Fame and Misfortune

It’s a strange world in which we find ourselves.

The start of the New Year confirmed to many of us that some individuals we thought we knew so well weren’t the same folks we thought they were.

Many of them appeared to have transformed into a new persona literally overnight, leaving people, who had supported, admired, and trusted them, in a state of disbelief, distress, and overwhelming sadness.

The depth of duplicity to which they had sunk shocked us to the core. But it did something else too. It set us on a path to find out how human beings can cause so much hurt, do so much damage, and care so little about what they had done.

I would like to offer one explanation, which is based upon my academic background and application of sociological, cultural, and media psychology principles.

There is an insatiable human need to be loved. We are social creatures who look to one another to supply this crucial component of our very survival.

As evidence that we are loved by others, we constantly seek affirmation, i.e., outward signs that sum up the degree and substance of the affection and esteem in which we are held.

In our present-day society, just as in societies of old, fame defines the amount of acclaim an individual has acquired at a moment in time.

In my book “Hollywood Nation,” I had the pleasure and honor of interviewing the late Joel Siegel. The legendary film critic told me a fame-related story about President John F. Kennedy, how he broke with tradition by not wearing a fedora hat at his inauguration.

Hats at that time were a part of the standard look for men. Siegel mentioned that even at “ball games they wore a hat.”

But when, at such an important event, people saw the fedora missing from JFK’s head, suddenly the fashion attire went out of style.

Siegel’s Kennedy anecdote helps to provide insight as to why seemingly insignificant things surrounding famous people actually matter a great deal.

For a long time now, I have suggested that in our society those we place on the celebrity pedestal greatly influence us. In many instances, we actually hold affection for them and innately desire the affection to be mutual. Consequently, we often seek to emulate them.

In my book “Tales from the Left Coast,” I note that each of us longs to be accepted. And we also seek some evidence that we, as individuals, belong to something larger than our singular selves.

In wanting to belong, we frequently alter our behavior to fit in with the behavior of others, i.e., we conform to societal and cultural norms. Whether or not the conformance is a good or bad thing may hinge upon the circumstances, context, and applicable ethics.

A natural fear that we all carry, albeit one of which we may not be conscious, is fear of death. Our survival instinct compels us to try and alleviate this fear as best we can.

People of faith are able to dispense with the fear of death with the theological reassurance of an afterlife, which is far greater than the earthly one we currently experience or any that a human mind could ever imagine.

For those lacking in the above-described belief system, or a similar spiritual ideology, fear of death may be lessened by thoughts of achieving a type of immortality that fame might seemingly offer.

Our inner awareness of our mortality at the conscious or subconscious level may lead us to seek protection from the fear that we will someday cease to exist.

Psychologist Orville Gilbert Brim, who collected data on the subject of fame with the support of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, opined that fame is “like belief in the afterlife in medieval communities, where people couldn’t wait to die and go on to better life.”

According to Brim, the desire to achieve fame ultimately springs from the human need to be part of a group, to obtain acceptance and approval.

The antithesis of one who is adored is one who is an outcast.

When we receive love and adulation from our fellow human beings, it is the highest of highs. Likewise, when we are rebuffed, rejected, and/or exiled it is the lowest of lows. In fact, the latter experience is tantamount to death.

According to Sigmund Freud, the pursuit of fame can be explained by the subconscious impulses that relate to our need to be recognized.

These impulses are more predominant in those who have stronger ambitions, which may explain why some people have a heightened need to pursue fame more fiercely.

The notions of – the pursuit of fame, the need to hold onto it once it has been secured, and the desire to make it grow ever larger – are woven together with the impulse to conform.

In my assessment, this would explain why so many people, the likes of which I described above in my opening, caved so easily to other influential individuals and groups, whom they most longed to please, and whose continuous acceptance they still desperately desire.

It is a hollow choice that these people made.

And they may soon come to know that fame is fleeting, but misfortune oftentimes lingers.

The ‘Great Reset’ Is Huxley’s ‘Brave New World

The dystopian novel “Brave New World” was written in 1931 by visionary Aldous Huxley.

In his book, the author describes what life is like in a society that is under complete domination of a group of hardened autocrats.

It is a tyrannical tale with a twist, however. Members of this society are kept in a state of perpetual bliss, despite having every aspect of their lives from birth to death controlled by a power-drunk ruling class.

It is a society in which power is concentrated in the hands of a few, communication of information is meticulously managed, and endless distractions prevent people from thinking, reasoning, or imagining.

A drug is routinely dispensed to the masses, so as to facilitate the exile of perceptible sensations of pain, stress, or anxiety. Unhappiness is avoided through excessive indulgences in materialism, sexual promiscuity, and altered states of mind.

A synthetic religion substitutes for authentic faith. Technology is god, and as such is worshiped and adored. Pre-conditioned slaves delight in their own enslavement.

Enduring human connections are reflexively thought of as repulsive. The optimum relationship status is summed up in seven short words of the state maxim: “Every one belongs to every one else.”

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) recently appeared on Prager U’s The Book Club to discuss Huxley’s “Brave New World.”

In an engaging discussion with host Michael Knowles, the senator pointed out that slogans of the government “sound wonderful but they’re all about destroying self, destroying who you are.”

The ultra-totalitarian state in Huxley’s fictional world is splattered with virtuous sounding slogans. But as Sen. Cruz explained, global governance, the likes of which is seen in “Brave New World,” is “designed to produce a subservient collective.”

Sen. Cruz also talked about the many parallels in Huxley’s “Brave New World” to the communism of today, explaining that in the modern world, communism “is the ultimate totalitarian communal state.”

It just so happens that, in the real world, there is a group called the World Economic Forum (WEF). The group is comprised of a number of ruling class elites, who meet on a regular basis to determine the political, ideological, and societal direction of the world.

Attendees of the WEF include a host of global government advocates, such as chief executives of Big Tech, the U.N. secretary general, the president of the European Central Bank, the secretary general of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, union leaders from select countries, and representatives of left-wing political and environmental organizations.

Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the WEF, recently wrote an article titled “2021 should be year of the ‘Great Reset.’”

In the article, Schwab proposed that 2021 be designated as the new “Year Zero.”

Schwab borrowed the term “Year Zero” from the year immediately after World War II, a time when the world had to be rebuilt following the devastation that had occurred in war-torn regions.

“This time [2021] the focus is on the material world but also on so much more. We must aim for a higher degree of societal sophistication and create a sound basis for the well-being of all people and the planet,” Schwab wrote.

He contends that free markets and limited government, which have actually produced decades of prosperity and progress, constitute instead a model that, in his words, has “broken down.”

Consequently, the world, in his opinion, is in dire need of The Great Reset, and 2021 is the perfect year for the launch.

Eerily, the model that the Davos elites are proposing is strikingly similar to the one that Huxley previewed for us all.

One word, albeit unspoken, hangs over all of the cunningly crafted phrases that describe The Great Reset. That word is control.

The final outcome that promoters of The Great Reset envision is one of a highly regulated society, a massively intrusive government, the annihilation of individual liberties, and a centrally planned economy.

At the June 2020 meeting of the group, members expressed the idea that the COVID pandemic could be used as a means of implementing their radical agenda.

While at the meeting, Prince Charles said, “We have a golden opportunity to seize something good from this crisis.”

In June of 2020, Schwab wrote the following: “The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world.”

He also disclosed the expansive nature of the reset, suggesting that “all aspects of our societies and economies must be revamped, from education, to social contracts and working conditions.”

Much like the society in “Brave New World” the WEF envisions a populace that is sufficiently content with being manipulated.

A video promoted by the WEF declares that by 2030, “You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy.”

Viewers are presented with footage of drone deliveries of goods that put the smiles on consumers’ faces.

Let’s stop and take a brief look at what has happened over the past ten months to so many people here in our own country and around the world.

– Millions have been deprived of individual freedoms at the hands of authoritarian leaders.

– Millions have witnessed the destruction of their businesses and livelihoods.

– Millions have been denied the opportunity to work and have endured severe economic hardship as a result.

– Millions have been living under strict mask mandates and social distance dictates.

– Millions have been forced out of their places of worship.

– Millions have been barred from attending school on campus grounds.

– Millions have had curfews imposed upon them.

– Millions have had neighbors, co-workers, members of the community, and digital devices monitor them and report them to the authorities.

-Millions have had their speech curtailed on social media platforms.

The list of infringement upon our freedoms at the hands of modern day autocrats goes on forever.

I think in order to avoid our own “Brave New World,” we need to counter The Great Reset with The Great Return.

The return to freedom.

The Post-election Deception

Still the land of the free…for now

As explained by the U.S. Department of Defense, psychological operations, frequently referred to as PSYOP, are a means of communication used to “convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.”

In other words, PSYOP are used to relay certain information to governments, groups, and/or the public in order to elicit a desired predetermined response.

Although the “Year of the Pandemic” is about to come to a close, there are few, if any, who would be able to claim that they have escaped the PSYOP reach.

Still, while “selected information” was being taken in by a trusting public, other information, particularly that which may have posed a challenge to the prevailing narrative, was being attacked, dismissed, marginalized, suppressed, or even censored altogether.

Of course, use of this approach to manipulate members of a society is more akin to the thought processes and practices of totalitarian regimes than it is to the United States of America.

Countries ruled by autocrats routinely use PSYOP on their own people. The public is looked upon as if it were a military enemy. In these instances, the media, as well as the internet, are held in a vice grip so that a sparse degree of information is actually able to reach the public at large.

The list of players that have engaged in the PSYOP deception is quite long. It includes the establishment media, entrenched politicians, multinational corporations, Big Tech, and the Hollywood Left.

The above described PSYOP model actually appears to have been broadly implemented in the United States over the last ten months or more, with the target group being anyone who happened to be living here.

The manner in which facts surrounding the 2020 presidential election have been treated serves as a prime example.

The conveyors of information have denied the existence of a mountain of evidence that includes irregularities, incongruities, and outright fraud surrounding the election.

There has been a concerted effort to perpetuate two falsehoods: first, the claim that no such evidence of election fraud exists; the second, the repeated mantra that the election is “over” and everyone needs to “move on.”

The first falsehood supports the fallacious premise that the 2020 presidential election was conducted in a legitimate manner. It was not. Even former Attorney General William Barr, among others, admitted that there was fraud.

The second falsehood seeks to sweep the rigged election under the rug. The nation cannot. The Republic ceases to exist without free and fair elections.

At the present, approximately half of the country believes that the election was conducted in an illegitimate manner. These are the folks who are not just distrustful of the way the election was conducted. They are the folks who have lost trust in their government; lost trust in their elected officials; lost trust in the complicit news media; lost trust in the social media; lost trust in the tech companies; and on and on.

No doubt, the use of PSYOP on an unsuspecting public played a major role in the vanquishing of their trust.

However, this type of undermining typically leads to cynicism, which can be unhealthy for an individual and fatal to a society.

One thing is for certain, though. Approximately half of the country has absolutely no trust in the fake would-be president.

On the other hand, they have all the trust in the world for the real one.

A Hollywood Christmas to Forget

Like a lot of you, I look upon 2020 in my life as one of the strangest years on record. Thankfully, the end is in sight.

As convoluted as it has been, there’s a bright spot coming up that never fails to warm the heart. Christmas is near.

In Hollywood, though, it appears that Christmas time is just another opportunity to try and taint a holiday that most folks treasure.

Members of the reflexively left-wing entertainment community are in an unusually buoyant mood about a potential Biden presidency. They’re happy, too, about the media’s coronation of their compromised candidate of choice.

Still, there are things that are putting a wrinkle in their sequenced shorts.

One such thing is a recent decision by Warner Bros. to place new releases on HBO Max and in theaters at the same time.

Another is the lockdown of the once-Golden State’s small businesses, which comes at the hands of some of the most draconian government leaders the nation has ever seen.

There’s no stopping elites in Tinseltown from lobbying officials for more of the preferential treatment they have grown accustomed to, though.

According to a report by the Intercept, veteran Democrat operative Jason Kinney recently lobbied to have his client Netflix be allowed to continue its productions during the latest lockdowns, despite the fact that most small businesses across the state have been shuttered.

Turns out the entire entertainment industry ended up getting preferential treatment, when the state declared television and movie productions “critical infrastructure.” Yes, Hollywood studio filming has been exempted from the lockdown orders that were imposed on so many others.

And you were probably just as stunned as I was by the hypocrisy heard round the world, when California Governor Gavin Newsom was caught violating his own policies. Surrounded by friends of privilege, who simultaneously threw social distancing to the wind, an unmasked Newsom munched on gourmet goodies at the “open for elitists only” French Laundry restaurant.

Ironically, the event was being held to celebrate the birthday of Newsom’s good buddy, the aforementioned Kinney.

Then there is celebrity and fashion merchandiser Kylie Jenner, who reportedly during the lockdown was able to arrange a private shopping spree in Beverly Hills.

Kylie had an unexpected encounter of the radically environmental kind. According to TMZ, she was leaving a Rodeo Drive store that carries attire with non-faux fur lining and was accosted by animal rights protestors. The throng held signs and yelled “shame on you,” “you’re a monster,” and other assorted insults. The enviro fashion police also attempted to block Kylie’s car as she tried to escape.

Moving on to the intersection of politics and Hollywood. Feeling their oats over the biggest election steal in history, Hollywood celebrities are obsessing over the upcoming Georgia Senate runoffs, which will ostensibly conclude on January 5, 2021. The idea that any Republican would have a trace of power left is abhorrent to many in the pampered class.

“The Big Sick”’s Kumail Nanjiani and “One Tree Hill”’s Sophia Bush are among the co-founders of a group called “Win Both Seats,” an organization supporting Democrats who are running for the U.S. Senate in The Peach State.

Actors George Clooney, Will Smith, Leonardo DiCaprio, Mark Ruffalo, and Joaquin Phoenix have shelled out money for the radical Dem candidate, Reverend Raphael Warnock, who faces incumbent Sen. Kelly Loeffler.

Jason Bateman, Mandy Moore, Patricia Arquette, and Bradley Whitford have all funneled cash to ultra-left-wing Dem candidate Jon Ossoff, who takes on incumbent Sen. David Perdue.

Two days after Christmas, actors from the long-running USA Network series “Suits” will be holding a fundraiser. One of the cast members of the show, Patrick J. Adams, announced the event, which is set for December 27. He encouraged fans to help put an end to the “GOP’s chokehold on Congress.”

Meghan Markle is the most high-profile person associated with “Suits.” The Duchess of Sussex once had a supporting role in the series before she mesmerized Prince Harry. Markle is not listed among the participants in the fundraiser.

In an attempt to counter the celebrity stack up and possibly tweak the left a bit, Sen. Loeffler appeared at a runoff rally and concert that featured country music star Travis Tritt. The event was held in Smyrna, Georgia, right outside the Adventure Outdoors guns and sporting goods store.

One more example of Hollywood’s pre-holiday preoccupation. Clooney recently expressed his very own Christmas gift wish, penning an article for Variety in which he calls upon taxpayers to help out Hollywood by forking over some cash.

“We should be giving federal aid to the theaters. The movie industry, Hollywood …, the actor wrote.

How out of touch can you be to suggest a bailout of Hollywood?

The Wayward Seven

To the heartbreak of millions of Americans who were hoping that the Supreme Court would give justice a fighting chance in the current fog of electoral war, seven of the nine members of the High Court simply slunk away last Friday without even lending an ear.

Just about a week ago, shortly before midnight, the state of Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court. In the suit, Texas challenged the election procedures that had taken place in the states of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

The seven members of the High Court, who took the position that Texas and the other co-plaintiff states would not be allowed to have their case heard, committed a fundamental error.

The justices may have been influenced by a slew of legal prognosticators, some of whom had taken to the Democrat dominated media to ridicule the Texas attorney general for having initiated the action in the first place.

Others spread a message that conveyed an overly simplistic analysis, claiming that the process of selecting electors to send to the Electoral College is a matter that is handled by individual states, and therefore if a federal court, in this case the Supreme Court, were to hear it, the court would be intruding on state sovereignty.

The fact of the matter is the U.S. Constitution uniquely prescribes the manner in which presidential elections are to be implemented, and exactly where the authority for such implementation resides.

The authority is granted exclusively to the state legislatures of each respective state. The High Court has referred to this power to select electors as a “plenary” one, i.e., all encompassing.

The statehouses are given an exclusive grant of authority to determine the manner in which the states’ presidential electors are chosen. This is a distinct and explicit constitutional mandate, a federal matter, appropriately decided in the federal court system and, if necessary, the court of last resort, the Supreme Court.

The textual constitutional language in this regard is specific and unambiguous, setting forth a singular authority that precludes state officials, state executives, and even state courts from altering or contradicting statehouses, when it comes to the selection of electors for the purposes of choosing the President of the United States.

The Constitution also specifies that the Supreme Court will have original jurisdiction over “disputes among the states,” meaning that when Texas needs to adjudicate a matter involving a disagreement with another state (or states), the Supreme Court is the only place to go in order to seek resolution or remedies in law or equity.

Texas and its fellow co-plaintiff states were not questioning the election laws of the defendant states, but rather they were claiming that “non-legislative actors,” i.e., governors, secretaries of state, election officials, and state courts, unconstitutionally altered and overrode the election laws that had been duly passed by state legislatures.

The threshold issue that was before the Supreme Court was whether the constitutional prescription for the selection of electors had been violated by non-legislative actors. This was, and will always remain, central to the functioning of our republic, and it is a premise that is vitally important for all of the justices to recognize.

Seven simply did not. These wayward seven failed to allow the case to move forward.

How were their decisions justified?

They avoided hearing the case on the merits, claiming that the prospective plaintiffs in the case lacked “standing.”

Standing is the principle that limits the hearing of cases to those individuals or entities that demonstrate specific harm has been suffered or that a particular legal interest has been detrimentally affected.

The harm in this case is quite obvious — unconstitutional behavior that results in illegal voting in one state damages legitimate voting in other states.

In this case, electors in Texas were canceled out by electors in states where illegitimate votes were produced by unconstitutional processes.

A huge segment of the American population believes that the 2020 presidential election was illegitimate, due to widespread and multifaceted fraud. This huge segment yearns for, and is entitled to, a judicial review of the mounting evidence.

Thus far, no determination with regard to the merits of the case has been made.

Similar, if not identical claims from other plaintiffs, ones that possess a stronger argument on the issue of standing, will arrive at the Supreme Court soon.

The seven members of the High Court get another shot at justice.

Lies, Dem Lies, and Statistics

Think of it as a bank heist, one in which armed robbers crash through the front doors and hightail it to different sections of the building. One approaches a teller and shoves a gun in his face. One sneaks over to the main computer and hacks away. Another goes into the vault and locks it behind him, so he can swap out real hundies with counterfeit ones when no one is looking.

That pretty much sums up what the Democrats did, election-style.

The 2020 presidential election was stolen out from under the American people. And the crooks used a number of means to bring their devious plan to fruition.

Evidence of fraud is there for anyone to see, but the corporate media seem to be engaging in one of three strategies: stating that none exists; ignoring it altogether; or subjecting it to a “fact-checking” process.

The evidence this election-go-round is massive. Additionally, the evidence is credible enough to warrant an overturn of the results in the battleground states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada.

The above statements are accurate, even when the staggering amount of statistical evidence and the mounting data involving Dominion tabulation machines and Smartmatic software are not taken into account.

Contrary to what has been reported, this election did not produce the largest vote tally in American history. Rather, it produced the largest ballot tally in American history.

Shockingly, there were ballots that were deliberately destroyed and others that were intentionally separated from their counterpart envelopes.

Then there were those ballots that were scanned multiple times, “cured” prior to the date they were set to be opened, lost in predominantly Trump precincts, and even received before having been sent out.

While those tasked with the job of observing were prevented from carrying out their viewing responsibilities, others were busy voting multiple times. Even dead people got into the act, evidently casting ballots from the world beyond.

There are now hundreds of affidavits, videos, and statements that set forth various forms of wrongful behavior that took place in the election tabulation process.

Numerous election workers and postal employees have come forward to sign sworn statements under penalty of perjury that they were specifically instructed to backdate otherwise ineligible ballots.

In several states, observers signed sworn statements under penalty of perjury that they were blocked from seeing the vote counting.

Individuals in multiple states have also signed sworn statements under penalty of perjury regarding signatures that failed to match, optical scanners that were set to accept unverified ballots, and voter ID laws that were circumvented.

As America looked on with mouths agape, battleground states announced that the counting had been put to a halt. Then, despite what had been said, in the wee hours of the morning when most people were asleep, dumps of hundreds of thousands of ballots took place, with most producing a disproportionate count for the Democratic presidential candidate.

In a simultaneous occurrence, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada, and Georgia each pretended to stop ballot counting. But secretly they continued to count.

In Georgia, officials put a stop to the election night counting under the guise that the premises had to be cleared out due to a water pipe burst. This turned out to be a lie. A surveillance video shows election workers actually dismissing observers. After all observers had left the premises, four cases of ballots were pulled out from underneath a table, and large piles of ballots began to be tallied.

Sharyl Attikisson, one of the few journalist professionals that still exists, reported that President Trump was leading in Georgia by more than 100,000 votes on election eve. But after 16 vote dumps that took place over a six-hour period, his Democrat opponent was able to take the lead in a “statistically improbable” manner.

President Trump was comfortably in the lead in Wisconsin on election night until a gigantic dump of ballots took place. Five percent of the state’s total, i.e., 170,000 votes, came in all at once. In the blink of an eye, the Democrat contender took a small lead.

Similar statistically impossible numbers of late-arriving ballots came in to other swing states after a fake stoppage of the counting. These also brought in just the right number of votes to give the Democrat challenger a slim lead.

In President Trump’s Georgia lawsuit, allegations document illegal votes from more than 66,000 underage residents, almost 9,000 deceased people, close to 5,000 out-of-state registrants, over 2,600 late-arriving absentee voters, more than 2,500 felons, over 2,400 unregistered voters, and almost 400 people who voted in two states.

In yet another Peach State incredulity, 900 out of 900 military ballots that came in went to the Democrat nominee.

Other glaring swing state improprieties include the following:

–In Michigan, election workers were directed to backdate about 100,000 absentee ballots. Ballots for the Democrat nominee were scanned up to ten times over. And fake birthdates of non-registered voters were manually entered as a means of overriding the system and allowing their votes.

–In Pennsylvania, a subcontractor for the U.S. Postal Service stated that he was towing a trailer with 288,000 ballots (44 pallets) that were being shipped from New York to Pennsylvania. After the subcontractor had completed his delivery, the trailer mysteriously disappeared from its parked location. Additionally, more than 100,000 absentee ballots were returned a day after they were mailed out, on the day they were mailed out, or on the day prior to the day they were mailed out.

–In Wisconsin, officials improperly fixed more than 238,000 ballots that had no voter certification or witness address. A subcontractor for the U.S. Postal Service stated that he was told the postal service planned to backdate tens of thousands of ballots.

–In Nevada, 40,000 people voted twice, and more than 8,000 voters did not meet legal residency requirements.

–In Arizona, 1.9 million mail-in signatures were not properly verified, and election workers were instructed to allow unregistered voters to vote.

When it comes to the courts, the Trump legal team has one of the lowest burdens of proof that exists in the law.

Unlike in a criminal case, the evidence in civil lawsuits such as these does not need to convince the court “beyond a reasonable doubt” that there were election improprieties. Rather, a “preponderance of the evidence” will suffice as proof.

This evidentiary level is sometimes described as that sufficient to show it was “more likely than not” that the fraud had taken place.

Will the courts and/or the state legislatures make the right decisions to have justice prevail?

America prays that they do.

Eric Clapton Targeted by Outrage Mob for Anti-lockdown Song

Legendary recording artist Eric Clapton is a bona fide member of music royalty.

He just happens to be a three-time inductee to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and over the course of his career he has been the recipient of 18 Grammy Awards.

Something a lot of folks may not know is that Clapton was a member of a number of awe-inspiring rock and blues ensembles, including The Yardbirds, Cream, John Mayall & the Bluesbreakers, Blind Faith, Delaney & Bonnie and Friends, and Derek and the Dominos.

One particular endeavor of Clapton that holds personal significance for me is his nurturing and archiving of America’s musical treasure, The Blues.

His style of playing and choice of material reflects his own influences: famed artists Muddy Waters, B.B. King, Freddie King, Albert King, and Buddy Guy, among others.

Clapton collaborated on an album with B.B. King and released CDs that featured the work of Delta Blues master Robert Johnson.

After a long and illustrious career, Clapton is now having to endure the unimaginable—an onslaught of digital venom from the cancel culture.

The outrage mob that lurks in the shadows of social media slander circles currently has its sights set on destroying a heretofore sterling career and reputation of the iconic singer, songwriter, record producer, and guitarist.

What did Clapton do to deserve the onslaught of Internet hate?

He and fellow musical artist Van Morrison recently announced that the two of them would be releasing a protest song that related to government lockdowns, which have been imposed on people around the globe, all in the name of public health.

The tune is titled “Stand and Deliver.” Morrison, who wrote the song, is a musical legend in his own right, having been the front man for the seminal rock group, Them. He also skyrocketed to stardom as a solo artist with a distinctive soul brand all his own.

In a statement to Variety, Clapton characterized the lack of live music due to lockdowns as “deeply upsetting.”

“There are many of us who support Van and his endeavors to save live music; he is an inspiration,” Clapton said. “We must stand up and be counted because we need to find a way out of this mess.”

Morrison praised Clapton for having participated in the tune, saying, “Eric’s recording is fantastic and will clearly resonate with the many who share our frustrations.”

In addition to “Stand and Deliver,” Morrison is set this week to release three other protest-themed songs: “No More Lockdown,” “As I Walked Out,” and “Born to Be Free.”

The songs portray the coronavirus lockdowns as “fascist” and also hit Hollywood celebs for “telling us what we’re supposed to feel.”

Proceeds from the recordings go to Morrison’s initiative for musicians who are struggling as a fallout of the lockdowns.

Using music as a protest vehicle is a time honored tradition that dates back to the singer-songwriters of the 1960s. However, in today’s left-of-center’s warped selective embrace of censorship, musical expressions that contradict the agenda of the elitist class must be stricken from the public square.

As a result of the recording of the song and the public announcement of its release, Clapton has suffered a barrage of social media vitriol, including a sizable amount from members of the outrage mob, who dragged out statements of Clapton from more than 40 years ago.

This was an unfortunate time for the musical artist, a period in his life when he was in addiction’s dreadful grip. His remarks, which were made back in 1976, were featured on the Twitter account of singer-songwriter Deren Ney, who wrote that “all of [Clapton’s] racism wouldn’t fit in one screenshot.”

A band called The Mountain Goats, which had released a song about the pandemic, attacked both Clapton and Morrison in a tweet, and threw a number of expletives in for supposed effect. Numerous other tweets were posted on the web, accusing Clapton of being a racist.

The Vulture website joined in with the digital assault, and also threw in some politics in its citing of the “climb in COVID-19 cases.”

In another politicized piece, The Los Angeles Times noted that “Twitter is not amused” by Clapton’s taking a position against lockdowns in song. The publication then wagged its accusatory racist finger.

Despite failed models, questionable data, and nonsensical demands from government, millions of protesters have taken to the streets in the U.S., European countries, and international communities.

It could be that the politicization of the coronavirus has reached its zenith, thanks in part to Clapton and Morrison.

Music has that magical effect. It can reach into our souls and drown out all the unwelcome noise.