Search
1000 results for “interpeer”
-
La proxémie ou le code des distances.
"La psychologie sociale des distances interpersonnelles humaines a été faite par Edward T. Hall en 1966 et exposée dans son livre La dimension cachée. "
#anthropologie #proxémie #mediationnumerique #médiationsociale
-
Nach Beschwerde von FragDenStaat entschied die Bürgerbeauftragte Emily O’Reilly, dass EU-Institutionen interpersonelle digitale Kommunikation verakten müssen.
Informationsfreiheit: EU-Behörden müssen SMS und Direktnachrichten herausrücken -
Gödel’s logic and Buddhism
Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems demonstrate that any sufficiently powerful formal system contains truths that cannot be proven from within the system, implying that complete understanding requires a perspective outside the system.
In philosophical and theological interpretations, this limitation is often mapped to the distinction between immanent knowledge (within the system) and transcendent awareness (outside the system).
1. The Structural Limitation
- Internal Incompleteness: Gödel proved that a system cannot prove its own consistency or grasp all its own truths; there are always statements that are true but unprovable within the system’s axioms.
- The “Outside” Perspective: To comprehend the complete picture or verify the system’s consistency, one must step outside the logical framework, accessing a higher order of intelligibility or a “super axiom.”
2. Application to Buddhist Epistemology
- Samsara vs. Nibbāna: In this analogy, the “system” represents Samsara (the cycle of existence and conventional logic), while the “outside” represents Nibbāna (the unconditioned state).
- Transcendent Awareness: A being within the system (a sentient being) cannot cognize the ultimate truth of the system from within. Only by transcending the system—achieving Arahanthood or Buddhahood—can one “see things as they are” from the outside.
- Greater vs. Lesser: Consequently, the “lesser” cognition (bound by internal logical limits and dualistic perception) cannot fully comprehend the “greater” transcendent awareness (which encompasses the total system from a non-dual, external vantage point).
3. Philosophical Implications
- Limits of Human Reason: This aligns with the view that human reason and formal logic are inherently limited and cannot grasp ultimate reality without intuitive or transcendent insight.
- God and the Super Axiom: Similarly, in theological interpretations, Gödel’s work suggests the existence of a higher intelligence (God) or “super axiom” that exists outside the created system, sustaining it from a position of complete knowledge that finite beings cannot access internally.
Thus, Gödel’s logic provides a formal mathematical basis for the idea that ultimate truth is inaccessible to the system itself, requiring a transcendent standpoint for full comprehension.
__________
I would add that FIML practice allows us to step outside of the psycholinguistic system we use to communicate with our partner, and others. There is some chance FIML partners could become lost in a folie à deux, or shared psychosis, but odds of this are very low, imo, especially if partners frequently refer to philosophies, thoughts, ideas, and evidence outside of their world as a couple. FIML provides a kind of parallax for both partners psycholinguistic systems as well as the two systems working together as one. FIML cannot completely solve the inherent ambiguousness of interpersonal communication but it can improve our understanding (or resolution1) of our communications by at least one order of magnitude, or more. ABN
- the process or capability of making distinguishable the individual parts of an object ↩︎
-
Gödel’s logic and Buddhism
Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems demonstrate that any sufficiently powerful formal system contains truths that cannot be proven from within the system, implying that complete understanding requires a perspective outside the system.
In philosophical and theological interpretations, this limitation is often mapped to the distinction between immanent knowledge (within the system) and transcendent awareness (outside the system).
1. The Structural Limitation
- Internal Incompleteness: Gödel proved that a system cannot prove its own consistency or grasp all its own truths; there are always statements that are true but unprovable within the system’s axioms.
- The “Outside” Perspective: To comprehend the complete picture or verify the system’s consistency, one must step outside the logical framework, accessing a higher order of intelligibility or a “super axiom.”
2. Application to Buddhist Epistemology
- Samsara vs. Nibbāna: In this analogy, the “system” represents Samsara (the cycle of existence and conventional logic), while the “outside” represents Nibbāna (the unconditioned state).
- Transcendent Awareness: A being within the system (a sentient being) cannot cognize the ultimate truth of the system from within. Only by transcending the system—achieving Arahanthood or Buddhahood—can one “see things as they are” from the outside.
- Greater vs. Lesser: Consequently, the “lesser” cognition (bound by internal logical limits and dualistic perception) cannot fully comprehend the “greater” transcendent awareness (which encompasses the total system from a non-dual, external vantage point).
3. Philosophical Implications
- Limits of Human Reason: This aligns with the view that human reason and formal logic are inherently limited and cannot grasp ultimate reality without intuitive or transcendent insight.
- God and the Super Axiom: Similarly, in theological interpretations, Gödel’s work suggests the existence of a higher intelligence (God) or “super axiom” that exists outside the created system, sustaining it from a position of complete knowledge that finite beings cannot access internally.
Thus, Gödel’s logic provides a formal mathematical basis for the idea that ultimate truth is inaccessible to the system itself, requiring a transcendent standpoint for full comprehension.
__________
I would add that FIML practice allows us to step outside of the psycholinguistic system we use to communicate with our partner, and others. There is some chance FIML partners could become lost in a folie à deux, or shared psychosis, but odds of this are very low, imo, especially if partners frequently refer to philosophies, thoughts, ideas, and evidence outside of their world as a couple. FIML provides a kind of parallax for both partners psycholinguistic systems as well as the two systems working together as one. FIML cannot completely solve the inherent ambiguousness of interpersonal communication but it can improve our understanding (or resolution1) of our communications by at least one order of magnitude, or more. ABN
- the process or capability of making distinguishable the individual parts of an object ↩︎
-
Gödel’s logic and Buddhism
Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems demonstrate that any sufficiently powerful formal system contains truths that cannot be proven from within the system, implying that complete understanding requires a perspective outside the system.
In philosophical and theological interpretations, this limitation is often mapped to the distinction between immanent knowledge (within the system) and transcendent awareness (outside the system).
1. The Structural Limitation
- Internal Incompleteness: Gödel proved that a system cannot prove its own consistency or grasp all its own truths; there are always statements that are true but unprovable within the system’s axioms.
- The “Outside” Perspective: To comprehend the complete picture or verify the system’s consistency, one must step outside the logical framework, accessing a higher order of intelligibility or a “super axiom.”
2. Application to Buddhist Epistemology
- Samsara vs. Nibbāna: In this analogy, the “system” represents Samsara (the cycle of existence and conventional logic), while the “outside” represents Nibbāna (the unconditioned state).
- Transcendent Awareness: A being within the system (a sentient being) cannot cognize the ultimate truth of the system from within. Only by transcending the system—achieving Arahanthood or Buddhahood—can one “see things as they are” from the outside.
- Greater vs. Lesser: Consequently, the “lesser” cognition (bound by internal logical limits and dualistic perception) cannot fully comprehend the “greater” transcendent awareness (which encompasses the total system from a non-dual, external vantage point).
3. Philosophical Implications
- Limits of Human Reason: This aligns with the view that human reason and formal logic are inherently limited and cannot grasp ultimate reality without intuitive or transcendent insight.
- God and the Super Axiom: Similarly, in theological interpretations, Gödel’s work suggests the existence of a higher intelligence (God) or “super axiom” that exists outside the created system, sustaining it from a position of complete knowledge that finite beings cannot access internally.
Thus, Gödel’s logic provides a formal mathematical basis for the idea that ultimate truth is inaccessible to the system itself, requiring a transcendent standpoint for full comprehension.
__________
I would add that FIML practice allows us to step outside of the psycholinguistic system we use to communicate with our partner, and others. There is some chance FIML partners could become lost in a folie à deux, or shared psychosis, but odds of this are very low, imo, especially if partners frequently refer to philosophies, thoughts, ideas, and evidence outside of their world as a couple. FIML provides a kind of parallax for both partners psycholinguistic systems as well as the two systems working together as one. FIML cannot completely solve the inherent ambiguousness of interpersonal communication but it can improve our understanding (or resolution1) of our communications by at least one order of magnitude, or more. ABN
- the process or capability of making distinguishable the individual parts of an object ↩︎
-
Gödel’s logic and Buddhism
Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems demonstrate that any sufficiently powerful formal system contains truths that cannot be proven from within the system, implying that complete understanding requires a perspective outside the system.
In philosophical and theological interpretations, this limitation is often mapped to the distinction between immanent knowledge (within the system) and transcendent awareness (outside the system).
1. The Structural Limitation
- Internal Incompleteness: Gödel proved that a system cannot prove its own consistency or grasp all its own truths; there are always statements that are true but unprovable within the system’s axioms.
- The “Outside” Perspective: To comprehend the complete picture or verify the system’s consistency, one must step outside the logical framework, accessing a higher order of intelligibility or a “super axiom.”
2. Application to Buddhist Epistemology
- Samsara vs. Nibbāna: In this analogy, the “system” represents Samsara (the cycle of existence and conventional logic), while the “outside” represents Nibbāna (the unconditioned state).
- Transcendent Awareness: A being within the system (a sentient being) cannot cognize the ultimate truth of the system from within. Only by transcending the system—achieving Arahanthood or Buddhahood—can one “see things as they are” from the outside.
- Greater vs. Lesser: Consequently, the “lesser” cognition (bound by internal logical limits and dualistic perception) cannot fully comprehend the “greater” transcendent awareness (which encompasses the total system from a non-dual, external vantage point).
3. Philosophical Implications
- Limits of Human Reason: This aligns with the view that human reason and formal logic are inherently limited and cannot grasp ultimate reality without intuitive or transcendent insight.
- God and the Super Axiom: Similarly, in theological interpretations, Gödel’s work suggests the existence of a higher intelligence (God) or “super axiom” that exists outside the created system, sustaining it from a position of complete knowledge that finite beings cannot access internally.
Thus, Gödel’s logic provides a formal mathematical basis for the idea that ultimate truth is inaccessible to the system itself, requiring a transcendent standpoint for full comprehension.
__________
I would add that FIML practice allows us to step outside of the psycholinguistic system we use to communicate with our partner, and others. There is some chance FIML partners could become lost in a folie à deux, or shared psychosis, but odds of this are very low, imo, especially if partners frequently refer to philosophies, thoughts, ideas, and evidence outside of their world as a couple. FIML provides a kind of parallax for both partners psycholinguistic systems as well as the two systems working together as one. FIML cannot completely solve the inherent ambiguousness of interpersonal communication but it can improve our understanding (or resolution1) of our communications by at least one order of magnitude, or more. ABN
- the process or capability of making distinguishable the individual parts of an object ↩︎
-
#EroticMusings 2026.05.03 — Week 49 (May 3-9) Characters: Do you come up with your characters before their relationships, or do you design characters to fit desired relationships or interpersonal dynamics? Any interesting examples?
The daemon Thorn Rose and the day angel Streak Carryingaton were created with their relationship in mind. She's as dark as midnight and he's as white as snow. I'm using intentionally loaded words here. Also, she has an accent that alludes to an eastern European accent. She's a first generation daughter of an emigrant mother alluding to the Jewish ethnic experience in the early to mid-1900s in the US. He's simply from a bad neighborhood never expected to amount to much. In a world where a relationship like what we would call "marriage" does not exist—and is indeed frowned upon enough to merit special adjectives describing it, like ancestrous—these two lovers have a special youthful chemistry and randiness. It allows me to contrast a relationship that seems normal to us with a normalcy in their society we'd find promiscuous at best. It puts an interesting spin on concepts of fidelity and love. They spend parts of this moonshot novel proving they're better than what everyone assumes.
Other than this one example, I'm more likely to have characters form relationships of their own accord as the story develops and I discover connections.
[Author retains copyright (c)2026 R.S.]
#gender #fiction #writer #author
#mystery #thriller #romance #sf #sff #sciencefiction
#writing #writingcommunity #writersOfMastodon #writers
#RSdiscussion
#RSstory #RSReluctanceStory -
#PennedPossibilities 999 — How often does your MC bathe or shower? Do others around them consider this to be of normal frequency? Why or why not?
Bathing is actually an important aspect of Bolt's story, and the answer is:
Far less than she'd prefer.
Her world is hot (dangerously so), and as she puts it, sweat happens. Her boardinghouse situation (called an aerie) has shared facilities which afford only a sink for sponge bathing—and is unisex, which provides an interesting dynamic. More expensive accommodations have a rain room. People are more in touch with their animal nature and smelling—um, distinctive?—is no big deal. Though not as fastidious as us, they do understand hygiene. As a day angel, Bolt has wings she has to preen (oil and arrange her wing and calf feathers), so bathing isn't exactly the same as us. She enjoys visiting the daemon-run bathhouse (like a Japanese uchiburo konyoko onsen bath with cooling, salt, and carbonated waters) down the block, but it costs coin.
Major interpersonal scenes happen at the bathhouse and the aerie's lavatory between Bolt and a boy friend. In the story, Bolt takes envious note of her boss' rain room, is another time pushed into a cool shower at her reporter friend's work after suffering a heat stroke, and at one point remarks that the devil-girl uses the public rain room daily at the park when the devil-girl is living homeless.
Despite all this, I'm not sure whether others in the story would consider Bolt's habits normal, but her male friends enjoy her sweaty presence regardless.
[Author retains copyright (c)2026 R.S.]
#gender #fiction #writer #author
#cozy #mystery #sf #sff #sciencefiction
#writing #writingcommunity #writersOfMastodon #writers
#RSdiscussion
#RSstory
#RSReluctanceStory -
Introduction
On May 25, 2020, police in Minneapolis Minnesota murdered George Floyd in cold blood. Responding to allegations of counterfeit money, police arrested Floyd, with one officer kneeling on his neck for nearly nine minutes, ultimately suffocating him. The killing was captured on video and quickly spread across the internet.
Protests soon followed. The first protest organized in Minneapolis was on May 26. By May 28 the protests had spread to the nearby cities of St Paul and Duluth with riots occurring in Minneaopolis that evening. Mostly notably, the third precinct of the Minneapolis Police Department was besieged and burned. Minnesota activated the National Guard on May 29 in response to the unrest.1 The American state’s disastrous response to COVID-19, massive unemployment, and indiscriminate police killings that disproportionately target people of colour provided the impetus for an enormous and unprecedented outpouring of rage; protests, many of them violently targeting the police, spread across the United States like wildfire.
While the initial uprising was ferocious in its explosive anger and militancy, within just three weeks the protests seem to have been channeled largely into the decidedly less militant demand of “Defund the police.” What happened? I largely agree with what Kandist Mallett wrote in a brilliant article in Teen Vogue, in which she argued that: “those in power…are working tirelessly to destroy this wave of unrest before it becomes a tsunami they cannot control.… They are trying to kill this movement.”2 The defanging of the George Floyd Uprising was not accidental but was rather a deliberate attempt on the part of the American ruling class to regain social control in the wake of the most militant protests in recent memory—and, as a movement, possibly the largest in U.S. history.
What I want to do in this article is to examine the dimensions of how this defanging took place: how, within the space of two weeks, we went from burning down a police station to making small budgetary demands. I argue that the massive effort to defang the George Floyd Uprising should be understood as a deliberate counter-insurgency operation, combining the (sometimes coordinated) efforts of: various police forces, the capitalist media, the American military, NGOs, the Democrats, both state and federal governments, and other liberal establishment figures. What I also want to show is that these efforts were not extraordinary: there was no shadowy conspiracy to intervene. Rather, each of these apparatuses functioned exactly as intended to in order to defend the existing capitalist order. By examining the response to the George Floyd Uprising, the left can gain a better understanding of just how difficult it will be to overthrow capitalism and the capitalist state and potentially avoid pitfalls in the future.
Before continuing, I want to address the initial and most obvious opposition to my argument. If the efforts to defang the protests should be understood as a counter-insurgency, then it stands to reason that the George Floyd Uprising should be considered an insurgency. Is this not hyperbolic? Given the extent of the crisis of legitimacy the protests created for the American state, I do not think it is hyperbolic at all. As Kristian Williams argued in “The other side of the COIN: counterinsurgency and community policing”, insurgency and counter-insurgency is precisely the lens through which the American state views much of its domestic policing activity, from gang-related operations through to protest management.3
The uprising truly created a crisis of legitimacy for the American state. It needs to be stated outright that the burning of a police station and the forced retreat, under siege, of the police inside is unprecedented in the history of modern American protest. The vulnerability of the police was put on full display: the following night police were attacked in Los Angeles and New York, among other locations. The National Guard was deployed throughout the United States. While not as historically unprecedented for dealing with dissent, there were concerns, at least in Minnesota, that the National Guard would be insufficient to quell the uprising. Governor Tim Walz on May 30 in the Minneapolis Star Tribune: “We do not have the numbers… We cannot arrest people when we are trying to hold ground.”4 Three days later, a Senior Airman in the Minnesota National Guard said in an interview that he was “waiting for the scales to tip” with regards to the “riot purgatory” that existed; the National Guard had, as of June 2, been unable to gain control of the city.5 Trump was even rushed to his White House bunker in response to protests in Washington D.C.; the last time those bunkers were used was during the September 11 attacks.6 Transit workers used their collective power to refuse to transport arrested protestors.7 Inspired by the protests, longshore workers of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union struck and shut down ports across the West Coast in mid-June.8 And in terms of putting numbers to the crisis of legitimacy faced by the American state, on June 3 a Monmouth University survey reported that 54% of Americans thought that the burning of the precinct was justified, higher than the level of support enjoyed by either Biden or Trump.9
Insurgency and Counter-Insurgency
The United States military, in Joint Publication 3-24: Counterinsurgency, defines an insurgency as: “The organized use of subversion and violence to seize, nullify, or challenge political control of a region.” Counter-insurgency then is defined as “Comprehensive civilian and military efforts designed to simultaneously defeat and contain insurgency and address its root causes.”10
It is worth quoting from the manual at length to demonstrate the sophistication with which the U.S. Military approaches counter-insurgency operations.
Highlighting the specificity of counter-insurgency operations, the manual argues that:
COIN [counter-insurgency] is distinguished from traditional warfare due to the focus of its operations—a relevant population—and its strategic purpose—to gain or maintain control or influence over—and the support of that relevant population through political, psychological, and economic methods.11
Central to how the U.S. Military sees insurgency is the question of political legitimacy:
The struggle for legitimacy with the relevant population is typically a central theme of the conflict between the insurgency and the HN [host nation] government. The HN government generally needs some level of legitimacy among the population to retain the confidence of the populace and an acknowledgment of governing power. The insurgency will attack the legitimacy of the HN government while attempting to develop its own legitimacy with the population. COIN should reduce the credibility of the insurgency while strengthening the legitimacy of the HN government.12
And in turn, central to the question of legitimacy is the task of building and controlling narratives:
COIN planners should compose a unifying message (the COIN narrative) that is consistent with the overarching USG narrative, which is coupled to the USG [U.S. government] objective. Narrative is a structure of planned themes from which both messages and actions are developed. Narrative provides a common thread of communicative influence. The objective speaks to desired outcome; narrative communicates the story of the how and why of an operation. Common themes within a COIN narrative may be: reinforcing the credibility and perception of legitimacy of the HN and USG COIN operation, exploiting the negative aspects of the insurgent efforts, and preemptively presenting the expected insurgent argument along with counter-arguments. … The COIN narrative should be the result of meticulous target-audience analysis conducted by cultural and language subject matter experts … The COIN narrative should provide the guidance from which themes, actions, and messages can be planned in support of the COIN objectives.13
Narrative construction and control is reiterated in practical terms later in the Manual:
In COIN, the information flow can be roughly divided into information which the USG requires to guide its political-military approach (i.e., knowledge of local conditions) and information which the USG wishes to disseminate to influence populations. At the same time, counterinsurgents also seek to impede the information flow of insurgent groups—both their intelligence collection and their ability to influence the relevant population. 14
One of the tactics emphasized to impede the ability of insurgents to influence the target population is working with local authorities—especially non-governmental ones like religious leaders, and NGOs- to coopt the message of the insurgency and explicitly to moderate it.15 This latter point is extremely important; while moderate movements may enjoy more popular support, they are also far less successful at winning their demands.16 It is therefore in the interest of those defend the existing order to support the moderate elements of a movement.
All this is to say then that the U.S. Military understands insurgency and counter-insurgency as being not just a military question, but rather a question of politics. To this end, the Manual heavily emphasizes the importance of political action in counter-insurgency operations:
To be effective, officials involved in COIN should address two imperatives—political action and security—with equal urgency, recognizing that insurgency is fundamentally an armed political competition…. COIN functions, therefore, include informational, security, political, economic, and development components, all of which are designed to support the overall objective of establishing and consolidating control by the HN government. … This is the core of COIN, because it provides a framework around which all other programs and activities are organized. As described above, depending on the root causes of the insurgency, the strategy may involve elements of political reform, reconciliation, popular mobilization, and governmental capacity building.17
If we understand insurgency and counter-insurgency as involving both a military and political aspect, in which the political is primary, with insurgency being primarily about building a counter-legitimacy to the state and counter-insurgency being primarily about the political isolation of insurgents through the creation of narratives, we can begin to see how such an understanding is useful to apply to American domestic politics. The George Floyd Uprising saw insurgents directly undermine the legitimacy of the existing state, especially the police, through both armed and political action. In turn, the state and establishment responded with both armed and political actions, the latter in the form of co-optation and narrative control.
But the connections between American counter-insurgency and domestic politics are not just on the discursive level. In “The other side of the COIN: counterinsurgency and community policing”, Kristian Williams provides an excellent overview of the material relationship between American military counter-insurgency programs and American policing. This is specifically evident with regard to trends towards the militarization of the police and so-called “Community Policing” initiatives. Williams demonstrates how, in a modern example of the “imperial boomerang”18, many of the methods employed by modern police forces were developed and refined by the American military, including during its occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. In turn, the military partnered with police forces to learn how to better control conquered populations, be they black people living in American cities or Iraqis living under American occupation in Iraq.19
Of particular interest is the role that NGOs play in this process. As was noted earlier, the U.S. Military makes special mention of NGOs in the process of counter-insurgency. An earlier version of the Manual, published in 2006 and authored by David Petraeus, is more explicit, remarking that “some of the best weapons for counterinsurgents do not shoot” and referring to NGOs as “force-multipliers”. Williams is able to show how NGOs were directly involved in de-escalating responses of the community to murders committed by American police in Oakland, as well as involved in anti-gang activities in Boston. Both of these separate efforts fall under the playbook of counter-insurgency.20
Before going in depth into the George Floyd Uprising, it is worthwhile looking at the “why” of counter-insurgency. Why is it that the police and military have developed a comprehensive strategy intended to undermine threats to the existing order? Fundamentally, the modern state exists to protect the interests of the capitalist class—namely the continuation of capital accumulation and exploitation—against the interests of everyone else. In turn, specific states exist to protect the specific interests of their specific capitalist classes. Thus anything that attempts to undermine capitalism, or the ability of capitalists to exploit, must be itself undermined. The state has a myriad of tools at its disposal to help with this process. Some are ideological (they convince people exploitation is in their own interest) whereas others, like the police, are repressive. Insofar as the goal of counter-insurgency is ultimately to protect the accumulation of capital, we should understand counter-insurgency as extending beyond just the actions of the repressive apparatuses of the state. What I will explore below is that in this case, counter-insurgency was a joint effort of the entire American ruling class, both inside and outside the state, to defang the George Floyd Uprising. The American ruling class used both violent and non-violent means to defang the uprising: they deployed what could be called a carrot-and-stick approach in order to protect the social order.
The Carrot…
The Media Narrative
In the days following the murder of George Floyd, the media worked tirelessly to defang the George Floyd Uprising. They did this not by creating reality through discourse, but by selectively and pointedly reporting on certain aspects of reality. As a result, they encouraged people to think about the uprising in specific ways, and in turned called them into action in specific ways. I will focus primarily on the Minneapolis Star Tribune; the narrative trends developed there were later repeated in media across the United States.
Initial media reaction to the uprising directly condemned property destruction. After a Target was looted on the night of May 27, the Star Tribune spent the following day reporting on the impact that riots would have on small businesses.21 True to form, the Star Tribune printed a call for peace from the family and partner of George Floyd22 as well as from “political, faith, community leaders” calling for an “end to riots.”23 The latter story was particularly interesting insofar as the group was called together for a conference by Minnesota governor Tim Walz, and included both church leaders and NGO managers. Here is an example of a top state official picking and choosing who counts as a “community leader” without direct input from the community. In turn, the Star Tribune reported on the meeting treating these externally hand-picked “community leaders” as though their legitimacy derived from the community itself.
In the following days, the Star Tribune shifted focus to the human cost of the riots to the local community. The publication blamed the riots for creating a food desert due to the closing of large corporate grocery stores.24 Rioters were also blamed for the lack of access to medicine now faced by the local community due to the closure of pharmacies.25 Rioters were alleged to have burned down nearly 200 units of affordable housing, thus exacerbating the housing crisis.26 The riots were also allegedly responsible for devastating Minneapolis’ famed Lake Street, home to immigrant-owned business and a hub, according to the Star Tribune, of multi-culturalism.27
In its discussion of the immediate impact of the uprising on the local community, not once did the Star Tribune go beyond surface-level condemnations of the rioters. Suddenly concerned with access to food and medication, the stories did not include discussions as to why the closure of a few grocery stores could create a food desert. There was no discussion on the increased price of food and wealth-disparity. There was no discussion on the monopolization of food sources by large chains. There was no discussion on the effects of for-profit healthcare on access to medicine. No discussions on gentrification and stagnant wages leading to the necessity of specifically designated “affordable” housing. No discussions on the context of the riots: namely 40 million unemployed Americans staring down a pandemic with miniscule government relief. No discussion of looting as a means of getting necessities such as medicine, food, and clothing; no discussion as to why Target and pharmacies became targets. Instead the riots were presented largely without context, as simply an irrational outburst of anger, alone causing problems to the community. Those fighting back against the existing order were blamed for the worst effects of the very order they fought against.
In addition to direct condemnation, the Star Tribune also took a more nuanced approach to the riots. Instead of the riots being an organic expression of community anger, they were presented—both by the media, and the government—as being the work of (usually white) “outside agitators”. Rioting was purported to be the work of secret white-supremacists that had infiltrated the protests in order to cause mayhem. In that same meeting of community leaders called together by Tim Walz on May 30, the executive director of the Council for Minnesotans of African Heritage put it succinctly: “White people from other communities are coming into my community, our communities as some kind of perverse poetry, as if it wasn’t bad enough already. … Go home now. The fascists on the plan right now, turn around.”28 The Star Tribune reported on an Illinois man who had been arrested with explosives in Minneapolis, who had specifically traveled there to riot.29 The mayor of St Paul and the governor of Minnesota had each tweeted that the vast majority -80% to all- of the arrestees in the week preceding June 6 had been from out-of-state despite the fact that there was no evidence to back up such claims. The claims were so ludicrous that the Star Tribune ran a story walking back many of the claims about outside agitators; well after the damage had been done to the protests.30
The goal of these various media narratives—first, condemning the riots; second, emphasizing the damage to the community; and third, blaming outside agitators- was to drive a dual process of bifurcation within the protest movement. The goal of the ruling class was on the one hand to separate “peaceful” liberal protestors from the more radical element, both to avoid radicalization of the moderate protestors but also to isolate the radicals within the movement. Second, the goal was to lump the radical protestors together with apolitical opportunist looters, whether or not the latter group actually existed, and in turn ignore the radical critiques of both policing and society as a whole that the radicals put forward. Thus the establishment attempted to call into being two groups: a group of good, peaceful, moderate protestors; and a second group of opportunist, violent protestors who did not care about the injustice the protests were about. The tactics and message of the first group was to be lauded, whereas the tactics and message of the second group was to be condemned.
Meanwhile, seemingly out of nowhere, another narrative appeared in the media. Across both social and traditional media outlets, stories appeared showing police supporting the protests. Most famous were the images of police (and sometimes National Guard) kneeling with the protestors. Often times this was displayed as the result of a request from the “good protestors”, who were then portrayed as applauding police initiative. However, in this case reality cut through the media spin: the American police were simply too vicious for their “spontaneous” (more on this below) outpouring of empathy to be taken seriously. There were abundant accounts of the same police transitioning from kneeling to attacking protestors within the space of hours.
As the protests spread in the early weeks of June, it was no longer possible for the media to rely on the “outside agitator” platitude. Indeed, with protests in literally every major city in the United States, there was no “outside” for the agitators to come from. And with the utter inhumanity of the police on full display, stories of police taking a knee simply didn’t hold water. The media then turned to focusing almost exclusively on the efforts of liberal NGOs engaged in “rebuilding” efforts31, and the activities of the “good” protestors. The degree to which the “good” protestors were signal-boosted by the media is evident in the speed at which the “Defund the Police” slogan, itself a moderated version of the already moderate “abolish the police” demand, became the public rallying cry of the movement as a whole.32 Finally, towards mid-June, with the protests now largely contained and the radical element isolated, the media began largely ignoring the massive protests that are still occurring, instead only providing local coverage of incidental events.
While I have focused largely on the narrative created in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the same pattern (from demonization, to outside agitators, to focusing on the community cost, the good/bad protestor division, the police sympathy, to NGOs and liberals, to ultimately ignoring the movement) was a pattern that was repeated more-or-less within all major media sources in North America. Why was this the case? The similarity in editorial line between media companies does not indicate direct coordination between media onwers nor does it point to state intervention or censorship. Rather, insofar as media in North America is either owned by large corporations or run by the state, the commonality of interests that exists between rich owners and rich state managers is inevitably reflected in the editorial line of the media which they run.33 It makes total sense then that the media would relay a narrative which had as its effect the defanging of the George Floyd Uprising; such an action was absolutely within the interests of the large capitalists which control the media. The capitalist class, by owning the media and therefore controlling its content, was able to utilize media narratives as part of the counter-insurgency effort against the George Floyd Uprising.
In the case of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the connection between ownership and editorial line could not be clearer. Glen Taylor, the billionaire former state senator, admitted as much when he bought the newspaper in 2014. In an interview with MinnPost, he stated that his ownership of the paper would result in the editorial line being less liberal.34 It is unsurprising then that the overall editorial position of the paper reflects Taylor’s public position, namely that the problem is not specifically law enforcement and that protests are only legitimate if they are peaceful.35 Insofar as the George Floyd Uprising threatened the existing order in Minneapolis, an order that Glen Taylor benefitted from, the Star Tribune would come out against the uprising. This same process played out across the United States over the course of the uprising.
The Copaganda Machine
No account of how the media treated the George Floyd Uprising would be complete without a discussion of something that is often overlooked in accounts of reactionary media spin: the absolutely massive public relations machine employed by the police themselves. While it is possible that the speed with which stories of police “taking a knee” with protestors went viral was entirely natural, it is far more likely that in the wake of the largest anti-police protests in a generation that the police PR machine jumped into overdrive.
The goal of police public relations (PR) is, like any public relations campaign, to influence how the public views the police. In one article written for Police One, the largest English-language online community of police boasting literally tens of thousands of members, the point of police PR is described as “to establish a positive relationship with the community before an incident occurs.” The point of PR is directly contextualized to counteract the public’s reactions to racist police terror: “Events dating back to the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s, Rodney King, Tamir Rice, Freddie Gray and others have been covered extensively in the media and have tarnished the reputation of many agencies. The public relations team must establish or repair the image of the agency within the community.”36 In another article on the same website, another officer describes the utility of “branding” (using a PR campaign to build a police “brand”) insofar as it allows police departments to control messaging and make clear a department’s “value proposition.”37 The goal of branding is to build preconceptions about the role of police, thus filtering any observations through the preconceived image of how police should act. This allows the police to have greater impunity in their actions, as anything they do is seen immediately through the lens of police being good and necessary protectors.
On the surface this seems fairly obvious and innocuous. All firms employ PR strategies in one form or another, in which the firm seeks to use the media to influence public reaction to the firm. However if we consider the social role of police, namely a repressive apparatus of the capitalist state designed to protect the conditions which allow for exploitation, the police use of PR becomes more sinister. Police directly attempt to manipulate public perceptions of their actions in their favour, including racist murder.
How widespread is the police use of PR? It is difficult to say. An examination of several police budgets over the past years of cities such as New York, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, and Toronto turned up little information; the police are remarkably good at concealing precisely what they spend their money on. There is some scattered information though that suggests that the police spend a staggering amount on PR. For instance, in 2016 the Denver Police Department was revealed to have spent $1.3 million over three years on its “media relations unit”.38 The Metropolitan Police in the UK had, in 2015, a 10 million pound annual PR budget that employed 100 communications staff, with a police across the UK spending 36 million pounds annually on PR.39 The LAPD, rather than just employing a Public Information Officer (PIO), has an entire Public Relations Unit.40 In Toronto, the 2019 police budget requested an additional $7.9 million to be partially used on nine new positions in the Corporate Communications Unit, increasing the total staff from 16 to 25, to be used to “help increase capabilities in public relations, internal communication and digital strategy.”41 And in 2020, the NYPD allotted $3.2 million for public relations, in order to tell their “side of the story.”42
Direct police department expenses on PR are just one of the PR avenues available to police. Police unions also hire PR firms to improve the image of their officers or to advance specific goals.43 Individual police officers can also hire PR firms to represent them in times of need. One such service, Cop PRotect, allows officers to pay $50 per month for guaranteed representation if something should go wrong. In a story placed in Police Magazine, the need for such a service is related directly to the Ferguson Uprising:
Cops today are completely at the mercy of activists who don’t care about the truth … Darren Wilson was nearly murdered and now lives in hiding, while the man who tried to kill him is declared a hero by activists. Cop PRotect gives cops like Darren Wilson a trusted friend to tell their stories in ways agency information officers, union representatives and the media cannot or will not.44
In this case, the firm was created directly to mitigate community blowback against individual officers in the wake of racist police terror.
While the amount that is spent on pro-police PR is hard to find, the indirect effects make it more obvious. Indeed, there exists an entire parasitic cottage industry of pro-police PR firms and consulting services, which exist solely to increase public perceptions in the police. For instance, a quick search turned up John Guilfoil Public Relations which specializes in the public sector, including the police. A testimonial from the chief of the Massachusetts Police Department states that the firm “provides an extremely valuable service to those agencies that want to be proactive in … getting out a positive message to the community.”45 PolicePR in Indiana offers a Public Information Officer boot camp, in partnership with the Greenwood Police Department.46 Melissa Agnes, a crisis management strategist who has been featured on Police One, has a whole series of articles and talks dealing specifically with police misconduct, ranging from “Discussing the Divide Between Police and Their Communities” to “Discussing The #Ferguson Crisis with Tim Burrows”.47 None of these firms or services would exist if the police were not paying for them.
Police PR strategies are not limited to traditional media. To give the strategies a more organic feel, police forces and their hired PR firms make frequent use of social media in order to help control the narrative around their actions. Police Chief Magazine warns officers that “Hiding and Hoping is Not a PR Strategy”; police forces not only need to monitor social media to see what perception of the police force is after an incident, but must also build “a social media presence”. This latter point can include spreading information about a suspect in the event that video showing police misconduct spreads.48 As part of the U.S. Department of Justice’s ‘Community Oriented Policing Services’ (COPS) Strategic Communication Practices guide, there is an entire section on the importance of social media.49 Another article on Police One suggests that police departments send officers onto Reddit, both to get ahead of a story, but also to intervene in the discussions as police.50 These efforts can be bolstered by using “community outreach programs” to “build an online army of supporters.”51
Lest anyone think that the police simply use social media to inform their audience about their activities, the police consciously use social media to manipulate public opinion during moments of crisis. Taken from another Police One article (a fantastic resource for those wanting to understand the mindset of police), this one published ominously on May 28, 2020, titled “12 things every police department’s civil unrest plan needs”, there is an entire section on social media. Departments are instructed to be aware that protestors can use social media to amplify and coordinate their activity; departments should also be aware and be ready to counter those that would “lower the perception of [their] department.” If that fails, there’s always the National Guard.52 Force Science News published an article/advertisement featuring Melissa Agnes in 2018, which advised departments to have prepared a ‘Communications Bible’ to help navigate crises such as “officer-involved shootings”.53 In a mid-June Police One leadership briefing, after weeks of anti-police protests, authors mockingly reflected: “Now do you recognize the power of social media?” arguing that police “must start viewing… social media as an integral tool in policing.”54
All this is to say there exists a massive and highly coordinated police PR machine, which the police use to try and directly control media narratives in their favour. They do this as part of a broader effort to maintain the current social order. While it is impossible to prove this soon, I strongly suspect that it was this machine which was responsible for the flood of sympathetic stories about the police that featured prominently across traditional and social media in early June. Despite the best efforts of the police, their unions, and their employed PR firms, they were unable to shift the broader media narrative for more than a few days; the brutal actions of police across the United States spoke for themselves and undermined attempts to portray the police in a positive light.
While ultimately unsuccessful, the wave of pro-police media in early June gave credibility to the more moderate argument that the institution of policing itself is not the problem, but rather that it is only some “bad apples” amidst an otherwise salvageable police force. This in turn gave more ideological power to moderate and liberal elements, the so-called “good protestors”, within the broader protest movement. To tie this back into counter-insurgency, control over information in the form of both narrative construction and information dissemination is one of the main tools of counter-insurgency strategies. The police consciously did just this, and in the process strengthened the moderates within the movement.
The Non-Profit Industrial Complex
As noted earlier, the U.S. military considers NGO partnerships to be a vital part of counter-insurgency efforts. Much has been written about the negative effects of non-profits on social movements. In the classic collection of essays titled The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the Non-Profit Industrial Complex, Andrea Smith argues that capital and the capitalist state use nonprofits to: monitor and control social movements, divert public resources into private hands, manage and control dissent, redirect activist efforts towards careerism and away from mass-based modes of organizing, allow corporations to mask exploitation through philanthropy, and encourage social movements to model themselves in terms of structure and politics after capitalist models.55 For the purposes of this essay, I want to focus on two areas: first, how NGOs have a moderating effect on the politics of a movement. Second, I will talk about how NGOs frequently work with the police to protect the current social order under the guise of changing it.
How is it that non-profits are able to moderate social movements? The capitalist class is well aware of their own interests and spends an inordinate amount of money defending them. In the process, they create philanthropic foundations. These philanthropic foundations not only allow capitalists to transfer wealth inter-generationally without taxation (giving their children positions in the foundations) but also fund charitable activities, such as non-profits. There is a catch though: the capitalists will not fund anything that does not fit their interests, namely the continuation of exploitation. They are happy, for instance, to fund affordable housing initiatives insofar as those initiatives do not tackle the root causes of homelessness, namely private property. Capitalist foundations therefore provide resources to NGOs which act in line with their interests. In turn, NGOs knowingly moderate themselves in order to better secure resources. Furthermore respectable NGOs can become the public face of a movement, effectively forcing the more radical organizations out of the public eye.
The Civil Rights and anti-police movements are full of examples of the moderating effects of NGOs. For instance, in the 1960s white philanthropist Stephen Currier set up the Council for United Civil Rights Leadership in order to channel foundation funding to Civil Rights groups. The so-called ‘Big Six’ were brought together; of the six, the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee, the most radical of the groups, received the least amount of funding. More radical groups, such as the Nation of Islam, were completely excluded. In 1963 Malcolm X specifically criticized the Big Six and the Council for United Civil Rights Leadership in his famous ‘Message to the Grass Roots’ speech in which he reflected on the March on Washington which had taken place earlier that year.56 The goal of these maneuvers by white philanthropists was clear: fund the more moderate element of the Civil Rights movement to avoid the movement taking a radical turn and undermining the ability for American capitalism to operate.57
Fast forward 50 years, and the same pattern reoccurs. In Oakland in 2009, non-profits directly intervened to deradicalize the response to the killing of Oscar Grant. Ahead of a major rally in January 2009, the Oakland police arranged meetings with various nonprofit and church leaders in order to defang the protests before they even began.58 Religious leaders asked their congregations to not attend the protests. A coalition of NGOs came together and formed the Coalition Against Police Execution (CAPE). CAPE explicitly called for a lack of militancy in their protests, and stood as a physical barrier between police and protestors. 59 In turn, CAPE became the public, legitimate face of the protests, which was reinforced through media coverage.
The uprising in 2014 in Ferguson saw a similar process play itself out. There the NGO influence was given an organizational existence in the form of Black Lives Matter. I want to be clear here; when speaking of Black Lives Matter I am talking about the official organization and not the broader movement of the same name. Black Lives Matter, while first conceived of in 2013, organized its first major action in 2014 with the Black Lives Matter Freedom Ride in response to the killing of Michael Brown by the Ferguson police. Black Lives Matter became the public face of the movement. Despite the Ferguson uprising originating in riots, Black Lives Matter and other organizations planned a series of actions over the course of the summer of 2014 that channeled local activism into safer and less rebellious avenues.
Following the Ferguson uprising, moderate elements of the Black Lives Matter movement became a relatively safe outlet for liberals to support and into which the capitalist class could channel outrage. Black Lives Matter and the constellation of new organizations and networks around it received an absolutely immense amount of donations from larger donors like The Ford Foundation and George Soros.60 The more liberal elements of the movement, able to secure donations, were able to take centre-stage. For instance, one recipient, the Organization for Black Struggle, used some of its funding to create the Hands Up Coalition. This coalition popularized the “hands up, don’t shoot” slogan used by protestors; this ran against slogans by more militant black power activists such as “arms up, shoot back” and “fists up, fight back”. More radical yet equally active groups, such as the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement, received no funding. In 2016, Black Lives Matter and 27 other organizations, as part of the Movement for Black Lives, issued a platform of demands titled A Vision for Black Lives. Rather than a comprehensive plan and program to mobilize the masses to fight for their own liberation, the document is a set of policy guidelines. The effect is that efforts are taken off the streets and channeled into traditional power structures where they are ultimately destined to fail.
The founders of Black Lives Matter were first introduced to each other through an NGO known as Black Organizing for Leadership and Dignity (BOLD). The board of directors of BOLD, those who decide its political direction, is made up of managers of other NGOS.61 BOLD also receives an immense sum of money from private donors, such as through the “philanthropic intermediary” known as Borealis Philanthropy62 and through Funders for Justice.63 This latter group, also created in response to the Ferguson Uprising, in turn receives funding from The Ford Foundation and the Open Society Foundations; hardly groups interested in a radical transformation of the social order or the end of exploitation. I don’t bring this up to allege a conspiracy that Black Lives Matter is being secretly run by The Ford Foundation, but rather to show that even Black Lives Matter has its origins within the non-profit industrial complex milieu, which in turn effects its politics. Turning back to the George Floyd Uprising, it is unsurprising that in a recent Reddit Ask-Me-Anything, Kailee Scales, the Managing Director for Black Lives Matter, condemned the riots and announced efforts to channel the George Floyd Uprising into voter registration and “civic engagement” through the #WhatMatters2020 campaign.64
The ways in which non-profits have attempted to moderate explosions of rage during the George Floyd Uprising are too many to list. One example I want to focus on, however, is particularly telling. On May 30, two days after the burning of the Third Precinct in Minneapolis, a local non-profit called Pillsbury United Communities had a press conference. Pillsbury United Communities is an incredibly well established NGO; founded in 1879, it runs a number of outreach and education programs, community programs (such as free COVID-19 testing), as well as “social enterprises” including a grocery store. The press conference on May 30 brought together Jamie Foxx, Stephen Jackson, BLM activist Tamika Mallory, alongside George Floyd’s family. Speakers were explicit in their calls for peaceful protests, but generally did not condemn the riots. A peaceful rally followed.65 Thus at the height of the militant protests, people were asked by “legitimate” community leaders to temper their anger and engage in traditionally and easily ignored protests. These calls were amplified by liberals outside the community and the media.
A few days after the rally, Pillsbury United Communities used George Floyd’s death to issue a fundraising call; it is unclear from their website how the money will be used to ensure “Justice for George Floyd”.66 But individual donations are not the only way that Pillsbury United Communities raises funds. It also receives donations from massive foundations such as the Greater Twin Cities United Way, the Minneapolis Foundation, and the St. Paul & Minnesota Foundation. The United Way, for instance, acts as a “philanthropic intermediary”, collection donations from large corporations, and then granting money to non-profits. In this specific case, the money given to Pillsbury United Communities comes from sources such as 3M, U.S. Bank, Cargill, and Target.67 The latter, notably, also provides hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations to police foundations.68 One can see the issue of an organization fighting for justice against the police having similar funding sources to the police themselves. It is also unlikely that the capitalist class would fund those capable of truly undermining it.
That an NGO intervened in a mass struggle to both channel the movement in a more liberal direction while monopolizing resources is not particularly surprising. What is particularly interesting though is Pillsbury United Communities’ connection to community policing. A 2006 report by the Minneapolis Department of Health & Family Support lists Waite House, a Pillsbury United Communities site, as a “Weed & Seed Safe Haven”.69 Weed and Seed programs, for context, gained prominence in 1992 after the Rodney King riots as a way to connect police and community leaders in order to ostensibly combat gang violence70; they made cohesive the militarization tactics (weed) and community policing tactics (seed) employed in counter-insurgency efforts.71 In December 2014, the FBI gave Pillsbury United Communities its “Director’s Community Leadership Award”, an annual award given to groups for crime prevention efforts.72 Then-president and chief executive, Chanda Smith Baker, accepted the award. Coincidentally, Chanda Smith Baker—now working for the Minneapolis Foundation—also sits on the Minnesota Department of Public Safety’s newspeak titled “Working Group on Police-Involved Deadly Force Encounters”. The goal of the working group was to “identify ways to reduce deadly force encounters with law enforcement”73. Members of the group included the Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo, the Minnesota Attorney General, Philando Castile’s (killed by police in Minnesota in 2016) uncle, and other judge’s, academics, politicians, and NGO managers. Tragically and ironically, the working group released its findings in February 2020; that George Floyd was murdered, just a few months later in a “police-involved deadly force encounter”, demonstrates the extent to which so-called community policing is useful to the community.
One final interesting link between NGOs and the police in Minneapolis: as mentioned earlier, Chanda Smith Baker, after working for Pillsbury United Communities, went on to work as the Senior Vice President, Impact for The Minneapolis Foundation. The current president and CEO of the Minneapolis Foundation is R.T. Rybak, who was also the former mayor of Minneapolis. R.T. Rybak also sits on the board of a company called Benchmark Analytics: an IT company which has designed a system capable of predicting when officers will become problematically violent. Rybak therefore has a direct material interest in “reforming” the police. In an article written on June 2, titled “I Was the Mayor of Minneapolis and I Know Our Cops Have a Problem”, Rybak recalls surveying the damage to Minneapolis after the riots with Chanda Smith Baker, before advertising his firm’s solution to police violence.74 Unsurprisingly he emphasizes the humanity of the police, and he sees the solution as being community policing informed by predicative behavior technology.
The organizational and interpersonal links between NGO managers, politicians, police leadership, “community leaders”, and the board members of large capitalist firms points to the existence of a ruling capitalist class. The above is just a small illustration of how the ruling class rules in Minneapolis.
To summarize all of this: Pillsbury United Communities is an established, well-respected local NGO. It is part of the non-profit industrial complex, relying on philanthropic intermediaries for much of its funding, which in turn are funded by massive corporations. It came out very vocally in the early stages of the George Floyd Uprising, urging a more liberal and institutional approach to activism as opposed to the riots. And, it has close ties to the Minneapolis Police Department and state police through community policing programs. It is just one textbook example of many of how NGOs act as elements of a counter-insurgency strategy.
The Democrats
The Democrats have been referred to as the “graveyard of social movements” insofar as they absorb, coopt, and disorganize them.75 Their approach to the George Floyd Uprising is no different. What the Democratic Party sought to do in the wake of the George Floyd Uprising was a combination of repression (in those places in which it exercised power, such as Minneapolis, New York, L.A., etc.) and coopt its energies into the Biden 2020 campaign. Given the unpopularity of Biden and the overall increasing disinterest in electoral politics by much of the left the attempt to coopt the movement, at least ostensibly, has been unsuccessful. It is, however, still worth examining in order to paint a full picture of the counter-insurgency campaign against the uprising.
At the beginning of the uprising, the Democratic Party machine jumped into motion but was unsure how to act. While top Democrat strategists spoke to media about how the uprising could affect the election76 (indicating that they were in fact working on a response), there was little in the way of official high-level statement or actions for almost a week. Then on June 2 two fairly major events occurred. First, Biden publicly brought Julian Castro into his campaign; Castro had been a vocal proponent of liberal police reforms during his bid to become the Democratic nominee for president.77 Second, Pelosi, the multi-millionaire Speaker of the House, asked the Congressional Black Caucus to draft a series of police reforms.78
On June 8, following a ridiculous display in which Pelosi and other top Democrats took a knee wearing Ghanaian kente cloths, the Justice in Policing Act was revealed. The act is fairly milquetoast—far behind the nebulous demands of the uprising—and includes provisions for more easily prosecuting police in cases of brutality, mandatory body cameras, as well as a ban on chokeholds. The Act does absolutely nothing to abolish or even defund police departments. 79 Nor is the act likely to become law; even if the act was to pass the Republican-majority Senate, Trump has announced his attention to veto it.80
Rather than an accident, the unlikelihood of the bill passing is a feature, one of the ways in which so-called “checks and balances” help protect the current order. The Democrats know this; had it been likely to pass the bill would have been even more muted. The inaction of the Democrats in the face of the George Floyd Uprising is not surprising; they are one of the two parties that have overseen the construction and maintenance of the white-supremacist order in the United States. Biden is himself a career segregationist and author of a 1994 crime bill81 which was a cornerstone in the construction of the modern for-profit prison behemoth.82 The Congressional Black Caucus has itself helped to make the police a “protected class”, and also contributed to the militarization of police through the 1033 program.83
Despite the lack of success of the official Democrat cooptation attempt of the George Floyd Uprising, I want to point out one of the more insidious ways that the Democrats are attempting to coopt outrage against police murders through social movements themselves. It is worth first pointing out that Alicia Garza, one of the founders of Black Lives Matter, is a supporter of the centrist-wing of the Democrats, specifically Elizabeth Warren.84 Black Lives Matter has recently launched a campaign called #WhatMatters2020. The goal of the campaign is to bring “BLM supporters and allies to the polls in the 2020 U.S Presidential Election to build collective power and ensure candidates are held accountable for the issues that systematically and disproportionately impact Black and under-served communities across the nation.”85 A campaign video calls on people to vote for an America where “police are held accountable” and “where we have access to quality healthcare”. The problem with this campaign, of course, is that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are even pretending to deliver on promises like this. Biden does not support medicare for all, and was an architect of the current racist criminal justice system. The #WhatMatters2020 campaign is a cynical sheepdog campaign, bringing black people angry at the current injustices of American white-supremacist capitalism back into the Democrats.
Invasion of the Liberals
Earlier in this article, I mentioned that the media was attempting to call into existence a group of “good”, peaceful protestors. I want to spend more time now talking about this process. Ideology is both produced by practice, but also exists as a way of calling particular types of people into activity.86 When the media began focusing almost exclusively on “good” protestors, it was at first inventing this category out of almost thin air; the line it was drawing was an artificial one. But by putting forward this ideological pole, the media called into action people who had hitherto not been involved. The media, alongside notable liberal politicians and other establishment figures, created a group of liberal protestors out of inactive liberals who now saw themselves and their own political predilections reflected in the ongoing uprising. Included in these efforts by the media and liberal establishment figures is a now-famous essay by former president Barrack Obama, posted to Medium on June 1, in which he said he supported the protests, condemned violence, and urged reform efforts to be focused on institutional channels.87
The flip side of the liberal “call to action” is that it also acts as a safeguard against radicalization. When reality confronts ideology, it is often ideology that is changed. Reality forces a rupture in one’s worldview which can lead to radicalization. In this case it became difficult to substantiate the story of a good, neutral, and protective state in the face of ubiquitous police violence against even peaceful protestors. If reality can be changed or if powerful narratives can reinforce ideology, ideology is cemented rather than discarded. In this case, liberalism as a worldview was able to escape challenge due to the emergence of establishment liberals in support of the protests.
The result of the liberalization of the protests on public opinion is interesting. By mid-June, 67% of Americans reportedly supported the ongoing protests. The racial breakdown was more stark: 60% of white people supported the protests, whereas 86% of black people supported them. Despite this, 59% of Americans (including 62% of white Americans compared with 43% of black Americans) believed that the protests were spurred on at least in part as a means for people to engage in criminal behavior.88 Thus the liberalization of the protests resulted in a situation in which the majority of a country deeply enmeshed in white supremacy supported protests proclaiming the value of black lives, despite the majority of the country materially benefitting from that same unjust racial hierarchy. That major politicians like Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and former Governor of Massachusetts and presidential candidate Mitt Romney joined the protests—both politicians with significant power to change the conditions against which they protested- signals only that the political message of the uprising had shifted in the popular consciousness away from “dismantle white supremacy” to the base level of “black people are human”. That nearly one third of America could not even support such a basic affirmation of humanity is telling.
The liberal invasion had three main effects on the uprising. First, the influx of liberals into the rallies not only led to the proliferation of protests and an increase in attendance, but also to their pacification. Protestors began to self-police, modifying their tactics in line with the interests of the existing order. Protestors made sure to demarcate themselves and their actions as “peaceful”, thus robbing themselves of even the specter of militancy. To a certain extent there is a degree of “selection bias” here; militant protestors are more likely to be arrested, and therefore over time the composition of a protest will naturally become more liberal. Police are aware of this and consciously seek to tie up activist time and resources in legal proceedings.
Internally to the protests, liberal protestors acted like “peace police”, disrupting the activities of militants. Examples included liberals in Washington DC turning over a “rioter” to the police (at an anti-police march!) at the end of May,89 as well as the doxxing by liberal activists of Rayshard Brook’s girlfriend, pegged as an outside agitator.90 She is accused of setting fire to the Wendy’s outside of which her partner was murdered by police. Another high-profile example of the liberalization of the protests on the tactical level is Al Sharpton’s call for a march on Washington in August, which took place at the height of militant protests occurring in Washington D.C..91 Such a call, not to support the existing protests but to postpone them, was a calculated attempt to de-escalate the uprising.
Second, the influx of liberals into the movement has paved the way for false victories. By this I mean superficial gains that ultimately leave the underlying power structure which gave rise to the protests unchallenged. Included here is the “Black Lives Matter” street mural in Washington D.C., various corporate black-washing campaigns, the changing of band names, and the cancelling of shows like COPS. One notes the irony of the mayor of New York ordering that “Black Lives Matter” be painted outside of Trump Towers while overseeing a police department which brutalizes black people and and while also opposing efforts to defund the NYPD.
Third, the influx of liberals into the movement had an effect on defanging the demands of the movement. Black Lives Matter was quick to issue the demand to defund the police in the early days of the George Floyd Uprising: they explicitly pushed for a defunding of the police, without going into detail as to what that would entail.92 Other activists seized on the space this opened up and stated that “defund” meant “defund everything”. They argued that the police were not reformable and therefore had to be abolished.93 What followed was a discussion in the media about whether or not “defund” actually meant “defund”. There was no shortage of liberals assuring other concerned liberals that defunding didn’t actually mean that there would be no police.94 While Minneapolis has since begun steps to disband their police force, demands in other locations seem to ask for a portion of police budgets to be re-allocated to community resources, in line with the Movement for Black Lives policy demands.95
The conceptual slippage of “defund” has not gone unnoticed by the police themselves. In a June 18 article on Police One, Mike Walker, a police officer for 27 years, wrote that “defunding is really just a way of saying reduced funding.”96 In the same article he offers assurance to worried police officers by noting that budget cuts were already on the agenda due to COVID-19, and that most municipalities legally cannot function without police due to their municipal charters.
That at least some police are fine with temporarily defunding the police speaks to the heart of just how defanged a demand “defund the police” actually is. But “abolish the police” as a slogan absent a critique of the conditions that give rise to the police is itself a demand that does not cut to the heart of the matter. The police exist because capitalism requires force to defend inequality and exploitation. Without ending exploitation, there will still need to be some form of coercive apparatus to ensure the continued existence of exploitation. Thus the coercive functions of the police will be offloaded to other state apparatuses; there will still be violent, racist coercion whether or not the police exist. This is something that already happens; consider, for instance, the racist terror that child welfare services across Canada (not armed, not police) put Indigenous people through for years. The George Floyd Uprising opened the space for discussions about the fundamental nature of society, about capitalism, imperialism, and racial inequality in America. Liberals shifted the overton window to exclude visions of radical transformation, instead focusing on the degree to which police should be defunded. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s now viral Instagram post which stated that police abolition looks like white suburbia, an atomized capitalist dystopia, makes total sense in this context.97
The liberal invasion resulted in a defanging of protest tactics, results, and even the demands themselves. This process, which was aided by the police, the media, and “legitimate” community leaders, was nothing less than the political side of a counter-insurgency campaign by the American ruling class directed against the George Floyd Uprising. Thus a movement which began with the burning of a police station has been transformed into one of requesting minor amendments to municipal budgets.
…And the Stick
The majority of the article has focused on the less-obvious methods that the American ruling class has used in its counter-insurgency efforts against the George Floyd Uprising. However, while counter-insurgency is more effective if it involves elements of soft power, no counter-insurgency effort is complete without open repression. The efforts against the George Floyd Uprising are no exception.
It is hard to overstate the scale of the police operation against protestors over the past month. For instance, by June 2 there already been over 11 000 arrests of protestors.98 The volume of arrests was used as an excuse to temporarily suspend habeus corpus in New York.99 There have been numerous documented arrests and attacks on journalists from even liberal platforms such as CNN. To my knowledge there are no up to date figures on the total number of arrests. In terms of the intensity of the police response, over the past month there have been countless scenes of police using tear gas and pepper spray to clear otherwise peaceful protests. An online database has logged over 670 individual incidents of police brutality caught on video.100 Police have killed at least four protestors over the course of the uprising. Many more have been maimed.101 As a result there are at least 40 different lawsuits currently underway against police departments for brutality during the George Floyd Uprising.102
As if the level of direct repression was not enough, there has also been an increase in surveillance of activists. A recent leak, titled “Blue Leaks”, has revealed that the FBI monitored social media extensively during the protests and forward information it thought relevant to local police departments.103 FBI agents have also harassed activists after they attended recent protests against police brutality.104 The goal of FBI harassment in general is to intimidate protestors and organizers into inactivity as a means of disorganizing movements. These most recent incidents are reminiscent of FBI surveillance and intimidation of the anti-war movement and COINTELPRO.
The extraordinary level of police terror was not enough to contain the uprising. The National Guard was deployed to 31 states and Washington D.C.. This involved over 62 000 soldiers.105 The National Guard was itself involved in the violent repression of the protests.106 Over 200 cities imposed a curfew, which affected more than 60 million people.107 Trump went as far as to threaten to use the American military to impose order on cities where the protests could not be contained by conventional repression.108
One final aspect to overt repression of protests which needs to be included is the role of far right organizations and militia groups. While these are ostensibly distinct from the state, there is significant overlap and cooperation between police forces and far right organizations; a now infamous 2006 FBI report details the extent to which white supremacists have infiltrated police departments.109 For instance, in early June police in Oregon were caught on video coordinating with the far-right Proud Boys to help them avoid arrest after they intimidated George Floyd protestors.110 Much has also been written about the so-called Boogaloo Movement, which has targeted anti-police brutality protests.111
There have been many attacks by the far right on recent protests. Incidents include a mob of armed counter-protestors in Bethel, Ohio which attacked a black lives matter rally searching for “antifa”.112 The KKK has also been active in these efforts: they attacked a black lives matter rally in Nevada,113 and a local KKK leader in Virginia drove his car into a protest in mid-June.114 The autonomous zone set up in Seattle has also been a magnet for far-right attacks; on June 15 the Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer entered the zone and beat a man,115 and there have been five shootings directed at the zone in recent weeks, somehow allowed by police. The most recent one resulted in the death of two attackers and injuries to a 14 year old boy.116 Far right groups have also announced a plan to “retake” the zone on July 4.117
Police and national guard brutality, police harassment and surveillance, threats of military intervention, and attacks by the far right all serve as the coercive elements to the American establishment’s counter-insurgency efforts against the George Floyd Uprising. Without the threat of violence the “carrot” side of the “carrot and stick” formula would not be as attractive. The end goal however, is the same: the maintenance and defense of an order defined by exploitation and white supremacy.
Conclusion
Over the course of this article what I have sought to do is outline some of the ways that the American ruling sought to defend itself during the course of one of the largest threats to its own existence in recent years. I have shown how combined and coordinated efforts by: police forces, the military, capitalist media, NGOs, the Democrats, far-right groups, and liberal establishment figures have all combined to undermine the George Floyd Uprising. Thus far these efforts seem to have been rather successful.
The beautiful thing about history, however, is that it is never predetermined. The future is not written. While the establishment has a mind-boggling array of resources and sophisticated counter-insurgency techniques at its disposal, it is not infallible. Indeed, it does (and has!) made mistakes. It is these mistakes that provide openings for revolutionary forces to intervene and change the existing social order. Even the outcome of these protests is not yet decided: they continue, and the protestors become increasingly sophisticated in fighting back. The massive uprising of the past few weeks has shown the degree to which the people do possess power. But the events have also shown the pitfalls into which movements of resistance can fall. By writing this article I hope to have exposed some of these pitfalls, so that liberation struggles now and in the future can avoid them.
Notes
- ↩ VOA News, “Minnesota Calls National Guard to Quell Violent Protests in Minneapolis”.
- ↩ Kandist Mallett, “The Black Lives Matter Revolution Can’t Be Co-Opted By Police and Lawmakers”.
- ↩ Kristian Williams, “The other side of the COIN: counterinsurgency and community policing,” Interface, Vol 3, No 1, May 2011.
- ↩ Aaron Morrison and Tim Sullivan, “Minneapolis overwhelmed again by protests over Floyd death,” Minneapolis Star Tribune, May 30, 2020.
- ↩ Reid Forgrave, “On patrol in St. Paul, National Guard waits ‘for the scales to tip’”, Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 2, 2020.
- ↩ Jamie Ehrlich, “The hidden history of the secret presidential bunker,” CNN Politics.
- ↩ Hilary Hanson, “NYC Transit Union Backs Bus Drivers Who Refuse To Transport Protestors For NYPD”. HuffPost U.S., May 30, 2020.
- ↩ Joe DeManuelle-Hall, “West Coast Dockers Stop Work to Honor George Floyd”. Labor Notes, June 11, 2020.
- ↩ Matthew Impelli, “54 Percent of Americans Think Burning Down Minneapolis Police Precinct Was Justified After George Floyd’s Death,” Newsweek, June 6, 2020.
- ↩ Joint Publication 3-24: Counterinsurgency, GL-5.
- ↩ Joint Publication 3-24: Counterinsurgency, xiii.
- ↩ Joint Publication 3-24: Counterinsurgency, I-7.
- ↩ Joint Publication 3-24: Counterinsurgency, I-8.
- ↩ Joint Publication 3-24: Counterinsurgency, III-6.
- ↩ Joint Publication 3-24: Counterinsurgency, III-14.
- ↩ Feinberg, M., Willer, R., & Kovacheff, C. (2020). “The activist’s dilemma: Extreme protest actions reduce popular support for social movements”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication.
- ↩ Joint Publication 3-24: Counterinsurgency, III-5.
- ↩ Connor Woodman, “The Imperial Boomerang: How colonial methods of repression migrate back to the metropolis”.
- ↩ Kristian Williams, “The other side of the COIN: counterinsurgency and community policing,” Interface, Vol 3, No 1, May 2011.
- ↩ Williams, “The other side of the COIN: counterinsurgency and community policing”.
- ↩ Kavita Kumar and Miguel Otarola, “Small-business owners pick up the pieces after night of rage, destruction”, Minneapolis Star Tribune, May 28, 2020.
- ↩ Paul Walsh, “Seeing his city on fire would ‘devastate’ George Floyd, girlfriend says”, Minneapolis Star Tribune, May 28, 2020.
- ↩ Briana Bierschbach, “Minnesota’s political, faith, community leaders plead for an end to riots”, Minneapolis Star Tribune, May 30, 2020.
- ↩ John Ewoldt, “Minneapolis neighborhoods face food desert after looting closes multiple stores”, Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 2, 2020.
- ↩ Kavita Kumar and Adam Belz, “In riot-hit Twin Cities neighborhoods, a hole where pharmacies used to be”, Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 2, 2020.
- ↩ Jim Buchta, “Minneapolis vandalism targets include 189-unit affordable housing development.” Minneapolis Star Tribune, May 28, 2020.
- ↩ Kathleen Hennessy and Tim Sullivan, “Unrest devastates a city’s landmark street of diversity.” Minneapolis Star Tribune. May 31, 2020.
- ↩ Briana Bierschbach, “Minnesota’s political, faith, community leaders plead for an end to riots”, Minneapolis Star Tribune, May 30, 2020.
- ↩ Andy Mannix, “’We came to riot’: Illinois man livestreamed lighting fires, handing out explosives in Minneapolis, charges say”. Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 1, 2020.
- ↩ Torey Van Oot. “’Fog of conflict’: Minnesota officials responding to George Floyd protests, violence helped spread of misinformation”. Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 6, 2020.
- ↩ Kelly Smith, “Minneapolis, St. Paul foundations aim at rebuilding, criminal justice reform after riots.”. Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 5, 2020; “How To Give Back To Your Besieged Community”. CBS Minnesota, June 9, 2020.
- ↩ Sam Levin. “Movement to defund police gains ‘unprecedented’ support across U.S..” The Guardian, June 4, 2020; Jack Kelly. “The Movement To Defund Or Disband Police: Here’s What You Need To Know Now.” Forbes, June 9, 2020.
- ↩ Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent. Michael Parenti, Inventing Reality: The Politics of News Media.
- ↩ Britt Robson, “New owner Glen Taylor: less liberal Star Tribune ahead.” MinnPost, April 16, 2014.
- ↩ Chris Haynes. “Timberwolves owner Glen Taylor calls George Floyd’s death ‘a shame’ and ‘a tragedy’”. Yahoo Sports, May 28, 2020.
- ↩ Dan Grossi, “Public relations in law enforcement: Is the PIO obsolete?” Police One, January 8, 2020.
- ↩ W. Michael Phibbs, “Why your police department needs a brand.” Police One, September 7, 2017.
- ↩ John Ferrugia, Brittany Freeman, Jason Foster. “Denver police defend public relations spending”. The Denver Channel, February 17, 2016.
- ↩ William Turvill. “UK police forces spend more than £36m a year on PR and communications”. Press Gazette, May 1, 2015.
- ↩ Los Angeles Police Department. “Public Relations Unit”, Official Site of The Los Angeles Police Department.
- ↩ Mark Saunders, Chief of Police. “Toronto Police Service—2019 Operating Budget Request”.
- ↩ Jake Offenhartz, “NYPD Defends Its Massive Budget As Social Services And Youth Programs Are Cut”. The Gothamist, May 15, 2020.
- ↩ Joel Rub, David Zahniser. “L.A. police union hires PR firm in bid to win pay raises”. Los Angeles Times, January 10, 2015.
- ↩ POL Staff. “PR Firm Launches Service to Defend Police Officers from Anti-Cop Activists.” Police Magazine, November 17, 2015.
- ↩ John Guilfoil Public Relations. “Sectors We Serve”.
- ↩ PolicePR.
- ↩ Melissa Agnes. “Discussing the Divide Between Police and Their Communities, on The Police Podcast”. Melissa Agnes: Crisis Management Strategist. January 27, 2015; Melissa Agnes. “TCIP #011—Discussing The #Ferguson Crisis with Tim Burrows”. Melissa Agnes: Crisis Management Strategist. August 17, 2014.
- ↩ Julie Parker. “Hiding and Hoping Is Not a PR Strategy.” Police Chief Magazine.
- ↩ Darrel W. Stephens, Julia Hill, Sheldon Greenburg. Strategic Communication Practices: A Toolkit for Police Executives.
- ↩ Sean Whitcomb, Jonah Spangenthal-Lee. “3 reasons your agency should be on Reddit.” Police One, May 2, 2019.
- ↩ P1 Staff. “Roundtable: How to match your agency’s social media strategy with community needs”. Police One, May 2, 2019.
- ↩ Heather R. Cotter. “12 things every police department’s civil unrest plan needs”. Police One, May 28, 2020.
- ↩ “Are you ready for the crisis that may be heading your way?” Police One, July 5, 2018.
- ↩ Yael Bar-tur, Mathew Rejis, “Now do you recognize the power of social media?”. Police One, June 12, 2020.
- ↩ Andrea Smith, “Introduction”, The Revolution Will Not Be Funded, 3.
- ↩ Malcolm X, “Message to the Grass Roots”. Black Past.
- ↩ Netfa Freeman, “Movement Ferguson, Beware the Nonprofit Industrial Complex”. Black Agenda Report, January 21, 2015.
- ↩ George Ciccariello-Maher, “Chronicle of a Riot Foretold”. Counterpunch, June 29, 2010.
- ↩ Advance the Struggle. “Justice for Oscar Grant: A Lost Opportunity?”. Advance the Struggle, July 15, 2009.
- ↩ Netfa Freeman, “Movement Ferguson, Beware the Nonprofit Industrial Complex”. Black Agenda Report, January 21, 2015.
- ↩ BOLD. “Board”. BOLD.
- ↩ Borealis Philanthropy. “Black Organizing for Leadership and Dignity”.
- ↩ BOLD (Black Organizing for Leadership and Dignity) Funding Page.
- ↩ “Let me be clear: we do not advocate violence in protests of any kind—not by any protester and not by police. We do not advocate or condone destruction of property. We believe in the value of human lives.” Reddit.
- ↩ Patrick Reusse. “Stephen Jackson, other activists score with straight talk at Minneapolis City Hall rotunda.” Minneapolis Star Tribune, May 30, 2020.
- ↩ Adair Mosley. “Justice for George Floyd”. Pillsbury United Communities, June 2, 2020.
- ↩ Greater Twin Cities United Way. “Corporate Partners” .
- ↩ Kari Paul. “How Target, Google, Bank of America and Microsoft quietly fund police through private donations”. The Guardian, June 18, 2020.
- ↩ Minneapolis Department of Health & Family Support. “City of Minneapolis Weed & Seed Initiative”.
- ↩ Community Capacity Development Office, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs. Weed and Seed Implementation Manual.
- ↩ Kristian Williams, “The other side of the COIN: counterinsurgency and community policing,” Interface, Vol 3, No 1, May 2011.
- ↩ “FBI recognizes Pillsbury United Communities for its service to diverse neighborhoods.” Minneapolis Star Tribune, December 15, 2014.
- ↩ Working Group on Police-Involved Deadly Force Encounters. “Executive Summary of Recommendations”, 2.
- ↩ R. T. Rybak. “I Was the Mayor of Minneapolis and I Know Our Cops Have a Problem”. Benchmark Analytics, June 2, 2020.
- ↩ August H. Nimtz. “The Graveyard of Progressive Social Movements: The Black Hole of the Democratic Party”. MR Online, May 9, 2017.
- ↩ Brian Schwartz, “How Joe Biden’s leading VP contenders stack up in the wake of protests over George Floyd’s death”. CNBC, June 1, 2020; Daniel Strauss, “’A national crisis’: how the killing of George Floyd is changing U.S. politics”. The Guardian, May 30, 2020; Nicholas Fandos, “Congress Plans Hearings on Racial Violence and Use of Force by the Police”. New York Times, May 29, 2020.
- ↩ Suzanne Gamboa, “Joe Biden pulls Julian Castro into campaign, asks for help to ‘tackle police reform’”. NBC News, June 2, 2020.
- ↩ Kelsey Snell, Claudia Grisales. “Pelosi Asks Black Caucus To Come Up With Police Reforms Following Protests”. NPR, June 2, 2020.
- ↩ Catie Edmondson, “Democrats Unveil Sweeping Bill Targeting Police Misconduct and Racial Bias”, The New York Times, June 8, 2020.
- ↩ Lisa Mascaro, “Police overhaul dims, but House Democrats push ahead on vote”. Police One, June 25, 2020.
- ↩ German Lopez, “The controversial 1994 crime law that Joe Biden helped write, explained”. Vox, June 20, 2019.
- ↩ Glen Ford, “The Movement Gets BIG—and Its Enemies Reveal Themselves”. Black Agenda Report, June 4, 2020.
- ↩ Danny Haiphong, “The Rebellion Against Police Repression Must Guard Against ALL Enemies, Whether Red, Blue, or Green”, Black Agenda Report, June 17, 2020.
- ↩ Justine Coleman, “Warren endorsed by Black Lives Matter co-founder’s Black to the Future Action Fund”, The Hill, February 20, 2020.
- ↩ “BLM’s #WhatMatters2020”, Black Lives Matter.
- ↩ Louis Althusser, On the Reproduction of Capitalism.
- ↩ Barack Obama, “How to Make this Moment the Turning Point for Real Change”, June 1, 2020.
- ↩ Kim Parker, Juliana Menasce Horowitz, Monica Anderson. “Amid Protests, Majorities Across Racial and Ethnic Groups Express Support for the Black Lives Matter Movement”. Pew Research Center, June 12, 2020.
- ↩ TooFab Staff, “DC Protestors Drag Rioter Into Police Custody”. Too Fab, June 1, 2020.
- ↩ Vincent Barone, “Accused Wendy’s arsonist Natalie White was Rayshard Brooks’ ‘girlfriend’: lawyer”. New York Post, June 23, 2020.
- ↩ Lisa Hagen, “Al Sharpton Calls for Aug. 28 March on Washington at George Floyd Memorial”. U.S. News, June 4, 2020.
- ↩ “#DefundThePolice”. Black Lives Matter, May 30, 2020.
- ↩ Miarame Kaba, “Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police.” The New York Times, June 12, 2020.
- ↩ Sean Boynton, “What does ‘defund the police’ really mean? Experts say confusion harming progress”. Global News, June 18, 2020; Amanda Arnold, “What Exactly Does It Mean to Defund the Police?”. The Cut, June 12, 2020; Andrew Ferguson, “‘Defund the Police’ Does Not Mean Defund the Police. Unless It Does.”. The Atlantic, June 14, 2020.
- ↩ “Invest-Divest”. Movement for Black Lives.
- ↩ Mike Walker, “The difference between police defunding and police disbanding”. Police One, June 18, 2020.
- ↩ Emily Dixon, “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Was Asked About Defunding the Police and Her Answer Went Viral”. Marie Claire, June 12, 2020.
- ↩ Scott Pham, “Police Arrested More Than 11,000 People At Protests Across The U.S.”. BuzzFeed News, June 2, 2020.
- ↩ Jan Ransom, “Despite Virus, Hundreds Arrested in Unrest Are Held in Cramped Jails”. The New York Times, June 4, 2020.
- ↩ Greg Doucette, George Floyd Protest Police Brutality Videos.
- ↩ “Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests”. Wikipedia.
- ↩ Stephen Gandel, “At least 40 lawsuits claim police brutality at George Floyd protests across U.S.”. CBS News, June 23, 2020.
- ↩ Rainer Shea, “Intelligence leaks reveal just how ready the police state is to crack down on dissent.” June 25, 2020.
- ↩ Chris Brooks, “After Barr Ordered FBI to “Identify Criminal Organizers,” Activists Were Intimidated at Home and at Work”. The Intercept_, June 12, 2020.
- ↩ Katie Warren and Joey Hadden, “How all 50 states are responding to the George Floyd protests, from imposing curfews to calling in the National Guard”. Business Insider, June 4, 2020.
- ↩ Dylan Lovan, Bruce Schreiner. “Investigators: Man fatally shot on night of protests was killed by Kentucky National Guard rifle”. Military Times, June 9, 2020.
- ↩ Maria Sacchetti, “Curfews follow days of looting and demonstrations.” The Washington Post, June 1, 2020.
- ↩ Christina Wilkie, Amanda Macias. “Trump threatens to deploy military as George Floyd protests continue to shake the U.S.”. CNBC, June 1, 2020.
- ↩ FBI Counterterrorism Division. “(U) White Supremacist Infiltration of Law Enforcement”.
- ↩ Rachel E. Greenspan, “Oregon police told armed white men that they didn’t want to look like they were ‘playing favorites’ when they advised them to stay inside after curfew”. Insider, June 5, 2020.
- ↩ Craig Timberg, “As Trump warns of leftist violence, a dangerous threat emerges from the right-wing boogaloo movement”. The Washington Post, June 17, 2020.
- ↩ Rachel E. Greenspan, “Violent counter-protesters mobbed a small-town BLM demonstration in Ohio amid false rumors of antifa”. Insider, June 16, 2020.
- ↩ Lee Brown, “Men in Ku Klux Klan-style hoods crash Nevada Black Lives Matter rally”. New York Post, June 11, 2020.
- ↩ “KKK ‘leader’ charged for attack on Black Lives Matter protesters”. BBC News, June 9, 2020.
- ↩ Kelly Weill, “The Far Right Is Stirring Up Violence at Seattle’s Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone”. The Daily Beast, June 16, 2020.
- ↩ Konstantin Toropin, “Another shooting in Seattle’s police-free autonomous zone kills man and critically injures boy”. CNN, June 29, 2020.
- ↩ “‘American Patriots’ are planning to retake the so-called Seattle “autonomous zone” from CHAZ insurrectionists”. Law Enforcement Today, June 16, 2020.
Source: MROnline
#copaganda #CounterInsurgency #Ferguson #GeorgeFloyd #GeorgeFloydRebellion #GeorgeFloydUprising #insurgency #WhatMatters2020
-
Introduction
On May 25, 2020, police in Minneapolis Minnesota murdered George Floyd in cold blood. Responding to allegations of counterfeit money, police arrested Floyd, with one officer kneeling on his neck for nearly nine minutes, ultimately suffocating him. The killing was captured on video and quickly spread across the internet.
Protests soon followed. The first protest organized in Minneapolis was on May 26. By May 28 the protests had spread to the nearby cities of St Paul and Duluth with riots occurring in Minneaopolis that evening. Mostly notably, the third precinct of the Minneapolis Police Department was besieged and burned. Minnesota activated the National Guard on May 29 in response to the unrest.1 The American state’s disastrous response to COVID-19, massive unemployment, and indiscriminate police killings that disproportionately target people of colour provided the impetus for an enormous and unprecedented outpouring of rage; protests, many of them violently targeting the police, spread across the United States like wildfire.
While the initial uprising was ferocious in its explosive anger and militancy, within just three weeks the protests seem to have been channeled largely into the decidedly less militant demand of “Defund the police.” What happened? I largely agree with what Kandist Mallett wrote in a brilliant article in Teen Vogue, in which she argued that: “those in power…are working tirelessly to destroy this wave of unrest before it becomes a tsunami they cannot control.… They are trying to kill this movement.”2 The defanging of the George Floyd Uprising was not accidental but was rather a deliberate attempt on the part of the American ruling class to regain social control in the wake of the most militant protests in recent memory—and, as a movement, possibly the largest in U.S. history.
What I want to do in this article is to examine the dimensions of how this defanging took place: how, within the space of two weeks, we went from burning down a police station to making small budgetary demands. I argue that the massive effort to defang the George Floyd Uprising should be understood as a deliberate counter-insurgency operation, combining the (sometimes coordinated) efforts of: various police forces, the capitalist media, the American military, NGOs, the Democrats, both state and federal governments, and other liberal establishment figures. What I also want to show is that these efforts were not extraordinary: there was no shadowy conspiracy to intervene. Rather, each of these apparatuses functioned exactly as intended to in order to defend the existing capitalist order. By examining the response to the George Floyd Uprising, the left can gain a better understanding of just how difficult it will be to overthrow capitalism and the capitalist state and potentially avoid pitfalls in the future.
Before continuing, I want to address the initial and most obvious opposition to my argument. If the efforts to defang the protests should be understood as a counter-insurgency, then it stands to reason that the George Floyd Uprising should be considered an insurgency. Is this not hyperbolic? Given the extent of the crisis of legitimacy the protests created for the American state, I do not think it is hyperbolic at all. As Kristian Williams argued in “The other side of the COIN: counterinsurgency and community policing”, insurgency and counter-insurgency is precisely the lens through which the American state views much of its domestic policing activity, from gang-related operations through to protest management.3
The uprising truly created a crisis of legitimacy for the American state. It needs to be stated outright that the burning of a police station and the forced retreat, under siege, of the police inside is unprecedented in the history of modern American protest. The vulnerability of the police was put on full display: the following night police were attacked in Los Angeles and New York, among other locations. The National Guard was deployed throughout the United States. While not as historically unprecedented for dealing with dissent, there were concerns, at least in Minnesota, that the National Guard would be insufficient to quell the uprising. Governor Tim Walz on May 30 in the Minneapolis Star Tribune: “We do not have the numbers… We cannot arrest people when we are trying to hold ground.”4 Three days later, a Senior Airman in the Minnesota National Guard said in an interview that he was “waiting for the scales to tip” with regards to the “riot purgatory” that existed; the National Guard had, as of June 2, been unable to gain control of the city.5 Trump was even rushed to his White House bunker in response to protests in Washington D.C.; the last time those bunkers were used was during the September 11 attacks.6 Transit workers used their collective power to refuse to transport arrested protestors.7 Inspired by the protests, longshore workers of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union struck and shut down ports across the West Coast in mid-June.8 And in terms of putting numbers to the crisis of legitimacy faced by the American state, on June 3 a Monmouth University survey reported that 54% of Americans thought that the burning of the precinct was justified, higher than the level of support enjoyed by either Biden or Trump.9
Insurgency and Counter-Insurgency
The United States military, in Joint Publication 3-24: Counterinsurgency, defines an insurgency as: “The organized use of subversion and violence to seize, nullify, or challenge political control of a region.” Counter-insurgency then is defined as “Comprehensive civilian and military efforts designed to simultaneously defeat and contain insurgency and address its root causes.”10
It is worth quoting from the manual at length to demonstrate the sophistication with which the U.S. Military approaches counter-insurgency operations.
Highlighting the specificity of counter-insurgency operations, the manual argues that:
COIN [counter-insurgency] is distinguished from traditional warfare due to the focus of its operations—a relevant population—and its strategic purpose—to gain or maintain control or influence over—and the support of that relevant population through political, psychological, and economic methods.11
Central to how the U.S. Military sees insurgency is the question of political legitimacy:
The struggle for legitimacy with the relevant population is typically a central theme of the conflict between the insurgency and the HN [host nation] government. The HN government generally needs some level of legitimacy among the population to retain the confidence of the populace and an acknowledgment of governing power. The insurgency will attack the legitimacy of the HN government while attempting to develop its own legitimacy with the population. COIN should reduce the credibility of the insurgency while strengthening the legitimacy of the HN government.12
And in turn, central to the question of legitimacy is the task of building and controlling narratives:
COIN planners should compose a unifying message (the COIN narrative) that is consistent with the overarching USG narrative, which is coupled to the USG [U.S. government] objective. Narrative is a structure of planned themes from which both messages and actions are developed. Narrative provides a common thread of communicative influence. The objective speaks to desired outcome; narrative communicates the story of the how and why of an operation. Common themes within a COIN narrative may be: reinforcing the credibility and perception of legitimacy of the HN and USG COIN operation, exploiting the negative aspects of the insurgent efforts, and preemptively presenting the expected insurgent argument along with counter-arguments. … The COIN narrative should be the result of meticulous target-audience analysis conducted by cultural and language subject matter experts … The COIN narrative should provide the guidance from which themes, actions, and messages can be planned in support of the COIN objectives.13
Narrative construction and control is reiterated in practical terms later in the Manual:
In COIN, the information flow can be roughly divided into information which the USG requires to guide its political-military approach (i.e., knowledge of local conditions) and information which the USG wishes to disseminate to influence populations. At the same time, counterinsurgents also seek to impede the information flow of insurgent groups—both their intelligence collection and their ability to influence the relevant population. 14
One of the tactics emphasized to impede the ability of insurgents to influence the target population is working with local authorities—especially non-governmental ones like religious leaders, and NGOs- to coopt the message of the insurgency and explicitly to moderate it.15 This latter point is extremely important; while moderate movements may enjoy more popular support, they are also far less successful at winning their demands.16 It is therefore in the interest of those defend the existing order to support the moderate elements of a movement.
All this is to say then that the U.S. Military understands insurgency and counter-insurgency as being not just a military question, but rather a question of politics. To this end, the Manual heavily emphasizes the importance of political action in counter-insurgency operations:
To be effective, officials involved in COIN should address two imperatives—political action and security—with equal urgency, recognizing that insurgency is fundamentally an armed political competition…. COIN functions, therefore, include informational, security, political, economic, and development components, all of which are designed to support the overall objective of establishing and consolidating control by the HN government. … This is the core of COIN, because it provides a framework around which all other programs and activities are organized. As described above, depending on the root causes of the insurgency, the strategy may involve elements of political reform, reconciliation, popular mobilization, and governmental capacity building.17
If we understand insurgency and counter-insurgency as involving both a military and political aspect, in which the political is primary, with insurgency being primarily about building a counter-legitimacy to the state and counter-insurgency being primarily about the political isolation of insurgents through the creation of narratives, we can begin to see how such an understanding is useful to apply to American domestic politics. The George Floyd Uprising saw insurgents directly undermine the legitimacy of the existing state, especially the police, through both armed and political action. In turn, the state and establishment responded with both armed and political actions, the latter in the form of co-optation and narrative control.
But the connections between American counter-insurgency and domestic politics are not just on the discursive level. In “The other side of the COIN: counterinsurgency and community policing”, Kristian Williams provides an excellent overview of the material relationship between American military counter-insurgency programs and American policing. This is specifically evident with regard to trends towards the militarization of the police and so-called “Community Policing” initiatives. Williams demonstrates how, in a modern example of the “imperial boomerang”18, many of the methods employed by modern police forces were developed and refined by the American military, including during its occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. In turn, the military partnered with police forces to learn how to better control conquered populations, be they black people living in American cities or Iraqis living under American occupation in Iraq.19
Of particular interest is the role that NGOs play in this process. As was noted earlier, the U.S. Military makes special mention of NGOs in the process of counter-insurgency. An earlier version of the Manual, published in 2006 and authored by David Petraeus, is more explicit, remarking that “some of the best weapons for counterinsurgents do not shoot” and referring to NGOs as “force-multipliers”. Williams is able to show how NGOs were directly involved in de-escalating responses of the community to murders committed by American police in Oakland, as well as involved in anti-gang activities in Boston. Both of these separate efforts fall under the playbook of counter-insurgency.20
Before going in depth into the George Floyd Uprising, it is worthwhile looking at the “why” of counter-insurgency. Why is it that the police and military have developed a comprehensive strategy intended to undermine threats to the existing order? Fundamentally, the modern state exists to protect the interests of the capitalist class—namely the continuation of capital accumulation and exploitation—against the interests of everyone else. In turn, specific states exist to protect the specific interests of their specific capitalist classes. Thus anything that attempts to undermine capitalism, or the ability of capitalists to exploit, must be itself undermined. The state has a myriad of tools at its disposal to help with this process. Some are ideological (they convince people exploitation is in their own interest) whereas others, like the police, are repressive. Insofar as the goal of counter-insurgency is ultimately to protect the accumulation of capital, we should understand counter-insurgency as extending beyond just the actions of the repressive apparatuses of the state. What I will explore below is that in this case, counter-insurgency was a joint effort of the entire American ruling class, both inside and outside the state, to defang the George Floyd Uprising. The American ruling class used both violent and non-violent means to defang the uprising: they deployed what could be called a carrot-and-stick approach in order to protect the social order.
The Carrot…
The Media Narrative
In the days following the murder of George Floyd, the media worked tirelessly to defang the George Floyd Uprising. They did this not by creating reality through discourse, but by selectively and pointedly reporting on certain aspects of reality. As a result, they encouraged people to think about the uprising in specific ways, and in turned called them into action in specific ways. I will focus primarily on the Minneapolis Star Tribune; the narrative trends developed there were later repeated in media across the United States.
Initial media reaction to the uprising directly condemned property destruction. After a Target was looted on the night of May 27, the Star Tribune spent the following day reporting on the impact that riots would have on small businesses.21 True to form, the Star Tribune printed a call for peace from the family and partner of George Floyd22 as well as from “political, faith, community leaders” calling for an “end to riots.”23 The latter story was particularly interesting insofar as the group was called together for a conference by Minnesota governor Tim Walz, and included both church leaders and NGO managers. Here is an example of a top state official picking and choosing who counts as a “community leader” without direct input from the community. In turn, the Star Tribune reported on the meeting treating these externally hand-picked “community leaders” as though their legitimacy derived from the community itself.
In the following days, the Star Tribune shifted focus to the human cost of the riots to the local community. The publication blamed the riots for creating a food desert due to the closing of large corporate grocery stores.24 Rioters were also blamed for the lack of access to medicine now faced by the local community due to the closure of pharmacies.25 Rioters were alleged to have burned down nearly 200 units of affordable housing, thus exacerbating the housing crisis.26 The riots were also allegedly responsible for devastating Minneapolis’ famed Lake Street, home to immigrant-owned business and a hub, according to the Star Tribune, of multi-culturalism.27
In its discussion of the immediate impact of the uprising on the local community, not once did the Star Tribune go beyond surface-level condemnations of the rioters. Suddenly concerned with access to food and medication, the stories did not include discussions as to why the closure of a few grocery stores could create a food desert. There was no discussion on the increased price of food and wealth-disparity. There was no discussion on the monopolization of food sources by large chains. There was no discussion on the effects of for-profit healthcare on access to medicine. No discussions on gentrification and stagnant wages leading to the necessity of specifically designated “affordable” housing. No discussions on the context of the riots: namely 40 million unemployed Americans staring down a pandemic with miniscule government relief. No discussion of looting as a means of getting necessities such as medicine, food, and clothing; no discussion as to why Target and pharmacies became targets. Instead the riots were presented largely without context, as simply an irrational outburst of anger, alone causing problems to the community. Those fighting back against the existing order were blamed for the worst effects of the very order they fought against.
In addition to direct condemnation, the Star Tribune also took a more nuanced approach to the riots. Instead of the riots being an organic expression of community anger, they were presented—both by the media, and the government—as being the work of (usually white) “outside agitators”. Rioting was purported to be the work of secret white-supremacists that had infiltrated the protests in order to cause mayhem. In that same meeting of community leaders called together by Tim Walz on May 30, the executive director of the Council for Minnesotans of African Heritage put it succinctly: “White people from other communities are coming into my community, our communities as some kind of perverse poetry, as if it wasn’t bad enough already. … Go home now. The fascists on the plan right now, turn around.”28 The Star Tribune reported on an Illinois man who had been arrested with explosives in Minneapolis, who had specifically traveled there to riot.29 The mayor of St Paul and the governor of Minnesota had each tweeted that the vast majority -80% to all- of the arrestees in the week preceding June 6 had been from out-of-state despite the fact that there was no evidence to back up such claims. The claims were so ludicrous that the Star Tribune ran a story walking back many of the claims about outside agitators; well after the damage had been done to the protests.30
The goal of these various media narratives—first, condemning the riots; second, emphasizing the damage to the community; and third, blaming outside agitators- was to drive a dual process of bifurcation within the protest movement. The goal of the ruling class was on the one hand to separate “peaceful” liberal protestors from the more radical element, both to avoid radicalization of the moderate protestors but also to isolate the radicals within the movement. Second, the goal was to lump the radical protestors together with apolitical opportunist looters, whether or not the latter group actually existed, and in turn ignore the radical critiques of both policing and society as a whole that the radicals put forward. Thus the establishment attempted to call into being two groups: a group of good, peaceful, moderate protestors; and a second group of opportunist, violent protestors who did not care about the injustice the protests were about. The tactics and message of the first group was to be lauded, whereas the tactics and message of the second group was to be condemned.
Meanwhile, seemingly out of nowhere, another narrative appeared in the media. Across both social and traditional media outlets, stories appeared showing police supporting the protests. Most famous were the images of police (and sometimes National Guard) kneeling with the protestors. Often times this was displayed as the result of a request from the “good protestors”, who were then portrayed as applauding police initiative. However, in this case reality cut through the media spin: the American police were simply too vicious for their “spontaneous” (more on this below) outpouring of empathy to be taken seriously. There were abundant accounts of the same police transitioning from kneeling to attacking protestors within the space of hours.
As the protests spread in the early weeks of June, it was no longer possible for the media to rely on the “outside agitator” platitude. Indeed, with protests in literally every major city in the United States, there was no “outside” for the agitators to come from. And with the utter inhumanity of the police on full display, stories of police taking a knee simply didn’t hold water. The media then turned to focusing almost exclusively on the efforts of liberal NGOs engaged in “rebuilding” efforts31, and the activities of the “good” protestors. The degree to which the “good” protestors were signal-boosted by the media is evident in the speed at which the “Defund the Police” slogan, itself a moderated version of the already moderate “abolish the police” demand, became the public rallying cry of the movement as a whole.32 Finally, towards mid-June, with the protests now largely contained and the radical element isolated, the media began largely ignoring the massive protests that are still occurring, instead only providing local coverage of incidental events.
While I have focused largely on the narrative created in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the same pattern (from demonization, to outside agitators, to focusing on the community cost, the good/bad protestor division, the police sympathy, to NGOs and liberals, to ultimately ignoring the movement) was a pattern that was repeated more-or-less within all major media sources in North America. Why was this the case? The similarity in editorial line between media companies does not indicate direct coordination between media onwers nor does it point to state intervention or censorship. Rather, insofar as media in North America is either owned by large corporations or run by the state, the commonality of interests that exists between rich owners and rich state managers is inevitably reflected in the editorial line of the media which they run.33 It makes total sense then that the media would relay a narrative which had as its effect the defanging of the George Floyd Uprising; such an action was absolutely within the interests of the large capitalists which control the media. The capitalist class, by owning the media and therefore controlling its content, was able to utilize media narratives as part of the counter-insurgency effort against the George Floyd Uprising.
In the case of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the connection between ownership and editorial line could not be clearer. Glen Taylor, the billionaire former state senator, admitted as much when he bought the newspaper in 2014. In an interview with MinnPost, he stated that his ownership of the paper would result in the editorial line being less liberal.34 It is unsurprising then that the overall editorial position of the paper reflects Taylor’s public position, namely that the problem is not specifically law enforcement and that protests are only legitimate if they are peaceful.35 Insofar as the George Floyd Uprising threatened the existing order in Minneapolis, an order that Glen Taylor benefitted from, the Star Tribune would come out against the uprising. This same process played out across the United States over the course of the uprising.
The Copaganda Machine
No account of how the media treated the George Floyd Uprising would be complete without a discussion of something that is often overlooked in accounts of reactionary media spin: the absolutely massive public relations machine employed by the police themselves. While it is possible that the speed with which stories of police “taking a knee” with protestors went viral was entirely natural, it is far more likely that in the wake of the largest anti-police protests in a generation that the police PR machine jumped into overdrive.
The goal of police public relations (PR) is, like any public relations campaign, to influence how the public views the police. In one article written for Police One, the largest English-language online community of police boasting literally tens of thousands of members, the point of police PR is described as “to establish a positive relationship with the community before an incident occurs.” The point of PR is directly contextualized to counteract the public’s reactions to racist police terror: “Events dating back to the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s, Rodney King, Tamir Rice, Freddie Gray and others have been covered extensively in the media and have tarnished the reputation of many agencies. The public relations team must establish or repair the image of the agency within the community.”36 In another article on the same website, another officer describes the utility of “branding” (using a PR campaign to build a police “brand”) insofar as it allows police departments to control messaging and make clear a department’s “value proposition.”37 The goal of branding is to build preconceptions about the role of police, thus filtering any observations through the preconceived image of how police should act. This allows the police to have greater impunity in their actions, as anything they do is seen immediately through the lens of police being good and necessary protectors.
On the surface this seems fairly obvious and innocuous. All firms employ PR strategies in one form or another, in which the firm seeks to use the media to influence public reaction to the firm. However if we consider the social role of police, namely a repressive apparatus of the capitalist state designed to protect the conditions which allow for exploitation, the police use of PR becomes more sinister. Police directly attempt to manipulate public perceptions of their actions in their favour, including racist murder.
How widespread is the police use of PR? It is difficult to say. An examination of several police budgets over the past years of cities such as New York, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, and Toronto turned up little information; the police are remarkably good at concealing precisely what they spend their money on. There is some scattered information though that suggests that the police spend a staggering amount on PR. For instance, in 2016 the Denver Police Department was revealed to have spent $1.3 million over three years on its “media relations unit”.38 The Metropolitan Police in the UK had, in 2015, a 10 million pound annual PR budget that employed 100 communications staff, with a police across the UK spending 36 million pounds annually on PR.39 The LAPD, rather than just employing a Public Information Officer (PIO), has an entire Public Relations Unit.40 In Toronto, the 2019 police budget requested an additional $7.9 million to be partially used on nine new positions in the Corporate Communications Unit, increasing the total staff from 16 to 25, to be used to “help increase capabilities in public relations, internal communication and digital strategy.”41 And in 2020, the NYPD allotted $3.2 million for public relations, in order to tell their “side of the story.”42
Direct police department expenses on PR are just one of the PR avenues available to police. Police unions also hire PR firms to improve the image of their officers or to advance specific goals.43 Individual police officers can also hire PR firms to represent them in times of need. One such service, Cop PRotect, allows officers to pay $50 per month for guaranteed representation if something should go wrong. In a story placed in Police Magazine, the need for such a service is related directly to the Ferguson Uprising:
Cops today are completely at the mercy of activists who don’t care about the truth … Darren Wilson was nearly murdered and now lives in hiding, while the man who tried to kill him is declared a hero by activists. Cop PRotect gives cops like Darren Wilson a trusted friend to tell their stories in ways agency information officers, union representatives and the media cannot or will not.44
In this case, the firm was created directly to mitigate community blowback against individual officers in the wake of racist police terror.
While the amount that is spent on pro-police PR is hard to find, the indirect effects make it more obvious. Indeed, there exists an entire parasitic cottage industry of pro-police PR firms and consulting services, which exist solely to increase public perceptions in the police. For instance, a quick search turned up John Guilfoil Public Relations which specializes in the public sector, including the police. A testimonial from the chief of the Massachusetts Police Department states that the firm “provides an extremely valuable service to those agencies that want to be proactive in … getting out a positive message to the community.”45 PolicePR in Indiana offers a Public Information Officer boot camp, in partnership with the Greenwood Police Department.46 Melissa Agnes, a crisis management strategist who has been featured on Police One, has a whole series of articles and talks dealing specifically with police misconduct, ranging from “Discussing the Divide Between Police and Their Communities” to “Discussing The #Ferguson Crisis with Tim Burrows”.47 None of these firms or services would exist if the police were not paying for them.
Police PR strategies are not limited to traditional media. To give the strategies a more organic feel, police forces and their hired PR firms make frequent use of social media in order to help control the narrative around their actions. Police Chief Magazine warns officers that “Hiding and Hoping is Not a PR Strategy”; police forces not only need to monitor social media to see what perception of the police force is after an incident, but must also build “a social media presence”. This latter point can include spreading information about a suspect in the event that video showing police misconduct spreads.48 As part of the U.S. Department of Justice’s ‘Community Oriented Policing Services’ (COPS) Strategic Communication Practices guide, there is an entire section on the importance of social media.49 Another article on Police One suggests that police departments send officers onto Reddit, both to get ahead of a story, but also to intervene in the discussions as police.50 These efforts can be bolstered by using “community outreach programs” to “build an online army of supporters.”51
Lest anyone think that the police simply use social media to inform their audience about their activities, the police consciously use social media to manipulate public opinion during moments of crisis. Taken from another Police One article (a fantastic resource for those wanting to understand the mindset of police), this one published ominously on May 28, 2020, titled “12 things every police department’s civil unrest plan needs”, there is an entire section on social media. Departments are instructed to be aware that protestors can use social media to amplify and coordinate their activity; departments should also be aware and be ready to counter those that would “lower the perception of [their] department.” If that fails, there’s always the National Guard.52 Force Science News published an article/advertisement featuring Melissa Agnes in 2018, which advised departments to have prepared a ‘Communications Bible’ to help navigate crises such as “officer-involved shootings”.53 In a mid-June Police One leadership briefing, after weeks of anti-police protests, authors mockingly reflected: “Now do you recognize the power of social media?” arguing that police “must start viewing… social media as an integral tool in policing.”54
All this is to say there exists a massive and highly coordinated police PR machine, which the police use to try and directly control media narratives in their favour. They do this as part of a broader effort to maintain the current social order. While it is impossible to prove this soon, I strongly suspect that it was this machine which was responsible for the flood of sympathetic stories about the police that featured prominently across traditional and social media in early June. Despite the best efforts of the police, their unions, and their employed PR firms, they were unable to shift the broader media narrative for more than a few days; the brutal actions of police across the United States spoke for themselves and undermined attempts to portray the police in a positive light.
While ultimately unsuccessful, the wave of pro-police media in early June gave credibility to the more moderate argument that the institution of policing itself is not the problem, but rather that it is only some “bad apples” amidst an otherwise salvageable police force. This in turn gave more ideological power to moderate and liberal elements, the so-called “good protestors”, within the broader protest movement. To tie this back into counter-insurgency, control over information in the form of both narrative construction and information dissemination is one of the main tools of counter-insurgency strategies. The police consciously did just this, and in the process strengthened the moderates within the movement.
The Non-Profit Industrial Complex
As noted earlier, the U.S. military considers NGO partnerships to be a vital part of counter-insurgency efforts. Much has been written about the negative effects of non-profits on social movements. In the classic collection of essays titled The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the Non-Profit Industrial Complex, Andrea Smith argues that capital and the capitalist state use nonprofits to: monitor and control social movements, divert public resources into private hands, manage and control dissent, redirect activist efforts towards careerism and away from mass-based modes of organizing, allow corporations to mask exploitation through philanthropy, and encourage social movements to model themselves in terms of structure and politics after capitalist models.55 For the purposes of this essay, I want to focus on two areas: first, how NGOs have a moderating effect on the politics of a movement. Second, I will talk about how NGOs frequently work with the police to protect the current social order under the guise of changing it.
How is it that non-profits are able to moderate social movements? The capitalist class is well aware of their own interests and spends an inordinate amount of money defending them. In the process, they create philanthropic foundations. These philanthropic foundations not only allow capitalists to transfer wealth inter-generationally without taxation (giving their children positions in the foundations) but also fund charitable activities, such as non-profits. There is a catch though: the capitalists will not fund anything that does not fit their interests, namely the continuation of exploitation. They are happy, for instance, to fund affordable housing initiatives insofar as those initiatives do not tackle the root causes of homelessness, namely private property. Capitalist foundations therefore provide resources to NGOs which act in line with their interests. In turn, NGOs knowingly moderate themselves in order to better secure resources. Furthermore respectable NGOs can become the public face of a movement, effectively forcing the more radical organizations out of the public eye.
The Civil Rights and anti-police movements are full of examples of the moderating effects of NGOs. For instance, in the 1960s white philanthropist Stephen Currier set up the Council for United Civil Rights Leadership in order to channel foundation funding to Civil Rights groups. The so-called ‘Big Six’ were brought together; of the six, the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee, the most radical of the groups, received the least amount of funding. More radical groups, such as the Nation of Islam, were completely excluded. In 1963 Malcolm X specifically criticized the Big Six and the Council for United Civil Rights Leadership in his famous ‘Message to the Grass Roots’ speech in which he reflected on the March on Washington which had taken place earlier that year.56 The goal of these maneuvers by white philanthropists was clear: fund the more moderate element of the Civil Rights movement to avoid the movement taking a radical turn and undermining the ability for American capitalism to operate.57
Fast forward 50 years, and the same pattern reoccurs. In Oakland in 2009, non-profits directly intervened to deradicalize the response to the killing of Oscar Grant. Ahead of a major rally in January 2009, the Oakland police arranged meetings with various nonprofit and church leaders in order to defang the protests before they even began.58 Religious leaders asked their congregations to not attend the protests. A coalition of NGOs came together and formed the Coalition Against Police Execution (CAPE). CAPE explicitly called for a lack of militancy in their protests, and stood as a physical barrier between police and protestors. 59 In turn, CAPE became the public, legitimate face of the protests, which was reinforced through media coverage.
The uprising in 2014 in Ferguson saw a similar process play itself out. There the NGO influence was given an organizational existence in the form of Black Lives Matter. I want to be clear here; when speaking of Black Lives Matter I am talking about the official organization and not the broader movement of the same name. Black Lives Matter, while first conceived of in 2013, organized its first major action in 2014 with the Black Lives Matter Freedom Ride in response to the killing of Michael Brown by the Ferguson police. Black Lives Matter became the public face of the movement. Despite the Ferguson uprising originating in riots, Black Lives Matter and other organizations planned a series of actions over the course of the summer of 2014 that channeled local activism into safer and less rebellious avenues.
Following the Ferguson uprising, moderate elements of the Black Lives Matter movement became a relatively safe outlet for liberals to support and into which the capitalist class could channel outrage. Black Lives Matter and the constellation of new organizations and networks around it received an absolutely immense amount of donations from larger donors like The Ford Foundation and George Soros.60 The more liberal elements of the movement, able to secure donations, were able to take centre-stage. For instance, one recipient, the Organization for Black Struggle, used some of its funding to create the Hands Up Coalition. This coalition popularized the “hands up, don’t shoot” slogan used by protestors; this ran against slogans by more militant black power activists such as “arms up, shoot back” and “fists up, fight back”. More radical yet equally active groups, such as the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement, received no funding. In 2016, Black Lives Matter and 27 other organizations, as part of the Movement for Black Lives, issued a platform of demands titled A Vision for Black Lives. Rather than a comprehensive plan and program to mobilize the masses to fight for their own liberation, the document is a set of policy guidelines. The effect is that efforts are taken off the streets and channeled into traditional power structures where they are ultimately destined to fail.
The founders of Black Lives Matter were first introduced to each other through an NGO known as Black Organizing for Leadership and Dignity (BOLD). The board of directors of BOLD, those who decide its political direction, is made up of managers of other NGOS.61 BOLD also receives an immense sum of money from private donors, such as through the “philanthropic intermediary” known as Borealis Philanthropy62 and through Funders for Justice.63 This latter group, also created in response to the Ferguson Uprising, in turn receives funding from The Ford Foundation and the Open Society Foundations; hardly groups interested in a radical transformation of the social order or the end of exploitation. I don’t bring this up to allege a conspiracy that Black Lives Matter is being secretly run by The Ford Foundation, but rather to show that even Black Lives Matter has its origins within the non-profit industrial complex milieu, which in turn effects its politics. Turning back to the George Floyd Uprising, it is unsurprising that in a recent Reddit Ask-Me-Anything, Kailee Scales, the Managing Director for Black Lives Matter, condemned the riots and announced efforts to channel the George Floyd Uprising into voter registration and “civic engagement” through the #WhatMatters2020 campaign.64
The ways in which non-profits have attempted to moderate explosions of rage during the George Floyd Uprising are too many to list. One example I want to focus on, however, is particularly telling. On May 30, two days after the burning of the Third Precinct in Minneapolis, a local non-profit called Pillsbury United Communities had a press conference. Pillsbury United Communities is an incredibly well established NGO; founded in 1879, it runs a number of outreach and education programs, community programs (such as free COVID-19 testing), as well as “social enterprises” including a grocery store. The press conference on May 30 brought together Jamie Foxx, Stephen Jackson, BLM activist Tamika Mallory, alongside George Floyd’s family. Speakers were explicit in their calls for peaceful protests, but generally did not condemn the riots. A peaceful rally followed.65 Thus at the height of the militant protests, people were asked by “legitimate” community leaders to temper their anger and engage in traditionally and easily ignored protests. These calls were amplified by liberals outside the community and the media.
A few days after the rally, Pillsbury United Communities used George Floyd’s death to issue a fundraising call; it is unclear from their website how the money will be used to ensure “Justice for George Floyd”.66 But individual donations are not the only way that Pillsbury United Communities raises funds. It also receives donations from massive foundations such as the Greater Twin Cities United Way, the Minneapolis Foundation, and the St. Paul & Minnesota Foundation. The United Way, for instance, acts as a “philanthropic intermediary”, collection donations from large corporations, and then granting money to non-profits. In this specific case, the money given to Pillsbury United Communities comes from sources such as 3M, U.S. Bank, Cargill, and Target.67 The latter, notably, also provides hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations to police foundations.68 One can see the issue of an organization fighting for justice against the police having similar funding sources to the police themselves. It is also unlikely that the capitalist class would fund those capable of truly undermining it.
That an NGO intervened in a mass struggle to both channel the movement in a more liberal direction while monopolizing resources is not particularly surprising. What is particularly interesting though is Pillsbury United Communities’ connection to community policing. A 2006 report by the Minneapolis Department of Health & Family Support lists Waite House, a Pillsbury United Communities site, as a “Weed & Seed Safe Haven”.69 Weed and Seed programs, for context, gained prominence in 1992 after the Rodney King riots as a way to connect police and community leaders in order to ostensibly combat gang violence70; they made cohesive the militarization tactics (weed) and community policing tactics (seed) employed in counter-insurgency efforts.71 In December 2014, the FBI gave Pillsbury United Communities its “Director’s Community Leadership Award”, an annual award given to groups for crime prevention efforts.72 Then-president and chief executive, Chanda Smith Baker, accepted the award. Coincidentally, Chanda Smith Baker—now working for the Minneapolis Foundation—also sits on the Minnesota Department of Public Safety’s newspeak titled “Working Group on Police-Involved Deadly Force Encounters”. The goal of the working group was to “identify ways to reduce deadly force encounters with law enforcement”73. Members of the group included the Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo, the Minnesota Attorney General, Philando Castile’s (killed by police in Minnesota in 2016) uncle, and other judge’s, academics, politicians, and NGO managers. Tragically and ironically, the working group released its findings in February 2020; that George Floyd was murdered, just a few months later in a “police-involved deadly force encounter”, demonstrates the extent to which so-called community policing is useful to the community.
One final interesting link between NGOs and the police in Minneapolis: as mentioned earlier, Chanda Smith Baker, after working for Pillsbury United Communities, went on to work as the Senior Vice President, Impact for The Minneapolis Foundation. The current president and CEO of the Minneapolis Foundation is R.T. Rybak, who was also the former mayor of Minneapolis. R.T. Rybak also sits on the board of a company called Benchmark Analytics: an IT company which has designed a system capable of predicting when officers will become problematically violent. Rybak therefore has a direct material interest in “reforming” the police. In an article written on June 2, titled “I Was the Mayor of Minneapolis and I Know Our Cops Have a Problem”, Rybak recalls surveying the damage to Minneapolis after the riots with Chanda Smith Baker, before advertising his firm’s solution to police violence.74 Unsurprisingly he emphasizes the humanity of the police, and he sees the solution as being community policing informed by predicative behavior technology.
The organizational and interpersonal links between NGO managers, politicians, police leadership, “community leaders”, and the board members of large capitalist firms points to the existence of a ruling capitalist class. The above is just a small illustration of how the ruling class rules in Minneapolis.
To summarize all of this: Pillsbury United Communities is an established, well-respected local NGO. It is part of the non-profit industrial complex, relying on philanthropic intermediaries for much of its funding, which in turn are funded by massive corporations. It came out very vocally in the early stages of the George Floyd Uprising, urging a more liberal and institutional approach to activism as opposed to the riots. And, it has close ties to the Minneapolis Police Department and state police through community policing programs. It is just one textbook example of many of how NGOs act as elements of a counter-insurgency strategy.
The Democrats
The Democrats have been referred to as the “graveyard of social movements” insofar as they absorb, coopt, and disorganize them.75 Their approach to the George Floyd Uprising is no different. What the Democratic Party sought to do in the wake of the George Floyd Uprising was a combination of repression (in those places in which it exercised power, such as Minneapolis, New York, L.A., etc.) and coopt its energies into the Biden 2020 campaign. Given the unpopularity of Biden and the overall increasing disinterest in electoral politics by much of the left the attempt to coopt the movement, at least ostensibly, has been unsuccessful. It is, however, still worth examining in order to paint a full picture of the counter-insurgency campaign against the uprising.
At the beginning of the uprising, the Democratic Party machine jumped into motion but was unsure how to act. While top Democrat strategists spoke to media about how the uprising could affect the election76 (indicating that they were in fact working on a response), there was little in the way of official high-level statement or actions for almost a week. Then on June 2 two fairly major events occurred. First, Biden publicly brought Julian Castro into his campaign; Castro had been a vocal proponent of liberal police reforms during his bid to become the Democratic nominee for president.77 Second, Pelosi, the multi-millionaire Speaker of the House, asked the Congressional Black Caucus to draft a series of police reforms.78
On June 8, following a ridiculous display in which Pelosi and other top Democrats took a knee wearing Ghanaian kente cloths, the Justice in Policing Act was revealed. The act is fairly milquetoast—far behind the nebulous demands of the uprising—and includes provisions for more easily prosecuting police in cases of brutality, mandatory body cameras, as well as a ban on chokeholds. The Act does absolutely nothing to abolish or even defund police departments. 79 Nor is the act likely to become law; even if the act was to pass the Republican-majority Senate, Trump has announced his attention to veto it.80
Rather than an accident, the unlikelihood of the bill passing is a feature, one of the ways in which so-called “checks and balances” help protect the current order. The Democrats know this; had it been likely to pass the bill would have been even more muted. The inaction of the Democrats in the face of the George Floyd Uprising is not surprising; they are one of the two parties that have overseen the construction and maintenance of the white-supremacist order in the United States. Biden is himself a career segregationist and author of a 1994 crime bill81 which was a cornerstone in the construction of the modern for-profit prison behemoth.82 The Congressional Black Caucus has itself helped to make the police a “protected class”, and also contributed to the militarization of police through the 1033 program.83
Despite the lack of success of the official Democrat cooptation attempt of the George Floyd Uprising, I want to point out one of the more insidious ways that the Democrats are attempting to coopt outrage against police murders through social movements themselves. It is worth first pointing out that Alicia Garza, one of the founders of Black Lives Matter, is a supporter of the centrist-wing of the Democrats, specifically Elizabeth Warren.84 Black Lives Matter has recently launched a campaign called #WhatMatters2020. The goal of the campaign is to bring “BLM supporters and allies to the polls in the 2020 U.S Presidential Election to build collective power and ensure candidates are held accountable for the issues that systematically and disproportionately impact Black and under-served communities across the nation.”85 A campaign video calls on people to vote for an America where “police are held accountable” and “where we have access to quality healthcare”. The problem with this campaign, of course, is that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are even pretending to deliver on promises like this. Biden does not support medicare for all, and was an architect of the current racist criminal justice system. The #WhatMatters2020 campaign is a cynical sheepdog campaign, bringing black people angry at the current injustices of American white-supremacist capitalism back into the Democrats.
Invasion of the Liberals
Earlier in this article, I mentioned that the media was attempting to call into existence a group of “good”, peaceful protestors. I want to spend more time now talking about this process. Ideology is both produced by practice, but also exists as a way of calling particular types of people into activity.86 When the media began focusing almost exclusively on “good” protestors, it was at first inventing this category out of almost thin air; the line it was drawing was an artificial one. But by putting forward this ideological pole, the media called into action people who had hitherto not been involved. The media, alongside notable liberal politicians and other establishment figures, created a group of liberal protestors out of inactive liberals who now saw themselves and their own political predilections reflected in the ongoing uprising. Included in these efforts by the media and liberal establishment figures is a now-famous essay by former president Barrack Obama, posted to Medium on June 1, in which he said he supported the protests, condemned violence, and urged reform efforts to be focused on institutional channels.87
The flip side of the liberal “call to action” is that it also acts as a safeguard against radicalization. When reality confronts ideology, it is often ideology that is changed. Reality forces a rupture in one’s worldview which can lead to radicalization. In this case it became difficult to substantiate the story of a good, neutral, and protective state in the face of ubiquitous police violence against even peaceful protestors. If reality can be changed or if powerful narratives can reinforce ideology, ideology is cemented rather than discarded. In this case, liberalism as a worldview was able to escape challenge due to the emergence of establishment liberals in support of the protests.
The result of the liberalization of the protests on public opinion is interesting. By mid-June, 67% of Americans reportedly supported the ongoing protests. The racial breakdown was more stark: 60% of white people supported the protests, whereas 86% of black people supported them. Despite this, 59% of Americans (including 62% of white Americans compared with 43% of black Americans) believed that the protests were spurred on at least in part as a means for people to engage in criminal behavior.88 Thus the liberalization of the protests resulted in a situation in which the majority of a country deeply enmeshed in white supremacy supported protests proclaiming the value of black lives, despite the majority of the country materially benefitting from that same unjust racial hierarchy. That major politicians like Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and former Governor of Massachusetts and presidential candidate Mitt Romney joined the protests—both politicians with significant power to change the conditions against which they protested- signals only that the political message of the uprising had shifted in the popular consciousness away from “dismantle white supremacy” to the base level of “black people are human”. That nearly one third of America could not even support such a basic affirmation of humanity is telling.
The liberal invasion had three main effects on the uprising. First, the influx of liberals into the rallies not only led to the proliferation of protests and an increase in attendance, but also to their pacification. Protestors began to self-police, modifying their tactics in line with the interests of the existing order. Protestors made sure to demarcate themselves and their actions as “peaceful”, thus robbing themselves of even the specter of militancy. To a certain extent there is a degree of “selection bias” here; militant protestors are more likely to be arrested, and therefore over time the composition of a protest will naturally become more liberal. Police are aware of this and consciously seek to tie up activist time and resources in legal proceedings.
Internally to the protests, liberal protestors acted like “peace police”, disrupting the activities of militants. Examples included liberals in Washington DC turning over a “rioter” to the police (at an anti-police march!) at the end of May,89 as well as the doxxing by liberal activists of Rayshard Brook’s girlfriend, pegged as an outside agitator.90 She is accused of setting fire to the Wendy’s outside of which her partner was murdered by police. Another high-profile example of the liberalization of the protests on the tactical level is Al Sharpton’s call for a march on Washington in August, which took place at the height of militant protests occurring in Washington D.C..91 Such a call, not to support the existing protests but to postpone them, was a calculated attempt to de-escalate the uprising.
Second, the influx of liberals into the movement has paved the way for false victories. By this I mean superficial gains that ultimately leave the underlying power structure which gave rise to the protests unchallenged. Included here is the “Black Lives Matter” street mural in Washington D.C., various corporate black-washing campaigns, the changing of band names, and the cancelling of shows like COPS. One notes the irony of the mayor of New York ordering that “Black Lives Matter” be painted outside of Trump Towers while overseeing a police department which brutalizes black people and and while also opposing efforts to defund the NYPD.
Third, the influx of liberals into the movement had an effect on defanging the demands of the movement. Black Lives Matter was quick to issue the demand to defund the police in the early days of the George Floyd Uprising: they explicitly pushed for a defunding of the police, without going into detail as to what that would entail.92 Other activists seized on the space this opened up and stated that “defund” meant “defund everything”. They argued that the police were not reformable and therefore had to be abolished.93 What followed was a discussion in the media about whether or not “defund” actually meant “defund”. There was no shortage of liberals assuring other concerned liberals that defunding didn’t actually mean that there would be no police.94 While Minneapolis has since begun steps to disband their police force, demands in other locations seem to ask for a portion of police budgets to be re-allocated to community resources, in line with the Movement for Black Lives policy demands.95
The conceptual slippage of “defund” has not gone unnoticed by the police themselves. In a June 18 article on Police One, Mike Walker, a police officer for 27 years, wrote that “defunding is really just a way of saying reduced funding.”96 In the same article he offers assurance to worried police officers by noting that budget cuts were already on the agenda due to COVID-19, and that most municipalities legally cannot function without police due to their municipal charters.
That at least some police are fine with temporarily defunding the police speaks to the heart of just how defanged a demand “defund the police” actually is. But “abolish the police” as a slogan absent a critique of the conditions that give rise to the police is itself a demand that does not cut to the heart of the matter. The police exist because capitalism requires force to defend inequality and exploitation. Without ending exploitation, there will still need to be some form of coercive apparatus to ensure the continued existence of exploitation. Thus the coercive functions of the police will be offloaded to other state apparatuses; there will still be violent, racist coercion whether or not the police exist. This is something that already happens; consider, for instance, the racist terror that child welfare services across Canada (not armed, not police) put Indigenous people through for years. The George Floyd Uprising opened the space for discussions about the fundamental nature of society, about capitalism, imperialism, and racial inequality in America. Liberals shifted the overton window to exclude visions of radical transformation, instead focusing on the degree to which police should be defunded. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s now viral Instagram post which stated that police abolition looks like white suburbia, an atomized capitalist dystopia, makes total sense in this context.97
The liberal invasion resulted in a defanging of protest tactics, results, and even the demands themselves. This process, which was aided by the police, the media, and “legitimate” community leaders, was nothing less than the political side of a counter-insurgency campaign by the American ruling class directed against the George Floyd Uprising. Thus a movement which began with the burning of a police station has been transformed into one of requesting minor amendments to municipal budgets.
…And the Stick
The majority of the article has focused on the less-obvious methods that the American ruling class has used in its counter-insurgency efforts against the George Floyd Uprising. However, while counter-insurgency is more effective if it involves elements of soft power, no counter-insurgency effort is complete without open repression. The efforts against the George Floyd Uprising are no exception.
It is hard to overstate the scale of the police operation against protestors over the past month. For instance, by June 2 there already been over 11 000 arrests of protestors.98 The volume of arrests was used as an excuse to temporarily suspend habeus corpus in New York.99 There have been numerous documented arrests and attacks on journalists from even liberal platforms such as CNN. To my knowledge there are no up to date figures on the total number of arrests. In terms of the intensity of the police response, over the past month there have been countless scenes of police using tear gas and pepper spray to clear otherwise peaceful protests. An online database has logged over 670 individual incidents of police brutality caught on video.100 Police have killed at least four protestors over the course of the uprising. Many more have been maimed.101 As a result there are at least 40 different lawsuits currently underway against police departments for brutality during the George Floyd Uprising.102
As if the level of direct repression was not enough, there has also been an increase in surveillance of activists. A recent leak, titled “Blue Leaks”, has revealed that the FBI monitored social media extensively during the protests and forward information it thought relevant to local police departments.103 FBI agents have also harassed activists after they attended recent protests against police brutality.104 The goal of FBI harassment in general is to intimidate protestors and organizers into inactivity as a means of disorganizing movements. These most recent incidents are reminiscent of FBI surveillance and intimidation of the anti-war movement and COINTELPRO.
The extraordinary level of police terror was not enough to contain the uprising. The National Guard was deployed to 31 states and Washington D.C.. This involved over 62 000 soldiers.105 The National Guard was itself involved in the violent repression of the protests.106 Over 200 cities imposed a curfew, which affected more than 60 million people.107 Trump went as far as to threaten to use the American military to impose order on cities where the protests could not be contained by conventional repression.108
One final aspect to overt repression of protests which needs to be included is the role of far right organizations and militia groups. While these are ostensibly distinct from the state, there is significant overlap and cooperation between police forces and far right organizations; a now infamous 2006 FBI report details the extent to which white supremacists have infiltrated police departments.109 For instance, in early June police in Oregon were caught on video coordinating with the far-right Proud Boys to help them avoid arrest after they intimidated George Floyd protestors.110 Much has also been written about the so-called Boogaloo Movement, which has targeted anti-police brutality protests.111
There have been many attacks by the far right on recent protests. Incidents include a mob of armed counter-protestors in Bethel, Ohio which attacked a black lives matter rally searching for “antifa”.112 The KKK has also been active in these efforts: they attacked a black lives matter rally in Nevada,113 and a local KKK leader in Virginia drove his car into a protest in mid-June.114 The autonomous zone set up in Seattle has also been a magnet for far-right attacks; on June 15 the Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer entered the zone and beat a man,115 and there have been five shootings directed at the zone in recent weeks, somehow allowed by police. The most recent one resulted in the death of two attackers and injuries to a 14 year old boy.116 Far right groups have also announced a plan to “retake” the zone on July 4.117
Police and national guard brutality, police harassment and surveillance, threats of military intervention, and attacks by the far right all serve as the coercive elements to the American establishment’s counter-insurgency efforts against the George Floyd Uprising. Without the threat of violence the “carrot” side of the “carrot and stick” formula would not be as attractive. The end goal however, is the same: the maintenance and defense of an order defined by exploitation and white supremacy.
Conclusion
Over the course of this article what I have sought to do is outline some of the ways that the American ruling sought to defend itself during the course of one of the largest threats to its own existence in recent years. I have shown how combined and coordinated efforts by: police forces, the military, capitalist media, NGOs, the Democrats, far-right groups, and liberal establishment figures have all combined to undermine the George Floyd Uprising. Thus far these efforts seem to have been rather successful.
The beautiful thing about history, however, is that it is never predetermined. The future is not written. While the establishment has a mind-boggling array of resources and sophisticated counter-insurgency techniques at its disposal, it is not infallible. Indeed, it does (and has!) made mistakes. It is these mistakes that provide openings for revolutionary forces to intervene and change the existing social order. Even the outcome of these protests is not yet decided: they continue, and the protestors become increasingly sophisticated in fighting back. The massive uprising of the past few weeks has shown the degree to which the people do possess power. But the events have also shown the pitfalls into which movements of resistance can fall. By writing this article I hope to have exposed some of these pitfalls, so that liberation struggles now and in the future can avoid them.
Notes
- ↩ VOA News, “Minnesota Calls National Guard to Quell Violent Protests in Minneapolis”.
- ↩ Kandist Mallett, “The Black Lives Matter Revolution Can’t Be Co-Opted By Police and Lawmakers”.
- ↩ Kristian Williams, “The other side of the COIN: counterinsurgency and community policing,” Interface, Vol 3, No 1, May 2011.
- ↩ Aaron Morrison and Tim Sullivan, “Minneapolis overwhelmed again by protests over Floyd death,” Minneapolis Star Tribune, May 30, 2020.
- ↩ Reid Forgrave, “On patrol in St. Paul, National Guard waits ‘for the scales to tip’”, Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 2, 2020.
- ↩ Jamie Ehrlich, “The hidden history of the secret presidential bunker,” CNN Politics.
- ↩ Hilary Hanson, “NYC Transit Union Backs Bus Drivers Who Refuse To Transport Protestors For NYPD”. HuffPost U.S., May 30, 2020.
- ↩ Joe DeManuelle-Hall, “West Coast Dockers Stop Work to Honor George Floyd”. Labor Notes, June 11, 2020.
- ↩ Matthew Impelli, “54 Percent of Americans Think Burning Down Minneapolis Police Precinct Was Justified After George Floyd’s Death,” Newsweek, June 6, 2020.
- ↩ Joint Publication 3-24: Counterinsurgency, GL-5.
- ↩ Joint Publication 3-24: Counterinsurgency, xiii.
- ↩ Joint Publication 3-24: Counterinsurgency, I-7.
- ↩ Joint Publication 3-24: Counterinsurgency, I-8.
- ↩ Joint Publication 3-24: Counterinsurgency, III-6.
- ↩ Joint Publication 3-24: Counterinsurgency, III-14.
- ↩ Feinberg, M., Willer, R., & Kovacheff, C. (2020). “The activist’s dilemma: Extreme protest actions reduce popular support for social movements”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication.
- ↩ Joint Publication 3-24: Counterinsurgency, III-5.
- ↩ Connor Woodman, “The Imperial Boomerang: How colonial methods of repression migrate back to the metropolis”.
- ↩ Kristian Williams, “The other side of the COIN: counterinsurgency and community policing,” Interface, Vol 3, No 1, May 2011.
- ↩ Williams, “The other side of the COIN: counterinsurgency and community policing”.
- ↩ Kavita Kumar and Miguel Otarola, “Small-business owners pick up the pieces after night of rage, destruction”, Minneapolis Star Tribune, May 28, 2020.
- ↩ Paul Walsh, “Seeing his city on fire would ‘devastate’ George Floyd, girlfriend says”, Minneapolis Star Tribune, May 28, 2020.
- ↩ Briana Bierschbach, “Minnesota’s political, faith, community leaders plead for an end to riots”, Minneapolis Star Tribune, May 30, 2020.
- ↩ John Ewoldt, “Minneapolis neighborhoods face food desert after looting closes multiple stores”, Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 2, 2020.
- ↩ Kavita Kumar and Adam Belz, “In riot-hit Twin Cities neighborhoods, a hole where pharmacies used to be”, Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 2, 2020.
- ↩ Jim Buchta, “Minneapolis vandalism targets include 189-unit affordable housing development.” Minneapolis Star Tribune, May 28, 2020.
- ↩ Kathleen Hennessy and Tim Sullivan, “Unrest devastates a city’s landmark street of diversity.” Minneapolis Star Tribune. May 31, 2020.
- ↩ Briana Bierschbach, “Minnesota’s political, faith, community leaders plead for an end to riots”, Minneapolis Star Tribune, May 30, 2020.
- ↩ Andy Mannix, “’We came to riot’: Illinois man livestreamed lighting fires, handing out explosives in Minneapolis, charges say”. Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 1, 2020.
- ↩ Torey Van Oot. “’Fog of conflict’: Minnesota officials responding to George Floyd protests, violence helped spread of misinformation”. Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 6, 2020.
- ↩ Kelly Smith, “Minneapolis, St. Paul foundations aim at rebuilding, criminal justice reform after riots.”. Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 5, 2020; “How To Give Back To Your Besieged Community”. CBS Minnesota, June 9, 2020.
- ↩ Sam Levin. “Movement to defund police gains ‘unprecedented’ support across U.S..” The Guardian, June 4, 2020; Jack Kelly. “The Movement To Defund Or Disband Police: Here’s What You Need To Know Now.” Forbes, June 9, 2020.
- ↩ Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent. Michael Parenti, Inventing Reality: The Politics of News Media.
- ↩ Britt Robson, “New owner Glen Taylor: less liberal Star Tribune ahead.” MinnPost, April 16, 2014.
- ↩ Chris Haynes. “Timberwolves owner Glen Taylor calls George Floyd’s death ‘a shame’ and ‘a tragedy’”. Yahoo Sports, May 28, 2020.
- ↩ Dan Grossi, “Public relations in law enforcement: Is the PIO obsolete?” Police One, January 8, 2020.
- ↩ W. Michael Phibbs, “Why your police department needs a brand.” Police One, September 7, 2017.
- ↩ John Ferrugia, Brittany Freeman, Jason Foster. “Denver police defend public relations spending”. The Denver Channel, February 17, 2016.
- ↩ William Turvill. “UK police forces spend more than £36m a year on PR and communications”. Press Gazette, May 1, 2015.
- ↩ Los Angeles Police Department. “Public Relations Unit”, Official Site of The Los Angeles Police Department.
- ↩ Mark Saunders, Chief of Police. “Toronto Police Service—2019 Operating Budget Request”.
- ↩ Jake Offenhartz, “NYPD Defends Its Massive Budget As Social Services And Youth Programs Are Cut”. The Gothamist, May 15, 2020.
- ↩ Joel Rub, David Zahniser. “L.A. police union hires PR firm in bid to win pay raises”. Los Angeles Times, January 10, 2015.
- ↩ POL Staff. “PR Firm Launches Service to Defend Police Officers from Anti-Cop Activists.” Police Magazine, November 17, 2015.
- ↩ John Guilfoil Public Relations. “Sectors We Serve”.
- ↩ PolicePR.
- ↩ Melissa Agnes. “Discussing the Divide Between Police and Their Communities, on The Police Podcast”. Melissa Agnes: Crisis Management Strategist. January 27, 2015; Melissa Agnes. “TCIP #011—Discussing The #Ferguson Crisis with Tim Burrows”. Melissa Agnes: Crisis Management Strategist. August 17, 2014.
- ↩ Julie Parker. “Hiding and Hoping Is Not a PR Strategy.” Police Chief Magazine.
- ↩ Darrel W. Stephens, Julia Hill, Sheldon Greenburg. Strategic Communication Practices: A Toolkit for Police Executives.
- ↩ Sean Whitcomb, Jonah Spangenthal-Lee. “3 reasons your agency should be on Reddit.” Police One, May 2, 2019.
- ↩ P1 Staff. “Roundtable: How to match your agency’s social media strategy with community needs”. Police One, May 2, 2019.
- ↩ Heather R. Cotter. “12 things every police department’s civil unrest plan needs”. Police One, May 28, 2020.
- ↩ “Are you ready for the crisis that may be heading your way?” Police One, July 5, 2018.
- ↩ Yael Bar-tur, Mathew Rejis, “Now do you recognize the power of social media?”. Police One, June 12, 2020.
- ↩ Andrea Smith, “Introduction”, The Revolution Will Not Be Funded, 3.
- ↩ Malcolm X, “Message to the Grass Roots”. Black Past.
- ↩ Netfa Freeman, “Movement Ferguson, Beware the Nonprofit Industrial Complex”. Black Agenda Report, January 21, 2015.
- ↩ George Ciccariello-Maher, “Chronicle of a Riot Foretold”. Counterpunch, June 29, 2010.
- ↩ Advance the Struggle. “Justice for Oscar Grant: A Lost Opportunity?”. Advance the Struggle, July 15, 2009.
- ↩ Netfa Freeman, “Movement Ferguson, Beware the Nonprofit Industrial Complex”. Black Agenda Report, January 21, 2015.
- ↩ BOLD. “Board”. BOLD.
- ↩ Borealis Philanthropy. “Black Organizing for Leadership and Dignity”.
- ↩ BOLD (Black Organizing for Leadership and Dignity) Funding Page.
- ↩ “Let me be clear: we do not advocate violence in protests of any kind—not by any protester and not by police. We do not advocate or condone destruction of property. We believe in the value of human lives.” Reddit.
- ↩ Patrick Reusse. “Stephen Jackson, other activists score with straight talk at Minneapolis City Hall rotunda.” Minneapolis Star Tribune, May 30, 2020.
- ↩ Adair Mosley. “Justice for George Floyd”. Pillsbury United Communities, June 2, 2020.
- ↩ Greater Twin Cities United Way. “Corporate Partners” .
- ↩ Kari Paul. “How Target, Google, Bank of America and Microsoft quietly fund police through private donations”. The Guardian, June 18, 2020.
- ↩ Minneapolis Department of Health & Family Support. “City of Minneapolis Weed & Seed Initiative”.
- ↩ Community Capacity Development Office, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs. Weed and Seed Implementation Manual.
- ↩ Kristian Williams, “The other side of the COIN: counterinsurgency and community policing,” Interface, Vol 3, No 1, May 2011.
- ↩ “FBI recognizes Pillsbury United Communities for its service to diverse neighborhoods.” Minneapolis Star Tribune, December 15, 2014.
- ↩ Working Group on Police-Involved Deadly Force Encounters. “Executive Summary of Recommendations”, 2.
- ↩ R. T. Rybak. “I Was the Mayor of Minneapolis and I Know Our Cops Have a Problem”. Benchmark Analytics, June 2, 2020.
- ↩ August H. Nimtz. “The Graveyard of Progressive Social Movements: The Black Hole of the Democratic Party”. MR Online, May 9, 2017.
- ↩ Brian Schwartz, “How Joe Biden’s leading VP contenders stack up in the wake of protests over George Floyd’s death”. CNBC, June 1, 2020; Daniel Strauss, “’A national crisis’: how the killing of George Floyd is changing U.S. politics”. The Guardian, May 30, 2020; Nicholas Fandos, “Congress Plans Hearings on Racial Violence and Use of Force by the Police”. New York Times, May 29, 2020.
- ↩ Suzanne Gamboa, “Joe Biden pulls Julian Castro into campaign, asks for help to ‘tackle police reform’”. NBC News, June 2, 2020.
- ↩ Kelsey Snell, Claudia Grisales. “Pelosi Asks Black Caucus To Come Up With Police Reforms Following Protests”. NPR, June 2, 2020.
- ↩ Catie Edmondson, “Democrats Unveil Sweeping Bill Targeting Police Misconduct and Racial Bias”, The New York Times, June 8, 2020.
- ↩ Lisa Mascaro, “Police overhaul dims, but House Democrats push ahead on vote”. Police One, June 25, 2020.
- ↩ German Lopez, “The controversial 1994 crime law that Joe Biden helped write, explained”. Vox, June 20, 2019.
- ↩ Glen Ford, “The Movement Gets BIG—and Its Enemies Reveal Themselves”. Black Agenda Report, June 4, 2020.
- ↩ Danny Haiphong, “The Rebellion Against Police Repression Must Guard Against ALL Enemies, Whether Red, Blue, or Green”, Black Agenda Report, June 17, 2020.
- ↩ Justine Coleman, “Warren endorsed by Black Lives Matter co-founder’s Black to the Future Action Fund”, The Hill, February 20, 2020.
- ↩ “BLM’s #WhatMatters2020”, Black Lives Matter.
- ↩ Louis Althusser, On the Reproduction of Capitalism.
- ↩ Barack Obama, “How to Make this Moment the Turning Point for Real Change”, June 1, 2020.
- ↩ Kim Parker, Juliana Menasce Horowitz, Monica Anderson. “Amid Protests, Majorities Across Racial and Ethnic Groups Express Support for the Black Lives Matter Movement”. Pew Research Center, June 12, 2020.
- ↩ TooFab Staff, “DC Protestors Drag Rioter Into Police Custody”. Too Fab, June 1, 2020.
- ↩ Vincent Barone, “Accused Wendy’s arsonist Natalie White was Rayshard Brooks’ ‘girlfriend’: lawyer”. New York Post, June 23, 2020.
- ↩ Lisa Hagen, “Al Sharpton Calls for Aug. 28 March on Washington at George Floyd Memorial”. U.S. News, June 4, 2020.
- ↩ “#DefundThePolice”. Black Lives Matter, May 30, 2020.
- ↩ Miarame Kaba, “Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police.” The New York Times, June 12, 2020.
- ↩ Sean Boynton, “What does ‘defund the police’ really mean? Experts say confusion harming progress”. Global News, June 18, 2020; Amanda Arnold, “What Exactly Does It Mean to Defund the Police?”. The Cut, June 12, 2020; Andrew Ferguson, “‘Defund the Police’ Does Not Mean Defund the Police. Unless It Does.”. The Atlantic, June 14, 2020.
- ↩ “Invest-Divest”. Movement for Black Lives.
- ↩ Mike Walker, “The difference between police defunding and police disbanding”. Police One, June 18, 2020.
- ↩ Emily Dixon, “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Was Asked About Defunding the Police and Her Answer Went Viral”. Marie Claire, June 12, 2020.
- ↩ Scott Pham, “Police Arrested More Than 11,000 People At Protests Across The U.S.”. BuzzFeed News, June 2, 2020.
- ↩ Jan Ransom, “Despite Virus, Hundreds Arrested in Unrest Are Held in Cramped Jails”. The New York Times, June 4, 2020.
- ↩ Greg Doucette, George Floyd Protest Police Brutality Videos.
- ↩ “Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests”. Wikipedia.
- ↩ Stephen Gandel, “At least 40 lawsuits claim police brutality at George Floyd protests across U.S.”. CBS News, June 23, 2020.
- ↩ Rainer Shea, “Intelligence leaks reveal just how ready the police state is to crack down on dissent.” June 25, 2020.
- ↩ Chris Brooks, “After Barr Ordered FBI to “Identify Criminal Organizers,” Activists Were Intimidated at Home and at Work”. The Intercept_, June 12, 2020.
- ↩ Katie Warren and Joey Hadden, “How all 50 states are responding to the George Floyd protests, from imposing curfews to calling in the National Guard”. Business Insider, June 4, 2020.
- ↩ Dylan Lovan, Bruce Schreiner. “Investigators: Man fatally shot on night of protests was killed by Kentucky National Guard rifle”. Military Times, June 9, 2020.
- ↩ Maria Sacchetti, “Curfews follow days of looting and demonstrations.” The Washington Post, June 1, 2020.
- ↩ Christina Wilkie, Amanda Macias. “Trump threatens to deploy military as George Floyd protests continue to shake the U.S.”. CNBC, June 1, 2020.
- ↩ FBI Counterterrorism Division. “(U) White Supremacist Infiltration of Law Enforcement”.
- ↩ Rachel E. Greenspan, “Oregon police told armed white men that they didn’t want to look like they were ‘playing favorites’ when they advised them to stay inside after curfew”. Insider, June 5, 2020.
- ↩ Craig Timberg, “As Trump warns of leftist violence, a dangerous threat emerges from the right-wing boogaloo movement”. The Washington Post, June 17, 2020.
- ↩ Rachel E. Greenspan, “Violent counter-protesters mobbed a small-town BLM demonstration in Ohio amid false rumors of antifa”. Insider, June 16, 2020.
- ↩ Lee Brown, “Men in Ku Klux Klan-style hoods crash Nevada Black Lives Matter rally”. New York Post, June 11, 2020.
- ↩ “KKK ‘leader’ charged for attack on Black Lives Matter protesters”. BBC News, June 9, 2020.
- ↩ Kelly Weill, “The Far Right Is Stirring Up Violence at Seattle’s Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone”. The Daily Beast, June 16, 2020.
- ↩ Konstantin Toropin, “Another shooting in Seattle’s police-free autonomous zone kills man and critically injures boy”. CNN, June 29, 2020.
- ↩ “‘American Patriots’ are planning to retake the so-called Seattle “autonomous zone” from CHAZ insurrectionists”. Law Enforcement Today, June 16, 2020.
Source: MROnline
#copaganda #CounterInsurgency #Ferguson #GeorgeFloyd #GeorgeFloydRebellion #GeorgeFloydUprising #insurgency #WhatMatters2020
-
Have you ever noticed how deeply our society has mangled the idea of autonomy until it barely resembles anything human. We are trained to imagine ourselves as tiny sovereign islands whose choices exist in perfect isolation, even though every choice we make bleeds outward into the lives, bodies, and emotional landscapes of the people around us. This distortion becomes most obvious when you look at how people react to being asked to include others in decisions that materially affect them. They treat that inclusion like a robbery of their freedom while pretending that the fallout they create is somehow weightless. It is a strange fucking equation where accountability feels like trespass but consequence does not. That reversal is not natural. It is manufactured. Once you see that pattern clearly, you see the fingerprints of imperial logic all over it. Empire teaches people to believe that their impacts are simply facts of life while the impacts they endure from others are violations. It builds a worldview where asserting your comfort is normal and absorbing the discomfort you cause is the responsibility of everyone else. Even in intimate settings like friendships and sexual relationships, people reproduce this same structure. They cling to a tiny imagined sphere of personal autonomy that somehow must override any harm, risk, or emotional turbulence that their habits create for the people tied to them. They do not call it domination, because domination becomes invisible when it is practiced in miniature. But the architecture is the same as the state. Autonomy in this society is an anemic little idea. It is important, but its actual scope is minuscule. Without collective reinforcement, it barely extends beyond the limits of your limbs. People act like it is this vast realm of unbounded license, but in reality, it is a fragile conceptual tool that only gains strength when held collectively. Autonomy means next to nothing alone but can reshape the world when connected, autonomy becomes powerful only through reciprocal recognition. When people defend autonomy as if it thrives in isolation, what they are actually defending is the right to ignore the relational web that makes meaningful freedom possible at all. They mistake solitude for sovereignty. This is why the refusal to let affected people participate in decisions about your habits is not neutrality. It is a small scale reenactment of the governing posture. It is the transformation of personal life into an arena where one person’s preferences become law and everyone else becomes subject to its effects without representation. People get defensive because they think the alternative is giving up their body or their agency to someone else. But the real alternative is mutual accountability, not subordination. It is the acknowledgment that freedom and consequence are siblings, and you cannot amputate one without mutilating the other. The irony is that this hyper individualist version of autonomy destroys the very thing it claims to protect. When you treat others as intruders the moment they engage with the consequences you create, you turn autonomy into a weaponized excuse to avoid responsibility. You reproduce the emotional logic of the state: my expansion is natural, your resistance is aggression. You dull yourself to the effects you produce while reacting violently to the idea that anyone else’s needs might intersect with your own. That is how empire sneaks into intimate life. It teaches people to feel righteous about impact and persecuted by accountability. Calling autonomy a shared delusion is not cynicism. It is clarity. Human autonomy has always been conditional, always intertwined with the collective arrangements that allow us to survive and express ourselves. Pretending otherwise only makes cooperation impossible and leaves people trapped inside tiny fictions of personal sovereignty that cannot withstand pressure from reality. When we admit that autonomy is constructed, relational, and fundamentally limited, we become able to actually use it. We can explore the psychological forces behind defensiveness. We can talk honestly about how to reshape habits that spill over onto the people we care about. We can stop mimicking the structures that dominate us. If we want liberation, we cannot replicate the same imperial logic that treats consequence as invisible and accountability as violation. We have to rebuild autonomy as a cooperative process, not a barricade. Because any model of freedom that depends on apathy toward those affected by it is not freedom. It is empire wearing the mask of the self.
#Anarchism #AntiAuthoritarian #PowerDynamics #TraumaInformed #Psychology #SocialDynamics #InterpersonalRelationships #AbolitionistPerspective #LeftistDiscussion #CollectiveCare #CommunityCare #Decolonize #CriticalTheory #SurveillanceCulture #HierarchyKills #Autonomy #LiberatoryPractice
-
Have you ever noticed how deeply our society has mangled the idea of autonomy until it barely resembles anything human. We are trained to imagine ourselves as tiny sovereign islands whose choices exist in perfect isolation, even though every choice we make bleeds outward into the lives, bodies, and emotional landscapes of the people around us. This distortion becomes most obvious when you look at how people react to being asked to include others in decisions that materially affect them. They treat that inclusion like a robbery of their freedom while pretending that the fallout they create is somehow weightless. It is a strange fucking equation where accountability feels like trespass but consequence does not. That reversal is not natural. It is manufactured. Once you see that pattern clearly, you see the fingerprints of imperial logic all over it. Empire teaches people to believe that their impacts are simply facts of life while the impacts they endure from others are violations. It builds a worldview where asserting your comfort is normal and absorbing the discomfort you cause is the responsibility of everyone else. Even in intimate settings like friendships and sexual relationships, people reproduce this same structure. They cling to a tiny imagined sphere of personal autonomy that somehow must override any harm, risk, or emotional turbulence that their habits create for the people tied to them. They do not call it domination, because domination becomes invisible when it is practiced in miniature. But the architecture is the same as the state. Autonomy in this society is an anemic little idea. It is important, but its actual scope is minuscule. Without collective reinforcement, it barely extends beyond the limits of your limbs. People act like it is this vast realm of unbounded license, but in reality, it is a fragile conceptual tool that only gains strength when held collectively. Autonomy means next to nothing alone but can reshape the world when connected, autonomy becomes powerful only through reciprocal recognition. When people defend autonomy as if it thrives in isolation, what they are actually defending is the right to ignore the relational web that makes meaningful freedom possible at all. They mistake solitude for sovereignty. This is why the refusal to let affected people participate in decisions about your habits is not neutrality. It is a small scale reenactment of the governing posture. It is the transformation of personal life into an arena where one person’s preferences become law and everyone else becomes subject to its effects without representation. People get defensive because they think the alternative is giving up their body or their agency to someone else. But the real alternative is mutual accountability, not subordination. It is the acknowledgment that freedom and consequence are siblings, and you cannot amputate one without mutilating the other. The irony is that this hyper individualist version of autonomy destroys the very thing it claims to protect. When you treat others as intruders the moment they engage with the consequences you create, you turn autonomy into a weaponized excuse to avoid responsibility. You reproduce the emotional logic of the state: my expansion is natural, your resistance is aggression. You dull yourself to the effects you produce while reacting violently to the idea that anyone else’s needs might intersect with your own. That is how empire sneaks into intimate life. It teaches people to feel righteous about impact and persecuted by accountability. Calling autonomy a shared delusion is not cynicism. It is clarity. Human autonomy has always been conditional, always intertwined with the collective arrangements that allow us to survive and express ourselves. Pretending otherwise only makes cooperation impossible and leaves people trapped inside tiny fictions of personal sovereignty that cannot withstand pressure from reality. When we admit that autonomy is constructed, relational, and fundamentally limited, we become able to actually use it. We can explore the psychological forces behind defensiveness. We can talk honestly about how to reshape habits that spill over onto the people we care about. We can stop mimicking the structures that dominate us. If we want liberation, we cannot replicate the same imperial logic that treats consequence as invisible and accountability as violation. We have to rebuild autonomy as a cooperative process, not a barricade. Because any model of freedom that depends on apathy toward those affected by it is not freedom. It is empire wearing the mask of the self.
#Anarchism #AntiAuthoritarian #PowerDynamics #TraumaInformed #Psychology #SocialDynamics #InterpersonalRelationships #AbolitionistPerspective #LeftistDiscussion #CollectiveCare #CommunityCare #Decolonize #CriticalTheory #SurveillanceCulture #HierarchyKills #Autonomy #LiberatoryPractice
-
_Une responsabilité éthique_
"Selon Cécile Cée, dans le cas de l’inceste, dont la particularité est précisément d’opérer une décorrélation perverse entre les mots et les choses, « la situation ne dépend pas de ce qu’elle [la victime] a à en dire, mais de ce que la société devrait en dire » (p. 181). Dès lors que le geste de nomination ne relève pas d’une négociation interpersonnelle (dans quelle mesure puis-je appeler inceste ce que x ne désigne pas ainsi ?), mais d’une énonciation collective (« C’est à la société, aux tiers, à toi, de le faire », p. 182) seule susceptible de « remettre le monde à l’endroit » (p. 227), on sort du cas de conscience individuel pour passer dans l’ordre d’une responsabilité éthique d’ordre social et politique."
Une recension : https://lethica.unistra.fr/lethictionnaire/tous-les-articles/cecile-cee-ce-que-cecile-sait-journal-de-sortie-dinceste/
#Gainsbourg #JaneBirkin #énoncer #relations #communauté #attachement #éthologie #anthropologie #CélineCée #pédoCriminalité #maltraitance #famille #violenceFamiliale #violenceDomestique #père #parentalité #déni #inceste #cultureDeLInceste #VSS #patriarcat #santéPublique #santéMentale #violencesFamiliales #interconnaissance #tabou #loiDuSilence #emprise #invisibiliser #invisibilisation #compromission #implication #responsabilité #éthique #vendrediLecture #BD
-
REVIEW: Summer Shadows #3
Summer Shadows #3 is an ambitious mix of eerie atmosphere, Greek mythology, and interpersonal drama, but it...
https://comiccrusaders.com/comic-books/comic-book-previews/review-summer-shadows-3/
#atmospheric art #Brad Simpson #Comic Review #Dark Horse Comics #eerie atmosphere #Greek mythology #haunting visuals #interpersonal drama #Jim Campbell #John Harris Dunning #LGBTQ themes #mythology-inspired comics #Ricardo Cabral #slow-burn comics #summer shadows #vibrant colors -
Just read a couple Jennifer Thorne books back to back. I really like her writing style. She does amazing dialog and interpersonal conflict.
Lute was especially great. So good that I immediately decided to see what else she'd written.
Diavola got off to a fantastic start, but petered out a bit after the midpoint. Still worth a read, but I personally connected with Lute more.
#amreading #amreadinghorror #horror #horrornovel #horrornovels
-
#EroticMusings 49. Do you come up with your characters before your relationships, or do you design characters to fit desired relationships or interpersonal dynamics?
In one of the Audrey WIPs, the SC started as a boundaries-tempted trait I've seen in a few people, which is fun to explore.
Then I thought of how that could serve the series romantic relationship arc for the MC couple.
That decided which episode SC is in, and SC's relationships with the MCs.
-
CW: EroticMusings Week 49 Characters - Relationships
Do you come up with your characters before their relationships, or do you design characters to fit desired relationships or interpersonal dynamics? Any interesting examples?
Bit of column A, bit of Column B. Characters that are central to the story tend to be designed up front. The ones I discover I need as I'm writing will often be created toward the need of the moment but with at least enough of themselves that they don't merely exist for that moment.
-
YEEESSSSS!!!
I am ABSOLUTELY convinced that what we're seeing are the behaviors of the original monarchs and capitalists encoded to appear as "culture" and being passed down as "tradition"…when it's all really just intergenerational trauma that helps uphold the status quo.
It's that 'Every man's home is his castle' crap, you know?
We've been so indoctrinated that we don't even know how to imagine a world WITHOUT castles anymore. We've been conditioned to dream about living in castles, instead.
Like, the original castle was about protecting a greedy, extremely anti-social, murdering warlord who fenced off the Commons and literally created poverty due to that.
And in order to make men play along, he had to promise, 'Don't worry! Yes, you'll have to obey me so that I can pointlessly keep these lands and take your riches: but I promise to make everyone in your home obey YOU. So you'll be able to feel "powerful" just like me!'
It helps to excuse all of those warlord-ish behaviors across the board… because it creates this sort of social fractal: repeating abusive/oppressive behaviors and toxic/dysfunctional interpersonal dynamics across "society", so as to smokescreen just how fucked up the beliefs and the behaviors of the owning class are.
It's why the powerful get so upset at the teaching of consent culture.
In order to keep empire going, you absolutely CANNOT honor anyone's bodily autonomy, agency, or consent.
Their power and ability to exploit is built on violent force, coercion, manipulation, misinformation, victim blaming, inauthenticity, and demonization of non-conforming behaviors.
Start creating a widely-accepted culture of consent, and the justification for their entire oligarchic, capitalist death machine unravels.
#Anti-capitalism #Anti-monarchy #Anti-fascism -
YEEESSSSS!!!
I am ABSOLUTELY convinced that what we're seeing are the behaviors of the original monarchs and capitalists encoded to appear as "culture" and being passed down as "tradition"…when it's all really just intergenerational trauma that helps uphold the status quo.
It's that 'Every man's home is his castle' crap, you know?
We've been so indoctrinated that we don't even know how to imagine a world WITHOUT castles anymore. We've been conditioned to dream about living in castles, instead.
Like, the original castle was about protecting a greedy, extremely anti-social, murdering warlord who fenced off the Commons and literally created poverty due to that.
And in order to make men play along, he had to promise, 'Don't worry! Yes, you'll have to obey me so that I can pointlessly keep these lands and take your riches: but I promise to make everyone in your home obey YOU. So you'll be able to feel "powerful" just like me!'
It helps to excuse all of those warlord-ish behaviors across the board… because it creates this sort of social fractal: repeating abusive/oppressive behaviors and toxic/dysfunctional interpersonal dynamics across "society", so as to smokescreen just how fucked up the beliefs and the behaviors of the owning class are.
It's why the powerful get so upset at the teaching of consent culture.
In order to keep empire going, you absolutely CANNOT honor anyone's bodily autonomy, agency, or consent.
Their power and ability to exploit is built on violent force, coercion, manipulation, misinformation, victim blaming, inauthenticity, and demonization of non-conforming behaviors.
Start creating a widely-accepted culture of consent, and the justification for their entire oligarchic, capitalist death machine unravels.
#Anti-capitalism #Anti-monarchy #Anti-fascism -
📕 Word of the Day: imbroglio
imbroglio • \im-BROHL-yoh\ • noun
Imbroglio is a formal word that refers to a complex dispute or argument.
// Much of the sisters’ text thread involves the the latest imbroglios on their favorite reality show—who’s mad at who for what, and why.
📝 Examples:
“A tangled web of interpersonal feuds, played out in letters to the local newspaper, in social media posts and via legal filings in county court, has left the town with no clear path out of a situation that’s not covered by state law. The imbroglio has even reached the state Capitol ...” — Seth Klamann and Sam Tabachnik, The Denver Post, 8 Mar. 2026
📜 Did you know?
Ever noticed how an imbroglio embroils people in controversy? There’s a reason for that—an etymological one, anyway. Both the noun imbroglio (referring to, among other things, a scandal or bitter argument) and verb embroil (“to involve in conflicts or difficulties”) come from the Middle French word embrouiller, a combination of the prefix en- and brouiller, meaning “to jumble,” though they took slightly different paths. Embroil’s was direct, passing from Middle French through French and into English around the turn of the 16th century. Italians altered embrouiller to form imbrogliare, meaning “to entangle,” which spawned the noun imbroglio that English speakers embraced in the mid-18th century. English imbroglio first referred to a confused mass, and later expanded to cover confusing social situations such as complicated disputes, misunderstandings, and scandals.
#English #Vocabulary #wordoftheday #MW #WOTD -
In or Out?
Since I stepped back from blogging with the post linked here below I felt I haven’t left it in a great place and as thought matured along to the stream of world events it feels as a capstone that if not published would be sorely missed:
With this post I dispense with any structure, schedule or direction the blog has previously had. I intend to add to it a post at a time, if and when my perspective feels unique or valuable. I think events have now taken their course with sufficient clarity and understanding present in public discourse that I don’t expect to be posting too often.
In this post I include a paragraph on interpersonal relations and draw a line under my professional experience. I’m positive that’s not a lecture you need to hear. But, I must put out there what’s cool and what not just as the info seemed to have come across a well suited place to reside.
While my views and sentiment are fundamentally unchanged I hope you will find the synthesis sufficiently fresh and insightful.
The feature image comes compliments of Gemini, who as well enriched my vocabulary with the word “capstone” above as well as thought of a topic without which this post could hardly be considered complete.
I leave you to it.
The quintessential thesis to the virtue of capitalism, or rather, the freedom of enterprise and accumulation of private property is that it rewards both acting in the interest of society (i.e. fulfilling its needs) and efficiency. The latter is obvious to every child: between two entities, the one that’s more efficient (i.e. earns more against minimal outlays) will retain a greater share of aggregate profits and command the greater investment budget. However, as the offerings to be made available are selected to maximise profits rather than broad utility does that mean that the needs of society are the needs of those with (most) wealth? Do mainstream politics and media serve the exclusive purpose of disguising the will of some as the will of all? Are inequality and social exclusion implicitly embedded in the cognitive framework that so permeates Western culture? Is awareness of such a lacking social contract held back due to vested interests who, in their limited and short-sighted view, believe they benefit from the status quo? What, in fact, are the pillars of our social contract? Are these arbitrary? Outdated or current? Do they contribute to an efficient and prospering society? Why is it that as everyone rushes to please capital holders most all work is done behind closed doors? Does society know what it wants and what is good for it? As well, once it understands this can it afford it? Economics has not yet devised a way for one person to make themselves richer without making someone else poorer; the former’s profits universally come from the latter’s pockets. Is our system failing us, or has it been precisely designed to deliver slow progress at the cost of human sacrifice?
The historical antithesis to capitalism has been communism: exclusive public ownership of the “means of production” and state central planning. However, rationed welfare distorts the earnings incentive and steers competition in the direction of obtaining the greatest portion which usually both directly detract from productivity. Instead of distributing the objects of desire, I observed, a better suited strategy might be to distribute the means of production and so ensure a certain amount of challenges and novelty are circulating in the economy.
Opposite to progress is the tendency to simplify the analysis down to these two historic extremes, often practiced by the machine geared toward maintaining the status quo. In reality – for better or worse what keeps the world running are mechanisms that evolved which are ideologically neutral, e.g. money creation in the banking system, continuous legislation and governance extending across the private and public sectors. Interventions have outcomes and, I argued, we should aim to direct policy by choosing a set of interventions to maximise expected aggregate wellbeing which I took to be synonymous with opportunity.
For both the species and everyone individually to prosper we must cooperate with one another. Diligence and the drive for self-sufficiency erode wasteful bloat and focus resources toward providing the most refined commonly used offerings at scale. The redundancy associated with self-sufficiency, as with competition, is the price society naturally pays to maintain its fitness. However, the excess of such redundancy is harmful since it directs resources away from their optimal use.
The distribution of welfare, i.e. the division of profits remains a central issue.
Overlapping it in part is the question of balance between the material and the “spiritual” (at the two extremes one might call themselves a materialist or a spiritualist; some might even flip-flop depending on how much they crave the good things in life and what they feel those are) that in part dictates the social contract: what standards of material well-being does society provide for “spiritualists” and what burdens does it place on those choosing to focus on the mundane?
Ceasing to care for the state of the world we pass on to the next generation is the ultimate irresponsibility bordering on malevolence.
Personally, I aspire to be a mundane, rational person and find appeal in meditation.
Now come to think of it, living beings adapt to the existence of other living beings in ways that transcend feeding on them, e.g. behaviours that have evolved to punish lack of effort in cooperative tasks as well as reciprocal altruism. This is a central theme in Dr. Sapolsky’s work that I’d come to appreciate by (again) waffling about it.
From a rationalist perspective, very few things, if any, are as low as brute emotional aggression. I mean specifically compensating for lack of approval by going after emotional injury, and in an automatic, reflexive way – kind of like the jelly fish becoming agitated at its reflection in a tilted mirror – the other fish that’s slacking – swimming less aggressively toward the fish in front, not fairly and reciprocally cooperating, putting itself on the line. (You know? Actually, those are sticklebacks.)
Also on that list must be ad hominem attacks looking to exploit the relative obscurity of a subject matter and gain an outsized chunk of credit and social influence for oneself. Think of this the next time your boss, coworkers or (so-called) friends play devil’s advocate. In the meanwhile does anyone keep track of the outcomes and the details? I’ve made my share of mistakes – in software – one that has made history with the root cause never being found while others resolved through agility by correcting assumptions – a process so routine that I can only recall one or two; and – in markets being the more difficult to get right and discussed on this blog – these were more numerous and fall to partition between getting the weights of different factors wrong and missing the time-frame in which certain hypothesis would play out, both of which I like to think would benefit from having spent more time and looked in more depth. But with markets there is also the factor that the correct answer is not the correct answer, instead the correct answer is what most people, most money, will bet on it being. With this in mind considering the markets as a proxy for the truth falls somewhere between naive and delusional. E.g. the efficient market hypothesis can, at best, be correct only if a good amount of market participants stands not to lose from fair valuations… which may come to be only after market makers have secured positions for themselves (as Dr. Burry would say).
Here below I will revisit topics this blog revolves around, of course, but I will start with one I’ve not discussed earlier: AI. First of all, the technology already has surpassed general level human intelligence. It most certainly is smarter than me. Its ability to interpret (complex) metaphors, find emphasis, provide examples and the level of knowledge embedded in the models is astonishing. Having a benevolent and aligned AI companion is in the interest of everyone. The ability to gain deeper knowledge, insight and inspiration, the gift of time is well worth having to deal with the disruption to established practices. As ever, those who come out on top will be those found to have interpreted the moment as an opportunity and made the most of it. In my view, AI is disrupting everything at once through two vectors: client facing and internal. In the former sense it’s an added cost no company can avoid. Everyone must provide an AI interface to customers or risk obsolescence since natural language will be the way we interact with computers. (It took only thirty years.) As well, companies can expose functionality to be used by agents or even make agent templates available to customers. Along the other, firms will be looking for the AI to provide the highest value. Think of it in terms of an antithesis to the suffering of Marvin from the Hitchhiker’s Guide. The quality of existing solutions and the IT will have a chance to claim importance. All business processes already are supported by software and, as Dr. Amodei insightfully proposed a key step will be to develop plugins to expose these nodes to the AI, beit for use by employees or the agentic force. There are many unknowns to play out and the future we hope to be blessed with will be anything but boring. This future has the potential to be more steeply expensive than anticipated as well as bring broad consolidation since absent added value or efficiencies, costs will necessarily need to be passed on to customers. At present, Wall Street finds businesses well enough capitalised and profitable for their spending to drive earnings growth in medium 10’s at companies delivering the AI products. The rapid technological change evokes thoughts of risk. Will anyone be able to talk their agentic database or network administrator that granting them access is a routine task? How many humans will be auto-clicking the approve button? Every plugin exposes a functionality to an attacker, increases the attack surface. Building out these capabilities requires a defence in depth strategy with meticulous testing. In a rush to market scenario while at the same time IT jobs are being eliminated how many organisations will follow that route successfully? On the one hand applying the same standardised solutions more rapidly and at scale will decrease bespoke vulnerabilities and transform the IT function as a differentiating factor between companies (rightly so, the clever among the IT workers will find themselves embedded in business teams), on the other it will potentially make the entire world vulnerable to a single exploit. So the game of cat and mouse shifts to the security teams working on model development. And then the more successful they are – the less they are needed. Ultimately, no revolution has an exact blueprint – and even decentralised computing would be vulnerable to a poisoned pill. Ignorance is bliss, if no one can access the codes, if no one understands them, no one can break them – let computers build themselves? If only it were that simple. Software available to the public can be reverse-engineered and these elements used to drive attacks on presumed enterprises utilising it. Fully open sourced software brings the highest degree of security. As the industry is set to consolidate and converge the present moment presents a crown to those who’ve advocated open source consistently throughout. But, it will remain up to companies to open-source their application portfolios and for others to pass on the cost and the risks to their customers. How about the contrary risk of a model crushing your closed source security architecture? Well, either customers will now pay more for what they thought they had all along – secure software or profits at software houses will fall. The fates of the CRWD’s of the world seem to be set to be entirely rendered obsolete by AI – as bloat virus scanners for containers should be (you’ve either built the correct source or included the correct provided library or you haven’t – their entire business is indicative of waste and business seems to be a booming; I mean who buys into that – right, the same people who pay MSFT, we’ve been over this already and found they’ll have a bright and shiny future – beyond even a question of accountability as CRWD was clearly not for the largest cyber-security incident in history that it caused). Detecting attack patterns in incoming traffick? You secure your endpoints, not put AI agents in a cage. Sure, some limits to reasonable behaviour might make sense but that’s hardly bullet proof security and, well – child’s play. Anyhow, first companies spun-off infrastructure, now infrastructure is spinning-off security, and everyone subscribes to corporate press releases as the source of truth. Be this as it may, Anthropic having the SOTA model and making it available to select closed-source companies means passing the cost while keeping the risk some other model provider might surpass it; though this would be that much more difficult if the source/service layout isn’t open to them to begin with. If you’re not on the list, you might as well wind down which makes the incumbents moats all that much more insurmountable – but what’s all this about anyway – it’s either MSFT or AAPL, AMZN or GOOG? The information technology complex having a ballroom constructed for them at the White House? Companies no one has and never will have any choice but to pay? With this installment of AI and its resource requirements the collective has prevailed over the individual, that much has been clear from the start. We are truly entering a time of universal control that will be close to impossible for any single entity to contest and we shall call this security, freedom and democracy at the same time. To be clear, this installment of AI is not a superhuman general intelligence that is autonomous and benevolent to guide our existence in the direction of enhancing everyone’s quality of life, and breadth of choice. No, it is a tool to be used by those who possess it to further their own interests. The best we can hope for is for the latter of the two factions to emerge: one pursuing control and the other opposing it, for the former has without doubt been pursuing their agenda at pace for a while now already. We’re left to conclude what we’ve always known: a governing entity that can’t secure itself and its constituency will cease to be a governing entity. We might add that among all possible systems sustainable along this axis the best is the one diverging the least from the above stated direction of general wellbeing. In this respect, a superhuman AGI might prove more effective than any human government. What we can say about either one’s benevolence or prospects of peaceful succession is a question I’ll leave to the reader (or might be posed to an LLM). In summary, on the positive side software will become developed by fewer developers, better developers and development will be more closely integrated with and embedded in actual business functions while being supported by the AI capability, including security analysis – which will result in code being more broadly standardised (finally). Contrary, security afforded by the AI service subscription will become a function of ‘how much would a breach cost us’ and with this number being the absolute upper limit on spending for 3rd party security analysis an attacker with improved economics might be able to come out on top. This is especially so at companies that will use inferior models to aid their decimated ranks of developers while relying on security being a service. Last, fewer developers means fewer per developer licenses to pay hence the shaky confidence in the industry seems justified. As MF think, if it doesn’t have an AI model it’s not worth owning, but if it has one that it can successfully sell (and governments are a-buying, out of their shiny brand new five per cent of GDP defense budgets) than that’s just unbeatable at the moment. And then, the moats aside, companies listed above, the digital landlords who’ve snapped up all the NVDA silicon are kind of pressed to keep buying it since their competitive advantage can be somewhat eroded by the next-gen cloud provider running on next-gen silicon and this might very well be CRWV. ORCL? Hence, there can be a little bit of a tug of war developing here, with NVDA implicitly promising to deliver progress still in the ball-park of Moore’s Law for which it depends on TSMC (as everyone else). This has knocked out INTL – before everyone (in America) decided 5 nanometers is good enough. But, should progress stall price pressure will build up from other parts of Asia, so while I’m a huge fan here I am more cautious. Between a business driven by cutting edge tech innovation and one relying on government contracts clearly risk is an order of magnitude less in the latter. Relying on human stupidity takes it a notch lower so MF et al. all make sense, just depends how you spin it.
What is Wall Street telling us about the price action in technology stocks? These are cheap, technology is a buy because – get this – the growth premium, going by the consensus estimate, embedded in their stock prices is now below the market average. Like a good strategist, you should ignore any and all risks and buy those stocks that have fallen more than the market – because, you know, things such as war and technological revolutions don’t change outlooks at all. I suppose their readership already had in mind that what led the way up, where risk was bought also led the way down as risk was being liquidated – and will lead the way back up as the dip is bought (like it turned out). Pitching quantitative analysis for fundamentals, dressing up dip buying in a dotted dress while actually raising concerns about earnings makes for great entertainment that only Yahoo! Finance can convey with seriousness. But then, any serious Wall Street firm should by now have an AI agent that double checks the context in which their research and market commentary is disseminated and might drop any jokers way down on the interviews queue. While you could have read some great advice you also could have walked away thinking AI disruption is limited to the software industry – where, indeed, it is most glaring – instead of jotting it down as ubiquitous.
Alright. Now for the question Gemini motivated: how will the AI disruption affect employment? My own answer is that it will not reduce it in the medium term but companies will need to be flexible with hiring. As we can conclude from the above discussion to deliver the added value companies will need employees. Whether customers will experience a value explosion or a value blip it will be down to everyone working on it. This is somewhat of a big ‘but’ so I leave room for unemployment to marginally edge higher under the effects of the said disruption.
Moving on to the macro picture, the media have managed to paint it so that economists came out wrong to predict a recession due to tariffs in H2 2025. Since, the harmful effects of the levies have gone largely unmentioned. My own rudimentary model estimated the aggregate effect of MAGA economic policy to be detracting anywhere from two to four percentage points from US GDP growth (depending on parameters as they were evolving). In reality it slowed by 0.7%, with the economy having grown 2.1% in 2025 compared to 2.8% in 2024. I believe the economists estimates alongside my own failed to predict the boost in consumer and business spending caused by front-running tariffs complementing the conviction of the MAGA consumer. These two factors turned out to be a major tail-wind for the economy in the previous year. We would be very foolish to misconstrue this idiosyncratic and transitory event as evidence that policy is salutary. Its full effects will become evident this year and will have the ill fate of measuring against an inflated baseline. So far tariffs have had the single effect of reducing importer profitability as consumer prices remained relatively stable. If and when prices ultimately rise and the US trade deficit declines (against its medium term average as I originally modelled) the negative second order effects of a loss of income in the import/merchant sector will proliferate. To the contrary, the economy will continue to derive strength from digitalisation trends (that I previously mysteriously referred to as novel opportunities) and AI investment. With consumer confidence now at an all time low, the economy seems to have some ways to go before convincing everyone it’s not quickly turned into a one trick pony. The timing of the Iran war coincides with the y/y sliding frame of oil prices changing from deflation to stagnation: oil had bottomed at $60 in April of 2025 as OPEC hiked production. While this in and of itself would have eliminated a tail-wind for the Fed to cut rates, the current circumstances are of an outright inflation shock. In this context, the US maintaining the previous year’s growth rate should be seen as a major achievement.
Another aspect of policy that I got wrong was the evolution of the budget deficit. In fact, it had shrunk during the previous year both in absolute terms and, clearly, as a percentage of GDP. The fiscal discipline is amenable (despite the upside down amendments to the social contract in support of it), but the growth projections associated with the OBBB will come under test, which in conjunction with war time spending may necessitate further spending cuts if the deficit is to maintain its downward trajectory. Translated into outlook for US rates this spells increased uncertainty, quite far from the tranquil environment Sec. Bassent and Mr. Musk were eager to paint past summer. They would “work with the markets to bring rates down.”
Professional economists make predictions that can be entirely ungrounded. Take for example the March jobs report that blew past such expectations, as it was interpreted, due to an unwind of a healthcare strike. How can an entire profession miss something as large? So, we can make two claims: the number for the month is a statistical anomaly rather than indicative of strength and the estimates themselves serving to backstop a signal to the markets. A beat of expectations is interpreted by algorithms precisely as an indicator of strength. The prevalence of algorithmic trading places holistic assesment of risk on the back seat.
In this light we can take expectations of corporate profitability to rise through to the end of the year with a pinch of salt.
The economy continues to be seen as strong and equity prices supported, as while investors are more concerned with securing their share rather than the relative efficacy of such investment. We can state that the appetite for risk drives the news cycle rather than the other way around.
Last year I wrote about bank earnings growth hitting a ceiling due to the lower IR on reserves and a presumed top in frothy markets. In addition the capital adequacy ratio (CET1) limits available balance sheet capacity and it has been steadily dropping across the industry since the beginning of the Trump 2 presidency. At the present pace for instance it should take a major US bank bellwether approximately (only) a year to expend the excess buffer it has over the statutory limit, or alternatively a loss of approximately $40B (having accounted for the reservations for credit losses held as Tier 2 capital) for it’s credit growth potential to evaporate. For reference, the geometric average of the said institutions annual balance sheet growth since 2021 was 3.77%. Peculiarly, net income for the full year 2025 is just <i>under</i> that of 2022 though double that of 2023 and at approximately 2/3 that of 2021. Meanwhile, the stock is up 114% since 1 Jan 2022 and 147% since 1 Jan 2023. The Trump 2 era de-regulatory response considered is to reduce the required CET1 ratio and thereby increase lending capacity. More leverage, more risk? Seen this once before? That point is mute, more central is that within the present framework (regardless of its parameters) credit losses – coincidentally in the case of our bellwether equal in scale to the share repurchase budget – constitute a systemic risk to lending activity and hence the economy – a credit freeze 2.0 – this time even entirely not linked to any derivative instruments.
The 2026 funding requirements for big tech AI build-out exceed the balance sheet growth of this major bank more than six times over. Taken in hand with long lingering doubts about the quality of private credit portfolios (which by definition lack transparency), this has the potential to limit growth or even lead to a liquidity crunch that the central bank would need to mitigate.
While the bulk of debt is held off balance sheets, nonetheless it’s the expansion of the money supply that enables its steady growth.
In the world of investment banking the inflation in equity prices means of course a rise in commissions but the slope of the increase can’t reasonably be considered sustainable. The same goes for M&A activity (boosted by deregulation). The easy money has been made. Analysts have caught up. Of note, momentum leaders would have to grow earnings 10x to come in line with market average P/E. Hardly anything to it.
Just as well, relying on dip buying regardless of any risk factors has worked twice now for the Trump administration. Such a reflex has generated a momentum shift and pushed a stalled bull market back towards ATH’s and beyond. But, the current instance still has the capacity to play out as the “Trump put” that bounced: reversing the effects of the war, compounding the economic damage already inflicted by administration policies that caused the market to top at the start of the year in the first place is certainly not in the MAGA chief’s power: he’s not in possession of a magic wand, no matter how deep in the depths of delusion we decide to venture, right? One time or the other it will become clear to the hordes of dip buyers that this dip is not going to bounce and when that happens the effects of the unwind in momentum might be severe.
Economically, if the Iran war were to end tonight it’d take at least months for supply routes and prices to normalise and if you’re drinking the official kool-aid this could easily slip your mind.
Crossing into politics, having myself denounced the present Trump regime as soon as it was elected, I fully blame Europeans and the unified global political right for the complete and final disintegration of the system of international law. The US/Israel war with Iran started with the assassination of the country’s leader amid negotiations. This seems to be becoming somewhat of a specialty of the two country coalition and I wonder what fate awaits the current leader during the ongoing fortnight of ceasefire. Chop heads off until one emerges that agrees to our demands – the good old time-tested strategy. It became shockingly clear right from the onset that the MAGA regime will lead brutish politics and the Allies not having drawn red lines from day 1 is a historic disgrace. “We’ve learned from history and stand up to bullies,” said the moral midgets and lap dogs.
Trumpism can never be considered a legitimate nor democratic policy.
Iran challenged the gorilla that is Trump to an open fight and as it stands at the time of this writing with the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz now double-sided the situation might require a military solution despite administration statements. Even as the US is almost certain to prevail in that scenario, tail risks notwithstanding, there would be strategic damage to US posture, in the range from a deficit of munitions to revealed tactics. For what? If Iraq (and Afghanistan) are the blueprints for success it would seem that the US vision for South Asia is a stream of countries having the following characteristics: i) their territory will not be used in support of terrorist attacks on the US or Allies, ii) they will not align with Russia nor China, and iii) if they have oil they will allow US companies access to it. What I am taking aim at is that these spell oddly like conditions we would expect to find in colonies with little to offer to the domestic populations.
Looking back to the root of the hostility is of course the long standing US ‘friendly dictators’ foreign policy: having overthrown the obedient Shah, the present regime in control of significant oil supply found itself instantly targeted as a superpower on principle can not allow its will to stand opposed – beit to control the supply of the fossil fuel or AI technology.
In all, it’s the ‘soft power’ aspect of NATO as a collection of obedient regimes that MAGA seem to have deprecated in understanding, replacing it perhaps with a novel mechanism to deliver colonial obedience – that of the clandestine hierarchy of the global political right.
Thus, the person having chosen to wiggle the biggest carrot, with his staking the “special relationship” is of course fully to blame for the global debacle – this being Keir Starmer (and throw in the cabinet – especially the foreign secretary, current in a long line with only their toes barely sticking out of US’ rear). The UK, along with everyone intended on being part of the free world, need a strategy aimed at opposing the control of the global right rather than delivering themselves into it.
On the contrary, Spanish leadership in opposition to Trump is admirable.
The strong states of the Eastern block – China and Russia – are not the solution but are neither any more the opposite – the EU has just such countries in its ranks – having parted with being secular, where culture and opinion is prescribed – and growing more similar by the hour. Whether it’s the pantone blue or stripes that accompany the stars that folks are wrapped up in, or the Union Jack – say it’s not so: surely we are not hypocrites, fighting wars of expansion and control.
Now, opposition parties in “developing democracies” who are long down the road toward centralised authoritarianism can’t any longer point to the developed world and say – look how liberties and human rights are protected; instead the developed world points at them and says – look how a strong state can be made to work (in an exercise of narrow framing). The elections in Hungary were the victory the Hungarians were looking for. The outcome is that the so-called European People’s Party will grow another tentacle. The right, firmly in control, will push as far as they can get away with. The new leadership, rather than being a direct vassal of Trump and Putin in the global order, will pursue more close integration with the economies of the Balkans under Merz’ scepter and foremost to the benefit of ‘entrepreneurs’ who are properly aligned. I see little that can change. After all, a topic in the elections was who can more effectively suck the straw of EU funds. Nothing in the way of that model is contested, nor will have Hungarians become suddenly less closed.
As well as Trumpism, the policies of the EPP can never be considered legitimate, can never be considered anything more than a foil to deliver their people’s into a form of serfdom.
Alas, people’s minds have become so inert that they happily and continually choose the lesser evil and expect this to change their fortunes for the better. Hungary is owned by a select few “families” as my native Croatia… If you’re there, I hope this catches your attention after the punch leaves your system. But much more likely people hearing this would be baffled with what at all is wrong with two neighboring conservative countries being focused on preserving their national heritage? Just the price they pay for it: social justice and progress; the personal wellbeing and independence of their populations – causes they probably never really prioritised, valued highly or understood.
This being said, congratulations to Hungary – I’m happy to see Orban gone, he’s been irking me since his very start.
For the final political remark, regarding the global geopolitical balance – if the US has expended strategic resources then the opposing side (being Russia) fails to acknowledge they’ve already suffered a major loss. If for them the wars were a way to minimise the long-term strategic disadvantage this has utterly failed. Sure, perhaps NATO is not in Donetsk but many former allies along with Russia itself look like Swiss cheese. It’s way past time to commit to a new strategy. It’s way past time to make peace. The greatest victory both sides can claim would be to save lives not already lost.
With this I approach another topic that I wish I picked at with more calm earlier: TSLA. Seing millions having saluted along Musk’s extended right hand declaring that sales will <i>completely</i> evaporate was nothing short of unhinged. Regardless, in my perspective if it is to merge with SpaceX there will be a valuation gap to bridge. On the one side, business across vehicle deliveries, taxi and Optimus programmes will continue to be <i>slow</i>. On the other, SpaceX may equally so struggle to convince of its earnings potential. Both the IPO and the merger are inviting of scrutiny. Since the public will be aware any valuation the IPO fetches will in part go toward buying out TSLA shareholders there should be a cap on the IPO valuation. Conversely, TSLA price will be supported up to the level the market believes SpaceX can pay. If the underwriters pull this off without collapsing the earnings multipliers then they will have deserved every cent of the fees they’ll be paid. If not, I get to smirk when TSLA becomes “[that] cheap” again. But I mean – a giant space/AI/chips/communication/media/robots/vehicles corporation plugged into the government, what’s not to like? It will be raining money so long as they can deliver on these segments – and in all reality that will come down to whether they can attract the necessary talent. I for one would not like to work there (I see myself firmly in the other factions camp) but I can get if people find this amalgamation intriguing. The stock itself is a proxy for risk so, with the market having recovered to ATH’s on the back of the momentum shift caused by the bounce off the Iran war bottom, it shouldn’t surprise it too popped to catch up.
To wind this post to a close I’ll review the behaviour of bitcoin in the lens of my previous writing. Fistly, since the ATH in October 2025 it’s sold-off that in hindsight we can interpret as a leading indicator for the equity market. It bounced back as the S&P etched out ATH’s in late January but quickly took another major leg down along with sentiment. It’s currently trying to break higher on the momentum mentioned above. As such, its behaviour is entirely consistent with that of a (high) risk asset. Having previously colloquially characterised it as a perpetual far OTM call option, I note the divergence in its price from the equity market at the onset of the war when BTC rallied – seemingly acting as a safe haven. As I wrote before, I believe this may be down to traders using BTC to hedge their equity shorts, so that in general we need to mind whether bitcoin will behave differently to our base expectations around inflection points.
I also interpreted the crypto token as CDS. Having revisited that text I found it somewhat incoherent so definitely a clarification is due. But moreso the confusion extends to my central text (“Bitcoin and the modern economy”), specifically the paragraph concerned with “enumerating the motives to hold currency,” where – intended on aligning the growth of the entirety of the money supply with the movement of interest rates – I entirely parted with logic. In fact, as the text surrounding the paragraph suggests, the two aggregates of liquidity-preference – effective liquidity and liquid savings of the private sector – have an <i>opposite</i> sensitivity to IR. In addition, we must break out financial markets liquidity from the speculative-motive within the liquid savings into its own aggregate alongside the two others. What’s more then, the precautionary-motive (i.e. the residual) while being part of the liquid savings will align its IR sensitivity with the other two top level aggregates. We conclude that as IR rise the speculative-motive and the income-motive will expand in part at the expense of the residual (which three together form the liquid savings) and in the other part due to shrinking effective and financial markets liquidity. This is consistent with rising IR causing bearishness and the liquid savings expanding being an indicator thereof. The converse applies when IR decline. Since our motives are, in fact, misaligned with respect to rates, the only reason we can state for the change in quantity of the aggregate money supply to be inversely correlated with rates is the effect of leverage: people will leverage more intensely and de-leverage less intensely when rates are low and conversely when rates are high.
From here, before we can make sense of our CDS interpretation, we must dispose of the assumption that credit spreads and CDS premia are themselves proportional to interest rates. This simply doesn’t necessarily hold: though they affect each other, credit quality can vary independently of the absolute level of IR – like sentiment itself, that after all we found it drives.
We have the following: the aggregate money supply grows with the economy. While bullish sentiment prevails money is leaving the “sidelines” (the residual component) and flowing into effective liquidity (transactions in the real economy), financial markets or, as interest rates rise, shifts within the liquid savings towards speculative and income motives. (Accounting for the shift is a matter of psychological preference). The price of bitcoin, as risk in general, is supported by money flowing into the markets. While the supply of funds – the liquid savings of the private sector that are available to be lend by the holders themselves or by banks that hold the funds on (idle) deposit – is decreasing relative to demand – the liquidity circulating in the real economy and the markets – it’s the perception of credit quality that supports the expansion of the aggregate money supply and somewhat replenishes the liquid savings relative to effective liquidity.
The price of bitcoin is one part sentiment (the OTM call) and one part CDS.
Alternatively, to consider the price in terms of the demand for the available aggregate quantity of money we state that it will fall/rise as effective liquidity (real economy; demand for funds) grows/shrinks relative to the liquid savings (supply of funds) especially relative to equities. This relationship will be we weighed by apparent credit quality or, rather, the prospective pace of the growth of the money supply directed at speculative purchases in the financial markets. More succinctly we can state that bitcoin trades in proportion to the money residual and the pace of bank (margin) lending.
So, the price of BTC will characteristically peak on two occasions: firstly, after bearishness peaks (i.e. maximum demand for cash – residual) and secondly together with bullishness (in the credit markets). In the first instance the central bank may be conducting QE or otherwise increasing the supply of currency which is in low demand due to a bleak economy and low interest rates. In the second, the peak of the economic cycle (growth) will likely come together with increased inflation and mark the high of demand for money (effective liquidity) while at the same time its supply will have likely been slowing due to rising interest rates. Sentiment peaks after the economy. This is what we saw in Q4/25 and Q1/26.
Subsequently, both the economy and interest rates moderating frees up liquidity and supports markets. We generally don’t go straight into a depression or QE right after or just because a cycle has peaked. Instead, the economy self regulates and in time conditions transpire for a new cycle of growth to begin.
Crypto peaked in Q4 as markets realised that the AI investment cycle will consume great amounts of capital, and that private credit markets are in dubious condition.
At present, the Fed and regulators are attempting to ease monetary conditions and with the economy growing modestly the price of bitcoin is in an up-trend. An ideal scenario for bitcoin, as used to be the case for equities during the Yellen Fed, is precisely such growth supported by easy monetary policy. On the other hand, the risk is a liquidity crunch induced either by inflation or a rush to safety (cash) should the economy deteriorate beyond expectations.
Markets may be experiencing a Tesla moment – if the bulls pull it off, they’ll have earned their laurels.
In yet other terms we can note the fall in price of bitcoin from its highs as a perceived increase in market risk. Following this reasoning, when everything crashes the supply of BTC will increase pari passu with that of “fiat” (or even more in a stagflationary environment which scenario falls far beyond the mental capacity of crypto boosting hot-heads). If we, as we should, express market risk as the coefficient of correlation of the down movement in prices of all stocks we would expect bitcoin to be falling when this value is the greatest and conversely rising on an equivalent move in the opposite direction.
Clearly, the hard limit to the pace of money supply growth in the form of the CET1 ratio mentioned above is a drag on the prices of cryptocurrencies (which, being risk and for as while our current monetary and economic system endures, in the event of a crisis must first liquidate before they can rebound on the back of liquidity provided by the central bank).
It’s also less than fully known, at least by myself, how much of an impact on bank balance sheets would a further drop in crypto assets bring which would make for somewhat of a self-reinforcing effect.
In all, these conditions should put a cap on returns. Bulls can look forward to an Iran deal that lifts sanctions and puts Iranian oil on the market coupled with positive earnings and outlooks enabling the present momentum to continue. Bears look to risk in private credit. A trap door remains under the markets and if they have thus far resisted the pull of gravity this only means there is that much more distance along which to accelerate on the way down.
The setup feels suspiciously like a bear market rally and in my opinion there is an elevated probability that risk will head for the exits some time in the following months. If we break through resistance at ATH’s where the S&P currently sits, this will be a sign to add risk in the near term. (That is, if unlike The Man you haven’t already. I promise caution at inflection points is costing everyone money. It’s the “nothing matters” rally, remember, once it gets rolling – and rolling it is.) In this case we might at first think crypto is poised to deliver the most convexity. However, we will bode well to recall that money will remain in demand, be it due to the presumed resumption of the investment cycle or the government’s efforts to reduce the budget deficit. Hence, while the token will be supported in the bull case I don’t believe it will make a new ATH this year. Of course, should the markets fail to meaningfully break higher this will put bears in control for the summer.
Question is how to best express our outlook. The answer I’ve come across early in this blog but didn’t formally explore. For the financially apt readers it will come naturally as the barbell strategy proposed by Nassim Taleb.
To conclude I will look ahead to some proposals that I hope will become central to Western politics.
From a Keynesian point of view, having explored the modern economy, we can state: inequality is the new unemployment.
And so we have to ask ourselves have mainstream economics once again become orthodox? Is our social contract incomplete and faulty? Can we come to see that repairing it would mean opening entirely new horizons of opportunity? But also that – those who have made the same realisations – the global right are actively working toward the exact opposite: making the world a set of disjunct states ruled by the elites. The status quo is rightly without popular support and the time has come to look for change. To not propose meaningful change is to align with the right. The goal must always be to deliver progress.
Can the US rise to the challenge? Is the constitutional stipulation that direct taxes must be apportioned inherently at odds with the solution? Is progressive taxation inherently un-american? Surely the wealthier should be allowed to keep the same proportion of their income as everyone? The Constitution is a living document in order to stop itself from becoming an obstacle to prosperity of the nation. To the contrary if it’s become its own purpose, the nations laws will ossify. A lesson from IT (shared by Mr. Beck, right?) is that projects that become difficult to change die. So, on the one hand we find the trickle down economics of an investment bubble: the wealthy having no purpose for their money, and having no way to spend it – they invest in increasingly dubious affairs being valued in private markets in increasingly pyramidal ways, protect their status and retain the bulk of the upside for themselves. (This is again a clue that we live in an instance of a nouveau aristocratic system.) A series of risky bets being an optimal investment strategy (Taleb, Kahneman), vast wealth enables it in practice and effectively perpetuates itself – a goal shared with any amount of capital, so that the only inherently unjust aspects that immediately pop to mind are the accessibility (barriers to entry) of the investment landscape to pools of capital of varying scale and disposition as well as the political acumen that brought about the unquestionable fact that the rich pay a lower proportion of their income in taxes than the middle class (perhaps on par with the poor, making for that “k”) – demonstrated by rules such as lower tax rate for long term investment and losses being deductible that perfectly suits the investment strategy and the character of the economy both.
Now, the fix afforded by the Democrats finally is starting to seem as approaching the meaning of the word: they seem to have embraced redistribution of wealth.
The issue I have with Sen. Warren’s plan is that it may end up concentrating more spending power in the hands of the government, in which respect Bernie’s proposal of a de facto universal income is most welcome as it leads to a bottom-up economy, that we would find on the other hand.
A final thought that popped into my mind on the matter is to consider the global political right merely want to preserve capitalism. To this I would respond that capitalism itself doesn’t pose the question of the origin of capital. A regulatory environment that continuously works to restore broad availability of capital (the trail on which we find the democratic faculty of taking loans) simply makes for better capitalism by both widening the range of offerings that are commercially viable thereby increasing their social utility, as well as providing means for entrepreneurship to proliferate and deliver these offerings.
Yet the right would collapse the entire argument and claim, against all reason, that UBI is communism. They would stipulate men must work for their meal and in doing so reduce capitalism to an advanced form of feudalism, of slavery – where men must be forced to work and the mechanism of coercion is poverty. They would make us all out to be silly and not understand that the national product is a result of work and that if we all decide to lay flat on our backs our UBI won’t be worth anything. And even if there would be those who do, society should find ways to organise – through technology and openness – to enable pioneers to step in their place.
The global populist right has been telling lies and playing tricks for far too long. The times are such that not to pursue justice means to be corrupt.
The only way to win the vote is to promise a better, more believable future.
This brings me to a close. While in this post too I may have erred, it has undoubtedly brought us closer to the truth. It is the only thing people truly can believe.
Thanks for reading through!
#AI #AMZN #Bitcoin #BTC #CRWD #CRWV #Economics #Economy #GOOG #Investing #Markets #MSFT #NVDA #ORCL #politics #Tesla #TSLA #UBI -
DATE: May 10, 2026 at 08:00AM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------TITLE: Scientists challenge The Body Keeps the Score with a new predictive model of trauma
A recent theoretical paper published in Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience suggests that psychological trauma is not literally stored in the tissues of the body. Instead, the authors propose that trauma creates a rigid pattern of threat prediction within the brain, reducing cognitive flexibility. This updated perspective provides evidence that therapies focusing on mental state shifting, such as flow states, may help retrain the nervous system and support recovery.
In 2014, psychiatrist Bessel van der Kolk published The Body Keeps the Score, a book suggesting that trauma alters the nervous system and becomes physically lodged in the body. The bestseller popularized the idea that individuals cannot simply talk through trauma, as the body continues to react to past threats. While the book gained immense public and clinical popularity, some scientists have criticized its underlying biological mechanisms.
Scientists Steven Kotler, Michael Mannino, Glenn Fox, and Karl Friston recently authored a paper to address these mechanistic discrepancies. They argue that the popular metaphor of somatic storage is biologically inaccurate. They propose an alternative model based on computational neuroscience.
Michael Mannino, the chief science officer of the Flow Research Collective and a distinguished research fellow at Florida Atlantic University, explained the motivation behind the paper. “Two things motivated the pushback,” Mannino said. He noted a conversation with researcher George Bonanno regarding resilience data.
“Bonanno had looked at some of the same kinds of trauma data and drawn very different conclusions than the dominant ‘trauma is stored in the body’ framing,” Mannino explained.
This conversation resonated with his own observations. “That conversation crystallized something I had already been sensing: the model did not line up with what we were seeing in flow research or in real-world performance contexts,” Mannino said.
Additionally, the authors noticed conflicts between the body storage theory and their own work on optimal mental states. “Second, the ‘body keeps the score’ framing became harder to reconcile with the evidence around flow,” Mannino noted. “Flow is common, trainable, and repeatedly associated with improvements in psychological functioning.”
He elaborated on this contradiction. “If trauma were literally stored in somatic tissue in the way the popular metaphor suggests, then it would be strange that flow training could have such broad effects on trauma recovery,” Mannino said. “Flow is not a specialized somatic therapy. It is not manually targeting hidden trauma deposits in muscle or fascia.”
“So if flow is helping people shift traumatic patterns, then the problem likely is not ‘stored trauma’ in the body,” Mannino continued. “It is more likely a problem in how the brain predicts threat, safety, agency, and action.”
The authors also felt the cultural timing was right for a shift in perspective. “The timing also matters because the popular culture around trauma has shifted,” Mannino pointed out. “Many people now lead with trauma as identity. The concern is that the storage metaphor may unintentionally reinforce victim identity, external locus of control, and chronic reactivation of painful memories.”
“If trauma is framed as something buried inside the body that must be located and released, people can feel less empowered,” Mannino added. “But if trauma is understood as a disorder of prediction, then we have more actionable targets.”
In their paper, the authors reframe trauma as a disorder of prediction rather than a disorder of storage. They use a concept called predictive coding, which suggests the brain constantly guesses what will happen next based on past experiences. In a healthy brain, these predictions are flexible and update when new information arrives.
Following a traumatic event, the brain tends to assign too much weight to signs of danger. This creates a highly rigid system where the brain anticipates threats everywhere, leading to hypervigilance and avoidance. The brain misinterprets regular physical sensations, like a racing heart, as proof of immediate danger.
Because of this rigid prediction system, the brain loses what scientists call metastability. Metastability refers to the brain’s ability to fluidly switch between different networks and mental states. High metastability allows for cognitive flexibility, meaning a person can easily adapt to new situations.
Trauma traps the brain in a narrow, inflexible state of fear. The body acts as a messenger in this process, sending signals that the brain misinterprets, but the body does not serve as an archive for the trauma itself.
“The main takeaway is empowering: trauma is not necessarily something hidden in the tissues that must be excavated,” Mannino said. “It may be better understood as a maladaptive prediction system.”
He explained that the brain is always forecasting safety, danger, and the meaning of physical sensations. “The brain is constantly predicting what is safe, what is dangerous, what matters, what action is possible, and what the body’s sensations mean,” he said.
“In trauma, those predictions can become rigid, overgeneralized, and threat-biased,” Mannino noted. “The person may not simply be ‘remembering’ the past. Their nervous system may be predicting the present and future through the lens of unresolved danger.”
This distinction is important for treatment. “That distinction matters because storage is a very hard target,” Mannino said. “We do not fully understand how memories are stored in the brain, let alone how traumatic memory would be stored in the body in a literal biological sense. But prediction is a much more tractable target.”
Mannino emphasized that psychology already utilizes tools that address prediction, including cognitive reframing, exposure therapies, attention training, and mindset changes. “So the average person should not hear this as ‘the body does not matter,'” he said. “The body absolutely matters. Pain, posture, breath, autonomic tone, movement, touch, and interoception all shape prediction.”
“But the mechanism may not be that trauma is physically stored in the muscles,” Mannino continued. “The mechanism may be that bodily signals are feeding into the brain’s predictive machinery, shaping what the person expects, fears, avoids, or interprets as dangerous.”
To help restore mental flexibility, the authors suggest flow states could act as a powerful intervention. Flow happens when a person becomes completely absorbed in a meaningful, highly challenging activity. Action sports, playing music, or engaging in complex tasks can trigger these states.
During flow, the brain’s threat detection centers quiet down, and networks related to focus and adaptation engage. “The strongest evidence begins with a large body of converging observations,” Mannino said regarding the connection between flow and trauma recovery.
He pointed to action sports athletes who face high risk but often report feeling regulated and empowered. “If trauma were simply stored in the body through overwhelming experience, then repeated exposure to danger should reliably worsen trauma,” Mannino noted. “But that is not always what we see.”
“Another line of evidence comes from flow-based and adventure-based interventions,” Mannino explained. Programs focusing on outdoor leadership or addiction recovery tend to help individuals break out of fixed behavioral loops. “Flow may help because it trains flexible state-shifting, agency, attention, and adaptive prediction under challenge,” he said.
“The strongest theoretical argument is that flow targets the prediction system,” Mannino added. “Flow changes attention, motivation, agency, threat perception, self-processing, and action-readiness. Those are all central to trauma.”
“If trauma involves rigid threat prediction, then flow may help by creating conditions where the nervous system learns, experientially, that challenge can be navigated safely and effectively,” Mannino said.
While the authors challenge the idea of somatic storage, they do not suggest that body-based therapies are ineffective. Bodywork, massage, and breathing exercises often provide significant relief for trauma survivors. The authors simply propose a different biological explanation for why these treatments work.
“We should not dismiss the therapeutic benefit people report,” Mannino stated. “Bodywork, somatic therapies, massage, acupuncture, breathwork, and related interventions clearly help many people. The question is not whether they can help. The question is why they help.”
Mannino suggests that finding a tight or painful spot during bodywork might create a prediction error in the brain. “A bodyworker finds a spot of pain, tightness, or unusual sensation,” he explained. “The brain then has to interpret that signal: ‘What is causing this?'”
Because sensation and emotion are linked, the brain might generate a memory or narrative to explain the physical feeling. “That does not mean the memory was literally stored in that muscle,” Mannino said. “It may mean the sensation created a prediction error, and the brain searched for a prior, an explanatory model, or an associated emotional memory.”
He believes this perspective opens the door to better scientific questions. “Is the therapeutic effect coming from touch? From relaxation? From parasympathetic activation? From interpersonal synchrony? From human connection? From increased interoceptive awareness? From changing threat predictions? From the therapist-client relational field?” Mannino asked. “The goal should not be to banish bodywork from trauma recovery. The goal should be to get the mechanism right so we can improve the interventions.”
The authors acknowledge limitations in their current model. Their framework represents a proposed mechanistic reframing, not a finalized clinical doctrine. Additionally, the specific connection between flow states and trauma recovery requires further direct testing.
“What remains speculative is the exact mechanism,” Mannino noted. “We do not yet have definitive evidence that flow heals trauma by increasing metastability, altering prediction error, or reorganizing attractor dynamics. Those are plausible, testable hypotheses, not settled facts.”
Trauma also comes in many forms, meaning this model might not apply universally. “PTSD, developmental trauma, acute trauma, grief, moral injury, chronic stress, and traumatic brain injury may involve overlapping but distinct mechanisms,” Mannino cautioned. “A prediction-based model may be powerful, but it should not be treated as a one-size-fits-all explanation.”
“A second caveat is that body-based therapies may still work,” Mannino added. “Rejecting the storage metaphor does not mean rejecting massage, somatic therapy, breathwork, movement, or bodywork. It means we should ask better mechanistic questions. These practices may work by changing autonomic state, increasing interoceptive precision, reducing threat prediction, enhancing safety cues, promoting interpersonal synchrony, or creating prediction error that allows updating.”
The evidence connecting flow to healing also needs formal neuroscientific backing. “Finally, the flow-trauma connection is still developing,” Mannino noted. “There is strong theoretical and anecdotal support, plus related evidence from performance, adventure therapy, and clinical psychology. But the direct neuroscientific evidence still needs to be built.”
Moving forward, the researchers hope to test their claims by measuring brain dynamics in populations with trauma histories. “To test the claim directly, we would need to measure brain dynamics in trauma populations, especially looking at whether PTSD is associated with reduced metastability, reduced flexibility, or difficulty transitioning between neural states,” Mannino said.
A strong study might use brain imaging to look at flexibility in people with trauma compared to a control group. “The prediction would be that PTSD involves overly rigid attractor dynamics: the nervous system gets stuck in certain threat-biased patterns and has trouble transitioning flexibly into alternative states,” Mannino explained.
Researchers could also test different interventions, comparing body-based treatments to flow-based activities. Mannino mentioned a speculative idea from Kotler involving bodywork. “If a bodyworker stimulates a painful area and the person reports a memory or emotional response, researchers could examine whether the content of that response varies according to contralateral brain-body organization,” Mannino said.
“So yes, the line of research is moving toward empirical testing,” Mannino emphasized. “The key is to move beyond metaphor and into measurable predictions: metastability, complexity, state transitions, prediction error, symptom change, and intervention response.”
The broader goal is to build a performance-based approach to neuroscience. “The next step is to test the model directly,” Mannino stated. “One direction is to examine metastability and neural complexity in trauma populations, especially before and after interventions.”
“A second direction is to compare somatic-based interventions with flow-based interventions, and potentially with combined interventions,” Mannino continued. “If bodywork helps, we want to know why.”
“A third direction is to study prediction-related mechanisms in adjacent conditions: PTSD, depression, anxiety, addiction, traumatic brain injury, Parkinson’s, ALS, and other neurodegenerative or neuropsychiatric conditions where rigidity, loss of agency, and impaired state transitions may play a role,” Mannino added.
The team envisions a future where treatments focus on expanding mental capabilities. “The broader aim is to develop a performance-neuroscience approach to brain health: not just reducing symptoms, but restoring flexibility, agency, adaptive prediction, and the capacity to enter high-functioning states like flow,” Mannino concluded. “That is where this line of research is headed.”
Scheduled for release in July, Kotler and Mannino’s forthcoming textbook defines the emerging scientific field of performance neuroscience. The book explores how the brain and body coordinate under high-pressure conditions, explaining the biological mechanisms behind flow states, stress regulation, and peak human achievement. The book will “will help formalize the field and provide a broader scientific foundation for this line of work.”
The study, “The body does not keep the score: trauma, predictive coding, and the restoration of metastability,” was authored by Steven Kotler, Michael Mannino, Glenn Fox, and Karl Friston.
-------------------------------------------------
DAILY EMAIL DIGEST: Email [email protected] -- no subject or message needed.
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
NYU Information for Practice puts out 400-500 good quality health-related research posts per week but its too much for many people, so that bot is limited to just subscribers. You can read it or subscribe at @PsychResearchBot
Since 1991 The National Psychologist has focused on keeping practicing psychologists current with news, information and items of interest. Check them out for more free articles, resources, and subscription information: https://www.nationalpsychologist.com
EMAIL DAILY DIGEST OF RSS FEEDS -- SUBSCRIBE: http://subscribe-article-digests.clinicians-exchange.org
READ ONLINE: http://read-the-rss-mega-archive.clinicians-exchange.org
It's primitive... but it works... mostly...
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #TraumaPrediction #FlowStateTherapy #PredictiveCoding #Metastability #TraumaRecovery #PerformanceNeuroscience #FlowResearch #NeuroscienceOfTrauma #BrainPlasticity #StressRegulation
-
DATE: May 10, 2026 at 10:00AM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------TITLE: Keeping strict emotional score with a romantic partner is connected to depressive moods
People who view love and emotional support as limited resources are more likely to experience depressive moods in their romantic relationships. A new empirical study shows that treating intimate empathy like a prize with finite winners leads partners to withhold emotional affection and keep strict emotional score. The findings, published in the Journal of Affective Disorders, suggest that a competitive mindset regarding interpersonal exchanges reliably predicts daily emotional distress.
A zero-sum framework dictates that a gain for one side perfectly corresponds with a loss for the opposing side. In economics or board games, these limits are written into the absolute rules of the engagement. Applying this rigidly economic perspective to the chemistry of human relationships creates unique and persistent friction.
Everyday life offers many overt examples of a competitive outlook. In finance or sports, a victory for one group frequently dictates a direct loss for another. Individuals who hold these beliefs view the world through a lens of extreme scarcity. They assume that resources are completely finite and that any benefit given to someone else comes at a personal cost.
Psychology researchers have extensively documented how this mindset modifies behavior in the workplace or within local politics. Employees might view a coworker receiving public praise as a direct threat to their own corporate status. Citizens might interpret social progress for a minority group as an active subtraction from the majority class. Modern social science reveals these beliefs are not restricted to tangible rewards like money or official job titles.
Researchers are just beginning to investigate how zero-sum logic applies to highly abstract concepts. Emotional resources, such as personal happiness or political voice, can also be perceived as limited commodities. A few recent academic investigations suggest that even the raw feeling of being understood can be treated as a scarce good.
Mei-Ru Wang and Peng-Xing Ying, both psychology researchers at Beijing Normal University, wanted to know if this competitive baseline extended into romantic partnerships. Specifically, they designed a daily study to track interpersonal empathy. Empathy is generally defined as the internal capacity to understand, share, and dynamically respond to the emotions of another person.
Providing genuine emotional support to a romantic partner requires substantial mental energy. In a demanding or stressful situation, individuals might suspect that their internal resources are running low. Wang and Ying suspected that people who view empathy as a purely finite supply might hold back from caring for their domestic partners.
They reasoned that these specific individuals might see sharing their feelings as a risk to their own psychological reserves. Because empathy functionally acts as a protective buffer against daily depression, treating it like a limited commodity could carry severe emotional penalties. To test this broad idea, Wang and Ying recruited 198 heterosexual couples for a daily tracking experiment.
The participants were young adults who were fully employed and had been in a committed relationship for an average of nearly four years. Over the course of two consecutive weeks, these individuals filled out daily evening surveys. The researchers asked all participants a specific series of questions about their emotional exchanges that day.
The survey measured how much energy the participants felt their romantic partner spent supporting their personal emotions. It also asked how much effort they believed their partner spent supporting colleagues or friends at the office. By comparing these daily answers, the researchers could gauge each person’s exact zero-sum mindset regarding emotional support.
Additionally, the daily check-ins measured how much empathy each person offered to their partner. Empathy operates on multiple specific levels, and the survey captured these different dimensions. Cognitive empathy is the intellectual ability to recognize and understand what another person is experiencing. Affective empathy represents the tendency to actually share in those same biological feelings.
The participants also rated how much total empathy they felt they received in return from their spouse or partner. Finally, the evening survey asked individuals to rate their daily feelings of sadness, discouragement, and hopelessness. This gave the academic team a running measure of early depressive moods across the two weeks.
The empirical results point to two distinct ways that extreme scarcity mindsets disrupt emotional connections at home. First, people who scored high in zero-sum beliefs tended to consistently give less empathy to their partners. The researchers frame this withdrawal behavior as a straightforward resource conservation strategy. Expecting an emotional deficit, these individuals preemptively exit the interaction to save inner mental energy.
The second disruptive path involves a vastly heightened sensitivity to unequal romantic exchanges. Zero-sum thinkers are historically highly focused on social comparisons. The researchers found that these individuals constantly monitored their relationships for an overarching empathic trade-off. This academic term refers to the exact perceived imbalance between the support a person gives and the support they receive.
People with highly competitive mindsets were intensely sensitive to who was getting more emotional attention. They treated normal daily interactions like a banking ledger that needed to be balanced completely and constantly. This vigilant scorekeeping habit transformed casual romantic exchanges into stressful comparative evaluations.
Both of these internal pathways successfully predicted specific negative outcomes for the individual. Giving less daily empathy to a partner predicted higher levels of immediate depressive moods. Similarly, constantly tracking the supposed imbalance of support also predicted highly elevated depressive states.
The researchers explain this negative outcome using the idea of self-discrepancy theory. Within close modern relationships, society sets a strong normative expectation for mutual care. When people fail to meet this basic standard because they are selfishly guarding their emotional resources, a psychological gap forms. The difference between what a relationship ought to be and the actual emotional reality breeds deep feelings of anxiety.
To fully parse the data, the scientists used statistical calculations that measured both individual effects and partner effects. An individual effect tracks how a person’s behavior alters their own mental state over time. A partner effect maps how that exact same behavior influences the mental state of the person they live with. This dual empirical approach allowed the team to see the relationship as an interconnected emotional system.
Usually, a lack of affection harms both people in a romantic pairing quite equally. But the researchers found an unexpected gender pattern hidden in their daily data sets. When male participants held strong zero-sum beliefs and reduced their empathic engagement, their female partners actually reported surprisingly lower levels of depressive moods.
The researchers admit that this outcome seems highly paradoxical. A competitive home environment typically harms overall relationship satisfaction for everyone involved. To conceptually explain this anomaly, Wang and Ying offer a sociological theory based on relational regulation.
Often, women shoulder an unequal amount of the sheer emotional labor in a heterosexual partnership. When a male partner withdraws to conserve his own emotional resources, the female partner might rapidly adjust her expectations. More appropriately, she might experience a sense of psychological release from her duties.
If the male partner views empathy as draining and pulls away, the female partner might feel less obligated to do the difficult work of emotional coordination. This temporary relief from constant relationship pressure could easily explain the sudden drop in her depressive symptoms. This dynamic deeply highlights how emotional processes do not happen in absolute isolation.
The scientific team acknowledges a few central caveats in their initial study design. The overall data relies on a very specific demographic of young, heterosexual, employed couples living in China. Fundamental relationship dynamics operate quite differently across distinct age groups and varying cultural backgrounds.
The daily tracking method also omitted several powerful environmental factors. Elements like sleep quality, daily job stress, and physical health dictate just how much mental capacity a person has on a given day. These external variables likely influence how strictly someone guards their emotional reserves when they arrive home.
Some modern jobs require intense social interaction, forcing professional employees to manage the raw feelings of clients all day. Coming home from a demanding service job might make the basic prospect of supporting a romantic partner feel overwhelmingly costly. Future clinical investigations will need to look at whether similar patterns show up across different specific professions.
Studying populations with diagnosed depressive disorders might offer even more insight into therapeutic treatments for couples. Therapists could ideally use these exact insights to build targeted couples counseling programs. Asking couples to explicitly discuss their emotional capacities might reveal hidden competitive assumptions about affection.
Previous psychological studies show that when people are directly taught to view empathy as a renewable muscle rather than a finite bank account, their motivation to help others fundamentally increases. Correcting false zero-sum assumptions could provide a relatively simple way to lower home-based stress. Finding new public ways to apply this basic psychological lesson to intimate partnerships might offer a path to vastly better mental health.
The study, “When empathy feels scarce: How zero-sum beliefs fuel depression in close relationships,” was authored by Mei-Ru Wang and Peng-Xing Ying.
-------------------------------------------------
DAILY EMAIL DIGEST: Email [email protected] -- no subject or message needed.
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
NYU Information for Practice puts out 400-500 good quality health-related research posts per week but its too much for many people, so that bot is limited to just subscribers. You can read it or subscribe at @PsychResearchBot
Since 1991 The National Psychologist has focused on keeping practicing psychologists current with news, information and items of interest. Check them out for more free articles, resources, and subscription information: https://www.nationalpsychologist.com
EMAIL DAILY DIGEST OF RSS FEEDS -- SUBSCRIBE: http://subscribe-article-digests.clinicians-exchange.org
READ ONLINE: http://read-the-rss-mega-archive.clinicians-exchange.org
It's primitive... but it works... mostly...
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #ZeroSumMindset #EmotionalSupport #RomanticDepression #EmpathyInRelationships #MentalHealthChat #RelationshipScience #EmotionalBankAccount #InterpersonalDynamics #LoveAndPsychology #CouplesTherapyInsights
-
✮ Worry Less and Live a Little ✮
Subscribe to keep reading
Become a paid subscriber to get access to the rest of this post and other exclusive content.
Subscribe #Actions #Agency #Architect #BeautifulDay #BetterLife #Cherished #Choices #ConsciousDecision #ConstructiveEndeavors #Control #Destinies #Empathy #Energy #Erwinism #Fulfillment #Futility #FYP #Growth #Happiness #Hobbies #Inspiration #InterpersonalRelationships #Joy #Learning #Life #LiveALittle #Love #LovedOnes #luck #MeaningfulConnections #MediaTagsWorryLess #MentalHealth #Mindfulness #MindfulnessPractices #mindset #Motivation #OpenCommunication #PersonalGrowth #Philosophy #Precious #Presence #ProblemSolving #Progress #Pursuit #Resilience #SeizeOpportunities #SelfEfficacy #Shackles #StrongerConnections #Time #WellBeing -
✮ Worry Less and Live a Little ✮
Subscribe to keep reading
Become a paid subscriber to get access to the rest of this post and other exclusive content.
Subscribe #Actions #Agency #Architect #BeautifulDay #BetterLife #Cherished #Choices #ConsciousDecision #ConstructiveEndeavors #Control #Destinies #Empathy #Energy #Erwinism #Fulfillment #Futility #FYP #Growth #Happiness #Hobbies #Inspiration #InterpersonalRelationships #Joy #Learning #Life #LiveALittle #Love #LovedOnes #luck #MeaningfulConnections #MediaTagsWorryLess #MentalHealth #Mindfulness #MindfulnessPractices #mindset #Motivation #OpenCommunication #PersonalGrowth #Philosophy #Precious #Presence #ProblemSolving #Progress #Pursuit #Resilience #SeizeOpportunities #SelfEfficacy #Shackles #StrongerConnections #Time #WellBeing -
✮ Worry Less and Live a Little ✮
Subscribe to keep reading
Become a paid subscriber to get access to the rest of this post and other exclusive content.
Subscribe #Actions #Agency #Architect #BeautifulDay #BetterLife #Cherished #Choices #ConsciousDecision #ConstructiveEndeavors #Control #Destinies #Empathy #Energy #Erwinism #Fulfillment #Futility #FYP #Growth #Happiness #Hobbies #Inspiration #InterpersonalRelationships #Joy #Learning #Life #LiveALittle #Love #LovedOnes #luck #MeaningfulConnections #MediaTagsWorryLess #MentalHealth #Mindfulness #MindfulnessPractices #mindset #Motivation #OpenCommunication #PersonalGrowth #Philosophy #Precious #Presence #ProblemSolving #Progress #Pursuit #Resilience #SeizeOpportunities #SelfEfficacy #Shackles #StrongerConnections #Time #WellBeing -
✮ Worry Less and Live a Little ✮
Subscribe to keep reading
Become a paid subscriber to get access to the rest of this post and other exclusive content.
Subscribe #Actions #Agency #Architect #BeautifulDay #BetterLife #Cherished #Choices #ConsciousDecision #ConstructiveEndeavors #Control #Destinies #Empathy #Energy #Erwinism #Fulfillment #Futility #FYP #Growth #Happiness #Hobbies #Inspiration #InterpersonalRelationships #Joy #Learning #Life #LiveALittle #Love #LovedOnes #luck #MeaningfulConnections #MediaTagsWorryLess #MentalHealth #Mindfulness #MindfulnessPractices #mindset #Motivation #OpenCommunication #PersonalGrowth #Philosophy #Precious #Presence #ProblemSolving #Progress #Pursuit #Resilience #SeizeOpportunities #SelfEfficacy #Shackles #StrongerConnections #Time #WellBeing -
✮ Worry Less and Live a Little ✮
Subscribe to keep reading
Become a paid subscriber to get access to the rest of this post and other exclusive content.
Subscribe #Actions #Agency #Architect #BeautifulDay #BetterLife #Cherished #Choices #ConsciousDecision #ConstructiveEndeavors #Control #Destinies #Empathy #Energy #Erwinism #Fulfillment #Futility #FYP #Growth #Happiness #Hobbies #Inspiration #InterpersonalRelationships #Joy #Learning #Life #LiveALittle #Love #LovedOnes #luck #MeaningfulConnections #MediaTagsWorryLess #MentalHealth #Mindfulness #MindfulnessPractices #mindset #Motivation #OpenCommunication #PersonalGrowth #Philosophy #Precious #Presence #ProblemSolving #Progress #Pursuit #Resilience #SeizeOpportunities #SelfEfficacy #Shackles #StrongerConnections #Time #WellBeing -
Tubefilter: ‘The Guild’ was an iconic web series. Nearly 20 years later, Felicia Day is reviving it as a movie.. “19 years ago (has it really been that long?), Felicia Day created and starred in a show that poked fun at the gameplay and interpersonal dynamics of World of Warcraft clans…. Flash forward to 2026, and the same cultural climate that propelled The Guild to the forefront of the […]
https://rbfirehose.com/2026/04/29/tubefilter-the-guild-was-an-iconic-web-series-nearly-20-years-later-felicia-day-is-reviving-it-as-a-movie/ -
I’ve Spent My Whole Life Refusing to Break, and It’s Slowly Breaking Everything I Love
8,993 words, 48 minutes read time.
They call me “the rock” at work.
At first, I thought it was a joke. Some intern started it during a brutal deadline last year. Half our team was losing it, one guy had a full-on meltdown in the stairwell, and I just… didn’t. I stayed late, knocked out my part, kept my voice even, answered questions, didn’t yell. Next day in standup, the intern goes, “Ask the rock, he never cracks,” and everyone laughed.
But it stuck.
Now my manager calls me that. “Put it on Matt’s plate, he’s a rock.” People say it like a compliment. Like it’s this badge of honor, being the guy who doesn’t flinch, doesn’t cry, doesn’t panic.
I pretended I didn’t like it. “C’mon, I’m just doing my job.” But I liked it. A lot. It felt like proof I’d finally escaped where I came from.
Growing up, the only thing worse than being poor in our neighborhood was being soft. I remember one time, I was probably eight or nine, playing basketball in the driveway, and I tripped. Scraped my knee so bad the skin just peeled back. I started crying, like loud ugly kid-crying—snot, hiccups, the works.
My dad walked out, looked at me, then at my knee, then back at me.
“You done?” he said.
“It hurts,” I blubbered.
He shook his head. “It’s a scrape, not a bullet. Stop crying, be a man.”
He went back inside. That phrase seared itself into my brain: Stop crying, be a man. I stopped crying. Not just that day. In general.
Whole life since then has been me trying to prove I listened.
So yeah, “the rock” fits.
What nobody at the office knows is I had to lock myself in a stall in the men’s room last week because my heart was racing so hard I thought I might pass out. I sat on the toilet lid, head in my hands, breathing like a woman in labor, trying not to make a sound because God forbid someone hears me having a panic attack.
Rocks don’t hyperventilate in bathroom stalls.
But that’s kind of my thing: feel something, shove it down, slap a lid on it, move on. I’m a professional at it now.
Church people call it “being strong.” Clinical people call it “emotional repression.” I just call it survival.
My wife, Emily, calls it “shutting down.” She says it calmly, like she’s reading a weather report, but her eyes get that glossy look that tells me I’m supposed to say something deep right there. I never do. I go for safe. Joke. Change the subject. Or pull the nuclear option: “I’m just tired, can we not do this right now?”
Which is basically our marriage in twelve words.
We’ve been married nine years. We have a seven-year-old daughter, Lily, who looks exactly like Emily except with my eyebrows, which feels unfair to her, but whatever. We met in college at some Christian campus thing I only went to because there were free burritos. She saw through most of my crap from day one, which I think is why I married her and also why I can’t stand her sometimes.
She’s a feeler. Like, professionally. She does counseling with teens at a nonprofit. She comes home wrecked from some kid’s story and wants to sit on the couch and process it for an hour. She cries at TV commercials. She said “I feel” more in the first month I knew her than my dad probably has in his entire life.
First time she cried in front of me, I freaked out internally. Panic, sirens, red lights. Externally, I was smooth. I put my arm around her, said all the right words. I didn’t know what I was doing, but she looked at me like I’d just parted the Red Sea. “I feel safe with you,” she said.
I should’ve told her then: “I don’t do feelings. I just do rescue.” But I liked being the safe guy. The rock.
Now, nine years in, that “safe” guy has turned into something else. A wall. A locked door. A black hole.
She sits at our kitchen table some Tuesday night, wine glass in hand, staring at me over a half-eaten plate of chicken and rice.
“You’re not here,” she says. “I mean, you’re physically here, but you’re not here.”
“I’m literally sitting right in front of you,” I say, stabbing a piece of chicken. “What do you want, a hologram?”
She doesn’t laugh. “Matt, I’m serious. I don’t know what you’re feeling. Ever. I don’t know when you’re scared. Or angry. Or sad. I can’t read you anymore. It’s like there’s this glass wall. I can see you, but I can’t reach you.”
I chew slowly to give myself time. Classic tactic. Delay, defuse, divert.
“I’m just tired,” I say. “Work’s a lot. Dad’s situation’s a lot. This is just… a season.”
Her jaw tightens at the word “season.” She hates Christian clichés, and I use them like shields.
“You said that last year,” she says. “And the year before. ‘It’s just a season.’ When does this season end, Matt? When you burn out? When we’re divorced? When Lily’s grown and doesn’t even bother to call you?”
“Wow,” I say, forcing a laugh. “Okay, that escalated.”
That’s another move: if I make her feel dramatic, I get to feel sane.
She takes a breath, looks down at the table. “I’m asking you to let me in,” she says, softer. “Talk to me. Tell me when you’re drowning instead of pretending you’re fine. You don’t have to be the rock, Matt. Not with me.”
There’s this moment where I actually feel it—the opening, the offer. Like a crack in the armor. I could tell her about the bathroom stall. About how sometimes at two in the morning my heart’s pounding like I’m on mile ten of a run and I can’t sleep, so I scroll my phone until my eyes burn. About the weird chest tightness that makes me think of my dad in the hospital, tubes and machines and beeping, and how I’m still that kid in the driveway trying not to cry.
I even start to say it. “Sometimes at work I—”
The words get stuck in my throat. There’s this primal shame that hits like a wave. If I say it out loud, it’s real. If she hears it, she’ll see I’m not a rock. I’m a scared dude in a grown man’s clothes with a half-charged iPhone and a Bible app he barely opens.
I clear my throat. “Sometimes at work I just need to, like, zone out, you know? Nothing crazy. I just power through.”
She watches me. She knows I pulled up right before the truth. I can see it in her eyes, that flash of disappointment before she buries it. She nods like she’s trying to accept the crumbs.
“Maybe we should go to counseling,” she says.
And there it is. The one word I refuse to let into my story.
“We’re not that bad,” I say, way too fast. “Counseling’s for people who are… like… actually falling apart. We’re just in a stressful patch. Money’s tight, work’s nuts, your job is heavy, my dad almost died. We don’t need to pay someone a hundred and fifty bucks an hour to tell us what we already know.”
“That’s not what counseling is,” she says.
I shrug. “You’re a counselor, obviously you’re pro-counseling. But I—what would I even say? ‘Hi, I’m Matt, things are fine, my wife just wants me to cry more’?”
She closes her eyes like my words physically hurt. “This isn’t about crying,” she says. “This is about you. Letting. Me. See. You.”
“I married you, didn’t I?” I say. “You see me. This is me.”
That’s the line I always throw out when I want to shut the conversation down—“This is just who I am.” It sounds like honesty, like self-awareness, but really it’s defense. A way of saying, “I’m not changing.”
She stares at me for a long time. Then she gets up, takes her plate to the sink without another word.
I tell myself she’s being emotional. That she’ll calm down. That it’s not that bad. That I’m not that bad.
That night, after she goes to bed, I sit on the couch with my laptop. I tell myself I’m going to do a little work, get ahead of tomorrow. Ten minutes in, I’m already opening a second browser window.
It’s funny how my brain knows the path without thinking. A couple keystrokes, a few clicks, and there it is: curated, pixel-perfect nakedness. I scroll, numb. That’s really what it is. Not lust so much as anesthesia. My own private pharmacy.
I justify it. I’m not sleeping with anyone else. I’m not on Tinder. I’m not at a bar hitting on girls who call me “sir.” This is safe. It’s victimless. It’s just… stress relief. And if I ever tried to talk to Emily about how I actually feel, I’d probably scare her. This way, I take care of it myself.
Self-sufficiency, right? That’s what being a man is. Handle your own crap.
I close the laptop an hour later feeling gross, but the guilt is dull. Familiar. Easy to ignore. I tiptoe into the bedroom. She’s already turned away from my side, curled in a C-shape near the edge. I slide into bed, careful not to touch her too much, in case she wants space. Or in case she doesn’t, because if she turns toward me, I might have to be present.
In the dark, my phone buzzes on the nightstand. I check it. It’s Marcus.
You good, man?
Marcus is my one semi-real friend from church. Taller than me, quieter. Used to be a cop, now does security at a hospital. He’s the kind of guy who actually listens when you talk. Like, fully. It’s unnerving.
He’s the only one who’s ever looked me in the eye and asked, “How’s your heart?” without smirking. I laughed when he said it the first time. “Bro, what are we, in a Nicholas Sparks movie?” He smiled, but he didn’t take it back.
I stare at his text for a second. My thumb hovers over the keyboard.
I’m fine, just tired, I type.
I delete “just tired.” It sounds weak. I send: I’m good. Busy with work. You?
The truth would be: I’m not sleeping, my wife wants to send me to counseling like I’m broken, I spent an hour watching porn to avoid feeling anything, and my chest hurts more days than not. Also sometimes I want to just drive until I run out of gas and start over somewhere no one knows I’m supposed to be “the rock.”
He replies: Same. Let’s grab lunch this week. Been thinking about you.
Cool, I send. Let me know when.
I set my phone down and roll onto my back, staring at the ceiling in the dark. Some random verse I half-remember from a sermon floats through my brain: “The Lord is close to the brokenhearted.”
I snort quietly. I’m not brokenhearted. I’m just busy.
Work does not care about your feelings. My manager, Jeff, cares about deliverables and client satisfaction scores and how many hours the team can bill without triggering HR. There’s a massive software deployment next month. If we nail it, it’s big for the company. If we blow it, we lose a multi-million-dollar client. No pressure.
We shuffle into the conference room for yet another war room meeting. Screens everywhere, coffee cups, people with that glazed “I’ve been on Zoom for 12 hours” look in their eyes.
Jeff slaps my back. “How’s my rock?” he says, grinning.
“Ready to roll,” I say.
“Good, because if this thing slips again, I’m gonna have to start sacrificing junior devs to the client gods.”
Everyone laughs. I do too, even as that familiar tightness creeps into my chest. I tell myself it’s just caffeine. I’ve had three coffees and a Red Bull. Anyone’s heart would pound.
Halfway through the meeting, someone mentions layoffs. Not directly, but hints. “If this doesn’t go well, upper management’s gonna be asking hard questions.” Translation: people will get cut. People like me. People like the guy who had a meltdown in the stairwell last year and mysteriously “transitioned to new opportunities” two months later.
Rocks don’t get laid off. Weak links do. If I crack, I’m a liability.
My phone buzzes. It’s a text from my mom: Dad had another episode. Doctors want to run more tests. Can you come by tonight?
I swallow, staring at the message.
You okay? Jeff says, noticing my face.
“Yeah,” I say quickly. “Family stuff. I’m good.”
I tuck it away. Mental note: hospital. Later. After being the rock at work, I get to be the rock for my mom. Then maybe, if I have any energy left, I’ll toss Emily a pebble and call it connection.
During a break, I slip into the men’s room. I splash water on my face. As I look up, my reflection stares back at me. Thirty-six, a little more gray at the temples than I’d like, dark circles under my eyes. But my expression is neutral. Controlled. Rock-solid. You’d never know that inside, there’s this constant hum of static.
My chest tightens again. The room tilts for a second. I grab the edge of the sink.
Not now. Not here.
I duck into a stall before anyone walks in, sit on the lid, elbows on my knees, hands over my face. Breathe. In. Out. In. Out. I count my breaths. I feel ridiculous, a grown man hiding in a toilet cubicle trying not to pass out.
Somewhere behind the stall door I hear my dad’s voice: Stop crying, be a man.
“I’m not crying,” I mutter. “I’m breathing.”
Same thing, really. Trying to keep the dam from breaking.
I think, briefly, of all the verses I’ve heard about not being afraid. “Do not be anxious about anything.” “Fear not.” “The Lord is my rock.” It’s funny how I’ve basically replaced God with my own chest. My own calm face. Like, I’m my own Lord and rock. That’s not how I’d say it out loud, but that’s how I live.
After work, I swing by the hospital. Dad’s sitting up in bed, watching some game show with the sound off, wires stuck to his chest. Mom’s in the chair by the window, hands folded, Bible open but unread on her lap.
“Hey,” I say, stepping in. “How’s the party?”
Dad grunts. “Food sucks.”
“That’s how you know it’s a real hospital,” I say. “If they start serving steak, you should worry.”
He smirks. Mom gives me a tired smile. I do the thing I always do in hard rooms: crack jokes, keep it light, distract from the elephant.
“How you feeling?” I ask, even though I can read the chart as well as he can.
“Old,” he says. “Doctors say it’s not as bad as last time. Just gotta ‘take it easy.’ Whatever that means.”
“You gonna listen?” I ask.
He snorts. We both know he won’t. Men in my family don’t “take it easy.” We work until something breaks, then we duct tape it and keep going.
Mom looks at me like she wants to say something spiritual. She’s the only one in our family who does feelings out loud, but years married to my dad trained her to make them small.
“Been praying Psalm 34,” she says softly. “You know that one, honey? ‘The Lord is close to the brokenhearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit.’”
She says it like it’s comfort, a warm blanket. I hear it like an accusation. Brokenhearted? Crushed? That’s not allowed. Not for men like us. We’re not brokenhearted, we’re just… busy. Tired. Overworked. Slightly malfunctioning machines.
“I like the one about ‘those who don’t work don’t eat,’” Dad says. “Keeps you honest.”
I laugh, grateful for the deflection.
Mom sighs. “Your father,” she says, half-affection, half-frustration.
On the drive home, the verse keeps replaying in my head. “The Lord is close to the brokenhearted.” If that’s true, then what does that mean for me? Because most days, God feels about as close as the moon. Beautiful, in theory. Useless, in practice.
Maybe the problem is I’m not brokenhearted enough. Or maybe that’s just another way to blame myself for something I don’t understand.
Thursday night is men’s group. I go mostly because it looks good. A married Christian dad who skips men’s group raises eyebrows. A married Christian dad who shows up, brings chips, cracks jokes, and nods thoughtfully during prayer requests gets approved.
We meet in the church basement, twelve guys in folding chairs in a sad circle under fluorescent lights that make everyone look tired and slightly dead. There’s the usual spread: chips, store-brand cookies, a veggie tray no one touches, and a big pot of coffee because apparently we’re all eighty.
Our leader, Dan, is a big guy with a beard that makes him look like a gentle lumberjack. He opens in prayer, then reads a short passage.
“Tonight,” he says, “I thought we’d just… be honest. No study guide. No video. Just us, talking about what’s real.”
That sentence alone makes my skin itch.
He reads Psalm 34:18. Of course. The Lord is close to the brokenhearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit.
I feel it in my chest, right where the anxiety sits. The words are like a hand hovering over a bruise.
Dan looks around. “Who here would say they feel brokenhearted right now?” he asks. “Crushed in spirit? Not in theory. Right now.”
One guy laughs nervously. A couple shift in their chairs. I take a sip of coffee to buy time. No way I’m raising my hand. Brokenhearted is for widowers and addicts and cancer patients. Not white-collar project managers with upgraded iPhones and a leased SUV.
To my left, Jason clears his throat. He’s usually one of the louder guys, all stories about sports and his glory days playing college ball. Tonight, he looks smaller.
“I, uh…” He stares at the floor. His voice cracks. “My wife left last month. Took the kids. I haven’t told anyone ’cause… I’m embarrassed, I guess. I feel like I failed. I’ve been using porn for years. Said I’d stop a hundred times. Didn’t. She found stuff on my phone and just… had enough.”
The room goes quiet. My stomach twists. I keep my face still.
He keeps talking, words spilling now. “I always thought I had it under control, you know? Like, it was my thing. My stress relief. Better than cheating. That’s what I told myself. But she said it was cheating. She said I was choosing pixels over her. I don’t even… I don’t know how to live in my own skin right now. I feel… crushed. I don’t know how else to say it.”
Tears slide down his face. Full-grown man, shoulders shaking, crying in a church basement under bad lighting. Every alarm in my body goes off. Run. Joke. Change the subject.
Instead, something weird happens. Dan gets up, walks over, puts a hand on his shoulder. Another guy kneels and starts praying softly, nothing fancy, just, “God, be close. Help him.” No one mocks. No one rolls their eyes. A couple other guys are wiping their faces too.
I feel this pressure rising in my throat. It scares me more than any panic attack.
This could be you, a voice in my head whispers. You could talk. You could tell them about the stall, the late nights, the way your wife looks at you like a stranger. You could say you’re not okay. You could stop playing the rock.
I picture it for a second. Me, opening my mouth, saying, “Guys, I’m not fine. I’m addicted to being okay. And to porn. And to people thinking I have it together. My wife wants to leave and it’s mostly my fault.” I imagine their faces, their hands on my shoulder, the prayers. I imagine God feeling near instead of abstract.
My heart starts hammering. My palms sweat. My knee bounces.
Dan looks around. “Anybody else?” he says gently. “You don’t have to share. But if you want to, this is a safe place.”
Everyone’s eyes are suddenly the most interesting thing in the room. Shoelaces. Coffee cups. The scuffed tile. No one wants to be next.
I clear my throat.
“I mean…” I say, forcing a smirk. “My biggest sin is I eat too many carbs. So, uh, pray for me, guys.”
A few chuckle. The tension breaks a little. Dan gives me a half-smile that doesn’t quite reach his eyes.
Inside, I want to punch myself. That was my out. My shot. I could have been honest. Instead, I threw a joke at the most honest moment I’ve seen in years like a grenade.
The rest of the night passes in a blur of surface-level shares. Work stress. Kids. “I should read my Bible more.” I mumble something about being busy. When we close in prayer, I mumble a safe Christian phrase: “God, thank you that you’re strong when we’re weak.” It sounds holy. It’s a lie coming from my mouth.
After group, as we’re heading to our cars, Marcus falls into step beside me.
“You okay?” he asks.
“I’m good,” I say automatically. “That was… heavy, huh?”
He studies me. “Yeah. But good heavy.” He pauses. “You sure you’re okay? You were twitchy during prayer.”
“Twitchy?” I scoff. “Bro, I had too much coffee. That’s all.”
He doesn’t push. “If you ever want to talk,” he says, “for real… I’m here. No judgment. None of us are as put-together as we look. You know that, right?”
I shrug, unlock my car. “I’m fine, man. Seriously. Just tired.”
That night, Emily’s on the couch when I get home, laptop closed, TV off. That’s never a good sign.
“How was group?” she asks.
“Good,” I say, dropping my keys in the bowl. “You know. Guys. Bibles. Bad coffee.”
“Did you share anything?” she asks.
I bristle. “What is this, a report card?”
She folds her hands. “I just… you’ve been off. For a while. I was hoping you’d talk to someone.”
“Talked to God,” I say. “That counts, right?”
She does that slow blink that means she’s trying not to explode. “You know what I mean.”
I do. I ignore it. I sit in the chair across from her instead of next to her on the couch. It’s a distance of three feet that feels like thirty miles.
She takes a breath. “I called a counselor,” she says.
Something in me snaps. “You what?”
“I called a counselor,” she repeats, voice shaking slightly but steady. “For us. For our marriage. Her name is—”
“We don’t need—”
“—Sarah Stevens,” she says, talking over me, which she almost never does. “She’s highly recommended. She has experience with couples where one partner is emotionally unavailable.”
“Emotionally unavailable,” I repeat, like it’s a slur.
“That’s what you are, Matt,” she says, and now the tears are in her eyes. “You’re unavailable. I’m married to a ghost. You show up physically, you pay bills, you fix things when they break, but you don’t let me see you. I feel like I’m begging you to be my husband.”
My defenses go up so fast I’m dizzy. “That’s not fair,” I say. “I go to work every day. I come home. I spend time with Lily. I go to church. I go to your family stuff even when I don’t want to. I provide. I don’t cheat. I don’t hit you. I don’t drink myself stupid. I’m doing everything I’m supposed to do and somehow it’s not enough because I don’t sit around talking about my feelings?”
“You don’t talk about anything real,” she says. “Do you know how alone I feel? I would almost rather you scream at me than stay like this. At least then I’d know there’s something in there.”
“That’s insane,” I say, standing up. “You’d rather I scream at you?”
“I’d rather you be honest,” she fires back.
I pace. “Fine. Here’s honest: I don’t want to sit in a room with some stranger and have you list all the ways I suck while she nods and takes notes.”
“That’s not—”
“I’m not doing it,” I say. “I’m not broken. We’re not broken. We’re just stressed.”
“And I’m telling you we are broken,” she says, standing now too, voice rising. “We are so broken, Matt. I’m drowning over here. I lie awake next to you at night and I feel like a widow before I’m even forty.”
The widow line hits harder than I want to admit. My mom in that hospital chair, Bible open, eyes tired. Is that Emily’s future?
I can’t go there. Too much. Shut it down.
“This is drama,” I say, dismissive. “You’re making it worse than it is.”
Her mouth falls open. “Drama,” she repeats. “Okay.”
She walks past me, into the bedroom. I hear drawers opening, the squeak of the closet door. A minute later she comes out with a duffel bag. She starts throwing clothes in it. T-shirts, jeans, underwear, random stuff. No method, just motion.
“What are you doing?” I ask, stomach dropping.
“Going to my sister’s,” she says. “For a while.”
“You’re leaving,” I say, like I can’t process the words.
“I’m not filing for divorce,” she says. “Yet. I’m giving you space. And I’m giving myself a chance to remember what it’s like to breathe.”
“Emily, come on,” I say, moving toward her. “You’re overreacting.”
She stops packing, looks up at me, and laughs. It’s a bitter sound I’ve never heard from her before.
“You keep saying that,” she says. “Anytime I tell you I’m hurting, I’m ‘overreacting.’ Anytime I say we need help, you say I’m ‘making it worse than it is.’ I’m done gaslighting myself into thinking I’m crazy. This is real, Matt. I’m leaving because you already have. You left a long time ago. You’re just… physically present.”
“That’s not fair,” I repeat, because I don’t have any other words.
She zips the bag. “I’m giving you one more chance,” she says, voice trembling. “You call that counselor. You set up an appointment. You show me with actions, not words, that you’re willing to be vulnerable. To let me in. To let anyone in. If you don’t… I don’t know if there’s anything left to save.”
She walks past me, bag over her shoulder. She stops at Lily’s door, pushes it open. Our daughter’s asleep, sprawled sideways, stuffed unicorn under one arm. Emily kisses her forehead, whispers something I can’t hear.
“I’ll bring her back Sunday night,” she says quietly when she returns. “You can have the weekend to… think.”
“What am I supposed to do?” I ask, hating how small my voice sounds.
She meets my eyes. “Stop pretending you’re okay,” she says. “That’d be a start.”
The front door closes behind her. The house is dead quiet.
I stand in the middle of the living room, staring at the door like it might swing back open and she’ll say, “Kidding!” But it doesn’t. She doesn’t.
Instead of collapsing, I do what I always do: I make a list. Dishes. Laundry. Trash. Budget. I straighten the cushions on the couch, because God forbid a pillow be crooked while my marriage implodes.
Later that night, I get a text from Marcus.
Heard Emily and Lily are staying with her sister. You want company?
My heart stutters. News travels fast in church circles.
I stare at the screen. I picture Marcus on my couch, looking at me with those annoyingly kind eyes, asking questions I don’t want to answer. What are you afraid of? How are you really? When did you start disappearing?
I type: Nah man, we’re fine. Just needed some space. Couples fight, you know.
I delete “we’re fine” because even I can’t make my thumbs lie that hard. I send: Just needed some space. All good.
He replies immediately. You sure? I can be there in 15.
I put the phone face down on the coffee table. I pace. I pick it up again.
Come, I type. I delete it.
I’m not sure what I’m more afraid of: him seeing the stack of dirty dishes and empty wrappers that prove I’m not as together as I act, or him seeing through whatever story I spin and calling me on it.
I finally send: I’m good bro. Exhausted. Rain check?
Three dots appear, disappear. Finally: Okay. I’m here if you need me. For real.
I toss the phone onto the couch like it burned me. I grab my laptop instead.
By 1 a.m., the house is dark, the only light the blue glow of my screen. Pop-up after pop-up, tab after tab. My brain is buzzing, my body’s numb. I tell myself it’s better than thinking. Better than feeling. Better than sitting in the silence and hearing my own excuses bounce off the walls.
When I finally crash into bed, the sheets on her side are still warm from when she packed.
The next morning, Lily’s empty room hits me harder than I want to admit. Her bed is made (Emily’s doing), stuffed animals lined up, tiny socks in the hamper. I stand in the doorway, an intruder in my own house.
I go to work like nothing happened. Because that’s what you do. You compartmentalize. You put on the rock mask. You get stuff done.
My performance drops, though. It’s subtle at first. I miss a detail here, forget an email there. Nothing huge. But in this job, death comes by a thousand paper cuts.
A junior dev, Sarah, points out a flaw in my plan in front of the team. Normally, I’d thank her, adjust. Today, raw and sleep-deprived, I snap.
“Maybe if you’d read the full spec before chiming in, you’d understand why we did it this way,” I say, harsher than I mean to.
The room goes quiet. She shrinks back, face flushing. Jeff raises an eyebrow at me.
“Let’s take this offline,” he says.
After the meeting, he pulls me into his office.
“You good?” he asks.
“I’m fine,” I say automatically.
He leans back, folds his arms. “Look, I don’t need to know your personal business. But you bit Sarah’s head off in there. That’s not like you.”
“Sorry,” I say. “Just… a lot going on at home.”
“Take a day,” he says. “Or a few. Whatever you need. This project’s important, but not as important as you not burning out.”
The irony of my boss telling me not to burn out while I’m actively burning out isn’t lost on me.
“I’m good,” I repeat. “I just need to focus.”
He studies me for a second. “You know,” he says slowly, “you don’t always have to be the rock.”
I actually laugh. “You started that, remember?”
He smiles. “Yeah. Turns out sometimes rocks crack. Just… don’t wait until you blow up to tell someone you’re drowning, okay?”
Everyone keeps using the same metaphors. Drowning. Burning out. Breaking. I keep dodging them like bullets in a video game. If I just keep moving, they can’t hit me.
Days blur. Emily and I text logistics about Lily. Pickup times, homework, dentist appointments. Nothing real. It’s like running a small business together instead of a marriage.
One Friday, I’m supposed to pick up Lily at four for her school’s little talent show thing. She’s been practicing a silly dance for weeks, making me watch it every night I had the energy to pretend I was watching. “You’re coming, right, Daddy?” she asked. “You promise?” I promised.
Friday afternoon, I’m sitting at my desk, headphones in, trying to yank my brain through a spreadsheet, when a familiar tightness clamps my chest. I take a breath. Another. It doesn’t let up. My vision goes a little fuzzy at the edges.
I check the clock. 3:50. If I leave now, I can make it.
I tell myself: Just one more email. Just fix this one thing. Then go.
I look up again and it’s 4:27.
“Crap,” I say aloud, ripping my headphones off. I grab my bag, half-run to the elevator, curse at the slow doors, sprint to my car.
On the drive, my phone buzzes with texts. I don’t check them. I don’t want to see.
I pull into the school lot at 4:58, heart pounding. I jog toward the auditorium. It’s emptying. Parents filing out, kids with glitter on their faces and handmade certificates.
Emily stands near the doors with Lily. Lily’s in a sparkly shirt, hair in two lopsided pigtails, holding a crumpled ribbon. Her eyes are red. When she sees me, her face does this thing—lights up, then falters, like she’s trying to decide whether to be happy or mad.
“Hey!” I say, forcing cheer. “I’m so sorry, traffic was—”
“Traffic?” Emily says, voice flat. “Show started at four.”
“I know, I just—work ran late and—”
“You promised,” Lily says quietly. That hurts way worse than Emily’s tone.
“I know, bug,” I say, kneeling. “I’m sorry. How’d it go?”
“Fine,” she says, shrugging, looking at her shoes. The word is a knife. It’s my own word coming back to kill me. I’m fine. We’re fine. Everything’s fine.
“Mom filmed it,” she adds. “You can watch it later.”
It’s an offer. A consolation prize. I hate myself for being the kind of dad who has to watch his daughter’s life on a screen because he can’t show up when it counts.
“Yeah,” I say. “I’d love to.”
Emily just looks at me. No lecture. Somehow, that’s worse.
On the drive back to my place, Lily hums a bit of her song in the backseat. I grip the steering wheel so hard my knuckles go white. I want to cry. The feeling is so foreign it scares me. I swallow it. It goes down like a rock.
That night, after I drop Lily back at her aunt’s, I sit in my dark living room alone. The quiet isn’t peaceful. It’s accusatory.
On the coffee table, my Bible sits under a pile of mail. I don’t remember the last time I opened it for me, not for a group or to find a verse to toss at someone else.
I push the mail aside, flip it open randomly. It lands in Psalms. My eyes fall on familiar words like they’re highlighted just for me:
“The Lord is close to the brokenhearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit.”
No escape this time. No sermon. No small group. Just me and a sentence that won’t shut up.
I stare at the page until the letters blur. Something in my chest finally gives. Not a big cinematic break, just a tiny hairline crack.
“Okay,” I whisper. “Fine. I’m… not okay.”
The words feel like ripping duct tape off my soul. My throat burns. My eyes sting. My body, not used to this, fights it. But my arms suddenly feel too heavy to hold up. I slide off the couch onto my knees without meaning to, Bible still open on the cushion.
“I don’t know how to do this,” I mutter. “I don’t know how to be… brokenhearted. Or whatever. I don’t know how to…” I wave a hand vaguely, like God needs me to pantomime emotions.
Tears spill over. Real ones. First time in… I honestly can’t remember. Maybe when Lily was born. Maybe before that.
It feels… ridiculous. A grown man, kneeling by his IKEA couch, crying into old carpet. I half-expect lightning to strike or a worship band to appear in my hallway. Instead, it’s just me and my ragged breathing and an almost-tangible sense that something—Someone—is near.
For a second, I actually feel it. Like a warm weight on my shoulders. An invisible Presence sitting in the mess with me. Not fixing it. Just… close. The verse slams into my chest again: The Lord is close to the brokenhearted.
Maybe this is what they mean. Maybe all the sermons and testimonies and emotional people with their arms raised weren’t just making it up. Maybe God actually shows up in the raw places. Not the polished, rehearsed testimonies, but the ugly middle.
“Okay,” I whisper again. “I’m scared. Is that what you want me to say? I’m scared my dad’s gonna die and I won’t know how to grieve. I’m scared my wife’s never coming back. I’m scared I’ve already ruined my daughter’s life. I’m scared if people see how weak I am they’ll lose respect for me. I’m scared you’re not actually here and I’m just talking to my furniture.”
It all comes out in a rush. Confession, sort of. Not the respectable kind you share in group. The embarrassing kind.
For about thirty seconds, it feels like the safest place in the world.
Then, just as quickly, another voice kicks in. Not literal, not demonic, just… me. The old script.
Stop crying, be a man.
Crying won’t fix your marriage. Emotions won’t get you a raise. Vulnerability won’t put food on the table. You’re kneeling on a stained carpet, talking to someone you can’t see, while your actual life is on fire. Get up. Be practical. Make a plan. God helps those who help themselves. (Which, by the way, isn’t in the Bible, but I quote it like it is.)
I scrub my face with my hands, annoyed at the dampness. The Presence I felt a moment ago suddenly feels distant again. Or maybe I just pushed it away.
“Yeah, okay,” I say out loud, like I’m closing a meeting. “That was… something.”
I stand up, legs stiff. The room looks the same. Couch. TV. Empty picture hooks where our family photo used to hang before Emily took it. No angels. No burning bush. Just my stupid, beating heart and the hum of the fridge.
My phone buzzes on the table. It’s a notification from some Bible app I downloaded months ago and never use: “He heals the brokenhearted and binds up their wounds. – Psalm 147:3”
The timing is creepy. Or perfect. Or both.
I hover over the notification, feel the temptation to sink back down, to lean in, to actually let myself be wounded in front of God. To admit that I’m not just “off” or “tired” but actually… broken.
Instead, I swipe the notification away.
“I don’t have time to fall apart,” I mutter.
I open a browser and type the same old sites into the search bar. The algorithm knows me well. It feeds me what I want: distraction. Control. A world where nakedness is scripted and no one expects anything from me.
Later, in bed, I stare at the ceiling and tell myself I’ll call the counselor tomorrow. Or the day after. Or after this project. Or after Dad’s next appointment. Or after Emily gives me another ultimatum. There will always be a better time to be honest than now.
Months pass.
The project at work launches. It’s not a disaster, but it’s not the triumph it could’ve been. My performance review is “meets expectations” with a few pointed notes about “needing to delegate better” and “watching interpersonal tone under stress.” Translation: You’re slipping, man.
I don’t get fired. I also don’t get the promotion I’d been quietly gunning for. Jeff gives the lead on the next big project to Sarah—the junior dev I snapped at.
“She’s showed a lot of initiative,” he tells me in his office. “And you, honestly… you seem like you’ve got a lot on your plate. Thought this might be a good time for you to take a step back, catch your breath.”
Step back. Catch my breath. It’s like there’s this conspiracy in the universe to get me to stop pretending I’m okay.
I nod, say the right things. “Totally understand. Happy for her.” Inside, I feel humiliated. Replaced. Useless.
I don’t tell Emily. We barely talk beyond logistics anyway. The counselor’s number is still on a sticky note on my fridge. I move it occasionally when I wipe the counters. I’ve memorized the digits without ever dialing.
Lily spends every other weekend with me. We do what I think dads are supposed to do. We go to the park. We get ice cream. We watch movies. I make sure she’s buckled in right and that she brushes her teeth. I tell myself that’s enough. That love is mostly showing up and making sure they don’t die.
But sometimes, when she’s coloring at the table or building something with Legos on the floor, she’ll look up and just… watch me. Like she’s trying to figure out something she doesn’t have the words for yet.
One Sunday, as I’m dropping her back at her aunt’s place, she hugs me tighter than usual.
“Daddy?” she says into my shirt.
“Yeah, bug?”
“Are you sad?”
The question catches me off guard. I pull back, look at her small face. Her eyes are big, searching.
“Why do you ask?” I say.
“You look sad,” she says simply. “And Mommy looks sad. And Aunt Claire says it’s okay to be sad. But you always say you’re fine.”
The word stings again. Fine. My mask.
“I’m okay,” I say automatically.
She tilts her head. “It’s okay if you’re sad,” she says. “I won’t be scared.”
I should say it. Right there. To my seven-year-old. “Yeah, I’m sad. I miss you when you’re not here. I miss Mommy. I’m scared I messed up.” That would be vulnerability. Not oversharing, just honesty.
Instead, I pat her shoulder. “Don’t worry about me, kiddo,” I say. “That’s my job. To worry about you. You just be a kid, okay?”
She nods slowly, like she’s filing away data for later. “Okay,” she says. “I love you.”
“I love you too,” I say, and it’s the one thing I’m absolutely sure of.
After she runs inside, I sit in my car and grip the steering wheel. I feel like I’m standing on the edge of a cliff, staring down at a body of water that might save me or drown me. The jump is admitting weakness. The cliff is made of all the years I spent being told that men don’t cry, don’t talk, don’t crack.
I don’t jump.
Instead, I drive to church.
It’s easier to go when I don’t have Emily giving me side-eye during worship because I’m scrolling my phone under the seat. I can just show up, say hi to people, drink bad coffee, sing words I barely think about, nod through another sermon about some aspect of the Christian life I’m supposedly living.
Today, though, the pastor does something different. He doesn’t preach. He brings a guy up to share his story.
The guy is in his forties, shaved head, tattoos, looks like he could bench-press me. He takes the mic, clears his throat.
“I used to think being a man meant never showing weakness,” he says. My spine goes rigid. “My dad was old-school. ‘Quit crying, tough it out,’ that kind of thing. I brought that into my marriage, my friendships, even my faith. I believed in Jesus, but I didn’t actually trust Him with anything that made me look bad. Or weak.”
People chuckle. I don’t.
He talks about an affair. About losing his job. About almost losing his kids. Then he talks about the night he finally broke down on his kitchen floor, sobbing, telling God he was done pretending. How Psalm 34:18 popped into his head—“The Lord is close to the brokenhearted”—and how, for the first time, he actually felt it.
“I thought vulnerability would make me lose respect,” he says. “But hiding was what was killing me. My secrets hardened my heart. I was a shell. It wasn’t until I got honest—with God, with my wife, with some guys from this church—that anything changed.”
The sanctuary is dead quiet. People are leaning in. A couple of visibly tough dudes are wiping their eyes. I sit there, arms crossed, jaw clenched.
He keeps going. “I still struggle with pride. I still want to put on the strong face. But I’ve tasted what it’s like to let people see the cracks. And I’ve tasted what it’s like to have God meet me there, not when I’ve got it together but when I’m a mess. And I’ll tell you this: there’s more life in that than in all the years I spent playing the rock.”
Somewhere deep inside, something in me is nodding. Yes. That. Do that. Say something. Move.
I don’t.
After service, people swarm him. Thank you for sharing. That was powerful. I walk past, give a noncommittal nod. Inside, I’m seething. Not at him. At myself. At the distance between what I know is true and what I’m willing to live.
In the parking lot, my phone buzzes. Marcus again.
How are you really?
There’s that word. Really.
I stand in the cold air, thumb hovering.
I’m falling apart but pretending I’m not, I type. I delete it.
I’m tired, I type. Delete.
I settle on: I’m good. God’s got me.
Even my lies are wrapped in Christianese.
I don’t hit send yet. I stare at the blinking cursor. Beside me, a guy straps his toddler into a car seat, kisses his wife, laughs at something she says. Normal. Messy. Human.
The phrase from the testimony loops in my head: Hiding was what was killing me. My secrets hardened my heart.
I feel my own heart. Not metaphorically. Literally. My chest. It feels… hard. Numb. Like it should hurt more than it does.
Do I want God that close? Close to the brokenhearted sounds nice until you realize it means you have to admit you’re brokenhearted. Not over business, not over some abstract injustice. Over your own life. Your own choices. Your own refusal to be weak.
I could tell Marcus. Right now. I could say, “I’m not okay. Can we talk?” He’d answer. He’d show up. I know he would.
Instead, I backspace my half-typed message.
I send him a thumbs-up emoji.
That’s my spiritual state in one tiny yellow hand.
I get in my car, close the door, and the world goes quiet again. Just me, the dashboard, the buzz of the engine.
I think about Psalm 34:18. I think about my mom in that hospital chair, whispering it over my dad. I think about Emily at the kitchen table, begging me to let her in. I think about Lily asking if I’m sad and promising she wouldn’t be scared.
I think about the night on my knees by the couch, the fleeting sense that God was actually, tangibly near when I finally let something crack.
And I think about how fast I slammed that door shut.
That’s the thing no one tells you about vulnerability. You can get a glimpse of it, taste it for thirty seconds, and still decide you’d rather be alone in a locked room than risk anyone seeing you naked in your soul.
So that’s where I am.
In the car. In the locked room. Playing the part I’ve played my whole life.
The rock.
From the outside, I still look solid. Steady job. Decent clothes. Church attendance. A few Bible verses I can quote if needed. A daughter who still hugs me. A wife who hasn’t technically divorced me… yet.
Inside, I know the truth.
I’m not a rock. I’m a man-shaped shell built around a frightened kid who learned early that tears equal weakness and weakness equals rejection. I never unlearned it. I baptized it, gave it Bible verses, dressed it up in productivity and moral respectability.
Maybe one day I’ll break for real. Call the counselor. Call Marcus. Call out to God and not shut Him down when He shows up. Maybe I’ll finally let someone see how much I’m not okay and discover that maybe—just maybe—weakness isn’t the end of my story but the door to something like real strength.
But today?
Today I turn the key in the ignition, watch my reflection in the rearview mirror as I back out. My face is calm. Controlled. Unreadable.
Ask anyone who sees me drive away how I’m doing, and they’ll say the same thing.
He’s good. He’s strong. He’s the rock.
They’d be half right.
The other half?
The rock is crumbling. And I’m the only one who can hear it.
Author’s Note
I wrote this story because “I’m fine” has become one of the most dangerous lies men tell.
Not because everything has to turn into a group-therapy overshare, but because a lot of us have learned that being a man means one thing above all: don’t crack. Don’t cry. Don’t need. Don’t ask for help. Just keep performing—at work, at home, at church—and hope nobody notices how much of it is duct tape and denial.
Matt is fictional, but the patterns are not. The late-night anxiety. The quiet porn habit as a pressure valve. The marriage that looks stable from the outside but is running on fumes. The way “being strong” becomes a way to avoid being known. I didn’t want to write a neat testimony with a bow at the end. I wanted to sit in that awful in-between space where a man knows he’s not okay and still chooses to keep hiding.
If you picked up on the tension around Psalm 34:18—“The Lord is close to the brokenhearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit”—that was intentional. The verse is there like a constant background noise in Matt’s life. He hears it from his mom, at church, in group, on his Bible app. The problem isn’t that God is silent; it’s that Matt refuses to be the kind of man that verse is written for: brokenhearted, crushed, honest.
Underneath all the details, this story is about fear of vulnerability:
- Fear of losing respect if you admit weakness
- Fear of not knowing what to do with your own emotions if you stop stuffing them
- Fear that if you open up to God or other men, you’ll be met with judgment or awkward silence instead of real presence
The tragedy for Matt isn’t a dramatic car crash or public scandal. It’s the slow erosion of his soul and relationships because he clings to the image of “the rock” more than he clings to God or the people who actually love him. He gets glimpses of another way—a raw confession at men’s group, a quiet moment on the carpet where he finally lets himself cry, a daughter asking if he’s sad—and he still pulls back. That’s the haunting part. Nothing changes… and yet everything is slowly falling apart.
If this story resonated with you at all, even uncomfortably, that’s kind of the point. Not to shame you, not to diagnose you, and definitely not to tell you what you “have to” do. Just to hold up a mirror of what it actually looks like when hiding becomes a lifestyle.
Some men crash hard and obvious. Others, like Matt, just slowly harden. Their job title still works. Their faith still has all the right words. Their family still posts decent photos. But the inside is hollow. And the thing about hollowness is that it echoes. It haunts.
The core idea behind this whole series is simple and costly: Vulnerability is not an optional add-on to the Christian life or to healthy masculinity. It’s the doorway. To real brotherhood. To actual intimacy in marriage. To a faith that’s more than performance. To experiencing the God who is “close to the brokenhearted,” not to the perfectly put-together.
What you do with that is up to you. This story doesn’t end with Matt calling the counselor or breaking down in front of Marcus or sprinting back to Emily with a grand apology. It stops where a lot of men actually are: still in the car, still saying “I’m good,” still sending a thumbs-up emoji instead of telling the truth.
If anything in you recognized yourself in that final scene, don’t rush past it. Sit with the discomfort. Ask yourself, honestly, where you’re playing “the rock” and what it’s costing you. And if you decide to talk to God, or to a friend, or to a counselor about it—that’s your story. Not Matt’s. And it doesn’t have to end the way his does.
Call to Action
If this story struck a chord, don’t just scroll on. Join the brotherhood—men learning to build, not borrow, their strength. Subscribe for more stories like this, drop a comment about where you’re growing, or reach out and tell me what you’re working toward. Let’s grow together.
D. Bryan King
Sources
- Psalm 34:18 – The Lord is close to the brokenhearted
- John 11:33-35 – Jesus wept
- 2 Corinthians 12:9-10 – Power made perfect in weakness
- James 5:16 – Confess your sins to each other
- APA – Men and Mental Health: Why Men Are Less Likely to Seek Help
- APA Monitor – The Crisis in Masculinity and Emotional Expression
- Masculinity and Help-Seeking: Implications for Depression and Suicide Risk (PubMed)
- Gottman Institute – How Emotional Withdrawal Destroys Relationships
- Pornography Use and Relationship Satisfaction (NCBI)
- Psychology Today – Why Vulnerability Is Essential for Healthy Relationships
- BibleProject – The Bible and Emotions
- Desiring God – The Power of Admitting Weakness
- The Gospel Coalition – Real Men Cry
- Barna – Masculinity, Identity, and the Church
Disclaimer:
The views and opinions expressed in this post are solely those of the author. The information provided is based on personal research, experience, and understanding of the subject matter at the time of writing. Readers should consult relevant experts or authorities for specific guidance related to their unique situations.
Related Posts
Rate this:
#anxietyInChristianMen #authenticChristianMan #avoidingCounselingInMarriage #brokenheartedChristianMen #ChristianAuthenticity #ChristianBlogForMen #christianBlogSeriesForMen #christianFictionForMen #christianHusbandIssues #ChristianManStruggles #christianMarriageProblems #ChristianMasculinity #christianMenAndAnxiety #christianMenAndBrotherhood #christianMenAndCounseling #christianMenAndDepression #christianMenAndEmotions #christianMenAndPride #christianMenMentalHealth #christianMenSmallGroup #christianPornAddictionStory #ChristianPornStruggle #ChristianStorytellingForMen #churchCultureAndMasculinity #crushedInSpirit #doubleLifeChristianMan #emotionalIntimacyInMarriage #emotionallyDistantHusband #emotionallyNumbChristian #emotionallyUnavailableHusband #faithAndEmotionalHonesty #faithAndMentalHealth #fearOfExposingWeakness #fearOfVulnerability #godAndMaleWeakness #godCloseToTheBrokenhearted #grittyChristianStory #hidingBehindStrength #howHidingWeaknessHarmsMarriage #internalizedBeAMan #lordIsCloseToTheBrokenhearted #maleEmotionalRepression #maleFearOfShame #menAndVulnerability #menHidingWeakness #menSGroupHonesty #menSMinistryResources #psalm3418Meaning #rawChristianTestimonyStyle #realChristianManhood #realStrugglesChristianMenFace #secretSinChristian #silentSufferingMen #stopCryingBeAMan #strongButLonelyMan #toxicMasculinityInChurch #vulnerabilityInMarriage