Should I become prophet of doom or fade quietly into the darkness?

By David McElroy · September 11, 2021

I dreamed I was in a burning office building. Flames were everywhere, but people around me acted as though nothing was wrong. They went about their work. They laughed and talked. There were children there, too. I remember a little girl in particular. Everybody seemed oblivious to the danger that was obvious to me.

I tried to get the attention of the people near me and I pointed to the flames. Nobody cared. I wanted to run out of the building to save myself, but I knew I should save as many people as I could — because people would be dying in mere minutes.

As the dream ended, I was conflicted and angry. Nobody was listening. I wanted to save them, but they wouldn’t see the danger. I couldn’t decide whether to keep trying to save them or just get out to save myself instead.

I woke up in a sweat, but I knew what the dream meant. In the last few weeks, I’ve been conflicted about the work I’m doing on the YouTube channel called DavidMcElroy.TV. I finished editing the first 10 episodes a couple of weeks ago, but I couldn’t bring myself to post them.

I feel as though I’m casting myself in the role of an expert or a guru. Even a would-be hero. Or maybe an apocalyptic prophet from the Hebrew Bible, the sort who stumbles out of the wilderness to warn the people of hidden destruction just ahead.

And when I see myself that way — and when I realize how this plays into old egotistical desires of mine to be a leader and a hero — I want to stop everything.

It makes me want to stop talking publicly — to shut all of my media efforts down completely — and to disappear into comfortable obscurity without being concerned with what’s about to happen to others. With a few simple actions, I could shut down this site and delete my remaining social media footprint.

I don’t want to be anybody’s guru or hero or harbinger of doom. Is it time for me to disappear instead?

When our society finally crashes, almost everybody is going to cry, “How could we possibly have known that was coming?!”

That’s going to frustrate me. I’m going to feel like a failure, because I’ve seen for years where things are eventually going, just as a few others have seen. And I’ve desperately wanted others to see what I see, too.

“I tried to warn you about this,” I’m going to angrily think, “but you wouldn’t listen.”

And I won’t know whether to blame them or to blame myself.

To make things worse, I don’t see a reasonable middle ground. I don’t see how to warn people about what’s coming without making myself seem like an arrogant man who’s setting himself up as an expert who deserves to be heard.

After looking at the videos I created for myself, I felt as though I had to either embrace that role — of being an authoritative expert or warning prophet — or else just shut my mouth entirely.

I just don’t see a middle way. It has to be one extreme or the other.

I used to believe I could contribute to public discourse as a normal person — and maybe even affect it in a positive way — but I no longer see a way to be rational, fair and reasonable in public discussion, yet still be heard above the noise of pervasive toxicity. A normal person speaking with a normal voice simply isn’t going to be heard, so what’s the point?

We’re entering a new “Dark Ages.”

I’ve never seen a time when such a large proportion of people — on all political sides — appeared to be certifiably insane. I don’t mean that as an insult. I honestly see a huge percentage of politically motivated people today as mentally ill in the clinical sense.

If entire societies could be diagnosed with mental illnesses — in the same way that individuals can be — I suspect a fair evaluation of modern American society would conclude that we live in an insane culture. But this seems invisible to most people living in the midst of it.

I’m under no illusion that anything I post on social media makes a difference in changing anyone’s opinion or reforming society in ways that matter to me. The things I post are the equivalent of me shouting into a void.

If I want to be heard, I have to set myself up as an “expert” and project a loud media voice. I have to convince people to listen to me — by entertaining them and by somehow convincing them that I have special knowledge that’s important to them. If you look at the people who are popular on media channels today, they’re almost all either entertainers or else they’re people setting themselves up as experts and leaders. I don’t see anything else that works in this media environment.

And this leads me back to the question. Should I be willing to become one of these loud-mouthed self-appointed experts? Should I join the chorus of people begging for attention and adulation from a fickle public?

Or should I protect myself — my ego, my pride, my dignity — by simply walking away for good?

I don’t like either choice. I want to find a way to effectively warn more people about what’s coming. But at this particular moment, it sounds very good to load up my cats and dog and to quietly move to somewhere I’ll be safe and obscure. Somewhere you’ll never hear from me again.

There are dangerous days ahead of this society — and it’s going to be a time when it’s safer to be hidden in the darkness of obscurity. Maybe it’s time for me to go ahead and disappear.

Hardly anybody else would really notice if my quiet voice disappeared, but it’s still a difficult decision for me.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts