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/)

The Right-Wing Canadian Infiltration of the United States? When something silly sounding is very real. How the film Canadian Bacon (1995) kind of foreshadowed the actual Alt-Right invasion of the United States. This is not a joke…

Why are all of these pundits coming from Canada? Seriously…. They’re all Canadian. It’s always the ones you least expect… Jordan Peterson, Steven Crowder, Gavin McInnes, Stefan Molyneux, Nina Kouprianova, Ezra Levant, Laurent Southern, and the movie poster to Canadian Bacon (1995) by Michael Moore

Is the film Canadian Bacon by Michael Moore prophetic? Was it on to something without even realizing it? South Park by Matt Stone and Trey Parker even has its comedic take on Canadians. But, in reality…why are all these Right-Wing pundits…Canadian? Seriously? Have we become so cynical that people who want to do harm to the United States simply have to partake in our cynicism and disbelief? Laugh with us? There was the curious case of Anna Chapman along with nine others back in 2010 who were caught as being Russian spies and were given back to Russia in a spy exchange at an Austrian Airport (Sources: Russia spies plead guilty in US amid swap rumors by the BBC, 8 July 2010; The secrets of Anna Chapman by the BBC, 28 March 2011). We all should know the odd case of Maria Butina in the GOP NRA scandal. The agenda that is most prevalent to me right now, at least a piece of it, is how Right-Wing Canadian pundits that have gained influence in American politics but these people are simply the proxies of an international Zionist cabal spanning MAGA in the USA, the British Right Wing, Israel, and Russia. Trust me… I know that last sentence sounds silly. It will be called that. But I assure you, if you have not heard of people like Lauren Southern, Gavin McInnes, or Stefan Molyneux and their effects on American populism, you are the one who is out of touch. The global phenomenon of the Right Wing revolution isn’t organic but is actually a constructed movement unbeknownst to those who participate (you’re average Trump rally attendee), to build up mobilization for the defense of Israel and to link a newly rebranded traditionalist Russia with the West and USA on conservatism (whiteness).

The film Canadian Bacon I saw as a kid in the mid-nineties, and it did not leave much of an impact. Yet, I am watching it right as I write this. Be warned the film is full of 90s cheese (which is rather enjoyable in the dark times of late 2020) with some grunge music playing by people who are way too old to be listening to it (trying to capture the 90s Fugazi college crowd?), and a black character even drops the 90s phrase, “Can we all just get along”. Yet, brilliantly in satire fashion, akin to that of Don DeLillo’s 1985 book White Noise, Moore uses absurdity and hyperrealism to capture the time immediately after the Fall of the Soviet Union (I was a child) in which the USA was figuring out where to go considering there was no major enemies and the USA throughout the nineties enjoyed relative peace despite defense contractors trying to figure out how to create new revenue streams (sometimes going as far as fraud). It features a ragtag bunch of local cops (John Candy, Rhea Pearlman, Bill Nunn, etc.) who help foil a plot to start a new arms race. The film begins with the closure of a factory owned by a major defense contractor named Hacker Industries in a blue-collar community near Niagara Falls.

The film deals with the conflict of employment in the time of peace considering many US jobs are based within the Military Industrial Complex. The president of Hacker Industries working with a Washington insider, the President’s National Security Advisor Stuart Smiley (played by Kevin Pollack), tries to stir contempt to help boost the arms industry, even though the President (played by Alan Alda) wants peace. However, the President later meets with the Russian President, named Vladimir of course, to reignite Cold War tensions to help boost his popularity and employment numbers. The Russian President jokingly states that Russia is now concerned with state-of-the-art plumbing equipment and America should not be sore winners. The Cold War was costly to Russia. Later on after their plan to reignite war with Russia falls through, General Dick Panzer (played by Rip Torn) while conducting a briefing in the war-room (alluding to the Dr. Strangelove war room) goes through a list of enemies spanning Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Min, and even floats the ideas of an alien invasion. The President floats the idea of international terrorism (an ominous reference considering the Council of National Policy in real life was prepping for the Global War on Terrorism, and other Hollywood films, like True Lies, foreshadowed the emphasis on the Middle East) but Rip Thorn states that terrorist are just a bunch of people blowing themselves up in rental cars. The President then floats the idea of Canada.

The President’s National Security Advisor later consults a veteran CIA agent named Gus (who is still salty about the Cuban Missile Crisis and Korean War) who argues that Canada is the enemy. While strolling a hallway to talk in private, a hallway adorned with photos such as that of Henry Kissinger, Gus and Stuart have a conversation: “You remember the big New York blackout?” “Yea” “Caused by a Canadian hydroelectric plant, Niagara Falls. The Canucks claims it was a faulty transmitter, we have reason to suspect otherwise…” “Why is that?” “These Canadians suffer from a serious inferiority complex. That’s why they built this (whipping out a photo of the Canadian National Tower). World’s tallest free-standing tower. Our scientist cannot figure out what it is for. Canadians are always dreaming up a lot of ways to ruin our lives. The metric system, Celsius, Neil Young…Jesus. We admired them… Clean streets, no crime, no minorities” “How’d they pull that?” “No slavery…. Their entire government is run by socialist” “But it’s not the real stuff”, Stuart responds, before Gus continues, “No no no…that is where you are wrong…they’ve always had these tendencies”. Stuart reads a newspaper cutout, “Capitalism must be destroyed in all its forms? What is this??”, before Gus interjects, “We think they are a little weird with the socialism stuff… They provide free healthcare, education…. free condoms!”. Later, back at the war council room, the President and his staff float the idea of labeling Canada an enemy. One advisor, an African American man, states, “Hell, they’re whiter than we are!”. Yet, the President agrees to manufacture consent against the Canadians, later slipping the story to the media who starts their campaign of muckraking, Charlie Rose-like panel discussions, CSPAN knockoff updates, etc.

Gus later appears with a CIA team posing as Canadians to blow up a power-plant, but the power station is of course being guarded by John Candy and his crew. The event goes viral and causes the American public to believe the elaborate rouse even more.

A funny line so far is when a character, Kabral Jabar, played by Bill Nunn, while attending an auction of surplus military gear of a recently closed plant owned by Hacker Dynamics (maybe a ploy on General Dynamics, though the logo does reflect Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, etc.), says, “Listen, can we get out of here? All these guns and white people have me feeling nervous”, but John Candy playing Sheriff Bud Boomer, says, “Can you knock it off with the white stuff. You got me looking at em funny”. The fact Michael Moore gave Candy’s character the surname of Boomer obviously alludes to the Baby Boomers but considering this was the nineteen-nineties the term Boomer wasn’t used then as it is now, e.g., a term meant to prove the Baby Boomer’s general sense of selfishness and ambivalence to everything while simultaneously having the need for authority such as surface level politics, cops, simplistic dynamics of good guys versus bad buys, religion, etc.

But the plot of Canadian Bacon aside… There is something sinister coming from Canada in our reality.

The next stuff is serious. I am not…joking.

Canada used to send us quirky comedians. People who came from a higher latitude of the English speaking realm that we assumed had a natural predilection for left-wing, center-left, or moderate politics – granted they do have an important rural heritage as well – considering their single-payer healthcare system, the general perception of cleanliness, a general acceptance of cosmopolitanism, bilingualism, the fact that most of their population centers around urban areas doting the various provinces, and unlike Americans, the Canadians kept closer to their British roots which in itself is seen as more well-read, artistic, capable of understanding the “abstract”, and parliamentarian in nature. The Canadians or Canadiens are our slightly smarter younger sibling who stayed closer to our “parents” as we rebelled to be free but ended up like David Hasselhoff eating a cheeseburger off the floor in a drunken stupor or a film like Robocop makes so much sense it deserves a statue in Detroit.

Americas always saw Canada as the better place to the North with its own unique quirks. Nasally accents and using words like gee, or an over usage oh, or phases like don’t ya know. Something innocent about it. Yet, in recent times, especially in the times that led up to Trump America, I must admit that things have changed about Canada’s export of entertainers. They are all Right-Wingers and often extreme Right-Wingers. This isn’t the era of Jim Carey, John Candy, Mike Myers, Catherine O’Hara, Eugene Levy, etc., but rather we got a ragtag incendiary bunch comprising Steven Crowder, Lauren Southern, Gavin McInnes, Jordan B. Peterson, Nina Kouprianova (Richard B. Spencer’s allegedly – I believe her – abused ex-wife), Stefan Molyneux, and Ezra Levant (a Jewish-Canadian Right Wing Zionist) with his “Breitbart of Canada” media outlet in Rebel Media (an outlet that has hosted controversial figures such as Alex Jones and was linked to helping organize the United the Right Rally in Charlottesville, VA). I am sorry but Ezra Levant looks a lot like the main character from the Cohen Brother’s A Serious Man. Just saying. Is the United States being invaded by Canada? It sounds funny, it sounds like a movie-plot straight out of South Park or Canadian Bacon, but I am not joking even though it is amusing but…not. It is quite easy to do. We in the United States scrutinize people from South of the Border but is the same treatment given to those North of the border, and if not, gee I wonder why?

How clever of an idea when you think about it. Culturally similar nations with a predominately white population which can at times be reactionary to change, in right-wing politics at least, especially that which challenges the notions of conscious and subconscious supremacy (immigration, gender equality, people of color in lead roles, etc.). If the United States were to be invaded, sure, it could come from South of the Border with Mexico, or be from some shadowy terrorist cell, but we often don’t see Canada in the same light, even though the chances of espionage or infiltration is much higher with our Canadian sibling. It is not the Canadian government that is the issue, but rather non-state actors who are betrothed to a well-funded religious-political agenda that spans the United States, U.K. and Commonwealth, Israel, and Russia. More to come on this later.

Gavin McInnes, formerly of Canadian media outlet Vice Media (which interestingly has links to the Manhattan Institute founded by former CIA head, William Casey, via Vice’s former correspondent, Raihan Salam and this institute also has ties to PayPal founder, Peter Thiel – an ardent Trump supporter and owner of the infamous IT firm, Palantir), represents the Oi! Oi! Right Wing takeover of the British late-seventies punk scene and he uses the prevalence of political correctness, “wokeness”, and the elevation of marginalized groups to turn conservatism into “punk” against the mainstream. McInnes created the Proud Boys harkening back to the right-wing street thugs of the National Front in Margaret Thatcher’s right-wing 1980s England. The Proud Boys, supposedly started as a joke by McInnes, despite being known in the public sphere for years were elevated even further in Trump’s debate against Biden in which Trump stated, “Stand back and stand by” when asked about if Trump would denounce white supremacy, specifically when asked about the Proud Boys. The Proud Boys employ a strategy of surface level silliness to divert attention away from their chauvinistic West is the Best ideology. The Proud Boys require a beat-down initiation in which a man must read off as many as ten breakfast cereals while getting beat up. It seems childish and borderline like suppressed homoeroticism (considering McInnes has made-out with Milo Yiannopoulos) or MGTOW behavior (Men Gone Their Own Way) especially with the prevalence of nude male Greek statues representing logos within the Alt-right sphere of thought. The Proud Boys are a sausage fest of angry males who need identity. This playful silliness is not just common to the Proud Boys who have documented cases of using violence, but also Boogaloo, who took that name from a nineteen-eighties pop cultural reference, who gained notoriety when US Air Force Sergeant Steven Carrillo was indicted for the murder of two deputies in North California in 2020 using the Black Lives Matter protests as cover and a means of inciting a race war.  

Lauren Southern and Nina Kouprianova with their “fraulein” looks aer the anti-feminists who represents femininity’s subservience to masculinity yet are outspoken in favor for militaristic masculinity protecting the “race” – a notion notable in the Right Wing [Note: Nina Kouprianova has been interviewed by vlogger, Jay Dyer, who converted to Orthodox Christianity, i.e., the main religion of Russia, and most of his work are directed at the United States and not at the current events happening in Russia. Dyer to me seems to have an affinity with “people groups”, i.e., differences as being ordain in his words by God). Lauren Southern not only went to South Africa to show a biased view of the racial situation in South Africa such as proliferating the white farmer murders (something Trump has tweeted about) but she has also flown to Russia to interview Alt-Right Anti-American intellectual Aleksandr Dugin.

Jordan B. Peterson and Stefan Molyneux represent an intellectual basis for Darwinism with concepts like “fitness”, “Bell Curves”, the strongest survives, etc., which are notable tropes of the Right Wing even though it hides in high-brow discussions of capitalism, intelligence, systems theories, i.e., alluding to the natural tendency to form social hierarchies which in and of itself insinuates a rejection of egalitarianism, etc. Steven Crowder represents the “bro” of the bunch. A frat boy beer drinking mentality which tries to out masculine you and harkens back to the days where the white male viewpoint of reality, including criticisms of others, dominated the landscape.

The fact that many are comedians helps deliver their messages into the public because they can simply state, “I’m just telling a joke”, so there is a level of solipsism and postmodernism in their tactics, where postmodernism comes into the mix because of the prevalence of memes, vlogs, and conspiracy theories/”true history” videos spanning or touching upon Indo-European studies (a gateway into Aryan studies such as the videos created by British Alt-Right vlogger, Survive the Jive), rejection of peer-reviewed and intensive studies such as the Out of Africa Theory in exchange for fringe theories such as Hyperborea, aliens (where aliens only seem to help people of color and not Europeans), etc., in the digital landscape. Postmodernism simply put (if it can be) is when the world has no reference of what the truth actually is, so truth is utterly subjective and an existential process, and the notion of objective truths or grand-narratives are false. Postmodernism was first a reaction to the atrocities of the right-wing after World War II, but now it seems like it’s being cleverly used by conservatives to deconstruct the new accepted truths of modern human rights, diversity, gender equality, etc. These types of individuals in the right-wing sphere in which I am speaking of broaden their base by being elevated on even more popular outlets such as the Joe Rogan Experience. Yet, whenever this side is called out, they can default to victim status by making it appear those who are fed up with traditionalism, patriarchy, racism, etc., are in effect nothing more than “commies”, “fascists”, “Marxist radicals” or “Social Justice Warriors” who are simply shaming white boys and women who love them. To stir this atmosphere of them being the oppressed or muzzled victims, any time a person is de-platformed they cry fascism, even though their very own ideology is the basis of fascism. They are playing games is where I am getting at. Using amorphisms and ambiguity to Trojan Horse their regressive ideology into the mainstream.

I’ve said this before but we truly live in the era of the Postmodern Conservative who uses deception tactics to de-evolve the modern liberal state back into a conservative homogenous state, but it claims to detest postmodernism in the vein of people like Pat Buchanan who popularized “Cultural Marxism”, despite utilizing postmodernism (asymmetric, shapeshifting, “what is truth?” – tactics, etc.) as a tool for its own agenda. Ironically, Donald Trump himself could be compared to Max Headroom, a Canadian character of a former Canadian TV show, where Max Headroom is a digital avatar and Trump in effect is the same with his use of the online arena to bypass the political process and stir up conspiracy theories to protect himself. The right-wing conspiracy culture that led up to Trump was the clay which gave us a Golem like Trump. Interestingly, certain portions of the Alt-Right, those more in line with the quasi-Nazi Occult elements, have even stated that they are using “magic” or magick when they troll online, i.e., they are willing their wants into existence using meme warfare.  

In relation to the Russian elements regarding my “Canadian Cabal” theory, 541,810 people in 2016 claimed Ukrainian descent, there were 622,445 people in 2016 who claim Russian or partial Russian descent in Canada, and in 2016 about 20,710 people claimed Belarusian descent in Canada. In 2016, Canada had a population over 35 million (compared to the United States with is around 300+ million). The number of people of Eastern European descent might not stand out as being significant, but for a much smaller nation than the USA, the amount of cultural influence cannot be calculated. As far as cultural influence all it takes is one person or a few to gain a large audience to disseminate and proliferate messages. Further, it’s much easier to “fit in” with their American counterparts, especially those in the Right-Wing, which is an arena spanning household “normal” center-Right politics all the way to fringe Nazism, the John Birch Society, the Tea Party Movement, Christian Extremists, Traditionalist Mormons who practice polygamy, Qanon, the Rise Above Movement, Boogaloo (which resulted in the murders of two law officers where the assailant wrote Boogaloo in blood at a crime scene – yet, our media unfairly characterizes the Black Lives Matter movement  as terrorists), the Right Wing occult (Order of Nine Angels, Atomwaffen SS, etc.), race realists, etc.

I am not saying espionage is happening from the Canadian government necessarily since they are US allies, but rather individual actors have the ability to infiltrate and change the culture of the United States by appealing to a sense of sameness. The United States could clamp down on these individual actors if they wanted to such as scrutinizing their visa status, look to see if they’re paying taxes, etc., but considering it is Trump America and he needs these people, it seems the Department of Justice is more concerned with a Hoover like condemnation of the left than it is protecting the USA from actual domestic and international agents who just so happen to be “good ole white boys”.

Most of the people I named are conservative and they speak on American politics more than they do Canadian politics. Is this not strange? Do American conservatives even call them out on this? No. Why? Because the white conservative base of America is so lost in fear than they will take anyone that looks like them and tells them exactly what they want to hear. This fear has created not only a business opportunity for entertainers but also a world-shifting opportunity for influencers who are attached to the agendas of larger and shadowy organizations, which I feel links to the controversies surrounding Trump. Most of these pundits are Trump supporters, even if they cannot vote in American elections. These pundits to me are in the web that spans Russia-gate (Israeli-Russian Gate), Trump, the Alt Right, and the US-UK & Israeli Zionist connection.

So, let me explain my beliefs based on that last statement I made. Russia was not alone in influencing the 2016 election, but rather Israel had the technological means and cultural connections within the United States to help sway the election in favor for Trump. For example, the Republican Jewish Coalition with people like Eliot Brody brought up in the Mueller investigation. Israel was displeased with the Obama Administration for abstaining on a United Nation’s vote over Israeli settlements on disputed Palestinian lands. This abstain vote by Obama resulted in a toxic backlash against his administration especially in the Israeli press and thinking that Hillary would follow suit with the Obama Administration’s policy (and that of previous American administrations who preferred to broker peace between Israel and Palestine), the Israeli lobby backed Trump, despite saving face and managing relations on both side of the political spectrum, particularly by denouncing antisemitism even though many people on the right are Jewish. So, in order to get the majority of the USA, which is white, to back Trump, the US Zionist and Israeli lobby spanning politics, media, alternative media (podcasting such as Ben Shapiro, Alex Jones, even Joe Rogan during his phase of platforming Alt-Right guests), Wall Street, and Washington insiders, effectively created and elevated the Alt-Right. This strategy has in part helped to metastasize into movements such as Qanon, which might still seem harmless to the average American, but people running for Congressional seats are openly pushing Qanon, Islamophobia, Pizzagate, and “Holly-Weird” theories.  It could be argued that Qanon is a cult but a cult for the internet age and it preys on the vulnerabilities of those in conservative politics. Qanon has a Zionist undertone to it, which therefore not only feeds into a support of Israel but also Western conservatism. It sounds strange by Qanon could be what helps turn the United States into something akin to the Handmaid’s Tale. A radical religious reactionary state where the courts are run by Noahide worshiping judges. Noahide is a form of Jewish proselytizing to non-Jews in which non-Jews are encouraged to worship the Jews as the Chosen people and to follow the Noahide Laws issued by Jewish clerics.

This reactionary Right Wing (predominately white) movement is filled with the fringe of conservatism (as we saw at Charlottesville) and is protecting Israel even if many of the people in this arena are not cognizant of it. I say this because many people in this arena have antisemitic beliefs but even antisemitic beliefs can be used by Zionist to increase their power. For example, appealing to a Christian Crusader “Dues Vult” mentality in defense of the Holy Land is essentially getting WASP Christians with Punisher skull tattoos, subscriptions to Soldier of Fortune, and a habit of dropping N-bombs while playing Call of Duty, to defend Israel, but these people must be convinced that they still are the majority, in supremacy, or are in jeopardy of being replaced. Basically, certain factions of the Zionist lobby are willing to fund Nazis as a diversion to what they’re doing but also to build a “street team” for Trump, but really Trump is an ally of Israel who will do what they want which can be seen in Trump naming Jerusalem the capital of Israel, landmarks being named after Donald Trump, the annexation of the Golan Heights in the wake of the Syrian War, leaving the United Nations Human Rights Commission, and leaving ambiguity around the contested Dome on the Rock between Jews and Muslims (which is where the Kusher relationship with the Saudis comes into play since the Saudis are the landlords or trustees of the property).

All these Right-Wing Canadians will shame minorities, the LGBTQ community, welfare, etc., but you notice they never talk about Jews. It is not that I want them to, but rather, they are all Zionists or tied to some sort of Zionist organization. They are the cover for the Zionist lobby simply put there to mobilize the majority that leans right into doing that lobby’s bidding. The marriage between White Supremacy and Jewish Zionism is not new and can trace roots in part back to the United Kingdom in the nineteenth century where there were British movements such as British Israelism where white Britons felt they were the chosen people in order to justify the British Empire. This grand origin story mythology is common among most empires or aspiring empires such as the Nazis trying to trace roots to Central Asia or India largely because they simply wanted that land, or even to the United States with notions like Manifest Destiny. Religions such as Mormonism were created during Manifest Destiny and used Zionist undertones to demonize Native Americans so they could take their land and bolster their own credibility (I do not hate modern, every day, and normal Mormons by the way).

The British elite establishment and the Jews who became prominent in the United Kingdom created a symbiotic relationship, and many prominent imperial administrators were Jewish such as Benjamin Disraeli, and, yes, the Rothchild Dynasty (responsible for helping acquire the Suez Canal, raising capital against Napoleon, treasurers of the Bank of England, etc.).

This symbiotic relationship or marriage of “mafias” resulted in the basis for the establishment of Israel in which the British helped the Jews acquire Palestine after World War I when King George defeated his cousin, Kaiser Wilhelm’s, allies in the Ottoman Turks who owned the area. Further, even though it is debatable, King George and the British Establishment with the help of American financiers, may have supported the Bolsheviks in order to overthrow the Czar of Russia in order to obtain the lucrative oil fields of the Caucuses. This symbiotic relationship surrounding being “Chosen”, i.e., supremacy, bled into the United States and Commonwealth nations thus influencing the treatment of the indigenous First Peoples and people of color in these regions (such as African-Americans with slavery which was argued with a misinterpretation of the Bible such as the Mark of Cain, Aborigines, Indians of the Asian Subcontinent, Africans in colonial Africa, etc.). The Rothchild’s did fund Cecil Rhodes’ DeBeer Diamonds in Africa and it is well known Rhodes was a Mason and racist, where Masonry in itself, at least that of the English realm has Judeo-Christian undertones.

Manifest Destiny in the United States was simply White Zionism similarly to how the British Empire was White Zionism, but the Zionism aspect is what links them to the Jews, even though these factions at times are in conflict (Waspy elitism of the Anglo-American establishment or the condescending tones that some Jews have of gentiles), but their working relationship as far as global control outweighs the negatives. In effect, these two groups of white Gentiles and white Jews can effectively merge with each other and have time and time again throughout history, even within some old European noble families such as Sophie von Hohenlohe (who spied for the Nazis) or Prince Rupert Lowenstein (the Rolling Stones former manager). Even though the common average white person or Jewish person might not mix as much, when you get to the upper echelons of power, then what’s ethnicity when all that matter is money?

It is my personal belief that all the weird events that happened from 2016 to 2020 in the present were simply this cabal coming to light for the first time to most Americans. The curtains had fallen and the system went into clean-up trying to get ahead of stories by pretending they were actually covering the stories in full, even though they were simply doing what a street hustler does when they play a “shell game”, i.e., moving around cups with a ball underneath it and making people wage money on where the ball actually is (sometimes the ball being taken away with a contraption so no one wins). For example, the Bronfman Clan of NXVIUM with their ties to the United Nations (via Sara Bronfman’s husband Basit Igtet who negotiated a peace deal in Libya after Hillary’s Benghazi situation), Edgar Senior’s ties to the World Jewish Coalition (where he advocated for improved Russian and Israeli relations) and Edgar Junior’s ties to the music industry; Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s ties to the British Royal Family and even the Iranian Contra era with characters spanning William Barr as a CIA operative around Reagan’s White House, John Kerry as a blue-blood old money Senator, Robert Mueller (classmate of Kerry) as a young investigator who worked on Iran Contra, Judge Robert Morgenthau (a relative to the Bronfman Clan), Adnan Khashoggi (uncle to killed journalist Jamal Khashoggi and Princess Diana’s lover, Dodi Fayed), the Clintons and the Trumps. This is deep stuff.

The Israeli lobby, at least that led by Benjamin Netanyahu (he does face opposition in Israel) and his allies in the USA and English speaking Commonwealth (various non-profits, social clubs, etc.), understand that hiding behind hyper-Republicanism of the majority in the United States is the best way to keep the light off of them and since Right-Wing politics are often Christian or Judeo-Christian in nature, this religious crux is a helpful variable that increases the power of this strategy. They can appeal to sense of Revelations, Armageddon, Holy War against Muslims, etc.  

Ok, so keep all that in mind, but what about Russia? The truth is that Russia and Israel are closer than what most Americans realize. In the Cold War, the United States utilized Christianity and Zionism as a means of psychological warfare to differentiate ourselves from the godless Soviets. The truth is many Israelis and American/Canadian Jews, or Jews of the Commonwealth are of Eastern European “Pale Settlement” or Russian Jewish descent. Prominent Canadian billionaire, Edgar Bronfman Sr., of the Seagram’s Dynasty, is the father of Claire and Sara Bronfman (incriminated in the NXVIUM scandal), younger brother to Phyllis Lambert (who bailed Ira Einhorn, the Unicorn Killer, out of jail before he pulled a Roman Polanski and fled the USA), and father to Edgar Junior (music mogul with links to Jeffrey Epstein), was the president of the World Jewish Coalition (WJC) and promoted Russian emigration to Israel. Edgar Bronfman, Sr., who was a racist (disapproving his son’s marriage to an African American woman, foreshadowing to me the racist rant of LA Clipper’s owner Donald Sterling), advocated for increasing Israeli and Russian ties. Israel is the crux between the USA/West and the East typified in Russia, and Israel can leverage those multi-national bonds to its favor if the policy of one deviate away from Israel’s own ambitions (consolidating its borders to that of the Kingdom of David and bring forth their messiah, the Mashiach). As an analogy, Israel has positioned itself to the be the woman that two powerful suitors are courting and play them off each other, even though the future of this strategy is for all to…share Israel or Israel to control both, as the Russians and the Americans by way of the Republicans (the party you would least expect) try to join forces.  A White Zionist alliance where the Israelis are the heart of the operation.

So, in 2016, Russia did have a major reason to favor the election of Donald Trump considering the sanctions they faced due to their invasion of Crimea and their tendency to generally annoy the United States by them conducting a “parallel policy” to the USA, e.g., if the USA has issue with Venezuela or Syria, then Russia steps in to show they are friends to these nations in the face of “American Imperialism”. Trump had done business in Russia, ex-Soviets turned businessmen had conducted business out Trump’s properties, Trump has links to many ex-Soviets in one way or another (Tevfik Arif, Tamir Sapir, Lev Leviev, etc.), many people in his cabinet had ties to Russia such as Rexx Tillerson for Exxon Mobil, Michael Flynn was called into suspicion, Rand Paul delivered correspondence to Moscow for Trump, and Mitch McConnell and other prominent Republicans have ties to Leonard Blvatnik etc.

The fact that Melania Trump is of Slovenian descent and Trump’s first wife, Ivana Trump, is of Czech descent, both former Soviet nations (which in and of itself is not a problem, i.e., they shouldn’t be shamed for this), I could imagine Donald Trump has a large following in former Soviet States as far as the media, tabloids, and news. Nations such as Hungary, Austria, Germany even (especially in the former Soviet Eastern part of the country which is under-developed in relation to the Western part of the nation), etc., has seen a rise in Right-Wing populist politics emulating the success of Donald Trump, and Russia sees this Right-Wing Revolution as good since they have ditched the Soviet style and in exchange are marketing themselves as Orthodox traditionalists against the depravity of liberal democracies, modernity, secularism, human rights, etc. This Right-Wing revolution in Eastern Europe which benefits Russia in its “rebranding campaign” can weaken the primacy of the United States by threatening NATO and calling into question the usefulness of the United Nations (the United Nations has always been a target of Right-Wing organizations such as the John Birch Society which helped coin concepts such as a one-world government. Interesting fact is that the Neo-Nazis in America trace roots back to an internal conflict within the John Birch Society in which a Revilo P. Oliver left the organization because he claimed the JBS was becoming too Jewish, which, even though I reject Nazism and white supremacy, he may have had a point considering post-war Neo-conservatism had many notable Jews such as Henry Kissinger, Barry Goldwater, Milton Friedman, etc.).   

In conclusion, Canada is awesome. It is still seen as an example of a modern and developed nation that fosters diversity, education, public investments, and a rational well-balanced foreign policy. Yet, all of that aside, many Right-Wing pundits are coming from Canada. This to me is no coincidence but rather proof of a larger cabal using these low-level actors, podcasters, and vloggers, to infiltrate the United States political arena by appealing to a sense of sameness and being the “online street team” for Trump. The question is will American conservatives start to call it out, or are they so enthralled with the insanity of Trumpism, that they will take support from any source no matter how nefarious it truly is?

#film #politics #review #canada #american #zionism #2020

If Peace and Negotiations fail with Iran I suspect the worst. Theory on a possible terror attack or false-flag by Q. Mitchell

Boeing has been creepy the last few years. The missing Malaysia flight. The shot down plan during the Ukraine Russia conflict. Now, recently a Boeing plane connecting Ukraine vs Russia to Iran vs USA, yet, Iran is an ally of Russia but Russia wants to be cozy with Trump and MAGA (MAGA indicating a partnership with Israel, Russia, and the USA). Chess. Russia could turn on Iran or side with Iran as is. Yet, it seems Putin values the potential of an American Alliance over Iranian one but Iran is more realistic for them considering Russia’s close economic and natural resources pact with China and Sino-Russian interests in Iran via Eurasia and the One Belt One Road Project i.e., the New Silk Road. The One Belt One Road Project has also garnered the interests of Israel who opposes Iran as is. So, it doesn’t look great for Iran with its big brother in Russia juggling Western and Eastern ambitions, Russia’s deep ties to Israel etc.
The CIA has a history of backing ultra-Right wing terrorism typically to combat Communism but recently to fight terrorism. Yet, these groups often have mafia, drug dealing, and gun smuggling ties. During the 1970s, the CIA had links to the Masonic Lodge called P2 or Propaganda Due which was a government within a government linked to the Right Wing, Mafia, terrorism, and even implicated to killing a Vatican Banker. So, to know that Turkey as a NATO member has a history with Operation Gladio indicates it’s a possibility that Turkish Grey Wolves as Stay Behind Unit descendents could be used to conduct terrorism. Being Muslim they could pin it on a refugee from Syria claiming Hezbollah allegiance and this would implicate Iran since Hezbollah is an Iranian proxy.

I think a terror attack blamed on Hezbollah will be the official thing to get us to war if Trump’s initial strategy of hardball negotiation and Democratic anti Khamenei (CIA) protests in Iran doesn’t work. I think Trump wants peace. I know there’s a cabal of warhawks around him. But it’s odd because, Russia likes Trump and Trump likes Russia despite Russia being anti NATO, anti Ukraine, and having a partnership with Iran, Syria, Iraq, and Hezbollah, not to forget Turkey. Hm. The Boeing plane going down in Ukraine seems odd since Iran took credit but it occurred in a hotspot between US vs Russian proxies in Ukraine…

Further, the Boeing angle is more strange considering Boeing CEO was recommended by Trump to be Defense Secretary after Mattis resigned, Trump likes Boeing’s F-18 Navy Super Hornet over the Lockheed F35, but a another Boeing plane was shot down during Ukraine vs Russia and also the mysterious disappearance of the Malaysia Boeing plane. We’re we being “Beta Tested”? Back to a possible major terror attack blamed on Hezbollah, considering Russia’s plea to be with Trump’s USA, yet, Putin having ties to nations the USA considers terrorists….

I can see a group like Turkish Grey Wolves doing or smuggling the arms or explosives within Europe but pinning on a Muslim refugee from Syria or associated with ISIS. Turkey is a NATO member but also a Russia ally. A fence sitter able to be in the middle. The Grey Wolves descend from Operation Gladio Stay Behind Units and have Turkish Deep State and Turkish Mob connections (heroin dealing, assassinations, gun smuggling). They also have CIA ties.

This will trigger paranoid anti Islam Europe to join the Crusade with the USA against Iran. This is why MAGA, Russia etc, as far as “psychological operations” have done Right Wing campaigns online to push people Anti Islam, pro White Supremacy, Pro Zionism, etc. Everything from 300 by Zac Snyder (Indentitarian Movement), Zionist (Jewish) ran Rebel Media with supremacists such as Gavin McInnes or Lauren Southern and…Alex Jones (a MAGA supporter, anti Obama). When Norte Dame burned people assumed it was Muslims but it could’ve been a Jewish or Christian Anarchist.

Sexuality in Science-Fiction 1. On Joe Haldeman’s The Forever War (c) (1974). Transgender prediction in Science-Fiction.

The Forever War by Joe Halderman

Disclaimer: Feminism is about equality. I accept it. I appreciate it. Women have the right to work, earn fairly, profit, be leaders, have equal access to amenities that meets their unique physical needs and in a way that isn’t seen as a burden, have sex, make porn, direct porn, be nuns, fight in wars, have kids, don’t have kids, do what they want. A big reason, why I support feminism is due to the history and current realities of violence against women across the globe. I grew up with a very strong-willed mother and she had a sense of humor. As a guy, regarding violence against women, it spurs a type of “old school cop” mentality where it triggers a natural need to protect (though women in many cases can defend themselves), yet, such protections from physical violence in both the developing and developed world needs to be taken seriously. I also don’t hate transgender people, yet this post is really about analyzing the underpinnings to this larger debate, while also looking back to speculative-fiction to see if where we are was actually predicted in the past. What may come off as male criticism, is actually actually me understanding the feelings behind such passion for change, particularly on something as fundamental as gender.

Is support for the trans-community entirely coming from a noble place or are they being used? Similar to the themes underlying the Green Movement, is the promulgation, not even the acceptance, of the transgender lifestyle, something akin to…population control. That sounds very conspiracy based but is it? We have…8 billion people now and the general vibe of social-responsibility seems depopulation. From Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (I don’t hate her) on Instagram speaking about not wanting children while cooking a vegetarian meal, to the drop in birth rates in the developing world, free pornography, but also the showcasing of raising children in “gender-less environments” or giving prepubescent children sex-change homophones, seems like a pragmatic strategy in influencing people to depopulate. A liberal, progressive, nice feelings way of subconsciously promoting a Malthusian view. I’m not even saying that it is bad if this is what’s going on but maybe we need to be honest about it. Blunt.

The Forever War by Joe Haldeman was copyrighted in 1974 but the first Ballentine Books Edition is dated January 1976. To my knowledge, Haldeman fought in the Vietnam War and many consider The Forever War to be the antithesis to the pro-militarism of Robert Heinlein’s Starship Troopers. Having written this piece in the nineteen-seventies, and as a veteran of a war that many considered American aggression, Haldeman created a universe that explores the view of a veteran lost in reality. The story also depicts the military as lifeless, bureaucratic, and more of an industry than an organization that mobilizes to solve a problem but then lay down arms. The main character, Private William Mandela, is recruited into the military to fight for Earth against an alien force (typical, yes I know). Yet, what’s interesting is that humans have to travel light-years to go fight the aliens and due to time-dilation from the Theory of Relativity, the troops stay the same age, only to return to Earth on leave and find it decades or hundreds of years into the future. Haldeman takes the real-life struggle of veterans to adapt to their homes to that of soldier’s in his fictional universe. The 1960s thru 1970s was a time of massive social changes: Feminism, Civil Rights Acts, Berkeley political-movements, Richard Nixon, The Southern Strategy, Barry Goldwater Republicanism, the FBI’s spying on US citizens seen as subversive, the forming of the EPA and rise of the Green Movement, the normalization of pornography with Deep Throat, inflation, dropping the gold standard, the Middle East Oil shock, the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X, and the deaths of iconic musical and political activists.

An example of the changes that Pvt. Mandella and his fellow troops have to adapt to is the massive change in sexuality and gender.

A General briefs Mandella and his fellow troops who have just arrived back on Earth after being away from a long time: “Also keep in mind that your friends and sweethearts of two years ago are now going to be twenty-six years older than you. Many of your relatives will have passed away. I think you’ll find it a very lonely world”

“But to tell you more about this world, I’m going to turn you over to Sergeant Siri, who just arrived from Earth. Sergeant?” (p. 97).

“Thank you, General.” It looked as if there was something wrong with his skin, his face; and then I realized he was wearing face powder and lipstick. His nails were smooth white almonds. (p. 97-98).

“I don’t know where to being” He sucked in his upper lip and looked at us, frowning. “Things have changed so very much since I was a boy.” “I’m twenty-three so I wasn’t even born when you people left for Aleph… Well, for starts, how many of you are homosexual? Nobody. “That doesn’t really surprise me. I am, though” – no kidding – “and I guess about a third of everybody in Europe and North America is. Even more in India and the Middle East. Less in South America and China” “Most governments encourage homosexuality – the United Nations is officially neutral – they encouraged it mainly because homolife is the one sure method of birth control” (p. 98).

Private Mandella speaking to the rreader states, “That sounded specious to me. In the army they freeze-dry and file a sperm sample and then vasectomize you. Pretty foolproof.” Mandella further adds, “I’d expected the Earth to have a lot more than nine billion people”. (p. 98).

Sergeant Siri later responds to a rude question by stating he didn’t wear cosmetics just because he was a homosexual; everybody did it. “I decided I’d be a maverick and just wear my face.” (p. 100-101).

The world is changing and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. A world where people can be themselves or choose to be whatever it is they’ve always wanted to be. It’s a good thing that Gay Right’s are finally accepted in society, instead of a historically marginalized group of people forced to live in the shadows, be criminalized, etc. Yet, I will be honest that the Transgender debate when it really first gained steam in the later days of the Obama Administration, and the activism that followed in response to Donald Trump’s election, really caught me off guard. You never said anything our whole lives about supporting trans people, but now all of a sudden? How is that authentic? We’re you just bidding your time?

I did notice and I still do notice that there seems to be a higher degree of support among women and feminism for this. In one way, I think it’s from women’s ability to empathize and an inherent maternal instinct (yet, that’s making a gender assumption). Yet, I also suspect the support is because Feminism where it has been argued that gender is an oppressive construct, patriarchal in nature, which kept women down. So, by supporting transgender rights, it’s really a calculated move for many women to erase what they think is oppressing them. I don’t say this with belittlement to women or hatred of feminism (which is important) but more so from a sense of concern. Has the race to the finish line to liberation gone so far that we’re willing to redefine reality itself, just to win?

Support of this might not be coming entirely from a good place but might very well be from a very vindictive place through a passive-aggressive tactic which in itself is protected by an establishment defined political-correctness. People might have convinced themselves that it is for noble grounds or mercy or care, but what’s their personal incentive? If any? We have to ask. Essentially, the Transgender debate is not just protection of a marginalized group, but also an outlet for petty playground politics between boys and girls (typical in the USA), with the latter enjoying the effeminization of what they consider their antithesis. It might be funny to some but to others it might be coming from a very damaged place where they felt robbed of something and this a way of payback. For example, I was on Instagram and as We all know it’s a tank of political memes or posts spanning the spectrum. One particular post by a very anti-Trump feminist page stated, “Raise your daughters the same!”. I thought to myself that maybe this is where it started for her. She felt robbed, thus angry. We have to be honest in part about this possibly being the case in many ways. The Trans community is far fewer than biologically-born females or males, so such support in part seems like a strategy in female’s own unilateral liberation. There’s no other explanation, especially when we realize that children are being encouraged to not see gender. By the way, I am of the belief that biological sex and gender are the same, or strongly correlated, and I think we are confusing things such as occupational opportunity, power dynamics, expectations, etc., with this whole debate.

This what happens when you mix Postmodern Feminism with a Marxist view of history. The very nature of Postmodernism which falls under Continental existential (ego before essence in the Sartre’s words) frameworks is that there is “no truth”, but that’s a conundrum, because to say there is “no truth” is an objective claim. This is a revelation coming from a guy who went HARD down the joy of postmodernity, until I reached its inevitable conclusion…nothingness, nihilism. A type of feeling where nothing matters while feeling a sense of hyper-awareness. Yet, the deconstruction of my logos was actually therapeutic, too. By erasing or destabilizing my own preconceived notions – my grand narratives – I was able to rebuild my mind while discarding the “baggage”. What was left afterwards was something more liberal, progressive, indifferent to fear, more firm in my own ego, and with a suspicion of power and its ability to oppress people based on human-fabricated narratives. I had survived the over-stimulation of informational overload in a culture built on Darwinian materialism which debases the mind by shattering psyches be it in the normalization of daily gratuitous violence, the matrix impersonal nature of systems, or, the sadio-masochism underlying our notion of capitalist competition, bosses vs workers, etc. I was left with a very agree to disagree but we can all get a long mentality. So this section isn’t an indictment of postmodernism, which as a framework or tool, is a very powerful tool in scanning the infrastructure of our reality. Yet, there’s a level of caution that has to be used when we point that “Postmodern Deconstruction Ray Gun” at something. The power of it is alluring and it can be misused. The goal of postmodernism or Critical-Theory could be equated to using Relativity to flatten all supposed oppressive hierarchies, while also promulgating a type of constant cynical criticism to things so those bad “objective truths” never arise. The frameworks can be used to scan for analysis and discussion, or it can be used to bulldoze like a Miley Cyrus wrecking-ball for a paradigm shift. So, don’t get surprised if people react to what they consider a sense of anti-matter accruing in their subconsciousness. This tactic of “postmodern deconstruction” is a very powerful tool, yet, what if it turns on those who use it? What if what you thought you could control, violently shakes in your hand, and you go out with it? Will female liberation really be female liberation if there is nothing to actually define a female in the future, particularly biologically?

By the way, I am not a Jordan B. Peterson fan my any means. I don’t want to reduce this very important topic, but, in simple speak (referring to myself)…this seems like girls putting makeup on boys and a promotion of a lifestyle by redefining the rules, rather than explicitly supporting people who truly survived the crucible of life and decide to make a conscious adult, or near adult, decision. Maybe women are wired differently to men to not like gender or definition (maybe, I don’t know), but there’s this equal deification of femininity.

Let’s go back to the old notion of the “tomboy”. A girl who at a certain time in our not too far history engaged in things we considered male. Rough-and-tumble, getting dirty, jumping off things, etc. Or, for many of us guys, many can remember as kids that there was always the “female homey”, aka, the girl who was one of the fellas. There was no sexism. She balled with us the court, went on bike adventures, or hung out smoking and listening to music in the woods. If anything sexual was there, most of the guys were too scared act. We were innocent kids spared the realities of adult natural selection. Yet, the reasoning I remember about why the preferred boys was because “they didn’t get a long with girls”, or, “girls are catty”, but years later -after liberal arts college – they’re probably making the opposite case while the stand as firm feminists in solidarity. I think this fine. It shows development. It shows females coming into their self-empowered being. Yet, as a guy, having wrapped my head around the onslaught on articles on feminism by feminists, I look back on those times with a Marxist materialist view and also with a clinical biological-view. Girls were essentially getting the best of both worlds: a way to cancel out competition of other females while also engaging in activities the found more fun, and they were observing the boys in how they rank and stack each other in hierarchies. Searching for “alpha” traits, communication habits, how groups develop and follow plans.

It was unfair for women because a lot of the fun, adventurous, higher risk and reward occupations were highly male, and being a male or a female shouldn’t deny a person from entering a certain occupation. Also, boys were given a more honorific showcasing when it came to things such as sports, but this isn’t necessarily from a unilateral top-down patriarchy, but might have been simply intrinsic to both men and women. It’s a way for mother’s to maybe cheer on their “stud” boys, while also a way for women to asses how others socially appraise a male’s utility thus indicating a higher or lower level of utility. It’s a rough truth to accept… Women and men appraise things different. The lack of ticket-sales at a WNBA game may not be indicative of sexism or patriarchy but essentially men don’t appraise women the same regarding sports, i.e., they don’t find something sexual or of “social value” in it, whereas females might be opposite in watching male’s smash into each other – simulating selection and fitness. We shop differently. In a way, men might actually be more humane when choosing partners than females, though it seems on the surface than men have reduced women to a sexual object. Yet, things are changing I suspect for the better. There is something honorific about watching athletic, the best-of-thr-best, females win World Cups. There’s something attractive about the Amazonian Wonder Woman. There’s a sense of pride men should feel knowing a woman finished a race and she feels more confident that she ever felt. A woman’s confidence is essential and the more confidence the better our species is. However, just because females want to enter male spaces (which is fine) and thus adopt the fashion that is based off the utility from those occupations or lifestyles, doesn’t mean boys want to be girls. A boy doesn’t need to become a girl to like things traditionally associated with femininity, such as home-management, cooking, fashion, hair-care, caring for children, social services, etc.

There’s a lot of conundrums going these days. For example, we can agree that the idea of Genetically-Modified Foods are bad, yet, it’s OK for a child to get chemically created hormone treatments? GMOs could help fight world hunger, but the other might affect a person’s natural sexual development which can have severe consequences if a child as an adult chooses to revert back to the sex they were born. Or, how can the Future be Female if gender doesn’t exist or is merely a social construct? Which is it? People might respond with a “well, it’s actually”, or “um, technically”, but this conundrum in theory means that the we’re going to erase everything which was male, by claiming we’re all going to be equal, but pushing matriarchy. In other words, your gender doesn’t exist, ours does, and this is how it’s going to be. I see no issue with an adult making decision to change their gender. I see no issue in having a world were “gender expectations” aren’t required, but I do see an issue with going against a unifying concept of Mother Nature by redefining gender because it suits political need. There’s something very badass about thinking about hard primal women of our past who also held their child, just as much as there’s something very badass about a male sitting watch at the entrance of the cave. There’s something within us as humans where this survival and division of labor is innate.

Just because the technological age has pushed us to a type of “post-” reality, doesn’t necessarily mean we turn our backs on the one unifying thing of our species…gender. Yet, I repeat we can still support trans people. My concern isn’t trans people but this larger redefinition of what is gender. We have a lot of issues facing our species: over-population in certain areas, depletion of resources, climate change/global warming, sectarian violence, pandemics, etc., but it doesn’t mean we need a “hard inversion” ideology to reverse this. All it really means is we need pace, innovation, and sustainability. A slow peaceful reduction that still operates on firm biological reality. It’s not about race, nationality, ethnicity, religion. Before any of these concepts hit the human mind, we were men and women, working together, maximizing each’s unique utility, to support the tribe, the warren, the village. We may respect each other for the same reasons, such as how we contribute, or how we treat others, but we revere each other in different ways, simply because Mother Nature made us different.

Trying to understand how this debate is being defined…Lets say that sex is sex, so this is the biology of what a person is born, but gender is behavior more so influenced by a type of chromosomal disposition…so…even if these concepts are separate, or better put, separate in certain cases, it’s nearly impossible to actually claim that gender is simply a construct. It seems more fitting to say it’s a construct for certain cases, rather than gender being a construct as a general rule.

I’ve even come to accept parent’s who decide to work with their children if that’s something they wish to do, though, I still feel very awkward about such as move, but it’s really not an awkwardness projected at the individual, but more so the intelligentsia hovering and managing these conversations. But, also I don’t have an issue. I more so focus on the level of love and care that parents can provide for supporting a child. It doesn’t trigger fear or anger in me. I don’t think “men are going to die” or be erased; however, I do suspect that feminism in a pragmatic way is seen as a key asset in mitigating the issues of a global interconnected Cosmopolitan technologically-linked reality. Abortion, the Green Movement, feminism, and to a degree LGBTQI, can all be used objectively to reverse the negative externalities of our very successes. These movements or people associated with them, are natural, they exist in nature, but I do also know that Fortune 500 companies, the United Nations, and even NGO’s such as the Rockefeller Population Council are probably tying to encourage these in clever marketing strategies, reinforcement, education, etc. Even the Green Movement we have to realize will not be some type of egalitarian utopia but really a type of externalization of Corporate Social-Responsibility since they have the means of production. They will be the ones who capitalize on this and own the technologies.

I want to end this by staying, maybe I’m a changed guy. Rather than trying to figure out whatever logical fallacies are underlying the debates, what is ultimately important is a sense of care of others which I do feel is unique to humans. We should take pride in the fact that we’re capable of humanity and care. The more I write this out, I honestly come to accept how the world is going. Trans people should have full protection under the law. There are ways or policies that can be made to permit Trans people to serve or continue serving in the Armed Forces. I just feel we still need to work on the kinks of how we teach it, when we teach it, look at ourselves and admit the true reasons about why we support it by being authentic instead of possibly being calculating, and also that ultimately it’s a choice, but it’s a choice that people should be supported in, but support in, by ensuring the mind is right and capable or mature enough to juxtapose differences, so that choice has value.