Kind of an anticlimactic ending if you ask me, but the read getting there was frankly compelling.

One thing I've always tried to figure out about leftists was their viewpoint on a nation's rulers.  I don't have any explanation for it but that's always bothered me.  The rulers are a symbol of the nation but not the entire country itself.

A day or so ago, I made a reference to the Soviet Union and, as always, I referred to it as Russia.  Because what it was, before, during and after the communist dictatorship.  It didn't become a different country because Lenin took over.  Yet even as I wrote and edited the piece, it pops into my head that leftists would complain about Russia and the Soviet Union not being connected.

It's this mentality that, although it doesn't explain anything, helps represent how leftists observe the world.  They need to completely ignore all the millions and millions of people who lived and died through all the decades or centuries.  This is the mindset we often joke as a suggestion that they should fire the people and bring in a new one.

Putin was born and raised in the Soviet Empire, he was a high-ranking government official.  It doesn't magically become a new country when a different person is at the top of the heap.  We see the left's same reaction to America suddenly being a wonderful place with Biden pretending to be in charge.  The Leader is all they consider relevant.  Except for the people they always hate.

It's understandable that they completely disregard every single individual in existence but to focus only on their master directly contradicts that, yet they don't even seem to notice.  Biden could drop dead tomorrow, next year or five years ago and we'd still be suffering from the mentality of our secret rulers and their staff who want to erase the nation, conceptually and physically.

I've certainly given a lot of thought to this.  I started this series of books with a novel covering the life story of the leader of a fictional country.  But it was deliberately fiction and aimed at a narrative of my own design.  My intent was to focus entirely on him as a symbol of the nation and fit as much history and civic interpretation as I could into the story but there were scenes and chapters where I simply had to ignore my main character because he could not fit into what I was writing about.

I'm very proud of the novel and believe I was writing it at some higher level of consciousness than is normal.  My fiction isn't the sort that makes me say I'm just following the characters and noting what they say and do but in this story, there are some parts that I can't honestly say I made them up.  I was trying to fit an entire nation into a short novel and am very pleased with the results but they are part of the story, not the writer.

And that's just for a work of fiction.  There's no way this can be applied to the real world.  Yet that's what our enemies do day in and day out.  I think I've pointed it out before but it's one reason the military is the most successful example of socialism, in that they do focus on the collective first and foremost, but they do so by recognizing the individual.

We are each different and far too complicated to be thrown away as a statistic, as Stalin would put it.  Obviously many people have spent much time working out ways to do just that, look at Hollywood and the advertising industry for examples of that, but it never works out.  Collectivists refuse to recognize that yet always think they understand everything that will ever matter.

That is what we're here to fight.  I'll just end it there and probably get around to mentioning the title of the novel at some point so you can buy a copy for yourself and everyone you've ever met.  You don't have to read them, just...

...

Excuse me, I've just been handed a note.  "That's what we are here to fight.  Thank you, good night."