Blog

U.S. Supreme Court Smacks Down Lower Court in Major Win for Amish Families Fighting New York’s Draconian School Vaccine Mandates

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday reversed a lower-court decision that had sided with New York State’s sweeping school vaccine mandates, and ordered the case back to the appeals court for a full reconsideration.

At the center of the case is a shocking and deeply disturbing campaign by New York officials to bankrupt Amish schools, intimidate parents, and shut down religious education entirely, all because the Amish refuse to inject their children with state-mandated vaccines that violate their longstanding religious beliefs.

Despite admitting that the Amish families were sincere in their religious beliefs, the New York Department of Health slapped three one-room Amish schools with devastating penalties:

  • $52,000 against Dygert Road School
  • $46,000 against Twin Mountains School
  • $20,000 against Shady Lane School

These fines were issued for a single day of alleged “noncompliance,” and the DOH openly bragged in its filings that it was being “generous,” warning that future fines would be even more severe.

The department declared that each unvaccinated child attending school constituted a separate violation worth up to $2,000 per day.

The Amish schools, which receive no government funding, operate on private land, and are central to the community’s religious life, face closure because the families have no means of paying these six-figure state-imposed financial attacks.

In one year alone, some New York schools granted medical exemptions to 30–50% of their students, depending entirely on local administrator discretion. But the Amish? Zero tolerance. Zero accommodation. Zero exemptions.

Lower courts dismissed their claims. But on Monday, the nation’s highest court issued a rare and forceful correction.

In its Monday order, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for reconsideration “in light of Mahmoud v. Taylor, 606 U.S. 522 (2025),” a landmark ruling handed down earlier this year strengthening protections for religious objectors against state public-health mandates.

Keep reading

When They Say “Democracy”, They Don’t Mean Democracy

“Imagine if the US and EU were still aligned on the censorship-by-proxy strategy. Few people realize how close we were to global totalitarianism.“

– Michael Shellenberger

Western Civ is choking itself to death with lawfare in the name of “democracy.” If you think just a little bit past the sale, you will realize that few will say what they mean by “democracy,” including the most ardent “democracy” cultists. What it supposedly means is legal outcomes that the political left wants, not what the law, or the truth, or justice requires.

On the surface, the left pretends to want outcomes that favor their roster of designated victim groups: women, dark-skinned people, and sexual outliers, the familiar cast of characters with its tiresome scripts.

But that’s not what they really want.

They don’t really care about the “marginalized.”

What they really want is power.

The “marginalized” are just their clients and shock troops. They want to push everybody around, tell them how to live, and what to think, including the marginalized. If society has to get wrecked in the process, that’s okay — that will just make it easier to “build back better” to their advantage, or so their operating algorithm dictates. The left does not think past its own algorithms.

The “democracy” cultists are foremost against freedom of speech, because speech is what distinguishes human beings among the rest of the animal kingdom, and if you allow it, human beings are liable to develop ideas — ideas being the product of language — and especially ideas that make the “democracy” cultists uncomfortable. For instance, the idea that the “democracy” cultists don’t deserve the power they crave because they are dishonest, unscrupulous, and sadistic. Can’t have people thinking that, or saying it out-loud.

Censorship, the outright suppression of expressed thought, is the primary device for enforcing their version of “democracy.” The “democracy” cultists of the USA were especially avid for it the past decade after Mr. Trump came on the scene and offered to oppose the “democracy” cult’s plans to aggregate power. So, under the catspaw president “Joe Biden,” the FBI, CIA, the State Department’s Global Engagement Center, Stanford University’s Internet Observatory, the social media companies, and the White House itself worked sedulously to suppress the free expression of ideas, including the idea that they were all working to suppress free expression.

When Mr. Trump miraculously survived manifold attempts to stuff him in prison via lawfare and then, attempted murder, and managed to get re-elected, he put an end to the censorship shenanigans in government. That, in turn, became inconvenient to the “democracy” cultists in Europe who were, apparently, not busy enough destroying their own countries’ cultures and their economies. They put extra effort into suppressing free expression among their citizen-subjects: serious jail time for mean texts and mere casual statements on the street.

Now they are coming after the international speech platform “X,” liberated by Elon Musk three years ago at a $44-billion price. The European Commission, a body of unelected bureaucrats under the EU, created a so-called Digital Services Act to deal with the threat of free speech. After a two-year-investigation, the commission has leveled a $140-million fine against “X” for a series of specious offenses, such as not meaningfully verifying account authenticity [blue check marks] eroding trust in verified content. Mr. Musk objected, naturally. Veep JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, called it an “attack on American tech.” It’s more than that, of course. It’s an effort to wreck the company, which would eliminate the chief remaining public arena for free speech and genuine news worldwide.

Keep reading

Michigan Judge Allows Marijuana Tax Increase To Take Effect Despite Industry Lawsuit

A group of cannabis industry advocates were unable to convince a Michigan Court of Claims judge that they would face irreparable harm if a new 24 percent wholesale tax on marijuana went into effect to fund the state’s future road repairs.

In an opinion issued Monday, Court of Claims Judge Sima Patel said she was denying a request for a preliminary injunction from the plaintiffs in Holistic Research Group Inc./Michigan Cannabis Industry v. Michigan Department of Treasury.

The consolidated lawsuits posited that the new tax, passed in October as part of a comprehensive 2025-26 budget deal to raise new revenue for road repairs and rebuilds through 2030, was unconstitutional because it violated the title-object clause of the state’s Constitution.

Patel on Monday, after hearing oral arguments in the matter in November, said the industry advocates didn’t make a supported argument that a real constitutional issue existed, nor did the group succinctly show that the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Act, which legalized the use and sale of cannabis in Michigan, was the only statutory mechanism to enact taxes on pot.

“The [road funding act] is consistent with the [marijuana taxation act]. The plaintiffs contend that the phrase ‘all other taxes’…refers only to generally applicable taxes, like the 6 percent sales tax imposed on all retail sales,” she wrote. “If that were true, however, the initiative could have simply said that. Instead, the initiative stated plainly that the 10 percent retail excise tax was in addition to ‘all other taxes.’ And the phrase ‘all other’ is broad and expansive. According to the plain meaning of these terms, ‘all other taxes’ broadly means all taxes other than the tax imposed by [the marijuana taxation act].”

Patel further noted that the Legislature did not directly amend any of the existing taxes in the regulatory act or replace it with the new tax in the road funding legislation; rather, the Legislature imposed a new separate tax, which is permitted under the regulatory act.

“The two statutes can be read together,” Patel wrote.

The claim regarding the mechanism by which a new tax could be enacted was therefore dismissed, Patel wrote.

Patel did, however, allow the case to move forward to determine if the tax interferes with the intent of the voter-initiated law that allowed marijuana consumption, regulations and sales. Patel said a genuine issue of fact remained on that issue, which required further consideration before the court.

Keep reading

The Silence Around Israel’s Role in the JFK Documents: What’s Being Protected?

For more than six decades, the official story of John F. Kennedy’s murder has been defined as much by what the government buried as by what it reluctantly disclosed. Yet among the thousands of newly declassified records, one thread stands out for the extraordinary lengths taken to obscure it: the quiet, complicated overlap between CIA counterintelligence chief James Jesus Angleton’s secret Israeli channels and the agency’s surveillance of Lee Harvey Oswald in the years before the assassination.

This is the part of the record that successive investigations tiptoed around, redacted into oblivion, or ignored altogether. Why? Why were references to Israel, its operatives, its cities, even its name, blacked out of Church Committee transcripts and presidential commission files for generations? Why did the government cloak the identities of Angleton’s Israeli contacts with such obsessive care that even today, many pages remain hollowed out by heavy black ink?

The newly opened files sharpen the puzzle. They reveal that Angleton, already notorious for his shadow-world methods, ran a covert Israeli liaison network parallel to official CIA chains of command, precisely at the time he controlled the sensitive 201 surveillance file on Lee Harvey Oswald. That file, kept under tight compartmentalisation, was fed in part by Reuben Efron, the Counterintelligence Staff officer assigned to monitor Oswald’s correspondence. Efron’s own background, his Zionist affiliations, his time in Israel, and his curious, unacknowledged presence at Marina Oswald’s Warren Commission questioning raise further questions about why this corner of the story remained sealed off for so long.

All of this unfolded in a charged political moment. Kennedy, increasingly wary of Israel’s nuclear ambitions at Dimona, was pressing for intrusive inspections and pushing back against a lobby whose influence he believed was growing too fast. And yet, inside his own intelligence services, the man overseeing the Oswald file was simultaneously conducting clandestine intelligence exchanges, assassination-related communications, and off-the-books operations with Israel, relationships he concealed from Congress and perhaps from parts of the CIA itself.

These details do not resolve the mystery of who killed JFK. However, they do illuminate a different mystery, one that speaks to institutional instinct, political pressure, and the fear of explosive geopolitical fallout: Why did the U.S. government decide that the American people should never be privy to this side of the story?

Why was the connection scrubbed so thoroughly that even the existence of redactions became a clue in itself?

Keep reading

Scientists Discover Monkeys Can Keep a Beat—Challenging a Major Theory of Human Evolution

For decades, scientists believed that humans and a handful of musical birds held a near-exclusive claim to one of the most culturally defining abilities on Earth: the ability to move in time with a beat.

However,  a surprising new study now suggests that our sense of rhythm may not be as uniquely human as once thought.

In a series of experiments, macaque monkeys were observed spontaneously tapping along to music, locking onto rhythms even when it offered them no reward.

Published in Science, the study reveals that monkeys can not only perceive a steady beat in real music, but can also anticipate future beats and adjust their tapping accordingly—all skills once thought to emerge primarily in vocal-learning species such as humans and songbirds.

This unexpected finding challenges a long-standing hypothesis about the origins of musicality and opens a brand-new window into how the building blocks of rhythm may have evolved.

“Synchronizing movements to music is a hallmark of human culture, but its evolutionary and neurobiological origins remain unknown,” the researchers write. “Here, we demonstrate that macaques can synchronize to a subjective beat in real music and even spontaneously do so over alternative strategies.”

A new challenge to a long-held theory

For years, the dominant explanation for why humans can keep a beat has been the “vocal-learning hypothesis.” The theory proposes that rhythmic synchronization evolved as a side effect of complex vocal learning. Under this view, species like humans, parrots, and songbirds can lock onto a beat because they possess advanced vocal-mimicry abilities, while most mammals—including our closest primate relatives—cannot.

However, this new study’s findings disrupt that clean evolutionary story.

Two adult macaques, previously trained to tap in time with metronomes, were introduced to something far more complex: real music. Unlike metronomes, songs lack clean, repeating onsets and pose a much greater cognitive challenge. Yet the macaques learned to extract and follow the beat—sometimes even preferring to tap in sync with the music despite easier options.

The findings suggest that rhythm perception and synchronization may exist on a continuum across species—one that doesn’t require advanced vocal mimicry as a prerequisite.

How do you teach a monkey to “feel” the beat?

In the study, researchers placed monkeys in front of a screen equipped with an infrared tap sensor and an audio playback system. Once they initiated a trial by touching a holding bar, a song would start, prompting them to start tapping.

Three musical excerpts with well-established human tapping consensus were used, each presented at a distinct tempo. To earn a reward, the monkeys needed only to maintain consistent intervals between taps—not to tap at any particular phase relative to the music.

This distinction is crucial: the monkeys were never trained to tap on the beat. Yet, that’s exactly what they did.

Even more impressively, when the researchers shifted the onset of the song’s audio—misaligning the cue that normally triggered tapping—the monkeys’ taps shifted accordingly.

In humans, this kind of “phase shift” response indicates genuine beat tracking rather than a rote reaction to visual signals. In the monkeys, the same behavior suggested they were following something in the music itself.

“The monkeys were never trained or rewarded to produce a particular phase,” researchers wrote. “Despite this, both monkeys produced a consistent tapping phase for all three musical exercises.”

To test whether monkeys were really hearing and responding to rhythm—rather than simply learning a behavior—the researchers introduced scrambled music.

They chopped the original songs into tiny 30-millisecond fragments and rearranged them, destroying the temporal structure while preserving the same acoustic frequencies. The result was a burst of noise with no beat.

When listening to scrambled music, the monkeys still tapped consistently to receive rewards—but their taps no longer aligned with the audio, suggesting that synchronization emerged only when the stimulus contained meaningful rhythmic structure.

“With the exception of one scrambled song for each animal, the tapping phase distributions now did not differ between the original 0 and π versions of these scrambled stimuli… indicating that although monkeys were perfectly capable of ignoring the auditory stimulus,” the researchers explained. “They chose to synchronize to some feature in the stimulus when the temporal structure was informative.”

This was one of the clearest signs that macaques weren’t just performing a trained behavior—they were actually listening.

Keep reading

The Stages Of A Color Revolution… And Where America Is Right Now

A “color revolution” (sometimes called a “soft coup” or “regime-change operation by non-kinetic means”) is a modern form of orchestrated political upheaval designed to replace an existing government without traditional military invasion or civil war. The term arose from events in the early 2000s, such as Serbia’s Bulldozer Revolution (2000) and Georgia’s Rose Revolution (2003). 

These operations follow a remarkably consistent playbook, refined over two decades by Western NGOs, intelligence-linked foundations, and State Department-affiliated entities (Open Society Foundations, USAID, etc.).

Authors describe seven stages of a color revolution.

The stages include these tactics, which I’ll list in approximate chronological order:

  • Portray the target government as illegitimate, authoritarian, corrupt, or “fascist.”  
  • Front-load allegations: accuse incumbent of planning the crimes the opposition intends to commit (rigging, regression, dictatorship).
  • Fund and train NGOs, student groups, and opposition politicians to repeat a unified message.
  • Create/amplify a unifying symbol or theme (e.g., Orange Man Bad).
  • Manufacture an electoral crisis.
  • Street mobilization.
  • Public appeals to and moral blackmail of the military and police: “You’re with the people, not the regime.”
  • Promises of immunity, future positions for defectors.
  • Threats to those who support target government.
  • Provoke a response, flood media with images of “peaceful protesters” being attacked.
  • International legitimation as foreign governments and media recognizes opposition leaders as “legitimate” authority.
  • Sanctions, frozen assets, diplomatic isolation applied to sitting government.
  • New elections scheduled under international supervision.

We’re approaching the final four stages of this process with the Seditious Six’s “advice” to the military about alleged “illegal orders”, and threats to those who obey the POTUS. These warnings have eroded military cohesion, priming them for institutional resistance against Trump’s policies on immigration enforcement and domestic security.

General Michael Flynn described these actions as part of a coordinated effort to destabilize the nation’s power structure. These actions build on a pattern of Democrat actions that align with color revolution phases. Beginning with the 2016 election, the “Russiagate” narrative served to portray his presidency as illegitimate to erode public trust. Funded investigations, leaks from intelligence communities, and media amplification created an “illegitimacy loop,” where any Trump action was framed as evidence of tyranny.

The accusations of an illegitimate presidency rang out early in Trump’s first term. The cries came from Hillary Clinton on down to elected officials, celebrities, and the rank and file. The two impeachments manufactured crises, positioning Democrats as defenders of democracy (stop laughing!) against a purportedly rogue executive. Street mobilization echoed in the 2020 BLM protests which were leveraged to sustain urban unrest and pressure institutions. These events forced standoffs with law enforcement. More recently, accusations against Trump’s nominees, like Pete Hegseth facing war crime smears, fit the tactic of rapid, scripted attacks to paralyze the administration.

Keep reading

NATO Is a Menace, Not a Benefit, to America

Since its creation in 1949, NATO has been the keystone of U.S. foreign policy in Europe.  Indeed, the alliance has been the most important feature of Washington’s overall strategy of global primacy.  America’s political and policy elites have embraced two key assumptions and continue to do so.  One is that NATO is essential to the peace and security of the entire transatlantic region and will remain so for the indefinite future.  The other sacred assumption is that the alliance is highly beneficial to America’s own core security and economic interests.

Whatever validity those assumptions may have had at one time, they are dangerously obsolete today. The toxic, militaristic views toward Russia that too many European leaders are adopting have made NATO into a snare that could entangle the United States in a large-scale war with ominous nuclear implications.  It is urgent for the Trump administration and sensible proponents of a U.S. foreign policy based on realism and restraint to eliminate such a risky and unnecessary situation.

Throughout the Cold War and its immediate aftermath, NATO’s European members followed Washington’s policy lead on important issues with little dissent or resistance.  That situation is no longer true.  The governments and populations in the alliance’s East European members (the countries that the Kremlin held in bondage during the Cold War but that eagerly joined NATO once the Soviet Union collapsed) have adopted an especially aggressive, uncompromising stance toward Russia as the USSR’s successor.  They have lobbied with special fervor in favor of admitting Ukraine to NATO, despite Moscow’s repeated warnings over the past two decades that such a step would constitute an intolerable provocation.  The East European states also have been avid supporters of the proxy war that NATO has waged against Russia following Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Their toxic hostility toward Russia has inexorably made inroads even among the previously more restrained, sensible members of the alliance.  With a few partial exceptions, such as Hungary and Slovakia, NATO governments now push for unrealistic, very risky policies with respect to the Ukraine-Russia war.  Washington’s volatile, ever-changing policy under President Donald Trump regarding that armed conflict has not helped matters.

The Trump administration’s latest approach has been to try to inject some badly needed realism into the position that Ukraine and its NATO supporters pursue.  Realities on the battlefield confirm that Russia is winning, albeit slowly and at considerable cost, the bloody war against its neighbor.  Moscow’s forces are gradually expanding the amount of territory they control.  Kyiv’s propaganda campaign to portray Ukraine as a stalwart democracy and a vital symbol of resistance to an authoritarian Russia is collapsing as well.  Corruption scandals now plague the government of President Volodymyr Zelensky, as does growing evidence of his regime’s authoritarianism.  Proponents of NATO’s continuing military intervention now seek to downplay the once-dominant “moral case” for the alliance’s involvement and try to stress Ukraine’s alleged strategic importance to both the United States and its allies.

Stubbornness and lack of realism on the part of NATO’s European members (as well as too many American policy analysts and media mavens) is worrisome and dangerous. They have launched a concerted effort to torpedo the Trump administration’s latest peace initiative.  Proponents of continuing the alliance’s proxy war insist that no peace accord include territorial concessions by Ukraine.  They also demand that Kyiv retain the “right” to join NATO.  Finally, they insist that any settlement contain a NATO “security guarantee” to Ukraine, and that a peacekeeping force that includes troops from alliance members enforce that settlement.  Britain and France have explicitly made the demand to send troops.

Such demands amount to a poison pill designed to kill any prospect of an agreement that Moscow might accept.  The insistence on a security guarantee to Kyiv and a peacekeeping contingent especially fits that description.  Any accord that puts NATO military personnel in Ukraine would make the country a protectorate of the alliance, even if Kyiv did not receive an official membership card.  The commitment itself would have NATO’s military might perched on Russia’s border.  That is precisely the outcome that Moscow has sought to prevent for decades.

Keep reading

The Key To Understanding The Cult Of Globalism’s War On The West

The culture war in the western world is currently hitting a crescendo. At first the media said it was all “conspiracy theory” being amplified by a “fringe minority” of radical right wingers. Then, they admitted the conflict was real but claimed that conservatives were monsters trying to “dismantle democracy”. Today, the culture war has become the dominant issue of our age with the debate echoing through the halls of the White House.

Leftists hoped they could make it all go away by dismissing it. They hoped they could continue with their ideological takeover at their leisure. They failed.  The rebellion in the US is a product of decades of effort by liberty advocates and it is finally bearing fruit.

However, I think many Americans and some Europeans are discovering that movements like progressive wokism (essentially Cultural Marxism) are much more than a mere reaction to the return of conservatives to the cultural space. The fight that’s happening in front of the curtain is only a dim reflection of the fight that’s going on behind the curtain.

Almost every facet of leftist political and social activism is bankrolled by some of the wealthiest organizations and individuals on the planet. In fact, I would argue that without the billions of dollars in global funding provided by NGOs, government entities and corporations, the political left as we know it would not exist and the world would be much quieter.

A prime example is anti-ICE organizations: These groups have access to extensive cash reserves to finance call networks, they pay for hundreds or even thousand of protesters and agitators, they pay for legal representation and bail to get their activist agents out of jail, and they often obtain inside information on ICE operations before those operations occur.

These groups function less like homegrown civil rights efforts and more like clandestine government agencies. And, if you check the tax backgrounds of all of them you will find, without fail, that they’re propped up by NGOs like the Open Society Foundation, Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, global corporations like Vangaurd and Blackrock, and government bureaucracies like USAID (before it was shut down).

Nothing about these movements is natural, they are purely astroturf. It might look like chaos, but every time you see leftist mobs on the news trying to interfere with ICE arrests and deportations, what you are watching is a highly organized machine flush with globalist cash working to undermine US sovereignty.

Keep reading

Brits are warned they could be prosecuted if they take bananas washed up on beach after cargo containers fell off ship

Brits have been warned they face prosecution if they take bananas that washed up on a beach after falling off a cargo ship. 

Thousands of bananas appeared on Selsey Beach, West Sussex on Saturday night after 16 huge containers toppled off the Baltic Klipper near the Isle of Wight coast.

Stunned beachgoers soon flocked to the scene to investigate, as police quickly installed a cordon and urged people to steer clear of the fruit, which must be reported to HM Coastguard.

Those who fail to declare a wreck without a reasonable excuse face a £2,500 fine under the terms of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. 

A spokesperson for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) said: ‘HM Coastguard is continuing to work with relevant authorities after 16 containers went overboard from the cargo ship Baltic Klipper in the Solent on December 6.

‘This includes working with the vessel’s owners, who are responsible for recovering the containers.

‘The public are advised to avoid the area and are reminded that all wreck material found in the UK has to be reported to HM Coastguard’s Receiver of Wreck.’

Eight of the containers were filled with bananas, while two were packed with plantain and one with avocados – five were empty.

Keep reading

Germany Enacts U.S.-Style Registration for Military Conscription

On Friday, December 5, 2025, the German Bundestag gave its final approval to a law that, beginning in 2026, will require all German men to fill out a registration form for military service when they reach age 18. Responses to the questionnaire will be used to generate a list of potential draftees to be used if military conscription is activated.

On the day of the vote in the Bundestag there were anti-draft rallies and marches in Berlin (5,000 people), Hamburg, and other cities, and a School Strike Against the Draft that involved students in at least 90 cities and towns throughout Germany.

This revision to German military conscription law has been widely misunderstood, with many reports the scheme is voluntary (it isn’t, although the amount of the administrative fine for noncompliance has not yet been determined) or that it reflects a rejection of conscription. In fact, it’s intended by the German government to make a show of increased readiness to quickly implement an on-demand draft whenever that is deemed “necessary”.

Viewed from the USA, what’s most striking about the new German law is how much it resembles the Selective Service registration scheme in effect in the USA since 1980. The new German law also draws on some of the proposals considered by the U.S. National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service (NCMNPS) in 2017-2020 for (1) advance collection of additional information about potential draftees’ skills and fitness for military assignments and (2) increased use of the Selective Service registration process as a marketing opportunity to promote voluntary enlistment in the military.

The new German law appears likely to backfire on the government in the same ways that draft registration has in the USA: (1) making potential draftees and older allies more aware of the government’s commitment to the legitimacy of military conscription and desire to be prepared to activate a draft whenever it so chooses; (2) catalyzing anti-draft organizing and draft resistance, and (3) providing potential draftees with the opportunity, through the relatively low-risk tactic of foot-dragging or ignoring demands for self-enrollment in the conscription registry, to show their unwillingness to be drafted. That was the message sent by the failure of draft registration in the USA. We hope and expect that young Germans and their older allies will send the same message through their response to the new German military conscription law and personal information collection program.

In the USA, voluntary compliance with the legal mandate for self-registration was low from the revival of the program in 1980, and collapsed completely once it became clear that enforcement against passive mass noncooperation was impossible and wouldn’t be attempted.

The biggest mistake of the U.S. government when it reinstated the requirement for young men to register for the draft in 1980 was to take young people’s subservience for granted and not make any plans for enforcement. The brief round of show trials of non-registrants for the draft in the U.S. in the 1980s was a public relations disaster for the government. That was in significant part because it was a hasty and somewhat desperate response to an unanticipated crisis of public confidence in the registration system and contingency plans for a draft prompted by growing public awareness of widespread non-registration.

Germany appears to be making the same naïve mistake today. I can find no evidence of any plan by the German government for enforcement of the registration requirement against the inevitable resistance, both active and passive.

Keep reading