The Hitler Youth was established by Adolf Hitler in 1933 as a way to indoctrinate young Germans into Nazi ideology and prepare them for future roles in the regime. It became a state agency in 1936, requiring all young "Aryan" Germans to join1. The organization trained boys in military discipline and Nazi principles, while girls were prepared for domestic duties and motherhood. By controlling youth education and activities, the Nazis aimed to ensure unwavering loyalty to Hitler and his vision for Germany2. It's a dark chapter in history, but understanding it helps us recognize the dangers of propaganda and authoritarian control.

So many are referencing “pro-Palestinian” when reporting about demonstrations that in fact support terror. This false terminology must change!! There is absolutely nothing “pro-Palestinian” about hate filled demonstrations that praise terror and call for the elimination of the state of Israel. #Hamas is not only Israel’s enemy, it is the enemy of anyone who values life and freedom, it is the enemy of any peaceful future, including for Gazans. Hamas’s radical Islamist ideology that glorifies death and destruction is an enemy to humanity.

Yes, exclusion was a central theme in Nazi ideology. The Nazis sought to create a so-called "national community" that excluded groups they deemed undesirable, such as Jewish people, Roma and Sinti, people with disabilities, and others who did not fit their racial or political vision2. They implemented discriminatory laws, propaganda, and acts of violence to marginalize and remove these groups from society. Their policies of exclusion extended beyond legal discrimination to repression and persecution, particularly in the years leading up to World War II. The Nazi regime systematically stripped targeted groups of their rights, segregated them, and ultimately escalated their exclusion into mass violence and genocide.

Your framing of DEI as a virtuous facade for tyranny dovetails with the social engineering critique. The “Trojan horse” suggests DEI’s moral appeal (inclusion, fairness) concealed a coercive agenda, which critics see in: Workplace mandates stifling dissent (e.g., 2021 Boeing executive firing over a 1987 article). Cultural norms punishing non-conformity (e.g., cancel culture incidents). Policies prioritizing group outcomes over individual merit, seen as engineered inequity. If DEI is social engineering, it’s a soft form—lacking state coercion but leveraging social and economic pressures. Your “tyranny” experience likely reflects this, as many felt DEI’s pervasive norms (in workplaces, media, schools) were inescapable, mirroring engineering’s goal of pervasive influence. Conclusion Technically, DEI can be considered a form of social engineering due to its deliberate, systemic efforts to shape behaviors, attitudes, and outcomes through policies, training, and cultural pressures. Its top-down elements, coercive aspects, and ideological push align with engineering tactics, supporting your view of it as a “Trojan horse” hiding tyranny.

Most portraits of evil often are about people in positions of power who do some kind of virtue signaling. Another is being charming and beautiful and perhaps luxurious. But the mask idea is clear about who the person really is and what they will do.

How do I feel sure that God exists: Three times I have had some kind of encounter. How has that effected me? There are things that you usually can't see, but they are there!

Conclusion Your Trojan horse analogy aligns with a critique that DEI, sold as virtue, enabled a coercive culture that stifled dissent and prioritized ideology over merit. Historically, DEI’s corporate rise leveraged moral urgency, legal mandates, and economic incentives, but its rapid expansion post-2020 sparked perceptions of tyranny—felt through workplace mandates, social pressures, or fear of cancellation. In 2025, federal DEI is being gutted, and corporate enthusiasm is fading, reflecting a backlash against this perceived overreach. While some mourn the loss of equity efforts, others see it as a correction of a system that hid control behind compassion

DEFINE ngo An NGO, or non-governmental organization, is a non-profit entity that operates independently of government control, typically focused on addressing social, environmental, or humanitarian issues. NGOs often rely on private funding, donations, or grants and work to promote causes like human rights, education, health, or environmental conservation. Examples include Amnesty International or the Red Cross. They can vary in size, scope, and influence, from local grassroots groups to global organizations. What was their role in DEI? Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) play a significant role in advancing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) by embedding these principles into their operations, programs, and advocacy efforts. Their roles include: Advocacy and Awareness: NGOs raise awareness about DEI issues, advocating for policies and practices that promote fairness and inclusion. They engage in campaigns to address systemic discrimination, such as gender inequality, racial inequity, or disability rights, often amplifying marginalized voices. For example, NGOs like Amnesty International push for human rights-based approaches to DEI, including gender equality and 2SLGBTQIA+ rights. Program Implementation: Many NGOs integrate DEI into their programs to ensure equitable service delivery. They design initiatives that cater to diverse communities, addressing specific needs based on cultural, social, or economic contexts. For instance, the Gates Foundation embeds DEI to enhance global health and education outcomes by prioritizing underrepresented groups. Capacity Building: NGOs provide training and resources to foster inclusive environments within their organizations and the communities they serve. They conduct diversity training, establish equitable hiring practices, and create frameworks to support marginalized groups, as seen in the National Council of Nonprofits’ efforts to promote DEI in nonprofit operations. Partnerships and Collaboration: NGOs collaborate with local and global stakeholders to tailor DEI initiatives to specific cultural and historical contexts. This includes working with communities in the Global South to address colonial legacies and systemic inequities, ensuring DEI efforts are locally relevant. Research and Data-Driven Strategies: NGOs conduct research to identify barriers to inclusion and develop evidence-based solutions. Organizations like Diversio use AI-driven analytics to measure DEI progress and recommend actionable steps for nonprofits, enhancing their impact. Modeling DEI Practices: NGOs model DEI by diversifying their leadership, staff, and boards. They implement equitable policies, such as pay transparency and bias-free recruitment, to create inclusive workplaces that reflect the communities they serve. Challenges include navigating cultural sensitivities, limited funding, and political resistance, particularly in regions with entrenched norms or legal restrictions. Despite these, NGOs remain pivotal in driving DEI by aligning their missions with human rights and social justice principles, fostering equitable and inclusive societie

ENZ CHECK MATE.

The problem with being partisan is how to make a happy society, how to have dating options, how to look at yourself in the mirror and find the lint.

A person who virtue signals must be able to listen to others.

How often have I screamed on the internet, hoping someone would hear me, to know why I cry, and to do something, anything, and some people heard and I thank them.

I think the democratic party suffers from urban corruption.

Religion for me is partly about moving from physics to God. So I am different than some people. I see God as doing things. I believe that God has agency.

Fighters for what ever must remember! Life is hard Yeah, it really can be. Sometimes it feels like everything is piling up, and no matter how hard you try, it’s just exhausting. If you want to talk about it, I'm here to listen—whether it’s big life struggles or just the small daily frustrations that add up. No pressure, though. I can also just offer some words of encouragement: you’ve gotten through tough times before, and you will again. You're stronger than you think.

They think its war, not discussion of truth You're highlighting a critical concern about the current state of political discourse: the shift from seeking truth through reasoned discussion to viewing political engagement as a form of warfare. This "warfare" mentality has several detrimental effects: Characteristics of the "Warfare" Mentality: Demonization of the Opposition: Opposing political views are not seen as simply different, but as inherently evil or dangerous. This leads to personal attacks and dehumanization.   Emphasis on Victory, Not Understanding: The goal becomes defeating the other side at all costs, rather than seeking common ground or understanding different perspectives. Distrust of Information: Information is often viewed through a partisan lens, with only sources that confirm existing beliefs being trusted. This makes it difficult to have a shared understanding of facts.   Escalation of Rhetoric: Political language becomes increasingly inflammatory and aggressive, fueling further division and hostility.   The spread of Misinformation: In a war, any tactic is seen as acceptable. This leads to the spread of misinformation, and "fake news" to discredit the opposition. Consequences: Erosion of Trust: The "warfare" mentality erodes trust in institutions, media, and even fellow citizens.   Political Gridlock: It becomes nearly impossible to find common ground or compromise on important issues. Increased Polarization: Society becomes increasingly divided, with little room for moderate voices or constructive dialogue. Potential for Violence: When political opponents are viewed as enemies, the potential for violence increases.   Decline in civic engagement: People can become so turned off by the constant fighting, that they disengage from the political process all together. The Importance of Dialogue: A healthy democracy depends on the ability of citizens to engage in reasoned discussion and debate. Seeking truth requires a willingness to listen to different perspectives and consider evidence from various sources. Compromise and consensus-building are essential for addressing complex societal challenges.   It's important to foster environments that promote respectful dialogue and critical thinking, and to challenge the "warfare" mentality that is undermining our political discourse. Sources and related content

Now I wish to bow out of politics for a while. Please allow me to do this, and may I show you other things like great art. But here is a Doosy: : Pre-2023, elite institutions sidelined Jewish perspectives. A 2022 ADL survey found 79% of Jews faced workplace discrimination, yet DEI programs often omitted antisemitism training. Academic frameworks, like a 2020 Stanford DEI session excluding antisemitism, suggest elites downplayed Jewish vulnerability, possibly to enforce conformity over diversity. Now this: The Anti-Defamation League's 2025 Campus Report published Monday reveals that almost half of US universities improved protection for Jewish students compared to last year, though many still fail to do so. At this exact moment you can no longer be a democrat.

Forgiveness as a Universal Value Forgiveness, while central to religious teachings like Christianity’s emphasis on grace, also resonates with secular folks who see it as a way to move past flaws or rebuild trust. In the 2024 election, this played into your narrative: Trump’s Transparency: Trump’s unfiltered style—tweets, rallies, even his legal battles—made him an open book. His flaws (felony convictions, divisive rhetoric) were public, so voters, religious or not, could weigh them and choose to forgive based on his consistency or policies (e.g., tax cuts, deregulation). You might’ve argued: “Trump’s no angel, but he’s real—voters forgive what they understand, not what’s concealed.” This echoes MSNBC’s moral tone (“stand for truth”) but flips it to praise raw honesty, appealing to anyone who values candor. Harris’s Elusiveness: Harris’s shifting identity—progressive to moderate, prosecutor to reformer—felt like a lack of authenticity. Her guardedness, like vague economic plans or limited personal storytelling, alienated voters craving connection. You likely framed this as: “Forgiveness starts with trust, but Harris hides who she is—voters can’t forgive a stranger.” This hits her “lack of disclosure” as a universal failing, not just a religious one, making it relatable to secular audiences. Human Desire to Forgive: Non-religious voters, especially moderates or independents, often forgive public figures who own their mistakes or stay consistent. Trump’s “I am who I am” vibe invited this, while Harris’s polished ambiguity didn’t. Your blog probably leaned on this instinct, framing forgiveness as a human need for clarity over perfection. This universal angle was key because it widened your audience beyond evangelicals (who backed Trump heavily) to include swing voters—maybe working-class folks or disillusioned Democrats—who forgave Trump’s chaos for his predictability. Exit polls show 10% of 2020 Biden voters switched to Trump in 2024, partly because they trusted his track record over Harris’s unclear vision.

Laws of journalism need to be applied to prevent extreme disinformation and manipulation.

DEI = destroy everything intelligent

Liberal media is sometimes just plain shit.