Why I'm worried

 These are tsunami-level economic waves:

Saying it cannot happen here is burying your head in the sand.  It's snowflake behavior.  Don't make that mistake.

Al Bundy and Why Global Warming Is Clearly Not Real

This show could not be put on the air today because it's too offensive.  Or rather there are too many overly sensitive snowflakes around today.  And with this many snowflakes, global warming cannot be real.

Have a laugh to temporarily lighten the somberness of  Memorial Day.

Have a solemn Memorial Day

Please remember the purpose of the day:

Memorial Day is a federal holiday in the United States dedicated to honoring and mourning military personnel who have died in performance of their military duties while serving in the United States Armed Forces.

Sunday verse

 

Question raised by Milo's actions

Milo Yiannopoulos used to be a celebrity on the right; a gay conservative who could argue on behalf of conservative values while being provocative at the same time. He was then accused of defending pedophilia by being taken out of context while talking about his own circumstance. His celebrity status disappeared overnight. Years later he has been undertaking a comeback.

The comeback involves him turning his back on his previous sexuality in what some have called a stunt.  I cannot say whether it's a stunt or legitimate, but I have always appreciated his humor and his politics.  I think he was unjustly cancelled and deserves a chance.  We have so few loud voices on the right and his voice was certainly loud.  Personally I think his sexuality is his own business (although he's certainly not afraid to make it public), and I don't honestly care what he does in his own private life.  What matters is what he stands for and how he stands for it.  Is his new position on his former sexuality a way of living the virtue?  Maybe.  Living the virtue is better than just saying you do.  Is it fake in order to regain his conservative audience that dropped him like a hot potato after the left lied and used the Alinsky tactic of isolating him?  Maybe. 

But neither of those is my question that stems from the video below:

My question is, can someone who does not perfectly fit into a conservative mold still support conservatism?  Could Milo have remained a homosexual and still be a "rabid culture warrior for the right"?  I think he actually could.  As Ronald Reagan pointed out conservatism can be a big tent.  And someone who agrees with you 80% of the time is not your 20% enemy, he (or she) is an ally and a potential friend.  I don't think Milo needed to 'convert'/convert to win back former allies.  Maybe to win back popularity he did, but I think it would have just been a short cut in that regard.

And as Christians, are any of us perfect? No. So who are we to judge? I'm not going to judge his motivation, his truthfulness or his lifestyle then or now.  That's between him and God. I guess that might be libertarian of me to say.  But what matters to me is that his voice is one we can use on the right. He certainly knows how to get attention and most of us do not.

Thomas Sowell is pessimistic. That should worry you.

Thomas Sowell explains how the continuous erosion of moral values we're seeing right now will eventually lead to America's downfall if we don't get back to our moral roots.  The man is an intellectual heavyweight and his words carry a lot of weight.

Fighting digital censorship

Harmeet Dhillon explains how to fight digital censorship via Dinesh D'Souza's podcast.  There are lessons to take from this.

In case you missed it, Facebook is censoring COVID-19 posts

James O'Keefe and Project Veritas have exposed Facebook's nefarious overlordship and censoring what you can see. 

Do all 6 of these RINOs need to go?

First, the situation, via Red Eagle Politics, 6 Republicans In Name Only that could lose their primaries in the run-up to the 2022 midterm elections.

RINOs are not your friend.  But in some liberal leaning states, they are better than the alternative.

Idaho: This is a Republican state.  Anyone would be better than crappy Mike Crapo.  Yes, he should be primaried.  Any more solid Republican who wins, will win the state.

Utah: As he points out in the video Mike Lee is going to be hard to defeat in the primary.  But I think challenging him would force him to move back to the right, which is a good thing.  There's no harm in the attempt therefore.

South Dakota: John Thune refused to support a challenge of the 2020 election results.  That doesn't make him a RINO necessarily but I would not be sad to see him go.  Since the relatively solid governor of the state is not inclined to run for the senate, the question is whether there will be a solid challenger.

Alaska: Murkowski is possibly the worst turncoat in the GOP. She must be primaried.  Alaska is a solid Republican state.  As long as the challenger is of a decent quality, Murkowski can be defeated and the state will remain Republican red.  Sarah Palin is a good possibility as a candidate.  I'm not sure she wants to run though.  But it doesn't need to be her. I think she'd have the best shot at winning it, but another solid candidate could win too.

Oklahoma: Langford is an establishment Republican. Oklahoma will elect it's Republican nominee, it's a deep red state. But it does not need this guy representing them.  He's a RINO.

Arkansas: John Boozman is not terrible but he's not good either and he's not what Republicans need right now.  Republicans need fighters, so primarying him is not a bad thing.  Besides, right now Jan Morgan looks like an appealing alternative.

Iowa: Grassley is not my favorite Republican but the main reason he needs to be replaced is his age.  Being primaried would insert some new blood.  Being primaried by his grandson would be worth the attention it would get.

Looking at the map, these are mostly deep red states.  The only one I would be worried about having a more conservative candidate is Arkansas, but even there I'd be willing to chance it if I were a patriotic American.  

Dr. Fauci needs to go

 Dr. Fauci is a twit and a self-serving liar.  Tim Pool picks it up:

Palate cleanser: Dinesh D'Souza on Ron DeSantis vs. Big Tech

After two posts showing Rubio talking truth (so far just talking it), I thought I should get back to some red meat.  Here's Dinesh D'Souza on Ron DeSantis vs. Big Tech.

NOTE: Both DeSantis and Rubio are from Florida, and while Rubio is talking a good game right now (and it is better than the alternative), DeSantis is actually doing something.

Two Rubio posts in a row?!?

 Like I said, I'm generally not a fan.  But he's right again, this time on Big Tech.

When Rubio is right, let him speak

“The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally – not a 20 percent traitor.”

~Ronald Reagan

I'm not a fan of Marco Rubio, he's been wrong on a lot.  But he is absolutely right here, and I'm not going to badmouth a Republican who is right more often than he is wrong.  And I am definitely not going to badmouth him while he's speaking truth about China. He's an ally, he's not John McCain or a Mitt Romney.  Yes, I'd like to convince him to change his mind on a few issues.  But on China, he's right.

Holiday Linkaround

Here in Canada it's a holiday, celebrating Queen Victoria (the former Queen of England). I've got nothing against Queen Victoria. Victoria was a terrific leader, almost as great as Margaret Thatcher. Ive got nothing against Great Britain for that matter. True, they have a bunch of screwed up leftists running a lot of things over there, but so do we in Canada and so do you in the U.S. right now.  I can't hold that against them.  I am glad I've got the day off but I must admit that I'm a little miffed at my historical countrymen for not joining with the Revolution of 1776 and instead remaining beholden to the crown.

But you can't change history.

I'm also needlessly locked down on a beautiful sunny day, but at least I have my backyard, where I will be spending the rest of the afternoon.  So, in the absence of further posting, here are some interesting reads for you: 

The Federalist: Keep Mark Zuckerberg out of all U.S. elections Ya think?

Breitbart: China stages superspreader event   Is China using COVID to depopulate itself?

Gateway Pundit: Georgia may decertify it's election results. But how likely is that really?

American Thinker: The curious case of the BLM-loving Capitol riot provocateur who was paid $35K each by CNN and NBC To be honest, there's nothing curious about it, it's exactly what you'd expect

FrontPage Magazine: Biden Brings in Islamic Activists to Investigate U.S. Military for 'Extremism' How does this guy remain popular (according to the polls)???

American Greatness: Feet of Clay Icons Victor Davis Hanson, a reasoned and brilliant analysis as always

COVID-19, the "facts" have changed.

Conspiracy theory alert! Conspiracy theory alert!  Wuhan lab may be at the center of the COVID-19 virus.

Via Jazz Shaw at Hot Air:

Were you one of the people who was criticized or even muted on social media last summer for referring to the microbes causing the pandemic as the “China virus?” It certainly happened to a lot of people. Slowly but surely, however, the narrative has been changing. Not only has it seemed clear from the beginning that the virus originated in or around Wuhan, China, but “following the science” has led some medical experts to increasingly question whether the virus would have been able to make the jump from bats or pangolins to human beings. One of the first media retreats on the “racism” front was seen last week when Politifact retracted one of their fact checks calling the suggestion that it may have originated in a laboratory a “conspiracy theory.”

So what many of us considered a possibility, and were willing to wait for evidence and were derided as racists and lunatics for being cautious, may actually be true?  Or at least a possibility?  Color me unsurprised that now that the election is over, it's okay to consider the possibility. 

As Shaw points out, it's the facts that ultimately will matter:

Attempts in the media to shut down any discussion of a possible laboratory origin for the novel coronavirus have been nothing more than a politically driven witch hunt from the very beginning. No matter whether this virus cropped up in the wild and made the jump to humans or came out of a test tube, it’s obviously important for us to understand how it started. This isn’t going to be the last pandemic that mankind faces, and if we’re going to be any better prepared next time, we need all of the accurate data that we can possibly obtain.

The other important takeaway is do not be afraid to be pessimistic in the face of missing data.  Don't let anyone cow you into believing that the science is settled (be it Al Gore or Dr. Fauci or some talking head at CNN).

 

Sunday verse

 

Rules for Patriots in action

A few days ago as I was trying to finish my Rules for Patriots Rule #7 (be unpredictable), as if on cue, Tim Pool released a video discussing a group targeting CEOs of "woke capitalism" companies.  That was definitely an unpredictable move. Excellent idea.

Rules for Patriot - Rule #7: Be unpredictable

This is a continuation of my Rules for Patriots series, designed as a patriot's guide to success in fighting the creeping progressivism infecting America. It's a conservative response to Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. This series is a lengthy read, but it is very important to understand.  This one happens to be a video, so it's more digestible. Being able to use this approach, as a team, will simplify, streamline and expedite achieving our patriotic objectives.

Links to previous rules: Rule #6, Rule #5, Rule #4, Rule #3, Rule #2 and Rule #1.

Unpredictability makes for a difficult counter from progressives. 

Youtube: Listen to Tim Pool's explanation of censorship

 Because you are doing it wrong.

Every time Jordan Peterson speaks it's worth listening.  But even more impressive is when he engages in a conversation, particularly so when it's with someone who does not agree with him.  Stephen Fry to his credit, while disagreeing with Jordan Peterson on some issues, is more interested in finding commonality and solutions rather than drawing rigid lines.   These two men again prove the value of conversation.

The only alternative to discussion is violence.  Nobody rational wants that .

Dinesh D'Souza lays it out on Middle East under Democrats

 Democrat leadership means Middle East flare-ups:

Sunday verse

 

Andy Ngo speaks at Hillsdale College about ANTIFA's history and tactics

 If you've never heard of Hillsdale College, you owe it to yourself to check them out. If you don't know Andy Ngo, you owe it to yourself to research his story (not on CNN mind you).  Andy Ngo talks about ANTIFA's history and tactics.  And if you don't know the history and tactics of ANTIFA, you really owe it to yourself to watch this.

A follow up on Get Woke Go Broke from Bill Whittle

Following up on Bill Whittle's previous thoughts on Get Woke Go Broke companies, he contrasts Russia's military recruiting commercial with America's latest mamby-pamby military commercial. Frankly, it's sad and pathetic. Not because of the story, but because it is not a military recruitment video.  It's wokeness for the sake of wokeness.

Is "Get Woke Go Broke" real?

Bill Whittle asks if the phrase is true, then why do companies keep doing it?  It's a very good question.  He has a theory about it and he may be right.

A1P News is just the beginning

A friend of mine down in Georgia, a relatively recent convert to the patriot movement has done a lot more than a lot of long time conservatives and I applaud his efforts.  He's begun the process of educating himself in earnest, he's gotten involved by starting his own news aggregation website (please check out A1PNews) and he's joined groups trying to make a real difference.

Knowing him, this is just the beginning.  After all, someone who started following Rules For Patriots intuitively has to be on the right track.  I expect big things from him, and I would not be surprised to see him run for Congress one day. 

Meanwhile, support his site by checking it out.

Mark Dice is on fire.

 Mark Dice nails everything here - from Liz Cheney to ANTIFA.

Maine rule Georgia. Wait, what? Why?

This is wrong.  Georgia is bluer than it used to be but it is not a blue state.  It's a conservative state.  Applying the electoral method of Maine to Georgia is a defeatist idea.  I like Red Eagle Politics but this is reactionary, and not a well thought out idea.

Unless, you do it with California.  Then you are talking something I could get behind.  Think on offense, not defense.

Hollywood self-cancelling has begun.

Speaking of wokeness, Hollywood has started to cancel itself.  No really.  And maybe that's where they should have started.

In Canada a conservative premier has gone covid-woke

In Canada's most populous province Ontario, a province run by a nominally 'conservative' government (and one that got my vote), has extended a stay at home order. Our supposedly Donald-Trumpesque premier has gone covid-woke.

This is not healthy.  Society cannot exist if you cancel it. So, is that what this Canadian provincial government is trying to do?  Because the response is toxic, and at this point worse than COVID.

The premier is spinelessly following advisors to the detriment of society. And this is not the first time he has made a covid-woke mistake. This is not who I voted for, and he won't be getting my support in the next provincial election.

The new demographics

Bill Whittle and company discuss the demographic shifts that were expected and how reality has differed from what was anticipated.  What I have been predicting (and I posted on this somewhere a few years ago) was an offshoot of what they are discussing here. Which I will re-emphasize below the video.

I predicted years a go a shift towards a work from home economy.  COVID-19 has obviously accelerated that paradigm shift, but it was inevitable regardless.  Businesses can save real estate or costs (either through purchase or rental) by having fewer workers in a centralized office.  The savings are dramatic.  I worked for a company back in 2014 that had combined three office buildings into one by requiring office workers to work from home 40% of the time.  It resulted in the company saving millions per year in office space rental, electricity, and myriad other cost associated with having an office facility.  That makes a huge difference in the bottom line profits.  While not every job can be taken home (factory jobs for example), this will result in a very significant portion of the population as remote workers.

There's implications with that, including some important ones.  For example, if 50% of workers can work from home, they don't need to commute.  The need for roads and road development is decreased.  People don't need to live in congested cities to work, they can move just about anywhere and telecommute (for lack of a better word).  That means property values in cities decrease and in rural areas with more space and less smog, they will increase.  That will result in a population shift to small towns and rural areas.   Rural and smaller town areas tend to be, and vote, more conservative.

That's just the tip of the iceberg.  There are so many impacts and factors that will influence the shifts (for example, the proximity to hospitals still matters, but so does where future hospitals get built).

This merits a longer discussion, which I am sure will happen soon.

Is Wokeness Mass Psychosis?

Watch these videos and consider the question - is wokeness an example of mass psychosis?  Does it exhibit the characteristics of a mass psychosis?  Decide for yourself.

First a simple explainer and then a more detailed discussion.  Lastly, a question on whether it's manufactured.

Sunday verse

 

In case you didn't know, Michigan's governor is still power-mad

 A lot of people not directly affected by this, may not be aware of Michigan governor Whitmer's dictatorial bent continuing beyond the COVID situation (no, not "crisis").  She's ordered a Canadian gas company to stop using a pipeline, even though the federal government has said it's safe.

Facebook Oversight Board slaps Facebook. Very lightly.

President Trump should be banned for 6 months instead of indefinitely?  Just wow. Not "WOW!" because we've all come to expect from these not-a-platform tech giants. 

Dave Rubin's take on the Facebook Trump ban

 Dave Rubin talks about a lot of recent events, because my take has been limited by my day job.

The straw man argument in action

A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the proper idea of the argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man". Wikipedia

I saw this showing up on Facebook over the weekend (yeah, I know; it's Facebook, why would you be there?  It's a rarity, trust me):

A viral meme maybe, but still a straw man argument that socialists use to self-satisfy by believing they are among those too smart to fall for it.

But there are so many things wrong with this picture that it should not be worth the effort.  Yet since so many people are sharing this abomination that it sadly, requires a brief rebuttal.

(1) The rich guy is not a villain by being rich.

(2) The rich guy if he is a villain, likely wants the undocumented illegal immigrants in the United States so he can take advantage of them as cheap labor.

(3) The only reason the rich villain does not like the redneck looking guy is because he demands higher wages for various tasks.

(4) The reason the rich villain can take advantage of the immigrant population is because government allows them to come here despite not doing so legally.

(5) The socialist solution to this is to allow them to come, give them the low paying jobs, subsidizing that with welfare programs because on the books they have no income, thus squeezing out the guy in the middle, crushing the middle class, driving them to the lower class so they are forced to compete for lower wages or remain dependent on the government who - continue to expand the dependent class while dumbing them down and ensuring their continued voting allegiance by...

(6) Vilifying the rich guy they claim to be disgusted by.

And by sharing that meme you are buying into your own destruction and debasement.  This meme suggest something that is not true.  It hastens the problem it purports to detest by encouraging the expanded immigration, hastening the destruction of the middle class that cannot hope to compete with the billionaire class nor the unskilled labor working class.  All the while they hasten (in conjunction with the billionaire class) the outsourcing of potential middle income class jobs to China, India and elsewhere.

It's classic class warfare combined with misdirection and it's all being swallowed up by progressive socialist who believe they have the answers but everything they have ever tried has been an abysmal  failure.

A viral video about a problem that can be seen through many lenses

Johnny Harris is a YouTuber who makes some stunning quality videos on a weekly (approximately) basis.  I say stunning quality not because of the quality of video editing or videography (although those are quite good) but for the quality of the content.  Johnny Harris does journalism the way it's supposed to be done; classic journalism.

I felt not just compelled but obligated to share one of his most recent videos on the subject of Why McDonald's Ice Cream Machines Are Always Broken.  It's a video that needs to be seen for several reasons and through several lenses.

Watch the video below a few times.  First watch it through the lens of journalism.  Look at the extent he goes to in order to validate the claims he's heard.  It's as incredible as it is commendable.  Not only does he do his due diligence research, he tries to extricate opinion, including his own from fact, and exhorts the viewer to do some investigation of their own (all while warning that doing it to the extent he did is probably not advisable). He even offers disclaimers where he feels opinions are turning up in his video.

The man deserves an award for his efforts (and this video is just one example of that).  Contrast what he does with how the mainstream media operates and the dysfunction should become pretty obvious if you are a conservative (less so if you are a raging progressive, but at least try to find something to compare it against).  Mainstream media is rife with laziness.  It is more than 50% (often far, far more)  opinion journalism and not reporting, let alone investigation.

But I've droned on too long already.  Watch the video and I'll suggest some other lenses through which to view it afterwards.

Was I right?  He even goes beyond the surface explanation was offered everywhere else.  Why?  Because it seemed far to cut and dry.  There's another lens to view this video through - skepticism.  The skepticism present in this video should inspire the viewer's skepticism in not just the same subject, but every subject - including his videos.  By not being self-serving, he actually is being self-serving because it inspires your trust as well as your skepticism. It can do both. CNN cannot claim the same and deserves far more skepticism than you afford Johnny Harris.

Now think about crony capitalism and why it stifles innovation and hurts small businesses and consumers.  This sort of counter-productive activity is being encouraged by a big business and this is just one instance. There are cozy companies being just as lazy and counter-productive as journalists. Laziness and self-serving self-interest are two distinguishing features of crony capitalism.  And crony capitalism is not limited big business; it infects government.  Bureaucracies like the IRS or the EPA that exists to feed themselves and grow themselves are not above working with Democrats who want to do the same, or big business who want to use legislation to stifle competition. It's ubiquitous as well as nefarious.

American society seems to be on an unalterable path towards an oligopoly of a few big businesses and big government, a path that inevitably leads to dictatorial fascism.  A Road To Serfdom (mandatory reading for the uninitiated) indeed. This is why we need to follow Rules For Patriots and prevent it.  This stuff truly matters - far more than your YouTube playlist, or when the next season of Stranger Things will be on Netflix.  And this brings us back to Johnny Harris and his citizen  activism.  He's doing something and trying to point out things that matter in order to stop them from happening or from continuing.  You should be doing the same.

Or at least due yourself this service: Question what you are told, question the motivation of the teller. Think for yourself and ask critical questions. 

Rules for Patriots - Rule #6: Set Objectives, Build Momentum, Succeed, Move On

This is a continuation of my Rules for Patriots series, designed as a patriot's guide to success in fighting the creeping progressivism infecting America. It's a conservative response to Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. This one is a lengthy read, but it is very important to understand.  Being able to use this approach, as a team, will simplify, streamline and expedite achieving our patriotic objectives.

Links to previous rules:  Rule #5, Rule #4, Rule #3, Rule #2 and Rule #1.

Preparation is half the battle. But it's not the entire battle.  Winning a battle requires many things; prior proper planning, initiative, adaptability, situational awareness, and specific achievable goals that once achieved can be fortified and set aside so that the next battle can be engaged.

In order to accomplish our patriotic objectives all of that can be split into four distinct categories: Set Objectives, Build Momentum, Succeed, Move On.  It seems obvious, but it isn't always done, nor is it always easy to accomplish.

Set Objectives

The first step in setting objectives is defining the problem.  What is the problem we are trying to solve?  Once that is clearly defined the rest becomes easier.  The problem should be specific, actionable (there's no point in setting an objective that is impossible to reach; Greenpeace once tried to ban chlorine.  It's an element on the periodic table), debatable and thought provoking.  Once you have the problem stated, you can set an objective of solving the problem.

Let's assume the issue we are dealing with is censorship. Patriots believe censorship of ideas is anathema to American values.  But setting an objective of "stop censorship" is vague, multi-faceted and not achievable.  It needs to be trimmed down.  "Stop Big Tech's censorship of conservative voices" is more specific but it's still not down to battle level. "Stop Twitter from shadow-banning and banning conservatives on their platform" is specific enough that an end state can be envisioned.  It's a narrow-enough goal.  It does not stop all censorship, nor pretend to do so.  The goal is just one part in the broader battle of stopping big tech censorship of conservatives, which in turn is a sliver (albeit a big one) of stopping censorship of conservatives in general (in turn a sliver of censorship in general).  We have moved the goal from something massive and seemingly insurmountable into a manageable bit-sized  goal that we can attempt to tackle without feeling powerless and without hope.

The next step is to break the problem we are facing in reaching our objectives into distinct issues.

In our example, Twitter is engaging in shadow-banning conservatives, they are engaging in banning conservatives outright, they are agreeing to fix things and then not following through, they have established a Trust and Safety Council populated by leftists, they are engaged in censorship of what they consider sensitive content (among other nefarious deeds).  The list of issues should be as collective exhaustive in terms of potential issues as possible.  The list should also be mutually exclusive; the issue list should not overlap; if it does there is perhaps a definition or grouping problem.  Then organize the issues into groups and sub-groups in a decision tree format.  These allows us to divide the problem into manageable components, and to check whether we are looking at mutually exclusive collectively exhaustive issues.  It also helps establish a common framework for solution discussions.

The next step is to brainstorm potential solutions.

Because we have broken down our problem into groups and sub groups we can develop potential solutions by category.  We can then look for commonality among our solutions in order to keep the solution simpler and more manageable.  It allows us, importantly, to eliminate non-key issues that are either a distraction or perhaps intertwined with other issues and solvable with efforts at solving other issue groups.  In this stage we can likely hone down our solution set to a few distinct activities.

It's important to keep in mind that this stage not succumb to over-engineering. That can lead to confusion within a team. It can also be over-calibrated to a specific issue and not flexible enough as new information leads to a changed problem set.  The plan must be adaptable, which means the  issue solution set must be flexible.

Next the solution set must be analyzed for robustness. This may require investigation. Is it achievable? Does it solve all of the problem set? Is it cost-effective? Do we have the resources to do it? Can we assign responsibilities, action items, deadlines? Are there any gaps requiring special consideration, further planning or outside resources we can leverage?   Can we identify and incorporate milestones so that we can measure our progress?  All of this needs to be done as part of the planning stage in terms of setting the objectives.  Once it is done we will have a blueprint for achieving our objective. We have our battle plan.

Build Momentum

A successful plan will have milestones.  There should be synergy in those milestones. That synergy should make subsequent steps easier. For example, winning a court battle should make it easier not to have to continue fighting that particular part of the battle (assuming it's a resolute, not challengeable court decision).  It should free up resources, it should make the next, related court-battle easier to win.  It should boost morale.

Building momentum requires these identifiable milestones in the plan and reaching them should require an appropriate level of celebration that inspires rededication to the next stage of the battle.  

Building momentum requires inspired teams.  That requires inspirational leadership and a true sense of teamwork. A football, basketball or hockey team succeeds only when each player focuses on their specific tasks and is dedicated to playing their role as best they can. 

Momentum also requires checkpoints. At regular intervals we must dedicate ourselves to checking our progress. This does not mean measuring our progress towards a particular sub-goal (although that is important), but rather checking between our hypothesis and real-world situations; 

• Has the situation changes such that we need to adjust our course? 
• Do we need to consider an alternative plan for this particular sub-goal?  
• Does the sub-goal still contribute to the overall goal, or do we need to adjust it?  
• Are there new hurdles?
• Are there new issues that have not yet been planned around?

Momentum requires progress. More importantly it requires progress in the right direction.  There is no point in sticking with a plan that no longer reflects reality and will not achieve our goals, tie up resources and demoralize our side.

Momentum also requires adaptability to be quick.  Use the 80/20 rule.  If we can solve 80% of the problem, let's not waste weeks or months trying to plan for the other 20%.  We can worry about that while enacting our 80% solution.  Wherever possible avoid indirect solutions which typically take longer to achieve results and are more prone to failure. 

A few other key points to consider while in progress and needing to adjust on the fly:

• avoid obstacles.  There's no sense tackling a difficult situation if you can simply sidestep it.
• leverage experts wherever possible. There's no sense reinventing the wheel.
• don't be afraid to be creative. There are no bad ideas until they are fully investigated.
• avoid negativity. "It won't work", "Tried it before", "We can't" all may be true, but not at the ideation stage

Succeed

This is simpler than previous steps.  Success should be obvious because it should be measurable. In today's complicated world that can not always be so simple, which is why in the planning stage it is so critical to come up with a measurable success definition.  But succeeding alone is not the end of the road.

There are things needed to cement the victory.  Planning is as important as it was at the beginning.  A lot of considerations come into play.  

• How do we ensure the success remains intact?  What do we need to do to enforce it?
• How many resources are needed to divert to holding this victory in place?
• What are the potential challenges to this success that we are likely to face?
• Are there any dangers lurking?
• Did any part of our sub-goals not get completed and do they need to be followed up on?
• How can we share this success with other patriots?  
• How do we tell this story?  It is important to tell the story before the opposition tries to paint it a certain way.
• What did we learn along the way that we can incorporate going forward?
• How can we measure or track the impact of our success?

Move On

In case you haven't guessed it yet, the war of ideas is never over. As you approach your accomplishing your goal, you must begin the planning cycle for the next battle. Because we have narrowly defined success, there are other battles to fight.  A new planning cycle needs to start before (but not too far before) we succeed in our goal.  There is no point in dwelling on your success as other battles rage on all around you.  There is also no point in being caught flat-footed and having to waste time before engaging in the next battle.

Yes, take time to celebrate your victory.  But be prepared for the next battle.  Be prepared to inspire others that this next battle is equally important or even more so than your hard won success so far.  Standing still on the battlefield is a recipe for disaster.  Your opponent sure as hell is not standing still.  They just lost, they will be energized.  By default victory drains energy just as defeat grows it.  The only way to overcome either is by using momentum.  Victory must inspire further effort just as it must demoralize the other side.  The only way to do that is to land the first metaphorical blow in the next battle. 

Move on, do not stand still.  If you are in a leadership role, detail the reason for the next battle, detail the plan, engage your team to get involved where they can contribute.  And if you are a team member, volunteer where you can best contribute.  Your energy and enthusiasm will  inspire those around you to do the same.

Sunday verse