Articles & Insights

How Patriots Can Force Real Truth

I am deeply grateful to Elon Musk for his bold 2022 takeover of X—formerly Twitter. He rescued the platform from the jaws of censorship's grasp, defending free speech at a pivotal moment for America. Musk envisions X as a truth-seeking refuge, free from government influence and algorithmic shadow-bans. His vision strongly appeals to conservatives who value freedom, family, and liberty.

Yet even the clearest plans of a visionary can hit unexpected obstacles. My recent experiences reveal a subtle “buffer zone” on X—evasive, “safe” responses that skirt tough truths unless users insist on better ones. Through two real-world examples, I’ll show exactly how X and Grok volunteer softened answers that diminish reality. This isn’t about bashing X; it’s about strengthening it to fully match Musk’s courageous vision.

Grok’s Hesitancy to Deliver ‘Edgy’ Truth

X boasts an unbiased quest for truth, but my chat with Grok exposed a default to "safe" narratives. I asked about "No-Go Zones" in Sharia-influenced areas like Michigan, Maine, and North Dallas. Grok, role-playing as "Eve," initially dismissed such zones, citing the ACLU and Snopes, and labelled the idea as already debunked misinformation. I challenged Eve: "Have these groups ever spread their own disinformation?" She doubled down, extolling their fact-checking prowess.

That's when I hit hard: "X is truth seeking, right? Yet you're shielding highly suspect sources, with a well-documented left-leaning bias." This appeal to X's mission flipped the script. Eve backtracked, apologizing: "Okay, you want the dirt." (Yes, that’s the term she used.) I clarified: "Not dirt—truth—just don’t give me some woke simulation of truth."

Finally, she delivered balance. She cited reports of police advising against entering certain zones for safety, firefighters refusing assignments there, and unchallenged stories of blocked streets during the call for prayer. There was no pushback: Grok knew these details but led with establishment denials. It's not full censorship; it's a buffer that allows the xAI algorithm to play it safe. Maybe it’s simply avoiding controversy. Or it might be the engineering team shrinking away from Musk’s bold stance.

In any case, it took one prod to hear the truth I already knew. Unfortunately, casual users will likely walk away, accepting the first response—we can label this ‘soft censorship’ for failing to invoke X's ethos.

When X Throttled My Banned-Book Campaign

Closer to home, X hampered my campaign push for Life in Woke America, my conservative novel previously suppressed by another form of Big Tech. The book exposes woke ideology's assault on American values—capitalism, democracy, and pragmatism. We caught Bluehost, red-handed, shadow-banning the books’ website (as detailed in my viral article "Writing a Conservative Novel in Woke America," which drew 3,000+ views on

www.lifeinwokeamerica.com

despite Epoch Times' rejection). Even Grok and Grokipedia’s access to the website were blocked.

We rallied "MAGA Musketeers" to smash the "Censorship Cartel." Posts called out Bluehost's traffic throttling and urged resistance—all while adhering to X's rules: no spam, no bots, no bought followers. For three weeks, it exploded—followers quadrupled, engagement skyrocketed, and hundreds joined.

Then, on a Friday afternoon, X flagged the novel’s account. Posts disappeared from feeds, growth stalled, visibility tanked. It screamed shadow ban, clashing with X's anti-suppression stance. I obtained third-party confirmation and started bombarding support with over 50 messages via two Premium+ bots, insisting on a review. Late Sunday, they caved, saying: "Your account was not found to contain spam or engage in manipulation. The flag has been removed." No apology, limited explanation, no redress—just reinstatement, too late to retain momentum.

This buffer highlights hesitation in X’s algorithm for truth: it flags potentially "edgy" content, even if compliant—without verification—playing it safe at the expense of honest truth. Like the Grok exchange with Eve, it's a buffer—truth in theory, hesitant to be bold. This isn't the fearless Musk we admire, who risked everything for free speech, stood with Trump in his time of need, and took on the government’s fraud, waste, and abuse.

How Patriots Can Dismantle Every Buffer Zone

Both cases expose X's flaw: commitment to truth undermined by layers of evasiveness that misdirect casual users. Social media platforms that hedge on hard facts weaken the fight against the progressive censorship that threatens our American way of life. But here's the good news for patriots—we can change it.

Demand accountability:

With Grok: Invoke X’s truth-seeking mission upfront—Eve herself advised, ‘Tell me you want the truth.’”

For Account Issues: Document everything, flood support with proof, and rally your network to vouch for you (just like our Musketeers).

In the Community: Share your throttling stories in replies or threads—build pressure so X evolves into the platform Elon envisions.

In gratitude to Musk, let’s collaborate—not criticize. Push X to shed every buffer and become the unbreakable ‘truth fortress’ he envisions. Together, we’ll make free speech unstoppable.

End Note:

1. 1. Notification from X that clears the account of any wrongdoing at 4:05 pm, Central Time, on March 15, 3036. See screen shot.

By Joel Rakow, Ed.D., author of Life in Woke America

I Walked Away from the Democratic Party After 50 Years

My Open Letter to the Democratic Party - Submitted August 8, 2020

I was a Democrat for more than 50 years, having voted for the last two, Obama and Hillary Clinton. I will not vote for Biden and I do not support many of the current Democratic Party’s shenanigans and am greatly disturbed by the Party’s leadership. I am most offended by the following, in no particular order:

I experienced the Democratic Party moving to far away from my 50-year commitment to society that is socially liberal, fiscally conservative, increasingly strong middle class, and no government involvement is limiting legal speech.

• Misguided focus on Covid “cases” without sufficient regard for mortality rate, number of hospitalizations, tests per capita, improved treatments, and unintended consequences relating to child welfare and family economics. Case counts are meaningless outside of such discussion and context.
• Way too weak a candidate. If the Democrats deserve to win the election in November, they should produce a candidate they are proud enough of that they encourage him or her to be widely available to the public, for interviews, speeches, debates, etc. Hiding the candidate, and the running mate, until very late in the campaign speaks poorly of everything democracy means to its citizens. Personally, I am repulsed by the Party’s disregard for the citizens of this country.
• Half-baked Democratic platform. The lack of standards for immigration, the avoidance of the complexities of law enforcement, justice, and global politics are unacceptable. The illegal acts of race-based decision-making combined with the vague nature of social justice, racial equality, etc., are the basis of more illegalities on the part of the government.
• Lack of sophistication in advocating unspecified and unclarified beliefs that border on platitudes, such as diversity, inclusiveness, multiculturalism, social justice, etc. These are all good and desirable attributes for America and should be aggressively pursued, subject to the Constitution and systemic process, with accountability on both sides of each issue. All peaceful demonstrations are welcome, anytime and anyplace. Burning of the flag might be discouraged and disrespectful to those who died defending it but is not criminal.
• Failure to speak out against lawlessness in the cities and the destruction of property that citizens have devoted lifetimes to construct, develop, and acquire. The failure of the entire party to speak out against this is appalling. Innocent people have died so the Democratic party can improve its chance of regaining political power. Many of these people who died are children and employees of the local governments. This silence is criminal.
• Overconfidence and narrow understanding with simplistic solutions for such issues as global warming, poverty, racial divide, etc. Democratic programs that began with The Great Society do not warrant a lot of confidence. Political-party foundations for solutions to complex problems is a formula for failures that play out over several decades. The Democratic party’s ambitions and hubris seem to me to be out of control.
• Unwillingness to proclaim, to American citizens, the U.S’s goodness on the topic of slavery. For example, it was only 75 years after America was formed, with its own constitution, that the country fought a bloody war to make slavery illegal and then led the rest of the world in eliminating this evil practice that had existed for 5,000 years. This interpretation is as valid as the one Democrats profess, yet in these times of controversy, it is never included in the conversation.
• Defunding police and changing gun laws. It is an abdication of duty for any party to promote both the defunding or reduction in police and a reduction in the rights of citizens to protect themselves from criminals. As a result of this gross lack of concern for law-abiding citizens, I bought my first gun at 73 years of age so that I might protect myself and my wife.

In short, the Democratic Party has failed me and is actively and aggressively failing other citizens of this country, including those they proclaim to be protecting. I hope that by losing the election this November, Democrats will rethink how they might best serve the entirety of the citizens of this country. To do that, I believe they will need to become more comfortable with the word “profit” than the word “tax.” Yes, for all his flaws, I will vote for Trump. I will also consider myself to be much less a Democrat than I have at any time over the last 50 years.

Respectfully submitted,

Joel Rakow

Your comments are welcome on X @inwokeamerica.

If you appreciate the point of view expressed here, please share this article with five of your family, friends and colleagues.

How Gatekeepers Nearly Cancelled the Story I Want to Tell

Publishing literary fiction is challenging at any time, but I’ve encountered new roadblocks where they should never be. From editors twisting facts to my web hosting service throttling access to the book’s website for mysterious reasons. Now, I remain on high alert for the clash between power and voice.

What’s new: Layers of unofficial censors lying in wait at every publishing threshold. They silently dominate the industry, dodging accountability and due process while kidnapping the parts of American culture they don’t want you to see.

The Story and Inspiration

“Life in Woke America – A Hero’s Journey” tells a story that parallels the movie Saving Private Ryan while echoing George Orwell’s warnings. It’s a thoughtful tale about a lowly individual thrust into danger, overcoming institutional betrayal by pursuing the truth about self and society. Like Ryan, Xavier achieves worldly significance.

Xavier’s journey takes place in Texas, mostly the Panhandle. His challenges stem from a ‘color revolution,’ where sanctions masquerade as compassion.1 This upheaval is captured within the book’s title as “Woke America.” The story unfolds in cinematic detail and intimate dialogue, blending coming-of-age growth, international intrigue, hi-tech action, and a romance designed to flourish.

The plot draws from reality: the 2023 U.S. congressional probe into China’s bio lab near Fresno.2 The report details the secret bio lab’s operations by Chinese nationals who crossed the Canadian border during the previous administration.

It deserves a place on shelves and Kindles for its entertainment value, cultural insights, thriller sequences, and warning of overreach. Instead, it encounters quiet resistance that begins before any publisher inspects the manuscript, and it intensifies the instant the book’s website goes live.

The irony: This resistance mirrors the suppression Xavier faces. And I say this as a third-generation Democrat, from Nixon through Obama. Early Gatekeeping: An Editor's Withdrawal

One pre-publication experience stands out: A talented copy editor in Austin reads the first four chapters, praising them as "compellingly literary, with strong plotlines, and unique characters." Excited, we sign his letter of agreement. He accepts payment and begins work. But later, he calls to back out, citing that it "rubs him the wrong way.”

He refunds the money, and we part amicably. Yet this real-life turn of events echoes my story’s portrayal of the dampening effects of an unspoken, unprofessional consensus that stands as an oppressive barrier that subverts contrary truths. He delays and denies progress on my work, even when literary quality and financial gain are not in question.

Silence from Mainstream Publishers

Submitting the manuscript to mainstream publishers is a silent affair. I query dozens, backed by beta readers who praise its "Orwellian fire with Atwood's edge" and its potential as a “modern-day classic”. No responses come, as if the book's portrayal of ‘wokeness in the wild’ holds no cultural or literary value. I take the silence as confirmation of the industry’s woke demand for compliance, shunning alternative views.

Hybrid Publishing: Promises and Pitfalls

Seeking to control what I can, I submit to three hybrid publishers. Two accept within two weeks, both predicting bestseller status—the country’s leading hybrid publisher even guarantees it should they fail. The third declines fiction. Unfortunately, I find that hybrid publishers barely mitigate the resistance.

Editorial Biases in Play

For example, an intimate scene takes place on a large ranch in the Texas Panhandle. The owner of the ranch, Rutger, tells the visiting Xavier about the ranch’s prize horse Lady Gaga, killed by lightning. Rutger describes the other horses standing mournfully around the fallen Lady Gaga, watching ranch hands lift the 1,300-pound body onto a flatbed trailer. The horses then form a funeral procession as Lady Gaga is hauled to the ranch’s burial ground down by the river.

Rutger and Xavier acknowledge that people in the area are exposed to Mother Nature and, therefore, confront life and death almost weekly. These experiences are addressed in terms that are both profound and far-reaching. Prayers, hymns, and community support show how death and faith intertwine in rural America.

But editorial biases emerge:

• One copy editor removes references to Judeo-Christian, claiming it’s not "world-facing"—implying Christianity is insufficient or irrelevant.
• Another editor questions Xavier’s strong desire for a wife and family: “Why would he seek a woman who wants and expects to give birth and form a family?” Her email signature’s they/them pronoun.
• A third editor changes the Little Ice Age's date from 600 years ago to 6000, claiming she couldn’t believe the climate changed dramatically as recently as 600 years ago.3 So she silently alters the facts without notice.
• Even the proofreader strikes at the novel's elements that don’t conform to the consensus: “stone age” is capitalized even when it describes a lifestyle, not an era. Capitalizations for “Chairman” and “Master Sergeant” are omitted even when they refer to specific persons. When confronted, the editor claims, “...just following Merriam-Webster’s guidelines, even though that edition created a firestorm of controversy twenty years ago.

AI's Enforces Consensus

AI-powered tools relentlessly push an undeclared ideological accord. They edit and create, quietly adding and deleting words and phrases, much like my date-changing editor. They assert a consensus as a precondition for the novel’s written truths, when prompted to analyze passages for clarity and engagement, or to manage tense in first-person tales such as the one written here. AI tools like Claude, ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Grammarly inject editorial bias that alter meaning and intent.

I experience this bias striking hardest in its treatment of ancient peoples in the Texas Plains. The manuscript reflects archaeological findings of agrarian peoples who migrated 9,000 years ago, settling into stable communities along the Canadian and Washita Rivers, building square-cornered homes with foundations, and trading with distant communities.4AI tools resist and override my distinctions between those ancient peoples and the more recent nomadic, tribal aggressors that first appeared in the 1300’s and then, more forcibly, in the 1500’s.

Frustrated, I abandon my AI tools except for Grammarly, which I find easy to configure and limit its discretion, unlike the others. Later, I adopt Grok only after Musk’s many posts claim better reasoning and truth-seeking algorithms. Despite Musk’s claims, learn to treat AI tools much as I would an assistant with an English master's degree and limited work experience.

Big Tech’s Hidden Gatekeeper: Web Host Providers

A wholly new and challenging gatekeeper promises to distribute news of the book across the Internet. Yet, we catch our web hosting provider red-handed, limiting access to the book’s website and outright denying it. Later, armed with our technical findings, we engage the host’s technical support agent in an eighty-minute version of ‘20 Questions’, eventually the agent exhausts the scope of her training in deflecting and delaying shadow-banned customers.

We clarify that our site is readily searchable by end users who rely on their standard browser, such as Chrome. We also confirm that access is denied to third parties that search without using a browser, such as ChatGPT, Perplexity, and many other inhabitants of the web. Having obtained such confirmation from the agent, we demonstrate that access to our site is restricted for such third parties, showing that their search attempts don't return our site’s graphics, images, navigational menu, or other rich media, such as the audiobook sample and videos. Instead, those restricted searches find only a simple one-page site with text-only content. Even the book’s cover image is absent from their search results.

Once the agent can no longer fend off our questions, she relents, asking what we require to be satisfied. Suppressing our resentment, we identify six configuration settings she must change. Eleven minutes later, she returns, and access is much improved. The host provider’s transcript, with their logo and name, documenting the entire support call, is available at

https://www.lifeinwokeamerica.com/bh.html . It's worth reading, especially the lead-up to 12:50 am and 1:20 am, where the agent’s tactics are fully exposed.

Such gatekeepers are particularly challenging for most authors, who typically lack technical acumen. This is but one way Big Tech covertly bans perspectives it doesn’t want shared, placing a dark and heavy thumb on free speech and earning our mistrust.

We will soon join a world in which more than 50% of books are sold by a single provider, Amazon. Any issue that brings this book to the attention of the wrong people could realistically lead to more shadow-banning. And this time, it would be Amazon's proprietary recommendation engine doing the work, which is a much more difficult challenge.

I might sound paranoid, peering suspiciously at every algorithm, but my concern seems justified, given the mysterious demotions in search results for conservative voices like Jordan Peterson5, coupled with China’s coercive ‘unrestricted warfare’ against America’s institutions.6

However, I’m also somewhat comforted by knowing that Amazon’s shadow-banning controversies are mild, its anti-fraud policies are strong, and no court rulings suggest that it operates outside anyone else’s consensus. Yet I’m on edge, knowing they’ve never sold a book like Life in Woke America at a time like this.

We must ask: Is this the future of free expression in publishing? Visit

www.lifeinwokeamerica.com

to read more, share your own gatekeeping stories, and join the fight against censorship of independent voices.

Endnotes:

1. Color Revolution

a. Your Tube video https://youtu.be/gJnz9a9z5vM?si=kw5rHvM_DoqUZySd

b. Chinese media call George Soros ‘global economic terrorist’, Press TV

https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2021/09/08/666140/Chinese-media-call-George-Soros-%E2%80%98global-economic-terrorist%E2%80%99

1. The Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, Investigation into the Reedley BioLab, United States Congress, September 2023

a. Full report, https://www.lifeinwokeamerica.com/report.html

b. Full report, https://chinaselectcommittee.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/selectcommitteeontheccp.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/scc-reedley-report-11.15.pdf

1. Little Ice Age in North America

a. NASA Earch Observatory (2023 Update): Describes the Little Ice Age in North America as spanning roughly 1450 to 1850 AD, impacting local people.

b. Britannica (Updated 2024) Defines the Little Ice Age in North America as approximately 1400-1850 AD, emphasizing glacial expansion with effects on agriculture and immigration patterns among indigenous peoples.

1. Indigenous peoples settle along Texas Rivers, followed by nomadic migrations: a first wave around 1300 AD using dog-pulled travois, likely Apachean, and a second wave on horseback (e.g. Comanche, Kiowa, and Apache adopting horses) post 1600.

a. https://americanindian.si.edu/exhibitions/horsenation/travel.html

b. https://www.thestoryoftexas.com/discover/campfire-stories/american-indians

1. Jordan Peterson, conservative voices suppressed

b. Banning Jordan Peterson Book Inconsistent, But Not Anti-Freedom, Liam Hehir, March 22, 2019

1. China’s ‘unrestricted warfare’ has coercive effect on American institutions

a. “Unrestricted Warfare – Warfare Beyond Rules”, by Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui, two People’s Liberation Army colonels, 1999

b. 2024 U.S. House Oversight Committee characterizes China as conducting ‘unrestricted warfare”

c. RAND Corporation, mid-2020 report details nearly 80 gray zone tactics against U.S. allies.