Whisper campaigns are not loud enough

I will start this as I often do by explaining what I'm going to talk about. It's an article I read about Hudson Valley New York where there has been much talk about education and where in America the major population exist that represents education. The story is actually set in the education environment and yet it's a "Red Herring," because it has nothing to do with education other than a backdrop, so I will turn it into an education piece of course because I'd expect nothing less of myself. When we walked into school on the morning of 6 November, we exchanged quick glances with the other girls in our social circle – looks filled with uncertainty and dread about the future. Because we are applying to colleges all around the country and about to leave our homes in the Hudson Valley, political issues suddenly have begun to feel a lot more personal. Access to abortion and contraception, protection of the environment, and the growing hate and violence toward marginalized groups all have the potential to greatly impact our lives. We had only brief conversations about why Trump’s victory felt so defeating, but our shared disappointment stuck with us as we walked to our first period classes. But as we sat down at our desks, we noticed a very different attitude among our male peers. Subtle high-fives were exchanged and remarks about the impending success of the next four years were whispered around. It didn’t make much sense. We live in a mostly liberal town in the Hudson Valley where Harris-Walz signs were posted outside of most of our friends’ houses. This is not to say that families with dissenting opinions don’t live in our town. But the boys that were the most vocal in their enthusiasm about the election results have progressive parents just like ours. As these startling observations made us look back on the last couple of years, we started to realize that maybe this wasn’t as unexpected as we thought. An increased interest in pursuing the ideal masculine appearance by going to the gym and the creation of new male-dominated social activities like the infamous exclusive poker nights had seemed innocent and had been easy to write off as typical boyhood behavior. But now all that seemed as if it was just the beginning of a new wave of male conservatism that was infiltrating our school. Obsession with achieving a more muscular body through excessive exercise and intense dieting fueled by ridiculous social media campaigns fell far outside the realm of healthy self-care. And the desire to socialize only with other boys stood in stark contrast to the co-ed activities we were accustomed to since childhood. It hadn’t taken long for this focus on machismo to creep into these boys’ mindsets and conversations. Seemingly harmless disrespectful comments with witty undertones toward girls became commonplace, and feelings of traditional male dominance started to sneak back into our friend groups. Upon reflection, we both recall speaking about stereotypically masculine interests or topics and then hearing snickering exchanges between the boys in the room followed by targeted belittling retorts disguised as trivial jokes. It genuinely felt as though they viewed us as unintelligent or even inferior. During science lab our male lab partners read the directions aloud to us, and we had to remind them that we could actually read. What we saw now was that all this was the result of an obsession – perhaps somewhat subconscious – with preserving an idea of traditional masculinity that both Biden and Harris threatened, in different ways. As an older, frail individual, Biden was an easy target for Trump’s aggression. While Trump’s comments seemed like an attack on Biden’s age and mental competence, they also incorporated indirect attacks on his masculinity that influenced this impressionable demographic of young men. And when contrasted with Trump’s pumping fist after the assassination attempt in July, Biden was appearing weaker and weaker while Trump was solidifying his representation of traditional male heroism. Similarly, when Kamala Harris replaced Biden as Trump’s opponent, his goal of making his adversary seem “weak” was much more straightforward, exacerbated further by Harris’s prioritization of women’s rights in her campaign. Still, because our town is considered such a progressive bubble, we never thought the tone of the election was connected to the changes we were observing in our male peers. But Trump’s calculated direct focus on young boys was strong enough to win them over. While these are just observations within our own high school, we believe that this is happening across the country. Young, well-off white boys from liberal families are being tempted by conservatism simply to protect an archaic idea of masculinity that guarantees them inherent power. It is not as if they are against abortion, or care much about the economy or immigration, or even feel remotely attracted to the rest of conservative dogma. But clearly, a shift back toward traditional gender roles is resonating with them now as progression toward female empowerment threatens their already delicate self esteem. So how do we address this, going forward? How do we ensure that young boys practice critical thinking instead of falling victim to Trump’s rhetoric with its focus on recommitting to gender stereotypes that we believed had finally been eradicated? Parents, we urge you to be aware of this growing phenomenon and teach your children about the dangers of calculated political movements designed to further one politician’s agenda. Until we do so, it is likely this pattern will continue. Boys in our school as young as eight are beginning to exhibit these same misogynistic tendencies that we never remember noticing when we were their age. And the most dangerous aspect of this is how little it’s talked about in mainstream media and how easily it has been overlooked in progressive communities. In fact this is an epidemic that will continue to spread rapidly until we start talking about it. So look closely because these boys will be among the voters responsible for deciding our future elections. I'm going to cross a line here and call this article "Full-Throated," propaganda. You know all the way back to Margaret Thatcher & Sandra Day O'Conner have I been aware of this idea of Feminist. Only, we didn't actually call it that back then. These we're just strong female leaders in their area of expertise. Coming from a Matriarchy Society where the roles and wealth passes through the female blood line, I got to say when I read this I almost felt like it had been "Harlekin Romanticized." Think about the underlying motivation here and how it's being delivered. The boys, who I might add have natural instinct to act male in behavior to do things like "High fives," as a "bonding," act should no way be perceived as practing shadow toxic masculinity. This is the whole idea that got more than half of the country to vote for a toxic male groper. It's not the sinister aspect people are embracing. It's the social and mannerism "Policing," that is being rejected. Perception is a point of view. Assuming that you have an idea that your justifying, you will find evidence of it in all that you view. So yes, I agree male chauvinism is a problem and it has a very ugly past and I believe it's very ever present and it does present a challenge to us who are living in reality. But, to eradicate all the progress by fantisizing or indulging in a "victim mindset," helps no one. That is why I reject the general message in the previous publication and call it propaganda. It has "group meeting," written all over it. A true feminist voice would "call out," behavior for what it is. There would be no "mixed messages," or a question of "what side of the fence," does a person sit on? That is why I call it carrying a tone of "Group meeting," because only a cooperative tone that extends from a group of males and females together would settle on discreet form of messaging. We're nearly in the year 2025 for crying out loud. There's no discreet anything anymore. Men dress up as women and identify the same. Women identify as men to. There are hundred if not thousands of possible genders. To try to insert a "whisper," campaign into the Hudson Valley suburbs is as ridiculous as going to Madison Square garden and holding a Nazi rally. Yes, the cause of the problem is exactly because one candidate in this years presidential election did exactly that, but you don't defeat that type of activity with discreet shaming shared with glances and eye rolls. That sort of behavior has to be met head on with force. Americans did not do that this time. Instead, they let their voices be heard about what has essentially turned into a elitist contest of whose behavior is superior. In a perfect world, we would all love to get along with everybody. In a perfect world we would be celebrating Kamala Harris first female president of the most powerful country in the world, but we're not because America has not evolved as fast as most of us would prefer. I voted for her, along with every other liberal candidate right down to local races because I'm a registered Democrat who supports progressive policy. Mind you that's a major difference than an Extreme Liberal or even a protest voter. The schism wasn't in the "other," side this time. It was in "ours." I think the funniest thing stated in the article was the fact that Male Gym attendance was some how connected to bad behavior or even this quote, "During science lab our male lab partners read the directions aloud to us." Do you ever consider that boys are just sometimes Dumb and clueless about modest societal behavior? That they lack the maturity to be sophisticated at this stage in their life. I do everyday because I'm raising three boys of my own. Correction, I'm raising young men and two of them are over the age of adulthood, so I'm not as much, "raising them," as I am cohabitating. I do have an older daughter from a previous relationship who made me a grandfather this year. My grandaughter is ten months old and her name is Miley Sue. So I have every intention of raising gentlemen and any time their behavior verges on the cusp of unflattery male behavior, I remind them of why I oppose the behavior and I include because I don't demonstrate or display that behavior as an example to them for a reason. I treat my children who are nearly adults with intelligent communication hoping that it stimulates their neural sense of reflection into manhood. I try to set the example of "Passive," behavior most of the time, but occssionally I do "make a stand," when I disagree with an activity or a "tone," that isn't conductive to being mature or acceptable. This is what I despise just to bring as an example, "Boys in our school as young as eight are beginning to exhibit these same misogynistic tendencies that we never remember noticing when we were their age. And the most dangerous aspect of this is how little it’s talked about in mainstream media and how easily it has been overlooked in progressive communities." Okay, "true statement," is all I can say. Boys do exhibit male tendency at the age as young as eight. How is that interpreted, as misogynistic? Do they even know what that is? To give an example when I was ten years old and in the fourth grade there was girl name Melissa in class who told the teacher that my friend and I were calling her a, "whore." Guess what? We didn't even know what the word meant and explained that as best we could because we were only ten that on the show, "Happy Days," that we watched ritually the night before that Ralph Mouth and Potsy we're saying "Hardy Har Har," instead of laughing at a joke. So just imagine living an exeperience like that where you suddenly become aware of what many females your age experience and then because of the fact that your aware of it, changing your behavior like a regular person would. We did get suspended for a day though. I told my dad what had happened because I had to explain my suspension and he just shook his head at me like I was an idiot and gave me an extra chore to do the next day. That was my punishment. He knew I never knew what the word meant because he didn't raise me that way, so I take offense to the suggestion that this is a topic for mainstream media. I believe in fact that is mostly a reaction to mainstream media that has caused the backlash. If you want to stop unacceptable behavior, you set a clear obvious boundary. To me that is a personal thing not a "blanket policy." Sure, we've got societal rules for those that don't understand and I'd totally agree that this one individual has had a negative impact on males, but also he's revealed these individuals to us. There is nothing wrong with recognizing the obvious challenge that faces us all, but again, "propaganda," is not the way to go. That is why I called it romanticizing the problem. Also, I believe I need to add that it's complete fiction that Biden or Kamala have anything to do with this behavior. That is true fantasy that the two main characters can somehow "vanquish," the villain in this story. It borders on the same line as fairy tale romance. "You can't have your cake and eat it to," is the saying. If you want to tackle this particular problem head on, you must recognize where it begins. Take industry for example. How many millions if not billions of dollars are spent in marketing images to young girls down to even younger than eight years old? How many "Barbie," campaigns are there or even a better question how many "Ken," campaigns are there? Look at the entertainment industry. The hero and the villain concept. Even look no further than the exercise industry itself. Why are people encouraged to exercise and eat right? For health is t0h0e0 0o0bvi0o0us answer, but I'm sure if you dig a little deeper, it's more about appearing attractive to the opposite sex. There in lies the problem and all the investment into it. Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs when a group prioritizes consensus over critical thinking when making decisions. More over, "Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in for the desire for harmony or conformity." I believe the second one is the one I am taking aim at here. Tell me this, "What gender learns earlier about conformity?" Or should I say what gender emphasizes this characteristic more than the other? I'm not making an accusation here, I'm asking for someone to identify reality. So, if we have behavior that emphasizes reality to meet or conform to a particular behavior, which gender does that more than the other? Let me take it even a step further, which gender does it better when separated from other members of the same gender? If you answered, female, female and female. Then you answered male, we're getting somewhere. Yes, males do tend to behave better when being separated from the other males. When the females are separated, how do they behave. If you answered, the same, your probably right. See that is something we learn from infancy. It goes back that far. Male, by himself is fine, but put a male in a group of males and he will instinctively start the dance of dominance. Not all males are this way. I know because my youngest is not dominate masculine in personality the way his non-masculine side takes over and takes charge though is almost like, " oh no, look out!" That's how I know that not all behavior is related to gender. Some of it, and stay with me here is based on maturity. I like to observe my youngest son. He is more sophisticated and mature than his brothers were at the same age. You know why? Because he prefers mature behavior, even though he's the youngest. So I know this is not about genders, but it's about behavior & maturity. It's about roles and those things we choose. If you choose to believe that an outcome was swayed by a male toxic behavior, you're more than likely right, but if you believe you can change it by acting astonished I'll tell you I believe your wrong. Just like if I decided I didn't like the way a female reacted to something unpleasant like writing a polished article about how all the males in the suburbs we're secretly a bunch of masogynists, I wouldn't suggest it, I'd say it and I say it was wrong and I will not accept it! But that's my mansplaining technique see. It doesn't change the fact that males and females are different. I don't expect for males to instantly "get it," and change their behavior. Nor do I expect females to turn a "blind eye," to toxic male behavior. What is better is what we're actually witnessing and are currently witnessing continue as a behavior. I'm not saying it is good, but it's obvious. That is why I keep saying the word, "Obvious." Biden beat Trump by over 10 million votes and Trump beat Harris by about the same number. Why? I'd have to say it has more to do with Biden's economic policy than Trumps male toxic behavior. Yeah, Trump did all the bad things, but he's doing it because that's his base and their "Red Meat." Kamala did nothing to distance herself from Biden, so it was basically Trump vs Biden 2.0 if you really want to be honest about it. Of course Kamala didn't have much time, while Trump has been campaigning for a decade if not two. This was never about her as a candidate or him. It was about rejecting the idea of being spoken down to and I have to admit that is a male reaction. Males are great accusers and they will fight each other tooth an nail for dominance, but a female dominant figure isn't something we've observed for a while. They exist. I can start a list if you prefer, but that's not going to change masculine behavior. What I believe we need. Better, I should say what I believe the Democrats need because at this point I'm not in, "their camp," strategy wise, is strong showing of solidarity. We didn't have that because some people were, "I don't support Kamala," or "I don't like how their handling Gaza." In reality, we just didn't show up by ten million in numbers. You know who showed up, masculine toxic voters. I didn't say specifically men either. They showed up because they were rejecting elitist behavior. They we're anti-conforming. Sometimes, you don't need to offer to "build a wall," or "deport millions of people. All you need is distain for the other side and the Democrats did nothing about the image or the perception that they cared for common people and common problems. We have no "Maga Whisperers," because we're to busy making fun of them. Instead of organizing, we're writing articles about how the obvious is obvious. You know what else reminds people of what side of the coin they come down on, marketing. I believe gold shoes are the most atrocious thing I've ever laid eyes on, but you know what's even worse? Never having laid eyes on Gold Shoes. It's memorable because whose not going to remember gold shoes. Say what you want about How awful the guy is, but he does memorable things almost every single day. Think about it. What do you remember about Biden? I remember one time he fell off a bike. To take it even further, what do you remember about Kamala? I remember she made a face at the debate, but that's all I remember because the rest of her campaign was "I'm not him." Well, duh! and that's where we lose the common voter. Remember what Hillary Clinton said about Basket of deplorables? You probably don't, but guess what? They remember it. I remember paying nearly five dollars for a gallon of gas last summer. I don't think I'll ever forget that, but I can't tell you what name someone called me. Memory works in the terms of not thought, but emotion. I can't exactly tell you at any given time, "Something I thought," but I can tell you at any given time how I felt. Trump made you feel, even if what you felt was outrage, you remember it. I remember Obama. I remember that his campaign slogan was "Hope," and it made me feel that way. What did Kamala make us feel? As a Democrat, I was proud because she was not only female, she was a mixed race candidate. What did she say that made me feel though? Um, "we're not going back?" Guess where that got us? We're going back! We're going back to the same shennanigans of nearly eight years ago. It's already started with ludicrous cabinet picks. it's dominating the news cycle and all anyone can say is either, "I told you so," or find some other way to snicker. Wake up people! Snickering isn't getting things done. You know what's getting things done? Obnoxious behavior. That is an male associated prime example of getting attention. Think about it. Which peacock has the brilliant feathers? Which male four legged animal acts aggressive? All of them, plus the two legged one's. Male dominance is a historical trauma that leaves it's mark on society. War is male dominance. Greed is male dominance and most of all Violence is male dominant. That doesn't mean that we can't figure out how to change though. How many institutions are dedicated to changing male dominant behavior? I can think of only one and it doesn't actually change behavior. It just makes things worse and that's the department of corrections. In my own life, I've struggled with the male dominant fact that exists in reality. I was a dominant athlete that lead to being a male dominant adult who was more aggressive than most. You know where that got me in the adult world? Absolutely nowhere. I had to relearn everything I thought I knew because the world I lived in was full of mature and developed people who had tolerance and sophisticated ideas. I literally had to go back to school to figure out how to communicate and how to behave that contributed to successful interactions in a professional setting. This is what I mean by saying, "I'm going to turn this into and educational forum." Let's talk about education right here where we live. In most places of learning there is a common thread of guard rails setup to deal with male dominance. Unfortunately, it's also dominated by other males that replicate dominate behavior. For example Jake Paul fought Mike Tyson. In the same way, one earns notoriety. It's the ultimate male struggle in a world where it's obvious that Male insecurity needs to be de-escalated by people with the reasoning ability and perhaps the wisdom to step forward to explain certain behaviors not just as tendency, but discipline. Males need guidance in their life. My own struggle was to understand that anger is based on fear. Ultimately that is the mannerism and behavior that is misunderstood. It took me a lot of self care years to understand what I was afraid of and how to change a behavior that is so seated in your core that you have to practically "Re-wire," your entire nervous system in order to over-come impulse reaction to certain triggers. I still experience those triggers until this day and it's hard to keep your composure when at a certain time in your life, you used violence to manage every problem. That is why I say, "Look at the entertainment industry," and look at very young stereo-typing of roles that we play that infuence gender identity. Each of us has a natural instinct to be a nurturer or a protector. They are other intellectual roles as well. It's not as black & white, as things are so easily portrayed when it comes to human nature. It's why I disagree with the smug tone of the article talking about teenage girls and their observations in Up-state New York because it's an obvious facade written by a corporate literary plant trying to stir a gender battle. The whole idea that everything is a "team," engagement and you must pick sides is a charade about capitalism. You see market studies show that when people are separated, they become influenced by whatever engagement that is available to them. It's in-line with my statement about males being separated from a group of males where the individual becomes docile and ready to elevate their personal relationship skills through communication. Take the actual person Donald Trump for example and forget about his persona. The man is nearly eighty years old. He reads and has the articulation skill in language somewhere around the fourth grade level. I'm not saying he isn't smart. I'm saying from mere observation that he had something traumatic happen, perhaps leaving home and entering boarding school and his emotional development was arrested. He graduated from the Wharton School of Business which is one of the most prestige Business Schools known to man. He then starts a career in Real Estate as that is the business he inherits to the tune of 400 million dollars which is like a Billion dollars today. That's why he claims to be a billionaire. I have to back up. I'm not certain he inherits a business of real estate. I just know that it's his business and he inherited the money. We all know the story. He builds Casinos in his journey. He builds golf courses and hotels. He rubs elbows with the rich and wealthy because he is rich and wealthy. Somewhere in there, perhaps the early nineties or there after, he comes to understand that there are a couple possible avenues towards becoming "In-famous." One possible avenue would to become a Howard Hughs type figure that would explain his inclination to befriend someone like Elon Musk. Now you have to remember at the time of Donald's childhood, his father was flush with cash that he shared with Democrats that ran New York. His father viewed the government, as a means to an end. Donald is described as having uncanny business instincts, as well as his competitiveness, chutzpah, cruelty, vulgarity and hucksterism. Let me draw the parallel here. None of this means that is who Trump is as a person. It just means that in the environment that he thrived in these were the characteristics he's known for. I understand that on a personal level that both his father and himself are considered very family oriented and have a reputation of looking after their children and grandchildren. It's part of the reason why I share my own story, so a person can observe that not a single chapter of your life defines you as a person and also the face that others see isn't authentically the person that you are. Men operate in compartments of role when they have to. If you are confronted in the street, you respond differently than having your toes stepped on at your daughter's ballerina recital. We walk in two worlds. There's the face we put on when were with men and the face we wear with everyone else. These boys in the story that are accused of being oblivious to the presence of the females aren't neccessarily being overtly misogynistic. Maybe they're comfortable with the females in the room who are observing their behavior and feel free to be themselves with other males. I'm not defending them. I'm just saying there are other details that contribute to what the article's author might have observed. Of course when she say's they are making, "snickering exchanges between the boys in the room followed by targeted belittling retorts disguised as trivial jokes." I believe her. The author then goes off onto describing, "Young, well-off white boys from liberal families are being tempted by conservatism simply to protect an archaic idea of masculinity that guarantees them inherent power." Now there is no way a seventeen year old wrote that. I'm sorry, but it gives away the end game which drives home the point made by this entry, "Trump’s calculated direct focus on young boys was strong enough to win them over." Okay, so you're telling me that I need to be afraid if not for Authoritarian dictatorship, Female Body Autonomy, War, Pestilence and Tariffs that will take us back to the Great Depression, I need to be afraid that 's it's going to make an obnoxious butt hole out of my teenage son? I'm sorry, but if if this is all the best Democrats can come up with as a response than we're going to be in the Cuban State for quite some time an I'm not referencing cigars of victory. Do you remember Bill Clinton? Of course, unless you've been living in a jungle in the Amazon, you know who he is. What is he famous for other than being the president? If you answer, "I did not have sex with that woman," you're absolutely right. He's famous for a vulgar act that supposedly happened at the White House in the Oval Office no less with what at the time could've been a possible underage lady, but we all know she was of age. How about the life time appointed Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas? Don't tell me you haven't heard the name Anita Hill. What do all these stories have to do with each other including Stormy Daniels? You get a prize if you answered, they are illicit stories about misconduct or lewd behavior of men. See, I told you this would be educational. I believe they're more than this though. I believe they are probably the most elaborate hoax stories ever pulled off in the public eye. I'm not saying those crude men never did those things and I want you to know all men are capable of very distasteful behavior and probably all of it's true. But think about it. The highest offices in the land. Doesn't it make more sense that somewhere someone is tallying American taste for rude, crude and obnoxious behavior and they're manufacturing these things at high level to distract us all from the obvious. The obvious fact is that on paper, none of these individuals represent anything more than an average American male. They have to be elevated to be memorable. How do you elevate someone's status? Scandalize them. When you can't scandalize anymore they've done, move onto their spouse. The Kamala Harris portrayal was to clean and to practical to be a winner. Her husband Doug. He actually came to our reservation her in the Northwest and everyone had nothing, but nice things to say about him. That's called publicity. But in order to reach the elite status, you have to be accused of something awful to make it here in America because that's just who we are. We're the one's putting these people on a pedastal. We're the "Golden Calf," worshippers. IF not! Tell me why one shrewed, crude and obnoxious individual after another is being held in the limelight for us. It's to make me forget about the five dollar gallon of gas I bought this summer. I'm never going to forget that just like in the seventies where there were long "Gas Lines," everywhere. It's the oldest trick in the book. If you want to make people like something they don't like, take it away from them and see how they respond. Look what's happening right now with immigration. Look what's happening with Health care. How about student loans? You're being made dependent on things that you can do without by making it an absolute neccessity in which most of it you don't even need. That's America. We're the kings of branding ideas and we do nothing else. Healthcare by the way, you do need. It's just that the current form offered is a far from the real version that other countries supply, so they threaten to take it away,so you believe you need it.Which you actually do. It's just that if you accept a less than perfect plan, you wont insist on something better and that's how it works. If your on the Blue Team, these are the things you can't do without. If your Red, her's your list. Heck, we even have a list if your not apart of those two sides. If you start catching on then we move to race war and if that doesn't work class war and finally after exhausting every area of the political arena, we get a gender war! This was an unprepared plan in which the Democrats had plenty of time to prepare for, it's just that the central points of it did not provide enough motivation for all voters. On the other side of the argument, the Republicans had enough motivation to get all genders to go to the voting booth. Let me give an example that I recently borrowed from the media outlet, "the Atlantic," to provide context. "She was perhaps the first person to launch a woke argument during a presidential campaign, ridiculing Bernie Sanders’s intention to break up big banks by asking: “Would that end racism? Would that end sexism? Would that end discrimination against the LGBT community? Would that make people feel more welcoming to immigrants overnight?” Seeing that argument in its infant form, made by a woman who several times collected $225,000 in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs, is a reminder of how stupid and morally bankrupt it is." Those are not my words. I was a Harris Walz supporter, but now that we've been given some time to consider the numbers and really see the results versus the expectation, I can really understand the sentiment. In al venues, this is what is called, "An unforced error." Nobody brought up Bernie Sanders plan. She just went ahead and assumed that all parties agreed with the idea that all that matters is the things she mentioned. I agree with those talking points, but that's not the only thing that is factored into my vote. We've already had the "banking crisis," and the "Realty Crisis." We recently had the biggest Health Crisis in our own time. Why wasn't that the topic? You see, I think the trouble that the Democrats have right now is that they are in bed with all of the entities they're complaining about and it makes for a really weak argument. While the obvious argument of "Border Crisis," doesn't take very much convincing. Especially, when it's already proven to work in other elections all around the world. By framing the election the way the Democrats chose to, they lent to the "discreet," nature of the Whisper Campaign and the result was apparent in the first paragraph or so of this article. "Access to abortion and contraception, protection of the environment, and the growing hate and violence toward marginalized groups all have the potential to greatly impact our lives." Think of the priority that this wording entails. The self is first and the idea that violence and hate are second is basically an "out of touch," concept. I'm not saying that the first two aren't important, but statistically they only apply to 50% of the voting population. So, if your entire plan is that you will only address half of your voters and then as a passing thought, also include something very serious as "added bonus," you're really "off-target." I get the idea that the opposition is a masogynist, I get that. I really do among other bad and distasteful ideas. But, and when you hear the word, "but," you know a disagreement is coming and that shouldn't be a part of a campaign strategy. There shouldn't be doubts and un-tended to ideas in order for a campaign to be "Rock solid." It almost feels like "We we're all mislead," Even by the media once again. They kept advertising that the race was so close and only a margin of thin un-decided voters separated the two candidates where the results clearly show that was nowhere near the truth. It wasn't even close. The author of the article I use in this discussion had this to say about the campaign, "his goal of making his adversary seem “weak” was much more straightforward, exacerbated further by Harris’s prioritization of women’s rights in her campaign." That's the jist of it. It's where I wonder outloud, "Was it His Goal?" or was that self inflicted? If you really think about it. I mean if you really think about her and the portrayal of this innocent and frail women, that images doesn't stick. Then you must wrestle with the idea that her campaign made it the priority of woman's rights because that is a bit obvious and fits because she's female, but then it starts to get a tad bit questionable because she's woman of power. I'm not saying powerful women cannot be powerful and feminine at the same time. I'm just saying that the idea of sensitive and unaware of male ego doesn't appear to fit this candidates "persona," at all. Is it her fault for being a contradiction? not at all. Is it a bit concerning that her campaign team attempted to make you over-look the fact that she was the "second in command," of one of the most powerful nations in the world? absolutely! Yes, and that's what the voters thought to. Myself, I was committed to supporting her no matter what, but remember we're supposed to believe just some Suburban educated females in Ohio or Pennslyvania held the keys to elect the first woman president. That's always bothersome to. That just some random ladies in a swing state are all we got to put our collective "hopes," on. Why not all of the voters in those states or why not many other states where no one has even thought of. It's measures of "razor thin," political arguments didn't have a chance where one of the candidates was almost assassinated. We can talk about the mere 120 days to pull a campaign out of the gutter and resurrect an entire new message, but it's obvious that it didn't work and I wonder why? Yes, that is the question I believe should be on everyone's mind today is why did the Democrats go with Joe Biden even though he's elderly and had one of the lowest incumbent percentages in history? Why did they wait until after the first debate where it was already "Mid-summer," and much of the campaign was in the "Rear view mirror?" These are the questions that we need to ask ourselves because sitting around in astonishment without any idea how we got here is not very realistic if you ask me. It's just now that we are seeing all of the critics come out and say, "well, this wasn't a very good idea and that didn't work." It's more like, "No, it was never a very good idea to focus on only half of the population." I get that it's important and I really wanted to see the first female president, but has any one really looked at our nation's history to form some idea about who we really are? We're obnoxious, we're boastful and tasteless at times. I believe this is directly reflected in our choices. We're not sophisticated France or Germany. Look at that example alone. People here don't even know what global politics are other than what they get from their highly incentivized media o0utlets. By that I mean, we never hear about how some change in a foreign country and how it hurts or helps us. We only hear about immigration and if a country will go to war with another country. That's pretty much the length of our interest in world affairs. Understanding markets is not that hard. Just turn over what ever you have in your hand and read where it's made. I bet it doesn't say it's American. You know why? because we don't make anything affordable here in America. Affordability take cooperation and power. It takes the form of inconvenience that we've long done away with here in our country. We don't even pick our own fruit or build our own homes anymore. We don't make anything other than wanna be celebrities and internet influencers who are all doing the bidding of corporations. That's the reality. If you don't believe me. Look into the investors of the Democratic party. Look at who the donors are. In some case, you have the same set of investors donating to both parties and you know why that is? Because it's not the results that they're interested in, it's the activity of reaching people. See, an election is kind of like when we talk about, "To big to fail," in banking. It's such a huge bureaucracy that many people don't believe it makes a difference. Well, in some cases they're right. For instance, is the president going to make a difference at the register when your checking out groceries? The answer of course is, "it depends." No pun intended. Here is an excerpt from the Atlantic article titled, "What the Harris Team Thinks Went Wrong." It is at the end of the fifth sentence of a paragraph that discusses who the team is and what steps were taken to prepare for a chaotic transition that they insist was unremorseful in nature. In response to a self described "Depressed turnout," of Harris voters, the team responded with these words, "no matter the tactics or the messages they tried, Harris could never fully escape the vortex of voter discontent with the economy, the country’s overall direction, and Biden’s performance as president." This is what I mean by comparing the presidency to banking and the "To Big to Fail," model. Not only is a national election of the commander and chief in the same category, but it can also be the "dual edged," cutting utensil of, "To Big to succeed." In that I mean, Biden inherited an economy that was like the Titanic heading for an iceburg. Profits skyrocketed for corporations and the stock market, but inflation "killed," voter appeal. I believe the president's campaign team more or less read the "Hand Writing on the Wall," and after a short stint with Covid, they advised him to get out of the race. Myself, I literally mouthed the words, "Are they throwing the election to Donald Trump?" My thoughts were not about president Biden. I was more concerned with the Democrats in general because although, Trump was once again dominating the news cycle, it appeared that there was no plan. So when I heard the announcement or more like when Biden endorsed Harris, it sat idle in my mind for a bit, but just like everyone else my thoughts began to improve. The contrast was so different. If you we're a Republican It felt like the old tired cliched criticism, but if you were a Democrat the small vibration of excitement really started to perculate. The thing was though, the election was just around the corner. It was summer and the election was in the fall. That means that the Trump campaign had been hammering home the message about inflation, Ukraine War and Aid, Israel and Palestine, and other numerous ideas that were just not popular with voters and blamed it on the Democrats. All the Democrats had was a gender based campaign strategy and like I said that only get's the attention of half of the voting demographic. I'm not saying it's not important, but it's what they did and we already witnessed how that worked out with Hilary Clinton. People say Hilary was a bad candidate because of her lifetime involvement in politics or her marriage to the former president Bill Clinton, but maybe it was because she is female. Think about it. Harris is female and she suffered the same fate as Clinton in many of the same areas. People said, "she's out of touch or she's to emotional to provide consistent leadership." I find that odd that it's the same tactics that were used towards Clinton. Trump is a narcissist serial domestic and relationship abuser, but at least he's not a woman. That's really sad that men & women would vote for a flawed candidate rather than a female candidate. It happened twice, so I'd think it's safe to say that's the case. So, where do we go from here? is the Ten Trillion dollar question. The national debt just keeps getting larger and Trumps going to add to it with his tariffs. I see many posts on the internet that talk about how grocery prices instantly came down after the election, but I don't know where this is happening because it's not happening where I live. Corporations are like narcisstic leaders. You give them any opening to abuse the public and they will. In fact they're sitting around right now trying to figure out how they're going to do it this time. With Trump they have every available resource and his brand of chaos to do it easily. So what will we be saying in four years? Will the voting public finally realize that they've been duped once again or will the Hate and Authoritarian leadership find a home in the last Free Country in the World? This is not a manifesto, as I am not calling for any outrage or criticism of individuals who are at fault. These are my own words so that people will know, "The voice of reason did speak out and condem what was happening." Will it make a difference? I've written quite a few entries since a couple of decades ago and it hasn't yet, but that doesn't mean I'm just going to stop trying. I don't believe Americans are too far gone. I believe we can be rational and can make this holiday season a new beginning. I've spoke on faith a number of times. Correct that. I spoke about religion numerous times and how I am not a hundred percent devoted because I see where blind loyalty leads. I do beleive in the Act of Contrition though. The definition goes like this:To confess one's sins, 2. To do penance and 3. To amend one's life. As long as these three elements are contained in an Act of Contrition, it suffices for a fruitful celebration of the Sacrament of Reconciliation. "Reconciliation," now there is a word of prominance. Prominance has two meanings and the first one has to do with celebrity status. The second one is more reliable in that it goes like this, "the fact or condition of standing out from something by physically projecting or being particularly noticeable." That is what I'm shooting for in this world that isn't about being noticed by people. It's about being noticed by the creator. Sure, I write. I figure god must be a good reader to have a whole book devoted to him or her. That book isn't about god though. It's about us. Redemption is what the book is about. All humans have a "redeeming," quality about them. I mentioned that the only institution dedicated to correction is the Dept of Corrections, but the other one is in religion. I am not impressed with today's religion, but I do believe in faith though and spirituality. Nothing I've written here has anything to do with those two things and I believe it's why it's so messed up. When you have faith, it means you believe that something better exists somewhere else. It means, you accept life as it is today because you have faith in something greater. That I have in abundance. Enough to write to those that care to read these entries. There is plenty of pain & sickness in the world today. This is not a manifesto, as I am not calling for any outrage or criticism of individuals who are at fault. These are my own words so that people will know, "The voice of reason did speak out and condem what was happening." Will it make a difference? I've written quite a few entries since a couple of decades ago and it hasn't yet, but that doesn't mean I'm just going to stop trying. I don't believe Americans are too far gone. I believe we can be rational and can make this holiday season a new beginning. I've spoke on faith a number of times. Correct that. I spoke about religion numerous times and how I am not a hundred percent devoted because I see where blind loyalty leads. I do beleive in the Act of Contrition though. The definition goes like this:To confess one's sins, 2. To do penance and 3. To amend one's life. As long as these three elements are contained in an Act of Contrition, it suffices for a fruitful celebration of the Sacrament of Reconciliation. "Reconciliation," now there is a word of prominance. Prominance has two meanings and the first one has to do with celebrity status. The second one is more reliable in that it goes like this, "the fact or condition of standing out from something by physically projecting or being particularly noticeable." That is what I'm shooting for in this world that isn't about being noticed by people. It's about being noticed by the creator. Sure, I write. I figure god must be a good reader to have a whole book devoted to him or her. That book isn't about god though. It's about us. Redemption is what the book is about. All humans have a "redeeming," quality about them. I mentioned that the only institution dedicated to correction is the Dept of Corrections, but the other one is in religion. I just have to say one more thing before I let you go. I have re-read this writing several times, editing it for simplicity and overall delivery and what has started as a strictly political piece has morphed into a less than diatribe about society and how we in society operate. One thing I have to say about it is less of a judgment and more of a statement. Now you know and I know how society & community work. I know it so well that I decided to critique the critizer by simply poking holes in their valid observations until it simply fell apart and appeared to be a "Fluff piece." Now I didn't do this because I am resentful or hold disdain for a particular point of view. In all my critique I try to lend a certain authentic and pragmatic picture that involves direction. In this case, I attempted to dislodge the idea that we need to be discreet when we're making observations that turn into objection. I object to many things. IT doesn't mean that everything will magically go my way, but that is the power of thought that is assembled to be turned into a literary piece of work. If I do it correctly, hearts and minds will be moved by it and then from there justice will be pursued. Speaking of justice, it was not long ago that a specific act of violence entered into our atmosphere and as the details unfolded, many people started to believe the act was justifiable. Let me be clear, No act of violence is justifiable, but having said it i must ask questions. When the president elect was almost assassinated, was the violence justified? The answer, of course is no. Okay, then when Hamas attacked the Gaza Strip and killed people and took hostages was it justified? The answer again, no matter how pro or anti-Israel a person is, it's still no. Therefore, how can it be in the year 2000 and 24 of our lord can it be okay for a shooter to take down a person in full view of cameras and the media for all to see? How is it possible? Of course anyone and everyone can answer this question because it's pretty easy when you apply "Group Think," and strategy. Now I begun, by pointing out that "group think," is a mechanism of conformity. So what am I saying? Am I contradicting myself? We are in a free society. We are free to form an opinion one way or the other. Why is it okay to commit violence when a majority of people approve of the result because they feel that it is a form of justice, albeit social justice? None the less it has started an awakening that is contagious. Excuse the pun, but in this country, the mighty U.S.A. we kill people everyday by looking the other way. Racial Violence, Gang Violence, State Sanctioned Violence and now Group Policy Health Insurance Violence is added to the list. People die from this and most of the time we just go about our business, but this time we stopped and we looked at the violence and considered why we thought it happened. We all thought it happened because it was going to happen eventually and let me talk about why I think it's happening. You know that I'm a big believer in technology because I literally work in the industry. I see the direct result of it everyday and I write these articles that most of the time I'm trying to explain the inner details of how things work and why. The reason we're all being "bombarded," with the idea of violence is to make us numb to it. You see, the only way something of violent nature is accepted in society is if it is everywhere you look. Think about what people have been saying about the video game industry since it's inception. They say, "It's to violent and promotes violence." Okay, so let's put labels on it like we do movies. Then, we see numerous police brutality incidence or school shootings and the list goes on and on until one day, we watch a shooter "gun down," someone in cold blood and walk away, clearing a jam like he does it everyday. He buys a Starbucks and goes to McDonalds. Everyone watches it and decides, "Yeah, he's just like us. He gets a coffee and a burger. What's not to like here?" I'll tell you what's not to like about it. It's the same way World War 1 started. Franz Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria was assassinated in Sarajevo the capital of the Ottoman Empire in which it was annexed by article 25 to be de facto ceded to Austria Hungry following the Russia Turkish War. It's occupied land that the native people resent the leadership. Sound familiar? Now, lets' move away from comparison and just look at in isolated detail. Let's say were discussing a fairy tale land called "Healthcare for Everyone." Like what other countries have. Franz Ferdinand is not an Archduke, he's a CEO. Luigi Magione is not a suspect. He's Gavrilo Princip. The Bosnian folk hero who takes on the leaders of Occupation. You see what I mean? I can draw all these parallels by simply using A.I. to connect all these dots. Don't you think because of the established history where I explained to you the scandilization of previous twentieth century folk heroes in America, ie: Clinton that the prominent potential to perpetuate a particular narrative is through manipulation of the "Group think," which itself is a mechanism of conformity? You see in this country we have something called "The Rule of Law," that is established by the founding of this nation. Everywhere for the past decade it's been discussed. WE have Hamilton, the brand. We have political entertainers. The justice system is a theater now. The reason all this is happening is to get "conformity," in a society that adheres to legal principal that holds their entire construct together, to rebel against their own interests. I've already demonstrated how that was done to voters. I am currently attempting to get some sort of narrative wrapped around the gender battle we just witnessed. It's all to describe and to get ahead of the story of what it's all really about. It is and always has been about resources and who controls them. Once again, I'm talking about the levers of power and how they're pulled. It's the history of this nation if not the history of the world. Think about it, what's in the bible? Whose it written for? What is it about? It's about a pattern repeated throughout time. The first brothers Cain & Able, what do they get in a skirmish about? Cain was a farmer and his brother Able a shepard. The story is about religious violence and the human condition. I must stop here and to get out of the dark shadow of violence during the holidays. I have a nice story that will do that. It's also inclusive because there is an opposite side to violence and let me demonstrate through using an actual event that I experienced recently. An elderly lady walks up to me while I was in a laundromat. She very respectfully asks if she can speak with me. She say's to me, "My ladies group and I have been discussing Indian Boarding Schools and MMIW (Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women). She sort pauses, I notice she has tears in her eyes. She then continues, "We're wondering if it would be okay with your people if we confront the government about creating a resolution. I asked her, "Is it okay if I hug you?" She approved so I hugged her and before I let her go, I said, "There is one thing I need you to do." She kind of looked at me with curiosity. I said to her, "I need you to let go of those tears you're holding for me and my people because you never did anything to us." She sort of exhaled with relief and grabbed me tightly, saying, "I knew you'd understand." I realized that guilt is a very real phenomenom and it's contagious, but so is forgiveness. That incident made me think about alot and it's when I decided to write all of this. My goal here is not to divide people, but help us all to see each other as human. I am not writing about money or land. I'm not even suggesting we try to reconstruct our own social status. I'm just giving a perspective that is not or ever will it be celebrated in society because there is no motivation to criticize ourselves because most of us are to proud to do that. When people start getting murdered in the street though, I don't feel it's appropriate to start cheering on the villain because we don't even know who that is anymore. I know it's not me, so I decided, "Who better to ask these questions?" I think everyone knows the answers, it's just someone has to go first. In the bible there is a saying that goes, "So the last shall be first and the first shall be last for many be called, but few chosen." That's from Mathew 20:16 in the King James Version of the bible. The actual version of the script is taken out of context. This is one thing I have to thank my biblical upbringing for. The whole context is called, "The parable of the workers." It goes, "Do I not have the right to do as I please with what is mine? Or are you envious because I am generous? So the last shall be first and the first shall be last. As Jesus was going up to Jurusalem, He took the twelve disciples aside,... For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into the vineyard. About the third hour he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. "You also go into my vineyard," he said and, "I will pay you whatever is right,' so they went. He went out again about the sixth hour and did the same thing. About the eleventh hour, he went out and still found others standing around. "Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?" he asked. "Because no one has hired us," they answered. So he told them, "You also go into my vineyard." When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to the foreman, "Call the workers and pay them their wages, starting with the last ones hired and moving onto the first." The workers who were hired at the eleventh hour came and each recieved a denarius. So when the original workers came, they assumed they would recieve more. But each of them also recieved a denarius. On receiving their pay, they began to grumble against the land owner. "These men who were hired last worked only one hour," they said and, "you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the scorching heat of the day." But, he answered them, "friend, I am not being unfair to you. Did you not agree with me on one denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give this last man the same as I gave you. Do I not have the right to do as I please with what is mine? Or are you envious because I am generous. I've experienced this metaphor for justice and fairness myself this year. I entered into an agreement with a man who was a land owner that had a lease for a rental. I entered into an agreement with him just like the workers in the vineyard and then about half way through the lease time, the land owner changed the agreement. I did not want to quarrel with the land owner part way through a lease, so I agreed to the changed agreement. I thought about this parable though and in my understanding just like the "First shall be last and the last shall be first," I applied my security deposit, my first and last months payment to the last three months that I stayed on the landowner's property. I moved out and when the land owner demanded payment, I just let it all go without a fight because he got all of my money up front before I even moved there. The last payment was first and the first payment was last. Some people might laugh when they read this, but I guarantee the land owner didn't find it funny. The point is that money makes us behave differently towards one another. I'm using my own stories & experiences to explain that under these "Rules of Law," that only apply to us workers in society, they are starting to crumble before our very eyes. Part of the reason is because it only works when both parties live up to their respective ends of the bargain. We're witnessing it in society. We're seeing violence committed at the sanctioned level and it's called business. That's not business, it's war. It's war against the common good. We're witnessing rich people use the "Rule of Law," to their own benefit and when held accountable, they want us to rebel to destroy the rule of law, so that there is no safety net. People call this the "Rome Falls," phenomenom. It's about corruption and greed where certain individuals want to forego the basic rule of law for their own benefit and they're trying to get many of us to go along with them. The problem with it is that some laws were only made to protect the rich and the rest of us go un-protected. When that happens, corruption wins and then the citizens in society rebel against the state. So yes, we all witnessed a man kill another man in cold blood and we all just went about our business because most of us figure that the systems we live under are so corrupt that there is no place for our protection. We just shrug it off like it never happened. That's not an accident. We're numb to it. My point here is that if we know the rich don't care about the rule of law except when it is towards their own benefit, where do we turn for justice? That's where folk heroes come from like Robin Hood and various others in history. Braveheart or to be current, the punisher. I notice a lot of people who put the sticker of the punisher on their auto also like to carry guns. It's almost as though they want us to believe two things at once which is that they'll serve their own form of justice when the law doesn't suit them and that they'll protect others when it's perceived that a law is being broken. That's uniquely how the new former president intends to act. The funniest thing I think I witnessed all year long was when the current president pardoned his own son. It was ironic because this summer the Supreme Court made a ruling that the president has complete immunity. So there you go for irony. I'm trying to circle back around and bring this thing in for a landing here. Much like Simone Byles did on the podium for the floor exercise in the last Olympics. Rebeca Andrade of Brazil won the gold with a 14.166 and Biles took the silver with 14.333 while Jordan Chiles won the bronze with a 13.766, The most fascinating part about it was the medal ceremony though. It was the first time it was an "All Black," podium in the event and Jordan was like, "Should we bow to her?" and Biles replied, "Absolutely because it was the right thing to do." What it was all about was flowers though. At some point the Brazilian gymnast gave Simone her flowers and the Unites States gymnastic team responded by giving all of their flowers away. I believe this is the perfect metaphor to end on because this writing started as a criticism over modesty. I felt bad to be the one to point out that the very polished article wasn't modest at all, but it was a, "Plant," to try to get people divided starting in the Upper Middle Class of society. In High School to be specific in a well to do part of New York. Then Luigi showed up like the punisher in some sort of comic book series. When people found out he was a valedictorian and came from a well to do family all the possible cliche stereo typical criticism fell apart. HE wasn't a poor person. He never came from poverty. All the news channels we're baffled into how to portray him because they usually can dismiss all accounts with mental illness or "Radicalized," disturbing messages. Luigi wrote a manifesto that clearly depicted himself as a person who just had enough of the corporate take over of people's lives and well being. I connected the idea to the more sinister aspect of how big entities try to use sly tactics for instance the story or article about gender specific experience in Upstate New York. It's all the same thing is what I'm saying and it doesn't appear to be working anymore. It's going to be interesting to see this new version of WWE American diplomacy. Will Russia and China ban together to take down the villain that is America? I mean, we clearly started this fight and it's not looking to good that now we're the one's pulling funding from Ukraine, but still giving it to Israel. One is being invaded and the other is invading. We're the one's that are marching Luigi around in a orange jumpsuit surrounded by to many cops & soldiers. It's overkill. It's a clear message that "Revolution will not be televised." If we still have some shred of the rule of law left though, we will prevail. Let's hope that we have it in us to do that. Let's grab the grandma at the laundromat and give her a big hug and tell her everything is going to be okay that us younger people will not let the government take away her medicare or her social security. My people understand these things. We've been through it all. Myself, personally I understand because I've been through it all to. Yet, I still have it in me to behave in a civil manner. That was almost a Luigi story at the end of summer and the beginning of fall though for me. I managed to get through it though because I know, "The last shall be first and the first shall be last." This holiday, really think about all that has transpired. I know I do. it's why I am writing about it. No matter if your right or left, up down or center, we all have a sense of gratitude if we really reflect on things. Let that be your guiding light. So Ho Ho Ho and Merry Christmas to all and Happy Hanukkah, Kwanza or whatever you believe. Happy Festivus for the rest of us!

Americana

Anyone who has a decent amount of self awareness, I'm sure you've done some soul searching in the last few days as I have. I couldn't put my finger on an instant assumption when I saw that a person attempted to assassinate a former president. It felt very disgusting and confusing, but now that I've heard most of the story and witness all the reactions, I think I've found some words to utilize. They will help those of you who have a sense of dignity & respect for yourself to know a loss of life through a senseless act is a bad thing. I believe that is what is so alarming about this event is that we are so numb to it in this day and age. Violence, however apart of human history is not most of our first instinct that is the majority of the population that I am referring to. If it were, all of us would be in "Combat mode," one hundred percent of the time. When the realization of this event sunk in and I decided that something happened and I was able to clear my thought process from all the distraction of people saying, "it was staged," or the "other side is to blame," and all that, I started to understand why it was hard for me to accept. I'm going to go away from the subject matter, but I'll come back to it, so that you will see and maybe even understand why some folks don't react right away. I'm a member of a minority, Native American that has had the pleasure of a decent education and some exposure to the world. If you've ever traveled off of this continent, America, you realize a few things right away. One, you realize how big the world actually is and two, you sort of recognize American stereo types. What I mean by it is that most of us have been around each other all our lives and we tend to become pretty tolerant to a lot of behaviors that we consider strictly American behavior. Framing things this way might help people understand the majority of the populations hesitation on offering any type of opinion about what happened in Pennslyvania. In life, you are taught a lot of things, but most people will pay attention to things that seem to gravitate within themselves. Things like being kind and courtesy to others. You learn good behavior and this leads you to enjoy and seek the attention of others that have the same kind of behavior that you learned to emphasize. I notice it comes pretty natural for females, as they have a nurturing that is associated with motherhood and the caring for children. Men on the other hand are sort of discouraged from emphasizing these behaviors, but most of us have them anyway and it works to our advantage. When you grow up, you find these behaviors out in society. You enjoy them on occassion because it really makes things become less complicated. When your in an educational setting, it fits into the learning environment like a hand in a glove. If your able to travel, you'll seek this kind of behavior and start to understand "Good Manners," is universal. I've done this and have had the privilege of experiencing it. So that is the "tone," or the motus operandi so to speak. It's called being aware of your own behavior and it is at times associated with people who enjoyed all sorts of privileges in life, like education and employment that allows a person to experience many different things in this world. Let me tell you, it's a very big world. You could travel the majority of your life and not witness or observe all of it because it's very big and way more detailed and intricate that can be imagined. That is the idea I want to start with when discussing something less complicated. It's like my idea and inspiration to become better as a human being and to discover the things around me is a bit threatened when I encounter less fortunate individuals who don't share those qualities with me. What I am describing is a stereo typical American. You see them at the airport doing many obnoxious and not so self aware things constantly. They're rude to people and just generally uncomfortable to be around. It's not because anyone is superior to them. They just sort behave badly and other Americans distance themselves from the people that make life difficult for Americans. I believe a clever quote that can be applied here is "When in Rome, act like the Romans." A lot of people do that and it's especially interesting when you go as far to learn other customs and languages. You start to become educated about other places and people who live there and it creates an experiencing of understanding which in turn helps you to learn even more about yourself and where you come from. That's a quality I believe we can all enjoy, Being American is a proud thing because in this environment with this type of mentality, you really start to understand just how fortunate you are to live in such a great place. We have unlimited freedom and that is what I believe makes America, the place, a beacon to the world. I'm Native American, so I can actually say, I'm indigenous from the land of America because my ancestors didn't travel from some other country. We we're and still are right here. Now think about this, foreigners when they came to this land they didn't know how to survive. The climate here, depending on where you live in America can be different from place to place, but generally every severe characteristic of weather can be experienced somewhere in America. Native people knew and understood this because we've lived here for thousands of years. Once Native People had helped foreigners through the spirit of cooperation that I'm describing as a decent human behavior had occured, the foreigners turned on my people and killed them for the land until what was once millions upon millions of Native Tribes became just a few of us. We're survivors of genocide. We know still to this very day, the bad spirit in human beings. We know violence and most of us witness poverty and discrimination on major levels that other "Americans," can't even imagine. I believe this is what allows for a certain insight into the activities of late. When you're Native American and you get to travel around the world, you connect with other people instantly from other lands because you have had an experience much like their own. Colonization of foreign land is unfortunately also a universal experience. So when in these lands, we, not just Native Americans but I'm sure most Americans have a sense of dignity and pride that we're aware of that might be viewed as superior. Most of us that know this about ourselves, "tone it down," because a basic issue of trust is associated with equality. All the common grade school cliche sayings apply here. "Treat people how you want to be treated and respect is earned not given." These are basic lessons in life that many of us learned in the household we grew up in. The idea that I might be "better," than anyone has never occurred to me, I believe because I know and understand that everyone has something to offer. To me this is what it means to be, "Civil," and yes I'm using the old phrase, "We live in a Civil Society," even though it's history is pretty violent. The next thing you learn about in life after manners & behavior is the law. The saying is, "We're a nation of laws." In fact, in my own culture we have the same teaching. Our's just goes, "We follow the unwritten law." Basically, there are laws that govern the universe and to make everything simple to understand if there is a law that can be confused with something, it's written down to avoid confusion. Even Christians have this in their religion. They call it the Ten Commandments. Behavior and the law, I believe are basic principles of a civilized society. What is the basic understanding of these things? I don't mean to sound like I'm speaking to a grade school audience, but the answer is, "Consequences." You're taught this or I should say, "we're all taught these things from a very early age." Like I mentioned before many of us learn it at home before we are old enough to go to school. There you have it. My big soap box speech about things a child could understand. Before I move on, I want you to understand something also very simple. You don't have to have a lot of education for this. Like I said this happens at home. You don't even have to travel to understand what I'm talking about. People can come to you. What I'm saying is that you don't have to be privileged to be a good person. Having said all of this, I looked long and hard into my own heart to apply this knowledge to myself first, before I decided to pass judgment on someone else. At some point in a difficult situation, a decision does have to be made though. This all happened on a Saturday and my first instinct was, "No way that happened, it has to be a mistake!" The reason I felt this way was because it was just to obvious of an event for me. You see, I haven't just learned these things in the last decade or so. I've been educated on history ever since I've been exposed to it. I was born in 1969. JFK was assinated in 1963. MLK was assassinated in 1968, the year before I was born. John Lennon was killed in 1980.The Reagan attempted assassination was in 1981. I was eleven years old for the last attempted presidential assassination. That was 44 years ago. I will say this. I was more worried that the 44th president would be assassinated. In away, it makes sense because people we're saying real horrible things back then, so the vitriol didn't just start like I said before it's been a good ten years or more of real bad politics in America. I don't ever remember it being this bad though. The tone isn't civil at all and it's not a your fault or mine kind of situation. It's the leadership. Without getting back on the soapbox, I can say the average American votes like once, twice or every four years or so. It's just been accepted that if your candidate doesn't win, you vote again soon. We made it through the former 45th president without uncontrollable violence even though there were a lot of threats and a lot of civil unrest. Like I said, I thought it would be the guy before him. This is an issue that we can't just sit back and say, "We didn't see this coming." It's been coming. That's what I meant when I said the word consequences and I don't mean to say it lightly or point fingers in anyone direction. It's what happens when there is no civility. The thing is, I think there is still civility in society. It's just there is a lot of motivation and maneuvering for it not to be the case. I don't believe it's coming from the base of either political party. A group of people don't just up one day and decide, "We're going to be violent." Leadership does it. If your leading people down a road of violence and misfortune than it will come back on you. Just look at history. Look at wars and genocide. Look at invasions and colonization. Look at the world around you is what I am saying. If you don't see anyone being violent, maybe you're the one being violent. What happened? A young kid got up on the roof apparently with an AR15 and managed to shoot a couple of shots before he was shot. Who is he? What's his motivation? How does that one act spell doom for a whole country? In reality, it doesn't, but that's not all that is at play here. This isn't the first time someone has gone off and did something like this in society. I looked at myself first before doing anything else because I was taught that judgment sometimes comes in the form of self defense. We often jump to conclusions without knowing all the information. I'll admit it. I was already thinking something like this would happen, but I was concerned it would happen before this with a different guy. It doesn't matter though. It did happen and it happened to this guy, so all the people who are upset, I agree with those folks because it's upsetting. We're Americans. This isn't supposed to happen here because we pride ourselves on the life we live and that doesn't involve this sort of behavior. It's there though. It's been here since the founding of the country. All my leaders were killed eventually. If violence didn't get them, being exposed to violence eventually did. I don't believe humans in society have the first instinct of violence. If we did, none of us would be here. We'd be extinct a long time ago. Having said it, when is the right time for violence? What justification do we have to commit violent crime? People will say, "In defense of yourself." Okay, I will accept it that's true. What did the president say when he got back on his feet? "Fight, fight, fight." Here's a question. Whose he fighting? Take some time to think about it because I know the answer came instantly, but really think before you answer. If you gave it some thought, the answer is Americans. He's fighting Americans and he's the one who wants to lead them. I've witnessed all the posts and the commentary. The opinions and the "Back and forth," blaming. No matter how you put it. It's America and the citizens that our leaders are saying, "Fight each other." They're telling you to fight each other and die if you have to and there are a lot of people jumping on board with the idea. Let me tell you something. Even though I tried my best to explain the fact that sometimes it's another American that makes you ashamed to be an American, I don't have any reason to commit violence against them. In fact that is like the golden rule you learn as a child, "Don't hit," and "don't yell at people." Sure, I know it's not real popular right now because a lot of people haven't been acting right for a long time, but that isn't a reason I should just resort to acting like I'm eight years old and start fighting with everyone. I'm not eight years old and neither are you. If anything, someone like me has way more reason to act out because of my people and what was done to us, but I don't hate anyone. That's the underlying truth at the end of the day. Did that kid "hate," his target? Probably not. Did he still get up on the roof and carry out a hateful task? He did. So no matter how you react, it happened and there is nothing we can do to change it. The point is what do we do now? Do you want to hate someone because your being told to? Did you ever think that "You do need to be told who to hate?" Do you ever consider that kid was told who to hate? Of course he was. He made the mistake of listening to someone who got him killed. That's where were at no matter which side of this your on. If we listen to leaders who tell us to hate each other, we will end up just like that kid. It might not happen right away, but like I said, "Being exposed to violence will eventually kill you." That's what violence and hate does to people. You don't have to have a big education or social status to understand that. You have your own mind and your own heart and that is called "Freedom," because no one can tell you what to do. That includes me right now. But right now it's probably the most critical juncture to stop and think about all this and really consider the consequences. I'm not talking about leadership anymore. I'm talking about you and me and about 3 million other people. That's a lot of people and like I said this is a real big country. It was all mine and my relatives at one time before political parties and government. I hear it all the time. Native Americans fought each other and had wars. Yeah, that's true. We also had something called pride and honor. In my culture it was a more legendary honor to touch your enemy than to kill him. It is called "Counting Coup." There were even special sticks for it. In our culture it was a recognition that for an enemy to be hit with a stick rather than killed, it took more skill. Those old time honored traditions went away with the coming of foreigners on our land because they don't have the same set of honor and principles as we do. The idea behind counting coup is that it is the traditional way of showing bravery in the face of an enemy, persuading him to admit defeat, without having to kill him. You see what I'm saying? Honor & Respect are ideals that go further than violence. The Native American understands this. We still understand these things that don't exactly work in the modern high powered rifles and weapons of death world, but we still believe that in the culture of a warrior behavior there is much to be said for winning a victory without violence. These ideals factor into the forms of self governing strategies and uniform organization that American principles are based upon. Self government is about people's power and how the leaders carry out the people's wishes for how they want to live. It carried us for a millenium and then some, so far. The idea that I should hate my neighbor or carry out violent acts against him is as foreign as it gets. That's a barbarian frame of mind and has no business in the modern era. What does it say about us Americans? What does it say about our leadership. I'm with you now and want you to know I'm on your side. I'm watching the same thing your watching. My father fought for and eventually died for his country and people. Sure, it took 84 years for it to finally catch up to him, but it did. He saluted the flag. The flag of this country, even though most of the country's history involves doing everything to eradicate him and his people. That's what true respect and honor look like. I grew up with the principles and lessons from a child in his home. I was taught to respect people. Even people who don't deserve my respect, I show them respect because they might not know what it looks like. This is what I'm talking about when I say sometimes we get ashamed of our fellow Americans. Sometimes we even get angry with them, but at no time do we ever see them as our enemy. If you know a warrior, you know someone who is willing to die for the man or woman next to him regardless of how he or she feels about them. That's what it means to be a warrior. If your leaders are not warriors then they tend to do what is only good for themselves and that becomes a reflection of their leadership and a reflection of their following. So when leaders talk about making sacrifices, standing at a podium and getting shot is what their talking about no matter how we look at it if that's the type of leader they are. They're asking our boys and girls in the military to do that for their country and for their leadership, so it works both ways. That is honor and what patriotism, to my understanding is about. It's not about being hateful towards your own people. It's about defending them. If you notice, I have not made one single accusation in this writing. None at all. I only stated what I understand to be facts and I'm just sharing it. I've even suspended judgment just to provide. a point for people to understand there is a very fine line in decisions that lead to consequences for actions and words. I don't rush to judge that boy on the roof or say it was all staged. He did what he did and that's on him. But we, all the bystanders need to realize that it was wrong and there shouldn't be a place in this great big country of ours for this type of behavior. We're the only one's who can change it. Not a leader or a financial backer of a leader. Their job is to listen to us not the other way around. What does it take for people to understand it? It's written in the founding documents of this country. It say's "We the people," that means all of us no matter what race or religion you are. If you don't believe that than you might as well get yourself a ticket and ride a boat out of here because my people, how many of us that is left would love to send you on your way. We we're fine before your ancestors came here and I'm pretty sure we'll be okay if you go. It will take us a while to undo a lot of bad things that been done, but we'll manage. That's truth and respect for the earth and all living things. Those are the laws we follow. We don't have to write it down and debate it. It's obvious and has carried life since life began. Maybe that's the problem. Maybe life is the thing that bothers these leaders and that's why they want us all to turn on each other. I'll tell you something I did when all this happened. I thought of the worst example of leadership I could and I researched it. I'm not talking about the obvious characters in history that everyone refers to when stuff like this happens. To me, since I was an eighties kid. I remember this guy name Muammar Gaddafi. He was a character for sure. A Libyan General of the People's Congress. Before that he was the Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council and the Libyan Prime Minister. All I remember is he wore these bright shiny clothes and big huge elderly glasses like they give to seniors after cataract treatment. He was this guy that when you saw him, you never forgot seeing him. I'm not sure why that is, but he was one of those unforgetable leaders. It turns out this guy was a genius because he experienced all of the atrocity that dictators carried out with regimes. He basically was against monarchy because of what it did to his family personally. He was in three different branches of the military and he studied every thing he could. Eventually he was sent to England and he went to English language training which he refused to learn English because in his words, "British Army officers had racially insulted him and finding it difficult adjusting to the country's culture; asserting his Arab identity in London, he walked around Piccadilly wearing traditional Libyan robes." Let's think about it for a minute. This guy was defiant. He was in England to learn English and he walked around in Libyan robes in the eighties. Maybe that is why he was so unforgetable because, you know we always make jokes about the Banana Republic which is literally a racist metaphor for Africans and there is this guy who fit all of the description. You know what he did after he was in charge of everything? He formed the RCC the Revolutionary Command Council that had no Bureaucrats, but only regular citizens and then eventually he, "nationalized," the Libyan oil industry which was basically British Petroleum. This lead to a price increase of crude oil and that lead to The RCC's Tripoli Agreement of 20 March 1971, in which they secured income tax, back-payments and better pricing from the oil corporations; these measures brought Libya an estimated $1 billion in additional revenues in its first year. The RCC doubled the minimum wage, introduced statutory price controls, and implemented compulsory rent reductions of between 30 and 40 per cent. Gaddafi also wanted to combat the strict social restrictions that had been imposed on women by the previous regime, establishing the Revolutionary Women's Formation to encourage reform. That's the man everyone made fun of because the truth is he had the world by the balls and they knew it, so all they could do was attack his image. I'm sure that is why I remember him. The reason I bring it up is this, "Gaddafi was especially critical of the US due to its support of Israel and sided with the Palestinians in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, viewing the 1948 creation of the State of Israel as a Western colonial occupation forced upon the Arab world. He believed that Palestinian violence against Israeli and Western targets was the justified response of an oppressed people who were fighting against the colonization of their homeland." There you go, violence has entered the chat! I have to summarize what happens between 71 and 79, but just imagine world politics at it's worse with an assassination and Gaddafi infuriated with Egypt and Syria. Here's how he finished the decade. 1979, Libya provided $500 million in aid to African countries, namely to Zaire and Uganda, and founded joint-venture companies throughout the countries to aid trade and development. He eventually partnered with Morrocco, Tunisia and Pakistan to form the Arab Islamic Republic, a political organization. "Seeking to diversify Libya's economy, Gaddafi's government began purchasing shares in major European corporations like Fiat as well as buying real estate in Malta and Italy, which would become a valuable source of income during the 1980s oil slump." I also have to summarize the 80's because it's just to long, but it starts "In 1980, Gaddafi hired former CIA agent Edwin P. Wilson,.." It goes on and on about all kinds of plots and a assassination which eventually ends "In Operation El Dorado Canyon, orchestrated on 15 April 1986, US military planes launched air-strikes, bombing military installations, killing around 100 Libyans, including civilians. One target had been Gaddafi's home. Himself unharmed, two of Gaddafi's sons were injured, and he claimed his adopted daughter Hanna was killed." That's the Reagan years. In fact, Reagan is credited for ordering the strike. Gaddafi was observed as an Anti-Imperialist in the Islamic world and it eventually leads to formation of groups which one of becomes the Muslim Brotherhood. Gaddafi founded the Al-Gaddafi International Prize for Human Rights, to be awarded to figures from the Third World who had struggled against colonialism and imperialism; the first year's winner was South African anti-apartheid activist Nelson Mandela. In 2003 Gaddafi gets into it with Saudi Arabia accusing them of "having made an "alliance with the devil" when it invited the US to intervene in the 1991 Gulf War. In 2004, Gaddafi traveled to the headquarters of the European Union. Long story short, Italy paid Gaddafi to the tune of $5 Billion to stop immigration from Africa which was turning Europe into "Black Europe." After the US removed Libya from its list of state sponsors of terrorism in 2006. "Gaddafi–Abdullah feud came into public view again in the 2009 Arab League summit when Gaddafi accused Abdullah, who had become King of Saudi Arabia in 2005, of being created by Britain and protected by the US." Following the start of the Arab Spring in 2011, Libyan civil war begins. Unemployment was 30 percent. "Accusing the rebels of being "drugged" and linked to al-Qaeda, Gaddafi proclaimed that he would die a martyr rather than leave Libya." After the fall of Tripoli, "it was a suicide mission as Gaddafi wanted to die in the Jarref Valley, close to where he was born." It follows, "At around 08:30, NATO bombers attacked, destroying at least 14 vehicles and killing at least 53 people." this scattered the convoy. "The convoy scattered, and Gaddafi and those closest to him fled to a nearby villa, which was shelled by rebel militia from Misrata. Fleeing to a construction site, Gaddafi and his inner cohort hid inside drainage pipes while his bodyguards battled the rebels; in the conflict, Gaddafi suffered head injuries from a grenade blast while Jabr was killed," his son. "The Misrata militia took Gaddafi prisoner," now I'll stop there because for someone who has been sharing information and continuing with the message that violence isn't the answer, the rest is very graphic. It's my way of saying, "there are people who know what happened to Gaddafi, I don't need to repeat it." The reason I point to Muammar Gaddafi is because he was a polarizing figure. He didn't have a slogan to ride on. He created his own success. Sure, many could point to his viscious "strongman," tactics and say, "his extortion was phenomenol." You'd be right in saying it to. You ever look to see how big Libya is compared to the countries around it? Think about it. How did this guy from this place compete with the Super Powers? The answer, is he used the support of his people to do things that no other leader even thought of in those times. He controlled the channels of oil. He took on the giants and he won. That is until world economics changed and then civil war broke out in his country. Then he was the bad guy in his own land and he was taken out. There you go, He held power from way back in the seventies. He organized the unorganized Muslim World. So if you really think about it, this recent event isn't what you think it is. You can't just point to someone wearing a hat of a different color and say, "That person is the problem," and think it will end there. This is much bigger issue than that. This is situation where it looks like it's homegrown and fed back into an echo chamber, so that we'll fight each other, but this is more clever than that. This is circumstance where countries around the world, most of them non-Christian, are looking at us the biggest Super Power and their rooting for us to take each other out. It's not just our leaders that are saying these things, This is the big Global Cabal that I hear extremists talk about. Only it's not one side they want to see destroy the other, it's a "both sides," we'll be gone and we'll do whatever we want then thing. When you realize that it's the bigger picture, you'll realize that it is American Freedom and our specific form of "Hashing things out," that is our super power. People say "Guns & bibles," is what it's about, but if you really think about it. What makes us different isn't the thing we have in common with the rest of the world, but the thing we don't and that's our ability to be united. We're not United when we're literally taking shots at each other. That's what other countries want to see happen here and it almost did happen here. So if you want to see little small countries with ruthless dictators rule the world, by all means go ahead and hate your neighbor. But, if you want to move forward and see this country succeed, put your weapon down and vow to pick it up when the real enemy shows up. Out of all the peace talk I used when talking about this great country of ours and traveling and representing America, you never heard me or read that I said to be weak and submit. I never used any words like that. I said be aware and know yourself and how you look to others because that is how a person stays vigilant. That's how we stand up and take the honor & respect we deserve on the chin er: Ear if that makes you feel better. You take a shot at us, youve taken a shot at all of us because we're the "United," States of America. That is what saluting the flag means. That's what being a warrior for a cause is. The reason I point to Muammar Gaddafi is because he was a polarizing figure. He didn't have a slogan to ride on. He created his own success. Sure, many could point to his viscious "strongman," tactics and say, "his extortion was phenomenol." You'd be right in saying it to. Doing anything else would just give the rest of the world what they want and that's a bigger piece of the pie because we will be to busy fighting each other to notice. Think about it. Why is the situation so confusing. Why isn't it clear how that kid jumped on the roof without anyone stopping him. In my experience we're going to hear a story much like the same when a school get's shot up. It will be nobodies fault and nobody will be to blame because it was a just one "Lone Wolf." That's not true. Somebody put the ladder there. Somebody put that rifle there. Someone told those snipers, "Hold your fire." We'll never know the truth because all the evidence is gone when he stopped breathing. That's not a political party thing. That's a serious some shady country thing. You just have to wake up to realize this isn't about the American dream and the version that we want to win. This is about America itself and what we have that threatens others. It's our numbers, it's our land mass, but most of all it's what we stand for. That's how a small country takes out a big country is they divide us and make us fight each other. They just about got it done to. Let me switch gears and talk about something just as important, but from a different angle. Well, it seems fitting. The subject was Bebe's speech to congress and at the end the reporter summed it all up by saying, "40 years this man has been a fixture in congress with messages for everyone by the way he talks, but now no one wants to hear his message." It was finished up with calling him the irrelevant one. I don't want to point fingers or "look down," upon anyone. I just find it a bit amusing that the same message that fell flat this time is because the words don't match the actions. He's talking about victory in a situation where he is eradicating people. It's really the "wrong time." The idea of colonialism and imperialism are not popular ideals. This "Hamas," attack which Bebe is saying "Iran," is a bit more complex than that. It's a "poignant," attack to get him to do exactly what he has been doing, so that all people can see what he is and what that means for the countries all around him. That's the part of "Brutality," that he is missing. It's good to be tough, but it's a fine line between "interests," and dominion over others. I'm going to go "off script," and talk about something locally that doesn't appear to have anything to do with "Global power." I will start by using the word, "Foe," in a compassionate way. I believe the youngers use the word "Frenemy," as an abstract thought that a person can be your focus to defeat, but you don't harbor actual resentment towards them. This is the thing that is happening right now in American culture. In case you haven't been paying attention, Americans, especially young people have been coming to realize that structured social/political/economic contructs do not work for them. This application of awareness is often spoken in a negative fashion by people who wish to keep social construct intact and they call the young people, "Woke." The term itself, I believe, originated in the African American culture and use of language. It's, in my opinion, a term of endearment to help guide others towards more possible and peaceful co-existing ideas that reveal cultural power. I mean, specifically African American cultural power and language. This term was co-opted by people who engage in cultural warfare to stigmatize the opposition. People often use the term with negative connotation in order to "Victim shame," others. I know I'm getting into the 'weeds," here because I'm using terminology that I am not super familiar with. I know the words and their meaning. It's just not a normal part of my vocabulary. Painting a picture of modern citizens isn't just a "cut & paste," option anymore. It has nuance and complexity. Subtle variations to "play," on words and associate active lifetyles that are a melting pot if you will of different people, races, stereotypes and cliches. For example, if I use the term, "white cracker," it doesn't take a wide stretch of imagination to know that I'm being negative and I'm describing a person of caucasian descent. So when you hear someone say "Woke," it's a reference to someone who would be the opposing or opposite of the cliche stereo type used to describe a caucasian person, but not neccessarily African American. These are the political/cultural camps or groups that appear to be at odds with each other. Not all the caucasion group are caucasian and not all the "woke," people are African American. It's more conservative vs progressive values and traditions at play. People like to over-simplify these things and label one "Good," and one "Bad," and that is just the way it is. Of course whatever side your a member of, "That's the good side." Going back to Bebe and his speech. He isn't considered, "the good side," because of the violence and the violent rhetoric. What is real odd about all of this is were now entering a even more complex time where if you look at the social-political impact of the Bebe appearance and speech in context of the "new generation," of voters and political party enthusiasts, you have everything mixed together. I mean, you could be an Israeli supporter, but not neccessarily an anti-woke supporter and vice versa. You could be a Palestinian supporter, but also not anti-semite or support antisemitism. That is the part that confuses people in the "you can be both," era. It just means two things can be true at the same time. The whole binary idea that it has to be one or the other is literally an outdated idea. Full disclosure, I wrote an article about feminists using their gender to be successful. It doesn't mean I'm a "gender warrior." I just wanted to present an area that hasn't been covered, so don't assume I'm a full on extreme left progressive. I'm not. I consider myself a moderate. The thing is, it's not honestly genuine for me to sit here and see all the crazy conservative over the top rhetoric and then pretend I don't see it on the other side as well. It's just easier to talk about and write about the obvious. It's literally what I believe is a progressive think tank disadvantage. People don't have long attention spans, so to get in real depth of some of the more complex ideas is a challenge. It doesn't mean it shouldn't be done though. Here's an example that will ironically explain and break down what I'm talking about. This comedian from Singapore is in Texas and he asked the audience, "What is the state motto?" People answer, "Don't Tread on me," and "Don't mess with Texas." Also, I think they said, "Everything is bigger in Texas," and "Remember the Alamo." You know, things they thought the motto was. The comedian responds by saying, "you're going to let this foreigner teach you what your state motto is? Then he say's, "the state motto of Texas is friendship." He then follows up with, "the state motto of Texas is the opposite of every commonly held connotation of the state." Now, had the comedian come in and did that bit twenty or thirty years ago, he would've had to run from the stage because everyone in the audience would've been chasing him. You know why they never chased him? They didn't chase him because they are intelligent and they get the joke. I mean, otherwise why would he of said it? The part that is confusing though is if they get the joke and they are intelligent then why don't they know what the state motto is? This is the catch 22 that exists with everything now. Intelligence is associated with some sort of non-binary circumstance in where you have to pick a side or you have to be loyal and if you aren't, you're a traitor. In my mind that's the sort of thing a bully does. A bully accuses you of some mistake in discernment on your part to justify bullying you. Likewise if you fail to adhere to the total lack of self awareness that it takes to be over-the-top Greta Thunberg style of activism than you are also consider disloyal and outcast from the social circle. I have a problem with both of these possibilities. For one, Greta was just a minor when she started dowm the road to activism, so all the making fun of her, I believe lacked judgment of appropriation. On the same scale, but for an adult male whose also a celebrity and is wealthy, I believe the mockery and the over the top labels of the "Anti-christ," and all the type of stuff that get's pushed so far in one direction that it entails an assassination attempt, is highly unfounded. You can disagree with someone without resorting to violence. It's been a better part of world history for forever and a day. By the way, it was Ronny Cheng, the comedian in Texas talking about the state motto. I saw the video and just was itching to share it with anyone because I read a lot about Texas back when Beto O'Rourke was running for president. Think about it and what I said about telling the same joke twenty or thirty years apart. Ross Perot was also from Texas and he ran for president. Down in the comment section of the Ronny Cheng video this lady said, "Don't forget the tiny sign on the side of the road that say's courtesy pays." This is with regards that Ronny was pointing out that he felt it was a Public Relations failure to be from Texas and not know what the state motto is. That's what I'm attempting to talk about as well. I find it fascinating that many of these things happened quite by accident. It's like the famous video where I believe the "Let's Go Brandon," meme takes place. It refers to a viral video of NASCAR racer Brandon Brown and the reporter was interviewing the driver named Brandon. In the background, people were holding a sign that said *#%* (expletive) Joe Biden, but at the same time they we're chanting "Let's Go Brandon." People saw that and it's how the "Let's go Brandon," chant got started. It's nuance and sort of funny and smart because you're not actually saying curse words at the president, but everyone knows what you mean. To take things a step further, internet culture has a feature called "Memes," which are obscure pictures that have captions. For example, a famous viral meme is Kermit the frog looking out a window where there is pouring rain. The caption reads something like, "I wonder if all the frogs miss me to." It's satirical in that Kermit is a frog, but he's inside while all the rest of the frogs are outside in the rain. Kermit is expressing his longing to be outside with the rest of the frogs. That's the general idea of how people in internet culture communicate through using a post that has a potential viral meme in it. Another example is the "Dark Brandon," meme. I explained the "Let's go Brandon!," phenomenom and how it actually started with an interview of a Nascar race driver on television. In the interview the crowd was chanting "fuck Joe Biden," which the newscaster claims is a chant of "let's go Brandon" instead. I had to double check that on "Know your Meme," which is a website that explains how viral posts started. Before I can continue I must explain something about the trends of these things. Schizoposting is an internet slang term used to refer to the act of posting memes as though one were having a mental breakdown. Schizoposting memes, also called "schizo memes," generally exploit the topic of schizophrenia and mental instability and lean into conspiratorial cultural narratives, sometimes intersecting with occultism or mysticism. Memes often employed in schizo-posts are Trollface and other Rage Comics characters. I don't feel I have the right audience to implicate and start down a road of explaining these two characters. Just know that it's an association that is used on pupose. Think of a comments section where a user uses, "ALL CAPS!," to communicate the tone. The term is often used in relation to the word "shitposting," which is a term used to describe memes that can be considered spam or nonsequiturs. This brings me to DarkMAGA or #DarkMAGA which refers to a hashtag and series of memes that depict a "punished," more unhinged version of Donald Trump running for reelection in 2024. Notice the words "more unhinged," which are not my words. They come directly from the internet site Know your meme. In my opinion the site doesn't describe internet culture from an opinion, but more of just "Facts & Evidence." Before I said, "It's just easier to talk about and write about the obvious." I meant that in the the most civil way possible, as you can see that internet culture doesn't appear to adhere to civility. I had to say all this before I can explain Dark Brandon, so you would understand the context of "trolling," which is the equivalent of arguing with a frenemy, as the kids would say. Most people who argue on the internet don't actually know each other, so there is no civility in this zero sum activity. "Dark Brandon refers to a series of memes centering on a darker, edgier alter ego of US President Joe Biden. Defined by the use of laser eyes and deep-fried aesthetics, Dark Brandon memes frequently depict Biden as cunning, violent and all-powerful." Then we have Dank Brandon. "Dank Brandon is a nickname given to U.S. President Joe Biden following his executive order to pardon Americans convicted of simple marijuana possessions and potential loosening federal classification of weed in October 2022." No matter how you personally feel about policy and action, you are now down the "Rabbit Hole," of the internet which is a way to describe an obsession to verify and cite facts & evidence which is all classified as, "Character, Hashtag, Pop Culture Reference, Slang," according to Know your meme. This is the common "civility," that has changed over the last twenty years or so. People communicate this way and it explains the change in society and most of all behavior. It brings me to the term, "False Flag," operation. "A false flag operation is an act committed with the intent of disguising the actual source of responsibility and pinning blame on another party." Wikipedia 2024 In the wikipedia discussion on the topic is this, "The term today extends to include countries that organize attacks on themselves and make the attacks appear to be by enemy nations or terrorists, thus giving the nation that was supposedly attacked a pretext for domestic repression or foreign military aggression." Wikipedia is not a dictionary or an encyclopedia type reference in that it's content is considered "a discussion." That means people can "refute," the evidence presented, comment or go to the notes and also they can create their own entire page on a subject to give their side of the "Facts." These things were created soley on the internet for the purpose of avoiding "censorship." To me, that's the biggest reason for un-civil behavior because it's considered "censorship," to not provide a media space for people who don't agree. A great example of this is this very Blog post where I write various articles about what I believe to be the facts, but I always include that the words I use are my opinion unless I put them in quotes, so that others will know I am citing. I also turn off the comments to these blog entries on purpose in the same way that I just described that wikipedia is labeled a discussion because I have a communicating tool associated with the blog that if people want to write their own blog and "Tag me," they can. For me that's the "civil way," to handle potential discussions without arguing, trolling, stalking or even harrassing others. There is a term called, "doxxing," which is something that famously Trump supporters do where they post personal residential addresses of people that they encourage others to harass. This has lead to actual violence on behalf of a political character like the attempted kidnapping of Gretchen Whitmer, the Governor of Michigan or the assualt of Paul Pelosi where October 28, 2022, an assailant broke into Pelosi's San Francisco home, shouted "Where's Nancy?", and subsequently attacked Pelosi with a hammer. These aren't theories. They are events that actually happened that include violence. Of course this brings us to the "Big Lie," as it's famously referred to. "The big lie is a gross distortion or misrepresentation of the truth primarily used as a political propaganda technique.[1][2] The German expression was first used by Adolf Hitler in his book Mein Kampf." All this information can be verified and it includes that these events are proven and verified with whom they are associated. One of the optics or behaviors of internet culture is that no matter how much verification or presenting of evidence is associated with any one event, a supporter of the opposite side will be "unmoved," by your attempt to convince them. This leads to a discussion that should be had about the book witten in the forties titled, "Politics and the English language." Combined with his great novel 1984, written in 1949 as a dystopian warning about the way totalitarian practice becomes internalized in totalitarian thinking, these two great works gave us the adjective, “Orwellian.” “Freedom is Slavery” was not far from the infamous greeting at the gates of Auschwitz, “Arbeit Macht Frei.” - George Orwell and the Power of a Well-Placed Lie BY ROBERT KUTTNER | JANUARY 25, 2017 This book wasn't written in the forties. It's about a propaganda practice used today. When the first campaign was run leading up to the election of 2016, one of the candidates famously "planted," information that he read the Mein Kampf. This association is also verified with activity in the eighties in the nineties where a character named John, sometimes the last name was Barron and others it was Miller, was impersonated by the former president. It's how he influenced the media in those times and when presented with a recording of a discussion where it's obvious that it's him, "of a man who sounds like Trump posing as his spokesman isn’t him — even though he has admitted in the past to posing as his own publicist under a pseudonym." This is the basis of behavior that was present long before it's time. It's before the internet. I will not convince anyone who doesn't already believe these things, but I am making an effort for people to at least know this information. The reason I'm making this push now is were at the precipice of the end of these events. Don't get me wrong, by far I know it's not over and it will never be over, but we're at a point where we can all make it go away for a while. The reason I say this is because with all do respect to pollsters and surveys of Americana and it's current state politically, there is a slight potential to achieve an improvement. The improvement has happened in just the last week from the time I started writing just after an assassination attempt until now where several things have changed. The bottom line is the number of 77 million or around about the actual number. That's the number of votes the candidate that is running again got when elected. The actual number is like 160 million between two candidates in a presidential election. 77 million is less than half and what the current candidate was counting on was a third party candidate that's dropped out of the race to take away somehwere between 10 -15% of the opposing candidates votes. Now that up to 15% is centered on swing states that the former presidential candidate that was opposing the lower candidates (number wise) polls and statistics, is free to get those votes. There's just one problem. The 77 million doesn't increase and stays at the 77 million mark. It would take three more million in order to break past the halfway point. This candidate lost his last election by that amount. No amount of propaganda, false flag operation, trolling, stocking, intimidating is going to produce 3 more million votes. He could be running against a potatoe and still not get that many more votes. People despise this candidate, unless they love him and they do at the tune of 77 million. In steps HER. HER is an acronym for "Having Everything Revealed." No matter how you personally react to that action, it's a powerful motivation for three million undecided. That's a large percentage to overcome in four months. I'm not saying it can't be. I'm just saying it's pretty difficult. Let's face it. An election is a powerful popularity contest. But given all the information I just shared from False flags to known authoritarian leaders and their tactics to simple understanding internet communication and civil society "norms," which would you rather be a part of?