The predictive genius of Orson Scott Card. Rotterdam and the Belt & Road Initiative. And, a defense of US NATO force in Ukraine against Russia. By Quinton Mitchell

Updates with everything going on Ukraine

(Updated on 2/15/2022 by author) To me it’s not about war but about courage. Why should the US feel bad for not “living up to its end of the bargain as far as NATO expansion” when Russia hasn’t lived up to its role of being a true democracy. I mean, that’s what the US justifies its wars with right? So, if Russia hasn’t had a legit democracy, then why should America care if former states that were ruled by Russia decide to join NATO? From Russian puppet state in Belarus pumping in refugees to throw Baltic States and Poland off while they engage with NATO. To Russia using psy-ops to infiltrate the US and Western Far Right to cause domestic tensions. To, Russia intervening in Syria to save Assad despite them not holding up their end of the bargain considering Trump bombed Syria on alleged chemical weapons despite Russia promising to remove such weapons when negotiating with John Kerry during the Obama Administration. Or, what about Russia harboring American Neo-Nazis such as Rinaldo Rizzaro, founder of The Base, who has influenced hate crimes in the USA from Moscow. Or, Russia invading Ukraine. In theory Russia was always more of a threat to the US and Europe than Saddam Hussein was in Iraq, even though Saddam tried to price his vast oil reserves outside of the Petrodollar system. There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, yet, when it comes to Russia, the Americans pump the brakes oddly, even though nuclear war is simply off the table. The goal for the US isn’t to invade Russia but rather draw a firm line that their border is their border, and it doesn’t include any nation they used to rule over. such as Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine, Romania, Hungary, etc.

American Republicans despite their constant warmongering against militarily weak nations (often of people of color), are quiet all of a sudden. North Carolina Representative, Madison Cawthorne, admits to having been compromised in Russia while oddly on a honeymoon in Russia (not the best honeymoon, no offense). Supposed libertarians (only libertarian for corporations) such as Rand Paul, went on “diplomatic missions” to Russia for Trump. We all saw Trump’s weak show of leadership with Putin at the Helsinki conference. We’ve seen American hate groups hail Putin as a “savior”. I’m not sure what the GOP’s deal is regarding Russia. Knowing how crazy they can be, such as using religion, etc., maybe the Republicans seen a commonality with Russia for Putin’s “tough guy” antics, let alone the fact that Russia is objectively a “white country” (while they’re totally fine with warmongering with China who of course isn’t white). Maybe, there’s some ties to Israel in the mix, compounding the latent white supremacist and Christian Zionists tropes prevalent in the GOP, considering many Israelis are Russian, thus there’s a natural multinational connection between Russia, Israel, the United State (and, the United Kingdom). With so doubt much about fiascos such as Russia-Gate by both the political-right and the contrarian dovish Left (I’m a Bernie Sander’s supporter by the way), I noticed as an average citizen that many people seem to not acknowledge other threats Russia has done, even if the Russia-Gate Camp failed to acknowledge these. Russia, just like China, in theory are benefiting from American’s since of jadedness and loss of faith in institutions, and this has been further compounded by the COVID-19 paranoia, lockdowns, talking head podcasters, proliferation of conspiracy theories, etc.

The US must engage Russia more head-on-head on by moving troops into Poland and at an extreme into Ukraine because Russia won’t engage in military conflict on mass scale in my opinion.

This fear of nuclear weapons is off the table. The notion of Mutually Assured Destruction is an outdated concept that no one wants or would do, otherwise we would have seen nuclear weapons been used since WW2. But we haven’t. Why didn’t we use them in Afghanistan or Iraq or anywhere else since Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Because, everyone fears them. The fear of nuclear weapons seems more from non-state actors who end up getting a hold of nuclear weapons or technology (such as the ability to use yellow-cake uranium) rather than the threat being from nation-states.

This is a poker match, but fear within the Western consciousness is facing the possibility of folding despite the Kremlin not having all the cards they think they do. Russia already has a launch pad into Europe with Kaliningrad between Poland and Lithuania, but did the US invade that place in response to Crimea? No. Always saying that America is the aggressors is false.

(A) Move troops into Eastern Germany at a minimum, including working with German authorities to curtail the influence of the AfP Party (Alternative for Germany Party which is Far-Right and has fallen victim to Russian psychological warfare campaigns considering Eastern Germany is more poor compared to Western Germany, due to the Cold War, i.e., Easter Germany was Soviet controlled, and this economic disparity has resulted in Far-Right ideology taking hold particularity with the refugee crisis caused by NATO wars), (B) move troops into Poland at a minimum to establish a forward operating positions closer to the Suwalki Gap, where despite Poland’s shift to the Right Wing as of recent, there is still a deep rooted fear of Russian invasion considering Poland was annexed into the former Soviet Union. Continue to court Poland with military assistance and possible economic benefits to better link the Polish economy by way of the EU into the US economy (C) possibly move US NATO troops into Ukraine as a direct stand-off, where it’s my belief that Russia won’t invade if American boots are on the ground. They’ll likely invade if America retreats and continue their silent takeover by courting Russian Ukrainians in the Eastern part of the country, and then (D) use this show of force to negotiate for a hopeful de-escalation of force but the American’s will not nor should not retract its military position.

07a-nato-poland-us-troops-suwalki-gap

Major_russian_gas_pipelines_to_europe

We’re seeing history repeat. In 1234 from 1480, the Mongols (who controlled China) had ruled over the Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian peoples. The Russians figured paying suzerainty to the Mongols was better than possibly facing conquests by the Catholic warrior Teutonic Knights and Livonian Order of the Holy Roman Empire (modern day Germany mostly) who had already set up Crusader States in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, etc. As the Mongols (the Golden Horde) were invading Russia from the East, the Russians met the Western knights at the famous Battle on the Ice in April 1242, where the Russians under Aleksandr Nevsky defeated the Catholic Crusaders. Yet, shortly thereafter, Russia was under the thumb of the Mongols, but this relationship worked out since the Mongols cared only for tribute rather than micro-managing their vassals.

5edf50f315e9f977a61431bc

Russia today is similar in scope with their relationship with China but instead of being a follower to the Mongols of old, simply out of necessity, Russia is in effect a willing tool for China, considering the ruler of Russia (former KBG agent Vladimir Putin) wants to re-expand Russia’s borders to a fairy-tale empire based on the hyper-nationalistic and vehemently anti-West ideology of Eurasianism under thinkers such as Aleksandr Dugin (who has actively courted Far Right personalities in Europe and the United States) as a form of asymmetric warfare (where by proxy, this nexus between the Far Right and Russia fell under the larger umbrella of MAGA politics with Donald Trump). Imagine a world where Russia can’t shut off gas to Europe whenever it wants, and China dominates global supplies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKZPgGbUuX0

Russia is a byproduct of its geography.

It’s centrally located between the West, i.e., Europe, and the Chinese. For most of Russia’s history, as far as early human civilization with peoples of the steppes riding along Central Asia’s wild frontier from Far East to Far West, to the Dark and Middle Ages, and now in current times, Russia has always had crunched in between empires, hence why Russia has a propensity for autocratic centralized authority and hyper-nationalism. One could make the same comparison to Germany of old, where its central location in Central Europe created a natural sense of territorialism, while also a sense of needing to expand constantly outward to acquire land (such as the Medieval conquests of the Western Slavs, Wends, Pomeranian Slavs, etc.).

Russia currently is deeply invested with China and both China and Russia are openly establishing economic partnerships to control Central Asian states, while also courting nations like Iran, which is geo-strategically important by both land (a corridor for the Belt and Road Project) and sea (with the Strait of Harmatz being vital for global oil transportation). This conflict in Ukraine isn’t’ merely the West vs Russia but is passively aggressively about Russian and China vs the US and West. Russia is effectively a proxy of China, or could very well be one, in that if Beijing isn’t happy with the US or NATO, it could easily convince Russia to shut off natural gas to Europe (such as before EU elections to sway the masses), particularly as a strategy if a possible conflict with China were to occur by making the conflict into a two theater campaign by agitating its most western bulkhead by proxy of Russia to sure up its resources for its Eastern (home) defense.

With the current tensions in Ukraine involving a possible Russian invasion as Russia and NATO standoff, it is very important for United States to maintain its current position of power within the world and to show strength with a mixed approach of counter-force mixed with diplomacy, but that counter-force has to be moving US troops into Poland at a minimum, keeping US troops levels in Germany high at a minimum (reversing Trump’s move to withdrawal troops from Germany suspiciously as he faced scrutiny for plausible ties to Russia), and at a maximum moving US troops (or, observers/trainers) into Ukraine. Ironically, the US spent nearly 20 years in Afghanistan not far from both Russia, China, and Iran, yet, that conflict, though making sense to think-tanks who follow the Grand Chessboard Strategy (i.e., controlling Central Asia gives whichever superpower global leverage), the US has in theory already engaged Russia, yet, we didn’t engage them head-to-head, but rather passively through a very expensive war which little to no return-on-investment for US hegemony (if anything it hurt US synergy, unless the secret plan was to weaponize the Taliban all along to make a hostile state towards any encroaching power such as China to the East, Russia to the North or Iran to the South – despite Iran sharing a common Persian language, tribes more Iranian in nature such as the Hazaras are one of many in a diverse country, so a nexus between Iran and Afghanistan is unsure).

It’s not a simple matter of Russia as the sole threat, where critics of escalation with Russia claim Russia’s economy isn’t strong, etc., but it’s a matter of the Sino-Russian relationship that stands at the door of Europe, where every inch they make towards the Atlantic, either directly through military force or indirectly through economic/cultural influence, it means they, i.e., Russia or China is closer to the US. The traditional policy seems to have been to take the war to them rather than to bring it into our hemisphere.

gettyimages-1148267386

Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin shake hands during their meeting at the Grand Kremlin Palace on Wednesday in Moscow. Creator: Mikhail Svetlov Credit: Getty Images

I do support sending US troops in Poland and Ukraine, because it is my personal opinion that Russia won’t act. This is a poker match and the United States for too long has entertained this dragged out match, enabling Putin to bluff, talk, eat, drink, psyche-out, and call (a poker move) consistently, at the expense of the image of the United States and its Western allies. Russia will not invade Ukraine further if the United States fills the void in Poland and Ukraine with its allies. Moving in troops is vital to have diplomatic talks but on America’s terms.

That’s the ultimate thing. Which side are you on?

It’s my feeling that the US should have withdrawn from Afghanistan sooner, despite the crying to think-tank strategists and defense contractors, and instead used those re-mobilized troops to sure up NATO’s eastern bulkhead. I hear people who don’t support America’s boldness in this conflict as being America’s fault, i.e., the West negotiated with Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union to not move NATO closer. But my opinion is, who cares? Especially since in theory Russia didn’t’ hold up their end of the bargain by fostering a true democracy considering Putin has been dictator of Russia for nearly 30 years. We’re talking about a Kremlin regime who has poisoned dissent journalists, thrown political opponents into jail, jailed religious minorities scapegoating them as being intel assets, legalized wife beating, has fostered a policy of “plurality” in relation to the concept of the liberal democracy so Putin could consolidate power with a hyper-nationalistic, monarchist, misogynistic, homophobic, and xenophobic ideology. Why should the West and NATO feel bad about “not living up to their end of the bargain” when Russia hasn’t either? Why would the US feel bad especially with Russian asymmetric warfare has menaced democracies online across the globe?

For pacifist on the US and Western side of the debate, did we forget that Russia already invaded Ukraine. What gives the power to the United States is its military reach spanning dominance of airspace and its global naval fleet able to protect global supply lines, its political allies, it’s influence in global institutions, it’s cultural dynamism (culture, art, expression, mobility, diversity, etc.), and the fact the US greenback is the world’s global currency reserve. Being soft on Putin will be another example of the Americans defaulting to diplomacy after someone encroaches on its global role. Despite, me having progressive sentiments, I am an American and I’m under the impression that for now, we call the shots.

I’m for Russian inclusion into the US West NATO power bloc, however, on our terms. We very well could be friends, but on our terms. By showing force against Russia, this might undermine faith in Putin’s leadership thus causing Russian to try a different path to democracy and diplomacy. Undermining Putin specifically on his most previous tool, his warlike bravado, might cause him to lose control of the oligarchs, while also the people, who do suffer from police abuse, sexual health disease epidemics, unemployment, etc., as they protest the state of daily life in Russia. My gripe is not with the Russian people.

However, despite my theories, we must consider that if the US does show courage and force against already proven Russian force and interference, then China might act more aggressively in Asia particularly with Taiwan and the South China Sea. China has already flexed its muscle by standing with Russia on the Ukraine matter, logically because they want Taiwan back. (End of updated on 2/15/2022)

(Start of Original Posting) This paper will discuss similarities between the real-world Belt and Road Initiative to the forward-thinking speculation of Orson Scott Card. Despite, Card’s personal failings regarding personal comments, there was a lot of humanity and wisdom to be learned within in Ender’s Universe series. Card in the late-nineties and early two-thousands accurately predicted Russian and Chinese joint-efforts, which are now being realized in the Belt and Road Initiative, also known as the New Silk Road Initiative or Project. The city of Rotterdam plays an important role in the plot of Card’s Ender’s Shadow (1999), but the major Port of Rotterdam in real-life plays a central role in the Chinese, Russian, and Eurasian economic ambitions via the Belt and Road Project. Towards the end of this paper, I will also touch upon how Aleksandr Dugin’s Eurasian ideology poses a threat to the United States, Europe, and its allies, and possibly even the everyday Russian citizen. I will also touch upon the psychological operations inspired by the Kremlin which has invaded (noticeably) the West and USA via the Right-Wing movement largely under the top-cover of white-identity politics.

This paper isn’t to indict or discriminate against the Russian people or people of Russian descent, nor is it to marginalize the Orthodox Church. In my view, the Russian people and Orthodox Church have more to lose by being used the far-right, than they do to gain. Russia has a rich culture, history, and liberal tradition in certain cases, and I would assume the average Russian citizen has a lot in common with Americans or Europeans and there’s a desire for true democracy. However, appeasing and tolerating regressive far-right ideologies will not be tolerated and will be called out, especially as try to find credence within American discourse. Another paper will be written exploring Israel’s relationship with China, Russia, and the Belt and Road Project with emphasis on the Jewish Autonomous Oblast of Russia, i.e., Birobidzhan, since Israel has been central – although its understated in the American mainstream media – to the trilateral political intrigues regarding the current Trump administration (Israel via Chabad Lubavitch and other agent groups, Russia, and the USA). Israel has a separate Sino-Russian foreign policy as a possible contingency in case US relations wane in the face of its aggressive Zionist agenda.

According to the Michiel Jak (2018) in a press release for the Port of Rotterdam, ” What does it mean for a deep sea port like Rotterdam – or Shanghai for that matter – to end up at the end of the chain? Right now, Rotterdam serves as the gateway to Europe: the point from where incoming cargo is distributed across the European hinterland. But with the arrival of the ‘Silk Road Railway’, the port will undergo a radical transformation: from gateway to, for a considerable part, final destination.”

Further Jak (2018) states, ” The Chinese government is investing some USD 100 billion per year in the construction of the New Silk Road. Right now, contractors are working on the track itself, but actually the Chinese government has been influencing existing transport routes for the last decade or so via a careful, methodical, step-by-step programme. They have done this by investing heavily in areas between China and Europe. They’re acquiring shares and sites, constructing new infrastructure: motorways, terminals, railways, everything. For example, China has bought Piraeus, a port in Greece – and gained a new gateway to Europe in the process. This development is at the expense of the ports of Rotterdam, Antwerp and Hamburg. “

The book Shadow of the Hegemon first starts off with the depiction of the City of Rotterdam overran by abandoned street children who are struggling to survive. The children are forced to live in gangs to survive such as gathering food but also avoid sexual predators. The Netherlands in this story is just one of the nations of an international political body, i.e., a United Nations type of world government that created in response to attacks from an alien enemy (yet, this science fiction trapping shouldn’t distract from this paper).

“There was plenty of danger to watch for. The cops for instance. They didn’t show up often but when they did they seemed especially bent on clearing the streets of children. They would flail about them with their magnetic whips, landing cruel stinging blows on even the smallest of children, haranguing them as vermin, thieves, pestilence, a plague on the fair city of Rotterdam.” (Shadow of the Hegemon, Card, p. 8)

“A couple of twelve-year-old hookers who didn’t usually work this strip rounded a corner, heading toward Poke’s base. She gave a low whistle. The kids immediately drifted apart, staying on the street but trying not to look like a crew. It didn’t help. The hookers knew already that Poke was a crew boss, and sure enough, they caught her by the arms and slammer her against a wall and demanded their “permission” fee. Poke knew better than to claim she had nothing to share – she always tried to keep a reserve in order to placate hungry bullies. These hookers, Poke could see why their hungry. They didn’t look like what the pedophiles wanted, when they came cruising through. They were too gaunt, too old-looking. So until they grew bodies and started attracting the slightly-less-perverted trade, they had to resort to scavenging” (Shadow of the Hegemon, Card. p. 10)

The character Poke is the female lead of a street crew of desperate kids. She has to fight off bullies, predators, etc. She eventually discovers a street kid named Bean, who shows high intelligence, but Bean has to earn his way into the crew. Bean would go on to be the central character to this book and sequels such as Shadow of the Hegemon. Shadow insinuates in the shadows of Ender Wiggins, the hero of the franchise. Bean has a genetically engineered intelligence (that comes at a price as revealed in the series) who can match Ender Wiggins.

“Normally she wouldn’t have paid him more than passing attention. But this one had eyes. He was still looking around with intelligence. None of that stupor of the walking dead, no longer searching for food or even caring to find a comfortable place to lie while breathing their last taste of the stinking air of Rotterdam. After all, death would not be such a change for them. Everyone knew that Rotterdam was, if not the capital, then the main seaport of Hell. The only difference between Rotterdam and death was that with Rotterdam, the damnation wasn’t eternal.” (Shadow of the Hegemon, Card, p. 9)

A map from Zbigniew Brzezinski’s The Grand Chessboard

Bruce Barnard (2015), a special corespondent, stated, “The port of Rotterdam has established a strategic partnership with the Bank of China focused mainly on Beijing’s “Belt and Road” strategy to boost trade links with Europe.”. Further, Barnard (2015) states, “The initiative, formerly known as “One Belt, One Road,” already has roughly $50 billion in backing. The initiative add up to $2.5 trillion in trade to China over the next decade, according to a Kuehne + Nagle analysis.”

Nadège Rolland, a Senior Fellow for Political and Security Affairs at the National Bureau of Asian Research, published an article for the International Institute of Strategic Studies, titled, A China–Russia Condominium over Eurasia: China and Russia share similar views of what a future Eurasian order should look like.

Rolland (2019) states, ” For the moment, however, the evidence points to an increasingly deep condominium between the two powers. French writer Antoine de Saint-Exupéry said that ‘love does not consist in looking at one another, but in looking together in the same direction’. China and Russia are certainly looking together in the same direction with equal yearning towards Eurasia. Both powers perceive the Western presence on opposite sides of the Eurasian landmass – US alliances and presence in East Asia for China; NATO and the European Union’s normative power for Russia – as threatening to contain and ultimately undermine them. Both continental powers consider Eurasia their strategic backyard, and both have launched ambitious initiatives to strengthen their influence over the region: the Eurasian Economic Union and the Greater Eurasian Partnership for Russia, the Silk Road Economic Belt – the land component of the Belt and Road Initiative – for China. But their common focus does not mean they are necessarily competing against each other in this vast continental space. Rather, China and Russia share similar concerns about Eurasia’s political stability and security, and similar overall objectives regarding what a future regional order should look like. ”

Further, Rolland (2019) states, “With the EAEU integration process already under way, a group of Russian experts led by Sergei Karaganov gathered under the aegis of the Valdai Club (most probably on commission from the Russian government)5 to brainstorm about further options for Eurasia’s integration. In April 2015, the group published a report entitled ‘Towards the Great Ocean’ that advocated the transformation of Eurasia into a Sino-Russian zone of joint development. During a visit that month to the China Institute of International Studies (CIIS),6 Karaganov announced that his ‘Greater Eurasia’ plan had been submitted to Russian President Vladimir Putin.7 He apparently liked the idea: at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum held in June 2016, Putin proposed building a ‘Greater Eurasian Partnership’ (GEP) that would include the EAEU and Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) countries, in addition to China, India, Pakistan and Iran. “

SOURCE: Mercator Institute of Chinese Studies located at https://www.merics.org/en/bri-tracker/mapping-the-belt-and-road-initiative

The information provided by Rolland (2019) speaks echoes by relating to the thesis of Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book, The Grand Chess Board: American Primacy and its Geopolitical Imperatives, but the Sino-Russian relationship is referenced by Card in his books Shadow of the Hegemon and Ender’s Shadow.

Brzezinski (1997) argues that American foreign policy must remain concerned with the geopolitical dimension and must employ its influence in Eurasia in a manner that creates a stable continental equilibrium, with the United States as the political arbiter (p. xiv), and, the ultimate objective of American policy should be benign and visionary: to shape a truly cooperative global community, in keeping with long-range trends and with the fundamental interests of humankind (p. xiv).

“Potentially, the most dangerous scenario would be a grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran, an “antihegemonic” coalition united not by ideology but by complementary grievances. It would be reminiscent in scale and scope of the challenge once posed by the Sino-Soviet bloc, though this time China would likely be the leader and Russia the follower” (Brzezinski, p. 55). This relates to Rolland (2019) who stated that Vladimir Putin liked the idea of Sino-Russian participation in the dealing with treating Eurasia as a common economic zone that would also possibly include Iran.

However, Iran and Islamic nations might pose a threat to Sino-Soviet relations regarding Eurasia which is largely Muslim. Despite, the USA being at hegemonic odds with China and Russia, the one thing that all can agree upon, including Israel (which has trilateral relations with all three powers), is the “Muslim problem”. Since Iran is the last remaining Muslim independent nation outside of the control of the powers, it seems that if Iran is ever attacked that all three parties would agree on force. Yet, if the Americans were to take out Iran, it might tip the scale of power more to the Sino-Russian sphere of influence. The US military’s exercise of force in the Middle East was a projection of US capabilities, yet, it was costly for the American Empire and gave rise to asymmetric warfare, i.e., terrorism, both within the Middle East and through blow-back within the American and European homeland. It might be wise for the Americans to continue peaceful diplomacy with Iran as a hedge against Sino-Russian power which will only be increased by the integration of the Belt and Road project. Yet, Iran understands this and seems to have positioned itself into a position akin to Turkey, who can play both East and West off each other. Regardless, Iran is within the economic and political ambitions of Russia and China, so it is best that the Americans hedge this, such as potentially reactivating a reformed version of the Iran Nuclear Deal, meeting with Iranian diplomats for democratic reforms (if US conservatives try to block this, then simply remind them of Trump’s direct face-to-face talks with North Korea and Russia), etc.

George M. Young (2012) in his book, The Russian Cosmists: the Esoteric Futurism of Nikolai Fedorov and his followers, studies the esoteric elements, especially those relating to Aleksandr Dugin, regarding Russia’s view on Iran, which as stated in this paper, according to Rolland (2019) is being considered within the Greater Eurasian Partnership’ (GEP) that would include the EAEU and Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) countries, in addition to China, India, Pakistan and Iran.

41TXcq4+EtL._SX313_BO1,204,203,200_

“George Vendasky, for example, sees Russian pre-Christian pagan religion as a development from both Zoroastrianism and Mithraism. And Aleksandr Dugin and other current Russian neo-Eurasianists and neo-nationalists point to ancient Russia’s religious and cultural kinship with ancient Iran to support their calls for a new Russo-Iranian Eurasian continental alliance to counter NATO power and culture”. (Young, p. 83)

Young (2012) mentions Lev Gumilev (1912-1992), a Neo-Eurasianist, “In recent times, Gumilev’s theories have proved especially useful to Russian neonationalists, neo-Eurasianists and other with an anti-Western, anti-Atlanticist political bias, the most prominent of whom is the ideologist, Alexander Dugin – and, some might add, Vladimir Putin.” (Young, p. 228)

“Fedorov viewed Russian culture as a continuation of ancient Aryan Iran, a combination of Eastern and Western principles, struggling against a hostile natural environment, wary of Greco-Roman power to the west and Turan to the East. Similarly, Gumilev views Russia as an absorber and continuation of the great steppe powers of ancient Eurasia, different from and strong than both Western Europe and eastern Asia. For Gumilev, the Mongol invasion by Genghis Khan was not a curse but a blessing for Russia, saving the entire Eurasian heartland from the aggressive clutches of the Catholic West, then presented by Poland and the Baltic Teutonic Knights. Under the khans, Russian Orthodox spirituality was tolerated and allowed to mature, whereas medieval Orthodox spirituality would’ve been crushed under the heels of Teutonic Knights, and the Eurasian heartland would eventually have become simply an extended version of the European spiritual and political battleground of Catholics versus Protestants.” (p. 227-228, para. 3)

The last quote by Young (2012) relating to Gumilev is telling in that Russian nationalists see Chinese partnership as more vital to Russian ethnic identity/political power than Russian appeasement or inclusion with the West. Russia sees itself as culturally incompatible with the West which is traditionally based on the Western Catholic Rite and Protestantism, and felt that vassalage to the Asian Mongols, i.e., Chinese, was better for Russian solidarity. This concept relates to Aleksandr Dugin’s Eurasianism ideology that wants Eurasian solidarity against the West as an anti-NATO land power able exercise economic sanction power (such as shutting off natural gas lines,e.g. Nordstream and power-grids, or possibly imposing tariffs on products), and Dugin uses esoteric ideology such as that of a common Aryan and Indo-European heritage of Central Asia to “spruce” up this idea.

Yet, Brzezinski (1997) describes the inherent instability of Russia in trying to control Muslim lands. “Finally, within the Soviet Union itself, the 50 percent of the population that was non-Russian eventually rejected Moscow’s domination. The gradual political awakening of the non-Russians meant that Ukrainians, Georgians, Armenians, and Azeris began to view Soviet power as a form of alien imperial domination by people they did not feel culturally inferior” (Brzezinski, p. 9).

This statement by Brzezinski (1997), echoes in Card’s fiction with the statement, “Indeed, the only force that stood firm against China and Russia while facing them across heavily defended borders were the Muslim nations. Iran generously forgot how threateningly Pakistani troops had loom along their borders in the month before India’s fall, and Arabs joined with Turks in Muslim solidarity against any Russian encroachment across the Caucus into the vast steppes of central Asia. No one seriously thought that Muslim military might could stand for long against a serious attack from China, and Russia was only scarcely less dangerous, but the Muslims laid aside their grievances, trusted in Allah, and kept their bodies bristling with the warning that this nestle would be hard to grasp.” (Shadow of the Hegemon, Card, p. 428-429, para. 4)

Now, I will go back to the works of Orson Scott Card regarding his reference to Rotterdam, which as we can see in real-life is being integrated into the Belt-and Road Project, and this project increases the Sino-Russian sphere of influence within the Western (European, American, and its auxiliaries) sphere of influence.

“What Bean saw as the driving force of history, however, was the resurgent Russian Empire. Where the Chinese simply took for granted that they were and should be the center of the universe, the Russians, led by a series of ambitious demagogues and authoritarian generals, felt that history had cheated them out of their rightful place, century after century, and it was time for that to end” (Ender’s Shadow, Card, p. 400, para. 2)

“It was Russia that forced the creation of the of the New Warsaw Pact, bringing its effective borders back to the peak of Soviet power – and beyond, for this Greece was its ally, and an intimidated Turkey was neutralized. Europe was on the verge of being neutralized, the Russian dram of hegemony from Pacific to the Atlantic at last within reach” (Ender’s Shadow, Card, p. 400, para. 2)

“For along with their national vigor, the Russians had also nurtured their astonishing talent for misgovernment, that sense of personal entitlement that made corruption a way of life. The institutional tradition of competence that would be essential for a successful world government was nonexistent. It was in China that those institutions and value were most vigorous. But even China would be a poor substitute for a genuine world government that transcended any national interest. The wrong world government would eventually collapse under its own weight” (Ender’s Shadow, Card, p. 401, para. 6)

“As if this vat redrawing of the world’s map were not enough, Russia announced that it had joined China as its ally, and that it considered the nations of eastern Europe that were not loyal members of the New Warsaw Pact to be provinces in rebellion. Without firing a shot, Russia was able, simply by promising not to be as dreadful an overlord as China, to rewrite the Warsaw Pact until it was more or less the constitution of an empire that included all of Europe east of Germany, Austria, and Italy in the south, and east of Sweden and Norway in the north” (Shadow of the Hegemon, Card, p. 428, para. 2)

“The weary nations of western Europe were quick to “welcome” and “discipline” that Russia would bring to Europe, and Russia was immediately given full membership in the European Community. Because Russia now controlled the votes of more than half the members of that community, it would require constant tug of war to keep some semblance of independence, and rather than play that game, Great Britain, Ireland, Iceland, and Portugal left the European Community. But even they took great pains to assure the Russian bear that this was purely over economic issues and they really welcomed this renewed Russian interest in the West” (Shadow of the Hegemon, Card, p. 428)

Before I end this, I want to stress that the Alt-Right is actually an internal threat to both Western conservatism and liberalism (in the modern sense). Many of its followers are being used in ways beyond their comprehension. It is the Trojan Horse for Russian and thus Sino-Russian influence to destabilize the West and United States.

It is important to note that Dugin was a member of Neo-Bolshevik Party, a syncretic party that synthesized elements of both the far-right and far-left, e.g., National Socialism such as that of the Nazis, which was later dissolved and became absorbed with the Other Russia Party, which is a left-wing but nationalist party. The slogan of Other Russia is “Russia is everything, the rest is nothing!” and “Nation! Homeland! Socialism!”. Yet, Dugin would later go to the Eurasia Party, which is far right, though it shares many nationalist, anti-Western, and authoritarian characteristics to that of the Neo-Bolshevik Party. According Dugin’s Wikipedia page, Dugin’s book The Basics of Geopolitics (1997): “The new Eurasian empire will be constructed on the fundamental principle of the common enemy: the rejection of Atlanticism, strategic control of the USA, and the refusal to allow liberal values to dominate us. This common civilizational impulse will be the basis of a political and strategic union”.

Yet, what are liberal values? In modern discourse we ascribe liberalism to progressive, the political left, the Democratic Party, etc. Yet, liberalism is the overarching political school of though in which both Western conservatives and liberals are descended. Liberalism is the Enlightenment-based political ideology, that varies from liberal nation to liberal nation which espouses the rights of individual man; inalienable rights; the pursuit of happiness; freedoms of speech; freedoms of religion; taxation only with representation; an armed citizenry;  property rights, legal systems strongly based on common law systems, though civil law systems such as those in Europe are included, and pluralism. Pluralism is vital because it is essentially the ability to agree to disagree, which a core tenant which facilitates and supports free speech. Modern conservatives, liberals, libertarians, and Marxists all have roots in liberalism.

7D5VQ4DZY6NV2PQ42OVJIZZKMU

Sources of above photo: https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/alex-jones-praised-hero-pro-putin-commentator-article-1.2943294

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uSuwYcqSsY&t=241s

Dugin’s anti-liberalism by way of Bolshevism to me relates to the phenomena of monarchism within the Alt-Right. Pro-Russian mouthpieces such as Orthodox convert, Jay Dyer of Jay’s Analysis, who interviewed Dugin and has made many comments stating his agreement with Alt-Right figures, is a Traditionalist and Monarchist. The Alt-Right movement of the West and United States has been highly influenced by online psychological operations such as Alex Jones’ InfoWars (platformed by Joe Rogan and Jones ironically has links to the DisInformation Company of Richard Metzger who produced his film End Game); Richard Spencer had a Russian wife known as Nina Kouprianova; Lauren Southern interviewed Dugin in Russia and she worked for Rebel Media owned by Jewish businessman, Ezra Levant. Levant was held as responsible for organizing the Charlottesville Unite the Right Rally; and Red Ice TV which was co-founded by Laura Lokteff who is of Russian descent and identities as pagan, which relates to the Hyperborean movement of the Russian Cosmists subgenre as detailed in Young’s (2012) book.

Aleksandr Dugin with a radical sect of Orthodox followers. White Supremacist, Richard Spencer with his now ex-wife, of Russian decent, Nina Kouprianova. White Nationalist and pagan, Lana Lokteff of RedIce TV. She claims Russian ancestry. There is intersectionality between concepts such as the Alt-Right, MAGA, Russia, Orthodoxy, anti-West or anti-liberal conspiracy theorists, traditionalist and monarchist movements, Bolshevism, and libertarian, etc. The “Trojan Horse” tactic into the West is multi-faceted and in the USA has infiltrated the Christian Right with its proclivity for libertarian politics or “3rd or 4th” positions found in the Alt-Right. Yet, Russian infiltration has also been “above ground” such as real estate schemes such as those with Donald Trump, the Russian Mob and Russian Jewish Mob, lobbying, Youtube podcasters such as Jay Dyer, Alex Jones, RedIce TV, and even a softening from the dovish left. The American government’s mishandling of of the Russia-Gate situation, also softened the reality of Russian infiltration into American life, thus endangering citizens to the reality of a new type of coded white supremacy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pbP5e5YyW4&t=15s

For example, Putin and Dugin are Totalitarian Communists (not to be confused with socialism) despite them branding their ideology with concepts spanning the spectrum as the far-right, nationalism, Orthodox traditionalism, Indo-Aryan paganism, and even monarchist sentiments. This right-wing glossing of their “crypto-communism” appeals to white supremacy which sees itself under threat. I support this statement with Young’s (2012) statement on Pavel Florensky (1882-1937), “To some degree, Florensky believe that the Communist future could possibly (but not necessarily) lead to a revival of medieval objectivism, collectivism, and constructive vision, and a turning from illusory individualism and self-destructive atomization that had characterized pre-revolutionary modernity” (p.124, Young, The Russian Cosmists). Hence, Monarchism, which is seen as an alternative political model within the Far-Right can be a cover for communism. In theory, communism, fascism, and monarchism share similar characteristics such as the promotion of an autocrat, the collective over the individual, central directives or edicts dictating the economy, and state monopoly of force. Monarchism just adds a level of regalia, religion, and ethnicity to the forefront. Liberalism isn’t incompatible with religion, but rather it separates church from state.

White supremacist, Lauren Southern posing it Russian attire and with Aleksandr Dugin. Conspiracy theorist, Jay Dyer helped platform Dugin and he can also be seen in Soviet attire. His conspiracy theory rarely analyzes Russia in any true objective capacity.

Liberalism isn’t dead. Liberalism isn’t wrong. It’s just a complicated system to balance. It’s like a body of interlocking systems, e.g., endocrine system, neurological system, immune system, digestive system, etc., so it can be easily manipulated or “sickened” by foreign agents, but also poor decision making of the self. There’s inherent sickness within American democracy which foreign agents know they can exploit.

These include, White supremacy, racial self-determination of historically marginalized groups, the inability to reach reconciliation between white majorities and minorities (ironically due to the commercialization of race within the American capitalist system where culture is argued as intellectual property and sharing is seen as appropriation) – this is both the fault of the political left and political right, but also national cultures have shifted to the promotion of a cynical, hyper-aware, and ironic culture of low-art material fetishism, where universal “beyond differences” concepts are no longer sacred (marriage, childbearing, civic duty, etc.). Yet, these topics can be fixed and worked on with time. It’s not that liberalism is dead, but rather we’ve become too individualistic, tribal, but also materialistic, and have usurped a sense of “spiritual attachment” and historical preservation of ideas such as a Americana. There is no crime in being white, black, Asian, Hispanic, multiracial, etc., but for liberalism to survive and not be manipulated by foreign agents and their domestic proxies, we need put a sense of humanity back into American and Western culture. This can be an inclusive process that posits unity over tribalism, yet it can be done in a way that venerates marginalized groups without tapping into majority white fears. This will take a process of self-reflection of all peoples but also listening to the experiences of others. We can also deal with issues such as the power of corporations, the constitutionality of the spy-state, and the power of political lobbyist and technocrats.

Brzezinski (1997) pays tribute to American liberalism but also offers a warning if decadence goes too far. “The American emphasis on political democracy and economic development thus combines to convey a simple ideological message that appeals to many: the quest for individual success enhances freedom while generating wealth. The resulting blend of idealism and egoism is a potent combination” (p. 26-27). However, he provided a warning by showing an example of Western European social democracies, by stating, “The crisis of political legitimacy and economic vitality that Western Europe increasingly confronts – but is unable to overcome – is deeply rooted in the pervasive expansion of the state-sponsored social structure that favors paternalism, protectionism, and parochialism. The result is a cultural condition that combines escapist hedonism with spiritual emptiness – a condition that can exploited by nationalist extremists or dogmatic ideologues”. The nationalist extremists are the Alt-Right and Far-Right, and the dogmatic ideologues seem to denote the political realities of Trump, i.e., Caesarism.

A picture from Zbigniew Brzezinski’s The Grand Chessboard

References:

Barnard, B. (2015, October 30). Rotterdam partners with Bank of China to tap ‘Belt and Road’ push. Retrieved December 25, 2019, from https://www.joc.com/port-news/european-ports/port-rotterdam/rotterdam-partners-bank-china-tap-belt-and-road-push_20151030.html.

Brzeziński, Z. (1997). The grand chessboard: American primacy and its geostrategic imperatives. New York: Basic Books.

Card, O. S. (2001). Shadow of the Hegemon. New York: Tor.

Card, O. S. (1999). Enders Shadow. New York: Tor.

Jak, M. (2018, February 27). New Silk Road calls for Rotterdam to take on a directing role. Retrieved December 25, 2019, from https://www.portofrotterdam.com/en/news-and-press-releases/new-silk-road-calls-for-rotterdam-to-take-on-a-directing-role.

Rolland, N. (2019) A China–Russia Condominium over Eurasia: China and Russia share similar views of what a future Eurasian order should look like. International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS), 61(1), 7–22. Retrieved from https://www.iiss.org/publications/survival/2019/survival-global-politics-and-strategy-februarymarch-2019/611-02-rolland

Young, G. M. (2012). The Russian cosmists: the esoteric futurism of Nikolai Fedorov and his followers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mitchell Research Group

(Updated on 2/15/2022 by author) To me it’s not about war but about courage. Why should the US feel bad for not “living up to its end of the bargain as far as NATO expansion” when Russia hasn’t lived up to its role of being a true democracy. I mean, that’s what the US justifies its wars with right? So, if Russia hasn’t had a legit democracy they whey should America care if former states that were ruled by Russia decide to join NATO? From Russian puppet state pumping in refugees to throw Baltic States and Poland off while they engage with NATO. To Russia using psy-ops to infiltrate the US and Western Far Right to cause domestic tensions. To, Russia intervening in Syria to save Assad despite them not holding up their end of the bargain considering Trump bombed Syria on alleged chemical weapons despite Russia promising to remove…

View original post 6,905 more words

Kim Iversen. We don’t need another “Woke, Con-Spiritualist, Gen X Libertarian”. White Supremacy apologetics, Anti-Vax Paranoia, etc., by Quinton Mitchell

She’s not a horrible person, but I don’t get much from her opinions and they seem highly biased, reactionary, reactionary, and not reasearched that well. I think she has learning to do on issues, but she has a platform to spread her “contrarian” ideas to the masses and add to the paranoia that’s already out there. You hear the word shill a lot online, and in many ways despite her seeming “against the man”, I think she’s only libertarian as a rebuttal to progressive politics so conservatism can be sustained without verbally admitting it, yet, her Fruedian slips in her Tweets reveals a lot of where she is coming from.

Idaho, where Kim is from, is a lovely state with its own unique albeit small progressive elements, but hearing Kim Iversen talk it reminds me of a conservative person from Idaho who really didn’t grow up around a lot of diversity despite her having family who are Asian. Yet, she was indoctrinated within a largely white environment – which isn’t bad – yet, that can shape a person’s biases similarly to if it were the opposite. Put it this way, I’m sure many Right Wingers love her, despite her coming off as “progressive”. I feel she is closeted cheerleader for white supremacy without even realizing it because she equates the talks around white supremacy as being hostile towards white people but fails to get its a conversation about a system.

This take by Kim Iversen and Joe Rogan…is stupid. I’m sorry, it’s stupid. White Supremacists can’t be threats because they…wear khakis? Kim is so paranoid that white people will be “criminalized” that she’ll actually downplay people in a movement that has done violence in the USA such as terrorism.
Another goofball take by Kim. So liberals are leaving supposedly. OK. But Ryan Grim rebuts her claim by saying liberals are moving to liberal areas and her best comeback is “well, they’re not the same sort of Demcrats”. Oh really, can you elaborate more? She also doesn’t address the larger reasons behind the housing crisis such as the Federal Reserve’s easy money policy making home prices soar, innovations in online homebuying making home buying faster, etc.

I’m glad that Kim Iversen runs her mouth. Seriously. She could easily slip away as another innocuous ambiguous newscaster, yet, by her talking and her Tweeting, her true biases, thought process, and beliefs become more apparent.

See exhibits below….

.
She can’t understand why people are mad that a vigilante went to a protests which resulted in two deaths? She doesn’t get the symbolic nature of the case considering it was a BLM protests but Kyle being acquitted is a form of the state scaring people to not protests etc.

Forward: Before I get into the article, I want to write a quick list of white supremacists hate crimes, since it seems Kim Iverson is skeptical that white supremacy is a threat, largely since she feels doing anything about it would violate some sort of libertarian principle. But I’m not sure if she’s a libertarian necessarily, and could simply be a free thinker, yet her segments on Rising by The Hill to me have been helping to stoke a sense of mistrust, conspiracy, and even apologetics for right wing ideology.

After I wrote this, it struck me that Kim Iversen is following in the tradition of former MTV VJ, Kennedy, and MTV contributor, Kurt Loder, who are both libertarians. Yet, Kim’s style on her show, Rising by The Hill, seems to be picking up notes from Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, i.e., opining in real time, firmly anchored by a bias, rather than giving in-depth analysis of the issues she’s talking about and with nuance. Kim Iversen seems like a decent person. She’s continuously worked and built a career for herself, and that is commendable. However, I notice that she seems flat-footed when it comes to having a good pulse of what’s going on, and in many ways, I think her upbringing has left her a bit ignorant or unable to understand nuance on many issues, such as those relating to race. Her politics are all over the place, which isn’t problematic in and of itself, but discerning what Iversen believes is task. To me, she’s ultimately a “progressive Republican” with a tendency of spreading paranoid energy, and seems strongly influenced by her upbringing in Idaho, but she takes the “hip position” of being a libertarian (without stating it publicly), meaning she’s really nothing more than a Republican. As she decries the tyranny of the state, her political position ends up being nothing more than apologetics for Republican politics. She can be the most progressive conservative pundit on YouTube if she wants, but in reality, the Republican Party doesn’t care about any of her “progressive ideas”, yet she continuously muckrakes the Democratic Party – a party, which of course, can be embarrassing and counter-productive, but still the Democratic Party gives more people across the country, regardless of background, a sense of belonging (as opposed to the monolithic politics of the GOP).

White Supremacist Violence and/or Mass Shootings by White Suspects Crimes:

Payton S. Gendron (10 kills in Buffalo NY). Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols (168 Kills and 680 wounded). Dylan Roof (9 Kills at a church in Charleston, SC). Stephen Paddock (60 Kills and 411 wounded). Eric Rudolph (1 Killed and 111 injured at the Atlanta Olympics). James Huberty (21 Kills and 19 wounded at McDonalds during San Ysidro Massacre in 1984). Devin Kelley (26 Kills and 22 wounded at the Southerland Church Shootings in TX). Robert Long (8 Kills and 1 Wounded in Atlanta). Dimitrios Pagourtzis (10 Kills and 14 wounded at Santa Fe HS in Texas who was found with Nazi and Soviet regalia). Brenton Tarrant (51 Kills and 40 injured at a mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand). Buford Furrow Jr. (1 Kill and 5 wounded at a LA Jewish Day Care). John King, Lawrence Brewer, Shawn Berry (1 Kill of James Byrd Jr who was decapitated by being dragged by a truck in Jasper, TX). Frazier Glenn Miller (3 Kills at a Jewish Synagogue in Kansas). Robert Bowers (11 Kills and 7 wounded at a Jewish Synagogue in Pittsburgh). Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (15 Kills and 17 wounded at Columbine HS, where the sole black victim was called the N-word before being shot while calling for his mother). James Harris Jackson (1 Kill with a sword of a black homeless man collecting cans in New York City, NY). Jeremy Joseph Christian (2 Killed and 1 Wounded in Portland OR). James Alex Fields (1 Killed by car and 35 wounded in Charlottesville. Trump supporter). John Earnest (1 Killed and 3 Wounded at Poway Synagogue). Gregory Bush (2 Killed in Jefferson Town KY). Kenneth Murray “Death” Mieske, Kyle Brewster, and Steve Strasser (1 Killed by baseball bat beating. Mulugeta Seraw was beated by Neo Nazis of W.A.R. in 1988 in Portland, Oregon. Brewster was found fighting alongside Proud Boys in Oregon in 2021). Jonathan Russell Kennedy (1 Murder and two attempted murders in Huntington Beach, CA, 1994). Erik R. Anderson (1 Fatal Stabbing of Native American, George Mondragon in 1996 in Huntington Beach, CA). Samuel Woodward (1 Kill of Ben Bernstein in Lake Forest, CA).

Intro in Kim Iversen’s Questionable Analysis on Ethan Crumbley and the Patriot Front March

There’s some controversy around Kim Iversen. I don’t hate her, and I will try to put her into context. Yet, she is quite a mystery. For a public figure she doesn’t have a Wikipedia page, not even a locked account that prevents public edits. Basic Google searches pulls up some information but not much about her background.

I don’t think she’s an evil person and I feel she’s fairly interested in the topics she speaks on. Yet, the controversy around Kim has been going on for a while but it really came to fruition with her “interesting” take of Oxford High School mass shooter, Ethan Crumbley. According to Kim, the reason the Sun publication showed an angelic photo of the mass shooter was because the media was trying to make it seem like all innocent white Christian males appear to be terrorists. She didn’t really miss the point as to why people were disappointed at the photo of Crumbley, in that she acknowledged that when people of color are shown in the media they are often depicted with the worst imagery, yet, Kim decided to be a contrarian for the sake of being one, by spinning as if showing an innocent photo of Crumbley was another attempt to “demonize” white males.

Honestly, it caught everyone off guard and left people scratching their heads. It is as if when progress about fair coverage relating race is happening, she felt she had to insert a contrarian opinion for the simple sake of doing so, which could be authentic, or could be for money reasons, i.e., it’s her job, but when you see her Twitter account response to criticism she doubled down on her defense of white Christian males (which makes sense considering she was raised in white society and has a white father and family members).

Traditionally, black people for example were always stigmatized via the media (something that Kim Iversen has acknowledged), e.g., just peek at George H.W. Bush’s campaign ad referring to Willie Horton. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUxAMG8UqIw

Yet, even if we can all agree that racialized news coverage is bad, the fact that white supremacy is being analyzed seriously seems to have many people feeling uncomfortable, either out of fear of being unfairly associated with the movement, some who are angry that they feel black crime rates are displayed (despite has already stated there’s historical use of stats when referring to black people), or some people are living with a sense of false consciousness, in that America is largely based on white supremacy and people are naturally wired to act as if it doesn’t exists because that defies a certain set of morals mythologized within American culture such as “we are all individuals” or “all people are equal”, when in fact, many groups are not treated equally.  Talking about and combating white supremacy isn’t anti-white, where certainly in the past talking about black crime was anti-black considering the U.S has an explicit anti-black history.

The backlash to speaking about white supremacy comes from fear, in which there’s an inherent fear centering around reprisal, which is ironic because if people are terrified for reprisal (which isn’t or won’t happen), what they’re admitting is that in the past they used similar tactics to make minorities live in fear. Basically, their unfounded fear of reprisal is based on them understanding the horrible past of this nation. If logic were to persist, if white supremacy is not a thing, then why are there so many people eager to point out black crime statistics? If America wasn’t built on racism, then why do so many white people fear “reverse racism”?

If we were to isolate this take by Kim on Ethan Crumbley, sure, OK, we can leave it as an “agree to disagree, but really disagree” moment. Yet, just a few days later Kim Iversen on her Rising program by The Hill released a segment titled, “Kim Iversen: Joe Rogan Calls BS on Patriot Front March, Is the Group Backed by Feds?”, published on 9 December 2021, which when accessed by me on 13 December 2021, amounted a total of 512,000+ views. In this segment it is important to notice that Kim is strategically positioned in the segment in the middle of her two co-hosts, meaning she is the focal point of the video and steering the conversation. In the video, she referenced a Joe Rogan segment, featuring Matt Taibbi (Episode 1745), in which Joe calls into question a recent march of white supremacists called Patriot March that occurred in late November 2021 in Washington, D.C. Joe claims that because they’re “in shape”, and wearing the same clothes, etc., that they look like the Feds. Joe does state jokingly that he’s an unreliable source because he’s a comedian (which is interesting because if that’s the case they why take you seriously anytime?), but still double downs on the fact that they can’t be white supremacist because…they have drums, and they have Khakis?

Kim event got the leader of Patriot Front’s age wrong by claiming he’s eighteen years old (I’m assuming she read an article from 2017) but is about 23 or 24 years older having been born in 1998 according to the Southern Poverty Law Center (2021). Further, Kim if she just read a little more into this or at least provided more context for her audience, she would have discovered that Patriot Front has ties to the Daily Stormer, being one of the most popular white supremacist websites. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center (2021), “On November 3, 2017, roughly 30 members of Patriot Front marched through the University of Texas at Austin to the campus’s George Washington statue where Rousseau delivered a torchlit speech. The following day, Patriot Front members convened at Austin’s Monkeywrench Books with members of Daily Stormer and The Right Stuff meet-up groups for a flash demonstration.”

The fact that Patriot Front employs Flash Demonstrations seems to more evidence to detract from the idea that the November 2021 march was a Federal Law operation.

“The origins of Patriot Front lie in neo-Nazi organizing that began in 2015 at the message board IronMarch.org, itself an outgrowth of the community of dedicated fascists who commented at online forums such as 4chan and Stormfront, and allegedly founded by Russian nationalist Alexander Slavros. IronMarch in turn spun off the activist group AtomWaffen (German for “Atomic Bomb”) Division, whose members engaged in various far-right actions earlier this year.” (Southern Poverty Law Center, 2021). Lastly, Southern Poverty Law Center (2021) stated, “After an AtomWaffen member in Florida shot and killed two other members in May 2017, telling authorities the group was planning to blow up a nuclear plant, a number of AtomWaffen participants joined ranks with Vanguard America.”

Relating to Alexandr Slavros stated within the Southern Poverty Law Center (2021) article about Patriot Front, I find it interesting that Matt Taibbi being Russian (which is not a crime, and I don’t want to promote Russophobia) spoke against the Russia-Gate situation during the Trump Administration. I can understand and accept that the case was likely fraudulent, yet, it wasn’t entirely fraudulent in my opinion. My opinion, is that Russia-Gate took facts, omitted some facts, and conflated others in order to check the balance of power of Trump who did display a sense of being imbalanced himself, and also threatening to unravel US foreign policy especially with Russia whom he and others in his administration such as Rex Tillerson of Exxon Mobil and Michael Flynn had relations with. It was a flex of power not only to the Trump Administration who were creating their own unauthorized foreign policy, but it was a sign to leaders abroad, like Vladimir Putin, that the US State will go to about any means to protect our democracy from foreign influence.

Taibbi and other commentors such as Michael Blumenthal and Andrew Mate of The Grey Zone, rallied against Russia-Gate, but nowhere to my knowledge did they or have they admitted that Russia was providing online Far Right propaganda which influenced the Alt-Right which therefore fell under the tent camp strategy of Steve Bannon and Donald Trump. The only sort of Far-Right ideology spoken about by members of the Grey Zone often revolves around the Azimov Battalion in Ukraine, who were revealed to have received US military financing against Russia. In essence, Taibbi and others will call out Eastern European fascism and Nazism when it comes from a US ally to discredit US foreign policy, yet they remain silent on Russian Far Right ideology such as the popularity of thinkers like Aleksandr Dugin who provided essential literature for many in the Alt Right (alongside the writings of thinkers like Julius Evola). Taibbi and others effectively “threw out the baby with the bathwater” as an analogy. Yet, the US government has endangered the US public with Russia-Gate because they didn’t focus hard enough on the far-right ideology actually coming into the USA and West, but rather appropriate facts for their own Machiavellian politics.

Yet, back to Iverson, after showing the Joe Rogan segment laughs before going into the history of plausible or proven examples of state-sanction terror cells. Kim also shows screenshots from Twitter by people like Mr. Reagan, an obvious right-wing pundit, who did have a YouTube channel for a long time and went so far as alleging that Alexandria Ocasio Cortez was a fake politician and actress.  Kim goes into the background of Patriot Front in which she explains the group was a splinter group that broke away from a group called Vanguard who were the group that set up the Unite the Right Rally in Charlottesville, VA. Yet, Kim inserts some interesting commentary by stating they are “non-violent”, which might be true in theory, or at least that what’s they say to not bring poor press to their movement, yet, it seems Kim is saying they are non-violent as a way of dissuading any sort of threat by Patriot Front or influence they may have on other groups.

It’s as if Kim is undermining the potentiality of the movement because she’s coming from a libertarian mindset, e.g., she states, “the big question is, how big of a threat are these things though? Yes, do these things exists, yes. Do terrorists exist in all forms, yes. But how large of a threat? What are the American people willing to give up to root out this threat?”.

Before I criticize what Kim just said there, to be fair, the group, where leader Thomas Ryan Rousseau spoke, was relatively small (numbering around 100), and this is according to Ellie Silverman (2021) of The Washington Post, who further stated that the event was pushed by fake Twitter account. “It shows how a small troupe of fascists in uniform can … exploit the loopholes around a social media company like Twitter and absolutely make themselves look much more fearsome, look much more scary,” said Michael Edison Hayden, senior investigative reporter and spokesman for the Southern Poverty Law Center, “and give themselves a much better shot at getting the mainstream coverage they so desperately crave.” (Silverstein, 2021).

The likelihood of what happened at the march is either A) the anonymous Twitter account as owned by a person associated with Patriot Front who sent the message to rally, employing their “flash mob tactics”, but then quickly erased their account, or to give more credence to the idea that the Federal Authorities were involved, is B) the account was set up by law enforcement, with them knowing their “flash mob tactics”, to snuff out Patriot Front to get evidence of its members and gain intelligence on the group. Even if masked, the members had to get to the Capitol somehow, so traffic cameras or other means such as triangulating cellphones can easily build a possible registry of suspects.

But, saying the group was a false flag set up by the federal government seems unlikely, if not disingenuous (my favorite Joe Rogan word he uses a lot), since the authorities would have to recruit about 100 people to march and with 100 people you get the chance that at least one person would spill the beans, or a person that any of those 100 people knew could become suspicious and possibly spill the beans, thus jeopardizing the operation. The possibility of a leak would jeopardize any sort of integrity the government has and be disastrous, culminating in Congressional hearings, firings, even possible cause for actual white supremacists to appeal their cases or convictions, etc.

Joe and Kim’s take on the event possibly being a false flag event has an underlying element of conspiracy, and what one could extrapolate from that claim is that other hate marches or even the Capitol Insurrection itself was a false flag. This therefore takes away from the severity of these situations in an attempt to sweep them under the rug as quickly as possible since they are ammunition for government or activist to continue seeking reform against topics such as white supremacy.

Kim also offers some very thin and weak arguments about the group. She claims that because they have a “polished website” and that they seem well-organized, and that the leader is allegedly only an eighteen-year-old person, somehow means this group can’t be real or be a threat. What Kim and Joe seem to be missing is that white nationalist groups aren’t unsophisticated and have adapted to not looking like traditional Skinheads with red-laced jackboots, being out of shape Good Ole Boys reading Soldier of Fortune with a cache of weapons, or Klansmen. It’s not that hard to get a professional website made if you have a lot of people and tap into someone’s talents or even pay someone do set up your site for you. Also, even if the supposed founder of the movement is young, it doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have funding from powerful people who have fascist sentiments, similarly to how Richard Spencer came from money, set up the National Policy Institute (ran from his mother’s $3 Million dollar home), and had powerful connections such as with Stephen Miller from the Trump Administration whom he attended Duke University with (Graeme Wood, The Atlantic, 2017).

White Nationalists are not all junkies or meth-heads, or disenfranchised angry white youths, or men who have spent time in the prison system who are tatted up with Swastikas, but as Charlottesville proved, they can be a computer programmer, a cop, a military servicemember, a real estate agent, a college student, a bailiff, or even an adult actor, etc.

Note: The adult actor is Paul Kryscuk, whom according to Joseph Wilkenson (2020) of The New York Daily News, is a 35-year-old reported porn star, who sold multiple manufactured weapons to 21-year-old then-Marine Liam Collins, the feds said. Kryscuk allegedly mailed the illegal DIY weapons from his homes in New York and Idaho to Collins in North Carolina. Kryscuk and Collins were regulars on the online neo-Nazi forum Iron March back in 2017 before the site was shut down, according to the feds. During that time, they recruited Jordan Duncan, a 26-year-old ex-Marine and military contractor, and Justin Hermanson, a 21-year-old current U.S. Marine. According to the feds, the crew filmed a “training montage” of themselves shooting guns near Kryscuk’s home in Boise, Idaho. The video ends with all four giving the “Heil Hitler” salute under a black sun flag, a Nazi symbol. The phrase “Come home white man” then appears on screen to conclude the video. Kryscuk’s vehicle was also spotted at two different Black Lives Matter rallies in Boise, Idaho, over the summer, according to the indictment. Kryscuk and Duncan later discussed shooting the protesters, with Kryscuk calling their group a “death squad,” the feds said. Collins, who was enlisted until September, and Duncan had moved to Boise to work closer to Kryscuk before they were all arrested in late October, according to the Justice Department. (Wilkerson, 2020).

As we can see with Mr. Kryscuk, who lived in Idaho where Kim Iverson calls home, he was attached to IronMarch, similarly to Mr. Rosseasu of Patriot Front, where these groups interface with the Daily Stormer, Atomwaffen SS, and possibly even foreign Neon Nazi sources in Russia.

The analysis of Joe and Kim are both weak and lazy at best. The burden of proof to prove if this is a false flag is on them, but Kim especially didn’t do any sort of investigative research to prove if they aren’t real. Her skepticism is based on a libertarian position, mixed with historical precedent that the government has been involved with groups like this before (for example, Red Squads that infiltrated Leftist groups in the 1960s), but no actual investigative muscle to back up her opinion, despite being an employee of a multi-billion-dollar media corporations that owns hundreds of new stations across the USA.

It’s my suspicion that Joe had his take because he’s tired of Left-Wing politics particularly that centering around the topics of white privilege, wokeness, gender inclusion, gender assignment, etc.

Joe seems agitated by the Left because he’s a comedian and many in the comedian community are revolting against cancel culture. In the segment with Matt Taibbi, Rogan when talking about the Rittenhouse Case, insinuated that black people were so passionate about racial issues that they didn’t even know the victims were white, alleging he has black friends – who remain unknown – who told him they didn’t know the victims were black (I am assuming this is Charlamagne da God who was on the JRE with comedian Andrew Schulz on episode 1314).

Joe then shares a meme, showing the gas station owners of the Car Source that Rittenhouse was allegedly defending who are possibly from the Indian subcontinent, and the victims who were white. This is important because when showing the meme, Joe smugly says “I have a bunch of memes. I have a folder of my phone”, and this seems to be in reference to the backlash Rogan has received on his Instagram in which he’s posted questionable memes, such as one insinuating that the authoritarian right makes strong men and the libertarian right makes good times (silly, because conservatives don’t really care about personal freedoms including the marijuana Joe likes to smoke), but the left spectrum makes weak men and hard times. It’s easy for him to tap into the already existing mistrust of the mainstream media, take out his annoyance with the way things are, and use his platform/popularity to convince people that it’s all a hoax.

Lastly, Kim in this segment states that she was raised in Idaho which in the past was the headquarters of the Aryan Brotherhood near cities like Coeur d’Alene and Lake Hayden (now located in West Virginia) in the upper panhandle of the state. She states that people never really saw them as a threat, which is partially true, considering I grew up in the Pacific Northwest as child and later as a young adult, and remember counter-protestors at these events when showed on the local news. People would show up to protest the Aryan Brotherhood and other groups when they marched, yet, what Kim fails to admit is that this isn’t the 1980s or 1990s anymore. Back then, the United States and specifically Idaho still operated with a sense of white racial majority politics. White America could afford to not take them seriously since society then was still largely controlled by white people, e.g., most TV sitcoms featured white families (and, to even show an interracial relationship for example even in the 1990s was still taboo as to not anger the “Middle America” demographic), every President up to that point had been a white Christian male, etc.

Yet, fast forward, come after the election of the first black/bi-racial President in Barak Obama, the election of the first black and Indian American Vice President with Kamala Harris, and an evolution in society as far as acceptance of gay marriage, the inclusion of immigrants such as those from Latin America, the growing popularity of socialist or progressive politics, and the fight to include Trans people into everyday life, one could argue that white nationalists are gaining steam from this progress. The time Kim grew up in Idaho, gay marriage wasn’t even legal anywhere in the United States, the word Socialism was a political campaign killer, and BIPOC liberation politics had been largely anesthetized by the corporate white-wash appropriation of the MLK “can we all get along” iconography (despite MLK having socialist sentiments merged with Christian ideology). The change in the overall culture of America from when Kim grew up in Idaho to now is further amplified by advancements in technology where at the time Kim is referring to the fastest internet speed as dial-up, whereas now is lightspeed broadband communication across the globe, as well newer notions such as the dark web, using crypto currency, having aliases, etc. For example, the company Gab, located in Clarks Summit, PA., BitChute based out o of the United Kingdom, and Epik, located in Sammamish, WA, host white supremacists and Neo-Nazi websites, blogs, videos, torrents, etc., where Gab was associated with the 2018 Pittsburgh Synagogue shooting. The world Kim is nostalgically looking back on didn’t have 8chan, BitChute, Gab, Parlor, Epik, etc.

When you add the differences between the past to the present with clear examples of white terrorism, then it’s unwise at best for Kim Iversen to simply be downplaying the threat movement of white supremacy. Hell, Fox News itself with commentators like Tucker Carlson openly panders to fascists rhetoric bordering upon “blood and soil” politics, and let’s not forget, Emperor Nero in exile himself, Trump and all the toxicity he and his administration platformed (including Steve Bannon going on a tour of Europe to inspire nationalists, influence EU elections, and set up a training center in Italy to train Right Wing activists).

According to Silverman (2021), “There were more than 5,000 cases of white supremacist propaganda in 2020, a near doubling from the prior year, the ADL found. The Patriot Front accounted for more than 80 percent.”

Is Kim Iversen really “Anti-Establishment”?

Kim Iversen despite appearing as if she’s anti-establishment, is establishment in that she is employed by The Hill and represented by N.S. Bienstock, which is a major TV talent agency representing the likes of establishment news figures such as Dan Rather, Chris Matthews, Anderson Cooper, Bill O’Reilly. United Talent Agency acquired N.S. Bienstock on 22nd Jan 2014. Grace N.S. Bienstock is owned by the private company United Talent Agency which is one of the top 7 talent agencies in Hollywood.

When it comes to the Rising segment, The Hill is owned by Nexstar Media Group, NASDAQ symbol NXST, which had Fiscal Year 2020 revenue streams of $4.5 billion with a Fiscal Year 2016 total equity position of $284.35 billion. Nexstar, owns TV stations across the United States who are affiliates with the major TV networks (e.g., CBS, ABC, NBC, etc.), and owns shares of Food Network.

According to OpenSource.com (2021), Nexstar Media Group has donated to both Democrats and Republican politicians such as in 2014 with $2,600.00 to Mitch McConnell; $1,000 to Adam Kinzinger in 2014; $5,000 to both Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, and Donald Trump in 2016; $2,500 to Joe Manchin in 2016, $5,000 to Jim Jordan, and $10,000 to Team Graham in 2020 which I assume is Lindsay Graham who went up for re-election in South Carolina, etc.  So, Nexstar does lobby and donate to politicians like most corporations do.

What happened to Krystal Ball and Seegar Enjeti?

Before the current cast of Rising with Kim Iversen, Ryan Grim, etc., it features Krystal Ball and Seegar Enjeti. Krystal representing more of leftist viewpoint and Seegar representing more a conservative view, were quite popular, but were oddly fired from the segment. It is my belief that The Hill, being an extension of Nexstar (a major corporation most know nothing about, yet, that’s the nature of many corporations), were trying to overstep the traditional monopoly of the big TV corporations so they focused on YouTube in a way that touched into alternative media market yet still trying to keep the traditional news segment feel.

Yet, it seems that Krystal and Seegar were too good at their jobs, where in many cases Krystal’s left leaning commentary that rallied against corporatism likely sealed her fate. She worked for a corporation arguable with conservative politics, spoke against capitalism, became a relatively popular figure, and then she was canned. Yet, Kim Iversen was brought on with an enhanced model of focusing on click-bait and to covertly anchor the show with libertarian, i.e., right wing, i.e., capitalist, sentiments. Whether, Kim thinks she’s simply defending libertine ideals, or our notion of individualism based on classical liberal ideals like David Hume, the truth is that ideology has largely manifested itself obviously as Republican, and therefore as corporatist by nature. Essentially, sure we have our individual rights, but this notion of individual rights is also the basis for corporate personhood, which is no surprise that libertarian billionaires like the Koch Family funding right-wing grassroots movements.

Kim Iversen seems progressive enough, but underlying her psychology is what could be considered “red pilling”, i.e., opening the window to turn listeners into right wing viewers suspicious of authority and slowing attempting to chip away at the progressive gains the left has made. Her left leaning counterpart in Ryan Grim, though often inserting his counter opinion to Kim is often overshadowed, which to me insinuates that Ryan Grim is coming for a centrist position. What we’re left with is what we have if we were to look at Congress, i.e., a centrist’s democratic party lethargically talking about progressive talking points stolen from the few progressives in that party (as seen through Ryan Grim) but accompanied by an ever-growing fascist Republican party.

She’s hungry for clicks, she’s not doing this for free (she’s in it for a pay check and career), she comes from the radio world so she knows the power of sensationalism, it’s a matter of time before she’s on the Joe Rogan Podcast, she’s fairly stubborn when dealing with criticism instead of seeing it as an opportunity to grow her worldview, and likely will get crowned by the Right Wing as a darling sooner than later. A part of me feels she’s just being controversial for the sake of controversy because he’s aware that it’s about the algorithm and clicks, and this likely comes from experience in radio, where such shock tactics are needed, but this is amplified by the medium of social media like YouTube.

Another contrarian in a landscape of contrarians competing for attention.

Unpacking Kim’s politics

Kim Iversen has an ambiguous politics, similarly to that of Joe Rogan (note: if interested read by article titled, Is Joe Rogan a Neoplatonist? The syncretic politics of Starship Troopers, zany ESP, magick, the Human Potential Movement, Howard Hughes, Disney and the RAND Corporation by Quinton Mitchell).

But, that’s her right. Not everyone has to fit into a proper definition, necessarily, but I don’t really like Kim’s political analysis. I think she comes off as “progressive” but her underlying worldview is libertarian, where libertarianism despite having representation on the left, e.g., socio-anarchism in the tradition of thinkers like Noam Chomsky (author, of Manufacturing Consent (1988) with Edward S. Herman). However, the truth is that libertarianism within US political history has always been an extension of conservative and Far Right politics – the prevailing ideology for most of the United States history – and in many ways libertarianism has been a politically correct way for the Far Right to appeal to mainstream audience. For example, the libertarian positions of individualism and property rights often translates to segregation (such as with State Rights used the desegregation debates), not supporting social services which might go the poor/minorities/or immigrants, and maintaining an economic ideology – capitalism, i.e., a variant of colonialism – which exploits labor so owners who traditionally are predominately white keep ownership over the means of production. The very basis of property rights in the United States were originally written for white male landowners who were originally intended as being the only ones allowed to vote considering many had a Republican model idea to government, before Democratic ideas came about to expand the franchise to common people.

Whether she admits it or not, she’s a libertarian, but I define her as a Gen X 3rd Position syncretic libertarian and contrarian wavering in postmodern fashion between New Age, Far Right, the Left, etc., while using click-bait and suspiciously stupid opinions (considering, she’s represented by one of the top talent agencies in Hollywood, even though I thought Hollywood was now called “Hollyweird” by the Qanon crowd). How can she ever allege a conspiracy or shadowy “deep state” when in fact she’s an extension of institutions of power? The conspiracy is she’s a populist libertarian talking on a corporate media network. She’s really a libertarian, leaning in the vein of libertarianism one would find in the ideology that Joe Rogan displays. With her coming from a radio background and now getting more notoriety via the internet, Kim is picking up on hot button issues like COVID-19, China vs. the United States, buzzwords like the Deep State, or any other hot topic floating in the collective consciousness, i.e., the zeitgeist.  

She like Russell Brand really dug into COVID-19 skepticism. She is a supporter of Palestine which might give her points with elements of the political Left coming from a de-colonialist tradition but also, she might get points from the racist elements of the Right Wing where supporting Palestine or even radical Jihadism is because they are antisemites (for example, the case of Devon Arthurs, who is Neo Nazi associated with Atomwaffen SS, converted to Islam and his roommates were planning on blowing up a nuclear facility in Florida, per the source A.C. Thompson, 2018, ProPublica. Also, Ethan Melzer, a former private in the US Army, was charged with treasons for divulging information about his Army unit to a Satanic Neo Nazi group called Order of Nine Angels, per Kyle Rempfer, 2020, Army Times).

She has spoken against US interventionism in Latin American nations, which is good. Yet, she doesn’t believe that white supremacy isn’t as big of threat as what the media is saying, even though the media never talked about it in the past at least as being indicative of a growing social trend, so the fact the media is finally acknowledging white supremacy doesn’t mean it’s a false story but, more so we’re finally pointing the light at white supremacy. Sure, we can debate the scope of white supremacy, for example, there’s not hundreds of thousands of hate crimes occurring, yet, white supremacy can’t be measured with a scope of simply being large or small, because all it takes is a few individuals to conduct terrorist attacks, and white supremacy isn’t always with terrorism but cast with ballots at the voting booth. Whether she wants to admit it or not, Donald Trump’s MAGA is an expression of white supremacy, or what I like to call “white settler politics”.

Deconstructing the aesthetics of Kim’s political ideology

Before I go on, I must state that I don’t think everyone in list below is bad or entirely problematic, yet, some are, yet, all of the people listed below represent the “alternative space”, and this space seems influential on Kim Iversen’s ideas.

Kim could be best associated with the alternative media sphere that has Jimmy Dore (who spends a lot of his time attacking progressives for not being aggressive enough despite not realizing that a person such as Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is just one person in the House of Representatives who has to send legislation through a burdensome progress of drafting, committee, vote, Senate review/approval/or kick-back, and Presidential signature); Russell Brand; Graham Elwood, Joe Rogan (who has platformed and joked around with figures like Gavin McInnes – founder of the Proud Boys -, Alex Jones who shilled for Donald Trump and has ties to Roger Stone, Jordan B. Peterson [multiple times], figures of the Intellectual Dark Web, and any array of thinkers bordering upon being kooks); the Useful Idiots with Katie Halper (who really isn’t problematic at all – whom, interestingly hasn’t been invited to the Joe Rogan Experience. Kim Iversen has participated on Katie Halper’s podcast), and Matt Taibbi (a critic of Russia-Gate, yet, being Russian he seems to have bias and can’t seem to acknowledge the fact that even if Russia-Gate was fraudulent it doesn’t mean it entirely was, but even if it was entirely false, Far Right ideology from East Europe such as Russia and Ukraine, e.g., the concept of a Nazbol or monarchism, did influence the American Right Wing which therefore falls into the spectrum of MAGA politics. For example, Richard Spencer and his follower sang at Charlottesville, “You will not replace us” but also “Russia is our friend”), Glenn Greenwald from The Intercept, possibly The Grey Zone with Max Blumenthal and Aaron Maté (critics of NATO, Russia Gate, Israel, the CIA, etc.), maybe a little Peter Schiff (an proponent of Austrian Economics spanning Fredrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard – a father of anarcho-capitalism, the Mont Perelin Society, and Ludwig Von Mises), sprinkle in some Ron Paul (an influential figure in anti-Federal Reserve politics, the Tea Party, etc. But, we can’t forget about Libertarian Presidential nominee, Gary Johnson, whom Joe Rogan admitted to voting for in 2016), and Tulsi Gabbard (who is pretty much the presidential choice for everyone listed before, yet Tulsi is an active duty military officer, who seems to be playing the same game that Kim Iversen is playing, i.e., being appealing to the Leftism developed by Bernie Sanders, the state via her ties to the Pentagon via her committee assignment to the Armed Services Committee, but also appealing to post-Tea Party libertarianism one finds on the political right).

Loose cultural markers or aesthetics that float around the world that Kim’s ideology wavers around are the following: A distrust of mainstream media (MSM) especially those associated with liberal politics such as CNN or MSNBC (where the MSM have issue of ethics and integrity, yet, to assume that mainstream media doesn’t do any good job at all is false, and for some reason conservatives don’t consider Fox News to be MSM), Naturalism, holistic medicine, anti-vaccinations (an easy way to gain followers in a heated debate on vaccines, but anti-vax culture often revolves around conspiracy theorists in the traditional of the New World Order, fears of racial replacement or de-population, the Christian Right, etc.), con-spirituality (i.e., conspiracy spirituality, the nexus between conspiracy theory culture and New Age spirituality such as zodiac, charms, UFOs, parapsychology, etc., where New Age spiritualism is a successor of older Occultic and Neoplatonic ideologies mainly from the late 19th to early 20th century such as of Alastair Crowley, Austen Osman Spare, or Madame Blavatsky, where some these older ideas did have intersection with right-wing ideologies, i.e., Nazi Occultism. For example, take the curious case of the MAGA Shaman arrested for the January 6th Insurrection. Think of it as when the Right Wing trips too much acid at Burning Man or when hippies and paleo-conservatism merge), Boomerism, Generation X MTV generation cynicism (a spoiled generation, despite being the product of the divorce generation of their Boomer Parents, from America’s Goldie Lock’s era of the 1990s after the Cold War but whom where anti-establishment largely because corporations appropriated anti-establishment fashion, e.g., punk, rap, grunge, etc.), comedians revolting against cancel culture (despite comedy often being a cover for actual oppression or further stigmatizing historically marginalized groups), a cynicism towards wokeness (e.g., insinuating that corporate America is only being inclusive now for profits as opposed to being humanist, when this argument fails because capitalism catered to white supremacy but I guess people didn’t have a problem with them?), the Manosphere (appealing to men’s rights in the face of what some consider to be the radical feminist takeover of institutions and culture, particularly at the detriment of white heteronormative males, which has spawned a subculture of dating gurus, Incels, but also women who can profit by simply saying what these men want to hear, i.e., “I’m not like other women”), T.E.R.Fs (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist), skepticism towards government or central authority (despite displaying a sense of disassociation because the right wing is anti-government in many ways, often because they feel they can’t benefit from government as they use to, but in other ways many support police and militarism, but they seem to fix this my favoring “paramilitary” culture, i.e., militia culture), liberalism based around the rights of the individual which naturally leads more so towards a favoring or apologetic of capitalism (despite having some socialist sympathies, but we have to remember Gen X was born and indoctrinated during the Cold War, so the recent Millennial and Zoomer generation acceptance of Leftism isn’t as strong necessarily within Gen X, i.e., it’s still a taboo ideology that defies their materialist needs, career ambitions, etc., considering many are in managerial positions now), decentralization, etc.

Her politics could be understood as a synchronistic 3rd position that merges elements of left and right. An overlap between the anti-establishment left of old mixed with elements or right-wing libertarianism, yet she seems firmly based on conservatism (her default position), which could be from the fact she was born and raised in a very conservative state, with one of the largest white populations, during the Cold War, etc. Then we must consider her personality, which could be naturally contrarian for the sake of being so (which is just one possible element of her personality, i.e., I am not saying she’s an overall bad person, i.e., we all have our quirks), and when you compound this by the fact that she is a career-woman (I’m assuming she identities with feminism) she likely has a chip on her shoulder. I am not saying that being a strong empowered career driven woman is bad at all (I support it), but when factoring in her own personality, it could translate that she essentially double-down hard on her beliefs to not relent since relenting even if she has a bad take on a subject is a form of losing. Appearing wrong or giving credit when due might be possibly hard for Kim in that she’s possibly self-conscious about what people think of her (getting into Twitter beefs), yet she doesn’t see it this way and double downing on bad takes.

It’s anti-establishment and seemingly progressive so it can appeal to actual progressive people, yet the issue with 3rd Position politics is that even though it seems natural, and many are prone to moderate politics, when you’re platforming 3rd position politics to a mass audience, typically through an opinion piece format such as what Kim Iversen does, then you do pose the risk of legitimatizing actual Far Right ideology and end up seeming likely a disingenuous centrists who cherry picks elements from whatever side of the spectrum they feel comfortable with.

Generation X

All these people, expect for Jimmy Dore, could be grouped into the Generation X demographic, i.e., millennials before millennials, but unlike millennials, they’re more influenced by the precursor Baby Boomer generation, and weren’t as emersed with technology as Millennials. For Generation X, technology was there but it was still speculative, such as William Gibson Cyberpunk, Johnny Mnemonic, The Matrix, etc., but the physical world wasn’t as technologically integrated as it was with Millennials and Zoomers. In other words, Gen X being older now, isn’t as nuanced around technology despite using technology, and their worldview whether they admit it or not is influenced by a nostalgia of how things were. In other words, sometimes Gen X misses the mark because they’re not as technologically emersed as what they think they are. For example, understanding certain memes might go over the heads of some Gen Xers because they’re older and not as culturally engulfed in the levels and sublevels of contemporary pop culture.

What I notice with people like Joe Rogan for example, is that he sounds old or lacks a sense of gravitas where the world is now. His podcast ends up simply being “Joe talking to Joe”, where it’s a platform for him sharing his opinions more so than really challenging his own opinions or even that of others. As a Millennial myself who is about to be 35 years old, I’m getting “up there”, yet Generation X is already “up there” yet Generation X was one the most prolific “youth generations”, probably on par with teenagers right after World War II, i.e., they were the MTV Reality TV (Real World, Road Rules) generation meaning that they defy age in a traditional sense. They’re older but are frozen in youth. Kim Iversen’s news coverage could be defined as when Tool listeners, with all of its Jungian psychology and appeals to the hippie moniker of “It’s all a lie man!” from the 1990’s enter institutions of power but end up not being as progressive as what they think they actually are.

Generation X was defined by postmodernism. Postmodernism being a philosophical worldview that was a reactionary movement to the objective truth claims (grand narratives or meta-truths) proposed by modernism or structuralism, e.g., the postmodernist rejecting the claim that science will save us all. To the postmodernist there is no grand truth but various truths meaning reality is ultimately subjective since most alleged truths are often biased by those who state such truths, or there are limitations in what humans can understand. The goal of presenting this subjective worldview was to undermine oppression that postmodernist blamed on the objective truth claims of objective truths. Postmodernism resulted in a merging of high-art with low-art (pop culture), a general sense of nihilism considering no truth could be objectively determined, but overall postmodernism, outside of being a philosophical worldview, is also a condition resulting from when capitalism reaches its zenith, i.e., late-stage capitalism.

If postmodernism could be easily defined, I refer to it as modern people existentially living as individuals within late-stage capitalism, in which the landscape is dominated by corporations who recycle culture but also use clever ways of shrouding power, conspiracy theories are endemic since people can’t discern between factual information or misinformation, people communicate through pop culture references, and no one really knows who is running the show system systems are highly complex and interwoven often creating problems by proxy of being so complicated.

Generation X was defined by this. They were the byproducts of Reaganomic consumerism, consumption, TV, the declining crime rate from the 80s into the 90s, and the general sense of global peace and American exceptionalism after the Cold War ended. The United States was the sole hegemonic force in the world, exploiting global supply chains built off cheap labor from America’s now competitor in China, and corporatism dictated culture. Yet, Gen Xers despite living in this relatively peaceful time, have a tendency for punk rebelliousness, where punk itself emerging in the 1970s, could be considered a form of postmodern music in that it revolts against order and plays with nihilism, yet, it became just another commodified movement of capitalism considering there is no real escaping capitalism.

I know all this because I was born in 1987, so I am an older Millennials, i.e., I’m Gen X’s baby brother who grew up with same tropes and cultural influences despite not being old enough to adequately partake, yet my childhood was still dictated by a sense of corporate culture (Beavis and Butthead, Daria, Liquid TV, The Simpsons), aggressive campaign marketing to children, etc. If you ever read the book White Noise (1985) by Don DeLillo, my generation of Millennials are the baby charter of Wildmer, i.e., a baby born into a nineteen-eighties household absorbing CNN doomsday footage.

Idaho and Bio.

Boise is like a smaller Denver, yet development has grown rapidly largely since people form California migrated to the state for affordability reasons, similarly to how Californians flocked to states like Arizona. What do you notice about both states? They are traditionally very conservative such as Arizona being known not only for suntans, retirement communities, a love of John Wayne aesthetics, strict watering laws, and memories of late 1990s commercials featuring Arizona State University Girls Gone Wild footage, but also Barry Goldwater and John McCain neoconservatism. Not only do you have a local conservatism, but you have a conservative influx by newcomers mainly from places like California who fear taxes, dislike big cities, support the police, but want the convenience of nice homes, shopping centers with everyone favorite Cheesecake Factory or P.F. Chang’s, perfect suburban high schools, etc. It’s as if Orange County in the heyday of its John Birch Society paleoconservative phase landed in Arizona and Idaho. Cities and towns centering around Boise (located in the region called the Treasure Valley) include Nampa, Eagle, Meridian, Star, Emmett, Caldwell, etc.

I am familiar with Idaho. I lived in the Pacific Northwest in Washington State, and with my father being military, I stayed at Mountain Home Air Force Base for a short period of time since my family moved all over the place, but later in life, my first serious relationship in college was with a woman from a small town just outside Boise. When I traveled to Idaho to meet my girlfriend’s family and attend her cousin’s wedding (as the only black person there which wasn’t a problem), Boise was growing, but it was still relevantly new as far as being a “happening city”. In other words, Zillow or Realtor.com hadn’t gotten its hands on Boise quite yet. This was right around the time of Boise State’s iconic win versus Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl with the famous Statue of Liberty play.

She was born and raised in Idaho on March 28, 1980 (Alchetron.com, 2021). She attended Capital High School in Boise, ID (Metrobiography.com, 2021), and is a trained jazz drummer (Alchetron.com, 2021). It probably wasn’t until she got to college at The University of California – Davis (majoring in philosophy), where she first got her true sense of diversity and be able to break free, with UC-Davis being accessible to both metropolitan Sacramento and San Francisco. Yet, even California itself isn’t the most diverse state overall. Sure, in metropolitan regions, yes, but the State of California itself – same as everywhere else in the United States – does have a history or racism and segregation which culminated in segregated and often poorer/people-of-color communities. We often hail the West Coast as progressive but in many ways the West Coast is symbolic of the Dream of Manifest Destiny, i.e., white Zionism, where Western states did purposely segregate people of color, e.g., Portland, Oregon with Sunshine Laws (curfews), The Oregon Territory barring African Americans from settling after the Civil War in which Confederate settlers moved into the territory, the eradication of Native Tribes, discrimination against Hispanics even if they were native to California before the American take-over, etc.

In other words, whatever diversity Kim was exposed to when was attending college in late-1990s, it likely wasn’t the best depiction of diversity and even if there was diversity this was in a time when people didn’t analyze structural racism or oppression as much. This was the time of the MTV era 1990s where it seemed the “world was perfect” under corporatism and corporate America.

Kim being from Idaho which for most of its existence has been a predominately white state, expect for pockets of Tribal Lands such as those of the Nez Perce tribe, a significant Hispanic population due to the state’s reliance on agriculture, and others such as small demographic of Asian Americans, yet, very few African Americans traditional (outside of college towns like Boise, i.e., Boise State University). There’s also a very large Mormon population, arguably with the second largest Mormon population outside of Utah. There is also a significant Basque community in Idaho who hail from Basque Country in Northern Spain and Southern France.

According to Alchetron.com (2021), Kim worked for radio stations such as in California such as KDVS, KDND, and KWOD, but also co-hosted a show in Indiana called WAZY Wake-Up Crew with Big Jake and Kim Iversen on WAZY-FM. Yet, she received her own show in Austin, TX, Your Time with Kim Iversen on KAMX, and she has co-hosted the radio show Loveline. She has done stints as news reporter for News 12 Networks and as a VJ for Concert TV. Kim as a diverse portfolio of experiences which is good for her and her career.

Kim’s Ethnicity, Biracialism in White Spaces, and understanding orientalism (the sexualization and mystification of Asian Women) in relation to white supremacy

Kim is of Vietnamese and Danish-American descent. Her Vietnamese lineage likely comes from the Vietnam War Era where many Vietnamese refugees were resettled throughout the United States such as California, Louisiana, etc. So, likely she has anti-Communist beliefs because her family fled Communist Vietnam. I am not sure if her father is a war veteran but many veterans (just like Earl Wood’s, i.e., Tiger Woods dad) took Vietnamese wives. She was also raised in the Cold War in a conservative state meaning she likely grew up in a home that favored Ronald Reagan. Being in a home led by a white father, which isn’t bad, it’s easy to see that Kim grew up “white”. Sure, she was a minority in many ways and likely had connections to her Asian roots, but the environment around her was overwhelmingly white conservative, so she was indoctrinated with that belief structure of Republicanism.

Being partially Asian likely wasn’t a problem since Asian Americans were often treated as “model minorities” and it’s not uncommon for white men to marry Asian women. There’s nothing wrong with interracial marriage or love, yet, in relation to white supremacy, Asian woman are often victims of orientalism, i.e., Asian women are casted or lusted over as being mysterious exotics with submissive and consoling characteristics, and often not burdened by white supremacy as other groups of color traditionally.

Since Asian Americans are often seen to be treated with model minority status (which is a controversial term as stated by Audrea Lin (2018) in which she stated the model-minority myth obscures the vast differences among Asian-Americans), the truth is that Asian woman are often sexualized through orientalism. One could assume that the Far Right does tolerate Asian Americans despite when they need to activate white supremacy against Asian Americans to remind who is “on top of the totem pole”. It might sound off record, but for example with the Alt-Right online communities there is a love of anime for example, where women are often depicted with hyper-sexualized and white-washed features.

Audrea Lin (2018) of The New York Times wrote about white supremacy’s fetish for Asian women in an article titled, The Alt Right’s Asian Fetish. The article discusses how Andrew Anglin (founder of the Daily Stormer), Richard Spencer, Mike Cernovich, John Derbyshire, and Kyle Chapman all dated, had sexual relations, and/or married Asian women. Lin (2018) even references Charleston AME Church shooter, Dylan Roof, who stated that Asians “could be great allies of the white race,”. Lin (2018) also references Adolf Hitler, who stated, ““I have never regarded the Chinese or the Japanese as being inferior to ourselves,” Adolf Hitler said in 1945. “They belong to ancient civilizations, and I admit freely that their past history is superior to our own.””. Lastly, Lin (2018) interestingly points out that the Alt-Right fetish for Asian woman could be in part due to white women more so adopting feminism.

We must remember that Japan as an Axis power and to this day is a homogenous nation that has visible nationalist parties, paramilitary groups, etc., and this fact of course resonates with the Alt Right. For example, when it comes to showcasing history in the West, history is often dominated by Greco-Roman or Dark Ages European culture, yet, there is a soft spot for the aesthetics of Asian cultures such as that of the Japanese (for example, Samurai), yet, the cultures of let’s say Africa before slavery is pretty much non-existent within mainstream historical documentaries, etc.   

Like many minority children living in predominately white spaces or multi-racial children, especially before society started talking about Critical Race Theory, often have a sense of identity crisis. Children of color are often the sole representatives of what other’s think their group is or how they see them on TV. For example, being a black child in suburbia but people assume that child to be like black people they see on TV, i.e., hip, tough, athletic, not academic, etc. Kim likely experienced this to a varying degree. For example, particularly as a female in a white environment and in a nation where beauty standards for the longest were catered to a European aesthetic of beauty, she likely had some issues with identity. Assuming she is cisgender heteronormative, most of the boys she likely liked growing up where obviously white. In other words, she was fitting into a culture that was predominantly white and emulated that culture’s view on the world (remembering this was the 1980s and 1990s – nowhere near as progressive as what we have now), becoming an apologist or defender of that culture, despite always being slightly on “the outside” of it.

If she adopted the worldview, politics, beauty standards, gender roles, and possibly even racial biases or racial lack of awareness (cultural sensitivity) of the predominate group, she was able to fit in and be just like any other kid, yet, I’m sure she’s experienced at least a little racism or ignorance while growing up as a kid.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/06/his-kampf/524505/

https://alchetron.com/Kim-Iverson

https://web.archive.org/web/20210119133721/https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2021/01/kyle-brewster-convicted-in-notorious-1988-hate-crime-killing-seen-at-pro-trump-rallies-in-salem-portland.html

https://www.baltimoresun.com/tn-dpt-me-hb-robert-rundo-20181026-story.html

https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/nexstar-broadcasting-group/C00567388/expenditures/2014

https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/nexstar-broadcasting-group/C00567388/expenditures/2014

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/12/06/white-supremacist-dc-march-patriot-front/

https://sports.yahoo.com/porn-star-three-marines-white-193600121.html

https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/nexstar-broadcasting-group/C00567388/expenditures/2020

https://web.archive.org/web/20190622084327/https://www.kimiversen.com/

https://mobile.twitter.com/kimiversenshow?lang=en

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2020/06/22/us-soldier-plotted-with-satanic-neo-nazis-to-ambush-his-own-unit-overseas-feds-say/

https://www.propublica.org/article/california-murder-suspect-atomwaffen-division-extremist-hate-group

How the system helped curtail police reform by Quinton Mitchell

How the system helped curtail police reform by Quinton Mitchell

Photo Credit. David Ryder of Getty Images

Quick Summary:

First off, I don’t hate police officers. I think that police are needed, yet, police and the entire correctional system needs reform, especially when it comes to dealing with the public as opposed to legitimate criminals that pose a legitimate threat to society. There’s always room for improvement, ranging from tougher barrier of entry when wanting to become a cop, centralized oversight and a national database of all police and any misconducts they do, a national gun violence database, house arrests over incarceration, solving the homeless and housing crisis, improving mental health, gun control, smart legalization of drug, intelligence gathering before engaging suspects, wellness and job programs in prisons, reducing radicalizing material on social media such as on YouTube, and reducing the number of laws on the books so there’s less laws to enforce.

I don’t worship police, but police need to leave good people alone and we need to minimize petty altercations that turn violent. I would argue that cops are effective at enforcing civil penalties (fines), which in and of itself is questionable because it reveals that police are largely serving in a tax collector capacity, yet, their track record when it comes to preventing violent crime is questionable. Many victims of police brutality weren’t necessarily violent criminals or weren’t criminals at all, yet, it seems actual violent criminals just gang members, bikers, etc., tend to operate with immunity. In other words, police need to focus on violent crimes (assaults, murders, trafficking, rape, gun violence, etc.), rather than focusing on enforcing civil penalties which can lead to police altercations.

Cops acting like tax collectors with guns, or hallways monitors who issue citations to enrich local governments, is one of the root causes of police altercations, and at-risk communities who suffer from low employment, gentrification, rising real estate prices, environmental pollution, etc., are most vulnerable to over-policing ordinary citizens. Many victims of police violence aren’t career criminals, terrorist, drug cartel leaders, but everyday Americans who are often profiled for how they look or who are brave enough to state their constitutional rights in the face of a police officer.

Comprehensive Police reform was never going to happen and the system, i.e., the nexus between private and special interests, corporations, the media, police agencies, and state and federal governments, employed an array of tactics ranging from (1) poor Congressional political strategy resulting in incrementalism at the federal level, (2) media shell games relating to the showcasing of examples of blatant police abuses versus cases that were morally ambiguous to cause doubt and division amongst the public, (3) politicians talking about reform, but many politicians and the White House continue to fund police agencies such as through Program 1033 relating to the militarization of police, (4) divisive marketing campaigns such Defund the Police, (5) discrediting the Black Lives Matter Movement and using the media to undermine black liberation politics, e.g., using the Jussie Smollett fiasco and debates relating race involving the Kyle Rittenhouse Case versus the Darrell Brooks Waukesha Parade Attack, to undermine the black community who were at the forefront of police reform, (6) unleashing dangerous criminals who commit crime so the public wants more police, (7) the media blowing up the Crime Wave Panic without providing any context about the root causes such as the obvious fact that society is slowly reopening after the COVID-19 spikes, (8) Copaganda, i.e., propaganda showing cops in a good light as opposed to a realistic light, and (9) the politicization of police with by way of Right Wing politics and the erosion of political impartiality within cops.

In other words, the system used mind games, reverse psychology, waiting out the storm, shell games, etc., to stall and undermine police reform.

Table of Contents

I. Introduction. Police Reform fails and strategies going forward.

II. Media Shell Games

III. Saying Reform but Really Funding Police behind the scenes

IV. Poor Marketing

V. Political Dialectics and the Illusion of Political Differences

VI. “Let the Children Tire Themselves Out” and waiting out the storm

VII. Discrediting, Race Play, and Reverse Psychology

VIII. Unleashing the wolves to harass the sheep

I. Introduction. Police Reform fails and strategies going forward

Police Reform has failed after all the hard work, energy, protests, riots, conversations, and a general heightened sense of awareness around race and police. All the system had to do was “hold out the storm” and let the public “tire itself out”.

Hassam Kamu (2021) of Reuters stated, “The promising effort to reform American policing that was trumpeted as an all-out endeavor in Congress following the largest racial-justice protests in a generation has culminated into nothingness.” Per the article by Kamu (2021), Democratic Senator Corey Booker led negotiations in the Senate, but Republican Senator Tim Scott from South Carolina stated the legislation ultimately failed because of the “defund the police” slogan, going so far as stating on 22 September 2021, that “Democrats said ‘no’ because they could not let go of their push to defund our law enforcement,”. Yet, Kamu (2021) stated that, “None of (“the”) Democrats’ proposals during the months-long negotiation actually sought to defund police, by the way.” In other words, Tim Scott lied and tried to scapegoat Democrats but being the only black Senator who is a Republican, Tim Scott did his job, i.e., providing black optics, but still holding the line for the predominately white Republican party.

The article by Kamu (2021) talks about how local governments will have to champion the cause of police reform by citing Christy Lopez, former deputy chief of the Justice Department’s civil rights division and now professor at Georgetown University Law Center.

Essentially, comprehensive national police reform has failed, and what we are left with is the same old sense of incrementalism based on federalism (local politics and decentralization), but also the fact, which will be presented later in this article, that police have received further funding including new innovations in technology to potentially violate the public’s civil liberties.  

This is highly problematic because the source of police corruption and abuse stems from the fact that police organizations are organized around the concept of localism, and localism therefore creates a smokescreen when it comes to abuse. With laws such as the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which was created in the late eighteen-hundreds after the Union Army withdrew federal forces (acting in a police capacity to protect black people) from the post-war Confederate South. Posse Comitatus means that federal authorities don’t interfere in local matters relating to policing unless a Civil Rights violation or similar federal violation arises. Even, though the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 relates to a separation of military from local affairs, the precedent set by the act translates to modern policing considering the military at the time when the act was passed served in a police capacity. The general rule is that policing is a local matter, unlike other nations where police in many regards are centralized forces supplementing local or provincial police forces such as with the Royal Mounted Police in Canada, or the concept of the gendarmerie in nations like France and Italy.

Lack of federal muscle on police reform is the equivalent to the scenario if the federal government didn’t apply Civil Rights laws by way of the Interstate Commerce clause in the 1960s, i.e., the federal government can only reform police and Republicans know this. If the Federal Government didn’t use Interstate Commerce to justify Civil Rights legislation, then state governments such as those of the Jim Crow South would have been able to continue “separate but equal” segregation policies.

There are so many jurisdictions in the United States, that reforms to police abuse are often reactionary, i.e., after the fact, as opposed to preventative.

People protests, and agencies pay out restitution to victims (at taxpayer expense), but cops often are acquitted or transferred. Every agency is influenced by its locality meaning there’s different atmospheres and sentiments relating to race, politics, income levels, etc. Every community has its own “ingredients”, thus every community needs its own progressive policy yet there needs to be an overarching centralized mandate to ensure frameworks are being appropriately applied, enforced, and tracked (e.g., with analytics). For example, a police agency in an area that overwhelmingly voted for Donald Trump, which might have a history of racial segregation and/or existing racial disparity influencing crime or arrest policies, likely will not stand for any sort of police reform (as seen by the fact that no Republicans voted for police reform). Or, even in a state like New Jersey, which is one the wealthiest states, but still has issues with segregation, e.g., predominately white, and upper income communities such as those of Bergen County as opposed to poorer people-of-color communities in places like Essex County (home to Newark).

The bill that stalled in the Congress is the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act (House Resolution 7120), which cleared the Democrat controlled House 236–181 (that’s a total of 417 votes, meaning 236 out of 417 is about 57% voting yes, yet there are 435 representatives meaning 236 out of 435 is about 54%). Only three Republicans voting in support included Will Hurd as the only black House Republican (just let that sink in) on June 25, 2020.

After clearing the House in the summer of 2020, it advanced to the Senate as S. 3912 with Corey Booker sponsoring the bill, yet, Tim Scott, the only Black Republican helped to stall and gut the bill, such as not bending on the question of qualified immunity, and the year ran out, i.e., Congress went on its break and the bill died in committee.  In 2021, the bill was reintroduced for a second time by the House after being kicked back by the Senate, with the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021, and it was introduced again by California Democrat Karen Bass as H.R. 1280, who chairs the Congressional Black Caucus. The Resolution passed the House on March 3, 2021 with a (220–212) yes vs no spread, with zero Republicans supporting the bill (432 votes in total, meaning 220 yes votes amounts to about 51%, yet there are actually 435 representatives meaning 220 out of 435 is about 50.1%). Yet, by the fall of 2021, Corey Booker stated that “negotiated had failed”, but what does this really mean? It means they know they have no clear path of having Senate approval, so…they’re “giving up for the meantime as Democrats await better representation in the Senate as opposed to a simple tie-break vote provided by Kamala Harris in the 50/50 Democrat to Republican Senate”.

The differences between House votes between 2020 to 2021 relating to the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, i.e., 54% versus 51% could have been because of vacancies, abstain votes (present or no votes), etc., considering there are 435 house seats appropriated unchanged between the two years (Source: Ballotpedia.com, 2021). This could mean that the original bill was passed when some members weren’t able to vote, but after the 2020 election and going into 2021, more representatives showed up and voted against the bill, such as “Stop the Steal” Republicans being sour after Donald Trump lost to Joe Biden. The few Republicans who voted for the bill in 2020, quickly changed their tune and voted against it.

According to Ballotpedia.com (2021), “Elections to the U.S. Senate will be held on November 8, 2022, and 34 of the 100 seats are up for regular election. Those elected to the U.S. Senate in the 34 regular elections in 2022 will begin their six-year terms on January 3, 2023.  Fourteen seats held by Democrats and 20 seats held by Republicans are up for election in 2022. Republicans are defending two Senate seats in states Joe Biden (D) won in the 2020 presidential election: Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Democrats are not defending any Senate seats in states Donald Trump (R) won in 2020.  Following the 2020 Senate elections and the January 2021 runoffs in Georgia, Democrats and Republicans split the chamber 50-50. This gave Vice President Kamala Harris (D) a tie-breaking vote, and Democrats control of the U.S. Senate via a power-sharing agreement.”

There are some factors to ponder regarding the Democrat strategy come the Fall 2022 Senate Races.

Democrats could lose seats considering Republican’s across the nation have been inserting voting reform bills making it harder for people to vote. Also, Kamala Harris could become president in the event Joe Biden steps down or his age and health take a toll on him, yet, if Kamala Harris becomes President either by rules of succession or by running outright herself, she could simply elect a new President of the Senate (her acting VP), thus maintaining a plausible 50/50 tie breaker vote, yet this could be highly unlikely. With Joe Biden assuming the Presidency in January 2021, in theory he has until January 2025, so if Kamala were to step in, she would have possibly a few years as President until she would be required to run outright herself.

Yet, Democrats could lose a Presidential race and not gain any power in the Senate and lose seats in any House race, etc. It makes sense that Democrats would wait to gain Senatorial power, considering Republicans are a monolithic “lock in step” party (unlike Democrats who have Senators like Kirsten Sinema and Joe Manchin), yet, all these scenarios do call into question as to whether comprehensive police reform will pass soon. Joe Biden could get tougher with Republicans, but Biden’s strategy as seen in the Infrastructure and Reconciliation Bill debates seems to be let the Congress handle it even though he states his wanted outcomes. Biden could figure out bills that Republicans highly prize and threaten to veto any such bills if Republicans don’t get more in alignment with police reform. Biden could also issue Executive Orders directing the Executive agencies who answer to them, to freeze funds for police unless reforms are made. It’s all an utter tragedy regardless because Biden could do the strongman tactics of Trump, yet Biden seems more about restoring a sense of normalcy. You can’t blame him, but then again, he only has one real chance to enact true reform. Why play nice and be honorable, when Republicans have proven they are willing to support a President like Donald Trump who cares nothing about “gentlemen rules”. The US public is being held hostage by unsympathetic Republicans who still must walk the fine line as to whether Donald Trump in exile, the modern equivalent of Emperor Nero, still approves of them.

Yet, Democrats could come out on top. Six Senators announced retirement from the Senate with five of them being Republicans. Richard Burr of North Carolina (a swing state), Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania (a swing state), Rob Portman of Ohio (a swing state yet growing more conservative), Richard Shelby of Alabama (historically very conservative), and Roy Blunt of Missouri (historically a purple state) are all Republicans (Source: Ballotpedia.com, 2021). Patrick Leahy of Vermont is the only Democrat retiring but Vermont has solidly been a Democratic state with many progressive elements embedded into its culture. Peter Welch, already a House Representative from Vermont, and a friend to the late Civil Rights leader John Lewis, is running to fill in for Patrick Leahy. Brandaun Dean, an African American, is running to take Richard Shelby’s seat in Alabama, and if he’s able to win in a very conservative state, even though Alabama has a large African American population, he could help turn Alabama into a “purple state”. Yet, Dean’s climb will be much steeper in my opinion that what Stacy Abram’s faced in Georgia considering you have Atlanta as the largest source of votes, and she still lost her election.  

Yet, many seats are up for grab, besides those where Senators stated they are retiring, and many Democratic candidates are running for the same seats meaning it’s going to be dirty fight internally as well as with Republicans clawing for those seats (not to mention any third-party candidates such Independents, Greens, Libertarians, etc.). For example, Senator Raphael Warnock in Georgia who beat Kelly Loeffler is up for re-election since he was elected in a special election when Senator Johnny Isakson stepped down giving Kelly Loeffler an non-contested victory. Basically, Warnock beat Loeffler who stepped in for Isakson, but Isakon’s terms in which Warnock won after beating Loeffler is due to expire in 2023 meaning Warnock must run for a full 6-year term.  

The Police Reform Bill included some innovative measures to help such as creating a database to track police misconduct and disciplinary actions, restrict giving military weapons to police via the Department of Defense Program 1033, requiring body cameras and dashboard cameras, revoking qualified immunity (one the largest issues) by revising 18 United States Code Section 242, ban no-knock warrants and choke holds, and issue funding for training on anti-discrimination. The House in committee hearings had a diverse crew of guests, including Fox New’s Don Bongino (Source: Burn, 2020, Vox), whom as we know is an ardent Trump supporter. The insertion of Don Bongino into Congress, similarly to when Congress foolishly platformed Candace Owens to speak on matters of race, proves that hearings in part are essential but can take on certain elements of a circus show, giving free press and credentials to people who want to stand in the way of progress.

So, the United States not only lacks a national database of gun violence, where such violence is tracked by non-profits (charities), the United States also failed to create centralized accountability systems of police abuse and misconduct.

Section Sources

Ballotpedia.com (2021), United States House of Representatives., Retrieved on 12 December 2021., Source: https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_House_of_Representatives

Ballotpedia.com (2021), United States Senate elections, 2022, Retrieved on 12 December 2021., https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_elections,_2022

Burns, K. A Republican witness at a congressional hearing on police brutality didn’t mention police brutality., (published on 10 June 2020)., Vox., Retrieved on 12 December 2021., Source: https://www.vox.com/identities/2020/6/10/21286605/dan-bongino-fox-news-police-brutality-hearing-congress

Kamu, H. Congress fails on police reform. Now what?., (published on 12 October 2021)., Reuters., Retrieved on 12 December 2021., Source: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/congress-fails-police-reform-now-what-2021-10-08/

II. The Media Shell Games:

The media inserts ambiguous stories to overshow stories of blatant police negligence, abuse, and killings, and by doing this it causes the public to call into question or raise doubt about police reform. I call this the shell game, where the shell game is an ancient game in which a person has an object like a ball underneath three cups and quickly shuffles the cups around, so a person can guess which cup has the ball, often involving a wager of money, i.e., a bet. This is like what the media seems to be doing. Shuffling stories around, getting the public to bet on cases, but if the public ever comes out wrong, the house ultimately wins overall. Further, many shell games are rigged to begin with, for example having trap doors on a table or magnet in a cup so people always guess wrong.

When people are passionately calling for police reform, the media can insert stories to effectively play reverse-psychology games, so when the facts of ambiguous cases are revealed, it serves as a “Aha, gotcha moment”, and this helps to undermine or shame police reform advocates. For example, Tamir Rice (November 22, 2014) and Eric Garner (July 17, 2014) were blatant examples of police abuse, yet, later downstream as the larger police discussion raged on, the media showed cases such as Jacob Blake in Kenosha, Wisconsin, Ma’Khia Bryant in Columbus, OH or Willie Henley in Buffalo, NY. The Blake, Bryant, and Henley situation, though tragic, were also more complicated, in that police were responding to potentially violent situations such as Jacob Blake having a knife, Ma’Khia Bryant having a knife (with photo evidence of her trying to use the knife), and Willie Henley having a mental health breakdown. Despite, having some radical voices who don’t want any police officers, the public in my opinion was more so disappointed that police consistently kept using deadly force or, even after the larger police reform discussion about using alternative methods had been ongoing for years.

Yet, the Blake (August 2021), Bryant (April 2021), and Henley (September 2021) situations were much later than the initial beginnings of the current police reform movement, where from its beginnings to the present there are many examples of blatant police abuse.

The beginnings of the modern police reform movements can be traced back to the blatant murder of Eric Garner (July 17, 2014) in New York City, and the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri (August 9, 2014), where the energy displayed in the Ferguson Protests/Riots could be traced further back to the sociological effects of social media, over the acquittal of George Michael Zimmerman over this murder of Treyvon Martin (February 26, 2012).  When Treyvon was murdered that energy was boiling in the public, so once more and more police shootings occurred, that energy merged with the police reform movement.

In summary, even though Treyvon Martin’s murder in 2012 wasn’t explicitly calling out police, the racial implications of the case, started the energy that would later coalesce with actual police killings or abuse (a larger, yet separate issue but often straddling the issue of race), and this energy would create the Black Lives Matter movements, which was the strongest and most visible of all police reform movements, and even though it was intended to speak up for injustices against black people, the movement absorbed other police reform movements making it more multi-racial (since anyone with a YouTube account can see videos of police abusing all types of people). The reaction to BLM therefore created the reactionary movements of All Lives Matters (which never called for police reform but was simply a way of alleging that black people are ‘reverse racist’, emotional, or selfish) and then the Blue Lives Matters movement. So once an actual police reform movement was established, the system picked up on this, largely to farm votes, make promises, and have a steady stream of media coverage. Yet, as time went on, the police reform movement (a grassroots movement) became more powerful, especially when the domestic and international protests occurred during the George Floyd situation, so the system started to insert more morally ambiguous cases to control the public, i.e., using a form what can consider to be psychological warfare (for example, read into concepts such as white, grey, and black propaganda).

Showing ambiguous cases helped to overshadow blatant cases of police abuse and undermine police reform movements.

III. Saying Reform but Really Funding Police behind the scenes

The system (i.e., a nexus between private special interests, corporations, government, institutions of violence, and the media) never truly wanted to reform police. If anything, the government has continued to fund police such as the Biden-Harris Administration issuing the Cops Hiring Program (CHP) by way of The Department of Justice, that has allocated $139 Million to police agencies across the USA. According to the Justice Department (2021), “The awards provide direct funding to 183 law enforcement agencies across the nation, allowing those agencies to hire 1,066 additional full-time law enforcement professionals.” Further, per the Justice Department (2021), “Since its creation in 1994, COPS has invested more than $14 billion to advance community policing, including grants awarded to more than 13,000 state, local and Tribal law enforcement agencies to fund the hiring and redeployment of more than 135,000 officers. CHP, COPS’ flagship program, continues to be in demand today: In FY21, COPS received 590 applications requesting nearly 3,000 law enforcement positions. For FY22, President Biden has requested $537 million for CHP, an increase of $300 million.”

Also, under the Trump Administration by way of William Barr at the Justice Department, police agencies started increasing the use of facial-recognition software by firms such as Clearview A.I., a part of a larger “pre-crime initiative”. According to Elizabeth Lopatto (2020) of Verge, “More than 2,400 police agencies have entered contracts with Clearview AI, a controversial facial recognition firm, according to comments made by Clearview AI CEO Hoan Ton-That in an interview with Jason Calacanis on YouTube.” According to the US Senate in a public release dated June 10, 2020, “U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, and Senator Cory Booker (D-N.J.), today sent a letter to Attorney General William Barr and Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf expressing concern about the use of facial recognition technology to gather information on those Americans who joined in protest of systemic racial injustice. Americans in more than 350 cities across the nation have taken to the streets while law enforcement agencies have unregulated access to inaccurate and biased facial recognition technology.”

We also can’t forget that the militarization of police agencies by way of excess Department of Defense surplus is still going. Police agencies receive surplus military hardware via the National Defense Authorization Act and the Pentagon’s Program 1033. Since 2021, there is likely even more rampant transfer of military hardware to police considering the drawn down from Afghanistan. Alice Speri (2021) of The Intercept, reported, “Nearly $90 million worth of military equipment was transferred to police last year alone, and more than $7.4 billion since 1990.” Further, Speri (2021) stated, “The proposed amendments to the defense budget have been introduced by Democratic Reps. Nydia Velázquez and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, and Hank Johnson of Georgia. (Johnson’s bill has a Republican cosponsor, California Rep. Tom McClintock.) Velázquez’s, the most aggressive among them, seeks to end the program altogether by striking the NDAA provision that authorizes it. Ocasio-Cortez’s seeks to prohibit the transfer of a number of items, including ammunition, grenade launchers, and mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles. The vehicles, known as MRAPs, have become a symbol of the program after they were dispatched to protests and home raids. Pressley’s seeks to issue a moratorium on 1033 transfers of what is known as “controlled party,” which includes military items like weapons, vehicles, and night vision equipment. And Johnson’s seeks to limit the transfers but offers a series of carveouts and exceptions, including for counterterrorism purposes. The language of Johnson’s bill already cleared the House as part of a the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, which has languished in the Senate.”

Cops haven’t been reformed, but more so police agencies could by toying with the public by not dealing with crime. They’re holding out, while the media simplistically talks about the “crime wave” of late 2021, so the public crawls back to police (despite cops still being paid by taxpayers). The media is helping this by playing “shell games” to discredit protestors no different than how previous administrations such as Nixon or J. Edgar Hoover used nefarious methods to undermine progressive grassroots movements, such as Red Squads. But we need to realize the “system” has decades of practice and contingency in place, and there’s methods largely due to social media and technology as more efficient at exploiting the masses.

Section Sources:

Lopatto, E., Clearview AI CEO says ‘over 2,400 police agencies’ are using its facial recognition software, (published on 26 August 2020), Retrieved on: 12 December 12, 2021, Source: https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/26/21402978/clearview-ai-ceo-interview-2400-police-agencies-facial-recognition

Speri, A., Lawmakers Take On Militarization of Police in Defense Budget Talks. Biden failed to take action on the Pentagon’s 1033 program. Now four lawmakers have proposed NDAA amendments that would limit or end it., (published on 20 September 2021)., Retrieve on: 12 December 2021, Source: https://theintercept.com/2021/09/20/ndaa-military-equipment-police-1033/

The United States Department of Justice – Office of Public Affairs., Justice Department Announces $139 Million for Law Enforcement Hiring to Advance Community Policing, (published on 18 November 2021) , Retrieved on : 12 December 2021, Source: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-139-million-law-enforcement-hiring-advance-community-policing

United States Senate – U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs., Brown, Wyden, Booker Seek Answers On Federal Use Of Facial Recognition Technology To Monitor Nationwide Protest, (published on 10 June 2020), Retrieved on: 12 December 2021, Source: https://www.banking.senate.gov/newsroom/minority/brown-wyden-booker-seek-answers-on-federal-use-of-facial-recognition-technology-to-monitor-nationwide-protest

IV. Poor Marketing

When the slogan, Defund the Police, came about it immediately received criticism that simply fed into conservative status quo politics. Even, though there is context and nuance around the slogan of Defund the Police, i.e., it really means diverting funds into social investments such as mental health, poverty prevention, after school programs, let’s be honest…most people don’t really dig as deep when trying to find context or nuance, especially in a polarized political environment. The slogan easily could have been “Reallocate Police” or “Freeze the Police”, i.e., taking a police officer phase of “freeze” when trying to apprehend suspects, in an attempt freeze funding for police while further legislation and reforms were drafted and hopefully passed by state and federal lawmakers. I have no proof of what I am going to say next, but it seems that Defund the Police was purposely inserted into the lexicon or into the “zeitgeist” (collective consciousness) to be controversial so people would likely not support police reform largely since people were fearing “radical Leftist politics”. It seems like an easy trick to pull. Insert a controversial phrase into the public so it helps create a larger wedge on an already existing wedge issue. Once the term was inserted or “downloaded” into the collective consciousness, no one could really stop it because conservatives pushed it to undermine police reform, and people who are liberal or on the Left felt they needed to support the slogan as to not be seen as not being “down enough with the cause”. I am not sure who created the slogan of Defund the Police, but once could speculate that such as slogan could have easily been inserted into the public to create a further divide.

V. Political Dialectics and the Illusion of Political Differences

The Democratic Party serves the role of “calming” or “anesthetizing” the public by hearing out the concerns of the public, often using this for political gains, i.e., farming votes, such as appealing to minorities communities by promising to acknowledge their concerns in good faith, yet the Republican Party adamantly defends the police state. So, what you end up with is one side being apologists (losers) and the other side being defenders of the status quo, yet neither side are concerned about reform, since the very nature of Congress at this point is juggling the public who often doesn’t have monetary power yet are essential for the number game of winning votes, with that of powerful corporate interests (passing spending bills where tax money goes to powerful entities or special interests). Even if there are a few politicians who are true believers in police reform, they’re far and few, and the complicated process of creating legislation in the Congress between the House, Senate, and President, makes promises of police reform nearly futile. Democrats promise, give fiery “woke speeches”, say the right things to be considered “down” with whatever communities they represent, but often promise things can’t deliver on, yet, the politicians can simply blame the opposition.

VI. “Let the Children Tire Themselves Out” and waiting out the storm

 The nexus between the Department of Justice, Congress, police agencies, and media, simply wait until the public “tires itself out”, so nothing changes. The media uses race to tire out the public on racial conversations, so the underlying agenda of reforming police doesn’t happen. It could be summarized as using and elevating black people, but then scapegoating black people downstream, so nothing changes, but the black community is left with the resent of other communities.

VII. Discrediting, Race Play and Reverse Psychology

Since police abuse often has a racial connotation to it, elements of the media try to shame communities such as black community by insinuating that the black community obsesses over race, can’t think outside of a racial worldview, and black organizations such as Black Lives Matters are fraudulent entities (where the right wing has even compounded this allegation by inserting everyone’s favorite boogeyman of George Soros – as if Soros is the only billionaire funding movements, e.g., the Mercer Family who donated to the Trump Campaign where involved in the Cambridge Analytica data scandal).

This use of racial tropes of black people being “emotional or irrational”, therefore feeds into the larger collective consciousness of society in which, for example, many white people become disillusioned, some often insinuating a sense of reverse racism or the media giving minorities preference over the grievances of white people, and all of this is used by conservatives to grow their base, yet, it seems as if this “farming operation” is purposeful between both political parties.

For example, take the Jussie Smollett case. Jussie Smollett selfishly appropriated the larger racial conversation which in many ways was in opposition to the white supremacists’ dog-whistles of Donald Trump, where this larger conversation includes police reform. When Smollett was found guilty of lying about a hate crime, even though he wasn’t directly linked to police reform, the fiasco he caused helped undermine police reform, since, as already stated, police reform was an element of the larger racial conversation. Many people in the public see Smollett as being indicative of alleged bias for minorities within the liberal media, and this energy feeds further into opposing progressive politics such as feeding into the energy and talking points of people such as Donald Trump, Candace Owens, etc. The goals are to make black people (serving as the more visible force when speaking up for BIPOC issues), to appear “irrational”, “emotional”, “playing the race card to their own advantage”, etc. It’s a form of reverse psychology or employing “gotcha moments”, by making it seem as if minorities are racially obsessed emotional beings who will “believe anything”, and this helps to undermine the legitimate concerns raised by BIPOC communities.  

Another example of trying to discredit black people where black people are at the forefront of police reform, is how Black Lives Matter as an organization was attacked. The Right Wing as already stated tried to tap into the George Soros conspiracy theories, where those conspiracy theories in and of themselves harken back to antisemitic tropes, e.g., Z.O.G (Zionist Occupied Government) or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (thus, feeding into the right-wing fringe elements of the Donald Trump administration, and by right wing elements, I’m not saying people who disapprove of Israel which has been alleged as being antisemitic in our Bari Weiss redefinition of the word of antisemitism, but actual people who hate Jewish people and wish them harm).

Yet, critics of BLM, including legitimate outlets where people get news from such as The New York Post (despite it having a reputation for spin tactics), alleged that BLM was engaging in real estate fraud, when Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors was discovered to have purchased multiple properties. Rick Rouan (2021) of The USA Today, in a fact check of the allegations made by conservative non-profit National Legal and Policy Center Chairman Peter Flaherty, stated “But there is no evidence to support the idea that Khan-Cullors used donations that poured in amid nationwide protests in 2020 to bankroll the purchase of four homes.”

Rouan (2021) stated, the claim that Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors bought four luxury homes is MISSING CONTEXT, because without additional information it could be misleading. While some social media users suggested that the purchases were evidence that Khan-Cullors had been enriched by the movement, our research revealed no evidence that Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation funds were used to purchase property. Khan-Cullors has held several other jobs in addition to her work as the organization’s volunteer executive director, including writing a memoir and developing content for Warner Brothers.

Robert Gaetry (2020) of Fox News, spoke about Sir Maejor Page, who was a founder of a chapter of Black Lives Matter in the Metro Atlanta area. Gaetry (2020) stated, “Page founded Black Lives Matter of Greater Atlanta in 2016 and this year took in more than $466,000 in donations in June, July and August, Desorbo said. “In sum, Page has spent over $200,000 on personal items generated from donations received through BLMGA Facebook page with no identifiable purchase or expenditure for social or racial justice,” he said. According to the bureau, Page also used $112,000 of the donated money to purchase a house for himself in Toledo, Ohio. The transaction took place last month. Black Lives Matter of Greater Atlanta could not solicit donations after losing its tax-exempt status as a charity in 2019 for failing to submit to the IRS 990 tax returns listing donations and expenditures.”

Lastly, Gaetry (2020), stated, “The FBI in Toledo said Page pledged to use those donations “for George Floyd” but instead used the money make purchases related to food, dining, entertainment, clothing, furniture, a home security system, tailored suits and accessories.”

So, even if Black Lives Matter was corrupt, what does their alleged corruption have to do with actual police reform or the fact that the United States has a history of racism and reality of structural racism? The goal of conservatives is to use race to discredit the overarching goal of police reform, e.g., alleging BLM is a global “Jewish” conspiracy meant to “agitate black people” against white people and that the organization is a money laundering scheme, using situations such as Jussie Smollett’s fake hate crime to discredit the entire black community, and insinuating that black people are so passionate about their race – indifferent to the needs of others – that they will believe anything indifferent to the facts such as insinuating that most black people didn’t know the victims of the Kyle Rittenhouse shootings were white (i.e., calling black people’s emotional and intellectual state into question which harkens back to old racial tropes that black people need guidance and paternalism from “wise, civilized, and more calm” white people).

Within any organization structured like Black Lives Matters which seems to be based upon decentralized franchises or chapters, the likelihood of corruption will always be there, but to state that all or most chapters weren’t engaged in legitimate public engagement, training, community initiatives, etc., seems false. Any corruption that occurs with Black Lives Matter is unacceptable, and it is my personal belief that Black Lives Matters hasn’t done enough to truly impact or improve the material conditions of the black community. Yet, regardless, BLM doesn’t represent or have sole-ownership of the entire history of the treatment of BIPOC people withing Western Civilization.

Black Lives Matter does have a responsibility to ensure the funds gathered from donors is being adequately distributed – with accountability – to impoverish communities across the United States such as providing scholarships to colleges be they HBCU, HIS, Tribal Colleges (Historically Black Colleges and Universities/Hispanic Servicing Institutions); assisting in America’s housing and homeless crisis such as providing temporary living assistance; establishing transitional programs for newly released inmates; organizing voter registration campaigns; donating to other educational institutions such as museums that represents the history of BIPOC peoples; safe sex campaigns by partnering with organizations such as Planned Parenthood, and standing up for sex workers – many who are people of color – who suffer violence such as working with SWOP (the Sex Worker’s Outreach Program).

It does seem that Black Lives Matters has faded from mainstream public view after the 2020 Presidential Election (not saying there’s still grassroots communication continuing), which does raise the plausibility that the organization was used to “farm” black people’s votes to benefit the Democratic Party machine, particularly to counter the power of Donald Trump, who upon his election controlled both chambers of Congress, and by the end of his presidency put three conservative Supreme Court Justices into power (who have the power to see cases over Voting Rights, Civil Rights, reproductive rights, etc.). Yet, as already stated, BLM whether it’s entirely good, entirely bad, or partially good and bad, doesn’t solely represent the goals of black, Hispanic, Indigenous First Peoples, bi-racial/multi-racial, or AAPI liberation. Essentially, if BLM were to completely fade away tomorrow and die in infamy, it doesn’t mean racism also disappears, it doesn’t mean the Republican Party is catering to white supremacy (such as Marjorie Taylor Greene advocating for a White Anglo Saxon Caucus), nor does it mean that police abuse isn’t an issue.

Section Sources

Gaetry, R. Atlanta activist spent $200G in Black Lives Matter donations on house, personal expenses: FBI, Sir Maejor Page, 32, is facing fraud and money laundering charges., (published on 26 September 2020)., Retrieve on 12 December 2021, Source: https://www.foxnews.com/us/atlanta-activist-spent-200g-in-black-lives-matter-donations-on-house-personal-expenses-fbi

Rouan, R. Fact check: Missing context in claim about Black Lives Matter co-founder’s property purchases., (published on 19 April 2021)., Retrieved 12 December 2021., Source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/04/19/fact-check-misleading-claim-blm-co-founders-real-estate/7241450002/

VIII. Unleashing the wolves to harass the sheep & race relating to Kenosha – Waukesha – and Oxford High School

When you look at the case of Darrell Brooks in Waukesha, Wisconsin, but also, the shooting of Joseph Rosenbaum in Kenosha, Wisconsin, you notice that both men were criminals. Why were the released from jail or release from the authority of a mental health facility? There are many people in jail that don’t have the sheer amount of baggage these two men have yet are still wasting away in dangerous and unsanitary prisons across the US. Ironically, the same system that police are a part of, i.e., the state, let these men out of jail, where one could argue not only do police use excessive violence often against people who aren’t threats, but they also release dangerous people from jail who end up terrorizing the public. Is this by coincidence? Or, maybe these lags in the system are due to the fact the system (that police are a part of) is too big to fail but constantly fails being so big and disorganized (unaccountable). It’s like a machine that spits out problems naturally, but it’s so big and embedded into society that no one notices until it’s too late.

For example, Joseph Rosenbaum was a pedophile, having been released from jail, but he was in a later relationship with a woman, yet he was living a nearly destitute or transient existence. He never should have been out of the care of mental health professionals but for some reason he was released. His aggressive behavior that night toward Kyle Rittenhouse (who never should have been out that night to begin with) helped spark the shootings that commenced. It’s interesting, as well that with Rosenbaum being a pedophile (who was also assaulted himself at a young age), the pedophile category has been applied by the political right culturally towards the political left in other arenas, such as with Qanon, the notion of “Hollyweird”, etc. The political right trying to take ownership of the pedophile category to attack liberals or the Left, is simply a strategy to undermine progressive politics, even though pedophiles come from all racial, ethnic, gender and political backgrounds. The fact Rosenbaum was a pedophile in theory helped give the political right more ammunition in their campaign to underline the political left in the larger Culture Wars, even though Rosenbaum was an individual acting on his own accord.

Just because Rosenbaum was at the protests doesn’t mean he was there to protests and it doesn’t mean he was there to stand up for what the protestors were standing for. Basically, he was likely there to cause issues to take out his rage against the world, i.e., the riots were an excuse for him to express his rage against the system, his own failures, his own demons, etc. Those who supported the protests or the cause underneath it, were not necessarily angry a pedophile was murdered, but more so a counter-protestors or vigilante had showed up to a protest which resulted in the deaths of people even if Rittenhouse was found innocent of all charges. The implications of having counter-protestors such as those in typical militia garb such as Proud Boys or Boogaloo escalating violence was the concern, considering these groups are extensions of MAGA politics (“Stand back, stand by”, as said by Donald Trump when asked about militias during his debates with Biden which happened before the eventual January 6th Capital Insurrection).

Relating to Darrell Brooks, the conservative media was very quick to try to bring up Darrell Brook’s race, because they felt that the liberal media during the Rittenhouse Trial was against “white people”. Aesthetically, in the minds of many, Rittenhouse is symbolic of “MAGA, Blue Lives Matter, Police worship”, whereas Darrell Brooks is symbolic of “easy on crime, ‘liberal policies’, black radicalism”, etc. In other words, to many, Darrell Brooks represents to the cultural Right Wing as being the result of soft-on-crime policies, racial double standards, and the need for more cops, i.e., “this is what happens when we don’t have police and this what happens when you let “Demon-crats” have power”. Yet, what people fail to understand between the two cases of Rittenhouse and Brooks is that everyone knows that Brooks is a criminal, everyone regardless of race can agree he’s a criminal, and he’s already on his way to being fully persecuted by the law, whereas the Rittenhouse was more ambiguous as to whether he was or wasn’t a criminal, but from first impression, based on his profile (a cop loving, Donald Trump rally attending young white male, who made suspect comments about using violence against protestors), there was reason to be highly suspect of Kyle Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse inserted himself into a larger cultural debate that encompasses a wide array of values, aesthetics, movements, symbols, interpretations, a remind of a history of white vigilante justice, etc. Therefore, the media bit so hard into the Rittenhouse case. It is because there was ambiguity and ambiguity lead to conversations, panel experts, segments (commercial break included), etc.

After the Rittenhouse acquittal, there was the Waukesha Parade Attack by Darrell Brooks, but then came the tragic Oxford High School shootings on November 30, 2021. Per conservative logic, such as the rhetoric by pundits such as Candace Owens or Steven Crowder, one would have assumed the “liberal MSM media” (MSM is mainstream media) would have instantly called out the shooter’s, Ethan Crumbley’s, race. But, they didn’t. Why? Once could only assume that there’s are different reporting procedures and different rules (even, if only “gentlemen’s rules) when it comes to reporting various categories of crimes, e.g., mass shootings/school shootings versus terror attacks (which could include mass and/or school shootings) versus possible hate crimes versus “everyday crimes”.

What I notice here regarding the Right Wing’s take to these events after the Rittenhouse Trial is that Republicans are desperately seeking to establish “racial parity”. They feel that liberals or the Left have more of a tool in their pocket, e.g., Critical Theory, Intersectionality, etc., to challenge the status quo, so naturally conservatives are desperately trying to find “gotcha moments” to undermine the larger conversation relating to systemic oppression, racism, lack of diversity in certain institutions of power, etc.

All of this does deal with cops, because cops as a symbol are a part of the larger cultural debates, so by conservatives trying to establish “racial parity” in the media, they help grow the sentiment of police worship (the residuals of Blue Lives Matters, etc.).

IX. Copaganda in Hollywood

Many police shows paint police in a popular or sentimental light, where there is always justification for using violence rather than de-escalation tactics.

X. Crime Wave Fears.

After the failure of the Congress to pass legislation, the system giving a few wins to police reformists such as the arrests of Derek Chauvin after the George Floyd Trial, a general sense of ennui in the public as the police (and racial) conversation dragged on, and other things I spoke about above, come late 2021 going into 2022, the media, especially conservative media is pushing the “Crime Wave” panic. This further helps to justify the presence of police. Yet, the Crime Wave could be simply boiled down to the slow recovery and normalization of life with COVID-19. People have been staying inside, remote working, not commuting to work, online shopping, etc. Naturally, as more people leave their homes, there will be a higher probability of crime, where one could even call the notion of crime as being subjective, e.g., more people committing traffic violations or minor civil infractions could be considered crime. Regardless, the fact that more people are out and about, crime will naturally occur. Crime is further compounded by social issues (which conservatives rarely acknowledge) such as the insane real estate market in many major US cities causing homelessness or economic desperation, the fact that unemployment naturally causes crime but also suicides/mental health situations. Interestingly, the Federal Reserve central bank in many ways is helping to inflate real estate prices ranging from homes, apartments, and even trailer parks.  

What is Biden Doing? Keeping Track of the Biden Administration. An Objective Viewpoint by Quinton Mitchell

I believe in the United States. I want it to succeed. I believe that any issue can be solved if you put effort into it. I considering myself a “patriot”. My ancestors were slaves, we worked this land without respect, my family served in major battles such as World War II and Korea, The Cold War, but also the Iraq-Afghanistan conflicts, I served, and I consider myself a proud American. Yet, I am a Leftist (a Sound Money, cautious Keynesian, market democratic socialist – in my head) because based on my patriotism, I side with the working classes. I have no patience for racism or sexism, and I generally want everyone to live a content happy life confident in their identity no matter what race, gender, sexual orientation, sexual assignment, religion or lack thereof, ethnicity, physical ability, etc., they happen to be. I am proud to be “woke” because I see all the criticism against it, and I realize that people are getting in the way of progress because of fear. They fear losing whatever idea of social privileges they think they have, yet elevating others who were pushed to the margins of society is not a threat to anyone and if anything will help to get over the closeted issues that conservatism helps perpetuate since conservatism doesn’t adequately deal with issues, yet, instead it tries to cover them up, e.g., conservatives demonizing gay people thus denying their very being and thus subjecting them danger such as lack of health care access. One can easily say the same thing for minorities such Native Americans who live in rural ghettos or women who have always been second class citizens when relating to the egos of men. I don’t hate conservatives and in many ways I admire the Norman Rockwell-esque iconography of the United States which I grew up in even as a black man, but this country includes other people.

I am happy that Biden is President. I sleep better at night. I function better during the day knowing that there isn’t as much drama as what happened under Trump. Being in my now mid-thirties, an older Millennial, my entire adult life has been defined by drama from 9/11, to the wars in the Middle East, to stock market crashes, to the fall of with in institutions regarding topics such as spying which helped to create a rampant online conspiracy theory culture, to new discussion around race or gender, etc. I am a progressive. I am a Leftist, but I do accept Realpolitik and pragmatism, so Biden despite being the “system” is in theory the best we can have at this point. It’s not necessarily inspiring, but at least

‘There’s a lot of hate of President Biden but considering most of it is the residue of the Qanon MAGA verse but also even from progressives within his own party because he’s not progressive enough. Yet, I see myself as an average American guy, college educated, decent job, a home, and I’m glad Biden is president because I feel like 2016-2020 destroyed the United States. A very depressing time seeing Far Right racist with Russian sympathies be platformed, but also my mind being constantly prodded by the postmodern assault of social media, the news, etc. I see Biden as a boring sense of peace and stability after a time of intense over-thinking, philosophical thinking, adapting to new technology, etc. It’s ok to take a “chill pill”, yet, Biden does need to push forward, i.e., the time IS NOW, to push forward with Green Energy, police reform, reinvigorating the labor movement in a new paradigm of technological innovation (e.g., computer programmers are often not unionized despite working a very stressful job, but there are also people within traditional industries such as manufacturing or production who aren’t unionized despite federal mandated wages not rising since 2008).

Yet, as a former economics student in college in my youth, I do think about macroeconomic policy and the future of the USA. I’m not a doomsday person. I feel that doomsday people often using fear to enrich themselves such as pushing up the price of gold for their own benefit or even pushing crypto-currency. I joke, I am a “fiat bro”, i.e., I do support the “paper money regime” because…this is what runs the global economy. Why would I bet against something I get paid in? Why would I bet against something that the world uses? I find it funny that people who championed gold or silvers, are not crypto advocates but to me digital currency is even worst than paper dollars, i.e., I can’t hold it.

Who will be a strong enough leader to do the right thing? No President be they Democrat or Republican wants to raise taxes to help pay down the national debt. Sometimes in my head I think what if were to implement the “Economic Crucible”? By this I mean higher taxes, higher interest rates, slashing spending, but to cover the harder environment we de-regulate, legalize, and/or privatize certain aspects of the economy? Yet, I am sure this would have dire consequences at this point. However, debt isn’t entirely bad, considering all industrialized nations are in debt and most of these nations are allies who vouch for each other’s debt. It’s not like the US is some weak nation who can’t stand up for itself in the face of creditors and many nations would never even dare to stand up to the United States on debt, e.g., a strong military with global scope, a consumer population who buys goods and services, relative political stability, and safety, etc.

Debt to the average person is bad, i.e., you trying to pay of a credit card (revolving credit), but to a nation it’s not the same thing, because the state is the state, i.e., the state is the law, can use force, and represents the entirety of its citizens. Debt levels may be high, but all other strong nations have a similar situation, yet, no country has the global leadership role that the United States does and many of our allies have consented to the US having such a role of global leadership, i.e., we do the dirty work that other nations don’t want to do, and the US can be the key negotiator between other parties. One could even argue that the ability to rack up large amounts of debt is a special privilege granted to industrialized nations because they have the geo-strategic alliances, assets, core competencies/intellectual property when it comes to producing advanced goods and are the consumer base of the world.

So, I’m not a doomsday person when it comes national debt (I am not a hardcore Austrian economics gold-standard lover or anarcho-capitalist “down with the system” Bitcoin bro), however, to sustain the global economic system between the major powers, one does have to show good faith payments on their debt, and therefore taxes need to go up. Even though all the allies are friends in this debt exchange system that affects foreign exchange rates and trade, there still is a level of mistrust as far as one’s ability to effectively pay their bills. Taxes are needed to reduce the amount of deficit spending already on the books but also show creditors (our allies) that we are willing to do the hard thing to show good faith. Sure, they won’t call our debt, but the ability to make good faith payments with taxes doesn’t help to restore a sense of faith, i.e., it reduces the sweating of our lenders, i.e., bond holders.

Yet, what has Biden does so far?  

  1. Passed a 1.2 trillion Infrastructure Bill where according to Lobosco & Luhby (2021) of CNN, “the bill will deliver $550 billion of new federal investments in America’s infrastructure over five years, touching everything from bridges and roads to the nation’s broadband, water and energy systems. Experts say the money is sorely needed to ensure safe travel, as well as the efficient transport of goods and produce across the country. The nation’s infrastructure system earned a C- score from the American Society of Civil Engineers earlier this year.” Yet, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the package would add $256 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years (Lobosco & Luhby, 2021).
  2. Passed the 1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan
  3. Will sign the nearly 800 billion annual National Defense Authorization Act funding the military, special forces operations, intelligence, etc.
  4. Will sign the I Am Venessa Guillen Bill which is a provision in the NDAA which takes sexual assault investigations away from military Chain of Commands, and instead creates a separate investigative board since Chain of Commands such as those at Fort Hood helped bury sexual assault cases.
  5. With NATO Leadership support, President Biden followed on the Trump Era Doha Agreement between the US and Taliban and withdrew US forces from Afghanistan (Liptak and Sullivan, 2021, CNN). This withdrawal from one perspective was just in that the war in Afghanistan did achieve some things such as helping women, but overall, the war was very costly to US taxpayers considering it was funded on debt as opposed to tax increases, so the war bill will continue to grow with interests’ payments. Yet, one could argue withdrawing from Afghanistan has remove the US from The Grand Chessboard, i.e., the strategic location of Central Asia near Russia, Iran, China, and Pakistan. Therefore in my opinion even liberal outlets decried Biden’s removal of troops, and they used “social justice”, i.e., “tear jerking tactics”, e.g., Vice News showing aggrieved veterans who felt the war wasn’t won or showing the blight of Afghan women, to convince the President to stay in the region, yet, these goals aren’t necessarily from humanitarianism but a way to continue militarism in the region, i.e., funding the military industrial complex and its contractors. One could argue that leaving Afghanistan makes the region more of a security threat to the Russians, Chinese, and Pakistanis, i.e., them focusing on Taliban or their enemies with ISIS in the region will keep them preoccupied. For example, Russia can’t just focus on the Eastern European theater but now must worry about their vast border with Central Asian nations, i.e., this help divert Russian resources away from Eastern Europe and towards Central Asia (where the Russians didn’t have much luck such with the Soviet Afghan War).
  6. Biden has threatened Russia with sanctions such as sanctions relating to the SWIFT (The Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) system if Russia continues military action in Ukraine and decides to conduct a second wave of invasions into the country.
  7. Sources vary but around 65,000 to 70,000 Afghan refugees were brought to the United States. When Joe Biden withdrew from Afghanistan both sides of the political spectrum have Biden criticism, yet surprisingly even certain figures on the political-right tried to use the humanitarian catastrophe card. Yet, according to Hennessey-Fiske (2021), of the LA Times, “Since the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan in August, 124,000 people have been evacuated to the U.S., including 67,000 Afghan allies. Of those Afghans, 10,000 have been resettled with the help of nonprofit agencies in communities across the nation, according to the Biden administration.”. Lastly, under the Biden Administration, $6.3 Billion has been allocated to resettlement efforts (Hennessey-Fiske, 2021, LA Times). Yet, according to Caitlin Doornbos (2021) of Military.com, as of December 7, 2021, only 34,000 refugees remained on US bases such as Fort Bliss in Texas, Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey, Fort McCoy in Wisconsin, Camp Atterbury in Indiana, Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico, and Fort Pickett and Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia.
  8. Opened Cops Hiring Program (CHP) applications worth ~$139 million to police agencies across the country
  9. Opened nearly 80k acres of offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico
  10. Yet, Biden has also re-entered the Paris Climate Accord after Trump withdrew from the agreement, largely with Trump feeding off his base’s climate change skepticism, but also his view that the US would fall behind if nations like China or India would continue to use dirty energy. Yet, when you see Biden’s offshore drilling policy, it calls into question his honest intentions around combating climate change and hitting carbon emission reduction targets. According to Matt McGrath (2021) of the BBC, “This new target, possibly for 2030, and President Biden’s commitment to reaching net zero emissions by 2050, will be the guide rails for the US economy and society for decades to come.”
  11. Convinced Australia to purchase US submarines as opposed to French submarines
  12. Extended the moratorium on student loan payments and interests’ payments into spring 2022
  13. Kept the Trump Era Title 42 health risk loophole to maintain the Stay in Mexico asylum seeking policy, i.e., asylum seekers must claim asylum from their own country or from Mexico (where many Central American refugees travel to)
  14. Made Juneteenth, i.e., the official day that slavery in the United States ended (not to be confused with the Emancipation Proclamation) a Federal Holiday

What needs to be done?

The George Floyd Justice in Policing Bill needs to be signed considering police are still getting funding, and systemically one could argue the justice system hasn’t reformed much. This bill passing is something that BIPOC peoples but also many white people want, despite the police issue often being framed through a black liberation versus the system framework. Passing the bill, I would argue would help evolve policing and even help police officers, i.e., I see the potential passage of it as continuous improvement, and restoring trust equates to civilians not being so fearful when approached by police. With the First Step Act passed under Trump alongside the hopeful passage of the MORE Act and George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, the United States will still have police officers but society will have a more progressive criminal justice system such as people not being arrested for marijuana offenses, people who have used marijuana be given the change to seek better paying employment or military service (helping recruiting), and the public will feel the system actually listens to them.

Biden has been effective but not the most effective, but he’s keeping the lights on, and things are improving slowly. I am trying to write this objectively, i.e., above progressivism and conservatism. In many ways, Biden is quite boring. Yet, Biden is doing what needs to be done in certain regards such as trying to restore faith in alliances that Donald Trump in theory helped to jeopardize such as Biden meeting with NATO leaders, considering the United States doesn’t want to lose a foothold over the historically nationalistic, multi-ethnic, and multi-lingual region (remembering WWI, WWII, the Napoleonic Wars, Thirty Years Wars, various wars of successions, etc.) especially as ambitious leaders such as France’s Emmanuel Macon (who isn’t anti-American, but more so, competitive) wants to assert French primacy. The fact that France and Germany can use their economic leverage to balance the West versus Russia increases if NATO fails and this in theory might be great for those who are dovish on foreign policy, yet in theory, a Europe without a strong unified bond with the United States to take the bad publicity for Europe could unleash a chaotic mix of nationalistic sentiments as Europeans don’t see themselves as living in solidarity with mutual interests, but rather might start seeing themselves as competitors where such competition can be easily exploited by emergent or wannabe emergent superpowers such as China and Russia (remembering that China has heavily invested in European infrastructure projects and Russia also has a near monopoly on natural gas pipelines). For example, the Far Right “ethno-nationalist” ideology coming from Kremlin through thinkers such as Aleksandr Dugin, has affect European politics, but the truth is that an “ethno-state” would effectively isolate a nation to be exploited or bribed by a nation such as Russia. In other words, if NATO ever fails, which is what Russia and China wants, sure, this could help Germany or France become the de-facto leaders of the European Union (which in theory they already are, i.e., Germany and France providing most of the bailout money via the European Central Bank during the Greek sovereign debt crisis), yet the erosion of the NATO alliance which does force cooperation between the various ethnic states, could lead to unleashing old-fashioned nationalistic tensions, which could therefore be exploited by the Russian Kremlin’s hope of returning to its former glory days, and potentially in-debt now isolated European states to Chinese financing. In theory if NATO fails, so would the European Unions, and thus the European Central Banks, and this would have major consequences on international financing and markets, e.g., if the Euro Dollar were to go away and nations started adopting their own nationalistic currencies, this could not only make currency conversion/trade more problematic but could also pose a risk for smaller nations would suffer currency short selling by speculators.

Yet, what I wrote above is such a microcosm of the various issues that the United States has to juggle, and I would argue that Biden is helping to catch up on certain domestic needs (like roads), but there was hope he would be more ambitious in his vision to not just catch up but to rocket forward, considering he won off the energy of progressive populism who do want green energy, police reform, women’s rights, the rich paying higher taxes to fund society, etc. Progressives don’t want faux progressivism, such as the military or intelligence community keeping things the same but simply adding “woke recruiting campaigns”, but they want material (real world) change.

Yet, Biden (or, even let’s say a Republican in an alternative universe) has a decent excuse to go at the pace he’s going at because with COVID-19 still railing, Biden does have an excuse to sell moderate temperance to the public. So, considering the situation he’s doing decent, but one can say the opposite, e.g., this dire situation should have been a way to redistribute the wealth/debt of the nation to the working classes instead of focusing on hedge funds like BlackRock, etc. COVID-19 revealed many issues such as a lack of affordable housing, the fact that the US minimum wage hasn’t been raised and adjusted to inflation since 2008 despite an increase the money supply, and that offshoring US labor has made the United States too dependent upon volatile global supply chains.

But objectively, Biden isn’t the worst president, nor is he doing a horrific job. He’s just “business as usual”, yet many might appreciate this “business as usual” because people are burnt out of all the social arguments that occurred under the Trump Era. In theory, Trump going Far Right gave Centrist Democrats a good alibi to not push forward, i.e., Democrats are saying “we might be boring, but at least we’re not as terrifying and paranoid as the conservatism that Trump unleashed”.

Biden is returning a sense of peace and calm on the global stage with our very needed allies who buy our weapons – and, yes, I know this is problematic, but it is a fact of life, yet, our allies grant us access to their airspace/ports, and vouch for our debt, e.g., Japan is one of the largest holders of US Treasuries as they attempt to fund their pension system for their elderly population, but Japan is also geo-strategically important in Pacific, creating a triangle with South Korea and Taiwan/The Philippines near the South China Sea versus China.

Even with the Build, Back, Better Act dead in negotiations, I am not personally stressing over BBB, even though it would have been awesome if it passed. A perk to BBB failing is that we can all agree that Manchin, as well as Sinema, can’t be trusted. Biden is exercising a different managerial approach as compared to Trump. Trump used a micro-manager authoritarian approach to managing power often using Executive Orders to circumvent the legislative process, but Biden is using a traditional balance-of-power approach by following the constitution, i.e., relying on the legislative branch to create laws, the judicial branch to review and approve laws, and the executive branch to sign laws after they garner the required votes in Congress. You can judge Biden on this though. If Trump was a strongman leader, then why doesn’t Biden do the same across the board and not just on COVID-19 mitigation? It’s my opinion that Biden doesn’t want to continue the precedent set by Trump as far as authoritarian rule by the Executive Branch, so he’s being “boring” yet constitutional by relying on the other two branch of government. Yet, this is good, but also gives the administration an excuse to go slow, and this slowness doesn’t equate to progress, and gives an alibi to not fulfill campaign promises.

Yet, despite thinking on the negative, I decided to write out what has been accomplished so far. Even with BBB dead in the water as of 2021, it doesn’t mean something akin to it can’t be passed soon or through other bills or strategies, i.e., breaking up BBB and padding other bills with its provisions. The Democrats, who I support aren’t in a bad situation but are in a vulnerable situation considering 2022 Congressional elections especially those in the Senate are on the horizon. Unless the Democrats get a large majority to sure up power, then they’re left with negotiating or developing different strategies to pass progressive policy. In theory, Biden could use ideas that Steve Bannon on behalf of Trump tried to do but in a progressive way. For example, Bannon if my memory is correct (I’m searching for the article that vividly remember seeing) tried to use the Defense Priority Act to subsidize the coal industry and nuclear energy. So, if this idea was floated, then why use it for green energy, i.e., green energy is a national defense priority?

Yet, despite BBB failing, the United States is and isn’t in as dire of situation, yet President Biden has been doing a decent job of keeping the lights on and signing bills that invest in America’s future. Even as a person who sympathizes with Leftism, I could easily be angry at Biden if I wanted, but I’m already such a skeptic that I figure “eh” at least the lights are on, and the Democrats have power to a degree. Anything is better than conservatism. It sucks it comes down to that, but in the face of 3rd Way corporatism (a type of fascism) there’s not much one can hope for since the ruling classes dictate democracy.

President Biden signed the $1.2 Trillion Infrastructure Bill (11/15/2021) into law and is expected to sign the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which passed the Senate on (12/15/2021) which has a price tag of $778 Billion which is a $23.9 Billion top-line increase from the previous NDAA.  So, our roads/bridges/ports/airports/levies and military will be funded. I consider that win. Sure, there’s many pacificist and Leftist decrying the Military Industrial Complex, but every nation needs a military where we like it or not (a sad truth of the human species), and even as a Leftist, I do support the military and American primacy. Sure, I know all about the crimes of the CIA and can still call them out and would pray we could figure out better ways of doing diplomacy besides hardcore covert overthrowing government operations, yet, still I support the troops considering most of the troops are of the proletariat. I can support socialism from a Western and American perspective while still detesting Chinese socialism for example. 

We are also still living under the $2.2 Trillion CARE Act (3/27/2020) which was supplemented with the $484 Billion PPP (Paycheck Protection Program) & Health Care Enhancement Act (4/24/2020), and the Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2021 at $2.3 Trillion (signed on 12/27/20, which merged $900 Billion with a $1.4 Trillion Omnibus Spending Bill) which were passed under Donald Trump, yet President Biden supplemented these with a $1.9 Trillion American Rescue Plan (3/11/2021). Note: An omnibus spending bill is a type of bill in the United States that packages many of the smaller ordinary appropriations bills into one larger single bill that can be passed with only one vote in each house. There are twelve different ordinary appropriations bills that need to be passed each year (one for each appropriations sub-committee) to fund the federal government and avoid a government shutdown.

Yet, the easy simple math I did below:

CARE Act (3/27/2020) – 2,200,000,000,000

PPP HCE Act (4/24/2020) – 484,000,000,000

Consolidated Appropriation Act (Omnibus) (12/27/20) – 2,300,000,000,000

American Rescue Plan (3/11/21) – 1,900,000,000,000

Infrastructure Bill (11/15/2021) – 1,200,000,000,000

2022 NDAA (projected 12/31/2021) – 778,000,000,000

= 7,600,000,000,000 trillion + (484,000,000 + 778,000,000 = 1,262,000,000,000)

= 8,862,000,000,000 in appropriate spending since 3/27/2020, yet, appropriate spending doesn’t mean it will be charged at once, but rather a lot of the money such will be divvied up over fiscal years, and after viewing the National Debt Clock, I’m assuming that all the bills I listed above from the Infrastructure Bill and previous are factored into this national debt number in some way, shape, or form.

Yet, according to National Debt Clock,

$29 Trillion in Debt vs $23 Trillion in GDP vs $4 Trillion in Tax Revenues, and these numbers were pulled on 12/24/21 at 6:25 AM EST, but I’m unsure if the $1.2 Trillion is already factored into this number, but if not then we may be around $30.9 Trillion since the Infrastructure Bill was passed before I checked the Debt Clock. So, roughly we’re at about a $7 Trillion detriment as far as Debt vs GDP, and we’re not nearly paying the amount of money need in taxes at $4 Trillion to really dent the $29 Trillion in debt, or in other words taxes amount to around 13.9% out of the national debt (4/29 * 100). This 13.9% is odd because this means that even though the highest marginal tax rate bracket is 37%, effectively on average, i.e., the average of effective tax rates, is only 13.9%, meaning that someone isn’t pay thing taxes, i.e., even though on paper it says the highest you can pay is 37%, in reality only 13.9% is being paid by all taxpayers (billionaires included), meaning there’s a tax rate detriment of 23.1%. Everyday people, from the lower working classes to the high middle class like a successful business owner might pay the highest 37% rate on all their total earned income, yet, billionaires are likely avoiding so much in taxes that the average of all tax revenue received is 13.9%. If I take the $30.9 Trillion and compare that to the $4 Trillion in taxes raised, it’s even worst at 12.9%.

So, assuming the $8 trillion in bills from the CARE Act to the Infrastructure Bill is factored into the standing $29 Trillion as shown on the Debt Clock, or even assuming they are not thus making the debt 30.9 trillion, the taxes being raised in relation to debt is only 12.9-13.9%, making the tax revenue pulled in fall short of the highest tax rate that can be charged at 37%, thus making a tax revenue detriment in relation to national debt be 23.1-24.1%.

This means that the government is borrowing to cover this spread somehow on top of what it already borrows but is also not effectively taxing those who should be paying at a minimum 37%.

The government has a few options. Better enforcing existing tax laws especially on higher income earners, raising tax rates so you have a better chance of catching tax revenues, and/or revising the tax code. Even if let’s say we add that 23-24% detriment I speak of to the 37% highest tax rate, then we get a 60-61% rate, which interestingly would not be the highest historical marginal tax rate. The harsh truth is…we’ve been slacking on paying taxes collectively in relation to the type of first-world society we live in. We use credit more than taxation. Yet, older generations, whom we consider to be “tougher” actually paid higher taxes and the Golden Era of Democratic Capitalism occurred under higher taxation to pay for society so that future generations wouldn’t incur as much debt, or their money be less valuable. Yet, the Boomer generation once they entered the workforce in the late 70s despite having initially higher taxes, actually ended paying on average lower taxes than their parents and likely even their children who will have to bear the burden of higher taxes (to pay for entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, etc.).

Yet, all this money from these bills…what are the people truly getting from it? The realized impact among the people I would argue is minimal. Sure, some people got COVID relief checks but those checks truly don’t cover the cost of living such as housing or rent, food, gas, education, debt principal or interests, expenses. We’re spending all this money, but the truth is that most is going to large businesses or corporations who win grants, awards, contracts, and direct payments, etc., via contracts by the federal government under the Federal Procurement Data System, Federal Acquisition Regulation, etc.

President Biden has accomplished things by signing legislation into law that gives support to business, individuals, and will help repair/rebuild America’s declining and crumbling infrastructure.

As far as national security, Joe Biden has met with Pacific nations and even snubbed France over a submarine deal between Australia, thus tightening Australia’s bond with the USA via the AUKUS Alliance as China becomes more ambitious regarding Taiwan (a major source of semiconductors), The Belt and Road Project, The South China Sea (the world’s most vital shipping lane), etc. The submarine deal will sell $153 billion and USD $171 billion worth of US military equipment according to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) (NDTV.com., 12/15/21).

Also, within the NDAA there is the I am Venessa Guillen Bill, which will take away the military’s authority to prosecute sexual assault and harassment cases and instead, create an independent investigation separate from the chain of command (Grace White, KHOU-11, 12/22/21).

In addition, despite Blue Lives Matter being a Trump adjacent movement, The Department of Justice under President Biden has announced $139 million in grant funding through the department’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) COPS Hiring Program (CHP). The awards provide direct funding to 183 law enforcement agencies across the nation, allowing those agencies to hire 1,066 additional full-time law enforcement professionals (The Department of Justice, 11/18/21). Further, within the NDAA which is due to be signed soon by President Biden, there still exists the controversial Program 1033 where the military gives surplus military equipment to police agencies. Even, though I support police reform, it is a lie to state that President Biden isn’t funding cops.

Further, according to Annie Nova (2021) of CNBC, “Amid concerns about the new omicron variant of the Covid-19 virus, the Biden administration will extend the payment pause for federal student loan borrowers until May 1.” This extension allows people to stop paying student loan debt without incurring interests.

Biden released 80 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico to auction for drilling, despite him attempting to use an Executive Order to pause drilling, but this pause was blocked in court by 13 oil/natural gas friendly states (Ella Nilsen, CNN, 11/17/21). So, with Biden opening 80 million acres for offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, from a progressive perspective this is horrible and a deviation from his campaign promises to help fight Climate Change and start encouraging higher green energy investing, yet, from a conservative or at least let’s say business perspective, opening offshore drilling could help keep energy prices low, and lower energy prices might help to stave off the inflationary pressures hitting the USA. Lower energy costs is the foundation that affects many aspects of the supply chain such as more affordable utility energy costs which could help divert rising costs for consumers but also commercial entities, cheaper transportation costs, generating revenues for manufacturers of tools and machinery related to the oil and natural gas industry, and maintaining employment. Yet, Biden is likely opening up the oil leases because the truth is that Big Oil and Gas has a lot of influence, so Biden is really trying to garner favor, considering many rich people can fund bad publicity against a President who goes against their business interests.

Biden has also kept Title 42 restrictions relating to immigration and asylum seekers. Biden is using the Trump Area Title 42 loophole that restricts entry into the US on the grounds of preventing the spread of contagious health risks, to keep asylum seekers out of the United States under the Remain in Mexico asylum seeker policy. It’s controversial, yet, it’s interesting that conservatives don’t give Biden much credit for maintaining this nativist Trumpian policy.

Such a policy was brought into further controversy after Haitian refugees fleeing earthquakes, hurricanes, and a government coup, migrated through Mexico and attempted to enter the USA. Border Agents, at this time under the leadership of Biden, used controversial tactics to keep the Haitian immigrants out of the United States. Yet, Biden later started removing restrictions on travel from eight African countries, where these the travel restriction was originally implemented to monitor the Omicron variant of COVID-19. Yet, this move to remove travel restrictions on African countries raises the question as to why the Haitian refugees weren’t allowed to claim asylum which is a right under international law.

But, despite Joe Biden doing things such as supporting the military and bolstering the economy in relation to COVID-19 and its variants, he is falling behind on what he promised to do for those who voted for him. The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act has failed in negotiations as of the fall of 2021, and this bill was introduced twice by Democrats but no success largely due lack of Republican support (zero vote for the second attempt at the reform bill). 

There’s also issues such as 800,000+ Americans having died from COVID related illnesses while there is a universe of conspiracy theory and misinformation regarding vaccines; there is a homelessness epidemic largely caused by drug addiction (such as Feytanyl coming from South of the Border)/mental health and workers being priced out of real estate markets such as Seattle, Los Angeles, and the San Francisco Bay Area; a “Crime Wave” as life normalizes after the initial COVID-19 lock-downs where crime could be traced to the lack of job opportunities/rising cost of living among the working classes; a very hot housing market where foreign investors are unfairly buying multiple homes (if not entire communities) and pricing out first-time homeowners; Roe v. Wade as always is under attack from Republicans; Trans people still lack legal protections over employment, healthcare access, and being protected if incarcerated; there is a threat of domestic terrorism such as by White Supremacy Extremists (WSEs); outstanding student loan debt in the U.S. has surpassed $1.7 trillion and burdens Americans more than credit card and auto debt (Nova, 2021, CNBC), and generally, there is lack of trust in institutions including the media.

Yet, from all this spending, where the money isn’t truly reaching the working classes, despite whatever sort of COVID stimulus checks or PPP Loans that individuals, families, and small-to-medium size businesses have received. The sheer amount of money spent so far since COVID started around March 2020 is…insane, and it could be argued that it is just another form of “trickle down” corporatism, rather that direct social investments in the people. It’s as if the government spends money just to say to the working classes that “we can’t afford this now”. The Buy Back Better Bill was intended to be a way for the people to get a cut of all this debt creations and deficit spending. It is disheartening that the American public will foot the bill for all this spending, yet, not really get a direct “in their pocket” benefit, granted the NDAA does stimulate employment across the thousands of contractors supporting the defense industry in the web we call the Military Industrial Complex, paying soldiers, and the Infrastructure Bill will help create employment with construction jobs, engineering projects, and improving roads/bridges/ports that naturally stimulate economies.

Works Cited/References

Doornbos, C., (2021), 34,000 Afghan Refugees Remain on Seven Military Bases in the US Three Months After Evacuation Mission, Military.com, source: https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/12/07/34000-afghan-refugees-remain-seven-military-bases-us-three-months-after-evacuation-mission.html

Hennessey-Fiske, M., (2021), Why are most Afghan evacuees still housed at U.S. military camps?, The Los Angeles (LA) Times, source: https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-10-30/why-have-afghan-refugees-been-held-for-months-on-u-s-bases

Liptak, A., & Sullivan, K., (2021), NATO leaders at summit back Biden’s decision to pull troops out of Afghanistan, CNN, source: https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/14/politics/president-biden-nato-summit/index.html

Lobosco, K., & Lubhy, T., (2021), Here’s what’s in the bipartisan infrastructure package, CNN, source: https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/28/politics/infrastructure-bill-explained/index.html

NDTV.com (2021), Australia’s Nuclear Submarine Fleet Expected To Cost Over $121 Billion, source: https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/australias-aukus-nuclear-submarines-fleet-may-cost-over-usd-121-bn-report-2652589

Nova, A. (2021), Biden administration extends payment pause for student loan borrowers until May 1, CNBC, source: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/22/biden-administration-extends-payment-pause-for-student-loan-borrowers-until-may-1.html

Orem, T. (2021), 2021-2022 Tax Brackets and Federal Income Tax Rates, Nerd Wallet, source: https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/taxes/federal-income-tax-brackets

Probasco, J., Understanding the Infrastructure Bills, https://www.investopedia.com/here-s-what-s-in-the-usd1-trillion-infrastructure-bill-passed-by-the-senate-5196817

Shannon, J., Yancey-Bragg, N., Stanton, C., (2021), Biden administration to lift travel restrictions on 8 African countries; 500 flights canceled: COVID-19 updates, USA Today, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2021/12/24/omicron-covid-surge-canceled-flights/9008997002/

The Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs (2021), Justice Department Announces $139 Million for Law Enforcement Hiring to Advance Community Policing, source: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-139-million-law-enforcement-hiring-advance-community-policing

US Debt Clock.com (2021), source: https://www.usdebtclock.org/#

White, G. (2021), President Biden expected to sign Vanessa Guillen legislation soon, family says, KHOU-11, source: https://www.khou.com/article/news/local/vanessa-guillen/vanessa-guillen-legislation/285-70070dc1-5bee-4b6b-968b-304b9fdbdec5

Race in the Waukesha Attack and Oxford HS Shooting vs. the Rittenhouse Incident. Two different contexts despite conservatives desperately wanting racial parity for their own preservationist agendas by Quinton Mitchell.

When Darrell Brooks barreled through a Christmas parade on November 21, 2021, which killed six and injured over 62 people, many in the public, especially on the conservative side of politics, were quick to want to discuss Mr. Brook’s race. This is easy to understand simply because the tragedy happened just a few days after the non-guilty verdict of Kyle Rittenhouse regarding his debacle in Kenosha, Wisconsin at a BLM protest and riot.

Regardless, a week or so later, after the Waukesha Attack and the Rittenhouse Incident, a fifteen-year-old kid from Oxford, Michigan went into his high school, shot 30 rounds, killed four students, and wounded six students. The media never mentioned the shooter’s race (Ethan Crumbley), like how the media didn’t jump on Darrell Brook’s race. Why? If the conservative claim that the MSM (mainstream media) was trying to cover up Darrell Brook’s race were true but wanted to blame white people for everything, then why didn’t CNN or MSNBC immediately release a headline saying, “White Teen of MAGA Family in Michigan Murders Four and Injures Six”? Maybe it is because media, even though it is a business, does still have a level of reporting ethics and integrity guidelines. Even if they have a near monopoly on information, they still must compete and reputation is everything (for example, look how CNN just fired Chris Cuomo, or the NY Times fired Jayson Blair, etc).

This hatred for the “mainstream media” comes from a place in people who want something to objectively blame as being the problem, where the actual problems are outside of the media, i.e., in the material world, within structures, within history, etc. Can media have an effect and steer our minds? Of course, but at the end of the day, they’re just reporting news. So, you can’t just blame media, but really the failures of systems and society at large which creates the stories media talks about. Media is to blame but it’s not the thing to explicitly blame, when really the culprit is the failure of society itself.

It’s easy to blame the media for everything and this is something I do or have done before, so I can admit it. But the news still shows the news, and it serves a purpose. For example, local news stations, which are often affiliated with larger companies, e.g., you might have Fox 5 or 8 or 12 in in your local city which is an affiliate of the larger Fox News umbrella, or CBS this or that, but these local affiliates do show crimes regardless of race. I see criminals of all races on my local news affiliate stations, but these affiliate stations are a part of the mainstream media.

The reason race wasn’t as central immediately to the Oxford and Waukesha cases, in my opinion, is because the Oxford HS shooting and the Waukesha Incident were explicit and undeniable crimes, whereas the Rittenhouse Incident was ambiguous and ambiguity leads to conservation, which leads to easy story lines, commercial breaks for advertisers, conversations, panel expert guests spanning criminal justice experts or college professors on race, opinion pieces, etc.

Oxford and Waukesha were explicit crimes, where both suspects were quickly jailed and charged. Depending on type of crime and the effects those crimes could have on the public, there’s different levels of reporting practices regarding victims. For example, in a terrorism case, I’m sure the reporting practices are much different as to not create a copycat situation, or in the case of mass shootings (which could be argued as being terrorism depending on who is overseeing the case), the victims are often protected while the investigation commences.

The Rittenhouse Incident was different and focused on race because the situation was ambiguous, i.e., a gray zone, and many suspected that he would be acquitted based on his race. There was no chance of acquittal relating to Darrell Brooks. To reiterate, the Oxford and Waukesha cases were explicit crimes, whereas Rittenhouse was an ambiguous case where it tapped more into the conversation around race, criminal justice, the incongruity in sentencing laws, etc.

Think about this way. People brought up race regarding Rittenhouse because there was a chance he would walk, whereas what’s the point in making race central to the Waukesha or Oxford HS situations when there’s no chance the criminals will walk? It’s not like Mr. Brooks is being treated any better because he’s black, when really, he’s now going to facing multiple life sentences and will be found guilty. The fact that Rittenhouse received the appearance of preferential treatment from the judicial system and from supporters in the “MAGA verse” (going so far as crowdfunding a Go Fund Me account) was a sign that his race would play a role in his eventual acquittal.

There is no question as to whether Darrell Brooks and Ethan Crombley belong in jail, because their acts transcend our racial conversation and there’s no doubt that they committed those crimes with inherent criminal motives, whereas the Rittenhouse Incident was a grey zone situation more in alignment with a larger socio-political and racial conversation.

The Oxford and Waukesha Cases being actual crimes without a reasonable doubt didn’t need to be about race because race wasn’t necessarily central, based on what we know, and even if they were, to varying degrees, the sad truth regardless is people are dead because of explicit actions, even if race has nothing to do with the events. Rittenhouse was more of a symbolic figure in a larger cultural debate, hence why race was central to debate. Rittenhouse was about stand-your-ground, gun rights, self-defense, reactionary movements to Black Lives Matters such as Blue Lives Matters or All Lives Matters, Trumpism, etc. Rittenhouse happened to be the focal point of a lot of variable or aesthetics, hence the discussion around him was very verbose, complex, etc., i.e., everyone had an opinion on Rittenhouse that spanned spectrums whereas the other two events, it’s clear cut that both criminals are criminals.

White conservatives and pundits such as Candace Owens (who stated that black people are the most murderous group) or Steve Crowder, rushed to try to bring up the “double standard” of the mainstream media, insinuating that the media is against white people, despite the fact media is still controlled majority wise by white people.

What conservatives hate is that their traditional “mind control” operation over the majority isn’t as strong as it used to be, so they must revert to intensity, straw men, poor comparisons, conspiracy theory, a total disregard of nuance, context, or the fact that residual effects of history still haunt us, etc., to keep the status quote.

Conservatives are constantly trying to seek contrarian “gotcha moments” to appear as if they’re wanting fairness or equity, but really this method is an attempt at reversing any progressive gains the public has adopted, such as being more aware of concepts such as white supremacy or privilege. Basically, they don’t want to advance any conversation, if that advancement means a detriment to their base of power.

Conservatives want to reinforce the traditional narrative of black criminality as a social trend, but when attempts at doing the same towards white America comes, they become super defensive. I like to say, that traditionally the crimes of minorities are always collectivized, whereas the crimes of the white majority are often individualized, e.g., a lone wolf white supremacist, etc. Black people are “criminals” overall, but white people are “bad actors”. The crimes of minorities are allowed to be acknowledged to further stigmatize these groups, but crimes relating to white people could be argued as being selected out as being “bad apples” and not indicative of a larger systemic issue or cultural issue.  

In other words, the tides were slowly reversing to how we view race, sociology, crime studies, etc., where it’s not just minorities under the clinical gaze, but now white America is too, and white America since the introduction of social justice, critical theory, etc., in many ways has shown levels of…fragility. Their goal is to constantly try to debunk any progressive claims largely since conservatives represent the status quo, i.e., hierarchy, majority rule (even, the possibility of minority rule by the majority since they fear “losing numbers”), wealth hording, and the disciplinary violence of the state be it police worship, or unilaterally trying to own the romanticism and sacrifice of the military, etc.

Put it this way.

I am black. I grew up my whole life with the weight of America’s perception of black people bearing down on me, even though I wasn’t a criminal or a “thug”, but people associated me with that simply because I was black. Now that the roles slightly reversed, well…welcome to my world.

Welcome to equality.

Kyle Rittenhouse, possible learning disabilities, and the Arizona State University controversy (opinion) by Quinton Mitchell

Kyle has a tendency to slightly embellish his accomplishments which I think comes from an over compensation from him coming from lower income means with some trauma. He likely grew up feeling insecure within a low income home that experienced eviction, likely grew up with a poor diet, had familial substance abuse issues, difficulty in school, and grew up with social media so he embellishes to seem successful. The embellishments possibly are compounded by him being a young male who gravitated towards “Right Wing, Alpha vs Beta, tough guy” Culture and figures that are prominent online. Basically a culture that promotes male posturing, weeding out the weak, being a “meat head” or “Chad”. So, Kyle being the opposite wanted to fit into that aesthetic. A lot of boys and young men face social pressures that can contort their perception of what a “real man” is, especially since our modern culture wars has created a reactionary and opportunistic male “red pill” movement against feminism etc. For example Jordan Peterson. Social sciences at the intersection of pop culture (talk shows, click bait articles) has in many ways forgot about boy development and this leads young males into the guidance of thinkers who give self help but covertly insert political philosophy often of a Right Wing nature.

But, Kyle has a habit of embellishing or omitting facts

He said at the trial he was an EMT but… didn’t finish the courses. He said he was a member of the Antioch FD but was only a volunteer. He said he’s a student at Arizona State but… he’s in preliminary courses and not an actual student in a program.

He was doing online high school (not hating on that) from Penn Foster but unsure if he graduated but also… ASU is a good school which likely requires SAT or ACT scores and nursing would be competitive.

See what I’m saying?

“ASU can confirm that Mr. Rittenhouse enrolled as a non-degree seeking ASU Online student for the session that started Oct. 13, 2021, which allows students access to begin taking classes as they prepare to seek admission into a degree program at the university,” Jay Thorne, ASU assistant vice president of media relations, said in a statement.” (Kevin Stone, 2021, KTAR News).

Many students at ASU don’t want Kyle there. But to me it’s not about politics but what has Kyle academically done to get in? Maybe Kyle should do Community College first to master basic courses and then apply instead of getting too excited. However his preliminary courses at ASU isn’t bad but he still has to “get in”.

Yet, Kyle choosing ASU might not be by coincidence since Arizona is a conservative state and ASU is known for “partying”, e.g., the old Girls Gone Wild stereotype. It might be his dream to go there for excitement reasons and a fresh start but that’s different than the realities of the rigor of a well known research university nursing program.

I’m not saying Kyle can’t get into ASU. I’m not saying Kyke should be disbarred from furthering his education but can he academically get in? Especially if he has shown a lack of focus to complete previous studies and in social environments? Even in the absence of SAT or ACT scores what makes Kyle better than any other candidate, where many either come from academically competitive schools and/or have have more diversified portfolio proving the ability to endure such as Varsity sports, awards, etc.?

I think Kyle might have a learning disability and doesn’t finish things but doesn’t want to bring attention to any issues so he “coasts or rides under the radar saying the right things”. Afraid of being called slow or stupid which is something most people can relate to.

But everyone has some issues so I’m not shaming. For example I often over think things.

I wrote something called “American Kyle Rittenhouse History X” went into his background.

His Mom is dyslexic and I’m not hating on that but when I noticed Kyle’s responses/behavior on the stand but also heard that he was pulled from school for “bullying” by his mom (not the most “tough guy” move), because someone called him stupid… I think… does Kyle have a learning disability?

I read a study where dyslexia can be passed down genetically to kids (see my article: American History Kyle Rittenhouse X) but dyslexia can also influence ADD and adolescent depression. Basically, or simply put (I’m not a psychoanalyst), but Kyle can’t focus, embellishes to cover defects, wants social inclusion and his judgement skills lack especially when emotionally challenged/excited and likely obsess over things he feels decent at like…guns, cop shows, video games etc. Things of control since inside he lacks it.

Possibly experiences extreme excitement but then crash lows.

#kylerittenhouse

American – Kyle Rittenhouse – History X

by Quinton Mitchell

Has anything you’ve done made your life better? Avery Brooks playing Dr. Bob Sweeney talking to Edward Norton playing Derek Vinyard in American History X (1998)

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction, Thoughts, Viewing the Case through Ethics over Critical Theory, etc.
  2. White Supremacy, Settler Politics, and how MAGA consolidated Right Wing Aesthetics.
  3. From 9/11 to the Present. Deconstructing reality to draw a formula for the world that Kyle was indoctrinated in.
  4. Profiling Kyle Rittenhouse. How educational (possible dyslexic or ADD), economic, and physical insecurity can lead to clout chasing dreams of grandeur.
  5. Sources, Works Cited.

Key Words: #KyleRittenhouse, #politics, #rightwing, #conservatism, #poverty, #dyslexia, #race

Word Count: est. 7,947

Forward: Kyle Rittenhouse has a decision. To take the easy road of fame, possibly being used as a token figure by the Right-Wing movement, or he can take the harder and more humanist role by reflecting on the fact that life was taken, and to better understand the reasons why the protestors were protesting police overkill. Yet, Kyle coming from poverty will likely take the easier road in that fame and acceptance seems to have been his intention all along. Kyle Rittenhouse was interviewed by conservative pundit, Tucker Carlson, and he stated that “he supports BLM”. But, what does he really mean by that? Does he mean he agrees with their right to have those beliefs, but he’s distant from that, i.e., he doesn’t accept their intentions? What has he done to show that his claim is true? I am writing this because the world we live in now as far as the American political landscape, has largely been defined by a confluence of factors, notably those which arose after 9/11, and Kyle is essentially a byproduct of the agglomeration of all of this. A kid radicalized by the postmodern landscape of the internet. In the abyss of all the trauma that America has gone through (9/11, wars, Recessions, veterans, discussions on race, the first black President, the ascension of Trump’s ultra-nationalism), it was a matter of time before someone like Kyle came. I am not a clinical psychologist. Many people of color or even white people weren’t giving the benefit of psychoanalysis when it came to understanding them before they were sent to jail. Yet, to prevent more Kyles from coming, we must understand who he is.

I. Introduction, Thoughts, Viewing the Case through Ethics over Critical Theory, etc.

Kyle Rittenhouse: There’s so much to unpackage relating to Kyle Rittenhouse. We can view this Rittenhouse case through the lens of race or gender, etc., and that is totally acceptable because there is precedent for the application of that analysis, i.e., Critical Theory. Yet, the harsh truth is that a large amount of people in the United States are incapable (or, unwilling) of processing intersectional analysis and if they do, they typically internalize the criticisms of structural oppression as a personal attack on their very being (or, pretend to be offended to flip the script), which is ironic because such reactionary sentiments have always been used to protect structural oppression, largely since, as thinkers such as W.E.B DuBois stated, is that the white working class despite being exploited by the predominately white and male industrialist classes were given certain “social wages”, i.e., privileges, to anesthetize the white working class from uniting with others in order to protect the powers at be.

So, yes, we can analyze this situation with Critical Theory, and I assure you, I support this and see value in this. However, as already stated, many are uncapable or unwilling to see the world through such lenses.

So, how we can view this case otherwise? We can view it from an ethical and moral perspective. Particularly an ethic that conservatives, let alone most people including liberals can agree on. Old-fashioned All-American morality such as “two wrongs don’t make a right”, or “if your friends jump off a bridge, would you?”. We must view what Kyle did against an innate or historically based sense of bare morality that everyone can somewhat agree on.

But all the people in case from Kyle, Anthony Huber, Gaige Grosskuertz, and especially Joseph Rosenbaum were all selfish. Most protesters were lawful but these events attract thrill seekers. If these 4 men weren’t there… different story. Kyle never should’ve been there and Rosenbaum never should’ve been out of the hospital. When you see the murders by Darrell Brooks in Waukesha Wisconsin, it’s easy to try to find a racial comparison but to me the issue is a failure of institutions. Brooks as a career criminal never should’ve been released. Rosenbaum never should’ve been released. Kyle Rittenhouse never should have been out.

It’s not an Either/Or. The Criminal Justice system failed on Brooks. So many innocent people have been killed by cops but cops drop the ball on actual wanted felons? The state of Nevada knew Darrell Brooks was in Wisconsin but this information fell through the cracks likely due to “passing the ball” politics, i.e., it’s their problem. The public health and criminal justice system and possibly lags in progressive policies failed on Rosenbaum where he never should’v been out of jail but he was a victim allegedly of sexusl abuse in his life but that’s no excuse for him preying on others. State by state gun laws and our bipartisan culture war failed on Kyle.

So, what I am saying? Kyle despite being proven innocent by the courts, he ultimately made a selfish decision and exercised poor ethics. He made the decision to leave Dominick Black’s house with a gun that he knew he needed to have parental supervision to have, considering he was smart enough to exploit state loopholes regarding guns and conducted what we can consider to be an illegal straw purchase of a firearm. Kyle playing ignorant to his initial motivations and yearning to “see action” is also morally poor and ethically weak, i.e., he was covering for his intentions but when faced with the consequences he hid his intentions instead of facing up or owning the passion he felt to conduct his actions. So, Kyle is selfish in that if he didn’t insert himself into that situation for his own experiences or voyeurism, knowingly positioning himself as a counter to the intention of protests, then people would be alive. No one died before he got there, but people died while he was there.

Kyle had no sentimental attachment to the Car Source. The Car Source was just a reason to be out. Kyle could have easily stayed at Dominick Black’s house, played with his gun with a higher probability of having parental supervision, and protected that property, but he didn’t…he wanted action. Also, Kyle easily could have waited for the protests to simmer down, have the police who he supports do their own job instead of him being impatient and LARPing (Live Action Role Playing), and did volunteer clean up after everything was done. Hell, if he just waited and did actual volunteering instead of what appears to be is volunteering for social media photos, he could have used those volunteer hours for…college, maybe even applying to an actual First Responder job, etc.

Imagine yourself as a parent. Your kid comes home and says mom, dad or mom and dad, or mom/mom or dad/dad, that I just killed two people and wounded one at a party. Sure, you would want to protect your child, but many parents would be extremely disappointed that their kid didn’t use judgement and not walk away from a situation where they knew the chance of danger could be. The fact Judge Schroder didn’t even scold Kyle is very telling of the symbology that Kyle represents, with that being Kyle is “America’s son”, an America’s son, especially as half the country feels America is declining due to the political Left, had to be protected. The acquittal of Kyle was a sort of sociological gift to Right Wing America to convince them “they’re still important”.

So, even with Kyle being innocent, it is odd that the Right Wing doesn’t see anything wrong with his actions. Even if they stand by self-defense, the way the Right Wing is reacting, with this sense of rabid elation, is alien to how social conservatism was in the past or how it posed as being in the past, in which the social conservatism that I remember (where most Americans regardless of politic were to some degrees socially conservative), was anchored in a more-so Protestant “blessed are the poor”, “avoid vices”, “respect your elders”, “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink”, “if you’re friends jump off a bridge, would you?” moralism and righteous of easily understood parable. Essentially, the fact that modern MAGA Republicans don’t see anything wrong with Kyle’s actions in any way shape or form, is indication that MAGA Republicans are desperate and have been radicalized. There’s no “this situation really sucks, but…”, but more so, “we won and that’s all that matters”. The stereotypical Ronald Regan Era TV Sitcom nuclear family or Brady Bunch persona that conservatives claim to be about actually just hides a sense of pettiness and blood lust. They don’t even trust their own supposed moral conservatism, but simply use it when convenient most of the time, yet double down on that conservatism when it comes to blocking their opposition.

The way a real conservative would view Kyle is, sure, he may be innocent because he had a right to self-defense, yet, Kyle still made a selfish decision, i.e., “two wrongs don’t make a right”. It’s even more disturbing that the Right Wing can’t even speculate how the decision of the judge might create precedent for more violence, where such violence might even affect conservatives. You would a think a judge whose role is to ensure the public is safe, would hand out a ruling to send a message to both sides of the equation, i.e., self-defense stands, but Kyle isn’t simply walking away from this.

Yet, what’s probably the truth here is…conservatives don’t care.

I’m rationalizing, when really there’s likely no rationalizing with a people who inhabit a homogeneous racial-religious-cultural reactionary politic.

II. White Supremacy, Settler Politics, and how MAGA consolidated Right Wing Aesthetics.

But I must state that white people and white supremacy are two different things. Of course, there are many great white people, millions of them, tens, or hundreds of millions even, and yes, your white supremacy can’t exist without white people, but the goal of a white supremacists is to make criticisms of the system of white supremacy appear to be attacks on individual whiteness, and they do this of course to gain followers, e.g., the backlash to the term white privilege. Whiteness as a concept is a relatively new concept in the span on human history. People didn’t see themselves as white back in the old world, and if anything, the various ethnic groups of Europeans saw themselves as different, but the concept of whiteness as a specific thing arose with the Age of Discovery and colonialism, largely as means of subjugating indigenous populations, stratifying the various classes, etc.

We turn on the TV or YouTube daily and see just another “Karen” spewing racist rhetoric at innocent people. We see “Karens” spaz out in shopping malls as they are called out for following black people while shopping. We’ve seen Proud Boys or other related groups show up to school board meetings to harass people. We can sign online to apps like Instagram and see the many pages ran by anonymous users posting Right Wing content.

The truth now that I write is that conservatism as we knew it, is long gone. The conservatism that understood pluralism but also civility and negotiating is far gone. I look back to Republicans like George H.W. Bush or even Bob Dole, and sure I didn’t agree with them and in many ways, they were very problematic but at least they carried themselves professionally.

Yet, there’s no need for nostalgia.

I’m glad that Trump revealed the true animus of white supremacy, where white supremacy isn’t anti-white, but the acknowledgement of a system of many overlapping systems, e.g., law, business, academia, the arts and entertainment, beauty, etc., disproportionately controlled by a majority group of people, where certain social privileges are granted such as having a lack of stigma around simply being yourself, etc. Chuck Palahnuik, the author of Fight Club, in a book of memoirs called Stranger Than Fiction, where he as a gay white man, brilliantly stated that whiteness is essentially being wallpaper. You’re everywhere and no thinks about it.

White supremacy is an overt and covert ideology based around in-groups and out-groups which uses romanticism, grand origin stories, historical revisionism, and historical supremacy (showcasing the history of their group while hiding the rich histories of others), etc., to create justification for the unfair ownership of power, in which marginalized groups were denied such access until recent times. White supremacy is essentially “Settler Politics”, which you can see it the aesthetics of many white conservatives (hunter, farmer, “work with your hands”, guns) and we can see this in all sort of colonial or post-colonial nations particularly those descended from the British Empire such as how you have “Good ole Boys” or “Rednecks” in the USA, Bogans in Australia, Loyalists in Northern Ireland, Homesteaders and Settlers in Canada, or Afrikaners, Boers or similar in South Africa or former Rhodesia, etc. Guns were never about mere self-defense initially but were for conquests by baiting indigenous people into conflicts by simply taking land that wasn’t theirs, and then using those guns and a disproportionate amount of violence to kill indigenous or native peoples once they reacted. State Rights, individualism, an odd obsession with secession, etc., are often just code words for segregation.

White supremacy despite crying against “collectivist” ideologies such as Marxism or Communism, etc., is ironically a collectivist ideology centered around race and it uses systems in both blunt and innocuous, sanctioned (military, law, and police) and unsanctioned way (hate groups, militias) to maintain power, yet unlike socialism where wealth is shared, white supremacy with its natural sense of defensiveness against “outsiders” justifies hierarchies even if at the detriment of white people themselves, just as long as “others”, i.e., minorities are even more so oppressed. The underlying animus of US conservatism was always supremacist fascism dating back to movements such as Manifest Destiny which is nothing more than White Zionism (similarly to the white supremacy of people such as Cecil Rhodes of the British Empire in Africa), yet for many centuries, and decades within the twentieth century, conservatism felt safe enough that it didn’t need to hit the “red alarm button”, but the election of Trump proved the safety glass protecting that button was smashed and the hand that pushed the button is still pressing.

White supremacy is interesting in that not only is it collectivist despite no not claiming to be so, is that is had a tendency of individualizing the actions of its own but collectivizing the actions of others, e.g., how so many studies go towards the black race, but the same amount of tenacity isn’t applied to white America, and even if there is, you can bet you’ll hear the analysis on minority groups before you would hear any sort of psycho-analysis on the majority group.

This is an effective strategy in the sustainment of white supremacy, because it resists any sort of claim of a “trend”.  Racism thus can never be systemic or structural, but always the behavior of a “few bad apples”. The goal was always to maintain solidarity by using ambiguity and denial.

What’s even more ironic about white supremacy is that it kills white people all the time, such having violence towards women. Many notable serial killers, being white men raised in a time of explicit white supremacy, felt a sense of entitlement over their racial sexual counterparts, and this isn’t surprising because women within white supremacy were always second class and their role was created to be the “sexually submissive, ego boosting” counterpart to that of the male id, however, there are many women totally fine with fulfilling this role because there is “social wage” in participating in this system, i.e., they become the prized “virginal damsel” (e.g., the proto-psychology of what we consider Karen entitlement). When Ted Bundy was caught once, he went in front of a judge and the judge saw Ted just like any other “good All American, Coors Light drinking, country listening white guy”. Ted was also aspired to enter politics…

The fact that conservatives didn’t see anything wrong with what Kyle did, even if they felt it was just in the end, is proof that despite all the romantic philosophy, despite all the appeals to Biblical text, is that conservatives see themselves as a team trying to win, and they’ll tabulate whatever points they can get, indifferent to the actual moral of whatever the situation is. If someone aesthetically aligns to them wins, they see is as victory, without even being able to apply the supposed conservative moralism they use to take the high ground position.

But I feel Kyle is guilty, but if the courts say he’s innocent, then that’s just how the law is, even though we can disagree. When I saw conservatives cheering, I was thinking, why would think this is good, when really all this acquittal does is reassure the Left or Liberals what they’ve always suspected about the criminal justice system? Cheering is more of a smoking gun example of what everyone has been saying. Conservatives think they won a philosophical battle, but they really didn’t. They haven’t got the Left or Liberals to revoke their beliefs and “crawl back” to conservatism, but if anything, what they witnessed during the trial solidified their position.

Ultimately, this is all the fault of the court and Judge.

The fact the Kyle walked away with nothing, despite two people being dead, especially Mr. Huber, and one other wounded, where Mr. Huber and Mr. Grosskreutz could have been seen through a light of a Good Samaritan or seeking their own self-defense, resulted in a further divide. The fact that two people are dead, the fact the judge threw out the weapon charges, and Kyle is innocent, means what? Two people died by magic? Two just so happened to die and Kyle was there, but for no real reason? It would be better if somehow Kyle walked with a misdemeanor for the gun charge, manslaughter for Mr. Huber, and maybe acquittal for Grosskreutz and Rosenbaum (despite many feeling that Kyle should have a murder charge for Rosenbaum as well, despite Rosenbaum’s previous criminal record. Rosenbaum was a predator, yet, Rittenhouse supporters bring thing fact up, but by doing so, what are they really saying? Did Kyle know he was a predator and then killed him? Was Kyle hunting people? If Kyle knew the character of those he shot then the self-defense claim is diminished, despite, socially, people feeling creeped out by Rosenbaum’s history as a sexual predator, and not feeling much sympathy for him).

To walk away with nothing is just…odd. The judge didn’t even order Kyle to pay any sort of restitution, especially with some of that Go Fund Me money he received essentially giving him millions of dollars. The judge didn’t scold Kyle. The judge didn’t even give Kyle a charge that could have resulted in community service. Kyle in theory could easily now join the military or a police agency without any questions into his background or character, but his very presence in any of these organizations would be highly divisive, i.e., a distraction.

III. From 9/11 to the Present. Deconstructing reality to draw a formula for the world that Kyle was indoctrinated into.

The truth is that this system has created many Kyles.

A disturbing image that I found on Instagram posted by an anonymous account that was aligned with the Christian Right. What’s the difference between Radical Islam that White Conservatives obsess over?
Mandatory Credit: Photo by OMER MESSINGER/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock (10671929f) A man holds a ‘Thin Blue Line’ version of the U.S flag during an extreme right-wing demonstration at Pariser Platz near the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, 06 June, 2020. Several demonstrations of groups affiliated with the extreme right-wing were taking place in the German capital’s government district, a number of counter protests were also organized to counter them. Extreme right wing demonstration and counter protest in Berlin, Germany – 06 Jun 2020

To prevent more “Kyles” we must understand how Kyle was made as far as his personal life, but also the paradigm his consciousness developed in. Zoomers and young millennials, i.e., impressionable young men and women who grew up in the postmodern sludge of the internet who were sucked into the Right-Wing pipeline which ranges from the Intellectual Dark Web with Western Chauvinist figures such as Jordan B. Peterson to the Proud Boys organization (who espouse sexists, misogynist, racist, Islamophobic, and anti-Semitic beliefs), to the male-dominated trolling of gamer culture in the residuals of Gamergate by figures such as Milo Yiannopoulos, and to the fact that the 2000s onward have been defined by war.

This warrior culture, appealing to men by calling our manhood into question, was a byproduct of America’s War on Terror and Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, where the state, Hollywood, video game companies, etc., projected a sense of American exceptionalism, and critics of US intervention were labeled as weak or unpatriotic. Funding hundreds of billions to a trillion on a war was seen as “masculine”, but using money to invest in social programs was seen as “hurting capitalism”, “feminine”, “weak”, etc.

Warrior Culture was exacerbated by the fact that many veterans joined police forces, and these police forces after 9/11, despite still benefitting from the lack of oversight due to localism, were embedded into the national security apparatus through the creation of The Department of Homeland Security and were awarded military grade equipment (even those in rural America where the threat of attack is nearly nonexistent, e.g., MRAPs, i.e., Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, were given to small towns). Cops effectively became more militaristic and were treated with the same sort of adornment as military service members. This militarization of the police was compounded by the already existing SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics) agenda, typically suited for larger metropolitan areas, but this SWAT mentality slowly replaced the traditional concept of your small-town cop across America. But, further, TV shows glorifying police had been a common staple of American media, where one could even argue that COPS by Fox Media was one of the first “reality TV shows”, but as we know, “reality TV” is never truly 100% real. The lines began to blur, thus the cultural differences between cop and military started to blur, and we can see this today with the nexus of Right-wing militarism, police worship, survivalist, Christian Right (such as quoting Romans 13:1-4 or Psalms 106:3), “Good Ole Boy” culture, militias/paramilitaries, etc. The dangerous thing about treating cops like the military is that there are major differences in how they are organized and controlled, where military forces including military police are under centralized authority and follow top-down orders, whereas police as empowered to exercise individual decision-making by somehow knowing the “entirety of criminal and civil law” (which is impossible). Police also don’t go through as much training as military personnel, so many cops can project that they are military when really, they inhabit a very different albeit visually similar universe.

Yet, by 2008, the United States had entered a Recession caused by Wall Street, and unemployment and foreclosures rose rapidly. The working classes were hit hard (where the working class had always been controlled through racial dynamics), but since police are ultimately protectors of private property, police altercations increased (such as with traffic stops and ticketing or evictions), particularly because local governments saw a drastic loss in property tax revenues from home foreclosures, businesses closing, etc.

Similarly, to how the recession of the 1970s helped give rise to early Neo Nazi organizations (such as The Order) particularly as a Vietnam War Era white reaction to what conservatives considered the to be growing threat of Communism which they blamed for the social progress of the 1960s onward (e.g., Orange Country, California in the 60s through 80s was home of to a high membership rate of John Birch Society members and non-surprisingly, O.C., was home to many Neo Nazi youth gangs), yet, the twenty-teens was also an era where you had a lot of young, angry, unemployed or underemployed people, but instead of flyers or newsletters handed out by racists of days gone by, instead newer generations had the internet, video games, Reddit, forums, chat rooms, etc.

During this Recession Era, cops effectively became crowd control of the working classes, but also “tax collectors with guns” to fund their cities. Yet, people had something they never had before. Smart phones with cameras.

Citizens started recording police altercations, where many resulted in the deaths of citizens, and this led to an outcry from communities such as the African American community, where minority communities are more vulnerable to macroeconomic calamity and many live in segregated, impoverish, and heavily policed areas, i.e., minority communities experience a denser level of stress whereas the majority group despite having more people, economic calamity is able to “spread the heat among a larger surface”. Yet, the showcasing of police violence didn’t just mobilize black people, but it showed many others such as women regardless of background, the treatment that people suffer, and people started to mobilize around Black Lives Matters. Yet, Black Lives Matters caused a white reaction, culminating in Blue Lives Matters (as a supplement to All Lives Matters), and this reaction was largely exploited by Breitbart leader Steve Bannon who ran the strategy for the election of Donald Trump. Breitbart even had a section for “Black Crime”.

Trump instead of being a voice of reason or moderation who could facilitate the hard discussions about our nation’s history, treatment of minorities, and biases, instead he simply read off the Bannon script of American Hyper-nationalism. We must remember Steve Bannon is crazy. Steve Bannon is a Cold War, Clive Cussler and Tom Clancy reading maniac, who has spent the last few years being a global agent provocateur infringing on European politics such as setting up a school for Far-Right politics in Italy, to rubbing elbows with Far-Right leaders from France to Austria and Hungary. Steve Bannon reminds me of the main character of the Willian Gass book titled The Tunnel, where he’s an aging Midwest or Mountain West white guy with an obsession with “understanding Hitler’s Germany” for “hobby purposes”.

Trump was the aggregate of everything Right Wing, from the Far Right with its hatred of the United Nations, to claims of white genocide at the hand of African Marxists such as allegedly within South Africa, to Antisemitic conspiracy theory such as Z.O.G (Zionist Occupied Government) descended from the Protocols of the Elders of Zions, to Soldier of Fortune magazine nuts living in the Mountain West time zone like North Idaho (former home to the Aryan Nations), to your casual moderate center-right Republican since this was Bannon’s strategy always. Bannon was able to merge The Real Housewives of Orange County with Right Wing FM or AM Radio, with those still sour about Waco, TX, and the Branch Davidians, but also Ruby Ridge in Montana.

Trump won through the Electoral College despite losing the popular vote because Bannon decided to adopt far-right talking points to fish in the fringe right, yet, he also exploited white working-class grievances, notably of Baby Boomers, in places which had lost their heritage of unionized manufacturing (which were traditionally and politically Democratic despite being culturally conservative, e.g., Wisconsin, Montana, West Virginia, etc.). Trumpism needed these insane racists and Nazis to inch forward to victory on “legal technicality”, so Trump could never disavow those he used and became bedfellows with, e.g., his botched speech after the Charlottesville Riots. I can go much more into MAGA, but I summed MAGA up as being Antisemitic White Supremacist Zionism in a nutshell, where white Evangelicals and Jewish Zionists/Israelis (who disapproved of President Obama’s loose “two-state solution” approach to Palestine) used Trump, but Trump needed the Far-Right to win, otherwise he would have gone down in history as another George Wallace and Curtis LeMay 1968 presidential run disaster.

What we were left with as Trump took power and even has his power was taken from him when he lost in 2020 was the socio-political and cultural accrual of The Right Wing spanning what I stated previously, i.e., your Neo Nazi worshipping The Turning Diaries to your consumerist suburban Republican waiting for Starbucks pumpkin spice season.

It’s like a formula on how we got to be here.

[9/11 creating a larger culture war where concepts such as Western Civilization became popular + War and Nationalism ^ Hyper masculine veteran warrior culture] (x) Recession resulting in the criminalization of the working classes (x) the reaction to the election of Barack Obama with movements such as the “libertarian” or “Jeffersonian” Tea Party (x) the popularity of sports such as UFC which is in alignment with Veteran Warrior culture (x) militarization of police (x) a vulnerable and exploitable working class who lost faith in the power of institutions during a recession who were preyed upon by conspiracy theory grifters such as Alex Jones (a gateway to what would become Qanon) which also had an effect on the emerging resurgence of New Age ideas including Occultism, gangs, hate groups, and police (x) Postmodern culture of pop culture and the evolution of the internet ranging from memes, podcasters such Joe Rogan who has an ambiguous almost “3rd Way syncretic” politic yet stylistically and more so as time goes on espouses right wing conservative views while platforming veterans, CIA officers, people associated with the Alt Right, etc., forums like 4Chan and 8Chan, anime (which does fetishize the female body for male pleasure but characters are also whitewashed typically with a European or Germanic aesthetic), gaming with genres like first-person shooters with story arcs relevant to the real world such as in the Call of Duty franchise (which could be considered military recruiting tools), screamo or metalcore (which are a blend of emo, hardcore punk and metal music, where Emo as a genre as been called out for sexist undertones, i.e., female blaming), and EDM or nostalgic “wave” genres which defined the counter culture of younger Millennials and Zoomers where the Far Right often appropriates these mediums to insert their fascist ideology to angst ridden populations like teenagers resulting in sexism, racism, misogyny, etc. For example, white supremacists such as Riley June Williams who was arrested at the January 6th Insurrection was seen in a video doing the Heil salute with a skull mask used by The Base hate group to EDM music, likely since the techno tunes of EDM has an “accelerationist” or “hyper” sound and White Reactionaries often follow accelerationist beliefs, i.e., they want to accelerate race war or the demise of the existing order (x) video publications of Police abuse leading to Black Lives Matters which brought forth Blue Lives Matters (x) the Intellectual Dark Web, i.e., the Kook Right Wing, ranging from Jordan B. Peterson’s “Jungian self-help” which is a cover for Western chauvinism, anti-feminism, a denial of systemic racism, and a need for hierarchies, to Sam Harris (Islamophobia and Racial IQ) or Stefan Molyneaux (racial IQ and anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism), Ben Shapiro (supposed Judeao-Christian conservativism coining terms such as “Facts over Feelings), etc.. (x) Trump.

Note: The notion of Alphas, Betas, and Sigmas which are common in the Manosphere, i.e., Men’s Rights Movement, is an obvious nod to Darwinism, i.e., survival of the fitness, and this of course aligns perfectly with fascism or far-right politics, despite the terms being highly debatable when in relation to complex human psyches, nature, etc.

It’s interesting to note that there are many intersections between the IDW and what would grow into the Men’s Rights Movement, which is a movement of sexist, manipulative womanizers, and wannabe pick-up artists, who use terms such as Alphas, Betas, Sigmas, etc., as means of “recapturing a manhood they feel was robbed from them by progressivism or socialism”. A lot of men with too much time on their hands, lost in pseudo-philosophy, co-opting medieval iconography, militarism, and a fetishization of Classical culture, who are “sexually bitter” and horny in a world where it seems sex is everywhere – such as the hyper high definition content of modern porn – but they aren’t getting any action, which could be partially the result of our isolation epidemic, i.e., social media gives the false sense of connection, but also an existential dread around feeling disposable (such as dating apps) and technology has created larger barriers between personal relations thus resulting in people projecting themselves online to get attention in ways they might not be in real life. Essentially, you’re left with angry men, but it’s not the fault of feminism, through you can make an argument that many of our laws are still based on a traditional model of gender roles (such as men traditionally providing, yet men pay alimony or child support, despite women being more active in the work place and exceeding men in areas such as higher educational obtainment, etc.) but regardless, largely this negative reaction to feminism is the fault of men not able adapt to a changing world and question how our expectations at times can be problematic, i.e., we aren’t’ entitled anymore to women.

What’s interesting about this is… Kyle was just a baby when these things were developing, and he developed within this world especially as Right-Wing populism grew. He probably isn’t even aware of the historical context of the world he came up in but was simply “pushed” into this world and in an environment or situation where he was basically a “malleable useful idiot”.

That’s the dangerous thing about our world now. The hyper and chaotic speed of things leads to a vortex merging of large-scale events, yet people are reacting in real time, sometimes with violence, and they existentially seek answers, often in the wrong places, to develop of sense of personal order. People seem to have shorter attention spans and seem to be losing the ability to look back to history to see how the present was crafted, yet, they react in real time under a sense of ignorance, but they’re simply trying to protect their egos or Maslow Hierarchy of Needs.

Kyle is like a byproduct of the evolutionary trajectory of the entire 21st Century within American culture and politics, but he represents a side that is at odds with “progressivism”.

IV. Profiling Kyle Rittenhouse. How educational, economic, and physical insecurity can lead to clout chasing dreams of grandeur.

Overview: The same level of profiling, i.e., understanding, isn’t given to most juvenile offenders of color when it comes to juvenile offenders in high profile cases. It is unfair. We never day a young black male charged with murder has on the struggling to survive, but we see him a criminal. Yet, I’m simply doing this to understand Kyle. Possibly a dyslexic who struggled with learning and comprehension, which likely resulted in bullying, even though the bullying was likely blown out of proportion by an over-protective mother. He was over-weight so this compounded with learning issues and poverty likely resulted in insecurity issues and the development of “dreams of grandeur” by finding opportunity within the political culture wars of the internet. He possibly has a hard time focusing on multiple things but for the things he really likes the borderline obsesses over them, such as his yearning to be a First Responder, yet, his learning disabilities and possible ADD, caused him to lose attention quickly and not complete prerequisites. From a low-income household that experienced economic hardship which can give a young person anxiety, eating disorders, etc. From a divorced home where he might have resented his mother to a degree, i.e., disrespecting her authority since he felt he was the “man of the house”, yet heavily relied on her. Admitted to using nicotine, alcohol, and driving without a license, insinuating he’s willing to bend the rules, especially when he was younger. His parents used alcohol, other narcotics, and nicotine. He sought male guidance which he found from Dominick Black who gave him a gun, but Kyle was already exposed from an early age to gun culture. A rough background created a psychological need for power, authority, and attention. He is of a generation where “clout chasing” is common, particularly as young people experience insecurity on social media seeing “the lives of the rich and famous” who are social influencer icons.

Kyle is another white low-income youth you got caught up searching for his masculinity in order to feel socially accepted and made a poor and selfish decision to put himself in a situation that resulted in him using violence.

But how do we save “Kyles” who are out there from being the actual Kyle Rittenhouse?

We must understand who he is.

Kyle is symbolic of “Roseanne America”, but grew up in a time where that aesthetic is more right-wing, as opposed to political partisan, i.e., Roseanne America of the 1990s had a good chance of being Democrat (unionized Midwest workers) just as much as they were to be Republican, but now it’s heavily more Republican as far as perception.

Kyle is the youngest of three children and was living with a single mother, Wendy Rittenhouse, who experienced an eviction before, and allegedly filed a restraining order (supposedly denied by law enforcement – ironically) against Kyle’s father in which he allegedly punched her in the stomach, though he denied the charges (Omar, 2021).

His father Mike Rittenhouse, who was nowhere to be seen during the entire series of events relating to his son, yet, Jessica McBride (2021) stated, “Mike was a machine operator who struggled with alcohol and drugs and unemployment and was accused of domestic battery against Wendy, but he denied the charges, which were later dismissed, according to The New Yorker, which said Wendy and her kids lived in a homeless shelter for a time.”

According to Jessica McBride (2021) who referenced Paige Williams of the New York Times (2021), “She is dyslexic and has had health issues, The New Yorker reported, so Kyle, as a teen, worked jobs to help support the family.”

Her dyslexia might seem like a minor detail but that is a neurological trait which can be passed down genetically and result in educational issues for children unless diagnosed properly.

Karen N. Pert (2013) of Yale News, referenced a detailed study by Dr. Jeffrey R. Gruen, a professor of pediatrics, genetics, and investigative medicine at Yale University, where Dr. Gruen’s study was published in the American Journal of Human Genetics. Pert (2013), stated, “In previous studies, Gruen and his team found that dopamine-related genes ANKK1 and DRD2 are involved in language processing. In further non-genetic studies, they found that prenatal exposure to nicotine has a strong negative affect on both reading and language processing. They had also previously found that a gene called DCDC2 was linked to dyslexia.”

Pert (2013) stated, “In this new study, Gruen and colleagues looked deeper within the DCDC2 gene to pinpoint the specific parts of the gene that are responsible for dyslexia and language impairment. They found that some variants of a gene regulator called READ1 (regulatory element associated with dyslexia1) within the DCDC2 gene are associated with problems in reading performance while other variants are strongly associated with problems in verbal language performance.”

Lastly, Pert (2021), stated, “Gruen said these variants interact with a second dyslexia risk gene called KIAA0319. “When you have risk variants in both READ1 and KIAA0319, it can have a multiplier effect on measures of reading, language, and IQ,” he said. “People who have these variants have a substantially increased likelihood of developing dyslexia or language impairment.””

Kyle was supposedly bullied in school but taken out of school (which goes to defy the conservative stance that boys should fight and how “men in the west are weak, now”). He was attending online school, yet from his statements on the stand, and his tendency (which could be ab act) of being forgetful or not understanding questions, likely means he wasn’t a good student.

According to Jessica McBride (2021), “According to The Washington Post, Kyle Rittenhouse was a “high school dropout who viewed law enforcement officers as his personal heroes.” However, the Chicago Tribune reported it wasn’t clear if Rittenhouse attended school. He attended Lakes Community High School in 2017-18 but is no longer enrolled and went to Lake Villa School for one semester in 2017, the newspaper reported.”

Dyslexia is among the most common neurodevelopmental disorders, with a prevalence of 5–12% (Schumacher, Hoffmann, Schmäl, Schulte‐Körne, and Nöthen, 2007).

“The psychosocial consequences are correspondingly grave. Affected individuals attain a much lower educational level and have substantially higher rates of unemployment and psychosocial stress than would be expected for their level of intelligence. In childhood, approximately 20% of those with dyslexia also present with attention‐deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), whereas in adolescence depressive disorders and disorders of social behaviour are often associated with dyslexia. Whether dyslexia is more common among boys than girls has been part of a controversial discussion in the past, although recent epidemiological studies indicate a twofold increase in the risk for boys compared with that in girls.The sex ratio may be influenced by severity, IQ and assessed cognitive profiles.” (Schumacher, et al, 2007).

He probably spent a lot of time online and was radicalized.

Being from a poor and broken household he likely experienced an extreme sense of insecurity especially as he’s undergoing puberty and development, i.e., the prime condition be exploited by a gang. Even though Kyle might not be a part of a physical gang or what can consider to be a “traditional gang”, he could be considered part of a larger cultural decentralized movement that recruits members using the same gang tactics, and the recruits end up being “lone wolf operators”, able to express the agendas of the “gang” but in a way where there is no clear connection. Certain individuals might be “activated” or triggered to carry out the agendas of those who control the overarching ideologies. Interestingly, such a model is used by White Supremacist groups, such as Atomwaffen SS, who tend to operate in cells or cadres (small sleeper cells), and this organization was likely taken by White Supremacists using the “Werewolf” model of SS Units in the ending days of World War II. I am not saying that Kyle is an explicit or even conscious white supremacists, but the style and movements he followed have been coopted or are adjacent to white supremacist movements.

Being the baby of the family and the only male, Kyle likely had a special role in the house, i.e., he was coddled by an overprotective mother who couldn’t control her son always.

“She previously sought “an order of protection from police in January 2017, claiming that a classmate of her son’s had been threatening him and calling him ‘dumb’ and ‘stupid,’” The Post reported.” (Jessica McBride, 2021)

So, you pulled your son form school for being called dumb and stupid? Seems a bit extreme, even if we can consider it bullying. Yet, he was likely pulled from school because he had undiagnosed learning disabilities such as dyslexia which his mother had, and this genetic trait possibly could have manifested itself due to environmental conditions such as a mother possibly smoking and/or drinking while pregnant, stressful environments defined by being low income, and any sort of genetic characteristics handed down by his father as well (who was mentioned as having substance abuse issues), etc.

Kyle admitting that he smokes cigarettes, has been seen drinking alcohol at a bar (with his mother meaning she drinks, but in Wisconsin you can drink with a parent at a bar), and admitted to driving without a license, likely means that Kyle isn’t a “goodie two shoes” kid.

The fact that he was enrolled in something equivalent to Cop ROTC and volunteering with the Antioch Fire Department, but still had the reasoning to drive without a license, indicates a level of privilege, i.e., Kyle saw himself as “cliqued up”, i.e., as a part of the police/fire fighter world but he was just a volunteer, i.e., it appears Kyle has a power fantasy projection and dreams of grandeur.

We can also notice in Kyle’s pictures when he was much younger is that he was over-weight. Him being overweight could in part be due to genetic predisposition, environment such as low-income homes often can only afford cheaper more fatty foods, lack of exercise potentially because of the family’s stressful economic situation/moving around yet also potentially because his mother was over-protective and working meaning he spent more time inside rather playing outside, etc. Him being overweight in his youth on top of his economic insecurity lead him possibly having a very self-conscious view of himself. It doesn’t seem like Kyle had participated in any organized sports which could have helped divert any sort of adolescence depressive disorders by giving him a healthier sense of camaraderie, adult male supervision, being able to track his improvement by following directions, etc.

A younger and “more plump” Kyle, remembering he was overweight during a time of economic hardship which could mean he was insecure on many levels.

Kyle’s sister, Faith Rittenhouse, supposedly overdosed on over-the-counter opiates (Omar, 2021), though it seems she survived, and this is important because white America was hit hard by opiate use, and this was something that Trump addressed such as Trump’s comments on fentanyl.

Kyle also has been seen playing with guns at very young age, etc., which is common in certain households especially those who hunt or are exposed to hunting outdoor culture. In many ways, Kyle could be labeled as coming from a “redneck household” of Midwest, and I don’t mean that in a derogatory way.

Without a good male role model, being bullied, being coddled, from a low-income working-class home, and raised in a predominately white environment, like many young men who join gangs, Kyle effectively did the same thing, but many white youths are lured into White Supremacists or white supremacists’ adjacent gangs (Proud Boys, Three Percenters, etc.).

I wouldn’t be surprised if Kyle knew how to play his mother, or even say himself as having a slight position of power to speak over his mother, potentially because he resented his situation and partially blamed his mother. In one minute, he’s just a good kid, but really Kyle is just like any other teenager trolling online and wanting to get drunk, try to get girls, etc.

According to St. Clair, Crepeau, Gutowski, Hinkel & Heinzmann of the Chicago Tribune (2021), “Rittenhouse said he wanted a lawyer but would answer questions until the attorney could arrive. The detectives and his mother explained that’s not how the legal system works, bringing the conversation to an abrupt end. As Rittenhouse slumped in his chair and buried his head in his arms, Wendy Rittenhouse insisted he needed a lawyer because of things she had read on social media. Her son cut her off as she spoke. “Can you stop talking, Mom?” he asked.”. Kyle needing to be corrected by his mother insinuates that Kyle felt he knew how the system works, which he obviously didn’t, and once corrected by his mother, a sense of embarrassment kicked in, and he publicly disrespected her.

Kyle was looking for clout and honor in that he was probably insecure about who he was, so he naturally gravitated towards men but also to jobs where a person has authority.

His Tik Tok account with a problematic name “4doorsmorewhores” is like a corny Barstool sports tagline of an aspiring frat boy. Kyle wanted to be one of the bros, to be accepted, and in our culture, he gravitates towards the hyper masculinity of our culture (militias, cops, Joe Rogan, pining over seemingly unobtainable models, etc.), but it was all to deal with insecurity.

When Kyle was on the stand the prosecution stated the wasn’t a real EMT, yet Kyle’s quick response, almost offended seemed to be obsessive and a little delusional. How dare you say I’m not a real fire fighter or EMT. The fact that Kyle lied to people at the protests that he was an EMT despite not being an EMT and not even having the patience to finish an actual EMT course is proof that Kyle is not only obsessive but also impatient. He was desperate for action, and whether he was smart enough or sociopathic enough to realize, he inserted himself into the forefront of a larger cultural war, knowing one side would back him no matter what. Because, it’s not about morals or ethics, it’s about winning.

In Kyle’s most recent interview with Tucker Carlson (as if that wasn’t predictable), interestingly, the tears that flowed from his face while on the stand were non-existent.

V. Sources:

McBride, J. (2021). Wendy Rittenhouse, Kyle Rittenhouse’s Mother: 5 Fast Facts. Heavy.com. Retrieved 11.25.21. Source: https://heavy.com/news/wendy-rittenhouse-kyle-mother-mom/

Omar, Abdel Jibri (2021), Wendy Lewis Biography: 13 things about Kyle Rittenhouse’s mother from Antioch, Illinois. Conan Daily.com. Retrieved 11.25.21. Source: https://conandaily.com/2021/11/23/wendy-lewis-biography-13-things-about-kyle-rittenhouses-mother-from-antioch-illinois/

Pert, Karen N. (2013), Is dyslexia genetic? Yale study unravels genetics of dyslexia and language impairment. Yale News. Retrieved 11.25.21. Source: https://news.yale.edu/2013/06/12/yale-researchers-unravel-genetics-dyslexia-and-language-impairment

Schumacher, J., Hoffmann, P., Schmäl, C., Schulte-Körne, G., & Nöthen, M. M. (2007). Genetics of dyslexia: the evolving landscape. Journal of medical genetics, 44(5), 289–297. https://doi.org/10.1136/jmg.2006.046516

St. Clair, S., Crepeau, M., Gutowski, C., Hinkel, D., and Heinzmann, D. (2021) Kyle and Wendy Rittenhouse focused on social media comments as teen asked for a lawyer and did not answer cops’ questions, new video shows. The Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 11.25.21. Source: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-kyle-rittenhouse-video-police-interview-20210126-2djapgmpnjbltpjmftwl4qolyu-story.html

Williams, P. (2021). Kyle Rittenhouse, American Vigilante. After he killed two people in Kenosha, opportunists turned his case into a polarizing spectacle. The New York Times. Retrieved 11.25.21. Source: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/07/05/kyle-rittenhouse-american-vigilante

Opinion: Save America. Congress must pass both Bills and Raise the Debt Ceiling as matter of National Security, Realpolitik, and Re-invigorating the United States. People need to get vaccinated. And, understanding the Iraq Petro Dollar Grift and the Afghanistan War Stimulus Grift. By Quinton Mitchell ©

Table of Contents

  1. Intro
  2. Supporting Biden and moving on from Trump for the sake of unity. Republicans should have a backbone and find another leader
  3. Realpolitik. See the Game for What Is
  4. You must spend money to make money. We must pass the bills, increase the debt ceiling, etc.
  5. The Situation We Face
  6. Consequences of not raising the Debt Ceiling
  7. The Price of the Wars. Another major reason we must raise the debt ceiling is that the wars were funded on credit that bears interests
  8. The Iraq War was about the Petro Dollar Scheme, The Afghanistan War as about stimulus for the Military Complex, and women were never a big factor in being in Afghanistan
  9. Links, Sources, Continued Reading
  1. Intro

The United States needs to pass both the Infrastructure Bill and Reconciliation Bill, raise the debt ceiling, continue to vaccinate itself (for example, China has a 70.78% full vaccination rate with a much larger population as compared to the United States which has a 54.50% full vaccination rate with a much smaller population. Source: https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations, data from 9/24/21), phase in tax increases on the highest earners (which can be reduced down the road) such as raising the marginal tax rate, i.e., the amount a person pays after reaching a certain income threshold, because the USA is in “decline”, or, rather at a point of “redefining itself” and “repurposing” itself for the future.

The USA still wields power from the ability to apply sanctions on nations through payment systems, a vast nuclear weapons arsenal, the largest navy with reach extending to the Artic to the South China Sea, a strong control of air-space (the high ground), a large land force, treaties, alliances, iconic brand name goods and services, culture, a control of global supply lines, and even domestic resource reserves both dirty (coal, shale, offshore drilling) and clean (sunny deserts, geothermal potential, and wind and tidal power capabilities, etc.).

2. Supporting Biden and moving on from Trump for the sake of unity. Republicans should have a backbone and find another leader

I’m not concerned with Donald Trump. He’s gone. Good. Trump’s geostrategic policy was nothing more than a consolidation of right-wing isolationist talking points collected from the internet, which put the USA actually in a more weaker position where its power was mocked, questioned, and worst, it opened up the window to America’s traditional enemy in Russia, and even gave China a slight moral victory because they were able to hold-out strong against Trump’s Trade War that was never resolved. Trump represented contraction rather an expansion, and for reasons we may never truly know without getting lost in a web of real and fake conspiracy. That’s why I am supporting Biden. Simply because he’s a calming force. I don’t shame him for his age. As far as what I’ve seen, he’s been conducting business and giving speeches just fine, despite his age. He brings a level of reassurance as the USA hits the drawing board, but frankly, the biggest internal detriment to US unity are Trump hanger-ons, whom interestingly have an ideology, outside of its white reactionary politics hidden behind a co-option of patriotism and regalia, that in many ways comes from abroad despite the veneer of Americana, e.g., The Epoch Times, a Chinese conspiracy newspaper bought the most Facebook ads for Trump during his 2016 run (Gilbert, 2016), but also many elements of the Alt-Right in the USA (who have been agitators) “surprisingly” have many affinities for Russia. I don’t care if Republican’s dislike Biden. That’s their right to do so, but frankly at least support a Republican who understands US Realpolitik and the concept of cause and effect, and “adverse effects”.

3. Realpolitik. See the Game for What Is

You must view geostrategic power away from “politics”. Politics is merely a means to an end, so you must see the end and not get caught up in the means always. See the game for what it is. The US is powerful because we run off debt. We don’t have such a great way of life because it’s funded by taxes. Taxes are political suicide for any Public Finance 101 student, but real leaders know they must raise them periodically. Debt fuels the US way of life. Taxes are nothing more than minimum payments on debt at this point, and America’s quality of life is mostly sustained by debt, but we defend this debt with a powerful military, i.e., no one will call our debt because they fear our military.

But we also sell our debt as an investment tool which links other nations to us, so they want us to succeed, and this increases our closeness as far as trade, currency conversion, investing in US companies or vice versa, military alliances, etc. Further, the US spreads the idea of “freedom”, i.e., a libertine manta and thus it spreads pop culture, etc., i.e., America markets itself as a Dream, tourist destination, etc. The USA also uses multi-national corporations to extend trade lines which need military defense to protect them thus this extends America’s scope of power and interference in the affairs of others, yet these corporations extract resources to fuel growth back home, but also sells products abroad where the profits come home, and this all helps to prop up the USD Dollar. Lastly, the US spreads its power by the value of its currency, which is backed by our military, by the fact we sell our debt to allies and they vouch for it, but we also require that all global oil transactions be done in US dollars first thus making the US the middleman for the Earth’s most vital resource (for now), thus this scheme helps props up the dollar which feeds into everything else. For a superpower to sustain itself it can’t afford to not invest itself, similarly to how it can’t afford to maintain key alliances (NATO, AZNAC, EU, the UN, NORAD, USNORTH, AFNORTH, India, Japan, etc.), but it must also stay relevant and grow, i.e., it must lead and innovate (creating core competencies that no one can’t do as good and at the same scale, but also investing in the future, i.e., emergent technologies, e.g., semiconductors, green technology, space, etc.).

The strength of the USA as compared to Russia and China is that they are largely homogeneous. They don’t have the vast racial, ethnic, religious, gender, cultural, and lifestyle freedom that the United States does, thus giving the United States a competitive advantage for something such as…espionage, translations capabilities without must investment, spreading American ideals to families abroad, etc. Yet, America unfortunately because of its political system, that is overwhelming controlled by a private interest making up a smaller part of the overall US population, applies things such as identity politics ends up being its own worst enemy in many cases, and nations like China and Russia can use strong central authority over a homogeneous population to achieve objectives. Even when it comes to COVID-19, the sheer amount of paranoia and political conspiracy theories relating to the virus, has made the USA fall behind its number one competitor in China.

4. You must spend money to make money. We must pass the bills, increase the debt ceiling, etc.

But as far as the upcoming debt limit situation, the spending bills, etc., you must spend money to make money, and this is the underlying economic manta of all superpowers.

No superpower sustains itself with being frugal, for example, oil companies aren’t raising their own armies to go take Middle East oil to prop up the Petro Dollar Racket, but rather the government, i.e., the Department of Defense does that, and business benefits. Similarly, to how the US Navy defends trade routes for the benefit of the US economy.

The economic mantra of all superpowers and of both US political parties (even though Republicans don’t like admitting it) since World War II has been Keynesian economics, i.e., you deficit spend, swap debt with allies and this affects the balance trade as currencies adjust to one another, i.e., if another nation’s currency is stronger they invest in the USA, but if the USA’s currency is weaker in relation to an ally then this helps the US sell products because they’re more affordable in foreign markets, etc.

For example, China is expanding and investing with large infrastructure projects such as the Belt and Road Initiative, which expands land trade routes, and builds and buys seaports, etc.

A part of hegemony is outspending your competitors. Debt isn’t bad. It’s only bad if you waste that debt on things that don’t result in a Return on Investment. Not only do superpowers have to make debt to spend to sustain the level of comfort the population is used to (hoping productivity is at an ample level to make up for the debt), but creating debt also helps a superpower sell that debt to other nations for investment purposes thus making them supportive of the superpower in question since they want their investments to do good. Basically, making debt and selling it is a way of having “control” and “influence”.

The Infrastructure and Reconciliation bills would pay themselves off over time because you’ll make jobs such as in construction (a vital sector for Americans), people will stimulate the economy, and to be honest, the tax rate needs to be raised as a good faith gesture to US bond holders (such as our allies) considering the USA has had 21 years of tax cuts dating back to George W. Bush, i.e., the USA can’t shop itself out of debt (supply side economics) but actually has to do gestures to make good that it can pay its bills and investors on time.

So, the USA needs to pass these bills, raise the debt ceiling, continue to vaccinate itself, and phase in tax rates on the highest earners to sustain its role as a super-power to help pay for the 20 years of wars but also help pay for upgrading the US machine. I repeat, you can’t make money, if you don’t spend money, but if you spend a lot of money, you got to throw some money at the bills.

5. The Situation We Face

(1) There’s the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill but also the Democrat Reconciliation Bill which would need 51 votes as compared to 60, with the latter being a tough battle because Republicans don’t want hand Democrats any of their campaign promises such as clean energy, poverty initiatives, universal pre-K, etc., nor do they want to anger any special interests, but Republicans also wanted the Israel Iron Dome Missile System in the spending bill but instead a separate $1 Billion bill was created and passed in the house that it is majority held by Democrats, i.e., they came to a middle ground so the Iron Dome didn’t stall the other bills, (2) The Federal Reserve is stating that it will ease off of buying, i.e., propping up equities (the stock market) and Mortgage-Backed Securities (housing sector),  meaning that the Federal Reserve won’t be helping to bloat asset prices as much anymore meaning that the market could face a correction as reality kicks in as opposed to the artificial monetary policy implemented by the Federal Reserve to prop up the US economy. Essentially the stock market and housing market will have to go back to real market principles and the Fed won’t be buying assets to keep them afloat, especially as they gauge unemployment numbers. The Feds easy money policy benefitted the rich because it bloated the stock market, it made borrowing against higher valued assets for money much easier thus allowing them to get more money on artificially bloated assets, (3) Only 55% of Americans are vaccinate against the Corona Virus meaning there’s still uncertainty in the market about new variants, potential new restrictions, etc., (4) There’s a manufacturing bottleneck in all sectors including oil, gasoline, and natural gas (where energy is affected also by natural disasters, geopolitical conflicts), due to the drastic drop of demand due to CV19 but then the drastic increase in demand as the USA crawls back to normalcy.

6. Consequences of not raising the Debt Ceiling

If the debt ceiling isn’t raised, in any case, then the government could shut down and there would be no bills but if the government shuts down then that (A) would freeze billions of federal spending that stimulates the US economy such as through federal contracts to private businesses such as defense contractors, research projects, military base operators, etc., (B) federal workers (including the troops) would be put on hold, (C) the US Credit rating would be hit, (D) US bond holders such as our allies would lose value on their investments, (E) US Treasury auctions would be cancelled, etc.

Aimee Picchi (2021) stated, “The U.S. economy could plunge into another recession this fall if Congress fails to lift the debt ceiling and the nation is unable to pay its obligations, according to an analysis by Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi. The fallout would wipe out as many as 6 million jobs and erase $15 trillion in household wealth, he estimated in a report.” Further, Picchi (2021) stated, “In real terms, the nation would soon return to high unemployment rates, approaching 9% compared with its current rate of 5.2%. Also, come November 1 checks for millions of Social Security recipients would be delayed, Zandi noted. And stock prices would likely plunge by one-third, sparking that $15 trillion loss in household wealth. Meantime, mortgage rates and other interest rates for things like credit cards and auto loans would spike.

This could slip the US to a recession if the US debt ceiling isn’t raised because of the contraction in government stimulus and spending, and even a possible run or mass sale within the US stock market.

Further, not passing these bills, and/or not raising the US Debt ceiling would be a moral and psychological defeat for the American people, creating a sense of nihilism or indifference and hopelessness, who have suffered from constant drama and scandal from the 1) the January 6th Capitol Insurrection, 2) over a year and half of COVID lockdowns, a US death toll exceeding over 500,000 Americans, and revolts against restrictions, 3) the summer of 2020 protests across the nation against police brutality and the conversation about race relating to Black Lives Matters, and reaction movements such as Blue Lives Matters, 4) a COVID-19 stock crash which affected worker’s 401(k)s because the US didn’t get ahead of the crisis, which may have delayed retirement for workers – at an age who are more at risk of COVID – from retiring, even though the US stimulus packages did help the market rebound, 5) media wars dating back to the Russia-Gate situation, Ukraine Gate situation, the government shutdown over Trump’s Border Wall, 6) mass shootings, 7) a growing Fentanyl drug death crisis, 8) unemployment and homelessness, 9) an increasing crime rate as life returns to “normal” as lockdown restrictions ease up, 10) a refugee crisis from Central America largely due to drought and crime, but also from Haiti due to political destabilization, a 7.2 Magnitude earthquake, and hurricanes, etc.

Essentially, if the government shuts down then that would accelerate inflation because the money supply has been increased over years, but that created money is pegged to US Treasuries which the Federal Reserve holds as collateral to justify expanding the money supply, in which money is injected into the economy via banks via cash or an electronic debit-credit system. If the government shuts down and the debt ceiling isn’t raised that basically means “the government is late on its payments or doesn’t have enough to cover its payments”, i.e., it’s in default, meaning the money created and injected into the economy doesn’t have a “full faith and credit” insurance policy on it, meaning it loses value and things become more expensive. This would mean to curb inflation the government should have raise taxes, and the Federal Reserve would have to gauge whether it keeps interests rates low to stimulate or to tax money i.e., increase interest rates so the created money pays for itself.

Biden says he wants both bills on his desk to be signed otherwise he’ll veto whatever comes to his desk. Biden’s strategy was to reach across the aisle on the Infrastructure Bill but for his party to have their own bill to fulfill campaign promises but with Democrats having a slim margin majority they need Republicans but also Centrist Democrat like Mnuchin and Sinema, but Mnuchin and Simena have essentially knee-capped their own party.

These bills need to be passed but also the debt ceiling needs to be raised to push these bills through, but the debt ceiling also needs be raised separately because of the deficit ran up by the previous Trump Administration, i.e., he kept spending high but slashed taxes, applying a sort of “protectionist meets supply-side economics” ideology that was consulted by Reaganites such as Arthur Laffer, which was a continuation of 16 previous years of tax cuts starting with George Bush and continuing with the Obama Extension of the Bush Era Cuts.

Essentially, we need to pay for our bills that are already on the books, but we also need to pass the new bills which would require a debt ceiling raise, i.e., the debt ceiling needs to be raised for two reasons (pre-existing debt obligations that have added up from previous administrations which bear interests, which includes the bills for the wars) and making room to afford the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill and Democrat Reconciliation Bills.

The only issue with the Democrat Reconciliation Bill is that Republicans don’t care to give Democrats anything, they would love for them fail on their campaign promises, many of the agendas of the Democrats might go against special interests, and Republican want to hurt Democrats for political reasons though they can hide behind “fiscal responsibility” talk points, i.e., “we’re spending too much, our kids will have to pay for it, it will causes inflation”, etc.

It’s interesting to note that Republicans have caused the last two sequestrations, i.e., government shutdowns because a funding bill was passed by the September 30th deadline. They did it under the Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, John Boehner years for Republicans against President Barack Obama during the Affordable Healthcare Act debate, but they also did it again when Trump didn’t get his Border Wall (which he claimed Mexico would pay for). Democrats haven’t caused any so far this millennium, but Mitch McConnell’s goals is to reframe it as if it’s only the Democrat’s fault for being frivolous, when in essence the US has been frivolous under his watch for two decades now, and most of the money creation from debt expansion trickled upwards to big businesses (special interests, i.e., Congress’ donors).

So, both sides are playing a Russian Roulette game. In theory Biden could concede to Republicans, pass one of the bills, and the Congress raises the debt ceiling, or Republicans can play ball, pass both bills and raise the debt ceiling. But the buck is more on Republicans. Why? Because it’s the right thing to do for America to pass both and raise the debt ceiling. It is not only a matter of national security so for the sake of American hegemony, but it would help reinspire and motivate America which finally takes a stance to invest in itself in a way no living American has experienced, except those who remember the New Deal of FDR.

I don’t believe necessarily in the broad accusation of inflation or too much spending because deficit spending is how the United States operates, and spending will pay itself off over time and be an engine for growth. To make money you have spent money.

The USA to sustain its’ scope of power must recoup, reset, redefine, and re-initiate, i.e., it needs to get its house in order, and invest.

7. The Price of the Wars. Another major reason we must raise the debt ceiling is that the wars were funded on credit that bears interests

The USA has invested in costly wars with no actual Return on Investment and paid for it on debt rather than raising taxes as previous Presidents had done, but meanwhile China and Russia haven’t been engaged in such large-scale costly regime-change wars, yet instead they simply sit back to let the beast bleed itself, use any fiascos created by the Americans for propaganda purposes, and even piggy back on US efforts (such as Russia entering Syria) to push their way onto the table of geostrategic issues.

For example, according to the Associated Press (2021) referencing a study conducted by Brown University on the cost of the Afghanistan and Iraq, which was reposted by The New York Post (2021), “…President Harry Truman temporarily raised top tax rates to pay for Korean War: 92%. Amount President Lyndon Johnson temporarily raised top tax rates to pay for Vietnam War: 77%. Amount President George W. Bush cut tax rates for the wealthiest, rather than raise them, at outset of Afghanistan and Iraq wars: At least 8%. Estimated amount of direct Afghanistan and Iraq war costs that the United States has debt financed as of 2020: $2 trillion. Estimated interest costs by 2050: Up to $6.5 trillion.”.  

8. The Iraq War was about the Petro Dollar Scheme, The Afghanistan War as about stimulus for the Military Complex, and women were never a big factor in being in Afghanistan

The Iraq War wasn’t about Weapons of Mass Destruction, but it was about sustaining the Petro Dollar racket, i.e., all global oil transactions must be conducted in US Dollars (middleman strategy), meaning this racket helps to keep the US dollar as the premier currency and world reserve currency (you need US dollars on hand to make oil trades). Essentially you can’t do business in the lifeblood that runs the world, oil, i.e., “The Spice Must Flow” (Frank Herbert Dune quote), unless you convert to USD dollars first.

Saddam wanted to subvert this knowing his large oil reserves would be a hit to the US order, separate himself from the global economic order which the USA is the de-facto power, and this would have undercut the scheme. So, the Iraq War was all about propping up the Petro Dollar scheme. The oil interests where then handed over to oil companies of allies who support the racket largely because they have a deep interest in ensuring the American economy, the USD, and US bonds (such as Japan buying Treasuries for its pension program) are sustainable.

The Afghanistan War was mostly a Ponzi scheme and racket itself. An ill-planned nation-building strategy was applied for finding…one person, i.e., Osama Bin Laden, and the Taliban even offered to hand him over, but the Bush Administration turned this offer down, selling it to the American people as “We don’t negotiate with terrorists”, because he knew there was money to be made.

The Taliban didn’t attack the United States, but rather Osama Bin Laden and others, hailing from US ally Saudi Arabia did, and Osama was hiding out in Afghanistan. Take this analogy, when Carlos the Jackal was committing terror attacks and hiding out in Europe did the USA…bomb Europe? No. The Bush Administration needed Afghanistan to insert the idea of a Global War on Terrorism, when really the main prize was the Iraq War for the Petro Dollar scheme. Afghanistan was an ideological springboard for Iraq, the bigger prize.

Yet, since we were in Afghanistan, we ended up staying there for 20 years, but we applied a hard-to-win Nation-Building Counterinsurgency “Hearts and Mind” War against the Taliban, who had sympathies in the public and the US was seen as outsiders bringing danger to the people, such as if the Taliban saw Afghani farmers talking to Coalition forces, they could be retaliated against.

An unwinnable war without defined realistic objectives and actual investments in improvements of the lives of the people is a “money pit”, and that’s all the Afghanistan War was meant to be. It’s as if the US government handed over Atlantic City on the grounds of cleaning it up to the Mafia Five Families who control contractors, but the contractors do the minimum because they know the government will pay them, they can waste time to bill more labor costs, and in many cases, they conspire with the criminal elements already in the city, etc.

Afghanistan could be distilled as simply being a stimulus for the US economy where the defense sectors employ many Americans. So, Afghanistan was sort of like a stimulus booster shot for the US economy, that became even more important after the Wall Street created 2008 Global Financial Crisis (a reason why Obama did the troop surge during a Recession), more so than being a mission to install a functional democracy in the nation. The wealthiest Americans who are shareholders, defense contractors, etc., made 20 years of profits funded by US taxpayers via debt, but they also benefited from bailouts, an easy money Federal Reserve policy, and tax cuts from three US Presidents. That’s the main reasons why war-hawks on both sides wanted Biden to extend the Afghanistan withdrawal deadline. It wasn’t to “save the women of Afghanistan” (which is a travesty of their condition), but it was about money…ensuring contractors could bill as much as possible especially after the September 30th fiscal new year resets, Congress members with investments would get paid, etc. The US and its allies had 20 years to aggressively support women but likely feared antagonizing the patriarchal system of the people they claimed to be trying to help.

Women’s rights were a part of the equation and a great way to talk up Western Liberal ideals, but realistically women’s rights were always counterintuitive to the reality of many aspects of Afghan culture. Sure, you see historical photos of women in the past in mini-skirt and attending college, but this era was before the introduction of Islamic radicalism when Afghanistan was a monarchy and even when it was a Communist nation, so deconstructing Islamic radicalism after these political eras were already over was a very hard task amongst an ethnically diverse and poor population. What were we supposed to do as we left a war that needed to be left? Kidnap all the Afghanistan women so Afghanistan would be a Bacha Bazi “sausage fest” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacha_bazi) and use that as leverage over the Taliban?

Should we have created “all girls schools” on US military bases so when we finally withdrew, we could quickly fly them away to the West, possibly taking them from their families? Or were we supposed to stay, negotiate with the Taliban (which Trump did but Republicans would only allow this move because it was Trump, for example if Obama even tried to negotiate with the Taliban the GOP would have used that against him), and then try to include the Taliban into a functional government, which they would never accept because they’re religious first, and political when convenient, i.e., they would have never accepted any of the political parties, coalitions, the Northern Alliance of the Panjshir Valley, etc.

9. Links, Sources, Continued Reading

https://www.businessinsider.com/epoch-times-pro-trump-facebook-ads-2019-8

https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations

https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/sep/10/democrats-reconciliation-bill-what-you-need-know/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/debt-ceiling-default-6-million-jobs-15-trillion-wealth/

Black Lives Matter in Retrospect. Is the State setting up BIPOC peoples by scapegoating BLM as crime rates “rise” to re-install a harsher police state? The Master Slave Game. And how White Reactionaries are alleging BLM is a grift by conflating the realities of a movement with the humanist cause and principle to push white supremacist talking points.  By Quinton Mitchell ©

Table of Contents

  1. Points
  2. Hypothesis and Main Theory
  3. The Issue of Dialectics
  4. Viewing BLM as an Object and Aesthetic
In this still images courtesy of National Public Radio (NPR) television station WBFO and taken by Mike Desmond, a 75-year-old protester bleeds from his ear after being shoved by Buffalo, New York, police, on June 4, 2020, after Buffalos curfew went into effect, according to media reports. – The protester was reported to be in stable but serious condition at a local hospital, according to NPR WBFO on June 5. (Photo by Mike Desmond / WBFO NPR / AFP) / RESTRICTED TO EDITORIAL USE – MANDATORY CREDIT “AFP PHOTO / WBFO NPR / Mike DESMOND” – NO MARKETING – NO ADVERTISING CAMPAIGNS – DISTRIBUTED AS A SERVICE TO CLIENTS (Photo by MIKE DESMOND/WBFO NPR /AFP via Getty Images)

Quick Summary: When looking back at BLM we must make distinction between the movement and the principle/cause, while also not blowing out of proportion all the realities of the movement, i.e., letting bad actors overshadow those with noble intentions.

The movement of BLM was a reaction to police but as an object it seems to be currently being set-up (scapegoated), or even partially having been set up from its inception, by the bipartisan power apparatus, to make people crawl back to a more weaponized and technologically integrated police state, and in American fashion scapegoat black people, i.e., retain the traditional value of “blackness” as “other” and “problematic”. In many ways Black Lives Matters was the best thing for the Justice Department under William Barr considering he could increase police power by hiding behind the racial dialectics of the country, and it was good for both political parties – already co-opted by corporate power – to re-solidify race in the United States, but also advance racial progress simultaneously, because progression is a notion of Darwinism, so progression naturally is used as a metric for gauging success but this progression is done with tension.

As crime rates arose due to the dereliction of duty by many officers who didn’t want to reform, rather instead falling into the Blue Lives Matter reactionary movement (which is at an intersection with All Lives Matter, which is really just a cover for White Lives Matters) and the reopening of society during the COVID lockdowns (more people outside means more crime), 1) people would crawl back to state power where police have received more power, more updated weapons, military surplus from the still standing National Defense Authorization Act provisions, tracking technology, etc., 2) to re-solidify white supremacy via reactionary politics who would shame minorities with a “See, I told you so” sort of cynicism playing into America’s racial dialectics, 3) have the state do figurative reforms to farm voters by holding their hopes over them just to let them down because of manufactured “bipartisan bickering” instead of doing transformative reforms, 4) to undermine the Biden Presidency by taking a way an aspect of his campaign promise to disenchant liberal voters wanting reform, even though Biden-Harris is a proponent of the “law and order” system and seem to only use progressives in a pragmatic ways to simply keep the “tent camp” coalition of the Left intact, but 4) on a bright side, the cause/principle of BLM was important and had a lasting beneficial effect as far as advancing our worldview when viewing race, expanding peoples’ minds to the realities of systemic racism (Good Ole Boy networks, double-standards in sentencing, etc.), humanizing the existences of marginalized groups, not shying away from our history, and viewing power more in-depth.  Yet, the movement wasn’t bad, there were just some bad actors in it, and the movement was essential in tandem with the cause and principle in challenging state power and forcing at least a conversation about reform (that we’re still waiting on from the state).

Disclaimer:

Black Lives Matters was a complicated but important movement in the United States of America and even across the globe. While the US Congress stalls or even disregards actual police reform, the BLM movement did advance the conversation about how we see race relations, and it exposed the often-disregarded interactions that people of color face when dealing with a system that is predominately held by a white power structure, etc. I must put the disclaimer in this paper to subvert claims by white reactionaries that this is “anti-white”.

I grew up in mostly white environments, and they were 90-95% great environments. Very fond memories with white friends or friends of any race where was there was no race (playing video games, watching wrestling, playing tackle football in fields, riding bikes, talking about girls, etc.), yet being older, especially after the entrance of Black Lives Matters into the national conversation, I noticed a sense of ennui or remorse in white America, maybe it was part guilt in feeling that things weren’t truly as good as we all thought they were (assuming the election of one person of half-black descent, not even descended from black American slavery, in Barack Obama, could somehow correct four hundred years of supremacy), or in many cases it was a reaction, a sort of negative envious feeling that white America’s grievances weren’t being met, etc. It’s complicated.

I get it, but I must state that this paper isn’t anti-white even though I will be talking about white supremacy, so if you are white and reading this, don’t see it as an attack (that’s what the white reactionary wants), but rather me trying to help you understand, because frankly, the way that many reacted to Black Lives Matters means that many white people, same as black people, still inhabit a dialectical worldview when coming to race, i.e., a simple matter of black and white consciousness, when really there’s a higher level, but to get that level we have to address the notion of white supremacy, the construction of racial aesthetics, and the extensions of supremacy not matter how innocuous they may seem (such as police power).

As a black person who was raised in white America mostly, conscious of myself as a black person within it, I understand how many white people “tense up” when hearing for example a de-colonialist anti-supremacist worldview by some people of color. Most white people are totally fine, but simply don’t like thinking that things are bad, or for some those others have a sort of advantage because that defies the concept of “merit”. It triggers a sense of defensiveness which therefore leads to fighting, pettiness, cynicism, etc. See me as your friend. You’re interpreter. In many ways I find extreme black nationalism to be problematic, although I understand the energy of it because it’s really from a people trying to reconstruct their identity or attach to their roots which the West or America didn’t take too seriously (they’re trying to feel good about themselves instead of seeming themselves as ugly caricatures created by a system that doesn’t value them or their contributions), for example, we learn about Rome, Ancient China, but we never learn about African history before slavery (and sadly this by design). But I am pragmatically on the Left because I feel the Left will help us all, and I am not a fan of political conservatives because that are a barrier for reconciliation, for progress, and for helping us get to a better day.  

I. Points:

  1. Black Lives Matter and Defund the Police was never anti-police but was about police reform, but since police don’t want to be reformed, but also white supremacy co-opts police with their “law and order” claims, the Right Wing intentionally tried to kill the public from understanding the real intention. The Right Wing’s intention was to remove nuance and context, however, the Left set itself up for that by using “wedge term” tactics. For example, Defund the Police, sure had more bite to it, which was essential because the Left doesn’t have much power, yet, Defund the Police easily could have been called “Progressive Policing”. Sure, the Right Wing would have resisted anyways such as alleging that “progressive” means weak, but at least the Left would have had more sway in the optics war. The Left sometimes forgets that optics do matter because the passion for reform takes precedence, which is understandable, but still for the Left to succeed it needs to understand this, i.e., you aren’t “selling out” if you simply market yourself in a way that the opposition can’t use against you.
  2. A lot of white reactionaries allege that “more white people get killed by police”, but since they don’t do anything about this…what are they really saying about themselves? So, it’s OK to violently react to immigrants based on fears of ‘racial replacement’ for example, but they won’t reform police who allegedly kill more…white people? They will even allege that people don’t protest when white people get killed by police which is false, such as when Kristiana Coignard was killed (where white, black, and Latino people protested the Longview PD) or when Al Sharpton (allegedly a “race baiter” per the Right Wing) spoke at the eulogy for white Arkansas teen, Hunter Brittain. So, white reactionaries in theory are willing to be attacked by a system just if that system overwhelmingly deals with other groups who are smaller in number, power, wealth, etc.? Sounds like fascism to me. White reactionaries who bring up these or similar talking points, might also be failing to admit that the system doesn’t want to show white deaths by police not because society doesn’t care about white people (quite the opposite, aka, they hold the most wealth), but if white people were to see themselves being killed by cops, they might reform the system. The system doesn’t want that.
  3. In many ways Black Lives Matters if it was able to succeed in getting police reform would have “evaporated upward” or “trickled upwards” and benefited white people because you can argue that minority communities being smaller suffer from the system more densely, meaning minority communities are examples of what goes on in the larger communities but in a more dense/extreme manner, meaning that improving the lives of minorities would actually benefit the lives of the majority.
  4. White Society, at least certain segments of it, has more money, meaning they have more influence, so since policing is political, e.g., people vote for Sheriff’s, judges, DAs, etc., white communities have more sway over the law because those they put into power want to appease them more so, and many cases are living in the communities they police, thus becoming incorporated into a localized “good ole boy network”. In many of these communities the children of police are hanging out with the children of those who effectively run that’s communities’ society (the Chambers of Commerce, country clubs, PTA meetings, etc). This is at odds with minority communities, where the police often don’t live there, don’t see the people as the same, don’t participate in the community, and are subject to larger populations meaning they disregard nuance and to hedge their safety take on a more forceful demeanor, etc. A suburban doctor with three kids as more sway than a person of color or immigrants without money, even as far as having the time to complain or fight cases with private legal help as opposed to public defenders. Certain law officials are more likely to see themselves in those they police or try, e.g., white police policing middle to upper class whites, i.e., “you remind me of myself, so I’ll give you warning” or it’s “kids being kids”, or “I’d hate to ruin your future”.
  5. All Lives Matters had no ideology. It was an innocuous movement simply meant to be a rebuttal to Black Lives Matters. All Lives Matters and Blue Lives Matter was simply a “passive aggressive, aggressive” reactionary movement to Black Lives Matter created to shroud white racial insecurities by hiding behind a high horse position that they value all lives, when in essence they don’t consider All Lives Matters offered no unifying movement that sought to reform the system for “all lives”. Did you see any protest by All Lives Matters to bring all peoples together to reform police? Further, Blue Lives Matter was explicitly a racial movement, though hiding behind the fact that First Responder’s lives to matter already and there being people of color within policing, and you can tell this was the case, because Blue Lives Matters could have created reconciliation with Black Lives Matters which would help improve the work safety of police. Rather, Blue Lives Matter stayed silent, double down on their position, took criticism as a negative and not a positive to improve policing, and by them doing all this they helped to unite police further with whiteness in the United States, which is dangerous, similarly to how the Right Wing tries to appropriate things which should be apolitical such as the military.
  6. Many white reactionaries use statistics when convenient, but then disregard others when necessary if it defeats their agenda. If white reactionaries are willing to believe that black people are inherently criminal at face value due to statistics, then why don’t they accept statistics on matters such as…. Climate Change or Wealth disparity, especially with climate change being based on a natural observation of the world, rather being based on sociology, i.e., a study of people? They’re selective on purpose.
  7. Further, white reactionaries when talking against the Black Lives Matter movement and alleged the inherit criminality of black people or other minority groups, they always fail to provide context, such as the simple question of “what is a crime?”. If you’re in a community that’s more heavily policed and restricted, you are more likely to commit a crime even if a petty offense, i.e., you’re visible, but minorities are even visible in not heavily policed places with fewer police. It’s no different than if you’re at the front of the class you’re more likely to get sent to detention for talking than someone whispering in the back. For example, there are racist laws such as black or Latino people can’t even be in groups in public in certain parts of town or on corners, e.g., some communities there are restrictions on large gatherings or even wearing certain colors. So, if you have a highly policed, monitored, and restricted group then of course crime rates would be higher, because what is really a “crime”. Kurt Reinhold was killed for jaywalking in California, a civil crime that happens every minute in the United States of America. Then there’s also the matter of self-defense within these communities. Self-defense as a concept is fine within “white society”, i.e., stand your ground laws or gun rights, but if a black person happens to use self-defense in a dangerous situation such as being robbed or attacked, then he or she can be simply labeled a criminal and not be given the “patriotic aesthetics” given to a white person.

II. Hypothesis and Main Theory:

Black Lives Matters was an important movement that was needed to advance the racial conversation beyond the pre-existing co-opted MLK “safe space” which was used in many ways to hide the nexus between state and private interests power (neoliberalism and supremacy), and expose the racial realities of BIPOC peoples, but BLM was also a way to “re-solidify” white supremacy, since people would naturally conflate the realities of individual actors within the Black Lives Matters movement with the overarching and important humanist principle and cause that BIPOC lives do matter, by providing a means (excuse) for white supremacist to push White Panic politics, and reactionary “reverse racism” allegations.

Further, BLM in retrospect when viewed as an object that was used by the state to reassert state-control through the “master slave mentality”, by making the general populace “crawl back to police” since people would see police (and allegedly their means of using violence as being essential for fixing the many problems of America, ironically created by the system itself) as essential, particularly as the rising crime rates that occurred as the COVID-19 lockdowns eased up, manifested themselves.

The system was able to scapegoat BLM as being a destructive force and reassert the authority and need for police.

Regarding the Master Slave analogy, the “master” uses violence against his slaves (dividing the slaves already so they see themselves not as a common class), the “slaves” revolt and find freedom, but the master hopes that the slaves “crawl back” to the master, even though the master is responsible for the material and political conditions that caused the slave to come back, for example crime that is influenced by wealth disparity, lack of economic opportunity, gentrification largely funded by the Central Bank’s artificial monetary policy making it easier for developers to find financing to create expensive housing for profit (or for them to borrow against their artificially bloated assets for money), reductions in social investments while increases in sectors such as defense, the fact monopolies exists which hurts small businesses, the power of corporations who give “opportunity” via employment, yet underpay knowing that unemployment is high so people are disposable but suction the majority of the profits out of the community via elaborate tax-loopholes (such as the Delaware Corporation loophole) while diverting the tax burden innocuously to the state/local governments to fund things such as infrastructure, education, charities, etc.  

BLM wasn’t “anti-police”, but it was about “police reform”, yet, in some cases by some individuals it was “anti-police”, similarly to how you have “grifters” but you also have true-believers, thus all these varying intentions created a muddled disunified position that was able to be used against reformists by the Political Right since they don’t care about the distinctions within the Left but are explicitly against it overall.

The Left Wing unlike the Political Right (which is monolithic/homogenous/authoritarian) is an umbrella camp including left-leaning liberals (let’s call them “inclusive tolerant capitalists” with varying sympathies on welfare), Leftists (further subdivided between Socialists, Marxists, anarchists, etc.), so “Leftist” seeming movements, even though Leftist don’t necessarily own the “causes or principles” they are fighting for always (e.g., that BIPOC lives matters), find themselves infighting over the direction of the cause and principle.

What the Left can learn from BLM, especially as White Panic politics arise is that there needs to be reconciliation of Left leaning ideologies, but then a reconciliation between Leftist and Left Liberal ideologies.

This tendency of ideological infighting, where Marxists see Left leaning liberals as “not down enough” or in reverse, Left Leaning liberals see Marxists as “too extreme”, needs to be reconciled to create a mutual position, meaning that American Leftism has no real choice of being a Reformist and pragmatic movement rather than a Revolutionary Movement. Yet, the basis for the reconciliation should be since Marx in many ways was right. Left Leaning liberals in many ways throw the Left under the bus but not being brave enough to even admit that Marx’s analysis was correct in many ways, even if they disagree with his means or his outcomes.

The Left in a way fell for the “trap” of the system’s “reverse psychological and dialectics game”, but it was because the Left who lacks the money and state power has to use bold statements (such as Defund the Police) or rally calls to make up for the detriment of power against the state, yet these bold statements tough powerful can actually lead to the destruction of the cause both internally and externally, and in many ways endanger those the cause was meant to protect. For example, I as a black man must deal with the reactionaries to Black Lives Matters, since I exist in the real world, not the world of ideas, but I support the statement of Black Lives Matters. In a way BLM was a tool of dialectics to continue America’s dialectical animus when viewing race, but BLM was also an important and noble movement as far as aesthetics, value, and intention.

III. The Issue of Dialectics

When it comes to dialectics, the system cannot advance without supporting what it wishes to reform. Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis, Repeat. Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis, Repeat, etc., etc. But the United States’ penchant for dialectics is a rudimentary framework but is fundamental to American thought, e.g., America was largely founded on an ‘either/or” mentality being that it was a European colony seeing others as “others” (e.g., uncivilized savages vs civilized peoples, or whiteness versus everything else).

Dialectics is used to reinstall state power such by “re-solidifying” the majority racial class whom by proxy defend the state since their “origin story”, “value” (mostly through vicarious living, i.e., poor whites benefit by proxy from the value of elite whites) or “identity” are based on the system, but dialectics are also used to “evolve” the consciousness of America at the same time. Think of it all as a method of hedging the bets in the portfolio, e.g., you need some gold in the portfolio to hedge the equities but each one counteracts each other. It’s all about keeping the same animus of power intact, while still evolving the national consciousness.

The philosophical underpinnings of the United States could be simply summed up as manifesting itself as Pragmatic (do whatever works), hidden under romantic ideals pushed through a sort of religiosity such as on concepts like inalienable rights of citizens, property rights, etc., but it also applies dialectics to cover up the realities of the situation, with that being the Unites States is a pyramidal structure.

Pragmatic dialectics as a tool of liberalism creates a bipolarization of the body politic and the people and since the USA is a modernist experiment, it also applies the “scientific method” and Darwinian concept of evolution (while ironically promoting religion that defies evolutionary concepts) thus resulting in the “zoological stratification of groups”, and the fetishization of races, etc., who are organized and controlled through a managerial (business) viewpoint.

Essentially, the United States uses “do whatever it takes to the job done, i.e., act first, think later” pragmatics to run a society that’s stratified and controlled using racial, sexual, and political dialectics for the benefit and sustaining of an idealistic Enlightenment liberal order that is based on an interpretation of property rights where property rights manifested itself as a society dominated by corporations owned by a few, yet, the USA too as a modernist experiment applies a harsh scientific viewpoint when determining its success, so the system uses dialectics as a tool for progression, but these application of dialectics requires a sot of Darwinian pain or tension within the “landscape” or “environment”. The United States uses idealism in one hand but then harsh realism in another, same as it uses Analytics in one hand (such an obsession with data) but also stratifies society into identities and classifications which by default triggers existentialism as the individual attempts to see a higher purpose within the chaos of the marketplace. The United States is a controlled chaos operation, pragmatically mixing any idea that serves its purpose and creates competitive advantages, that seeks only to sustain the liberal tradition of property rights which is just another word for business rights, i.e., corporate rights, and applies a “psycho-sexual-racial” stratification, cleverly balancing supremacy with progressive liberation, and applies a managerial culture on the working classes so they can never see the animus of the system, i.e., they become compartmentalized within an economic, political, and social bureaucracy, they identity with their role or job title in society rather than their true selves, and in many ways people of the working class attach their very identity to the system so objectively analyzing the system triggers a sort of existential crisis “fail safe measure”. In many ways the USA is simply a newer version of feudalism, where lords basically gave serfs no other option but to live on their land and work it in exchange for protection, but in the USA the serfs have free movement and instead of God the replacement is the “God ordained” marketplace and this notion of freedom, but the freedom doesn’t really exists because the economic underpinnings of America creates disparity and there’s no economic alternative to freely live in within the system, i.e., leaving the system means destitution similar if a serf left his fief he’d be destitute. Freedom as we see it, i.e., this religious devotion to freedom, i.e., the ability to be selfish for the sake of it because an ambiguous deity ordains so, is really just a means of giving the lower classes a cheap sense of power, when in fact the actual powerful benefit from the actual freedom. Freedom is just and important, but in many ways is just a drug sold by elites so they actually remain free, i.e., unregulated, and the serfs remain separated and competing, i.e.,free. Yet, a liberal system based on a harsh view of property rights which benefits the business classes, such as corporations, more so than the individual expressing their freedom, always results in disparity, that circumvents democracy, e.g., people with more money dictate democracy and thus it’s not a democracy, and even if the USA is a Republic, a republic is simply a form of democracy where the people vote people to make decisions for them. The seedling of all this comes from America’s inception in which the colonial bourgeoisie (the Founders, the gentry class, the merchant class) used the colonial proletariat to win a Revolution, i.e., a hostile takeover, of the colonial corporation, i.e, the 13 colonies, but the colonial bourgeoisie as the merchant class framed the revolution as a being about personal freedom when in fact the energy of the Revolution channeled a worker’s strike of the masses against owners (the colonial investors back in the United Kingdom). The American Revolution’s narrative was co-opted from inception by the business class, whom despite thinking they were “cool kid hipster philosophers” ended up just being successors of a feudalistic tradition by way of the business sector.

In many ways the United States is “controlled chaos”, which is hallmark of it, yet also a detriment because those who control the apparatus of this “controlled chaos” have bias, agendas, etc., which is to hide the pyramidal reality of reality.

The United States is flux of Enlightenment philosophies (Continental, Analytics, pragmatism, postmodernism, religion, realism, idealism, evolutionary science/scientism, and business), all blended pragmatically into a system, e.g., The Third Way, that seems orderly but is also existential, where the “existential” isn’t necessarily natural, but in many ways crafted so people in an ‘ontological abyss’ crawl back to a system of power that subjugates them albeit the state or the marketplace (such as through advertising, material fetishism, binge eating to cope for mental health issues). It’s a sort of disciplinarian parent to child mentality. Sure, the child gets gifts, may live in a nice home, but the state (not the state of the Left, but the state as is in the United States), also employs psychological games, physical punishment, etc.

But it is my belief that this game of dialectics is the goal of the system. It’s not profound to throw out terms such as ‘divide and conquer’ but in many ways that’s what race relations is when dealing with neo-liberalism, capitalism, voting demography, marketing, etc. Yet, what’s more sinister about state power (which doesn’t mean Democrat, but the state apparatus behind both parties) is that it even co-opts claims such as mine about ‘divide and conquer’ to make it seem like their reforms aren’t about that, but they always ends being that, such as neo-liberal power co-opting Leftist notions such as de-colonial self-determinism to simply “re-solidify race” in America for various reasons such as those mentioned in the sentence before this. Basically, America runs off dialectics. Either/Or. Ying/Yang. It tries to subvert progress by making progress seems like a win-lose rather than a win-win. There is something about this system that is the equivalency to ‘cuckholding’, i.e., playing with deep routed psychological fears and bartering groups against each other.

But why? A unified proletariat, i.e., a unified “class consciousness” particularly that of the working-poor all the way to the upper-middle class would pose a risk to the “owner class”, i.e., the corporate boards, majority shareholders, conglomerates, etc. A unifying vision of America isn’t necessarily the goal of America unless such unity feeds into capitalist power (for example, desegregation, though noble ethically, was applied more so for pragmatic purposes since it was better for the markets, e.g., interstate commerce, consumerism, etc., and similarly desegregation gave the USA a military advantage which thus feeds back to capitalist operations and hegemony), but even if so it can’t help but to promote a segregationist view point, regardless if its from the political-right or the political-left.

 It wants to have people fighting, but then give figurative improvements, that don’t change much (because it’s not profitable to do so) and re-solidify demography.

The “re-solidification of demography” thus feeds into the political system, which at this point is co-opted by special interests, meaning democracy in many ways is a guise. Keeping the rouse up.

Even though the political right is effectively controlled by the “power apparatus” since they are always creating apologetics for the system such as conflating personal liberty with the liberty of corporate personhood (thus obstructing regulation on corporations), the political-left too in many ways has been co-opted by “the system” largely by way of the center-left of the traditional Democratic powerbase, yet as far as grassroots non-state movements or intellectuals they still rally against the system for noble intentions.

That’s the goal of white reactionaries. They don’t want the light pointed at the system.

Black Lives Matter forced a harder analysis of race relations away from the concept of “racial blindness” or “can we all get along”, because in many ways this MLK (who was a Christian Leftist of the Protestant and English speaking tradition) aesthetic of racial blindness was merely co-opted by the system so we wouldn’t reveal that systemic racism is a real thing, and the system weaponized this high horse position by making it seem that people speaking against racial biases were performing “reverse racism” or being agitators affecting the delicate balance of racial blindness in the context of neo-liberalism, i.e., the racial blindness concept through honorable was merely co-opted into order to continue a neo-liberal system that exploits people.

Technological innovations (cellphones) helped to reveal the truth of policing in the United States regardless of race, but this innovation in conjunction with BLM helped to reveal the daily aggressions that many people of color experience, no matter how blunt or passive, for example the revelation of Karens. Karens aren’t new thing, but rather we can see how crazy they can get, and how their behavior brings unneeded trauma, fear, and even death to people of color. Imagine all the months, years, decades, centuries that Karens have operated in getting people killed, arrested, kicked out of school, etc.

Yet, like any movement there is a good side and a bad side. For all I know BLM for inception was a grift, but even if it were, it doesn’t mean those attached to it were grifters and it certainly doesn’t mean that the principle of Black Lives Matters was bad.

IV. Viewing BLM as an Object and Aesthetic

We must create distinction between the movement (object) and the cause/principle (the value, intention, and aesthetic).

We can distill the aesthetics and value of the Black Lives Matter into two or three things.

1) The Movement and 2) the principle/the cause.

The Movement represents that actual business and organizational structure of the Black Lives Matter movement, i.e., the birthplace or headquarters of the movement, i.e., the heads of the movement who dealt with the financial gains and ideological underpinnings. Yet the movement isn’t linear or concrete. You have the “hive mind” of the movement, but then you have the various chapters or franchises of the movement, whom may very well not be involved in the actual “business dealings” of the headquarters, e.g., a local chapter in your community who simply wants to provide education, advance the conversation, do community projects, etc. So, yes, there was corruption in the movement, but then also not.

You will always have grifters in any movement. For example, just imagine how many opportunists bought wholesale T-Shirts when Donald Trump won or when Blue Lives Matters came (another problematic reactionary movement hiding behind a high-horse position) and profited of these movements.

To call BLM a “grift” in its entirety is nothing more that white supremacy hidden behind speakers, bloggers, or podcasters who reference one source of statistics (such as stats on black crime, often lacking support analysis such as history, economic conditions, wealth disparity, etc.) while hiding other sets of statistics such as levels of criminality or corruption within US police agencies.

Then we have the principle/the cause, which is simply “black lives matter”, i.e., black lives have as much value as white lives (the majority) especially when dealing with law enforcement considering the movement was a response to police brutality regardless of if there were bad actors in the “movement” (the business side).

Just because the physical movement of BLM had issues, doesn’t mean their issues took away from the “cause” or “principle” that the lives of people of color have equal value thus are entitled to equal treatment by the law.

The goal of conservatives and white reactionary types is to conflate the movement of BLM, which is subjective due to the diversity of human nature (good, bad, noble, greedy, etc.), with the principle and cause of BLM, but then hide behind high-horse positions such as saving lives of first responders or racial equality (that most everyone can already agree with) via movements like All or Blue Lives Matters, when it really, it’s just a passive way of expressing racism for many, shrouding racial insecurities, projecting a sense of racial grievance in that they don’t feel “loved” or “as sympathized with”, and/or reasserting unchecked state power on violence. It’s fascism. Straw man arguments, white panic politics, state power, and supremacy hidden behind a worship of state regalia, mythos, origin stories, propaganda, etc.

If we were to make an analogy, conservatives treated Black Lives Matters like a woman who files a rape complaint but people end up saying “she deserved it”, “she shouldn’t have been wearing that”, “she was asking for it”, etc.

Conservatives seems to push this biased objectivist (meta-narrative) ideology, which defies the nature of chaos and diversity that’s natural to the freedom they allegedly claim to love, i.e., conservatives use this sort of “religious worship” of principles but that totally negates the complex nuances, intersections, realities, diversities, etc., of life.

Thus, it’s a problematic position even though the quest for objectivity is fine, conservative ideology is problematic because it’s the equivalent of them appearing to shake hands and break truces with one hand but behind their backs they are crossing their fingers with that gesture being symbolic of hiding an attention, i.e., a supremacist system of ideology.  

It’s funny that people say Socialism for example sounds good on paper but doesn’t work, when really one can easily turn this around on conservatives and say the same things. Sure, freedom sounds good on paper, but freedom as an “object” or “thing” or expression can be twisted and appropriated to shroud state power by hiding behind the majority group of a country.

It’s no different than people attacking Colin Kaepernick when he took a knee, which he didn’t broadcast himself, but rather someone videotaped him doing it and shared it with the public. Conservatives were able to pick up on this and use the American Flag and anthem as a shield to be racist, even though you had others who were genuinely disappointed at his move, yet these people too didn’t even call out the fact that there were “passive aggressive racist” in their midst, thus these “noble patriotic” types further muddled the conversation and for what? Emotions to a state symbol?

But white supremacist “vloggers” like American Justice Warrior alleging that BLM was nothing more than a grift, they can play into idea that the Democrats, progressives, Socialist, Social Democrats, etc., are using race merely for a Marxist agenda or to conduct “white replacement”. The goal of conservatives is to stitch things together without context and then dump them into broad categories such as “Marxism” (which they misrepresent all the type by using “straw man argument”, i.e., using the most extreme examples, and without context, i.e., the West was hostile to socialist nations) so they can demonize it and accelerate “White Panic” politics, thus justifying a harsher clamp down on minorities or movements which seek reform. They just want their egos coddled. They don’t like diversity because it hurts their manhood.

Many of these white reactionaries (Karens included) were set up for failure because the system always elevated their egos so high, having lived vicariously through white status symbols to latch on their values (para-social relationships), but when others were included, it’s like a child screaming against sharing and destroys his or her room.

They even go further by alleging that All Lives Matters wasn’t a reactionary movement to Black Lives Matter when in fact it was.

Why would I say that? Did you ever see All Lives Matters making a splash to call out police brutality on “all lives”? No. Did they really mobilize the masses under a stance of racial unity to challenge state power under a “Power to the People” mantra? No. It was just a way to play the “reverse racism” card and considering Donald Trump was elected while ALM came about is further proof. He was elected in part on white panic politics, and Trump knew that, hence his idiotic statements paying into this “reverse racism” card.

Even if many who sympathized with the All-Lives Matter motto weren’t racist (you had many people of color sympathizing with it), it doesn’t mean that the All-Lives Matter movement wasn’t a passive aggressive white reactionary movement. All Lives Matters co-opted the high-horse position of “racial blindness” and “unity” to hide the white reactionary elements of it, so it could turn around and justify clamping down harder on a minority community. Reverse psychology and mind games. Seriously, in many rebuttals to Black Lives Matter I’ve seen ranging from people such as Candace Owens of Blexit or closeted white supremacists such as American Justice Warrior, they fail to provide any objectivity. They never criticized the clear and visible/broadcasted examples of police brutality, planting drug evidence on suspects, proven sexual assaults by police officers, etc.

That’s all you really need to know about these anti-BLM movements mostly. They are simply using reverse psychology to further demonize minorities who speak up against state brutality by making them appear to be inherently criminal, spoiled, entitled at their expense, etc., and they hide behind high-horse positions that most people even on the Left agree with such as “law and order”, “all lives matter”, etc.

The Political Left are the Blue Coats. 1776 was a Workers’ Strike. Revealing the Leftist Tradition of the Revolutionary War. Dealing with the Left’s Patriotism optics issue. By Quinton Mitchell

The American Revolution was a worker’s strike and the modern Left needs to embrace this tradition to alleviate the accusation that it’s not “patriotic”. The colonists were subjects (contracted workers, i.e., contractors), within chartered colonies (corporations) – thirteen departments to be exact (the Thirteen Colonies)-, whose labor was being exploited for the benefit of shareholders back in the United Kingdom. Our understanding of the Revolution was crafted by the business class who used the proletariat class, for their “hostile takeover of the corporation”, to emphasis a radical worship of individual liberty and anti-taxation, which translates to power for the most powerful private interests.

Part 1. 1776 as a Worker’s Socialist Movement

Part 2. The Left Has a Patriotism Problem, in theory.

I. 1776 as a Worker’s Socialist Movement

Imagine it’s 1776 and somehow, we have TV and the modern mainstream news. Imagine the news talking about a guerilla army in a place called America revolting against the business interests of the British Empire. The news, imaging Tucker Carlson in a powered wig, would likely call the American Revolutionaries, terrorists, and Communist agitators for propaganda purposes.

When we’re taught about American Independence stories of Paul Revere, The Boston Tea Party, the crossing of the Delaware River, etc., come to mind, yet, what we’re not taught is that the energy of the American Revolution wasn’t purely about freedom in the way we understand it now, i.e., individual rights, personal property rights, etc., – which, in and of itself were used by the business class to advance their own interests at the expense of the people – but, also within the American Revolution there was a very Socialist energy. By Socialist it doesn’t necessarily mean Marxist, considering Marxism is just one of the many theories of Socialism, but since Marxism had the most indelible impact on the Socialist movement by providing a scientific framework for analysis, then what I’m saying is partially influenced by Marx such as his notion of class struggle, dialectical materialism, etc.

The colonists were subjects (contracted workers, i.e., contractors), within chartered colonies (corporations), thirteen departments to be exact (the Thirteen Colonies) whose labor was being exploited for the benefit of shareholders back in the United Kingdom.

The colony is the basis for the concept of the corporation where the first corporation, The Dutch East India Company, later inspired other companies such as The British East India Company. Colonies were business enterprises, often risky, which required private military contractors, inmate labor, human trafficked labor (slaves), and volunteers.

So, when the American Revolutionaries revolted, they as workers/slaves were revolting against a corporation, i.e., a capitalist enterprise.

We are often told one side of the coin when it comes the energy of the American revolution. It was not only libertarian in nature, but also socialist in nature. I suppose a merger of these traditions would be what we consider socio-anarchist.

For example, we often hear revolts against taxes as being American, yet even though the colonists (workers) were being taxed unfairly, there’s not much difference between taxes and wages. The workers were basically not being paid well enough, i.e., they weren’t fairly compensated for their labor to begin with, even before on the back end when they had to pay taxes, stamp duties, tariffs, etc. Colonists were getting the “double whammy” of being underpaid (slaves not paid at all) and then taxed (which likely caused harsher exploitation of workers/slaves by managers to make up for losses).

The energy of the revolution could only have happened if the worker classes revolted. In a way you could say the energy of the Revolution was a union movement, or, we could say the American Revolution is the birth of the American workers’ rights movement.

So, how did our conception of the American Revolution come to be? Those with power dictated the narrative, divided the public naturally with a capitalist system that created class struggle, but also layered it all with a racial caste system, so the white poor would identify, i.e., vicariously live through, the white elites.

I do feel that the Founders, some well-read into Enlightenment philosophers, might have speculated of the possibility of what would later become socialism as being a possibility, yet, since “mob rule of the people” would negate their own plans, but by not taking caring of the people would lead to disaster, they left an ambiguous statement within the Preamble, i.e., providing for the good will. Therefore, this one of the reasons why I believe in the Living Document interpretation of the constitution as opposed to the Originalist interpretation such as that of Supreme Court Justices such as Amy Coney Barrett, where the Originalist believe you must view the Constitution based on the time it was written, which is ridiculous, because that method denies the realities of the time at hand, its nuances, etc. (people were also slaves in this time, women had no right to vote in those times, etc.). The Founders were smart enough to know that the Enlightenment Tradition, such as what they were seeing in France, i.e., America’s fraternal brother, had utopian scope that not only emphasized the individual but also the collective.

We often hail the Founding Fathers as sage-life wisemen of virtuous character, but in essence they were of the gentry class, i.e., the middle-management classes, i.e., the managers of trading houses, labor agencies (slave depots), estates, warehouses, and law firms that served British investor interests. They were of the class had Anglophile sensibilities particularly in their education, and we can see this in the schism of the Loyalist gentry class versus the Revolutionary gentry class where Loyalists of the same class migrated to what is now Canada.

The American Revolution was two things, (1) A revolt of the proletariat, i.e., working classes subconsciously channeling what we could consider a Socialist energy, and (2) a “Hostile Takeover” by the middle-management of the colonies who wanted to cut out their foreign investors and become the de facto board of chairmen themselves.

Essentially, middle managers used the working classes, exploiting their unrealized concept of Socialism and worker’s rights, and then applied a concept of unfettered economic liberty which would always serve the ruling classes which the Founders after their victory now owned. It’s no different than workers revolting against a firm, but the leader of that firm simply uses them and turns around and does the same thing.

The very fact that the signers and framers from the upper classes didn’t trust democracy which they called “mob rule” is proof that the conscious and subconscious construction of the USA was based on classism. We can even add to the rebellions which came after the Revolution which weren’t simply about taxes, but about people fearing their wages would be eaten into since they likely didn’t make that much to begin with, such as in Shay’s Rebellion. Shay’s Rebellion on the surface seems like American’s simply protesting taxes, but really, they were protesting the merchant class passing down costs on to them for them to pay their own creditors. It’s no different than a bank steadily increasing your withdrawal fees, as a means of covering their own overhead. The people who revolted at what is now called Shay’s Rebellion were suppressed by a private army funded by the merchant class and commanded by General Benjamin Lincoln, which foreshadows how today private military contractors are used to suppress workers across the globe.

However, the framers and signers of the constitution all had their own personalities and reasons, and their occupations spanned from doctors, lawyers, military, and land holders, etc. We can’t lump all Framers and Signers together since they all had their own philosophy, yet the one thing they did have in common, is they were, even if they had moral reservations about it, were a part of a class system, where many of the signers by the time of Independence had their own special interests in mind, and not necessarily the good will of the American people as claimed.

To add to the claim that the American revolution had a Socialist element to it is that the Enlightenment philosophy of the revolution encompasses Leftist thought, i.e., individualism versus collectivism, both have roots in an Enlightenment thought through the centuries of European history.

Yes, what we consider to be notions of radical freedom, democracy, capitalism, and socialism all have a common ancestry dating back to the Renaissance (thinkers such as Giovanni Pico Della Mirandola), yet over time as history carried on and democratic experiments were burgeoning there was a splintering of ideas, yet, what we consider to be libertarian and socialists both have the same ends but through different strategy, e.g., one posits that individual rights and private property rights somehow ensures liberty, whereas the other posits that collective control over the means of production or an empowerment of the larger collective working class ensures that individual rights are respected, i.e., equality. The issue with the capitalist argument is that you can’t have equality even if equality or liberty exists on paper because the accumulation of capital, often created by robbing one’s labor, i.e., underpaying, creates too much of a vast spread within a hierarchy, i.e., there’s a larger difference between the haves and have nots. Socialism, particularly the specific, I repeat specific framework (since other types of socialism exist) of Fredrich Engels and Karl Marx, i.e., Scientific Socialism or Marxism, is more based within reality, whereas notions of capitalism, despite what we’ve been told, are more based on romantic idealism, i.e., ideas over real-world conditions.

The notion freedom by way of a capitalist system is based more in ideas (romanticism, religion, non-empiricism), rather than realism (understanding negative effects of systems, i.e., externalities, using a scientific framework to study human interactions, the interconnection of things, the inherent social nature of humans and the social nature of transaction, etc.), thus the American notion as we know it of liberty is more in aligned with Hegelian idealism, which is something that Marx disagreed with. Instead of living under “grand ideas”, Marx rather called capitalism what it is, which is a system based on the exploitation of labor for the benefit of a few or an individual. It exists to have people work for you, but you underpay them and collect the surplus yourself.

We can put Karl Marx in the same umbrella of Western philosophy as the thinkers who inspired the Revolutionaries, even though Marx came later, and many thinkers went in their own directions. For example, both Marx and Jefferson were influenced by J.J. Rousseau. Hegel, Kant, Spinoza, Smith, etc.

Both Marx and Jefferson had a materialist view to reality, though unique and modified to themselves, which could be translated as a scientific (observation of nature) or a realist view to nature, i.e., science, such as the science influenced by Newtonian thought. Yet, to not get too much into religion, it could be argued that Jefferson would be agnostic in a modern-day sense with Christian apologetics, whereas Marx would have been an atheist on the deeper end of scientific realism.

Jefferson stated, “Nature has, in truth, produced units only through all her works. Classes, orders, genera, species, are not of her works. Her creation is of individuals.” If Jefferson had survived to read Charles Darwin, he may be interested in the works Darwin such as the interconnectivity of all life.

Marx stated, ““Darwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle”.

“Like many other contemporaries he read—e.g., Hutcheson, Kames, Bolingbroke, Tracy, and Hume—Jefferson was an empiricist, and in keeping with Isaac Newton, a dyed-in-the-wool materialist.”  

[Source of quotations: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/jefferson/]

II. The Left Has a Patriotism Problem, in theory.

The Left as a Patriotism problem. It’s not that those on the Left, Progressive, or Left Liberal side of the house don’t like the United States. Their efforts to improve conditions is proof they do care about America. Yet, the Left as largely lost the “Patriotism optics” war, despite winning the Culture War as far as mainstream media as mainstream media has become more inclusive over time. Many on the Left might think that not being a radical patriot, waving the Stars and Stripes, posting things about supporting the troops, etc., is all that necessary, and some might even think it’s cringe or nonsensical to do such things because they could be seen as mere figurative gestures that don’t improve material conditions of the American people.

Yet, by not owning more of the Patriotic aesthetic this gives easy ammunition to the political right who can simply rebut any progressive idea as being “un-American”, etc. The Political Right as far as culture, i.e., fashion, optics, aesthetics, attempts to own the soul of the military, police, and even the Revolutionary War. Why do Leftist let this happen? It’s ok to be critical of the American system while still honoring the aesthetics of it. It’s ok to have a post-colonial framework, or even a Critical Theory viewpoint, or to apply intersectionality, and still have the appearance, but also the innate belief of loving your country.

Basically, we need to see more marketing campaigns to stitch the Leftist Framework with Patriotic imagery. Having American Flags at a rally for Bernie or Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is something simple to do. Unifying progressive veteran organizations and focusing on veteran care for troops while still honoring their service, even though the Left might lean towards pacifism, is fine. But the major point is to present the truth that the American Revolution was a worker’s strike (more to come on this below).

Republicans can easily have no policy besides enriching the rich even more, but they capture people with the allure of belonging to a Patriotic Tradition. Yet, the issue with how we understand this tradition is that the Revolutionary War for example wasn’t merely a war to free ourselves from taxes, but was also a worker’s strike, meaning the energy of the Revolutionary had a Leftist framework.

I’m frustrated as an everyday “heteronormative” guy wanting to see the Left succeed.

I surf the internet and on Instagram I constantly see beautiful models with Bible quotes above their LinkTree link (leading to OnlyFans) covering themselves with the US flag (something you wouldn’t see on the political left – which is fine, but it is a powerful tool), I see gun enthusiast pages, Don’t Tread on Me flags, people selling T-Shirts such as “Liberty or Death” or “1776”, truck or off-road vehicle pages, Blue Lives Matter pages, etc. The appeal of the political right is that it makes itself seem like a fun place for the normal person. “We got beautiful woman, we love our country, we admire our heroes, we eat meat, watch sports, we use our hands, we’re manly men and the women who love these men”, etc., etc.

Yet, on the Left things aren’t as monolithic and homogenous, which is fine, but due to ideologies such as Identity politics the Left is left in state where it can’t even agree internally on what can be done without people feeling they’re offending someone of another intersectional component. There’s a lot of “you aren’t down” enough shaming tactics on the Left which further divides things so the unified right can easily pick it apart or obstruct. How can the Left unite if the ideology of feminism (which isn’t bad) does posit itself against men and don’t really care what men think (not necessarily in theory as what a person criticizing this would say, but just look to social media where you see pages after pages essentially not…liking men), and I would say the same thing in reverse, when men on the Left might feel stunned or unable to feel they can articulate their thoughts without fear of being lectured? As crazy as it wounds, sexual politics are a big part of the appeal of the political-right because it coddles the heteronormative ego, whereas the left questions it, yet women on the right are willing to “stand by their men” because it’s beneficial for them to do so, i.e., they get adoring love and admiration.

I’m not saying that women on the Left need to be sexually objectified to lure men to the Left, but what I am saying is that the Right does do that. For example, look at the links of Babes for Bernie vs Babes for Trump. (https://www.instagram.com/babesforbernie/?hl=en) (https://www.instagram.com/babesfortrump2024/?hl=en)

Also for more into the sexual politics of the American Right Wing, see my post about Sex and Fascism relating to the band Tool and murder of George Floyd. https://mitchellrg.com/2020/08/29/tool-pulp-fiction-fascism-frauleins-cops-and-george-floyd-how-pulp-fictions-pawn-shop-scene-is-analogous-to-george-floyds-death-by-quinton-mitchell-c/  

You can apply this feeling of awkwardness across race, gender, orientation, assignment, etc. Yet, it’s not bad what the left has achieved as far as advancing the conversation. I almost feel a sense of “existential” growth at pondering intersectionality and I would say the Left has made me into a better person, but what I feel in my head even if it on the right track, and how the world outside of my head are two different things. The Left might feel enlightened but it’s a flimsy reality on the streets, where people like see it as “weak”, “intellectual”, etc.

I always had the idea of trying to reconcile heteronormative masculinity with Leftist thought. And, sure, I bet a critic with the typical “eye roll” response as if attempting such as thing is just proof of “male insecurity”, but I would argue it’s essential since this identity does exists in the material world, and the Right Wing is able to exploit masculinity and make it seem “explicitly” Right Wing. As a man, to be honest, this erks me. Maybe the American Left needs a “Men of Steel” tradition, where the notion of steel goes back to old Socialist imagery of the hammer, and this could help in hedging the culture war of the political right.

Regardless, the Right Wing is a unified force that markets itself with the high horse position of patriotic imagery and it also appeals to a “safe space” of non-intellectual, Football watching, beer drinking, firework shooting, Redneck rigging, “chicks” in daisy duke loving Americana. As a Leftist who grew up an old school Democrat before the passage of NAFTA, in many ways the culture of the right wing, is my culture (I’m watching Sunday Night Football with a beer right now), despite me coming from a tradition that always sympathized with the worker, had disdain for Wall Street, etc.

In many ways, the American Left lost its style of the “Roseanne America” or Axel Foley’s Detroit in Beverly Hills Cop. And, sure, these might not be “representative” of America as is, but ask yourself this question, “How do you help a Southern guy with a truck actually embrace Leftist ideology?”. Beau the Fifth Column for example is a refreshing attempt at inserting culturally conservative chic with the Leftist framework.

The last attempt at making the Left an actual fun place was decried at being “Bernie Bros”. Remember that? When men who supported Bernie were lumped into this category of a “Bernie Bro” because Bernie Sanders posed an ideological threat to Hillary Clinton, yet Bernie’s message even after the loss of Hillary in 2016 helped to re-energize the Democratic Party, going so far as helping first-time female candidates such as Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez, Rhasida Tlaib, and Ilhan Omar, even though the powerbase of the Democrats are neoliberal capitalist.  Were Bernie Bros toxic, or even a thing, or where they simply believers in Leftist ideology, simply using their masculine energy to rebut the appropriate masculine energy of the right-wing, who posed a risk to neoliberal female candidate whose decisions over her long (and impressive) career lead up to the issues we face today?

Seeing how radical Trump supporters are, the Left needs some All American “Bernie Bros” in the mix right alongside strong females, BIPOC communities, service workers, the LGBTQ community, veterans, etc.

It comes off as too erudite now, walking on eggshells, brainy, etc., yet ironically also living off a neoliberal “hipster” culture. It lacks the older aesthetics of the beer drinking truck driving union card holder, or the striking union organizers fighting the Rockefellers at coal mines in Colorado or Appalachia. It lacks the aesthetic of the “anti-war yet still patriotic veteran” such as how things were during the Vietnam War era, i.e., the men who might ride motorcycles with a POW/MIA flag.

The Left to survive needs to figure out its Patriotic and Americana problem, even though I know many intellectuals, content creators, podcasters, etc., on the Left will see this all as a silly attempt that doesn’t improve material conditions. But, why let your opposition have free ammunition, especially when that ammunition is easy the Left’s as well?

It has to also figure out a way of reconciling certain positions such as gun rights, which is a culture war aspect that the right holds onto firmly. There are actual liberal and left leaning gun clubs who could be used to advocate for gun ownership but also with progressive policies for safer gun controls. For example, the Socialist Rifle Association (https://socialistra.org/) and The Liberal Gun Club (https://theliberalgunclub.com/)