It is the 5th of April, 2026, and it is around 1:40 am. I have been laying wide awake in bed for nearly an hour with an idea, a thought, that would not leave me alone; hence the reason I am once again sitting behind this keyboard. Before I get to the thought itself, there is something I need to say.

There is an individual who sometimes responds to my blogposts who has berated me in the past for the manner in which I write; my constant use of the first person singular when I say things. This individual says it sounds like I am making this all about me; that I am saying that I am right, and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong. While this is just a single case of that happening, it does bring up a point; what I am actually doing here…

I don’t claim to be right about a damned thing, nor am I trying to convince anyone to take my point of view; I am just some guy expressing his opinions. I have done a bit of research on the subjects I write about, which often puts me miles ahead of a large percent of the population, but I have friends who are far more knowledgeable than I am, and a whole lot smarter overall. In other words, I’m nobody special.

You want to know who Neal Ross is, what he is? Okay, I’ll tell you.

I’m a 68 year old guy who was forced into early retirement because he refused to play along with the ridiculous mask mandate where he worked. I am an old man with a gimp left knee, a left shoulder that (probably) needs rotator cuff surgery, and a right arm with a detached bicep head. I am a tad bit overweight, and I am slowly going bald. I like loud music; preferably 60’s, 70’s rock, with an emphasis on the Southern Rock genre. I like ribeye steaks, bacon, fried chicken, and my wife’s spicy chicken.

I am just some guy who wants others to leave him alone. There is a line in the Blackberry Smoke song, Old Scarecrow, that fits how I feel, ‘If we could get back to livin’ and let livin’, that would be about right for me and mine.’ What Charlie Starr is saying there is, live by the Golden Rule; or else you’ll pay the price he sings about in his song, Sleeping Dogs. I highly recommend you give both songs a listen; you’ll gain a better understanding of me from those two songs than you will a thousand words I write.

Now to the idea that kept me awake…

I write conversationally. I don’t write as much to be informative as I do to share my thoughts. If others read what I have to say and agree with me, then fine; but I am not sitting here on a soap box, or a pulpit, trying to tell anyone what to think, or believe. I’m just a guy who has done a bit of research, and who likes to talk about what he is learning; even if others disagree with him, or if no one cares to listen to what he has to say.

Have you ever seen the movie, Pump Up The Volume; starring Christian Slater? If you haven’t, I suggest you find a copy and watch it; for then you’ll understand what I wish I was doing, and why I write the way I do. I envision these essays as a one sided conversation with anyone who is interested in listening to what I have to say. I say one sided because there is no direct feedback to what I am saying. Even if someone e mails me a response, it is not a real time conversation; nor is it one that others can hear, or get involved in.

I have thought about trying to do a live performance, if that’s what you would call it, but if I do it on the only platform I know how to use with any proficiency (Facebook) I would face two immediate problems. Number 1 is that I wouldn’t know how to insert songs into my broadcast; and music plays a huge role in my life; often interrupting my thoughts as songs just randomly pop into my head. Then there is the fact that, if I were to do a Facebook live type show then I would have to tame what I say for fear of being censored.

Physically most of my audience (as limited as it may be) consists of adults; although I sometimes wonder if they have reached adulthood emotionally. I say that because people seem to get angry, or take offense, whenever someone says something that differs from how they perceive things to be. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion on things, but the problem I encounter is that there are way too many people who disagree with what I have to say, yet they are incapable of supporting their position with any facts or evidence; yet they insist that their position is the right one; that I am the one who is a lunatic, a radical…a conspiracy theorist.

I got into a debate with someone once, someone who shall remain nameless, over the constitutionality of the United States Park Service. I love this person dearly, but their refusal to answer the questions I presented them with pissed me off so bad that I refused to speak to them for months. The logic I used to lay out my opposition to their position was as follows:

I asked this person if they agreed that the Constitution laid out the form our system of government should take, and the powers it is authorized to exercise? They said yes. I then asked them to show me where the Constitution authorized government to establish a National Park Service, or cordon off land by naming them National Parks.

Now this is where I began to get mad. This person quoted some law passed, I think by either Eisenhower or Teddy Roosevelt, that gave government the authority to do so. When I asked this person where the Constitution gave the authority to whoever it was to signed that law to do so, they could not answer me; which effectively is the same as saying that they did not know.

So in other words, this person believed something, but they could not support their position with facts; yet I was in the wrong for holding a different position; one that I could, and attempted to, provide them with. At that point, they told me that I was intractable; that I was not open to other opinions. Not true; if I weren’t open to other opinions I would be running around with a red MAGA hat and singing Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran like all the other Trump supporters.

I am willing to change my position on just about anything; you just have to present enough evidence to convince me that my position is wrong. If you can do that, I’ll gladly admit that I was wrong, and change my position to conform to the facts. But if you cannot provide any facts, then you may as well keep your opinions to yourself; for you’re wasting your time trying to change my mind.

This brings up another example, and it ties directly into the individual I mentioned at the beginning of this essay/rant; the one who berates me for my use of the first person singular. This person often picks out one point of a 5 page essay and critiques my entire essay because they take issue with one thing I say. When I reply to their critique they often use circular logic to avoid answering my question directly, and then go on to say that they think that we need to establish a system of government that is based upon economic principles.

If you ask me, and I know nobody is, that is exactly the kind of system we have, it is exactly the kind Alexander Hamilton ensured we would live under; it has just expanded its powers to include tyrannizing and oppressing the governed as well. Do some fucking research people; look at the ideology of Hamilton and what he sought to accomplish in the early years of our system of government; before Aaron Burr’s bullet thankfully ended his miserable life! Hamilton believed that government ought to serve the economy; that it should be allowed to tax people to support business and banking interests; that debt was good; and that those who felt otherwise should be punished with the full weight of the authority vested in government. (See the Whiskey Rebellion)

Most people, those who vote anyway, align themselves behind one of the two primary political parties; and they have (at least superficially) become so dramatically different in their ideologies that there appears to be no way to breach the divide between them; to reconcile their differing opinions. Yet, as you may have noticed, I said superficially; for under the surface both parties are in lock step with one another on more issues than they are divided against one another in others.

The ones they are divided by are the ones the voters focus on; they are the ones who form people’s political identities. However, if one were to do any amount of research they would find that both parties like war; they like debt; they like forcing their ideologies upon others; and they have a long history of doing some very bad (evil) things.

Do you remember that Blackberry Smoke song I referred to earlier, the one where Charlie Starr sings

‘If we could get back to livin’ and let livin’, that would be about right for me and mine.’ I have asked people on both side of the political spectrum if they would support a measure that would prevent the other party, the one they despise, from having the power to do any of the things they disagree with. In almost every instance people say that they would support such a measure; until I tell them that this measure would strip their party of the power to do the things they believe government ought to be doing. Then they reverse course; they say, ‘Oh no, we can’t have that.’

Whether people want to admit it or not, what that tells me is that the majority of the voting public believes that they have the right, through the voting into office of elected officials, to force others to do things that they do not like; measures that they themselves support. The voting public believes that it is okay to plunder the income of people; as long as the bounty is used to support causes they believe in. They believe that laws can, and ought to be, passed that deprive people of their rights and liberty; as long as it is only the rights and liberty of those they disagree with that are being denied.

People are so blinded by their belief that government is necessary, and so loyal to their partisan ideologies, that they cannot see that they believe in legalized tyranny; as long as it is their party doing the tyrannizing. How in God’s name does that comply with the Golden Rule; to do unto others what you would have others do to you?

Getting back to Blackberry Smoke, I also referenced their song Sleeping Dogs, and I’d like to share a passage from that as well, “Well I’m not trying to get in the way Minding my own, got nothing to say About nobody, that’s right nobody Don’t shake my tree, don’t rattle my cage You and me will be on the same page Got no trouble, don’t make no trouble.”

That is the Golden Rule in a nutshell. However, Charlie then goes on to sing, “Yeah you best let the sleeping dogs lie ‘Cause soon you gonna understand why You gonna get bit right between the eyes.”

He then sings this, “Make no mistake let there be no doubt Paint me in a corner I’ll fight my way out The moral of the story brother this is it I’ll be all over you , like stink on shit.”

And that’s why I wish I had the know how, and the platform, to do a podcast of sorts; I’d have played those entire songs for you so that you wouldn’t have to listen to me quote from them.

People have asked me, “Since you are so smart, how do you recommend we fix what’s wrong in this country; do away with all it’s problems.” The solution to that is relatively straightforward, but it is not an immediate fix; which is what people seem to want.

The first thing we have to do is to stop doing what we’ve been doing; which is looking to government to solve all our problems. Then, and this is where I encounter the most resistance, people need to assume responsibility for their own wants and needs; and stop it with the idea that society owes them a damned thing.

In 1850 a Frenchman by the name of Frederic Bastiat wrote a book I wish more people would read. The book is titled, The Law, and in it Bastiat states,

“In fact, if law were restricted to protecting all persons, all liberties, and all properties; if law were nothing more than the organized combination of the individual’s right to self defense; if law were the obstacle, the check, the punisher of all oppression and plunder—is it likely that we citizens would then argue much about the extent of the franchise?”

That is similar to the question I have posed to people; the one that asks them if they would support a measure that prevents the other party from doing all the things they dislike. It is the system that gives the other party the power to do those terrible things, and the only way to prevent that party from doing them is to strip the system of the power that allows them to do them; or to abolish the system altogether; which is what I’d prefer.

There is another book I wish more people would read; Man and His Government, by Robert LeFevre. In that book LeFevre writes about what government is,

“Clearly, all governments are simply groups of men or women which are put together for the purpose of finding strength, of providing protection. Every possible combination of rules, codes, laws, charters, constitutions, regencies, protectorates, treaties, contracts, specifications, and customs has gone into the tens of thousands of governments which have been devised during history’s meteoric course. But however the framework is made, however the structure is built, the fact remains that government is a tool of man’s devising, neither better nor worse than the men who devise and use it, and calculated to make man stronger and better able to protect himself in his weaknesses, by the use of force, exerted by some over others. That is all.”

However, if we scroll down a few pages we find that LeFevre writes, “As we look at government we find that men have organized for the purpose of protecting themselves and their property. Government is the tool of this protection.

Also, since government is always an agency which plans to use and, indeed, must use force, we have noted that government derives its power from a compulsory unification. All persons under the jurisdiction of a particular government are compelled to agree with whatever that government does. The agreement can be enthusiastic, tacit, or reluctant. But the agreement must be there. Government’s power to protect is based upon that agreement, however secured. Power, to be effective, cannot permit exceptions.”

That is where the tyranny comes in; for government is an institution that is opposed to individuality. LeFevre talks about this too; and this passage is a bit longer,

“Thus, the government is inevitably opposed to individuals. The individual is the natural prey of the organizational tool. And we have shown that when the individual is immoral, mentally retarded, or physically aggressive against others, the government can employ its cohesive power in a manner which is pleasing to people in general.

In short, it can act defensively, taking a position against the one on behalf of the many.

So long as the matter is simple, the case clear-cut, the individual obviously out of order, and the protection of the people generally the paramount issue, government is fulfilling what people generally expect of it.

But matters are rarely simple and cases have a way of being complicated and fogged over with a combination of motives, behavior patterns, backgrounds, and prejudice. Thus, more times than not, an individual will object to some particular government action only to find himself, by reason of his objection, the object and the victim of governmentalism.

A peaceful and law-abiding citizen, for example, may have perfectly sound and moral reasons why he does not wish to share his money with the government or the politicians of Yugoslavia. His conviction can be logically derived, morally certain, and sincerely maintained. In holding to his conviction, the individual is harming no one. His belief is not inimical to the welfare of other people. Actions which might spring from his belief are not aggressive. In other words, physically, mentally, and morally, such a citizen can be above reproach.

Yet, when the government adopts a policy which prescribes the sharing of his earnings with a foreign government, the man who objects to this can be treated in precisely the same manner as a bank robber could be treated and for the same reason. The government cannot brook a deviationist.”

The problem in this country is that we all go through an extensive period of indoctrination known as education. Sure, we are taught how to read and write, and perform mathematics, but we are also inculcated with state sponsored ideologies and beliefs. By the time we graduate from high school we are obedient little drones who consent to our own enslavement and participate in choosing who are slave masters will be.

However, for some, the indoctrination does not stick; which reminds me of something Etienne de la Boetie said in his book, The Politics of Obedience,

“There are always a few, better endowed than others, who feel the weight of the yoke and cannot restrain themselves from attempting to shake it off: these are the men who never become tamed under subjection and who always — like Ulysses on land and sea, constantly seeking the smoke of his chimney — cannot prevent themselves from peering about for their natural privileges and from remembering their ancestors and their former ways.”

The problem is, those who fall into that category are vastly outnumbered by those for whom the indoctrination stuck; those who refuse to look beyond the surface to determine the true cause of their misery and suffering. These people refuse to do any research on, or given any consideration to the possibility, that those they elect are merely pre-selected and vetted puppets who support the real powers that run this country.

That right there automatically labels one a conspiracy theorist; even among the MAGA faithful who believe that Trump is trying to Drain the Swamp. What swamp are they talking about if there isn’t a group who is exercising unauthorized control and influence upon government?

I don’t know when he said this, but former Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter once said, “The real rulers in Washington are invisible, and exercise power from behind the scenes.” And it wasn’t just Frankfurter who has made those kind of comments. Former President Woodrow Wilson is quoted as having said, “Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.”

You can’t vote those people out of office; they are beyond your ability to touch. The only thing you CAN do is to take away the mechanism they use to exert control over you; ie, you can abolish the system. Anything other than that is doomed to fail; an illusion that gives you the false belief that your vote matters; that those you elect work for you.

It’s time to grow up; it’s time to pull your fucking heads out of your asses and see the world the way it really is!

There are evil people in this world; so evil that your mind rejects the possibility that anyone could be that evil. That is their greatest weapon; people’s refusal to accept that these people exist, and are in control of almost every major government in the world.

These people do not worship, nor do they serve, the God of the Bible; they serve gods like Moloch and Baal, and they thrive on societies ignorance; their unwillingness to accept that the world is controlled by evil men who are intent upon enslaving all of mankind; and if they get their digital ID and digital currency in place, then they will have accomplished their goal.

This whole situation kind of reminds me of The Matrix movies; at least the first 3 of them. In the first, we are introduced to Neo and the general idea that mankind is enslaved to the machine world. The first film is so packed full of analogies that I don’t dare try to talk about them all; but there is one I would like to address.

In the scene when Neo is undergoing his Agent Training, Morpheus tells him,

“The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you’re inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most people are not ready to be unplugged.

And many of them are so inured and so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it.”

That’s how I see the world; there are those who have freed their minds, and there are those who haven’t. I don’t know what the ratio between the two are, but those who haven’t freed their minds vastly outnumber those who have.

Then there is the analogy of Zion; the city beneath the earth’s surface the Architect says that the machine world has destroyed multiple times. The Architect explains the inherent flaw in the Matrix’s programming as being one that allows for a certain number of people to free themselves from their conditioning. However, when the number of free minds becomes too large, it is destroyed and the system starts all over again.

You know what that reminds me of? It reminds me of the movement that grew up around Ron Paul. Paul caught the attention of those who were disenhearted with government; with those who thought that we needed to get back to a limited government; one that only did those things the Constitution authorizes government to do. Once the Tea Party movement arose, it was quickly infiltrated and hijacked by mainstream Republicans; effectively eliminating the threat it posed to the powers that be.

Yet even the Tea Party movement, and the Paulites (supporters of Ron Paul) seemed to fail to recognize the fact that it is the inherent flaw in the system that allowed for it to become so big and tyrannical that a correction, a reset, was needed.

I have asked this multiple times, and never gotten a satisfactory answer, but I will ask it again. Is the Constitution the Supreme Law of the Land? Article 6 says that it is; so let’s move forward on the assumption that is correct.

In Federalist 15 Alexander Hamilton stated, “Government implies the power of making laws. It is essential to the idea of a law, that it be attended with a sanction; or, in other words, a penalty or punishment for disobedience. If there be no penalty annexed to disobedience, the resolutions or commands which pretend to be laws will, in fact, amount to nothing more than advice or recommendation.” Let’s disregard the first sentence momentarily and focus on what he said after that.

If the Constitution is, in fact, the Supreme Law of the Land, where can one find the sanction, the penalty or punishment, for those who violate it? Hmm, anyone have an answer to that? And before anyone opens their big fat yap and says that we can vote them out of office, that doesn’t count as a penalty; and it does not apply when the ‘law enforcers’ violate the law; as we do not vote them into office; they are hired thugs who enforce the law regardless of whether it is good or bad.

If government enacts a law, then law enforcement is duty bound to enforce it. Go back and re-read the LeFevre quote about how government is the enemy of individualism. If you do not like a law, if you believe it is unconstitutional, or if you believe it violates your rights, you have no means of punishing those who wrote, or enforce the law upon you. The court system is part of government, and in almost every instance justice is balanced in favor of the government; not the individual.

Government can, will, and routinely does, fine, imprison, and kill, those who break the laws it passes. Yet if we were to do the same to a police officer, or government official, all of society would condemn us; proving how truthful that Morpheus quote is; that people will fight to defend the system that enslaves them.

At this stage of the game I do not see any way out of the mess we’re in, or any way of stopping what is coming. I see a point in the not so distant future that whatever freedom people have left will be taken from them; they will be tethered to a leash that only allows them to do whatever the government allows them to. Those who resist will be shut out of the system; be incapable of accessing their money, paying their bills, buying groceries, or even speaking out publicly about how enslaved the American people have become.

At that point people are going to have to make a choice; submit or resist; even if resisting means they will die. Winston Churchill once said, “If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

I think we are rapidly approaching that last scenario; the one where our only option is to fight without any chance of victory. The rest of society seems hell bent on supporting the tyranny that looms in their immediate futures; partly because they believe that whatever government does is in their own best interests, and partly because people choose to remain ignorant of what is really going on in the world; who’s running this shit show.

From a biblical perspective, Christ has already won; all that’s left is the final battle between the forces for good and the forces of evil; and we know how that battle turns out as well. So all that really remains is, which side of that battle do people wish to be on; and if you support our current system of government, you have made your choice.

Have a blessed day…

April 6, 2026

 ~ The Author ~
Neal Ross is a student of history, politics, patriot and staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment. Life continues to expand for this prolific writer and guardian of TRUE American history. Neal has been a long-time contributor to the family of Kettle Moraine Productions and its various websites.

Send all comments to: NealHRoss@outlook.com.