“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956

In my last post, The Good German, the Good American and the Bad AR, I provided an unpleasant spoiler alert for America. I noted that we are experiencing the introduction of tyrannical, Uniparty rule and I argued that we must not follow in the footsteps of “the Good German.” 

The window of opportunity to stop the spread is closing fast. No, not the spread of COVID, but the spread of Socialism. We must act with urgency, both individually and collectively, before our beloved Republic is lost forever. 

But confrontation is something people of a polite society generally attempt to avoid. Confrontation is not easy. It is disruptive. Confrontation is risky and often leads to pain—psychological and/or physical, and even death. 

For many, however, to live under tyranny is a fate worse than death. For these people, Patrick Henry’s “Give me Liberty or give me death” speech not only serves to highlight and instill national values, but also inspires as an urgent call to arms.

While death is the very worst possible result of taking action, countless detached, good Germans were led to this fate nevertheless. The calculation of action versus passivity is personal, it is complex, and it is largely determined by what we are willing to endure to in order to avoid confrontation.

Conditional Action

Everyone has boundaries, but these lines in the sand are not something we typically spend much time contemplating. They often come at us in the moment, like when someone breaches a boundary by sucker punching you in the face. At that point, your response is summoned under acute stress, and it is instinctual: fight or flight.

But oftentimes we can anticipate the breach of a boundary and prepare accordingly. The committed “preppers” among us stockpile food, ammo, water, etc. and likely have an off-the-grid bugout shelter tucked away deep in the mountains. But these people tend to narrowly focus on a singular boundary and calculus.

When the boundary of complete societal decay is breached, preppers will enjoy the benefits of having planned and arranged for this scenario ahead of time. At this point, they need only apply a simple statement to their situation.

Borrowing from Computer Programming 101, let’s apply the statement “If A, then B” to a prepper’s scenario. Variable A is the condition tested for, while Variable B is what is executed when Variable A is determined to be true: “If war, natural disaster and/or societal decay, then retreat to a well-supplied bugout shelter.”

But that statement is as easy to program and run as the obvious, “if hungry, then eat.” The action does not involve confrontation, nor does it involve the possibility of pain or death. In isolating themselves from society, preppers effectively and deliberately avoid these consequences. What they have is merely a very inconvenient lifestyle adjustment.

But let us now focus on Variables A and B in our statement. First, we’ll consider possible conditions for Variable A, some of which link to actual or very possible future events:

1. Your daughter’s school demands that she take a course on Critical Race Theory
2. Your workplace demands that you take a course on “White Privilege”
3. The police show up at your door toquestion you about an anti-mask statement you posted on Facebook 
4. You are a police officer ordered to arrest a struggling, small business owner who violated lockdown orders
5. A Trump supporter is beaten on the street for filming Antifa
6. BLM crashes your dinner at a restaurant
7. The police show up at your door toconfiscate your guns
8. The authorities want to send you to an internment camp for failing a Covid test 
9. The police show up at your neighbor’s door to intern the entire family because the kids’ mom has COVID.

The list can be much longer, but I suspect you get the idea. Now let’s consider several possible actions for Variable B:

1. Phone or email authorities to voice your concern
2. Become more active in politics (run for an office or position)
3. March peacefully in protest
4. Cooperate fully
5. Resist, but peacefully
6. Resist, violently if necessary
7. Aid in resistance, but peacefully
8. Aid in resistance, violently if necessary
9. Do nothing, as it does not affect you

Again, the list of possible actions can be much longer, but this will suffice for our discussion.

Now, let us select a random condition for Variable A and a corresponding action for Variable B and plug them into our if /then statement. Let’s consider, “If the police show up at your door to confiscate your guns, then resist, violently if necessary.”

Is that a true statement for you? If so, what if we change the condition for Variable A and the corresponding action for Variable B? “If police show up at your neighbor’s door to intern the entire family because the kids’ mom has COVID, then do nothing, as it does not concern you.”

Is the statement still true for you? If not, what would be appropriate conditions and actions for you to plug into our example statement?

There are many such conditions and actions to contemplate and discuss with your family. You and your spouse may have very different ideas of where your boundaries lie as a unit. You are also likely to have divergent ideas about how to respond to someone crossing your line in the sand. It is prudent to  define and prepare for breaches of your boundaries before the government sends its forces to test your resolve.

Predefining your boundaries and possible reactions when your lines are crossed will help you identify your limits, steel your will, and enhance your ability to react. 

The Consequences of Inaction

I suspect that even the most committed prepper has afforded little thought to his boundaries outside the obvious. Stockpiling goods and arranging safe shelter are relatively easy endeavors—it’s simply buying and storing necessities and possibly buying or building a cabin.

To take action when someone crosses a line, however—that requires courage, self-sacrifice and introspection. It’s the difference between shuffling through the checkout line at Walmart with your head down and confronting the guy who cut the line. 

After seeing that no one said or did anything about his flagrant queue cut, the Walmart line jumper will become emboldened. He will next attempt to rob the cashier. What will you do then? What if you were armed? What if the robber was also armed? What if he attempts to carjack you in the parking lot?

To do nothing when a line is crossed is to open the door to further, progressively bolder acts of encroachment. It is the proverbial camel’s nose in the tent alluded to in my The Good German, the Good American and the Bad AR essay.

Passive compliance is how three weeks to flatten the curve evolves into a year, that evolves into an open timeframe. It is how a single protest in Portland becomes an ongoing, months-long rampage of destruction. It is how an election is stolen and a senile, old man gets installed as President of the United States of America. It is how the United Staes of America becomes the Socialist States of America and ultimately a subset of the Collective of Communist Territories.

But these consequences of inaction are discussed at a macro level. Let’s zoom in and contemplate the consequences of inaction on a personal  level. 

Consider, for example, a scenario in which the National Guard shows up at your door, intent to either inject you with a COVID vaccine or quarantine you at a remote location. An order had passed authorizing the effort a month earlier. But, while you have no desire to take the vaccine or be interned, you did nothing to protest passage of the resolution while it was being debated. You were a good American. You kept your head down and hoped that others would thwart the proposal.

Prior to the mandatory vaccine legislation, a bill had passed authorizing the denial of unvaccinated citizens access to public buildings. You had done nothing to protest that bill, as well. 

Whether consciously defined or not, your line is forced COVID vaccinations. If you had given it thought, your statement a month ago might have been something similar to, “If a resolution debating forced COVID vaccinations arises, then encourage your elected officials to oppose it.” If enough people had taken that action, the bill’s passage might have been scuttled. Same with the prior legislation denying you access to public buildings.

But, because you had not defined and defended those earlier lines in the sand, an even more dastardly resolution has now been codified. The window of opportunity to stop an abuse of power is now closed, and your statement has been escalated. It now reads, “If National Guard shows up at your door to force COVID vaccination or internment on you, then . . ?”

Then what? What will you do? Without benefit of forethought, you must now make a decision hastily and under duress. The National Guard is prepared to inject you with an experimental serum or disappear you to a remote location.

If you elect to run to the hills, do you have a bugout shelter? No? What about armed resistance? Do you have a firearm? Too late to get one now—your firearms were confiscated when a gun ban went into effect months earlier. In fact, the gun ban legislation was key in setting the stage for the National Guard to appear at your doorstep. Too bad you sat on your hands when that line was crossed, as well.

You had boundaries that were breached, but you failed to recognize, define, anticipate or act on the transgressions as they presented. Whether out of fear of being canceled, ignorance, or simple laziness, your passivity has now left you ill-prepared to effectively respond to the crisis at your door. You must now improvise against an enemy that has been preparing for this moment for decades. 

Such is the price of being a good American.

Good to be Bad

The following links point to stories in which citizens have taken action against various forms of tyranny and indoctrination. They are meant to motivate and inspire action.

• “Get Out, Nazis!” Calgary Pastor Shouts Down Police Interrupting Church Service During Holy Week

• Tinhorn Flats – The Symbol of Modern Day America Against Tyranny

• City Official Cancels Meeting Because Crowd Refuses To Wear Masks

• ‘Get Out! Get Out!’: Diners Heckle Health Inspectors Out Of Restaurant, City Vows Revenge

• Texas Man Fights Back Against Masks, Invokes The Lord

• NJ Police Officer Refuses to Arrest Lockdown Protesters

• Race-obsessed Loudon County schoolteacher schooled by mellow teen

• Parents Continue Protests Over Diversity Book Collections in Loudoun Schools

• Father Challenges University of Alabama for Mandating that His Daughter Watch a Crazy Jane Elliott Video on Racism

• ‘Going to the Mat’ Over Diversity Training

• A lone man refusing to do the Nazi salute, 1936

 

Out of respect for the reader, I am providing this warning as a spoiler alert. What follows details the opening minutes of Quentin Tarantino’s World War II film, “Inglorious Basterds.” 

It is a haunting, memorable scene in which SS-Standartenführer Hans Landa visits a small, isolated farmhouse in Nazi-occupied France. The rustic home is presented in an idyllic, rolling pasture, bathed in sunlight and seemingly unsullied by war or invading forces. The Nazis suspect that a family of Jews is hiding out at the farm, and so they have dispatched Landa, their chief  “Jew Finder,” to investigate. 

Following an exchange of pleasantries, Landa invites the farmer to sit with him at a table. The officer compliments the farmer on the beauty of his three daughters, as well as the deliciousness of the glass of milk he has been provided. The farmer stoically thanks his visitor for the compliments. He is hospitable, but clearly unenthusiastic about receiving the Nazi into his home. 

Having dispensed with houseguest niceties, the officer then requests that the farmer ask his daughters wait outside. Landa explains that what they have to discuss would best be done in private. The farmer agrees and instructs his daughters to comply with the request.

Satisfied with their privacy, Landa informs the man that he is looking for a family of Jews. He explains that his inquiry is a mere formality and that he would soon be on his way. The farmer is cooperative and maintains a relaxed, respectful demeanor as he responds to his visitor’s polite, but probative questions. After meticulously recording the farmer’s answers in his binder, Landa concludes that the man is harboring enemies of the state. 

The officer affords the weary farmer an opportunity to confess to the crime. He explains matter-of-factly that it would be less laborious if the man were to simply acknowledge his complicity in hiding Jews and reveal to him where they are stowed. If the farmer complies, the man and his family would be left in peace. If not, and Jews were found on his property, however, the farmer and his daughters would suffer punishment.

Faced with such a cruel dilemma, the farmer reluctantly confirms the officer’s suspicion that the family of Jews is hiding beneath the floorboards of his home. 

With the family’s presence beneath their feet confirmed, Landa summons his soldiers into the room. At the officer’s direction, the men shoot through the floorboards with their machine guns, brutally murdering the group where they lie. 

One girl manages to scurry through a vent and escape to the bright, expansive pasture surrounding the house. Raising his gun, a smug Landa allows his prey to flee, yelling taunts at her as she runs from the carnage. Crying through gasps for air and sprinting to nowhere in particular, the bloodied, mud-clad girl disappears into the horizon. She would be the officer’s messenger—yet another chilling testament to Landa’s superior Jew-finding skills. Furthermore, Landa is confident that he will have another opportunity to murder the girl at some point in the near future. Ultimately, a Jew Finder can no longer play his twisted game if all of his prey has been eradicated.

The message of the farmhouse scene is clear: no matter where you run, no matter where you hide, the Socialist will find you, and he will destroy you. You cannot outsmart him. He is focused, determined, and lacks empathy. He cannot be reasoned with, nor can he be enlightened. Not unlike James Cameron’s fictitious Terminator, the Socialist is truly the perfect antagonist for this story.

But, sadly, the Socialist antagonist is not a fictitious enemy confined to film and book. Incidents such as “Basterd’s” farmhouse scene were familiar to those living under Nazi tyranny. Likely inspired by biographical records such as those penned by Anne Frank and Władysław Szpilman, the scene is representative of many such incidents which occurred throughout Europe under Nazi occupation. 

To put this in context, it must be understood that the Socialist is a very real enemy. He is consolidating his power in America today. He is coming for you, and he will continue to come for you with unyielding persistence. You need only look to Tarantino’s film or countless recorded testimonials from throughout history to gain insight into the depth of Socialist malevolence.

The Good German

It is difficult to watch the “Basterds” farmhouse scene without imagining yourself in this situation. What if you were the farmer? What if you were the Jew? What would you do? You might even ponder how you might act if you were one of the soldiers commanded by your superior to murder a family, including women and children, in cold blood.

As I contemplate these questions, I begin to consider the role of  “the good German” of the time and her culpability in the evolution of events such as these. 

The good German was a passive citizen. He looked the other way as his neighbor was dragged from her family for expressing subversive political beliefs. She went about her business as the systematic roundup and extermination of fellow citizens took place on an industrial scale. Brutality and injustice continued largely unabated by a populous focused on self-preservation.

At the outset, most Germans supported the Nazi regime. Following WW I, the country was thrust into a period of economic crisis and national despair. Hitler had promised Germans a brighter future through Socialism. He had offered hope and a restoration of pride, and a plurality of Germans were eager to embrace the charismatic leader’s nationalist message. 

But not all Germans stood in agreement with Hitler’s rhetoric. Certainly, most of the country’s 318,000 Jews were wary of the Nazi Party (there were actually some who endorsed Hitler in the nascent years of his regime). However, the many naysayers were very much intimidated into silence through a campaign of terror and brutality. Compliant Germans had calculated that the only thing worse than being a good German was to be a dead German. 

But what would have happened if the good German stopped being good? What if opposition took meaningful action early on, before the Nazi regime was able to consolidate its power? What if  Germans became defiant and emphatically declared that they were not going to surrender their liberties so easily? What if, for example, the populous had taken a dramatic stand before their speech was squelched and their guns confiscated? Perhaps today we would be recounting a very different historical record. Perhaps Anne Frank would not have been murdered in a concentration camp at age fifteen.

The Good American

We are at a time in history in which the good American must decide whether the prize of good standing among Socialists is worth the price of his liberties and freedom. She must calculate at what point, if any, the prize is no longer worth the price. It is a very personal decision, and one that must be made with extreme reflection and sobriety.

 To populations living under Nazi rule, cancellation meant incarceration, detention in a concentration camp, forced labor, and even death. Cancellation for Americans today may result in offenders being shunned by family and friends, loss of business and banishment from social media. While incarceration of political opponents is certainly also being practiced in America today, the wholesale slaughter of citizens is not yet on the horizon. 

But the longer the American remains good, the higher the price she can expect to pay for her inaction in the future. To quote an Arabian proverb, “If the camel once gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow.” 

Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot—they mastered media censorship and manipulation, went on to confiscate firearms, and from there it became easy enough to harass, jail and execute their unarmed opponents. It doesn’t matter if the tyrant is a Socialist, Communist or even a Democrat. The seeker of absolute power descends a predictable slope into the pit of brutality. It is a path has been well-worn by countless autocrats and dictators throughout history.

Democrats have not yet consolidated their power, but are working diligently to establish single party rule under a globalist form of government. To achieve that end, the Democrats have stolen a national election and, via HR1, are paving the way to disenfranchise honest, legitimate American voters well into the future. 

Democrats have colluded with big tech, big business, and mainstream media. They have censored, silenced and imprisoned Conservatives under dubious charges. They are flooding our country with a transformative population, an invading horde that will ostensibly reward Democrats for their largess with the votes needed to achieve Uniparty rule. 

To state that we are being robbed of our country is being kind. We are being mugged.

The Bad AR

Democrats now seek to remove our last line of defense against tyranny—the firearm. They have begun with the introduction of HR 127, a proposal for, among other things, compulsory gun registration. In effect, this legislation will build a database of gun owners’ names and addresses, as well as the number and types of firearms owned by those individuals. At that point, officials need only print a list to identify targets of engagement in a predictable and well-coordinated, door-to-door gun seizure effort. 

HR 8 has been introduced in an attempt to ban AR-style rifles. More recently, following tragic shootings in Boulder and Atlanta, Biden has suggested that he might very well bypass Congress and take executive action on gun control. His argument is that it’s too important of a matter to wait on as resolutions wind through the legislative process. 

In fact, the Presidential Branch does not have the authority to create and pass laws. But if there is one thing Democrats excel at, it is exploiting crisis and emotion as a means to an end. You need only review the many COVID-inspired mandates created outside of state legislatures to review this familiar strategy in practice. It is an effort that helped Democrats “win” a national election.

Proponents of  gun control bills and actions argue that the AR is a military weapon, inappropriate for hunting and recreational use. They contend that the AR is a tool whose only intended use is to kill people. An appropriate counter-argument to this is to simply reply, “Yes, I’ll take two, please.”

My intention is not to sound blasé about people being shot with a formidable weapon. Rather, the statement reflects an understanding of our basic right to defend family, friends and self. The Second Amendment wasn’t written to protect Americans from deer and antelope, nor was it adopted to grant us the right to shoot at paper targets.

The Second Amendment was penned because our founding fathers understood that an armed populous stood a better chance of defying tyranny than citizens clutching rock and stick. High power weapons are force multipliers in any battle, and the larger armament typically wins the day. Politics aside, ask Native Americans about the Gatling gun if you think this is merely theory.

I’m not arguing that everyone should have access to a rocket launcher. Clearly, there are and should be limits to a civilian’s arsenal. However, while an AR may not be an appropriate weapon for hunting, it may certainly be an effective countermeasure against those intent on dragging you kicking and screaming down into the pit of brutality. 

Would you be satisfied to lie defenseless with your family beneath the dusty floorboards of an isolated farmhouse? Would you be content to spend your days in fear, waiting for the MAGA Finder to uncover you and yours? We are quickly approaching an era during which such scenarios may come to fruition. The camel’s body is already halfway into the tent. 

If passed into law, HR 127 and HR 8 will ultimately lead to the declared illegality and confiscation of all weapons. The disarmament of a population is a key objective to be executed in support of a weightier goal. Our voice is a weapon. It has already been largely neutralized through censorship, deletion and deplatforming. Radical gun control will further compel the citizen to be “good” by depriving him of his last resort option to be “bad.” 

At the beginning of this piece, I provided a spoiler alert before recounting the harrowing farmhouse scene from “Inglorious Basterds.” If we’re not careful, if we remain good, look to the farmhouse scene as a spoiler alert for America’s future. 

I was stunned to read this morning that a new study has branded Dr. Seuss Books such as Horton Hears a Who! “Racist and problematic.”

Katie Ishizuka and Ramón Stephens write in their February 2019 report, “Findings from this study promote awareness of the racist narratives and images in Dr. Seuss’ children’s books and implications to the formation and reinforcement of racial biases in children.”

I suppose I shouldn’t be so shocked to read such headlines anymore. Hell, even expecting students to show their math work is now considered racist.

The Oregon Department of Education recently encouraged teachers to register for training that promotes “ethnomathematics.” The course material argues, among other things, that kids showing their work in math class is considered White supremacy because it allegedly reinforces “paternalism” and “worship of the written word.” Worship of the written word is an alleged foundation of white supremacy culture, which reinforces documentation and writing skills.

I read the Dr. Seuss and ethnomath arguments while carefully considering the charges. And, after having done so, I came to an epiphany. Everything is racist and problematic.

This is not idle speculation, nor is it hyperbole. The charge is, in fact, fairly easy to make and support by what the left accepts as cogent argument.

Daylight Savings Time is Racist and Problematic

Consider, for example, Daylight Savings Time (DST). Racist and problematic? Absolutely. How? Let me explain.

According to research published in BMJ, hospitals reported a 24-percent spike in heart attack cases the Monday following the one-hour spring time adjustment. They also reported a 21-percent reduction in heart attack cases on the Tuesday following the time adjustment in the fall. The data was collected between March 2010 and September 2013.

Now, let’s couple that  study  with a 2009 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. researchers found that African-Americans have a much higher incidence of heart failure than other races. Before age 50, African-Americans’ heart failure rate is 20 times higher than that of whites, according to the study.

Given the above, we can conclude the following: If DST has been shown to cause heart attacks, and African-Americans have a heart failure rate 20 times higher than that of whites, then DST will disproportionately affect the health of African-Americans than that of whites. Therefore, DST is racist and problematic.

Spoons are Racist and Problematic

I put my “Everything is Racist” allegation to the test. As I stirred my coffee, I thought, “OK, what about his spoon? How is it racist and problematic?” 

The left always works from the assumption of inherent racism, so that is what I will do. That spoon is racist, and now I will go about buttressing my allegation. It didn’t take long.

A quick internet search led me to discover that spoons can be held tight with concave sides facing out and with index finger between their handles. Banging the spoons together in this arrangement creates a musical instrument made popular in the minstrel shows of the early 19th century. Minstrel shows were an American form of racist entertainment performed by mostly white people in make-up or blackface.

So, I will argue that spoons represent a painful reminder—a link to the past, when African-Americans were openly mocked onstage by their white oppressors. Every time a spoon falls to the floor or clatters in a drawer, whites simply perceive sparkly tones. But to African-Americans, these sounds are painfully reminiscent of minstrel music. They are echoes of a humiliating history, with each note stabbing like a dagger at their very essence. Clearly, spoons are racist and problematic.

But, my polemic is not yet complete. There is one very important, missing ingredient I have yet to formulate: a label. My spoon screed must be tied up and presented with a nice, erudite-sounding, Ivy-League-sized bow. This will give my whole mess of an argument the appearance of scholarly provenance akin to the terms “Ethnomathematics” and “Structural Racialization.”

To that end, I will dub the sound of clanging spoons, “Implicit Bias Resonance.” And I will call my earlier DST/health analysis an example of a “Medigression.”

There. Now we not only know how spoons and DST are racist and problematic, but we can now print it on  bumper stickers and shout our terms at rallies. See how easy that is?

The Racist Challenge

In the interest of proving my thesis that everything is racist, I suggest the creation of The Racist Challenge. This will not only expose the absurdity of and possibly curtail any such future allegations of racism found where none exists, but it will also likely get you kicked off Twitter and Facebook. And that is a good thing.

1. Invite a friend or family member to challenge you with a person, place or thing
2. Work from the assumption that the person, place or thing you’ve been given is inherently racist
3. Formulate an argument to prove step 2
4. Create a term to describe the racism you’ve uncovered (turn to the Racial Equity Tools Glossary for help) 
5. Share your findings publicly

Conclusion

There are honest examples of racism in the US and throughout the world. There always have been, and there always will be. I’m not saying that we can’t do better. I’m simply suggesting that we should be honest about how we approach it.

I once had a book in high school in which I started highlighting important passages. By the time I got to the second chapter, I realized that I had highlighted perhaps eighty percent of what I had read. At that point, the highlighted passages had lost their value. They were worthless to my studies. When everything is highlighted, nothing is highlighted.

Which leads me to the point of this piece. When everything is racist, nothing is racist. Anyone can find racism anywhere—even in a spoon. It’s become somewhat of a game at this point, much like finding Waldo.

Finding “white privilege” where none exists has become a cottage industry. Books, lectures, interviews—none of this is written or performed for free. Corporations such as Coca Cola and entities including the Seattle School District are all too happy to pay handsomely for the woke stamp of approval from profiteers with dubious credentials.

Working toward a goal of 100% tolerance is both foolhardy and unrealistic. This will only build resentment and create further division. You cannot force someone to be tolerant. To be tolerant is to accept that people are flawed.

The charge of racism does not affect with the same center of gravity as it had in the past. When African-Americans were barred from sitting at certain lunch counters, going to certain schools, or were forced to sit at the back of busses—those injustices were abhorrent. People fought and died to have those practices abolished, and they were true examples of racism. 

Being asked to read Dr. Seuss or show your math work? Not so much.

My mom is a low-information voter. Now, please keep in mind that there is a difference between low-information and low IQ. My mom is not stupid. But she is woefully misinformed and under informed.

Mom watches “ABC News” at 6:30 every night because she thinks the anchor, David Muir, is “Cute.” She reads the local newspaper that has been delivered to her house every morning for as long as I’ve been alive. She doesn’t watch any of the cable news outlets, participate in online chatter, or discuss politics with friends and family.

It’s the paper in the morning, David Muir at 6:30, and that’s all, folks.

Mom has no knowledge of Dominion, Mike Lindell or the Navarro Report. She couldn’t tell you anything about evidence that exists regarding election fraud. Because, to the best of her knowledge, there isn’t any.

By my estimation, when it comes to news and information, my mom is getting maybe 10% signal, 90% noise. That is nothing I blame her for. There is, indeed, a certain blissfulness that can be had in not knowing the truth. The truth is scary. The truth is dangerous. But eventually, one way or another, the truth is revealed.

Political discussions in our family tend not to go very well. Mom loves animals and was keen on the the Green New Deal until I explained the costs associated with it. I told her how those expenses would cascade down the line and potentially put me out of business. Mom paused, processed what I said—and changed the subject. The truth was revealed, and it was scary.

Mom doesn’t know this website exists, and I’m fine with that. I don’t want to scare her, and I want to maintain harmony in our family. Most of my family members, including Mom, are Conservative. But the Socialist influence of mainstream media on public opinion cannot be denied. These outlets target an unsuspecting populous with one voice, and it is deafening. Check out Operation Mockingbird to see the machine in action.

I wonder how many other blissfully unaware moms, dads, brothers, and sisters are out there. I know how difficult it can be to reveal truth to these people. I’ve lost decades-old friends in doing so. And so, I mostly keep my politics to myself.

I’ve been in business settings in which someone in the group will make an off-handed Trump joke and everyone laughs in approval. I think of Nazi Germany when I’m in these situations. When a SS officer walks into a room, gives the ‘Heil Hitler’ salute and everyone responds in kind, what happens to the guy who doesn’t?

He loses business, he loses his standing, he loses his voice—he is canceled.

So, in response to the quip, I raise my glass, politely smile, and chuckle as I ponder material I can add to this website.