 1980s, an event that did not indicate the fall of communism as many believed at the time! Indeed, that system of government and economics was and remains the foundation and fountainhead of that same New World Order! Meanwhile, the alignment of the white West has remained much as it was at the beginning of the last century, with White nations arrayed against each other while the puppet-masters flood white countries with Third World parasites who sap the strength and the cultural identity of what remains of Western Civilization. Germany has suffered the most having been chosen by the puppet-masters to be the great villain. Indeed, most people today have no idea that Germany simply supported Austria after the murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie by a Bosnian Serb during the power struggles in the Balkans. As the puppet-masters had been aligning and re-aligning the various nations of Europe while stirring up each and every possible perceived insult and attack, the assassination of the Archduke and his wife soon plunged Europe into war— as was intended! This war solidified the two White camps: Britain, France, Italy, the Low Countries, Russia and Eastern Europe on one side and Germany, Austria and—oddly enough, the Ottoman Empire on the other. It also led directly to the so-called “Russian Revolution” led by non-Russian Marxists, the majority of whom were Jewish. Actually, few know that when after much bloodshed and little gain the combatants were going to claim victory and go home — against the will of the puppet-masters!—Great Britain managed to drag the United States into the war, forcing the contest to continue until finally, Germany and her ally Austria were defeated. But this was only the beginning. The rest of the century saw the puppet-masters at their best bringing on a worldwide depression, another horrific war, the rise of communism in China and elsewhere in the world along with a series of smaller, but bloody “brush wars” in a world constantly concerned with the possibility of nuclear annihilation. Now, most people reading history would see the various national Punches and Judys duking it out, destroying themselves and the world around them. Few if any see the puppet-master! To this day, Germany is the great bogyman though Stalin and his Mongol horde killed far more than did the Nazis, while the German people, browbeaten into undeserved shame embrace the black horde sent by the puppet-masters to breed them —and all other Whites—out of existence. This intention was openly promoted on a fictional cover purported to be from the well-known publication National Geographic and shows a naked black man holding a naked white woman, her legs wrapped around his torso and looking at the camera with an empty expression. The caption identifies the couple as representing the “new Europe” in which the first three letters—Eur—are white and the last three—ope—are black. And though it never appeared on the magazine, there is no question that it represents the desire of our present puppet-masters! This, of course, is the ultimate aim of the puppet-masters but as the rest of humanity is only able to see the conflict “on the stage;” that is, the puppet dupes waging war but never the puppet-master operating all of them, they have no idea that all the bloodshed and the war and the destruction from the Age of Enlightenment down through the beginning of the 21st century has been waged—as the violence between Punch and Judy—by A SINGLE AGENT! Isn’t it time that we puppets throw off our “masters” and run our own lives before we no longer have that option?

We're looking forward to reading your contest entry!

Many Christians today believe that Jesus taught peace and tolerance towards all people. In this belief, we find a movement of people who focus on ignoring and minimizing the differences between the different worldviews and many of these people do so without realizing that Jesus never really taught His followers to be this way. Jesus did teach that His followers should love others, but love is different from tolerance. In His first big message focused towards the newly-formed core group of twelve followers, Jesus tells them, “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the world. No, I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. I came to set sons against their fathers, daughters against their mothers, daughters-in-law against their mothers-in-law; your worst enemies will be the members of your own family.” (Matthew 10:34-36 GNT) This sounds like the opposite of tolerance. Jesus came and He is the cause of division between families. He even warns that His followers’ worst enemies may be members of their own respective families. It is in this context that Jesus shares a challenging statement that has bothered many people out of context. Jesus continues by saying, “Those who love their father or mother more than me are not fit to be my disciples; those who love their son or daughter more than me are not fit to be my disciples. Those who do not take up their cross and follow in my steps are not fit to be my disciples. Those who try to gain their own life will lose it; but those who lose their life for my sake will gain it.” (Matthew 10:37-39 GNT) Many people have wondered why Jesus would require His followers to love Him more than their parents or children. On the surface, this sounds selfish and opposite from a “loving”, “selfless” God. But in context, Jesus’ words make more sense. If a parent, sibling, or child does not agree with our decision to follow Jesus, then they place themselves in the group Jesus describes as our enemies. These family members may be passive in their dislike about our decision, or they may be openly hostile towards us because of our decision. When this happens, Jesus says that we are called to love them, but to love Him more. We are called and encouraged to stay loyal to Jesus regardless of who stands against us. This is what Jesus means when we are to love Him more than our closest family members. Jesus finishes off by encouraging us to not hold onto our lives too tightly. If we fear death, and we let this fear drive our decisions, then it too can pull us away from God. If we try to keep our life through rejecting Jesus because of the pressure of culture or oppression, then we may lengthen it briefly, but we will have lost it eternally. However, if we lose our lives because of our faith in Jesus, we really have only lost the sin-filled, temporary life in this age of God’s kingdom. By losing our lives because we have chosen to follow Jesus, we solidify our eternal lives in the next age of God’s kingdom – and the next age lasts forever! This post first appeared on ReflectiveBibleStudy.com What do you think? Do you agree/disagree? Leave your thoughts below.

Most times I read about Jesus blessing the children, a question enters my mind. Perhaps, when we reach heaven, I’ll ask Jesus the question personally, but until that point in time, I will be left to looking for clues from the gospels that include this event. The question is not why Jesus would have prompted this event or why He allowed children to come close. Jesus loves everyone, and He chose to value the children/infants as much as women and adults. However, in the few verses that make up this event, Jesus makes an interesting comparison. At the end of verse 16, Jesus says, “Children like these are part of God’s kingdom.” (Luke 18:16b GW) This prompts my question: What is it about “these” children that give them the status of being a part of God’s kingdom? Is it some characteristic that is present in each child, such as trust, hope, faith, love, curiosity, or something else? Is it that these children had self-control and were intently listening to and engaging Jesus in conversation? Or is it simply because these children were with Jesus? If Luke’s gospel description is correct in its additional detail that the children were “infant” age, then they likely didn’t have much if any conversation. Perhaps there was crying involved, but likely not any self-control. An infant loves and trusts their parents, and they do grow into being curious. However, as I read this event, I think that Jesus is not talking about the children themselves, as much as He is talking about “where” the children are – next to Him and being held by Him. Perhaps Jesus was telling stories to the children who were old enough to understand stories, or perhaps He was simply holding ones who were too young to realize what was going on. Either way, the children who were there were with Jesus. The children who were there may have been there without emotional or spiritual baggage. We don’t read anything in any of the gospels about the children being skeptical or questioning Jesus on His mission of being a Messiah. If the children are united in their proximity to Jesus, they also seem to be united in their acceptance of Jesus as well. As I dig into the details, what I learn most from this event is that each of us should focus on being close to Jesus personally and that we enjoy our time with Him. Accepting Jesus is one big key to being a part of the kingdom of God! This post first appeared on ReflectiveBibleStudy.com What do you think? Do you agree/disagree? Leave your thoughts below.

Our September writer's contest has now ended. We've received twenty-three entries in total, and they are thoughtful and amazing! We're quite excited about this month's topic on Free Speech, and our judges are busy reading them! We hope to have their decision by September 30th. In the mean time, we hope you'll read these thoughts too! Please leave some comments for your favorites entries! You can find all of the contest entries on the tab titled "Contest September 2024." Just CLICK HERE to jump into the category and start reading!

St. Homobonus’ name means “Good Man.” His father chose the name and his son lived up to it in every way. Homobonus (in Latin, the “H” is silent) Tucenghi grew up well-instructed in the skills of merchandising but also in holiness. He was a lover of honesty, virtue and self-respect and saw his “vocation” as that of a merchant (a businessman) and as a result, he believed that that calling was as “divine” as Holy Orders. For this “good man” believed that God wanted him to be just where he was and it was in that place – the marketplace – that he would work out his salvation. Fortunately, Homobonus married a wife who believed as he did and while others of their class might fall into greed, ambition, dissipation and vain display, the Tucenghi’s lived a fully Christian life. Because they did so, their simple lifestyle gave them the means to reach out to the less fortunate. According to Homobonus’ biographer, God set His stamp of approval on the merchant’s life by working miracles for those whom the couple assisted. So obvious was this man’s holiness and so great the witnesses testifying thereto, that Pope Innocent III canonized the merchant only two years after his death! St. Homobonus had lived up to his name; that is, he was a good man. Now, one might ask, why in these evil days would one seek this particular “saint?” We seldom think of our “merchant class” as saintly or even decent most of the time though, of course, there are saints in every group even, I suppose, among politicians! But every once in a while, Almighty God sends us help from a very odd quarter! Those whom we assume are either hostile to our plight or, at best, disinterested, suddenly find themselves the fire bell alerting the apathetic and the seduced to dangers about which they know little and/or for which they care nothing! And, of course, we celebrate our deliverers no matter who they are or from whence they have come for their service is worth far more than the particulars surrounding them! There have always been dangers in our lives, but today we have come to a point at which that danger is absolute and all pervasive; it is, in fact, mortal. Americans and other Western nations have seen communism – an evil about which we have been far too complacent after the fall of the Soviet Union – rise to the point at which Communist China is about to rule the world! Meanwhile, the West is dying (and not all that slowly!) as our institutions – including Christian churches (most of them anyway!) – are overcome and absorbed by the leaders of the New World Order using communism as its political arm and social justice as its moral meme. Nothing has made this more clear than the election of an “outsider” to be President of the American Deep State, Donald J. Trump in 2016. From that moment, our whole world has been one long open “war” against the will of the people as represented by Trump’s election. One of the major weapons of that war has been a manufactured “pandemic” begun while Trump was still in office. The resulting campaign of fear that has virtually destroyed what freedoms remained in the West needs no reiteration but the final strategic weapon produced involved the worldwide distribution of so-called “vaccines” that promised to end the “murderous pandemic” of a virus with a 99+% recovery rate for people under 65 without co-morbidities. Children under puberty were already considered as virtually immune – at least at the time. Nonetheless, suddenly, all governments and multinational corporations were demanding that everybody be “inoculated” though the “science” involved has admitted that these concoctions (that are not “vaccines!”) will not protect from COVID or prevent its spread! Of course, once this was discovered, people were assured that the relatively few vaccinated who did get COVID would suffer a much milder form of the disease but this, too, proved a lie, first, as most new COVID patients are vaccinated and second, there proved to be little difference in the intensity of the condition for the vaccinated and the unvaccinated! But it is the vaccines that have now become the focal point of this war on humanity. It is no longer just a war on personal liberty, but on mankind itself. Few indeed are the political entities that do not demand that everyone be vaccinated whether it is medically necessary or not. And this demand isn’t limited to government! The “unvaxxed” are presented as modern lepers who must be forced to “take the jab” or be removed from among the virtuous and obedient “vaxxed.” In other words, this is no longer a “medical” issue, but war against those who refuse to comply! Neither is this desire for vengeance against the “rebellious” limited to the usual suspects. For instance, a recent Heartland Institute and Rasmussen Report national poll of January 13, 2022 shows that among Democrats, 55% support fining Americans who refuse the jab, 59% support house arrest of the unvaccinated, 48% support imprisoning those who question vaccine efficacy on social media(!), 45% support internment camps for the unvaccinated, 47% support government surveillance of the unvaccinated, and 29% support the State removing children from unvaccinated parents especially if those children have not themselves been vaccinated! This type of thinking represents communist and Nazi mindsets far removed from that of a decent society – yet it is the mindset of many in 21st century America! Of course, this also represents a refusal by far too many supposedly intelligent people to believe what has been incontrovertibly proven about these “vaccines;” that is, that they are deadly! For some unknown reason, videos showing perfectly healthy (and especially young and athletic) people dropping dead sometimes within hours of receiving “the jab” has aroused no question as to the danger these “vaccines” represent! Reports from hospitals of patients with all manner of horrific “side effects” causes no doubt or distress. Huge increases in the number of spontaneous miscarriages are ignored. School districts employing cardiovascular medical personnel for primary and secondary grade students raises not one eyebrow! None of this carnage is being hidden, but the only “deaths” that seem to gain credence with the public are those whom it is claimed, have “died from COVID!” allegedly because they are not vaccinated. People are so hysterical about COVID that they aren’t paying attention to hospital protocols that actually do kill – such as the use of “Dr.” Fauci’s drug Remdesivir! – or the refusal to make use of drugs that have been available for dealing with this pathogen since the beginning, such as Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine and diet staples such as Vitamins C and D, colloidal silver and Zinc. Instead, we are exposed to experimental potions that have never been properly tested according to the regulations created by our own health agencies and designed to protect We the People! Rather, Americans buy the hype and rush in to expose themselves to noxious toxins designed to cripple or kill or forever change people’s DNA and immune systems and/or render them sterile! And thus it has gone since these “vaccines” were introduced. People are seduced or threatened or otherwise forced through the might of the State to expose themselves to death and serious injury – and nobody says nuthin’ – with very few exceptions. Those who do say something whether they are world famous physicians and scientists or even former officers of the companies producing these poisons, are either ignored, censored or murdered as was one scientist whose charges were made public and was openly murdered when the establishment was unable to refute them. Meanwhile, the internet chants declaring that these vaccines are “well tested and efficacious” continue virtually without contradiction creating a sort of “Pied Piper” of death – and nobody seems to notice or care until now! And so, what has changed? What has happened that suddenly, people are starting to take notice that there is a direct and obvious link between being “jabbed” and becoming seriously ill or even dying? Who or what is this new champion of fact, truth and actual “preventive medicine?” Was it our priests, pastors and men of God? Hell no! Was it our scholars and academicians? Wrong again! Was it our civilian and military heroes and leaders? Not a bit of it! Believe it or not, our (possible) salvation arises from practitioners of St. Homobonos’ field of spiritual endeavor – commerce! Yes, that’s right! Business! Capitalism! The marketplace! From this altogether secular field some have come forward to bring to light what doctors and scientists and other knowledgeable folks have been unable to bring to the attention of a comatose, catatonic public – that is, that these damned things kill! And what is the nature of this particular “commerce?” Life insurance! That’s right, the long existent, prosaic business of life insurance! Life insurance companies are more far serious gamblers than those who play in Vegas! They bet you, for a fee, that you will live long enough to pay into their coffers enough money to give them a profit by the time you die. They insure you for $100,000 at the time of your death, in the hope that you will live long enough to pay them $150,000 in premiums. If that occurs, in the end, they are $50,000 to the good! That’s how life insurance works and that’s why you cannot collect life insurance if you commit suicide – because you are cheating! You aren’t letting the game run its course! Of course, the odds – and the premiums – change depending upon one’s age, general state of health and occupation; that is a given. However, today this “eternal mix” that has been ongoing since the very concept of “life insurance” as a business finds itself in a very grave risk because of what is now mandated for just about everybody. As a result, the “death stats” have gone haywire! One consequence of this situation (and only one!) was reported by a Dutch Life Insurance company, Aegon, when that company revealed its third quarter, 2021 payouts skyrocketed an amazing 258% compared to the company’s third quarter, 2020 payouts. Now, since COVID was not that deadly despite the various “health” agencies’ prognostications, the only thing that could possibly have contributed to this amazing rise in “natural” deaths was, of course, the “treatment” for COVID including the “vaccines.” In 2020, the present “vaccines” ostensibly weren’t available, so payouts for Aegon only reached $31 million. But after a period of three quarters of aggressive vaccinations throughout 2021, the death benefit payouts hit $111 million, an increase of 258%! Reuters reported via Yahoo Finance: “Dutch insurer Aegon, which does two-thirds of its business in the United States, said its claims in the Americas in the third quarter were $111 million, up from $31 million a year earlier. U.S. insurers MetLife and Prudential Financial also said life insurance claims rose. South Africa’s Old Mutual used up more of its pandemic provisions to pay claims and reinsurer Munich Re raised its 2021 estimate of COVID-19 life and health claims to 600 million euros from 400 million.” All insurance companies and not just life insurance providers are slowly coming to realize the truth about COVID vaccines despite the efforts of a murderous mainstream media and our complicit “governments” and “hi-tech” sector to cover up the accelerating death rate. The signals now emerging in the financial books of insurance companies can’t simply be ignored for these don’t involve mere ordinary citizens but a large part of our nation’s (and the world’s) economy. Financial companies are always interested in the “trends” of finance and given that a 258% increase was recorded for Q3, 2021, it begs the obvious question: how much worse will this be for Q4, 2021 or Q1, 2022? On any “normal” (pre-COVID) day in America alone, about 7,700 people die; obviously not all of those who die are insured. If those deaths rise by 100%, that means an extra 7,700 people are dying each day. Multiply that over one year, and it’s an additional 2.8 million deaths and this represents only a 100% increase in deaths. As world governments confidently claim that the percentage of the “unvaxxed” falls daily – meaning of course that the percentage of the “vaxxed” continues to grow daily – the translation of this claim into a rising percentage of both the dead and the seriously injured also “continues to grow” with all that that means to the society – including insurance companies! Aegon reported a 258% increase in payouts on life insurance policies and although that company doesn’t insure all of America, obviously, this information should be raising alarms among those who are paying attention. If there is anything like a 200% increase in all-cause mortality, it means an extra 15,000+ people will be dying every day in America. Mortality figures like that prove that, unless there is an ongoing war, a health holocaust is playing out in real time. The only problem seems to be moving the “holocaust” claim from a minor flu – COVID – to a major bio-weapon, that is, these mRNA “vaccines.” We may already be at that greater death rate even now but it is difficult to tell as so much of our “medical statistics” are bogus and designed to keep COVID as the “scare of the century” while hiding the true agent of death by presenting it as a treatment for rather than the cause of the problem. But there is more to this than direct deaths and injuries resulting from the injection. Cancer death rates have almost certainly doubled in 2021 and are headed even higher in 2022, but the cancer industry — dominated by Big Pharma — will hide the numbers to avoid there being any connection made between the vaccines and the failure of human immune systems with regard to, among other diseases, cancer. There are even those who believe that the never ending “boosters” required by our “health agencies” directly relate to the destruction of the immune systems of those who have taken these drugs! Once our bodies do not provide “natural immunity,” we will be forced to subsist on eternal (and expensive) Big Pharma boosters to protect ourselves. Life insurance companies are maneuvering around this problem by pronouncing these “vaccinations” as “medical experiments” – they are! – and thus denying policies or payouts to those who choose to “take a chance” on their efficacy – and safety. Indeed, they have gone even further and now may deny coverage for those who test positive for COVID! Why? Because these tests have proven highly unreliable and this results in a great deal of confusion and a means by which healthy people can be denied life insurance coverage even if they never take the jab – or get COVID! Along with our “vaccine holocaust” in America right now, we have perhaps a bigger problem and that is the cover-up run by all the complicit, murderous parties, including Big Pharma, Big Tech, Big Media and Big Government. They’re all in on it and have been since the planning stages. They’re all mass murderers, and they’re all working to cover this up until they can coerce even more people into committing vaccine suicide – that is, before the body count becomes undeniable despite the media coverup! That’s the level of evil we’re dealing with in the society right now, and it’s all being run under the banners of “science” and “safety.” Under this dangerous death cult with its motto of “follow the science,” the whole world must pretend that COVID is deadly and that these “vaccines” (along with masks, social distancing and lockdowns) are preventing wholesale infections, transmissions, hospitalizations and, of course, deaths! The truly odd thing is that even those leading this “crusade” admit that the vaccines prevent nothing, cure nothing are of no help in anything – and they do this while looking the other way when so many vaccinated people prematurely die. Of course, the proof is in the statistics! Israel, at a 96.2% vaccination rate across the population, is now leading the world in COVID cases per capita. This proves that the vaccine has the opposite effect than was promised in the name of “science.” In fact, the more a country vaccinates its people, the higher both the COVID and the death rates become, though the latter is far more the result of the jab than the virus, unless, of course, you are foolish enough to believe the official narrative. The fact is this: the vaccine is the pandemic. This becomes apparent as the information slowly escapes from the clutches of the agents of the New World Order! For these vaccines were “invented” before the disease they were ostensibly created to counter! This whole horror story would be over if it actually were a “pandemic” but it isn’t. It was all invented to give an excuse for the continuing attack on human life and liberty through injecting people with spike protein bioweapons that cause organ failure and death. It’s no coincidence that vaccine injury symptoms are categorized as the consequence of COVID by the corrupt and murderous medical establishment that, in turn, receives financial kickbacks from an equally corrupt and murderous government when they kill their patients with ventilators and Remdesivir. The problem is not how to stop COVID or the vaccines. That is easy! What is hard is to motivate average people in America and the rest of the world to “say NO!” to the purveyors of this lie and to bring to justice those who have already killed so many innocent and trusting people. It’s rather like America’s fraudulent “election” of 2020. If it isn’t owned as a fraud, corrected and those responsible punished, then the very concept of an “elected government” has been destroyed. If this use of “science” and “medicine” is not corrected and the guilty punished, there is no more science ormedicine; there is only tyranny and death for mankind.

Once upon a time, legitimate claims of “States’ rights” were used to attempt to stop the ongoing rush to overriding authority being vested in an ever growing and powerful central or “federal” government. A war was fought in the mid-1800s based upon that very concept, and it was the bloodiest war in this nation’s history to date! Unfortunately, the central government was successful in destroying attempts by a section of the country to escape its role as an economic colony to the rest of the nation. But the war itself – a matter of treason according to Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution forbidding any entity from making war upon those same States – was excused by claims of the need to “preserve the Union” and “free the slaves.” Since this article does not address these weighty issues, it only goes to prove that people will believe anything if it is said often enough or is the desired narrative, and, also, that as was voiced by Napoleon, history is written by the winner! Nevertheless, from time to time efforts have been made by the States to assert their rights when they have been threatened by the government in DC. But what has been lost in the whole argument is not State vs. Federal but, more to the point, Right vs. Wrong. In the past, most of the claims by the States regarding “Federal tyranny” have been correct; that is, the central government had imposed its will upon the people of the States without having the legal right to do so! Oh, the actions have been shielded behind claims of what was “right and good” – much as had been done in the Civil War! – but in the end, it usually meant that the State involved was not following DC’s agenda and was therefore subject to direct intervention by what was supposed to be a government serving “the will of the People” and not the will of the elite and their minions ruling from the Capital. But it seems that our present government’s “agenda” is not limited to the will of the folks in DC for many “blue” states have embraced the present Brave New World of Wokism together with the New World Order and have struck out on their own to strike down the central guarantor of the liberties of all Americans, the United States Constitution. Now, that “Founding Document” has already been seriously, if not fatally wounded by amendments that were either stupid on their face such as the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) or contrary to the beliefs and desires of those who created the Constitution and founded the nation such as the 16th Amendment (the establishment of the income tax) and the 17th in which the election of a State’s Senators were removed from the State government and turned over to the People – thus destroying the constitutional effort at equaling the representation of smaller and larger States. But the present actions by the Governors of some of these “blue” states goes far beyond questionable and/or debatable practices but, rather, they are directed at what is perhaps most essential for us in America today, our precious Bill of Rights. The first of these rights deals with the freedoms of speech, association and religion but what was considered second in importance only to these most essential rights was the “right to bear arms.” No lesser person than George Washington, considered the “Father” of this nation, was quite clear on his view of the matter when he said: “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself,” and “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military supplies.” Now one must remember that Washington, a Virginia planter and colonel in the Virginia militia was “gifted” with command of the “army” that had come together around Boston after King George III’s Parliament closed that city, occupying it with British troops and destroying the freedoms and lives of its citizens. After the battle of Bunker (Breeds) Hill, John Adams, a Massachusetts representative to the Continental Congress, moved to create a “Continental army” of the militias surrounding Boston and to make fellow congressman George Washington its Commander in Chief. Of course, upon reaching Cambridge, Washington did not find an “army” per se, but a fair number of the said New England militia units from which he had to create the “army” he would eventually lead. But it also must be remembered that had these men not been armed and well versed in the use of those arms, Washington’s “reward” for his efforts would have been to have his head displayed on a pike on London Bridge and his various “quarters” cut from what was left of his body and sent around England at the King’s pleasure to discourage other traitors! There did indeed turn out to be time for the Virginia patriot to craft an army, but he could not have done so without those within it being able to shoot red deer or redcoats! As a result, Washington understood the need for the average citizen to be able to defend himself and his country, indeed, sometimes even against his country. This is why, of course, tyrants have always tried to disarm the people and when they have been successful –Soviet Russia, Communist China, Cuba, Cambodia etc. – the fate of those so disarmed has been as uniform as it has been ugly. But the desire to disarm Americans has only increased as our government has become more tyrannous and our Constitution less effective. Blue State California Gov. Gavin Newsom is attempting from a state platform to alter the United States Constitution when that state’s legislature approved a resolution in support of Newsom’s call for a 28th Constitutional amendment enshrining a list of Democrat gun-control policy priorities into the federal law. Newsom is requesting a Constitutional convention to enshrine the amendment. This “convention” would occur, one assumes, after the Amendment’s passage but one must then ask, how would it even be brought forth for consideration in the first place! And if it is brought forth for the amendment to be considered, two-thirds of state legislatures would have to vote in favor of a convention. Now, no one, not even the Temperance ladies during Prohibition, attempted to implement an amendment that would strike down or affect any part of the Bill of Rights! This is, in fact, a first! The rights manifested in the Bill of Rights were themselves the first ten amendments to the Constitution and amending an amendment – especially in that most sacred of documents! – seems impossible to even consider! But that never stopped our leftist politicians! In order to understand the 2nd Amendment one need only read it. Unlike some other amendments it is simple to see what the Founders intended: A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Because it is based upon, among other things, English common law, the Amendment does not permit universal rights to bear arms. The mentally ill, children, criminals – these are not included within the above guarantee. Only ordinary, law abiding, sane citizens have that right but for someone to be denied that right, proof must be presented at law that the individual so deprived does not meet the criteria the Founders put forth for American citizens to protect themselves. Rather, any effort by the government to forbid the keeping and bearing of arms must be addressed individually and very specifically. Notice, the Amendment makes no reference to hunting or sports but deals with the term “militia” Of course, the understanding of that which constitutes a militia has changed since the 1800s. Currently, 10 U.S. Code § 246 defines Militia thusly: The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in §313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. Nonetheless, despite the apparent narrowing of the term today, the understanding of an armed citizenry has NOT changed since the days of the Founders and as a result, all Americans who are sane and law abiding cannot be denied a gun or the accoutrements surrounding that weapon on the off chance that something “bad” might happen! Meanwhile, Newsom’s proposed “Right to Safety Amendment” would limit legal gun ownership to adults 21 and older, enact universal federal background checks on gun sales, create a mandatory “reasonable waiting period” for gun purchases, and ban the purchase of many forms of semiautomatic rifles. Of course, while many of these “safety measures” sound reasonable, the fact is that they only deny weapons to law abiding Americans. Criminals are not interested in doing it right, so to speak, and are never denied their “right” to a weapon by anything accept arrest, incarceration and/or death. Meanwhile, such laws and regulations allow the government – a much more dangerous entity than any mere criminal! – to know who is armed and how to go about removing that citizen’s method of protection when Uncle Sam comes a-calling! Newsom started touting the idea behind this “amendment” earlier this summer possibly to take Californians’ minds off the cesspool his policies are making of cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles. The governor claims the new amendment would “co-exist” with the Second Amendment despite its changes to the American legal understanding of gun ownership. According to Newsom, “The Right to Safety Amendment would preserve the integrity of the Second Amendment, while enshrining in our Constitution commonsense safety provisions that are supported overwhelmingly by the American people.” Newsome goes on to blame guns and “unelected judges” protecting the 2nd Amendment for increasing “gun violence.” He phrases his viewpoint thusly: “In the face of decades of Congressional inaction and unelected judges that are putting Americans in danger, it is time for citizens to stand up for common sense to protect us against the uniquely American epidemic of gun violence.” It is interesting to note that most of such violence occurs in blue cities within blue states where the leftist governments support criminals, defund the police and care nothing for those same “citizens” upon whom Newsom calls for support of his dangerous policies. California’s Assembly passed Newsom’s proposal via a 51-14 tally with several Democrats declining to vote, according to the Los Angeles Times. Actually, many of the amendment’s provisions already are law in California and it is interesting to note that that state experienced the most mass shootings in the nation between 1982 and August of this year, according to the publication Statista. On the other hand, the nation’s most populous state had the eighth-lowest gun-death rate among the 50 states in 2021, according to Giffords Law Center. But, of course, in an increasingly lawless culture, it would be madness to remove those protections guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment to the average American in order to make it easier for that culture along with our increasingly lawless government to come in and enslave us all. As was noted by the Founders themselves, the 2nd Amendment was designed to protect Americans against their own government, an entity that has proven throughout history to be infinitely more dangerous than the worst criminal elements. Again, we must look to America’s Indispensable Man to see the truth in this matter: "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Experience has taught us that it is much easier to prevent an enemy from posting themselves than it is to dislodge them after they have got possession, and when the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” ~ George Washington Under our present circumstances, we must expect the government – whether Federal or State – to continue this war against an armed citizenry. DC is arming its bureaucratic minions to the hilt. As no one in the Deep State expects them to take on the cartels on the Southern border, they must have another “enemy” in mind. As that is the case, Americans better stay armed or we will suffer the fate General Washington has described above.

Did you know we can turn carbon dioxide into butane a fuel source. we literally can have a renewable fuel source and control co2 at the same time. just thinking out loud well you first use electrolysis from solar panels to split water into oxygen and hydrogen, then you add the hydrogen into a chemical reaction with co2 which creates methane and water, you have to just use the hydrogen so you dont make water. then you use the wurtz reaction to combine methane into ethane than again to make ethane into butane. thats just one of the chemical ways. wiki wurtz reaction. hope this helps. spread the word. thank you for commenting on my post and thought. I studied a little organic chemistry in university. The science is sound.

Joseph Stalin (1878 - 1953) The Dictator we’re speaking of was Joseph Stalin, who many historians consider to have exercised more control and power over his country than any other leader in history. Measured in the proportion of Soviet Citizens who died under his reign, this is undoubtedly true. Stalin began as Secretary of the Communist Party upon the death of the country’s founder, Vladimir Lenin, in 1924. From there, he steadily ascended to greater and greater levels of power and control until he became Prime Minister in 1941. He served as the Nation’s leader until he died in 1953 at the age of 74. Stalin began mercilessly “purging” enemies and allies in his lust for unlimited power. It is now estimated that tens of millions died in these purges. Combined with the estimated 20 to 30 million who died in World War II, it’s easy to see how most demographic estimates put the total deaths in the Soviet Union at 40 to 50 million. Today, we’ll discuss one of Stalin’s most powerful instruments in obtaining control and influence over the Soviet People and how that instrument is now being introduced to the World Wide Web. ** Stalin was a master of mass psychology and thoroughly understood the methods of controlling large groups of people. For instance, Stalin instinctively recognized that the State was uniquely positioned to present “news and information.” The average citizen would see any information disseminated by the Central Government as authoritative and reliable. So, when his disastrous agricultural programs failed, Stalin turned around the reports and told the Soviets that the farms were doing well, producing bumper crops. Most believed the government reports. Of course, it helped that any skeptics were labeled “enemies of the state” and quickly liquidated. This was also true during World War II when Soviet Troops sustained massive losses at the hands of the Germans. Stalin maintained morale by reporting that the Soviet Union was winning. And indeed, eventually, the USSR did secure victory over the Nazis.None of this was luck or coincidence. It was all part of a carefully orchestrated program that Stalin began back in 1923. Before Joseph Goebbels ( Nazi propaganda) or Edward Bernays (American propaganda), Stalin created his own version of State-controlled propaganda, which he called “Dezinformatsiya” (disinformation). Stalin wasted no time creating a government Ministry of Dezinformatsiya. This department would become the center of news and information for the Soviet people. Its chief mission was to extol Joseph Stalin’s virtues and victories. It was incredibly successful, and for many, Stalin became the living, breathing embodiment of the nation. Disinformation had built a cult of personality around Stalin that was nearly impossible to penetrate. Millions of Soviets would go to their graves believing that Stalin was the “savior” of their country and had only their best interests in his heart. So powerful was this disinformation. Throughout the Second World War, this unconditional allegiance to their leader welded the Nation together. It made it possible for the Soviets to withstand an unimaginable level of death and destruction. This did not go unnoticed across the Atlantic in America. As the two nations transitioned from World War Allies to Cold War Enemies, the US realized the growing importance of “disinformation/propaganda.” Today, The New Disinformation Throughout the 20th century, the dissemination of information, or disinformation, remained in the hands of those with “access.” Access principally to the media is the chief mode of information dissemination. The advent of the Internet allowed us common folk to have a forum to present our ideas and our way of viewing the world. Not since the competing pamphleteers of the American Revolution have we seen so many citizens participating in the public dialog. Today’s virtual forums, in which you and I are participating, have expanded our communities far beyond anything we could have conceived of just a few years ago. Now, Ordinary people around the globe have a voice. The “comment sections” tell internet creators that the world is listening and taking notes. Regrettably, the elites are not receiving this well. Their century-long monopoly is being challenged by a rabble group of internet commentators loosely labeled “the people.” As a result, politicians, internet platforms, and government agencies have been busy accusing us of the very thing that they’ve been doing for years: practicing “disinformation.” Internet platforms quickly pull the plug on any creator who “goes too far.” Use the wrong pronoun or politically abrasive term, and you’ll find that you’ve lost access. Ultimately, this battle will be fought in the Court House and the Halls of Congress, and the lines are already being drawn. In an hour-long speech before the Stanford Cyber Policy Institute two years ago, former President Obama laid out the case for internet censorship. While you and I may have considered the issue to be one of Free Speech, that our comments published on the Internet fall under the confines of the First Amendment to the Constitution, Obama takes a radically different approach. To the former President, the Internet is a mere “product” subject to the laws and regulations providing for our “safety,” like a toaster oven. “Of course, this business model has proven to be wildly successful. For more and more of us, search and social media platforms aren’t just our window into the Internet;they serve as our primary source of news and information. "No one tells us that the window is blurred, subject to unseen distortions and subtle manipulations. All we see is a constant feed of content where useful factual information and happy diversions, and cat videos, flow alongside lies, conspiracy theories, junk science, quackery, White supremacist, racist tracts, misogynist screeds. "And over time, we lose our capacity to distinguish between fact, opinion and wholesale fiction. "Or maybe we just stop caring.” https://barackobama.medium.com/my-remarks-on-disinformation-at-stanford-7d7af7ba28af Of course, President Obama is far from alone in calling for these “reforms.” Many in official Washington have joined in seeking additional restraint on the Internet. Recently, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested that purveyors of “disinformation” ought to be charged with criminal activity. https://www.foxnews.com/media/hillary-clinton-called-out-suggesting-americans-should-arrested-over-disinformation-quite-chilling We live in a time of tremendous technological change. The same technology that has presented us with an opportunity to exercise our free speech rights could, if turned around, become the world’s most omnipresent instrument of censorship. The Ministry of Dezinformatsiya awaits our answer.

How can you tell if you're in an echo chamber? Not all echo chambers are easy to recognise, especially from within. Often, echo chambers form and persist in opposition to another. Take, for example, the red-pill community, which exists largely as a reaction to third-wave feminist ideologies (an echo chamber many are more familiar with). A person who blindly adheres to a stereotype might be in an echo chamber, but so is someone who restructures their entire life in a mission to disprove that stereotype. This is why many outspoken atheists are accused of practising another form of religion—not because questioning the existence of God is a form of religion, but because they pursue it with a kind of religious fervour, rather than with the open scepticism that seeks truth without the need to assert intellectual superiority over the "herd." Echo chambers are often centred on moralities, and they emerge when people try to fit ideas, especially those they disagree with, into a few familiar categories shaped by their own historical, socio-cultural, or religious background, and then rush to make moral judgments. For example, I come from India, where respecting one’s parents and elders is deeply rooted in religious teachings. If someone like me, raised with this value, were to witness a child from a Western country having a heated argument with their parents, it would be easy to label the child’s behaviour as “immoral” based on my cultural context. I might overlook the fact that this behaviour is shaped by the social context the child is part of. The West has inherited its own customs, beliefs, and values from its history and religions, including the idea that each person possesses inherent divinity and is equal in the eyes of God. This emphasis on the individual self can lead to a different kind of parent-child dynamic, which might explain what seems, from another cultural perspective, to be a lack of respect. Another important point that deserves mention here is that the attempt to classify ideas into one category or another (good/bad, right/wrong, rational/irrational) would require that people often try to catch others who, in their view, are teetering at the edge of a slippery slope. For example, each time I visit my ancestral town (a small hill town in Northern India), I notice changes—fewer trees, more houses and restaurants, more tourists, fewer ducks in the lake, litter on a lakeside that used to be pristine, and a shift toward profit-mindedness among locals who once offered strangers free peaches from their farms. These are the inevitable consequences of development. If I were to comment nostalgically, “How things have changed! Why did they cut down all the trees?” it could easily be interpreted as me prioritising environmental concerns over the well-being and progress of the local people. This conclusion, after all, provides an easy escape from the discomfort of holding two conflicting ideas in mind at once—on the one hand, the value of preserving natural beauty, and on the other, the necessity of development for the local community. Another way echo chambers become more entrenched is when people learn an individual’s opinion on one subject and then assume the person’s views on other topics as well. This occurs when the echo chamber is strong enough that various ideas are grouped together, leading to a groupthink-like situation where two people who agree on one issue feel nudged towards agreement on another without truly considering it, simply because they belong to the same “club.” This is often why many feminists are also pro-LGBTQ, and why vegetarians (who may be motivated by religious reasons) are seen as champions of climate activism. Of course, this is not to say that there is no connection between different topics, but only that different views, even on the same side of the debate, must be given space to flourish. Tolkien’s iconic quote from The Lord of the Rings comes to mind, but if you replace “ring” with “morality,” you capture the essence of every echo chamber's mentality: "One morality to rule them all, one morality to find them, one morality to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them." In the context of echo chambers, it would be impossible for me not to bring up Nietzsche's message in his book, Beyond Good and Evil. After three readings of the book—one was far from sufficient to grasp the full scope and complexity of his thought—I’ve come to believe that Nietzsche boldly attempted to convey something that many would shy away from. Not least because of the controversial nature of those ideas, but also because certain ideas are like brief flashes of insight, moments of clarity that often slip away when you try to put them into words. It’s no surprise then that Nietzsche’s views, and particularly his thoughts on morality, are frequently misunderstood by readers today. I recognize that I too might fall into this category, and there is no guarantee that my interpretation isn’t itself a misreading of his message. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to offer my perspective on what Nietzsche was trying to convey in this book, and why so many have misinterpreted his message. Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil contains several passages that are often misinterpreted as promoting moral relativism or nihilism. These passages can be read as rejecting conventional morality or suggesting that there are no objective moral truths, leading some to criticise Nietzsche for promoting a “might makes right” philosophy or moral anarchy. Nietzsche doesn’t claim that "anything goes" morally, or that being amoral is the highest morality, but rather that the conventional, herd-like morality (what he calls "slave morality") reflects weakness, fear, and a repression of vitality and creativity. Nietzsche doesn’t think we should simply abandon concepts of good and evil, but that we should transcend simplistic, dogmatic moral judgments. Rather than claiming that morality is a form of cowardice (a popular misreading), he claims that a lot of cowardice actually masquerades as morality. He calls for the need for intellectual courage and the willingness to venture into morally ambiguous or "dangerous" territory. Come to think of it, this kind of intellectual honesty is precisely what's required for genuine thought. When one ventures outside their echo chamber, there’s always the risk of accidentally stepping onto what might be seen as the beginning of a slippery slope toward immorality. But there is no default moral position where one can remain immobile, avoiding the fall entirely. The challenge—and the joy—lies in teetering on the edge without falling, while also not retreating to a safe distance. It’s not a space of moral ambiguity, because morality hasn’t entered the scene yet. It is the realm where one finally breaks free from the confines of the echo chamber and steps into the fertile ground of ideas—a place from which true moral understanding can eventually emerge. Here, one is free to explore and entertain ideas that, if taken to their extremes, could just as easily lead to immorality. This echoes the scene in Genesis when God forbade man from eating from the Tree of Knowledge yet allowed him access to it. Similarly, it recalls when Lakshmana drew the Lakshmana Rekha around Sita, urging her not to cross it for her own protection. In both cases, the choice to disobey was granted—even at the risk of sin or harm. Adam and Sita both ultimately disobeyed their instructions, but without the choice to stray, Adam would have remained harmless, and Sita unharmed. But in that scenario, good would have been an easy, default position to assume, rather than one achieved through conscious effort. “In all seriousness, the innocence of thinkers has something touching and respect-inspiring in it, which even nowadays permits them to wait upon consciousness with the request that it will give them HONEST answers: for example, whether it be "real" or not, and why it keeps the outer world so resolutely at a distance, and other questions of the same description. The belief in "immediate certainties" is a MORAL NAIVETE which does honour to us philosophers; but—we have now to cease being "MERELY moral" men!” - Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil.

Israeli Airforce F16I Sufa, made in the USA Outsourcing is a modern business practice in which a local company uses an external provider to carry out business practices that would otherwise be handled internally. My local bank, for instance, uses Visa to process all its credit and debit cards.** Last Friday, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s Prime Minister, calmly picked up the secure telephone and ordered Yoav Gallant, the Defense Minister, to attack Hezbollah. He then strode to the podium to address the United Nations General Assembly. It was an amazing piece of theater by Israel’s always-measured and controlled leader. But what was most amazing about this production was the carefully proscribed part Israel played in its production. When Minister Gallant turned to order the I.A.F. Air Force to commence, he was ordering his U.S. trained fighter pilots to board their U.S.-made fighter jets, likely the General Dynamics F-16 Fighter Jet (although the other two I.A.F. Fighter jets are also American, The F-15 and F-35), and then to drop the feared Bunker Buster Bomb, the GBU-28. This bomb was designed during the Second Gulf War, Operation Iraqi Freedom, to take out Saddam Hussein’s underground bunkers. Only two of these bombs were dropped in that war, both with devastating effect. Two more of these 4,000-pound bombs were dropped Friday on Hezbollah’s underground compound, with equal devastation. All of Hezbollah’s leadership, including its General Secretary Hassan Nasrallah, were killed — effectively decapitating the entire Hezbollah leadership. However, while the stage was in Lebanon, and the principal actors were Israeli, much of the production and equipment were “made in the U.S.A.” This did not go unnoticed by all the onlookers who filed past the gaping hole in the ground — while prayers for the dead were heard, there was also the sentiment that this was, in considerable measure, an American production. This type of warfare was impossible before the advent of a global economy. Most of what Israel utilized in this attack, and indeed how the Israeli economy survives, is through “leverage.” This means using other countries’ materials, commodities, and components to assemble a final product. It’s how Israel, a country with few resources and few traditional industries, works. Five years ago, Forbes Magazine described Israel as a “Manufacturing Minnow…But An Industrial Technology Power.” Many considered Israel the model of a new, outsourced economy, which some call “Smart manufacturing.” For these thinkers, Israel had all the benefits of a new economy without the regrettable side effects, like pollution and environmental degradation. However, the reality that the current war with Hezbollah reveals is that Israel has moved those “nasty” manufacturing functions off-shore to the United States, much like the U.S. Has been doing to Asia for the past 50 years. Israel has “outsourced” America’s war-making capability and called it their own. Just the way so much of our new “global economy” does it. Israel’s prowess has been in providing software or component upgrades to existing products. Standout products created by Israeli innovation include self-driving software Mobileye, a G.P.S. app WAZE, and a public transit app MOOVIT. All are valuable “add-ons,” but they fall short of manufacturing the automobiles, buses, and trains that actually provide transportation. In the same sense, Israel has produced “add-ons” to much of its war machinery but not the actual weapons, planes, and tanks themselves. This raised the question: how long could Israel continue any war without the United States' supply of weapons and equipment? Even more pertinent, how long could Israel continue a war without imported oil, chiefly from Turkey? Israel may be far more dependent upon outside energy and resources than its current aggressive posture reveals. Today, Israel Invaded Lebanon For the third time in recent memory, Israel has invaded Lebanon in an effort to take out Hezbollah. Axios reports that a senior Israeli Official has said that this is a short-term tactical operation designed to move Hezbollah back from Northern Israel. “We have no intention of drowning in the Lebanese mud. We will go in and go out at the end. This is a tactical operation that is limited in time and scope,” the official said. https://www.axios.com/2024/10/01/israel-lebanon-hezbollah-middle-east-wars Of course, Israel’s strategy is intimately connected to services and data provided by the United States. Although specifics are highly classified, it’s reasonable to assume that American Geo-positioning services, targeting, weapons, and equipment will be involved. Provider Vulnerability Following this line of thinking, two important points are raised. Each provider presents a potential vulnerability. Israel is totally reliant upon the U.S. to maintain complete silence on any of the data presented to the I.D.F. Any American “leak” would be deadly for the Israeli soldiers. But the reverse is also true. Is it possible that Israel has recently been able to exploit a security leak within the Hezbollah or Hamas outsourcing system? In other words, has Israel exploited other vendor relationships to spy? Beginning in March 2023, Israel has adopted a dramatically new and deadly strategy of taking out the leadership of their enemies. After less than 16 months, Israel has now decapitated the leadership of both Hamas, killing Hamas’ Ismail Haniyeh and now all nine leaders of Hezbollah. It represents both an escalation of the conflict and a remarkable ability of Israel to track these individuals. Many have speculated that MOSSAD, Israel’s chief spy agency, has perhaps infiltrated these groups. Others have speculated that communication devices, such as cell phones and pagers, were compromised somewhere along the supply chain. Either or both of those may turn out to be true. But a third possibility is that Israel has somehow compromised the networks that provide cell, pager, or other services. Conclusion Over the past year, the Middle East has steadily escalated hostilities. In another week, it will be exactly one year since the October 7 attack on Israel by Hamas. Since that time, we’ve seen the near destruction of much of the Gaza Strip, with its countless loss of life. At the same time, Hezbollah, as well as the Houthis, have launched missiles against Israel. Today is one more step in that steady escalation to a major regional war. The question that needs asking, as the chief provider of Israel’s military, will the United States be able to avoid becoming even more involved? ** Follow me here on ThinkSpot for more stories from the ValueSide.

I've recently been enjoying classic American TV series from the '70s, like Little House on the Prairie and The Waltons. An episode from The Waltons (Season 6, Episode 21 – "The Revelation") made me reflect on something deeper. In this episode, John-boy proposes to his girlfriend Daisy, who initially accepts but later changes her mind. Both realise they have other commitments: John-boy, an author, declines a job offer in London for the marriage, while Daisy, a dancer, reconnects with the child she had abandoned. In the end, they part ways, and John-boy takes the job in London. This episode made me reflect on how love is portrayed in American films and TV. The storyline itself isn’t flawed, and The Waltons remains one of my favourite shows. However, it's clear that American media, widely consumed around the world, often promotes the idea that the truest form of love is one that endures despite personal or career ambitions being placed above marriage. This narrative seems to shape the views of people in cultures with different social, cultural, or religious understandings of love. While placing individual ambitions above family may not come naturally to everyone, it resonates with many—especially in my context—since Western media in my country is often seen as infallible, as if it alone holds the ultimate truth about what constitutes healthy, true love. I feel the need to root these reflections in my own experiences, ensuring they have a clear, personal origin, rather than being borrowed in a half-formed way from external sources. My maternal grandfather pursued higher education at Columbia University in the 1950s, specialising in mathematics and statistics. Unlike today, when more Indians have access to such opportunities, back then, very few had the luxury of dreaming on such a grand scale, let alone the resources to turn those dreams into reality. Only a small group of Indians, typically those who were exceptionally ambitious, intelligent, and hardworking, secured scholarships to cover tuition costs, and even then, their families often had to make significant sacrifices to support their living expenses in a country like the U.S. My grandfather was among that small, determined group. He returned to India, more specifically to a small city, turning down promising opportunities at some of the world’s best universities. He left behind colleagues and professors who had high hopes for someone of his calibre. With a PhD in hand, he chose to work as a professor at a modest university so he could be with his parents and wife, both of whom relied on him. Not long after, my mother was born, and she grew up and eventually had children of her own. I saw my grandparents every other day. While others saw my grandfather as strict, unyielding, and sceptical, I knew him to be kind, intelligent, gentle, though admittedly a bit short-tempered. I wasn’t particularly good at maths in school, preferring literature and history instead, so he often helped me with my schoolwork. I have vivid memories of Sunday mornings spent struggling over maths problems, with my grandfather growing more impatient by the minute and my grandmother by his side, scolding him for not letting me take a break to enjoy one of her homemade treats. Truth be told, I was terrified of maths and often struggled with the basics in 9th standard. Here was a man who had worked alongside some of the brightest minds in an Ivy League university, and he had given it all up to come home and teach me trigonometry. Oh what a disappointment I must have been to him! My grandfather fulfilled his family responsibilities with unwavering diligence and devotion. Not once did he complain that his wife, children, or parents had held him back from achieving greater things. I doubt the thought ever even crossed his mind—for him, this was simply how it was supposed to be. Yet, much of his research remained tucked away in a loft beneath the stairs, and on rare occasions, I would catch him poring over those papers with a distant, wistful expression. Like most grandfathers, he had plenty of stories to share, though his were somewhat unique—often centred on his college days, his friends in the U.S., and his travels. As the years went by, his eyesight began to fail, until he was almost completely blind. This, perhaps, was the cruellest twist of fate, as he loved reading. His personal library, which spanned not just scientific works but also great literature—both Indian and Western—was his pride and joy. After my mother passed away, I saw a change in my grandfather that I never thought possible. He had always seemed too stubborn to grow weaker, but in the wake of her loss, he did. He became more introspective, though he still bickered with my grandmother, but now he gave in more easily, and his eyes often glistened when we talked about the past. He enjoyed engaging in deep philosophical discussions, and as I grew older, I like to think I became a good companion for those conversations. A staunch atheist—a point of constant annoyance to my grandmother—he loved to debate matters of faith and religion with me. In what was a thrilling moment for me, he once shared that he had personally known Joseph Campbell, also a Columbia alumnus, before my grandfather’s time. I had first learnt about Campbell after watching The Power of Myth, and most fascinated by his insights, I had followed it up with his book, The Hero with a Thousand Faces. When I mentioned this to my grandfather, he sighed with a sense of strange relief, as if someone had finally grasped something profoundly important to him. In the last few years of his life, he grew reluctant to speak about his college days or his former colleagues. Occasionally, a hint of sadness would surface as he confessed that he no longer liked to think about that time, lamenting that his research had never amounted to much while his peers went on to make significant breakthroughs. In those moments, he became emotional, which was always followed by an apologetic air. Even then, half-blind but ever-determined, he would shuffle through the house, insisting on helping my grandmother lay the table, as if to make up for dwelling on the past. Love takes many forms, and one of them was reflected in my grandfather’s face. He sacrificed his personal ambitions, stepping away from a career at its peak—choices some might view as mistakes. But in choosing to be a better man, he returned to his family. That one decision to place his family above his career made him the steadfast father and husband he was, and the devoted grandfather I was fortunate to have. Now that I’ve lost my parents, I sometimes worry that my children will grow up without one set of grandparents to spoil them and teach them the truths of life in the gentle way only grandparents can. This fear stems from the richness I experienced growing up with my grandparents, knowing what it means to feel truly secure and grounded. I owe that sense of stability to those who put my well-being ahead of their own dreams, making sacrifices so that I could live in the comfort of their love.

[I write this with many intellectual gaps. The responses and your thoughts are to fill in these gaps. I wrote this as an example of how when one reads, their minds drift into the meaning of things they have learned and in many case now believe. I purposefully did not link words and ideas with other authors or academics. I did not include religion. I left this as wide open as possible. My purpose here is to draw you into the depths of your own thoughts (as sophomorically as this attempt has been made). I am here, I am I. This is me trying to escape this shell of a body into more than what I physically am.] When you are born into this world, it’s your mother who cares for you. It’s you father who cares for you. But what is the metric to which it is measured? Who decides what that is and who decides its value? Mother and Father? A nosy neighbor? Society? Government? A nebulous political idiotology? I’ve responded to people who believe Socialism is people centered. It is not. These same people believe capitalism is evil. It is not. It’s just a word. Some would ask, ‘isn’t Socialism a word’? Why, yes it is. But ‘Capitalism’ is never mentioned when describing civilizations. It’s either Democracy or Socialism. The irony is Democracies vote themselves into Socialism. Once you are Socialist, your nation, your civilization will end. The method to do this? ‘Capitalism’. Socialism is the interference of ‘Capitalism’. I’ve defined ‘Capitalism’ before; here it is again for those with short memories: ‘Capitalism is the exchange of goods, services and currencies for other goods, services and currencies.' That’s it. It is not a system. Socialism, like all pathological idiotologies, interferes with with the free exchange of goods, services and currencies. Gee Rick, what about people getting the shaft and not getting a good value for their goods, services and currencies? Gee Questioner, what about the pathological fools in government who use their power to decide this and enrich themselves? Who’s the bigger fool? The politician or the fool who believes the politician? In this election, you have to ask yourself, who truly cares for you? The answer is trivial for me. Only I truly care for me. In other words, only you care for yourself. It’s your life, When you select a Socialist to run your life, you have no life. You are officially a slave. The true crime is you believing you are free under this idiotology. Now you‘re just a fool.

Not too very long ago, I saw an advertisement on Facebook (of all places!) for a tee-shirt. It was an unattractive drab dun color and on it was a caricature of a severe looking man (as seen above but absent the narrative). Nonetheless, the identity of this stern individual is known even without the titles! As for the narrative on the shirt, under the picture was written, “Make 1984 Fiction Again.” Of course, anyone who thinks at all – and that is not universal, I assure you! – pretty much understands even without labels that the illustration is of George Orwell’s mythical tyrant, Big Brother as he appears in the author’s acclaimed dystopian “novel,” 1984. Neither is there a need to “identify” the book as only the terminally stupid or the already dead don’t know of Orwell’s vision of a future that appears to be happening before our very eyes – and hence the market for this particular piece of attire. Eric Arthur Blair (b. June 25, 1903 – d. January 21, 1950) is better known by his pen name, George Orwell. He was an English novelist, essayist, journalist and critic and his work is characterized by lucid prose, social criticism, opposition to totalitarianism, and support of democratic socialism. Orwell also produced literary criticism and poetry as well as fiction and polemical journalism. He is chiefly known for his allegorical novella, Animal Farm (1945) and the dystopian novel, 1984 (1949). He wrote many other books and articles becoming a well-known author in the mid-twentieth century. Blair was born in India and raised and educated in England. After school he became an Imperial policeman in Burma before returning to Suffolk, England, where he began his writing career as George Orwell—a name inspired by a favorite location, the River Orwell. He earned his living from occasional pieces of journalism, also working as a teacher or bookseller while living in London. From the late 1920s to the early 1930s, Orwell’s success as a writer grew and his first books were published at that time. He was wounded fighting in the Spanish Civil War, leading to his first period of ill health on his return to England. During the Second World War he worked as a journalist for the BBC. The publication of Animal Farm brought him fame during his life-time. During his final years he worked on Nineteen Eighty-Four. The book was published in June 1949, less than a year before his death. Orwell's work remains influential in popular and political culture, and the adjective "Orwellian" — describing totalitarian and authoritarian social practices — is part of the English language as are many of his neologisms, such as "Big Brother," "Thought Police," "Room 101," "Newspeak," "memory hole," "doublethink," and "thoughtcrime." In 2008, The Times ranked George Orwell second among "the 50 greatest British writers since 1945." He also published many non-fiction books and essays. But Orwell had a lot to say in his books that we need to see and address now! Below are a few pieces of wisdom from 1984 that need to be observed and addressed as it appears that the Master’s “fiction” is fast becoming “fact!” “Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously and accepting both of them.” “There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.” “But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” “It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.” “The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect.” “You will be hollow. We shall squeeze you empty, and then we shall fill you with ourselves.” “Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. . . . The process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there's no reason or excuse for committing thought-crime. It's merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end, there won't be any need even for that. . . Has it ever occurred to you that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?” And they said Nostradamus was a prophet! Read it and weep!

During an unforgettable event known as the Transfiguration, Jesus takes the three closest disciples up onto a mountain and gives them a sneak peak at just who He really was. During this event, which terrified all three of these men, God speaks another message of approval about Jesus. After this event was over, as Jesus and the three disciples were starting back down the mountain, Jesus tells them something that confuses them. “On their way down the mountain, Jesus ordered them not to tell anyone what they had seen. They were to wait until the Son of Man had come back to life. They kept in mind what he said but argued among themselves what he meant by ‘come back to life.’” (Mark 9:9-10 GW) When I read these two verses, I am a little surprised at both Jesus and these disciples. In Jesus’ case, He has just told these three men to keep a secret from the rest of the group – which isn’t all that great for building morale in a group. I suppose that when one of the other disciples asked what they did up on the mountain, they needed to either lie (a bad choice) or say what happened is a secret (another bad choice, but at least truthful.) They could blame Jesus and say that He told them to keep it a secret until He had “come back to life”, and perhaps this is what they chose to do, but as Mark tells us, these disciples “kept in mind what he said but argued among themselves what he meant by ‘come back to life.’” (Mark 9:10 GW) As I read this, I get the picture that Jesus kept trying to push these disciples to ask Him for more details, but they avoid asking and instead, they simply argue and speculate amongst themselves. We are tempted to do the same. When something Jesus said or promised doesn’t add up, or even when something happens in our life that we cannot explain, are we quick to talk it over with others and speculate, or do we bring our questions to God in prayer. Sometimes God will answer our questions through other people, while other times He might simply ask us to wait for an answer at a later time. On this side of heaven, there will be plenty of things that we don’t understand, but I wonder if Jesus wanted to open the disciples’ minds to what would happen on crucifixion weekend before it happened, and we see them miss actually asking the question. This makes me challenge myself with the similar idea on whether I miss learning from God because I am too quick to speculate or ask the wrong people the wrong questions. This post first appeared on ReflectiveBibleStudy.com What do you think? Do you agree/disagree? Leave your thoughts below.

Recently, a commentator on a conservative talk show made an observation worthy of dissemination; that is, that the current murderous climate in this country – and the world! – is no longer a matter of Left vs. Right, but of “in” vs. “out” – that is, insiders vs. outsiders. The Left vs. Right battlefield is long gone as so many “conservatives” have become, for all intents and purposes, little different from their “leftist-liberal” colleagues. Indeed, they have become so different from their fellow conservatives that the very term “conservative” has been split into two definitions: traditional conservatives or paleo-cons and the present big government types now known as neo-cons. Former President (supposedly conservative) Richard Nixon once told a newly elected Republican Congressional Representative that, “. . .we’re all big government conservatives here.” Of course, the very definition of a “conservative” involves the rejection of “big government” so it is obvious that over the years, those who were against socialism but still believed in what Mussolini called “corporatism” – the merging of government and big business, also known as fascism – could not retain the label of conservative but neither could they be regarded as liberals who wanted everything run by government (that is, themselves). Hence the “neo-con” was born and all that that label entails with regard to the fight against the growing power of the government and its merger with Big Business – presently defined as the “Deep State.” This situation has resulted in lots of people on the “outside” and far fewer people on the “inside.” Previously, power tended to flow to groups that had the largest numbers but in the present circumstance, the distribution of “heads” is diametric to the distribution of “power.” For the insiders have all – and I do mean all! – the power today! Even ordinary political disputes are not between those on the inside versus those on the outside, but only among those on the inside as that group has become so diverse as well as powerful as to be the only place where such disputes can – and do! – take place. Of course, this situation means whatever power is being exercised has nothing to do with those of us on the outside looking in. We have been reduced to spectators in our own world absent the power to cause or prevent whatever agenda is eventually determined by the “insiders.” Nowhere was this reality made better known – perhaps known at all! – than in the candidacy and election of Donald Trump in 2016. The creeping power of our various government and its agencies were becoming known to Americans at large, but it was so well camouflaged that it wasn’t until an outsider was introduced into the “Deep State” that the totality of our enslavement became obvious to even the apathetic and the naïve. It became even more obvious when, after four years of the Deep State’s ongoing war against the People’s duly elected President, the matter was finally “decided” by a fraudulent election whose illegality could be neither hidden nor at least successfully denied. Many people believed – because they were told by supposedly knowledgeable sources! – that the military would overcome the crime, but few knew that Communist change-agent, former fake “President” Barak Obama had already destroyed America’s military by removing so many of its faithful leaders. A list of those removed as of March 17th, 2014, was compiled by General Paul Vallely. The General made this comment at the end of his very extensive list: “Absolutely every communist regime on the planet did this as soon as they got in power. I am surprised this communist traitor with his feet up on our furniture in the White House hasn't done this until now!” Of course, Obama remained in office for an additional 1,016 days after General Vallely’s list was published and it can be assumed that he continued to gut the US military to the point at which we are left with what we have today. It is no wonder that neither Donald Trump nor his supporters could take any comfort in the belief that America’s military would prevent his being illegally removed from office! There is an old saying that especially and specifically applies to our present crisis, to wit: “Which is worse, ignorance or apathy?” The response? “I don’t know and I don’t care.” Still, it is true that while ignorance may not lead to apathy, the reverse is very much the case. Ignorant people, knowing that they are ignorant, may want to learn and thus not remain ignorant. But apathetic people seldom care about anything and so make no efforts to overcome ignorance even where it is known to exist. And God knows! we Americans have been apathetic about our nation’s condition for a long, long time. Sated by entertainment – bread and circuses! – we have chosen to ignore or, perhaps, not see things that should have forced our attention on matters suggesting that our “leaders” were leading us down the primrose path to tyranny – and death. And so, because we in the West (and not just Americans!) played our personal fiddles while our civilization was being burned by its enemies, we now find ourselves locked out of the very processes by which we believed we could overcome what was happening – has happened! – and reclaim our birthright. Wrong! You cannot play the game if you are no longer recognized as a legitimate player – and we “Deplorables” as we were defined by a woman whose wickedness makes Jezebel of old look like Mother Theresa! – allowed that woman and her miserable and equally wicked “husband” together with their whole “congregation of evil” to slowly, quietly and with malice aforethought remove us from the very culture and civilization our ancestors had created. Having burned Notre Dame in Paris, they are “building it back” as a shrine to something far different from Our Lord’s Holy Mother! Having removed and/or destroyed the monuments to American heroes, replacing them with horrible works dedicated to horrible people and things, we now have learned that those of us on the “outside” have lost all control over what we believed to be our culture, our country and our future – and the fault is ours. We chose to look away when they began to remove our God from the cultural and governmental structures including our schools. We chose to ignore the sexualization and degradation of that same culture. We chose to allow “the government” to take charge of our children because it gave us, the parents, more time to earn money and follow our own interests. We chose to adopt technologies that promised ease but delivered addiction – and worse! We chose to avoid confrontation with liars either through cowardice or the desire to appear “tolerant,” “benign” and “public-spirited” when what we actually did was to surrender our culture and our humanity to their malignancy. The only question remaining is, can we come back? Can we move the “insiders” out of command of humanity and put back God and His people to run this world? Alas, that is a question that I cannot answer – at least not from my place on the outside.