Dark Night of the Soul for America

The phrase “The Dark Night of the Soul” originally came from 16th century Spanish poet and mystic St. John of the Cross.

These words capture and convey the spiritual experience that a soul undergoes as it strives to reach union with the Almighty, despite temporal discouragements.

The now-popularized expression has been referenced over the years by a diverse array of authors and artists, including poet T.S. Eliot, writer F. Scott Fitzgerald, and singer-songwriter Van Morrison.

There is an additional application of the phrase that has been adopted by the entertainment industry.

In his best-selling book, titled “Save the Cat,” author Blake Snyder divides the pacing of storytelling into structural components that take place over time. Snyder even pinpoints the specific page of a film script at which the appropriate dark night moment should take form.

The cinematic moment should materialize at the end of the second act of a story, the point of desperation at which the protagonist is in a hopeless situation and all appears to be lost.

I contend that at this present moment in time—those of us who have held fast to our founding documents, to the virtues and ideals that are embodied therein, and to the knowledge that we are entrusted with the responsibility to preserve for our families, friends, and loved ones the treasure we have been given in our beloved America—we are at the end of the second act of one of the most intense dramas our country has ever endured, and the stakes are monumental.

In the scenes that preceded this critical point, powerful interests worked in unison to engage in a wide variety of illicit activities, both in the lead-up to Election Day and in the days that would follow.

The chairman and CEO of a Big Tech company donated hundreds of millions of dollars to a non-profit organization, which represented that the money was intended to assist with the voter turnout effort.

However, activities of the entity appear to have favored the encouragement of the voter turnout of one party in particular, the Democratic Party. This entity appears to have also encroached upon the constitutional powers of state lawmakers, and may have used money to manipulate certain aspects of state elections, including the counting of ballots.

Additionally, some state officials appear to have changed ballot security rules on their own, discarding the notion that the power to do so is in the specific purview of state legislatures.

When it came to the content that was published and/or distributed in the lead-up to the election, Big Media and Big Tech at times distorted and at other times lied outright. Highly relevant news stories were never investigated, were completely ignored, or were censored altogether.

The polling industry, too, disgraced itself with exaggerated polls that were specifically designed to suppress voter participation of those with opposing ideas.

In essence, half the population is now being told to reject what they have seen with their own eyes, heard with their own ears, and know in their own hearts; that on election night, the vote counting of several states was halted, with no explanation given. When it once again commenced, suddenly there were massive quantities of votes that came in for the Democratic presidential candidate.

In congressional, state, and local races, voters turned away from Democratic candidates, yet they still managed to vote for the Democratic candidate for president.

In record numbers, African-Americans chose the Republican candidate. Nevertheless, the Democratic presidential candidate somehow received 11 million more votes than former President Barack Obama did in 2008.

Then there were observers who were not allowed to watch mail-in ballots being opened and counted. There were those who were dead but who came back to life to vote. And there were those who were outside their various jurisdictions but who were allowed to cast ballots anyway.

While feebly calling for unity, the Democratic candidate also established a sham entity that his campaign called “the office of president-elect.” And the same people who spread false information about Russia-gate and Ukraine-gate are now urging folks to move on, claiming that there is nothing to investigate and that the American people should graciously accept their candidate of choice.

That all of this might make the almost 74 million voters and supporters of President Donald Trump feel less than hopeful is an understatement.

But my admonition is simple. This is not the time to give up or even grow weak. Rather, it is the time to take heart.

In the “Save the Cat” pacing of storytelling, “The Dark Night of the Soul” leads to a conclusion that makes for an epic saga. What follows the lowest of low points is an unexpected breakthrough that enables the protagonist to overcome seemingly impossible odds and secure victory.

I like to think of it as “The Bright Light of the Spirit.”

Symbols Define the 2020 Election

Each human being has an innate need to communicate with others. He or she also has a deep yearning to understand what another is attempting to convey, and to be validated on a personal level that he or she has been understood.

Communication, of course, frequently involves language. But the communication companion to language is the symbol, which may take the form of a language-based sign, pictorial sign, hand or facial gesture, clothing, shoes, an accessory such as a hat, jewelry such as a necklace, earring, or bracelet, etc.

In analytical psychology, pioneer Sigmund Freud actually used symbolic images to explain the meaning of dreams, while his colleague, Carl Jung, theorized that certain universal symbols called “archetypes” derive from the collective unconscious and alter conscious behavior.

Archetype symbols are a means of sending shorthand messages to the subconscious and conscious minds of human beings.

A fairly new multidisciplinary field called “semiotics” conducts research and analyzes the manner in which meaning is produced from signs and symbols.

How does all of this relate to the 2020 presidential election?

Well, in politics, meaning is generally communicated through words. However, symbols have become increasingly significant over time, especially with the advent of multiple social media platforms and limitless visual imagery via video.

Persuasion is at the heart of any political campaign, and communication through symbols is one of the most powerful methods of persuasion a candidate can access.

As it pertains to politics, the meaning of a message has a way of effortlessly emerging when presented through recognizable symbolic representations.

Needless to say, symbolic communication played a major part in the 2020 presidential campaign for both major parties, and particularly for the presidential candidates themselves.

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden consistently appeared in public wearing – the mask.

The mask became a dual symbol, one of personal responsibility in avoiding the contracting of COVID-19, and one of a supposed caring attitude with regard to the spreading of the virus to others

One main Biden campaign theme was the supposed mishandling of the pandemic, which he attempted to use to try and reframe the president’s successful actions against the virus.

When the former vice president made live campaign appearances or appeared in photographs and/or on videotape, he made sure that he had donned a mask, or at least had one hanging from his ear. This was meant to convey his seriousness with regard to COVID-19, which he no doubt hoped would translate into folks thinking he could do a better job of managing it.

Interestingly, for many Americans the mask had the opposite effect and was perceived as a symbol of government control and loss of freedom.

President Donald Trump had a symbol that across the years rose to legendary heights – the red MAGA hat. It was hardly the only symbol that the president brought to the campaign stop stage. His speeches and events included an array of time-honored national symbols, which for many evoked a deep heartfelt love of country.

Sadly, for others the symbols generated anger to the point that some formed mobs, which took to the streets to burn flags, deface federal and state buildings, and tear down statues. Their intense hatred for the meaning behind the symbols, and for the American people at large, was laid bare.

Symbols are a precious part of the heritage of America, and they have meanings that bind us together in mind, heart, and soul. These symbols are ones that are instantly recognizable.

Here are some examples:

–The Liberty Bell, a bold symbol of independence.

–The Statue of Liberty, with a broken chain draped at her feet, representing an ever-emerging liberty; a torch in one hand, symbolizing enlightenment; a tablet in the other hand, with the date of the Declaration of Independence inscribed upon it, symbolizing the rule of law.

–The Bald Eagle, America’s national bird, representing the soaring spirit of her people, who are able to accomplish anything their hearts desire.

–The Bison, America’s national mammal, representing a proud and confident presence.

–The Oak, America’s national tree, representing a solidness and strength.

–The Rose, America’s official flower, representing a prayer enveloped with the fragrance of idealism.

–The motto “In God We Trust,” representing an all-encompassing faith in something more enduring than our mortal selves.

–The Flag, America’s official emblem, representing the qualities of justice, courage, and self-sacrifice, a tribute to those past and present, who give all, so all can live free.

May God bless America, now and forever.

The Role of Projection in Democrat Politics

Back in the 19th century, famed Austrian neurologist and founder of psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud identified a psychological defense mechanism in human beings that he termed “projection.”

Freud’s concept of projection encompasses the notion that in order to avoid facing uncomfortable feelings about themselves, individuals will impose the same negative characteristics upon another person.

In my assessment, which results from my academic coursework, professional background, and ethics studies, there is another kind of projection that exists, which takes place within the moral realm of human consciousness, one that I term “moral projection.”

Moral projection occurs when an individual experiences feelings of guilt over acts that he or she has committed or omitted. This individual may subsequently find the uncomfortable feelings difficult to confront and/or manage. The conduct, or lack thereof, which evoked the feelings of guilt, also frequently becomes very difficult for an individual to own.

Using the defense mechanism concept, an individual may assign to another individual or group the same attitude and behavior that initially generated his or her own attendant guilt.

In other words, take your blame and pin it on another.

Moral projection has been used extensively by Democrats in their ongoing war against anyone who would get in the way of their agenda du jour. It continues to be wielded as one of their main political and propaganda weapons.

The idea that the concepts of good and evil are mere opinions, which have an elasticity in application that is dependent upon a situation, is often referred to as “moral relativism.”

The infiltration of conceptual moral relativism into our schools has degraded the consciences of generations of students at every educational level.

Simultaneously, it tilled the soil of young minds into fertile fields that were susceptible to the planting of left-wing doctrine. This was one of the ways in which the Judeo-Christian principles upon which our American Republic depends were supplanted.

A significant portion of young people who were infected with the poisonous weeds of moral relativism now endorse the ideas and actions of hate-based radical organizations and violent anti-American groups.

Saul Alinsky, an icon of liberals and leftist extremists, once wrote, “To say that corrupt means corrupt the ends is to believe in the immaculate conception of ends and principles. The real arena is corrupt and bloody. Life is a corrupting process from the time a child learns to play his mother off against his father in the politics of when to go to bed; he who fears corruption fears life.”

The resultant loss of a shared moral sense has enabled and even encouraged the use of political tactics that are devoid of conscience. Moral projection is one of the most blatant.

It is a horrible experience to be accused. For those who adhere to an ethical code, it is what keeps many in check from too freely accusing others.

Here are but a few examples of the moral projection arrows that the Democrats have recently pulled from their quiver and shot at adversaries:

-In order to deflect from the fact that the Democrats and their media allies have for months enabled violence in cities across the country, they falsely claim that the violence was caused by, as Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden recently said, “white supremacist groups menacing our communities.”

-In order to distract from candidate Biden’s numerous mental lapses, Democrats publicly accused President Donald Trump of having mental focus issues following his medical treatment for Covid 19.

-Democrats and the complicit media are fomenting fears over whether President Trump will accept the results of the upcoming election, while former 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton publicly advises Biden not to do so “under any circumstances” and the campaign hires hundreds of lawyers to go to court to contest election results.

I am not sure where the Democrats and their media cohorts can go to get their consciences back. But I do know where the American people can go to get their country back.

Democrats Lose Their Humanity

Human beings generally have a characteristic response when made aware that a fellow human being, be it a loved one, friend, or stranger, has succumbed to a serious illness or has received an ominous medical diagnosis.

Responses tend to reflect a deep-seated empathy and understanding that are innate in people who maintain a well-balanced psychological, emotional, and spiritual equilibrium. If direct or indirect interaction occurs with a suffering person, encouragement and well-wishes typically flow.

On the other hand, if individuals seem to be indifferent to another’s suffering, in common parlance they are likely to be described as cold, heartless, and/or lacking in compassion. Response to news of another’s misfortunes on the part of these individuals is quite the opposite and may generally fall within the category of psychological dysfunction.

In my assessment, this second description is a wholly appropriate way to characterize the insensitive, uncompassionate, and outright cruel remarks that have been made by several Democrats and their allies in the news media and Hollywood regarding President Donald Trump’s positive COVID-19 test and his subsequent illness.

To put it bluntly, a lack of basic human decency has been on display by many on the left. Since the news first hit that President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump had tested positive for COVID-19 and the president was hospitalized, numerous Democrats and their media mouthpieces actually expressed wishes that the president would depart this life.

“It’s been against my moral identity to tweet this for the past four years, but, I hope he dies,” tweeted Zara Rahim, a former national spokesperson for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and a staffer in the White House of then-President Barack Obama.

Rahim subsequently ended up deleting the message.

Steve Cox, an Independent congressional candidate running in California’s 39th District, expressed his hope that President Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden would both die.

The content of statements made by many of President Trump’s political opponents was so heinous Twitter had to issue a warning that the platform would take action against users for tweets that were rooting for the president’s demise. Facebook and other social media platforms followed suit.

Twitter’s announcement was met with immediate criticism from two Democratic congresswomen who are part of a congressional cluster known as “The Squad.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., complained that this policy had not been applied to herself and her colleagues, tweeting the following: “you mean to tell us you could’ve done this the whole time?”

Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., tweeted, “This is messed up. The death threats towards us should have been taking more seriously by [Twitter].”

Twitter vowed to rectify matters.

“We hear the voices who feel that we’re enforcing some policies inconsistently,” Twitter stated in a post. “We agree we must do better, and we are working together inside to do so.”

Meanwhile other Trump-haters went about claiming that the president’s diagnosis was not real.

In a Facebook post, documentary film-maker Michael Moore opined that the president could be lying about having coronavirus as an opportunity “TO PUSH FOR DELAYING/POSTPONING THE ELECTION.”

Moore also used his Twitter account to snidely state, “My thoughts and prayers, too, are with Covid-19.”

At the top of his opening monologue on “Saturday Night Live,” comedian Chris Rock said something similar to Moore.

“President Trump’s in the hospital from COVID, and I just want to say my heart goes out to COVID,” Rock said.

Joy Reid of MSNBC suggested that the president was pretending to be infected so he would be able to “get out of the debates.”

“Here’s how wrecked Trump’s credibility is at this point: I’ve got a cellphone full of texts from people who aren’t sure whether to believe Trump actually has covid,” Reid tweeted.

Other questionable posts by Bette Midler, Patricia Arquette, Kathy Griffin, Rob Reiner, and Michael Rappaport made their way to the social media.

To their credit, Rachel Maddow, Alyssa Milano, Jamie Lee Curtis, and the Biden campaign responded appropriately.

Not so with other high-profile individuals, including a couple of top Democrat political leaders.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., hit a new low. She actually blamed the president for getting sick and then tried to soften her comments by tacking on her usual disclaimer: “I’m praying for him.”

And Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., carped in a statement that President Trump’s diagnosis is what happens “when you ignore science.”

It is difficult to find words to describe or ways to explain the all-consuming hatred that the left continues to spew out against the president. The 90 percent-plus derogatory coverage he has received from the lopsided media is no doubt a factor.

Human beings are capable of being programmed to hate.

The Democratic Party has spent every day for the past five years devising schemes, first to undermine his candidacy and then to undermine his presidency.

Human beings are capable of being programmed to be distrustful.

The complicit media have name-called, derided, maligned, and outright lied about the president’s person and policies.

Human beings are capable of being programmed to be cynical.

There is a domino effect that can occur when negative emotions are continuously teed up and then given a solid nudge. Discontent can tip into arrogance, arrogance into anger, and anger into vengefulness.

This is the way humanity is lost.

The question is whether Democrats even care.

Democrats Launch Health-Scare Attack on Judge Amy Coney Barrett

It seems as though Democrats have settled on a scheme to undermine the nomination to the Supreme Court of Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

Apparently already ruled out is a boycott of the hearings by the Democrats. Such a ploy would actually speed up the nomination process, and they look to be hell-bent on doing just the opposite.

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and his campaign strategists may be coaching Biden’s running mate Senator Kamala Harris, D-Calif., on how to use the proceedings to grab the media spotlight, as was done during the hearings for now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Although House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently boasted that she and her colleagues have a few “arrows in [their] quiver,” at this point it is unlikely that the Democrats will pursue some of the more off-the-wall options, such as attempting to impeach the president a second time, launching an effort to impeach Attorney General William Barr, or forcing a government shutdown.

It is probable, however, that they will try to delay the proceedings in every way possible. Arcane Senate rules could be employed, as some members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have used in the past to gum up the legislative works.

Another delay tactic may be the advancement of a false narrative, suggesting that the nomination of Judge Coney Barrett is somehow illegitimate.

Additionally, the questioning by committee members of Judge Coney Barrett may include an attempt to entrap the nominee into hypothetical predictions about how she might rule in a case that involves one of the more heated topics, such as abortion, discrimination, or immigration.

The primary focus of the Democrats, along with the left-leaning organizations with which they are aligned, has routinely been messaging.

It looks like Democrat leaders have already shown their cards and decided to go the health care route. They are quite experienced in trying to scare the wits out of folks.

Some Democrat strategists are of the opinion that the Democrats were successful in gaining a majority in the House of Representatives during the 2018 mid-term elections by talking about the imminent loss of health care coverage for pre-existing conditions at the hands of the Republicans.

Well they’re at it again. Health care seems to have become the main attack angle with which Democrats are going to try and harm, pump the brakes on, and/or completely halt Judge Coney Barrett’s confirmation.

Specifically, Democrats are using an upcoming case, which will be heard by the Supreme Court shortly after the election, that involves the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a., Obamacare.

In a letter to Senate Democrats, Minority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., provided some of the details of the sly Dem plan to de-rail Judge Coney Barrett’s nomination.

There will apparently be an attempt to convince Senate Republicans to forestall a vote on the Supreme Court nominee until after the election.

According to Sen. Schumer, in order for this to be accomplished “public pressure on Senate Republicans” must be exerted. Lo and behold, the minority leader surmises that “health care remains the best way to keep the pressure up.”

Sen. Schumer followed his own wily advice and did so with some reckless rhetoric. Here are some of his recent over-the-top statements:

–“By nominating Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, President Trump has once again put Americans’ healthcare in the crosshairs.”

–“A vote for Amy Coney Barrett is a dagger aimed at the heart of the healthcare protections Americans so desperately need and want.”

Democrats themselves have frequently cautioned against the use of language that could potentially prompt on the part of those so inclined hostility and/or aggressive behaviors toward others.

Use of loaded words such as “arrows,” “quiver,” “crosshairs,” “dagger,” and the like evoke an ugly imagery that may oftentimes precede acts of violence.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi focused on “pre-existing conditions,” declaring that Judge Barrett’s “nomination threatens the destruction of life-saving protections for 135 million Americans with pre-existing conditions together with every other benefit and protection of the Affordable Care Act.”

Former Vice President Biden’s campaign managed to additionally tie the coronavirus to the nominating process, saying, “If President Trump has his way, complications from COVID-19, like lung scarring and heart damage, could become the next deniable pre-existing condition.”

Regarding another facet of the health care-related scheme, Democrats are zeroing in on a book review by Judge Coney Barrett, written in 2017, in which she agreed with the author of the book that Chief Justice John Robert’s legal reasoning in the 2012 Supreme Court case that upheld Obamacare was faulty.

It is important to point out that the above-referenced was a book review, not a court decision or ruling. She has not opined from the bench about the health care law in her capacity as a judge on the Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.

The single passage that Senate Democrats will likely cite from the book review has no predictive value in determining how Judge Coney Barrett would potentially rule on an individual case that has not yet been argued in front of the High Court, including the one that will be heard in November.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Introduces Legislation to Ban Ballot Harvesting

Ballot harvesting is a voting related practice that allows paid political operatives to collect an unlimited number of ballots and subsequently deliver them into the hands of election officials.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, recently introduced legislation called The Election Fraud Prevention Act, which if passed would effectively slow down or even put a halt to ballot harvesting.

The legislation could potentially be in effect in time for November’s all-important 2020 presidential election.

When Rep. Gabbard made a run for the Oval Office during the Democratic presidential primaries, the public learned that she was a proud member of the Army National Guard, having served in two Middle East deployments. Currently, she is a major in the Army Reserves.

Rep. Gabbard’s proposed legislation, which is co-sponsored by Rep. Rodney Davis, R-IL, would amend a 2002 act, and if passed would deny certain federal payments to states that permit ballot harvesting.

This type of reform could go a long way in helping to prevent a particularly heinous kind of corruption of the electoral process.

If ballot harvesting remains in place, or worse, if its use becomes widespread across the country, special interest groups that are aligned with a particular candidate or political party may be able to manipulate the results of legitimate elections.

As Rep. Gabbard noted in a statement, “While some states have prohibited vote harvesting, many states lack any regulations that would stop third-parties from fraudulently collecting and mishandling ballots as has occurred in recent elections.”

The bi-partisan bill, if passed, will incentivize states to prevent political parties or outside special interest groups from, in Rep. Gabbard’s words, “interfering with our sacred right to vote.”

The bill would still allow voters in need of assistance to obtain it from household members, relatives, and caregivers, as well as election officials and mail carriers who are acting in an official capacity.

Ballot harvesting is one-half of a voting scheme that Democrats have already used to effect election outcomes. Universal mail-in voting completes the insidious circle.

Both practices involve the use of unreliable and erroneous voter rolls, which are then used to send out ballots that can eventually be picked up by paid harvesters.

Data show serious problems with existing voter rolls. There are 24 million ineligible or inaccurate voter registrations on state voter rolls; this according to the Pew Research Center.

There is also the question of the reliability of the post office in its capacity to promptly, accurately, and effectively deliver the ballots. According to federal election data, during the six years between 2012 and 2018, more than 28 million mail-in ballots went missing.

Ballot harvesting lays out a virtual blueprint for voter fraud.

There is a built-in disregard for the time-honored secret ballot. There are multiple opportunities for ballots to be filled out under untoward influence, duress, and/or even coercion, all at the hands of unaccountable harvesters.

In the event voters happen to be of a different party than their assigned harvesters, it becomes easy for any number of ballots to be collected but never rightfully delivered.

Californians, of which I am one, can recount for all who are willing to listen the shocking scenario of the 2018 mid-term elections.

In 10 congressional races, Republican candidates were the clear election night winners. Then within days, or for some races weeks, the results of all 10 races were reversed, and the Democrat candidates were proclaimed to be the winners. This was the first time ballot harvesting was used in the Golden State, and its reverberations are still being felt.

Ballot harvesting used to be illegal everywhere. In a sign that there’s still hope for our cherished system, the state of Utah has made the practice a crime. And recently a federal judge upheld a Michigan law that disallowed ballot harvesting. A Democrat aligned super PAC, Priorities USA, had filed suit to preserve the corrosive practice.

However, things are different in Nevada, where a new ballot harvesting provision was recently passed along with a universal mail-in voting system.

Every state, including Nevada, had previously prohibited any non-family member from turning in another individual’s absentee or mail ballot. But The Silver State’s Democrat-controlled legislature used a night session and party-line vote to pass a measure that allows a ballot harvester to actually sign ballots on behalf of another.

Nevada’s new legislation also allows vote counting to continue for a period of up to three days after Election Day, giving paid harvesters additional time to go out on a ballot gathering spree.

Nevada’s Democrat Governor Steve Sisolak signed the misguided legislation into law.

Making himself look even worse, Gov. Sisolak summarily rejected a request by Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske that would have required anyone who was collecting and turning in ballots for more than 10 voters to register and provide their contact information.

So go California and Nevada, so goes the nation?

Not if enough people make their voices heard and show support for the legislation that Rep. Gabbard has introduced.

The Church of Woke

skiy9lstr8g83rx5qdlxazqldkahaaf0pdv4htoc_cw

All of us need to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are uniquely made, that we are here on this earth for a purpose, and that our lives have transcendent meaning.

If these innate characteristics go unfulfilled, or if life’s trials simply wear us down, our hearts become hardened and our spirits flaccid.

Wittingly or unwittingly, we find ourselves on a quest for the seemingly elusive someone or something that has placed these components deep within us.

We instinctively know that whoever or whatever is the originator of these inner sensibilities is greater than ourselves.

What we are not always cognizant of, though, is the fact that also built into us is the need to bow down to a power that is greater than ourselves.

And bow down we all do.

Like it or not, we all serve somebody. So who do you serve?

Some of us have the peace of always having had the answer to that question. Others have drifted in and out of certainty. And then there are those who don’t think that any of the things described above pertain to them.

But of course they do, as hopefully they will someday be able to recognize in themselves.

At the present time, a newfound spiritual group has assembled together. Members of the group have populated the social media with a creed of sorts, establishing a religion that could aptly be called “The Church of Woke.”

The fledgling church exhibits attributes of religious institutions that have come before it. However, its belief system is antithetical to the time-honored faiths of our country and of the world.

Members of The Church of Woke claim to seek a world in which no inequality exists and everything is paid for without anyone ever having to work. Rather than comparing our nation to other countries, they compare it to the utopia that their religion claims to offer.

The Church of Woke is dead set on disparaging, demeaning, and destroying all things related to traditional religious institutions. It adamantly rejects what it views as archaic absolute standards. Above all else it embraces moral relativism, which has no philosophical leg to stand on. No reasoning allowed, just sheer emotion. According to The Church of Woke, the only way forward is to tear down everything.

Adherents harbor a fierce hatred for America. This is because the notion that our country is the repository of evil has been drilled into their heads. The whole Western World is viewed as having a sinister history, ideology, and political bent. Wrongs are categorized as “systemic” and are therefore incapable of ever being corrected.

The Church of Woke is enlisting new members every day and converting them to the “correct” way of thinking. Services have taken the form of street protests, and prayers, the endlessly repeated worn-out chants of radicals past.

Followers of The Church of Woke consider themselves to be today’s chosen people. No way do they have to follow traditional rules of law. They are completely free to express any degree of hostility toward anyone they wish. They are also allowed to punish anyone who fails to bow to them.

Yes, we all serve somebody. And the reality is, the choice of whom we serve has clearly become a binary one.