Nikolas P. Robinson's Blog

It’s Complicated…

Assuming you haven’t been living somewhere off the grid and blissfully disconnected from the world at large until this very moment, you’ve been hearing a lot of heavy-handed talk from certain sectors that anyone who doesn’t wholeheartedly embrace and endorse the Trump Administration is un-American. Those targeted with these rhetorical condemnations include Conservatives and several former Republican politicians who display what constitutes an unacceptable degree of disloyalty. It’s the mind-boggling perspective from these circles that, if someone isn’t fully on board with Donald Trump’s rather Autocratic and Authoritarian vision for America, they must hate America.

It’s readily apparent that this is in no way a condition tied to the office of President, but something exclusive to the person of Trump and those who curry his favor (only while they remain in his good graces). That much is evident in how these same people displayed open contempt toward Barack Obama and Joe Biden while they were in the White House. The same pervasive, inimical rhetoric wasn’t directed at the people who opposed Obama and Biden. The vehement opposition to those two Presidents was treated as part of the standard discourse in American politics, despite the acrimony and animosity being far more intense than anything that had previously been considered normal. This double standard indicates to me that there is a whole swath of the American population that believes that the spirit and character of America is somehow embodied within Donald Trump.

The implicit assertion, then, if taken at face value, is that these people believe opposition to Trump’s Administration is symptomatic of hating America (because Trump IS America).

I don’t believe this assertion is accurate, and not solely because it lacks nuance and reeks of little more than partisan jingoistic propaganda. Hating Donald Trump, his policies, and those who work to enact them is neither unpatriotic nor indicative of hating America. On the contrary, I would contest that it’s the people leveling these accusations who actually hate America, or at least the real America that exists outside of Donald Trump’s exceedingly narrow worldview. To defend that argument, I need to explore what it means to hate America. But first, there’s an important question to answer.

What is America?

Is America the land contained within the illusory boundaries we have in place? Is America the people residing in the United States, or (as some would surely insist) just the citizens of the nation? Is it the form of government established by the Constitution? Is it some ideal or another intangible thing beyond the scope of the Constitution, like what we refer to when talking of the American Dream? Is it all of these things, a combination of one or two, or some other thing entirely?

Additionally, we should probably establish what we mean when we say that someone hates America. Is it sufficient that they hate aspects of American culture or history? What about hating substantial portions of the American citizenry? What constitutes hate in this context? Before we can discuss whether one group or another hates America, it would be helpful to define all of our terms.

This, of course, exposes the complicated nature of the topic and further reveals the lack of nuance implicit in the accusations bandied about; that so many people hate America. Before we dig too deep, and speaking solely for myself, I have to say that, where my feelings toward America are concerned, it’s most certainly complicated. If America and I had a relationship status, that would be the simplest box to check: “It’s Complicated.”

Part of the reason for that complicated relationship in my case is that I am one of the millions of people directly descended from one of the 56 men who signed the U.S. Declaration of Independence. Benjamin Rush was a signatory from Pennsylvania, and his descendant, Rosanna Rush Merrill (a nurse during the Civil War), was my great-great-grandmother.

I learned of this family history at a young age. I spent time studying the physician who went from being one of the Sons of Liberty to a member of the Continental Congress, before becoming one of the illustrious men who inscribed his signature on the Founding Document of this nation. Despite the inherent Imperialism and Colonialism implicit in the foundation of America, I took no small amount of pride in knowing that I was directly descended from this man. This was especially true when I was young and ill-informed enough to perceive the country through rose-colored glasses.

I’ve said in the past that, if I had to pick a Founding Father to have descended from, I very well may have selected Benjamin Rush. Of the Founding Fathers I’ve studied, he’s the one who displayed what I consider the most admirable qualities. He was, first of all, an adamant and vocal abolitionist who fully opposed the slave trade and disagreed with any assertion that Black persons were in any way morally or intellectually inferior to Whites. Beyond that, he opposed Capital Punishment, founded both Dickinson College and the Young Ladies’ Academy of Philadelphia, believed in compassionate treatment of the mentally ill, and he believed addiction wasn’t a moral failing.

Sure, he had plenty of ass-backward thoughts on bloodletting and other things (even for the times). And yet, for the times in which he was living, he was nonetheless highly progressive, and I have to say it seems like he left behind more good than bad. It’s difficult not to feel a bit of pride in knowing I had an ancestor of no small esteem, who very well may have also seen the world the same way I do, were he alive today.

Another thing that complicates my relationship with America is that I come from a military family. It’s not just that my ancestor was directly involved in the Revolutionary War or that at least one of my great-great-grandfathers fought (on the correct side) in the Civil War. Both of my grandfathers served during World War II. Two of my three uncles served with the Army in Vietnam. My father was in the Navy, and my subsequent stepfather was in the Air Force. And now my oldest son is in the Army. In fact, had I not fractured five vertebrae a month before I turned 16, I would have enlisted as well.

I’m thoroughly opposed to our out-of-control Defense Spending, our rampant invasions of foreign nations over the last three quarters of a century, the lie we tell ourselves about bringing Freedom and Democracy to foreign lands, and the premise of American Exceptionalism that fuels our ongoing Imperialist and Colonialist activities. But three of the men I admired most in my life were soldiers, two of them involved in an entirely illegal and unjustified conflict. Nevertheless, they were heroes to me, and heroic men otherwise. I can’t simply disengage from that reality, no matter how much I oppose the conditions that led to these men being in the positions they were in, to become the heroes they became.

All of that aside, I’ve never been particularly patriotic, but I am proud of these aspects of my family history. To disentangle that history from the associated American history is virtually impossible.

But if I proceed from here, I’ll be getting ahead of myself, and I prefer to avoid that if at all possible. Let’s get back to definitions.

If, by America, we mean the land that we include within the boundaries, I find it difficult to believe that anyone opposing Donald Trump’s Administration could be accused of hating the wide-ranging landscapes and environments to be experienced from Maine to Hawaii and Florida to Alaska. There are, no doubt, certain ecosystems that people dislike. I’m not a fan of places that are particularly hot and humid, for example. But it’s not the people opposing President Trump who want to develop that land, mine it, or drill for oil. That’s not loving the environment or the land, that’s loving what you can take from it. That belies a superficial and selfish motivation, not an appreciation for the land itself. It’s a short-sighted, short-term predation that leaves nothing of value behind. Clearly, it is not the land that Trump supporters are accusing Liberals, Leftists, and anyone not loyal to Trump of hating.

So, is it the people? For simplicity, in this section, I’ll focus on Republican vs. Democrat, as those are the two largest voting blocs. As America’s population became more culturally and ethnically diverse, it’s definitely true that both major parties became less homogenized as a result; however, it’s been the Democratic Party that has displayed the greater degree of diversity in Representation, something that has shown a steady increase over time. At the same time, it’s Donald Trump who has maintained the unwavering support of White Supremacist Hate Groups, in large part because of policies that are transparently focused on benefitting a homogenized culture of straight, cisgender, white, Christian males. White people do make up the majority of the American population, at almost three times the number of people as are classified as Hispanic or Latino, more than four times as many as those who are classified as Black or African American, nearly nine times as many as those who are labeled as Asian, and more than 24 times as many people as those classified in any other way (including those who identify as two or more ethnicities). In fact, White people make up more of the population than all of those ethnic groups combined. So, could one argue that the party appealing to White Supremacists is the party that loves the larger number of Americans simply by virtue of skin color? I suppose one could make that argument, but that ignores the other characteristics that appeal to those same people: straight sexual orientation, cisgender identification, Christian faith, and male-dominated hierarchy. Of course, all of that becomes moot when we acknowledge that nothing suggests that not being a White Supremacist means that one hates White people. In fact, I would venture to guess that most of the animosity one perceives as being directed toward the Right is reactionary in nature. That hate arises as a result of the contempt and dehumanization that have long been directed toward the demographic groups constituting the Left. I’ve discussed it in the past, but I feel it merits repeating that there is a substantial difference between hating a group of people for who they are versus hating them for what they do. It seems apparent to me that it’s not the American people we’re talking about when it comes to hating America.

Is it the Democratic Republic established by the U.S. Constitution that Trump’s opponents are accused of hating? While the document certainly has its flaws, I’ve witnessed nothing from President Trump’s opponents that indicates widespread disdain for the Constitution. Both major political parties have been routinely accused of violating the Constitution, but only two Presidents in my lifetime have been impeached, and only one of them was impeached twice. And, in less than nine months in office, a total of 138 Executive Actions have been partially or fully blocked, and another 94 remain pending, with only 93 that were allowed to stand. At least ten of those decisions blocking Executive Actions were made by judges who were appointed by Trump himself. While it has largely been ignored, President Trump has clearly and brazenly violated the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses, breaking with tradition and not divesting himself of his assets and placing them in a blind trust to prevent conflicts of interest. Several State, Federal, and Foreign entities have paid incalculable amounts of money to Trump properties; however, a House Oversight Committee reported that President Trump accepted more than $7.8 Million from 20 Foreign Governments during his first term. To the contrary, Barack Obama requested guidance from the Department of Justice before accepting the Nobel Peace Prize due to the financial component. Of course, no other President has invited the 220 largest investors in a cryptocurrency (that business partners launched just before they took office) to a private dinner. Anyone pretending the Trump Administration isn’t a den of graft and corruption is either lying or wilfully ignorant. It could be argued that there’s hardly a Constitutional Amendment that Donald Trump hasn’t attempted to violate or redefine to suit his desires. To me, this means that his supporters either display a similar disrespect for the Constitution or a level of such ignorance concerning it that their stated appreciation of it would be rendered moot.

Could it be the idealistic American Dream that Trump and his supporters are accusing his opposition of hating so vehemently? Rooted in the Declaration of Independence’s statement that all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable Rights, including Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, the American Dream has long been understood to mean that this is a place where anyone can achieve success and a better life through hard work and determination. I’ve seen no indication that people opposing President Trump are in any way opposed to the American Dream. But it can be clearly ascertained from Donald Trump’s actions that he struggles to redefine “all men” in such a way as to exclude all but those like him. He attacks immigrants (documented and undocumented alike), political opponents, the free press, women, the impoverished, the elderly, the infirm, and anyone who doesn’t subscribe to his revisionist view of the American Dream. Now that he’s openly admitted to adopting the playbook laid out in Project 2025 (though anyone who had read it previously was already aware of this), there’s a clear redefinition of core American Values at the heart of his platform. This is not the behavior of someone who loves the American Dream. These are the actions of someone who hopes to co-opt, manipulate, and convert it until it becomes a vehicle for his personal gain.

I don’t believe there’s any further need to define what is meant by hate in this discourse. It’s readily apparent that Trump and his supporters have no love, appreciation, or respect for the land beyond what they can consume from it. The people of America, unless they subscribe to a particularly rigid philosophy and meet an equally rigid set of physiological and psychological conditions, are not welcome in Trump’s vision of what America should be. The Constitution (and the Government bestowed by it) is an opportune shield when convenient and an obstacle to be shredded when not. The American Dream is perceived as something only an elite class (those who meet the previously discussed conditions) should have access to. This is flagrant disrespect for and contempt of everything we apply as a definition of what makes America, America. Who are these people to accuse anyone else of hating America?

I’ve heard it said that people who fight for equality and equity by pointing to past injustices and the ripple effects present today are guilty of hating America. Recognition of unpleasant and terrible elements within America’s past and present isn’t symptomatic of hatred for the country. Acceptance that we can and should be better is not a condemnation, but a guiding principle that was encoded within the Constitution itself. The purpose of Constitutional Amendments is to correct course where we were wrong or to adjust to changing times and conditions. Our Founding Fathers recognized that they couldn’t see the future and prepare the country for every eventuality, so they provided a method by which that lack of foresight could be accommodated. Condemning the systemic racism still present in all facets of American society isn’t hatred for White people, but a nudge and a reminder that there’s still work to do. We got started, for sure, but then (as a society) we got tired of exerting the effort because it wasn’t as easy as we hoped it would be, or because it was going to require serious structural changes that might inconvenience those of us who weren’t already being constantly inconvenienced by the existing structures. Hiding or erasing shameful truths from the past only serves to make it all that much easier to repeat the same mistakes. You can’t claim to love the country while wearing blinders and intentionally ignoring whole portions of what America is and was. We need to acknowledge the errors we’ve made and take responsibility to keep them from being repeated. We need to speak truth to the lies we’ve told ourselves regarding our place in the world and the lofty ideals we pretend to ascribe to as we impose our will on other nations, as well as the people of this one. We need to come to terms with our treatment of marginalized people of all kinds, here and abroad. That is what loving America looks like: helping her to become the nation we believed her to be when we were children, the nation our Founding Fathers believed she could become, and the nation that people from foreign lands seek to make their home. We can be better, and we should always be progressing ahead while keeping an eye on the past, so the lessons we’ve learned are never forgotten.

I don’t believe this perspective is exclusive to me. I think this outlook is perhaps more widespread, and that people are proud of certain elements of America or American History, while dissatisfied or even disgusted with others. That seems to me to be a reasonable perspective, because America is not just one thing, of course. If this is what someone defines as hating America, I’m afraid I don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about.

We Need To Talk About Portland…

We need to address some serious misconceptions and outright lies that are circulating regarding Portland, OR, and the allegedly embattled Department of Homeland Security. I’ve heard this city referred to as a “War Zone,” “Under siege from attack by ANTIFA, and other Domestic Terrorists.” President Trump claimed he was acting to “protect War Ravaged Portland” when he declared that he would be mobilizing the Oregon National Guard against the wishes of Governor Tina Kotek. Trump’s fictional narrative is so pervasive that right-wing propagandists and Trump supporters are uncritically repeating it left and right, even (and perhaps especially) when provided with evidence that he has no idea what he’s talking about.

If someone (myself included) from Portland shares photos and videos that counter this deluded perspective that the city is a “War Zone,” they’ll be condemned for “Cherry Picking,” and either not sharing evidence of the correct locations, or at the right times. They’ll come back with video clips from FOX News, OAN, Newsmax, or right-wing influencers that selectively focus on moments of conflict, ignoring the context. They also often overlook the fact that several of these videos are from the 2020 BLM protests or from three or four months ago, as is clear from the background, in which one can easily see that the windows of the Portland ICE Facility are not boarded up, as they have been since mid-June of 2025.

I can only assume this disingenuous, bad-faith distribution of selectively edited media is what the President was referencing when he discussed the fires and devastation supposedly in evidence throughout Portland (and especially in proximity to the Portland ICE Facility), because none of that is presently relevant.

Other people will respond by sharing photos and videos of homeless people, tents and litter on the street, graffiti, or people using drugs openly. This, of course, has nothing at all to do with the premise behind President Trump’s deployment of troops and the increase in Federal Law Enforcement in the city. The homeless population, tents on sidewalks, and drug users are not (in any sense) related to the supposed siege of the Portland ICE Facility. It’s the equivalent of an Ad Hominem attack or tossing a Red Herring into the discussion of the city. It’s irrelevant to the conversation at hand, and it ignores the fact that all American cities (including those much smaller than Portland) have homeless individuals and families, drug use, and graffiti.

No one with any intellectual honesty or integrity will deny that Portland has a problem with homelessness. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone suggesting otherwise. What they will say is that it’s not worse than other large American cities, which is accurate. As of January 2024, Portland didn’t even crack the Top Ten, and as of this year, Portland is the 28th most populous city in the United States. Denver has only 100,000 more people, but has twice as many homeless people, according to the same numbers from January 2024. Seattle has only about 150,000 more people, but had more than twice the homeless population of Portland last year.

But Portland, Denver, and Seattle combined barely reach half the homeless population of Los Angeles, which is roughly half again the homeless population of New York City.

Homelessness is a complicated issue. The contributing factors are manifold, and the solutions (while comparatively simple) aren’t things anyone in a position to do so wants to seriously address.

Are these National Guard troops and Federal Law Enforcement Officers coming to Portland to address issues like homelessness?

No, they are not.

Which means anyone trying to distract from the topic at hand by tossing that into the mix needs to shut the fuck up and let the adults talk. Bad faith bullshit is not welcome.

So, let’s talk about the alleged assault on ICE that Kristi Noem, Tom Homan, Donald Trump, and others want to claim is taking place.

Before we move on, I’d like to dedicate some time to Kristi Noem, though. I have a relatively unique perspective in that I lived in South Dakota while Kristi Noem served as Governor, and previously as a U.S. Representative, before I moved to the Portland Metro. She was much-maligned by even Conservatives I knew in South Dakota, as a corrupt and undemocratic force in State Government. Of course, that didn’t stop them from voting for her, because she happened to be a Republican.

Noem’s histrionic portrayal of the protests in Portland is not novel. She has a long history of opposing the First Amendment right to Speech and Assembly, stretching back to the protests against the Keystone Pipeline. She was also investigated for Corruption regarding the circumstances surrounding her daughter and the Real Estate Appraisal Licensing system in South Dakota.

Perhaps most egregious, when South Dakota voters passed a Ballot Measure to legalize Recreational Cannabis in 2020, she and two members of Law Enforcement filed a lawsuit to overturn the results of the election, which passed by a margin of 54 to 46%. It’s particularly amusing when you compare it to her Gubernatorial Victory in 2018, of only 51%. The courts sided with Noem and the two Law Enforcement officials, claiming the Ballot Measure violated a “single-subject” provision. Never mind that any Ballot Measures in South Dakota undergo a legal review by the Secretary of State to confirm that they conform to state statutes.

I don’t entirely blame Noem. South Dakota has a history of corruption and anti-democratic practices. It was only two years before she was elected Governor when voters approved an Anti-Corruption measure that would have led to an independent ethics commission, campaign finance reform, restrictions on gifts from lobbyists, and increased transparency regarding campaign contributions. The Governor at the time, Dennis Daugaard, and the State Legislature repealed the Initiated Measure only a few months later, with Daugaard suggesting that voters hadn’t really thought things through.

As you can see, Noem comes from an environment where corruption and undemocratic sentiment run rampant. It should have been a warning sign about the Trump Administration that she would be so readily welcomed into the fold. For some of us, it was. Of course, for many of us, there had already been several warnings.

Placing her in charge of Homeland Security has been an unmitigated disaster, as anyone could predict. But it’s not the disaster she might propose. Since Donald Trump returned to office in January, at least 15 people have died while in ICE Custody. This does not include the two detainees who were murdered by the shooter in Dallas last month. That number also doesn’t include individuals who died shortly (or immediately) after they were released from ICE Custody, nor does it include individuals who have died since being deported or falling victim to the Administration’s new take on Extraordinary Rendition.

But, guess what, a total of zero ICE agents have been killed in that same time frame. This, despite President Trump’s wild claim that people have died in Portland. Unless he’s speaking of unrelated deaths (or deaths from years ago), no one has died as a result of protests happening in Portland. The last death of anyone involved with the Department of Homeland Security (not an ICE agent) was a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent who was shot on January 20th, during a traffic stop in Coventry, Vermont.

Most recently, the only injury of note was when an ICE officer was dragged by a car driven by an undocumented immigrant attempting to evade him. The immigrant in question was killed; the ICE officer was not.

Still, all the talk from the Administration has been focused on how ICE agents are under attack. But, it certainly sounds like it’s far less dangerous to work for ICE than it is to be taken into their custody.

Noem and Homan like to talk about large percentages when they discuss the increase in assaults on ICE agents. Of course, those numbers are readily subject to scrutiny, because that percentage reported by DHS has fluctuated dramatically, sometimes within hours: 500%, 700%, 1,000%. It’s almost as if they’re just tossing large numbers in front of a percentage sign to appeal to the average person’s inability to contextualize what a percentage increase actually means. A keen observer might notice they’re loading the statements to make people afraid.

Let’s break down how percentage increases work for those of you who need some assistance.

If there were hypothetically only one ICE agent assaulted between January and September of 2024, it would mean that five, seven, or ten had been attacked during the same time frame this year to reach those previously mentioned percentages of 500, 700, or 1,000%. But to say it was ten agents that had been assaulted over the course of an eight or nine-month interval doesn’t have the same dramatic flair to it. Most recently, they’re claiming it’s a more than 1,000% increase, but without providing any actual numbers to contextualize what that percentage means. The real numbers (according to all official records) were something to the effect of ten assaults in 2024 compared to 79 in 2025. This is also far less dramatic than using a percentage increase to trigger an emotional response. After all, we could refer to it as a 790% increase. Which number sounds scarier to you?

Mind you, only a small percentage of these assaults involved protesters, and an even smaller number had anything at all to do with Portland. These attacks are largely coming from people they are detaining.

And, of course, the numbers have spiked. ICE is more active and aggressive, and is utilizing tactics that are absolutely going to increase violent reactions. When masked men with no official insignia are grabbing people and hauling them into unmarked vehicles, it looks more like a kidnapping than anything official or legal. Never mind that there have been several documented incidents this year of people being assaulted, kidnapped, and raped by people pretending to be ICE agents. There’s even one reported killing by a fake ICE officer. Knowing all of this, would you simply accept that this is a legitimate, state-sanctioned detainment?

There’s also the deeply concerning fact that several of the things that constitute assault in the eyes of DHS have been categorically ludicrous in many instances. The official claim was that the New York City Comptroller, Brad Lander, had assaulted agents when he was detained at an Immigration Court proceeding in June, though the available video evidence shows no assault of any kind. Garbage dumped on an ICE agent’s lawn was also one example of “assault” on DHS, while another was a sign that included an individual ICE agent’s name and a great deal of profanity. There was even an incident here in Portland where an Indigenous woman was charged with Assault because an ICE officer claimed to get a headache because she was blowing a whistle on the sidewalk in front of the Portland ICE Facility. Even if those examples were the only questionable ones, they would present a huge issue when discussing relatively small numbers of incidents.

And, of course, it could be argued just as easily that assaults performed by DHS agents have increased by similarly huge percentages, but Noem and Homan are disregarding that. The very real likelihood, though, is that more people are being assaulted by ICE agents than are assaulting them.

Several of these assaults have been without cause or provocation, unless you claim standing in place, holding a sign with mean words on it, and yelling profanities at these masked men constitutes a clear threat. Based on how fragile and sensitive the Administration seems to want us to believe the people working for ICE happen to be, I guess those things might just be adding to the assault statistics.

Of course, all of this escalation on the part of the Administration is a painfully transparent attempt to trigger a response. The same thing was done in Los Angeles earlier this year. The same tactic was also on display during the BLM protests in 2020. President Trump, Kristi Noem, Tom Homan, and others are gambling on the likelihood that increased Federal Agents and the addition of Military Personnel will be sufficient to push the situation past a tipping point. At that point, they will have the flimsy justification required to impose greater Authoritarian control over Portland, Chicago, and wherever else they decide they want to add pressure.

It’s an absurd truth, and one that got Portland’s Mayor, Keith Wilson, laughed at and mocked, but the best thing protesters can do is to refuse to take the bait, to stay home, and to make the Administration look like the scaremongering force it absolutely is. Of course, that may not solve anything, since right-wing agitators have been masquerading as protesters and journalists already. It would hardly be a stretch to imagine them inciting violence just to ensure it adversely impacts their opponents. Some of them also have a documented history of instigating fights, both within the protest groups and as counter-protesters. They also have a history of fabricating violent altercations and even going so far as to start fights just to selectively capture the retaliation on camera for the purpose of furthering their propaganda objectives.

Either way, what we end up with is a situation wherein protesters are expected to behave in a way that is beyond reproach, or they’re condemned for inciting violence. That may sound painfully familiar to anyone who has dedicated time to studying the Civil Rights Movement. But the uniformed individuals who are supposedly trained to de-escalate situations are deploying pepper spray and gas canisters despite the law clearly stating the use of force must be reasonable, necessary, and proportionate. They’re intended to adhere to the same standards required for self-defense on the part of the average person.

In fact, on July 25th, Assistant Chief of Operations for Portland Police Bureau, Craig Dobson testified, “It makes it extremely difficult for us to deal with, as the folks that are on the other side of this fence have been, night after night, actually instigating and causing some of the ruckus that’s occurring down there…” and that DHS agents are not following best practices.

It’s also on record that ICE had been witnessed firing pepper balls on the crowd without any apparent warning or provocation on June 12th. Then, it was back on June 14th when protesters shattered the glass of the front door, subsequently leading to the boarding up of all windows. DHS officials panicked and used indiscriminate force against the protesters at that time. The one ICE agent who was hurt had abrasions and nothing worse. The same kind of disproportionate and indiscriminate attack by ICE agents was documented on June 23rd and 24th, when an ambulance had to be called because a protester was hit in the head with a gas canister. It can get dangerous out there, but the vast majority of the danger is directed at the people exercising their Constitutional Right to protest the actions of the Administration and the Department of Homeland Security.

If someone intends to protest, they need to understand their rights. But that’s not enough; they also need to know the limited power bestowed upon the people they are protesting against. It’s essential to recognize that Department of Homeland Security officers have significant limitations. No one within ICE has the authority to arrest, detain, or restrain any American Citizens. There are several examples of ICE agents violating this explicit limitation in their purview. There are exceptions regarding Citizens who assault an ICE agent or who actively interfere with ICE performing the duties that are within their scope. U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers have fewer restrictions. But a Citizen would have to commit a Federal Criminal Offense in the officer’s presence before they can restrain, arrest, or detain someone. Finally, Federal Protective Services has similar authority to Customs and Border Protection, but its scope is focused on Federal Facilities.

It’s imperative to recognize that, unless a protester is actively breaking the law in some way related to the “work” DHS performs, these officers are not permitted to so much as lay a hand on any Citizen. Assuming the protester has not trespassed onto the Federal Property, damaged the same, assaulted an officer, or obstructed them in their lawful duties, no one working for DHS has any authority to use physical force against the protester.

They can (and should) be sued each and every time they violate the limited authority they have. Further, though I want to be clear that I am not encouraging violence, if someone is attacked by an employee of DHS without provocation, they are well within their rights to defend themselves. Even though they may be wearing uniforms, their authority as Law Enforcement ends the moment they violate the restrictions associated with their role. If someone does fight back (and some would suggest they should), I will offer the same recommendation I’ve received from individuals who specialize in self-defense; if they’re threatened to the extent that they have to defend themselves, they need to make sure it’s safe for them to turn their back on the threat to walk away. The threat can no longer be a threat.

If you find yourself in a situation wherein you have to fight back (and I believe you should), that fight doesn’t end in the street. Keep fighting their attempts to prosecute you for assault as well, because if they’ve stepped outside of bounds, they’re just some asshole, not an actual cop. In Oregon, you’re legally entitled to use physical force if you believe it’s necessary to protect yourself, another person, or your property from Unlawful physical force. You are permitted to use whatever force is proportionate to the perceived threat. Just keep in mind that you cannot be the initial aggressor.

The Hazards Associated With Hate Speech

A recent back-and-forth with an old friend led me to believe that some clarification on the topic of Hate Speech might be in order. I like to think that other people might also benefit from this.

First of all, there is no clear or concise definition as far as what constitutes Hate Speech…but it’s most often understood to be speech that is disparaging, dehumanizing, and derogatory toward a group of people based on Inherent and Immutable characteristics such as Ethnicity, Nationality, Disability Status, Gender/Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation.

Many people claim it should apply to Political Affiliation and Religion, but to define either of those things as “Inherent or Immutable” is a huge stretch, since both of those two things are choices (no matter how difficult it may be for people to separate themselves from the Politics or Religion of their upbringing and environment). I was raised as a Catholic, but am not Catholic. I was raised in a deeply Conservative environment (South Dakota), but I am not Conservative. The same applies to many of you who are reading this.

Thus, I personally do NOT extend the definition of Hate Speech to cover things that are choices made by individuals. It is precisely the choices and behaviors of people that are the things we can (and I dare say, SHOULD) judge people by. The choices we make and the actions arising from those choices are the things we uniformly agree upon as conditions upon which we can be convicted, in court and otherwise. It’s judging people by things that are simply part of who they are, unchangeable and permanent, where the problem arises. So, regardless of how off-base and idiotic I find a lot of the rhetoric being tossed around with respect to Political Opposition, I do not consider that Hate Speech. It can be just as harmful and toxic, but hating people over Political Ideology is not the same as hating someone over characteristics that are intrinsically part of who they are.

Sure, some people have so thoroughly immersed themselves in their Political Ideology that there’s little identity left once that is stripped away, but that was nevertheless a choice they made. That is the downside regarding Identity Politics (and especially what that term has come to mean in recent years), in that it becomes all too easy to lose oneself along the way. And, like many things, Identity Politics is something that’s been co-opted by non-marginalized people. And, of course, it’s been corrupted in the process, especially in America.

It originated as a way for people of marginalized groups to come together, advocating for one another, and rallying against shared experiences of systemic oppression, exploitation, and neglect. Where one person’s voice could be easily drowned out, a collective movement could effect structural change and draw attention to systems built on platforms of injustice and prejudice. Unfortunately, as could easily be predicted, those who had benefited from said systems were less than accommodating when it came to opening the doors and embracing equity and equality. It took almost no time at all for White Supremacists to manipulate the dialogue and distort everything to make reasonable demands for a seat at the table sound like threats to the table itself and those who had historically taken all of the seats.

And that’s where we still are, with even otherwise reasonable people so caught up in this fictional narrative that they can’t see the threads they’d need to tug at to unravel the tapestry of lies they’ve been conditioned to believe. They’re so scared of one boogeyman after another that they can’t recognize how flimsy and silly the imaginary threats happen to be, until they’re jumping at shadows around every corner.

Now, as far as what I wanted to clarify. There is a huge difference between your racist uncle or some dude at the bar expressing bigotry and someone using a national (or international) platform that reaches thousands or tens of thousands of people at a time.

“Talk shit, get hit,” applies to the racist uncle or random dude at the bar or on the street, if one is so inclined. It’s toxic and upsetting, but that kind of Hate Speech can be dismissed by most people, including the marginalized group being targeted by said bigotry. It’s terrible and ignorant, but it’s also white noise.

There is a huge Qualitative and Quantitative difference between that and the same Hate Speech being expressed by Public Figures with wide-reaching influence. That’s when Hate Speech truly becomes dangerous and a cause for valid concern. Politicians, Television Personalities, successful Podcasters and Influencers, and Public Speakers should have both a greater responsibility to uphold the Social Contract and a greater set of standards to which they are held. This is precisely because they have the historically proven capacity to influence the nature and quality of public discourse.

We’ve seen the results of Hate Speech being legitimized by platforming it and treating it as nothing more than the Free Expression of a different opinion. It produces a Discriminatory Environment for individuals within the targeted marginalized groups, and can easily become a case of Incitement to violence. Both of which, I might add, are conditions that are not covered under Freedom of Speech.

We can look at it this way, if need be. A random person muttering “theater” to himself in a crowded fire isn’t likely to get much attention. But if we put someone front and center for the whole conflagration with a megaphone in their hands so that they can shout, “Theater,” everyone in that inferno is going to be singing, “Let’s All Go To the Lobby” in no time at all. It’s a matter of magnitude and amplification. It’s the scale that makes all the difference, and that one person can overwhelm the voices of hundreds or even thousands of people shouting in unison.

Some would surely insist that, regardless of how loud and how far-reaching, those are still just words. Some will insist that words can’t be violence, that only physical violence is violence. To those people who need to better understand that there are more forms of violence than the fist, the bullet, and the bomb, I’ve already spent some time exploring the topic here. For everyone else (including those who require further simplification), I can only hope this next bit sinks in.

You’re already most of the way to the finish line if you’re capable of recognizing that threatening, insulting, humiliating, and intimidating behavior within the framework of a relationship (romantic, parental, or other) constitutes abuse. That is acknowledgment that words can be (and are) violent when the conditions are appropriate. Even if you, for some reason, don’t think Emotional or Psychological Abuse qualifies as violence, the legal system definitely does treat Coercive Control as a crime in more than a dozen states. And for marginalized people, bigotry has always been a form of Coercive Control, at the societal level.

I want you to step back, set aside your preconceived notions for just a moment, and perform a little thought experiment with me. We’ll make these examples personal because some people require that someone they personally care about be impacted before they can rationalize these things. I don’t even want to begin unpacking what that says about them.

If you have a daughter or a sister, I want you to ask yourself something. What message does it convey when so many people openly insist that Hillary Clinton (or any other woman) shouldn’t be President because women are too emotional? Especially in light of how emotionally unstable Donald Trump has proven himself to be on several occasions, what does that say about your perspective regarding the women in your life? When public figures plastered social media, television, and other public forums with claims that Kamala Harris only achieved anything she’s accomplished because she slept with people to get to the top, what message does that pass along to your daughters, sisters, and other women in your life? These aren’t things you’d say about male candidates. This isn’t to say I’m particularly fond of Hillary Clinton or Kamala Harris, but to pretend that either of them was somehow less qualified to serve as President than Donald Trump is something that requires far more imagination than I’m capable of mustering.

Assuming you know any Black people, how do you think it feels for them (throughout their whole lives) to have people vocally expressing the opinion that any successful Black person only achieved their success at the expense of a more qualified white person? First, it was Affirmative Action, then it was Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Policies, that explained how they enrolled in college, rose up the corporate ladder, and established themselves in their careers. Unless we’re talking about specific athletic fields, particular musical genres (god forbid a Black man or woman encroaches on the sacrosanct Country Music genre), or a couple of other isolated career paths, there’s no way for people to avoid having their accomplishments denigrated and dismissed as handouts. As a white man, I can guarantee I’ve heard that kind of talk from people my whole damn life: from random imbeciles, radio and television personalities, podcasters, public speakers, and politicians (right up to Donald J. Trump, himself).

This idiocy was never clearer than when Barack Obama was elected President. His devout Christianity has been called into question from before he was nominated to the present. His sexual orientation was questioned (by people who somehow still believe that certain sexual orientations diminish someone’s value), and prolific Conservative voices spread rumors of him trading homosexual favors for drugs while he was in college. His status as an American was a topic of debate at the highest levels of Conservative Politics, despite being categorically absurd and based on nothing more than the petty machinations of the man who is currently sitting in the White House. Obama’s birth certificate was a matter of public record in 2008, as was the birth announcement in a Hawaiian newspaper. Yet Donald Trump continued questioning Obama’s place of birth for several years. Of course, none of that matters at all because Obama’s mother was an American citizen, born in Kansas, as were both of her parents. He could have been born on the lunar surface, and he’d have still been an American citizen, because his mother was a native-born American. Even the color of the suit he wore was a point of contention. And, to make all of this more absurd, people took it seriously. Imagine, for just a moment, how it had to feel for a Black child to see and hear these ridiculous lies and accusations parroted wherever they looked, knowing that it was only happening because a Black man dared to become President. What’s worse is that it wasn’t even exclusively the Conservatives, because he had to fight against his own party in Congress far more than any other President in my lifetime.

Of course, it didn’t end with Barack, because Michelle was repeatedly denigrated. She was repeatedly accused of being a man (by people who believe accusing someone of being Transgender is the best insult ever). Her platform, as the First Lady, to provide our kids with healthier meals in school, was derided, but when Robert F. Kennedy Jr. proposed something similar, it was praised as an example of his brilliance. Their daughters were mocked and derided over their appearances, their intellectual capabilities, and anything else pundits could throw at them on national television. Of course, they did the same awful shit to Chelsea Clinton, so it tracks that they’d be doubly harsh when it was a couple of Black girls in their sights.

This is the environment America has cultivated for marginalized people of all kinds. I may have focused solely on women and Black people in these examples, but the systemic hostility and disenfranchisement have been impacting Indigenous people, Latin Americans, members of the LGBTQ+ community, Muslims, and virtually anyone else you can think of who isn’t a cisgender, straight, white Christian for longer than I’ve been alive. And being a Christian isn’t even that important, judging by how far people can suspend disbelief where it concerns Donald Trump’s performative Christianity.

This is abusive. The way America has treated marginalized people has been categorically abusive. It’s not a Democrat vs. Republican thing because both parties have played their parts in the systemic oppression and cruelty. But there’s no group more firmly caught up in maintaining an abusive, White Supremacist hegemony than Conservatives today.

It needs to stop.

When Assessing Authoritarianism: Compare and Contrast Critically

Altogether too few of the people opposing the steady slide to the right in the U.S. have taken the time to read Mein Kampf or Goebbels’ later extrapolation on many of its premises. This is especially disheartening because it’s clear that the other side is well-acquainted with it. Don’t get me wrong, I understand the distaste people feel at the thought of reading the manifesto that served as the template for the rise of the Nazi Party in 1930s Germany. I would argue that it’s as important to read Mein Kampf as it is to read Sun Tzu’s The Art of War or Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince, if only for the glimpse it provides into the thinking and worldview of someone who would commit the sort of atrocities we witnessed from Nazi Germany.

It’s doubly important as we’ve been witnessing The Big Lie on display here in the United States, combined with virtually every other element from the Nazi propaganda playbook: from establishing a mythic (almost messianic) image of Donald Trump to portraying the nation as a society in unity but for an unfortunate assortment of “others” who display “asocial” qualities, tainting the purity of America and threatening both a way of life and the lives of the people therein.

Of course, you hear similar (albeit inverted) accusations from people on the Right. It’s not uncommon to hear or read some mouthpiece of the Republican Party claiming that the Left (as if Democrats are actually a Leftist political party) is mirroring Nazi and Fascist practices and ideology. These are often the same people who, with a straight face, attempt to insist that the Nazis were an embodiment of Socialist principles, despite absolutely no presence of those principles within the stated or enacted objectives of the Nazi Party under Adolf Hitler. Nazi Germany was Socialist in the same way North Korea is a Democratic Republic, which is to say not in the slightest. The Nazis actively objected to every facet of Socialist ideology, from opposing Collective Ownership and dismantling Labor Unions that protected Workers’ Rights to shifting the focus from Class Consciousness and International Egalitarian objectives to Racist Nationalism. It’s all right there in the history books. This means that there are two types of people making these claims: those who weren’t paying attention in their history classes and those who are cynically capitalizing on the fact that people can be manipulated into believing ahistorical nonsense if they’re incentivized to do so.

Unfortunately, you’ll also hear plenty of people who claim to be centrist, insisting that both parties are correct in those accusations, because (according to them) both major parties are Nazi and Fascist in nature. In most instances, you’ll hear or read someone making those sorts of statements only to, in the next breath, almost exclusively parrot the talking points from the Right. I’m jaded enough to believe this is just as often a bad-faith ploy by those who internally cling to right-wing ideology as it is the result of right-wing White Supremacy simply being the long-time default within America and American Politics.

It’s simple enough to dispel these fictional distortions of the respective political platforms, but those who need to hear the truth are least likely to open themselves to it or are willing to accept that they could be wrong. I understand that last part, because it’s hard to admit we’re wrong about something, especially something that has become a core component of who we perceive ourselves as being. I think most of us can understand how challenging it is to uproot long-standing beliefs that are thoroughly entrenched in both our identities and the worldviews we hold. There should be some sympathy and empathy available for the people who are terrified to acknowledge just how wrong they have been and the far-reaching implications associated with acting under false premises for however many years they’ve been propping up these fictions.

In reality, it’s the same sort of cognitive dissonance that goes hand-in-hand with getting people to face the deeply unpleasant realities of American History and the degree to which White Supremacy has been the substrate underlying all of it. It’s not uncommon for people to experience feelings of unwanted (and, to them, unjustified) guilt and shame when forced to evaluate history (and their own lives) through a lens that lays bare the cruelty and lies that have been necessary to maintain that corrupt foundation. Occasionally, people lash out in reaction to what they perceive as persecution or judgment over the role their ancestors might have played in laying or maintaining the bedrock of White Supremacy upon which America has been built. Unfortunately, there are some people (admittedly, a small minority) who take delight in that sense of guilt and shame; however, the vast majority of people simply want acknowledgment of past injustices and a sincere effort to do better and be better. And, the fact is that we can be better. We can (and should) work to dig out that stratum of sickness upon which our society is built, because it’s not as solid as it seems. We can replace it with a medium consisting of education, empathy, and equity, but that requires effort that we need to be willing to invest.

One of the first steps is to analyze our modern political landscape with intellectual honesty. To do that, we need to work on evaluating how we define things and how definitions are being distorted to manipulate people into working against their own self-interests. Liberals (and Democrats by extension) are not a Leftist Political Party. Leftist ideology is rooted in principles more closely associated with Communism, which is mutually exclusive from Capitalism. Liberals are Capitalists, albeit perhaps less overtly predatory in their Capitalist sensibilities than Conservatives (Republicans) happen to be. Even the most progressive Liberals are still Capitalists, even though they may endorse some aspects of Socialism (not Communism): Social Safety Nets, Universal Healthcare, Government Regulation and Oversight, robust Public Education, Trade and Labor Unions, and Public Ownership of Utilities and Infrastructure. This is how most civilized nations operate, in what is classified as a Mixed Economy. European nations embody this Mixed Economy model through Social Democracy or Market Socialism, while China and other nations utilize a model more akin to Socialist Market Economy. In the modern world, Communism is virtually untenable, and the closest example to a pure Communist state is North Korea, which requires isolationism to survive. There are those on the Left who are deeply pro-Communist and invested in the belief that it is the ideal form of human Socioeconomics (and maybe it is). But in practical application, and in today’s global society, it’s either a fantasy or so far down the line as to be indistinguishable from fantasy.

Now that we’ve established accurate definitions, we can proceed. I am writing this as a U.S. citizen and for an audience largely consisting of other U.S. citizens, so I will often be using the terms Democrat, Liberal, and the Left interchangeably. As far as American Politics go, when looking at the two major parties that dominate the political landscape, Democrats are the Left.

We’ll begin by addressing the facile claims that Democrats are the true inheritors of Nazi and Fascist ideologies in American Politics.

No one in either Liberal or Leftist circles has the privileged status of being beyond reproach in the same way that Donald Trump has taken on a sort of mythic status for Conservatives. Those on the Right have a hard time comprehending this, which is why they’ll gleefully toss the name of Bill Clinton into the discourse surrounding the Epstein Files. However, while they will trip over their own feet attempting to dance around as they proactively excuse Trump if he happens to be implicated in monstrous actions (beyond those of which he’s already been implicated). The reaction from both Leftists and Liberals, when this bad-faith argument is proposed, is to say that Clinton should absolutely end up in prison if he’s guilty of the same sort of things. The same would be true for any name they tossed into the discussion. Liberals have a far better track record when it comes to holding their own accountable, in part because they’re operating from a different playbook than the one utilized by present-day Conservatives. “They go low, we go high,” however, only functions as a strategy when the opposition is capable of honest self-reflection and shame.

As a brief aside, the Republican Party has clearly displayed that it will still endorse and vote for accused (and even convicted) pedophiles and people found guilty of sexual assault. Over the last 20 years, all but one of the Lawmakers in D.C. who have been investigated or charged for similar crimes have been Republicans: Matt Gaetz, Madison Cawthorn, Dennis Hastert, Jim Gibbons, and Mark Foley. Notably, no one backed the sole Democrat in the list, Anthony Weiner, when the evidence of his actions came to light, and I doubt anyone either knows or cares where he is today. He became a joke to Liberals and Conservatives alike, and no one on the political spectrum supported him or excused his awful behavior. In direct contrast, Donald Trump (and many of his supporters) openly and repeatedly endorsed Roy Moore in his bid to become a U.S. Senator.

I left out accusations of Sexual Harassment because that claim is admittedly a bit more nebulous and harder to define (or to prove). In that arena, Republicans and Democrats are about evenly distributed. I also left out investigations by Ethics Committees over extramarital affairs and incidents of Lawmakers being outed for same-sex affairs (I don’t think there’s anything wrong with homosexuality) because they’re at least consensual. Though I will take this moment to say it is damning just how many members of the party that proclaims itself to be the arbiter of Christian morality are the ones most unwilling to uphold the same morals they believe they can force upon others. The hypocrisy within Conservative politics is substantially more egregious solely because of how vocal the adherents are in condemning homosexuality, sexual immorality, and sexuality as a whole. These are people (and not exclusively the political figures) who promote repression and oppression, abstinence, conversion therapy, and a plethora of other harmful practices when it comes to everyone but themselves.

Returning to the topic at hand, since no one in the Left or Liberal political realm is considered sacrosanct, there’s no comparison to the Cult of Personality that’s been assembled around Donald Trump by the Right.

Where there is additionally no comparison is that there is no point within my lifetime that Democrats have cultivated a doctrine of othering people based on immutable characteristics such as Ethnicity, Nationality, Sexual Orientation, Gender, or Gender Identity. It’s simply not consistent with the Party Platform.

There are sure to be those who will take this moment to exercise a knee-jerk response and express the historically illiterate argument regarding Democrats and Republicans in their respective roles from the 19th Century, but that can be disregarded just as the individuals making those specious arguments are disregarding reality. Besides, I’ve already devoted a fair amount of time to addressing those ahistorical myths here.

This is not to say that much of the Democratic support for marginalized groups hasn’t been superficial, conditional, and performative. But that’s to be expected in a sociopolitical environment wherein cisgender, straight, white, Christian males are deemed to be the standard by which all others are measured. When that exclusive assortment of traits is treated as the baseline normal, it’s difficult not to fail in attempts to foster true equality and equity. Until that insidious, often unconscious, bias is dismantled, we can’t be surprised by the shortcomings of even the most well-meaning politicians.

Nevertheless, the point remains that there are neither stated nor unwritten components within any Democratic Platform wherein people from other nations or cultures, with different ethnic backgrounds, gender identities, or sexual orientations, are to be persecuted for these inherent and unchangeable aspects of who they are. Similarly, there is nothing in any Democratic Platform that overtly or subtly denigrates people of different faiths, economic statuses, or levels of education.

The Democratic Party (far more than its political opposition) embraces the principle of Diversity and Tolerance that is supposed to be the underlying ethos of America. While flawed in its own ways, the Democratic Party is far closer to embodying the ideals of pluralism and unity than the Republican Party. Hell, one need look no further than the demographic makeup of the respective parties in Congress to see this on clear display.

While one party dedicates massive amounts of resources to the process of not only othering people but also actively persecuting them, the other party strives to provide for all people (including their political opponents). Of course, Democrats often fall into old routines of paternalizing and patronizing marginalized people, infantilizing them, and acting out some antiquated “White Savior” roleplay that does as much harm as good. In that, I suppose we have to allow some leeway for “good intentions” despite the harm it causes. They may be trying in all the wrong ways, but at least they’re trying.

The supposed evils perpetrated by the Democrats seem to center around topics like Abortion Rights, Gender-Affirming Care, Inclusivity, and Multiculturalism. It’s challenging for me to even conceive of a worldview in which those things are evidence of an evil or destructive philosophy.

Regarding Abortion, no Democrat has expressed any desire to impose abortion on those who oppose the practice, instead believing it’s a matter best left to be discussed and decided by the parent(s), their physician, and their spiritual guides (if applicable).

As far as Gender-Affirming Care is concerned, that is similarly something Democrats believe should be left to the individual, their family and loved ones, and the psychiatric and medical professionals who are involved in the decisions.

On the topics of Inclusivity and Multiculturalism, there’s no denying that the Founding Fathers were deeply Eurocentric, embodying White Supremacy that may make some people uncomfortable. When it was born, America was meant to be a Melting Pot, wherein Immigrant Cultures could blend into, and become indistinguishable from the burgeoning nation’s culture of customs, laws, and language. There was a great deal of non-inclusive thinking in early American ideology that extended to several white European nationalities as well as non-whites. Over time, even some of those Founding Fathers (like Washington and Franklin) started to embrace the contributions of cultures that had initially been feared or denigrated. Much of this misgiving was rooted in misapprehension and misunderstanding associated with the relatively recent (and entirely inaccurate) concept of “Race,” which I discuss at length here. Time passed, and by the late 19th Century, perspectives had shifted even further regarding the status of America as a Melting Pot (more accurately, I think, a salad bowl.) Diverse Cultures were increasingly seen as things that added texture and flavor to American Culture. This nation was seen as an example, a place where different cultures could come together and celebrate their differences while assembling a shared national identity that is non-homogenized.

With Capitalism being the ever-present elephant in the room, it would be a mistake if I didn’t include the perception many on the Right seem to have, regarding Democrats being fiscally irresponsible. This is, after all, one of the unforgivable evils associated with Liberals, if we’re to believe the propaganda. However, if anything, it seems to me that Democrats are at least slightly more willing to uphold the Social Contract than their opponents, wherein members of the population pay their share of taxes for the government to then provide for the public good. The Republicans, on the other hand, want to perpetuate a system wherein certain privileged classes pay proportionately less into the government, and the government, in turn, provides less toward the public good (to the benefit of fewer members of the public).

It’s perhaps unfair to place that solely in the laps of Republicans, because there are several Democrats who espouse centrist, middle-of-the-road ideals who are altogether too happy to see the wealthiest fraction of a percentage of Americans skirt their responsibilities as they simultaneously skim off subsidies and take full advantage of the infrastructure and systems funded by tax dollars. However, if we look back through voting records, it’s almost exclusively been the Democrats who most consistently pushed for both Campaign Finance Reform and Financial Transparency within the government. This seems to belie much of the propaganda associated with the financial irresponsibility of Liberals.

Republicans (as far back as I can recall) have proclaimed themselves to be the champions of Freedom and Liberty, while they systematically intrude deeper into people’s lives. Political opposition, questioning authority, deviations from the above-mentioned “baseline normal,” demands for equity, and so on are treated as “asocial” or even criminal behaviors in the rhetoric expressed by the Right. Freedom and Liberty, according to the actions of the Republican Party, are contingent upon meeting certain biological, psychological, sociological, religious, and political purity standards of homogeneity. If one is unfamiliar, that was also the basis of Nazi ideology.

If one can step back and assess all of this without inserting some preexisting partisan bias, it’s fairly obvious that there is no validity in the claims that both parties are the same and that they are equally evil. It’s also obvious to anyone with a modicum of historical literacy that only one of the major political parties in America bears any resemblance to the Nazi Party.

None of this is to say that the Democrats aren’t mired in White Supremacy and an underlying indifference when it comes to actually doing (rather than talking about) things that would improve material conditions for not only marginalized communities, but all Americans. They absolutely are. And that’s unlikely to change unless we can put an end to people and corporate entities buying votes and influencing Political Discourse to the extent that the constituents are unable to achieve. This is precisely why Leftists (not Liberals) oppose Capitalism (or at least the unchecked Capitalism we have in America), because it allows money to be the arbiter of what becomes policy and what is left by the wayside. What absolutely will not improve these conditions is support for those who embody Nazi ideology and foster increased segregation and separation within the American population while catering to the predatory and self-serving desires of Corporations and the ultra-wealthy.

I’m reminded of a scene from Network, in which Ned Beatty’s character, Arthur Jensen, launches into an almost evangelical Capitalist tirade which includes the following, “There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars!” Unless we are willing to dismantle that very “Dominion of Dollars,” we won’t get any closer to Liberty and Freedom than what the Democratic Party offers. And while what the Democrats offer is far from ideal, at least they’re offering something other than the Authoritarianism and Tyranny we’ve already seen play out in Nazi Germany.

If you’re interested in seeing other unsettling parallels between modern Conservatives and Nazis, you can read a detailed breakdown here.

Political Violence and the Selective Acknowledgment of It

Political Violence comes in more shapes and sizes than Pokémon. And yet, it’s only ever a specific variety that most people seem willing to acknowledge, and then only when it suits the narrative they prefer to frame. When someone is killed in an act of direct Political Violence, hand-wringing, condemnation of physical violence, and proclamations that we are better than this inevitably follow closely behind. This is true, even (or especially) when the violence in question was a direct response to less overt forms of violence. You see, those more subtle forms of violent action are insidious in that people can easily dismiss them if they’re so inclined, but are often (if not always) more harmful.

Willhelm Frick, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Julius Streicher, and several others who were sentenced to death following the Nuremberg Trials had never killed anyone, and had (to the best of anyone’s knowledge) committed no acts of direct violence. In fact, Hermann Göring, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, and Martin Bormann were among the minority, in that they had committed acts of direct violence and murder during their tenure within the Nazi Party. But, in 1946, we recognized that Political Violence comes in many forms, and the guilt of the 12 men who were sentenced to execution was not open to debate. Adolf Hitler, himself, has never been connected with evidence that he personally murdered anyone aside from possibly Eva Braun, before taking his own life. The same can be said for Joseph Goebbels, though he and his wife killed their six children and then themselves. These men, and many others, had been complicit and had knowingly issued propaganda and orders that led to the deaths of countless others.

Would anyone like to present the defense that these men were killed (or killed themselves to avoid being killed) because of their political opinions? Is that the extent of cultural relativism that we should be applying to the architects of the Holocaust? That’s what I keep hearing lately: that people shouldn’t be threatened, persecuted, or harmed over a difference of opinion. All I can assume is that many people need to better acquaint themselves with the definition of “opinion” before they start concerning themselves with differences between them.

Opinions are just assumptions or judgments that an individual develops regarding any particular topic. They can be informed or uninformed, but they’re little more than a subjective viewpoint with greater or lesser value depending on the expertise and the degree of authority invested in the individual sharing said opinions. Critiques of policy and ideology are political opinions. Whether they’re right or wrong, they’re opinions, and people are entitled to their own. Hate Speech, however, is not an expression of an opinion. Hate Speech is an attack, using dehumanizing and demeaning language to target an individual or a group of people based on features of their identity: Ethnicity, Nationality, Skin Color, Gender Identity, Sexual Orientation, and so on. Hate Speech targets (often immutable) characteristics of the individual or group, for the purpose of expressing bigoted, biased, and prejudiced perspectives. Thus, we have the difference between those who condemn the actions of Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli Government, compared to those who condemn Jewish people or the people of Israel as a whole. One is a criticism of policy and the actions taken by a group, and the other is a condemnation of a group of people based on either Ethnicity or Nationality, depending on whether we’re talking about Jewish people or Israeli people. There is a massive difference between the two things, and yet we see colleges and universities losing funding because certain people want to conflate these two things with false equivalence.

Hate Speech is, in reality, a form of Political Violence that gets shrugged off as nothing more than a difference of opinion, typically by those who are not impacted by that violence. Hate Speech and hateful rhetoric paved the way for the Holocaust, along with the more recent Genocides in Rwanda, Myanmar, Bosnia, and Herzegovina.

Sheltering Hate Speech under an umbrella by treating it as if it’s nothing more than another legitimate opinion that one is entitled to share is just part of the weaponization of public discourse. It promotes discrimination and violence, especially when it’s combined with disinformation/misinformation campaigns designed to reinforce the bigotry involved.

Still, one might, of course, look at those guilty men I referenced above and argue that they were guilty of War Crimes. Therefore, the sentences were both just and appropriate. But, by the same standard, our current Administration should also face a tribunal.

Despite no evidence supporting the claims and the US Intelligence Apparatus contradicting them, the Trump Administration confidently states that Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro is linked to Tren de Aragua, and that a U.S. strike on a foreign boat in international waters was justified because that boat was carrying cocaine to our border (sans evidence). By any standards, the killing of foreign civilians in international waters is (by definition) a War Crime. The Trump Administration is hardly alone in this. Every President in my lifetime has been guilty of actions that should constitute War Crimes. Why are we not holding ourselves to a higher standard than we held the Nazis in 1946?

But, of course, it’s not just War Crimes that we’re dealing with today. The current Administration repeatedly flaunts International and American Law, violates the Constitution, and works to erode the mechanisms of Democracy within America. Men like the late Charlie Kirk have been instrumental in both endorsing and encouraging those actions, as well as being directly involved in helping to place Donald Trump in the position of authority he presently holds.

Charlie Kirk fostered an environment of White Christian Nationalism throughout his time in the public eye. It takes little effort to find several instances of outright Racism, Sexism, Homophobia, Xenophobia, and myriad other forms of Bigotry in his Podcasts, Social Media posts, and Public Appearances.

He repeatedly expressed a baseless and racist endorsement of the Great Replacement conspiracy, wherein non-whites were coming to America (and other Western Nations) to replace whites. Just last month, he claimed, “The Great Replacement of white people is far more sinister than any redistricting project.” The Great Replacement theory is directly linked to several acts of Political Violence, targeting non-whites. More importantly, the Great Replacement is virtually identical to the White Genocide conspiracies that have been core aspects of neoNazi ideologies for a long time now.

Charlie Kirk accused Transgender people of being predators and actively encouraged his listeners/viewers to bully and harass them. Transgender people, while making up a tiny fraction of the population, are somehow substantially more likely to be victims of violence than cisgender people are.

He couldn’t even manage to consistently maintain his performative support for Israel and condemnation of antisemitism, despite knowing that he needed to tow that line because it might be a bridge too far for some of his audience. Nevertheless, he still managed to spout off tired old antisemitic talking points about Jewish people controlling everything from higher education to Hollywood, pointing the finger at Jewish financiers of “Cultural Marxism,” and acting aghast at Jewish people promoting anti-white hatred despite wanting white people to do away with that same kind of hatred against them.

To pretend that isn’t often Political Violence is tantamount to saying that violence perpetrated against Jewish people by German citizens in 1940s Europe was not Political Violence. When the apparatus of government endorses, however tacitly, the dehumanization of a group of people, it requires extensive mental gymnastics to pretend that the acts of violence perpetrated against that group of people are not acts of Political Violence. It also requires an impressive gymnastics routine to pretend that the propagandists who spread the dehumanizing message aren’t complicit in the outcomes.

Was it not Political Violence when Omar Mateen murdered 49 people and injured more than 50 others at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, FL? He may have claimed to support the Islamic State, but his motivations (even according to his father) were based on the same anti-LBGTQ+ sentiment we hear expressed by White Nationalists regularly. Since LGBTQ+ rights (and the existence of LGBTQ+ people) are treated like a political football, that would make any violence arising from homophobia and anti-Trans perspectives Political Violence. And this is State-Sanctioned violence, because Republicans certainly dedicate a lot of bandwidth to demonizing LGBTQ+ people, while Democrats often turn a blind eye to the violence perpetrated against them. And, whether Liberals want to accept it or not, neglect and dismissal are forms of Political Violence as well. But that’s a discussion for another time.

Men like Charlie Kirk, Ben Shapiro, Nick Fuentes, and even Donald Trump have a particular skill, even if they lack any others. They can extrapolate from their own insecurities, fears, and failures to develop a form of demagoguery that plays on those same weaknesses in an audience. This only works when the demagogue is in the majority, because for some people, there’s always an undercurrent of resentment and fear associated with imagining the loss of the power that comes with being the majority. Some of that, I’m sure, arises from the assumption that (if the roles are reversed) they will be treated as poorly as they have treated the minority group(s) within society.

Men like Kirk taste fear and weakness in their audience the way a shark tastes blood in the water, and they’re just as predatory about it. They stoke that fear with misinformation and cruelty, dehumanizing anyone who isn’t part of that majority group, and assuring the audience that they can rest assured of their superiority. They make them feel threatened by the outsiders, regardless of the fiction required to do so, because they know these people won’t risk eroding the false confidence they’ve built up by digging too deep or tugging at threads that could unravel everything.

And, as that manipulation leads to the inevitable results, they hide behind the shield of Free Speech, insisting that they’re just asking questions, voicing their opinions, or engaging in healthy debate. We’ve seen this happen several times in the past, with January 6th, 2021, as one of the most vivid examples. The architects of the direct Political Violence are smugly distancing themselves and feigning a sense of horror at what’s happening, as they assume no one will recall how openly they encouraged all of it.

One way or another, there needs to be consequences for the Political Violence perpetrated by those who conveniently, like cowards, hide behind a misapprehension of what “Opinion” means. And, just as important, people need to learn that calling for violence against one’s oppressors and those who have wished or encouraged violence against them is not at all the same thing as wishing harm on people just because they have a different opinion. Malcolm X wasn’t the same as the white racists who fought to maintain segregation and oppose the Civil Rights Act, because he called for reactionary violence. He was already the victim of Political Violence, and was only speaking the same language as those who perpetrated that violence. If you threaten someone or encourage others to act violently toward them by dehumanizing them and manipulating others into thinking they are a threat, you are not expressing an opinion. That isn’t merely a matter of differing political viewpoints.

Regarding the present situation, and the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s apparent assassination, we don’t even know if it was an act of Political Violence. It stands to reason that it probably is, but it’s just as likely to be someone who agreed with him on most accounts as it is to be someone who was politically opposed to his ideology, stripped of the Hate Speech and hateful rhetoric. After all, the same people storming the Capitol on January 6th, 2021, were the same people most vocally supportive of “Back the Blue” perspectives, yet they assaulted police officers without any compunction. When one promotes an atmosphere of hate and fear, in which violence is encouraged, we’re just as likely to see that violence turned upon people in the same group, the moment fractures appear. It’s worth keeping that in mind.

Fiction Treated As Fact: The Myth of Race

To bring an end to Racism, we need to successfully deconstruct the 17th-century notion of “Race” as a thing. Race, as we commonly think of it, is nothing more than a relatively modern and simplistic categorization based on conveniently visible markers that are both biologically irrelevant and lacking in anything like nuance.

The concept of Race is a Social Construct, not a Biological one, much like Gender. Of course, in both of those arenas, we latch onto these simple Social Constructs because the Biological elements are altogether too complicated and far less conveniently organized. We’re a lazy species that relies far too frequently on simplistic (and often erroneous) Pattern Recognition, as opposed to negotiating with reality on the novel terms required if we aim to be more intellectually honest.

The Enlightenment Era was a time of great advancement in the realms of social and political theory, scientific principles, taxonomy, and philosophy. There’s no disputing the value that arose from the great thinkers and educational centers of the time. I’m personally a great admirer of several of the great thinkers of the time. It is, however, important to note that little of what came from that era is without flaws and errors. There were severe limitations in both the technology available and the understanding of the natural world that even the greatest minds of the time faced.

While much of what we gained from pre-Industrial studies was based on observation, scientific methodology, reason, speculation, and extrapolation, the observable world and scientific tools available to people of the time were not the same ones we have available (and take for granted) today. The great minds of the time certainly performed their duties to the best of their abilities with the information they had available, but we shouldn’t be assuming they had all the answers. Similarly, we shouldn’t assume they didn’t have biases that influenced their findings, conscious or unconscious, as they may have been.

There is arguably no area where that is more true than with the development of concepts regarding Race. And yet our modern notions of Race are virtually indistinguishable from those of Enlightenment Thinkers, despite a plethora of evidence that should dismantle all of it. The biggest problem, and one that great minds could hardly avoid, is that those notions are derived from a White, Eurocentric perspective. Of course, some are deeply invested in maintaining that antiquated worldview, in large part precisely because it is assembled around a White, Eurocentric perspective.

But before modern concepts of Race developed, there was nothing like it in place. Separation between people was based on Political, Religious, and Regional differences. Egyptian, Chinese, Greek, and Roman cultures, for example, had no hierarchical bias regarding the myriad skin tones of their people. It was solely by happenstance that people of similar skin color were lumped together. Their status within the given society was based on where they were from, the society to which they belonged, and the gods they worshipped, not the lightness or darkness of their skin tone. It was instead the assumption that anyone not belonging to one’s culture was some manner of barbarian, but that this cultural defect wasn’t an immutable characteristic. Physiological differences were recognized and somewhat accurately perceived as the result of environmental factors, such as the specific geography where those groups originated, and heritable traits.

Of course, the Greek and Roman societies collapsed, and for a time, the differences were analyzed through a Biblical lens. Medieval thinking led to different skin tones being associated with descending from one of the three sons of Noah. This way of thinking was particularly dominant in Christian and Islamic societies. This showcased a rather large step backward from the earlier recognition that environment and geography were the primary drivers behind those superficial differences. It wasn’t until the 14th Century in Islamic society and the 17th Century in Europe that people began to restore the recognition that a person’s geographic origin played the biggest role in the differences in skin color. That, combined with a moderately greater understanding of heritability, allowed late 17th-century European Naturalists to glimpse the nature of humanity with greater accuracy. Unfortunately, there was still a great deal of error in the interpretations of what they glimpsed.

As White Europeans began to explore the world to a greater extent, they started to consider and explore the superficial differences between people of different regions and cultures in greater detail. It stood to reason, to the scientific minds of the day, that there must be some scientific explanation for the surface-level differences between those other people and themselves, and that required classification. Naturally, these classifications were often based on misapprehensions and limited comprehension of the natural world.

And since they considered themselves to be the arbiters of what constituted civilization and culture, it was just as natural that these classifications were utilized to reinforce the belief that White Europeans were superior, a result that became increasingly imperative as Colonization and Slavery came to the forefront of that White, Eurocentric negotiation with the world surrounding them. With the sociopolitical belief in human equality becoming increasingly widespread, a race was on to define non-white races as somehow subhuman, and thus not deserving of that equality.

It should go without saying that there was no basis in scientific reality for these new Racial Classifications indicating superiority of any group over another. In fact, arguably the greatest single contributor to the concept of Racial Taxonomy, German anthropologist Johann Blumenbach, clearly and concisely showed that there was greater variation within any individual Race than between any two Races (a result later proven by the study of genetics). Even with Christian mythology tainting his research, Blumenbach still arrived at the (correct) conclusion that there was nothing in his findings that reinforced the belief that any Race was superior to another. He actively opposed slavery and those who used his Taxonomy as justification for the poor treatment of non-whites.

But so much hinged on hierarchical thinking that the scientific advancements that should have dismantled it were hampered by assumptions and preconceived notions. Operating from the starting point of White European superiority, several Naturalists spent the late 18th and early 19th Centuries shoring up those assumptions and reinterpreting the data in whatever way was necessary to assure themselves that they were, in fact, superior.

It was the late 19th Century when Charles Darwin advocated for the common ancestry of all humans, regardless of Race, and definitively stated that the characteristics used to separate by Race were exclusively superficial. When writing The Descent of Man, Darwin made it clear that the difficulty in discerning clear delineations between various races should be taken as evidence that distinctive characteristics separating one Race from another simply do not exist. He further argued that non-white people were equal in intellectual capacity to whites.

And yet, to this day, we still suffer fools who will argue that Race is a thing and that there are differences between one Race and another.

Some will attempt to undermine this argument by pointing to Genetics, using everything from inherited traits to predisposition to certain illnesses as a basis for their assertion that Race is a thing. Reality, of course, is more complicated and nuanced than all of that.

Sickle Cell Disease is an excellent example, because it is not (contrary to what many assume) connected to Race, but to Ancestry. Sickle Cell Disease is the result of Natural Selection, due to the Genetic Trait providing a natural defense against Malaria. Thus, this Genetic Trait is exclusive to individuals with Ancestry originating primarily in Sub-Saharan Africa, where Malaria was common. It should be obvious already where I’m going with this, but that means not only is Sickle Cell Disease not something all Black persons are susceptible to, but that it isn’t exclusively Black persons who are susceptible to it. Of course, the predisposition is higher within the Black population, but that’s solely due to the demographic breakdown of the regions where Malaria was most common. It is Genetic, in that it is based on Ancestry, but it is irrespective of Race.
Similar misapprehensions have people believing that Tay-Sachs Disease is something exclusive to Jewish people; however, that is untrue on several fronts.

Originally linked to the Ashkenazi Jewish people of Europe, we know that it is far from exclusive to individuals with that Ancestry. French Canadians, some Amish communities, and Cajuns are also highly susceptible to Tay-Sachs, because it (and other Genetic Diseases) are tied to insular communities with a higher than average historical incidence rate of what geneticists refer to as the Founder Effect, wherein the gene pool is limited and certain forms of Genetic Drift are likely to take place.

Thus, this could arise in any sufficiently isolated population with cultural or environmental factors promoting insularity and lack of interbreeding with other populations. This is why Tay-Sachs is not common in Middle Eastern Jewish populations.

Again, this displays that Race is not a factor, but Ancestry is.

If we want to pretend that Race is a Scientific and Biological categorization, then we’re just as well off breaking the population down by those who can roll their tongues. Or maybe we can draw the line at those who believe cilantro tastes like soap, for all the relevance it has. The amount of Melanin Production only serves as a conveniently visible form of differentiation, no more valuable than eye color, hair color, height, left or right-handedness, or any of the other things we could arbitrarily apply value assessments to.

These things are in no way indicative of any reasonable or useful separation, and I hope the premise helps to showcase how ridiculous and meaningless it is to separate people into groupings based on the things we do utilize.

As it stands, we already do enough segregating based on geographical or national origin, religious beliefs, economic status, and so on. We should focus less on what makes us different than on what we have in common. We should embrace the differences in the same way we embrace the diverse landscapes and ecosystems around the world.

The Nazi Narratives Helping Conservatives Sleep At Night

Conservatives sure do have a knack for claiming (accurate) accusations of Nazi parallels in their policies are hyperbolic while distorting historical facts to make (flimsy) accusations of Nazi comparisons with their opponents. What’s truly impressive is that they also do an excellent job of turning an aggressively blind eye to blatant Nazi corollaries.

The Weimar Republic, before 1933, was exceptionally progressive in many ways, even by today’s standards. Germany had been a global example of what we would consider LGBTQ+ inclusion. It was where, in the 1920s, the first Transgender magazine was published, and where some of the world’s first medical transitions were performed. These, and other factors, led to Berlin becoming a beacon for the global LGBTQ+ community.

All of that changed as Nazi control spread and ultimately dominated the political realm in Germany. Suddenly, Transgender women’s gender identities were denied, and they were treated as men acting out some perverse impulse or displaying some manner of mental illness. Additionally, homosexuality was treated as a crime, and the punishments were frequently more severe for those who engaged in what was categorized (at the time) as transvestitism.

While there were distinct differences in how Gay and Transgender people of persecuted ethnic/cultural groups were treated when compared to Gay and Transgender Aryans, there remained an overarching atmosphere of suppression and repression throughout the regions where the Nazis assumed control. Gay men and Transgender women were met with bigotry, intolerance, and hostility (regardless of Aryan status). But those who fit the narrow, White Nationalist aesthetic were often afforded certain leeway, as long as they kept their indiscretions quiet and hidden.

This, of course, did not mean that they were safe. There was ample State-Sanctioned hostility and violence directed toward those marginalized groups, and in particular, those who remained open about who they were by engaging in relationships or gathering in public. And, while Aryan Gays and Transgender people weren’t immediately sent to Concentration Camps, the imprisonment they experienced was far from humane, and the legal rights they were afforded often seemed more performative and conditional than legitimate.

The Nazi State’s assessment of Transgender individuals was neatly summed up in 1938 with the following sentiment: “Their asocial mindset, which is often paired with criminal activity, justifies draconian measures by the state.”

This was a massive departure from the previous German Government, which had allowed Transgender people to legally change their names, form their own organizations, and even receive gender-affirming medical treatments. Those changes came quickly. In 1933, Officials in Hamburg passed along the following dictate: “Police officials are requested to observe the transvestites, in particular, and as required to send them to concentration camps.”

Magnus Hirschfeld’s Institute for Sexual Science was quickly dismantled, and Hirschfeld himself was sent into hiding. And that was emblematic of those times for anyone who was part of what we recognize as being LGBTQ+ today. They were forced to hide who they were or face State-Sanctioned persecution.

Naturally, now that an ostensibly Transgender person perpetrated a school shooting, there’s talk at the highest levels of American Government of restricting access to firearms for individuals who don’t identify as the gender they were assigned at birth. Never mind that the vast majority of these crimes are committed by straight, white, cisgender males.

Of course, any time Democrats seriously propose firearm legislation (which never involves disarming gun owners), disingenuous Conservatives start claiming any efforts tangentially related to gun control are evidence that “The Left” is behaving like Nazis, who they insist had disarmed the German population before taking over. But as is true every time we hear Conservatives talking about the past, their arguments are ahistorical at best.

They’re right in saying that the Nazi Party implemented rigid gun control measures, but where they’re entirely incorrect is that the gun control was selective and that there were established regulations already in place.

Following WWI, the Weimar Republic had originally attempted to ban firearms altogether, in large part to comply with the Treaty of Versailles. But that legislation had been both massively unpopular and poorly enforced, and those restrictions had been relaxed by 1928, when permitting and registration took the place of the attempted ban.

But by 1935, the Nazis had largely succeeded in using those registration records in an effort to remove from (and restrict firearms for) Jewish people and members of opposing political parties. Of course, this only included the guns that had been registered, and there were many (purchased both before and since WWI) that had never been. Regardless of this, even if every citizen in Germany had been a proud gun owner, there would have been no chance of standing up against the might of the State by the time the Nazis seized control.

By 1938, the Nazi Party relaxed or outright removed firearms restrictions for Party Members, Government Workers, and those with Hunting Permits. Of course, all of those people had one thing in common, in that they were not the kinds of people the Nazis were targeting. In fact, they went so far as to outlaw the ownership of any weapons by Jewish people (and not just firearms). They were already systematically raiding the homes and businesses of Jews and Political Opponents, confiscating weapons from those people.

The Nazis utilized existing firearm registration records in Hungary, Poland, and France as a means of strategically confiscating guns from undesirables as they advanced into those nations as well.

It should perhaps come as no surprise that the Nazi Party wasn’t particularly fond of homeless people. Like Gay and Transgender individuals, homeless people were branded as “asocial,” and were afforded the same lack of liberty as others branded as such. The Nazi solution to homelessness went into effect almost immediately, and in 1933, the mass arrests started. This process was accelerated as the 1936 Berlin Olympics approached, because the Nazis wanted to present a clean facade for the visitors from other nations.

Soon enough, it wasn’t just homeless people, but anyone unemployed or begging, prostitutes, as well as drug addicts. Anyone deemed to be unsavory in the public eye was summarily rounded up. Persecution, sterilization, and one-way trips to Concentration Camps awaited anyone unfortunate enough to fall outside of the strict social norms imposed by the Nazi Party.

To maintain that social order, armed and uniformed political and military forces patrolled the streets wherever the Nazis were in control, not only in the territory taken through conflict, but in the cities of Germany as well. These police actions served to intimidate the population, suppress political opposition, and all but eradicate civil unrest of any kind. I suspect it’s unsurprising that Party Leadership was thrilled to proclaim the low crime rates they’d achieved.

It took until 1935 for the Nuremberg Laws to go into effect, at which point all Jewish and Roma people were stripped of their German citizenship. Before Kristallnacht, the Nazis focused on the forced deportation of Jewish people, but by 1941, those avenues of escape were officially blocked. The Roma people were classified as enemies of the State and treated as criminals as soon as the Nuremberg Laws went into effect.

If this doesn’t sound familiar to you, then you haven’t been paying attention. And if it sounds familiar, and you agree with any of it, maybe you should just accept that you might have been a Nazi as well. My recommendation is that you own it. Wear that title proudly, because they certainly did. Plus, as a bonus, it will make it easier to round you up when the next iteration of the Nuremberg Trials comes about.

You may notice that, aside from some pretty awful policies the Liberals have employed regarding homeless people, and the abhorrent treatment of Indigenous people, none of these things run parallel to any Liberal Administration within our lifetimes. I suppose it makes sense that members of the KKK and NeoNazi groups have been showing up at rallies for Conservative Candidates, because they’re not thrown out of those gatherings.

Transgender Transference…and Why You Should Know Better

Several aspects of the anti-trans stance are deeply upsetting and demonstrably harmful, while being based on a misunderstanding of biology, psychology, and sociology. I take exception with many of them, but perhaps what bothers me most in anti-trans arguments is when people bring up the fear of predatory men taking advantage of transgender access to their gender-appropriate restrooms. What they’re talking about in these scenarios isn’t even a transgender issue.

None of what they’re expressing a fear of is at all the responsibility of the transgender people in question. The people they’re talking about are predatory men taking advantage of social and legal systems to prey on the vulnerable. How do the people expressing these fears not recognize that they’re not describing a fear of trans-feminine people, but of cis-male rapists? It’s a poorly constructed argument in the first place, but it becomes even more so when we take a moment to think about what’s actually being protested.

But for a moment, let’s take the argument at face value and pretend that it is transgender people who are the basis for this fear. We’re going to make believe that they’re describing actual transgender people, because I would love to know why they aren’t equally vocal about protesting several other things that are certainly more common.

Do these same people want to bar individuals from becoming clergy, or to keep their children from attending church services, because there are so many documented members of the clergy who similarly take advantage of the social and legal structures in place to prey on vulnerable people? It’s a well-documented problem in the Catholic Church, where billions of dollars have been paid out in settlements to thousands of victims, in America alone. They might respond by telling us that they’re not Catholic, so it’s not relevant to them. Well, there were hundreds of Southern Baptist clergy, church leaders, and volunteers who faced accusations of sexual misconduct in just the last few decades. Tens of millions of dollars have been paid out to victims of sexual abuse within the Lutheran Church as well. Tens of thousands of victims all around the globe have come forward within the Jehovah’s Witnesses as well, though most get ignored within the church because of the “Two Witness Rule” in place. The same is true for essentially every other religious organization in the world. Yet I don’t hear the same vocal anti-clergy arguments to protect children who might venture into a church. Even as the Department of Justice insists that Priests can’t be compelled to violate the sanctity of confession to report people who are abusing children, there’s no swell of populist cries of injustice.

Where are the people demanding that no one be allowed to become a Scout Master? All the way back in 1994, nearly 2,000 child molesters were documented within the Boy Scouts. These were retrieved from files maintained by the organization itself. Why are these individuals who have used that organization’s hierarchy to prey on children not considered a threat? Is it perhaps because these are all boys who are being molested? If that’s the case, I sincerely question the morality of anyone taking that stance. But, that’s okay, there are documented instances of Girl Scouts being sexually assaulted as well.

What about all of the documented instances of law enforcement being caught up in child pornography and sexual assault cases? Where’s the outrage concerning those predators? There’s a fairly horrific study from 2022, delving into 669 cases of police sexual violence. Of course, being that it’s law enforcement perpetrating these crimes, it’s unlikely that we’ll ever have a suitable estimate of just how frequent those infractions are. Where are the demands that people be barred from pursuing careers in law enforcement because some people have taken advantage of those positions of authority?

According to the National Institutes of Health, transgender people are no more likely than the general population to commit acts of sexual violence; they may actually be less likely to do so. However, they are more likely than cisgender people to be VICTIMS of sexual assault.

So, if any of this is about protecting children, there should be far more coherent arguments leveled against those aforementioned occupational transgressions than against transgender people. Being allowed to live their lives and exist in the spaces that are comfortable and appropriate for them isn’t hurting anyone, and there has never been a shred of evidence that it has. But, again, the men sneaking into women’s restrooms aren’t transgender in the first place. They’re, as usual, cis-male predators who are exploiting whatever structures they can to prey on those they choose to prey on.

By that standard, should we be persecuting police because a man dressed as a police officer committed political assassinations in Minnesota just a short while ago? It’s precisely the same logic, and just as flawed.

But, assuming the worst, let’s say that transfeminine predators are hoping to use public restrooms as hunting grounds. They are a small fraction of a percentage of an already small percentage of the population. Even the most liberal estimates indicate a maximum of about 1% of the U.S. population identifies as transgender, and not all of them are transfemme. So, we’d be looking at a fraction of a single percent of the U.S. population that identifies as transfeminine, and then a fraction of that fraction that might also be inclined to perform acts of sexual violence. Statistically, you’re far more likely to have a cis-female predator in the same restroom.

Seriously, all one needs to do is think for a second before they let their biases and prejudices make them sound like more of a fool than they already do. Transgender men and women are not inherently predatory, violent, or perverse. We need to stop marginalizing them further.

Eating the Rich…and Other Survival Strategies

It should come as no surprise that a rallying cry with its origins in the French Revolution is seeing a resurgence in modern-day America. “When the poor have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich,” often attributed to Jean-Jacques Rousseau of Geneva, retains a certain resonance today thanks to parallels in the social conditions present in pre-revolutionary France. Much of what we consider modern political and economic thought derives from Rousseau and his Age of Enlightenment contemporaries. Income and Social Inequality aren’t unfamiliar to us today.

Almost all of us, whether we recognize it (or choose to acknowledge it) or not, live in a state of perpetual, low-grade fear. We know–at least deep inside–that everything we have can be taken from us. That we can lose everything, including the false sense of security we shelter ourselves with in our day-to-day lives, is something few of us can afford to ignore. And no, I’m not talking about a natural disaster, a freak accident, or a random act of violence. This isn’t one of those things about which we go through every day thinking, “It can’t happen to me,” while being mostly correct in our assumption.

I’m talking about a layoff, an extended or severe illness, a kidnapping (because it isn’t deportation when you’re an American citizen), or an arrest by a federal agency with no respect for your rights or the concept of Due Process. That last one becomes an even greater fear if you happen to be part of one or more marginalized/vulnerable groups. And the root causes for those fears are only becoming worse and more pronounced.

I’m tempted to argue that the biggest problem is that there’s a whole class of people who have forgotten what it is to be afraid. Over the centuries, they’ve forgotten the lessons of the French and Bolshevik Revolutions. They’ve spent so long believing they’re untouchable that they don’t recognize they’re only untouchable because of a shared reality (and morality) among the rest of us, thinking that they are. We believe the lie, and they perpetuate it.

This isn’t a Republican or Democrat thing, nor is it really a wealthy or poor issue, though wealth is one of the components that enables certain people to begin feeling as if they’re untouchable.

It is possible to be ethical and to accumulate wealth. That’s one thing most of us sincerely agree on, and an issue I have with a small minority of people on the fringes of the left. The assumption that wealth equals predation, cruelty, and exploitation is erroneous. Certain people hear the phrase “eat the rich,” and assume it applies to anyone with wealth above a certain quantity, but that’s not the case.

Professional athletes (by and large) don’t accumulate their wealth through unethical means. They dedicate their lives to the pursuit of goals, often placing themselves at significant risk of injury in the process. For the small minority who can find success in that arena, they can hardly be considered predatory or exploitative in achieving it. Whether we agree that they deserve what they earn for these pursuits is irrelevant. If people are willing to pay to see them display their athletic prowess, then that’s not our place to condemn it.

Musicians, filmmakers, and actors/performers who have managed to overcome the predatory behavior of record labels, film/TV/streaming studios, producers, and large venues to accumulate wealth haven’t done so through any unethical means. They, like all of us, may behave unethically in their personal lives, but their success is not derived from that questionable behavior.

Successful medical specialists, surgeons, and research scientists may accumulate wealth without ever displaying any unethical behavior. It’s not greedy doctors who are increasing the costs of medical care in the United States. Those rising costs can be laid almost squarely on the shoulders of insurance providers who receive as much as 70% of their profit through government subsidies, while raising the operating costs of hospitals by requiring additional layers of bureaucracy for submitting claims and fighting the denial of them.

People have started successful and thriving businesses that provide value or fill a need, while still taking care of their employees and without benefiting from child labor, overseas slave labor, exploitative practices, or price gouging. Some of those business owners manage to become wealthy in the process, depending on how you define “wealthy.”

People can (and do) make wise investments with the finances they have access to, and are consciously involved in where their money is going. Several of these individuals are careful to avoid supporting unethical corporations or ventures, and some of them manage to become wealthy along the way as well.

There is even a small minority of wealthy authors and artists out there in the world, many of whom haven’t behaved in any way that could be considered unethical. I may not be one of them, but they most certainly exist. What they do with the money they’ve earned can certainly be unethical and cruel, but there’s nothing inherently unethical in how they’ve obtained their wealth. Unless they’re stealing from others in the process, whether through direct theft or through the consumption derived from Generative AI, they are simply creating things that other people find beautiful or otherwise worthwhile.

So, it’s wrong to simply assume that “the rich” are the enemy or that they’re somehow morally compromised because they’ve met with success. Many of those people also dedicate resources to charitable organizations, causes important to them, and improving the lives of people who haven’t experienced their good fortune. I’ve known several people who are quick to condemn anyone with wealth and success, but who have done proportionally far less to help other people than some of those wealthy individuals they malign.

This, of course, isn’t to say that people who obtained their wealth through ethical means aren’t subsequently putting that money to use in unethical ways, but it’s disingenuous and reductive to assume most people are like that. Successful people are not a monolith any more than unsuccessful people are.

I fully agree that those who accumulate their wealth through unethical means or use their wealth for unethical purposes should be held accountable. They should be treated as enemies. Simply having wealth, however, does not make someone an enemy, despite what a small number of people will tell you, and despite what fear-mongers who oppose social and economic justice will claim is meant by the people who say, “eat the rich.”

“Eat the rich” is a great slogan. But like all slogans, it’s simple and lacking in nuance. We have to trust the people reciting slogans to understand that they are not comprehensive philosophies, and we need to trust the people hearing and seeing them to comprehend that a call to action needs to be pithy, for it to catch on. The same was true with the rallying cry of “defund the police.” For most people, it wasn’t about dismantling the justice system and getting rid of police, and most people recognized that. It was about bloated police budgets, militarization of law enforcement, and a lack of accountability for those hiding behind the thin blue line.

Bringing Some Mania To the Media, Gushing With Gallows Humor

It’s no surprise to anyone who has worked in Journalism (or had loved ones who have) that people working in the Media either develop a dark sense of humor over time or have one to begin with. Gallows humor isn’t uncommon in people who experience physically or psychologically stressful and challenging situations in their line of work. It’s something that research has consistently shown to be true for Medical Professionals, First Responders, Veterans, Journalists, and others who regularly encounter difficult and unpleasant things in their line of work.

This makes perfect sense, considering the well-established connection between humor and stress reduction, as well as the impact it has on depression and irritation. Dark Humor is, for many people, a Coping Mechanism that helps to stave off depression and distress in response to traumatic experiences, and not exclusively those associated with one’s occupation. It’s been compared to “whistling past the graveyard” by some.

Several studies have been conducted on the correlation between Dark Humor and Trauma, available from organizations such as the National Institutes of Health and the American Medical Association. The overall effectiveness of this kind of outlook (as far as catharsis is concerned) is debatable, but the prevalence is undeniable.

That being said, my tendency toward Gallows Humor can run a bit darker and deeper than most. Some of that could be related to my secondary career as a horror author and a certain desensitization that goes with intentionally exploring some truly taboo and horrific topics, as well as the worst aspects of my own human nature. It could be a result of Childhood Trauma combined with my career choices. It could be something in the way I’m hardwired. I do know that my greatest enjoyment concerning jokes and comedy has always leaned in that direction, at least as far back as I can recall. My suspicion is that (at least in my case) it’s a combination of all of the above that influences my brand of humor as it stands today.

One of the ways my humor manifests in my career as a Journalist is in a fascination with both alliteration and rhyme, especially in places where it’s thoroughly inappropriate. Some of my colleagues can appreciate my perspective, and even the inherent humor behind my statements and suggestions, while others find it perplexing and in poor taste. I suspect some of the latter individuals would find themselves less shocked by my occasional outbursts and the like if they’d been working in the industry longer than they have.

When I was still working in Western South Dakota, during the late summer of 2022, there was a murder that took place at a mobile home in Box Elder, the town that is butted up against Ellsworth Air Force Base. I typed up a quick Limerick and sent it via text to my News Director so that it would be the first thing she’d see when she woke up for work that morning. I received a one-word response a short while later, “No!”

Naturally, I wasn’t sincerely going to incorporate anything like the following rhyme into my scripts for the Newscast, but that didn’t change how amusing I thought it was to imagine doing so.

There was a middle-aged man in Box Elder.
He hated a woman and felled her.
He’s under arrest.
Despite his protests.
He was caught trying to run from the trailer.

In May of this year, Oregon Governor Tina Kotek declared the month to be Wildfire Awareness Month. When we were covering the story, I suggested a poem for the reporter we were assigning to it. I don’t consider the following poem to be particularly dark, but I understand how and why it was nevertheless unacceptable in practical terms.

Top fire officials share an outlook that’s quite concerning…
Offering tips to keep Oregon’s forests from burning.
Governor Kotek signs a new declaration.
Wildfire Awareness Month is her creation.
The fire cache is stocked up with much-needed supplies.
What you can do to avoid a scorching surprise.

There are several more incidents of me attempting to insert levity where most people would insist it does not belong, and I suppose I should share a few more examples. Some of these may be a bit grim, while others (I insist) are simply funny.

It was May of 2024 when Washington’s former Attorney General, Bob Ferguson, was campaigning for Governor. A Republican activist recruited two men, also named Bob Ferguson, to campaign as Democrats as well, going so far as to pay their filing fees and handle the registration of their campaigns. Those two fraudulent campaigns were ultimately withdrawn from the race because it’s a Class B Felony to intentionally mislead or confuse the election as they were. I put the story together for my Newscast and suggested that I should use a graphic saying, “Two Bobs, One Gov.” The way I looked at it, anyone who picked up on the reference to “Two Girls, One Cup” wasn’t likely to complain about it.

In October of 2024, one of our reporters provided a multi-part explainer on how the new Ranked-Choice voting process works because Portland had implemented Ranked-Choice for the Mayoral Race. When he was delving into how tabulation of the results would be performed, I opted to tease the story with, “What to expect when you’re electing.”

That same month, there was an Officer-Involved Shooting in a Taco Bell drive-thru, and I suggested we should lighten the tone by saying the individual who was shot had been trying to make a run for the border. I wasn’t alone in making bad jokes associated with that particular incident. Things like Glock-o Bell may have been tossed around for our amusement.

In November of last year, I found a story from Alaska about a beached fin whale near Anchorage. Part of the story focused on a mother who homeschools her children, and how she used the carcass as supplemental material for biology lessons. While putting the story together for my Newscast, I added a graphic that said, “A Whale Of a Lesson,” and I’m still pretty proud of that.

In April of this year, we were discussing updates to the police investigation of a mother and her children who were found hanging in their home a couple of weeks earlier. It wasn’t a quiet environment when I muttered (thinking it was only to myself), “I’m just hanging with my family this weekend.” It was, however, quiet enough that one person did hear what I said, and their response seemed to display both appreciation and shock at what I’d just said.

There is a walking trail near where I live in Vancouver, featuring various gnome figures and fairy gardens, because several children use that path to get to school. It provided a little bit of magic as kids made their way to and from school, and the nearby community put a fair amount of time and effort into contributing to those additions to the trail. People being who they are, it’s no surprise that someone came along and started destroying the gnomes, and I proudly wrote a script that said the community intended to fight back against the “gnome wrecker.”

It wasn’t long ago that we learned of a sperm race taking place at the Hollywood Palladium in LA, complete with a tiny racetrack and high-resolution cameras monitoring the speed and motility of the sperm cells facing off head-to-head. We chattered about that on and off for a couple of hours, leading to a deeply unserious environment. One of our photographers said he could fly down to LA to shoot the event, and I asked if we could refer to that as a new form of “skeet shooting.”

From what we were seeing, the main event appeared to be a contest between sperm from a white man and a black man. I asked how long it would take for the racists to start in with accusations of “fast-twitch flagella.”

Some of these are dark, and some are inappropriate, but they’re also emblematic of what it can be like to work in the field that I do. This may go some way toward explaining my attitude at times when I’m discussing politics and other topics as well. Combined with my deeply-rooted cynicism, my tendency to find humor in things that might not be inherently humorous occasionally causes issues for me in my personal life, more often than my professional one. There’s a degree of amusement to be found in my professional environment being where some of my least professional comments are the most acceptable. But, the reality is that we understand one another there, and we understand how some of the things we expose ourselves to would wear us down far more quickly if we didn’t find a way to laugh through the pain and whistle past the graveyard.