The fake news media is altogether biased and only operates within the bounds of their established Leftist agenda. I don’t think I really need to repeat that, but the MSM continues proving this day after day with report after report, regardless of subject.
 
Recently, with many states having made the logical decision to reopen (after having made the originally illogical decision to lock down) and seeing Chinese coronavirus cases dropping, NBC News has tried to cast doubt on how good reopening states is as an idea, attempting to credit anything apart from the basic reopening to why the number of cases dropping in such states (and also trying to explain away why states that continue lockdowns are seeing rising cases).
 
Nothing but dishonesty abounds, but this is the fake news media, so it’s to be expected, unfortunately. We do not have an honest, unbiased media in this country, so we have to discern the truth of reality from what quackery these deceivers try to sell us.
 
NBC News reporter Sam Brock began by declaring, “Call it a COVID conundrum. In states with the strictest measures in the country, like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and much of New England, cases are on the rise, while in the South, states like Arkansas and Texas that have reopened businesses and ripped away mask mandates are seeing their numbers drop.”
 
“So what might explain the apparent contradiction? One theory: differences in testing rates. Alabama has experienced one of the biggest dips in infections, more than 52% in two weeks. But it’s also dead last in the U.S. for COVID testing.”
 
“How much does the lack of adequate testing have to do with the numbers we’re seeing right now?” Brock eventually asked an NBC guest, who is a doctor at Florida International University, whom replied: “When you don’t test you’re blind, and when you’re not testing you have a false sense of what the real problem is in your community.”
 
There is plenty of information now available about the Chinese coronavirus that it makes no sense for people to make these kinds of assertions or theories, especially as we have seen that over-testing can result in false positives. For example, we know that the virus has a higher rate of infection when indoors. That was actually one excuse given when states were locking down and unconstitutionally and illegally shutting down businesses. However, we also now know that the virus has an extremely high rate of survivability for most people.
 
Back early in the pandemic, we heard of survival rates around 97%. Still decently high, but considerably lower than things like the flu. There was at least some reason to be wary of this virus back then because we knew so little about it. But now we know a lot more, such as the fact that the survival rate is 99.9%+ for most people. What’s more, one idiotic thing this country did (and all countries which went with lockdowns, really) was that we decided to lock down people who were HEALTHY as opposed to quarantining those who were sick.
 
Remember phrases like “flatten the curve” and “slow the spread”? The original purpose of those things was to allow hospitals to not be overwhelmed by cases, since that would lead to catastrophe. Well, we flattened the curve and we slowed the spread as much as we could, with almost everyone in the country routinely wearing masks where they needed to, but bad-faith actors with PhD’s, as well as members of the fake news media, moved the goal posts.
 
The original purpose of taking a lot of these safety measures was to not overwhelm the hospital systems with virus cases and with normal, daily problems hospitals have to deal with. But at no point did the hospitals even come close to being overwhelmed, so much so that when Trump sent a Navy hospital ship to house patients in New York (back then, the epicenter of the pandemic in the U.S.), it was hardly used.
 
And now, we have states like Florida, one of the most populous states in the country with a notoriously old population (being a retirement spot and all), which reopened back in the late summer of last year and NOTHING catastrophic has happened since. Cases varied, but at this point, like NBC reported, they are going down, as are cases in Texas.
 
Speaking of Texas, Brock persisted with another theory: COVID fatigue. “Michigan, where people are just coming out of lockdown for the first time in months, cases are up more than 100% as demographics shift. Texas, on the other hand, began opening its doors months ago and just jammed 40,000 people into the (Texas) Rangers’ ballpark, many without masks.”
 
Dr. Neil Gandhi of Houston Medical Hospital posited that “A lot of individuals in the southern U.S. and especially here in Texas have already been exposed to the coronavirus, so many individuals already have coronavirus antibodies.”
 
While that is a sound and reasonable argument from Gandhi, he then proceeded to negate that with a very stupid argument, which I will get to in a second.
 
First, some context for that stupid argument. Brock eventually stated: “That leads us to the risky behavior that we’ve seen in places like Miami Beach, Florida, where numbers have only increased slightly. Theory number three: where young people are acting as carriers, as doctors are saying they’re returning to other states carrying the virus with them.” A dumb argument in itself, seeing as they’d be infecting other people in Florida along the way to their home states, yet Florida is not seeing cases skyrocketing.
 
In any case, he eventually said: “Bottom line: health experts say the falling figures in the South might be giving a false sense of security. Do medical experts worry this is emboldening those leaders who said this is a good idea to loosen restrictions?”
 
Which is when Gandhi gave his stupid argument: “We worry about if there’s a perfect storm brewing. If we remember, this virus always takes 10 to 14 to 21 days to develop. We might just be seeing the early effects of that right now.”
 
This is a stupid argument because Texas lifted its mask mandate and began to reopen more than 40 days ago, well past the point where one would see this virus act up and develop.
 
Not to mention that, again, FLORIDA HAS BEEN OPEN FOR MORE THAN HALF A YEAR! And, of course, this is completely ignoring the fact that there are states which NEVER closed, like South Dakota, and there are COUNTRIES which also never closed, like Sweden. And none of them are on the verge of collapse at any capacity – if anything, reopening/never closing ended up HELPING those places.
 
In any case, it was clear that the people at NBC News were throwing whatever they could at the wall to see what sticks, offering no less than three theories as to why locked down states are seeing surges in cases and why reopening states are seeing drops in cases. Anything to not give credit to the idea that reopening is the best option for ALL states.
 
Even if one wants to argue that reopening isn’t what’s leading to drops in cases, the fact of the matter is that locked down states have seen surges in cases. The prevailing reasoning behind lockdowns is that they help to slow the spread, flatten the curve, and prevent more and more people from getting sick. And that clearly hasn’t worked.
 
All lockdowns have achieved is financial and economic strain, mental health issues, surges in child suicide and depression, and a myriad of other problems that wouldn’t be there without lockdowns. And the ONE thing lockdowns are put into place to do – slow the spread of the Chinese coronavirus – they haven’t been able to do. It is evidently clear that lockdowns offer a false sense of security at best (not surprising that commies are trying to say that reopening states are the ones offering a false sense of security, since projection is a commie trait) and crippling, devastating, and often utterly fatal problems at worst, including potentially making the spread of the virus even worse.
 
Immunity is what people are hoping for, and locking things down only prolongs the issues. Not to mention that I have zero trust that the vaccine is in any way effective in fighting the Chinese coronavirus. That people say you have to get MULTIPLE vaccines is already a red flag. That Fauci has insisted that people who get BOTH vaccines still have to wear masks and social distance is another red flag.
 
If the vaccines actually worked, surely only one dose would be enough, and we wouldn’t have to continue wearing masks and social distancing since we would be immune.
 
“Oh, but the vaccine and the masks/social distancing is to protect other people, not ourselves,” liberals might argue. Bull. A vaccine is meant to protect the person GETTING IT. A mask is supposed to protect the person WEARING IT. The idea that they are supposed to protect other people is communist bullcrap meant to coerce people into submission. After all, “you’re doing something good for other people.” That is the appeal that these Leftists use to get people to wear masks and get vaccinated. At no point since the beginning of modern medicine have masks and vaccines been created and used for the purposes of protecting people apart from the person wearing/getting them, apart from surgeons performing surgery on someone with an open wound. 
 
When one gets a tetanus shot, it’s to prevent one getting tetanus and being sick by it. When one gets a hepatitis shot, it’s to prevent one from getting any variant of hepatitis. When one gets ANY shot, it’s for the sake of the person getting it. Seemingly, except for the Chinese coronavirus vaccine, conveniently enough.
 
And even accepting the premise that those things are, indeed, meant to protect other people, how does it make sense for those WITHOUT THE VIRUS to adhere to this? Someone without the virus can’t spread the virus, and you can tell when someone has it because they will show symptoms. It has been shown that there is no asymptomatic spread of the virus, so why would PERFECTLY HEALTHY PEOPLE have to either wear a mask or get the vaccine if the purposes of those things are for protecting OTHER people from getting sick and not themselves?
 
If masks are meant to protect others, wouldn’t it make more sense for those who have the virus in their system to have to wear them? But no, it’s the healthy people as well as the sick people that have to wear them.
 
It’s this contradictory bullcrap that infuriates me about this entire situation, particularly as many insist that what doesn’t make sense actually does make sense and that the measures put into place which clearly haven’t worked are argued to have worked and to continue to work, or at least that getting rid of them would only make things worse when the evidence points to the contrary.
 
We are told to defer to the “health experts” who hide behind their degrees and pretend as though they are nearly infallible and any challenge to their illogic is nothing but a conspiracy theory created by someone who doesn’t have a prestigious medical degree (though that excuse doesn’t hold up when people with such prestigious medical degrees make similar challenges).
 
We are told to “follow the science”, as though science was Jesus, by people who, themselves, do not follow scientific reasoning or data. We can EVIDENTLY SEE that lockdowns don’t work, and this has been clear for nearly a YEAR. And yet, these people insist that what “science” tells us is the opposite of what reality and empirical evidence tells us.
 
Either these people are utterly incompetent morons or have a malicious and nefarious agenda to push, and we can only hope that it’s the former.
 
Proverbs 18:2
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”

In essence, there are two things that I will talk about in this article: First, the failed attempt Fake Doctor Jill Biden made at speaking Spanish during an event for farmworkers (few people showed up, unsurprisingly, as she and her husband are not popular figures in America) which drew mockery. Secondly, the suspicious-looking flag that was propped up behind her as she was making that speech.
 
Let’s begin with what I mentioned first.
 
Jill Biden made that failed attempt, like I said, during an event speaking to farmworkers on the birthday of Left-wing labor leader Cesar Chavez (who is rather well-known for making bigoted remarks towards illegal immigrants, whom he viewed as repressing American workers, a stance I am not disagreeing with, necessarily, but it’s notable that the Bidens seem to revere the guy). The Spanish phrase Jill Biden tried to say was “Si se puede”, which is Spanish for “Yes, it can be done,” likely meant as a call-back to Obama’s “Yes we can” slogan (that, in itself, is a bit of a botch, since the direct translation would be “Si podemos”, not “Si se puede”).
 
What the fake doctor and fake First Lady actually said was “Si se pwadueh,” which means nothing. If anything, that sounds closer to “Si se padre”, which means “yes is father”, which also means nothing, at least coherently.
 
Naturally, because of this botch and because it was particularly unnecessary since the audience was not necessarily a primarily Spanish-speaking one (even then, it’s just pandering to try and speak Spanish in such a circumstance when it’s not expected of one to speak the language), Jill Biden was mocked online.
 
RGA Deputy Communications Director Joanna Rodriguez tweeted: “It’s ‘Si se puede’ (Yes you/we can) not ‘Si se pwadueh.’ I can’t even imagine what word she was trying to say. Seriously why even try pandering if you’re going to butcher it and not practice before?!”
 
Journalist Dania Alexandrino tweeted: “Si se what???? I’m sure some one will surely tell Jill Biden ‘puadray’ is NOT a word in the Spanish dictionary. For those who are celebrating her effort, yeah NO! Very far from ‘Si se puede’ which means ‘Yes (we) can.’ We in parenthesis because it can also be yes you can!”
 
It’s not surprising that there would be those who simply applaud her efforts, as there is no doubt were any person on the Right to make this mistake, they would likewise be lampooned by the Left. But since it’s a Leftist making this mistake, all the excuses are brought up.
 
Another person mocked: “It’s wild that in the course of three months we went from a supermodel First Lady who spoke five languages, to fake Dr. Pwadway.”
 
Certainly, I miss First Lady Melania Trump and President Donald Trump. FLOTUS Melania was easily the best First Lady we had in a long time and had President Trump been a Democrat president, the fake news media would have gone out of their own way to highlight how classy she is and her life story, as well as her ability to speak five languages, which is roughly four and a half more than the current Occupier can muster.
 
At any rate, after the clip of Jill Biden’s failure to speak three Spanish words, people began to take notice of the strange flag that was propped up behind her because it resembles the Nazi flag so much.
 
That flag was the official flag of the United Farm Workers of America, which was created from the combination of two worker’s rights organizations, one of which was led by Cesar Chavez. Interestingly enough, it was Cesar Chavez who commissioned his brother, Richard, to design that flag.
 
Smithsonian Magazine gives more context to the reasoning behind the design:
 
“The story of the black eagle, the movement’s symbol, exemplifies Chavez’s skill as a tactician. He researched emblems, including cigarette boxes and Nazi flags, and concluded that the most potent color combination was red, black and white. He picked the eagle and directed his brother to draw the bird so simply that anyone could easily replicate the symbol.”
 
So it’s a United Farm Workers of America flag which was designed, in part, by Cesar Chavez himself and this was an event that took place on Cesar Chavez’s birthday. The flag, while strange to use given that it’s so close to the Nazi flag (the union was created in 1962, so there is no excuse for Chavez to not know what the Nazis did), makes sense for this event.
 
However, we have seen the fake news media searching for Nazi symbolism in everything Trump was associated with, from the stage on CPAC 2021 to an “America First” shirt which simply featured an eagle resting atop the American flag and claiming it was the Nazi’s Iron Eagle. The Left sought to push the narrative that Trump was Hitler or dog whistling to secret Nazis in America through these symbols, despite how utterly ridiculous those ideas are, so I have zero reason to be merciful to Jill Biden.
 
She stood in front of what looks like a Nazi flag and which was designed to resemble a Nazi flag. It was created by Leftists who at least had the courage to basically admit that Nazis were socialists (not only does their name mean “National Socialist German Workers’ Party” but their entire ideology and policies were centered around strong central government and government-controlled industries – a socialist/communist ideology) and a Leftist fake doctor and fake First Lady used it as a background during one of her speeches.
 
Jill Biden is a Nazi, confirmed, and has no issue with speaking in front of Nazi-looking paraphernalia. Even if she knew exactly what that flag was, and I believe she does know what it was, you would think someone who’s been on the side of “fighting Nazis” for the last four years would have a bit more common sense than to speak at an event in front of a flag that even remotely resembles the flag of the Nazis and was created with practically that intent.
 
Now, someone might argue that we don’t treat the Hindu swastika the same as the Nazi swastika, despite their obvious similarities, but the thing about that argument is that the Hindu swastika was used in ancient Hindu and Eurasian religions for FAR longer than how the Nazis used it. And while the Chavez flag doesn’t feature a swastika, the color scheme is clearly reminiscent of that ideology, which is very close to what Chavez’ own ideology was to begin with (again, “National Socialist German WORKERS’ Party”).
 
And like I said earlier, there is no excuse for Chavez to not have known what the Nazis had done by 1962. He very consciously and specifically implemented that color scheme and design for the flag.
 
Furthermore, even though it was an event that took place on Chavez’ birthday, there really was no need to have that flag in the background anyway. A background was not really needed, and if it was necessary for the (few) attendants to understand what this event was about, I imagine someone could have just put up a banner that said something akin to: “Celebrating farmworkers on Cesar Chavez’s birthday” or something that would indicate what the event was about and to whom it was tailored.
 
That they chose to have the flag there, in my mind, means that Jill Biden wants to be as close to a Nazi as she can be. Jill Biden, of course, being a socialist herself, follows the Nazi ideology anyway, but now she is practically showing to everyone that she is a Nazi almost outright.
 
And given the treatment the fake news media gave to Trump regarding any sort of shapes or designs that he was associated with, why would I give Jill Biden a pass for giving a speech in front of what looks like a Nazi flag?
 
Jill Biden is a Nazi. No one can dispute me on this, no matter how you slice it.
 
Proverbs 18:2
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”

Cancel culture is, as it is largely used, nothing but a horrible tool for censorship of those whom are in the social minority (or are made to look like in the social minority) and it ought to be reined in as much as possible, as it stands to take away a lot of people’s freedoms.
 
That being said, cancel culture cannot be said to be a new thing. The term might be new, but the practice of “cancelling” someone, that is, mob rule playing judge, jury and executioner to one extent or another for someone, is as old as human conflict.
 
The French could be said to have “cancelled” their royal family and the entire monarchy during the French Revolution. Joseph Stalin could be said to have “cancelled” Leon Trotsky and just about anyone whom he desired (he even had a man arrested for being the first to have stopped clapping following his delivering of a speech in 1937), with the number of political prisoners being estimated to have been at least 1 million (historian Roy Aleksandrovich Medvedev estimated that Stalin had 1 million political prisoners executed during the Great Terror of 1937-38 alone).
 
Queen Mary I is known as “Bloody Mary” for having 300 protestant Christians burned at the stake. Even 2,000 years ago, one could say that the Romans and Pharisees “cancelled” Jesus Christ, and Saul of Tarsus, before he became the Apostle Paul, essentially tried his best to “cancel” followers of Christ.
 
These are all extreme examples of “cancellations”, of course, and today’s cancel culture is more akin to censorship than outright political or religious execution, but it is still, nonetheless, political and, often, religious persecution.
 
To play up the idea that racism is still a big problem in America, Leftists “find” some amount of racism in just about everything from Dr. Seuss books to most recently “Captain Underpants”, as well as other things. People like Piers Morgan, who simply expressed his opinion that he didn’t believe Meghan Markle’s unproven accusations of racism from the Royal Family (I say that to defend truth, not the Royal Family, as they are just a bunch of Leftists as well), was cancelled from his program on ITV. JK Rowling, the Leftist author of the hugely famous “Harry Potter” series was also cancelled for not forsaking girls and women to the transgender agenda which de-womanizes them and destroys their athletic opportunities.
 
The Left pretends that racism and bigotry in general are as big a problem today as it was decades ago, namely during the Civil Rights Movement, because they want to divorce themselves as much as they can from their history of racism. Well, that’s at least one of the reasons. They also want to play God in general, and being able to cancel people like this and put fear into people’s hearts to not screw anything up is their own way of playing God.
 
It isn’t a surprise, then, that a recent Harvard/Harris poll found that 64% of Americans believe that cancel culture is a threat to their freedom.
 
64% said that “there is ‘a growing cancel culture’ that is a threat to their freedom, while 36 percent said they did not view it as a threat to their freedom,” said the poll.
 
It’s interesting that 36% did not view it as a threat to their freedom, though this is perhaps because such people are those whom are most likely to attempt to cancel someone and generally view cancel culture as a tool for “social justice” as opposed to censorship. Or at least, they view censorship as a positive tool for “social justice.”
 
What such people fail to realize is that, Christian or secular mentality, the following bible verses are universally true: Matthew 7:1-2: “Do not judge, or you will be judged. For with the same judgment you pronounce, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”
 
And while these verses are mainly directed at Christians so that they do not judge their brothers for the sins they commit (people have a misconception that this means Christians are not to judge evildoers, but this is about the hypocrisy of a Christian judging his or her brother for something that they do themselves), we all know that this general line of thinking also tends to apply for secular issues.
 
What I’m trying to say here is that it is rather amusing that 36% do not view cancel culture as a threat to their freedom, likely because they themselves use it, probably believing they could never end up on the receiving end of cancel culture.
 
If you were to judge someone harshly and thus demand they be cancelled (particularly for the dumbest of reasons), you allow yourself to be subjected to the same judgment measures. These people are quick to cancel Piers Morgan, JK Rowling, Dr. Seuss, etc., etc. yet fail to understand that they could be subjected to the same harsh judgments that they deliver to others.
 
At any rate, the poll also found that 36% of respondents said cancel culture was a “big problem”, 32% said it was a “moderate problem” and 20% said it was a “small problem”, while 13% said it was “not a problem.”
 
Again, it’s likely that those who do not view cancel culture, at least as it is currently used, in a negative way do so because they use it themselves and are misguided in their thinking that they couldn’t possibly be subjected to it.
 
Such people will face the toughest of realities when they inevitably are subjected to such cancellation. You see, as they judge people from the past according to standards of the present (namely, progressive Leftist standards), they fail to realize that future generations will judge them similarly, if that is what they teach their children to do (and they will).
 
A tranny joke made five or ten years ago could net someone some sort of social punishment today and that person would be forced to apologize for it.
 
An interesting example of something akin to that is the way in which the TV show “Friends” is treated by today’s youth. Even though it was extremely progressive for its time (though it wasn’t the first show to do so, they were among the first to depict a lesbian wedding and have a transsexual character be the parent of one of the main characters), today, it is considered to be “homophobic” and “transphobic” because they dared to crack jokes about gay and transgender (transsexual) people back in the mid-1990s.
 
Even though, again, they LITERALLY featured a lesbian wedding scene and often depicted a lesbian couple being parental figures for Ross’s son, Ben, they are called “homophobic” for making jokes about gay people.
 
But this is the kind of harsh judgment that this line of thinking produces. I can’t say that the show “Friends” or its cast were seeking to cancel people or be a part of cancel culture necessarily, but cancel culture takes even older liberal and Leftist thinking, which was progressive for its time, and harshly criticizes it according to the standard of today and not its own day.
 
I wouldn’t be surprised if, years from now, they come to outright hate that show and demand it no longer be streamed on any service or run on any tv network. This is the threat that cancel culture, as it is currently used, poses to many people: it takes away their freedoms because these people don’t believe people ought to have such freedoms.
 
And thus, people are naturally going to perceive cancel culture to be a threat to their freedoms; because that’s precisely what it is.
 
Now, you might have noted that I said “as it is currently used” earlier. The reason I say this is because I don’t completely dislike cancel culture on principle.
 
A couple of articles ago, I talked about Lil Nas X and his Satanic shoes and music video. I think he should be cancelled for that not only because I want to judge them by the same measures they judge others. I genuinely think that such promotion of Satan should not be allowed at any capacity.
 
Some will compare that music video with something like an episode of South Park where Satan is in a gay relationship with Saddam Hussein, but the comparison doesn’t work because South Park is mainly about comedy and that episode was clearly for comedic purposes. The idea of Satan being in a gay relationship with Saddam Hussein of all people is a funny one, in my opinion, and I have no problem with that seeing as it doesn’t outright promote Satan or Satanism. Matter of fact, it MAKES FUN of Satan, which is what Christians did a long time ago to depict him as a red-skinned, goat-legged freak (he literally is supposed to look like a beautiful angel, but he’s evil, so Christians centuries ago wanted to make fun of him to fight against his temptations). Lil Nas X’s video was a PROMOTION of Satan in an unironic and uncomedic manner.
 
As a result of such actions, I believe Lil Nas X ought to be cancelled. This would be a GOOD use of cancel culture. So cancel culture is, on principle, not a necessarily bad thing. The problem is that it can be used in a bad and censorious way, and that’s how it is being used currently, for the most part.
 
Dr. Seuss was literally a beloved children’s book author. What sin did he commit in print that would get him cancelled? The Left says “racism” but they find anything they remotely dislike to be a proponent of “racism.” Piers Morgan literally just stated his opinion that he didn’t believe Markle’s unproven claims that the Royal Family was racist towards her. What sin did he commit to get him cancelled? Not believing a black woman when she victimizes herself and claims, again, without proof, that the Royal Family was racist towards her.
 
JK Rowling created one of the most popular fictional novel series of all time and has long been an ardent Leftist in just about every cause. What sin did she commit to get her cancelled? Not going along with the false claim that transgender “women” (men who believe are women) are actually women, because such a thing is unscientific and ludicrous.
 
These are all examples of cancel culture being used to simply censor dissenters, which is nothing short of the kind of communism one would find in the Soviet Union or in China. Which is why so many people find cancel culture to be a huge threat to their freedoms: because that’s precisely what it is. Again, at least as it’s currently used.
 
I hope far more people come to the same belief and do something to stop such blatant abuse of censorious power by a woke mob which foolishly believes is invulnerable to their own tactics.
 
Isaiah 33:1
“Woe to you, O destroyer never destroyed, O traitor never betrayed! When you have finished destroying, you will be destroyed. When you have finished betraying, you will be betrayed.”

It is unfortunate, but many times, it is necessary to learn the hard way what works and what does not. Vladimir Lenin, who initially sought and succeeded to implement communist Marxism into Russian government and way of life, rather quickly saw what happens when you go full-communist: starvation, suffering, torment, and miserable death, not just for citizens but for the country that implements it as well.
 
March of 1921 was a rather important time in the history of the Soviet Union. Following an unsuccessful invasion of Poland in 1920, the Soviet Union was teetering on the precipice of total economic collapse. The farmers were unproductive and starving, as was the general population. To make matters worse, hungry Soviet sailors were getting irritated with the Bolsheviks and their authoritarian ways, mounting the Kronstadt Rebellion and demanding, among other things, freedom of speech and assembly (ironically, considering these guys were self-admittedly faithful to Marxist communism).
 
That rebellion was quickly put down, but Lenin wasn’t unaware of what was happening. The Soviet Union, which was only a few years old by that point, was dying under its putrid system of government which killed all economic incentive. Without economic incentive, a nation cannot survive.
 
So, Lenin, on March 21st, 1921, began to implement the “New Economic Policy” (NEP), which began to undo the effects and causes of the misery of the previous four years, at least to an extent. The New Economic Policy, simply, is the very system which Lenin was previously staunchly against and launched a revolution to defeat: capitalism. Even Lenin was aware of what this was, proclaiming a partial restoration of “a free market and capitalism”, in his own words.
 
Of course, he wasn’t completely reversing course on the communist and Marxist ideology. Lenin was still a communist at heart and wanted as much communism as he could realistically implement in the Soviet Union. It’s just that he at least had enough rationality to recognize that the amount of communism he was implementing was literally killing his very country.
 
It’s possible that he learned, rather quickly, that it was impossible to implement communism in full without seeing extremely negative side-effects such as your country going broke. That may just be because communism only leads to such negative side-effects and it is an absolute pipe dream for it to even remotely work.
 
The idea that everyone is equal and gets equal results might be appealing to some, but that is simply not how the world works. We might try and treat each other equally as much as we can, but there will always be some amount of hierarchy which is impossible to overcome, no matter the economic system in place.
 
In a (usually) capitalist America, you have hierarchies in government, at work, on the streets, etc. There is the President of the United States (a position currently vacant, both legitimately and intellectually), with the VP underneath, and the executive branch which serves under the POTUS. There is Congress which has Senate Majority and Minority Leaders, as well as a Speaker of the House and a Minority Speaker. In companies, there is the CEO/president (not always the same person or position, though), other executives, middle-managers, etc. On the streets, there are the police, who have the authority to arrest people, etc.
 
What I just described as a usual occurrence in a capitalist country also happens in a completely communist country. There is the head of state and whoever is underneath him, there is the police on the streets, and there are bosses in companies (government-owned, but still) who have higher rank than those below.
 
It is quite literally impossible for there to be complete equality in terms of how one treats another, because some will have higher positions than others. It is even more impossible to attain equal results. Not all farmers will produce the exact same amount of produce to (be forced to) share with “the people” (i.e., the government).
 
Ultimately, what communism results in is authoritarianism from those who are in charge and misery for those living under it.
 
Ludwig von Mises put the distinction between capitalism and socialism most eloquently:
 
“A man who chooses between drinking a glass of milk and a glass of a solution of potassium cyanide does not choose between two beverages; he chooses between life and death. A society that chooses between capitalism and socialism does not choose between two social systems; it chooses between social cooperation and the disintegration of society. Socialism is not an alternative to capitalism; it is an alternative to any system which men can live as human beings.”
 
Those who claim “real communism/socialism has never been tried” fail to understand that, yes, it has been tried multiple times by multiple people in multiple countries, and the results are always similar: misery, to different extents. The only difference between a communist country like the Soviet Union and a communist country like China is the amount of capitalism they chose/choose to implement. China is a bit more capitalistic than the Soviet Union ever was, but even China tried full-on Communism decades ago and it failed too.
 
They are still communists, don’t misunderstand, as they are ruled by authoritarians in the CCP and there is very little social freedom to speak of. But economic freedom is at least a bit more prevalent than what it was in the Soviet Union, and it has allowed China to be at least somewhat economically decent. They still artificially inflate their GDP by constructing ghost cities no one will ever live in (something which will eventually come to bite them in the rear), but they have more relative economic freedom that the USSR did.
 
And those who claim “real communism/socialism has never been tried” also fail to understand that what they desire is nothing but a pipe dream that, when tried, leads to the destruction of a nation in a fairly quick manner. In about a decade, Venezuela went from being highly prosperous to destitute, where their currency is literally more valuable if used to create fashion accessories than for their intended use.
 
All countries which turn towards socialistic policies inevitably see the results of such socialism, and can only stay afloat due to the capitalism that still remains untouched by them.
 
The Foundation for Economic Education gives us just a few examples of societies which turned towards communism (or something akin to it), to one extent or another, and which failed as a result:
 
“Ancient Rome’s Republic began its deadly experiment in democratic socialism in the 2nd Century B.C. It began as a welfare state, degenerated into a regulatory nightmare and finally collapsed into an imperial autocracy. Legislative assemblies voted into office by the Roman electorate constructed the socialist edifice brick by brick. Rome was not built in a day, but concentrated state power had no trouble tearing it down completely.”
 
“The Pilgrims of Plymouth, Massachusetts famously tried another version of democratic socialism seventeen centuries later. It was the communal variety, in which they placed the fruits of their labors into a common storehouse and then distributed it to each other equally… Starvation forced them to scrap it rather quickly in favor of private property.”
 
That story in particular we have shared with you time and time again, particularly around Thanksgiving.
 
The FEE also notes how the Germans elected Adolf Hitler and his National Socialists, Great Britain and Scandinavia adopted welfare state socialist policies following World War II and all had suffered as a result, and New Zealand was bogged in socialistic regulatory madness but largely got rid of such policies which have since freed its economy.
 
To different extents, socialism and communism have been tried, and even the ones that got just a taste of it ended up suffering as a result. Even then, they were still far better off than those which dove headfirst into communism like the Soviets and Chinese, who quickly saw how dangerous it was and needed to reign it in at least a bit.
 
“Real” communism has been tried by many, and they have seen their newly formed nations dying just as quickly as they were created. All forms of socialism stifle the economy and bring about suffering.
 
The antidote, as Lenin seemingly came to learn 100 years ago, is capitalism. Ironically, had he not died just a few years later and Stalin not taken power and gotten rid of NEP by re-socializing the economy, it’s possible that the Soviet Union might have been better off throughout its entirety. It wouldn’t have been great by any means, of course, as they still would have had some amount of communism, but they likely would have been more akin to modern-day Russia and China – still communist (not that Russia calls itself that, and are more oligarchical, but they pretty much are still that with the little capitalism they implement), but not so much that they are on the brink of death.
 
Surely, if even one of history’s most notorious communists learned that full communism brings economic death, then so can others in a far easier manner. I would hope that Americans who are misinformed about what socialism is and does don’t have to drag us through the lethal dangers of full communism before they learn that it doesn’t work.
 
Proverbs 18:15
“An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.”

I have written many articles not only about how awful socialism is, but also about how socialism has been destroying, and will continue to destroy, the once prosperous, oil-rich nation of Venezuela.
 
And most recently, I even wrote an article that suggested that Venezuela was moving away from socialism. So, if that’s what’s happening, why are economic problems still ravaging the country? Well, two reasons, really. First, I wrote that article only about a month ago, so things don’t tend to change that dramatically that quickly. Second, I wrote that they were turning away from socialism, not that they were turning toward capitalism.
 
I pointed out how, in their transferring of regulatory power to companies allied to the Venezuelan government, they are acting more like post-Soviet Russia: Oligarchy, not capitalism.
 
If they were turning to capitalism completely, THEN, they would see great economic return very quickly.
 
But in any case, let’s focus on what’s happening there at the moment.
 
Reuters reports that Venezuela is running out of physical cash as Maduro is seeking to speed up the implementation of digital currency called “digital bolivar”.
 
“Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro is pressing banks to implement digital payment systems as hyperinflation prompts chronic shortages of cash in the bolivar currency, three people familiar with the talks told Reuters.”
 
Maduro is targeting the public transit system in particular since roughly three-quarters of all circulating cash is spent there.
 
Annual inflation is hitting nearly 3,000%, which is at least better than the peak of 10,000,000% back in 2018 but obviously, it is still carrying plenty of issues for the people of Venezuela. Long lines are forming outside of banks in Caracas, where residents are hoping to withdraw the maximum of 400,000 bolivars, which sounds like it’s a lot of money, but it’s barely anything – the equivalent of 20 U.S. cents.
 
Reuters reports: “Venezuelans have stopped using cash bolivars for food and many other day-to-day purchases. It would take forty bills of 50,000 bolivars to buy 1 kilo (2.2 lb) of rice. Instead, many use U.S. dollars in cash or debit cards – sometimes backed by U.S.-dollar accounts at local banks.”
 
“In a sign of worsening cash shortages, the central bank on March 5 announced it would begin to issue bills worth 1 million bolivars each. Even that would be worth just a handful of [bus] rides.”
 
Those 1-million bolivar notes would currently be worth only 50 U.S. cents at best, as hyperinflation, especially as more of those 1-million bolivar notes are printed, would naturally lead to even that amount of money to be worth less and less.
 
But cash isn’t only disappearing in terms of worth in Venezuela. Physical cash is also literally disappearing in the country. Reuters reports that only 2% of Venezuela’s total money supply is currently in circulation, which is down from 7% just a few years ago.
 
This makes sense, seeing as Reuters noted that Venezuelans have largely stopped using the bolivars to buy food, opting instead to use U.S. dollars, and 75% of the bolivars are used for transit fare.
 
The cash is worth so little that people literally make bags and purses out of the money to try and sell them outside their country. You can find listings of such products on Etsy for around $60.
 
Funnily and coyly enough, Nicolas Maduro admitted to cash disappearing in an interview earlier this year, saying: “Yes, it is disappearing. For Venezuela that is a big advantage.”
 
Of course, he did not go on to explain how or why that was an advantage at any capacity, because everyone, including him, knows that he is utterly full of crap. Like socialists tend to do, he lies to his people and tells them that the poor economic situation is actually “a good thing” or “puts us at an advantage”.
 
I’ve shared this story before, but I feel it’s worth repeating here.
 
Back during the Falklands War between Argentina and the U.K., the Argentine government would often report to its citizens about how they killed this many English soldiers or they took this much amount of ground, etc. If you were living in Argentina during this war and your only source of information was the Argentine media, you would believe that Argentina (which had not fought anything resembling a real and direct war in over 100 years) was kicking British butt. Just 10 weeks after the war started, it ended in Argentine defeat.
 
Again, if you were just consuming the Argentine media, you were led to believe Argentina was winning against the Brits (specifically, the British Navy, which is even more unbelievable), only to find a few weeks later that your country just lost the war and the Falkland Islands (which were called “Las Malvinas”) remain a British colony. All lies, which is no different from what Maduro is doing.
 
The only difference, perhaps, is that the Venezuelans likely aren’t buying the crap Maduro is selling because unlike Argentine citizens during the Falklands War, the Venezuelans are actually and routinely seeing the “advantages” of this socialist economy.
 
Even the Argentine soldiers were led to believe some of the crap the government was spewing. Juan Guerrera, a then-18-year-old Argentine soldier in the Air Force told The New York Times in 1982 “Nobody has explained to us why we lost. I think they should tell me what happened. Maybe I was a bad soldier. I don’t know. But I need somebody to tell me what we did wrong.”
 
So for anyone who understands how these socialist-type government leaders work, the crap that they spew is easily recognizable.
 
There is no advantage for Venezuelans that cash is literally disappearing. It’s disappearing, in part, precisely BECAUSE of the hyperinflation that the country has been going through for years thanks to the socialist and idiotic belief that printing endless amounts of money is the solution to all economic woes.
 
Even at home here in the U.S., there are people who are dumb enough to believe that the country is incapable of running out of money.
 
Clearly, such people have never heard of the Weimar Republic, where the highest inflation rate was 29,500% (for perspective, Fed Chairman Powell has to try to calm the markets about a possible 2% inflation rate in the coming months), or Yugoslavia in the mid-1990s when highest monthly inflation rate was 313,000,000%, or Hungary in the 1940s, when highest inflation rate was 13,600,000,000,000,000%. That’s 13.6 quadrillion percent. According to CNBC, prices were doubling every 15.6 hours in Hungary during that time.
 
At one point, Hungary even had a denomination bill of 100 quintillion pengo.
 
So the idea that the government can endlessly print money without any worries is something that many countries have tried and all of them have seen its catastrophic results. Venezuela is merely one of them and it’s not even the worst case. Again, the peak for them was 10,000,000% inflation rate in 2018. Yugoslavia in the 90s and Hungary in the 40s would both kill for 10 million percent inflation rate. But all of them, to different capacities, have suffered greatly and excruciatingly because of the erroneous belief that the government is incapable of running out of money.
 
Venezuela is seeing this first hand right now and, again, their physical cash is worth so little that they are better off making handbags and purses out of them and selling them outside the country than actually using them to buy things.
 
This ought to be a major warning for any and all countries who think hyperinflation is no big deal or that socialist policies which are misguided at best such as endless money printing is not only achievable but beneficial. History has proven to those who pay attention to it that such policies not only don’t work and are unobtainable (endless physical cash requires endless use of paper which means endless cutting down of trees, so this is a bad idea even from an environmental standpoint) but are altogether detrimental in horrible ways for the people of those countries.
 
Learn from history, or you’ll be doomed to repeat it, as they say.
 
Proverbs 12:15
“The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but a wise man listens to advice.”

All ideas proposed by communists are bad. I don’t think I need to go into too much detail as to why, as they often times are self-evidently awful. But there are those who, if for the slightest of moments, somehow think that some communist proposals are logical and would help people out.
 
This article is for such people who are not too familiar with the most basic concept of economics – supply and demand – and believe that instituting rent control will help to lower rent and just make everything good and happy.
 
The Foundation for Economic Education recently talked about this subject as well, and they detail exactly why it is that rent control is a destructive and counterintuitive proposition made by those who fail to understand some of the most basic principles of economics.
 
Theresa Dolata, a resident of the Windom neighborhood in the city of Minneapolis spoke at a February 23rd city council meeting, urging city leaders to support amendments which would allow the city to regulate rent prices, making the emotional appeal that “I don’t want to end up homeless again, I don’t want to be pushed out.”
 
Following her testimony, as well as testimonies from other citizens, the council members unanimously approved a charter that would put this issue on a future election ballot so that the residents of Minneapolis could vote on whether or not they wanted rent control in their city.
 
Council President Lisa Bender said: “The fact that landlords can increase rents with very little notice is impacting people’s lives and their housing stability.”
 
Let’s assume that what Bender said is true. Landlords increasing rent with little notice impacts people’s lives and housing stability. What ought to be the logical approach when tackling this problem? It’s not the attempt at taking that ability away through rent control regulation, but rather, it’s to look for the root cause(s) of the problem.
 
There are a number of things which can impact rent prices, from cost of living in the area to taxes (which is part of that cost of living) to land value to inflation, etc. Landlords are, at the end of the day, businessmen and they are looking to make a profit so that they can live comfortably.
 
Unlike what the Left often portrays them as, they are not wealthy billionaires looking to screw people over.
 
I remember some time ago watching an episode of Alf where the titular alien was writing some sort of screenplay set during the Great Depression. The play was about a poor family of three, mother, daughter and son, living together in a small apartment, barely making ends meet. The characters in the play are often harassed by their evil landlord who takes advantage of them, asking for their rent early and threatening them to raise their rent, with failure to pay potentially leading them to eviction.
 
Without going into too much detail about the episode itself, the reason I bring this up is because that caricature of an “evil” landlord is what they claim all landlords generally are: greedy, evil, super wealthy, abusive, etc.
 
The reality, however, is that most landlords are not super wealthy. They treat their apartment complexes like a small business. Not every landlord is wealthy like Donald Trump or Barbara Corcoran. Not everyone in the real estate business is as wealthy as some of the richest people in the country.
 
But they get treated as such by the Left, and it’s not difficult to see why. They want to get rid of private land ownership so that the government steps in and builds “everyone” homes that they can live in at “affordable” rates. It’s nothing but a classic communist landgrab.
 
The landlords often times see that, in order to still make a profit, as all businesses have to do to stay afloat, they have to do certain things, such as increasing rent. They are often uncomfortable with doing it out of fear of leading their tenants to seek another place to leave, but feel as though they have little choice in the matter.
 
And rent control would only kill their business, leading to basically ALL their tenants to be homeless. If the estate is no longer profitable, no one will invest in it, and tenants would be forced out. That is at least one way in which rent control is destructive and counterintuitive (the stated goal is to keep people like Theresa from being homeless, but that’s exactly what it leads people to be).
 
Rent control, by the way, has been tried in a number of places from San Francisco to New York, Sweden to Australia, and even the entire state of Oregon passed rent control in 2019. Wherever it’s been tried, it has failed, as is often the case for communism in general.
 
Supposedly, the purpose for this rent control is to mitigate rising or high rent prices, but it generally doesn’t actually do that.
 
Berlin tried this, implementing it in February of 2020, and The Economist declares this experiment “a failure.” “Rents may be down, but so is the supply of homes.”
 
Supply of homes, by the way, is something else that affects rent. Which is why I brought up the simple economic premise of supply and demand. If the supply of homes is low and the demand is high, rent will naturally be high, as there are few other places for people to go to which would offer more competitive rent offers.
 
Thomas Sowell writes in his book Basic Economics why rent control is a general failure and depicts how it failed in places like Australia, Sweden, New York, San Francisco, etc.
 
We are asked: “Why wasn’t a single housing unit in Melbourne built in the nine years after World War II…?” With the answer being that “rent control laws had made the buildings unprofitable,” according to FEE.
 
Washington D.C. saw rental housing stock decline from nearly 200,000 to under 176,000 in the 1970s for the same reason: rent control.
 
And Santa Monica, California, saw building permits decline by 90% in 1979 from just a few years prior because rent control made the building of new houses unprofitable.
 
In Sweden in 1948, Sowell writes, there were roughly 2,400 people on waiting lists for housing, but just 12 years later, the waiting list had grown tenfold. In this time, Sweden was building more houses per person than any other country in the world, but rent control made them unprofitable. So even though houses were being built, they were not being rented out, creating an artificial housing shortage.
 
But when Sweden repealed rent control laws, particularly with all the houses that had already been built, a housing surplus occurred.
 
Generally speaking, when socialist policies are undone, prosperity is what follows. This was the case for Germany post-World War II and for New Zealand in the mid-80s and 90s.
 
Rent control is one such socialist policy which is destructive to any economy that tries it and is counterintuitive towards the purpose of instituting such a policy. Sure, rent may no longer go up, but that hardly matters if it leads to landlords no longer being able to afford maintenance of the buildings or keeping the tenants there, leading to even more people to be homeless, if temporarily, which becomes a tad bit more permanent if rent control cripples entire areas.
 
Rent control is sold as a “solution” to homelessness, but it only creates more of it. A common result of communist policies: they create or exacerbate the very issues they attempt to solve.
 
Proverbs 29:2
“When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan.”

Communists are perhaps the most depraved people out there. Even cannibal tribes are, in some way, better than them, because they live and act according to the standard of their own civilizations. They don’t seek change, they don’t want change, and though they do terrible and barbaric things, they at least have the excuse that they don’t know any better.
 
Communists, on the other hand, come from civilized societies, so they should know better than to aim for barbaric things such as mass genocide, or the romanticization of things like cannibalism.
 
And yet, this is, to an extent, what communists in California are doing with a proposed “ethnic studies” curriculum, set to be voted on next week.
 
If passed, it would subject children to a curriculum which not only paints the United States as a racist, bigoted and highly unjust nation, but would also subject the children to chanting to the Aztec ‘gods’ of human sacrifice, cannibalism, and war, among others.
 
“The new program, called the Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum, seeks to extend the Left’s cultural dominance of California’s public university system, 50 years in the making, to the state’s entire primary and secondary education system, which consists of 10,000 public schools serving a total of 6 million students,” according to City Journal.
 
Investigative journalist Christopher Rufo broke down this story:
 
“California’s Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum, based on the Marxist ‘pedagogy of the oppressed,’ instructs students to ‘challenge racist, bigoted, discriminatory, imperialist/colonial beliefs’ and critique ‘white supremacy, racism and other forms of power and oppression.’”
 
“R. Tolteka Cuauhtin, the original co-chair, worked on the early American history material. In the references, he denounces the United States as a ‘Eurocentric, white supremacist, capitalist, patriarchal, heteropatriarchal, and anthropocentric paradigm brought from Europe.’”
 
“According to Cuauhtin, whites began ‘grabbing the land,’ ‘hatching hierarchies,’ and ‘developing for [whiteness],’ which created ‘excess wealth’ that ‘became the basis for the capitalist economy.’ Whites continue to subject minorities to ‘domestication’ and ‘zombification.’”
 
“In a related ‘mandala’, Cuauhtin claims that white Christians committed ‘theocide’ against indigenous tribes, killing their gods and replacing them with Christianity. White settlers thus established a regime of ‘coloniality, dehumanization, and genocide.’”
 
“The solution, according to the curriculum materials, is to ‘name, speak to, resist, and transform the hegemonic Eurocentric neocolonial condition’ in a posture of ‘transformational resistance.’ The ultimate goal, Cuauhtin says, is to engineer a ‘countergenocide’ against whites.”
 
City Journal also reports: “In theoretical terms, the new ethnic studies curriculum is based on the ‘pedagogy of the oppressed,’ developed by Marxist theoretician Paolo Freire, who argued that students must be educated about their oppression in order to attain ‘critical consciousness’ and, consequently, develop the capacity to overthrow their oppressors. Following this dialectic, the model curriculum instructs teachers to help students ‘challenge racist, bigoted, discriminatory, imperialist/colonial beliefs’ and critique ‘white supremacy, racism, and other forms of power and oppression.’ This approach, in turn, enables teachers to inspire their pupils to participate in ‘social movements that struggle for social justice’ and ‘build new possibilities for a post-racist, post-systemic racism society.”
 
“This religious concept is fleshed out,” continues City Journal, “in the model curriculum’s official ‘ethnic studies community chant.’ The curriculum recommends that teachers lead their students in a series of indigenous songs, chants, and affirmations, including the ‘In Lak Ech Affirmation,’ which appeals directly to the Aztec gods. Students first clap and chant to the god Tezkatlipoka – whom the Aztecs traditionally worshipped with human sacrifice and cannibalism – asking him for the power to be ‘warriors’ for ‘social justice.’ Next, the students chant to the gods Quetzalcoatl, Huitzilopochtli, and Xipe Totek, seeking ‘healing epistemologies’ and ‘a revolutionary spirit.’ Huitzilopochtli, in particular, is the Aztec deity of war and inspired hundreds of thousands of human sacrifices during Aztec rule. Finally, the chant comes to a climax with a request for ‘liberation, transformation, [and] decolonization,’ after which students shout ‘Panche beh! Panche beh!’ in pursuit of ultimate ‘critical consciousness.’”
 
I’m sorry for the few brain cells I just killed by having you read this asinine and evil crap that Leftists in California are trying to pull.
 
But where to begin in this analysis? Well, first, it’s rather ironic that one of the people involved in this straight up sounds like he, himself, is an Aztec. The name Cuauhtin sounds like something you would find in ancient Mesoamerica. Maybe the guy is an Aztec time-traveler, seeing what has come of his former civilization, and seeking to outright forcefully convert and indoctrinate generations of children into following the Aztec religion and rituals.
 
For crying out loud, he wants a “COUNTER-GENOCIDE” against white people, which is a round-about way of saying outright genocide of white people. And he is going to be able to influence children in California?
 
Frankly, I don’t think much analysis of this is needed. They are spelling out their very desires for us. They want to kill white Christians, having charged them with “theocide” and genocide of native people, and seemingly want to include Aztec influence in Californian schools.
 
The Aztecs, in case you need a reminder, were horrible barbarians who routinely sacrificed human beings to their fictitious gods, often times ate the meat and flesh that they sacrificed to the gods, and not only considered this behavior normal but an HONOR.
 
Spanish historian and conquistador Fray Diego de Duran reported that 80,400 men, women and children were sacrificed for the inauguration of the Templo Mayor in Tenochtitlan under the rule of an Aztec emperor. Even if you were to claim that he inflated the numbers (as Leftists often charge Spanish conquistadors of doing in order to make the natives seem more barbaric than they were), numerous archaeological excavations show that the Aztecs did, indeed, sacrifice a plethora of humans and outright made displays out of the skulls.
 
Conquistador Andres de Tapia described seeing two rounded towers flanking Templo Mayor which were made entirely of human skulls, and between the towers was a towering wooden rack displaying thousands more skulls with holes bored on both sides to allow for the skulls to slide onto the wooden poles, according to History Channel.
 
And according to History Extra, “It is possible that around 20,000 people were sacrificed a year in the Aztec Empire.”
 
I don’t feel bad at all that the conquistadors killed off many native populations of Mesoamerica. The Aztecs, alongside the Mayans, Olmecs, and other Mesoamerican tribes all conducted human sacrifice for the gods which they created in their own minds and forced others to believe in. And now, we have this jackass trying to basically revive that culture by forcing Californian children into idolatry for an asinine cause as “social justice”?
 
And, by the way, the vast majority of those Aztec sacrifices were of people who were not native to the Aztec Empire. Most were either soldiers fighting against them or slaves that they captured. In other words, the Aztecs would, for the most part, sacrifice outsiders. Isn’t that xenophobic? Isn’t that some form of extreme bigotry? It may not have been simply because they were outsiders, as the Aztecs believed that human sacrifice was necessary in order to appease the “gods” which were “fighting on their side”, but they still ended up mostly killing people not native to the Aztec Empire.
 
Furthermore, for all the “hierarchy hatching” that the Left charges the European settlers and conquistadors with perpetuating, even the Aztecs had noblemen and noble families, as well as general hierarchies. For crying out loud, THEY HAD AN OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT WITH EMPERORS AT THE TOP. I don’t know how anyone with a positive IQ would claim that the colonizers were the ones who brought in hierarchical ways into these societies.
 
And do you want to know what is perhaps the biggest irony in all of this? The fact that they charge the conquistadors with “developing for” whiteness, despite the fact that Spanish people are generally darker in skin tone than other people in Europe (apart from Italians, perhaps) as a result of their geographic location. Now, the difference is not quite as much as, say, those in the Middle East or in northern Africa, but Spanish people were not exactly the whitest of people.
 
Furthermore, the conquistadors weren’t likely thinking in terms of race, but rather, in terms of culture and the desires of the Spanish Empire, namely in expanding that empire and converting as many people as they could to Christianity, as Spain had assumed the role of defender of Roman Catholicism.
 
So to claim that the Conquistadors were “racists” or whatever else and were looking to “develop for” whiteness is entirely ignorant of world history – which is pretty much a requirement for Leftist indoctrination of children.
 
Facts often get in the way of their narrative, so they have to ignore those facts, including history.
 
They will make up whatever incredible claim to justify their actions and goals. And they aren’t exactly secretive about those goals, either. Cuauhtin spelled it out clearly for us that he wants to genocide white Christians. This kind of mentality is obviously dangerous and must be destroyed.
 
These communist idolaters simultaneously push that people “believe in science” and that children participate in idolatrous chants to fictitious Aztec “gods” for the purposes of “fighting for social justice.” These are lunatics and demons who must be rid of in civilized society.
 
There is room for dissent, idiocy and even crazy theories, but the threat of committing genocide against any peoples must be considered genuine. People like Cuauhtin and all those who are in favor of this evil indoctrination curriculum should be in jail.
 
Proverbs 24:24-25
“Whoever says to the wicked, ‘You are in the right,’ will be cursed by peoples, abhorred by nations, but those who rebuke the wicked will have delight, and a good blessing will come upon them.”

This perhaps should not be particularly surprising, but given the behavior of companies, one might erroneously believe that people approve of the uber-liberal woke crap that they are trying to push down people’s throats. However, a recent poll demonstrates that the nonsensical, irrational wokeism that Leftist companies like Disney and others are pushing for are not well-received by the vast majority of Americans.
 
Conducting a poll from Feb. 26 to Mar. 3, Public Opinion Strategies found that “Corporate America’s lunge into ‘wokeness’ and cancel culture might hit a bump in the road given public reaction to Disney’s recent actions,” according to Neil Newhouse, a pollster for that polling firm.
 
Among other things, surveyors were asked about recent Disney news, such as the company’s ties to the Chinese Communist Party, their threat to stop working with and in the state of Georgia after pro-life legislation was made into law, and their recent firing of “Mandalorian” star Gina Carano over a supposedly offensive social media post.
 
Regarding that last point, for those of you who have not paid too much attention to that story in particular, Carano shared a social media post in which she compared conservatives (though without using the term) to Jews during the Nazi regime.
 
Her post read: “Jews were beaten in the streets, not by Nazi soldiers but by their neighbors… even by children… ‘Because history is edited, most people today don’t realize that to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could easily round up thousands of Jews, the government first made their own neighbors hate them simply for being Jews. How is that any different from hating someone for their political views?’”
 
Certainly, the Nazi regime did its best to justify their actions, indoctrinating its own population into believing that Jews were parasitic, lesser people. Numerous children’s books were written and handed out in kindergartens across the country that painted the Jews as liars, as greedy, and as sons and daughters of the devil.
 
Which is why such a thing as Kristallnacht (an event which has been politically bastardized by Leftists to attack conservatives), an attack against German Jews carried out by German military forces and civilians alike, occurred in the first place.
 
The Nazis convinced their people that the Jews were inhuman and deserving of such horrid treatment. That the Left treats conservatives in a similar manner, often justifying Leftist terrorists like Antifa and BLM when they attack us, is the reason Carano made that comparison in that post to begin with.
 
But because you apparently can’t compare American Nazis to German Nazis, Disney decided to fire her; a decision which has proven to be a poor one.
 
It’s noteworthy to point out, also, that before being shown the social media post, 58% of surveyors opposed Disney’s decision to fire the actress, with 42% supporting it. A majority across all age groups, both genders, and all ethnicities, as well as Republicans and Independents all opposed her firing, with 40% of Democrats agreeing.
 
However, once they were shown the post (due diligence of informing the surveyors on something, which is not often done by pollsters, as they tend to belong to the fake news media which only seeks to create public opinion as opposed to reflect it), opposition to Carano’s firing soared to 72%, with only 28% saying Disney was justified to have fired her.
 
39% said that the post may have been poorly worded but was still not a justifiable reason to fire Carano, with 34% saying that they found nothing wrong with the post and that Carano shouldn’t have been fired.
 
This opposition was even found among Democrats and liberals, as Public Opinion Strategies reports: “After viewing the post, a majority of every single group tested, including Democrats, liberals and 70% of Disney fans said that Carano should not have been fired.”
 
The survey also found that 64% of Americans disagree with Disney’s decision to close down popular rides at their theme parks due to activists claiming the rides had “racist origins” or “racist messages”, with only 36% approving. Such rides include even Splash Mountain, which, while it was not closed down completely (probably because it’s one of Disney’s most famous and popular rides), it was given an overhaul because it included stories and characters from the 1946 film “Song of the South”, a movie considered to be pretty racist.
 
Interestingly, minority Americans oppose such decisions, including 60% of Disney fans. I imagine it has a little to do with the fact that, even if those rides are somehow connected to racism (because apparently, everything has to be connected to that), to get rid of those aspects is to pretend as though Disney never participated in those seemingly racist things is generally a bad thing to do.
 
The biggest reason I oppose the tearing down of Confederate statues is not because I agree with their stances on anything (they were Democrats, after all, so why would I agree with them?) or because I agree with their spirit of rebellion (I do agree with a spirit of rebellion but not for the reasons that the Confederate south had) but because it is part of the country’s history and to get rid of them is like getting rid of that part of history. Most particularly, however, it is Democrat Party history, and those statues (among other things) serve as a reminder of what horrible things Democrats supported even back then, which are not too dissimilar to what they support now.
 
It's no wonder, of course, why the Democrat Party would want to get rid of their racist history in their attempt to be “anti-racist” (which is really just the same kind of racism as always, but with a different name and target, to an extent).
 
For Disney to get rid of those aspects is to attempt to get rid of their unsavory history, an action which people don’t like.
 
Moving on, the survey also found that people were not too keen on Disney’s attempt at “political correctness”:
 
“By a 65%-35% margin, Americans believe that companies like Disney have taken political correctness too far, including a majority of every age group tested, 90% of Republicans, 60% of Independents and 47% of Democrats.”
 
You know it’s bad when even nearly half of Democrats surveyed think that Disney is going too far into “political correctness” territory.
 
54% of surveyors also oppose Disney’s threat to stop doing business in Georgia following the pro-life legislation that the state’s government had passed, with 50% of women and a majority of Republicans and Independents, as well as 31% of Democrats also opposing the company.
 
An astounding 84% of Americans also oppose Disney’s decision to film a recent movie in China amidst the CCP running concentration camps on Uyghurs and other people the government considers to be dissenters or some sort of threat to their sovereignty.
 
And most damagingly for the company, “after hearing about actions that Disney has recently taken, fully 60% of Americans say they have a less favorable impression of the company, and 58% say they are less likely to watch Disney programming,” according to the poll.
 
Like I said in the title, wokeism is killing companies like Disney. All attempts at cancel culture by them is met with heavy criticism from many and support from the very few but loud.
 
If Disney cares at all about their bottom line, they would recognize what is plaguing their company and do all they could to avoid that. Knowing that the company is run by agenda-driven Leftists, however, that is unlikely to happen, no matter what happens to their bottom line. So long as they keep churning out uninspired live-adaptation remakes of Disney classics like Mulan (the movie for which they received criticism since they shot it in China and the movie’s main star is pro-CCP), The Lion King, Aladdin, etc., they will keep making money from nostalgia (which they ultimately kill in those movies anyway).
 
Not to mention that they own a whole lot of other companies from which they can make plenty of money, so it’s not like this is going to be such a major plight on them. Still, that this behavior is so negatively received is a good thing. I hope and pray that even more people turn against the Left’s cancel culture crap.
 
Amos 5:24
“But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.”

What socialism/communism destroys, capitalism restores. No country which was once capitalistic was improved or made better after experiencing socialism or communism, and countries which have tried socialism and communism but then turned to capitalism were made better for it.
 
This was the case for Germany post-World War II and for New Zealand over the last few decades.
 
Will it also be the case for Venezuela? I will soon reveal why I do not think so.
 
But let’s begin with post-WWII Germany and New Zealand. After World War II, Germany was in shambles not merely because they lost the war. The Nazis, being socialists (as the name “National Socialist” would imply, but if you don’t think that’s enough to tell you they were socialists, consider that they employed pretty much every line item the American Left wants to employ), were in charge of everything regarding how the economy worked. Well, “worked.” Few things were not run by the German government, it applied heavy price controls, rationing, needless bureaucracy, massive inflation, awful cronyism, etc.
 
It was your typical Marxist dystopia, much like we see with Cuba, Venezuela and saw with the Soviet Union and China (China is still communist, of course, but privatized things enough that famines were not really a thing anymore. It’s still largely a dystopia if you’re not at least fairly wealthy and you can only be fairly wealthy by sucking up to the government).
 
But Ludwig Erhard, who was West Germany’s Economics Minister in 1948, employed capitalist measures to free the economy from its socialist bonds.
 
Late economist William H. Peterson said, detailing what happened: “In 1948, on a June Sunday, without the knowledge or approval of the Allied military occupation authorities (who were of course away from their offices), West German Economics Minister Ludwig Erhard unilaterally and bravely issued a decree wiping out rationing and wage-price controls and introducing a new hard currency, the Deutsche-mark. The decree was effective immediately. Said Erhard to the stunned German people: ‘Now your only ration coupon is the mark.’”
 
“The American, British, and French authorities, who had appointed Erhard to his post, were aghast. Some charged that he had exceeded his defined powers, that he should be removed. But the deed was done. Said U.S. Commanding General Lucius Clay: ‘Herr Erhard, my advisers tell me you’re making a terrible mistake.’ ‘Don’t listen to them, General,’ Erhard replied, ‘my advisers tell me the same thing.’”
 
So the Allied forces in charge of West Germany, which were Americans, British and French, instituted some of the same socialistic policies that the Nazis put into place. Tells you a little about the kind of socialistic tendencies these “heralds of freedom” possessed, doesn’t it?
 
At any rate, Erhard abolished the price-control program, slashed tariffs, raised consumption taxes but cut income taxes by 15% and got rid of any disincentive to save money, leading West Germany to see incredible growth while the communist East Germany suffered under its communism.
 
Robert A. Peterson writes: “Almost immediately, the German economy sprang to life. The unemployed went back to work, food reappeared on store shelves, and the legendary productivity of the German people was unleashed. Within two years, industrial output tripled. By the early 1960s, Germany was the third greatest economic power in the world. And all of this occurred while West Germany was assimilating hundreds of thousands of East German refugees.”
 
It was regarded as the “German economic miracle”, though Erhard hardly thought of it as a miracle (in some ways, it certainly was, but I understand what Erhard means as it took planning and action and it didn’t come out of nowhere). “What has taken place in Germany… is anything but a miracle. It is the result of the honest efforts of a whole people who, in keeping with the principles of liberty, were given the opportunity of using personal initiative and human energy.”
 
Capitalism restored the German economy which was rattled and destroyed by the Nazis. Capitalism also restored the New Zealand economy which was overregulated by welfare state socialists.
 
In the two decades following the 1950s, when New Zealand was a top economy in the world, the large island nation saw welfare state economists and leaders overregulate the markets and cripple the economy.
 
According to the Foundation for Economic Education: “The next two decades produced a harvest of big government and stagnation. Increasingly, New Zealanders found themselves victims of exorbitant tariffs, torturous regulations, massive farm subsidies, a huge public debt, chronic budget deficits, rising inflation, costly labor strife, a top marginal income tax rate of 66 percent, and a gold-plated, incentive-sapping welfare system.”
 
“The central government in those years established its own monopolies in the rail, telecommunications, and electric power businesses. About the only things that grew during the period from 1975 to 1983 were unemployment, taxes, and government spending. This was the ‘democratic socialism’ that Bernie Sanders admires, but which New Zealanders eventually realized was a national calamity.”
 
After that period of the socialist experiment in New Zealand, the country began to turn things around when all farm subsidies were ended, tariffs were slashed by two-thirds, as were taxes slashed with the top rate being cut to 33 percent. During the mid-1980s and 1990s, the government sold its state enterprises, allowing them to be privatized. Starting a business was also made quite easy with severe deregulation and, for regulations which were not abolished, they were finally equally and consistently enforced. Compulsory union membership was abolished and union monopolies holding various labor markets were outlawed as well.
 
This led to New Zealand seeing 4 to 6 percent annual growth for years. Their housing market is still a mess and overregulated to Hell, but if the government of New Zealand recognizes that it also needs to be freed like the rest of the economy was, then things will get even better for them. It would also help to not institute anti-free speech and anti-gun regulations, which began to be implemented following the 2019 Christchurch mosque shooting.
 
Regardless, capitalism freed and restored an economy which was wrecked by overregulation and nationalization of industries aka socialism.
 
Now, finally, let’s turn towards Venezuela. What, exactly, is prompting me to even suggest they might be turning away from socialism? Well, it’s a Bloomberg News article reporting that the Venezuelan government “is abandoning socialist doctrine by offloading key enterprises to private investors, offering profit in exchange for a share of revenue or products.”
 
“Dozens of chemical plants, coffee processors, grain silos and hotels confiscated over the past two decades have been transferred – but not sold – to private operations in so-called strategic alliances, nine people with knowledge of the matter said.”
 
Ramon Lobo, a legislator from the socialist party and former finance minister said: “We believe this is positive because it is the synchronization of the public with the private sector. The state acts as a supervisor and receives compensation.”
 
So is Venezuela turning away from socialism? Like the title says, yes and no. Notice that I’m not asking if they are turning towards capitalism. They are just turning away from socialism, at least in some ways. If anything, this just sounds like what Russia did following the collapse of the Soviet Union and what China has been doing for the past couple of decades: privatizing a little bit, but only transferring the regulatory power to businesses and corporations which are allied to the government.
 
This isn’t capitalism, it’s oligarchy. It’s only marginally better to socialism, and better than to allow the entire country to collapse under the weight of socialism, but it’s nowhere near enough for the people of Venezuela.
 
The Latin American country was once one of the wealthiest in the world, was ranked among the top 10 in GDP per capita and once had a labor force with higher productivity than even the United States. This was in the 1950s. In the 1970s, Venezuela began to flirt with socialism by nationalizing the petroleum sector, and the economy began to stall out at best. In 1998, Hugo Chavez was elected and in 2007, following his second re-election in 2006, he would nationalize Venezuela’s largest telecommunications company, CANTV, and announced “All that was privatized, let it be nationalized,” hinting at further nationalization of industries.
 
Of course, we know what followed this full embrace of socialism: hunger, destitution, pain, suffering, and attempts by Venezuelans to flee for freer countries.
 
Now, Venezuela seems to be only slightly moving away from socialism, but not fully letting go of the failed economic system which brought ruin to the once prosperous nation. Even a little bit of privatization helps to an extent, as even despite the oligarchical monopolies present in China, Russia, and the U.S., these countries are still doing fairly well, with varying levels of prosperity (the U.S. being the freest, but not exactly because it’s trying to be).
 
So further privatization will certainly help Venezuelans, but it’s not worth it to replace a centralized government tyranny with an amalgamation of corporate cronies and oligarchs with similar power and philosophies to Maduro. Though unofficially, it’s replacing one dictator for another, to some extent.
 
What Venezuela needs to do, as do China, Russia and the United States, is move away from socialism and government regulation of industries as much as possible. Germany tried that for a time, and it was very prosperous. New Zealand has been trying it, for the most part, and was prosperous as well. The United States was founded upon these virtues and long was prosperous because of them, even despite the attempts by globalists and communists to tear it down little by little.
 
French Enlightenment thinker Montesquieu said in 1748: “Countries are well cultivated, not as they are fertile, but as they are free.” The freer the people, the better off the country will be.
 
I hope and pray that people will open their eyes and see what destruction socialism and communism bring, and realize that unrestrained capitalism is the only way for the largest number of people to live the best lives they can.
 
Socialism is marketed as seeking equality for all people. It achieves that only in the worst of ways by making people equally miserable and destitute. Even then, not all people are faced with this, as those in the government are made wealthier for it off the backs of the people.
 
To contrast Hugo Chavez: All that was nationalized, let it be privatized.
 
1 Peter 2:16
“Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God.”

I have no idea just how many articles I have written since the start of the pandemic about how the policies and measures so many of our “leaders” have implemented are utterly moronic and backed not by data and evidence but by desire to restrict people’s freedoms as much as possible. However, I believe it is still worth it to continue to write these articles to remind people (not like it’s that necessary) of just how tyrannical these politicians are and how none of their decisions are based on science, but on “Science!” which is nothing but the bastardization of what it claims to be.
 
The “scientists” which support these policies are parroting the talking points that politicians want them to make, not pushing back on the narratives with actual scientific data. They get paid plenty of money/are given plenty of benefits to lie to the people about this virus, shaming the entire profession along the way.
 
But ACTUAL scientists and doctors know what they are talking about, even if they are utterly maligned and deplatformed along the way.
 
One such group of people is a group of doctors at Evergreen Family Medicine who have decided to finally speak out and against the moronic use of masks and dispel the idea that it is a magic solution to all our COVID problems.
 
The doctors write in a blog post on their website: “We have purposely avoided directly confronting the issue of masks because it is such an emotional and political issue. Like waving a red flag in front of a bull, the topic elicits strong emotions which overwhelms reason.”
 
And therein lies the biggest problem with this entire situation: this is an emotional, not a logical, endeavor.
 
People keep saying “trust the science”, as though science is an all-knowing and all-powerful entity like God, but when you present science which runs contrary to the science that they like, they deem that as “not science” and attempt to censor it and you for bringing it up. Even though science is all about finding proof that your hypothesis is incorrect and attempting to find the truth, this bastardized version of “science” which dominates the political landscape is driven purely for the fulfilling of an agenda.
 
At any rate, let’s return to the doctors at Evergreen. They note how they themselves often wear masks to “comply with executive orders” as well as a form of courtesy for those who “feel afraid and uncomfortable” with those whom choose to not wear masks, which is another tragedy in itself. People have grown afraid of others based on their decision not to wear a mask. It’s insane the damage that the Left has caused to people’s psyche that they actually believe that those not wearing masks are a major threat to people’s health and safety at any capacity.
 
The doctors eventually write the following: “In truth, we wish masks worked. If they did, it would be a cheap, and easy way to control the spread of Covid. The idea that they protect not only their wearer, but also those people around them seems noble. We wished masks worked because citizens are spending billions of dollars on them.”
 
“We wish masks worked because most Americans wear them now. Telling them it was unnecessary will not make them happy. We wish masks worked because they have become a symbol for virtue and social responsibility. Anyone who doubts their utility is personally attacked; as though they don’t believe the viral pandemic is real, or don’t care about those who die from it.”
 
“We wish masks worked, because they distract from other important Covid related issues such as: school closings, lack of access for non COVID related illness, increased mental illness, elderly dying alone, missed youth experiences, substance abuse, suicides, increased poverty and homelessness, suppression of free speech, censorship of science, disruption of supply chains, government agencies used to oppress small businesses, restriction of religious gatherings, travel disruptions, isolation protocols, modeling over actual data, quarantines, lockdowns, contact tracing, and global harm of the economy that most impacts the working class, vulnerable and poor.”
 
“We wish masks worked. But they don’t.”
 
They then went on to point out how, in the beginning, public health organizations and personas were saying what we are saying today: that masks don’t work, at least the cloth and surgical ones.
 
They note: “There have been many randomized control trials (RCT) and meta-analysis of previous studies that suggest that masks do not work to prevent influenza-like illnesses, or respiratory illness transmitted by droplets and aerosol particles – like Covid. This knowledge was the basis for the WHO and CDC recommending against the public wearing masks in the spring of 2020. It was repeated by authorities and experts at every level.”
 
President Trump’s Surgeon General initially recommended that people did not buy masks because “they are NOT effective in preventing the general public from catching Coronavirus.” Initially, even I thought that the reason for saying that was because one of the only types of masks available back then were N95 masks, which were not in great supply at the time (in large part due to the Obama administration not resupplying on it). And granted, N95 masks do work better than the other kinds of masks, but they are by no means a solution to the virus.
 
Even Fauci initially was against the wearing of masks, as he told 60 Minutes: “There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask.” Now the jackass is suggesting that people wear two masks because logic is dead.
 
Furthermore, back in April of 2020, the New England Journal of Medicine wrote: “We know that wearing a mask outside of health care facilities offers little, if any protection from infection.”
 
And these guys were very much correct in that initial stance.
 
The doctors used a number of charts, with one of them depicting countries that wear masks often, such as Italy (98.4% usage), France (93.3% usage) Spain (97.3% usage) and the U.K. (82.1% usage). All of them are seeing more deaths per 1M residents than Sweden, which only sees a 7.7% usage rate.
 
Getting back to the doctors, they also write about some of the reasons they chose to talk about this now, of all times. How the fact that, at this point, it should be extremely evident to everyone that masks do not work, but the evidence is being utterly ignored in favor of hysteria and narratives. We are told to “wear your damn masks” like we’re being held at gunpoint and not like these people want to help.
 
Small children on airplanes are forced to be muzzled by masks which they clearly are not fond of and if the parents are unsuccessful in forcing the toddler to wear a mask, the entire family is kicked off of the plane. And in one of the most egregious examples, the Oregon Board of Medicine outright suspended a physician’s license because he objected to the mask policy.
 
The guy was canceled and his ability to practice medicine and earn a living was suspended because of holding A DISSENTING THOUGHT as though we lived in Soviet Russia or Communist China.
 
This entire endeavor, which should have remained purely scientific, has been abused by politicians and those who stand to gain plenty from it. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: the Chinese coronavirus is the BEST thing to ever happen to people like Anthony Fauci, Andrew Cuomo, Gavin Newsom and all Leftists.
 
People willingly gave up their rights and freedoms in exchange for “safety” from the virus which they didn’t even get. Even today, if you say you disagree with the mask mandates and policies, you are shamed as if we were in the midst of the Color Revolution in China.
 
If you voice your dissenting opinion on social media regarding masks, you will get flagged by big tech in some form or fashion. This, of course, also happens if you point out that the election was rigged and stolen from Trump, because free expression of thought and sharing of facts and truth are a borderline crime now, largely considered to be “disinformation” by those who most benefit from actual disinformation.
 
The virus gives them every excuse they could possibly need to restrict rights and freedoms at every level. It gives them the excuse they need to commit blatant genocide against the elderly (in large part because we do not have a free news media). It gives them the excuse to be the communist dictators they have always wanted to be.
 
The virus has been an even greater thing for them than the topic of climate change. For all their virtue signaling regarding climate change, it hasn’t actually and statistically killed anyone. Sure, they will claim that there are “climate refugees” and “climate terrorists” and say that we are facing an “extinction-level threat” but a virus’ effects of death are far more visible.
 
The Left could not convince more than 80% of Americans to immediately switch out their gas-powered cars for electric ones. But they could convince more than 80% of Americans to wear their masks virtually all the time regardless of place. People even wear them alone in their cars, for crying out loud.
 
The Left could not convince businesses to close down to reduce carbon emissions or whatever else. But they could convince (force, rather, and even then, only the small businesses which could not bribe their way to staying open) businesses to close down due to the virus.
 
The Left could not convince law enforcement to be brutal to those who don’t recycle or who drive Hummers or who are “killing the planet”. But they could convince law enforcement to be brutal to families in a park or who gather for a special occasion because of the virus.
 
The Left saw a unique opportunity to make all their dreams come true with this virus. They overhyped it to terrify a public that could more clearly see the effects of a virus than of climate change, and led them to willingly give up their rights and liberties.
 
The Left (and the establishment itself, really) played us like a damn fiddle and the cost of regaining those freedoms is far higher than a lot of people realize.
 
They believe these people will just give us back our freedoms. Certainly, it might look that way with the “Re-opening the State” plans. But people in power rarely are so willing to give up their power.
 
George Washington very easily could have run over and over again until his death, and would have easily won election after election, serving term after term. But he willingly chose to only have two terms so as to not set a precedent of near permanent power for the president (leading to someone like FDR to win four terms before Congress realized they needed term limits for the presidency).
 
Let me ask you: do you think there are any politicians, Left or Right, who are as honorable and humble as Washington? There are a lot more people who are the precise opposite of him than I can count.
 
Even if they do begin alleviating some things, they might just slow-roll them or, upon receiving “bad news”, begin to shut things down again.
 
It is certainly possible that they might seek to re-open in order to make the Biden economy seem “better” than the Trump one, but that is short-term satisfaction as opposed to long-term satisfaction of keeping things closed for as long as possible.
 
Either way, I have zero confidence and faith that the vast majority of these people will begin to do the right thing, even with their favored candidate in office.
 
Proverbs 29:2
“When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan.”