“You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” – Rahm Emanuel
Have you heard that this virus is somehow affecting some minority communities more than others? On October 19, 2019, The New York Times published an opinion piece stating that Italian Americans are now considered white. Many other publications have touted the same claim. There are best-selling books about this subject. This virus has killed so many Italians with some of the most respected institutions in American and International Mainstream Media allowing their whites to project claims of “whiteness” towards those same Italians. How can a virus that has ended the lives of those same Italians who suffer from “whiteness” and yet it is somehow relevant to mention a racial aspect?
Just like a virus, the social justice ideology always engages in the endless game of “what about this *insert supposed oppressed group*” but just in a different way. The strategy is the same as a virus. The social justice activist must always attach social justice to as many parts of society, politics, popular culture, even animal rights, and other subjects. It is the same viral strategy that the common cold follows of spreading and then replicating itself throughout the body to as many parts as possible.
Take U.S. Congressman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s comments about reparations and COVID-19. She claimed that “COVID relief should be drafted with a lens of reparations.” These comments were made even though COVID-19 as a virus doesn’t appear to care which human host it infects. While Congressman Ocasio-Cortez is concerned about the issue of race during this period the virus appears to be concerned with infecting as many as possible without any of the socio-economic/critical race theory issues that this Congressman frequently speaks about.
American politicians are not alone in their quest to address political issues masquerading as social concerns during this crisis. While Americans and citizens of other countries are concerned about finding their next meal, keeping the lights on, and trying to take care of their families some politicians see the current state of the world as an opportunity. The reason why these politicians are using the current global pandemic to push issues is because of social manipulation reasons.
The Green New Deal and other measures Congressman Ocasio-Cortez has supported and/or generated has been met with resistance from other Democrats like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Speaker Pelosi is quoted as referring to Congressman Cortez and the “gang of four” as “just four people.” There were provisions in The Green New Deal that are similar to those found in the Coronavirus Relief Bill that was recently signed into law.
Speaker Pelosi, House, and Senate Democrats, and some Republicans haven’t allowed this crisis to go to waste with the evidence of their opportunism being spelled out in the largest stimulus bill in U.S. history. Everything from climate-change oriented regulations on airlines to the effects of racial politics in aerospace and aeronautics employment. Keep in mind that this bill’s intended and stated purpose was to provide relief for the American people and businesses. Does requiring airlines to provide employment records based on race help in recovery from the COVID-19 crisis if some of those same airlines are under legitimate threat of not existing?
There is a reason why opportunism is rooted in today’s politics. Historical precedents can be observed by the studious in the halls of Congress and Senate in any state or Washington.
For the most part, there is a consistent pattern that emerges. Step one, one must wait for a national event, disaster, tragedy or social uprising to attach to. Step two, attach something in legislation that won’t solve the problem but will help with one’s political causes and monetary funding. Finally, step three involves pretending like steps one and two never occurred and this time when the political asks for more power or taxation it’ll be different. There may even be promises of massive oversight on large spending bills such as the recent Coronavirus Relief Bill signed by President Trump. Several lawmakers in D.C. are swearing to provide oversight when all the massive pork-barrel spending is already in the bill. It’s like suggesting that one is going to keep a watchful eye on bank robbers while dressed as the Hamburgler.
To better explain this let’s conduct a thought experiment through a series of questions:
- If someone were to launch a missile through your front window would you consider that an act of war?
- Do you support U.S. Intelligence Agencies knowing the contents of your phone conversations and emails?
- Did you support gun control in areas that push for bans or modifications of so-called “assault weapons” or firearms in general?
- Do you think that, as an owner of a business, you should be able to not provide services to anyone without having to explain your reasons since it is your business?
- Have you ever been harassed by airport security in personal body searches that you don’t find to be necessary? Do you know anyone who has received this treatment?
- Do you support foreign interventionism? Do you think the U.S. should be militarily involved with so many nations? In light of recent events, should so many U.S. forces have been stationed across the world?
If you said no to all or most of those questions then consider the fact that through manipulation by the public via the Mainstream Media and politicians all of these things were accomplished. The War On Terror was the precursor for highly controversial and widespread mass surveillance legislation like The Patriot Act. Despite all the controversy, violations of the U.S. Constitution and Civil Liberties, and Law Enforcement Overreach, these programs were still put into place. How could this have happened? Were voters unaware of what was happening and yet voted some of the same U.S. Lawmakers into office? Did the average American voter elect to subject themselves to what some would describe as a system of lawlessness predicated on fear?
The short is yes.
Many people were upset over the conflict between the United States and North Korea due to concerns over nuclear war. In the Nicolas Cage movie “Lord of War” there is an exchange between two characters. Cage plays the role of Yuri Orlov who is an illegal arms dealer. The agent pursuing Orlov said something true. The agent said, “No, nine out of ten war victims today are killed with assault rifles and small arms – like yours. Those nuclear weapons sit in their silos. Your AK-47, that’s the real weapon of mass destruction.” The U.S. armed the Mujahidin who transformed into what we know today as the Taliban. Many innocent people were killed during U.S. drone strikes and these strikes were frequent under the Obama Administration. Many have calculated that President Obama could spend 3 years apologizing to every family of a drone strike victim and still couldn’t apologize to everyone.
The American public can’t justify a nuclear strike but can tolerate a lot more people being killed in other ways through arming various violent groups, Middle-Eastern conflicts and/or unmanned aerial strikes that result in the deaths of innocent people. These actions were all justified as a result of the War On Terror and the event of September 11, 2001. Fear, hysteria and a public mandate for action are what gave this terrible power to politicians, political and social actors, large corporations both U.S. National and Multi-National, and other governments. What was justified was a revolving door of death.
The Mainstream Media assisted in spreading hysteria. During the beginning of the War On Terror, people would be routinely referred to as “unpatriotic” or “didn’t support the troops” whenever that person would question the war efforts. Right now, if someone were to question the stay-at-home orders issued in the U.S. and abroad that person is treated as a heretic by the general public who was indirectly informed to do that by the Mainstream Media. Instead of all elements of the media encouraging citizens to question everything and never accept official narratives without proof the Mainstream Media has often elected to aid the spread of mass hysteria. The reason this is done is pretty simple and that is “if it bleeds, it leads.“
Why would the media want a violent episode in response to a police shooting of an unarmed suspect? Why would the media want people to freak out and buy all the toilet paper from their local grocery stores? Why doesn’t the media want people to calm down during this COVID-19 situation? People who are freaked out, panicking and have a high propensity to riot makes for good news coverage. During this time, many media organizations are laying off journalists and overall television news media ratings have dropped year over year for the past 15 years.
Yuri Orlov from the Lord of War needed conflict to sell guns just as the Mainstream Media needs conflict and chaos to produce ratings. This is where we get the concept of “if it bleeds, it leads.” The reference is to someone bleeding and thus that means that a major story is incoming. Mainstream Media doesn’t get ratings without chaos. So, maybe if you’re the media you report mass shortages in grocery stores in all areas even if only a few may be affected. This drives up panic-buying and thus a shortage is created where one didn’t exist before. It would pay dividends to make anyone who defies a stay-at-home order or questions Federal or State level responses to the virus look as unhinged and monstrous as possible. This promotes violence, mass criticism or the reporting of citizens to authorities by other citizens (some would call it tattle-telling) and in return, the Mainstream Media gets news stories that were generated through the news and not organically.
Just like with social justice, legislation has been passed that would almost exclusively violate the Bill of Rights and/or U.S. Constitution. Legislation that was drafted during a time of crisis or mass hysteria can and often has become permanent legislation. Take the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), J. Edgar Hoover, and the “Red Scare.” This three-way combination reference point in history will serve as an example of how the government can perpetuate fears among the public, offer a solution to the government-created problem and then conduct a power-grab with the general public justifying such actions.
The FBI was created in 1908 and was intended to be a Federal Agency that investigated Federal Crimes. However, like any government agency, those founding intentions were not followed. In 1917, the U.S. Justice Department hired J. Edgar Hoover as a lawyer became the assistant to then-U.S. Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer. After being hired, Hoover pursued people who were guilty of a multitude of federal offenses but those offenses were usually political. Hoover was behind many of the raids although his actions were at AG Palmer’s discretion and, sometimes, by order. Most of these raids were conducted on people suspected of being communists as during this point in time in America’s history moral panic and mass hysteria were revolving around an event known as, “The Red Scare.”
In short, imagine being accused of being a witch during the Salem Witch Trials but replace witches with communism. That is the Red Scare in a nutshell.
See how things have escalated? The FBI was originally intended to aid the Federal Government in investigating Federal Crimes. But a political activist who had a social ax to grind with an opposing political ideology took what was intended to be a law enforcement agency and forced that agency into the political realm. There was mass surveillance, arrests for political disagreements (being a communist), federal charges with arrests, lack of due process and the quashing of several elements of the Civil Rights Movement. Hoover was even known to have had spies planted in Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s rallies. There are entire books written about these events.
Once Hoover justified spying on Dr. King and others he considered as “radical” that provided a precedent. That’s the problem with these sorts of situations where powers are granted, legislation is passed and angles are taken. Once a precedent is set it justifies future actions. The Daily Counter published an article about Pastor Howard-Browne in Florida who was arrested for violating quarantine-related legislation in the State of Florida. While some people may say that the pastor should’ve engaged in better social-distancing the simple fact is that this pastor was arrested. In the future, if another pastor is arrested during a National State of Emergency that isn’t pandemic-related the justification that future pastor or clergyman’s arrest is the fact that during another State of Emergency a clergyman was arrested for essentially having religious services. One must look past the immediate and easy to render a judgment of actions and reactions. More attention should be paid to the question, “what have I just justified?” Remember that authoritarians would rather have citizens justify their subjugation.
An entire Federal Agency’s creation was justified, its powers misused, citizens were abused, and that same agency now has the full power of The Patriot Act. One could make the argument that this agency’s birth goal may have been rooted in the best of intentions but granting such power to any government-controlled agency is dangerous.
This author wrote about the violations of the 2nd Amendment during the COVID-19 crisis in South Carolina and the other U.S. States. Columbia, South Carolina Mayor Steve Benjamin pushed for unconstitutional gun control in 2019. This didn’t sit well South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson. A national tragedy was required for Columbia City Council and Mayor Benjamin to get more gun control restrictions. In January 2020, there was no State of Emergency Declaration from President Trump. However, the Columbia City Council passed legislation that stated that in the event of a curfew the City of Columbia could limit the sale of firearms, could limit fire possession outside of one’s property and other restrictions. The Columbia City Council passed a stay-at-home order while at the same time already sitting upon legislation that already had gun control written into it which AG Wilson already noticed.
Mayor Benjamin and the Columbia City Council could engage in a lie-by-omission by claiming that there are no gun control restrictions in the stay-at-home order but not necessarily reveal to the citizens of Columbia that gun control legislation was already present in previous legislation. It’s almost as if Mayor Benjamin and the Columbia City Council suspected more stringent restrictions being placed on citizens and such an environment presents the perfect opportunity to covertly pursue legislation. The average citizen is probably more concerned with locating essential supplies, figuring out finances, child care, and other issues and not concerned with reading local legislation. Most probably wouldn’t be concerned with local legislation with or without a tragedy as many Americans vote in national elections but not local elections.
“There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” – James Madison
The part where someone may be concerned is not the fact that many aren’t paying attention to local legislation but the fact that local politicians know that people aren’t paying attention. Fear is a powerful presence and a powerful tool. Citizens look to their elected officials for leadership during a time of crisis. Sometimes, violations of the law are often ignored for the sake of safety and security. No legislation requires a direct or honest approach.
As James Madison said, encroachments on freedoms are gradual. The reason for this is because in countries like the U.S. there are intentional divisions of powers, legislative and judicial roadblocks set in place, U.S. Constitution, individual State Constitutions, and the Bill of Rights. The U.S. Constitution is a living document in that it can transmogrify to whatever the current times call for. Even if a president, senator, congressman, governor or some other elected official wanted to become a dictator the U.S. Constitution must be followed thus preventing such a dictatorship from ever taking place. A person who wants more power cannot simply perform a power-grab through legislation. The process of completing legislation in the U.S. is deliberately slow. Therefore, if there is a going to be a lack of speed to legislation then there is no use in holding back pork-barrel provisions, injecting useless items that won’t address the point of any legislation and essentially tricking the masses by providing texts the size of ancient tomes in the hopes no one has the time to read it all.
Anyone who needs an example of this can look to the Affordable Care Act. Under the Obama Administration, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spoke about the Affordable Care Act. During the legislative process, Speaker Pelosi said, “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” That came as a shock to many people. Speaker Pelosi provided a statement that did provide more context but the messaging and the word choices she used gave the same conclusions to many who had doubts about the Affordable Care Act. Why would a House Speaker have a bill with so many pages that it is almost more enticing to just vote for the bill versus dedicating hours, weeks, or even months to read all of the text? The reason for this can be compared to how U.S. Family Courts operate.
There is a strategy in Family Court known as the Silver Bullet. This strategy employs the tactic of bombarding an opposing side in court with a multitude of accusations that many times wouldn’t pass any standard in a Criminal Court. Family Courts often have 15-minute hearings where a Family Court Judge has to decide if an accusation has merit or not. The idea here is to load a bunch of accusations in the hopes that something sticks. That’s the same strategy that has and currently is being used by politicians. Just like the Silver Bullet strategy in Family Court, there is a limited time to pass legislation during a State of Emergency. The citizens will often demand action from politicians who are all too happy to provide answers that often don’t address the issues about an emergency. Since there is a mandate for swift action just like a 15-minute Family Court hearing, actions are taken but often those actions can have disastrous consequences.
In conclusion, pay attention to what a politician or leader (even self-imposed leaders) are selling during a crisis or emergency. The keyword here is selling. Solutions offered during a tragedy, fear, sense of loss, emptiness, financial difficulty and other situations in life are what cult leaders thrive on in terms of gaining new members. It is easy to prey upon the afraid and the anxious. A member of a cult should reconsider their life’s choices and what they’ll justify alleviating fears. The same is true of an American voter.