Skip to content

Google – Censorship by Deflection and Misdirection

I have been getting increasingly frustrated with google search the past month or two. It seems to be getting much more difficult to get good honest search results. For instance today, I searched for non-processed, or healthy meats, and google just straightaway directs me to processed unhealthy meats. Why? Because clearly it is a current moral agenda of theirs to emphasise dangers of eating meats. Now, fair enough, this “agenda” has its place I guess, though it’s one thing being nudged towards a few results, but when all the results are like this when you searched for the exact opposite you begin to realise just how like 1984 things are getting with the way in which technology is being used to control our minds. I spent hours trying to get a straight answer on what a processed meat is and what meat is not processed, but all it kept showing me was the dangers of processed meats. When a subject has become so morally charged that you cannot find simple definitions of terms you know something has gone wrong.

I am not saying that you cannot get this information from somewhere, of course you can, what I am saying is that this is a good example of how Google simply ignores your search request and takes you to the moral message it currently wants to brainwash you with. Almost across the board if you google search any intellectual or thinker who is in the center or on the right politically, many of the top results will be attacks on that thinker by second rate bloggers usually, and maybe a couple of hit pieces from the huffington post or new york times, and of course some smear connection with “alt-right” or “racism”, particularly if they are a currently active thinker. Google a left leaning or clearly left wing intellectual and it will be mainly positive, how they are a good moral example, doing morally good or at least benign work with maybe one token negative link from some caricature source like the daily express.

Whether I am reading too much into some of this I am not sure. But I am definitely sure that is has got much tougher to get a straight answer from a google search lately. I have to contort my query into a hideous over grown shape before I finally can get to a link that their deflection tactics tried so hard to steer me away from. This sneaky and insidious brainwashing by gently pushing and swaying people towards google friendly interpretations of words, towards links they have decreed are morally correct, is a dangerous tendency that goes way beyond the old fashioned propaganda campaigns of the press. For they are now not just bombarding us with their interpretation, they are deflecting anyone who tries to interpret things differently back towards them. It used to be that that all roads lead to Rome, now what we are increasingly having is that all Google search queries lead to the current left wing moralising ideology fad and to “debunking” of any of the alternatives.




Message for a left wing idiot

How come anyone politically a tad right of center is straight away an extreme right, racist, fascist, while someone who is the most extreme radical left wing, is just a liberal? What has happened to politics in the west? It has become a tribal, emotional pile of trash decided on by who virtue signals the best on twitter, facebook and other social media. People are making a living on those sites out of being an emotion provoking extremist, saying nothing of any value or content, just poking the hornets nest.

It greatly saddens me that these people are there screaming like possessed demons and rather than being criticised they are actually being coddled and having these evil instincts enabled. Do these people not realise that 99% of the time the most virtuous thing you can do is to simply do nothing? Do they not realise that the more they rant and bloviate the more the probability approaches to one that they are doing nothing but bad in this world? Who is going to shake this over-entitled, under-disciplined generation into shape?

Can they not see how hate-filled they are? All they are doing is burning the ground on which we all must stand. You can act all morally bigoted about how Trump feeds fish, or about who he retweets, all you want. What I see though is not your moral superiority, but your inferiority through your destructive envy and your hate of someone more wealthy and influential than you. Your biggest problem is not Trump, it is your hatred of yourself, and this in general is the problem on the left wing in recent times. They have got so caught up in an ideology of altruism and virtue signalling, that they forgot to give a shit about themselves. Sort out your own home before you try going around to fix others. If you cannot obey this basic principle then all your moral pronouncements are just lies, like all the “liberal” sex scandals recently. How many of them condemned Trump for talking about what women let you do, while they were forcing women/men/children to do things they didn’t want to do?

Yes I am on the conservative side of things, doesn’t mean I am straight away a racist, fascist… etc etc. Give me a god damn break, how long is this infantile name calling going to go on? It is weak, pathetic and it must come to an end soon. Grow up and realise that reality does not fit in line with simplistic do-gooding ideologies.


Who hasn’t been attracted to a good conspiracy theory once in a while. I remember when young seeing a documentary going through all sorts of factors that illustrated we did not ever land on the moon, and for a short while being convinced. My response was to do my own research though, I sat and watched over live footage from the original moon landings. It seemed clear to me this would have required such a level of conspiracy that it is much simpler to take the view that we did land on the moon, and these conspiracists are just struggling to get their heads round an event they did not partake of themselves. I notice this often as a problem people have, not just in relation to conspiracies, but in relation to many things. An inability to use their imagination to see the reality of an event based on evidence they are provided. Take the Las Vegas shooting lately, there seem to be many who doubt the event happened, who, even presented with video footage, claim they are all “crisis actors”, rubber bullets, etc.. Many at the event themselves you hear on the footage trying to assure others, its not real, its just firecrackers, things like this. With some we then see that scepticism soon put to bed when a person next to them is hit, or a bullet goes whizzing past their ear.

And this is the problem we have, many will never accept something is real till they are literally smacked around the head with it, and so there will always be this tendency with conspiracy theories. Of course this does not generically discredit all conspiracy theories. Debunker style thinkers suffer from an equally uncritical habit of mind. They start from the “official” narrative and discredit all others based on any bit of evidence that supports the official narrative. They have preloaded themselves in favour of one narrative, and so they are looking at all evidence with this bias. While the extreme conspiracy theorist is a gullible type, ready to believe any coherent narrative, the extreme debunker is the sceptical type, not ready to believe anything other than what status quo, current opinion dictates. They try to leave out this last bit, the debunkers, imagining they are just being sceptical in a neutral way, but there always underlies these people a dogmatic unhesitating attachment to a mono narrative. You have to take each case on its own merit to avoid these fallacies. Because if you don’t you are just confirming your own prior prejudices.

I am not going to go into the specifics of some conspiracy theories here. I am just looking to analyse some of these features of it, in relation to certain personality types. As it is a great case study for developing our critical reasoning faculties. There are many emotional biases pushing us to one conclusion in favour of another. The person who believes strongly in a conspiracy, for instance, may have a personal axe to grind with the event. They may be looking for notoriety, playing off others need to believe in something different. They may just be one of those people themselves, looking to find a meaningful narrative in events, so always reaching for one even when the evidence is insufficient. But these are all very human errors. And some of them are not even, in principle, errors at all. For this drive to create narratives is hardwired into us. It may seem like an error compared to the hard science physical truths of atoms and electricity and such like. But a narrative in many aspects of human life is the most real account we have. Such as how we understand history, religion, evolution. We have to create a narrative and fit ourselves within it. We have no choice but to do this, because we are perspective based beings who need to find their orientation in the world, and this is one key way in which we do this, by building coherent narratives.

So, what can we do? How can we be more rounded in our understanding? I argue that it requires both improving in our imaginative capacities and in our reasoning skills. The debunker has focused too much on the reasoning skills alone. The regular conspiracy theory believer has focused too much on letting his imagination fly high, and has forgot to apply critical reasoning to his imaginings. On top of this, we need to hone our sense of the real. And to do this requires both imagination and reason. Many lack the imagination to accept real events, while having plenty of imagination to accept conspiracy theories that make things the simple fault of one person or group. They are struggling with both too much and too little imagination. Too much in their convoluted narratives that postulate far out causes of mundane events. Too little in their refusal to see that often events don’t have a simple human author who we can blame or praise. We must construct narratives yes, to orientate ourselves in the world. But don’t confuse this with the existence of a grand narrator who wrote a story for us to find. For we create the narratives, we create our social reality. I guess this is maybe the grandest conspiracy theory of them all, and yet it is true.

Do people conspire to control this human narrative? You can be damn well sure they do. Does this render one group always the source of these narratives? Much more doubtful, however, given the nature of the world we now live in, technology and such like do allow much greater control over narratives now than ever before. Propaganda has advanced in its methods so much now. And this information can be propagated around the whole world in seconds. To think specific wealthy and powerful groups of people would not want to make use of this to spread their message over others message, would be very naive to say the least. But also, I still don’t think the control over the message is perfect. It is still far from perfect in fact. And I think there will always be a countervailing tendency in our human nature to rebel against this control of the message. The Apollonian urge always comes up against the Dionysian urge in our nature. Victory is never complete, this is one of those dynamic factors of human life and human history.

It has to be borne in mind that as much as specific influential people try to control a social situation with their plans and schemes, there are always unintended consequences. Always things crop up that they had not intended. Yes, they are trying all the time to perfect the science of controlling human reactions, and yes, maybe one day they will achieve this. It could well be a real threat to human life and society. For I think it is obvious controlled humans will not flourish or breed with the same vitality, and so the human stock would degenerate over time. Still, I say this day has not yet been reached, and so surely the response, is not to complain and bicker and be cynical, but to make the most of our last bit of human freedom while we still have it. Let the dead bury their dead, as Jesus says, and have no thought for the morrow. We can be the creators of our own demise by thinking things are going to get bad. We can make it reality. So we may as well have more faith and belief in the freedom that we have. A form of pascals wager you could say. Be the author of your own narratives, and be aware of narratives you have constructed up to now, or taken on from other people for how to understand your place in the world. Don’t then take that as reason to react against that narrative as purely manipulative, false and oppressive, for narratives are a part of our identity and sense of belonging. Avoid these extreme reactions, calmly be aware of how it all places you in this world, without judging, glorifying, or condemning. It is not false, it is not true, it is not a conspiracy, it is just a reflection on who you are.

Living Philosophy

Philosophy can be very dangerous when it imagines it is only engaging in hypothetical scenarios and detached thought experiments. Yes, philosophers need to have some distance from certain practical affairs and social and cultural values in order to mount a critique of them from a more encompassing perspective. And it is natural as a result of this often philosophers will make the error of misunderstanding concrete events and experiences, as they are thinking on a more abstract level. But the danger is much greater when philosophers promote specific socially contextual agendas, while trying to hide behind the status of being neutral.

We have seen the dangers of this in many eras throughout history. In our current era we have it in areas such as the philosophy of mind and morality and free will. Quite nonchalantly many a philosopher will deny free will, and deny the efficacy of, or even sometimes the existence of, consciousness. Without realising the social ramifications were these truths to be enforced in society. If we have no free will, no effective consciousness, then we have no control over our own bodies. If we do not have this, then individuals are not sovereign authors of their actions, if we are not authors of our actions then there can be no such thing as democracy and we are in no position to make moral decisions at all about the life of ourselves, our children and our community. They don’t seem to realise the implications of their seemingly innocent ontological speculations. And that is because they are too naive, or too disingenuous, to even acknowledge they are engaging in ontological speculations. They falsely imagine they are just describing things, while all the while value judgments leak in. The more they deny their own personal biases, the more their personal biases influence the views they promote and espouse.

Philosophers need to become much more aware of what is at stake here. They need to stop being pawns for insidious social agendas. In society, belief and reality are not so simply separated, as the rabid atheists would have us think. Belief can influence the reality we come to accept. If we believe we have no free will, we may well make it the case. But it won’t be because it was a natural fact about us, shown by rational argument. It will be because we are manipulated into a new kind of oligarchal servitude. The elite few will remain with free will and we will be left resigned to our fate as mental slaves. The human story is an ever developing narrative, it is a dynamic unfolding plot. A philosophical approach dedicated to describing neutrally what “is”, will always be restricted to talking about the dead past and scratching its head as to the absence of life there.

State Expansion

The more divided we are, the more state interference is justified to keep the peace. So the state is quite happy to polarise people right now, as is its lap dog, the mainstream media. The less we are able to get along among ourselves, the more justified they are in coming and interfering with our lives. Terror attacks, wars, crime, hatred and distrust. It all feeds in to the narrative that says we must depend on the state from the cradle to the grave. From how babies must be born, to vaccines we must take, to identity documents we must possess, to centralised education we must rely on, to media we rely on to make up for loneliness, to police and army we must rely on to protect us from violence, to a state subsidised economy that we must work as a part of. They now even are destroying the family unit, promoting single parents, demoting family values, turning young against old, undermining cultural traditions and practices, and turning women against men. Each aspect of our social relationships that we can no longer manage ourselves, the state comes in to grasp more power and manage our relationships for us.

Alongside this, on the international level, global powerful and rich individuals have formed a cabal so that they no longer need to rely on national boundaries, and can pick the cheapest labour from where ever they desire. The end result is puppet leaders of our countries, and no real national sovereignty. This joint movement of a pretence of the spread of worldwide socialism comes alongside the rise of an elite oligarchy whom we are supposed to depend on to act benevolently. On each and every level personal sovereignty is being taken away from us under a guise of morally superior motives. Where, when it all reaches its conclusion, we will be completely at the mercy of the elite oligarchs who will control our births, our education, our pleasures, our pains, our relationships, our wealth, our resources, our minds, our bodies, our families and our communities.

Do we really think this path can be followed through without disastrous consequences for us all except the elite few? I don’t know where people’s trust in this system comes from, and to be honest, actually I don’t think people do trust it, they only fear it. People fear speaking out, voicing their own feelings about things. We are censored in more and more aspects of our speech, and we are controlled if not by our own fear and conscience, then by social ostracism. I would like to say I can see what the alternative direction is, but it is very difficult to see where to go right now with our society. All I know is that something is wrong and deeply corrupt and dangerous about our current path. The state is not a benevolent influence, it is not even just a benign influence, it is a malevolent force that in each aspect of our lives it controls it is chopping off a piece of our human dignity. We will end up as an unmoving, unthinking lump, hooked up to the internet and other technological devices. This is the passive and pacified endgame they have in mind for us.

It won’t last, of course, this is just another misguided ideology, another short-lived dystopia. For we are at the mercy right now of the perverted vision of an elite group of people and the best thing we can do is to prove them wrong with little victories in our own lives. Prove that we can relate to other people peacefully without relying on law and order to keep us in line. Prove that we can form community movements without state subsidies required, and then in the future maybe we can get bigger victories. Make education a community provision like it once was, get our government officials to serve the people again not their elite donors and lobbiers, allow the media to have an independent voice once more, motivated by conscience, not by an agenda to control people through a fixed mono-narrative and through divisive political coverage. These things will come much later, for now we can only focus on the first few steps of getting some reasonable control and integrity in our personal lives, in our families and in our local communities.

Natural Law – Mark Passio


I watched a seminar on natural law by Mark Passio on you tube earlier today. Mark Passio is an anarchist whose ideas on this front I would definitely have some divergences from. But when it comes to one of the central themes of this seminar, I agree in the importance of finding an objective/independent basis for our moral values, and not falling for the seductive simplicity of moral relativism. Mark Passio makes the case for natural law, and from the above quote you can get an idea of the power of this notion. For it has its expression in the founding of the American constitution and this itself was influenced by prior English Libertarians such as John Locke and Thomas Paine.

An aspect of the libertarian angle is certainly a view I once held highly, but later became suspicious of. My problems with it stemmed from many factors, firstly the fact that it seems to be so rarely instantiated in societies in history. Even in the societies that espouse these ideals, they rarely live up to them. And so this makes me think it is more an ideal type than a natural law. It is very easy to confuse our own strongest held values with being natural and universal, this anthropomorphic error I think is something that put me off Libertarianism. There are other factors than these also, though this does not impact on much of what Mark Passio has to say about natural law itself, so lets get on to that.

He distinguishes natural law from man made law as being true in a way that reaches beyond human perspectives to something independent. Natural law, he argues, comes from a creator, and so he posits a basic kind of deism. Similar to a quite popular view of God back in the 1700 and 1800’s. The idea is that we act in recognition of this natural law, just as we would not, for instance, walk off a cliff, as we respect the law of gravity and its consequences. At the same time, we have free will, it is not a case of a deterministic natural law, determining all our actions. The natural law kind of lays out a template for how one must act in order to stay in harmony with your own self and your environment. Such as balancing out the two sides of your brain, the feminine and the masculine, the analytical and the creative.

He illustrates well certain polarities in natural law, and shows some of the dangers of those who are imbalanced to one extreme or the other in their worldview. As the below diagrams from the seminar indicate:


The left brain, the masculine, is susceptible to one set of errors and the right brain, the feminine. is susceptible to another set of errors. One side has a tendency at the extreme to be the controlling tyrant based on his outlook, the other side has the tendency at the extreme of being the fatalist slave.

I think this is a useful model, with some caveats. Of course there are always things that don’t quite fit in to place. For instance I think many scientists combine the left brain thesis that the universe is a grand accident, with the right brain thesis of determinism, that all occurrences are preordained, and the thesis that free will is an illusion, in order to create a grand prison for thought. It is quite interesting to see it like this and realise the inconsistency of the scientists who claim on the one hand for a completely random big bang, a completely random start to life, at the same time as arguing for it being completely determined from that moment on.

In the middle between the two polarised extremes of the brain we have in the middle natural law combined with free will to create a balance to our outlook.

But how does this natural law operate? Well I would suggest viewing the seminar yourself or searching online for more information here, as there are many things that are covered. Overall he offers a set of guidelines, at times I feel not quite specific enough, but then part of his point is that it is our job to fill in the detail with our free will in how we act in our own lives and in spreading this knowledge. A few points he emphasises are that we should not follow orders from others, only from our own conscience, we should be a sovereign individual. That we should learn to distinguish use of force from violence. That we should learn the power of saying no in at times uncomfortable social situations where peer pressure or authority pressure may try to sway us and seduce us. And much of the time is spent talking about the principles of Natural law in detail, as indicated in the following image.


These give you an idea that what we are talking about here is not prescriptions for actions, like most in moral philosophy seem to be searching for. It is not telling you that this action A is specifically right, and this action B is specifically wrong. It is showing you that this general course of Action ABC is right, and this general course of action DCE is wrong. The former allows health, alignment, happiness and balance in your life. The latter leads to illness, depression, imbalance and frustration. The frustration is the unwillingness to accept natural law based either on lack of knowledge or willing ignorance. This can be changed, but it takes a lot of difficult self reflection, and many, Mark argues, are simply not willing to put this work in, and so they remain on the wrong course and either directly or indirectly legitimising evil and bad actions in themselves and those around them.

Mark Passio lays out the path to rightness in line with natural law as follows, alongside the path to wrongness:


We must start from a generative foundation of Love that is contrasted with Fear, not hate. Love allows for calm conscious appreciation, while fear means we act from the more instinctive unconscious parts of our brain. Love allows creativity, where fear only allows us to follow bad habits and patterns from our instinctive past. From there you can move down the levels and see how things can progress on the path, if you stick to the positive side of natural law.

One area I feel here might be a case more of a hopeful view of things, rather than a natural view of things is in relation to the idea that external control, always leads to chaos. Of course, he wants to argue for anarchism so he is committed to denying that external control can ever work. But I think there is still something to the hierarchical nature of human societies that goes back to primordial times in tribes and chimps and even further back. We like to form hierarchies, and at times I think this can be a perfectly natural order, it does not always lead to chaos. The ideas of Jordan Peterson have recently opened my mind up on this point a bit. For he shows precisely one of the dangers when we see no power as legitimate is the tendency for moral relativism and solipsism, the dangers Mark Passio himself warns of.

Can natural law be enough to avoid this tendency, with all sovereign individuals relating as equals? Or do we need some hierarchy in our societies as a way to help maintain the peace, like we see in most human societies in history and in most of our close social mammalian relatives? I still lean towards this latter view, but there are dangers of course in this view also.

In summary, I still don’t feel I have a definite grasp on an independent and objective morality after watching and thinking about this seminar by Mark Passio. But I do feel it has given me many conceptual parameters within which to frame some of my own thoughts and ideas on how to act morally good. I concur on the critique of moral relativism and its dangers. I concur on some of the errors he exposes both of scientism on one side and new age spirituality on the other. It is not enough to follow laws and rules, neither is it enough to simply think positively. Thoughts and actions guided by laws, but not determined by them is what we need to keep ourselves in better alignment with our surrounding social and natural environment.

Blast from the Past: 2008, Socialism and the Future of Social Order

Socialism and the Future of Social Order

I think the grandest error of socialism is to think that the purpose of a moral vision is to help in the formation of a social order. A moral vision is there to guide us; it is not a formula for social success or a universal benevolent principle for how to act in all circumstances.

On the other side, a social order isn’t there for moral reasons, it is there to give a structure to human relations and actions and behavior in those areas where peoples own brains and bodies are not up to the task of so ordering things. It is there because amongst a large group of people our natural ways of ordering and organizing our experience and understanding of the world as individuals is insufficient. We are physiologically incapable of being on friendly terms with large groups of people, and so how are our relations with such large groups of people to be regulated? It is simple; a social order emerges above our heads discovering innovative ways of ordering relationships amongst larger and larger groups of people. After tribal societies, which lie within our physiological boundaries, and so aren’t really social orders at all (they are more like extended families), in order to break beyond this boundary bigger societies develop in an ordered fashion by adopting a division of labour.

So the point where all social orders have emerged coincides with the point where moral visions were shown to be inadequate for the social order to be maintained amongst larger groups of people. Socialism then, as a moral vision, can only be thought of as a social movement, it cannot be thought of as an actual way to order society here and now. When it is attempted to order society on purely moral grounds it is like George Orwell’s Animal Farm. At each step the seemingly sound moral principles have unintended consequences for the social order, which need then to be altered so as to bring society back in to line, and it carries on like this until the only moral principle left is that of expediency at maintaining the current social order, and so we see the consequence we have seen a few times in history that when socialism, the movement, becomes socialism, the order, it tends to be specifically intolerant of any other social movements that may undermine its order. So that ultra radical as a movement, it becomes ultra conservative as a way of actually ordering society here and now.

This applies not just to the extreme examples of socialism, like the communists in Russia or China, but to the more moderate examples of the social democrats. For even in the case of the latter, their principles are things such as equal rights, equal opportunity, a social minimum and fair distribution. When they put these ideas in to practice when they are in power there is the same old problem that these principles tend to have unintended consequences in the social order that lead ultimately to their own demise. And the reason for this is that they are trying to push social order towards a static homogeneous state, when we have already seen that social orders amongst large groups of people entail a division of labour, i.e. they entail a dynamic heterogeneous state.

On all of these points socialism has a false view of social order as being merely a matter of certain conventions, which we are free to change with alternate conventions in line with our own moral principles, such as moral belief in equality being conventionalized in equal rights and opportunities, or such as our moral stance against poverty being conventionalized in a social minimum. Alongside this the enlightenment background to socialism has meant that it ignores the physiological limits of our brains at comprehending a social order amongst millions of people, and so naively imagines that society can be in the conscious control of human minds.

When we add of all this together we see that socialism fails as a social order, in thinking individual humans, with their limited minds, can formulate moral principles adequate for the social organization of millions of people. And socialism fails as a social movement, because it fails to account for the concrete reality of humans as physiologically limited embodied minds, appealing instead to disembodied abstract principles such as “equality”, which tend to be used in purely conventional or ideological statements, with no concrete content for making a genuine change to society and the basis of the social order.

The lesson we need to learn is that what humans need most in a social order, is not equality or security or wealth, but some basic ability to express themselves through their bodies, and to not feel everywhere that they have to repress their feelings and desires. Society tends to alienate people’s minds from their bodies precisely because our individual minds were inadequate to comprehend the basis of the social order. But this alienation is only relative, it is never a complete or absolute alienation (Contrary to the hopes of the secularites), and now that the expansion of the human population is reaching its limits, it is time to start getting to grips with this new and settled social reality. To do this society has to start developing ways to give people some autonomous control over their own bodies within society. It cannot completely control people from above, with abstract principles of fairness, politically correct pluralist conventions and ideologies of equality. To do this is to take the life and dynamism out of people, and to make society stagnate.

The social movements of the future have to be about empowering people in their lives. About recognizing the ways in which current society manipulates people’s bodies in to line with its ends, and how education doesn’t develop in people the basic ability to use their own heads to direct the actions of their own bodies. This is the root of all our social maladies in the brave new world, not moral worries about inequalities. For how are we supposed to care about others, when our current society is so artificial, and manipulates our bodies so much, and shows so little respect for our minds, that we don’t even care about ourselves?

I wrote this piece back in 2008, I find it strange how oftentimes my own past writings are what I can learn most from. Many today, including myself could learn much from this, for we have gone further down this line that I was warning of back in 2008. We have gone further towards homogeneity. We have gone further through education and the media in making people unable to have basic mental control over their own bodily responses, with rising depression, anxiety and various other mental illnesses. All symptoms of this lack of control, and this lack of control has been happily enforced through a frivolous postmodern relativist education, and a decapacitating polarised politics presented by the media, pathologically playing with and manipulating our fears and our sense of guilt.

The conclusion of this post remains exactly what we need to work on. We need to care more about ourselves before we can think about caring for others. We need to get off the self stultifying virtue signalling train. We need to start facing our anxieties and depressions, and begin to once again gain some basic control over our bodily reactions from a well centred mind that has a reasonable grasp of surrounding reality, and is not clouded by useless ideologies. Do not let yourself be infantilized by stupid gimmicks like screaming at the sky, get a grip of your own mind, take your own body back under your minds control, then you can start to think about taking control of your country back.