You Are Not Real

Shakespeare’s famously gory “Titus Andronicus” is replete with violence, including fourteen deaths. Yet it continues to be performed, and audiences continue to sign up for a frisson of fear and pity, because this is not real.

After the play, the actors get up, wash off the fake blood, and join the playwrights and directors for drinks or dinner.

If, like me, you’ve been wondering about why things are the way they are in today’s world, and how this relates, this is my explanation: For the actors, writers and directors who create real world narratives, the play is you. And you are not real.

Actors and Reality

Much has been made of the jarring dissonance between the heroic stand of the president and the people of Ukraine and the facile signaling of the Social Justice crowd. Feel free to pick your favorite exemplar, from the merely stupid banning of Russian cats and renaming of White Russian cocktails to the more sinister cancelling of Russian performers, or the horrific threats and vandalism to places serving Russian food. There’s no shortage of content here. And, as we’ll get to shortly, that’s the point.


Ukraine’s policy goals do not map fully to those of the United States (think Azov Battalion, for starters), and we can and should carefully consider our response with that awareness. But this does not change Ukrainian heroism. Zelensky wants planes, a no-fly zone, and he would no doubt love NATO boots on the ground. Prudence may dictate we provide him none of these, but it is worth noting that any of us in his circumstances would likely be asking for the same things. Any of us who stayed during the onslaught, that is.

Clearly, Putin’s bet from the beginning included Zelensky on the first plane out to serve as the leader of the Ukrainian government in (comfortable) exile, after which the dismemberment of that nation would rapidly become a fait accompli. Zelensky was having none of it. He stayed, and continues to stay, at great personal risk to himself and his family. He is, unquestionably, a hero.

It is the contrast between these two extremes (the banning of Russian-themed menus et al vs. Zelensky’s stand) that provides ample opportunity to reflect on the idea that many Americans are just not serious people. Unsurprisingly, their response to events in Ukraine has been to simply cut and paste from the outrage-of-the-week playbook: change profile picture, use a hashtag, find some people to cancel, and congratulate oneself on how virtuous one is. In the real world, rational people are tempted to say, “None of this ‘support’ matters”. It’s just empty signaling. So why is it happening, why has it become so pervasive, and how should we contend with it? Examination of a few high-salience topics can shed some light.

Consider this first in the context of Covid and the by now well-known case of the Lab Leak Theory. Peter Daszak of the Eco-Health Alliance was the prime mover behind the infamous Lancet Letter branding any lab leak speculation uninformed conspiracy. This makes perfect sense when considering his incentives. Daszak (and Fauci, and others) had something to lose here. Perhaps a lot to lose. U.S. funding of Gain of Function research in Chinese labs resulting in a global pandemic is, to put it mildly, not a very good look and could be costly both financially and criminally.

Explaining is not excusing. But while we can wish for better, observing actors respond to their incentives is nothing if not proof that the world works in an orderly way. Indeed, the conservative position that we are and should be a nation of laws, norms, and standards implicitly concedes the point that our better angels are not always ascendant. If some people had enormously large reasons to attempt a coverup of something, it’s hardly controversial that some would choose to do so.

And that’s where those laws, norms, and standards come in. In an environment with many disinterested actors, those entities without skin in the game would easily out-produce the relatively small number of individuals invested in a particular narrative. In that environment, the idea that zoonotic transmission and escape from a biolab in the same city where researchers were known to be working on bat viruses were both very real possibilities would be obvious.

But that is not at all how it went down.

Instead, the idea that it might be prudent to investigate what role the lab in Wuhan may have played in the pandemic became roughly equivalent to arguing Flat Earth Theory. What the hell was going on here? Did everyone in the American media landscape owe Daszak a favor? Did Fauci have a secret cache of compromising emails and photos to dangle J. Edgar Hoover style over the heads of troublesome journalists? Why on earth would hundreds or thousands in the media run cover for these guys and for the Chinese government to the extent of making claims that mere investigation of the possibility of a lab leak was racist?

More puzzling still is the idea that there is nothing about either potential source of the pandemic that presupposes an explicitly liberal or conservative position. Indeed, one could easily flip the script and imagine a campaign urging people to “follow the science” rather than resorting to xenophobic tropes about savages in wet markets. Until, that is, Donald Trump and other conservatives brought it up, which was like Christmas came early for Daszak and his co-conspirators. For the progressive left, the endorsement of anything by President Trump was more than sufficient cause to oppose it, and thus the wheels began to turn.

None of this should be surprising to anyone who’s been paying attention. At its heart, this is an expression of the luxury of operating without consequences. The luxury of not having to think operationally. To be clear, what I am saying is that Daszak and his cronies were able to leverage a system in which those with the loudest megaphones literally did not and do not care where and how Covid originated. For them, it just doesn’t matter. The pandemic is just background noise. That may seem like a strong statement. So, why and in what sense did they not care?

Gain Not Trust

In a recent episode of Bari Weiss’ podcast Honestly, journalist and academic Yuval Levin articulated a theory of the change from institutions-as-formational to institutions-as-platforms. In his view, institutions of all types formerly served to develop the individuals inside them. If for example, you worked at the New York Times as a young journalist, you would be shaped by the ethos of that institution, informed by the repository of values developed over time within that structure. According to Levin, this has been replaced by the notion of institution-as-platform, the idea is that these structures exist as a launching pad for one’s personal brand.

Understood from this perspective, the great Lab Leak crackdown suddenly makes a great deal of sense. One of the baseline branding positions operating was “not-Trump.” I am completely persuaded that if Trump had spoken out in favor of the wet market theory, we’d all have been loudly advised to “follow the science” in precisely the opposite direction.

It is also worth noting that these personal brands are rivalrous goods. Having a “take,” even the right one, is necessary, but not sufficient. Your take must outcompete the other signals in the marketplace in order to claim disproportionate attention. And this explains why the Lab Leak Theory had to be, “conspiracist,” “anti-science,” and eventually, of course, “racist.”

The more extreme the position is, the more effective it is in gaining audience-capture. And this is not part of the story; it’s the entire story. There is effectively nothing behind the curtain. Because of these powerful incentives, what has happened without us realizing it is the creation of a public dialogue between a small, privileged elite that is fixed on in-group signaling and status-capture. The policy concerns or post-pandemic reforms that should differentially apply depending upon the origin of the disease diminish in importance to the extent that they functionally do not matter at all. And people impacted by those decisions by extension do not matter either. They are extras and scenery.

The Damaging Script

This goes a long way toward explaining the persistence of the otherwise bewildering advocacy that has permeated American life. Democratic New York Mayor Eric Adams noted that the Defund the Police crowd “are a lot of young white affluent people.” Of course they are. Poll after poll reveals that those who live in high-crime neighborhoods want more police, not less.

Like any other sane person, those citizens also want their police officers to be professional and not corrupt, but “I want my police officers to fight crime and be professional” is just not an exciting take. From this perspective, insanity like Defund the Police isn’t surprising, but rather inevitable. It is the position pushed to its logical extreme. And that is why arguing with this group is useless.

If you wonder why the obvious fact that increased crime disproportionally affects black and brown people remains unpersuasive to them, the reason is maybe scarier than you think. It is not that they are stupid; it is that they just don’t care, and they never will. They are completely unconcerned about the consequences of implementing this policy in the real world. And to take it a step further, they don’t even care about the policy itself. The proclamation and the signaling is the whole story. In a fundamental sense, any person killed or otherwise victimized by increased crime is just not real. Extras and scenery. Nothing to see here.

Perhaps nothing is more indicative of this trend than the increasingly unhinged claims emerging from the trans-activist community, as LGB became LGBT and now for some is properly expressed as LGBTQQIP2SAA, in order to be “inclusive” to intersex, pansexual, asexual, and two-spirit people.

For an outsider, it can all seem like satire. How could anyone engage in these abbreviation acrobatics unironically?

It is no surprise that all of this has continued to expand since the 2015 Obergefell ruling which legalized gay marriage. Effectively, the war was over, and the gay community won. Resoundingly. Despite that, it is instructive to note here that there’s no incentive to just take the W, as the kids say, and move on. Satisfaction, and even victory, simply does not move the needle. Outrage is the play when competing for eyeballs and clicks, and thus we have incomprehensible acronyms, death threats to J.K. Rowling, of all people, for having the temerity to state flatly that men and women are different, and an epidemic of medical intervention involving children is something for which future societies will likely judge us very harshly, with good reason.

For outsiders, the criticism seems insane. That is because, once again, we are not the audience. What we are seeing is a process of in-group jousting for status, where increasingly bizarre formulations become predictable and indeed necessary to gain attention. “I disagree with J.K. Rowling” is hardly a winning message, especially compared with “J.K. Rowling threatens my right to exist!” Thus, once again, appeals to reason, biology, or even compassion for a generation of children we are harming irrevocably do not and will not work. No one affected by these positions exists in any meaningful way because, again, they are not real.

By far the best example of this phenomenon is Black Lives Matter, a marketing triumph that proved beyond all doubt that these tactics can work, work well, and most importantly, be monetized. The familiar script is here, but no one has ever executed it better, as activists turned their rallying cry into a movement indistinguishable from religion. No nuance or difference of opinion was tolerated. Even to remain silent was proof of apostacy.

The net result? More than $60 million, most of which remains unaccounted for, and a series of high-end real estate purchases by the activists behind the whole thing. No policy achievements of any kind, because of course those were never the point from the beginning, as was obvious to anyone paying attention.


[caption id=“attachment_513421” align=“aligncenter” width=“1024”] Inside BLM co-founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors’ million-dollar real estate buying binge. Photo source: New York Post[/caption]

An attempt at real policy change involves engaging stakeholders, broadening your base, creating consensus, and finding ways to deliver wins for various groups in your coalition. Which to be fair, is a lot of work. It’s much easier to simply use any police shooting of a black citizen, regardless of the circumstances, as a fundraiser. Does anyone seriously believe BLM grifters wanted fewer police shootings? On the contrary, I promise you they wanted more, because each shooting represented an economic event. As in the examples above, BLM created an extremely effective in-group dialogue that served to funnel money into their pockets without any requirement to pursue or achieve any tangible outcomes. And the downstream impacts have been significant, as reduced public trust in law enforcement and plummeting morale among officers have contributed to a dramatic increase in crime which, again, disproportionately affects minority communities.

The response to this from BLM? Condemn the black reporter who exposed their murky finances and questionable real estate transactions as racist, smear the black Harvard economist as a sexual predator, and suggest that even the financial reporting required of non-profits is, you guessed it, racist. It’s not that hard to parse this: BLM activists are not friends or allies of black communities whatsoever. Instead, we come back to the same point: everyone outside of the in-group are just extras and scenery. Including those for whom they purport to advocate. None of them are real.

Luxury Beliefs

Rob Henderson calls all of this a symptom of “Luxury Beliefs.” According to Henderson, these are “ideas and opinions that confer status on the rich at very little cost while taking a toll on the lower class.” What we have is a catechism, a portfolio of dogma that operates as a signaling mechanism among the elite. And so, in addition to “Follow the Science” on Covid, “Trans Women are Real Women”, and “Black Lives Matter”, we have a host of other statements expressed as moral imperatives, including things like “Healthy at Any Size”, “All Family Structures are Equal”, “Open Borders”, etc.

All of this can be considered an unexpected and unwelcome consequence of our own success. The complex, exquisitely-tuned supply chains that funnel us goods and services have become so remarkably effective they are essentially invisible. Elites don’t have to worry about how things get done, how X leads to Y, or how thing A gets to place B. It just happens. Magically. Invisibly. How the sausage is made is a question for smaller minds.


In my view, Henderson gets one thing wrong about his theory. Luxury Beliefs are not in fact, the provenance of the rich, but rather of the educational elite, some of whom are also rich in the bargain. Journalists, other media members, academics, and activists typically have little to no experience in actual business and even less incentive to ever gain any. The effortless flow of goods and services they experience allows them the freedom from having to think operationally or consequentially.

Over the past two years, COVID revealed and supercharged the insular status of these elites. If you talk to business owners, no matter how wealthy they may be, who vitally need to think operationally and consequentially every day, you find considerably less support for these elitist notions.

All of this is bad enough when locked in some academic ivory tower, but as we’ve seen, this has escaped into the American Wild with terrifying effect. Crime, inflation, record border crossings, education, and more. Pick your topic, as the list goes on and on.

The Final Act

Which brings us back to Ukraine as the setting for the ridiculous virtue signaling and posturing by these same luxury elites. It is jarring when juxtaposed against actual tanks and soldiers, but it is just more of the same.

I stated earlier that these are not serious people, but that is not entirely accurate. They are extremely serious, just not about anything other than their own internal conversations.

Which then brings us back to “Titus Andronicus” and the reason behind the reason.

These people will not change, and they will not be persuaded by your arguments, your statistics, and your facts.

Because the people who make any of the things elites consume and the people elites purport to stand up for are all equally irrelevant. Performance is the point. The performance is the whole thing, and the actors, playwrights and directors aren’t taking suggestions from you, the extras and the scenery.

Which leads us to the final act: maybe it’s time to think about shutting down the whole play.

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at

Thought Processes

This a great take defining how people “think” these days

1 Like

The Party’s Over

Yes. Shut down the party. The Party’s Over

When Dealing With The Insane

In effect, one discovers they are dealing with insanity and not an actual School of Thought at all.  Get used to the notion of the dangers created by interacting with such insanity…and how Reality simply goes about being itself…regardless.
I think the shut off valve is Reality itself, which may only be distorted for a time, before the force required becomes impossible to muster…and Reality assumes its balance. Usually this is then referred to as something akin to…“the wraith of God…”


You Are Not Real

Fantastic article! And I agree with Ision below that it is reality itself that stops the performance.

Just Wow!!!

One of the best and well written articles I have read in a long time. I am sending it to all my friends. You captured and put into words brilliantly things I have been feeling for a long time. I have some “educational elite” acquaintances and was around some this weekend from California and they are all talk and no do. They don’t give back, volunteer or help in their community. But they virtue signal constantly. They are unaware of the “gain of function” Covid crimes (hadn’t even heard about it) and I could tell they were skeptical. They wouldn’t acknowledge that the non-vaccine movement by rich white parents in California had been going on for years and said it was rednecks in the center of the state. I promptly sent a CNN article from 2015 on the California demographic that chose not to vaccinate their children…basically, wealthy, white living in LA, the Bay Area and such. All these people have there heads buried in the sand. It’s so crazy.

1 Like

Inflation / Wage Relationship

Good Luck With That…

Which leads us to the final act: maybe it’s time to think about shutting down the whole play.


Zelensky A Hero?

A great article but I just about didn’t get past the opening paragraphs describing Zelensky as a hero. Or should I say Elensky as the letter Z is also being banned.
Zelensky is LARPing on the world stage. He is an actor and comedian by profession and actually played the role of Ukrainian president in a comedy series before being elected a year or so later. Elected on the promise of bringing peace to the Ukraine, he subsequently allowed the shelling of Donetsk for 8 years apparently killing between 14,000 & 20,000 innocent civilians and ignored the Minsk accords completely.
I think Zelensky could better be described as the product of western PR agencies or a puppet of his American, British & EU masters. He is probably also in fear for his life as he is surrounded by Right Sector and Azov battalion neo-nazi thugs. He actually addressed the Greek parliament with an Azov neo-nazi beside him. This led to quite the uproar in the parliament as Greece suffered horribly under the nazis in WWII. See this latest video of the hero Zelensky, drunk and high.
No, Zelensky is not a hero by any stretch of the imagination.
Here’s some links in no particular order to sites I frequent to get some idea of what’s going on in the Russia/NATO war:
Larry Johnson - ex-CIA & State Dept. 
Andrei Martyanov - Russian military expert, based in USA
The Saker - very pro-Russian, so keep a bit of salt at hand. Nonetheless the Saker analyses are worth checking out and the daily sitreps of Operation Z are good for military detail.
Moon of Alabama - he’s earned his stripes through the years, fact based and clear headed.
Gilbert Doctorow - journalist based in Russia, levelheaded IMO
Tom Luongo - I always enjoy Tom’s analysis, he’s way out there sometimes but he’s a sharp cookie. (Chris, he would be a great guest)
On you-tube, odyssey, bitchute, rumble etc: all interviews with Scott Ritter & Col. Doug McGregor & channels such as The Duran, Richard Medhurst, Graham Phillips, Regis Tremblay, The Grayzone, Eva Bartlett, Patrick Lancaster.

1 Like

Shutting Down The Play

As I observe my self, shutting down the insanity has mostly been withdrawing from the craziness. Tuning it out. Efforts to offer scientific factoids have only lead to ostracism and negative opinions of ME personally. “You have become un hinged.”
No interest in facts or exploring what is true. Just he ascendance of the narrative.


Money….power….theatrics…and Rachel

The lust for wealth and power is operating in a spiritual vacuum. It starts at Klaus Schwab with the WEF and trickles down to operations like BLM. In a society plugged in to the TV fantasy world every evening there is little mental band width left for critical thinking. Rachel Maddow can make preposterous claims like “If you get vaccinated you will not get Covid” and when truth proves her wrong, there is no retraction because she has already moved on to the next act of the play.
She is simply another pawn for the globalist elite group to use ……and she sells her soul for the already half realized hope of wealth and power. The new Young Leaders program for the WEF includes journalists like Maddow and national leaders like Trudeau who all aspire to the private jet …Davos….goal.
Joe and Hunter Biden (don’t forget Obama) are solidly members of the elite group and untouchable. Hunter can pretend to be an artist. Joe can pretend to be lucid, and Obama can pretend that he is not running the country. Its all a fantasy.
And….It all works when truth is relative….not absolute, and when there is no respect for the creator.
Many of us who are not players in this drama….nor pawns for the elite are finding deeper spiritual roots. The good news is that the false narrative is being exposed one adverse event at a time. When a pawn in the play gets sick, or hurt on a personal level….that is usually the wake up call. We can bring the re-awoken back into the fold by being true to our message and by being forgiving towards them, even though they have damaged us and the world.
Thanks to Mr. Smith and Chris for speaking Truth.


My thought, too, @163850. I’ll go a little further: the line, “Which leads us to the final act: maybe it’s time to think about shutting down the whole play,” is itself theater.
Who is being addressed in that suggestion? Who does Mr. Smith see as those empowered to shut down the play? The “extras and scenery”? If we’re extras and scenery we haven’t the power (ie, access) by his definition. If we have the power we’re not extras and scenery, but authors and directors. Which are we?
Well, I know I don’t have the access to economic or political levers. I can’t raise or lower curtains, or change the scenery, or adjust the script, or revision the scene on the global stage. All I can do, as @61805 puts it, is live my life with integrity among the people I’m among, and affirm Life over Death over here, in the wings, not expecting to be called on-stage, and not interested in limelight.
The suggestion that we are powerless “extras and scenery” who yet have the power to ring down the curtain and declare “Fin!”, tells me that Smith is also playing the crowd. He’s aped the mechanism by which the political parties act as the pressure relief valve to dissipate dissent while the screw is ratcheted tighter. We are assured we can make a difference by voting this candidate, supporting that initiative, showing up at the next event … and nothing happens, which leads to demoralization and enervation. But wait! Here’s another, fer sure this time, opportunity to make your voice heard and motivate real change! Oh, no. That didn’t work. Well, stay tuned, another wave of accountability and political righteousness is soon going to begin in a groundswell and rise to a tsunami of demand! Keep the faith - the system works!
So…why doesn’t the direction of this tragedy change? I don’t know. Maybe because we’re not directors? We’re being directed?
“Hey, if you haven’t gotten the change you want,” Mr. Smith tells us, “it’s because you are the play, being played. So, make it stop.” That statement is playing us. It has a negative corollary: Or, blame yourself for being extras and scenery and not authors or directors. In other words, the play is guilty for being played - there’s no one else to blame.
But, what about the directors and authors? They’re only not to blame if they are us, and Mr. Smith says they’re not us. Or rather, we’re not them. If I’m not an author or director, how do I write a different scene?
@61805 has it right: move on to a different play. Play it out alongside the main stage production. Different author. Different director. Different stage.
Because @ision is also right: only reality will hard stop the main stage production. Thank goodness reality don’t give a crap, and sooner or later drops the boom.
Extras and scenery: stand to the side. You don’t want to be on that stage when some chuckle headed director finally manages to stick a fork in it and the lights go out.
Or did I misread the entire essay?


I don’t see Mr. Smith calling us actual scenery, instead he is saying that is how you are viewed and treated by the very people Chris M. and others - we all - rail against. I think this is an affirmation of what we all know but also another illumination of the maddening lack of moral/intellectual honesty of the people that view us that way (be they “leaders”, MSM or individual virtue signalers).
I disagree on being powerless, and I think Smith is saying that too, and we should use our power: we clearly have power at the ballot box, through our pocketbook, how we choose to participate or not, calling it out in articles like this, even anti-virtue signaling is fighting back.

1 Like

Stewart, you can not imagine how much I hope you are correct, but for the life of me I cannot see how you or Mr. Smith can hold on to that desperate “hope”. I am afraid that hope arises out of normalcy bias and the story that “Abraham Lincoln was born in a dirt floor cabin”. We can all hope that you are the messenger of deliverance and we naysayers are the subjects of future ridicule.


You Are Not Real…

That was one of the best Essays I’ve read in awhile. For me, it all started with Covid and the bifurcation of science and propaganda. It didn’t make sense from March of 2020. Now, I look through the lens of a sceptic, which sucks. My community has dwindled and all I have to believe in, is myself. Weird. Thanks for the words.

Well Written.

Yeah, I took the article’s statement about extras and scenery to mean that is how the people listening to the narrative and those affected by the narrative are seen by the pushers of the outrage/virtue signaling, etc.
You should go read the comments over at Zerohedge, where I first came across this. Rediculous, but that’s the comment sections. It seems like people write stuff that they would never say to someone’s face.

1 Like

I respect your POV and love the discussion. For me, I think it’s important to distinguish that hope and reality are not in conflict with each other. I don’t think hope is by definition being a victim of or deluded by normalcy bias. That light at the end of the tunnel is the hope/reason I continue walking, it doesn’t mean I don’t recognize that it could be a train and that I may need to cook a rat and boil some stagnate water (reality). But I’m not giving up on getting out of the tunnel (hope). Heck, I’m resilient because I want to survive the madness and hopefully create a better world on the other side if it comes to that (otherwise what’s the point?)…and yet I know that my surviving and creating is for tomorrow not today. And today, I’m going to eat delicious rat, and keep walking.


The Other Side Of The Curtain

Just to remind us, the Buddha was an elite. He began changing when exposed to death, sickness, and poverty, the great teachers in life – and a deep contrast to his life of health, wealth and privilege. His story reminds us that people can and do change for the better.
It’s also ironic and important to remember that elites buy everything only because everything and mostly everyone is for sale and can be bought for the right price. And for those not wanting to sell out, it’s usually a high price of becoming an outsider or perhaps even losing life or limb. And while the lack of consequences for those in power is detestable, it comes with “the deal.” When everyone is selling, and only a few end up buying everything, over time, there is nothing much left for anyone else to buy except what the small group of individuals who bought everything are selling.
And while pointing to and documenting behaviors occurring at a particular level of a situation during a particular time, such as those discussed in The Fate of Empires And Search For Survival, by Sir John Glubb, those surface interpretations don’t usually include important, deeper information such as what is motivating the behavior in the first place? What are the patterns? What’s the backstory?
Using a violent play with a concomitant unhappy cast, crew and audience as the global metaphor “you are not real. Life is like a play,” for describing current world behaviors is reductionistic and overly simplified, especially when the only conclusion offered as a remedy is to just “shut down the whole play?” Remembering of course, beyond the global metaphor the whole thing being referred to is actually all human life and maybe all life on Earth and maybe even the Earth as well.
So, does that mean a revolutionary call to action? Or does it mean as a species we should commit suicide because it’s hopeless and there’s nothing more worth discussing or saving here? Nothing worth fighting for? Isn’t that a little drastic or sophomoric? Maybe we can just rewrite the terrible script, or parts of it? Or get a new director? Or just clearly define what shutting down the whole play actually means? Furthermore, where are the suggestions for how we’re supposed to do that?
Seems there are already intentions to end the current play and replace it with something much more repressive. It’s also Shakespeare who cautions us in his play Hamlet to question the concept of “death” in its many forms. “Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing, end them.”
It’s not like we have another planet to go to. And without our planet structure we have no physical theater to come to, to live or participate in any kind of “play” whatsoever, good or bad. Imagine being stuck on the other side of the curtain permanently, if you believe in that sort of thing. “For in that sleep of death, what dreams may come when we have shuffled off this mortal coil, must give us pause.”
And provocative as that may be, what is real is we must be willing to change when it is indicated, or suffer the consequences. And for every person that does change, that counts. There are a lot more non-elites than there are elites, which gives some hope for the future along with the idea that the huge myriad of individuals with very different beliefs, helps to keep any one belief from becoming the only belief. And that’s good. And for those elites who think they won’t be affected by what goes on down “below,” they will be shocked.
Every era has ended. Every empire to date has ended. Every birth ends in death. And isn’t that essentially shutting down all plays, whether good or bad, over time? And while all plays end eventually, thankfully, the theater – Earth - is still here. . .for now.


Thanks for your reply. I better understand your perspective and will gladly admit that I hope to one day have hope for better, even if it isn’t in my lifetime.

Most people that I see face to face are unaware and will only react when it is too late.